Back again
2/18/2004
test
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/18/2004 08:28:00 AM 
2/17/2004
The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - January Presidential Media Analysis
The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - January Presidential Media Analysis
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/17/2004 11:30:00 AM
2/16/2004
James Fowler's Stages of Faith in Profile
2/13/2004
Penguin Baseball
I'm on the bus
I'm just about to head "outside the beltway" on a bus bound for Kentucky to do the Lord's work here.
Posted by: Jeff / 2/13/2004 05:11:00 PM
2/12/2004
NRO Veepstakes run-down
National Review does a thoughtful and comprehensive breakdown of the veepstakes here.
Although they cast the whole thing in the context of who wouldn't get in Hillary's way in '08 and beyond, it's a pretty accurate summation of where things stand now.
Harold Ford, one of my personal favorite members of congress made the list. I'd hate to see him leave the hill, but I doubt that would happen.
Richardson and Bayh are the two names I hear most often at the water cooler. There is some talk of a Kerry/Edwards ticket, but I agree with the argument that Kerry is too vain to pick someone who is both more attractive and a better speaker than he is. Also, I'm not yet ready to concede that Edwards can't win the nomination (keep hope alive!).
Most interesting pick is perhaps Robert Rubin.
NRO predicts Gephardt will get the pick. I can see that, but I think Richardson would do a better job.
I still don't understand the conservatives' obsession with a Hillary presidential run, but that is another topic for another day.
Posted by: Jeff / 2/12/2004 10:49:00 AM
Calpundit - Was Bush AWOL? Signs say yes.
Calpundit has been doing some great work following the "Was Bush AWOL?" story. Its great to see one guy working so hard at putting the full documentation out there so when it comes November-time we can look back to Calpundit to see how the story unfolded and what the evidence says.
I'm not offering commentary on the evidence - or the significance of it. I'm just saying "here's a blogger who's adding something to the journalistic heap in a good way". Good job Kevin! Go have a look...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/12/2004 08:48:00 AM
2/11/2004
The conflict of interests may be debatable, but I find the arrogance deplorable.
The flippantly sardonic quip at the end of this quote notwithstanding, can anyone trained in the law profession speak to his claim that there is no need for Scalia to recuse himself from the Court's hearing of the case against the government seeking information on the closed-door meetings of Cheney's Energy Task Force?
"It did not involve a lawsuit against Dick Cheney as a private individual. This was a government issue. It's acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials when there are not personal claims against them. That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack."
-- Supreme Court Justice Antonin SCALIA, questioned about participating in a case involving Cheney's energy task force after he went duck hunting
with the vice president last month.
USATODAY.com - Justice Scalia defends hunting trip with Cheney
Posted by: Jeff / 2/11/2004 01:50:00 PM
Yet again....
Andrew Sullivan agrees with me.
"GIVE EDWARDS A CHANCE: In both primaries yesterday, Kerry won close to a half of the votes and Edwards won around a quarter. But more interestingly, as Will Saletan points out in a must-read, Edwards beat Kerry on the question of the issues and among those in the more moderate wing of the party, i.e. those who were less angry with Bush and more in the "satisfied but not enthusiastic" camp. Edwards wins more pro-war voters as well. I infer that most Dem voters so far have been conned into voting for the idea of Kerry, not the reality. And the idea is that he is more electable. And that has become almost self-fulfilling. Edwards is therefore absolutely right to stay in. More Democrats like his views than like Kerry's (whatever they are as of 1.25 am today), and more middle-of-the-roaders support him. The vast majority of delegates has yet to be decided. In a clear two-way race, it could get very interesting. Now we've gotten rid of Clark (see below), the media needs to create a new dynamic. I'm with the Economist on this: give Edwards a chance. Kerry is far less than meets the eye."
Posted by: Jeff / 2/11/2004 12:38:00 PM
Hey, I'm short... what do you expect...
I'm always a little bit cranky... :).
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/11/2004 08:35:00 AM
2/10/2004
Further proof that Jason lacks a sense of humor when it comes to politics.
Here. (Of course.)
And before anyone does another, yes, we are lame.
Posted by: CS / 2/10/2004 06:12:00 PM
Further proof of the snide, arrogant way in which conservatives superiorly look down on the majority of people who think they're utterly wrong
Here.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/10/2004 05:06:00 PM
Further proof that liberals don't want others to vote for their candidate of choice
Here.
Posted by: CS / 2/10/2004 02:08:00 PM
The definition of war
In reading CalPundit today (like I do every day) this post and the link to a David Brooks op-ed column got me going.
The definition of war.
The period of history we're in right now is not war. War is something that has a single goal and a timeline that comes to an end when that goal is achieved. Real wars work: American Revolution = American independence; Civil War = end slavery/preserve union; WW II = stop Hitler/save the world. These wars were fought out of absolute necessity. We had to fight, we fought, we won, the war ended. Wars without end and with an indefinite goal do not work. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, Vietnam. These wars don't have a goal and don't end. So we don't win and they go on and on becoming ever more expensive and useless.
The "War on Terrorism" is not a war. First, we have always been at war against terrorism. First is was the terrorism of saber-toothed tigers, then it was slavery, then against the inquisition, then against slavery again, then against genocide, then against communism, and now against fundamentalist Muslims. We have always been fighting against terrorism - this time is not unique.
Second, the war on terrorism has no goal and no end. We can never know if we've won or not. There have been two wars during the recent post 9/11 war on terrorism: Afghanistan & Iraq. Afghanistan = topple Taliban, Iraq = topple Saddam. Two goals - we won both. However we had to fight one and didn't have to fight the other. That is a HUGE difference. Now we're not at war anymore. We have an ongoing goal to stop people from attacking us - just like we always have.
And so, dammit, Bush is not a war-time president. He has been - he may be again - but he isn't now.
So David Brooks can stop his tongue-job of Bush right now. Bush and conservatives like Brooks don't "live in a state of war" since 9/11. Like everybody else they are more aware of the danger in the world and want the gov't to do what they can to protect Americans. They also use it for as much political gain as possible. And they wrap themselves in the flag and with a straight face do everything they can to push the furthest right agenda possible. And it pisses me off. Stop doing it. WW II was a war. This is not. Get over it. And if you keep implying liberals simply don't understand the dangers the world faces, don't believe in evil, don't want to protect Americans, don't have what it takes to fight - then you better get ready for war because you and me are about to have one.
[to be (possibly) continued]
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/10/2004 12:11:00 PM
2/09/2004
CLAIM vs. FACT: The President on Meet the Press
CLAIM vs. FACT: The President on Meet the Press
"CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions
PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE HYPE
CLAIM: 'I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon.'
FACT - WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDY WARNED BY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: The Washington Post reported this weekend, 'President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons.' Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq 'has got chemical weapons' two months after the DIA concluded that there was 'no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.' He said, 'Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production' three months after the White House received an intelligence report that clearly indicated Department of Energy experts concluded the tubes were not intended to produce uranium enrichment centrifuges. He said, 'Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,' three months after 'the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about' the claim. [Sources: WP, 2/7/04; Bush statement, 11/3/02; DIA report, 2002; Bush statement, 1/28/03; NIE, October 2002; WP, 7/23/03; Bush statement, 10/7/02; WP, 9/26/03]"
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/09/2004 12:38:00 PM
2/08/2004
Scripting News: 2/8/2004
Scripting News: 2/8/2004: "The Holy Bible is now available as an RSS feed. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/08/2004 08:20:00 PM
Bush on why people hate him so much (divider not uniter)
- People hated Regan too. Sweet.
- Russert: You and Kerry were in Skull & Bones together. (Bush squints his eyes and leans forward) Bush: Its so secret we can't talk about it. [Shiver goes down my spine].
Overall analysis: I don't know how the mainstream media will spin this but that interview made me cringe. Admittedly I hate the guy but even I cringed at seeing the guy flail so much. To me it will certainly drop his poll numbers even more. We'll see how the headlines read tomorrow.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/08/2004 08:57:00 AM
Bush on the economy
- Russert: What happened? Bush: stuff
- Russert: Rush et al say you're the biggest spender in history. Bush: let me remind you (for the 100th time) we're at war.
- Bush: "They want to get rid of those taxes on small business that stimulate the economy. I'm not going to have any of it."
Impression at the second break:
Bush really isn't that smart. He has a simple view of the world which he believes in totally. Which, now that its failed him, he just has to keep repeating to himself until it becomes true. He sounds like a 5 year old boy clinging to a blankie repeating "I'm not afraid of the dark. I'm not afraid of the dark."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/08/2004 08:50:00 AM
Live blogging Bush on Meet the Press
reactions to interview prior to the first break:
- oh... my... god... this guy is the leader of the free world?!
- "free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction and blackmail the world"... hasn't that kinda been our foreign policy for the past 50 years or so
- "I don't want to sound like a broken record"... "we live in a dangerous world"... "there were weapons"... "they could develop a weapon"... "you may remember resolution 1441... we said Saddam show us your weapons and he didn't". Dude - there weren't any weapons.
- Russert: was this a war of necessity or choice? Bush: You're going to have to elaborate on that question. [ed. Drrrrrrrr!]
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/08/2004 08:42:00 AM
2/06/2004
Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science | Online
Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science | Online
The entire text of the book - online.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/06/2004 04:20:00 PM
DeLay's PAC at Hooters
via Houstonpress:
"The December financial report of DeLay's political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, shows an outlay of $117.19 at a Washington, D.C., Hooters. (Pretty large bill; we can only hope the ARM PACers did not imbibe any ungodly alcohol while leering at the cleavage.) "
Posted by: Jeff / 2/06/2004 03:21:00 PM
Salon.com News | Scalia-Cheney hunting trip continues to draw fire
Salon.com News | Scalia-Cheney hunting trip continues to draw fire: "Feb. 6, 2004 | MORGAN CITY, La. (AP) _ A duck hunting trip Vice President Dick Cheney took with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia last month has raised questions about a possible conflict of interest because Scalia was hearing a case involving Cheney at the time of the hunt.
The trip included a flight in a U.S. government jet, a ride in a police motorcade and lodging in a floating hunting camp owned by an oil-services tycoon who is a longtime Scalia friend.
A panoply of Secret Service and local law enforcement guarded the hunting party, and though the shooting was poor, the 'strictly social' occasion, as participant Louis Prejean described it, was enjoyable.
Congressional Democrats and newspaper editorials have called for Scalia to step down from the case, which has to do with whether Cheney must reveal who serves on his energy task force. Further complicating the question: The host of the hunting trip is a prominent member of the energy industry. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/06/2004 08:51:00 AM
2/05/2004
The Price of Loyalty: The Bush Files
Calpundit: The O'Neill Memos
Calpundit: The O'Neill Memos: "Remember that CD full of 19,000 documents that formed the documentary core of Ron Suskind's book about Paul O'Neill? Suskind has decided to put them online.
This should be good for loads of laughs as new documents get added to Suskind's online collection. I haven't had a chance to browse through everything that's up so far, but I did like this February 2001 memo to O'Neill outlining talking points he should be careful to stick to:
Key background information: the public prefers spending on things like health care and education over cutting taxes. It's crucial that your remarks make clear that there is no trade off here � that we will boost education spending and set aside Social Security and Medicare surpluses to address the future of these programs, and still we will have an enormous surplus.
That didn't work out so well, did it? And it's interesting to see the admission that the public prefers spending on social programs to tax cuts.
More later, I'm sure. It's not clear if Suskind is planning to put all 19,000 docs online or only the ones that he used for his book, but in either case there should be lots of interesting stuff as we all start browsing through it. Comments are open."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/05/2004 05:44:00 PM
Calpundit: Glitch Watch
Calpundit: Glitch Watch: "The Republican aide who surreptitiously accessed the computer files of Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee is apparently going to be hung out to dry. Bye bye, Manuel Miranda."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/05/2004 05:41:00 PM
Straw Poll etc.
1) Edwards, Clark, Kerry, Dean
2) Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Clark
3) 4 ish. Handling of 9/11 - 10. Ensuing foreign policy - 5. Domestic - 2
In no particular order:
From what I've seen so far, Edwards is a really likable guy. Very positive. And I think the 2 America's thing will sound well with a lot of America. (Plus it worked in "Head of State". That ain't right!)
