July 31, 2005

Flag In Toilet

The definition of art has really gone downhill.

    It's a painting of a star-spangled map of the United States being flushed down the toilet.

    And some people want to give it the can. The painting is part of a display of political artwork at the California attorney general's office in Sacramento.


I'm against the any kind of flag burning/desecration amendment. Why? Because it makes guys like this easy to spot.
    The controversial artwork has sparked dueling demonstrators. Some of the protesters yesterday shouted "no to censors," while others sang "God Bless America." Attorney General Bill Lockyer says he doesn't endorse the painting, titled "T'anks to Mr. Bush." But Lockyer says to remove it would be like Soviet-style government censorship.

Yeah, it's like that alright.

How did something like that get in there in the first place? Someone in his office endorsed it.

Posted by AlexC at 12:00 AM

July 29, 2005

Goodbye, Two-line!

I cannot pinpoint the exact day that I started getting my sports news from "The Weekly Standard," but I am sure it is a significant date.

Duncan Currie pens a nice piece on the return of my favorite sport, with an enumeration of the upcoming rule changes.


  • I have a weird, Burkean, Chestertonian attachment to enforcing the two-line pass rule, but must admit that it will kill the dreaded "trap."

  • Smaller goalie pads seem fair as well. "Nobody gets more than Ken Dryden got" would be a fine rule in my book.

  • The shootout at the end will be fun, and Currie's point holds that it will have great potential for highlight films to attract new fans.


All the rules, it seems to me, will augment the importance of star players at the expense of team play. This might make it even more difficult for the Sunbelt franchises, but I can't stay up late worrying about them.

Go Avs!

Posted by jk at 12:59 PM | What do you think? [2]
But sugarchuck thinks:

What a day, hockey and Walt Whitman! One hockey comment and then I'm off to read "Song of the Open Road." The current rules hinder the guys who can truly play. A lesser skilled player can tie up someone that can really skate and anything that can be done to lessen this is a good thing. Way back in the day the goons were also some of the best players, Gordie Howe comes to mind and the game moved along as it should. Expansion brought lesser players who had to compensate with thugery, thus slowing the action, lowering goal scoring and increasing the number of penalties involving sticks. Anything that gets rid of these guys, even if it means the loss of a few teams, is ok by me. Hockey has a lot to prove this year and I hope the new rules help.

Posted by: sugarchuck at July 29, 2005 2:35 PM
But jk thinks:

You left out 3.4% GDP growth...

Posted by: jk at July 29, 2005 3:51 PM

Poetry Corner

To celebrate the 150th anniversary of Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass," Professor Harold Bloom has written an introduction to the 1855 version, and the Wall Street Journal has adapted it into a guest editorial.

Whitman restores the primal androgyne "Adam early in the morning." He is our Vedas, our Bhagavad-Gita, our Sutras -- and also our Zohar, an esotericist of extraordinary originality. Emerson was Elijah or John the Baptist to Whitman's American Christ. Is not Walt as enigmatic, elusive, evasive, fascinating as the Jesus of Mark's Gospel? Whitman self-published "Leaves of Grass" and sent it unsolicited to Emerson, who responded to the brash and canny self-promoter on 21 July, 1855, that it was -- as a century-and-a-half later it still is -- "the most extraordinary piece of wit & wisdom that America has yet contributed." Emerson continued, "I am very happy in reading it, as great power makes us happy. . . . I give you joy of your free & brave thought. I have great joy in it. I find incomparable things said incomparably well, as they must be. . . . I rubbed my eyes a little to see if this sunbeam were no illusion; but the solid sense of the book is a sober certainty. It has the best merits, namely, of fortifying and encouraging." Emerson invented the American Religion; Whitman incarnated it.

I vow to reread "leaves" this summer, and I'd like to recommend a great book that I read a while back: "The Better Angel: Walt Whitman and the Civil War."

No Sean Penn, Whitman came to front line hospitals to care for his brother and stayed until the end of the war helping nurses and consoling Union troops. He wrote letters back home for those who were injured or illiterate (wouldn't that be a family treasure).

A great American and a great american artist.

Posted by jk at 12:15 PM

The Bush Boom Continues

Three-point-four percent GDP growth in the second quarter (and this will probably be revised up), 5% unemployment, the S&P is at four year highs. Economic times are pretty good.

Economy Grows Despite High Energy Costs - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - The economy clocked in at a chipper 3.4 percent annual growth rate in the second quarter, fresh evidence the country's business climate is healthy despite surging energy costs.

That all this is happening with $60 oil and a war on is a true testament to the President's supply side tax cuts. I don't care that the media won't give the idiot from Texas credit, but it pains me that they won't give the economics credit. When the 2008 candidates start spouting Rubinomics, the NYTimes and WaPo editorials will nod along.


July 28, 2005

Consumption Tax

We have our differences around here, but I think we might all agree on this. Johngalt, in a comment gives us the URL to "Americans for Fair Taxation" I wanted to provide a link

I think this is by far the best way to fund the government. The website espouses all of my favorite benefits of consumption-based tax.

It has always been a pipe dream to me, but there seems to be a reckoning a-comin' -- the right candidate or group might be able to pull this off!

Posted by jk at 4:20 PM

Flogging Blogging

I have mentioned that I enjoy John Stossel's segments on ABC's 20/20. And I highly recommend his book, "Give Me a Break."

I wrote a letter last week as I felt a segment they aired did not comport with Mr. Stossel's beliefs. My letter was included in his weekly email newsletter. Being Mr. Modest, I thought I'd share:

"Where was John Stossel?

I don't expect him to police every celebrity interview or public interest story on 20/20. But I tune in to 20/20 -- and not the other newsmagazines -- because I can expect some measure of common-sense factual economics and an objective view of government from my buddy, Mr. Stossel.

The 'Rip Current' segment sounded like a setup for a Give Me A Break sequence, but it never came. I'm thinking of something like:

STOSSEL: Down on the Florida panhandle, people have had frightening encounters with dangerous 'rip currents.' Sadly, some people have lost their life.
[Cut to beach view]
STOSSEL: I'm very sad for the families, but some surviving spouses are now insisting that the county employ lifeguards along 26 miles of beach. Efforts to educate swimmers with an animated crab have been ridiculed. The flag system in place to warn swimmers is routinely ignored. But how many lifeguards would be needed for 26 miles of beach? How many lives could they actually save? Don't a lot more people die driving to the beach, or getting too much Sun?
Maybe it's worth it to the Chamber to hire lifeguards -- if it is shown to make sense. But asking one county in Florida to make the ocean safe? I say 'Give Me A Break!'" John Kranz, Lafayette, Colorado


Posted by jk at 1:25 PM

CAFTA, Si!

Sometimes, my friends, it is good to have the GOP in charge. Not all the time, but sometimes -- and this is a good week, with CAFTA passing the House 217-215.

Will Franklin notes the movement of Democrats to protectionism and the movement of Republicans to free trade between NAFTA and CAFTA.

Next stop: a free trade agreement between all free countries.

Hat-tip: Instapundit
But AlexC thinks:

All countries? *gulp*

Let's just work with the free countries first.
Liberal Democracies, Republics, etc..

Kind of like the idea of abandoning the UN and creating a United Free Nations.

Carrot/Stick kind of thing.

Posted by: AlexC at July 28, 2005 8:19 PM
But jk thinks:

Sorry if I was not clear -- all FREE countries. You and I are on the exact same page here!

Posted by: jk at July 29, 2005 11:19 AM
But johngalt thinks:

I once told JK I didn't believe we should engage in any trade at all with un-free countries. "Free trade cannot exist between un-free trading partners," I said. JK then posited his "liberating force of free trade" argument. I wasn't immediately persuaded.

Yesterday I heard a Cuban American call the Limbaugh program (Roger Hedgecock guest hosting) and after thanking Castro for causing such a disaster in Cuba that he came to America and has a greater life than was ever possible there, echoed JK's theory with a real life example. When Castro softened restrictions on expats returning home (as a desperate attempt to bring capital to the island), Cuban citizens saw janitors and bus drivers from America spend thousands of dollars in a week. They then thought hey, maybe this capitalism thing isn't all bad!

So, I'm now on the bandwagon. Free trade with all nations! (Besides, then I can buy legal cigars without going overseas.)

Posted by: johngalt at July 29, 2005 3:19 PM

Is Atlas Shrugging?

Michael Barone is his usual sagacious self today in a WSJ guest editorial, Big Labor, RIP.

What Barone does so well is to weave history, demographics and politics into a meaningful fabric that describes a trend in historical context.

Today he looks at the labor movement's seeming ascendancy 50 years ago and their decline today.

Detroit and Michigan were extreme examples, but midcentury America was a country that seemed dominated by big government, big business and big labor. John Kenneth Galbraith was teaching us that big businesses would get ever bigger, and that workers would be entirely at their mercy unless they were represented by big labor unions. Union membership, as a percentage of nonagricultural employment, had risen from 13% in 1935, when the National Labor Relations Act was passed, to 35% at the end of World War II, when the government encouraged union membership in war industries. That percentage dipped slightly in the first postwar years, then rose to a peak of 35% in 1954.

