Just finished up Mark Steyn's 'America Alone,' a look at the demographic-cultural shift in Europe (from Western to Islamic) and the implications (not good).

Steyn has an engaging and clear writing style. At no point are you left wondering what he's getting at. His data is as comprehensive as it can be, when one considers how difficult it is to try and project long-term trends. And, his thesis, that the West is losing out in a demographic war to an ideology that is dedicated to the destruction of the very civilization that it is expanding within, is one that I find hard to argue with.

But, of course, I see Islam as not just a religion, but a comprehensive ideology, a complete set of rules for organizing all aspects of your society (a view that any devote Muslim - or any infidel who has done even a moderate amount of research into the subject - has to agree with). Further, it is a ruleset that is not compatible with the modern West. So, coming to this book with that idea already a part of my worldview, I was predisposed to agree with Steyn.

One thing I do not agree with is his thesis that it is a decline in Christianity and a rise in secularism that has contributed to the collapse of Western "will." I would argue that it is the kind of secularism - multiculturalism, self-loathing, an inability to see moral failings in anything but your own country or civilization, a willful ignorance of how the enemy behaves or what they believe - that has led to a collapse in our faith in ourselves. Simply put, the people who set the tone for the intellect of our civilization have embraced a set of beliefs and views that is monumentally stupid, blind to the realities of the world and of human nature. That is not a function of secularism; rather, it is a toxic stew created out of a very specific set of events and trends.

Even if you have read this and are thinking, "man this guy is wrong and Steyn sounds like a paranoid nutjob" you should still read the book. Why? Because, as Steyn puts it (and I'm paraphrasing) "even if you don't agree with the answers, you need to start asking the questions."

Steyn asks the questions of what it means when a society stops breeding at replacement levels, when a civilization goes to great pains to describe a competitor civilization as harmless when it obviously is not, when people stop believing in anything, but their own short-term comfort.

I just picked up the new edition of Bill Warren's "Keep Watching The Skies!" This is an exhaustive review of science fiction films in America from 1950 - 1962. Some foreign films (e.g., Godzilla) are included, but only if they had a domestic release.

Warren provides each film with a detailed synopsis, production info, cast and crew lists, information on the cast and crew where it seems interesting, some connection of the themes with contemporary American society...basically, a wealth of information on movies both classic and otherwise (and he has no problem calling a dog a dog). Warren's style is both informative and relaxed; this reads much more like the work of a highly informed aficionado, less like an academic trying to show off his command of film theory or cultural anthropology.

There are some nice photos and poster reproductions, but do not buy this book thinking it is a picture book; this is a work that is dense with information.

For those, like me, who have the first edition, the obvious question is "is it worth it to buy the new edition?" I took a chance and answered "yes." After having read through much of the book, I can say that for the additional content and the superior presentation, that 'yes' is justified.

I can't recommend this enough. If you are a film buff, a sci-fi fan or both, you need this book.

So, I've been casting around for a new writing project. And, I think I've landed a good one. I'm a fan of horror and science fiction films. I also think that the 1970s were pretty much the best era for American cinema. So, why not combine the two and write an overview of American science fiction films in that decade, with an emphasis on the thematic contents. That is, what do they say about America's hopes and fears during that turbulent decade.

I might extend that time period for a few years on either end of the decade, but that's pretty much the concept. Now, what does that have to do with the blog?

Simple. I'm going to start posting parts of the work on-line. So, a bonus to those of you who make it to my little corner of the Internet.

For the last 6 years I've pretty consistently used this blog to yammer about current events, politics and related issues.

Well, that's going to change. I've just gotten burned out (hence the spotty posting in the last few months). At some point, you can only say the same thing so many times. And, in large measure, I think that's where I am right now; saying the same stuff, with just point-in-time tweeks.

So, I'm going to move this blog in a direction of talking about the stuff I find fun and interesting. More items on cinema, literature, pop culture, technology, science...the interesting things.

Maybe, in a few years, I'll find a renewed interest in the affairs of the day. For now, not so much.

A NASA radar package on board the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe has identified large deposits of water-ice near the Moon's north pole at the bottom of meteor impact craters. One researcher estimated that there could be up to 600 metric tonnes of water ice just in the craters being examined.

