The Big Mo

Hamsun56 comments, over at Althouse, about Hillary's announcement that she is (surprise, surprise!) running for President:

This stops, at least temporarily, the momentum he [Obama] was building.

It does?

I Like This Idea

Via Instapundit and Bill Hobbs, I came across this ElephantBiz post that has a thought I find very appealing-- a Presidential run by Fred Thompson.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, a lawyer and actor who currently plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on Law & Order, is now doing radio commentary on the Paul Harvey show...
Might Thompson be prepping for a presidential run? He says he isn't running, but perhaps he is, unconventionally, courting Republican conservatives in case that when the field clears later this year it becomes obvious that, of the three likely to still be in the race, neither Arizona Sen. John McCain nor former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has a chance at the conservative vote, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's support among social conservatives is brittle and based less on Romney than on their distaste for the other two. In that scenario, a late entry by Thompson could rapidly erode Romney's support and likely take down McCain as well as Thompson does well with moderates and independents.

He quotes from a recent commentary by Thompson, that hits a chord that resonates with my view on the situation in Iraq:

Is it really in our country’s best interest to signal to the enemy that they probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn’t such a resolution further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers are preparing to go into battle?

Yes, it does, and not just for the coming battles in this war, but it further diminishes our chances for success for any future wars in which we end up engaged. I believe this is one goal of the most ardent anti-war advocates; they are more than comfortable with the idea of contributing to our defeat if it causes us to avoid war at all costs in the future. To be honest, part of me understands that view. War should be avoided-- but not at all costs. Rather, it should be avoided as much as is practical. All costs includes costs that are too great to bear. It was too high a cost to allow Saddam to continue to defy the U.N. resolutions. Maybe he did not have WMD (and maybe he did and they ended up in Syria or elsewhere), but he was required to prove to the U.N. that he had destroyed what he had previously had and he refused to do this. It was too high a cost to bear to hope for the best. Now, he is gone. It is too high a cost to bear to hope that all turns out for the best if we leave Iraq for the Sunnis and Shi'ites to battle over, with Al-Qaeda and Iran meddling and gaining traction as well. We have to win, and steps that make it harder for us to win are a tremendous mistake.

Aren't Leftists Fun?

Hugo Chavez has had his cronies in the Venezuela National Assembly grant him the power to bypass them and rule by decree for 18 months.

Anyone want to bet if one of his decrees will be to extend the 18 months?

The American left loves to point fingers at the right and tell all of us moderates that the danger to the American way of life comes from those fanatics. Yet, time and again, ruthless thugs come to power in other countries riding a wave of leftist populism.

I am not asking the American left to change their views. I am asking them to be just as vigilant about the totalitarians on their side as they fancy themselves as being with totalitarians on the right.

Added- Joe Gandelman snarks, "It’s sort of like watching the old TV show “Bewitched,” as another actor assumed the part of Darrin," as Chavez slips into Castro's role on the world stage. It is a good line, but the implications are more dire than the replacement of one Dick with another. But the real value in Joe's post is the excerpt he posts from Edward Ellis, writing in the Buffalo News:

It is obvious to anyone watching closely that Chavez is not a dictator. He is, however, bombastic and his recent announcement that the government plans to nationalize private companies must be understood within this context. Despite the bluster, history and common sense show there will be no expropriation of private companies in Venezuela without fair remuneration.

With words like these, it is any wonder why so many of us have grown to literally fear the blinders that the left puts on when convenient?

Most Unfortunate Book Title Of The Year

Via Memeorandum, I saw this Newsmax piece on Dinesh D'Souza's new tome, "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11."

Holy flip. Lest we think that the title is just some misguided hyperbole, D'Souza makes sure we do not:

"In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11."

In a nutshell, we do things culturally that offend Muslims, and this is why they (at least the radical ones who lead many terrorist groups and many middle eastern countries) want to kill us. They fear our influence on their culture.

Except we have been having problems with Islam's militance for a long, long time.

But even if it was true, so the heck what? It would be something we should thank the "cultural left" about-- showing the nature of those who would kill us to keep us from upsetting their sensibilities.

Don't get me wrong. There is plenty in our culture which disgusts me, and I firmly believe we should work on some of our excesses. But blaming the cultural left for 9/11 shows a clear misunderstanding of who the enemy is, and comes from the mindset of a coward-- if we only submit to their norms, maybe they'll show mercy on us infidels.

Pompous

Paul at Powerline writes,

By running for president Obama will show plenty of audacity and hope. A serious country would not take his candidacy seriously. This country will.

In other words, this country is not a serious country. At least, not as serious as Paul Mirengoff.

I have to tell ya-- that is just a recipe for getting people to tell ya to pound sand. One can think that attributes other than experience are qualifying, and even necessary. One can think that a candidate offers so much in other areas that are needed at this time. And if one does not take seriously voters who do not share their own opinions on how to judge candidate qualifications, one is not likely to be persuasive to voters.

