November 7, 2010
The depth of the 2010 GOP victory in the state legislatures.
It's extreme.
Republicans increased their numbers in 73 state legislative chambers of the 87 up for election. Democrats did get one or two seats in six states: California House (+1), Pennsylvania Senate (+1), Delaware House (+2), Hawaii Senate (+1), Washington State Senate (+1), and West Virginia Senate (+2.)Look at the before and after maps. Click on the individual states to see the particular numbers — for example, in my state, Wisconsin. Look at the swath of states — Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania — that went from Democrat or divided to Republican. In the south, Alabama and North Carolina went from blue to red. And red begins to creep down from the upper right-hand corner, with Maine and New Hampshire.
Compare these tiny gains with the massive Republican gains in many state legislative chambers, like these: Texas House (+24), Pennsylvania House (+14), Ohio House (+14), Ohio Senate (+11), Michigan House (+18) and Michigan Senate (+5), North Carolina House (+15) and North Carolina Senate (+11), Wisconsin House (+26) and Wisconsin Senate (+16), Iowa House (+16) and Iowa Senate (+6), Missouri House (+18), Alabama House (+15) and Alabama Senate (+6), Arkansas House (+12) and Arkansas Senate (+8), Tennessee House (+14), Minnesota House (+26) and Minnesota Senate (+16), New Hampshire House (+117), Maine House (+21) and Maine Senate (6), Connecticut House (+16), Montana House (+18), North Dakota House (+10), and Massachusetts House (+17).
"Switch 2 Mitch."
The movement to get Mitch Daniels to run for President. (Via Politico.)
I find Mitch Daniels very appealing. A successful, accomplished state governor. I have a presumption against Senators at this point. But I haven't seen him in action enough to have an opinion about how strong of candidate he'd be, standing next to President Obama in a debate and so forth.
AND: Then there's Rick Perry...
I find Mitch Daniels very appealing. A successful, accomplished state governor. I have a presumption against Senators at this point. But I haven't seen him in action enough to have an opinion about how strong of candidate he'd be, standing next to President Obama in a debate and so forth.
AND: Then there's Rick Perry...
Gov. Rick Perry says he has no interest in running for president, but one would never know it by watching him this week.
When do we want to see actors pretend to go through what actually was a horrible experience that happened to real people, when we also know exactly what happened?
ALOTT5MA says:
One of my favorite TV shows is "I Shouldn't Be Alive," which features reenacted survival stories like "Trapped Under a Boulder." And one of my favorite movies, "Touching the Void," is the same thing. In these stories, individuals have made a decision to go out into the wilderness or climb mountains and they get into trouble because of their own bad decisions or over-optimistic ideas about the dangers that are out there. Then they need to deal with the consequences. I think it's kind of right-wing to watch dramas like that. What if you leave the comforts of civilization and go out where you will have to be self-reliant? In many of these scenarios, the characters begin with the idea that they want to prove something to themselves by doing something difficult out where there will be no one to help them if things go bad.
And that's the story in the movie ALOTT5MA is talking about, "127 Hours."
That's the new movie by the director of "Slumdog Millionaire," which was a fictional story showing terrible things happening to children. Why do we make up stories of causing children to suffer and entertain ourselves with that? ALOTT5MA seems to think there's something very different about subjecting ourselves to a story where we know what the terrible thing is. Now, in fiction or nonfiction stories, we might know or not know what's going to happen. Are you more willing to watch movies and TV shows where you don't know what the particular horrors are? Would I have avoided seeing "Slumdog Millionaire" if I knew the exact torture that I'd see inflicted on children? Does my answer change if I know that things like that are really done to children in India?
And then there are the movies that depict real historical events, like the Holocaust and 9/11. We know the horrors, but in a rough, general sense. The point of these movies is to allow us to enter the individual experience of the human beings whose lives were part of the familiar history. We see those movies, if they are good enough, because of the way they give us deep psychic understanding of what happened. There's that quote (attributed to Stalin), "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." A good movie might get you to the tragedy by putting you inside one person within the millions. But it might not be good. It might be a commercial exploitation of the emotions you already have. You may feel that you're obligated to care about these phony scenes full of actors because this really happened to real people. There will be celebrities in Nazi uniforms hamming up how evil they are. Then it's a travesty. Frankly, that's how I felt about "Schindler's List."
Suggest a form of physical suffering you'd rather endure this weeken than spending $10+ to watch James Franco reenact what hiker Aron Ralston did....Are we ghoulish to want to see more than the mental picture we had when we read about it in the press? Is there something different about a filmed depiction of an incident in which human beings did something evil to other human beings — "Schindler's List," "United 93" — and man-against-nature survival tales?
I feel like we've had a bunch of films like this lately -- United 93, A Mighty Heart (the Daniel Pearl story), World Trade Center and others I'm sure you can name -- dramatic films based on real-life events where I can understand why filmmakers believed this was a story worth telling, but where the story itself is not one I have any interest in spending my entertainment dollars/time to see. And yet we (pretty much) all saw Schindler's List, which somehow became a cultural obligation in a way that none of the others -- not even the remarkable story of United 93 -- did.
One of my favorite TV shows is "I Shouldn't Be Alive," which features reenacted survival stories like "Trapped Under a Boulder." And one of my favorite movies, "Touching the Void," is the same thing. In these stories, individuals have made a decision to go out into the wilderness or climb mountains and they get into trouble because of their own bad decisions or over-optimistic ideas about the dangers that are out there. Then they need to deal with the consequences. I think it's kind of right-wing to watch dramas like that. What if you leave the comforts of civilization and go out where you will have to be self-reliant? In many of these scenarios, the characters begin with the idea that they want to prove something to themselves by doing something difficult out where there will be no one to help them if things go bad.
And that's the story in the movie ALOTT5MA is talking about, "127 Hours."
That's the new movie by the director of "Slumdog Millionaire," which was a fictional story showing terrible things happening to children. Why do we make up stories of causing children to suffer and entertain ourselves with that? ALOTT5MA seems to think there's something very different about subjecting ourselves to a story where we know what the terrible thing is. Now, in fiction or nonfiction stories, we might know or not know what's going to happen. Are you more willing to watch movies and TV shows where you don't know what the particular horrors are? Would I have avoided seeing "Slumdog Millionaire" if I knew the exact torture that I'd see inflicted on children? Does my answer change if I know that things like that are really done to children in India?
And then there are the movies that depict real historical events, like the Holocaust and 9/11. We know the horrors, but in a rough, general sense. The point of these movies is to allow us to enter the individual experience of the human beings whose lives were part of the familiar history. We see those movies, if they are good enough, because of the way they give us deep psychic understanding of what happened. There's that quote (attributed to Stalin), "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." A good movie might get you to the tragedy by putting you inside one person within the millions. But it might not be good. It might be a commercial exploitation of the emotions you already have. You may feel that you're obligated to care about these phony scenes full of actors because this really happened to real people. There will be celebrities in Nazi uniforms hamming up how evil they are. Then it's a travesty. Frankly, that's how I felt about "Schindler's List."
