|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, February 07, 2004 :::
Janet Jackson already has CBS, MTV, the NFL and the FCC angry at her — and now the S&M crowd is spanking mad, too!
Furious staffers at the freaky Manhattan fetish shop that sold Jackson the bustier she wore at the Super Bowl say she altered it to make a tearaway bra cup — giving folks the impression that their clothing for the kinky crowd is badly made.
The story is, not surprisingly, from the New York Post.
::: posted by Steven at 7:03 PM
(0) comments
The New York Times has an article on the use of red and blue in political maps to designate victories by candidates of each major party. I'm reminded of John Derbyshire's observations that blue has traditionally been a conservative color. (In my experience, Republican campaign posters tend to be reddish, with while and blue accents, while Democrats tend to choose blue and white and sometimes green. Perhaps this is a practical application of the strategy that one's color scheme should be used to distract the public from one's philosophy.)
::: posted by Eric at 3:39 PM
(0) comments
Friday, February 06, 2004 :::
"Lady, that is one ugly baby."
— Number 3 in David Letterman's top ten things you've never heard a political candidate say, as read by John Kerry.
::: posted by dWj at 12:53 PM
(0) comments
The only two men's basketball teams in the Ivy League without a loss are 2-0 Princeton and 4-0 Cornell. Cornell this weekend makes the trip that gave Penn its two losses, i.e. the trip to Yale and Brown. If Princeton isn't 4-0 by Sunday, something has gone seriously wrong. Princeton plays Penn next Tuesday, then at Cornell next weekend, which could be big if Cornell makes it through this weekend unscathed.
::: posted by dWj at 10:55 AM
(0) comments
Happy birthday today to Ronald Reagan.
::: posted by dWj at 9:27 AM
(0) comments
Thursday, February 05, 2004 :::
The Wall Street Journal today presents us with John Heinz Kerry's speech on the floor of the Senate, in which he defended candidate Bill Clinton, saying, "I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."
::: posted by dWj at 11:23 AM
(0) comments
I think the new Lileks bleat is a bit hard on Patrick Stewart. The "arrogance" and "significantly flawed" phraseology was gag-inducing, but I thought Lileks took it a bit far.
On Kerry and McAuliffe, I think he lets loose on exactly those points which warrant some letting loose. For example:And I’m sure [certain Kerry supporters] said YEAH! when Terry McAuliffe -- Carville without the warmth -- accused Bush of "not serving in the military," and said that Bush Sr. pulled strings to get him an honorable discharge. They know that’s true. They know it. Just as they know that Bush never flew a jet, and has the IQ of a warm rock, etc. etc. The whole AWOL thing is slanderous nonsense -- but it’s completely consistent with the new tone. Imagine if the head of the RNC had floated Mena rumors in 96, or wondered aloud about Gore’s role in Ron Brown’s "mysterious" plane crash death. And imagine if these memes were floated in the middle of a hot war. The difference is that "Mena" would have been a hot-button word at the RNC convention for those nutballs who wear 348 buttons and straw hats, whereas I suspect that the "Bush was AWOL" idea will be embraced enthusiastically by delegates who are NEA secretaries from Nebraska. We'll see. I don't remember this "Mena" thing, and I don't know the significance of 348. But I do have the impression that the lunatic anti-Bush fringe encompasses more people than did the lunatic anti-Clinton fringe. I could be wrong.
And I'm regularly astonished at how many people there are who can barely count thirteen with their shoes on, but who are willing to call Bush a "moron".McAuliffe said he was responding to the GOP’s attacks on Democrats’ patriotism. Examples given: none. You want attacks on patriotism, listen to Wesley Clark, who has specifically accused Bush of being unpatriotic I've been waiting a long time for an example of a reputable Republican attacking a reputable Democrat's patriotism, the way Clark has been attacking Bush's patriotism. I've heard a lot of talk of it since the 2002 election season, but I haven't heard any examples.
::: posted by Steven at 9:31 AM
(0) comments
Atrios is human scum.There, now how hard was that? Is it more "personal" if I use a legal name? If Atrios isn't Clarence Thomas either, then I'm sure having a legal name in addition to the slightly-more-than-nothing-whatsoever I have right now would not add to my knowledge of this person at all. In summary, what my brother said, only more so.
