:: June 2008 ::

[townhall] : Now that Barack Obama has pretty much wrapped up the nomination, it's time to raise a question that lots of people have been talking about privately but not publicly. Is it possible that Michelle Obama is the force behind Barack Obama's refusal to embrace traditional patriotic symbols? Could Obama's wife be largely responsible for the candidate's damaging associations with crackpot race-baiters like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Reverend Michael Pfleger? In sum, could Obama's wife be a large part of his political problem? [...]

Consider the case of Michelle Obama. She was raised in a two-parent, middle-class family. She applied to one of America's top universities, Princeton, and was admitted. Of this experience, Michelle says on the stump, "All my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me. Every step of the way, there has been people telling me what I couldn't do. When I applied to Princeton, they said: you can't go there, your test scores aren't high enough."

Which is all very moving, except that her test scores weren't high enough. Michelle Obama is part of the affirmative action generation of above-average but far-from-stellar performers who were granted preferential admission to America's most elite institutions.

Michelle notes that she graduated with honors in her major. Again, the problem is that her undergraduate thesis is on the web. You might expect that she wrote about Shakespeare's sonnets or the political evolution of W.E.B. Du Bois. Well, no. Essentially Michelle Obama wrote about the problems of being a black woman at an Ivy League university. [...]

Subsequently Michelle went on to further appointments and even managed to cash in big time on her skin color and marriage to Barack Obama. She was hired by the University of Chicago hospitals to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outrecah, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting." Here her salary was $400,000 a year.

One might expect that the reaction of someone who gets so many privileges to be grateful to a society that makes them possible. But no. Michelle Obama thinks that her very success is an example of white oppression. By a bizarre twist of logic, she converts "you're not good enough, but we'll take you anyway" into a message of "they said I wasn't good enough, but I proved them wrong."

Ordinarily these psychological peculiarities may be of little interest, except perhaps to a therapist. But Michelle now stands next to a man that may be elected president of the United States. Barack Obama wants everyone to "lay off" his wife. He doesn't seem to realize that this is not a reasonable request concerning a woman who clearly influences him and who stands to have public influence in her own right.

::::

Liars' Round-Up

[nypost] : Let's lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing:

Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really?

::::

Keep Fighting

[dwarren] As was perfunctorily reported on Thursday, the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, one of three HRCs to which Islamists took Maclean’s magazine for having published Mark Steyn, has self-protectively dismissed the case before it could come to tribunal. The Ontario HRC had previously dismissed it: but with an outrageous statement from its chief commissioner, Barbara Hall, to the effect that Maclean’s was guilty of publishing “hate,” nonetheless. She regretted that her commission had no mandate to try the case, but looked forward to a time when this mandate would be extended. [...]

I have mentioned only the current cases in which periodical publications have been prosecuted, in the strange new world of “Kafkanada” -- where you can be tried for the same imaginary “hate crimes” in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is.

Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence -- due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any “judgement” they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim. [...]

All of the complainant’s expenses are paid by the taxpayer, as well as all of the overheads and expenses of the jet-setting “human rights” bureaucrats, who do all the prosecutorial work, as well as providing both judge and jury. The system is, in principle, indistinguishable from that in place during the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China. It was perpetrated by leftwing activists on the Canadian people while they were sleeping. It is a system of the activists, by the activists, and for the activists.

The people are still sleeping, but some “blowback” has finally begun to occur. Given its very eccentric inquisitorial practices, which have been documented and publicized on the Internet, the CHRC is now under an RCMP investigation, a Privacy Commission investigation, and there is a Parliamentary investigation pending. (As a public relations exercise, the CHRC has also hand-picked its own “independent” investigator to do what we can only assume will be a defensive whitewash, as usual at taxpayer expense.)

::::

Papers Facing Worst Year for Ad Revenue

[nyt] For newspapers, the news has swiftly gone from bad to worse. This year is taking shape as their worst on record, with a double-digit drop in advertising revenue, raising serious questions about the survival of some papers and the solvency of their parent companies.

Ad revenue, the primary source of newspaper income, began sliding two years ago, and as hiring freezes turned to buyouts and then to layoffs, the decline has only accelerated.

On top of long-term changes in the industry, the weak economy is also hurting ad sales, especially in Florida and California, where the severe contraction of the housing markets has cut deeply into real estate ads. Executives at the Hearst Corporation say that one of their biggest papers, The San Francisco Chronicle, is losing $1 million a week.

Over all, ad revenue fell almost 8 percent last year. This year, it is running about 12 percent below that dismal performance, and company reports issued last week suggested a 14 percent to 15 percent decline in May. [...]

Online ad revenue for newspapers grew 20 percent to 30 percent annually for most of this decade. Most analysts think the industry will return to that growth rate when the economy picks up again, but for now, it is closer to 15 percent. The Internet still accounts for less than 10 percent of newspaper ad revenue.

Declining sales of printed papers and rising newsprint prices have also hurt the business.

The industry will not bottom out for another three or four years, analysts predict. The question, Mr. Appert of Goldman Sachs said, “is how far things will fall before then.”

::::

Obama tacks away from his left-wing base

[thehill] :Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is shifting to the center after months of battling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the hearts of the Democratic Party’s liberal base. His recent strategy of political triangulation has already sparked a fight with MoveOn.org, a powerful liberal advocacy group.

MoveOn.org has challenged Obama for supporting a compromise on intelligence surveillance legislation that many Democrats oppose.

MoveOn.org officials have come close to accusing Obama of breaking a promise he made last year to fight a bill that would grant legal immunity to telecommunications firms that shared customer information.

More evidence of Obama’s ideological trajectory is a television advertisement emphasizing patriotism, personal accountability and tax cuts in Republican strongholds such as Alaska and Montana.

::::

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol

[nyt] When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama. [...]

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.” [...]

Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production.

Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source. [...]

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has not explained his opposition to imported sugar cane ethanol. But in remarks last year, made as President Bush was about to sign an ethanol cooperation agreement with his Brazilian counterpart, Mr. Obama argued that “our country’s drive toward energy independence” could suffer if Mr. Bush relaxed restrictions, as Mr. McCain now proposes.

