|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 26, 2004 :::
You know, Dean, on re-reading that, I think the "literally" does apply to the number rather than the slapping.
::: posted by Steven at 11:23 AM
(0) comments
My brother shares ideas on anti-trust law, worth reading twice; I'm linking to it because I get the impression (though he's vague here) that I'm more anti-anti-trust than I am, or at least than I was before I started reading David Friedman's take on it perhaps a year ago. I think the government should try very hard to prosecute only the clearest cases, and if I did support abolition of anti-trust laws, it would be for the reasons given — not that they interfere in other people's business so much as that the government will, on net, do more harm than good with them.
::: posted by dWj at 10:57 AM
(0) comments
My brother complains (off-handedly) about Jonah Goldberg's use of the word "literally" in Newdow is unconcerned by the fact that if he got his way he'd be slapping, literally, hundreds of millions of Americans in the face. My first response when I read this was the same as my brother's, but then I decided to suppose that Goldberg meant that the hundreds of millions were literal, rather than the slapping in the face. It's debatable whether the ambiguity is sufficient to permit this charitable reading; only Jonah would know what he was actually thinking.
::: posted by dWj at 10:51 AM
(0) comments
A fiery tanker truck crash that melted a bridge and closed a mile-long stretch of [I-95 in Connecticut] will likely snarl traffic for up to two weeks, Gov. John G. Rowland said Friday.The truck carrying 12,000 gallons of fuel oil collided with a car Thursday night, sparking a huge fire that severely damaged both sides of the overpass where the accident happened. The truck driver and a firefighter were slightly injured. Wow.
::: posted by dWj at 10:44 AM
(0) comments
Jonah Goldberg writes:Newdow's assault on the Pledge of Allegiance depends on the criticism that any public recognition of God is unacceptably tyrranical. Here's an exchange, recounted by Greenhouse, between Justice Souter and Newdow from yesterday hearing:
Justice Souter's question for Dr. Newdow was whether, even assuming that schoolchildren were being asked "as a technical matter" to make a personal religious affirmation, the recitation had become in practice "so tepid, so diluted, so far, let's say, from a compulsory prayer that in fact it should be, in effect, beneath the constitutional radar." Was it the case, Justice Souter asked, that by "the way we live and think and work in schools and in civic society in which the pledge is made, that whatever is distinctively religious as an affirmation is simply lost?"
Dr. Newdow replied: "That is a view that you may choose to take and the majority of Americans may choose to take. But it's not the view I take, and when I see the flag and I think of pledging allegiance, it's like I'm getting slapped in the face every time, bam, you know, 'this is a nation under God, your religious belief system is wrong.'"
"I, I, I." You get the sense this all about Newdow? Remember this isn't even a case about what the pledge does to him, it's supposed to be about what the pledge does to his daughter.
I'm sorry but this country may have been established to protect individual rights, but it wasn't founded to cater to the feelings of every individual. Newdow is unconcerned by the fact that if he got his way he'd be slapping, literally, hundreds of millions of Americans in the face. He thinks that's fair because of his ego and because his capacity for abstraction affords him the ability to shove his head up his own butt and mistake the darkness for a temple of reason. Lily Malcolm writes:Jonah Goldberg thinks "under God" should stay in the Pledge of Allegiance because the majority of Americans want to keep it. I trust he will be just as enthusiastic about gay marriage when, in the not-too-distant future, the majority of Americans are in favor of that too. This is about the standard of accuracy I expect from a newspaper -- I can see the relationship between what Lily describes and her description of it, but it's a pretty charicatured description (even more so, I'd say, than Jonah's description of Newdow's comments as being purely about Newdow, when these comments were in response to a question about whether the case really matters, and were clearly meant to be representative of the impact on atheists in general).
