<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, November 29, 2003

that other cold war 


Baseball's best rivalry just got a little bit hotter as the Boston Red Sox aquired Arizona ace Curt Schilling on Friday.

Friday, November 28, 2003

it's better over there 


How bonkers is Ken Livingstone, the current mayor of London? He's so mad, he decided to throw an anti-Bush cocktail party at the expense of the tax-payers of London just to prove how angry he was at Mr Bush.

why the left is losing me, and is going to get crushed in the election 


If I can borrow a little Chandler Bing this morning, how can anyone possibly be this cynical:
How much do you think this little poll-driven PR stunt cost the taxpayers? Puts me in the mind of the good old days on the Abraham Lincoln with the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
In his post, Matthew Yglesias is demonstrating how out of touch the left is with the hearts and minds of the American people. When I heard about this story (I believe ABC broke it first) I'm not ashamed to admit that I was a bit choked up. And I have a feeling that most Americans were at least appreciative of the significance of the visit, if not quite as emotional as I.

This doesn't parallel well to the Lincoln carrier landing. That was a phony event, with several poorly constructed lies for justifying Bush arriving in a fighter jet, as well as more ambiguity over the origin of the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Bush sneaking himself into a war zone to deliver a holiday message to the men and women who are risking their lives everyday was a fantastic move that defies the imagination and projects a real image of leadership. This is because flying into Baghdad under cover of darnkess with the shades drawn while utilizing a different call name conjures this sort of James Bond sexyness. Bush demonstrated a real hero quality by risking his life to sneak away from family and country to be with those people in the world who need him the most, the men and women of the armed services. That's a genuine and honest heart warming tale (which, I suppose, requires one have a heart).

BY THE WAY MATT: How much has this boondoggle of a PR vacation cost the US?

Thursday, November 27, 2003

*BOOM* 


For those of us already thinking about next Thanksgiving, be sure to lobby mom extra hard to for a nice serving of Turducken.

just one post today 


Be sure to check out:

1. Top 10 Dangers of Living in the Blog Space.

2. Clergy members organizing against Bush.

3. Homeland Security is ceasing the Special Registration for Arab immigrants program.

4. VD means no TD for LT.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Three-legged dog night 


Five legs - two legs = three legs

Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!

UPDATE: Even cats and dogs can get along on Thanksgiving.

That's depressing 


Tyler Cowen on the reality of Medicare:

Ugh. But unless we are willing to be mean and nasty to dying old people, in the interests of drastically lowering costs, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the current problems.
And he links to Dan Drezner's Medicare post without mentioning Dan's Hooters Magazine link, which shows he has more restraint than others ...

the next American century 


Will undoubtedly be filled with stories like those coming out of Georgia:
From Paris to Pakistan, Americans have grown used to television footage of American flags going up in flames or being trampled under foot by angry crowds.

But in Georgia, a handful of American flags have been held high among the sea of opposition banners that protesters used to usher in their revolution - waved in gratitude for Washington's role in facilitating democratic change here....

Senior US officials pushed diplomatic buttons before and throughout the crisis - in concert with Russia and others - making clear to all sides the dangers of a forceful crackdown or street violence. But untidy as the opposition's seizure of power has been, analysts say that billions in Western aid - and steady prodemocracy brow-beating - proved a key to regime change, one achieved without a shot being fired.

"The US government has gone to great lengths to back a [democratic] process and institutions, and to be very careful - amid big pressure from both sides - not to back certain individuals," says Mark Mullen, head of the Georgia office of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), funded by the US government, which has engaged in democracy training here since the mid-1990s.
Via OxBlog.

Nelly Furtado, small government conservative 


Actual lyrics:

I've got a bunch of government cheques at my door.
Each morning I try to send them back but they only send me more.
So buy her new album on November 28 to stick to the Buy Nothing Day people. I'll be celebrating Spend Like You're George W. Bush Day instead.

Oddly enough! 


A man meets someone from a website for cannibals. Then he eats the other guy.

"Not in our Name" 


And you thought war never solved anything: Elizabeth Sweeney has a well written summation of the Liberal Hawk justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom in this week's Sophian.

Agents of COBRA invade France 


Although I can't prove the Cobra Commander and his army of terrorists have conquered France, that might make more sense than the actual caption for this photo.

sunny days 


I'm just a happier person now that Gregg Easterbrook has found a new home for TMQ on NFL.com!

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

From the archives 


This seemed funny two months ago, now it seems delusional:

"We can take Howard Dean out whenever we want to," said one Kerry adviser. "Why do it now?"


A defense of Al Sharpton 


No, I won't be defending Sharpton's past actions or his political views. Instead, I'm defending Sharpton's status as a candidate.

Many commentators have classified the Democratic presidential candidates into two categories: serious and non-serious. The former category consists of Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Bob Graham before he dropped out, while the latter consists of Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, and Sharpton. I would argue, however, that Sharpton belongs in the former category.

