Baseball A Long Long Time Ago

(Click on photo to enlarge via Uniwatch)
TW: Vintage 1904 Boston v. New York except the Yankee name had not yet been created. Folks speak of the outfield fences being moved around to accomodate modern sluggers, back then the "fence" was truly flexible depending the nature of the crowd and the crowd controllers. I also noted that the crowd appeared exclusively male and just about everyone of them wore a hat. The air was probably a bit challenging to breathe as well.

Matthews Sums It Up

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

TW: Chris Matthews gist is right. I do believe part of American exceptionalism or dynamism such as it is, is to move relatively profoundly is new directions. Certainly the friction associated with the change makes it seem slower than perhaps it is. But there is real movement even if this particular part of the journey remains barely started.

John Edwards Sack O'Dung

From the Economist:
"THE new memoir by Elizabeth Edwards is destined to be one of those books that lives in talk-show appearances and cable-news debates, and not so much on bookshelves. She vomited when her husband told her that he'd been with another woman! She still loves him! She never wanted him to run for president!

Mr Edwards admitted the hanky-panky to her days after declaring his candidacy in 2006—almost a year before the National Enquirer reported it. She was afraid of the destructive questions Mr Edwards' affair with videographer Rielle Hunter would raise. Later events proved her right. "He should not have run," she says.

Does Mrs Edwards understand what her husband did wrong by running? It wasn't that he embarrassed his family. It was that he basically bilked thousands of Democratic donors and volunteers out of their time and money for a cause that he knew was not just doomed, but threatened to doom the entire party if he won the nomination. If the Edwardses have some tact, they'd donate the proceeds from this book to their former campaign staff."

TW: This blog was not around when the Edwards affair blew up. But the release of Elizabeth Edward's book provides an opportunity to punch him belatedly. There was a time when screwing around was not a dis-qualifier for POTUS aspirant, those days are long gone. The Bill Clinton 1992 process put philandering off the table for the foreseeable future. Clinton's continued hubris doomed the country to a wounded POTUS for the remaining two years of his own term, then created the atmosphere by which an incompetent could gain the office for the following eight years.

Any fool who would run with a mistress as part of the equation exhibits such incredibly poor judgment that his candidacy is on its face ridiculous and even scary. As the above piece frames, John Edwards stole the time and money of his supporters, thank goodness he was nowhere near to gaining the nomination. If he had done so he would have done tremendous harm not only to the Democratic party but the entire political process.

I will say as well, I had assumed Elizabeth Edwards had learned about the affair roughly when the public did. To learn she abetted her husband's scam does not put her in a better light by any means. This is not to take any of the blame off the shoulders of the John "Sack O'Dung" Edwards.

Cartoon Clean Up

TW: It is time for a cartoon clean-up (the ones too detailed to post in the small screen up on the right)

Things I Like - Books

I started reading the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency series a couple years ago while on vacation. We were staying with our friends Viv and Paul and I picked one up to read while sitting in the sun. Viv swears I recommended them to her but although I’d seen them in various airport bookshops, I hadn’t read them yet. I’m glad someone recommended them and that Viv listened because they are truly delightful.

Set in Botswana, the series follows the adventures of Mma. Precious Ramotswe, the proprietor of the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. While the books always contain some mystery or problem to be solved, they aren’t Agatha Christie caliber mysteries. Rather, the joy in reading the series comes from Mma. Ramotswe herself. This ‘cheerful woman of traditional build’ uses charm, wisdom and humor to solve her client’s cases. Hats off to the author McCall Smith who has given us a glimpse into an exotic world (at least to most readers) and a character that just makes you feel good.

The books have been adapted for radio, television and film. The most recent is a 6-part series produced by and being shown on HBO and the BBC. The picture above is from the series opening title sequence (produced by Airside) and perfectly depicts the simplicity and happiness associated with the stories.

See McCall Smith’s website for more about the books (including excerpts) and the HBO series starring Jill Scott as Mma. Ramotswe.

We Need Audacious

From Economist:
"...Joseph Califano [longtime Democratic politician who worked for LBJ/Carter/Clinton]:
"We live in an era of political micro-achievement. In recent years, it is considered an accomplishment when a president persuades Congress to pass one bill, or a few, over an entire administration: one welfare reform; one No Child Left Behind. Partisan attacks and and political ambitions choke our airways, not reports of legislation passed or problems solved." That's in contrast to the flood of major proposals that came from the 89th and 90th Congresses during Johnson's presidency.

In Barack Obama's first hundred days we've seen a bit of LBJ's ambition: think of immigration reform, which he could have ignored all year without much backlash. I wonder how far Mr Obama can go with this. He has Johnson's desire to do everything, but perhaps not his stamina or scrappiness."

TW: I agree. Enough with the micro-achievers!!! I originally supported Obama over Clinton because he was the one who could swing for the fences instead of grinding it out incrementally as the Clintons have done. Our country needs audacious, innovative, and profound change. I believe the country is ready for it, not everyone but most of us. Not every POTUS can be transcendent. Circumstances and the political environment neither require nor permit huge changes at all times. FDR was, Reagan was and in a bad way W. Bush was as well. Obama has barely started but he shows some talent. LBJ is an interesting comparison. His first 18 months were a cacophony of achievements, yet he ended as a failed POTUS whose reputation forty years later remains greatly soiled. Time will tell, those extrapolating are still either hoping or dreading.

Wagah

TW: Wagah is the border town between India and Pakistan where their respective border guards face-off daily in a stylized kabuki of mutual aggression. Thankfully daily ritual is essentially for tourists although the mutual enmities at the national levels are most certainly not.

Welcome To the Bright Side Arlen

From Time:
"Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's party switch highlights the growing marginalization of the hard-right Republican Party, now down to two moderates in the Senate. And it highlights the growing dominance of the post–George W. Bush Democratic Party, now just a Minnesota comedian away from a filibuster-proof majority. But let's not overthink: it mostly highlights the desperate opportunism of a 79-year-old five-term Senator staring into the abyss of involuntary retirement. Specter may be right that the GOP left him first, but that's just a face-saving way of admitting he couldn't win its primary"

TW: I have said before I was ambivalent about a Dem cloture proof majority. Despite the evidence to the contrary I believe bi-partisan government is best as it requires both sides to act like adults, participate and ultimately take some responsibility. Now this had not happened up to date since January so perhaps it was time to try a different path. For better or worse the Dems own the government now, although just wait for the Dem factions to emerge. The Blue Dog Dems now hold much power as opposed to a handful of moderate Republicans.

As the quote points out at the end of the day, Specter's switch is about Specter and not much else. All of the implied stuff such as the fall of moderate Republicans etc. were true last week and are still true but Specter does not change that. The Republicans are NOT in a death spiral, molting is ugly but not fatal. American parties adapt, those crowing or fretting about death spirals are hopeful and/or naive.

