Ever Wonder How Teddy Roosevelt's The Winning of the West Series Starts Out? I happen to have what I think is the first edition of the whole set (thanks, Ma!), so I cracked it open to find a man glorying in the victory of the White Race over the "waste spaces." Here's how it begins:

During the past three centuries the spread of the English-speaking peoples over the world's waste spaces has been not only the most striking feature in the world's history, but also the event of all others most far-reaching in its effects and its importance.

The tongue which Bacon feared to use in his writings, lest they should remain forever unknown to all but the inhabitants of a relatively unimportant insular kingdom, is now the speech of two continents. The Common Law which Coke jealously upheld in the southern half of a single European island, is now the law of the land throughout the vast regions of Australasia, and of America north of the Rio Grande. The names of the plays that Shakespeare wrote are household words in the mouths of mighty nations, whose wide domains were to him more unreal than the realm of Prester John. Over half the descendants of their fellow countrymen of that day now dwell in lands which, when these three Englishmen were born, held not a single white inhabitant; the race which, when they were in their prime, was hemmed in between the North and the Irish seas, to-day holds sway over worlds, whose endless coasts are washed by the waves of the three great oceans.

There have been many other races that at one time or another had their great periods of race expansion -- as distinguished from mere conquest, -- but there has never been another whose expansion has been either so broad or so rapid.

06/16/2007 10:41 AM  |  Comment (2)

June 14, 2007:

In another sign of John McCain's plan to assault former Mitt Romney over his alleged flip-flops, the Arizona senator's campaign has purchased the website "www.mittvsfact.com" and will launch it in the coming weeks as a compendium of what they say are the former governor's differing stances.

The McCain camp yesterday attacked Romney on abortion under a "Mitt vs Fact" letterhead that aped their rival's campaign logo. Late in the day, a tipster pointed out that a URL of the same had been purchased and privately registered. A McCain aide confirmed today that they secured the site last month and indicated that they would use it as a sort of one-stop shop "to brand" Romney.

A noteworthy exchange occurred when a student in the audience asked the candidates if they would agree not to run negative ads during the campaign. Forbes refused, but McCain leaped at the prospect, saying, "I'd like to shake hands right now. We will not run negative ads." As he gestured toward Bush, Bush agreed, and extended his hand so the two of them could shake.

The Washington Post explains how McCain's going more aggressively negative, using Bush's South Carolina people, here. A reporter at Wednesday's L.A. press conference held that article in his hands when asking whether we can expect McCain to come out swinging earlier, etc., and the candidate dissembled thusly:

Well, first of all we are portraying our vision for the future of the country; we're taking important stances on issues such as immigration reform, such as several other issues including my continued advocacy for campaign finance reform. What happened in the year 2000 was eight years ago, and was a long time ago. I've had reconciliation with everybody, from the president on down. I'm not the type of person who holds grudges, nor will I ever. We're going to run a positive, strong campaign, and clearly, there will be differences between me and those who are also seeking the nomination. One of them being my support for cam-- for immigration reform, my support of the president. I think this an important vital issue facing the American people. Are we going to have the status quo, which is de facto amnesty, or are we going to move forward securing our border and making sure the American people don't have this threat of 12 million people in America without knowing who they are and what they're doing?

I won't claim omniscience, but I will say this: When I was in Arizona last week, at least five different people, both pro-McCainites and con, volunteered the information that he "holds a grudge" for a l-o-o-n-g time. I never asked about it, but they all stressed it, unbidden, as something non-Arizonans really need to understand about the guy.

06/15/2007 08:32 AM  |  Comment (3)

God Bless Al Giordano

06/14/2007 05:16 PM  | 

McCain, on the U.S. Accounting for Half the World's Defense Spending -- "Oh, it's healthy": So the expressed purpose of today's press conference was "to discuss Senator Clinton's earmarks in the Defense Authorization Bill." (Of which read more here, here and here.)

As such, I asked him the following:

Q: Senator, on the Defense budget -- We now spend about roughly the same amount on defense as the rest of the world combined. Is that a healthy ratio, and if it's not, what would be a healthy ratio?

A: Oh, it's healthy. We need a bigger Army, we need a bigger Marine corps. You look around the world -- Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan -- it's not going to be over for a long time. But we need to spend our defense dollars much more wisely, and we need to stop earmarking and pork barrel projects such as Senator Clinton just put in the Defense Authorization Bill.

