This web site is a perfect example of why people don't want to go into politics. Such sliminess is unbelievable. But it's all in a day's work for the likes of Daily Kos, Andrew Sullivan, and other gullible bloggers I once respected who ought to know better.

I hope this poor girl gives a tearful press conference and reveals to the nation that she was never pregnant with her brother.

Bastards.

MORE: Ann Althouse shares her thoughts in a post titled "Stop prying into other people's vaginas, even if you happen to oppose them politically. What is wrong with you people?"

"Think before you write" is her advice to Andrew Sullivan, and I hope he takes it to heart.

And there's this:

Pictures are posted, with captions like: "Sarah's waistline never changed. Her wardrobe still remained tight and professional." Note the gratuitous insult to pregnant working women. They can't possibly dress in a professional manner. There are also enlarged photos of the 16-year-old daughter with comments about the shape of her abdomen. The whole world is invited to talk about that teenager's body.

Despicable, sexist trash. Shameful.

This is a horrible thing to do to a young person who never harmed any of her attackers. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but they're probably delighted.

Roger L. Simon takes issue with the conventional wisdom lumping so-called "social issues" together:

The preeminent social issues - gay marriage and abortion - are quite separate. Lumping them together, as is often done by the media and by ideologues on both sides, is insulting to our intelligence.

In general, my philosophy is the less government, the better.

Roger said "I remain pro-choice because I would prefer the government not be involved in these highly personal decisions."

I'd prefer the government not be involved in a lot of highly personal decisions. But the people who go into government go into it because they want to tell people what to do, and the people who get excited by politics often have the same motivation.

As Roger says, the social issues are not the same. But the people who want to manipulate social issues to gain power benefit from saying they are. Thus, they come up with phrases like "family values" and repeat them so often that they start to believe that if you disagree with them, you are "anti-family." (Or at best, not "family friendly.")

Fortunately, the "social issues" are not part of the president's job, which is simply to uphold the Constitution and carry out the law of the land. If voters understood that, the social issues would not be election issues, but would remain personal issues.

But many voters don't understand that, and there aren't many votes to be earned in telling them that.

Which is why politicians insult the intelligence of those who do understand, and why they struggle to make personal matters political.

I'm not normally one to praise Jimmy Carter, but I just stumbled onto an interesting tidbit I'd never seen before that (because of my admitted bias) warmed me to him.

Not all Pit Bulls are bad, but they are strong and, when tested, they do attack with a bone-crushing, mutilating bite. The American Pit Bull is too much dog for the average dog owner, and should only be purchased by people who are willing and strong enough to channel that power into productive areas. Nevertheless, they are loving and protective of their families, and owners report them particularly responsive to training: herding, obedience, schutzhund and weight-pulling. An incredible Pit Bull weighing less than 70 pounds set a record by pulling 2,000 pounds. A host of admirers included Helen Keller, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Edison (whose dog, "Nipper," was the RCA model) and Jimmy Carter, who had one as a boy. Actors Michael J. Fox and James Caan are current owners.

(Emphasis added.)

Amazingly, there's a picture taken in 1937 of young Jimmy with his pit bull:

The dog's name was "Bozo," and the picture is right there at the Wiki page. While the Wiki writeup says nothing about Bozo, looking at the picture, the dog is obviously a pit bull, no question about it.

Very damning, I'd say.

I guess this means I'll have to step up my efforts to defend this much maligned breed.

Just kidding, folks!

Because, in light of his enlightened pit bull ownership, just for today I thought I'd find something nice to say about Jimmy Carter. So there's this:

Did you know that before he was elected Jimmy Carter had more executive experience than either of the two current candidates for President?

It's true. Carter was Governor of Georgia for four full years (from January 12, 1971 to January 14, 1975).

Why, that's four more years of executive experience than vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, who is often described as "experienced" but who has has spent his entire political life as a legislator, never as an executive.

In terms of hands-on executive experience, only Governor Sarah Palin can approach Jimmy Carter. While it's true that because she was sworn in as Governor on December 4, 2006, she's not quite as experienced as Carter, in terms of executive experience, she's the leader of the current pack.

And that happens to be the truth, regardless of what anyone thinks of pit bulls.

Politics is sleazy, and I'm quite used to dirt-digging, bogus allegations, wild exaggerations, and things blown out of proportion to their actual importance. I've seen so much mud-slinging over the years that I often think I've seen everything.

One of the first things I thought when I heard about Sarah Palin's nomination was that she'd be subjected to especially ruthless and cruel scrutiny of the sort male politicians don't generally have to endure. That's because conservative women tend to be hated as by the left as "traitors," while conservative men are seen as living up to the usual male-bashing stereotypes. Conservative women can expect to have their personal appearances, lives, even wardrobes mocked in a way that conservative men don't. Thus, I am not surprised at all to see Sarah Palin widely ridiculed for having been a beauty pageant contestant, and I expect to see more. Feminist lefties like Maureen Dowd have the best of both worlds, for not only do they get to ridicule women with impunity, but they even get to claim that they (the insult-hurlers) are the ones really being insulted!

Palinistas, as they are called, love Sarah's spunky, relentlessly quirky "Northern Exposure" story from being a Miss Alaska runner-up, and winning Miss Congeniality, to being mayor and hockey mom in Wasilla, a rural Alaskan town of 6,715, to being governor for two years to being the first woman ever to run on a national Republican ticket. (Why do men only pick women as running mates when they need a Hail Mary pass? It's a little insulting.)

Sarah is a zealot, but she's a fun zealot. She has a beehive and sexy shoes, and the day she's named she goes shopping with McCain in Ohio for a cheerleader outfit for her daughter.

