You can never really go back

For the second time in the last two months our Bible study hopped in the car and drove down to Simi Valley to attend a Saturday night service at Cornerstone Community Church. My wife and I attended there for about two years prior to our move to Phoenix.

The group has been using a series that Francis preached for over a year. It's a marvelous study of Revelations and the group has come to love his preaching style and benefits greatly from the study. They expressed an interest in hearing him in person and so each of the last two months we've made the trip from Lompoc to Simi Valley.

At the time of our move we'd just recently gotten involved in small group ministry at Cornerstone. We weighed the many potential benefits of the move against the obvious benefit of growth and involvement in that ministry, one against the other in our decision making process.

I have never regretted our move to Arizona. We felt at the time that it was a God-given opportunity for us and one that would hold many potential blessings. It opened the door for many things for us, many that we enjoy even now in our return to California roots. We worshiped at a wonderful church and became part of a wonderful family there.

Last night as I listened to Francis speak, I--for the first time--found myself wondering what our lives would be like had we stayed in Thousand Oaks, made the investment in that small group and continued worshiping at that church.

Francis has always been about the holiness of God and the primacy of Christ, and he spoke of them again. They have been constant themes in his teaching, from the first time I ever heard him speak in 1999.

I heard also a maturity that was not present when we attended. Francis has matured into a leader who has cast, with God's help, a bold vision for his church and it's people.

Last night, he spoke eloquently about them again and about the church's efforts in missions. As we sat there listening to a live call with a Cornerstone family--one whom I recall from our time there--after having heard of other church members who now find themselves in situations they'd never have dreamed of at one point, I thought to myself, "Where would we be now? What would our lives be had we stayed in this place?"

When we left, many of us were inspired, yet sad. Most because they have been reminded in both visits of what their own church lacks right now. I was troubled, not so much by that (though it is always on our hearts), but because the sense that we'd missed an opportunity to be part of something fruitful there in Simi was so strong.

The temptation today has been to keep looking back. God's scripture is clear; His people are a forward-looking people.

We are here, we are part of a church where many things are happening and need to happen as we move forward. We have the opportunity to be a part of something here; something that we could not do in Phoenix and something we could not do in Simi either.

This is where we are, this is where we ought to be. This is home.

Happy Anniversary

Today marks the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. I would have forgotten had I not run across a news item or two about it:

From anti-war marches to community vigils, thousands of Bay Area residents are expected to take to the streets today and send a message to end the conflict.

In San Francisco, two protests organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R., Act Now To Stop War and End Racism, are expected to draw thousands to the Civic Center for a rally and march through the Tenderloin and Union Square areas. The marches are expected to begin at 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Across the bay in Oakland, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, will hold a town-hall meeting addressing the war in Iraq. The meeting is expected to begin at 9 a.m. in the Grand Lake Theater.

A `Stop the War in Iraq` march is expected to stop traffic in Walnut Creek when protesters gather at 11 a.m. near the Walnut Creek Bay Area Rapid Transit station.

The picture is from March '04, but I have a sense given the names mentioned here that most haven't moved on to any more intelligent or cogent arguments.

As for forgetting about the anniversary...shameful. Especially when family is there today on tour number two.

Standstill

This story pretty much brought the newsroom to a standstill on Friday afternoon, taking it all in via police scanner. Especially so for my assistant.

Her husband was sitting there on the 101, watching the whole thing go down: Orcutt resident Damon Locke, 46, witnessed the shootout while driving northbound. He watched as the suspect crossed the median and nearly hit oncoming traffic.

“The truck was off the ground,” Locke said. “It almost hit a school bus.”

Locke said the narcotics officer actually approached the suspect - not vice versa - and sideswiped the suspect's moving van with his own pickup truck. The fatal shootout ensued there.

A Candid look into the Morally vacant

So says Dean Barnett of the new, would-be progressive "Bible," Crashing the Gate.

Aside from an excellent analysis of Democratic ills, he's not really sure what the point is:

Democratic political consultants receive particularly harsh treatment. Moulitsas and Armstrong take shots at Bob Shrum (who is now 0 for 8 in presidential elections) , and yet is seemingly entrusted every four years to run another Democratic campaign into the ground. Crashing the Gate also exposes the astronomical fees that Shrum and his ilk charge and acidly observes how even the notoriously spendthrift Bush campaign was able to pay less than half as much for better service.

Armstrong and Moulitsas astutely highlight another critical challenge facing the Democrats--the party has devolved into a gaggle of squabbling factions who care more about their own pet issues than they do the fate of the party. NARAL, for instance, comes in for a bashing for its endorsement of pro-choice Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island.

The authors conclude that the Democrats' big tent is crammed with special interest groups is because the party has no unifying principles or goals. Moulitsas and Armstrong declare, "It is difficult to overstate the need for the Democratic Party to develop its own ideas, not just argue against the Republican ones."

...

BUT THE MOST DISTURBING question raised by Crashing the Gate is if progressives don't know what they're fighting for, then why are they fighting so hard?

Crashing the Gate provides an invaluable snapshot of the Democratic party and the progressive movement circa 2006. Moulitsas and Armstrong are at the vanguard of the progressive movement, and even they don't know seem to know what it stands for.

Indeed. Too many ideas, from too many people a unifying vision do not make.

Adaptation of Dante

The 7th circle of hell is a Friday night visit to WalMart that should only take 10 minutes but instead--when, for no discernible reason, there are only two check-out stands and no self-service lines in operation and 35 people in line--takes 30 minutes, with most of that inching ever-so-slowly forward in the check-out line.

Was nice to see though that somebody had a brain and that the self-serve lines were open by the time we were walking out.

They're usually better than that.

In N Out

They are one of my favorite fast-food eateries, but not the subject of this post.

No, we're taking another look at California's 24th Congressional District, where incumbent Elton Gallegly (who bowed out of this race just a week ago) is back in:

Just days after he made a last-minute announcement that he was retiring due to health concerns, Republican Congressman Elton Gallegly reversed course Wednesday and said he will seek re-election.

Gallegly's change of heart came after he received a letter from the California Republican congressional delegation, a phone call from the president, and finally an OK from the House doctor.

After four days of speculation and party turmoil, Gallegly, who represents the 24th Congressional District, said in a written statement that he intends “to run a vibrant campaign to win re-election in June and in November, and will represent my friends and neighbors for the next two years with the same commitment and dedication I have for the past 20 years.”

It will also be his last: Gallegly, 62, said that, if he wins, this will be his last two-year term representing the district, which covers Ventura County and inland Santa Barbara County.

And with that, a state of normalcy returns to the local Republican organizations in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. What was shaping up as a messy process to find a successor will likely end as it has for most of the last 10 congressional elections--with Congressman Gallegly heading off to D.C.

And with 2 years to focus on finding and grooming a candidate, we residents of the 24th District can look forward to voting in 2008 for a strong successor.

County Roundup

One of the bigger political issues here locally is the proposed County Split. New lines would be drawn at Gaviota and create Mission County, which would then encompass the area from Gaviota to the San Luis Obispo County line just north of Santa Maria.

Proponents of the split have finally produced a summary for inclusion on County ballots where residents will decide the issue: Three members of the Citizens for County Organization - the North County group that gathered 21,000 signatures in 2003 to put a county-split measure on the June 6 ballot - submitted a ballot argument detailing their reasons for backing the division, which would create Mission County from Santa Barbara County land north of Gaviota.

The statement is co-authored by Santa Maria business owner Dave Cross, Cuyama rancher Richard Russell and Santa Ynez business owner Sharon Steele, and focuses on what they say are the benefits of a government more representative of the North County's needs, which vary greatly from those of South Coast residents.

“Obviously I feel that it's in the best interest of the people to do it,” Cross said. “I mean that's my whole interest. I've lived here my whole life and I want what's best for the whole community.”

The proponents' argument will run next [to] the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisor's statement against the county split, which was unanimously approved a week ago.

Additionally, both sides are considering writing rebuttals against the statements of the other: Both sides will now have an opportunity to write a 250-word rebuttal, due March 24 at 5 p.m. At that time, the county Elections Division will release all of the arguments for a 10-day public review, said Bob Smith, elections division manager.

When the supervisors authorized 3rd District Supervisor Brooks Firestone and 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal to craft a statement against the split last month, the motion also permitted them to write a rebuttal argument.