I'd be happy to see some of the tax cuts (especially on the higher end) disappear in conjunction with some more conservative spending.
In other news, you can apparently get imaginary girlfriends on ebay now. It is a little late for the 614 crew, but our dear readers may be interested.
UPDATE: This was written prior to J's previous "Straw Poll Follow Up" post.
Posted by: Bill / 2/05/2004 01:05:00 PM
Straw Poll Follow Up
Thanks for participating in the straw poll guys - interesting stuff.
I'd like to understand CS's and AH's high marks for Bush's foreign policy post 9/11. I really want to understand this point of view. From my point of view (and this is one man's opinion - not aimed at placing blame or putting down someone else's opinion or anything like that) Bush's foreign policy since 9/11 has been:
- Reducing the UN's influence in matters of global security and greatly increasing the U.S.'s. In my view greatly concentrating in the U.S. both the costs of fighting global terrorism (taxpayer $$ & servicemen's lives) and increasing the stature of the U.S. as the primary target of Muslim extremists - rather than using the U.N. to disperse these costs across many nations. Of course we also get things done a lot more quickly than running the U.N. gauntlet.
- "Finishing the business with Saddam" & nation-building Iraq (pros and cons of this debated ad nauseam)
- Allowing the N. Korea situation to simmer in the background (at least in the public arena)
- Combination of the above causing other traditionally friendly nations (mainly W. Europe) to not want to help us out as much as they may have in the past
- Oh, and clearing the rats out of Afghanistan ('ceptin the big 'un)
All of these, save Afghanistan, are negative in my view. I can see someone (not me, but someone) giving Bush's foreign policy post 9/11 a "6" or "7" - but to me the results - as of today - are too ambiguous to hang a 10 on it. Anybody want to try to convince me it should be a 10?
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/05/2004 12:50:00 PM
2/04/2004
The Village Voice: Features: Sleeping With the GOP by Wayne Barrett with special reporting by Adam Hutton and Christine Lagorio
The Village Voice: Features: Sleeping With the GOP by Wayne Barrett with special reporting by Adam Hutton and Christine Lagorio: "Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.
Though Stone and Sharpton "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/04/2004 10:04:00 PM
CS's Answers to Straw Poll
1) Most Positive (in the sense of think of as both a generally good guy and a good politician):
Edwards, Clark, Kerry, Dean.
2) Toughest Race: Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Dean
3) Bush's Next Term: At the moment, roughly 6. As AH said, high marks for security policy (including high but slightly less so marks for general foreign policy), and low, low marks for domestic policy. Not, however, 0 as AH wants, because I think at least some part of the tax cuts were both a good idea and helpful. (Ah, we are all Keynesians now...)
Here is my take on the upcoming election: there are no Republicans running. Not real Republicans anyway, ones who care about things like limited government, deficit reduction and limiting the welfare state to those who really need it. Bush has Republican tendencies, in national security and his social stances (too bad, that) but he really does behave as if he has an unending pot of money from which to satisfy constituents.
So, since they will all spend like marineros borrachos, I am very open to voting for one of the non-nominal Dems, as long as they prove their mettle to my satisfaction on national security. They all have possibility here, I s'pose. We'll see.
I started this post about 9 hours ago and got interrupted. Alas. It is in time to see JB's overheated rhetoric about lost jobs and "worst president since". I will say that it is statements like that which make me want to steer clear of Dems. We'll see if the candidiates match JB's tone. If so, no vote. Sencillo.
I also could be down with Edwards thus far. Aside from his general tax and spendism, I think his biggest liability is that he was a tort lawyer. Actually I take that back - to the extent that he did good things with it like help actually injured people get fairly compensated - nice. To the extent that he got a lot of $$ suing tobacco companies - don' like it. And he did do the latter. Oh, and I could do without all the 2 Americas talk. But the thing about it is, he seems tto have a good head on his shoulders, and any extra special fancy spending he wants to do will probably get Jimmy Superfly Snuka-ed from the top rope by the Republicans, because say what you will about us, we fight like Ice Cube on an acid and an 8ball. (Shot gun goes "Boo-yah.")
So, spending could actually come down. For all I know this would work with Kerry, too, but as a matter of irst principles, I am wary of a guy whose rating on the liberal scale (93) is north of Ted Kennedy's and only 3 points away from the Riddler, er, Nancy Pelosi at 96.
Lastly, I don't think TV has anything to do with the Edwards titlt here. Like AH, my news comes almost exclusively from non-network sources.
Posted by: CS / 2/04/2004 08:54:00 PM
You know it's a slow work day when...
You respond to not one, but two of Jason's posts and get mentioned on Volokh. The big V didn't note that Bollinger's current university doesn't do particularly well on freedom of speech, either.
Jason, I wouldn't give TV too much credit for its influence over this crowd - I've watched approximately 15 minutes of campaign coverage this cycle (no cable, and I only break out the rabbit ears for football). My info comes from newspapers and the web. Granted, most of the internet coverage is digested national news, but it all comes with its own flavor. Mine tends towards the fiscally conservative. See also TPM's stylings on the New Hampshire scene.
Posted by: Aaron / 2/04/2004 04:07:00 PM
The Command Post - Iraq - Tolkien's Ace in the Hole
The Command Post - Iraq - Tolkien's Ace in the Hole
I haven't read this yet but it sounds good...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/04/2004 03:28:00 PM
614 as crystal ball
This is interesting... so far we agree on Edwards. It will be interesting to see if the next round of primary states feels the same. If so, I would say the power of the overall "impression" given by the national media (primarily TV) is indeed scary. i.e. right now we all have roughly the same vibes about the four remaining candidates. That media oligarchy is working us like a bunch of dancing string-puppets. Great analysis, JB - I'm enjoying this primary season a lot - both because I feel personally invested (a consequence of the super-tight 2000 election, perhaps? definitely because of all the attention Iowa got (they made me blush :) ) and as a spectator sport.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/04/2004 03:27:00 PM
Picks and prognostication
1) Edwards, Dean, Kerry, Clark (policy)
Edwards, Dean, Clark, Kerry (personality)
2) Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Clark
3) 0 Worst republican president since Hoover - maybe ever. Speaking of Hoover, 'Murca has lost more jobs under W's tenure than at any time since the great depression. Makes me yearn for the Reagan years.
Kerry and others have previously stated he could win without any southern states if he wins non-southern states that Gore got plus Florida, West Virginia, and New Hampshire. If he pursues this strategy, Bush will win. Nevermind the attitude it reflects on a potential president when he willingly admits he plans on ignoring roughly 1/5th of the nation's electorate. If he does this, Bush won't have to work there either and can position himself much more toward the center than his record has reflected. Only way Bush doesn't win this is if there's a Pat Buchanan or some other such candidacy.
The calendar now favors Edwards. Michigan and Washington are Saturday. Dean has been there since NH and will hit Kerry hard - there is no love lost between these two camps. If Kerry loses either of these, it will be seen as a crushing blow. If Edwards finishes 2nd in either of these, it will be a victory. Virginia and Tennessee are next Tuesday. Unless Clark saps a lot of his support, Edwards will win these two. If he doesn't win both, it's over. If he does, the big showdown will be Wisconsin which is the last real test before Super Tuesday and very much in play.
Posted by: Jeff / 2/04/2004 12:13:00 PM
*&$! Blogger.
Ate my answers to Jason's poll
1) Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Dean in the order that I am most likely to associate them with rainbows and candy; Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Dean in the order that I think they would do the least damage to the country.
2) Edwards, Clark, Kerry, Dean
3) 5. 10 for foreign policy (post 9/11) and a 0 for domestic policy.
Posted by: Aaron / 2/04/2004 11:00:00 AM
Straw Poll
1) Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Dean if you mean "positive" in that I would like to have this guy around; Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Dean if you mean "positive" in that I think he would do the (relative) best running the country.
2) Edwards, Clark, Kerry, Dean
3) 5. Bush gets a 10 for foreign policy (post 9/11) and a 0 for domestic policy.
Posted by: Aaron / 2/04/2004 10:56:00 AM
Jason's Straw Poll Answers
1) Edwards, Dean, Clark, Kerry
2) Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Dean
3) 0
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/04/2004 09:59:00 AM
614 Straw Poll
1) Who do you personally have the most positive view of, in order from most positive to least: Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry.
2) Who do you think would run the toughest race against Bush in the fall given what you know at this moment (Feb, 4 2004), in order of most likely to win to least: Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry.
3) On a scale of 1 - 10, how much would you like to see Bush have a second term - considering only that someone other than Bush would be President, not who. 10 being you want Bush in a second term for sure, 0 being you don't want Bush in a second term for sure.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 2/04/2004 09:57:00 AM
2/03/2004
geo crap
I've heard the inside scoop on this guy. I don't remember all the details I was told, but I wouldn't take that article at face value. Among other points: he has complained extensively about the size of his old office. His new office in the basement includes an adjoining laboratory with far more space than most other profs including his own photocopier. He has made a public outcry each year about his salary being too low with the exception of a couple years ago when his jumped $9,000 and the rest of the faculty received an extra $1,000. The jump was not performance-based, rather he was able to coerce the powers that be. He has carried firearms on campus in violation of campus firearms policies to excercise his "rights". Although he writes on "political subjects totally unrelated to my professional work", he doesn't refrain from signing all letters with the name of the OU School of Geology. His tenure review committee (composed of other faculty) gave him an extremmely poor review which they were forced to change after he complained to someone connected to Boren.... the list goes on. He's basically a prick that no one likes and no one can work with in a professional or academic environment. He won't take the hint and go away.
Posted by: Bill / 2/03/2004 09:23:00 PM
Free Speech at OU
OK among states voting today.
I don't really understand why, but it looks like Clark will win Oklahoma.
I mailed off my absentee ballot last week and voted the way Switzer told me to.
Posted by: Jeff / 2/03/2004 09:01:00 AM
2/02/2004
Praise the Lord!
Looks like kids in Georgia may get to learn about the 'theory' of evolution aftar all.
According to the Atlanta JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Georgia's Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue said the word "evolution" should remain in Georgia's science standards and not be replaced with the phrase "biological changes over time," while also seeming to express support for alternate theories to evolution.
Posted by: Jeff / 2/02/2004 02:21:00 PM
1/31/2004
MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action
MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action: "During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House. But you won't see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it. This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media institutions be fair and open to all speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and unless we speak up, the pattern may continue. Watch the ad and join the call for CBS to air ads which address issues of public importance today. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/31/2004 01:52:00 PM
1/30/2004
Screw Dean, I'm a Sharpton Man...
Debate Transcript (washingtonpost.com): "BROKAW: Reverend Sharpton, there is a great war going on in the world between the West and the Nation of Islam. And the United States, at the moment, is losing the war for hearts and minds. Everyone agrees on that, whatever their political position happens to be.
Specifically, what should the United States be doing in terms of programs? And how much money should it commit to find common ground between this country and the democratic ideals that we all embrace and the Nation of Islam?
SHARPTON: Well, first of all, I assume when you say 'the Nation of Islam' you're talking about Islamic nations, because there is a Nation of Islam in the United States that has nothing to do what you're talking about.
(LAUGHTER)
So I'm just asking for clarity.
(APPLAUSE)
BROKAW: I'm talking about Islamic nations.
SHARPTON: You're talking about Islamic -- first of all, I think...
BROKAW: No, no, I'm talking about the Islamic movement around the world, because it really does transcend nations in many ways.
SHARPTON: But, in many ways, I think that we can't allow the distortion, because Mr. Bush and some of his crowd have said they represent a Christian view against the Islamic. And I don't think Christ could join most of their churches.
(LAUGHTER)
So, I mean, I don't agree with the speech.
(APPLAUSE)
BROKAW: You said that President Bush said.
SHARPTON: I think that they called themselves supporters of the Bush administration.
BROKAW: Not the president himself?
SHARPTON: Not the president himself.
BROKAW: We're now one-for-one here.
SHARPTON: But many of their supporters talk about how they represent Christianity. I don't think they represent Christianity any more than some of these murderers, and mass murderers, represent Islam. So let's not blame the religion. Let's blame those that use religion to do some ruthless, deadly, wicked acts.
Now, having said that...
