Chris Dodd is still running?

Ummm - what is Chris Dodd on?

His plan for Iraq? Ethnic cleansing. At least that's a touch better than Obama's "I'm cool with genocide" plan.

His plan for energy reduction? 50 MPG average for cars in 2017. Why stop at 50? If you're going to start making up impossible engineering challenges, why not just dictate that all cars must run by turning household trash into neatly pressed twenty dollar bills? I do want to point out, though, that he personally drives a frickin' SUV. Why he needs a 25 MPG SUV when apparently the rest of us should be driving around in golf carts is beyond me. I also love that he says that they're "moving to the energy-efficient light bulbs." Say he has 30 bulbs in his house. They're about $3 each and take about 20 seconds to install. For $100 and a half hour's work, he could replace every bulb in his house. What's he mean by "moving to..."? Oh, and he has "storm windows". That's good of him. Good to see he's really taking the fight to the streets.

Things I'd like to see these guys who are preaching environmental consciousness to do:

1. Swap out every light bulb possible at home with a compact fluorescent, LED, or other low-wattage light bulb.
2. Drive an American-made, union-built car which gets over 30 miles per gallon.
3. Install energy efficient furnaces, programmable thermostats, and high-quality insulated walls, doors, and windows.
4. Use more energy efficient lawn care equipment such as push mowers and engines which comply with the most recent EPA standards.
5. Live in a modestly sized home.

These items don't cost much money and, in fact, are usually more cost effective than the alternative. Dodd is trying to cripple the auto industry and put hundreds of thousands, perhaps, millions, of Americans out of jobs with his ridiculous 50 MPG desire. If he's going to destroy that many lives, is it too much to ask that he spend $100 and a half an hour to replace all of his light bulbs.

Chris Dodd pushes the energy envelope
Salon

Chris Dodd hasn't been out front on environmental issues during his 32 years in Congress, but he's clearly aiming to outgreen his competitors in the 2008 presidential campaign. He has earned props in environmental circles for being the only candidate with the political cojones to call for a corporate carbon tax as a way to fight global warming, and for endorsing a strict fuel-economy standard that would require new cars and trucks to get 50 miles per gallon by 2017, Dodd even ran what was billed as the first presidential candidate ad focused on global warming.

This senator from Connecticut isn't gaining a big boost in popularity from his aggressive environmental stances; he's hovering at 1 to 2 percent in the polls. But will he raise the bar for a strong green agenda in the 2008 presidential race? I called Dodd at his Senate office to find out how much substance there is behind his bold proposals.

Everybody's got the goals right: We're all for energy independence, for dealing with global warming, for increasing job opportunities in the country. The difficulty breaks down in how do you get there. If you're going to be truly be effective in reaching those goals, you've got to be very candid about you how get there.

Two things...

Two points regarding this commentary:

1. The possession, use, production, or distribution of marijuana is illegal in the United States. Period. If you want to change the law, change the law. Until that happens, though, these "medical marijuana" arguments that we need to help people before drugs clear the FDA are ridiculous. Why just apply this standard to marijuana and not any other drug? Why not release cancer-fighting drugs before they're fully tested? How about weight-reduction drugs? Both of these could potentially save huge numbers of drugs while the only "medical" application of marijuana is that it makes you hungry and feel good. We're not talking about saving people's lives, so why have a different standard from medicines which do save lives?
2. The suggestion that Federal agents be banned from enforcing federal law is ridiculous as well, particularly in light of the California pot den they raided last year. This facility, which operated under California's authority, was issuing and accepting fraudulent prescriptions, selling illegally produced and smuggled drugs, and had numerous unlicensed firearms - including a fully automatic assault rifle - on its premises. If the Feds can't raid this place, who can they raid?

Medical Marijuana: What's the Point?
Reason Magazine

Hit & Run commenters sometimes express skepticism about the medical marijuana movement, saying either that it's a cover for people who want to get high or that it concedes too much by acknowledging the government's authority to dictate who may use which drugs for what purposes. Since the House of Representatives is expected to vote today on the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would bar the DEA from spending money on raids, seizures, and arrests aimed at stopping the medical use of cannabis in states where it's legal, now is a good time to recall why this cause is important:

1. The basic right to control one's body and the substances that enter it surely includes the right to use marijuana (or any other home remedy) for symptom relief, even that is not all it includes.
2. The DEA's medical marijuana raids violate the Constitution, which gives states the authority to decide their own policies regarding intrastate production, sale, and consumption of marijuana. As Justice Clarence Thomas has noted, a reading of the Commerce Clause that's broad enough to encompass a marijuana plant on a cancer patient's windowsill in California is broad enough to encompass just about anything. More narrowly, it's hard to imagine how serious experiments with drug policy reform can occur as long as the federal government insists on imposing one uniform set of rules on the entire country.

Biden's opinion versus everyone else's

Senator Biden says General Patraeus is "dead flat wrong" on Iraq, suggesting that there is "no security in Baghdad or Anbar Province."

What I find odd is that Biden, who has previously said that "victory in Iraq would be a problem for [Democrats]", is pretty much the only one I can find of repute that has that opinion. Dozens of individuals who have come back, from the military leaders to political leaders to journalists, both Republicans and Democrats, both supporters of the war and opponents of it have all pretty much been in agreement that there's been dramatic improvement in the security situation.

