- Jan 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Feb 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–28
- Mar 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Apr 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- May 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Jun 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Jul 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Aug 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Sep 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Oct 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Nov 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- Dec 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
Saturday, September 30, 2006
RE: Dobson
Posted by on 9.30.06 @ 11:57PM
Hunter, I think we're at a standstill here, as far as making any actual headway on this argument, since clearly you have a respect for this man that I don't share, which I fully appreciate. One thing I'm afraid I can't let go, however, is this bit about the "canard" I am "decieving" myself with vis a vis religious overtones of Dobson's rhetorical approach, which seems to suggest I am either being doubly deceptive or doubly stupid. When I saw Dobson endorse Toomey in Amish country two years ago he said he normally didn't get involved in these sort of things but that God specifically encouraged him to intervene. In the Pennsylvania Republican primary. Must have been a slow day in the rest of the kingdom. The remainder of Dobson's talk reinforced this. And, like I said, I've actually listened to his radio show. I am familiar with the schtick. Better than Falwell? Yeah, sure. High bar.
So I'll thank you for providing another perspective on the man and wish you luck with your dissertation, but you can spare me the condecension. Every analysis can be picked apart, mine more than most, I'll readily admit. But I have eyes and ears and frequently go out to see and hear things up close and personal. If the suggestion is the moral I took away was wrong? Fine. From a learned man such as yourself, I'll consider any criticism seriously. But if the suggestion is I can't decipher what I really saw or really heard? That's where we'll part company.
More Dobson
Posted by on 9.30.06 @ 10:02PM
Shawn, as I said before, I think it's easy to understand why a libertarian type wouldn't like Dobson, just as a matter of ideological temperament, but I don't think you should deceive yourself with the old "he uses religious reasons" canard. (This whole line of argument is squarely within the subject matter of my dissertation in progress, but I won't bore the crowd with that!)
The left loves to protest that Christians in politics are ever-guilty of invoking revelation to make their policy points. The problem with the claim is that it is rarely true. If you listen to Dobson talk about abortion you hear a lot of the ugliness of the procedure, the development of the fetus/unborn child, the emotional cost, the philosophical deception, etc.
What you don't really hear is much scripture being quoted. Heck, guys like Stephen Carter protest that the Christian right has gotten too good at the public reason game and that they have gotten away from a more religious way of thinking. Per Carter, the trouble with Christian right-wingers is that they are sometimes too Republican and not enough Revelation!
Larry, in response to you, the story is that Trout had an affair with someone who was not a Focus employee. And, of course, he promptly left the ministry. That's hardly a knock on Dobson's integrity or character.
Dobson
Posted by on 9.30.06 @ 6:28PM
In my defense, I'm not one of those commentators who hasn't bothered to find anything out about Dobson. I've sat through no fewer than three events where he was the main speaker and have listened to his radio show several times. I appreciate the urge to speak out on matters of conscience, but I don't find anything in Dobson's poise or his grating rhetorical approach to abortion that would find fertile ground anywhere outside of the born again camp...which is to say, the people who don't really need convincing. The only thing that's going to move that ball down the court (not Supreme), in my opinion, is for someone to make an argument that does not rely on religion but individual rights.
So from my perspective, I find Dobson's work not only too narrow in scope but also actively contributing to stasis where he presumably wants to see movement. On other issues--especially those regarding gays and lesbians--I honestly feel he crosses the line into the distasteful quite regularity and with a spirit that is not of a positive nature to say the least.
It always concerns me when I have a disagreement with someone I respect as much as you, Larry. But this is a legitimate disagreement and not the uneducated ramblings of someone who hasn't ever bothered to learn anything about Dr. Dobson.
On Dobson vs. Armey
Posted by on 9.30.06 @ 7:33AM
Shawn, I have to ring in on Hunter's side here. In the first Internet column I ever published, I wrote:
Most commentators who attack Dr. Dobson don't have any idea who he is, and mostly they don't bother to find out.
Dobson, according to the pundits, is a fire-breathing ideologue kind of like Jimmy Swaggert. Dobson, to his listeners, is the genial, kindly, soft-spoken host ("psychologist and author," as he's always introduced) of a highly professional radio variety program, by turns funny, touching, sentimental, and inspiring. Dobson has achieved a rapport with his huge audience best compared to the status of such radio icons as Arthur Godfrey, Art Linkletter, and Garrison Keillor.
Focus on the Family's radio show airs in every radio market every day, most often two or three times a day. Note that the mainstream media does not know this, and obviously has not listened. It's like overlooking the Goodyear blimp.
As Hunter correctly pointed out, Dobson has gotten more involved with politics since 1997 or so, simply because he feels like he has to. He feels like the Republican party is too eager to take Christian voters for granted and not to do enough for them in exchange for their invaluable votes. Abortion, in his view, plainly seen, is murder. You can no more stay silent about it than conscience-stricken clerics in New England could keep quiet about slavery before the Civil War.
But Hunter, I must point out that Dobson's show was not untouched by scandal. Former co-host Mike Trout had to resign when it turned out he was getting too touchy-feely with the help.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Dobson v. Armey
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 10:00PM
Shawn,
I have a tendency to react to criticism of Dobson the way an African-American of a certain age might react to somebody going after Malcolm X. For those of us who grew up in the age of low rent televangelism, Dobson was a revelation (no pun intended). He was extremely articulate, compassionate, and yes, righteously indignant.
Instead of being yet another preacher, he was a superbly well-educated man who gave up a very nice academic existence to risk his career on this grass-roots radio ministry idea centered around traditional values and the Gospel. It took a long time for him to become a punching bag of the left because he addressed politics only peripherally during most of his public life.
Since about 1997, he has been far more active. He is extremely impatient with abortion, appalled by the idea of same sex marriage, and I'm sorry to say, too easily taken in by the wrong side of the Roy Moore controversy. Nevertheless, I and many others like me will always be grateful to him for having done it all so much better than his predecessors in the movement. You simply aren't going to see Dobson claiming to turn the path of hurricanes or having a television moment where he blames God's wrath on gays and abortionists. He's not that kind of guy.
You also will never see him on the wrong side of an integrity issue. No mishandled funds. No girl (or boy) problems. No mansions and Rolls Royces. He's a pretty pure flame whether you agree with him or not.
