Cantankerous Gentlemen

The Gents have moved to Wordpress

2011-10-19T12:32:00.000-04:00

Come join us!

http://cantankerousgentlemen.wordpress.com/

The Many Faces of ACORN

2008-10-25T14:51:00.004-04:00

Matthew Vadum does yeoman's work unraveling the hydra-like organization ACORN, which has gotten so much ink over the last two months, regarding its unusual voter registration history. This is a very in depth look. It is the first time, I have ever heard the level of reporting on the extent of the tax dollars its affiliated groups, receives from Uncle Sam and also has owed him, in unpaid back taxes time time to time, to the point of filed "tax liens." Geez, what is it about activists that love high taxes, that don't even have organization to pay their own taxes in a timely manner?

Its Your Serve Mr. Walls.....

2008-10-09T13:30:00.006-04:00

I had to share this really intersting post which is the latest volley in the recent tiff between HuffPost's Seth Walls and Newsbusters.org Seton Motley over Obama's ACORN days.

Great research Mr. Vadum.

Huffington Post and ACORN Tag-Team Cover Up of Obama’s ACORN Days

You’ve got to expect obfuscation from professional obfuscators. Not surprisingly, the spin doctors at the Huffington Post microscopically lawyered my post Media Matters-style to attempt to get away from the fact that Project Vote is a vital
part of left-wing ACORN’s empire of vote fraud and political agitation. (And incidentally, for 30 years ACORN has been laying the groundwork for the subprime mortgage meltdown.)

And as I write this post, news is circulating that police in Las Vegas, Nevada, raided the local ACORN office. Authorities allege that ACORN canvassers "falsified forms
with bogus names, fake addresses or famous personalities." The Las Vegas
Review-Journal reports "that most members of the Dallas Cowboys appeared to be registering in Nevada to vote in November's general election." And in Ohio, ACORN admits voter fraud is just part of doing business.

Meanwhile, the HuffPost denies that Project Vote is now and has for years been the voter mobilization arm of ACORN. But now that ACORN is getting bad press by the
bushel, HuffPost writer Seth Colter Walls argues that when Barack Obama ran Project Vote in 1992 it wasn’t technically a part of ACORN. (Background: Walls’s original post criticizing Seton Motley of the Media Research Center is here;
Motley’s post in response is here; and my post in response to Walls’s original post is here.)

In the immortal words of Tommy Flanagan, Jon Lovitz’s pathological liar character from “Saturday Night Live”: Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Walls produces statements from the Obama campaign and Obama supporters at the ostensibly nonpartisan Project Vote who –surprise, surprise— proffer an invented claim that Project Vote and ACORN didn’t become closely aligned until 1994, which is after they say Obama left Project Vote. Of course there is no credible evidence we’re aware of that substantiates the claim. The HuffPost hasn’t provided any.

Walls’s article is meant to serve as a distraction from the fact that Obama has long been directly involved with ACORN. And unlike the HuffPost, we have proof.

An article by Toni Foulkes of ACORN dispels all doubt. In the article, “Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign,” which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004, Foulkes makes it abundantly clear that ACORN and Project Vote were partners in the voter registration drive.
The blog Sweetness & Light has reprinted the text of the article. In a discussion of the primary race in March 2004, Foulkes writes:
Obama started building the base years before. For instance, ACORN noticed him when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois’ refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act, also known as motor voter. Allied only with the state of Mississippi, Illinois had been refusing to allow mass-based voter registration according to the new law. Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them).
Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to
be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed
bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old
friends. And along about early March, we started to see that the African-American community had made its move: when Sen. Obama’s name was mentioned at our Southside Summit meeting with 700 people in attendance from three southside communities, the crowd went crazy. With about a week to go efore the election, it was very clear how the African-American community would vote. But would they vote in high enough numbers?
It seemed to us that what Obama needed in the March primary was what we always work to deliver anyway: increased turnout in our ACORN communities. ACORN is active on the south and west sides of Chicago, in the south suburbs and on the east side of Springfield, the state capital. Most of the turf where we organize in is African American, with a growing Latino presence in Chicago’s Little Village and the suburbs.

So Obama was right there in the thick of things, organizing for ACORN/Project Vote, representing ACORN in court at its specific invitation and leading ACORN training seminars.

It's worth noting that groups on the extreme left, such as ACORN's Project Vote, often have many tentacles. That’s the way they organize themselves. They often have overlapping memberships and interlocking directorates. They align themselves in strategic coalitions all the time. Sometimes they have formal mergers and
sometimes they have strategic partnerships. This is their modus operandi.

Interestingly, Foulkes’s article can no longer be accessed online. The website for Social Policy now denies access to that specific article while apparently allowing access to all other articles.

Look at the teaser for the article on the Social Policy website (visit there yourself by clicking here -- free subscription required for access to archives):

The titles of articles that are available are highlighted in a brownish color. The
title of the Foulkes article, however, appears in black letters indicating that access has been denied.

Guess who’s behind Social Policy magazine? Something called The Institute for Social Justice. The website indicates the address of the magazine is 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70117. Here is a screen grab of the address from the website:
Guess who else lives in Elysian Fields? ACORN.

Go to Sweetness & Light blog and scroll down to the Form 990s (tax returns for nonprofits) and you will see that both ACORN and Project Vote report the same address, 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70117.

There is also more evidence of the close relationship between Project Vote and ACORN in 1992.

We did find this item on Nexis from The Hotline dated October 8, 1992. The short article is called “VOTER REGISTRATION: PROJECT VOTE! TARGETS URBAN SWING AREAS.” It begins:

Sandy Newman, exec. dir of Project VOTE!, a national non-partisan, non-profit voter participation organization which targets African-American communities, announced that registration efforts have added "over a half million" new voters to the rolls --
"most of them in swing presidential states with close Senate races," including IL, PA, MI, OH, NY, CA, MD and CT.

It indicates that in New York City in October 1992 Project Vote was either part of or closely aligned with ACORN. The exact wording of the relevant paragraph is:

NY: In NYC, Project VOTE! with ACORN and the NY Public Interest Research Group, added more than 90,000 voters (Project VOTE! release, 10/5).
A recent article by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune (Oct. 6) also lumps ACORN and Project Vote circa 1992 together: In 1992, Barack Obama worked for Project Vote for about seven months; now Project Vote and ACORN--a coalition of community organizations serving low income families--just wrapped up a voter registration drive targeting battleground states Obama needs to win the White
House.

Though officially non-partisan, the focus of the ACORN/Project Vote voter drive was on groups leaning Democratic in the presidential contest: African American, young, Latino and low income earners.

Maybe Sweet didn’t get the memo from the HuffPost.

GREEN ALERT: Hidden Carbon Tax Provision in Paulson’s Bailout 2.0

2008-10-02T12:27:00.002-04:00

Why is the mainstream media ignoring what might be the most earth-shattering provisions in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s Bailout Package Version 2.0?

If you look at page 180 of the 451-page monster bailout bill that easily passed the Senate yesterday (PDF here), you will see that it includes at Section 116 language about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide.” It also provides, at Section 117, for a “carbon audit of the tax code.”

What could a provision about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide” and another provision about doing a “carbon audit” of the tax code possibly have to do with restoring confidence in Wall Street’s troubled credit markets?

The answer: NOTHING.

This appears to be an attempt by global warming fanatics to lay the foundation for an economy-killing carbon tax just like the “cap-and-tax” system that is now destroying European industry.

If you think the Mother of All Bailouts is bad, just wait till you see the carbon tax. Get ready to reduce your standard of living drastically.

It really shouldn’t be a surprise that these non-germane provisions are included in legislation that is supposed to save all of us from economic Armageddon.

After all, Henry Paulson is a confirmed environmentalist and global warming true-believer who abused his power at Goldman Sachs. While Paulson headed Goldman Sachs he simultaneously headed the Nature Conservancy and his wife was a former Conservancy board member. (See “In Goldman Sachs We Trust: How the Left’s Favorite Bank Influences Public Policy,” by Fred Lucas, Foundation Watch, October 2008.)

Henry Paulson presided over Goldman Sachs’s donation of 680,000 acres of land it owned in Tierra del Fuego, Chile to the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

One of the trustees of the Wildlife Conservation Society was H. Merritt Paulson, the son of Henry Paulson.

As green critic Paul Driessen observed, at no time did anyone “assess the vast area’s potential value for timber, oil or metals, so that locals and [Goldman Sachs] shareholders would at least know the true cost of the giveaway.”

And the media tells Americans to trust Henry Paulson to do the right thing when doling out taxpayer dollars to his former colleagues on Wall Street?

The media needs to start asking hard questions.

(Hat tip to Paul Chesser, of Center for Climate Strategies Watch, as posted at AmSpecBlog)

(cross-posted)

Education in America Project

2008-08-20T16:16:00.003-04:00

A good friend of mine has embarked on a unique journey across America's school systems (all fifty states.) I owe him a plug. Please enjoy his intro video and get updates from Education in America starting in early September after Labor Day. (Stay tuned more updates to come.)

Obama as Teen Idol

2008-08-04T16:17:00.000-04:00

Below is a higher resolution version of this teen fanzine parody I created that was originally posted at NewsBusters. There is no question that the media is infatuated with Barack Obama.
-Matthew Vadum

Racial Separatism in the Aloha State

2008-05-08T08:26:00.000-04:00

In this month's Capital Research Center Foundation Watch, Phil Brand, the Gentleman and myself write about the corruption of the mega-rich Bishop Estate in Hawaii and their support for the racial separatism embodied in the Akaka Bill. Here's a taste:

The Akaka bill sets a dangerous precedent. Could ethnic activists in the American Southwest argue that they deserve tribal status? What about ethnic Cajun or Creole peoples in Louisiana, who trace their roots in the Mississippi Delta to the exodus from French Nova Scotia before the Louisiana Purchase? The federal government has a constitutional duty to protect the individual equality of all Americans on the basis of their citizenship. It should not balkanize neighbors on the basis of their race or ethnic heritage.

And few additional blogs commenting about the Hawaii-Akaka problem. The article goes in depth about the racial prejudice exercised by the Bishop Estate (the major source of funding for the Kamehameha Schools that limit admission to Native Hawaiians only) and their efforts to preserve and expand their ethnic fiefdom. Read it all.

Apologies

2008-05-04T20:06:00.000-04:00

I know I am disappointing the 5 readers I have, but finals require my undivided attention so I can actually, ya' know, graduate. Blogging will resemble in a couple of weeks.

The Queen of Pork

2008-04-23T18:35:00.000-04:00

Alright, my day of procrastinating will close with this story by Matt Taibbi in the next Rolling Stone on Hillary's shameless earmarking:

Hillary's $1.5 million gift to Calvin Butts came from three of her earmarks in the fiscal year 2008. She had a lot of them. In fact, between 2002 and 2006, Clinton secured more than $2.2 billion in earmarks, many of them attached to defense-spending bills, where she has unusual influence as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Hillary succeeded in securing twenty-six earmarks to the 2008 defense bill worth a total of $148 million — a number that dwarfed that of any Democrat except committee chairman Carl Levin. Barack Obama, by contrast, had only one request attached to the defense bill.

Not that Obama or McCain are saints either:

Hillary isn't alone among the candidates in selling us down the river for a few campaign contributions. Unlike Clinton, who has only disclosed the pork she actually succeeded in doling out, Barack Obama has supplied reporters with a list of every earmark he requested. But the list only served to highlight Obama's own pork, including $8 million for a "High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program" that would have been overseen by General Dynamics. Obama's Illinois finance chairman, James Crown, not only sits on the board of General Dynamics, he and his wife are both Obama bundlers who have raised more than $200,000 for Obama's campaign. Obama was also alone among the remaining candidates last year in using his leadership PAC to hand out money to politicians whose support he sought in his presidential run.
McCain, meanwhile, has run a finger-wagging, holier-than-thou campaign. He insists he doesn't request any earmarks, even though he has: In 2003, he doled out $14.3 million to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. He also insists that he is "the only one the special interests don't give any money to," even though he has lapped the field when it comes to surrounding himself with lobbyists. Public Citizen, the nonprofit watchdog group, has identified sixty-six current or former lobbyists who are either major fundraisers or bundlers for McCain, a number that far exceeds either Clinton or Obama.

Taibbi does yeoman's work pointing out the ridiculous return for profit donors get with earmarks:

The thing that's really vile about earmarks is how cheaply we all get sold out. Two million of your taxpayer bucks in exchange for a $5,000 donation? Greenlighting a billion-dollar Pentagon boondoggle for a couple of free flights? Hey, if you're going to sell us out, at least fucking bargain. But it's not their money, and they never do.

As they say read it all.

Paging James Carville

2008-04-23T13:32:00.000-04:00

This WaPo story about a county commissioner in rural PA facing blowback for supporting Obama was interesting (h/t Jason Zengerle at the Plank):

But Bonk wanted nothing of that question. "I don't know how you could make this kind of mistake," he continued. "Why did you break away? Lackawanna County is Clinton country. You slapped all of us in the face. You should have supported the hometown girl."

I'll say it: Judas! Seriously though, this tribalism needs to stop. It is ruining both parties when people are being goaded into choosing their representatives on identity politics (race, gender, religion) in the face of reason and judgment.

Moreover, as loathe as I am to call RACISM!11!!!, there is a racial bias in how the media is describing what the candidates need to do. Obama absolutely needs to make inroads in the white working class demographic or he will lose. Yet it is assumed that Clinton will carry the black vote fait accompli. In fact it is very easy for the argument against Obama to be made against Clinton, yet I have NEVER heard anyone on the cable nets make it; everyone just assumes the black vote will loyally fall in lien without being wooed, unlike the poor whites. It is why people are already emphasizing Indiana over North Carolina, since Indiana has a higher population of "real Americans" (sidenote: I am also tired of media elites putting poor uneducated whites on a pedestal as "real Americans" and giving them the keys to the nominating process, when the same thing would NEVER happen with any other ethnic group. Little known fact: EVERY VOTE COUNTS THE SAME AMOUNT).

Okay rant over. God I am ready for the primaries to be finished.

Millenial Individualism

2008-04-23T13:06:00.000-04:00

This NYT book review of Hais and Winograd's Millennial Makeover is somewhat aggravating. This passage, which Andrew quoted, in particular stands out:

In placing a heavy value on the opinion of friends and peers, the authors of this book suggest, Millennials are inclined to favor conclusions reached by decentralized decision making, and multilateral rather than unilateral policy making. Their proclivity for sharing their lives with thousands of others through MySpace and Facebook also makes them “the generation least perturbed by any potential restrictions on civil rights or invasions of privacy that might have occurred in fighting the war on terrorism.” As a more socially tolerant and less divisive Millennial generation becomes a larger part of the electorate, Mr. Winograd and Mr. Hais predict, “the power of social issues to drive our political debate will wane”: wedge issues will lose their effectiveness, and ideological divisions will give way to an emphasis on “successful governmental activism.” “Majorities,” they argue, “will coalesce around ideas that involve the entire group in the solution and downplay the right of individuals to opt out of the process.”

It is worth noting that Hais and Winograd are both Democratic operative, so it should come as no surprise their conclusions are favorable to the presently constituted Demcratic party. Yet, I feel like their characterizations of the Millenials (of which I am part of the gray area between Gen X and the Millenials depending on where you define the line between them) is slightly off.

I agree that there is a civic emphasis in this generation, spawned by the internet technology that makes organizing far simpler than at any time previous. But, I think they downplay the individualism that marks a good portion of Millenials (at least from my perspective). Particularly, I believe they make a fundamental mistake in how they view social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace. They seem to see them as social communities, where people can be a part of something greater, whereas from my experience Facebook (and one's profile) is an intensely personal and individual expression of one's self.

That misreading of online social networking causes them to understate the role of the individual in Millenial culture. Part of it may be the typical youthful rebellion of the communitarian ethos of modern suburbia and the doting parents shipping them off to the next game or practice or concert. It may also be the atomization of culture has allowed for far greater niche interests and personalities that makes group indentification harder to pin down. That in turn breeds greater tolerance and acceptance of divergent views and identities, to levels a non-Millenial may not grasp.

