Surprisingly, This Time It Isn't Sen. Schumer's Fault

I know that it is currently in fashion to speculate on whether Charles Schumer caused the recent run on Indymac Bank. Now, I'm no fan of Sen. Schumer's politics, but I've always liked his style, so I'm going to defend him on this one.

In fact, you just need to look at the numbers to know that Indymac was a disaster just waiting to happen. Look at its Texas ratio. What's a Texas ratio? The Texas ratio is a formula worked out by economists at the Royal Bank of Canada during the series of Texas bank failures during the 1980s. It is calculated by dividing a bank's non-performing loans, including those 90 days delinquent, by the company's tangible equity capital plus money set aside for future loan losses. The RBC economists noted that banks almost inevitably fail when this ratio reaches 1:1, or 100% or greater.

What was Indymac's Texas ratio? 140%. A disaster jut waiting to happen. Remember the failure of ANB Financial National Association back in May? ANB had a Texas ratio of 344%!

Now, a recent study by Research Associates of America lists 10 banks with a Texas ratio over 100% in the US:

Colorado Federal Savings Bank	Greenwood Village	CO	244.8
Eastern Savings Bank, FSB	Hunt Valley	MD	222.7
Integrity Bank	Alpharetta	GA	191.6
Ameribank, Inc.	Welch	WV	153.7
First Priority Bank	Bradenton	FL	122.6
First Security National Bank	Norcross	GA	112.1
Magnet Bank	Salt Lake City	UT	110.4
Security Pacific Bank	Los Angeles	CA	102.8
First National Bank of Brookfield	Brookfield	IL	102.1
The State Bank of Lebo	Lebo	KS	100.6

Now, that's not a guarantee those banks will fail,but I for one would think long and hard before investing or depositing in any of those banks. The bigger US banks are better, but still uncomfortably high in their Texas ratios, in my opinion. Wachovia, for example, is at 78%, according to that impeccable source YahooAnswers.

Contrast that with the well-regulated Canadian banks (Canada has the best banking system in the world): Bank of Montreal has a Texas ratio of 11%; Bank of Nova Scotia 10%; Royal Bank of Canada 8%; Canadian Imperial 8%; National Bank 5%; and Toronto-Dominion Bank 3%. Now, I actually think that the Canadian banks could stand to be a little more risky with their Texas ratios, especially now that their gargantuan record profits are starting to slip, but I actually have full confidence in the Canadian banking system to come out on top, so I'll trust management on this one.

I thought that Carly Fiorina did a great job this morning on Meet the Press. Claire McCaskill looked like such a slimy, partisan (and ill-informed) politician by comparison.

I hope we see a lot more of Fiorina in this campaign.

Draft Fiorina for VP, anybody?

Man's Best Friend (Except...)

As a general rule, I find Mark Steyn a little over-the-top in his predictions of the imminent extirpation of Western civilization by Muslim hordes.

But then one comes across this article about an anti-puppy assault by British Muslims and it makes you think.

Pickens to the Rescue!

Next only to perhaps H. Ross Perot, T. Boone Pickens has recently become my favorite eccentric Texan billionaire.

If he does half as much good as Perot, the country will owe him a debt of gratitude.

Gramm Refuses to Apologize - I'm Conflicted

I'm conflicted as to how to respond to Phil Gramm's refusing to back away from his remarks on the US being a nation of whiners.

My initial reaction is: "You go girl." People are really whiny. The Iraq War is far less popular than the Vietnam War ever was, which makes no sense to me. The economy hasn't even officially entered recession and you've got Mort Zuckerman - hardly a liberal - saying this is an economic downturn to rival the Great Depression. It's perplexing, and thank you Phil Gramm for trying to bring the country back to reality.

On the other hand, he seems to have forgotten that there is a campaign going on. McCain needs to "feel people's pain", because those whiners out there in the country get to vote. It was bad politics on Gramm's part, very bad politics. I guess maybe you can make a case that by having McCain denounce Gramm - whom he had hitherto touted as one of the people he listened to about economic matters - makes McCain look good for "getting it". But ultimately I think this was net negative for the McCain campaign.