Dowd's column is even titled "Vice in Go-Go Boots." What is it about women and shoes, anyway? If Dowd were a man, I'd almost be inclined to call it a form of sexism.... Seriously, what national columnist would ever care this much about a male politician's feet? (Well, there was Larry Craig, but no one accused him of wearing Go-Go boots....)

Accustomed as I am to such nonsense in politics, I was genuinely taken aback this morning by the latest charge (by the Kos camp) -- that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy, and only pretended to give birth to a baby with Down's syndrome.

One of the blogosphere's better debunkers, John Hawkins, has photos showing an obviously pregnant Sarah Palin.

Not that an allegation like this should even need debunking, but who knows? Maybe the Palin Pregnancy Truthers are the left's revenge for the Obama Birth Certificate Truthers... (What's next? Will Palin get a stern scolding for having smoked marijuana?)

On the bright side, one of my problems is that I sometimes hate politics so much that I have to struggle to keep a sense of humor, but I face no such struggle today.

By injecting much-needed humor into the race with their antics, the Palin Pregancy Truthers have restored my faith.

Well, maybe almost.

(It's time for a fake pregnant pause....)

* Such people still care deeply about Condoleezza Rice's shoes.

MORE: "Footnote" added above. (I can say that, can't I?)

AND MORE: Speaking of hurricanes, Glenn Reynolds links recent reporting from Brendan Loy that Hurricane Gustav is weakening:

Based on Gustav's current location and forward speed, I'd say we're looking at a six-hour window, or thereabouts. If the pressure doesn't drop significantly by, say, the 5:00 PM advisory, we'll probably be able to say we've dodged a bullet.

I don't know what on earth God might be thinking, but considering what's on some of the leading minds of the left, an inevitable question arises.

When will the coast be clear for conservative or libertarian women to buy shoes?

Eric Dondero of the Libertarian Republican blog has some very kind words for Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin has long been considered to be a libertarian-leaning Republican. As Mayor of Wasila (Anchorage suburb), Palin was friends with local libertarian Republican elected officials, and worked closely with them on tax cut proposals.

She is known to have spoken to two Libertarian Party meetings in 2004/05. She was endorsed by the Libertarian Party of Alaska in the final days of her race for Governor in 2006, even though the LP had it's own candidate. On election night, Ms. Palin at the Egan Center, went out of her way to acknowledge the Libertarian Party's support in her victory speech. Immediately afterwards, she embraced then LPA Chairman Jason Dowell in the crowd. Dowell, and other Libertarians had stood on street corners waving signs for Palin the final two days.

Editor's Note - As many of you all know, our own Contributing Writer Adam Brickley of Colorado is the Founder and Chairman of the Draft Sarah Palin for VP Campaign. (I guess, as of this moment the group should happily go defunct.) We are extremely proud of Adam's efforts. And we are proud to have lent our support to Adam, and played a role in this effort.

Lets have a look at the Washington Post to get some details.

Online, politicians and their supporters both leave digital footprints.

And so it was that yesterday's announcement of Gov. Sarah Palin as Sen. John McCain's running mate led us to Adam Brickley, a young Republican who's a recent graduate of University of Colorado at Colorado-Springs. In Feb. 2007, months before the first-term Alaskan governor, was on anyone's radar screen, the 21-year-old created the blog Draft Palin for Vice President.

Yesterday, much to his own surprise, his dreams were answered. Brickley wrote around 6 p.m. Friday: "Just so that you all know, I did receive a brief phone call tonight from Todd and Sarah Palin.Thanks to them for being so kind."

Earlier today, Brickley told The Trail about the call. "They thanked me for my tenacity," said Brickley, who now lives in Washington, D.C., and works as an intern for the conservative site TownHall.com.

Brickley's blog grew into a Facebook group. In the summer of 2007, when McCain's campaign was languishing and Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson were atop the polls, Brickley also created the pro-Palin Facebook group Draft Palin for Vice President. Today that group lists more than 1,400 grateful members.

I think it is now time that the rest of us Libertarian Republicans went out and made a difference.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

This happened a while back but I'm just catching up. The DNC has moved a considerable portion of its operations to Chicago.

"This is part of the implementation of the plans Paul [Tewes] discussed last week with the state party chairs," Finney said. "As part of the efforts to fully integrate DNC operations with the Obama campaign here in Washington, in Chicago and in the states, political, field and constituency operations are moving to Chicago to work in the Obama headquarters. The goal is to consolidate these efforts into one operation and effectively drive one national strategy."

Anglachel's Journal has an interesting insight into the move.

I've been involved in the merger of two good sized US corporations. It's not something that can be done at the drop of a hat. Costs have to be scoped, budgets established, plans made, landlords current and prospective contacted, vendors hired, bills paid, accounts closed in DC and opened in Chicago, equipment purchased, staff relocated, reassigned and/or terminated, letterhead and business cards printed, signage created, phone service changed, and that's just the stuff off the top of my head.

I'm not buying the claim that it was a recent decision, quickly executed. Who knew about the merger and when did they know it what remains to be unearthed. Not a word of this was out in the blogs or in the news before this week thatI am aware of. How did such a major logistical operation remain under wraps?

This casts the repeated insistence that Florida and Michigan not be allowed to change the outcome in a new light. If the DNC had agreed to relocate, but Obama lost the nomination, that would have made for a lot of explaining as to the DNC itself taking sides. It also makes the silence of top party leaders over the brutal treatment of Hillary by the press more explicable - they needed her to lose in order to give their own machinations some cover.

The news came out around the middle of June. Assuming it takes three months to plan such an operation that would mean plans had to be made in April. Or earlier. So the question is who bought the Democrat Party and what do they intend to do with it?

Let me see. Obama had a Marxist mentor. He sought out Marxist professors. He spent 20 years in a Marxist church and his political career began in the home of a Marxist bomber and his Marxist wife.

