- Jan 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Feb 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28
- Mar 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Apr 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- May 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Jun 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Jul 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Aug 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Sep 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- Oct 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Nov 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Dec 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Massachusetts Senate Race A Toss-Up; Republican Up 1 Point
Posted by on 1.9.10 @ 7:30PM
The much-anticipated Public Policy Polling survey shows Republican Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley 48 percent to 47 percent in the Massachusetts special election campaign to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Republicans are more enthusiastic about turning out than Democrats by 66 percent to 48 percent; Brown leads among independents by 63 percent to 31 percent; Brown's favorability among unaffiliated voters is 70 percent. Independents oppose the Democratic health care plan 59 percent to 27 percent. Brown has a net favorable rating of 32 points.
The pollsters note that there are still many things Coakley could do to turn the race around: run more effectively on Ted Kennedy's legacy, tie Brown to national Republicans who remain unpopular in Massachusetts, turn out the larger universe of Democratic voters in the commonwealth. But this is the second set of poll numbers that explains why Democrats are starting to talk about delaying Brown's certification until a health care bill is passed rather than defeating him in the special election. The full poll numbers can be read here (pdf).
Identity Politics and The Right, Continued
Posted by on 1.9.10 @ 6:34PM
Conor Friedersdorf responds to my post from Thursday, about whether a letter from a group of GOP congresswomen titled "Dear Mr. President: Your Policies Are Damaging Women the Most" constituted a distressing example of the right engaging in identity politics. (He actually spends most of his post arguing, somewhat fairly, that Glenn Reynolds lets his writing suffer in the service of pithiness. Showing the courage of his anti-pithiness convictions, he goes on about this for more than two thousand words.) He quotes one of our commenters, "Agreed x 2," who writes:
To those of you who think this is not identity politics: Let's say Barack Obama and the Dems explained that "Jesus would support health care reform" and "without this health overhaul, Christians will be hardest hit." Would that be identity politics?
That's a great example, because it's a type of rhetoric that liberals do in fact engage in (remember "Jesus was a community organizer?"), and because -- setting aside the semantic argument over what is and isn't "identity politics" -- it isn't problematic in the same way as traditional identity politics. It may be wrong and it may be silly, but it is not an attempt to enforce entrenched orthodoxy by elevating group loyalty above individual freedom of conscience. Like the Congresswomen's Obama-hurts-women letter, it's an attempt to challenge orthodoxy. It's a subtle distinction, but it matters.
Conor totally misses this distinction, and ends up conflating the Congresswomen's letter with race-baiting. Or at least alleged race-baiting: He links to his own critique of Rush Limbaugh, which groups some genuinely troubling quotes about race with several quotes that aren't terribly troubling (at least not in the same way). This is why, while I'm broadly sympathetic to what I take to be the Friedersdorf project -- urging the right to police itself and avoid turning inward and succumbing to groupthink -- I often find his commentary quite frustrating. He diagnoses the pathologies of the right like a doctor who thinks every little sniffle is pneumonia.
Weather is Not Climate, Except When It Is
Posted by on 1.9.10 @ 11:28AM
Just ask global-warming-no-matter-what reporter Bill Blakemore of ABC News, who says all us chilly folks are not suffering because the warming's gone away:
No, the cold snap in some parts of the northern hemisphere (New York, Florida, Beijing, Northern India, Europe) does not mean that manmade global warming is not happening, or even that it's happening just a little less....
Weather is short-term and local -- say, the next five or 10 days in the Tri-State Area.
Climate is long-term and regional (or bigger) -- say, the average over the next 20 years in the American Northeast.
But as Newsbusters noted back in June 2006, Blakemore was more than willing to explain how the weather at the time was evidence of global warming, in a discussion with ABC colleague Bill Weir:
Weir: A new National Academy of Science study says the Earth is hotter now than ever and humans are to blame....
Blakemore: The study reconfirms what scientists have been warning about: man-made global warming is real and underway. Americans can see effects right now out the kitchen window: five inches of rain in five hours in Toledo, Thursday. Downpours so sudden and massive.
Man on the street: It's the watching your headlights go underwater is the signal that you're in trouble.
Blakemore: This on top of the great downpours causing havoc in Houston this week and in the Northeast the spring. All fit exactly the weather patterns predicted for years by scientists warning us about effects of global warming. More frequent extreme weather they said, including heavier downpours.
But that snowstorm in Houston in early December 2009? Of course -- evidence of global warming too!
Get it through your thick heads, people. Everything points to global warming. Hot weather, rainy weather, stormy weather, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes -- are all evidence of global warming. Cold weather is not evidence of global warming because it's just "weather," not climate. Unless the cold weather has "extremes," like heavy snow or blizzards -- then it's an extreme weather event that has intensified because of the effects of global warming.
Thank God for brilliantly logical reporters like Bill Blakemore.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Oscillate This
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 9:48PM
I try to do everything my teachers tell me to so I'll get good grades, especially in science, where I can use all the extra credit I can get. So when my meteorology class instructor, AccuWeather's Joe Bastardi, tells me I should post something for all to study, you bet I'm going to do it.
As you'll learn at this link from NASA, the dominant current cold temperatures we're having (as well as warm ones we've had in the past that were attributed to greenhouse-gas driven global warming) have a lot to do with oscillation patterns, as NASA explains:
If you live nearly anywhere in North America, Europe, or Asia, it’s no news that December 2009 and early January 2010 were cold. This image illustrates how cold December was compared to the average of temperatures recorded in December between 2000 and 2008. Blue points to colder than average land surface temperatures, while red indicates warmer temperatures. Much of the Northern Hemisphere experienced cold land surface temperatures, but the Arctic was exceptionally warm. This weather pattern is a tale-tell sign of the Arctic Oscillation.
More, if you care, at the linked post. The map is pretty impressive.
Tea Party Intellectuals
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 5:21PM
Tea Party protesters seem to reference Ron Paul, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and other small-government figureheads as the intellectual founders of their young movement (or at least this is my experience covering tea parties in DC). But maybe they should be citing Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen Reinhart of U. Maryland instead. Reinhart and Rogoff have produced a study examining the effects high public debt levels have on the economy. (This study adds to their recent book.) They find that public debt above 90 percent of GDP dampens growth, which would seem to corroborate the tea partiers' most basic complaints, that being that the government is incurring too much debt.
From their abstract: "...the relationship between government debt and real GDP growth is weak for debt/GDP ratios below a threshold of 90 percent of GDP. Above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by one percent, and average growth falls considerably more."
James Picerno highlights this graph from the paper, showing that the US is among the countries that have most increased their debt burden following the financial crisis, because of bailouts, stimulus, etc.:
Picerno writes:
A recent estimate of U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 84%, according to Reinhart and Rogoff--dangerously close to the 90% threshold, as illustrated in the [above] chart taken from the paper.
The bottom line: Bailouts are expensive, perhaps more expensive than generally realized. The worst of the financial crisis and Great Recession may be over, and perhaps that's due partly to the intervention of central banks and governments around the world. (The business cycle was a factor too.) But let's not celebrate just yet. The cleanup era has only just begun and it's not yet clear how much it's going to cost.
Picerno is actually wrong about the debt level -- 84 percent is the change, not the level. According to the CBO, the public debt will be about 65 percent of GDP this year, well below Reinhart and Rogoff's critical number.
But under the CBO's projections of the budget going forward (pdf), we will be at 81 percent within a decade. And the CBO's estimation is based off of the administration's assumptions about future policies and politics. While those assumptions are plausible, they are definitely rosy compared to a number of alternate scenarios that could play out. The most obvious example would be health care reform costing significantly more than anticipated, which is very likely.
The real bottom line: bailouts are expensive, and the folks rallying in tea parties just may have a better realization of that fact than Congress does.
Try Honesty, Mr. Steele
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 4:49PM
Reid Wilson at the Hotline has been doing a great job in recent weeks covering conservative and Republican items of interest. Today, he notes that Michael Steele now seems to have been caught in a lie, in addition to all the other examples of him eating his own feet. He claimed his wrote his current book before he was chairman, but Wilson shows why this can't be so. And lest anyone think this isn't important, I note that lies/mistakes abot timelines were absolutely key to absolving the great Clarence Thomas of the accusations against him, as only the close attention of lawyer Janet Napolitano kept one Judge Susan Hoerchner from outright perjury during the Thomas hearings -- specifically because Hoerchner claimed Anita Hill complained to her about Thomas' supposed harassment BEFORE Hill even worked for Thomas.
With the stakes much lower, this is the same kind of thing that Steele has done. What's the point? Why so defensive? Why not stop inventing excuses, and just tell it straight?
"A Losable Race" for Democrats in Massachusetts
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 4:21PM
That's what the Public Policy Polling Institute is saying about the special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, having looked at the numbers due to come out this weekend. Two key points on the matchup between Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican State Sen. Scott Brown, according to the outfit's website:
At this point a plurality of those planning to turn out oppose the health care bill. The massive enthusiasm gap we saw in Virginia is playing itself out in Massachusetts as well. Republican voters are fired up and they're going to turn out. Martha Coakley needs to have a coherent message up on the air over the last ten days that her election is critical to health care passing and Ted Kennedy's legacy- right now Democrats in the state are not feeling a sense of urgency.
-Scott Brown's favorables are up around 60%, a product of his having had the airwaves to himself for the last week. By comparison Bob McDonnell's were at 55% right before his election and Chris Christie's were only at 43%. Coakley's campaign or outside groups need to tie Brown's image to national Republicans and knock him down a notch over the final week of the campaign.
Even with these numbers, everything would have to break right for a Republican to get elected to Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. But at the very least, Brown is starting to look like the most serious Republican senatorial candidate in Massachusetts since Bill Weld took on John Kerry in 1996.
Missing Mike Duncan
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 3:27PM
Phil, Quin, Joe: Can we all agree, given Steele's antics, that Mike Duncan got screwed?
Duncan, you'll recall, was practically the invisible man during his tenure as RNC Chairman. He wasn't on TV much because that wasn't his strength; unlike a lot of party chairs, he wasn't a politician but a veteran behind-the-scenes operator (he started as a precinct captain and worked his way up the ranks of the party over several decades). His strength, rather, was actually running the RNC. He took over in January 2007, a couple months after his party suffered a crushing electoral defeat in the 2006 midterms, and served through the end of 2008, another very tough cycle for the GOP. Despite the handicaps of an unpopular Republican president and a nominee who didn't exactly set the base's heart on fire, the RNC broke fundraising records under his watch.
In the wake of Obama's victory, Duncan made an easy scapegoat for the party's problems. The impulse to clean the slate and elect a new leader after an electoral disaster was perhaps understandable, and Duncan probably didn't help matters by seeming amusingly out of touch with the Web 2.0 fads that the RNC Chair candidates running against him were falling over themselves to embrace.
But now the RNC has a Chairman who is on TV all the time -- and is constantly saying things that undercut the party. (When Howard Dean was DNC Chairman, the Democrats at least managed to convince their loose cannon leader to keep a low profile.) Fundraising is anemic, despite a much more favorable fundraising environment. (Sure, the economy is in bad shape, but I've still heard my think tank friends talking about how well they do when they hammer at Obama in fundraising letters; that the RNC can't capitalize on this is just embarrassing.) I'm guessing that just about everyone in the Republican leadership misses Mike Duncan, except perhaps for Michael Steele himself.
Brit Hume Derangement Syndrome
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 3:05PM
Michael Gerson has an excellent piece in the Washington Post taking the talking heads to task for their Brit Hume derangement syndrome.
Yes, Brit said that Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity. Yes, Brit said that Buddhism doesn't offer the kind of forgiveness inherent in the Christian faith. No, there was nothing wrong with any of that.
Gerson writes:
True tolerance consists in engaging deep disagreements respectfully -- through persuasion -- not in banning certain categories of argument and belief from public debate.
In this controversy, we are presented with two models of discourse. Hume, in an angry sea of loss and tragedy -- his son's death in 1998 -- found a life preserver in faith. He offered that life preserver to another drowning man. Whatever your view of Hume's beliefs, he could have no motive other than concern for Woods himself.