Firestone said late Thursday that he's already written a draft statement for the board's consideration. “I'm going to point out that what it says in the argument is speculative,” Firestone said.

The three CFCO members will “definitely” be writing a rebuttal to the supervisors' statement, Cross said.

And that’s where we’re at. Both sides appear passionate about the issue. South County advocates believe the split is bad for both halves of the County. Cross recently wrote that North County cities are woefully under-represented in Santa Barbara and urged voters to approve Mission County’s formation:

Our needs and priorities are not being addressed enough in north Santa Barbara County. We are given less than our share. We are smothered by regulations that reflect the philosophy and limitations of the South Coast, even though they do not fit here.

As I wrote before this is exemplified by the fight over Measure D. Opponents of the split however, do not think it enough to justify the move. As articulated in a recent Times’ editorial:

…opposition to the split goes beyond the wants and needs of individual board members, who probably see the split proposal for what it really is - an emotional attempt to separate the North County and the South Coast along political lines, without any realistic consideration or concern for the problems and hardships that could be caused by forming a new county.

A special commission appointed by the governor spent months analyzing the various technical effects of such a split. Its findings, without equivocation, point to keeping Santa Barbara County whole. Among the major problems would be a $30 million annual deficit the new Mission County would acquire, not counting the additional millions needed in startup costs.

The fact that everyone needs to face is that this issue has now been studied, dissected and studied again, and it seems abundantly clear that the numbers just do not add up. Certainly the commission's specific findings are open to debate, but the overall hurdle of $30 million in red ink isn't going to be overcome without drastic changes.

And in the world of government, “change” usually equates to higher taxes and/or fewer services - a couple of things that North County residents can ill-afford.

From the limited reading on the subject that I’ve done, I gather that the projected $30 million dollar deficit is the biggest question and apprehension that people have about the move. Cross insists, not only is it not a problem, it’s not an accurate number: In the end, it is not about money. New property tax figures have already reduced the reported deficit for Mission County from $30 million to $5 million. It is about what you want the future to be like.

And in relation to the ballot argument, he says: ...he focused his ballot argument on the notion that Mission County residents would face a tax increase if the split were approved, which opponents have frequently used to refute claims that the divorce would prove beneficial for residents. Cross' statement says, “There will be no new taxes involved in this measure. Any new taxes must be voted on and approved by two-thirds majority on a separate ballot.”

As a would-be taxpayer in the proposed Mission County, that is the question that must be answered. Who ya going to believe?

Frankly, I'm not sure I like either choice. The status quo doesn’t serve us well up here, but the pro-change forces are long on vision but short on facts that prove they can deliver.

Willfully Obtuse

Huh? Or is it, as Glenn Reynolds put it, “Heh.”

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."--editorial, New York Times, Feb. 27, 2003

"One prominent neoconservative, Francis Fukuyama, asserts in a new book that the administration embraced democracy as a cornerstone of its policy only after the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. The issue was seized upon to justify the war in retrospect, and then expanded for other countries, he says."--New York Times, March 17, 2006

Simply Shocking!

What’s this!? Lower tax rates promote a healthy economy? Who would have thunk…

From Tax-News.com: Despite repeated complaints from industry over the growing UK tax and red tape burden, a recent survey has found that the UK remains significantly more competitive than France, Germany, Belgium or Spain. However, it has a long way to go before reaching the levels of tax competitiveness achieved by Ireland and the Netherlands.

And from the prestigious “Duh!,” Institute of Economics, we have this familiar sounding refrain: Ireland’s top corporate tax rate is 12.5 percent, the lowest among any industrialized country. They dramatically lowered their corporate taxes while other countries decided against it; and largely because of this, Ireland has flourished in economic growth while much of other parts of Western Europe have struggled.

BLOGGER SUCKS (Or more of getting what you paid for)

Everything I tried to post last night was a wasted effort thanks to various script errors from Blogger. The only thing that made it is the cryptic one-liner linking to Gateway Pundit's post about terrorist chatter.

I suppose I shouldn't care so much. I mean, it's not like the software is what keeps me from getting anywhere at this. It's just another in a long line of issues that keep me from devoting the time that I'd like to produce something worth reading.

When I have the ideas, I have no time and when I have the time, I have no ideas. Inbetween, I struggle with the want-to.

So thanks for the help, Blogger. The only thing to recommend you (still) is the price.

On that cheery note, I'm off to work now to spend my day bending over backwards and dancing for one advertiser. Is $2100 bucks really worth it?

Yes, we're not at War

Some like to say that; some beg to differ.

More Ivory Towers

Mediaskeptic at Taking Notes posted about stupidity among the press ranks Tuesday:If you wonder why journalists are dumb as cow chips, check out this quote.

I'm afraid what this says is that the future of newspapers depends more on people who care about profit than (journalism's) community responsibility,' said Naughton, who retired in 2003 as president of the Poynter Institute, the school for journalists that owns the St. Petersburg Times.

That's Jim Naughton, executive editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. His statement makes me wonder about his relationship with his publisher. Is the Inquirer's publisher not responsible for the paper's fiscal management? Does Naughton not understand this?

If he's got any questions, I could give him our publisher's number...

The New American Business Model

I work pretty hard. Most of us average folk do.

I've been thinking about how I could best describe the dynamic I work in. After much consideration, I've developed this new model:

Do Lots, don't finish Much.

First call of the day

The view from the parking lot at my first call of the day.

Right up the street from our dream house.

Dream House

Laying the groundwork

A great piece at Opinion Journal this morning, discussing the bigger picture behind the Feingold nonsense. The WSJ stands convinced that should Democrats find a way to win back one or both houses of Congress, impeachment is coming for the President.

The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. Whether such an inevitable attempt succeeds would depend on Mr. Bush's approval rating, and especially on whether Democrats could use their subpoena power as committee chairs to conjure up something they could flog to a receptive media as an "impeachable" offense. But everyone should understand that censure and impeachment are important--and so far the only--parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress.

The key to the whole matter is the politics, not the facts: When the fever gets this hot in supposedly mainstream forums, Mr. Feingold is right to conclude that the facts behind any censure or impeachment motion won't really matter. All that will count is the politics, which means it will come down to a question of votes in Congress. And several leading Democrats have already raised the "impeachment" card.

California Senator Barbara Boxer loudly wrote four legal scholars late last year asking if the NSA wiretaps were impeachable. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced a resolution calling for the creation of a "select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

In other words, everything that Mr. Bush has been accused of during the last five years, no matter how Orwellian or thoroughly refuted, will be trotted out again and used as impeachment fodder.

I would join with the WSJ in thanking Mr. Feingold for laying it all out on the table. I understand that people don't like the president. I understand that there are substantive and deep disagreements over his policies.

What I don't understand is how it leads them to this kind of idiocy.

Uh-oh

Friends of the family are vacationing this week in Hawaii. None of us remember which island they said they're visiting. We're praying that it isn't Kauai.

Great analogy

Tom Bevan at RCP Blog says of the Feingold resolution:

Feingold's maneuver Monday was a bit of a Thelma & Louise moment in politics: he slammed the gas pedal to the floor and set Senate Democrats heading straight for the edge of the Grand Canyon. Liberals stood on one side cheering it as an act of heroism, Republicans stood on the other cheering it as a stunt of monumental stupidity and hoping the car would actually catch air. And poor Senate Democrats were left strapped in the vehicle, with eyes bulging and mouths wide open, as they scrambled to find the brake.

Not exactly Dukakis in the tank...

but still pretty good creative come fall's political advertising season.

No, really...they can't help themselves

Every time you think that Democrats reach a point where they'll assume the advantage over oft-politically inept Republicans in the WH and Congress, they find a way to become their own worst enemy.

Today's example, courtesy of Senator Feingold (D-WI). From the RCP Blog:

Feingold, of course, has his own agenda and this works nicely to cement his place in the ’08 Democratic field as the one guy who is willing to fight the “fascists” in the Bush administration. And as far as pissing off the Democratic hierarchy or the elite power-brokers in the party, he couldn't care less. If he hopes to seriously get in the mix in the 2008 field, he is going to have to be a pure insurgent candidate (the ’08 Howard Dean) and this move only helps in that regard.

