February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.

-Thomas Jefferson

May 10, 2007

Pesticides and Academic Achievement

I’m not sure what to make of this study that hit the airwaves today suggesting that there is a direct relationship between the date on which a baby is conceived and the child’s future academic achievement.

[Paul Winchester, M.D., Indiana University School of Medicine professor of clinical pediatrics] and colleagues linked the scores of the students in grades 3 through 10 who took the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP) examination with the month in which each student had been conceived. The researchers found that ISTEP scores for math and language were distinctly seasonal with the lowest scores received by children who had been conceived in June through August.

Okay, an achievement gap and a correlation. The next question, obviously, is about causation.

"The fetal brain begins developing soon after conception. The pesticides we use to control pests in fields and our homes and the nitrates we use to fertilize crops and even our lawns are at their highest level in the summer," said Dr. Winchester, who also directs Newborn Intensive Care Services at St. Francis Hospital in Indianapolis.

Wait. Let’s start with some skepticism. This is being reported in a very factual manner in headlines and on radio, but Dr. Winchester states very clearly that his group’s findings “do not represent absolute proof that pesticides and nitrates contribute to lower ISTEP scores”. So let’s not jump to conclusions. Dr. .Winchester does feel that the hypothesis is strongly supported and therefore a lot more research should be done, and I can understand that, but is there more reason to believe there is a direct causal relationship between pesticides and this achievement gap? I’d really like to see it. I mean, I don’t particularly want to raise my kids in an area with heavy pesticide use, but neither do I want to see weak conclusions thrown around too readily in our legislative, litigious society. This guy’s Gaia language later in the interview just doesn’t sound as objective as I would like from a scientist.

So, does this achievement gap exist outside of Indiana? Anywhere in the southern hemisphere? I don’t hear that being asked anywhere else, so I’ll ask it here.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 7, 2007

Dissing Ron Paul

Via errant AtlasBlogged author Jib Halyard, I learnt that GOP presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) was getting no respect from ABC news after last week’s debate. Jib directs us to Jack Henderson’s blog, where it is noted that

[Paul’s] name wasn’t included in a Web-based check-off “rate the candidates” poll from ABC. And his was the only name left off the list.

This was no accident. Scores of online visitor comments relating to Dr. Paul’s exclusion were deleted, the candidate’s name was still prominently absent hours later, and before long a mini-scandal had made the front page of Digg, Reddit, and other social-networking sites.

(emphasis mine)

As Mr Henderson points out, this was a stupid and pointless thing for ABC to do. It represents exactly why political blogging has become such a big deal, and why talk radio became such a big deal before that. A portion of the American public does care, and we pay attention, which means we will catch this kind of thing and make a fuss about it. And the mainstream media will look biased and inept – exactly as talk radio and blogs have always said they were.

Welcome to the Internet Age, you morons.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 29, 2007

Melted Steel

(Click on image for link to slideshow)

Do you really expect me to believe that the I-beams and steel girders of this freeway could be melted by a simple gasoline fire? Hide your ignorance! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 26, 2007

33 Stones

Ah, the 33rd stone has finally hit the front page. It was on the radio today, and the newspaper (a great story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch), and in the blogosphere. I was hoping we wouldn’t have to do this.

You see, in the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech last week, 32 memorial stones were placed in front of Burruss Hall – one for each person killed. A student named Katelynn Johnson added a 33rd stone – one representing the gunman, VT student Seung-Hui Cho, who ended the killings when he committed suicide. And that 33rd stone is proving controversial – at least, among people who have no apparent connection to Virginia Tech.

For example, Richmond talk-show host Mac Watson likens this 33rd stone to a Hitler shrine at the Holocaust memorial. McQ at QandO likens it to listing and memorializing the 19 hijackers among the victims on 9-11.

I couldn’t disagree more. As I heard a 19-year-old VT student say last week, the stones don't bring anybody back from the dead. They aren't for the dead. They are for those who were left behind - the friends, family, coworkers. Seung-Hui Cho was a sick young man. Yes, he committed a horrible, evil act. But I can’t equate him to Mohamed Atta and Hani Hanjour. It’s just not the same. I find it mind-boggling that McQ thinks it is.

Katelynn Johnson is simply among the people who are able to recognize that Cho will be mourned, as any person should be. His family mourns him, as does some part of the university that feels that they let him down by not being able to intervene on his behalf before it went this far. But it must feel really good to get on the radio or post comments to QandO mocking Ms. Johnson for being a sociology-psychology major – a very substantive argument, folks. Her major.

I’m sure a lot of my friends won’t agree with my point of view on this. But of all the actual VT students I have spoken with since the shootings, none are wasting their youth stewing in hatred. They want to move on. And they do want to understand Cho – “What could make him do something like that?” It’s not a worthless question, and there is more value in remembering him as a sick human being who needed help than in remembering him as a caricature, an animal-demon.

