Okay so Clinton netted 29 (19 from Florida, 10 from Michigan) pledged delegates, but they only get 1/2 a vote. But the NY Times reports that she nets a total of 24. I guess they're counting the superdelegates that have committed from the two states as well. Maybe they are also counting Edwards' delegates. Regardless, everyone seems to agree that Obama needs 64-66 more delegates to clinch the nomination now. I was a bit surprised by the 69-59 split in Michigan. I had heard about the plan, but both camps rejected it, so I didn't think it was likely. But I guess the fact that neither camp was happy with it makes it a good compromise. I guess I should have seen that.
Back to the race, Obama will probably win about 42 delegates in the last three primaries. So he needs another 25 or so superdelegates and he's over the top. I'm guessing he'll have those lined up by Tuesday night. I think he'll try to subtly say that he's really the nominee and hope that Hillary will concede without further prodding. My prediction: Hillary concedes on Wednesday afternoon. That may seem really optimistic, but consider the votes today. The Florida vote was unanimous, with all of Hillary's supporters voting for the plan. The Michigan vote was 19-8, which is a pretty solid margin. Hillary's only chance is to challenge the delegates at the Credentials Committee in July. But with margins this large, it's unlikely she'll get a different result. Obama played this right, by the way. Chuck Todd is reporting that the Obama camp had the votes for the 50-50 plan, but went with the 69-59 plan to have it pass by a larger margin. Clinton supporter Don Fowler said it best: "Guys, it's over." By Wednesday, it really will be.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Puerto Rico
On Sunday Puerto Rico votes. Given that it's a territory, you might think it's not an important primary. But this is the Democratic Party, so reason and sensibility must be dispensed with. It turns out that, under DNC rules, Puerto Rico sends more delegates to the Democratic Convention than twenty seven states. Yes, you read that right, TWENTY SEVEN STATES. Don't believe me? Here's the Evil Orange Menace, Markos, with a list. Amazingly, Colorado has an above-median 71 delegates and comfortably beats out Puerto Rico's 63 (you can see that here). So what kind of crazy math would make Colorado so valuable? Don't ask, you don't want to know. Anyway, the Puerto Rico primary is the largest remaining primary (but not as large as the Rules Committee meeting). Clinton will win it by 20 points and net 21 delegates. And it won't be enough.
I'm starting to wonder whether the best option for both candidates is a bullet in the head of the opponent. I will make it clear that I am not advocating either such possibility, but it doesn't seem like anything else will stop either candidate. Hillary would be well within her rights to take it to the convention, but she shouldn't do it. And Obama is winning, so why would he give up?
But we can joke, can't we? How about a cage match? Hillary would have have significant age, strength, and physical stature disadvantages, so she should get a whip. Wouldn't that put America's history in an interesting perspective? White woman whipping a black man- that'll raise some eyebrows. But it'd be fun, because Obama would find a way to win (he's had to before). But I'm not really sure I want to see Hillary in spiked leather and chains, however. It was painful enough just to write that last line- I can't help but visualize what I write. And it was scary. Much scarier than them fighting to the death. Please, Hillary, make it stop.
I'm starting to wonder whether the best option for both candidates is a bullet in the head of the opponent. I will make it clear that I am not advocating either such possibility, but it doesn't seem like anything else will stop either candidate. Hillary would be well within her rights to take it to the convention, but she shouldn't do it. And Obama is winning, so why would he give up?
