Overheard locker tot outrage

The Herald Sun Reports:

Virgin Blue has sacked a male flight attendant and offered an angry mother free flights after her toddler was put in an overhead locker.

Natalie Williamson claims she, her 17-month-old son, Riley, and her now estranged husband were on a Virgin flight from Fiji to Sydney, when the flight attendant picked up Riley, placed him in the locker and closed the latch.

Virgin has admitted an incident did take place, but claims Ms Williamson's husband was playing a peek-a-boo game with Riley involving the overhead compartment when the flight attendant joined in.

"We conducted a thorough investigation of the incident and the staff member involved was subsequently terminated," a Virgin spokeswoman said.

The airline offered Ms Williamson three free flights, but the mother has said she is too shaken by the mid-air experience to redeem them.

"My husband, Shayne, was standing one metre behind my son, Riley, when the air steward picked him up and placed him in the overhead compartment," she said.

"I stood up and there were people laughing and then I said 'Get my son out of there now'," she told the Sunday Herald Sun.

"I was devastated. I was absolutely devastated.

"I was crying. My husband was in shock. For days on end I was crying."

Ms Williamson said Riley was locked in the compartment for up to 10 seconds in complete darkness.

"The manager on board came up to me later and said: 'I need you to complain, I need you to do something. Write or ring. Do whatever you can'," she said.

Ms Williamson said Riley, now 20 months, had seen various specialists since the incident after suffering from anxiety and withdrawal.

"He won't leave my sight now. He sleeps with me. If I'm not in the same room as him, he will scream and yell 'Mum, mum, mum'," she said.

Virgin said they took the incident seriously and had dismissed the flight attendant.

"The safety of our guests is our top priority and we do not tolerate any breaches of this," a spokeswoman said.

"We have expressed our sincere apologies to the guest and have provided them with a credit for the full amount of the two return flights."

America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html

Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a "day of rage" from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington's highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.

Washington's request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 and later – to America's chagrin – also funded and armed the Taliban.

But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain – even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.

The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi's armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.

Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi's strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato – not least from Republican members of Congress – to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.

US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya's functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi's opponents.

For several days now, US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya, making constant contact with Malta air traffic control and requesting details of Libyan flight patterns, including journeys made in the past 48 hours by Gaddafi's private jet which flew to Jordan and back to Libya just before the weekend.

Officially, Nato will only describe the presence of American Awacs planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Active Endeavour, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.

The data from the Awacs is streamed to all Nato countries under the mission's existing mandate. Now that Gaddafi has been reinstated as a super-terrorist in the West's lexicon, however, the Nato mission can easily be used to search for targets of opportunity in Libya if active military operations are undertaken.

Al Jazeera English television channel last night broadcast recordings made by American aircraft to Maltese air traffic control, requesting information about Libyan flights, especially that of Gaddafi's jet.

An American Awacs aircraft, tail number LX-N90442 could be heard contacting the Malta control tower on Saturday for information about a Libyan Dassault-Falcon 900 jet 5A-DCN on its way from Amman to Mitiga, Gaddafi's own VIP airport.

Nato Awacs 07 is heard to say: "Do you have information on an aircraft with the Squawk 2017 position about 85 miles east of our [sic]?"

Malta air traffic control replies: "Seven, that sounds to be Falcon 900- at flight level 340, with a destination Mitiga, according to flight plan."

But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.

After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.

Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.

If the Saudi government accedes to America's request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.

Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region.

Like Robert Fisk on The Independent on Facebook for updates

What's your priority?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq;_ylt=Atnmhg9ECt5u1Etu6f1zOfWs0NUE

In the attached news article, McCain points out the truism that removing troops from Iraq is less important than reducing casualties. Who would disagree that our primary goal in terms of troop levels should be minimization of casualties? He goes on to point out that withdrawing them is his goal but he doesn’t want to do it in a way that puts more of them at risk.

Two prominent Democrats disagree with this assertion: Joe Biden and Harry Reid. This is a time when having a VP nominee to go out and slam them would be great. This is the perfect time where someone should go out and say:

“Joe Biden and Harry Reid are simply echoing the irresponsible line from Barack Obama: that retreat from Iraq is more important than keeping American troops and Iraqi civilians safe. Apparently, having their Presidential nominee state that genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to get American troops home is not good enough for the Democrats. They now need other Democratic leaders to say that not only is genocide acceptable but sharp increases in American casualties is acceptable as long as we remove troops. This is unacceptable and naïve.

“The Democrats have been complaining for some time that people question their patriotism. When they come out and say such despicable garbage, when they say flat out that exiting Iraq is more important than keeping our troops safe, how can they not expect people to question their patriotism? Maybe they think that abandoning an ally begging for assistance to be patriotic. Maybe they think that putting civilians in the way of genocide is patriotic. Maybe they think that cutting off funding for troops in the field to make a political point is patriotic. Maybe they think that putting soldiers at needless risk for political gain is patriotic. Maybe they think that increasing American casualties is patriotic. I believe that most Americans would disagree.

“Let me be very, very clear on the topic. Joe Biden and Harry Reid should be deeply ashamed of themselves for their statements today indicating that safeguarding our troops should not be our top priority. The troops in the field of battle deserve better than to have their civilian leaders come out in public and say that their safety is not of tantamount priority.”

Notable Quotable

To summarize, Mrs. Clinton maximizes her chances of becoming president if she (1) does enough damage to Obama to snatch the nomination away from him, (2) failing that, does enough damage to him to bring about his defeat in November, and (3) gets herself on the ticket, whether he wins in November or not.

Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines Obama's chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while hoping your country loses a war, why can't you be a loyal Democrat while hoping your party loses an election?

-James Taranto, Wall Street Journal: Opinion Journal

Sen. Barack Obama says he clinched the nomination

BARACK OBAMA: Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled; millions of voices have been heard.

And how many were not heard ?