“It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol,” he argued.

::::

Canada : Commentary on Speech

[torontosun] : The tragedy of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine over alleged "hate" mongering because of Steyn's views on Islam, is that most people don't give a damn.

Oh, many sympathize with Steyn because the issue seems so silly, but most don't see the destructive effect of hate legislation, or how it threatens our freedom.

Of all the benefits embodied in our county, free speech is -- or should be -- among the most precious. Without the freedom to express opinions on any matter, we cease being a free society. The implications are as simple as that.

The villains in the Steyn case are not Muslims who complained to the HRC that Steyn's writings foster "Islamophobia" and hate. Nor is the Human Rights Commission at fault for hearing the allegations.

At fault is the government of Stephen Harper for not rescinding a law that the Liberals introduced and makes a mockery of both justice and freedom. Harper is PM with the power to right a wrong. Instead, he's been silent and betrayed his own values. [...]

Apologists who should know better, claim there must be limits on free speech. Oh? Who says so? Who should judge what is acceptable? The way things are now, a human rights tribunal is the arbiter of what is, and what isn't, permissable to say.

Saying what is permissible is not free speech. [...]

History has proved that curbing free speech is characteristic of tyranny.

Under today's laws, Winston Churchill would have been convicted of hate crimes in the 1930s for his warnings about Hitler and the Nazis.

Commentators might benefit from reading philosophers such as Voltaire and John Stuart Mill who understood that limiting free speech was more dangerous than tolerating it.

In a nutshell, it was Voltaire who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," and Mill who said ". . . there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered."

They knew that bad taste, discrimination and offensiveness are not grounds for restricting free speech, but are unavoidable byproducts of the advantages of freedom of speech.

::::

George Carlin, Dead at 71

[nyt] George Carlin, the Grammy-Award winning standup comedian and actor who was hailed for his irreverent social commentary, poignant observations of the absurdities of everyday life and language, and groundbreaking routines like “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” died in Santa Monica, Calif., on Sunday, according to his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He was 71.

The cause of death was heart failure. Mr. Carlin, who had a history of heart problems, went into the hospital on Sunday afternoon after complaining of heart trouble. The comedian had worked last weekend at The Orleans in Las Vegas.

::::

We enjoyed Carlin many years ago and recall when he was cutting edge. Most point to his "Seven Words" bit, but that is a dated nod which now serves as all but prime time fair. He was undeniably a great comic mind, and his special ability was really to gather from the obvious and point out the humour therein. That was always his good stuff and he leaves behind a large library of material that will be enjoyed for years to come.

::::

Good One

Get serious. This reaches a new height of idiocy, juvenile clown show antics. Who actually dreams this crap up? You're running for the real thing here buddy, what jack-ass would think creating a clone seal would be a neato cool idea? Did someone dream this up pre or post nap?

As I've often written, I liked Obama, years ago and that continues to become a further, distant memory. The emptiness became so prominent and the lecturing tone so grating that it became a bit of dislike.

The thing is, the feeling of dislike hasn't stayed neutral or hit a wall, it seems to somehow continue to grow. Never mind that it 's hard to understand how anyone can continue to buy the shtick as the manure and clear lack of "judgement" piles higher and higher, but, that's how things go. So many babble on (still) of this great oratory skills, apparently unable to seek content or perhaps only catch a teleprompt recital. For me, his tone reeks of phony, akin to an ill rehearsed high school play.

We love all the "hope" and "change" mantra, sure, but if anyone finds this fresh or original, they have either not been around too long or have limited attention for the political.

- The Cynical Bastard

** Obama Campaign Drops Faux Presidential Seal [?]

[campaigntrail] While we don't have full details, someone at Obama's press center, when asked if the seal would be used going forward said simply, "No."

::::

Editors Alienated by Barry's Shift?

[politico] For most voters, Barack Obama’s shift away from public financing is not as big a deal as the mounting death toll in Iraq, surging gas prices — or even what they’re going to make for dinner tonight.

But Obama’s announcement Thursday that he would become the first candidate to opt out of the public financing program for the general election was a big deal for some of the nation’s most influential newspaper editorial boards, which have long been ardent champions of campaign finance reform and which had thought they’d found a kindred spirit on the issue.

Friday morning, scathing editorials in many top broadsheets characterized Obama’s move as a self-interested flip-flop, dismissed his efforts to cast it as a principled stand and charged that Obama wasn’t living up to the reformer image around which he has crafted his political identity. [...]

Several editorial boards had praised his earlier pledge to take public financing in the general election if his opponent agreed to do the same.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board called the decision “as disappointing as it is disingenuous,” while The Boston Globe’s board wrote that it “deals a body blow … to his own reputation as a reform candidate.” And The Baltimore Sun’s editorial board called it “a major disappointment for those struggling to restrain the pernicious influence of special interests in American politics.”

The New York Times’ editorial board, which endorsed Clinton after allegedly leaning toward Obama, wrote that “Obama has come up short” of “his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics.”

Obama attempted a preemptive defense of his new position by arguing that his massive base of small online donors constitute a “parallel public financing,” and that he needed to exit the program to defend himself from the independent spending of 527 groups, long a bugaboo of campaign finance reformers. Many editorial boards, though, have been outright dismissive of this argument.

The Washington Post opined that Obama’s “effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.”

And USA Today, which also did not endorse any candidates, said Obama put “expediency over principle,” was “disingenuous about his reasons for opting out of public financing” and proved he’s not a “real reformer.”

::::

It’s all too easy to leave Top Secret papers lying around — I should know

[spectatoruk] : News last week that police are investigating a ‘serious’ security breach after a civil servant lost top-secret documents containing the latest intelligence on al-Qa’eda sent a shiver of alarmed reminiscence down my spine.

The unnamed Cabinet Office employee apparently breached strict security rules when he left the papers, in an orange cardboard folder, on the seat of a train bound for Surrey. It just would be Surrey. Apparently the papers were classified Top Secret.

Mine were more secret than that. Top Secret isn’t the top secret classification — or wasn’t in 1976. There were (to the best of my recollection) two more secret grades above Top Secret. I think they were Penumbra and — most secret of all — Umbra. And given that I was only a Grade Three administrative trainee in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and allowed to see these papers, there must have been grades above and beyond Umbra, not dreamed of in my philosophy.

