Take a long, hard look at this video:

Barack Obama said that when he gave a speech in Detroit telling automakers that they had to build more energy efficient cars, nobody clapped.

The reaction of most people who look at the above would be to conclude that he's simply lying. Obviously (unless the video is doctored and the applause was pasted in), his recollection of what happened does not square with the facts.

But does this necessarily mean he was consciously lying? In linking the above, Glenn Reynolds compared it to the Hillary Bosnia sniper flap. During that controversy, many people (myself included), thought it was yet another example of Hillary Clinton's longstanding "congenital liar syndrome."

However, while almost no one swallowed Hillary's lame "sleep deprivation" excuse, some analysts noted that there might be another possibility beyond mere pathological lying:

There are two possibilities: Hillary may be a pathological liar. Or, more persuasive to me, Hillary believed what she was saying and her description of her Bosnia trip was a true representation of her psychic reality and not external reality. In her internal world, Hillary may feel as though she's always being shot at by sniper fire and that she's heroically managed to stay alive.

This theory makes sense of Hillary's recklessness. It didn't feel reckless to Hillary to repeat this lie over and over again, and she paid no heed to those who contradicted her, because in her mind, she was telling the truth. Only when confronted with undeniable evidence of external reality -- actual footage from her Bosnia trip - did she admit (possibly to herself as well as the public) that her version of events was not true.

In the course of Hillary's campaign, a number of features have repeatedly emerged that are also elements of her Bosnia tale. 1) Hillary is both hero and victim; 2) facts are of no consequence; 3) And there are no witnesses or observers to the facts. This last point is always startling. For example, Hillary's explanation of her vote on the war made Nora Ephron wonder if Hillary thought we "weren't alive at the time."

On the tarmac in Bosnia, Hillary is the victim for being shot at and the hero for braving a war zone. And she's apparently having a negative hallucination that nobody else was there. The irony, of course, is that when the Bosnia story was discovered, it reinforced Hillary's psychic reality: Once again she felt she was being sniped at (this time by journalists). And that she had to heroically fight on and escape this near-death experience. Which it now seems she has.

But according to the experts, it doesn't much matter what I'd prefer to think about Hillary at this stage of the game, does it?

So, unsettling as it is to contemplate the possibility that Barack Obama might not be lying in his own mind, the simple fact is that either he was consciously lying, or else he was engaged in the same type of hero-or-victim self-delusion explored in the above theory about Hillary.

If this was not a conscious lie, the fact that he said "nobody clapped" when the crowd did in fact clap evinces a simultaneous desire to be both a hero and a victim. More worrisome to me is the possibility that he knew they clapped, but didn't think they clapped long enough or loud enough, because that might -- and I stress might -- indicate paranoid megalomania. Leaders whose egos demand prolonged and sustained applause (of the "better clap or else" variety) tend to have less than stellar historical track records, and I'd rather avoid giving examples.

So I just hope it was an ordinary lie.

If the massive outrage I overheard on talk radio yesterday is any indication, yesterday's California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage is the ultimate affront to democracy, and the final triumph of judicial tyranny run amok.

Daniel Blatt (a supporter of same sex marriage, btw) admits to being "troubled by the decision," as am I, and he explains why in an excellent PJM piece.

Not that I'm advocating rule by judicial fiat (or even same sex marriage), but it seems to me that much of popular reaction arises more from the culturally inflammatory, easily-understood nature of the issue than it is with judicial tyranny in general.

As issues of importance to the average person go, gay marriage strikes me as not terribly likely to reach out and touch most people. Unless you believe in the social contamination theory, which (correct me if I'm wrong) takes the communitarian view that marriage is much more than something for individual couples to contend with, as it is a social institution that can be "destroyed" once it allows itself to become "polluted" by gay couples. I've never been convinced that the average straight couple will be affected much, but I may be wrong.

While any reaction against judicial tyranny is generally a good thing from the perspective of those who fear out-of-control governments, I think this will be more likely to lead to the passage of a constitutional marriage amendment than to a serious drive to end judicial tyranny. In that respect, I am reminded of the way certain parent groups devote huge amounts of time attacking condoms on bananas instead of targeting the larger problem of the overall failure of schools fail to teach (of which the condom demonstrations are a symptom).

Much is said about unaccountable tyrants in judicial robes, and I don't like the idea of arbitrary rule by an unelected few any more than anyone else.

However, I will say this about tyranny by judges. At least the judiciary is in theory part of the constitutional system. (You know, one branch of the government and all that?) Judges have to at least operate publicly, and when they go too far, when their decisions are too notorious, the people who appointed them can ultimately fail to be reelected, and in California the judges themselves can be removed. So they're not completely unaccountable, nor are they completely unconstitutional.

What terrifies me much more than rule by an unaccountable, unelected judiciary is rule by an unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy.

Yes, there's that word again. Bureaucracy. For some reason it looks and sounds numbingly boring. When we think of bureaucracy and bureaucrats, our eyes glaze over. This faceless, largely invisible, almost eunuchoid ruling class just doesn't instill fear and loathing in people's hearts as it should. "Bureaucracy" is not a powerful word associated with tyranny, and it does not bring to mind the sinister men in black robes, even though the latter are in fact more publicly accountable.

Maybe I should have been worrying about gay marriage, but last night I tried to make sense of a bill called S.2191 -- America's Climate Security Act of 2007.

Trust me, it is a nightmare of government regulatory madness. Bipartisan sponsorship, naturally, so neither party has to face the wrath of ordinary little people when their gasoline prices double. Hopefully, they'll still be so busy duking it out over gay marriage that they won't notice the emergence of a new ruling class with far more power over their daily lives.