But there are a couple twists that I think add a bit of irony here. First, Jonah Goldberg has written in opposition to pure democracy more often than any columnist I can think of -- or maybe it just seems that way, since his description of the majority peeing in the minority's cornflakes is so vivid. Second -- and conversely -- Goldberg is currently near the middle of public opinion, opposing gay marriage but supporting civil unions; in other words, it's possible that if support for gay marriage were to become the majority opinion, Goldberg would be part of that. I suspect he'd lag the median voter -- his mind is probably more made up than that of the average American -- but not necessarily by much.
Last but not least, I'd like to go on record as opposing Goldberg's figurative use of the word "literally". [UPDATE: I've changed my mind on this one.]
::: posted by Steven at 9:26 AM
(0) comments
David Bernstein on anti-trust (emphasis added, and I didn't read the piece he links to):This post by Kieran at Crooked Timber on antitrust law and libertarianism leads to the following thoughts: The right way to look at antitrust law is not whether economic theory suggests that particular monopolies can and will exist that can, in theory, be corrected through government action, to the benefit of both consumer welfare and economic efficiency. Microsoft's browser may or may not be such a monopoly, I lack the expertise to judge. The real question is whether, once one establishes a regime of antitrust law, whether that regime is going to do more overall harm than good. Just based on ideological grounds, I prefer to avoid regulations, but I'm less fundamentally opposed to antitrust laws than, for example, I believe Dean to be. But from a practical standpoint, Bernstein asks the right question, and I believe he comes to the right conclusion as well -- that the cases where government intervention is particularly useful are likely to be rare, and are probably outweighed by the cases where the government intervenes inappropriately.
See also Juan non-Volokh's follow-up (this time, the emphasis is his):Markets versus Politics - The Real Choice: David's excellent point below is not just applicable to antitrust. Rather, it is the proper mode of analysis for all public policy questions, and it deserves to be reiterated. Too often policy arguments proceed as follows: A) the market "fails" because it does not produce the theoretically optimal result, therefore B) government intervention is necessary. But B does not follow from A. The failure of market processes to produce an optimal result does not ensure that the political process will do a better job. From a libertarian perspective – or any perspective that is inherently suspicious of government intervention – the burden should be on those advocating government intervention to explain why the political process can be expected to produce a better result than the marketplace. In such an inquiry, the theoretical virtues of government intervention are no more relevant than a basic equilibrium model of perfect competition. Both are blackboard abstractions that often have little bearing on what occurs in the real world. What matters is how political intervention -- and make no mistake, government intervention in the marketplace is always political -- is likely to affect the status quo ante, and whether the consequences of such intervention (and the attendant rent-seeking, transaction costs, etc.) constitute an improvement in the real world.
Political intervention in the marketplace may be well intentioned, but that does not make it any more likely to generate positive results. Indeed, insofar as noble intentions leave the likely consequences of such interventions unexamined, such policies may make us all worse off.
::: posted by Steven at 9:19 AM
(0) comments
Thursday, March 25, 2004 :::
Happy birthday to native Iowan Norman Boraug, who has contributed so much to agricultural productivity. See also this interview with Reason a few years back. Links (and birthday alert) from Derek Lowe.
::: posted by Steven at 10:55 PM
(0) comments
If you, like I, saw these new M&M commercials and became convinced that the background noise must be the mangled remains of a quite catchy little song, you, like I, will be interested to know that it is called "Color My World" and is, in fact, by Petula Clark. Not, obviously, to be confused with the dirge of the same name by Chicago.
::: posted by dWj at 12:49 PM
(0) comments
Tom Sowell:Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.
::: posted by Steven at 12:17 PM
(0) comments
Today from Newt Gingrich:The Democrats think they've found the perfect one-sided debate by presenting themselves as the party that opposes "outsourcing" of American jobs. They hope the Republican Party will be dumb enough to take the bait and be the side that favors outsourcing. That kind of binary argument, in which the Republicans take the role of defending the loss of jobs overseas, would be a dead loser for the GOP. Republicans must set up a new, winning argument by focusing not on the loss of old jobs but on the creation of new ones. It was previously noted at this blog that Gingrich created a reputation as an "angry" type; since he left the House, in every appearance I've seen he seems upbeat and optimistic. What he's put forth here isn't a suggestion of substance so much as one of style: Argue against protectionism, but argue in favor of a dynamic economy that creates new jobs, instead of getting yourself into a position of arguing in favor of exporting people's livelihoods.