What I cannot remember is what the papers were about. Most Intelligence stuff (and in the Western European Department we saw a lot of it) was boring and inconsequential: bits and pieces of gathered information which might or might not be significant if studied in the context of other information which we did not have. Perhaps these concerned the Italian Communist party, about which we were all in a great flap in the FCO in the 1970s.

And I left them strewn around. On my desk. Where cleaners and messengers and telephone engineers and anybody who cared to wander into an entirely unsecured ‘Third Room’ at King Charles Street, could see, read, steal or photograph them. They were there for the whole weekend. Returning on Monday, I was told that the Head of Department wished to see me at once — and why. My heart sank. We had a sort of ‘three strikes and you’re out’ office policy as regarded serious security breaches, and this (I think) was my second.

::::

A bit late for introspection

[nationalpost] : We don't hold out much hope that a review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission's powers to investigate allegations of hate speech will come to much. For one thing, the commission handpicked its own investigator. But mostly we are skeptical because even when calling for the review, chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch demonstrated no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it.

There can be no doubt Canada's human rights bodies -- federal and provincial -- are in need of investigation. They are out of control, far more interested in imposing political correctness than defending free speech.

They have become laws unto themselves, too, routinely suspending rules of evidence that have taken centuries to perfect. [...]

It is increasingly obvious these commissions were set up deliberately to lower the standard of proof and get around rules of natural justice, thereby ensuring people who would never be convicted in court are punished to the satisfaction of the activists and special interest groups that hover around the tribunals.

Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints. Occasionally, the plaintiff has been given access to the commissions' investigation files and given the power to direct investigators. Truth is not a defence. Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers. Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply. Hearsay is admitted. The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his own and commission investigators may attempt to entrap suspects by getting them to say or do hateful things they might not have done on their own.

No wonder the CHRC has a 100% conviction rate on hate speech complaints.

::::

Quebec girl Takes Dad to Court for Denying Her a Field Trip : And wins

[nationalpost] A 12-year-old Quebec girl who felt so strongly about her end-of-year school trip that she took her father to court after he forbade her from going is at the centre of a case that challenges the authority of parental discipline.

The extreme measure of taking the case to court, which the girl's lawyer defended as a necessary move to ensure the child was not denied a significant rite of passage, was upheld by the judge in a surprise ruling last week.

"This was something that would never happen again in the child's life," said Lucie Fortin, the lawyer for the girl, who cannot be named.

"And for me that was really important, because it was the end of elementary school, it was the end of a stage in her life."

Ms. Fortin insists that while court was a last resort, the situation called for it: "This was not a question of going to the movies or not, or going online or not -- because obviously, I wouldn't have intervened in that," she said. [...]

"As a lawyer and as a parent, I hink it's state interference where the court shouldn't be interfering," said Ottawa lawyer Fred Cogan. "I've got six kids. I certainly wouldn't want a judge watching over everything that I do, and I wouldn't want my kids being able to run to the judge."

Father of girl, 12, appeals Quebec court decision

[nationalpost] : The father of a 12-year-old Quebec girl who won a court decision overruling a paternal punishment is appealing the decision, his lawyer said yesterday. The girl took her father to Quebec Superior Court after he said she could not go on a school trip for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet.

"The judge said that this was an exception, but the exception was to go on a field trip!" said lawyer Kim Beaudoin. "What will be too much punishment? Not going to a dance? 'I want my boyfriend to sleep at my house and my parents aren't letting me?' 'I want to use [the] Internet and my parents aren't letting me?' Where will it stop?"

::::

Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%
Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

[tcpr] “A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”



Celebrities who aren't going green

[chicagotribune] : Last year, Celine Dion used 6.5 million gallons of water at her Florida home, according to ABC News. According to the story, that means she used more than 18,000 gallons a day, or more than 100 times what the average area resident uses. What's even more shocking is the musician doesn't even live there - the home is still under construction.

::::

Foreign firms investing in Iraq

[usatoday] : European and Asian companies are beating their American rivals into Iraq now that security has improved the investment climate, Iraq and U.S. officials say.

"It's starting to turn … and the people who are getting in on the ground floor are not American," said Paul Brinkley, the Pentagon official who is leading U.S. efforts to help Iraq rebuild its economy. "It's ironic." [...]

So far, Romanian consortium and a Lebanese company have signed revenue-sharing deals with Iraqi state-owned cement factories. Each group will invest about $150 million.

China has also aggressively pursued the Iraqi market, selling machinery to the government and electronic products to consumers. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, in Washington on an official visit, said Monday that larger U.S. firms were waiting for more security before entering the market.

Zebari noted that Turkish and Russian companies were already active in Iraq. "They take risks," he told USA TODAY in an interview. "No pain, no gain."

Many of the companies active in Iraq now are from countries, including France, Russia and Turkey, that did not send combat troops to back the U.S.-led invasion.

::::

Rights commission to review Internet hate laws

[canada.com] Amid mounting public and political controversy, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has launched an independent review of the way it deals with hate speech on the Internet.

Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch announced Tuesday she has asked Richard Moon, a leading constitutional expert at the University of Windsor, to conduct the study. His report, expected this October, will help shape the commission's position on whether Internet hate laws should be changed, she said.

Last December, the Canadian Islamic Congress and a group of Muslim law students used Internet hate sections of federal and provincial human rights acts to file a series of complaints against Maclean's magazine for articles they said fostered hatred against Muslims.

British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal completed a five-day hearing into one of the complaints earlier this month, but has not yet released a ruling.

Ontario's Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint, saying it lacked jurisdiction over printed material, while the federal Human Rights Commission is still investigating.

::::

Canadian Thought Police

[lat] : Mark Steyn, my friend, colleague and arguably the most talented political writer working today, is on trial for thought crimes.

Steyn -- a one-man media empire based in New Hampshire -- was published a few years ago in Maclean's. Now the magazine and its editors are in the dock before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on the charge that they violated a provincial hate-speech law by running the work of a hate-monger, namely Mark Steyn. A similar prosecution is pending before the national version of this kangaroo court, the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Not that the facts are relevant to the charges, but here's what happened. Maclean's ran an excerpt from Steyn's bestseller, "America Alone." [...]