Even though it's a gruesomely cumbersome piece of legislation designed to regulate "greenhouse gases," S. 2191 does not specify what standards are to be set or what constitutes a violation of the law. This is all left up to "the Administrator."

SEC. 1202. COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the end of a calendar year, the owner or operator of a covered facility shall submit to the Administrator an emission allowance, an offset allowance awarded pursuant to subtitle D of title II, or an international allowance or credit obtained in compliance with regulations promulgated under section 2502, for each carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas that--

(1) was emitted by that facility during the preceding year;

(2) will, assuming no capture and permanent geological sequestration of that gas, be emitted from the use of any petroleum- or coal-based transportation fuel that was produced or imported at that facility during the preceding year; and

(3) will, assuming no capture and destruction or permanent geological sequestration of that gas, be emitted from any nonfuel chemical that was produced or imported at that facility during the preceding year.

(b) Retirement of Allowances- Immediately upon receipt of an emission allowance under subsection (a), the Administrator shall retire the emission allowance.

(c) Determination of Compliance- Not later than July 1 of each year, the Administrator shall determine whether the owners and operators of all covered facilities are in full compliance with subsection (a) for the preceding year.

Who elects these people? No one. They are nameless, faceless, and as replaceable as pistons. And the legislation empowering them is not only unreadable, it probably won't be read by the legislators who will pass it.

But two men on the altar? Marriage redefined? Anyone can understand that. It's as easy to conceptualize as a condom on a banana.

No wonder ordinary people react.

The cynic in me suspects that's the whole idea.

Where it comes to dating the divorced, I'm afraid I'm a bit out of my league, as well as out of touch with today's world. However, I nonetheless enjoyed Dr. Helen's PJM post on the subject, especially because double standards never fail to intrigue me. And boy, do the double standards ever abound!

...a divorced man has baggage and is a challenge. Dating a divorced woman is a special concern and leads to a fulfilling and wonderful relationship. Even the books mentioned are different. For divorced women, a book is cited with a nice title that is gender neutral; for divorced men, the title is more hostile and is geared towards what women can do to make sure this damaged man is right for her. Everything is about what women want in a relationship. The man just has to play along and conform to what women need.

However, a super bloggerhelper did email me something today which might be helpful; not for people dating the divorced, but to people -- especially male people -- who just want to feel dated, period. (In the nostalgic sense.)

It's from the American Psychological Association and it's called the "Marital Rating Scale--Wife's Chart":

...a test developed in the late 1930s by George W. Crane, MD, PhD, (1901-95) of Northwestern University, who ran a counseling practice, wrote a syndicated national newspaper column called "The Worry Clinic" and started his own matchmaking service.

The test was designed to give couples feedback on their marriages. Either husbands or wives could take the test, which rated wives in a variety of areas. For instance, if your wife "uses slang or profanity," she would get a score of five demerits. On the other hand, if she "reacts with pleasure and delight to marital congress," she would receive 10 merits. The test taker would add up the total number of merits and demerits to receive a raw score, which would categorize the wife on a scale from "very poor" to "very superior."

Hmmm..... Some of these questions are really great! (And how forward-thinking they were to include "jolly and gay" on the "merit" side!)

Contrast the above with the modern rule that "if you're a woman, never give too much and don't try too hard to be understanding." In light of all the progress that's been made, it's hard to imagine that there ever was a time when men might have used such a guide in evaluating their wives.

However, I'm thinking that such a "dated" perspective might offer hope to at least some of the "damaged men" who have gone through divorces. Why, maybe they could even be allowed to get together in support groups, and retroactively evaluate their spouses as they share a warm nostalgic feeling of being dated.

(Don't expect me to say that being dated beats dating, though. As I say, I'm an out-of-my-league babe-in-the-woods....)

Post-Nuclear War Mutant Salt Shakers, anyone?

Clayton Cramer said that a Thai restaurant was handing them to customers, but he found them "disturbing."

It's not the first time this has happened, but once again, I must regretfully disagree with Cramer.

I mean, just look at these!

I think they're incredibly cool and I want a set! In fact, I almost feel like flying to Boise, Idaho, renting a car and then driving to the Sad Wa Dee Restaurant in Meridian, to beg for a set.

BTW, the Sad Wa Dee has been favorably reviewed and rated four stars.

But the salt and pepper shakers are so beautifully disturbing I'd rate them a five!

UPDATE: Things are more disturbing than I thought. After exhaustively searching the Internet for mutant salt and pepper shakers, and "weird" salt and pepper shakers, I finally stumbled onto the mutants. Only they're not intended to be mutants; they're "huggies" -- and they're supposed to be placed together in a syrupy sickly-sweet display of saccharin schmaltziness....

Like this:

Ugh!

Reminds me of the expression "you can't hug your kid with nuclear mutants."

Or was that "nuclear mutants are for hugging"?

Maybe Clayton Cramer was right to find them disturbing....

To contact your government about Brazil and/or fusion try one or all of these:

House of Representatives
The Senate
The President

HT Instapundit

Hey, I almost forgot that this blog is five years old today.

Here's what it looked like in the early days on blogspot.

And here it is in July of 2003, right after I moved it to HostMatters with a cool redesign by Little Green Footballs:

And in June of 2004, the blog was redesigned again by Sekimori to its present form.

I'm not much on statistic-keeping, but according to the Site Meter, total hits are 2,839,355, with 3,837,105 page views. I tried to do a word count once last year, and it was difficult, but it appears that there are millions of words in the archives. There have been well over 6000 posts (many of which are essays), and while I've written most of them myself, there have been as many as four co-bloggers over the years:

Beck, who's written 8 posts;

Dennis, who's written 250;

Justin, who's written 322;

M. Simon (of Power and Control) who will probably be writing his 500th post today. (My congratulations!)

Considering that the goal of this blog is admittedly unachievable, I'd say the work is far from over.

