For a double dose of Obama mockery, check out another video about Obama’s “presidential internship.” All satire, of course:

Obama Undertakes Presidential Internship To Ease Concerns About His Lack Of Experience

There will be time for backbiting and recriminations, but right now there are a couple of things we all need to accept. Today John McCain is going down in defeat, and with him goes the Republican Party’s chances of controlling the national government for at least the next election cycle and possibly much longer. More importantly, the Age of Reagan has officially ended. For the first time since 1976 a genuine liberal has won the White House, and that in itself marks a significant point of departure from the last three decades of American political history. My friends, we have entered the wilderness. How long we spend there depends on how we adjust to the challenges we face.

Let us now take solace in the one comforting lesson of this defeat. This election has taught us that nothing lasts forever. Whatever new political coalition Barack Obama and the Democrats manage to build, it too will crumble and fall, its foundations torn apart by the shifting tectonic plates of American politics. I know this because it has always been so. The Republican Party ruled American politics in the early twentieth century, winning seven of nine presidential elections from 1896 to 1928. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition won five straight presidential elections from 1932 to 1948, and when Eisenhower brought the GOP back to power in 1952 it was only to ratify most of the victories of the New Deal. But the Roosevelt coalition also perished in the face of the Reagan coalition’s onslaught. As powerful as all these political machines once seemed, none of them endured more than a generation, and many last for much shorter periods.

The second thing we must learn from this experience is that politics do not trump history. John McCain and the GOP lost today because they were on the wrong side of several unfavorable historical trends. The worst of these was the economic crisis. Fairly or unfairly, the public has blamed the Republican Party for the worsening economic conditions, and that blew apart any chance McCain had of winning this election. Public fatigue with the Iraq War was another such trend. John McCain can take comfort from the fact that his courageous stand in favor of the Iraq “surge” policy helped move Iraq closer to the point where its troubled government can survive without support from U.S. troops. We may discover that the progress Iraq has made will prove durable enough to survive even the precipitous withdrawal Obama has promised. However, McCain’s stand on the war has also contributed to his electoral defeat. He once said that he would rather lose an election than a war, and it seems that he got the bargain he wanted. If Iraq goes on to become a functional country, McCain’s courage will have helped save tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives. But make no mistake: that victory has cost the Republican Party control of Washington. We should remember that the next time we win a national election.

Third, we must remember that America remains, even now, an instinctively conservative country. Like many of you, I believe that Barack Obama is a leftist radical at heart, but the fact that he has cloaked his radicalism in centrist rhetoric shows that he understands how at odds those views are with ordinary American public opinion. Ordinary Americans don’t want to tax the coal industry out of existence. Ordinary Americans want to produce more of our own energy. Most importantly, ordinary Americans still don’t want to pay higher taxes. In electing Obama, the American people may have chosen a slightly more activist state, but only because they believe Obama when he says that he can make someone else (i.e., the “rich”) pay for it. The moment they figure out otherwise is the precise moment when they fall out of love with the Illinois wunderkind.

So, what must we do to hasten our return to power? We need to do a lot of things. We need to resolve our own internal division over immigration reform. We need to stop preaching about government waste and then muscling our way to the trough when it’s time for Congress to pass out the slops. We also need to stop the scandals like the one that just ended Ted Stevens’ career. But first, on a fundamental level, republicans need to rediscover who they are as a party. At the national level, the Republican brand has discredited itself with scandals, expanding bureaucracy, and excessive spending. The party’s recent behavior while in power clashes dramatically with its long-held principles of limited government and limited spending. The public might very well vote for a limited-government party, but first they would have to believe that party actually means what it says. Right now, they don’t believe us when we talk about our principles. Frankly, I don’t blame them.

I leave you with this one word of encouragement. The GOP may have lost an election, but the things we believe in as conservatives – small government, personal responsibility, low taxes, the individual’s right to economic self-determination – these ideals have not lost. These principles never die, because they are the values of a political philosophy that cherishes freedom and affirms the best aspirations of the human spirit. No, I’m not giving up on conservatism. It is still worth fighting for, and it is still the best way to preserve and protect the greatest country on the face of the earth.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

Will Obama’s election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding. “No, that chapter won’t be closed,” he says. “However, Obama’s victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades.“

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. “I see no evidence of that,” he says. “Obama’s thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture.”

But is Obama - who’s not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black? Jackson emphatically answers yes: “You don’t need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society,” he says. “Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain.”

Reverend Jackson’s comments highlight the ambivalence of much of the modern day civil rights establishment toward a potential Obama presidency. On the one hand, they are practically obligated to cheer the Obama campaign on to victory. To do otherwise would risk alienating the black community, which has embraced Barack Obama as their favorite son.

Nevertheless, Obama’s campaign is not based on its appeal to black voters, for obvious numerical reasons. Instead, it has courted white voters on the basis of Senator Obama’s post-partisan and (just as important) post-racial vision of America’s future. In other words, the Senator has appealed to whites with an implicit (and sometimes explicit) promise that he will lead us to a new episode in American history where, to borrow a slogan from his campaign, “race doesn’t matter”.

It is a compelling (if somewhat ephemeral) vision that is likely to last just as long as it takes for Obama to take the oath of office. But for Jesse Jackson and the civil rights establishment, it represents a dire threat to their very existence. After all, if race doesn’t matter then it is hard to explain why America needs people like Reverend Jackson, or for that matter organizations like his Rainbow Coalition, the NAACP, and others.