The other model has come from critics such as [the Post's Tom] Shales, in a spittle-flinging rage at the mention of religion in public, comparing Hume to "Mary Poppins on the joys of a tidy room, or Ron Popeil on the glories of some amazing potato peeler." Shales, of course, is engaged in proselytism of his own -- for a secular fundamentalism that trivializes and banishes all other faiths. He distributes the sacrament of the sneer.
Who in this picture is more intolerant?
The giant pink elephant in the room is that had Hume suggested Tiger convert to any religion besides Christianity, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. To the contrary, liberals would hail Hume as remarkably sensitive. It is the Christian faith — and uniquely the Christian faith — that elicits the rage of secularists in America.
Yet Another 'Scientists Say' Article
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 2:48PM
The Washington Post's David Fahrenthold reports today the latest consensus proclamation from scientists (they are unified because the formerly mainstream media says they are), in which they announce that mountaintop coal mining must be ended. Also, because the FMSM says so, science is principled and has no other interests other than the purity and professionalism of their research:
The group, headed by a University of Maryland researcher, said it performed the most comprehensive study to date of the controversial practice, also known as "mountaintop removal."
Afterward, they did something that scientists usually don't: step beyond data-gathering to take a political stand.
"The science is so overwhelming that the only conclusion that one can reach is that mountaintop mining needs to be stopped," said Margaret Palmer, a professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences and the study's lead author.
Imagine how thrown for a loop
Fahrenthold must have been: that scientists took a political
stand. Bet you could have knocked him over with a spotted-owl
feather. Yes, the untainted Palmer allows nothing to stand in
the way of letting science speak for itself, whatever the
truth is, as the thorough Post reporter undoubtedly
discovered himself with the same simple Google search that I
performed (which revealed this E Magazine.com report):
Mine rubble can have long-lasting effects on hydrologic processes and stream ecology, Margaret A. Palmer, a University of Maryland ecologist, told senators at the June hearing.
“There is no evidence to date that mitigation actions can compensate for the lost natural resources and ecological functions of the headwater streams that are buried,” says Palmer, whose work has been commissioned by environmental groups (emphasis mine).
Professional that he is, Fahrenthold did call a representative from the coal industry so he'd have something to put in his 9th paragraph:
Chris Hamilton of the West Virginia Coal Association disputed the report's conclusions.
"It's just flat-out wrong," Hamilton said, adding that the "so-called lead scientists have a history of activism against mining."
The scientists rejected that, saying that they brought no bias to the topic and that their conclusions had been rigorously reviewed by other researchers.
Good enough for this
environmentalist reporter for the Post! No need to
Google up the ties between Doc Palmer and Democratic Rep. Steny
Hoyer of Maryland -- you know, the ones which show
her five campaign contributions to him totaling $3,500 over a
19-month period between July 2006 and February 2008, which
occurred during the same time frame that Hoyer helped unveil
the new Chesapeake Biological Laboratory that Palmer would direct
(and nice URL there, University of Maryland -- "Palmerlab!").
Yes indeed, the intrepid Fahrenthold had every reason to be shocked at the unusual move by Palmer to step beyond data-gathering. Breathtaking reporting, there.
Meanwhile, let's enjoy the beauty that is the extraction of a natural resource that generates affordable electricity for all the earth's citizens, rich and poor, who live in countries that are technologically advanced enough to access it:
And we might as well add this:
The Key Group is Pro-Life Democrats
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 12:28PM
The Washington Times today has a handy list of the Democrats in the House who voted against Obamacare the first time and the role abortion played in those votes -- and of how constituents can get in touch with them to make their views known. Well worth a read, and well worthy of use by activists interested in the topic.
Media Bias Taints Football Coverage
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 12:24PM
BURBANK, Calif.
My late father -- University of Alabama, Class of '50 -- always
believed that sports writers were prejudiced against the Crimson
Tide. He would have spotted as evidence of such bias
the eagerness with which some commentators rushed to put an
asterisk after 'Bama's 37-21 BCS victory over Texas last night in
Pasadena.
Rather than celebrate the Crimson Tide's victory, all the sports writers want to expend their prose praising the losers. Longhorns quarterback Colt McCoy was knocked out of the game on his fifth play, and the ABC announcerrs broadcasting the game almost immediately began making "what if" excuses for Texas.
This morning, the Apotheosis of Colt McCoy was continued by dozens of columnists, including Pete Fiutak of Fox Sports:
[I]t's going to be hard to ever think about this national title game without thinking about McCoy and how Texas was hamstrung.
This assertion bears strong resemblance to a malodorous substance excreted by the Texas mascot. Injuries are part of the game, which is why there are depth charts. The fact that true freshman Garrett Gilbert was No. 2 QB on the 'Horns chart -- and was manifestly unready to take over, failing to complete a pass until after halftime -- is certainly relevant to the overall strength of the two teams.
Furthermore, the "tainted title" argument, also promoted by L.A. Daily News columnist Bob Keisser, treats McCoy's game-ending injury as a complete fluke, a random incident. This denies credit to Alabama linebacker Marcel Dareus, whose hard hit put McCoy out of the game.
It was a clean hit -- there was nothing dirty or illegal about it -- and no one wants to see players injured. However, injuries are an inevitable consequence of hard-hitting defense, and the Tide's defense hits harder than anyone else in college football, which is why they are indisputably the national champions.
Only after the game ended did Alabama reveal that their QB Greg McElroy played last night's game while wearing special pads to protect two fractured ribs, injuries McElroy sustained in the SEC title game against Florida -- but which neither he nor his coaches made public.
McElroy's stoicism in playing with pain, Dareus's hard-hitting effort, two touchdowns for Heisman winner Mark Ingram -- all of the championship efforts by Crimson Tide players are dismissed by the sports writers as anomalous and incidental. Anti-'Bama bias is as ubiquitous in sports media as liberalism is among the political press. Unlike politics, however, media bias in sports can't affect the outcome on the field.
MIT Economist Who Touted Obamacare Was on HHS Payroll
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 11:59AM
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber raked in nearly $300,000 from the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services while frequently appearing in news accounts as a non-partisan analyst who supported Democratic health care legislation.
Gruber defended himself to Ben Smith at the Politico, arguing that HHS didn't fund his "public declarations" and that he didn't say anything that was contrary to what he believed. Gruber also told Smith "that he has told reporters of the contract 'whenever they asked' and noted that he formally disclosed that 'I am a paid consultant to the Obama Administration' in a form attached to his most recent, December 24 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, though it wasn't widely known by reporters on the beat."
However, December 24 was the day the health care bill passed the Senate in a vote that by that point was a mere formality -- and six months after his contract with HHS was awarded on June 19. In that time, his research was frequently cited to bolster Democratic health care claims. When health care legislation was under fire for not actually bending the cost curve, Gruber was publicly defending the cost-containment provisions, and was cited as an unbiased source, often in fawning terms.
For example, on Nov. 21 -- the day the Senate passed its initial motion to proceed to debate on the Senate health care bill -- Ron Brownstein posted an item for the Atlantic titled, "A Milestone in the Health Care Journey."
Here's how it began:
When I reached Jonathan Gruber on Thursday, he was working his way, page by laborious page, through the mammoth health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had unveiled just a few hours earlier. Gruber is a leading health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is consulted by politicians in both parties. He was one of almost two dozen top economists who sent President Obama a letter earlier this month insisting that reform won't succeed unless it "bends the curve" in the long-term growth of health care costs. And, on that front, Gruber likes what he sees in the Reid proposal. Actually he likes it a lot.
"I'm sort of a known skeptic on this stuff," Gruber told me. "My summary is it's really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing."
The same day, Kaiser Health News ran a story by the New Republic's liberal health care reporter Jonathan Cohn, titled, "The Senate Bill Saves Families Money." Cohn writes that, "At my request, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber produced a set of figures, based on official Congressional Budget Office estimates. The results tell a pretty compelling story, particularly when put in human terms." Cohn uses Gruber's analysis to work toward his conclusion that the Senate bill "will make people's lives significantly better."
On Dec. 28, the Washington Post ran a column by Gruber defending the tax on "Cadillac" health care plans. The bottom of the piece merely identified Gruber as "a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Gruber's contract with HHS was brought to light on the liberal blog DailyKos, which along with other liberal sites and unions, is fiercely opposed to the "Cadillac" tax.
UPDATE: I also see this ironic item written by Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein in October, in which he used data from Gruber -- being "pushed" by the Obama administration -- to counter an insurance industry funded study that found health care legislation would raise premiums. The post claimed "Gruber certainly has a lot less incentive to twist the facts than the insurance industry does." At no point did the item disclose that Gruber was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from HHS.
UPDATE II: Ezra has today acknowledged that he should have disclosed the contract, but wasn't aware of it until now. Jon Cohn says he assumed Gruber was getting paid for his work for the administration, but now regrets not disclosing it more consistently.
UPDATE III: And now Brownstein responds.
Re: Steele's Leadership
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 11:12AM
Two quick comments on Michael Steele's latest tantrum.
1. To be fair to Steele: I couldn't believe that he would let the phrase "chartered course in life" to slip past his lips. As illuminating into his character as it would be to learn that Steele thinks of his life as rented, he did in fact say "charted." ThinkProgress messed up the transcription.
2. At this point he should understand that he needs to be directing the conversation toward the RNC's goals and away from himself, i.e. leading. Yet he's complaining and trying to portray himself as a martyr. It shouldn't be hard to understand that the Republicans aren't interested in their chairman demonstrating that he's misunderstood or fielding personal complaints. They just want money.
Re: Steele on Chairmanship
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 11:10AM
Phil,
Just Shut Up. Unless you want to pay Steele to speak. Because of course he will put your money to better use in his own pocket than he could if he talked you into donating it to the party. The party doesn't need the money anyway, because it has a superstar as chairman who can make it popular just by virtue of his reflected glory. And, of course, his glory reflects more brightly if you pay him to speak. When he tells people to "get with the program," well, of course the best program is the one that has him as a featured, highly paid speaker. Because, you see, he is ready to lead, but th Republicans not only won't win back the House but aren't ready to lead if they do win it back. We know that is the case because the man of Steele told us so himself -- even without being paid to do so.
And when he said he wanted the gig, he didn't mean he wanted to do all the nuts and bolts things that an ordinary chairman does -- things such as fund-raising, and like saying things that actually make the party look good. No, he meant he wanted the TITLE of party chairman so he could boost his speaking fees. Because, you see, if he gets rich off of being chairman, he will be in better position to finance the race for president that he plans to make. He should be president, you see, because he is SO "all that." Because, after all, he is the very man to sell our principles to "hip-hop" audiences and to one-armed midgets. Because those are the new majoritarian interest groups, of course.
Mental midgets, of course, are also welcome -- especially as party chairman.
Steele on GOP Chairmanship: "I Didn't Seek This Job"
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 10:50AM
Michael Steele, who has been under fire for his string of idiotic statements, poor fundraising numbers, shameless self promotion, and telling Republican donors who disagree with him to "shut up" and "get with the program" -- now says that he didn't actually seek the chairmanship of the RNC in the first place.
In a fawning radio interview with Dennis Miller, Steele speaks of himself as a modern day George Washington, who reluctantly answered the call to serve.
"I didn’t ask for, I didn’t seek this job, I didn’t ask for it," Steele said. "It wasn’t part of my, you know, charted course in life to wind up as chairman of the RNC. You know, there was a convergence of moments here."
Now, perhaps Steele's right and I'm mistaken. Perhaps I completely imagined covering the RNC chairman's race, going to watch him debate other candidates, or attending the RNC election last January. Maybe I imagined receiving emails on behalf of his candidacy, and maybe this video in which Steele announces his candidacy by saying, "I want the gig. I'm ready, I'm ready to lead this party" is an elaborate fabrication.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 10:47AM
- Congrats to Alabama and fans for winning the football national championship, but for claiming this national title as their thirteenth? As Lee Corso would say, "not so fast" (Bleacher Report)
- New York Post: Hillary was right about Obama and the 3 am phone calls.
