Saw this on AndrewSullivan.com. The Civil War in four minutes. It has the added benefit of showing both how solid the Northern strategy was (split the South via the Mississipe, blockade the ports, and destroy the armies in the field) and how resislient the South was to a series of strategic reverses. All of which is unsurprising, considering both sides were Americans.

It's grotesque, but it's much better than anything else we've ever dreamed up. Too bad it's not very sexy to young people and intellectuals.

Capitalism lacks romantic appeal. It does not set the pulse racing in the way that opposing ideologies like socialism, fascism, or environmentalism can. It does not stir the blood, for it identifies no dragons to slay. It offers no grand vision for the future, for in an open market system the future is shaped not by the imposition of utopian blueprints, but by billions of individuals pursuing their own preferences. Capitalism can justifiably boast that it is excellent at delivering the goods, but this fails to impress in countries like Australia that have come to take affluence for granted.

It is quite the opposite with socialism. Where capitalism delivers but cannot inspire, socialism inspires despite never having delivered. Socialism’s history is littered with repeated failures and with human misery on a massive scale, yet it still attracts smiles rather than curses from people who never had to live under it.

Derbyshire's a cranky old paleo-con, but cranky old paleo-cons have a tendency to be fun to read.

That victory speech, though--oy! "Young people who can't afford to go to college to fulfill their dreams..." As I used to say when my mother told me to finish my greens because kids were starving in Africa: Name one. And why is going to college the only way to fulfill your dreams? And why should I care about some fool teenager's fool dreams anyway?

And then, McCain. Open borders ... campaign finance reform ... endless wars and occupations ... Great.

I'm listening to Hillary's NH townhall, and I have to say, her health care plan sounds *gasp* reasonable. And nothing bores me more than health care talk. Similarly, her discussion of abortion is pretty much the same one I'd give. How odd. Bully for her!

Unfortunately, she notes that she's against more nuclear power plants and is against more coal. Okaaaay. So, Hillary's energy policy sounds like it's going to result in enormously high energy prices *and* be ineffective in curbing carbon emissions. That's some kind of double-threat in the most literal sense of the phrase.

So, if the key to getting people out of their cars is to give them better, even more efficient transportation choices, why the hell is the California High-Speed Rail Authority ignoring the fastest-growing, most car-intensive areas of CA?

Methinks it's 'cause even a basic LA-to-San-Fran high-speed rail is currently budgeted at $30 billion. That's about ten state-of-the-art nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.