I think we have some clues.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I'm sorry, but with remarks like this, Obama is asking for it:

The Obama campaign is not backing down. "The fact that John McCain does not know how many houses he owns when millions are struggling to stay in the only house they have shows he's out of touch with the lives of real Americans," said Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass Saturday afternoon."McCain is promising to double down on the economic policies of George W. Bush which have benefited corporations and CEO's while leaving middle-class families behind. John McCain just doesn't get it."

(Emphasis added.)

Hmmm...

OTOH, maybe he thinks the media memory is short. Here's how ABC reported it:

Obama maintains his relationship with Rezko was "above board and legal" but has admitted bad judgment, calling his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.

While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer.

Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of the Rezko land for $104,5000, which the senator maintains was a fair market price.

Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times, "It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe he had done me a favor."

Obama had known Rezko long before the house deal, calling him a "friend."

An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation.

"It surprised me that late in the game he [Obama] continued to take contributions from somebody who was under a rather dark cloud in the state," said Cynthia Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts.

In the wake of the Rezko indictment, Obama says he has given $44,000 of the Rezko-connected money to charity.

Since when is a "bone-headed" deal with a Syrian crook like Rezko indicia of being in touch with the lives of real Americans?

I'm thinking maybe Obama should tread lightly where it comes to real estate issues.

I'm a sucker for puzzles, especially when I can't figure them out. Someone could probably trap and kill me by using the human equivalent of the monkey trap if the trap consisted of something I couldn't figure out, but which looked as if it maybe could be.

I think that whether puzzles are a waste of time depends on whether they are enlightening or possibly entertaining. But you really "get" nothing, other than a vague and fleeting sense of accomplishment in having figured out something that someone put there for you to figure out. Perhaps I'm a twisted sort, but I get more pleasure out of solving the kind of puzzles that people really don't want me to solve. But I don't like to waste time spinning my wheels trying to solve things which can't be solved.

I say this because like the monkey with the monkey trap, I was unable to ignore a puzzle in the form of this ordinary Master Combination lock, which the previous occupants left in the basement.

It's your typical low security locker room type combination lock that most of us used at high school or college. While they can be hammered open or opened with a shim like this, without a combination the lock alone is useless absent a trip to a locksmith (who'd probably charge more money than it would cost to buy a new one).

A sensible person would probably have thrown it away, but I just couldn't resist temptation, and it ocurred to me that there might be information about how to crack the combination. Sure enough, there are innumerable sites and videos demonstrating in detail how to do it, but they seemed a bit hokey, and I was skeptical. Even if you follow the directions exactly, the whole thing requires patience. More patience than most people have. Factor in skepticism, and you find yourself wondering (as I did) "what if this is a complete and utter waste of time?"

Now, a combination lock marked from 0 through 39 with three combination numbers yields 64,000 combination permutations. Only an insane person or a savant would actually sit there and go through them all in the hope of opening the lock. But website after website (and video after video) claim that you can reduce the number of permutations to 100 -- provided that you first discover the crucial third (and final) number of the combination.

To my astonishment, I found that the third number can be found by the method demonstrated in this YouTube video,

What you need to do is summarized here (and described in detail in many other places):

First, we need to find the last number of the combination. To do this pull the "U" shaped thing away from the lock. It helps if its attached to something. (A Locker?). While pulling it out, start to rotate the dial from "0" so you know where to end later. You will notice that the lock will stick to a certain number. Now release the "U" for a second and then start to pull while you start to rotate again.

3) Next write down all the places the lock got stuck at while you were rotating it. There should be exactly 12 places if you did it right. One of these 12 numbers will be the last number of the combination.

4) Now we need to eliminate all of the numbers, but 1 to find the last. There are two types of places where the numbers you found got stuck at. First type is exactly on a number which means it won't move left or right while pulling up the "U". The second type is when the number you found was actually stuck between two numbers on the dial, and it would budge a little to the right or left.

5) Since we can determine, which of the 12 numbers were in between two numbers we can now eliminate them. There should have been 7 of those, which means there are only 5 left on you list.

6) Take a look at you list now and you should see that 4 of the 5 numbers left on you list have the same one's place digit. (ex: 05, 15, 25, 35) These 4 numbers you found are fake and should be eliminated. This last number you have left should be the last number of you combination.

7) To find out the Master Lock Combination is easy now that you have the last digit. You now have 10 first digit possibilities and 10 second digit possibilities. This means you have to try out a maximum of 100 combinations. And don't think that's too many because this is much better than having to deal with 64,000 combinations.

So that had to be it, right? I was still skeptical, though, and I was even more skeptical when I ran the number through this Master Lock Combination Calculator and saw a huge list of possibilities.

There's something about the thought of trying 100 different combinations when you're not convinced the whole thing isn't hokey that's a bit intimidating. Suppose you get to the end and it still hasn't opened? How would you know whether:

the Master Lock company changed its lock algorithm as the conspiracy theorists claim;

you didn't get the correct third number;

you make a mistake and didn't line up a number correctly, or passed one not enough or too many times; or

the whole thing is some sort of Internet viral hoax.

I cannot describe the inexplicable and irrational feeling of satisfaction when it opened. I actually felt as if I had accomplished something.

However, I wish I had taken to heart this commenter's advice:

Just cracked a newer 800xxxx serial lock using this method (and the combo calculator linked). Was 5th from the bottom of the list though. Maybe that was done on purpose? I would recommend starting from the end of the list and working up. Good luck!

Furthermore, because I had originally found the lock open, I really wish I had known about this!

There's a few more tricks to narrowing down the possibilities. One is if you find the lock open, hold the clasp in locked position and rotate the dial counterclockwise. The dial will catch, causing the clasp to rise, at (I believe) 6 numbers before the FIRST number in the combination. That will narrow the possibilities down to under 10. And, in my experience, the difference between the first and second number (and the second and third number) is always 6 or more. That'll help narrow down the possibilities by about a third.