Biden: Petraeus 'dead flat wrong' on Iraq
MSNBC

WASHINGTON - President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and offer recommendations about the course of war strategy.

Call their bluff

There's some vitriol in Florida over the DNC's threats to unseat any Florida delegation elected in January. Of course, the DNC is trying to protect the anti-democratic institutions which allow Iowa and New Hampshire to pretty determine the national candidate. Florida, however, does have an option. Change the state law so that the name for the candidate which is put on the ballot is not the national convention winner but rather the winner of the state's primary. If the votes of Floridians aren't going to count in the national convention, why should the national convention's votes count when Floridians choose their choice for our next president?

Forewarned but Angry, Florida Democrats Weigh Primary Penalty
New York Times

MIAMI - The anger coursing lately through Democratic circles in Florida feels unlike any since the presidential recount of 2000.

This time, though, the object of wrath is the Democratic National Committee, which voted last month to punish Florida harshly for moving up its presidential primary to January. Under pressure from the four states permitted to hold contests that month, many Democratic candidates have pledged not to campaign in Florida and other states that break party rules.

Baring a compromise, none of Florida's delegates can be seated at next summer's party convention, which means the state Democratic primary will essentially count for nothing. Florida Democrats are calling it a cruel irony, not least because their party has worked doggedly to restore public confidence in the electoral process since 2000.

"The D.N.C. apparently wants us to campaign on the slogan of "Make sure not a single vote counts,' " said State Senator Steven A. Geller, the minority leader. Incensed by the sanctions, even though he knew they were possible when he voted in May to change the primary date, Mr. Geller scrapped plans to endorse former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and is urging against donating to the national committee or to candidates who avoid campaigning here.

Long-winded and nonsensical

God, this article goes on and on, but the basic point remains: the supposition of the argument is that withdrawing troops from Iraq will "end the war" when, in fact, this would be the means for the largest escalation in fighting and the process through which the most civilians would die.

Can Lobbyists Stop the War?
The New York Times

One weekday morning in mid-July, perhaps two dozen liberal organizers gathered around a conference table in an office building on Washington's K Street. Their mission: American withdrawal from Iraq. In one sense, the location was unlikely; K Street is a symbolic address, like Madison Avenue or Fleet Street, in this case representing the capital's thriving industry of trade associations and corporate lobbyists. Yet this was a group of mostly young progressives drawing meager salaries who had no ties to corporate America. Still, the venue was not inappropriate. Those arranged around the table represented the new face of the antiwar movement - now one of Washington's most vigorous single-issue lobbies.

The purpose of the meeting was the daily conference call conducted by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of activists, policy outfits and labor unions brought together this year by MoveOn.org, was the 3.4-million-member-strong liberal advocacy group, which was convinced that Democrats on Capitol Hill needed help to end the war. By the end of this month, Americans Against Escalation will have spent $12 million on a combination of grass-roots organizing, polling and television advertisements in order to get the United States out of Iraq.

Tom Matzzie, the group's campaign manager, was in charge. Only 32 years old, Matzzie is a rising star of the resurgent progressive movement. Neither bohemian nor slick technorat, Matzzie is an Italian-American guy who grew up in Mount Lebanon, a middle-class suburb of Pittsburgh. Apart from his attire - on this day, a pink dress shirt and pin-striped suit pants - he wouldn't seem out of place at a Steelers tailgate party; he's heavyset, bearded and his terse speech can have a gruff edge. He is also a sharp political analyst with a gift for spin and broad strategic thought. When I first met him he illustrated his idea of how to force Republicans to end the war by sketching into my notebook a diagram of something called Bernoulli's principle, which describes the relationship between pressure and speed in the movement of fluids.

An A.A. E. I. staff member began the conference call, which connects the group with advisers and activists around town and around the country, by summarizing the morning's key war-related headlines. A suicide bombing in Kirkuk that left 85 people dead drew an audible sign from somewhere in the room. Then the conversation moved to the war votes scheduled in the Senate that day, including an amendment to a military spending bill sponsored by John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, resolving that America won't allow Iraq to become a failed state and a haven for terrorists.

Thank you, Professor Obvious

Make more-work for European scientists sucking at the public teat: two-year-old humans are smarter than chimps and orangutans.

Glad to see that European anthropologists and social scientists are tackling such important scientific issues instead of irrelevancies such as how to integrate diverse cultures into European society, how to improve education, or how to reduce poverty.

Shock: kids smarter than chimps
News.com Australia

IN another case of researchers reporting the bleeding obvious, European scientists have found that children are smarter than chimpanzees.

A unique study comparing the abilities of human toddlers to chimpanzees and orang-utans found that two-year-old children have social learning skills superior to the apes, the researchers said.

In one social learning test, a researcher showed the children and apes how to pop open a plastic tube to get food or a toy contained inside. The children observed and imitated the solution.

Chimpanzees and orang-utans, however, tried to smash open the tube or yank out the contests with their teeth.

KC trying something new

Kansas City schools is trying a new process: eliminating middle school and having students from kindergarten through 8th grade all in the same school.

