May 2008 Archives

The Obama family has left Trinity United, their church of almost 25 years, after the most recent insane racist sermon.

Words cannot describe the surreality of watching a middle-aged white man in a priest's collar appearing like he is trying to imitate Jeremiah Wright at his most outrageous.

[garbled] expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don't want ot make this political, because you know I'm really very unpolitical.

When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, 'this is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.'

Then out of nowhere, 'I'm Barack Obama!'

Imitating Hillary's response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, 'Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'

(mocks crying)

She wasn't the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!

So Barack Obama announced his "disappointment" and left the church. That's Presidential-quality judgment there, folks! It only took him 25 years to recognize what 99% of the rest of America knew at first blush: Trinity United and its pastors are anti-American racist lunatics.

But I'm being disingenuous... it's obvious Obama knew the nature of his church from the get-go -- even if he didn't inhale, he puffed enough to fit in. He's leaving now not because he doesn't like the taste, but because his formerly private vice has become all-too-public. The crowd he's trying to join now doesn't appreciate the "nuance" of his former clique, so he's having to choose.... Now that Obama's too good for them, it will be interesting to see if his old friends still support him.

Update:

Holy insanity, Batman, get a load of Obama's reasons for quitting the church:

Obama told reporters he didn't want his "church experience to be a political circus — I think most American people will understand that, and wouldn't want to subject their church to that, either." He said it has been "months" since he has attended Trinity. ...

Obama said he also regrets “all the attention that my campaign has visited on” the church.

So... he's not leaving because the church is full of racist crackpots, but because he feels bad about all the national media attention the church has been getting? Talk about tone deaf.

Glenn Reynolds almost certainly knows more about America's and China's space programs than I do, but I think his characterization of Chinese progress vs. American stagnation ignores at least one important consideration.

Space experts differ on whether China wants to compete directly with the U.S.—perhaps, given our slow and fumbling efforts, beating us back to the Moon—or simply displace Japan as the prime technological power in Asia. On the one hand, the U.S. retains a huge lead, while China is still building up spacecraft, like lunar probes and orbital docking equipment, that we mastered back in the 1960s. On the other hand, like America in the 60s, China is forging ahead, while the U.S. in the 21st century is, at best, standing still.

What would America be doing if we weren't standing still? Sending people to Mars? Establishing a permanent base on the moon? Lowering the cost of lifting mass into earth orbit? Those are all great ideas that I'm very much in favor of... but they're also much harder than what we did in the 1960s and what China is doing now. It seems that the cost and difficulty of progress in space isn't linear, and America has hit a steep part of the curve. China may be catching up to us, but that doesn't mean that they'll be able to bound past us... they're likely to run smack into the same mountains we have.

America's space program has stagnated, but not only because of stifling bureaucracy, lack of vision, and national distraction. The next steps, as most people envision them, are going to be harder, more expensive, and more dangerous than what we've done in the past, by more than an order of magnitude. I'm sure Reynolds knows all this, and perhaps he'd even care to elaborate on what I've said.

Now that I know the game, I'm restarting Travian on US2 in the Southeast quadrant. If you want to play, use this link and I'll earn some bonus gold at no cost to you :) If you want to play on US2 and plan to play seriously, start in the Southeast and shoot me an email.

It's amazing that there are still uncontacted tribes anywhere in the world, and it's very sad to me that anyone hesitates to bring them into modernity.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil — One of Brazil's last uncontacted Indian tribes has been spotted in the far western Amazon jungle near the Peruvian border, the National Indian Foundation said Thursday.

The Indians were sighted in an Ethno-Environmental Protected Area along the Envira River in flights over remote Acre state, said the Brazilian government foundation, known as Funai. ...

"Four distinct isolated peoples exist in this region, whom we have accompanied for 20 years," Funai expert Jose Carlos Meirelles Junior said in a statement.

The tribe sighted recently is one of the last not to be contacted by officials. Funai does not make contact with such Indian tribes and prevents invasions of their land to ensure their autonomy, the foundation said.

I think it's morally perverse to leave these human beings living in absolute destitution -- doomed to disease, starvation, and misery -- simply because they're ignorant of modern civilization. Any one of us, in their place but knowing what we know, would instantly choose modernity over savagery; it's only due to the twisted logic of "multiculturalism" that we hesitate to rescue these people from their pointless suffering.

