Dennis Weaver, one of the actors from the hit TV series, Gunsmoke, has died of complications from cancer.

While he was best known for his Gunsmoke role, I know him from his portrayal of the lead role in Steven Spielberg's first feature-length film, Duel.

Now Duel is not a very well known movie, nor is it widely acclaimed, but it is a cult-favorite of my friends and family and I, and as Spielberg's first, I think it deserves its due. Plus, it has one of the coolest plots ever conceived. Here is the plot-outline from the movie's IMDB profile:

David Mann (Dennis Weaver) is just a regular family man on a business trip. Unfortunately, things go from bad to worse when a huge gasoline truck in front of him forces him to drive slower than he wants. As the drive continues, Mann realizes that he's not dealing with just another road hog. Though he can never see the trucker's face, the driver proves to be psychopathic, starting to run Mann off the road and trick or force him into a number of deadly situations. As the horrific trip continues, Mann tries to lose the truck, but each time he thinks he's finally in the clear, the truck returns to terrify him more. Finally, the horrific conflict builds to a point where he realizes that running won't save him, and that he must take a stand and fight back against the insane trucker.

Yesterday the Olympics closing ceremony marked the end of the 2006 Torino Winter Games, and already the recapitulations have begun. As you know from the Medal Tracker which was posted on this blog during the games, Germany edged the United States out for first place in overall medals and in golds.

I thoroughly enjoyed the games, even though there wasn't a whole lot of extra drama (perhaps because of that fact), but never found anything overly interesting to post on.

One of the controversial figures, U.S. skier Bode Miller, garnered some attention for his poor performance, attention-grabbing, and nocturnal antics. I did not have strong feelings about him, but after I read this scathing column by IndyStar sports guy Bob Kravitz, I realized the totality of Bode's immaturity and hypocrisy. Not a good guy to represent the U.S. around the world...



Perhaps the most odd event of the Olympics was the streaking incident during the U.S. curling team's bronze medal match. It's one thing to be a spectator at a curling match; it's another thing to go streaking at a sporting event; but to streak at a curling match it the height of embarrassment.

And, of course, my man Apolo Anton Ohno won gold for the U.S. in the men's 500 meter short track event.

...is actually one of this country's first: anti-Catholicism.

You'd think the days of conspiracy-theorists claiming that any Roman Catholic who made his or her way into power would mindlessly yield control over the government to the Pope were behind us. You'd think that.

But it hasn't been but a month that Samuel Alito was confirmed as the fifth Catholic Justice on the Supreme Court, and already, the bigots are alleging a "papist plot" to subvert the national will.

Don Collins, board member of the Federation for American Immigration reform (FAIR), claims that "Rome and these bishops have been hard at work trying to shape U.S. public policy for decades."

Noting that Catholic are now a majority on the nation's highest court, Collins points out that "[m]ost Catholics, particularly women, with whom I talk are highly displeased with this concentration of power and the likely rightward course of women's rights under the new alignment." One is reminded of NYC reporter Pauline Kael's reaction (dismay) to Richard Nixon's 1972 crushing of George McGovern in the presidential election: "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon!" But Collins attended the retirement party of former NARAL head Kate Michelman, and since Kate and her successor are Catholics, he feels that's enough evidence for him to rely on. (Someone get this guy a column at the NYT!)

Collins gets to the real conspiracy shortly thereafter with this money quote about a 1975 pastoral letter issued by American bishops in response to the Roe v. Wade decision:

"This plan is a superbly detailed blueprint of the bishops' strategy for infiltrating and manipulating the American democratic process at national, state and local levels. It called for the creation of a national political machine controlled by the bishops. In large measure, this machine has, dragging along its unwitting evangelical brethren, taken over the Republican Party."

Infiltrating and manipulating? As if Collins' column wasn't already dripping with anti-Catholic hate, we find out in (President of the Catholic League) Bill Donahue's response that FAIR, Collins' organization, has a long history of anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment. Consider them the modern equivalent of the "Know-nothing" party.