I love these sorts of pilot programs. They're brilliant ideas and it is great to be trying something different. These sorts of programs, though, would be better served if they were being conducted by the Federal Department of Education. I tend not to be a fan of Education on a Federal level, but one area they can do better than local areas is wide-spread research and development. Education has not changed much in the last 50 years, mainly because it is the only industry where there is no concerted effort to develop and rigorously test new methodology. Things like this are moving in the right direction. A federal umbrella over these programs would improve communication and information sharing, allow for better comparisons and controls, and thus would improve education for all students.

The Future of Education?
ABC News

The Kansas City, Mo., school superintendent believes he has found the wave of the future in education: Eliminate middle school and test scores will go up.

For 50 years, the model for American public schools has been elementary school, the middle school and then high school.

But Kansas City, Mo., is eliminating the middle schools in favor of a single "elemiddle" school that will go from kindergarten through eighth grade. There, students in all grades stick with one teacher for the most of the day, so older kids will not switch classrooms for every subject as in the practice in middle schools.

"You're in a nurturing environment," said Kansas City School Superintendent Anthony Amato. "You don't see as many teachers as you would in a large environment, [such] as a middle school 1,000 students."

Wait, how much was that again?

Buried in an AP article about the Michigan budget crisis is the Democrat's real desired solution: either raise income taxes by 18% or raise sales taxes by 17%. Perhaps it's just me, but the idea of nearly of 20% increase taxes makes me wonder if this is really where we need to go.

Perhaps there are other options:

1) Repeal Michigan's Prevailing Wage Law. Currently in Michigan it is illegal for an employer who is working on state projects to pay less than Michigan's set "prevailing wage", even if the worker is willing to take less and even if the total cost of the contract is significantly less. How much do these increase wages? Drywall tapers, for example, will make over $40 an hour in some counties under the law. General laborers can make over $37 an hour. Plasterers can make over $42 an hour under the law. I'd expect that if you were going to build a house for a private individual, you can get someone to do the drywall taping for quite a bit less than $40 an hour.

2) Move road funding to users fees. The individuals who use roads should be the ones to pay for them. Identifying which roads could benefit from either privatization or, at least, a move to toll roads could save the general fund significant money which is being diverted towards road and bridge work that should be paid for by dedicated funds.

3) Competitively bid-out more services the government uses. Janitorial, IT, accounting, HR - whatever nonessential service functions which are utilized by the state that can be out-sourced should be considered for out-sourcing. Private companies can do the job cheaper, more efficiently, and more effectively than the state so we should leverage that advantage as much as possible.

Legislators miss ballot deadline, budget stalemate continues
Detroit News

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Hours of closed door meetings and rare displays of public pressure on Thursday failed to resolve Michigan's state government budget crisis.

The state Senate adjourned shortly after 10 p.m. without any deal being reached to fill an estimated $1.7 billion shortfall in the budget year that starts Oct. 1. The House stopped voting shortly after 11:15 p.m.

Thursday was the deadline for placing any part of a money-raising plan before Michigan voters in November.

House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, blamed each other for the stalemate and a looming, possible shutdown of state services.

Dillon said he proposed a plan that would include an income tax increase and a sales tax on services, followed by a tax-related ballot initiative that would be decided by Michigan votes in November. Bishop rejected the plan, saying it was unconstitutional and too complicated.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

The title to this Salon hit-job really ticks me off. The title, "Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction" conflicts in its entirety with the argument presented in the article: that President Bush was presented with information that said Saddam did not have weapons - some of which, I might add, we have found as well as the knowledge and capability to continue making - but he, and probably the head of the CIA did not believe to be accurate. Believing that the source wasn't to be trusted and, thus, that his assertion that Iraq had no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons is also not to be trusted is the exact opposite of knowing "Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction." A correct title would be, "Bush trusted wrong CIA sources on Saddam WMD" or "Bush discounted accurate CIA sources on Saddam WMD." The title that was given, however, is ridiculous.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Sidney Blumenthal for Salon

On Sept. 8, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the house of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have a WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Must Read

The Daily Mail today has a story about a woman who will have her baby taken by the government. The reason? Several years ago, after being brutally raped by a serial rapist, she spent some time in a mental hospital. Despite being cleared by a psychiatrist and having a second one write a letter of recommendation on her behalf, local authorities in the U.K. are trying to seize the baby at birth and turn her over to foster parents and eventually for adoption. Despite never having a history of harming another individual, and despite having no psychiatrist or physician say that she's likely to harm her child after examining her, the social services in Northumberland assume she's going to suffer from Munchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy, wherein a caregiver intentionally induces illness or the appearance of illness in a child or disabled or elderly person in their care.

I don't think I can say anything that isn't already there. It's a pretty disturbing, frightening look at the nanny-state run unbelieveably amuck.

My baby will be taken from me the moment it's born
The Daily Mail

The daughter of teachers and with a glimmering academic future, Fran was delighted when she became pregnant. But social services discovered the illness she thought she'd put behind her - and will confiscate her daughter when she is born...

Fran Lyon is due to give birth to her first child - a daughter she has already named Molly - on January 3. But the prospects, far from being one of joyous anticipation, fills her with a dread that keeps her awake at night.

