Internet Scofflaw

Jonathan Weisman writes for the Washington Post:

Dogged by persistent questions about his faith in God and country, Sen. Barack Obama today journeyed to Harry Truman’s birthplace to lay out his vision of patriotism, conceding that he has learned in this campaign “the question of who is — or is not — a patriot all too often poisons our political debate.”

“Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given, ” Obama said. “It was how I was raised. It was what propelled me into public service. It it why I am running for president. And yet at times over the last 16 months, my patriotism [has been] challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.”

Curiously, Obama did not name a single person that actually has attacked his patriotism. Is there any national figure who has actually done so? Sure, there are anonymous emails propounding fevered conspiracy theories, and there might even be more of them targeting Obama than others (although I sincerely doubt he can beat Cheney), but I’m not aware of any major media outlet or public figure who has done so.

No, I think that Obama has learned the value of attacking a straw man, as he has done on race and campaign finance. And, I think the reason he chose today is to distract from yesterday’s attacks by Wesley Clark — his campaign surrogate — on John McCain’s military experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk,” [Clark] said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. . .

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” Clark said. “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded _ that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

Clark is right I suppose; McCain didn’t command a squadron until after the war. During the war, his promotions got stalled for some reason. (I’m reminded of this again.)

POSTSCRIPT: Part of the reason Obama has had troubles in the area of patriotism is the ridiculous flag pin controversy. As the record shows, Obama manufactured that controversy himself, with his unwise decision to attack the patriotism of those who did wear flag pins.  Too clever by half, it turned out.

A eugenic first?

Doctors in the U.K. reportedly say they have helped conceive a child genetically incapable of developing hereditary breast cancer.

According to the Times of London, doctors screened out embryos that contained a gene that may have given the baby up to an 85 percent chance of getting disease.

The British couple agreed to go through IVF (in-vitro fertilization), although they had no problem conceiving, to allow for the embryos to be screened. They produced 11 embryos, which doctors tested, and found five to be free from the gene, the Times reported.

Two of these were implanted in the woman’s uterus, and she is now 14 weeks pregnant.

Nine discarded embryos to get two that are less likely to develop breast cancer in middle age.  It won’t just be breast cancer for long, either.  Soon people will be selecting eye color and cheekbones.

John Hinderaker thinks Barack Obama should debate his staff.

Wilmette and Morton Grove will suspend enforcement of their gun bans. (Via Snowflakes in Hell, via Instapundit.) Both towns are somewhat infamous for their gun bans. Morton Grove had the nation’s first. Wilmette made the news four years ago by prosecuting a man who shot an intruder in his home.

BONUS: This is nice:

“The [Heller] ruling puts [Justice Antonin] Scalia and the four other conservative justices squarely on the side of the gang-bangers who terrorize far too many of urban American neighborhoods today,” [Oak Park Village President David Pope] said.

Ooo-kay. I’m not sure that’s the kind of argument for the left to be making right now.

At Instapundit.

Obama has tried hard to distance himself from his campaign’s earlier statement in favor of the DC gun ban, but I think he’s nailed here. This time it isn’t an aide’s statement to be disavowed. Obama nods and says “right”, twice, as his interviewer asserts “you support the DC handgun ban and you’ve said that it’s constitutional.” He then spends over a minute focusing on more moderate gun-control measures that he supports, but never disputes the earlier assertion.

Hot Air has the YouTube video (search to 1:15 if you’re impatient).

The difference between then and now is, back then Obama was competing with Hillary Clinton for the votes of DC liberals. Back then, extreme gun-control positions paid. Now he wants to appear more centrist.

BONUS: Howard Kurtz tracks Obama’s changing positions on guns, and how they’ve been portrayed in the media. (Via Instapundit.)

Well, this is awkward:

Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama’s victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.

Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president’s future campaign role is a “sticking point” in peace talks with Mrs Clinton’s aides.

The Telegraph has learned that the former president’s rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could “kiss my ass” in return for his support.

If the Obama campaign induces the left to learn a few things about their favorite President’s character, it won’t have been a complete waste.

(Via Cadillac Tight.)

When you eliminate oil, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, you’ve already eliminated every plausible technology to address our energy needs. But why stop with the plausible ones? Wind power is bad (either for environmental concerns, or because it spoils the beachfront views of our ruling class).  Geothermal disrupts the earth.

Now, solar is bad for the environment too.  (Via Instapundit.)  So what’s left?  Is there any form of energy, even impractical, that can satisfy the demands of the greens?  (Perhaps this is where they imagine society should be going.)

