The threads of the campaign are starting to weave …

John McCain is now being portrayed as the Old Washington White Guy, as the NYT slime-piece on an alleged affair morphs into a story of his dealings with lobbyists.

The story, with McCain’s staff first denying meetings with a TV station owner on an FCC matter, then having to admit that the meeting did exist, not only plays him up as just another typical “for sale” senator, but also attacks his carefully constructed political straight-shooter brand .

This is clearly the best course of attack on McCain, because with his decades of history in Washington, he is probably vulnerable to string of similar charges, and he will have difficulty brushing them off. That will take the focus off his military record, his stubborn stands against earmarks, and his greater qualifications for leadership during war.

The woof to this thread’s warp is the rising anti-patriotism meme encircling the Obama camp, as evidenced by this AP story:

WASHINGTON – Sen. Barack Obama’s refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.

Now Obama’s wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she’s really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

That story, coming on the heels of yesterday’s Politico story on Obama’s relationship with Weather Underground terrorist bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, is the perfect set-up for Obama. While McCain’s record is long and out there for all to see, Obama is a mostly blank canvas that is going to be painted not just as weak, but also as Socialistic, radical and un-patriotic.

(Here’s another such story, on Obama’s woeful lack of understanding of the military, and his quick, unpatriotic assumption that the military is screwed up. Hat-tip to Jim.)

The right will rally around McCain, making them look forgiving of Washington shenanigans, and the left will rally around Obama, making them look just as unpatriotic as he.

Throw into this the difficulty McCain, an aging white man, will have confronting Obama, a young black man, and we have a general election campaign that will make the tempests of the primary season seem like spring breezes.

Hold on to your hats.

No Comments yet »

So the Token Dem and I were talking today about McCain’s VEEP selection.

Being unnuanced in GOP-think, he went to Huckabee as the logical guy, which kind of curled the edges of my gray matter since adding a guy who’s great on social issues but RINO on economic issues is hardly what McCain needs.

“What we need,” I said, “is someone younger to balance out the age thing, and strong on economic issues, to balance out his gaffe there.”

“I’m having trouble thinking of young, attractive Republicans,” he said in that oh-so-smug Obama supporter tone.

Well, no sooner do I go back to my desk and click through two or three emails, than suddenly this blog was in front of my face:

How about that? The Alaska Gov, primed and ready for the GOP Veep slot. And according to the Palin for VP blog, there’s a bit of momentum going on:

Here’s a brief rundown of our success in the last few days.

1. Ace of Spades, a MAJOR player in the conservative blogosphere, has posted in favor a Palin nomination and linked our blog.

2. Instapundit has once again mentioned a possible Palin nomination.

3. WeeklyStandard.com has suggested Palin not once, but twice for the VP nomination.

4. And here’s the big one: Governor Palin is running THIRD (tied) in RealClearPolitics’ “Veepstakes!” Only Condoleeza Rice and J.C. Watts recieved more mentions, and Colin Powell had to settle for a tie with Sarah. Other major contenders left in Palin’s dust include Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist, and Kay Bailey Hutchison.

The blog also posts this:

My latest find was this comment on a recent Daily Kos post (bolding added):

Sarah Palin would be by far be the most attractive VP for McCain (literally and figuartively). That’s probably the toughest ticket we could face (assuming Lieberman is telling the truth when he says he won’t run with McCain). But I think most likely, McCain will choose someone under age 50 to off-set concerns about his age and make him seem less like an insider, so Tim Pawlenty or John Thune could also be possible choices.

I don’t think McCain is stupid enough to choose Huckabee (The Republican base would explode) or Rice (Do you really want THAT strong of a connection to the Bush administration?).

Where is she on policy? Who cares! McCain needs a hottie on his ticket, right? Just kidding, although she single-handedly knocks off the post-Mitt GOP ugly stick, doesn’t she?

Back to policy. Let’s talk polar bears. C-SM readers know I’ve seen through the political gambit the radical enviros are playing with their proposed threatened listing of the polar bear, and Palin sees it too, writing in an NYT op/ed:

This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.

The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears’ habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Any pol who takes on the CBD in the NYT is a pol after my heart. Beyond polar bears, GOP activists will note she’s pro-life and opposes same-sex marriage, although she supports equal rights for gay couples short of marriage (my position, too).