While I like to think that I pay attention to so-called "wedge issues," it appears that I missed one. According to WaPo's Harold Meyerson, John McCain is trying to make "America" itself a wedge issue, by means of identity politics:

McCain's first post-primary ad proclaimed him "the American president Americans have been waiting for." Not the "strong" or "experienced" president, though those are contrasts he could seek to draw with Obama. The "American" president -- because that's the only contrast through which McCain has even a chance of prevailing.

Now, I mean to take nothing away from McCain's Americanness by noting that it's Obama's story that represents a triumph of specifically American identity over racial and religious identity. It was the lure of America, the shining city on a hill, that brought his black Kenyan father here, where he met Obama's white Kansan mother. It is because America is uniquely the land of immigrants and has moved beyond a racial caste system that Obama exists, has thrived and stands a good chance of being our next president.

That's not the America, though, that the Republicans refer to in proclaiming their own Americanness. For them, "American" is a term to be used as a wedge issue, a way to distinguish their more racially and religiously homogeneous party from the historically more polyglot Democrats. Such separation has a long pedigree....

I hate to interrupt nostalgic waxing over the "historically more polyglot Democrats," but I must object to the implications of word "historically." Historically, the Democratic Party was home to the Ku Klux Klan, while the Republican Party was home to black voters in the South. In 2000, Condoleezza Rice spoke from experience:

The first Republican that I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican that I admire most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.

Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.

Anyone who think the Democratic Party's racist history is limited to the distant historical past need look no further than the life story of the much-maligned (by Democrats) Condoleezza Rice:

Condi, as friends call her, was born November 14, 1954, in what his 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would call "probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States." During the Civil Rights struggle it came also to be called "Bombingham," with racist explosives killing not only Rice's friend and three other girls but also shattering the home of black civil rights lawyer Arthur Shores and terrifying the African-American community.

"Rice's father went to police headquarters to demand an investigation," wrote Dale Russakoff in the Washington Post Magazine. "They didn't investigate," Condoleezza Rice has said. "They never investigated."

The police commissioner in Birmingham who would not investigate was Bull Connor, a Democrat who perfectly embodies everything that political party has always stood for. When civil rights protesters arrived, Connor unleashed his dogs and fire hoses on them.

"John Rice," writes Russakoff, "then did what black fathers all over Birmingham were doing - what Alma Powell remembers her own father doing then, when she happened to be home with her babies during her husband's [Colin Powell's] tour in Vietnam: They got out their shotguns and formed nightly patrols, guarding the streets themselves."

One of the many dirty secrets of the Democratic Party is that its passion for gun control began, and continues to be, from a desire to disarm African-Americans and thereby make them powerless and dependent. Russian expert Michael McFaul, writes Russakoff, "remembers [Condoleezza] Rice telling him she opposed gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor could have used it to disarm her father and others" in 1963.

Condi Rice remembers many lessons of how her mother and father stood up to segregationists, refusing again and again to accept the inferior place into which the white Democratic bosses of Birmingham tried to push blacks. She remembers learning from her grandfather that "You have control, you're proud, you have integrity, nobody can take those things away from you."

For those who enjoy historical quotes from Democrats, Bruce Bartlett, author of "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past," shared some gems from his book in the Wall Street Journal:

"Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when--and only when--brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy--it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves."

--William Jennings Bryan, 1923
Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908
Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.

"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason--the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there."

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925
President, 1933-45

However, while I'm at it I can't resist this vintage snippet from a New York Times editorial:

"It has of late become the custom of the men of the South to speak with entire candor of the settled and deliberate policy of suppressing the negro vote. They have been forced to choose between a policy of manifest injustice toward the blacks and the horrors of negro rule. They chose to disfranchise the negroes. That was manifestly the lesser of two evils. . . . The Republican Party committed a great public crime when it gave the right of suffrage to the blacks. . . . So long as the Fifteenth Amendment stands, the menace of the rule of the blacks will impend, and the safeguards against it must be maintained."

--Editorial, "The Political Future of the South," New York Times, May 10, 1900)

And to his pure way of thinking the word "American" has become ugly code language for white Christian racist bigotry. And callused drowners of cities which probably weren't white enough:

....Their party leader, the incumbent president, let a great American city drown. They are the American party, and McCain the American nominee, that hasn't a clue about how to help America in its (prolonged, I fear) moment of need.

What remains for the GOP is a campaign premised more on issues of national identity, aimed largely at that portion of our population for which "American" is synonymous with "white" and "Christian," than any national campaign has been since the American Party (also known as the Know Nothings) based its 1856 campaign chiefly on Protestant bigotry against Irish and German Catholic immigrants. In Appalachian America (the heart of which went to the polls yesterday in West Virginia), as Mark Schmitt notes in the forthcoming issue of the American Prospect (which I edit), a disproportionate number of people write "American" when answering the census question on ethnic origin. For some, "American" is a race -- white -- no less than a nationality, and it's on this equation that Republican prospects depend.

But speaking of "American" as code language for white, I remember Whoopi Goldberg getting in trouble for describing herself as an American.

"Most of all, I dislike this idea nowadays that if you're a black person in America, then you must be called African-American. Listen, I've visited Africa, and I've got news for everyone: I'm not an African. The Africans know I'm not an African. I'm an American. This is my country. My people helped to build it and we've been here for centuries. Just call me black, if you want to call me anything."

But there's no winning this silly debate.

What's important to remember is that Republicans are bigots, "America" is code language for white racism, and members of minorities who dare call themselves American are "acting white."