And because of what you said, because you decided that change must come to Washington, because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest, because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears, but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey…

Anyone else having a Qui-Gon Jinn vs. Yoda moment? "We must bring balance to the force..." "But the good guys are overwhelmingly winning....wait....."

(APPLAUSE)

… a journey that will bring a new and better day to America.

Because of you, tonight I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for the president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

But I want to thank — I want to thank all those in Montana and South Dakota who stood up for change today. I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign, through the good days and the bad, from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls.

Didn't Obama lose S. Dakota? Is he thanking the minority or is he thanking the majority who voted for Hillary? Or is he thanking them because in his mind he won it all?

And, tonight, I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for president.

At this defining moment, at this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for office.

I have not just competed with them as rivals. I've learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

Oh crap....these are the leaders?

And that is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

She has made history not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

Vince Foster has no comment...

I congratulate her on her victory in South Dakota, and I congratulate her on the race that she has run throughout this contest.

(APPLAUSE)

We've certainly had our differences over the last 16 months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago, what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady, what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency: an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.

That wasn't my impression of why Hillary gets up in the morning.

And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory.

Thank you...so is he pre-blaming it on her when that plan crumbles or when the plan succeeds and health care crumbles? Why is everyone so blindly lunging towards universal health care when there are so many examples how it DOESN'T work?

(APPLAUSE)

When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.

Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I'll say one thing, the Republicans are better off from Obama vs. Clinton :)

(APPLAUSE)

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well, I say that, because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time.

1. I can feel the unity among the Democrats
2. Aren't there Americans who cast their first ballot in every election? It happens when people turn 18....Obama-mania not withstanding...

(APPLAUSE)

There are independents and Republicans who understand this election isn't just about a change of party in Washington, but also about the need to change Washington.

There are young people, and African-Americans, and Hispanic- Americans, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

Umm...nothing about Asians?

(APPLAUSE)

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that…

(APPLAUSE)

You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing.

We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say: Let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

A future of running, hiding, surrendering, and sucking more than post-bastille France? Oh, don't forget pandering to dictators. No offense France.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically.

(APPLAUSE)

I honor, we honor the service of John McCain, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.

1. Passive aggressive much?
2. What accomplishments? He still hasn't named any?

(APPLAUSE)

My differences with him — my differences with him are not personal. They are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign, because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

I voted for George Bush twice. I'm sold. Thanks Barack, I'm set for McCain :)

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college, policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

How much of that mountain of debt is a lack of personal fiscal responsibility??

It's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians, a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.

Safer than a policy of genocide and turning the United States into a giant vi-jay-jay

So I'll say this: There are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new, but "change" is not one of them.

(APPLAUSE)

"Change" is not one of them, because change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.

I'm not even going to bother with that

(APPLAUSE)

I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years, especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

Or he is ignoring General Petraeus...?

(APPLAUSE)

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in, but we — but start leaving we must.

Careful genocide....as opposed to careless genocide? I suppose if you are going to let an entire people get wiped out you don't want to leave any stragglers...

It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care and the benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will second strengthening the military and better benefits for the VA. Since the government did such a crappy job, how about privatizing it?

(APPLAUSE)

It's time to refocus our efforts on Al Qaida's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.

1. A group that has no allegiance to a land is not restrained in said land...Just because the NY Times won't call it AQI, even when AQI says we're AQI, doesn't make it not AQI...
2. How are you going to fight terrorists if you won't fight terrorists? I'm going to start calling him Obama the Ostrich.
3. I vomited in my mouth a little.
4. I thought he was ok with genocide? Or is only genocide by disease he will fight. I suppose you can't negotiate without preconditions with a virus or a bacterium.
5. What is change? The threats are change? Rallying is change? Is it just that he is changing his mind on what he said before?

Change, Minnesota, is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy: tough, direct diplomacy, where the president of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for.

Tough, direct, diplomacy where the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know that they can have what ever they want without preconditions with a legitimized discussion with the president. Hell, maybe I should become a dictator...I don't even need to be "Terrible" or "Magnificent" or even "Corrupt"...all I need to hit is petty, and I can have an audience with the US. Hmm...I'll need to do something to get above "Apathetic", and I'll need to work on my oppression skills. And my nunchuk skills...

(APPLAUSE)

We must once again have the courage and the conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy. That's what the American people demand. That's what change is.

Umm...let's see....Invaded Europe, Nuked Japan, Invaded Cuba....All Obama is willing to invade is my bank account... If that's what the demand is, can someone check on how many US Soldiers were killed in combat actions directed by each of those Presidents?

(APPLAUSE)

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and the workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a middle-class tax break to those who need it, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation.

So why is he taking away my George Bush given tax break?? I am middle-class! I'm not one of the uber-wealthy like Sean & Tanya with their mansions (oh wait...), their fleet of expensive cars (oh wait...), their entourage of servants, all minorities of course (oh wait...), their champagne dreams and caviar wishes (well...they might have those) ;)

(APPLAUSE)

It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was president.

Umm...riding a boom that was already in motion? Why didn't I think of that....Obama you are s-a-m-r-t-er than me...

(APPLAUSE)

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy — cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota — he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

Kind of like when Obama came to Detroit (oh wait...) a suburb is close enough, right? It was close enough for Michael Moore since he grew up in Flint....right?

(APPLAUSE)

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy.

Am I healthy and wealthy? I need that on a T-Shirt!

She needs us to pass health care right now, a plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need, Minnesota.

Isn't his plan post-procedure insurance? How will that bring down premiums? How will it be cheaper if he bankrupts the insurance companies?

(APPLAUSE)

Maybe if John McCain went to Pennsylvania and he met the man who lost his job, but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators.

Then LET US DRILL HERE! What was Obama's vote for ANWR?????

That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future, an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need, Minnesota.

Hmm...so let's see, all auto workers lose their jobs, corporation workers lose their jobs, oil company workers lose their jobs. I guess it won't matter since there will be no cars made for the no oil people can't afford. What's the millions of new jobs...unemployment line place holder?