Certain Republicans resent him because they want to treat Christian conservative voters pretty much the same way the Democrats treat African-Americans. He won't let that happen and I think he's right. I'm personally in love with free-market economics, but it's simply not the priority issue for people who are trying to figure it all out in the light of Christ.
Having said all the above, I understand your feelings, Shawn. Dobson pushes hard and isn't easily satisfied. This conservative-libertarian movement is tough to hold together. It's very fortunate for our side that the Democrats are so tightly wedded to socialism and big, international schemes of governance. It's what keeps us together.
Some Timing
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 9:52PM
In addition to my article, today's other Murtha news is that he announced he is now publicly campaigning for the House majority leader spot (if the Dems take the House).
That is bold.
RE: Dobson Vs. Armey
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 7:22PM
Oh, no doubt Dobson is more important than Armey...I just wish he weren't. The divide between someone who is "useful to civilization," as I called Armey, and someone who is important in America sometimes these days is about as wide a gulf as my little brain--no prestigious academic am I--can imagine. Having adopted a philosophical outlook that resents busybodies meddling in my life, I certainly wish Armey were more important than Dobson. Hillary Clinton is important, too, after all.
So we disagree! But I still think your posts here are brilliant, Mr. Hunter!
Re: Murtha and Wolf
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 6:59PM
Not surprisingly, Murtha blatantly contradicted himself in his CNN appearance with Wolf Blitzer. As Dave points out, first Murtha said he didn't know money was being offered. Then he said, "they offered me the money, I said no." Did Wolf Blitzer call Murtha out on his explicit contradiction and likely fib? Of course not. Blitzer continued lobbing gentle questions with carefulness one would expect from an aging soft-ball coach.
Blitzer quickly went on to change the subject from Murtha's involvement in Abscam to the subject of why someone would bring this up at all. He then allowed Murtha to go on and criticize President Bush's handling of the Iraq War and comment on Bob Woodward's new book -- a story that dominated Blitzer's broadcast for the previous 45 minutes before the Murtha segment.
One thing Murtha mentioned did ring true, though. He cited politicians' underestimation of the American public. Well, Jack, as you said in the Abscam video: it's all about appearances, "public relations." Unfortunately Jack's greatest fear is coming true. As he said while being offered a $50,000 bribe, you've got to be careful, otherwise "the son of a bitch all falls apart...eight years from now." So he was off by 18 years!
Dobson v. Armey
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 6:18PM
Shawn, perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't agree that Armey is massively more important than Dobson.
One thing people don't understand about the "Religious Right" is that guys like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are not as important as James Dobson and Chuck Colson. The latter two have formed an axis of respectability for conservative Christians for decades.
Dobson takes a lot of fire now because he's been more outspoken since the late 1990's and has been determined not to let the GOP take cultural conservatives for granted. I think that's a worthwhile function. Armey certainly didn't keep them from going spend-crazy. Maybe Dobson can keep them pro-life.
Between Dobson and Armey, Dobson may actually have been the more prestigious academic. Back before he went full-time for Focus on the Family, Dobson was on the faculty of the University of Southern California med school (as a children's psychologist). Dick Armey was with the University of North Texas.
Murtha and Wolf
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 6:11PM
Same old stories from Jack Murtha today on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer about the "alleged" FBI surveillance tape from the "conservative publication" The American Spectator.
At first he said, "I had no idea they were offering me money." But he later acknowledged the agents put $50,000 in front of him.
He still says he was "only interested in investment in my district." CNN chose a rather innocuous quote about Murtha's influence from the transcript. But let's go to the tape:
"Right-wing smear because I oppose the policies of this administration." I didn't mention the policies of the administration. The word "smear" suggests that the article was false. But he could not point out any inaccuracies. Murtha should answer for his warm relationship with those offering him bribes.
Note that Murtha did not challenge the authenticity of the video or the accuracy of the transcript. Go read it and judge for yourself.
Oh Lord
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 5:43PM
Quick: See if you can guess what caucus Rep. Mark Foley led before today's news that he would resign from Congress after being exposed for e-flirting with young boys?That link goes to a press release in which Foley touts a sex offender registry bill. "The bill adds, among other things, the 'use of the Internet to facilitate or commit a crime against a minor' as one that will trigger registration." I swear I'm not making this up.Give up? Come on, it's easy. The Missing and Exploited Children Caucus.
Don't Say You Weren't Warned
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 5:14PM
Back on June 20, 2003, our Prowler reported, apropos possible Republican senatorial candidates for 2004, the following:
There are already two candidates running for the GOP Senate nomination: U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and former Rep. Bill McCollum, who lost a previous Senate run in 2000. Few believe that McCollum can win statewide, and while Foley has been raising money in both Washington and Florida, questions about his personal life, which he declines to address, have begun nibbling at the corners of his campaign and are raising doubts inside the White House whether he's the strongest candidate to put forward for the job.
Re: Oy
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 5:11PM
If proven true (looks like it is), especially with those IMs, I hope Foley loses his freedom as well as his job.
Oy, Continued
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 4:41PM
The Florida Republican party will designate a person to replace Foley-- but under Florida law, it's too late to change the name on the ballot.
Oy
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 4:28PM
Republican Congressman Mark Foley won re-election in Florida's 16th district with 68% of the vote in 2004. (Bush got 54% against Kerry's 46.) It almost goes without saying that Florida-16 is in reach for the Democrats now. Also: Ewww.
Murtha on CNN
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 3:50PM
The word is that Congressman Murtha takes to CNN in the 5 p.m. hour to defend himself. Interestingly, they did not call me.
For those of you who are around a TV or computer at quitting time, I will live-blog Murtha's appearance here.
Elephant in the Room
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 3:19PM
Via Reason's Hit and Run we learn James Dobson is none too happy with some of Dick Armey's quotes in the new Ryan Sager book. And he can't very well be blamed for that. Obviously sentiments will vary across the libertarian-conservative spectrum, but on my own personal meter of Usefulness to Civilization, Armey dwarfs Dobson to a point of scale where you'd have to clone several dozen Dobsons to get within measurable range. Like I said, just my personal opinion.
My interview with Sager, incidentally, resides here.
Democracy Corps
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 2:36PM
James Carville's latest memo on November's elections, "Democrats Battling on a Large Playing Field," is here and contains some interesting polling data.
Oh, Bernie!
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 2:04PM
A few outtakes from my Burlington trip are posted at Lott's site, where I'm guest blogging the next week or so.
