- 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, June 16, 2007
But Really, Do They Deserve It All That Much Less?
Posted by on 6.16.07 @ 6:25PM
Fatah accuses Hamas thugs of looting Arafat's pad and stealing his Nobel Peace Prize medal.
Fadz in Yur Internetz
Posted by on 6.16.07 @ 6:11PM
I just came across this story -- about how "in recent weeks, lolcats have started popping up on more and more mainstream blogs and Web sites" -- shortly after after composing the post below. Weird.
I Can Has a Judicially-Mandated Progressivism?
Posted by on 6.16.07 @ 5:23PM
In Ur Bedroomz, Confiscatin' Ur ContraceptivzThe body of the post is factually incorrect (more on that in a minute), and the lolcatzish headline betrays the liberal instrumentalist mindset that reduces jurisprudential judgement to a simple function of policy judgement. Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his Griswold dissent that while a contraceptive ban is "uncommonly silly... we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do." That this point flies over the head of otherwise intelligent people is remarkable.Fred Thompson comes out against Griswold.
Thompson has taken no position on Griswold, as is immediately obvious from clicking through. Scott Lemieux is making a silly leap in logic and claiming that if one says (as Thompson does) that Roe "was fabricated out of whole cloth," one must therefore accept the implication that Griswold is wrong, because Griswold set a precedent for Roe. (In the update to his post, Lemieux comes rather close to admitting that he's playing word games rather than making a serious point.)
P.S. Lemieux writes that the point that "overturning Roe would 'send the issue back to the states'" is "a claim the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the arbitrary federal ban on "partial-birth" abortions in Carhart II makes straightforwardly false." This is, um, straightforwardly false. As Justice Thomas emphasized in his concurrence, Carhart didn't touch on federalism. If one were to argue that the Court is unlikely to stand in the way of federal abortion legislation, it would make more sense to cite Gonzales v. Raich. But since the Raich majority included Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter, acknowledging this would require Lemieux to move beyond hackish rightward sniping, which I'm not sure he has any interest in doing.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Toomey on Fred
Posted by on 6.15.07 @ 5:37PM
After the Club for Growth last month released a glowing report on Rudy Giuliani's fiscal record, some speculated that the group would endorse him, but speaking about the 2008 presidential race at the National Taxpayers' Union conference today, the group's president, Pat Toomey, was bullish on Fred Thompson's prospects.
Toomey's basic argument was that typically the Republican nominee comes from the center of the party. For instance, in 2000, the field had John McCain on the left and Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes on the right, and Bush was able to win by seizing the middle. In this election cycle, Toomey said, McCain and Giuliani are on the left, while Huckabee, Brownback, etc. are on the right. He said Mitt Romney "stumbled" early by trying to portray himself as the candidate of the right, even though that was irreconcilable with his record. So, that has left a major vacuum in the center, a "sweet spot" that Thompson has an opportunity to fill. Romney, he said, also still has a chance to fill that slot, and Giuliani is a uniquely strong candidate from the left, because he can appeal to conservatives in other ways. So, he thinks we're looking at a three way race. Not surprisingly, Toomey has written off McCain.
Re: Prince James
Posted by on 6.15.07 @ 2:12PM
The NBA continued to exist after Larry Bird retired? Hmm. Learn something new everyday.
Taxpayers Party Like It's 1994
Posted by on 6.15.07 @ 2:11PM
I stopped by the National Taxpayers Conference last night for some free-market fun. Congressman Jeff Flake, Sen. Jim DeMint, and Congressman -- and 2008 presidential candidate -- Ron Paul were the main speakers.
Flake praised NTU's efforts to keep elected officials, especially Republicans, honest. He contrasted their ratings favorably with the National Journal's, saying "Ron Paul and I only get about 50 percent" in the latter's scores because they consider votes in support of the GOP leadership conservative "which isn't always the case." He made a pitch for earmark reform, arguing that it drives other bigger spending, and acknowledged that taxpayers have some tough political fights ahead of them.
DeMint seconded that verdict, delivering the most animated speech of the group. He also railed against earmarks and urged the crowd to get involved. The senator mentioned his endorsement of Mitt Romney but didn't launch into an extended sales pitch.
Paul batted clean-up and received enthusiastic applause as he took the podium. He opened with a quip: "It's good to be here with Jeff and Jim. It's a lot friendlier than some other panels I've been on lately." Paul praised the National Taxpayers Union as one of the few "inside the Beltway" groups he considers valuable, though he hoped it could go out of business after he shut down the IRS and got rid of the income tax. The crowd listened politely to his foreign-policy comments but seemed to drift as he discussed the "inflation tax." But they started applauding again when he returned to his themes of the Constitution and cutting government.
Re: Prince James
Posted by on 6.15.07 @ 12:39PM
With all due respect, the NBA finals weren't really about LeBron James. He's a major talent, but so what? Most teams would double an opponent's salary if they knew his main shot against them would be a step-back, fall-back three-pointer. Those late turnovers you refer to, Phil, were classic examples of what transpires with a player who's more hotdog than bun: instead of using two hands to catch the ball before going up court he used only one hand, and what do you know -- he ended up fumbling the ball out of bounds in the finest junior-high style.
