Very long, which is part of the parody, but you probably all trust Iowahawk to bring the funny.

Heh: Dan Collins did this Go Elf Yourself featuring Gleen, Wilson, Thomas Ellers, and Rick Ellensberg.

Via Instapundit.

Posted by: Ace at 02:24 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

I didn't consider this. Given that Mormons are staunchly Republican, perhaps it's not wise to constantly attack them and inform them in no uncertain terms that we only want their votes.

Jonah:

Something teh GOP leadership should take note of, which I have not seen addressed so far, is the Mormon rank-and-file reaction to the treatment we've been given by the GOP. For decades the Republican Party was happy to have our support for their conservative agenda and our reliable vote, apparently as long as we kept our mouths shut and didn't go rocking the boat.

However, after having seen how Romney is treated in many GOP circles, there are lot of Mormons who are feeling more than a little put out with our own party. Of course, the Dems need not wait a mass exodus of Mormon to that party since much of their platform is still very objectionable to most Mormons, but it is
certainly enough to convince Mormons to either pull for a third party candidate or simply stay home, thus putting Utah up for grabs in the presidential election.

I don't buy the third party thing, but the stay-at-home thing is always a risk. It's one thing to disagree sharply with someone's religion; it's another thing entirely to essentially say that normal civic prerogatives of a US citizen should be denied to someone due to their religious beliefs.

That sort of thing antagonizes people, and for good reason.

What About Atheists? A lot of people seem to be troubled by the non-mention of atheists and agnostics in Romney's speech.

I'm an agnostic and I don't care. You know, conservatives get annoyed when liberals insist on that run-on string of inclusive language they do -- "men, women, the androgynous, the transgendered, the... bat-wangers..." -- and it seems a bit inconsistent for some of us to get our panties all in a bunch at not having our non-faith tradition go unmentioned.

Besides that, this was clearly a speech aimed at winning over, or at least blunting opposition by, evangelical Christians. Praising atheism in such a speech would be politically ludicrous.

Posted by: Ace at 01:15 PM | Comments (119)
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

Great plan, I admit.

Anyone who doubts Mitt Romney's 11th-hour conversion to conservative positions on abortion and gay marriage must doubt even more Huckabee's sudden change off heart, clocking in, by my watch, at 11:57:22.

Let me quote the NYT:

As governor, he seemed like “a charitable Christian,” said Janine Parry, a political science professor at the University of Arkansas — not an antigovernment conservative, but one who felt that institutions could improve the lives of the underprivileged, especially when it came to immigration and health care.

Mr. Huckabee never abandoned his stances on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, but his efforts on these issues seemed more show than substance, some observers say.

“Typically in a legislative session he would put forward a primarily symbolic social issue for the session: a “choose life” license plate, for instance, Mr. Barth said. The bill would pass, social conservatives would be satisfied, and the governor would be free to do the health care and education work he was becoming increasingly passionate about.

...

Some other Christian conservatives have accused Mr. Huckabee of encouraging lawbreaking by supporting government social services for illegal immigrants. Mr. Huckabee defends himself on religious terms. He talks of a Bible-based injunction to care for illegal immigrants, just as he points to biblical admonitions to minister to the sick and protect the environment.

As his original position was based on religion, and the Christian ethic of compassion is what animates him, can he please explain to us all what new passage of the Bible he's discovered which recommends a tougher position on illegals?

Because -- see -- if he can't, then I'm sort of doubting this newest epiphany.

There's the saying I like: You can't reason someone out of a position he wasn't reasoned into in the first place. And if Huckabee's commitment to a kinder, gentler approach to illegals was never based on reason, or even venal politics, but on a deeply felt religious belief, I don't think I'm buying he's now on board with the plan. He cribbed the plan from Mark Krikorian on the fly, and didn't even do the basic homework to learn that INS no longer exists, but I'm expected to believe this represents a real conversion of thought?

If I buy that, then I'll also have to buy John McCain is now a tough-on-immigration candidate. After all, he said "I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

More... I especially don't buy his sudden refutation of his Christian obligations (as he believes them to be) given that he's attributing his rise in the polls to the All Mighty Himself.

When your entire candidacy is, it seems, being propelled by "the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people," you can't reverse your religiously-based positions lightly. After all, your main constituency is the Host of Heaven itself.

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (88)
Post contains 500 words, total size 4 kb.

No, seriously.

AUSTRALIAN scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, researchers say.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroo flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

While the usual image of greenhouse gas pollution is a billowing smokestack pushing out carbon dioxide, livestock passing wind contribute a surprisingly high percentage of total emissions in some countries.

"Fourteen per cent of emissions from all sources in Australia is from enteric methane from cattle and sheep,'' said Athol Klieve, a senior research scientist with the Queensland Government.

"And if you look at another country such as New Zealand, which has got a much higher agricultural base, they're actually up around 50 per cent,'' he said.