Civilization And Torture
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 1:42PM
Andrew Sullivan posts the following reader comment:
Bush's supporters will inevitably use the fact that virtually all of us can think of some emergency exceptions to an absolute "no torture" rule. ("Ace of Spades" has been yelling for some time about the need to enable it to expose plots that "endanger thousands of lives", and specifically cites the
London airliner bombing plot in that regard.) This argument has real teeth in it, and the only way to counter it is to point out that - in any case where torture really was necessary to stop such a plot - there is no way in hell that the torturer would ever actually go to jail for it; the jury would certainly not convict him, even if the prosecutor indicted him. (To say nothing of the President's power to pardon.) It would fall into the category of "justifiable assault."
This is an argument that I've heard repeated among those who believe all forms of torture or "alternative" interrogation techniques should be banned, but it is deeply flawed. On a moral level, if you believe that torture is wrong in all cases, you shouldn't be willing to make exceptions after the fact. This would be like arguing against warrantless searches of people's homes, but saying that if a cop breaks into somebody's house without a warrant, evidence gathered can be admissible as long as it's crucial enough. I don't know how you give mixed-signals to CIA agents that all forms of torture are illegal, but (wink, wink) if you torture someone and your hunch is proven correct, you won't be prosecuted. Furthermore, it would seem to create a moral hazard that could prompt CIA agents to torture someone more aggressively. If a CIA agent tortures a terrorist suspect believed to have information about an imminent attack, but the terrorist doesn't talk, the agent is in legal trouble for torturing somebody without being able to expose a terrorist plot. That may prompt the agent to torture that detainee more aggressively, thinking that the only way for him to avoid prosecution is to get the detainee to talk, by any means necessary.
People who make this argument are trying to have it both ways. Deep down, they know that in certain cases, torture may save lives, so they want to leave the door open to that, but at the same time, they want to claim the moral high ground by saying that they support an outright ban on torture for humanitarian reasons.  Â
I'm sure that many (if not most) people who oppose an outright ban on all torture are speaking out of genuine ethical concern. I understand that in this war against an enemy of unspeakable evil, each one of us will have to decide where we would draw the line in responding to the threat. And I have deeply considered arguments about the societal implications of condoning torture, or "aggressive interrogation," or whatever else you wish to call it. But personally, I have absolutely zero moral qualms about waterboarding somebody like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed if it could yield information that could save lives, and I'm under no illusions that waterboarding is a pleasant experience. I believe the debate over torture should be about how to craft a law that would allow high level terrorists to be aggressively interrogated in limited circumstances while making sure that the practice doesn't become widespread. This is a challenge, no doubt, but I think there are ways to accomplish this (Alan Dershowitz's idea of torture warrants would be one possible way to add oversight to the process). Â Â
This debate gets to the heart of why I consider terrorism such a grave threat, and why I perceive it as the perfect tool to fight a civilized society that seeks to preserve life and protect human rights. No matter how severe the threat of Nazism was, at least once World War II got rolling, there was little debate among civilized people over what we had to do to fight it. The elusive nature of terrorism, however, causes division as we struggle with the moral and logistical implications of responding to it. Â Â
Clinton vs. Bush
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 10:30AM
In a column about Bill Clinton's recent outburst, E.J. Dionne writes:
By choosing to intervene in the terror debate in a way that no one could miss,It's absolutely preposterous for Dionne to argue that the debate over who was to blame for 9/11 has been dominated by the right. Yes, this month, especially with the controversy generated by the airing of ABC's "Path to 9/11," there has been a lot of conservative criticism ofClinton forced an argument about the past that had up to now been largely a one-sided propaganda war waged by the right.
With that said, it's important that conservatives don't get sucked into the debate of "who is more to blame for 9/11." In my view, President Bush's record on terrorism in the first eight months of his administration is abysmal. The truth is, prior to 9/11, the nation as a whole didn't take terrorism seriously. Aside from some wise sages, we generally viewed it as a manageable risk. There is a value in pointing out the mistakes that were made by both administrations prior to 9/11, but only to make sure people do not return to the mindset of the 1990s, which is a greater risk the further we get from 9/11 without a major terrorist attack. Already, there is a growing chorus of thinkers, who I have written about before, who simply don't think terrorism is a big deal. We can't let that sentiment become a dominant one. That's the intellectual battle we should be fighting rather than arguing about whose pre-9/11 record was worse.
The Full Murtha
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 9:58AM
For those of you who came directly to the blog, I urge you to check out Dave Holman's piece on the main site, which includes a never-before-seen 1980 videotape of a young Jack Murtha discussing bribes with undercover FBI agents as part of a sting in the Abscam investigation. Parental guidance suggested, as Murtha uses some, well, colorful language.
More on Huckabee
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 8:57AM
Quin, did Huckabee get even more thin-skinned after he turned into a born-again health nut, lost 50 pounds, started running 10Ks, etc.? He seems to illustrate my dictum that a pain in the butt is always looking for more ways to be a pain in the butt.
Bush Shuns Borat
Posted by on 9.29.06 @ 12:04AM
Was it perhaps the journalist's recent threats against Uzbekistan?
"If there is one more item of Uzbek propaganda claiming that we do not drink fermented horse urine, give death penalty for baking bagels, or export over 300 tons of human pubis per year, then we will be left with no alternative but to commence bombardment of their cities with our catapults," Borat said.
Story here.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Re: This Is My Rifle...
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 11:07PM
Guess, o faithful readers, where ye faithful correspondent comes down on the issue of Nudie Troopers. Go ahead...guess.
Huckabee
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 7:36PM
Dave: As much as I respect parental divining skills, as well as your own prediction abilities, which are certainly far greater than mine, I'm afraid my own experience in New Hampshire just does not jibe with this analysis. In September 2002 I was assigned by one of New Hampshire's bigger dailies (read: still really small) to cover the Howard Dean beat--mostly because he was a nobody and reporters with seniority had picked their own horses. For months I went to events where only I and maybe one or two other reporters were the audience. Yet a few months beyond that everybody in the country knew who Howard Dean was, for good or for ill. By the time I took a job at the Associated Press six months later, he was too big a fish for a minnow like me to be trusted with covering. The D.C. reporters came in for that and I was stuck covering Lieberman--who, incidentally, was fully introduced to voters three years earlier.