Then there was this, which I have no way of verifying because I never had the "official" combination to this lock:

Also tried it with a lock I knew the combination on and I ended up with a completely different combination that still opened the lock. I wonder how many different combinations you can use on the same lock? I'm guessing several.

But alas! The problem with the theory that I "learned something" is that had I failed, I'm sure I would have "learned" some very different lessons....

MORE: I don't know why it took me so long to put two and two together, but I just realized that there is no need for anyone needing to figure out the combination for one of these locks to go through the 100 permutations as I did. All you need to do is the following, which I'll break down into two broad steps:

When you have the first and the third numbers, you'll be able to isolate one grouping of ten from the list generated by the Master Lock Combination Calculator, and you'll only need to try ten combinations.

Ten is easy!

"A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage."

Thus, argues the site, "Sarah Palin's veto gave gays the same rights as married couples in Alaska," and "a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage."

What I can't figure out is whether the web site ("Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights") is for her or against her.

Not that something like that would matter....

MORE: A number of people are claiming that Sarah Palin is anti gay, and they cite this Boston Globe piece as authority. And it appears that the Globe has her on record as being against state health benefits for same-sex partners:

In October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News described Palin's positions on social issues in a lengthy profile:

"A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)."

Once again, I'm wondering whether there are two completely different worlds -- Google and Lexis.

If (like me) you believe in "trust but verify," how do you know what story actually appeared in the newspaper? How is anyone supposed to verify anything?

I can only conclude that the following statement is probably true:

"She is against gay marriage although she did support equal access to benefits for same sex couples in Alaska."

Perhaps she's one of those rare birds who does not allow her religious views to interfere with her legal duties. While I don't know enough about what she thinks (or why she thinks it) to render judgment, many voters would find such an approach refreshing in politics.

MORE: I keep reading the linked piece (which has two parts) looking for the language cited, and it just isn't there. Why would the Boston Globe and so many blogs be citing it? I find it hard to believe that none of them read it. Can it be that it was altered, and that the original only appears in Lexis?

I hate to sound like a nitpicker or a whiner, but seriously, how can I discuss a story if I don't know what the story is?

MORE: Are Obama's people trying to pass themselves off as anti-gay bigots? Commenter Mark astutely points out that the site I linked -- "Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights" -- was checked out by LGF, and it appears that the IP numbers are the same as those of obamadefense.com -- which in turn redirects to the Obama campaign's FightTheSmears.com.

I smelled something funny, but it didn't occur to me that it was the Obama campaign, or that they'd be so blatant about it.

This isn't even disguised. (And what's with the purloined McCain logo at the top of the website?)

Puh-leeze!

MORE: Obamadefense.com no longer redirects to the Obama campaign's FightTheSmears.com.

Hmmm.....

Whatever is going on, it has the smell of skullduggery.

FWIW, sarahpalingayrights.com is registered at the GoDaddy.com proxy site. Which means it could be anyone.

A comment from No Quarter which is a pro Hillary site.

Comment by Clinton Fan 2008-08-30 06:19:01

I might, too. I gave his campaign $20.08 and told them Hillary sent me!

Obama's strategists miscalculated. I'm mad as hell, not gonna take it any more, and NOT getting over it.

Time to put Howard, Donna and company in the "naughty chair."

The American people are tired of the corruption, voter fraud, and the cesspool that American politics has become. I'm seeing comments like the above at all the pro-Hillary sites and even the pro-Obama sites before they are scrubbed.

There is anger out there like I have never seen before. More intense even than the Contract with America revolution. Why do I say that? Because the anger is bi-partisan.

Let me quote from commenter Neil who had a few words on my post Motherhood, Apple Pie, And Oil.

Mitt Romney would've been the safe choice--he would've delivered Michigan, along with a 51% victory.

With this choice, McCain has stated his intention to "shoot the moon". He's solidified his existing alliances and has now reached out to many disenchanted Democrats, but without alienating his base of support.

He's going to try for a blowout...

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I'm delighted by today's news. By picking Sarah Palin, McCain has hit it out of the ball park.

I'm also delighted that M. Simon proved to be so prescient.

MORE: Dick Morris says that Barack Obama delivered McCain a "body blow" with his speech last night.

Maybe so, but it looks like McCain can take it.

Come to think of it, I think he's taken a few body blows before...

(Yes he has, so yes he can.)

MORE: Here's an interesting reaction from CBS News:

It's more than surprising; it's the strangest running-mate decision since Dan Quayle. Sarah Palin spent a year working as a commissioner for the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and has been governor for a year and a half. Now, she'll be the Republicans' vice presidential candidate, and if things go well for McCain, one heartbeat from the presidency. When it comes to being untested and unknown, Palin is in a league of her own.

Just yesterday, advisers to the McCain campaign conceded to the New York Times that McCain "thinks highly" of Palin, but "her less than two years in office would undercut one of the McCain campaign's central criticisms of Senator Barack Obama -- that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief." So much for the McCain campaign's message.

Stepping back, we have the man who would be the oldest president in American history, who happens to have a record of health problems, picking a virtual unknown who's been a governor for less than two years. Amazing.

Or how about Walter Mondale's pick of Geraldine Ferraro, not even a governor, but a then-obscure congresswoman? I could be wrong, but I don't remember CBS complaining about her lack of experience.

(Of course, in those days, the news media used to at least pretend to be objective....)

MORE: Newsbusters points out that CNN's John Roberts is also plugging the "inexperience" meme.

Hmmm...

I wonder whether a media analysis would reveal whether "inexperienced" Republicans draw more media criticism than "inexperienced" Democrats.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and a warm welcome to all.

