Peder D4

Back to the Moon?

2012-01-26T07:14:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Newt Gingrich made some waves by suggesting that we could have a permanent moon base by the end of his second term. This was widely laughed off as Newt being crazy. Put aside considerations as to whether or not going back to the moon would be a good idea, is it technically possible? This is from last month's 'Astronomy' magazine. (I couldn't find the article online so I'm retyping this, any typos are mine.)

For example, SpaceX has already announced plans to build a heavy-lift rocket called the Falcon Heavy. It will be capable of putting more than 50 tons into orbit, and is financed from the profits and publicity earned from its Dragon supply missions to the Iss as well as SpaceX's other commercial satellite launches. Using Falcon Heavy, the company could launch Bigelow Aerospace's BA 330 space station as well as the additional supplies and rocket engines needed to take that module beyond Earth orbit and to the Moon.
Even more significant, Falcon Heavy and BA 330 will cost far less and be ready to fly much sooner than NASA's current proposal to build its own heavy0lift rocket to launch its Orion capsule for missions beyond Earth orbit. The first manned test flight of the NASA-built rocket, announced in September 2011, is not expected until 2021 and may cost somewhere between $25 and $60 billion to develop. In contrast, SpaceX built Falcon 9 for just $300 million and went from a blank sheet of paper to its first launch in only 4 years. Because Falcon Heavy is essentially three Falcon 9 first stages strapped together, the development cost for it will likely be as inexpensive and as straightforward as it was for Falcon 9.
Thus, not only would the private rocket be an affordable way for many rich tourists to get to the Moon, but it also would be a far more cost-effective method for the United States, or any other nation, to get there. All NASA would have to add is a lunar lander, something America already has experience building.

Keep in mind that this is from last month, published well before Gingrich said anything. It certainly doesn't seem like eight years is an insurmountable timeline. I don't know how much longer it would take to design a permanent base but this is a problem that people have been working on for literally decades. It sure seems like if we had the will we could do it.

Voting Order

2011-12-22T10:37:00.000-08:00

I was lamenting last week that I've never actually voted in a national primary that mattered. The nominees are normally sewn up well before Minnesota votes. Even with the wild GOP race so far I expect that record to hold.
Back in 2008 there was some talk of changing the primary system so that each region would have a single day of voting. Four regions (IIRC Northeast, Midwest, South and West) would go and they would rotate each cycle. I don't know what happened to this proposal but it obviously isn't in place now.
Today I read a piece by Jim Geraghty that seems to have a good possible solution:

So I would suggest a process that begins with the least-populated states, which have the fewest delegates to the GOP convention, and works its way up to the largest and most delegate-rich states. In the nomination process, a state can present value to a candidate in one of three ways: 1) number of delegates (often tied to population size); 2) time in the primary calendar (a chance to make an early splash and create momentum for later contests); or 3) ease or cost-effectiveness for campaigning (small size and short travel distances, cheap television advertising rates, etc.). This system would attempt to balance out those values so that campaigning for the votes of those few Republicans in Vermont and Delaware makes as much sense as campaigning for the votes of Republicans in Texas and Georgia.

Reasonable on the face of it but what would it look like in practice? He's crunched the numbers:

So, under RNC Chairman Jim, the 2016 Republican primary process (one hopefully lacking drama because we’re all so thrilled with the results of the GOP president elected in 2012) would look something like this:

February 9: New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine.

February 16: Delaware, District of Columbia.

February 23: Hawaii, Alaska.

March 1: South Carolina.

March 8: Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming.

March 15: Iowa, Minnesota.

March 22: Connecticut, Rhode Island.

March 29: Nevada, Utah.

April 5: Oregon, Idaho, Washington.

April 12: Arizona, New Mexico.

April 19: Michigan, Indiana.

April 26: West Virginia, Kentucky.

May 3: Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas.

May 10: Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama.

May 17: Maryland, Virginia.

May 24: Massachusetts, New Jersey.

May 31: Wisconsin, Illinois.

June 7: Florida.

June 14: Missouri, Oklahoma.

June 21: North Carolina, Tennessee.

June 28: Ohio, Pennsylvania.

July 5: Georgia.

July 12: New York.

July 19: Texas.

July 26: California.

If my math is right that means that by the time Minnesota had voted only 272 out of a total 2286 delegates would have been selected. If there was no clear front-runner, we would still have a voice in the outcome. Locally, that would be a big improvement over how it has been.
Would it result in a better candidate? That's harder to tell. Six of the first seven states are fairly liberal (NH, VT, ME, DE, DC, HI and AK) . I don't how that would translate in terms of picking the best GOP nominee. (It might improve it as my experience is that most blue state Republicans are somewhat libertarian.) The next group has SC, WY, MT, SD and ND. I'm more a fan of the western conservative bent than the southern one so this would please me too.
Frankly I'd love to see this gamed out a few times.

Anyway, it should be clear that the system should be improved. This may not be the best answer but it would move the ball in the right direction.

Oh Canada

2011-07-13T12:31:00.000-07:00

This is just heartrending to read. I'm skeptical that we need to actually 'outlaw' Sharia law here in the US but every time I read something like this up in Canada it gives me pause. Ok, so this isn't happening here but what is in place to stop it? Is there any cultural will to stand up and simply say that this isn't acceptable? Or have we somehow acculturated Muslim immigrants so well that we don't need to worry? I'd like to think so. I hope so. But . . . wow.

Also, I can't help but wonder if anyone has asked Margret Atwood about this connection between this and her famous novel 'Handmaiden's Tale'.

Gay Marriage in NY

2011-06-25T07:31:00.000-07:00

Last night the state of New York legalized gay marriage. (Or at least I think they did. The legislature passed the appropriate law; I'm not sure what role their governor plays.) As I'm a supporter of gay marriage, this made me happy. We have a fairly large population as a whole and a large gay community that can marry if they choose. I heartily approve.
But I'm also very pleased that this was done through a legislature. For years I've heard gay marriage activists say that it is only a matter of time until public opinion swings their way. Usually they say this in the context that states that aren't ahead of the time will suffer later embarrassment. My response has always been that we should simply wait a bit until the public is ready. That seems to have happened now in New York.
I haven't seen any poll results but in general we should assume that duly elected representatives actually do represent the people who elected them. If not then they'll be voted out of office and replaced by people better in step. That is the way that a democracy should work. This is basic Civics 101.

Throughout the debate on gay marriage I've heard people say that we don't vote on basic rights. This is wrong of course. All rights that we have have been voted on at some point or other. The Bill of Rights was ratified through a series of votes, etc.
Sometimes this is modified to 'we don't vote on minority rights'. There is a kernel of truth to this but it goes to far. We do have extra protections for minorities so that they don't get trampled by the majority. But it isn't hard to think of exceptions. Our immigration policies are subject to voting. Affirmative action, which is all about protecting minorities, is voted on.
In fact once you get past skin color as a proxy for minority, every vote has to do with some kind of basic right. Bar owners are a minority and we vote on all kind of stuff that they can do. Smokers are (now) a minority and we vote on their rights. The top 1% richest people in the country are by definition a 99-1 minority and that doesn't stop people from trying to vote their taxes up. None of this bothers the majority of gay marriage supporters, so I don't know how firmly they really believe in it.

When conservatives use the courts to block various items that they disagree with there is usually a chorus of derision that they would use a tool like the judiciary in a way that they say it shouldn't be. I thought of snarking last night that gay marriage supporters should have boycotted the legislature since they've been saying you can't vote on rights. But . . . well, I know that a lot of people have worked very hard and long on this and it's a very emotional issue. They don't need me raining on their happiness.
The obvious truth is that you can't always work in the method that you think best. That's just life.

No Huckabee

2011-05-15T05:38:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, Huck announced that he won't run for the GOP nomination this year. This ups my odds of voting Republican this year by some decent amount. I'm not the least bit sad to find him staying at home. The energy on the Right right now has to do with fiscal conservatism and that isn't a friendly home for Huckabee.

Top 5 Environmental Scares

2011-04-21T07:14:00.001-07:00

Well worth watching.

Why Presidents Do What They Do

2011-03-12T12:13:00.000-08:00

A very interesting post from Megan McArdle on why Presidents change once they're in office. The most interesting part is a quote from Daniel Ellsberg to a young Kissenger. It's long but well worth reading:

"Henry, there's something I would like to tell you, for what it's worth, something I wish I had been told years ago. You've been a consultant for a long time, and you've dealt a great deal with top secret information. But you're about to receive a whole slew of special clearances, maybe fifteen or twenty of them, that are higher than top secret.

"I've had a number of these myself, and I've known other people who have just acquired them, and I have a pretty good sense of what the effects of receiving these clearances are on a person who didn't previously know they even existed. And the effects of reading the information that they will make available to you.

"First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all -- so much! incredible! -- suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well.

"You will feel like a fool, and that will last for about two weeks. Then, after you've started reading all this daily intelligence input and become used to using what amounts to whole libraries of hidden information, which is much more closely held than mere top secret data, you will forget there ever was a time when you didn't have it, and you'll be aware only of the fact that you have it now and most others don't....and that all those other people are fools.

"Over a longer period of time -- not too long, but a matter of two or three years -- you'll eventually become aware of the limitations of this information. There is a great deal that it doesn't tell you, it's often inaccurate, and it can lead you astray just as much as the New York Times can. But that takes a while to learn.

"In the meantime it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself.

"You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours."

....Kissinger hadn't interrupted this long warning. As I've said, he could be a good listener, and he listened soberly. He seemed to understand that it was heartfelt, and he didn't take it as patronizing, as I'd feared. But I knew it was too soon for him to appreciate fully what I was saying. He didn't have the clearances yet.

She goes on to say that it's up to people on the outside to keep them on the path of the straight and true, regardless of what their special knowledge tells them to do. Which I think is true but is also much easier to say than to actually accomplish.
Heinlein said that the touchstone of a fair deal is whether it still looks good if you turn it around. I use this process all the time when evaluating executive power. You simply look at action X and ask yourself how you'd feel if an immoral President from the other side had it. (I use Clinton, I'm sure a host of others would use W Bush.)

I've long thought that W Bush made a huge mistake in the early days after Sept 11, once it was clear that we were going into Afghanistan. There was quickly the problem of what we should do with people that were picked up from the battlefield and what we should do with them. How do we figure out if they need extra scrutiny and what should we do with them if they were a future danger?
At that point Bush should have called for a bipartisan panel to set out rules for future detainees. He should have gone out of his way to include Presidential aspirants from both sides, most obviously McCain and Hilary Clinton. And then, once a system was hammered out, he should have rigorously stuck to it.
There are big questions that we face when trying to deal with a guerrilla opponent. Our Constitution is better designed to deal with the relative openness of regular citizens and the loud debates over the last ten years are a testament to how thorny all of this is. Our best approach (and Obama could still go this route) would be to try and create some bipartisan, all agreed upon process. Otherwise we'll simply be locked into this damnable area where the political games get in the way of actual security questions.

As an aside, and while I'm on this topic, there is a question that I've never heard a good answer for. Libs and Dems yelled for years about how awful the Guantanamo route was. Why did Obama take office over two years ago without a clear alternative? Shouldn't some of the yellers have figured out a better plan by now?

Morgan Freeman

2010-07-28T04:54:00.000-07:00

It's not quite this simple of course but he is definitely on to something here. Part of our current race problem in America is that we simply give too much importance to skin color. We define people by it and set them into categories. We do this with talk of culture and suggest that people that wander outside of fairly strict boundaries are traitors to their people.
Culture and heritage are certainly part of an individual but they shouldn't be the defining traits.

Classless

2010-04-22T15:47:00.000-07:00

Recently on Facebook I've seen a group called:

"DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN"

Wishing for the death of political opponents is pretty classless. I'm pretty sure that most of the people joining it are simply looking for a way to express their dislike for Obama's job in office. Some, of course, don't like the man himself but I honestly think that even that dislike is fueled by politics rather than who he is as a person. I thought the same thing of the majority of derision that was thrown at Bush.
One bit of irony is that this joke was started (or at least gained prominence) when it was used by a New Jersey union sent it out to its members with the last bit asking for the death of the New Jersey governor. Well, it was classless then and it's still classless now.
Get a grip, people.

Tax Thoughts

2010-04-16T05:02:00.001-07:00

I suppose this is a day late, but no one ever blamed this blog for seeming timely...

