And So It Begins

President-elect Obama's transition chief said Sunday the incoming administration is looking to reverse President Bush's executive orders on stem cell research, oil and gas drilling and other matters.

Postscript: Just so we're clear: Bush used his executive power to achieve certain ends, and those ends are bad. President-Elect Obama will use the same power to achieve ends that he thinks are good, and that's good. So much for bipartisanship.

Beautifully Said

And by a woman.

Elections are usually about ideas and principles. This one may have been about the cult of personality. But one bright spot cannot be denied. We now get to see what the Left truly believes in. For the last eight years, they have had someone else to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. Come January, there will be no one to blame but themselves. A Democratic President and a Democratic Congress with very little power in the minority. It will be their ideas that govern. They'll be responsible if they fail to protect the American people, if they cannot spark the economy, if chaos ensues in Iraq. No more "Blame Bush," folks. We are going to see the Left unfiltered with no one else to blame.

Oh sure, they'll now shift the talk to what a horrible burden they have inherited, and how no one really can save us now. But America won't fall for that. The financial crisis may not have been Bush's fault in its entirety, but he had the mantle when it came. His party took the fall for it. It will be no different now for the Democratic Party. It will also help us to define what conservatism is really about. It is terrifying in substance, but it may give us a chance to restart the battle of ideas.

The Case Against Barack Obama

Have you been enjoying the series of thoughtful, informative posts I promised?

I failed dismally. If I had to blame something, it would be the pregnancy. Who wants to blog when you could sleep? Or puke?

Now we are fewer than 48 hours from knowing who our next president will be.

Maybe I assumed that what was wrong with Barack Obama was obvious. Unless you're a hard-core lefty, he doesn't represent you. Start at the top of your list and work your way down. Universal health care. Abortion. Education. The War on Terror. Far from being the peaceful moderate he claims to be, he is an unabashed leftist. Not convinced? Read his platform.

I concede that this campaign season has been a bummer. In spite of the options I'm presented with, I won't be throwing away my vote.

John McCain is not my ideal candidate, but last week I heard the difference between him and Barack Obama summed up pretty nicely: "John McCain wants to change Washington. Barack Obama wants to change America."

I've seen a little bit of the world, and I still like America. I love the Constitution. For all its warts, American is still a brave, wonderful place, and we didn't get here by socializing medicine, redistributing wealth, or kowtowing to tyrants. We got here in spite of an ever-expanding government, Roe vs. Wade, and bad military intelligence.

Now we are poised to elect a man who wants to change America not by improving on what has made her great, but by abandoning those precious, fragile ideals that helped found and sustain her.

I'm Watching the Debate

(Boy do I hate this debate format.)

Obama is talking about the surpluses we had when George W. Bush came into office. Now we have a deficit.

Yes, Bush has been a big spender. But may I remind our viewing audience that CONGRESS HAS POWER OF THE PURSE.

ADDED: Obama has just publicly stated that health care is an American right.

Not to brag

But I'm having this man's baby.

I Am So Bored Already

So I subscribe to The Stylephile, a fashion spin-off of Variety. It’s cute, but so irrelevant to my life I rarely read it. (But if it's schedules of upcoming trunk shows in L.A. you want, I'll forward it to you.)

This time I opened it. A Pea in the Pod month-long style drive for expectant moms, the subject line read. (Don't think I don't want the Secret Fit Belly pants.) I clicked through to the article:

Like EVERY website these days, there's a place to post your comments. Here was the sole contribution:

Really?

Poor Stacey forgot she was on a fashion website and not on her lavender-scented soap box.

Am I surprised? A Variety reader is a petty left winger? Okay, I wasn't. Timing and perspective are not strong points amongst the hoi polloi of web surfers and lefties seem particularly immune to them.

But seriously. This is just boring. And not funny. And boring.

Get a cause, Stacey! Fight a real enemy! Do anything but what you're doing now: giving voice to other people's severely limited view of humor.

Has your household been as wound up as ours about the vice president pick?

A flurry of emails this afternoon. Towards the end, he said:

I heard someone say in an Ad recently, I can't remember who, that Barack Obama would rather win an election than win a war.

That same person said that electing someone to the highest office in the land with the experience that Barack Obama has would endanger our country and leave us vulnerable on the world stage.

Now that person, in order to win an election, is prepared to have someone less qualified than Barack Obama be an assassin's bullet, a downed aircraft, a heart attack or a terrorist attack away from becoming the Commander-in-Chief.

Hypocritical. Not serious. Disappointing.

