One of the silly memes making its rounds over the airwaves and internet pipelines over the last several months is that Barack Obama is somehow a new type of candidate that will break down the red state-blue state dichotomy that has been the rule of the last several presidential elections.

The latest state-by-state poll results on Electoral-vote.com (check out the map in the sidebar) easily debunk that meme:

Indiana, once thought a possible pickup for Obama, is now solidly in the McCain column. Ohio and Florida are again extremely close, but leaning Republican. Michigan and Pennsylvania, pondered as possible McCain switchovers, are predictably polling solidly Democrat.

As before, the election will come down to the so-called "swing states." Besides Ohio and Florida (which I think are becoming red states rather than swing states), Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and maybe Minnesota and the Dakotas will rule the day. New to this list is Virginia, which last voted Democrat Democrat in the 60s. But don't credit this switch to Obama. As shown by Jim Webb's defeat of Santorum in the Senate race, as well demographic changes in the state, Virginia was already moving from red to blue along the spectrum.

Thus, barring any surprising intervening events, this election looks to be yet another extremely tight contest.

They argue that a reduction of the legal drinking age should be considered in order to curb binge drinking on college campuses.

While I support a reduction of the legal drinking age (perhaps to 19 rather than 18 for reasons explained below), I do so because it's never made sense to me having half of collegians legally able to drink and half not legally able to do so. It unnecessarily breeds a culture where people get used at a young age to violating the law and it encourages such adverse activities such as the creation of fake IDs. The higher drinking age also tends to socially divide students, between those who can go to bars and those that must stay in their dorms or apartments to drink.

I am not convinced, however, that a reduction in the drinking age would reduce binge drinking. One of the large reasons that college students binge drink is that they are now away from home and the control of their parents. It's a case of rebellious instincts meeting opportunity. Another reason I do not think we'd see a reduction (at least not in the short term) is that American culture simply has never embraced a situation where parents drink in a healthy and moderated way with their high school-aged children. Such a culture could ease individuals into alcohol and allow them to better understand its effects and risks. Perhaps lowering the drinking age to 18 could promote such a culture in the long term.

Finally, I worry about the impact on high schoolers of having a drinking age of 18. Since many in 12th grade are 18, I would think that if the legal drinking age were that, it would be much easier for students to buy alcohol for each other, whereas now they have to rely on an older friend or sibling, or on a fake ID.

'China confiscates Bibles from American Christians'

If the IOC follows up on this evidence, the Chinese gymnast could lose her gold medal in the uneven bars. The Chinese women's team could also lose its team gold medal for the combined events.

I've been into these Olympics more than I can remember being into the games my whole life. Maybe it's the competition with the Chinese. Maybe it's a resurgent U.S. basketball team. No doubt that a lot of the reason is Michael Phelps and his utter dominance in swimming. 8 gold medals!

Of course, having broken Mark Spitz's record of 7 medals, Phelps is being compared to Spitz. I know this is a cliche, but this really is a case of apples and oranges. As these photos show, the level of physical shape is just not a match. Now if we talk attitude, I'm sure the two have a lot in common. And if Spitz were a young man today, I would expect that his winning attitude would have driven him to be in just as good of physical shape as Phelps.

Read the story here. The Kremlin is reportedly furious. But really, they should not feign surprise, considering their aggression in Georgia. So far this Poland story is the only good to come from this situation. Otherwise the U.S.'s response has been dismal.

...and defender of infanticide. You think I'm joking or exaggerating? Read this.

Ever since China received word that they had won in their bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics, it has sought to control their image through blunt force and even fakery.

I've already documented their destruction through deception of thousands of dogs across the city, as well as their forcible relocation of an equal number of poor people who had the misfortune of living in less than visually-stunning housing units too near the Olympic venues.

Now a few new things have come to light. You may have heard these already.