- Members of Sarkozy's party in France are pushing for a law that would include a fine of over $1000 for wearing burkas in public (Daily Mail)
- C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb: Obama used us as "political football" (Washington Examiner)
Memo to Palin: Get Over Yourself
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 10:33AM
Okay, now that I have ensured that I will receive lots of hateful comments.... Sarah Palin's decision not to attend CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) is ridiculously petty. I will grant that CPAC should not have let the Birchers be minor sponsors. I don't understand that decision. But this bit about David Keene and Fed Ex/UPS (read the link for explanations of these references to specific issues) was dealt with months ago, and Keene certainly explained it to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of most conservative bloggers as well. In fact, the issue is SO "over and done with" that it cannot be anything more than mere pretext. Somehow I don't think Sarah Palin has a long record of letting her schedule be determined by the wishes of a delivery company. (And I say this as somebody who has editorialized quite strongly in favor of the FedEx position in that dispute, which I gather is the position that Palin in effect takes, which means that my beef clearly isn't with her position on that dispute itself.) As for Keene supposedly complaining last year when she pulled out of a scheduled CPAC event: Hell, I would complain too if a rising gubernatorial star committed to come to the single biggest conservative event of the year and then backed out (IF that is what happened). If that is what happened -- and again, I do NOT know the circumstances, so there MAY be a legitimate explanation -- then unless Palin had a really good reason, she did effectively "diss" not just Keene but the conservative movement, in which case Keene would have been right to complain.
What I do know is this: I saw Keene at the GOP convention in 2008, early on, and he was positively gushing about Palin, absolutely thoroughly excited about her selection as Veep nominee and totally supportive. I don't blame him, therefore, for being disappointed at her absence in 2009.
What this really looks like is that Palin seems to assume she has conservative activists in her hip pocket anyway and thus can refuse to speak to its most enthusiastic activists in order to take a shot at Keene. Well, IF that is true -- and I acknowledge this is all based on assumptions that the reports in the links are accurate -- then Sarah Palin is playing right into her reputation of being somewhat of a diva. It's hard to be a diva and a woman of the people at the same time. To paraphrase Fagin from Oliver Twist: I think she better think it out again.
Dec. Unemployment Rate Unchanged at 10%, Economy Loses 85,000 Jobs
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 8:48AM
The United States unemployment rate remained unchanged at 10 percent in December, but the economy lost an additional 85,000 jobs, the Department of Labor reported this morning. The numbers were worse than expected, because many economists had anticipated job growth during the month.
In addition, the labor force participation rate dropped to 64.6 percent in December from 64.9 percent in November, bringing it to the lowest level of the year. Some see this as a more accurate measure of the employment situation because it takes into account those who have given up looking for work because the job market was to weak, a segment of the population that is eliminated when calculating the headline unemployment number. There were 929,000 discouraged workers in December who gave up looking for work because they didn't think jobs were available.
Taking everything into account -- including the fact that some workers who are employed part-time would prefer to be working full-time -- the unemployment rate is 17.3 percent.
In one of the few batches of good news, the report said that the economy did add a modest 4,000 jobs in November, which represented an upward revision from the original estimate that 11,000 were lost during the month. However, the report also upwardly revised job losses in October to 127,000 from the prior estimate of 111,000.
From a political perspective, the report is more bad news for the Obama administration, which had hoped to be able to tout some growth in jobs during the month. The economy is averaging fewer job losses now than it was a year ago, but the labor market is still quite weak.
What Happened to Limited Government?
Posted by on 1.8.10 @ 5:46AM
Matthew Sanderson of Playoff PAC complains about George Will and yours truly dismissing his organization's demand that Uncle Sam fix college football. You know, after balancing the budget, restarting the economy, reforming health care, eliminating Social Security's deficit, turning public schools into genuine educational institutions, eliminating crime, and safeguarding America from terrorists, Congress should decide on the right championship system for college ball.
Sanderson contends that there's nothing unconservative in turning Uncle Sam into the Sportsman-in-Chief:
In the end, this debate over college football reform offers no evidence of "government takeover" and casts no doubt on Congressman Barton's adherence to conservative principles. Instead, it exposes the need for fewer knee-jerk reactions and more thoughtful analysis to prevent conservatism from becoming simply a "philosophy of no" in a time of truly heinous government intrusions.
So the answer so "truly heinous government intrusions" apparently is another heinous government intrusion. Makes sense in a Washington-sort-of-way.
The issue is not really what is "conservative." After all, President George W. Bush claimed to be a conservative while busting the budget, expanding the welfare state, and centralizing power in Washington. Taking over college football would have been just a small extension of federal authority for his administration.
The essential question is: do we believe in limited government and individual rights? If we believe there are some things in life that are not matters of public policy, then sports should be one of them. And if we believe there are individual liberties protected from government interference, then organizing sports should be one. I don't have the slightest idea whether the BCS makes sense. But I do know that "fixing" the BCS is not the federal government's responsibility.
It is time for us to respond with a very loud and insistent "no" to new proposals for additional "heinous government intrusions," no matter how well-intentioned they might seem to be.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Gore Effect Hits Wisconsin Today
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 8:22PM
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle was set to announce in Madison and Milwaukee press conferences today his "Clean Energy Jobs Act," which for some strange reason had the term "global warming" expunged from the legislation that is largely the product of his Task Force on Global Warming. Turns out he may have been stricken with the same malaise that Al Gore suffers from, as the governor's office sent out this notice to the media late this morning about the second planned presser:
The event in Milwaukee has been postponed due to weather conditions.
Remember, it's all caused by global warming.
FrumForum Props up "Mark Kirk is Gay" Candidate
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 7:05PM
It has been alleged by some of the media that the conservative and tea party movements are anti-intellectual and are avoiding substantive issues in primary campaigns against more moderate Republicans. Jeb Golinkin at FrumForum posted on Wednesday the following about the Illinois Senate Primary and allegations by one opponent that Kirk is gay:
If the debate were about issues, Andy Martin would not be running radio advertisements which mention a so called "solid rumor" that Kirk is gay. If this race were about issues, Lake County Republican leader Ray True would not publicly observe that Mark Kirk has "surrounded himself with homosexuals."
It seems more than a bit of a stretch to conclude that Andy Martin is a serious candidate and that his actions speak for the right wing. Martin is a notorious shock blogger who has no reported FEC campaign contributions filing (although 4th quarter still has not been posted). Moreover, CBS Chicago reports that he was convicted of assault in Florida and denied entry into the Illinois bar because of a "character defect."
Lake County Republican leader Ray True, who FrumForum quotes as saying that Kirk "surrounded himself with homosexuals," has denied that he ever made such comments. The comments were cited as evidence in Martin's advertisement, but maybe FrumForum has another source of True actually making those allegations.
In addition, the Illinois GOP has issued a statement denouncing the allegations -- as has Pat Hughes, the candidate who has run second in financing.
CQ had a piece today jokingly suggesting that Andy Martin could be an agent of Mark Kirk -- by releasing radicals throwing out wild accusations "they suck up what little media oxygen is in the room" away from other more conservative challengers of Kirk. If the media want to avoid an issue-based primary, the natural thing to do would be to group conservatives with Andy Martin.
Identity Politics and The Right
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 5:33PM
Yesterday Conor Friedersdorf was wringing his hands about the state of the right, as he does most days. (His are among the world's most thoroughly wrung hands.) He was very bothered by a letter signed by a group of Republican congresswomen titled "Dear Mr. President: Your Policies Are Damaging Women the Most," which he saw as an embrace of the very identity politics that we're used to seeing on the left, and denounced Pajamas Media for running the letter and Glenn Reynolds for linking to it uncritically.
Reynolds pithily responded with an update reading simply "Conor Fridersdorf is immune to irony." Confused, Conor asked late last night on Twitter (as well as in update to his post) for someone to explain what that could mean. Since the meaning was pretty obvious to me, I responded with the explanation that Glenn clearly reads the letter not as embracing identity politics but as appropriating the language of identity politics to turn the tables on the left. Conor had more questions, which I punted on, pleading fatigue (it was 2 AM at this point), but since I have a moment now I'll answer them.
Conor's problem seems to be that the letter is seriously suggesting that Obama's policies are especially bad for women. And he's right, it is. But the subtext is important here. As Conor points out, the Congresswomen are mostly talking about policies that Republicans believe are bad for everyone. The purpose of noting that some of them are disproportionately bad for women, though, is indeed to note the irony: Women are supposed to be one of the groups that liberals are especially interested in protecting. This is not the same as the kind of traditional liberal identity politics which leads to ludicrous declarations that Sarah Palin isn't a real woman; in fact it is a welcome corrective to that sort of thing.
None of this is to say that identity politics doesn't exist on the right, or that it isn't problematic at times. But the kind of right-wing identity politics that can be worrisome if taken too far tends to focus on class, religion, or region. To fret when the right invokes gender or race in the service of pushing back against the left is to miss the mark.
The Price Tag of Your Domestic Partner
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 4:10PM
Expanded benefits for the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees could top the Obama administration’s social agenda in 2010.
The health-care Christmastime debacle largely overshadowed the vote, but a Senate committee, chaired by Joe Lieberman, passed a bill Dec. 16 that would give federal employees’ same-sex domestic partners identical benefits as married spouses. A House committee approved a similar bill in November.
Championing the issue this year would be safer for Obama than scuttling the federal Defense of Marriage Act or pushing his abortion agenda. The furor over right-to-life protections in the health-care overhaul should be enough to convince the president that this is ground where angels dare not tread, particularly in an election year (and particularly with your approval numbers sinking into the political abyss).
And by signing same-sex domestic partner benefits into law, Obama would show his disgruntled base of social leftists that he’s willing to play ball — if only T-ball.
Still, the bills could be a tough sell — not for moral reasons, but fiscal ones. A Congressional Budget Office analysis (PDF download) from December found that the House version of the bill would increase direct and discretionary spending by nearly $900 million over the next nine years without having any direct impact on federal revenues.
A comparatively small number, to be sure, in an age when “trillion” has become a common part of the American lexicon. Even so, devoting additional perks to federal employees (as if an explosion in six-figure salaries during the recession weren’t enough) won’t sit well with constituents already angry at unthinkable deficits.
More fuel for the fire.
Nelson Calls for All States to Be Treated Same on Medicaid Expansion
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 4:05PM
Sen. Ben Nelson, under fire for the so-called "Cornhusker kickback" that helped secure his vote for the Senate health care bill, has released a statement calling on all states to be treated equally by the final health care bill. Under the bill he voted for, Medicaid would be expanded by about 15 million people, shifting billions in new costs onto the states, except Nebraska -- which would have federal taxpayers pick up 100 percent of the tab.
From his statement:
"As a former governor, I've long fought against unfunded federal mandates, which force Washington rules on states with little or no money to pay for them," said Senator Nelson. The current health care bill has an unfunded mandate for expanding Medicaid. While helping more Americans obtain health coverage is important, this mandate could burden state budgets in uncertain economic times ahead.
"I've been in serious discussions with Senate leaders and others to secure changes in the bill to treat all states equally," Nelson added. "At the end of the day, whatever Nebraska gets will apply to all states."
Among options Nelson has discussed would be for the House and Senate conference committee to change the legislation to provide full federal funding of the Medicaid costs for all states, or allow every state the ability to opt out of the expense they'll begin to pay in 2017.
"My view is: either fund it or un-mandate it," Senator Nelson said....
"My intent has been and remains absolutely clear," Nelson said. "Every state should be, and will be, treated the same."
A few quick thoughts: 1) Having federal taxpayers pick up the entire tab for the Medicaid expansion would boost the cost of the legislation. An analysis (PDF) by the Congressional Budget Office pegged the cost shifted onto the states in an earlier version of the Senate bill at $25 billion from 2010 to 2019. 2) It's unlikely liberals would agree to allow states to opt-out of the Medicaid expansion, which could substantially impact the amount of people covered by the health care bill. In the Senate bill, the Medicaid expansion accounts for nearly half of the 31 million people who will obtain coverage as a result of the legislation, according to the CBO. 3) If Nelson feels so strongly about this, it would have been much easier to get what he wanted last month, when Democrats were desperate for his cloture vote. Instead, he folded like a cheap suitcase.
