November 2007 Archives

Ron Paul is raking in the dough:

Ron Paul may not win his party’s primary, but he is on track to capture another big title: top Republican fundraiser for the final quarter of the money-obsessed 2008 presidential primary.

In the first two months of the quarter that began Oct. 1, Paul already has raised more than $9.75 million, putting him easily within range to best the amount rival Mitt Romney received from donors during the entire third quarter.

A lesser-known variation of the saying alluded to in the title above - you can give a nutjob lots of money, but he'll still be a nutjob.

As long as I'm catching up on my reading, why not share?

Here's a brief but illuminating history lesson from Gateway Pundit.

While I was over at Red State, this post caught my eye. H/T to Erick for the link to this:

When the lights go up on the Democratic presidential debate (the Iowa Brown and Black Forum) this Saturday, all the cameras will be HD. What's more, HDNet is the exclusive national broadcaster of the event.

Exclusively in high definition! John Edwards is right about the two Americas - and along with Hillary, Obama, and the rest, guess which America isn't invited to watch this debate?

The folks at Red State, along with Human Events, are proposing a do-over debate.

I hope it happens, but am not holding my breath. Even if the candidates were amenable to the idea, time is running short, and schedules are full.

In today's Washington Post, in reference to the recent stem cell advance:

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

I also found this from Ryan T. Anderson for the Weekly Standard: The End of the Stem-Cell Wars.

I think both are premature - a laboratory breakthrough does not a changed industry make. If these new methods pan out - and I say "if" because we don't know how much testing is yet to be done before others can safely and confidently adopt it - it will take time before all the research labs change gears to the new methods. Until then, they'll all want to continue research as they are currently. From Drs Thompson and Yamanaka, the scientists who made the discovery in question:

He and Dr. Yamanaka caution, though, that they still must confirm that the reprogrammed human skin cells really are the same as stem cells they get from embryos. And while those studies are under way, Dr. Thomson and others say, it would be premature to abandon research with stem cells taken from human embryos.

In light of the fact that the researchers who achieved the breakthrough have yet to confirm that this is the holy grail that many seek, I urge caution. While this announcement may be a cause for hope, this is not yet the time for celebration.

Then you should visit the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's website from time to time. Most of the recalls don't seem to get much publicity, so depending on the media to get the word out is not a good strategy.

For example, while you may have heard about 3 or 4 recalls due to lead paint from the media, there were actually over 20 announced at CPSC during the month of November, and even more during October.

Keep your kids safe, folks.

H/T Hot Air, here's Kerr saying that it ain't vegetable:

Regardless, he's a partisan attached to the Clinton campaign, in spite of his insistence that he only lent his name at the request of a couple of friends:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced today the formation of “LGBT Americans for Hillary”—a national steering committee made up of more than 65 LGBT leaders (full list included below), all of whom have personally endorsed Clinton for president.

If he had any problem with his name used that way, he had ample time to detach it before he allowed it to happen a second time.

It's still possible that he's a plant, but not Hillary's or CNN's. He's also attached to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (he's on their advisory council), self-described as:

SLDN is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and related forms of intolerance.

From their press release today that appears to take credit for Gen. Kerr's performance:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Nov. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination expressed support this evening for the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law which bans openly lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel from the armed forces. The candidates were queried on the topic by retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.), a member of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's (SLDN) military advisory council who 'came out' in 2003 and identified as a Republican voter. General Kerr served for 43 years in the military, including as Commanding General of the Northern Area Command of the California State Military Reserve. His question was part of this evening's CNN/YouTube debate of Republican presidential contenders.

By the way, CNN could have easily found out about his ties to SLDN. It's expected that partisans with an ax to grind would try to participate in the YouTube debate. It was CNN's job to vet the questions and questioners, and whether intentional or no, failed miserably.

Update: Here's a post from SLDN's own blog posted prior to the debate.

Wow, I missed all the fun by going to bed. Having a job that gets you up early can be a handicap for a blogger.

Remember how CNN trotted out "undecided voters" in the last Democrat debate that turned out to be somewhat less undecided than advertised? While I was sleeping, folks all over were demonstrating their google-fu on the questioners at last night's debate. So far, at least 4 of the questioners were either declared hyper-partisan lefties or actual campaign workers for Dem candidates! Details at Michelle Malkin(who is apparently still awake and posting) here and here.