The first is a story about how Beijing created and displayed on the stadium's giant screens fake images of fireworks occurring over the city. Though the footprint-shaped fireworks actually occurred, the ones that were shown on the displays (and the broadcast) were fake. The reason given was that filming the fireworks would be too dangerous. That's obvious B.S. The real reason is probably that Beijing was afraid the fireworks would not accomplish the visual effect they sought.

The second is involves a young girl who was yanked from her role in the opening ceremony... well sortof. They used her voice for the song that was sung by the girls, but they synched it over the lips of another girl who stood in her place. The other girl was chosen because she was more pretty. How sad. But just another example of how China's government is obsessed over presenting just the right image, whether or not its fake or represents bullying.

...

A few more notes:

• Here's a humorous example of how China failed to present the perfect image. During the opening ceremony, for a brief time, a Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) was actually displayed on the stadium's giant membrane.



• At the request of the emasculated IOC, wimpy YouTube actually took down a Tibetan protest video.

**UPDATE!** YouTube is not so wimpy afterall. They took the aggressive step and contacted the IOC regarding the take-down notice, and the IOC admitted it did not have cause. YouTube then put the video back up. Hoorah for free speech!

• Finally, it looks like NBC isn't above some fakery of its own. On their website, they actually changed the order of the entrance of the teams in the opening ceremony parade, in order to delay the entrance of the Americans, presumably to enhance their ratings.

The photo is undeniably funny. Poor guy had just lost one of his friends, though, and that is what led to this bout of drinking.

NIMBY meaning Not In My Back Yard, of course. As wind power generation gains traction, we'll be hearing more and more about research such as this. When politicians treat certain alternative energy sources as a panacea, be skeptical.

The U.S. women's gymnastic team should be proud of their silver medal, just narrowly being defeated by an excellent Chinese squad. One of the American gymnasts made 2 severe mistakes that collectively explained most of not all of the points deficit. It happens, and I sympathize for the girl, who must feel devestated.

But what is not becoming is that the American team, through the voice of its coordinator, has whined about the outcome. Their complaint seems truly petty to me. But read about it for yourself.

Anybody who is still buying Obama's "I'm a new style of politician who's going to change the way Washington works" line needs to wake up.

Obama seems to represent a lot of the crap that he likes to condemn. First, he's not true to his word. He promised many months ago to go with public financing for his general election campaign. As was well publicized, once he realized he was seriously making bank with his private donors, he reneged on this promise. He also promised to run a positive campaign, but as he has shown over and over, he has absolutely no problem with running negative ads. Note this ad:



Second, just like so many politicians (McCain included to a certain extent), Obama is a flip-flopper. Now, I have no problem with a politician changing his mind on an issue, if he/she has an honest epiphany. A flip-flop is more than that; it's when a politician's position on an issue flips merely in response to the political winds of the day or the success of an opponent on that issue. Obama on oil-drilling... anyone? Obama on an Iraqi timetable... anyone? Bueller?

Third, and most important, Obama's politics are substantively very old-fashioned and worn out. As displayed in that ad, he loves playing the class warfare card. As shown in a recently publicized speech, he has no problem playing the race card either. He condemns certain American companies for making money. He seems to criticize McCain over the fact that--gasp!--Iraq is doing well economically.

Obama, not the Change I want.

...

On a sidenote, I'd like to point out that while I did not like McCain's silly ad comparing Obama's celebrity status to Paris Hilton, the ad may have been a strategic ploy to draw Obama into a negative ad slugfest. If this was indeed the purpose, then McCain has succeeded, and Obama has let himself be drug down into the dirt.

Just an FYI... I've added to tracker widgets to the right sidebar. The first tracks the current medal count in the summer Olympics. The second is from Electoral-vote.com and shows the site's current projection of the 2008 national election.

Though I am severely critical of China's backwards government, I cannot help but feel happy for the millions of Chinese people. In my life I have only seen a handful of Olympics opening ceremonies, but this one was in a class all its own. The choreography, the lighting, the technology, the fireworks, the stadium, the incredible torch lighting... it had it all.

You definitely have to check out this page for the photos.