The 5-year-old boy who chose to be Daphne from "Scooby-Doo" for Halloween.
And the mother who chose to blog about it.
So now there's a viral photo on the internet of a boy dressed as a girl and endless speculation about what that all means.
1. Did the mother invade her son's privacy? By blogging about the issue of a very young boy who wants to pretend to be a girl? Or was it the photograph? Or was it wrong even to invade the child's fantasy world by speculating about his sexual orientation? The mother's blog post was titled "My Son Is Gay." Do we owe children restraint in thinking about what sexual behavior they will find compelling when they grow up, and if we do, don't we all violate that duty in one way or another?
2. Consider the notion that a costume of a perfectly nice girl was perceived as an unusually scary Halloween character. Kids dress as devils and monsters and dead people all the time, but to be a pretty girl — if you are a boy — is terrifying. As the blogger noted, a girl dressed as a male character would not stir the same anxiety in the grownups. What does this say about sexism? Is there a special aversion to females, that manifests itself when a male associates with female things? Or is it that people have a special aversion to male homosexuals and are really pretty much okay with lesbians?
IN THE COMMENTS: Big Mike said:
So now there's a viral photo on the internet of a boy dressed as a girl and endless speculation about what that all means.
1. Did the mother invade her son's privacy? By blogging about the issue of a very young boy who wants to pretend to be a girl? Or was it the photograph? Or was it wrong even to invade the child's fantasy world by speculating about his sexual orientation? The mother's blog post was titled "My Son Is Gay." Do we owe children restraint in thinking about what sexual behavior they will find compelling when they grow up, and if we do, don't we all violate that duty in one way or another?
2. Consider the notion that a costume of a perfectly nice girl was perceived as an unusually scary Halloween character. Kids dress as devils and monsters and dead people all the time, but to be a pretty girl — if you are a boy — is terrifying. As the blogger noted, a girl dressed as a male character would not stir the same anxiety in the grownups. What does this say about sexism? Is there a special aversion to females, that manifests itself when a male associates with female things? Or is it that people have a special aversion to male homosexuals and are really pretty much okay with lesbians?
IN THE COMMENTS: Big Mike said:
I'm glad I'm at home when I followed your "perfectly nice girl" link because some of those cartoons are definitely NSFW.I've changed the link to the Wikipedia article on Daphne Blake. Previously, it went to the results of a Google image search on: Daphne Scooby Doo. I'll just add the "bestiality" tag to this post to indicate what you would have seen if you scanned the page too long.
November 6, 2010
"I did not want to run as a black candidate; I did not want to run as a military candidate..."
"... I wanted to run as an American candidate and win the respect of the people."
Allen West, one of the 2 new members of Congress who are black and Republican... and Tea Party. The other is Tim Scott. They're from South Florida and South Carolina, respectively.
ADDED: Will they join the Congressional Black Congress?
Allen West, one of the 2 new members of Congress who are black and Republican... and Tea Party. The other is Tim Scott. They're from South Florida and South Carolina, respectively.
ADDED: Will they join the Congressional Black Congress?
Keith Olbermann seems to be some sort of authority on the expression of anger... or at least Joe Biden thinks he is.
Submitting to Deborah Solomon's questions — in bold — he says:
Our #1 defense, it seems, is that we've learned to perceive the angry speaker as having taken leave of his senses. Biden sought the secret — which he imagined Olbermann possessed — for getting around that defense. He wanted to know how to seize the power of the patriarch.
One of the big flaws now is that there is all this noise on the right. When I yell there is a reason for it. There is a political and factual discernment behind it. I am not doing it gratuitously...Controlled, useful-looking anger. Yes, exactly how does one give that appearance and when is it appropriate? And more importantly, how do we on the receiving end of anger defend ourselves against speakers who would love to leap into the primal dimension of our minds and manipulate us by tapping the feelings we felt when we were children, inspired and intimidated by our parents?
I once had a conversation with the man who is now the vice president when he was still in the Senate, who asked me for advice about how to turn anger into righteous inspiration.
Joe Biden took you to lunch to ask you for tips on getting angry?
He said, ‘‘I just come across like I’m angry and out of control, and you seem to focus it and make it look useful and expressive.’’
Our #1 defense, it seems, is that we've learned to perceive the angry speaker as having taken leave of his senses. Biden sought the secret — which he imagined Olbermann possessed — for getting around that defense. He wanted to know how to seize the power of the patriarch.
In the middle of writing about pessimism, David Rakoff finds out that the burning pain in his shoulder, that pinched nerve...
... is a tumor. Here he is — bald and hilarious — talking about his book. Watch for the reference to the Roberts Court...
You can buy the book — "Half Empty" — here. I highly recommend the audio version. His reading style is very funny — and also easy to sleep to (which is 2/3 of the reason why I buy audiobooks).
I discovered that book after watching David Sedaris on "The Daily Show" and going off to buy "Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk" — which you can buy here. Again, the audiobook is highly recommended — but "Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk" isn't easy to sleep to because it's tricked up with a lot of music... and also actors read some of the stories and actors try so hard. It's wakefulness-provoking.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| David Rakoff | ||||
| ||||
You can buy the book — "Half Empty" — here. I highly recommend the audio version. His reading style is very funny — and also easy to sleep to (which is 2/3 of the reason why I buy audiobooks).
I discovered that book after watching David Sedaris on "The Daily Show" and going off to buy "Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk" — which you can buy here. Again, the audiobook is highly recommended — but "Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk" isn't easy to sleep to because it's tricked up with a lot of music... and also actors read some of the stories and actors try so hard. It's wakefulness-provoking.
That time George Bush — at the dinner table with his wife and parents — said "What is sex like after 50?"
From an interview to air Monday:
"So I'm drunk at the dinner table at Mother and Dad's house in Maine. And my brothers and sister are there, Laura's there. And I'm sitting next to a beautiful woman, friend of Mother and Dad's," says Bush. "And I said to her out loud, 'What is sex like after 50?' "Why can't adults talk about sex? This is only a story about the depredations of alcohol... but why? Why must conversation be so boring that an interesting question draws "serious daggers"?
After that, one could hear a pin drop. It was "total silence," says Bush. "And not only silence, but like serious daggers" from my mom and my wife.
He says that, with a case of "after-dinner remorses," he later called the woman to apologize. But she got the last laugh. Bush says that on his 50th birthday, when he was Texas governor, the woman sent him a letter reading: "Dear Governor, Well, what's the answer?"
ThinkProgress festoons itself with updates of shame.
I'm willing to believe there's something screwy about MSNBC's suspension of Keith Olbermann, but Think Progress's eagerness to blame a conservative resulted in an elaborate post that is now so studded with backtracking updates as to be unreadable.
