Who won't Bush talk to?

What was it that Hillary said last night about Bush and diplomacy? Who won't he talk with?

U.S.-Iran Talks Resume in Baghdad
ABC News

The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq sat down Tuesday for a second round of groundbreaking of talks on stabilizing Iraq, a session marred by a tense exchange over American allegations that Iran is fueling the violence.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the meeting with an impassioned appeal for help from the two nations to stabilize Iraq and warned that militants from al-Qaida and other terror groups in Iraq were now fleeing and finding refuge elsewhere.

"We are hoping that you support stability in Iraq, an Iraq that doesn't interfere in the affairs of others nor wants anyone to meddle in its own affairs," he said, according to excerpts of al-Maliki's remarks released by his office.

"The world ... must stand together and face this dangerous phenomenon and its evils, which have gone beyond the borders of Iraq after terror and al-Qaida groups received strong blows and are now running away from the fight and moving to other nations," he said.

Democrats on Genocide

Barack Obama last week made it clear that he was willing to cause genocide and ethnic cleansing if it meant withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Last night during the YouTube debates, Hillary Clinton made it clear that she was unwilling to put troops into Darfur in order to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing. I am, frankly, shocked at the stance.

What sort of polling did they do, what sort of morbid calculus did they come up with that leads them to take a stance towards genocide that could only generously be called ambivalent.

I thought that the Democratic candidates, Obama in particular, were suffering from simple denial about the real existence of ethnic cleansing. It turns out that I was wrong: they know it's there but they either don't care or or they don't feel it's important enough to try to stop.

Assumption of Risk

It really bothers me that in our country we have set up a system wherein we allow people to assume vast amounts of risk to their persons and property and then, if catastrophe strikes, the individual is indemnified by the system. Why should I pay for the rescue of people who refuse to evacuate during mandatory orders? Why should I pay to rebuild houses people knowingly put in the paths of hurricanes and then refuse to insure? In our society, our continued bail-out of those who put themselves and their property in the way of natural disasters without the ability or means to protect themselves is increasingly the threat to lives and property. Those able-bodied individuals who knowingly refuse to evacuate during a mandatory order should be fined heavily to pay for the costs of pulling them out. Those who choose to build houses in the path of hurricanes, floods, or earthquakes should be required to have insurance to cover those catastrophes. Should catastrophe strike, it's not the government's place to step in where your own failings have taken you.

Sure, some people can't afford to pay for earthquake insurance in California or hurricane insurance in Florida or flood insurance in Louisiana. If you can't afford the insurance, then you either need to assume the risk yourself or move somewhere else - like Washington, Illinois, or Virginia. move away from the obvious catastrophe sites and move towards safer areas.

Poll: Coastal Residents Won't Evacuate
Associated Press

MIAMI - About one in three people living in Southern coastal areas said they would ignore hurricane evacuation orders of a storm threatened their community, up from about one in four ast year, a poll released Tuesday shows.

The survey found the most common reasons for not evacuating were the same ones that topped last year's Harvard University poll: People believe that their homes are safe and well-built, that roads would be too crowded and that fleeing would be dangerous. Slightly more than one in four also said they would be reluctant to leave behind a pet.

Robert Blendon, the Harvard professor who directed the survey, said the mild 2006 Atlantic hurricane season probably put more coastal residents at ease. "It just shows how people can become complacent if they're not immediately threatened," Blendon said.

Residents were asked how worried they are about hurricanes, what supplies they have in their homes, how confident they are about being rescued and how else they had prepared for possible storms. The poll found 78 percent felt prepared if a major hurricane struck their community in the next six months.

Thirty-one percent of respondents said they would not evacuate. Another 5 percent said their decision would depend on the circumstances.

More of the same - more nothing

Senate Democrats today are holding hearings. Surprise anyone? Are they going to be dealing with American poverty, AIDS in Africa, immigration, job creation, education, balancing the budget, closing the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid, third-world infrastructure development, or trying to deal with the problems in either health care or social security? Of course not. No, instead they're going to spend their time questioning the Attorney General about alleged "improper" firings. Why bother dealing with a real issue when you can hammer an Administration official over something that maybe, might have been "improper." Not illegal, mind you, but rather just "improper."

Gonzales Faces More Senate Questioning
ABC News

The return of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee is in some ways the story of Democratic failure to drum up enough pressure to force President Bush's hand.