It's not because Fran doesn't want the child. She does. Desperately. And not because she is frightened of the pain of labour. She is prepared for that.

It is what happens afterwards that fuels Fran's anxiety. And there can be no preparation for that pain.

For within 30 minutes of birth, barring any medical complications, Molly will be handed by doctors to social workers. They have instructions to take away Fran's newborn baby and place her in foster care.

Obama's more qualified for President because he served in state government...?

Senator Barack Obama has come out and indicated that despite his 2 1/2 years as a Senator, he's more qualified than either Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards because he's spent more time in elected office. Technically, he has, but this is far from reassuring...

Am I the only one concerned that the three top candidates for the Democratic nomination have, combined:

17 years in Federal legislative office
0 years in executive office at any level
0 years in legislative leadership experience at any level
0 years in party leadership experience at any level
0 years in military experience at any level
0 years in corporate management experience
0 years in ambassadorial positions

People talk about George W. Bush's lack of experience, but at least he was a two-term Governor, had run a company, and was a military officer (even if it was the National Guard, it is at least something). In comparison, Senator Clinton has 8 1/2 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend her. Senator Edwards has 6 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend him. Senator Obama has 2 1/2 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend him.

It just shocks me that other Democrats aren't doing better. There are dozens of current and former Democratic Governors, dozens of Democratic Senators and Congressmen with more than 8 years of experience, dozens of Democrats who were ambassadors, and a fair number of former Congressional leaders and former Executive department heads. Why aren't we even considering any of these much more qualified individuals?

For Obama, It's Now or Never
ABC News

ABC News' Jonathan Greenberger Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, said Wednesday that this may be his last change at running for president.

Asked if his '08 bid was just a strategic move to position himself for a run in 2012, Obama said he didn't think his wife would allow him to run again if it doesn't work out this time.

"Well, I'm not sure - I don't think my wife's going to let me do this twice. So let me be clear about that," Obama said while campaigning in Iowa.

Obama also sought to answer charges from his Democratic rivals that he is too inexperienced to be president, by pointing to his experience in the Illinois state legislature.

"I've been in elected office longer than John Edwards or Hillary Clinton," said Obama. "I've passed more bills I'm sure than either of them - certainly in the state legislative level."

(Sports) Quote of the Day

"We all know that ever since president Matt Millen stepped in the Lion's have gone 24-72. But did you know that they are 18-37 with [Joey Harrington] starting -- which is not great -- but just 6-35 without him?"

- Terry Foster, in today's Free Press

Olympic sprinting = torture, apparently

Kathy Rudy at the Atlanta Journal Constitution writes what is really a scathing defense of Michael Vick, despite her half-hearted appeals that she's "against dog fighting", by stating basically that the entire case is racist. Why is it racist? Because white people watch rodeo, horse racing, and dog racing, and those sports aren't illegal.

She's really making a comparison between a horse running for about a minute and a half and a dog fighting for its life for 40 minutes.

Sure, there's some nasty stuff that goes on in rodeos (most of which, personally, I need no deed to continue), and the prospects of former horse and dog race competitors is usually a humane death at an inhumanely young age, but to suggest that there's some sort of similarity between watching horses or dogs run around a track for a minute or two at a time and watching dogs or roosters fight each other to death over the course of nearly an hour is ridiculous.

The difference is not just that dog fighting and cock fighting are illegal, but the difference is that the purpose of dog and cock fighting (and bull fighting, bull and bear baiting, and dog/rat fights, etc) is to watch two animals try to torture each other to death. The entire training methods involved include torturing, starving, and beating the animals until they are willing to fight to the death. In racing, they run around the track. Yes, there's a change of injury to horses in horse racing; however, there are long lists of rules designed to prevent this. In dog fighting, the injury to the dog is the explicit goal of the fight.

This is like trying to compare the Olympics to ancient Roman gladiatorial matches.

White culture's hypocrisy about Vick
Atlanta Journal-Constitution

As a strong advocate of animal welfare, I despise dogfighting. I have worked in dog rescue for many years, and know firsthand that pit bulls are among the sweetest, most devoted animals on earth. The pit bulls used in the dogfighting ring operated from property owned by Atlanta Falcons star Michael Vick deserved a far better life.

Yet, I find what's happening with Vick, who pleaded guilty Monday to a felony charge, alarming.

We need to face the fact that dog fighting is not the only "sport" that abuses animals. Cruelty also occurs in rodeos, horse and dog racing (all of which mistreat animals and often kill them when no longer useful). There are also millions of dogs and cats we put to death in "shelters" across the country because they lack a home, and billions of creatures we torture in factory farms for our food.

Vick treated his dogs very cruelly; there is no question about that. But I see one important difference between these more socially acceptable mistreatments and the anger focused on Vick; Vick is black, and most of the folks in charge of other activities are white.

"Human Energy?" Try "Exploitation of the Poor."

What a surprise - yet another carbon offsetting program turns out to be a sham. The U.K.'s largest carbon offsetting company, Climate Care, is apparently offsetting CO2 expenditures by suing the same sham tactics exposed by others: they pay the poor to use backbreaking manual labor instead of diesel power, plant trees already set to be planted, and upgrade stoves already set to be upgraded.