According to France’s Europe Minister (!), American neo-cons were responsible for the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty:

France’s Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, has said that Europe has enemies in Washington, suggesting that neo-conservatives played a significant role in the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty earlier this month.

French daily Le Monde reports Mr Jouyet as saying that “Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No.”

(Via the Corner.)

This is sort of funny, but since “neo-con” is used in many circles as code for “Jew”, it also might be a bit sinister.

When Obama recently backed away from his earlier statement in favor of the gun ban (”Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”), his campaign refused to admit he was changing his position. Rather, they said that it was an “inartful” attempt to explain Obama’s position. Evidently, “artful” means “too clear”.

By that standard, Obama’s latest statement in the wake of the Heller decision is more much artful:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

(Emphasis mine.) There’s a lot of obfuscatory (”artful”) blather here, but the statement may not quite be artful enough. Not the emphasized sentence, implying that Chicago’s gun ban works. Presumably, if it works, it must be constitutional, right?

The problem is, the Chicago gun ban is virtually identical to the unconstitutional DC gun ban, and will likely be overturned in short order. As Michael Goldfarb points out, Chicago Mayor Daley’s angry response to the ruling indicates he expects that to happen.

So is Obama saying that the Chicago ban is constitutional? His campaign turns on the art:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is hedging on whether Chicago’s ban on handguns is constitutionally permissible in the wake of Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a similar law in Washington, D.C. . .

But Obama’s spokesman says that the reference to “what works in Chicago” does not indicate his view on the constitutionality of Chicago law.

“He didn’t point out anything specific except for the fact that they are two different places where different solutions are often appropriate,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

So the mention of Chicago, the city obvious to all as the next battleground in gun rights, was just a meaningless turn of phrase?  Please.

I’ve been thinking. The war in Iraq is 5 years old, but the war on poverty is 44 years old. Isn’t it high time that we cut off support for the poor? Wouldn’t that surely induce them to resolve their own problems?

Todd Zywicki thinks the current disfunctional state of judicial confirmations is permanent.

First, read this “curious” exchange from today’s House Judiciary Committee meeting between Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and David Addington (chief of staff to Vice President Cheney):

Addington had acknowledged earlier in the hearing that he took part in discussions with CIA lawyers over the agency’s interrogation policies. Delahunt tried to find out what Addington knew about the use of waterboarding on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists, or more specifically, whether Addington knew it was approved as an interrogation technique.

Addington told Delahunt he couldn’t discuss specific techniques being used, or even discussed for use, by CIA agents because terrorists may be watching his appearance and would gain insight into what U.S. intelligence agents are up to.

“You kind of communicate with Al Qaeda if you do. I can’t talk to you because Al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN,” Addington said.

Delahunt responded: “I’m sure they are watching. I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive.“

(Emphasis mine.)  What did Delahunt mean?  Surely he couldn’t have meant that he’s glad Al Qaeda can target Addington now, could he?  (Allahpundit thinks so.)  Could he really have sunk so low that he cannot resist expressing revenge fantasies in public?  These guys are running the country, for pete’s sake.

Last November, the Obama campaign said the DC gun ban was constitutional and should be upheld:

The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’

Since then, he has backed off that position, and refused to express an opinion:

Asked by ABC News’ Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms at ABC’s April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”

Now the campaign has explicitly disavowed its earlier statement, but as usual, he cannot admit he has changed his position:

The Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

“Inartful” means “too clear”, I guess. In contrast, his position now is quite “artful”, because he won’t say what it is. (Whatever it is, it’s definitely consistent, though.)

By the way, as Ed Morrissey points out, Obama was a constitutional law professor! Isn’t this the sort of subject on which he actually ought to be able to give an informed opinion? John McCain, on the other hand, despite not being a law professor of any kind, is on record with a clear and consistent position. He even went so far as to sign an amicus brief.

Heh.

Or so he says, Broadcasting and Cable reports.  (Via LGF.)

The beginning of the end for species-ism in Spain? I am not making this up:

Spanish apes are one step closer to receiving the same [rights] to life and freedom humans have.

The environmental committee of Spain’s parliament approved resolutions that urge the European country to comply with the Great Apes Project — a plan developed by philosophers and scientists who say the animals deserve the same rights as their closest genetic relatives, the Reuters news agency reported.

UPDATE: Stephen Green thinks that European-style human rights isn’t much of an aspiration for the apes:

Try looking at it this way. Your average EU country doesn’t really recognize individual rights; there are just some facets of human existence Brussels hasn’t gotten around yet to regulating fully. So why not give “rights” to chimps? It’s not like they’ll gain much, when half or more of Europe is already one very posh, very nice zoological garden where people are kept on display in a semi-natural state.