And what was the Church's crime? Having an opinion about abortion? Working toward a "culture of life"? For these offense, Collins believes that the Church should lose its tax-exempt status, and he chides the government and the media for not calling Catholic bishops out on the issue.

The real non-call, of course, is the MSM who really never reports on anti-Catholic bigots like Collins. Or, if they do, they make the irrational hatred of Catholicism seem like Church's own fault. And thus, you have the last acceptable bigotry of polite American society: anti-Catholicism.



Although I hear that anti-Semitism is all the rage now in Europe...

Sean sent me this to post:

"Tim Sutherland, CEO of Pace Global Energy Services, recently addressed one of my classes at Notre Dame. Pace Global is one of the major players in the energy market, having facilitated the development of over $35B in energy assets. The company also provides advisory services, and has coordinated over $90B worth of energy related transactions in both the private and public sectors. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy relies on Pace to provide expert advice. In short, Mr. Sutherland is a very influential man in the energy world, and I thought DC's readers might like to hear some of the more interesting points he made.

"Nigeria: The population of this African nation is primarily concentrated as far away from the oil supply as possible. Due to corruption, bands of militia, and rampant corruption, most of the oil cannot be transported to Nigeria's population centers, or to the rest of the world. Every day, Nigerian oil factories destroy (burn off) more than enough oil to satisfy California's daily oil demand.

"Iran: We're all familiar with Iran's research into nuclear capabilities. They claim a need for nuclear power as a source of cheap energy. However, Mr. Sutherland explained to us that Iran has an enormous supply of natural gas… enough to satisfy their energy needs many times over. This gas can be harvested cheaply and safely. Draw your own conclusions.

"Alternative Energy: We all know the oil supply is running out. We have to build more and more extraction facilities just to produce the same yield. The last few American presidents have paid lip service to the concept of alternative energy resources, but not much more. As you can see from the graph below, Dubya has pledged roughly 250 million dollars to alternative energy research, which sounds like a lot. Compare that to 220 billion dollars, the United States' annual demand for oil. I'm no mathematician, but something doesn't add up here."


...

Thanks Sean.

Wired News has a pretty even-handed and non-controversial article on global population growth. It's a worthwhile read.

Also, it quotes leading demographers and the U.S. Census Bureau who both assert that the rate of population growth is declining steadily and has been for a couple decades.

Thus, the assertion in a former comment thread that the growth is "exponential" seems to be contradicted by the data.

Rush, "Free Will":

There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren’t aligned ---
Or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will

There are those who think that they’ve been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them ---
They weren’t born in lotus-land

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can’t pray for a place
In heaven’s unearthly estate

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt
That’s far too fleet...

Pluto's obviously a planet, right? Well, it's not so obvious. While most Americans classify Pluto as a planet, many non-Americans do not. Pluto was discovered by an American, Clyde Tombaugh in 1930. (see the Wiki article)

Pluto's status as a planet is debated for the following reasons: 1. it is relatively small, 2. its orbit is somewhat elliptical and lies in a different plane than the rest of the planets, 3. its composition and location beyond Neptune place it within the Kuiper belt, a collection of icy rocks seen as scientifically insignificant.

Advances in telescope technology have led to the discovery of at least one object beyond Pluto that is bigger in size, leading many to speculate that if we classify Pluto as a planet, consistency would dictate that we end up naming dozens more planets in the Kuiper belt.

But there are also significant arguments in its favor: that it's the closest Kuiper belt object and its orbit actually brings it closer than Neptune for a period, that it is likely one of the largest objects in the Kuiper belt, that it has multiple moons (yes it has more than one; check out this article); and that its early discovery makes it historically notable.

One solution to the debate would be to classify anything beyond Neptune, including Pluto, as a non-planet. But this solution seems scientifically arbitrary. Another solution would be to call all objects planets beyond Neptune which are Pluto's size or larger. But this could prove cumbersome as many new objects are discovered.

My solution would be to call Pluto a planet because of the above factors, and then to call all objects beyond it planetoids or class 2 planets, unless they are bigger than Pluto and also have their own moons, in which case I'd also call them planets.