Tax Lady

One more thing:

I don't know if you saw this woman who went on this hilarious anti-tax rant at McCain's town hall meeting in Denver yesterday, but she was really funny As my case in chief that Scarborough is more fun than any of the other political talking heads, I enter as evidence the fact that he used this hilarious clip as his lead-in during his interview with McCain. I haven't seen that clip anywhere else, but it was really funny, and you can see Scarborough playing it for McCain here.

Ahhh, refreshing

I'm having the first really productive day of studying for the Bar that I've had in a week (I know, I know, I shouldn't be jinxing the day by posting about it), and I give a lot of the credit to the fact that I woke up early (which I very rarely do) and got to catch Morning Joe this morning.

I miss Joe Scarborough in prime time. There was a time when I really felt that MSNBC had the best news talk show back-to-back on TV with Chris Matthews followed by Joe Scarborough. One was a Democrat, one was a Republican, but you really got the sense from both of them that they were really enjoying themselves, and they had these effusive personalities that made debating the issues of the day really entertaining. Now that Scarborough has been exiled to the morning and Chris Matthews has turned into a cranky old man, not to mention more and more of a partisan hack, there's not really anybody left in prime time that I really enjoy watching.

Raise Taxes or Raise Revenue

I've said it before but it bears repeating again:

The idea on the left that the Bush tax cuts have been horrendous and need to be reversed simply isn't borne out by the facts. Yes , there was some decrease in government revenues in Bush's first term, but the last four years have seen the most rapid increase in tax revenues in the entire postwar period. That's because tax cuts fuel economic growth, which in turn raises revenue.

Even if we accept Obama's mischaracterizations of his own tax plan and say that he only wants to raise taxes on the rich, that tax raise would have the effect of slowing growth, and would therefore result in a leveling off of the steep rate at which government revenues have been growing. That's just bad policy.

Kerry Blows Hard

John Kerry: McCain is even more of a flip-flopper than me.

Well, I guess Kerry is the expert in the category. And yet for some reason I find his claim somewhat less than credible.

BTW - Chris Matthews last night reported that Obama is considering Kerry for VP. Now, I'm sure there is no chance in hell that that is actually the case - but seriously, how awesome would that be if Kerry were on the ticket?

Iraqi Yellowcake to Canada

Given my previous post, I guess it's for the best that the remnants of Saddam's nuclear program - which the left assures us never existed ("move along, nothing to see here") - arrived in Canada today and will provide nuclear power to the good people of Ontario.

Go Canada

Returning to my Canada as model conservative country point:

The Telegraph today ran a story in which it argued that of all the world leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Japan, only Canada's Stephen Harper really has a popular and successful record in office.

Let's look at Harper's accomplishments: he's cut
taxes, reduced the deficit, had Canada for first time in recent memory really step up to the plate on the world front (notably in Afghanistan), has resisted left-wing pressure on the Kyoto Treaty, and has generally been a competent manager following years of Liberal corruption.

Thus, with the US preparing to lurch to the left with the Obamessiah, this might finally be Canada's chance to finally become a proper, grown-up country, fully assuming its position on the world stage.

Democratic Congress Stinks It Up

Who would have thunk that we'd see the day when three times as many people have confidence in the US Supreme Court as have confidence in Congress? Or when people are four times more confident in organized religion than in Congress? Oh and did I mention that the police and the military are even more popular than that?

Oh well, I'm sure once there's a Democratic president, all of their problems will
be magically solved...