Heck, Madrid, or even Brussels, could extend the franchise to dogs who think they’re people, at it wouldn’t make one bit of difference to how the place is governed.

UPDATE (7/14): The NYT picks up the story.  (Via Instapundit.)

Apropos of my earlier post, in which I asserted that nuclear power is extremely safe, I uncovered a short report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Three Mile Island accident. The TMI accident is important because it and Chernobyl are the most frequent arguments against the safety of nuclear power. Chernobyl was a Soviet design far below any standards ever employed in the West, so it isn’t actually relevant. On the other hand, TMI was an American design.

One counter to the TMI example is that designs and procedures have changed completely since the TMI accident. Moreover, modern pebble bed reactors are based on an entirely different technology that is self-limiting, and therefore incapable of melting down.

The preceding is by far the more important argument, but there is another to be made: If by “serious” one means “affecting the health of at least one person,” then there has never been a serious nuclear accident in the United States, TMI notwithstanding. In the words of the NRC report:

Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.

In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well-respected organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.

Of the two million affected, the average person got one-sixth of a chest x-ray. The maximum effect to anyone was equivalent to one year of natural background radiation.

Obama is optimistic about alternative energy:

“The possibilities of renewable energy are limitless,” Mr. Obama said in an energy policy speech Tuesday in Las Vegas.

He’s quite a bit more pessimistic about real technologies, though. In his energy speech yesterday, not only did he blast nuclear power, the one technology that can resolve our electric problems, but he also opposed oil sands, which could help reduce our dependence on OPEC.

While politicians prattle on about “renewable” (but uneconomical) energy sources such as solar and wind, or yet-to-be-invented silver bullets, there already exists one practical and economical way to generate all the electricity we need. Nuclear power is cost-effective, generates no greenhouse gases, and is extremely safe with modern technology (especially pebble bed designs).

Despite being the only existing technology that can solve our electricity problems, nuclear power has been crippled in America by demagoguery and NIMBYism. Recently, however, the rising price of oil, increasing concern over greenhouse gasses, and dwindling reserves in electrical generating capacity have let to a resurgence of interest in nuclear power, even among some on the left (eg, Nancy Pelosi).

ASIDE: If you’re not concerned about generating capacity, consider this: Washington DC is projecting rolling blackouts within three years if it cannot drag in power from elsewhere in the country.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama made clear yesterday that he opposes nuclear power (despite earlier indications that he might support it), and prefers to rely on uneconomical and/or nonexistent technologies instead.  Speaking in Nevada, which has managed to block the opening of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, he blasted McCain’s proposal to begin building nuclear reactors again.  He did say that he might support nuclear power sometime in the future, provided we can find a way to deal with the waste that doesn’t involve putting it somewhere. (Alas, I am not making this up.)

If our nation’s capital starts suffering rolling blackouts in a few years, or if we’re forced to rely on coal for electricity, I hope people will remember why.

A new AP poll reveals that people think success would be better than failure and experience is a plus.

The AP reports:

Barack Obama said Tuesday evangelical leader James Dobson was “making stuff up” when he accused the presumed Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible.  Dobson used his Focus on the Family radio program to highlight excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane before landing in Los Angeles, Obama said the speech made the argument that people of faith, like himself, “try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us.”

Obama added, “I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.”

I guess Obama’s idea of “open and vigorous debate” doesn’t allow for any actual criticism.  (And what a strange ad hominem it is to accuse Dobson of acting “for his own purposes”!  Of course he’s acting for his own purposes, as is Obama and everyone else.)

Anyway, the AP article doesn’t give any of the substance of the debate.  It just presents it as a he-said, she-said sort of disagreement.  (I suppose from the AP’s perspective, how could anyone be right?  It’s just the Bible, after all.)  But, since it’s already established that Obama doesn’t understand the Bible (or doesn’t believe it, at least), I suspect that Dobson has the right of it.

So says Jennifer Rubin:

Barack Obama is endangering his status as the media darling of the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, he has been the villain in the campaign story over the last few days. Two decisions — one small and one large — showed the dangers he faces. And a third showed that the post-racial candidate is no longer in evidence.

It is no secret that the media has been openly rooting for Obama for months. His gaffes would have felled other candidates, his relationship with hate-mongering preachers would have disqualified mere mortal candidates and, of course, his lack of any national record of accomplishment might have prevented all much the most ego-inflated from even mounting a White House run. But it was hanging together fairly well until last week.

(Via Instapundit.)

Pretending he was already elected didn’t go over that well.  (Via Instapundit.)

I laughed out loud at this:

When the stormtroopers wear clown shoes instead of jackboots, it’s easy to forget that they’re still stormtroopers.