Republicans, on the other hand, should use the opportunity that Feingold has provided them and hammer Democrats mercilessly on this issue. If played right, this could be like the Jack Murtha episode where Democrats will have to turn off their non-stop Bush bashing and vote against Feingold or risk appearing to be on the Michael Moore fringe of the debate.

Or as Hugh Hewitt said (I paraphrase), "Bill Frist should run to the Senate floor to schedule a vote!":

The Majority Leader will score a huge win if he can get the Feingold resolution to the floor for an extended debate followed by an up or down vote.

And the country would be exceedingly well served by a very accurate scorecard on who in the Senate can be trusted to be serious about the war we are in and from which we cannot withdraw, and who will join Feingold in the fever swamp with others suffering from Moore's Disease, as well as any conservatives giving in to long dormant isolationism.

...

Russ Feingold has given Bill Frist the perfect opportunity to organize this debate. The Majority Leader should be relentless in demanding it commence immediately and conclude only after every senator has spoken or chosen to hide.

At least one of Feingold's colleagues "gets it."

So which don't you get?

This post from AMERICABlog caught my eye yesterday. In comments about a story on Iran, we hear that:

Love the theocrats in the US. Hate the theocrats in Iran. That's the motto of the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, when you read the actual story, you notice that the words "theocrat," and "theocracy," are demonstrably absent. In fact, what you read is a fairly straight-forward account of what bothers the Bush administration about Iran, and some of their current strategies to deal with it.

I was just left wondering what exactly the reference to theocrats is all about. Secondly, I then wondered what it is Joe in DC doesn't quite get; theocracy or American Christianity that he so derisively refers to. As I'm sure it would come as a shock to Mr. Sudbay, they are quite different things.

You'd think a blog powered by "a Washington DC-based writer and political consultant, specializing in using the Internet for political advocacy," and "a DC-based political consultant with over twenty years of experience at both the state and federal level," would be a bit more substantive on points like this.

Coming Clean

Four unnamed US legislators come clean about the Ports deal while in Dubai according to this AP Brief published yesterday:

Four U.S. legislators visiting this city at the heart of a collapsed ports management deal stressed Sunday the United Arab Emirates remained one of America's strongest allies in the fight against terrorism.

The deal gave the Emirates-based Dubai Ports World control of six U.S. ports, but an uproar from the American public and Congress pushed DP World to withdraw.

That's how the print version we ran read; you can read the full piece here. It gives a more complete picture and includes names of the four Congressmen.

It’s a shame though that, even after the deal is long-gone, that AP can’t get the actual nature of of it correct.

Obligatory Sports Post

The St. Louis Rams had a busy weekend. Last time they paid this much attention to their defense, they went to the Super Bowl. Here's hopin'...

You asked for it

And you got it. Phoenix ends a record dry-spell yesterday with over an inch of rain near the Airport and as much as 3 in East Valley suburbs. And lets not forget the snow in Carefree:

On Day 144 it finally rained in the Valley of the Sun. And where it didn't rain, it snowed.

Phoenix officially collected 1.05 inches at Sky Harbor International Airport by 6:30 p.m., the first measurable precipitation since Oct. 18. Folks in the East Valley enjoyed the heaviest rainfall, with parts of Queen Creek measuring more than 3 inches.

For some however, it was not as much of a blessing as for others; the rain cxld Cactus League matchups valley-wide and put the kibosh on several local events:

9:15 a.m. Cindi Machado could have seen her breath in the chilly air had she ventured out of Pointe Hilton Tapatio Cliffs Resort in north Phoenix. Instead, she's in the lobby in black high-heel sandals, with a tiny white flower on her exposed toes. She's squatting in front of a rack of pamphlets describing 100 things to do in Arizona, 95 of them outside, where it is dark and chilly and pouring rain. It's her first time in Arizona, and before noon, north Phoenix would get more than an inch of rain.

By noon, a half-inch of rain had fallen, a "soft day" in Ireland, organizers insisted, but a washout in Phoenix. They couldn't risk Irish dancers falling on the wet streets or bands getting electrocuted as the rain pooled around them. The whole thing didn't sit well with Harry Carroll, president of the parade committee and a former New Yorker accustomed to St. Patrick's Day Parades in rain, snow, sleet, lightning or thunder.

The retired Phoenix police officer worked as a uniformed street cop and a detective but said this about Saturday's decision: "Hardest call I ever had to make in my life."

1:35 p.m. Chandler officials huddled and, by 2 p.m., opted the close the 18th-annual Ostrich Festival at Tumbleweed Park at McQueen and Germann roads. The rain was on and off in the morning, allowing the festival's parade down Arizona Avenue to proceed.

2:50 p.m. The Peoria Sports Complex already canceled the spring-training matchup between the San Diego Padres and the Chicago White Sox, and officials were debating about the 7:05 p.m. game between the Seattle Mariners and the Kansas City Royals, the only night game scheduled. Four other Cactus League afternoon games were canceled. Peoria spokeswoman Mary Lake said it would be terrible to be forced to cancel two games in one day. But by noon, some parts of Peoria had seen a half-inch of rain, and Lake said it had just stopped, but the skies remained dark and threatening. Lake said the playing field was covered. "Not that the seats are going to be dry," Lake said. And as for those folks with tickets to watch the game from the grass: "Good luck." By 5:30, the decision had been made, and the night game was canceled.

3:30 p.m. It was the second day of the 36th-annual Scottsdale Arts Festival. Hot chocolate and coffee were in demand; lemonade was not. About half the artists opened shop for most of the day, but now their tents were closing.

Last winter, we got a few big soakers that helped the drought situation in parts of the state, though not ending it. In fact, after one storm Roosevelt lake filled from 63-percent capacity to over 90-percent. Seems it will take a few more repeats of that kind of storm and this weekend's activity to get back on track.

The good news is that most years when winter storms are light, monsoon rainfall is higher than average.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Sunday

Today kicked off the best three weeks of sports in America. March Madness will begin on Thursday. Here is a first look at who's in and who's out and how the brackets shape up.

In Oakland, Gonzaga is a #3 with UCLA falling in at #2 behind the #1 seed Memphis. I'm surprised that they weren't seeded higher, but 17 wins in the WCC (including an undefeated conference season) may sound impressive, but only if you don't read the fine print. Even so, I thought they'd land as a 2-seed somewhere.

What do I know...

More justice than the Hague

God is just. Moreso than we can ever try to be.

Disappointing news

20-year incumbent Congressman Elton Gallegly will not be running for another term in Congress. The Congressman bowed out of the Republican primary in California's 24th Congressional district this week, just at the filing deadline:

Congressman Elton Gallegly, who represents parts of Orcutt, Lompoc and the Santa Ynez Valley, announced hours before Friday's candidate filing deadline that he will not seek re-election due to a medical condition.

The Republican from Simi Valley has served 20 years in Congress, representing California's 24th District.

He pulled out Friday just before candidates had to turn in necessary paperwork to local county elections offices in order to appear on the June 6 ballot. The district covers parts of Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

As to why, all the Simi Valley resident would say is that, “I have been dealing with a medical issue that is yet to be resolved,” Gallegly, 62, said in a statement. “Although I am hopeful it will be resolved positively, it would not be fair to my constituents and supporters should I be forced to withdraw from the race mid-year.”

Personally, I find this very disappointing. Gallegly was first elected to Congress in 1984. At that time California's 24th District included our home in Thousand Oaks. After re-districting in the early 90's, our area became part of the district represented by former Democratic Congressman Anthony Bielensohn.

As I moved in those years from Thousand Oaks to the Valley and many of the cities in-between, I always bemoaned the fact that we'd been redistricted out from under Gallegly (though now, my childhood home is in fact part of his district again).

After we got back here to California and I came to learn that our little slice of Lompoc fell in Gallegly's district, I was looking forward to living under representation that I, for the most part, would agree with.

Now...who knows. His withdrawal from the race leaves the situation rather unsettled:

Because of the timing of Gallegly's withdrawal, his name will appear on the June primary. Michael Tenenbaum, a lawyer from Thousand Oaks, is the only other Republican to file for the seat. Tenenbaum serves as an alternate on the Ventura County Republican Central Committee. He's also on the public education committee of the Ventura County Bar Association.

