McCain/Clinton ’08

It would do a couple things:

1) Crush Obama/Biden by stealing half of Obama’s base

2) and picking up almost all the women (figure of speech)

3) Remove a liberal from the Senate (although most likely to be replaced by another)

4) Force congress to reach across the isle (?)

It’s better than McCain/Lieberman (hopefully that never had a chance) and even Hillary in the White House is far better than Obama/Blowhard Biden.

Okay. The moment’s up. As you were.

The Next Bailout: Detroit

First came Bear Stearns, then mortgage lenders and borrowers, followed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: They’ve all looked to Uncle Sam for a bailout, and now the word around Washington is that Detroit will be next on the taxpayer supplicant list.

Bear Stearns wasn’t a bailout. It was a buy out, orchestrated by the government to protect our nations financial infrastructure.

Detroit’s political calculation is plain: Having seen the way Washington has bowed to rescue the mortgage industry and Wall Street, why shouldn’t auto makers give it a try? Michigan is up for grabs in the election, so now is the time to strike with a goal of getting the Bush Administration and both Presidential candidates to agree.

Many of us have already done our part. I own two American cars, both rare examples of exceptional design and appeal. A Chevy Suburban and a Chrysler 300C, both with advanced safety features and cylinder-deactivation technologies that allow for fuel efficiency that belies their size and utility.

None of us should be expected to pay to allow Detroit to play. Our American automakers, as much as most consumers would hate to see them fail, deserve their fate. Our political integrity (I know – that’s an oxymoron) should not be allowed to be held hostage.

They are not victims of the fear and economic conditions brought on by an act of terrorism like the airlines.

They are not critical to our financial system as our major banking and mortgage institutions are.

They are public (most of the time – Cerberus-owned Chrysler a current exception) companies that operate in a free (albeit heavily regulated) market.

While they may have been severely impacted by a spike in fuel prices and a concurrent (and resultant) recession, they are not victims of it.

The car makers can also claim with justification to have been hurt as badly as anyone by Washington’s policy blunders. The weak dollar has contributed to the spike in oil prices that has socked their most profitable vehicles. And the nonsensical way that fuel-economy standards force Detroit to subsidize cars that consumers won’t buy has helped put the Big Three in this hole.

Over the last two decades or so, the vehicles with the highest sales numbers have been either a four door family sedan or a pickup truck. The Big Three have dominated one and consistently ignored the other.

Auto industry publications have been imploring the “Big Three” to be competitive in the family sedan segment for decades while the Japanese, primarily with the Camry and Accord, have almost completely poached the market. Market trends have driven fuel economy for decades as well and the Big Three have ignored the signs. I don’t begrudge them the success they have had in the light truck and SUV segment – but at the same time ignoring the rest of the market has for years left them vulnerable to the inevitable day that gas prices would adjust for inflation, let alone represent a crisis as demand has outstripped supply. 

Americans won’t buy the cars that the Big Three have had to subsidize because the product, until only relatively recently, has lacked quality and appeal. When Honda and Toyota build factories in America to build the cars that GM, Ford and Chrysler claim aren’t profitable, their argument falls apart.

There also happens to be a thriving U.S. auto industry outside of Michigan. These plants are owned by foreign companies, but they employ 92,000 Americans and build and sell cars here. Tens of thousands of their shareholders are Americans.

Certainly the UAW shares a large share of the blame. Their myopic strategy of bleeding their host to death, ignoring market conditions and grossly over-valuing their collective services have forced the Big Three to cut content and engineering to compete on price with the Japanese. The result is a widening of the already formidable gap in quality further undermining consumer goodwill and forcing American domestic brand loyalty beyond its limits. In the end the UAW will be left holding the bag.

A bailout at this point is a really bad idea. First of all, it’s been done before – at least once. The result? The Chrysler minivan which simultaneously saved Chrysler and emasculated millions of American males.

More importantly, our long standing economic dominance in the world is predicated on the fact that capital and talent is free to find it’s highest and best use. Pouring billions of capital into a national bailout is exactly the wrong move, evidenced by the extended Japanese recession not all that many years ago. Good money was sent after bad. Capital became scarce. Failed business models and management teams were kept on life support rather than being forced to retool and reinvent.

Regardless of where and why these federal bailouts started, American taxpayers can’t save everyone. The only way to stop this parade of supplicants is to start saying no — and Detroit is as good a place as any.

First off, what movie is that quote from? Anyone?

Hillary gets stiffed

Wow. Obama may not be showing the best judgment here.

Does he underestimate the Clinton Empire? Does he not anticipate the shiver that will fall across the stage when Billary enjoins the festivities at the convention? Does he not need Hillary’s voters in what is now a margin-of-error race?

Obama could have at least vetted Hillary, even as a gesture. Now “a Democratic official” is reigniting the scorn of millions of liberal female voters.

What will this do for pantsuit sales?

How would you like to be Bill Clinton comin’ home to the little missus tonight?

The Convention might look like a WWE smackdown.

With the two respective party’s conventions nearly upon us, I found myself reflecting on the candidates as ostensibly one will be our next President, for better or for worse.

One is running on a platform of leadership and experience; the other: hope and change.