As such, the idea that these attitudes will lead to greater communitarianism just seems wrong. There might be a greater appeal to more broadly acceptable policies and rhetoric (as can be seen in Obama's conciliatory language to conservatives and libertarians), but I think there is a real respect and understanding on the value of the individual within social networks like Facebook or MySpace that Hais and Winograd seem to downplay in favor of social community aspects.

Like That, But MUCH Better

2008-04-23T13:00:00.000-04:00

Pace my god-blogging yesterday, here is a MUCH more intellectual give-and-take on religion and reason (h/t Dayo Olopade at the Plank). Sample:

The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to
these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use
science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and
cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's
uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or
religion, is dangerous.

Read it all.

Net Neutrality: Regulation for Regulation's Sake

2008-04-23T10:53:00.000-04:00

In non-primary news, the FCC determined that it doesn't need new regulatory power over the internet:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday there's no need for new regulation of the Internet, saying his agency has all the authority it needs to prevent discrimination by Internet service providers.

That's a relief. Net neutrality is one of those things, like olestra, that may sound appealing in theory, but in practice is simply a bad idea prone to worse execution.

"The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your material or allow quick access is appalling," [Justine Bateman] told the committee.

Yes, because we need to listen to what Mallory Keaton says. The fact is net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. There is rarely service interruptions, which usually result from heavily trafficked sites. The real reason for this onerous regulatory regime is summed up thus:

"The only thing bigger than corporations in this country is the government," he said. "So we think we have to make clear to legislators that we need somebody making sure that that pipe is neutral."

Bigger government for bigger government's sake. Heaven forbid we let private citizens order their own lives and exercise their speech rights in accord with their own preferences.

Fish, Barrell, Gun, You get the Idea

2008-04-23T10:05:00.000-04:00

I am in a particularly cranky mood this morning, so when I read grade-A bullflop like Bill Kristol praising Hillary Clinton (truly, a time traveler from the 90s would have a hard time figuring out what the hell happened to put the Clintons, Limbaugh Kristol ,and Scaife on the same page), I retch just a little bit, then break out the fisking pen:

Hillary Clinton’s convincing Pennsylvania victory is the third consecutive back-to-the-wall big-state win she’s managed (following on Ohio and Texas seven weeks ago).

Technically, Obama won Texas on delegates, but since when have little things like facts ever deterred Kristol or the cable networks (if I had a nickle for everytime I heard someone say Hillary won Texas I could start putting a dent in my college loans).

In all, about 16 million people have voted for her so far in this nominating contest. That’s the most votes any presidential candidate has ever gotten in any primary cycle of either party.

Except Obama has MORE VOTES, unless you include Michigan which even Terry McAuliffe has backed off of. Not to mention RCP sez even including Michigan, Hillary has only 15 million votes; someone get Bill a better fact checker. This reminds me of the lame Kerry spin after 2004 that he had won the most votes ever by a Democrat in a national election.... except for the guy he was running against.

Her campaign organization and strategists have been inferior to Obama’s--but she’s gotten more total votes than he (counting Michigan and Florida--the voters there are people too!).

Next thing you know Bill will be hosting a fundraiser for her; in fact I was sort of surprised there was no link for donations. Oh yeah, and:

So a tip of the hat to Hillary. Fight on!

Again, this race feels more like Alice in Wonderland everyday.

UPDATE: Brendan Loy shows why Kristol's argument and Hillary's claim she has more votes than any other candidate are complete bullshit:

However, there is no debate about this. There is no possible counterargument. It is completely and utterly indefensible for Hillary Clinton to make a blanket claim that "more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate" while literally ignoring duly held elections in four whole states!! And, similarly, it is totally dishonest for her to advance a "popular vote" legitimacy argument that depends on her Soviet-style "victory" of 328,309 to zero in Michigan.

Mildly Depressed

2008-04-23T07:52:00.000-04:00

After another episode of the Romero-esque "Night of the Undead Clintons," and the media subsequently carrying the Clinton water (what is with MSNBC parroting their fundraising calls? Would Kronkite ever do that?), I am depressed at the continued specter of another Clinton presidency, the continued dynasticism and the demographics as destiny nature of American politics. So to make myself happier, here is Big Daddy Drew of KSK on the though process of most of western PA yesterday:

Den again, that little blackie can’t bowl! I don’t trust no one dat can’t roll. If you’re gonna come to Picksberg, you better be ready to bowl. Dat guy on dat 9/11 plane was. He said, “Let’s roll,” den came right here to Pennsylvania. Dis is where folks wanna bowl. That Yomama guy sure did bowl like a fairy. And I can’t vote for a fairy. Black is okay. But a black fairy? Dat’s like, tree strikes. Get aht tahwn, jagoff!
...
Plus dis white guy [Hillary] likes to shoot guns. And I like to shoot guns, too! We got so much in common like dat! Not like dat Harvard guy. Plus, I kept asking dis guy what he was gonna do for me. Was he gonna help cut out a larger doorway in my house? Was he gonna lower all those taxes I pay? I paid, like, $15 last year! Bull shit! Was he gonna widen da highways so I can swerve all over da road like I love to do? Was he gonna nuke da crazy out dem towelheads?

And he said yes, he would! Dat’s good stuff.

Liberal Faith or the Social Compact

2008-04-22T11:14:00.000-04:00

I largely agree with Larison's and Poulos' critiques of Kagan's arguments in favor of liberal inteventionism. As they both point, his argument essentially is structured around ideological feelings on the superiority of ones principles to the detriment of international norms and the laws of nations (think of a secular crusades).

I will dissent mildly from James' critiques of the formulation of Kagan's "liberal faith" as a purely liberal construct. Kagan posits:

[o]nly the liberal creed grants the right–the belief that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights that must not be abridged by governments; that governments derive their power and legitimacy only from the consent of the governed and have a duty to protect their citizens’ right to life, liberty, and property.

James seems to feel that this is a purely liberal belief that can be deabted. Yet, I feel like these are the organizing principles not only of the American republic but of the Western enlightenment as well. It is a mistake to claim those beliefs as liberal in the modern sense since they are classically liberal. Hume and Locke certainly described them in their works, and we would be doing them a disservice to place them in the liberal imperialist camp with Kagan.

How one acts on those beliefs is another matter. As last week's John Adams episode showed in the conflict between Hamilton and Adams over the expansion of the republic, one can belief in American exceptionalism based on those principles and still not want to prosecute war to the four corners of the earth. Those classical liberal ideals prioritize the individual over the govenrment and demands respect for rules in order to maintain that balance.

Of course, if those ideals are purely liberal, I would love to hear what competing conservative ideals James or Daniel would posit in their stead.

PA Predictions

2008-04-22T10:53:00.000-04:00

Since I do live in the City of Brotherly Love and have been subjected to 6 weeks of Obama-Clinton ads (BTW, if we really want to torture detainees, just make them watch vapid campaign ads on loop, Clockwork Orange-style), I feel obligated to make a prediction.

I was leaning towards the double digit win Clinton needs to drag this thing out longer. But after the massive rally last Friday, I think Obama may have enough strength in Philadelphia and the suburbs to pull the margin to within five, which may be enough to finish her off. Keep in mind that the Friday rally was occurring simultaneous with the opening game of the Phillies-Mets series last weekend (with Hamels and Santana facing off). That game was sold out with over 45,000 in attendance, so for Obama to pull the nearly 40,000 that descended on Independence Plaza is a real sign of strength.

Tuesday Morning God Blogging

2008-04-22T10:32:00.000-04:00

Derbyshire speaking truth to power at the Corner:

Of course religious belief is relativistic. Religious people say it is! Suppose I line up a Christian, a Moslem, and a Hindu, and ask: "You guys all promote a different set of 'fundamental truths.' How can I figure out who's right and who's wrong? What external test can I apply? What can any of you point to in the beliefs of the others that doesn't square with observable facts about the world, or about human life?" What will they say? After a lot of babbling and pointing, it will boil down to: "You gotta have faith. You have to feel the truth within yourself." In other words, it's an interior, subjective experience. What's more relative than that? There is no objective test one can apply to confirm or falsify statements like "Jesus was the Son of God," or "Mohammed was the Messenger of God," or "Vishnu has four arms." You just gotta believe. How is that not relative?

Given that the Corner was basically US Weekly for Catholics while the Pope was in town, this went over like a fart in church (ha! puns!):

Derbyshire knows zilch about Catholicism or Vatican II, has not carefully read anything the pope has said about relativism, and is not interested in doing any of the intellectual work required to remedy his ignorance. His posts make these points pretty clear. You can't have a good-faith conversation with him on these topics, so don't try.

Yes, no need to debate religion versus reason; Derb simply doesn't know what he is talking about. If he did, of course he wouldn't dare equate Catholicism or Christianity in general to such heathen religions as Hinduism and Islam. The thing is Derb is largely right:

Careful enquiry, classification, and measurement; comparison with the inquiries of others; discussion and publication; test against observation and experiment; that is how we learn truths about the world. There isn't another way. The truths of religion are revealed … to individuals … as interior, subjective experiences … with different individuals receiving and interpreting thm differently. That's relative.

As he says, "Boy, how I love the Enlightenment!" Derb's thoughts largely track my own, as does Ramesh's response to my own born-again relatives.

I consider myself agnostic since, as Derb explains, it is literally impossible to reason out the correctness or wrongness of any particular religion. Taken as a whole (minus the burning bushes, hexapedal gods, and ascendant prophets), there is much that religion shares in common in philosophy which weighs in favor of giving them some creedance in those areas of common agreement. For example, most religions share the same basic 10 Commandment rules against murder and stealing and such, as well as some form of the Golden Rule.

This position is counter to those who reason against religion and come out thinking there is no god. While religion cannot prove the existence of a God (regardless of what St. Anslem said), science cannot disprove the existence of god (regardless of what the anti-Darwinists contend), only fail to verify. And for that reason, I will stick to my conservative belief in a god, but reserve to right to pick one.

The Market Can't Do What?

2008-04-22T10:16:00.000-04:00

So Yglesias looks at this interview with McCain's environmental policy guy and what does he see? A blind spot for greener transportation policy, Matt's favorite hobbyhorse:

On climate, it seems to me that aside from a curious devotion to nuclear power, McCain's big blind spot has to do with transportation issues. It's true that we shouldn't underestimate the power of American consumers and businesspeople to adopt to an environment where a carbon cap puts a price on emissions. But the free market can't do things like provide commuter rail lines and subways or denser living patterns to help people adapt. The market is already adapting to rising gas prices and increased congestion by enhancing the relative value of homes in walkable neighborhoods or near transit. It's adapting by making those places more expensive. Along with capping carbon emissions, we need to increase the supply of places like that, so as to put them within reach of a reasonable number of people. That requires government action -- much of the necessary action is actually deregulatory action, but it's action nonetheless -- and not just the "cap and forget about it" philosophy.

Setting aside why Matt thinks enthusiasm for nuclear power is curious, it is ridiculous to think that the market "can't" provide commuter rail or subways. Transportation reform usually includes advocates for toll roads, and libertarians have consistently pushed for greater privatization of highways. It isn't their fault that the government prefers to control the avenues of commerce, regardless of cost. Furthermore, as Matt points out, the market is providing denser living patterns, and the public response is strong, hence the rising prices in urban markets. Now, Matt is right that if you want the market to exert a greater force over planning and transportation the answer is deregulation, but his logic in this post is terrible. First, he is claiming the market can't provide for his preferred policies, then he says that the answer is further deregulation to allow the market to fail.... thus justifying more direct government action?

In favor of Pseudo-Pseduonymity

2008-04-18T23:15:00.000-04:00

So Christmas Ape of personal fave Kissing Suzy Kolber decides to reveal himself this week. Response from his employer, the Washington Post? The Axe. The reaction? Predictable.

While the Post's reasons for canning Ape were patently ludicrous, it reaffirms my decision to at least have a pseudonym. While I have revealed myself from time to time (and no not in that way), it is important to have some thin barrier between my online and real world personnas. And if employers continue show such disdain for otherwise productive online presences (its not like Ape or I are playing Second Life or anything), I will cling to my flimsy pseudonym like Rustbelt industrial workers do to their guns. (too soon?)

Means Testing and Equity Problems

2008-04-18T15:41:00.000-04:00

Interesting debate over means testing and liberal opposition. Kathy G points to incentive concerns:

[M]eans tests can create perverse economic incentives. Whenever there are means tests, some people are inevitably going to work less or stop working altogether, so that their income does not disqualify them for the benefit. Again, that's not terribly efficient, and it's morally problematic as well.

Of course universal entitlement programs create their own incentive problems: if the government takes over responsibility for retirement planning or healthcare decisions, there is no incentive for individuals to take any responsibility for those decisions either. At least paring entitlement programs to whose who don't have the means to take responsibility will force those that do to assert themselves more. Further, if the government is on the hook for everyone's welfare, there is no incentive to save nor for charities to operate.

On equity she continues:

The biggest problem with means tests, though, is that they make the relevant programs a lot more politically vulnerable. A program or service that is for the poor only quickly becomes stigmatized, and once it becomes stigmatized, it's easy to cut funding or end the program altogether. . . . As the saying goes, a program for the poor is a poor program.

In some senses, this is correct; a program where not everyone gets the goodies is more vulnerable. Because people will demand more accountability from said program instead of simply gobbling up government largesse without thinking. And if the goal of the entitlement programs is truly to help those in need (and not, as one of her commenters seems to argue to get everyone dependent on government services in the pursuit of "national strength and prosperity"), then we should be demanding lean and efficient programs specifically targeted to those in need of such services (similar to private charities), and not hugely wasteful universal programs.

Josh Patashnik makes an obvious point regarding equity concerns:

It's not as though a welfare state suddenly becomes immune to political challenge by being universal--you still have to get people to agree in perpetuity to marginal rates of taxation in excess of 50 percent. That's hard to do, and for good reason! So it's worth at least looking into the possibility of making some sort of grand political bargain that cements into place benefits for people who need them (which, in the case of Medicare and Social Security, is certainly not limited just to the indigent), while stanching the flow of red ink from Washington by cutting back somewhat on benefits for people who are doing well enough already.

If TNR is this open to means testing, maybe all is not lost.

The End of Gotcha Politics?

2008-04-18T10:53:00.000-04:00

Robert Reich, former Clinton Labor Secretary, intends to endorse Obama; yawn. The reasons for that endorsement, however, are far more interesting:

We have three terrible traditions that we’ve developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn’t possibly believe and doesn’t possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I’ve seen growing in Hillary’s campaign. And I’ve come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can’t in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president.

(h/t to John Cole) To me, as a libertarian, that is biggest promise of an Obama primary win (or eventual general win, though it is possible McCain would return to some of his straight talk ways if Obama is leading that charge). I am tired of the gotcha politics that prioritizes flag pins and tangential associations to Weathermen. I am tired of 'with us or with the terrorists' patriotism, and smearing people who you have honest disagreements with. This factionalism is what the Founders' warned against and feared, and it is what dominates politics today.

I believe in the strength of the ideas of limited government and liberty, and want to win on those principles, not on the basis of fear that the other candidate is a secret Muslim spy. Win or lose straight up and honorably. To do otherwise is simply a justification of seeking power for its own ends. And yes I am still voting for McCain, but I will hold his feet to the fire if necessary.

The Owner of the Seattle Super Sonic-ahs No Longer Celebrates Hanukkah.

2008-04-18T09:59:00.000-04:00

I have been meaning to blog about the deathmatch between the City of Seattle and the State of Washington with Clay Bennett, David Stern and the NBA over the fate of the Seattle SuperSonics (one of THE best names in all of professional sports). What started as a pretty grim situation where an out-of-state owner comes in, "attempts" to negotiate a new publicly financed arena for a year, then starts the machinery up to move the team (to Oklahoma City? Really?) has turned into a bitter legal fight over full performance of the lease (which would require the team to stay in Seattle another two years), complete with emails proving the obvious (that said out-of-town owners never really wanted to stay in the first place). Further complicating things is the fact that Stern seems to be buddy-buddy with Bennett (even inducting him into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame (?!)) and appears perfectly willing to trade the 14th largest market in the country for the 45th.