A bigger problem is TV's obsessing over someone like James, as if only he could generate ratings. It says all you need to know about television's arrogant stupidity that it can't begin to appreciate the greatness of a San Antonio, let alone know how to sell it to viewers. The way the Spurs play defense is simply awesome. They turned James into a ball slapped around in a pinball machine, a lot of action going nowhere. As it is, he made not a single move that could match the final game's real MVP, Manu Ginobli's old-fashioned three-point drive and layin in the fourth-quarter. That was the play of the playoffs, one I'll be replaying long after I've forgotten who James was.
No Moore For Canadians
Posted by on 6.15.07 @ 7:48AM
Apparently the Canadian journalists present at the Cannes screening of Sicko were less than impressed. One quote from the piece:
It makes many valid and urgent points about the crisis of U.S. health care, but they are blunted by Moore's habit of playing fast and loose with the facts.
I'm sure the latter part is true.
Prince James
Posted by on 6.15.07 @ 12:50AM
In the end, LeBron proved he was only human, with some costly turnovers down the stretch that sealed San Antonio's sweep. Of course, the Cavs were grossly outmatched in this series so the result shouldn't surprise anybody. Once LeBron gets some more support, and perhaps a decent coach, he'll get his ring. Probably several. He just isn't quite the King yet.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Ben Stein's Money
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 11:05PM
It's going into the campaign coffers of Al Franken.
Two Cheers For Bush
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 7:26PM
It's reading stuff like this that almost makes me want to come to the defense of Alberto Gonzales. Almost.
What it does make me realize is how much I like Bush's complete indifference to (if not contempt for) smug, elite opinion. He's sticking by his AG, and if you don't like it, well, you can go screw yourself. Or not. Bush doesn't care.
And boy, is this smug:
It is just about universally agreed upon that Gonzales will go down in history as the attorney general who helped the president: 1) torture, 2) wreak havoc on civil liberties, 3) fire U.S. attorneys who didn't prosecute along preferred political lines, 4) demoralize the Department of Justice, 5) worsen Bush's already dismal relationship with Congress, and 6) relentlessly hector a man in the intensive care unit.
"Universally agreed" by whom? The folks that the authors of this piece mingle with at cocktail parties?
Rudy and Blaming Bill
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 5:38PM
Liberal blogs are calling Giuliani out on his FoxNews interview this week during which he criticized Clinton's handling of terrorism in the 1990s. They point to statements Giuliani made last year that Clinton should not be blamed for 9/11 as proof positive that Rudy is changing his tune in a desperate attempt to win over conservatives. But in their eagerness to catch Rudy in a flip flop, they are cherry picking statements and completely distorting the public record. In speeches to conservative audiences, Giuliani still insists that we shouldn't cast blame for 9/11 on decision makers of the 1990s, because the true threat of terrorism wasn't clear at the time. However, he is criticizing Democrats who want to return us to the policies of the 1990s, after 9/11, when there should be no doubt about the magnitude of the threat we face.
Here's how he put it last month, at a speech to the Heritage Foundation:
"The first
World Trade Center bombing was in 1993. Then Khobar Towers in 1996. Then the Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Then the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000…We didn't get the magnitude of the threat. I don't blame people for that. I think it's important to repeat this. I think it's important to focus on it so we don't make the same mistake again. Hindsight is enormously powerful. Once the attack took place, then all these things become much clearer as part of the buildup to this war against us. So it would have been better if we had gotten it. It would have been better if we understood in 1993, this was not just a crime, this was an act of war, and we dealt with it that way. It would have been better. But maybe not possible just given the scope of information that government decision makers have to make. But once Sept. 11 happened, then I do blame people for not getting it. Then I do. Then you can't miss it any longer and you can't go back and once again repeat the mistakes of history."
Liberals can agree or disagree with him, but there's nothing inconsistent here.
Because You Just Can't Get Enough
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 4:23PM
HillaryHub.com -- it's like a parallel universe where all news and opinion is favorable to Sen. Clinton.
This is not to be confused with HillaryHubby.com, Bill's soon-to-be-launched porn site.
Scooter, Southwick and More Bad News
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 3:35PM
I think it's time for somebody Omnipotent to step in and repair our troubled world. Civil war in Gaza (which actually ought to still belong to Israel, rather than either of the Palestinian factions). Raging violence in Iraq. Putin feeling his oats. Space station computer on the fritz. Bush still trying to revive a bad immigration bill (rather than trying to actually fix its flaws so that moderates like me can swing in support of it). And now, on a smaller scale but still bad signs for the Republic, we find out that Scooter Libby WILL be sent to jail rather than left free pending appeal. (Frankly, I still disagree with the jury: I think he is innocent; and I think if the jury had been allowed to hear the evidence of how bad Russert's memory has been in the past, the jury too probably would have found him not guilty--which is, I imagine, one of the various grounds for the appeal Libby will file.) If Bush doesn't pardon him or commute his sentence before Libby spends a single day in jail, then our president is a gutless wonder. I do NOT believe Bush is a gutless wonder, so I await the commutation.
