Spain is NOT about to be overrun by Muslims.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Take this article by Aaron Hanscom at PajamasMedia, claiming that Spain is just another European country that is "hollow at its core," about to be overrun by Muslims.

Why do I say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Well, the fact is that Hanscom is clearly not ignorant about Spain. His wife is Spanish, he has visited Spain, he has spoken to quite a few Spaniards, and he is aware of current trends in Spanish politics. However, he has mistakenly let anecdotal evidence (like a conversation with his wife's uncle) convince him that Spain is going to be overrun by Muslims. Now he is afraid to move to Europe:

Then there was the discussion I had with my other brother-in-law and his girlfriend in Madrid. They asked my wife and me if we ever considered moving to Spain. We told them that our fear about the future of Europe was a main reason we never gave it serious thought. They agreed that tensions with Muslim immigrants would only increase in the future. However, they both still clung to the idea that Spain would be safer if it continued to keep its distance from the United States.

Hanscom, please reconsider your decision! The numbers simply don't support the theory that Muslims are going to take over Spain any time soon. According to the latest municipal census by the Spanish National Institute of Statistics (Jan. 1, 2007), the largest, and fastest growing, group of immigrants in Spain are Europeans from other EU countries.* This is largely due to a surge of immigration from Eastern Europe following the recent entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU. These Europeans recently overtook the second largest group of immigrants, South Americans, in size. Together, EU nationals and South Americans account for about two-thirds of all the immigrants in Spain. Let's not forget that South Americans tend to be heavily Catholic, have a high fertility rate, and speak Spanish (except for the Brazilians).

Immigrants from countries outside the EU, like Moroccans, actually make up a shrinking percentage of the immigrant population. Even if all Africans were Muslims, which they aren't, they make up less than 20% of the Spanish immigrant population.

Spain is not being overrun by Muslims. Now, I don't mean to dispute that Islamic radicalism is a problem. Look at Britain. Nor do I think Spain does a particularly good job integrating immigrants (it doesn't.) And it's true that Europe's low birthrates are causing lots of problems. But Hanscom's overheated article shows how easy it is to let a compelling narrative-- Europe is collapsing! The Muslims are coming!-- convince us of something that simply isn't true.

*The reason I am so intimately acquainted with Spanish immigration statistics is that I am a summer research fellow at Ursinus College, writing a paper on immigration in Spain and its effects on the Spanish economy.

The Politics of Transformers

The politics of Transformers? "What politics?" you might ask. Perhaps you only see Transformers as a butt-kicking, if slightly cliched, action movie. Well, my friend, you are hopelessly naive. Just ask Libertas:

The films politics are decidedly pro-American, pro-military, and even *gasp* pro-freedom. Bay’s affection for the American military is obvious in every scene they’re in. They are uniformly portrayed as heroic, extremely competent, selfless, and even kind to Arab children. The theme of the film is spoken out loud more than once: No sacrifice, no victory. And the Autobots have come to liberate us from the terrorist Decepticons because the Autobots believe freedom is the right of everyone. Yes, there is a gentle, somewhat affectionate jab at Bush, but Jon Voight’s Secretary of Defense makes it clear at every turn that the President is running the show.

Steven Spielberg and Bay both exec produced, but make no mistake about it, this is a Michael Bay film all the way; from the booming score to the editing and camera shots. It’s not smart (why does Sam have to save the world by getting that cube to the top of a building when an Autobot could do it in two seconds?), it’s far from perfect, but you’ll have a great time and more than a few hearty laughs despite the lulls. And after all the relativist junk we’ve been suffering through, it does mean something to watch the fight for freedom portrayed with valor, good and evil distinguished, and the dreaded-until-needed military industrial complex save the day.

Am I complimenting the film’s politics because I agree with them? Maybe. Regardless, the world view presented in Tranformers is more than just one that I happen agree with, it’s also new, refreshing, daring, and counter-culture — which counts for something in storytelling.

In the comments, Planetsuz adds his take:

... [I]t was great in one scene when the covert ops guys with the John Turturro character are at odds with the Army soldiers. To defuse the situation Jon Voight says to the covert agents, “You better do what he says. These guys don’t lose.” or words to that effect. Could that be a statement to Harry Reid and all of the Democrats who keep dishonoring our military by saying we’ve lost in Iraq?

