The Flag of the World

One of the things that has always worried me about a potential Obama presidency is the likelihood that he will be entirely dominated by his vastly more experienced cabinet. Considering the fact that Obama has practically zero experience on a national level outside of his current campaign, it’s pretty obvious to me that an Obama administration will be run by his staff & cabinet. (He certainly seems to put an awful lot of misplaced responsibility on his staff already).

Well, today Obama basically admitted that he’s a terrible judge of character. It turns out that, for 20 years, Obama has been wrong about the man variously described as a “sounding board,” a “close confidant” and a “spiritual mentor”. Meanwhile, those of us who heard a few minutes of his sermons had him pegged pretty quickly, as Obama admitted today.

So, between Wright, Ayers and Rezko, the terrifying thing about a President Obama is no longer just that he will be dominated by his cabinet, staff and advisers, but he will be dominated by his incompentent and/or reprehensible cabinet, staff and advisers.

I cannot believe what I just saw.

Our only source for television news in English is CNN–specifically, CNN International. This is the same channel beamed around the planet and watched by English-speaking people on every continent.

A few moments ago, they did a segment on Jeremiah Wright’s press club speech, the heart of which Lorraine addresses below. This segment focused on Wright’s “the USA created AIDS” assertions, and his theory that blacks are right-brained and whites are left-brained–which is actually a mere variation on a standard belief in the American educational community (again, see Lorraine’s post below).

The bitter irony is that of these two ridiculous assertions, the far more reprehensible and, frankly, crazy one was given far more credence than the other. While the ideas that blacks & whites learn differently is purely racialist and worthy of rejection, the fact is that it is believed by an enormous swath of researchers & educators. The idea that the US government created–and then purposefully planted–the AIDS virus, though, is an entirely fictitious delusion of a fevered mind, with no basis in reality.

And yet that is the one that CNN International did its darndest to present as legitimate. First, they quoted Jeremiah Wright, reaffirming his statements–then, they showed the nutball book he referenced as support. Then they played a portion of an interview with the author of the nutball book, who was thrilled to be finally getting some MSM love for his venomous delusion. But, to show both sides of the story, they quoted an unnamed source at the Centers for Disease Control (which is blamed for both AIDS and ebola in the aforementioned screed), as mentioning “another theory” about the origin of HIV–namely, that it originated in sub-Saharan monkeys and was transferred to humans about 50 years ago. This “other theory,” of course, is what most of us like to call “the truth”. Exactly how noncontroversial is this “other theory”? The entry for AIDS origins on Wikipedia, of all places, does not bother to mention any other possibility.

But CNN International was not done. After giving a bare second or two to the forces of reality, they were back to Jeremiah Wright–because he cited another book “with more historical support.” Now, none of this historical support has anything to do with the origin of AIDS, mind you, but rather an actual historical event that, while reprehensible, had absolutely nothing to do with AIDS.

Anyone who does not know better would have almost certainly come away from CNN International tonight believing that the idea that the US government created AIDS is a legitimate belief with “historical support.” Why do they hate us? I think I have part of the reason right here.

Today’s speech by Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a perfect example the kind of benevolent, back-handed bigotry I fought against all through my M.Ed. program at the University of Washington.

In the speech, Wright claimed that white kids and black kids are wired so differently that they can’t be taught in the same ways. White kids are left-brained (which is why there are no white musicians or artists) and black kids are right-brained (which is why there are no black doctors or lawyers), and so they have to be taught using different methods. This notion was expounded in class after class at the UW, and seems to have been bought wholesale by Dr. Wright and the Left.

How can a person (or a nation) venerate Brown v. Board, when, in the same breath, he asks for Plessy v. Ferguson?

My professors at the UW were incensed when I pointed out the opportunity-sucking racism of this proposition. Incensed at me. My classmates were actively hostile–and these weren’t undergrads–they were graduate students, nearly all of us professional educators with some years’ experience in the classroom. One middle-aged white woman made a sobbing speech in support of segregation. Segregation! I never heard such paternalistic nonsense as came out of the mouths of these teachers at the University of Washington.

Well, here in Brazil, I teach classes of students that are positively motley compared to American classrooms. If Dr. Wright’s proposition is true, my classes should never succeed, because I teach them all, no matter what color or blend, the same way.

Another common conceit of liberal educators is that I shouldn’t be able to teach non-white children anything at all, because I have no grounds on which to relate to them. This article was assigned in three separate classes at the UW, which explains just how blind I am. It’s a favorite among white educators–I suggest you read it if you haven’t yet been forced to.