Token Dem made a crack about Alaska being a den of GOP corruption to which I responded, “sort of like a Louisiana for Republicans” (heh), but it got me thinking, so I Wiki’d this:

Governor Murkowski did appoint Palin to serve as a commissioner on the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission which she served on during 2003–2004, but later resigned, in protest over what she perceived to be the “lack of ethics” of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders. This included the state party’s chairman, Randy Ruedrich, a fellow commissioner, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time and providing a sensitive email to a lobbyist. She filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former state Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who was eventually found not guilty.

Nice story. But on the negative side, polar bears notwithstanding, she’s glommed onto the global warming bandwagon, proposing to create a new sub-cabinet to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska. Sub-sub-sub cabinet would be better. Alaska would benefit from global warming … if it ever happens.

All in all, I confess: I’m too new to Palin to say she’s #1 for the #2 slot, but she’s definitely an intriguing possibility.

1 Comment »

Uh, Ron … the revolution wasn’t permanent for Trotsky. Did you miss that part? It kind of fizzled out after creating untold human misery. Sort of like the misery you’d create as president, pulling us back into our borders to let the evil in the world spread unchallenged.

Anyway, Paul’s pulled the plug. In the email he doesn’t say he’s dropping out of the race in so many words, but he does say he’s letting most of his campaign staff go and is concentrating on the Texas primary … not the presidential primary, mind you, the primary for his House seat.

Seems Paul’s a bit concerned that his constituency down home is no longer his constituency.

I do like that Paul stakes out the extreme position for free markets, so we sane free-marketeers have a better shot at maintaining a sound economic policy. And what was his now sleepy campaign if not a free market venture?

He’s raised multiple millions, spent little of it, and now is going home to Texas. And across America, Paulites are looking at their wallets and wondering … Why did I send that nutcase my money? When did I become part of the whacked-out five percent?

hat-tip: memeorandum

No Comments yet »

Romney just might be proving he’s a businessman after all — smart businessmen do not continue to sink money into a venture that’s a loser.

Time reports that he’ll drop out of the race at CPAC today.

hat-tip: The Token Dem

No Comments yet »

Today’s the day John McCain faces the conservatives head-on at CPAC — perhaps the unfriendliest audience he’s faced since he failed to leave a tip for the housekeeping staff at the Hanoi Hilton.

Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse captures the spirit of the moment in his post offering up (allegedly) a pilfered copy of McCain’s speech. It starts:

SPEECH FOR THE CONSERVATIVE RABBLE AT CPAC===

My fellow conservatives. (Duck)

You can keep up with events in real-time at here at Kithbridge, which has set up a feed of the latest blog posts.

Much as we’d like see it, you won’t read in any blogs today about McCain entering from the back door and proceeding to the dais on his knees, praying for repentance with each painful shuffle forward. It’s not going to happen — because we live in a democracy.

McCain is flush from trouncing every competitor in sight. What does that tell us? Simply this: He is more popular than we are at this moment in the Republican party. Don’t like it? Tough! We can worry about what that means for the 2008 election and the future of the party, but today’s GOP looked at today’s candidates and voted their feelings in real time.

CPAC, then, is not an event where McCain needs to come shuffling and begging before Conservatives. It’s an event for Conservatives to figure out how they’re going to get behind McCain, who today appears to be unstoppable in his quest for the nomination.

Let’s remember 1964, when moderates led by Nelson Rockefeller and Romney the elder refused to support Barry Goldwater. The result was not just Goldwater’s trouncing, but also the comeback of the Conservatives and their subsequent control of the party for the next 44 years.

We could lose control if we play the ’64 moderates’ game at this time. McCain’s an 85% Conservative, and that should be good enough. It’s certainly better than Obama (the most liberal Senator) or Hillary (the 16th most liberal). (source)

Art: BobMcCarthy.com

No Comments yet »

Right up front, I’ll give credit for that clever headline to Howard Kurtz, who used it today in his WaPo column on Rush Limbaugh’s campaign against McCain.

I hope Rush pulls it off. I hope he and his brethren/sistren dazzlingly accomplish their miracle and pole-ax the pollsters and their predictions, which e RCP summarizes thusly: McCain leading in California, New York, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, New Jersey and Alabama. Romney leading in Massachusetts.