I keep hearing some variation of 'taxes are the price for civilization' this year. That must be the push-back meme in response to the small gov't message of the Tea Parties. The problem with this message is that only goes skin deep. Almost no one is suggesting that all taxes be eliminated. The debate is over how much tax (and by extension what size should gov't be).
Another meme running around is that taxes as of this exact date aren't all that bad. This claim from Obama that protesters should be happy since he cut taxes, is a good example. The problem here is that the big worry is about future taxes. Spending is out of control, nothing is being done to address upcoming entitlements and we've just added a Health Care program that looks to be wildly expensive down the road. Why shouldn't people worry about this?

Phony?

2010-04-07T04:33:00.000-07:00

I'm a bit tickled that the President of the United States is a fan of the same team that I am. But holy cats he comes off sounding like a big phony in this clip. Even if he couldn't remember any names from when he moved to Chicago he should have shifted to some modern players and gone with that.
It's not as bad as Hillary with the Yankees hat of course...but yeesh!

Proudly in the Dark

2010-02-26T19:06:00.000-08:00

I keep hearing (from liberals) that liberals are naturally more open to new ideas and the platonic ideal of debate. They tell me this is because they've been exposed to more competition of arguments in college. And that their naturally more open minds are able to calmly handle opposing thoughts better than those Neanderthals on the other side.
And yet, from those same liberals I keep hearing that conservatives (or at least Republicans) have no ideas when it comes to healthcare. Or that they think the status quo is perfect. Or worst of all, that they simply don't care about other people. To that last point, please keep in mind that a majority of the country must be in the thrall of insurance executives(!).
The most recent meetings between Obama and Republicans should put the lie to all of it. Frankly, anyone who would bother to read some websites outside of the ideological home base would know this already. I wish that famous liberal curiosity for new ideas would allow them to step out and see the rest of the world...

Third Party? No.

2010-02-18T19:27:00.000-08:00

From Frank J:

The problem with third parties is that they always take from the extreme ends, weakening just one of the parties and leaving the party with the opposite views of the third party the strongest. Just listen to liberals whine about Ralph Nader for his part in the 2000 election. Also, third parties attract all the crazies — all the people who give up on the social niceties (read: “sanity”) — needed to be a member of one of the major parties. For instance, libertarians have seemingly rational stances of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, but who does the Libertarian Party nominate? Candidates who dye themselves blue and like to have their promotional pictures taken with ferrets. The only real way a third party could be viable would be to steal the moderates out of both parties, which would basically be a repeat of Obama promising some ephemeral hope and change and no specifics (specifics and principled stances scare moderates).

But the tea party is popular and has regular Americans behind it, right? Maybe, but how is it supposed to do anything other than sap support away from the Republicans, thus leaving the Democrats in power? Besides, it’s called the “tea party.” I know that’s a reference to the Boston Tea Party, but nowadays a tea party is something a little girl has with her dolls. Plus, we’re a coffee nation.

His solution? A fourth party of course. Very funny stuff.

Assimilation

2009-12-26T16:13:00.000-08:00

This entire post from Mark Steyn about yesterday's terror attempt is all worth reading, especially the second half and conclusion:

The men eager to self-detonate on infidel airliners are not goatherds from the caves of Waziristan but educated middle-class Muslims who have had the most exposure to the western world and could be pulling down six-figure salaries almost anywhere on the planet. And don't look to "assimilation" to work its magic, either. We're witnessing a process of generational de-assimilation: In this family, yet again, the dad is an entirely assimilated member of the transnational elite. His son wants a global caliphate run on Wahhabist lines.

For the most part I think that America has done a very good job of assimilating Muslims that live here. Here in my part of Minneapolis I see happy looking women in headscarves on the street and in the shops. It's hard to imagine any of them so upset with the entire American culture to the point where they would consider suicide bombing.
But there is a part of our Western world that cultivates this hatred. It started as an honest look in the mirror at Western and historical sins but it has gotten to the point where this section has trouble seeing the positives from our way of life.
They see slavery as a Western ill without acknowledging that it has been worldwide and only really opposed from within the West (and driven by Christians to boot). They see the small remaining vestiges of gender inequality without noticing who has taken the lead in the historically radical idea that women are equal with men. They talk of the evil of industry without mentioning the overwhelming widespread poverty of cultures without it.
There is a cultural rule that we can only speak ill from within our own families. I can say bad things about my Mom but you can't. The modern world with easy communication to all ends of the earth make it impossible to keep criticisms within the 'family'. This section of our culture needs to remember that it needs to provide the full picture, the good and the bad. Otherwise we tell the world, some of whom are looking for excuses to hate us anyway, that we are evil and worthy of their hate.
That's an incredibly bad idea.

The Insurance Model

2009-12-05T10:20:00.000-08:00

Let me start here with this article by David Goldhill. If I was a good blogger, I would have made a big deal about this back in August when I first read it. The article is long but well worth it. His father went into a hospital with pneumonia and died from hospital related infections. The author then spent a year trying to figure out how to improve things.

I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.

He talks about the way our health care is currently set up. We've taken an insurance model and expanded it to nearly every related health event of our lives. That's not what insurance does well. Our rising costs (without any end in sight) is a result of that. In the article, Goldhill notes that even the other industrial countries with universal healthcare have seen comparable rise in costs over the last decade. Putting the whole shebang under one umbrella doesn't drop the cost.
Think of healthcare costs as being in two different categories. One of those is for catastrophic events and costs. These are things (car accidents, serious diseases, etc.) that happen out of the blue and can threaten your entire financial livelihood. Insurance is well developed for this type of event. You buy home insurance because you fear fire and flood, not because you'll need to repaint or replace the windows.
The other type of healthcare cost is more routine. Prescriptions drugs, check-ups and lesser illnesses, for instance. Even routine natal care gives most people time to shop for various services and locations. A growing field of medicine has to do with orthopedic surgery for sports injuries. Most of these could be shopped for as well. All of these could use the Lasik model. Thanks to Walmart and Walgreens, prescription drugs already do. There is no reason why prices for these shouldn't be going down to a point where most people could pay them out of pocket or (at worst) with short term loans.
The problem is that we've mixed the two. Everyone needs insurance to protect against the really bad stuff but we've made it very tough to buy for just the catastrophic. And once you've shelled out a bunch of money for the routine stuff, by God, you will use it. Throw in the fact that consumers don't make decisions based on cost and you have a recipe for ever increasing costs.
If we want to control prices (and hopefully make some of them drop) then we need to change the structure. To do this we need to allow people to shop for the insurance that suits them best, which means allowing interstate purchases. We also need to do away with onerous minimum coverage requirements. For instance, a post menopausal woman shouldn't be forced to buy natal coverage.
I've heard various pro-Obamacare folks make the case against insurance companies and especially their very evil execs. The ironic thing is that if they succeed they will put tons of new money in their pocket. Instead, they could stop forcing people into their arms and actually allow the markets to work.
They should.

How to Fix Healthcare

2009-12-02T09:43:00.001-08:00

In all of the things that I've read about this subject over the past four or five months, this encapsulates well the few easy things that could be done to alter the rising scope of healthcare costs.

Callous Children

2009-10-31T18:54:00.000-07:00

Great column from Peggy Noonan in the WSJ:

Part of the reason is that the problems—debt, spending, war—seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths—spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone—well, not those in government, but most everyone else—seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out. It's not a path through.

That sums things up for me. I don't have faith that our political class even has a handle on how to fix our problems, much less the will to do the difficult things necessary to do so. All that they know how to do is throw money around and pass laws without the slightest thought to unintended consequences.
Nor do I have faith that they will avoid corruption while setting up their 'solutions'. We've already seen that the health care process has been taken over by open lobbying. We see favors handed out without the blink of an eye. And the vaunted Fourth Estate? They won't hold anyone's feet to the fire anymore. 'Truth to Power' has been exposed as an empty phrase.

We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists—they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.

What gets me is that there isn't even the hint of a solution out there. Just band-aids as far as the eye can see. This needs to change and change quickly.

Polanski

2009-09-29T18:24:00.000-07:00

It seems that the whole Polanski debate is setting up along the left/right cultural divide. For the life of me, I can't figure out why it would. The crime was too icky to be merely brushed away as some kind of sexual hangup thing. The due process territory is pretty clear and not really in an area where battles are normally fought.
The only thing I can think of is that the left is generally more sympathetic to artists. I get that (and don't have any issue with it) but I can't believe it's really enough to cover this. At least I don't want to believe it.

Update: This post here suggests that there is also a divide between elite and rank and file on the left. I don't remember a similar divide in the past.

Other Options

2009-09-18T09:21:00.000-07:00

I keep hearing that Republicans shouldn't criticize Obamacare proposals unless they have an alternative proposal. Never mind that there are Republican bills that have been proposed with alternatives, there are certainly plenty of other ideas that have been put forth online. The idea that a massive government system is the only viable way to fix our current bad system is patently false.
And besides, back in 2002-2003 during the run-up to the Iraq war there was huge opposition to W's 'war on terror'. Democrats (and liberals) didn't, and still haven't put forth a credible alternative to fighting international terrorism. Note that I'm not saying it is the only way, I'm simply saying that on this crucial issue all they could do was criticize and offer half hearted platitudes. Even now with a Democratic President in the White House and both parties of congress controlled by WOT critics, there has been very little change.
I don't suppose we can expect that alternative anytime soon.

Light Blogging

2009-09-17T07:07:00.001-07:00

It may seem odd to post such a thing on a blog that gets about a post a month but I feel bad about the lack of posts over here. You see, I don't really like to comment on stuff right away because there is usually some bit of context that either deepens the issue or (more usually) muddles it. I like for the waters to calm a bit so I feel like I have a better handle. This has meant that over the last few months (especially with the health care debate) that I've gotten very behind. Each time I think of putting something up, I'm bogged down by the large number of posts that I didn't write earlier.
Well, I know how to handle this. The first rule of blogger's block is this: Get over yourself and write some things. That's what I'm going to do now.

Social Institutions

2009-07-11T16:13:00.001-07:00

Here is an outstanding post calling for humility on the issue of gay marriage. Megan argues that many previous reforms were attempted for good and compelling reasons and the results were terrible for marriage. She also points out that 'people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it':

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

I've never heard this argument before (she quotes from G.K. Chesterton) but it certainly makes sense. The idea that marriage is 'just a piece of paper' is fairly widespread in our society. Many of the people that say that also say that same piece of paper won't keep them together with their partner. While that might be true for them it inarguable that the decline of marriage as an institution has been devastating in segments of our society.
I do support gay marriage but the 'tradition argument' gives me pause. I think that our society has come to a point where same sex couples are able to live on a more even par with hetero couples. I also think that a significant portion of same sex couples are hyper-committed to each other. My hope is that including them in the world of marriage will strengthen the overall institution.
But...I'm far from certain.

Owning the Issues

2009-07-08T04:35:00.000-07:00

Near the end of this post from Eric Black (whom I greatly respect) comes this comment:

Apparently the NRSC missed the memo about the new bipartisanship and has decided that share of responsibility for the nation's problems may have carried over from previous Congresses and administrations has now expired.

The recession was in full swing when the Obama administration came into office so it doesn't make sense to lay all of the blame at their feet. But is it reasonable to suggest that they've had a negative impact in the last five months? Here are three reasons why I think it is:

1) Uncertainty. We've had something of a command and control economy since the change over. Some companies are told how they should run themselves and what contracts they should honor. Others are given huge sums of money and virtually allowed to escape past bad decisions. This makes it very hard for anyone to plan for the future. When corporations feel this way they freeze like a deer in the headlight. Hiring freezes all around and the worsening employment numbers show that.
2) Wild spending. The amount of debt that's been run up in just half a year is truly breathtaking. Set aside whether the spending was justified or well thought out (and I don't think it was either) the sheer amount of debt creates strong doubts about future inflation and the ability of the country to borrow money. This extends the time period of uncertainty. Now a company has to worry further than a year or two and wonder how bad the economic environment will be five or ten years from now. Again they freeze and try not to hire or expand.
3) Cap and trade. At it's essence this is an attempt to artificially raise the price on energy in an attempt to push people to use less. Energy is an infrastructural item and rising prices there effect virtually everything else. So adding to short and long term uncertainty we now raise prices across the board. What do you think companies do then?

All three of these things can be laid at the feet of the Dems since Jan 20, 2009.

The White House told us that the stimulus bill would start dropping unemployment by now. Instead it's grown higher than they said it would if the damn thing wasn't passed. Biden said that they 'misread' the economy. That's possible but isn't it more likely that they just prescribed the wrong medicine?

Veeery rich

2009-05-30T14:36:00.000-07:00

Obama on his SCOTUS nominee:

In the interim, Obama said he expects "rigorous evaluation" of his nominee but added: "What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past."

He derided "some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor's record."