This week, the former owner (Starbucks honcho Howard Schultz) filed suit to try and get the team back under a theory that Bennett failed to make a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle in accordance with side letter to the contract of sale. Today the NBA owners are expected to approve the move, pending resolution of the various suits this summer. And now Bennett's attorneys are claiming the city's suit to enforce the lease is just an effort to get Bennett to sell (duh). Please read ESPN's most excellent TrueHoop blog for comprehensive reporting (or better yet go to Save Our Sonics, SonicsCentral or SuperSonicsSoul who have all been following since day one).

I have a lot of varied and conflicting thoughts on this.

First, it is always sad to see a team move, even the Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies. Growing up in Maryland, hating on the Irsay family for stealing the Colts was as natural as crabcakes. Even though I was 4 at the time, it was indoctrinated into me; I couldn't bear to watch the Irsay scion lift the Lombardi trophy two years ago, that was how deep the antipathy ran. Even when the Browns moved to Baltimore in the mid-90s, I was happy to have a team again, but felt hypocritical about how it happened (at least the history, colors and name of the Browns stayed in Cleveland, more on that later). I was also a big fan of the Charlotte Hornets, before George Shinn euthanized a great NBA market; once they moved I became a free agent, eventually joining the Agent Zero bandwagon in time for the 2004 playoffs. So I understand what Seattle fans are feeling, it sucks.
Second, Bennett is completely within his rights to try and move his team. Look, the NBA would never expand into OKC, so his only option was to steal someone else's team. Sure he has played his hand like the weasel he appears to be, but given the Al Davis precedent (where he sued the NFL for the right to move to LA and not only won but got the 9th Circuit to nearly declare the league in violation of anti-trust law), there is really nothing the league can do but rubberstamp and offer condolences to the Seattle and the hope of an expansion team. So while it sucks for Seattle, teams moving has always happened and likely always will happen.
Third, while the team can move, I don't see any reason why the city can't try and take hold of the civic instution that is the name, colors and history. Afterall, for a team like the Sonics who have been in Seattle for 40+ years and have won the city's only championship, they ARE part of the city's story. As calloused as it sounds, this situation seems tailor made for eminent domain proceedings to retain the Sonics name, colors and history. Thankfully Bennett seems to be willing to ditch them if it gets him to the Dust Bowl faster.
Fourth, good for Seattle and Washington for standing up against the pro-sports public financing shake-down. They dropped a billion dollars on the Seahawks (owned by Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen) and the Mariners (owned by Nintendo) digs in the late 1990s after renovating KeyArena earlier in the decade. Given the economy, the governments said enough is enough. While I am not categorically opposed to public funding of arenas and stadiums because they can spur growth (as DC has shown), it is good to see governments stand up against such huge spending outlays for people who can usually afford to build on their own if they desire. Just look at the A's proposed privately-funded stadium in Fremont and the recently announced billion dollar stadium plan in LA to lure an NFL team.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, though I would guess the good basketball fans of Seattle will not be watching Kevin Durant for the long run.

UPDATE: The NBA owners approved the move 28-2, with Portland's Paul Allen (also the Seahawks owner) and Dallas' Mark Cuban (who had previously committed to voting against the move) voting against. The move is pending resolution of litigation.

Musings on Shackin' Up

2008-04-17T16:33:00.000-04:00

Earlier my old friend the Crank gave us his two cents regarding the budding institution known as "shacking up." However, I will go out on a limb and for argument sake and state that "shacking up" is a relatively conservative response for the gen X and gen Y generations who often have lived and grown up through the scaring personal realities of "no-fault divorce" as the norm and not an exception.

I do not wish to fully open the massive can of worms about the positives and negatives that have come from this change in our domestic contract today, but merely suggest that the younger generations are more cautious to sign on the dotted line for the holy union. Living through ugly parental and even grand-parental divorce, has made younger people more likely to be cold realists, than sappy hopeless romantics. But you can't really blame them for adapting to this reality, nor is it fair to make this into some argument against civil marriage Sir, Crank.

I think "shacking up" is a relatively benign financially conservative and stable bridge between the prolonged HBO induced (Sex in the City/ Entourage) adolescent multi-partner "dating around" world and the land of settled, married, and with kids.

But those are just the Gentleman's musings of the day.

The Fraudulent Frauds Fraudulently Using the Trademarked FraudBusters*

2008-04-17T15:45:00.000-04:00

On NewsBusters, the Cantankerous Gentleman and I have a post up about the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Big Labor and their new venture, FraudBusters. *(It has come to my attention via fax, that BISC was issued a cease in disist letter on March 27th, for their unauthorized use of Kessler International trademark for the use of "Fraudbusters.")

Key Graf:

The AFL-CIO and UFCWU’s actions in Colorado should thus come as no surprise; they are working straight out of the BISC/"FraudBusters" playbook. First, work with sympathetic elected officials to thwart the popular will, and then try to create confusion among voters by filing left-wing initiatives with appealing-sounding names, and when all else fails, head to court to disenfranchise legitimate petitioners.

Read it all.

UPDATE: No pun intended, but it appears BISC fraudulently used the trademarked "Fraudbusters,*" for there website which makes this story that much more amusing. We like Kessler are still awaiting the term being fully excised from their project website.

Shacking Up

2008-04-17T10:11:00.000-04:00

In a shockingly intelligent post (as opposed to this), K-Lo laments, via papal decree, couples living together out of wedlock. Interestingly she doesn't offer a solution to people viewing "the sacramental bond of marriage seem[ing] scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person." Given NR's and K-Lo's institutional enthusiasm for anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments and other governmental efforts to strengthen (read: impose) traditional marriage, you can easily guess what that would be.

Yet doesn't it make more sense to swing the other way? If people truly fail to see the difference between civil and religious marriage (and the aforementioned traditional marriage cheerleaders certainly don't seem to see a difference), isn't the answer to do away with civil marriage? That solution would prioritize the religious, traditional marriage without the imposition of those particularly religious connotations that folks like K-Lo approve, but also lead others to choose the shacking up option.

Maybe it is my elitism showing, or my radical libertarianism, but the answer to a problem of conflating public and private institutions isn't greater expansion of the public institution congruent with the private, but the pruning of the public institution to allow the private to flourish.

Snobbery

2008-04-17T09:50:00.000-04:00

I didn't watch the debate last night, instead choosing to see the Sox lose to the Yankees (way to go bullpen). But I wanted to comment on the continued snobbery/elitism debate. Something in this Geraghty post from yesterday crystallized a thought that had been rolling around in my head for awhile:

But snobbery is less about income than it is about one's attitude towards other people — most often expressed when one is among one's own (say, while drinking wine among San Francisco's elites).

Indeed. Which also includes the attitudes that have been flying around in conservative circles, towards people who AREN'T blue collar folks. This Hugh post sums up that attitude:

He has not been building a small family business and coaching in the AYSO league, making budget in a medium-sized corporation or manning the snack booth at the football game, teaching the AP English course or organizing the Knights of Columbus or Society of St. Vincent de Paul food drive.

I'm sorry but that vision of America is not everyone's idealized view of how their life should be lived. A great many perhaps, but it is just as condescending to put down the "that odd mix of the beliefs assembled during his very unusual childhood, in Hawaii's most privileged school, on Chicago's south side, and at Columbia and Harvard Law School and Trinity's congregation" that makes up Obama's world view. This cultural illiberalism swings both ways and it isn't becoming of either side.

UPDATE: Larison points out the obvious:

In case I hadn’t made it clear already, there is something supremely rich and hypocritical in attacks on Obama’s elitism coming from any Republican and movement elites who derided Huckabee as “Huckleberry” and regarded him and his supporters as obnoxious rubes. Patronising social conservatives is all very well when they’re being criticised from the left, but actually taking them seriously is something that a lot of Republican elitists would never dream of doing.

And if My Aunt had Balls, She'd be My Uncle

2008-04-16T09:34:00.000-04:00

In an otherwise decent TNR profile of the Governator's environmental record in Cuhleefornya, Josh Patashnik includes this jaw-dropper:

One key to Schwarzenegger's success, though, is his choice of environmental issues: He is the most visible public face of a strain of guilt-free environmentalism that insists sustainability can be achieved without substantial limits on growth and consumption. As a result, the governor has garnered high marks on issues like oceans and air quality, on which opposition to green initiatives comes primarily from industry. But, when it comes to transit and suburban sprawl, on which any major progress would likely require noticeable lifestyle changes on the part of residents, "he's been missing in action," says Pincetl.

I am amzed that this bit of information is surprising, because you know ARNOLD IS A REPUBLICAN. Yes, Arnold is one of the greener governors in the union, as Patashnik notes:

Keeley, who shares such sentiment, concedes that Schwarzenegger is "better on the environment than any governor we've had in the last forty years, period."

But that doesn't mean he is willing to buy the entire global warming chicken little bible and start reducing one of the world's largest economies. Some of Arnold's environmental policies make good sense (like the state investment in solar panels, making state vehicles hybrids) others not so much (the cap and trade scheme and draconian emissions restrictions to start). But if enviros keep making the perfect the enemy of the good, they will find making any progress in their direction significantly more difficult.

Let Me Answer That

2008-04-16T09:10:00.000-04:00

Jacob Sullum has an article up on Reason asking which of the Big Three--McCain, Obama and Hillary--would take the most restraint with executive power post-Yoo. Sullum suggests Obama would be the most restrained, "apparently reflecting a sincere determination to limit his own power if elected." Given that he told a Philadelphia Daily News reporter that he would have his AG look into potential war crimes committed by the current administration, I think that is about right, especially given he subscribes to the belief that "a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law."

It should also come as no surprise that Sullum thinks that McCain would be better than Bush, particularly on torture (though still an enthusiast for expansive executive power to detain), while Hillary professes executive modesty one minute while arguing for robust power another:

Although Clinton now claims to have a modest view of presidential power, she was
singing a different tune a few years ago. "I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority." With the War on Terror as a rationale, her wish could be her command.

Check it out.

Identity Politics 2.0

2008-04-15T09:31:00.000-04:00

As sort of a follow-up to that last post, I wanted to say the libertarian in me is loathe to see social issues and identity politics play any role in government. Once you let those issues in, you are inclined to let government move into those same areas. In some ways it explains Bush II; people are still willing to give him a pass because he is one of them (Republican, evangelical, Yalie, wahtever), or at least 28% of the people. Its why feminists stood with Bill after he got aforementioned blowjob in the Oval Office, because he "felt their pain."

This type of identity politics (and to be sure, identity politics can be stretched to include any sort of identity, including political ideology) is corrosive to a republic, because you replace sound judgment with tribal loyalty. It is particularly destructive to the idea of limited government, because if the electorate begins to expect benefits in exchange for tribal support, government must necessarily expand to meet that demand, hence things like Schiavo.

UPDATE: For more on this, see this most excellent post by Megan.

Bitter, eh?

2008-04-15T08:50:00.001-04:00

Bittergate broke out over the weekend so I really haven't read a whole lot about it. It seems like liberals are mostly wincing, while conservatives are (predictably) up in arms. Me? Maybe my elitism is showing again, but I just don't get it. Thomas Frank ID'd this phenomenon of voters prioritizing social issues over economic issues years ago, though he never figured out why. It seems like Obama was trying to explain the phenomenon (albeit why you would do that in San Francisco is beyond me. I agree with Smerconish yesterday on Hardball; if you are going to make these types of arguments, make them in PA, not in San Francisco where you simply play into the liberal stereotypes).

To me, Obama's statement seems to be pretty innocuous; replace "religion" and "guns" with "football" and "fishing" and no one would give a shit. You really have to believe that Obama, a man who just had to defend his faith and has stated he beleives the Second Amendment is personal right, is a radical leftist Manchurian candidate to think he was disparaging religion and guns. Rather, he was attempting to explain why people vote social issues; in a world where politicians promise them the moon (cough, Bill & Hillary, cough) and then deliver nothing, people who don't have a deep understanding of Washington will get bitter and eventually feel like they are being used by the politicians they supported. When that happens, they will fall back on the familiar, things they understand and can rally around, like religion, or guns, or football, or whatever (you can include nationalism or xenophobia here as well, since there is a pretty good historical track record to support that idea). They return to something they are familiar with, which they understand, and contextualize things that way (As someone in my 20s going through significant life changes, I can tell you how important it is to have rocks like family and tradition to fall back on when everything around you changes). People may not understand entitlements or tax policy, but they sure as shit understand social issues; those are black-and-white, right-and-wrong.

What is amusing to me, as was pointed out by John Cole, is that all of this is blindingly obvious if you just stop and think about it for a second. Which explains the GOP and Clinton backlash (which interestingly seems to be outpacing any poll effects); Obama has fingered the presidential strategy of the last 16 years and the opposition is mortified that the old playbook may get tossed out. Of course this is consistent with his entire campaign, ripping off the masks of the charlatans on both sides who have cynically manipulated the populace into a lowest common denominator election strategy which emphasizes cultural issues and allows the victors to do whatever the hell they like in office otherwise. Its how we end up with 4 straight presidential elections where the winner has a maximum of 51% of the vote, and how one president can get impeached for blowjobs (yes, yes there was the lying, but I am still making a social point) and how another can trampel over the Constitution. Elections are sold as one tribal faction against another, each with competing values and beliefs, when in reality the politicians in charge are exactly the same.

The people have been cynically used, but I think they are waking up. Seeing FOX reporters' attempts to get blue collar diners to condemn Obama fail was heartening. When over 80% of the population thinks things are going poorly, there are bound to be some bitter people, and this time they are willing to say so and demand better.

Okay end rant.

UPDATE: Ross has a very persuasive post on why Obama is empirically wrong. I am not sure I completely buy it, but the point is Obama's assertion is debateable, not an elitist statement that needs to be condemned without any engagement.

And What a Weekend it was

2008-04-14T23:02:00.000-04:00

I was visiting the Gentleman himself this weekend in DC (hence the "work"-like substance of the Friday post). What else did we accomplish:

Attended the Media Research Center Gala on Thursday night. Nice swanky affair, lots of political celebrity sightings and gossip. I even got to meet Tony Snow. Also drank my weight in Dewars.... nice.
After working on the NewsBusters entry mentioned below, the Gentleman, his Lady and I headed to Austin Grill for dinner and margaritas to enjoy the spring weather.... just as the Caps beat the Flyers in OT in the first game of the playoffs. Then got caught in the wonderful downpour just as we got out of the cab on the way home. Nice.
Was the downstream marshal for the 21st GW Invitational Regatta. Great day on the water (except for a few brief down pours). GW's novice and second varsity boats even beat Navy for the first time that I could remember. Unfortunately, I was so burnt out from the prior two days I slept through the open bar festivities that night (oh yeah and I have 3d degree sun burn on my face... nice)
Found out about the "Jefferson 1" first hand (wasn't there, but I know people who were and heard about it the next morning). Too bad I don't have my law license yet... I would take that case for free and love every second of making the Park Police squirm.
But the capper was the boot the DC Parking Authority put on my car Friday which forced me to stay an extra day and miss class today... REAL nice. Though that allowed me attend a pretty chill house party Sunday afternoon with some old friends... which also turned me on to Hulu. I still haven't decided if this is a good thing. But I will say that 30 Rock is pretty awesome.

All in all, an eventful weekend. Big props to the Gentleman for letting me crash on the couch, especially for the extra night, and to his Lady for putting up with my barking dogs (I got new kicks on the way home, so it won't happen again).

Blame it on Earl Warren

2008-04-10T09:39:00.000-04:00

Andrew floats Hillary on SCOTUS and gets a pretty good response:

In short, as a lawyer, Senator Clinton has a less impressive resume than did
Harriet Miers, and clearly has at least the same deficiencies identified above,
and if nominated would richly merit a similar fate. This is not to say that
Senator Clinton has not had a tremendous career that should be admired. But it
ain't a legal career, and she has no more claim to the gifts of a Supreme Court
Justice than did Ms. Miers.