Second, in yet another travesty of justice perpetrated by the smearmongering Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, it now appears that 5th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Leslie Southwick lacks the votes even to make it to the Senate floor. He becomes the third consecutive Mississippian, all three of them eminently qualified and of the greatest character and integrity, who is being denied the same seat. What happened today was that the nomination was held over for the THIRD consecutive week--this time at the request of Arlen Specter, not in order to block Southwick, but what Specter himself describes as a longshot effort to find a single Democratic vote to keep the nomination alive. What it boils down to is, if you are from Mississippi and are nominated by a Republican, you will be tarred with being a racist no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. Meanwhile, there are FOUR vacancies on the Fourth Circuit (thanks in part to Democrats dealing in bad faith and also in large part to the underhanded machinations of RINO Lindsey Graham), and the incredibly qualified Peter Keisler remains in limbo for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The White House and Senate Republicans alike have been utterly inept at getting nominees through the Senate, and the Democrats have been so unfair as to be evil. Yes, evil.
Where, oh where, is the hope? Where, oh where, is there any good news? For a conservative, these are depressing days indeed.
Re: Growing Inevitability
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 2:42PM
Such pessimism seems premature. As Mickey Kaus and Bob Wright discuss here (video), the GOP has four candidates who can plausibly win the general election. The Democratic candidates are more popular with their party's base, but are weaker outside of it.
Re: Growing Inevitability
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 12:19PM
Phil: My point was that media coverage is shaping the political landscape in which Hillary is solidifying her front-runner status among Democrats, this as a preview of her victory in the general election against a Republican Party in disarray and greatly diminished by President Bush's ever diminishing popularity.
Re: On Inevitability
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 12:16PM
One thing to keep in mind, however, is though Hillary Clinton essentially has 100 percent name recognition, she's only polling at 36 percent among Democrats, according to the RCP average. That means that nearly two-thirds of Democrats know who she is, know her positions, but would prefer somebody else get the nomination. Right now Edwards is polling at about 11 percent and Gore at 17 percent, and both of them are attracting support from the anti-war base. So where does their support go if Edwards drops out and Gore decides not to run? While Hillary is still the favorite to get the nomination, my point is that there is still a huge opening for Obama to consolidate the anti-Hillary vote. Personally, I think he'll eventually be the nominee. Most would disagree. But either way, it's way too early to be calling her inevitable.
On Inevitability
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 11:39AM
Over at the uber-popular liberal website MyDD Jerome Armstrong morosely declares the Democratic primary Hillary's to lose and knocks her main opponent, snarking, "it's the fake self-proclaimed 'movement' that exhausts me of Obama." He continues:
I say fake, not because "movement for change" and "building a movement" are such vacuous slogans, but because the continual touting of having such a movement in the Obama campaign email slog is a sure-as-heck signal that there really isn' a substantive movement behind the numbers.
In Obama latest, he sent me an email titled, "What a movement looks like?" His campaign probably didn't notice the slip, but it's an obvious truth--that adding that "?" in the title. Maybe, he thinks, he's in one... maybe not... who can tell? He wouldn't have a clue, I'm beginning to think-- that the campaign really doesn't know what a movement is made up of and are fumbling in the dark amidst their media-created momentum (which is getting primed to turn on its creation).
Amen! And ouch!
McCain's Romney Attack Plan
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 11:27AM
Johnathan Martin reports that the McCain camp has purchased the website www.mittvsfact.com to catalogue Romney's contradictory stances on issues. Now, I've been as critical of Romney's transparent political oppourtunism as anybody, but I don't quite understand the strategy of doing an all out assault on Romney when you're trailing Giuliani and likely Thompson. Especially this early. Does the McCain camp simply think that Giuliani and Thompson will fade and they'll be left with Romney? Or do they think if they can knock off Romney early, they'd do better in a two man race with Giuliani or Thompson? Beats me.
Another possibility is that it's not really a rational political decision, but that Romney just really annoys the McCain camp. Think about it. One of the main appeals of McCain is that he's a straight talking leader who is willing to say things that aren't politically popular. Romney, meanwhile, is willing to say or do whatever it takes to gain the support of conservatives, even if it means taking positions that are completely different from his prior stances. In a sense, Romney is the sort of cookie cutter posturing politician that annoys the heck out of McCain people, the type of figure that turned them away from traditional politicians, and turned them on to McCain in the first place. Perhaps they can't control their disgust anymore. While I empathize with many of their criticisms of Romney, I question whether such a strategy will help McCain. It could even hurt his cause by raising Romney's profile, and making McCain look desperate. And as Rich Lowry put it, "Indisputably good news if you are Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson."
UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini is also perplexed.
Thompson's Late Start
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 11:02AM
The New York Sun reports on Fred Thompson's pro-choice past, which I covered on this blog several months ago. I don't think it will end up being a major problem for him, and this reinforces a view I've had for a while. Thompson's late start, combined with the makeup of the current field, will help him overcome issues that may have otherwise presented problems for him.