No, I don’t memorialize him. I haven’t read his writings or seen even one second of his movie. But neither do I think that I am better than those people at Virginia Tech who need to better understand him in order to cope with this tragedy. Shame on those of you who do. When Ms. Johnson identified herself in a letter to the editor in the Collegiate Times, the response from the VT community was supportive and positive. Think about that for a minute.

The rest of the world has no business trying to insert themselves into the VT grieving process with your hissy fit over a 33rd stone. The last thing anybody at VT needs right now is your hubris and your bullshit.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

April 19, 2007

Great Horny Toads!

Some stories are too bizzarre not to share. For example, this one.

Amorous toads have caused the deaths of scores of fish at a lake near Scarborough. In one incident around 70 carp, worth about £3,000, were lost after male toads tried to mate with them on the Wykeham Estate.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 13, 2007

The Official PC Radio Hit List

Who is next, now that Don Imus has been fired?

Keith Olbermann has made a partial list:

Where's the other outrage? Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama 'Halfrican-American.' Michael Savage says the Voting Rights Act means 'a chad in every crack house.' Neal Boortz says Cynthia McKinney looks like a 'ghetto-slut.' Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?

Please note that I do not listen to any of these shows. But how disturbing is it that Olbermann would start calling for his ideological opponents to be taken off the air? How offensive is that mentality? (Offensive enough to call for Olbermann’s dismissal? I’m sure some on the right would miss the irony and do exactly that.) As Glenn Beck noted on air yesterday, Olbermann appears to be unaware that an atmosphere so charged would jeopardize Olbermann’s career, too. Remember: The Frankenstein monster sought to destroy its creator. This is no different, Keith.

As a side note, I do want to point out that the word “ho” clearly isn’t very offensive, as it has been casually repeated and batted around the airwaves, blogosphere, and print media nonstop for over a week. If it were truly offensive, it would be elevated to the level of those special words that go by their first initial – the “N” word, the “B” word, etc. If “ho” is so hurtful, maybe it should be called the “H” word from now on. The furor over this word is reminiscent of the Macaca flap, where commentators, bloggers, and jackasses around the world said over and over, “the use of the word ‘macaca’ is highly offensive! ‘Macaca’ compares ~~blacks~~ Indians to monkeys! The use of the word 'macaca' is enough to bar one from public office! Don’t ever say ‘Macaca’! Macaca, Macaca, Macaca!”

(Actually, this point was also made by the Jon Henke at QandO last December.)

For our amusement, let's imagine the following conversation:

Pundit: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "ho".

Al Sharpton: You're only making it worse for yourself!

Pundit: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Ho! Ho! Nappy-headed hos!

Al Sharpton: I'm warning you! If you say "ho" one more time…

(Sharpton gets suspended from radio show)

Al Sharpton Hey! Who did that?

Media Gaggle: She did! She did! He! He did! He!

Al Sharpton: Was it you?

Media Exec: Yes. Well you did say "ho".

(Media Exec gets barraged with criticism and is fired)

Al Sharpton: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! All right, no one is to fire until Jesse Jackson or I blow this whistle. Even if... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "ho"

(Sharpton gets permanently fired from radio show)

So, is there an official “PC Radio Hit List”? Yes, I believe there is. Media Matters has published it. After our airwaves have been ~~purged~~ ~~cleansed~~ (sound too genocidal?) tidied up, we can next focus on the filthy internet.

I can only hope this site doesn’t attract too much attention with its snappy, threaded prose. Think we will be safe?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 11, 2007

Rabid, Rabid!

No surprise here… Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is upset with her neighbor – some guy by the name of Monty Johnson. She refers to him as a “rabid, rabid Republican”. She once saw him brandishing a gun. She says he keeps his property “slummy” just to spite her. She wouldn’t be nice to him if she ever met him, according to the Charlotte Observer and a host of other news agencies who are pouncing on her hurtful remarks. See also the Raleigh • Durham • Cary • Chapel Hill • Podunk News & Observer, which reports:

Monty Johnson was heading home Monday with a cooler full of catfish when he learned his new neighbor had turned him into a minor celebrity.

I love the imagery.

Nothing about this situation is especially surprising (except that it was carelessly spoken aloud and giving the Edwardses bad press). Nor is it unique to Podunk, NC where these people live. But since it’s been thrown out there into the news, I’d like to highlight the parts of the story that really frame my view of the situation:

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression.

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.

It’s a pretty familiar story. It really highlights the difference between the haves and the have-nots. It’s almost like there are two Americas or something.

I don’t say that as somebody who hates Jon Edwards or his family. I don’t hate him for his wealth or his politics – in fact, I don’t hate him at all. I’m just somebody who can’t stand it when people expect their neighbors to “keep up” – especially since Mr. Johnson has lived there for more than half a century longer than the Edwards family. If they wanted to live in an exclusive Democratic haven with covenants against Guliani signs, they should have purchased land in that kind of community. If they wanted to live someplace where you could have your neighbor’s run-down childhood home destroyed, they should have picked New London, CT. If they wanted to live someplace where their neighbors would never be brandishing firearms, they should have purchased in Washington, DC (hahahahahahahaha! Come on, that was funny!)