Only a few years earlier John McCain had gone in a matter of only a few months from marginal figure in the state to 18 point victor. When my wife met McCain at the Supreme Court a couple years back he insisted on shaking her hand a second time when he realized she was from New Hampshire.
Most of the people I know who voted for McCain in activist circles were not supporters until late in the game. Neither Dean nor McCain got to the top of the mountain, but as far as 15 months out from the primary being too late to introduce yourself--I don't buy it. I'm not personally invested in this. I could care less whether Huckabee throws his hat in the ring and if he's got the typical evengelical godhead complex, as Quin's post seems to suggest, I'll be much less inclined to look favorably upon his candidacy. BUT. None of these guys introoduce themselves to anyone. Enthusiastic grassroots do that, for which there is a long and storied tradition in the Granite State. If 15 months out they're giddy about Huckabee...well, I could care less what anyone says, that's significant.
Re: Huckabee Water Cooler
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 5:56PM
The results are in. I asked my dad if the name Huckabee rings any bells.
And even for a guy who I think is up on his politics, Huckabee barely registered.
First try:
Second try:
Third try:
No, it ain't conclusive. But he has little time to let folks know who he is.
This Is My Rifle, This Is My Gun...
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 4:49PM
And you thought the Israeli women soldiers were hot:
Louisville Paper Gets Disc With 232 Photos of Nude National Guard Women
The Ambulance Chaser's Wife
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 4:30PM
I indulge in a little bit of over the top John Edwards spanking over at Lott's blog.
Huckabee Is Awful
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 3:39PM
If Gov. Huckabee is making inroads in new Hampshire, we are all in deep trouble. I covered him for 14 months in Little Rock, and rarely have a been so disappointed in a political figure for whom I had high hopes. He is so thin-skinned he may as well have an epidermis of crepe-paper; he is so sanctimonious he makes John McCain look full of self-doubt; his antenna for possible ethical violations by his staff is not only inoperable, but deliberately so: His attitude is, "How DARE anyone question the ethics of ANYBODY associated with me, because I'm a Baptist minister, so I'm beyond reproach and by extension so is my entire staff!!!" This is a warning to all conservatives: If he is the Republican nominee, the press and Hillary (who of course has her entire Arkansas gang loaded up on oppo research against Huckabee) will EAT HUCK ALIVE. He would be an utter disaster. This is just by way of observation, mind you, not an endorsement of any particular candidacy.
The Huckabee Water Cooler
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 2:24PM
Shawn, That is interesting to hear. But as far as these candidates go, my folks are my best litmus test. If my dad knows who he is, but my mom doesn't (George Allen), he's got an uphill battle. If both know, I consider the candidate a national figure (Rudy). But Huckabee? He may be far too late in letting the rest of the country know who he is. (But I'll ask the old man later today and get back to you.)
Oppresively Low Premiums
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 2:10PM
Wal-Mart is cutting back on its health insurance options for new employees, restricting them to two plans with high deducibles but low monthly premiums:
"We've done the math on this, and we have a pretty good understanding of what this is going to mean," [Wal-Mart spokeman] Dan Fogleman said. "Most associates are going to come out better on this."
Of course, you know who is unhappy:
"Wal-Mart is cruelly hurting its employees, cutting health-care options and shifting costs on to the American taxpayer," said Paul Blank, campaign director for Wake-Up Wal-Mart.
No Wins, No Points, No Games
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 1:59PM
A Michigan school district shuts down its high school's football season for fear that it will get stomped into submission -- to the hospital.
Late September Surprise
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 1:23PM
Bob Woodward's latest book on the Iraq War is on the way, and he gives the "retired" Mike Wallace a preview. Among his points:
According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. "It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," says Woodward.
The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,'" he tells Wallace. "Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know," says Woodward....
Woodward also reports that the president and vice president often meet with Henry Kissinger, who was President Richard Nixon’s secretary of state, as an adviser. Says Woodward, "Now what’s Kissinger’s advice? In
, he declared very simply, ‘Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.'" Woodward adds. "This is so fascinating. Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Iraq was we lost our will." Vietnam
Look for this book to begin to dominate the news cycle. Â
Geek Water Cooler Huckabee Talk
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 11:46AM
I haven't seen Mike Huckabee on the stump, so I have no personal opinion on his campaigning prowess or national electoral potential, but I have talked to dozens of activists and politically engaged citizens on the ground in New Hampshire at events with other potential Republican candidates and the amount of enthusiastic gushing I hear about Huckabee's few appearances here is pretty amazing. (And caught me utterly off guard--not the best endorsement for a suppossed political reporter.) I've also been told by College Republicans at two separate school up here that he is their first choice for an event speaker this semester.
Of course, these things rise and fall fairly quickly, but while Huckabee might not be on the pundit radar, there is a lot of New Hampshire grassroots chatter about him.
Sorry to add to the geek water cooler talk.
The 'N' Word And The 'M' Word
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 11:19AM
Notice that the news coverage of the latest Allen controversy refers to the racial slur he is accused of using as the "N" word. News organizations, apparently, want to avoid printing a word that is genuinely offensive to a lot of people. But during this summer's Macaca mania, the word "Macaca" was used repeatedly, plastered on television and in big, bold, headlines. If it was such an incredibly offensive racial slur, why wasn't it referred to as the "M" word?
Re: Allen
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 11:15AM
Philip, though we're a year out from the presidential campaigns getting into full swing, it's early. At this point, many hopefuls are getting overly generous looks. Heck, the other day a former aide to a prominent Democratic hopeful asked me what I thought about Huckabee. Seriously.
I don't put much stock in front-runner status. Right now, this is the political geek's water cooler talk.
Re: Allen
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 11:06AM
Dave, I wasn't saying that that Allen was the clear favorite pre-'Macaca,' but I think it's fair to say he was seen as a top contender (see this March Rich Lowry column). In fact, his Senate race has generated so much controversy precisely because he was seen to be in the running for the presidential nomination. That he even attained that status I found perplexing. So, I'm not arguing against his being an A-level candidate, I was surprised that anybody would consider him even a C-level candidate.
The Conspiracy to Cut Gas Prices
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 11:04AM
I just can't figure out which angle to believe.
Was it the oil companies gauging us when gas prices rose to $3 a gallon?
Or (now that the price has fallen precipitously) is it the car companies desperately trying to save the internal combustion engine by keeping the price of gas artificially low?