Obama's Reversal on "Cadillac" Plans
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 2:45PM
Liberals are lashing out at President Obama for backing a measure in the Senate health care bill that would tax expensive policies as a means of raising money and containing costs. The liberal blog Firedoglake has posted a video depicting Obama's dramatic reversal on the idea, which is fiercely opposed by unions because it would affect many of the plans of their members. The video was made by somebody claiming to be a disillusioned former Obama supporter, and it contains a clip from the campaign in which Obama uses the same line of attack against the so-called "Cadillac tax" that is being used by unions:
John McCain calls these plans "Cadillac plans." Now in some cases, it may be that a corporate CEO is getting too good a deal. But what if you're a line worker making a good American car like the Cadillac? What if you're one of the steelworkers who are working right here in Newport News, and you've given up wage increases in exchange for a better health care?
Well, Senator McCain believes you should pay higher taxes too. The bottom line: the better your health care plan - the harder you've fought for your good benefits - the higher the taxes you'll pay.
The reality is actually even worse for Obama. McCain's plan was part of a larger effort to even out the tax treatment of health insurance, so that individuals purchasing coverage on their own could enjoy the same tax advantages as if they were obtaining it through their employers. That would have given everybody the opportunity to choose the type of insurance they want (as opposed to the policies dictated by their employers), take policies with them from job to job, and give them an incentive to bargain for the best deals, thus driving down health care costs. Yet while McCain's proposal was part of a broader plan to reform the health care system and even out the tax code, the tax Obama supports isn't offset by tax relief for individuals purchasing insurance on their own, or part of a larger move away from employer-based insurance model. What's odd is that administration officials who have argued in favor of the excise tax have pitched it as a way to control health care costs, with the theory being that if the tax encourages employers to drop benefit-rich health care plans, it would result in more bargaining, and discourage unnecessary medical spending. Yet McCain's plan would have done all of those things, on a much larger scale. I may disagree with liberals on what type of health care bill would be ideal, but one thing I'd agree with liberals about is that Obama's campaign position is philisophically irreconcilable with his current stance.
Here's the video -- you can skip to the 1 minute mark if you want to avoid the narration and get right to Obama's remarks.
News From Honduras
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 12:53PM
While other stories now grasp the headlines, Hondurans are still grappling with the consequences of the ouster of former president, Jose Manuel Zalaya.
Most recently, military commanders responsible for following orders and removing Zalaya are being brought up on charges:
Honduran prosecutors have charged three military chiefs with abuse of power in connection with the ousting and exile of President Manuel Zelaya last June.… A spokesman said they were being charged with abuse of authority for sending Mr Zelaya out of the country. Under the Honduran constitution, it is illegal to forcibly remove Honduran citizens from the country.
Nevertheless, it appears Zalaya will remain out of office until his official replacement takes over. Zalaya's replacement, Roberto Michaletti, who was second in line to the presidency and most responsible for the ouster of President Zalaya, never sought the presidency himself, but defiantly stood up for the rule of law in Honduras -- against international pressure and Zalaya's demands to allow his return. Michaletti's restraint and dignity is noteworthy, to say the least.
The newly elected president of Honduras, Porfirio Lobo, will be sworn in on January 27. One hopes that he will continue to resist the siren calls of Venezuelan president Chavez and others who would pull that country to the left and into a position that would be hostile to the United States and to the principles of liberty.
We should hope and watch for Mr. Lobo to continue to do the right thing for Hondurans.
Another Random Rockefeller Republican Thought
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 12:36PM
When moderate-to-liberal Republicans have gotten into trouble with their liberal constituents, it has generally been because of their support for more-conservative Republican presidents and other national GOP leaders than because of their opposition to Democratic presidents. When such Republicans alternate between voting with a Democratic president and voting against him, it actually bolsters their reputation for independence. Some of the worst years for liberal Republicans have been 1974, 1982, and 2006 -- all years when Republican presidents were unpopular. The moderate Republicans who went down in 1996 were attacked more for their support of Newt Gingrich than their opposition to Bill Clinton.
The only major exception to this trend has been the ladies from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. They managed to prosper in the 1990s despite Gingrich and they were reelected in 2006 and 2008, respectively, despite Bush. Maine still seems to be a place where Rockefeller Republicanism is generally popular, as evidenced by Snowe, Collins, William Cohen, and John McKernan.
Job Fears Motivated Education Reform in MA?
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 12:08PM
Massachusetts is poised to pass a broad reform of education policy that would expand the role of charter schools. After a long legislative session that ended in the early hours of the morning, the reform bill passed the House and now only needs to be marked up in conference before going to Deval Patrick's desk to be signed into law.
Why the sudden urgency to increase school choice in a deep blue state? The answer seems to be that the Obama stimulus bill included a number of funds dedicated to financing state school system reforms that stipulated that the measures must be designed and passed by mid-January in order to be eligible. This proviso has nothing to do with education policy; instead it was designed to hasten job creation. By giving state lawmakers an incentive to get the reforms done quickly, the ARRA is supposed to have a greater stimulative effect for jobs earlier on.
In fact if you look at the Dept. of Education's outline, the first priority is not reform, but to spend money quickly to save and create jobs. The result, however, is that Massachusetts lawmakers get a $250 million windfall if they pass the bill by midmonth, but nothing if after that. As powerful as the teachers' unions may be, their clout is overshadowed by the $250 million that politicians would be able to bring home. Teachers' unions, of course, are usually highly motivated to block most education reforms and charter schools in specific. But their clout is overshadowed by a $250 million grant that comes with few strings attached.
Whether this reform would actually create or save any jobs is a real question. But jobs were the motivation, because for Democrats right now the employment outlook is the number one concern. Maybe the federal government saw that this particular stipulation would work against their allies down the road, maybe it didn't. But the upshot, as far as I can tell, is that Massachusetts is reforming the school system at an accelerated pace because of the Democratic Congress's desire to improve the job situation.
Of Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 11:59AM
The general point that Dick Morris is making in this column -- that congressional districts once represented by liberal Republicans now tend to be represented by liberal Democrats and the districts once represented by conservative Democrats now tend to be held by conservative Republicans -- is sound. But this bit of history about liberal Republican senators isn't quite right:
When liberal Republicans failed to rally to Bill Clinton's 1993-1994 agenda - including his failed healthcare proposal - they laid the basis for their total demise in subsequent years. Sens. Jeffords, Chaffee, D'Amato, Packwood, Hatfield and Specter (as a Republican) are gone. Sens. Snowe and Collins are all that remain of the once-dominant Rockefeller wing of the GOP. They have been replaced by real Democrats.
All of those Republicans are indeed gone, but the idea that they paid a steep political price for opposing the 1993-94 Clinton agenda (to the extent that they opposed it) is wrong. Jim Jeffords -- who actually supported the Clinton health care plan but opposed many other administration initiatives -- was reelected in 1994. John Chafee was reelected in 1994 and replaced by his even more liberal Republican son Lincoln in 2000. Arlen Specter was (fairly easily) reelected in 1998. Mark Hatfield opted to retire after five terms in 1996 but was replaced by a somewhat more conservative Republican, Gordon Smith. Bob Packwood's departure was due to his sexual harrassment scandal, not his voting record.
The only senator on that list to lose a reelection bid during Clinton's presidency is Alfonse D'Amato of New York, who went down in 1998. But D'Amato was the least liberal member of that group. In fact, he ran in all of his elections with Conservative and Right-to-Life Party support and set himself on a path to win his Senate seat in 1980 by beating liberal Republican Jacob Javits in the primary.
Morris is on more solid ground when he points out that supposedly "center-right" Democrats will pay a political price for supporting the Obama administration, like their predecessors did during the Clinton administration. In 2006 and 2008, national Democrats recruited candidates in purple and red districts who ran on fairly conservative platforms. But few of them have compiled recognizably conservative voting records.
Steele Tells Critics to "Shut Up" and "Get With the Program"
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 11:07AM
Michael Steele attacked his critics on ABC radio today (and since those critics would include me), I figured I should post what he had to say:
“I tell them to get a life. That’s old Washington, that’s old ways, and I don’t represent that, and that kills them,” Steele told ABC News Radio in an interview today.
“I’m telling them and I’m looking them in the eye and say I’ve had enough of it. If you don’t want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program or get out of the way.”
Meanwhile, Steele also gave himself a "solid B" grade as chairman.
UPDATE: By way of context, Steele was responding to this Washington Times piece about how big donors are refusing to contribute to the RNC because of Steele's paid speeches and book tour that are seen as a distraction.
Poll Shows Lincoln in Hot Water
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 10:52AM
A new Rasmussen poll finds Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln trailing all potential Republican challengers by a wide margin, and she doesn't garner more than 39 percent of the vote against any of them. Her unfavorable rating stands at 56 percent. All of this is evidence that she may suffer from the Corzine Effect that Jim discussed yesterday.
Voters in the state oppose the health care bill she voted for by a 60 percent to 35 percent margin, according to the poll.
Football: A Matter of National Security?
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 10:48AM
PASADENA, Calif. -- "US Customs and Border Protection secures the homeland by preventing the illegal entry of people and goods while facilitating legitimate travel and trade," explains the Web site of the agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. So why were CBP agents guarding the Rose Bowl yesterday?
This was one of several CBP vehicles deployed around the Rose Bowl. When I tried to take photos of the federal agents who accompanied the vehicles, their response was, "No photos allowed." So this may be an illegal photo.
Don't worry America: If the Mexican drug cartels plan to smuggle dope into the Rose Bowl, CPS will be ready for them -- like the Alabama defense is ready for Colt McCoy.
Stupak on HC Bill: If it Dies, It Dies
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 10:41AM
Rep. Bart Stupak, interviewed for a New York Times profile, seemed ambivalent about whether or not a health care bill passes.
"It's not the end of the world if it goes down," the article quotes him as saying.
The article also reports that, "He is trying to pass the health care overhaul, he insists, not sabotage it, and predicts that the legislation will ultimately collapse for reasons apart from abortion. But he will be blamed anyway, he is sure."
The rest of the piece is worth reading, as it deals with the struggles of being a pro-lifer within the Democratic Party.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 8:00AM
- Obama's top budget official Peter Orszag confirms that he fathered a child out-of-wedlock (CNN)
- Retired General McCaffrey anticipates three hundred to five hundred American casualties per month in Afghanistan (Times Online)
- Incarcerated former Illinois Republican Governor George Ryan nominated for Nobel Peace Prize because of his stance on the death penalty (Chicago Daily Herald)
- Senator Nelson says working on healthcare instead of economy was a "mistake" (Washington Examiner)
Wild and Crazy Times at OMB
Posted by on 1.7.10 @ 7:33AM
Well, I guess the Obama folks know how to have fun as they go about spending the country blind and wrecking the health care system.
Reports the Washington Examiner:
Peter Orszag -- the mind reels! Seriously. The New York Post is reporting that Obama's budget director, a very unlikely heartthrob, ditched his then-pregnant girlfriend Claire Milanos, when he hooked up with ABC News hottie Bianna Golodryga, lately his fiancee -- and now Milanos has given birth to his daughter!
What's next? Maybe Vice President Joe Biden isn't such a staid character after all. And then there is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ... .
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Hillyer Puts Hawk in Hall
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 6:14PM
Gee, I didn't know I had so much power! Here I write a column arguing that Andre Dawson should be in the Hall of Fame, and lo and behold, he finally gets in! I mean, it had to be my doing, right?
Seriously, congrats to the Hawk. I was disappointed to see that Bert (Be Home) Blyleven just barely missed (I exchanged emails several months ago, I think it was with the great Wlady, about my belief that Blyleven also was deserving), but am now more confident that Blyleven too will eventually get in, as he should. Also, I had never seriously considered Roberto Alomar, who probably (and deservedly) suffers because of his nasty spitting incident. What a jerk. But I did, for the first time, check his stats just now, and was amazed to see they compare VERY favorably to those of the great Joe Morgan, one of my favorite players ever. In many ways, his career is as close to identical with Morgan's as two careers will ever be -- except that Morgan was a respected leader on every one of his teams, while Alomar was a spitmeister. Anyway, Alomar seems well poised to make it in future years as well. Finally, for what it's worth, I think reliever Lee Smith belongs in the Hall as well.