In Picture Of WB-7 Bussard Fusion Test Reactor Available I reported that there was a picture of the WB-7 Fusion Test Reactor available. (Well duh). I must sadly report that it is no longer available. Instead EMC2 Fusion has replaced it with a picture of a plasma test of the fusion reactor using Helium gas. Yeah! We are another small step on the way to fusion power. Or to proving you can't get there from here. Depending.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Human Events and WorldNetDaily have teamed up in the form of this editorial from WND editor Joseph Farah:

...John McCain won't get any help from me. He won't get my vote. In fact, to be honest, if the Republican Party is ever going to recover itself and become the party it was under Ronald Reagan, it will happen faster if John McCain is beaten. It will happen faster if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton gets elected and implements the Big Brother, socialist agenda they both endorse.

Bring it on. I'll do my best to expose it. Maybe the American people will wake up and rediscover the meaning of freedom after tasting elitist, top-down, command-and-control, centralized socialism.

We all are going to experience it in the next four years. It's simply a question of who is going to be force-feeding it to us. I'd rather it come from the Democrats so the American people know who is to blame.

Had they been given the chance, they would have gladly reelected Bill Clinton to a third term. As it was Al Gore nearly won in 2000.

I don't know where these people get the idea that Americans will "wise up" if only they are punished enough.

I have no illusions about McCain, but voting involves not merely whom you vote for, but whom you vote against. After reviewing Robert Bidinotto's thoughts on the subject, Kim du Toit concluded,

"I'm voting against Socialism" should be our slogan in November.

Do you want someone is wrong half the time, or someone who is wrong all the time?

This type of thinking is quite old, and it's popular among activists. I remember a similar argument back in the 1970s on the other side. I know I'm repeating myself, but here it is again:

...behind the thinking is the idea that if the country is ruined by intensifying the pace of socialism, open border policies, multiculturalist rot, draconian gun control, terrible schools, etc., that the voters will finally "wake up" and realize that the only answer is to be found in far-right conservatism. Left wing tyranny will bring about a backlash resulting in sudden majority support for far-right politics.

This reminds me of a political debate on the left in the late 1960s -- a time when Weather Underground types and their supporters believed in radicalizing everyone -- and their violent tactics were intended to do just that. More mainstream leftists, while agreeing with the general Marxist philosophy, believed that such tactics might very well cause Richard Nixon to put America under martial law and bring about a fascist state. To this the far left replied that "If it takes fascism, then bring it on!" They believed that if America went fascist, the great middle would suddenly see the light and become Marxist. Now I am not comparing today's conservative right to the 1960s far left; for starters the right wing's tactics are not violent. I mean to highlight the logical fallacy involved in thinking that helping to bring about an abhorrent government will cause ordinary people to "see the light." Ordinary people not being activists, they don't see the light in this way; they hope only that they will be left alone. Thus, assuming the Clintons return to power, this does not mean voters would suddenly be more likely to vote for a far right conservative. To the contrary, they'd be more likely to vote Hillary into a second term. And, while the party purists in the GOP might wring their hands in despair of what has happened to this once wonderful country, they'll be stuck agreeing with each other, and blaming the RINOs for their loss.

This brings to mind another reason for sitting it out and letting Hillary win. McCain -- and the "RINOs" -- can then be blamed for Republican defeat, and the right wing can then have their "turn" at running against Hillary. I'll vote for them, of course. And they'll probably say that the reason they didn't win is because of the RINOs. But winning isn't everything; it's about party principles.

I have principles too, and I don't expect them to prevail.

(I mean really. Stop socialism, legalize drugs, defeat Islamofascism? Come on! What's next? "End the Culture War"?)

In terms of outcome, I don't think this conservative activist strategy of masochistically supporting the Democrats will do anything more than help the Democrats.

Well, I suppose it might generate a little more conservative despair. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

In what may be the silliest post I've written in some time, I'm going to try to make sense of Sean Penn's recent political analysis, delivered at the Cannes Film Festival:

At a press conference beforehand, the actor, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, offered his views on the Democratic nomination race.

Asked if he would be joining other Hollywood A-listers in pledging support for Obama, Penn gave him a less than ringing endorsement and warned that he has an awful lot to live up to.

"I don't have a candidate I'm supporting and I'm certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring," he said, but went on to accuse him of a "phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional" voting record.

Except I'm having a little trouble with the rest:

"I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be," Penn said. "This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever."

Isn't that a logical impossibility?

UPDATE: My thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link!

Crystal Dixon, an associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo, has been essentially fired (she refused to accept a demotion with a pay cut) for writing in a newspaper that homosexuality is wrong, and not the equivalent of race:

Dixon was placed on paid administrative leave after a column she wrote that appeared on the newspaper's Web site April 18 created controversy because of her views on homosexuality.

"As a Black woman ... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why," Dixon wrote. "I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman ... Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle ... "

According to a statement from UT spokesman Lawrence J. Burns, the university determined that there was "just cause" to fire Dixon.

"The public position Ms. Dixon took in the Toledo Free Press is in direct contradiction to University policies and procedures, as well as the institutional core values as defined in our strategic plan, and called into question her continued ability to lead a critical function within the administration as personnel actions or decisions taken in her capacity as associate vice president for human resources could be challenged or placed at risk," Burn said in the statement.

Predictably, the case is generating wide debate on the merits, with many social conservatives such as Matt Barber (who emailed me) saying she is right, and others arguing that she has a specially protected religious right to her opinion. It is true that the Bible says certain things about homosexuality, but I don't see how the question of whether sexual orientation is analogous to race constitutes a religious opinion. Nor am I comfortable with the argument that ideas grounded in religion are more constitutionally protected than ideas which are not. (This is not a new issue here.)