I agree completely. Let's face it: Transformers had to be a conservative movie. If liberals had been in charge, humans would have been down on their knees worshiping Megatron faster than you can say "surrender monkey." Then the Cube would have turned every Best Buy and Radio Shack in the country into a Battlebots arena. (If you saw the movie, you know what I'm talking about.) Unfortunately, it turns out that one of the screenwriters of the movie has a blog. And this is what he has to say about the matter:

All this reveals is two thing -- first, this sort of culture score-carding is idiotic. It's way, way beyond wet-brained. The Variety review, for example, pointed out how Optimus Prime sounded like Bush when he said "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." What the reviewer plainly does not know is that is the Big Guy's catchphrase, and if I'd left it out of the first draft a mob of people in cardboard transforming costumes, led by Seth Green and his now full-sized and deadly Robot Chickens, would have gibbed me. I didn't sit there and say "You know what, I should use this movie as a way to express the righteousness of an international crusade of liberation and nation-building." And although I can't speak for Kurtzman and Orci, I don't think that was their gig either.

Second, hopefully this may slooooowly spin you around to the idea that being "pro-American, pro-military and even *gasp* pro-freedom" are not just conservative values. Progressives are also pro-American, pro-military -- in my first draft, the Army guys actually have bigger role, although they're a little grungier and working-class than all shiny and model-y -- and *gasp* pro-freedom. We just believe you serve these values in different ways. Demonizing each other is a way the Bastards in Suits try to jkeep the game going, and keep their little scams in place, so we don't suddenly notice that we're all on the same side, we all support the troops. we all rather like each other, and despite our many disagreements maybe we'd like all the professional hate-mongers to bugger off now, please.

Darn. And I had thought I had another True-Blue Red-Blooded Conservative movie to put in my collection next to Patton.

New York Times on Scooter Libby

The New York Times points out the obvious in the Scooter Libby case:

Until he commuted the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. on Monday, President Bush had said almost nothing about his philosophy in granting clemency while at the White House.

As governor of Texas, though, Mr. Bush discussed and applied a consistent and narrow standard when deciding whether to issue pardons and commutations. And that standard appears to be at odds with his decision in the Libby case.

Mr. Bush explained his clemency philosophy in Texas in his 1999 memoir, “A Charge to Keep.”

“In every case,” he wrote, “I would ask: Is there any doubt about this individual’s guilt or innocence? And, have the courts had ample opportunity to review all the legal issues in this case?”

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt. He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.

“As governor, Bush essentially viewed the clemency power as limited to cases of demonstrable actual innocence,” said Jordan M. Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas who has represented death-row inmates.

“The exercise of the commutation power in Libby,” Professor Steiker continued, “represents a dramatic shift from his attitude toward clemency in Texas, and it is entirely inconsistent with his longstanding, very limited approach.”

Michael Ledeen draws the wrong conclusion from a horrific crime

I think it's very important to respond to the argument Michael Ledeen makes here, in a post about a horriffic crime committed by al-Qaeda in Iraq:

The horror of the terrorist onslaught rarely is brought home to the American public. Indeed, it is sometimes so grisly that not even American troops in the field can even talk about it without swallowing hard. Listen to Michael Yon, in his latest update from Diyala Province. This is really something:

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

No doubt it works, terror does work. It just seems to me that anyone involved in such activity isn't really entitled to high-priced legal defense in American courts. Guantanamo is way too good for such animals. Or have I missed something? Anybody feel like asking Andrew Sullivan?

Yes, Mr. Ledeen, you have missed something. I understand perfectly your revulsion at this this terrible act. But the conclusion you draw from it is wrong. If I understand your reasoning correctly, people who commit horrific crimes do not deserve legal representation. But how can we determine who has committed the horrific crime? That's the job of the legal system. The main reason people receive legal representation is that there is a need to figure out who is guilty and who is not guilty before delving out punishment.

Child molestation is a sickening, stomach-churning crime. But we don't say toss everyone who is accused of child molestation into a prison without legal representation (or fly them off to a secret prison and torture them). If we did that, we'd sweep up a lot of innocent people with the guilty. The same holds with terrorism. I don't think accused terrorists deserve legal representation because terrorism isn't a terrible thing. Rather, I think accused terrorists deserve representation and access to the legal system because we still need to figure out who is a terrorist and who isn't. Once we have that figured out, then we can break out the righteous punishment.