Not so long ago, Republicans as well as Democrats thought they'd seen Gonzales sit before them for the last time as attorney general. There was no way Gonzales could survive the controversy over the prosecutor firings, nor the exposure of other missteps, they said. Certainly he could not resist the widespread calls for his resignation one, from a Republican to his face as the proceedings were broadcast live.

They were wrong. Gonzales was called to testify again Tuesday. A Senate vote of no confidence in Gonzales has failed, and Bush has noted that the U.S. attorneys probe did not uncover any clear wrongdoing. And, armed with the president's support, Gonzales has made clear that he does not intend to leave office before Bush does.

Democrats say the wrongdoing is Gonzales' broader failure of leadership that extends to the FBI's abuse of so-called National Security letters and a withered tradition of independence from the political interests of the White House.

"This attorney general has a severe credibility problem," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in remarks prepared for Tuesday's hearing. "It is time for the attorney general to fully answer these questions and to acknowledge and begin taking responsibility for the acute crisis of leadership that has gripped the department under his watch."

Gonzales' statement to the committee was full of regret for his agency's troubles and included a commitment to repair the damage. He made no reference to the fired U.S. attorneys. Only briefly, Gonzales mentioned the controversy that has sunk morale at the Justice Department and has called the fairness of its attorneys into question.

"I will not tolerate any improper politicization of this department," Gonzales said in remarks prepared for his Senate testimony. "I will continue to make efforts to ensure that my staff and others within the department have the appropriate experience and judgment so that previous mistakes will not be repeated.

Disgusting

This is a disgusting little bit: parents stealing their children's financial identities.
I will only say one thing about this: a biometric ID card, standardized across the country, and required for any sort of major financial transaction would help defend against this sort of victimization.

Parents Steal Children's Identities
ABC News

On paper, Randy Waldron Jr. was $2.5 million in debt and a convicted felon. He owed hundreds of thousands of dollars to credit companies, owed back taxes to the state of Florida, and had liens and civil actions against him.

In reality, Waldron was a 17-year-old high school junior living in New Hampshire, who in 1998 couldn't get a student loan for college or a credit card because his Social Security number had been stolen when he was just 1 year old.

Making matters worse, the man who stole Waldron's identity was his father.

"My father was charismatic, attractive and successful. He always had money and was never broke," Waldron told ABC NEWS.com.

"He maintained that image until 1998 when I was getting ready to graduate from high school. I wanted to be an airline pilot and applied to every college with a program, but was rejected by all of them. I couldn't understand, because my grades in school had always been good," he says.

"At about the same time, I received rejection letters from credit card companies and financial aid institutions. … I wrote to get my free credit report and when it came back it was 50 pages long," he says. "I was 17 years old and had liens against me. I owed Master Card and Visa hundreds of thousands of dollars and back taxes in Florida."

Soon after Randy was born in 1981, his father, Randy Waldron Sr., left his mother and moved to Florida. By 1982 Waldron Sr. was fraudulently using his son's spotless identity as his own

We'll take 'em all!

Nolan Finley has a great column calling on Kwame to open the doors of Detroit to Iraqi immigrants to help build a new life - both for the immigrants and for Detroit - here. It's a great idea and should definitely be considered.

Rebuild Detroit with immigrants
The Detroit News

Warren Mayor Mark Steenbergh says he doesn't want a flood of new Iraqi immigrants overwhelming his city. His loss. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick should stand up and shout, "I'll take 'em all!"

A massive influx of immigrants looking to build new lives and willing to help rebuild an old city would fit right into Kilpatrick's plans to revive Detroit's neighborhoods.

Immigrants are already proving they can make a difference in Detroit. Drive out Vernor Highway from the near west side to Dearborn, first through the Hispanic neighborhoods and transitioning to the Arab community, and you'll see once abandoned storefronts filled with small businesses -- bakeries, markets, dry cleaners, auto shops -- serving their new customers.

Or go to the growing ethnic enclave around the State Fairgrounds for a look at the ability of Iraqi newcomers to make something out of nothing.

The refugees arriving from the turmoil in Iraq could repopulate city blocks that have been losing residents for nearly 50 years.