(APPLAUSE)

And maybe if John McCain spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul, Minnesota, or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, Louisiana, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that, in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American.

How about instead of an army of new teachers, we give America a division of qualified teachers? How about that? And no offense, but I get annoyed when people start talking about privilege vs. rights. I have the right to free speech and bear arms and due process. I don't have the right to go to college. I'm sorry, in a perfect world everyone would get to go to college. But in reality, 1. college is not for everyone. 2. It's not a right, billions of people in the world do not get to go to college. By calling it a right, you set up the expectation that the metaphorical I gets to go to college for free without working for it. College is 1. a privilege you have to earn, and 2. you get more out of it if you have to earn it, in my opinion. It's like the right to vote...it is not a right, it is the privilege of a good law-abiding citizen.

That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for president of the United States.

Insert pithy comment. I hope he gets Mondale-d

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a good thing. That is a debate I look forward to.

Can we quote him on that? I do look forward to that debate...

(APPLAUSE)

It is a debate that the American people deserve on the issues that will help determine the future of this country and the future for our children.

But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon…

I don't know...it seems to me that the primaries of the Democrats were pretty much governed by fear, innuendo, and division. Or was he saying that he got it all out of his system at this point.

(APPLAUSE)

What you won't see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize, because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Then why does he want America to lose? If he wants America to lose, and he is an American first, then by logic he wants to lose and we should all vote for McCain to give him what he wants!

(APPLAUSE)

Despite what the good senator from Arizona may have said tonight, I've seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I've brought many together myself.

I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the south side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools.

Like Rev. Wright and that Ayer guy? Hmm....there was a reason everyone told me to stay away from the South Side of Chicago.

I've sat across the table from law enforcement officials and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent 13 innocent people to death row.

And how many guilty people were set free from prison? How many monsters physically can't do anything anymore because they're dead. I'm not trying to excuse mistaken executions, and I understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty (or you can convince a jury that the crime you wrote on your company check is not a crime), but in no other country do death row inmates get appeals (Sean, check me on that). So while it is an imperfect system, people are an imperfect species, how do you attain perfection from imperfect minds?

I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break, to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent, and reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

cite your source Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because, behind all the false labels and false divisions and categories that define us, beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes.

Unless you're a church-goer, a gun-owner, or a blue collar worker

And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union, and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines, the women who shattered glass ceilings, the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better and kinder and more just.

And so it must be for us.

Did he just compare himself to Revolutionary War vets, Civil War vets, WW2 vets, and Civil Rights activists?

(APPLAUSE)

America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past…

(APPLAUSE)

… our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge — I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

What are they? What do you feel are your limitations, Senator?

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless…

(APPLAUSE)

… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…

umm..Jesus? I'm sorry...Moses?

(APPLAUSE)

… this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

I suppose it is easy to end a war, when you give up...he wants the US to give the military equivalent of a soccer own-goal.
Last, best hope on Earth? Wasn't that the tag line for a super-hero?

(APPLAUSE)

This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

Thank you, Minnesota. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Unless you're his spiritual minister for the last 20 years....I guess we should be glad someone apparently slept through church for 20 years....

The London Times comments on the election...so I comment on the London Times

Yes it's politically incorrect but race matters
The Democrats must admit it: Obama would lose to McCain
Anatole Kaletsky
The London Times
April 24, 2008

American Presidential elections have been compared with reality TV series or game shows, in which a gaggle of jumped-up nonentities aspiring to be celebrities are ritually humiliated in public and offered entertaining opportunities to self-destruct, until only one survivor remains. But this time round, a much more elevated analogy is sadly apposite.

Whose fault is that? How do you as a party lose the 2004 election? Talk about a handicapped gimme....It's like playing golf against Tiger Woods except before the game your friends have slipped him a roofie, broke both of his hands and replaced his clubs with a limp ramen noodle. I think the 2004 victory by Pres. Bush is less a commentary on the American people and more on the utter unqualifications of the Democratic candidates.

The 2008 US election has all the makings of a Greek tragedy, in which noble heroes and heroines are forced to follow a course to catastrophe, divinely preordained as punishment for sins and blunders committed by their forefathers in the dim and distant past. In acting out their ineluctable doom, the eloquent protagonists do not just destroy themselves but also their cities, their nations and even their entire civilisations.

Oh boy....someone loved the lit classes in college... I think there were more adjectives in this sentence then anything else.

If this description sounds too grandiose, consider yesterday's results from the Pennsylvania primary. The outcome seemed to be precisely calibrated by the gods to maximise the agony of the Democrats. It gave Hillary Clinton just the support she needed to stay firmly in contention, but not quite enough to turn the tide in her favour.

By grandiose, do you mean uppity? And please... is the outcome a Greek tragedy or just the result of having 2 equally ambitious and minimally if at all qualified candidates (for their own reasons) squaring off for their own success? If they truly believed that a Dem should run the country for the sake of the country and/or the party, why did someone not just drop out and ask for VP? this democratic primary season is an early Christmas present for the GOP, and I very purposefully say Christmas present and not "holiday present".

Worse still, this result underlined the fear that senior Democrats have long been aware of, but have never dared to express in public: America may not yet be ready to elect a black President. Worst of all, it has created conditions for the possible election victory of a militarily belligerent and economically unqualified Republican candidate who supports many of President Bush's worst policies. Given the Bush Administration's domestic and foreign failures, the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan and, most recently, the slump in the economy, the possibility of a Republican victory in November would seem to overturn every principle of proper democracy - and also the hope of America and its system of government being rehabilitated in the eyes of the world after the Bush years. The fact that Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are both such impressive candidates, intelligent, sincere, articulate and in command of the issues, while John McCain does not qualify on any of these criteria only makes matters worse.