Unlike many conservatives, I have never been sold on the idea of a “color blind” society. So even though I would like to live in an America where racism and discrimination don’t exist, I don’t believe it is possible. An Obama presidency does not mean that suddenly blacks will no longer face discrimination in certain housing and employment markets. Moreover, an Obama presidency does not mean that the long-term systemic problems the black community faces - poverty, poor education, illegitimacy, violent crime, etc. - will soon disappear. Even after an Obama presidential victory America is likely to discover that race does matter after all. For both Obama’s white and black supporters, this will come as an unpleasant surprise, if not a demoralizing shock.

To be fair, neither party represents themselves well in this exchange. Ms. Allen sounds , greedy, and shrill, and Mr. Mahoney sounds arrogant and abusive. Still, Mr. Mahoney’s constituents will probably find his conduct more disappointing than hers. Perhaps I am hopelessly old fashioned, but it I have always believed that there is an appropriate way to talk to a woman, and this is definitely not it.

For example, Mahoney’s “you work at my pleasure” line would be insulting even if it were directed toward a man, but for a woman (and a woman who shared his bed to boot) it must come across as particularly demeaning. Technically, it’s true that Mr. Mahoney has the right to hire and fire members of his own staff as he pleases. But common decency requires the employer to give a reason, and whatever reasons he gave her were clearly not very convincing. She is probably correct in saying that he wasn’t “man enough” to tell her the real reason for her dismissal.

Furthermore, I find the general tenor of this conversation disturbing. To my way of thinking (again, I’m very old fashioned) sex really should be something that accompanies some sort of emotional bond, or at least a sense of respect, between the participants. No one can listen to this conversation and come away with the impression that Mr. Mahoney respects Ms. Allen. Certainly he has no affection for her. The fact that he carried on a two year affair with a woman he neither likes nor respects tells us something about Mahoney himself, and that something is not pretty.

The $700 billion Paulson rescue plan should put a floor under the colossal dung heap known as “structured credit”. It is a bad plan, since it does not target the money on the recapitalisation of the core banking system. But it will help refloat lenders by raising the price of beaten-down securities somewhere nearer their true “hold-to-maturity” worth.

An ugly recession is coming, as debt leverage kicks into reverse. The purge will be slow and punishing. Some 12 million Americans are already trapped in negative equity, but at least they can see where this might end. After much drama, the US institutions have risen to the challenge. The Fed, the Treasury, and Congress have managed to take some sort of coherent action. The jury is out on Europe, where the hurricane is now smashing the banking system.

Those such as German finance minister Peer Steinbruck – who thought the sub?prime crisis was just an “American problem” – have had a rude shock. The collapse of Hypo Real with €400 billion of liabilities has made him face the unsettling truth that German banks have played a big part in this $10 trillion speculative venture undertaken by the whole global banking industry.

So, what’s that sound we’re hearing? It’s the sound of crap hitting the fan, globally. A lot like this, only bigger:

My first nominee is a video that appeared earlier this week. It features a kids choir, dressed in identical blue Obama shirts, singing of their love for the Dear Leader … err, I mean Senator Obama. The first words, sung by a brown-haired, glassy-eyed young pixie, are all you really need to know about this video:

We’re gonna spread happiness. We’re gonna spread freedom.
Obama’s gonna change it. Obama’s gonna lead ‘em.
We’re gonna change it, and rearrange it. We’re gonna change the world.

But as creepy as the Obama kids video is, does it really have anything on American Prayer, the music video produced a couple months ago by (ironically enough) English musician and record producer David Stewart? The video features the rather jarring site of Jason Alexander (0:55), Whoopi Goldberg (1:01), and Forrest Whittaker (1:05) clasping their hands in prayerful supplication while singing vapid lyrics with various images associated with Senator Obama and his campaign floating on and off screen. The whole thing is gauzy, fuzzy, and deeply emotive. One typical stanza reads as follows:

And these are the hands
What are we gonna build with them?
This is the church you can’t see
Give me your tired, your poor and huddled masses
You know they’re yearning to breathe free
This is my American Prayer.

Here is the video:

The thinking person may wonder, what exactly does any of this mean? But that’s the rub: there is no meaning. The American Prayer video represents what may become the next evolution in political propaganda. Ordinary propaganda encourages the audience to accept a conclusion (e.g., “Trust the Dear Leader,” or “The Jews are to blame,” or “The war was a mistake.”) without necessarily examining the argument that yields said conclusion. But with American Prayer there is no conclusion, and no argument either. It encourages the audience to embrace an aspiration for the future, which is conveniently embodied in the person of an individual, in this case Senator Obama. The message of the video is not, “Senator Obama can bring hope and change,” but rather “Obama is hope and change.

Do you think that’s an overstatement? We’ll, here’s what David Stewart, quoted in Huffington Post, had to say about his music video: “Regardless of what happens in November, Senator Obama has reminded millions of people that they have the power to connect to bigger ideas. He is, in essence, the embodiment of a new anthem for change.”

This sort of propaganda is dangerous, not because it is wrong, but because on its own terms it can never be wrong. It doesn’t ask you to accept Senator Obama’s policies, his political ideology, or even his sappy, post-partisan rhetoric. It asks you to accept him. If you do, you get hope and change. If you don’t, then you are against hope and change.

We seem to have reached a curious impasse in Congress in which nearly everyone, including the Secretary of the Treasury, the Fed Chairman, the White House, and nearly the entire Republican and Democratic leadership in Congress agrees that the bailout bill, though distasteful, is absolutely necessary for the long term health of the economy, and yet all these leaders have failed utterly to convince their rank-and-file members to support this bill. In the British parliamentary system, this would be the equivalent of the leadership of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party each receiving a vote of “no confidence” from their MP’s at the same time.

