The cartoon gracing the cover of The New Yorker’s latest issue is in tremendously bad taste.

Obviously the point here for the politically left-leaning New Yorker is to capitalize on the ridiculous reasons not to support Obama, viz. the perception that he and his wife represent a mondern-day Manchurian-candidate, in order to obfuscate the sensible reasons to do so.  If you can paint an unflattering picture of Obama’s opposition as a rabble of moronic, backward alarmists who have nothing but conjecture, rumor and fear mongering to contribute to the national discourse, you no longer have to address any legitimate or substantive arguments they may bring along with them.  You no longer have to discuss his failure to support constitutional protection for abortion-surviving children, his stance against nuclear power, the legitimate questions surrounding his eyebrow-raising personal relationships and demonstrable lack of judgment, his recent habit of blatant flip flopping in the name of political convenience, his misleading and holier-than-thou rhetoric surrounding lobbyists, his inexperience- all of those things coming out of the mouths of right wingnuts who think of Obama in terms of the picture above, why bother to listen, eh?

Very shrewd, New Yorker. Very, very shrewd. But unfortunately, also very, very bad taste.

Now we know why John McCain is against abortion: he wants to send babies to war!

In all seriousness, I really feel sorry for this kid.  There are few things worse for a young boy than a snarling momma bear, and I do not envy the next 18 years of Alex’s life.

Keep it up, moveon.org!  Show America what you are really about!

Oh dear God in heaven!

I’ve done a little digging regarding Obama’s vote against the Induced Infant Liability Act- a 2002 Illinois bill that would compel doctors to provide medical care to a baby (fetus? It’s outside the uterus at this point, remember) who survived an abortion attempt, and has been born alive.  I am actually just curious: what possible reason could he have to do such a thing?  To what mental gymnastics must a professing Christian subject himself in order to avoid soul-crushing guilt on such a vote?

I wonder no more.  Here follows the complete text of Obama’s comments immediately prior the bill’s vote, beginning from pg 84 of the transcript.  If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, his reasoning seems to be thus: “I am voting against the bill because it will not hold up to constitutional scrutiny, because a fetus born alive, lying there on the hospital table (some would call that a baby, but I will be careful not to), is not a person under the laws of the United States.  And this is a good thing because it protects the right of women to have abortions.”

I think that’s a fair representation.  I’m not trying to make the man sound evil at all.  If you have a more lucid understanding of his reasoning here, I’d love to hear it.  Isn’t it odd, though, the Barack Obama seems to think that the Constitution of the United States and that of the state of Illinois does not afford any sort of protection to a living, crying… um… thing… lying on a hospital table?

Anyway, the text as promised (I’ve included the context- you can skip down to Obama and you won’t miss much):

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1093.
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O’Malley.
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the
child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an — of — of an abortion procedure shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.    All reasonable measures consistent with good
medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. I’d be pleased to answer any questions there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Any discussion? Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Thank you, Madam President.    Will the sponsor yield for
questions?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
He indicates he will.
SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living.    Is that correct? Is that an accurate
sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O’Malley.
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these
circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide
treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I — I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not, Senator O’Malley, to close.

Actually, after reading that meandering- no- trainwreck of reasoning, I am still wondering.

I’ve talked with plenty of self described independent and even conservative folks who are planning, or at least considering, voting for Barack Obama.  Bill Bennett has compiled a list of 10 reasons not to do so.  It’s a good list, but there is one item on it that I had no clue about, and I pay a lot of attention to all this stuff.  It was quite shocking to say the least:

9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life. As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a law that would have protected babies if they survived an attempted abortion and were delivered alive. When a similar bill was proposed in the United States Senate, it passed unanimously and even the National Abortion Rights Action League issued a statement saying they did not oppose the law.

What more does one need to know about Obama’s moral compass?  I believe that for the majority of Americans, this would automatically disqualify the man to be their local senator, state representative or (as the saying goes) dog catcher.

It’s amazing what effective rhetoric is able to obfuscate.

When in need of something that animates me enough to write a post, I have to look no further than a global warming- related story.

McCain is apparently selling an idea called the Clean Car Challenge- where the government offers $300 million to anyone who develops a battery for electric cars that meets certain goals set forth by the proposal.  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for developing new energy technology, and these are very good goals.

However, this is driving me nuts, and I’ll tell you why. The name of the prize is WRONG. There is nothing more vital to public discourse than clarity.  The language we use to communicate is the front line in the battle of clear thought.  This “Cean Car” business- along with “Clean Energy”, “Clean Coal”, and the like- just muddies the waters.  It is not honest discourse, it is not an honest title.