The University of Toledo is a public institution, and they're not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination.

How far that goes, I don't know. Would a university administrator be allowed to hold racist opinions as long as he didn't discriminate? Ms. Dixon has stated that she does not discriminate against gays:

"I absolutely respect their right to disagree," Dixon told WTVG about people who have spoken out against her statements. "Again: They are citizens. They can voice their opinion. I'm a citizen as well, and I ought to be able to voice my opinion."

"I've practiced human resources for 25+ years," she says when asked about any conflict her moral beliefs would have with her work at UT. "I have provided outstanding service to individuals regardless of of their sexual orientation. I have hired heterosexuals and homosexuals in my 25 years practicing as a human resources person, so I think it speaks for itself."

Of course, having a right to an opinion and a right to state that opinion does not always translate into a right not to be fired for having that opinion.

Should it?

And should an opinion grounded in religion be more worthy of protection than the same opinion not based on religion?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't understand why a Christian should have more of a right to criticize gays than an atheist.

MORE: Suppose the situation were reversed, and Ms. Dixon wanted to fire someone who believed in views contrary to her own. Would that make any difference? I don't see why. Yet I suspect some of her supporters would like to have the right to fire those who disagree with them.

If this were a private entity, it would be easy. In Boy Scouts v. Dale, the Supreme Court upheld the right of BSA to bar gays and atheists (and presumably, their supporters).

MORE: More on viewpoint discrimination here and here. It also arises in the cases involving Intelligent Design. But once again, I have a problem that religious objections to evolution are more entitled to constitutional protection than non-religious objections.

There's just something absurd about saying that those who deny that man evolved from Australopithecus can be fired, unless their opinions are based on religion.

Here's a treat for all aging hippies, hippie lovers, hippie haters, culture war buffs, and dog lovers everywhere.

Stephen Gaskin on Cesar Millan (aka the Dog Whisperer).

A tireless regular reader of this blog who will remain nameless has emailed me a link to the Oxford Reference Online's Fact of the Day which was headlined "How is the nine-banded armadillo able to traverse water?" The answer to the question is that it self-inflates, and holds its breath:

The nine-banded armadillo, unlike the other species, is able to traverse water by inflating its stomach and intestine with air for buoyancy. Since it can hold its breath for several minutes, it can cross smaller streams underwater.

For centuries, armadillos have been exploited by humans for their meat, and they continue to be a favored food item in many areas of Latin America. In North America people partake of armadillo meat less frequently; however, during the Great Depression of the 1930s, destitute southern sharecroppers came to rely on armadillos for food, and the animals were nicknamed "Hoover hogs," a wry allusion to US President Herbert Hoover.

I suppose that today it might be called a "Bush hog." ("Bush meat" is taken; it refers to African game animals, which are expensive delicacies.) But by today's standards, that wouldn't do, because its status in America is listed as "threatened" -- despite the fact that its range is increasing:

In the United States, the sole resident armadillo is the Nine-banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), which is most common in the central southernmost states, particularly Texas. Their range is as far east as Florida and as far north as Kansas, and while cold winters have slowed the expansion of their range (due to a lack of sufficient body fat), they have been consistently expanding their range over the last century due to a lack of natural predators and have been found as far as western Kentucky, and are expected to eventually reach Ohio before the cold winters inhibit their expansion.

I'm thinking that "threatened" is probably code language for having Bush as president. (The category can be flexibly "upgraded" in the event of "change," to demonstrate that we've made "progress.")

But meanwhile, it's Bush's fault no matter what.

Aside from the fact that I'm not a Clinton supporter, two things bother me about the news of Hillary Clinton's 2-1 victory in West Virginia last night.

One is the fact that while the story was reported, it was treated as a non-event, and buried on page A-4 of the Inquirer. This is part of the election, and while we're all sick of the election, it's an ongoing important national event, right? The margin is so close between these candidates that there's definitely still a race. Yet this huge victory by Hillary Clinton (second only to her Arkansas victory) is being treated as a trifling matter of political insignificance. It doesn't seem to matter that as Hillary warns, "no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia."

The Inquirer did report this odd little detail:

Obama also broke from his usual practice by wearing a flag pin on his suit jacket. He told several thousand people at the Charleston Civic Center that patriotism means more than saluting flags and holding parades.

Actually, I think I'm wrong with that comparison. Suppose that Huckabee won a state like West Virginia, even after McCain had clinched the nomination. I think it would be getting more ink than this. A lot more.

The other problem I have with this news is that the whole thing gives me the impression that either Obama doesn't care anymore, or else he's been given powerful reassurances that he doesn't need to care. Bad move all around. The man is running for president, and a failure to campaign creates the appearance that he doesn't care. The implication of this is that either he's lazy (which I doubt), or else he just doesn't care about the "hillbilly vote."

The conventional political wisdom right now is that McCain is poised to pick Mike Huckabee as his running mate. Perhaps an Obama deemed "out of touch with hillbilly voters" can be spun that way. I disagree with this approach, as I think McCain needs to reach deeper into that genuinely hurt and despairing group of Democratic voters who are sick of being spun as ignorant white rednecks and racists, and Huckabee is not the guy to do it. Psychologically, Huckabee will simply remind them that they really aren't ignorant rednecks, but still Democrats, and he will help them swallow their pride and vote for Obama after all.

Few GOP loyalists will agree with me, but I think Lieberman ought to be McCain's Veep. He's the leading member of the scorned and rejected class of normal people who are held in contempt by far-left party elitists who see them as defective (or "bitter) for believing in "outmoded paradigms...."

Like, say, the idea that an attack against your country deserves the strongest possible military response.