Chinese Food and Drug Administration official sentenced to death

Poisonous pet food, counterfeit medicine, dangerous toys, toxic toothpaste- it seems like you can't turn on the news these days without seeing a segment about yet another fake and/or deadly Chinese product. China's brand image is taking a serious beating. Apparently the Chinese government intends to do something about it:

For the second time in three months, a former high-ranking official at China’s top food and drug watchdog agency has been sentenced to death for corruption and approving counterfeit drugs, the state-run news media said on Friday.

Cao Wenzhuang, who until 2005 was in charge of drug registration approvals at the State Food and Drug Administration, was accused of accepting more than $300,000 in bribes from two pharmaceutical companies and helping undermine the public’s confidence in an agency that is supposed to be safeguarding the nation’s health.

Mr. Cao’s sentence was handed down by the No. 1 Intermediate Court in Beijing, less than two months after the same court sentenced Zheng Xiaoyu, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration to death for accepting $850,000 in bribes to help steer drug companies through various approval processes.

Wow.

The "unique case" of Scooter Libby

As Fz points out, Bush's long and heartfelt contemplation of the Libby pardon goes against his record in Texas. Andrew Sullivan digs up more, from the archives of the Atlantic:

On the morning of May 6, 1997, Governor George W. Bush signed his name to a confidential three-page memorandum from his legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, and placed a bold black check mark next to a single word: DENY. It was the twenty-ninth time a death-row inmate's plea for clemency had been denied in the twenty-eight months since Bush had been sworn in. In this case Bush's signature led, shortly after 6:00 P.M. on the very same day, to the execution of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded thirty-three-year-old man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old.

Gonzales's summaries were Bush's primary source of information in deciding whether someone would live or die. Each is only three to seven pages long and generally consists of little more than a brief description of the crime, a paragraph or two on the defendant's personal background, and a condensed legal history. Although the summaries rarely make a recommendation for or against execution, many have a clear prosecutorial bias, and all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes...

Sullivan interjects:

The number of people George W. Bush sent to their deaths without a second's thought is higher than any living governor in the United States. And yet it took a perjury conviction of a white, wealthy, connected apparatchik to awaken the president's sensitivity to injustice:

A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.

Gonzales declined to be interviewed for this story, but during the 2000 presidential campaign I asked him if Bush ever read the clemency petitions of death-row inmates, and he equivocated. "I wouldn't say that was done in every case," he told me.

Yet the prospect of Scooter Libby serving 30 months in prison sent the President leaping for a pen to sign a pardon. Whatever happened to equal justice under the law? The White House doesn't know what that means. And if you don't believe me, just ask them (as a reporter did at a White House press conference):

Q Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice under the law." But this is a unique case, there's no doubt about that.

It's a unique case, all right. But not a complicated one, as Joshua Marshall points out here:

Setting aside whether Scooter Libby should spend 0 days in jail for what most people spend from 1 to 3 years in jail, the key here is that it's inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in which he (i.e., the president) is a party to the same underlying crime. Because it amounts to obstruction of justice.

It's really not that complicated.

No, it's not.

Happy Fourth of July!

I'm sneaking in this Fourth of July post right under the wire. I hope you all enjoyed your barbecues and fireworks. And any of you who went to Transformers saw an excellent movie! I know I enjoyed it. I'll leave you with this story from Matt Yglesias:

I think I've never blogged this story before, and it's pretty funny. I was in Russia during the summer of 1998 on a program involving maybe a dozen other American high school kids. We were all living with Russian families that had kids enrolled in the advanced English class in this one high school in Nizhny Novgorod. For several days in early July, the Americans were all sporadically busy thinking about how we would mount a July 4 celebration. Eventually, we found some sparklers, some peanut butter, and I guess maybe some stuff from McDonalds.

It was only near the last possible moment that this one Russian dude got to asking what it was we were celebrating. "Thees fourth July is for eendependence day?" Yes, of course. "Eees eeemportant holiday in U.S.?" Yes, of course. "Americans make eemportant day for movie? Will Smeeth fight the aliens."