Remind anyone of McGovern?

That’s one heck of a gap to bridge, and I really hope Mitt bridges it, with the help of Limbaugh and his talk show allies. But one might be thinking that even if one has a mike in front of his nose for three hours a day and 600 stations wired into it, this just might be too wide a gap to close.

That’s not Limbaugh. Not only does he push on; he defiantly breaks the 11th commandment:

“If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle,” he said. “And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative.”

Laura Ingraham has joined him:

“There is no way in hell I could pull the lever for John McCain.”

It seems the trendy thing for these hosts, obsessed as they are on McCain/Feingold and judicial confirmations — things that most voters don’t even know about — to join the “it’s just four years club.” Give the Dems the sandbox for four years, they say, let them screw things up badly and Americans will run back to their beloved and humbled GOP, and skip into paradise.

I’ve made that argument myself, but have discarded it as far too dangerous. Just look at the number of Supreme Court justices you spot buying Depends and tell me we have four years to give Hillary or Obama.

Just look at the heart of the jihadist and tell me it’s time to stick our tails between our legs and our heads in the sand for four years.

Just look at the spiraling entitlements — both the programs and the national sense of it — and tell me our nation an survive four years of give-away Dems in the House, Senate and White House.

And just look at our economy and tell me it’s the right time to concede the presidency without a whimper to Hillary or Barack.

Kurtz reminds us that Limbaugh backed Pat Buchanan over W’s dad with similar emotion, then changed horses and was a strong supporter of Bush for president. I hope these radiofolk can show the same maturity now. Imagine listening to them for the next four (or eight!) years, railing against Obama or Clinton, and knowing they did nothing to stop them from getting into office. What credibility would they have? They’d be worse than non-voters, and I’d be hard pressed to listen to them.

Well, I’m off to cast my vote for Romney. Then I’ll be in the Bay Area all day for meetings, not getting home until 9 p.m. By then we’ll know how Super Tuesday went, and whether there’s a race to be run for anyone other than McCain.

And if it turns out like the polls suggest, with McCain as all but nominated, tomorrow morning we can turn on our radios and see if Ingraham and Limbaugh have regained their senses, and realized that in a world of bad choices, McCain is the better bad choice and Obama or Clinton the worse — by far.

No Comments yet »

Whatever has happened to the GOP? How could a law like this ever be authored by a man who calls himself a Republican?

An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes.

And if a restaurant fails to go along with this and serves someone who, in the opinon of the state of Mississippi is obese — even if the meal served is a cup of non-fat cottage cheese with some fresh sliced peaches on top — watch out for section 1(3) of the bill!

The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.

The bill was drafted by Mississippi state legislator W.T. Mayhall, Jr., who has the initial R after his name. Blogger Sandy at Junkfood Science decided to give Mayhall a call to see if the bill was a joke or was for real:

I called lead author, Rep. Mayhall, and asked if this was serious legislation or tongue-in-cheek to make a point. He kindly took a moment to answer my question while the legislature was in session. He said that while, regrettably, he doesn’t believe his bill will pass, this is serious. He wrote it, he said, because of the “urgency of the obesity crisis and need for government action.” He hopes it will “call attention to the serious problem of obesity and what it is costing the Medicare system.”

Since when have Republicans put governmental know-it-all-ism ahead of personal choice and freedom?

Mississippi readers, how about you and your friends get together over a nice slice of pecan pie, and initiate the recall of Mayhall and his Republican co-author on the bill, John Reed? Remind them what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for.

Thanks to Jim for the reminder.

No Comments yet »

CNN is beating Fox on reporting returns, having just broken through the 90% barrier, so the results of the Florida GOP primary are pretty much set in stone.

Here are this morning’s RCP polling averages followed by CNN’s actuals:

McCain: RCP – 30.3%; Actual – 36%
Romney: RCP – 29.8%; Actual – 31%
Giuliani: RCP – 15.0%; Actual – 15%
Huckabee: RCP – 12.7; Actual – 14%
Paul: RCP – 3.8%; Actual – 3%

McCain’s final tally was outside the 3% margin of error we expect from polls, but just barely, and no one else was outside the margin. McCain just picked up a bit here and there from each of the other candidates to solidify his narrow win.