Candidate lists will be finalized by Ventura County election officials late next week.

If Gallegly receives more votes than Tenenbaum in June - people can vote for him even though he has withdrawn - Gallegly's name will also appear on the November general-election ballot.

Gallegly filed his candidate forms for the election on Feb. 17, well before the Friday deadline.
Three Democrats pulled paperwork to run for the 24th Congressional District, but only one filed papers by late Friday afternoon.

It will all shakeout of course, it's just a matter of how quickly and who will be left standing at the end of it all.

"This isn't a video game!"

I've heard that numerous times while talking about Iraq. It usually comes up as part of a shiny "chickenhawk" argument. So I was struck by the irony of it all when I first caught this yesterday:

The U.S. Army has discovered a remote control gun turret that works, and cannot get enough of them. The army wants over 9,000 CROWS (common remotely operated weapon stations), but is only getting 15 a month. There should be about a thousand CROWS in service by the end of the year.

Remote control? Do tell:

Years of tinkering, and better technology, eventually made the remote control gun turret effective and dependable. CROWS us a real life saver, not to mention anxiety reducer, for troops who drive through bandit country a lot, and have a turret mounted gun (usually in a hummer). The guy manning the turret mounted machine-gun is a target up there, and too often, the bad guys get you. Not with CROWS. The gunner is inside the vehicle, checking out the surroundings on a computer monitor (with night vision and telephoto capabilities).

But there's another reason, not often talked about, for the success of CROWS. The guys operating these systems grew up playing video games. They developed skills in operating systems (video games) very similar to the CROWS controls. This was important, because viewing the world around the vehicle via a vidcam is not as enlightening (although a lot safer) than having your head and chest exposed to the elements, and any firepower the enemy sends your way. But experienced video gamers are skilled at whipping that screen view around, and picking up any signs of danger. Iraqis are amazed at how observant CROWS is. Iraqis tend to just wrote[sic] this off as another example of American "magic." But the troops know betters[sic]. Video games can save your life.

Snow

On the Central Coast. Honest.

Watch the video here and see for yourself. Snow flurries in San Luis Obispo and snow on the ground this morning in Santa Maria:

SAN LUIS OBISPO -- Snow is falling above some Central Coast skies.Chilly temperatures brought the snow level down to at least 2500 feet this morning around 7 o'clock.

Heavy snow is falling at the top of San Marcos Pass on Highway 154.That's in the area of Camino Cielo.

The flakes can also be seen on trees in mountains near Santa Maria, as well as San Luis Obispo.

I'm definitely not in Kansas anymore...

A dog's life

Talk about going to the dogs:

Jared, 20, and Whittnie, 19, were married last spring. They looked at more than 30 houses before settling on the quaint home at the corner of State and Mildred in this southeast Missouri town, about 100 miles south of St. Louis. The place made an instant impression on them when they toured it. So did the home's sole inhabitant: Rocky.

Rock is a beagle mix, a holdover from the home's previous owners, Carlos and Ruby Chitty. Because of their age, the Chitty's moved out of the house and into a nursing home but were unable to take Rocky with: Twelve years ago, Ruby Chitty was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Carlos watched her personality slowly slip away.

By the time Rocky came around, Ruby didn't remember Carlos, or really remember herself, Carlos said. But Rocky was always there.

"I could talk to him. He would ride in my car. We were really buddies," Chitty said.

Earlier this year, it became clear Carlos couldn't take care of his wife any longer. "We'd just gone as far as we could go," he said. They moved into a nursing home. Rocky wasn't allowed.

Friends and family took care of Rocky for a couple of months before the Essners saw the house. The couple didn't want Rocky to be evicted, so they wrote him into the contract.

The couple seems to be living up to their end of the deal. Rocky spends fewer nights outside and sleeps inside the house's entryway on a big pillow. Jared Essner installed a night light by the pillow recently because he thought it was too dark at night.

Carlos Chitty visited Rocky last weekend. At the retirement center, his dresser includes four pictures: Two portraits of Carlos and his wife, and two portraits of Rocky.

Chitty said he wouldn't have given up the dog if he didn't have to. But it meant a lot to him when Whittnie Essner told him Rocky was still his. The couple were just dog-sitting.

"I thought, well, if anybody has the dog, I'd want you to have him," Chitty said he told her.

We ran an abbreviated version of this story in yesterday's paper. I was struck by it's humor, by it's story of dedication and friendship. And of course, it has a dog in it...

Yum!

Steer Pizzle

Scoreboard

Funny goings on in the center- and far-left blogosphere tonight. Jason Zengerle blogging at TNR's blog posted this about the big-mouths at Daily Kos:

But more often than not, these liberal bloggers (especially Kos) act like they already have taken over the world--writing manifestoes, issuing threats, and engaging in all sorts of chest-thumping behavior. But, like I said, their batting average is still a big fat zero.

A bit later Zengerle posts again, noting that certain folks are unhappy with his analysis:

Kevin Drum and Laura Turner are taking issue with my post about liberal bloggers' latest losing campaign. Specifically, both object to my notion that Ciro Rodriguez's defeat is a defeat for Kos et al's "ideology of winnerism." Turner writes:

Doesn't Zengerle posit there might be, like, a reason the blogs launched themselves behind Rodriguez that might have to do with ideology, in the sense that Cueller is (and he really is) a very bad Democrat? If Kos and Atrios just wanted a win for somebody with a D behind his name, they probably would have stayed out of Texas-28, which already gurantees such an outcome given that the GOP doesn't even run candidates in the district (somehow the Republican revolution never took hold there). The blogs took a chance on the underdog Rodriguez. Isn't that the opposite of a blind Democratic "winnerism"?

To wit, Zengerle's reply leaves me thinking that my own take on Kos and his minions is pretty much spot on:

In fact, the liberal bloggers' involvement in the Cuellar-Rodriguez race--sparked as it was by a hug--struck me as an exercise in juvenile pique. Which is their right, of course, except these very same bloggers are constantly claiming they aren't juvenile or fevered and are in fact cold-blooded tacticians and strategic grandmasters. But is it really all that strategically smart to enter a campaign (about which you know virtually nothing) a mere month before election day? Aren't you basically setting yourself up for failure? Isn't it even possible that you risk helping the other guy by creating a backlash (a la all the Orange-hatted, out-of-state Dean volunteers who ticked off Iowa voters)?

Now, in the wake of Rodriguez's defeat, these bloggers are talking about how they drew a line in the sand and sent a message, etc., etc. One of them, Chris Bowers at MyDD, is even proclaiming, "If Cuellar makes fewer appearances with Bush, then we will have succeeded." And some success that will be!

Again, I don't dispute that, on the merits, Rodriguez wasn't a better candidate than Cuellar. I just think that the blogosphere's involvement in the race was indicative of the scattershot, emotional, sometimes almost counterproductive approach it takes to politics. Drum, while acknowledging the liberal bloggers' terrible batting average, notes that "Rome wasn't built in a day." True enough. But, Kos et al's grand pronouncements to the contrary, I don't think that they're building Rome.

It's one of the biggest echo-chambers going. Frankly, I think they're deluded; their endorsements haven't succeeded in helping a single Democrat into power in 4+ years.

Scoreboard, Markos.



P.S. I'll be adding The Plank to the blogroll. Good stuff, Maynard!

Facts be damned!

And so the ports deal is...done. There will be no showdown between the Executive and the Legislature over the wisdom of Dubai Ports World's management of terminals at 6 US ports. Es ist kaput!

DPW is turning over it's interest to an as-yet unnamed American "entity." In the process, the President saves face in that he musn't go toe-to-toe with Congress on the issue and Democrats lose any political benefit from having been on the "right side" of a national-security issue. The RCP Blog notes:

Will this be the end of it? I suspect so. Bush saves face and doesn't have to make good on a veto threat. A Republican-led Congrees[sic] looks good to its constituents (and feels good about itself) for flexing its muscle and derailing the deal. DPW loses, at least for the moment (The statement was notably vague, so we'll have to wait and see if a restructured deal, of which they may have some connection, emerges at some point after the election).

As with the Harriet Miers nomination, in a few weeks the DPW deal will probably be reduced to a footnote. The question is whether Bush's standing will rebound fully or whether the Dubai Rebellion will take a further chip out of the President's credibility with the Republican base that he won't ever be able to recover.