Indeed, it seems there is no escaping the charge of promoting "hate" in Canada at all. In 31 years, the national Human Rights Commission has never dismissed a case as unfounded.

Indeed, it seems there is no escaping the charge of promoting "hate" in Canada at all. In 31 years, the national Human Rights Commission has never dismissed a case as unfounded.

The council first demanded that Maclean's give it equal and unedited space in the magazine to respond to Steyn's "Islamophobic" tract. The editors refused. So the council took the magazine to "court," but not a real court. These tribunals have all the rigor of a student government star chamber. There are no rules of evidence and, again, truth is not a defense.

Why bother with evidence at all? Hate speech is essentially defined as anything certain "victimized" people find offensive. So, if a group is sufficiently offended to complain to a human rights commission, the burden of proof has already been met.

And what about free speech? Dean Steacy, an investigator for Canada's national commission, explained it nicely: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." He gets points for honesty.

::::

[denverpost] Canada has a lot to answer for: Rush, Celine Dion, Barenaked Ladies, Tom Green and Howie Mandel, to name a few. But its latest transgression is serious.

In certain parts of Europe, "hate speech" already is a criminal act. When the late journalist and author Oriana Fallaci wrote books critical of Islam in 2002, she was sued in France. Later, Swiss and Italian judges ordered her to stand trial for "defaming Islam."

In France, Brigitte Bardot — the former film starlet turned animal rights activist — has been convicted five times of "inciting racial hatred." In one instance, her crime was writing a letter to French officials, objecting to the ritual slaughter of sheep by Muslims.

Sheep to the slaughter, sadly, is a perfect analogy for European states that allow Muslim activist groups — which rarely object to the near-complete lack of freedom of expression in the Islamic world — to dictate what is and isn't tolerable speech.

But Canada? [...]

History also has taught us that when government begins shielding the public from (so-called) ugly thoughts, free people do not remain free for much longer. And the powerful typically have a highly twisted concept of what speech is offensive.

Available for purchase right now at Amazon.ca (Canada's version of Amazon.com), for example, are "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler (in paperback!), "Essential Works of Lenin," and "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung."

All of those authors also exhibited a discriminating eye for dangerous speech.

You know, for the people.

But, as we know, the right not to be offended is not a human right. After all, the "hate" speech canard is brandished so regularly in political discourse these days, we'll all be criminals soon enough. (For instance, I just compared the Canadian Human Rights Commission to a bunch of Nazis and Commies.)

::::

The McCain Bubble

[reason]"[W]e all know that some people on Wall Street are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising. And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end -- using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car.

Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest. "

::::

UK TimesOnline Makes 200 Years of Newspapers Available Online

[uktimes] The Times Archive invites you to explore 200 years of history as it appeared in the original pages of The Times newspaper from 1785-1985 Times Archive. Every issue of The Times published between 1785-1985, digitally scanned and fully searchable.

::::

Ohio judge: State must change lethal injection law

[usatoday] : A judge in Ohio says the state's method of putting prisoners to death is unconstitutional because two of three drugs used in the lethal injection process can cause pain.

Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said Tuesday the state's lethal injection procedure doesn't provide the quick and painless death required by Ohio law.

Lourain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge speaks in his office in Lorain, Ohio as posters of Che Guevara and Barack Obama hang on his wall.

::::

Copyright law could result in police state: critics

[cbc] : The federal government has introduced a controversial bill it says balances the rights of copyright holders and consumers — but it opens millions of Canadians to huge lawsuits, prompting critics to warn it will create a "police state."

"We are confident we have developed the proper framework at this point in time," Minister of Industry Jim Prentice told a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday. "This bill reflects a win-win approach."

However, Liberal industry critic Scott Brison blasted the government for its lack of consultation with Canadian stakeholders and for not considering the implications of the bill if it passes.

"There's no excuse for why the government has not consulted broadly the diverse stakeholders," he said. "The government has not thought this through. It has not thought about how it will enforce these provisions."

"There's a fine line between protecting creators and a police state."

Bill C-61 spells out consumers' rights in how they are allowed to copy media and clears up some grey areas. Existing laws do not specifically allow consumers to copy books, newspapers, periodicals, photographs, videocassettes and music. The new bill would expressly allow them to make one copy of each item per device owned, such as a computer or MP3 player. The bill would also expressly allow consumers to record television and radio programs for later viewing.

The Conservatives' bill, however, also contains an anti-circumvention clause that will make it illegal to break digital locks on copyrighted material, which critics say could trump all of the new allowances. CD and DVD makers could put copy protections on their discs, or television networks could attach technological flags to programs that would prevent them from being recorded onto TiVos and other personal video recorders.

Cellphones would also be locked down, so when consumers buy a device from one carrier, they would be unable to use it with another. Breaking any of these locks could result in lawsuits seeking up to $20,000 in damages.

University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist, a vocal opponent of the legislation, said the anti-circumvention clause invalidates all the other new provisions. [...]

YouTube uploads could bring lawsuits

People caught downloading music or video files illegally could also be sued for a maximum of $500, but uploading a file to a peer-to-peer network or YouTube could result in lawsuits of $20,000 per file.

Canadian internet service providers, meanwhile, would continue to be immune to lawsuits from copyright holders for infringements over their networks. The bill recognizes ISPs as intermediaries and would only require them to pass on violation notices from copyright holders to their customers. [...]

A coalition of eight music lobby groups, including the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) and the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), jointly thanked the government for tabling a bill it said was long overdue. The coalition said it represents 21,000 performers and 15,000 musicians, artist managers, music publishers, music retailers, manufacturers, record labels, and distributors and retailers of musical instruments. [...]

The chorus of opposition was joined last week by a coalition of consumer groups — including Option consommateurs, Consumers Council of Canada, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), and Online Rights Canada (OnlineRights.ca) — that wrote a letter to the government. The consumer groups expressed dismay they had not been consulted on the legislation.