I really appreciate the comments.

Drudge Report says the GOP VP pick is Sarah Palin. Inspired. It will pick off a lot of Democrat women. It will attract the 51% of Americans who want to develop more American oil resources.

H/T Instapundit and Eric Scheie via e-mail.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

As an Englishman living in America, where Marmite is hard to come by, I'm all too familiar with the concept of scarcity, but a lack of resource in a local or a particular instance is a very different kettle of fish from absolute scarcity. The Malthusian idea of overpopulation leading to the gobbling up of finite resources has been around for a couple of centuries now and what is remarkable about it is how it has proven so consistently wrong-especially when it tries to lay the blame on the doorstep of civilised, industrial nations. I'll grant you that the image of some future New York where a hundred million people live cheek by jowl in polluted squalor until the oil runs out and then they fall on one another like starving rats as nations go to war over what scraps are left does have a certain dramatic appeal in a Mad Max sort of way, but the real world doesn't and never has worked like that.

Overpopulation is a problem, but only locally in certain, to be blunt, backward parts of the world and even there the problem isn't too many people, but too many tyrants robbing them blind. They don't suffer so much from overpopulation as poverty. A village of a hundred people ruled by a dictator with only enough food for fifty and no way to buy more is "overpopulated". A city of a free ten million that can import more than it needs is not.

In a word - no. There is plenty of oil in the ground at current prices. Is that true? Well lets do an inventory to check that assertion.

...the world oil shortage is political, not geological. In the U.S., the government makes it virtually impossible to drill in new areas offshore. In Nigeria, civil strife has shut down major production. In Libya and Iran, Washington effectively blockaded and isolated the nations for years to inhibit new production. In Iraq, of course, the U.S. destroyed much of the infrastructure since the first Gulf war in 1991 and then blockaded reconstruction. In nations such as Russia and Mexico nationalism and corruption curtail increased production.

Outside of developed Western countries, the single largest reason for oil "shortages" is government incompetence and ownership of the subsoil rights so that landowners don't benefit from oil discoveries. In Patagonia, Argentina (a nation with abundant oil), I was told how it was common for landowners to try to hide any evidence of oil seepages from underground, lest the government oil company come in and ruin their lands with no benefit to themselves. Private mineral rights ownership is the reason some 90 percent of all oil wells drilled have been in the U.S. Scientific advances and innovative engineers keep coming up with ways to both discover new fields and keep old ones in production almost indefinitely.

ANWR could become the fastest way to generate hundreds of billions of dollars of new oil. But laws need to be changed to fast track the leasing (there are 11 litigation choke points) and to create special courts to expedite environmental issues, as recently proposed by Rep. Michele Bachman (R-Minn.). Under current laws, it could indeed take 10 years to produce oil, compared to two or three years for the actual drilling and pumping. Additionally, leasing is done slowly, thanks to laws written when oil was plentiful. Such laws were designed to gain maximum upfront money for the government, not for speed. For example, BP recently paid $1.2 billion for a new offshore lease, some 400 miles east of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. The cost and distance gives some idea of industry expectations as to the extent of oil reserves.

Washington has become paralyzed by dysfunctional government. France and China can build nuclear electric plants in just years; in the U.S. it takes a decade. Brazil will bring offshore oil online in 24 months, while for U.S. companies it takes 10 years. New refineries are virtually illegal to build. New electricity-generating plants using coal are now unable to obtain financing because of environment constraints.

This is destroying the value of the dollar and wrecking our balance of trade, making oil prohibitively expensive, and sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign lands--many of whom are no friends of America. No wonder 80 percent of Americans think their nation is on the wrong track. Washington needs to declare a national emergency program to produce energy. The reasons we don't are political, not technical. Indeed, new natural gas discoveries have knocked U.S. prices down by about 30 percent.

Are we done yet? Not by a long shot.

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf. She won't even allow it to come to a vote. With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote. Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico: "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet."

Here in the U.S., one out of every three ears of corn is stuffed into a gas tank (by way of ethanol), causing not just food shortages abroad and high prices at home, but intensive increases in farming with all of the attendant environmental problems (soil erosion, insecticide pollution, water consumption, etc.).

This to prevent drilling on an area in the Arctic one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport that leaves untouched a refuge one-third the size of Britain.

There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don't care. We come to save the planet!

They seem blissfully unaware that the argument for their drill-there-not-here policy collapses on its own environmental terms.

Did I mention that there are about 2 trillion barrels of oil shale in America and about 3 trillion barrels of tar sands in Canada where exploitation has only started? And don't tell me it costs too much. The Canadians are getting the oil from tar sands at about $15 to $20 a bbl. Oil shale, with water recycling to preserve precious water resources, might run $30 a bbl. We really don't know because the oil companies are not allowed to try. So what is the Republican answer? Watch this video (also above) to find out.

We don't have to pay high prices at the pump and send our money to people who don't like us if government would get out of the way. Republicans are on board. How about you Democrats?

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Al Gore had some strong words at the convention:

"John McCain does not care about ManBearPig!"

Only Barack Obama has a real plan to stop ManBearPig.

I'm super duper cereal (or serial, as the case may be).

I'm watching Barack Obama's speech, and I'm frankly surprised how negative it is. He stresses how awful everything is, and blames Bush, says McCain is clueless and out of touch, and keeps talking about the need for the government to take care of people.

In short, he's making the case for socialism, and he sounds angry. Much angrier than usual.

Whether it will work, who knows?

There's not much talk of freedom.

He keeps echoing the "I am my brother's keeper" theme and characterizes McCain's philosophy of saying "you're on your own." Im reminded of how much I prefer the latter.

Frankly, he's sounding more like a scold than ever before.

10:34 -- Now he's talking about reducing oil dependency, and bashing McCain for advocating drilling.