This paragraph that really got me -- is "Atlas Shrugged" coming to life?
Meanwhile, the capital markets have gone on strike against unions. Capital hasn't been attracted to companies in which unions are entrenched -- the Big Three auto companies, the old-line steel companies, the legacy airlines. No one wants to finance businesses that will be burdened with the inflexibility and the huge health-care and pension costs union contracts impose. New firms have arisen in these industries -- Japanese and other foreign auto manufacturers, minimill steel companies, startup airlines -- which don't have unions. The biggest employer in America used to be unionized General Motors. Now it is determinedly non-unionized Wal-Mart. It would be an exaggeration, but not a great one, to say that no employers except the Las Vegas casinos create new union jobs.

But johngalt thinks:

No, Atlas is not shrugging, but he is looking out of the corner of his eye. The yoke upon his shoulders was not placed there by unions, but by government. His great unjust burden is not transitory gang bullying by large groups of laborers, but the coerced punitive taxation by our government.

Hope springs meekly in HR25: http://www.fairtax.org/

Posted by: johngalt at July 28, 2005 3:12 PM
But jk thinks:

Thought that might get a comment out of you...

It’s a fool’s errand to argue with you on this subject, but I thought the yoke was collectivist mentality. Yes, it is at its worst when provided by the coercive power of government, but big labor asks today's individual to toil for the usufruct of previous workers' pensions and health care...

Posted by: jk at July 28, 2005 3:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Unions and collectivist governments follow the same principles, but an individual can leave a union (as John Galt did at the Twentieth Century Motor Company.) He cannot take leave from the collectivism imposed on him by "his" government. Preservation of individual liberty is the key.

Posted by: johngalt at July 29, 2005 3:09 PM

July 27, 2005

No, You Are Not Crazy

The would-be Millenium Bomber was sentenced today.

    A man who plotted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium was sentenced Wednesday to 22 years in prison, a penalty that reflected some of his cooperation in telling international investigators about the workings of terror camps in Afghanistan.

    Still, Ahmed Ressam, 38, could have received a shorter sentence had he not stopped talking to investigators in early 2003. Prosecutors argued that his recalcitrance has jeopardized cases against two of his co-conspirators.


22 years? 22 years?

When he gets out at 60, he'll be old enough to collect Social Security! (if it survives)

22 years?!

What's the lesson learned here?

Plan to destroy a pretty important piece of American infrastructure, screw up, and get out of jail when your old enough to try again.

22 Years in jail... he'll no doubt connect with the Muslim population on the inside, and pollute how many minds?

What happened to life? and in isolation?

If there's ever an argument about moving the prosecution of acts of war into the criminal justice system, here's a perfect example.

But jk thinks:

This is indeed maddening, but I am guessing that there really is no mechanism to put this guy away. As it was foiled, there are no victims, I certainly don't know the law but guess that "attempted" anything is unlikely to draw severe penalties (unlike, say, cashing-in your IRA in at 58...)

What we need are serious treason/terrorism/conspiracy charges that could be levied against these guys, with death or life-without-parole sentences. But the confederacy in opposition to the Patriot Act would go bonkers.

It's still those who think we're at war and those who do not.

Posted by: jk at July 28, 2005 4:04 PM
But Silence Dogood thinks:

Actually my little part of the confederacy would be for defining such charges and penalties. I want them punished severely too, I just want to make sure they are the right folks. Whether the court system is the place to determine that is debatable, but it is the best we've got. I want to be able to preach democracy and the rule of law around the world with my head held high that we here in the US follow those rules no matter what the circumstances.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 29, 2005 2:41 PM

Dean Keeps on Giving

John Cole's Balloon Juice ridicules Howard Dean for his blaming W for Kelo

“The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is ‘okay’ to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is,” Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.

Dean’s reference to the “right-wing” court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court – Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the fourth dissenter.

The court’s liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.


The problem that Cole misses is that the MSM will not call Dean on his untruths, their fact checkers are fully tasked with Ken Mehlman. Some folks read blogs, but a lot of folks will swallow this hook, line, sinker, and monkeyfish...

Hat-tip: Instapundit

But johngalt thinks:

The problem is that Dean's statement can be argued to be technically correct. It is "his" supreme court because of their ruling in Bush v Gore, and it is a "right-wing" court because of... their ruling in Bush v Gore.

What was it that the Clintonistas used to say? Move-On, or something like that.

Posted by: johngalt at July 27, 2005 2:22 PM
But jk thinks:

I don't even mind the "right-wing" characterization. Untenable is that it was the damned lefties on the court who gave us Kelo.

Posted by: jk at July 28, 2005 12:38 PM

Viva NAFTA, Si CAFTA!

I enjoy the internecine rifts around here, but was sad all day when I heard one of my blog brother's waxing prosaic on NAFTA.

I consider NAFTA a shining light in the late 20th Century, reason to believe that politics is still worth fighting for/about, and -- though pushed by a GOP House -- a great credit to the Clinton Presidency.

No, no free trade agreement will be perfect; actually the absence of legislation would make the whole world rich. But I take every crack in the dams and dikes that allows more trade through as a victory for wealth creation.

Mirabile non dictu, my pals at the WSJ Ed Page agree. Their lead editorial today calls for CAFTA's passage, based on the successes of NAFTA.

We are also told that Cafta can't work because the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 didn't work. And while it's true that Nafta didn't cure cancer or turn Mexico into Switzerland, those who argue that Nafta failed are ignoring the evidence.

In Nafta's first decade, annual two-way trade between the U.S. and Mexico almost tripled, to $232 billion from $81 billion. During that same period the U.S. created 18 million net new jobs and, even after the dot-com implosion and the recession of 2001, the current U.S. jobless rate of 5% is lower than it was (6.4%) when Nafta became law. U.S. productivity and wages have all climbed steadily. Ross Perot's prediction of a "giant sucking sound" proved to be a fantasy.
[...]
Nor have Nafta's benefits been limited to dollars and cents. When a rebel uprising, two political assassinations and a financial crisis hit Mexico in 1994, Nafta arguably helped to prevent the kind of political lurch to the authoritarian left that has been common in Mexican history. Nafta created economic and political interests in Mexico that had a stake in relations with the U.S. and global integration.

The economic competition induced by Nafta pushed Mexico's political system forward toward fuller democracy, helping to end 70 years of one-party rule. Compare this progress with isolated Argentina's reaction to its 2001 financial crisis, which has revived the authoritarian Peronism of the 1970s in Buenos Aires. Given Central America's own history of authoritarianism, this is no small point for Cafta. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will be overjoyed if it fails.


When we started seeing economical, reasonable quality Fender guitars coming from Mexico, my buddy, Sugarchuck, called them "NATFA Strats." That made me laugh at the time, but it remains a pretty decent macro: we get cheaper guitars, they get jobs, and American luthiers can concentrate on more expensive guitars. Yeah baby!

UPDATE: Larry Kudlow says: "According to Investor's Business Daily's Brian Mitchell, CAFTA has become the White House's top legislative priority, with the fervent backing of Ways and Means chairman Bill Thomas. CAFTA passed narrowly in the Senate, and there appears to be uncertainty about it's future in the House. Let's hope Thomas can round up the necessary support."

But johngalt thinks:

That the likes of JK and the editorial page of WSJ offer praise for NAFTA is, indeed, powerful evidence of its virtues. And JK's thesis of free-market economics as the elixir of liberty for the developing and authoritarian world is well received.

I might question some of the statistics provided. For example, what is "two-way trade?" If it is the sum of trade in both directions it says nothing about the growth of US exports to Mexico by itself. And the remaining rosy "effects" of NAFTA are not clearly tied to the existence of the agreement.

And then there's the importance of CAFTA to the Bush administration - the executive branch that looks at US citizens reporting suspicious activity on our national borders and see "vigilantes" and steadfastly ignores the illegal immigration crisis in this country at the apparent behest of well-placed business interests. Interests that will likely benefit from CAFTA as well.

Having said all this though, if it will really piss off Hugo Chavez as the WSJ asserts... Two Thumbs Up!

Posted by: johngalt at July 27, 2005 2:39 PM

July 26, 2005

Roberts Requests

From the Bleachers...

    Hill folks are saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee can expect to receive over 75,000 pages of documents relating the John Roberts' work as a young attorney working for then-president Reagan.

    The soon to be released documents will come from the National Archives and Records Administration and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, "They're not going to read it all."
Chappy adds...
    Don't count on this being enough paper for Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin and others.

*sigh*

SCOTUS Posted by AlexC at 6:00 PM

1st Sign of the Apocalypse

From the Washington Post...

    A new study by a liberal Washington think tank puts the cost of forcibly removing most of the nation's estimated 10 million illegal immigrants at $41 billion a year, a sum that exceeds the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

    The study, "Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment," scheduled for release today by the Center for American Progress, is billed by its authors as the first-ever estimate of costs associated with arresting, detaining, prosecuting and removing immigrants who have entered the United States illegally or overstayed their visas. The total cost would be $206 billion to $230 billion over five years, depending on how many of the immigrants leave voluntarily, according to the study.


Whoa whoa whoa... liberal think tank?

I don't think I've ever seen a think tank labelled liberal. Conservative, right leaning, yes. Liberal? No.

Repent! The end is nigh!

Obviously the mass deportation option is not on the table, and I'm not sure it was ever seriously on the table.

    [Rajeev K. Goyle, senior domestic policy analyst for the center] said that he conducted the study, in part, to respond to conservative officials who have advocated mass deportations, in some cases immediately. Earlier this year, former House speaker Newt Gingrich advocated sealing U.S. borders and deporting all illegal immigrants within 72 hours of arrest.