The pro-choice statements Thompson made in 1994 could have been an issue, but after months of hearing Giuliani's pro-choice views, and watching Romney's embarassing, and recent, flip-flop on the issue, Thompson's pro-life voting record in the Senate is looking pretty good.
His swinging single life in the 1990s and marriage to somebody 24 years younger than him may have raised eyebrows under normal circumstances, but given Giuliani's messy personal life, this is unlikely be an issue.
His staunch support for McCain-Feingold would normally cause the ire of conservatives, but hey, when you're running against McCain himself, it becomes much less of a problem.
The bottom line is that after months of being disappointed with the current crop of candidates, conservatives want to rally around somebody. As a result, they'll likely be more forgiving to Thompson than they may have been otherwise.
Hearting Huckabee
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 10:42AM
Jennifer Rubin claims that after three impressive debate performances, "Mike Huckabee may be the candidate to watch." As I have written before, Huckabee could make a case for himself as a vice presidential candidate, especially if Giuliani is the nominee and needs to assuage the concerns of social conservatives. The problem for Huckabee is that he is a big government conservative, taking Bush's "compassionate conservatism" to a whole new level. In the last debate, he spoke about how "we've not demonstrated as demonstrably as we should that we respect life at all levels, not just during pregnancy. We shouldn't allow a child to live under a bridge or in the backseat of a car. We shouldn't be satisfied that elderly people are being abused and neglected in nursing homes. It should never be acceptable to us that people are treated as expendable -- any people." Nobody wants children living in the backseat of a car, but the implication of this--as it was with President Bush's "when somebody hurts, government has got to move"--is a massive expansion of government. Huckabee has also raised taxes, even if he also lowered taxes, that's something that all people who call themselves Republicans vehemently oppose. The question I have is whether Huckabee has really gained traction from the debates at the grassroots level, or he's just impressed the media. There's not much you can tell from polls, since he consistently registers in the low single digits, typically losing to the margin of error. So, a good test as to whether he has won over voters with his debate performances will be his second quarter fundraising numbers. In the first quarter, he raised a meager $500,000. He cannot afford another showing like that.
(Oh, and for what it's worth, I thought the John Edwards joke was kinda lame.)
Re: Growing Inevitability
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 10:16AM
Wlady, these polls have been all over the place. In the LA Times/Bloomberg poll, Giuliani leads Clinton by 10 points.
Re: US Open Golf
Posted by on 6.14.07 @ 9:25AM
Quin, I sympathize. I have many times inadvertently highlighted, then deleted, an entire long, passionate e-mail -- something to do with the heel of my hand hitting some key it shouldn't. Anyway, you can hardly have missed the winner with that list. But what do you bet you did? Michael Campbell, remember? Lee Janzen the first time round, at Baltusrol? Orville Moody? Andy North? I'll be watching, but the U.S. Open is not my favorite golf tournament.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Growing Inevitability
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 7:57PM
Here's how the Wall Street Journal summarizes the latest WSJ/NBC poll. The last point is the one to bear in mind.
Bush's approval rating fell to 29%, the lowest of his presidency, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. More than two-thirds of Americans now say the U.S. is on the wrong track. An increasingly gloomy political environment has soured Americans on the president and Congress, scrambled the Republicans' 2008 field and strengthened Democratic front-runner Clinton's lead.
Have Some Compassion
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 5:17PM
If all of Michael Gerson's Washington Post columns are going to be about how Republicans aren't enough like his ex-boss, they are going to get old pretty fast.
Fighting Disease and Freeing Markets
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 5:12PM
I spent a good part of this afternoon with the Campaign for Fighting Diseases for a panel discussion marking the launch of a new book titled Fighting the Diseases of Poverty. The Hudson Institute's Jeremiah Norris moderated. While the problems are familiar -- the developing world remains plagued by poor sanitation, a lack of access to drugs and medical technology, and relatively high rates of disease -- the solutions weren't.
The panelists emphasized that economic growth and the accumulation of wealth has helped improve public health and increase average life spans, even in the developing world. But serious disparities remain. The problem, however, isn't necessarily the lack of some robust national (read: government) health care system as much as the following: the failure of supranational development organizations to measure results, the politicization of certain diseases, rationing of care, insecure intellectual property rights, and a lack of market dynamism. These factors combine to make people in poorer countries sicker and less able to access quality care.
Most of those in attendance were critical of the World Health Organization for its funding choices and the lack of accountability. The UN's programs for dealing with AIDS and malaria were also criticized for waste and failure to care for patients. Norris in particular argued that as long as development is considered "our" problem (as in, the West's) rather than a shared responsibility with the developing countries themselves, results will be bleak.
Both the discussion and the book were an interesting corrective to the Bono School of Thought that the only thing missing is that governments and international organizations aren't spending enough money.