Andrew rebuts that by stating that the "professional legal model is [not] the only one that [will] work... she would fit the model of a political figure adding legislative experience to the bench." I dissent (ha! legal joke). The last "political figure" to sit on the bench (aside from Abe Fortas whose was a political creature of a different stripe) was Earl Warren, who is now a zero-sum judicial figure. You either love the way he ran his court or you hate it, and your view of legislators on the bench will largely depend on that reaction. Past legislators/politicians have been successful (Hugo Black and William H. Taft come to mind), so maybe it was just Warren. But I feel like there are distinct separation of powers issues with legislators on the bench.

The legislative mindset has no need or quarter for precedent and tradition, whereas courts traffic in them. Just look at some of the seminal Warren-era cases, like Brown v. Bd. of Education. The Brown opinion reads like congressional findings for the most part, with little grounding in the constitution (I am not saying Brown is wrong or extra-constitutional, simply that the factual predicate of the decision is not constitutionally based. Even Judge Michael McConnell has proposed an originalist theory for Brown). Similarly, Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized a right to privacy to purchase contraceptives. That decision rests on the infamous "emanations and penumbras" argument, when a straightforward equal protection theory would have been more satisfying. In short, the legislative approach to judging leaves something to be desired from a legal standpoint (like consistent legal principles couched in traditional approaches), while perhaps satisfying legislative instincts to address an issue in the most direct way.

That Might Explain It

2008-04-09T15:53:00.000-04:00

Andrew links to this map showing carbon emittance levels. I think this is a handy visual representation of a few things.

The areas you would most expect to support environmental regulations (the Northeast, Upper Midwest, West Coast) also have the highest emissions. Conversely, the areas with the lowest emissions (the West and, by concentration, the Southeast)
The rapid development in Denver and Phoenix (measured in carbon emissions) may explain some of the purpling of Colorado and Arizona, respectively.
The concentration of carbon emissions in the Great Lakes area (especially Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and the western portions of Pennsylvania and New York) combined with their struggling economies could spell doom for industry and business in those areas if more stringent environmental regs are adopted (let alone a higher minimum wage); if they are struggling now, imagine what would happen if costly carbon caps are imposed.

Since When is Walmart Unpopular in Pennsyltucky?

2008-04-09T11:02:00.000-04:00

At the Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty thinks that Hillary's kind words about Walmart back in 1991 will harm her in Pennsylvania.

There is footage in the archive of Mrs. Clinton joining Mr. Walton, Wal-Mart's founder, on a stage at the 1991 opening of a store in Rogers, Ark. "I'm so proud of this company and everything it represents," Mrs. Clinton said. "It makes me feel real good about what we've been able to do."

I would disagree; the voters who don't like Walmart are the latte-sipping, Volvo driving elites that already overwhelmingly love Obama. Hillary's entire constituency at this point is working class Dems who can't afford Whole Foods and shop at Walmart, and older women, who probably were big fans of Walmart when it first appeared on the scene in the '90s as a way to cost household expenses. As such, Hillary has already lost the sale with those voters for whom this bit of info might hold sway. Now, I am sure some union folks won't be happy (since Walmart doesn't do unions) but I am pretty sure they are still shopping at them, even here in union-loving Philly.

Now I am going to take a shower, because defending the Clintons makes me feel skeezy.

McArdle v. Greenwald

2008-04-08T17:41:00.000-04:00

After I blogged about Glenn Greenwald's full-throated condemnation of the media's handling of the Yoo memos, Megan countered that the media wasn't willfully ignoring the Yoo memos out of some machiavellian impulse to cover the administration's ass but rather out of profit motive and a desire to give the public what it wants:

This is not because journalists are insulated from their readers. It is because
readers buy more papers with headlines about Jamie Lynn Spears than they do with
headlines about Alphonso Jackson or John Yoo, since as I think I just mentioned,
they have never heard of either person. You can lead a consumer to stories of
vital national importance, but you cannot make him care. You can just make him
pass over your paper in favor of the Enquirer.

Which is true; just look at our voter turnout. There were more votes cast in the last American Idol than in the 2004 Presidential election and routinely fewer than 50% of the public turns out for elections. Most of the country simply doesn't care, regardless of what the media says. Megan was simply pointing out why the media prioritizes certain stories, not attempting to justify that decision as a good thing.

To which Glenn simply onloads:

And she wants it that way, as she argues that the media should tell her more
about Obama's bowling score than about these dreary, boring stories about DOJ
memos. That's why the Government can and does continue to do what it does --
because our elite establishment opinion-makers aren't just profoundly ignorant,
but happy about it, grateful for it even.

Except that isn't what she said at all:

Obviously, I think John Yoo's adventures are a matter of slightly greater
national importance. . . . But voters can't do much about John Yoo now, other
than choose a different type of president. Maybe they should do that by eagerly
scanning Obama and Clinton and McCain's platforms--though I am at a loss to
think how one might have divined a John Yoo from the anodyne folia of the Bush
2000 campaign. As far as anyone can tell, however, this is not how voters
decide. Believe me, nearly every journalist in DC wants to write in-depth
stories on foreign policy questions, and nearly every editor in the nation would
dearly love to sell them. If there were a millions-deep wellspring of interest
in the topic, some enterprising publication would already have tapped it dry.

Her larger point, made in her response to Glenn, is more succinct:

I am not defending John Yoo, or his memos, or the government's behavior. I am
simply pointing out that when it comes to the journalistic coverage of same, Mr
Greenwald has the correlation running the wrong way: the public doesn't know
because it doesn't care, not because the journalists don't want to tell them. If
the public did care, Mr Greenwald would have more readers.

And on a certain level, I think Glenn gets that when he responds to a reader making largely the same point:

I specifically critiqued this mindset in my original post, when I explained that these journalists patronizingly claim that the lowly regular Americans don't care about weighty matters and only want to hear vapid trash. But it's a self-fulfilling prophecy -- the media ignores vital stories and thus the public doesn't know about them -- and the claim is also baseless.
Who says that Americans care more about Obama's bowling than about lawbreaking and torture? The cable news shows that focus almost exclusively on the former aren't exactly great successes. There's this myth that whatever journalists chatter about it
what Americans care about. That myth should have been forever dispelled during
the Clinton impeachment obsessions.

At the root, though, is really a chicken and egg question, which both Megan and Glenn recognize; they just come out on opposite sides. Is the American public ignorant because the media focuses on dumb stories or does the media focus on dumb stories because the public is ignorant? The arguments about social responsibility and journalistic ethics are just noise for the reason Megan noted: the media is a business and that business is to sell product, be it newspapers, magazines, advertising time, what have you. I will say that there is an argument that at least the networks and radio stations, as part of their public licenses, could concievably be held to a higher standard since they are publicly entrusted to a valuable commodity (i.e. spectrum). But short of that, in a corporate media world, it truly is up to the bloggers and independent media to call attention to stories like the Yoo memos that will get ignored by the vast populace more enthralled by the "Hills" or "Idol." To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go to battle with the ignorant American public and lazy profit-driven media you have, not the altruistic media and engaged public you wish you had.

Stop the Shooting, the War is Over

2008-04-07T17:23:00.000-04:00

At the Corner, Peter Robinson writes up an interview with TJ Rodgers on capitalism and enviromentalism from Uncommon Knowledge:

T. J. Rodgers, ardent libertarian…preaching green? On today’s segment of our interview, I ask the capitalist’s capitalist if he has finally chosen to devote himself to the higher good. “The higher good?” T. J. replies. “That’s bunk.”
The [real] higher good is serving our customers....That kind of service is a higher service than the way our government looks at it, which is, ‘You elect me, I take over, I go to the big house, I get the driver and the big airplane, and then I tell you what's good and if you don't like it then I force it on you.’

I would go even further and say that the argument over better environmental practices has largely been won by the greens. All you had to do was see any extended portion of the NCAA tournament to see nearly every car company hocking better hybrids and cleaner cars, and gas companies touting cleaner fuels. In any capitalist economy, real social change occurs when you convince the private sector that there is profit to be made by embracing more socially responsible business practices. Just look at Whole Foods.

Yet, I am convinced that the eco-nannies will continue to press governmental efforts, because it is not enough for people to privately embrace greener cars or energy, there must be an official government stamp of approval and criminalization of conduct that they do not approve. Heaven forbid we let the market make environmentally unfriendly business practices obsolete, let's enact costly and bureacratic government oversight as well! And people wonder why the environmental movement has never fully been embraced by folks on the right who would otherwise embrace energy and environmental conservation.

Weapons-grade Awesome

2008-04-07T11:29:00.000-04:00

I missed this over the weekend, but I am now giddily anticipating Michael Bay's Transformers 2 (h/t Peter Suderman). Please say the Dinobots get to battle Devastator.

Our Crappy MSM

2008-04-07T11:22:00.000-04:00

Gleen Greenwald, taking a timeout from slamming the Yoo memos, turns his guns on the reporting of the Yoo memos:

Needless to say, these serious and accomplished political journalists are only focusing on these stupid and trivial matters because this is what the Regular Folk care about. They speak for the Regular People, and what the Regular People care about is not Iraq or the looming recession or health care or lobbyist control of our government or anything that would strain the brain of these reporters. What those nice little Regular Folk care about is whether Obama is Regular Folk just like them, whether he can bowl and wants to gorge himself with junk food.

While I don't think the media should be exclusively covering Yoo, Mukasey, etc during a campaign season (the time for that was a few years ago when it might have mattered), Glenn hits the nail on the head. The media has an awesome ability to frame issues for the Regular Folk, and by framing coverage in terms of Obama bowling, etc, they are merely reinforcing the crippling information deficit that leads to Regular Folk prioritizing the bowling and beer drinking appeal of a candidate over their actual policies. Thank god for the blogosphere.

On Boycotts

2008-04-07T10:09:00.000-04:00

Lots of scuttlebutt about China, Tibet, the Olympics and possible boycotts (it even snuck into the brunch discussion on Sunday). I am of two minds on this. I agree that the Olympics are much more than a mere sporting event. One need only look at the Berlin Olympics to see how they can be used as propaganda for murderous and corrupt regimes like the Nazis. The Beijing Games, like it or not, are a vehicle for the PRC to show off their modernization and try to erase global memories of the Great Leap Forward and Tiannamen. To that end, a boycott makes some degree of sense as a protest for the vicious crackdown in Tibet.

However, there is a human element: the affected athletes. I have read often of the bitterness harbored by the 1980 US Olympic teams who were not allowed to compete in Moscow. Those teams felt that their efforts were betrayed by their own government, that they were not allowed to compete, and beat, the Soviets. And there lies the central symbolic nature of the Games. While more than sporting events, the Games provide a forum from competition that does not require realpolitic or military strength or diplomatic intrigue. You roll the ball out there and beat your opponents on a field of honor. Moreover, you don't punish your own citizens by making them pawns in a global chessmatch.

Which had more of an effect on Soviet morale: the US boycott of the 1980 Summer Games in Moscow or the victory of the US hockey team at Lake Placid over the Soviet machine that winter?

Dept. of Stopped Clocks

2008-04-07T10:03:00.000-04:00

I will give Hugh some credit, sometimes he is right even when he is talking about other things. Writing about Dartmouth's attempt to silence their alumni, he says:

roll your eyes in wonder at the wilfulness of a small "elite" determined to hang
on to its power no matter how great the damage done to the institution or the
foolishness with which they appear to the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, the same can be said in response to the 30% of the country that thinks along these lines (h/t Andrew):

I haven't really been following this issue, mostly because I'm pretty sure that
whatever the government is doing to these terrorists wouldn't "shock my
conscience."

In the process, conservatism and the Republican Party are being wrecked by the administration's hubris and its cheerleader's willfully blind obedience for the next generation.

Liberaltarianism =/= Libertarianism

2008-04-03T11:13:00.000-04:00

I want to associate myself with Jonah and Will Wilkinson's critiques of Sunstein and Thaler's paean to 'libertarian paternalism." As Will and Jonah point out, what the liberaltarians offer is not real choice but the illusion of choice, since the options presented are filtered by the state to eliminate negative outcomes.

I would go a step further and say that this rebranding of 'choice' that eliminates failure is somewhat Orwellian. Just as communism achieved economic 'equality' by eliminating market winners and spreading economic failure equally across the population, liberaltarianism would enhance 'choice' by preventing people from making bad decisions, thus eliminating real choice.

Additionally, externalizing the consequences of poor decisions (either by eliminating them as an option or, as is being seen with Bear Stearns, having the government shoulder the burden of private actor's failure) only ensures that people will continue to make bad decisions. Maybe initially an actor will be grateful that they have been spared the rod, but if such bailouts become routine, there is no incentive for an actor to make good decisions. Eliminating poor choices, as a way to achieve better outcomes, is not any more effective than post facto bailouts; either way an actor will not be forced to own up to their mistakes and learn for the next time.

She's Got the Eye of the Tiger Alright

2008-04-02T11:20:00.000-04:00

Dan Drezner (subbing for Megan) rebuts the allegations that McCain's resume based campaign is somehow a coded racist appeal by turning the tables on Hillary's aping of Rocky:

To return the favor, however, didn't Hillary Clinton make the most obvious racial appeal of the past 48 hours when she compared herself to Rocky Balboa? A white underdog challenging a flashy, well-spoken, African-American member of the overclass?

He takes the metaphor to its 6 part conclusion. I would add that he forgot to mention that in part III, Hillary would need to lose re-election after manager Howard Wolfson dies on election night. Which sets up an interesting question: who would be Clubber Lang?

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center

2008-04-02T10:55:00.000-04:00

In the April edition of Labor Watch, the Cantankerous Gentleman and myself write about the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and its efforts to use the ballot initiative and referendum process to enact union-backed policies and defeat conservative and libertarian efforts. Key excerpt:

Founded in 1999, BISC believes progressives were caught flatfooted as conservatives used ballot initiatives to advance their legislative goals. It intends to turn the tables on the Right. But more is at stake than enacting bits of legislation. For BISC the process of putting initiatives on the ballot is a way to “frame election issues, increase progressive turnout, house coordinated field operations, draw contrasts between candidates, build voter lists and empower progressive organizations.” This is a comprehensive mission to which BISC brings an extensive program of operations. BISC runs databases that track leftwing funding for ballot initiatives. It trains activists to run initiative and referenda campaigns. And it supports public relations efforts to promote voter knowledge about state initiatives and voter awareness about where candidates and office-holders stand on them.

Read it al l.

Its a Bad Week

2008-04-02T10:39:00.000-04:00

Yesterday saw the long awaited release of the John Yoo torture memos. I haven't finished reading them, and I will leave the substantive analysis of Yoo's (and Ganzalez and Addington's) unitary executive theory of presidential power in war to folks like Glenn Greenwald.

What I will say is that it is shocking to me the level of legal analysis in the memos themselves. For the most part, the memos do not traffic in nuance or exploration of the gray areas of war making power. They state that the President has ALL power in war and Congress has NONE, and proceed from that position. Of course the Constitution and case law on war making power is far from that clear and there is little attempt to reconcile those internal contradictions. It is clear that the memos were designed to provide cover for a maximum power grab, not to set out the various arguments for presidential and congressional power.

So it seems odd that such a controversial figure as Yoo, whose primary claim to fame was his service in OLC and by extension his hand in these memos, continues to hold a high position in academia at Cal-Berkeley. If nothing else, these memos should call into question his legal reasoning.

Oh yeah, and absolute silence from the conservative blogosphere on the memos and the Kurnaz case. Big shocker.