Huh. Remember during the Roberts and Alito nominations when Obama criticized fellow Dems for 'political posturing and ideological brinkmanship'? Or when he spoke out about 'playing the usual political games' and 'pulling a few comments out of context' in order to distort a judge's record. Nope, I don't either. I'm sure we can expect pointed questions on the change of behavior from tough and aggressive journalists [cough].
I'm sure that absent more skeletons from Sotomayer's closet, she'll be confirmed in time for the next session. And she may very well be a fine Justice, if one that I'll often disagree with. Her nomination has become a good time for conservatives to argue against the joyful use of identity politics from the judiciary. I'm hopeful that some lesson will have been learned here. We want our judges to be as impartial as possible.
Shouldn't everyone?

Follow up on the Federalism Amendments

2009-05-21T09:58:00.000-07:00

Randy Barnett has sharpened his Amendment call into something more similar to what I was suggesting, ten Amendments each designed to restructure our government. The full list is here. It all looks pretty good (though I'd like to see more analysis).

A Libertarian Bill of Rights

2009-04-23T16:34:00.001-07:00

There is an interesting editorial in the WSJ today arguing for a 'Federalism Amendment'.

Article V provides that, "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states," Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments." Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.

The text of the proposed amendment is in the editorial. A lengthy response to its specifics was written here and on the face of it I'm inclined to agree that it needs some work. But the process is a good one, though not quite what I'd suggest.
We seem to be having something of a libertarian moment on the Right. Two obvious things are fueling that; the explosion of spending over the last eight months and the fact that the Republicans aren't running the show. I'm not the first to observe that it's easier to criticize when you're out of power. Many, many people believe that if the Republicans regain control that they will go back to being just as bad.
The problem is that there is no real path to smaller government without Republican help. There is simply no large anti-statist movement within the Left. During the Bush years there was talk about liberaltarian fusion but that also dried up and blew away pretty quickly as soon as the Democrats had the reins.
The last real hurrah for small government was during the '94 election with the Contract for America. It nationalized the congressional elections. It offered promises for governing that reasonable people could relate to. Unfortunately, it fell short of it's promises. Eventually the true believers were gone and no one but the power-seekers were left.
Enter the Amendment process. Imagine a similar promise, not to propose various laws but to propose various Amendments. Think of a nationwide conversation about the benefits of a real check on Federal power. What if each House and Senate candidate had to give their opinion on term limits or the use of commerce clause. If there is a real hunger in this country for small government, this could be the road to get there.
I'd suggest ten amendments, for historical reasons. I'd suggest things like:

An amendment for term limiting congress. The worst abusers of power are the ones that have been there the longest.
An end to gerrymandering. Let's have some more competitive House elections.
A fix to the commerce clause. This is what today's editorial was about (mostly) and this could lead to a less oppressive federal congress.
A blanket protection of speech or at least a repudiation of the 'hate speech exception'.
Harsher penalties for congressional law-breaking. Or increased sunlight on lobbyist connections.
Some sort of brake on spending, maybe something tied to a precentage of the GDP.

I'm sure there are many other (and better) suggestions than these. Each one should be argued over to get the wording correct. Perhaps a committee of skeptics could also look for loopholes and possible unintended consequences. I'd suggest that an eye be kept on the politically possible, so no proposals to reduce the Federal government by 90% or anything like that.
Maybe members of the Tea Parties and the magazine Reason can lead the discussion. As the list shapes up, congressional candidates could be pushed to promise to work to vote these amendments in. If a candidate pledges to amend the Constitution to limit their own term, that should give them some credibility towards a small government movement.
In many ways I agree that country is in the mood for change. Maybe this could be the change that brings us a better political class and more responsible government.

Gay Marriage in Iowa

2009-04-04T18:54:00.000-07:00

Via Reason's Hit & Run, here's an article about the recent gay marriage ruling in Iowa from Jacob Sullum. He and I both favor gay marriage but aren't happy with the judicial approach to getting there. He's put this better than I have:

I like the policy outcome here, and I sympathize with the argument that the principle of equal protection should compel the government to treat gay and straight couples in an evenhanded manner. But this decision, like the California Supreme Court's similar ruling last year, seems to be another example of result-oriented jurisprudence that ultimately undermines a constitution's ability to constrain government action and protect individual liberty. If you read the court's analysis as it goes through the arguments for a gay marriage ban and (correctly, in my view) finds each of them wanting, it's hard to see how this process differs from what legislators do.
It's clear that the Iowa constitution's equal protection clause, at the time it was adopted, was not understood to prohibit a law limiting marriage to a man and a woman (assuming the issue would even have been intelligible). So the basis for saying that such a law is inconsistent with that clause today has to be an evolving understanding of what equal protection entails, especially regarding what it means to be similarly situated. But barring a constitutional amendment, judges can implement this new understanding only by reinterpreting the clause to mean something it did not mean at the time it was written. That sort of license can lead to all sorts of mischief, as the evolving understanding of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause (to pick one especially pernicious example) illustrates.

That's a problem and one that I wish more gay marriage supporters would address. We shouldn't want courts looking for ways to 'get to the right place'. It can only lead to major distortions in the system. Some of them will work in your direction but over time you're going to get screwed as well.

This has gone too far

2009-03-21T15:48:00.000-07:00

Busloads of protesters are 'visiting' houses of AIG execs. Boy, it's a good thing that congressional grandstanding didn't fan the flames or anything. I'm not a fan of taxpayer money going towards personal bonuses either, but as soon as large sums of bailout money went to these companies it was a near certainty that some of it would be used for distasteful reasons.
If you don't want a repeat of this, there is only one solution: don't bailout troubled companies. Of if that seems too extreme, you could always try being slow and deliberate with the process to try and close off negative things like this from happening. Another possibility would be to actually read the bills before passing them. None of those things sound too radical to me.

Dear God, we've got a sorry lot in Washington. Anyone else out there now wishing that they'd supported Ron Paul?

The Case Against Bailouts

2009-03-17T05:09:00.000-07:00

I've seen pieces of it here and there, but this is probably the best one from a technical difficulty standpoint:

It strikes me that this episode illustrates the inherent evils of a bailout. There really are no rules; the government pumped many billions into AIG, but the company and its new "owners," the taxpayers, are making it up as they go along. AIG is likely right in saying it is obligated to pay the bonuses, but the public is also right in believing a bailout shouldn't work this way. The problem is that we have no established rules to govern bailouts.

Which is one basic reason why bankruptcy is far preferable. Bankruptcy has reasonably clear rules that have been developed over many years. The bankrupt company is run for the benefit of its creditors, or, if appropriate, shut down. The creditors decide whether to keep existing management on. Executory contracts can be accepted or rejected; labor and supply agreements can be renegotiated. A judge presides so that disputes can be fairly resolved.

A bailout is an ill-defined procedure in which no one's rights are clear, and political calculation counts for more than fairness or transparency. The flap over AIG bonuses is just one of many that we can expect to arise if we continue down the path of endless bailouts, rather than allowing insolvent companies and their creditors and investors to pay the price of that insolvency.

We really do have things in place to take care of bad businesses. And propping up anything that is 'too big to fail' (or worse in the case of the Big Three Auto makers 'too important to fail') just guarantees that important lessons won't be learned and that unreasonable risks will still be taken. Even worse, it stops the market from correcting and just makes for a bigger problem down the road.
I haven't blogged much about Obama yet. There is an entirely reasonable 'wait and see' approach that seems to be going on in the American public's minds right now. But I do have one serious bone to pick with him. He has enormous political capital right now and he seems to be afraid to spend any of it to make the hard choices needed to help the economy. That needs to change and soon or recovery will simply be an even harder road.

Pledge

2009-01-22T11:59:00.000-08:00

(Via Volokh, who calls it 'creepy'.)

And the obvious translation is something like, "See, as long as you elect our guy, we'll be good citizens." I think the obnoxiousness outweighs the creepy factor but your mileage may vary.

A 'To-Don't List'

2009-01-21T18:06:00.000-08:00

Found here.

DON’T question the motives - question the policy. When you disagree with Obama’s policies, say so, and make it clear why. But remember that President Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President Bush did. Both men love America and want what’s best for her. End of story.

The whole things is pretty reasonable.

Violence

2009-01-04T18:50:00.000-08:00

This can't be true, we all know that the left doesn't engage in violence, right? I was told that several times during the election anyway. Maybe I should just keep this handy...
And for all of the people criticizing the informant for stopping Molotov cocktails from being thrown during the RNC, please know that you are part of the problem and in no way will you be responsible for a better tomorrow. I hope your stupidity puts you in jail before you hurt anyone. And yes, your incredibly misplaced priorities do reflect very badly on your ideology.

Recount

2009-01-03T18:02:00.000-08:00

The MN Senate recount is over, with nothing but court challenges yet. There are probably people out there who want to shout about unfairness here or there, but that's not the point of this post. For now, let's just assume that the ballots have been counted fairly, ok?
Holy cats, Minnesota should be horribly embarrassed! We are now almost two full months past the actual election and only today have they finished up. Sixty days later, if you can believe that. And this hasn't been because of frivolous challenges either. Nothing has happened that shouldn't be expected in any close election. This process needs to be streamlined and improved somehow. I hope that some sense of shame will crop up and spur some improvement in case of future recounts.
And the change in election totals is rather staggering. After all precincts reported in, the margin was something like a 726 vote for Coleman. Then counties started double checking and correcting results and the official tally became 215 for Coleman. This MPR report suggests that vote corrections are pretty common in Minnesota:

But an analysis of election returns by Minnesota Public Radio shows a change of 1,000 votes is fairly typical in Minnesota. A look at elections in the last 10 years shows that the vote totals typically change by about 1,500 votes in statewide elections in the days after the polls close.
...the analysis also showed that Democrats are usually the beneficiaries of post-election tidying up by elections officials. Since 1998, DFL vote totals have typically risen by almost twice as much as Republicans by the time the state canvassing boards certify a final result.

That raises a pretty serious question in and of itself doesn't it? Either there is some dirty tricks at play or (more likely in my opinion) widespread mistake making. Come on, election judges, the number reporting process is very straightforward. Take it seriously and get those numbers in correctly. My job involves plenty of phone calls where strings of numbers are communicated and mistakes involve losing money. We can do it on a regular basis, you can do it on your one night.
One more thing has definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. The rules for filling out your ballot correctly are pretty simple (in person at least, I've never used absentee). I don't like that so many people screwed up their ballots and yet had them divined in one way or another into actual votes. I'm cold-hearted enough that I'd rather throw those out. Each voter is instructed that if they make a mistake they should get a new ballot. Not difficult.
Instead we opened up a huge game of interpretation. We left those votes in the hands of election judges. For the sake of this post, I'm assuming that all decisions were wise and appropriate. What if that assumption is wrong?

Church Fire

2008-12-14T10:17:00.000-08:00

There was plenty of talk during the campaign as to whether or not Palin was inciting violence towards Obama. I'd suggest that Palin herself was given an overdose of criticism, especially when it came to private things like her family and church. Can't help but wonder if some of that criticism led to this:

Gov. Sarah Palin's home church has been badly damaged in an arson fire. Damages to the Wasilla Bible Church were estimated at $1 million, authorities said today. No one was injured in the fire, which was intentionally set while people, including two children, were inside.

Somehow I'm guessing that the same people who tried furiously to connect those dots during the campaign will resist this line of reasoning today.

The Coming Marriage Fight

2008-11-26T18:41:00.000-08:00

Through Facebook (of all places) I just ran across Marry Me Minnesota. Their description:

Marry Me Minnesota was formed by same-gender couples
wishing to legally marry. It is an all-volunteer organization that
exists solely to sue the State of Minnesota for the right of
same-gender couples to legally marry.

I'm not a fan of using the courts to get gay marriage. I was asked what I would do instead and I thought I'd cross post it here.

I'm no expert here but it seems to me that the greatest gains on public opinion have come when the general populace comes in contact with gay people at work and in everyday locations. In the face of obvious 'just folks' situations, the overly colorful stereotypes fall away. If you want the majority of Minnesotans (and Americans in general) to support gay marriage, the best bet is to defuse the 'other'.
I'd run commercials with testimonials of long time gay couples. Let them speak of the challenges they face without being able to marry. Ask them to emphasize that they want regular marriages like millions of straight people have.
I think this would have a profound effect on the people who still don't personally know anyone gay. I think it could change some minds.

I think that supporters have this hardened idea that opponents are unpersuadable, so why bother trying. That's probably true in some cases but certainly not in all. And what a horrible approach! The Civil Rights fight in the 60's was won because more and more whites thought that discrimination and racism was wrong. It took a very long time (yes, sometimes generations) to make the country colorblind enough to get there.
Gay couples don't have to move public opinion as far as blacks did. They've made good progress so far but not because of court rulings. They've made it because so many more of them are understood as regular people. The more people that see them that way instead of something scary, the better off they will be.