Re: Energy Independence
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 4:52PM
Oil may be fungible, but it is undeniable that a large percentage of it comes from oppressive or outwardly hostile regimes. There's no reason why we should have to coddle governments such as Saudi Arabia, or Iran should be awash in money to help fund terrorist groups and its nuclear program, or Chavez should have the financial ability to assert himself in South America. If we were to develop alternative fuels, we could also export those technologies and make other nations less dependent. Look at how much China's oil interests in Sudan have prevented us from being able to take more aggressive steps to end the ongoing genocide in Darfur, to cite one example.
I'm not saying that I don't have issues with government involvement in energy. I do, however, have a problem when conservatives are dismissive of any attempt to argue that our dependence on foreign oil is a problem.
RE: Energy Independence
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 2:38PM
Phil: Frankly, I'm not that concerned about "dependence on foreign oil." Oil is very fungible and sold on a world market.
Nevertheless, I have nothing against alternative fuels. I am against the government trying to pick winners and losers in the fuel game. Let the market decide which fuels are workable.
Whose Afraid of West Nile Virus?
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 1:53PM
Taylor W. Buley argues that we're wasting money on an absurdly overhyped threat to public health.
Re: Energy Independence
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 1:12PM
Dave, I agree with you in that I have an issue with government subsidies and tax credits, because those mostly encourage pork barrel spending or influence peddling without accomplishing anything. However, I do think that achieving energy independence--or more modestly, reducing dependence on foreign oil--is an important issue on both environmental and national security grounds. There should be a serious debate about how to get there, and certainly talking about reducing regulations rather than doling out subsidies is part of that debate. But I often find that because the idea of alternative energy is associated with liberal environmental groups, conservatives are overly dismissive of the whole concept of altogether. And I think that's a big mistake.
Inventor of Cheese Whiz--R.I.P.
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 11:25AM
Cheese Whiz may seem silly, but this gent's life was the all-American story.
RE: Rudy's 12 Commandments
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 8:45AM
NRO has a somewhat more detailed version online today. The only one I object to is number six:
We must decrease America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We can meet this challenge through diversification of our energy portfolio, innovation, and conservation. We must increase public and private investment in nuclear power, clean coal, and alternative-energy sources across the board. America must lead the world in energy-efficient, environmentally responsible, commercially viable innovation, including wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, and biofuel technologies.
Just another indication of how badly free marketeers are doing on the energy poloicy battle. Even most of the Republican Party--the party of, at least nominally, limited government--is willing if not eager to increase government involvement in energy markets.
Worse, they are willing to engage in falsehoods to do it. Technology like wind, solar, and ethanol are not commercially viable. If they were, they wouldn't be forever in need of tax-breaks and subsidies.
Once, just once, I'd like to hear a presidential candidate say something like: "Government has made a mess of energy markets. For over three decades it has tried to force the U.S. to become less dependent on foreign oil, and we are now more dependent on it. Thus, I propose deregulation of energy markets. Get rid of regulations, tax-breaks, and subsidies. And that includes ethanol. I know that means that I probably cannot win the Iowa Caucuses. So, I will not bother competing in it."
Alas, we are probably another decade or two from seeing anything resembling that kind of talk.
Mr. Wizard, RIP
Posted by on 6.13.07 @ 2:23AM
Don Herbert has died. Depending on your age, you'll remember him from either Nickelodeon's Mr. Wizard's World (1983-1991), NBC's Watch Mr. Wizard (1951-1965, then again for one season in 1971-2), or (if you're Canadian) the CBC's Mr. Wizard (1971-1975). Can you think of another children's entertainer who has reeled in fans generation after generation like that?
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Kosovo Throwdown
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 10:21PM
The Dusky Duke of Reaction, Daniel Larison, and myself, usually in eerie agreement, square off over Independence for Kosovo. I'm still open to persuasion that we should hang Kosovo out to dry, but it seems like the tough, and losing, argument.
Earmarking in Secret
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 8:21PM
The Republican Study Committee slams the Democrats over secret earmarks that Democrats plan on inserting into bills during conference committee.
Ramesh Ponnuru argues in the current print edition of National Review that porkbusting is overrated. His most provocative claim is that transparency could actually be counterproductive:
The porkbusters want the public to be able to find out which legislator put which spending item in a bill. But most earmarks are not secret. Politicians brag about them. Citizens Against Government Waste, one of the oldest anti-pork organizations, complains on its website that pork "conditions voters to re-elect incumbents based on their ability to 'bring home the bacon.'" Exactly. If reformers really wanted to cut down on earmarks, they would outlaw disclosure: If politicians could not take credit for bringing federal money to their districts, they would bring a lot less.If this is the case, then why is there any secret earmarking at all? The answer, I think, is that congressmen don't actually worry too much that they won't get credit for pork from their constituents -- after all, the voters back home in their respective districts are the ones who see the bacon doled out up closes. What they do worry about is financial support for their electoral oppenents from outside their respective districts. Transparency serves to correct the balance of information between pro- and anti-pork interests.More disclosure, on the other hand, could increase the number of earmarks. Congressmen send "request letters" to the appropriations committees seeking funding for their pet projects. From time to time, it has been suggested that these letters be made public. If they were, the congressmen would end up going to bat for every constituent who asked them for help.