The basis for a two-tiered classification, it would seem, is that the first group of candidates each has a chance to actually win the nomination, while the second group does not. But this doesn't really make sense. From the moment Graham declared to the moment he dropped out, it was obvious to everyone that he had absolutely no chance of winning. And yet, he was still considered a serious candidate (for example, The New Republic's primary blog included Graham while ignoring Kucinich, Moseley Braun, and Sharpton). The same goes for Edwards and Lieberman right now (Disclosure: right now I'm leaning Lieberman). At this stage of the campaign season, even before one caucus or primary is held, it's equally obvious that those two have no chance of winning either. While I can even envision a scenario under which Kerry makes a big comeback and win, I can't do the same for Edwards or Lieberman. So why are they still considered serious candidates? At least Lieberman is leading or close to the top in some national polls and polls at less important primary states, even though we know national polls aren't a useful indication of support they'll get when it's actually time to vote. Edwards, as far as I remember, has never reached 5% in any national poll (unlike Sharpton).

So, given the above, why should Edwards be considered a serious candidate, but not Sharpton? Well, Edwards is a potential vice-presidential candidate, while Sharpton is not. But this still doesn't answer the question of why Edwards is considered a serious presidential candidate.

At this point, I'll point out two reasons why Sharpton has a s much a claim to being a serious candidate as Edwards and Lieberman. The first is that Sharpton might end up having a bigger impact than the other two. The Democratic Party adopted new rules this year on how delegates are apportioned. I don't have all the details down, but the basics is that anyone who gets 15% of the vote in a congressional district in a primary will get delegates for that district proportional to the number of votes received (for example, if my district gets 10 delegates, Dean gets 30%, Clark gets 20%, and no one else gets over 15%, Dean gets 6 delegates and Clark gets 4). According to some experts, the rule change could mean that no candidate has 50% of the delegates locked up, so the nomination might be decided at the national convention. I'm still doubtful that will happen, but if it does, Sharpton will have as much, if not more, power than Edwards or Lieberman at the convention, since he might have more delegates. Even though Sharpton doesn't have much overall support, his supporters are mostly concentrated in certain areas, which means that he can get delegates by meeting the 15% minimum in some districts. The supporters of Edwards and Lieberman, on the other hand, are more spread out, so even if they have more overall support than Sharpton, they might end up having fewer delegates.

Also, if Dean were the frontrunner at the convention but does not have enough delegates, it might be easier for him to bargain with Sharpton than with Edwards or Lieberman. Unlike Edwards, the price of Sharpton's delegates will not be the VP slot, and unlike with Lieberman, Dean might actually share some common ground with Sharpton on policy. It'll certainly be easier for Dean to promise Sharpton a commission on race or something than to promise Lieberman anything on free trade.

The second reason is that Sharpton is arguably more representative of Democrats than Edwards or Lieberman. Let's face it, unless some journalist produces pictures of all eight other candidates in bed at the same time with both live boys and dead girls, Lieberman and the Democratic Leadership Council are done in having any influence on the party. And despite paying more attention to the race than 98% of the population, I still can't tell you anything about what Edwards stand for. His three biggest positives so far as a candidate has been that he's from the south, he's good looking, and he's got lawyer friends with deep pockets. Not withstanding his votes, where does he really stand in the war on terror? Don't know. Free trade? No idea. Why did he vote against the Medicare bill? Damned if I know. I know what Sharpton stands for though, and even though I might not agree with him on very much, it's obvious that a significant number of Democrats do agree with him on many issues, even if they won't be voting for him.

So unless people are ready to eliminate Edwards and Lieberman as serious candidates, I think they should consider Sharpton as a serious candidate.

throwing up in the back of my mouth 


The San Francisco Chronicle asked it's readers "Is it wrong to root for the Iraqis?" Let's ignore the fact that this is an incredibly vague (and probably purposefully so) question, and head straight for one particularly gut-wrenching response:
Laurel Eby, San Jose

I'm definitely torn, because I obviously don't want any more of our soldiers getting killed, but I also wouldn't mind the quagmire going on just long enough to ruin Bush's re-election chances.
Have the Krugman's taken over the world?!? How much more despicable can a person be, than to tolerate/secretly hope for the death of innocent soldiers in order to win an election.

It's official: The Bush Haters have surpassed the lunacy of the Clinton Haters. While my friend Jim may believe some crazy bolony about Clinton being a cocaine czar, he never wished the death of innocents (or anything remotely equivalent) to embarrass Clinton.

Hong Kong politics 


Results of the Hong Kong local elections are coming in, and the pro-Beijing party lost badly to the pro-democracy party. A spokesman for the Communists responded by saying the election results "will make Beijing think twice or three times before they have more elections.''

(Via David Adesnik, and Tom Maguire for pointing to a permalink creator for NYTimes articles)

Monday, November 24, 2003

Libertarian blues 


Will Baude says Wesley Clark is driving away the libertarian vote. But since Will has said before that he has no problems voting for candidates with no chance of winning, I think he'll fit right in with Libertarians for Lieberman.

It's 1945!!! 


Talk about fighting the last war:

A TEAM of negotiators and former soldiers from Tokyo has been sent to the jungles of the Philippines to try to bring home soldiers of Japan’s Imperial Army who are still fighting the Second World War.