Gay Marriage

2008-11-19T20:03:00.000-08:00

I'm a supporter of gay marriage (snapshot reasons: good for gay people as individuals, good for marriage as an institution). I've been following the debate in the wake of the Prop 8 vote in California. Per usual in this discussion, I'm bothered by the vitriol of my fellow supporters. The California blacklist for those who donated to 'Yes' strikes me as pretty thuggish.
There are two basic methods of deciding the law in our country. The first is through the people, either directly (like California's propositions) or indirectly through a legislature. The second method is through judicial rulings.
I'd much rather have difficult social issues work through the people than through judges. It gives them a legitimacy that they otherwise don't have. For instance, the 19th Amendment settled the suffrage question in a way that the courts never could have. And that goes double for the Civil Rights work of the 60's. By comparison, Roe v Wade has made the abortion debate rage hotly ever since it came down (and for the foreseeable future).
When I talk to other supporters, I always notice how heated they get at the idea that mere voters could possibly make decisions on the rights of others. Not quite sure if they understand how the Bill of Rights and the other amendments were set up. I've got one question that I've always wondered about and never gotten a good answer about:

If serious issues are only to be decided by judges, what role does the electorate really have in our society?

Simple Hypocrisy Test

2008-11-11T04:58:00.000-08:00

Remember the heat that Bush took over his reinauguration? His critics blasted him for having a lavish event during tough times. Well, the economy is certainly worse today than it was four years ago. This is a golden opportunity for those critics to prove that they weren't just partisan hacks.
It's a simple enough thing to compare the amounts spent between the two. Does anyone think that Obama will underspend the Bush effort from 2005? Think anyone of the prior critics will point out the record breaking fund raising that Obama has already undertaken and ask why he isn't just using that money for the party?
I thought that the criticism of Bush was silly then and I'll only criticize Obama if his gala goes over the top. Inaugurals are big deals and large national events are expensive. Let's see where others come down.

Congrats

2008-11-04T20:26:00.000-08:00

I'd like to echo some Jonah Goldberg here:

Look, I expect to be one of the most severe critics of the Obama administration and the Democrats generally in the years ahead (though I sincerely hope I won't find that necessary). But Obama ran a brilliant race and he should be congratulated for it. Moreover, during the debate over the financial crisis, Obama said that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time. Well, I think we members of the loyal opposition should be able to make distinctions simultaneously. It is a wonderful thing to have the first African-American president. It is a wonderful thing that in a country where feelings are so intense that power can be transferred so peacefully. Let us hope that the Obama his most dedicated — and most sensible! — fans see turns out to be the real Obama. Let us hope that Obama succeeds and becomes a great president, for all the right reasons.

Predictions and election day

2008-11-03T19:50:00.000-08:00

Might as well try my hand at the prognostication game.

Obama wins nationally by about four points. Not sure where he ends up in the electoral college but a decisve win.
Coleman wins over Franken by at least five.
Minnesota goes for Obama by about ten points.
At least two states are still being counted come Wednesday morning with the likely candidates being Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Proposition 8 in California fails.
Exit polls will be wildly off in some key states.

I decided months ago that I didn't want to vote for McCain. If all you have is a hammer than all problems start to look like nails. If your job is to pass legislation than regulation seems like the answer to life's problems. Plus I still haven't forgiven McCain-Feingold and the tampering with free speech.
I decided that I could only vote for him in good conscience if it was a meaningful anti-Obama vote. I defined that as Minnesota being close enough, say five points. I don't think it's there and that frees me up to vote my heart. Just another benefit of the electoral college.
My biggest wish is that we're spared any kind of prolonged post-election contest. A 2000 style recount would be disastrous for the country. Probably worse than an actual electoral outcome.

Upset of the Year

2008-10-25T13:02:00.000-07:00

Star-Tribune endorses Norm Coleman. I think the 'Al Franken is a jerk' factor is going to be pretty big in their election. He pretty much embodies Spitting Cobra style of politics. Lots of heat, almost no light.
This one will be interesting to watch on November 4th.

Bachmann

2008-10-23T07:16:00.001-07:00

What an embarrassment. If you can't handle an interview with Chris Matthews, maybe you should look for easier work. And the word 'anti-American' should raise a big red flag in your mind, prompting you to move ahead with caution. And one more bit of advice, when you say something stupid, don't try and spin away from it. Issue an apology and a correction and try to move on.

"...bread and circuses without limit"

2008-10-23T07:12:00.000-07:00

In the midst of this post, there is a quote from Heinlein that capsulizes my fears about where we're going. From 'To Sail Beyond the Sunset':

The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a "warm body" democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.

It should be noted that the Republican plans for a permanent majority rested along the same lines of 'bread and circuses'. This country is in serious need of a major party that believes in limited government.

Assasination fantasies

2008-10-14T18:36:00.000-07:00

Every cause, no matter how noble is certain to attract some fools. (I remember that as a Niven quote but Google wouldn't help me out.) That means that there is very limited value in judging large movements by the fringe kooks. Even the 'assassination fantasies' don't paint the whole left. From Instapundit:

LEFTY ASSASSINATION FANTASIES: Various people, oddly, deny that such existed. Try Death of a President by Gabriel Range, or Nicholson Baker's novel, Checkpoint, just to start.

Similar Obama assassination fantasies, should they appear, won't get this kid-glove treatment from Big Media, I suspect. "It is not the first time a novelist has chosen fiction to express their point of view about American society or politics. Upton Sinclair did it. So did John Steinbeck. Nick Baker does it with more nerve and fewer pages."

UPDATE: Here's Salon, in 2003, on a play entitled I'm Going to Kill the President, "one of the most amusing plays currently running in New York . . . a madcap farce about terrorism and apathy in John Ashcroft's America whose performance may or may not be a federal offense."

ANOTHER UPDATE: "Snipers Wanted."

Follow the links if you want to. Look, any major political figure in America is going to attract loonies and death threats. The difference here is that the media was mostly silent about this during the Bush years but a few yahoos at campaign rallies and suddenly the Right is ready to boil over.
I think a serious assassination attempt on Obama would be one of the worst possible things to happen in our countries history. I hope that his secret service contingent is top notch (or more optimistically that they won't be needed). I just don't think that some negative comments about him will really inspire that type of reaction. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Can't agree more with this

2008-10-11T20:39:00.000-07:00

From Instapundit:

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE? So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers' bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it's a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It's nice of McCain to try to tamp that down, and James Taranto sounds a proper cautionary note -- but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here? (And that's before we get to the Obama campaign's thuggish tactics aimed at silencing critics.)

The Angry Left has gotten away with all sorts of beyond-the-pale behavior throughout the Bush Administration. The double standards involved -- particularly on the part of the press -- are what are feeding this anger. (Indeed, as Ann Althouse John Leo have noted, the reporting on this very issue is dubious). So while asking for McCain supporters to chill a bit, can we also ask the press to start doing its job rather than openly shilling for a Democratic victory? Self-control is for everybody, if it's for anybody. . . . and

Of course no one from the left is a threat. They're all good people remember? Only right-wingers are dangerous.

Racist!

2008-10-05T12:26:00.000-07:00

(Via Instapundit) I mentioned yesterday that criticism of Obama is somehow defacto racism. Today's example comes from the AP (as highlighted here):

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Of course Palin was specifically talking about a group of spoiled white kids. But that doesn't matter here. Criticism of Obama is always racist somehow. Should be a fun four years coming up.

The Coming Obama Presidency

2008-10-04T14:50:00.000-07:00

We're about a month from the election and I think it's safe to say that absent some kind of meltdown from Obama, he's going to be the next President. We're half way through the debates and I just don't see another game changer on the horizon. My guess is a win somewhere in the 50-46 range.
In addition the Dem majority in the House and Senate will probably grow. That's one of my biggest fears for the next four years. For all the talk about Republican lack of financial responsibility (much of it deserved) there is no constituency on the Dem side to control government spending. The opposite is true as the healthcare debate shows. The best case scenario is something like the one the realization that Clinton came to quickly, the financial house needs to be put back in shape before any grand social programs can be undertaken. I'm not optimistic.
I've talked about Obama's lack of foreign policy before and I still don't trust his instincts. The downside is the possibility that he will concede too much to the international community. The upside is that same community is getting their dream president and will no longer be able to blame bad choices of the American electorate for their own fecklessness. I don't think that's enough of a tradeoff but it could be worse.
I do have one very specific fear relating to the social fabric of this country. Obama has mostly (with notable exceptions) run as a post-race candidate. America hungers for this. My guess is that a vast majority wants to wish race away and ignore it. They think that MLK's dream pushes in this direction and they wish we could get there. At least that's the boat that I'm in and I don't think I'm alone.
Despite Obama's maturity on this matter, this election has become one of the most racially charged in memory. There have been a few outbreaks from the right suggesting that a black man needs to prove himself more to be qualified. These have mostly focused on his associations and some have been fair and some not so much. At the same time there has been a steady drumbeat from the left that almost any criticism of Obama is defacto racist. No matter how grown up Obama is, his allies can't make the same claim. This doesn't bode well for the future.
If I were advising Obama (and obviously I'm not) I'd wait until the next public outcry. I'd have him make a statement stating that he doesn't think all of his critics are racist and that it's flat out wrong to suggest that they are. Wrong for those individuals and wrong for the country as a whole. This would gain Obama respect from independnts and it would move our society forward.

Palin and ethics

2008-09-01T20:06:00.000-07:00

A good read about her pre-Governor experience.

Palin's service on the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission is significant. First, it marks the beginning of what's become a very in-depth exposure to the intersection between government and the energy industry. Alaskans in general tend to be more attentive to energy issues because so much of their state's economy and their state government's budget depend on that industry. But Palin has been focused heavily on energy more or less continually since 2004 — a claim that neither Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or (for that matter) John McCain can make.
Second, although she'd been a reformer and opponent of government corruption/favoritism since her time as a Wasilla city councilman and then mayor, she significantly expanded those credentials — at enormous potential political risk — in her capacity as the Commisson's ethics officer.

The whole thing is worth reading.

Even more...

2008-08-30T08:09:00.000-07:00

Maybe, I'll just keep updating this as I find great stuff.
From Mark Steyn, a list of reasons why he likes her:

Third, real people don't define "experience" as appearing on unwatched Sunday-morning talk shows every week for 35 years and having been around long enough to have got both the War on Terror and the Cold War wrong. (On the first point, at the Gun Owners of New Hampshire dinner in the 2000 campaign, I remember Orrin Hatch telling me sadly that he was stunned to discover how few Granite State voters knew who he was.) Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are more or less the same age, but Governor Palin has run a state and a town and a commercial fishing operation, whereas (to reprise a famous line on the Rev Jackson) Senator Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. She's done the stuff he's merely a poseur about. Post-partisan? She took on her own party's corrupt political culture directly while Obama was sucking up to Wright and Ayers and being just another get-along Chicago machine pol (see his campaign's thuggish attempt to throttle Stanley Kurtz and Milt Rosenberg on WGN the other night).

More Palin

2008-08-30T07:45:00.001-07:00

Most of the media coverage so far has been nothing deeper than the astonishing fact that Palin is a woman. Their simple idea is that she has no value beyond a pair of ovaries and a nice smile. I was thrilled over her pick and it had nothing to do with her feminine qualities. I'm not the only one that feels that way.

Of course, already the blogosphere is abuzz with speculation that Palin was chosen because she is a woman and maybe this is true. But it is not the reason I will be pulling for her and McCain come November. For me, Sarah Palin represents many right-leaning libertarian ideas that I personally support: low taxes, gun rights, and smaller government.

Me too. If she was a man named Michael I'd still be jazzed about this.

Palin!

2008-08-29T21:01:00.000-07:00

For the first time in this entire election cycle (now going into it's third year), I'm excited about the Republican ticket. John McCain has selected Sarah Palin as his VP. Whoohoo!
The biggest problem with the GOP is corruption. This happens to every party that is unchallenged in power for a long time. Remember the Dems in '94? The Gingrich revolution kicked them out but then the Republicans fell under the same spell. Political parties can't survive the impression that they're in office solely for their own personal gain.
Palin took office a few years ago and started rooting corruption out of the Republican party in Alaska. She's campaigned against incumbents in her own party and made clear that principle is more important than power. Elevating her is exactly the message that needed to be sent. Every party goes through rotten patches, this is a big step towards weeding their way out.
Her big minus is that she hasn't been in office for long, only two years. I'd been hoping that she would be the front-runner for the 2012 race but she seems to have grabbed the tiger by the ears. Two things here, first she's at least as experienced as the Presidential nominee for the Dems, maybe more so. Certainly she has more executive experience, though I'm sure Obama has been better briefed on foreign policy. I'll reserve some judgement until I hear her speak.
The second thing is that there is a difference between Pres and VP. If elected, she'll have some time to soak up the foreign policy stuff. Obama would really be in charge 'on day one', as they say. Worst case scenario, she's thrust into the top job very quickly then she'd simply have to lean on the machinery until she figured things out. I belive this would be true of an VP who suddenly takes over.
I think she's a great pick, truly one of the rising stars of the GOP. I've been leaning towards voting libertarian but this might have done enough to bring me back. Sarah Palin!