Happy Independence Day

Americans must observe this year’s Fourth of July with a note of somberness. The country is divided politically in a manner not seen since the Sixties. We are closing out the sixth year of an increasingly bloody and unpopular War on Terrorism. At home, heated debates are taking place over the balance between civil liberties and security. In doubtful times such as these, many are looking into the past and wondering how the Founding Fathers would have handled such a predicament. In the absence of their leadership, we must look for bold new solutions for the ills of our modern era.

With the indulgence of Misters DC, Fz, and GJ, I have one of these bold solutions, one that, in my opinion, has a high chance of success. It is my belief that the United States needs courageous and forceful leadership, the kind of leadership that, because of our current structure of government, cannot be offered by a President. What the United States needs now is a king.

Only a monarch has the political and moral authority to push through all the mealy-mouthed jabbering that renders our legislatures impotent and enforce the laws which will keep this nation safe and, more importantly, on top. When New York City was under attack on 9-11, did then-mayor Rudy Giuliani call a town council meeting to deal with the chaos? Nay! Using sheer political brawn, and with the sweat from the brow of the executive branch, he single-handedly turned what was could have been the most tragic day in American history into a celebration of American resolve and durability – a day we have come to call Patriot’s Day in his honor.

America, we need an autocrat. Those bleeding-heart lie-berals in the ACLU might whine and moan, but, as they are all atheists, they forget that America, throughout her history, has been a nation beloved by God. And the Lord will not hand over His promised land to some sniveling megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex. When Americans are united in a common cause, it is a cause that has been blessed by the Almighty. If we, as Americans, choose a king to lead us, he will be a king worthy of God’s endorsement. He will have a divine mandate, and rule as God intends a nation to be ruled; and what can the ACLU say if they have a problem with God’s will?

Moreover, such a reorganization of our government would not even require a huge movement of personnel or money, just a few creative name changes. The role of president becomes, obviously, the role of King; the Cabinet becomes assorted Princes, Dukes, and Earls; and Congress becomes a Parliament for the expression of grievances of the common folk, which can be called and dissolved at the King’s demand. To keep it super-convenient, we don’t even need to choose new people to fill these roles. Prince-Regent Cheney has a nice ring to it, wouldn’t you say?

We are in a dark place, America. As we celebrate our nation’s 231st birthday, quick action is our only hope for survival. In 1776, we threw off the yolk of King George the Third; this Fourth of July, we need King George – the Second, that is.

More on Scooter Libby

I have taken so long to provide a post on Scooter because Dave beat me to the punch and really, what else is there to say? I'm not one of those wackos who thinks that for whatever reason Libby was the definition of a true patriot (I suppose anyone associated with the Bush Administration is a true patriot in some people's eyes). So, I obviously don't have a counter argument. But, perhaps there is more to say about this anyway. A respected professor of mine directed me to this post by Sanford Levinson on The New Republic's blog, Open University.

As DC points out below, Bush has not used his pardon power very often as President, and indeed, did not use it very often as Governor of Texas, or as Levinson says,

as Governor of Texas he exhibited almost blithe disregard--enabled, to be sure, by his lawyer Alberto ("Fredo") Gonzales--of the poor wretches condemned to die under a notably slipshod system of Texas criminal justice.

So, he didn't pardon any people wrongly sentenced to death by Texas's "justice" system, but all of a sudden he has boatloads of compassion for someone who was sentenced to (and fully deserves - 30 months is not "excessive" for this sort of crime) 30 months in prison? I don't buy it. Team Bush/Gonzales have always fought for tougher criminal sentencing. Indeed, this isn't compassion. This is paranoia. Levinson quotes George Mason, one of the founding-era patriots who opposed the pardon power:

the President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own guilt.

Could Bush be doing something similar? Certainly, Scooter is not guilty of treason, but as Levinson notes,

The best explanation of the pardon is not compassion but, rather, fear that Mr. Libby might be tempted to provide more information about the cabal to turn the presidency (and vice-presidency) into "regal," if not out-and-out dictatorial, authorities totally independent from any scrutiny or accountability. This is simply one more illustration of the mendacity and corruption at the heart of the Bush Administration.

In other words, Bush has to look out for those who know damaging secrets. If Bush hadn't commuted Scooter's sentence, and if he ultimately does not pardon him completely, would Scooter be more inclined to reveal more of the dictatorial secrets of the Bush Administration?