This means, incidentally, that there is an inherrent tension between campaign finance "reforms" and curbing pork. Someone tell John McCain.
Re: The Sopranos Ends, Continued
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 7:48PM
Did the series finale fail by David Chase's own criteria?
US Open golf
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 4:40PM
I'm heartbroken, because I just pushed a wrong button and lost a HUGE, entire post that it took me ages to put together. I had all sorts of interesting analysis in it. But I lost it. So the abbreviated version contains 18 names to watch (in the tradition of 18 holes, or 18 professional major titles for Jack Nicklaus), without the analysis that made it so interesting. I just don't have time to re-create the whole thing. Without further ado: Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Jim Furyk, Vijay Singh, Zach Johnson, David Toms, Steve Stricker, Sean O'Hair, Adam Scott, Ian Poulter, Scott Verplank, KJ Choi, Tim Clark, Rory Sabbatini, and two crazy veteran picks, Lee Janzen and Justin Leonard. Also, Ryuji Imada (my analysis on him was, for a golf nut, quite interesting, I think). Then, to make fun of myself for overanalyzing all the stats, it turned out that I was going to urge everybody to watch somebody who, I now see, isn't even in the field: Jose Coceres. Even if he WERE in the field, the choice is so outlandish that it should make all you readers take this whole post with a grain of salt. Still, consider his stats, because maybe he SHOULD be in the field: 1st in drving accuracy. Third in putts per round. 1st in birdies on par 3s and ist in average scores on par 3s, along with 11th ni par-4 average scores. 1st in scrambling. 9th on tour in promiximity to the hole. 21st in scrambling from the rough. Hell, with these stats, why isn't this guy the leading-money-winner-not-named-Tiger?
Stats are for losers, I guess. Watch, and enjoy. The winner will come from that group above. Which means that if Retief Goosen, Geoff Ogilvy, Colin Montgomery, Luke Donald, or Stewart Cink wins, I'll be mighty embarrassed for leaving them out.
Dead Heat
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 2:11PM
The new Rasmussen poll has Fred Thompson tied with Rudy Giuliani at 24 percent, with McCain and Romney tied at 11 percent. Giuliani is actually up a point since last week, so it looks like Thompson is picking up more from McCain and Romney, who last week were at 14 percent and 15 percent, respectively.
Re: The Obama Bug
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 12:55PM
Only it isn't possible to dispel the Age of Cynicism without eradicating the neurosis of which it's but a symptom: Self-Obsession. Cynicism is just a particularly jaded strain of the reflexive awareness that has come to dominate every waking moment (and many sleeping ones) in American life -- the thing that puts a My or a You in front of every Good and Service on the market; that floods the television and internet with designer lifestyle choices with price tags affixed if not always brandished; that has reduced the dramatic arts in this country to an endless and hyperactive drone of self-help, group therapy, mutual baggage exchange, pseudorepentant wank, teenage psychosis, and adult infantilism.
And that's to say nothing of politics -- where only identity, awareness, and raising identity awareness seem to have any currency at all; where political celebrities and celebrity politicians can clutter their wrists with rubber bands and their lapels with flags and ribbon pins secure in the triumph of unquestionable, unassailable empathy; where outpourings of commitment are constant and new laws unremittingly swamp over the old, the unfashionable, and the unenforced; and where no amount of seething, protesting, cause-walking, or guerilla marketing can either satisfy the appetite for the professionals of the fill-in-the-blank community or accomplish, when it really counts, as in, say, the case of blithely admitted genocide, anything remotely approaching action.
Good luck getting an end to this out of a politician. On a moment's reflection, one shudders even to try.
Lowry Catches The Obama Bug
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 12:00PM
First Obama, then Fred, and now Rich Lowry:
Interestingly, Lowry sees Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani as the primary beneficiaries of this mood in the country. While Obama and Thompson make the case for overcoming cynicism by changing the tone, Lowry argues that Hillary and Rudy benefit from perceived competence. Either way, Lowry's column is another indication of the bipartisan consensus forming around the War on Cynicism.
Rudy's 12 Commandments
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 10:40AM
Okay, commitments, but you get the idea. Giuliani was in New Hampshire today, and unvieled a series of promises which he vowed to flesh out over the course of the summer:
* I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
* I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
* I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
* I will impose accountability on Washington.
* I will lead America towards energy independence.
* I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
* I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
* I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
* I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
* I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
* I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
Interesting, I thought, that ending illegal immigration comes right below staying on offense against terrorism. Clearly, Giuliani believes he's been gaining traction from his criticisms of the Senate bill. This makes sense to me. Over a year ago I wrote a column arguing that Giuliani's law enforcement background could help him make the case that he'd be best qualified to gain control of the borders, and because of his pro-immmigration background he'd be able to do it in a way that didn't come across as anti-immigrant. It does, of course, open him up to an examination of his immigration policies in New York City, which earned Gotham the label of a "sanctuary city." When researching my article, though, I found this quote in the midst of a pro-immigration speech he gave at Ellis Island in 1997:
"Controlling our borders is a core function of the federal government and it is a problem that requires serious attention..."