Generally I do not care for switchers- Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Richard Shelby amongst others are former Democrats (while in Congress not as teenagers). Yet parties do move away from their own politicians the remaining Northeast Senators- Collins and Snowe of Maine- are Dems not Republicans at this point. This is another attribute of a party going through a molting process.

How the Republicans Will Gain Traction

TW: How will the Republicans regain their electoral footing? Partly through the corruption of the Democrats. Corruption is a bi-partisan result of entrenched power. No one or party has ever figured out how to purge their party of corruption. Weak individuals faced with new found power and authority inevitably fall into corrupt practices.

Corruption alone will not provide the Republicans with enough basis for a resurgence. They will have to go through their own molting process to acquire fresh leadership and adopt policies more aligned with moderates as opposed to the hard right base. But corruption is the great equalizer in American politics which is useful in keeping both parties viable. Should the day happen when corruption becomes so endemic as to not provide such an equalizer (i.e. like Italy), then we would have a problem.

From WSJ:
"Democrats control both houses of the New Mexico legislature, the governorship, all statewide offices and all the state's congressional seats. But the party has been roiled by scandal in recent years, with a steady drumbeat of corruption investigations, indictments and convictions.

...Now Republicans are pointing to the scandals to bolster their argument that it is dangerous for one party to control all the levers of power. That is the same line the national GOP is taking as it girds for midterm elections next year with the Democratic Party in control of the White House and Congress.

"We're trying to sell the notion to the public that a real two-party system will reduce corruption and allow better oversight," said Harvey E. Yates, Jr., the new chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party.

...But veteran political analysts said the GOP could well gain traction, and signs of voter unrest already are beginning to emerge. Two and a half years ago, Mr. Richardson was re-elected with 68% of the vote, a margin unprecedented in state history. As he entered his second term, his approval rating soared above 70%. That has dropped sharply, according to recent polls by SurveyUSA and New Mexico State University. Both put his approval rating at just over 40%.
A federal grand jury is investigating Mr. Richardson's administration for allegedly steering contracts to a financial-services firm in exchange for donations to the governor's political committees. One of Mr. Richardson's top aides is named in a separate, private lawsuit alleging that political considerations influenced state investments. The state has also come under scrutiny for investments made through the private-equity firm Quadrangle Group, founded by Steven Rattner, a major Democratic fund-raiser.

..."You can't pick up a paper these days without hearing of some more Democratic corruption in the state," said Gabriel Sanchez, a political-science professor at the University of New Mexico. Allegations have included conspiracy, fraud, embezzlement, and evidence tampering.

..."If Republicans get their act together and focus on all these allegations" against Democrats, they could gain ground in "a voter backlash" against the ruling party, Mr. Sanderoff said."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124079114333557757.html

When Democracy Does Work

TW: Sometimes things are going well in a country which makes for a seemingly boring story. But if things were going poorly in Indonesia I am sure our attention would be more concentrated. Indonesia is a big country (population 240MM), it is majority Muslim, and situated in a strategically important region. Yet we rarely pay much attention to it as we typically fret about the world's trouble spots instead.

Occasionally it is useful to pay attention to the successes especially when they appear to be integrating democracy with Islam whilst tamping down any radical tendencies when many fear those attributes are not readily reconcilable.

From Economist:
"...Across more than 900 inhabited islands, 171m people have registered to vote. They have 38 national parties to choose from, and an estimated 800,000 candidates for the national parliament...Indonesia’s national motto is “Unity in Diversity”...In a country with a history of political violence, the campaign has been largely peaceful and good-humoured, as it was in 2004.

...The army is back in the barracks. Under Suharto it had dwifungsi, the “dual function” of running the country as well as defending it. It also oversaw a huge business empire, since partially dismantled, and was guaranteed enough seats in the parliament to ensure its privileges could not be chipped away. Now not only are serving soldiers barred from political office; the 410,000 members of the armed forces do not even have the vote.

...in the country with more Muslims than any other (nearly 90% of a population of about 240m), political Islam is firmly in the moderate mainstream. Indonesia has done well in rounding up Jemaah Islamiah, the al-Qaeda affiliate responsible for the 2002 Bali bombing. Some forms of Islamic orthodoxy—women wearing headscarves, for example—are more prevalent than a decade ago. And in the last DPR election, about 40% of the vote went to parties broadly defined as Islamist.

...dozens of Islamist parties sprang up. Most have since vanished or become part of the mainstream. To win power nationally and in local elections they have had to adopt a more secular image, or form coalitions with secular parties. Opinion polls have found dwindling support for the regulations based on sharia that some local governments have introduced..."
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13403041

Things I Like - Food

I can’t believe that April is almost over and I completely missed the fact that it was National Grilled Cheese Sandwich Month. I know, someone in the White house was not paying attention.

But I don’t feel too bad - this article from Woman’s Day was posted on the 23rd. It appears they were caught by surprise as well. Who decides these things anyway?

Regardless, the recipes for the 10 Greatest Grilled Cheese Sandwiches are mouth-watering (OK, maybe not the Grilled Portobello, that looks kind of nasty. But then, I’m not a big fan of the fungus).

And it seems to me that the best recipe is missing – it’s hard to beat your basic white bread and Kraft singles grilled cheese sammie. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure I know who came up with National Grilled Cheese Sandwich Month…

The Republican Base As Strident As Ever And Getting More So

TW: I have opined before that parties go through cycles whereby they create majorities for whatever lose the majority but for a period of time afterwards cling to their prior coalition in hope of bringing back the good old days. Eventually the old stalwarts within the party lose their grasp on power within the party to moderates who move the party back towards the middle where elections are actually won. To me the Dems went through this catharsis from roughly the late 1960's through the early 1990's as the old FDR coalition frayed then splintered then disintegrated. Bill Clinton patched together some new factions, W. Bush spoiled his own party's brand and now Obama potentially becomes the next great POTUS energizing his own party whilst bringing independents into the tent.

Meanwhile the Republicans are at the stage where their leadership is still owned by the old base and new leadership is too weak to move the party back towards the center. There remains a hard-core base of folks who are genuinely culturally conservative and for whom things like gay marriage and immigrants are anathema. Unfortunately for the Republicans that hard core base is on the wrong side of history with those issues. I suspect 2010 and 2012 will be very painful for the Republicans as a result.

The anti-tax, anti-"big government" (as conservatives define it) will have more legs ultimately. Low taxes will always hold appeal (and always have). But for now that message is not appropriate (regardless of the Hooverites) amidst a massive worldwide contraction. Furthermore any traction it should have is likely drowned out by the hard-core cultural issues being intermingled amongst the anti-tax message. By 2014 or so though, I would think the anti-tax, "smaller government" message will have gained precedence setting the stage for a Republican resurgence at least from the depths, it will have attained in the interim.