...

But then again, what's in a name?

David Irving, a British historian who has denied that the Holocaust took place, has been jailed in Austria, one of the nations in Europe that has criminalized public denials of the Holocaust. Obviously I abhor the position Mr. Irving holds, but I think laws such as this one are antithetical to the notion of free speech that many in Europe have trumpeted in regards to Muslims and the depiction of Mohammed.

[thanks to Ted for the link]

Here's an interesting speech given by author Michael Crichton on "Environmentalism as Religion".

Crichton's theory is that, despite credible scientific evidence disproving many theories they hold dear, fringe-environmentalists refuse to accept that they were wrong, or even to revise their previous statements. The reason? Environmentalism has become "the religion of choice for urban atheists". Crichton theorizes that the concept of religion, suppressed by modern secularism, has resurfaced in the guise of science. In particular, " [i]ncreasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief... Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."

Here's an example that's totally at random and has nothing to do with anything that Luke and I have discussed recently.

"Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today."

Crichton goes on to explain how "facts" that have persisted as incontrovertible in the environmental movement are nothing but myths: that life before the industrial age was not a paradise; that DDT never caused cancer; that our forest-fire suppression plan was a colossal blunder. He concludes by pleading for an end to the politicization of the environment by finally allowing for the belief that maybe, just maybe, conservatives might not actually want to destroy the planet, and that so-called environmentalists might not have all the answers to save it.

Now Crichton's piece is a speech, so it isn't sourced. If you have problems with his facts, email him, not me. I've seen independant recognition of a lot of these points, so I'll take him at his word.

This is a topic that I meant to post on last week, but better late than never...

Last week, two University of Illinois newspaper editors were fired for their decision to post the controversial Mohammed cartoons as part of a news story explaining the source of the controversy and the violent Islamist riots around the globe.

Further, a vast majority of American papers, and all of the nation's largest papers, have refused to post the cartoons, even as part of a news story regarding the matter. Have they done this simply as a matter of good taste? The answer, as evidenced by their past and present actions, is a resounding 'no!'. The real reason they refuse to post the cartoons is fear.

Let me repeat: most of the American media has refused to publish a critical part of a global news story because they are afraid. They should be ashamed of themselves.

As Jeff Jacoby, columnist for the Boston Globe, argues in this column, fear is the primary factor driving editorial boards' decision to not run the cartoon. As he points out, "good taste" did not compel the Boston Globe or other major newspapers to refuse to publish photos of reporter Daniel Pearl's severed head. Nor has it kept the papers from publishing lewd photos from Abu Ghraib prison. Nor should it.

So, without further delay, I will not commit the same error. Here is one of the 12 cartoons originally published in Jyllands-Posten:



Is this really why thousands of Muslims have undertaken violent protests around the world? THIS?? Is it disrespectful? Yes. But does it excuse the deaths of dozens and the destruction of property? Obviously not.

And as this site shows, Mohammed has been depicted by Muslim artists in the past.

We shouldn't be surprised that these riots would happen, when 4 out of 10 Muslims in the UK would make it illegal to post these cartoons.

Andrew Sullivan's got more evidence that the threat posed by Islam to the West is more widespread than a few extremists. He quotes a UK-Telegraph poll that shows that 40% of Muslims in England want Sharia (Islamic law) to be the law in parts of that nation.

The so-called clash of civilizations is about more than just culture, it's about a fundamental disagreement in the philosophy of governance and law.

We're not in Kansas anymore...

A love that the world misunderestimated...

Check out the Wikipedia article on President's Day... It officially is called Washington's Birthday by the U.S. Government, but many celebrate Lincoln and other presidents on this day. Washington was actually born on Feb. 22, and Lincoln was born on Feb. 12.

I am not one of the lucky government employees or one of the government-related employees that have this day off, and unfortunately my state law school has decided the day is not important enough to celebrate. Now I honestly don't mind not having the day off, but it does make for a slow, and thus boring, news day.