    Will Adams, a spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), an outspoken advocate of stronger immigration laws, called the study an "an interesting intellectual exercise" by liberals that is "useless . . . because no one's talking about" employing mass deportation as a tactic.

    "No one's talking about buying planes, trains and automobiles to get them out of the country," Adams said. "The vast number of illegal immigrants are coming for jobs. Congressman Tancredo wants to go after the employers."


I like Tancredo's idea, but he shot his credibility right in the ass with the nuking Mecca remark. If only there was someone else in Congress willing to carry the flag on this idea.

Gingrich's idea is also very practical, if we could get local law enforcement to check on immigration status.

Bust them, then ship 'em out. It's a start.

But johngalt thinks:

I offered up a simple and thorough plan for ending the illegal immigration problem in "JK Supports McCain-Kennedy" below (http://www.threesources.com/archives/001841.html) but Tom's idea is at least productive, if not the final solution.

As for his credibility, any smudge on it is not his own doing. If a good man like AlexC in Pennysylvania believes that Tancredo said, "nuke Mecca" or "nuke" anything else, that belief has been carefully and deliberately inculcated in his brain by the MSM. (Denver's KHOW radio Peter Boyles interviewed a Denver Post columnist this AM and challenged her similar characterization of Tom's remarks. He closed with, "The next time you write a column like this, for Christ's sake, get it right!" After a pregnant pause she said, "Thank you Peter, I've gotta go.")

Tancredo started his hypothetical answer by saying that instead of just deciding what we would do in the event of a NUCLEAR TERROR ATTACK ON THE U.S., we should WARN the world that such an event would precipitate some "ultimate" response. Such a response might be, for EXAMPLE, to "take out their holy sites."

I've got more to say on this but I think I'll continue to reserve it for a blog post that I've been planning since this story first broke.

Posted by: johngalt at July 27, 2005 2:18 PM
But jk thinks:

I'll wait for your post but choosing sides between media and Rep Tancredo is going to be difficult.

Nobody should be misrepresented, but I enjoyed seeing him get in a little trouble. He is trying to split the GOP in 2008 and I would like to squash his hopes as soon as possible.

Posted by: jk at July 28, 2005 11:54 AM
But Silence Dogood thinks:

Tom Tancredo wrote his own editorial in last week's Denver Post where he offered a similar explanation for his remarks as that johngalt states. My problem is more with the underlying attitude and strategy that brought forth the remarks. First, Tom made several comments regarding our war against Islam, and yes he did further clarify his meaning of Islamic extremists, but his plan to either deter the extremists themselves with a plan for retribution or force moderate Islam to act against them due to fear of retaliation against holy sites shows to me outdated 20th Century thinking. Are we still so naive as to expect a country, religion, or other target owning entity to stand up as the home or sponsor of the terrorist organization so that we may have classic method to strike back? Does Tom further feel that the concept of deterrent will be successful against extremists, or that such threats will provide the power to the people required to topple or change governments such that an Islamic uprising within the ranks will quell the terrorist menace? If he really expects his remarks not to be taken as throw away rhetoric then he needs to stand up with a real thought out plan. Otherwise I have to lump him in with Ward Churchill.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 28, 2005 3:53 PM

Let's Put Them In Charge of Health Care!

You have to laugh sometimes to keep from crying. Our beloved legislative branch is at it:

Snake Oil Additives

Never say Congress isn't willing to accept blame -- as long as it can assign it to someone else. Having mandated the use of the fuel additive MTBE, the Members now want to shake down the companies foolish enough to have made the product.

This is the real story behind the debate over MTBE, which has once again become the sticking point in the House-Senate conference over the energy bill. The House has passed modest liability protection for MTBE makers, while Senate Democrats are threatening a filibuster if there's any such thing in the final bill. If we're lucky, the dispute will cause the hot-air dirigible that is the energy bill to crash and burn one more time. But it's more likely the Members will "compromise" by dropping the House provision and thus blame private business for Congress's mistakes.
[...]
Refiners and other companies now face more than 100 lawsuits, even as they are striving to meet growing energy demand and more elaborate fuel specifications. Draining cash from these companies to finance trial-lawyer contingency bonanzas will not lower gas prices.

Bear in mind that the House liability waiver would only be for "product defect" lawsuits, which are the most frivolous and deadly because they only require plaintiffs to show that a company made the product for sale. Defendants would still be liable for larger MTBE spills, and the current Congressional negotiations include talk of some sort of industry-financed clean-up fund. In about 95% of spills, a responsible party has been identified and most are already paying for a cleanup.


I paid attention to this in the 1990s as I was quite concerned about MTBE and Ethanol’s effects on vehicles. I guess I'll have to confess to being wrong on that count -- but right about gub'mint meddling in general.

Markets work. While we're on that topic, Arnold Kling, an oxymoronic "fun economist" over at TCS is starting a new series on the effects of regulation -- a good excuse for even non-economists to learn about the CAPM. Jk gives it four stars!


July 25, 2005

'08 Straw Poll

Patrick Ruffini :: 2008 Straw Poll: "Just Right" Edition is there for your voting pleasure -- but there's no choice for Condi.

Posted by jk at 4:41 PM | What do you think? [2]
But AlexC thinks:

The '08 race without Condi pretty lame. NRO and K-Lo have been pushing Romney, but George Allen seems to be the front runner.

Poor Bill Frist is the basement.

He can blame himself. How can he be President if he let's a minority in the Senate push him around?

Posted by: AlexC at July 26, 2005 4:56 PM
But jk thinks:

I think a strict "No Senators" rule is always worth considering...

Posted by: jk at July 26, 2005 6:29 PM

Hard to Please

A free copy of OpinionJournal's Political Diary is offered in lieu of Best of the Web today. It seems Anita Hill is not too wild about this nominee either.

"We don't know much about Roberts' political ideology, but we do know that his career has been built on membership in increasingly elitist institutions that include few women and Latinos or other ethnic minorities... Had these 'extraordinary' credentials set the standard for judicial nominations in 1982, Sandra Day O'Connor would never have been appointed. She never clerked. She never worked for a president. She never served as a federal judge" -- Brandeis University Prof. Anita Hill, writing in Newsday.

SCOTUS Posted by jk at 4:35 PM

Hotel Souter

From Chicago Sun-Times

    People from across the country are getting behind a campaign to seize Supreme Court Justice David Souter's farmhouse to build a luxury hotel, according to the man who came up with the idea after a Supreme Court decision favoring government seizure of private property.

    ''We would act just as these cities have been acting in seizing properties. We would give Souter the same sort of deal,'' said Logan Darrow Clements of Los Angeles.

    Town Clerk Evelyn Connor has had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund. A rival proposal from townspeople would turn Souter's land into a park commemorating the Constitution.


It's refreshing that even the townspeople are behind some sort of a "punitive" action. That's really the key support. Outsiders horsing around would never fly.

But Justice Souter is not without his defenders.

    Souter has declined to comment, but he has defenders, like Betty Straw, his sixth-grade teacher.

    ''I think it's absolutely ridiculous,'' she said. ''They're just doing it for spite.''


Boy, they're really going deep if all they can quote is his sixth-grade teacher.

Live Free or Die State... I love it!

SCOTUS Posted by AlexC at 11:00 AM

Good News on Roberts

Senator Ted Kennedy says he "threatens 'Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage' and the environment." The Wall Street Journal Editorial page asks "Is that all?"

I respect the opinion of Charles Krauthammer and other serious conservatives who worry about another Souter. Again, I am pretty sanguine thanks to the much larger number of also serious conservatives who support his nomination.

But I am most calmed by the words of the Senior Senator from Massachusetts. "I can imagine few things worse for our seniors, for the disabled, for workers and for families than to place someone on the highest court in the land who would put these protections at risk."

Yup. Now I feel better!

SCOTUS Posted by jk at 10:53 AM

Lt Governor Embarrassment

It should be listed as Pennsylvania, not Indiana, but that's besides the point.

Day by Day still cracks me up.

You'd think a politician would know better.

update: Well, the comic was fixed. The Governor is also in repair mode.

    Rendell said he thinks Knoll, 74, of McKees Rocks, meant no harm by attending the memorial service last Tuesday. He believes Knoll gave her business card to a family member so that Goodrich's family would have a contact within state government if they later needed help securing benefits.

    "She goes to so many funerals because she cares so deeply," Rendell said. "I don't go to funerals unless I'm invited. I go to wakes because they're public."


Do you give out your card Mr Governor?

If it warrants an apology, where's Lt Gov Knoll's?

Politics Posted by AlexC at 12:00 AM

July 24, 2005

Souteronomy

A great word, seemingly coined by Power Line

The question is: was Souter a liberal, or did he "grow" in office? Michael Barone writes in to comment that Souter let Lawrence Tribe pick his clerks (not an auspicious sign).

Barone further suggests that today's justices have too many clerks and that there would be more comity and fewer split opinions without them ("First, Kill all the Clerks," Shakespeare said!)

Barone underscores Roberts's possible immunity from Souteronomy:

As for Justice Roberts, he seems clearly to be a man who will not be moved away from his convictions by his clerks. This, even though his opinions and the accounts of him by those who have worked with him indicate that he pays respectful attention to those who disagree with him. In reading his opinions, I have been struck by how carefully and fairly he presents arguments for the positions with which he disagrees. This is not a guy who is going to come out the way I would like in every case. But it does seem to be a guy who will come out the way he would like in every case -- and is not going to be buffaloed by Professor Tribe's hand-picked law clerks any more than he is buffaloed by Professor Tribe.