In other Corners of the web, we wonder about the options: Halliburton or Cosco?

Then there's the capitol sad-sacks who didn't get to finish on the right side of...anything (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin). It's a scandal!

**sigh**

Just another day in Washington...

"Fuzzy do-good thinking"

That's what Jay from Taking Notes calls the thinking behind Tuesday night's political theatre in Santa Barbara:

It's not just typical fuzzy do-good thinking. Isn't it just trolling for votes? At taxpayer expense?

It's the end-result. 30 years ago, SB set in motion bad regulatory policies that have created a mess, part of which is that now business interests in the city can't recruit sufficient numbers of good employees because no one can afford to live closer than 50 miles away in Ventura County or Lompoc.

To compound the problem, they've decided that the fix for a government-created problem is to further tinker with the immutable laws of economics. That is to say, that people ought to make more than their skills are worth in the market because...well, because they say so.

This many years in, with no real answer in sight, Jay is very correct in calling it "trolling for votes."

The blind leading the blind

Money quote from today's Washington Times' opinion piece on election dynamics:

The point of this brief history lesson is this: During periods of lopsided partisan control, minority tactical gambles mean less in the big-casino politics. But when margins shrink, strategic bets can either yield large payoffs or big busts. Democrats hope the "culture of corruption" gambit helps them hit the electoral jackpot in November, but a raft of survey evidence suggests it's not working.

Last week, two veteran pollsters, Republican Ed Goeas and Democrat Celinda Lake, released their well-respected "Battleground Poll." In his "Republican Strategic Analysis," Mr. Goeas confirms what many public and private polls, including my own, have found over the past year. He writes, "the mood of the electorate is not an anti-incumbent mood, an anti-Democratic or anti-Republican mood, but an anti-Washington mood."

So the refrain, "culture of corruption" doesn't automatically translate to anti-Republican sentiment, as Democrats bet it will. Instead, it splashes mud on both parties, reminding voters that it's the political class in Washington — not any particular party — that deserves their ire.

Me thinks that as long as they have no real message, all the talk about winning '06 is exactly that.

Takin on the real world

Carrying on the fine tradition discussed here on Tuesday, the city of Santa Barbara continued this week in their effort to defy the basic tenets of economics and the free market. The Santa Barbara City council that very night approved a "living wage law."

Firms in Santa Barbara who conduct business with the city will now be required to pay their employees higher wages: Once the ordinance goes into effect later this year, companies who have contracts with the city of more than $15,000 will have to pay their workers a living wage, ranging from $14 if they pay no health benefits to $12 an hour if they pay individual employee benefits, or $11 an hour if family benefits are provided. The council is expected to formally adopt the ordinance in the coming weeks, after the staff makes some technical changes.

One councilwoman described the results this way: "To me, this is what democracy looks like," said Councilwoman Helene Schneider. "This is about coming together to decide what fits for Santa Barbara."

Well, I imagine that's a matter of perspective. The usual critics were present as well and made the usual arguments against the law:

-Opponents argued that government should not meddle in the affairs of private business. Forcing private companies to pay higher wages will result in layoffs of workers in entry-level positions, they said. They also said that municipal unions will now demand a living wage for all of their workers and that activists would come back with a citywide ordinance for all businesses.

-Terry Tyler, a small-business owner and unsuccessful candidate for City Council, said the living wage is anti-business and will drive more companies out of the area.

I understand the concept of the living wage law and in the abstract it is a good idea. Sadly though it is one that you're hard pressed to show me will survive contact with reality. The laws of economics are hard and fast--when you monkey with markets, such as this ordinance does, you suffer many an un-intended consequence.

All that to say, I don't think that people who struggle to live and work in Santa Barbara shouldn't earn a decent living. The issue is not that; the problem is that Santa Barbara has no idea how to solve this problem, as the LA Times' Tuesday story makes all too clear.

Many may complain that the criticism of the new law is old and tired, focused only on helping business. That may be so but there's far more evidence in that town supporting that kind of market-focused argument than there is in favor of manipulating markets from the outside.

How many Angels can fit on the head of a pin?

These and other useless questions brought to you by the Democrat Party, USA:

A story that highlights everything that's wrong about our purported opposition party appears in Tuesday's Washington Post. Here's the essential nugget, about the long-running argument inside the party over its "new" slogan:

That slogan -- "Together, America Can Do Better" -- was revived from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry. It was the last line of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, and Reid, Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have used it in speeches. But there is an effort afoot to drop the word "together." It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect.

That's right. The Democrats borrowed their new slogan from John Kerry, and they're spending the early part of this election year arguing about its syntax. Case closed.

Rember how they told you that the problem was marketing, not message? A loser then and a loser now.

Just retire already

'Cuz yer done:

I believe the book. I think Bonds is -- or was -- a human Walgreens, a grotesque and insulting example of better baseball through chemistry. And I think he should slither away, joining Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro in forced baseball exile.

Bonds is finished. He might play again, but there is only a chalk outline left around his integrity and home run totals. And the only way he gets into Cooperstown is if he spends the $14.50 for a Hall of Fame admission ticket.

Winstrol. Deca-Durabolin. Insulin. Testosterone decanoate. Human growth hormones. Norbolethone. Trenbolone. Clomid. These are the substances and steroids Bonds is alleged to have injected or ingested. They are the medicine cabinet of a cheater.

Speaking of the book:

-Bonds was motivated to take performance-enhancing drugs by the Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa chase of the single-season home run record in 1998 and he had never taken any before 1998.

-Through research, Bonds developed a deep knowledge of performance enhancers. He even talked, through third parties, to medical authorities who advised him not to use steroids.

-He began with Winstrol after the 1998 season. He also worked out extensively, sometimes spending 12 hours a day at the gym where he met the Weight Guru, who turned out to be Greg Anderson.

-Despite seeing a big change in Bonds' physical appearance, Giants officials did not challenge their star for fear of upsetting him. "The Giants, from owner Peter Magowan to manager Dusty Baker, had no interest in learning whether Bonds was using steroids, either," the excerpt contends. "Although it was illegal to use the drugs without a prescription, baseball had never banned steroids. Besides, by pursuing the issue, the Giants ran the risk of poisoning their relationship with their touchy superstar -- or, worse, of precipitating a drug scandal the year before the opening of their new ballpark, where Bonds was supposed to be the main gate attraction."

-Anderson kept meticulous records on Bonds' program, many of them on a computer. At times, Bonds gulped as many as 20 pills at a time.

The saddest part of it all is that Barry has no goodwill. Baseball fans at-large have long held him in low regard. Most don't respect him and many outright dislike him. Now add cheating to the mix and there's nothing left.

He'll probably try to play, try to sneak past the Babe as if nothing had ever happened. Question is, will he even notice that there's nothing left to save?

In hopes of clarifying

Following up on today's post about the proposed split of Santa Barbara County, I wanted to revisit the topic in the hope of clarifying. Specifically, to give background to some of my comments:

Nowadays, these people want to spend a literal fortune, some $500 million, on alternative transportation measures including the construction of a commuter rail project to transport commuters from Ventura County to Goleta. To think that our county residents would volunteer to pay the full cost of this project without a buy in from the residents of Ventura is mind-boggling to say the least, but is nonetheless under full consideration by the members of the SBCAG. It is my opinion that the South County should pay for the rail out of their own stream of funds, because this project doesn't serve the North County and besides, they cost us all the fortune by delaying this inevitable widening project in the first place.

The most frustrating aspect of the debate this day has to do with the staff of SBCAG. These staff members have been continually seeking to subvert the majority will of the board members who have stated time and time again that what they are interested in doing is renewing Measure D as it is set to expire in a couple of years. But these staff members, some of whom would lose their jobs if Measure D is not renewed, are becoming desperate in their attempt to insure the renewal measure passes. They are literally pandering to the fringe promising them whatever it takes to get their support for the renewal even at the literal expense of the majority of the voting public. They believe they have most of the politicians on SBCAG over a barrel. The staff knows these community leaders are reliant upon Measure D in order to fund local road maintenance, so they figure they will go along for the ride, no matter how much it costs, in order to pacify the fringe.

