Alito/Obama Throwdown

Am I being too boring if I'm not as shocked as some by either man's behavior? Obama's statement was false and demagogic, but the idea that he isn't allowed to criticize the court during his big speech is just silly. Presidents have criticized Congress before during the SOTU speech, so why is it some heinous breech of etiquette to call the court out when you think they are wrong? The other branches of government are separate, not sacred. And, while the precedent may be for the court to sit there like a bunch of polite rocks, once the president starts criticizing them so directly, showing a little human emotion seems to be well within reasonable bounds. In fact, telling Justice Alito that the president has a right to rake his decision over the coals while he sits there and takes it without so much as a facial tick seems like a pretty cowardly position for the president's partisans to take.

**Update**
Charles Krauthammer makes a decent point. Unlike the Congress, the Supreme Court attends the SOTU as a courtesy to the other branches. They are not required to attend, and past courts have not done so. That makes the president's attack a little more like inviting a friend for dinner and browbeating him about politics over dessert. Therefore, maybe you can argue that Obama's choice of venue was a tad rude. I still think that the folks acting as if this was some major breach, or assault on the separation of powers are more than a bit overwrought.

This Is Kind Of Nifty

The size of everything.

Speaking of NASA

One of the most valuable scientific tools around is in danger during the upcoming Martian winter. Spirit seems to be permanently stuck in her current spot, which will make it much harder for her to get the power necessary to survive the winter. The Mars rovers are one of NASA's great success stories. Hopefully the plucky little robot will surprise us yet again.

The Death of NASA

When I visited NASA, one of the impressions that hit me most strongly was an aura of neediness. NASA desperately wants what it does to seem sexy and important. Unfortunately, studying the effects of microgravity on insect development on board the ISS will just never meet that need. For many, that is precisely why manned space exploration is so vital to NASA. It challenges the imagination in a way that their current missions simply cannot. Even the potential for missions to the moon and Mars holds psychological value in this respect. However, its current mission may spell eventual doom for NASA by robbing it of any such cutting-edge mission. Here's a good write-up on the trouble facing the space agency.

Umm...Never Mind

Remember back when I wondered about the wisdom of Tom Campbell's jump into the CA Senate race? Yeah, next time I should keep my mouth shut. He's ahead by a solid margin in two different polls. Obviously we have a way to go until the primary election, but Chuck DeVore and iCarly must be hating this news. What's most surprising though is the change in fortunes for DeVore. The common wisdom was that the socially liberal and fiscally conservative (though more flexible than many would like) Campbell would take his share of the electorate out of Fiorina's hide. After all, DeVore has been spending months trying to paint her as a typical Silicon Valley squishy Republican. And yet, Fiorina has lost 5-10% of her share of the vote to Campbell while DeVore has plummeted by 20%. This race may tighten as Carly starts to spend and voters begin to pay more attention, but for now it seems to be Tom Campbell's to lose.