This all leads to one (almost) known conclusion: Rudy’s out. It’s a shame he ran such a pathetic campaign, because he deserved much better. But I don’t think he had a choice of any other strategy. If he had had the money, he would have run in more states.

He did tell supporters he’s going to California … but the good money is on the trip being about endorsing McCain, not running himself.

The results also tell us that McCain was able to get away with dirty politics this time around. His contention that Romney waffled on the a timeline for Iraq was a stretch of Reed Richards proportions.

So McCain (and the pollsters) leave Florida with their heads high. But with the warm-up states behind them and Super Tuesday a week away, McCain only holds a 21-delegate edge over Romney (95 to 74). To win, 1,191 delegates are needed … so you can liken what we’ve done up to now to a hitter taking a couple practice swings while the pitcher looks in at the catcher for a sign.

No Comments yet »

McCain and Romney have wrapped up what the St. Pete Times called their “rolling catfight” across Florida, and GOP voters in state state are off to the polls.

Here are the RCP polling averages for the Florida primary on this very important morning of the 2008 race:

McCain: 30.3%
Romney: 29.8%
Giuliani: 15.0%
Huckabee: 12.7
Paul: 3.8%

It seems to have all boiled down to the economy (Romney) vs. the war (McCain) — with a large Clinton shadow.

The Clinton shadow used to manifest itself by Republicans voting not for their favorite, but for the candidate they felt had the best chance of beating Bill’s wife. But in Florida it may boil down to this:

A lot of GOP voters watched the Clintons’ deceitful and disastrous attempt to shove race into the campaign in nearby South Carolin and noted the voters’ rejection of her because of it. Now they’ve watched McCain’s equally dirty attempt to shove the war back to front and center, and they may be equally repulsed by McCain.

McCain’s brand is two-fold. First, the warrior. That’s where he wants to emotion of the vote to come from. Second, the straight shooter. In his effort to turn attention back to the war from the Mitt’s stronghold of the economy, McCain sacrificed half his brand.

Worse, he did it at a time when “Who can beat Hillary?” is weakening as a vote-motivator, on the heels of Obama’s trouncing of her in South Carolina and the back-to-back Kennedy endorsements of the junior (very junior) senator from Illinois.

This is the sort of stuff that plays out more in the privacy of a voting booth than on the phone with a pollster. If I’m right, the pollsters will be wrong. Won’t be the fist time.

If I’m wrong and they’re right, well, that won’t be the first time either.

No Comments yet »

Saul Alinsky’s Playbook

What do you make of a quote like this, from Mike Huckabee?

“Many of us who have been Republicans out of conviction . . . the social conservatives … were welcomed in the party as long as we sort of kept our place, but Lord help us if we ever stood forward and said we would actually like to lead the party.”

As a Christian social conservative, I think it’s just not true, since there are a lot of conservative Christians in the GOP in positions of authority. President Bush, for example. At NRO, Mark Levin feels the same way, and has found the right way to put it:

Huckabee continues to use his faith as a weapon against those who question not his faith, but his political populism — much of which he shares with secular progressives. And he is clearly hoping to stir up resentment among Evangelical Christians against the other elements of the conservative movement and Republican Party as a way of encouraging them to vote in the caucuses and primaries. This is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. Of course he wants us to believe the Reagan coalition is dead because he cannot win with it intact. But he cannot win either the nomination or presidency with the narrow focus of his appeal. This is why I find Mike Huckabee’s tactics and candidacy so deplorable.

In the primaries, we are not voting for who we want to win our local primary; we are voting for who we think should be our next president. That’s why Huckabee is not even on the margins of my consideration for the Cal primary.

As much as I wish Huckabee was the pastor of my church, were he just a pastor, I wouldn’t have him as the pastor of my church, given the dishonorable way he’s running his campaign. (hat-tip: memeorandum)

France Offers Atoms To Arabs

Give ‘em an inch of nuclear technology, M. Sarkozy, and they just might take a mile.

Nicolas Sarkozy might be a Bush ally of sorts — after all, he’s touring the Middle East at the same time W. is — but he has that cavalier Gallic attitude about selling nuclear technology. If it brings money to France, how bad can it be? Read this from BBC and ponder:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has begun a Gulf tour, during which he is due to sign an nuclear co-operation deal with the United Arab Emirates.