I saw this quote on the Drudge Report, before I saw the line above it which identified the source of it. So who said this? Was it Cindy Sheehan or Harry Belafonte, as I first suspected? Was it Al Gore or perhaps even Bill Clinton? No cheating! In a day or two, I'll repost the screen grab without the green box covering up the answer.

Update: Here's the graphic w/o the green box... Note who said the quote.

According to the Washington Post, ugly people are more likely to be criminals.

I don't know where they get that from...

George Will is certainly a smart man, and usually a true-blue (red) conservative. But over the past year or so, his rhetorical criticism of the Bush administration has at times approached Ted Kennedy proportions. A neo-con, it is safe to say, he is not. And that's fine: everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Still, it is high time for Georgie to be taken down a peg, and Andy McCarthy of National Review does so nicely, if not gently, over the NSA/FISA controversy.

To my Hoosier readers, this post will not be news, but IU head basketball coach Mike Davis has resigned after 6 seasons with the Hoosiers.

Davis took the post after IU fired Bob Knight.

Check out this poll to see who people favor to replace Davis... it's not who you might suspect...

"So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won."

-Bryant Gumble, on the show, "Real Sports"


Media talking heads should strongly denounce Gumble's words in order to show that it's not okay to be a racist, no matter what the color of your skin is.

"Actually, Senator, I don't think the United States is responsible for the election of Hamas."

- Condoleezza Rice

Today, before the United States Senate, the Secretary of State had to defend the Bush Administration from implications that American policy is somehow to blame for the Palestinians' election of a terrorist government.

The accuser? Republican Lincoln Chafee!!! Want more GOP grandstanding? You got it:

"I don't see, Madame Secretary, how things are getting better. I think they're getting worse in Iraq, they're getting worse in Iran." - Chuck Hagel

I don't see, Mr. Senator, how things are getting worse. Look back at where we were 2 years ago in Iraq, when we were losing scores of soldiers and marines a month. They've had three nation-wide elections and are moving towards having the first and only constitutional democratic government in the Arab world. And the population, by the accounts of the terrorists themselves, is turning against the insurgents.

And now the Senate deems to criticize the President's handling of Iran. Well, let's see... what is Bush's approach? Diplomacy! Multi-lateralism! Deferring to the U.N.! So when Bush invaded Iraq three years ago, he was wrong to act unilaterally, but now, when he is actually letting Europe take the point, he's also wrong. Talk about "damned if you do/don't".

And if some Republicans are acting this irresponisbly, imagine how the Democrats were behaving. These people aren't serious at all. God help us if any of them attain the proverbial Senate dream of reaching the White House.

BTW, Chuck? Yea, you can go ahead and not waste any more time in Iowa.

You surely notice that I have placed an Olympic medal tracker on the left sidebar. It is courtesy of The Torino Blog, which is probably the best source for Torino results and schedules on the web. Check it out.

Go USA!

IrishLaw links to a great discussion of the appeal of Catholicism as we grow and mature. The graph of zeal vs. age isn't directly or indirectly proportional, but maybe is more parabolic. I have now reached the furthest extent of my mathematical knowledge, so I will be dropping the graphical analysis now. Let me just hit you with the money quote.

"...Catholicism is worst suited to adolescents and teenagers - whether the temporary ones or the perpetual ones. When the world is all about your pleasure, your nails, your car, your finances, your boyfriend, your cellphone and your angst, it’s tough to focus on something intangible which involves allowing oneself to be vulnerable and wrong, and which also involves some pursuit. When you are not accustomed to hearing the word "no," Catholicism can seem like The Church of No. When taking responsibility for your bad choices and mistakes is foreign to you, well the idea of "sin" and "confession" all seems so quaintly unnecessary."

Well, this one happened to take place in Ohio.

Over the course of the past 24 hours, two Ohio Democrats running for the party's nomination for governor and senator have been, to put it gently, dismissed. And from the looks of it, one is out of politics for good.

Now, to understand this story of woe, you must first be made aware of a certain inescapable fact: the Ohio Democratic Party is functionally retarded. It's been this way for about 20 years now. It's unorganized, unmotivated, and, financially speaking, unsound. At least, when compared to the Ohio GOP.

