- Jan 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Feb 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–28
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Saturday, April 28, 2007
RE: Bat Science
Posted by on 4.28.07 @ 12:22PM
Phil: I think you gave up a little too quickly on the point regarding sodomy. How about banning gay men's sex clubs? It would be enforcable, wouldn't invade anyone's home, and would reduce "risky behavior with serious social costs." Think Adler would go for that?
Friday, April 27, 2007
Straight Talk Expressed
Posted by on 4.27.07 @ 5:13PM
John McCain just spoke to bloggers from Sioux City, Iowa, en route to Nevada today and later to Arizona, as part of his announcement tour. Jennifer Rubin asked McCain to respond to Mitt Romney's comments that hunting down Osama bin Laden wasn't worth the cost. While not referring to Romney directly, McCain said that Bin Laden is still an important figure, both symbolically and in terms of his ability to direct terrorist attacks. McCain said that he takes the Israeli view that if somebody "inflicts damage" on the country, "we'll follow them to the end of the earth." He said that to think Bin Laden isn't a sufficient threat to hunt down "displays naiveté." I asked McCain when the military would run out of money in Iraq without passage of an emergency supplemental bill (after any accounting gimmicks they could use to stretch the funds). He said, "The absolute drop dead date will be early June," but that doesn't provide the full picture because the military has to be able to order equipment in advance and plan for the short, medium, and long term. "Every day that goes by there's a degree of uncertainty," he said.
Ryan Sager asked McCain his position on the New Hampshire civil union legislation, which Romney and now even Rudy Giuliani have opposed. McCain said that while he thinks the issue should be left to the states, were he a citizen of New Hampshire he would have opposed the bill because it undermines the sanctity of marriage.
Ann Althouse asked McCain what he would look for in a Supreme Court justice. In addition to the usual lines about wanting to appoint somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution, he said he would look for somebody who has real world experience as well as judicial experience. That might mean somebody with a background of serving in the military, a corporation, or a small business.
Also, when asked what blue states he could put in play, he mentioned California, stressing that he's from the west and understand the issues that are important there. He said Republicans could not afford to write off the biggest state. He also mentioned Pennsylvania and said winning New York may even be possible.
Rudy in Raleigh
Posted by on 4.27.07 @ 3:49PM
Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican presidential candidate
speaking at a conference this weekend for conservatives
in Raleigh (Heath Shuler's speaking, too, and yes, I said
"conservative conference"). The mayor, in a lunchtime speech today,
knocked the Democrats who debated last night, especially on the
issues of health care and education:
"I'll be darned if I'm going to concede that Democrats care more about poor people than we do," Giuliani said during his brief base-building trip to the home state of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
Giuliani said Democratic calls for mandatory universal health care would only exacerbate the cost of care by putting the system in the hands of bureaucrats.
"They're moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin," Giuliani said of the debate, adding that private competition and limits on malpractice lawsuits could help bring down the cost of care. "When we want to cover poor people, as we should, we give them vouchers."
About Those Tax Cuts
Posted by on 4.27.07 @ 2:07PM
An interesting analysis of the stock market's performance after the 2003 pro-growth Bush tax cuts.
RE: Rudy and Civil Unions
Posted by on 4.27.07 @ 11:54AM
Maybe he's taking my advice and applying it issues other than abortion.
Say It Ain't So, Rudy
Posted by on 4.27.07 @ 11:09AM
Ryan Sager reports:
"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."
While the Giuliani campaign is likely to split hairs over how close this specific legislation is to marriage, the one thing that's supposed to be unique about Rudy is that unlike the typical politician, he doesn't split hairs--he's up front and direct. He has always said he supports civil unions conceptually, and now he's giving a lawyerly answer about an actual law.Beyond my personal disappointment with this new position, I don't really see the rationale for it from a purely political perspective. It's hard to see how opposition to this single law will win him any new friends on the right given his long history of supporting civil unions and domestic partnerships. Social conservatives who vote on gay marriage will not be supporting Rudy anyway. At the same time, he may see his support errode among socially libertarian voters and those who respect him for not being a panderer.
Bat Science
Posted by on 4.27.07 @ 10:42AM
The discussion on this site regarding the ban of metal baseball bats in New York City has focused purely on the nanny state aspects of the law, but via the NY-based blog Alarming News run by my friend Karol, I see this priceless email exchange between a NYC Councilman's Office and a professor that undercuts the scientific justification for the ban. Since Tapped's Ben Adler claims that libertarian/conservatives get so caught up in our silly notions of individual liberty that we are incapable of judging each policy on its own merits, I figured I'd pass this along.
Some backgrround. Last October, less than a week before a hearing on the bill, the chief of staff for "Republican" Councilman James Oddo, a proponent of the ban, frantically emailed Dartmouth engineering professor Richard Greenwald, who is executive director of the National Institute of Sports and Science Safety and had studied the differences between metal and wooden bats.
"We are currently in need of scientific information that states that aluminum bats outperform wood bats," the chief or staff wrote. "We are very much aware of the study you conducted in 2002 that stated that aluminum bats produced faster batted ball speeds in part due to faster swings and greater elastic properties found in nearly all the aluminum bats. We think it would be beneficial to explain that data at the hearing." He asked Greenwald to attend the hearing.
Here, in part, was Greenwald's response:
My apologies for not being able to attend or provide info for this meeting. I am curious about the outcome, however. I think the information I would have provided may not have been exactly what you might have hoped for. Here's the short version:
1) Our published research did show that some, but not all, aluminum bats tested did outperform wood bats in terms of batted ball speed.
2) However, I think in your email below, you mix the notion of increased batted ball speed (a metric of performance) with safety. This is a significant concern for me. I am not aware of any published peer-reviewed scientific data that supports the notion that there has been an increase in injuries related to being struck by a batted ball in baseball or softball at any level of play due to increased batted ball speed or bat performance. Baseball and softball appear to have remained at the very low end of the injury incidence lists.
3) I have stated publicly that the notion of limiting the use of bats to wood only is reasonable if a governing body wants to control some aspects of the game such as run production or game time based on the fact that non-wood bats often outperform wood bats. However, I would oppose any statement that linked such a limitation on using non-wood bats to injury, simply because there are no scientific data to support this contention. This is an important and overlooked point - I urge Councilman Oddo to consider this as you move forward.