Both of these claims–that black and white children must be taught differently, that white teachers can’t relate–come from the same poisoned root. It is the Marxist idea that people in America function as groups (racial, economic, etc.), and not as individuals. It is the controversion of Jefferson’s claim of individual rights and freedoms as the basis for good government. It is the same root that fosters Barack Obama’s claims that poor Pennsylvanians cling (in herds) to God and guns.

Now, Chester Finn says that all this doesn’t matter–that these ideas are popular among educators, but psychologists deny them. That may be true, but it is immaterial. Psychologists aren’t in classrooms, shaping the next generation of politicians, doctors, and artists. Teachers are.

I’ve been meaning to write a post detailing how the 2008 primary has essentially proved my (admittedly not particularly controversial) thesis from 2004 that the Democratic Party is basically broken down into three groups–the Progressives, the Moderates and the Opportunists.

Not everything I wrote 4 years was entirely accurate. For example, I predicted we’d see the three-way split start to damage the party “in the next year or so”. I forgot that the GOP is the stupid party, not the Democrats. Thanks largely to the “management strategy”, the three wings managed a truce, and had significant success (electorally, not policy-wise)

They did this not by attacking Republican policies, but by attacking Republican competence. Partly, this is because the policies themselves are actually fairly popular (minus the war). Partly, this is because there’s now way the Democrats can make policy their centerpoint, because the three wings won’t agree on it (hence the spectacular failure of the current Dem majority). And partly, alas, this is because the GOP has had some pretty incompetent moments.

But here we are in 2008, and the Democrat War is in full swing, in the form of the presidential primary between Obama, backed, in general, by the Progressives, and Hillary, backed generally by the Moderates. And the really good news is that I don’t have to write about it, because Jim Geraghty pretty much already did.

A few other notes about the split, though:

• The chief Moderate from 2004, Joe Lieberman, after winning his own skirmish in the Democrat Wars against the Progressives & Ned Lamont, has thoroughly jumped ship and is campaigning for John McCain. Regardless of who wins the Dem primary, there will be many more like him.
• Though Clinton’s only hope in the primary is her newfound base of Moderates, she is certainly not one of them. She’s the Queen of the Opportunists, and is doing what Opportunists do–grabbing support where she can. Remember when her big contrast with Obama was that her health care plan was more socialist than his? Yeah, she doesn’t really seem to mention that much anymore.
• Speaking of Opportunists, back in 2004 I called John Edwards their best example from that cycle, and I’ll be darned if I wasn’t spot on. How much of an Opportunist is he? The man still hasn’t made an endorsement for president.
• Back in 2004, I noted that “Barak” Obama (man, that was a long time ago) had the “potential to succeed in any of the three camps”. And he did, to an extent. But the fact is, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool Progressive, and there’s nothing he can do about it. Heaven knows he tried. He positioned himself early on as the one who could transcend, not just his party’s divisions, but the nation’s. But culturally, he’s as Progressive as they come. He can ignore & cover up his voting record, but he can’t disown his nature, any more than he could disown Jeremiah Wright. And thus he quickly rallied the Progressives to his cause. As John Judis writes in The New Republic:
  

  Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as “very liberal.” … There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services [Riiight-ed]; but if they begin to become Obama’s most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.

Where will all this feuding leave the Democrats in November? Aside from grumbling about President Elect McCain, I mean? Hard to say. Largely, that will depend on how well they do in stitching the gaping wound this primary is going to leave in their party.

The important thing to remember is that the Progressive/Moderate clash in this primary has been almost entirely cultural. There are a whole host of actual policy disputes within the party that still haven’t come to the surface. Should we ever see a bitter fight between Democrats that is both cultural and policy-based… well, let’s just say Lieberman may get a lot less lonely.

So Clinton is busy whooping up on Obama tonight in Pennsylvania. It looks like she’s going to have a victory of somewhere between 8 & 10 points–just big enough to keep this circus going.

And really, I can see her point. Obama likes to point out that he’s won more delegates, states and votes than Hillary, which is totally true. Buuuuttt… that’s not how we vote come November. We’ve got this thing called the Electoral College, and if you look at Hillary & Obama’s victories through that lens, Hillary is far and away the victor.

Even assuming Obama wins all the rest of the states except for West Virginia & Kentucky (Clinton may well do better than that, but we’ll go with it), Clinton comes out with a 297 to 241 victory, almost exactly the victory of Carter over Ford, for historical perspective. That margin shrinks significantly if you take out Florida & Michigan, but it doesn’t disappear.