1. Could it be not that America is not ready, and more that a 1st term Senator with the same foreign policy experience as my 12 year old cousin, the attitude toward genocide of Pol Pot, and the health care plan of Elmo from Sesame Street is not a qualified candidate? 2. By militarily belligerent does he mean not a giant vi-jay-jay (not sure if Websense will have issue with the actual word) ? I can think of nobody better than McCain that is running with a true sense of the cost of war... 3. Why is it that Dems always seem to have the attitude that the president rules like a king, with no advisors, counsel, and completely and solely based on themselves? I mean not everyone can invent the internet and save the planet with the ingenious plan of starving third world countries with rising food prices so they can't cause pollution for the rest of us? Still, I wonder...HOW DO YOU WIN AN ACADEMY AWARD AND THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WITH THE SAME 2 HOURS OF WORK??? Wouldn't the "achievement in film" and "peace prize" inherently describe 2 probably very different areas of accomplishment?? 4. Disasters and failures? Don't even need to go there, somebody just smack him and take away his sippy cup. He needs to go home and learn to walk and talk at the same time without sounding like a preschooler. 5. I can find no possible explanation how either Obama or Clinton are sincere or in command of the issues. I tap out, if this is the way the country truly believes, I wonder if Thomson has any offices in Australia...

That Mrs Clinton will now carry on with her campaign is not just probable but essential. For the voting in Pennsylvania confirms that she has a much better chance than Mr Obama of winning the White House for the Democrats. According to the Associated Press exit polls published yesterday, 16 per cent of white Democratic voters considered race an important factor in the Presidential election and 43 per cent of these said they would either vote Republican or not vote at all, if Mr Obama were the Democratic nominee.

To me race is a non-issue as is gender. I don't know any other Republicans to whom race is a issue more than qualifications, experience, and future strategies. It seems to me, that it's always the ones who whine about race and equality (mind you, not legitimately complain, but whine) are the ones for whom it is a an electability issue which can change their vote.

Given that Mrs Clinton's clear victory over Mr Obama in Pennsylvania followed similar results in other "must-win" states with large working-class constituencies, such as Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan and even New York and California, the conclusion would be fairly obvious, were it not for the political correctness that makes it almost impossible for American politicians or commentators to express such a view: Mr Obama may by unable to carry large industrial states with socially conservative white working-class populations simply because of his race. This is especially true now that the televised rantings of Rev Jeremiah Wright and Mr Obama's own gaffe about the "bitter" white working-class culture of "guns and God", have reminded Americans that race is not just a matter of skin colour. Rev Wright embarrassingly revealed in his "God damn America" and "Chickens come home to roost" sermons that his African-American vision of America is be profoundly at odds with the white majority view.

Does Michigan and Florida really count as clear victories for Clinton? I mean beating nothing is a win....I suppose. I do note that Rev Wright is brought up as a sign a political mis-speak, not as a potential issue when looking at a presidential candidates advisers and personal counsel.

The latest polls in the two most important swing states show Mr McCain easily beating Mr Obama in both Florida and Ohio, while Mrs Clinton comfortably beats the Republican in Ohio and is neck and neck in Florida.

Mr Obama has, of course, apologised for his condescension towards working-class church-goers and hunters - probably the most important group of floating voters in the electorally critical mid-Western states. He has tried even harder to dissociate himself from Rev Wright's anti-American tirades, which really have to be seen (on YouTube) to be believed. And Mr Obama's supporters have chastised Mrs Clinton for turning to "negative campaigning" and "scorched-earth" strategies in her desperation to stay in contention.

Note: Dear Hillary. Please continue the scorched earth strategies. It is delicious, it's like gold when it touches your lips. Thank you, Eric.

The trouble is that Mr Obama's efforts to suppress the race issue are doomed to failure. For the influence of Rev Wright on him is a matter of public record. Indeed, the phrase "Audacity of Hope", which is the title of Mr Obama's political autobiography as well as his presidential leitmotif, is attributed in that book to a sermon by "my pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright". The Republican political machine, which demonstrated its mastery of the arts of character assassination in the two Bush presidential contests, will have no compunction in exploiting the Wright relationship and portraying Mr Obama as an anti-American in the general election, even if the Clinton campaign and the media observe a self-denying ordinance on the race and patriotism issues, as they broadly have so far.

Demonstrated art of character assassination? Then what the Dems do, character apocalypse? I have seen no one more completely and totally attack the personal character of people than Democrats. Is it character assassination to bring attention toward Wright for everything he has said? Or is it a legitimate look at a candidates personal friend and spiritual adviser?

The certainty of a no-holds-barred attacks by the Republicans brings us to the potentially most tragic aspect of this election. If ever there was an election the Democrats ought to win this is the one. Yet on the basis of the primary results so far, they are all too likely to lose it. Mr Obama may be marginally ahead of Mrs Clinton in the popular vote but the Democrats seem to have forgotten that all the votes cast so far have been by their own supporters. In the general election their candidate will have to win over Republicans and right-leaning floating voters. Most of the evidence so far suggests that the Repulicans will find it much easier to frighten voters about the prospect of a President Obama than a President Clinton.

If there was ever an election that the Democrats should win it was 2004. But let's not dwell on the utter and complete failure of the DNC, which should be expected considering their core is MoveOn, Code Pink, and all of the leftover eco-nazi, communist, hippies who had nothing to do when all of their ideologies failed on their respective merits or lack thereof.

Professional Democratic politicians now have the casting vote in their party's nomination and could yet force the two candidates into a "dream ticket" led by Mrs Clinton with Mr Obama as Vice President which would sweep all before it and would probably make Mr Obama unbeatable as a presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016. Yet the Democratic superdelegates who could now secure years of hegemony for their party seem to consider it "unfair" to use their professional judgment to overturn the "democratic" verdict of primary voters.