The Republican caucus is in an especially bad state of affairs, with only about 1/3 of House republicans willing to follow their leadership in support of the bailout bill. However, Republicans are not the ones in control of this process. The Democratic Party, under Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi, has been in charge of this legislation from the beginning. They are the ones who control all the relevant committees, and they substantially controlled the drafting process for the bill that just failed in the House. In light of the fact that the eventual bill that went before Congress was substantially a Democratic product, Speaker Pelosi’s inability to get more than 60% of her caucus to support this legislation was startling.

As bad as the performance of the Congressional leadership has been, the performance of the two major presidential candidates has been especially disturbing. Although John McCain made a point of returning to Washington, D.C. to help hammer out a bailout, he left the negotiation process in as much turmoil and bitter dissension as when he found it. For his part, Barack Obama has never even made a pretense of trying to help with the crisis. He has gone blithely along, reciting his canned phrases about hope and change as the American financial sector collapses around him. Neither man has even suggested doing the one thing that might actually help their colleagues in Washington broker a deal: a joint statement committing each man to voting for any compromise plan based essentially on the Paulson model.

Not that that will never happen. You know, on second thought, better rescind that firing squad idea. Some people you can never trust even with the simplest of jobs. See for yourself:

So far, nobody has asked the one question I want to hear answered: just how bad would it get if we didn’t “fix it”? I understand that we’d go into a recession. Granted. But a lot of very smart people, including former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, seem to think that we’re headed for a recession no matter what Washington does:

“I now believe we are in for one hell of a deep downturn,” Welch told the World Business Forum in New York on Wednesday, adding that the first quarter of 2009 will likely be “brutal.”

Until recently, Welch said, he had believed the U.S. economy could avoid recession, but he has changed his mind.

“I am now caving,” he said. “Get ready for real tough times. They’re coming. There is no credit available.”

I should note that Jack Welch supports the bailout plan. But given his own bleak prediction, it is fair to ask what exactly is the upside of the bailout package? If we’re headed for a severe recession no matter what, will the $700 billion simply ameliorate the economic pain of that recession? If so, by how much? Will the recession last for a shorter period if we pass this legislation? If so, how much shorter? One quarter? Two quarters? If that’s all this is about, then speaking for myself, I’d rather not commit to $700 billion in new spending, plus new regulations which undermine the free market and expand the role of government in our financial system. I’d rather take my recession like a man, and not betray so much of what I believe in.

I don’t know as much about finance and economics as some people on this site, but I do know that we’ve had a lot of recessions in American History, and every single recession in the history of this country has come to an end. Usually, we ended up being a smarter and more disciplined people for having had an experience like this. If someone can show me why this crisis is so much more severe than all the other financial crises we’ve faced, I’d be happy to hear it. Otherwise, with all due respect to our panicky brethren on Wall Street, I think I’d rather pass on this bailout plan. Sorry.

Over the years, Yankee Stadium has seen more than its share of history. The 26 World Series championships are only the beginning. It was also the scene of some historic football games ever played. Do you remember Knute Rockne’s famous “Win One for the Gipper” speech before the 1928 Notre Dame vs. Army game? It happened at Yankee Stadium. Then there was the 1946 Notre Dame vs. Army contest, a virtual national championship game in which the Irish were ranked number 1 and Army number 2. It ended in one of the most exciting ties in football history. Then there was the 1958 NFL Championship game, which many football historians still refer to as the “Greatest Game Ever Played.”

For my money, Yankees Stadium also witnessed the most important sporting event of the 20th Century on June 22, 1938 when Joe Louis destroyed German national hero Max Schmeling in one round of rage-filled passion and fury which forever demolished to the myth of Aryan supremacy. Although the 21st Century is still young, I would argue that the century’s most important baseball game thus far has to be Game 3 of the 2001 World Series. With President Bush throwing out the first pitch in a bullet-proof vest (a perfect strike, I might add), the New York fans rallied their team for three dramatic wins that gave the Yankees a 3-2 lead over the Diamondbacks going back to Arizona. The fact that New York eventually lost that series 4-3 is virtually irrelevant. Those three games gave the city of New York a much needed psychological boost following the devastating events of September 11.

And then there were the speeches. Some of the most poignant memories associated with Yankee Stadium have nothing whatsoever to do with competition, and everything to do with the ordinary drama of life, death, faith, and loss. Three popes have spoken at Yankee Stadium. So has Nelson Mandela, whose “I am a Yankee” speech following his release from incarceration in South Africa turned him into an international celebrity. The largest crowd ever to come to Yankee Stadium came to hear Rev. Billy Graham, whose 1957 sermon at that venue drew an astonishing 100,000 people.

But with respect to the aforementioned preachers and orators, the most powerful speeches delivered at Yankee Stadium have been simple statements of gratitude delivered by Yankee greats who have called it home. On July 3, 1939 Lou Gehrig looked clear-eyed into eternity and told a heartbroken crowd, “Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.” Almost nine years later Babe Ruth helped commemorate Yankee Stadium’s 25th Anniversary with his last public address. Severely afflicted with throat cancer, Ruth’s voice echoed through the stadium like a whisper across a grave. He began by ruefully apologizing for the condition of his voice: “Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. You know how thin my voice sounds. Well, it feels just as bad.” Ruth went on to speak for a few moments about his love for the game of baseball, and its importance to America’s youth. He concluded with a simple expression of gratitude: “There’s been so many lovely things said about me, and I’m glad that I’ve had the opportunity to thank everybody. Thank you.”