::: posted by dWj at 9:21 AM
(0) comments
At the Corner, Jonah Goldberg complains about "anonybloggers", largely in response to an aside by Andrew Sullivan that "Atrios" called Nick Kristof "human scum", but "is immune from personal attacks because he's anonymous." Here's what the G-man says:Frankly, I think Atrios and other bloggers who are too chicken to put their names behind what they say are cowards and, to a large extent, losers. I wonder whether NRO contributor "Jack Dunphy" knows how Jonah feels. Jonah continues:Moreover, readers who think anonybloggers are heroes of some kind should do a quick moral inventory. If it's wrong to insinuate something without proof, surely it's wrong to throw around insults without having to face the consequences. He has something of a point, but not enough of one.
Look, if "Atrios", or "Lily or Kate Malcolm", or our own "Eric Grey" start throwing around unprovoked personal attacks, then they're jerks, and neither Jonah nor I have to read what they write. If Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter or Michael Moore do so, well, they're jerks, too.
Ultimately, decoupling one's blog persona from one's real persona has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages (to the blogger) are that one's personal reputation and one's blog reputation don't interfere with each other. The disadvantages are that one's personal reputation and one's blog reputation don't interfere with each other. To anyone besides Dean and me, "Eric" has very little credibility, since he only exists as a half-dozen blog entries and a Yahoo! address. But he also avoids heat from the boss.
The "Malcolms", on the other hand, have some credibility for me because I've read their stuff for more than a year, and have some limited knowledge of who they are, or at least how they write. I don't know them as well as I would if I'd met them and knew more about their personal lives, but they don't have the status of the crazy man on the street. If I ever happen to meet "Kate Malcolm", she'll either have to give up her anonymity or start from scratch with me, unless she turns out to be, say, Clarence Thomas.
Now, maybe some people put too much faith in anonymous bloggers. Certainly, if somebody considers them -- as a class -- to be "heroes of some kind", that's kind of weird. Not necessarily Norman Bates weird, but at least Richard Simmons weird. But that's more of a problem with the reader than with the blogger.
Ultimately, I think it's odd to characterize anonymous bloggers as a group as either "cowards and, to a large extent, losers" or as "heroes of some kind." Those who hide so they can throw rotten apples at passers-by are cowards, and those who hide so they can discuss politics but still have a chance at tenure are -- well, not necessarily heroes, but not automatically suspect. An anonymous blogger revealing corruption in the French government might be a hero, if not much of a shock.
For the record, I read Ann Coulter occasionally when I'm feeling snarky myself; I never read "Atrios" -- not as a matter of principle, but because I have enough things to read -- or Dowd, or Moore; and I'm not sure "Lily", "Kate", and "Eric" are above personal attacks, but I think they're all less likely to engage in such behavior than I am.
UPDATE: Jonah has backpedaled a little, not disowning his original comments, but recognizing that they were too broad.
::: posted by Steven at 12:58 AM
(0) comments
Wednesday, February 04, 2004 :::
The Tribune (requires registration) reports:Two Chicago Transit Authority trains collided at low speed during the rush hour Tuesday, sending about 45 people to area hospitals for minor injuries and delaying thousands of travelers.The accident took place on elevated tracks just north of the Merchandise Mart when a Purple Line train rear-ended a Brown Line train, causing them to lock together, CTA president Frank Kruesi said. ... Confused cell phone conversations with friends and family left many thinking their train had derailed, although that never happened. And some passengers had to wait more than two hours before disembarking. Well, we were also concerned because the train was leaning, though we were later told that was because we were still close to the curve as the train heads north from Merchandise Mart; it's banked. We were momentarily concerned the train would fall off the elevated tracks.As with almost everyone on my car, I was seated; I was in a seat facing backward. We came to a stop, sat there a few seconds, and then lurched forward, so that I hit my knees on the seat in front of me. I was one of those passengers who had to wait more than two hours to leave; the purple line passengers apparently were taken back to Merchandise Mart much sooner, and some of the brown line passengers got to exit the back of the train and walk along the tracks back to that station, but we were ultimately told to sit down again and, eventually, they pulled the train up to the Chicago Avenue stop, where we got off. From there we got onto busses — my fellow passengers were helping the bus driver navigate, as this was not a normal route he was driving — and I made it home right about at 9:00, whereupon I turned on FOX to see that we were the top story on the local news. One of the passengers commented (on the news) that the train wasn't terribly crowded; I don't know which train he was on, but the Brown line wasn't terribly crowded, probably because there was another train shortly ahead of us. I just missed that one; if I'd left work 30 seconds later I would have caught it, gone to my Swedish lesson, and still have made it home earlier than I did.