These Indians need to be given the same choices we have, the same respect for their human dignity, and they can't make informed decisions if we leave them in ignorance. They aren't "cute" or "quaint", they aren't pets or specimens to be studied. They're people. Just because they're ignorant doesn't mean we should abandon them to lives of barbarism.

From a Christian perspective, evangelism alone is sufficient reason to make contact. Ignorance of the Gospel is no excuse, and the eternal futures of these Indians are at risk. They need to hear about Jesus Christ, how their sins can be forgiven, and how much God loves them. Anything less is in direct violation of the Great Commission.

Matthew 28:18-20: Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I wouldn't approach it like the Harrises do, but the idea of voluntary simplicity is very appealing to me.

Like many other young couples, Aimee and Jeff Harris spent the first years of their marriage eagerly accumulating stuff: cars, furniture, clothes, appliances and, after a son and a daughter came along, toys, toys, toys.

Now they are trying to get rid of it all, down to their fancy wedding bands. Chasing a utopian vision of a self-sustaining life on the land as partisans of a movement some call voluntary simplicity, they are donating virtually all their possessions to charity and hitting the road at the end of May. ...

“The idea in the movement was ‘everything you own owns you,’ ” said Dr. Grigsby, who sees roots of the philosophy in the lives of the Puritans. “You have to care for it, store it. It becomes an appendage, I think. If it enhances your life and helps you do the things you want to do, great. If you are burdened by these things and they become the center of what you have to do to live, is that really positive?”

The people profiled in the article seem to be more like hippies than I am, but I do my best to minimize my accumulation of junk. I'm not good at throwing things away, but I am good at not buying things in the first place. Generally I follow a less well defined version of the $100-per day rule.

For every $100 that I want to spend on the purchase of a new product, I must wait one day before I make the purchase. This creates a self-imposed ‘cooling-off’ period.

If a new gadget costs $100, I have to wait one day until I can purchase the gadget.

If a new gizmo costs $400, I have to wait four days until I can purchase the gizmo.

If a new thingamajig costs $1400, I have to wait two weeks until I can purchase the thingamajig.

But I pretty much let every potential purchase rattle around in my mind for at least a week.

(HT: My Money Blog.)

Last week I wrote that that local governments should have broader authority than the federal government, and this example of a federal court striking down a local anti-illegal-immigration law demonstrates my underlying point exactly.

FARMERS BRANCH, Texas (AP) -- A Dallas suburb's ban on apartment rentals to illegal immigrants, an ordinance passed by city leaders and later endorsed in a vote by its residents, is unconstitutional, a federal judge found Wednesday.

Only the federal government can regulate immigration, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay concluded in his decision.

The city didn't defer to the federal government on the matter, violating the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allows for the federal government to pre-empt local laws, Lindsay said.

The citizens of the city have essentially no recourse. The apparently large majority who favored the law will go ignored in their own home, subjected to the politics and whims of a distant authority. They could appeal to the courts or to their political representatives, but everyone knows their pleas would go unheard.

On the other hand, when municipalities enact "sanctuary city" policies that explicitly thwart federal immigration laws, the courts are nowhere to be found. I wouldn't object to sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants so vehemently if we citizens were allowed to have sanctuaries of our own. But the almighty courts say no.

Almost a decade ago researchers transplated lamprey eel brains into robots and taught them to navigate towards light sources, and now monkeys are controlling robotic arms with their thoughts. What I'm interested in most for myself is a direct neural link with Google, minus the ads.

There was a funnel cloud in St. Louis yesterday but apparently it didn't touch down and become an official tornado.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus wants to debate global warming with Al Gore, but I don't think it would be a fair fight since Klaus is an actual scientist rather than merely a celebrity endorser.

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday. ...

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Klaus is smart and direct: he attacks the invidious motives behind global warming alarmism because he sees in them the same alluring evil that drove communism and fascism to sacrifice hundreds of millions of people during the 20th century.

You don't hear much good news on the illegal immigration front these days, but here's a very encouraging story that also contains some great economic developments:

IRAPUATO, Mexico - Antonio Martinez used to pay smugglers thousands of dollars each year to sneak him into the United States to manage farm crews. Now, the work comes to him.