Though that doesn’t really give us a good picture, because a lot of these states are ones that the Democrats shouldn’t have to work for, or won’t win regardless. Taking out all of these solidly red or solidly blue states, Obama ends up with only half of these “purplish” states–which I’m defining as CO, FL, IA, MN, MI, NH, NM, OH, NV, PA & VA. You can certainly quibble on some of these, but the fact is that Hillary has done much better in the states Democrats need to win in November.

And if you consider the fact that Massachusetts suddenly becomes a purple state if Obama is the nominee, well… Let me just say that if I were a Democrat who actually wanted a shot to win this fall, I know what I’d be begging all my superdelegate friends to do.

As an aside, this little exercise has brought home to me just how spectacularly stupid it was of the Democrats to block the delegates of Florida & Michigan. Between the two of them, those states have 44 electoral votes, more than any single state except for California. They’re also states that could go either way in November. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

It’s been way too long, but here’s the first Hikecast from Brazil! Hopefully we’ll get opportunities to do a lot more of these.

Lots of talk about McCain’s VP recently, in part because of McCain’s age (though his mother’s still campaigning at 90-something, so we may not need to worry about anything). I figure I’ll weigh in, because I have a definite preference.

I must admit, this preference has more to do with my own personal similarities & connections to this guy, but since that’s what the entire Obama campaign is built on, I think fair is fair. My guy: Tim Pawlenty.

First, my entirely personal reasons:

• His name is Tim (like me)
• He was born in St. Paul (like me)
• He attends a Baptist General Conference church (like me for most of my life)
• His wife is a Bethel Alum (like me)
• She’s also a Bethel trustee
• I’ve met him
• I spent much of Election Night 2002 waving a sign with his name on it in the bitter Minnesota cold

Now, my more concrete reasons:

• He’s a conservative Democrats can vote for
• He’s got executive experience
• He’s from a narrowly blue state ripe for the picking
• He’s young
• Would be a fantastic candidate in ‘12 or ‘16

And at least one reason that falls into both categories:

• He supported McCain after everyone else ditched him (like me)

Pawlenty would honestly be my top choice even if he weren’t an exceedingly likely candidate, which he is–so that’s pretty cool for me.

Earlier this week, I complained about the ritualistic, religious approach to global warming. Well, I’m still cranky about it. I have two examples of this pervasive danger that is, in the long run, going to do a great deal of harm to the environmental movement.

For years, I’ve wondered why in the world environmentalists haven’t supported large-scale engineering projects to prevent global warming. If it really is such a danger, why aren’t we creating massive carbon sinks out of cyanobacteria or genetically engineered green algae or something? Or, as these guys suggest, we could blow a mountain of dirt into the stratosphere. I happen to think carbon sinks sound a little safer, myself.

But what’s the response from the climatically obsessed to this scheme? As Glenn Reynolds points out, it’s downright religious:

Questions of usefulness and necessity aside, grand-scale sun-blocking schemes feel dubious in part because they challenge our intuitive sense that large-scale wrongs can be atoned for only with equally large-scale sacrifices. Drastic emissions cutbacks require drastic lifestyle changes, like taking shorter showers and scrapping the Hummer. Such changes feel right because they’re a little painful; putting the squeeze on ourselves is suitable penance for the collective sin of spewing tailpipe fumes into the atmosphere for the past 100-plus years.

Geoengineering, by contrast, seems like an undeserved dispensation.

Martin Luther, eat your heart out. But to me, the religious language alone isn’t the most remarkable part.

The remarkable thing is to consider what, exactly, the “collective sins” are that we are being punished for. Does anyone think that by “tailpipe fumes,” the writer is referring to the colorless, odorless gas that is produced by all animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms during respiration? Of course not. She’s talking about the unburned hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides that foul the air (1.1 & 1.2 in this list). But of course, nobody’s claiming that these things are what cause global warming. Global warming is merely the excuse that forces us to do “penance”.

My second example comes courtesy of CNN International. It’s the only channel all in English that we get, and thus I watch it far more than I would otherwise. In some ways, it’s instructive. Take, for example the incessant commercial for CNN’s “Eco Solutions” segment. Consider this little chant that we are treated to every hour or so:

Industrial revolution (image of gears)
Worldwide earth pollution (image of factories belching smoke)
Mother Nature’s retribution (image of a hurricane)
Conservation evolution (image of the holy icon)
Mankind tries to make restitution (image of flowers)

Did you catch that? We must offer up restitution to Mother Nature, lest we perish beneath her retribution! There are more ridiculous reasons to buy a Prius, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

The whole “religious fervor” thing has been a clever marketing strategy for global warming activists so far. But if this stuff ends up being anything more than a blip, there could be a seriously brutal backlash.