Why let science get in the way of a good nanny state law?Broder, Reid, Blogosphere
Posted by on 4.27.07 @ 8:28AM
David Broder has written that Harry Reid should abdicate the Senate Majority Leader's position.
I think this event deserves a discussion of the media context.
Let me start simply this way. David Broder is the "unchallenged dean" of the Washington commentariat. No op-ed columnist has enjoyed the respect and prestige David Broder has. (I don't need to go further to tell you that Broder is nobody's conservative.)
This is the man who has called for the resignation of one Harry Reid.
Once upon a time, this Broder pronouncement might well have created a tidal wave. Harry Reid might have been halfway out the door by the afternoon of the Broder column's publication. In short, Harry Reid might have been given the full Trent Lott treatment on a matter much more richly deserving it.
The case is easy to make and Broder made it. Reid conducts himself in an aggressively boorish manner. In an apparently desperate bid to be invited to the next Yearly Kos meeting, he recently yelped that "The war is lost," despite the fact that we have poured a rather large amount of blood and treasure into Iraq, the fact that the United States is never outgunned, but only loses its nerve, and the fact that there are several million Iraqis hoping we don't pull a cute Vietnam-style see ya later (and quite a few terrorists who hope we do). Reid badly undermined us with both enemies and allies.
Broder said all this (just a little more nicely than me, but not much) and Pejman and I have to share the news. It did not generate its own massive press explosion. I'm not sure Broder's announcement will mean more than Mark Levin's a few days ago. To a person who remembers life before the blogosphere, that's a little surprising.
(Personally, I pray the Democrats fall to common sense and send Reid to the back benches. David Broder is not the enemy of the Democrat party. He probably lifted a toast on that unhappy November night last year. They should heed his advice.)
But guys like David Broder don't carry the influence they once did. I can think of no position in the established media that has been more thoroughly damaged by the internet than the once small ranks of op-ed columnists. Not so long ago, there were just a handful of political column writers who could hope to influence national opinion. In the age of the internet, the ranks of well-educated opiners with something to say are legion and they are constantly cranking out content. The democratization of discourse is in effect.
Broder's column may just sink beneath the waves of the opinion ocean. It's too bad. Because this time (no, it's not the only time) the dean is right.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
He's Coming for Rudy, McCain, and Mitt
Posted by on 4.26.07 @ 7:02PM
Jim Gilmore makes it official -- he's in the 2008 Republican presidential race.
Quin has written about Gilmore for the Spectator; so has Melanie Harmon.
RE: First They Came for the Metal Bats
Posted by on 4.26.07 @ 6:58PM
This really isn't even a theoretical discussion. Some social conservatives do make public-health arguments in favor of legally discouraging homosexuality, citing STD statistics. Even consensual gay sex was once prohibited through sodomy laws in every state, albeit usually on moral grounds. The last of these state laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas.
The point isn't that there aren't any relevant distinctions that can be made between various behaviors or the effectiveness and fairness of trying to ban them. It's simply that liberals and conservatives alike should learn to be more careful about giving the government powers they aren't going to want to see exercised when the other side is in charge.
Paul Begala is a Gasbag
Posted by on 4.26.07 @ 5:26PM
Paul Begala today has written one of the nastiest, most despicable columns I've seen in some time. David Broder is no conservative, by any means, but he is justly revered as a thoughtful, fair-minded, old-fashioned, shoe-leather journalist. Of course, a hit-man like Begala can't stand people who actually try to uphold standards of decency and old-fashioned values, so he calls Broder a "gas-bag." Physician, heal thyself.
I met Begala the other day at CNN. I actually made the mistake of introducing myself to him as if he were a decent human being. He even acted, in terms of surface-level politeness, like a decent human being, albeit one who had no desire to actually engage in conversation with an actual conservative. I was trying to talk about bipartisanship. He kept staring at a computer screen. He was probably looking for more evidence that center-left establishmentarians are actually members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Gasbag.
Re: Slam Dunk This Creep
Posted by on 4.26.07 @ 4:36PM
Tenet's whining is hilarious.
Tenet says it was a passing comment, made well after major decisions had already been made to mobilize the nation for war....The point of invoking the "slam dunk" phrase is that it is illustrative of how the CIA read the intel. Sure, the decision had already been made to mobilizing for war -- based in part on intelligence gathered and analyzed by the agency that Tenet was in charge of. Heaven forbid that Tenet ever admit to himself that he's in any way responsible for that."I'll never believe that what happened that day informed the president's view or belief of the legitimacy or the timing of this war. Never!"
"And the hardest part of all this has been just listening to this for almost three years, listening to the vice president go on "Meet the Press" on the fifth year [anniversary] of 9/11 and say, 'Well, George Tenet said slam dunk' as if he needed me to say 'slam dunk' to go to war with Iraq," he tells Pelley.
First They Came for the Metal Bats
Posted by on 4.26.07 @ 3:52PM
Ben Adler responds to my post in which I criticized his defense of banning the use of metal baseball bats in
Adler writes:
While Klein doesn't subscribe to the homophobic policy position, his comparison suggests an awfully backwards view of homosexuality. Since sexual orientation is part of one's intrinsic identity, banning sodomy is more analogous to banning a religious ritual than smoking in bars or swinging metal baseball bats. But apparently to the conservative way of thinking they are equally deserving of protection, at best.
Klein makes his criticism sound like a serious statement of consistent principle, but one would hope he's smart enough to realize the silliness of this comparison and is really just being facetious. First of all, a sodomy ban, unlike bans on smoking in bars and metal bats in high school baseball, is totally unenforceable because of the infinite number of locations where the act can take place. Secondarily, to enforce it would require invasions of people's personal homes, which none of the
New York laws in question do, so the infraction on liberty is clearly an order of magnitude greater. I would not support a ban on smoking or consuming transfats in one's home for this reason. It would be nice if conservatives like Klein debated a policy on its actual merits, instead of invoking this kind of fatuous slippery slope argumentation.
