When is secession bad? While Obama's supporters and the press are trying to link Todd Palin's membership in AIP (Alaksa Independence Party) to Sarah, Rush (of whom I've never particularly been a fan) notes that Obama and Biden both voted for a bill which they apparently knew could have led to Hawaiian secession.
There was a piece by John Fund on June 12th of 2006 in the Wall Street Journal. Senator Akaka [from Hawaii] "undermined his own bill last year when he made statements to National Public Radio that the sovereignty granted Native Hawaiians in the [Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act] bill could eventually lead to secession. 'That could be,' he said. 'As far as what's going to happen at the other end, I'm leaving it up to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.'" Obama and Biden both voted for Akaka's bill that opened the way for Hawaii to leave the union! And when this bill came up, we were all talking about how this is going to potentially lead to secession," and Obama and Biden both voted for it! Now, this is a clear example of a double standard.
Alaska hasn't done anything like this. They certainly haven't had a member of their congressional delegation propose it.
Why would the Hawaiian bill be okay, but the AIP verboten? The Hawaii bill, if I remember correctly, was race-based -- it created an independent government on the basis of race and "blood" percentages. In contrast, the AIP was open to anyone, from any race. So it's more 'extreme', apparently.
Palin rumor factory in overdrive: Wow, the media got right onto the "affair" rumor, didn't it? Even though it doesn't have any substantiating photos, named eyewitnesses, financial records, money trail, or a "love child." (All of which were present in the Edwards case -- which they sat on indefinitely.) Even the wife of the man alleged to be involved is now on record as saying no such thing occurred. Meanwhile, the Enquirer hasn't even produced a non-anonymous source yet.
Having done so well on that one, the Enquirer is now going over the lives her children with a fine-toothed comb, and has alleged that Track has used drugs. (A teenager, using drugs? No way!) Again based on the ever-reputable anonymous sources, with similar amounts of hard evidence. (Which is to say none.)
Well, what can I say? It seems fair: We all remember the way the press exposed Al Gore's son's drug use and trouble with the law -- and the way that was paraded in the media as a key issue during the 2000 election. We also remember the way Chelsea's smoking was in the headlines during the 1990s, when Democrats were promoting smoking bans. And let's not forget how the press tore into the lives of Theresa Heinz Kerry's children (in minute detail!) back in 2004 -- and all the false rumors we heard about them. It's about time we started exploiting the children of conservative candidates, too! Since Obama was rejected by his party for his former drug use, why shouldn't the same people be concerned about drug use by a child of another candidate?
Oh, wait, none of those things never happened? Kind of throws the recent drop in standards into sharp focus, doesn't it? Older liberal friends of mine who would have found such allegations disgusting in the past are now telling me this sort of public exploitation of kids is justified because... (drum roll) they appeared on stage once! (Unlike, say, Chelsea, who has never been in the public eye.) The media's behavior is simply appalling, but it's even more troubling to watch people around me give up their own standards to justify it.
Extreme weather: Some rather impressive pictures of extreme weather conditions here (nature-spot.com), aggregated from this storm-chasing site. Though the storm-chaser who took the photos doesn't, nature-spot.com uses the pictures to allege these storms are unusual, historically, and that they're being caused by (can you guess?) ... anthropogenic global warming. (As if tornadoes in the Midwest were a new phenomenon.) Compare:
Kerry Emmanuel in Nature writes that hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with temperature, reflecting global warming. Hurricane modeling has produced similar results, finding that hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high CO2 conditions, are more intense than under present-day conditions. [nature-spot.com]
In contrast, hurricane expert Dr. Chris Landsea of NOAA, while resigning from the IPCC because they apparently fabricated hurricane/global-warming linkages:
To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Hilariously, Wikipedia also notes this about the source of nature-spot's quote:
In a March 2008 paper published in the 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society', [Kerry Emanuel] announced he is rethinking his previous assumption of global warming as an increasing threat for more hurricane activity than normal.
(I'm sure nature-spot.com would be deeply interested in Dr. Kerry's change of heart.) ExtremeInstability.com also offers a wallpaper page with some pretty impressive shots.
Court blocks ballot initiative: It appears we're no longer a Democratic Republic. That's an extreme statement, but, judging by this case, a number of courts have abandoned the pretense they're doing "judicial review" (making sure new law is consistent with higher-precedent law) and now feel no need whatsoever to justify their legislative and executive actions.
Two constitutional amendments intended to help Florida’s school voucher programs withstand legal challenges cannot appear on the November ballot, the State Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.... The court did not explain its reasoning. Instead it issued a one-page ruling saying that the amendments could not go on the November ballot and that a full opinion would be issued later. [former Governor Jeb] Bush called the voucher ruling “heartbreaking” and said it could jeopardize the future of Florida’s voucher programs.
"Did not explain its reasoning?" It would seem obvious: Parents cannot be given choices regarding their children's educational spending, and voters should not be allowed to influence their states' laws.
Wealthy exploiters exposed: "The rich work more than the working class?" Why, I thought they only got rich by stealing money, not by creative hard work. It's almost as if the best way to make more money is to ... um, work more? (Or run for office?)
Speaking of wealthy exploiters: Neil Boortz notes that the New York Times is firing 550 union laborers and replacing them with cheaper non-union employees. (Don't people who deliver newspapers deserve a "living wage"?) Boortz also deconstructs Obama and Biden's recent claims that that Palin/McCain have been pro-pork tax hogs and they, on the other hand, have been the voice of fiscal responsibility.
Let's start with John McCain, who has a 100% approval rating on pork-barrel spending for the 2007 legislative season, according to Citizens against government waste. His lifetime score is 88%. What this basically means is that in 2007, John McCain voted with the taxpayers 100% of the time. This means that over his years in the Senate, John McCain voted with the taxpayers 88 out of every 100 votes. And when I say "with the taxpayers" I essentially mean he voted in a way that would allow taxpayers to keep their money, rather than spend it on frivolous government pork projects.
Just in case you weren't aware, Mr. Obama ... you scored a 10% rating in 2007 and an 18% lifetime rating. Oh and your running mate, Joe Biden, he actually managed to score a 0% rating in 2007. These really seem like a pair of guys that are trying to create change in Washington. These really look like the people who are looking out for you, the taxpayers.
There's more here. Why can't these two just be proud of their actual stances and beliefs and run on them? Why do they have to pretend they believe something the exact opposite of their record shows? Could it be that they're not proud of their actual beliefs and actions? Or that they are, but think you won't vote for them if you knew? Either way, I don't understand why this sort of thing doesn't alarm the vast majority of my fellow citizens.