This will make whatever kind of operations the human race decides to undertake on the Moon much easier. Large deposits of ice mean no need to bring water, a source of oxygen and a source of fuel. Large enough deposits could make the Moon a source of these critical commodities for orbital facilities, since it is much easier to get items up the Lunar gravity well, as opposed to ours.

You can find out more about this mission from the official Chandrayaan-1 site, as well as from NASA.

I stand by my recommendation from yesterday that the GOP should have stayed away from the President's dog and pony show on healthcare. That said, the Republicans hammered the President. He looked and sounded like a petulant child. His anger - mixed with disbelief that anyone could disagree with him - was obvious. He tried to lecture, but came across like an arrogant fool, an ideologue who cannot defend his own positions. And the Dems sounded like twits.

So, it was, as the President seemed to acknowledge at the end, a waste of time. But, it was one that did not go favorably for the White House and their minions. If you have a whole day to kill, you can go to C-Span and check it out.

This from the BeeB;

The talks between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President Abdullah Gul and Gen. Basbug [head of the Turkish Armed Forces] come after 20 military officers were charged over the case.

They were called amid rising tension between the government and military.

Mr Erdogan was quoted by local media as saying Thursday's meeting had gone "very well".

Former heads of the navy and air force are still being questioned and could yet be charged.

The military has denied any coup plot and has held its own officers' summit to discuss the "serious situation" in the wake of the latest arrests.
[...]
Turkey's military has overthrown or forced the resignation of four governments since 1960 - most recently in 1997 - though Gen Basbug has insisted that coups are a thing of the past.

The scale of Monday's operation against the military was unprecedented. Those arrested include two serving admirals, three retired admirals and three retired generals.
[...]
Analysts say the crackdown on the military would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

The army has regarded itself as the guardian of a secular Turkish state, but its power has been eroded in recent years, with Turkey enacting reforms designed to prepare it for entry to the European Union.

Many Turks regard the cases as the latest stage in an ongoing power struggle between Turkey's secular nationalist establishment and the governing AK Party.
[...]
The AK Party has its roots in political Islam, and is accused by some nationalists of having secret plans to turn staunchly secular Turkey into an Islamic state...

Well, for all our political problems, at least we haven't gotten to the stage where the military is overthrowing our elected government. So, just be thankful for the little things :-)

The Brits have a government run healthcare system, the NHS. horror stories are common and echo the nightmarish problems found in previous socialized medicine systems, particularity the Soviet system. Here's an article with from the Times with the latest scandal;

Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 [Jeff's note:Other sources put this figure at 1200] deaths have been linked to appalling care.

An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.

The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.

Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.

The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.
[...]
Mr [Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary] said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards."

According to the Daily Mail no one is being punished for this appalling lack of care.

My take on Obama's puppet theater today? The Republicans should never have agreed to participate. The American people do not want Obamacare. The White House does not want to actually talk about healthcare. The hill leadership does not want to ttalk about healthcare. The Dems are not going to compromise.

So, what's the point? The GOP should stick with the American people, call this puppet show what it is, and do something useful with the day. By participating, they will allow the President to claim victory, claim that he has listened to the opposition, and push forward with his plan, a plan already in place.

As for the Dems, even if they get a short-term boost in poll numbers, the widespread opposition to Obamacare is not going away. I doubt the President can turn this opposition around just by pretending to care about what the GOP/independents have to say. Unless he reveals major shifts in policy, I don;t see the American people suddenly coming on board, just because he gives another presentation, while saying the same thing he has been for months.

Venezuela has been driving hard down the road to a command economy. However, it appears that even Chavez can't ignore economic reality. This from Al Jazeera;

Venezuela has signed a series of multibillion-dollar agreements with foreign and domestic companies to develop oil fields in the country's Orinoco region.

The agreements signed on Wednesday is the largest oil investment decision taken during Hugo Chavez's 11 years old presidency.

The deals also come three years after Chavez nationalised operations in Orinoco.

Rafael Ramirez, the country's oil minister, said Petroleos de Venezuela (PDSVA) will create joint ventures with two consortiums of mostly foreign companies to develop two blocks in the Carabobo area of the Orinoco belt, one of the world's largest known oil deposits.

US-based Chevron and Spain's Repsol led groups that will tap into the OPEC member's 100-plus billion barrels of reserves.

Falling prices in oil is said to be the impetus behind Venezuela and other producer nations seeking partnerships that they avoided during the recent commodities boom.
[...]
The Carabobo oil tender includes three projects slated to produce 1.2 million barrels per day following years of slumping oil production in Venezuela.

