How beer saved civilization

George Will explains the Survival of the Sudsiest

The development of civilization depended on urbanization, which depended on beer. To understand why, consult Steven Johnson's marvelous 2006 book, "The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic -- and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World." It is a great scientific detective story about how a horrific cholera outbreak was traced to a particular neighborhood pump for drinking water. And Johnson begins a mind-opening excursion into a related topic this way:

"The search for unpolluted drinking water is as old as civilization itself. As soon as there were mass human settlements, waterborne diseases like dysentery became a crucial population bottleneck. For much of human history, the solution to this chronic public-health issue was not purifying the water supply. The solution was to drink alcohol."

Often the most pure fluid available was alcohol -- in beer and, later, wine -- which has antibacterial properties. Sure, alcohol has its hazards, but as Johnson breezily observes, "Dying of cirrhosis of the liver in your forties was better than dying of dysentery in your twenties." Besides, alcohol, although it is a poison, and an addictive one, became, especially in beer, a driver of a species-strengthening selection process.

Johnson notes that historians interested in genetics believe that the roughly simultaneous emergence of urban living and the manufacturing of alcohol set the stage for a survival-of-the-fittest sorting-out among the people who abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and, literally and figuratively speaking, went to town.

To avoid dangerous water, people had to drink large quantities of, say, beer. But to digest that beer, individuals needed a genetic advantage that not everyone had -- what Johnson describes as the body's ability to respond to the intake of alcohol by increasing the production of particular enzymes called alcohol dehydrogenases. This ability is controlled by certain genes on chromosome four in human DNA, genes not evenly distributed to everyone. Those who lacked this trait could not, as the saying goes, "hold their liquor." So, many died early and childless, either of alcohol's toxicity or from waterborne diseases.

The gene pools of human settlements became progressively dominated by the survivors -- by those genetically disposed to, well, drink beer. "Most of the world's population today," Johnson writes, "is made up of descendants of those early beer drinkers, and we have largely inherited their genetic tolerance for alcohol."

Dave Schuler adds to James Joyner's post by saying,

The connection between civilization and beer is even stronger than George Will alleges. Nomads can do a lot of things but it’s darned hard to brew mead or beer unless you adopt a sedentary habit. There are anthropologists who believe that human beings founded the first permanent settlements in order to brew mead or beer. Beer-drinking anthropologists, naturally.

I've had the pleasure of enjoying a beer in Joyner's company and have seen George Will drink a beer too, so we can all drink to that.

Beer continues to refect man's history: Last year The Incontiguous Brick posted on how Biofuels cause higher beer prices when German farmers switch to those crops instead of growing barley. And of course, in the presidential campaign this year, Cindy McCain is an executive at an Anheuser-Busch distributor in Phoenix. Stephen Bainbridge explains why beer stocks are a good place to park your money during a downturn.

The perfect topics for a hot Summer afternoon: beer and books.

UPDATE
How to Win Your Wife's Weight in Beer



Share on Facebook

McCain's new ad: "Love"

Hitting at the "hope and change" meme (script from The Page):

It was a time of uncertainty, hope and change. The "Summer Of Love." Half a world away, another kind of love - of country.
John McCain: Shot down. Bayoneted. Tortured. Offered early release, he said, "No." He’d sworn an oath.
Home, he turned to public service. His philosophy: before party, polls and self … America. A maverick, John McCain tackled campaign reform, military reform, spending reform. He took on presidents, partisans and popular opinion.
He believes our world is dangerous, our economy in shambles. John McCain doesn't always tell us what we "hope" to hear. Beautiful words cannot make our lives better.
But a man who has always put his country and her people before self, before politics can.
Don’t "hope" for a better life. Vote for one. McCain.

I don't agree that the economy is in shambles, for the mere reason that when I was majoring in economics in college a 5 or 6% unemployment rate was considered an idealized figure that "ain't gonna happen". According to the US Department of Labor the unemployment rate for June was 5.5%. We have a long way to go to get to the "shambles" stage.