By professional democratic politicians do they mean "Oh crap the voters have too much power so let's change the rules so the candidates can buy our nominations"? Is the article really advocating the buying of votes of to secure "hegemony"? The one fair thing the superdelegates could do is vote the way of the party....isn't that what primaries are for? And if you had a dream ticket, so to speak, is anyone else picturing a west side story style showdown between Obama and Clinton in the oval office?

The Republicans will have no such compunctions about the fairness of launching personal attacks against a potentially vulnerable Democratic candidate. In this respect this Presidential contest may again manifest the tragedy of left-wing politics through the ages. Parties which care more about fairness than about power, end up achieving neither.

Are they vulnerable candidates or are they candidates which have a lot of quality weaknesses? Is it a personal attack to complain that McCain is too old? Because I've already seen that. Is it a personal attack to say he is unqualified because he isn't an economist? If that's the case, then Hillary and Barack have absolutely no business being president because of their foreign policy which consists of making up stories worthy of an episode of 24 dodging snipers in a helicopter and playing tag with a bunch of yellow children in grade school. The tragedy of left-wing politics is that they are the only ones that don't see the weaknesses transparent in their party, and then they wonder what went wrong. Tanya, what was that definition of insanity again? And since when have the Dems ever cared more about fairness than about power? The Clintons....really?

END RANT....McCain 2008, Rice 2012, Petreaus 2016

An Agent for Change?

Senator Obama makes much of being an "agent of change". He along with Mr. Edwards, represents himself as an outsider who seeks to change the "good old boy" network which is, admittedly, in too much control of the process. However, the hypocrisy of this stance is staggering.

If Senator Obama was truly dedicated to ending the "special interests" that dominate politics, he would have gone into the early primary system differently. Instead of repudiating a corrupt system focusing on special interests, moving from a convention and caucus primary system to an election, he has actively worked with his party to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan. For someone who says he stands against backroom politics, he's gone well out of his way to commit himself to them.

Happy New Year

After a lengthy break for the holidays, we're back. My best hopes that everyone had an enjoyable season and will enjoy a healthy, fruitful, prosperous 2008.

What makes me angry today

I was perusing my local school district's annual School Board statement online and was struck by the following Q&A (emphasis is mine):

Have Lincoln's union's agreed to changes that will help alleviate our district's financial challenges?

By law, the Board is not at liberty to discuss details of the collective bargaining process. We are looking forward to far and equitable collective bargaining agreements with all of our district's unions.

What kind of garbage is it that the law requires that educational financial decisions be conducted via backroom dealings?

When is Hitch going to shut up?

Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens yanks out yet another protracted column about how it's perfectly fine for him to discriminate against particular political candidates on the basis of religion. Going further, he argues that everyone should discriminate against candidates based on religious viewpoints.

What is so shocking is that Hitchens famously belongs to the group which faces the most widespread religious discrimination: he's an atheist. According to a recent Gallup poll, more than half of Americans would never vote for an atheist.

This begs a question: When you're in the most oppressed of the minorities, why are you encouraging oppression?

NIE report repudiation of Bush doctrine?

Settling down into Salon - probably my least favorite place for Liberal opinion work and the anthesis of the much better written, much more sane Slate - I found this gem: Gary Kamiya trying to spein the recent NIE report as somehow bad for the President. How can you take an article seriously when it leads with this?

Bush's disastrous legacy is now locked in place. The National Intelligence Estimate released last week, which stated that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, is an explicit repudiation of the Bush doctrine and a preemptive strike against war with Iran.

According to the new NIE, 6 months after the U.S. entered Iraq, Iran and gave up its nuclear weaponizing programs. At about the same time, Syria gave up their own nuclear and chemical weapons programs. Strange coincidence, isn't it? It just must be an absolute repudiation of Bush's foreign policy doctrine that during his time in office, his projection of American strength and willingness to engage in preemptive strikes led to Iran and Syria abandoning nuclear and chemical weapons.

Of course, Mr. Kamiya's article has to follow up with another interesting anecdote:

One of [National Iranian American Council President Trita] Parsi's more remarkable tales takes place in May 2003, just after U.S. troops occupied Baghdad. Fearing that the U.S. was about to invade Tehran, Iran approached the U.S. with an amazing offer. In a dialogue of "mutual respect," it offered to stop its backing of Hamas and Islamic Jahad, support the transformation of Hezbollah into a disarmed political party, open up its nuclear program to international inspection and accept the Arab League's two-state plan for Israel and Palestine, thus making peace with the Jewish state. In return, Tehran asked for the U.S. to abandon its plans to topple the reign of the mullahs, end sanctions, turn over antiregime terrorists and accept Iran's legitimate interests in the region.

Assuming that this is, indeed, more than a remarkable tale of an amazing offer, this seems to strengthen the position of the Bush Doctrine, does it not?

Bringing Iran in from the cold
Iran isn't a mad state bent on Israel's destruction but a rational actor that wants a place at the table.
Current Opinion for Salon

Bush's disastrous legacy is now locked in place. The National Intelligence Estimate released last week, which stated that Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003, is an explicit repudiation of the Bush doctrine and a preemptive strike against war with Iran. The professionals have struck back against the ideologues.

But in spite of the NIE findings, Bush and the wider U.S. establishment still share a view of Iran as evil and unapproachable. Until Washington realized that it would be better off engaging with the Iranian regime than demonizing it, its Mideast policy will continue to flounder along the failed pat of Bush's "war on terror." To avoid that outcome, it's going to have to be willing to question everything it thought it knew about Iran.

Congress and the media's so-what response to the Bush administration's outrageous attempt to cook the Iran intelligence does not inspire confidence. The Bush administration sat on the NIE for more than a year, trying to change the report to make it harsher on Iran, and all the while beating the drums for war. This fact has gone largely uncriticized, even though it's Iraq all over again. Bush has gotten a pass on his deception yet again for a simple reason: America views Iran as so innately dangerous, irrational and undeterrable that it doesn't care what Bush lied about what he knew and when he knew it.