In a nutshell, here is where we stand. The original Measure D was a half-cent sales tax. Simply renewing Measure D won't pay for the rail nor half of all the other alternatives that the fringe is demanding. So, the staff of SBCAG is planning on floating not just a renewal of Measure D but an additional new quarter cent sales tax to fund all the extras. And though their chicanery is obvious, the proposal is to mix and match these two sales tax measures so that voters will not be able to simple choose between road maintenance in one measure and alternative transportation measures in the second measure. No, staff is recommending that each sales tax measures contain both road projects and alternative transportation projects. Furthermore, staff recently made a deal with the fringe groups and promised to divert even more of the traditional funding formula away from roads without approval by the board of SBCAG! For this, I think we should consider sending staff down the road!

Beware of local politicians going along with this ruse because money is the mother's milk of politics. The SBCAG staff is promising everything to everybody and you are going to be paying for it all for the next 30 years every time you make a single purchase anywhere in this county. These projects are going to cost you the consumer more than a billion dollars with a good portion of that money going to projects like rail service to Ventura and bike lanes to nowhere! Services that North County residents will likely never use.

Measure D has been good for our county and should be renewed, but we shouldn't be held hostage to pay for things we don't want or need.

While the question of Measure D is an entirely separate issue, it is indicative of the problem that exists between the South Coast and North County. So when I say things like "Tax money is siphoned down to the South coast where it is spent on things that North County residents don't ever see. That is what fuels the drive for a split," this is the kind of ridiculousness I refer to.

Sluggo Watch: Day 126

Between business travels, planning business travels, non-responsive colleagues and clients, a crush of projects, an aunt who accidentally OD'd on pain pills, my birthday, and an ill-advised day off on Monday, this guy just isn't getting it done. The day off was the worst decision I've made in months. Taken in conjunction with my birthday on Sunday, I spent most of the day running errands, waiting on hold, talking to customer service yahoos and catching up on personal chores rather than kicking it old skool. This is how 38 year olds celebrate birthdays and enjoy days off.

As a result of my "slack" behavior on Monday I am getting slammed from most every direction. My client isn't happy. My account director isn't happy. The travel people aren't happy. My aunt isn't happy. And now Paul and his dogs aren't happy.

No justice, no peace.

The Front Page

The front page of today's Lompoc Record. The county split is an interesting proposition.

North County is the red-headed stepchild of Santa Barbara County. Tax money is siphoned down to the South coast where it is spent on things that North County residents don't ever see. That is what fuels the drive for a split.

Rotten part is, that to the best of my knowledge, the only feasibility study thats been done showed that residents of the new county will pay more in taxes than they do under the current set up.

Some choice.

Missing Persons

Anyone seen Sluggo? It's hard to imagine anyone with less time for this than me but it appears to be so.

Why a house in Lompoc cost you over $400K

Via Right Wing News, via the LA Times. In a rare trip outside their bubble, the Times took a trip into the real world to explore the ramifications of slow growth and it's effects on the average citizen. The highlights as originally published at BetsysPage:

But now this bastion of "slow growth" is learning that it comes with some steep economic, social and even environmental costs:

• Soaring housing prices. With the supply so limited, prices last year rose faster than in any other region in the state. The median price of a single-family house is now $1.1 million, out of reach for all but the well-to-do.

• Traffic congestion, energy consumption and air pollution. An estimated 30,000 commuters, forced by housing prices to live far from where they work, clog U.S. Highway 101 and choke side streets during peak drive times.

• An exodus of big employers. Half a dozen Fortune 500 companies have left for less costly locales. Almost every business and government agency that remains struggles with recruiting and retaining workers who cannot afford to live nearby.

• Altered communities. Poor families have been forced to double- and triple-up in rental housing. Unable to buy homes, many middle-class families with children have moved away. UC Santa Barbara economist Bill Watkins warns that parts of the south coast are at risk of becoming a "geriatric ghetto."

• Spillover growth. Seventy-five miles away, in northern Santa Barbara County, houses are engulfing farmland. Sprawling Santa Maria is soon expected to pass Santa Barbara as the county's most populous city. But prices are on the rise there, too, largely because of demand from Santa Barbara-area workers.

Many of these ripple effects could not have been foreseen 30 years ago. [emphasis added]

Well, least not by people who don't deal in economic reality. But I digress.

While we were buying our home in Phoenix four years ago, my inlaws were paying over $200,000 for their 20+ year old home here in Lompoc. As I've said before, it's a nice place to live, but it's twenty miles from anything.

Courtesy of the influx of south county residents that was starting in earnest mixed with a dash of investor's money, home prices in the area grew exponentially. The proof is in the $425,000 we paid for a thirty-year old home last fall.

The same thing is happening now in Santa Maria and Orcutt. One can not help but wonder what the future will hold for Santa Barbara as you read about it's inability to attract and keep people in the area.

Witch Hunt

We’ve watched every season of The Apprentice since viewing the premiere episode entirely by accident. It’s become a guilty pleasure over the past two years and the only reality series we allow in the house.

You’ll learn more about business, as John Houseman used to say, “the old fashioned way,”-- via an MBA or running your own business, but the dynamics are fun; they’re the reason you watch any reality series. As a lifetime people-watcher and one who enjoyed more than a few courses in Organizational Behavior, the group dynamics are the most appealing element of the show to me.

Every season has a screw-up, a tradition that began with Sam in season 1 and has carried through to the latest installment. This time it’s Brent.

It’s obvious no one on the team really likes him and they certainly don’t respect him. As has become a custom, after losing and faced with the prospect of defending themselves in the board room, the team decided it was going after Brent. Not because his performance was bad—actually, his antics are probably the only reason they weren’t completely skunked IMHO—but because they don’t want him around.

Witch hunts don’t work. They never have; Trump is about performance. If you can show that your favorite screw-up didn’t perform, they’ll be gone. As per usual, PM Pepi and teammate Stacy couldn’t make the case and ended up only making a case for their own dismissal.

The candidates are chosen for their smarts, savvy and demonstrated history of achievement. In all that however, it seems that most don’t do the simplest bit of research for their participation in the show—that is, watching the durn thing!

If they did, they’d know that the screw-ups shake out; every time. And if they knew that, they’d know that witch hunts never pay!

Smack-back Mountain

Mark Goldblatt authored a fine response to George Clooney's Oscar-night preening at NRO yesterday. Well worth the read.

After submitting five sure-to-be-ignored ideas to Hollywood's truth-tellers, he closes with: True, none of these films would likely be a runway box-office hit. But that shouldn’t matter to a courageous artist like George Clooney. They’d be truthful. And that’s what really counts, isn’t it?

So how about it George? Ready to break out the checkbook for any of these babies?

I personally am not holding my breath, but I would love to see someone tell the truth about Cuba as he suggests.

In Search Of

No, it's not Leonard Nimoy and it's not a discussion of the paranormal or some fantastic historical chase. It's Ralph Peters in a follow up to last week's hunt for what the media insisted was the end of all things in Iraq. Wither the Iraqi Civil War?

Peters continues his tour of Baghdad and insists it's nowhere to be seen: The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.

Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

...

So what did I learn from a day in the dust and muck of Baghdad's less-desirable boroughs? As the long winter twilight faded into haze and the fires of the busy shawarma stands blazed in the fresh night, I felt that Iraq was headed, however awkwardly, in the right direction.

The country may still see a civil war one day. But not just yet, thanks. Violence continues. A roadside bomb was found in the next sector to the west. There will be more deaths, including some of our own troops. But Baghdad's vibrant life has not been killed. And the people of Iraq just might surprise us all.

From this detailed look at the streets, Peters turns back again, as he did in last week's piece, to an analysis of the naybobs and the media mouthpieces:

So why were we told that Iraq was irreversibly in the throes of civil war when it wasn't remotely true? I think the answers are straightforward. First, of course, some parties in the West are anxious to believe the worst about Iraq. They've staked their reputations on Iraq's failure.

But there's no way we can let irresponsible journalists off the hook - or their parent organizations. Many journalists are, indeed, brave and conscientious; yet some in Baghdad - working for "prestigious" publications - aren't out on the city streets the way they pretend to be.