From Politico:
"...headlines suggest the Republican Party is beginning to come to terms with the last election and that consensus is emerging among GOP elites that the party needs to move away from discordant social issues...The party’s top elected leaders in Congress, meanwhile, spooked by being attacked as the “party of no,” were recasting themselves as a constructive, respectful opposition to a popular president.

But outside Washington, the reality is very different. Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party’s own leaders on familiar issues – taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction. There is little appetite for compromise on what many see as core issues, and the road to the presidential nomination lies – as always – through a series of states where the conservative base holds sway, and where the anger appears to be, if anything, particularly intense.

...And it is perhaps most tangible in Iowa, where same-sex marriage will become the law this month in response to a state Supreme Court ruling. There, Republican activists and officials say the party is as resolute as ever, if not more so, on cultural issues...The marriage issue was the No. 1 issue on their minds. No. 2 was the massive federal spending taking place. In every discussion, immigration came up.

...The marriage issue and other traditional conservative litmus tests aren't likely to fade before the state's next presidential caucuses, either. Asked about how a presidential candidate urging the party toward the middle on cultural issues would fare, Scheffler said flatly: “They’re not gonna go anywhere.”

...But the party’s battered infrastructure, still recovering from its drubbings in 2006 and 2008, is also listing to the right. Liberal Republican groups like the Main Street Republican Partnership and the Republican Majority for Choice remain essentially irrelevant, and even the main gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans, is fending off a challenge from a more conservative gay splinter faction. Ralph Reed, the longtime Christian conservative activist and former chair of the Georgia GOP, predicted that opposition to same-sex marriage would become, like abortion, a litmus test, if a lower-profile one. "There used to be muscular and vocal disagreement in the party on our pro-life plank," he recalled. "That has largely been resolved. Nobody raises the issue of changing the pro-life plank."

Meanwhile, the hottest new conservative outfit is the National Republican Trust PAC, which raised a stunning $6 million in the waning days of the 2008 contest from millions of small donors who helped fund a slashing television advertisement attacking Obama for his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It’s taken a similar approach to recent congressional races. Rick Wilson, a consultant to the group, explained the outlook of “real Republicans” when it comes to Obama. “They think this guy has grabbed the reins of power and that he is racing as fast as he can first off to reshape the economy and the culture in his image – they are mortified at that and they are terrified of it.”

...Two of the most prominent GOP Senate moderates face serious primary challenges in 2010. In Pennsylvania, former Congressman Pat Toomey, a down-the-line economic and social conservative, is running against Sen. Arlen Specter, attacking his “liberal agenda on social, labor, immigration and national security policies.” In Arizona, Chris Simcox, the founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Project, a group that mounted armed opposition to illegal immigration at the border, announced this week that he’s running against McCain. “We’ve had it with the elitist establishment in Washington and John McCain is one of those,” Simcox said. A conservative Republican operative, meanwhile, said two other prominent conservatives are mulling challenges to sitting GOP senators. The party will be shaped most clearly, however, when its presidential hopefuls begin their early state pilgrimages after the 2010 midterms.

And they’re unlikely to emerge convinced that courting gay and Hispanic voters, in particular, is politically saleable within their parties..."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21677.html

Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)

(click on to enlarge- this is hi-res large photo from Shorpy)
TW: This one is for our Chicagoland readers. The photo is vintage 1943 Bensenville, it was a dump then and well it has not evolved much (it is near O'Hare for those of you not familiar with the area).

Europe a Great Power: Not So Much (cont.)

TW: Continuing the theme from the previous post on Europe's challenged positioning amidst the world. This piece on China's view of Europe frames some of Europe's challenges. Competing national interests lead to lowest common denominator policies which dilute the impact of Europe's economic, moral and cultural power. The quotes harken of a bit of Chinese arrogance relative to Europe, which is probably overblown, not to mention one could assume such arrogance would not be limited merely to Europe if true. Regardless the piece speaks to the difference between a large powerful economy and political entity with a confederated structure versus an executive structure.


From Economist:
"Here is a quick way to spoil a Brussels dinner party. Simply suggest that world governance is slipping away from the G20, G7, G8 or other bodies in which Europeans may hog up to half the seats. Then propose, with gloomy relish, that the future belongs to the G2: newly fashionable jargon for a putative body formed by China and America.

The fear of irrelevance haunts Euro-types, for all their public boasting about Europe’s future might. The thought that the European Union might not greatly interest China is especially painful. After all, the 21st century was meant to be different. Indeed, to earlier leaders like France’s Jacques Chirac, a rising China was welcome as another challenge to American hegemony, ushering in a “multipolar world” in which the EU would play a big role. If that meant kow-towing to Chinese demands to shun Taiwan, snub the Dalai Lama or tone down criticism of human-rights abuses, so be it. Most EU countries focused on commercial diplomacy with China, to ensure that their leaders’ visits could end with flashing cameras and the signing of juicy contracts.

...As ever, Europeans disagree over how to respond. Some are willing to challenge China politically—for example, Germany, Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands. But they are mostly free traders. That makes them hostile when other countries call for protection against alleged Chinese cheating. In contrast, a block of mostly southern and central Europeans, dubbed “accommodating mercantilists” by the ECFR, are quick to call for anti-dumping measures. But that makes them anxious to keep broader relations sweet by bowing to China on political issues.

The result is that European politicians often find themselves defending unconditional engagement with China. The usual claim is that this will slowly transform the country into a freer, more responsible stakeholder in the world. The secret, it is murmured, is to let Europe weave China into an entangling web of agreements and sectoral dialogues. In 2007 no fewer than 450 European delegations visited China. Big countries like France and Britain add their own bilateral dialogues, not trusting the EU to protect their interests or do the job properly.

There are now six parallel EU and national “dialogues” with China on climate change, for example. Alas, familiarity with Europeans does not preclude contempt. EU-China dialogues on human rights or the rule of law are a way of tying Europeans down with process, avoiding substance.

...Chinese interest in the EU peaked in 2003, when it looked as if the club would soon acquire a constitution, a foreign minister and a full-time president. But the honeymoon had ended by 2006, after China failed to get the EU to lift an arms embargo imposed after the Tiananmen Square killings of 1989. At policy seminars and closed-door conferences, state-sponsored Chinese analysts now drip condescension. America is a strong man and China a growing teenager...Europe is a “rich old guy”, heading for his dotage. At a recent Wilton Park conference in Britain, a Chinese academic called the EU a weak power, unprepared to challenge American hegemony: China was not about to work with it on a new world order.

If you wanted to design a competitor to show up European weaknesses most painfully, you would come up with something a lot like China. It is a centralised, unitary state, which is patient and relentless in the pursuit of national goals that often matter more to the Chinese than anyone else. European governments do not even agree on what they want from China. They are fuzzily committed to EU “values”, but will readily trample on those in a scramble to secure jobs and cheap goods for their voters. They do not share the same vision of trade policy, or how best to press China on climate change. Worse, the biggest countries, especially France, Germany and Britain, compete to be China’s favourite European partner. This causes damage. It was mad that the British and Germans did not rush to back Mr Sarkozy when he was bullied over the Dalai Lama. They could easily have insisted that EU leaders meet whomsoever they want.