I'm really not jealous of other blogs' hit stats or ad rates, but if I could get Michael Barone to write in one day with comments...

SCOTUS Posted by jk at 6:38 PM

Well Done, Lance

An inspirational American does what Eddy Merckx could not: seven tour wins!


lance_armstrong.jpg


More than an American victory (though I do love it when LeMond or Armstrong whups the French in their own race), it is more a victory for Cancer patients. I have heard two friends who have been diagnosed both reference Lance Armstrong. "If he can do it, we can."

Well done!

Posted by jk at 10:59 AM

July 22, 2005

Pot Theft

From 6ABC

    Donald Nord won't be getting his pot back. Federal agents seized his stash and took some pipes, too.

    The Hayden, Colorado, man has a state-issued medical-use permit for his weed. No federal charges were filed against Nord, so he asked a county court to order the pot's return.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration agents refused and Nord sought a contempt citation. Now, a federal judge has ruled a local court doesn't have the power to hold the D-E-A agents in contempt.


If the feds have a law prohibiting marijuana, then they should charge him. If they haven't charged him, what right to they have to retain his property?

This guy's getting screwed.

But jk thinks:

Indeed.

Who cares about Roe? I want to see Judge Roberts's stand on Raich.

Posted by: jk at July 22, 2005 4:55 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I heard that Roberts holds a narrow view on the Interstate Commerce Clause and Affirmative Action.

Posted by: johngalt at July 24, 2005 12:12 PM

Kristol on Roberts

The Weekly Standard has been very supportive of the President, yet unafraid to attack (well, nooge) him from the right.

While Fred Barnes and William Kristol were both hoping for a fierce conservative in the Scalia-Thomas-Bork mold, today's editorial by Kristol makes a good point. It Takes an Establishment. He points out that radicals are needed for change yet establishments are required to govern.

Kristol thinks Bush is pursuing a long-term vision of the court with the Roberts nomination as an establishmentarian.

Roberts is no Bork, no Scalia, and no Thomas. He's probably more like the man for whom he clerked, Chief Justice Rehnquist--or the man Rehnquist replaced, John Marshall Harlan. A court with, so to speak, five Scalias would be fun. But it won't happen. A court with a majority made up of some Scalia-Thomas types and some Rehnquist-Harlan types is possible. Indeed, with his choice of John Roberts, President Bush has begun to create such a court, one heading towards a constitutionalist majority.

The piece ends with some kind words from a liberal lawyer who mentored under Roberts at a law firm.

"So I have nothing but a profound sense of respect for John Roberts: for his integrity, his intelligence, his humility, and his genuine human decency.

"All of that said, my best guess is that he would be a very conservative justice. And because he is so gifted and so decent a human being, he might become incredibly influential on the Court, moving it in ways that justices like Scalia and Thomas have been incapable. In short, he could ultimately be a progressive's worst case scenario."


Man when he says it like that...

Also, consider this bit of wisdom:

Let's not lose sight of this, either: Merit is a conservative principle. Selecting a first-class nominee, and refusing to bend to political expediency, is a conservative act. In this respect, the nomination of Roberts sends a signal that Bush understands the Court matters, and that on things that matter, he will rise to the occasion and scorn identity politics.

Color jk still cautiously optimistic...

SCOTUS Posted by jk at 11:30 AM

July 21, 2005

Twilight Savings Time

ThreeSources blogger AlexC hits an intriguing point in a post on his pstupidonymous blog.

Congressional alchemists once again believe they have found some free energy laying around, if we just move the clocks. 100,000 bbls of oil a day will be saved by adding another month of Daylight Savings Time, because lights would be used less in the early evenings.

"What about lights in the morning?" asks AlexC, later suggesting to end the whole thing.

Any Daylight Savings fans running around? Silence's hero, Benjamin Franklin, is frequently credited with the idea.

I was thinking that Air Conditioning represents much more use than lights, and was going to propose Twilight Savings time: set the clocks ahead 12 hours in the summer, so we can all work at night when it's cooler...

Posted by jk at 1:37 PM | What do you think? [3]
But johngalt thinks:

I'm a fan. I think we should use it year 'round. I once pondered changing my work schedule during standard time to unilaterally put myself on DST. I was fed up with not getting home until after dark in the winter months. My boss at the time, a miserable pain in the ass, forbade it. Loser.

Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2005 3:00 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Check out the cool interactive map at: http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/c.html

Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2005 3:06 PM
But jk thinks:

Aha! Bad bosses aside, I think the heart of my question (at least the spleen) is: Does the gub'mint mandated time shift make sense or could it be handled better by the private sector.

And -- if you want it year 'round, that's an excuse for shifting the time zone -- not an excuse to change it twice a year. Innit?

Posted by: jk at July 21, 2005 4:03 PM

Zeitgeist

I don't know how many of you have seen Jim Cramer's "Mad Money" show on CNBC. I think it is indicative of a huge cultural shift. The investor class has now reached critical mass and a stock market TV show has crossed into pop culture.

I'll try to explain it to those who have not seen it, but you have to see this to believe it. You may know Jim Cramer. He was Larry Kudlow's co-host for a while on CNBC; he is a Harvard Law School graduate who went into business and journalism. He is an up-tempo and excitable guy who brings his excitable persona to stocks.

For one hour on CNBC, Jim rolls up his sleeves, jumps around the stage, takes phone calls, and gives irreverent stock advice with sound effects that he controls. The most exciting part of the show is the "Lightning Round," which Jim starts out by yelling "Are you ready, skee-daddy? It's time for the Lighting Round!" Then for two minutes, Jim takes calls without questions, they just name the stock or the symbol and Jim shows off his encyclopedic knowledge of the market. This is the part I watch for, and it really is breathtaking.

A caller might trade a quick "Boo-yah!" with Jim but there's no conversation. The caller says "P C U" and Jim says "Southern Peruvian Copper? I don't like South America, I don't like Peru, and I don't like Copper -- you figure it out!" Or hits a button that brings up Bulls or Bears; SFX include "Sell!Sell!Sell!," or a pig squeal for those who are not taking a little off a winner, or a truck reversing (for "'monback!" or back that truck up to load it full of stock). There are more but I am getting carried away just thinking about it.

Last night was the "Main Event," the first live show in its history, and it was extended to 90 minutes. This is what I wanted to post about, sorry for all the other exposition.

The auditorium was packed. This is unsurprising, I would have gone if I could. Had I, I would have been the oldest and stodgiest in the whole house. The show was packed with twentysomethings and thirtysomethings. I am pretty sure Cramer had the only tie (no wait – there was a pinstriped boxing announcer guy who would introduce segments).

Cramer was a rock star to this crowd -- one audience member said "You're not a rock star, you're a stock star!" They wore custom T-Shirts with Cramer quotes, or "Cramerholic," or "Cramerican." They yelled and danced like it was a Baptist revival meetin', they all yelled "Boo-yah!" and "Skee-Daddy!" Not one of them would have chosen to be anywhere else. The Beatles reception on the Ed Sullivan Show looked like a funeral in comparison.

And this brought my wife and me great joy. These are good folks who will guide this nation pretty well. They will choose liberty at the polls. And as long as Rep Pelosi, and Senators Kennedy and Reid assume the Investor Class is old, stagnant, and silent then liberty loving people will do well at the polls.


But AlexC thinks:

Does he do a couple of lines of coke before each show? TOO MUCH energy for this twenty-something.

My younger brother loves it though.

Posted by: AlexC at July 22, 2005 1:56 AM

Standing With Britain

unionjack.png

Freedom on the March Posted by jk at 10:17 AM

July 20, 2005

Filthy American Imperialists!

Jim Hake emails "Project Friendship a success!"

Dear friends and donors,

What a day was had! Clouds, sun, rain and outrageous humidity, but together with the Public Affairs Marines at Camp LeJeune, Marine families, the local community and the MCCS, Spirit of America completed the packing of thousands of school supplies and hygiene kits heading to Iraq. More than 75 volunteers worked side by side to prepare for the shipment of goods Spirit of America had donated for the II MEF Marines deployed to Iraq. The items will be given to Iraqis as gifts of friendship from the American people. The goal is to help the Iraqi people and to build better relations between Americans and Iraqis.


MarineCorpsExchangeSmall.jpg


More photos, info, and a chance to help at the Spirit of America site.

Thanks to all who serve!


'Nother Souter?

I hear that Anne Coulter is concerned; I am more worried about a couple of good friends. (Maybe they're on the Karl Rove payroll and are pushing AlexC's "too moderate" meme...)

I like what I am seeing in the blogosphere. Power Line was positive on him before the nomination, Scott makes trenchant rebuttals of Coulter's complaints -- and John says "Pop the corks!"

JOHN adds: Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative. And it was fun to see Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer on television tonight; they looked just awful.

After President Bush's terrific, upbeat presentation of Roberts, and Roberts' graceful, brief talk, Leahy and Schumer sounded like they had just dropped in from another planet. They were dour, hateful, and came across as sad and pathetic minions who have been sent on a hopeless mission by their bosses at "People for the American Way."