It should come to no one's surprise that the carbon offsetting programs largely consist of exploiting the poor so that the rich can feel good about their excesses. Why bother taking a crowded commercial flight when you can fly a private jet and pay some poor Indian villager to engage in backbreaking labor instead of using a more efficient diesel engine?

The most strikingly abhorrent issue with the whole project is definitely the use of manual pumps, "human energy" in Climate Care's terminology, is that instead of running a diesel pump for a couple of hours a month, these individuals are spending several hours a day on manual pumps - time which could be spent with one's family, educating oneself, learning new skills, or planting more fields. In short, "human energy" is sapping the poor's ability to live a more worthwhile life and to work their way up from poverty.

But, hey, as long as the rich, liberal elites can fly on a private jet across the world for a ridiculous publicity stunt instead of flying commercial or - god forbid - skipping the trip altogether, I guess it's all worthwhile.

To cancel out the Co2 of a return flight to India, it will take one poor villager three years of pumping water by foot. So is carbon offsetting the best way to ease your conscience?
The London Times

When David Cameron flew to India to open a JCB factory for a party donor, green-thinking supporters could rest assured that his visit would be carbon neutral. "We are offsetting all our emissions through Climate Care," the Tory leader wrote on his blog. "As well as planting trees, they also invest in renewable energy projects in the developing world."

Somewhere in the Indian countryside, a farmer is about to repay Mr. Cameron's debt to the planet. Climate Care's latest enterprise is to provide "treadle pumps" to poor rural families so they can get water on to their land without using diesel power. The pumps are worked on by stepping on pedals. If a peasant treads for two hours a day, it will take at least three years to offset the CO2 from Mr. Cameron's return flight to India.

Climate Care, whose clients include the Prince of Wales, is the leading brand in the fast-expanding but unregulated field of offsetting, in which consumers pay to make good the energy they emit through travel or heating. Those businesses claim that they can negate pollution by planting trees or by paying for renewable power such as windmills or hydroelectrics.

Climate Care says that it has offset a million tonnes of carbon since it was founded ten years ago. It has just made the claim that it will sell enough offsets to neutralise 1 per cent of carbon emissions in Britain next year. But it was targeted last week by activists dressed as "red herrings", who delivered fish to its Oxford premises. "Climate Care are misleading the public, making them believe that offsetting does some good," said Joss Garman, a protester. "It's like being a member of the RSPCA then going home and kicking a dog."

We win?!?

Florida and Michigan are seeking to move their way up the primary schedule, and Michigan Democrats are not caving to pressure from party leaders.

I frequently don't have much nice to say about Carl Levin, but he's right on target with his strong support of this plan. The primary system is completely broken; the idea that two rural states are capable of shaping the entire tone of the debate is reprehensible. A new method of choosing the candidates is badly needed, one which is even more democratic.

The national parties are threatening to reduce the number of delegates at the national conventions. Should this happen, Michigan has a very potent weapon in its arsenal - it can change its election law to recognize the state primary winner as the state's candidate for President, not the winner of the national convention.

This is obviously is an extreme step; however, it is no more extreme than trying to silence the voice of the people of Michigan and Florida by denying them representation at the national convention. Should the national party attempt to deny Michigan a voice in the national conventions, then Michigan should act to deny the national conventions a voice in who gets on the Michigan ballots.

Dems not budging on early primary
Detroit Free Press

Top Michigan Democrats vowed Saturday to forge ahead with plans for a Jan. 15 presidential primary, despite announcements from two of the party's top candidates that they would skip the state because the date violates national party rules.

The names of all Democratic candidates will be on the Jan. 15 ballot, Gov. Jennifer Granholm said in a statement Saturday, and "we hope every candidate will campaign here."

U.S. Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards announced Saturday that they would not campaign in states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada with nominating contests before Feb. 5.

They joined New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and U.S. Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who made similar pledges Friday in response to the Legislature's approval Thursday of the Jan. 15 date and an earlier decision by Florida to hold its primary Jan. 29.

Debbie Dingell, who with U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has led efforts to challenge the position of such traditionally early states as Iowa and New Hampshire, said Saturday that the state party's commitment to the January date is irrevocable.

"Categorically, we are not going to back down," said Dingell, wife of U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn.

"We are firm in our resolve. (The candidates) can choose to campaign here or not, but their names are going to be on the ballot."

VW leaving Michigan

Volkswagen has decided to move their North American operations from Metro Detroit to suburban Washington D.C. The ostensible reason is to attract more highly skilled, younger workers. Apparently, moving from an area which has several high-class engineering universities with strict concentrations on automotive engineering - specifically, The University of Michigan, Kettering University, and Lawrence Technological University - to an area which has several high-class law universities which concentrate on politics is going to attract the type of people who will turn the company around.

I'm sure it makes sense to move your automotive company from the world's heart of automotive design, where every major worldwide manufacturer has a design shop, to the world's heart of political lobbyists. I'm sure it makes sense to move from the center of all U.S. suppliers to the center of all U.S. lawmakers. It makes perfect sense to me.