(APPLAUSE)
Having said that, I think we should build relationships with those nations around the world, and I have visited them. And how do you build relationships? Work with them on things of self-interest. Many of them need clean water supplies, clean sanitation, trade. They would become our partners if we engaged in partnership. But I don't that the way we do that is attacking people's religion, trying to act like our religion is better.
And as far as Mr. Bush saying that he doesn't need a permission slip from the U.N., he doesn't think he needs votes from the American people to be president.
Preach it brother-man! Preach it!
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/30/2004 04:34:00 PM
Calpundit
Calpundit: "TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION DEPARTMENT....One of the great unreported stories of our time is how conservatives have made it almost impossible for liberals to make jokes anymore. Consider my previous post. After complaining about yet another attempt to remove evolution from state teaching guidelines I said:
Next up: parents dislike the proposition that white people used to enslave black people, so the word 'slavery' will be removed from the Georgia curriculum. After all, it's just a buzzword!
I guess I missed it, but in comments Dave Morgen points out that Georgia has a new high school history curriculum proposal too:
In the proposed changes, teachers will spend two or three weeks discussing the foundation of our country, with the remaining time devoted to studying events from 1876 to the present.
....Search in vain for discussion of the Civil War; that topic is off limits. In a course entitled 'American History,' students will not study our most devastating war. There is no mention of Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee or anything else associated with those years.
Dammit, I was joking! Or trying to, anyway. But how can you make a joke when conservatives continually manage to make real life stranger than fiction?
Anyway, it's probably just a coincidence that the period from 1800 to 1876 is the one that got dropped. We liberals tend to get awfully paranoid about these coincidences, don't we?"
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/30/2004 04:27:00 PM
Typical
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La...has been in talks with the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers Association, the drug industry's premier trade group, barely two months after helping write the Medicare prescription drug law that bars the government from negotiating lower drug prices for seniors. -AP
Posted by: Jeff / 1/30/2004 01:25:00 PM
1/29/2004
save the whales
totally awesome. i wish i could have seen it happen.
Posted by: Bill / 1/29/2004 09:40:00 PM
Scoop on Trippi
Sorry for not linking, but this isn't exactly published yet. Last item is particularly good -
"Realizing Trippi could be old news pretty quickly, GQ's p.r. folks hurried a copy of Lisa DePaulo's lengthy profile of him to reporters all over town last night. Some of the best excerpts:
DePaulo: "So how much do you and Howard talk about personal stuff?" Trippi, driving with DePaulo in the middle of the night from Burlington to NYC: "Huh?" DePaulo: "Personal stuff." Trippi: "Shhhhh, this song's amazing. This is the best song in the world." He cranks up Neil Young's "Cortez the Killer." He hits the replay button. Trippi: "You talked through it," he whines. "So now we have to play it again." Later, he turns up Warren Zevon's "Excitable Boy." He sings along, "pounds the dashboard, bounces in his seat, spits tobacco juice out the window."
DePaulo asks if Dean likes him. Trippi: "To tell you the truth, I respect him more than I like him, and I'm not sure he likes me very much. But I think he respects me." He then "smiles, pops in some Peter Gabriel, stuffs a wad of cherry Skoal in his mouth, cracks open another Pepsi and asks if I can shut the fuck up for a while. Please."
"There wasn't exactly a long line of consultants clamoring to work for Howard Dean. Trippi was an easy target. At 46, he had long since 'checked out,' as he loves to say, had given up the dream of ever running his own 'presidential.' In fact, he hadn't even worked full-time on a presidential campaign since 1988 -- during which he watched his first chosen candidate, Gary Hart, implode over Donna Rice, and his second, Dick Gephardt, win Iowa but lose the nomination to Michael Dukakis. He was bitter, cranky and broke. (He claims he's still owed $89,000 in expenses. Then again, Howard Dean has yet to pay him a dime in salary.)"
"Dean staffers say privately that Howard, like [his] Dad, doesn't appreciate Joe enough, that no matter what he does it's never quite enough. Perhaps it's no coincidence that Dean has his own father thing. His was Park Avenue -- the dad who wanted him to stay on Wall Street and was less than overjoyed when he went to medical school instead. Dean has said in interviews that he spent his life trying to please his father. It is exactly what Joe Trippi says about his own dad."
"He hates to discuss it, but he's sick." Trippi: "I'm not really into this inquisition into my health," he rants. "Then, as is his custom, he simmers down ("Are you mad at me?") and allows that, well, okay, having serious diabetes probably isn't a good thing when you're running a presidential campaign. ... He's supposed to get lots of sleep, eat well and regularly, exercise and avoid stress. He admits that "every doctor I've ever seen has told me, 'Get out of the business-you're gonna kill yourself. This is the worst fucking business you can be in.' " He pauses. "So I'm stuck in the position of pitching the game of my life. And I don't know if I can make it nine innings." He's not exaggerating. "He's ill. At times it is painfully obvious." Trippi's "current doctor is Judith Steinberg Dean, Howard's wife. Isn't she worried about him? "Can we get over this already?" ("The last thing he frickin' needs, he explains, is The Washington Post's Dan Balz asking how he feels every day.") Later he admits that "occasionally Howard will ask his wife in Joe's presence, 'How's he doing?' And she keeps telling him it's doctor-patient privilege,' says Trippi, strangely relieved that he can continue to kill himself."
Fast forward to the days before IA: Trippi's "cell phone rings. It's his pollster, Paul Maslin, who not only has bleak news out of Iowa -- but bleak news out of New Hampshire. Trippi hangs up and stares out the window. His phone rings again. "WHAT? Aw, fuck. I hate this business. This fucking sucks. Okay, thanks." He hangs up. "They're robocalling our ones," he moans. "He has just gotten a report from the field that Dean "ones" are getting bombarded with computer-generated phone calls telling them to make sure to caucus for Dean-then giving them the wrong address." Who would do such a thing? "Kerry," Trippi snaps. "They're the only asshole snake campaign that would do it. Every frickin' day now, I'm reminded of why I got out of this in the first place."
Posted by: Jeff / 1/29/2004 03:11:00 PM
Another way to waste an afternoon
I could do this all day.
Posted by: Jeff / 1/29/2004 01:49:00 PM
Christopher Lydon Interviews... :
Christopher Lydon Interviews... :: "Richard Reeves made the shrewd observation on our 'Blogging of the President' broadcast Sunday night that something fundamental had changed since John F. Kennedy and television exalted eachother in 1960. What had happened was that the TV networks discovered that American audiences were more interested in football than in politics. Sure enough, we are being conditioned again this week to understand that everything that happens in the Superbowl is more important than almost anything at stake in a presidential campaign.
It's a dismal moment in American media, and just the right time to be developing a real conversation on the Web. The revolution will not be televised, but maybe it will be blogged."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/29/2004 01:35:00 PM
BarlowFriendz: The Counter-Revolution Has Been Televised
This too...
BarlowFriendz: The Counter-Revolution Has Been Televised:
"I have seen the past, and it still works."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/29/2004 09:01:00 AM
Trippi is out... questioning of self begins
Doc on the shakeup at the Dean campaign.
Follow his links for the story.
Scoble has this which points to a Register story
Any way you cut it, this sucks for the Dean team. The idea that Dean would win was always sorta too movie-ish to me (the outsider, underdog candidate bucks all historical evidence and uses the true power of the people to take back the country for good) - but I really, really wanted to believe in that movie. I wanted to suspend disbelief enough where this good-over-evil (you know, something like that) story comes true. Unless we get back on track today and notch a win next Tues. I think we'll limp along for a while and then die. As it stands at this moment Dean looks just about as presidental as Sharpton. And that's not where you wanna be. One lesson learned from all this is no matter how much the Internet community goes crazy over a guy what still matters even more than ever in 2004 is how you look and sound on TV. The vast majority of Americans still don't want to or don't know how to get the close-to-the-bone stories that I have loved reading on various blogs and sites. They want easy to digest newspaper articles that give them a one line take-home. And they want TV soundbites. And they listen to talking heads frame each and every campaign situation and believe them. The Internet community is still a bunch of nattering nabobs compared to the broadcast journalism majors sitting behind desks in front of TV cameras. I guess we just don't clean up as nice.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/29/2004 08:56:00 AM
1/28/2004
SI.com - MLB - Indians prospect regrets doing gay porn - Wednesday January 28, 2004 10:55AM
SI.com - MLB - Indians prospect regrets doing gay porn - Wednesday January 28, 2004 10:55AM: "Indians minor leaguer Kazuhito Tadano is asking for forgiveness for what he called a one-time mistake -- his appearance in a gay porn video in which he engaged in a homosexual act.
Tadano took part in the video three years ago when he was a college student. Sitting in the Cleveland clubhouse Tuesday, the pitcher said he hoped to put his actions in the past.
'All of us have made mistakes in our lives,' Tadano said, reading a statement in English. 'Hopefully, you learn from them and move on.'"
See, CS... you're not the only one to do gay porn in college for money. And I quote "All of us have made mistakes in our lives."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/28/2004 05:16:00 PM
President Bush Speaks with Nation's Mayors at Winter Meeting
"Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling.":--Pres. Bush
That's up on www.whitehouse.gov right now. I'm sure they'll have it revised momentarily
Posted by: Jeff / 1/28/2004 04:39:00 PM
Where has this website been all my life
I just wasted an entire afternoon.
At taxpayer expense, no less.
Posted by: Jeff / 1/28/2004 04:30:00 PM
Many-to-Many: Is Social Software Bad for the Dean Campaign?
Many-to-Many: Is Social Software Bad for the Dean Campaign?
Clay Shirky writes medium-long articles which each and every time are filled with insight found almost nowhere else in the invisible blog-world.
My take on New Hampshire last night... Kerry was perfect. His victory speech was probably the best "look-like-the-president" speech I've heard all year. If he can do that every time he'll have a chance in the fall. Though I've been watching him for a year and I don't think he can do that every time - or even most of the time.
I think the Dean downward trend is due to:
1) people picturing in their heads a still photo of a debate between Bush and each of the candidates in turn. Kerry is the best pic (audio not included).
2) calculated votes. Dems think calculation and compromise will win them the presidency. It won't. Without passion we lose. Kerry or Edwards can inspire passion but not in the same way as Dean. Bush inspires a tremendous amount of passion on the right. If we calculate too much we'll miss the big picture.
Dean came in 2nd and gave the 2nd best speech. We have to come out swinging today and play hard all week or this baby might get away from us.
One interesting commentary from last night was how in 2004 the Dems are as pissed as the GOP was in 1996. The right despised Clinton the way the left currently despises Bush. Then they sent Dole into the ring. Passionless Bob Dole. Calculated as the best chance - backed by R.Pubs out of necessity. Loser. I just hope Kerry isn't the Bob Dole of 2004.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/28/2004 09:57:00 AM
Telling results -
With 97% of precincts reporting, Dick Gephardt received 388 votes in the NH primary. Al Sharpton: 342
Posted by: Jeff / 1/28/2004 09:08:00 AM
1/23/2004
Oh, now this is good.
"Don't get me wrong! I am actually a Howard Dean supporter and will be voting for him when, and if, the time comes. I just think that January 19, 2004 was a magical day in politics and Howard Dean should be immortalized on the internet. I'm just doing my part to make sure that happens." - Caner Ozdemir
Dean Goes Nuts
Posted by: Jeff / 1/23/2004 05:59:00 PM
Jason, you missed one
You may remember back when the Senate Intelligence Committee was investingating intelligence reports pre-9/11 that foretold of the events to come. Someone leaked classified info to the press and the GOP made hay of it in the elections blaming dem staffers. Turns out the was republicans too.a>
Posted by: Jeff / 1/23/2004 04:14:00 PM
Republicans: Party of bizarro world family values
JB - I'm sure they don't even think they did anything wrong. "Well, it was those [expletive deleted] liberals! Their bleedin' hearts just wanted those files to run free. They too stupid to put a password on 'em. Heh. Heh."
I want somebody fired. Somebody big. Right now. And Novak should be strung up in the town square. That troll.
We endure eight years of the Clinton psuedo scandals. A sitting president is forced to endure excruciating questioning about every facet of his sexual life - and have said revelations videotaped and broadcast on national TV - and then nearly gets removed from office over it.