Last night, September 21, 2008, Yankee Stadium closed its doors forever. I had been dreading that Yankees management would close the stadium with an address from George Steinbrenner, or (even worse) Bud Selig. Thankfully, they did the right thing and turned the microphone over to Derek Jeter, who more than anyone deserved the privilege of giving the last speech ever given at Yankee Stadium.

While he was there he prayed for the soon-to-be governor, Mrs. Palin, and also prayed for the success of her upcoming gubernatorial campaign. About a year later, Gov. Palin made a few brief remarks at her old church in which she mentioned the prayer as being very moving and meaningful to her. She described Mr. Muthee’s prayer as “bold” and “powerful,” but she did not attribute her electoral victory to it.

It now turns out that while in Kenya Mr. Muthee engaged what the Times characterizes as a “witch-hunt,” in which a local witch was pressured by Mr. Muthee’s followers to leave town. The Times even suggests that angry locals were ready to stone the witch in their midst. Of course, the Times article also mentions that the “witch” in question was raided by the local police, but does not specify the reasons for the raid, so perhaps there may be some reason for her departure other than the supposed “witch-hunt.”

Moreover, the only sources the Times cites for this story are an article by the Christian Science Monitor, and an evangelical prayer website that contains various testimonials about healing and things of that nature. I have looked over the prayer website, but can not find any reference at all to this story. The CSM article only says that the so-called witch left the town, but does not say anything about harassment by the locals, or threats of stoning, or even police raiding her house. The only action it attributes to Mr. Muthee’s followers is regular prayer meetings to counteract the so-called witch’s perceived spiritual mischief. By any reasonable definition, Mr. Muthee’s actions, while certainly strange, could not be characterized as a “witch-hunt.”

What does any of this have to do with Sarah Palin? Really, not a d*mn thing. It’s not likely that Mrs. Palin knew anything about Mr. Muthee’s activities as a so-called “witch-hunter,” if you could call it that. Nor has she ever endorsed this man’s ministry, or witch-hunting in general. The only thing she did was allow him to pray for her when he visited her former church. As an evangelical, I can tell you that guest speakers are a very common occurrence. A lot of times you don’t even know there’s going to be a guest speaker until you show up on Sunday morning, and you rarely know very much about them. I have heard a lot of guest speakers say things in Church that I don’t agree with, and I’ve heard a number of people speak who I thought were a little crazy. That’s especially the case when you have a guest speaker from Africa, where nearly everybody believes in sorcery or witch-craft of some kind. I would speculate that almost all African evangelicals, not to mention most Africans in general, believe in the same sort of spiritual phenomena that Mr. Muthee believes in. When they’re in the West, most African ministers avoid speaking about things that they know could disconcert the average western church-goer, so it’s unlikely Mr. Muthee said very much about witches when he visited Wasilla.

This brings us to the question of why churches like Wasilla A/G even have such speakers. Most evangelical churches keep regular speaking slots open for visiting ministers or evangelists, and many of these evangelists are foreign-born preachers. This practice serves three functions: First, it gives the local minister some much-needed time-off. Second, it provides revenue for the visiting minister, who usually gets some sort of fee or offering. Third, it helps local Christians connect with what’s going on in the Church in other parts of the country or other parts of the world. Contrary to what you might imagine, the average evangelical church does not see a preaching invitation as an endorsement of everything that the visiting speaker believes or does. Furthermore, since many speaking slots are secured by referrals from other ministers, a local pastor doesn’t always know a whole lot about the person coming to speak that Sunday other than that another minister has vouched for him. I know that might sound odd to someone who grew up outside of an evangelical social context, but it’s the truth.

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama’s argument was that the current “disorganized” and “confused” state of the Bush administration makes it preferable for the Iraqis to wait to sign an agreement until a new administration is in power. But there are a lot of problems with that argument. First, Obama himself has repeatedly, and endlessly, urged the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Second, Obama is not the president (except maybe in his own mind) and until he is it is not his place to negotiate on behalf of the U.S. government, nor to undermine current negotiations between Iraq and the United States. Third, whoever wins the next presidential election won’t be president until January, and his administration won’t be up and running until February or March. As the Post points out, by that time the Iraqis will be in the middle of their own political campaign season (remember, thanks to us they hold elections now), making any negotiation all but impossible.

The motives behind Senator Obama’s foreign policy sabotage remain somewhat muddled and unclear. On the one hand, he can hardly justify opposing something he has long advocated. On the other hand, if the Bush administration is the one to sign a draw down agreement (with a democratic Iraqi government no less!), the public may perceive this as a vindication of the American intervention in Iraq. Undoubtedly, Obama would like to be the first president to begin pulling troops out of Iraq, but that is a purely self-interested motive, and not the kind of thing we should expect from the candidate of “hope” and “change.” Moreover, if the effect of Obama’s meddling is to delay a withdrawal for several months or possibly longer, he himself will bear part of the responsibility for any unnecessary American casualties during that period.

For their part, the Iraqi leaders suspect there may be even more nefarious motives at work in the Obama camp:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

For our country’s sake, I hope this is not the case. But if it is true, Obama deserves to to suffer a sound defeat at the polls this November, and everlasting disgrace in the history books.

Apparently, the years have not been good to Mr. Beckel. There have, no doubt, been one too many doors shut in his face. One too many sleepless nights staring at the bare wall of a studio apartment, with nothing but stale pizza in the fridge and a goldfish to keep him company. One too many pot brownies to chase away the pain. (I’m kidding, of course. He works for Fox News and writes a column for USA Today.)