But we can joke, can't we? How about a cage match? Hillary would have have significant age, strength, and physical stature disadvantages, so she should get a whip. Wouldn't that put America's history in an interesting perspective? White woman whipping a black man- that'll raise some eyebrows. But it'd be fun, because Obama would find a way to win (he's had to before). But I'm not really sure I want to see Hillary in spiked leather and chains, however. It was painful enough just to write that last line- I can't help but visualize what I write. And it was scary. Much scarier than them fighting to the death. Please, Hillary, make it stop.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Michigan and Florida
No, the Democratic primary campaign is not over. But it will be soon. Hopefully. But Saturday is a big day. There's more delegates at stake than in the remaining three primaries. Get ready, because it's the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting! Normally, a meeting like this would be a good place to read a book in peace, but not this year. There will be protests organized by Hillary, but I'm sure the real fireworks will happen inside. But that's all it will be: fireworks. Even if Hillary gets all she wants, she'll still be far behind. The committee is made up of 30 members, with 13 committed to Hillary and 8 committed to Obama. Hillary's got the edge, but she's asking for some pretty ridiculous things and she needs 3 of the 9 uncommitted members to go along. I don't think that will happen. Obama has been reluctant to say what he would like to do with the delegates. Away from the cameras, he would probably say that neither delegation should be seated at all. Those were the rules, but they will be changed in an unsuccessful effort to appease Hillary. I'm all for sticking to the rules, but it's not going to happen. The Democrats should have adopted the Republican plan for these two states (cut the delegation in half, but hold the election anyway.) Here are the possible outcomes for both states:
Hillary Plan: All delegates are seated as they went in the election.
Half Hillary Plan: All delegates are seated, but get 1/2 a vote.
Half District Plan: The delegation is cut in half and delegates are reassigned by district.
50/50 Plan: Delegates are split evenly.
Half 50/50 Plan: The delegation is reduced by half, and then divided evenly.
Obama Plan: The rules stay the same and no delegates are seated.
So what happens?
Florida: Both candidates were on the ballot, and I think Hillary can get three votes of the nine uncommitted for the Half Hillary Plan. It might seem that the Half Hillary Plan and the Half District Plan would produce the same result, but this is America, and electoral counts never make sense here. Chuck Todd explains why (but with no permalink) and FiveThirtyEight agrees (again, without a permalink). But as FiveThirtyEight notes, the effect goes a little bit the other way for Michigan. But the Half Hillary Plan gives Hillary a few more delegates between the two states, she'll push for that one. The Half Hillary Plan also means that more party loyalists get to go to Denver, so it will win. The full Hillary Plan is pretty much out of the question. The consensus seems to be that it's illegal under DNC rules. And it has all the fairness of one of Papa Doc's elections in Haiti.
Michigan: Michigan is different because Obama wasn't on the ballot. There are two ways to look at it when it comes to the Hillary plans: Give Obama zero delegates or give him the "uncommitted" delegates. Neither is fair, and the latter is probably illegal (but somewhat fair, given that Obama encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted). The Hillary camp argues that the uncommitted should be seated as uncommitted. But she made a special effort at the Michigan Democratic Convention to select those particular "uncommitted" delegates, so she'd end up with even more delegates than when she ran unopposed (basically). I think we'll see either the Half Hillary Plan with Obama being awarded the "uncommitted" or the Half 50/50 plan. I'll take the Half Hillary Plan with a side of Obamized Uncommitteds.
FiveThirtyEight did an analysis that showed that Obama actually would have won the state by a hair, but I'm somewhat skeptical. They've been pretty damn good so far using an unconventional polling/ demographics model. Their Michigan model uses comparisons of election results from demographically similar districts in neighboring states. That's not a problem in itself; in fact I think their methodology is basically sound. The problem is that those elections in neighboring states were held later in the season, when Obama had better name recognition. He would have been a weaker candidate when the Michigan and Florida elections were held. Nonetheless, I'd agree that the Half 50/50 plan has merit. Without both candidates on the ballot, it's impossible to judge the results. There's news that the committee is considering the Half 50/50 Plan for Michigan. But I'm not buying it. The Half Hillary Plan is more easily done across both states, so it would be easier to justify for everyone. But I doubt three of the committee's uncommitted would go for it without Obama getting those "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan.
So What's the Bottom Line? Hillary nets 27 delegates on Saturday.
Caveat: Hillary can appeal these decisions to the Credentials Committee or take it to the convention floor. Only Hillary can really stop this. And recently, she hasn't really been one to listen to reason. But Pelosi and Reid are asking the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to make a decision next week (after all the primaries are FINALLY over). Many of those superdelegates have bills and amendments that they'd like to get through their respective legislatures. Pelosi and Reid can do much to affect the passage of such bills and amendments. In theory, they could pull some serious weight on the matter, but this is the Democrats we're talking about.
