E!!

I’m removing “The True Conservative Story” from the title of this blog and just going with “E!!”

I’ll explain in a subsequent post.  Or, for now, you can see some brief notes about it on the About E!! page.

One of my pet peeves is the funding of questionable “scientific” studies by federal agencies like the EPA. Another is the presentation of “junk science” in our court rooms by very well-compensated “expert” academics. A third is modern science’s obsession with gender issues, to the point of absurdity.  So naturally this headline by Curtis Porter at the American Council on Science & Health (ACSH) caught my eye:

Dr. Swan to Infant Boys: Stop Being So Girly

First, an excerpt from Porter’s piece:

So, WebMD relays the results of a new study by Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester Medical Center published in the International Journal of Andrology: “Mothers exposed to high levels of chemicals known as phthalates during pregnancy may have boys who are less likely to play with trucks and other male-typical toys or to play fight.”

If this sounds absurdly unscientific to you, it’s because it is. “Dr. Swan clearly started with her desired result and worked backwards to find some pseudo-scientific factors to justify it,” says ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross.

“Shanna Swan has made a career out of studying phthalates and trying to find reproductive effects from them,” says ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who has crossed swords with Dr. Swan on the subject before.

“A few years ago she conducted a study that alleged there was a ‘feminizing’ effect on baby boys from phthalate exposure based on a metric she made up called ‘anogenital distance,’” explains Dr. Ross. “That study has since become part of the lore of anti-science groups who dislike phthalates. This latest study is equally horrendous. I could go through the article and say all the ways it is completely nonsensical, and we’d be here all morning, but I will mention that she reverts to her preferred strategy of using parameters that she admits she made up on the spot when she’s watching these baby boys playing with toys.”

“This is junk science at its worst,” adds Dr. Whelan. “And I’d just like to point out that Shanna Swan recently got a $5 million dollar grant from the EPA to continue with this terrible research.”

Question 1:  It costs $5 million to screen boys and watch them play with trucks?

Question 2:  What is “anogenital distance” and why is it alleged to be a “feminizing” factor?

Question 3:  Who is Dr. Shanna Swan? ACSH, a well-respected organization, seems to disagree with a lot of her work.

A Google search on “Swan” and “expert” and “testimony” returned this article from Forbes. It answers two of my three questions. (“Anogenital distance” is the distance between the anus and the genitals. More on this in a bit.)

From the Forbes piece:

Once upon a time–this week, actually–mothers all over the world woke up and wondered whether their little boys were increasingly behaving like little girls. The cause for this sudden concern: a new study claiming chemicals in everyday plastics might be feminizing their brains.

Was this a feminist plot to end patriarchy and violence? A cunning plan by doll manufacturers in a hitherto-hidden war with toy-truck makers? A long-term strategy to improve the growth potential of grooming products for men? No, it was just another study that the media rushed into publication without any pause to examine how it was assembled.

However, what the reports failed to mention was the weak statistical data the authors of the study employed to reach this conclusion.

As the author of Forbes piece goes on to say, we live in a “virtual junkyard of information, a growing, steaming pile of statistical garbage and toxic nonsense that won’t decay and disappear.” False findings in modern “scientific” research are common, and researching the accuracy of research is now a field of scientific study. On top of that, the media’s eagerness to quote Swan and other so-called “experts” births, as the Forbes piece also points out, that mythical beast known as “a growing number of scientists.”

The author of the Forbes piece goes on to cite a number of court cases, including one that made it to the Supreme Court, in which Dr. Swan’s studies and testimony were so poorly regarded that they were ruled inadmissible.

So, now, the “anogenital” thing (again quoting from the Forbes piece):

Take the chemicals in vinyl and cosmetics that are supposedly feminizing baby boys. Though phthalates have been a target of environmental activist groups for years, they only rose to recent prominence thanks to one highly-publicized 2005 study by Shanna Swan.

Swan claimed that levels of certain phthalate metabolites in pregnant women correlated with a lower anogenital index (AGI) in their male children. AGI is a measurement of the distance from the anus to the base of the penis, divided by the weight at the time of measurement.

There wasn’t a consensus as to what a normal range for AGI was in baby boys or whether it is significant, but there was evidence that a shorter AGI correlated with a slower rate of testicular descent in animals. When a National Institutes of Health (NIH) expert panel later evaluated her study, it didn’t find her evidence wholly convincing. All the babies in the study had normal genitalia with no sign of defects.