I Agree With What He Said, But Not What He Means

First the quote, then the context. Sut Jhally:

"Fear has been used to paralyze people's intellects," said Jhally. "If they can scare people, almost anything becomes possible. When people are afraid their brains shut off and it makes you confused and want easy solutions."

Here is the context. Sut Jhally is speaking about 24, a show that he dislikes terribly. As ABC phrases it, he "believes Hollywood's fascination with terrorism can have serious political consequences."

Sut Jhally, co-producer and co-director of the film "Hijacking Catastrophe," says the dramatic action in the show creates a dangerous climate in which the public loses some of its perspective on what's real and what's not. Of course that may be a minority opinion given the show's enormous popularity.

Oddly, Sut did not really have much to say about films like "The Day After Tomorrow."

I do agree with the first quote I gave here, though. I do think that fear has been used to paralyze people's intellects, and that when one is afraid, one does tend to not think clearly and tends to look for easy solutions. That is exactly on what terrorists count.

This is why despite agreeing with the words, I disagree completely with Jhally's meaning. He thinks the problem is shows depicting terrorism. I think the problem is with terrorism. I agree that fear is a paralyzing influence. I think that shows that get us talking about the issues are very much a constructive influence. They get us to think about things in the abstract, before we are put in a position of real terror where our ability to think is compromised. "The Day After Tomorrow" is a positive influence because it gets people to think about the issues and start the debates we need to have. "24" is the same way.

By the way, I wonder why ABC did not give the full title to Jhally's movie. It is not just "Hijacking Catastrophe." It is "Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire." That extra bit of information certainly would be useful to readers in evaluating from where Mr. Jhally is coming, don't you think? Regardless, Mr. Jhally does not seem to be shy about using scare tactics to get people to fear the big, bad Bush administration.

Find the problem

What is the real problem here?

Here is what the Detroit Free Press reports:

The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony."

Fair enough. The law seems to be aimed at making it that rape is bad, but rape during the commission of another felony is worse. I am guessing the intent is to make it that the penalty for, as an example, rape during a robbery to be greater than the penalties for a rape and a robbery added together. Personally, I think the better answer is to get judges who consistently impose lenient sentences off the bench, but I can understand the impetus for the law.

In this case, the felony was the sale of drugs. There was no rape, however. The drugs were being exchanged for sex. I doubt that this was the intent of the law, but it does fit in the language of the law. The court correctly, according to my read of the law, decided that the charges were valid. The court questioned, as I did above, if this was the intent of the law, with Judge William Murphy writing "We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today, but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

Fair enough. The legislature, if it is so inclined, can revisit the law and modify it if it deems the language to be overly broad.

However, Judge Murphy goes much further, and engages in what sounds like some serious hyperbole.

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

Huh? Why is this?

The judges said they recognized their ruling could have sweeping consequences, "considering the voluminous number of felonious acts that can be found in the penal code." Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery -- although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971.

See the problem?

This is not a problem with the new law. This is not a problem with an overzealous prosecutor taking the drug war too far. This is a problem with a puritan and antiquated law remaining on the books. The solution is simple-- get the law that makes adultery a felony repealed. End of problem.

Shocking

Valencia, California gets nuked? Not so much.

Jack wastes Curtis? Damn!

Tenor matters

Althouse is thinking about Obama and Al Sharpton.

But back to the meat of this post. Sharpton -- and others -- must be profoundly jealous and resentful -- and with good reason. In a political culture in which the media have long consulted them and preserved a place for them in the debate, now it seems that Obama will be given that place, and Obama is likely to say things that are far more mellow and conciliatory to the majority of Americans. They have to be asking -- and we should ask too -- whether that is why Americans like Obama so much.

I can only speak for myself, but when I survey the Democrat candidates for 2008, Obama appeals to me the most. I know with a Democrat, I am going to get something ranging from moderately liberal to significantly liberal. We just are not going to get a leftist (and if we did, it would be a one-termer who would sink the party for a long, long time).

When it comes to choosing between them, I know that any will yank us out of Iraq if things are still going poorly, and any will finish the job if things are going well. Domestically, we will just get variations on the same old Democratic themes we have been hearing for decades.

Therefore, the only differentiator between them to me is the way they conduct themselves. Integrity, and demeanor. Barring any scandals, the former will be a wash. That just leaves demeanor. I am sick and tired of the rank partisanship. I am not so naive to believe that Senator Obama is truly a post-partisan candidate. However, I do believe he represents a significant rollback in the rancor embraced by much of the Democratic party.

I have not yet decided upon my preferred candidate on the Republican side, and my choice on the Democratic side may change. But right now, I have penciled in Obama.

Yeah, That's Really Moderate

Joe Gandelman, the so-called "Moderate Voice," is likening Tucker Carlson to a horse's ass.

Why?

Because some idjit working in a movie rental store decided it would be just fun as all hell to post that a certain customer, who happens to be a conservative pundit on TV with a poor sense of fashion and two left feet, had just opened an account at his store, and he just might post what the dude was renting.