The immigrants would bring with them children to fill the 60,000 empty seats in Detroit Public Schools classrooms and, if they are anything like their predecessors, an undeniable entrepreneurial drive to strengthen the city's small business base.
Most will be educated and have skills attractive to employers.

Actively recruit refugees

Detroit should be actively recruiting these Iraqi immigrants, and others from around the world, offering relocation and acculturation assistance. The city should put together a package of enticements to make sure they land here instead of somewhere else.

For example, the large inventory of city-owned abandoned homes could serve as bait to lure immigrants. Give them the keys to a house and tell them to fix it up and return it to the tax rolls within three years and it's theirs to keep -- free. That's a better option than continuing to roll bulldozers through Detroit's blighted neighborhoods.

Immigration could be a growth industry for Detroit. But becoming America's new immigrant capital will require the city's leaders, specifically some members of the City Council, to get over their Afrocentric vision of Detroit and recognize that diversity is a route to revival.

As long as a growing immigrant population is seen as a threat to black political power rather than an opportunity to build a culturally rich city, the new arrivals are going to choose more welcoming locales.

Already, resentment is rising among Detroit's Latino and Middle Eastern populations over a lack of political representation and the perception that their needs get a low priority from City Hall.

When Detroit was booming, it was because migrants from everywhere -- Poland, Italy, Germany, Ireland, the American South -- swarmed to the city searching for security, hope and opportunity.

Now, 40 years after the '67 riots pushed down the accelerator of decline, Detroit has a chance to boom again on the strength of new immigrants seeking those very same things.

Is this how you raise your country?

This may be one of the most intellectually brain-dead articles I've had the misfortune to read. A column in the Independent argues in favor of increased trade tariffs in the third world, with the justification that these apparently will help third world development.

First off, the suggestion that somehow developing countries are in any way at all similar to developing children is one of the most idiotic comparisons I've seen in a long while. That being said, the idea of investing in a child's education - the comparison used somehow for increased tariffs - is comparable to infrastructural and educational development, not economic protectionism.

Most importantly, though, is the thrust of his argument: somehow increased tariffs on imports are going to help the domestic industries in countries. Somehow, eliminating foreign investment is going to increase domestic development.

I'm personally not sure how increasing the prices of goods is going to help. Inflation is the great bugaboo of economic development. The more that goods cost, the fewer that can be purchased and the less money is left for reinvestment. It should be obvious, but apparently isn't for everyone. It has been shown empirically throughout history that increased protectionism yields reduced economic development.

As to the other suggestion, that somehow foreign investment is problematic. This is just idiotic. European countries in the 19th century were existing under the very real threat that other, equivalently powerful countries would use economic means to cripple them to allow for conquest. Frankly, should the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, or other world power want to invade and conquer a third world country, domestic control of industry isn't going to stop it. The added money coming into the country is what will allow industry to flourish.

The real problem facing the developing world, and the area where an outside concerned party can help, is with the essential infrastructure development. Elementary school education, clean drinking water, solid roads, crop irrigation systems, and basic medical care for all individuals are the issues critical to economic development. Instead of blathering on about protectionism versus free-markets, the focus should be on delivering the essential infrastructure which is required for any development.

Bring them in...

Absolutely we should be bringing in more Iraqi refugees. Most of the refugees coming from Iraq are highly educated individuals who have fought in support of their country at our request. They are exactly the types of people we want in this country.

A suggestion was made on the Drew and Mike show this morning on WRIF that we should offer these individuals a chance to come to Detroit and settle in the city. There are plenty of houses which have either been abandoned or seized due for tax or mortgage reasons. These refugees should be offered the opportunity to have the houses if they are willing to rebuild them.

While the idea obviously has some problems, there might be something to it. It would be an interesting opportunity to bring in highly qualified immigrants, help people who would have helped us in Iraq, and help the neighborhoods of Detroit come back. Not sure if it's the best way to go about things, but it deserves a look.

US ambassador says Iraqi aides will quit unless granted asylum
The Guardian

The United States ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Cocker, has called for all Iraqis working for the US government to be granted refugee status in recognition of the dangers they face.

Mr. Cocker warned in a cable obtained by the Washington Post that unless Iraqi employees were given hope of finding safe haven in America they would quit, weakening the ability of the Bush administration to make an impact in Iraq.