But the ad is very good in addressing the issue of image vs. substance, pretty words vs. experience, Obama vs McCain. Those of us who are "up to here" with the ridiculous nostalgia for the Summer of Love will gladly see it deflated to what it really was: an empty roll in the hay by those who had responsibilities and no regard for anything other than themselves.

Ed phrases it a lot more elegantly:

This does more than just belittle the "hope" theme. It provokes an interesting contest between competing visions of the nation, of service, and of "love" and what it means. McCain’s ad draws battle lines between philos and eros and takes one last shot at a decade that produced the most self-referential and self-absorbed generation of Americans ever seen - the Baby Boomers.

The imagery and the text make clear that McCain believes in the classic values of sacrifice and honor, especially in service to the nation. That sacrifice extends to his political career, which he has risked for issues he felt important to the country. Nowhere has that been more true than on Iraq. While Barack Obama continues to waffle and hedge his bets on withdrawal, McCain staked his presidential campaign on victory — and proved himself right and Obama wrong on the surge and the stabilizing effect it has had on Iraq.

The ad not only is a contrast of the two visions held by the candidates, it carries a valuable moral lesson: that it's better to love something higher than our own selfish selves.

I like it.

crossposted



Share on Facebook

"Hostage Rescue Is Happy Coincidence for McCain in Colombia"...

UPDATE
The Colombian hostage rescue video
... says Elizabeth Bumiller of the NYT. The title of that article implies that McCain's visit had been planned to coincide with the hostage rescue.

Like any other conspiracy theory, that one is easily rebuked. Commenter Pat Patterson, at my Pajamas Media article, deftly and with a good measure of sarcasm points out the obvious:

That's right the Colombian government spent months arranging the infiltration of its agents, getting the intel on the location of the fifteen hostages and then sat around twiddling their thumbs until Sen. McCain showed up for a photo op. But since there are no pictures of Ingrid Bettancourt or the Americans holding flowers and shaking hands with the senator from Arizona then the whole plot seems like a terrible waste of energy. Maybe it was a conspiracy by FTD and not the CIA?

Moe Lane expands,

If you're wondering why a big counter-terrorism strike just happened to take place during Senator John McCain's visit to the region*, stop wondering: it was a no doubt deliberate decision on Colombia's part. Note that while they briefed the American delegation prior to the event, the actual operation took place while McCain was en route to Mexico. President Uribe wants good relations between Colombia and the USA, but he also wants to establish a certain separation. Bringing off a major counter-terrorism operation during, but independently of, a working visit by three US Senators should fit the bill.

Aside from the silly title, Bumiller's article makes a good point:

The timing of the rescue, which occurred while Mr. McCain was in Colombia, was in many ways a fortuitous turn of events for a presidential candidate who is using a three-day trip to South America and Mexico to try to show that he is a more agile foreign policy hand than his Democratic competitor, Senator Barack Obama. Although the timing of the rescue was a coincidence and Mr. McCain’s trip to Colombia had nothing to do with it, the event nonetheless put him in the middle of classified talks about covert operations with the head of another government.

What is no coincidence is that McCain's foreign policy experience outshines that of his rival. McCain's statement on the rescue highlights the importance of the operation while still reminding us of the hundreds of remaining hostages:

McCain, who was in Colombia Tuesday and Wednesday, said that President Alvaro Uribe and the Colombian defense minister had told him of the rescue plans.

"I'm pleased with the success of this very high-risk operation," McCain said in a release. "Sometimes in the past, the FARC has killed the hostages rather than let them be rescued. So I congratulate President Uribe, the military and the nation of Colombia. It is great news. Now we must renew our efforts to free all of the other innocent people held hostage. With regard to the three Americans and Ingrid Betancourt — they had been held many years, as many as six years."

Additionally, McCain supports the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat congress has been blocking.

The clear winners in this operation are Alvaro Uribe, all the hostages released, and the people of Colombia. The very big loser? Hugo Chavez. This hostage rescue has infinite repercussions in international politics.

Der Spiegel:

Indeed, it is Chavez who has been the big loser as a result of the positive developments in his neighboring country. With the fall of FARC, he has lost an important ally. His dream of a cross-border Bolivian revolution has failed, and at home he is fighting for his political survival.