Hmm...

Do you have to be a hillbilly to think stuff like that?

UPDATE: Broken link fixed. And contrary to what I initially thought, the Inquirer did quote Hillary's statement about the importance of West Virginia:

"Every nominee has carried the state's primary since 1976, and no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916."

UPDATE: I was out of commission last night so I wrote nothing about West Virginia. But for those who want more, Stephen Green drunkblogged the race (the word "race" is becoming a political pun), and Rick Moran analyzes the historical context in "Why Hillary Won't Give Up."

UPDATE: Regarding the flag pin, Byron York notes it's an on-and-off issue. (Via Glenn Reynolds, who's questioning the sincerity of the timing, or maybe the timing of the "sincerity.")

Hey, whatever. Married men have been known to remove their wedding rings under certain circumstances.

MORE: I forgot to mention race, but Ann Althouse covers it:

White. White. White. Race. Race. Race. Oh, you Democrats. You've really made a nice place for yourselves.

One of these days maybe someone can explain why 67% is more racist than 91%, but never mind.... (It's probably racist to pose such questions.)

Here's something Coco is not happy about.

A student teacher in St. Cloud who had a service dog was harrassed by a Muslim student who threatened to kill his dog -- apparently because they thought the animal was "unclean." (According to the article, "the Muslim faith, which is the dominant faith of Somali immigrants, forbids the touching of dogs.")

How being forbidden to touch translates into threatening to kill I'm not sure. At any rate, the school (naturally) failed to back the student teacher:

...They upheld the rights of the side that threatened capitulation or violence. Instead of expelling the student for his threat and making an example of him, they chose to coddle the student and chase the teacher out of his job. Afterwards, they issued the normal multi-culti mewlings of "misunderstanding", "growth process", and emphasizing respect for different cultures.

I've got a suggestion: how about teaching that respect to the people who issue threats, instead of their victims? Which person needed an object lesson in respect more, the Somali student or [teacher] Tyler Hurd?

We have laws in this country, decided on by democratically-elected representatives. If Muslims don't like these access [to service dog] laws, then let them elect representatives that will reverse them, or failing that, go back to Somalia where violence trumps the law and they would be more comfortable. Shame, shame on Technical High School for buckling under to thugs and abandoning their responsibilities in such a cowardly manner.

(The whole thing makes me wonder what will happen when Muslim students threaten to kill gay teachers....)

In my recent post Starting A Fusion Program In Your Home Town I talked about expanding the fusion design and testing environment to increase the rate of progress in the development of a power producing reactor.

The lead Bussard Fusion Reactor (BFR) experimenter, rnebel, has read that article and has chimed in here with his thoughts.

One of the things we have been considering is selling a "turnkey" version of the WB-7. In this case we would design, build, license and deliver an operating Polywell, probably on the scale of the present machine. Operator training and tech support would also be part of the deal. The model is to use a plug and play concept where the user could substitute their own parts (electron sources, for instance) in an open architecture system. This is similar to what IBM did with the PC in the early 80s. It would give people who are interested in Polywells a chance to develop their own new patentable concepts and new companies without having to go through the entire learning curve that we have been on for the past several years. This struck us as a way to jumpstart the industry and get a lot of new ideas and people involved in Polywells. These devices could be funded through government grants (we have found a mechanism) or privately. I think we could do a turnkey machine for a ~ $500k-$1000k depending on how many people are interested. The idea would be for the government to make grants to institutions and then we would be able to competitively bid on providing the hardware. Ideally, I would like to see at least one Polywell in every Congressional district in the US. Since the cost is cheap, this is a tractable. Is this something you might be interested in?

Sign me up.

I think it might also be useful to do a $10K to $100K fusor type device for those on a more limited budget. Jr. Colleges etc. There is a lot that can be learned from such a device that would help with more efficient (Pollywell) devices.

BTW in other places (fusor forum) I have made the evolution of the computer hobby argument.

Great minds etc.

Also a range of devices and power supplies. i.e. 25KV, 50KV and 100KV pulsed supplies. Then the same range of continuous operation supplies. Same for the reactors. Pulsed and continuous operation. The equipment should be standardized as much as possible - at least for the starter kits so we could get the efficiencies of mass production. Also standardized test equipment. Standardized control.

If we had 435 tests going on at once in each district that would cause the Congress critters to all get behind the fusion push. Very astute. That was sort of my idea.

Again - contact me and tell me how I can help. I'm rarin' to go.

Simon

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I've been slow on the uptake lately. I try to follow alternative news sources, and so yesterday when I was at the supermarket I saw a tantalizing article in Globe -- headlined "Obama Caught Up in Gay Murder Scandal."

Excerpt:

So far, the Chicago cops' investigation into the murder of Trinity United Methodist Church's gay choir director has come up empty. But a top Chicago private detective tells GLOBE he believes the shooting death of 47-year-old Donald Young may be connected to Obama, who belonged to the church once headed by the scandal-scarred preacher the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"Donald Young was silenced because of something he know about Obama," says the private investigator, who has connections to the police department's homicide unit.

However, I did enlist the help of the ever-loyal Coco, whose ceaseless evaluations of various media claims has been invaluable over the years.

As you can see, she thought the story was at least worth a sniff:

Overall, on a scale of 1-10 I'd rate Coco's reaction maybe a 2. (She did later walk on the story, though....)

Anyway, Coco and I are a bit behind the learning curve, because John Hawkins has already been all over this story:

...I stepped up to the plate, bought the latest copy of the Globe, and perused the story so I could tell you what it was really all about -- because after all, if this man is going to be our next President and he's going to be getting involved in gay murder scandals, I think the American people have a right to know that.