I suppose the world may never know.

Thinking about Hillary.

Larry Sabato over at the Crystal Ball has a fantastic post entitled "The Hillary Dilemma." A lot of this post is sort of stating the obvious, but I think people need to hear it over and over again.

There is something about Hillary--the person, not the politician--that upsets and repels tens of millions of Americans. Fairly or not, she is seen as cold, calculating, and ruthless, an off-putting combination of characteristics.

Indeed, this has led to some rather frightening polls where she is concerned.

ABC News Poll - April 18, 2007
Definitely would not support:
Clinton	45%
Obama	36
Edwards	35

ABC News Poll - April 18, 2007
Definitely would not support (inds. only):
Clinton	45%
Obama	29
Edwards	39

Gallup Poll - May 24, 2007
Favorable/unfavorable (all adults):
Clinton	53% / 45%
Obama	55 / 20
Edwards	56 / 24

Gallup/USA Today Poll - June 5, 2007
Favorable/Unfavorable (all adults):
Clinton	46% / 50%
Obama	53 / 25
Edwards	44 / 32

So, even though she is the front-runner (and pretty overwhelmingly so according to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll) among the Democratic contenders, a lot of people hate her. So, if she does happen to win the Democratic nomination, this is a very bad way to start a general election campaign. As Sabato points out,

The final several percent of swing voters needed to get Hillary Clinton over the top in the general election will vote for her only with the greatest reluctance, more as a way to stop a Republican than as an endorsement of her. That is a shaky way to start a Presidency.

So, if somehow the Republican tide turns and people stop hating them (or one of the candidates actually has enough guts to distance himself from the Party), Clinton's campaign is on very shaky grounds. Her campaign slogan might as well be "I'm not a Republican!" And we saw how well that worked in 2004...

And a Hillary presidency would be troubling simply from the standpoint of democracy.

How is it that the country is on the verge of filling its highest office for the sixth consecutive term from one of two families? That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace. What has happened to the American Republic?

I don't know, but I truly hope that Democratic voters are wise enough to see these issues and vote for Obama instead.

Bush commutes Libby, delights the "Party of Law and Order"

So Bush commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence yesterday, and the "Party of Law and Order" cheered him on. Some of the best commentary on this case comes from Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy:

I find Bush's action very troubling because of the obvious special treatment Libby received. President Bush has set a remarkable record in the last 6+ years for essentially never exercising his powers to commute sentences or pardon those in jail. His handful of pardons have been almost all symbolic gestures involving cases decades old, sometimes for people who are long dead. Come to think of it, I don't know if Bush has ever actually used his powers to get one single person out of jail even one day early. If there are such cases, they are certainly few and far between. So Libby's treatment was very special indeed.

What's particularly outrageous is the way that Republicans have portrayed the Libby sentence as "politically motivated." Kerr points out the obvious:

I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.
...
But for the case to have been purely political, doesn't that require the involvement of someone who was not a Bush political appointee?

My personal favorite defense is that Libby's perjury didn't matter because no one was convicted in the case, sort of a no harm no foul defense. But where were these enlightened Republicans when Bill Clinton lied about his affair?

Why did Bush and Putin stand together against Iran?

From the New York Times:

President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin projected a united front Monday against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

''When Russia and the United States speak along the same lines, it tends to have an effect and therefore I appreciate the Russians' attitude in the United Nations,'' Bush said. ''We're close on recognizing that we got to work together to send a common message.''

Putin predicted that ''we will continue to be successful'' as they work through the U.N. Security Council.

What can we credit for this sunny development?

Earlier, Bush and the Russian leader piled into a powerful speedboat navigated by Bush's father -- former President George H.W. Bush. Under a bright morning sunshine, Putin and the Bushes roamed close to the shoreline around the Bush family's oceanfront estate for about an hour and a half.

Ah, male bonding.

Obama and McCain: two campaigns moving in opposite directions

Barack Obama has surged ahead of Hillary Clinton in fundraising:

Sen. Barack Obama outraised Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by $10 million in second-quarter contributions that can be spent on the Democratic presidential primary contest, aided by the contributions of 154,000 individual donors.

