WANT

Too bad I don't like crying and/or puppies.

Thinking Strategically (Or, How Galrahn Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Pirates)

Gal's given me another reason to plug Information Dissemination with two of his latest insightful posts. So seldom do we find anyone who thinks about the big picture.

I'm not going to bother quoting key passages, as these are definitely worth taking in in their entirety:

Observing the Strategic Success of US Policy Toward Somali Piracy

Are Pirates the Problem, Or the Solution?

(Related OI post: Piracy a blessing in disguise?)

One Less Vertical Scenario Playing Out

I guess we can sleep a little easier knowing that the BrahMos will not be exported as widely as previously feared:

There were initial hopes that Russia and India could export up to 2,000. China and Iran have expressed interest in the weapon, but only Malaysia, Chile, South Africa, Kuwait and the UAE (United Arab Emirates) have been approached with a sales pitch. No one has placed an order.

Smart people, not selling to China and Iran. India apparently realizes that its relations with us are a bit too important to throw away to make an easy buck or two. It also seems that we figure into the poor sales elsewhere.

Earlier this year, India ordered 800 more of the new PJ-10 BrahMos missiles. Attempts to find export customers, however, have not succeeded. India believes this is because they have not previously been a major arms exporter, and have not developed the skills and techniques to sell high-tech weapons. Another reason, which the Indian arms salesmen don't like to dwell on, is that BrahMos was originally designed to go after heavily defended American aircraft carriers. Few countries see attacking the U.S. Navy as a promising military strategy. That, and the high price of the BrahMos probably accounts for most of the sales resistance.

I might suggest that they could find potential customers in NATO, but I doubt India's partners will like that idea. What a pity.

Such an Odd Place...

I knew the Somali pirates were getting rich and living the glamorous life, but I didn't realize the size of the boom they're causing:

But in northern coastal towns like Haradhere, Eyl and Bossaso, the pirate economy is thriving thanks to the money pouring in from pirate ransoms that have reached $30 million this year alone.

In Haradhere, residents came out in droves to celebrate as the looming oil ship came into focus this week off the country's lawless coast. Businessmen started gathering cigarettes, food and cold glass bottles of orange soda, setting up small kiosks for the pirates who come to shore to re-supply almost daily.

Dahir said she is so confident in the pirates, she instituted a layaway plan just for them.

"They always take things without paying and we put them into the book of debts," she told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "Later, when they get the ransom money, they pay us a lot."

For Somalis, the simple fact that pirates offer jobs is enough to gain their esteem, even as hostages languish on ships for months. The population makes sure the pirates are well-stocked in qat, a popular narcotic leaf, and offer support from the ground even as the international community tries to quash them.

"Regardless of how the money is coming in, legally or illegally, I can say it has started a life in our town," said Shamso Moalim, a 36-year-old mother of five in Haradhere.

"Our children are not worrying about food now, and they go to Islamic schools in the morning and play soccer in the afternoon. They are happy."

I find this curious because of the warlord situation there. As I see it, the warlords' primary interest is to hold onto power. That means they'd either be in on the piracy business or demanding a shit ton of "protection" money. And maybe they are. But an economic boom is empowering to the common folk. They're getting jobs, vehicles, going to school.... not exactly the picture of dependency that we've come to identify with Somalia since the 90's. They're even doing business overseas and getting wired up on the 'net--getting connected with the rest of the world.

This may seem perverse, but maybe this piracy thing is a bit of a blessing in disguise. It's hard to keep a population dependent on you when they're doing business and getting connected. No, that's not a justification, but it is food for thought, because disconnectedness is what defines danger and instability these days. Right now, it seems Somalia is too far gone to connect to the rest of the world (much like Afghanistan) and not suitable for a nation-building type program, but maybe as the seeds of connectedness are sown through this piracy, that will start to slowly change.

Silver lining or not, I still think more aggressive measures need to be taken to stop this problem.

Piracy Leading to Disruption in Int'l Trade

You know it's serious when you can't get your Wii games.

Alarmed at the growing number of attacks off Somalia, international merchant shipping is edging closer to doing the unthinkable in peace time: by-passing one of world's most vital trade routes.

Somali pirates have been plundering ships off the Horn of Africa for years, but the recent surge in attacks has spilled out into the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, threatening access to the Suez Canal.

Now big firms employed in moving everything from oil, gas and coal to toys, are urgently considering whether to travel round South Africa's Cape of Good Hope instead.

***

The alternative voyage round the Cape of Good Hope would add upwards of three weeks to a typical journey, delaying goods to buyers and increasing transport costs.

***

Giles Noakes, chief maritime security officer at BIMCO, a big industry association, said two operators, one a gas carrier and a tug operator Svitzer, a maritime logistics group, were already routing their fleets via the Cape.