I must admit, the concept of change is alluring. Not to steal a line from Obama’s script, but I think we can all agree that a change from politics as usual would be nice in our near future and will ultimately be required (read forced) soon enough.

The blockbuster Term Limits, our own homegrown Vince Flynn’s first political thriller stories an operative and his father who conspire to cleanse our national government of the dead weight of perennial politicians…by murdering them systematically.

So apparently change has a ring to it when you think about all the things gone wrong with our government.

Change certainly resonates with Obama’s base. Liberals are always angry, the government perpetually the object of their ire while simultaneously the savior to their plight.

But let’s be clear on one thing. Neither candidate represents change.

No longer are the days that having a Republican in office forebodes fiscal restraint (although having a Democrat in office with a Democratically-controlled Congress all but guarantees a fiscal free-for-all).

Furthermore, if one man could bring change, it isn’t the President of the United States. McCain is no more a Ronald Regan than Obama is a John F. Kennedy.

Right now McCain and Obama are trying to associate each other with various unsavory characters, the ilk that have weaved their way through the lives of most every politician so it isn’t hard to do. They are deriding each other for not knowing how many homes one owns or for not knowing how many states there are in America. Obama is accusing McCain of being wealthy when really it’s only relative. McCain should be a lot wealthier. As well all know by now – he’s a lot older.

In the end, who knows how much any of this will matter. It reminds of the old advertising mantra: “We know that half of our spending on advertising is wasted. We just don’t know which half.”

The only thing novel about Obama’s candidacy is the color of his skin. While that shouldn’t be a factor in a modern and civil society, it most certainly is for some. Other than that, the more I read about Obama in the media that is self-admittedly skewed in his favor, the more I realize that Obama is no less marked by political avarice than anyone that has come before him.

Unless you consider Change a life spent perfecting the art of mass persuasion, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in recent history, Obama represents no more a Change than McCain. However, while most great leaders possess charisma, charisma doesn’t guarantee leadership. In fact, charisma without leadership and integrity is dangerous and that already represents a concern among Obama’s less committed supporters.

As it stands, Obama’s groupies won’t be swayed my McCain’s TV ads any more than McCain’s core will be by Obama’s. The meaty middle is the battleground. Nader will grab some. But the rest will decide in the next few weeks, even at the last moment, or maybe just as likely, stay home and watch TV, go for a walk or read a story to their kids.

The irony: we have two candidates, one with undeniable charisma and questionable leadership and one with undeniable leadership and questionable charisma. The election might pivot on this very point.

There has been much talk of a certain dissatisfaction with both candidates. Voters seem to want to give them back and get two new ones from the dealer.

Given that scenario, those voters who do show up may find themselves (and there is no better way to say this than the cliche) choosing the lesser of two evils.

They will choose the candidate that represents the least risk to their sensibilities. That, in my mind, is why the polls are leveling off, and why in the end I John McCain will have the advantage.

An ad banner in right field at the Twins game today gave me pause (more on the banner in a moment) and since the game wasn’t exactly riveting (the Twins did win) my mind wandered, as any blogger’s mind surely will.

Most Americans by now I trust have heard of the study that shows societies whose median income is just above the subsistence level are in essence the happiest with their lives.

I wish I could find the study (or was it a book – give me minute, I’ll find it) but I do remember its thesis.

The premise is that one would think Americans, given the variety of choices we have in all things, especially as consumers, should find ourselves the happiest culture on earth.

But its not so.

Why is that?

Ah, there it is. It was a book.

The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less by Barry Schwartz

from a review:

Schwartz and his colleagues developed a “maximization scale,” by means of which subjects rate their relative maximizer/satisficer proclivities. People are asked to rate themselves on a seven-point scale from “completely agree” to “completely disagree” with such statements as, “When shopping, I have a hard time finding clothing that I really love” or “Whenever I watch TV, I channel surf.” Most people cluster near the middle in such scales, but 10 percent of Schwartz’s subjects were classified as extreme maximizers, those who think long and hard about every decision. They tend to make objectively better decisions than the rest of us, but they are less satisfied both with what they’ve chosen and with life in general.

To be deprived of all choice is to be brutalized. Yet beyond a certain point more choice means less happiness. The more choices we ponder or the more time we invest in making a certain choice, the worse we tend to feel.

Researchers in the latter field have known for some time that people don’t think like adding machines, tallying up potential positive and negative outcomes (“gains” and “losses”), but feel worse about a given unit of loss than about a corresponding unit of gain. And when we contemplate a choice (this or that, yes or no), we know that doing one thing means foregoing another. Foregone alternatives — “opportunity costs,” in economists’ terms — are losses. Because maximizers think about more alternatives, or think more about alternatives, they also experience more opportunity costs, the sum of which may be greater than the gain from the chosen alternative. They’ve programmed themselves to be acutely aware of what they’re not getting.

Okay, let me catch my breath.

Most insidious of all is hedonic adaptation. Whenever we find something that does make us happier, we eventually get used to it, and our sense of well-being returns to where it was before the new thing came into our lives. We can never make progress on the hedonic treadmill.