Or is it just good, old-fashioned supply and demand?
Tyrannical Times
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 10:23AM
Classic over-the-top NY Times editorial today on passage of a the House bill on questioning and deataining terrorists, "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."
For comparrison purposes, Alien and Sedition Acts available here.
Down on Allen
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 10:21AM
Philip, I am not sure many folks argued pre-macaca that Sen. Allen was an A-level candidate. For reasons unique to each presidential hopeful, all the Republicans with their "hats in the ring" strike me as B-level candidates. All have serious liabilities. If you believe that, choosing a "favorite" is a half-hearted selection.
Can he win? Probably not. This Senate race is enough of a challenge right now, and the events of the last couple months are too much of a stain to turn into a road show.
Should he win? Probably not. He doesn't have the stuff to get this far without an impeccable reputation, and doesn't show any signs of improvement.
As disturbing as this race stuff is, though, since the allegations have an element of doubt about them, Allen's gutter strategy disturbs me even more. Charging Webb with being a sexist because he opposed women in combat is cheap. And now, as John Miller mentioned at the Corner yesterday, he attacks Webb for defending the Navy during Tailhook:
Is this the modern GOP campaign (Rovian?) strategy? Divide the opposition instead of rallying around core principles?
Jerry Kilgore tried it last year with his death penalty ad, and it didn't work. Allen's campaign seems determined not to learn those lessons.
Lieberman Up 10 Pts
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 10:08AM
Lieberman leads Lamont 49-39 in this morning's Quinnipiac poll.
Via RealClearPolitics.
Barnes on Allen
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 9:29AM
Fred Barnes has a WSJ column up subtitled, "Don't discount Sen. George Allen's presidential ambitions just yet.'" Unfortunately, most of the piece is a recap of all of the controversies Allen  has found himself in during the Senate race, and Barnes doesn't make much of a case for why he should be viewed as a viable presidential candidate. The best he does is this:
Â
Many conservatives are souring on
Virginia's junior senator as a presidential candidate. Still: Should Mr. Allen overcome the media onslaught, effectively counter Mr. Webb's call for a withdrawal from Iraq, finish the campaign without breaking ranks with President Bush, and win a slugfest by a modest margin, he may emerge as a tough-minded survivor. The press won't like him any better, but he might earn the respect of Republican voters around the country. Candidates have been "misunderestimated" before, and stranger things have happened in politics.
Â
Yes, stranger things have happened, but that's not a very compelling reason to believe that Allen has a chance of winning the presidency. Personally, I have always been a bit perplexed as to why anybody would think that he's fit to hold the nation's highest office. Long before the "macaca" incident, Allen struck me as a lightweight who couldn't make a speech without quoting Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, or using a football metaphor. The events of the last few months have just confirmed that view. If there are any Allen defenders out there, I'm really curious to hear why you think this man would make a good Commander-in-Chief.
Â
'He's Never Used It...as a Racial Slur'
Posted by on 9.28.06 @ 8:39AM
Turns out George Allen's challenger, James Webb, has used the "N" word in the past as well.
"Jim has not used the word directed at another person," said his spokeswoman, Kristian Denny Todd.
Apparently it was just a term of endearment -- or something like that.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
You Don't Negotiate with Honor Cultures
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 8:10PM
I've posted here before about the fiction of Lars Walker. I didn't mention that he is a shrewd commentator on political and cultural matters, as well. I offer you a taste of his take on the Pope's comments and the Islamic reaction:
Any reasonable person would recognize that
rioting and murdering people are a self-contradictory means of
proclaiming one's peacefulness. And the fact that a large part of
the Muslim world fails to get the joke (such as it is) pretty much
says it all.
But the Islamic world doesn't care. Because
they're not involved in a struggle of ideas, but a struggle of
honor.
Honor, and honor cultures, is one of my
hobbyhorses. I believe (perhaps wrongly) that my study of Viking
sagas has taught me something about the subject.
I want you to go read the whole post, so I'll leave the rest of it at Lars' site. Check it out and discover how to deal with honor cultures.
Politicians and Bureaucrats Working Group , Pt 3
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 7:40PM
The Citizens' Health Care Working Group's report is laced with the term "evidence-based". This is hardly a surprise, as evidence-based medicine is currently all the rage among many health care policy analysts. (For more on evidence-based medicine, go here). For example, regarding the commission that will set core benefits (see post 1 in this series), the report states:
Within economic constraints and guided by evidence-based science and expert consensus regarding the medical effectiveness of treatments, the group will define the core benefits and services…I suspect that Working Group (and health care policy analysts generally) is putting a bit too much stock in science and evidence. There seems to be an underlying but seldom stated belief that science and evidence can always provide a definitive answer. But science is a process of discovery that is marked with uncertainty. What is accepted practice today can be gone tomorrow because researchers have come up with better evidence or found a new way of looking at old problems. Sometimes the evidence doesn't give a clear direction at all. For example, I'm currently working a Medicare study, and I'm looking at research regarding whether greater Medicare spending improves health outcomes. A lot of research suggests that it doesn't, that areas that spend more achieve no better health outcomes than areas that spend less. However, some studies suggest that more spending does achieve better outcomes. Which is right? It's hard to say.
In short, science and evidence often provide good guidelines, but they are not always definitive.
Yet the report suggests that evidence-based approach can yield definitive answers, calling for "a fair, evidence-based system to determine benefits":
By way of illustration, if there are two equally effective ways to treat a particular medical condition, but one costs twice as much as the other, the less expensive treatment would have a higher efficiency rating. Health services and treatments that are deemed essential and cost-effective could be offered with little or no cost-sharing. Certain kinds of preventive care, such as childhood vaccinations, would be prime examples. Treatments that have not been proven to be medically effective would not be covered at all, to discourage their use. People who choose to obtain treatments or services proven to be not as cost effective as covered alternatives would pay more of the costs for that care.If you read that carefully, you'll notice that the Working Group is advocating a One-Size-Fits-All approach. If the evidence shows that two treatments are equally effective, the one that costs less will get better coverage. That begs the question, effective for whom? No two people are alike, and the treatment that costs less may not be as effective for some people.
By imposing a regime of evidence-based standards on the practice of medicine, the Working Group substitutes government regulations for the judgment of the physician and patient. Again, someone needs to read his Hayek.
Is Keith Also a Racist?
