Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

Cons:

* She makes Barack Obama look experienced.

* It’s unknown whether this trooper scandal has legs.

Pros:

* Otherwise an ethical bulldog.

* Brings youth into the campaign.

* A budget hawk from the sounds of things, especially concerning waste and fraud.

* A very risky choice, which helps McCain regain some maverick credentials he might have lost.

I have to say - in terms of improving the ticket, I think this is a slam dunk for McCain, and can only help him, but only if he sells it. It’s not going to be an easy sell at all, but it could pay off HUGE.

But honestly? I’m just glad it ain’t Romney or Lieberman.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

1) Compared to his 2004 speech, this has got to be a bit of a downer. And that wasn’t great shakes. I think the two Clinton speeches were better (Melvin made a great point - Bill’s was so good, you wanted to believe the crap he was spewing), and as a policy matter, the Montana guy was loads better.

2) I’d love to see anyone in the media try and figure out how he actually plans to achieve even a quarter of what he talked about tonight.

3) How can you spend 10 minutes on the economy without talking about international competition and expect to be taken seriously?

4) He sure likes shoveling counterfactual crap these days, eh?

I dunno. If I don’t get it by now, I never will.

I’ll cross my fingers for Eric Cantor tomorrow, I guess.

Originally published at Jeff's Journal. You can comment here or there.

I never lived in a dorm, and only spent a year in an apartment, so I never experienced the “fire alarm going off mere seconds before hopping into the shower” situation.

Fun times, really.

Thank you lady downstairs for burning your porkchops!

Originally published at Jeff's Journal. You can comment here or there.

Ahhhhgfdgdfgdfgergbrbn.

1) Summer reading = over. A good summer, but also glad it’s over and I can somewhat relax again. I’m always amazed at how much I end up running on adrenaline rushes for a lot of stuff, and then I’m shocked when I’m exhausted at the end. I took Friday off, slept in, and pretty much stayed on the couch all day playing games.

2) Life doesn’t seem to want to slow down, either - we have a Red Sox game coming up, another weekend in Massachusetts, we still have to figure out when to see people we haven’t seen in a while, still house hunting. Why is life insane?

3) D&D was awesome on Sunday. We went Wyvern hunting, and did it well. Ann played her first week as a Dwarven Fighter, and was pulling action movie stunts almost immediately, and it was pretty awesome. Best battle I’ve been in since I’ve started playing, hands down.

4) Someone want to explain why Pac-Man: Championship Edition is so addicting? Anyone?

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

Finally getting out from being buried. Still not caught up.

* Remember when I said Iraq wouldn’t actually matter in this election? I hate to say I told you so…

* Corporate taxes: 20 reasons to kill them, and why we need to cut them. This is really a key issue this campaign, and I still don’t get why it’s not getting more play.

* Obama’s impressed with Beijing’s infrastructure, begging the question as to exactly how uninformed he is. I mean, this is basic stuff, isn’t it?

* This is one of those scathing pieces I wish I could crank out: Victor Davis Hansen nails it on Obama and energy.

* If you’re wondering why I’m still against a national health care plan, or if you’re in favor of one, this is worth your time.

* Reason on Saddleback. Very interesting take.

* As anti-Obama as I am, this sort of ad is ridiculous. It’s uninformed, it’s incredibly low, and it says nothing about him. Obama, to my knowledge, has met his Kenyan half-brother George. My understanding is that they didn’t really have much to say to each other, and they’re related only in the way that they both have the same father - a father who Obama wasn’t at all close to. I’ll say this much - if I had a half brother half a world away, I’m not sure I’d be doing much for him either for the same reasons.

* A follow-up to last week’s question on Obama and the Born Alive Infants Act: recognizing that FactCheck has been shady over the last few years, they have a pretty good overview, cutting through the crap.

* Finally, two fun links: In praise of Lex Luthor, a fun overview of why Lex Luthor is awesome. As a Marvel guy, I was impressed. Second, Woody Allen at the box office - has anyone been more acclaimed with less box office juice? A cool stat - The Dark Knight has made more money this summer than all of Allen’s movies combined.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

I heard the tribute to Jimmy Carter. A few thoughts.

1) CNN interviewed some woman from Georgia who was a HUGE carter fan. Do Democrats really want to go back to that?

2) When one of the most compelling comparisons to your candidate is that his policy slate mirrors one of the worst Presidents of the last 40 years, why would you highlight that President at the convention?