Neutering Faith

It's nice that Obama came around to Bush's view on Faith Based Initiatives. However, it should be noted that this looks much more like a cynical ploy on Obama's part once you realize that he's totally toeing the liberal line on one of the most controversial aspects of the Initiative: whether religious charities that take funds from the government should be allowed to limit their staffing to members of their own religion. Obama's position: force churches to hire anyone. You take the government money, you also have to hire the Wiccan, the Satanist, and Christopher Hitchens. This is a position which unfairly forces religious charities to water down their religious nature and thus becomes a way to stealthily impose a liberal agenda on religious organizations. Shame. Let faith-based organizations be faith-based organizations.

At Last

Well, it's nice to see that somebody finally put out an effective ad.

Seriously, though, memo to Steve Schmidt: it's time to get this show on the road. No more trips to Canada or Colombia, just start campaigning.

Give McCain Credit

This week, George Stephanopoulos, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, pointed out that last week was the first week since the start of the Iraq War that the Pentagon released no names of dead soldiers from Iraq. That's a sign of how much violence is down in Iraq. What great news for Independence Day weekend.

It's really starting to look like a corner has been turned in Iraq and that George Bush's legacy might actually be creating a functioning democracy in Iraq. Unless, of course, the Democrats get elected and end up messing things up.

The Left's Hypocrisy on Bush

If George W. Bush is really, as many liberals seem to believe, "the worst president ever", why is Barack Obama so eager to embrace Bush's policies?

Ways I Waste Time

Well, I'm obviously not where I should be right now - which is taking my BAR/BRI Multistate practice exam. Dang it, why is law so boring?

Anyhow, if you want to learn something about Iranian history (and who doesn't), I've posted the workmanlike notes that I compiled from Wikipedia onto my own Wiki. Learn away.

Tired, Corrupt Old Liberal Paradigm

Classic old liberal paradigm: 1) identify social problem; 2) piously click your tongue at anyone who won't support spending money on fixing problem so identified; 3) let your friends skim a little off the top because, heck, we're doing good work; and 4) when the policy fails, blame the government for not spending enough money on it.

Luckily, Obama is prepared to shift this old liberal paradigm - just look at his record. On the other hand, better not to look at his record if you want to keep thinking that.

All Things to All People? Or Nothing to Nobody?

So, the same week Obama is attempting to appeal to religious voters by touting his new-found support for "Faith-Based Initiatives," he is also shoring up support in the gay community by reiterating his opposition to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Given Obama's blatant pandering and flip-flops, one wonders whether either of the relevant groups will be fooled by these efforts.

Tragedy in Africa

In terms of shear poignancy and conciseness regarding the causes of Africa's plight, I can't think of anything more telling than this headline from the AP:

No public criticism for Mugabe at African summit

Heller: Originalism Triumphant

Make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court's affirmation that the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect individual gun rights was a momentous development in the law. Besides aligning constitutional jurisprudence with the public understanding of America's founding document, the decision also demonstrated the powerful influence of originalism on legal culture in the past 20 years.

As Prof. Dale Carpenter of the University of Minnesota noted recently, it is remarkable that not only the Heller majority, but also the dissenting Justices, relied on historical and textual arguments to support their preferred interpretation of the Second Amendment. Had the Heller case decided in the 70s, both the majority and dissenting opinions would have far more closely resembled Justice Breyer's policy-driven approach.

One man, of course, deserves most of the credit for this revolution in Constitutional Law: Justice Antonin Scalia. Without his perserverence, the Court's sweeping affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms would have been unthinkable. As corny as it sounds, the country owes him its thanks.

How is the system unfair?

It continues to boggle my mind why liberals think that the current tax system is unfair.

Look at the numbers: the US clearly has a graduated tax structure. The top 5% of income earners pay fully 58.8% of all income taxes. And note that the average income tax rate on the bottom HALF of taxpayers is a mere 3.1%. Is there another country in the world where the bottom half of taxpayers pay income taxes at a rate of only 3.1%?

And yet, I ask you all to recall an item that has dropped out of the news cycle, but which is still highly relevant to the election. When it was pointed out to the Junior Senator from Illinois that every time the capital gains tax has been lowered, there has in fact been an INCREASE in government revenues, he said HE DOESN'T CARE. It's a matter of "fairness".