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 6:36PM
Keith Olbermann, who is quickly becoming everyone's fav commentator (yeah, right), said Monday evening that Chris Wallace of FoxNews is...
"a monkey posing as a newscaster."
Now, imagine if George Allen had made that comment....
Re: 'Mayberry with a Major Airport'
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 2:29PM
Jeff Taylor, my colleague at the John Locke Foundation who operates for us out of Charlotte and also does some work for Reason magazine, offers further illumination about the Mecklenburg County immigration crackdown. Upshot: Not all it's cracked up to be, and (surprise!) it's financially motivated.
7-11 Drops Chavez Oil (aka Citgo)
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 1:55PM
The AP reports:
DALLAS (AP) -- Convenience store operator 7-Eleven Inc. is dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo as its gasoline supplier at more than 2,100 locations and switching to its own brand of fuel...
7-Eleven spokesman Margaret Chabris said that, "Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by
's president Hugo Chavez." Venezuela
Too bad oil is a fungible commodity.
Twin Cities in 2008
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 1:42PM
Drudge reports:
Republicans pick the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul for the 2008 presidential convention, GOP sources say...
How Much Are You Paying Them?
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 1:26PM
Want to know how much you, Joe and Jamie Taxpayer, are paying your favorite Congressional aide? Check out this database.
RE: 'Mayberry with a Major Airport'
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 12:42PM
Paul: What struck me about that article was this sentence from the second passage you quoted: ". That, according to Hispanic leaders, has created a constant worry for people who are in the United States illegally and now fear deportation after a simple traffic stop."
Um, shouldn't they be worried about deportation because they are here illegally?
It goes to show how seriously our some segments in our society are about illegal immigration when what really blows up their skirts is a traffic stop.
'Mayberry with a Major Airport'
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 11:30AM
The Washington Post
reports today from down here in the Tar Heel state on a
Mecklenburg County immigration enforcement program in which
deportation proceedings are initiated against anyone arrested by
local officers, whether it's for a traffic stop or for a felony. So
far, so effective:
Mecklenburg County Sheriff Jim Pendergraph says there should be little sympathy for illegal immigrants caught by his program: They have already broken the law once by being here illegally, and then been arrested on suspicion of another crime.
But we're talking about The Post here,
so it takes on a predictably whiny tone:
Many illegal immigrants lack valid licenses. As a result, they
now risk not only arrest but also deportation whenever they
drive.
Hmm, driving without a license...implying you haven't taken
appropriate tests and learned the state's traffic laws, not to
mention proving whether or not you can even read our traffic signs.
You're showing that you're not even going to try to learn them.
That's not worthy of deportation?
Bill Comes Due
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 11:24AM
"I'll never forget the maniacal look in his bloodshot eyes." Don't miss this unforgettable ode to gentle Bill Clinton.
Starving Hamas
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 10:50AM
In Time, Tony Karon argues that refusing aid to the Palestinian Authority in hopes that it will cause enough misery to force Hamas to recognize Israel is not a good policy, because any recognition Hamas makes under these cricumstances would be meaningless and it's cruel to the Palestinian people.
I agree with part of that statement. Getting Hamas to verbally recognize Israel is pointless unless the group actually abandons terrorism as well. But, I don't think withholding aid from the Palestinian government is merely about making Palestinians miserable so that they will reject Hamas. The decision to withhold aid arises because Hamas is considered a terrorist group by the United States and Europe, and there are policies in place against funding terrorist groups.
And I don't think it's cruel to the Palestinians to withhold aid because they democratically elected a terrorist group. In the days of Arafat, the excuse for the Palestinian people was that Arafat was not elected and doesn't represent the views of most Palestinians, who just want peace. But a recent poll, cited by Karon, found that 67 percent of Palestinians opposed recognizing Israel.
Bin Laden Politics
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 10:31AM
The recent rumors that bin Laden died of Typhoid last month have not been proven true. But the reports made me wonder, at this point, whether there would be any sort of political bounce for Bush if bin Laden were found dead, and particularly if he were to die anticlimactically of disease rather than a U.S. military strike.
Re: Literary Interests Blog Meme
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 9:13AM
What could be better? Piling on the professionals Tabin and Macomber I take the Ten Questions at Postmodern Conservative. To avoid bad luck for Ten Years I duly forwarded the thing to some people who should be clicked regardless.
Re: Gmail Fail
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 1:26AM
Shawn: It wasn't just you. It's because you live in Boston. (Also explains why Dave's was working fine.) As Bostonist reports, it was a problem with a Comcast server in Massachusetts.
Divided Government Better?
Posted by on 9.27.06 @ 12:26AM
Let me offer a brief start at Stephen Slivinski's intriguing column by taking on this quote:
One thing we have seen, however, is that Bush, like all politicians, is a political animal. On domestic policy, he usually cares more about scoring one for his own team than upholding a coherent position on the role of government in a free society. I suspect the president would go hunting for his veto pen more often if he were faced with a Democratic House. And imagine how congressional Republicans would fight the sorts of big government schemes they currently push if those proposals came instead from the mouths of Democratic majority leaders.
Yes, Bush is a political animal, one who is willing to cut deals using the budget as wheel grease. I can easily see him cutting deals with Democrats on domestic spending to ensure that he gets all of the defense spending he wants. With the Democrats in charge of the House, they are going to be in a position to aim withering scrutiny at the defense budget. If Bush wants to hold off that sort of assault, there is no better way to do so than offer the Dems lots of domestic spending goodies
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Lord In Heaven
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 6:08PM
Perhaps Tom Wolfe was right--on occassion you are shocked into realizing there is much to recommend political correctness. This is one of them.
Politicians and Bureaucrats Working Group, Pt. 2
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 5:47PM
The Citizens' Health Care Working Group's report (PDF) is also plagued with a lot of nice-sounding fluff. For example, "Many Americans hold the view that public policy aimed at the growing crisis in health care cannot succeed unless all Americans are able to get the health care they need when they need it, and that all Americans pay their fair share."
What does that mean? How do you determine exactly when health care is needed, and how do you define "fair share"? Well, actually, I do know how that last one is defined: higher taxes.