Update: Poblano at FiveThirtyEight reveals his identity.
Update II: Apparently, Clinton may not have those 13 committed members on the committe.
Hillary Plan: All delegates are seated as they went in the election.
Half Hillary Plan: All delegates are seated, but get 1/2 a vote.
Half District Plan: The delegation is cut in half and delegates are reassigned by district.
50/50 Plan: Delegates are split evenly.
Half 50/50 Plan: The delegation is reduced by half, and then divided evenly.
Obama Plan: The rules stay the same and no delegates are seated.
So what happens?
Florida: Both candidates were on the ballot, and I think Hillary can get three votes of the nine uncommitted for the Half Hillary Plan. It might seem that the Half Hillary Plan and the Half District Plan would produce the same result, but this is America, and electoral counts never make sense here. Chuck Todd explains why (but with no permalink) and FiveThirtyEight agrees (again, without a permalink). But as FiveThirtyEight notes, the effect goes a little bit the other way for Michigan. But the Half Hillary Plan gives Hillary a few more delegates between the two states, she'll push for that one. The Half Hillary Plan also means that more party loyalists get to go to Denver, so it will win. The full Hillary Plan is pretty much out of the question. The consensus seems to be that it's illegal under DNC rules. And it has all the fairness of one of Papa Doc's elections in Haiti.
Michigan: Michigan is different because Obama wasn't on the ballot. There are two ways to look at it when it comes to the Hillary plans: Give Obama zero delegates or give him the "uncommitted" delegates. Neither is fair, and the latter is probably illegal (but somewhat fair, given that Obama encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted). The Hillary camp argues that the uncommitted should be seated as uncommitted. But she made a special effort at the Michigan Democratic Convention to select those particular "uncommitted" delegates, so she'd end up with even more delegates than when she ran unopposed (basically). I think we'll see either the Half Hillary Plan with Obama being awarded the "uncommitted" or the Half 50/50 plan. I'll take the Half Hillary Plan with a side of Obamized Uncommitteds.
FiveThirtyEight did an analysis that showed that Obama actually would have won the state by a hair, but I'm somewhat skeptical. They've been pretty damn good so far using an unconventional polling/ demographics model. Their Michigan model uses comparisons of election results from demographically similar districts in neighboring states. That's not a problem in itself; in fact I think their methodology is basically sound. The problem is that those elections in neighboring states were held later in the season, when Obama had better name recognition. He would have been a weaker candidate when the Michigan and Florida elections were held. Nonetheless, I'd agree that the Half 50/50 plan has merit. Without both candidates on the ballot, it's impossible to judge the results. There's news that the committee is considering the Half 50/50 Plan for Michigan. But I'm not buying it. The Half Hillary Plan is more easily done across both states, so it would be easier to justify for everyone. But I doubt three of the committee's uncommitted would go for it without Obama getting those "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan.
So What's the Bottom Line? Hillary nets 27 delegates on Saturday.
Caveat: Hillary can appeal these decisions to the Credentials Committee or take it to the convention floor. Only Hillary can really stop this. And recently, she hasn't really been one to listen to reason. But Pelosi and Reid are asking the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to make a decision next week (after all the primaries are FINALLY over). Many of those superdelegates have bills and amendments that they'd like to get through their respective legislatures. Pelosi and Reid can do much to affect the passage of such bills and amendments. In theory, they could pull some serious weight on the matter, but this is the Democrats we're talking about.
Update: Poblano at FiveThirtyEight reveals his identity.
Update II: Apparently, Clinton may not have those 13 committed members on the committe.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Golan Heights Park?