But Swan wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle claiming that “In-utero exposures to phthalates can lead to birth defects and genital malformations … in baby boys.” Such a claim disregarded her own study and would never have passed peer review. Environmental activists and journalists then seized on her public comments as proof the public was at risk. Phthalates and Shanna Swan suddenly became the poster boy and girl for deformed penises.

Dr. Swan later mined through new data she compiled. On the basis of finding two correlations that reached statistical significance, she announced to the world that some phthalates could change male behavior and feminize little boys.

Two?

Two correlations are a long way away from evidence of causation, friends. On that basis, Swan feels justified striking fear in the hearts of mothers regarding the health and/or masculinity of their boys?  And Dr. Swan is supposed to be a well-respected expert in her field? It seems, as the Forbes piece said, that:

The logic of her approach to evaluating risk was so precautionary that virtually nothing could provide sufficient proof of safety while pretty much anything could provide sufficient proof of danger.

Right. And it is the potential danger of non-scientific “approaches” like Swan’s – including fabricating metrics like “anogenital distance,” over-valuing minor correlations, and placing unsubstantiated, theoretical op-eds in major newspapers – that fairness can be thwarted in our justice courts as well as in the court of public opinion.

It should be noted that such “methods” and “research” can also lead to unnecessary and costly EPA regulations that don’t make us one bit safer. Dr. Swan sure seems to be playing fast and loose with our tax dollars, which is the real source of the $5M in funding for her “research.”

I’ve blogged on the UPS / FedEx thing before.  Here and here.

Reason.com has a new video on it, spoofing UPS’ white board ad campaign.  And with an interesting spin on the issue at the end.  (Hint:  The real evil doer is neither UPS nor FedEx.)

Those who read E!! and/or know me well are familiar with my love for a good parody no matter who is being mocked.  And Jon Ralston has penned a good one on Harry Reid’s would-be GOP challengers.

For Reid fans and those on the left who will think it funny, you’re welcome.  (Oh wait:  nobody from the left reads my blog because I am a right wing nut job.  Silly me!)

For those on the right who will be mad when they read it, it’s ok. We must never – any of us – take ourselves too seriously.

Both sides should take a deep breath.  We’ve got 13 months to go until the 2010 elections.  Before it’s all over, Nevada politics being what it is, we’re all going to need a few laughs.

*For those who didn’t catch the film reference in the header of this post, it’s a twist on a great Kilgore (Robert Duvall) line from Apocalypse Now (<— 59 second clip):  “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”

Yes, yes, I have been sporadic and/or just plain absent of late.  I have no excuse.  (I hate excuses.)

Please enjoy the following bit, a favorite of mine.  If you are any kind of political junkie – Left, Middle, or Right – I dare you not to laugh.

Feudalism: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
Pure Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you all the milk you need.
Bureaucratic Socialism: Your cows are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.
Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk
Pure Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
Real World Communism: You share two cows with your neighbours. You and your neighbours bicker about who has the most “ability” and who has the most “need”. Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.
Russian Communism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.
Perestroika: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the “free” market.
Cambodian Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
Militarism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
Totalitarianism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
Pure Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.
Representative Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
British Democracy: You have two cows. You feed them sheep’s brains and they go mad. The government doesn’t do anything.
Bureaucracy: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
Pure Anarchy: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbours try to take the cows and kill you.
Pure Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
American-style Capitalism: You don’t have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don’t have any cows to put up as collateral.
Environmentalism: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.
Political Correctness: You are associated with (the concept of “ownership” is a symbol of the phallo centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently – aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

!!

Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government gives you harmonica lessons.

!!

Have I gone mad?

Perhaps.  Politics and all its egos are enough to drive anyone to Madville, fast.

(We’re all mad here…)

Politico or no, you may want to join the Surrealist Party (click that “here…” link back there) if you have a penchant for, or appreciation of, absurdity, absurdness, nonsensicalness, nonsensicality, ridiculousness, ridiculosity, ludicriousness, meaninglessness, contradiction, incongruity, incongruousness, illogic, illogicality, illogicalness, craziness, twaddle, flummery, malarkey, jabber, Jabberwocky, shenanigans, jocularity, waggery, drollery, levity, frivolity, silliness, inanity, and the Like.

For the wonks, Wonkas, classicists and literalists amongst us, do consider reading:

The First Surrealist Manifesto (Breton, 1924).

(Yes, it’s really The Surrealist Party’s platform. Yes, there really is such a thing.  No, we haven’t read it.  The Dem and GOP Committeepersons and Candidates don’t read theirs, either, so why pick on us?)