I wouldn't deny that gay sex is more important to somebody who was born homosexual than the use of a metal bat is to a high school baseball player. Nor would I deny that sodomy laws are more difficult--if not impossible--to enforce, and more intrusive to somebody's privacy. My point was a much narrower one. In his initial post, Alder had characterized the conservative/libertarian position as: "engaging in risky behavior with serious social costs is an entitlement." He then set out to reject this view by arguing that the medical costs imposed on society via emergency room payments, Medicare bills, etc. provide a green light for government to regulate risky behavior. So, in response, I tried to think of an activity that could be considered risky behavior that Adler and I would agree shouldn't be regulated. But now that he has offered an additional set of conditions that need to be satisfied to warrant legitimate government regulation, I can come up with a few more examples.
Adler's first condition is that the behavior has to be "risky" and impose "serious social costs." Given that Adler believes the use of metal baseball bats qualifies as having "serious social costs," I would say there's a pretty low threshold to satisfy that initial condition. After that, the law has to be practically enforceable, limited to certain locations, and not overly invasive into people's private space. So, with that said, I don't see why the City Council should stop with banning metal bats, when substituting softballs for baseballs would do much more to reduce the risk of injury, and would satisfy all of Adler's other conditions. Similarly, we could ban skateboarding and rollerblading in public parks. And get rid of high school football altogether.
Adler may respond that I am just using a slippery slope argument rather than discussing the merits of the policy at hand. But the reason why I use a slippery slope is that it takes a lot of creativity to imagine the types of behaviors do-gooders will want to regulate. More government begets more government. And over time, those regulations become sillier and more intrusive. It wasn't too long ago that smoking was allowed on airplanes, and the smoking/no-smoking sign would flash on and off like the seatbelt sign. Given the enclosed space of an airplane, and the fact that stale air is constantly re-circulating, prohibiting smoking on airplanes sounds pretty reasonable. But now, smoking bans in bars and restaurants are common, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. In
In closing, let me point out that I'm actually a non-smoker. I hate inhaling second hand smoke and am annoyed when I come back from a smoke-filled bar smelling like cigarettes. But I'd much rather smell like cigarettes than live in a society where somebody can't relax in a bar and have a cigarette with their beer. I feel this way not only because I believe in liberty as a moral good and an end in and of itself, but selfishly because I know it's only a matter of time before the government prevents me from engaging some behaviors I do enjoy.
(P.S. As a baseball purist, I also think metal bats are a disgrace.)
Slam Dunk This Creep
Posted by on 4.26.07 @ 2:59PM
Former CIA chief George Tenet sounds like the whiniest, sorriest little whimperer ever in this tidbit reported on Drudge. He complains that it's just not fair for his comment about the "slam-dunk case" on Iraq's WMDs to be used against him. Aww, poor little man. Here's a worthless apparatchik who did a terrible job at the CIA on multiple fronts, complaining that somebody actually had the gall to think that a CIA chief talking about a slam-dunk case should be taken at his word that it was a slam dunk case. Gee. The fact is that then-Senate Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama had long said that Tenet was a disaster, and had long urged his replacement, way, way before President George W. Bush finally let Tenet go. Shelby was right. Why Bush kept Tenet is a real mystery. But that is Bush's Achilles Heel: He keeps appointees on board even if they prove themselves to be not up to the task at hand. Bush apparently believes that loyalty is a virtue and its exercise a good deed, even when loyalty runs into other values such as competence. Well, Tenet's new book shows that no good deed goes unpunished. Bush was loyal to Tenet and kept him on board -- quite wrongly -- in the face of much criticism. In return, Tenet takes a dump on Bush. Tenet is a creep.
Eyeball-Fly Foreign Policy
Posted by on 4.26.07 @ 1:58PM
Cofer Black was a top CIA counter-terrorism official on 9/11.Mr. Black, your ideas are intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.It was in that capacity that, per Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," he told President Bush of what he planned to do with the evil-doers.
"We're going to kill them. We're going to put their heads on sticks. When we're through with them they will have flies walking across their eyeballs."
The flies-on-the-eyeballs guy will now be advising Romney on national security.
Giuliani and Israel
Posted by on 4.26.07 @ 8:50AM
Via the NY Sun, I see this story from the Jewish Voice and Opinion which quotes Rudy Giuliani talking about Israel at a recent fundraiser:
"Hamas or Abbas, it makes no difference. The ball is in their court, and we just have to show patience and not push any peace process until they do what they have to do," said Mr. Giuliani.
What they have to do, he said, is, at the very minimum, to recognize Israelï's right to exist and to renounce terrorism. Then, he said, Israel and the US should sit back and see if they mean it.
"They don't just have to say the words. Anyone can say the words. They have to show that they are ending terrorism; they have to show that they are doing what they have to do to end terrorism. I'm a strong proponent of the philosophy that we can trust, but we have to verify," he said. "If all that happens, then it will lead naturally to a peace process, but we have to wait patiently until they are ready to make it happen. And no one should make any concessions to the Palestinians until they take those steps."
It shouldn't be any surprise, given his history, that Giuliani is staking out the most pro-Israel position of any presidential candidate in either party. This is pretty much the classic Likud position, and will rankle those who argue the U.S. should be more engaged in negotiations between the Israelis and "moderate" Palestinian leaders. As I have written before: "To the delight of some and anger of others, President Bush has probably been the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. But compared to a President Giuliani, Bush would look like Jimmy Carter."
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Dems Are Not Afraid...
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 10:59PM
...as long as no one can hear them, or so Howard Dean says.
Roberts Rules
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 5:58PM
The death penalty cases that the Supreme Court handed down today don't strike me as a big deal, just some tinkering around the edges. But Chief Justice Roberts had a smart and funny dissent; Ed Whelan highlights some excerpts. (Note the Latin play on words.)
Giuliani vs. Huckabee?
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 5:18PM
In his current column about how Giuliani's social liberalism will play in Peoria, Terry Jeffrey is on the scene at the Spartanburg, South Carolina straw poll and the American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast.