Now we have a president who allowed terrorists to come into our country and kill 3000 Americans. Who sent 500 more Americans to their death in a pre-emptive war perpetrated on false evidence. Who's right-hand man ran the company that is helping rebuild the country destroyed in said pre-emptive war to the tune of a multi-billion no-bid contract. Who's administration endangered the life of an undercover CIA agent. Who's largest campaign contributor brought about the largest corporate bankruptcy in history. And now this.
Where's the outrage over this, Republicans? I know Bush didn't get a BJ (which is far worse than any of the above misdeeds, of course) but don't 'cha think its just a little bass-ackwards to crow over Clinton's minor infractions when there's overwhelming evidence that Bush (or at least the people around him) has made some major mistakes - some of them clearly illegal - much less moral.
Republican = alternate spelling for hyprocrite.
And with that... I retire to the mountians of Colorado until Tuesday. Adieu, all.
P.S. "BV: Was that an inappropriate story?"
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/23/2004 03:29:00 PM
unbalanced
Dean has a kindred spirit at Microsoft - watch here
WE'RE SELLIN' 'EM WORD, POWERPOINT AND XBOX, ACCESS, EXCEL AND WINDOWS XP!
THEN WE'RE GONNA SELL 'EM POCKET PC, VISUAL STUDIO, BIZTALK, .NET, EXCHANGE SERVER!
AND WE'RE NOT STOPPING 'TIL THEY BUY MEDIA CENTER, MONEY, SQL SERVER, AND LONGHORN!! YEAAAAAH!
Posted by: Bill / 1/23/2004 02:55:00 PM
1/22/2004
Shocking, and yet not at all surprising
This from the Boston Globe.
"Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe.
From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.
The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November."
I think my main man Josh Marshall says it best.
"So the law-breaking and dirty tricks were systematic and of long standing. And I suspect it's much more widespread than even what is described in this article. It's creeping DeLayism. No rules -- only power."
Posted by: Jeff / 1/22/2004 01:55:00 PM
Ice Palace
Picture of the last ice palace in St. Paul here. Members of 614 saw the building blocks of the next one this past weekend.
Posted by: CS / 1/22/2004 12:44:00 PM
Lileks strikes home again
Loud rumble overhead; the planes are taking off over the house tonight. . That was quite possibly the flight my wife was on. She�s been doing contract work for a firm, and they got hit with a document dump � so she�s off to another town for three days of peering over blurry photocopies in a windowless room. Such is the life of a lawyer. I wonder what people who watched �The Practice� or other such shows in high school will think a few years hence when they find themselves admitted to the bar � hey, where�s the smoldering hunky lawyers, the brilliant glib lawyers with a passionate sense of justice, the slinky stick-thin lawyers who sleep with every partner AND client AND the opposing counsel? What is this? And how come nothing has that dim, sultry, flattering light all the TV law offices have? And why am I at my desk at 10 PM singing a lullaby over to the phone to my child while eating microwaved Chinese? How did this happen?
Posted by: CS / 1/22/2004 12:07:00 PM
From Calpundit
Calpundit
March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/22/2004 09:46:00 AM
Calpundit: The White House's Truth Deficit
Calpundit: The White House's Truth Deficit: "So: Bush's own publicly stated policies along with AMT reform that everyone knows is inevitable will increase the deficit to $500 billion by 2009, yet he claims these policies will reduce the deficit to $240 billion. Every single budget analyst in the White House knows this perfectly well. President Bush knows this perfectly well.
Explain to me again why I'm not allowed to call this a lie?"
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/22/2004 09:42:00 AM
Presidential campaign in a nutshell
Broder has a really great editorial in the post today that really sums up what this campaign is going to be all about.
Key passage:
In this first month of the long campaign, the Democrats as a group have decided that the principal challenges facing the nation are right here at home -- jobs, education, health care, the environment -- while Bush is profoundly convinced that the most serious threats lie abroad.
'"I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all," Bush said. "They view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. . . . [But] after the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got."
And war is what they will get if Bush is reelected. While Democrats talk earnestly of "internationalizing" the rebuilding of Iraq and enlisting the United Nations and reluctant allies in a revived coalition against terrorist states, Bush argues that as long as he is president, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."
This fundamental disagreement about national priorities -- really, about the nature of the world, the state of the nation and the priorities of government -- is what makes the stakes in the coming election much larger than usual.'
Posted by: Jeff / 1/22/2004 09:12:00 AM
1/21/2004
Hawkeye Cauci Mailbag
From JW's Dad:
Hey J, et al
I have enjoyed your posts during the weeks leading up to the caucuses in Iowa. I have also enjoyed the pundit press corps and coastal snobs that think this process is too weird, too unrepresentative, too uncool, to be of real value. I also enjoy the millions of dollars that come into our state along with such entertaining, ignorant, arrogance. It's hard to fill motel rooms here in January.
J's experience gave me more than a few flashbacks to my days as a county chair for George McGovern in Iowa. You may remember him. He was a different liberal - not as angry as they seem to be these days and more able to speak from principals than poll numbers. In those days the house party George came to in Waverly was just that -a party. No laptops, no Internet, just cold beer and doobies on the porch for the less earnest in the group. As I remember George threw down more than one Grain Belt. It was one of those elections when a nice guy really did finish last.
Ever since then, I have been a man in search of another party. While I support Bush, I really don't like most of the Republicans I know and the Democrats I know when pressed on their beliefs can't say WHY they are against so many things and can't articulate what they are FOR.
Hopefully the traveling circus will be back four years from now. It really is hard to fill the motels here in January.
Hank (J's Dad) W
Posted by: Aaron / 1/21/2004 05:17:00 PM
The Simpsons top sports moments:
Number 77:
Ivy Envy: Returning from a Yale-Harvard football game, Yale alum C. Montgomery Burns remarks how he doesn't even know why Harvard bothered to show up this year "They barely even won. Well, I say let Harvard have its football and academics. Yale will always be first in gentlemanly club life."
Posted by: Aaron / 1/21/2004 03:17:00 PM
PressThink: Guest Critic: Cole Campbell on the Day After Iowa
PressThink: Guest Critic: Cole Campbell on the Day After Iowa: "Howard Kurtz points out that the press, on its own terms, paints a portrait of politics that may or may not � not, in this case � comport with reality. And he suggests that Dean�s front-runner status � bestowed by the press � became the justification for intensive press scrutiny in recent weeks (the same time voters �began� to take the candidates seriously). Will Kerry and Edwards falter under similar strip searches?"
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/21/2004 09:02:00 AM
Bloglines | Free, Web-Based News Aggregator
Bloglines | Free, Web-Based News Aggregator
This is my RSS reader... it rocks...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/21/2004 08:42:00 AM
1/20/2004
I like Arnold Kling.
"If populism appeals to you, then you have not met many people."
Posted by: Aaron / 1/20/2004 03:27:00 PM
Endorsements as liability?
This is an interesting bit. One argument I heard in the caucus last night (that I had never heard before and totally took me off guard) is that people were pissed that Harkin endorsed Dean. That actually got at leat one undecided to the Kerry camp. The Kerry precinct captain in particular hammered that point. "We elected him - he shouldn't be endorsing anybody." I just think that's weird (and had no answer for it). I guess I just don't understand the logic behind "we elected him, therefore he shouldn't give us guidance to who he thinks is the best candidate". Now I think the Harkin endorsement shaved a few percentage points off Dean rather than the boost I was expecting.
Salon.com Politics: "Howard Dean's stumble in Iowa is the story, and the early questions are these:
What does Dean's third-place showing tell us about his vaunted organization, which raised gobs of money, brought more than 3,500 out of state volunteers into Iowa and reportedly had rock-solid 'hard count' numbers that would turn back the late John Kerry/John Edwards surge? (And what does it tell us about the reporting that assured us those 'hard count' numbers were rock-solid? More on that later.)
Did the sudden surge in establishment endorsements hurt Dean? Hardball host Chris Matthews thinks so, hammering Dean on camera Monday night for having a parade of 'yesterday's men' -- Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Tom Harkin, (unofficially at least) Jimmy Carter -- back his supposedly insurgent candidacy. 'You'll bring in Fritz Mondale yet,' Matthews hectored the newly humbled Dean.The former frontrunner insisted he was happy to have the support of all Democrats -- and he's right, the Democratic nominee will certainly need them in November -- but the timing of Dean's troubles makes it worth wondering if his campaign succeeded in assimilating its new insider support with its outsider message. As well as whether such endorsements matter much in the first place.
Is the Iowa vote best understood as pro-Kerry and Edwards, or just-not-sold-on Dean? New Hampshire will provide the next test case, where Kerry will have to fight Wesley Clark for the war-hero mantle, and southerner John Edwards isn't strong. Don't count Dean out yet. It's worth remembering that neither state's winner is guaranteed the nomination; these two small, white, fairly rural outposts tend to humble early frontrunners, reward mavericks and send losers to the exits, rather than reli"
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/20/2004 12:49:00 PM
Caucus Morning After
JB - I think you hit it right on the head. I hope to do a longer post later today but here's what happened last night in my caucus:
In 2000 8 people showed up in my precinct, so I'm thinking 4X that - 32, 40 at the most. 63 people showed up. I was expecting 11 for Dean and 11 showed up (though not exactly everyone I was thinking). At the first split it was:
Kerry 19
Dean 11
Edwards 14
Ghephart 11
There was 1 Kucinich guy and 7 undecideds. We all surrounded the poor 7 undecideds and convinced them for 1/2 an hour. We felt great that we convinced the last two undecideds. (That part was pretty fun).
Final totals:
Kerry 20 - 2 delegates
Dean 13 - 1 delegate
Edwards 15 - 2 delegates
Ghephart 15 - 2 delegates
The surprises for me:
- so many people showed up
- so many people decided in the past few days who to support (after 2 years of campaigning!)
- for me, Kerry's (for sure) and Edward's (to some extent) support came out of nowhere. Nobody I called over the past month ever mentioned these to guy's names. I thought for sure 35 people would show up - 20 for Ghephardt and 15 for Dean and the other two main candidates wouldn't be viable. Guess I was wrong.
The other quick thing I want to point out is that myself, and the Dean camp isn't disappointed. A little surprised at the outcome but not disappointed. I couldn't stand the spin on CNN last night as Wolf applied adjectives left and right that had nothing to do with the video being shown from the campaigns. Tucker Carlson was going on about how disappointed the Dean camp was as he was being drowned out by cheers for Dean in the background. Can't stand mainstream TV spin. (And yes, Dean's speech was a little crazy but you have to understand he's in a room of 3000 screaming people. That doesn't always play well on TV, unfortunately).
My 8:26 AM Tues. personal analysis (and I've felt this way all along) is that the Dems are feeling the tug of a "safe" campaign. Hug onto the tired, old Democratic rhetoric and run a nice campign but lose a close one to Bush in the fall. Edwards and Kerry will run nice (perhaps even positive) campiaigns but they will lose. Dean will either win big or lose big but it certainly won't be a safe campign.
More later...
P.S. My dad attended the combined Republican caucus where the head of the RNC spoke. He left early because of all the racist comments at the table he was at (concerning the immigration issue).
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/20/2004 08:32:00 AM
1/19/2004
Initial analysis
Much of the press had been referring to the Dean camp's "Tanking" in the polls over the past week. Now many are reporting the results in Iowa as surprising given the fact that both Dean and Gephardt had been ahead there for so long. I feel this is the wrong way to frame this story. Clearly, Dean (and to some extent Gephardt) attracted their supporters early while the two top candidates attracted much of their supporters in the last week and three days. Data from CNN.com confirms this assertion - Dean supporters, more than any other candidtate had decided to support him more than a month ago. Kerry and Edwards both attracted the lion's share of voters who decided during the past week, which totaled 42% of the entire vote. Gep also had high percentage of early deciders.
Also of note, the percentage of voters they attracted during this period are almost exactly proportional to their overall percentage.
Columns are in alphabetical order. ie, Clark Dean Edwards Gep Kerry, etc
When Did You Make Up Your Mind
Last Three Days (21%) 1% 18% 32% 6% 37% 3% 1% 0% 0% 2%
Last Week (21%) 1% 11% 38% 6% 41% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Last Month (27%) 1% 18% 28% 10% 39% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Before That (30%) 1% 32% 12% 20% 28% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Full CNN entry poll
Posted by: Jeff / 1/19/2004 09:33:00 PM
A letter I wrote and hand delivered to 200 people in my caucus precinct
Hi neighbor!
