Blue Crab Boulevard

The Associated Press notes that there are rising numbers of reports of coyotes attacking humans in Southern California.

LOS ANGELES - The coyote was limping as it approached a girl in a sand box at a public park — but it was still dangerous. It snapped its jaws on the girl's buttocks and her nanny had to pry the toddler from the wild animal.
 
Less than a week later, a coyote in a mountain resort town some 35 miles away grabbed a girl by the head and tried to drag her from a front yard until her mother scared it away.

A spate of coyote attacks in the fast-growing suburbs east of Los Angeles have left parents on edge and puzzled wildlife officials.

"Their aggressive behavior seems to be on the upswing," said Steve Martarano, a spokesman with the state Department of Fish and Game. "They just seem to lose their fear of humans."

Coyotes normally avoid contact with humans and hunt rabbits and rodents. But scientists said some that live near suburban developments are becoming bolder, raiding garbage or even attacking pets and humans.

An increase in coyote attacks on humans in the past decade is most evident in Southern California, where bedroom communities have quickly pressed into wilderness, allowing the canine scavengers to roam backyards for food.

In recent years, coyote populations all across the country have been on the rise. This is not a good sign - when these animals begin losing fear of humans, it is only a short step to seeing humans as just another food source. We have a very large coyote pack running in the area I live in. Most nights you can hear them howling as they chase something. We have taken to watching the pets when they have to go out after dark, as a matter of fact.

Let us step into the way back machine for a moment, shall we?  Imagine you are back in the halcyon days of November 2007.  Pretty scary, isn't it?  Remember how you had more hair back then?  And, those clothes we used to wear?  What were we thinking, right?

Ah, the memories.

Do you also remember the picture being painted in the press about the political situation going into the 2008 Presidential primary season?  Well, it was pretty dire for the Republican's I can tell you.  There was no clear idea about who the nominee would be, which underscored just how weak and divided the GOP was.  In fact, there was open speculation that this weakness could result in no candidate securing the nomination until very late in the process.  Maybe even resulting in a brokered convention!  Yep, all of those things pointed to the unquestioned weakness of the Republican party, especially when compared to the Democratic party of the day who were all set behind a well funded front runner.  All of this, the press somberly assured us, bodes ill for the GOP in November 2008.  Some proclaimed it a prelude to electoral disaster.

Let us say someone from November 2007 were to jump into a way forward machine and set the dial to May 2008.  What a different world they would find!  Still no flying cars, but , look! Just as predicted, one party has settled upon a nominee early, while the other is still slogging it out going into mid-May.  However, it isn't the Republicans who are still up in the air, its the Democrats.  And, look, the Democrats are so divided it is now impossible for either of their remaining candidates to secure their nomination via electoral means (Obama can do no better than 1805 pledged delegates of the 2025 needed).  The nomination will have to be decided by party insiders.  The Dems may not wait until the convention to do the back room deals, but there is little doubt that we are witnessing a brokered nomination.

And lo! the media has looked upon this mess and declared it a disaster…for Republicans.

You see, the way forward machine you jumped into was also a portal to a bizarre land where having your party become so divided that you need to have your candidate selected by non-democratic means is a good thing.  Indeed, the inability of a candidate, any candidate, to inspire the party to get behind them is also seen as desirable.  Democrats are not divided, we are told, they are energized!  It turns out the most important thing for a political party to do is make sure you do NOT settle upon a candidate early.  What were the Republicans thinking?

Conventional political wisdom would look at the current state of play in the Democratic party and call it a fiasco. Conventional political wisdom would be right.  It has become a fiasco because of the polarizing racial politics employed by the Barack Obama campaign.  Obama's campaign has, from quite early on I believe, been working under an electoral strategy I call the "20 Percent Solution".  The premise is simple mathematics.  For example, lets take a hypothetical state whose demographics would result in 20% of the Democratic primary vote being black, and thus 80% non-black.  Were Obama to win the black vote 95%-5%, and lose everyone else to Clinton by 20 points (Clinton 60% to Obama 40%), it is Obama who would win the state 51%-49%.  Were Obama only able to carry 90% of the black vote it would result in a 50-50 toss up.  Obviously, in states where the black vote makes up an even larger percentage of he Democratic electorate Obama would have even more wiggle room.  However, in general, the rule is simple: More than 20% of the vote being black should equal an Obama win, less than 20% should result in a loss.