Apparently, that's not out of the question. Here's Gershom Gorenberg:
"The “non-paper ” - or unsigned framework agreement reached by Liel and unofficial Syrian negotiator Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman is important reading, because it gives a sense of how an Israel-Syria deal is likely to look. One creative feature: in order to keep the Golan demilitarized and to prevent competition over Jordan River water, the Golan would be turned into a giant park after Israeli withdrawal - with free access for Israelis."
That is pretty creative. Few people have ventured into the Syria-Israel negotiations, unless they just want to make a snarky comment about how Bush/McCain wouldn't talk while Israel will (yes, I'm guilty of that). And for good reason, we really don't know what these talks will produce. Gershom goes where no man dares to go. But he's a Jew living in Jerusalem, so he can get away with it, unlike me. But I'm with Gershom on this. I'm somewhat skeptical, but I do genuinely believe that Syria can negotiate honestly and keep to whatever deal comes out. Peace is not a zero-sum game. It is a positive-sum game. War is a negative-sum game. You can take your pick, but I'll always fall on the side of peace. It's worth a chance.
So what should we think of Bashar Assad? I wasn't a fan of his father, and my natural reaction was to dislike Bashar as well. My opinion changed when I was in Pummukale, Turkey. I had just gotten off a really angry phone call with my bank and was relaxing with drinks and tobacco in the courtyard of my hotel. And then they came. A tour bus dropped off about 60 Syrian tourists. They were mostly Muslims, but there were quite a few Christians and Druze as well. And they created quite the spectacle with their singing and dancing. I talked to about ten of them. About half hated Assad and the rest loved him. But they all agreed that Assad was the only person who could be the leader of Syria. Even those that hated him had respect for him and believed he was doing a good job. All them believed very strongly in religious pluralism and believed that Assad supported that goal. Even the Wahabbi scholar I talked to for a few hours. Assad really does have the support of his people and they will go along with any agreement he reaches with Israel. I feel very confident about that.
Israel, of course, is a democracy with very lively debate. I have no doubt that there will be strong opposition to whatever Olmert is willing to agree to. But any seasoned politician in Israel is used to that. Olmert needs to hold strong against that opposition and do what he believes is right for Israel. I'm not really a fan of Olmert, but my heart goes out to him on this issue. I wish him the best of luck.
"The “non-paper ” - or unsigned framework agreement reached by Liel and unofficial Syrian negotiator Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman is important reading, because it gives a sense of how an Israel-Syria deal is likely to look. One creative feature: in order to keep the Golan demilitarized and to prevent competition over Jordan River water, the Golan would be turned into a giant park after Israeli withdrawal - with free access for Israelis."
That is pretty creative. Few people have ventured into the Syria-Israel negotiations, unless they just want to make a snarky comment about how Bush/McCain wouldn't talk while Israel will (yes, I'm guilty of that). And for good reason, we really don't know what these talks will produce. Gershom goes where no man dares to go. But he's a Jew living in Jerusalem, so he can get away with it, unlike me. But I'm with Gershom on this. I'm somewhat skeptical, but I do genuinely believe that Syria can negotiate honestly and keep to whatever deal comes out. Peace is not a zero-sum game. It is a positive-sum game. War is a negative-sum game. You can take your pick, but I'll always fall on the side of peace. It's worth a chance.
So what should we think of Bashar Assad? I wasn't a fan of his father, and my natural reaction was to dislike Bashar as well. My opinion changed when I was in Pummukale, Turkey. I had just gotten off a really angry phone call with my bank and was relaxing with drinks and tobacco in the courtyard of my hotel. And then they came. A tour bus dropped off about 60 Syrian tourists. They were mostly Muslims, but there were quite a few Christians and Druze as well. And they created quite the spectacle with their singing and dancing. I talked to about ten of them. About half hated Assad and the rest loved him. But they all agreed that Assad was the only person who could be the leader of Syria. Even those that hated him had respect for him and believed he was doing a good job. All them believed very strongly in religious pluralism and believed that Assad supported that goal. Even the Wahabbi scholar I talked to for a few hours. Assad really does have the support of his people and they will go along with any agreement he reaches with Israel. I feel very confident about that.