Seriously, when we already have a graduated system of taxation, adopting a tax policy which will arguably LOWER government revenues, in the interest of "fairness" - that is definitely not sound tax policy - that's nothing but hardcore liberal ideology, willing to sacrifice the economic health of the nation in the interest of unnecessary and unproductive class warfare.

Not to mention the problems with adopting a set of policies that will impede capital formation in the midst of an economic downturn. This is Economics 101. Grr - why is McCain not taking Obama on more forcefully over his woefully inadequate tax policy? I find this so frustrating.

Heller: Criminals Lose, Citizens Win

I'm still processing the Supreme Court's landmark Heller decision and will write considerably more about it tomorrow. For now, let me just respond to Washington Post columnist Colbert King's criticism of the opinion as a victory for "D.C. thugs."

Ummm... no Mr. King. In spite of the District's handgun ban, the thugs are already armed. How else, pray tell, have they continued perpetrating their thuggery? Now, though, law-abiding citizens like Mr. Heller will have the ability to defend themselves. Sounds just to me.

HT: National Review

Bob Barr Spoiler Alert

With Libertarian candidate Bob Barr polling 3-6% in several close states, what are the chances that Barr will prove to be 2008's Ralph Nader?

So Who Does He Like?

Check out this nugget from The Audacity of Hope (recently discussed on National Review's Campaign Spot blog) in which Obama paints an unflattering picture of his wealthy liberal donors:

Increasingly, I found myself spending time with people of means - law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart,interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class; the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured with a high SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by movements of global capital. Most were adamantly prochoice and were vaguely suspicious of deep religious sentiment...

Now, I don't find too much to disagree with in Obama's description of these limousine liberals. Consider, though, that this description of affluent Democrats comes from a man who described rural Pennsylvanians and mid-westerners as people who "cling" to guns and religion out of economic "bitterness." So... Obama doesn't like his wealthy urban donors and he doesn't like the "bitter-cling" rural voters.

So who does Obama like?

The Polls Giveth and the Polls Taketh Away

Only a day after I was celebrating some upbeat polling data for McCain, a new poll has come out showing Big Mac tied with Obama in Indiana, a state that should be safely Republican. While I'm pretty sure that Indiana will stay red this cycle, it looks like McCain may have to spend some money shoring up this would-be base state.

Barack Obama is Rupert Murdoch

The more I learn about the Junior Senator from Illinois, the more I'm growing convinced that he's the Rupert Murdoch of Politics. By which I mean that I think there's a parallel between the Audacity of Hope and the Audacity of Fox. Rupert Murdoch famously launched two Fox television networks. One of them has done more to keep this country slouching towards Gomorrah than any other recent cultural phenomenon, foisting onto the airwaves such immoral tripe as "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" (and who could forget the follow-up with Darva Conger's appearance on "Celebrity Boxing" to take on some washed-up 1970s gymnast as part of the undercard to the main event of John Wayne Bobbitt vs. Joey Buttafuoco?) and Temptation Island. The other network provided the platform for Bill O'Reilly to become the nation's true vox populi by denouncing exactly the type of cultural garbage purveyed by Fox TV. It's really a brilliant model, backing a horse on either side of the culture wars. Cynical? Perhaps, but at the end of the day, it's all about the money, and Murdoch's made plenty of it.

Obama is audaciously trying to follow this model. Thus, he is running as a candidate of faith even though he's more pro-choice than NARAL. He's the candidate of racial reconciliation, even though he gave tens of thousands of dollars to the race-bating, Black Liberation theology-spewing Jeremiah Wright. He speaks out against corporate America at the same time he's appointing Jim Johnson to his VP Search Committee.

It's really quite amazing, and if he pulls this off, will certainly be impressive. Though for a candidate who routinely praises public service and denigrates the business world, it's somewhat ironic to note that he's behaving just like Rupert Murdoch.