I replied:

A little less qualified, a lot more articulate, a lot less arrogant and completely lacking a Messiah-complex. And also running for a different office. It’s only happened about five times in US history that the president has popped his clogs while in office.

And I’m sorry, but I’d rather have a woman in there who BELIEVES THE RIGHT THINGS and has advisers to advise her on foreign policy, than a Garden Variety Liberal who believes the WRONG things and is naive to boot.

Whoo, bro, you’re getting me wound up here.

Note that I got the chance to use "pop their clogs" in an email today. Thank you Reverend Malcolm (Jr.).

Obama on Education: He's a Democrat

This is Part One in this series. As you know, this series is not for Democrats. If you're voting for whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November, this is not going to dissuade you.

We begin with Senator Obama's own words on the issues, starting with education.

My dad was a secondary school teacher and my husband is a college professor. Both of them are bright, well-read and probably underpaid. This inequity, however, never translated into their beating the NEA drum of "more money for education is the answer"(God bless 'em). It's a popular drum to beat and it looks like Obama will beat it long and hard. Here are some exerpts:

Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.

Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.

Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.

It appears that increasing funding for every federal educational program is Senator Obama's solution. How audacious! This is consistent with his Woodrow-Wilsonesque progressivism that enlarges an already chubby Nanny State. Is this really change for the better?


Consider, we spend about 2.5 times more on a per pupil basis than we did forty years ago (adjusted for inflation). Is education 2.5 times better than it was in the 50's and 60's?

In an age of climate change, jihad and $4 gallons of gas, education may seem trivial. It isn't. It deserves an audacious approach that dares to look beyond throwing money at the problem. "Increasing funding" means taking money from someone, and it isn't Barack Obama.

Worse, it's trying to cure a disease with a placebo.

This isn't intended to be an exhaustive look at the problem of America's educational system. It's about understanding Senator Obama, what change means to him and who/what is likely to influence him should he win the office.

The Case Against Barack Obama

Somehow girlfriday has become all American Idol, all the time. It's time for a fight over something other than which starry-eyed teenager is a better performer.

Long threatening to write this, I will set aside my perfectionism and self-consciousness and just get started.

I'm not writing this for Democrats. You all vote for whomever you like. (I heard Senator Clinton's speech on Super Tuesday, though, and if I were a leftie, she'd have my vote.)

This series (simple though it may turn out to be) is for the handful of Republicans and Independents who read girlfriday and who see in Barack Obama hope for a shift in politics as usual. People who want change.

I will label every post "The Case Against Barack Obama" so it will be easy to reference them(once my temperamental Technorati Tag Cloud updates, that is). And I will try to break down every post by subject, so we can focus on what I consider the major issues.

My goal is to convince you not to vote for him. It's really that simple.

If I'm wrong and Barack Obama turns out not to be the dangerous, idealistic, flaming left-winger I think he is, the better for all of us. Because he has a very good chance of winning.

Birthday at the White House

Something about this really touched me.

The crowd spontaneously sang "Happy Birthday" early in the ceremony, and a formal, more full-throated version came at the end.

Isn't that sweet? I think the fact that it was spontaneous makes it memorable.

Then Bush said:

"We need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism and embrace a culture of justice and truth...In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but in a spirit of mutual support."

Go Dubya.

"It Can Be Done!" Part Deux

After several days of neglect, my clean, unfolded laundry was able to be formed into a mountain that almost reached the ceiling. The picture is of the north face of the pile with a Nalgene bottle placed at base camp for perspective.
Also, Sen McGee may want to use this photo (notice the west face of Mt. Laundry) in future campaigning. I'm thinking something like, "There won't be any dirty laundry aired while I'm in office. What you will be able to anticipate is large stacks of april fresh, line dried, unfolded laundry, like that of the common Idahoian."

Better Late than Never

I don't want a single reader of girlfriday (insert self effacing remark about "all three of you") to miss this. I'm sure most of you have seen it and laughed your ever-loving butt off (and maybe cried a little) but just in case, as a courtesy to you who may have missed it (DAD), take a look.

"Rob Riggle goes undercover to report on Berkeley, CA's reaction to a new Marine recruiting station."



Read the comments on The Daily Show's website if you had any doubt about which direction Stewart's viewers swing.

I'd like to take a moment and ask the readers of this blog to teach me a thing or two.