What, exactly, is being rewarded by this prize? Well:

The presumed Republican nominee on Monday proposed a $300 million government prize to whoever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology… such a device should deliver power at 30 percent of current costs and have “the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars”.

What the heck does clean have to do with any of that?  This is certainly to be a more efficient car.  It is indeed intended to greatly reduce the “carbon footprint” of the driver.  But is it in any sense more clean than existing electric cars which emit no emissions of any kind into the air?  No!

Now of course well all know that the association intended by those who created the prize title is that this car is “clean” because it will reduce carbon emissions by its energy efficiency. There is just one problem with this. Carbon dioxide isn’t dirt, people.  It’s all around you, all the time.  It is not even a poisonous gas- it is vital to life.  There is a real problem when the language has been manipulated to the degree that people automatically equate clean air with low carbon dioxide levels.  They are two very disparate ideas.  I am willing to acknowledge that, yes, perhaps low carbon emissions are a good thing.  However, the real goal of an initiative such as this should be efficiency and a reduced dependency on oil, thereby creating cheaper energy.

Think about it this way- what if someone, somewhere, developed a battery powered car that emitted no carbon, required no oil, and was very cheap and efficient to operate, allowing you all the freedom of existing gas powered engines, but (for some reason) it spewed a fetid mix of (carbon free) chewing tobacco, baby diapers, and finger nail clippings all over the place?  By the currently employed definition of “clean”, this car would fit to a T.  But would it really be clean?  Of course not.  So why do we equate no carbon with clean? It makes no sense.

Look, I know there is very little common ground between myself and the global warming crowd. But can we at least make an attempt to not make the issue more complicated by bastardizing the English language in this way?

The way I decide whether or not to write a blog post about something is an enigma.  I really have no idea what the impetus is exactly, but it is primarily based on an impulse that I can describe most accurately as an itch.  There is a blogging itch that just hits me now and then.  And so I scratch.

However, I haven’t had that itch for a good 2 or 3 weeks.  This is odd.  Now I will do what I usually do and commence introspection and self over-analyzation.

About a month ago I said:

While Obama supporters will simply stay home if faced with a choice between McCain and Clinton, many Clinton supporters will cross over and give McCain a distinct advantage in a race against Obama.

Observe exhibit A:

and exhibit B:

Now, a new question: are these people being reasonable? Independent of any emotional aversion to Obama, does it make sense for a Hillary supporter to switch to McCain?

Let me think about that and get back to you because right now, I could make an argument on both sides of the question and am not sure which is the correct answer.

Spending money to combat climate change could easily be the most ridiculous political proposition around today. It’s definitely worse than making kissy faces at Iran, absolutely worse than McCain or Obama’s economic proposals, and possibly worse than rolling back our relationship with Israel.

Look- even if you believe global climate change caused by man is a major problem, it doesn’t immediately follow that spending large amounts of money to fight it is a good idea. Think about it this way. If you had termites in your home, you would call the local bug guy to come zap them. However, if you were say, George III somewhere around the time of the American Revolution, and you had termites in your summer home in Wessex or Sussex or Dorkshire or wherever, it wouldn’t be the smartest idea to sink large sums of money and effort into combating them. There just isn’t a whole lot you can do about it. You could burn down your house, sure, but that’s pretty drastic. The only option you have is to adapt. Keep an eye on the problem, fix disasters as they occur, and perhaps research any promising ways to address the problem through new technology.

My point is that when it comes to the global climate and our ability to do anything about it, we are more like George III dealing with termites in 18th century England than we are Dr. House combating a mysterious disease. We simply don’t know enough, aren’t powerful enough, and don’t have enough tools to do much about it. Sinking billions of dollars into a problem we can’t fix is, frankly, crazy.

And it doesn’t help matters that Newt Gingrich, former champion of the contract with America, has bought into it.

It’s sad but true:

Good NY Times op-ed today about Obama’s recent short-sighted foreign policy comments. I’ll just put the whole thing below.. and don’t you click away! It’s both short and important. Be an informed citizen for a change and read it.

Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed

By NATHAN THRALL and JESSE JAMES WILKINS

Published: May 22, 2008

IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural.

They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”

But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.

Nathan Thrall is a journalist. Jesse James Wilkins is a doctoral candidate in political science at Columbia.