Researchers say the bacteria also makes the digestive process much more efficient and could potentially save millions of dollars in feed costs for farmers.

"Not only would they not produce the methane, they would actually get something like 10 to 15 per cent more energy out of the feed they are eating,'' said Mr Klieve.

I usually call nonsense on crap like this, but what the hell. Methane free farts, less feed used for livestock... sounds like good science to me.

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Out of line?

Well, watch it first. Then let me ask you:

Were you listening to Romney or reading the dirt CNN was putting up on the left side of the screen?

I know which I was doing.

There's nothing wrong with noting the controversies surrounding the Church of LDS. But I don't seem to remember CNN running a similar graphic while Joe Lieberman was speaking during his 2000 VP run noting, for example, "The Jews rejected Christ." This is a true fact about Judaism, of course, a helpful little reminder about the differences between Judaism and Christianity, and yet CNN really didn't feel the need to inform Christians of their doctrinal differences with Lieberman's faith.

Nor do I recall CNN adding helpful graphics when Muslim Keith Ellison was running for Congress, noting, say, "Islam teaches that Christians are infidels and hell-bound."

To run this during Romney's speech shows bias. No one's going to listen to a wholesome call for religious tolerance when there's scandal and skullduggery being flashed at the same time.

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 11:09 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Well that's an interesting way of looking at things. And by "interesting," I mean "fucking retarded."

Hey, Rog: Did George Bush attempt to shut down the media outfit you work for so that the only media permitted were government controlled? Because your best bud Chavez did that.

Did Bush attempt to rig a referendum to allow himself to serve as El Presidente Maximo For Life?

'Cuz your backdoor-man Chavez just did.

Is that vibrant enough for ya?

You, Sir, are a goof.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

This seems so silly I don't really want to post it, but I guess it's something of a story. (Apologies if this has been sufficiently covered by Open Bloggers or cobloggers.)

Liberal bloggers are giddy and their conservative rivals are defensive over the news that the Bush White House sees conservative blogs as an extension of the Republican message machine.

Former Bush communications adviser Dan Bartlett started blogger tongues wagging with an interview he gave to Texas Monthly. A few of the questions were about the White House's outreach to conservative blogs, and Bartlett answered candidly about the White House's view of them.

He called GOP blogs a "direct vein" into the party's base and said, "They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that weÂ’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."

Liberal bloggers jumped on the report as proof of what they've always claimed -- that Republican bloggers, unlike the netroots who see themselves as crashing the gate of the Democratic Party, are just an extension of the party's establishment in Washington.

"Conservatives do love to be told what to say. Saves them the hassle of having to think for themselves," Markos Moulitsas Zuniga crowed at Daily Kos. Eschaton, My Two Sense, Political Animal and Talking Points Memo were among the other blogs celebrating Bartlett's candor.

First of all, what Bartlett seems to have meant is the typical thing about bypassing the media filters and "gatekeepers" and getting information directly to the public without the typical leftist media spin.

Second of all, as some conservative bloggers have pointed out, that's not even really true. The White House does send me some stuff, but, frankly, it's just press releases. And for some reason I, for one, am only on the economic news mailing list, so all I ever get is stuff about budget and growth and the like, all of which I've already gotten from MSM sources (who presumably get it first). I doubt I've ever actually used a WH thing for a post. Not that I wouldn't want to. Just because it's not juicy enough, or presented in an interesting enough fashion, or blogger-friendly. They'll link, for example, to large PDFs which I'm not going to trouble people by linking to.

The staffs of those running for president are much, much better at this sort of thing, though most of that crap is lame and useless too. (And if Giuliani has any blogger outreach team at all, I certainly don't know about it.)

Finally, the partisan hack and all around sissypussy Kos can cram it up his ass sideways. The coordinated messaging and relentlessly pro-Democratic spin from the lefty sites is far more establishment-dictated than anything on the right.

Hey Kos-- remember immigration? I seem to remember the WH putting out a lot of information, including to myself, and all of it was ignored or directly refuted in almost every rightwing blog you could name. Blogs played an important role in "taking back the party" from the establishment squishes and establishing a more representative "people powered politics," to put it into your childish terminology.

Yeahp... Harriet Miers, the Dubai ports deal, immigration, pork, spending, etc.... all we conservative bloggers and commenters and readers do is endlessly regurgitate the party line coming out of the White House communication office.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

It's what they do. It's all they do. And they absolutely will not stop until the victory is dead.

Democratic leaders are loath to acknowledge theyÂ’ve backed off, but lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, as well as congressional aides, say Democrats are trying to find a way to provide continued troop funding while searching for some compromises that show theyÂ’re still intent on challenging the president on the war.

The possible conditions for troop funding include anti-torture rules and benchmarks for Iraqi political reconciliation, language sure to upset an impatient Democratic anti-war base that wants immediate troop withdrawals.