My name is Jason and I live in the neighborhood - over
on 3rd street. As I'm sure you're aware, the Iowa caucuses are next
Monday the 19th . (The caucuses are where we vote to decide who gets to
run for President against George Bush this fall). I'm just as tired of
the TV ads and phone calls as you are but I'm writing you this note to
tell you why I'm going to the caucuses this year and hopefully to
convince you that you should be there too.
I'm a young guy (27) and this will be my first time at the
caucuses. Many of you have been going for decades and many of you will
be there for the first time like me. If you come to caucus next Monday
you will have the opportunity very few people in the nation ever get -
you will have the first real say in who gets to run for President this
year. I not only look at the opportunity to go to the first caucus in
the nation as a great privilege, I look at it as a responsibility handed
down to me by the generations of Iowans that came before me.
If you're like me you don't care much about this political party
or that. You just care that a guy with character will stand up for you.
and for people like you. Well, if you're like me, you're worried that
our current President is not doing a very good job of looking out for
people like us - normal Americans just trying to live a good life.
Whether it's the huge Federal budget deficits, the tax cuts favoring the
rich, the loss of millions of jobs (including plenty in Iowa), the cost
of the Iraq war (both the lives of American servicemen and billions of
dollars a day of our tax money), or any other issue that may concern you
- you think like I do that we need a different President who will look
out for people like us.
Well, I've been watching all the candidates for over a year now
and I'm convinced that Howard Dean is the guy with the best chance of
beating Bush and who will most look out for people who work for a
living. I don't agree with Dean on every issue (or any candidate for
that matter) but I've taken a cold, hard look at who can win and I'm
absolutely sure its Howard Dean. The other candidates are all nice guys
- but I don't think they have what it takes to stand up to Bush and all
the money Bush will be getting from his millionaire pals. I'm sick and
tired of sending Democratic candidates to Washington who are wishy-washy
and only want to please everybody. I want a fighter! And Howard Dean
will take it to Bush on every issue. Dean has been able to energize
people like no one has in a long time. He's rallied hundreds of
thousands of grass-roots supporters who have each donated 20 or 30 bucks
to help him raise the most money (not like the $2000-a-plate dinners
Bush is funding his campaign with). He's got the energy and the momentum
that - with your help - can take him all the way to the White House!
Dean puts the power back in our hands!
I - and all people who want a better America - need your help
next Monday night. We're in Ward 1 Precinct 3 which will vote at:
The New Irving School (where West Intermediate used to be) at 6:30
Monday the 19th
If you decide to come you should get there a little early to
sign in. Anyone can caucus!
Please come because we're going to have fun! Because we're going
to start taking our country back!
Please give me a call at XXX-XXXX if you want to know more about
the caucus, need a ride, or just want someone to go with. Thanks, and
have a great day! GO DEAN!!!
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/19/2004 12:40:00 PM
1/16/2004
We suck.
Bedlam rout of OU showed Cowboys at their best: "Bedlam rout of OU showed Cowboys at their best"
Posted by: Jeff / 1/16/2004 01:11:00 PM
Caucus voodoo math
Hey Jeff - I hope to do a long write-up on my experience during the caucuses. For a quick reference to what goes on next Mon. night check this site out: http://www.caucus2004.org/ (including the caucus math sheet :).
I also want to comment on that article you emailed me - it was really insightful. Hopefully I'll get some time next week...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/16/2004 11:50:00 AM
1/15/2004
The Register
The Register: "It's a very simple concept. 'Take a lamp post, put electronics in it, send messages to other wireless devices, including other lamp posts.' You can link the lamp post to the Internet directly, if there's an internet connection available - any sort of connection at all will do. High speed fibre is best, but if that's not available, then a satellite, or maybe a phone line nearby can be used. And if there's nothing at all, then ask the next lamp post if it has any Internet connection. It may do. If it doesn't, the next one may do; and so you go along the road until you find one that does. It takes fractions of a second to complete the chain; and once the chain is complete, any data you like can be sent down it. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/15/2004 12:37:00 PM
The Doc Searls Weblog : Wednesday, January 14, 2004
The Doc Searls Weblog : Wednesday, January 14, 2004: "From the senior side of the pond comes pointage to YourParty (a political party where you take the decisions, where you choose the candidates who then vote as you decide), BBC's iCAN beta (find info, find people, take action), Public Whip (Counting votes on your behalf), mySociety (a new charitable project from a mixture of the people who brought you FaxYourMP.com and VoxPolitics. Our aim is to build internet projects which have strong, real world benefits, and which do so at very low cost per person served). And last but not least, Steven Johnson's Can the World Wide Web give ordinary people a shot at true populism, under the heading Emerging Technology: Internet-Era Democracy at Discover. Great read.
Thanks to Matt and Steven for the blogs-up.
Bonus Link: politiqueonline | Comment la politique et les politiques utilisent le web. Au Francais, avec un petit Anglais. (Or however you say whatever, au Francais.) Le Oignon peelings: Spaghetti-Os Discontinued As Franco-American Relations Break Down."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/15/2004 12:34:00 PM
1/14/2004
So what, exactly, it the official method for computing results from those caucuses anyway?
I've been hoping JW would post on this topic, but I think this quote from Iowa State Political Science Professor Steffen W. Schmidt in an online discussion on WaPost.com today summed it up best:"Don't even ask. Just have a beer and enjoy the results
!!"
Posted by: Jeff / 1/14/2004 02:13:00 PM
We are coming for you
Hey, we spread like rats. Money quote:
"The long-term trend is up, up, up," said Olson of overlawyered.com. He said the real cost to society is the drain of smart people out of other areas of the economy. Some of the greatest minds are "adding 300 words to a 1,000-word prescription drug warning," he said.
(Hat tip: Roger Simon).
Posted by: CS / 1/14/2004 02:02:00 PM
Sho you right...
You right, you right Jeff - plenty goes both ways. It irks me both ways too (though a lot of it makes me laugh. Is that wrong? Probably wrong in the same way those [censored] reality shows suck you in if you helplessly get caught in the gaze of the first show (Apprentice anyone?).)
Interesting article from Brooks. Who still hasn't apologized publicly for his idiotic comments in one of his last columns where he listed the term "neo-conservative" as some sort of anti-Semitic barb. Usually he's OK - but that was dumb. (I think I read somewhere he called it a joke. Whatever.)
Brooks:
The biggest divide among Democrats is metaphysical. Some portion of the party, led by Howard Dean, is so disgusted by Republicans that it does not believe it is possible to work with such people. Meanwhile, others, including Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, accept that Republicans are in power, are willing to work with them and take a starkly different approach to politics.
This is true. But its also true that Dean supporters are equally disgusted by entrenched Democrats like Ghephardt & Kerry. Who we view to be mostly made up of spineless cavers (though really nice guys - [censored] nice guys!). This nomination process is much more a decision point as to whether the Democratic Party wants to become relevant again and move forward or tuck its turtle-head back in and regress to 70's style policies (again) - than it is about Bush. Yet. This will change come May. If an old-schooler like Ghepardt wins I can really see an exodous out of the party - perhaps to a third party. Which will, of course, give the conservatives that "perpetual rule" they're gunning for.
The gay marriage issue is a third-rail for the Demcratic candidate. We must do as much as possible to get this issue off the table for the general election. Which will be hard to do.
As for the Saddam-ish 80% approval ratings of Bush by Republicans. I see this beginning to change. If Bush sets the "illegals" free and keeps spending like he's the Hilton sisters he's going to start losing some of that rock-solid base. Of course, he's too smart for that and will cloak any more deficit-spending in some sort of hard-right giveaway. I predict we'll see something having to do with the abortion issue wrapped up in pretty paper and delivered to the hard right sometime before October.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/14/2004 12:16:00 PM
Someday I'll figure out how to properly post multiple links
but today is not that day
45.2%
Posted by: Jeff / 1/14/2004 09:29:00 AM
Easy there J
Before launching into reactionary defense mode, I think we should recognize that both sides devote an unconstructive amount of resources to snide mockery. And I'd agree that such activities do little piss (can I say that?) off 45.5 percent of the nation and fire up 45.2 percent.
And in regard to the Sullivan email of the day, I tend to agree. Charles Peters also touced on this sentiment in the month's Washington Monthly.
relevant excerpt: "Why haven't conservatives endorsed gay marriage? It would seem to be an answer to the reckless promiscuity that...is the most serious moral problem of the gay community...
I'm therefore delighted to report that at least one conservative, David Brooks, supports gay marriage. 'The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments, it is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage.'"
Posted by: Jeff / 1/14/2004 09:27:00 AM
Snide mockery and hopeless hand wringing... two great tastes...
Re: The last two posts...
The sites: while funny, too many people take sites like this too seriously - they end up thinking they're actually getting something done. Note to both sides - mocking the other side and pissing them off is one sure way to get people up off their fat ones to oppose you. Wait... maybe they are doing something.
The Email of the Day: while containing some truth, is translated as such: I'm lazy and looking for ways out of doing my civic duty and participating in the political process. I enjoy seeing the negative and bitching much more than working to change things I don't like or compromising my positions in order to move forward. When I see an obstacle in my path I stop moving rather than go around. This all combines to make me a whiny, ineffective, morally limp sack of crap that the other people who actually work and give a damn will end up lugging up the mountain anyway while you incessantly bleat in their ear.
On another note. I (really, truly, no tricks) believe this is a good idea:
Bush On Space: Moon, Mars, Money. This is the first thing Bush has proposed where my first reaction was - hey, cool! I have a hunch most people disagree.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/14/2004 08:31:00 AM
1/13/2004
Common Ground
Check out Andrew Sullivan's Email of the Day.
Posted by: Aaron / 1/13/2004 10:24:00 PM
The most radical websites to all that which is radical
Nice
My favorite part of the link from Jeff's post immediately below is this:
"...64% of Oklahoma's steel bridges are deemed structurally deficient or functionally obsolete...."
Oh, swell. At least the OU Center for Structural Control is all over it.
Posted by: CS / 1/13/2004 11:25:00 AM
Not to worry, BV
Norman-town is getting its fair share.
Posted by: Jeff / 1/13/2004 09:33:00 AM
Welcome to iowapork.org
Welcome to iowapork.org
The only pork we have in Iowa is the real kind :). Now BV, if you can't see the national benefit of a rainforest in Iowa then I'm just afraid you've become jaded :). Lets have 614 reunion 2015 in Iowa... I'll bring the rainforest.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/13/2004 07:47:00 AM
1/12/2004
Indoor Rainforest in Iowa?
Pork Pork Pork. J, you'll have to visit the rainforest and let us know how it is.
Posted by: Bill / 1/12/2004 11:31:00 AM
1/10/2004
Calpundit: Why Were We So Wrong?
1/09/2004
Friday evening humor
I'm surprised this didn't materialize sooner.
Posted by: Jeff / 1/09/2004 04:30:00 PM
Open can of worms by no means shut
Insty reports that Clinton believed Hussein had WMD untile quite recently, too. Clearly, Bush made up this report, too.
Posted by: CS / 1/09/2004 12:04:00 PM
Stuff emailed to me last night
From the Finnish cousin who is spamming me in hopes of getting a response, I give you a list of crappy links.
Party Time
The Nation's Cold Spot
Movie Titles
Computer Programmer or Serial Killer?
Yikes
Hey!
The Abridged Joyce
Posted by: Aaron / 1/09/2004 10:29:00 AM
1/08/2004
From OpinionJournal
"Won't That Make the Cow Madder?
'Japan Team to Visit U.S. to Probe Mad Cow'--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 7"
Posted by: Jeff / 1/08/2004 03:50:00 PM
Religion and politics
Really good piece by Julian Sanchez on religion and the role it plays in politics. I like his bit on Bush's inclusion of religious codewords.
There has been a lot of discussion of Dean's stance in this regard (especially since The New Republic's cover) and I agree with his analysis here.
And yes, Aaron - I am linking to Reason
Posted by: Jeff / 1/08/2004 12:33:00 PM
If the guitarist displeased me, I would shoot him.
