July 8, 2012
"I'm ugly! I'm ugly! I'm ugly!"
Ernest Borgnine, RIP. He was 95.
ADDED: The clip above is from the 1955 movie "Marty." He won an Oscar. I remember him much more from the 1960s TV show, "McHale's Navy":
Andy Griffith died on July 3rd, so this makes 2 great 60s TV stars who have died within the week. Both were really old. If deaths come in 3s, it's hard to think who's still around who could be in a triad with those 2, who gave us so many laughs and so much fun back in the 1960s.
"What else an one expect from a Republican magazine, they probably dislike themselves."
Outrage over photoshopping Kate Middleton's teeth for a magazine cover about how something's "rotten" in Great Britain. But the magazine is The New Republic... not the New Republican.
9 minutes in June — reporting the Obamacare case.
Tom Goldstein — of SCOTUSblog, which got it right — examines the details of how CNN and FoxNews got it wrong.
10:08:30.... On the blog, readers are starting to taunt us via our comments feature (there ultimately will be 13,500 comments over the course of the Live Blog): Guest, “CNN was first, guys…”; Bill, “Fox is already announcing decision”; yolanda, “TV just announced the decision beat you to it”; Guest, “Fox News beats soctusblog….”
"Despite his endorsement of the DREAM Act, President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history."
"He's been deporting about 400,000 people a year, about double the number in the George W. Bush administration."
From a list of "Obama's Accomplishments." (Sarcasm intended.)
From a list of "Obama's Accomplishments." (Sarcasm intended.)
"The fact is that conservative constitutional thought is so much more crisply expressed, and so much more broadly accepted, than liberal thought..."
Concedes Dahlia Lithwick, pondering why liberals (supposedly) don't excoriate the Justices who disappoint them. She notes that "there is a long tradition of liberal counter-argument to the laissez-fair [sic] constitutional vision put forth by the court’s five conservatives," but "'liberals have largely forgotten how to think, talk and fight along these lines.'"
There are 2 — at least 2 — obvious responses.
1. Liberal Justices don't disappoint. The liberal Presidents have gotten what they sought, and they haven't had the equivalent of Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and now, perhaps, Roberts to complain about. When you're getting what you want, you keep your mouth shut.
2. Those liberal constitutional theories that get a lot of play in the legal academy don't sound right when spoken out loud in the context of public discourse aimed at ordinary people. Go ahead, put those liberal theories into clear, comprehensible words and lay them out there for the general public to compare to what conservatives say about the Constitution. The conservative theory, put clearly, is compelling to ordinary people. And Lithwick is most certainly not putting the conservative theory clearly by referring to it as "the laissez-fair constitutional vision."
It's laissez-faire, not laissez-fair, but quite aside from that, what is Lithwick trying to say? Conservatives talk about following the text and being faithful to the historical meaning of the text. Laissez-faire refers to leaving things alone. Lithwick makes it sound as though the "liberal counter-argument" is to interfere with the Constitution — to rewrite it. (I assume she thought she was saying that conservatives like laissez-faire economics, but that's not in itself a "constitutional vision.")
Lithwick complains that liberals don't know how to "think, talk and fight," but she has a problem with the way she thinks, talks, and fights as she's trying to register her complaint. Why is that?
There are 2 — at least 2 — obvious answers.
1. Lithwick is really only talking to liberals. It's a closed circle, where you never have to figure out how to speak comprehensibly and clearly, because you are all so self-assured and complacent about the goodness of your beliefs. It's babble, not intended for outsiders.
2. It really can't be made clear.
There are 2 — at least 2 — obvious responses.
1. Liberal Justices don't disappoint. The liberal Presidents have gotten what they sought, and they haven't had the equivalent of Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and now, perhaps, Roberts to complain about. When you're getting what you want, you keep your mouth shut.
2. Those liberal constitutional theories that get a lot of play in the legal academy don't sound right when spoken out loud in the context of public discourse aimed at ordinary people. Go ahead, put those liberal theories into clear, comprehensible words and lay them out there for the general public to compare to what conservatives say about the Constitution. The conservative theory, put clearly, is compelling to ordinary people. And Lithwick is most certainly not putting the conservative theory clearly by referring to it as "the laissez-fair constitutional vision."