Supervising lettuce pickers in central Mexico, Martinez earns just half of the $1,100 a week he made in the U.S. But the job has its advantages, including working without fear of immigration raids.

Martinez, now a legal employee of U.S.-owned VegPacker de Mexico, is exactly the kind of worker more American farm companies are seeking. Many have moved their fields to Mexico, where they can find qualified people, often with U.S. experience, who can't be deported.

"Because I never moved my family to the U.S., I was always alone there," said Martinez, 45, who could never get a work permit, even after 16 years in agriculture in California and Arizona. "When I got the opportunity to be close to my family, doing similar work, I didn't even have to think about it."

Sounds good to me! Everyone wins. The "work Americans won't do" is still done by Mexicans, but legally and in their own country. America gets to buy cheap food but doesn't have to deal with the expense and secondary crime associated with illegal immigration. Mexican workers are able to make a living, live with their families, and invest in their own country's infrastructure, including education and health care.

The only losers are the drug cartels who smuggle people and contraband across the border, the Mexican government which exploits illegal emigration as a way to rid itself of poor people, and perhaps some American farmers who are too slow to keep up with the changes. Some farmers seem to be adapting quite profitably, however.

American companies now farm more than 45,000 acres of land in three Mexican states, employing about 11,000 people, a 2007 survey by the U.S. farm group Western Growers shows.

There were no earlier studies to document how much the acreage has grown. But U.S. direct investment in Mexican agriculture, which includes both American companies moving their operations to Mexico and setting up Mexican partnerships, has swelled sevenfold to $60 million since 2000, Mexico's Economy Department told The Associated Press.

Major corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Bunge have invested across Latin America for decades, particularly in countries like Brazil, where agribusiness is booming.

45,000 acres and $60 million are minuscule figures, but they're sure to grow over time as resources are reallocated due to legal and economic forces. Hopefully those who argue that we "need" illegal immigration will take note of these developments. If they don't, they'll end up on the losing end of the stick as well.

Congratulations to NASA, Lockheed Martin, and their partners for the successful landing of the Phoenix spacecraft on Mars.

The probe is equipped with a robotic arm to dig for water-ice thought to be buried beneath the surface.

It will begin examining the site for evidence of the building blocks of life in the next few days.

I bet it won't find much in the way of life, but I'm sure the lander in situ will one day be the centerpiece of a pretty cool museum. Maybe I'll get to visit someday!

What I'm really looking forward to visiting, though, are the future Voyager 1 and 2 museums that will be space stations positioned near the spacecraft and matched to the Voyagers' velocities.

IETester is an absolute life-saver. I wish I had found it months ago. With this amazing piece of software a web developer can see how his page will look in IE 5.5, 6, 7, and 8.1 all on the same computer. Since every version of Internet Explorer has its own quirks and it's impossible to install more than one version on machine, it can be very difficult to design a website that looks decent in every version. BrowserShots is a very handy system, but it's a pain to wait 5 minutes to several hours for a screenshot of your site to be taken. With IETester, you can test your site on your own machine in just a few seconds. Amazing.

To the tune of "I Will Survive".

(HT: AG.)

Here's some footage from the air of the recent tornadoes in Kansas and Oklahoma. You can clearly see the twisters gobble up buildings from various angles, and even a pig farm. Unfortunately, I believe I read elsewhere that many of the pigs were killed.

(HT: Jessica.)

Hillary is in trouble for pointing out the obvious: someone could get assassinated.

Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday brought up the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama - drawing a furious reaction from the front-runner's camp.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out. ...

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton rebuked Clinton, saying her remark was "unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Any comments about assassination and the primary contest are especially sensitive because Obama is the first African-American to advance so far in the race for the White House and he has faced threats, congressional sources have said.

Aside from anyone's skin color, Presidential assassination attempts and successes aren't exactly rare. I've often wondered what would happen if one of the major party candidates were killed the day of the election.

Furthermore, I'm sure that the possibility that Barack Obama will be assassinated is one of the scenarios that the Clinton camp has envisioned as one of their few remaining routes to the White House.

My wife just received a "survey" from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The letter and form were from Senator John Ensign and purported to be a very important survey of "good Republicans'" opinions on various political matters, from illegal immigration to the War on Terror to the completely non-leading "Do you believe that Democrats have won a mandate to set our nation's agenda?"