As one of John McCain’s strongest supporters in the city of Rio de Janeiro, allow me to formally endorse this plan. More details here.

As someone who has taken a few incredibly long bus rides in his day, I feel compelled to comment on this:

Passengers are having to change bus partway through their journeys to comply with an EU directive.

The legislation stops drivers clocking up more than 31 miles behind the wheel without a rest.

If a journey is any longer, the driver must pull over and wait for a replacement.
…
“Passengers think it’s a joke, being made to shuffle off a bus, often in the middle of nowhere, because someone in Europe says so.”

By my quick calculations, I would have had about 55 stops on my trips between Seattle & St. Paul if these rules had been in place. The stops in the middle of the night, in a blizzard, in the middle of North Dakota, would have been particularly fascinating.

Via Sr. Goldberg.

..the mouth speaks. That doesn’t say much for Barack Obama’s heart.

The leading Democratic presidential candidate appeared to back a potential decision by his daughters to seek an abortion saying he wouldn’t “punish” them with a baby.

This little gaffe illustrates to me two things about Barack Obama.

First, he has zero respect for the pro-life community, or anyone remotely pro-life. If he did, he would have used a term like “burden”. A baby is unquestionably a burden–did you know they can’t even feed themselves? They can’t use a fork for like a year or something! While I would vehemently disagree with any decision to have an abortion, a desire to spare someone a burden is something I can at least understand. But to call a child a “punishment” indicates that Obama has no common ground with me on this issue, and cares to have done.

Second, he cannot distinguish between “consequences” and “punishment”. This explains why he’s a far-left Democrat, though–a desire to spare people the consequences of any action, if that action does not, in his mind, warrant “punishment”.

In the broad scheme of things, I think we can all agree that handing a 16-year-old girl a baby as punishment for sleeping with her boyfriend is a bad idea. But nonetheless, that is a potential natural consequence of that action. Similarly, lenders don’t take away people’s houses as punishment for failing to read the documents they sign. But foreclosure is a natural consequence of entering into agreements that you can’t uphold.

Democrats have been running on an anti-consequence platform for as long as I have been alive, so I suppose this shouldn’t be a big surprise–but Obama’s stupid statement is a stark reminder of the choice we’ll have this November.

So, yesterday, people all across the world turned their lights out. Not to save money on electricity, which would be rather sensible, but rather to prevent global warming. Here in Rio, where we lose our electricity accidentally frequently enough, there was no such nonsense.

In Seattle, things were particularly silly, but also particularly telling. To begin with, there’s the hilarious fact that, as Sound Politics notes, this “lights out” day came on a day of record lows. This is a bit more than a “meaningless data point,” as it comes at the tail end of one of the coolest winters in the last decade (here in the southern hemisphere, it’s been one of the coolest summers). There are those who think we’re going to be in a cooling trend for a while now. How will the global warming folks react? Probably by ignoring it, as they have so far this winter, or by blaming it on “climate change,” which conveniently enables them to change their stance not one iota.

But wait, there’s more! And here’s the really telling part–Seattle’s lights don’t get their power from burning hydrocarbons! Essentially all the power in Western Washington comes from those beautiful hydroelectric dams. The media apparently decided to ignore that in their coverage of the event. But this is incredibly important! If the concern really is that burning hydrocarbons releases too much carbon dioxide into the air, then Seattleites should be holding Hydroelectric Parades in the streets! Sure, we lose some salmon, but what is that to the death and devastation that will be wreaked upon the globe if we keep pumping all the carbon we can into the atmosphere, right?

Instead, Seattle demands the breaching of dams (not the dams Seattle City Light operates, though) on one hand, and then pretends the dams don’t exist on the other.

But it’s pretty clear that, for Seattle, at least, the “Lights Out” hoopla had nothing to do with greenhouse gas. So, what is it all about, then? Different things for different people, I imagine. For some, it’s a useful political club against political opponents. For others, it’s basically a religion, and this is a ritual with meaning even if it is devoid of effect (and yes, there are church and state issues here). For a few, there’s a specific neo-luddite agenda here–these are the scariest ones. And for still others, their reputations, jobs and/or funding depend upon the concept of global warming remaining in the public eye.

I have no doubt that there are people with serious concerns about the human impact on the global climate. But none of them had anything to do with the ritual that took place in Seattle yesterday.

UPDATE: Google, step right up–you’ve proved yourselves similarly opportunistic. Less then a year ago, they observed that blacking Google out would actually increase energy output. And yet they took part in the ritual anyway.