Repsol will take 11 per cent in its project, the same stake as consortium partners Petronas of Malaysia and ONGC of India.

The state-run PDVSA will take 60 per cent, with two other Indian companies taking the remainder, a Repsol official said.

Chevron will lead a second project along with consortium partners that include Japan's Jogmec, Mitsubishi, and Inpex, plus Venezuela's Suelopetrol.

One last bit about Brennan's opinion piece in USAToday; it appears with a companion piece written by the editors. One that, pretty decisively demolishes Brennan's "don't worry, be happy" nonsense;

Ever since the botched Christmas Day plot to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, the Obama administration's national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they're doing.

So far, they're achieving the opposite, and they're needlessly adding some jitters in the process:

-- CIA Director Leon Panetta and other top officials agreed last week that an attack by al-Qaeda is likely in the next three to six months. The warning is bound to frighten the public, with no obvious benefit beyond the ability to say "I told you so."

-- Top administration officials revealed last week that bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was again cooperating with authorities. Great. But the news pretty much negates earlier claims that no intelligence was lost when Abdulmutallab was prematurely read his rights.

-- In Senate testimony, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair had a "Duh!" moment as he hit his forehead and acknowledged that authorities fumbled the initial questioning of Abdulmutallab by failing to call in the high-value interrogation group, which was created to question terrorism suspects. Refreshingly candid, yes, but not a statement that inspires confidence. Especially when the same day, at another Senate hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that the high-value unit was still in its "formation stages" and that "there was no time" to get it to Detroit.

All of this follows the string of blunders that allowed Abdulmutallab to carry explosives onto a U.S.- bound plane in the first place. The chaos that followed his arrest now looks just as bad.

Great stuff. Check out the rest here.

John Geraghty at NRO pointed this out from Brennan's yammering at USAToday;

Looking again at that John Brennan op-ed in USA Today, I see he refers to Abdulmutallab as a "suspect" but asserts that administration critics, ipso facto, "serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

In other words, in the eyes of one the administration's top men on counterterrorism, Abdulmutallab gets a presumption of innocence that you and I don't.

This might seem like a minor thing...but it does betray a disturbing outlook on the part of one of our senior counter-terrorism officials.

The White House has proposed a "healthcare summit";

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama said. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward."

House Republicans, seeing this as a probable dog and pony show, sent the following letter to the White House

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

The key, of course, is "[a]ssuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?"

Without starting over, there is no point.

The White House has responded, trotting out Robert Gibbs to say;

"He's been very clear about his support for the House and Senate bills because of what they achieve for the American people: putting a stop to insurance company abuses, extending coverage to millions of hardworking Americans, getting control of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reducing the deficit," Gibbs said in a statement.

He added: "The president looks forward to reviewing Republican proposals that meet the goals he laid out at the beginning of this process, and as recently as the State of the Union address. He's open to including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny. What he will not do, however, is walk away from reform and the millions of American families and small businesses counting on it."

Which is, essentially, "no, we are not going to scrap the bills as they stand and start over."

The GOP response should therefore be, "that's nice...see you in November."

There is no point in the GOP showing up for an Obama propaganda operation, which is what this "summit" is now obviously (as if there was any doubt) going to be.

(Sources: Washington Post, Washington Post)

At least, that's what Russia seems to want. This from the chief of the Russian General Staff, General of the Army Nikolai Makarov;

“Contrary to statements by western leaders the system is designed for maintaining security is not targeted against Russia, our opinion on this issue is extremely negative,” Makarov said.

“The development of this system weakens our nuclear potential, and it would be a mistake not to take it into account,” he said.

At this point, I don't think anyone in the US national security community is a) that worried about a direct threat from Russia (indirect threats - weapons proliferation, attempts to extend their sphere of influence over the Near-Abroad - are another matter; I'm referring to a direct confrontation between the US and Russia) and b) thinks that our missile defense systems (either those currently operational or those that are supposed to come on-line in the next decade) could have any impact on a Russian strategic strike. Unless, of course, the Russia strategic forces are in worse shape than most people assume they are.