Perhaps all this explains why a once feared political strategist (snicker) is now writing a column suggesting that Barack Obama’s best chance at winning this election is to put on a sleeveless vest and fishing cap and portray himself … as Barack the Cable Guy. No, I’m not even making that up:

Barack Obama is about process not ideology. He’s Larry the Cable Guy but with a Harvard education and a towering intellect. As Larry is fond of saying “you gotta do what it takes to get ‘er done”, and Obama will do just that as president. Good for him. Good for the country. It’s not complicated, and it should come as no surprise. It is exactly what Barrack Obama has done his entire adult life, but for some reason most people either don’t get it, don’t believe it, or chose to deny it.

It’s not as if Obama has been keeping this post 20th century governing process a secret. He’s written two books laying out his approach and he has left a trail of evidence to support the contention that he is the new political Cable Guy.

Beckel goes on to give several examples of how Barack Obama, throughout his career, has adhered to the pragmatic political philosophy of “Git ‘er Done.” Seriously, read the whole thing if you don’t believe it. Now I like Larry the Cable Guy as much as the next redneck, but I never really considered him presidential material. Then again, maybe I’m wrong:

The essential argument of the column is as follows:

1) Alaska is the new Texas. It is a fundamentally evil economic and political entity that exploits the rest of us for its own advantage.

2) Anyone remotely associated with Alaskan politics is, ipso facto, also an evil person. That goes double for Sarah Palin, who is practically the embodiment of all the evil things that Alaska represents.

3) Alaska is responsible for high oil and gas prices the rest of us pay because, unlike the other major oil producing states, does forces the oil companies to pay a substantial share of its oil profits in taxes to the state. This amounts to a tax “on the rest of us,” for the benefit of those evil Alaskans.

4) Alaska also takes way more than its own share of federal revenue; it receives more federal revenue per person than any other state. Apparently, this too is Sarah Palin’s fault.

There are a number of common sense responses one might make to Kinsley’s argument. It is fundamental economic ignorance to argue that Alaska’s profit-sharing agreement amounts to a “tax” on the rest of the country. While oil and natural gas are the backbone of the Alaskan economy, the state is still relatively minor player in the international oil market. Right now the state produces about 650,000 barrels per day (bbls). That’s not peanuts, but its hardly massive. For example, Texas produces about 907,000 bbls. The United States as a whole produced some 8.3 million bbls in 2006. That means Alaska’s share of domestic oil production is only about 8 percent of domestic oil production. Even that figure exaggerates Alaska’s impact on oil and gas prices in the United States because America imports far more oil (about 12.3 million bbls) than it produces. In this highly competitive international market it takes far more than Alaska with its 650,000 bbls to shift the price of gas at your local gas station.

The key difference between Alaska and the other oil producing states is that in Alaska the oil companies are forced to take a much smaller percentage of the profits. They still make out quite nicely, but the people of Alaska get about 75% of the oil revenue after the cost of production is taken out. If the oil companies attempt to raise the price of their product to recoup some of that lost profit, the laws of the market kick in. If their prices go too high they get undersold by producers in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Texas. Alaskans think this arrangement is only fair. After all, it’s their land and their oil which the oil companies only lease.

As for the argument that Alaska gets more than its fair share of federal revenue, it’s true but the disparity is not as severe as Kinsey alleges. Some of the money flowing into Alaska goes to help the state cope with its extreme climate , or military installations, or other necessary functions. According to a 2003 report published by the University of Alaska at Anchorage, a variety of factors account for the large chunk of federal cash spent in Alaska. First, construction costs in Alaska are a lot higher because so much of the state lives in remote rural areas. Second, Alaska has an aging population with many young workers moving out of the state. As a result, a high proportion of its residents receive Social Security benefits, as well as Medicare. Third, about 20% of Alaska’s population are Native Americans, to whom the Federal Government has significant financial obligations. By contrast, only about 1% of the rest of the country is Native American.

Nonetheless, it’s true that a sizable portion of the federal largess spent in Alaska is just plain old pork of the Ted Stevens variety. But all this has been going on for a long time before Palin ever got there, and one of the major aspects of Palin’s domestic agenda has been to reduce Alaska’s dependence on federal subsidies. But in order to do that you need to find alternate revenue streams. That’s why she negotiated for a multi-billion dollar deal to build a natural gas pipelinefrom Alaska to the lower 48. That’s also why she supports drilling in ANWR (which McCain opposes, alas!), and expanding oil production elsewhere. Liberals like Kinsey usually oppose these things, which means they oppose the very measures necessary to get Alaska off the dole.

Even though I have tried to respond to Kinsey’s arguments with reason and goodwill, his bitter and ugly words do not merit such courtesy. If his column is any indication, one of the standard liberal attack lines this fall will be to go after, not just Sarah Palin herself, but the whole state of Alaska. Rather than challenge her directly, they will attack the reputation and integrity of a great American state hoping to tarnish her by association. Democrats have long been masters of the art of class warfare. Now it seems they have added geographical warfare to their repertoire.

Of course, this is a preliminary judgment and there remains a lot of clean up work still to do. Much of Baton Rouge and other parts of the state remain without power, and there has been major infrastructural damage all over the state. Moreover, with Hurricane Ike threatening to thrash the Gulf Coast again we are hardly out of the woods. Nevertheless, at this point I think it is fair to say that the overall response to this storm at the state and local level has been night and day different from the chaos that followed Katrina three years ago, and much of that has to do with the man in the governor’s office.