There was a simpler time in America where one’s family was a “Ford” family. Or a “Chrysler family. Or a “Chevrolet” family, or what have you. When it came time to replace the family station wagon (and it was of course a station wagon), Dad knew what to buy and where to buy it.

Grandpa bought Fords (or whatever) and therefore so did Dad. Old Faithful was traded in on the latest iteration and that was that. Dad was happy. He knew what he wanted and when he brought it home and parked it in the garage, that was that. Grandfather had his reasons for being a Ford man and that was good enough for Dad.

Now if Dad achieved a station higher in life than Grandpa did, he would graduate to a Lincoln. But for the most part, people whose economic status was best represented by a Buick didn’t shop for a Cadillac. They knew better.

The Big Three and their strata was all there was and all there needed to be.

Nowadays, the minute you put yourself behind the wheel of your new ride, you are bombarded with the twenty other choices you could have made. You should have made. You’re never quite sure you’ve made the optimal choice. Never quite satisfied.

Couple that with the fact that you may very well have signed for a car you really can’t afford, because you’d so very much like to impress the Jones’, and you have sixty months of dissatisfaction.

Turn on the TV twenty five years ago and you had PBS and three network affiliates. On a given night your family was a “CBS” family or a “PBS” family. And it was fine. Carol Burnett was plenty funny without saying “F*ck” or showing us her breasts.

Nowadays, turn the TV on, and as a wise man by the name of Springstein exhorted:

bought a bourgeois house in the Hollywood hills
With a truckload of hundred thousand dollar bills
Man came by to hook up my cable TV
We settled in for the night my baby and me
We switched ’round and ’round ’til half-past dawn
There was fifty-seven channels and nothin’ on

Well now home entertainment was my baby’s wish
So I hopped into town for a satellite dish
I tied it to the top of my Japanese car
I came home and I pointed it out into the stars
A message came back from the great beyond
There’s fifty-seven channels and nothin’ on

So – the ad at the Metrodome today?

You, Happier.

BestBuy

If only.

Our entire economy, if not our culture, is designed to convince the consumer that whatever you drive, whatever you wear, whatever sits on your desk, or hangs on your wrist is obsolete the moment the purchase is transacted.

The consumer that can’t afford the new Lexus, Benz or Bimmer gives no mind to whichever has the best collision avoidance system or GPS navigation system. The 1995 Honda Accord with 100,000 miles on the dial is just fine thank you. Those things not in reach have no appeal.

For an ever increasing number of American consumers however, little is not within reach. A luxury becomes a necessity twenty four hours later. 

And there you have it. Even the average American has, by the world’s standards, a menu of choices in almost every aspect of their life. You’d think we’d be happier. But apparently we’re not.

The moral? You’ll have to decide that for yourself.

Sorry.

Obama: ‘I will win’

“I will win. Don’t worry about that,” he said to the crowd of about 1,300.

He May Not Be Trailing McCain, But He’s Trailing Kerry (from Power Line)

(Currently) Obama (has a) projected 275 (electoral) votes to McCain’s 250, with 13 up for grabs. Four years ago — Kerry 317, Bush 202, and 19 tied.

Glenn Reynolds adds:

Of course, Kerry was hurt by an overly grandiose performance at the Convention, and by media bias that backfired. Obama should be safe from that, right?

The Audacity of Nope?

“John McCain, all he wants to do is talk about me. They know they can’t win on the issues. So what they’ll do is they’ll try to scare people. He’s risky. He’s risky. We’re not sure.”

Which might make a good argument, if it weren’t actually true. And it may actually be Democratic voters weighing in to that effect as they find issue after issue wearing through the veneer that is Obama’s campaign, leaving his followers with a general malaise.

One might advise Barack to worry more about his constituents and what they are saying and less about McCain.

Will McCain knock Obama off his post or will Hillary and the rest of the Democrats? Does McCain offer a safer choice to likely voters in the middle or will they just stay home?

From an Obama supporter:

Obama And Closing The Deal (from Althouse)

I keep digging into his biography, and finding places where what he says doesn’t line up with what he did. That’s not striking – welcome to politics – but since he’s selling us in no small part his own beliefs rather than his accomplishments, it would be nice to see those beliefs more deeply in the context of his biography.

Allow me to paraphrase: “He’s risky. He’s risky. We’re not sure.”

For the women, the animosity over Hillary is not at the top, but simmers somewhere underneath. For the men, a feeling that Obama is a brilliant man, but a distrust – of what, no one could completely say.

A non-specific malaise then.

A large number of mainstream Democrats simply confess a disquiet. The Howard Wolfson story – that Hillary would have won Iowa and hence the election if Edwards’ affair had come out – has been repeated enough that it got my attention. I can only call it buyer’s remorse.

A non-specific remorseful malaise.

I’m feeling it as well. I’m still a solid vote for Obama, but when I sit down and write checks, somehow I just never bring myself to write one for him.

Obama’s Credibility Gap –Large and Growing: Obama also had on display yesterday a very troubling slipperiness that is increasingly defining him.

He has also managed to slip into a “reformer” shtick that has zero connection to his hyper-partisan voting record.

But yesterday he tried to slip past at least two issues on which such obfuscation shouldn’t work –same sex marriage and Senate ethics reform.