November 5, 2010
The Arkansas Supreme Court orders a new hearing in the case depicted in the documentary "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills."
"While there is a significant dispute in this case as to the legal effects of the DNA test results, it is undisputed that the results conclusively excluded Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley as the source of the DNA evidence tested," wrote the court.
Here's the trailer for the (excellent) film:
Here's the trailer for the (excellent) film:
"An Unmarried Woman" — the most annoyingly 1970s movie I can name.
Really, it pains me to watch this clip. I remember exactly how this felt at the time and how important this portrayal of womanhood was imagined to be:
The actress is Jill Clayburgh, who died today — after 21 years of chronic leukemia — at the age of 66. Her husband was the playwright David Rabe.
The actress is Jill Clayburgh, who died today — after 21 years of chronic leukemia — at the age of 66. Her husband was the playwright David Rabe.
"I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary."
Said Valerie Jarrett:
He knows exactly how smart he is. ... He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is. And he knows that he has the ability — the extraordinary, uncanny ability — to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them and make sense out of them...So this "sense" you refer to.... it's the end result of a digestive process?
... and I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. ... So, what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy. ... He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do.Oh, my lord. This is the way the people have buttered him up his whole life, I'm afraid. How will he deal with the rude affront he received last Tuesday? Is there an Obama that fits the changed circumstances or was his entire being formed through relationships with sycophants?
"Honestly Monica, the web is considered 'public domain'..."
"... and you should be happy we just didn't 'lift' your whole article and put someone else's name on it!"
Via Instapundit.
The stolen article begins with the line: "'As American as apple pie' isn’t." Ah, funny! Just yesterday, I was saying: "Americans say: as American as apple pie."
IN THE COMMENTS: Paddy O says:
Via Instapundit.
The stolen article begins with the line: "'As American as apple pie' isn’t." Ah, funny! Just yesterday, I was saying: "Americans say: as American as apple pie."
IN THE COMMENTS: Paddy O says:
The Cooks Source Facebook page is hilarious now.Ha! Poetic justice.
"[I]t is absurd for any government to prevent people from growing a naturally-occurring plant that requires no processing to provide humans with pleasure."
"It's pretty basic, actually. This is a core freedom for human beings and requires an insane apparatus of state control and police power to prevent it from occurring. All you have to do is burn a plant and inhale the smoke. If humans are not free to do this in the natural world in which they were born, what on earth are they free to do?"
Andrew Sullivan, pushing back Josh Marshall, who writes:
Andrew Sullivan, pushing back Josh Marshall, who writes:
... I just don't know if I think marijuana should be legalized at all. Maybe it's that I'm getting into my 40s. And maybe I'm a hypocrite.... But [my Dad] had this very contradictory and hard to rationalize position which was that he was fine with people smoking pot but keeping it at least nominally illegal kept public usage in some check. Again, how to rationalize that in traditional civic terms? Not really sure. But frankly, I think I kind of agree.So, for Marshall, it all comes down to who's skittish or formal about law? This is a pleasure that is open to everyone except those who adhere to the law. Everyone else can go ahead, but — perhaps as a sop to the rule-followers — they'll have to feel uneasy about it.
"Obama Recasts Asia Trip as Jobs Mission."
The NYT headlines:
“The primary purpose is to take a bunch of U.S. companies and open up markets so that we can sell in Asia, in some of the fastest-growing markets in the world, and we can create jobs here in the United States of America,” Mr. Obama told his cabinet Thursday, with the cameras rolling.If that's recasting the point of the trip, what was it previously supposed to be about? And whatever the original purpose, why didn't Obama figure out that this would be a good thing to say before the elections?
“My hope is, is that we’ve got some specific announcements that show the connection between what we’re doing overseas and what happens here at home when it comes to job growth and economic growth,” he said....
“On the trip that I’m about to take, I’m going to be talking about opening up additional markets in places like India, so that American businesses can sell more products abroad in order to create more jobs here at home,” Mr. Obama said.
Is it surprising that 31% of self-identified gay/bisexual voters voted Republican?
This doesn't surprise me. I think the split between the parties should be about the same as it is in the heterosexual population. I'd expect it to be somewhat skewed because the Democrats give the impression that they will do some things to advance gay rights.
But that shouldn't have too great an effect because: 1. Gay people are interested in all the issues, not just who purports to care about specific gay-related issues, 2. There isn't much reason to trust the Democrats to do more than pretend to care, and 3. If the GOP seems libertarian, it may appeal to those who mainly want the government to leave them alone to live their lives according to their own values.
The 31% figure is probably also skewed by who is willing to tell pollsters that they are gay. It may be that more conservative respondents are less likely to convey the information and, especially in the case of religious conservatives, less likely to admit to themselves that they have a homosexual orientation.
But that shouldn't have too great an effect because: 1. Gay people are interested in all the issues, not just who purports to care about specific gay-related issues, 2. There isn't much reason to trust the Democrats to do more than pretend to care, and 3. If the GOP seems libertarian, it may appeal to those who mainly want the government to leave them alone to live their lives according to their own values.
The 31% figure is probably also skewed by who is willing to tell pollsters that they are gay. It may be that more conservative respondents are less likely to convey the information and, especially in the case of religious conservatives, less likely to admit to themselves that they have a homosexual orientation.
"How would you feel if some dude you knew was out to get you moved 15 feet away from your kids? How would you feel?"
Sarah Palin's reality show:
ADDED: I must say... Palin ought to move to a more secluded house. I'm not saying Joe McGinness isn't a jerk, but even assuming perfectly nice neighbors, she ought to have more privacy. Also, I love that she calls her patio "the cement slab."
AND: The nugget of propaganda delivered by this homey reality show is that Sarah Palin regularly sits down and does her own independent, studious research and writing.
IRONY: McGinniss's lawyer accuses Palin of invading his privacy:
ADDED: I must say... Palin ought to move to a more secluded house. I'm not saying Joe McGinness isn't a jerk, but even assuming perfectly nice neighbors, she ought to have more privacy. Also, I love that she calls her patio "the cement slab."
AND: The nugget of propaganda delivered by this homey reality show is that Sarah Palin regularly sits down and does her own independent, studious research and writing.
IRONY: McGinniss's lawyer accuses Palin of invading his privacy:
Mr. McGinniss was not asked if any production crew could videotape him as he read a book on the secluded deck of the house he was living in at that time. He was not aware that any camera crew was in fact videotaping him. Mr. McGinniss had a reasonable expectation of privacy under those circumstances. The mere taking of the video therefore gives rise to an actionable claim for invasion of his privacy. The publication of the video on your website and in the television show constitutes an additional wrong – the unauthorized use of the likeness of Mr. McGinniss. Finally, the manner in which Ms. Palin describes Mr. McGinniss in the episode is defamatory: Mr. McGinniss has never invaded the Palins’ privacy, contrary to the many statements made by Ms. Palin and her husband, both prior to this television production, and now repeated in the episode referenced above.