::: posted by dWj at 11:01 AM
(0) comments
Today from Jonah Goldberg:Richard Clarke has released a book with a series of sensational accusations — or accusations that have been unduly sensationalized — and the White House and its partisans are quick to attack Clarke's motives.
Now, I must admit, I think Clarke's motives are questionable, too. But I wish we didn't have to argue about motives. Questioning motives, rather than arguing fact, should be considered bad form in a democracy.
::: posted by Steven at 10:25 AM
(0) comments
Wednesday, March 24, 2004 :::
Aznar has an op-ed at the Journal.
::: posted by dWj at 1:57 PM
(0) comments
I just got an idea: John Kerry should be his own running mate. You know, to balance the ticket.
::: posted by Steven at 12:39 PM
(0) comments
Trading for my NCAA contest has opened; Nevada is available if you bid at least 45, Pitt for at least 17, Oklahoma State and Connecticut for at least 23. Bids should be received by me before the games begin tomorrow. Also, Steve and I have a side bet on the Oklahoma State vs. Pitt game; I'd give him 3 cents if Pitt were to win, but he'll give me 2 cents after Oklahoma State wins.Incidentally, Iowa State was ahead 33-20 at half time last night, and Florida State fought back to 47-47. In other interesting news on the women's side, Minnesota beat Kansas State quite soundly, starting with 43-17 in the first half. (This was a two seed playing on the home court of a seven seed.) Minnesota started the season 15-0, but had trouble with a difficult conference schedule. Incidentally, I find I don't have the stomach to use more violent and crude terms for one women's team beating another, the way I might for men's teams. I'm probably sexist. Oh, one other point on women's basketball; Iowa State's women host Saint Joseph's in the NIT tomorrow night.
::: posted by dWj at 9:45 AM
(0) comments
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 :::
The UConn women's basketball team beat Auburn tonight. The halftime score was 42-36. With four minutes left in the game, it was 72-40. I want to know what Coach Auriemma -- whose 50th birthday was today -- said to the team at halftime.
Also, the Iowa State men beat Florida State by three in the second round of the NIT.
::: posted by Steven at 11:48 PM
(0) comments
A "democracy caucus" at the UN? It looks like it's going to happen:Since 1996, a handful of foreign-policy wonks have been kicking around the idea of a "democracy caucus" at the U.N. Two administrations, first Bill Clinton's and then George W. Bush's, took quiet but significant steps in that direction. Now, according to Bush administration officials, the concept will be test-flown at the six-week meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights that began on Monday in Geneva.
Reached at his Chicago law office shortly before his departure for Geneva, Richard S. Williamson, the U.S. ambassador to the Human Rights Commission, said, "It's our hope, going to Geneva, to have two or three working sessions of the Community of Democracies—the democracy caucus, if you will." Asked if the meetings would be simply organizational or social, as earlier ones have been, he said: "We want to move beyond that. We are hopeful there will be meetings to discuss particular agenda items at the commission meeting and seek to find a common approach to them." Losing no time, the democracy caucus convened over breakfast in Geneva on Wednesday.
[...]
Eventually, officials say, the United States would like to see the caucus shape policy not just in the Human Rights Commission but throughout the U.N. system. As of now, that seems ambitious. Getting the democracies to coordinate their committee nominations is about as big as anyone is thinking.
But consider the long-term potential. By the time the Community of Democracies becomes strong enough to act coherently inside the U.N., it will also be strong enough to act coherently outside the U.N. It will contain most of the world's countries, including most of the strong ones. It will be unencumbered by the vetoes of tin-pot tyrannies. As it gains confidence and skill, it will attract money and authority. It may sprout an aid budget, a relief program, a peacekeeping arm, perhaps treaty powers.