In closing:

A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men. – Willy Wonka

(Did you know that nearly all the best quotes in the film Willy Wonka are lifted from works of literature? You can review many of them here.)

If you have questions about this post, any of its references, or the Surrealist Party in general, please drop a Comment.

Well, as they say, all good things must come to an end.  And apparently the longstanding relationship between political consultant Mike Slanker and Senator John Ensign is not exempt from that rule.

The two have now said buh-bye to one another, presumably as part of the fallout from the uber-sordid Ensign affair with a campaign staffer (and wife of a close friend).

There’s a rumor afloat that Ensign MAY have hired Sig Rogich to help him limp through this next phase of his political career. Rogich already advises Harry Reid on various and sundry, so an association with Ensign would mean Rogich has the ears of both Nevada senators.

Well played, Mr. Rogich.

This Independence Institute YouTube video on just one set of drawbacks in the Oregon Health care system is pure gold.

Watch; laugh; cry; share.

Free-marketers, conservatives and/or Republicans have recently been tagged as the “Party of No” by their big-government pushing liberal counterparts.  According to the Left, all the Right ever does these days is say “no” to every policy proposal that comes down the pike.

Saying “no” to bad policy is hardly a sin, but there are some good alternatives floating around out there.

Like these suggestions for free market health care reform proposed by Geoff Lawrence, the fiscal analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

Read the whole thing and incorporate into your Talking Points – to be added after you say “no” to Obamacare pushers.

Just ran across this old gem from The Gipper:

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.  Government programs, once launched, never disappear.  Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

A faithful reader who knows I am interested in socio-political things sends this little book report blurb on Shenfan: The  Continuing Revolution in a Chinese City:

The author points out that while peasants are learning to cooperate with one another in planting and growing crops, the bureaucratic overseers try to outdo one another by falsely reporting yields - proving that the competitive spirit can’t be obliterated but only moved from place to place. 

So, in one village, X reports that “his people” produced 200 catties per mou (I’ve forgotten what those translate to in bushels per acre), and then Y says “my people” produced 300.  And pretty soon, someone is reporting 10,000 catties per mou. 

This is all well and good until all the cadres (bureaucrats) start harassing “their people” to produce to at the enormously inflated level, making all the peasants feel inadequate and depressing the collective to the point that it can’t function.

At which point, because this is socialism/communism, the state steps in and sends the peasants the grain they need but are no longer producing because they can’t meet unreasonable quotas.  

Making them totally dependent on the state – which works only for a short time, because since all collectives are producing less, the state has less to distribute.

 Forcing the peasants back into growing crops the way they used to – on their own land privately.

 And:

Mao wanted to put his trust in “the peasants,” believing that they could learn to cooperate in order to benefit both themselves and the state as soon as they could be taught that it was in their best interest to do so.

 But Mao was opposed by others at the top who didn’t trust the masses at all and felt that they needed to be controlled and managed (exploited) and that power had to remain in the hands of an elite few.  Unfortunately, these elite few were full of pie-in-the-sky ideas about farming and production, and when their projects fell apart, they simply blamed the masses for the failure.

It occurs to me that  whether we are talking socialism or capitalism, true progress is made when those at the bottom cooperate to improve their own lives (bigger yields, more food on the personal table) while supplying the state with the excess, so that the state can, in turn, build roads, keep the peace, improve technology, and the like. 

And that neither system flourishes when an elite loses touch with the grassroots.

They must be getting desperate.

Why else would the White House post the following blurb at whitehouse.gov:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Let’s re-cap.

Emails.  And casual conversations.  And stuff on the web.  That are “fishy.”  Should be flagged.  And emailed to the White House.  So they can keep track of them.  And combat “disinformation.”

Oooo-KAY.

Since when, and based on what precedent, does a sitting President ask American citizens to report on their fellow citizens in regards to political speech? Has the White House staff lost their senses?  Is the Teleprompter drunk?

The audacity of the request is eclipsed only by its foolishness. Trying to control information – or disinformation – on the web is like trying to herd a million cats. You can’t do it.

And if you’re the White House, you shouldn’t be trying.

I guess this “flag the fishy” idea was dreamt up by the same geniuses who thought it was wise to call concerned Townhall attendees an “angry mob” spouting “manufactured information” when they dared to show up and ask tough questions about health care reform.

