From NRO’s The Corner:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) tells NRO that a standalone ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal has enough votes to pass.

“We now have more than 60,” he says in an interview. With the House moving to proceed on such a measure today, Lieberman says the cause has “momentum.” He points out that behind the scenes, the bill has support from a handful of Republicans…

We shall see – but it is, still, absurd to be spending so much time on such a minor issue when our fiscal house is crashing down ’round our ears.

Looks like the California town highlighted in the movie doesn’t suffer from an increased level of cancer – from Reason:

Hinkley, California, the town made famous in the Oscar-winning Julia Roberts movie Erin Brockovich, does not show any evidence of an increased rate of cancers.

Pacific Gas and Electric, which released a toxic plume of hexavalent chromium 6 from a Hinkley-based natural gas pipeline station, paid a record $333 million to settle a class-action suit in 1996. But the California Cancer Registry has now completed three studies that show cancer rates remained normal in from 1988 to 2008…

You can rely upon it that if a trial lawyer is making money out of it anywhere along the line, you will not get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is little money for trial lawyers in truth – especially given that most accidents are just that: accidents – no one is at fault and no one should have to pay a bazillion dollars to a lawyer over it.

A great deal of what we believe these days is just the sort of nonsense we saw in Erin Brockovich. These fairy tales of wicked corporations deliberately poisoning the wells – just a modern re-casting of the old stories of witches or Jews ruining the crops or causing infertility. Just a means by which some get to live well off the wealth others – stirring up mobs to hate and loot the target, with most of the loot, however, winding up in the pockets of the few.

Always be on guard – always consider, when you hear a story alleging that some particular group did a bad thing, whether anyone spreading the story stands to make money or, at least, fame off of it.

Naturally, the concept comes to us in modern America in the form of a lawsuit:

…The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as today if justices will hear a case on whether those disparities violate the principle of “one man, one vote.” Justices were scheduled to discuss the case behind closed doors Friday.

The lawsuit, Clemons v. U.S. Department of Commerce, seeks a court order to force Congress to add more members so that the sizes of congressional districts would be more equal.

Last July, in a decision that quoted liberally from the Founding Fathers, a special three-judge panel ruled against changing the current system. “We see no reason to believe that the Constitution as originally understood or long applied imposes the requirements of close equality among districts in different states,” it ruled…

Attentive readers will remember that I’m in favor of this – have been, for a long time. In fact, not only do I want the size of the House increased, I’d like to see us break up some of the larger States and thus increase the size of the Senate, as well.

As the linked article notes, changing the size of the House was a routine exercise in American politics up until 1910. After that, we fixed the size of it at 435 members. The Senate increased in size pretty steadily through American history as new States were added. But since 1910, we’ve been at 435 House members, and since 1960 at 100 Senators (and there was a big gap in time between getting to 96 and going to 100 – Arizona became a State in 1912 and Alaska and Hawaii weren’t admitted until 1959). The nation has trebled in population during this time and part of the reason for the government becoming remote and arrogant has been the fact that vastly increased numbers of people are represented by a relatively small number of elected officials.

I know there is an ingrained opposition to adding more Congresscritters to bother us – but a democratic republic only works if the government, and especially the legislative power, is close to the people and to their interests. Representatives of lower population districts will be more in tune with the people – and smaller States will have Senators who genuinely represent the interests of the States.

Think of it like this – whom do California’s Senators represent? The interests of California? Heck, no. They represent Los Angeles and San Francisco…carry those areas, and you’ve got it made…but, meanwhile, the rest of the State doesn’t have a voice in the Senate and thus mining, logging, manufacturing and farming have been left to whither and die. San Francisco’s Senator doesn’t get much mileage out of helping a California farmer…and, so, California should be broken up – at least in to two States, but perhaps as many as four.