He has arrived in Saudi Arabia and will go on to Qatar and the UAE over the next three days. All three are seeking to develop civilian nuclear programmes.

Mr Sarkozy has said the Arab world should have the same rights to such programmes as other states.

France has already signed nuclear agreements with Algeria and Libya.

Mr Sarkozy said the sale of such technology could foster trust between the West and the Muslim world.

Or a terrifying thermonuclear nightmare of obliterating consequences. Your choice.

But if that’s the way it’s going to be, then any nation threated by the thought of Sunni theocracies having nuclear power — be it bombs or reactors — should also have it. Ethiopia, the Balkan states, Central African states like Kenya and the Congo Republic.

Fine and dandy. Atoms for all. But just this, Nicolas, mon ami, the first time one of ‘em screws with an inspection, the whole program must be withdrawn and their facilities destroyed. No more Irans, no more North Koreas.

All That Glitters

Here’s a long list of celebrity contributions to political campaigns. Yes, folks, it’s true: Movie stars like Obama best. The contribution edge over Dem runner-up Clinton includes such glitterati as Jennifer Aniston, Tyra Banks, Halle Berry, George Clooney, Larry David, Morgan Freeman, Leonard Nimoy and Brooke Shields.

Almost completely, black entertainers are lined up behind Obama. Starlets overwhelmingly put race ahead of gender … you don’t really think they’re poring over the issues with the intensity they pore over scripts, do you? Exceptions (not counting those who contribute to multiple campaigns) are: Quincy Jones (Clinton) and … oh, that’s it; Quincy Jones.

GOP donors? Well, that’s pretty easy: Pat Boone (Brownback and Romney), Jerry Bruckheimer (McCain, natch), and Kelsey Grammer, Adam Sandler and Ben Stein, all for Giuliani.

It’s not at all curious that the most curious contributor was SNL major domo Lorne Michaels, who gave $4,600 to Dodd and $2,300 to McCain. I’m trying to figure that one out.

Now Be Nice!

Sacramento, like many cities around the country, is facing fiscal hard times: Budget shortfall, huge and costly infrastructure needs and various local controversies that are stymieing the city’s vision and future.

So here’s what Sacto mayor Heather Fargo said in a State of the Downtown speech:

We each need to change one light bulb to a compact fluorescent because it’s good for the environment. Oh, and be sure to walk more and drink tap water to promote a “green Sacramento.”

If politicians think Greenie platitudes will fix anything, they should ready themselves for legions of voters who are green around the gills with Greenie platitudes. Or, as SacBee columnist Marcos Breton put it:

There is no political risk in promoting the idea of a “Green Sacramento.” It’s like saying we should all be nice to each other.

Ouch. Breton is right on here, but way off course here:

When you have a room full of large-scale developers, as Fargo did, why not use your pulpit to educate them on how “green” building materials can be cost-effective too? Why not show them that they can still make their money and build projects that are better for the environment?

The arrogant little pencil-chewing twit! Who knows more about the economics and benefits of green development than builders? They started the movement in the 1970 energy crisis, putting their existing and planned buldings through rigorous energy audits and investing in more energy technologies that would pay for themselves.

Who do you think has saved more energy in the last couple decades, free market building owners who are seeking lower costs, or power-hungry bureaucrats who are seeking to force their view of reality on the world? Of course, a newspaper columnist, so far removed from reality, would wrongly think the latter.

Curses, Foiled Again!

Fars, the Iranian Propaganda Ministry news service, is not a trustworthy news source to put it mildly, so I’ll give US fencer Ivan Lee the benefit of the doubt, but hardly a pass, on the comments he made while participating in a fencing competition in Iran recently. According to Fars, here’s what Lee said:

“If the Iranian people and government posed a problem (for us), the US fencing team would never take a second trip to Iran,” Ivan Lee, who is currently in Iran to attend the 2008 International Fencing Competitions in Iran’s Persian Gulf island of Kish, told FNA on Sunday.

“Everyone analyzes issues by using his own mind and logic; we know that all the negative propaganda against Iran is unreal and, thus, we attended Iran’s international competitions for a second time,” he said.