The most egregious of the plants is the gay retired general, who is on a steering committee for Hillary Clinton. His performance started the ball rolling on the outings, as suspicions arose when CNN brought him in to the auditorium to flog the candidates after they gave answers that he didn't like. As Kevin at Wizbang puts it:

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type "Keith Kerr, retired Colonel" into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search?

Yeah, right...

I think Kerr was simply too good to check. Imagine the CNN question pickers' joy at finding Kerr, who has victim status as a gay, and the absolute moral authority of being a veteran? The question could have been asked by anyone, CNN chose Kerr because it would put the Republican candidates in the worst possible light. I don't recall any equivalent popping up at the Democrat Debate - I'm sure CNN could have found a few had they tried.

As to the subject of winners and losers of the debate itself - John Hawkins (whose live-blogging I followed) thinks McCain won. I heartily disagree. Each of the candidates put in a poor performance compared to the previous debates. I'd have to say nobody won. Expect the recent polling success of the 5 top Republicans to dissolve over the next few days.

It wasn't a complete rout, however. As I said in a previous post, McCain did get the best soundbites out of the debate, particularly the exchange with nutjob Ron Paul over Iraq. Here's the clip where the only comeback from Paul is a weak retort about campaign contributions from some military officers:

Getting campaign contributions from some military folks doesn't translate into all the troops supporting you, Ron. It's stupid to suggest so. And by the way, Ron - where were you over Thanksgiving? Not in Iraq getting opinions firsthand from the troops, I'll wager. Here's Ron again, seemingly saying that we're occupying Saudi - skip to about 2:40:

Here's my wrap up and grades:

McCain - C-. He had some good moments, especially when dealing with security issues. That was tempered by his remarks about torture, where he appears to be too personally attached to be objective or rational, and his inability to see shamnesty as the mistake that it was.

Thompson - C+. Had good answers, but no fire. CNN did him a favor by giving him less air time than the other front-runners. He made a serious blunder by submitting an attack ad for the debate.

Tancredo - C. He's still a one-issue candidate, but gives good answers when given a chance.

Romney - D. I agree with John, he can't take a punch. This is going to hurt him if he makes it to the general election, where he needs to be a whole lot more nimble when attacked.

Guliani - D. Everyone knows he was Mayor of New York by now. Also, he came off as a little harsh in his exchanges with the other candidates.

Huckabee - C+. Good speaker, mostly good answers. Although the religious right loves him, he scares a lot of center and left-leaning folks when he starts getting preachy.

Hunter - C-. Did he get any questions? I can't remember.

Paul - D-. CNN obviously intended to waylay him with the conspiracy question early in the show, and in spite of Paul's attempt to moderate the tone of his answer, got what they wanted. Later rants from Paul only cemented the impression of being crazed, as his demeanor became less and less presidential and more unhinged. I'm sure his supporters will give him an A+, though. Update (11/29/07, 7:36 AM): Glenn Reynolds on Paul's demeanor - "His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station." LOL.

CNN - D-. The real winner of the debate, if you ask me. Although their moderation was incompetent (remember when they used to keep the audiences quiet?), and their bias was too clear for even the most rabid partisan lefty to miss, they managed to set up a successful venue in which to make the Republicans look bad - not that they needed the help.

Overall, the performance of all the candidates was sub-par. They all have a lot of work to do on both message and presentation if they want to defeat Hillary or Obama.

I'll give more in the morning, but I think Huckabee was very strong, McCain had the best sound-bite moments, Romney was clearly off his game.

Ron Paul would have won if judged by audience reaction. Fortunately, we grade candidates on other criteria. Ron said it best when he said he was lucky to be in the middle of his own campaign. I agree, he has no business being there and is lucky that he is for the short time it's gonna last.

CNN couldn't resist another "diamond or pearls" question - since no women on stage, they disguised it as a sports question.

Thompson has all the right answers, but no fire. Everyone's getting another beer while he speaks, no matter how right he is, it's not compelling when he says it.

More tomorrow, folks. Good night!

Kinda hurts to look at it, eh?

Over at First State Politics, there's a petition worthy of your consideration.

While the state should have the flexibility to move funds from one account to another to cover contingencies, the routine use of one fund as an overdraft account for another shows an unwillingness to address underlying problems.