3) It’s funny - Carter was talking about how the government “abandoned” the Katrina people (whatever, it’s their convention), and how they had to pick up and work themselves and how great they’ve done. Uh…isn’t that conservative ideology in a nutshell?

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

I was convinced by yesterday afternoon that it’d be Evan Bayh. I had heard Chet Edwards as well, and those were two Democrats I was actually a fan of, and was fully prepared for some disappointment about that.

It turns out it ended up being Biden anyway, who I figured for the last few days anyway.

Biden is a safe pick in a lot of respects - closes that experience gap a bit, considered strong on foriegn policy. On the same token, though, was there really a good choice for Obama in this case? He picks an establishment guy who’s even more gaffe-prone and felt that Obama wasn’t ready to be President not too recently. Expect that quote to make a number of appearances shortly.

Part of me is laughing, the other part is really curious to see how this plays out.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

Okay, I’m hearing a ton about this, and I can’t really separate the noise from the evidence, and maybe someone here can.

Obama had that vote in the Illinois Senate that has everyone up in arms, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. My understanding of it is that the law would give those who survive abortions the same legal status as those who weren’t aborted. Obama opposed this bill, many are calling it akin to supporting infanticide, and I’m utterly confused.

Any help here?

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

So much for a regular schedule this week. Got backed up and now I have two late nights at work, so here’s some stuff I’ve had lying around.

* The chairman of a gay dating site in Cambridge, Massachusetts was forced to resign following a donation to McCain. This is unfortunate.

* McCain gaining with evangelicals and possibly everyone else following his performance at Saddleback last week (a very interesting discussion if you’re unaware of it). How well did McCain do? Obama’s people had to suggest he cheated. I can’t wait for the real debates at this point.

* More bizarre stuff: Access to the Annenburg Challenge Papers, which document former Weather Undeground bomber and Barack Obama’s Chicago organization, is being blocked. One has to ask why, and it’s hard not to assume the worst.

* Patterico on July fundraising totals.

* Phil Gramm wasn’t wrong.

* United States people aren’t the only dummies in some areas.

Originally published at Jeff's Journal. You can comment here or there.

I hope to reach some sort of basic schedule again at some point this week. Business + craziness = no time for annoying people on the internets.

1) Another busy weekend. August is poo!

I shouldn’t say that - it was busy, but another generally fun weekend. We hit a movie on Friday, did an Irace family gathering in Maine followed by a stop at the Great Lost Bear and home on Saturday, and a Sox game on Sunday followed by dinner in Watertown with the D&D crew minus Billy.

1a) At the Sox game, I sat next to one of the crazier people I’ve ever encountered at a Sox game. He’s convinced there’s a massive conspiracy to oust all the nonwhite players a la the Yawkeys of old, that the games are fixed by the pitching coaches, etc. Stunning, really.

2) Downsides to the weekend? I’m probably more sunburnt right now than I’ve been in a very long time. I tried to be proactive, too, but my face is all bright red as well as the tops of my hands. Ah well. It’ll be a sore day or two I suppose, but the switch to a long-sleeve shirt paid some serious dividends.

3) This week’s the last week of summer reading. I don’t know if this has been more harrowing because of drama or just because, but I’ll be glad when it’s done nonetheless.

Enough for now.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

I feel very sickly today, slept very late, yeah.

But hey, that doesn’t mean conspiracy theorists still can’t be fun.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

…of a non-political nature.

* At work the last few days, I’ve been pulling some Lurlene McDaniel books that were rather beaten up. Can someone, anyone explain the appeal of dying teenager love stories to me?

* Maybe it’s just me, but is there something with some conversion that makes British programming look washed out? Is it just that Hollywood cameras are better?

* Is the Civilization series really the greatest “one more turn” game in the universe?

* Along those same lines, couldn’t some video game company make millions licensing a bunch of those silly flash games, throwing ‘em on a CD, and charging $20? I know XBox Live did it with Bejeweled, but I’m shocked a DVD with, like, 6 gigs of flash games doesn’t exist.

* Listening to The Baseball Project recently, has there ever been a concept band that’s worked well at all? Not so much a band with a schtick (like, say, Daft Punk or Tenacious D), but an actual overriding concept?

* Dwarves with Battleaxes = always cool, right?