Where Nuance Comes in Handy

2008-03-31T10:52:00.000-04:00

To follow up on the last post, I want to clarify that I am not saying that ALL detainees are innocents like Kurnaz evidently was and is. Far from it. Nor am I saying that the full rights of American criminal suspects should be extended to detainees. The issue of detainee treatment and legal protections is not an either-or proposition. There exist levels of process above the sham-tastic ones currently employed that would prevent egregious errors like Kurnaz while allowing US interrogators to question detainees for necessary intelligence. That is the entire point of the Geneva Conventions. The same goes doubly true for the use of torture to extract intelligence (I will refuse to use the Orwellian 'enhanced interrogation techniques' phrase).

What is sad is that the entire apparatus of the Right, which has by and large defending to the death the use of such techniques and procedures, is now utterly silent about Kurnaz. Ostensibly, conservatives and libertarians are supposed to hold the rule of law and the protection of such fundamental rights above all else. But somewhere in the last few years that has changed, and security has replaced liberty as the guiding principle.

Kafka-esque

2008-03-31T10:35:00.000-04:00

Often in arguments about what process should be afforded to terrorism detainees, supporters argue that the nature of the war and the nature of the enemy warrant no legal rights for detainees. The obvious rejoinder is that such arguments presume that ALL detainees are unlawful and thus should have no rights. Now thanks to 60 Minutes (yes, yes, Dan Rather, blah blah blah) comes the story of Murat Kurnaz, a Turkish-German national picked up in Pakistan (part of the systemic bounty-based pickups that probably account for a large portion of detainees) and tortured and held for 5 years, despite both the US and German governments knowing that he had no connections with al Qaida or any other terrorist group.

Kurnaz's story outlines the kangaroo court procedures and gulag like treatment that defines the current detainee policy. And the kicker (not including the incredulous Defense Department statement claiming, yet again, that the US does not torture) is the final line of the story:

And he told 60 Minutes he wanted to visit the United States, but can't because the U.S. still considers him to be an unlawful enemy combatant.

Watching HBO's very good John Adams miniseries this week, I can't help but wonder what men like Franklin, Jefferson and Adams, men obsessed with rights and process, would think of what the rule of law has become in the US.

Vivid Corvid

2008-03-30T19:34:00.000-04:00

Since I am a shameless plug whore, I figured I would plug my brother's photography. He is very good:

Pretty Much

2008-03-25T13:54:00.000-04:00

In the course of discussing Jeff Jarvis' proposed 'rule by engineers,' Dave Weigel makes a very smart observation:

Voters split into two camps: those who want government to help them and don't
want to watch the "sausage" being made, and voters who want government to leave
them alone and are only interested in process as it illustrates why government
should be butting out of their lives.

Or as I like to call them, people who vote for Clinton, and people who don't.

And for his next trick...

2008-03-24T21:29:00.000-04:00

I have been hard on Hugh Hewitt in the past for drinking too much of the Romney Kool-Aid, but this post might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen him write:

I pointed out that past profanity cases like Nixon's "expletive deleteds," Bush's description of a New York Times' reporter and Dick Cheney's response to Pat Leahy have generated enormous headlines, but never has a presidential candidate ever purposefully recorded himself swearing so profusely or with such variety. I think the audiobook tape will matter a great deal, even if only used in context, and that of course the YouTube generation will begin manipulating the tape as soon as it is known to be available.

And people wonder how things like Obama-Wright video get created. Nevermind that Nixon and Bush were sitting US presidents and Cheney was talking to Leahy on the floor of the Senate. Obama's use of profanity in his own autobiography is simply beyond the pale. Oh and people in Middle America NEVER curse or have heard curse words. Its the MTV age people. Please try to keep up.

Howard Wolfson: Big Fat Liar

2008-03-24T08:02:00.000-04:00

From Newsbusters comes video directly refuting Hillary's claim that she was under sniper fire or in direct danger during her official trip to Bosnia in the '90s. Pretty clear that at the very least she was exaggerating, at worst she was making it all up.

Howard Wolfson, Hillary's spinmeister extraordinaire, was MSNBC this morning continuing to defend the original Hillary-under-fire fable, pointing to contemporary press accounts reporting the danger of of Bosnia at the time. One little problem: NONE OF THE STORIES THAT WOLFSON CITED CORROBORATED HER STORY THAT SHE WAS GETTING SHOT AT!

There is direct video evidence refuting her story, yet the spinning continues. Hillary is never wrong, and there is a near pathological inability to admit she was wrong. I have had enough of that attitude after the last 8 years (or 16 if you are so inclined). Spinning is one thing. Hillary's campaign would make even Orwell blush.

Takes One to Know One

2008-03-21T11:51:00.000-04:00

From the Corner, Charles Murray stating better than anyone (including myself) what Obama's race speech was about and what he means for politics:

Take, for example, the treatment of his reference to his white grandmother.
Of course you can go after him in all the ways that people have gone after
him—if what you want to do is go after him. But suppose you approach Obama’s
text under the twin assumptions that (a) he is trying to communicate with you,
and, (b) your obligation is to make a good-faith effort to understand his
meaning. I read what he said about his grandmother, and his words left me in no
doubt about two things: He really loves his grandmother, and he was saying
something important about race that I recognized from my own experience. I bet
many of the people who have slammed him recognize it from their own experience
too. The guy was being honest, and he was being right. What the hell more do you
want?
...
I understand how naïve it is to read a presidential candidate’s speech as
if it were anything except political positioning, but that leads me to my final
point: It’s about time that people who disagree with Obama’s politics recognize
that he is genuinely different. When he talks, he sounds like a real human
being, not a politician. I’m not referring to the speechifying, but to the way
he comes across all the time. We’ve had lots of charming politicians. I cannot
think of another politician in my lifetime who conveys so much sense of talking
to individuals, and talking to them in ways that he sees as one side of a
dialogue. Conservatives who insist that he’s nothing but an even slicker Bill
Clinton are missing a reality about him, and at their peril.

Read all of it.

Christine Brennan- Basketball Scold

2008-03-21T11:17:00.001-04:00

Via Megan and Radley Balko, I see Christine Brennan is stumping for hosting the men's and women's NCAA basketball tournaments at the same site, in the name of elevating the women's game. As a former varsity college athlete, all I can say is: WAAAAAA!

Look, inequality DOMINATES college athletics. Is it fair that football is sui generis, with no female counterpart? Is it fair that colleges sponsor dozens of money losing Olympic sports for women (and men) out of the profits raised by basketball and football? Is it fair that the media lavishes praise on football and basketball (to be somewhat fair, with raising coverage of soccer, baseball, softball and lacrosse) at the expense of other sports, like rowing? Of course not. But short of the NCAA creating seasonal Olympic-style championships at a single site, inequality will continue to persist. The media is going to cover the sports that people care about, and that has traditionally been football and men's basketball.

Brennan does note pages of coverage, ESPN broadcasts and packed Final Four site as data points for raising interest. But she goes to far in thinking that such interest is being supressed or somehow understated by the inequality in media coverage. In our long tail culture, if there is access people will consume. The problem isn't that interest is somehow suppressed or understated, it is simply nowhere near on par with the men's game, as Brennan unwittingly acknowledges:

But for an event in its 27th year, it still has the look and feel of a second-class citizen, a major NCAA championship played in the huge shadow cast by another major NCAA championship. At USATODAY.com, the men's bracket received 50,541 page views on Monday. The women's had 6,428 on Tuesday. That's almost an 8-1 ratio.

The media coverage isn't causing the disparity in pageviews, lack of a widespread fan base is. Women's basketball has been dominated by a handful of programs for a very long time now (namely UConn and Tennessee). If there was a groundswell of interest nationally, pageviews would reflect it; that it doesn't simply shows that women's basketball remains a niche sports, despite the best efforts of ESPN and the NBA to promote women's college and professional basketball.

Contra Lessig

2008-03-21T09:10:00.000-04:00

And to build on the last post, I much prefer the Sabato plan to Larry Lessig's (what's with competing Larry reform plans, anyway?) idea to fund incumbent races at a rate below that of what challengers raise. Key graf:

First, the idea he semi-endorsed is not full public campaign finance. It is public financing for incumbents, an idea he credits to Paul Begala and James Carville. Incumbents would be prohibited from raising any money, at all, period. Their funds will come from the U.S. Treasury and be a function of how much their opponents raise. If Challenger Jones raises $1 million, Congressman Smith gets a check for $800,000.

Putting aside the very important restrictions on protected political speech inherent in such a plan (I am assuming Lessig would also be for outlawing third party spending on issue ads, etc, but I could be wrong), I agree with Megan that Lessig's plan isn't likely to decrease the size of government, a central justification for Lessig's plan. When you put incumbents in charge of designing and passing a plan to pay for their own campaigns, you are simply not likely to get them to voluntarily put themselves at a financial disadvantage. Not to mention Lessig relies on a logical fallacy that since such a system would render the FEC largely obsolete, the FEC will cease to exist. First rule of government dynamics is that once created, a government bureaucracy simply will not die. Just look at all the government agencies killed by the Republican dominated federal government of 2000-2006.

Sabato's Modest Proposal

2008-03-21T08:51:00.000-04:00

Via Ygeslias, comes a proposal from Larry Sabato to increase the size of the House to 1000 members by decreasing congressional districts from 700,000 voters to 300,000. Key graf:

House expansion would bridge the divide between representatives and constituents. Smaller districts could more closely correspond with community boundaries and media markets. This would provide representation for local concerns and revive long-forgotten traditions of door-to-door retail campaigning. Challengers would need far less money to make their stand, relying on foot power more than a green machine fed by barrels of cash. With candidates making their cases individually to more voters, incumbency would matter somewhat less, and upsets would probably be more common. Diverse ethnic and racial minorities, beyond African Americans and Hispanics, would be able to win some representation.

From ethics reform to election law to redistricting, all of these reasons make Sabato's proposal seductive. Of course it is quite likely that time X+50 years (X being implementation of such a proposal), we may begin to see the same problems that have dogged the current system. But I do think that this is a quite sensible proposal to address some of the structural problems facing Congress while taking advantage of the technology that makes such enormous districts (which were a product of American expansion and poor communication technology) unnecessary.

Indeed I have trouble thinking of reasons to oppose such a proposal, from either side, except from a purely incumbent-centric, arch-conservative, change-is-bad perspective. There could be an argument made that increasing the size of Congress is merely making it more likely for scandal and an even greater drain on the public treasury, a concern that probably should be underscored.

Of course, Sabato also recognizes the difficulty in getting sitting Congressmen to vote their own influence down, so I wouldn't expect any action on this idea any time soon.

Obligatory NCAA Tournament Post

2008-03-20T11:00:00.000-04:00

I figured I would depart from the presidential campaigns to discuss the two of the least productive days on the calendar (I would say the others are weekdays that follow New Years, the Super Bowl, St. Patricks, and the Fourth of July)--the first two days of the NCAA tournament.

Now usually I am knee deep in brackets and scouting reports, but this year I feel like the secretary in accounting who wins the office pool because she picked the team with the coolest nickname (true story-- I lost the bracket pool I was in two years ago to an ex-girlfiend who picked Florida to win because a mutual friend went there). I got no real insight to offer because the most basketball I watched this year was Championship Week last week and both of my teams (Maryland and George Washington) are not in this year's field.

So my bracket is a hodgepodge of prejudice and small sample sizes. With that caveat, I have UNC, Kansas, UCLA and Pitt in the Final Four, with UNC winning it all. But given my luck, it will probably be Tennessee, Georgetown, Memphis and Xavier. But I will say it is a mortal lock that Temple will beat Michigan State today. Why?

Shut up, that's why.

UPDATE: I see I share my Final Four picks with Obama and Bobby Knight. I am not really sure if that is a complement to my prognostication abilities, but that is pretty esteemed (and odd) company.

Conspiracy Theory du Jour

2008-03-19T11:03:00.000-04:00

So thinking some more about the Obama-Wright contremps, I think the answer to many of the unanswered question lie not with Barack, but with Michelle Obama. The reason that the Wright issue has stuck is that his rhetoric is so far afield from Barack Obama's; whereas Obama has sought to avoid race and painted his message of hope in broad brush strokes, Wright is cynical, bitter and angry. The dichotomy is jarring and makes people wonder how an otherwise sensible and engaging man like Obama could countenance being a parishoner at Wright's church.

But there is another person closer to Barack that sounds more like Wright, who has a more extensive history with that Wright's tradition in black culture: Michelle Obama. She is the one who is from Chicago, and had likely known about Wright prior to the family joining Trinity. She is also the one who majored in African-American studies at Princeton and wrote her thesis on Princeton educated blacks and the black community. She is also by all accounts an extremely strong-willed woman who likely has a larger role in the direction of the family than Barack.

Now I am not saying she shares some or any of Wright's controversial and incendiary views. But it does seem plausible that after the couple moved to Chicago, she was the one who directed them to Trinity out of her interests. And Obama, based on what we know of him and their relationship, was willing to let her do it. Religious decisions are often driven this way. From my own family history, my brothers and I were raised Episcolpalian, even though my dad is Catholic and my mom Lutheran; that decision was made mostly by my mother.

This is purely theory of course. But I think that it explains a few things. Obama would be really reluctant to throw his own wife under the bus for this controversy and knows that blaming her for this decision is unpresidential, poor judgment, and simply not worth it electorally, personally and otherwise. Moreover, Michelle's influence over her husband is the Occam's Razor answer here. The logic of Obama disagreeing but largely ignoring Wright's more ludicrous pronouncements makes more sense, if his exposure to his own wife's blander and more scholarly radicalism had convinced him that it was harmless rhetoric that was a vestige of historic inequality.

I think given the media's seeming dissatisfaction with elements of the speech yesterday, it would not be surprising to see the light shown on Michelle Obama and her role in the decision to attend and remain congregants at Trinity.

Poor White Catholic Factory Workers

2008-03-19T08:19:00.000-04:00

Listening to MSNBC this morning, the talking heads have been pretty much gushing over the Obama speech (surprise!). But it is getting really annoying hearing Scarborough and Buchanan (as well as Matthews last night) talk about how the speech is going to play to the poor white Catholic factory worker demographic that is prevalent in the Rust Belt and how they are a crucial group that Obama needs to win. To which I say: hooey.

Much of that argument is premised on an issue Obama actually touched on in his speech. The talking heads seem to assume that this demographic is stuck in their own racial resentments and are unable to move forward. That may be somewhat true; the fact that the collapse of American manufacturing has been going on for 20 years now and these folks and their politicians are still trying to put the cat back in the bag shows they aren't exactly the most forward thinking. But I think because of that they understand that it isn't the black man and his loose cannon preacher that should they should be afraid of; as Obama said, it is the corporations that offshore their jobs that they truly dislike.

But even putting that aside, am I alone in finding it aggravating that the media and political culture particularly seem to trumpet the lowest information voters as the most crucial votes? Over and over throughout this campaign, poor and working class whites and Latinos have alternatively been held as an integral voting demographic that any candidate will need (black voters would likely be included in that group as well, except they have swung overwhelmingly to Obama and stayed there). Shouldn't the media be trying to improve that information deficit, educating voters so they can make educated decisions, instead of championing their relative weaknesses as a demographic that make a candidate and campaign like Obama's unappealing? Or is the media simply stuck in a trap of micro-campaigning and promising government largess that has been central to election cycles past?

Either way I am really tired of talking about poor uneducated folks like they are some noble class that needs to be courted. As crass and unsympathetic as it sounds, these people are simply obsolete in a post-industrial economy. The dominant employment in the Rust Belt was manufacturing that has become largely automated and offshored; those jobs simply don't exist anymore. Those demographics that filled the plants were merely automotons in those factories. Their failure to adapt and evolve the economies of Ohio, Michigan, western PA and western NY is not some tragedy that needs to be remedied, it is simply social darwinism. So I am going to be glad when I have to stop hearing about these poor blighted souls and I don't care if my educated elitism is showing.

Why Religion and Politics Don't Mix

2008-03-18T22:22:00.000-04:00

So reading over reactions to the Obama speech, I am struck be a couple of reactions on the Right. The first is the general agreement with much of the racial rhetoric, except for some posters at RedState who somehow took his speech to be more Marxist race-dividing (whatever that means). That doesn't surprise me given the pretty blunt language and framing; it is was less post-racial in that regard than post-partisan.