According to one senior Democratic lawmaker, thereÂ’s a growing discomfort among pro-defense Democrats about linking a $50 billion Iraq measure to troop withdrawal.

“We have to come off this lack of funding for the military operations,” the lawmaker said. “We have to continue the funding. We don’t want to look like we’re against troop funding. … We should separate the funding discussion from the rest of the war.”

But I suppose it's working. General Gates, fearful of Harry Reid's Sith powers, is in fact withdrawing troops.

Gates: Largest military division to pull out from Iraq in weeks
Baghdad - Voices of Iraq
Wednesday , 05 /12 /2007 Time 9:58:05

Baghdad, Dec 5 (VOI) - U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on Wednesday that the biggest American division is to withdraw from Iraq by December 2007.

The withdrawal of more American troops is to take place next February and March, provided that security conditions continue to significantly improve.

“The largest American unit in Iraq will start withdrawing by December 2007, if security improves significantly. More units are to pull out next February and March” Gates said in a joint press conference with Abdel Qadir al-Ubaidi, his Iraqi counterpart.

And Gallup finds that four in ten Americans now say the surge is working, up from 22% in July.

Posted by: Ace at 10:31 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

I see restraining orders in their future.

A dispute between two Gypsy clans over control of the fortunetelling trade in this Southern California city has spilled into court, offering a rare glimpse of an insular culture that has long settled scores according to its own Old World rules of honor.

The turf war in well-to-do Orange County has unfolded like a gangster movie, with allegations of death threats, a graveside scuffle, and nicknames like "White Bob" and "Black Bob" — details revealed in a police report and requests for restraining orders.

"The older Gypsies are pulling out their hair, not wanting the courts in our business because they'll find out too much about us," said Tom Merino, who is distantly related to one of the clans but has spurned his heritage. "Ignorance is the Gypsies' weapon against the outside world."

...

The Stevenses "are very territorial," Merino attorney Tom Quinn said. "This is crazy stuff."

At the root of the conflict lies a delicate system of intermarriage and social customs that has defused tensions among Gypsy clans for generations....

The Stevens and Merino clans adopted an Old World custom of uniting families through marriage to cope with intense competition, much as European nobility once did to avert war. A Merino married the Stevens patriarch, George Stevens.

But the family bond did not prevent tensions from flaring when, the Merinos say, the Stevenses demanded they pay $500,000 up front and $5,000 a week to open their fortunetelling businesses in the Stevenses' back yard. The Merinos refused to pay, and went ahead and opened their parlors. The alleged break-in soon followed.

Gypsies have traditionally resolved disputes in front of a secret council of elders that can impose fines, make territorial decisions or order someone shunned. They don't like to involve non-Gypsies, who are considered impure.

...

That the dispute wound up in court reflects an erosion of tradition among the Gypsies, said Ian Hancock, an expert on Gypsy language and culture at the University of Texas.

"It used to be that the Romany world was absolutely insulated from the outside world," said Hancock, a Gypsy himself. "But it's very hard to resist the pressures of MTV, and people are beginning to see alternatives."

Thanks to neither_steve_in_hb_nor_not_steve_in_hb.

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

I CONVERT! All hail Joseph Smith!

Kidding.

As readers know, I have my disagreements with Mormon theology, but I thought Mitt Romney delivered one of the best treatments on the role of faith and public office ever delivered by a presidential candidate. He vigorously defended religious liberty, and struck the right tone as to how a public figure's faith should influence, but not drive, his behavior in office.

The entire speech can be read here.

One of the first criticisms, and something I've already seen on discussion boards, is going to be that Romney did an inadequate job explaining the particulars of his faith. To that I would answer, no, but he did something much more interesting. In that speech, Romney tied his faith to the greater religious tradition in America and is asking for the same respect for Mormons that is enjoyed by other faiths. In a sense, this speech wasnÂ’t aimed at evangelicals, but at the basic American sense of fair play.

I think Romney is smart enough to know he's not going to win over evangelicals, so he didn't turn this into a theological debate. The point of the speech wasn't to defend the Mormon faith, but find common cause with those who value faith. It wasn't a perfect attempt by any means - there were some lines that just fell flat, but it was a very good one.

Although it wasn't explicit, I also felt parts of this speech were intended to contrast his respect for other faiths with the rhetoric of Mike Huckabee, who has thus far been unwilling to speak out against anti-Mormon sentiment among his supporters. There was definitely a tone of "I respect the differences even if they don't return the favor." It was a very gentle calling-out of those who drive religious wedges. It will be interesting to see whether Romney now becomes the candidate of choice for Republicans who are uncomfortable with Huckabee's more, er, intrusive faith-based politics.

I'm not optimistic, but a guy can hope.

More Reax [Ace]: Over at Riehl and Michelle.

I don't have my cable working yet so I can't offer my typically lame and obvious "analysis."

Update [ace]: Video now up at Romney's campaign site.

Posted by: Slublog at 09:42 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.