Signing the petition asks the Joint Finance Committee to put a stop to this irresponsible accounting practice.

It's been 13 days since I responded to Blogrolling's email requesting my username and password to look into a problem that existed long before I had an account.

So far, nothing.

In the meantime, pinging them through the blog is still not working, and my success rate using their manual ping form is below 20%.

The Wall Street Journal answers your questions - apparently, it's a lot like the good ol' days, when service was more than a bag of peanuts and a soda:

Airman Fauci, a diminutive blonde, was working in supply management on the flight line of an F-16 squadron in New Mexico two years ago. When she told her base commander she planned to leave the service at the end of her four-year stint and apply to be a flight attendant at Southwest Airlines, the officer put her in touch with the 89th Airlift Wing. Soon after she was selected, Ms. Fauci re-enlisted for four more years. She has traveled to foreign destinations ranging from Australia to Belgium, serving first lady Laura Bush and members of Congress.

When it came time to serve the new cookies on Secretary Gates's trip to College Station, the extra work paid off. They "were so much better," she says. And when the passengers noticed they were shaped like Texas, "they thought that was awesome."

Just doing the jobs that American flight attendants (and Southwest, Northwest, Delta, US Air, Continental, etc.) won't do.

It's always nice to be noticed. I've added That's Elbert With An "E", another fine Delaware blog, to my blogroll as well. Everyone go visit!

8:00 EST on CNN. I'll be watching, will you? As mentioned on lots of other blogs, CNN's teaser gives the impression that their bias will be showing in the choice of questions.

Since I don't type fast enough to live blog, I'll save my impressions for a post-debate post. If you're interested in live-blogging, I recommend John Hawkins, who hears that candidates asked for CNN to give them serious questions instead of going for laughs with snowmen and rednecks. I wonder if CNN can resist the temptation, though.

Update: I had a comment on this post flagged as spam due to an excessive number of links. I had considered approving the comment, but after reviewing the comment and the links decided to leave it alone. If you want to discuss, fine, but if you're just buzzing through to drop links to your site, that's spam. I don't do it on your site, please don't do it here.

From Fox Business yesterday, a little flat vs. fair:

Bonus equal time video - Since he's been enjoying a bump in the polls lately, here's Mike Huckabee singing the praises of the fair tax from 8 months ago:

While I'd prefer the flat tax, I'd take either over the current system. Realistically, though, either plan is going to be difficult to get past the left in Congress, who think that tax reform should include job-crushingly massive increases.

I wonder...

If Rat Island had oil under it, would the environmentalists (and the left) be blocking this?

State and federal wildlife biologists are gearing up for an assault on the rats of still-uninhabited Rat Island, hoping to exterminate them with rat poison dropped from helicopters. If they succeed, the birds will sing again on Rat Island. And it will be the third-largest island in the world to be made rat-free.

Just askin'.

...of kidney failure. Hope there's not a hidden message here.

The AP article tells the story about how Gatorade was invented, I'd never heard it before. It started with a coach asking the inventor, "Doctor, why don't football players wee-wee after a game?"

I've never heard a coach say "wee-wee", have you?

There's a lot of libertarian beliefs that are admirable, especially those having to do with privacy, property rights, and gun rights. As Ron Paul started to get more than just a fringe audience, it was bound to happen that the more unsavory parts of his libertarianism would shine through. Through Hot Air, check out Paul's stances on prostitution and drugs.

One of the reasons the Republicans enjoy the support of so many people is that many of them find the "legalize prostitution and drugs" views of the libertarians repugnant. And as he's on the campaign trail kissing babies, I'll wager that he's not telling the moms that in his U.S.A., it's just fine if those babies grow up to be hookers.

As Ron Paul gets more publicity for his actual views rather than the current focus on his bizarre followers and fund raising skills, his support is doomed to shrink, not grow.

Via AP/Yahoo:

New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

The former first lady trails Giuliani, Romney, Fred Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee by 3 to 5 points points in direct matches.

Pollster John Zogby: "The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem."

I'm making popcorn if anyone wants some.

A lot to like here:

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.

Thompson's proposal, announced on "Fox News Sunday," would allow filers to remain under the current, complex tax code or use the flat tax rates.