::::

New copyright bill aims for hefty penalties

[vancouversun] : Consumers will be locked out of some digital content they have already paid for and face penalties up to $20,000 if they try to get around any digital lock to copy CDs or DVDs for themselves under Canada's proposed new copyright bill. However, the federal government admits it won't be policing the proposed new rules and concedes it's unlikely most people would be penalized.

The government tabled the legislation in the House of Commons on Thursday, dubbing it as a "Made-in-Canada" solution to stamp out online piracy. But the government admitted it's doubtful that violators would be penalized for downloading certain copyrighted material, such as simple music files, CDs or DVDs. Policing the proposed regulations would be the responsibility of the copyright holder, such as musicians who create the music.

"The person who owns the copyright has the legal right to pursue that consumer for up to $500. Now will they do it? It's pretty unlikely somebody is going to start a lawsuit to recover $500," Industry Minister Jim Prentice said.

"I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to police and enforce."

Regardless, Prentice called the proposed rules a "win-win" for Canadian consumers who use digital technology and for the copyright holders who create the material.

The proposal has split members in the arts and business communities over whether the hardline approach is the right way to deal with consumers in the digital age. And some rebranded it as an American duplicate. [...]

The Canadian Record Industry Association, the Canadian Music Publishers Association and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists also applauded the draft legislation.

But the Canadian Music Creators Coalition slammed the bill, characterizing it as "an American-style approach to copyright. It's all locks and lawsuits," according to Safwan Javed, coalition member and drummer for Wide Mouth Mason.

"Rather than building a made-in-Canada proposal to help musicians get paid, the government has chosen to import American-style legislation that says the solution to the music industry's problems is suing our fans," said Javed.

The coalition of nearly 200 Canadian acts includes household names Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Broken Social Scene, Matthew Good, Billy Talent, Sloan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41 and Sam Roberts.

[cmcc] [...] The CMCC is unimpressed by government claims that this bill strikes the right balance between all the stakeholders. It notes that business groups, creators groups and consumer groups have all expressed their dissatisfaction with the government’s continued attempts to pass a copyright bill that does not consider Canadian’s interests.

“The question is, who gains from this bill?” explained Brendan Canning, co-founder of Broken Social Scene and a CMCC member. “It’s not musicians. Musicians don’t need lawsuits, we don’t need DRM protection. These aren’t the things that help us or our careers. What we do need is a government that is willing to sit down with all the stakeholders and craft a balanced copyright policy for Canada that will not repeat the mistakes made in the United States.”

::::

Now is when you get worried

[nro-steyn] The short version of the Democratic-party primary campaign is that the media fell in love with Barack Obama but the Democratic electorate declined to. “I felt this thrill going up my leg,” said MSNBC’s Chris Matthews after one of the senator’s speeches. “I mean, I don’t have that too often.” Au contraire, Chris and the rest of the gang seem to be getting the old tingle up the thigh hairs on a nightly basis. If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for over six months, see your doctor.

Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her. The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program. On the strength of Chris Matthews’s vibrating calves, Sen. Obama raised a ton of money — over $300 million — and massively outspent Senator Clinton, but he didn’t really get any bang for his buck. In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin’ down the track at two miles an hour.

But what does he care? Sen. Obama has learned an old trick of Bill Clinton’s: If you behave like a star, you’ll get treated as one. So, even as his numbers weakened, his rhetoric soared. By the time he wrapped up his “victory” speech last week, the great gaseous uplift had his final paragraphs floating in delirious hallucination along the Milky Way:

I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation…

It’s a good thing he’s facing it with “profound humility,” isn’t it? Because otherwise who knows what he’d be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 — the long awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea. Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: when Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn’t want to have to use a step-ladder to get up on it.

::::

Vanity Fair: Blogopticon



::::

Two recent books on WWII are written from an all-too-comfortable distance.

[nro-hanson] : Normandy, France — Questioning the past is a good thing, but rewriting it contrary to facts is quite another. In the latest round of revisionism about the Second World War, the awful British and naive Americans, not the poor Germans, have ended up as the real culprits.

Take the new book by conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. Buchanan argues that, had the imperialist Winston Churchill not pushed poor Hitler into a corner, he would have never invaded Poland in 1939, which triggered an unnecessary Allied response.

Maybe then the subsequent world war, and its 50 million dead, could have been avoided. Taking that faulty argument to its logical end, I suppose today a united West might live in peace with a reformed (and victorious) Nazi Third Reich.

On the Left, novelist Nicholson Baker’s nonfiction title, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization, builds the case that the Allied bombing of German cities was tantamount to a war crime.

Apparently there was no need to, in blanket fashion, attack German urban centers and the industry, transportation, and communications concentrated within them. From Baker’s comfortable vantage point, either the war was amoral or unnecessary — or there must have been more humane ways to stop the flow of fuel, crews, and equipment for the Waffen SS divisions that invaded Europe and Russia.

In the luxury of some 60 years of postwar peace and affluence — and perhaps in anger over the current Iraq war — Buchanan and Baker and other revisionists engage in a common sort of Western second-guessing. The result is that they always demand liberal democracies be not just better and smarter than their adversaries, but almost superhuman in their perfection.

::::

Hmm...

[townhall] : [...] Ask yourself a few questions: Why did unemployment surge at a time when unemployment compensation claims are historically low? More to the point, how could unemployment spike this much without a coinciding spike in corporate lay-offs?

The answer to all of these questions is same: because very few people lost jobs last month. This huge jump in the size of the unemployed comes from new entrants to the economy – hundreds of thousands of them. In short, well over 600,000 people who were not job seekers in April became job seekers in May. And who starts looking for work at the end of Spring? That’s right – students. Hundreds of thousands of students are looking for work right now, and they’re not finding it.

Congress is to blame. Last year Congressional Democrats (along with some Stockholm-Syndromed Republicans) passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which started a phased hike of the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Free market economists warned them that this would increase unemployment – that rapid increases in unemployment compensation hit teens and minorities the hardest. But the class-warriors are running the people’s house now, and they would hear none of that, so they took to the floor, let loose the dogs of demagoguery, and saddled America’s pizza parlors, municipal swimming pools, house painting businesses and lawn mowing services with a huge cost increase.