Anyway, since I have now proved my powers of persuasion, I will start chilling the bubbly to celebrate former Saint linebacker Rickey Jackson's impending induction into Canton as well!
:)
Secularism and Brit Hume
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 6:04PM
The Big Hollywood blogger and actor Adam Baldwin, recently of the television series Chuck and Firefly, has taken up his virtual pen to defend Brit Hume from those who have criticized him for suggesting that Tiger Woods should consider Christianity in his time of crisis. Hume made the statement on Fox News Sunday, thus prompting outrage from secularists who find such an offering offensive and irrelevant.
Baldwin scores several times in his blog piece. Here is the foundation:
As an avid golfer, Christian man, and therefore a witness to the historic fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Mr. Hume clearly offered his message in good faith with honest concern for both Tiger's future and for that of his family, friends, fans and business associates.
Look carefully at what Baldwin has written. Brit Hume believes Christianity is true and is based on an actual historical event. He is not adverting to some mystery religion (reach for the seventh level, Tiger), but is instead giving advice every bit as practical, or perhaps more so, than urging Mr. Woods to seek marital counseling or to find a good attorney.
This is what secularists simply do not understand. They think Christianity is "inaccessible" to others. It is not. You can accept it or reject it, but there is no reason for confusion. The basis of the faith is quite clear. Either you accept the evidence that the resurrection of Christ actually occurred in time and space or you do not. In no case should you accuse the Christian of hitting you with a bunch of magical mysteriousness that you cannot possibly understand.
You should really consider reading the entire post. Baldwin completely exposes the inappropriateness and unfairness of the comparisons of sincere Christianity to Jihad and deftly analyzes the pretensions of secularism. I could try to summarize, but would just end up reproducing his essay.
A Carpetbagger Too Far
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 4:55PM
Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) is reportedly exploring a primary challenge to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the most absurd political adventure of the year for reasons the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza ably explains. Ford has real political talents but he was also the only competitive Democrat to lose a Senate race during the Republican thumpin' of 2006. The positions he had to take in that unsuccessful race will all be used against him in New York. That background and his current job as head of the Democratic Leadership Council makes him a poor choice to challenge a sitting senator whose main intraparty critics believe her past statements and House voting record are too conservative.
Doddering Into The Sunset--Part II
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 3:44PM
Over at The Weekly Standard Philip Terzian sees Dodd family history repeating itself on the national stage.
Too bad it wasn't soon enough to save the good Senator's sanity.
The Corzine Effect
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 3:43PM
Chris Dodd's retirement today was probably the only logical move a partisan Democrat could make after looking at the fate of New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. It was clear for over a year before the 2009 gubernatorial election that the numbers had hardened and Corzine was unpopular with his state's voters -- a majority of them were ready to make a break with him. Corzine fought on, hoping that by spending a boatload of money, relying on his state's Democratic tilt, and benefiting from a Republican-turned-independent candidate to siphon off some votes he could beat the odds. The polls did tighten before the election, but in the end it wasn't enough to overcome the electorate's ingrained feeling that it was time for the incumbent to go.
Dodd faced a similar problem, without some of Corzine's benefits. Dodd would have had the money to run a competitive race and Connecticut more than leans Democratic. But there wouldn't have been any Chris Dagget to pull votes away from the eventual Republican nominee, and the fact is that Rob Simmons and especially Linda McMahon should have plenty of money to get their own message out. And Dodd's polling was in some respects even more atrocious: he was at risk of losing to relatively minor candidates for the GOP nomination, not just the frontrunners. It would be like if Bill Clinton was preparing to run for reelection in 1996 while losing head-to-head match-ups against Alan Keyes and Morry Taylor.
The question is whether Harry Reid will be the next Democrat taken out by the Corzine effect. His numbers are looking equally consistent and increasingly bad. But Nevada Democrats have more incentives to keep the Senate majority leader as their nominee in 2010, even if he is currently polling poorly.
Crist-Rubio Profile
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 3:38PM
If you are interested in the Rubio/Crist primary race in Florida, and would like to read a long, tendentious article on the subject written by a reporter who can't quite conceal his outright hatred for anyone who would go to a "tea party," you should check out this NYT Magazine article by Mark Leibovich.
Tide Rolls Up the 405
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 3:03PM
PASADENA, Calif. -- The University of Alabama Crimson Tide is now en route to the Rose Bowl for their final walk-through practice before tomorrow night's BCS championship game.
Security was tight this morning at the Westin Hotel in Costa Mesa that is the Crimson Tide's headquarters during their stay in southern California. A motorcycle squadron of California Highway Patrol officers was escorting the 'Bama team up the San Diego Freeway -- locally known as "the 405" -- on their way to the Rose Bowl.
The last time Alabama played in Pasadena in January, in 1946, the Tide defeated USC 34-14. However, in the next year, the Rose Bowl signed an agreement to match the Big Ten and (what is now the) PAC-10. Crimson Tide fans are excited at their long-awaited return to southern California.
Conservative Leaders Call on Janet Napolitano to Resign
1.6.10 @ 1:43PM
The Conservative Victory Committee issued the following press release of conservative leaders demanding Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's resignation. The text and the letter mentioned in the press release follow.
Continue reading…
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 1:23PM
- 14 terrorist wannabes mistakenly blow themselves up (CNN)
- Rahm Emanuel is rumored to be considering a run for mayor of Chicago (Chicago Tribune)
- Some proponents of the tea party movement are planning a strike against selected companies on January 20 (CBS)
- Beyonce scores $2 million by performing for Gaddafi's son on New Years Eve (Big Hollywood)
Gibbs on Broken C-SPAN Pledge: Obama Wants to Sign Bill Quickly
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 1:18PM
Pressed during today's briefing to White House reporters about President Obama's campaign pledge to have health care discussions broadcast on C-SPAN, spokesman Robert Gibbs first dodged the question and then responded by saying, "The president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible."
Gibbs also referred reporters to the transcript of his remarks on the C-SPAN question yesterday, but yesterday's briefing happened before a closed door meeting in which Obama urged Democrats to bypass a formal conference to merge the House and Senate health care bills and negotiate behind closed doors.And at that time, his response was that he hadn't read the letter C-SPAN sent requesting that the meetings be broadcast.
Here's my transcription of Gibbs' exchange on the C-SPAN question:
Q: During the campaign, President Obama on numerous occasions said words to the effect of, quoting one, “all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public.” Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?
GIBBS: You know Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday’s transcript.
Q: (Inaudible) today?
GIBBS: The answer I would give today is similar to the one…
Q: There was an intervening meeting in which it’s been reported that the President, the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast track approach to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?
GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.
Q: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-SPAN?
GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.
Q: But the President, in this meeting yesterday, pressed for something that’s in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.
GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.
Q: Well does the President believe it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see…
GIBBS: How many stories do you think NBC has done on this?
Q: Speaking for myself, hundreds…
GIBBS: Hundreds?
Q: That’s not the issue, the issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.
GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds. Is that correct?
Q: Well that has nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it there is. I’m saying, would people benefit from more information?
GIBBS: Have you lacked information in some of those stories? Do you think you’ve reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?
Q: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care debate.
GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything else?
Expertise Is Cheap, Crises Are Not
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 12:24PM
Andrew Leonard has an interesting article in today's Times on Bernanke's recent arguments that the Fed should have greater regulatory oversight in order to ward off future recessions. Leonard makes a joker out of Bernanke by simply going over the Fed's recent history, which clearly shows that a more powerful Fed would have made the current crisis worse, not better. In 2004 and 2005, the prevailing wisdom was that the housing boom was a good thing, and the Fed was downplaying the housing crisis as late as 2007.
“The Federal Reserve has unparalleled expertise,” Mr. Bernanke told Congress last month. “We have a great group of economists, financial market experts and others who are unique in Washington in their ability to address these issues.”
Fair enough. At some point, though, it sure would be nice to hear those experts explain how they missed the biggest bubble of our time.
It would be nice to hear the experts explain how they missed the bubble, but it wouldn't strengthen the case for increased regulatory powers for the Fed. Even if Congress creates a board dedicated to pinning down the causes of financial crises, as Leonard suggests they should, and even if they excel in understanding the causes, it doesn't help for governance. The Fed's insight or the board's insight will only be useful for fighting the last war. The causes of booms and busts are far too complicated for even the most brilliant Fed chair in the world, and given that market actors will also be factoring the Fed's behavior into their decisions, there is nothing that they can do to prevent future mistakes. But they can do a lot to make things worse, as Leonard clearly shows they would have had they had the powers to do so in 2004-2007.
Is There a Good Argument for Not Firing Michael Steele?
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 11:46AM
It's been awhile since I said anything about Michael Steele, largely because there are more important things to write about than tracking his latest embarrassing and idiotic statements. But as Steele is busy promoting his new book, the Hill reports that the RNC is going into 2010 -- the best political environment for Republicans since at least 2004 -- with its worst election-year cash flow in a decade. Given that the primary duties of the RNC chairman are to communicate and fundraise, and Steele has proven incompetent at both, is there a case to me made for not firing him?
Why the Senate HC Bill Is About To Get More Expensive
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 11:26AM
President Obama has given House and Senate leaders the green light to eschew the transparency that comes with a formal conference to merge the chambers' health care bills, and instead have informal closed door talks that will be inaccessible to the media. The clear message is that speed is more important than anything else, including President Obama's campaign pledge to have health care negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN to "enlist the American people in the process." This need for speed isn't being driven by a desire to give Americans health care coverage as soon as possible -- those benefits don't kick in until 2014 -- but entirely a result of Obama's own vanity and political calculations, because he wants to be able to sign a bill before his State of the Union Address.
The Associated Press reports that "the House will work off the Senate's version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage." If so, we can only expect the Senate bill to get more expensive. The reason is that with the public option now likely out of the picture, Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have to find some way to keep her liberal caucus onboard with the health care bill. Remember, the first time around, the health care bill would have been defeated in the House had Pelosi lost just three more votes. Given that a handful of pro-life Democrats would bolt assuming the abortion language is watered down, she cannot afford any more defections among liberal members. That likely means increasing the amount of subsidies offered to individuals to purchase insurance on government exchanges, and perhaps having them start sooner -- both of which would increase the cost of the legislation.
As I've noted on a number of occasions, the CBO cost estimates that get quoted in the media understate the true cost of the health care bills because Democrats have employed a number of accounting gimmicks to get the number they want. While the frequently-quoted number may not be representative of the true cost of the legislation, the White House decided at some point that the number that does get quoted shouldn't be higher than $900 billion. Majority Leader Harry Reid found a formula that enabled the CBO to churn out the number $871 billion as the cost of the final Senate bill. However, the comparable number in the CBO analysis of the House bill was $1.055 trillion (the subsidies alone cost $166 billion more).
So, the question is, what will be the cost of getting liberals to fall in line with a bill that does not include a public option? And what new spin will the White House resort to when the headline number crosses the magic $900 billion threshold?
UPDATE: BreitbartTV compiles 8 clips of Obama promising that health care negotiations will be broadcast on C-SPAN.
It's a Meme
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 10:58AM
ABCNews writes it up: conservatives hate Avatar.
In that article they cite Ross Douthat of the NYT, Jonah Goldberg of NRO, John Podhoretz of the Weekly Standard, and a few others as conservatives who detest James Cameron's epic diatribe against future-colonialism. To that list they could have added the Spectator's William Tucker and Peter Ferrara.
The aspects of the movie that those critics dislike are lame. But they're so cartoonish and ham-fisted that I didn't find them problematic. Hating Avatar for its anti-Americanism is like hating Aladdin for its negative portrayal of grand viziers -- the soldiers in Avatar compare to US soldiers about the same way that Jafar would to a good and decent vizier.
