Well, nearby Colleyville, Texas has made the news. . . or at least the blogs. Today Jonah Goldberg at NRO Online continued a running debate he’s been having about which pet has been a more useful friend of mankind—dogs or cats—by offering this post about the growing popularity of chickens as pets. 

He quotes from this article in the Philadelphia Daily News:

Can we at least agree that chickens are worse pets than both cats and dogs — though arguably more “useful”?

More People Turn to

 Chickens as Pets

COLLEYVILLE, Texas – The leaves shiver, the branches quake and 9-year-old Sophia Genco bounds out of the bushes, clucking at the top of her lungs while sprinting after a flock of scurrying chickens. She isn’t chasing down dinner. She’s just playing with one of the family pets.

The Gencos are among a growing number of urban and suburban families keeping chickens in their backyards. While the birds don’t cuddle like kittens or play like puppies, owners say they offer a soothing presence in the yard and an endless supply of organic eggs.

 I would guess that the casual reader in Philadelphia would see the dateline “Colleyville, Texas” combined with a headline about chickens as pets and visualize a hickville little town strewn with trailer homes and halter tops. Of course those of us who live around here know that Colleyville has one of the highest median home values in Texas.

The fact is, as you drive around Colleyville and neighboring Southlake, you’ll see enormous mansions on huge, estate lots with a few horses, cattle, chickens , guinea fowl, etc., grazing in the yard. (Do chickens “graze”?) A guy up the road from me has a zebra, two llamas and a donkey in his back yard.

Why? Because owning livestock in Texas earns you a sizable break on your property taxes, which tend to be high in Texas because the state doesn’t have an income tax.

So you’re wondering. . . Are we planning on getting some chickens anytime soon? Hmmm.. How big are those tax breaks? There is a greenhouse out back that could make a fine coop. . .

You would think the New Republic might have learned something from the humiliating Stephen Glass affair.

You may recall that that Glass was the TNR editor who was fired several years back when it came out that most of the “facts” in his stories were fiction. See here.

Now TNR is publishing fishy-smelling, uncorroboratable reports of bizarre soldier misconduct in Iraq by someone claiming to be a soldier writing under a pseudonym. The thing is, these tales simply don’t ring true (as Michael Goldfarb over at the Weekly Standard points out here.) In fact, they sound like the combat soldier version of urban legends.

But let’s assume for a moment that there’s a kernel of truth in these accounts. The fact remains that for every one of them there are ten thousand acts of heroism, compassion, humanitarianism, valor and goodness by our service men and women that the MSM and publications like TNR will not report because they don’t fit their preferred narrative.

Just as in the final years of the Vietnam War, one the key components of the media pacifists and leftists campaign to undermine public support for the war is to deliver constant reports of atrocities and outrages. It worked back then.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, “It’s 1972 all over again.” 

A logic exercise:

A: Sunnis despise Shiites.

B: Al-Qaeda is a Sunni movement.

C: Therefore there is no cooperation between Sunni Al-Qaeda and Shia Iran.

The above logic is pretty much an article of faith among the proponents of surrender and retreat in Iraq and of “dialogue” with Iran. It makes for a compelling argument except for one little flaw—though the first two premises are correct, the conclusion is wildly, glaringly, dangerously wrong.

You hear the assertion frequently from the left when arguing that we should just pull out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may. Even well-informed, clear-headed conservatives like John Derbyshire of National Review have fallen prey to it.

Interestingly, just three hours after Derbyshire posted the thoughts linked to above on NRO’s “The Corner” today, Larry Kudlow posted this and linked to this.

Both point to the the just-released report by the NIE (National Intelligence Estimates) which shows:

1. …that Al-Qaeda and Iran are snuggled all warm and toasty together in bed.
2. …that Al-Qaeda in Iraq will soon be a threat, not only to women and children the schools and marketplaces of Iraq, but also American women and children in schools and malls in America.
3. …and that the withdrawal (sorry, I mean “redeployment”) from Iraq currently being called for by congressional Democrats and shiny celebrities will make the place a safe haven for one of Al-Qaida’s most dangerous iterations. 

Thus, I think it’s time for a new logic exercise for the white-flag Democrats. Let’s ask them the following series of questions.

A: Given that Al-Qaeda continues to seek to attack U.S. citizens on their own soil; should we be taking the fight to Al-Qaeda when and where we can? Like in Afghanistan? If yes…

B: Given that Al-Qaeda is currently very present and active in Iraq AND we have a huge, ready-to-fight force in Iraq AND wide latitude to attack them; shouldn’t we stay there and engage them? If no…

C: You need to explain. Why do you advocate fighting Al-Qaeda everywhere except in Iraq, where have the greatest ability and freedom to fight them? And finally…

D: Why should any American trust you to defend our interests, our economy, and our very lives?

Trailers From Hell!

This is a fun little concept in which modern movie directors and writers (Joe Dante, John Landis, Mick Garris, et. al.) comment on the original trailers for some classic cheesy old horror movies.

 I loved these schlocky movies when I was a kid so it’s no surpise I’m thinking this is pretty cool. Have a look:

The Dow broke 14k for the first time in history today.

Larry Kudlow at NRO Online has some thoughts. A snippet:

What we are witnessing here, in virtually every corner of the globe, is the success and the spread of unbridled free market capitalism. It is a dynamic worldwide march toward lower tax rates, deregulation, and, as market strategist Don Luskin put it on last night’s show, the “interconnectedness” of global economies through free trade, the free flow of capital, and the robust free exchange of information.

Despite the persistent doom and gloom refrain from various sourpuss prognosticators, it remains the greatest story never told.

And it’s not over yet.

I believe it was C.S. Lewis who first declared Europe, “post-Christian.” For the last 40 years, it has indeed been the most spiritually dark place on earth. But lately there are signs that is changing, just as there are some small but encouraging indications that parts of Europe are realizing the slow cultural suicide they’ve been committing through liberal immigration policies and the world’s lowest birthrates.

Today I came across this in the Wall Street Journal online (subscription possibly required). The headline read:

In Europe, God Is (Not) Dead

Christian groups are growing, faith is more public.
Is supply-side economics the explanation?

 The article by Andrew Higgins points to numerous indicators that secularism’s icy hold on the hearts of Europe’s millions may be weaker than assumed. Here’s a key paragraph:

After decades of secularization, religion in Europe has slowed its slide toward what had seemed inevitable oblivion. There are even nascent signs of a modest comeback. Most church pews are still empty. But belief in heaven, hell and concepts such as the soul has risen in parts of Europe, especially among the young, according to surveys. Religion, once a dead issue, now figures prominently in public discourse.

Along these same lines, the Weekly Standard online featured this article several months ago about the resurgance of Christianity in the Netherlands.

A full 24 hours after the “new” Osama Bin Laden tape was convincingly proven to have been shot in October of 2001, Drudge’s main headline is still shouting: “Bin Laden Appears in New al-Qaida Video”.  

On the case are the guys over at Hot Air. Scroll down on this post to see a comparison of screen grabs from the new video and one that is more than 5-and-a-half years old. I’m telling you, if OBL could be propped up in front a camera, given a shot of adrenaline, and gotten to say five date-fixing words that show he’s still alive, they would do it, but they can’t.

Because he’s dead.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the release of this video isn’t being used a a signal. Michelle Malkin has the overview.

Dean Barnett over at Hugh Hewitt’s blog posted a fine tribute to golf great Tom Watson today in light of Watson’s back-nine collapse at the Senior U.S. Open last weekend. 

Barnett clearly loves the greatness of the game and the game’s greats. A snippet:

If this turns out to be Watson’s final moment in the competitive limelight, it will provide an end to his career worthy of the finest fiction. Like most golf fans, I was rooting for Tom Watson on Sunday. But there was something heroic about the way he stoically bore the crumbling of his game and the dream of one last championship. During those torturous last eight holes, he never complained, never whined, never showed any temper or even disappointment. Afterwards, he characteristically offered no excuses, and instead acknowledged the sometimes brutal and unforgiving accountability that characterizes golf.

Read the whole thing: “The Fall of the Legend“

 Ahhh, some light on an old, personal mystery—thanks to a clue from James Lileks.

 My full name is David Andrew Holland. My parents meant for me to go by the name “Andy.”  In fact, I did until right before I started first grade when I was five. To this day, many of my aunts, uncles and cousins refer to me as Andy—or the compromise hybrid, “David Andy.”

Why did I suddenly go from being Andy to David? That’s always been a bit of a mystery but I learned some things today that I had been wondering about for almost 40 years.

My mother has always insisted that it was I who, at the age of five, unilaterally and without discussion decided that I would henceforth be known as David. I have no recollection of that. But what I do have is a memory of is being teased about my name by some other kids. In fact, I have a clear recollection of a song being sung about my name (what the Old Testament would call a “taunt song”).

Andy Pandy, Jack-a-Dandy! Andy Pandy, Jack-a-Dandy!

My theory has always been that I had been so traumatized by the Andy Pandy taunt-song that when we moved to another town the summer before my first grade year, I made the switch so as to not carry such an easily-mocked name into a strange new school.

If that was indeed my strategy, it worked! Because from then on, if my name ever triggered a bout of singing by another kid it was invariably, “Davey, Davey Crockett. King of the wild frontier!” And what six-year-old boy minds being proclaimed King of the Wild Frontier? I sure didn’t.

But I’ve always wondered about that memory of the words, “Andy Pandy, Jack-a-Dandy.” My assumption was that they were just nonsense words flowing from the twisted imagination of a verbal bully. . . 

. . .until this morning when I opened up James’ Lilek’s “Bleat” as is my custom.

About halfway down, he included a scan of a Johnny Cash 45 record cover that had been his dad’s. He also showed a scan of the reverse side where James had scrawled his name as a little kid, and where his father had printed the words, “Andy Pandy feet.”

James puzzled over the words “Andy Pandy feet” and speculated that maybe it had something to do with a character named Andy Panda. But I knew better. There it was! The name that I had just assumed was a bratty kids made-up rhyme.

That sent me off to Google where I quickly got thousands of hits on the name “Andy Pandy”—who, as it turns out was a character in a British children’s television program on the BBC. It debuted in 1950 but hit its peak of popularity in the late 50s and early 60s (I was born in 1959). There was even a wikipedia entry!

But that wasn’t all.

About halfway down on the first page of google hit links, I saw it. There was the phrase, “Andy Pandy, Jack-a-Dandy in this link. And this one. And this definition of “jack-a-dandy”:

Jack·-a-dan·dy
n.  A little dandy; a little, foppish, impertinent fellow.

Well, that may be striking a little close to home. And based on this series of books, Andy is either a girl, or a very effeminate little boy that plays with dolls:

Nevertheless, what a wonderful thing is this Internet of ours. Today, by chance, the heavy fog around some old memories was cleared. And the reasons behind a five-year-old’s identity change came into sharper focus.

By the way, I was named “Andrew” because that was my maternal grandfather’s name (Andrew Jackson). And back in 1959, my mom thought D. Andrew Holland was a fitting name for a future United States Senator and, this being America, well, you just never know.

The first complete 787 Dreamliner hasn’t even rolled off the Boeing assembly line yet, and it has already become the most successful launch of a new aircraft in the history of aviation. According to this new Wall Street Journal article, Boeing has already accumulated 677 orders for the jet from 47 customers. And new orders are coming in almost daily.

The 787 was a HUGE “all-in” bet for Boeing in it’s competition with Europe’s heavily-subsidized Airbus for the world’s airliner business.

Several years ago, the two companies adopted two very different product strategies. In an era of rising fuel costs AND increasing long-haul travel, Airbus decided to build BIG. Their proposed answer for airlines wanting to increase efficiency was to build an aircraft that could carry a crazy number of people.

Thus, the Airbus A-380 was born a flying, triple-decker Titanic of a plane that can carry up to 800 people. 

Runways at major airports all over the world are currently being lengthened in order to accommodate this beast. (Are you willing to climb on an airplane that’s carrying 800 other souls? I’ll pass.

Boeing took a different approach. It proposed to meet the airlines’ growing demand for efficiency by designing a jet that was lighter, more fuel efficient and more comfortable than any that had come before.

For several years now, industry analysts have been wondering which approach would find favor with the airline buyers. Well the jury is in. Boeing’s bet has paid off in a huge way. They literally can’t make them fast enough. Meanwhile, poor Airbus, massively unionized, regulated and drowning in complex agreements negotiated among the EU’s various member nations, just learned that, as the WSJ put it:

“. . . engineering teams in France and Germany had used different software to design the plane’s wiring, resulting in serious manufacturing errors.

Oopsies!

A Pattern Emerges 

When I read today’s news about Boeing’s triumph, I was immediately reminded of a story I read several years ago about the different approaches the U.S. and Europe had taken back in the 1970s to combat the air pollution caused by automobiles.

The U.S. approach was to mandate catalytic converters in all new cars and begin to switch the nation over to the unleaded gasolines which the converters required. The Europeans had a better idea.

The problem, in their view, was all the people owning and driving cars when they could just as easily take a government-owned bus or train. So the governments of Europe began intentionally driving up the costs of owning and driving a personal vehicle in a big way. Heavy taxes and fees were added to every layer of of the system. Some of those tax revenues were used to increase the mass transit capabilities in the major cities and the network of train service in each country.

(This European approach, by the way, is consistently held up by “progressives” in this country as the model for how we ought to be doing it.)

Of course, one of the bedrock laws of economics is that if you want less of something, tax it. Thus, in terms of reducing the number of cars being purchased and driven, Europe’s plan worked. It crippled its own auto industry, threw millions out of work, and forced average working people to the buses and trains leaving the highways and autobahns to the elites.

But which of the two approaches actually cleaned up the air? Care to take guess?

By 1995, the air quality in U.S. cities was uniformly better than that in European cities of comparable size. The U.S. approach yielded such strikingly better results, that European nations have since begun to follow the U.S. approach without abandoning their punative taxes, of course. (Another reminder: there’s no such thing as a temporary tax.)

That brings us back to Boeing vs. Airbus. Apparently the European liberals have so much marxist/socialist DNA in their genetic material, they simply can’t help but think like centralizers and collectivists when approaching any problem.

No wonder they named their company Airbus.