Now granted, this is the Globe and as such, I wouldn't give Larry Sinclair and their anonymous "private investigator" any more credence than I'd give say, the anonymous sources for a Seymour Hersh story, but still, I thought you should be aware of this story just in case you are ever discussing Barack Obama and the gay murder he isn't -- well probably isn't -- involved with.

But why is Hillary being so uncharacteristically silent? Couldn't she at least do the charitable thing and state her belief that Barack Obama was not involved in the murder?

Barry Rubin has an article out at Gloria Center about the destruction of Lebanon. In it he says:

The goal of Hizballah, and its Syrian and Iranian backers at present is not the full conquest of Lebanon--something beyond their means--but to control the government so it does nothing they dislike: no strong relations with the West, no ability to stop war against Israel, no disarming Hizballah's militias or countering that group's control over large parts of the country, and certainly no investigation of Syrian involvement in terrorism there.

Why, three years after Damascus ordered the murder of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri do investigators dawdle, having edited out the names of top Syrian officials they blamed for the killing in their initial report?

Israel bombed a nuclear reactor being built in Syria. Rice reportedly opposed the action. The world yawned.

Iran drives for nuclear weapons. There is some effort but too little, too slow. Whether or not the war in Iraq was a mistake, when terrorists murdered Iraqi civilians, much of the West blamed America; all too many Americans agreed.

These are the questions Obama isn't even pretending to try to answer: Are you willing to fight on this issue? To defy an "international community" that opposes action? To intimidate and defeat the radicals? Answer: No.

But here's the worst part that few in America but everyone in Lebanon will understand all too well:

"It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

Here, make no mistake, Obama is endorsing the Hizballah program. It wants a new Lebanese consensus based on it having, along with its pro-Syrian allies, 51 percent of the power. What's needed is not consensus (the equivalent being getting Fatah and Hamas to bury their differences, or bringing in Iran and Syria to determine Iraq's future) but the willingness to fight a battle. In effect, Obama without realizing it, is arguing for a Syrian-, Iranian-, and Hizballah-dominated Lebanon. Such talk makes moderate Arabs despair.

Barry,

The "moderate" Arabs have helped convince the American left that the Palestinians have just grievances. All the rest follows from that. They are reaping what they have sown.

Most unfortunate.

Yes, that is absolutely true and I have often used the example of "riding the tiger" and being unable to get off.

Medihoney anti-bacterial cream from:

Medihoney Pty. Ltd
POB 66
Richlands QLD
Australia
1 -800-006-334
Int tel +61 7 3712 820

also:

Kerlix
Xeroform Petroleum Dressing
Non-adhesive dressing
Chucks
Tylenol/paracetamol (Clild Infant and Adult)
Motrin/Ibuprofin (Clild Infant and Adult)
IV Line Sets
Benadryl (Clild and Adult)

Non-medical supplies

Flip-Flops
Sneakers
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Toys
Stuffed Animals
Socks
Crayons and Coloring Books

Do not send cash or checks
Just send the materials asked for to:

Jimmy Compton
SOC
CSC Scania
APO AE 09331

e-mail for more information
jimmycompton --at-- gmail --dot-- com

You can find out more about CSC (Convoy Supply Center) Scania at Global Security

Camp Scania is home to a free clinic run by the 1st Battalion, 108th Armor Regiment, 48th Brigade Combat Team. The clinic, which operates three days a week, has become widely known as a premier location for the treatment of burn injuries, and some patients travel up to 75 miles to visit the small, trailer-housed aid center in southern Iraq. In many cases, Iraqi hospitals lack the supply of painkillers and antibiotics and other equipment that the clinic offers.

Did you know that earthquakes can be caused by anthropogenic global warming? No, really. That's what a "number" of geologists have been saying:

A number of geologists say glacial melting due to climate change will unleash pent-up pressures in the Earth's crust, causing extreme geological events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.

A cubic metre of ice weighs nearly a tonne and some glaciers are more than a kilometre thick. When the weight is removed through melting, the suppressed strains and stresses of the underlying rock come to life.

University of Alberta geologist Patrick Wu compares the effect to that of a thumb pressed on a soccer ball - when the pressure of the thumb is removed, the ball springs back to its original shape.

Because the earth is so viscous the rebound happens slowly, and the quakes that occasionally shake Eastern Canada are attributed to ongoing rebound from the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago.

Melting of the ice that covers Antarctica or Greenland would have a similar impact, but the process would be accelerated due to the human-induced greenhouse effect.

"What happens is the weight of this thick ice puts a lot of stress on the earth," says Wu. "The weight sort of suppresses the earthquakes but when you melt the ice the earthquakes get triggered."

When a quake happens under water it can cause a tsunami. Wu said melting of the Antarctic ice is already causing earthquakes and underground landslides although they get little attention. He predicted climate warming will bring "lots of earthquakes."

As we speak, glaciers are melting, and all that water is pressing on the tectonic plates! That's because the crust is sensitive:

When the glaciers melt, the reliquified water causes sea levels to rise and increases the weight on the ocean floor, which could also have an effect on the grinding tectonic plates deep below the surface.

The Earth's crust is more sensitive than some might think. There are well-documented cases of dams causing earthquakes when the weight of the water behind a dam fills a reservoir.

Alan Glazner, a volcano specialist at the University of North Carolina, said he was initially incredulous when he found a link between climate and volcanic activity off the coast of California.

"But then I went to the library and did some research and found that in many places around the world especially around the Mediterranean they see similar sorts of correlations."

"When you melt glacial ice, several hundred metres to a kilometre thick . . . you've decreased the load on the crust and so you've decreased the pressure holding the volcanic conduits closed.