In other words, the Community of Democracies may begin as a voice within the U.N. but go on to become a competitor to the U.N. Perhaps—one can dream—it may someday be the U.N.'s successor. Here's hoping.
::: posted by Steven at 4:03 PM
(0) comments
John Podhoretz has a somewhat sarcastic column about Richard Clarke's new book in today's New York Post:Some might suggest that the book is a distorted, false, sour-grapes account from a demoted government official who wants to settle scores and destroy the Bush administration in which he served as a holdover staffer from the Clinton years.
But that's because they simply don't comprehend the power and the glory that is Dick Clarke.
[...]
If you knew anything about Washington, you would surely think that a staffer on the National Security Council - traditionally a role without a great deal of authority - wouldn't be a major decision-maker during the day of and the days following the attack on this country.
That's because You Don't Know Dick Clarke.
Clarke says he all but ordered the president of the United States not to return to Washington on that day. ("Figure out where to move the president. He can't come back here until we know what the s--t is happening.")
By his own account, it was Clarke who gave the order to "authorize the Air Force to shoot down any aircraft . . . that looks like it is threatening to attack."
You thought it was Dick Cheney who gave that order? You were wrong - at least if you believe Dick Clarke. He gets more serious later in the piece:What Clarke reveals in "Against All Enemies" is that - not to put too fine a point on it - he is a self-regarding buffoon. But his solipsistic silliness won't give pause to the Democrat-media desperation to rewrite recent history in an effort to delude voters that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of George W. Bush's inattention.
They were not Bush's fault, and they were not caused by his inattention. Nor were they Clinton's fault. They were the fault of Osama bin Laden, who attacked and killed 3,000 Americans and would happily have seen that number read 30,000 or 50,000.
We need to remember this, and we are in danger of forgetting it in the raging partisan kerfuffle.
In the months after 9/11, the Bush administration refused - absolutely refused - to try to blame the attacks on the Clinton administration's failure of vision. The nation needed to be united in its determination and could not afford to surrender to finger-pointing.
Well, guess what? The Clinton administration's senior foreign-policy officials will be appearing this week before the 9/11 commission - to do to the Bush administration exactly what the Bush administration refused to do to them. RtWT.
Incidentally, I think some finger-pointing can be healthy, especially if it's the "that's what the problem is, so let's fix it" sort. In other words, if its the sort that leads us to an improved system, rather than distracting us from improving the system.
::: posted by Steven at 1:45 PM
(0) comments
Kerry gets one right, at least for now:U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dubious democrat hostile to U.S. interests, delivering a slap in the face to the leftist leader who had portrayed Kerry as a potential friend.
The Kerry statement on his Web site made front-page news in Venezuela on Monday, nearly two weeks after Chavez had publicly praised the Democrat contender, hailing his health care plans and likening him to assassinated U.S. President John Kennedy. Link from the Corner.
::: posted by Steven at 12:00 PM
(0) comments
Europe, including the UK, goes to daylight savings time this weekend.
::: posted by dWj at 10:41 AM
(0) comments
Woebegone is from Middle English wo begon, from wo (from Old English wo, woo, "grief") + begon, past participle of begon, "to go about, to beset," from Old English began, bigan, from bi-, "around, about" + gan, "to go." From dictionary.com. Why I find this so exceptionally interesting goes unspeculated on here.
::: posted by dWj at 9:42 AM
(0) comments
I've been adding to our blogroll. I'll probably reorganize the links at some point, maybe separating them into groups. With the list growing, I'll probably at least split them into "things to visit daily" and "things to visit if you have spare time". I might also separate the blogs based in the greater Cambridge area (of which there are quite a few) from the others.
I've been aware that we've been in the blogrolls of some blogs who haven't been in ours, and several of the new listings are in that category. I don't necessarily promise reciprocity to all comers, but at this point, if we're in your blogroll and you're not in ours, it's probably because I've overlooked you -- let me know.