From the Fred08 site, here's the whole thing:

1. Permanently Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts. Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 has proved critical to generating a strong economy that has experienced growth despite the war on terror, the collapse in the housing market, and other economic challenges over the last six years. Unless action is taken, every American taxpayer will see a massive tax increase after December 31, 2010. Allowing this tax hike will impose an enormous financial burden on American families, slow economic growth, cost America jobs, and make it more difficult to address the country's long-term budget, economic, and security challenges. The Thompson plan ensures the following:

• Reduced individual income tax rates, saving every tax-paying family a minimum of $600.
• Preserving the $1000 child tax credit, which was doubled from $500 per child.
• Protecting Marriage penalty relief.
• Retaining Education tax incentives, including Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, 529 college savingsplans, and deductions for higher education expenses.
• Reduced tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends.
• Increased expensing of investment for small businesses.

2. Permanently Repeal the Death Tax. Current law provides death tax relief, but only through 2010. The death tax is inherently unfair. Under the Thompson Plan, the death tax would be permanently repealed, thus protecting millions of American families, including small business owners and family farmers, from double taxation at rates ranging as high as 55 percent.

3. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a separate tax system that was intended to ensure that a few high income Americans could not use deductions and credits to eliminate their tax liability. However, because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, it is penalizing Americans it was never intended to affect. While in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson authored legislation that would have repealed the AMT. Consistent with that earlier proposal, the Thompson plan will eliminate the AMT as part of broader tax and spending reform. Until comprehensive reform is feasible, the Thompson plan would index the exemption amounts annually so that millions of middle class families will not become subject to this tax.

4. Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate. The United States has one of the highest rates of tax on businesses of the industrialized nations, second only to Japan. Even Japan is currently considering reducing its corporate tax rate. Economic studies suggest that the U.S. Treasury is actually losing tax revenue by keeping the corporate tax rate so high. In order to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace, the Thompson plan would reduce the U.S. top corporate tax rate (including the corporate capital gains tax rate) from 35 percent to no more than 27 percent, which is the approximate average of the world's leading economies—the nations of the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development. This tax reduction will promote U.S. competitiveness, encourage companies to keep their operations (and jobs) in the U.S., and spur continued economic expansion and growth.

5. Permanently Extend Small Business Expensing. Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in America, and employ nearly 59 million Americans -- more than half of the nation's private-sector workforce. Women own a quarter of all small businesses, minorities are nearing the 20% mark, and Hispanic Americans are opening their own businesses at a rate three times the national average. Current law allows small businesses to write-off purchases of equipment of up to $125,000 per year, rather than depreciating those assets over time. Making expensing of equipment and other small business items permanent will encourage greater investment and growth.

6. Update and Simplify Depreciation Schedules. The current depreciation schedules are outdated and in many cases do not reflect the realistic useful life of an asset. This is particularly true for investments in high technology. For example, computers must be depreciated over three years, even though they become obsolete in half that time. The Thompson plan would simplify and update these schedules to allow American businesses to make the investments they need to compete and create more high-quality jobs.

7. Expand Taxpayer Choice. The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts. The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.

Everyone wins on this plan. It's really going to be hard to beat as the other candidates rush to get their plans out.

The problem I see with this plan is that the liberals will paint it with the same dishonest brush as the Bush tax cuts - "tax cuts for the rich", etc. But any truly fair tax regime would get the same treatment.

From the "Funeral Collection" of Romania's Catalin Botezatu featured at the Bucharest Fashion Week last week:

Question - are these more appropriate for a funeral or one of Marilyn Manson's cocktail parties? And if it's the latter, do you find the above alluring or just plain creepy?

Call me old-fashioned, but when it comes to the "queen of the undead" look, I much prefer this.

Today's Wilmington News Journal features an editorial about Amazon's new Kindle book reader. The piece takes a wait and see approach to the device, suggesting that it will have to improve on the inherent simplicity and elegance of traditional ink and paper books to be successful.

It's certainly an attractive enough gadget, with features like fee-less wireless and a built-in keyboard for annotating and bookmarking:

I think economy is likely going to be a larger driver to success or failure, though. And it doesn't look like Kindle is ready for prime time yet.