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

Crazy Russian spamming aside, the situation in Georgia is really disheartening. Part of me wonders if we really should have seen this coming with Putin (where was our intelligence again?), but it’s happening and it’s apparently nasty and bad. That’s the tough part.

Now, Georgia is one of our better allies in Eastern Europe. They’re trying to get into NATO, etc. Meanwhile, Russia’s been nothing but crazy aggressive and unpredictable. So which Presidential candidate sounds like they have a better grasp on the situation. Here’s candidate A:

Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave.

The government of Georgia has called for a cease-fire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.

Here’s B:

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

For once, I’m not being entirely fair - McCain made statement, Obama made one, then another more strongly-worded one.

You’d think Obama would take advantage of what’s a clear situation to show a little oomph in the one area he’s at a distinct disadvantage. Instead, not only does Obama drop a few pithy lines about getting along, but looks completely uninformed as to the ongoing situation. What’s worse? Obama chairs a subcommittee that deals with NATO issues - you’d think he might have a little more information to use here. Maybe.

Originally published at Jeff's Journal. You can comment here or there.

Still recovering, in a way.

1) Saturday morning, we went up to Hillsboro to look at this house. Interestingly, I think Ann ended up liking it less than I did - the floor plan was great, and there was a lot to love, but there was also more we didn’t - for instance, the interesting choices the former owners made with things as simple as doors and flooring to more questionable issues like the converted shed-like structure in the back that was tilted at a 20 degree angle. Whether it would realistically pass inspection was another concern, but by the time we got around to thinking about that, I think our minds were made up. The location was pleasant if we were 10-15 years older, and it just wasn’t for us.

House hunting sucks.

2) We hit a small party with a former dodgeball teammate in Haverhill later that day - a ton of fun. Good group of people, good conversation, great food, and a really solid chance to reconnect with a couple people we lost track of. After the disappointment of the morning, that was a very pleasant way to spend the afternoon.

3) We then hit my friend Mel’s place for dinner and games with her boyfriend before crashing there. Always good to see her, nice to spend the morning in Worcester getting breakfast and again seeing how things change in such a crazy short time between visits. A good, relaxing evening, even if I did have a crappy game of Carcassonne.

4) In the morning, we grabbed breakfast at Culpepper’s and then headed off to D&D. One of our regulars in the group couldn’t attend, and Ann decided to give it a shot for the day. First, she did quite well - only dropping once (which was to be expected with the copious amounts of marking she was doing) and killing a few big baddies. She struggled a bit with the roleplaying aspect, but given that she discounts that as not really having an interest in the storyline at that point, it was a good day for her.

Not to speak for her, but I think she really liked it. Either that or her reading my Unicorn Slaying Handbook until 10:45 last night was simply a coincedence. That and she doesn’t think Bill’s table is big enough for a 7th player.

So we’ll see.

As for me, I didn’t die! Yay! I came close, but I was smarter and it worked. And now I have leather armor. Fear me.

Hopefully I can catch up more with life tonight.

Originally published at Jeff's Journal. You can comment here or there.

Ann’s coming to D&D with me Sunday. She spent about an hour with the Player’s Handbook last night.

Ann: “The words in italics kind of confuse me, but they’re the only way I know what I’m doing.”
Jeff: “You can mostly ignore those, it’s just flavor text - roleplaying stuff.”
Ann: “You mean the text - is has a flavor?”

Later, she was reading over the paladin powers and tripped over Astral Speech:

Astral Speech
You speak with such compelling conviction that others find it difficult to refute your beliefs and claims.
Effect: You gain a +4 power bonus to Diplomacy checks until the end of the encounter.

Ann immediately turns to me and says “Hey, that’s what Obama has!”

A busy weekend coming up…

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

Naturally, the conservative blogosphere is up in arms over this speech:

The issue here isn’t necessarily what he said - after all, if someone was to ask me “Is America is what it could be, what it once was,” my answer would absolutely be “no, not at all.” But I know why I feel that way - I think we’ve moved way too far away from the form of government we intended, the type of society we aimed to be, and the type of society I think we naturally want to be.

Why, exactly, does Obama feel this way? Whether we like the direction we’ve been heading as a whole, there’s no denying that there’s more overall government protection of the individual than in any point in history, there’s more spending and assistance for less fortunate individuals than ever before, we’re the only current superpower in the world, and we have more equality enshrined in the law for women, minorities, and alternative lifestyles than any other era could realistically say. This is America today - 2008.