Israel, of course, is a democracy with very lively debate. I have no doubt that there will be strong opposition to whatever Olmert is willing to agree to. But any seasoned politician in Israel is used to that. Olmert needs to hold strong against that opposition and do what he believes is right for Israel. I'm not really a fan of Olmert, but my heart goes out to him on this issue. I wish him the best of luck.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Oregon, Kentucky, Ollie, and Appeasement
Not that it really matters anymore, but there are more primaries tomorrow. So there are more predictions. Obama will win Oregon by 12 points. Clinton will win Kentucky by 30 points. Clinton will net 9 delegates for the night (67-58). It's possible Obama could win the nomination without a single additional super delegate after tomorrow. But probably not. Hillary looks strong in Puerto Rico. But, barring a radical rule change, she's done for. And it looks like even the rule changes she wants wouldn't be enough for her. Her only hope is to get out of debt before she drops out.
I didn't want to write about Bush's appeasement comments in Israel. I basically came up with the same argument as Chris Mathews: Chamberlain wasn't wrong to talk to Hitler. He was wrong to give up the Sudetenland. That was the appeasement. Simply talking does not ensure bad results. I wasn't even going to say this, because it's so obvious. But then I saw Ollie North saying this:
"As you know, I’m the history guy at Fox News Channel, right? I’ve done this WWII series – 52 of our episodes about WWII. Had it not been for Chamberlain going to sit down with Adolf Hitler and try to cut a deal in Munich, WWII might never have happened, but it emboldened the dictator. That’s what the President said yesterday in Jerusalem. And a little reminder today, a shot across the bow here at the NRA, when John McCain got up and said, ‘You cannot have these kinds of unconditional, no preconditions discussions, with despots and dictators’ - dead on the mark."
Umm, Ollie, you not only talked to Iran, but you gave them weapons! That's not just diplomacy, and it's not just appeasement, it's collaboration. I was going to write of pots and kettles, but this is different. This is the pot calling the tea cup black. Of course, Bush's grandfather helped arm and finance Hitler, so I guess Bush shouldn't be talking about appeasement, either.
As for Ollie being the "history guy at Fox," well, that just about explains everything at Fox News, doesn't it?
As for McCain, I guess he wouldn't have talked to Krushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He'd either have left the missiles in Cuba or started a nuclear holocaust. My guess is that McCain would have followed Barry Goldwater's advice and launched an attack. And most of us wouldn't have ever been born because our parents would have been killed. And he thinks Obama is "reckless"? Once again, the pot calling the tea cup black. When you refuse to negotiate, you leave only two options: ignore the problem or go to war. If you ignore the problem, it only grows and leads you to the same two choices. Eventually, war will become the only option. But McCain's only solution to any problem is war. So it's not surprising he'd advocate a policy that can only lead us there.
Update: it seems those dirty hippie appeasers in Ehud Olmert's government are negotiating with Syria. There have been rumors to this effect for months, but now Syria and Israel are acknowledging the negotiations. The consensus seems to be that real progress is being made or they wouldn't be talking about it. Let's all hope that's true. Some analysts are even hinting that Israel might give up the Golan Heights. I never would have dreamed that possible, although demographic issues have forced considerable reassessment within Israel. Turkey deserves a lot of credit for setting up the negotiations. And Syria and Israel deserve even more credit for following through.
Update II: Speaking of Hitler, Pastor John Hagee thinks Hitler was just fulfilling God's plan for the Jews. Hagee has said quite a lot of really crazy things, but that's about as crazy as it gets. I hope so, at least. But who knows what further media scrutiny will bring?
I didn't want to write about Bush's appeasement comments in Israel. I basically came up with the same argument as Chris Mathews: Chamberlain wasn't wrong to talk to Hitler. He was wrong to give up the Sudetenland. That was the appeasement. Simply talking does not ensure bad results. I wasn't even going to say this, because it's so obvious. But then I saw Ollie North saying this:
"As you know, I’m the history guy at Fox News Channel, right? I’ve done this WWII series – 52 of our episodes about WWII. Had it not been for Chamberlain going to sit down with Adolf Hitler and try to cut a deal in Munich, WWII might never have happened, but it emboldened the dictator. That’s what the President said yesterday in Jerusalem. And a little reminder today, a shot across the bow here at the NRA, when John McCain got up and said, ‘You cannot have these kinds of unconditional, no preconditions discussions, with despots and dictators’ - dead on the mark."