Glenn seems upbeat, and links to BeldarBlog's Why I'm not worried that Judge John G. Roberts will become "another Souter"
Thus, through people like former Solicitor General Ken Starr (and, perhaps, Chief Justice Rehnquist?) with whom John Roberts has worked very closely, and through privileged documents that Judge Roberts must have written himself while a government lawyer, Dubya and his staff certainly know vastly more about Judge Roberts' character and core beliefs than, for example, Poppy Bush ever could have known about David Souter or than the Gipper ever could have known about Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Instead, Dubya and his staff have the same kind of first-hand, pertinent, and highly reliable knowledge about John Roberts that Richard Nixon and his staff had about William Rehnquist. And that worked out pretty well over time, didn't it?
Again, for reasons of precedent and preservation of executive privilege, Dubya won't and can't share those private, confidential documents, nor those private, confidential personal assessments, with you, me, or the Senate. But he has them; they're incredibly meaningful; and we have every reason to believe that Dubya has made very, very good use of them. Don't misunderestimate your president, my conservative friends. Rejoice and have faith!

I saw Judge Starr on FOXNews and MSNBC last night.. He was telling the lefties not to worry about Roberts. I'm not sure he was the right messenger for the left -- but it did comfort me.

To my friends, I will echo Beldar. This President can mess up the little things. But he tends to get the big things right. And I am betting that he did his homework on this one.

SCOTUS Posted by jk at 3:12 PM

SCOTUS Reverse Psychology

Blonde Sagacity sez...

    VERY IMPORTANT: Keep saying "He's too moderate, we don't like him." Say it over and over --it worked for Alberto Gonzalez (they hated him for the GITMO stuff, but wanted him once they found out that Conservatives didn't)...libs seem to fall for reverse psychology...LOL

It sounds like fellow blonde right-wing babe Ann Coulter got the message.
    And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

Or did she?

SCOTUS Posted by AlexC at 12:00 PM | What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:

It ain't necessarily faked. I received an extremely downbeat email this morning that imagined if Senators Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton were not in full apoplexy, then W has obviously picked another Souter.

I gave a sanguine reply. I like what I have heard, and I fully suspect that the Democrats have a careful plan to act nice and thoughtful (Schumer was really trying, if you can believe it). Then when something is disclosed, or a question is not answered, they will spring into life.

It is odd that a person would not make a public and clear position on Roe v Wade. That might be a sign of wobbliness or it might really be good politics.

Posted by: jk at July 20, 2005 2:52 PM

JK Supports McCain-Kennedy

Wait, did I really write that headline? Call the paramedics!

First, two of my favorite Senators have introduced a bill that is heavy on Enforcement.

After nearly 20 years and numerous enforcement escalations, the undocumented immigrant population continues to grow -- and restrictionist lawmakers continue to insist that throwing ever more money, men and material into border enforcement is the key to fixing the problem.

Yesterday, Senators John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) introduced legislation that would authorize $5 billion over five years "to acquire and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles, camera poles, vehicles barriers, sensors" and other technologies. They'd also create a new 10,000-man army to raid businesses across America and make sure there are no illegal chambermaids working at Marriott. For this, we need Republicans?


The WSJ Ed Page and me -- mirabile freakin' dictu -- prefer a bill introduced by --ahem-- John McCain and Ted Kennedy.
A more promising reform was introduced in May by Senators John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.). Their approach is a welcome acknowledgment of certain realities -- namely, that enforcement-only policies have failed repeatedly and that wiser uses of limited government manpower and tax dollars are in order.

Based on the fact that the vast majority of migrants come here in search of work, Senators McCain and Kennedy aim to lower the level of illegal immigration by expanding our relatively few channels for legal entry to meet the demand. Giving economic immigrants legal ways to enter the U.S. will reduce business for human smugglers and counterfeiters. Moreover, it will allow our border authorities to concentrate their resources on chasing down real security threats instead of nannies and gardeners.

In short, the McCain-Kennedy bill would enhance homeland security without harming the immigrant labor market so essential to the country's economic well-being. But the measure's guest-worker initiative, which would allow undocumented migrants already here to work legally if they first pay sizable fines and undergo criminal background checks, has brought charges of "amnesty" from Republicans who call any "work and stay" provision a poison pill.

This "amnesty" charge may be potent as a political slogan, but it becomes far less persuasive when you examine its real-world implications. If paying a fine isn't good enough for illegals already here, what are the restrictionists proposing? Mass arrests, raids on job-creating businesses, or deportations? No illegal settled in a job or U.S. community is going to admit his status if he will then immediately be jailed or sent home to wait in line for years before he can get his old U.S. job back. Those who wave the "no amnesty" flag are actually encouraging a larger underground illegal population.


McCain-Kennedy. I'm going back to bed...

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Every once in a while a little pragmatism creeps into our ever more contentions political arena. Don't feel to bad JK, it is not a common occurrence so you should not have to hop on McCain or Kennedy's bandwagon again, hopefully saving your conservative head from a splitting headache. Now at the risk of exposing more of my liberal underpinnings I got stuck on one phrase in your post, "...the immigrant labor market so essential to the country's economic well-being." By this do you mean the use of legal immigrants paid legal wages and benefits or illegal immigrants with neither? I have to call into question the foundation of a business that cannot be profitable without illegal workers.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 20, 2005 1:00 PM
But jk thinks:

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I absolutely mean legal immigrants and legal wages. The thing that bothers me so much about the status quo is the illegality.

A single business that cannot prosper without illegal labor is likely flawed. By discussing "the immigrant labor market" in aggregate, the focus is shifted from a single business model to the economic issue of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage makes the whole country wealthier with the addition of lower cost workers.

Posted by: jk at July 20, 2005 2:39 PM
But johngalt thinks:

So, we're expected to believe that an illegal settled in a job or U.S. community is going to admit his status because he'll "only" be asked to pay "sizable fines?" Or, if the benefits of this "legalization for sale" plan are sufficient to encourage the vast majority of illegals to opt-in, in their own self-interest, it's still supposed to be "good enough" to satisfy the restrictionists? Consistency alert!!

If the McCain-Kennedy bill doesn't secure the border against illegal entry, it's just another brick in the bureaucratic morass we call immigration policy. No amount of made-to-order government programs are going to correct the system we have now, where many immigrants make such a great effort to get here illegally so that they can get stuff for free.

- Secure the borders.
- Stop the handouts.
- Institute "official English" nationally.
- Allow unlimited numbers of non-criminal individuals to immigrate at will.

Problem (domestic immigration) solved.

Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2005 2:45 PM

This Just In...

For thsoe of you missing Taranto (as I am), I'll get this one. The top Headline in my Yahoo/AP news today:

Battle Over Nominee May Center On Abortion

You just can't get anything past those those guys...

Media and Blogging Posted by jk at 10:29 AM

July 19, 2005

Golberg's New Book

K-Lo interviews Bernard Goldberg on NRO about his new book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.

I just finished this and, yes, you can judge this book by its cover! It's funny, and interesting, but it is pure polemic.

I was blown away by Goldberg’s Bias and Arrogance. Both books said serious things about why and how far Goldberg's peers in MSM had gone. I think both of these books were important, because Goldberg is no ideologue. He was a serious insider writing serious books.

A Hundred People is not serious. It's funny, and I agree with most of the members. (I would trade Senators Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy for the "Grand Theft Auto" guy and the "Fear Factor" guy -- but as he said, it's his list.)

I wouldn't tell anybody not to buy it, but I am worried that it'll detract from the importance of his other works. When I say "Bernie Goldberg really blew the lid off the media, people will say "Goldberg is just a right-wing hack"

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Tough to argue with the profitablity of being a right wing hack, it sells just like Grand Theft Auto and Fear Factor. (Hey, you offered up the components of the comparison, I just ran with it)

Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 20, 2005 1:04 PM
But jk thinks:

Poor Bernie. He is the only left-of-center right wing hack in town. No small feat.

Posted by: jk at July 20, 2005 2:44 PM

Clement for the Court

Looks like the nominee will be 5th Circuit Court judge Edith Clement.

I would have figured she would have been at least officially announced before the attacks began, but it was not to be.

On the radio this morning, I already heard George Stephanopoulous, the impartial ABC commentator, say "she has no paper trail."

Listen for that meme in the future, if she is the nominee.

Confirmed 99-0 four years ago, btw.

SCOTUS Posted by AlexC at 11:45 AM | What do you think? [5]
But johngalt thinks:

A number of pro-life pundits are calling Clement a "surrender" nominee, (to Senate Dems). This largely for her statement that the abortion issue is "decided law." Limbaugh's not so certain that she's "pro-Roe" as her statement was that of a district judge with no ability to alter that law.

Not knowing any more than this about her I can only say, at least she's not certifiably pro-life as many Bush backers have been demanding. There's a good chance that, as I learn more about her, I won't prefer to see her go down in flames. So far, so good Mr. Prez.

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 3:03 PM
But jk thinks:

So, jg, You'd be happy seeing Justice Scalia or Thomas "Go down in flames" were there confirmation hearings happening at this time?

Posted by: jk at July 19, 2005 5:05 PM
But AlexC thinks:

Uh. I guess we're wrong. Karl Rove is a genius!

Posted by: AlexC at July 19, 2005 10:12 PM
But johngalt thinks:

No, I don't consider Scalia or Thomas to be anti-Roe activists. Edith Jones, on the other hand...

And AlexC... What do you mean "we," white man!