::::

The great carbon bazaar

[bbc] Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation.

The credits are generated by a United Nations-run scheme called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The mechanism gives firms in developing countries financial incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But in some cases, carbon credits are paid to projects that would have been realised without external funding.

::::

Judgememt

[wsj] : With Barack Obama clinching the Democratic Party nomination, it is worth noting what an extraordinary moment this is. Democrats are nominating a freshman Senator barely three years out of the Illinois legislature whom most of America still hardly knows. The polls say he is the odds-on favorite to become our next President.

Think about this in historical context. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were relatively unknown, but both had at least been prominent Governors. John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Al Gore and even George McGovern were all long-time Washington figures. Republican nominees tend to be even more familiar, for better or worse. In Mr. Obama, Democrats are taking a leap of faith that is daring even by their risky standards. [...]

For all of his inspiring rhetoric about bipartisanship, his voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate. His policy agenda is conventionally liberal across the board – more so than Hillary Clinton's, and more so than that of any Democratic nominee since 1968.

We can't find a single issue on which Mr. Obama has broken with his party's left-wing interest groups. Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting Nafta. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax. Perhaps now Mr. Obama will tack to the center, but somehow he will have to explain why the "change" he's proposing isn't merely more of the same, circa 1965.

There is also the matter of judgment, and the roots of his political character. We were among those inclined at first to downplay his association with the Trinity United Church. But Mr. Obama's handling of the episode has raised doubts about his candor and convictions. He has by stages moved from denying that his 20-year attendance was an issue at all; to denying he'd heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright's incendiary remarks; to criticizing certain of those remarks while praising Rev. Wright himself; to repudiating the words and the reverend; and finally this weekend to leaving the church.

Most disingenuously, he said on Saturday that the entire issue caught him by surprise. Yet he was aware enough of the political risk that he kept Rev. Wright off the stage during his announcement speech more than a year ago.

A 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Mr. Obama mentioned three men as his religious guides. One was Rev. Wright. Another was Father Michael Pfleger, the Louis Farrakhan ally whose recent remarks caused Mr. Obama to resign from Trinity, but for whose Chicago church Mr. Obama channeled at least $225,000 in grants as a state senator. Until recently, the priest was connected to the campaign, which flew him to Iowa to host an interfaith forum. Father Pfleger's testimony for the candidate has since been scrubbed from Mr. Obama's campaign Web site. A third mentor was Illinois state Senator James Meeks, another Chicago pastor who has generated controversy for mixing pulpit and politics.

The point is not that Mr. Obama now shares the radical views of these men. The concern is that by the Senator's own admission they have been major moral influences, and their views are starkly at odds with the candidate's vision as a transracial peacemaker. Their patronage was also useful as Mr. Obama was making his way in Chicago politics. But only now, in the glare of a national campaign, is he distancing himself from them.

::::

England : Maths exams 'have become easier'

[bbc] School mathematics exams in England have become easier, shallower and less demanding, according to a think tank.

Analysis of public maths exam papers taken by 16-year-olds between 1951 and 2006 shows standards have declined markedly, the report for Reform argues.

This means more pupils have left school ill-prepared for the workplace and a generation of mathematicians has been lost to the nation's economy, it adds. [...]

"India and China are producing four million graduates every year. The single largest area of graduate growth is mathematics, science and engineering.

"A third of graduates in China are engineers - here it's just 8%. Between 1994 and 2004, more than 30% of the physics departments in Britain disappeared."

Liberal Democrat schools spokesman David Laws said: "This is a damning critique of maths education in this country.

"Our education system is too often failing to get the basics right, which risks damaging the national economy."

::::


Claire Fox says that plans to ‘denormalise’ smoking by removing cigarettes from display infantilises adults and imposes upon us a dubious official version of what is ‘normal’

[spectator] One good thing about this relentless war on tobacco is that it makes a mockery of the original arguments for the smoking ban. That law, we were assured, was certainly not about the government interfering in individuals’ choices. Instead we were subject to the loudly touted but less convincingly proven pseudo-scientific ‘evidence’ that passive smoking caused harm to others. Politicians conceded that the state had no jurisdiction over people taking risks with our own health; the ban was solely to protect hapless non-smokers in the pub, club or bar. Now no such spurious explanations are given. Even zealots cannot make a case for linking vending machines to second-hand smoke. This is explicitly about making smokers stop smoking (and to reach the government’s target of reducing the smoking rate to 21 per cent by 2010).

Of course, this is not posed as a coercive measure to force the hardcore to go against their choice to smoke. Rather it’s official help for us to do what we all are supposed to agree is in our best interest. Robinson explained to the Scottish parliament that ‘displays stimulate impulse purchases among those not intending to buy cigarettes and, importantly, among smokers who are trying to give up’. Stella Duffy, chief executive of the anti-smoking campaign ASH, tells us, ‘Putting cigarettes out of sight will support smokers who are trying to quit’. How nice — these caring Samaritans are just trying to protect muddled smokers from their own impulses and weak wills.

The problem with this outlook is that it flies in the face of the very basis of a free democratic society. It undermines the idea that people are self-determining subjects. Instead we are posited as impressionable, prey to addictions, incapable of resisting advertising, compelled to act by the mere glimpse of a few fag packets. The serious implications of infantilising adults in this way were spelt out by none other than freedom’s champion John Stuart Mill 150 years ago. In one of the less fashionable sections of On Liberty, Mill wrote about the regulation of ‘beer and spirit houses’. He classed drinking as an individual act (as indeed smoking is), ‘for right or wrong’, and argued that along with religion, opinion and other ‘experiments in living’, it should be ‘outside’ the scope of the law. He pointedly described attempts at making alcohol ‘more difficult to access’ and ‘diminishing the occasions of temptation’ as ‘suited only to a state of society in which the labouring classes are avowedly treated as children or savages’.

::::

2007-08 NHL Hockey PlayOffs

As is tradition, the third year of Vegas Internal Wagering continues apace - well, I am behind in the doling and enumeration of funds, but come on peeps...it'll happen and I'm good for it!