The Kindle itself sells for $399.00, you'd have to be a voracious reader to make that up through the discounts Amazon offers on the Kindle versions of books. Even Amazon knows this and resorts to a little subterfuge with the numbers to make it seem more attractive. For example, on the main Kindle page, Amazon suggests that you would save $17.96 by reading "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" by reading it electronically vs. the hardback edition. However, they use(disingenuously, I feel) list price as a comparison.

Amazon regularly sells the paper and ink version for $16.77 - so the real savings is only $6.78. In order to save money by using Amazon's device, you'd have to read 59 such books. How many hardback books do you buy in year?

But the real competition for Kindle isn't the hardback, but its cheaper cousin the paperback. Waiting the extra few months for the economy version of a book is the norm for most folks, and has the added bonus of feeling more, well, disposable. If I buy a hardback, I feel obligated to preserve and take up shelf space with it, I routinely give away paperbacks with no remorse. I don't care if they get dog-eared, worn, torn, kicked under the bed, or stained with coffee spills.

So what kind of savings will the Kindle provide against paperbacks? My lovely wife TB has a thing for J.D. Robb's work, so I checked out her titles to see. "Judgment In Death" normally sells for $7.99 in paperback, and the Kindle version sells for $6.39. Assuming similar savings for other titles, TB would have to read a staggering 249 books to make up the cost of the device alone. It would likely become worn out or obsolete first.

So do I think the Kindle is a total loser? No. Amazon will sell enough of them to keep the product alive for the near future at least. But I don't see any significant degree of market penetration. This is a product that's going to be popular with the hard-core gotta-have-the-latest-and-hippest-gadget-no-matter-what-the-price crowd. You know, the same crowd that stood in line for the iPhone, then whined because Apple dropped the price enough to diminish its exclusivity and ultimately, their bragging rights.

Perhaps that's all Amazon hopes to achieve.

At the dishonest comment deletion tactics allegedly in use at the San Francisco Chronicle(H/T Glenn Reynolds) and Think Progress(H/T Charles Johnson). However, browser caches can be unruly beasts, so I'm not yet ready to call foul.

If true, it just follows a pattern on the left of squelching any speech that does not agree with their own. This is no different than shouting down a speaker giving a speech, and belching "freedom of speech!" in the attempt to deprive the speaker of his. What makes it particularly nasty is that the commenter at SFC or TP don't know they've been shouted down.

Of course, no one at SFC or TP is compelled to publish any comment they find objectionable for whatever reason. They also have the right to ban commenters at will for any reason they like. What's repugnant about this tactic (again, if true) is the dishonesty in allowing someone to believe they're being heard when they aren't.

I does occur to me that this would be fairly easy to implement, though, through multiple methods. Expect to see a lot of site administrators (and bloggers, too) try this now that the idea is floating around.

Update: Apparently very easy to implement - Charles duplicates the effect by altering 6 lines of code.

As some of you may recall, Blogrolling has not been updating me (along with, apparently, quite a few others as well) in their database when I ping, either through Movable Type or manually through their ping page. Hube (who blogs at Colossus of Rhodey) actually got a response to his email on the issue, in which a "Beenish M." alludes to a sweeping upgrade that will likely fix everything (but he's looking into the problem anyway).

Recently, I got my own email as well:

Sent: Tue 11/13/2007 11:39 PM
From: Jonathan Clarke [brsupport@tucows.com]
To: lb@dontgointothelight.com
CC:
Subject: [#AFM-230578]: Blogrolling Support Request

Hello LB,

If you could provide the username and password for your account we could certainly escalate this situation for you so we can see what is going on with the server.

Jon C.

Domain Direct/Netidentity Customer Service http://www.domaindirect.com/supportform.html
http://www.netidentity.com/Support/SupportMain.aspx
Toll-Free: 1-866-337-8633 (North America Only)
Local: 416-531-2084
Fax: 416.352.0113

Ticket Details
===================
Ticket ID: AFM-230578
Department: Blogrolling Support

Password? Their manual ping form doesn't work and they think my password is going to help? And lets not forget that most reputable web companies, including Mr. Clarke's, tell folks not to give out passwords to anyone.

My reply (Sent: Thu 11/15/2007 5:07 PM):

Jon,

While I appreciate the offer for help, I'm confused about the request for a username and password. It's the inclusion of my blog in other folks' lists that's a problem, and one that existed long before I aquired an account.

LB

Nine days later, still waiting for a reply.