My Scattered Thoughts on the SOTU Speech

-I thought the opening was problematic. The imagery he started off with should have lent itself to an "America has been through tough times before and come back stronger, we can do so again" line of rhetoric. Instead, he continued for too long with a laundry list of how lousy things are. People who are unemployed, losing their homes, etc. don't need the president to tell them things are lousy. They want him to tell them things are going to get better. For once, I wouldn't have minded a little more Audacity of Hope.
-He has some good stuff early on about Reeps and Dems working together. No one who says that ever means it, but it's nice to pay lip service anyway.
-He has a line a few paragraphs in about "bad behavior on Wall Street being rewarded" while good behavior on Main Street is not. To the extent that that is true, it has largely happened on his watch.
-Remember back when Democrats criticized President Bush for cutting taxes at the expense of a balanced budget? Funny that Obama felt the need to brag about his tax cuts, and then brag about not raising the income tax, despite running deficits that would make Bush blush. (It was the right choice of course-well except the deficit part-but I'm just sayin' you probably won't hear Dems complaining about the President selling our kids futures down the river anytime soon.)
-I like the stuff about helping small businesses with tax credits.
-Can we please all stop with the high-speed railroad obsession? America is not Europe or Japan. We have a population that likes independent mobility and is insufficiently dense to make that sort of system viable.
-Who told the president that addressing the problems facing us would be "too ambitious"? I want names please.
-Loved the line about not accepting second place for the United States. That's the kind of stuff that would have better balanced his opening paragraphs.
-Does anyone believe that the president would actually veto any financial reform bill that the Congress sends him? Has anything in his first year indicated a willingness to really get into a fight with the Dem leadership in Congress over legislation? He hasn't even waded in strongly on his own signature reform, health care.
-Good on him for mentioning solar and nuclear before the obligatory nod to biofuels. Lead off with the realistic stuff. Was his line about "tough decisions" on offshore drilling supposed to be pro or con? Since it's in the context of new fuel sources, my first assumption was pro, but he's also talking about clean energy, so I'm not sure.
-I liked the talk about seeking new markets and signing trade deals, but that will require a fight with the Dems in Congress. Remember poor Colombia?
-Decent stuff on education reform. If the federal government has to stick its nose into education, things like Race To The Top are not a bad way to go about it.
-Yeah, making MORE money available for college will help make it more affordable. After all, basic economics tells us that the more money thrown at a finite resource, the cheaper it gets, right?
-Instead of doubling the child care tax credit, how about an increase in the child tax credit. Do parents who choose to stay home with their children, or who make family or other arrangements that allow them to work not deserve the same consideration as other families?
-The health care reform bit seemed a little bit like whistling in the dark. "I didn't do this simply to get a legislative victory", "I take the blame for not explaining it to you dolts more clearly", "cool off and look at our crappy plan a second time". There's dealing with the serious trouble his bill is in, and no acknowledgment that perhaps people have substantive issues with the bill.
-Good stuff on the spending freeze. Non-defense, non-discretionary spending is only about 12% of the budget, but at least he wants to freeze something.
-He keeps talking about the problems he inherited. Ok, but YOU SPENT TWO YEARS CAMPAIGNING FOR THIS JOB. YOU DON'T GET TO COMPLAIN THAT IT'S TOUGH. IT WASN'T EXACTLY FORCED ON YOU. President Bush did that in his first (I think) debate with John Kerry. It wasn't impressive then, it isn't impressive now.
-The president's statement on the Citizens United case was not only petty, it was flat-out wrong on the facts. That might be excusable for you or I, but didn't this guy teach Constitutional Law? And I loved his call for Congress to pass a law to fix it. Umm...wasn't a Congressional law what the Supremes just overturned?
-Good stuff on earmarks. Did Jeff Flake sneak that in?
-"We cannot wage a perpetual campaign..." Hey, didn't you just re-hire your 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe?
-"To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions." Good lines. Possibly the most memorable of the speech, and they'll probably hit a chord with a lot of people.
-"My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination." Classy. Way to imply that the previous administration turned a blind eye to civil rights issues just minutes after calling for bipartisanship and an end to endless campaigning.
-Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Whatever your position, what are the odds of a change to that policy in a campaign year where a bunch of red state Dems are already in trouble?
-The close was kind of schmaltzy, but it was the type of schmaltz you expect from a presidential speech. He does it pretty well. Not Clinton well, but still pretty well.

Overall, I obviously disagreed with a lot of the policy stuff, but just as a speech, it lacked coherence. That's a typical problem with SOTU addresses. Everyone wants a shout-out for their particular issue, and the president's speechwriters feel a need to squeeze them all in. It was a middling speech, but a great speaker giving it.

Rod Dreher, Call Your Office!

Brits don't know where bacon comes from. In related news, Homer Simpson rolls over in grave.

More Climate Fun

The IPCC starts taking water from within. But don't worry, there are years of government cap-and-trade schemes, ethanol boondoggles, EPA power grabs, and unhinged lectures ahead of us before people start focusing on more realistic possibilities.

Heckuva Job Rajendra!

The IPCC, the body whose work is supposed to convince us to sabotage the economies of the major industrial powers, is in a bit of trouble for saying things that aren't scientifically accurate.

Is Anyone Else Confused By This?

Mike Huckabee currently leads Barack Obama in PPP's 2012 election polling. Of course, this type of polling is worth less than nothing in predicting what will happen in 2012. It's also a little unfair to compare the approval ratings of a guy with a tough job to a guy who gets to sit behind a desk and spout off all day. The fact that the Huckster leads Barry O isn't what I find interesting about this poll. What is really fascinating is WHY he leads. Apparently he is more popular with independent voters by a 44-38 margin.

But isn't the common wisdom that independents tend to be socially more liberal and fiscally conservative? That's why they swung away from the free-spending GWB and the Republican congress in 2006 and 2008, right? If that is really the case, one would think that a former Baptist minister who once called the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed" is hardly a great fit to win over these crucial swing voters. Perhaps Huck is so charming on his TV show (I don't know, I've never seen it) that he wins them over despite their views. Or perhaps the common wisdom on independent voters is less accurate than one might think.

Tom Campbell Switches Races

Gubernatorial candidate Tom Campbell is expected to announce tomorrow that he will jump into the Republican primary race to face Barbara Boxer for her US Senate seat.