He said that Iraqis in US government employment "work under extremely difficult conditions, and are targets for violence including murder and kidnapping. Unless they know that there is some hope of a [visa] in future, many will continue to seek asylum, leaving our mission lacking in one of our most valuable assets".

The US government and its main coalition partner in Iraq, Britain, have both been criticised by human rights and refugee organisations for failing to allow significant numbers of Iraqi asylum seekers into their countries. The US has admitted 825 Iraqis since the invasion in 2003.

The British government granted asylum to about 100 Iraqis between 2003 and 2005, but figures since then are unknown. It has refused to consider applications from among the 2 million Iraqis who have fled to Jordan, Syria and other neighbouring states.

In the wake of heavy criticism, the Bush administration expanded its Iraqi refugee programme, promising to admit 7,000 by October. However, it has processed just 133 since last October.

The United Nations estimates that up to 20,000 Iraqis will never be able to return to Iraq. Other countries have accepted many more Iraqi refugees. Sweden has taken in more than any other nation, despite the fact that it is not part of the coalition.

Last week it emerged that Denmark had secretly airlifted out about 200 Iraqi interpreters and their families. The move was made in advance of the imminent withdrawal of 470 Danish troops stationed in Iraq.

Nice...

Yeah, let's leave peacekeeping to the United Nations. Nothing bad will happen, right?

How is it, again, that we're the bad guys? Peacekeepers in the Ivory Coast are engaged in widespread rape of women and children, trafficking of sex slaves, and the United States is the country of evil? Perhaps it's just me, but keeping a terrorist from being able to sleep for a couple of days just doesn't strike me as bad as having widespread open-season raping women and children.

UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast
BBC News

The United Nations is investigating allegations of widespread sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers serving in Ivory Coast.

The UN said a unit of its contingent in Bouake, a northern rebel stronghold, had been confined to base.

It would not give the nationalities of those troops under investigation.

Claims of sexual abuse have been made against UN troops on various missions, prompting ex-UN chief Kofi Annan to declare a "zero tolerance" policy.

'Utterly immoral'

"There have been crimes such as rape, paedophilia and human trafficking," he said in December 2006, shortly before leaving office.

He said sexual exploitation and abuse were "utterly immoral" and at odds with the UN mission, and would be punished.

Sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeeping personnel hit the headlines in 2004 after a UN report detailed widespread abuse in the DR Congo involving UN troops.
More than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse since 2004, including some stationed in Congo, Cambodia and Haiti.

A chance at recovery?

In an Associated Press article regarding the upcoming UAW talks with Ford and GM, Laurie Harbour-Felax, managing director at Stout Risius Ross Inc., a firm which studies auto company costs, is reported to agree "with the union that companies must do more to cut costs and become more efficient." Did I miss something? When did the UAW start feeling that the companies should "do more to cut costs and become more efficient"? The biggest problem that has plagued Ford and GM is the Union's staunch anti-modernization stance. They've long been the bastion of refusal for change. That's the primary reason Ford and GM spend more to build a car: it takes them more man-hours to do the work so it costs more. The added per-employee costs only compound the issue. If, as is suggested, the Union is willing to allow Ford and GM to modernize their processes and factories to be faster and less labor intensive, the companies have a chance at recovery.

Assuming, of course, that John Dingell's commitment to raising CAFE doesn't cripple the companies first.

UAW to Hold Talks With Ford, GM
ABC News

Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. have more at stake than usual as they begin their traditional talks with United Auto Workers: cutting labor costs may be key to their survival.

The traditional handshake ceremonies with the union were to begin Monday with GM in Detroit and Ford in Dearborn, although talks already have been under way for months. The union formally opened negotiations with Chrysler Group on Friday, and the national contracts with all three expire Sept. 14.

The three automakers lost a combined $15 billion in 2006 and are in the midst of shrinking themselves and rolling out new vehicles to better compete with Japanese companies. Industry analysts have said reducing labor costs is critical.

Ford is in the worst shape of the three, having mortgaged its factories to set up a $23.4 billion line of credit to cover losses and pay operating expenses while it restructures. Ford lost $12.6 billion last year and $282 million in the first quarter of this year, and it doesn't expect to make money again until 2009.

Analysts say Ford likely will seek deeper concessions than the other two automakers, perhaps including temporary wage cuts.

All three say the talks need to bring them into labor cost parity with Japanese automakers, who make about $2,000 per car more in profits.