It's laissez-faire, not laissez-fair, but quite aside from that, what is Lithwick trying to say? Conservatives talk about following the text and being faithful to the historical meaning of the text. Laissez-faire refers to leaving things alone. Lithwick makes it sound as though the "liberal counter-argument" is to interfere with the Constitution — to rewrite it. (I assume she thought she was saying that conservatives like laissez-faire economics, but that's not in itself a "constitutional vision.")
Lithwick complains that liberals don't know how to "think, talk and fight," but she has a problem with the way she thinks, talks, and fights as she's trying to register her complaint. Why is that?
There are 2 — at least 2 — obvious answers.
1. Lithwick is really only talking to liberals. It's a closed circle, where you never have to figure out how to speak comprehensibly and clearly, because you are all so self-assured and complacent about the goodness of your beliefs. It's babble, not intended for outsiders.
2. It really can't be made clear.
"The 13 Careers Where You’re Most Likely To Commit Suicide."
Are these jobs making people more suicidal or do more suicidal people take these jobs? Another possibility: These people aren't more suicidal, they're just more likely to follow through, perhaps because they have lower moral/religious inhibition about the deed — e.g., scientists (#11) — or because they're more adept with the tools of self-murder — e.g., skilled manual laborers (#12). — or both — e.g., doctors (#9).
"We Built Way Too Many Cultural Institutions During the Good Years."
Did we? And who are "we"? "We" are all those cities across America who think we can be Bilbao, that if we build it, they will come.
Per capita, the biggest total spenders on cultural projects during this period were Pittsfield, Massachusetts, the San Francisco/Oakland/Fremont region of California, Appleton and Madison, Wisconsin, and Lawrence, Kansas....We seemed to buy into that Richard Florida/"Rise of the Creative Class" theory "that if we have cultural amenities, we’ll have better, more creative populations."
The biggest arts building boom in fact occurred in the South, a potential sign of cities there trying to catch up with the rest of the country.Look! We're not as backward as you think!
"These projects are very much emotional, they’re projects that have a lot of passion in them.... A lot of the rationality that goes into running a business sometimes doesn’t go into these projects."Hey! That's a nice summary of the problem of letting government do anything.
July 7, 2012
"Once upon a time there was a Democratic president who, despite his faults, championed the power of markets, technology, and the global economy."
"He spoke about building 'a bridge to the 21st century.' He ratified major trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO. He supported balanced budgets and signed into law a tough welfare reform. He cut the capital gains tax. He boasted that government spending as a share of the economy fell on his watch. He went so far as to call himself (privately) an Eisenhower Republican."
Bill!
Bill!
"Rob Portman had flowing locks. Rand Paul dissects a cat."
Pictures of politicians, when they were in high school. Don't miss Scott Walker "the Desperado."
My favorite is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano:
My favorite is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano:
Hands and heads, positioned by Drudge.
Let's analyze this. (Click to enlarge.)
In the first column, we see Barack Obama holding his head, as if he's got a headache.
The middle column shows 2 politicians, both governors, gesturing outward, not holding anything.
The third column shows a bear holding a slice of watermelon and George Bush holding a little African orphan, grasping his/her head.
That is to say, the outer columns feature hands (or paws) holding something, and in 2 of the 3 pictures, what is held is a black person's head, and in the other what is held is watermelon.
ADDED:
In the first column, we see Barack Obama holding his head, as if he's got a headache.
The middle column shows 2 politicians, both governors, gesturing outward, not holding anything.
The third column shows a bear holding a slice of watermelon and George Bush holding a little African orphan, grasping his/her head.
That is to say, the outer columns feature hands (or paws) holding something, and in 2 of the 3 pictures, what is held is a black person's head, and in the other what is held is watermelon.
ADDED:
.@annalthouse You forgot to mention that the governors are pointing up, which is code for "uppity." althouse.blogspot.com/2012/07/hands-…
— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) July 7, 2012
"Listen, we’re just politicians. I wasn’t elected to play God."
Said John Boehner:
The American people probably aren’t going to fall in love with Mitt Romney. I’ll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama.I think we've had enough love for a while. Let's not idolize politicians.
Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons ... some people that are going to vote for him. But that’s not what this election is about. This election is going to be a referendum on the president’s failed economic policies.
Mitt Romney believes, just like we do, that if we’re going to get the economy back, if we’re going to put the American people back to work, we need to fix the tax code, we need to stop the regulatory juggernaut that’s going on in Washington and we need to fix our economy. Solid guy, he’s going to do a great job, even if you don’t fall in love with him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