1) I was just reading the delegate counts for each state on CNN (you can see it here), and I'm confused. It shows delegates given to each candidate from every state. Are primaries not a winner take all system? Do you still get the delegates who have pledged to vote for you even if you don't "take" the state? If so, why do we do that in our primaries and not our general election? Or am I just reading the site wrong? Also, if Obama happens to win the Texas caucus vote, he'll get more delegates, right?

2) Why all this sudden talk about NAFTA? It doesn't see like it's a topic that has gotten a particularly large amount of air time in recent years. How is our involvement in it a positive thing? How is it negative?

I realize I need to do my own research on these things, but I'd like to hear what y'all have to say first, so please do oblige me.

On a side note, my interest was unexpectedly piqued by a Ralph Nader interview on The Daily Show last night. Watch if you please, but I think he has some really interesting things to say, especially if you've ever found yourself thinking like a Libertarian at all.

Texas Teachers Will Be Voting For Him

Even if you think he might be the anti-christ his views on changing the educational system, and particulary high stakes testing, are right on the money from this teacher's point of view.
Also, be sure to listen to about three minutes in.

Why Are They Celebrating? They Might Confuse Oliver Stone.

"As news of [Castro's] resignation spread, motorists honked vigorously at police patrol cars and television reporters. Shouts of "Free Cuba!" echoed in the streets, and small groups gathered to chat in local eateries. But there was no widespread celebration, just caution."

I'm puzzled. These celebrants are treating Castro's resignation like it was a good thing. I thought Castro was our friend, spirtual guide and inspiration.

"I hope this is the beginning of the end of the system, but we have to wait," said 35-year-old chemist Omar Fernandez, who left Cuba for the U.S. six years ago.

Poor soul; he's been misinformed. He should have dined with Steven Speilberg and Fidel until the early morning hours. Spielberg announced that his dinner with Castro "was the eight most important hours of my life."

Model Naomi Campbell declared that Castro was "a source of inspiration to the world," and Oliver Stone called him"Very selfless and moral. One of the world's wisest men."

Personally, I'd trust Naomi, Stevie and Oliver before I'd trust a bunch of Cuban transplants dancing in the streets of a free USA. What have they contributed? Who are THEY? Bunch of ungrateful serfs.

The beautiful people always know best, especially when they have nothing at stake.

Via the AP and CNS News

Remember When Liberals Were the Tolerant Ones?

I have been laughing out loud and I'm going to keep laughing every time I recall the stupidity of what I'm about to relate.

I'm becoming a liberal.

But that's not what's funny.

New theory. The ratio of flaming left-wingers to conservatives on social networking sites is 10:1. I'm not saying right-wingers aren't on the Internet; I'm saying they don't spend (read: waste) as much of their time on like Digg.*

But I've been going there mostly just to Digg articles, but once or twice I've commented on another post. (I can feel my heart starting to bleed.)

That was the case when I saw someone's Digg for Jon Stewart’s Farewell to Mitt Romney: “F*c# Y%u. Watch it if you want to see what Jon Stewart really thinks. Oh, you already knew? Hmmm, he usually sticks to humor and avoids partisanship. How odd.

I think I pretty much summed it up when I commented, "Remember when Jon Stewart was funny? Now he's just a hack."

I SO offended 47 people who dugg this article, I got -47 diggs for my comment.

One of them, nogChoco, even went so far as to say, "Remember when your comment was still on +1 ?" And THAT was so well-received by readers that 16 people dugg HIS comment (to my comment, which was a comment).

As the kids say, ROFL.

PS: Digg this post.

*Note to the old fogies: If you don't know what Digg is or don't care, you may not understand this post. I'll call you on your green rotary phone later and explain.

This One's for JEB

I know we were disappointed about Fred Thompson, and I picked on him.


But the good doctor has defended him in such a sensible manner I'm a little ashamed.

Iowa Caucus Tonight, and I'm Just Curious...

Who are our readers hoping to see emerge as frontrunners?


I just saw Guiliani's campaign ad and WOW.

What happened to Fred Thompson? Talk about sound and fury signifying nothing.

Seeking Female in South Dakota, S or M, Must be Judicious, Thoughtful, Open Minded. Sense of Humor Optional.

I have been looking around for bloggers who call my new home theirs: South Dakota.

I've linked to about five, so far. One of them, Lone Prairie, I've been reading for years, and so should you. Another I've been reading off and on is Dakota Women.

These aren't women I generally agree with, but they're women interested in politics in South Dakota, and I was hoping for some lively discussion and the occasional meeting of the minds.

I did not anticipate meeting a writer as unbalanced as Anna. To call her writing biased is an understatement. To Anna, there are two kinds of people: Good people and the deceitful, indifferent, cold-hearted despots who call themselves pro-life.