The second is the conflation of religion and American exceptionalism. Alot of contributors to sites like NRO or RedState remain hung up on the 'God Damn America' soundbite. Part of it clearly is an inability to see religion as anything less than a fundamentalist undertaking; to most of these folks, there is no such thing as disagreement or doubt as far as faith is concerned. There is only order and obedience. To even posit a religious experience that involves challenging one's other beliefs and their ability to let faith and reason both inform their decision making is a bit of a non-starter. So to hear Obama say he disagrees with his priest while seeing what that priest says in church is jarring for them, because they cannot imagine that he wouldn't obediently follow such religious instruction.

But I think another part is the total acceptance of American exceptionalism as a central qualification on the Right. Remember where the pledge and flag pin 'controversies' came from. For these folks, America can NEVER be wrong, unless it is run by liberals. The idea that for a 60+ black man America hasn't been the land of opportunity simply does not register. And that is why Jeremiah Wright saying such things is inherently less offensive than Jerry Falwell; he comes from a different perspective of America than the dominant culture that produced Falwell. And the fact is you don't need to look much further back than the last 8 years to see that America is not infallible, that its actions have consequences and the country can behave shamefully. Some people just do not choose to recognize it. (For the record, I still think America is pretty fucking great, that the Constitution is the best of its kind and that on the whole, we have done a good job. But only hubris can lead you to ignore some of the more shameful things that have been done in the name of the USA.)

Lastly, it seems most conservative commentators have very little understanding of actual black culture, especially black church culture. I am not saying I do either, but seeing reactions from blacks in Philly vs. whites, it is pretty clear, there are two separate cultures, a bridge between which Obama has been trying to build for much of his campaign, but especially with this speech. To me, that was the point of tying Wright and his grandmother together. They ARE different, but at a certain level they are the same, prone to prejudice, fear and other human failings, like all Americans, black and white.

I think there are several avenues to criticize Obama, especially how he squared those parts of Wright's theology that he disagreed with to his young and impressionable children and what drew him to Wright in the first place. Those are legitimate questions still unanswered. Everything else is just noise and obfuscation from people who would never support him and have never understood him. In the end, I am still voting for McCain, because as one poster at RedState said, Obama is still a very liberal politician who will govern that way. But for purposes of this speech and his primary campaign, that doesn't much matter, because as Ross said today, that is a conservative's quibble with a liberal politician's address: "he’s attempting to be a liberal Reagan, not a difference-splitter like Bill Clinton."

Racists, Right and Left

2008-03-18T18:00:00.000-04:00

So Obama gave his big 'race' speech today, and from the transcripts it looks pretty compelling and quite possibly one of the more honest and direct approaches to such a controversial and divisive issue as I have seen. But the approach that Obama has taken to handle the Wright controversy makes me harken back to Ron Paul's handling of his own racial skeletons.

After the New Republic broke the story on the Paul newsletters , the Paul strategy was to dissemble and spin, hoping the media coverage would evaporate (and with good reason given the scant coverage being afforded his campaign, even after the mammoth fundraising hauls). Instead, the negative media coverage drowned the campaign. Not to mention, the actual stances taken to refute the newsletters ("I had no knowledge", "My name was used for fundraising"; "It was all Lew Rockwell's fault") came off as thin gruel. Even sympathetic ears like Reason and Cato weren't listening and soon Paul was finished.

Contrast that to Obama. He did the media rounds on Friday after the Wright YouTubes broke. He sat down with the Chicago papers until they were satisfied that their questions had been answered. And then he delivers a major speech on race, an issue he had taken pains to directly avoid (it had been floating around in the ether the entire campaign). But the genius of his approach was simply the transparency; his ability to pivot from a narrow focus on conspiratorial and quasi-racist ramblings from his long-time pastor to a broader discussion on issues that transcend racial divides and the reasons for lingering racial resentment was textbook. Turn a liability into a possibility. Of course that is apiece with his entire campaign narrative: you are responsible for your own fate and you cannot remain a prisoner to your past if you hope to change your future.

Glimpses like this, as well as the wonderfully nuanced way he approached the speech (and the fact he wrote it himself!) make me comfortable in the knowledge that he will make a good president. I am still not voting for him because of the lunatic Congress he will be beholden to, but I look forward to the next 20 or so years of Barack Obama in public life. We need more politicians with the intellect and ability he has and fewer with the competitive and cutthroat impulses that dominate today's political discourse.

Glass Houses, Stones, etc

2008-03-14T07:38:00.000-04:00

So Joe Scarborough is beating the "Jeremiah Wright hates America" drum this morning (as an aside, I really like Scarborough, except when he is gleefully taking positions on TV that explicitly favor the GOP). He makes this issue sound large and ominous, but I think it is going to be a non-starter, or should be if the GOP is smart.

I will say that the sermons being played are over the top. But no more over the top than McCain surrogate Bill Hagee's beliefs, or statements made by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson close to 9/11. Moreover, I am sure there plenty more Religious Right wingers who could pop up like a thousand tulips in April and say something inflammatory. They, after all, are the folks who want religious and moral purity (these are the ID folks after all) and will love nothing more than to bash Obama over the head with Wright's words while ignoring their own crazy uncles in the attic.

Now I am going to veer into Hitchens territory. Religion is a fundamentally 'crazy' thing; it requires the suspension of reason for blind faith in something that transcends human knowledge. And as we have seen, religion makes people do and say crazy things from time to time. The looming debate (and the previous debate on Hagee) on Wright has the potential to reveal more on the character of McCain and Obama. Do they adhere to their faith and religious leaders strictly and unchallenged? Or do they actively participate and question their faith, and disagree from time to time, as all people do?

From their statements in response to media challenges, McCain and Obama realize that you cannot buy in completely to religious dogma, and to use their human faculties to challenge and strengthen their faith in the positive ways that most American like to attribute to religious faith. Unfortunately, the media has no interest in nuance like that, so they will continue to push syllogistic talking points like "Wright:Bad::Obama:Bad?" until the issue gets overtaken by events or the candidate prostrates him/herself sufficiently.

EDIT: for more in this same vein, go to John Cole's place... it has been one of the saner places this election cycle.

FACT

2008-03-12T23:22:00.000-04:00

blog posting increases when major assignments loom....

Damn procrastination gene.

Guns Aimed at the Sun

2008-03-12T17:11:00.000-04:00

So I am now going to do something that is possibly incredibly foolish, but I am going to say something bad about "The Wire." Now, I know this is probably doubly foolish since I haven't ever actually seen an episode. But I feel, as a native son of Maryland who has seen Baltimore up close on several occasions, a few things need to be said.

Most pundits like to praise the realism of the series without actually thinking much further than aesthetics. Yes, by all accounts the show was a remarkably no-holds-barred look at innercity violence, the drug trade, incompetent and corrupt cops, a sensational but apathetic media and unaccountable and ineffective local government. But most pundits tend to overlook the little fact that Baltimore actually HAS all of those problems, and no one seems to care. According to Baltimore Crime, the city has had 34 murders already this year, following the 282 that came the year before. Nor is this a recent phenomenon; part of the reason for building the twin stadiums in the 1990s was to bring money and suburban families back to a city that had serious crime problems in 1980s. David Simon, the former Baltimore Sun writer who is the mastermind of "The Wire," write "Homicide" after spending a year on the beat in the late 80s. Yet these problems keep occuring.

Part of the problem is that Maryland is absolutely dominated by the Democratic Party. As such, the Mayor of Baltimore is often a de facto candidate for governor from the moment he takes the oath of office. Former Governor Wm. Donald Schaeffer managed to lose the Colts as mayor, but was still elected to 2 terms as governor. Martin O'Malley, the current governor, was the mayor of Baltimore until 2006, and presided over much of the current chaos without doing much (it can be argued he fostered the current problems by doing nothing while mayor except playing in an Irish band). The Dem domination is bad for a couple of reasons. Baltimore politicians know that they will have a future given the demographic dynamics in the state, regardless of how they actually perform in office. Then once they are elected to state office, there is no incentive to clean anything up since that would show just how little they accomplished in their previous job. Thats how O'Malley can defeat an otherwise popular incumbent Republican in 2006 while presiding over a city with a murder rate five times that of New York. And since O'Malley took office in Annapolis, Baltimore has only sunk further.

That attitude seeps down to the lowest levels. The Sun likes to complain about the crime problem but rarely if ever holds the politicians in charge of the city accountable for their consistent failures. Those same politicians also know they can depend on the Sun to endorse them against Republicans, regardless of how bad their records are. The schools are broken because there is no accountability at any level of city government, meaning statistics get fudged in school performance AND crime reporting. And cops either lay low to avoid losing their own lives in such a state of nature or go rogue like McNulty.

This isn't to say that putting the GOP in charge will be such magical salve. Baltimore is broken, like many American cities, and because it is broken, there will need to be a seismic shift in the political and social culture of the city for any progress to be made. Praising the graphic depiction of that brokeness rings a little hollow to me since I have seen how one broken city can negatively affect the political culture of an entire state.

So the next person to praise "The Wire" for its realism needs to think real hard about why it is so realistic. Think about why David Simon didn't stop with "Homicide" and felt compelled to make an even more dramatic depiction of the city.

Upwards Failure

2008-03-12T14:24:00.000-04:00

I was trying my best to ignore the Ferraro comments that have been eating up the airtime not devoted to just how much money Elliot Spitzer was spending on hookers. Personally, I thought the comments had less to do with race than more short-sighted Clinton strategery. Yes, let's send out Exhibit A for presidential tokenism to argue that Obama is only succeeding because he's black. Not to mention, the entire argument for Hillary's campaign at this stage is that sleeping with a former president represents a clear and deciding edge in experience. But no, lets send Gerry Ferraro out there and see what happens!

Of course, the cynic in me says this election is showing just how far we have come in race and gender relations. It used to be a black person or woman would have to work twice as hard, stay twice as clean and accomplish twice as much to warrant promotion over the white guy (or at least that was the argument). Well, now we have, based on the rhetoric of candidates and their own resumes, two completely undeserving candidates are on the verge of taking the Democratic nomination, one a black man with a very thin resume of actual executive experience and foreign policy know-how, the other the wife of a former president who never held elective office before the end of her husand's second term and who holds her time as First Lady to be the definition of presidential preparation. I guess the glass ceilings have been broken if the American electorate is so comfortable in electing such obviously unqualified folks to the highest office in the land. (and yes, my tongue is firmly planted in cheek, neither of them are unqualified since the only requirements to be elected are age and citizenship; whether they are fit to hold office is another question).

In sports, the argument for racial equality in hiring has sometimes been that equality will be reached not when there is parity in numbers, but when minorities retread hires are as commonplace as white retread hires. That is, when failures and novices can get hired regardless of race and minorities do not have to prove themselves to be exceptional to get a chance. In a world where Herman Edwards is still employed and 6 pack of former NBA players usually get tossed through the coaching ringer each year, it is only fitting that similar attitudes can be transposed to the race for President.

Mamet comes out of the (Liberty) Closet

2008-03-12T10:41:00.000-04:00

From the Village Voice (hat-tip to Megan McArdle), David Mamet talks about his evolution from liberal to quasi-libertarian. Money graf:

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

I am glad they sent a playwright.

Reason # 5726 Why Peggy Noonan is Great (or why Hillary's von Schlieffen Plan failed)

2008-03-07T20:28:00.001-05:00

Ok so I lied when I said I was on a blogging hiatus. But the events of this week have really shaken the hive of hornets that is my mind (the stinging it hurts.)

In that vein, go read Peggy Noonan's column in today's WSJ. It is Peggy at the top of her game:

What the Democrats lost this week was the chance to paint the '08 campaign as a brilliant Napoleonic twinning of strategy and tactics that left history awed. What they have instead is a ticket to Verdun. Trench warfare, and the daily, wearying life of the soldier under siege. The mud, the cold, the dank water rotting the boots, all of it punctuated by mad cries of "Over the top," bayonets fixed.

It is such a pitch perfect analogy it makes me smile. But in a week honoring the last living American WWI vet, I would quibble that the analogy to WWI could be further expanded, with Hillary's election strategy eerily similar to the doomed von Schlieffen Plan.

Hillary is surely Imperial Germany (relax this will not descend into Godwin's Law territory). She entered the election with a plan (von Wolfson?) to storm through the early small states (Iowa and NH=the Benelux states) to build crushing momentum that would allow her to dominate Super Tuesday (Tsarist Russia) before her competitors had a chance to build any momentum. Much like the von Schlieffen plan, it depended on flawless execution (given the structural advantages the Clinton's enjoyed), minimal resistance (Iowa and NH were considered states that Hillary should win, given her name recognition and the advanced run-up) and feckless opponents (Edwards and Obama were not exactly imposing going into the fall).

Yet much like Imperial Germany, Hillary made two crucial tactical errors. She underestimated the opposition (Obama=France, and this is NOT a surrender monkey metaphor) and she had no plan B in the event her blitzkrieg got bogged down (much like how German success hinged entirely on its ability to defeat the French in 42 days, Hillary's entire strategy was focused on winning the nomination by Super Tuesday). Thus Obama's performance in Iowa and SC can be considered her assault on Nancy, leading to her momentum grinding to a halt permanently on Super Tuesday (remember the $5 million loan? the desperate fundraising?). Ever since, the two campaigns have been trapped in trench warfare, with Obama unable to translate his string of tactical victories into the necessary momentum and Hillary's advantages in name recognition, machine strength and deep pockets being able to at least blow back on favorable ground.

Now sure, there are problems with this analogy, especially since Super Tuesday has to serve several roles. But look at where we are now: an electoral stalemate in popular votes, delegates and superdelegates (while Obama is winning, he is past the point where it can be reasonably expected that he can defeat her and she cannot mathematically beat her) with no way to predict who will win before a truce will be negotiated (the Denver convention=Versailles). But if the WWI analogy holds, we can expect a couple of things:

The losing party (be it Clinton or Obama) will likely create their own Dolchstosslegende, given the belief of hyper-partisans that the other candidate with the help of the party stole victory from them.
Such a negotiated resolution would not be sufficient to put the party back together,much like Versailles was unable to sufficiently pacify partisans and prevent the next war.

It may not be perfect, but at least now I can justify my minor in German.

Dept. of Tone Deaf Campaigning

2008-03-06T20:50:00.000-05:00

So Hillary is newly emboldened by her big 'victories' on Tuesday that netted her maybe 10 delegates. What does she do? Compare Obama to Ken Starr and continue comparing her 'experience' to McCain's to bash Obama.

I give up. If the Dems elect her or allow the superdelegates (screw this 'automatic' delegates crap Wolfson and Penn keep flinging) to appoint her, and they will richly deserve the loss they have coming to them.

What a Clusterf***

2008-03-05T08:55:00.000-05:00

Sooo, after watching the returns come in last night, it is clear that the Democrats are hellbent on throwing this election away. As a Kos diarist put it last night (yes I was trolling to see what the rank and file netroots were saying), on the one hand you have a candidate who has proven to have a broad appeal, with a message that can reel in independents and disaffected conservatives and on the other you have a candidate who appeals to old white women, and uses fear to hold onto high school grads and rednecks. One candidate is in it to change the country and build a movement, the other is in it to get elected.

A month ago, I could see myself voting for Obama in November. My personal affection for him remains, but I am disclaiming the Dems now. They have shown me that they don't recognize the moment they are in and don't recognize the simple fact that Hillary is a godsend to the Republicans this cycle. This isn't limited to the Clintons, it infects the party down to its roots. So like Herod I am washing my hands of the Dems, even Obama, and backing McCain and divided government.

Way to go, Billary.

A Winning Strategy

2008-03-03T09:44:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the blogging hiatus... real life has required my attention (and will do so for the foreseeable future).