It all started with the evacuation of coastal Louisiana, a massive undertaking in which state and local authorities moved coaxed, cajoled, and dragged some two million people out of multiple parishes in South Louisiana. But even more impressive than that is the fact that that figure, 2 million people, represents roughly 90 percent of the people in the parishes where evacuation orders were issued. Let that number sink in for a second. To give you an idea of the significance of that 90 percent figure, let’s imagine that Homeland Security uncovered credible evidence that a tactical nuke was about to go off somewhere in or around New York City, and that as a result they had to evacuate the entire New York metropolitan area, which has a population of nearly 19 million people. (Sorry for the Wiki link, but it’s the only number I could find) Let’s also imagine that they had to get this done in less than a week. This would be the equivalent of getting roughly 17 million of those 19 million people out of the area in less than a week. Does anyone think that would even be remotely possible? To put it another way, the evacuation in Louisiana moved more people out of endangered areas than the total number of people who live in Delaware and Alaska combined.

Jindal got the ball rolling by issuing mandatory evacuation orders for most of the Louisiana coast, by calling up 3,000 National Guardsmen before the storm. He also contracted for hundreds of buses to evacuate poor and indigent residents of New Orleans and other places. But perhaps the biggest factor in making this evacuation a success was the fact that state and local officials agreed not to set up shelters of last resort in evacuated areas. Many Louisiana officials believed that the existence of such shelters, including the Superdome in New Orleans, encouraged people to try to ride out Hurricane Katrina three years ago. This time there were no such shelters, and as a result nearly everyone who could leave on their own did so. Those who did not have access to personal transportation could ride on one of the 700 buses that the state contracted for $7 million to move sick and needy residents.

To be sure, Bobby Jindal isn’t the only one responsible for this remarkably successful operation. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, whose handling of the last crisis was widely (and somewhat unfairly) criticized, got a chance for something few discredited politicians ever get: personal redemption. For the most part, he took advantage of that opportunity by moving aggressively to implement a thorough evacuation of the Crescent City. But giving Nagin his due does not detract anything from Jindal. In fact, the two have worked in close cooperation with each other. Jindal even had an aid working in the mayor’s office as a liaison, something that never would have happened under Blanco.

Since the storm Governor Jindal has been working with incredible energy and determination to get Louisiana back on its feet. A massive amount of work remains to be done, but it helps Louisiana residents to know that their governor is an aggressive advocate for their welfare. Although a loyal republican, Jindal hasn’t been afraid to rip the federal response when he feels it has been wanting. His comments about FEMA have been measured but sometimes biting. At the same time, he has been careful not to make it personal, or to engage in bureaucratic infighting with Washington, as Blanco did during Katrina, which alienated the very people Louisiana would need in order to get through this ordeal, and even drew criticism from fellow Democrat Ray Nagin.

It also helps to know that we have a governor who is so obviously on top of things. Watching or listening to a Jindal press conference on TV or radio can be either impressive or daunting depending on your perspective. The following video is a case in point:

The sheer breadth of data that the governor seems to have at his finger tips at any moment, and the speed at which he spits out sentences and paragraphs, is both impressive and intimidating. At times he risks subjecting the press to information overload, as a dozen facts and statistics come tumbling out of his mouth every minute. If this were a less serious time such verbosity might make him appear arrogant. Indeed, the governor does have a reputation for being a bit of a “know-it-all.” But in this situation it is comforting to know that the guy in charge sounds like a know-it-all because he actually does know it all, or at least far more than anybody else. Of course, if he ever runs for national office he will have to moderate the speed of his delivery. Some people joke that Jindal goes through one sign language interpreter every week because they all get carpal tunnel syndrome. Watching the poor woman in this video, I think it might actually be true:

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin called Gustav “the mother of all storms,” saying its destruction could outstrip that from Katrina, which flooded much of his city.

“You need to be scared,” Nagin said of the Category 4 hurricane tearing along Cuba’s western coast. “You need to be concerned, and you need to get your butts moving out of New Orleans right now. This is the storm of the century.”

Governor Bobby Jindal’s public have been equally dire:

Governor Jindal said, “The most updated information from the National Hurricane Center shows that the storm is very likely to get stronger. As early as tomorrow afternoon they will issue a hurricane watch and on Sunday they will likely issue a hurricane warning for Hurricane Gustav. Louisiana will most likely begin to see tropical storm force winds Monday morning. These are very dangerous winds, and because people cannot drive in these conditions, we expect to begin contraflow Sunday morning or even late Saturday night. They are now predicting this could be a hurricane category 3 or 4 storm, and the state is working closely with coastal parishes to aid them in evacuating their residents in a timely manner.”

Governor Jindal announced that a total of 19 total parishes have declared a state of emergency now … The Governor said, “Coastal parishes should be recommending that their residents voluntarily begin to evacuate today, and some will issue mandatory evacuations tomorrow, so residents are evacuated before contraflow begins on Sunday morning.”

To give credit where credit is due, city and state officials aren’t just trying to scare New Orleans and Gulf Coast residents into evacuating. They have also done a much better job than last time at facilitating evacuation. According to Mayor Nagin, about 10,000 people have already been evacuated on buses, trains, and planes provided by the city and state governments, which is about 10,000 more people than the government had helped to evacuated at this point three years ago. Unlike last time, when there were no buses and no place for people to go to get on a bus, this time there are 17 temporary terminals where people without transportation can go to get on a bus. The state government has mobilized roughly 500 buses to service people trying to get out of the city and other parts of South Louisiana, and Governor Jindal has reportedly been asking for more buses from Texas and other states. Moreover, the city of New Orleans contracted with Amtrak to help move some 1,500 elderly people out of the city by train. Finally, as of this writing the state government has begun “contraflow” procedures on I-10, meaning that they have converted the Interstate into a one-way highway moving west away from the city. Once again, this has been done quicker than it was last time.