Now, if Obama’s saying that we’re not what we “could be,” that’s all well and good - on one hand, we could be a Constitutional government for once. On the other, and the hand he’s probably referring to, we could theoretically do a lot more than we are. But what it once was? Really? So if he’s saying we need to achieve what we “could be ” and “once was,” what era is he referring to, exactly?

When I note that I don’t think Barack Obama has a firm grasp on reality, it’s statements like this that drive it home for me. Yeah, there’s a lot of room for improvement here, and I don’t think anyone reading this disagrees - but, truly, when was it ever better?

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

* The Skeptical Optmist slays two myths regarding the national debt.

* I’m very impressed by the Republican Congressmen in the House doing their “Guerilla Congress” thing. I’d be more impressed if they actually shut things down once they came back.

* Quite simply, that neither of the candidates is seriously discussing the looming Social Security crisis is a problem. And yes, there is a looming crisis.

* Sun rises, Hugo Chavez continues to consolidate power. We continue to stand by and do nothing.

* I had to laugh at this story - the NRA may have successfully planted a spy in opposition organizations. Pretty awesome.

* More postal lunacy, this time in Maine. A small island is too small and not year round for daily mail service, so the mail gets sent over on a ferry and left in a specially-marked trash can. The higher-ups at the Postal Service catch wind and say “no more.” I’ll take “introduce postal competition” for $200.

* Long videos, but worth watching: A law professor and a police officer explain why you should never talk to law enforcement, even if innocent.

* Finally, some fun links: Details of the Twenty-One quiz show scandal, a New York Giants fan hunts for a Patriots 19-0 Super Bowl shirt in South America, and Hamlet: The Facebook News Feed Edition.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

I’m trying, at least with the daily reason posts, to stay away from simple ideological differences in favor of more objective situations where we can look at the situations and make some sort of clear distinctions.

This, unfortunately, probably isn’t one of those times.

One of the most unheralded points of Obama’s platform at this point is his push for a living wage. From here:

As president, Obama would further raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing — things so many people take for granted.

Putting aside any disagreements I have with the minimum wage for a moment (and I have many), does anyone in the mainstream think this is a good idea? Speaking only from my experience, there is no clear idea of what a “living wage” is, given regional differences - 75 miles north and our cost of living is noticeably different. A guy in Nebraska making $12/hour is in a radically different place than the guy in New York City financially. A one-size-fits-all wage policy like this, which would undoubtedly be a significant burden on the very businesses supplying otherwise good wages for many of the areas in questions, can only spell trouble.

I know - the statistics suggest that a minimum wage hike like the one we recently saw probably doesn’t affect employment in a significant way. We’re also not talking about $3+ increases. We’re also talking about a rising unemployment rate NOW. Like the windfall profit tax proposal, I don’t know why Obama thinks fighting the costs to the lower and middle classes is best done by increasing those very costs. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Originally published at Jeff's Journal. You can comment here or there.

…but we may have found the house deal of the century.

…and it’s not a foreclosure.

…and it’s in a nice place.

…and it’s ridiculously priced for what it is.

Keeping my fingers firmly crossed.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

A quickie today for reasons you might see later.

Related to yesterday: essentially, one of Obama’s more recent proposals is not only to run with a windfall profit tax on the oil companies, but to provide another rebate with those windfall profit taxes. Windfall profit taxes are a bad idea anyway, but especially in the context of the oil companies, the question has to be asked - what windfall profits?

I’ve seen this image plastered everywhere, and the numbers are buried in this CNN piece on Exxon profits, to use an example oil company. “But Jeff,” you cry - “Look how much money they made! That’s obscene!” Business doesn’t generally work in real dollar values, and a 7.6% profit margin is not anything to write home about, especially when you factor in how much they have to spend on exploration, land leases, etc. The Apple iPhone, as an extreme counterexample, has a 50%+ profit margin, and Apple does quite well for itself as a company margin-wise. you’ll also note in the Political Punch piece above, Obama can’t even define “windfall profit.” Telling, perhaps?