The Detroit automakers say their hourly labor costs are about $25 more than those of Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. when health care, pension, retiree and other costs are factored in.

Glad to see they're getting something done

Looks like Feingold is doing his best to continue to get nothing done in Congress. He could be working on immigration issues, trying to create jobs in order to reduce the poverty rate, working to secure the ports, writing legislation to insure the uninsured without bankrupting the country or reducing the health care for the vast majority of Americans who have insurance, balancing the budget, closing the gap between what people owe in taxes and what they pay, fighting genocide in Darfur, fighting AIDS in Africa and South-East Asia, fighting global poverty, insuring elementary school education for the worlds poor, working to stop nuclear proliferation, encouraging the spread of democracy and human rights, building essential infrastructure in the developing world, or address the woefully inadequate education our nation is providing to our poor and minority children.

Why bother, though, when he can make yet another useless statement about how much he disapproves of the President?

Sen. Feingold Proposes Censuring Bush
ABC News

Liberal Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

But Feingold's own party leader in the Senate showed little interest in the idea. An attempt in 2006 by Feingold to censure Bush over the warrantless spying program attracted only three co-sponsors.

Feingold, a prominent war critic, said he soon plans to offer two censure resolutions measures that would amount to a formal condemnation of the Republican president.
The first would seek to reprimand Bush for, as Feingold described it, getting the nation into war without adequate military preparation and for issuing misleading public statements. The resolution also would cite Vice President Dick Cheney and perhaps other administration officials.

The second measure would seek to censure Bush for what the Democrat called a continuous assault against the rule of law through such efforts as the warrantless surveillance program against suspected terrorists, Feingold said. It would also ask for a reprimand of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and maybe others.

"This is an opportunity for people to say, let's at least reflect on the record that something terrible has happened here," said Feingold, D-Wis. "This administration has weakened America in a way that is frightful."

At the White House, spokesman Trey Bohn said, "We realize that Senator Feingold does not care much for the president's policies."

Liberals vow to block continued Iraq funding

Two comments:

1) No one ever said that the war would be paid for out of Iraqi oil money. It was said that Iraqi oil money would pay for the rebuilding of Iraq from the horrors of decade of Baathist brutality and the damages from the war.

2) This is helpful as it is a list of all those individuals who believe that we should abandon the Iraqi people to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Liberals Vow to Block Continued Iraq Funding
The Politico

Seventy House Members, nearly all liberal Democrats, vowed today that they would not support any more funding for Iraq military operations unless tied to a complete withdrawal of combat troops.

This is a big development. Earlier this year, liberals grudgingly voted for Iraq funding bills because they didn't want to give Nancy Pelosi a defeat. Now it seems that their patience has run out.

The next Iraq funding bill won't come up until the fall, so this showdown won't happen for a few months, but it appears to be shaping up as an epic battle between liberals in Congress and President Bush. This may be the beginning of the end for the Iraq War.

The liberals' full letter to Bush:

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt (NJ); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank (MA); Rep. Danny Davis (IL); Rep. John Conyers (MI); Rep. John Hall (NY); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep. Paul Hodes (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn (MD); Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY); Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL); Rep. James McGovern (MA); Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson (IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ); Rep. John Olver (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA); Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty McCollum (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA); Rep. Artur Davis (AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne (NJ); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO); Rep. John Lewis (GA); Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore (WI); Rep. Keith Ellison (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI); Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott (GA); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

They still think it's about oil?

Tim Grieve somehow still thinks that Iraq is about the oil. Right. We spent half a trillion dollars when we could have bought all of Iraq's oil for a hundred billion dollars and now we're letting upwards of 95% of it go to other countries. If this is a war from oil, why haven't we gotten any?

Grieve is correct that the intentions of neoconservatives have been transparent right from the start. They even put up a website and made it clear what they wanted. They felt, and still feel, that having a free, liberal democracy in Iraq would take the region from tyrannical dictators intent on annihilating the Israelis and instituting a world-wide caliphate and spread free, liberal democracy to everyone.

"Sex Ed" for Kindergarten

When Barack Obama is talking about sex education for kindergarten aged children, what is he talking about? Recent quotes make it appear as though he's talking about teaching children how to avoid pedophiles and what is inappropriate behavior from adults. This doesn't really strike me as "sex ed" so much as teaching the children how to avoid societal dangers. Teaching children that they should report "inappropriate touching" and what types of touching is inappropriate doesn't strike me as more problematic than teaching them to look before crossing the street or wear a helmet while biking.