Yet talk of a “Chi-merican” G2 running the world is overblown. For one thing, China will probably prefer to keep its own global options open. For another, senior Brussels figures rightly insist that the EU’s voice cannot be ignored in global economic discussions. It is China’s largest trading partner, after all, with two-way trade worth a huge €300 billion...
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496093

Europe A World Power? Not So Much

TW: "Europe" encompasses a large population, a large economy and many wonderful cultural attributes. What it does not exhibit is a strong, central government which can focus those attributes into a world power along the lines of the U.S. or an emerging China. The three different "presidents" Obama (or other world leaders) encounters when visiting Europe symbolizes the diffusion of power. Furthermore it is unclear whether the Europeans wish for such a focus.

Large entities without unified control and authority will remain relevant but secondary players on the world stage. An American government fashioned under the original Articles of Confederation would have been such an entity. With the disparate interests and biases of the numerous states within the EU (small v. large, richer v. poorer, northern v. southern v. eastern etc.), Europe will inherently punch below its economic weight on the world stage. Not necessarily a bad thing but the entity will not be in a position to frame world politics the way some there would prefer.

From Economist:
“...When the American president arrived, three Europeans were with him: the Czech prime minister, whose country holds the six-monthly presidency of the EU; the prime minister of Sweden, who will come next; and the president of the European Commission.

...To euro-types in Brussels, such...vignettes point to one blindingly obvious conclusion: as soon as possible, all 27 EU members must ratify the Lisbon treaty, which creates the new job of a full-time EU president, so that small, incompetent countries like the Czech Republic no longer take turns to speak for Europe...Such critics often seemed inspired by a doctrine set out by President Nicolas Sarkozy, when he surrendered the EU presidency at the end of 2008, that “it is for big countries to take the initiative” in Europe. In other words: small countries pipe down.

...Does the Lisbon treaty’s full-time president hold the answer? It would sweep away the “Welcome to Lilliput” aspects of the EU that exhaust visitors like Mr Obama, notably the need to share a platform with three different euro-representatives. But consider the three big requests that Mr Obama made during his European tour: for more help in Afghanistan; for more fiscal stimulus; and for Europe to become more serious about energy security (ie, buy more non-Russian gas). Almost nothing was offered on the first and third, and the G20 conclusions papered over lingering transatlantic differences on stimulus plans and financial regulation. And Mr Obama also earned a public rebuke from Mr Sarkozy for strongly backing Turkish membership of the EU, which the French president opposes.

...Imagine that Europe already had a full-time president (Tony Blair, say)...How much would change? A President Blair might be able to push for a bit more EU unity over gas supplies. But he could hardly force governments to embrace Turkey, send troops to Afghanistan or change their views of financial capitalism.

During the NATO summit in Strasbourg, Mr Obama came up with a sharp observation. In its “wheeling and dealing”, and constant pursuit of different interests, political interaction in Europe is “not that different from the United States Senate”, he remarked. He was too polite to complete the thought: that European leaders, like senators, combine verbosity and limitless self-regard with a readiness to be bought off with money for voters back home, or favours for special interests.

...expect more people to argue that only a full-time president can save Europe. Be sceptical. Internal EU disputes will not melt away just because a powerful figure chairs leaders’ meetings. Dynamic Mr Sarkozy may be remembered fondly now, but many governments were relieved when his presidency ended. With Mr Sarkozy in charge, the prospect of a two-speed Europe yawned too widely for some people’s liking. It is the same externally. European and American leaders disagree because, on some issues, they disagree, not because of the way they organise their summits."
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13445660

Confessions Of the Advocate

TW: These ex-post facto confessionals from campaign insiders always intrigue me even if I doubt even the ex-post facto perspective is completely without agendas. Steve Schmidt, McCain's former campaign manager, has made several headlines speaking bluntly about the sorry state of the Republican party. Therefore I suspect he is burning up what limited credibility within the party he had remaining. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager also made some remarks. Here are some highlights from a recent roundtable:

Via Dana Milbank at WaPo:
Schmidt's comments-
"...On the Bush-Cheney drag: "The first night of our convention was President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I literally thought by the second night of our convention we could be down 25 points."

On Katie Couric's interview of Sarah Palin: "That is one of the two most consequential interviews that a candidate for national office has given, in a negative way, the other being Roger Mudd's interview of Ted Kennedy . . . when he couldn't answer the question of why he wanted to be president."

...On the Republican Party: "It is near-extinct in many ways in the Northeast, it is extinct in many ways on the West Coast, and it is endangered in the Mountain West, increasingly endangered in the Southwest . . . and if you look at the state of the party, it is a shrinking entity."

...Schmidt spoke openly of McCain's reluctant choice of Palin after hopes of running with former Democrat Joe Lieberman were scuttled by the right, which threatened a convention floor fight. "That would have had the effect of blowing up the Republican Party," he said, "and when you look at all the challenges we had during the 2008 election cycle, blowing up the party wasn't one of the menu items of things that were going to improve our situation."

...[Schmidt] joked about the GOP leadership vacuum ("this 'Lord of the Flies' period"), mocked the party's presidential strategy ("Hold the South and we'll spend $80 million trying to flip Ohio")

...He willingly accepted responsibility for denying Palin the right to speak on election night, because "if you lose, the concession speech is a singular moment" that "acknowledges the legitimacy of the victory and refreshes, if you will, the constitutional order."

...[on Obama]As a political proposition, his first 100 days have been successful," he said. "His approval rating is in the 60s, there has been dramatic improvement in the 'right track' number, he's had success . . . at passing legislation, and the Republican Party as a matter of reality in the first 100 days has not done anything to improve its political condition."

Plouffe's comments-
"I think the scoreboard of how many House Republicans voted for a certain bill is a flawed measure, because the truth is there's very few House Republicans that worry about the middle of the electorate anymore," the president's former campaign manager said.

"We've won all there is to win in the House, so these folks are worried about their primaries, and Newt Gingrich is calling all their shots and pulling out the dusty playbook from 1994 and saying, 'Just oppose the president, and maybe if things don't go well you'll profit.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042304209.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Things I Like - Art

I almost posted these on Wednesday as a ‘food’ item but they are truly art.

Pierre Javelle and Akiko Ida: The MINIMIAM Universe
(click to enlarge images)

From Do the Max:

Paris-based artists, Pierre Javelle and Akiko Ida have morphed multiple genres of photography, including micro-photography, culinary art, portraiture and landscape. The theme involves action, ranging from sporting scenes to
warfare, taking place in carefully staged, fantastic, food settings. In each diptych, the first image introduces the subjects in an uncertain setting. The second panel reveals the scene in totality, to an unexpected, often amusing end.