They're safe in their enclaves, protected by hired guns, complaining that it's too dangerous out on the streets. They're only in Baghdad for the byline, and they might as well let their Iraqi employees phone it in to the States. Whenever you see a column filed from Baghdad by a semi-celeb journalist with a "contribution" by a local Iraqi, it means this: The Iraqi went out and got the story, while the journalist stayed in his or her room.

And the Iraqi stringers have cracked the code: The Americans don't pay for good news. So they exaggerate the bad.

And some of them have agendas of their own.

A few days ago, a wild claim that the Baghdad morgue held 1,300 bodies was treated as Gospel truth. Yet Iraqis exaggerate madly and often have partisan interests. Did any Western reporter go to that morgue and count the bodies - a rough count would have done it - before telling the world the news?

I doubt it.

If reporters really care, it's easy to get out on the streets of Baghdad. The 506th Infantry Regiment - and other great military units - will take journalists on their patrols virtually anywhere in the city. Our troops are great to work with. (Of course, there's the danger of becoming infected with patriot- ism . . .)

I'm just afraid that some of our journalists don't want to know the truth anymore.

Wither indeed. Iraq continues to be a mess--a place where people are dying everyday, yet it continues to offer hope that it will become something more; something better and a model for other nations with troubled pasts and difficult presents.

Why do we only hear about the former and never the latter?

Proof

Of what exactly, you ask. Well, for weeks I've been getting abused by my wife and other family members for having no pictures of Cassie stored in the digital camera's memory.


Lacy is by far the easier to catch in a moment of silly spontaneity or sublime cuteness. Cassie, though far better now than before, is still skittish about a great many things and won't sit still long enough for dad to grab the camera most of the time.

Because of that, I've been accused of not loving one while favoring the other. Well, here you go. Proof that I love my other dog too!

Be careful what you ask for...

Because you just may get it. The NY Times sure did:

"There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors," said New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a statement responding to questions from The Washington Post. "I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad."

It sounds nice, but it's a little too late for that kind of talk, isn't it? Keller's own newspaper led the fight for the Valerie Wilson CIA leak investigation, cheering the appointment of a special prosecutor with powers that exceeded even the old independent counsels. And what happened? That special prosecutor went to the White House and got government sources to waive confidentiality restrictions on their talks with journalists. Then he went to journalists and said, "See? I've got these waivers. You can testify or you can go to jail." And then he sent one of them to jail and threatened others. And so far, at least, he hasn't found enough evidence to charge anyone with a national-security crime.

Too late, the Times and its allies realized that a terrible precedent had been set. Now some of them try to argue that the Wilson leak was an act of retribution, while the NSA and secret prisons leaks were the work of good-government whistleblowers, so one should be vigorously prosecuted while the others are ignored. It won't work. Leaks are leaks, and the NSA and secret prisons leaks were, by any estimation, far more damaging to national security than the Wilson leak. (In that case, the special prosecutor said in court recently that he did not intend to show that any damage occurred from the leak.)

So now there are more investigations going on. The Times and its supporters wanted this kind of thing.

"Darfur"

As part of our Saturday lazing this week, we went back to catch last week's episode of ER (my wife's favorite program). We'd missed it on Thursday night with a house full of people.

With the dogs safely enjoying some rest of their own we crawled under the covers and waited to be entertained. Instead we got to hear about what horrible people we are:

Dr. Dakarai to Dr. Carter: It doesn't matter...Somalia, Rwanda, Darfur, New Orleans. If it involves black people, no one cares.

Is Kanye West now writing for television? It's like they can't help themselves.

More Digging

Two years later, the Army wants to get to the bottom of Pat Tillman's death:

A criminal investigation into the death of Cpl. Pat Tillman has been opened nearly two years after the former NFL player was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan, an Army official told NBC News on Saturday.

Multiple government investigations found that Tillman, 27, was shot to death by fellow U.S. soldiers during a firefight in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. The Army initially told Tillman’s family that he had been killed by enemy fire and portrayed the former Arizona Cardinals player as a war hero.

Col. Joseph Curtin, an Army spokesman, said the Defense Department office of inspector general had reviewed the matter at the Army’s request and concluded that a criminal probe was warranted.

This is where military expertise might come in handy. Are all deaths as a result of friendly-fire subject to criminal probes?

Professional Courtesy

In business, there are things you do and there are things you don't do. You don't neglect clients and you don't go over somebody's head unless you have a reason--a very good reason. I was guilty last week of the first which twice led to the second.

In two instances last week I had allowed work to crowd out some minor, but necessary items on my agenda. Both times a phone call would have sufficiently avoided any problems. Let's get that out of the way.

In both cases though my agency contact's for each of these items went over my head to garner a response. Now, in and of itself, I understand the concept; I've even done it myself. When employee A isn't responding, often times Manager B can urge them on and get you what you need.

There's a right way to do this and a wrong way. Going to a manager is the obvious next step when something else is required. However, skipping that level of management and going to the head of the organization is out of bounds.

Not once, but twice last week I received a call from the publisher to discuss these situations. That is never fun.

In both cases the situation became a bigger deal than it really was because the senior person in the organization suddenly has to step in and get involved--unnecessarily. And there is my issue.

Neither of these situations warranted that level of action. A nudge from the Ad director would have been sufficient to get them what they needed. The only thing that happens when the publisher gets involved is that everyone gets cranky.

Though from the agency standpoint it does bring results, which is really all they wanted in the first place. I don't remember a lot of this kind of thing happening when I worked in broadcast media.

Maybe it's a print thing; I was threatened with the same action yesterday afternoon when I gave another buyer an answer they didn't want. It just doesn't feel right, nor does it sit well with me.

It's kind of like jumping from "dare" directly to "triple-dog-dare". It just shouldn't be done.

No Deal?

Debbie from Right Truth commented on my last port deal post on Wednesday:

I think this entire UAE/Dubai Port World scare is just that, ... a scare. The politicians jumped on the bandwagon before anybody new the facts.

I would agree. Despite that it seems that facts are not helping:

Hugh Hewitt recounts attitudes about the deal-- Jim Geraghty and Jack Kelly have been the two most eloquent proponents of the ports deal, although Robert Kaplan did contribute a very persuasive explanation on my radio show ten days back.

Still, the American public appears very opposed to the concept, and although Jim and Jack are right to spot some nativism in the opposition, and some flat-out stupidity, there is a large segment of the opposition that clings to Reagan's admonition to "trust but verify."

The deal came through CFIUS, with no great claim on the public's trust. The president hadn't been briefed on it, nor apparently the vice president, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State.

It is a homeland border issue.

Over at NRO, the editors want to dump the deal: This is simply a debacle, shaping up as a lose-lose for Bush. If he loses on the Hill, he will be humiliated and identified with the unpopular deal. If he wins, it’s hard to see how he won't be doing so against the grain of public opinion, harming himself on national security in a cause — having DP World manage the terminals — that is not of fundamental importance.

The deal is unpopular among Republicans — almost 60 percent of whom oppose it, according to polls. The ports controversy is actually wreaking the damage on Bush's political base that the Harriet Miers nomination only threatened to inflict. Congressional Republicans aren’t going to let Sen. Chuck Schumer, who will surely find a reason to oppose the deal no matter what, get to their right on port security, and many of them actively want to split with the president on a high-profile issue.

Although many of our friends have sincere doubts about the deal, we have yet to hear a compelling argument against it. So it is with regret that we say the deal should be jettisoned. That seems to be where the trajectory of this controversy is headed anyway, and the sooner it happens the less painful it will be for the administration. There are many more important issues on which Bush should, nay must, spend his dwindling political capital, the war in Iraq foremost among them. To realize this is to prioritize, not to panic.

Perception has become reality it would seem.

The heat of the Desert

Over at Red State, user redlightgrnlight posted a diary entry about the Arizona Governor's race on Wednesday. I found it very interesting, as this was an issue I was blogging about prior to our California relocation.

It's not much more than some wishful thinking on behalf of candidate Len Munsil, least at this point, as incumbent Janet Napolitano has sky-high numbers: To face Napolitano, however, he'll have to overcome her strong polling. Napolitano's approval rating can only be called stratospheric, according to Survey USA. From its monthly tracking polls, Napolitano's popularity reached its low ebb last August, with a stunning 56% approval rating, with 37% opposed. She's hit her most popular height in the February 13, 2006 poll, with a whopping 67% approval and 29% disapproval (600 adults, MoE +/-3.8%), including 53% of Republicans.