People like the woman who asked her congressman, “How can you manage health care when you can’t manage Cash for Clunkers?”

Or the elderly woman who asked her congressman if HE was going to be on the new health care plan.

Yeah, these people are just totally unhinged.

Our elected officials must find it SO annoying to have to deal with these pesky citizens and their annoying questions.

(Iowahawk embellishes with his usual brilliance.)

Breitbart found some video of Obama speaking on health care from a 2003 speech to the AFL-CIO.

Here is the money quote:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

“Wow.”

The White House response to this?

A three-minute (mis)information video featuring Linda Douglass, a former ABC news correspondent and now the WH Office of Health Reform communications director, sitting in front of a computer screen showing Drudge’s front page and saying the video and site headline is “taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a very false impression.”

Why not try to explain why Obama has changed his mind, rather than denying what we just saw him say ON VIDEO in a speech just a few years ago…?

Had a wonderful lunch today @ Capitol Grille @ the front/top of the Fashion Show Mall here in Las Vegas.  Great wine list.  And my citrus crab salad on butter leaf lettuce was fabulous.

Other notes:  The server, though not a sommelier, understood my questions about their available-by-the-glass Chardonnays and made a very nice recommendation for a bottle based on my expressed preferences.  The service was perfect except that my water glass was permitted to become empty, twice.

The bar (in back) is very nicely done:  cozy with a few large custom-built wine fridges behind.  I do think they should perhaps have made it bigger; it would be a great happy hour meet-up spot but is size limited.  Lots of leather and mahogany everywhere, and the tables are set apart nicely.  (Can’t stand crowding.)

Highly recommended.

Laugh-’til-you-can’t-catch-your-breath-and-have-to-pee Alert on this one.  It’s on the Cambridge/Harvard Gates arrest thing. 

Why doesn’t Iowahawk have some sort of fat media gig by now?  How long must he go on being the sharpest, funniest, killingest political satirist on the Internet before they give him a multi-gazillion dollar site sponsorship, a sick crib, and a lifetime supply of beer?

Great Investor’s Business Daily cartoon.

This NY Post health care op-ed includes some truly appalling commentary by Dr. Ezekiel (Rahm’s brother) Emanuel and Dr. David Blumenthal.

As I was reading the piece I had a wrenching, visceral reaction.  Orwellian in nature.

These people actually believe they are adequately equipped to make not only “minor” but also life-and-death health care decisions for the elderly, the infirm, and the terminal.  That they have the right to say when a person does, or does not, need or deserve health care – and to what degree.  That they can and should decide which technologies are “appropriate” and which are too costly depending on the age and condition of the patient.

They knowingly and deliberately wish to suppress and subvert the will of family, and of the individual.  And they do it in the name of money:  cost savings, greater efficiencies.

It is horrifying.  Because the only thing more agonizing and torturous than having to make a life-or-death and/or quality-of-life choice about the care of a loved one, or yourself, is to be taken out of the process and have some computer algorithm or committee make the decision for you.

If these monsters are allowed to proceed — what else do you call men so misguided and monomaniacal that they sit in their mahogany-trimmed offices and play at being gods with clear conscience? — we will find ourselves living that horrifying vision that was once but a fiction.

(As an aside, Orwell’s heirs should sue Emanuel, Blumenthal, President Obama, and two-thirds of Congress for copyright infringement over health care language.)

And we should all come out of our slumber before we find ourselves in a nightmare from which we cannot wake.

Update: Fred Thompson interviews the writer of the above-named NY Post piece, Betsy McCaughey (8 minutes).

She said that on page 425 of the House bill is language making it mandatory that every five years, people in Medicare will have a required counseling session that will educate them about how to end their life sooner (how to refuse nutrition and medication, and how to approach hospice care).  And that some parts of the bill dictate that the elderly will be faced with denials of care based on their age.  It’s called “comparative effectiveness.”

American Thinker has the scoop via a WSJ article.  Orlando is #2 on the chopping block.  Both cities are apparently too lavish, too resort-y, too fun.  Gotta think about perceptions, dontcha know.

Unfortunately for Nevada, we are largely a travel-dependent state.  We have thousands of hotel rooms and millions of square feet of hotel and conference space built for the express purpose of enticing people here.  (And for that reason, we often have some of the best travel deals.)

Someone ought to research the cost of conference bookings in other cities and see if they turned out to be more or less expensive than holding a comparable conference in Las Vegas.  In other words, are the feds spending more money than needed just to avoid the “stigma” of coming to Las Vegas?