Sex.
The 1-person Halloween costume. [I'm trying to link to the 9th picture in the slideshow, the one with the woman inside the mattress, with an inflatable man on the mattress.)
From Freakfest, which officials regard as a success this year solely on the metric of fewer arrests.
From Freakfest, which officials regard as a success this year solely on the metric of fewer arrests.
November 4, 2010
Technical advice sought.
A reader emails:
Internet Explorer is blocking my access to your blog as a virus threat. That is, I've been warned, and can click through if I want to (against their recommendation), but they citeAny ideas?
This website has been reported to contain the following threats:
- Malicious software threat: This site contains links to viruses or other software programs that can reveal personal information stored or typed on your computer to malicious persons.
With President Obama going to Mumbai — where he will be protected from coconuts — I've started reading the Mumbai Mirror.
Here's "Coconuts removed from trees in preparation for Barack Obama's India trip." But searching for the story — I'd heard Rush Limbaugh exclaim about it — I ended up at a Mumbai Mirror article about the special dishes the local chefs were cooking up in honor of the visit.
So now, I'm really getting into the Mumbai Mirror. What's its explanation of why Obama is coming to town:
Look how the Mumbai Mirror covers our elections:
Then there's "Indian-American Nikki Haley scripts history in US politics":
O’Barry PieMaybe people who hear the song or see the movie titled "American Pie" think there's a dessert we call "American pie." Americans say: as American as apple pie.
This recipe is as rich as Obama’s biography. It uses 44 ingredients in honour of the 44th American president’s life.
There’s nothing quite as American as an American pie.
But this pie combines elements from the various places he’s lived in.
Cocoa and coffee from Kenya, of which Obama’s father was a native, Polynesian fruits like banana and pineapple because he spent his childhood in Hawaii, and a coconut-and-rice pudding from Indonesia, where he lived with his stepfather for a few years....
The result is new and unusual. A single bite brings on a rush of many separate elements and, at the same time, has its own overall personality, just like the person it’s named after. The attractive pie is garnished with hazelnuts and rice crispies.Rice Krispies for the time he spent in Kansas?
So now, I'm really getting into the Mumbai Mirror. What's its explanation of why Obama is coming to town:
Unlike his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, who came to India and charmed Indians, President Obama will be here physically, but his mind is likely to be on what he can carry back home from this country.
Most notably, his eyes will be set on creating jobs, which he can accomplish to some extent if he can wangle some of the multi-billion-dollar contracts, especially in the defence sector, that US firms are keen to sign. But this would not be easy as India is not yet ready to sign the agreements for ensuring sale of defence ware to New Delhi.He's not coming here to slather us with love like Bill did. He just wants our money, they're thinking?
Look how the Mumbai Mirror covers our elections:
Americans awoke on Wednesday to a vastly different political landscape, with Republicans retaking the House of Representatives as US voters punished Democrats over high unemployment and a sluggish economic recovery, delivering a divided Congress in Tuesday’s midterm poll.Ultra-conservative? I've never thought of the Tea Party as ultra-conservative.
Resurgent Republicans, led by the ultra-conservative Tea Party insurgency, steamrolled Democrats, taking at least 60 seats and a commanding majority in the House. It was one of the chamber’s largest political swings of the past century.
Then there's "Indian-American Nikki Haley scripts history in US politics":
Daughter of Punjabi Sikh immigrants from Amritsar, Namrata Nikki Randhawa Haley who has become the first Indian origin woman to become the governor of a US state has been propelled to centre stage of American politics after her baptisation into politics in 2004.I'd never put that together. Two Indian-American governors now. Interesting. Both Republicans, for what it's worth.
She is the second Indian-American leader after Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana to have caught the attention of the Americans.
It has not all been smooth sailing for the tall Haley, 38, mother of son Nalin, 9, and daughter Rena, 12 as she had to overcome allegations of extra-marital affairs and racial digs to become the first Asian woman to don a US governorship.What were the "racial digs"? I don't know, and I don't like Indians thinking we were awful to Haley.
A dubious theme: "Independents Turn on One of Their Own: Feingold."
This — by Katharine Q. Seelye of the NYT — seems a bit off:
ADDED: Here's a photo of the "Forward" gesture:
AND: Ron Johnson ran a pretty effective ad saying that Feingold is not the "maverick" he claims to be.
The irony was lost on no one. Senator Russ Feingold, a liberal with a fierce streak of independence who crusaded against the influence of money in politics, was toppled Tuesday in a campaign awash in the kind of unregulated cash he had struggled to keep out of the system.It's not the same kind of independence. Feingold's independence was to the left of the Democrats in Congress. The independents who determined the outcome were voters — including me — whose politics lie in between Republicans and Democrats. Feingold made no effort to get in that zone.
And in a poignant twist, the loss came, in part, because independents flocked to his opponent, despite Mr. Feingold’s record of one maverick vote after another.
He was the sole senator to oppose the Patriot Act after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. He also broke with President Obama on several occasions, opposing the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, the bailing out of financial institutions in 2008 and the regulation of Wall Street this year, saying the restrictions did not go far enough.See? That's my point.
Most prominently, he battled his colleagues to overhaul the campaign finance system...A few paragraphs separate that from this:
...Mr. Feingold raised and spent more money than Mr. Johnson...Feingold's campaign finance law wasn't a limit on a candidate spending his own money. In any case, Feingold spent much more money than Johnson.
Mr. Feingold had raised $18.2 million and spent $16.2 million by the middle of last month, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Johnson raised $12.8 million, and spent $10.5 million, pumping in more than $8.2 million of his own money.
It is not clear what he will do next. In a brief speech Tuesday night, he told the 300 supporters gathered in a hotel here in his hometown, “It’s on to the next fight, it’s on to the next battle, it’s on to 2012 and it is on to our next adventure, forward.”"Forward" is the state motto and the informal name of the 15-foot sculpture on top of the state Capitol building and the official name of another statue at the east entrance to the Capitol. I've watched the video of Feingold's concession speech, and his hand is a little off-screen at this point, but I bet that's not a fist but an outreaching hand meant to invoke the "Forward" statues.
He then raised his fist in the air and left the stage.
ADDED: Here's a photo of the "Forward" gesture:
AND: Ron Johnson ran a pretty effective ad saying that Feingold is not the "maverick" he claims to be.
"Lawsuit exposes royal prince's bizarre sex statues — of HIMSELF."
That Daily News front-page teaser got me to click, and it was well worth it. The pictures of the statues are absolutely hilarious. (No nudity revealed in the cropped photos.)
People, think before you sue!
We had no thoughts at all about about Prince Bolkiah before he sued, and now his name is associated only with this one thing. And by "thing," I don't mean his cock. But he is well-endowed. In the statues!