I saw them first on Paintalicious but couldn’t get a direct link (try this link and scroll down to the middle of the page).


The artists’ site wasn’t functioning when I visited, it may be back up by now.
http://www.minimiam.com/

Some of my favorites are at Alive as Art:
http://www.aliveasart.com/archives/2255

Health Care Reform Is Never Easy

From Economist:
"...Two documents...set out reform targets through to 2020 as well as more specific objectives for the next three years...Officials say [millions]...have no insurance now. But by...2020...[the goal] is to have a “relatively robust” government-financed health-insurance system, with more than 90% of citizens covered by 2011.

...The government admits that achieving its goal of building a “safe, effective, convenient and affordable” health service will not be easy. For much of the past two decades, many...lament, the trend has been in the opposite direction. Health-care provision, once rudimentary but accessible and widely admired by other developing countries, has been turned into a profit-driven system notorious for its corruption, indifference and expense.

...Even amid the global economic crisis, the government has appeared in no hurry.

...A big objective of the reforms is to break the dependence of government-owned hospitals on the payments exacted from patients for tests, medicine and other treatments. Government subsidies account for a tiny amount of hospitals’ revenue. Reports in the state-run press say more than 90% of their income comes from charges (poorly regulated and often excessive) for providing services and medicine. Weaning hospitals and doctors off these sources of funds will be a colossal task.

...The government’s plan is to publish a list this month of essential medicines. Over the next three years, government-run medical facilities will be required to give preference to drugs on this list and profits made on them by health-care providers will be phased out. They will receive extra subsidies to make up for their losses. But hospitals have often profited from illegal mark-ups on medicine and from commissions from manufacturers on the sales of their drugs. The new subsidies are unlikely to take this into account, so hospitals could see their revenues shrink. Hospitals have also proved adept in the past at evading price controls on particular drugs by prescribing other medicines or unnecessary extra tests and treatments.

...Another big obstacle to reform could be a lack of enthusiasm among local governments...officials say only 40% will come from the [federal] government..."

TW: I found this article interesting as it could fairly easily have been written about the U.S. In fact it is about China. The incentives, aligned and perverted, exist everywhere.
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496687

The MSM Taking Us Through a Circular Frenzy

TW: I do not post these TPM re-caps often, not because they are not generally very good but because if I posted them every day it would get tedious. But this one captures so concisely the craziness of media and something like swine flu. Anchor after anchor gravely opines "lets not fan hysteria" then almost immediately...fans the hysteria. Are these things serious, absolutely, should they warrant sensational gavel to gavel coverage which only perpetuates the potentially worse impact from paranoia...NO!!!

Another Bonus Post...

From Hal McCoy at Dayton Daily News:
"WHEN JACOB ELLSBURY stole home Sunday night against the New York Yankees, it was the first straight theft of home in Fenway Park since 1994. That theft was performed by Billy Hatcher, now the Reds’ first base coach, but then a Boston outfielder.
“Chuck Finley (a lefthander) was pitching and we were up one run,” said Hatcher. “Mo had trouble hitting Finley. And Finley wasn’t paying any attention to me at third, so I took off. I stole home one other time when I was with Boston, against Juan Guzman when he pitched for Toronto. He was slow to home and didn’t pay attention to me.”
Hearing Hatcher talk about running the bases reminded me of the time when utility player Champ Summer hit an inside the park home run in Riverfront Stadium. After he slid home, remained in the dirt, flat on his back for several minutes before he finally got up and staggered off the field.

Asked if he hurt himself sliding home, Summers said, “Nope. I swallowed my chewing tobacco.”

What Would We Do?

TW: Political Daily is another new entrant into the web site field. It is notable being started by refugees from MSM. Regardless, this piece intrigued not so much for its core purpose- to question the need for prosecution of torture facilitators- but for the issue of whether its background premise is valid. The piece assumes a hypothetical right-wing conservative takeover of the White House in 2012 due to a spectacular terrorist attack prior to the election.

What would happen in the event of another serious terrorist attack on the U.S.? Obviously the specific circumstances and timing would be relevant (i.e. a clear intelligence failure etc.). But would the U.S. veer so far right in the event of an attack. This has been my fear since 9/11. We have already veered far right once post 9/11, would it get even worse post a 2nd attack? I fear so.

Folks will trade much liberty for security. In many ways counter-terrorism is like crime prevention. How do you manage the risks without smothering liberties. The right especially that embodied by the Cheney wing of the Republican party is unwilling to bear almost any risk and presumably willing to blame anyone who is willing to bear the risks. The key would not be that 30% of the electorate aligned with Cheney et al. but the other 70%. How would they react?

My hope is they would maturely weigh the costs of going all in towards risk reduction. The loss of lives to spectacular terrorists are horrific. But torture, unilateral war-making, massive defense budgets and general paranoia carry economic and human costs as well. In fact those costs exceed those of any terrorist act to date including 9/11. Would our society weigh these accordingly? I doubt it.

ps Will address the core premise of the article- prosecuting a hypothetical post-terrorism official versus a real torture facilitator on a later post.

From Political Daily:
"The Justice Department announced today that charges could be filed against numerous Obama Administration officials as a result of last year's terror attack in Los Angeles. In announcing the indictments, Attorney General John Cornyn said that top officials showed "gross and purposeful negligence" by releasing perpetrators of the attacks from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and demanding that interrogation tactics be softened against chief planner Mehmet al-Meshugeneh, who had already revealed that a major attack was being planned against a major U.S. sporting event.

"By purposefully disregarding crucial intelligence, and in releasing known participants in the plot into Saudi custody, numerous government officials took action which made the Staples Center bombing possible," Cornyn said. He went on to note that, "numerous individuals in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security knowingly pursued policies which would endanger the lives of Americans. They placed their political priorities above the safety of the citizens of this country, and thousands of innocent people died as a result. These people must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. "It's not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration," Brickley said, "but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute."

Ironically, it appears that the highest ranking official who could face prosecution is former Attorney General Eric Holder, who personally dropped the state's case against Mr. al-Meshugeneh after declaring his capture in Afghanistan illegal. Al-Meshugeneh later admitted that, at the time of his release, he had already told the government of his role in planning the attack which killed almost 10,000 people, including the entire Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks basketball squads. Holder was also the primary force in prosecuting Bush Administration officials who issued legal opinions supporting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. As such, it appears that he actually set the precedent under which he may now be prosecuted himself.

Public opinion polls show 62 percent of Americans support prosecution of at least some Obama Administration officials."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/23/president-palins-quandary-to-prosecute-or-not/

Geez...What Do You Think?

From Taegen Goodard:
"An Ohio State University study finds that conservatives were more likely to report that Stephen Colbert "only pretends to be joking" on his Comedy Central television show "and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements."
TW: I have no comment...