Umm, Ollie, you not only talked to Iran, but you gave them weapons! That's not just diplomacy, and it's not just appeasement, it's collaboration. I was going to write of pots and kettles, but this is different. This is the pot calling the tea cup black. Of course, Bush's grandfather helped arm and finance Hitler, so I guess Bush shouldn't be talking about appeasement, either.
As for Ollie being the "history guy at Fox," well, that just about explains everything at Fox News, doesn't it?
As for McCain, I guess he wouldn't have talked to Krushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He'd either have left the missiles in Cuba or started a nuclear holocaust. My guess is that McCain would have followed Barry Goldwater's advice and launched an attack. And most of us wouldn't have ever been born because our parents would have been killed. And he thinks Obama is "reckless"? Once again, the pot calling the tea cup black. When you refuse to negotiate, you leave only two options: ignore the problem or go to war. If you ignore the problem, it only grows and leads you to the same two choices. Eventually, war will become the only option. But McCain's only solution to any problem is war. So it's not surprising he'd advocate a policy that can only lead us there.
Update: it seems those dirty hippie appeasers in Ehud Olmert's government are negotiating with Syria. There have been rumors to this effect for months, but now Syria and Israel are acknowledging the negotiations. The consensus seems to be that real progress is being made or they wouldn't be talking about it. Let's all hope that's true. Some analysts are even hinting that Israel might give up the Golan Heights. I never would have dreamed that possible, although demographic issues have forced considerable reassessment within Israel. Turkey deserves a lot of credit for setting up the negotiations. And Syria and Israel deserve even more credit for following through.
Update II: Speaking of Hitler, Pastor John Hagee thinks Hitler was just fulfilling God's plan for the Jews. Hagee has said quite a lot of really crazy things, but that's about as crazy as it gets. I hope so, at least. But who knows what further media scrutiny will bring?
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Tea from Heaven
And a sweater, too! On December 8, 2007, I sent myself a package from Siliguri, India. And I finally got it! In celebration, I've figured out how to embed pictures. It's really easy, but I just hadn't tried before. Normally, shipping things from India takes about 10-14 days. But because tea is an agricultural product, it spends a while in US Customs. Months, in fact. So, what do they do in Customs? Apparently, nothing. The package hadn't been opened or tampered with in any way. I'm guessing it went through X-ray and was sniffed by dogs, but that happens on arrival to all packages. So why the delay? Anyway, I'm glad to have the tea (that's about $150 worth, don't be deceived by the size of the packages) and the sweater ($8).
Update: My sister got tea, too. And on the same day. There could be more coming.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Huh?
David Brooks is pretty good at proving he doesn't know what he's talking about, but this is strange. Here's where I have a problem with it:
"And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going end up challenging faith in the Bible."
The revolution he speaks of has to do with the introduction of Buddhist philosophy into the field of cognitive neuroscience. He's right about that, but how does this not undermine faith in God? Earth to David Brooks: Buddhists don't believe in God. One of the Buddha's most fundamental messages is that there is a Middle Path between nihilism and worship that recognizes spirituality but denies the existence of God. A simple Wikipedia lookup would have cleared that up. Does Mr. brooks have no internet, or is he just lazy? And Andrew Sullivan is no better. The lesson here is that we should not talk about religions with which we are not familiar. I don't talk about Sikhism or Jainism, and Brooks and Sullivan shouldn't talk about Buddhism.
Update: Strangely, John Derbyshire seems to have the best take on this. This discussion has obviously entered a realm so unfamiliar that nobody knows upon which side of the line to stand.
"And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going end up challenging faith in the Bible."