There's a second loser in this drama: Nicolas Sarkozy. The French appeared to have been just as surprised as Chavez to hear about Betancourt's release on Wednesday. Paris had only just managed to establish fresh contact with the new FARC leader Alfonso Cano. Sarkozy had hoped that the French could score a coup by negotiating Betancourt's release and flying her directly to Paris. Colombian government officials had spoken reproachingly about what they often deemed to be politically motivated attempts at intervention on the part of the French.

Erik Svane notices that the French didn't take it gracefully: Frenchwoman: What Freed Ingrid Bétancourt Was Not President Uribe, But… "International Pressure" on President Uribe!, with "international pressure" meaning the French government, of course. They'd like to take credit for the release of one of their citizens, having failed at procuring the release itself.

The rescue itself was extraordinary: Counterterrorism blog calls it an Operation Right Out of Spy Thriller

This is a classic demonstration of how a country can use a mixture of law enforcement, intelligence, military, diplomatic and other mechanisms together, with a great deal of patience and tenacity, to achieve profound results against terrorism. It's an operation that needs to be studied, understood, to see what its lessons are for handling other hostage situations and other terrorist groups.

The political map has changed for South America. Let's hope the Dems in Congress get around to realizing that. For sure, the Dems claim that Pres. Bush has been ignoring Latin America flies in the face of this fact:

The US ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield, said there had been "close co-operation" from the Americans, including the sharing of intelligence, equipment and training advice.

This Ain't Hell has Betancourt's first press conference


Venezuela News and Views reacts to the press conference

Betancourt has now been reunited with her family. Keith Stansell, Marc Gonsalves and Thomas Howes are back home, too.

Others blogging on the rescue:
Gateway Pundit

Prairie Pundit

The New Editor

Poliblog

In Spanish ElTiempo's report

Much more at Memeorandum

Special thanks to Larwyn and Siggy.



Share on Facebook

BREAKING NEWS: INGRID BETANCOURT RESCUED

The Colombian government has officially announced that (my translation)

Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos has confirmed that former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, three American citizens and 11 Colombian soldiers who were captive by the FARC were rescued during a military operation.

This is a huge breakthrough in the war against the FARC. Colombia has rescued the world's most famous hostage in a military operation, after France and others had failed through every other means.

John McCain is traveling in Colombia today. Earlier today, the WaPo's blog was saying, McCain Travels South, Searching for Message. Well, the message is clear: Colombia, America's most important ally in the region, is winning its war against terrorism, and winning big.

I'll add to this post later today as news develop.

Special thanks to Siggy for the tip.



Share on Facebook

John McCain's JFK Opportunity

McCain is visiting Mexico and Colombia.

William McGurn, writing in the WSJ, calls it John McCain's JFK Opportunity:

If these words have more of a Republican ring to them, it's probably because it has been some time since any Democratic Party leader has offered such muscular language – especially with regard to trade and opportunity and American purpose. To the contrary, JFK would have a hard time reconciling his outward and optimistic vision with the crabbed protectionism the Democratic Party now stands for. And there's no better example than the way House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to schedule a vote on a U.S. trade agreement with Colombia.

Even the critics have mostly given up arguing the economics of this agreement. Under legislation Congress has approved, most Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty free. The same is not true for what we export to Colombia. So mostly what this agreement would do is level the playing field for American goods and send an important signal to the region that we know who our friends are.

This is an excellent opportunity for McCain,

The Colombia trade agreement plays to his strength as a leader, and it is consistent with his long record as a supporter of free trade. It also comports with his instincts on foreign policy. Mr. McCain appreciates that demagogues like Hugo Chávez are just itching for the chance to exploit a permanently stalled trade pact with their enemy Colombia. "See," they will tell the people of the region, "the Americans will never treat you as equals."

The choice is stark. Mr. Obama is on record as saying he would meet with Mr. Chavez – a declared enemy of the U.S. In sharp contrast, this week Mr. McCain will be standing with Mr. Uribe – a proven friend.

Related post: Bill Richardson, Hugo's latest friend



Share on Facebook

Clark won't back down

Ben Smith: Clark won't back down: Retired general Wesley Clark says,

There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

I guess this is what passes for logic in Clark's mind.