But I wanted to bring up what I think a winning argument for McCain against Obama would be, if there are any REAL conservatives left in the GOP. It goes something like this:

Sure Obama is inspirational and reflect our best instincts as a nation to work together and respect our differences while seeking to accomplish our common goals. However, Obama will not be able to govern alone, where his best instincts would dominate the political process. A President Obama will govern with a Democratic Congress, potentially with dominant majorities in BOTH houses. While you may trust Obama to see nuance and embrace the arguments of both sides, you cannot say the same of Pelosi, Reid, et al. An Obama administration will be in line to sign ANYTHING passed by a majority Democratic legislature, initiatives that will not seek to meet common goals or embrace the other side's concerns.

In other words, a vote for Obama is a vote for unified Democratic government. After the last 8 years of Bushism, the first 6 of which saw a unified Republican government run roughshod over checks and balances, divided government is the best answer to ensure that the worst legislative impulses are not pursued. We have already seen the dangers of unified government. While McCain has shown an ability to work across the aisle, he is still a conservative/Republican and as such will be able to check a Democratic Congress.

I am not holding my breath that he will actually make this argument. The GOP has embraced the power of government at this stage, and will not revert to small government arguments at this stage. But this argument has the benefit of highlighting the loosers in Congress, damning Obama by faint praise, and re-embracing what was once a central value of the Reagan-Goldwater coalition. Too bad it will never happen.

Indeed.

2008-02-15T17:11:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan asks a good question:

And if a potential president has a head on his shoulders and is able to inspire millions, what on earth is wrong with that?

Indeed (although I am sure Daniel Larison's head just exploded). I will go a step further. If any of the candidates will come out and call Congress on the farcical Inspector Clouseau routine they are playing with the NFL and MLB (while staging highly cynical and dishonest power plays with truly important issues like FISA) and disown such abuses of power, they will have my vote. At least then I will know which candidates have actually maybe thought of the role of government and the limits of power.

Too bad I expect none of the candidates (all but one of which are current Congresscritters) to take me up on it.

Huck as Number 2

2008-02-06T12:58:00.000-05:00

Ramesh Ponnuru on the possibility of Huckabee being McCain's running mate at the Corner:

But there's another problem. The job of the vice president has changed, thanks to Clinton's decision to pick Al Gore in 1992 and Bush's decision to pick Dick Cheney in 2000. These men, at the time they were picked, were extraordinarily well respected; and they went on to have greater responsibilities than previous vice presidents. I think voters now expect vice presidential nominees to pass a higher bar. They can't be picked solely to win a state or lock down a constituency. They have to be plausible presidents. I expect that consideration will be even more important given McCain's age. And I'm not sure that Huckabee can clear that bar.

Maybe. I think the results of those picks are decidedly a mixed bag (Gore invented the internet, but Cheney's list of greatest hits includes torture, destruction of habeas corpus, corruption at Justice, excessive executive secrecy and the use of outside email to conduct official business that was subsequently lost, oh yeah and the current mess in Iraq). McCain could signal a clean break from Bush, something he is obviously comfortable doing, by de-emphasizing the Vice-President's office. So I don't think Ramesh's emphasis on credentials may be warranted at this point, especially since Huck brings such a large constituency that otherwise may find something better to do in November. Given Huck's sales ability and personal charm he would make an ideal personality contrast for McCain; instead of giving him substantive work, have him on the trail every day selling the McCain agenda. And with the historical inability of VPs to actually get elected to the top slot, that should alleviate the fear of Huck becoming President.

Golden State

2008-02-06T00:14:00.000-05:00

So McCain and Clinton win California. What have we learned:

Romney is done. Depending on how the delegates break down, it may not be that bad nationally, but as others had pointed out today, Romney needed to keep it close to stay alive and he didn't. EDIT: after I initially posted it, MSNBC is telling me Romney is thinking of dropping out. I love it when I am right.
McCain will be the GOP nominee and Huckabee will have a prominent place in the administration (I won't say VP yet, but there will at least be a Cabinet position).
Hillary is the fucking Energizer bunny. I will agree with the Clintonistas on one thing: the media is completely in the bag for Obama. You could see it on their faces tonight as the results came in. Damn, she is still alive.
Obama needs a big day next week in VA/DC/MD to swing the momentum back around. He still has the media, the conventional wisdom, the money, and the enthusiasm. Unfortunately, he running against entrenched interests that will use every arrow in their quiver to beat him. He needs all the help he can get.
Depending on the ratings, the networks may want to ditch their contrived reality TV with election returns. By now EVERYONE nows what the hell is going on. You don't think NBC could roll Olbermann, Brokaw, Russert and Scarborough out for two hours next Tuesday and get a 5.7 (the average for the 2 FUCKING HOURS of the Biggest Loser NBC ran last Tuesday)? With three east coast states that will declare early and give plenty of time for AllStar analysis and candidate speeches? Really? Maybe I am just a political junkie and want my fix on HD...

Oh Huck

2008-02-05T23:09:00.001-05:00

Huck on MSNBC talking about the possibility of civil politics and discourse, that the race is about the country not the candidates, and that you can get your message across and make contrasts with your opponents with taking a hammer to each other's knees.

That is why I respect Huck; he is honest, he is principled and he is not afraid to debate and defend his beliefs in a civil manner, without engaging in the politics of personal destruction. Just watch any Bill Maher episode with Huck as a guest; in quite possibly one of the more hostile environments for a Southern social conservative, he is positively disarming. It has never surprised me that he could make the connection with his base.

Now, I would NEVER vote for the guy because I think he is wrong on policy and makes his religion a key selling point of his, but much like Obama, I think he would be willing to listen. And really that is what we need after 16 years of the politics of personal destruction and party tribalism.

Jonah as the Voice of Reason?

2008-02-05T22:08:00.000-05:00

In an effort to prove I am not some closet librul, here is Jonah Goldberg, Mr. Liberal Fascism himself, defending independent thought and principled Big Tent Republicanism:

I don't mean to pick on this reader because she is so typical. But you basically have to believe that every one of Romney's flips were sincere and none of McCain's were. Moreover, the idea that McCain is a RINO means that Republicans are all about immigration, campaign finance reform and global warming. I disagree with McCain on each of these issues, but I think being a Republican is about more than that (and — for the record — I don't particularly care about being a Republican, I'm a conservative). McCain is a conservative on many issues, a centrist on other issues and a "liberal" on a couple. I'm at a loss as to how you couldn't say the same thing about George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George HW Bush and pretty much every other Republican president since Herbert Hoover save Reagan (and even there, some would disagree).

Amen (and as I type this even Huckabee is making sense, talking about getting the gov't out of family issues. Armageddon is truly here.)

Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness!

2008-02-05T21:36:00.001-05:00

This is easily the most bitter, unhinged, removed from reality opinion of the night so far:

Given the Rush blast, the Dobson declaration, and Huck's strength in the south, McCain can't be considered a frontrunner by any conventional standard.

I will give you a two guesses where this came from. As one of the commentators on the thread stated:

McCain's leading in National polls and in the delegate counts. Those seem to me to be the two most conventional standards for determining a frontrunner.

I can guarantee the spin tomorrow from the talk radio folks, NRO and the GOP establishment that was behind Romney (that is the ENTIRE establishment) will be claiming the end of the Reagan coalition tomorrow morning. Hell, Hewitt has been threatening it all week.

EDIT: Not that you needed further confirmation of just how wrong Hugh has consistently been when it comes to all things Romney, the networks call Arizona for McCain. Say goodnight Gracie.

Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!

2008-02-05T20:57:00.000-05:00

Look karma is bitch. I really cannot recommend this post by John Cole (and the accompanying comments) enough. Like John, I was once a Republican (voted for W twice in fact), but I registered independent in 2006 after the mid-term disaster. I couldn't stand the identity politics that had come to dominate the GOP, the bunker mentality that made conservatism a check list and not a temperment and viciously sought to destroy debate and free inquiry. So to see the party implode like this is bittersweet. Sweet because I know that the ideas that rose after the Goldwater massacre will rise again like the phoenix, but bitter because I know that there will be a Democrat elected in November and that the cause of limited government will be set back (though the best argument for limited government is actually having a party embrace the idea again). Anyway, read it all. You will feel better if you are an independent or free thinker; from the looks of the comments, people already are.

And yes, the title comes from this.

Universal Care or Universal Coverage

2008-02-05T07:17:00.000-05:00

There has been lots of talk about mandates and differences between the Obama and Hillary healthcare plans. The Clintonites are attacking Obama for his mandate free plan, accusing him of thinking healthcare "not important," while tossing out wage garnishment as a potential enforcement mechanism of her plan. Obama has taken the stance that he wants children universally covered but that he does not want to force adults to purchase insurance.

What this argument gets to is the central issue at the heart of the healthcare debate: universal care or universal coverage. Most liberals want universal coverage and think that coverage should be a human right, a stand that leaves many moderates and a vast majority of conservatives cold. The problem with universal coverage is then that the cost to provide a base level of care to everyone will necessarily preclude high cost care for those who will need it most, the sick, in the name of controlling costs and equality. The model for healthcare reform must be universal care, providing access to care for all while allowing those who are sickest to access the treatments they need to get better. This is basically the system we have now, since anyone who enters an emergency room will be cared reagrdless of their ability to pay. The question is how to reform that system to be more cost effective, how to get better results for our dollar, not how to get everyone in the country an insurance card. The idea of universal coverage in some ways is more favorable to the healthcare industry because it forces people to participate in the healthcare system regardless of need, whereas universal care is concerned with getting better results for those who depend on the healthcare system: the chronically sick and those with serious injuries and diseases.

Morally, the idea of universal care is more acceptable that universal coverage. Universal care is consistent with the ideas of helping the most vulnerable among us, while universal coverage is more a redistributive, communitarian goal. Liberals who adhere to the 'healthcare as a human right' canard have no real rebuttal to the care/coverage dichotomy other than the arguments heard during the Social Security privatization debate; that if everyone is not required to be a part of the system, it will lose its moral force as a community value. Obviously, this argument no carries no water for me; healthcare reform is not about egalitarian ideals or communitarian values, but about getting the best treatment at the best price to those who need it the most.

Either way, I would be interested in seeing someone, like Obama or McCain, makes this distinction and use this as a way to halt the unthinking moralizing that is characteristic of universal coverage fetishists.

Predictions

2008-02-05T06:46:00.000-05:00

Since it is Super Tuesday morning, I guess I should make some predictions:

McCain will win the majority of states/delegates, but it won't stop the GOP establishment and talking heads from keeping the drumbeat for Romney going for another few weeks. Huckabee will still be stuck in third but stick around to help McCain for the next month or so.
Obama and Hillary will mostly split, keeping it a race moving forward into better Obama territory the rest of the month.

Either way, we still have a ways to go.

In a Nutshell

2008-02-05T06:13:00.000-05:00

The dueling endorsements in yesterday's WaPo-- Erica Jong for Hillary, Michael Chabon for Obama-- distill the differences between the two candidates and the message they represent. Jong spends the entirety of her argument drawing lines, creating divisions and resentment between men and women, black and white, urban and rural. I thought this line was particularly galling:

If she could win over the rednecks in upstate New York, she can win over any American.

First of all, residents of upstate New York may be 'rednecks' to urbane, post-modern culture warriors like Jong, but they have nothing on real southern rednecks. And second, Hillary did not win over those 'rednecks' so much as buy them off by playing to their extreme economic vulnerability.

Meanwhile, Chabon's endorsement implicitly pivots off of Jong's; where she is divisive and paranoid, he is unifying and optimistic. Chabon's argument boils down to there is no good argument to vote against Obama. Imagine Hillary or one of her surrogates writing this:

The point of Obama's candidacy is that the damaged state of American democracy is not the fault of George W. Bush and his minions, the corporate-controlled media, the insurance industry, the oil industry, lobbyists, terrorists, illegal immigrants or Satan. The point is that this mess is our fault. We let in the serpents and liars, we exchanged shining ideals for a handful of nails and some two-by-fours, and we did it by resorting to the simplest, deepest-seated and readiest method we possess as human beings for trying to make sense of the world: through our fear.

Pretty much, and that is a reason that there is so much enthusiasm for Obama from both the left and the right; both sides have openly embraced what they have already believed, that the problem with government isn't left or right, but who we put in charge of it.

On Dynasties

2008-02-04T09:40:00.000-05:00

Great article in the WaPo on political dynasticism. Yet another reason to hope the SS Hillary goes down in flames this week.

Funny too, how the meritocratic Patriots' dynasty was ended by the genetic Manning dynasty. I preferred the Patriots, sigh.

He Can Put His Foot on This Side of My Face

2008-01-24T22:26:00.000-05:00

Yes, Huckabee dropped a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick reference...

Followed by Brian Williams giving McCain 15 seconds to defend his mother...

Followed by McCain (half) jokingly threatening to send recent endorser Sly "John Rambo" Stallone after Chuck.

What a country!

Does Pat Buchanan Know About This?

2008-01-24T19:24:00.000-05:00

From the American Conservative (via Sullivan), comes a very honest take down of Liberal Fascism. Choice quote:

Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism. Goldberg’s liberals do not just favor a larger role for government, but worship a Hegelian God-State; they do not just welcome the putative moral advances of the 1960s, but are fascinated by apocalyptic violence; they do not just engage in identity politics, but are ushering in “a Nietzschean world where power decides important questions rather than reason”; they do not just hope to curtail tobacco use and fast foods, but are trying to create a Brave New World. Mere disagreement hypertrophies into a cosmic battle that must decide the fate of the universe.

Yes, moderation from the American Conservative.

Quick, Someone Design an Economic Model to Explain Why Gary Williams Can't Recruit

2008-01-24T09:11:00.000-05:00

Echoing my earlier plugs for Meat Market, comes this short piece on CNNSI about an econometric for college football recruiting:

In addition to predicting the future, the model provided empirical evidence that BCS schools enjoy a prohibitive advantage over their non-BCS brethren in recruiting top talent. It also disproved several long-held beliefs about recruiting. For example, recruits don't seem to care how many players a school puts in the NFL, they aren't as interested in early playing time as they claim and scholarship reductions actually increase the likelihood that a top recruit will pick a particular school.

So hot. I am waiting for the college basketball version. I am also curious how the modelers accounted for, ahem, externalities such as this one.

I'm Taking it Back

2008-01-24T09:05:00.000-05:00

Of course, the discussion below made me think of this.

Your Analogy Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means

2008-01-24T08:41:00.000-05:00

In the course of making a smart (and fair) critique of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Facism, Megan McArdle analogizes what she sees as Jonah's goal in investigating the liberal bases for the rise of 20th century fascism:

But in modern America, the association [fascism] has picked up is "evil", and it's not really such a useful term that we need to "rescue" it.
The name "Judas" does not mean "traitor" in Hebrew, and there were undoubtedly all sorts of nice chaps by that name running around Israel in the early BCs. Nonetheless, the associations the name has picked up since then mean that if you call someone a "Judas", you cannot reasonably expect to get out of it by saying "Oh, I didn't mean Judas Iscariot, I meant Judas ben Eliezer. Wine merchant, lived in Bethlehem around 75 BC. Nice guy, saved thirteen kittens from a hungry wolf."

Except I don't think that is what Jonah is trying to do. 'Fascism' is thrown around alot as a pejorative for conservatives and members of the right, as critiques of the book have been quick to point out. What is clear from Jonah's framing of his argument on the LF blog at NRO is that he isn't trying to rescue the term, as Megan would have it; rather he is trying to muddy the waters and diffuse the inherent taint by associating fascists and the roots of fascist thought with liberalism and the Left. Think of it as similar but opposite of the conservative effort to make 'liberal' a dirty word; there, the goal was to force Democrats to associate with the negative aspects of their de facto label whereas Jonah is attempting to force Democrats and liberals to abandon their use of fascist by pointing out the common origins of fascism and 20th century liberalism and socialism.

Whether he is successful or not is another question (I haven't read the book), but I think it is important to at least take his argument at face value and judge how well he makes his argument on those terms

What I am reading Today

2008-01-23T08:16:00.000-05:00

Radley Balko making a really persuasive case for expanding civil society and shrinking political society.