A key to this strategy therefore is to make Obama the racial candidate, while at the same time positioning yourself solidly to the left of Clinton to secure the "activist" base.  This explains the ease with which the Obama campaign (or their media surrogates) could charge the Clinton campaign as being racists. (Think of Bill's supposed post South Carolina "outrage", or the character assassination of Geraldine Ferraro.)  This also helps explain why Obama felt little need to separate himself from the views of Rev. Wright when they first became generally known last year or when they first began making waves online 6-8 weeks ago.  It was only when there became an open question as to whether he could keep within 20% of Clinton among non-blacks that Obama, in the least convincing performance since Ishtar, finally "found" them outrageous. 

Let's look at the post Super Tuesday primaries (except for Missouri which I put in because it's supposed to be a "bell weather") and see how this has played out.  (I got all the results from Real Clear Politics, and the exit poll crosstabs from CNN.)  The "20% Solution" predicts an Obama vote via the equation:  Obama Vote = (BV * 0.9) + ((1-BV) * 0.4), where BV stands for the percentage of the black vote in a given Democratic primary.  The following graph summarizes the data, including some predicted values for the contests in West Virginia and Kentucky using data from the 2004 general election numbers.

The first thing I noticed was the predicted value for Indiana.  Despite the protests from the press that we should have expected Clinton to win by at least double digits, it seems clear that we should have expected a very close contest.  (This is confirmed by looking at the data from the 2004 general election, where the black vote made up 7% of the vote in the general election.  It makes sense that the black vote would make up a larger proportion of the Democratic primary vote there, and with Obama being a near "favorite son" you could more than double that original 7% starting point.)  Therefore, the implication that the Indiana result can be used to pressure Clinton to withdraw because of a supposed "poor performance" seems misplaced, at best. 

It also seems that Clinton has advantages in West Virginia and Kentucky, although I'm predicting that Kentucky should be relatively close.  Thus, Obama's repeated claim that Clinton should destroy him in Kentucky seems like an attempt to saddle her with unreasonably high expectations.

I am not claiming that race is the only factor that could possibly help explain the election results this season.  Obviously, places like Wisconsin and Vermont which voted for Obama without having large blocks of African-American voters, point to the importance of factors like ideology in certain locales.  However, the other results seem to support my basic contention of the "20% Solution". 

The most important long term consequence will only become apparent during the general election cycle.  The "20% Solution" is a perfectly good strategy for securing the Democratic nomination, particularly as it takes advantage of the manner in which the Democratic nomination scheme is in no way related to the political reality of the Electoral College.  That being said, it is clear that the "20% Solution" will not work as a general election strategy, as the states where black voters will make up 20% or more of voters are few and far between.  It is also unclear if after going down the road of racial polarization during the nomination process one can go back again.  I mean it is one thing to call Clinton and her supporters racists when they are on the downside, but why should those Clinton supporters vote for you after such comments are made?  And what claim does one make to moderates after such tactics are employed?  And how can this result in anything other than a more motivated Republican base?  It seems unlikely that Obama can backtrack down the road he has for so long traveled.

The Obama campaign is now the most divisive factor we have seen in American politics since the days of the candidacy of George Wallace.  The sad fact is the irony of this will be lost to the vast majority of Obama supporters.

Oh well, I'll update this as things progress.

Why, you and I are, of course. The Wall Street Journal takes a look at the way the Federal government subsidizes energy production in the United States. It's appalling.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

This is our tax money being glad handed away by Washington. The numbers for biofuels are equally bad:

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

If the subsidies for all sources of energy were taken away, which technologies would survive? That should be obvious. This isn't even taking into account the fact that fossil plants have to back up wind and solar power and be ready to take up the load when those sources drop offline suddenly. This was illustrated last February in Texas.

It has been very quiet here at the Crabitat for a couple of days. Even lighter than the fairly low posting rate of recent months. There is a reason for that. I've been busy with computers and air compressors.

My son has been badgering for a more powerful computer to play games on for a while now. Tomorrow is his birthday and my wife suggested that I should find a good barebones system that he and I could build together. This kind of suggestion, being the equivalent of a royal command, is one I acted on with alacrity.