Notice that at the end there--even 53% of Republicans. I would have been counted in that number last year. Napolitano was, to me, a pleasant surprise. I had no issues with her until last year in the wake of her budget vetoes. As AaronVB, astute Arizona college-student languishing in Chicago explains: her missteps have been primarily the stuff only insider politicos pay attention to, like her backstabbing of the legislature on a corporate education tax credit bill. She promised not to veto if the Republicans passed one of her pet agenda items as a compromise and then proceeded to sign her pet bill and veto the Republican bill. All of that made her rather unpopular with the Republican-controlled legislature, but general voters didn't pay attention.

I posted several times on the issue as it evolved, starting with the initial deal and on through until I left town in September. As this from the Republic indicates, the impasse still stands.

Any Republican candidate--Munsil or Goldwater or any other--ought to pound this issue mercilessly; can Napolitano be trusted to keep her word?

One of those days

We got up early because there was so much to do yesterday. None of which I accomplished to any sort of satisfaction.

Rather than being able to leave early and squeeze in an extra 20 minutes of work in the morning, I was late. Chasing the dogs all over the back yard will burn time like that.

I had an agency go over my head in the morning, resulting in a visit to the publisher's office. Never very fun.

I came home early in the afternoon after an appointment and had intended on running local errands. Until I managed to lock myself out of the house. And don't forget the car, as well.

After being rescued by my wife, we decided the dogs needed walking before company arrived. Five minutes in, the rain started.

Zogby is crap

I'm not the first to say it. To the best of my knowledge, the first official such proclamation came from Jim Geraghty at TKS after the 2004 election.

But I certainly believe it, and his latest offering only confirms it. The professionals started weighing in on it yesterday, and it's not pretty.

Mystery Pollster goes into detail (minimal at best however) as to the super-double-secret methodology Zogby employed to get this survey done:

So in short, I can tell you that Zogby found a creative solution to the difficult problem of polling troops in Iraq, but I promised to say no more than that. I asked Zogby what advice he would offer data consumers who find this all puzzling. In this case, he said, "you have to trust me."

Trust a guy who hasn't gotten anything right since 2000? Trust a guy who butchered his 2004 Presidential polling with his on-line panel? I don't think so (I was working for a research firm in Phoenix at the time, and while I am not an expert in the field,--I only play one on TV--it seemed plainly obvious to me that there was no possible way that his on-line sample was sufficiently randomized and his results proved it).

Mystery Pollster also reveals that this study was commissioned (paid for) by partisan dollars. Combined with his...interesting choice of methodologies and the fact that it can't be tested because it's locked behind a super-double-secret wall of protection for the sake of the interviewer's life.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell, or any other kind of test. It's crap.

Democracy Project looks at it with a critical eye as well: Even from those sympathetic toward the reported results, I've found no knowledgeable argument for accepting the [sic] Zogby's reliability.

Also a reader emails with a very good question that I probably should have put to Zogby:

What is the problem with releasing the demographics on the poll? Were it truly representative, it would have a breakdown of service branches proportional to the military in Iraq. Same with the breakdown for gender, age, etc. I can't imagine any security risk in releasing the demographics, or motive for keeping them hidden other than they would expose the lack of validity of the survey.

Neither the poll release nor (I'm told) the full report available for sale provides statistics on the demographic composition of the sample.

Hugh Hewitt posted military reactions to the poll. They thought it was crap. And today, Hugh follows up with his aborted interview of Zogby who finally relented and agreed to be interviewed for today's program.

He hangs up. Of the interview Hugh says: The "poll" is quite obviously crap when one sees the questions, and Zogby's refusal to answer basic questions that do not go to security underscores his defensiveness. The survey instrument is shot through with absurd choices while missing obvious questions, such as "How important is success of this mission?" and "Describe your morale?" It would have been interesting to ask if the troops have heard of Cindy Shaheen, or their opinion of the antiwar activists, though of course an antiwar activist paid for this circus.

I doubt it would be appropriate to ask for opinions on the president or Secretary Rumsfeld, but given that Zogby didn't ask for permission from the Pentagon, he might want to answer that down the line.

In the interview Zogby complains that his PR director told my producer he wouldn't discuss some things on air. Fine. I didn't ask any of those things, like base location or identity or methods of the "poll" takers.

But Zogby flew off the handle at one point exclaiming he was a patriot, a fact with which I don't disagree and haven't raised.

I think he's a shameless self-promoting pretend pollster, that's all.

And I think the smoke about "security" is just that. And refusing to tell me which military man wanted a briefing was the giveaway.

It's crap.

Exaggerate, distort, lie, rinse & repeat

I wanted to post this yesterday but I never made it back. Ralph Peters files a gem from ground zero in Iraq:

Yes, there were bombings yesterday. The terrorists won't give up on their dream of sectional strife, and know they can count on allies in the media as long as they keep the images of carnage coming. They'll keep on bombing. But Baghdad isn't London during the Blitz, and certainly not New York on 9/11.

It's more like a city suffering a minor, but deadly epidemic. As in an epidemic, no one knows who will be stricken. Rich or poor, soldier or civilian, Iraqi or foreigner. But life goes on. No one's fleeing the Black Death — or the plague of terror.

And the people here have been impressed that their government reacted effectively to last week's strife, that their soldiers and police brought order to the streets. The transition is working.

Most Iraqis want better government, better lives — and democracy. It is contagious, after all. Come on over. Talk to them. Watch them risk their lives every day to work with us or with their government to build their own future.

Oh, the attacks will continue. They're even predictable, if not always preventable. Driving through Baghdad's Kerada Peninsula District, my humvee passed long gas lines as people waited to fill their tanks in the wake of the curfew. I commented to the officer giving me a lift that the dense lines of cars and packed gas stations offered great targets to the terrorists. An hour later, one was hit with a car bomb.

The bombing made headlines (and a news photographer just happened to be on the scene). Here in Baghdad, it just made the average Iraqis hate the terrorists even more.

You are being lied to. By elements in the media determined that Iraq must fail. Just give 'em the Bronx cheer.

Last line says it all. It coincides nicely with this from Powerline, also from Tuesday:

Elements of the MSM are committed at several levels to telling a story of failure in Iraq. This makes them reluctant to report news that contradicts this narrative, and loath to treat such news as evidence that we might not fail. Thus, through the intellectual dishonesty of many of its members, the MSM continues to squander the natural advantage it holds over new media by virtue of its ability to put "boots on the ground" in Iraq.

Then we have the Katrina nonsense from yesterday: Is it possible that all of these reporters have somehow missed all of the post-Katrina discussions about the important differences between levee overtopping (widely predicted before Katrina hit, including by CNN), and breaching of the levees, which apparently resulted from design or construction defects? It seems almost inconceivable that all of those involved in misreporting the video can claim ignorance.
The Democrats sent out an email this afternoon that contains a flat misrepresentation:
The tapes directly contradict Bush's now infamous claim after Katrina, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

That statement is false, and the Democrats must know it.

Lest we forget, these people are in the business of communicating, yet they miss fundamental distinctions between terms with specific meaning.

**SIGH**

You can't make this up...

I'm a Slug & I Know It

I apologize to anyone affected by my slugishness on here. Work's taking a toll and I never feel up to more time behind a keyboard when I finally conclude my very long days. Banging out PowerPoint and e-mails for 12 hrs a day doesn't inspire me to undertake more writing.

And the travel to places like Mason, OH doesn't either.

The Daily Rush

Rush, rush, rush. No time for anything.

Start your day here. Where you go from there is up to you!

More bad Port press

Courtesy of Stephen Spruiell at NRO, this little eye-brow raiser about the Coast Guard story that AP reported over the weekend:

WASHINGTON - "What is being quoted is an excerpt of a broader Coast Guard intelligence analysis that was performed early on as part of its due diligence process. The excerpts made public earlier today, when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis performed by the Coast Guard. That analysis concludes ‘that DP World's acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in [continental United States] ports.’ Upon subsequent and further review, the Coast Guard and the entire CFIUS panel believed that this transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security."

A well-written story would have discussed the 'questions' but it would also have concluded that those questions had been satisfied in the course of the initial investigation. 'Cuz thems the facts...