The report also relies on some pretty meaningless poll results to support their first recommendation to "establish public policy that all Americans have affordable health care":
In the discussion of underlying values and perceptions that began each community meeting, 94 percent of all participants agreed with the statement, "It should be public policy [written in law] that all Americans have affordable health care." Additionally, most respondents to the Working Group's Internet poll strongly agreed (80 percent) or agreed (12 percent) with that statement. People at many of the community meetings expressed the desire for "cradle to grave" access to health care, guaranteed in law.Gee, who isn't going to answer affirmatively that all Americans should have affordable health care? However, any public policy that aims toward that end inevitably involves trade-offs, which a feel-good poll question like that above does not capture. Start asking questions like "It should be public policy that all Americans have affordable health care, even if it means higher taxes," or "It should be public policy that all Americans have affordable health care even if it means government must ration health care," and you might not get quite the 90-plus percent affirmative response.
That is what renders so silly the opening paragraph in the Working Group's press release announcing the report:
The Citizens' Health Care Working Group (CHCWG) will issue a report demonstrating remarkable consensus among Americans for public policy that ensures all Americans, regardless of their financial resources or health status, have affordable health care coverage.
Given the fluffiness of the question it would be remarkable if the report didn't find consensus. Ask people if "all babies should eat?" and you likely get a near 100% positive response. The consensus will quickly fall apart, however, when it comes to the question of how we achieve that goal. Health care is no different.
Politicians and Bureaucrats Working Group
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 3:40PM
The Citizens' Health Care Working Group, created by the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, released its final report (PDF) yesterday. The think tank I work for, NCPPR, released a statement on the report here. I'm going to do some blogging on this for the next few hours. (A response to Slivinksi will come later this evening.)
What I find most unsettling about the Working Group's recommendations is number 4, which calls for the establishment of "a nonpartisan public/private group to define America's core benefits and services and to update it on an ongoing process." Apparently, a group of "experts" sitting on a commission can determine what benefits are needed for nearly 300 million. Someone is not reading his Hayek.
Let me give an example using myself. I haven't seen a dentist in over two years. Before that, I hadn't seen one in over four years. Am I neglectful of my teeth? Well, given that I have never had a cavity in my 36-plus years, the answer would have to be a definitive "no." The fact is my teeth only warrant a dental visit every few years, and, if necessary, I'm all too happy to pay for it out of my own pocket.
Based on the Working Group's report, it's not very clear exactly what would constitute the "core benefits and services," although it hints that dental care might be one, when it states that health "is defined to include physical, mental, and dental health." So let's assume that dental care is included as a core benefit. The question, then, is why should I have to purchase a benefit that I don't need? I think I know my teeth better than anyone else. Apparently the Working Group thinks that a commission would know better than me.
It's this type of thinking that also leads to over-use of health care. How many people will run to the dentist for every minor tooth pain if they have coverage that, sans government edict, they otherwise wouldn't? Given that the report spends so much time advising on how to lower the cost of health care, perhaps the Working Group should have put some more thought into the consequences of its recommendations.
More about Veggie Tales
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 2:56PM
For a very complete story on how Veggie Tales got to the inconceivable point of trying to remove all references to God and/or the Bible from the show to be aired on NBC, check out Phil Vischer's blog. He takes you all the way from the founding of the company in 1990 to bankruptcy due to lawsuit and then to where we are today.
For those outraged Veggie Tales fans, the short answer is that Phil Vischer no longer has any control over the show whatsoever and that clearly hurts.
White and Nerdy
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 2:33PM
Click here to check out the priceless new video from Weird Al Yankovic. This is what I think of when I hear the word "countercultural."
Nine New Cases
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 1:31PM
After yesterday's "long conference," the Supreme Court granted cert today in nine additional cases. The only one that looks especially interesting is a question of whether a Washington state law prohibiting union contributions from being used to influence an election violates the union's First Amendment rights.
The Nation's Freedoms Are Under Assault...
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 1:27PM
...by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation's marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit."
The world according to Keith Olbermann. Watch this (warning, it goes on for ten minutes) and you can come to only one conclusion: ESPN's management is heaving a big sigh of relief right now.
We Didn't Listen!
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 11:40AM
"Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday."
Soon, temperatures will get really dangerously close. And then we will be sorry that we didn't listen.
Those of you who have had the (mis)fortune to watch the unintentionally hilarious The Day After Tomorrow will appreciate the South Park episode "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow" (highly inappropriate for the office -- or the family).
Veggie Tales and Madonna?
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 11:30AM
I returned from a trip to Texas and noticed there was a bit of back and forth here at TAS over NBC's decision to engage in religious-cleansing of the Veggie Tales cartoons for broadcast. Frankly, I'm a little surprised. My kids watch it and I always thought it was pretty theologically inoffensive unless you consider plain old Bible morality and very simple God-talk to be an outrage.
Anyway, count on S.T. Karnick to find a new angle on the story. He asks the simple question, "How is it that Veggie Tales is clearly offensive in mentioning God, but we aren't so sure whether we have a problem with Madonna performing a song hanging from a cross?" Check out the link above for some excellent analysis.
Bin Laden Alive, Taliban Says
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 10:41AM
Reuters reports, citing Al Arabiya television in Dubai. I'm always skeptical of rumors of bin Laden's demise, and will assume they're being greatly exaggerated until I see harder evidence.
Gmail Fail
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 9:48AM
Has anyone else not been able to access their Gmail all morning?
Literary Interests Blog Meme
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 9:43AM
One of my favorite writers and frequent AmSpec columnist John Tabin invites me to grapple with several fun "sentence fragments with grammatically dubious question marks" on literary interests, a challenge I accept and will get to as soon as I'm off deadline. In the meantime, check out the questions (?) and Tabin's really interesting answers here.
Keys to Lott's Kingdom
Posted by on 9.26.06 @ 9:38AM
My friend and former AmSpec editor Jeremy Lott has extended me a kind invitation to take over blogging duties at his website for the next two weeks as he prepares to head back to D.C. for a gig at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Here's my interview with The Man Himself on his book In Defense of Hypocrisy. I'll be laboring under one basic ground rule: Don't get Lott sued. Well, you know, I'll do what I can.
Monday, September 25, 2006
World To End In 2011?
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 4:04PM
I was looking over some other stuff from the Commonwealth Fund today (see last Thursday's post) and found this in some testimony that the Fund's Assistant Vice President, Sara R. Collins, gave to Congress not long ago about health savings accounts (HSAs) and high-deductible health plans (HDHPs):
The U.S. Treasury Department estimates that under current law only 14 million people will ever enroll in HSA-eligible HDHPs-still a relatively small share of the overall market.