If Obama’s really concerned with helping working folk deal with the gas price increases as he claims, you’d think he’d take a more intelligent route. Maybe, for instance, not pushing for more taxes on a set of companies that is already extremely highly taxed and who already passes those costs onto us when we fill our tanks. I’d say that maybe it’s time to start rethinking these massive costs on the price of gas entirely, but…

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

Take a look at recent polling on national priorities, and near the top of the list is gas and oil prices. Energy. Even with gas prices finally starting to drop, the end result is still going to be significantly higher prices on gas in the short term, increased demand for oil in the mid-to-long term, and that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface regarding electricity needs and the desires, misguided or not, to move toward clean energy sources.

First and foremost, in the context of the election, there are a number of truisms that need to be realized. Regardless of who is elected in November…

* …everyone - even the richest oil company - wants a viable alternative fuel sources that runs cleaner and more efficiently (both energy-wise and financially) than what we use now.
* …we will see a viable alternative fuel source for our vehicles within the next couple decades.
* …demand for oil, especially in Asia, will continue to grow.
* …even if a viable alternative fuel source was released tomorrow, it would take at least 10 years to implement in a meaningful way, and even longer to get any sort of widespread acceptance.
* …most importantly, even with all the alternatives and all the changeovers, we’ll still need oil.

The debate on energy right now seems to completely ignore the first four issues. Barack Obama’s energy policy slate recognizes, at least, that these sorts of things take time (as evidenced by his fast track-style push for alternatives), but without recognizing the reality of implementation or the role the market has to play in the matter. He has plenty of ideas for trying to keep prices down - few of which are viable - but appears to have none that address the demand realities of the worldwide oil market or the time it takes to get a proven technology into the hands of the people who want to use it.

There are many troubling aspects to Obama’s position on energy, the most glaring is this detachment from reality. Obama’s concession that drilling has to be part of the plan this past week is a welcome nod to the world as we know it, but the rest of his plan on energy still misses the point: $150b on “clean energy” infrastructure? A continued focus on the failure that is biofuels such as ethanol (and, by the way, did you hear about the havoc ethanol is causing smaller engines)? And his speech yesterday is even more troubling, with the windfall profit nonsense. It’s not a position that lends itself to serious energy policy.

I think the worst part is the types of energy Obama prefers - while clean-burning coal is noted, the obsession with ethanol is almost overshadowed by his desire to see more solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. Again - a great thought in theory, but solar is still too expensive to have any wide use (and that’s without discussing climate issues and location - the same reason hydrogen fuel cells are useless), geothermal may not even be viable with a number of questions surrounding it such as long-term viability, and wind power can’t quite measure up to the hype. Perhaps even worse, while Obama touts numerous government initiatives to do this, we have folks like T. Boone Pickens providing offering market-based choices for some of the same ideas, and likely for a fraction of the cost. And don’t even get me started on Obama “not being a nuclear energy proponent” and not making that a major part of his mix.

Obama’s proposal to tap the strategic oil reserve (and even his somewhat ridiculous tire pressure argument, in a way) to help with oil prices indicates that we can at least assume that he understands the basic premise that more oil = lower prices. Of course, his lack of economic understanding in regards to things like windfall taxes almost completely offsets that. This results in a clear area where, if energy is your issue du jour, an imperfect candidate like John McCain provides a viable, realistic alternative. No, he’s not in favor of opening ANWR, and yes, he’s also a proponent of cap-and-trade, but he’s spot-on regarding the need to drill for the energy available to us as a nation. More importantly, longer-term (see? - viable long term thought!) involves nuclear energy and plenty of it, as well as letting the market do its job. Does anyone think McCain doesn’t understand that today’s oil companies are tomorrow’s alternative distributors? Does anyone think Obama really realizes that? Even those who prefer an activist government in regards to energy spending can find things to like in McCain’s plan - market incentives, billions for already-viable clean technologies, and the push for “green” technologies.

Personally, I think the answer is much easier - open drilling now, and recognize the need for alternative sources for transportation and electricity, and support policies - from taxes to trade - that will accellerate those issues in a market-based way. Both candidates see it as a more complex issue, but Barack Obama’s not the one who’s coming at it from a realistic angle. In an era when we’re going to require energy leadership, the guy who hangs his hat on the unproven commodities isn’t the one you want running the show.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

Since I never get around to finishing my blogroll, and since people have asked, here are some of my favorite daily political reads. This by no means encompasses everything I read, but certainly acts as the MUST READ blogs and sites of my time. It’ll give folks a good idea as to where I get my information and stay on top of things. In no particular order.