A Multi-Tiered Quandry

TW: This piece was written by a Palestinian Israeli member of the Knesset. He frames the challenges Israel faces as a nation when it is trying to retain its Jewish identity without destroying its democratic and pluralistic character. It is unclear to me how they will do so. The demographics are challenging. But I am damn sure expanding their settlements into the West Bank is not the way to go.

From NYT:
"...We face discrimination in all fields of life. Arab citizens are 20 percent of the population, but only 6 percent of the employees in the public sector. Not one Arab employee is working in the central bank of Israel. Imagine if there was not one African-American citizen employed in the central bank of the United States.

Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.

A few weeks ago, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party led the charge in the Israeli Knesset to ban my party — the Arab Movement for Renewal — from participating in the elections. Netanyahu’s Likud also supported the action. The Supreme Court overturned the maneuvers of the politicians. But their attempt to ban our participation should expose Israel’s democracy to the world as fraudulent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07iht-edtibi.html?_r=1&sq=ahmad%20tibi&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1240762118-1r1e9kMLTLrtjf9tShO4lQ

Bouncing Around Our Echo Chambers

TW: MSM's revenue models are shattered, blogs and cable outlets with overt bias are the future. This evolution will facilitate the normal human tendency to self-select into groups with similar biases thereby reinforcing the original biases. Self-selection bias is pervasive and a sublte polluter of one's perception of the world on many levels.

Re-connecting with high school associates in Facebook has focused me on the reality the folks with whom I associated with in high school were more diverse than the folks with whom we hang out with today. Today we are cocooned amidst those with similar educational and demographic backgrounds, back then one interfaced with the not entirely diverse but broader group of folks from a surrounding geography (I went to public school, private schools might have been a different story).

As technology permits us to customize our intake of media it will unfortunately permit us to insert our personal biases into the nature of that media. I know I fight the tendency to focus too much on progressive sites. I force myself to crack open National Review, Red State, Drudge and even Fox on occasion to try to keep things somewhat balanced, but it is not easy.

From Nick Kristoff at NYT:
"...When we go online, each of us is our own editor, our own gatekeeper. We select the kind of news and opinions that we care most about.

Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. has called this emerging news product The Daily Me. And if that’s the trend, God save us from ourselves.

That’s because there’s pretty good evidence that we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices. We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber.

One classic study sent mailings to Republicans and Democrats, offering them various kinds of political research, ostensibly from a neutral source. Both groups were most eager to receive intelligent arguments that strongly corroborated their pre-existing views.

There was also modest interest in receiving manifestly silly arguments for the other party’s views (we feel good when we can caricature the other guys as dunces). But there was little interest in encountering solid arguments that might undermine one’s own position.

...The effect of The Daily Me would be to insulate us further in our own hermetically sealed political chambers. One of last year’s more fascinating books was Bill Bishop’s “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.” He argues that Americans increasingly are segregating themselves into communities, clubs and churches where they are surrounded by people who think the way they do.

Almost half of Americans now live in counties that vote in landslides either for Democrats or for Republicans, he said. In the 1960s and 1970s, in similarly competitive national elections, only about one-third lived in landslide counties.

...One 12-nation study found Americans the least likely to discuss politics with people of different views, and this was particularly true of the well educated. High school dropouts had the most diverse group of discussion-mates, while college graduates managed to shelter themselves from uncomfortable perspectives.

The result is polarization and intolerance. Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor now working for President Obama, has conducted research showing that when liberals or conservatives discuss issues such as affirmative action or climate change with like-minded people, their views quickly become more homogeneous and more extreme than before the discussion.

...The decline of traditional news media will accelerate the rise of The Daily Me, and we’ll be irritated less by what we read and find our wisdom confirmed more often. The danger is that this self-selected “news” acts as a narcotic, lulling us into a self-confident stupor through which we will perceive in blacks and whites a world that typically unfolds in grays.

...So perhaps the only way forward is for each of us to struggle on our own to work out intellectually with sparring partners whose views we deplore. Think of it as a daily mental workout analogous to a trip to the gym; if you don’t work up a sweat, it doesn’t count."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html?scp=1&sq=nicholas%20kristof%20daily%20me&st=cse

Things I Like - Humor

I love Ricky Gervais. This out take from the Sesame Street 40th anniversary special (due to air in November) is hysterical. Remember, he’s having a conversation with a puppet…



In case you missed some of Elmo's comments:

“Get off Elmo! You're not supposed to touch Elmo!"
"Acting, its called acting Mr Gervais, acting!"
“When did you lose this interview?”
“Elmo wants this tape”

Fair And Balanced Foments Ignorance

TW: I liked Avent at the Economist and I still like now that he has moved the Portfolio. Here he addresses a classic journalism bugaboo- the mindless pursuit of balance. Amity Schlaes' work has been panned by a strong majority of actual economists. Yet the MSM continues to want to reference her work on the Great Depression of the 30's as legitimate economic theory. Head in the sand Hooverite Republicans refer to her work ad nauseum for the simple reasons they have little else to which to refer when they propose cutting spending into the teeth of a massive worldwide demand contraction.

Her credentials and the substance of her book are highly dubious but when MSM with cooperation from a political faction get behind someone or something it just takes on a life of its own. Frequently in MSM you now end up with vanilla "he said, she said" which equates the "expert" opinion of two guests or views with no effort at weighting the one who may be backed up by actual academics versus the quack or Fox/MSNBC overtly biased coverage.

Into the void or land of mindless vanilla comes interest groups with savvy PR organizations who can then shape the debate through obfuscation. Tobacco and anti-climate change groups being prominent players in this field. As I have said before the web is the best means by which to obtain competing views, it is not as easy as absorbing 30 second sound bites but it is far more useful.

From Ryan Avent at Portfolio:
"...her revisionist views on the impact of the New Deal on the economy of the Depression have made her the darling of conservatives seeking to stand in the way of expansionary economic policies. The symbiotic relationship between Shlaes and Republicans has set up an interesting dynamic. She has a book called The Forgotten Man which calls into question the value of expansionary policy in the 1930s. Republicans really need some research to that effect, so they all start carrying around her book. Well, this is news, and so the press writes up the story of the academic behind the GOP's economic ideas. Of course, they need to present the other side, so they find an economist or two (usually) to say that Shlaes ideas are utter dreck. But it doesn't matter to readers; academics disagree about things all the time.

So you have the papers paying attention to Shlaes, which suggests she's worth paying attention to, and noting that academics disagree with her, suggesting that this is an area of academic debate. Suddenly she seems very authoritative! Which is good for Republicans and for Shlaes and for the papers, which get eyeballs from writing a story about a contrarian view of economic policy.

...The problem, of course, is that Shlaes views are bunk. Eric Rauchway, who has labored to explain to folks why Shlaes should be ignored, writes:
The problem with Politico reporting of Amity Shlaes's Forgotten Man...is not that it's "they-said, she-said" journalism, but that it's an inadequate representation of the truth. It's not just Shlaes versus a famously shrill Nobelist and some dude at an ag university; it's Shlaes versus the accepted academic consensus.