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 11:48 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Oh yes, and as far as I can tell at this point, Roberts is a good choice as well. Not that I don't believe he disagrees with Roe, but I don't believe he considers it his mission in life to "reverse" it, somehow.

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 11:53 PM

July 18, 2005

Spurlock

Parity is conserved. I tuned into "Scarborough Country" on MSNBC the other night and Rep. Joe from the panhandle, welcomed Morgan Spurlock, plugged his new show, and accepted everything he said uncritically. He even ended the interview with a little flattery of how Super Size Me influenced his friends in Congress.

That hurt. I don't always see eye-to-eye with Rep Scarborough, but I was pretty surprised to see him bamboozled, or sold out, or having eaten bad clams -- whatever.

Glenn at Instapundit links today to a Morgan Spurlock Watch blog that does a little fact-checking. Badly needed fact-checking.

The debut post asks "Why Bother with this Guy?"

It's tempting to dismiss Spurlock as an unserious guy whom serious people don't take seriously. That's probably true. But young people, people who aren't naturally skeptical, and people who are already suspicious of corporations do take him seriously. His TV show debuted to 3 million viewers. The NY Times recently fawned all over him. And of course, Super Size Me was enormously successful.

There's certainly no questioning Spurlock's talent with a camera. And he has a bit of charisma that makes him likeable, and believable.

The problem is that he's fast and loose with the truth. He's consumed by a loathing of business and capitalism -- to the point of refusing to allow accuracy to get in the way of making his point. And I think someone needs to hold him accountable. I'd like to prime the people who watch his show, read his books, and take his advice to take in Morgan Spurlock, Inc. with a super-sized portion of skepticism.


Some smart friends at work love this guy. They think it is some problem with my weird politics that I cannot enjoy Super Size Me.

It's a polemic. I tell them if they ate every meal at "The Mediterranean" (a nice Italian Restaurant across the street) they'd probably gain 100 pounds. Willfully eating too much for 30 days is not a reflection on the restaurant, it is a reflection on your own stupidity.

Besides its polemical value, I object dieterily to the film. I lost 70 pounds on the Atkins diet, actually eating at McDonalds a few times a week. Spurlock's bad facts will be rolled into a constitutional amendment mandating vegetarianism.

Maybe Joe Scarborough will come back to Congress to co-sponsor it...

Posted by jk at 4:19 PM | What do you think? [1]
But johngalt thinks:

Good work JK, you Rove confidant you, for "outing" the fact-bending documentary technique of Spurlock nee Moore.

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 2:20 PM

Leak

AlexC is actually a covert agent for the C.I.A.

I thought y'all should know...

Posted by jk at 1:52 PM | What do you think? [5]
But johngalt thinks:

JK, you never told me you are a close personal confidant of Karl Rove!

Posted by: johngalt at July 18, 2005 3:12 PM
But jk thinks:

Lookout Conspiracy Theorists -- I actually have met his sister, she worked with my brother-in-law.

AHA!

Posted by: jk at July 18, 2005 6:57 PM
But AlexC thinks:

Damn. Cover blown. And my neighbors thought all this travel was for big oil!

Posted by: AlexC at July 19, 2005 4:44 AM
But Silence Dogood thinks:

There's a difference between big oil and the CIA?

Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 19, 2005 12:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:

yawn.

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 2:06 PM

I Know How He Feels

A little honesty from Chris Muir:


daybyday07-18-2005.gif


...just how he feels...

Day By Day -- always on the ThreeeSources blogroll!

On the web Posted by jk at 1:30 PM

Woodstein & Burnward

Loving politics gives a man no shortage of enemies. Plenty of folks to contravene, subvert, and oppose at every turn.

I don't think I am alone that I let it get a little too personal, but Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the great white President-hunters, were their sanctimonious selves on Meet The Press yesterday. I just have to bite down on a rolled up washcloth when I see those guys.

Russert asked, germane to the Rove-Plame-Wilson contretemps, whether Deep Throat was complicit in a crime.

Transcript for July 17 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com

"W. Mark Felt violated FBI and Justice Department policies by sharing with reporters information about the Watergate scandal, but it's not clear whether he broke any laws, several former federal prosecutors said. ...The former prosecutors said if they were to look into Felt's conversations with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward they would examine whether he violated federal rules that keep grand jury matters secret, whether he disclosed other confidential material that was part of the Watergate investigation or broke privacy rules by revealing the names of people who had yet to be charged with a crime."

Do you think Felt broke the law?

MR. BERNSTEIN: There was a conspiracy going on at the time, run by the president of the United States to undermine the electoral process in this country. A criminal presidency...

MR. RUSSERT: But did Felt know that when he started? He started talking to you four or five days after the break-in when he didn't know there was a conspiracy going on.

MR. BERNSTEIN: Actually, he did know there was a conspiracy going on...


I'm gonna have to say it. I'll allow some of my better -educated blog brothers to correct me.

The takedown of the Nixon administration is certainly not an unalloyed good, and I question whether it was a net good. I have no love lost for Nixonian Republicanism, mind you, and he clearly exceeded powers, broke laws and stepped over the line many times.

But when I look at the post-Nixon period, I think of the fall of Saigon and the rise of the Church commission, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, boat people and the foundation for the Carter Presidency.

Let me run a counterfactual here: Nixon finishes his second term, damaged somewhat by investigations but not chased out (think Clinton with worse hair). Bernstein says that there was "a conspiracy to undermine the electoral process" but Nixon won 49 states to one. This was not won by a break in, this was a clear landslide against Senator McGovern's polity. So the electoral process was not successfully altered.

Nixon is a little stronger in his second term to negotiate a more secure peace in Saigon, with US management of the changeover. We still lose South Vietnam to the communists, but millions of lives are spared. The anti-war Senators do not feel their oats and dismantle the US security apparatus in the Church commission. Ford does not Pardon Nixon and wins a second term (more "WIN" buttons). No Carter and no Church Commission -- perhaps no 9-11.

So, "Shallow Tonsil," or whoever leaked Valerie Plame's soi-disant secret identity is a low-down, criminal, varmint -- but "deep throat" and his brave benefactors (did they mention they kept his identity secret for 33 years? Several times.) are national heroes. I don't buy it.

Media and Blogging Posted by jk at 1:23 PM

July 16, 2005

Eminent Domain

The Kelo decision is going to affect a lot of cities negatively if this kind of attitude doesn't change.

    When Mayor Street declared his war on blight in Philadelphia, it is unlikely that he imagined the James J. Clearkin construction company as the enemy. The 87-year-old, family-owned business is located just off Castor Avenue in Juniata Park, in a modest, two-story office building that is as sturdy today as it was when the family mortared in the last buff-colored brick in 1950.

    Now, as then, the Clearkin company specializes in schools and churches, mostly Catholic ones. It still employs about 45 people. In the last decade, it has paid more than $400,000 in city taxes. But unlike some Philadelphia businesses, Clearkin has no complaint with the assessment. The family would be glad to keep sending their tax checks downtown.


[...]
    The Clearkins - James Jr., James 3d and Joseph - are so bitter about the city-sponsored foreclosure they have vowed to move their company out of Philadelphia. If they do, they will join other businesses evicted from the development site in decamping to the suburbs.

Philadelphia is notorious for fleeing residents and fleeing companies because of the high tax environment. Now they're chasing them out!

If I were a politician looking to break into local politics, be it city, township or county, I would run on a "no eminent domain" kind of platform.

No houses for offices... no companies for houses... roads, parks, maybe... but the city has to pay.

I'm still waiting for the WalMart pushing out a Planned Parenthood. That would change a lot of attitudes.

SCOTUS Posted by AlexC at 9:00 PM | What do you think? [2]
But jk thinks:

Hmm, wonder if there are any young guys in the Philadelphia area who might be tempted to enter politics...

What I like is the legislative solution. While we all wish they had defended property rights better, courts cannot force a municipality to take property.

Posted by: jk at July 17, 2005 12:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I don't think you understand AlexC. Planned Parenthood is a "good" civic citizen. A profit making business that builds Catholic schools and churches is a scourge on urbanism.

'Kelo' gives free rein to local governments to boot out anyone they have a grudge against, or who doesn't pay the "protection" fee under the table, as long as it can gin up some higher-revenue possible use for the acreage they occupy. Anti-American to the extreme.

Posted by: johngalt at July 18, 2005 3:30 PM

Santorum's Gay Staffer

From Knight Ridder Papers

    The senior spokesman for Sen. Rick Santorum, R- Pa., Friday confirmed to a web log that he is gay.

    According to PageOneQ, an online gay and lesbian publication, director of communications Robert L. Traynham, said that he was an "out gay man who completely supports the senator."

    Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership has been an outspoken opponent of homosexual rights and a leading proponent of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.


What's the story here exactly?

Did Santorum fire him? Would they rather that? How would that have played?

Oh... I get it. Conservative Republicans are supposed to hate gays. Yet somehow, Senator Santorum is standing behind him.

    "Robert Traynham ... is widely respected and admired on Capitol Hill, both among the press corps and among the congressional staff, as a communications professional. Not only is Mr. Traynham an exemplary staffer, but he is also a trusted friend confidente to me and my family. Mr. Traynham is a valued member of my staff and I regret that this effort on behalf of people who oppose me has made him a target of bigotry in their eyes.