Obama the Idea Man?

In discussing Barack Obama's do-nothing, Jimmy Carter-esque approach to energy policy, Jennifer Rubin at Contentions noted that this ideological torpor is at odds with the Junior Senator's usual willingness to promote new ideas. While I am big fan of Ms. Rubin's, I have to take issue with her characterization of Obama. Sure, the Apostle of Hope-Change speaks generally about his plans for America. Yet, throughout this long campaign season, I have been struck by Obama's lack of specific "big ideas" for transforming the country. Am I missing something?

I get dissed by Obama

Having been raised in a lower middle class family, let me just say: I love the lower middle class. I think that their values, their commitment to family, their general approach to life is something I respect and admire. On the other hand, I certainly would never romanticize the lower middle class or the working class. As someone who has watched his parents struggle financially, have a hard time paying bills, even declare bankruptcy as my parents had to a few years ago - and experience all of the strain on a family that that entails - I've always thought that I would work hard so that I could avoid being in that situation. You know in my experience: when you don't have money, you spend all of your time worrying about money; when you do have money, you can get on with actually living your life.

So, I've never been particularly embarrassed about wanting to be able to live a comfortable life without having to constantly worry about money, and when I got into Harvard, I jumped at an opportunity to dramatically increase my earning potential.

So, I have to say that I find it really offensive when I find the Junior Senator from Illinois saying:

There's no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should live by. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America's.

But I hope you don't. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt.

It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you'll play in writing the next great chapter in America's story.

Now, I don't personally feel like I'm "keeping my story separate from America's." Quite the contrary, I think I'm living the American Dream - that, through hard work, anyone in this Land of Opportunity can have a prosperous, comfortable life.

Nor am I so narcissistic that I think that I could achieve "collective salvation" for the nation if I were to forego a good job next year and instead do Teach for America or become a "community organizer" like the Junior Senator. In fact, I think that neither our collective nor my own individual salvation would be advanced by such a course. Just the opposite: I think that the thought that a 25-year-old - even one with a good education - could somehow solve the world's problems isn't just naive - it's usually premised upon self-centeredness and totally unjustified positive opinions about oneself. I for one don't think I could move to an impoverished neighbourhood and have anything particularly valuable to teach the people there - these neighbourhoods are, after all, populated by mature adults who have experienced far more of the "real world" than I ever will. I don't subscribe to the Left's paternalism - I think that, generally, people - even poor people - are far better at living their lives without my input than they would be with my input. So, I just want to go about pursuing a good life for myself, and supporting a social system in which other people are also able to pursue a good life for themselves. I'm not so arrogant as to say that I know what path is right for anyone else, nor do I particularly think I have the right to impose my opinions on others. I'm sorry, Senator, but that isn't a "poverty of ambition" on my part. That's actually respecting people in difficult situations and having the humility to admit that I don't have the ability to solve everyone's problems.

Though I guess that's why I'm not the Obamessiah.

It's a classic He-Said-He-Said.

John McCain: You tortured me.

Tran Trong Duyet: Torture? Come on, that was nothing.

And yet Duyet has endorsed McCain for president. What a wonderful, bizarre world we live in.

Good Polls for Big Mac

According to some recent polling, Obama is up by only 3 points in Oregon and he is up by only 4 points in Pennsylvania. Given the lingering goodwill and positive media attention surround the Junior Senator's clinching of the Democratic nomination, I think that this data should give Team Maverick a cause for optimism. If McCain could snag either Oregon or Pennsylvania, two states that both voted Dem in 2004, the Obamesiah would be finished.

Palin to Harry: Drill Away!

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska (my pick for McCain's VP) just sent a letter to Harry Reid advocating drilling for oil in ANWR. I think I'm in love.

Usury Laws? In the 21st Century? Seriously?