The reference for that sentence is this Fact Sheet (PDF) from the Treasury Department. It says something a little different:
THE FUTURE…Last time I checked, "ever" isn't defined as "by 2010." Perhaps the Commonwealth Fund somehow knows that a massive asteroid is going to strike Earth on January 1 of the following year?14 million by 2010 -- Treasury Department projection of HSA policies (covering 25 to 30 million people) -- based on current law.
'You Have That Smirk on Your Face'
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 2:18PM
Do you mean that "I've been messing around with your wife"
smirk?
Re: Cross References
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 1:58PM
Vote for NBC's
"equivalent of a nun" (not for shooting purposes):
RE: Cross References
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 12:47PM
Paul, I think Christians should take a page from another's playbook. They should:
(1) Hold protests against NBC where they chant "Death to the NBC secularists."
(2) If NBC refuses to do the right thing, then Christians shold burn down local NBC affiliates, and
(3) Find NBC's equivalent of a nun and shoot her in the back.
Ryder Crush
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 10:31AM
As I've noted before, here, the United States increasingly is being embarrassed in international sports competition. This year's Ryder Cup in golf (a second straight outrageously huge shellacking by Europe over the USA, 18 1/2 9 1/2) again bears that out, as does the U.S. loss to Russia yesterday in the semi-finals of the Davis Cup, with top American Andy Roddick having lost both of his singles matches. To see how distressing the American golf situation is, though, we must look past even the Ryder Cup (which featured 11 30-somethings plus a 42-year-old for the Americans) to what is coming up behind this year's Cup participants. Bad news: Only two Americans in their 20s have won more than a single PGA tournament. First, there is Ben Curtis, with two somewhat lesser tour titles to go with his British Open win in 2003. I think he may actually develop into a semi-star. Then there is Vaughn Taylor, with only two wins, both of them at the same third-tier event played opposite a World Golf Championship event. Beyond that: Zilch, zip, nada, nothing.
Sure, everybody thinks young Charles Howell has the potential for excellence. But we've been saying that for about five years now, and still he has just one win. And some people are high on Lucas Glover, also a one-win guy but with a solid game and improving results. After that, you can go down to 46th on this year's money list to big-hitting JB Holmes. I'm unconvinced. There is also Sean O'Hair, he of the badly estranged father: Even I am high on this kid. And finally, there are the two Bubbas from Florida: Dickerson and Watson. Maybe they'll live up to their hype. Neither yet has a win, though.
In earlier eras, most (certainly not all, but most) of the tour's major starts established themselves in their 20s. Player was 28 when he won his first Masters. Nicklaus was a prodigy. Trevino was 28 when he won his first US Open. Ray Floyd won a PGA in his 20s. Tom Watson had at least three of his majors before age 30. Ben Crenshaw didn't win a major before 30 but did win a host of regular tourneys. And so on.
Theories abound as to why things look so bad and how to fix them. I subscribe partly to the theory that too many kids these days spend too much time on the practice range but not enough playing. They thus learn textbook swings, but not how to think their way around a course, not how to score, and not how to handle pressure. Then again, the other theory that, sadly, partly convinces me is that as a society we are growing soft. I hope I'm wrong. But I fear I'm right.
The Case Against Gridlock
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 10:20AM
Last week, I was speaking with the Club For Growth's Pat Toomey for an article on another topic, and he made a good point as to why gridlock caused by a Democratic takeover of Congress would be unlikely to restrain spending. Toomey noted that if Democrats take over, funding for the Iraq War is going to become a major bone of contention between Congress and the White House. If President Bush wants to get the Iraq War funded, it's unlikely that he'd be able to convince Speaker Nancy Pelosi to cut domestic spending too. Far more likely is a compromise whereby President Bush gets the Iraq spending he wants, but only if he agrees to a budget that grants more domestic spending to the Democrats' pet projects.
I'm sure this is an argument that has been made before, but I thought it was worth repeating given our ongoing discussion on the consequences of Republicans losing control. In my view, if spending is the only issue you care about, gridlock can work under certain conditions. But I'm not convinced that it would work in the current environment.
The Newly Happy Case of Frank Beckwith
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 10:13AM
TAS Contributor Frank Beckwith gets his tenure at Baylor after lengthy appeal!
And I couldn't be happier for Baylor and for Dr. Beckwith. This is a beautiful day for the man and the institution. There's hope that Robert Sloan's Baylor 2012 Vision is still intact. Many thanks to President Lilley and Provost Randall O'Brien for doing the right thing. Thanks also to the Regents of Baylor University.
Surprise: Bush Has Emotions
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 10:05AM
The Washington Post reports that President Bush actually feels bad when soldiers are killed.
His Lips Were Moving
Posted by on 9.25.06 @ 3:16AM
Shockingly, Bill Clinton said something yesterday that wasn't true.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Peared Down Labor Force
Posted by on 9.24.06 @ 9:39AM
The Wall Street Journal's editors say a border wall won't deter illegal workers. Northern California pear growers disagree.
Unintended Environmental Protection Consequences
Posted by on 9.24.06 @ 8:28AM
Protection plans for the red-cockaded woodpecker in a North Carolina town leads to massive clear-cutting of its trees.
Glenn, Give Us Urinalysis
Posted by on 9.24.06 @ 8:12AM
You just gotta love these "analysis" pieces The New York Times and The Washington Post crank out. Today The Post's Glenn Kessler dissects unfavorable opinion of the U.S. from other countries, as exhibited at the U.N. last week:
"Our peoples have a keen interest in the achievement of a larger measure of democracy, human rights and political reform," said Ahmed Aboul Gheit, foreign minister of Egypt, which receives more than $2 billion in annual aid from the United States. "However, we now see that some seek to impose these concepts by military force. They proceed from the assumption that their principles, values and culture are superior and thus worthy of being imposed on others."
No, only dictatorships are worthy of being imposed on others.It's so hard to believe that dictators, terrorists, and their corrupt coddlers at the U.N. just won't listen to us, isn't it? If these people lived in the U.S. they'd be in prison. Great "analysis!"
Curses, He Gets Lucky Again
Posted by on 9.24.06 @ 7:39AM
Four months ago soaring gas prices were President Bush's fault. Today, as we near the November election, they're falling, which The Washington Post's Dan Balz attributes to "good luck."
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- The Pearls of Pauline
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