Secrets & Lies

2008-07-24T19:32:00.000-07:00

You may have seen these commercials:

(Yes, the 'hero' bit from the second one is over the top.)
At issue is something called 'card check'. It would allow union advocates to bypass secret ballot elections in favor of having workers sign a card to show their support. Here's an article detailing the history and possible future from Reason.
Opponents fear that it would allow unions to bully people into supporting them. Co-workers can exert a large amount of influence, especially if they're sitting right next to you when you're trying to decide. Unions know this and are counting on it. Otherwise this wouldn't be important to them.
The Minnesota DFL has filed a complaint about the above ads.

The DFL, in a complaint under Minnesota election laws to the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, said that claim is false and that in fact the bill would guarantee the right to secret ballots.

That's right. If the potential union leaders want a secret ballot, they can still have one. The problem is that they can do without one if they don't. That means that the guarantee that the DFL is claiming only goes one way. Whichever way the union wants and any employee that's worried about what his coworkers think can go suck rocks.
This won't be a deciding issue in 2008. There are obviously bigger things to worry about. Still I think it's worth pointing out the almost Orwellian response from the MN DFL. They don't care about the little people, only the powerful on their own side.

"They still don't."

2008-06-26T10:28:00.000-07:00

From Roger Simon:

Whatever one thinks about the neocons, they had virtually the only program, the only idea of how to right the world after 9/11. Conventional liberalism and conventional liberals had nothing to say. They still don’t. Maybe the neocons over-reached in their idealism, but they are looking a lot better lately.

That's the huge problem that I have with modern liberalism. We're almost seven years past 9/11 and they haven't offered a different path. Preemption sucks? Ok, what else do you have?

Correction

2008-06-24T05:22:00.000-07:00

My friend that I mentioned below is not an Obama supporter. Undecided might be the best description.

Iran

2008-06-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

I've been emailing back and forth with a friend of mine who is an Obama supporter. I've got some general criticisms of Obama that I'd have for most candidates from the left, mostly summed by saying there is an over reliance on government. With Obama specifically, I think that he's very weak on foreign policy. My friend sent me some links to try and persuade me. The first was to his foreign policy page. The one that interests me most is the section on Iran.

The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

Ok, with the first sentence we agree on the problems that Iran creates. The rest is kind of a strawman as no one thinks we've exhausted our non-military options. Also, and this is big, we may not have direct diplomatic meetings with Iran but it's false to suggest that we have no contact or communication with them. Lots of diplomacy goes on in the background.

Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

I think that's a bit too cynical but it's a perfectly defensible position. In other words, I disagree but have no large beef with him.

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

What does 'tough, direct presidential diplomacy' mean? We'll meet without preconditions and then offer them nothing new? I say nothing new because the demands and incentives offered here are virtually identical to what Bush and McCain have been saying all along. Does Obama think that his personal presence will somehow push the Iranians into abandoning something important to them? And seriously, will more sanctions make them stop?
I agree with his last sentence here, that that kind of settlement is the best way to make progress. The problem is what happens if the Iranians disagree? What if they believe that nukes are important enough that a few more years of sanctions are worth them? What if they believe that a President Obama would never ever go to war with them? What if the official Iranian government can't control elements of the country that will continue to support terrorism? What happens then?
We certainly don't know from Obama. If diplomacy doesn't work he gives us no hint as to what he'd do. That troubles me. I know the Dems have had lots of fun for the last seven years pretending that Bush never talks to anyone. It's been cute as a debating point. Could they really believe it? Talking with enemies is usually a good thing and I'm open to convincing that the photo op we give up is worth an open line of dialogue. But diplomacy isn't a magic wand and this isn't couples counseling. Some kind of next step must be at least contemplated. I haven't seen anything from Obama to suggest that he has.

Huck for VP?

2008-06-16T07:02:00.000-07:00

I keep seeing that suggestion around the net and I think it's a terrible one. If McCain taps the Huckster for his running mate then I'll be casting a vote for Bob Barr. It's that simple. The man's blend of populism and identity politics aren't something I can support in any measure. Frankly, I hope that someone steps forward in the next four years and challenges him intellectually so we can pull the curtain back.
There's a strong intersection between conservatism and religious belief. Evangelicals and other religious folks are a strong core element of the right here in America. Currently they're being seduced by the idea that government, used properly, can be a useful tool for helping people. In the beginning (and in small doses) that's probably true. The problem is that it won't stay there. The tools will get bigger and unrecognizable. What started out as noble and pure will become bureaucratic and tainted.
Remember when Reagan said that the scariest words were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help,"? I wish someone would remind Huck about that.

Exit Left Stage

2008-06-04T20:04:00.000-07:00

I'm not the last bit sad to see the Clintons beaten. The only plus to a Hillary nomination is that McCain would almost certainly have an easier time against her in the general election. Frankly, that's not enough of a plus to have her hanging around.
It's interesting how many of the Clintons former defenders have begun to hate them. Some of that is just passion of the campaign stuff but quite a bit is real live hatred. They've noticed how self-serving, selfish and flat out dishonest they are. Newsflash; the same was true back in the 90's.
Can't help but feel that this post is a bit premature for two reasons. One, this thing really isn't over until the convention in August (if then). I wouldn't put it past them to 'concede' in name only and still keep up a shadow campaign. Two, I also don't doubt that if she someday does become the nominee, even if it's 2012 or 2016 that many of her now loudest detractors will somehow find it in themselves to vote for her.
Still, let's hope that the lessons have been learned and that they are finally done. It's really for the good of the nation.

A Great Idea

2008-05-17T18:21:00.001-07:00

Long live the Polar Bear.

Chandler's Dumb States Game

2008-05-10T07:09:00.000-07:00

Obama wins.

Rev Wright

2008-04-30T19:14:00.000-07:00

Setting aside questions of association with Obama, the saddest part of the Rev Wright affair is how many Obama fans have seen the need to try and explain that Wright's views are justified. Now that the candidate himself has said that those views are objectionable, I wonder how many people will rethink those arguments.
The problem with Wright isn't that he's controversial or that he went so far as to condemn America (even as he suggests that he only meant the current gov't and not the whole nation). The problem is that he tears open racial wounds. He lives in the past, and not just a place where segregation is still alive and well. He's at a place where slavery is/was just around the corner.
This country has made great strides towards racial equality. All official barriers have been broken and the corporate world is falling over itself to hire and promote priorities. Opportunities are out there for everyone if they're willing to grab them.
Wright and his brethren are the biggest obstacles to further progress. Let's hope that somehow this whole turn of events will discredit them. I've got the audacity for just that hope.

Most Depressing Read for today

2008-04-08T17:27:00.000-07:00

(Via Instapundit) 10 Pieces of U.S. Infrastructure We Must Fix Now

I wonder...if you added up all of the earmarked pork that Congress spends each year and instead devoted it to these projects, would that cover it?

Vice President Bob Barr

2008-03-21T15:50:00.000-07:00

Just saw this article over at Reason talking about Bob Barr as a potential Libertarian Party candidate. This could be trouble for the GOP as a credible LP candidate could cost a few percentage points in several states. That could easily be the margin of difference in places like Florida.
But what if McCain asked Barr to be his running mate? This could kill several birds with a single stone. Barr has impeccable conservative credentials, probably moreso than McCain. He would help energize the small government wing of the right back to the GOP. After eight years of Bush, that would be a much needed thing.
Most of the focus on possible VP picks have centered on finding a minority candidate to counter either Obama or Clinton. This is extremely short sighted and would clearly be seen as an affirmative action pick rather than a best possible person. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal are both rising stars but they need more time and experience before they take the national stage. 2012 or 2016 probably, but not quite yet.

Can I Just Say

2008-03-13T06:47:00.000-07:00

That I'm finding the Dem nomination process amusing as all get out? I'm not the only one...

David Mamet

2008-03-12T16:42:00.000-07:00

A very interesting read.

NYT saves McCain?

2008-02-23T07:43:00.000-08:00

From Megan McArdle:

As longtime readers of the blog know, I'm related to the Swing Voter, aka my mother. Her vote is an infallible indicator of who will win the general election. We had dinner last night, and somewhat to my surprise, The Swing Voter is completely outraged by the New York Times story--she vows to no longer take the Times, nay, not even for the Sunday crossword. She is also now thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times.

I'll almost certainly vote for McCain come November so the Times didn't really change my vote at all. I was surprised at how angry I was by the story, though. It's so clearly a hit piece and a slimy one at that. Can't help but think that this is exactly the sort of thing that will help doubtful conservatives off the fence.
Look, we expect the NYT to tilt towards the left. We expect that their reporters will see things through a liberal prism. We also expect that they will act professionally and stay above naked muckraking. When they don't even play by their own (sanctimoniously held) rules, it just stokes the fires.

Why Huckabee Will Never Get My Vote

2007-12-14T18:45:00.000-08:00

I've finally run across something that sums up my thoughts on the man completely.

Rich, I think what a lot of evangelicals may be missing here is that many non-evangelical conservatives are completely baffled, and frustrated, by the amount of support for the non-conservative Bush-channeling Huckabee. When we sit back and look at the amount of frustration and consternation that Bush has caused among conservatives, and then see Huckabee (who represents everything bad about Bush, with few of his positive characteristics) gaining the support of a fourth of our party, we have to ask ourselves why. The most obvious answer seems to be that he is attracting so much support because he is the only evangelical candidate in the race. To many conservatives, well at least to me, this idea that we should betray conservative principles in order to support a candidate with the right religious credentials is more than shocking, it is abhorrent, and the result is an anti-evangelical backlash. I consider myself a social conservative, and share so much common ground with evangelicals that it truly hurts me to see the strain being placed on our relationship. But as long as their power is used to push a statist non-conservative candidate on our party, we will not be seeing eye-to-eye.

I will vote third party before I vote for that man. His meteoric rise in the polls has been deeply disheartening to me. I just can't believe that so many people can see him as a serious candidate for the Republican nominee.
I'm not a 'social conservative' though I agree with them on many things (importance of family, public morality, standards and values). I don't like the fact that the presidency is seen as some kind of standard bearer in our cultural wars but I don't expect that to change anytime soon. It's not that big a deal to me, certainly not a deal breaker.
But. The vibe of this campaign is becoming more and more that Republican = Christian, and we'll deal with all that other messy stuff later. Sorry, but I don't like that one little bit.
There is a natural intermarriage between more religious folk and more conservative ones. There is a mutual respect for tradition and order. The increasing demands for more religion is straining that marriage. I don't like it and it will spell disaster both electorally and for the future of both groups.
Great column by Peggy Noonan on this same topic today, btw.

I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.

The Big Things

2007-09-25T05:05:00.000-07:00

One of the defenses of Bush that's often heard is that he gets the 'big things'. There are lots of problems that you can lay at his feet (bungling incompetence, tin-eared leadership, basic verbal inability) but on the fundamental questions he's ok. There hasn't been much proof of that during his second term but here's some evidence that it exists:

President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.
“It’s different being a candidate and being the president,” Bush said in an Oval Office interview. “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East, particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”

This must be a bipartisan effort and if it's going to last generations then it will be led by both parties at some point or another. If it's Hillary (which is how I'd bet right now) then she needs to be ready when she takes office.

Facsinating article

2007-09-21T21:08:00.000-07:00

from John Derbyshire regarding 'Islamophobia'. I'm sympathetic to some of his points although I'd have to think long and hard before kicking out Muslims. Doubt I'd ever agree to that. The part that caught my attention though:

As to the cultural aridity of Islamic civilizations: well, yes. This is not an exceptionalism belonging to Islam, though. The exceptionalism belongs to us, to the West. We are dynamic and creative; we are fired by curiosity to inquire into the natural order; we are driven by imagination to set off and explore remote places; our culture progresses through developmental stages, each building on the last: Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassical... Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment... Romanesque, Gothic, Perpendicular... Classical, Romantic, Modern... City-state, empire, feudalism, monarchy, constitutionalism...