If you didn't know, Blogrolling wasn't invented by Tucows. No, that distinction goes to Jason DeFillippo, who sold Blogrolling to Tucows in 2004. From the Jason's announcement on the Blogrolling website:

The decision to sell the company was a very difficult one for me and after talking to several companies who were interested, I decided on Tucows because they are an extremely upstanding group of guys (they're Canadian, after all!) who will treat all of you with care and respect.

Sure wish Jason could have seen the future...

- contained in this story from yesterday: Stem-cell advance opens up the field:

...These are some of the effects analysts say they see coming out of this week's announcements that two teams have genetically reprogrammed skin cells so that they take on the traits of embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are the subject of intense medical interest because of their ability to develop into any of the major cell types in the human body. Over the long term, these stem cells could become the foundation for therapies for a range of diseases, scientists say. This week's announcement suggests it will be possible for scientists to study these cells without the ethical and political difficulties of harvesting them from unused human embryos.

This makes things difficult for both sides of the stem cell debate.

As to the proponents of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) - if this makes research possible without using embryos, will they embrace this news as proof that there's other ways to get the job done and abandon embryonic stem cells? Although they should, it will be hard to abandon the massive investment they've made. I predict they won't, and if the promise of the news from this week pans out and it turns out the same research can be done with skin cells, it will make them look ghoulish for clinging to the embryonic route.

But what about the anti- embryonic stem cell folks? One of the widely spread claims of the anti-ESCR crowd is that the embryonic cells are dangerous, yielding treatments that give cancer and worse as side-effects - if the reprogrammed skin cells are identical to their embryonic cousins, shouldn't they be opposed for safety's sake alone?

This photo begs for a funny caption.

Here's a Canadian Passenger ship that sunk yesterday near Antarctica. The good news - nobody hurt!

H/T to Ann Althouse for this little gem in which Ted laments SCOTUS interpreting law instead of ignoring it in favor of the little guy even when they don't have the law on their side:

Last May, the Supreme Court faced a textbook case of pay discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter was one of a few women supervisors working at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Gadsden, Alabama, and she remained at the plant despite her bosses' bias against women. One even told her that "the plant did not need women," that women "caused problems." For almost two decades, the company systematically downgraded her performance evaluations to pay her less than male colleagues who performed the same duties. Her pay eventually fell 15 percent to 40 percent behind her male counterparts.

In 2003 a jury found that Ms. Ledbetter was paid less because she is a woman, and she was awarded full damages to correct the injustice. But in a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that Ms. Ledbetter was entitled to nothing at all. The majority ruled that she should have filed her case within a few months after the employer decided to pay her less than her male coworkers.

Ann nails it:

Yes, because you and your fellow members of Congress wrote a bad statute. Fix it.

Sen. Kennedy would prefer that the court ignore the statute of limitations Congress wrote into the law. Pathetic. And sad, as Ted isn't the only liberal who believes that the court should ignore law and substitute whatever populist pap they feel like - making up law as they go. All of the Democrats running for President would appoint judges who would fulfill Teddy's judicial wet dreams.

This is exactly why the upcoming election is so important.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the irony in Ted Kennedy writing an article with the words "wrong turn" in the title.

The article goes on to highlight the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings and the sheer audacity of the two most recent justices to refuse answering a few questions. I wonder why his outrage was suppressed when Ginsburg was confirmed?

Yeah, I watched it. Here are my impressions:

The first 10-15 minutes were exciting due to the backbiting. After that, they settled down into the familiar Bush-bashing pattern.

Hillary was on-game. She needed to be aggressive without coming off as nasty and largely succeeded. She's still going to be the front runner for a while yet. The audience booed twice when Hillary was attacked. Playing the gender card is apparently effective.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden gave some good answers - particularly Dodd when answering about security vs. human rights. Making sense is death to your campaign when running with this crowd, though. Biden got bonus points for giving a one-word answer.

Obama had a very bad night. It took Wolfe nearly 5 minutes to get an answer about the drivers license issue. He also slipped and referred to illegals as "illegal aliens". That'll piss off the open borders crowd.

Speaking of pissed, Kucinich was. And with good reason, too. He had to prompt Wolfe to let him have a chance to answer a question. No matter how loony he is, as long as he's on stage with Hillary and Obama, and deserves equal time and consideration. Of course, it won't happen, since Democrats really don't care about fairness.