Notable Ohio Democrats include Jerry Springer, Dennis Kucinich, and James Traficant. With men like this in the forefront of the party, it's not a huge stretch to see how Democrats have nominated such poor candidates over the past two decades. The result has been 16 years of Republican rule in the governor's mansion, GOP senate victories since 1994, and Republican domination of both houses of the General Assembly. The Cleveland Browns have had better success than the Democrats, even in the 3 years they weren't in existence.

But at the start of 2006, state Democrats were downright giddy with excitement. Corruption scandals rocked the Ohio GOP. Rep. Bob Ney has been linked with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Gov. Bob Taft was indicted on misdemeanor ethics violations. Sen. Mike DeWine looked weak and vulnerable.

Now, however, Democratic hopes of electoral triumph are fading away. ODP Chairman Chris Redfern and the party establishment have intervened to halt the primary process, and in the process, disillusioned and infuriated what appears to be a growing rebellious faction in the activist party base. In the gubernatorial race, Eric Fingerhut "voluntarily" bowed out in favor of Rep. Ted Strickland. And in an even more contentious move, Redfern begn calling supporters of Paul Hackett, a candidate for the Senate, and telling them to halt their donations to his campaign.

Hackett, you may remember, gained the adoration of many Democrats when he lost a special election for now US Trade Rep. Rob Portman's vacant House seat in 2005. If the logic of the preceding sentence sounds odd to you, you are not alone. You see, Hackett barely lost the election to the GOP candidate, but the seat in question was in a normally "safe" Republican district. This led many liberals to, mistakenly, believe that Hackett, a discontented Iraq War veteran, had appeal to conservative voters. This belief was unfounded, of course. First, the election was held in the middle of summer, with an extremely low voter turnout. And perhaps more importantly, Hackett didn't quite campaign like the liberal he is; in fact, his campaign commercials featured spots with President Bush! Not like the typical shots of opposing party candidates, but rather, Hackett portrayed himself as siding with Bush on the war on terror. It's no wonder that many voters polled were out-and-out confused as to who the Republican candidate was. Now, after his campaign was over, Hackett's true self was exposed. His rhetoric went from Zell Miller to Ted Kennedy, calling religious conservatives in the GOP "not a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden." I've never run for office before, but I'm pretty sure accusing church-going Republicans of being mass-murdering terrorists won't win many cross-over votes.

Nevertheless, the NYT, in describing the day's events, deems to call Hackett a "popular" Ohio Democrat. I guess if losing elections makes one popular, Al Gore and John Kerry must be in the popularity hall of fame! Hackett, who has never won any election before, is however favored among the moveon.org types who are today accusing the ODP of treason. Hackett was so upset about being ousted from the Senate primary, he has now pledged not to even run for the House again and will be returning to life as a Cincinnati lawyer.

The fallout? Well, some of the liberal Ohio bloggers I've been reading are now swearing up and down that they won't lift a finger to help either Democratic candidate in the '06 election. They won't be voting Republican, of course, but they could very well go "Nader" at the ballot box.

As for me, I just couldn't stop laughing at this proverbial comedy of errors. Understand, I think the Ohio GOP has been a huge disappointment over the past few years. But this is mainly due to some Ohio Republicans who refuse to follow through on conservative principals (cough, cough TAFT! VOINOVICH!). My party definitely needs a tune-up, and electing Ken Blackwell would certainly be a good start. But I think that what has happened in the Buckeye State has, as usual, mirrored what is occurring in the nation at large: a GOP that needs to reconnect to the conservative ideals of fiscal discipline and a Democatic Party that is endangered by a power struggle between a lack-lust party establishment and ultra-liberal fringe movement.

At least for Republicans, there is a way out.

The U.S.'s newest Olympic biathlete: Dick Cheney! [kudos to Rishi for that one...]



And from my friend Matt's away message:

"Cheney's Got A Gun. Cheney's Got A Gun. His whole world's come undone. From lookin' straight at the sun. What did his daddy do? What did he put you through?"