Now, we're not talking about any factories here. Volkswagen does not make any cars in the U.S. While it could be understandable to move a factory from the Union-heavy, anti-corporate environment of Michigan to a corporate-friendly Southern state, moving your American automotive corporate offices from the heart of the American auto industry makes no sense.

It's no secret that Volkswagen is having problems. They sell European-styled cars in the United States. They are constantly at the bottom in overall quality. They're significantly more expensive than their competitors at Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, GM, or Ford. They have had only one single inspiring car in the entire history of the company. How can they expect to attract customers.

You need to have something special about your product to compete in today's auto industry. Honda and Toyota trade on top-notch quality. Kia and Hyundai trade on their ridiculously low prices. General Motors and Ford go with a broad-scope attack, but concentrate heavily on a customer-focus appeal and inspiring styling. Volkswagen has precious litle and now they're jettisoning that in order to inexplicably move south.

Either way, let's just chalk it up to yet another major company leaving the state. Dow, Sears-Kmart, Comerica, Volkswagen...how many other states are having four companies as well-known as these moving their headquarters from their state.? On of these days, people in the state are going to realize that you can't have oppressive, over-regulated business practices and high taxes and have any chance at attracting companies to stay.

VW moving HQ out of Michigan
Detroit Free Press

Volkswagen AG is moving its North American headquarters from Michigan to northern Virginia to attract a younger skilled workforce.

"There is going to be a move," said Steve Keyes, a spokesman for Volkswagen of America. "Some people, not all, will be relocated to Virginia. But we will still have a presence here in Auburn Hills.

Keyes confirmed there will be a press conference in Herdon, VA at 10 a.m. today to announce the details of the move.

The German automaker has 1,600 employees at its Volkswagen of America offices in Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills. The Washington Post reported Thursday that the company will move about 400 jobs and invest about $100 million in a move to Herdon, Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C. The paper also reported that about 400 Detroit-area jobs would be eliminated leave 600 positions in Southeast Michigan.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who meat with VW of America President and Chief Executive Officer Stefan Jacoby in Lansing Wednesday evening, will make a statement about the apparent move at around noon.

Quote of the Day

"[Michigan] incarcerates at a rate of 40% higher than other Great Lake States, which have lower crime rates."

- Detroit Free Press Editorial today, apparently making the case that by releasing people from prisons, we will lower the crime rate in Michigan.

Norman Hsu, on the lam again!

It looks like Norman Hsu is again a fugitive after failing to show up for a hearing, skipping out on his bond, and failing to turn his passport over to either his legal team or to authorities. The Democrats to whom he donated money appear to have all pledged to give his contributions to charity. The real question, though, is why they're accepting tens of thousands of dollars from a man convicted of stealing millions of dollars from unsuspecting, trusting, prospective business partners. The Clinton campaign, in particular, for which Mr. Hsu raised over a million dollars, should have known that he was a convicted felon. Either her campaign was woefully negligent in checking the background of a major contributor or she knowingly took a million dollars from a felon. Whichever case is true, that doesn't exactly look good for someone who is running for President.

Democratic Donor a No Show at hearing
Associated Press

REDOOD CITY, Calif. - Disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu was a wanted man again after he failed to show up for a court date Wednesday and a judge issued a new warrant for his arrest.

Hsu, whose criminal past his roiled the campaigns of top presidential candidates, was scheduled to ask a judge to cut in half the $2 million bail he posted last week when he turned himself in after spending 15 years on the lam from a felony theft conviction.

Instead, San Mateo Superior Court Judge Robert Foiles ordered Hsu's bail forfeited to the county and issued a new arrest warrant. If Hsu is arrested again, he will be jailed bail this time.

Hsu, a Hong Kong native, was also supposed to turn over his passport Wednesday. Hsu's prominent Silicon Valley criminal defense attorney Jim Brosnahan said Hsu failed to give the passport to the legal team on Monday.

Not on the fence anymore

Pater Hyman at Slate has convinced me: It's long past time for Tiger Stadium to be torn down.

Tiger Stadium Must Go
Slate

On September 27, 1999, the Detroit Tigers beat the Kansas City Royals 8-2. The game was entirely inconsequential, except for the fact that the host stadium was to be retired at the game's conclusion, capping a run that dated back to 1896, when a Midwestern hay market was turned into a 6,000-seat ballpark. "The game is over," play-by-play man Ernie Harwell announced at contest's end. "Tiger Stadium is no more."

Harwell was only partly right. While professional baseball has not been played at Tiger Stadium since that day - franchise owner and pizza baron Mark Ilitch moved the team to shiny new Comerica Park in 2000 -the city-owned stadium still stands at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull, a deserted ruin of concrete and steel. Instead of being demolished immediately, Tiger Stadium has become the most prominent symbol of Democrat's post-industrial urban decay. Even now, as there's finally a firm deadline to demolish the stadium to make way for new homes and stores, a persistent group f wannabee do-gooders is making a last-ditch push to save the old ballpark. While their hearts are in the right place, in this instance logic must win out over nostalgia. It's time to tear the damn thing to the ground so that we can get on with our lives.