But what it comes down to is, "The poor democrats...still think John Kerry lost because his service to his country was attacked, rather than his disservice", as Orrin Judd put it and Ed Driscoll added.

So they are repeatedly attacking McCain on his Vietnam experience in order to put McCain on the defensive, and to put McCain's heroism and character on the same (low) level as Kerry's.

Clearly Obama has no national security experience, no command experience, no military experience (may I point out that McCain served in the Navy for 8 years after he was released by the Vietcong?), no diplomatic experience (even when he's willing to meet with our enemies without preconditions), and in his two measly years in the Senate has not been in the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Obama people have to come up with this stuff because they can not afford to have anyone compare Obama's resume to McCain's.

I was talking to Rick Moran yesterday afternoon, and this is one issue McCain can take on, and run with it: experience and national security. Once McCain explains to the American people how important our energy policy is and how it is pertinent to our national security and economic well-being, an issue McCain's experience and character well qualifies him for, he'll win the election.

It looks like McCain's taking that approach:

The important thing is that if that's the kind of campaign that Senator Obama and his surrogates and his supporters want to wage, I understand that, but it doesn't reduce the price of a gallon of gas by one penny. It doesn't achieve our energy independence, make it come any closer. It doesn't help an American stay in their home who are at risk of losing it today. And it certainly doesn't do anything to address the challenges that Americans have in keeping their jobs, their homes and supporting their families. So, I intend to, in this campaign, to discuss the challenges we face, ... and [the] many other proposals and ideas and a plan of action I have to help the families of this nation.

In the meantime, may Aravosis repeat his question. It'll only make the public realize what Obama supporters really are like.



Share on Facebook

"Some on left" target McCain's war record

Some on left target McCain's war record

"A lot of people don't know ... that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity," wrote Americablog.com's John Aravosis. "Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?"

"Getting shot down, tortured and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience," Aravosis wrote in the blog post, titled "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"

HONESTLY, IS JOHN ARAVOSIS A PIECE OF EXCREMENT OR WHAT?

Yes he is.

But take a look at what Wesley Clark has to say:



How stupid is Wesley Clark?, asks Ed Morrissey:

In "the matter of national security policy making." Barack Obama hasn't ever done anything.
In the matter of gauging your "opponents", Obama wants to meet with them without preconditions despite having no national-security, military, or diplomatic experience.
Barack Obama hasn't been on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Barack Obama hasn't had any executive experience.
Barack Obama hasn't commanded anything, in wartime or not.
Barack Obama hasn't dealt with diplomats in any capacity at all.
Barack Obama hasn't ordered the bombs to fall, although to be fair, he has associated himself with someone who has — William Ayers.

Well, at least Aravosis and Clark aren't complaining about Obama's teeth.

Is this the "change" that everyone wants in Washington?

Good question.



Share on Facebook

Obama: Offshore drilling is "a gimmick"

While China, Cuba, Venezuela and Brazil do their outmost to drink our offshore milkshake, Obama's saying that offshore drilling is "a gimmick":

Obama, who wants to keep a moratorium on offshore drilling, will argue that McCain is offering a "gimmick" similar to the gas tax holiday proposal.
...
In Las Vegas this afternoon, Obama slammed McCain's energy proposals, arguing that they are "gimmicks" that may poll well but do not provide immediate relief. Obama said that he supports McCain's $300 million battery prize but that alone would not be enough.

In the same speech, Obama proposed a "stimulus package", "another round of rebate checks to the American people", and, the biggie:GREEN JOBS
Not gimmicks, no siree....

After all, green jobs may help bring down the price of arugula.

But hey, there's good news on energy policy coming from the Dems: Maxine Waters's spokeperson claims that she didn't really mean it when Waters talked about nationalizing the oil industry. As Betsy says,

At least we're still at the point that even someone like Waters has to pretend that she doesn't really want to socialize American industry.

One has to wonder what Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) has to say next. Here's what he was saying last week:

Link: sevenload.com

Meanwhile, the Brazilians oil exploration may mean that their recent discoveries may all be connected and form one big oil field. How's that for a gimmick, Obama?