::: posted by dWj at 10:03 AM
(0) comments
Lieberman appears to have won fewer delegates today than Al Sharpton (according to CNN, Sharpton won one in Delaware). A sad day for the Democratic party.
Lieberman is leaving the race.
Some delegates are still unassigned by CNN, which I'm trusting, but it appears that John Kerry has won just over half of the 269 delegates up for grabs today, with 144ish. Edwards gets 67 or so, 49 for Wesley Clark (believe it or not), and -- if he's lucky -- eight for front-runner Howard Dean. If those numbers hold up, then out of 606 delegates so far pledged (including superdelegates, as I listed yesterday), Kerry would have 256; Howard Dean, 123; John Edwards, 104; and Clark, 80.
The Doctor has been claiming he'll do well in Michigan and Washington. He'd better.
::: posted by Steven at 3:16 AM
(0) comments
Tuesday, February 03, 2004 :::
Mona Charen provides some quotations about Iraq. It works best as a quiz. Which president said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"? One point for the correct answer, William J. Clinton. And which politician said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction" in 2002? Two points for naming Edward M. Kennedy. The story has some other nifty ones as well.
I'm still trying to understand the Wesley Clark philosophy, that American intervention in the former Yugoslavia was a mercy mission and justifiable because it saved lives, while Iraq was a dangerous and unjustifiable exercise. The only way I can reconcile these opinions is by an argument that the United States should act against its self-interest in foreign policy. Well, Gen. Clark's foreign policy will likely be a moot point anyway, soon.
By the by, Dean, that story on Bush winning the Republican primary in New Hampshire said only that the top "write-in" candidate got 2% -- it said nothing about the other candidates on the ballot. Still, your general point is probably correct.
::: posted by Eric at 8:39 PM
(0) comments
Early exit polls suggest the day could end with basically no new delegates for HD or Lieberman, the latter of whom is doing rather worse in DE than I believe had been expected.
::: posted by dWj at 3:39 PM
(0) comments
Perhaps one of the more difficult tasks facing the writer of this article in the Guardian on predicting the behavior of large groups of people was trying to make it sound more novel than it actually is; the people with whom I surround myself at least wouldn't be surprised to hear that people influence each other's behavior in a way that can, to a varying degree, be modeled, free will at the individual level or not. That out of the way, the examples in the article do make me want to read the guy's book on the subject, if only in the hope of more specifics.
(This post is cross-blogged.)
::: posted by dWj at 2:18 PM
(0) comments
Lileks's latest Backfence (registration required) is about the Super Bowl's accoutrements. It concludes thusly:Point is, Janet -- "Miss Jackson," if you're nasty -- unholstered 50 percent of her bosom, and now the nation is debating whether it was intentional or an accident, and whether Super Bowls of the future will feature enthusiastic deployment of previously shielded body parts.
Oy.
Remember after 9/11, when we wondered whether we'd ever get back to feeling normal?
I think the answer is "yes."
::: posted by Steven at 12:00 AM
(0) comments
Monday, February 02, 2004 :::
Here are my latest estimates for tomorrow's results, and where that would put all of the candidates. Note that my numbers from Iowa aren't necessarily anybody else's -- in particular, I didn't use the 15% cut-off, because Kucinich's county delegates won't be ignored -- they'll just have to select a second choice. If I thought they'd spread themselves equally among the big candidates, I'd use the cut-off, but I think what I have is a better indicator of support. At any rate, it only affects a few delegates.
"Other" means delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire.