"The next group that I expect to be going round the Cape are the big dry bulkers -- carriers of coal, grains and iron ore -- who also cruise at lower speeds," Noakes said.

How long are we going to let these mosquitos bite us before we spray the nest?

Peek-A-Boo

The JMSDF sees you!

No info yet on how close they came to the G-Dub. Hans are noisy fiddle luckers, though, so hopefuly not that close.

I can't help but wonder if this story was intended to coincide with the SCOTUS news, as it doesn't say when the subs were detected.

Victory!

SCOTUS is full of awesome and win today:

U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Restrictions on Navy Sonar (Update3)

By Greg Stohr

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court lifted restrictions on the Navy's use of sonar during training exercises off the Southern California coast, ruling that national security needs trumped environmental concerns.

A divided high court rejected arguments by environmentalists that the judge-ordered restrictions were warranted to protect whales and other marine mammals.

The environmental interests ``are plainly outweighed by the Navy's need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines,'' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Well, not that divided... two dissents and two concurrences for a 6.5 to 2.5 majority. Not bad.

I See What You Did There

First, giving credit where credit is due, Conservative Wahoo saw it first.

Here is a story about how the press covered the election. It is amazing in three respects. First, if there was ever any doubt about the widespread perception that the mainstream media has a liberal bias, this should prove it once and for all. Second--and I was surprised by this--it shows that Fox News Channel really is living up to its "Fair and Balanced" motto (I thought they would have had a slight conservative tilt, but the data shows otherwise). Finally, it's remarkable because despite what the raw data shows, the Pew Research Center still managed to present the data in a form that made it appear that FNC was skewed right and that the network news outlets were right in the middle.

Absolutely amazing. The problem with Pew's presentation is that it compares each outlet to the average of all of them, and then decides that if a network is to the left or right of that average, then they are left or right politically. The obvious problem with that is it assumes that the media as a whole is centrist. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the media as a whole can be on one side or another--especially when you have a network like MSNBC out there pulling the average way, way out to the left. A better method of analysis is not to assume anything, but to compare the way the networks treated the candidates. No spin, just straight up.

So here is the raw data that the story is based on. The data tells a pretty clear story, when you look at is for what it really is. So, here is what it looks like when you compare how the networks covered the candidates:

FNC
Negative Stories
Obama: 40%
Mcain: 40%
-BALANCED-

Positive Stories
Obama: 25%
McCain: 22%
-BALANCED- (slightly Obama favoring)

MSNBC:
negative stories:
Obama: 14%
McCain 73%
--Tilted against McCain by 5 to 1 ratio--

Positive stories
Obama: 42%
McCain: 10%
--Tilted for Obama by 4 to 1 ratio--

CNN:
Negative Stories
Obama: 39%
McCain: 61%
--Tilted against McCain by 1.7 to 1 ratio--

Positive Stories
Obama: 36%
McCain: 13%
--Tilted for Obama by 2.8 to 1 ratio--

NBC
Negative Stories
Obama: 20%
McCain: 54%
--Tilted against McCain by 2.7 to 1 ratio--

Positive Stories
Obama: 43%
McCain: 17%
--Tilted for Obama by 2.5 to 1 ratio--

CBS
Negative Stories
Obama: 27%
McCain: 57%
--Tilted against McCain by 2.1 to 1 ratio--

Positive Stories
Obama: 21%
McCain: 8%
--Tilted for Obama by 2.6 to 1 ratio--

ABC
Negative Stories
Obama: 27%
McCain: 56%
--Tilted against McCain by 2.1 to 1 ratio--

Positive Stories
Obama: 49%
McCain: 15%
----Tilted for Obama by 3.3 to 1 ratio--

So there you have it. When FNC says "Fair and Balanced", at least in this election, they meant it. CNN, MSNBC, and the old networks favored Obama in their coverage by a 2-5 to 1 margin. The data proves it.

Peril On the Sea

Developing:


RIA Reports a major tragedy at sea:

Over 20 killed in Russian submarine accident

MOSCOW, November 9 (RIA Novosti) - More than 20 people were killed in an accident at a nuclear submarine of the Russian Pacific Fleet, an aide to the Russian Navy commander said Sunday.

"More than 20 people were killed during sea trials as a result of accidental launch of the fire-extinguishing system at a nuclear submarine of the Pacific Fleet on November 8," Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo said. "Shipyard workers and servicemen are among the victims."

He said the Navy commander-in-chief had ordered to stop the trials and the submarine was heading to a temporary base.

Dygalo said 208 people, including 81 servicemen were onboard the submarine.

First Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Kolmakov and Navy commander-in-chief, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky are heading for the site of the accident, Dygalo added. He did not specify the type and name of the submarine.