Liberty Strikes Out
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 4:22PM
Over at Tapped, Ben Adler criticizes Spectator contributor Paul Beston for his piece in the City Journal, in which Beston takes
Adler writes:
This clearly expresses a fundamental tenet of conservative/libertarian thinking: that engaging in risky behavior with serious social costs is an entitlement. People who are injured by metal bats, or fall ill from smoking or fatty food, cost the rest of us money. We pay their emergency room bill, their Medicare bills or their Social Security disablity insurance. Only someone willing to forgo those benefits should have the right to also opt out of public health laws like those passed by the New York City Council, or pre-existing ones requiring that motorcyclists wear helmets and drivers wear seat belts. But Beston, like all conservatives, makes no serious suggestion about offering such an option in our society (much less explaining how it would be practically possible.) Instead he merely sneers at the
government's efforts to lower the costs that he, like all other taxpayers, will ultimately bear (and that, should rising health costs force the government to raise taxes, Beston and City Journal would surely bray against as well). New York City
Here is a prime example of how creating a system of government entitlements adds a social dimension to individual choices and therefore provides a pretext for the state to interfere with every aspect of people's lives. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are intended to provide healthcare and financial support to poor, elderly, and disabled Americans who would otherwise have a difficult time fending for themselves. But liberals have increasingly been able to use the fact that taxpayers subsidize other people's healthcare as a justification for expanding the paternalistic nature of the state. We saw that with lawsuits against tobacco companies in the 1990s, and we're seeing it with smoking bans, the war on obesity, and now even regulating the types of baseball bats teenagers can use. There is no end in sight. Once the precedent is set that government can restrict or prohibit any behavior an individual engages in that is potentially detrimental to his or her own health, there's no limit to the infringements on liberty that are possible. And this cuts both ways. If liberals say that government can regulate "risky behavior" that imposes medical costs on taxpayers, using the same logic, proponents of sodomy laws could argue in favor of banning homosexual sex because it puts sexual partners at increased risk for getting AIDS. To be clear, I am adamantly opposed to sodomy laws, but my opposition is rooted in the same principle that prompts me to oppose banning smoking, trans-fats, and metal baseball bats. That principle is: liberty.
The Audacity of Fear
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 4:22PM
Isaac Chotiner notes that, responding to Giuliani's argument that we'd be safer with a Republican in office, Barack Obama said that "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low" -- then proceeded to argue that we'd be safer with a Democrat in office.
The Gun Law That Should Have Stopped Cho...
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 2:53PM
...is already on the books. When one reads this News Hour transcript, it's striking how little daylight there is between Dave Kopel, the libertarian gun-rights defender, and Matt Bennett, the center-left gun control advocate (I say "center-left" because Bennett's Americans for Gun Safety aims to provide a moderate alternative to the shrill, ban-them-all mania that grips most of the gun control movement). Kopel and Bennett agree that Cho Seung-Hui should have been prevented from buying a gun based on his history of mental illness.
Federal law, BATF regulations, and federal judicial precedent all hold that if someone is found by a magistrate to be a danger to others or to himself (as the state magistrate in Virginia determined that Cho was), he is barred from owning a gun. The fact that the magistrate that evaluated Cho's case recommended outpatient treatmant rather than commitment shouldn't have mattered. The problem is that state magistrates and mental health professionals aren't always aware that a situation like Cho's calls for an update to the instant background check database.
It looks like Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is going to sign an executive order that will fix this problem. Good for him; other governors should do the same.
Meanwhile, there has been movement in Tennessee toward rolling back the ill-advised "gun-free zones" that I discussed in my column last week. It is a welcome surprise that, rather than symbolic or counterproductive regulations, this tragedy seems to be inspiring responses that are actually constructive.
Reagan and Obama
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 2:46PM
Over at TCS, occasional Spectator contributor Sean Higgins declares: "Obama is the black Ronald Reagan."
John McCain Is Running For President
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 2:06PM
I know this is the most shocking news of the year, but a certain Arizona Senator announced today that he's running for president. You can read the whole speech here. One thing that I found interesting is that it provides a preview of how McCain intends to distance himself from President Bush without going so far that it would alienate the Republican base. Given the president's low approval ratings, this is a tight rope that all the candidates will have to walk.
McCain said:
"We all know the war in Iraq has not gone well. We have made mistakes and we have paid grievously for them. We have changed the strategy that failed us, and we have begun to make a little progress. But in the many mistakes we have made in this war, a few lessons have become clear. America should never undertake a war unless we are prepared to do everything necessary to succeed, unless we have a realistic and comprehensive plan for success, and unless all relevant agencies of government are committed to that success. We did not meet this responsibility initially. And we must never repeat that mistake again.
"We must also prepare, far better than we have, to respond quickly and effectively to another terrorist attack or natural calamity. When Americans confront a catastrophe, natural or man-made, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency. They won't accept government's failure to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies or rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. They won't accept substandard care and indifference for wounded veterans.
"That's not good enough for America. And when I'm President, it won't be good enough for me.
He used the last line as a refrain throughout the speech, as he went on to discuss spending, entitlements, taxes and dependence on foreign energy sources.
In honor of his campaign announcement, his friends over at the Club for Growth are showing him some love.
Ron Paul Says He's the One To Unite the GOP
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 1:45PM
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the anti-war conservative and libertarian cult figure, dropped by Grover Norquist's Wednesday meeting to discuss why "the Republican Party is in a lot of trouble," and why he's the presidential candidate who can get the party out of it. Paul, who just signed Norquist's taxpayer protection pledge, said that in order to win a candidate has to be able to put together a coalition of Christian conservatives and economic libertarians. On foreign policy, his main point of departure from the Republican base, Paul said that traditionally, the Republican Party has been one of peace and it has historical won elections by beating Democrats who got America too involved overseas. Republicans cannot win in 2008 by sticking with a position on Iraq that is opposed by 70 percent of Americans, he said. In addition, Paul advocated talking to Iran and Syria, and said that the people who accuse those who oppose the war of being isolationists are actually "diplomatic isolationists." Paul also said that our current policy toward Israel does the Israelis no favors, and if we stopped sending them money it would encourage them to speak with "moderate Arabs." The congressman did not elaborate on which moderate Arabs he had in mind.
A Coming First Amendment Victory?
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 1:43PM
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports that in oral arguments today, Scalia and Roberts seemed eager to trim back the most offensive of McCain-Feingold's "reforms," the ban on "electioneering" ads in the 60 days before an election. We know, based on their opinions in McConnell v. FEC, that Thomas and Kennedy both think that ban is unconstitutional. My guess is that Alito makes five votes to either overturn the ban or narrow its scope.
The Leaping Giant
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 12:14AM
The NY Times profiles Walter Thomas, a mountain of a
defensive tackle with only two games of college playing experience
in the last two years who is turning the heads of NFL scouts before
this weekend's draft because of his combination of freakish size
and agility:
Big Walt, as he is known, is a 6-foot-5 defensive tackle who wears a size XXXXXXL jersey. He bench presses 475 pounds and squats 800 pounds. Weight lifters at the Galveston Health and Racquet Club stop their workouts to watch him.