We are the exception: civilization-wise, stasis and aridity are the rule, not just in Islam, but everywhere. Halfway through his monumental History of China (1882), Demetrius Boulger broke off from the long catalog of border wars and palace plots to offer this illuminating apology to his readers:

It might be more instructive to trace the growth of thought among the masses, or to indicate the progress of civil and political freedom; yet not only do the materials not exist for such a task, but those we possess all tend to show that there has been no growth to describe, no progress to be indicated during these comparatively recent centuries. It is the peculiar and distinguishing characteristic of Chinese history that the people and their institutions have remained practically unchanged ... from a very early period. Even the introduction of a foreign element has not tended to disturb the established order of things. The supreme ruler preserves the same attributes and discharges the same functions; the governing classes are chosen in the same manner; the people are bound in the same state of servitude, and enjoy the same practical liberty; all is now as it was. Neither under the Tangs nor the Sungs, undeer the Yuans or the Mings [i.e. from the seventh to the seventeenth centuries — these are the names of Chinese dynasties] was there any change in national character or in political institutions to be noted or chronicled. ... This condition of things may be disappointing to those who pride themselves in tracing the origin of constitutions and the growth of civil rights, and who would have a history of China the history of the Chinese people ... the fact is undoubted that there is no history of the Chinese people, apart from that of their country, to be recorded. The national institutions and character were formed, and had attained in all essentials to their present state, more than 2,000 years ago.

We are very used to the idea of continuing progress but it's a fallacy. Civilizations can also go backwords or go through long periods of time (dark ages) when there is no movement at all. Imagine a China that never had European visitors. Where would they be today?

Banned books

2007-09-03T20:40:00.000-07:00

Just ran across this post about banned books over at Andrew Sullivan's digs, bewailing the 'banning and challenging' of books. It points us over to this release here with the ten most challenged books of 2006:

The "10 Most Challenged Books of 2006" reflect a range of themes, and consist of the following titles:

"And Tango Makes Three" by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, for homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group;

"Gossip Girls" series by Cecily Von Ziegesar for homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive language;

"Alice" series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor for sexual content and offensive language;

"The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things" by Carolyn Mackler for sexual content, anti-family, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;

"The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison for sexual content, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;

"Scary Stories" series by Alvin Schwartz for occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence, and insensitivity;

"Athletic Shorts" by Chris Crutcher for homosexuality and offensive language.

"The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky for homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, and unsuited to age group

"Beloved" by Toni Morrison for offensive language, sexual content, and unsuited to age group;

"The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier for sexual content, offensive language, and violence.

Now, what do these books have in common? They are almost all being challenged as 'unsuited to age group'. In common English I think that means that parents are asking schools to keep them away from kids because they're not age appropriate. They simply don't want their kids to read about homosexuality and drug use (etc.) until they're older.
I'm probably more open minded about when kids can handle mature themes than most so I'd probably disagree with the parents here but I can understand where they're coming from. The desire to have some control over when your children must understand advanced themes is normal and rational.
Two things come to mind here. The first is that the poster is being hysterical (I know, big surprise from that site). He opens the post with a quote:

Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings -- Heinrich Heine (1821)

Keep in mind that any adult can read any of these books without the slightest problem. I could order this whole set on Amazon and no one would care at all. We might be a ways away from burning people.
The second thing that I wonder about is where all of the people that were up in arms over Joe Camel are? Shouldn't they be defending parents in these situations? If a cartoon character playing pool will take over a child's life, won't a full length book have an even more profound effect? Or vice versa, where are the book banning handwringers when it comes to blocking ads on children's shows because they show food that's too sweet?
'Where they have burned sweetened cereal, they will end up in burning farmers'...or something like that.

Redistricting

2007-08-28T17:24:00.000-07:00

Pretty good article on the NYT reaction to a proposed initiative to change California's electoral allotment. The short term impact would probably favor Republicans but as the article points out, there is no way to know how the parties would react in the long term.

The more serious questions about any change in the framework of the electoral college are, what would be the institutional and behavioral effects? How would each of our parties adapt, or fail to adapt? How would presidential campaigning change to take in the new situation? And what about the future of our two-party system itself?

For the record, I'm not in favor of playing around with the existing set up without lots and lots of study. There are disadvantages to the two party system we have here but there are also some pretty big positives, too.
The biggest gain we have is in stability. Neither party completely fits all the ideals of any one person. That leads to some healthy skepticism amongst the voters. It also drives both parties towards the middle and away from extremism. This is a good thing.

In other news...

2007-07-26T14:21:00.000-07:00

the cats and I voted to impeach Harry Reid. What do you mean we don't have the authority?

The lay of the land

2007-07-24T19:14:00.000-07:00

A map of the electoral map (as suggested by current polling) is found here. Looks like the 2000 and 2004 maps, don't it?

If I was the suspicous sort...

2007-07-05T17:42:00.000-07:00

I'd wonder if this wasn't a plant from one of her opponents. Still, very funny!

Hypocrisy

2007-07-04T14:50:00.000-07:00

(Via Instapundit) is this column about the hypocrisy of the Dems that are condemning Bush.

Pelosi had a much different understanding of fairness, justice and the importance of upholding the law back in 1999, when Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 imprisoned members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution of disapproval, but Pelosi said she would have voted no had she been present for the tally. Pelosi was thus defending Clinton’s commutations of sentences received for seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to make bombs, bank robbery and illegal possession of stolen firearms, among other things. Between 1974 and 1983, FALN mounted numerous attacks against this nation’s police and military, killing six people and maiming many others.

Yep, this affair has (once again) shown that many on the left can't see any further into an issue than Bush's involvement. Once they get there, they run around and scream and bring no further analysis to an issue. Some self-awareness of this would go along way towards seeing them as trustworthy on big issues.
But...shouldn't we be asking the Bush administration (every administration really) to be better than the Clinton one?

Presidential powers - The Hillary Angle

2007-07-04T06:02:00.000-07:00

With all of the anger and hysteria being thrown Bush's way, it's worthwhile to turn the memory machine back a few years.

Hillary, yesterday:
"And what we saw today was further evidence that this administration has no regard whatsoever for what needs to be held sacred. And when I'm president we're going to get back to cherishing the Constitution, upholding the rule of law and putting forth the best values of America for the entire world to see again."
Yes. Because the Clinton Presidency was just one long celebration of the rule of law, with no perjury, no suborning perjury, no pardons for sketchy millionaires, no Chinese money finding its way into DNC coffers, no disappearing and reappearing law firm records, no Chinese businessmen comparing the White House to a subway that you have to pay to enter, no fundraisers at Buddhist temples... no, none of that.
That's right. The Clinton administration respected the "rule of law" by ensuring a high wall stood between the FBI and CIA on combatting terrorism, and determined that authorizing the Northern Alliance to hit Osama bin Laden's caravan would be unlawful because women and children were present. Yes, we all know how beneficial that dedication to the rule of law was...

Bush commutes Libby's sentence

2007-07-02T18:19:00.000-07:00

Story here. Frankly, I think this is a terrible move. I've long thought that the whole Wilson imbroglio was very very oversold. The actual leak that got Plame's name in the news was from Richard Armitage, not Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald didn't deign to prosecute Armitage, which says something about the seriousness of the leak.
Libby was basically prosecuted for having different memories than a bunch of journalists, hardly a high crime. He was transparently convicted because members of the jury are upset with the administration. It was hard to see this as real justice being done.
But. It was also due process in action. A jury gave a verdict and a properly commissioned judge handed down a sentence. As much as I disagree with how it got there, we should respect the process. Bush's actions undermine that.
In the late 90's, conservatives argued that perjury was important and that being part of a political administration shouldn't protect someone from breaking the law. If we still believe that, we should be upset by this. I did and I am.
Update: The counter argument here.

Immigration

2007-06-30T13:57:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted much on immigration, mostly because my own views don't match either of the two major viewpoints. I recognize the danger of large unassimilated populations within the US but I think the Hispanic communities are (mostly) assimilating more than they're given credit for. That's true in Minnesota at least. The story may be radically different in southern California, Texas and Florida.
The other side of the coin is that border security is an important thing. Every nation has the right to protect it's own borders and the right to decide who and who can't come in. That's probably the biggest piece of sovereignty along with deciding it's own laws. If those laws limit the amount of immigration, than so be it.
On the labor front I think the positive impact of 12 million illegals is overstated. On the other hand, we've enjoyed low unemployment for a number of years so they aren't flooding the labor market. And if they disappeared tomorrow, it'd cause a big hole in the economy. This probably argues for an increase in the legal amount allowed.
What brought this to mind was a piece by Peggy Noonan on how we become American. She comes from an east coast, melting pot frame of reference that I think is a useful guide to how should continue.

This is the way it goes in America. You start as the Outsider and wind up the Insider, or at least being viewed as such by the newest Outsiders. We are a nation of still-startling social fluidity. Anyone can become "American," but they have to want to first.

There's obviously a huge number of people who want to become 'American' in the best sense of the word. That's a good thing and we should be working on ways to encourage them.

Even as a cat guy

2007-06-28T06:59:00.000-07:00

I don't see how this story doesn't hurt Romney quite badly.

Make that 'Sir' Rushdie

2007-06-18T20:38:00.000-07:00

I'm not a huge fan of Queen Elizabeth's track record of knighting folks. My notion is that Sir Whatsisname should do something more important than right pop songs. Quaint notions of bravery and whatnot. But this time she's making a good choice by awarding a knighthood to Salman Rushdie.
You may remember him as the author of 'The Satanic Verses', a book that caused a fatwa to be issued, calling for his death. Well, some people still remember.

Pakistan has condemned Britain's award of a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie as an affront to Muslim sentiments, and a Cabinet minister said the honor provided a justification for suicide attacks.
"This is an occasion for the (world's) 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, said in parliament.

"The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title," ul-Haq said.

Read that last sentence again. Who could possibly accuse someone of extremism for advocating suicide bombings in response to a knighthood? Seriously, there really is a problem with people that react this way.
Looking around at Reason (everyone's favorite libertarian mag), I ran across this interview with the author from 2005. In it, he talks about that fatwa, his political evolution and how to honestly deal with this virulent strain of Islam.

Reason: You wrote an essay criticizing President Bush and other Western leaders for claiming after 9/11 that "this is not about Islam." In what way is this about Islam?
Rushdie: Well, you know, that was said for good reasons. It was said to minimize the backlash against Muslims. But just in terms of actual fact, it is absurd. It is not about football.

The fact that it is about a particular idea of Islam that many Muslims would reject does not mean it is not about Islam. The Christian Coalition is still about Christianity, even if it's an idea of Christianity that many Christians might not go along with.
Reason: What they mean is that it is not about Islam properly understood. That it is about certain extreme followers of Islam who might not be interpreting the religion correctly.
Rushdie: Yes, but Wahhabi Islam is becoming very powerful these days. To say that it is not about Islam is to not take the world as it really is.

Interesting stuff from one of our most important contemporary authors.

Gay Marriage in Mass.

2007-06-16T08:18:00.000-07:00

Meant to comment on this story from MA.

Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment that would have let voters decide whether to outlaw gay marriage in the only state that allows it. The narrow vote was a blow to efforts to reverse the historic court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. The ban needed 50 votes to secure a place on the 2008 ballot. It got 45, with 151 lawmakers opposed.

I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage so I don't have a problem with the outcome here. The question comes down to process and whether or not this is a legitimate extension of the governing desires of the people. Former MA Gov. Mitt Romney didn't think it was:

"they could either take the decision away from the people or they could give the decision to the people, and the state legislature of Massachusetts decided to not allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage."

He (obviously) has a better feel for what the people of MA want than I do. The most recent poll I could find seemed to find general agreement with the legislature. Absent some kind of evidence that the legislature is honestly ignoring the clear will of the people, I must disagree with Romney. Elected officials must vote for what they think is best. Since this has been a high profile issue, we have to assume that voters were informed as to where there votes would lead.
Opponents of gay marriage have (rightly) suggested that imposing it through the courts bypasses the clear will of the majority. They prefer to have the legislature make these types of decisions. Now they have.
There's a side issue here that's worth exploring. The whole idea of a referendum is to give the voting public a chance to make a direct vote on an issue. It's a way of bypassing officals that don't agree with voters. I'm not a fan of routing that process back through a state congress to get their ok on it. Kind of defeats the purpose, no?
Someday we'll have a situation where a clear majority approves gay marriage for a state. A situation that isn't muddled with court decisions or claims of illegitimacy. On that day, a clear milestone will have been passed. This one isn't so clear.