Talking about investing in renewable energy.

Education. (Right. Will we hear about Chicago Annenberg Challenge?*) He'll make sure kids can afford college.

10:37 -- Health care. What Congress has, everyone will get.

Equal pay for equal work. (Equals more government in the workplace.)

Ugh.

I don't know whether I'll get through this....

10:40 -- "If John McCain wants a debate over who has the temperament to serve as the next Commander in Chief, that's a debate I'm willing to have." Says McCain was wrong about Iraq, he was right.

McCain won't go after Obama "to the cave where he lives."

The Iraqi government and the Bush administration echo Obama's call, while McCain stubbornly refuses. Obama looks to future, McCain stuck in past...

10:43 -- We are the party of Roosevelt, of Kennedy. Don't tell me we won't fight. Bush administration has squandered this legacy.

Will end Iraq war responsibly, stop Iran from getting nukes, stop Russia, restore America's moral standing....

10:46 -- Have to change the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character or patriotism. (I agree with this, and hope he means it.)

"I've got news for you, John McCain. We ALL put our country first!"

If you don't have fresh ideas, you need stale tactics.

10:50 -- "All across America, something is stirring. This election is not about me. It's about you." Enough to the politics of the past. At defining moments like this, change doesn't come from Washington, it comes to Washington.

10:53 -- American spirit pushes us forward. Promise is our greatest inheritance. Refers to King's Dream speech of 45 years ago.

We cannot turn back! Cannot walk alone. Keep that promise.

That's it.

He kept it short, which was smart. It got better towards the end, but it was not exactly what I'd call a fun speech.

I would characterize Obama's overall position as a communitarian one. He believes that not only are we all responsible for each other, but that the purpose of the presidency is not to carry out the constitutional duties of office, but to take care of everyone by providing jobs, health care, etc. I haven't heard him sound this shrill (or negative) in any of his previous speeches.

Well, at least it wasn't boring. For Obama, it was guns blazing.

MORE: Speaking on Fox News, Charles Krauthammer thinks the speech was brilliant, as Obama needed to abandon his conciliatory tone he adopted while running against Democrats. Made himself the agent of change as defined very simply -- not Republican.

11:25 -- I think it's possible Obama deliberately came out with guns blazing because he wanted to show that he's not a wimp.

I just watched McCain's gentle congratulatory message, and what a stark contrast!

I like the way Ann Althouse made mincemeat out of Obama's Second Amendment remarks:

9:48: "We can keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." All right, then! Can I have an AK-47? I'm not a criminal. He's trying to say we can accommodate gun rights and gun regulations, but he won't admit to anything near the level of gun regulation he'd support, so he ends up sounding silly.

And Stephen Green did a great job of drunkblogging!

8:38PM More Clintonesque requirements of people who get government help. That's not a bad thing -- but it's not how he campaigned in the primaries. He's not just running against one lame duck, he's running as another.

8:37PM The longer this goes on, the more I remember why I suffered such Obama Fatigue during the primaries.

8:37PM Yeah, he just tried to buy Michigan with promises that he'll retool Detroit. Honda and Toyota build cars here people actually like, so why not give them money, too?

8:35PM The first person who gives me an accurate count of the number of times Obama says "McCain," I'll send a crisp twenty dollar bill. That's right, twenty dollars. But I'm not sure science can count that high.

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that media people were observed cheering. And via Glenn Reynolds, here's the full text of the speech.

Enough.

(Sorry to plagiarize Obama's word, but that's just the way I feel.)

* Yes we will! Here!

Alan Boyle has the latest on the EMC2 fusion experiments.

Researchers have finished the first phase of an unorthodox, low-cost nuclear fusion experiment that has generated a megawatt's worth of buzz on the Internet - and they are now waiting for a verdict from their federal funders on whether to proceed to the next phase.

Richard Nebel, leader of the research team at EMC2 Fusion in New Mexico, declined to detail the results of the project, saying that was up to the people paying the bills. But he did said "we have had some success" in the effort to reproduce the promising results reported by the late physicist Robert Bussard.

"It's kind of a mix," he said.

Nebel said his leave from Los Alamos is due to reach the one-year mark in mid-September, but he doesn't foresee any problem in extending the leave if the second-phase funding comes through. Whether or not the Navy funds the next phase, the past year's effort has been worth it, Nebel said. "We're generally happy with what we've been getting out of it, and we've learned a tremendous amount," he said.

All that learning won't go away. "Regardless of what happens to it, we're going to get this thing well written up and documented," Nebel said.

Getting the experiment's findings down on paper will help the EMC2 team - or future teams of fusion researchers - advance the legacy left behind by Bussard. And that's a fitting tribute to the unconventional physicist as the calendar rolls toward the anniversary of his death.

"Bob Bussard was a truly innovative person, that's abundantly clear," Nebel said. "I hope he will be remembered for that. I think that will be the case."

I can't wait to read the full report.

H/T Correspondent Charles Connors.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

"The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."

Most of us would think that stomping on the American flag is also detestable. Ayers proudly did that in 2001, when Obama was more than eight years old. Here's what Barack Obama said in May, shortly after a photograph showing Bill Ayers stomping on the American flag received too much public attention.

"Senator Obama is appalled by this disrespect of a flag we love and that so many have fought and died for. There is no excuse for anyone to treat that which we hold so dear with so little regard. But the politics of association required to link Obama to this picture in any way is ridiculous and a silly distraction from the important challenges facing the American people," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

The picture is from a Chicago magazine article in 2001. That is the same time Obama and Ayers served together on the board of a philanthropic organization called the Woods Fund. It is also around the same time that Ayers donated to Obama's state Senate campaign.