Edwards loves pandering to the nutroots. I heard him repeat the word "neocon" a few times, that resonates with the delusional fringe. He also mentioned Cheney a few times, which gets the nutroots speaking in tongues. He'll be the winner with the Daily Kos crowd.

Richardson pandered as well. He even managed to invoke "Haliburton" in an answer that had nothing to do with it.

Hypocrite alerts - Hillary for saying she's not playing the gender card and following with something that sounded a lot like "vote for me because I'm a woman". Dodd for saying he has no litmus test for judges then saying he won't appoint a pro-lifer.

The second half was interesting - CNN wanted the Dems to look good, as they lined up victims one by one. One said he was a victim of racial profiling caused by the Patriot Act, no one called him on it. Update (11:28 PM): One of the CNN's "victims" is a war protester. And that's CNN's idea of an "undecided voter"? And why isn't Dan Riehl on my blogroll? Fixed.

Also, what idiot let the question about jewelry get asked?

If I had to pick, I'd say Biden won - at least in debate terms. Since he doesn't have a chance, though, that matters little. What does matter is who lost - Obama. Most folks have open minds, if he had taken a decisive stance on the illegal alien question and attempted to explain why he felt that way, folks would have respected it. Instead, he wasted everyone's time trying to avoid being pinned down to an answer on a question that wasn't difficult. It made him look especially bad after attacking Hillary on the exact same thing for the past 2 weeks.

Since Obama's loss is likely to be Hillary's gain, she'll emerge as the apparent overall winner through default - even though she didn't win through her answers.

Santa is no longer free to say "Ho, Ho, Ho" in Sydney:

SYDNEY (AFP) - Santas in Australia's largest city have been told not to use Father Christmas's traditional "ho ho ho" greeting because it may be offensive to women, it was reported Thursday.

Sydney's Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say "ha ha ha" instead, the Daily Telegraph reported.

One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use "ho ho ho" because it could frighten children and was too close to "ho", a US slang term for prostitute.

I don't recall ever being frightened by "Ho, Ho, Ho" when I was a child. This is political correctness stupidity.

It's kinda like watching the game when you don't like either team.

From a press release today from the esteemed ufologist:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Made in China" has become a health and safety warning label for American consumers following the recalls of tens of millions of Chinese-made toys, but the "real warning label should say 'Made in Washington, D.C. by corporate lobbyists' because the life-threatening hazards of these products were either ignored or brushed off by members of the Congress seven yeas ago," Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.

So Congress was supposed to know the Aqua Dots were toxic 6 years before they were introduced? Ridiculous. But Congress isn't the target of his ire over failure to properly read the tea leaves - it's Silky Pony:

"Senator Edwards knew seven years ago that people would be hurt, so why did he vote for China trade?" Kucinich asked. "How credible is his newfound consumer protectionism and his campaign advocacy for trade reform to save American jobs?"

Well, channeling the dead in court should indicate additional extra-sensory abilities, I suppose. But even though Edwards' crystal ball was limited to the recently deceased, apparently Dennis did know, else he wouldn't have the moral authority to attack those who were prognostication-challenged. But how? I think I've figured out what he's up to with the outstretched-arm thing:

That's right - he's positioning himself for better reception from the mothership.

Did the flags throw themselves to the ground in despair? Or are they just bowing to Hillary? Either way, I'd be concerned if I were the superstitious type...

H/T Glenn Reynolds, click image to watch:

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

Too good to pass up, and besides, we haven't talked this much about UFOs in my home since the X-Files got canceled:

UFOs are no joke, group says

WASHINGTON (AFP) - UFOs may be fodder for comedians but there was no joking Monday when a group of former pilots recounted seeing strange phenomena in the sky and demanded the US government reopen an investigation into unidentified flying objects.

Several pilots offered dramatic accounts of witnessing UFOs -- including a transparent flying disc and a triangular craft with mysterious markings -- as they insisted their questions needed to be taken seriously more than 30 years after the US file was closed.

"We want the US government to stop perpetuating the myth that all UFOs can be explained away in down-to-earth, conventional terms," said Fife Symington, former governor of Arizona and air force pilot who says he saw a UFO in 1997.

Hmmm - a triangular craft? Where have we heard about one of those recently?