Feint is the word, Ivan, feint. The Iranians showed you something that wasn’t real in order to make you miss what was real. Anyone who thinks for a moment that a repressive, totalitarian regime would let any visit get a brush with reality has had one too many épée hits on the cognitive organ. (Yeah, yeah, everyone knows Lee is a saber fencer, but épée is such a cooler word.)

And Now From The Euro-Libs

It’s not enough that some SCOTUS members think it’s just fine to cite European Community law in their American legal decisions. Now Euro-Libs are asking for the right to vote in US elections. From an editorial in the Brussels rag De Standard, courtesy of Brussels Journal:

American presidential elections are not “home affairs.” American decisions have repercussions all over the globe. The American mortgage crisis affects banks in Europe. The insatiable American demand for oil makes the Arabian sheiks rich. The American refusal to care for the environment causes the North Pole ice to melt and coastal areas in Asia to flood. A weakened dollar and an immense budget deficit affect the global economy.

Hence, the world should be given the right to vote. Because the current situation is a blatant case of taxation without representation, against which the Americans rebelled in 1776.

Never mind that Brussels would be a Nazi nation were it not for decisions we Americans made as part of our “home affairs” sixty years ago; Europe can do no harm. It does not pollute, it does not have financial woes, it has never seen its currencies falter. Its efforts to impose a multicultural political mindset on the planet, and to spend our way out of the alleged human causes of global warming does not, apparently, also represent taxation without representation.

Did we have a say in any of that foolishness? Not that I recall. (hat-tip: What Bubba Knows)

A Chair By Any Other Name

The must-read read of the day is Armando Iannucci’s column in The Guardian on Barack Obama and American politics. By the time you read this, at the beginning of the third paragraph …

So why does Obama, billed by everyone as a cross between Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, but without the terrible looks of either, just leave me puzzled? Maybe it’s because his is a rhetoric that soars and takes flight, but alights nowhere.

… you’ll be hooked.

Iannucci does a lovely spoof on Obama-speak by suggesting that this is how Obama would rhetoric to death a chair:

‘This chair can take your weight. This chair can hold your buttocks, 15 inches in the air. This chair, this wooden chair, can support the ass of the white man or the crack of the black man, take the downward pressure of a Jewish girl’s behind or the butt of a Buddhist adolescent, it can provide comfort for Muslim buns or Mormon backsides, the withered rump of an unemployed man in Nevada struggling to get his kids through high school and needful of a place to sit and think, the plump can of a single mum in Florida desperately struggling to make ends meet but who can no longer face standing, this chair, made from wood felled from the tallest redwood in Chicago, this chair, if only we believed in it, could sustain America’s huddled arse.’

The problem with Obama and all our politicians is that that’s enough; one must never bother with the harsh facts of what you’re actually going to do about the chair, or be brave enough to say nothing needs to be done by government about the chair; one only has to stir the feeling of “chair” that’s in all of us.

I can share two more lovely lines from the essay without giving away too much of your future enjoyment of it:

American politicians take time out from their busy lives to makes speeches that sound empty; British politicians fill the emptiness of their lives with words that make them sound busy.

And

The chair, by the way, was made in China.

We’re All Gonna Die!

And I’ll be 40,000,057 years old when it happens, according to this report in Science Daily.

Well, actually, that will be when Smith’s Cloud impacts the Milky Way (the pink burst in the image above). Our sun is noted a bit to the right, so I’ll probably have a few more years to spend with the grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grand, grandkids.

Smith’s cloud, which if flush with hydrogen (enough to fire up a million suns), is a bit bigger than a puff in the sky: eleven thousand light-years long and 2,500 light-years wide. It’s 8,000 light years away and is rushing at us at 150 miles per second (a tad faster than my German V8).

And that’s something that’s close to us. No wonder SciFi writers have to invent hyperspace and worm holes to get their heroes from here to there.

It’s really too bad we won’t be around when Smith’s Cloud hits, since this is what it’ll look like, according to astronomer Felix Lockman:

When it hits, it could set off a tremendous burst of star formation. Many of those stars will be very massive, rushing through their lives quickly and exploding as supernovae. Over a few million years, it’ll look like a celestial New Year’s celebration, with huge firecrackers going off in that region of the Galaxy.

Shoot. It’ll be a real shame to miss that!

No Comments yet »