So, he could make the argument, which he has partially, that as
mayor he had to deal with the reality of 400,000 illegal immigrants
because the federal government wasn't doing its job properly, so as
president, he'd want to ensure that other mayors and governors
don't have to face the same problem.
Another interesting point is that now increasing adoptions and decreasing abortions is weaved into his 12-point plan.
Of course, as with all 12 of his commitments, the devil will be in the details. So it should be interesting to watch him expand on his ideas over the next few months.
UPDATE: Fixed to reflect that there were 12 commitments, not
10.
Hagel Has Primary Challenger
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 8:32AM
Patrick Ruffini takes a look.
Now, if only we could get a challenger for this guy.
Re: No Confidence
Posted by on 6.12.07 @ 7:08AM
Republicans should've beaten the Dems to this long ago. A whipping operation with an ounce of discipline could have nipped this entire thing in the bud simply by telling the President in public what he failed to hear privately: Gonzales is a marshmallow with eyes and hair and ought to be dismissed accordingly. He is a witless oaf at Justice and a lead-footed albatross round the neck of the Republican Party.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Is There a Third Choice?
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 7:37PM
A show of hands, please.
Which was worse, the finale of "The Sopranos" or the second Spurs-Cavaliers game?
You Can Take the Dog Out of the Street...
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 5:29PM
...but you apparently cannot take the street out of the dog.
Re: The Sopranos Ends
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 4:58PM
A friend emails that, contrary to my theory that Agent Harris was playing Tony and Phil Leotardo against one another, his character may have been based on a real life FBI agent who picked sides in the mob wars.
He passes on a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article from 1998 that begins:
It was May 22, 1992. FBI agent Christopher Favo was briefing his boss, Special Agent R. Lindley DeVecchio, who headed the task force trying to end Brooklyn's Colombo crime family war.
Two men loyal to the Colombo faction led by Victor J. Orena had been gunned down on a Brooklyn Street the night before, Favo announced.
DeVecchio's reaction was not what Favo expected. The man charged with stopping the violence cheered for the shootings.
"He slapped his hand on the desk and he said, 'We're going to win this thing,' " Favo would recall two years later. "And he seemed excited about it.
No Confidence
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 4:57PM
Arlen Specter will vote with the Democrats on Alberto Gonzales.
Death as a Deterrent
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 3:35PM
The data on whether capital punishment deters murder seems to point to "yes."
The Florida Factor
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 2:44PM
I notice that the new Zogby poll shows Florida mirroring the national polls, except that Rudy's and Hillary's leads are somewhat more commanding. This isn't how things are in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, where distinct dynamics are emerging (the strength of Edwards and Romney in Iowa, for example). Florida is being moved into the early-primary mix for the first time (the Florida primary is on January 29), so Floridians aren't used to tuning in early. I'm begining to wonder what effect this will have, and I don't have a good answer. Do Giuliani and Clinton have insurmountable leads in Florida that will propel them into February with the wind at their backs? Or will the Sunshine State be caught in a wave of momentum built in the first races, making Iowa and New Hampshire more crucial than ever?
Romney and the 'White Horse' Smear
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 12:37PM
In the middle of an article on how Mormons feel about Mitt Romney's candidacy, NYT reporter Laurie Goodstein drops this astonishing sentence:
Mr. Romney has been questioned about the Mormon definition of God, polygamy, the location of Jesus's arrival when he returns to earth, and even a mysterious saying attributed to Joseph Smith Jr. called the "White Horse Prophecy," which some interpret as a prediction that when the American Constitution is hanging "by a thread," a Mormon will rescue the nation.You'd never know from reading that (or the rest of the Times article) that the "White Horse Prophesy" is entirely apocryphal. It's all explained in this Salt Lake Tribune article (the same article that got a Giuliani staffer in trouble when she passed it along to a blogger last week; the Giuliani camp apologized):
The LDS Church denounces the premonition, which was recorded 10 years after Smith's death. A church spokesman pointed to a quote from the faith's sixth president, Joseph F. Smith, who called the prophecy "ridiculous."Given that Goodstein's entire job seems to be to cover the religion beat, you'd think she'd be a little more careful."It is simply false; that is all there is to it," the church prophet was quoted saying.
Who's Laughing Now, Mr. Journalist?
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 11:30AM
Bobbie Edwards' pecan pie recipe netted her son more than $260,000 this week.
The Thompson Bubble
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 9:59AM
George Will compares Fred Thompson's rise to the Tulip craze in Holland, the quintessential boom market followed by a crash. In the process Will makes the following point:
The Thompson boom has so far been based much more on style than substance, whereas anybody who understands Reagan (see his diaries), knows there was much more to him than an actor who played the role of a president. He also governed the largest state in the country before becoming president. As I have argued before, Thompson supporters have made the case for him on the basis of his style and a belief that he is a "true conservative" who can fill the vacuum in the current field. Now that he's by all indication a serious candidate, it's time to make a much more substantive case for Fred.
UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that Will "largely misses
the target."