***

More coverage of the Beijing Olympics to follow, including a post on why this can and should serve as a sortof Sputnik moment for America.

Publisher Random House has pulled a novel about the Prophet Mohammed's child bride, fearing it could "incite acts of violence."

This decision, according to the Reuters article, was made despite the fact that the author intended the book to actually be a "bridge building" effort that would not be offensive to Muslims.

With each decision of this type, we give the radical and violent Islamists power over what we say and do. What motive do they thus have to change their ways, considering that that their ways are working in controlling the press (and maybe other areas) of their adversaries?

What do you know! Economics 101 is proven right once again: as the price of gas has increased, demand (at least in the U.S.) has leveled off and begun to decline.

The skeptics are right to point out that most of us do not have a choice as to whether to fill up the tank; we have to get to work, school, church, etc.

But what they miss are the small things: people purposely driving slower, people inflating their tires more and getting more tune-ups, people taking fewer leisure drives, people choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles, and so forth.

The high prices also are reshaping certain segments of our civil planning. For example, several colleges and highschools are taking steps to either dissuade or forbid students from bringing their cars onto campus.

That this proves market principles is little comfort to those who are forced to forgo lengthy trips or driving their favorite gas guzzler, or worse, those whose budgets simply cannot make ends meet.

And as prices drop, the pain will decrease, and demand will consequently increase. Pressure is then put back on for the prices to go up. How do we alter this cycle?

Paris Hilton, in a brilliant scene of political and celebrity American pageantry, has the plan:

I originally was going to entitle this post "Hillary's plans," but machinations fits her sooo much better.

Despite conceding defeat to Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic Party nomination, Hillary has actively maintained her website and a dialogue with her supporters. Even more curious is that she has stated on that site that she might put her name up for vote at the party's convention in a few weeks.

But why do this if you do not have the necessary number of delegates to win? She says it would be to give her supporters a voice. I call B.S. Since when was Hillary so considerate of others?

So we ask the question again. Perhaps Hillary is attempting to strongarm Obama into naming her as his veep. More likely she's hoping to gain clout and public influence at the convention, should Obama fail in his match versus McCain. It seems to me that Hillary set her sights on 2012 as soon as she realized she could not beat Obama this time around. Her concession speech certainly seemed that way--touting how she created millions of cracks (symbolic for those who voted for her) in the political glass ceiling.

Perhaps she'll succeed only to have that ceiling cave in on the Democratic Party.

Many factors will have to be considered when, in 5, 10, or 25 years, we evaluate the success or lack thereof of our regime change operation in Iraq. One of those must be how civil rights were affected in that nation.

Considering the atrocities that Saddam Hussein committed, it might seem obvious that civil rights will be improved under the nation's Islamic democracy. Unfortunately, the question simply isn't that clear. Hussein was evil in many respects, but he was not a Muslim extremist, nor was his government strictly Islamic.

The current government in Iraq, though democratic, is much more harshly Islamic. According to this report, while gays would be ridiculed under Hussein, they now often face a sentence of death if they come out in the open.

I wonder how the situation for women, Christians, and other minorities has changed. That's a question we'll be facing for many years to come.

Andrew Sullivan highlights how Sen. McCain is dancing around the gay adoption issue (just as he has danced a bit on the gay marriage/civil union issue). Read the McCain quote for yourself, but to me it comes off that McCain wants to appease the evangelicals, but does not actually share their opposition to gay adoption. He repeats the phrase "family values" several times and refers to the importance of having two-parent families adopt, but nowhere in the quote does he ever refer to those two parents having to be a man and a woman.

An Islamic terrorist group has threatened to attack the Olympics in Beijing. Another Islamic group has claimed responsibility for the attacks that recently took dozens of lives in India.

This threat knows no national boundaries and is not confined to the U.S. The quicker Europe, Russia, and others realize this fact, the better the world will be for all of us.

The arguments against simply don't hold up to logic or to observed reality. This Q&A from the Senate is convincing: