Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) offers some keen wisdom on curbing illegal immigration:

“If the answer is ‘build a fence’ I’ve got two goats on my place in Mississippi. There ain’t no fence big enough, high enough, strong enough, that you can keep those goats in that fence.”

“Now people are at least as smart as goats,” Lott continued. “Maybe not as agile. Build a fence. We should have a virtual fence. Now one of the ways I keep those goats in the fence is I electrified them. Once they got popped a couple of times they quit trying to jump it.”

“I’m not proposing an electrified goat fence,” Lott added quickly, “I’m just trying, there’s an analogy there.”

Asked for clarification as to what exactly the analogy was, Lott spokesman Lee Youngblood said…”A fence in and of itself is not enough… You can have technology to support the fence and to supplement the fence.”

It sounds like Lott should talk to Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who has “designed” an electric fence for the Southern border. “We do this with livestock all the time,” he said.

“Last autumn-winter season was Europe’s warmest for more than 700 years, researchers say. The last time Europeans saw similar temperatures to the autumn and winter of 2006-07, they were eating strawberries at Christmas in 1289, according to J¼rg Luterbacher at the University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues.”

on Rudy Giuliani:

The fact is, Giuliani has no idea what he’s talking about. On the campaign trail he says that the terrorist threat “is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.” As the mayor of New York City on Sept. 11, 2001, he may have lived more intimately with the consequences of terrorism, but this has no bearing on his inexperience or his scant insight in the realm of foreign policy. He is, in fact, that most dangerous would-be world leader: a man who doesn’t seem to know how much he doesn’t know.

Kevin Drum notes that “the academic name for this is the Dunning-Kruger Effect. … Dunning and Kruger, in a famous series of tests, found that ‘Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.’”

Yesterday, the Center for American Progress and Free Press released a detailed statistical analysis confirming that talk radio is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. In addition to the analysis, the report offers remedies for correcting this imbalance.

Several right-wing bloggers are now attacking progressives for advocating the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to devote airtime to important and controversial issues and to provide contrasting views on these issues in some form. Michelle Malkin titled her post on our report “Fairness Doctrine Watch” and Sister Toldjah posted information on how fight back “against this attempted resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine.” Similarly, the National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg wrote:

Does anyone really believe liberals would even entertain this renewed passion for the fairness doctrine if talk radio were overwhelmingly liberal? It just strikes me as so transparently opportunistic and unprincipled. If a conservative were to argue that the state should get involved in making Hollywood, or the biggest newspapers, or the broadcast news networks, or leading museums, publishing houses, or universities less liberal, liberals would justifiably scream bloody murder about censorship and propaganda.

Actually, the report does not argue that the Fairness Doctrine should be resurrected. It specifically states that the Fairness Doctrine likely would not correct the imbalance in talk radio. Additionally, serious concerns are raised by the FCC explicitly reviewing and regulating radio content or speech. From the report:

[T]he Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues. The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders. Added to this regulatory structure was the cooperation of the broadcast industry through the National Association of Broadcasters Code of Conduct

Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.

The report argues instead that we should address the more significant problem of concentrated ownership and ineffective regulation in order to push the market structure to better meet local needs. As report co-author John Halpin stated, “If we break up concentrated ownership, and encourage greater local accountability over radio licensing, and still end up with lots of conservative talk, then so be it. We don’t think this will happen but at least the playing field would have been made more level.”

The CAP/Free Press report argues for more speech, not less. Conservatives should get their facts straight before blindly attacking others.

is HERE.

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted this exchange between CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck and guest Michael Graham:

Graham asked Beck if he wanted to see the Clintons murdered in the [spoof Sopranos] video. “[S]eriously, Glenn, didn’t you at one point want to see, like, Paulie Walnuts or someone come in and just whack them both right there. Wouldn’t that have been great?” Beck responded with a smile, “No, I did not want to see that.” Graham said, “C’mon. … I wanted that.”

MediaMatters points out that on the May 7, 2003, edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, Graham said: “Anyone listening to Hillary Rodham in her speech last week about patriotism, that screaming, screeching fingernail, I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron.” Also, Beck himself fantasized killing filmmaker Michael Moore in 2005: “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could.”

“The Senate voted Thursday to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon for cars and SUVs, the first significant boost demanded of automakers in nearly 20 years.”

The agreement was announced at a news conference and then quickly adopted by the Senate without a roll call vote. It scaled back tougher standards already in the Senate’s energy bill but was still considered strong enough to have wide support from environmentalists.

“It closes the SUV loophole,” declared Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., referring to current requirements that allow much less stringent fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. “This is a victory for the American public.”

UPDATE: Feinstein has released a statement on the vote: “The compromise legislation raises the fleetwide average fuel economy standards for all cars, trucks and SUVs by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years — or from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by Model Year 2020.” By 2025, the fuel economy increases for cars and light-duty trucks would:

— Save between 2.0 and 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, nearly the amount of oil imported today from the Persian Gulf.

— Achieve up to 18 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from anticipated levels, or the equivalent of taking 60 million cars off the road in one year.

— Save consumers $79-98 billion at the pump, based on a $3.00 gas price.

Read the full release, with many more details, HERE.

UPDATE II: Climate Progress warns that the House may punt on increasing fuel economy standards.

“The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.”

President Bush’s national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.

The advisers will consider a new proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations. [...]

It was not immediately clear if the meeting would result in a final recommendation to Bush.

UPDATE: The White House denies the report:

The White House on Thursday denied a report that top administration officials were expected to meet Friday to discuss closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere.

“No decisions on the future of Guantanamo Bay are imminent, and there will not be a White House meeting tomorrow,” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said in response to a report by the Associated Press.