The Hunt for the Great White Widget
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 9:00AM
Responding to Ezra Klein's argument that pure market solutions to the health care crisis are untenable because emergency rooms and cancer specialists cannot be classified as "widgets," Colby Cosh notes:
What exactly, on these premises, would be just another widget?
Are shoes subject to the ordinary laws of supply and demand? Try telling that to a child in a snowstorm who doesn't have a pair! Are flashlights a widget? Even been in a blackout without one?--there are times when you'd pay a thousand dollars for a flashlight. If you're homeless, Pizza Pops aren't a widget. They might mean as much to a bum under a bridge as a defibrillator does to a pork-fed executive collapsed in a marbled bank lobby. To a fellow who's just been laid off from the only job he's trained for, food, shelter, clothing, even money itself, all have non-widgetary nature.
So all hail the new lifeboat economics, which instantly replaces orthodox price mechanisms with the scrawlings of an idiot child in the presence of any good that might conceivably be immediately necessary to life, health, or safety. Is there any reason this intrepid nescience should be limited to health care? If we can't plan for an ambulance ride, how can we plan for anything? (Maybe, he said in an ominous whisper, there are no widgets at all.)
More Than A Feeling...
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 8:53AM
"I was severely depressed and felt as if I was in a cage."
--Paris Hilton on her time...in a cage
Re: The Sopranos Ends
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 8:43AM
Well, I was a whole lot less impressed. Here's my reaction.
Re: Bombing Iran
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 7:09AM
John, I heard the interview, and Liebermann did not use the word "bomb," his questioner did. What Lieberman means used to be called "hot pursuit" in the Vietnam days, and he was most emphatic that we do know where these bomb-making installations are. I'm all for it.
The Sopranos Ends (SPOILER WARNING)
Posted by on 6.11.07 @ 12:11AM
Brilliant.
I was kind of worried after last week's episode that David Chase would conclude the show with a typical TV drama resolution, with a major climax, but was happy that he stayed true to the spirit of the series and ended it the way he did.
To be sure, the episode did have the trappings of a final episode. Bringing back Hunter Scangarelo. Tony visiting Junior. There were references to season one, with Tony recalling the nursing home saga and AJ in the final scene of the series recalling Tony's comment from the final episode of the first season (when they were eating dinner at Vesuvio during the hard rain) to remember when times were good.
But despite these hat tips to convention, Chase ultimate chose to cut things off abruptly. In the past, Chase has responded to those who have criticized the show for leaving things unresolved by arguing that unlike in TV, in real life, things don't get neatly wrapped up. Events occur that seem like a big deal at the time, but often peter out, or get consumed by newer ones.
Tony still faces a mountain of problems. Immediate ones: anybody at the restaurant could be there to kill him, the feds are moving in, family troubles. And deeper issues: his inner demons, dealing with his anger, his unhappy childhood, his relationship with his mother. Through all of this, life rolls on, and time passes and gets taken up by normal things. A mention of Tony's impending indictment with the feds gets talked about along with Meadow having a doctors' appointment. They order onion rings and Meadow struggles to parallel park. By ending it this way, Tony remains a larger than life figure, forever suspended in the same world he occupied when we first met him.
As for some of the other details in the show, nobody else I spoke to had the same reaction, but I thought that the FBI's Agent Harris had set up Tony. After being told Phil Leotardo was killed, Harris beamed (paraphrasing) "We may finally win this thing!" Some interpreted that line as him rooting for the New Jersey mob over the New York mob, but what I thought it meant was that now the FBI has effectively decapitated both families by playing one against the other. When he tipped off Tony on Phil's location, Harris knew Tony would act on the tip, and then they'd have the goods on Tony once and for all (remember the wiretapping scene?)
As for AJ, there were subtle and not so subtle hints (as there have been throughout the series) that he would end up like his father. Tony was once a sensitive child as well, both upset and intrigued by his father's violent profession. In last night's episode, we again saw the linking of their psychological states in the scene in which Tony talks to AJ's therapist about his own unhappy childhood. There was also the symbolic moment when AJ came down to the kitchen wearing a bathrobe (Tony's trademark). That was the first time in the series I can recall AJ wearing a bathrobe, although I cannot confirm that right now. In the scene that followed in which Tony and Carmela confronted AJ on his army plans, AJ brushed aside his mother with the "Always, with the drama!" line that Tony has used on Carmela and Tony's father Johnny used on his mother Livia in a flashback episode. AJ may not wind up as quite the vicious criminal as his father, but will be trapped in that world.
As for Meadow, with all that talk about the state smashing the individual, are we to assume she's become a libertarian?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Bombing Iran
Posted by on 6.10.07 @ 2:41PM
Usually when we debate air strikes on Iran, we're talking about the mullahs' nuclear program. Joe Lieberman talked on Face the Nation today about bombing insurgent training camps. Do we really know where those are? One of the arguments against confronting Iran has always been the fear that the Iranians could step up their meddling in Iraq and make things worse. The case for crippling their quest for nukes seems stronger if it's really possible to curb some of their Iraq operations while we're at it.
- Evolve or Die
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Current Wisdom
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