Photographs of the pieces obtained by the Daily News show an endowed, muscular prince in a series of sexual positions with the woman, one of many at his beck and call. [Prince Jefri] Bolkiah has multiple wives and a harem of lovelies.The prince is suing over the price his ex-advisers took for selling an estate — where he stored the statues. They only got $11 million for it. The prince's lawsuit and his efforts to exclude the statues as evidence at trial led to this complete exposure of the embarrassing statues.
People, think before you sue!
We had no thoughts at all about about Prince Bolkiah before he sued, and now his name is associated only with this one thing. And by "thing," I don't mean his cock. But he is well-endowed. In the statues!
"Obama wants to take our penises."
One of many out of context quotes — 2 of which are from me — in this montage of sexy highlights from the last 5 years of Bloggingheads:
ADDED: Here's the context of my reference to "masturbating boys":
ADDED: Here's the context of my reference to "masturbating boys":
How did Althouse get to be #1 on the ranking of law prof blogs?
(Here are the rankings.)
So, then, how did this happen? Instapundit would unquestionably be #1, but Glenn had to take his public Site Meter down because it was interfering with ads. If you look at my Site Meter, Instapundit boosts my traffic. The other thing is that the first chart ranks by the number of page views, but if you scroll down, there is a second ranking by the number of visitors. On that second chart, I'm second (to The Volokh Conspiracy ). That has something to do with clicking into the comments threads. Not that the comments at Volokh aren't good, but there's a bit more action in the comments here, so a special thanks to the commenters here — along with all the readers who don't comment. You make blogging great fun for me.
So, then, how did this happen? Instapundit would unquestionably be #1, but Glenn had to take his public Site Meter down because it was interfering with ads. If you look at my Site Meter, Instapundit boosts my traffic. The other thing is that the first chart ranks by the number of page views, but if you scroll down, there is a second ranking by the number of visitors. On that second chart, I'm second (to The Volokh Conspiracy ). That has something to do with clicking into the comments threads. Not that the comments at Volokh aren't good, but there's a bit more action in the comments here, so a special thanks to the commenters here — along with all the readers who don't comment. You make blogging great fun for me.
November 3, 2010
If the government gives tax credits for donations that may go to religion, is that essentially the same as government spending on religion?
Lyle Denniston reports on the oral argument today in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. This is a case about tax credits for contributions made to private tuition funds that make grants to students who go to private schools. Many of those schools are religious and some of the qualified funds only make grants to students who go to religious religious schools. Denniston begins his description with a claim that he detected Elena Kagan's purchase on the mind of Tony Kennedy (a subject we were just talking about the other day). Denniston says Kagan and Kennedy — the 2 Ks (sounds like trouble!) — "took crucial, reinforcing roles." I don't see much support for that point.
This case has a substantive Establishment Clause issue — whether government is subsidizing religion — and a threshold issue about standing — whether taxpayers can sue over this. These issues are linked because they both may depend on whether a tax credit turns the privately donated money into money from the state.
The lawyer defending the Arizona program said it was like tax deductions. People take tax deductions for their contributions to religious organizations all the time. What's different about tax credits? The lawyer arguing against the program "said that the money that is involved in the Arizona program is money raised by a tax; without a tax, there would be no tax credit."
If we view the tax credit as coming from the state's money, amassed by taxing, then the taxpayers who brought the suit probably have standing. But does that also answer the Establishment Clause question? Private citizens decide whether to contribute to a fund and pick from the qualified funds, not all of which exclusively fund religious schools, and the children getting the grants are choosing which school they want to go to. So there are 2 levels of private choice. And the definition of the funds is neutral and not religion-based.
Here's the complete transcript of today's argument.
UPDATE, April 4, 2011: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lack standing.
This case has a substantive Establishment Clause issue — whether government is subsidizing religion — and a threshold issue about standing — whether taxpayers can sue over this. These issues are linked because they both may depend on whether a tax credit turns the privately donated money into money from the state.
The lawyer defending the Arizona program said it was like tax deductions. People take tax deductions for their contributions to religious organizations all the time. What's different about tax credits? The lawyer arguing against the program "said that the money that is involved in the Arizona program is money raised by a tax; without a tax, there would be no tax credit."
If we view the tax credit as coming from the state's money, amassed by taxing, then the taxpayers who brought the suit probably have standing. But does that also answer the Establishment Clause question? Private citizens decide whether to contribute to a fund and pick from the qualified funds, not all of which exclusively fund religious schools, and the children getting the grants are choosing which school they want to go to. So there are 2 levels of private choice. And the definition of the funds is neutral and not religion-based.
Here's the complete transcript of today's argument.
UPDATE, April 4, 2011: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lack standing.
Meade uses a Japanese digging knife — a hori hori — to plant a lot of allium bulbs really quickly.
He laughs at my "city girl" questions a couple times, and we discuss the results of a local election here in Madison, which demonstrated a Madisonian level of conservatism by picking the Democrat over the Green Party guy.
ADDED: All those tiny bulbs....
I only helped by looking admiringly and taking photographs...
As Meade planted 2,000+ bulbs....
I only helped by looking admiringly and taking photographs...
As Meade planted 2,000+ bulbs....
"They lost! Losers compromise!... They were wiped out!"
Rush is raging this morning. Message: The GOP must be boldly conservative and not compromise.
ADDED: Emailed notes from the Rush organization, summarizing the first segment:
ADDED: Emailed notes from the Rush organization, summarizing the first segment:
LOSERS compromise; Winners compromise nothing! ((Beach Music: Wipe Out)) ((More Music: Ding, Dong; the Witch is Dead.)) It is amusing how pessimism surrounds me. When Obama had the House and the Senate, that was a reason to be pessimistic, and I wasn’t.AND: Here's the full text of the opening monologue.
Conservatism was not on the ballot in 2008. Now we see. 1994 was BIG because it was unexpected; the win last night was expected. Republicans hoped to pick up 17 and they picked up 60. Compromise is off the table; they didn’t want to compromise with us. Losers compromise; this Agenda has to be stopped!
60 seats in the House of Representatives is almost unprecedented.
The previous record was 55 seats in 1932 when Hoover was tossed.
((More oldie-but-goodie-music that Rush loves, this time with satire lyrics.))
And it’s bye, bye, Pelosi and Republican Boehner takes the gravel.
As long as the Democrats control the Senate, what better face than Dingy Harry to represent them. The country is asking, “How in the Heck can this happen, other than unions, fraud, and deceit?” Chuck-U Schumer is unhappy and mad-as-Hell that he doesn’t get the gravel. He and Dick Turbin were going to have a drag-out battle for it.
No! We voted no on the high-speed rail!
Outrage!