"They're cracks, that's how magmas gets to the surface . . . and where they hit the surface, that's where you get a volcano."

No one has claimed that the Christmas tsunami of 2004 was triggered by rising sea levels. But that event seems to have sparked new interest in the links between climate and geology.

People prone to hysteria often become further unhinged in the face of a great disaster, and that may explain these remarkable comments on the tsunami disaster. Still, these comments by the movement's leadership may serve as a case study of how such imaginings work their way into public discussion of the environment. That is all the more reason to come to grips with the real causes of calamities such as this.

Geologists say that groups of giant earthquakes hit Sumatra every 230 years or so. The last quakes there were in 1797 and 1833--and surely not even Greenpeace would blame those on greenhouse gases--and so Sunday's latest quake was more or less on schedule.

How can the WSJ say such a thing when a "number" of scientists are claiming that the evidence is "stacking up":

"All over the world evidence is stacking up that changes in global climate can and do affect the frequencies of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and catastrophic sea-floor landslides," says British geologist Bill McGuire, writing in New Scientist magazine.

"Not only has this happened several times throughout Earth's history, (but) the evidence suggests it is happening again," says McGuire, professor of geological hazards at University College in London.

Glazner said the main impact of glacial melting is due to reduced weight on the places losing glaciers rather than the increased weight on the ocean floor.

"If you melt that glacier and the water runs into the oceans, that water is spread over the entire surface of the ocean and it might add a millimetre to the thickness of the oceans or something, but you've taken a kilometre off of that place where the glacier used to be."

So why aren't the numerous scientists saying it was?

Don't they believe in their own theories?

You'd think at least Al Gore could weigh in. After all, he did blame global warming for the cyclone in Burma, calling it "one of the consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with global warming."

Considering that earthquakes are said by a number of scientists to be simply another one of these consequences, I find the continued silence baffling.

While I don't like (most) Hitler comparisons, I thought the "Hillary's Downfall" video was hilarious.

By the way, this particular video (a clip from Der Untergang) has the uncanny ability to adapt itself to whatever downfall theme is plugged in; not long ago it was the downfall of the Cowboys, then later the the Patriots' devastating loss to the Giants at Superbowl XLII.

I want more downfalls!

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds (who questions her "Southern Strategy") a glimpse of the real Hillary, from a report linked by Michael Silence and cached here:

The year was 1993, and the focus was on comprehensive health care reform. The Clinton administration was mounting a full-court press in persuading congressional leaders to sign on to a health care bill championed by the White House.

Cooper [U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-TN] had a health care bill of his own.

"They turned up their nose at my bill, and that's fine. But then they constructed this secret 500-person task force to draft a whole new bill - and I knew it would go nowhere," Cooper said. "So I went privately to the White House to warn (Hillary Clinton). No publicity. No nothing.

"She brought in a camera to record the meeting. And she has not released the memos on this meeting. She immediately declared war on me. I warned her we didn't even have the votes (for her bill) in our subcommittee. She said, 'We're going to (politically) cut your legs off.' I've never gotten such a cold reception as I got from her."

Cooper said the first lady set up a war room to undercut Cooper, who was gearing up for a run at the U.S. Senate in 1994. And a former television news reporter from Nashville was tasked with leading that war room, he said.

While writing a post this morning, the power failed and the battery backup unit didn't seem to work properly, so I lost a post. But then when I tried to power up the computer after the electricity returned on, nada. My main computer failed to power on. I suspect I fried the mother board, because the power supply tests out fine and the green "flea" light on the board comes on.

So it's a major computer crash, and I'm going to have to run around fixing it.

The blog will have to wait.

Fortunately, the disappeared post I was working on was neither new nor original. A legislator who ought to know better argues in today's Inquirer that laws criminalizing the failure to report the theft or loss of guns would somehow prevent criminal straw purchases.

As I've previously blogged about this at lenth, I was basically complaining about how I hate to repeat myself -- and all while repeating myself.....

(Just what the world absolutely needs, right?)

MORE: When I said "the power supply tests out fine," I spoke too soon. It turned out that it was the power supply unit after all. The fan started and it gave me the correct voltages on a multitester, but apparently there's more to power supplies than that, because the computer repair guy got it going with another power supply.

Today is Mother's Day, and as my mother died in 1999, all I can really do is remember her, and miss her.

Of course, if your mother is alive, you can do more.

While Mothers Day kind of artificially forces the issue (and it is commercialized), it's nonetheless a reminder not to take mothers for granted.

There wouldn't be an us without them.

In a great Pajamas Media piece, Andrew Ian Dodge takes a look at the mentality of the people who are going after video games:

Politicians are always looking for an edge to be seen to be doing something; especially if it involves children. Never is it more likely that during an election year or the lead up to a general election. Politicians all over the Anglosphere are eyeing the video game industry with ill intent.

US government leaders examining slapping extra taxes on game transactions, justified by the supposed link between video games with violent behavior - which also bolsters the cries for censorship. The latter is occuring despite the fact there is evidence that video games do not lend themselves to encouraging bad behavior. There is a recent study shows that video game paranoids are completely off base.

Surprisingly, for some, it seems that its not violent games that make children violent, but the dysfunctional family they live in. Just like with the recent spate of college shootings; it seems that sick violent people when allowed to roam free act out on their proclivities.

I have noticed that the mentality which wants to go after physical things (whether video games or guns) seems to overlap with a mindset which is very much against holding criminals accountable for their actions. In fact, I have yet to meet someone who is soft on criminals who isn't also ferociously anti-gun.

Philadelphia Mayor Nutter, for example, not only blamed the gun the criminals used to shoot Sgt. Liczbinski, he blamed the NRA, claiming that "they" (not the judges and parole board members