Football teams everywhere are filled with big men, but many of them can barely move. Thomas has run the 40-yard dash in 4.9 seconds, faster than some N.F.L. tight ends. He is the rare tackle who can catch a running back from behind.
"The guy is a dadgum Russian gymnast," said Randy Pippin, the head coach at Northwest Mississippi.
Thomas's flexibility has become part of his lore. He does handstands and handsprings, broad jumps and cartwheels. When he gets excited, he will do a back flip.
Stay tuned.Thompson Debuts in the YouTube Wars
Posted by on 4.25.07 @ 12:05AM
An AmSpecBlog commenter has pointed out a recently uploaded YouTube clip of Fred Thompson expressing his views on abortion in what I assume* to be a 1994 U.S. Senate debate. Because his historical views on abortion have been the subject of a lot of discussion on this blog, I decided to transcribe his remarks in full:
THOMPSON: I do not believe that the federal government ought to
be involved in that process. I think that we should not have
federal funding for abortion. I think that states ought to be able
to have reasonable controls over that in terms of parental
notification, which I believe my opponent has opposed in times
past. As far as notice requirements and things like that are
concerned, I believe those are reasonable. I think that when you
get right down to the question you posed: should a government come
in and criminalize let's say a young girl and her parents and her
doctor, which as aiders and abeters that would be involved? I think
not. I think that problem is going to be ultimately resolved, and I
think favorably, in the hearts and minds and communities and
families across America. We're learning more about it, and what it
does to women and so forth. And I think that battle will be won,
but it shouldn't be a political football, and it shouldn't be won
in the courts.
If this is representative of the types of statements Thompson was making during the period in which he was considered pro-choice, I think he'll be able to handle the abortion issue rather deftly. This is nowhere near as damaging as the clips that have surfaced of Mitt Romney in 1994 and 2002, and if anything, the clip shows Thompson has been a longtime advocate of federalism. Also, his statement that "we're learning more about it" gives him wiggle room to say that he has become more pro-life over time (especially given his babies' sonograms).
*I assume this video clip is from 1994 because Thompson is
identified onscreen as a "U.S. Senate Candidate" rather than as a
U.S. Senator, so this made me conclude that it had to be from his
initial Senate run.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Re: Fear Obama
Posted by on 4.24.07 @ 6:25PM
PK - quite right. The natural Republican instinct is to think of an Obama run with a colossal wave of morphine-like relief -- Hillary will never be President. I would share that relief. And I do not think in a national democratic primary Hillary would come out on top; we are, all of us, red and blue, sick to death of dynastic American politics, or at any rate of Bush-Clinton regressive tradesies.
That said there is no reason why Republicans oughtn't rise to the challenge Obama presents -- for all its gauzy sentimentality, a serious and fair challenge. Confronting a non-Hillary does not leave Republicans with the luxury of framing the election as a battle of age-old hatreds, crony machines, and worst nightmares. This, I daresay, would be an unmitigated good for American politics. There is no doubt in my mind that having Obama instead of Clinton at the top of the Demo ticket in '08 would elevate the national game in every way conceivable, and any Republican candidate worth his salt ought to see that as a prime time to shine.
Coming To A Restroom Near You
Posted by on 4.24.07 @ 5:15PM
You'll soon have to share the bathroom stall with an EPA bureaucrat who will monitor how much toilet paper you use, if Sheryl Crow has her way:
Crow has suggested using "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required."
You know, Sheryl Crow really knows how to take the fun out of things.
Safety First
Posted by on 4.24.07 @ 1:44PM
While he's laid up in the hospital indefinitely, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's staff is promoting his safety initiatives:
Unless, of course, we're talking about Imus and Rutgers women's basketball.
Fear Obama
Posted by on 4.24.07 @ 12:14PM
I just read the prepared text of Barack Obama's foreign policy address in Chicago yesterday, and while I disagree with the policy implications, I think it's quite effective as a political speech and reinforces my belief that he isn't just a flash in the pan, but a formidable presidential candidate.
Substantively, the speech was anchored by five main foreign policy points: ending the Iraq War, increasing the size of the military, conducting a international effort to stop the spread of WMD, rebuilding global alliances, and doubling foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012 as part of an effort to combat the "root causes" of terrorism.
Though I did not hear it delivered, the text was not dominated by the type of angry anti-Bush rhetoric that often overwhelms Democratic political speeches. To be sure, he did say: "This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open." But much of the speech wasn't about bashing the president or blaming America, but on celebrating the tradition of America's leadership role in the world. "I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth," he said. "We just have to show the world why this is so." Toward the end of the speech he said: "Now it's our moment to lead - our generation's time to tell another great American story."
Another thing that Obama has going for him is he is a candidate with a very clear brand--his message of spreading hope and opportunity is integrated into both his foreign and domestic policy, and is rooted in his life story.
By no means am I jumping on the Obama bandwagon, but I think conservatives have largely underestimated him. Conservatives have been so geared up for a Hillary Clinton candidacy, that they run the risk of getting caught flat-footed by Obama. And Republicans cannot hope to win by making hay out of his middle name, connecting him to a madrassa, or assuming he's a fad that will quickly pass. Clinton may have a powerful political machine behind her, but I fear her less because she doesn't make progressive ideas sound very good. If she were elected and sought to implement liberal policies, Republicans could portray her as a radical and thwart her efforts as they did on HillaryCare in 1993/94. Obama's charisma, oratorical skills, and sunny optimism would not only make him tough to beat in a general election, but were he elected, he'd be a much stronger advocate for progressive policies. He has the ability to make liberalism sound appealing in the way Reagan made conservatism sound appealing.
When I talk to conservatives who are dismissive of Obama, I am
reminded of that Bob Dylan line: Something is happening here, but
you don't know what it is.