As Rammage notes via email: “I'm instantly reminded of:

“Political tags—such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal conservative, and so forth—are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” ~ Heinlein

Which would you rather have as a neighbor?”

Indeed. Good call, Rammage.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 7, 2007

The Waxing and Waning of AtlasBlogged

One of the ongoing themes here at AtlasBlogged is the way our post frequency varies like a cheap ham radio. Despite several people having author privileges, the site sometimes goes several days with no sign of life. I’ve discussed it before. More than once.

I think I just got booted from being an author at WatchBlog, for not meeting the rule that all authors post at least twice a month. I’m okay with that. David Remer specifically invited me to provide a Libertarian point of view at the site, but I don’t much like the LP. I prefer the term “libertarian” be an adjective more than a noun. I wasn’t really able to fit in at WatchBlog, even though I like the idea for the site.

We’re probably on the verge of getting dropped from Kip’s Elite Eleven, as we violate one of the four criteria. I blame Rammage and Jib. Hopefully Kip is too distracted by real events to bother with demoting us.

But I will see if I can reverse the trend – at least turn this week's inactivity into a local minimum. I have a few things that have sat on the back burner for a long time, and I will try to put some of them on the table this week, as I am on spring break.

As usual, my co-bloggers have no excuse.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 1, 2007

Charting Global Warming Hysteria

AtlasBlogged reader Flounder makes an interesting observation about Yahoo's Associate Press science news:

I use MyYahoo as my home page. I track stocks and sports and news about aviation etc. I also track technology and science…the Jpeg here shows the Science panel as it looked 2pm on April 1st. Seems like the only science today is global warming.

Did someone say 'agenda?' Nah, couldn't be with our objective press.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

March 20, 2007

Celebrity Look-alikes

I’ve run across a few photos this week of people in the news who bear what I think is a striking resemblance to certain celebrities. Tell me if I am wrong.

First up is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
Khalid%20Sheikh%20Mohammed.jpg

Reminiscent of U.S. Senator Blutarsky:

Next, Phil Spector:

Clearly Sideshow Bob:
sideshow_bob.jpg.jpg

The most frightening one is Senator Hillary Clinton:

A dead freaking ringer, I tells ya!

And last but certainly not least, New York District Attorney Arthur Branch:

Looks a lot like that actor from Hunt for Red October:

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

March 16, 2007

Wonders Never Cease

Via email, Rammage alerted me to this post by Dale Franks over at QandO. Rammage rhetorically asks, “What's wrong with this paragraph?”

"The sun sets over Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, a church that was first built in 537 B.C. as a Mosque when the city fell to the Ottomans. When Turkish President Kemal Ataturk turned it into a museum in 1935, Christian mosaics covered up by the Muslims were revealed."

My concern upon reading this photo caption isn’t even the blundering lack of adherence to historical fact. Humbug to Rammage and Dale, and their "facts". I take issue with something even more fundamental in the WaPo article that is related to the error-strewn photo captions: There is no reason to "update" the list of the Seven Wonders of the World. And if there were, this list they are reporting on is pretty poorly put together. I agree with Egypt's Culture Minister, who called it "absurd". He asked that the Pyramids be taken off the list, but was denied.

See if you can find the contradiction in these two paragraphs from the Post:

Viering said the pyramids could not be removed because the competition is a purely democratic process, driven by Internet voting (and to a lesser extent phone balloting). "It's the people of the world who are making this list. It's not our decision," she said.

and

Voting began in 2001. Nominated monuments swelled to 177, were culled to 77, then winnowed in late 2005 by a group of experts to the current 21 finalists, each from a different country.

Expletive! This newspaper article was so poor that we are all stupider for having read it.

Of course, the Washington Post notes that many organizations have put together their own lists of 7 wonders over the years. It reminds me of another annoying trend - the many so-called "Bills of Rights" that are out there. Perhaps there should be a Seven Wonders of the Taxpayers World, and an American Society of Civil Engineers Bill of Rights. We can have experts cull the lists, then winnow them – it’ll be a purely democratic process all around.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 4, 2007

Arctic Surge?

The Weather Channel has decided to poke a little fun at the Surge/Reinforcements framing issue. Will a fresh batch of artic air be surging into the Midwest and Northeast? Is that word too hot for this cold air? I see the humor.

Political cracks aside, it’s going to be 60 degrees here in Richmond tomorrow, and no sign of the first snow of the season. Sigh.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 18, 2007

The Moral of the Tale of Marcotte and McEwan

Back on Friday, I read an article at Politico.com claiming liberal bloggers are “impudent, impotent, unreflective and unaccountable.” Not surprising if coming from a Republican, but in case you haven’t heard about this article, it’s coming from Dan Gerstein.