The Tiger Stadium that exists in the popular consciousness was born in 1938, when then-owner Walter Briggs Sr. expanded the existing park into a two-tiered monster that could hold more than 50,000 fans. This reconfiguration gave rise to what became the stadium's signature features: obstructed views, a center-field wall 440 feet fro home plate, and a rowdy upper-deck bleacher section that hung over the field of play. Like the assembly -line town it represented, the ballpark was more workmanlike than elegant - full of imperfections but entirely lacking in pretense.

The desire to preserve the great ballpark - the home of Hank Greenberg, Willie Horton, and Kirk Gibson, the place where the Tigers won the 1968 and 1984 World Series - is perfectly understandable. I was guilty of the same sentiment. The earliest memories involve toddling down to the stadium with my father to watch the Tigers and the Lions, who played at Michigan and Trumbull until their regret able move to the Silverdome in 1975. While Al Kaline was still in uniform during my initial years of inculcation, the sure-fielding Aurelio Rodriguez - the original "A-Rod" - was my first hero.

But stripped of these golden-hued memories, Tiger Stadium as it stands today is a sad relic. It is literally falling apart, despite the fact that the City of Detroit has spent several million dollars in maintenance since 1999. Various efforts to open the stadium to the public for one final walkthrough have been cancelled because the premises pose a safety risk. Some of the prized memorabilia - signage and locker room miscellany, mainly - that the city wants to auction off to raise money to offset demolition costs has already been hauled away by vandals. What remains is a hollow, neglected shell that serves only to tarnish both the club's legacy and its legends.

D.C. Takes Gun Battle to Supreme Court

D. C. attorneys are trying to get the Supreme Court to intervene in the city's goal of disarming law abiding, responsible citizens who are underserved by police, are surrounded by violence, and desire only the ability to defend themselves, their families, and their property.
It just disgusts me that politicians are willing to prohibit individuals from defending themselves, jettisoning the individual in the blind hope that it will help the whole and particularly in spite of evidence to the contrary. When gun laws are liberalized in the U.S., crime does not go up. Nations with more restrictive gun laws and similar cultures - Canada, Europe, etc. - have much higher rates of rape, home invasion, and petty theft.

Also, D.C. is a very small city surrounded by states which have much more liberal rules on gun ownership. Simply banning the legal ownership of handguns in the city is not going to have any effects; the guns could just as easily come from Baltimore or Richmond or elsewhere. The only thing it is doing, and the only thing that these laws ever do, is disarming the law abiding citizens who desire only self-defense. Gang members are going to get guns; violent criminals are going to get guns. Banning homeowners who want them only for self-defense is not going to impact the ability of the criminals to get them.

D.C. Takes Gun Battle to Supreme Court
ABC News

The District of Columbia appealed to the Supreme Court today, asking to uphold its decade-long ban on private ownership of handguns, paving the way for a possible Second Amendment showdown in the high court.

Attorneys representing D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned the Supreme Court in an effort to save the district's gun law, arguing that access to a handgun would be a direct threat to D.C. residents: "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die."

Part of the mayor's concern is that more handguns, even legal ones, would ultimately cause more problems. "The District of Columbia has too many handguns," Fenty said. "Putting more handguns, even quote-unquote legal ones, into the quote-unquote law-abiding citizens could get into the hands of people who are going to use them in the commission of crimes."

The petition asks the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling from earlier this year that struck down the D.C. gun ban.

So much hypocrisy

Lou Dobbs has penned an impassioned column for CNN which admonishes Mexican President Calderon for his apparent hypocrisy regarding illegal immigration. His charge of hypocrisy is based on Calderon's earlier statements that the difference between him and his opponent is that he believes in the "rule of law."

Dobbs does not take the charge far enough. A much better comparison is the plight of Central Americans who immigrate illegally to Mexico. Last year, the San Diego Union-Tribune had an article detailing the treatment of illegals in Mexico, where illegal immigration is treated as a felony. The hypocrisy is not the difference between Calderon's statements supporting the "rule of law" and his calls to respect the lawmakers in the U.S., but rather between the Mexican government's reprehensible treatment of illegals in Mexico and their demands for benighted treatment of illegals in the United States.

Dobbs: Mexican president's blatant hypocrisy
CNN

NEW YORK -- Mexican President Felipe Calderon Sunday demanded the United States surrender its sovereignty, abandon the rule of law and accede to Mexico's inherent supremacy.

In his state of the union address to the Mexican nation, Calderon established his imperialistic imperatives: "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights."

Calderon protested the United States government's increased raids on illegal employers of illegal alien employees and work site enforcement. In what is little more than a faint nod to the Bush administration's responsibility to enforce U.S. immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security had planned to send out notices to employers from the Social Security Administration informing them of non-matching records between an employees name and Social Security number. These employers would then be forced to resolve any discrepancy within 90 days or be required to dismiss the employee or face up to $10,000 in fines for knowing hiring illegal immigrants.

But then, ethnocentric advocacy groups and some labor unions, trying to bolster their membership, sued to stop the crackdown on hiring illegal alien workers. A federal judge in California last week issued a temporary restraining order blocking the plan, giving a victory to the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Immigration Law Center, all of which brought the suit alleging DHS exceeded its authority in making the rule.

We're cutting missile defense and spending it on what?