Agreeing With Schumer
Posted by on 4.24.07 @ 10:10AM
I HATE to agree with any word that the cheap-shot artist, media hound, raving lefty Charles Schumer says, but his quote at the bottom of this article is, unfortunately, on target -- or, rather, it would have been on target if he had spoken of what Iraq was like in the past tense, circa last summer, before the surge. But the point is that President Bush, for all his good intentions, remains too concerned about not letting down his close advisors rather than being able to distinguish what's best for his advisors from what is best for the country. He stuck WAY WAY WAY too long with the obviously doomed "small footprint" strategy in Iraq, and he is sticking too long with Attorney General Gonzales. He keeps saying that Gonzales should stay on because he did nothing "improper," meaning improper as a matter of law or ethics. But that is a low standard indeed. The important question isn't whether he did anything improper, but if he is serving the country well. Frankly, I have yet to see a single exposition, much less a convincing one, of his accomplishments as attorney general. He just seems overwhelmed with the job. His appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday was an utter embarrassment, showing an AG who is completely out of touch with significant responsibilities. No, he should not resign for ethical improprieties, of which there are none, but he should be replaced, for the same reason given for the US Attorneys who were replaced, namely that the nation needs fresher, more competent, more hands=on management at the Department of Justice.
Of Union Goons
Posted by on 4.24.07 @ 9:39AM
I just want to add my voice in support of Doug Bandow's excellent piece on union elections. How anybody, and I do mean ANYbody, can look themselves in the mirror after saying that it is a fair thing to GET RID OF SECRET BALLOTS is beyond me. I'm all for workers' rights -- which is why I am for their right to do the ordinary thing in a country with republican (small 'r') traditions: Vote by secret ballot. The legislation at hand would take that away, and every Member of Congress who votes for it should have that vote hung around his neck like a scarlet letter -- and punished for it by the voters.
Hamas Renounces Ceasefire
Posted by on 4.24.07 @ 9:25AM
Hamas has started launching Kassam's again. Israel said the rocket firing was an attempt to create a diversion so Hamas could kidnap another Israeli soldier.
David Halberstam, RIP
Posted by on 4.24.07 @ 8:33AM
Journalist and author David Halberstam was killed in a car crash yesterday.
He is probably best known for his work on the Vietnam War, The Best And The Brightest. However, his works Summer of '49 and October 1964 are two of the best books on baseball ever written.
Monday, April 23, 2007
More Huckabee
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 7:27PM
In addition to taking jabs at his rivals this morning, Mike Huckabee explained some of his policy views.
He said that his criteria for taxes are that they should be: flatter, fairer, finite and family friendly. Typically, when people talk about a flat tax, they do so in the context of discussing tax simplification. I asked Huckabee how he could reconcile making the tax code simple with a desire to make it more family friendly, which often involves tax credits. (Personally, I believe in the principle of tax neutrality, i.e., that the tax code should be used exclusively for raising revenue, not for social engineering experiments). But Huckabee disagreed that there was an inherent contradiction between making the tax code family friendly and making it flatter, and pointed to ending the marriage penalty as an example of a policy that accomplishes both.
When discussing gun control in the wake of Virginia Tech, he invoked the Bible, as he did on several other occasions. He said when Cain killed Abel, God didn't call for "club control." God understood the issue "was evil in the heart of Cain, not evil in the substance of the club," Huckabee said.
On foreign policy, in a break from the Bush Administration, he called for talks with Iran and Syria. Huckabee said that talking isn't the same as negotiating, and if we were to at least talk to Iran, even if it didn't lead anywhere, it would give the U.S. more credibility with the international community if we eventually had to take military action against Iran. He also said we should have more discussions with Russia. And, tugging at the heart strings of your humble correspondent, he quoted from the Godfather Part II: "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer."
For a take on his comments about the South Korean free trade agreement, check out the Club for Growth. Human Events has more on the Huckabee talk here.
Mobile Press-Register Blasts Reid
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 6:22PM
My former newspaper, the Press Register of Mobile, Alabama, does a terrific job in blasting Harry Reid in this editorial. It's well worth a read, to see what a good, hard-hitting, conservative editorial looks like. Even though I had nothing to do with this editorial, it makes me proud to have worked there.
Fred Thompson Puts The Smack Down on Ponnuru
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 5:51PM
Fred Thompson looks more and more like he's in the early stages of an unconventional run for the presidency. Today on RedState, Thompson responds to a Ramesh Ponnuru column from last Friday in which Ponnuru criticized Thompson's support for tort reform. Kudos to Thompson for tackling Ponnuru's points head on, and offering a thorough response devoid of the usual spin. His post ends with an eloquent defense of federalism:
As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don't)…
Adhering to the principles of Federalism is not easy. As one who was on the short end of a couple of 99-1 votes, I can personally attest to it. Federalism sometimes restrains you from doing things you want to do. You have to leave the job to someone else - who may even choose not to do it at all. However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.
If Thompson doesn't end up running for president, he'll make a great blogger.
UPDATE: Ponnuru strikes back.
Oaths and a Prediction
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 5:31PM
John, what does that make of President Bush, who signed McCain-Feingold in the supposition that it would be overturned by the Supreme Court?
A prediction: Sales of easily-concealable small handguns will increase, as more people decide to carry surreptitiously and very carefully in "gun free zones."
Fund on Judges
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 3:39PM
For those who still hope that President Bush will get one more crack at appointing a Supreme Court justice, John Fund's column in Saturday's Wall Street Journal is a must read, for two reasons. First, it shows just how important judges are at all levels of government. In this case, Fund concentrates on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a highly interesting analysis. The second reason is that a central character of Fund's piece is federal Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes, formerly of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Sykes figures prominently on the short list of those whom Bush might appoint if given the chance. She would be an excellent choice.
Help the Troops
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 2:24PM
Help the Troops. For details, see this press release. For a reminder of what the Armed Forces Foundation does, see this.
Boris the Great
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 1:56PM
The free world should say a prayer today in gratitude for the life of former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, dead at 76. His own mercurial nature, reported alcohol problems, and some behaviors that bordered on buffoonery have all, quite unfortunately, obscured the truth that this was a man who did more than anybody this side of Reagan and Pope John Paul II to kill the Soviet menace. The Left loves to credit Gorbachev, of course, and there is a sense in which Gorby deserves some credit. He was a reformer and a man of sanity who wanted to avoid a nuclear conflagration. But he remained a Communist apparatchik and tried mightily to keep the Soviet Communist state intact. It was Yeltsin who was the republican reformer -- and Yeltsin who was the braver man. While Gorby meekly went under House arrest as Soviet hardliners tried to reconstitute the Stalinist nature of the Soviet state, it was Yeltsin who risked his life to climb attack a tank and dare the tank to kill him in front of the reformist/republican crowds gathered around. It was Yeltsin who tried (very incompetently, but with utter sincerity) to bring the free market to Russia. It was Yeltsin who beat back another attempted coup by hardline Communists. It was Yeltsin who tried to strengthen ties with the West.