While we wait for the senator to answer that question, let's ponder the No Zone again:

Someone Else's Alex

William Kristol in today's NYT:

I was having trouble putting my finder on just why until I came across a post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com.

Here's what the mother of an actual soldier has to say about the remarks of the mother of the prospective non-soldier in the ad:

"Does that mean that she wants other people's sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone's son, somewhere."

Check out Blue Star Chronicles and make it a daily visit.

Prior post: "You can't have Alex!"



Share on Facebook

"You can't have Alex!"

MoveOn.org's emotional appeal: Don't draft my baby, John McCain!


Don Surber (via Larwyn) wanted to know,

But what about the lad?

What's his side of the story?

Well, here it is: Baby Alex speaks out.

Josh Schroeder (via Ed Morrissey) shares his thoughts,


Buy Josh a beer!

UPDATE, Thursday 19 June
Via Larwyn, Alex sings a tune.



Share on Facebook

Bush asks Congress to clear way for offshore oil drilling

Thank you, Mr. President:

President Bush asked Congress Wednesday to permit drilling for oil in deep water off America's coasts to combat rising oil and gas prices.
...
Bush also renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, clear the way for more refineries and encourage efforts to recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

Bush said that the basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves, and that the high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.

At the Beeb

President George W Bush has called on Congress to end a 27-year ban on drilling for oil in US coastal waters, to reduce dependence on imports.

Look at the numbers:

Estimated reserves:
18bn barrels of recoverable oil
77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

US annual energy usage:
7.6bn barrels of oil
21 trillion cubic feet of gas

As McCain said,

...speaking in Houston on Tuesday, Mr McCain called for the ban to be lifted to help counter US dependence on foreign oil.

"This was a troubling situation 35 years ago. It was an alarming situation 20 years ago. It is a dangerous situation today," he said.

"And starting in the term of the next president, we must take control over our own energy future and become once again the master of our fate."

We also need to increase refining capacity.

We'll see if Congress can ever get around to understanding the importance of energy to their future, or whether they'll dream of a Pooh approach.



Share on Facebook

Why Brazil Isn't Ashamed to Exploit Its Oil

Mary Anastasia O'Grady has an excellent article in the WSJ, Why Brazil Isn't Ashamed to Exploit Its Oil. She explains why in detail, but it all boils down to this:

Brazilians understand the importance of energy to their future, while Americans do not.

Allow me to reiterate that: BRAZILIANS UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF ENERGY TO THEIR FUTURE, WHILE AMERICANS DO NOT.The difference between the Brazilians, whose environmentalists don't complain about offshore drilling, and the US is that Petrobras is state-owned, and here in the USA oil companies are privately-owned companies, so the socialist environmentalist mindset doesn't complain about the Brazilian approach.

Congress' insistence on the federal ban on offshore oil drilling not only causes short-term effects like high gas prices, but continues to make us increasingly dependent on foreign oil producers, most of which are oppressive tyrannies, several of which also support terrorism.

At least McCain seems to have realized this. McCain Seeks to End Offshore Drilling Ban:

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

Let's hope he wakes up when it comes to ANWR, too.

Obama, however, thinks of oil drilling in these terms:

"John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies,"

Obama doesn't seem to realize that
a. the oil is underground
b. it has to be drilled to get up to the surface
c. that's what oil companies do.
Can we "simply drill our way out of our energy crisis"? YES WE CAN.

McCain also wants federal subsidies to build nuclear power plants. While I normally oppose federal subsidies in general, this kind of large-scale infrastructure development should be a good use of taxpayer monies if appropriately managed.

Obama? He wants more regulation public utilities, and some greenhouse-gas emissions credits auction hocus-pocus. Perhaps it's all part of his Winnie the Pooh approach to things.


Share on Facebook

Protection you can vote on

McCain condoms: "Old but not expired."
(h/t Hot Air.