So Jessica fills out the whole form, trusting when it said "I MUST find out -- as soon as possible -- where loyal grassroots Republicans like you stand on the most important issues facing our nation today."

Of course, when she reaches the end of the survey there are three checkboxes:

YES! I want to help build a strong foundation of Republicans grassroots support for an all-out, national effort to reestablish a Republican Senate Majority that cares about my interests and listens to my concerns. I am enclosing my most generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50, $Other.

No. I do not want to participate in this vital Republican Senate Leadership Survey. However, I am returning my Survey Document along with a generous contribution to help build the Republican Party's grassroots base of support to retake the U.S. Senate in 2008. I am enclosing a donation of $500, $250, $100, $50, $Other.

No. I do not wish to participate in this Survey, nor do I wish to make a donation to help the Republican Party. I am returning my Survey Document along with a contribution of $11 to help cover the cost of tabulating and redistributing my Survey.

So... they aren't really interested in our opinions at all, they're interested in our money. Suck an egg, Senator Ensign. How stupid do you think we are? This whole letter is ridiculously insulting. Someone told them the password was "grassroots" and they use it in every paragraph. They even have the nerve to write:

Remember, we are only two seats away from REGAINING THE MAJORITY.

Really? The general consensus seems to be that the Democrats will pick up five to six seats. Hm, maybe if we hadn't torn up this survey the Republicans would have had a chance.

Maybe we wouldn't have torn up the survey if the Republicans weren't such a joke. We'll hold our noses and vote for John McCain despite our misgivings, but the House and the Senate Republicans aren't getting a single penny from us until they ditch the pork, corruption, sex scandals, and waste that have defined them for the past decade.

I am exhausted. The past couple of weeks have been extremely hectic, and I'm very excited about my upcoming four-day weekend. The weather promises to be warm and sunny, and I've hardly got any plans at all!

What about you?

I'm glad that airlines are starting to charge for luggage. As a frequent flier who often doesn't check any bags at all, I think it's more fair to charge those who do than to spread the cost across all travelers by increasing ticket prices.

American Airlines will start charging $15 for the first checked bag, cut domestic flights and lay off workers -- probably in the thousands -- as the nation's largest carrier grapples with record-high fuel prices. ...

American Airlines will start charging $15 for the first checked bag, cut domestic flights and lay off workers -- probably in the thousands -- as the nation's largest carrier grapples with record-high fuel prices.

Good. I never need any of these services, so why should I have to underwrite their costs? By separating out these costs, the airlines can charge people for the services they actually use.

First issue: airlines need to be strict with their carry-on size limitations. If they start charging, people will start trying to carry-on giant suitcases that will crowd out other customers.

Second issue: They were dumb to present this as a fee for luggage... they should have raised ticket prices and then offered a discount to people who don't check bags. Or maybe not, what do I know? Maybe higher ticket prices would have made their flights show up lower in travel search engines.

You might be surprised to learn that I have no problem with Canton, OH, considering jail time for homeowners who don't cut their grass.

For residents tired of that overgrown lot that resembles a minijungle next door, the city wants to help by trying to put high-grass violators behind bars.

City Council wants to beef up its existing high-grass and weeds law by making a second offense a fourth-degree misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $250 and up to 30 days in jail.

In the spring and summer, it's not uncommon for council members to field complaints from residents about overgrown lots owned by individuals or banks and corporations that ignore the law and notices in the mail.

I believe that lower levels of government should have more power to restrict liberty than higher levels of government. I'd oppose a federal or state law governing the height of my lawn, but wouldn't mind having such an ordinance in my city. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind allowing cities or perhaps even states to establish government-authorized religions if their population desired it.)

Lower levels of government are more responsive to citizens than higher levels are. Anyone can go to a city council meeting and be heard, but just try getting your state legislature or Congress to pay any attention to you. Furthermore, it's easier to leave a city that has laws you don't like than it is to leave a state, and easier to leave a state than to leave the United States. Our joint state-federal system was designed to encourage competition and experimentation between different sets of laws. I'm not sure the doctrine of "incorporation" serves us well in this context.

So how should the limits of power be defined for various levels of government? I don't know! That will take some more thought.