06/13/2007 10:56 PM  |  Comment (1)

McCain: 'Our job is to convince the American people that securing the border is our first and foremost priority': Eyes more eagle (and/or more obsessed) than mine might be interested in the following extended exchange about the immigration bill from today's McCain press conference in L.A., so I present in the name of open source (and lazy non-transcribers worldwide) a partial transcript. None of the questions are mine, by the way:

Q: Senator is it possible to revive the immigration bill, and if so, by when?

A: I've been on the phone all day with my friends back in Washington and with the White House. I think we have a fairly good chance to bring up the immigration bill just before we go out for the Fourth of July recess. We want to strengthen the bill, we want to narrow down amendments. And a couple of areas where we think we can strengthen the bill is to make the border security funding mandatory, so that there's no doubt in anybody's mind that we will be spending the necessary money to secure our border before we move on with other aspects of the bill. And there's other provisions we think we can strengthen. So I am guardedly optimistic -- and I emphasize guardedly -- optimistic that we can get the floor, the bill to the floor of the Senate, just before the Fourth of July recess, and pass it through the United States Senate. [...]

Q: You've been sinking in the polls just a little bit, how are you going to reverse that pattern when it seems to be based on your views of war and torture and immigration?

A: Actually none of those are true. There's a poll out today where I think we have governor-- I mean mayor Giuliani at 24, and me at 20. I think that's pretty much the same where it's always been; a majority of polls showing that we're ahead in the early states. And I'm very happy with where our campaign is. And I will always stand up for what I believe in, and stand for what I believe in, and I will not be driven by polling numbers, I will be driven by principle.

Q: Senator McCain, if you would, if the immigration bill does not pass, how dramatic an impact does that have on your campaign for the presidency -- are you going to think or consider changing some of your philosophies if it does not pass?

A: My philosophy is that my first and foremost priority -- including that of any ambitions I might have -- is the security of this nation. The status quo is broken borders with 12 million people washing around, we don't know who they are or what they're doing. Three of those people tried to attack, wanted to attack Fort Dix New Jersey and kill Americans. So I will adhere to what I know, particularly as a senator from a border state whose borders our broken, and I will continue to do everything I can to secure our borders and to make sure that our nation is safe. This is a national security issue, and if we have the status quo then we will have de facto amnesty.

Q: A follow up on that, because the public perception is--

A: (Voice rising) Actually the public perception is that two-thirds of the American people by poll on the front page of the New York Times this morning supports our proposal. That's what the public perception is.

Q: Senator I believe those polls in the New York Times about as much as I do--

A: You don't have to believe them. You don't have to believe 'em--

Q: The question is, the question before I can get it in there--

A: Sir, you don't have to believe them. The fact is there are many other polls that support the New York Times poll. So you don't have to believe them; I do. Next question. [...]

[Answers next question]

Let me go back to this gentleman a second. Please.

Q: The perception from the public is, though, and one of the reasons they have problems supporting the immigration bill, is because they haven't seen any concrete action from the federal government that shows really the borders will be secure. The funding was there for the fence, it hasn't been built. Just as in 20 years ago, they allowed an amnesty, and the Congress at that time said we're gonna support and beef up the border patrol, secure the border. They didn't do it.

A: Yes sir, you're exactly right, and that contributes enormously to the frustration of the American people, because we didn't in 1986, and you're exactly right. The fact is, if you examine this legislation, this requires the border to be secured over 18 months and certification by the head of Homeland Security that we have taken that step before securing our border, before any of the rest of the provisions of the bill, such as temporary worker, or other provisions would move forward. So our job is to convince the American people that securing the border is our first and foremost priority.

Q: What do you see as the enforcement provisions on that that will make the anti-immigration base of the GOP happy and satisfied with what's going on with immigration?

A: I think if you examine it, it's hundreds of miles of fence, censors, UAVs, hiring thousands of new Border Patrol....

Q: But so far has it really been effective?

A: We haven't done it (laughs). Can't be effective if you haven't done it, but we'll have thousands of more Border Patrol agents, and certification by the Department of Homeland Security that we have secured the borders. I understand the cynicism and skepticism of the American people. But my response is: to do nothing is the status quo, which is de facto amnesty.

