July 31, 2005Flag In ToiletThe definition of art has really gone downhill.
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.
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, 2005Goodbye, 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.
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 PMPoetry CornerTo 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 ContinuesThree-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! NewsThat 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. Economics and Markets
Posted by jk at 11:14 AM
July 28, 2005Consumption TaxWe 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 BloggingI 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?
Posted by jk at 1:25 PM
CAFTA, Si!
But AlexC thinks:
All countries? *gulp* Let's just work with the free countries first. 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 PMIs 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/
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...
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 PMJuly 27, 2005No, You Are Not CrazyThe would-be Millenium Bomber was sentenced today.
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.
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 PMDean Keeps on GivingJohn 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. 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 PMViva 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. 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 PMJuly 26, 2005Roberts Requests
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...
*sigh* 1st Sign of the ApocalypseFrom the Washington Post...
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.
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 PMLet'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 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! We're from the government, and here to help.
Posted by jk at 11:12 AM
July 25, 2005'08 Straw PollPatrick 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 PMHard to PleaseA 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. Hotel SouterFrom Chicago Sun-Times
''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.
''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! Good News on RobertsSenator 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! Lt Governor EmbarrassmentIt 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.
"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? July 24, 2005SouteronomyA 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... Well Done, LanceAn inspirational American does what Eddy Merckx could not: seven tour wins! Well done!
Posted by jk at 10:59 AM
July 22, 2005Pot TheftFrom 6ABC
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 PMKristol on RobertsThe 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. 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... July 21, 2005Twilight Savings TimeThreeSources 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
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 PMZeitgeistI 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 AMJuly 20, 2005Filthy American Imperialists!Jim Hake emails "Project Friendship a success!" Dear friends and donors, More photos, info, and a chance to help at the Spirit of America site. Thanks to all who serve! Freedom on the March
Posted by jk at 7:30 PM
'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. 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? 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 Reverse Psychology
It sounds like fellow blonde right-wing babe Ann Coulter got the message.
Or did she?
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. JK Supports McCain-KennedyWait, 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. Problem (domestic immigration) solved. Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2005 2:45 PMThis 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, 2005Golberg's New BookK-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 PMClement for the CourtLooks 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.
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?
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 PMJuly 18, 2005SpurlockParity 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. 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 PMLeakAlexC 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 PMI Know How He FeelsA little honesty from Chris Muir: Day By Day -- always on the ThreeeSources blogroll! On the web
Posted by jk at 1:30 PM
Woodstein & BurnwardLoving 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 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, 2005Eminent DomainThe Kelo decision is going to affect a lot of cities negatively if this kind of attitude doesn't change.
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. [...]
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.
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.
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 PMSantorum's Gay StafferFrom Knight Ridder Papers
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.
"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 AMNAFTA
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!
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.
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 PMJuly 15, 2005Good Flash for Fridayeclectech 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 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 AMJuly 14, 2005Name DropI 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 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 AMInternecineThat'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....
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.
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...
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 PMTerrorist RecruitingI 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. 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 I'm A Liberal!I like taking these tests. It's always fun to see where I lay.
(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 PMThe Chinese Oil SupplyFrom The Steel Deal has an interpretation about Chinese oil consumption drop that could be a revelation.
and finishes....
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.
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 AMJuly 13, 2005Ahoy!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 GuevaraTNR, 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. UPDATE: Hahahaha, here's a link to Che-Mart!
But AlexC thinks:
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 PMJuly 12, 2005 |