My point here is not to argue the policy positions Obama takes, but to point out his firm denial of his real positions on both issues.  He flat out distorted his positions, and did so without even an arched eye-brow from the MSM.

A slippery non-specific remorseful malaise.

How might that manifest itself come November?

Obama, in yet another gaffe, fails to realize the irony and the future repercussions of his assessment of another government figure not possessing the experience or credentials to assume his or her post.

The arrogance is palpable.

If he applies his same viewpoint selfward, might he relinquish his presumed nomination?

Obama on Clarence Thomas (emphasis mine)

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated…Obama took a lower road, replying first that “that’s a good one,” and then adding that “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas.

I don’t think that he, I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.” The Democrat added that he also wouldn’t have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his “elevation” to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America’s Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a “community organizer” and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama’s story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won’t let slip what he really believes.

Anyone that has read of Justice Thomas’ upbringing and lifelong triumphs knows the ignorance that Obama let loose in his rancid commentary. Furthermore, Thomas, unlike many of his African American contemporaries has chosen not to self-victimize himself with his race, and that probably chaps Obama’s hide.

Clearly Barack Obama is hiding his true feelings on a host of issues, a glimpse of which has been revealed by his wife’s caustic commentary, subsequently squelched, and the rare occasion when Obama is caught unrehearsed or without his handlers.

Obama’s arrogance smacks of an adolescent who has just been given the keys to Daddy’s car for the first time.

His overconfidence is just the latest in a growing array of chinks in the armor of his candidacy. More on that later.

Both Obama and McCain have historically been pro-environment and to a varying degree anti-drilling advocates until they felt the pain among their would-be constituents as gas prices squeezed their budgets and subsequently the economy.

McCain has opposed drilling in ANWR. In the past he’s compared it to drilling in the Grand Canyon. But as energy prices climbed over the past several months, he has been careful to avoid locking himself into an anti-drilling position.

First it was a loosening of the noose on offshore drilling, a move even whatshername Pelosi is now conceding (no doubt with a veritable fur ball of strings attached).

“It bodes well for him as a pragmatic and wise and experienced statesman,” says (Alaska Governor) Palin. “What he’s doing here is he’s calling an audible when conditions on the field are changing.

McCain is moving to beat Obama to the punch as he reconsiders his position on drilling ANWR. One has to wonder if he is actually changing his philosophy or simply executing a tactical adjustment to capture the political high ground before Obama gets back from vacation.

Part of the calculus at work is that, like McCain, Obama has moved to get closer to where voters are on drilling but the Democrat likely couldn’t go as far as flipping on ANWR.

For months, McCain had worked hard to portray Obama as “Dr. No” on energy. With his statement, Obama became Dr. Maybe-Under-the-Right-Circumstances.

McCain advisers are eager to restore a sharp contrast on energy and say they’re skeptical Obama will ever voice support, however qualified, for drilling in ANWR.

The only way McCain can move upmarket on Obama is to shift his thinking on oil from offshore drilling to ANWR, and hope that Obama won’t match him move for move.

(Governor Palin) added: “And I know up here in Alaska, most every Alaskan believes that ANWR should be drilled, and no one cares more about Alaska’s environment–our lands, our wildlife, our fresh air, our clean water–than Alaskans themselves. And we know that this can be allowed safely, cleanly, ethically–this type of exploration and development of an American supply of energy.”

That last point could be significant. When McCain changed his position on offshore drilling earlier this summer, he did so on federalist grounds. If states believe that drilling can be safely done off their shores, and choose to allow it, he argued, the federal government should no longer stand in their way. He could make the same argument on ANWR.

The real question is whether either candidate’s shift will translate in January to future increased domestic crude oil production. In the mean time the American consumer has turned his nose up at the pumps, allowing reduced demand to drain the market for now. But supply is the only solution to the current crisis until viable technology to replace the use of fossil fuels presents itself.

…or was that Jim Belushi?

In any case, I was listening to the radio the other morning and an Al Franken ad came on, telling the listener how hard Al Franken has been working for blue collar workers or some other crapola. How has he been working for anyone? He’s never held public office and looks certain to continue his loser streak.

NY Sun: When Democrats this spring sized up Al Franken’s bid to win a Senate seat in his native Minnesota, they saw plenty of promising signs: an engaging and famously funny candidate familiar to voters, a stockpile of campaign cash, and a vulnerable incumbent Republican.

Less than three months before Election Day, however, the Republican seat held by a former New Yorker, Norm Coleman, looks safer than ever

The Franken campaign has been a comedy of errors from day one. Normally I’d feel bad for the guy…actually that’s a lie. Al Franken is a putz and I couldn’t be happier that his candidacy is looking more and more like a painfully awkward standup comedy act, rehashing material that wasn’t funny in the first place.

Coleman may very well have been vulnerable but the Democrats blundered badly in their endorsement of Al Franken, grossly dismissing his vulgar and easily recalled “work”. Franken’s transparent attempts to disassociate himself with his musings on pornography and rape were ineffective and Minnesotan’s are increasingly dismissing his candidacy.

The Wellstone/Dayton legacy of most embarrassing Minnesota Senators is safe from being superseded for now.