There is a sequence in Avatar, probably 30 of the film's 160 minutes, where it portrays the main character spending half his time in the human base camp and half his time as an avatar in the Na'vi village. As he goes along he finds himself happier with the Na'vi and longing to spend more and more time with them. You, the viewer, are forced to join him in this character development, because Cameron's Pandora is so visually appealling compared to anything else that you want the main character to stay there and never go back to the humans. It's a masterstroke. You're depriving yourself if you don't see it in 3D.
UPDATE: Wow, I'm getting killed in the comments...
Dodd Goes Down
Posted by on 1.6.10 @ 10:11AM
Adding to the list of Democratic retirements, the scandal-plagued Sen. Chris Dodd has also decided not to seek reelection. While yesterday's retirement announcement by red state Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan is likely to mean a Republican pick up, Dodd's decision to step aside will improve Democrats chances of maintaining his Connecticut seat. Given that Connecticut is deeply Democratic, the only realistic chance Republicans had of winning was to go up against Dodd, where the non-ideological factor of corruption could sway voters who would not normally vote for a Republican. Now, the popular state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is expected to get the Democratic nomination, which will make the race a much bigger stretch for Republicans in a state that Obama carried by 23 points.
Meanwhile, Dow Jones reports that the announcement by Dodd, who serves as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, could set back the financial regulatory overhaul in the Senate this year.
UPDATE: Blumenthal leads all Republican challengers by over 30 points, according to a PPP poll.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
'Proto-Fascist Love of Violence'
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 10:13PM
Yes, that's me -- goose-stepping to fame and fortune, according to Andrew Sullivan:
Charles Johnson explains his concerns here. He's particularly right about the kind of proto-fascist love of violence against "the other" that you see pulsating in the writing of, say, Michael Goldfarb or Robert Stacy McCain.
This is a dishonest characterization of Johnson's own dishonest explanation of why he "parted ways with the Right," in a Blogging Heads video dialogue with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation.
The first noticeable signal of Johnson's leftward shift came in October 2007, when he began to attack anti-jihad activists Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer of JihadWatch. Johnson called Geller a "poster girl for Eurofascists," and then mounted a series of guilt-by-association attacks that expanded to include everyone from Oriana Fallaci to Ann Coulter.
In his Blogging Heads discussion, however, Johnson points the finger of blame at the American Spectator's Ben Stein as a leader of the "creationist wing of the Republican Party."
As for my alleged "love of violence," perhaps Sullivan is referring to the brutal beating that the Crimson Tide will inflict Thursday on the Texas Longhorns -- an event I've flown to California to chronicle in "pulsating" writing. Meanwhile my blog buddy Smitty analyzes Sullivan's attack.
How Dumb Is GQ?
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 9:39PM
I just got my January 2010 issue of Gentlemen's Quarterly, a magazine I do not pay for, but for some reason receive. There is a big, splashy article on the tea party movement. About four months late, the meme is . . .
wait for it . . .
the tea partiers are racists.
Yeah.
The inferential power on display is an awesome thing to behold.
Let's just go through this one more time.
Would there be such a thing as the tea party movement, led by conservatives, if an African-American man with the public policy views of, say, Thomas Sowell were in the White House?
No?
Then, shut up.
(And I almost feel bad for saying that because I tell my kids all the time they should never say it, but this is just a completely righteous exception.)
BREAKING: Dorgan Not to Seek Reelection
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 6:10PM
In a huge blow to Democrats, incumbent North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan has announced he will not seek reelection.
His statement (via the Hill):
“Although I still have a passion for public service and enjoy my work in the Senate, I have other interests and I have other things I would like to pursue outside of public life. I have written two books and have an invitation from a publisher to write two more books. I would like to do some teaching and would also like to work on energy policy in the private sector.
“So, over this holiday season, I have come to the conclusion, with the support of my family, that I will not be seeking another term in the U.S. Senate in 2010. It is a hard decision to make after thirty years in the Congress, but I believe it is the right time for me to pursue these other interests.
“Let me be clear that this decision does not relate to any dissatisfaction that I have about serving in the Senate. Yes, I wish there was less rancor and more bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate these days. But still, it is a great privilege to serve and I have the utmost respect for all of the men and women with whom I serve.
A Rasmussen poll last month found Dorgan trailing Republican North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven by a 22 points, 58%-36%.
Yes, Health Care Legislation Will Affect 16% of GDP (At Least)
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 4:53PM
Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein writes:
[T]his idea that the health-care bill affects "16% of GDP" is inane. That 16% of GDP captures people in private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and assorted other arrangements purchasing medical care. This bill will not stop them from purchasing medical care nor will it change the way they purchase medical care nor is it likely to change how much medical care they purchase.
To put this even more clearly, in 2008, the country spent $2.3 trillion on health care. In 2016 -- so, after implementation -- this bill will spend about $150 billion helping people buy health care. Assume that national spending that year will be about $3 trillion, then the health bill is accounting for about 5 percent of our spending that year. The idea that this bill, which is going to cost fairly little in the scheme of things and do virtually nothing to people who are already insured, is somehow transforming the provision of 16 percent of GDP is misleading at best.
In reality, saying that health care legislation "affects" 16 percent of GDP is a rather modest statement. While both the House and Senate bills may largely preserve the employer-based insurance model, if passed, they would certainly allow government to get its hands on every aspect of the health care system. The individual insurance market would disappear, and instead all sales would move to government-run exchanges. Once implemented, the House bill would actually make it illegal for private insurance companies to sell policies to individuals outside of the government exchange, which would be national. While the insurance policies offered within the exchange(s) would be ostensibly private, government officials would design them (whether it ends up being the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Health Choices Commissioner we don't yet know). Because the government would be mandating that everybody purchase insurance, it would also be in a position to determine what constitutes insurance. Therefore, whether somebody gets insurance through the employer or individual market, they'll have to be in a position to prove to the Internal Revenue Service that they have a qualifying insurance policy, or they'll face a tax. In addition, the much-touted reforms of the insurance industry -- eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions, capping insurers ability to charge more to smokers or older Americans, mandating certain benefits, etc. -- would affect premiums througout the insurance market.
Meanwhile, the legislation affects existing government programs. It expands Medicaid by 15 million people, placing a further burden on states that are already struggling with to pay for the program. And it cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, including cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, which have 11 million enrollees (or roughly a quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries). The Senate bill includes as one of its major cost-saving provisions an Independent Payment Advisory Board that would be able to implement changes to Medicare payments with limited Congressional intervention.
Then there are a variety of other measures that will have to be reconciled during negotiations, but either way, would have a substantial affect on the private sector. The House bill includes a mandate that employers provide health insurance that's deemed acceptable by the Health Choices Commissioner, while the Senate bill would tax employers if they have an employee who uses government subsidies to purchase insurance on an exchange.
There's also the revenue measures, which, depending on how the House and Senate bills get merged could mean: an income surtax; a payroll tax hike; a tax on insurers; a tax on medical device makers; a tax on drug companies; and a tax on expensive health care plans. The Senate bill also has a tax on indoor tanning, which we can all laugh about, but is actually a telling example of the arbitrary nature of government power, as well as the scope of this legislation.
In the headline I said it would affect "at least" 16 percent of GDP, and that's because in spite of Obama administration promises that health care legislation will bend the cost curve, by the end of the decade, we'll actually be spending a lot more on health care than we are now, and even more that we would if we were to simply do nothing. That's according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is the division at the Department of Health and Human Services tasked with tracking national health care expenditures, from which the "16 percent of GDP" statistic comes from. According to two recent reports issued by the actuary at CMS, the Senate bill would hike health care spending to 20.9 percent of GDP, and the House bill would raise it to 21.1 percent of GDP.
Tim Robbins' Soft Spot
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 4:28PM
It may no longer be in the way of continuing his 23-year committment to girlfriend Susan Sarandon, but the liberal star has, strangely, given some dough to Republicans. And to Minnesota's right-wing, controversial, and some-say-spotlight-seeking Rep. Michele Bachmann at that.
Via Daily Beast:
Loyal Dems would undoubtedly be gobsmacked to learn that, if Federal Election Commission records are to be believed, Robbins has not only donated regularly to Democratic candidates over the past 18 years, he also has written checks to conservative Republicans. In the 2006 election cycle, according to public records, the actor gave $5,000 to 10 Republican candidates for the House and Senate—including, most shocking of all, Minnesota’s resident wingnut, Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Not sure what to make, if anything, of that.
A New Frontier in Marriage Redefinition
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 4:15PM
Same-sex marriage is so last decade. Polyamory, or "responsible non-monogamy," is the wave of the future. At least, that's the gist of a Boston Globe article that explores the confusing intricacies of this "new frontier" of love. The idea is to have a spat of "committed," ongoing boyfriends and girlfriends:
Adherents call it responsible non-monogamy or polyamory, and the nontraditional practice is creeping out of the closet, making gay marriage feel somewhat last decade here in Massachusetts. What literally translates to "loving many," polyamory (or poly, for short), a term coined around 1990, refers to consensual, romantic love with more than one person. Framing it in broad terms, [Jay] Sekora, one of the three founders and acting administrator of the 500-person-strong group Poly Boston, says: "There's monogamy where two people are exclusive. There's cheating in which people are lying about being exclusive. And poly is everything else."
Not content to leave this moral aberration (and chaos) in the private sphere, look for "polyamorists" to begin pushing for legal recognitions similar to those sought by homosexual couples. If society no longer roots marriage in the historical and Christian definition, then it has no basis to deny marriage rights to any "love arrangement" the human brain can devise, no matter how bizarre.
Please, stop the insanity.
Mugabe's Hitlerian Facial Hair
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 3:47PM
MATTHEW VADUM: Why has no one pointed out that Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe has a Hitler moustache?
JEREMY LOTT: Because they were waiting for you to do it.
Esquire Writer Joins ACORN Useful Idiot Club
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 2:56PM
Esquire writer John H. Richardson is a smart man and a good writer but he clearly doesn't know much about the organized crime syndicate ACORN.
His interview with Bertha Lewis, chief organizer of ACORN, reads like Scott Levenson's talking points. No discussion of ACORN's million-dollar embezzlement, money laundering, abuse of government funding, or the role the group played in causing the subprime mortgage crisis.
Shame on him.
And so Mr. Richardson earns a spot on the list of ACORN's useful idiots (supplement to list here) alongside Joe Conason, Whoopi Goldberg, Ezra Klein, Michael Tomasky, Adam Serwer, Glenn Greenwald, Amanda Terkel, David Neiwert, Jamison Foser, Eric Burns, Jay Bookman, John Cole, and Charles Cooper.
This list is hardly exhaustive, by the way.
Crist Ally Out As Head of Florida GOP
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 2:55PM
Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer -- a moderate and ally of Gov. Charlie Crist -- has resigned. His departure is widely seen as a setback for Crist's Senate campaign. Crist faces the more conservative Marco Rubio in the Republican primary.
The Blind Side
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 2:40PM
I finally got around to seeing The Blind Side last night, and I came away pleasantly surprised by the film, which offered the most favorable Hollywood portrayal of a rich white southern Christian conservative family that I can recall. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the movie, based on the book by Michael Lewis, tells the true story of a homeless black teenager, Michael Oher, who is taken in by a well-off Memphis family and ends up becoming a successful offensive lineman. (Oher is currently in his rookie year with the Baltimore Ravens.)
The mother who adopts him (played by Sandra Bullock) is the heroine. Unlike with most Hollywood films, the character's faith and NRA membership aren't mocked, but used to paint a portrait of a no-nonsense southerner whose Christian values compel her toward charity. Meanwhile, Oher (played by unknown Quinton Aaron, another Cinderella story) ultimately has to work hard to hone his talent and succeed academically. It really is an affirmation of conservative values, told within the conventions of a sentimentalist tug-at-the-heart-strings movie.
It shouldn't be surprising that a film that celebrates rather than ridicules values that so many Americans hold dear has turned out to be such a success. Though it had a relatively modest $29 million production budget, it has emerged as the first film with a female lead to gross over $200 million. Don't expect Hollywood producers to connect the dots and realize that there's a market for films that don't make fun of the rest of the country.