This race is an interesting one for me personally. My heart is with Chuck Devore, especially given the fact that he has been plugging away, building support for this run for over a year now. He constantly travels the state to speak to small groups and has built up a substantial network of grassroots support. However, there's a part of my brain that keeps pointing out that Carly Fiorina probably has a better shot at knocking off Boxer in the general election. Conservatives aren't terribly effective at gaining statewide office in California, and a moderate, pro-life, Republican woman might be just the right combination to enthuse Republicans while capturing Democrats and independent voters.

Having said all of that, I have one big question about Campbell's jump. Devore is the red-meat conservative with grassroots support, Fiorina is the attractive moderate candidate with star power and money. What does Campbell bring to the table? He's fleeing the governor's race because Whitman and Poizner drop more in tip money than his entire campaign budget. Ok. But he can't transfer the pittance he has raised for a statewide race to a Senate race (had he moved into another statewide race like Insurance Commissioner he could have taken his money with him) and he is months behind the other two candidates in preparation and fundraising. He doesn't fill an obvious political vacuum (he probably fills the same ideological space as Fiorina, though he's a little to her left on social issues) and California Republican primary races aren't known for being kind environments for penniless moderates.

Admittedly though, he is a smart and experienced guy. Tom Campbell's one indisputable skill is his wonkery. With a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago, a JD from Harvard, and a resume that includes stints in Congress, the Assembly, and as dean of UC Berkeley's Business School, he's usually the smartest guy in any room he enters. And we all know how well wonkery sells in political races. Just ask Presidents Paul Tsongas, Phil Gramm, and Mitt Romney.

Connecticut Senate Race

The resignation of Senator Dodd puts Connecticut's Senate seat squarely back in the column of a "Safe Democratic" race. The state's AG seems to have commanding leads over every Republican opponent. I'd say that this turn of events can mean only one thing. The Republicans need to go with Linda McMahon as their candidate. I know her poll numbers trail those of former Congressman Rob Simmons, but Linda has a special advantage. Vince. For those not familiar with the world of professional wrestling, Vince is known for finding unique ways of dealing with his opposition. He even has an assessment of the new health care plan prepared.

Health Care Reform Transparency

Please read the next sentence carefully. THERE WILL NEVER BE TOTALLY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT NEGOTIATIONS ON A CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL ISSUE. End of discussion. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong. This is common sense if you think about it for more than two seconds. If negotiations on the health care bill were openly televised on CSPAN, there would be too much incentive for individual legislators to posture for their voters, give long-winded speeches, and otherwise act like performing seals. Deals are made when the principles meet in private away from the pressure of their voters to stick it to the "bad guys". It isn't perfect, but that's just life. It allows them to be candid with each other, strike the side deals that smooth the way to a majority, throw ideas at the wall to see what sticks, etc.

So in the large, principled sense, I don't blame Obama/Reid/Pelosi for reneging on all of the silly transparency talk during the campaign. They said what the voters wanted them to say, but now they're not going to deliberately impede their signature legislation just to keep a campaign promise voters were naive to expect in the first place. If you believed them (or ANY politician who promises a new standard of ethical behavior), then you're probably not a person who should be voting anyway. I DO have a Nigerian banker I'd like you to e-mail though... However, from a practical standpoint, because this bill stinks and I want it dead, I hope the Republicans take this issue and ride till the wheels fall off. The Dems made a decision to kill Republicans on the transparency issue in the election, and in exchange they exposed themselves to similar treatment down the road. Time to pay the piper guys.

Japanese Whalers Don't Mess Around

Here's a video of them sinking a boatload of morons. As a warning note, the drug-addled hippies filming this incident demonstrate that the only word they can articulate besides "whoa" is an f-bomb.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the whaling industry in Japan. I think they're on the wrong side of this issue. But nothing, and I MEAN NOTHING, makes me more sympathetic to their side than the asinine antics of extremist environmental groups.

COEXIST Reexamined

http://wisertime.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/coexist/

Presidential Protest

So the president is objecting to his picture being used for commercial purposes on a billboard? Ok, it's silly to think that the most famous man in American can control his image like that, but if that's your policy, fine. But then what was appearing in a commercial for George Lopez's talk show all about? Given the quality of the show, maybe Obama considers that charity work?

Climaquiddick Continued

Jon Stewart sums things up nicely.

Climategate/Climaquiddick

For those who haven't heard yet, one of the 800 pound gorillas in the global warming debate, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was recently hacked. Over 1,000 e-mails and even more related documents were absconded with and publicly released. The university and CRU are trying to play off the e-mails and documents as harmless exchanges of ideas, while climate skeptics are convinced that they pretty much discredit the whole concept of global warming. They have been referred to as, "not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud" and "quite breathtaking". Defenders and attackers break down pretty much along pre-determined lines, though there are a few exceptions. Most notably, George Monbiot, a well-known environmentalist, has admitted that the e-mails could "scarcely be more damaging".