Looking to bounce back, Mr. Franken shook up his campaign staff last month and brought in a group of veteran Washington operatives, including a former aide to Senator Schumer and John Edwards, Eric Schultz, and a top adviser to Senator Clinton, Mandy Grunwald.

But political analysts in Minnesota say the damage may be too great. The race, they say, has become a referendum on Mr. Franken rather than the incumbent — an ominous sign for any challenger.

Franken’s fairly justifiable claims (if you take Coleman’s voting record at face value) that Coleman is a pawn of the Bush administration, has failed miserably to gain traction. Rather, Franken’s now well documented trail of failure, incompetence or fraud, depending on how charitable you are, has taken the wind out of his sails.

Mr. Franken emerged as the star of Air America Radio, hosting a talk show on the liberal start-up network, which struggled to find a foothold.

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t have saved it either. And the hits kept not coming…

First came the disclosure that he faced $25,000 in penalties for failing to pay workers’ compensation for the corporation he had set up in his name in New York. Then, following a story broken by a Republican blogger, Mr. Franken in April announced that he was paying $70,000 in back taxes and penalties to 17 states.

All the while, Mr. Franken continued to be dogged by off-color jokes and writings from his career as a satirist. In particular, Republicans pounced on a sexually explicit parody he wrote for Playboy, titled “Porn-O-Rama.” Also unearthed was a 1995 article from New York magazine, which reported that Mr. Franken once proposed a joke for “SNL” about raping the “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl.

News Flash: Failed SNL material apparently doesn’t play well in Minnesota. Yuck it up, Al.

With Mr. Franken’s campaign seemingly sputtering, a little-known St. Paul attorney, Priscilla Lord Faris, announced in July that she would challenge Mr. Franken in the DFL’s September 9 primary. Initially a supporter of Mr. Franken who had contributed to his campaign, Ms. Lord Faris said she concluded he was unelectable.

In an interview, she attributed Mr. Franken’s problems to his long absence from Minnesota. “It’s the total package. We kind of call it the New York City problem,” she said. “The root of it is that he’s been out of touch with Minnesota for so long that he didn’t understand that we don’t talk like that here.”

All may not be lost. Maybe Kathy Griffin is looking for a warm-up act. Don’t let the barn door hitcha on the way out Frankenfreak.

I was a Fred Thompson supporter before I succumbed to the McCain train. I still like Thompson’s down home straight-talk style. He concurs that the situation in Georgia should give pause to those that would make Obama the leader of the free world.

While Obama might find the need now to visit Georgia for another celebrity world tour photo op, McCain has already been there; some time ago.

My mind goes back to August 2002 in Tbilisi, as I visited Georgia with John McCain. I remember it feeling rather dark and secretive, with the former-Soviet Union’s heavy hand still making its presence felt.

What has happened in Georgia since that time should not be surprising to anyone. Certainly Russia has tried to pretty itself up: it renamed the KGB and even gave its 21st century strongman Vladimir Putin a new title.

But for some time we’ve seen Russia sliding back to its authoritarian comfort zone. Murder, imprisonment and property confiscation are back in vogue for any perceived troublemaker. 

But the one thing we must not do is allow Russia to feel it can get away with (it)

All the while, in Eastern Europe some of America’s staunchest friends are watching to see what the reaction of the U.S. and the west will be to Russia’s latest gambit. The U.S. and others use the word “unacceptable,” undoubtedly with the same effect that we get when we use it with the Iranians.

But the one thing we must not do is allow Russia to feel it can get away with, let alone feel rewarded for, this invasion of a sovereign democratic nation that has also loyally supported coalition efforts in Iraq.

The world is devolving dangerously…and the Democrats are fueling the ambitions of those that would bring harm to the free world.

While this crisis plays out we should also note that these events give evidence of a larger reality: the next American President is going to face an international landscape that is more difficult and treacherous than we have ever faced.

Little help can be expected from our friends in Europe no matter how much it appears that their own interests are at stake.

So let’s recap: international terrorism; powerful nation states on a quest for hegemony, whether close to home or further afield and with a willingness to squelch freedom anytime the opportunity arises; less stable and no less dangerous countries with nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities; an alliance of democratic nations of questionable resolve and a debate at home over our future role in the world with a political party happy to create the impression of diminished resolve with little concern for the long term damage such an impression may cause.

McCain leads the way while Obama body surfs in Hawaii with 80 some days left until the election.

This is no time to elect a president whose international experience is limited to speaking to adoring European crowds who want to see the United States retreat from the world … until they require our help in the next crisis that threatens them.

It has been instructive for the country to see the candidates’ reaction to the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call. While he was vacationing in Hawaii, Barack Obama’s advisors scrambled into action and initially came up with the expected liberal bromides which equated the actions of Russia and Georgia and only ratcheted up the rhetoric when they began to actually understand what was happening.

…long before this Georgian crisis, (McCain has) had the correct read on Russia, just as he’s had the right read on what we needed to do in Iraq.

This crisis half a world away confirms what I’ve been saying for a while: This election cycle, the traffic in the world is very heavy …and dangerous; it’s no time to give a kid with barely a learner’s permit the keys to the car.