It's now thirty years since that well-known right-wing firebrand, Justice Brennan, handed down the Supreme Court's decision in Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp. For the past decade, Elizabeth Warren has been castigating Marquette because the decision lets South Dakota impose Shylockian credit conditions on the innocent and unsuspecting American middle class. The middle class's reaction to this Cassandra of Credit has largely been a collective yawn, followed by a trip to the store to buy a big-screen TV or to take an extra vacation in the Bahamas, all financed by the creditors who are allegedly fleecing them and laughing all the way to the bank.

Now, up until now, I had generally thought of Elizabeth Warren as basically similar to my mother: well-intentioned but something of a killjoy. Yes, Mom, I did just sign up for another credit card - I'm sure I'll be able to pay it back someday, and if not I'll just get a new credit card and take a cash advance on it to make my credit card payments. Carpe diem - you only live once, so you might as well live it up.

Well, it now turns out that Elizabeth Warren has caught the ear of the Junior Senator from Illinois. Yes, it looks like Obama can cut another notch in his hyper-liberal belt, since he is now considering re-regulating the credit card industry. So that we can all relive the economic utopia that prevailed in this country before Justice Brennan handed down Marquette in 1978. I seriously don't get why Obama and the Democrats want to return this country to the 1970s. From my study of American history, it seems like the 1970s were pretty much the worst decade of the postwar era, and not one that most Americans look back on fondly. After the mean 1980s, the mean 1990s, and the mean 2000s, it's time to get back to the 1970s. Oh well, maybe after the country elects the neo-Carter, it'll elect a neo-Reagan in 2012.

Palin for VP

Politico reports that the McCain campaign is actively considering three women for the position of vice president. While Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is certainly an impressive politician, I believe that she is a bit too old for the post, particularly given McCain's advanced age. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carley Fiorina would be an interesting pick, but her lack of political skills could pose a problem.

Which leaves Alaska governor Sarah Palin, my personal choice for VP. Palin is a young, effective, popular Republican who has built her reputation on fighting corruption, a challenging task in the Last Frontier. Palin would bring much-needed youth and dynamism to the ticket, and she could woo disaffected Hillary voters much more effectively than could, for example, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.

Sure, Palin is a bit inexperienced, but Obama is not one to talk on that issue. Palin for VP!

Habeas and Handguns: The Supreme Court and the Election

According to a new Washington Post poll, 61% of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court's recent Boumediene decision, in which the Justices extended habeas corpus rights to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In the short run, the decision seems to have helped McCain, as Obama's embrace of the Court's meddling made him look soft on national security.

Even more than Boumediene, however, the Court's upcoming decision in Heller, the DC guns case, will have a tremendous impact on the 2008 race. If, as I believe is likely, the Supreme Court affirms that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the rights of citizens to own weapons, Obama will be forced to take a concrete stand on this delicate issue. Given that Obama has, as an Illinois legislator, supported banning all handguns, this should be fun to watch.

I predict that Obama will waffle again. More syrup, please.

Bubba To Endorse Big Mac?

Maybe, but probably not. It would be fun, though, and Bill does love being the center of attention...

Waffles

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports that Senator Obama is now threatening to block the FISA compromise bill that just passed the House. This would be the Junior Senator's third flip-flop on the issue (impressive even by Democratic candidate standards). First, Obama opposed any authorization of warrantless wiretapping. Next, Obama signalled that he supported the current compromise. Now, however, Obama is flipping yet again under sustained criticism from MoveOn.org and the liberal "netroots."

This looks like just another example of Mr. Obama's commitment to change. Pass the syrup.

Smokin' Dutch

It turns out that the Netherlands has just banned indoor smoking. Don't worry, though: marijuana is exempted from the ban. Good to see that the Dutch haven't lost their famous pragmatism.

Which brings me to my exit question: why is it that conservatives tend to prefer tobacco and demonize pot, whereas liberals tend to celebrate pot and demonize tobacco?

Canada Soon More Capitalist Than US

It appears that for the first time since the pre-Trudeau era, Canada is poised to be more capitalist than the US. Perhaps this might explain why the Canadian economy is doing "quite well", while the US economy is "stagnating".