Gerstein calls lefty blogs onto the carpet for hypocrisy and a failure to address the real issues in the recent John Edwards/Marcotte/Whatshername fiasco. Let’s start with the obvious fact that the rightosphere was going to go nuts over these hires. The question isn’t whether or not these bloggers would be attacked – the question is how political allies should to respond to it. This is where Gerstein notes that the ball was dropped.

[Left-wing bloggers] have decided that the best way to fight the “right-wing smear machine” that they so despise is to create an even more venomous, boundary-less, and destructive counterpart and fight ire with more ire.

As Gerstein writes, these tactics are fine if a blogger’s objective is to engage in hate/counterhate with their ideological counterparts, or to drive an echo-chamber and the mutual-visit traffic so many sites enjoy. But neither arguments nor elections are won on the outer fringe. It is important for the serious blogger to read and engage people of opposing views in a serious manner. People simply aren’t persuaded or turned on by mud slinging or flamespraying, and neither party can win without the support of The Middle. You know, The Middle? That part of the electorate that generally claims to vote for the lesser of two evils? Some of those who defended Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte might not give a rip about The Middle. But John Edwards does, and his supporters have to as well – even his bloggers.

I am not saying that Marcotte and McEwan are less than capable writers. And I’m not even bothering to belabor the point that they weren’t well vetted – that’s obvious. I am simply saying that while it’s fine to defend their right to publish the hateful anti-Christian diatribes that sparked all of the controversy, it’s a different matter to defend the content of their writing, or to suggest that the only reason the two were attacked is because they "speak truth to power".

Too many (nearly all) on the e-Left missed the point and tried to defend these writers simply because they were being attacked by the Right. And the Edwards campaign has suffered an early embarrassment. For a candidate who currently makes the “Oh, and him” list after Senators Clinton and Obama, that’s serious.

The main lesson that serious political bloggers might take from all of this mess is that the enemy of your opponent is not necessarily your friend.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 13, 2007

Some Google News

It is being reported that a court has ruled that Google News breaches copyright law by linking to articles on the internet without consent. A group of Belgian newspapers brought the suit, which Google may appeal. Two thoughts:

1. This image is one of the most delicious I have ever seen. There is nothing wrong with irony, my friends.

2. Why bring this suit? I can't see the point. As the Times OnLine notes:

Analysts said they could not understand why the group, which has filed a similar action against Yahoo!, was pursuing the case, and that newspapers benefited from having stories indexed on Google News, which made their sites more prominent and boosted traffic.

“It’s utterly mad what they’re doing,” David Bradshaw, principal analyst with Ovum, said. “Google makes you relevant, it helps people find you. I can’t see how these people think being listed would be damaging.”

[point finger] Exactly. I'd love to be listed on Google News. They can even have free access to the AtlasBlogged cache, with no complaints from me (though technically Rammage owns the site). But the suit really does seem stupid on its face.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

February 10, 2007

Pelosi and the Plane

Many on the right have seized the opportunity to criticize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for requesting a bigger military jet than the one Dennis Hastert used during his tenure. Except that the right got it wrong.

As the New York Times noted in this article :

Ms. Pelosi and fellow Democrats said that House security officials insisted that she travel in a government plane and that if she had her way she would fly on commercial craft. They suggested that Republicans were hypocritical, scheming sexists trying to deny the speaker the same protection afforded her male predecessor.

[emphasis mine] I have no idea how this is sexist, but it certainly was hypocritical. Many Republicans, including the White House, seemed embarassed that anybody tried to call Pelosi out on this issue. As for myself, I understand that the "red meat" section of the rightosphere could jump the gun when knowning half the story, because that's the game both sides play. The danger of jumping the gun is that you can get disqualified from the event, and that's exactly what happened here.

I appreciate those Republicans who were honest enough to defend Pelosi and even make light of the situation. At the top of the list, Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), quoted in the same Times article as saying:

Next week, we are going to steal their mascot and short-sheet their beds.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 7, 2007

On Trial for Publishing the Danish Cartoons

Philippe Val, publisher of the French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo went on trial this week for publishing the infamous Danish Cartoons.

The charge is “publicly slandering a group of people because of their religion” (I have seen several variants of this, so I guess the translation is a bit open to interpretation.) The charge carries a possible six-month prison sentence and a fine of up to €26,800. Val was quoted as saying, "In a democracy, we're all shocked by what people say and do. We just have to learn to talk about it.”

The shame is that he even needed to say that. As Rammage so eloquently noted last year, this situation puts the American Left in quite a quandary. Which value is more important – freedom of the press, or respect for the cultural and religious beliefs of those in third world countries? Is it okay to print cartoons that criticize Islamists, or is it not?

But even if Americans answer that question correctly, it may not help Mr. Val in his trial over in Europe. After all, Europeans have criminal bans on swastikas, headscarves, and “hate speech” (potentially on line, as well). I have no faith that justice will prevail.

Of course, maybe I will be surprised. After all, Germany recently announced that it will not push for a EU-wide ban on swastikas and Holocaust denial. There may be some pockets of Europe where dialogue is preferred to prison when dealing with those with whom one disagrees. I sincerely hope Mr. Val is in one of those pockets.

While I am on the subject of Holocaust denial, let me share with you an amusing point by the Brussels Journal:

If Turkey joins the EU then we will have the comedy situation that denial of the Armenian Holocaust is a criminal offence in France, whilst mentioning it is a criminal offence in Turkey. The happy result of this could be that the entire population of France could be lifted and placed, Midnight Express like in Turkish prisons. Of course the entire population of Turkey could then find itself extradited to France and imprisoned there.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 30, 2007

On Benchmarks and Timetables

NPR Supervising Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving on Iraq:

This strategic timeframe, consistent back to the administration's earliest statements after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, does not necessarily require an open-ended military mission in Iraq. In fact, the full picture of administration statements on Iraq this month hints at something quite different: a prelude to disengagement.

Conjecture: President Bush, despite his mistakes, does in fact mean exactly what he says. The Surge is really, seriously, actually supposed to help suppress the insurgency in a vital time and place (now; Baghdad) while the Iraqi government further establishes itself… wait for it… wait for it… after which the US troops will withdraw and go home. They’re starting a withdrawal soon either way, as the Iraqi forces continue to take the lead in security operations and continue to take responsibility for security in the provinces. The exact time and date of the flights home would not be published on line for the same reason that exact troop placements are not posted on line – flexibility and security. That is, they would not be published even if they were inflexible, which would be immensely stupid. But the withdrawal is coming, pending a reasonably stable and capable government in Baghdad.

Call me crazy. Maybe referring to “benchmarks” instead of “timetables” might - just might - be because we are trying to tie our withdrawal to specific security goals (call them “benchmarks”) instead of a specific date.

Why are there people who don’t get this?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Constitutional Representation

At the blog On Tap, Marshall Manson wrote last week that the Democrats had turned their back on the Constitution:

Democratic House Leader Steny Hoyer introduced a proposed change to House rules that would allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to vote on the floor of the House.

Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent U.S. territories and other possessions in the House. There are five: one delegate each from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Guam, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.
Needless to say, four of the five are Democrats.
Under House rules, delegates and the Resident Commissioner are currently allowed to cast votes in House Committees. (A practice that I believe is also contrary to the Constitution.) At present, they are not allowed to cast votes on the floor.
If the Democrats get their way, that will soon change.

And as you may have guessed, they did get their way on a party-line vote.

Mary Katherine Ham (at Townhall Blog) notes:

Perhaps after "six years of George Bush" the media thinks the "conversation has become a little one-sided," and this is now warranted. After all, the NYT story is headlined, "House restores voting rights to Congressional delegates.
The return of the privileges, first allowed by Democrats in 1993 and rescinded by Republicans in 1995, resulted in Republicans’ pouring out their frustration about their treatment by Democrats in the first weeks of Congress. The sour mood threatened efforts at forging a more cooperative relationship between the parties.

Two years on, twelve years off… the best description for that is a “restoration”, isn’t it? As Manson noted in his post last week, the media wasn’t so thrilled about it back in 1993. So fickle.

But earlier this week I heard something on this issue that really spun me up. Here is NPR’s Farai Chideya interviewing D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty:

The biggest glaring problem is that we don’t have a vote in the national legislature, we don’t have two senators and a congressperson like we should.

Two senators and a congressperson.

Two senators.

[shudder]

The pertinent part of the interview is from 5:24 to 8:57. Don’t feel compelled to listen to the whole interview on my account, but that bit is unbelievable. Chideya repeatedly tries to goad the mayor into saying more, asking him twice whether he is “hamstrung” by the situation and asking whether he will be a “champion” on the issue. I guess I should just be happy that she wears her sympathies so openly, when so many in the media pretend at objectivity.

Two senators. Look, the District of Columbia has 550,000 people. If it were a state, it would be 50th in the nation – barely ahead of Wyoming by less than the seating capacity of Nationals Ballpark. During away games, it might be 51st. It is only the 27th most populous city in the United States, and dropping. It is not a state. It should not be a state. Why does it deserve two senators?

I hope this is the last I ever hear of that proposal. Takers?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 29, 2007

Cool / Not Cool

I can't decide.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

January 27, 2007

Bush's Presidential Library

Do you know where will the George W. Bush presidential library be built?

[Pause for obligatory but frankly unwelcome literacy jokes.]

Okay, seriously, where will the George W. Bush presidential library be built? Southern Methodist University is reportedly the front-runner for what will be the thirteenth presidential library in the nation. This would make it the sixth presidential library to be located on a university campus. But universities being what they are, it comes as no surprise that the proposal has sparked debate and controversy at SMU.

Negotiations to build George W. Bush's presidential library at Southern Methodist University have divided the campus, pitting the administration and some alumni against members of the liberal-leaning faculty who say the project would be an embarrassment to the school.

Some professors have complained that the combined library, museum and think tank would celebrate a presidency that unnecessarily took the country into a war.

The fear is that the library "will continue to espouse the philosophy and practice of the Bush administration, which has seriously divided our nation and has brought the ire of other countries," said William McElvaney, a retired professor…

Of course, it is nothing new to have a little controversy associated with a presidential library. Recall ten years ago, when then-president Bill Clinton chose a riverfront location in Little Rock, Arkansas as the location for his presidential library.

[C]ity leaders offered Clinton the warehouse district acreage. He took it. The city was soon embroiled in lawsuits. Property owners challenged the use of eminent domain to claim the land for a presidential library. Another citizen tried, unsuccessfully, to block the use of taxpayer money (revenue bonds) for the project.

In 2001, an 1899 depot was discovered enshrined in an aluminum building on the site. Preservationists fought for the building, but eventually lost the fight in court and the depot was destroyed.

At another point, protesters picketed city hall when the city decided to name the street in front of the library President Clinton Avenue. It ultimately compromised: Only half the street was named after him.

Controversies, of course, are hardly unique to the Clinton library. Boston's John F. Kennedy Presidential Library didn't open until 1979 because of location and architectural issues. The Jimmy Carter Library in Atlanta faced problems when an access road threatened local historic neighborhoods.

"All presidential libraries face controversy," says Lynn Scott Cochrane, director of libraries at Denison University in Granville, Ohio.

Well obviously they do. Presidents themselves face controversy, and their legacies can be no different. But people some people insist on treating this library, this president, and this controversy as somehow different from the usual. It’s not surprising to find Olbermann and Huffington are upset. Olbermann:

Are we going to need a federal law to cap spending on presidential libraries?...libraries and think tanks that are spending millions to try to prop up the image of their namesakes; trying to rewrite history for men who have long since ceased to be a part of the political picture?

I know – how dare Bush or his supporters try to have a hand in writing history - that's clearly Olbermann's job. Note that when he and Huffington complain about the expense, they are not talking about tax dollars. In light of that, I would wonder what legal justification Olbermann had for such a suggestion... that is, I would if I took him seriously enough to think he could answer that question.

As I said, it’s not surprising to find complaint from that crowd. The surprise may be the opposition from faith-based groups, as highlighted by a recent article in the Houston Business Journal.

Hope for Peace & Justice, a faith-based social justice organization based in Dallas, is concerned about the reputation of Dallas and the safety of local residents if the library and proposed think tank are built at SMU, as the "Bush Library will no doubt be a terrorist target,"said the Rev. Michael Piazza, president of Hope for Peace & Justice.

and

"Dallas has worked for decades to escape the reputation as the 'City that killed Kennedy,'" said Rev. Piazza. "We do not need to return to that right- wing reputation. Playing host to Mr. Bush's well-funded, neo-conservative think-tank will taint our reputation indelibly. Residents need to guard their reputation and say, 'No thank you Mr. President.'"

Now that’s opposition from Bush’s supposed core – Christian conservatives!

Oops, wait – the website for the group says they are “equipping progressive people of faith to be champions for peace and justice.” (emphasis mine) Sounds like the Houston Business Journal was just being misleading about plain old partisanship. Let’s rewrite the way this is all being reported. It should go something like this:

President George W. Bush’s presidential library will be at Southern Methodist University. Bush-haters hate it. The end.

There is no reason to raise the specters of terrorism, assassination, and parking in this conversation. It’s hyperbole, and as such should be ignored.

If you are one of those people who find Stephen Colbert funny, follow this link for his take on the issue. (Okay, I admit I only included that in an attempt to get Rammage riled up.)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 23, 2007

Liveblogging!

No, not the State of the Union. I expect that'll be the same old crap as usual. But I'm a die-hard hockey fan, and I'm watching the NHL All-Star skills competition. I'll update the blog as time permits - because I know you care. And I think it's funny.

The real excitement for tonight's competition and tomorrow night's All-Star Game is supposed to be the young players - particularly Sidney Crosby (the first teen to start in the All-Star Game since Gretzky) and Alexander Ovechkin.

21:09 I didn't realize Brian Campbell would be fast enough to even compete in the Fastest Skater category, but apparently he is. Buffalo Sabres, represent!

21:15 Andy McDonald is the fastest skater, completing a lap of the rink in 14.03. That's crazy fast. Next up is the shootout, which is a team event, West vs. East. The goalie for the West will be Marty Turco, of Dallas. He's on home ice tonight, by the way. The East has Montreal's Cristobal Huet in net.

21:22 Some acrobatic stuff, but nothing compared to the crazy things we've seen in the past. The West wins it, 2-1. Next up, a fan favorite - the hardest shot.

21:26 The commentators are clearly some sort of physics consortium, as they note the puck tends to lose speed if you shoot it higher into the net. "Keep it low to the ice" is their free advice. Cripes, that frozen rubber is flying nearly 100 mph. Zdeno Chara just hit 100.4 as I typed. Ironic that it's in mph, when most players are Canadian and many European. They don't know what hell a mile per hour is.

21:29 Sheldon Souray managed 100 mph as well. But the 6'9" Chara (that's 2.06 metres, mon frere) wins the highest speed and the East has the highest average. Up next, shootout part 2. West Goaltender: Miikka Kiprusoff, Calgary. East Goaltender: Martin Brodeur, New Jersey.

21:38 Brodeur is a beast. The East wins that round. Sheesh, and some people are watching the freaking State of the Union. Unbelievable. I'm sure that's really exciting, Dale.

21:40 Shooting accuracy! My kids and I play that in the cul-de-sac. The three-year-old can't shoot worth a damn, but the six-year-old is getting good.

21:43 Yanic Perreault hit the camera in the back of the net, but they don't give you points for that. Just the painted targets.

21:47 I have to stand for the "In the Zone" goalie event. No liveblogging of it. Sorry.

21:58 Okay, I'm sitting back down for the last round of the shootout. Vancouver's Roberto Luongo in net for the West and my boy Ryan Miller minding for the East. I believe both were perfect "in the Zone".

22:00 Intensity! Miller gave up the points and let the West tie it up. It's down to the final event, a one-on-one shootout.

22:01 Sidney Crosby and Teemu Selanne each score and it goes to another round. And a third round. Luongo finally makes a save and Selanne can finish it - and he does!

Ah... I'm done. Who has ever been excited about the State of the Union going over time? I'm sure I'll read all about the politics-as-usual tomorrow, and hear about it on the radio. But for tonight, I got my hockey fix. Good night.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 17, 2007

Obamamania

The media - and therefore the blogosphere - are absolutely manic over Barak Obama's announcement that he has created an exploratory committee - the obligatory step in his obvious path to a 2008 run for president. From CBSnews.com (links are in the original):

And every front page (except for the Wall Street Journal's, save a brief mention somewhere in the middle of the newsbox) takes note of the momentous occasion. The Washington Post, for its part, actually squeezes two front-page articles out of the news.

The teaser on this "Investigative Report" from the Chicago ABC affiliate:

In this Intelligence Report: how to protect the man who would be America's first black president.

That kind of reporting certainly suggests a lot of political weight for this political n00b. I imagine that a black presidential candidate who appeared to have even a remote chance of being elected would be the target of an extra part of society's violent fringe. And I don't mean to be dismissive of that when I say that the language of this report absolutely stopped me short. Is Barak Obama close enough to the presidency that murderous racists would attack him? I doubt he is in any more danger than any other senator, frankly. But I don't doubt in the least that he will be protected in many ways during his political career. He's just got that something that makes foreign papers refer to him as a rock star. He is vitally important, for some reason, to the Democratic Party.

And I think that's a weakness.

I spoke with a coworker about Obama this morning who articulated that weakness pretty well. This woman is active in the Democratic Party, and cares very deeply about the party's success. Her take?

He's a gimmick. He's a good enough orator that his dark skin doesn't resign him to "black politician" status, but right now, he's just a gimmick. Maybe he doesn't even deserve to be, but he is, because he's nobody, and the party is going nuts over him. It will be a long two years, and he is already stepping into that spotlight. Something will sink him, and race will get blamed. And how does that help America move forward?

If Barak Obama were white (what's that? He is as white as he is black, and raised by white people in a non-black community?), would he be anybody? If not, then have we bothered to judge him by the content of his character? How ironic that Obama's announcement of the exploratory committee came on the day after Martin Luther King Jr Day.

If it's simply time for America to have a black president in order to show how grown-up and enlightened we are, then you'd better bring me a black candidate I can vote for. I have nothing at all against Barak Obama, but I have nothing for him, either. And maybe someday he would have the vision and experience to win my vote, but right now I haven't seen anything. I can't vote for him simply on account of his having dark skin and a great smile. And shame on anybody who could.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 15, 2007

The Surge - Continuing Bush's Inability to Spell Anything Out for the Public

Does the American public have any idea what progress has been made by the Iraqi government in the last year? As the map above shows, progress has been made in training the Iraqi forces and in turning over some authority to the Iraqi government - clearly positive steps and a prelude to the eventual American withdrawl. Iraq might yet more closely resemble post-war Germany or Korea than Vietnam. (We can't really hope for another Japan, of course.)

But how aware is the American public whose opinion is solicited so carefully and frequently? Do they see more than the body count on TV? Is the message getting through?

By now we all know that President Bush has ordered a "surge" of 20,000 more troops to Iraq, and Congress is debating exactly how impotent it will be in protest. Polls show the American people are unhappy. But it matters whether this is an unhappiness borne of ignorance, or an informed decision that they disapprove of Bush's new strategery and the surge of troops to Baghdad.

I just read an instructive editorial in the Yakima-Herald:

Ever since America invaded Iraq nearly four years ago, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies, insufficient military strength to fulfill an occupation role and misjudging the depth of the sectarian violence that would follow the departure of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

We've heard about the need to allow time for Iraqi security forces and the fledgling new government to get up to speed. We heard it again Wednesday evening from Bush.