Meanwhile, over in the House, how can a Representative really look after the needs of 700,000 people? That is the size of the districts coming up. How can someone with little money break in to House politics when there is that large a number of people to get to know and attempt to convince? As we have seen, in most elections most of the incumbents win re-election and “name recognition” plays a key roll in that…just because the person is known, the person keeps getting re-elected…while the vast size of the district’s population works against a new comer. An entrenched political class has developed – and increasing the size of the House would be a good way to break it up.

I figure we should have at least 100 more House members – and the States ripe for breaking up (California, New York, Florida and Texas) would add at least 8 new Senators, and maybe more depending on just how they are broken up. No party would gain an insuperable advantage over this as, say, if you broke California up in to West and East California the Democrats would do well in West and the GOP in East…same situation if you broke up Florida along the Panhandle, and broke off NYC and Long Island from the rest of the State (as for breaking CA in to four – that would be North California {north of SF Bay to Oregon}, South California {Orange County to border}, West California {coastal counties plus Sacramento) and West Nevada (rest of the State}).

What we dare not do is think of our way of government as static. What is immovable in American politics is our Declaration of Independence – our Constitution and our States are creations of politics and subject to being altered or abolished as the people decide. Just because that is the way it is should not dictate how it always shall be – that isn’t conservatism; that is being reactionary (and, please note, it is our liberals who are reactionary – demanding that we keep everything as it is with the only change allowed being that which strengthens the status quo). We’ve got a lot of problems in our nation, and our thinking should not run in the old, familiar grooves – we need to think anew and act anew to reform and restore our nation…and part of that thinking anew means taking on the current power structure and seeing if we can really shake it up.

From ABC News:

Coinciding with a federal judge’s ruling invalidating a key element of the health care reform law, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for the landmark legislation at a new low – but division on what to do about it.

The law’s never been popular, with support peaking at just 48 percent in November 2009. Today it’s slipped to 43 percent, numerically its lowest in ABC/Post polling…

…More also continue to “strongly” oppose the law than to strongly support it, 37 percent to 22 percent…

No one wanted it when it proposed; no one wanted it when it was debated; no one wanted it when it was passed – and no one wants its now. The judge ruling it unconstitutional just makes the case even stronger – it is time to repeal and replace. The American people are in no mood for an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats.

Wonder how this will play out – from Sky News:

…The president of football’s international governing body was speaking at a news conference in South Africa, arranged to discuss the legacy of this year’s tournament.

He was asked what he would say to gay football fans who want to go to Qatar for the 2022 competition, given that homosexuality is banned in the Middle East country.

Grinning, he said: “I would say they should refrain from any sexual activities.”

Mr Blatter went on to insist that he believed discrimination would not be an issue in Qatar by 2022, saying “we are living in a world of freedom”…

Yeah, freedom – except that you’d better not draw pictures of Mohammad, and we’d better start imposing Sharia law in the West ’cause, well, we don’t want to offend Moslems and get them all angry, and what not. What is more likely to happen over the next 12 years – Qatar becoming tolerant of homosexuality or Sharia forcing homosexuality back in to the closet in Europe?

Time will tell.

From ABC News:

Richard Holbrooke, a forceful presence in American diplomacy for more than 45 years, died tonight in Washington, D.C. He was 69…

A blow to our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan which will now hang a bit in limbo as a replacement is found – one of the few adults in the Obama Administration; his counsel will be missed, I fear.

My prayers for his family during this tragic time.

Victory!

A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration’s health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law’s requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.

Discuss.

A harbinger of things to come:

The federal budget deficit rose to $150.4 billion last month, the largest November gap on record. And the government’s deficits are set to climb higher if Congress passes a tax-cut plan that’s estimated to cost $855 billion over two years.