I predict that, should Obama become president and raise taxes and increase government spending (as he wants so desperately to do), the result will be: 1) prolonged US recession; 2) Canada finally taking its place as the one true bastion of capitalism on the continent, thus reversing the bizarre trend of American liberals who wanted to move to Canada after Kerry's defeat in 2004. Yes, soon it will be the conservatives hankering to move to Canada after the US economy is decimated in the name of "fairness" and "social justice".

Breaking News: Obama is Black

Well, it appears that Senator Obama has learned well the lessons taught by his race-baiting Black Power pastor. Yesterday, he told his supporters that the GOP is going to use his race to "stoke fear". No doubt all those bitter-clingers out there are on the verge of going all KKK as soon as they find out Obama's black.

This is really slanderous (or is it libellous? - grr, with the bar exam fast approaching, I really need to figure this out). It is seriously outrageous that Obama is making comments like this.

Riding the Rails

I'm glad to hear that ridership on Amtrak has surged in the wake of record-high gas prices. I've long thought that this country's intercity rail system needed an overhaul, and hopefully this spike in usage will provide the political impetus for such an improvement. Nevertheless, I'm disappointed to see that President Bush has not embraced the idea of expanding and modernizing Amtrak. Unlike the President, I see no problem with government ownership of the intercity rails. Just look at Europe, whose clean, comfortable, and efficient trains put those in the US to shame.

Why can't the federal government subsidize train travel with at least the same zeal with which it supports highways?

Vero Possumus

I find the new Obama "presidential seal" both ridiculous and mildly offensive. The presidential seal is intended to convey the power and prestige of the US presidency to both the American people and foreign nations. By co-opting and modifying the seal, Obama has presumptuously appropriated a symbol of national unity for narrow partisan purposes. And the addition of the Latin motto is just silly.

Obama: Two-Faced Rhetoric We Can Believe In

Today's New York Times op-ed by David Brooks accurately describes Obama as a politician with a split personality. On the one hand, Obama waxes eloquent about new politics and the fierce urgency of now. On the other, Obama has no problem disingenuously attacking McCain on the "100 years in Iraq" comment and refusing to accept public campaign funding after promising that he would.

While Obama's record in public service is not long enough for him to be painted as a John Kerry-style flip-flopper, I do think that we're now seeing the beginning of a new anti-Obama narrative. Specifically, Obama is a traditional pol hiding behind a facade of inspirational "hope-n-change" rhetoric. Coming from McCain, who is nothing if not honest, I think that this could be effective.

Gender Bias at Wikipedia?

As a frequent, and, if I do say so myself, prolific contributor to Wikipedia, the election that I'm most concerned with at present is the ongoing election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees.

But it just struck me that, going through the candidate statements, while trying, painfully, to figure out who to vote for, there is not a single female candidate running for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Fifteen male candidates, not one female. (Sidenote: note how the candidate statements come up in randomized order, so that the order is different every time you refresh the page. Almost as cool as the fact that the elections use the Schulze Method to determine the winner. But I digress.)

Any thoughts as to why Wikipedia is so gendered male? Do women just have a genetic aversion to freely-provided factual information, or is there actually something deeply misogynistic about the entire wiki-universe? Please help me unravel this mystery.

Also, if you have any thoughts as to who I should vote for, please let me know.

God Bless the Electoral College

According to Politico, Barack Obama may pull an Al Gore this year by winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college. This would happen, for example, if Obama racked up huge margins on the coasts while Maverick McCain won narrow victories in the Republican heartland and the South.

This sounds plausible. It also sounds like an example of the Electoral College working as it was intended. When the Framers eschewed direct popular voting for the presidency and chose the Electoral College instead, one of their aims was to ensure that every president would be truly national figure. Indeed, not until the election of Abraham Lincoln did a US president come to power on the basis of support from only one region of the country.