While it’s far too early to applaud anybody, it does appear that Louisiana is a lot better prepared for this hurricane than we were for Katrina. If Gustav changes course and hits Alabama or Texas this will all have been much ado about nothing, but it’s good to know that state and local officials have learned something from the bitter experiences of three years ago. Let me also say that, whatever their professional relationship might be like (I really have no idea) Nagin and Jindal seem to be working better together than did Nagin and Blanco. That may not be saying much, since it is difficult to imagine two politicians hating each other more than those two pols hated one another.

With all that being said, if the last couple of days have shown up anything, it is how much further we still have to go to perfect our response to these sorts of natural disasters. One of the biggest challenges we face, which I have already touched upon, is the simple problem of transportation. As a quick glance at a Louisiana map will show, there’s really only a few major routes out of New Orleans in case of a storm, including I-10 East & West, Highway 90, and the Lake Ponchartrain Causeway. That’s fine for commercial and everyday travel, but when you’re trying to get in and/or get out of a city in a hurry, it poses a real challenge. Which got me thinking: is there a cheap, safe, and most importantly fast way to move people into and out of a major city like New Orleans without relying on automobiles? The answer I came up with can be summarized in one word: monorails.

Monorails are a cheap, reliable, user friendly, and (most importantly) fast form of public transportation. Although speeds vary depending on the type of transportation desired, a typical monorail might travel at between 100 and 150 MPH for long stretches. What if a monorail were constructed from New Orleans to Baton Rouge and to Alexandria? Such a plan would likely accomplish three objectives: First, it would reduce wear and tear on our roads. Second, it would reduce consumption of fossil fuels such as oil. Third, it would provide Louisiana with a safe and speedy way of evacuating New Orleans prior to major weather-related catastrophes such as hurricanes.

What do you guys think?

You don’t believe me? Go ahead and watch this clip of Senator Biden sticking his foot in his mouth:

Now watch this movie clip of a man farting for three or four minutes:

There. It is official. Listening to a fart is more exciting and entertaining than listing to Joe Biden talk.

Aside from Biden’s endless gaffes and comatose rhetoric, the political strategy behind Obama’s pick is virtually impossible to discern. Somewhere in a dark room Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel are sitting at a table drinking copious amounts of beer. As two of the foremost exponents of the so-called “fifty state strategy,” Dean and Emanuel have spent most of the past decade grooming and supporting quality Democratic candidates in Red States and battleground states. Their efforts have helped produce a slew of attractive candidates - Kaine of Virginia, Bayh of Indiana, and Richardson of New Mexico - who might have helped swing large chunks of formerly safe Republican territory into Obama’s column this November. Instead, Senator Obama appears to have chucked that strategy right out the window by nominating a liberal senator from a northeastern state he could hardly fail to lose.

In case you’re wondering, George Obama’s famous brother is aware of him and his circumstances. Barack Obama mentions his half brother in his autobiography, and he met him during his last visit to Kenya in 2006. For his part, George Obama says he is too ashamed of his circumstances to even admit to most people that he is related to the famous U.S. Senator. Of course, this begs the question: what exactly is Barack Obama doing for his Kenyan relations?

If this were the only example of the junior Senator from Illinois allowing a close relative to suffer in penury, we might be able to over look it. But just last year, during the Democratic primaries, Obama himself made a point of discussing his Kenyan grandmother’s impoverished condition:

“It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa,”

Now, in the interest of objectivity, it’s important to note that by the standards of her own village Grandma Obama is living a fairly decent life, and some bloggers have raised serious questions about the actual extent of her penury. Nevertheless, the point is that Barack Obama himself, according to his own statements, believes that his grandmother lives in impoverished circumstances. Fine. So, what is he doing about her living situation? And for that matter, what is he doing for his half brother, who clearly does live in a “hut” and barely survives on about $1 per day?

Some people may argue that this is irrelevant to the real issues that should be the focus of this campaign. I disagree. This is a real issue, because the American people need to know that their president shares their values. One of the preeminent American values is family responsibility. Most Americans get up and go to work every day to take care of their families. Most Americans help their needy family members if they have the ability, and Barack Obama, who made four million
dollars last year, clearly has the ability to help Sarah and George Obama if he wanted to do so. The fact that he does not, despite the high level of publicity that these cases have garnered, says something very unflattering about him.

Sadly, the latest flip flop from Senator Obama isn’t nearly as entertaining, even though the remark is just as apropos in this case. This from McClatchy:

Obama made his comments in St. Petersburg during an interview with the Palm Beach Post. “My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” he said.

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” the paper quoted Obama as saying.

The change is dramatic because Obama often pointed to his opposition to drilling as a key difference between himself and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

First the Iraq surge, then the Iraq timeline, then welfare Reform, then the D.C. Gun Ban, and now this. Seriously, other than “Hope,” and “Change,” is there a major issue on which Senator Obama has not changed his position? The only problem for McCain may be choosing which Obama to attack.