Obama's campaign on Sunday reported raising at least $31 million for the primary contest and an extra $1.5 million for the general election from April through June, a record for a Democratic candidate.

Clinton's campaign announced late Sunday that she had raised $21 million for the primary. With general election contributions added, aides said her total sum would be "in the range" of $27 million. Candidates can only use general election money if they win their party's nomination.

Clinton has a strong lead in national polls, but Obama is competitive with her in several keys states and is leading her in South Carolina. Interestingly enough, while Obama is doing quite well on the internet, that's not what's putting him over the top:

It's not the internet, but instead it's Obama's strategy of having paid events has been the boon needed to skyrocket his donor numbers. I've not seen a story on the phenomenon that he's created, but the paid venues have got to have provided Obama with tens of thousands of donors to add to his overall numbers. It's the speaking-venue donors (similar to a rock concert), not internet donors, that's leveraged the donor numbers for Obama; and alongside the astounding high-donor numbers that have sky-rocketed his total raised, it's combined to create a compelling narrative that gives a strategic advantage to Obama.

I guess it's easy to raise lots of money when this is how people react to you:

The scene is a grass-covered hillside at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

The sun beats down and anticipation builds like beads of sweat.

In the back of the crowd, folks are squinting. It's nearly a football field's distance to the stage. In between, it's a solid sea of people, some swaying to the rock music.

Any minute now, they expect to see the senator pop up on-stage. But Obama doesn't take the easy route. A buzz grows in the back of the huge gathering. Thousands of heads turn.

There he is. There, there ... He's way in the back in a bright, white shirt. He's slowly making his way down a narrow pathway through the humanity. People reach to touch him. He touches them back.

Finally, he hops up some stairs, gives hugs to the VIPs and steps onto a simple platform, where he'll spend much of the next hour talking about the state of the union, the fate of the planet and this moment in history that he -- and they -- are supposed to seize.

Obama might cut the slightest physical profile in the race to win the nomination at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. But his speaking voice projects the most gravity.

"As I approached this campaign, I had to ask myself, 'Why now? Why us?' " Obama tells the Iowa City crowd, which has grown as quiet as a church congregation. "The answer is because the country is calling us. History beckons us."

There's silence as he denounces the "cynicism" he thinks has taken over the society, cheers when he talks about hope.

The crowd is hushed when he talks about the environment, and applauds when he talks about enacting tougher, California-like pollution standards.

Folks roar their approval when he talks about health insurance for "every single American."

A tense silence takes over when he talks about the war in Iraq. Then the crowd raises its voice along with him when he alludes to rival candidates serving in Congress and says the war "should have never been authorized."

Without naming Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, he has tried to set himself up as the one major candidate who was on record against the war before it started.

By the time he leaves the stage, the people in the grass are riled up and swaying to the Motown song, "Your Love is Lifting Me Higher."

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the picture is looking grimmer and grimmer for John McCain:

John McCain's campaign, trailing top Republican rivals in money and polls, is undergoing a significant reorganization with staff cuts in every department, officials with knowledge of the shake-up said Monday.

Some 50 staffers or more are being let go, and senior aides will be subject to pay cuts as the Arizona senator's campaign bows to the reality of six months of subpar fundraising, these officials said.

Once considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination, McCain came in third in the money chase behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, raising $13.6 million in the first three months of the year. He is struggling to reach that total in the second financial quarter, and wasn't expected to match it.

...

His popularity among Republicans has dropped since the start of the year. He has become intimately linked to the unpopular Iraq war, and, in recent weeks, he's drawn criticism from already wary conservatives for his support of Bush's immigration reform bill. He declined to participate in an early test of organizational muscle in the leadoff state of Iowa this summer, and, he's fighting the perception that he's yesterday's candidate.

McCain's support in national polls has slipped. He is in single digits in some surveys in Iowa and South Carolina, trailing Giuliani, the former New York mayor; Romney, the ex-governor of Massachusetts, and Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator who's not yet in the race officially.

Put a fork in him.