James Lileks visits my former neck of the woods (Scottsdale is right next to Tempe, my hometown), and he has this to say:
"That�s the only bad thing about living out there, if you ask me. Golf."
He also calls cacti "Nature's dickheads". Check out the whole thing.
Posted by: CS / 1/08/2004 11:21:00 AM
Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper (washingtonpost.com)
Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper (washingtonpost.com):
"But investigators have found no support for the two main fears expressed in London and Washington before the war: that Iraq had a hidden arsenal of old weapons and built advanced programs for new ones. In public statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered no work on former germ-warfare agents such as anthrax bacteria, and no work on a new designer pathogen -- combining pox virus and snake venom -- that led U.S. scientists on a highly classified hunt for several months. The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a 'grave and gathering danger' by President Bush and a 'mortal threat' by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s. "
Told 'ya so... :}
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 1/08/2004 08:36:00 AM
1/07/2004
FOXNews.com - Politics - Bush Proposes Plan to Let Illegals Stay in U.S.
Anybody want to discuss this?
I don't see how this helps him.
Workers will now have legal protections and some incentive to return home once totalization agreement is in place, but the incentive for employers to hire illegals is gone as they will now have to start palying taxes & etc and also worry about workers comp and the like.
Politically, if a fiscal conservative (a la Perot) were to jump in, this could put him in a world of hurt.
Posted by: Jeff / 1/07/2004 02:05:00 PM
1/06/2004
Overreacting
I guess that isn't quite the right word. I meant "it's not a big deal."
P.S. Piss
Posted by: CS / 1/06/2004 11:02:00 AM
TMQ?
Gregg Easterbrook can officially go to hell.
Posted by: CS / 1/06/2004 11:01:00 AM
FCC vs. F-Word
Not sure what you mean by overreacting - I just found it noteworthy that someone felt the need to enumerate specific words. Previously, this determination was left up to the discretion of the FCC.
Impetus for this bill is explained here.
Posted by: Jeff / 1/06/2004 10:45:00 AM
12/30/2003
Cussing
I can't quote the bill Jeff links to without many, many, "--"s standing in for letters, but I think Jeff is overreacting. The bill he cites is to amend this law, already on the books:
Sec. 1464. - Broadcasting obscene language
Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both
Now, I was under the impression that words like "f--k", "c--t", etc. were already proscribed by this section ("piss" is another matter). To the extent that we already have a bar on profanity on the radio, I think it is better if the words are enumerated, rather than having the definition left open. Granted, here the list is deemed only to include certain words, not consist solely of them, but at least they can serve as a sort of guide post to interpretation. (Still think you've got to take the word "piss" out of there, though.)
Buit I am confused by at least one thing. What is the infinitive of "motherf--ker"? "To mother f--k"?
Posted by: CS / 12/30/2003 02:49:00 PM
"[A]n end to outdated concepts like the glass ceiling."
I can't wait to compain about being discriminated against.
Posted by: CS / 12/30/2003 02:37:00 PM
Bad link on last post.
This should work.
Here
Posted by: Jeff / 12/30/2003 01:46:00 PM
Oh great.
Potty Mouth Legislation
Sac-Town Congressman introduces bill to ban A-list curse words.
Posted by: Jeff / 12/30/2003 01:41:00 PM
The greatness that is Lebanese Ass-Juice
From the Economist:
Syrians, Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians and Iraqis�at least until some Shia fanatics trashed Baghdad's distilleries last May�have long happily quaffed their own araks. But most would concede that the best of the lot is Lebanese. Arak is not just Lebanon's national drink. For many it is a passion, to the point that most of the arak consumed in the country is not factory-produced, but home-distilled. The residents of one typical little Maronite village in the mountainous Kesrouan region, for instance, reckon at least ten families there run their own stills.
And the best part about those family stills is that they aren't subject to the government standard of 53% alcohol. My great-uncle Wafic makes his closer to 70%. Fire up the nargileh and grab a handful of pea pods.
Posted by: Aaron / 12/30/2003 10:43:00 AM
12/29/2003
Posner book review: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution, by Evan Gerstmann
"But it is one thing to protect an unpopular group's freedom of speech, and another to give it the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, or a tax deduction."
Posted by: CS / 12/29/2003 02:58:00 PM
Re: news
First: congratulations to AH and DMH nee C.
Second: I win. Somebody owes somebody some money.
Posted by: CS / 12/29/2003 11:02:00 AM
News
For those of you that are learning of this by blog post, well, return your phone messages. For the rest of you, check out this pic of DMC and me from Christmas.
Oh yeah. We're engaged.
Posted by: Aaron / 12/29/2003 11:00:00 AM
12/23/2003
Redistricting
Stuart Taylor Jr. of National Journal has a really good piece on the current (sorry) state of redistricting in light of the Pennsylvania case the Supreme Court heard a couple weeks ago.
Should the Supreme Court Clean Up Its Own Mess?
Never thought I'd agree with the phrase "The solution is probably for states to emulate Iowa," but in this case, I think he may be on to something.
As imporant of a process as this is to a functioning democracy, far too much of it is conducted on purely political grounds. Speaking empirically, not only partisan but personal preferences by powerful state legislators can shape a district to the detriment of its constituents. But enough about Oklahoma, argument in the Texas case should be wrapping up this evening, so I'm interested to see where this will go from here.
Posted by: Jeff / 12/23/2003 04:18:00 PM
12/22/2003
Christmas Presents
Oxblog has a nice list of worthy, web-enabled causes. In lieu of the bountiful presents that you all were expecting from me, I hit the tipjar for Operation Give. Merry Chrismas, 614.
Posted by: Aaron / 12/22/2003 03:16:00 PM
Working in California
Phone call with Client:
"So, [boring business talk.]"
(I feel a bit dizzy.)
"Was that an earthquake?"
"Yes, I think so."
"Anyway, [boring business talk.]"
UPDATE: Big.
Posted by: CS / 12/22/2003 01:28:00 PM
12/21/2003
Welcome to NewsOK.com
How cool is this.
Jason White is a golden god.
Last time a player won the Heisman in two consecutive years was Archie Griffin of Ohio State in 1974/5.
Forget CS's wager on W. Who wants $200 on that record going down?
Posted by: Jeff / 12/21/2003 12:53:00 PM
12/19/2003
More Utech fun
JW - Utech didn't like your "Common Sense" link. And he doesn't like Dean, either.
Posted by: Aaron / 12/19/2003 09:09:00 PM
Mailbag
From DMC this afternoon in response to this post:
Jason: A heartfelt and thought-provoking post. Bill:
Well said. My own buffered (and therefore cowardly?)
contribution to the conversation is to recommend an
Andrew Sullivan article that I find myself referring
people to over and over again. While I agree with
much--but not all--of it, more importantly, I think
the appreciation he has for the complexity of a
question that lies at the intersection of scientific
knowledge, personal beleif and societal duty (see
especially paragraphs 2-3) provides "common ground"
that can serve as a meaningful starting point for
people who sincerely want to engage in dialogue.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/print.php?artnum=20001016
-DMC
Posted by: Aaron / 12/19/2003 08:46:00 PM
Blogger Gozinya
All right, I am back from my hiatus. I have so much to respond to I don't know where to start. So, in (somewhat) chronological order:
Two Big Ideas:
(A) J says "I am a Democrat AND anti-abortion. That is a rare thing. That is a hard thing to be." Both true. I would wager that there are more pro-choice Republicans than there are pro-life Democrats, thus making it harder to find one's niche in the party. Republicans have their reptiles and the South Park Republican thing, and it seems to me that there isn't a corresponding constituency (as large, anyway) in the Dem half of the votership. So, J is to be commended for sticking to his guns.
What I find most interesting in the whole abortion debate is that it is unlikely that the public policy on the thing is likely to move marginally, if at all, from where it is now. There simply is no more room to compromise; we have detente. BV is right when he points to an aspect of one side that doesn't sit well with the other; but, it's never going to happen. And yet it is the litmus test for holding public office and federal judicial nomination. Silly.
I do agree with BV that not trying to give the other side an honest listen does exacerbate the problem. 'Course, that subjects you to the peril of coming out somewhat agnostic on the issue, a la yours truly.
(B) J's take on handguns: Yeah, I'm not on board with that. I think the rabid version of the pro-gun control movement is trying to hoodwink people. We can hash that out later.
(C) I quote J: "...the next President (Howard Dean)..." I am upping my Bush bet to $200. Easy money. J points out that I have said my Bush vote is not a lock. Still true, but if I have to choose between Dean and Bush, well, you see where this is going. I would rather:
1. Have all my teeth pulled by Dr. Giggles (an OU Alum, of all things), then;
2. Be forced to tear my arm off with my bloodied gums;
3. While watching John Tesh and Yanni have some sort of new age musician on new age musician action;
than vote for Dean. (I had more to say on the matter but I lost the notes I jotted down for this occasion.) I would vote for Lieberman. But he's going to get thrown off the island soon.
Aside: After Gore's back-stabbery, I now feel completely vindicated in voting for Bush the first time. In fact, I consider it a mark against my character that I ever waffled to begin with. Loyalty is apparently not in his repertoir.
Problems with Pre-emption.
I agree with BV--this is a non sequitur. I would also like to point out that Milosevic's trial is still going on. What great closure.
We
I think I said my piece on that. I would like to point out that I think I am taking the kid-gloves off less frequently than J, especially with me being evil and all. But the audience will decide. Since that is basically DMC and Utech, I hope they chime in.
The funniest thing about the 'nice guy' post is that J claims to use spell check. (P.S. I am a nice guy.)
Pedantry.
Man, that guy is a bigger ass than I am. (Not BV, the guy he links to.)
Jonathan Chait:
Is an ass. Gee, he hates Dean now, wow. Stop linking to him. Dean is not deserving of hate; I am pretty positive he has Tourette's and you just can't hate the handicapped.
Chart:
Sixfourteen: all 'a,' all the time.
Padilla:
Right result, didn't read it, don't know if the reasoning's good.
Gitmo detainees:
Wrong result, didn't read, Reinhardt wrote it, reasoning probably bad.
Something new:
Word.
Posted by: CS / 12/19/2003 08:15:00 PM
Headlines and Editorials
True, headlines like that don't help, but neither do editorials with titles like this: Courts vs. the Terror War
Posted by: Jeff / 12/19/2003 02:26:00 PM
More on the enemy combatants decision
While headlines like "Court says Bush can't hold Padilla" are somewhere between wrong and misleading, I think this article sums it up properly.
Posted by: Aaron / 12/19/2003 11:58:00 AM
"eager?"
JW: This post has been irking me for the last couple of days.
Ignoring the BS chickenhawk argument, I find it insulting and offensive that you think that CS (and I can only assume that you mean to include him, BV and myself among your "armchair-Privates") are "eager" to send American troops off to fight a war. None of us (in the broader sense of all hawks) want to fight wars - or to send other Americans to fight them, either. We don't believe that we have a choice. We are resigned and determined and reluctant to order our soldiers to fight. But the choice that I see is a choice to fight here or fight in the middle east.* It is not that I don't value the lives of our soldiers. They have chosen to devote their lives to protecting us. At times, that means they should be home. At other times, they can best protect our country by fighting our enemies abroad.
If you want to raise the level of discourse, start by not ascribing motives to others.
*I'm not asking you to agree with this statement of the question, only to recognize that it is how I, and most hawks, see it.
Also - how was Iraq an "ideaology-fueled" battle while fighting alQueda wouldn't be?
Posted by: Aaron / 12/19/2003 10:41:00 AM
Thanks, Jeff!
Even though I would have picked someone other than Jonathan Chait to man the keyboard, I'm happy to add Dean-o-Phobe to the blogroll.
Now, if someone would just start Libertarians for Lieberman, I might not vote for W.
Posted by: Aaron / 12/19/2003 10:18:00 AM
Sorry to pee in Jason's punchbowl,
The New Republic Online: Diary of a Dean-o-Phobebut Jonathan Chait has just started an anti-Dean blog on The New Republic website.
Regardless of how you feel about the man/phenomenon, it's pretty entertaining.