Sure, the Framers are racist, sexist, classist dead-white-guys. But they were right on occasion. Imagine that.

Buid, McCain, Build!

I'm glad to hear that McCain has advocated the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants to help address the high price of energy. With gas at $4 per gallon, I'm willing to bet that the public will be ready to embrace nuclear power in a way that they haven't before.

Furthermore, I think that McCain is uniquely well-positioned to advocate an expansion of the country's nuclear facilities. As a long-time supporter of alternative energies, McCain can effectively rebut the Democrats' idea that nuclear and renewable energies cannot co-exist as alternatives to oil. Why can't we both increase our use of nuclear power and expand tax credits for renewable energy?

Simpson > OBL

Last summer, I attended a speech by Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was the prosecutor in US v. Usama bin Laden, the case which the Junior Senator from Illinois now points up as the model for fighting the War on Terror (not that the Senator would use that term, which he no doubt regards as fearmongering). Fitzgerald made the point that at the time that case was going on, it received virtually no press coverage. Why? Because that was right smack in the middle of the O. J. Simpson trial. The press couldn't care less about the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

On a sidenote: much as I like Patrick Fitzgerald (though not as a speaker - the man is damn boring), I don't actually think that US v. Usama bin Laden was that effective at fighting al-Qaeda. After all, bin Laden had already been convicted in absentia long before 9/11 occurred. Nevertheless, Obama feels this approach was good enough. What a disgraceful, September 10 approach.

Opportunity for McCain

The New York Times has just reported that Barack Obama has officially decided to opt out of the public financing system, thereby freeing himself to raise unlimited amounts of donor money. Given the Obama campaigns efforts to portray McCain as a tool of the Washington establishment, this presents Big Mac with an opportunity. Obama promised earlier in the campaign to accept public funding. By reneging now, it is he, and not McCain, who looks like a conventional pol.

Obama's First Term

Preview of Obama's first term.

Watch all 10 minutes of the clip. The similarities are eerie..

Right Idea, Wrong Country

British mercenary Simon Mann, currently on trial in Equatorial Guinea, has testified that the governments of Spain and South America attempted to overthrow that oil-rich country's dictator, Teodoro Obiang, in 2004. To be sure, Mr. Obiang probably had it coming. He has ruled Equatorial Guinea ruthlessly for near 30 years, and his reign has seen such atrocities as the near-genocidal murder of many members of the country's Bubi minority.

Still, I have to ask why South Africa would be willing to unseat Obiang at the same time it has remained wholly unwilling to confront Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe. In considering the fate of Simon Mann, we should consider whether regime change in Zimbabwe might be more urgent and more justified.

New Politics or New Pandering?

So, Barack Obama has just admitted that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric while campaigning for the votes of those bitter-clingers in Ohio and Pennsylvania was "overheated."

Is this an example of the vaunted New Politics? Is blatant pandering less offensive if the candidate admits afterwards that he was, in fact, pandering?

Still, I'm glad that Obama has come around and is not as antitrade as I had once feared. Looks like Goolsbee was right all along.

Thus Spake Tom Wolfe: Dan Rather = Idiot

Tom Wolfe speaks truth to power:

CHARLIE ROSE: You are at the stage in your fourth decade where people want you to give one last great lecture. I know you do them too. So if you were giving one last lecture about journalism.

TOM WOLFE: About journalism.

CHARLIE ROSE: Not just about finance but about journalism, what would you say because you`ve seen so much of it?

TOM WOLFE: I think what I would say is today as newspapers are declining rapidly, they`re losing money. I would just point out that all news today comes from the newspapers. All of it. Television has never initiated a successful story in its life. When they have a big story it`s always wrong. They had something about Israelis and atomic bombs. Absolutely wrong. They have George Bush being criticized in some letter — The so- called Dan Rather ...

CHARLIE ROSE: About George Bush`s... How he got into the National Guard.

TOM WOLFE: Right. Idiots. They should have looked at the piece of paper. Obviously not written by a typewriter.