::: posted by Steven at 12:44 AM
(0) comments
Monday, March 22, 2004 :::
A quick trip around the web:- Derek Lowe is discussing diminishing returns to investment in the pharma industry. I particularly liked this anecdote:
A special case, perhaps, is Alexander Fleming. One time in his later years, he was being given a tour of a more up-to-date research site, and someone exclaimed "Just think of what you might have discovered here!" Fleming looked around at the gleaming work surfaces and said "Well, not penicillin, anyway." He continues, though:I'm not arguing for poverty. I think that a certain minimum level of funding is necessary for good science - below that and you spend too much time in grunt work, the equivalent of digging ditches with kitchen spoons and mowing the lawn with scissors. But once past that, I don't think the correlation of budget and results is all that good. There's perhaps a broad trend, but nothing you'd want to stake your career on. Does this make anyone besides me think of education?
- At NRO, there's a story about the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal.
- Also at NRO, Derbyshire offers an overview of Taiwanese politics. He got some disagreeing email, which he put on the Corner.
- Speaking of Derb, he recently did an email interview. If you disagree with his take on homosexuality (as I do) and don't find it amusing (as I do), you'll want to skip parts.
Q. How do you think Bush is doing as president?
A. All right. But I speak as a person who has very low expectations of politicians.
Q. How much worse do you think Kerry would do?
A. Very, very much. He'd be another Carter, spend four years apologizing to the world for our appalling inclination to defend our own interests & way of life. Unthinkable. Vote Bush! That's pretty close to my take, though I might be slightly more positive about Bush.
I am a bit puzzled by the claim that 31 is the "first prime number the decimal period of whose reciprocal is an odd number of digits in length." What about three?
- The Edge of England's Sword offers a slogan for Democrats for Bush: "I voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him."
- Glenn Reynolds has a good suggestion:
ANOTHER HATE CRIME HOAX, this time at Claremont. Meanwhile there's genuine crushing of dissent, with apparent support from the Administration, at U.C. Berkeley.
UPDATE: Here's another one. I think that these hoaxes should be treated as hate crimes themselves. The argument for special "hate crime" rules, after all, is that hate crimes promote fear and division. So do fake hate crimes.
- Finally, I'm not certain whether Pete DuPont's piece at OpinionJournal is available to everyone, or just to Journal subscribers.
President Bush's steel tariffs saved the jobs of 5000 U.S. steel workers, but caused higher steel prices that eliminated 23,000 jobs in steel-consuming industries. Should similar tariffs be imposed on other product imports?
Radiologists in India can analyze patient X-rays at one-fourth of the cost of radiologists in the United States, and they are using U.S. computers, data chips and software to do it. Should such "outsourcing" of medical technology be forbidden and some American X-ray health care costs increased by a factor of four? Well, we do keep hearing complaints about how little health care costs.The trouble with protectionism, aside from its costs to the consumer, is that other nations retaliate: If America forbids the import of their goods and services into America, they will not permit export of American products to their countries. That would be costly because one factory job in five in America depends on international trade.
U.S. exports supported 12 million American jobs in the 1990s while foreign-owned firms directly employed 6.4 million American workers--Honda's 13,000 jobs in Ohio and BMW's 4,300 in South Carolina, for example. Why would we want to adopt protectionist policies that put all these jobs and people and good products at risk? If Messrs. Kerry and Edwards become Smoot and Hawley, a spiraling economic and employment decline will be the result; America will go backwards.
The truth is that market economies are in constant flux. Job opportunities change with time and technology. In the '30s farmers' jobs were one quarter of the American economy; today they are one-fortieth. Productivity is up, food prices are down, and fewer people work on farms. Is this a bad thing?
Horse-drawn carriages were replaced by cars, typewriters by computers, and E-ZPass has no doubt replaced some toll-taking highway jobs, all good things although a lot of jobs disappeared as new ones were created. The gales of creative destruction that shape market economies created 18 million new jobs in America in the past 10 years. But the important thing to understand is how that total was reached: 339 million old jobs disappeared while an astounding 357 million new ones were created in their place.