Posted by: Jeff / 12/19/2003 09:45:00 AM
12/18/2003
techno-funny
on a lighter note: i wish i could find a url with a picture of this ad
Posted by: Bill / 12/18/2003 10:41:00 PM
abortion
whoo whee - picking a tough issue here. This debate could go on for hours. Maybe over beers sometime.
I will point out a couple items though:
"I hate the issue. I don't understand the other side - nor have I taken the time to understand the other side."
This is exactly the problem. I've had quite a few very in depth conversations with people on both sides of the issue. In the end, for me, it comes down to some fundamental disagreements with people about: doing good for society (and is this even a worthy goal), what is good for society, and where the boundaries between individuals and society lie.
"The end goal will be laws against abortion"
I'm so not on board with this campaign. I can't see myself looking into the face of a mother dying during childbirth telling her she had to have the baby because her society is "pro-life". I can't see myself telling the 14 year old incest victim that her society will be better if she carries the pregnancy through.
"To me its a black and white issue"
Sorry. It is not black and white. It is extremely personal and gray which is why in turn it is polarizing and divisive.
Posted by: Bill / 12/18/2003 09:59:00 PM
UN knows what to do?
What exactly do you mean that "If we had gone through the UN we would know exactly what to do"? Somehow a UN sanctioned invasion would result in a clearer war crimes trial protocol? I don't understand what you mean "we don't know what to do". We're talking about a trial for Saddam's crimes. We've been involved in ones before - e.g. Milosevic. It is a long, difficult process whether or not the UN sanctioned our "regime change." I would expect the US to invite international participation to legitimize proceedings which seems to be the case so far. It seems to me that things are moving forward reasonably. I don't see any evidence that we are looking around bewildered.
Posted by: Bill / 12/18/2003 09:42:00 PM
Anyone have pets?
I'll nominate this blog for mostly part c, with J providing a great mixture of a and c.
Posted by: Bill / 12/18/2003 09:31:00 PM
Ridiculous
Maybe the commission will have something specific to say next month about the intelligence situation on 9/11. Maybe someone actually knew the flight numbers and could have prevented it....
Yeah, right.
That article is quoting some lady saying we knew planes could be used as weapons in 1991. As if knowing that means we should have prevented it. Well we know a LOT of things can be used as weapons. A lot of bad things can be done to hurt/kill people. In fact, the number of ways to cause lots of death pretty much approaches infinity. We have finite resources.
Of course, we should try to maximize the beneficial effects of using those resources (and everyone will disagree on the best way to do that). Here's a start: Stop wasting money on trying to find a scapegoat.
Posted by: Bill / 12/18/2003 09:28:00 PM
CBS News | 9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable | December 18, 2003�07:38:02
CBS News | 9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable | December 18, 2003�07:38:02: "For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented"
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/18/2003 01:22:00 PM
Q: What will happen when a national political machine can fit on a laptop? A: See below (washingtonpost.com)
Q: What will happen when a national political machine can fit on a laptop? A: See below (washingtonpost.com): "For all Dean's talk about wanting to represent the truly 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,' the paradox is that he is essentially a third-party candidate using modern technology to achieve a takeover of the Democratic Party. Other candidates -- John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark -- are competing to take control of the party's fundraising, organizational and media operations. But Dean is not interested in taking control of those depreciating assets. He is creating his own party, his own lists, his own money, his own organization. What he wants are the Democratic brand name and legacy, the party's last remaining assets of value, as part of his marketing strategy. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/18/2003 01:20:00 PM
Economist.com | America's deficits
Economist.com | America's deficits
via rebecca blood
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/18/2003 01:13:00 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/weblogs/story/0,14024,1108306,00.html
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/18/2003 01:01:00 PM
12/17/2003
Scripting News: 12/17/2003
Scripting News: 12/17/2003
Caaaaammmmmmeeeeedddddyyyyy...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/17/2003 01:34:00 PM
CS is a... [pause... take breath] ..really nice guy
[Pointedly ignoring snide end-of-post remarks like "don't quit your day job" and resisting a snide response in order to raise the level of discourse and stop the entrenchment of myself on the left and CS on the right because I know - dispite what we say here on the blog - we have way more in common than not and that CS and I like each other a lot and respect each other which, really, is way too typical of today's political discourse, i.e. 90% of people agree on 90% of things but have much greater desire to be right - or, rather, prove the other side wrong - than to come to a compromise and move forward.
That said, I don't think CS and I will ever agree on this war. After arguing about it ad nauseum for half a year he still thinks the war was justified and right with ample supporting evidence and I still think the war was wrong and unjustified with ample supporting evidence. Such is political discourse in Dec. 2003. Two pretty intelligent people with similar backgrounds and (roughly) similar beliefs (in the general sense) can look at the same situation and reach opposite conclusions. Wow. That's a neat, or rather, interesting trick, eh? Is there a compromise position? Probably. Will it put butts in seats? Probably not. (Cue Fox News music (and, in the interest of non-snide-civility, really any news making organization these days).
(Side note: in looking up how to spell 'nauseum' I found its easier to use google to check spelling than dictionary.com. Damn, liberal dictionary.com!!!)
Anyway, I'm resisting a end-of-post snide remark but I simply can't resist saying that Christopher Hitchens was an ass when he was a liberal and he continues to be an ass as a conservative. Does this discount his argument? Not at all. But he is an ass nontheless. Is CS an ass for linking to Hitchens? No way! Will Hitchens continue to revel and excel in his ass-like-ism irregardless of where the ficle winds of his political idealology take him next? Absolutely. Hitchens... ass.]
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/17/2003 01:15:00 PM
12/16/2003
Christopher Hitchens on J's sense of moral superiority
Christopher Hitchens discusses the J's argument that no one who is not fighting can support the war.
J says: "I think I support the[ troops] far more than the armchair-Privates who are so eager to send them into battle but far less eager to put their can in the sand next to them."
Hitchens: "Shall we inquire into the "armchair" or otherwise sedentary lives of those who sympathized with Milosevic, or who published euphemisms about al-Qaida, or who went on fatuous hospitality trips to Baghdad and ended up echoing Baathist propaganda? You can be sure that they would yell about "the politics of personal destruction" or perhaps 'McCarthyism' if such an imputation was made. Well, then, let them beware of licensing such a cheap form of ad hominem argument."
Don't quit your day job, J.
Posted by: CS / 12/16/2003 08:38:00 PM
Dean for America: Common Sense
Dean for America: Common Sense
"Over two hundred years ago, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet that would light the fire that forged our nation. He called it �Common Sense.� Passed from hand to hand, patriot to patriot, it was a call to action for those Americans who believed their government had to change. It spelled out the values of a new republic. And King George III�who had forgotten his own people in favor of special interests�was replaced by a government of, by and for the people. America was born.
Like those early patriots, we face a growing threat to our liberty and justice in America today. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spoke of the fear that economic power would one day seize political power.
That fear is now being realized�under the Bush administration, pharmaceutical companies draft our Medicare laws. Oil executives sit in the Vice President�s office and write energy bills. A majority of the reconstruction contracts in Iraq goes to corporations headed by campaign contributors to the president."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/16/2003 04:22:00 PM
The Doc Searls Weblog : Monday, December 15, 2003
The Doc Searls Weblog : Monday, December 15, 2003
Great post. Contains an excerpt from an essay that beautifully captures the subtleties of what is late 2003 reaction to what took up most of our time in '03. Also hits on how screaming at both ends deafens the middle. Hear hear.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/16/2003 01:09:00 PM
Should have read the paper before I posted
washingtonpost.com: Iraqi Planners Hope To Start Trial by SpringBut it appears there is already disagreement between the US Administration and the IGC and its affiliates as to when this should happen.
Posted by: Jeff / 12/16/2003 09:44:00 AM
And then.....?
There is no doubt that capturing Saddam was the best thing to happen in Iraq in quite a while. I'm wondering what will happen now. Much like everything else that has been done since 'the end of major combat', I too am concerned that there is no clear plan of action.
Given the questionable role/authority of the Iraqi Governing Council and the current plan to put 'elections' on a fast track, I am also concerned about who will conduct the trial and how that decision and its implications will be viewed by Arabs who were not directly impacted by his regime. Will the powers that be in Iraq try to hold the trial before the elections in order to maintain greater control, or will they wait till after to provide more legitimacy? I haven't heard anything on that front yet, but neither option is very appealing.
And just to back up Jason's negative vibes, I think we can all agree - at least judging from the news reports that have come out so far - that Saddam was not in any way coordinating the daily brutal attacks that continue to take the lives of our troops, as well as innocent Iraqis.
Posted by: Jeff / 12/16/2003 09:21:00 AM
"We"
I assume CS means "we" in the whole-American sense rather than in the "enlisted in the Army, spent years sleeping in the desert and getting shot at, crawled through the mud to capture Saddam at great personal risk, got paid squat" sense.
Because no matter how loudly you shout support from the sidelines and how macho articles like the one you cite make you feel - its still our guys getting killed and you sitting behind a desk.
Though I don't support the war, I support the men who fight the war 1000%. I think I support them far more than the armchair-Privates who are so eager to send them into battle but far less eager to put their can in the sand next to them. I'd rather have them fighting important battles like the ones against alQueda - not ideaology-fueled ones like Iraq. Or, best of all, home with us.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/16/2003 09:00:00 AM
12/15/2003
Why we rule
Quote from the troops who found Saddam:
"President Bush sends his regards."
Oh, and a translation of J's post below: "Desperately... must... find... something.... negative to... say. Can't...let...anything...just...be...good. Damn...this...administration...who disproves me... at...every...turn..."
Posted by: CS / 12/15/2003 06:18:00 PM
Now the problems with pre-emption become clear...
We got him! This is great news (and I mean that with all sincerity).
Now what?
The Iraqi's want a piece of him. But remember the Iraqi's don't have a government or a constitution yet - much less a functioning legal system.
This is why what W. did was wrong. Now there is no internationally accepted way to proceed. Like there was with Slobodan Milosevic. With him we followed the rules and he was brought to justice under rule of law.
With Saddam there will be calls for retribution - calls for death. And likely those calls will be heeded. Because we have no process now. And he will become a martyr. A symbol.
If we had gone through the UN we would know exactly what to do. Because we didn't - we don't.
I'm glad he's gone - everyone is. But I hope W. can use this opportunity to bring the international community - the UN - back into the fold. Because if we don't now - the problems with and consequences of pre-emption will only become more and more distinct.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/15/2003 09:31:00 AM
12/12/2003
No liberal media bias to see here, folks. Move along, move along.
Sins of omission abound.
Posted by: CS / 12/12/2003 05:33:00 PM
I work more than Larry Lessig
and I won't reply to arguments calling me evil. Res ipsa loquitur.
Posted by: CS / 12/12/2003 11:36:00 AM
Case And Point...
Dean for Iowa - Iowans for Dean!: "If you believed the campaign rhetoric, the raison d'etre of the Republican Party was to shrink the federal government. But with the GOP in full control of both the White House and Congress, the government is growing faster than ever.
So maybe we can stop having the tiresome argument over Big Government vs. Small Government. The Republicans have shown themselves to be no different from the Democrats on that score.
The argument was always a little off-point anyway. The size of the government matters, but not as much as something else - whose side the government is on. Does it work for the general public or the favored few?"
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/12/2003 11:34:00 AM
U.S. Sees Evidence of Overcharging in Iraq Contract
Like this wasn't gonna happen... Republicans, the so-called "defenders of capitalism" - which for the Republicans, lawyers, and arts majors in the audience - is based on competition - are the ones (while controlling of all facets of the federal gov't) who:
1) Handed out no-bid contracts to companies for the rebuilding of Iraq
2) Companies which operate on a "cost-plus" basis - virtually guaranting the least inefficient operations possible and overbilling as illustrated in the article below
3) Put a provision in the new prescription drug bill which disallows the government from negotiating prices - the single bit of leverage the gov't has to keep prices low!
4) Reversed a record budget surplus and are fast at work at building an unassailable record federal debt.