And how about discouraging federal agencies from booking conferences altogether, anywhere?  In this day and age, why can’t our federal employees do a little more tele-conferencing, web-casting, Skyping, emailing, and so on, to get the job done?

Sometimes it’s necessary, or at least highly beneficial, to bring everyone together in a room “live.”  Sometimes it’s not.

Much has been said about Obama’s hurried, we-must-do-it-now approach to health care reform.  I don’t want the rush, and further, I think rushing through this is a really good way to ensure we end up with some really bad policy.

Now CNN’s Dana Bash is reporting that Harry Reid said there will be no Senate vote until after August on health care.

But, from Ohio, Ed Henry reports that a “senior administration official” said Reid’s comment does not change the president’s plans:  He still wants votes in both houses before August recess.

H/T:  K-Lo @ The Corner

Update:  Mr. Crum just called me and said he thinks Harry Reid’s statement was made with one eye on the polls and one on Reid’s 2010 senatorial campaign.  If a bill is rushed through and things don’t end well, Reid can say he tried to slow things down.  If things do turn out well, he can still point to how cautious he was.

Yuval Levin always impresses.  Read it.

Let Freedom Ring has a pledge designed to hold congressmen accountable for reading the entire health care bill before they vote on it.

(How ridiculous is it that we even have to have such things?)

Here’s what the website says:

All 535 Members of the U.S. House and Senate have received multiple copies of the Pledge by fax, email, regular mail or personal visitation. Any Representative or Senator not shown on the list of signers below may therefore reasonably be classified as having declined to sign. A few Senators have insisted that although they are supportive of our Pledge, they have adopted a blanket policy against signing pledges that prevents their signing ours. Although Let Freedom Ring believes that that they should make an exception for our pledge, because it is narrowly drawn and quite specific, we have agreed to post letters from those Senators in a separate section following the list of signers. You may read the letters by clicking on the Senators’ names.

Go see the list.  And download the pledge if you want to send it directly to your own rep.

For all you online media and blog and journalism geeks, this is an interesting post.

It resonates with me because I always click source links, read the “About,” and check to see who is paying the bills before I assess the “objectivity” of something I read online.

Do you?

Clever.  And sobering.

Dina Titus (D-NV) casts a vote that earns my respect. 

From an article in the WSJ:

A group of Democrats elected in recent years from some of the country’s richest congressional districts have emerged as a stumbling block to raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for President Barack Obama’s ambitious health-care overhaul just as the plan has begun to meet increasing resistance over its cost.

Friday, two freshmen representatives — Dina Titus, from suburban Las Vegas, and Colorado’s Jared Polis, representing Boulder, Vail and some of the tonier suburbs of Denver — joined Republicans to vote against Mr. Obama’s top-priority health-care overhaul when it faced a vote in their House Education and Labor Committee. One reason was a one-percentage point-surtax on couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000 — gradually increasing to 5.4 percentage points on earnings more than $1 million — to pay for it.

A gold star for senator Mitch McConnell for these statements.  He provides an honest history of the nomination process since the 70s, examines past and present objections to Supreme Court nominees based on ”fitness” and ideology, and then takes a stand on Sotomayor.  I think he gets it right.

Though, as we all know, she will be confirmed anyway.

I know quite a few people who are planning to go to Washington DC for the 9/12/09 March on Washington.  And quite a few people who say they are not.  Here’s what one Nevada blogger says about why he and his family are going.

This one’s kind of fun.  (If you can’t handle a little light satire without getting your sensibilities all in a wad, you’d better leave off reading right now.)

Most of our presidents have had one or two nicknames.  Dutch; The Gipper.  Bubba (or Slick Willy, to his detractors).  W.

So, my friend and Hollywood screenwriter Myrna Sokoloff is thinking it over and gives us this piece over at Big Hollywood called ‘The Smile’: A Perfect Presidential Nick Name, suggesting one for our sitting president.

I thought about it for a minute.  And you know how a lot of the old comic book characters have names that sort of capture their essence, whether villainous or good?  Kingpin.  Spiderman.  Green Goblin.  The Joker.  Well, I think Myrna may have nailed it with “The Smile.”

He mesmerizes, hypnotizes, delights.  A hero’s Hero from toe to toothy grin.  When he enters, rooms brighten and hearts flutter.  The style, the swing.  That certain je ne sais quois. And that smile.

Oh, to be near The Smile.