A source at the Russian Pacific Fleet told RIA Novosti that the accident had not damaged the submarine's reactor.

The most serious accident regarding Russian submarines occurred on August 12, 2000, when the nuclear submarine Kursk sank following an onboard torpedo explosion, killing all 118 crewmembers.

The story does not identify the sub, but the Nerpa seems like the likely candidate, as it is known to have been undergoing sea trials at the time.

Update: They are calling freon gas the cause of death.

The Cynicism Returns

It's the 2nd half of the video that's worth watching. I don't know what the deal is with that prop sword he had on his back, but the officers clearly have more of a problem with him being there than the object he was carrying at first, because after someone removes it they continue to demand that he leaves, while he insists on being able to exercise his 1st Amendment rights. And he gets arrested for it.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Positive Signs from SCOTUS on Sonar

It would appear that the Supreme Court has a bit of a pro-Navy leaning in the "Sailors v. Whales" case.

In a closely watched environmental case, justices Wednesday morning repeatedly sounded sympathetic to Pentagon officials who want to run large-scale Navy exercises off the Southern California coast. While the resulting underwater sonar storm disturbs marine mammals, it also helps prepare sailors for combat.

"I thought the whole point of the armed forces was to hurt the environment," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said, half-jokingly. "Of course they're going to do harm."

***

Chief Justice John Roberts raised the specter of an undetected "North Korean diesel submarine to get (closer) to Pearl Harbor" if sailors couldn't train with sonar, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito asked pointedly if a judge could be considered "an expert on anti-submarine warfare." Alito added that there is "something incredibly odd" about a trial judge making a decision "contrary" to the Navy's requirements.

Even Breyer, who at times has been skeptical about other claims of executive authority, suggested that "an admiral (who) comes along with an affidavit that seems plausible" might outrank a "district judge who just says" the training should stop.

***

Associate Justice David Souter pressed Garre vigorously, insisting that the Navy may have brought the emergency circumstances on itself, but Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy added that a presidential declaration of military necessity "certainly must be given great weight."

Full story here.

Linked: Michael Crichton on the meaning of Science

The late Crichton reminds us of that consensus is not science.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

(From the Wall Street Journal)

A Respite from Cynicism

We made history yesterday by electing our first (half-) black President, and whatever else this election means, all Americans should be proud of this accomplishment. Aside for South Africa under apartheid, I can't think of any racial minority heads of state (a few ethnic/nationality minorities according to a quick google search), so we've earned some real progressive cred that few if any of our critics could dream of having.

More importantly, we've turned a page on race relations here in the US. For too long, entire communities have felt like they were not part of the American dream because of their race and that the system was rigged against them. Many believed that the white majority valued whiteness more than ideas. These feelings created bitterness, and sometimes, violence. But now, a post-racial America is within our grasp. To be sure, the racial antagonists will be there to remind everyone of that tiny part of the path to equality that is still in front of us, trying to cultivate the anger they thrive on; but, the reality of a President Obama will illuminate the reality the antagonists don't want America to see. The reality, as shown as clear as can be by a white majority voting without regard to their race, that racism is no longer prevalent. The reality that the American Dream is accessible to anyone who applies him/herself to achieving it. The reality that the culture of victimhood is a dead end.

Radicals on the left, for too long, have told Americans that their country should be despised, and many Americans became corrupted by this expanding culture of toxicity and cynicism. Too many of us were not proud to be Americans.

So, instead of being angry or depressed about the outcome, I think we should enjoy this moment and make the most of it. Let us affirm our values, our optimism, and our faith in each other. We'll need them in the times ahead.

Election day: fraud, intimidation, and other irregularities watch

Black Panthers block polling place doors; possible arrest





GOP pollwatchers thrown out of 12+ polling places in Philly.

100,000 Georgia Voters Also Registered in Either Ohio or Florida

Man Confesses Fraud to CNN; CNN says "that's OK"!

Accuracy of State Polls

Something to keep in mind:

The first thing that jumps out at you if you read the state polls, is that there are a lot more polling groups doing polls at the state level, than at the national level. Also, most of the polling groups which do national polls, do not also do state polling, probably because it is expensive and difficult to try to cover all of the states on a consistent and timely basis. I have written before that national polls often focus on urban centers, which means that many of the states would require a functionally different methodology to work than what is used nationally. State polling tends to be smaller in respondent pool size, smaller in budget, and less frequent. Some polling groups only do one poll for the whole campaign, and it's common for even major groups to do a poll only once a month....