    "It is entirely unacceptable that my staffs' personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent's campaign. Mr. Traynham continues to have my full support and confidence as well as my prayers as he navigates this rude and mean spirited invasion of his personal life."


Mr Traynham's sexuality was apparently not a major secret in the Santorum office. Exactly who "outed" a somewhat outed man is not clear to me.

FYI.. The comments on the PageOneQ article are really disappointing. A lot of Uncle Tom talk.. (Robert Traynham is apparently black too)... Nazi comparisons... Come back to the reservation kind of talk.

It's like DemocraticUnderground or something.

Almost like a lot of hearts were broken or something.

But jk thinks:

This may be the best thing that ever happened to Sen Santorum. He gets "grilled" on this by media who want to expose him as a hypocrite, and he just calmy answers that it is no big deal, Traynham is a valued associted, &c. Santorum comes off looking very reasonable.

Just image the pain this must cause Andrew Sullivan...

Posted by: jk at July 20, 2005 10:35 AM

NAFTA

_41311669_cctvbombpic203.jpg

British police released a still frame image from one of their thousands of surveilance cameras in England, purportedly showing the four bombers on their way to carry out the deeds. I found the picture in a BBC article, but first saw it on FNC where the talking head was compelled to say this photo was of the suspects before the blasts. No, you don't say? You mean this wasn't after their worthless body parts were scattered all over London? Well, blow me down.

Something Dagny said prompted me to come up with the acronym 'NAFTA' to explain the life-hating Islamist's present status. "Need Another Four Terrorist Assholes."

But jk thinks:

Sorry, gang, I don't care for it. Associating free trade with terrorism? When we're trying to get CAFTA past some obstreperous Democrats (and lily-livered Republicans) -- No! No! No!

Posted by: jk at July 17, 2005 12:18 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Sorry JK, when I look at NAFTA I don't see "free trade" I see a mixed-economy nation making deals with controlled-economy nations. Not much there that makes my heart go pitter pat.

Posted by: johngalt at July 17, 2005 3:04 PM
But jk thinks:

I dunno if Canada is THAT bad...

You’re scaring me, jg. If we'll only trade with countries that decry collectivism, that is just life the lefty protectionists that insist our trading partners conform to US labor and environmental standards.

We all win with free trade, and it gives the other nations a chance to trade up to US labor, environmental and freedom standards.

Posted by: jk at July 18, 2005 3:53 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I'm not so idealistic that I'd ban trade with any but perfectly capitalist nations. Heck, the US fails that test as I alluded in my comment. I'm not even explicitly judging NAFTA to be bad, although I'm sure I could find reprehensible aspects of it if I went looking. My only intention was to dissuade you from associating "NAFTA" with "free trade", and therefore holding it above expropriation of its acronym for satirical purposes. True free trade is an animal that hasn't been seen yet on this earth.

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 2:13 PM

July 15, 2005

Good Flash for Friday

eclectech has a flash animation "tribute to charles clarke and his id cards"

Now that's good politics! I wish I had hired them when the US was getting Campaign Finance Reform! Good stuff.

Hat-tip: Samizdata

On the web Posted by jk at 6:25 PM

Thin Skin?

Yahoo's Word of the Day is "insular." IN-suh-ler.

The example caught my eye:

insular
DEFINITION: (adjective) narrow or isolated in attitude or viewpoint
EXAMPLE: Americans are famous for their insular attitudes; they seem to think that nothing important has ever happened outside of their country.
SYNONYMS: bigoted, closed, restricted

It's not the most egregious (uh-GREEG-jus) anti-Americanism of all time, but I am a little unprepared for it in the context.

Oddly, the example doesn't appear on the definition page, or in Petersons.com, which is listed as providing the information.

One of the NRO writers once found a crossword puzzle clue that asserted Alger Hiss's innocence. Same deal, it's not PBS or the New York Times --you're just not expecting it.

But johngalt thinks:

While we're on erroneous dictionary examples, I found this one while perfecting my understanding of the word "penumbra:" An area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree: “The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion” (Joseph A. Califano, Jr.).

Since when? It's the fourth, not the first. Worse than that, privacy from governmental intrusion is an EMANATION of security from unreasonable search and seizure, not a penumbra. Sheesh.

Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2005 2:12 AM

July 14, 2005

Name Drop

I almost posted something when this editorial ran. Now that the contretemps has developed into a karfuffle, I must.

The story so far:

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Never say we aren't willing to help an editorial subject in distress, and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm clearly needs some friendly advice.

Last month the state legislature buried the Democratic Governor's top legislative priority, a grandiose proposal to raise taxes on insurance companies, banks and thousands of small businesses that private studies said would have cost up to 20,000 jobs. Ms. Granholm's plan was widely criticized, including in these columns in March and in an op-ed article on the opposite page last Thursday by state legislator Rick Baxter, a Republican, and Hillsdale College Professor Gary Wolfram.

Ms. Granholm was not pleased, going so far as to denounce the op-ed as "treasonous for the state of Michigan." The authors' high crime? Exposing Michigan as a high tax state and criticizing Ms. Granholm for wanting to raise taxes. Her choice of words was no inadvertent slip of the tongue, by the way--a Howard Dean-like temporary loss of sanity. The Governor has used the "t" word repeatedly and has even suggested that Mr. Baxter "should be removed from office."


Hillsdale Professor Gary Wolfram was my professor for an online Economics 101 course I took at Yorktown University.

That makes me...er, still a nobody!

Posted by jk at 5:20 PM | What do you think? [1]
But johngalt thinks:

But you're a nobody who's interacted with an almost somebody. Did I ever tell you the story of how I told Dick Cheney to do something, and he did! (Does that make me more powerful than Karl Rove?)

Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2005 2:06 AM

Internecine

That's the title of jk's million dollar idea for a cable TV show (no doubt, pundit shows are real cash producers!) and I am giving it away.

It's the opposite of Crossfire. You have two conservatives for 10 minutes, then two moderates, then two liberals. But you discuss a topic on which they differ. So you get Bill Buckley and Bill Bennett to argue drug policy, Victor Davis Hansen vs. Paul Gigot on immigration -- you get the idea.

The show would be good because the opponents would greatly respect each other, and you would get an intelligence as they explored their differences that you do not get with Hannity and Colmbs yelling at each other.

I have been thinking of this for a few weeks but I was pushed to go public by Johngalt's comment: "remember I am an ally!"

I remember, and I love all my blog brothers (commenters included). I find it 1,000 more interesting arguing with an ally instead of an opponent.

Happy Bastille Day, mes frères

Posted by jk at 5:11 PM | What do you think? [6]
But johngalt thinks:

I think you're on to something, but on what subject do liberals disagree? Agreement with fellow travelers is the definition of being liberal these days. Any discussion of trumped-up differences between two liberals would quickly devolve into a listing of all the ways that Karl Rove is behind it all.

Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2005 2:03 AM
But AlexC thinks:

It's a cool idea.

What do liberals disagree on? Hmm....
* Who is more evil.... Nixon or Bush.
* Who is dumber.... Reagan or Bush.
* What's the ideal tax rate... 50% or 100%.

Posted by: AlexC at July 16, 2005 7:39 PM
But jk thinks:

I think that their tent is indeed smaller, but you do see moderate voices at TNR, plus some folks who have fallen off the reservation like Christopher Hitchens, Mickey Kaus. Bjorn Lomborg...

In a perfect world, you might find two who would discuss feminist vs. anti-war positions, environmentalist vs. immigration, and explore some of the rifts that are not explored.

Posted by: jk at July 18, 2005 11:37 AM
But johngalt thinks:

I can envision the debates that AlexC proposes, but the battle lines of JK's hypothetical disputes elude me. Women shouldn't run the country because they'd be more warlike? We shouldn't appease our enemies (instead of defeating them) because that's what MEN want to do? We shouldn't outlaw lawn mowers because illegal aliens need jobs?

Posted by: johngalt at July 18, 2005 3:10 PM
But jk thinks:

Our war efforts are vastly improving the lives and opportunities of women in the MidEast. Sure, everybody hates President Bush, but somewhere there's a feminist who will admit this improvement.

Environmentalists, likewise, are very resource-conscience. They like the 1.1 child California family that buys Organic Food at the local co-op, but are made nervous by nine-kid immigrant families in an old minivan. Think Rachel Carson meets Tom Tancredo...

Posted by: jk at July 18, 2005 5:30 PM
But jk thinks:

but, but, but -- I like Alex's too -- especially 50% vs. 100% tax rates...

Posted by: jk at July 18, 2005 5:31 PM

Terrorist Recruiting

I frequently hear people bemoan the fact that the Iraq war has been so good for Al Qaeda recruiting. Charles Krauthammer takes a good swipe at that in a point/counterpoint piece in this weeks Time Magazine. I love the end:

On 9/11, the U.S. was rudely injected into a Muslim civil war--the jihadists are intent on conquering the entire region and re-establishing an ancient caliphate--except that only the jihadist side was really fighting. By taking the fight to the Arab/ Islamic heartland, the U.S. has forced Muslims to commit. The most remarkable effect of the wars to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq is that, whereas on 9/11 we stood alone against the terrorists, today there are two large and energized Muslim populations--with legitimate governments building armed forces--engaged in the same struggle against jihadism as we are.

It is those allies who are critical in ultimately winning the war on terrorism. The terrorists may have recruited their new Atta, now splattered on the walls of the Baghdad mosque he has suicide-bombed. We have recruited tens of millions of Afghan and Iraqi Muslims--with Lebanese and others to follow--opposing that Atta as they attempt to build decent, moderate, tolerant societies.