Read this brief article to learn the Catholic roots of the holiday...

And make sure and check out this Wikipedia article on it... and its accompanying article for "Singles Awareness Day" (S.A.D. for short :-) )



By the way, in honor of the holiday, I've been reading (actually, listening to it on audiobook) C.S. Lewis's "Four Loves." Good read. I recommend it.

I know this is old news, but the start of the Games in Turin (not "Torino", unless you call Rome "Roma") has reminded me of the International Olympic Committee's decision last year to expel baseball and softball as Olympic sports.

The rationale? To paraphrase: the Americans are too good at it. To review:

Olympic sport



Non-Olympic sport




But far be it from me to be a close-minded American.

Detroit is finally coming around in regards to making greener cars. This is a point I've been harping on for some time, as the structural rises in oil prices will quickly doom car companies that do not remain competitive with fuel economy.

Both Ford and General Motors are taking steps to make greener cars and to improve their environmental image. Ford has plans to produce a fully recyclable car and to ramp up hybrid production. GM has placed emphasis on producing cars and trucks that run on E85 (85% ethanol) and has aired commercials during the Olympics touting the cleaner-burning and renewable nature of this alternative fuel source.

Who knew that Chewbaca had a blog?? Well, here it is!

With his comments in Saudi Arabia, he's one step away from Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte...

The ENIAC debuted in February, 1946:

A group melodramatically named the "Pioneers of the Inevitable" has created a new digital music playing program, called Songbird. Its creators bill it as an iTunes killer and claim it to be inevitable that Apple will lose its dominance in the digital music arena. Songbird is based on the same open-source platform as the Firefox web browser.

Even though I'm a big Apple fan, I also like the philosophy behind open-source software, and this kind of competition can only be a good thing. However, I'm severely disappointed in the fact that Songbird is an obvious copycat of iTunes. See for yourself:

...Songbird

...iTunes

This colorful line is from the trailer for "Brokeback to the Future" one of the many parody mashups between the gay cowboy drama Brokeback Mountain and other movies.

See also: Top Gun: Brokeback Squadron, and Brokeback Heat.

Since President Bush was reelected in 2004, I have on most all occasions refused to discuss the 2008 presidential election on grounds of being way too distant to even consider. I shall continue to do so, for the most part. Except today, because I believe it marks the 1000-day point to the next presidential showdown. This post will discuss the prospects for the GOP. I may do another one later for the Democrats. I may not. It's all up to me; I have "ultimate control", as Lucas once said.

Rudy Giuliani: I know, the inevitable reflexive response is that he's not conservative enough to win the nomination, but I think that's an unfair generalization. The way I see it, there are three policy areas where one can be distinctly different one's idealogical approach: social issues, economic views, and foreign policy. On two of these, Guiliani is a pretty reliable conservative. He shares Bush's view that the U.S. must take an active role in fighting terror, and he supports the effort in Iraq. On economic issues, he towes the GOP line on cutting taxes; maybe he even believes in controlling spending, like some Republicans used to!

True, he's somewhat of a social liberal; try running for office in NYC without being one. But I think he can avoid this liability in the primaries by moderating some positions and just ignoring others. That he's pro-choice won't make as big a difference, so long as he commits to appointing textualist judges and justices. Or maybe at least supporting some restrictions on abortion, like a ban on partial-birth abortions. That he supports gay rights probably won't matter as much either, being that the states seem to be taking the initiative in deciding marriage issues. And yes, he's had marriage problems himself, but remember: it didn't stop Reagan.

Giuliani is an extremely likeable personality, and I think so long as the social conservatives are satisfied (maybe with a VP candidate), he'd win the general election in a walk. His very presence on the ticket would put New York state in play, forcing Democrats to spend millions in one of the bluest of blue states. That alone would be a disaster for Dean and company, who are already trailing in the bank account to the GOP.