Now it rings hollow.

Of course it does. This administration has made several big mistakes in foreign policy, especially in Iraq. They are not unforgivable, unfixable mistakes - except that the president has never attempted to really come clean about making them. This editorial is instructive because it highlights that the administration has never explained itself very well – it’s been a PR nightmare even when good is accomplished. Conservatives seem willing to chalk up the problem to a liberal media, but the buck has to stop on Mr. Bush’s desk, and the fact is that he’s been a terrible salesman all along.

Salesman?!? Oh, Wulf, you demean the War on Terror if you say that the president has to sell it like a can of beans.

Come on. This is politics. You can eradicate disease and still look like a villain if you are incapable of controlling your own image. As the editorial noted, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies over and over and over again. Rather than have an exit strategy or even a clearly articulated goal, this administration has relied on platitudes and bromides. But Americans want more than appeals to patience and patriotism. They want to know when we leave Iraq, even if it isn’t right now. By refusing to talk about timelines, the administration has ceded the debate to those who invoke Vietnam. By refusing to focus on the progress of the fledgling new government – for example, the map above - the administration has ceded the debate to those who simply count casualties.

It's not that America doesn't have the stomach for a war. It's that America doesn't have the stomach for a war that appears open-ended and whose worth is uncertain.

Back to Yakima (I can’t believe I just said that):

What will come of this new effort? Do we go in with more troops, beat up on the insurgents, declare victory and then leave the country -- expecting things to level out and for the Iraqis to find peace as we define it?

Or do additional troops just make us more of an occupier -- a role history shows is not a good one for any superpower -- while we wait for the situation to improve?

How long must we wait?

Exactly the problem. Most people I’ve talked to just have no idea what the surge will do, or what it is supposed to do. Most of them think it’s pissing down the well to send 20,000 more troops to an area we want to be done with and withdraw from – an area that only ever seems to be on the news when Americans are shot at or blown up. The president has neglected the bully pulpit over the course of our time in Iraq. That he would do so seems unfathomably stupid, given how much the president has at stake here. Military success is very uncertain, and Bush also has a lot of domestic chips riding on this hand. That's a ballsy move for a lame duck whose party just lost both houses.

I don’t agree with the editorial that we should be looking for the U.N. to get involved. And I don’t agree with the main thesis - that it is "too late". But our troops will someday, somehow leave Iraq, and the question since day one has been how that will go down. There is only one person who should be able to give a definitive answer to that question. I consider it his biggest failure that he has not recognized the importance of that question and answered it to an acceptable degree.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 13, 2007

Good Firewalls make Good Neighbors

An amusing tale at NPR - give it a listen.

When a folder called "Anna's Music" mysteriously popped up on NPR reporter David Kestenbaum's computer, with music that he absolutely loved, he followed a trail that led to an awkward encounter with a neighbor.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 1, 2007

Quiet and Dignified

There's a bit of complaint from some regarding the manner in which Saddam Hussein was executed. For just one example, BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson:

Far from being a quiet and dignified business, the new video shows that several of the witnesses taunted Saddam during the last seconds of his life, chanted the name of one of his many enemies, and told him he was going to hell.

An incredible complaint, in my view. A quiet and dignified death is usually earned through a quiet and dignified life - not through the dictatorial genocide practiced by this deposed tyrant.

And if I believed in hell, it is exactly where I would want Saddam to go. He hasn't done anything to earn the peace of not having to hear that sort of opinion. That anybody would think otherwise absolutely boggles my mind. Come on, say it with me: To hell with Saddam Hussein!

Mr. Simpson continues:

Altogether, the execution as we now see it is shown to be an ugly, degrading business, which is more reminiscent of a public hanging in the 18th Century than a considered act of 21st Century official justice.

Mr. Simpson could not sound more out of touch. Neither could he sound much more sympathetic of the Butcher of Baghdad:

Saddam is not intimidated by any of this, and repeats Moqtada Sadr's name disdainfully, as if to say he doesn't count for very much.

Then his gruff, rasping voice can be heard saying to the onlookers "Is this manly behaviour?"...

Saddam Hussein scarcely has an instant to collect his thoughts. He starts to mutter a prayer, but just as he speaks the name Muhammad, the chief hangman pulls the lever and the trapdoor opens.

With terrible, shocking force, Saddam's body plunges into the drop.

He deserved a terrible and shocking force. He deserved to be cut off in mid-prayer. Mr. Simpson seem not to understand the principle that how a man lives is more important than how a man dies. Rather than focus on the people being rude as they string up one of the worst mass murderers on Earth, we could focus on how much better it is for Iraq that he has been executed. Rather than fret that Sunni Arabs might be offended at the treatment Saddam received, we might ask ourselves whether those Sunnis who would defend Saddam are worth working with.

There was no behavior that was too rude for Saddam, Mr. Simpson. Again, to hell with Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

December 15, 2006

Headline of the Day

Park rangers in India's Assam state have issued a shoot-on-sight order on... Osama Bin Laden!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)