Once things started getting better in Iraq, one of the talking points on the left became, "Sure the ethno-sectarian violence is down, Baghdad has been ethnically cleansed for the most part and we've separated the rest by walls."

While data is not the plural of anecdote, that talking point isn't even flying with an MSM outlet like McClatchy.

BAGHDAD — For years, when she approached Iraqi Army checkpoints and produced an identification card for soldiers to study for clues about her sect, Nadia Hashim used a simple formula to signal the mostly Shiite Muslim force that she, too, is a Shiite.

"I am one of you," she'd say.

The soldiers would harass Sunnis, but they'd simply wave Hashim through.

Now her pat line gets her an official reproach.

When a relative used it recently, a soldier admonished the driver and the passengers. "'We are Iraqis, and you shouldn't say such a thing,' " recalled Hashim.

The article goes on to point out that everything is not perfect but the trends are certainly in the right direction. Most importantly, average Iraqis seem to have hope for a better future and don't seem eager to trade their better lives for a return to the abyss of sectarian violence.

I was at a bookstore today for the first time in awhile (thanks Amazon!). As I perused the current events shelf all I found, with a few notable exceptions, were titles bemoaning the failure in Iraq and how America was doomed because of our misbegotten adventure in Mesopotamia. I can only only hope that these authors got big advances because their books are as outdated as Obama's primary campaign positions are.

Via Instapundit. Click on the link and let him see what an Ace O' SpadesAlanche looks like!

Posted by: DrewM at 10:33 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Saw this over the weekend:

In 1970, the average American ate about 16.4 pounds of food a week, or 2.3 pounds daily. By 2006, the average intake grew by an additional 1.8 pounds a week.

Among other things, that's an extra half pound of fat weekly - mostly from oils and shortening. That doesn't count the fat in the extra quarter pound of meat Americans now eat every seven days. Those fats were somewhat offset by a steep drop in dairy consumption, the only major food group to have a decline, primarily in milk drinking. (But we do love our cheese. More and more of it.)

Blaming our food rather than the real problem, which is that we eat too much of it, is de rigueur for fad diets. It's the preservatives, they say. Or that evil high fructose corn syrup. Or (for the truly far-out) the dreaded "toxins." If you think corn syrup is part of the problem, here's an idea: eat less of it.

The truth is that portion control is a good first step for anyone looking to control their weight. Americans have, over time, succumbed to an unusually expansive view of what is a normal serving, especially (and I will be blunt) overweight people. How many times have you heard: well, he's a big guy, he needs to eat more. Did you think that there might not be a wee bit of a connection there?

Now, it's not easy to simply reduce the size of your meals. At least, not sharply. Not all at once. But you can train your stomach (actually shrink your stomach) by not filling it to capacity at every meal. What you think of as a "normal" portion will shrink too. Combine it with a little exercise, or even a bona fide diet regime (I know Ace swears by Atkins) and a little portion control works wonders.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:57 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Juan Williams in the Journal:

Mr. Obama has shown an unprecedented ability to cross the racial divide in American politics. He did particularly well in managing caucus states, such as Iowa, where highly energized supporters, especially idealistic young white supporters, minimized the impact of negative racial attitudes with passionate participation.

But the white Democratic caucus voters in Iowa, where there are relatively few racial issues, are decidedly more liberal than white voters nationally. In primary states from New Hampshire to Texas and California, Mr. Obama lost when one of two things happened. Either working-class white voters did not participate in polls, or some white voters lied and told pollsters they planned to vote for him before casting their votes for another candidate.

When you find yourself stuck in a hole, the first thing you need to do is STOP DIGGING. At this point it doesn't matter who played the race card first, though as Williams writes, the Obama campaign doesn't even claim to have a clear example of a racist Republican attack. The longer the story sticks around, the more damage it will do to Obama because it makes people feel uncomfortable.

Yes, racial attacks make people angry and if Obama managed to tar McCain by accusing him, that might move a few voters to the polls. But he's spending most of his time trying to convince people that an attack even occurred. His version of the truth, "they're being racist at me!" doesn't comport with the facts, so he's not going to reach anyone not already predisposed to "sensitivity" to race issues.

Instead, all he's doing is seeing to it that a whole lot of people continue to feel uncomfortable. I'm not talking about the people who know his bleating is meritless or their opposites, the folks who think he's their long-awaited savior. I'm talking about the large group of people who are only vaguely politically aware. All they know right now is that a presidential candidate is making a wishy-washy claim of unfairness on account of race. That makes people uncomfortable.