McCain may be far from the perfect “conservative” candidate but he called the surge correctly and is exhibiting the leadership requisite for the times.

The Russian attack on Georgia is an unfortunate but illustrative trial run for those that would be President.

Obama is treading water.

McCain has revealed a clear, firm, but steady edict for the Russians; exactly what the world needs from America right now.

Hillary was right about one thing. We don’t want to be calling Obama at 3 a.m. or any other time.

I wrote about location-centric devices in the car a few months back and how you may some day be driving along and up pops a banner ad of sorts on your navigation screen. Or who knows, maybe the ads on your radio will be customized based on the businesses you are currently driving by.

The technology already exists. The Matrix will soon know where you are. And maybe whether you like it or not.

Customized advertising may be the least intrusive application of location technology.

There are already black boxes in passenger vehicles that gather data on throttle position, speed, steering angle, brake application and other data that can and have been subpoenad by insurance companies and in court.

Its not a stretch to think that these boxes will soon gather, store and maybe even report location data without your knowledge.

In the mean time, Yahoo would like to make use of it now, and at least for now, will ask for your permission.

Yahoo knows where you are

On Tuesday at Yahoo’s San Francisco-based skunk works – known as the Brickhouse – the embattled Internet company unveiled a new location services platform dubbed Fire Eagle.

Location is one of those things that has huge potential for adding a layer of context to all kinds of services on the Web.  Geo-tagging – the practice of adding geographic information to Web sites, photos and videos – is gathering steam across all sorts of Internet-based properties, from restaurant review sites to social networks and house hunting services. What has been missing, however, is an easy way to insert yourself into that growing stream of geographic information.

In essence, that is what Fire Eagle does. You either tell Fire Eagle where you are, or give permission for some device to do it on your behalf – say your mobile phone –  and Fire Eagle broadcasts your location information to the services that you have approved.

Which all sounds cool, and there may be some constructive, relevant use of this technology for consumers – as long as they retain the right to turn it on and off. I have Google Maps on my Treo, but at least for now, you have to tell it where you are. Equipping it to automatically know where you are would be useful.

“Where’s the nearest Caribou?”

So imagine that all your friends on Facebook now get feeds on your location, by city, neighborhood or even street address. If you are driving through a neighborhood house hunting, you could get updates on homes on the market, past sale prices and upcoming open houses. Hungry for Italian? The closest places for a decent plate of pasta come streaming to your phone. Note that you can do much of this today with individual services, but you have to tell each of them where you are. With Fire Eagle, you give your location once, and all kinds of services can access it (again, only with your permission).

If advertisers know where you are, they can entice you with deals/coupons/menus on the spot.

Apple is in on it as well. No surpise there.

Yahoo will face competition from the likes of Apple (AAPL), which has made scores of location-based services available as downloads for the iPhone, and Google (GOOG), whose Android mobile phone platform is expected to do the same for a range of mobile devices.

“No Elizabeth, I’m not at Rielle’s place again. I promise.”

In every case, whether it’s a social network or an advertiser, a person’s location will only be made available to those services that individuals approve. And if you don’t want anyone to know where you are – illicit affair, job interview – you have the option of hiding your location for a period of time you determine, or even lying.

“We think it’s a good idea that users can lie about where they are,” says Tom Coates, head of product at Yahoo’s Brickhouse. “Like I don’t always tell my mother where I am.”

Repeat after me:

You can’t get away from the Matrix. The Matrix always knows where you are. You need the Matrix.

I was reading a summary of a journal belonging to Hideki Tojo, one of Japan’s World War II era Prime Ministers, that described his disposition just after the incineration of Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Tojo, executed in 1948 after being convicted of war crimes by the Allies, was prime minister during much of the war. The notes buttress other evidence that Tojo was fiercely opposed to surrender despite the hopelessness of Japan’s war effort.

The stridency of the writings is remarkable considering they were penned just days after the U.S. atomic bombs incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing some 200,000 people and posing the threat of the complete destruction of Japan. At the time, Japan had begun arming children, women and the elderly with bamboo spears, in addition to the aircraft and other forces it had marshaled, to defend the homeland against a ground invasion.

The mindset of the times and of this man seem to express a level of nationalism and kamikaze pride too extreme to exist today. To think that a nation would preemptively attack another to gain ground or extinguish another people is nearly unthinkable in this day and age.

Fifty years seems like a long time, especially for me, one generation removed. Names like Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito and Tojo are just ink on a page in a history book. The evil they represent has been diluted by time, relative peace and prosperity in America.

…and then Russia attacks Georgia and we are faced with the fact that history repeats itself.

And that a stong national defense, and the proper use and maintenance thereof is of no less value now than in any time in the past.

Probably even moreso now as more and more nations, with our help, gain footholds in world commerce, capitalism and democracy, thereby becoming world powers if not superpowers.

One has to wonder if we weren’t in Iraq and gearing up for an attack or counter-attack on Iran, would our response to Russia’s attack on a burgeoning democracy and ally to the West be more than tough talk on the part of Bush and McCain?

Is our military as stretched as we keep hearing? …or do we have capacity to wage war that is kept up our sleeve?