As previously noted, if you were a sufficiently honest and competent researcher located like Amity Shlaes near any number of world-class reference libraries simply out to find out the unemployment rate in the 1930s, you would not find the data Shlaes cites; you would find, in the authoritative reference work, an explanation of why it's not best to cite the data Shlaes cites. Shlaes has to go out of her way to find other data.

Rauchway notes the obvious parallels -- press coverage long ago of the health effects of smoking, and press coverage now of the science of climate change. The way in which reporters write about the latter drives climate scientists insane; peer-reviewed, well-accepted scientific findings are routinely placed alongside the drivel published by think tanks funded by fossil fuel interests to protect fossil fuel interests. Andy Revkin at the New York Times had a blockbuster story to this effect just yesterday. Industry groups were told by their scientists over a decade ago that their climate change denialism wasn't supported by the facts, and yet they continued to fund organizations claiming the opposite. Revkin writes:

By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition [which was financed by fossil fuel industries] were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action.

"They didn't have to win the argument to succeed," Mr. Monbiot said, "only to cause as much confusion as possible."...
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2009/04/25/what-good-is-the-news

Better To Be Lucky AND Good

When Mullahs And Bishops Dictate

TW: As you know, I am big on separation of church and state. I am also skeptical of dogmatic moral absolutes and those who seek to impose them on others. I am not sufficiently articulate in religion to get too specific on scriptures etc. but from my view there was a time when a more vanilla, bigger tent form of religion pre-dominated whereby the literal believers and the less confident believers co-existed more or less harmoniously.

The contemporary trend seems regardless of creed towards a less big tent more dogmatic form of religion. Concurrently, many religious leaders are increasingly active politically again an evolution that has gained speed over the past thirty years. Religious dogmatism and separation of church and state do not mix well at all. While I respect the particular religious dogmas or at least the right to have them, when those dogmas are inserted into my governance I get queasy and as necessary will act to counter them with as much passion as the believers.

Strident mullahs, rabbis, pastors and priests and their adherents are setting up tensions that will be increasingly challenging to reconcile. Those carving out and defending more and more immovable moral structures will inevitably clash. Furthermore moderates will tend towards less involvement within those organizations leading potentially towards a vicious circle of increasingly intolerant and ultimately divisive institutions who seek only those blindingly "with them".

From LA Times:
"...None of this impresses antiabortion hard-liners such as Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. Earlier this year, when Sebelius vetoed another measure that would have allowed a third party to seek a court order restraining a woman from obtaining an abortion -- even if it was necessary to save her life -- Naumann forbade the governor to receive Communion unless she changed her views.

...For conservatives who've been trying for years to pry Catholic voters out of the Democratic Party, the Holy Grail of political advantage is a long-sought clerical edict that would prohibit any Catholic officeholder who ever has cast a pro-choice vote from receiving Communion. From there, it would be a relatively small step to extend the ban to any Catholic who has voted for a pro-choice candidate. Catholic Democrats would be forced to choose between their party and their church.For years, most bishops -- though unswervingly pro-life -- have avoided such an either/or moment, not least because, on the vast majority of issues apart from abortion, their social agenda coincides more closely with the Democrats than the GOP. But time is gradually changing the character of the American Catholic hierarchy. The generation of pastoral, politically savvy bishops and cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II in his early years -- the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington come to mind -- are aging and passing from the scene.

In their place a new, more brittle and ultramontane group of bishops appears willing to elevate the abortion issue over all others. That's important because in the past, when more conservative bishops have forbidden Communion to Catholic officeholders, some cardinals -- McCarrick and Mahony in particular -- have declined to enforce the ban. Now, however, the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, Va., have said they expect Sebelius to obey her local bishop's order if she moves into their sees. If conservative activists can persuade enough local bishops to do to, say, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd what Naumann has done to Sebelius, the long-sought national edict is a fait accompli.George W. Bush's former advisor on Catholic affairs, Deal W. Hudson, said this week that Wuerl's and Loverde's acquiescence in denying Sebelius the sacrament "will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for Communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous." This is a nasty business with serious implications, and the bishops might want to consider where they'll find themselves if even their own co-religionists come to believe they're in the business of dictating officeholders' actions rather than forming consciences."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story

Yes We Can a Trade We Can Believe In

TW: I have to say I like the deal, I would have sought a carve out of Austin and definitely Lance Armstrong but otherwise a good trade. Will miss some friends but they can always visit (assuming they have proper documentation).

From Bill Wolfrum's blog:
"...Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon agreed to a blockbuster trade that will send the U.S. state of Texas to Mexico in exchange for the vacation hot-spot of Cancún, the famed Mexican soccer club Cruz Azul, and top-ranked female golfer Lorena Ochoa.“This trade was hard to make, but we felt it was something we had to do to strengthen the nation,” said Obama at a hastily arranged press conference. “Texas did a lot for this country over the years, and the fans won’t forget it. Texas will always have a place in our hearts, and we wish them well as they embark on their new Mexican adventure.”

Obama Administration officials said that the President felt a change had to be made when Texas Republicans - let by Governor Rick Perry - began clamoring for secession. Facing an April 29th trading deadline, pulled the trigger on the deal when Calderon relented and agreed to include Ochoa, the LPGA’s No. 1 golfer, in the trade.

“With Lorena Ochoa, the U.S. is not just getting a fine golfer, but a fine human being,” said Obama. “She’ll be a fantastic addition to our Solheim Cup team.”

While Cruz Azul has struggled on the pitch this season, the team is the most decorated in Mexican history. Obama said he believed the acquisition will give U.S. soccer the boost it’s been needing since David Beckham fled the country for Italy.

Still, the main piece of the puzzle was Cancún, the well-known vacation spot and popular spring break destination. Obama quickly made it clear that Cancún would be getting a starting position in his administration’s new economic recovery program.

...“Well, it’s a business, we understand that,” said Perry. “We were pretty sure that the Texas Constitution stated we could secede, but we didn’t know we could be traded.”

...Administration officials concurred, saying that construction of a laser-armed force field will be built around the Texas border, which would instantly kill any Texans that tried to enter the United States.

Calderon wouldn’t commit to his nation’s plans for Texas, saying it was dependent on how the state would affect the nation’s chemistry and whether Texans were willing to commit to being good Mexicans. Calderon refused to comment on the fast-spreading rumors that a deal was already in the works that would send Texas to Nicaragua in exchange for an undisclosed amount of coffee and beef, along with sections of Managua to be named later.

Perry said the state would need some time to regroup, and bristled at the idea of the so-called “Death Fence” that would soon surround the state.