No, Yeltsin was not a very good head of state. But he was a great man, brave and freedom-loving. May he rest in the Lord's peace and in the fond memories of freedom-loving peoples for all time.
Still a Huckster
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 1:09PM
In addition to reading the excellent reporting James Antle has done on the record of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (who spoke at a Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast this morning that I unfortunately had to miss), readers ought to listen to those of us who actually covered the Huckster in Arkansas. I repeat what I have reported in numerous earlier blog entries, namely that Huckabee is a bit of a skunk in a rose garden. Not only is he not a fiscal conservative (as Antle has shown), but he has an ethical blind spot a mile wide. It's not that he is personally corrupt, but that he has the attitude that, in effect, his own rectitude automatically extends to everybody in his entire administration and that anybody who questions the ethics of any of his underlings is therefore a lying muckraker. Of course, not all his appointees have been so pure, yet Huckabee again and again would defend the appointees rather than defending the cause of ethical propriety. Once, he even sued the state Ethics Commission (!!!) -- not only a legally questionable move, but an incredibly stupid move politically. He also has ths thinnest skin of almost any politician I've ever covered, meaning the Washington press corps would surely cause him to fly off the handle in an utterly unproductive way.
RE: Huckabee
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 12:55PM
Phil will probably get into this in his post about policy, but at today's breakfast Huckabee presented himself as a fiscal conservative. He didn't mention Arkansas' tax increases during his administration but emphasized his record of broad-based tax cuts. He said he has always supported the Bush tax cuts, a subtle dig at John McCain and (to a lesser extent) Mitt Romney, and wants to make them permanent. And he advocated a tax code that is "fair, flatter, finite, and family-friendly."
The details of these proposals and Huckabee's past record notwithstanding, there was very little in his remarks this morning that reflected the big government conservatism I wrote about earlier this year.
Re: Huckabee
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 12:27PM
If Giuliani is "left-of-center," what does that make Huckabee? On taxes and spending, Huckabee is easily to the left of Giuliani -- and every other Republican candidate.
Huckabee Says He'd Be Best Against Hillary
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 11:46AM
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said this morning that he understands Hillary Clinton better than any other Republican candidate in the presidential race, and thus would be her most formidable opponent in a general election.
Speaking to reporters at an American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast held at Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, Huckabee also took thinly-veiled shots at some of his Republican rivals in an effort to establish himself as the most conservative candidate.
"I have a consistency about what I've said and what I've done that is unmatched by virtually any other candidate," Huckabee said in a clear dig at Mitt Romney. "There's not going to be any YouTube moments of me saying I was once pro-choice and now I'm pro-life. Once for same-sex relationships now I'm against it. Once I was for the Brady and assault ban treaties, now I'm against it."
Although not by name, he also took a shot at John McCain for his previous opposition to the Bush tax cuts: "I'm not one who just decided to be for the Bush tax cuts because I am running for president. If you want to check the record you'll find that some candidates have had some recent adult epiphanies."
In a likely reference to Rudy Giuliani, Huckabee said: "The worst argument I've heard is that we need to nominate somebody who is left-of-center, because that way America will vote for them…Do Republicans really want to go out and vote for someone who is more of a Democrat than a Republican?"
When pressed by Terry Jeffrey as to whether a good Christian who opposes same-sex relationships and abortion should vote for a third party candidate if Republicans nominated Giuliani, Huckabee warned that if Christians just vote for whoever is the Republican nominee rather than the president "they become just another partisan special interest group." He said he considers himself a "Christian first, and a Republican second." Asked whether that meant he himself would vote for a third party candidate if Giuliani were the nominee, he was evasive. Huckabee said that by nominating himself, the party wouldn't have to face such a choice. Though he complimented Giuliani's accomplishments in New York City, he was dismissive of Giuliani's chances of capturing the nomination. "I don't think we're going there, I really don't."
Meanwhile, he said his experience with the Clintons in Arkansas would make him the strongest Republican candidate against Hillary.
"Nobody knows her better who is in the Republican race for president," Huckabee said. "Nobody would be able to wage a more effective and skilled campaign against her."
I'm off to another event now, but I will have more details on
some of his policy views later in the day.
Walking The Line
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 9:35AM
Bob Novak reports on the dilemma faced by Democrats who don't want to anger either the abortions for all lobby or the majority of voters, who oppose partial-birth abortion. Harry Reid attempts, rather unconvincingly, to walk back his disappointed comment (second item) when the PBA ban he voted for was upheld last week.
Recalling his many votes against partial birth abortion, he indicated he supported the court's decision. "I just don't like what Alito has done on other cases," he said. What other cases? "I can't recall," Reid replied, but he promised aides would let me know.So Reid claims that his comment was essentially a non sequitur. Um, okay.They did so several hours later. Out of more than 50 decisions that Alito has participated in, Reid disagreed with four.
This bit is especially revealing:
Thomas Carper, the low-profile junior senator from Delaware, tries to walk the middle of the road on abortion. He was rated at 55 percent pro-choice by NARAL in 2006, but he was one of the 17 Democrats who voted to ban partial birth abortion three years earlier. Carper said after the court upheld the 2003 bill: "I think a number of people who voted for it thought that the court would ultimately strike it down."I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you've taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," it's not okay to vote for a bill that you think is unconstitutional.
Notes From The Prom
Posted by on 4.23.07 @ 8:07AM
As Phil already mentioned, we ran into Fred Thompson as he was leaving the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night. ("The Prom" is slang for the WHCD.) Thompson's annoyed-to-be-here demeanor made me think that, in the end, he may decide not to run; if you don't like shaking hands and schmoozing, a presidential campaign probably isn't for you. It's possible, of course, that we just caught Thompson at a bad time (he had just suffered through Rich Little's terrible routine). Still, the contrast with Mitt Romney, who I caught up with as he was jovially holding court at National Review's pre-dinner reception, was quite striking.