Of course, what would this whole story be without my scientifically unsound punditry? So, here goes. There is little doubt that CRU scientists engaged in thuggish behavior. E-mails show attempts to circumvent a FOIA request, cherry-picking data, and most importantly, pressure on peer-reviewed journals that dare to publish papers sceptical of global warming from the very same people who base their rejection of skeptics on their lack of published papers. At the very least, the scientists involved in the most egregious acts should find themselves discredited, embarrassed, and jobless. However, just as I would reject someone arguing that private hypocrisy from a politician invalidates their political arguments, private thuggery from a scientist does little to invalidate otherwise trustworthy scientific data. One can be a thug and a lout, and yet still be right.

The much more interesting aspect of all of this will be the code that was leaked. Global warming alarm is based on models of future climate shifts derived largely from historical data. The only alternative way of assessing its validity would be to sit around and see if we all fry, which has certain inherent drawbacks. However, this means that the level of concern we should display hinges in large part on the reliability of these models. Climate scientists have resisted making their models and data available for public assessment at every opportunity, which does not inspire much confidence. Now that CRU's data has been made available despite their best attempts to protect it, scores of interested geeks are pouring over the models and the data. Their conclusions will take time, but will be far more revealing than anecdotes about the bad behavior of a few scientific bullies.

P.S. In case it needs to be made clear, the hackers obviously did something wrong, and if caught should be prosecuted under the applicable statues. But just as the thuggish behavior of these scientists isn't conclusive evidence of bad scientific results, the illegal behavior of the hackers shouldn't invalidate what they have uncovered.

Conversation Between American Journalist and Iranian Protester

IP: "I saw a Twittered headline from MSNBC's website, which is blocked by our government, that 41 students were arrested at the University of California Berkeley for taking over a building as an act of protest. Why is your government trying to keep students from their solidarity with the oppressed people of Iran as our government continues to crack down?"

AJ: "Actually, the protest had nothing to do with the suppression of dissidents here in Iran since your stolen election..."

IP: "Well, I can understand that. As bad as we have it here, there are more dire situations which have been going on far longer. Were they protesting the treatment of women around the world? I understand that Berkeley prides itself on caring about human rights and the trafficking, forced marriage, genital mutilation, and repression of education among the world's women is a travesty that has been going on for centuries."

AJ: "No, actually..."

IP: "Ahh, then it must have been Cuba. The jailing of dissidents, the starving of the Cuban people, and the bigotry towards the Afro-Cuban population are all terrible things. I understand why those would take precedence over us."

AJ: "Well...to be perfectly honest, it wasn't Cuba. In fact, many of the students who were protesting argue that Cuba has a better health care system than America while wearing Che Guevara t-shirts."

IP: "Hmm...that is odd. I thought American students condemned murder and needless war making like that of Che Guevara. Oh well, with their concern over the Sudan, perhaps they have not had time to educate themselves on the real human rights situation in Cuba."

AJ: "Well, you DO occasionally see a bumper sticker protesting the slaughter in the Sudan on the back of a student's car, but actually the protest was about a problem much closer to home."

IP: "Ahh, I understand. After all, no country is perfect, and they must feel that America cannot be an effective force for human rights until it has cleaned its own house. What egregious violation of American rights were they upset over?"

AJ: "Well, you see, their college tuition was increased by 33%."

IP: "..."

AJ: "No it's serious. Previously, the University of California system allowed the best and brightest from around the state to have a subsidized public education that was far cheaper than most private schools, while maintaining a level of academic prestige on par with that of all but the best private universities. Now, well, it's still the premier public education system, but with the reduction in the amount of subsidization that comes from the state, some of the students might be forced to transfer into the second-tier system, the California State University System, or even worse, they might have to get jobs!"

IP: "I'm sorry, my English is not the best. It almost sounded to me like you are saying that, in a time of severe recession and high unemployment, the students of your university system feel it is more important to protest over fee increases to their STILL HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED EDUCATION, than it is to shoulder their share of the country's hardship in a time of widespread crisis. All of this while ignoring the plights of oppressed and poverty-stricken people worldwide."

AJ: "Actually, your English is excellent. You simply don't understand that these students DESERVE subsidized educations. After all, they..."

IP: "Unfortunately, the sound of shooting seems to be getting closer. Perhaps you can educate me further on the plight of these poor students from a safer location. Goodbye."

Now This Is Just Cool

Check it out.