What’s wrong with the movie? Well, it’s too long, for one thing. At about two and half hours, I thought the last 15 to 20 minutes felt a little forced and superfluous. The writers and director also tried to cram a little too much into the last third of the film. For one thing, there was a regrettable bit at the end where Batman uses this mega-computer, electronic surveillance thingy with about a thousand screens that can monitor every cell phone call in the city. Supposedly, the purpose of the machine is to help Batman track the Joker, but his conscientious R&D guy (played by Morgan Freeman) objects that it’s “too much power for one man.” Keep in mind, this is the same worldly wise tech geek who has been building badss machines like the bat mobile, which is basically a crossbreed between a Hummer and a Tank on steroids, as well as million dollar body armor, motorcycles with machine guns, and who knows what else. All that is OK, but the supercomputer that looks like a leftover prop from *The Matrix? Oh no, that’s “too much power.” The gizmo is an obvious attempt at tackling the very serious issue of electronic surveillance in our own society, but it’s a shallow attempt at best. About ten minutes after we see the thing it melts down when Morgan Freeman enters a password that triggers a self-destruct mechanism. Apparently, electronic snooping is OK as long as you only do it once.

The other part that I found a little forced was the introduction of a second major arch-villain, Two-Face, who fans of the comic books, the cartoons, and the TV series will remember as a major character in his own right. For a while I thought they were bringing Two-Face into the mix so he could star in a sequel, but then they killed him off in the last five minutes. It was a shame because the character, played convincingly by Aaron Eckhart, seemed like he had a lot of potential.

Naturally, the subject of wasted potential brings us to Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker. Believe it or not, some people are still debating whether Ledger’s Joker is the best Joker ever. Some people are even asking who should be the next Joker. The answer to the first question is, “Um, yeah.” The answer to the second question is, “nobody.” Ledger didn’t just succeed in this role, he owned it and finished it, at least for a generation. I mean that his performance was simply so incredible that only a fool would try to cast another actor in this role for years to come. Can you imagine someone other than Tom Hanks doing a sequel to Forrest Gump? Or to use a more appropriate analogy, can you imagine someone other than Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter? Some day, if the movie watching public has enough time to forget, we will eventually see other actors in those roles. But not now, and not any time soon. The same is true of Ledger’s Joker.

No theatrical performance, no matter how brilliant, can ever justify the loss of a human life. And if it is true, as some have suggested, that Ledger’s mastery of the Joker character helped contribute to his untimely death, then that is no less of a tragedy than if he had died making a crappy sequel to A Knight’s Tale. But oh my, what a performance! It’s a shocking role, and not just because of the violence, which was bad enough. During the course of the movie the Joker kills a his victims with a pencil (don’t ask), a shard of class, gasoline, knives, nooses, and an assortment of other conventional weapons. But beyond the violence, there is something deeply sinister and disturbing about Ledger’s demeanor, voice, and body language in this role.

I’m not given to hyperbole over movies, but an ordinary word like “terrifying” just doesn’t cut it in this instance. Perhaps gorgonian hits closer to the mark, because this Joker seems more like a creature out of a dark myth than a comic book. A Puerto Rican friend of mine once told me a shocking story about how one of his relatives got a little too deep into studying voodoo, and lost his life (and possibly his soul) because of it. My friend was a talented liar, so I have no idea if the story was true or not, but watching Heath Ledger’s Joker gave me much the same kind of feeling as hearing that story. It was almost like there was something a little too real, too visceral, about the apparition Ledger brought to life on screen. I felt that if I had been the actor’s friend I would have told him to stop, walk away from the set for a while, or maybe quit the movie altogether. I am sure that’s a huge over-reaction, but that’s what I was thinking at the time.

Next to Ledger’s Joker, the other actors’ roles pale in comparison. But it would be a shame to end this review without mentioning the solid work done by veteran actors like Michael Caine (Alfred), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes), and Gary Oldman (Commissioner Gordon). And of course, Christian Bale delivered another fine performance as the Caped Crusader. If Bale was somewhat overshadowed by the actor playing his arch-nemesis, he has no reason to be ashamed of that.

“Tony Snow has died. A young man (with my next birthday being number sixty, I am entitled to the folly of calling a fifty-three year old “young”), with a facile mind, an easy smile, and a quick wit; a man who had a perpetual twinkle in his eye when he was doing what he he born to do; a man who loved his wife and his children; a man who loved politics and maybe a little more loved the verbal sparring that comes with politics well-played; a man who desperately did not want to die.”

Now, I don’t really think Elizabeth Edwards would intentionally dis a cancer patient who has just slipped loose from the surly bonds of earth, especially given her own experiences with that disease. But her use of the word “facile” to describe Snow’s mind really is an odd choice of words, especially from a woman who is obviously adept at the use of words. According to Webster’s Dictionary the adjective facile can have a number of meanings. It can mean “easily accomplished or attained,” which doesn’t make sense in this context. It can also mean “used or comprehended with ease,” which kind of makes sense in an awkward sort of way. Perhaps she means that Tony Snow used his brain without too much difficulty to himself (I guess it could mean “user-friendly brain” or something like that). It could also mean “shallow” or “simplistic,” which wouldn’t be a very nice thing to say at all, but would be grammatically correct as well as the most common usage of the word. It could also mean Snow had a “poised or assured” mind, which would make sense and would also be a nice thing to say. But the word isn’t often used that way, and I confess when I read Edwards’ obit I was a little miffed at first, thinking she was trying to be cute and meant it in a less than flattering sense.

Then I realized it could just be a gaffe, which at this point I’m pretty sure it is. Even so (and I know that I’m just being anal about this) John needs to get his wife a thesaurus. He can certainly afford it. That’s all I’m saying.