Democratic capitalism--market economies and free trade--has been the world's most successful economic system. To suggest that it be replaced by government regulated protectionism is, well, just plain stupid.
::: posted by Steven at 11:59 PM
(0) comments
I'm not sure whether I want to talk about politics or whether I just don't want to talk about basketball.
I never understood the point of basketball. A bunch of people run back and forth and score points at a delirious pace. Silly.
Now, baseball, on the other hand, gives you enough time to contemplate statistics between each moment of activity. Much more civilized.
Two unrelated but interesting tidbits from the "Where are they now?" files:
Manuel Noriega, now 70, is still in prison in Miami. He was recently denied parole, despite a positive recommendation from the judge who originally sentenced him. It's not every day you hear of a US attorney recommending against paroling a drug trafficker on the grounds that, if set free, he could "destabilize Panama."
Also, Fred Korematsu has filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court in support of the Guantanamo detainees.
::: posted by Eric at 9:31 PM
(0) comments
Kate Malcolm writes:I haven't yet watched Alias from two [weeks] ago But she's a lawyer, which means she pretty much lives Alias. Unless being a lawyer is somehow less exciting than I imagine it to be.
Incidentally, I think the fact that nobody in the NCAA contest is ahead of the selection committee means the tournament is just plain flawed this year. My opinion on this matter has nothing to do with the fact that I'm getting crushed (kind of in the middle of the standings, as shown, but with all my teams sent packing). I'm surprised that at most one contestant picked Duke to win it all. I considered it, and certainly would have picked them without the seed weightings. I wouldn't bet on them to win given even odds right now, but I also wouldn't bet against them with even odds.
::: posted by Steven at 5:03 PM
(0) comments
Sometimes I throw up a link on here just because, for example, it's Condi Rice at the Washington Post.
::: posted by dWj at 1:01 PM
(0) comments
Okay, so I'm not terribly clued into what my picks were for the NCAA contest at the Kitchen Cabinet. I picked Pacific over Providence at Yahoo, which is not weighted by seed, but apparently did not at KC, which is; I can't think of a possible reason for this other than utter carelessness. In the second round, I apparently picked the teams from Alabama over the 1-seeds. At Yahoo, I had Kentucky winning the whole thing — boy are my brackets there shot — so I'm a bit surprised I wished them off in the second round at KC. I wonder who I had winning it; I'm guessing Oklahoma State. I think I know where I put the file, and could look it up, but I'm frankly enjoying being surprised by the reports.Oh, Kate reports that I had Oklahoma State against UConn in the finals. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd have picked the former over the latter.
::: posted by dWj at 9:52 AM
(0) comments
From a short piece in the Harvard Law Record:Regarding opposition to gay marriage, there are two important points to consider. First, a majority of Democrats also oppose gay marriage (while most Democrats oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, a majority would also vote against allowing gay marriage in their home states). If everybody who opposed gay marriage voted Republican, we would have such an overwhelming Senate majority that we'd never need worry about our judicial nominees getting filibustered.
Second, right-wing thinkers vigorously debate the issue from both sides. Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks and a few others unflaggingly advocate the inclusion of same-sex couples in the civil institution of marriage (the scope of the religious institution of marriage remains the prerogative of the religions and is beyond the influence of the state). The not-to-be-underestimated Log Cabin Republicans work hard from inside the party to build support for gay unions. Jonah Goldberg and a number of other conservative writers, while not jumping entirely on the bandwagon, have staked out a moderate position in favor of civil unions.
I support gay marriage. I have nothing but disdain for the Supreme Judicial Court's foray into lawmaking, and I endorse the prosecution of local leaders who lawlessly license same-sex marriages, but if the issue were on a ballot I would unabashedly vote to extend the legal institution of marriage to embrace gay couples. I got this, and the last few, from Bashman, who must read more than Glenn Reynolds.