Sex Ed for Kindergartners? Romney-Obama Debate Heats Up
Romney Asks, 'How Much Sex Education Is Age Appropriate for a 5-Year-Old?
ABC News

When Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama reaffirmed to Planned Parenthood this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten, Republican Mitt Romney saw an opening -- and he pounced.

"I was governor four years,' said Romney. "I never had one person coming to me and say, 'You know what, governor, I'm concerned about something.' What's that? 'I'm concerned about sex education. I'm concerned my kids aren't learning enough about sex.' I never heard that."

Romney may have never heard that because Massachusetts -- the state where he served as governor from 2003 to 2007 -- has a decidedly progressive sex education curriculum. Under the state's non-binding framework, school districts can begin working towards the state's sex education goals as early as pre-kindergarten.

By the end of the fifth grade, it not only encourages schools to teach children the basics about puberty and the reproductive system, it also encourages them to know how to define "sexual orientation using the correct terminology (such as heterosexual, and gay and lesbian)." Before the end of fifth grade, the Massachusetts framework also aims to teach children about inappropriate touching.

Robert Byrd should shut up

While I certainly understand anger at the despicable torture that is dog fighting, for obvious reasons Robert Byrd shouldn't be the one talking about executing Michael Vick.

Michael Vick Dogfighting Case Makes Way to Floor of U.S. Senate
Fox News

Richmond, Va. - The Michael Vick dogfighting case made its way to the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday when its most senior member publicly declared his outrage, saying he's witnessed one execution but wouldn't mind seeing another "if it involves this cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic business of training innocent, vulnerable creatures to kill."

The strong words from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, widely known for his devotion to animals, come as dogfighting controversy swirls around the Atlanta Falcons star quarterback. Vick and three others were indicted earlier this week on felony charges of competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting, and conducting the enterprise across state lines.

The dogs were housed, trained and fought at a property owned by Vick in Surry County, Va., under an outfit named "Bad Newz Kennels," the indictment says.

Among the grisly findings: Losing dogs either died in the pit or were electrocuted, drowned, hanged or shot. The indictment said purses climbed as high as $20,000 for fights.

Byrd called the activities described in the Vick case "sadistic" and "barbaric." At one point, Byrd began shouting and pumping his fist.

"Barbaric!," he yelled. "Let that word resounding from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, and valley to valley across the broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric!"

At least he's being honest!

You have to give it to Sen. Obama. He's being honest. at least he's willing to step up to the plate and admit that he's cool with an Iraqi genocide.

He is right, though, we absolutely should be intervening in the Congo and in Darfur. Of course, he's saying that sarcastically because he's cool with standing by and hoping you can talk the sick and twisted killers who have murdered hundreds of thousands of Darfuri into stopping. At least, though, you have a Democrat who's willing to stand up and say, "We have the power to stop genocide and frankly it's just not worth it." The moral vacancy of this position notwithstanding, he does get points for honesty.

It's a worthwhile debate and it's sickening that the rest of the democrats - who are either morally vacant or whose ignorance shows unimaginable incompetence - aren't willing to stand up and say that no, it's not worth the lives of a few thousand Americans to ensure that millions or Iraqis or Africans aren't slaughtered.

White House Hopeful Barack Obama Says Preventing Genocide Isn't Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq
Fox News

Sunapee, New Hampshire - Democratic president hopeful Barack Obama said the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is not a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

No surprise here

A great analysis by the non-partisan group Factcheck.org was published yesterday, looking at the IFAF attack against Rudy Giuliani. Not surprisingly, factcheck.org finds that the ad is full of misstatements, half-truths, and lies. Also not surprisingly, Rudy's statements about the makeup of the IFAF, that it is a political hack organization that is a shill for the Democratic Party, were found to be spot-on. Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the president of the union is a long-time Democratic Party operative and has donated large amounts of his own money to numerous Democrats and has even done the honor of introducing a Democrat at a fundraiser.

I don't see the problem...