For more, check out this recent 20/20 episode, which interviewed all the real life members of the family.
A Competitive Senate Race in Massachusetts?
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 12:52PM
The latest Rasmussen poll shows Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) leading state Sen. Scott Brown (R) by just nine points in the race to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Coakley wins an anemic 50 percent of the vote to Brown's 41 percent. A few caveats: Rasmussen results are often seen as more pro-Republican than other polls; it is hard to know who will turn out in a special election; even a high single-digit gap is a lot of ground for Brown to make up by the time the election takes place on Jan. 19.
But even if something like those numbers holds up, it could show that discontent with the national Democrats has reached even a significant slice of the Massachusetts electorate. Brown is winning 62 percent of independents, who are now a plurality of Bay State voters. Just breaking 40 percent of the vote against a heavily favored Democrat could position Scott Brown to run for another statewide office where Republicans usually stand a better chance than Senate races. Mitt Romney's 41 percent against Ted Kennedy set him up to run for governor. Joe Malone parlayed an even weaker showing against Kennedy than that into two terms as state treasurer.
Airport Security Handcuffs Military Blogger Michael Yon
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 12:52PM
In the latest example of airline security insanity, military blogger Michael Yon reports that he was handcuffed at Seattle-Tacoma Airport for declining to say how much money he earned. Michelle Malkin has the details, along with the case of comedian Joan Rivers being pulled off a plane as a security threat.
As Transparent as a Block of Lead
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 11:25AM
Earlier this morning, David Plouffe sent out an email to supporters of Organizing for America, Obama's campaign arm that is now part of the DNC, previewing 2010. Here's an excerpt from the email (pay particular attention to the part I put in bold):
2010 will be a year of new, exciting challenges. We'll be working hard with President Obama to finish the fight for health insurance reform, put more Americans back to work, and get our economy running strong. We'll fight to protect consumers and our economy from Wall Street abuses, improve transparency in Washington to elevate the voices of the American people, and create a vibrant, clean energy economy. And we'll stand up for the President's allies at the ballot box.
If improving transparency is a major goal for 2010, then the year is already off to a rocky start. Yesterday, I noted reports that House and Senate Democrats planned to skip a conference to merge their health care bills, and instead negotiate behind closed doors, in clear violation of Obama's campaign pledge to have all negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN. Now even the press pool is taking Democrats to task -- see this roundup from Mary Katherine Ham. Most notably, C-SPAN's Brian Lamb has sent a letter (PDF) to leaders in the House and Senate in which he writes:
President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system. Now that the process moves to the crucial stage of reconciliation betweem the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.
Not only does Democrats' secrecy make Americans more suspicious about what's in the health care bills and more inclined to believe critics, but it gets to the heart of why Americans are so cynical about the way business is done in Washington. And it's that very cynicism that helped Obama transcend ideology in 2008 and sweep into power on a promise of change.
The New Scientific Consensus
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 11:08AM
The latest pronouncement from scientific authority arrived over the weekend, via a report in the Times of London:
Dolphins have been declared the world’s second most intelligent creatures after humans, with scientists suggesting they are so bright that they should be treated as “non-human persons”.
Studies into dolphin behaviour have highlighted how similar their communications are to those of humans and that they are brighter than chimpanzees. These have been backed up by anatomical research showing that dolphin brains have many key features associated with high intelligence.
The researchers argue that their work shows it is morally unacceptable to keep such intelligent animals in amusement parks or to kill them for food or by accident when fishing. Some 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises die in this way each year.
“Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,” said Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, who has used magnetic resonance imaging scans to map the brains of dolphin species and compare them with those of primates.
Again, I cannot emphasize enough that this is what scientific consensus has determined is absolute truth. If that is not good enough for you, then I present to you...video proof that dolphins are extremely bright to the point of embracing their own humanity:
The Real ClimateGate: Who's Stupid? Hu's Not
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 10:51AM
So, China went big into windmill and solar panel production, causing the media and other liberals to breathlessly swoon over this further evidence of the wisdom of us mandating the things even though all it proves is that China is not dumb.
Rich countries say all weather is now their fault and vow to spend billions on uneconomic, inefficient and intermittent energy sources regardless of their merits or performance as penance and to show their seriousness of purpose in feeling really, really bad about the whole thing they alone talked themselves into. China volunteers to make the machines for us because, without absurd "green" policies of the sort causing energy prices to rise so high that seniors burn books to stay warm -- in fact, China rejects the Kyoto agenda precisely because it has sworn off of that sort of poverty and knows what would keep them there -- they can do it more cheaply.
And then they go to Copenhagen and hold us up for billions in new, "climate aid", with more than a whiff of reparations about it because, after all, our government aided and abetted that line of argument.
So please don't be surprised by China's reaction when confronted, like the rest of our hemisphere, by yet another severe winter of the sort RFK Jr. and others swore were a thing of the past thanks to Man-made global warming. That reaction is to claim that the severe winter is instead further evidence of the same phenomenon that, erm, supposedly made such things extinct. Because to not say so might threaten the billions in "climate aid" and windmill sales.
It just might work. Because, you know, we're like that now, willing to believe everything that happens is further evidence of a theory that nothing can disprove, about which nothing can even give pause for doubt ("faith", anyone?). And we have useful idiots willing to also say anything to aid in the cause.
This is how countries can make themselves look so incredibly simple to the world, laboring to appear so sophisticated.
How a Dean Primary Challenge Could Help Obama
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 10:39AM
Jay Cost explores the idea that Howard Dean may challenge President Obama from the left in the 2012 Democratic primaries. I agree with him that it's very doubtful, but I have a slightly different take on how such a challenge may affect the race if he does decide to run. Though conventional wisdom holds that a strong primary challenge would be indicative of a fractured coalition that would make it harder for Obama to unite the party in the general election, there's also a way in which such a chellenge could help Obama. In 2008, Obama won on the back of support from independent voters who saw him as post-partisan. In his first year in office, as Obama has governed from the left, he's lost a lot of independent voters. No matter how strong the primary challenge from Dean, ultimately Obama will be able to count on support from liberals in 2012. However if Dean spends months attacking Obama as selling out liberal values, it would be an ideal oppourtunity for Obama to try to portray himself to independents as a centrist within his party ahead of the general election.
Airport Security?
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 9:32AM
Airport Security?
By Asher Embry
Reluctantly we let Napolitano check our shoes.
By now it's clear this exercise is mostly just a ruse.
We tell you now we'll draw the line when TSA resorts
To checking if there's anything secreted in our shorts.
Haphazard screening fails the test and maybe we forgive it;
But giving Qaeda 5th Amendment rights? That makes
us livid!
Today the White House stages its theatrical events
To demonstrate O has a plan; of course it's just pretense.
As long as Abdulmutallab is read Miranda rights;
We'll miss the “ticking bombs” Al Qaeda's placed on other
flights.
And closing Gitmo down is still your terror-fighting plan?
Barack, don't tell us that you're doing everything you can.
As long as O keeps hoping that he'll change
jihadists' views
Our existential war on terror's one we're doomed to lose.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.5.10 @ 9:00AM
- Crime has fallen during the recession, presenting evidence contrary to the theory that poverty is the root cause of crime (Wall Street Journal Editorial)
- TimesOnline: At least twelve freed Gitmo inmates have re-joined Al-Qaeda in Yemen.
- Congresswoman Jackson Lee to be challenged in Democratic primary by Houston City Council Member Jarvis Johnson (Houston Chronicle)
- Despite the AIDS epidemic and the related risks associated with polygamy, South African President Jacob Zuma helps himself to a third current wife (Seattlepi)
Monday, January 4, 2010
More Attacks on Jobs in Michigan
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 9:40PM
If anybody got the idea that Climategate and the Copenhagen failure, and the growing disbelief among the public that global warming catastrophe is around the corner, would accumulate to drive alarmists to repent from their promotion of phony climate data and fraudulent analysis (both economic and scientific), then they don't know them well enough.
Take for example the Center for Climate Strategies, whose deceptive practices in the states I've documented ad nauseum for Spectator and for other publications. CCS is a global warming advocacy group that gets paid millions of dollars by environoiac foundations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to get states' governors to hire them so they can create their climate change policies. CCS pretends to be an objective, unbiased consultant; they are anything but. CCS produces the same cookie-cutter menu of ideas that increase energy costs and government control for each state, under the guise of a governor-appointed "blue ribbon panel," which is simply a rubber stamp for the alarmists' proposals.
Accompanying most recommendations that these panels produce are bogus claims of economic benefit for the given state -- if they would only implement all of CCS's ideas. Green jobs! Cost savings! Economic growth!
Except, as with Climategate, every economic study is crafted by CCS's chosen researchers and experts, with no independent analysis sought. For example, in North Carolina CCS enlisted the Energy Center at Appalachian State University to promote their rosy scenario, saying their blue-ribbon ideas in the Tar Heel state would generate 32,000 new jobs by 2020 and boost gross state product by $2.2 billion. You know -- just like higher taxes, more costs, and increased regulations always do. A peer-review study commissioned by the conservative John Locke Foundation, conducted by the PhD economists at the Beacon Hill Institute, found the following:
Rigorous testing using standard economic analysis yielded far more pessimistic results than those used to support the policies, (BHI President David) Tuerck said in an interview. “There’s an attempt to put a happy face on this...,” he said. “And the attempt is made by trying to show that implementing this legislation would create jobs and would expand economic activity in the state, rather than contract it. And the trouble with that particular representation is that it doesn’t make any sense.”
BHI has done similar truth-telling analyses for other states victimized by CCS's disinformation. That brings us to today, where Michigan -- the state hit the hardest by the current recession (plus union excesses and government mismanagement, but that's another story) -- is CCS's latest target for fantasy economic research. The Associated Press reports:
The report by the Center for Climate Strategies said a plan devised last year for battling global warming in Michigan would help limit the state's heat-trapping gas emissions over the next 15 years.
But more than the environment would benefit, the nonprofit group said. It projected gains of 129,000 jobs, a $25 billion uptick in the gross state product and lower prices for home energy sources such as electricity, oil and natural gas.
The [Michigan Climate Action Council] recommended an outside analysis of the potential effect on Michigan's economy. The [Department of Environmental Quality] secured a $75,000 grant from the Troy-based Kresge Foundation for the study.
Economists with Michigan State University and the University of Southern California teamed with the Center for Climate Strategies, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that has helped more than 20 states develop programs to fight global warming.
The problem is, the economic analysis secured by Michigan's DEQ was not "outside," independent, or competent. Instead it was a carefully orchestrated effort to buttress the blue ribbon panel's recommendations -- using CCS's own people! Two of the three authors are USC's Dan Wei and Adam Rose, who also happen to be CCS staffers. Rose was part of a similar sham effort to legitimize glowing economic projections in North Carolina. And like CCS/Rose/Wei, Michigan State's Steven Miller also has a reputation for overlooking costs when conducting economic analyses.
It's not surprising that the Kresge Foundation would fund the study either, considering that the goal of their climate program is to "cultivate solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, accelerate renewable energy technologies, and support efforts to help society adapt to the impacts of climate change." Kresge, as well as several other global warming activist foundations, also funded the work of the Climate Action Council in Michigan.
The Center for Climate Strategies has perpetrated their fraudulent work -- clothed as a "consultant" and hiding their true origins -- in more than half the states now. Like the Climategaters, they forbid discussion and debate about climate science in their proceedings. They are now at work building regional agreements among the states, in case federal action fails.
For CCS to burden Michigan, which has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, with more schemes to kill jobs is especially egregious. These global warming fearmongers have no shame. For that, they get the orchestral version of this relevant rock song.
Slow Growth for Next Decade?
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 7:28PM
If you asked the Administration, they'd say our economy is a little weak but we'll be better in no time -- thanks to all of the spending we've been doing. Don't believe me? Just see for yourself:
"The unemployment rate is unacceptably high at 10 percent, but the economy appears to be on the road to recovery because of the administration's actions," Alan Krueger [assistant to Treasury Secretary, Geithner] said at a conference today in Atlanta.
Because of the administration's actions. Right. He must mean the hundreds of billions of dollars that were supposed to boost the economy and prevent unemployment from going above 8 percent.