Speaking of all, but not expired, via Maria

The Incredible McCain Girl

You'll like her when she's angry:

A suggestion to the McCain campaign, fresh from today's podcast

Today Siggy and I had the pleasure of talking to Kevin McCullough, who has a brilliant suggestion for the McCain campaign

Question: What does McCain need to do to win, Kevin?
Kevin: A couple of things... he does not have a solidified base within hie party yet, so he's banking that he's going to be the more attractive vote to the independent and moderate and that he can garner enough of them to make up for whatever deficit he's lagging in his own base with.

But I'll tell you two things he can do that would be very simple. If he would, while being as moderate as he wants to be on climate change and other things, if he would go to California and say, not as a matter of faith but as a matter of Constitutional justice, "Voters in Prop. 22 were summarily overridden by four arrogant black robes in the California constitutional marriage ammendment process." If he would say, "these were judges snatching power from the people and we can not allow this to happen. This is a federalist issue, this is a local state issue, this is an issue of the voter's rights in this case", and if he would champion the right of the voters' right to the marriage ammendment in California, he could not only, possibly, garner a lot of respect from conservatives - social conservatives in particular, which which he is not on the best of terms in particular, but also they would see this as an act of leadership which would be very high in their priority level, but in the state of California it might drive enough voters to the poll to perhaps sway that state's electoral college count.

This is an excellent suggestion. Not only social conservatives but the Hispanic vote could be persuaded by this issue.

Listen to the rest of the podcast here.





Share on Facebook

Obama vs McCain: there are issues, and then there are fake issues

Real issue:
At the Official Obama Site: 'The Israeli Connection to 9/11'
At the Official Obama Site: 'Jemaah Islamiyah For Obama'. What is Jemaah Islamiyah? Take a look.
And At the Official Obama Site: 'How the Jewish Lobby Works', a post which was removed today

And guess what? They're also now blocking Google's cache from saving their pages. And they've also removed their pages from the Internet Archive and the Coral archives.

They're running scared, and they’re trying to make sure that when they throw a post down the memory hole, it stays there.

Fake issue:
The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind.

The UK's Mail is not keeping track of what goes up on the Obama website. Instead The Mail thinks that McCain's divorce from twenty-eight years ago shows him to be "a man who is unusually slick and cruel".

And who says so, pray tell? The first Mrs. McCain? No.
His children? No.
Ross Perot says so.

You just can't make this stuff up.

UPDATE, Mnday 9 June
Doug Ross has more.



Share on Facebook

Voting for Commander in Chief

Fred Kagan at the Weekly Standard contrasts each candidate's approach to the war: Voting for Commander in Chief
There can only be one.
McCain:

"By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis and their partners the best possible chances to succeed."

Obama:

Given this analysis, Obama's legislation forbade the surge and ordered most U.S. troops out of Iraq by the spring of 2008.

The results:

So what happened? President Bush ordered the surge. He committed an additional five Army brigades and two Marine battalions to Iraq with the mission of protecting the Iraqi population. In accomplishing this, U.S. forces partnered with Iraqi troops precisely as McCain had suggested, helping them "hold" areas that they had jointly "cleared." Meanwhile, American troops established bonds with local leaders, as McCain had said they would, which led to the expansion of the "Anbar Awakening" movement throughout central Iraq. And U.S. troops developed numerous economic and infrastructure projects that provided jobs.

Sectarian violence stopped almost completely. Al Qaeda in Iraq was dealt what CIA director Michael Hayden now assesses as "a near strategic defeat." This allowed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to commit Iraqi Security Forces directly against the last remaining illegal militias in Iraq, clearing them out of Basra and Sadr City--weaning "the populace off their reliance on militias for safety," as McCain had put it. American casualties initially rose, as McCain had warned they would, but then fell dramatically: Last month was the lowest-casualty month of the entire war.

Once violence was under control, the Iraqis began to make serious political progress, as McCain had predicted. They passed almost all of the "benchmark" legislation that Obama's bill would have required.

As to those unproven missile defense systems (via Ace) that Obama wants to eliminate, here's the video:




Share on Facebook

McCain's teeth

How McCain spent six long years:

In 1968, the Vietnamese broke off many of his teeth at the gum and tortured him for hours on end. They offered him early release, knowing his value as an admirals son, but he refused, saying others had been held captive longer."
Source Daily Mail, February 1, 2008

Well, since the Obamatopia can't get here from focusing on the issues, the Obamamaniacs have to resort to critiquing cosmetic dentistry.