Michigan's Supreme Court has finally gotten around to running on a decade-old law requiring IDs to vote. I don't see the problem with asking people to produce an ID, particularly in a situation where photo IDs can be obtained for free and where you can just sign an affidavit stating that you do not have an ID.

Part of the right to vote is the right to ensure that your vote is counted and counted with equal weight. The current system, while voting fraud isn't demonstrably rife, allows the appearance of impropriety. The problem isn't the zombie vote; the problem is the ease with which someone can walk into the poll, glance down at the book, pick out a name and vote as a legitimate voter. Our current system is based on the principal that we have no unscrupulous people, which seems an odd assumption to make.

What would this do, again?

Bruce Fein comes up with some interesting suggestions regarding regulation of the executive privilege that was instituted in United States v. Nixon and exercised by the Administration in conjunction with the Valerie Plame investigation, the Cheney energy policy report early in the first term, and the investigation into the dismissal of the U.S. Attorneys by the Administration. The most interesting comment, though, is his criteria for denying Congress access to information and upholding executive privilege:

"In addition, Congress should enact a statute stipulating that executive privilege should yield to congressional oversight unless Congress were to expose presidential advice for the sake of exposure - an act of political voyeurism."

So, if Congress is trying to expose a crime that took place, the executive privilege would not apply. If Congress is, say, trying to engage in a political fishing investigation to drum up political points when no crimes took place - like, for instance, if a CIA analyst's name is leaked to the newspapers or the Vice President writes a document setting out suggested energy policy or the Administration exercises its Constitutional authority to remove U.S. Attorneys - then the privilege would be upheld and Congress's request would be denied.

Do I have a fever?

I hate that I am about to say this, but I think Dianne Feinstein is right on the money. A report on anti-gang strategy in the United States was released, which makes the ludicrous proposition that prosecuting gang violence makes it worse. Instead, the report suggests that "intervention" policies be put in place. Dianne Feinstein's spokesman points out the comprehensive approach the Senator, in association with Orin Hatch, is proposing: a bill which would step up enforcement while providing hundreds of millions of dollars towards gang prevention and intervention programs. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to see that there needs to be a comprehensive approach to the problem, but the writers of the report seem to think that any enforcement action is harmful.

The true shame, however, is that Feinstein, Hatch, and the rest of the anti-war crowd are too focused on futile idiotic political statements to actually try to get legislation passed which would have bipartisan support and would actually help.

Who's obstructing what?

The Democrats issued an accusation of Republican obstruction during their idiotic all-nighter. The Republicans, apparently, are being obstructionist in their unwillingness to break their filibuster of the Democratic endeavor to ignore all the good news coming from Baghdad, Anbar, and Diyala. The Democrats know how the process works; they used Senate filibusters during their time in the minority to block enough judicial appointments that they understand that you need 60 votes in the Senate to make anything happen. They have 53. Even if they were magically able to get 60 votes, they still have to withstand a veto. Thus, they really need 67 total votes. That isn't going to happen in anyone's world.

What, then, are the Republicans obstructing? An inevitable veto?

More importantly, though, is what else is getting done during this stunt: nothing.

We still have a crippled domestic auto industry; we still have a devastating problem with social security; we still have a poverty rate in this country which is around 18%; we still have villages being razed in Darfur; we still have 15% of the population without any sort of health care; we still have massive shortages of nurses, special education teachers, and computer specialists; we still have a $375 billion gap between what people are required to pay in taxes and what they do pay; we still have the alternative minimum tax which is bearing down full-speed on more and more Americans; we still have millions of illegal immigrants in our country and thousands more coming in every day; we still have a murder rate among the highest in the developed world; we still have Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons. In short, we still have enough serious problems facing the country that we could try to do something about, that both sides could agree on, but which are being ignored so that the Democrats can put on their little pony show.

Military Experts: U.S. Pullout Yields "Ever Greater Carnage"

The Washington Post prints a report regarding what would happen if the United States prematurely pulls out of Iraq. The most critical prediction is, as always, that if the United States pulls out precipitously "ever greater carnage is inevitable." Of course, the phrase "ever greater carnage" is a nicer way of putting "genocide."

What Happens If U.S. Leaves Iraq?
ABC News

What would happen if U.S. combat forces left Iraq? President Bush argues that al-Qaeda and Iran would take over and that terrorists would then use the country as a launching pad for attacks on the United States.

But the Washington Post reports most military experts disagrees with that scenario.