::: posted by Steven at 2:53 AM
(0) comments
Imagine if you woke from an operation and discovered that your tumor was gone. You'd think: I suppose that’s a good thing. But. You learned that the hospital might profit from the operation. You learned that the doctor who made the diagnosis had decided to ignore all the other doctors who believed the tumor could be discouraged if everyone protested the tumor in the strongest possible terms, and urged the tumor to relent. How would you feel? You'd be mad. You’d look up at the ceiling of your room and nurse your fury until you came to truly hate that butcher. And when he came by to see how you were doing, you’d have only one logical, sensible thing to say: YOU TOOK IT OUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS. PUT IT BACK! You know where Lileks is going with this, but read the whole thing.
::: posted by Steven at 2:32 AM
(0) comments
Interesting piece in the Salt Lake Tribune:Absent a constitutional amendment, polygamy will remain illegal in Utah. So that leads to a discussion of decriminalization, which would require only the repeal of laws that punish bigamy, including cases when there is no legal marriage but a married man and another woman living together as husband and wife. Under that system, only the first wife would be recognized by the government as a legal spouse.
Rodney Parker, an attorney who represents the southern Utah-based Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members support plural marriage, said decriminalization is more politically palatable.
"Why don't these people have the right to organize their families without being charged with a crime?" the Salt Lake City lawyer asked. I wholeheartedly support decriminalization of polygamy.
::: posted by Steven at 2:20 AM
(0) comments
I was mistaken Sunday morning -- Canada's Conservative Party didn't elect its leader Sunday, it elected him Saturday. Harper's the man:Stephen Harper won a first ballot victory in the race for the Conservative leadership on Saturday with widespread support across Ontario and Western Canada, becoming the party's first elected leader.
With 300 of 308 ridings reporting, Harper won easily with 16,148.88 points, far out in front of former Magna executive Belinda Stronach who had 10,196.16 points, and former Ontario cabinet minister Tony Clement, who had 2,754.97 points. Just over 15,400 were required to win. The deal with the "points", BTW, is that each riding (i.e. parliamentary district) is worth 100 points, which are split proportionally among the candidates. So if a riding in Alberta has twice as many Conservatives as a riding in Ontario, then each voter in the Ontarian riding has twice as much say as each voter in the Albertan riding. This was somewhat controversial in the western part of the country, where the party has more members, but Harper was largely their guy, and he won anyway.
More complete results are available at the Conservative Party website, though I didn't see a "popular vote" breakdown.
::: posted by Steven at 1:38 AM
(0) comments
Sunday, March 21, 2004 :::
Eric wants to talk about politics, which this blog used to do before college basketball playoff season started. My trip to Iowa — a swing state — gave me the chance to see a new Bush ad, and I approve of it. Another recent Bush ad was criticized for not moving polls, but that wasn't its point; its point was to create an environment. We're 8 months away. So the President puts out upbeat ads, acknowledging our challenges and highlighting opportunities. Expect more specific contest in September.I was just this weekend trying to think of the last negative candidate to have success running for President; I don't know much about Carter's 1976 campaign, or Nixon's '68 run, though I know the latter involved "law and order" themes. Even running against an incumbent, Clinton was never dreary; while it was "the worst economy in 50 years [sic]", there was an immediate segue into "don't stop thinking about tomorrow" — we're going to make things better. Kerry needs to put out some hopeful campaigns about how the world will be a better place when he's elected.
::: posted by dWj at 11:11 PM
(0) comments
Steve was right about Kentucky, and I was right about Gonzaga. So both of our brackets are a mess.As my contest goes, Kate has 60, Steve has 55, and I have 44, but Steve and I each have four teams left while Kate has 3. So we'll see how that goes. Oh, and in a few minutes I'll have the teams page updated through the second round. Update I meant to note that there are really only five teams available for trading at this point, since the ones we all own can't much be traded. I wrote a program for valuing teams at this stage, but I've mislaid it. I feel obligated to offer my teams for sale -- they would be the remaining two seeds -- but I may need a while to assess the brackets as they now look.