So yesterday and today was spent with two very important missions: putting together a computer and securing the perfect gift for my perfect wife. It being Mother's Day and all. My son is now the proud owner of a more powerful computer and my wife has her dream gift.

The computer is not, by any means, a bleeding edge one, just a bit beefier than the one he was using. As for building it together, he mostly watched and handed me various parts and tools. But it was the thought that counts. I think. Most of the time today was getting Windows set up, frankly. Once all the updates were loaded and the various software transferred from his older machine to the new one, he started using it. I can hear him raging at the computer game he is playing right now, as a matter of fact. His frustrated utterances are coming more rapidly than they used to, so the new machine must be faster.

As to the perfect gift for my perfect wife, that is where the air compressor comes in. She (really) wanted an air compressor. So I went out and got her one. It is just a small one from Sears, but exactly what she wanted - heck, she sent me the link to the item in an email as a hint. My wife likes power tools and ones powered by compressed air are a new horizon.

I told you she was perfect.

Die hard Hillary Clinton supporters are not giving up the fight. The Washington Post tells of one small group in West Virginia that came out to support Clinton, despite the insults from Obama supporters.

Clinton's most loyal supporters — the ones still standing on street corners — have adopted their candidate's motto, even as she trails Sen. Barack Obama by an insurmountable margin in pledged delegates: to fight like hell, despite dim odds and denigration, until someone officially wins the Democratic nomination.

But on this day, the intersection of Highway 480 and German Street, where they stood, divided Shepherdstown into two factions. College kids from Shepherd University approached from the north, angry that Clinton has remained in a race she appears destined to lose. Truck drivers and farmers approached from the south, their support for Clinton fortified by her perseverance.

The two groups met at the intersection in a cacophony of honking horns and shouting that echoed across this town of about 1,000 near the Maryland border. After two hours, Luanne Smith had heard enough.

"It's become so personal, just one insult after another," Smith said. "These sides are starting to feel some hate for each other. Everybody is angry, but I'm going to keep at this as long as I can. I never want to look myself in the mirror and say, 'You quit. You didn't do your part.' "

An indication of just how badly divided the Clinton and Obama supporters are comes later in the story:

"Give up already," shouted a woman in a red jeep.

"Boo. Clinton's a loser," said a man in a blue sedan.

"What are you doing?" asked a passenger in a weathered Pontiac. "Didn't you hear Clinton already lost?"

After each insult, Smith and Kuzma glared straight ahead, venting to each other only after the drivers had pulled away.

"This just isn't very nice," Kuzma said. "These are some mean people."

"Every one of them is the same — skinny kids who've never experienced anything but college," Smith said. "The more I'm involved, the angrier I get. Every call for her to get out of the race just incenses me. It makes me crazy. Who are you? Who in the world are you to tell this woman who's done so much that it's time for her to be quiet and sit down?"

I doubt Clinton can win regardless of what happens in the few remaining races. But it also looks increasingly likely that Obama will not be able to heal the rifts his supporters have caused. It has gotten too ugly and too personal.

Justin Hill of Rock Island, Tennessee can probably top you. First he got into an automobile accident right in front of his house when he turned into the path of an oncoming car. His wife heard the noise and ran out of their home, leaving the kitchen stove burning. The home promptly caught on fire. Hill was flown to a hospital. When he was released, he was met with a traffic citation as a result of the accident.

I'm glad he didn't own a dog.

The FBI is worried about counterfeit Cisco routers. They should be. After all, they, along with the United States Navy, Marines and Air Force as well as the FAA have all bought some of the fake routers.

In late February the FBI broke up a counterfeit distribution network, seizing an estimated US$3.5 million worth of components manufactured in China. This two-year FBI effort, called Operation Cisco Raider, involved 15 investigations run out of nine FBI field offices.

According to the FBI presentation, the fake Cisco routers, switches and cards were sold to the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps., the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, and even the FBI itself.

One slide refers to the problem as a "critical infrastructure threat."

The U.S. Department of Defense is taking the issue seriously. Since 2007, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has funded a program called Trust in IC, which does research in this area.

Last month, researcher Samuel King demonstrated how it was possible to alter a computer chip to give attackers virtually undetectable back-door access to a computer system.