According to recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military, the most likely outcome of a U.S. withdrawal is that the central government would fall apart and Iraq would effectively split into three separate nations.

But what is "perhaps most striking about the military's simulations" for Iraq after a U.S. pullout is that they do not focus on "the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq."

Civil war and increased violence are widely anticipated, however, with some military officers contending that whether Iraq splits apart or outside actors take over, "ever greater carnage is inevitable."

The Post cautions, though, that all the scenarios should be taken with a grain of salt given the accuracy of past U.S. predictions about Iraq.

PC at what cost?

Unsurprisingly, the racist requirement that adoptees need be placed with same-race adoptive parents is causing problems placing children into adoptive households in the United Kingdom. Operating under the insane assumption that a child is better off in an orphanage than being placed at a very young age in a loving household with parents of a different race has caused the United Kingdom's foster care system to become over-burdened with minority children, particularly those from southern Asia, the Middle East, and from Africa. In a country with such stark racial disparities in income, it should come as no surprise that there is a prevalence of ethnically minority children in foster care and a disproportionately low number of adoptive parents available.

Of course, the darling BBC might point out the problem and call on more minority parents, already disproportionately poor and likely less capable of adding another member to their house, to apparently do their part in adoptions but don't expect them to suggest that perhaps this racist policy isn't in the best interests of the kids. No, that level of journalistic integrity - questioning the basic assumptions behind the program - are apparently beyond the BBC, who go to great lengths to quote an adopted child, a member of the government, and two members of adoption-oriented charities but all four agree: as bad as living in a foster care system may be, it obviously would be worse to live with loving parents who "look different."

Plea for ethnic minority adopters
BBC News

Three black or Asian children are vying for adoption into every home that has adopters of a similar background, a charity says.

Jean Smith, from the NCH children's charity, told BBC Asian Network more ethnic minority adopters were needed.

She said placing children from ethnic minorities with white parents often left them without a sense of cultural and religious identity later in life.

There are about 80,000 children in care in the UK. About 10,000 of these are
black, Asian or of mixed heritage.

In the 1970s, many ethnic minority children were adopted into white families, but today the care system tries to make cultural and racial matches.

However, because of the shortage of prospective parents from non-white communities, black and Asian children can wait a long time to be placed.

The Asian Network examined the issue in a special report called "Why Are We Waiting?", part of the BBC's Family Wanted series.

Why Brits Don't Feel Safe At Home

The reason Brits don't feel safe at home is because they know that their home invasion rate, like the rest of the disarmed First World, is much too high and is much higher than that of the "crime-ridden" United States.

Third 'keep anti-intruder weapon'
BBC News

Almost a third of UK householders keep items like golf clubs, cricket bats and heavy torches in case intruders enter their homes, a survey has suggested.

And more than half of them said they were prepared to use these objects, the poll of 4,000 people for the insurance company Cornhill Direct said.

It also reported that only one in five feels safe in their own homes at night.

But the most recent British Crime Survey found that burglaries had fallen by 3% in England and Wales.

The number which had been reported to police fell by 7% in the year to 2005-6.

What's a flip-flop?

Senator John Kerry accused Governor Mitt Romney of being a flip-flop, still oblivious to any understanding as to what the term might mean and why his adherence to its principles doomed his presidential aspirations.

Kerry: "I actually voted against the funding bill before I voted for it."

Romney: "After a great deal of personal reflection, I revised my position on abortion."

There's a definite difference between the Kerry/Hillary method of licking a finger, holding it to the wind, and picking a position du jour compared to Romney having a deep, personal reflection and deciding that he had different opinions on important topics. The difference is - you can very clearly tell where Romney is on a position: he originally felt that abortion should be a private decision, but changed his mind and now believes that it should be regulated by the government. You can never tell about Kerry or Hillary: they voted for the war, voted alternately for and against funding the war, voted alternately for and against supporting specific strategies, have made statements alternately accusing the military of being corrupt and commending their bravery, etc.

The "flip-flop" tag is a legitimate one to apply to the individuals who, like Kerry and Hillary, try to change their position in order to conform to a particular crowd. If they both were originally pro-war and are now anti-war, that's fine. It's the tap-dance they've done int he intervening years where they wander back-and-forth across an imaginary line depending on the audience that earns them their title.