It seems to me that the attack on Georgia should not have been a surprise, and even if it was, why are we (and I mean the whole Western world) not responding in kind while hundreds maybe thousands of citizens of a sovereign nation lose their lives and homes to a neighboring aggressor?

European leaders have criticized us for Iraq and yet I still get the feeling that those same leaders are looking to us for a reaction to the (now apparently reduced if not ceased) aggression on the part of the Russians.

Will there ever be a time when America is not expected to shoulder the burden as well as the criticism of being the globe’s police force?

In any case, I think it wise for voters to consider their choice for President as it relates to their role as commander and chief of America’s military resources.

Talk is cheap and it is clear that we have given Russia exactly what they anticipated in planning this attack. At the same time, Iran is watching us right now and no doubt the world’s response can only be emboldening their irrational ambitions.

Speaking of cheap talk (guess who):

Chicago, IL — “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

Not that George Bush’s response has been all that more assertive:

Mr. Bush, in an interview with NBC Sports, said, “I’ve expressed my grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and that we strongly condemn the bombing outside of South Ossetia.”The president called the violence in Georgia “unacceptable.”He said he did so directly to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is in Beijing with Mr. Bush for the Olympics, and by phone to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.“I was very firm with Vladimir Putin,” said Mr. Bush. “Hopefully this will get resolved peacefully.”   

I would have liked to have also heard:

In the mean time, I am working with other world leaders such as France, Germany, Great Britian and Japan to marshal and mobilize military resources to stand ready to defend our ally if Russia continues to defy our demands to stand down.

As costly as military action is, sometimes it is a necessary tool to act as a deterrent to those that would use it against weaker nations. It may be all that they are capable of understanding.

Sometimes the Good Guys need to kick some ass.

I often see “War is not the Answer” lawn signs and bumper stickers and in response I always say “It depends on what the question is.”

Russia (and Iran) may need to be answered soon. I hope we are ready.

The Core of The Matrix is the wireless smart phone. A device as reviled as it is praised. It has brought freedom to our lifestyles while at the same time been the subject of “Hang Up and Drive” bumper stickers.

I installed Facebook on mine today. I’ve never been more connected with more people in more places, from Cedar Rapids to San Francisco; South Minneapolis; Switzerland to Italy.

Save the distraction these devices surely cause to drivers (and apparently walkers alike), the health risk these devices pose whilst pressed to one’s cranium for sometimes hours at a time is not yet clear.

Numerous studies have been conducted, the lion’s share by the wireless industry itself, lending the “all clear” declaration dubious merit at best.

Why Cell-Phone Health Concerns Persist 

If putting Garfield in the microwave causes the critter mortal harm (anecdotally speaking of course), it stands to reason, even allowing for the difference in frequency and power, that a cellular telephone likely has some effect on the brain – certainly the side of your head.

Whether that effect is a slight rise in temperature akin to the hysteria-inducing magnitude cited in the Man-Made Global Warming/Cooling/Change movement or tumors the size of golf balls has yet to be conclusively determined. Cell phones have enjoyed societal saturation for about ten years. Brain tumors reportedly have a gestation period that is more often than not at least that.

As for me my approach is as my approach to God and Nutritional Supplements.

I believe in God and Vitamins because I’d rather be wrong and have had faith all the while than the other way around when I’ve written my last blog post.

So I use a headset and forward my cell phone to my desk phone as much as possible. I don’t give my kids cell phones. I use the Bluetooth system in my car and I don’t care if you can’t hear me as well.

I moderate the pressing of the flesh with my Treo 755p.

What say you?

…when her daddy implored her to enter rehab, she stuck to her principles and replied

“No. No. No.”

You go girl!

Another great Letter of the Day

I admire Paris Hilton. While her life circumstances have been far from difficult, she has taken an identity that society despises and made something of it.

Profound. Where do you start with a statement so brimming with stupidity?

Paris Hilton didn’t take an identity that society despises. She doesn’t personify an identity that society despises. She is the identity that society despises. She invented it and the fact that it was by design, having nothing else to occupy her time, is hardly a station to be celebrated.

Paris was conceived where wealth and neglect meet. She is the product of the Cream of the Crap in America.

She did not turn to lawyers when the embarrassing sex tapes surfaced, but instead “went with the flow” of her notoriety and became one of the world’s foremost celebrities.

Of course she didn’t turn to lawyers. They were undoubtedly consulted, along with others, as to the best means, media and timing of their release. She profited by the strategic use of her genitalia (is it okay to say that here Mitch?).

It never ceases to amaze me how celebrity is oft equated with credibility in our culture.

She’s a “foremost celebrity.” Is that sort of like “wholesome feces?”

At its peril has the John McCain campaign learned to trifle with Paris. She’s back in the spotlight with a rebuttal to the TV ad and her energy plan, which is said to be superior in ways to those which the presidential candidates have presented.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Surely her rebuttal was a non-plus to the McCain campaign, who (I’m chuckling at the choice of words) trifled with Paris, but I am equally sure that Obama’s campaign suffered even further as the questions it begged of him were answered with…with…with…um…(sorry it escapes me).

Yes, she is, as she says of herself, “hot.” Not bad for a day’s work while soaking up the sun.