Looking ahead, Howard Dean's Michigan strategy isn't looking promising -- Kerry could get over 100 of Michigan's 128 delegates.
| AZ | DE | MO | NM | ND | OK | SC | 2/3 Total
(Estimated) | Super | Other | Total |
|---|
| Uncommitted | | | | | | | | | 531 | | | | Kerry | 27 | 8 | 57 | 14 | 10 | 14 | 20 | 150 | 82 | 30 | 262 | | Dean | 9 | 3 | | 12 | 2 | | | 26 | 98 | 17 | 141 | | Edwards | | | 17 | | 2 | 11 | 25 | 55 | 23 | 14 | 92 | | Clark | 19 | | | | | 15 | | 34 | 31 | | 65 | | Lieberman | | 4 | | | | | | 4 | 25 | | 29 | | Gephardt | | | | | | | | | 5 | 5 | 10 | | Sharpton | | | | | | | | | 4 | | 4 | | Kucinich | | | | | | | | | 2 | 1 | 3 | | Total | 55 | 15 | 74 | 26 | 14 | 40 | 45 | 269 | 270 | 67 | 606 |
::: posted by Steven at 10:35 PM
(0) comments
The big sports story from the weekend is that Penn's men's basketball team lost to both Yale and Brown, by a total of six points. Princeton beat Yale by 2 but Brown more handily, and has presumably become the favorite for the league championship.
::: posted by dWj at 12:44 PM
(0) comments
Did Carolina do a lot better than the Patriots on special teams? Obviously Vinatieri (sp?) left six points on the field; anything else? It felt like the Panthers were getting killed, but the scoreboard argued otherwise.
Update: I spelled Vinatieri correctly. The NFL has Super Bowl statistics available, and the Panthers had 10 more yards per punt, which may have made a bigger difference in the result than it did in my impression. The missed field goals probably had a bigger impact on the differential, though. Incidentally, I pointed out last night to my comrades that each team had four touchdowns and a field goal; the difference was in extra points.There were a record 37 points scored in the fourth quarter alone Well, with these teams, it's only natural, right?
::: posted by dWj at 9:47 AM
(0) comments
Tell me that wasn't an exciting game. Just try to tell me it wasn't exciting. I dare you.
I watched the Super Bowl with three other guys in Watertown. A lot of the Super Bowls of the '90s were lopsided disappointments, but like the games two and four years ago, this was quite a game. At the end, we offered a toast to the Carolina Panthers, who certainly proved that they deserved to be there.
Look for the Falcons -- with a healthy Michael Vick -- to improve a lot next year. I can't wait.
::: posted by Steven at 1:15 AM
(0) comments
Sunday, February 01, 2004 :::
I just dug my metal desktop perpetual calendar out of a box where I stored it a couple of years ago. It has rusted badly, to the point of being largely useless. We all claim to appreciate irony, but it can hurt when irony strikes this close to home.
::: posted by Eric at 6:27 PM
(0) comments
Based on the latest Zogby poll of Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, I estimate the following delegate totals on Tuesday:
| AZ | MO | OK | SC | Total |
|---|
| Kerry | 27 | 56 | 16 | 22 | 121 | | Edwards | 0 | 18 | 10 | 23 | 51 | | Clark | 18 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 32 | | Dean | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | | Total | 55 | 74 | 40 | 45 | 214 |
There will also be 26 delegates elected from New Mexico, 15 delegates elected from Delaware, and 14 from North Dakota.
UPDATE: I heard a poll on the radio tonight saying Delaware was going 30-16-14 Kerry-Lieberman-Dean, which suggests the delegates will go roughly 8-4-3. You might notice that here, as with other states, I've assigned delegates to candidates polling 14%, despite the 15% cut-off. This is because 20% or so -- depending on the poll -- is "undecided". I expect very few people to vote for "undecided" Tuesday (though I could hardly blame them, given the alternatives), so I'm assuming they'll divide themselves among the candidates or stay home.
::: posted by Steven at 2:58 PM
(0) comments
Up on Beacon Hill, the Massachusetts Legislature has been discussing -- over the last couple months -- how to respond to the gay marriage ruling last fall. In particular, there's talk of a constitutional amendment, which would have to be passed by consecutive legislatures and then by the people.
If they send me a constitutional amendment stating that nothing in the constitution gives gays the right to marry, and that it's up to the people and their laws, I'll vote to ratify it. If, on the other hand, they pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual, I'll probably vote against. Yes, process matters to me.
A law they passed, with the governor's signature, last month, allows alcohol to be sold on Sundays, subject to the ratification of said law by individual municipalities -- i.e., the liquor stores in Cambridge are still closed on Sundays until the City takes action. I'd just like to point out that the governor who signed this bill into law is a Mormon. And good for him.
::: posted by Steven at 4:22 AM
(0) comments
|
|
|
|