In the eyes of the mainstream media, Congress and much of the public, Iran is the ultimate bad guy, a combination of al-Qaida and Adolf Hitler. This substratum of fear and hatred, some reasonable but much irrational, explains why leading Democrats, from Harry Reid to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, have reacted so tepidly to the NIE and Bush's obvious lies about it. More important, it explains why even a Democratic president could still pursue a self-destructive course of confrontation with Tehran.

Dickerson lays it to the State Dems

This is sheer brilliance. Brian Dickerson of the Free Press slaps around the idiocy of the Democratic leaders and their continued pursuit at Michigan voter disenfranchisement.

Salvaging the primary wreckage
The Detroit Free Press

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, Michigan's Democratic leaders have figured out a way to make participation in their party's Jan. 15 primary even more meaningless.

Most observers figured the Democrats' primary fiasco had reached bottom last month, when Democratic state lawmakers couldn't muster the votes to assure that all their party's presidential candidates would appear on the Michigan ballot.

But now, in a new voter guide unveiled this week, state party leaders are urging voters who support any of the four Democrats who've dropped out of the Michigan primary to cast their ballots for "Uncommitted," effectively ceding their voices to an unknown slate of electors to be named later in party caucuses across the state.

That's right, citizens: The same party regulators who collaborated to render Michigan's vote a meaningless footnote to the Democratic presidential contest want your proxy to do as they please at the party's nominating convention.

If that's your idea of participatory democracy, I'd suggest a write-in vote for Vladimir Putin.

So angry that I can hardly type...

The News has an article about the recently passed House energy bill.

What makes me so angry?

1. All Michigan Democrats voted for the bill, even though it will kill Michigan jobs and continue our one-state recession.
2. The authors claim that Americans would save $2 billion in gas taxes without mentioning that Americans would spend $4 billion a year in costs to implement.
3. The authors claim that consumers would save "as much as $1,000 a year" in fuel costs, without mentioning that they would spend between $5,000 and $7,000 more for a new car - or between $1,000 and $2,300 a year (plus interest payments) for a car.

What kills me about this is, first, the dishonesty. This is not going to provide net financial savings for consumers. There is not a single hybrid on the market which is a net financial savings over the same vehicle with a standard power train. Eliminating the ability of GM and Ford to sell the only vehicles they make a profit on will not mysteriously "save" the companies by "forcing" them to "get with the times."

I hate to break it to the hippies, but no one in this country buys a car based on mileage. Even those who buy hybrids generally do it based on cosmetic reasons and precious few Americans buy hybrids. Cars in America are sold based on power, performance, safety, and utility - all items which will need to be reduced in order to comply with these guidelines.

Secondly, the solution to emissions problems is being placed primarily on Michigan. Cars account for about 25% of emissions but are expected to account for 90% of the solution. I'm still waiting to see the bills demanding a reduction in the emissions from California beef farmers or mandating "no-till" farming, even though agriculture dwarfs the automotive sector in emissions and switching strictly to "no-till" farming would have the same net effect as raising average fuel economy to 50 mpg.

Either way, we in Michigan have been betrayed by members of our representation. The UAW, the Union workers, the employees and management at GM, Ford, and Chrysler have placed their faith in Michigan's Democrats to protect them. They then turned on them, stabbed them in the back, and are working actively (knowingly or not) to destroy the auto industry and further wreck Michigan's economy. Is it too much to ask that Michigan voters hold these individuals accountable? They are: John Dingell, Sander Levin, John Conyers, Dale Kildee, Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, and Bart Stupak.

When the next round of Union layoffs comes around, know that these men and women actively worked to make it happen.

House OKs 35 mpg rule
But energy bill faces Senate, Bush opposition
The Detroit News

WASHINGTON - The U.S. House approved a landmark energy bill Thursday that increases fuel economy standards by 40 percent by 2020 but the measure faces substantial hurdles in the Senate and a likely veto by the White House.

"Democratic leaders in the House today pushed a partisan bill that members had very little opportunity to study before the vote, which they knew was unacceptable to the president and had no chance of being signed into law," the White House said. It is "a misguided approach and if it made it to the president's desk, he would veto it."

Raising fuel efficiency requirements to an average 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of cars and light trucks built in the United States is the centerpiece of the bill approved by the House in a 235-181 vote.

The bill also requires the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 and forces utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power. The measure will be funded by rescinding $21 billion in tax breaks, largely for oil companies.

What happened to fighting global warming?

This is why I hate the 'environmental' lobby: so-called environmental groups in Texas are desperately trying to derail the construction of wind farms. Too many environmentalists are just using environmental issues to try to push an anti-corporate, anti-capitalist agenda.

Coalition sues Land Office over wind farms
Groups, including King Ranch, want to require extensive environmental review of wind projects
The Austin American-Statesman

The famed King Ranch and a coalition of environmental groups sued Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson in federal court Tuesday, seeking to require extensive environmental review and public comment on two planned wind power projects along the Gulf Coast in Kenedy County.

The coalition, the Coastal Habitat Alliance, also sued over the wind project in state District Court in Travis County. That suit claims that the state's Public Utility Commission illegally denied the alliance's request to participate in permit hearings for the wind project's transmission time.

The lawsuits threaten to delay or stop the two massive wind projects, which could place more than 600 turbines on 60,000 acres near Laguna Madre, south of Corpus Christi. Part of the wind projects would place about 250 turbines just east of a portion of the sprawling King Ranch.

The federal suit, filed in U.S. Western District Court in Austin, said the turbines could kill untold numbers of migratory birds and damage the bay. It seeks to overturn the decision by the Texas General Land Office, which Patterson heads, to allow the projects to be built without environmental review or input fro the public. The suit contends that the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the Texas Coastal Management Program require a permit process for an energy generation facility on the coast, including wind farms.