Politics:

* FiveThirtyEight: An electoral projection site. Obama-leaning, former/current Kos contributor, which means that the election analysis is awfully slanted, but the poll analysis is incredibly good. A much better daily indicator via the weighting mechanism he uses than the Real Clear Politics average, in my opinion. If you can get past the occasional Obama cheerleading, it’s worth adding to your RSS feed.

* Jake Tapper’s Political Punch: I’m not sure what he plans to do with this following the election, but, for the moment, Tapper is providing the fairest coverage I’ve seen this election cycle - he’s not afraid to call Obama out, nor is he at all deferential toward the McCain campaign. I have no clue where he stands politically, and that’s how it should be.

* Christianity Today’s Election Coverage: The media seems incapable of dealing with issues of faith properly, and, even though I’m an atheist, it matters. At the very least, this is worth your time to get an angle on the 2008 election that you won’t get from the mainstream.

* EconLog: An economics blog, written in part by Bryan Caplan who wrote The Myth of the Rational Voter. Provides some fascinating insights into general issues thrown out there.

* FactCheck.org: They’ve been shaky lately, but still a great resource.

* GetReligion: A blog based on the premise that the major media doesn’t “get” religion. Hand-in-hand with the Christianity Today election blog, it’s an interesting critique as to how the media handles (or, in some cases, doesn’t handle) religious angles in important stories.

* National Review’s Corner: I’d add in all of their blogs linked on their top bar on this - probably the most respected (and deserving of respect) conservative opinion group available, and their blog listings are good, both for quick-hit discussions as well as larger-scale observations.

* Marginal Revolution: I could have thrown this in a few areas, but this is where it seems to fit best. Libertarian leaning for sure, but still has interesting links and unique thoughts with some current events.

* Mott’s Blog: The blog of Randy Mott, someone I used to play a Senate simulation with. He updates infrequently, but his updates are epic in terms of information. His posts on depleted uranium in particular from a few years back have been indispensable to me.

* Power Line: Honestly, it’s slipped in the last few years, but its take on legal issues and the conservative movement in general are still worth the time to read. There are many blogs that surpass it in terms of up-to-the-minute analysis, but there’s still a good deal of thought that goes here.

* Q and O: Good, libertarian-leaning blog with flashes of great analysis.

* Reason’s Hit and Run: Quite simply, if you’re not reading this blog, you’re making a mistake. Yes, they’re libertarian, but they still have important things to say and are quite spot-on with much of their analysis. This is one of the first true “blogs” I ever read, and I’m glad it’s around.

* The Skeptical Optimist: He single-handedly made me rethink how I look at government debt, and that alone is worth your time. Hopefully he picks up blogging regularly again soon, because his notes on the economic situations in this country have been great.

* The Volokh Conspiracy: Best legal blog on the internet, in my opinion.

* WILLisms: A basic blog, but often lays out general stuff in a great way that makes you remember it later.

Originally published at The International House of Bacon. You can comment here or there.

…and I’m still really not comfortable with this race. I’m not sure anyone is, even if they’ve found the horse they’re committed to riding into November. The last week or so have been a little mentally challenging for me, and the disaster that the Barr entry devolved into certainly didn’t help matters.

Here’s the basic point for me - this is my third election as an of-voting-age human being. Bush v. Gore, I could have cared less on a whole as they weren’t all that different for me and I’m not convinced I was wrong about that. 2004 brought Kerry, who was worse than Bush and was all I needed to see. 2008, we get an option to move on a bit, and they give us two crappy candidates. Again. Thanks, folks, really.

The difference for me this year, however, is that not only do we have two candidates who are extremely, clearly different from each other in many ways, but we have a situation where neither is significantly promoting causes that will improve our lot, and one of which who is actually promoting a series of policies that have been tried and failed before, all under the auspices of a “change” candidacy that is anything but. To say that Obama is really the worst viable candidate I’ve seen in my admittedly short lifetime is something I can say with firm confidence, because of who he most emulates - your Roosevelts, your Johnsons, your Carters. Just like Bush emulates failures like Wilson and Truman, Obama’s plans too closely mirror the domestic policy missteps of the 1930s and 1960s, and a foriegn policy of the 1960s and 1970s that could very well leave us in the type of shape many Bush opponents consider us in now.