An Inconvenient Truth - 2006

2007-06-14T11:28:00.000-07:00

(In the intrest of fair disclousure, let me say that I didn't vote for Gore in 2000 and don't forsee doing so in the future. I'll gladly stipulate that warming occured over the 20th century in an amount consistent with the latest IPCC report, about one degree farenheit. The degree to which mankind is responsible is still unknown, perhaps unknowable. I'd support a complete switch over to green energy if it was practical. My personal opinion is that a switch to nuclear would be best for the country.)
I viewed watching this movie as more of a duty than a pleasure. It's been wildly popular and has sunk into the popular culture. It's been widely lauded and even received an Oscar. Various assertions are taken as talking points in enviromental discussions. I expected that I'd disagree with parts of it but be swayed by others. Frankly, I was shocked at how misleading and dishonest it was. (Even the FP Gal, much more to the left than I am, felt that way.)
First the compliments. Al Gore certainly knows how to give a good demonstration. He's at his best when he embraces his wonky reputation and plays off of it. His slides are simple and easy to understand. The only real negative from a movie standpoint were the many cuts to Gore in other parts of his life. These came off as a campaign commercial. You can use elements of any pol's childhood to illustrate whatever you want if you have a forgiving director and good writing.
The biggest problem was the science. Gore is consistently misleading as he moves from issue to issue. Problems of hidden context, poor analogy and obvious half truths were everywhere. Some examples?

There is a section where he talks about 0 peer reviewed studies that disagree with global warming. Here's a selection of 13 that disagree with elements of his presentation. There is reason to doubt.
He includes a quote from some internal memo from a skeptic, “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of creating a controversy in the public’s mind.” I'm guessing that you can find some damning quote from any group of people if you look hard enough. Here's one from Stephen Schneider, a climate scientist talking to the Discover magazine. "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Somehow that didn't make the film.
He shows the effect of a sudden catastrophic addition of freshwater to the North Atlantic and how that shut down the gulf stream. He infers that a slow melt off of Greenland could do the same thing. Scientists don't agree.
He suggests that Hurricane Katrina was a city killer because of warming in the Caribbean. There's an open question as to what effect climate change will have on hurricanes but the idea that a few degrees less temp were at fault is ridiculous. There was political failure at the local and national levels. There was catastrophic failure from an engineering standpoint that caused the levees to fail. Katrina was a Cat 3 storm when it hit New Orleans, big and (obviously) dangerous but not unprecedented by any means.

And so on and so forth. Early in the movie, Gore admonishes us,

“What gets us into trouble is not what you don’t know, but what you think you know that just ain’t so.”

This is a call to keep an open and skeptical mind. It's too bad he doesn't follow his own advice and it's bad science that tries to keep others from doing so.

(Crossposted at Futurepoltergeist)

Thank you

2007-01-15T19:47:00.000-08:00

Every so often I stumble across a post that crystalizes something that's been rattling around my head for the last few month. One such post is here:

Now, of course, I supported the war, so I can be expected to say something like what I am about to say. My only excuse is that I have been thinking hard about this, trying to pick out what went wrong, and I think that I am willing to admit where I was wrong. I was wrong to impute too much confidence to my ability to interpret Saddam Hussein's actions; I was wrong to not foresee how humiliating Iraqis would find being liberated by the westerners who have been tramping around their country, breaking things for their own reasons and with little regard for the Iraqi people, for several hundred years. I was wrong to impute excessive competence to the government--and not just the Bush administration, but to any government occupation.

However.

This has not convinced me of the brilliance of the doves, because precisely none of the ones that I argued with predicted that things would go wrong in the way they did. If you get the right result, with the wrong mechanism, do you get credit for being right, or being lucky? In some way, they got it just as wrong as I did: nothing that they predicted came to pass. It's just that independantly, things they didn't predict made the invasion not work. If I say we shouldn't go to dinner downtown because we're going to be robbed, and we don't get robbed but we do get food poisoning, was I "right"? Only in some trivial sense. Food poisoning and robbery are completely unrelated, so my belief that we would regret going to dinner was validated only by random chance. Yet, the incident will probably increase my confidence in my prediction abilities, even though my prediction was 100% wrong.

That's how I feel too. I remember there being little to no dispute over whether Saddam had WMD. That didn't require lies from the Bush administration; it was the overwhelming belief of both sides. I don't remember predictions of sectarian civil war. If they were made, they weren't prominent.
My side of the argument was wrong about a number of things and that erodes my trust in the decisions that are made from the same set of judgements. But I don't really have any more confidence in the other side either. They can keep there 'blood for oil' theories and their freudian psychology. I don't trust a group of pacifists with foreign policy.

Bush

2007-01-11T07:21:00.000-08:00

The striking thing when listening to the left these days is how hard it is for them to get past Bush. Reaction to the speech last night was predictable from their side, they dismissed it out of hand. They've lost any confidence they had in his ability to lead, so that's fair enough. What strikes me is the petty things they watch for.

How was his tone?
Did he smirk?
Could anything he said have been intrepreted as 'disagreement is unpatriotic'?
Did he apologize enough? How much crow did he eat?

That's it. Hardly any analysis of what he actually had to say or whether or not it could work. Just pettiness.
When Clinton used force in Kosovo, there were many conservative critics that warned of the possible dire consequences of those actions. (Interestingly, their criticism was correct - if applied to Iraq.) Some of their objections were obviously based on partisanship and mistrust of Clinton's leadership. But they never based important decisions on his body language.
What do I think of the plan? I don't know. I've been proven so wrong on many other things in Iraq that I don't really know the way forward. I suspect that the way out of this is to just ride out the sectarian violence. It was inevitable, and frankly we were blind to it. But 'inevitable' doesn't mean eternal. It will subside.
Stopping arms from Iran and Syria would also help. That's a military problem and frankly one that I think is doable. Our political will is probably not there though, so it probably won't happen.

New Congress

2007-01-04T18:58:00.000-08:00

The very best thing the Dems can do now that they are in charge is to work on party neutral 'good government' things. Things like more transperancy and fewer earmarks. Another thing they could do is spearhead a policy of more natural districts.
Let's see if they do the smart thing.

Territory

2007-01-03T08:29:00.000-08:00

From the Strib's Jan 2nd letters:

coyote coexistence
We're on their land
Nowhere in Dec. 27 story "Coyotes love the suburbs but the feeling isn't mutual" did the term "urban sprawl" appear.
We have infringed on the habitat of wildlife, not the other way around.
I was amused by the comment by DNR Deputy Director Ed Boggess suggesting that coyotes have moved to the refuge of the suburbs to avoid being shot in rural areas.
If we hadn't invaded their territory and driven them away, the suburbs would still be a rural area -- and natural habitat to the animals.
KATHY BLOMQUIST, ST. PAUL

Kathy, if you'd like to start us off by moving to someplace that wasn't the territory of large predators in the past, go ahead and do so. I'm hard pressed to figure out where that would have been but you seem so certain in your stance that maybe you have someplace in mind.

Election results

2006-11-08T06:41:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to jot down some early thoughts post-election. Republicans deserved to lose this one. Their biggest flaw was inablility to control spending. I can only hope they learn that lesson. If I were drawing up a Contract of America 2, I'd put that one near the top.
Their second biggest flaw happened in individual elections, but in enough of them to really matter. Many Republicans seemed to think that they owned their spots. Gutknecht is the prime Minnesota example. He didn't realize he was in a tough fight until it was too late. His silly games with the primary ballot emphasized that. Heinlein said, "A king should always have a noose around his neck. It keeps him upright." Any pol who acts like he doesn't have to work to retain his seat deserves to loose it.
The third flaw was evident in Minnesota political ads (don't know about nationwide). The negative ads focused on tactical things instead of differances in ideas. Kennedy attacked Klobuchar's record as a prosecutor, especially in regard to plea bargins. But any adult person knows that plea bargins are part of the system. (And that issue allowed her to put sympathetic victims on TV.) If he'd have emphasized their different ideas of government or stance on Iraq he'd have been better off.
Example ad, with muted strings: Amy Klobuchar believes that we should withdraw troops from Iraq as soon as we can (nonscary picture of Klobuchar). While frustration with the war is understandable, she overlooks the dangers of enouraging global terrorists with a victory. Mark Kennedy belives that the only way to defeat them is to show them that we're in this struggle for the long haul. [Cut to Kennedy] It'll be difficult but I know we're up to the task. The America I believe in will bear any burden to end this menace. [Kennedy for Senate]

There is a bright spot here for the right. Dems now have the burden of governance. They've run as fiscal conservatives. We'll hold them to that. They've run against corruption. If one of their own comes up dirty we should demand accountablility. They've run against the conducted war in Iraq. We must demand a different option from them. When they're in charge those answers won't look so easy.
The 2008 election is about new blood from both sides. It'll be the most open election in more than 50 years. It's good that both sides will have to be engaged with ideas instead of endless criticism.

Typical Andrew Sullivan

2006-10-14T20:26:00.000-07:00

So I just ran across this on Sullivan's blog,

As Jon Stewart said of John McCain, Giuliani has turned his straight talk express into a bus to bulls**t-town. The Stranger notices the U-turn.

I'm a big fan of Giuliani so I clicked on over to see what the Stranger was talking about. After favoring the assault weapon ban back in '04 he is now endorsing a candidate who opposes it. That's the sell out. From the Stranger:

Speaking to a group of reporters at the Sheraton Hotel downtown, where he was hosting a $1,000Â$2,100-a-plate fundraiser for McGavick on Monday, October 9, Giuliani said this: "I don't think [the assault-weapons ban] is one of the most critical issues right now."

That's it. Even though they disagree on an issue, Giuliani thinks that McGavick is still a good choice. Apparently this never happens in Sullivan's world. Which is odd since he's currently supporting Democrats because the Republican party isn't conservative enough. The case that the Stranger wants to make is pretty weak anyway. Earlier in the piece he quotes Giuliani, "Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special-interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues,". This is obviously an attempt to paint Rudi as a sell out. But nothing quoted in this article suggests that he's changed his mind on assault weapons, only that he thinks the overall picture outweighs that one piece. It's shoddy reasoning and it's embarrassing that Sullivan would link this approvingly.

Disgraceful

2006-10-08T18:28:00.000-07:00

The Strib's coverage of the congressional race in my district has been pretty poor. Serious accusations about Ellison (DFL) have gone unresearched. Apparently anything goes as far as his main opponent Fine (GOP). Yesterday the Strib had a front page piece about a domestic dispute Fine had with his then wife back in '95. There was a he said/she said charge that was dropped without ever going to court. Not mentioned in the article, but important, is that Fine was awarded custody of their child when they split up. It's highly doubtful that the court system would award him custody if they believed he had beaten his wife.
The piece seemed slanted to me. The final paragraph:

After state Rep. Keith Ellison won the DFL nomination, Fine launched a persistent attack on his character, focusing on his past ties to the Nation of Islam. Fine has repeatedly said "character matters."

This seems like a gotcha to me. But fair people can argue that this is an important thing to know about a possible elected official. There are also questions about how the Strib got ahold of the records.
My outrage came when I read this on Powerline.

If the Strib thinks it's front page news that a Congressional candidate has been involved in a 911 call--hey, even if he made the call himself!--then it wouldn't have to go back to 1995 for a story. No, it could have reported on a 911 call that a young woman made on May 16, 2005, saying that she had been assaulted by Keith Ellison: CLR RPT'G [Caller reporting] SHE WAS ASL'TD BY ELLISON/KEITH/BM/41/WRG SUIT LS [last seen] LEAVING APT …UNK DIR [unknown direction]…NO EMS [emergency medical services needed]…CLR WANTS TO SEE SQD [police squad]

So Ellison has been involved in a similar situation in the past year. The Strib has been strangely quiet about that. Maybe not so strange after all.

2006-09-24T16:21:00.000-07:00

Very cool map (via Volokh). It shows the history of the middle east in about 90 seconds.

Trust in voting

2006-09-19T06:17:00.000-07:00

Good column by Glenn Reynolds on the twin problems of fraud that worry voters. He discusses the vulnerability of computerized voter machines:

Computers are inherently insecure, and electronic voting machines are basically computers. As this report illustrates (complete with video), Princeton researchers were able to hack a Diebold voting machine in short order.

His suggestion is a return to paper ballots. The machines used here in Minnesota use an optical scanner and I've never heard of fraud allegations with them. The key is to have an easy to understand system of voting and a high degree of certainty that your vote is recorded correctly. Our current system seems to pass both of those tests.
He also talks about the other problem:

But moving beyond the hardware, we also need to look at voting procedures. Machine fraud, after all, is only one form of voting fraud. That means we need to work harder at ensuring that voters are actually eligible to vote, and that they don't vote more than once. This means stricter identification processes at polling places, cleaner voter-registration lists, and techniques of the sort used in other countries (finger-inking, for example) to ensure that people don't cast multiple votes.