BILL MCGaughey, Minneapolis

Paris is a broken bat. You got no shot with Paris, Bill. Go back to your People magazine.

US truckers are getting stopped, inspected, arrested and fined for buying diesel fuel in Mexico, at about half the price as in the US, with the intention of taking it back into the USA.

While filling a primary fuel tank isn’t illegal, Mexico prohibits additional fuel tanks (aka auxiliary tanks) to be filled and moved across the border, so many truck owners with long-range tanks are finding themselves breaking Mexican federal law. Truck owners are getting stopped on the Mexican side of the border and their trucks are confiscated while authorities run tests to determine the origin of the fuel. If found in violation, owners face stiff fines. The Mexican Consulate is offering a blanket warning for all truck owners equipped with secondary fuel tanks to not drive those vehicles into Mexico.

At the same time, the Mexican government objects when the US fortifies its border with Mexico to prevent Mexican citizens from overloading US healthcare facilities and schools.

Mexico confiscates trucks crossing border for cheap diesel

StarTribune’s Letter of the Day:

So John McCain is making money by mocking Barack Obama’s suggestion to save fuel by making sure our tires are properly inflated and getting regular tuneups. An Aug. 5 article said McCain’s presidential campaign is offering supporters tire gauges labeled “Obama Energy Plan” in exchange for a $25 donation.

A fairly brilliant campaign strategy, actually.

Obama’s gaffe revealed Obama’s energy policy is full of hot air. The reality is, the technology to replace our dependence on fossil fuel is years away and keeping our tires full of Obama’s rhetoric is no solution.

As a drivers education instructor, I used textbooks that teach important strategies on improving gas mileage in any vehicle. These strategies include properly inflating your tires, having regular tuneups and using your cruise control whenever possible.

Textbooks. Indeed. I was looking in the owner’s manual of my 2006 Chrysler 300C for “Tune-Ups”. Obama used to drive the same car until he parked it far away and put a Hybrid in his driveway for appearances sake.

It seems modern cars don’t require tune-ups. Haven’t for years.

Properly inflated tires can save between .06 and 2.25 percent depending on who you talk to. Last time I checked, fuel prices have increased a few magnitudes more than that.

It’s not that keeping your car in good working order, including keeping your tires inflated is not valid advice. It’s just that Obama was caught grabbing at straws while McCain took the high (or at least popular) ground on energy. Now Obama is slowly flopping over on drilling because it is needed, sooner than later, and the American people decidedly agree.

This tactic of making fun of tried and true research sounds eerily familiar. Remember how President Bush’s cronies distorted and discredited research on global warming? Look where that has gotten us. It seems rather than come up with effective, researched plans of their own, the conservative Republicans would rather make trivial attacks to win over voters.

Ah, yes. Global Warming. It’s Bush’s cronies? Conservatives are disgusted with Bush’s stance on Global Warming (same goes for McCain by the way).

How about the UN’s own IPCC stating that temperatures have been dropping of late. The UN is hardly a bastion of conservative thought.

Don’t hang your hat on Global Warming. The “science” behind the hysteria will soon prove to be as empty as Obama’s energy policies.

Wake up, voters! Don’t get duped again by Karl Rove and his surrogates’ tactics.

MARK VOSSEN, ST. MICHAEL

Here’s a little warm milk, Mr. Vossen. Time for your nap. Nighty night.

The Wall Stree Journal picks up where the New York Times left off:

Minnesota’s Vice Presidential Contender

Being on John McCain’s short list for vice president makes Tim Pawlenty a busy guy.

Pawlenty takes a shot at Obama. He’s not just a goalie after all. 

Following that, a side trip to Iowa where, as national co-chair for Sen. McCain’s presidential campaign, he passed out tire gauges as a way of poking fun at Barack Obama’s suggestion the energy crisis be addressed by having Americans better inflate their cars.

If there is such a thing as campaigning to become somebody’s vice president, Mr. Pawlenty is doing a good job in the auditions.

(more…)

With DNC in mind, city bans carrying urine, feces

Poo and pee dominated a public hearing Monday on a new law that prohibits people from carrying certain items if they intend to use them for nefarious purposes.

What other purpose might there be for carrying these “products”? I’d say monger away. This is a law whose time has come!

Representatives from some of the groups planning large-scale protests during the DNC this month said the ordinance was unnecessary and accused city officials of fear mongering.

No Pun intended? 

“The intent of this ordinance is to try to smear protesters and make them look as if they are somehow criminal or somehow going to engage in some kind of gross conduct,” said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with the Re- create 68 Alliance.

The ordinance makes it illegal to carry certain items, such as chains, padlocks, carabiners and other locking devices. It also prohibits the possession of noxious substances. Two of the most frequently used examples of a noxious substance are a bucket of urine and a “feces bomb.”

Police have to prove that people carrying such items intend to use them to block public access or emergency equipment or to thwart crowd control measures.

“Our intent for this bill is not about suppressing or chilling First Amendment rights,” he said.

“Young man!”

“Yes Officer?

” Just exactly what do you intend to do with that shit?”

“Exercise my first ammendment rights?”

“Put down the poop son. Before I get pissed!”