John McCain: Certainly, I think he's running and that his disciples are already actively campaigning. He stands a very good chance in a general election it would seem, but the question is whether he could get the nomination. He's burned a lot of bridges, but at times he has been conservative. But unlike Giuliani, who's predictable on the three policy areas, McCain's stances have been erratic (almost as if he's positioning himself!). He supported the war effort, but criticized Bush's NSA policies. He was an Alito ally, but led the "gang of 14" which hung many Bush nominees out to dry. He gave lukewarm support to tax cuts, but spurned the conservatives on campaign finance issues.

I'm not sure he even stands as good a chance as Giuliani at taking the nomination. His experience credentials are extensive, but his policy stances are muddled and at times confusing. GOP voters might want more of a sure thing. Finally, keep in mind American history: no sitting senator has won the presidency since Kennedy in 1960.

Condi Rice: I love this woman, but she has repeatedly stated that she has no intention of running. Well, I think that could very well change, and if it did, she stands a better chance at grabbing the nomination than either Giuliani or McCain. Although her foreign policy positions are demonstrably conservative, her economic and social stances are largely unknown. I'm guessing they're somewhat conservative as well, but even if they're not "National Review"-type conservative, she's still probably to the right of the other two.

Condi also wins the general election in a walk, most likely. Being from the Golden State, she could put California in play, while at the same time peeling off some of the African-American vote from the Democrats. Republicans generally like her, and would most likely give her a big turn-out. But even if she doesn't run for president, Rice makes an excellent VP choice for anybody. And being VP would be a great set-up and experience for her if she decides to run at the top of the ticket later.

The "Others": Well, if you don't watch Lost, you probably won't get that. But I will lump a few of the less probables in with each other.

Gingrich might go for it, and he's definitely not short on conservative credentials, but I think he'd go down in flames in the general election. Too easily demonized. He makes a great VP choice, though, especially for a Giuliani or McCain searching for right-wing street cred.

Same goes for Bill Frist. I have no doubt he's a great guy, and has a better shot in the general election than Gingrich, but to me, he's just not inspiring as a candidate. Then there's the problem of him really not getting a whole hell of a lot done in the Senate, which hurts.

George Allen of Virginia? Never heard of him? Yea, well that's his problem.

It's far too soon for another Bush, so Jeb unfortunately is another doubtful. Again, he's an ideal vice-presidential selection though: conservative balance and a proven success in a very important swing state.

Sam Brownback is rumored to be running. Probably better that it stays a rumor.

Of course, MUCH could happen between now and then that would make this present analysis useless. Which is exactly why now is about the only time I'm going to talk about it. And if you're wondering, I don't have a particular preference yet. I like some more than others though.

Nike has developed contact lenses specially designed for athletes. The lenses will come in different versions to best suit different sports and will offer higher contrast for the given playing surface in addition to generally increased acuity.

A report on the federal government's out-of-control spending during the Bush administration, compiled by the conservative Heritage Foundation:

click here for a .pdf of the report...

So reads the comment underneath my previous post:

I just stumbled across your blog and I was just wondering ... as a person who might (or not) actually have a job, how do you people find enough time in the day to write long winded bullshit that nobody reads and nobody cares about. I mean, in the time you spent writing this column you could have ...I dunno... jogged a mile, learned something on wikipedia, made a friend, play computer pong, daytrading... the list goes on. You people need to get a life. Nobody cares... really. Nobody gives a shit. Your little writing means absolutely nothing. Goodbye.

I've always heard the term "troll" used, but I never new exactly what it meant. I do now... So in the interests of levity, let's dissect this beauty, shall we? This person from Jackson, Mississippi says that nobody cares and that my writing means nothing. Ironic then, isn't it, that this person cared so much to take time out of his/her day to write this comment?

Even more hilarious is the fact that this person found my blog by doing a search on Google's Blog Search. This person rants against all blogs, yet he searches out blogs to read? Wow.

I realize I'm in danger of sounding paranoid by taking this time to defend myself against a troll, but I truly found this comment humorous.

Over three years ago, Democratic politicians turned the funeral of Democratic senator Paul Wellstone into a political rally.