Two weeks ago, she was complaining (generous word) that the vast right-wing conspiracy known as the pro-life movement makes women act like "helpless, idiotic victims."

Today, she claims that "Olga Reyes is merely one out of about 70,000 women who will die this year as a result of restrictions on abortion." (Ms. Reyes died because of her country's uber-restrictive abortion laws that don't permit doctors to perform an abortion when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.) Never mind that the need for an abortion as the result of an ectopic pregnancy is an exception, not the rule, and you would be hard-pressed to find a reasonable pro-lifer in the U.S. who supports a ban on abortion on these cases.

But that would be the balanced approach; it would show signs of thoughtfulness and consistency. Instead, Anna maintains that women die as a result of restrictive laws--and not as a result of their own choice to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy, nay. Helpless victims, anyone?

Later she blithely accuses "lots of people" (this means pro-life people in Dakota Women parlance) of "not be[ing] troubled in the least if stuff like this happened here."

That's "not being troubled in the least" if women die painful, preventable deaths in case you had trouble connecting the dots.

I wasn't very nice in the comments.

I have been quarreling.

At Dakota Women, pro-lifers have been accused of being dishonest about their motivation behind opposing abortion.

As evidence of this dishonesty, the author has linked to this article, that cites this report. (This is only the abstract. You have to register--free--if you want to read the study).

ADDED: I suspect few of my readers are going to read this whole post (not even my adversary at Dakota Women can be bothered to do it). So why don't the rest of you just click on that link above and go read our debate.

Before I proceed, I want to make this very clear: I believe that women have and will continue to have abortions, regardless of its legality. This does not mean that I do not want to reduce the number of abortions, or that I don't care about those women injured by the procedure. But that is not an argument against outlawing abortion on demand.

I hope you can follow along, because this is interesting.

The study in question, authored by Gilda Sedghat at the Guttmacher Institute, (visit their site--I don't have to tell you where they stand on the abortion issue) makes the claim that abortion rates are dropping in countries where the procedure is legalized. It goes beyond its research to assert that the numbers are dropping because abortion is legal in those countries.

Below is their definition of an unsafe abortion. You will see that in nations with restrictive abortion laws every abortion is defined as unsafe. Naturally, then, they can say that restrictive abortion laws lead to unsafe abortions, because they have simply defined it that way.

"Abortions done either by people lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards, or both. These include (a) abortions in countries where the law is restrictive and (b) abortions that do not meet legal requirements in countries where the law is not restrictive."

If you don't read anything else, I hope you read that paragraph!

The paragraphs in the block quotes below show that the researchers are using estimated data. A couple points about the data.

First, every time they can they estimate the number of abortions up. Sometimes this is done to an extraordinary degree: for example they estimate Bangladesh stats up by 300%. Because the nations with restrictive laws also tend not to collect abortion data, their estimates influence the statistics from those nations most. So regarding those places with restrictive abortion laws, the researchers have estimated the abortion rate up as high as they can.

They then say that the laws cause the high abortion rates, when it is more likely their estimation methods. One should note that the ideological tendencies of the researchers are obvious, so it is reasonable to doubt their estimations. If I was quoting from a report by LifeNews, pro-choicers would do the same.

"For two-thirds of countries for which official reports were available, and in which abortion is considered safe, the reports were deemed complete and the data were not adjusted. In the remaining countries, the average correction factor was 1•4 (which corresponds to an inflation of the official estimate by 40%). The correction factors ranged from 1•05 (USA) to 3•0 (Bangladesh).

In countries for which surveys showed more abortions than were counted in the official statistics, we deemed the survey estimates to be more complete, since even they are known to undercount abortions.

The findings presented here provide new estimates of abortion incidence at the worldwide and regional levels, which had not been updated since 1995. In the face of a dearth of information for many countries, particularly those in which abortion laws are highly restrictive, this study drew on all available sources of information and used systematic and consistent methods to estimate abortion incidence."

Beyond all this, they do not consider alternative variables. I am not a researcher, and I haven't taken stats, but my husband suggests that a solid research program would collect data on all variables likely to influence abortion rates (of which legality would be one variable. I can think of others). The researcher would then run some sort of statistical analysis to see which variables are statistically significant.

Have these researchers done the statistical analysis requried to make such a broad assumption? If not, even if we accept their numbers, we cannot, as a matter of social science, say that restrictive laws are causing a higher abortion rate. The researchers have assumed this without adequate proof.