The Russians must know this - unless they are almost comically paranoid. So, what's the point? It goes back to Russian interests in getting the US and the West our of their former sphere-of-influence in Easterner Europe and the former Soviet Empire in the Caucasus and Central Asia. This Administration has demonstrated some weakness on these issues and Russia is pushing while they can. Further, this does offer insight into the state of Russian conventional forces. To put it bluntly, evidence from the last few years shows that Russian conventional forces are in terrible shape, barely capable of defeating a handful of light infantry (Georgia) let alone being used against a serious threat. Unable to compete on our level, they can only rattle the nuclear sabers they inherited from the USSR and pray that works.

(Source: ITAR-TASS)

Apparently, if you raise any objections or concerns about national security policy, you aid Al Qaeda. This from John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (writing in USAToday).

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill...And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.

No sir, what is absurd is functionaries like you trying to destroy the free exchange of ideas in this country, by associating critics of national security policies with our enemies. During the Bush years, we were told by people like the current SecState (Hillary Clinton) that "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism." Okay...so does that only apply when Leftists are attacking the Right or blaming America for all the world's problems?

Obamanese is his first, apparently.

The Left..the media...the Dems...they all made a lot of noise about how dumb President Bush was, how he couldn't pronounce words correctly and so forth. Well, apparently President Obama has pronunciation problems of his own.



It is "corpsman" not "corpseman."

So, all of you Dems out there who assaulted Bush on a regular basis...what now?

Unemployment dropped to 9.7% last month. Of course, one needs to look at the numbers a bit more closely to get an accurate picture of what this means. This from the BLS (emphasis mine);

The unemployment rate fell from 10.0 to 9.7 percent in January, and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-20,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment fell in construction and in transportation and warehousing, while temporary help services and retail trade added jobs.
[...]
In January, unemployment rates for most major worker groups--adult men
(10.0 percent), teenagers (26.4 percent), blacks (16.5 percent), and
Hispanics (12.6 percent)--showed little change. The jobless rate for adult
women fell to 7.9 percent, and the rate for whites declined to 8.7 percent.
The jobless rate for Asians was 8.4 percent, not seasonally adjusted.
[...]
In January, the number of persons unemployed due to job loss decreased by
378,000 to 9.3 million. Nearly all of this decline occurred among permanent
job losers.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)
continued to trend up in January, reaching 6.3 million. Since the start of
the recession in December 2007, the number of long-term unemployed has risen
by 5.0 million.
[...]
About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in
January, an increase of 409,000 from a year earlier...They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged workers in
January, up from 734,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they
believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.5 million people
marginally attached to the labor force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks
preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

Total nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged in January (-20,000).
Job losses continued in construction and in transportation and warehousing,
while employment increased in temporary help services and retail trade. Since
the start of the recession in December 2007, payroll employment has fallen by
8.4 million. Over the last 3 months, however, employment has shown little net
change.

Construction employment declined by 75,000 in January, with nonresidential
specialty trade contractors (-48,000) accounting for the majority of the decline. Since December 2007, employment in construction has fallen by 1.9
million.

In January, transportation and warehousing employment fell by 19,000, due to
a large job loss among couriers and messengers (-23,000).

Employment in manufacturing was little changed in January (11,000). After experiencing steep job losses earlier in the recession, employment declines
moderated considerably in the second half of 2009. In January, job gains in
motor vehicles and parts (23,000) and plastics and rubber products (6,000)
offset small job losses elsewhere in the industry.

In January, temporary help services added 52,000 jobs. Since reaching a low
point in September 2009, temporary help services employment has risen by
247,000.
[Jeff's note: this actually is good news. It is generally accepted that firms turn to temp services first, before committing to new FTEs.]
Retail trade employment rose by 42,000 in January, after showing little
change in the prior 2 months. Job gains occurred in January among food stores
(14,000), clothing stores (13,000), and general merchandise retailers (10,000).
[...]
In January, the federal government added 33,000 jobs, including 9,000 temporary positions for Census 2010. Employment in state and local governments,
excluding education, continued to trend down.
[...]
Also new in this release are data on hours and earnings for all employees in
the private sector. The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls was up by 0.1 hour to 33.9 hours in January. The manufacturing work-
week for all employees rose by 0.3 hour to 39.9 hours, and factory overtime
increased by 0.1 hour over the month. Since June, the manufacturing workweek
has increased by 1.2 hours...