Gandelman decided that the person in the wrong here is Tucker Carlson, not the idjit rental counter worker. He even added the idjit to his blogroll.

Sorry, Joe. The guy deserved to get fired. He had no right to violate the confidentiality of the store's customers (which he did by mentioning that Carlson had even opened an account there). He had no right to, even in jest, threaten to expose what Carlson had been renting. Believe it or not, even wingnuts should be able to live their lives without moonbats salivating over the opportunity to embarrass them at every opportunity, and without faux-centrists piling on.

Nice self-portrait photo in the post, though, Joe.

Currently (Retro) Jamming To...

"Rapper's Delight" by the Sugarhill Gang.

Update- Still going. It is not exactly a short song.

True Belief

Althouse says of politicians who are opposed to the new Iraq strategy, "I'd guess they were thinking this new approach doesn't deserve a chance, because it's not going to work."

The antiwar base of the Democrats reasserted itself over the past several years, reminding their like-minded politicos that there is no song that goes "All we are saying, is give war a chance."

Look, what happens when one starts from an endpoint (oppose Bush) is that one looks continually for arguments to make the case, and minimizes arguments in the other direction. Even if one started from the cynical, political position of reflexive opposition, eventually one is persuaded to really believe by one's own one-sided arguments.

I believe that many opponents of the war now truly believe that we cannot win, at least if President Bush is President. I believe that the process of how many, if not most, of them came to this view is how I described above.

"I can contradict myself in one paragraph, Bob!"

Matt Stoller, Make That Contradiction!

I'm as outraged as anyone at Harry Reid's apparent move to protect secret earmarks. I have a call into his office, and I'm told that there were some negotiations going on that suggest that Reid's work isn't as bad as it's being reported. I tend to trust Josh Marshall on this, but my general reaction is less annoyance at this specific fight and more frustration at the avoidance of the real issue at hand by various parties involved in the ethics and corruption field.

'I am as outraged as anyone over Harry Reid's move on earmarks. Except I don't think earmarks are the problem.' He is outraged, but not over the same thing, except he wants his outrage to count as the same thing, so that he can start from a position of agreement, even though he does not agree.

Think I am being unfair? Two paragraphs later, he writes "These reforms do not and never have worked and I'm tired of liberal groups focusing on them as some sort of panacea." Funny, I do not recall Stoller ever saying he was tired of liberal groups focusing on ethics reforms when Republicans were in power. But that snide little swipe from humble old me aside, if we take Stoller's points quoted here together, we have that he is outraged as anyone at Reid's move to protect secret earmarks, even though he believes that reforms in this area do not and never have worked and he's sick and tired of liberals focusing on them.

I am being too harsh though. I actually agree with this:

Let's be honest - quasi-corrupt practices such as secret earmarks are not the result just of bad people in politics, they are the result of structural factors that encourage the legalized bribery of our governing class. If you restrict secret earmarks without changing any other incentives, you'll simply push the quasi-corruption into another legal vehicle designed to bilk the public and hide the costs.

I totally disagree with him over his answer, which is public financing of campaigns. Everything with these guys seems to have the same answer-- have the government run it, and have everyone in the world (except the poor) pay for it. Whenever there is a monopoly, as there would be in this case-- the monopoly being over the control of campaign cash, who gets it and what hoops they must jump through-- then the result is corruption and abuse. You can bet whichever party is in power would tailor the rules to benefit that party. Take it to the bank. Moving from one corrupt system to another corrupt system is not a good idea. At all.

Do you want reform? I have an idea-- vote out those who abuse the system. If those who abuse the system are not in your voting area, then do not support them with your words or your money. Do not support their party if the party supports them. Stoller wants to say that the problem is not Senator Byrd or Senator Stevens (well, knowing Stoller, he probably would prefer to say it is not Byrd but is Stevens), but a corrupt system that taints them all. But there is no perfect system. There is only the people being accountable.

If there was an opponent to challenge Sen. Byrd, would Stoller have suggested to vote for that opponent? Heck no, even if it was a relatively unknown Democrat, who somehow managed to get advertising. If that opponent was a Republican, Stoller would have reflexively opposed him. If it was a relatively unknown Democrat, Stoller would not have wanted to put the seat at risk, knowing that Byrd is an institution to himself. Even with public financing, that calculation would be unchanged. Incumbents could bribe their voters with earmarks, shamelessly naming buildings and roads so developed after themselves (drive through West Virginia some day). A publicly financed campaign system would entrench porkers even more, not less.

The answer is for people to hold the candidates and the parties accountable. We are accountable for the government we elect. If it sucks, then we have sucked in our job as voters. When voters start punishing Democrats for Senators acting like Byrd, Republicans for Senators like Stevens, Democrats for giving a home to Representatives like William Jefferson or District Attorneys like Mike Nifong, Republicans for Representatives like Duke Cunningham, etc., then the system will start being cleaner.

Hey, we got one! Maybe there is hope for us voters yet!