Transportation officials have confirmed that Wisconsin and federal administrators have signed a deal to commit the state to spending all $810 million of its federal stimulus cash on a proposed Milwaukee-to-Madison high-speed rail line.Intensely undemocratic underhandedness on the day we voted for the candidate, Scott Walker, who promised to shut down this project.
But Cari Anne Renlund, executive assistant to state Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi, said Gov. Jim Doyle's administration was only following its original plan....
Renlund said state and federal staffers worked out the deal over the weekend because they were busy with other duties and that was the only time they could meet. She said the agreement was not publicly announced because it had just been reached, but it could be announced later.
When heads just don't understand.
I appear twice in this montage of communications breakdowns — it's not always the same — on Bloggingheads (which is doing montages this week in celebration of its 5th anniversary). And it's actually not the most-talked-about Althouse-on-Bloggingheads breakdown. I guess that just wasn't sufficiently montage-able....
Even California didn't want to legalize non-medical marijuana.
Prop 19 failed. In yesterday's Bloggingheads — the "Non-Obsolete Edition" — Matt Welch and I talked about the effort to legalize the so-called "recreational" use of marijuana, which is far less popular than the "medical" use. You can watch the whole segment here, but — I know these Bloggingheads things are long — I don't want you to miss the part where I connect the favoring of medical legalization to left-wing values that I despise. It's only 80 seconds:
Note that the "medicinal" use of alcohol — "self-medicating" — is considered especially bad. The good alcohol use is for personal pleasure — one might say the pursuit of happiness — and most certainly not out of a physical need. Isn't it odd that it's the other way around for marijuana?
If you watch the whole segment — 16+ minutes long, sorry — there's a lot of discussion of the way the federalism problem would work out if the state stopped criminalizing marijuana. It's a misnomer to say that would "legalize" marijuana, because the federal crimes still apply. It would still be a crime to possess, grow, or distribute marijuana. The federal government can't force state officials to carry out the enforcement of the federal law. (It can lure them into that role with conditions on spending, but it can't commandeer the state law enforcement personnel. That's Printz.)
As Matt notes, Eric Holder announced a few weeks ago, that if Prop 19 passed, federal drug agents would "vigorously enforce" the federal law in California. California's a huge state, and that would be damned hard to do. I suggest that Holder may have only said that to try to influence California voters to reject Prop 19, and Matt seems certain that was the reason. And that seemed to work.
It would have been quite chaotic if Prop 19 had gone the other way. In the 16+ minute clip, you can see that Matt loves the idea of the chaos that would destabilize everything with, perhaps, the ultimate result that the federal government would give up on its marijuana crimes. I, on the other side, resist the chaos. I don't think it would work well to have something appear to be legal and at the same time be a very real federal crime. Much as I like decentralized law and the benefits of federalism, where there is valid federal law, it supersedes state and local law. That is the constitutional structure.
Note that the "medicinal" use of alcohol — "self-medicating" — is considered especially bad. The good alcohol use is for personal pleasure — one might say the pursuit of happiness — and most certainly not out of a physical need. Isn't it odd that it's the other way around for marijuana?
***
If you watch the whole segment — 16+ minutes long, sorry — there's a lot of discussion of the way the federalism problem would work out if the state stopped criminalizing marijuana. It's a misnomer to say that would "legalize" marijuana, because the federal crimes still apply. It would still be a crime to possess, grow, or distribute marijuana. The federal government can't force state officials to carry out the enforcement of the federal law. (It can lure them into that role with conditions on spending, but it can't commandeer the state law enforcement personnel. That's Printz.)
As Matt notes, Eric Holder announced a few weeks ago, that if Prop 19 passed, federal drug agents would "vigorously enforce" the federal law in California. California's a huge state, and that would be damned hard to do. I suggest that Holder may have only said that to try to influence California voters to reject Prop 19, and Matt seems certain that was the reason. And that seemed to work.
It would have been quite chaotic if Prop 19 had gone the other way. In the 16+ minute clip, you can see that Matt loves the idea of the chaos that would destabilize everything with, perhaps, the ultimate result that the federal government would give up on its marijuana crimes. I, on the other side, resist the chaos. I don't think it would work well to have something appear to be legal and at the same time be a very real federal crime. Much as I like decentralized law and the benefits of federalism, where there is valid federal law, it supersedes state and local law. That is the constitutional structure.
"I don't believe in magic..."
Waking up in a red state, the lyric "The dream is over" played in my head. That song, that John Lennon song, you may know, is called "God." It begins: "God is a concept by which we measure our pain" — and that seems like an apt rebuke in a political world in which we imagined our President to be some kind of God. Idolatry is not a good thing, and we — not just the President, but we — got our comeuppance. Lennon's song continues...
Let's hope last night's revolution was a revolution toward reality, away from government, and a return to belief in what individual human beings can do on their own, without magical dreams about government.
I don't believe in magicMaybe, like me, you exclaimed: But maybe I believe in Aqua Buddha!
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
Let's hope last night's revolution was a revolution toward reality, away from government, and a return to belief in what individual human beings can do on their own, without magical dreams about government.
Yesterday afternoon, Matt Welch and I tried to talk non-obsoletely about last night's election.
Topics, as framed by Bloggingheads:
Why Ann voted against her old pal Russ FeingoldADDED: Matt Welch is the editor-in-chief of Reason magazine.
Just a pendulum swing, or something fundamentally new?
Will the Tea Party take over the GOP, or vice versa?
Matt vs. Ann on Prop 19
Advice for Obama (which he probably won’t take)
The GOP’s possibly futile attempt to stop Sarah Palin
Waking up in a red state.
Good morning, from Wisconsin.
My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over....
Or maybe just... The dream is over...And so, dear friends, you'll just have to carry on...
My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over....
Or maybe just... The dream is over...And so, dear friends, you'll just have to carry on...
November 2, 2010
TV on! Election night! Liveblog!
1. It begins:
2. "... Rand Paul projected by CNN to win his Senate race in Kentucky and another conservative, Dan Coats, projected to win the Senate race in Indiana."
3. "I'm more comfortable with Fox," say I, after watching CNN for a while and then switching.
4. Oh, CNN is better. Better graphics. Lots of people saying things. Annoying much of the time, but more detail. Mary Matalin enthusing about Portman winning in Ohio, a state Obama won.
5. DeMint already making his victory speech. Kitty Dukakis in trouble for seeming like "a walking billboard."
6. CNN says Coons wins. We won't have Christine O'Donnell to kick around anymore.
7. Rubio! David Gergen enthuses about "a Republican Latino with star power."
8. "Wow, the first time one of the fictional Althouse characters actually had a complete story arc! Bravo!" (Scroll up.)
9. It's so sad for the Democrats. They gave us so many things. Gifts. Expensive gifts. That we didn't want. That they bought with our money.
10. Tim Kaine blabs on and on, making a happy face. Eventually, Wolf Blitzer cuts hims off with "It's going to be a long night for you.