Good news, bad news on Iran

By now you've likely heard about the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report and its statements on Iran. If you haven't, the short of it is this: the consensus among the U.S. intelligence agencies is that Iran had a nuclear weapons program but in the fall of 2003, about six months after the invasion of Iraq, Iran gave up their direct weapons program. MSNBC had a pretty good article yesterday on a summary, including some nuanced provisions. Key items from the report that MSNBC brings up:

• "Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."
• "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
• "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU (highly enriched uranium) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame."
• "Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so..."
• "We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of it's nuclear weapons program indefinitely..."

While there is good news that Iran decided to end their pursuit of nuclear weaponry right after the U.S. entered Iraq, deposed of the Baathist government, annihilated the Iraqi military, and forced the government either into hiding or prison, we need to keep a close eye on their uranium enrichment program. While we currently do not have to fear an eminent nuclear weapon, the idea of a radical theocratic regime hostile to the U.S. and desiring the eradication of Israel should give every Presidential candidate pause, even Sen. Barack Obama, who somehow thinks this isn't that bad of an option.

Capitol Hill tries to fathom Iran intelligence
Spy agencies can't say whether Tehran will halt nuclear effort indefinitely
MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Members of Congress tried to figure out Tuesday how to respond to the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Monday which said that "Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" in 2003.

The previous NIE, in 2005, said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."

On one level, the congressional reaction was hurt feelings and puzzlement that the Bush administration hadn't given a heads-up to key players in Congress.

Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., indicated by their comments that they felt crossed up.

"I was on a show Sunday on CNN and made some comments about Iran which I believed were true and basically are true, but I would have made them more conditional, more qualified had I known there was change coming," Levin told reporters.

GWOT is not WWII

John Derbyshire writes for the National Review, writing a blog tracking the election and political issues. In an recent post, he ponders:

"The folk who direct our armed forces have spent four and a half years struggling inconclusively with a rabble of fanatics who have no navy or air force, no armored units, no regular formations at all in fact, and munitions they operate with cell-phones and lengths of string. In three and a half years, our grandfathers turned two mighty, sprawling fascist empires to rubble. What am I missing here?"

I hate this line of argument. You hear this brain-dead idiocy from so many people these days - we only took three and a half years to win World War II, so why do we still have troops in Iraq after four and a half years? I hate to break it to you, but we still have troops in Japan and Germany and they faced resistance and civil unrest after the war. During World War II, we lost over 270,000 members of our armed forces and tens of millions of civilians died. In Iraq, we've lost barely more than 1/100 of that number in both service members and Iraqi civilians. Then, of course, there's the messy bit that World War II had been going on for several years before we got there. Oh, and don't forget how we ended up winning that war: we used nuclear weapons to annihilate two cities and kill a few hundred thousand civilians.

So, until we're willing to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, willing to kill millions of civilians, and willing to use such tactics such as firebombing Dresden or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki while rounding up all American Arabs to put them into concentration camps, let's hold off on comparing the war in Iraq to World War II.

Brian Williams is not among the deep thinkers...

Time Magazine has some suggestions from a few people about who should be Person of the Year.

You have people like John Kerry (LCpl James Crosby, who is outreach coordinator for the Massachusetts Department of Veterans Services) and Aretha Franklin (Bill Cosby) who are making salient, informed, intelligent, well-thought out suggestions; you have Stephen King (Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears) who is making a very intelligent, astute observation about the situation of media in our country, and then you have Brian Williams making a ridiculously inane suggestions: Mother Earth. I'm not sure which is worse - that's he's making such an idiotic, mentally void statement or that he appears to think it's insightful in some way.

Would Sen. Clinton supporters vote for "Hillary Smith?"

Yet more bigoted, sexist drivel from a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Maybe Robin Gerber needs to step back and analyze her own prejudices. She honestly thinks that Hillary Clinton would be viewed differently if she was a man? Let's just set aside the straw man arguments that Ms. Gerber is postulating here, the waffling on abortion (a charge I've not personally heard) and on the war (a charge which rings very true) - her detractors are a little more concerned about things like the "vast right-wing conspiracy," her methods of dealing with the media, her former business dealings, the censorship of her notes and papers from her time as First Lady, the mysterious death of a former associate, the secrecy surrounding the Clinton White House, and the people who work for her engaged in personal destruction while working for her husband.

To address specifically the straw-man arguments and bigoted suggestions in the article. Hillary Clinton is neither effective nor qualified for the position. There is not a single piece of significant legislation she has enacted. She has never run a single thing in her life - never run a business, a city, a state, an Executive department, or even a legislative committee. She has accomplished exactly nothing as a legislator, as a First Lady, as a business manager, or as a lawyer. Further, the entire sum of her qualifications are 8 years in Congress. By that measure, there are - literally - hundreds of other lawmakers who are at least as qualified as she is.

The issue is, and always has been, that Hillary Clinton is an unsuitable candidate because of who she is - not that she happens to have two X chromosomes. Plenty of other female candidates would be much more suitable, most notably Christie Todd Whitman, Elizabeth Dole, Madeline Albright, Janet Napolitano, or Mary Jodi Rell. All of those women have actual accomplishment, have actual qualifications, and have actually led. Elizabeth Dole, in particular, is extremely well qualified.

The bottom line, however, is that the real question Ms. Gerber should be posting is not "would you vote for Hillary Clinton" but, rather, "would you vote for Hillary Smith."

Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt
NewsDay.com

Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.

But they're blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.

It's not the voters and her opponents think Clinton's experienced and competent, and they don't like or trust her. It's that they think she's experienced and competent and that's why they don't like or trust her.

A study earlier this year by Catalyst, a nonprofit business research organization, showed the start dilemma that competent women face. In "the Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership," women were criticized for being "too aggressive and self-promoting," but men with similar styles were praised for being direct.

Buy Michigan

Since 2002, 49 states in the nation have experienced job growth. Michigan is the only state which has lost jobs. We currently rank dead last in unemployment at 7.6%. That's significantly higher than Mississippi and more than twice the rate of Louisiana. For many this holiday season, Christmas and the New Year will be met with joblessness and poverty. As the holiday season approaches, we can all pitch in.