Hard to believe projections from an administration that "misread how bad the economy was," before. It sort of reminds me of that pushy guy behind the counter who tells you how the expensive watch or luxury item is really just perfect for you and you've just gotta get it. If you can't afford it, you should just buy it on installments or on credit. Problem solved -- for the salesperson, anyway.
For anyone who doesn't believe the hype, however, there is a more familiar forecast. Familiar, meaning it's the one we feel in our gut based on conversations we've had over the holidays about spending, savings, costs, and expenses -- and about jobs. It's that we're not out of the economic woods yet: "It will be difficult to have a robust recovery while housing and commercial real estate are depressed."
It's a necessity for Americans to buy into the whole "we're well on the way to recovery" line, if the administration is going to get any traction with its continual push of big ticket items (health care reform, cap and trade, and whatever else is looming around the corner.):
One reason is that U.S. consumers remain heavily indebted. Consumer credit outstanding has fallen from its mid-2008 records, but still stands at some $2.5 trillion, or nearly one-fifth of total yearly spending in the U.S. economy.
So, it looks like U.S. families aren't quite ready to go out and spend on a big ticket item. They're demonstrating prudence and they're waiting. They're paying off debts. It's something we all learned a long time ago.
It's something this administration could still learn.
Books: The Conservative Arsenal
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 4:30PM
As we begin the New Year, I find myself thinking about books that fill the conservative armamentarium for resisting the left-liberal onslaught on the past handful of years. I've omitted some categories, like military and foreign policy, because they are outside my areas of expertise. Perhaps we can get H.P. Colebatch or some others to chime in there. Here are my recommendations:
(UPDATE: Please don't misunderstand this as an all-time list or anything of that nature. My friend and mentor Francis Beckwith mentions his book in the comments, Defending Life, which is nothing short of magisterial. There are many books that I have excluded out of the desire to draw your attention to these.)
Economics:
Common Sense Economics by James Gwartney, Richard Stroup, and Dwight Lee -- Dr. Gwartney taught the first economics class I ever took as a university student and made a permanent impression. Socialism has looked like wishing-makes-it-so madness ever since I sat under the powerfully logical lectures of this confident professor.
The Role of Government:
Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics by P.J. O'Rourke -- Though this book is billed as an economics book, I think of it as having broader philosophical and practical lessons to teach about the way government works in healthy societies and how it creates pathology in unhealthy ones. It has the trademark O'Rourke humor, but the moral of the story is deadly serious.
Bi-Partisan Hope (if such a thing exists):
Re-Inventing Government by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler -- One of the worst parts of the decline of the New Democrat movement in America is that it took the kind of thinking in Re-Inventing Government with it. The authors argue that government is not very good at actually, you know, doing stuff. It would be better for the government to privatize as much as possible and take advantage of market incentives where it can. The central insight, which I love, is that the age of monolithic government bureaucracies should quickly pass in favor of lean government which focuses on entrepreneurial policy where it makes sense for government to intervene. The logic of Re-Inventing Government could easily support new ideas about public schooling where government might fund education, but wouldn't have to run schools.
Abortion:
The Party of Death by Ramesh Ponnuru -- The author documents the slide of the American left into an almost soulless devotion to abortion laissez faire and an accompanying disinterest in maintaining the sanctity of life in other areas. This book did not get the attention it deserved in a year dominated by news about Iraq. Ponnuru is one of the most articulate and rhetorically powerful defenders of the sanctity of life writing during the last ten years.
Religion and Money:
Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem by Jay Richards -- Evangelicals, especially younger evangelicals, have been increasingly squishy on free-market economics of late. This has been so much so that different organizations, like the Acton Institute, Heritage, and AEI have undertaken initiatives to reach out to them on matters of economic policy. Jay Richards (a think tank vet of Discovery, Acton, and Heritage) has written a book tailor-made for this audience. I've had the privilege of hearing him discuss these matters and he is highly persuasive.
Christianity and Whatever Historical Awfulness You Care to Name:
God's Battalions by Rodney Stark -- Stark is legendary in my old grad program for once telling a socialist student "Listen to me. Marx is doo-doo." In this book, he takes on the old and busted claim that the Crusades were a purely evil enterprise. I recommend this one because it is his latest, but he has written several other fantastic volumes on the intersection of faith, history, and society. For the Glory of God is particularly notable.
*Hunter Baker is the author of The End of Secularism.
Would Health Care Bills Increase Tax Non-Compliance?
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 3:00PM
Kaiser Health News looks at the expanded role that the Internal Revenue Service will have if Democrats' pass their health care legislation. Most notably, both the House and Senate bills would require Americans to submit proof of insurance with their federal tax returns, or else they will face a tax for not complying with the mandate to be paid to the IRS. While the article mainly focuses on the logistical challenges posed by the new responsibilities given to the IRS, it doesn't explore another potential problem -- tax non-compliance.
The individual mandate won't affect most Americans, who are already covered either through existing government programs or through their employers. Those most inclined to be uninsured by choice -- and thus likely to be most resistant to the mandate -- are the so-called "young invincibles" who have low health care costs and can't justify paying the expensive monthly premiums. In fact, according to Census Bureau, 8 million of the uninsurerd are between 18 and 24 years old and 10 million are between 25 and 34. Members of this subgroup are also more likely to work on their own, or do cash intensive jobs such as bartending or waiting tables, where it's easier to float below the radar and avoid filing tax returns. Though it's difficult to quantify, it would seem that individuals in this position would be less likely to file tax returns after Obamacare is implemented if doing so meant the added burden of presenting proof of health insurance, or facing an additional tax penalty.
Regime Uncertainty: A Certainty
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 10:38AM
U. Chicago economists Gary Becker, Steven Davis, and Kevin Murphy strike a Higgsian note in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal:
We believe two factors are behind this rather tepid rebound.... The second factor is less obvious, but possibly also of great importance. Liberal Democrats won a major victory in the 2008 elections, winning the presidency and large majorities in both the House and Senate. They interpreted this as evidence that a large majority of Americans want major reforms in the economy, health-care and many other areas. So in addition to continuing and extending the Bush-initiated bailout of banks, AIG, General Motors, Chrysler and other companies, Congress and President Obama signaled their intentions to introduce major changes in taxes, government spending and regulations—changes that could radically transform the American economy.
Obviously Chicago free-market economists are not going to be on the same page as a Democratic administration. But note that they're not criticizing Obama and co. for pursuing what they see as a flawed economic policies. Instead, they're concerned about the timing scope of significant policy changes during a recession. That's not Chicago economics -- it's regime uncertainty economics.
The authors give a laundry list of the administration and Congress's unpredictable moves, and also include some evidence of the effects they are having on business:
A regular survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) shows that recent capital expenditures and near-term plans for new capital investments remain stuck at 35-year lows. The same survey reveals that only 7% of small businesses see the next few months as a good time to expand. Only 8% of small businesses report job openings, as compared to 14%-24% in 2008, depending on month, and 19%-26% in 2007.
The weak economy is far and away the most prevalent reason given for why the next few months is "not a good time" to expand, but "political climate" is the next most frequently cited reason, well ahead of borrowing costs and financing availability. The authors of the NFIB December 2009 report on Small Business Economic Trends state: "the other major concern is the level of uncertainty being created by government, the usually [sic] source of uncertainty for the economy. The 'turbulence' created when Congress is in session is often debilitating, this year being one of the worst. . . . There is not much to look forward to here."
In other words, how can businesses play the game when they don't know the rules?
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 10:30AM
- Berkeley never disappoints. The High School Governance Council is considering cutting lab science classes because such classes are "for white students" (East Bay Express)
- Recession has been especially unkind to the unborn (St. Louis Globe Democrat)
- Auto travel has declined in the last year because fewer people have jobs and thus do not need to commute (Wall Street Journal)
- The Amish seek a religious exemption from the individual mandate (Daily Item)
TNR: Dems to Skip Conference to Merge Health Care Bills
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 9:43AM
Jonathan Cohn reports that Democrats are "almost certain" to skip a formal conference committee to merge the House and Senate health care bills and informally negotiate which each other, a strategy that would expedite final passage.
Cohn favors the strategy of shutting off the ability of Republicans to delay health care legislation further:
“I think the Republicans have made our decision for us," the Senate staffer says. "It’s time for a little ping-pong.”
“Ping pong” is a reference to one way the House and Senate could proceed. With ping-ponging, the chambers send legislation back and forth to one another until they finally have an agreed-upon version of the bill. But even ping-ponging can take different forms and some people use the term generically to refer to any informal negotiations.
Whatever form the final discussions take place, a decision to bypass conference would undoubtedly expedite the debate, clearing the way for final passage (if not signing) by the end of January. And, as long as both chambers still get their say, that's a good thing.
Yes, Republicans are sure to complain that they're being excluded from deliberations. But given their repeated efforts to block not just reform but even mere votes on reform, it's not clear why Democrats are obligated to include them in discussions anymore.
While this may very well be the current line of thinking among Democrats, I'm not convinced this is how things will play out. It's important to keep in mind that it won't just be Republicans who are clamoring for conference committee, but a lot of liberals, too. Many on the left begrudgingly expressed support for passing the Senate bill in the hopes that they could make one last stand during conference talks, and I think Democrats may have to give them that oppourtunity, if nothing else but for show.
Whooda thunkit: Enron-created scheme inherently invites fraud
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 9:39AM
So, the Telegraph reports that "the very nature of carbon credits makes them 'an incredibly lucrative target for criminals', Rafael Rondelez, who was involved with the Europol investigation, has warned."
Get used to it.
China Expands Ties to ASEAN and Islamic States
Posted by on 1.4.10 @ 3:35AM
The Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress are no friends of free trade. Their myopia is effectively reducing America's economic ties with other nations precisely when potential rivals are expanding theirs. For instance, China has signed a free trade accord with the ASEAN states, extending Beijing's economic and political reach in Southeast Asia and among Muslim nations. Warns Joshua Trevino:
The political dimension of this convergence is a bit more worrying to the United States. Where, after all, do the political interests of Chinese and most Islamic states coincide? It's a bad list: in the suppression of democracy, in the denial of minority rights, and in the rejection of Western dominance. The ASEAN nations themselves aren't quite so uniformly malign, though they do have their bad actors in Burma, Vietnam, and Laos - but neither will they have much interest in countering the Chinese-Islamic concurrence on these points. We already see it in effect in international fora, most recently in the failed Copenhagen talks, when Sudan served as a Chinese proxy for the disruption of the proposed treaty. (This may actually be the first and only time Americans can applaud this partnership.) Expect more of this, and expect it to spill into war-and-peace matters in decades to come. If the Islamic world perceives China as a counterweight to Western influence - and if Chinese nationalism desires to be perceived as that counterweight - that's a series of difficult choices for American policymakers in the years ahead.
Yet Congress can't be bothered to ratify the U.S.-South Korea FTA even as China's trade with the South races past that of America. Beijing's influence in Asia is bound to continue rising, but there's no reason for Washington to toss away America's strongest card: trade and investment.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Two Articles, Same Day
Posted by on 1.3.10 @ 9:43PM
From the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press today, an article about how scientific consensus on the threat of global warming still exists, despite the revelation of the Climategate emails weeks ago. And then there's this:
"Burlington's Top Snowstorm Ever"
This weekend's Vermont storm has now become easily the largest snowstorm ever witnessed in Burlington in more than 120 years of record keeping. National Weather Service now reports the official total in South Burlington of 32 inches.
Sigh.
Majority Favors Abortion Ban in Health Care Bill
Posted by on 1.3.10 @ 4:31PM
According to Rasmussen Reports:
Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters favor a ban on abortion coverage in any health insurance plan that receives federal subsidies. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 40% are opposed to such a ban in the proposed health care legislation now before Congress.
Those figures include 39% who Strongly Favor it and 26% who are Strongly Opposed.
There are some provisions in the health care plan before Congress that are more popular and some that are less popular but none as controversial. The reason for the controversy is that attitudes on the provision cut across the lines of support and opposition for the overall bill.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