Q: Are you concerned that at some point that we're going to see a future -- particularly here in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas -- of states with large minorities, and in fact sometimes majorities of people that don't speak English, that don't meet our citizenship demands?

A: I celebrate America. I celebrate when we have new blood and new vitality into our nation, it's come with the Irish and the Italians and the Poles and the Jews and the waves of immigration. My key point though, is that what the American people want is for them to come legally, and to secure our borders, so that there is legal immigration into this country. I celebrate the cultural contributions that Hispanics have made to my state, and I believe most Californians do too. [...]

Q: So do I understand you correctly when you say the fence will be built, and border security will be beefed up, before for instance people's points are added up or they make the touchback to their country?

A: Or before a temporary worker program (inaudible). Yes.

Q: And that's included in the bill?

A: Yes. In other words a certification by the Department of Homeland Security that we have taken the necessary steps to secure the border before a temporary worker program moves forward. And other provisions. [...]

Q: Is the Z-Visa in effect amnesty?

A: (Clenches jaw) There's no way you could interpret it that way. There's no way you could interpret, there's no way you could interpret $5,000 fines, touchback to the country they came from, learning English, naturalization, there's no way a rational observer would call that amnesty.

06/13/2007 10:38 PM  | 

Feiler Faster Media: Here was the leadoff question at a McCain press conference in L.A. today, asked by an assertive broadcast gal of some sort:

Senator McCain, a video is circulating with comments from your campaign of Mitt Romney, about his abortion record. Is it fair at this point to take things he said so long ago out of context?

For the record, the senator answered thusly:

It's my understanding that Governor Romney said that he had changed his position on the issue before that statement was made. I think it's a legitimate question as to why anyone would say they've taken a position at a certain time and then it comes to light that indeed they apparently have not. I think that's legitimate because I think it has to do with the confidence of the voters in people who are seeking their support to be president of the United States.

06/13/2007 04:06 PM  |  Comment (3)

Ten Banal Things I've Learned About America in the Last Three Weeks of Being (Mostly) on the Road:

1) Phoenix is almost exactly as far away from Los Angeles by car as Las Vegas, as measured by time. Who knew?

2) That Hugo Chavez lefty-crush? It's not just for Pacifica Radio anymore! I stayed in one apartment in a city that shall remain nameless where the proprietor, a do-gooder NGO type, had not just a Hugo poster (red beret, holding some some bird), but some of his books, an autographed picture, and even a special Hugo-pic coffee cup (which I naturally drank out of). Easiest way for a two-bit, second-world thug to get laid in Berkeley? Denounce Yanqui imperialism with a certain style, then pray for the price of oil.

3) There's now basically nowhere in the Southwest where you can't hear at least a couple of Spanish-language AM stations, and usually some kind of Asiatic-tongued one as well.

4) Baseball announcers are really really really really bad. Ditto most local sports jocks when they talk about national sporting news.

5) Subway is a popular restaurant chain.

6) There's really no reason not to rent the convertible. Especially when they offer it for the same price as the Dodge Neon.

7) Sonoma? Sedona? Beautiful, as advertised. Actually, "beautiful" doesn't begin to do Sedona justice.... It almost justifies the hippie Manhappenin'-Beach-transplant visitor gal's talk about the special Vortexes and whatnot.

8) You know the Hillary Rule of AM talk radio? Where you turn to a right-wing talker and count the seconds it takes him or her to mention Hillary Clinton, regardless of the day's topic, and note in most cases that it rarely exceeds 60 seconds? Slash that in half for red-state counties (where the talent pool leaves you absolutely gasping for the comparative genius of Laura Ingraham). Near Phoenix one day, I once heard two boobs segue from the Mexicans to Hillary without even attempting a transition (something like, "Well, you know who likes McCain-Kennedy? Hillary Clinton, that's who!"). This was followed by something like 10 excruciating minutes where the two dolts, audibly shaking their heads with wonder, tried to out-amuse one another in describing just how far-out, whack-job liberal/feminist/socialist Hillary really is.

9) Did you know that basically the entire desert between Pomona and Phoenix was a giant military base during World War II, so that Patton could practice with the tanks for Africa? Well now you do.

10) Also, there is now at least one Waffle House west of the eastern-most outpost of In-n-Out. This will certainly upset the Vortex.

The end.

06/12/2007 11:35 PM  |  Comment (2)

Hi! What are you doing down here?