I'll take our recruits


Hat-tip: Power Line

Posted by jk at 4:17 PM

SCOTUS Does One Right?

It deosn't make up for Raich and Kelo, but the WSJ Ed page applauds a decision from the high court -- and even credits it with A Brand X Bump?

Between 2000 and 2004, nearly $2 trillion in telecom market capitalization dried up, and some 70 publicly traded telecom companies filed for Chapter 11 protection. So it's not irrational to think that last month's Brand X decision from the High Court -- which upheld last year's pro-market Federal Communications Commission ruling that local cable companies aren't required to share their broadband networks with competing Internet service providers -- has had something to do with reawakening the telecom sector. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's subsequent comments in these pages that the ruling paves the way for still more deregulation in telecommunications has no doubt also helped stir investors' animal spirits

SCOTUS Posted by jk at 2:10 PM

I'm A Liberal!

I like taking these tests. It's always fun to see where I lay.

    You would feel most at home in the Northwest region. You advocate a large degree of economic and personal freedom. Your neighbors include folks like Ayn Rand, Jesse Ventura, Milton Friedman, and Drew Carey, and may refer to themselves as "classical liberals," "libertarians," "market liberals," "old whigs," "objectivists," "propertarians," "agorists," or "anarcho-capitalist."

(tip to TrekMedic)

But jk thinks:

jk's a little NW of you...

Posted by: jk at July 14, 2005 11:43 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Cool map! Finally, an alternative to the false left-right myopia. Notice that Stalin and Hitler are at the extreme edge of the same quadrant - that of government control over both the economy and liberty - while Ayn Rand is at the opposite extreme of the opposite quadrant - that of individual control over the economy and liberty.

We all agree that Hitler and Stalin were extremely bad, right? Even evil. So how is being their extreme opposite not extremely good? Huh Dad, huh?

If your strident goal is "balance" between these two ideologies then what does that make you? One part right to one part wrong, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: johngalt at July 14, 2005 4:38 PM

The Chinese Oil Supply

From The Steel Deal has an interpretation about Chinese oil consumption drop that could be a revelation.

    China is in a bad spot vis a vis oil. They need it, they will need more of it and the price can only go up in the long run. What's a country to do? I'll tell you. For the last 5 years or so, China has been buying excess oil at acceptable prices and stockpiling it. Now, the CIA, will say 'oh they don't have the tank capacity' to 'store that much oil'. Bullshit, where do WE KEEP OUR RESERVES? Hmmm? That's right, in old salt mines. China has its share of old mines, salt and otherwise. They have been filling those mines up. And now they are near full.

and finishes....
    What does it all mean? I am glad you asked. Expect China to make a move on Taiwan very soon. Expect China to make a move on the oil fields in the South China Sea. Don't expect China to do a damned thing about North Korea ... except laugh.

Read the whole thing.

It looks spot on.

But jk thinks:

China is always worth worrying about, but I reject the characterization of the Unocal deal (and that of J. Robinson West, in a WSJ Guest Ed today).

China would be foolish not to create and stock oil reserves, irrespective of any military objectives.

If alarmist protectionists in the US are allowed to spike the CNOOC - Unocal deal, China might have to go looking fir oil militarily. If we give them the chance to further integrate into world markets, I think we advance the "Dr. Evil" threshold, that is, making it disadvantageous to pursue crime when one is making so much legitimate money.

Posted by: jk at July 14, 2005 2:27 PM
But Steel Turman thinks:

I notice the headline @ Drudge is about China warning US that they will use nukes if we interfere with an invision of Taiwan. Timely no?

Posted by: Steel Turman at July 14, 2005 9:13 PM
But johngalt thinks:

What I'd like to know is, why can a totalitarian communist state official make flippant threats about nuclear first-strikes on another nation and there is not a peep of outrage from the US press, much less "world opinion?" And why is it that even the mere thought of using nuclear arms to fight Islamo-fascists in the remote mountains of Afghanistan, rather than risk the lives of American soldiers rooting out the filthy little cavemen, proves that Americans are "imperialistic warmongers of evil?" I can answer both questions with one word: envy.

In reply to JK's goal of giving China "the chance to further integrate into world markets" we must remember a critical distinction required for this strategy to work. There is no progress for freedom when that integration into world markets is by the state rather than by individuals. Governments should be barred, and I think will be in the Unocal case, from "owning" wealth. This is particularly true when said government is a totalitarian regime.

China cannot be a nation of free trade partners until they are a nation of free individuals. Any misguided attempts at the former, when engaged in with the Chinese government, do nothing but hinder progress toward the latter.

Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2005 10:29 AM

July 13, 2005

Ahoy!

I think that the Weekly Standard has been very smart to snap up some good bloggers to write for its website.

John Hinderacker has written some good columns, you might put Hugh Hewitt into this category, now Ed Morrissey (Captain Ed) has a good debut: It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Left

And yet a sitting senator and presumptive candidate for the presidency makes these strange assertions without criticism from the establishment press. The only coverage her speech received resulted from her coarse and personal attack on President Bush, which the media seemed eager to pass to its readers. Obviously, our national media's editors did not read Mad magazine well enough during their formative years to recognize patent demagoguery when they report it.

The piece is rich with respect for MAD Magazine, and the reasonable suggestion that the pompous establishment characters they enjoyed satirizing would be as much on the left these days.

Posted by jk at 4:34 PM

TNR does Che Guevara

TNR, bless their pea-pickin' liberal hearts, does a great service to the world with The Killing Machine. The article gives a realistic look at the faults and failures of Che Guevara, first enjoying the ironic capitalist enterprise that Che-wear has become.

It is not surprising that Guevara's contemporary followers, his new post-communist admirers, also delude themselves by clinging to a myth--except the young Argentines who have come up with an expression that rhymes perfectly in Spanish: "Tengo una remera del Che y no sé por qué," or "I have a Che T-shirt and I don't know why."

Carlos Santana, one of my favorite guitar players in my youth, was shown at the Oscars wearing a Che image and a crucifix. Paquito d'Rivera (a favorite of mine now) had the decency to call him on it:

Which brings us back to Carlos Santana and his chic Che gear. In an open letter published in El Nuevo Herald on March 31 of this year, the great jazz musician Paquito D'Rivera castigated Santana for his costume at the Oscars, and added: "One of those Cubans [at La Cabaña] was my cousin Bebo, who was imprisoned there precisely for being a Christian. He recounts to me with infinite bitterness how he could hear from his cell in the early hours of dawn the executions, without trial or process of law, of the many who died shouting, 'Long live Christ the King!'"

I think this article might reach some of the right readership in TNR. The people that need to learn this aren't reading National Review.

Guevara’s brutality and violent nature is detailed, with emphasis on misogynist and racist elements that should rightful disturb the Left's Che-heads.

His stint as head of the National Bank, during which he printed bills signed "Che," has been summarized by his deputy, Ernesto Betancourt: "[He] was ignorant of the most elementary economic principles." Guevara's powers of perception regarding the world economy were famously expressed in 1961, at a hemispheric conference in Uruguay, where he predicted a 10 percent rate of growth for Cuba "without the slightest fear," and, by 1980, a per capita income greater than that of "the U.S. today." In fact, by 1997, the thirtieth anniversary of his death, Cubans were dieting on a ration of five pounds of rice and one pound of beans per month; four ounces of meat twice a year; four ounces of soybean paste per week; and four eggs per month.

(But they have universal health care.) Even Guevara's efficacy in guerrilla warfare is questioned.

LLosa ends with an unfavorable comparison to a real revolutionary.

n the last few decades of the nineteenth century, Argentina had the second-highest growth rate in the world. By the 1890s, the real income of Argentine workers was greater than that of Swiss, German, and French workers. By 1928, that country had the twelfth-highest per capita GDP in the world. That achievement, which later generations would ruin, was in large measure due to Juan Bautista Alberdi.

Like Guevara, Alberdi liked to travel: he walked through the pampas and deserts from north to south at the age of fourteen, all the way to Buenos Aires. Like Guevara, Alberdi opposed a tyrant, Juan Manuel Rosas. Like Guevara, Alberdi got a chance to influence a revolutionary leader in power--Justo José de Urquiza, who toppled Rosas in 1852. And like Guevara, Alberdi represented the new government on world tours, and died abroad. But unlike the old and new darling of the left, Alberdi never killed a fly. His book, Bases y puntos de partida para la organización de la República Argentina, was the foundation of the Constitution of 1853 that limited government, opened trade, encouraged immigration, and secured property rights, thereby inaugurating a seventy-year period of astonishing prosperity. He did not meddle in the affairs of other nations, opposing his country's war against Paraguay. His likeness does not adorn Mike Tyson's abdomen.

UPDATE: Hahahaha, here's a link to Che-Mart!

But AlexC thinks:

http://che-mart.com/

Posted by: AlexC at July 13, 2005 4:00 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Nah, they'll just blame all the bad things attributed to Che on Karl Rove: "What other plausible explanation could there be? Come on, you'd have to be an idiot to miss the connection!"

Posted by: johngalt at July 13, 2005 4:31 PM

July 12, 2005

Cool T-Shirt

Donating to Britain seems odd ("coals to Newcastle?") but many folks would like to help. Here's a coup