Today, a liberal pastor and a Democratic former President have politicized the funeral of Coretta Scott King, with President George W. Bush in attendance. Jimmy Carter made a not so sly reference to the recent wiretapping issue when he said, "It was difficult for them [Martin Luther and Coretta Scott King] then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."

This is ironic, considering that, as EmperorDan pointed out to me, those wiretaps Carter referenced were ordered by a Democrat, Bobby Kennedy.

The pastor, Rev. Joseph Lowery co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said, "She [King] extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!"

Buttressing my point that the real war right now is within Islam, a moderate Muslim group has issued a public apology on behalf of other Muslims' actions in the so-called "cartoon wars."

...

Note: In yesterday's post on the protests, I objected to the use of the term "insurgents" in describing the terrorists in Iraq. It has come to my attention that the term does not necessarily imply that the persons are non-Iraqi, and that it is merely a synonym of 'rebel.'

It seems that Boehner favors a weaker version of ethics reform in the House than that proposed by Speaker Hastert and supported by Roy Blunt. Progressive? Maybe not in the right way.

Today is the anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's birth in 1911. Recommended reading: his Wikipedia bio, his IMDB actor profile, and this list of his speeches in full text.



Perhaps Reagan's greatest feature was that he united our country in a way that would be thought unthinkable by today's partisan standards. And for those who doubt that statement last statement, I suggest your perusal of this 1984 presidential electoral map:



President Reagan accomplished this through a political attitude best embodied by this quote pulled from his 1980 Nomination acceptance speech:

"Trust me" government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs--in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders. That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact.

This is, perhaps, a lesson that both President George W. Bush and the Congressional Democrats should take to heart.

Many in the West, including President George W. Bush, promulgate the notion that Muslim terrorists are a fringe element that is bastardizing the religion of Islam-- a tumor. Some have used the term Islamicism to define the extreme ideology guiding these terrorists.

Several events in the last couple years, however, suggest that this ideology is far more vast than many would like to believe. It is indeed a cancer, but rather than a mere tumor, it is a malignancy that has invaded the entire body of Islam.

First, observe the rebellion in Iraq. (I refuse to use the term "insurgency," because there is little evidence to suggest that the attacks are being performed by non-Iraqi natives). Rather than being eradicated, the rebels are able to carry out their attacks with a frightening level of consistency. That U.S. forces have killed thousands of rebels, and yet the "supply" of them seems inexhaustible, is evidence that they are not insignificant in number.

Second, look at the recent elections in Palestine. The rise of Hamas is a stark indication that support for terrorism there is not limited to an extreme fringe. To underscore the point, Hamas has reiterated its refusal to recognize the state of Israel.

Finally, note the protests in the Muslim world to the Dutch "Mohammed" cartoons. It is understandable that Muslims would be offended by these cartoons, but the manner in which many Muslims have protested the cartoons exemplifies a widespread adherence to an ideology of hatred and violence:

In Afghanistan, 5 people have been killed in the protests. Protesters also attacked a U.S. airbase in that nation. In Somalia, a 14-year old boy was killed when protesters attacked police. In Lebanon, a protester died after he jumped from a building that was set on fire by other protesters. They also sacked the Danish embassy in Beirut. In Syria, protesters attacked the Danish and Norwegian embassies. In Iran, 200 protesters threw stones and firecrackers at the Austrian embassy. In the Gaza Strip, gunmen entered the European Union office and demanded an apology by all of Europe.

The attitude prevalent in these protests is best summed up by protester Mawli Abdul Qahar (speaking to the BBC): "They want to test our feelings. They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers."

Qahar is right. The West does want to know the extent of Islamic extremism, and unfortunately the actions of Muslims in these preceding examples does not provide an optimistic answer.

Nevertheless, this author is convinced that a substantial number of Muslims worldwide do not support terrorism or this extremist ideology. In the Islamic religion, there is an ongoing war of ideas and words-- a war for the hearts and minds of a significant portion of the world's population. The outcome of this war will determine whether or not Islam is set on a course for war with the West.