I'm sure you've been in a situation where someone else in the room with you begins to make a scene. They start by talking too loud and escalate to outright screaming about whatever it is that's bothering them. And somewhere along the line they will look to you, the bystander, and plead unfairness. "Don't you agree with me?" they ask. But you know, because you're not an idiot, that their version of the facts may not necessarily be the truth. So you do what we all do: you refuse to meet their eyes. You shuffle your feet. You get uncomfortable.

Obama is making a scene. And his version of the facts doesn't seem to be the truth, but he doesn't care, he's asking all those middle-ground, undecided voters anyway: "don't you think the racism against me is unfair?" Instead of answering, undecided America is shuffling its feet and refusing to meet his eyes. He's made them profoundly uncomfortable.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:33 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

Today Rasmussen has Obama and McCain at a statistical dead heat. Many commentators are making noise about McCain's slight, statistically insignificant 47%-46% lead when "leaners" are included, which is the first time Rasmussen has had him ahead since Obama won the Democratic nomination.

I don't think it's anything to crow about. The one-point lead is not a meaningful description of the real world. That's what "statistically insignificant" means. The fact that Obama has lost his nine point lead in such a short period if time, however, is noteworthy. Obama has been parading around the world and pretending to be presidential while ignoring serious issues of domestic policy. "Unaffiliated voters", which I expect actually includes a lot of disgruntled Republicans and former Republicans, seem to have been key:

A week ago today, Obama had a three-percentage point lead and the candidates were even among unaffiliated voters. Today, McCain leads 52% to 37% among unaffiliateds.

It's not that they're suddenly ardent supporters of John McCain. Rather, they are getting a taste of just how unimpressive and potentially disastrous a Barack Obama presidency will be.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:48 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:17 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Got an email this morning from AOSHQ reader Brennan:

People have been talking about the President calling Congress back to discuss gas prices for days now, using his powers in the Constitution. Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), however, Tweeted this last evening:

"We would ask the Pres to call Congress into special session but the Senate used a sneaky trick to prevent this - they are still in session"

Is that legally the situation? Is President Bush unable to call Congress back (even the House) because the Senate is technically still in session?

What he describes---Congress not "officially" ending its session so as to prevent the President from doing something---has occurred several times before. Most recently, this past December, Senate Democrats left one member in Washington during the holiday break, who would call the chamber to order for a few minutes each day in order to keep President Bush from making recess appointments. (Democrats claimed it would also keep him from using a pocket veto, but that was not the case.)

Assuming Rep. Culberson is right about the Senate being in session, I think he's wrong about calling a so-called "special session." The Constitution says that the President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper..." So whether the Senate is technically still in session or not, the President cannot be prevented from calling the House back. The House has never, in the history of the Republic, been called into extra session by itself. But there is no constitutional barrier that would prevent the President from issuing a Proclamation (the usual means of convening an extra session) calling them back.

Whether the Senate could be convened depends on whether it is in session. Culberson seems to think that Senate Democrats have technically kept that chamber in business. I'm not sure. By 48-40, the Senate voted to adjourn this past Thursday. It sounds to me like they're not in session. For what it's worth, the last time an extra session was called, President Truman reconvened the 80th Congress after it had adjourned to escape the heat of Washington in summer. Sounds familiar, no?

The real question is whether Congress has actually adjourned, or whether it has merely taken a "recess." If it's just a recess, I don't think the president can call them back.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:51 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Put this on the front page accidentally while trying to put it in the headlines, and can't delete it. Oh well, it's worth another mention:

ObamaÂ’s section of the plane rivals that of any first class. Recently the front cabin of the Boeing 757 was retrofitted to install four individual chairs that resemble La-Z-Boys. They are free-standing and made of plush leather with pockets on the sides. There is also a booth which seats four for a meeting or a meal.

His chair has his name and campaign logo embroidered on the back top -- “Obama ‘08” on one line and “President” underneath. To one side is a small table stacked with newspapers ready for the candidate’s arrival. The table of the booth is always covered in snacks and cheese and is where Obama spends most of his time during flights meeting with staff and sitting for the occasional interview.

Posted by: Slublog at 06:24 AM | Comments (47)
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

RIP.

Thanks to Daniel.