Our tax money at work. From the Federal Department of the Criminally Obvious, researchers funded by the National Science Foundation have determined that (surprise of surprises) men choose women based on appearance. They also determined that women focus on other traits, such as financial success, social status, health, and familial commitment. To top it off, women had a general idea of that men would be attracted to them and (who would have seen this coming) aimed for the men who would be most desirable but who would be "in their league."

It really sounds more like a few researchers got together, had few drinks, and came up with some sexist comments about both genders, wrote them up as a paper, and then filed for their grant money.

Study: Men Go for Good Looks
ABC News

Science is confirming what most women know: When given the choice for a mate, men go for good looks.

And guys won't be surprised to learn that women are much choosier about partners than they are.

"Just because people say they're looking for a particular set of characteristics in a mate, someone like themselves, doesn't mean that is what they'll end up choosing," Peter M. Toodd of the cognitive science program at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in a telephone interview.

Researchers led by Todd report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that their study found humans were similar to most other mammals, "following Darwin's principle of choose females and competitive males, even if humans say something different."

This is why people don't trust the Democrats with defense

The Democrat-run Armed Services Committees in both the House and the Senate have voted to cut funding dramatically from one of the missile defense shield programs. The Airborne Laser Program is designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles with direct shots from a huge laser placed in a large plane. This is designed to supplement the airborne interceptors, both the long-range and short-range, to provide an "umbrella" of missile defense. These are designed to defend against Iran or North Korea in case either develops the ability to attack us with a long-range nuclear weapon.

By slashing this budget, the program will be delayed for years, while North Korea continues its ballistic weapons program and Iran continues to defy U.N. nuclear inspectors. To top it off, many Democrats still don't understand why they're not trusted on defense. It might have to do with their efforts to divert money from protection against nuclear attacks to socialized medicine. Just a guess, though.

Budget Cut Will Delay Anti-Missile Laser
Associated Press

A Boeing Co. executive on Tuesday warned that proposed budget cuts by U.S. lawmakers could delay the completion of an anti-missile aircraft by two years.

Both the Senate and House Armed Services committees have slashed the president's fiscal 2008 proposed budget request of $549 million for the airborne laser program, or ABL, that will be used to thwart enemy missiles in the sky. In July, the House Appropriations committee agreed to a smaller cut of $51 million from the program.

Boeing and its teammates Northrop Grumman Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. are awaiting the Senate Appropriations committee to finalize its budget by the end of the month.

Greg Hyslop, a Boeing vice president, told reporters in a conference call that the level of cuts by both committees would delay the company's ability to complete the program by at least two years.

Hyslop said in order to stay on track it will need the full funding of the president's budget request.

Here's an idea - add more unskilled workers!

Apparently, the economic growth of the past 6 years has not resulted in net pay increases for the median American wage earner, according to a recent set of studies. Women have had their median pay net of inflation increase 4.7 percent in the past 6 years, men have had theirs increase 1.1 percent. Overall, this works out to about a 3 percent increase in net wages for median wage earners.

Benefits have increased pretty substantially in the period studied.

The main reason given by the article for the decline: "...workers' bargaining power has diminished during the period..."

This should be a self-evident situation: when workers' bargaining power is diminished, wages will fall. Think these results are bad? Imagine what would happen to bargaining power, particularly in the unskilled labor force, when several million new unskilled workers are added to the labor force through amnesty for illegal immigrants.

GDP growth not reaching paychecks
CNN

NEW YORK -- The economic expansion that began six years ago has failed to benefit most workers, according to a report from the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, released Monday.

Productivity growth, although slower of late, has been strong since 2000. After a sluggish start in the period, employment has picked up, although at a slower pace than in past recoveries. Yet, that growth hasn't transferred to workers' paychecks, particularly for workers at the lower and middle end of the pay scale, the report found.

After rising quickly in the second half of the 1990s, most workers real wages have been stagnant in the 2000s, especially since 2003.

While productivity jumped almost 20 percent since 2000, the real median hourly wage of all workers rose just 3 percent in the same period. Since 2003, productivity has risen 5 percent, while the median hourly wage fell 1.1 percent.

Time to stop drinking...

Perhaps it's just me, but if I woke up in someone else's lawn with my shoes on and my pants in the middle of an intersection some ways off, I'd consider giving up alcohol. If the pants had a $41,000 cashier's check in them, I'd never drink again.

Pants found on street with $41,000 check
CNN

WAUKESHA, Wisconsin (AP) - It was embarrassing enough that Mark Stahnke woke up in a neighbor's yard without his pants. Then he remembered they contained a cashier's check for $41,093, meant for his son, and several hundred dollars in cash.

But he got it all back Friday, including the pants, thanks to a man and his dog.

Stahnke said he doesn't know what happened between when he left the bar and when he woke up the next morning, and police were skeptical when he filed a report on Monday.

"We're used to hearing weird stories, but with his intoxication we figured this one would be different, that the amount of money wouldn't be exact," Police Lt. William Graham said. "How do you get so intoxicated that you lose your pants?"

Stahnke said he had met his son at a bar and doesn't remember much afterward.

"I woke up cold not knowing where the heck I was, and I didn't realize it at first because I still had my shoes and socks on," he said. "When I got up, I realized, my God, I don't have any pants."