Horizon Zero

Quagmire

How can Obama defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban if he can't even win the War on Fox News?

Levity aside, this has been some disturbing stuff, people. All those old chestnuts and bromides about "chilling effect on free speech" and "slippery slope" that people love to bust out at the drop of a hat? This is what they're about. The Executive Branch of the government doesn't get to decide that the people that are saying not good things are suddenly not "real journalists". That's not their job. And they just might be a little bit biased in their decision making process.

If George Bush had decided in 2005 that Keith Olbermann wasn't a real journalist (and oh, the jokes I could make there...) and that MSNBC wasn't a real news network the hue and cry would have been heard from orbit. And yet the partisan point of view coming from MSNBC land is as undeniable as that of Fox - just from a different direction.

When the Left is out of power, we are continuously told that the only answer to speech is more speech, that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and that we are but a moment away from fascism cutting off our right to say and think as we will.

So why, when the Left finally gains power, is it the first impulse of so many of those same people to silence anyone that dares have the temerity to dissent?

"Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee" is not an argument born from strength - either strength of conviction or political strength. It's a reaction born from the realization that things aren't going according to plan, and the panicked idea that if we could just shut those people up that would fix everything.

But it won't. And the bitter precedent you set today can come around to harm you tomorrow.

Twelve Days in January

Ok, by now you've probably seen that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And it wouldn't be outside the realm of probability that your first reaction was something on the order of "bwuh?".

The award committee chair deflected criticism that it was far too soon for that sort of thing saying that it "recognized what he had already done over the past year". Supporters were quick to point to Obama's historic reaching out to the Muslim world and his efforts to 'reset' US relations with Russia and Cuba.

There's just one problem with that.

Obama took office on January 20, 2009. The deadline for nominations for this year's Nobel was February 1st. Are we to believe, then, that this twelve day span saw more done for the furthering of World Peace than all the efforts of any of the other nominees? Seriously?

The Administration was busy settling in during those two weeks - there weren't any bold peace policy measures. The only thing he'd done at that point was get elected, and never before was just being President enough to win a Peace Prize.

Barack Obama may yet do something spectacular to earn the accolades of history. At which point awarding him a Nobel would be a legitimate response. But to give it away on a promise of maybe possibly future results devalues a legacy that has already been tarnished by handing it off to an unrepentant terrorist like Yasser Arafat.

Earn it first.

Do We Need A Bigger House?

Gallup reports that public approval of Congress has fallen to 21%. Not the lowest it's ever been, but a whopping eighteen points lower than it was in March of this year when it was riding high (for Congress) on the good will generated by Hopenchange.

Well, that party's over.

Interestingly, the overall slide in Congress' numbers is a result of Democrats registering their dissatisfaction. Over the last thirty days, Democrat Congressional Approval has plummeted from 54% to 36%. Whereas Republicans and some Independents are angry over the content of the proposed health care bills, presumably the slump in Democrat support is not because of the content of the bills but because the leadership in Congress can't seem to get them passed.

Even in the best of climates Congress' numbers are dismal, though. And there are plenty of popular reasons: corruption, pork, gerrymandered 'safe districts', etc. What there has not been - at least so far - is a solution to the problem.

So imagine my surprise when National Review's Jonah Goldberg offered what would seem to be a counter-intuitive solution to the problem of Congressmen Behaving Badly: Make more Congressmen.

At first glance, it seems crazy. If we can't get anything done with 435 egos manning the legislative branch how on Earth can upping the roster to 1,000, 1,200, or even 5,000 make things better?

For one, it dilutes the amount of power available to any one member. It doesn't completely solve the power problem, since there would still be a limted number of committee chairmanships and other assorted choke points, but it would certainly dilute the ability of any one member - or caucus - to hold up legislation. To really break the Old Guard's hold on power and money (but I repeat myself) we'd have to have significant reform to the committee and seniority system that rules the House, but that's an argument for another time.

Another positive is that it reduces the ratio of representative to represented. Goldberg quotes Madison's concern about overlarge Congressional districts, and points out that the largest districts in Madison's day were around 30,000 people. Districts today are much, much larger - and not all districts are created equal, either. Scaling down the ratio of representation makes blowing off constituents much more dangerous to a Representative's long term career health, which can only be to the good. And those new districts would have to come from somewhere, meaning the nice, impregnable fortress districts that keep sending the likes of Pelosi and Rangel back year after year might get cut down considerably.