The team is to investigate reports of former soldiers living in the mountains and jungles of Luzon nearly 60 years after the war ended.

Three negotiators from Japan’s health and welfare ministry and two veterans, who themselves opted to stay behind in the Philippines after it fell in 1945 rather than face the shame of surrender, travelled to Manila yesterday.

One of the veterans, Yoshihiko Terashima, 82, continued the fight against the United States for five years after the official surrender, according to his son, Kazuhiko.

"We’re not sure how many might still be out there, but we think it might be as many as four individuals," he said from the family home in Kawaguchi, Saitama Prefecture, north of Tokyo.

"If they are there, then my father will bring them home," he added.
(Via Tiger)

Erin Brockovich II 


Based on shaky evidence, again. (Via Marginal Revolution)

Not just a waitress 


According to this Dan Drezner post, Hooters has its own magazine. And oh, he said something about Medicare too.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy 


Natural selection works!

A bullet fired in the air during a Ku Klux Klan initiation ceremony came down and struck a participant in the head, critically injuring him, authorities said.

Gregory Allen Freeman, 45, was charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment in the Saturday night incident that wounded Jeffery S. Murr, 24.

About 10 people, including two children, had gathered for the ceremony. The man who was being initiated was blindfolded, tied with a noose to a tree and shot with paintball guns as Freeman fired a pistol in the air to provide the sound of real gunfire, Sheriff Fred Phillips said.

A bullet struck Murr on the top of the head and exited at the bottom of his skull, authorities said.

Race gone overboard 


What would be your reaction if you read this?

Investigators found that black children younger than 2 waited an average of 223 days to be adopted, while white children averaged a 145-day wait.

State and county officials acknowledged that mistakes were made, but were disappointed by the fine.

***

Jollis said the county has fixed the problems and detailed changes in a report sent to the Office of Civil Rights last week.

‘‘It’s hard for me to believe they’ve read it and paid any attention to it,’’ she said.

Barbara Riley, who leads the state’s Office for Children and Families, said staff has been added and rules rewritten to bring the state in compliance.
Any reasonable person would assume that what happened was that the state was discriminating against the black babies because the people working in the agency cared more about white babies getting adopted, right? Wrong. Here's what actually happened:

The state and Hamilton County have been fined $1.8 million by a federal agency for blocking white families from adopting black children between 1995 and 2000.

***

A report in October by the federal Office of Civil Rights detailed numerous instances in which caseworkers at Hamilton County’s adoption agency delayed and derailed white parents’ efforts to adopt black children.
And apparently, this is a widespread practice.

This is something that is undoubtedly bad for the black children involved. And yet this practice continues because its proponents think that "black children belong to black parents" and that "the most sensitive, loving, and skilled white parent could not avoid doing irreparable harm to an African American child". It's racial seperatism like we had in our past history, and once again it's a detriment to blacks.

(Via Eugene Volokh)

That's why we have representatives 


So says Atrios:

Stop the GOP From Privatizing Medicare

That's the email I just got from the DNC. Look, guys, YOU stop the GOP from passing this Medicare bill. Get your members in line and filibuster the damn thing.
So the Democrats can get a filibuster on Neanderthal judges, which they say isn't that important, but they can't get a filibuster on the Medicare bill?

There goes that "not too liberal" party line 


Ted Rall, the cartoonist who made fun of 9/11 widows and portrayed them as greedy women who only care about money, is endorsing Howard Dean. The reaction from the Dean camp? They're trumpeting the endorsement on their blog. And all the Dean supporters in the comments seem to be happy about it. They've been trying to say for a while that Dean isn't really that far to the left, but I think that this nails that meme in the coffin.

That's why he's a genius and I'm not 


I watched T3 this weekend too, but I didn't see what James Lileks sees, which was a foreshadowing of Arnold as governor:

I watched T3 over the weekend, and found it an interesting foreshadowing of Arnold’s gubernatorial bid. In the first big action sequence the Terminator finds himself plastered on the window of a firetruck, which of course symbolizes government. (It’s a publicly-owned vehicle, after all.) “I’ll drive,” he says, announcing his bid. He moves to the drivers’s side and says “Get out,” which symbolizes his victory over Gray Davis, and perhaps his inauguration as well. His next big dramatic line: “Give me your cutting tool.” If this bothers those who fear a reduced budget, his next line is meant to assert his power: “RELAX,” he shouts.

Later he gives a key to his worldview: “Anger is more useful than despair,” he says, adding “Basic psychology is one of my subroutines.” But towards the end of the movie he truly places himself in the hands of the public:

“Your gratitude is not required. I am programmed to follow your commands.”

I tell you, it’s all there, right from the beginning. The entire movie set up the campaign!

Sunday, November 23, 2003

J.F.K. 


Interesting piece in the Washington Post today. It seems that, at it's core, Oliver Stone's conspiracy film JFK relies on lies created by the KGB.

this is not good news 


Coming to a moonbat near you, "proof" that the F.B.I. is trying to destroy their free-speech:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.

The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?