2006 was a bad year for republicans... it's not surprising that democratic party supporters gained a few points (usually 1 to 3 points) relative to 2004 in voter participation. So I went back and looked at voters by party affiliation, and compared those balances to this year's weighting by Survey USA. In thirty-six states, the party affiliation weights for democrats used by SUSA was five points or more higher than in 2006, a high-water mark for democrats. In twenty states, the party afiiliation weights for democrats used by SUSA was ten points or more higher than in 2006, and in eight states, the party affiliation weights used for democrats by SUSA was thirteen points or more higher than in 2006. Significant battleground states affected by this bias are as follows:

Pennsylvania: D+5 in 2006, SUSA using D+19, 15 point variance
Indiana: R+14 in 2006, SUSA using R+1, 13 point variance
Nevada: R+7 in 2006, SUSA using D+6, 13 point variance
Colorado: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance
Iowa: R+2 in 2006, SUSA using D+10, 12 point variance
Virginia: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance
Ohio: D+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+13, 10 point variance
Missouri: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+7, 8 point variance
North Carolina: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+5, 6 point variance

I've looked at the publicly available records on historical election participation, 2008 new voter registrations, and the Census information on these states, but I can find no valid reason for such large and arbitrary changes in political affiliation weightings. I would therefore submit that the models being used for many of the state polls have design flaws, which threaten the credibility of their published results.

Source.

A Sign of the Scale of Fraud?

I hope not. But we'll never know until we get serious about stopping it.

From Election Journal

Found: 2000 people registered in Indiana and Florida from one county

November 2, 2008 by Soren

The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette compared the Allen County, Indiana voter file to the Florida voter file and found 2,000 probable overlaps with the same name and birthday:

The Journal Gazette compared the list of 222,000 active registered voters in Allen County with the list of more than 12 million registered voters in Florida and found that 2,172 registrations have the same first and last names, middle names or initials and the same birth dates and are listed as active, eligible voters in both places.

This could be very significant. Both Florida and Indiana are close states, and Allen County contains a significant portion of the votes in IN-03, where Congressman Mark Souder is in a close re-election race.

How many more of these are there? How many have voted?

Recall that when the Indiana voter-ID law went to Supreme Court, one of the plaintiffs was Faye Buis-Ewing, who was registered in both Indiana and Florida and was fraudulently claiming homestead tax exemptions in both states.

The Homestretch

We're almost there, and like the rest of you I'll be happy when it's finally over. These things seem to be starting earlier every cycle, and this one's been draining.

I've got two good reads for you. I can't vouch for the validity of either, but they purport to be from sources within the Obama campaign. The message: don't trust the polls, this is closer than we think.

Here's #1: I can't say I care for a lot of the comments on the attached video, but there's a lot of editing going on there so hopefully it's not a representative sampling. Communist? Close enough. Muslim terrorist? No.

...and I'll post #2 directly (highlighting mine). If this is really from the inside, you can't get better strategic insight.

What you were never intended to know in this election

A Hillary staffer comes clean

Posted by: Anonymous_14

Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 04:52PM CDT

26 Comments

After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama.

I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.

1 – Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.

2 – Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.

3 – Obama’s radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.

4 – The Bradley Effect. Don’t believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true “toss up states”. The only two of these the campaign feels “confident” in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us! What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% “refuse to respond” result. You can’t possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the “hip” choice, and we all know it.

As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a “feel” as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don’t you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it. You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.

I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can’t ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around. Treat that as you will.

It's dead, Jim UPDATED: NO, It's Not, I Need To Learn to Read

UPDATED 9 DEC 2008: After reviewing the content of the linked story (below), I must retract this post. The attributed remarks do not substantiate Hawaii as the place of birth; they establish that Hawaii is in possession of a valid certificate but NOT its contents. The reporter does make an unattributed statement that the President-elect was born in Hawaii, but without attribution to an official this statement has zero significance (and is really, really bad reporting).

The Obama "natural born citizen" issue is over.

Hawaii officials have confirmed the validity of the birth certificate. Granted, I would have preferred this come out in a deposition under oath than in an AP story, but this is what we have, and considering the standing issue, this is as good as it's going to get. It'll have to do. So, it's over, and that's a good thing.

I urge other anti-Obama citizens to drop it.

And no, the Indonesia issue is not worth pursuing. As accomplished as Berg seems to be, the idea that you can define the meaning of "natural born citizen" in terms of statutory law is quite simply fallacious. You can surely use statutes to inform your interpretation of the constitution, but statutes cannot by themselves establish the meaning of the constitution. And if you think the Court is going to interpret the meaning of the phrase in anything but the broadest sense possible--which would easily include anyone who is a citizen at birth according to the 14th Amendment--you've simply lost touch with judicial and political reality.

It's over. This will be won or lost at the ballot box, as it should be. Cast your vote and accept the outcome. We're better than the Gore supporters of 2000.