11. CNN's music for tonight is the same (or just close) to what was used in the HBO John Adams series. It's about the Framers, no? As the Tea Party clinches it.
12. Drudge says: "REPUBLICANS WIN SENATE SEATS: AL, FL, GA, IN, OH, KY, MO, NH, SC... DEMS WIN: CT, DE, MD... TOO CLOSE TO CALL: PA, IL..." Hey, what happened to California? Earlier he was calling it for Boxer.
13. Manchin. "Huge win" for the Democrats, says Wolf Blitzer, about the hot West Virginia race.
14. The GOP takes the House. It's outside of the margin of error, says NBC. Pelosi is gone. Ding dong. [UPDATE: Now MSNBC is calling that "a mistake." MSNBC is awful.]
15. NBC says Wisconsin is "too close to call," as the polls close.
16. Rand Paul victory speech: "I have a message! A message from the people of Kentucky! A message that is loud and clear and does not mince words! We've come to take our government back!"
17. MSNBC is hilarious. They're near meltdown. Rand Paul will destroy America. The Republicans "salivate at the thought" of worldwide economic collapse.
18. O'Donnell conceding. Very cheerful. Chirpy. I listened to Marco Rubio's victory speech a few minutes ago, which was, by contrast, very mellow.
19. Scott Walker has, it seems, won the Governorship here in Wisconsin. That's supposed to mean — that must mean — no to the high-speed train boondoggle. Also in Wisconsin, Russ Feingold is way behind.
20. Feingold has lost, quite decisively. I'm sorry to see him go. He's a good man. But I should admit that I voted against him. I had to vote for the Party of No.
21. Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin appear side-by-side on Fox News, analyzing the elections, denouncing sexism, and then ending on this adorable, ultra-girlie note:
22. Screen shot:
23. I just thought that was amusing, the way YouTube inserted my face into the Fox News. By the way, did you notice, at the end of the clip, when Geraldine said she wanted to go on "Dancing with the Stars," Sarah said "I'll hook you up"?
24. John Boehner tears up talking about American values, which he's chased all his life. Then, talking about his business, he sobs. Keep it together, Boehnsy!
25. That got a little... weird. I hope Boehnsy is ready to lead. Anyway, here in Dane County, Feingold's campaign manager George Aldrich is not giving up: "Russ is down by 80,000 votes, but...up to 1.4 million votes haven’t been counted." None of the Madison votes were in when he said that: "We are confident that this race is going to tighten, it is going to tighten quickly, and we may be in for a long night here."
25. Over at Drudge, it's the 3 Rs:
Rubio, Rand, and Ron.
26. Charles Krauthammer on Fox News: "The Obama agenda is dead." The Democrats have retained the Senate, apparently, but, looking forward to 2012, they will, self-defensively, distance themselves from Obama — says the Kraut.
27. Feingold has conceded. NYT:
28. Karl Rove exclaims that he's "exhausted." I was just saying he looked tired.
29. Speaking of tired, it's interesting that Harry Reid will be sticking around. There's something so dreary about him. Does his victory cheer Democrats? Or would they have had more fun kicking Sharron Angle around?
30. I'm tired too. See you in the morning.
2. "... Rand Paul projected by CNN to win his Senate race in Kentucky and another conservative, Dan Coats, projected to win the Senate race in Indiana."
3. "I'm more comfortable with Fox," say I, after watching CNN for a while and then switching.
4. Oh, CNN is better. Better graphics. Lots of people saying things. Annoying much of the time, but more detail. Mary Matalin enthusing about Portman winning in Ohio, a state Obama won.
5. DeMint already making his victory speech. Kitty Dukakis in trouble for seeming like "a walking billboard."
6. CNN says Coons wins. We won't have Christine O'Donnell to kick around anymore.
7. Rubio! David Gergen enthuses about "a Republican Latino with star power."
8. "Wow, the first time one of the fictional Althouse characters actually had a complete story arc! Bravo!" (Scroll up.)
9. It's so sad for the Democrats. They gave us so many things. Gifts. Expensive gifts. That we didn't want. That they bought with our money.
10. Tim Kaine blabs on and on, making a happy face. Eventually, Wolf Blitzer cuts hims off with "It's going to be a long night for you.
11. CNN's music for tonight is the same (or just close) to what was used in the HBO John Adams series. It's about the Framers, no? As the Tea Party clinches it.
12. Drudge says: "REPUBLICANS WIN SENATE SEATS: AL, FL, GA, IN, OH, KY, MO, NH, SC... DEMS WIN: CT, DE, MD... TOO CLOSE TO CALL: PA, IL..." Hey, what happened to California? Earlier he was calling it for Boxer.
13. Manchin. "Huge win" for the Democrats, says Wolf Blitzer, about the hot West Virginia race.
14. The GOP takes the House. It's outside of the margin of error, says NBC. Pelosi is gone. Ding dong. [UPDATE: Now MSNBC is calling that "a mistake." MSNBC is awful.]
15. NBC says Wisconsin is "too close to call," as the polls close.
16. Rand Paul victory speech: "I have a message! A message from the people of Kentucky! A message that is loud and clear and does not mince words! We've come to take our government back!"
17. MSNBC is hilarious. They're near meltdown. Rand Paul will destroy America. The Republicans "salivate at the thought" of worldwide economic collapse.
18. O'Donnell conceding. Very cheerful. Chirpy. I listened to Marco Rubio's victory speech a few minutes ago, which was, by contrast, very mellow.
19. Scott Walker has, it seems, won the Governorship here in Wisconsin. That's supposed to mean — that must mean — no to the high-speed train boondoggle. Also in Wisconsin, Russ Feingold is way behind.
20. Feingold has lost, quite decisively. I'm sorry to see him go. He's a good man. But I should admit that I voted against him. I had to vote for the Party of No.
21. Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin appear side-by-side on Fox News, analyzing the elections, denouncing sexism, and then ending on this adorable, ultra-girlie note:
22. Screen shot:
23. I just thought that was amusing, the way YouTube inserted my face into the Fox News. By the way, did you notice, at the end of the clip, when Geraldine said she wanted to go on "Dancing with the Stars," Sarah said "I'll hook you up"?
24. John Boehner tears up talking about American values, which he's chased all his life. Then, talking about his business, he sobs. Keep it together, Boehnsy!
25. That got a little... weird. I hope Boehnsy is ready to lead. Anyway, here in Dane County, Feingold's campaign manager George Aldrich is not giving up: "Russ is down by 80,000 votes, but...up to 1.4 million votes haven’t been counted." None of the Madison votes were in when he said that: "We are confident that this race is going to tighten, it is going to tighten quickly, and we may be in for a long night here."
25. Over at Drudge, it's the 3 Rs:
Rubio, Rand, and Ron.
26. Charles Krauthammer on Fox News: "The Obama agenda is dead." The Democrats have retained the Senate, apparently, but, looking forward to 2012, they will, self-defensively, distance themselves from Obama — says the Kraut.
