Barack Obama on the surface is a liberal, too. In fact, the National Journal rated him the most liberal senator in 2007, whatever that means. (Translating "liberalness" into numbers is an inexact science). And so the Republicans ridicule him as a liberal extremist. Yet Obama is a dealmaker, too, and for a long time I've compared him to Barney Frank in that regard.

An example comes to mind: Frank's approach was to start with an idea for a bill that pleased the liberal base and liberal interest groups, such as a bill that would end job discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people (LGBT). Frank soon sensed, however, that he did not have enough votes to pass the bill with the existing language. So, he looked for changes he could make that would bring more moderate-to-conservative Democrats and a few Republicans get on board so that he could secure its passage. As a result, he decided to drop the provision that protected transgendered people and sure enough, Frank won a majority of votes and the bill was passed. (Unfortunately, it was attached to a larger bill that the president later vetoed.) Some gay and transgender rights groups were up in arms at the change, but Frank demonstrated that one can't just wish a good bill through Congress; sacrifices must be made.

Obama encountered a similar ordeal when he was in the Illinois state Senate. In 2002, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. He used this perch to push forth a bill that would cover 150,000 Illinois residents with health insurance. However, this bill also took a tricky road. In order to persuade moderates to join the cause, he met with insurance lobbyists and even acceded to two requests of theirs (a move criticized by Obama's base). Yet the bill passed and became law, and today even Obama's liberal supporters admit that the concessions he granted to the lobbyists had little impact down the road.

When Barack Obama talks about uniting people to achieve success, it's not just hot air; he's done it before. Even liberals like Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy earn respect from conservative colleagues by including them in the process and working for results.

Even under this scenario, Hillary would need to win 76% of the remaining pledged delegates. This is a remarkably tall task given that she has taken 76% of the delegates in a sum total of one contest -- the primary in Arkansas, a state where she served as First Lady for 12 years and in which Obama did not bother to campaign.

This situation gets even more desperate for Hillary when we factor in even a modest 8-point victory for Obama in North Carolina, to be held May 6th. (Current polling suggests a possibly higher margin, but we are airing on the side of caution.) With this setback, she would have to claim a staggering 89% of the other pledged delegates.

Even a fantastically poor showing by Obama in Indiana that same day, something unrealistically low like 38%, would still mean Hillary would have to capture 97% (!!!) of the remaining delegates from the following states/territories: Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico. Some of these states have caucuses, and Obama has beaten Hillary in caucuses 13 to 3.

In other words, she cannot win. The math is simply not there. Even seating the Florida and Michigan delegations will do little to help her. She has lost. It is time to move on and start attacking John McCain already . . . or did you already forget that there was someone else running for president?

In 1972, Jim Jones opened two churches in California, but accrued a series of criminal and civil charges against his organization. Fearing constant pressure from authorities, Jones moved his group to Guyana in 1974. For four years, his group lived in secrecy until a visit from California Congressman Leo Ryan. After four years of abuse, colony members expressed to the Congressman their desire to leave the compound. Jones ordered the Congressman killed and then directed a mass murder suicide.

While the outcomes of the two cases are different, the facts of the each case point to the problems of child abuse, spousal abuse, and other criminal activities inside cults. In this alleged cult in Eldorado, it is safe to assume that women and children had few rights and a very limited ability to flee to the outside world. The best way to combat cultlike organizations is through education. Educating people to be respectful of themselves and others will allow many to prevent this type of behavior. Of course children have little choice in these situations, but steps can be taken to ensure their safety and protection such as random site visits by local authorities to their schools, similar to family services inspections of day cares and public and private schools.

 Read more here
 

Propoganda was always very important in the Soviet Union. And now that the Russians have returned to the Soviet model, they have begun to invest again in creative propoganda. I found in Wednesday's Washington Post what to most people would seem a pretty peculiar thing to find in an independent (and respected) American newspaper. It is a section with the letter H1 in the top right of the front page called "Russia: Beyond the Headlines," with the first word in big maroon letters. Featured news stories inlclude: "Russians on the Meaning of Beauty," with accompanying photos of attractive Russian actresses; "U.S.-Russia Council Celebrates 15 years"; and "Russian Fashion: Creativity and Capital." A news article on Dmitry Medvedev has this to say: "The social and economic plans Putin and Medvedev set forth in February are massive and ambitious."

It's easy for readers of this section to miss the line on the top of the page noting that this is an advertising supplement or the not extremely prominent disclaimer which reads: "This pull-out is produced and published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Russia) and did not involve the news or editorial departments of The Washington Post." (Emphasis not added.)

A quick Wikipedia search informs us that Rosskiyskaya Gazeta is -- you guessed it! -- a Kremlin-owned newspaper which "publishes the official decrees, statements and documents of state bodies."

I had been tipped off in late January to this creative advertising. However, I assumed at the time it was a one-shot deal and chuckled at the attempt. But now, prompted by a recurrence, I became curious as to the scope of this project. Luckily, the bottom of the front page tells readers that by going to www.rbth.rg.ru, one can read all past issues. One will find that it has not only been produced every month since August 2007, but that it is produced in three other countries -- in England's Daily Telegraph, in India's Indian Times, and in Bulgaria's Duma. I encourage you to check it out for yourself, if only to see what the Russian government believes makes the most convincing propoganda.

Update: In the Thurston Lobby today, I walked past the stack of Friday's Washington Posts and caught something in the corner of my eye. I went back and found "Reports from China," with a line underneath reading, "Prepared by CD Features, a service of China Daily, People's Republic of China[.]" More online at www.chinadailyusa.com. The Washington Post says, "If you're a dictator, advertise with us!"