The Obama campaign has yet to condemn Ayers or his even more notorious wife, to say nothing of condemning the dreadful radical Marxist philosophy they share. But Stanley Kurtz -- the guy asking the key questions about Obama's connection with Ayers -- is being excoriated in the strongest possible terms:

"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," the note said.

"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves," the note continued. "At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies."

Caller after caller to WGN read off talking points provided them by the Obama campaign alleging that Dr. Kurtz, and by implication and sometimes directly, Milt Rosenberg, was "smearing" Barack Obama and finding Obama "guilty by association." They also accused Kurtz of lying.

Yet, when pressed for specifics, these callers had none.

Now keep in mind for those of you not familiar with the Rosenberg show: it has run for decades and has always been thought of as a quiet sober discussion space; generally conservative but usually open to a range of views.

My father, a lifelong Chicago liberal and former Democratic party precinct captain, has called in and jousted with Rosenberg several times over the years (Milt called him a "professor of sophistry" in one exchange). Yet, listeners are blogging tonight that they have never heard anything like what happened this evening.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by the tactics of the Obama campaign - attempting to squash a legitimate discussion on the respected Rosenberg show of these sensitive issues.

But it suggests to me a whiff of panic inside the campaign. Sure, John Kerry should have gone after the swift boaters in the last election. But this is not swift boating. We are talking about a decade or more of close political activity involving Ayers and Obama.

Interestingly, the email from the Obama campaign has a heading which reads "The Facts on Barack and William Ayers," and after barely touching on the subject, goes on to list an odd compilation of opinions from Stanley Kurtz on unrelated subjects such as gay marriage in Scandinavia, feminism, and Larry Summers. (Obviously, the goal was to whip the lefties into a state of agitation in the hope they'd call. Which they did.)

The bottom line is that Obama has gone for Kurtz's jugular, while he has yet to denounce his colleague Ayers:

1. Barack Obama and his campaign have denounced Ayers's actions and at least one of Ayers's statements, but I think that neither Obama nor his campaign has ever denounced Ayers himself. As with the first Reverend Wright speech, this is no accident. Obama usually takes the "Christian" position: hate the sin, love the sinner.

2. Kurtz, unlike Ayers, is denounced in the most vicious and uncivil terms (there is a lot more than I quoted). If Obama or his campaign had ever denounced Ayers with the fervor that his campaign has now used in denouncing Kurtz, Obama wouldn't be having trouble on his connection to Ayers.

Other than denigrating Kurtz for being conservative, Obama's operatives have provided no response to the substance of his claims. In their only pretense of engaging him, they accuse him of telling "a flat out lie" that Ayers recruited Obama for the CAC. Though it is a reasonable inference that Ayers recruited Obama, the careful Kurtz has stopped short of making it -- observing only that Obama offers no explanation of how he was recruited if not through Ayers, his friend and the CAC's driving force.

The station, WGN, has made a stream of the broadcast available online, here, and it has to be heard to be believed. Obama's robotic legions dutifully jammed the station's phone lines and inundated the program with emails, attacking Kurtz personally. Pressed by Rosenberg to specify what inaccuracies Kurtz was guilty of, caller after caller demurred, mulishly railing that "we just want it to stop," and that criticism of Obama was "just not what we want to hear as Americans." Remarkably, as Obama sympathizers raced through their script, they echoed the campaign's insistence that it was Rosenberg who was "lowering the standards of political discourse" by having Kurtz on, rather than the campaign by shouting him down.

Kurtz has obviously hit a nerve. It is the same nerve hit by the American Issues Project, whose television ad calling for examination of the Obama/Ayers relationship has prompted the Obama campaign to demand that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation. Obama fancies himself as "post-partisan." He is that only in the sense that he apparently brooks no criticism. This episode could be an alarming preview of what life will be like for the media should the party of the Fairness Doctrine gain unified control of the federal government next year.

Calling for a criminal investigation of free speech crosses a line going beyond any association with Ayers.

I think Glenn Reynolds got it right last night:

The Ayers connection itself is less interesting to me than the campaign's over-the-top response. It seems to me that they could have put this behind them already, but instead their reaction seems to be fanning the flames.

But according to the Obama campaign, "fear mongering" is defined as asking questions which make Obama uncomfortable, and it's strictly a right-wing phenomenon.

Only a slimy character assassin would accuse the left of such a thing!

I don't normally correct historical details in stuff I read, but in this case I thought I should, because it sheds a little light on the truly horrid background of one of Barack Obama's political sponsors who hasn't been getting enough attention. I refer to Bernardine Dohrn, a notorious and unrepentant terrorist I have called evil, whose praise of the Manson murders was detailed at the Corner by Andy McCarthy:

As I noted back in April in this article about Obama's motley collection of radical friends, at the Weatherman "War Council" meeting in 1969, Ayers' fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" And as Jonah recalled yesterday, "In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered 'fork' gesture its official salute." They weren't talking about scratching up the wall-paper.

I think it's worth noting that the people Dohrn called pigs (and in whose grisly fate she took such delight) were Leno and Rosemary LaBianca -- a small business owner (a World War II veteran whose parents were Italian immigrants) and his wife. They were strangers to the Mansons, and this was what happened to them:

Sometime during the early morning hours of August 10, 1969, Manson family members entered the LaBianca house. Manson and Watson awoke a sleeping Leno LaBianca, on the couch in his living room, at gunpoint. Leno was assured by Manson and Watson that he would not be hurt and that they only intended to rob him. Manson removed a leather thong from his neck and had Watson use it to tie up Leno's hands. Leno was then asked if there was anyone else in the house. He told Manson and Watson that his wife, Rosemary, was in the bedroom.[2] Manson went to the bedroom and awoke Rosemary. He allowed her to put a dress on over her nightgown before leading her into the living room where Watson had Leno tied up. Manson and Watson reassured the couple that they wouldn't be hurt, and were just being robbed. After collecting all the cash in the house, Manson ordered Watson to take Rosemary back to her bedroom where Watson placed a pillowcase over her head and wound a lamp around her head, gagging her with a lamp cord. He told her to stay quiet and remain in the room. Watson returned to the living room and Manson then left the house. Within a few minutes, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel entered the residence and were instructed by Watson to go to the bedroom.[1]