27. Feingold has conceded. NYT:
Quoting Bob Dylan, he said, "My heart is not weary, it's light and free, and I've got nothing but affection for those who have sailed with me."The Times misses that "Forward" is the state motto. And maybe that "fist in the air" was posing as the Wisconsin "Forward" statue.
It is not clear what he will do next, but Mr. Feingold, 57, told the crowd: "It's on to the next fight, it's on to the next battle, it's on to 2012 and it is on to our next adventure, forward." He raised his fist in the air and left the stage.
28. Karl Rove exclaims that he's "exhausted." I was just saying he looked tired.
29. Speaking of tired, it's interesting that Harry Reid will be sticking around. There's something so dreary about him. Does his victory cheer Democrats? Or would they have had more fun kicking Sharron Angle around?
30. I'm tired too. See you in the morning.
At the Koi-Ahoy Café...
... rouse yourself from last night's serenity and move.
(Last night's koi were activated by Chip Ahoy.)
"Kennedy-Sorensen Dems Wouldn't Recognize Obama-Reid-Pelosi."
"[Sorensen] gave voice to America's historic aspiration for greatness and achievement. He believed in an America that was 'second to none,' and that dared to dream of doing big and important things."
Says John R. Guardiano.
Oh, but Obama-Reid-Pelosi did plenty of big and important things. That's what really hurt.
Says John R. Guardiano.
Oh, but Obama-Reid-Pelosi did plenty of big and important things. That's what really hurt.
Make a prediction: What will be the biggest upset?
What media characters are repositioning out in front of today's elections?
Well, there's Chris Matthews, who suddenly finds Obama to be a big old "elitist"....
... and Bill "Proud Westerner" Maher:
("[I'm] someone who believes in the values that Western people believe in that a lot of the Muslim world does not.")
... and Bill "Proud Westerner" Maher:
("[I'm] someone who believes in the values that Western people believe in that a lot of the Muslim world does not.")
Should all the many elections around the country today be seen as one big referendum on Obama and his Congress...
... and will you cast each of your votes accordingly?
What's this election about?
An amazing number of words are spoken in this 9 seconds — mostly by Bob Wright — but it's Mickey Kaus who's answering the question:
November 1, 2010
Politico, Mike Allen, and Jim VandeHei need to "man up," says Sarah Palin.
"They're jokes... they're making stuff up again."
Here's the article that's annoying her: "Next for GOP leaders: Stopping Sarah Palin."
Here's the article that's annoying her: "Next for GOP leaders: Stopping Sarah Palin."
Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year’s midterm campaigns....
"There is a determined, focused establishment effort … to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin," said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. "We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her."
9th Circuit Judge John T. Noonan Jr. can't understand the Justice Deparment's argument that the Arizona immigration law is preempted by federal law.
At oral argument today:
Here's my old post trying to make sense of the preemption argument. I came up with this (admittedly strange and politically inadvisable) argument:
"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."Yeah, well, but that's not preemption.
"With respect, I do believe we have an argument," responded Kneedler, who said the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to "interogation and police surveillance.''
Here's my old post trying to make sense of the preemption argument. I came up with this (admittedly strange and politically inadvisable) argument:
The federal government has responsibility for immigration, and it has expressed, through written law and real-world efforts, an extremely lax policy toward illegal immigration. Given that federal policy and the supremacy of federal law, one could argue that it is not within the state's proper power to dictate a different policy and impose it on the federal government (by referring a lot of new cases of individuals violating federal law).I really need to see the whole transcript. Ah! Here's today's oral argument:
"Obama = Keynesian?" sign makes Rally for Sanity folks insane...
... and stupid:
Via Weekly Standard.
Bleh. I don't like saying Rally for Sanity folks. Help me pick a better coinage:
Via Weekly Standard.
Bleh. I don't like saying Rally for Sanity folks. Help me pick a better coinage:
"A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP."
Says Rasmussen.
The theory is, the Republicans will win big because people want to say "no" to the Democrats. If so, the Democrats should be kicking themselves — stomping themselves — for going all-out defining the GOP as "the party of 'no.'" These days, no is what people are for.
Rasmussen makes the argument that we will see a lot, that the GOP victory shouldn't be understood as a preference for conservatism:
The theory is, the Republicans will win big because people want to say "no" to the Democrats. If so, the Democrats should be kicking themselves — stomping themselves — for going all-out defining the GOP as "the party of 'no.'" These days, no is what people are for.
Rasmussen makes the argument that we will see a lot, that the GOP victory shouldn't be understood as a preference for conservatism:
[I]t would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn't win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.
Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.
A legal discussion declines to "I'll see you in court!"
Keep going. It's Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus in the big 5th anniversary edition of Bloggingheads, which began with just Bob and Mickey. Great election week topics:
How Bob was won over by the Stewart/Colbert rallyADDED: I love the Tom Toles caricatures. Funny that Bob and Mickey — men who don't look at all alike — both end up with pinched-together temples and eyes and exaggerated mouths. Their heads are both super-wide at the mouth level to accommodate their giant mouths. Both have tiny eyes. The main distinctions are: eyebrows (tiny and giant), eyes (bagged and tiny), and lips (frowny and smirky).
Why Mickey is rooting for a Republican rout
Are Tea Partiers right about creeping socialism?
Is Obama’s biggest problem Obama?
"Russ Feingold received a suspicious package on his doorstep in Middleton Saturday, which police deemed a prank..."
It turned out to be a board game and a letter signed "Thomas Jefferson."
How is it even a prank? Someone sent him a joke gift. If Feingold shouldn't be getting packages delivered to his house, why does the Post Office deliver them? What does this have to do with "the recent interception of explosives"? It wasn't an inception. It was a delivered package. And there were no explosives.
Is this a nonstory, the sort of non-"incident" that happens all the time, which we're hearing about because of the election?
By the way, what board game was it? It was supposed to be funny in combination with Thomas Jefferson.
The Dane County Bomb Squad searched the package...So it came in the mail? It was on his doorstep because that's where the postal worker left it? Who is supposed to call the bomb squad when an unsolicited package comes in the mail? (I get packages in the mail from addresses I don't recognize. Should I call the police?)
Although the sender of the package has yet to be found, police traced the return address to a postal office in Illinois. The incident came on the heels of the recent interception of explosives headed for Jewish organizations in Chicago....
How is it even a prank? Someone sent him a joke gift. If Feingold shouldn't be getting packages delivered to his house, why does the Post Office deliver them? What does this have to do with "the recent interception of explosives"? It wasn't an inception. It was a delivered package. And there were no explosives.
Is this a nonstory, the sort of non-"incident" that happens all the time, which we're hearing about because of the election?
By the way, what board game was it? It was supposed to be funny in combination with Thomas Jefferson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