Posted by: Ace at 03:24 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

It's just that simple sometimes.

David Zucker on his transformation from liberal to conservative:

Zucker was still nominally a Democrat when George W. Bush was elected in 2000. "Then 9/11 happened, and I couldn't take it anymore," he says. "The response to 9/11--the right was saying this is pure evil we're facing and the left was saying how are we at fault for this? I think I'd just had enough. And I said 'I quit.'"

A bit more on the casting of An American Carol, with three conservatives hiding their politics in famously-tolerant Hollywood.

Zucker had originally hoped to cast Dan Whitney (aka Larry the Cable Guy) as Malone, but a timing conflict kept him from getting it done. After briefly considering Frank Caliendo, a fellow Wisconsinite, a colleague passed him a reel from Kevin Farley, the younger brother of the late Chris Farley, and Zucker, who recalled seeing Kevin Farley in an episode of Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm, was interested.

Zucker and Sokoloff met Farley in April 2007. Zucker described his new film with words he had chosen carefully. "I figured he was like everyone else in Hollywood--a Democrat," Zucker recalls. "And we knew that this was not a Democrat movie." It would be a satirical look at the war on terror, he told Farley, and explained that he and Sokoloff were political "moderates."

Farley hadn't seen any of Zucker's ads and assumed he was like everyone else in Hollywood--a Democrat. So he answered with some strategic ambiguity of his own. "I consider myself a centrist," he said, worried that they might press him more about his political views.

Zucker gave Farley the script and, concerned that Farley's agent would advise him against accepting the role because of the film's politics, told the actor not to show it to anyone. Farley, best known for his recurring role in a series of Hertz commercials, read the script and called back the next day to accept.

When he met Zucker and Sokoloff on the set as shooting on the film began, he told them that he, too, had long considered himself a conservative. "I couldn't believe it," says Sokoloff. "We were afraid that he would not want to be involved in something that was so directly taking on the left and that he would not want to play the Michael Moore character."

Farley told me this story during a break in filming at the Daniel Webster Elementary School in Pasadena, last April, with Steve McEveety, the film's producer, listening in.

"I thought that the minute we started talking about politics that would be the end," Farley recalls. "There was this dance that we did--a dance familiar to conservative actors in Hollywood. Lots of actors have done it."

"All three of you," said McEveety.

"Yeah, all three of us."

Farley is not aggressive about his politics and has chosen simply to opt out of political discussions when they have arisen on other projects. "I usually just bite my tongue unless it gets too ridiculous," he says. "The only thing that really bothers me is when they go off about the president. It just gets annoying."

If Farley is nervous that his proverbial big break is coming in a film with politics that might make getting his next big role more difficult, he doesn't show it. "If it's the last movie I do, I'll go work for Steve's company," he says.

"If this doesn't work," McEveety deadpans, "I won't have a company."

Posted by: Ace at 02:01 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

The sort of motive I always laugh at when it's in movies for the ten thousandth time.

The suicidal scientist revealed as the likely culprit behind the 2001 anthrax mailings was part of a megamillion-dollar deal to have his own vaccine mass produced in the wake of those biological attacks and the national panic they created.

Before the attacks, the vaccine developed by Ivins - who killed himself last week as a seven-year federal investigation closed in on indicting him for five murders - garnered little attention. But the deadly post-9/11 mailings brought $50 billion in government funding to the field of bioterror prevention.

An $877.5 million contract was inked with biotech firm VaxGen to provide Ivins' vaccine in a deal in which he stood to profit, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. One estimate put the potential windfall in the tens of thousands of dollars. [???]

A VaxGen executive said his company did not have a profit-sharing agreement with Ivins personally, and he had no knowledge of what arrangement Ivins had with his employers.

A former senior official at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases - the high-security lab in Maryland where Ivins worked for 36 years - believed the mad researcher mailed the anthrax-laced letters to move government resources to his field.

"It had to have been a motive," the official told the LA Times. "I don't think he ever intended to kill anybody. He just wanted to prove 'Look, this is possible.' He probably had no clue that it would aerosolize through those envelopes and kill those postal workers."

Tens of thousands of dollars? That doesn't seem nearl enough motive for what must be a comfortably upper-middle class scientist to justify the risk (nevermind the immorality) of sending out deadly anthrax.

The more likely motives are "warning" and "drooling insanity."

Posted by: Ace at 01:42 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.