::: posted by dWj at 10:47 PM
(0) comments
It's a good thing I picked Alabama yesterday, since I don't think I have any teams left (I picked NC State and Cincinatti to go to at least the elite eight).
UPDATE: Actually, I'm even closer than I realized to not having any elite eight teams left. I have Wake Forest in the elite eight and Pitt in the final four, and that's it, after today. And Pitt is struggling early against Wisconsin.
UPDATE 2: Note that two elite eight teams and one final four team is what you'd expect me to get if I had picked my bracket by flipping a coin 63 times. Right now, Pitt is tied at halftime, but nine-seed UAB, which I picked over one-seed Kentucky, leads them at the half.
::: posted by Steven at 4:55 PM
(0) comments
At NRO, today is Jonah Goldberg's birthday, and I think tomorrow is K-Lo's. And I think someone else at NRO shares a birthday with one of them, though I might be making that up.
::: posted by Steven at 3:06 PM
(0) comments
I ran across this Reuters article, describing how Senators McCain and Lieberman are calling for more civility in the Bush and Kerry campaigns.
A pair of former presidential candidates from the major U.S. political parties appealed for more civil debate in the campaign on Sunday and warned that Americans will sit out the election if the current tone continues. ...
In the past week marking the one-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the two traded charges in speeches and television ads. Vice President Dick Cheney challenged Kerry's ability to lead and criticized him for voting against $87 billion in additional funds for Iraq. Kerry accused Bush of misleading Americans about the extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and the cost of the war.
It seems to me that these charges aren't really symmetrical. On the one hand, Cheney is making a judgment about Kerry's abilities -- something reasonable to do in a campaign, even if personal -- and criticizing Kerry on his voting record in Congress -- something entirely reasonable and something that, to my mind, is quite civil. I see nothing wrong with this.
Kerry, on the other hand, is accusing Bush of misleading the public, a pretty severe accusation about the President's character. He's impugning motives and this could be characterized as uncivil. Nevertheless, if he honestly believes that Bush lied to the American public, that's a legitimate campaign issue. He should have some facts handy to back up an accusation like that, though.
I don't think the public reacts well to anger in a candidate. Governor Dean is the most recent example of the phenomenon, but I submit also the example of Speaker Gingrich. While I don't recall him screaming at the top of his lungs, he was constantly critical of people and ideas when on TV and in the public spotlight and this gave him the reputation for being an "angry" person. Speaker Hastert, by contrast, seems downright avuncular. He appears on TV, smiling, taking about working happily with others and generally friendly things that appeal to the nonengaged voter whose exposure to politics is the evening news -- or part thereof.
When Bush is on TV, he's frequently smiling, and he tends to make positive statements. That shows either emotional maturity, good handling on the part of his campaign and image people, or both. Kerry always seems angry and this is an image problem that's going to hurt him.
::: posted by Eric at 2:19 PM
(0) comments
While browsing through the Harvard Federalist Society blog, Ex Parte, I discovered that Havard Law student and libertarian gun nut Amber Taylor has her own blog, and has discovered that the video for "I Believe in a Thing Called Love" by The Darkness -- one of my favorite new songs -- is available as streaming video on the web (I don't recommend that link over dialup). It's arena rock, straight out of the seventies.
Just to be clear, when I write either "arena rock straight out of the seventies" or "gun nut", I mean it as a compliment.
As long as I'm mentioning new music that sounds classic, I also recommend Jet's "Are You Gonna Be My Girl?", which reminds me of Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life".
::: posted by Steven at 1:19 PM
(0) comments
The Conservative Party of Canada elects its leader today. My understanding is that Stephen Harper, the last leader of the Canadian Alliance, is a clear favorite. I'm sure Colby Cosh will have details as they come.
::: posted by Steven at 8:40 AM
(0) comments
|
|
|
|