The comic book pages turn; the reader is entranced; but wait, what’s this?

A page is turned.  He is caught unaware, there, at the top of page 17, in slide 3.  He is alone, half-undressed.  He startles, turns, forgetting himself.  His eyes stare back, cool, empty.

And you, poor reader, are stunned.  You scan his face; you are aghast.  Where his mouth once was, there is a gaping hole.

And The Smile…?

It is there, on the dressing table, next to his watch and cuff links.  It shines; it sparkles; but it is not an ornament.

No, it is alive – alive?! – and all at once you see the horrifying truth:

The Smile is the master, and the man is its accessory!

I got three LOLs and one verge-of-tears moment out of this video.  It’s a joke, but my love for my country, and my desire for truth and transparency in government, is not.  Watch, laugh, cry, and then decide what YOU can do about it.

In re: to this, the always-on-the-ball Victor Joecks at NPRI dropped us a comment with a link to a 2003 National Review story about David Keene, the ACU, and political advocacy groups trying to moonlight as lobbyists. (See here for my earlier post on the current ACU dust-up due to a leaked letter from FedEx.)

It is a sobering piece, and has me thinking about whether people and/or organizations can “do” both effective issues advocacy and paid lobbying while still maintaining philosophical-political integrity.

I suppose it is possible, but it seems to me they are best kept separate and that people ought to make a choice.  The temptation to bend and accept lobby money on a “lesser” issue while (rationalizing that) you are still right on all the “core” issues can be great and should not be underestimated. As is often said at round-table meetings where political purity is challenged by the need for operating cash, “You can’t change the world if you can’t pay the rent.”

Unfortunately, once one accepts even a little money for not-quite pure reasons, one has begun to compromise, which makes it that much more likely that the next time a trade-off presents itself, one will do it again.  And again.

The next thing you know, you end up like David Keene and the ACU:  wealthy, powerful, and part of the problem with politics and public policy debates in this country.  You no longer consistently stand on principle, and everything is for sale.

God forbid I ever find myself there.

We must resist the alluring song of those enchanting twin sirens, Money and Power, or in the end suffer our good ship to veer off course or be smashed to pieces on the rocks. The siren song is beautiful; but its end is always death.

Ernest Istook @ Heritage’s Foundry blog has a good post stating concerns about Obama’s new Census Czar and his methods.  Seems that Robert Groves supports “statistical sampling” even though the administration (officially, at least) does not.  This practice attempts to make “adjustments” for under-counted people by creating fictitious profiles and assigning them a zip code, gender, race, and so on.  And then it counts them, just as if they were being counted by a census worker.

The argument in favor of the method is that poor minorities and illegal immigrants are usually under-counted so census results are skewed.  The argument against is that assumptions and formulas can be wrong.  And that data can be manipulated.

Though I think this needs watching, it is good to note that the Supreme Court ruled (in 1999) that the census has to be an actual count, so there is current protection under the law on this issue.  Any attempt to incorporate statistical sampling into the census could be legally challenged.  And I assume would be.

Istook’s closing lines are winners:

As Joseph Stalin said, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

And so could those who count the voters.

No?  Me neither.

Get ready to be flabbergasted.  And angry.

My friend and fellow blogger Dr. Melissa Clouthier brought this story to my attention on her RFC Radio show “The Right Doctor.”  (She airs Mondays and Wednesdays at 10 pm eastern.)  The gist:

On June 4, 2009, Muslim men tried to smuggle weapons onto two different Phoenix bound U.S. Airways flights within 35 minutes of one another…and the FBI called them “isolated” incidents…and no one in in the LameStream media picked the story up.

The FBI has since been shamed into looking into a possible connection.

And then there was this (from the same Pajamas Media story linked to above):

The hit-or-miss Israeli website Debkafile reported on July 7 that U.S. and German intelligence believes that 15-20 al-Qaeda terrorists have been trained in Pakistan and Algeria and are now hiding in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, and Egypt. Their mission, according to the report, is to hijack and bomb Western airliners headed to Israel and the United States.

How is it that in a post-9/11 world – or in any world - the American mainstream media does not bother to report Muslim men smuggling weapons onto commercial airliners?

I have had just about all I can take of a media that gave us 24/7 “news” coverage of Michael Jackson’s death for over a week, but did not dedicate ONE MINUTE to this story on June 4.

We need some independent media watchdog organizations.  Nationally and in every state.  Right now.  Before this country becomes unrecognizable.  And my head explodes.