The Treasury Department says November’s budget gap was 25 percent more than the deficit in November 2009…

…analysts say the tax deal President Barack Obama reached with Republicans this week will give the 2011 budget year the largest deficit in history — $1.5 trillion, according to economists at JPMorgan Chase. It would mark the third straight year of trillion-dollar-plus deficits…

Before you liberals start screaming about how the “tax cuts for the rich” are going to push the deficit back to record levels, please understand that under the tax compromise rates stay the same. In other words, nothing is added to the 2011 deficit which had been projected, a couple months back, to come in at around $1.2 trillion. What changed? Obama’s proposal to lop off 2 percentage points on the payroll tax – that is the budget-buster.

And, remember, all the projections for 2011 and beyond have been made on the assumption that the economy is in recovery and thus revenues will grow pretty well. The fact that November’s deficit was a record for the month – 25% higher than a year ago, and one of the highest monthly deficits on record – should make everyone take the revenue predictions with a gigantic grain of salt. Maybe we get lucky and revenues grow – but, maybe we don’t. And what happens to our economy if, by summer, we’re facing a 2011 deficit of 1.6 or 1.7 trillion dollars?

Think “Greece”.

This over at CNBC:

The overdependence on new real estate in China, when the demand isn’t there, will cause the nation to eventually “hit a wall,” hedge fund manager James Chanos told CNBC Friday.

“Construction is 60-plus percent of GDP, compared to exports of 5,” said Chanos, who is the founder and president of Kynikos Associates…

China’s construction boom has resulted in whole cities being built – trouble is, no one is living in them. Buildings only a few years old are knocked down to build larger replacements. Real estate in China’s hottest markets goes for absurdly high prices. This is a bubble – and a huge bubble; maybe the largest ever seen in world history.

I can’t see any good way for this to end – China is a nation ruled by a corrupt oligarchy; it’s economy is riddled with corruption and bad debts; most of the population, even after this supposed boom of the past 10-20 years, lives in grinding poverty; China’s anti-human “one child” policy has set China on the path to demographic catastrophe. And, boys and girls, they are nuclear armed and feeling like they should take our place in the world. When the poop hits the fan, what will they do?

My worry is that they’ll engineer a war to distract and clamp down on their own people – but whatever happens, it won’t work to our advantage. We’ve got a huge mess over there, just waiting to come crashing in to world affairs.

HAT TIP: Mish’s

Some alarming news from the Washington Post:

Russia delivered at least 1,800 shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles to Venezuela in 2009, U.N. arms control data show, despite vigorous U.S. efforts to stop President Hugo Chavez’s stridently anti-American government from acquiring the weapons.

The United States feared that the missiles could be funneled to Marxist guerrillas fighting Colombia’s pro-American government or Mexican drug cartels, concerns expressed in U.S. diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and first reported in the Spanish newspaper El Pais…

Chavez has many unsavory connections and while he appears a clown, he is a growing threat to the liberty and stability of south and central America. The missiles, in question, can shoot down jets at 19,000 feet – in the hands of drug cartels or Islamist terrorists such weapons have the capability of paralyzing air transport in the Americas…just a few jets downed by such weapons would pretty much do the trick.

What Russia is up to is clear – Putin, imagining that Russia is still a Great Power, is trying to tweak our nose. For Putin, this is payback, as he sees it, for our defense of Poland and other nations once in the Russian orbit. Chavez is useful in this asinine Russian policy. Unfortunately, unless we want to go to war with Russia, there’s not much we can do to stop Putin from sending arms to Chavez. So, our task becomes one of getting rid of Chavez.

As the Venezuelan economy falls further and further in to socialist poverty our ability to separate Chavez from the people of Venezuela will grow. Every bit of pressure which can be applied should be applied – including, and most especially, disrupting Venezuela’s ability to sell oil. The oil, of course, is all Chavez has really got – its how he pays his goon squads and how he buys the weapons. Cut in to that and we greatly diminish his power, as well as tip Venezuela in to acute economic crisis, thus putting more domestic pressure on Chavez’ regime.

In 2010, we can’t afford an insane, heavily armed dictatorship in South America. We’ve got enough problems in the world and we’ve allowed the Chavez problem to fester long enough.