“We really need to evaluate our career’s direction at this point,. But this fence is ridiculous. We’re good Americ … Mexica …. Oh, I don’t know!” said Perry before storming off in tears..."
http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/04/23/breaking-barack-obama-trades-texas-to-mexico-for-cancun-cruz-azul-and-lorena-ochoa/

When "Big Government" Really Intrudes

TW: Anti-abortion groups constantly seek ever greater restrictions on abortion. In this piece, we see Kansans seeking to open the door for doctors to be prosecuted even when they are seeking to protect the life of the mother. To me this is "big" government, where the state is inserting itself in place of the judgment of a doctor. Presumably the anti-abortion groups would argue the state would merely be acting on behalf of the unborn. Therein lies a crux, the mother has rights, the doctor is exerting judgment and rights and the unborn has certain rights or interests as well. The state adjudicates but regardless of the outcome the state is involved.

And if the state's outcome should lead to the rights of the mother and private doctor being subsumed to a state mandated right on the behalf of the unborn, the state will have truly exerted profound power.

Conservatives argue that they are for "small" government but in this case they are advocating a very aggressive intrusion of the state or government into the lives of the mother and patient. We can define big government in many ways but those on the right who claim the mantle of "small" government are from my view wearing blinders when it comes to this and numerous other social and cultural matters.

From LA Times:
"When Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius this week vetoed another in the seemingly unending series of restrictive abortion bills her state's Legislature churns out, it guaranteed that her confirmation as secretary of Health and Human Services would become a battleground in the increasingly nasty campaign being waged against officeholders who are both Catholic and Democratic.

Politics in Kansas has long been poisoned by extremism on both sides of the abortion question. This latest bill is one of a number that Sebelius, who is not a lawyer, has been advised to veto as unconstitutional. The measure would have amended an existing statute on late-term abortions, which Kansas permits after the 21st week of pregnancy only if the mother is at risk of death or severe physical or mental injury. The amendment would have required far more detailed reporting by physicians and would have allowed prosecutors who disagreed with the doctor's judgment to file criminal charges. Husbands who objected to the abortion would have been allowed to file civil suits.

"A physician acting in good faith to save a pregnant woman's life, and using his or her best medical judgment, should not be subject to later criminal prosecution," said Sebelius, explaining why she vetoed the bill. She is a practicing Catholic who personally opposes abortion. She argues, however, that such opposition does not relieve her of a legal obligation to veto legislation she thinks is unconstitutional.

In 2006, Sebelius said: "My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation." The governor contends that other approaches, particularly adoption incentives and better public health programs, are more effective, and she frequently notes that the number of abortions in Kansas has declined 10% during her six years in office..."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story

Things I Like - Odds & Ends

A trip back in time - be sure to have your sound on, the music is very pretty.

I can’t believe the way people and cars cross the tracks right in front of the train. And by the way all the people look up at the train, this must be the first time they’ve ever seen a movie camera.

Someone posted a comment describing the streets viewed in the movie as they looked 100 years later:

• Paseo de Gràcia: Service lanes moved to the middle and walking boulevards to the sides. The most expensive street in town, hosts the shops of big fashion franchises.
• Salmerón (currently Gran de Gràcia): Commercial street with small shops for the middle class.
• Lesseps: A motorway interchange for decades, overpasses are finally demolished for a civic square.
• Av. Rep. Argentina: Still very motorized, for Barcelona standards.
• Craywinckel: Houses are now high blocks.

French Envy

TW: I was catching up on some Int'l Herald Tribune reading and ran across editorials from a couple of weeks ago when Obama was swinging through Europe. There were three editorials- a German, an English and a French- they were all fawning. Now obviously the cynics can assert caution and certainly there are residual easy comps given his predecessor. Yet, given that predecessor and the cigar challenges of the occupant before him, it is remains nice see a POTUS cut through Europe like a hot knife through butter. It beats the alternative.

From Amelie Nothomb French author in NYT:
"THE feeling in Europe, and especially in France, about Barack Obama’s presidency is as clear as day: we are envious.

We are aware that the results of Mr. Obama’s economic policy are not good — not yet — and that there is little chance they will be wonderful any time soon. Here, too, the results of our leaders’ economic policies are not at all good. We know these things. Nonetheless, we are envious because Americans are so evidently proud of their president. What is worse, we feel that Americans have a kind of faith in Barack Obama. We would love to feel the same way about our presidents and our leaders.

Naturally, our presidents and leaders are even more envious than we are. They all seem to be wondering why they are not loved as well as Barack Obama is loved. Some of them are trying to play up their resemblance to Mr. Obama; others are suggesting that he is overrated. And so on. ... It is an extremely amusing spectacle.

Envy is a complex passion. It engenders both love and hate. Many French intellectuals hate Barack Obama because they feel that too many people adore him, and with too much ardor. But by and large, the optimism and excitement that the majority of French people felt during Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and at the moment he was elected have not diminished.
We had a chance to appreciate Mr. Obama’s spirit of cooperation with Europe at the G-20 summit meeting. It came almost as a surprise, for we are no longer accustomed to such things after years of George W. Bush’s isolationism. Mr. Obama’s position on Iran has provoked a more-than-favorable reaction all across Europe, and particularly in France, and nothing seems to be clouding the blue skies of the old continent’s love story with President Obama. Mr. Obama’s anger is portrayed here as something holy. And when he laughs, we laugh.

When our president, Nicolas Sarkozy, gets angry, on the other hand, we laugh. When he laughs, we wonder why. We feel that Mr. Obama confers dignity on his country and its people. We, too, would sorely like to feel dignified."

Obama Cuvee

From Der Spiegel:
"...A [French] female vintner, originally from Africa, has created an Obama wine -- and is donating all the profits to an NGO in Darfur.

...French winemaker Angela Bousquet-Keita, who hails originally from Guinea in Africa, has created the Obama cuvée (or vintage wine) to celebrate the election of the first African-American to the White House. Bousquet-Keita, who believes she is the only black female winemaker in the entire country, described how she felt a "moment of ecstasy" when Obama won the election. "It was the advent of a world that I had always dreamed of for my children," she told the French daily Le Monde.

While she intends to charge a steep €150 ($198) for three bottles of the wine, Bousquet-Keita says all the profits will go to an NGO working in the Darfur region of Sudan.

She hopes to be able to present the president with a bottle personally when he visits France in June. Made from three different grapes, she says the wine should improve with age: "It will be much better when served during his second term."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,619359,00.html

Reclaiming History

TW: I always find these stories about pulling things out of the seas or in this case a deep lake interesting. Above is a WWII era navy dive bomber retrieved last week from waters about 25 miles off the Chicago shore. Aspiring naval aviators trained from bases along the Chicago area shoreline, apparently up to 100 of them left but did not make it back to the bases during the war. Many of the planes remain entombed in Lake Michigan. Think about it though, 100 planes lost just in training from our one area is quite a few, thank goodness for modern simulators. The plane was retrieved btw on behalf of a naval aviation museum.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/world-war-ii-dive-bomber-recovered-from-lake.html