** We've decided to move The Vegas Playoff Tracking to here: [NHL Hockey Round Up]

Detroit Red Wings : Stanley Cup Champions

[espn] In all, there were five Red Wings who won their fourth Stanley Cup on this night. Those ties to the past tell almost as much of a story as the Wings' Euro-centrism. Six of the Red Wings' top nine scorers in the playoffs are from Sweden and another, Pavel Datsyuk, is from Russia.

And the presence of those talented Europeans proves there is no one stylistic blueprint for success. Yet, there is always one constant regardless of whether your players are from Newfoundland or Stockholm -- it's the willingness to commit to one another without question.

Well, that's it folks. Another one for the books. Detroit wins Stanley's Mug for the fourth time in eleven years and making that their eleventh time winning in total.

Our flakey prediction (Wings in 5...or maybe 6) with the 'maybe' in there is a bit less than fulfilling, but we did call the last team match-up way early and well, 'maybe in six' is still accurate! Ha! Thanks for playing kids!


Oh, yea...nice one Penguins fans - the booing of the Wings and the Cup. Stay classy!
__

Game 5 note It's winding down. Nice bit of play there tonight. Triple OT is alway your monies worth. And we had The Pens. Plus, I always want a Game 7 no matter who the teams are.

[espn] The Penguins scored with 34.3 seconds left to force overtime and Petr Sykora scored in the third extra frame to give Pittsburgh a 4-3 win over Detroit and force a Game 6 in the finals.

::::

Copyright reform bill appears to be in limbo

[cbc] : An updated copyright bill that could impose serious penalties for illegal downloading is in limbo amid suggestions the Conservative government is hesitant to introduce the controversial legislation after being stung by public outrage last year.

Minister of Industry Jim Prentice told the House of Commons in Ottawa on Wednesday that he will not introduce the bill, which would bring Canada in line with its World Intellectual Property Organization obligations, until he is satisfied it takes into account the rights of both consumers and copyright holders.

"The key issue is striking the appropriate balance," he said in response to questioning from the NDP. "Be patient."

The National Post reported on Tuesday that Prentice would introduce the bill on Wednesday, while The Globe and Mail cited Ottawa insiders as saying the legislation won't be presented until next week.

Another unnamed source told The Globe that the bill will be left to die when Parliament breaks for its summer session — expected to begin in the middle of the month — because there's no way it will pass under a minority government.

"It's not going to see the light of day," the Ottawa lobbyist said. "Copyright legislation is so contentious in its nature, that for any minority government it is extraordinarily difficult to find a balance that is actually going to have a chance of adoption."

The government has, however, promised several industry groups that the legislation will be introduced before the summer break.

::::

It's All About 'Judgement'

Obama's early political pal Tony Rezko convicted

[latimes] : A federal jury in Chicago today convicted developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko of corruption charges for trading on his clout as a top adviser and fundraiser to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Rezko's guilty verdict on 16 of 24 corruption counts could have broad repercussions for Blagojevich, who made Rezko a central player in his kitchen cabinet. It could also prove a political liability for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama.

He once counted Rezko as a close friend and early successful fundraiser, which could haunt him as the likely Democratic presidential nominee has now defeated Sen. Hillary Clinton and heads into the general election campaign against Republican Sen. John McCain.

The 10-woman, two-man jury deliberated for parts of 13 days before convicting Rezko of scheming with Stuart Levine, a longtime Republican insider, to extort millions of dollars from firms seeking state business or regulatory approval.

Rezko befriended many Illinois politicians and was a major fundraiser for some, most prominently Blagojevich and Obama. The criminal charges against Rezko had nothing to do with his connection to Obama.

But that link still proved a nagging headache for Obama during his Democratic presidential run, especially in the wake of Chicago Tribune revelations that tied Rezko to a 2005 real estate deal involving Obama's South Side home.

Rezko scandal already casting shadow over presidential race

[chicagotribune] : A corruption scandal involving a fundraiser who bankrolled the campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich is guaranteed to take on fresh life as the nation heads into a hard-fought presidential election.

Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, 52, was convicted Wednesday of fraud, money laundering and aiding and abetting bribery in a plot to squeeze illegal payoffs out of firms hoping to do business with the state.

Republican spin doctors are already capitalizing on Rezko's ties to Obama -- the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

"Today's verdict and Obama's friendship with Rezko raises serious questions about whether he has the judgment to serve as president," Republican national chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan said in a statement

::::

Exit polls show challenge for Obama

[politico] On the night that Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination, one-third of Hillary Clinton's supporters in Montana and South Dakota said they would not vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Exit polls from both states demonstrate that Obama inherits a fractured coalition after the longest primary race in modern history. Demographic divisions dug by class, race, gender and political philosophy haunted Obama until his last contests, effectively forcing the Illinois senator to limp across the finish line Tuesday night.

The cappuccino versus coffee Democratic divide between upper class and working voters continued. Coffee Democrats were more likely to back Clinton while cappuccino Democrats were more likely to back Obama. That these divisions were also deepened by gender and racial identity — rooted in long-sought historic firsts for women and blacks — means that there exists an unprecedented intra-party burden that befalls Obama.

On Tuesday the more working-class white Democratic electorate of South Dakota once again proved un-winnable for Obama, as has been the case in contests from Ohio to Kentucky. By contrast, Obama won Montana, which was more upper class than South Dakota, and not nearly as liberal as in Oregon and Vermont, where Obama has fared best.


Comments From The Internet

"McCain may be old, but he is wise, moderate and pragmatic. To me, he is talking more sense than Obama's change/hope teenager pop-star rhetoric. Keep in mind, we're voting for the President of the United States, not for American Idol here.

Change America for what? For Canada? Or worse? I'm afraid if we elect Obama we'll witness America becoming a second or third world country, with a weak defense, sluggish economy and embracing a socialist system that proved itself to be an utopian and unsustainable endeavor in USSR and Europe.

It may be just me, but I don't see Obama being committed to the things that have made America one of the greatest countries that ever existed: the strongest military, free market economy, unmistakable, unapologetic (yes, you may read "unilateral" here) international presence, and the relentless pursuit of the top spot in every field of human activity. I'm sorry for not falling for Barrack's cheap "fairy tales", but it seems that all he's looking for is to weaken our defense and redistribute America's wealth according to a secret formula, probably passed to him by the other George. George Soros." - neutral_77

::::

Peter Schweizer: Conservatives more honest than liberals?