"The only two candidates that speak clearly are the ones they call the kooks"

Former Barry Goldwater speechwriter Victor Gold has this to say about the next election (Via Andrew Sullivan):

"The only two candidates that speak clearly, you see, are the ones they call the kooks. On the Democratic side they ask Mike Gravel a question and he goes, "Do you think Ameri-- English should be the official language?" He said, "Yes." And the rest of them say, "No, not the official language, the national language." I said, "Well, what the devil is the national lang"-- I mean, why don't you just say "no"? And on the Republican side you have Ron Paul, who was the only candidate who is antiwar and pro-civil liberties. That is he opposes what this administration is doing in terms of civil liberties. And they call him a kook. That's the closest thing you can get [to Barry Goldwater]. So you can imagine Senator Goldwater, if he were-- he'd probably throw up his hands at the whole process and not run."

Of course, I seem to recall Dave Barry saying something along the lines that Goldwater lost because, at the time, he appeared too crazy to trust with a toaster, let alone a nuclear arsenal.

Weekend Roundup

Here are some interesting stories from this weekend. The first is from the Times (London):

ZIMBABWE’S leading cleric has called on Britan to invade the country and topple President Robert Mugabe. Pius Ncube, the Archbishop of Bulawayo, warned that millions were facing death from famine, unable to survive amid inflation believed to have soared to 15,000%.

Mugabe, 83, had proved intransigent despite the “massive risk to life”, said Ncube, the head of Zimbabwe’s 1m Catholics. “I think it is justified for Britain to raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe,” he said. “We should do it ourselves but there’s too much fear. I’m ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready.”

Some parts of Zimbabwe have seen 95% of crops fail, leaving families with only two or three weeks’ food supply to last a year. Prices in the shops are more than doubling every week and Christopher Dell, the American ambassador, predicts that by the end of the year inflation could hit 1.5m%.

Yes, that's when you know things are bad: when people actually want an invasion. The second article is a Guardian report on the sad situation of Alan Johnston, kidnapped by Jaish al-Islam in the Gaza Strip:

The arrest of two militants from the radical group holding BBC correspondent Alan Johnston hostage has put the journalist's life in great danger, according to sources in Gaza and within the group itself. Johnston, who was kidnapped on 12 March, today endures his 111th day in captivity. On Monday a video of him wearing what seemed to be an explosives vest was released by his captors.
...

Hamas security forces snatched two members of Jaish al-Islam on their way from dawn prayers on Tuesday and held them at the former Fatah military intelligence HQ. According to a Jaish member, one of the arrested men was given a mobile phone to call his comrades as a start of negotiations to swap them for Johnston, but instead the man told them not to bargain for their freedom.
...

Moderates in the Dogmosh family say that Jaish al-Islam, while always devoutly religious, has become more radicalised and closer to al-Qaeda in the past year with the arrival of veterans of wars in Chechnya and Iraq, and they fear their relative Mumtaz has fallen under the sway of al-Qaeda's brand of global jihad, rather than resisting Israeli operations and occupation. These new members have brought with them experience, both military and religious. It also explains demands for the release of Islamic militants not linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You also know things are bad when there's a hostage situation and Hamas is your best hope. Third, check out this article from the Economist:

A NEW disease is abroad in eastern Germany: Frauenmangel, lack of women. In some towns there are only 75 young women for every 100 young men. In one or two there are as few as 40. The effects are worrying, not only because populations may shrink but also because of the existence of a growing underclass of young men who are partnerless, underqualified and jobless.
...

The few women who stay prefer single parenthood to hitching themselves to useless partners—benefits for single mothers are generous. It is women who are now masters of their destinies. The study, which combines reportage with figures, tells of frustrated gangs of youths drinking outside supermarkets and sleeping on their loading ramps.

Thank goodness I attend a small liberal arts college, where the girls outnumber the men! Finally, an article from the Los Angeles Times entitled "In Iowa, 6 GOP hopefuls, 1 party line":

One by one, half a dozen Republican presidential hopefuls auditioned Saturday before an Iowa audience of economic and social conservatives, pledging lower taxes, tougher border enforcement and a tighter-fisted approach to federal spending.

The candidates also echoed one another in reiterating their opposition to abortion and to legalizing same-sex marriage.

"One man. One woman. Lifetime relationship," said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who joined former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in advocating a constitutional amendment spelling out that domestic arrangement.

Of course, they don't support an amendment that would spell out that domestic arrangement; last time I checked, the proposed amendment didn't outlaw divorce.

That's all for now. Stay tuned!