Finally, expanding the size of the House could be the key to loosening the grip of the two party system in American politics. The mistake most recent third party attempts have made is going straight for the White House, which has resulted in the White House going to the candidate that the third party guy probably opposed the most. Might an expanded House allow nascent third parties the chance to coalesce naturally? We could have a host of single issue parties that would constantly have to be courted by the two big parties - meaning a real give and take legislative body rather than the entrenched semi-cold war we have now.

Water, Water Everywhere

Ice underground on Mars within reach of shovels?

If so, our ability to get from here to there and back again is greatly improved.

Does this make Mars Direct workable? If I'm going to spend $55 billion dollars, I'd rather it be on this than Cap and Trade, green jobs, or forcing people to buy insurance or go to jail.

Ted Kennedy is Dead

Dead at 77.

Kennedy was elected to the Senate in 1962. Even those that opposed him will acknowledge his skill as as a political warrior.

His seat will remain open until a special election is held.

Much Is Taken, But Much Still Abides

First things first, a congratulations to our President-Elect and his supporters. For just as we hope to be magnanimous in victory, so too must we be gracious in defeat.

However.

Take heart, fellow conservatives, for this is not the end! For two long years, we have followed this most important of contests and though it now seems that the cause for which we have persevered has been brought short rest assured that there will be other days. We live in trying times, and the desire to lay down the burdens we carry as a nation and a culture can be strong.

Our opponents have capitalized on that weariness, and so - for the moment - we have stumbled.

But this is not the end. Though we have seen good friends meet defeat tonight, we are still fighting.

But we must be joyous warriors. We must resist the urge to blame those that have lost faith - instead we must show once again that we are worthy of that faith.

This is not the end. We have been in the wilderness before. This is ground we know well.

Keep fighting.

"Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

Not to yield.

How Hillary! Got Her Groove Back

So was it Obama losing his seeming free pass from the media? A genuine upswing in support for the candidate of experienced change who's ready at 3:00AM on Day One?

Or - bizarrely enough - was it the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy riding to the rescue?

Escape From the Tomb of Ice

As the title implies, I managed to get out of the house today. Once out of the parking lot, things weren't too bad around town. Even made it in to work. I'm a little concerned that all the ice the sun turned into slush today is going to make for a nasty refreeze tonight and tomorrow morning though.

But still, at least there's a small respite, and a window for resupply. I was down to pop tarts and hot pockets, and after a while such fare starts to wither a man's soul.

Also, Her Inevitableness seems a lot more, well, evitable lately, does she not?

North Endorses McCain

Tells Anti-McCain conservatives to stop their bellyaching.

Tonight could be make or break for Hillary!, as Nancy Pelosi has started making noises about how maybe Obama wouldn't be so bad after all.

Not that Nancy has any prior experience with cutting and running, you understand.

Iced In

A fairly prodigious ice storm swept in yesterday morning, pretty much shutting things down from Joplin to Rolla here in Missouri. I've been stuck here at home, manning my PC and most certainly not taking advantage of the down time by running around in World of Warcraft all day.

There are a trio of east coast primaries going on today, all centered on DC: Virginia, Maryland and the District itself. Conventional wisdom would indicate that establishment candidate Hillary! Clinton would be safely ahead of her opponent Barrack Obama here, but early polling indicates that may not be the case.

Of course, how much can we trust the polls?

Not much, says Susan Estrich, who wrote this weekend about the so-called "Bradley Effect" and Obama. For those that haven't heard the term before, the Bradley Effect refers to the presumed shoe-in election of former LA Mayor Tom Bradley to the Governor's Office in California. Every major bit of polling indicated that Bradley, who is black, was going to win. Only people didn't vote the way they were polled and Bradley's opponent, George Deukmejian, scraped by with a narrow win.

So is the same thing happening now? Are Democratic voters telling pollsters they're voting Obama, but secretly declining to do so because he's black? Or are they just telling pollsters what they want to hear, since they know how the script plays and they don't want to be hectored by the press and Hollywood and Oprah?

Have we reached the point in the political narrative where the only reason NOT to vote for Obama is closet racism?

Honestly, I don't feel too sorry for the Democrat's current primary problems. Identity politics has been a cornerstone of their operation for decades now, and it always worked for them in the past because their disparate factions were united against The Man. It's only now that they're shocked that the Party seems to be falling out along racial and gender lines? Sheesh.