[examiner] : The headline may seem like a trick question — even a dangerous one — to ask during an election year. And notice, please, that I didn’t ask whether certain politicians are more honest than others. (Politicians are a different species altogether.) Yet there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty. [...]

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals. [...]

A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward “conservatism” translated into “higher levels of ethical values.” And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,” based on a study involving 156 adults.

Liberals were more willing to “let others take the blame” for their own ethical lapses, “copy a published article” and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of “cheating on an exam,” according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.

The honesty gap is also not a result of “bad people” becoming liberals and “good people” becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.

Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.”

::::

Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear

[breitbart]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

Since taking the presidency in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly provoked international outrage by predicting Israel is doomed to disappear.

"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Ahmadinejad also again expressed his apocalyptic vision that tyranny in the world be abolished by the return to earth of the Mahdi, the 12th imam of Shiite Islam, alongside great religious figures including Jesus Christ.

"With the appearance of the promised saviour... and his companions such as Jesus Christ, tyranny will be soon be eradicated in the world."

::::


The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war

[wapo]: There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). [...]

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

::::

Terrorism Forgotten

[wsj] With President Bush-bashing still a national pastime, it's notable how much international terrorism has been forgotten, and how little credit the president has received for keeping Americans safe.

This is a difficult issue for me. I didn't vote for President Bush – twice. And as a human-rights law professor, the events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, along with various elements of the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency's wiretapping of Americans, are all greatly troubling to me.

Yet I live in Manhattan and I was present on Sept. 11, 2001 – admittedly 100 blocks from the murder scene, but I was here, trembling along with the rest of America. Remember those days?

::::

U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda

[wapo] : [...] While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers. [...]

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years.

::::

It's nothing short of pathetic. Again, I will say that the GOP examples a master class in incompetence, but the circus act that is the Democrat Party and their entire operational leadership is tragic. This exercise (nevermind the idiotic manner of their nominee choosing) of Florida / Michigan is insulting to any thinking person.

Rules? Screw them. Yes, this is disenfranchisement, absolutely. Was no one in power listening when informed of the consequences of jumping the gun? Apparently not, or they just plodded along as this party tends to do with the attitude of "we'll do as we like." Rules? We'll change them as we go along, after all, it's do as I say, not as I might do. What an insulting farce.

Hastings boycotting Democratic convention
[mh] : At least one high-profile Florida Democrat is not ready to set aside the dispute with the national party: U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings of Miramar said he would skip the nominating convention in Denver. [...]

Florida Democrats have been serially abused and the DNC is the latest of offenders. How the DNC has the authority to ignore the votes of ‘Jack and Jane Lunch Bucket’ is beyond my understanding. The insiders who actively sought to disillusion and disenfranchise the more than 1.75 million Florida Democrats who voted on January 29 give new meaning to collective arrogance. [...]

Now, on May 31, 2008, a group of elitist insiders of the DNC have effectively said that some of my ancestors’ progeny equal only 1/2 and that men and women in Florida who voted on January 29th are 1/2 also. For a Party which will crown its historic nominee on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, the DNC’s decision today is tragically ironic.

As a matter of protest, I do not intend to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

::::



Obama : Keep on Changing

[thecorner] Barack Obama’s resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ over, in part, “a cultural and a stylistic gap” raises additional doubts about him. The obvious question is what “cultural and stylistic gap” exists now that hasn’t existed during the last two decades, when Obama was a member of Trinity United and an intimate friend with its pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr.? The answer, of course, is none. Trinity United and Jeremiah Wright are what they have always been; it is Obama — or more precisely, Obama’s political interests — that have changed.

It’s been just over two months since Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race — the one that was compared by the historian Garry Wills to Lincoln’s Cooper Union address. In that speech Obama famously said he could not more disown the Reverend Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the black community or his own grandmother and spoke about how Trinity United “embodies the black community in its entirely.”

Since that speech Wright has been tossed under the bus — and now, so has Trinity United.

Obama’s twenty-year participation at Trinity United and his close relationship with its senior pastor raised a lot of questions about Obama — both about his decision to associate himself with Trinity United and Wright in the first place and Obama’s tortured explanations since the public first learned of Wright’s anti-American tirades. [...]

When he perceived a threat to his self-interest, he cut his ties to first his pastor and then his church, both of which he had expressed familial love and fidelity. This whole episode is deeply unattractive, even as it is deeply revealing.

::::

Job Climate for the Class of 2008

[nyt] Given that the economy is flagging, this would seem an inauspicious time to be graduating from college and looking for full-time employment.

Job prospects this year, however, have been better than career counselors and recent graduates had expected. Employers are still extending offers, just not as many as last year. [...]

Regardless, many in the class of 2008 have found employment. Preliminary surveys conducted by university and college career counselors indicate that the percentage of students who had found jobs by graduation was about the same as last year. The salaries were also comparable to last year, which, given inflation, could be interpreted as a decline.

::::

Think Gas is High? Try Europe

[time[ [...] As American drivers groan over prices nearing $4 a gallon, the French are paying $8.67 for a gallon of super, compared to $7.10 in January, 2007. A gallon of diesel in French gas stations averages $8.54, up from $5.35 just a year ago. And in the U.K. diesel costs $11.50 per gallon, compared to around $3.90 in the U.S. Across the European Union, the average cost of a gallon of gas runs to about $8.70 — more than twice what Americans are shelling out to fill up. And Europe's dizzying fuel costs would be even worse if it weren't for the considerable appreciation of the euro and the British pound against the dollar over the past year, which has partially offset the price escalation in dollar-traded oil.

One big reason for the difference is that European governments put a much higher tax burden on fuel than the U.S. does. State and federal taxes currently make up just 11% of the pump price in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration; in France and the U.K., taxes account for an average of around 70%.

::::

Top ten reasons to support ANWR development

[anwr.org] : 1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

transmission at 5:16 AM | Permalink