In the short term, please consider adopting a family through organizations such as Volunteers of America. The Michigan branch is sponsoring a holiday adopt-a-family program. Please consider the program. Even a small donation, $10 or $20, can make a significant difference.

For long-term help, please consider making a concerted effort to purchase primarily Michigan products. This will help spur job growth here in Michigan and many of these products are less expensive than their national counterparts. The organization Buy Michigan Now has a handy holiday guide on their website.

Please consider spending your holiday money in Michigan this holiday year.

The Final Betrayal

John Dingell has completed his sell-out of the American Auto Industry. The auto fuel economy standards will increase 40% over the next 13 years, which will cost the auto industry - and let's be honest, that means it will cost Michigan - $4 billion a year. Dingell has completely surrendered the entire battle without a fight, something I have been predicting for months. He wants to avoid a contentious debate in the House, he wants to avoid giving up the power he has in his party, and he has made it clear that his power and his party come before his constituents.

Lawmakers Reach Gas Mileage Boost Deal
Fox News

WASHINGTON - An agreements among congressional Democrats - including those from auto industry states - to support a 40 percent increase in vehicle fuel efficiency is likely to be the tonic needed to push energy legislation through Congress before Christmas.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry, settled their differences in an agreement late Friday on the fuel economy, or CAFE, issue, clearing the way for a House vote on a broader energy bill, probably on Wednesday.

Automakers would be required to meet an industry wide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020, the first increase by Congress in car fuel efficiency in 32 years.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the compromise "good news" and said he hoped to take up the legislation quickly after the House acts.

Slitting their own throats

One of Milton Friedman's biggest laments was when business interests forsook free-market capitalist and pro-business candidates and fund their opponents: the anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-growth interests and their socialist candidates. He viewed this as the companies slitting their own throats. Were he alive, he'd likely feel that lament once again.

Banking on the idea that Democrats are going to come to power, corporate lobbyists are pouring money into Democratic candidates. Let's be very clear here, because obviously too many donors just don't understand this point: even if you can buy out a candidate's deeply held anti-capitalist convictions, you certainly can't do it for the few thousand dollars you're allowed to donate.

As bad as lobbying, special interests, and the entire funding process for American democracy, the issue is not candidates being bought. As someone who has been lobbied as a candidate, I can certainly tell you: successful lobbyists are not out trying to bribe people with different opinions; they're trying to identify and fund candidates who already share their opinions while shutting down candidates with differing opinions.

Business interests who think that donating ten thousand dollars to a congressional candidate will somehow cause the candidate to support their position only needs to look at John Dingell. Despite a quarter of his donations coming from energy and utility companies, he just negotiated an energy bill which would be devastating to those same energy and utility companies. Despite another quart of his donations coming from auto companies, the same energy bill includes mileage requirements which will be devastating to auto companies. If even John Dingell is willing to value personal political power over not only his donors but his constituents whose very livelihood depends on the success of the auto industry, why would companies think that candidates are willing to sacrifice their own personal political power within the party to serve their interests?

Business lobby increases pressure ahead of '08
Race is on ahead of presumed change in administration
The New York Times

WASHINGTON - Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year's elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.

Hoping to lock in policies back by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exception from the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.

"There's a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic," said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. "Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies."

Democrats: Every vote must count!

The Democrats have finally, officially voted to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan. Not only will the Democratic Presidential contenders not campaign in Michigan, not only have half of them pulled out of the race, but the Democratic National Convention has now officially made it clear that no Michigan vote will count.

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer apparently expects that the Democratic presidential nominee will make sure that Michigan's delegates will be counted at the convention. If it's a close race, however, and Michigan's delegates will make the difference - don't count on democracy to win out.

Democrats punish Michigan for early primary
MSNBC News

VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

Michigan, with 156 delegates, has scheduled a Jan. 15 primary. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5.

Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

Michigan officials anticipated the action by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel. But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the Democratic presidential nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention.

A mixed weekend for democracy

Jubilant news in our hemisphere, as Chavez's attempts to stack the vote in Venezuela to make him dictator for life have failed. Unfortunately, in the Eastern hemisphere, Putin's perversion of democracy has kept his party in charge of the government.

Chavez was making the largest push for more power, trying to institute a government which would allow him to have unilateral control over choosing election officials, allow him to stand as "President" indefinitely, and allow him unilateral control to declare states of emergency, which would give him the ability to stridently curb civil rights.

Putin's win was a perversion of democracy, as his government imprisoned dissidents and opposition leaders, bribed and threatened to get votes, and limited the access available to election monitors. The win will keep his party in power but he will be forced to step down as President and instead take a position as Prime Minister - a much weaker post in Russia. The only slight positive news is that this opens the opportunity for a strong, democracy-focused candidate to take over the Presidency.

Chavez: Plan may have been too ambitious
Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela - Humbled by his first electoral defeat, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.

"I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense," he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reform by 51 percent to 49 percent."

Opposition activists were ecstatic as the results were announced shortly after midnight - with 88 percent of the vote counted, the trend was declared irreversible by elections council chief Tibisay Lucena.

Some shed tears. Others began chanting: "And now he's going away."

and...

Monitors say Russian vote unfair
Associated Press

MOSCOW - Foreign election observers and Russian opposition groups accused authorities Monday of manipulating a sweeping parliamentary victory for the party of President Vladimir Putin, who hailed the vote as a validation of his leadership.

"Of course, it's a sign of trust," Putin said in televised remarks. "Russians will never allow the nation to take a destructive path, as happened in some other ex-Soviet nations."

The victory of the United Russia party sets the state for Putin to stay in charge as a "national leader" even after he steps down as president next spring because of term limits.

The presidential candidate to be named by his party this month is expected to be a figurehead who would take orders from Putin or even step down early to let Putin regain his seat. Any candidate who has Putin support could be expected to win easily amid tight Kremlin's control over media and official harassment of opposition groups.