It will never cease surprising me that many of the same people who were tired of Bush’s style of governace, who got sick of the “cowboy mentality”, the “my way or the highway” leadership alleged throughout the last 8 years, are actively latching onto an Obama candidacy that has a similar, if not close to identical, to a lot of the same ideals - the closed inner circle, the “Obama will require you to work” mentality espoused by his wife, etc. Is that the change people have been waiting for, or is it simply because you think Obama falls in with your ideals?

I was fired up a bit about a section of a blog post I read late last week - it was in the wake of the half-amusing/half-dumb McCain ad showcasing Obama as the “next big celebrity.” Immediately, Obama goes into his standard race lines (I say “standard” because the “I don’t look like everyone else” line has been played since June), and now, since it’s a black guy with a couple white celebrities, it must be race-baiting. Never mind McCain’s record on the matter (see the ABC link), never mind Obama playing this card for 6 weeks now - gotta hold up the old canard. But one line in this post jumped out at me:

Obama does not want to dialogue with you, since to do so would imply that you may actually have a rationally defensible position that has a point. He wants to shepherd you through the transition out of your benighted red state moronic worldview. In Obama’s universe, it’s okay to talk down to people who are in fact beneath you. You are beneath him.

This really resonates with me, and not only because it’s an unrelated confirmation of my feelings about Obama. There’s a personal subtext i think people can recognize, and that’s probably what makes me angry - no, no one likes to be condescended to, and I try to keep my tone in check with that in mind. That Obama flaunts it as much as he does is more than a little annoying, and just a little dangerous to boot.

How does all of this relate together? Obama set everyone up with the shiny, and now he’s presented himself as an honest broker (he’s not) for the positions he holds, obscenely talking down those who disagree while pretending it’s some sort of given that a) he’s right, and b) you’ll see it soon enough. Remember, the light will shine down, etc.

It would bother me plenty if he were right, but the fact that he’s wrong, and desperately so, is the real clincher for me. It’s never okay for a person who wants to be your leader to have a holier-than-thou attitude toward things, it’s another to mask it as something it isn’t and actively deceive those you’ve taken on board. I AM NOT SAYING EVERYONE WHO IS SUPPORTING OBAMA FALLS INTO THIS TRAP. I am saying that Obama’s continuing this campaign of deception even as he moves from a touchy feely “Hi, I’m Barack” campaign to a more specific one. And even now, knowing that I’m writing this and people are gonna be fed up, rattles me a bit - why should I feel rattled about expressing an opinion that’s unpopular with my friends and peers? Is that Barack Obama’s America?

I’m going to be trying to make a few changes with the blog moving forward with all this in mind:

1) Fewer link posts. I’m not saying that they tend to get me in trouble more, but I don’t think they’re doing what I want them to, and I spend an inordinate amount of time with them for very little benefit. There are always going to be underreported or interesting things I’ll want to highlight, so I’ll probably a) do one every 10 links compiled or so, and b) mix in more cultural and wide-interest stuff as opposed to the political.

2) More mixes of types of posts. More things that aren’t politically related, but also, more detailed political issue posts. A discussion with Marian kind of brought this to the forefront, where the omnibus posts don’t really do enough to really push why these issues and problems are important to me and why I want things to change. If I believe the problem is a lack of information, what good is that belief if I’m not providing the information to hopefully change that?

3) A singular Obama post per day, based on a singular issue surrounding the campaign. I’m not interested in gaffe of the day politics, honestly - if Obama decides there are 58 states again next week, I’m not going to touch it. The issue is that it’s one thing for me to note that Obama’s policies are among the worst of the already-failed ones of the past, it’s another to actually show it. And yes, even provide alternatives, even with voting.

I’m still leaning 98% Barr. This isn’t going to become a Barr evangelism zone, just like it wasn’t a Ron Paul one. I have no real dog in the general fight, except that I still think Obama’s actively dangerous to be near the Presidency. I don’t think we, as a country, can afford him or afford trying to fix what he’s planning to break. If you’re not okay with your guy being criticized, stop reading now. If you’re going to have a thin skin about that criticism, stop reading now. Nothing that goes on between now and then is an attack on Obama’s supporters - it’s about him. Period.

I’ve appreciated a lot of the discussion that has come of this, and I hope it continues, both with those who have been bringing things up as we go along and those who have lapsed or avoided comment. I’m making an effort to change things for a better atmosphere here, so I’m hoping you’ll all come with me on this.