So, still pretty weak and, as usual, unemployment is actually under-counted due to those who have dropped out of the workforce all together. It is worrisome that manufacturing and construction are still losing jobs (or, at least, not showing the kind of gains we need to fully pull out of the slump). However, if we can see these numbers coming down AND see the number of discouraged workers decline AND see the manufacturing and construction sectors posting strong gains, then we will be on the path to a stable recovery.

So, not bad news...but not as good as the overall number might lead one to believe.

The Tea Party movement has been characterized by a lot of local groups kind of doing their own thing. They are a manifestation of a segment of the electorate that holds subscribes to a limited government populism. The question is, can they take a few issues - no socialized healthcare, reining in Federal spending, a more hawkish national security stance, a more traditional sense of nationalism, a general feeling of Federal government overreach - into a coherent political platform, one that can weld together the different Tea Parties into a national party?

We may - may - be seeing the first step along these lines in Nashville, where the leaders of the movement (if something as dispersed and grass roots as this political movement can be said to have anything like "party" leaders) are meeting.

This from Fox;

The first ever Tea Party Convention has attracted a sellout crowd of a thousand activists from as far away as Hawaii (and media from as far away as Japan) to the Gaylord Opryland Convention Center.

Volunteers here intend to propose a series of broad "First Principles" which have already been generally embraced by most Tea Party chapters around the country. They include: fiscal responsibility, upholding the constitution, and national security.

Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform, though without any specific litmus or purity test.

If a particular candidate meets the proposed Tea Party criteria he or she would be eligible for fundraising and grassroots Tea Party support.

Once elected to office, members would be required to join a Congressional Tea Party Caucus, attend regular meetings and be held accountable for the votes they cast. Those who stray from the Tea Party path would risk losing it's support and a likely re-election challenge.

These are simply proposals from activists in Tennessee who put this convention together and who say they recognize that disparate Tea Party groups nationwide have varied interests and ideas of their own.

Organizers suggest creating political action committees, a large scale fundraising apparatus, and starting the development of a national network of pro bono attorneys to deal with the myriad legal-political riddles that such undertakings face in campaigns and elections.

So...party...or PAC? Right now, it sounds much more like the latter. However, the Tea Party movement has tapped into a conservative/moderate dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in this country and the attitude that the Left/social liberals have towards America and the role of the Federal government in our lives. It will be interesting to watch this movement over the next few years and see if they might become the 21st century equivalent of the rise of the Republicans in the 19th century.

(Source: Fox News)

I've had...relations...in a lot of different locations. That would include bathrooms. However, there is something really...well...creepy...about a restaurant inviting their patrons to have sex in their unisex restrooms.

Mildred's Temple Kitchen [Toronto] is inviting customers to have sex in its bathrooms.
[...]
The Liberty Village restaurant proposes its modern bathrooms become one of the "101 places to have sex before you die."
[...]
Actually, the picture is clouded by practicalities. Is the restaurant supplying condoms? What about the health risks of body fluids? And who's cleaning up?

"We've always had little trysts in our bathrooms," says chef/co-owner Donna Dooher, pointing to lingering weekday lunches as a popular time. "We're taking it to the next level on Valentine's weekend."

The restaurant's four bathrooms light up outside when occupied. Staff have learned to watch the light flicker twice when two customers enter the same bathroom, usually a few minutes apart.

Toronto Public Health says as long as there's no sex in the kitchen and the restaurant keeps its washrooms clean and sanitized, it's not fussed. "As far as bodily fluids, it's pretty much similar to the other human functions going on in there," says Jim Chan, manager of the food safety program.

Canada...nice one guys...you know, this is why the jihadis think we are a bunch of decadent infidels...well, this and the fact that we teach women to read...it's the little things...

(Source: The Star)

One of the heroes of the Cold War - labor leaders and eventual Polish president Lech Walesa - had a sobering assessment of where America is heading.

The United States is only one superpower. Today they lead the world. Nobody has doubts about it. Militarily. They also lead economically but they're getting weak. But they don't lead morally and politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we lost that hope.

He thinks we are moving towards the same economic and political model followed by communist Poland, with all the deleterious effects that will result in. Further, he brings up a good point, one that I think many haven't really addressed fully, if at all: what happens to the world if (when) America is no longer capable and/or interested in stepping in a s force for order, stability and, yes, good? Other powers are rising; none of them seem to have any interest in pursuing anything but their own self-interest.

And, no, I am not saying that America operates from pure altruism; however, we often temper our self-interest with our idealism.

(Source: American Thinker)