Moe's asking Obama, "How much money did you troll from dKos, again?"

Note to the McCain campaign people: Time to dump the Kos off the featured blogs list.

UPDATE, Friday 6 June
Doug Ross has the visuals.



Share on Facebook

McCain's bloggers' call and today's roundup

I listened in McCain's bloggers' call but my post totally disappeared due to an internet connection malfunction, so here is a brief roundup of other bloggers' posts:
Matt Lewis asked about Juan Hernandez, McCain's un-paid Hispanic Outreach Director. Matt posted the transcript of their exchange.

Jim Geraghty has the entire call.

Jennifer Rubin asked about Obama's change of position on classification of the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization.

The Washington Examiner has a post by Dan Spencer, even when Quin Hillyer was the one asking the question. James Kirchik of the New Republic apparently hasn't posted on the call. However, the quality of the questions was much better than the ones from the conference call prior to this one,where the "Iraq withdrawal timetable" question took the cake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Chappell of Iberian Notes has a new website, Mundo Freaky: Lo insolito, lo divertido, lo freaky, with lots of funny stuff.

Neoneocon asks, Those fashionable stars: whatever were they thinking?

Zombietime was at Israel in the Gardens 2008

Via Maria, Brigitte Bardot was convicted Tuesday of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France when protesting the slaughter of sheep during Muslim feast of Aid el-Kebir.

Company Will Send Out Emails to Your Left-Behind Friends After the Rapture, for Just $40 Per Year. But will they read them?



Share on Facebook

Three speeches

All of them via Memeorandum,

Hillary's speech:

Even when the pundits and the naysayers proclaimed week after week that this race was over, you kept on voting. You're the nurse on the second shift, the worker on the line, the waitress on her feet, the small business owner, the farmer, the teacher, the miner, the trucker, the soldier, the veteran, the student, the hardworking men and women who don't always make the headlines, but have always written America's story.

You have voted because you wanted to take back the White House. And because of you we won, together, the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes.

And you know — In all of the states, you voted because you wanted a leader who will stand up for the deepest values of our party, a party that believes everyone should have a fair shot at the American dream, a party that cherishes every child, values every family, and counts every single vote.

She's definitely NOT going away. That speech sounded like a victory speech to me. Jules Crittenden's examining the situation as the night of the living dead, which pretty much sums it all.

Obama's speech:

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon—that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Obama, listen to what you're saying:
Don't Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, both former Weather Underground members, believe in governing by fear?
You are willing to meet Iran without preconditions, even when Iran has consistently said that Isreal will be anihilated. Isn't it foolinsh of you to meet with leaders of a country whose regime is predicated on fear?
Isn't the PLO an organization created to propagate fear and destruction?
You attended for twenty years a church that has relentlessly preaching racial and class hate from the pulpit. Isn't that divisive?
Doesn't the endless creation of a new class of victims foster demonization?
Why won't you meet with General Petraeus? Is it because of his patriotism?
If you believe that using religion for political purposes creates a wedge, why the hey are your doing this:

In view of your statements, if we are "always Americans first", why are you proposing economic policies that can place an even higher burden on the consumer?
Do you believe that equality comes with the redistribution of wealth, or with creation of opportunity?
Last but not least, how do you explain your change of mind regarding the Palestinians?


McCain's speech:

The sweeping reforms of government we need won't occur unless we change the political habits of Washington that have locked us in an endless cycle of bickering and stalemate. Washington is consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious issue as an opportunity to trade insults; impugn each other's motives; and fight about the next election. This is the game Washington plays. Both parties play it, as do the special interests that support each side. The American people know it's not on the level. For all the problems we face, what frustrates them most about Washington is they don't think we're capable of serving the public interest before our personal ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay, and they have every right to be. We have to change not only government policies that have failed them, but the political culture that produced them.

Of the three, Hillary and Obama both will continue to wallow in the political culture of divisiness. Only McCain has a record of being a uniter. And only McCain emphasizes cutting government spending. He'll have my vote.



Share on Facebook