Though I chatted with lots of famous-for-DC types, the only "real" celebrity I had a chance to talk to was American Idol's Chris Sligh. (Note that we didn't go to the dinner itself, and that we finished the night at the Reuters after-party rather than at one of the more exclusive shindigs where the stars were hanging out.) It's probably just as well; talking to celebs can be unpleasant.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Re: Busy Bees
Posted by on 4.22.07 @ 8:56PM
Given my annual spring struggle with carpenter bees and the damage they have done to my old house already, I find it hard to be sympathetic. But obviously I don't speak from a disinterested perspective.
Ah, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency
Posted by on 4.22.07 @ 8:52PM
...and local law enforcement, the epitome of cooperation--NOT!
Case in point is Isidro Pena Soto, an illegal immigrant who, despite probably never having had a driver's license, is responsible for the traffic death of Antioch resident Kent Boone. But that's not all:
Pena, who has used at least three other names, has been arrested or convicted at least nine times dating to 2003, including three for drunken driving, according to the state Department of Motor Vehiclesand the Solano County District Attorney's Office.Of course, no one can explain how Pena "slipped through the cracks."The fatal accident came on the two-year anniversary of the Department of Motor Vehicles' notifying Pena by mail that his license was suspended for DUI, according to DMV records. It's not clear why those same records indicate that he had no license and possibly never has, at least under that name.
He has been convicted six times of driving without a license.
Pena was convicted twice for DUI in Contra Costa County, in 2003 and 2005, and for a felony narcotics count in Contra Costa in 2005, according to the DMV and the Solano County District Attorney's Office. He was convicted of DUI in Solano County in 2005.
Records do not show the circumstances of his release. Many people arrested for misdemeanor DUI are released with a citation after a short time in jail.
ICE personnel routinely visit County Jail in Martinez to check the immigration status of arrestees there, as well as in other major metropolitan areas.Is it really a "mystery", or just so damn embarassing that the officials are pretending that they are stumped?The California Highway Patrol checked and determined that Pena was an illegal immigrant during the investigation of the March 31 accident because officers could not verify he had a valid identification, said Solano County CHP spokesman Marvin Williford.
An ICE spokeswoman said no one ever told the agency about Pena.
"Cases like this certainly underscore why we want to encourage local law enforcement agencies to tell us when they encounter foreign nationals with multiple prior convictions for crimes that certainly present a potential threat to public safety," said Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency....
Police departments that confront large immigrant populations say they have worked to build credibility with them and have responded to any perception that they target people because of their immigration status.
"The only time it's a relevant issue is if someone is charged with a crime and we incarcerate them," said Concord police Lt. David Chilimidos.
"We actually treat everybody like they were here legally," said Richmond police Capt. Alec Griffin. "We don't make contacts with ICE just in the course of normal business."
Richmond police have not participated in ICE roundups of suspected illegal immigrants and have stopped daylight traffic checkpoints aimed at street criminals -- because immigrants feared they were the targets, Griffin said.
How Pena remained free despite multiple journeys through the legal system, including in Contra Costa and Solano counties, remains a mystery.
Re: Busy Bees
Posted by on 4.22.07 @ 6:05PM
I love a good steak as much as the next meat-eating American, and as far as fossil fuels go I see the possibility of a grand bargain between right-leaning motorheads and left-leaning worryworts to use as much gas as fast as possible and bring on that peak oil crisis that will drive us all back to Regency-era modes of transportation and land stewardship.
That said, there's another perspective on the bees, which I don't want to say a whole lot about now but which resonates with the talk Roger Scruton gave at the Tocqueville Forum last week on conservatism as conservation. Losing the manatee, say, to world pollution might be sad and a knock to biodiversity besides, but these vanishing bees are both a vital resource and, in most cases, peoples' property.
Busy Bees--And How To Celebrate Earth Day
Posted by on 4.22.07 @ 5:41PM
Just in case global warming isn't enough environmentalist-induced guilt for you, then here's another, from "librit" over at Ezra Klein's blog:
At the top of the list is a request that we start considering some of our smallest critter-neighbors, the bees. Albert Einstein either did or didn't have this to say about bees:"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."
And while some bloggers are busy devoting time and bandwidth to proving or disproving that it was indeed Einstein who made that dire prediction, I'd like to point out that regardless of who said it, bees are in trouble.
And so, therefore, are we....
Regardless of your politics, I hope you'll think about the bees this weekend, as well as the many ecosystems--all interdependent, all quite fragile and easy to disrupt--that keep our planet and our species grooving along.
Yes, the bees are disappearing. Of course, if you look at the article, the problem appears to be confined to the United States. I'm not surprised, as environmentalists have a track record of predicting gloom and doom that usually don't come true. Here are a few of their more stellar moments:
-Rachel Carson, the patron saint of the movement, whose scientifically unsound book, Silent Spring, claimed that DDT caused cancer in humans (no, it doesn't). This led to a near worldwide ban of DDT. Cancer rates didn't improve because of it, but the incidence of Malaria did, killing millions.
-Paul Ehrlich, who predicted massive worldwide famine during the 1970s and 1980s in his book Population Bomb. How's that working out for you, Paul?
-Remember the Alar scare of the late 1980s? Turns out to have been a hoax perpetrated by the likes of the Natural Resource Defense Council. Didn't help at all with lowering cancer, but banning Alar did make fruits like apples more expensive.
-Remember noted oceanographer Ted Danson's prediction circa 1988 that we had only ten years left to save the oceans? Well, it's about 19 years later and they are still there.
So, do yourself a favor this Earth Day. Don't believe all the gloom-and-doom hype. Tell yourself the Earth isn't fragile, because it isn't. Get a reasonable perspective on global warming by going here and here.
And do celebrate. First, fill up your car with gas-best if done at an Exxon. Second, find some both plastic and disposable and throw it away. And third, go eat a steak and have lots of peppers and onions with it so that when you get home you can add some methane to the atmosphere.
Fred Thompson Sighting
Posted by on 4.22.07 @ 1:33PM
Ran into Fred Thompson after last night's White House Correspondents' Dinner. He shook some hands and signed a few autographs, but didn't look like he was enjoying himself. He was preoccupied and seemed like he wanted to be somewhere else. When John Tabin asked him whether he was going to run, Thompson said, "We haven't decided that yet."
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