King, an assistant professor in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's computer science department, has argued that by tampering with equipment, spies could open up a back door to sensitive military systems.

In an interview on Friday, he said the slides show that this is clearly something that has the FBI worried.

The Department of Defense is concerned, too. In 2005 its Science Board cited concerns over just such an attack in a report.

This is a very dangerous threat, not just to the US military but also to corporations and just about any sensitive information. As the world becomes increasingly computerized, it is becoming more difficult to keep real secrets as it is.

I didn't slap Barack Obama over the recent ringing endorsement that Hamas gave him. No politician can control unwanted endorsements once they are made. But maybe Hamas had a reason to believe that Obama would be willing to welcome their overtures. Since one of his advisers happened to be regularly meeting with Hamas.

One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.

“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.” The rapid departure of Mr Malley followed 48 hours of heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama over Middle East policy.

I wouldn't know Robert Malley if I tripped over him in the street. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Hamas knew he was associated with the Obama campaign. This shows a shocking lack of political and diplomatic acumen on both Malley's part and of the Obama campaign. Whether Malley intended to or not, he was seen by Hamas as speaking for a potential President of the United States. He should not have offered to advise the campaign without telling them of his involvement with Hamas. The Obama campaign should have vetted Malley before letting him anywhere near the candidate.

And if the Obama campaign knew of Malley's connection, that raises this to a whole different level.

Charles Krauthammer analyzes what Hillary Clinton did wrong on her way to losing to Barack Obama.

But going left proved disastrous for Clinton. It abolished all significant policy differences between her and Obama, the National Journal's 2007 most liberal senator. On health care, for example, her attempts to turn a minor difference in the definition of universality into a major assault on Obama fell flat. With no important policy differences separating them, the contest became one of character and personality. Matched against this elegant, intellectually nimble, hugely talented newcomer, she had no chance of winning that contest.

She tried everything. Her charges that he was a man of nothing but words came off as a petulant, envious attack on eloquence. The power to inspire may not be sufficient to qualify for the presidency, but it is hardly a liability.

She tried a silly plagiarism charge, then settled for the experience card. In a change election, this was not a brilliant strategy. It forced her to dwell on the 1990s, playing candidate of the past to Obama's candidate of the future. Her studied attempts to embellish her experience led her into a thicket of confabulated Bosnian sniper fire.

It wasn't until late in the fourth quarter that she found the seam in Obama's defense. In fact, Obama handed her the playbook with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Michelle Obama's comments about never having been proud of America and Obama's own guns-and-God condescension toward small-town whites.

Actually, it wasn't Hillary who found that line of attack and she really didn't exploit it effectively, either. I think Clinton's failure comes down to arrogance and an inability to get good campaign staffers. She chose people for personal loyalty, not for their campaign smarts. She ended up being out-maneuvered by a neophyte.

Well, since nothing else appears to be working for them, Code Pink is trying to enlist witches to help them protest the Marine recruiting office in Berkeley, California.

Code Pink is now resorting to witchcraft to beef up the number of its supporters protesting Berkeley's controversial Marine Corps Recruiting Center.

The women's anti-war group has told ralliers to come equipped with spells and pointy hats Friday for "Witches, clowns and sirens day," the last of the group's weeklong homage to Mother's Day.

"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.

The group's week of themed protests, which included days to galvanize grannies and bring-your-daughter-to-protest, appears to have done little to boost its flagging numbers.

A FOX News camera, which has a 24/7 live shot of the recruiting center's front door, recorded little action, and the gatherings have, until this point, been ill attended.

Apparently Code Pink's tenuous grip on reality has gone altogether. Ah, well. The best thing to come out in this article is that the protests have accomplished exactly one thing: increased recruiting.

But if events this week are an attempt by anti-war protesters to remarket their cause, the Marine recruiters in Berkeley tell FOXNews.com that Code Pink's presence outside their office has helped — not hindered — their mission.

"Ironically, it's actually helped us by putting our name out. We're now well known. And people know who we are, and where we are, and they come in to talk to us about enlisting. They've gotten us the publicity that we could've never afforded to pay for ourselves," (Captain John Paul) Wheatcroft told FOXNews.com.

"Just in the last three weeks, 10 people came in looking to apply, looking to become Marine officers, and that's much higher than normal," he said.

It would appear that the witches got burned.