Watson then began stabbing Leno repeatedly, only stopping briefly when Leno screamed, "Stop stabbing me!" Rosemary, hearing her husband screaming, began screaming and flailing around the room, still blinded by the pillowcase on her head. Krenwinkel and Van Houten called Watson for help. Watson left the badly bleeding Leno in the living room, and entered the bedroom to find Rosemary swinging the lamp still attached to the chord used to gag her. Tex lunged forward and stabbed her until she fell to the floor. By the time the stabbing ended, Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten had stabbed Rosemary 41 times.[1]

Leno was still alive when Watson came back to the living room and the stabbing resumed. After Watson finished stabbing Leno, one of the family members carved the word "WAR" into Leno's stomach. Krenwinkel then stabbed him a number of times and left a carving fork protruding from his stomach, and a steak knife from his throat. The girls then wrote messages in Leno's blood. "Death to pigs" and "Rise" were written on the living room wall, and "Helter Skelter" [sic] was written on the refrigerator.[1]

After the murders, the family members remained at the house. Some ate food from the LaBianca's refrigerator, played with the couple's dogs and showered before hitchhiking back to the Spahn Ranch.[6]

But frankly, the whole thing gives me the creeps, as does Dohrn.

However, it's easy to complain about people like her going directly from the FBI Most Wanted list to cushy jobs in the finest law firms right after being released, but I like to look for explanations. As it turns out, her employment was enabled by a very respectable man named Howard Trienens:

Dohrn's post-revolutionary successes are even more remarkable, considering she was the more notorious. During their underground days, she made the FBI's 10 most wanted list. Upon surfacing, Dohrn got three years of probation and a fine.

Today, Dohrn is on the faculty of Northwestern University's School of Law. She teaches a course titled Children in Trouble with the Law.

Neither Ayers nor Dohrn returned e-mail or phone messages asking for comment. So we cannot tell you how they see their ascent back to responsibility.

But it's hard for an outsider not to see the map of family connections behind their paths.

Ayers' father moved in philanthropic circles with Howard Trienens, an attorney with the powerhouse firm of Sidley Austin. The two served together on Northwestern University's Board of Trustees. Ayers was chairman of that group, then handed the post off to Trienens in 1986.

Trienens headed Sidley Austin when the firm hired Dohrn in 1984. She had never practiced law and had been out of law school for 17 years.

When I asked Trienens if he had hired Dohrn, he replied: "Yes."

Wasn't that a bit of nepotism, considering his relationship to her father-in-law? A lot of lawyers would love a first job with such a prestigious firm.

"We often hire friends," replied Trienens, 84.

Probably not. I don't have the right friends. Nor do we contribute to the same causes. (As it turns out, Trienens has given thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign.)

Eventually, Dohrn seems to have decided that she'd rather teach law. It just so happens that her pal Trienens was also Chairman of the Board at Northwestern, and he of course denies that he had anything to do with hiring her:

Dohrn's route to Northwestern is harder to discern. Trienens said he had nothing to do with it, though he was then board chairman.

"The dean hired her," he said, referring to Robert Bennett, who was then law school dean. (Bennett did not return phone calls seeking comment.)

Daniel Polsby, a law school faculty member in 1991, recalls Dohrn's appointment going through an academic side door. Because she was brought on as an "adjunct," she was never put before a faculty vote.

I've always wanted to be an adjunct anyway. Sounds like the best of both worlds.

Needless to say, the Tribune reporter got nowhere trying to figure out precisely how the hiring occurred:

Seeking clarification from the university, I was told to put my questions in writing. Which I did:

Was her appointment at NU's law school made by the dean acting alone? Did it have to be ratified by the Board of Trustees?

Instead of answering the questions, the university responded with a boilerplate statement of support: "While many would take issue with views Ms. Dohrn espoused during the 1960s, her career at the law school is an example of a person's ability to make a difference in the legal system."

Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at

Might his mutilation at the hands of Patricia Krenwinkel (young enough to be his daughter) have captured the imagination of young Bernardine?

I realize this is just armchair psychology, but I don't believe the Ayers/Dohrn denials, and as I say, I like to look for answers. I think it just might be significant that Dohrn's father was another small businessman; fellow Weather Underground radical Mark Rudd described her as "just the daughter of a credit manager of a Milwaukee furniture store":

In Destructive Generation, Collier recounts a chance meeting at around that time between Dohrn and Mark Rudd, another radical leader who'd also been underground for a time. "She asked him what he thought about the whole experience," Collier writes. "He told her that he thought of it as seven years of wasted life; that neither he nor they had accomplished anything, and he wished he'd gotten out at the beginning. 'She got furious [Rudd recounts] and said: "But what about the contribution we made to the overall struggle for armed struggle and revolution in America?" I couldn't believe the rhetoric. The same old shit. I just said to myself, "Oh, later for you, lady," and took off. Later on it occurred to me how her ego was still totally involved with all that dead history. How little she had looked at herself all those years. She should have had to admit how wrong her ideas were, how meshuga her self-conception was. A great revolutionary leader' She had no great revolutionary ideas. None of us did. She was just the daughter of a credit manager of a Milwaukee furniture store.'''

(I'll bet she was too chickenshit even to give her dad the three-fingered salute!)

By any standard, Dohrn's past is absolutely dreadful, yet like her husband she is unrepentant to the core. What accounts for her success? What enabled her to go from the FBI Ten