This really is an ignored problem. Reynolds notes that the ID burden is higher to buy alcohol than it is to vote. What's worse, the burden to rent a DVD is higher too. We simply aren't serious enough about this. And frankly, both sides of that equation need to be fixed.

Hurricane season

2006-09-10T20:10:00.000-07:00

September 10th is the traditional high point of the hurricane season. As of today we've had six named storms and only two hurricanes. Ernesto was only a hurricane for about half a day. Florence is only category one. The 2006 season was forecast to be above average in terms of number and severity of storms. So far it's been well below (knock on wood).
I mention this for one reason. After last year's bad season there began to be speculation that global warming was creating more extreme weather. Fears have been raised that rising temperatures will create more Katrinas. Al Gore made the direct connection with his movie this spring.
Does a milder season this year mean that the earth is cooling? Of course not. Random variations in weather create different circumstances. The overall number from this season won't mean anything. That only makes sense. Of course, it made the same sense last year!
It'd be nice if an important subject like climate change could be discussed calmly and openly. Instead we get overreaction to any data that supports theories of warming. Anyone that disputes it is painted as a flat earther or an industry shill. Very frustrating.

Change of dynamic?

2006-09-05T20:56:00.000-07:00

Interesting news today out of the Gulf of Mexico.

Move over, Alaska. Geoscientists have made what may be the nation's largest oil discovery off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas.

The region may hold 15 billion barrels of oil, enough to increase the US oil reserves by 50%. The article is full of wet blanketry, discussing how long it'll take this oil to make a difference at the pump. It also suggests that this will only reduce US dependence on foreign sources.
Two things here, the process being used to get this oil is revolutionary. Most wells in that area are on the continental shelf, drilling about 1700 feet down. This oil was extracted about 20,000 feet down. That means that entirely new areas of oil exploration are possible. This will almost certainly lead to other larger oil finds.
And the second thing is the effect this will have on world oil markets. In the past, OPEC has lowered the price of oil to discourage this type of exploration. If this find was coupled with sensible drilling in ANWAR (about 10 billion barrels) it would change the pricing dynamic. With luck, new deposits will end up in the hands of friendlier people. The Scots and Norwegians for instance.
One other thing, it's been noted that gas prices track pretty cloesly to Bush's approval ratings. They've been falling lately and this news could push them even lower. Most of the bad polls for Republicans are based on the possibility of the right staying home. This could change that.
(Oh, and one other thing. The oil companies were beat up pretty badly earlier in the year when it was announced that they're enjoying record profits. They answered that the profits were being invested in exploration and new development. Today we saw the exploration part of the equation.)

Free speech vs National Security

2006-08-20T12:22:00.000-07:00

My previous post mentioned the Strib's desire to treat terrorism as solely a law enforcement problem. This past week saw a highly publicized court decision calling for a halt to the 'eavesdropping' program on the argument that it's harming the ability for journalists and professors to communicate with contacts overseas. The ability to get inside of enemy correspondence is crucial in any war. Moreso against terrorists who rely so much on camoflauge and anonyminity. This ruling makes a law enforcement approach much more difficult. So the Strib is unhappy with it, right? Of course not:

Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit has ripped a yawning hole in Bush administration's claims that it can use warrantless electronic surveillance on communications between people in the United States and people abroad who have a possible connection to Al-Qaida. This is a big victory for American civil liberties, at least temporarily.

No explanation is made to bolster the constitutional arguments put forth here. The editorial even calls the judges reasoning brilliant. Well, the NY Times, no friend of the Bush administration, has an interesting article here (registration required).

Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.
They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.

I understand the desire to protect civil liberties. I share that desire. If I had a magic wand I'd roll back considerable amounts of government power. But this is a case of misplaced anger. There's a pretty good post about this from Andy McCarthy at NRO. He highlights some hypocricy in the arguments against. But his closing lines get at the heart of the problem.

So which is it? Is the TSP leak a big nothing that changed no one's behavior, or a bombshell that changed everyone's behavior? Evidently, it depends on which scenario the Left believes will damage the Bush administration more on any given day.

A large portion of the left believes that Bush is a more important opponent than any set of terrorists. Frankly that's shameful.

Tunnel Vision

2006-08-11T15:35:00.000-07:00

Some time around 9/12 some of the Dem leadership went on TV and mentioned that missle defense system wouldn't have done anything to prevent 9/11. That's true, I thought, but somewhat beside the point. Armored divisions wouldn't stop people on jet-liners either, but scrapping them probably wouldn't make us any safer. I was reminded of that when reading this Strib editorial today:

Candidate George W. Bush loved to lampoon the Clinton administration's emphasis on law enforcement and the legal system as tools against terrorism. They were too wimpy for him; a good, strong military action against a terror-sponsoring state was more his kind of action. And so military action we got. In Afghanistan it was essential, but in Iraq it was not. There it has increased manyfold the number of terrorists targeting the United States and worldwide animosity toward it.
Meanwhile, patient, meticulous police work in Britain and elsewhere identified and monitored this plot by a smallish, nonstate group of criminal terrorists until the need to take them down became urgent.

The rest deals with the importance of policework and cooperation between nations. That's all important. No one disputes that. The problem lies in treating the situation as if that's all that's important. Larger terrorist orginizations require training camps. These are much harder to run without sympathetic nations. Weapon development requires the same type of hands-off space. Nations can also be essential when it comes to using large amounts of money. International terrorism relies on these types of places. They also provide a safe haven.

The only method of depriving these areas from terrorists is military or the threat of the military. Sanctions aren't effective. Scrutiny (like weapons inspectors) can have some effect but they involve a fairly high risk and their effectivness probably lessens with time.

In the 90's, we used an almost exclusive law enforcement approach. The result was bigger and bigger terrorist events. The Strib (and those who share the argument) need to explain their way through this. The drawbacks to a military approach are very real and limiting, true. But continued sneers at it's use won't do anything to raise the trust level of the left when it comes to defense.

What he said

2006-08-10T21:04:00.000-07:00

Indeed.

(W)e are, alas, only at the beginning of the Global War Against Islamofascism. More than ever we need a wartime leader capable of uniting as much of the country behind him as possible. For whatever his pluses and minuses, Bush has been weak in that regard. Giuliani seems to have more abilities in that direction, although that is not to say it will be remotely easy for him. But as of this moment, there is no one else but Rudy with the vitae and the charisma to do it.

That's my impression, too. And the gravitas thing, too. One striking thing about Giuliani is that he seems to approach arguments like an adult. One incredibly off-putting element of the left over the last five years is the desire to tackle difficult questions with logic traps and childish name-calling. I can only hope that they abandon that soon.

Trust?

2006-08-08T18:02:00.000-07:00

The last few days have brought about some absolutely stunning events regarding the media coverage in Lebannon. Today's helping is here. (I believe the story started on Sunday. Roundup here.) The upshot is that you simply can't trust any pictures you're seeing from there.
For the record, I don't believe that Reuters and other wire services are intentionally misleading people. I think they're just unaware of how Hezbollah uses the media for their own propaganda. They might also lack the man power (and cynicism!) needed to double check everything.
In our current war I don't know if traditional media can afford to maintain their pie-in-the-sky Olympian ideals. They may need to reset to more of a WWII mindset and pick sides.

Expansion of powers/Who gets the blame?

2006-08-08T06:58:00.000-07:00

(Via Volokh) is this article from the WaPo. It regards a propsed ability of the administration to take over the National Guard in case of 'natural disaster of homeland emergency'. The measure is largely in response to the hammering that followed Katrina. Bush has been savegly attacked for the refusal to save New Orleans. The most common theme is that he just didn't care about the lives of black people. Almost unreported was the set of laws designed to keep the President from having control of the National Guard without direct permission from each state's governors. Permission that either wasn't granted in Katrina, or granted well after the fact.
I've got the feeling that this current attempt to fix that possible flaw will be reported, as it is here, as a desired expansion of power. Like many issues over security since 9/11 the Dems (with help from the media) have enjoyed setting up this kind of false choice. If something bad happens, it's because Bush didn't care/was incompetent/was on vacation. If any move is made to stop something from happening it's because Bush is power hungry/doesn't care about the Constitution/is just plain evil.
The opposition is never asked what the correct course of action is. Almost five years after 9/11 we still don't know what the Dem plan to shut down int'l terrorism is. Very sad.

Pork and good news

2006-07-27T06:15:00.000-07:00

I've mentioned before the online efforts to curb pork spending from congress. Well, I just stumbled (h/t Instapundit) upon this list of MN congressional votes regarding pork. A number (19) of different amendments were recently offered to curb pork. This list is the number of yes votes given to support those amendments.

Gutknecht, R 17
Kline, R 12
Ramstad, R 18
McCollum, D 0
Sabo, D 0
Kennedy, R 17
Peterson, D 0
Oberstar, D 0

You might notice a pattern there. The congressional group is split evenly between Reps and Dems. The average score is Reps 16 - Dems 0. The next time someone suggests that Reps and Dems are the same when it comes to pork, just point them here.

Melting Pots and the part that just won't melt

2006-07-27T05:52:00.000-07:00

Article in the Strib today about how the U.S. is becoming more diverse. The upshot of the article is that the more diverse it becomes, the more relaxed people tend to be about it. This agrees with what I've seen too. But the future isn't all that rosy,

Jenkins-Nelson noted that the pace of change varies by race, with Asians and Hispanics seeing more change than blacks.
She winced at any suggestion that the United States is becoming colorblind.
"Race is not a minor point for most people of color," she said. "It is what defines them from other people in this culture. We are so not there."

And that's the biggest sticking point to moving on. More and more white people (myself included) would love to move past race and judge people on individual merit. We embrace a colorblind system. But race continues to be the definition point for 'most people of color'. (I really really hope that the 'most' in that sentence isn't true.)

This country has moved far in race relations. The road has been bumpy and difficult, but it's moved. One of the largest obstacles left is convincing minority groups to drop the tribal belief that race is all encompassing and work to be recognized as individuals.

The coming Theocracy

2006-07-25T06:31:00.000-07:00

Just ran across this article surveying a number of books that warn against turning the U.S. into a theocracy. Personally, I've never feared such a thing. Large sections of my friends and family belong to the 'religious right' and I've never had the slightest fear that they were (are) trying to establish any kind of Christian state.
Their biggest political fear is that religous people are being driven from the public square. As if having religous convictions is something shameful and should be hidden from view. The sad thing is that many people will believe that the numbers behind the Christian culture justify silencing them.

Creativity

2006-07-16T16:49:00.000-07:00

Over at Althouse, I found an interesting discussion. Are liberals more creative/artistic than conservatives? It's certainly true that movies and music tend to be more liberal. The people who make them tend to be more liberal. Why?
I'll share my comment from the thread:

I think you find this same thing happening even on a local level. If you were to go to a community Ed art class, you'd be much more likely to find majority liberal crowd. The same thing is true of community theater. Don't really know why this is, but the easy answers like practicality, ability or rebellion don't really ring true to me. My theory is that liberals find being in touch with emotional things more important than conservatives do. They tend to see art as an emotional demonstration.
BTW, this may fit with Ann's remark. Great, longlasting art probably has more to do with eternal themes. Conservatives are more comfortable there.

Keith Ellison, again

2006-07-15T08:54:00.000-07:00

I wrote the other day about Keith Ellison and the late filing problems. Today there is a letter in the STrib from his wife:

My husband, Keith Ellison, didn't want me to write this letter, but I feel a strong sense of responsibility for the recent criticism he has endured regarding the lateness of his campaign reports filing.
I was his campaign treasurer while he was running for the state House. I found the rules somewhat complicated and struggled to get the reports in on time. Keith was patient with me, but asked me to continue to do my best. I hoped that as time went on I would get better at filling out the reports on time. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.
Then I learned that I was living with a chronic illness, multiple sclerosis. This helped me understand why I was having a tough time with getting things done. I didn't want to let Keith down by resigning, and I guess he didn't want to fire me either.
I'm writing because I know that Keith wasn't blowing off the campaign report deadlines. He was trying to bear with me, and I am sorry.
KIM ELLISON, MINNEAPOLIS;

I'm not going to attack a woman with MS, but this explanation doesn't seem very complete to me. Would it keep someone from ignoring six or seven attempts at collection? Let me frankly admit my ignorance on the subject and give her the benefit of the doubt.

UPDATE: And then I ran into this on Powerline. It includes a more detailed explanation of how MS effected Mrs Ellison. Frankly, it sounds like a terrible situation.