Reihan Salam on the death of Heath Ledger, which echoes my own thoughts on Ledger and Sean Taylor's untimely demises.

All sorts of people are talking about how vicious the Clintons play politics and are worried that maybe Obama can't beat them back.

Visionary Minimalism

2008-01-18T09:50:00.000-05:00

Very smart person Cass Sunstein (via Sullivan) on Obama's broad appeal in TNR:

"Visionary minimalist" may sound like an oxymoron, but in fact--and this is the key point--Obama's promise of change is credible in part because of his brand of minimalism. He is unifying, and therefore able to think ambitiously, because he insists that Americans are not different "types" who should see each other as adversaries engaged in some kind of culture war. Above all, Obama rejects identity politics. He participates in, and helps create, anti-identity politics. He does so by emphasizing that most people have diverse roles, loyalties, positions, and concerns, and that the familiar divisions are hopelessly inadequate ways of capturing people's self-understandings, or their hopes for their nation. Insisting that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal," Obama asks politicians "to catch up with them." Many independents and Republicans have shown a keen interest in him precisely because he always sees, almost always respects, and not infrequently accepts their deepest commitments.

Speaking personally, that is the allure of Obama. He gets the younger generation's ideas on diversity and identity unlike any other candidate. He wants to move past the divisions of the past, unlike Edwards (class) or Clinton (gender/race) or Huckabee (religion), and that is a siren song to those of us who grew up in the liberal education laboratories of post-1960's America.

Cosmolifestyleorangebeltwaytarians of the World Unite!

2008-01-18T08:17:00.000-05:00

Lots of ongoing discussion about Ron Paul, racism and libertarianism-- from both sides of the libertarian spectrum. Choice quote from Julian Sanchez, one of the authors of the Reason piece thoroughly airing out the history of the newsletters:

Maybe the most common beef I'm hearing from sane-seeming people is that we shouldn't be talking about this stuff. It reflects badly on libertarianism, and Paul is still great all things considered especially compared with the wretched alternatives.
All other considerations aside, this is just premised on a repulsive conception of how libertarian journalists ought to operate—essentially as though "libertarian" nullifies "journalist" any time we're faced with a choice between reporting facts and cheerleading for our tribe. It's an argument with terrible pedigree, and reminds me more than a bit of an old essay in which Noam Chomsky argues scholars shouldn't write about the Killing Fields in Cambodia, because fighting capitalism was more important than, you know, facts.

Which is exactly right; Julian and Dave Weigel are journos first, libertarians second. Their political leanings may inform their journalism but it should never dictate their narratives.

On a deeper level, these discussions have prompted a question raised by my Civil Rights class and Huckabee's recent remarks on the Confederate flag (which I agree with, but MSNBC was asking Huck about whether he thought the flag was a racist symbol this morning): what do we do, as a society, as libertarians, as members of the 'Right' generally, with racists at this point in history? Do we shun them? Do we include them as members while attempting to change their minds? I don't think there is a good answer to this, and none of the above seem have one (aside from the paleoconservatives who seem to think racists should be embraced at least as much as socialists)

Your Friday Morning Libertarian Fix

2008-01-18T08:14:00.000-05:00

From the LA Times, Brain Doherty responds to Micheal Kinsley WaPo column on libertarianism. Choice quote:

The libertarian vision indeed privileges freedom over equality of outcome, and proudly. Its political and moral vision is deeper and simpler than Kinsley's chin-scratching over balancing the "costs" of freedom. It's about limiting as much as possible the areas of social life in which decisions are made and legitimized by people with guns ordering other people around or taking their money. (Anyone who doesn't see the guns behind government has never tried disobeying a law.)

Go read it all and check out Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism (I am only like 50 pages in).

More on Meat Market

2008-01-16T22:44:00.000-05:00

Apropos my earlier thoughts on Meat Market, comes this discussion on Deadspin about the book. Choice quote:

As long as they aren't providing lap dances (or promises of lap dances to come) then I see no harm in the female hostess program. It's good training for their future careers as pharmaceutical reps.

What Could Have Been

2008-01-16T21:30:00.001-05:00

From Powerline (via Andrew Sullivan):

With hindsight, I think there was a better way for Romney to position himself: as a conservative and supremely knowledgeable expert on the economy, as George Bush's heir as a vigorous defender of the U.S. in the war against Islamic terrorism, and as a person who is himself a social conservative--just take one look at his family portrait--but who doesn't talk much about those issues except in the context of the constitutional philosophy which will guide his appointment of judges.

That guy could beat Obama or Hilary, but alas the state of our politics and our mainstream corporate media leads to strategies like this:

Last year, The Boston Globe obtained his campaign strategy document laying out what it called "Primal Code for Brand Romney." "Primal" is a perfect description for Romney's view of the GOP base. He approaches conservatism not as a respectable ideology but as a series of (in Lionel Trilling's famous phrase) irritable mental gestures. The strategy memo suggests he drive home the message "Hillary = France." Romney has promised to "double Guantanamo" and demanded that Mike Huckabee apologize for criticizing President Bush's foreign policy. This is like a Hollywood parody of a right-wing Republican--think "Bob Roberts," or Tom Cruise's character in Lions for Lambs--but more clever.

(Jon Chait, via Yglesias). Romney could never get away with such a nuanced campaign message as the one that Hinderaker proposes; the media would get bored and he would get lost in the shuffle. Unfortunately, Romney decided go to far into soundbite land, and thus ruined his campaign (thus far). If he can somehow pivot his message in that more nuanced and accurate direction, he will gain alot support because people will have have an honest and serious message to sell his management experience. Even I, who has been no Mitt-phile, agree with Yglesias that a Romney administration would be everything that the campaign hasn't: pragmatic and serious.

And Next We Can Tackle the Corporate Naming Trend

2008-01-16T15:59:00.000-05:00

In the midst of breaking down the 2007 Patriots and the 1986 Celtics, the Sports Guy mentions the ambiance of Gillette Stadium:

As for the Patriots, they built a beautiful stadium that provides no real homefield advantage because the noise drifts up and out -- operating almost like an anti-Dome -- leading to the bizarre outcome of longtime season ticket holders (as described by my buddy J-Bug in last week's B.S. Report) openly pining for the old stadium ... even though the old stadium was a complete dump with aluminum rows for seats. Bizarre.

I have always thought that NFL stadiums would benefit from adding partial roofs over the stands to act as acoustic reflecting boards, similar to how European soccer stadiums are designed. It isn't a coincidence that the loudest outdoor stadium in the league is Seattle's Qwest Field which has a partial roof over the stands. Sure the visual effect is somewhat reminiscent of Texas Stadium, but if we want to recreate some ambiance (and it is unlikely team owners want to go back to their old seating plans), the only other option is to pump in crowd noise.

Romney's Blue Collar Appeal

2008-01-16T13:18:00.000-05:00

From Yglesias:

David Frum remarks on Mitt Romney's win that "Michigan faces some of the worst economic troubles in the nation. Romney addressed those problems in a more sustained and detailed way than his main Republican challengers in the state (Huckabee, McCain)." Ross dubs this "absolutely right." And it sounds right to me. But I'm not sure the exit polls bear it out -- Romney did better among voters who think economic conditions are good than among those who think it's bad.

I think Matt is making the wrong comparison. It isn't that Romney won those groups, but that he did better in those groups relative to his prior performance in Iowa and New Hampshire. Whereas Romney won 31% among Michigan voters making less than $50,000, he only won 24% of those voters in New Hampshire (Iowa didn't break there voters down by income). And that makes sense, given what Ross says:

This is what people like to call "industrial policy," and what Jonah Goldberg likes to call liberal fascism - big business and big government working hand-in-glove for the purposes of economic nationalism. It's "sustained and detailed," all right, just as Frum says - a sustained and detailed infringement on free-market principle, and one that appeals to voters in places like Michigan precisely because it goes much further to the left than Mike Huckabee's substance-free talk about how the current period of economic growth isn't doing all that well by the working class, or John McCain's straight talk about how Michiganders can't expect the federal government to bring back the glory days of Chrysler and GM.

Which is exactly right. Romney flipped from his prior business experience to pander shamelessly to economically depressed automotive industry and its underemployed union families. Which should make anyone labeling Romney the one true "Reagan Conservative" ashamed of themselves.

And you should see the family...

2008-01-15T18:10:00.000-05:00

From the Campaign Standard, a revealing look at the flip-floppy past between Rick Santorum and John McCain, in light of Santorum's recent social conservative critiques of McCain:

More interesting, perhaps, is Santorum's own history with McCain. While he has little use for McCain today, the same was not true back in 2006, when Santorum was campaigning for reelection. The Pennsylvania conservative asked McCain to visit Pennsylvania on his behalf and used footage from the event on his campaign website.

According to an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, when Santorum listed "key events" of his campaign in 2005, the name of George W. Bush was nowhere to be found. What was? According to the Inquirer:

"First on the list? An endorsement from Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). Click over to the multimedia section, and you'll find video footage of McCain at a Santorum fund-raiser. Might popularity have something to do with it? McCain's approval ratings tip the mid-60s. Bush hovers in the high 30s."

Just be glad he lost to Bob Casey in 2006; it could have been Santorum against the field (possibly with George Allen as the Southern option, had he not lost to Webb).

A Modest Proposal

2008-01-15T17:01:00.000-05:00

Ross Douthat looks at Jay Cost's math on a brokered GOP convention and says:

...know this - every political journalist in America would happily give up their firstborn child to cover a brokered convention...

I think that is exactly right. Add in a writer's strike with no end in site, and it is no wonder we can get statements like this(via Andrew Sullivan):

This one is special. You have the Clintons, a powerful dysfunctional family — remember they were the ones that spoofed ‘The Sopranos’ — you have this out of nowhere handsome stranger in Obama that is straight out of ‘Heroes.’ John McCain, left for dead in a previous episode, roars back to life, and Mitt Romney, who is a dead ringer for John Forsythe. And I am not the first to point out that Mike Huckabee is Jim Nabors. And then it all ends in this amazing ‘American Idol’ big episode on Super Tuesday. How can you not watch that? My wife had some minor surgery the other day and the nurse asked her if she wanted to just lay there in the recovery room and rest a little bit. And she said, ‘No thanks, I have to get home and watch ‘The Situation Room.’

In the absence of any compelling drama on network tv (or tv in general) and sports sort of in a blah period outside the impending coronation of the 17-0 Patriots, isn't it possible that the electorate is more focused on this election than usual? There have been strong turnouts in the two early states and given the weekly football-esque schedule culminating in a Super (Bowl) Tuesday. I have thought the primaries would do well to turn into a weekly affair (a couple states a week, maybe have a televised lottery to determine the order) and feed off the fact that January and especially February are blah months television wise. It may sound like we are American Idol-izing the election, but last season's winner actually received more votes than Bush or Kerry did in 2004. Sell an election to the people and they will come (580 million times in 2006). And really politics is a reality show waiting to happen. (Yes, I am willing to accept royalties for this idea.)

Come Hear How Good We Sound

2008-01-15T16:58:00.000-05:00

On Righttalk, listen to me discuss my IP article with the Gentleman himself and Matthew Vadum of CRC. When the podcast goes up on CRC I will add a link.

Here is the article itself.

Let Hugh Hewitt Wrap His Mind Around That

2008-01-11T20:19:00.000-05:00

I wonder what Hugh would think about a Romney victory with an assist from Kossacks backing the ex-Bay State governor in Michigan?

The First and Last Word on Ron Paul's 'Racism'

2008-01-11T15:15:00.000-05:00

Shorter Freedom and Shit:

So, yeah, Ron Paul may be sort of a crank and he almost certainly has a lot of personal beliefs that are distasteful to the “urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine.” But he’s pretty up front about it and, most importantly, he alone is the only crank among all of the candidates in either party who isn’t trying to inflict his crazy on the rest of us.

I feel like a lot of people who have backed Ron Paul thus far (ahem, Andrew) have completely missed this vitally important point. Given the platform that he has run on, it really is unimportant what Paul's personal views are since HE ISN'T GOING TO LEGISLATE THEM. This point cannot be stressed enough. It is important to tease out where Hilary or Edwards stand on income inequality or whether Huckabee or Romney believe life begins at conception, because those positions will lead to a policy prescription that will be pursued. It doesn't matter what horribly racist or sexist things Ron Paul thinks about gays or minorities because he doesn't believe the government should be concerned with race or sexual orientation in the first place. EDIT: I will also add that it is important to know all there is to know about a candidate when making a decision and that if you are concerned about condoning such views by association, then by all means, you are free to reject such candidates. My point is that these views are far, far less important when you consider that they might be held by the libertarian candidate who wouldn't enshrine them into federal law than they would be for a candidate without any qualms about using the machinery of government to implement their social views.

Given that presidential races since time immemorial have been based on character and a candidate's personal beliefs, perhaps we are conditioned to place too much emphasis on them. Perhaps we have seen that presidents typically translate these positions into policy and are thus used to teasing them out ahead of time to understand what a Hilary Administration or a Huckabee Administration would look like. And it is quite possible that people have looked at RP's campaign, saw his typically libertarian answers to such questions that this is none of the government's business, and weren't satisfied that someone could believe such a thing (since there is probably like 10 people left in the country who could vote for Calvin Coolidge, the last president to say that anything shouldn't be the business of the federal government).

And just to reiterate something mentioned latter in the link: liberty is not a pretty, well-mannered affair. Liberty means everyone can express their opinion, even those whose opinions we don't agree with (and correspondingly, we have the liberty to respond and condemn such views). Indeed, the price of liberty IS eternal vigilance; in exchange for the freedom to speak ad nauseam, we as individuals must police the discourse and determine which ideas are acceptable in society. True, this can be an arduous task, but I would rather be vigilant in arguing against those ideas I think are repugnant or dangerous that cede the liberty to make such statements in the first place.

So What Exactly Does That Make the Gaffers?

2008-01-11T13:06:00.000-05:00

From Galley Slaves, probably the funniest line regarding the Hollywood writer's strike:

"Sadly, it feels like the nerdiest, ugliest, meanest kids in the high school are trying to cancel the prom. But NBC wants to try to keep that prom alive."

I haven't given much thought or care to the writer's strike. I don't watch much TV that isn't sports or news (or Entourage), and given that I usually don't watch a movie until it is on the web/DVD/On-Demand, I think I will begin to feel the effects sometime next winter (Fans of LOST, my apologies). But as a writer myself (CAUTION: shameless plug), I wanted to express a little solidarity with my fellow scribes on the picket line. It is bulls**t that the studios are trying to foreclose all residuals from the 'net for writers; without them, who knows what type of crap we could be subjected to? (Actually, don't answer that; Hollywood went with 17 sequels this past year, including part 3s: "[S]ix of the seven most successful movies this year were sequels. The seventh in that lot, the shining beacon of creativity, was based on a line of toys [Transformers].")

Besides, if it gets bad enough (I am thinking American Gladiators spin-offs), I can always move West and write crappy, self-absorbed dialogue that will still be better than anything to appear in a Star Wars movie or Aaron Sorkin vehicle (A Few Good Men, excepted).

See, this is why Cultural Revisionism is Bad

2008-01-11T12:29:00.000-05:00

From the Sports Guy, an interesting theory:

The Where-Did-Andy-Dufresne-Get-A-Ziploc-Bag Award for "Best out-of-nowhere revelation I had about a movie that I had already seen 300 times"
During breaks in the Skins-Hawks game, I was flicking over to "Beverly Hills Cop" on one of the HD channels, and maybe it was seeing Jenny Summers' come-hither smirk in high definition for the first time, but how did I never notice the smoldering sexual tension in the scene when Axel brings his old friend Jenny back to his Beverly Hills hotel room and she lays down on his bed and bats her eyelashes at him for a couple of minutes? For God's sake, she did everything but take her clothes off and assume the missionary position, and yet, Axel was more interested in ordering room service for Taggart and Rosewood. I don't get it.

Which leads me to my $64,000 question: Was Axel Foley secretly gay?

Read the rest. All I can hope is that Simmons never sees the Lord of the Rings.