The revolution he speaks of has to do with the introduction of Buddhist philosophy into the field of cognitive neuroscience. He's right about that, but how does this not undermine faith in God? Earth to David Brooks: Buddhists don't believe in God. One of the Buddha's most fundamental messages is that there is a Middle Path between nihilism and worship that recognizes spirituality but denies the existence of God. A simple Wikipedia lookup would have cleared that up. Does Mr. brooks have no internet, or is he just lazy? And Andrew Sullivan is no better. The lesson here is that we should not talk about religions with which we are not familiar. I don't talk about Sikhism or Jainism, and Brooks and Sullivan shouldn't talk about Buddhism.
Update: Strangely, John Derbyshire seems to have the best take on this. This discussion has obviously entered a realm so unfamiliar that nobody knows upon which side of the line to stand.
West Virginia
Yes, the primaries are still going on. Hillary will win West Virginia by a 25% margin. Hillary does well in Appalachia. Which is another reason not to vote for her. But here's something that I didn't know. It turns out that John McCain is older than Chocolate Chip Cookies. Now, if you told me that John McCain was older than the nearby mountains, I might have believed it. But who would have thought that chocolate chip cookies were such a recent invention?
Friday, May 9, 2008
Credit Where it's Due
A remarkable speech from Mitt Romney. Money quote:
"But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.
If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief — to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience — it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.
We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation."
Amen, brother.
"But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.
If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief — to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience — it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.
We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation."
Amen, brother.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Bob
Some of you readers may know my former roommate, Bob. Bob moved to Florida and ended up getting some very bad news shortly thereafter. He's been diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Suffice it to say, that's not a good diagnosis to get. But it is moderately treatable. It's pretty much a crap shoot as to whether the treatment (chemo) will be effective, but Bob's always been a gambler (and he usually wins). He's in good spirits after his first round of chemo. We don't really know if the treatment is working yet. But we can hope. He's optimistic, so we should all be. And he can still laugh at his situation, which is a very good thing. It's much better than crying. I wish him the best.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Campaign Deathmarch
Obama wins North Carolina by six points. Clinton wins Indiana by five. Obama nets 5 delegates for the night. Oh, and the all-important Guam Caucus was a tie. And the campaign marches on....
Early Update: It seems I've been fooled by the media again. Obama is doing much better than expected in North Carolina and Hillary could still lose Indiana. No doubt, she'll spin it like a win for her (NC doesn't count, Indiana was a major comeback, Obama can't win rednecks, etc.), but she is now so CTD that she's in another world now. Haven't checked the MSM yet, but I'm sure even they are starting to admit that it's time to stick a fork in her.
Late Night Update: The media is going against Hillary. She's canceled appearances. She's in debt. Hmmm. I wonder what she'll have to say tomorrow? I know this: I'll either love it or hate it. Now, I know that I shouldn't prejudge that speech, but the fact is that it has to be a a concession. I know that this is all based on the media spin, but the media spin was all Hillary had left. The math has long been against her. She's got nothing but the "vast right wing conspiracy" to back her now. Please, Hillary, go away.
Early Update: It seems I've been fooled by the media again. Obama is doing much better than expected in North Carolina and Hillary could still lose Indiana. No doubt, she'll spin it like a win for her (NC doesn't count, Indiana was a major comeback, Obama can't win rednecks, etc.), but she is now so CTD that she's in another world now. Haven't checked the MSM yet, but I'm sure even they are starting to admit that it's time to stick a fork in her.
Late Night Update: The media is going against Hillary. She's canceled appearances. She's in debt. Hmmm. I wonder what she'll have to say tomorrow? I know this: I'll either love it or hate it. Now, I know that I shouldn't prejudge that speech, but the fact is that it has to be a a concession. I know that this is all based on the media spin, but the media spin was all Hillary had left. The math has long been against her. She's got nothing but the "vast right wing conspiracy" to back her now. Please, Hillary, go away.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Muqtada al-Sadr
I have little to say about this. Except that it's the best analysis of Sadr's situation I've read. If you aren't already reading the Asia Times, you should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