5) Refused to do virtually anything at all to bring the authors of some of the worst corporate fraud in history to justice
The Republican Party as a defender of small government and capitalism is an astoundingly preposterous joke - and has been since Reagan took office in 1980. Please, Republicans, put the tired rhetoric back in the 1800's where it belongs and speak truthfully about what your goals really are. You could give a damn about smaller government and competition. What you're really about is achieving and consolidating power amongst a few homogeneous elite and cultivating and rewarding those with money and power who can promote that hold on power. And stop prostelyzing about your moral superiority in a bid to get middle class America to subsidize your drive to long-term rule. Its tired, corrupt and - at the end of the day - evil.
U.S. Sees Evidence of Overcharging in Iraq Contract: "A Pentagon investigation has found evidence that a subsidiary of the politically connected Halliburton Company overcharged the government by as much as $61 million for fuel delivered to Iraq under huge no-bid reconstruction contracts, senior military officials said Thursday.
The subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, also submitted a proposal for cafeteria services that seemed to be inflated by $67 million, the officials said. The Pentagon rejected that proposal, they said."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/12/2003 08:11:00 AM
12/11/2003
Note to non-posting members of sixfourteen.com...
if Lessig has time to do it, you have time to do it...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/11/2003 04:09:00 PM
12/10/2003
Tellin the world...
You're looking at the new w1p4 precint captian for the Dean campaign. Stopped at HQ today to pick up a yard sign and bumper sticker. Now I gotta find some people to head to caucus with. TCOB, baby... takin' care of business...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/10/2003 06:30:00 PM
ESPN.com - NCF - Maisel: Fry's lasting legacy
ESPN.com - NCF - Maisel: Fry's lasting legacy: "Fry's staff with the Hawkeyes in the early 1980s included five current Division I head coaches, including Bill Snyder of Kansas State, Barry Alvarez of Wisconsin, and Kirk Ferentz, Fry's successor at Iowa.
But as Fry goes into the College Football Hall of Fame on Tuesday night, the coaching achievement for which he will most be remembered is going into the Hall of Fame alongside him.
Hayden Fry was beloved at Iowa, SMU and North Texas.
Jerry LeVias, the wide receiver who broke the color line in the Southwest Conference when Fry brought him to SMU in 1965, is an inductee as a player."
... and Stoops.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/10/2003 09:58:00 AM
12/09/2003
Clinton's final answer
Clinton's final answer: "After his speech on the Saturday of the Annual Meeting, president Clinton responded to a few questions from Klaus Schwab, president of the World Economic Forum. Many of the Davos participants thought Clinton's speech was a good one, but his final answer was the highlight of his visit. This is an unedited transcript of the president's remarks."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/09/2003 08:30:00 PM
The way of the world
Two Big Ideas
OK - I'm ready to placate the Utech and actually offer some opinions up on this blog. Plus I have a lot of pent-up hour-drive-each-way thoughts. And so, two Big Ideas:
1) The New Life Compromise
I hate the abortion issue. In the grand scheme of things it affects very few people but its one of those issues that immediately puts you in an ideaological box. It instantly divides people. There is no middle ground on this issue.
I am a Democrat AND anti-abortion. That is a rare thing. That is a hard thing to be. Many of my Republican friends and relatives would at least consider Democrats if abortion wasn't such a huge plank in the party. As such, most Democratic candidates are immediately garbage-canned even if they agree with most of whatever else the candidate is saying. This is why my wife won't consider Howard Dean or any other Democratic candidate. She simply won't support a person who supports abortion.
Me, I take a hard swallow and tell myself its a small price to pay for a larger gain. I hate the issue. I don't understand the other side - nor have I taken the time to understand the other side. To me its a black and white issue. There's an unwanted pregnancy so a person decides to kill the problem. Literally. Kill. Of course, there are endless sub-issues (and I won't support an overturn of Roe v. Wade until Republicans are prepared to deal with, and pay cash money for, the consequences) - but as you remember, my # 1 issue is protecting and promoting life and the quality thereof.
So, that said, I offer the New Life Compromise. Those of us thinking moderates on the left will team up with the thinking moderates on the right and try to solve a bunch of issues at once. Democrats will work within our party to lessen the hard-line pro-choice advocates and Republicans will work within their party to lessen the hard-line handgun and death penatly advocates. These are three huge, divisive issues but they all have to do with promoting life and lessening death. The end goal will be laws against abortion, hand gun production/ownership and the death penalty. [I know this is an extremely simplified view of how things can be - and I know compromises within compromises would have to exist - and notice I said HANDgun - but we can at least try to move forward on these issues.]
Maybe there's an idea out there like this already - if so, I'm on board. If not, lets start it up. The details of implementation will be hard to come by but I'm willing to compromise if you are. Lets work for life!
2) Send Bush In Again
What I'm about to say may seem like a drastic U-turn - and in some ways it is - but... just hear me out...
Its time to take drastic measures in the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm probably the least qualified person in the world to comment on this issue but I know what I read in the papers and it seems like something needs to be done... Now.
Bush can solve this issue in 2004. Quite simply, draw a line on the map - left side is for Israel, right side is for Palestine. Build a wall if you must (or continue the wall that's going up now). Stop listening to the endless complaining on either side of the issue and do something hard... and do it now.
Yes it will be extremely risky. Yes much of the world will hate us. But this is why Bush is the man for the job. He's already demonstrated that he could give a damn about what the rest of the international community thinks of us. Most of the world already hates us anyway. He conveniently has half a million troops within a day's drive. What better time to act?
As it stands, the next President (Howard Dean) will have to clean up the U.S.'s image in the world anyway. The next President (Howard Dean) will have to clean up the financial mess left to us by Dubya anyway. The next President (Howard Dean) will have to implement a sustainable foreign policy/terrorism policy anyway. Let Dub do what he does best - blow things up and piss people off. And then kick him out of office and let the next guy clean up the mess. Everybody wins. Middle East problem solved.
Of course Palestinian nation-building will have to happen. But we use the Iraq experience, er, debacle, to help us with that.
This may sound tongue-in-cheek but I really am serious. I'd like to see this problem solved and can see Bush as the one to do it - but only in '04 because he's out in November. I firmly believe Palestinians with jobs will be less interested in blowing themselves and everyone else up than the currently 70% or so of them with nothing to do. Yeah, there are still some Germans who are hell-bent on an Aryan race but the ones that are don't have time to do anything about it because they're too busy working. Lets solve this problem and give the terrorists something more constructive to do with their time.
Busy lawyers, technical peeps and budding pols... a second out of your busy schedule to comment on the above Big Ideas would be appreciated...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/09/2003 01:01:00 PM
The Scobleizer Weblog
Opening the long-unopened mailbag...
We've got a couple older gems here I uprooted after wading through the spam... two from DMC and some from Utech peeps. I don't think we've posted them yet...
Prescriptive Linguistics
Although the discussion in the comments section is far
more interesting, I'm invoking Occam's Razor in
support of the explanation (which I also learned in
school), that possessive pronoun "its" should actually
be "it's" and the apostrophe is omitted to distinguish
it from the contraction of "it is."
-DMC
Oh, thank goodness.
[From www.theonion.com]
Ad Campaign For New $20 Bill A Success
WASHINGTON, DC�The U.S. Department of the Treasury
deemed the new multicolored $20 bill a raging success
Monday, thanks to its $30 million advertising
campaign. "Due to our print and TV ads, people across
the nation are choosing our $20 bill when they need to
exchange currency for goods and services within the
United States and its territories," Secretary of the
Treasury John Snow said. "We couldn't be happier.
Americans agree that the Series 2004 U.S. currency is
the legal tender for all debts, public and private."
Due to high demand for the bill, the Treasury has
already ordered second and third printings.
- DMC
Paying For Jobs
Gentlemen,
Today Jason quoted an article from the NYT discussing what amount to kickbacks to corporations at the state level to entice businesses to build offices and hire locals into jobs in their state. On the national level it is what so many people are upset with the Bush administration over---the insinuated link between the war in Iraq and the awarding of no-bid rebuilding contracts to Halliburton and Bechtel. Further, it is the basis of the economic package of most of the Democratic presidential candidates; they plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts in order to "create working-class jobs", assumably in the form of manufacturing and agricultural subsidies.
If Mr. Peters from the *highly esteemed* University of Iowa is correct in his estimation and these programs cost about $40 billion annually, the article certainly leaves one (read: me) to wonder what would happen if that money were left in the taxpayer's pocket. Maybe they could afford to live a middle-class life without borrowing heavily? Maybe they'd even be able to afford estate/death tax exposure?
Cheers.
Utech
PS---seriously, guys, comments require like six lines of code in your blogger template.
PPS---77 points?!
The bumper sticker thread...
Jason,
You said you have a bumper sticker that says "Vote Republican. It's easier than thinking." Given the fact that Republicans often contend they are the party of rational thought while Democrats are the party of emotion (which seems fairly close to truth, IMO) shouldn�t the bumper sticker actually say "Vote Republican. It's easier than feeling."? Just a thought.
J
Estate Tax
I hope the response I put together for Jason doesn't run too long, but I see
some GLARING holes in his validation for an estate tax. (I'll be quoting
from the sixfourteen website.)
"The vast majority of people like you and I, Jeff, will never have any
contact whatsoever with the estate tax. That's what kills me about normal
people being so up in arms over it."
Jason, with your short sighted attitude you may be right that you will never
come in contact with the estate tax. Those of us that plan for the future
early, and wisely will. Right now the estate tax for 2003 will be in effect
for estates over $1 million dollars. That amount raises to $1.5 million in
2004, and settles nicely at $2 million in 2006. The estate tax takes into
account cash, securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities,
business interests & all other assets. Taking into account even the most
basic 401K program, saving $200 a month from 25 to 65 @ a mild 6% annual
growth would net an individual $298,973 at the end of the 40 years. However
the classic portfolio (60% stock, and 40% bond) has had an average yield of
9% over the past 75 years resulting in $584,662 at the end of 40 years. If
you happen to get lucky with a 10% yield you are looking at $740,231. A good
amount of money, but not quite at the $2 million mark. Lets take real estate
into account. Housing prices rise at an average of 5.7% annually
(nationwide, house prices rose at annual rate of 3.8 percent during the
first three months of 2003, down from 5.4 percent at the end of 2002 and 8
percent at the start of last year - so lets just average the three). This
means that a $150k house purchased in 2003 would be worth around $560k in
2033, but we'll round down to say $400k for a more realistic housing market
taking into account a less active market than we have seen recently. Still
not quite there. What about life insurance? It is certainly taxable under
the existing estate tax policy. Let's put the person in a $500k insurance
policy, which isn't out of the realm of possibility. I had some quoted for
me this morning, and it only costs me $39 per month, $1 million came in at
$71 per month for 30 years. Add the $500k to the house, plus 401k, and you
are still short. That doesn't take into account any cash savings, business
assets, automobiles, boats, clothes, furniture, vacation homes, investments,
etc... $2 million isn't out of the reach of most of us, provided we save
properly. Now why should the government be allowed to tax my heirs on the
hard work and smart money management that I have put forth over the past
35-40 years? They shouldn't.
"If you really want to provide a better life for your children you'll take
the money generated from the estate tax and vote to put it into schools and
health care. That's by far the best way to truly provide for your children
(with the added benefit of caring about other people in society as well)"
I think that any intelligent individual in the United States can agree that
the government isn't exactly efficient in how they spend our money. Most
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc... would probably agree that the
amount of money the government wasted last year was at least 3% of the
annual budget. The last number I saw on the annual revenue raised from the
estate tax was $30 billion dollars, or roughly 1% of the annual budget for
the US government. So unless an individual feels that the government is
efficient down to the penny, with no waste... estate tax is paying for
government inefficiency, and not being used for schools, health care, or
other worthwhile programs - which we also pay for with dividend taxes,
income taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc... So it really isn't fair
to say that the best way to help our children is to put the estate tax into
schools and health care because even if the money DID make it there it would
be a small fraction of the amount pulled from an estate tax, whereas the
estate could go to help the individuals' children or designated heirs.
"That's not the point of the estate tax at all. The entire point of the
estate tax is that if wealth is left to concentrate generation after
generation, we're going to devolve back to the aristocracy from whence we
came."
The history of the estate tax is as follows:
1898 - War Revenue Act imposed to raise funds for the Spanish-American War
by taxing estates
1902 - War Revenue Act repealed
1916 - United Transfer Act imposed to increase government funds following
WWI. The tax was imposed to help fund the looming deficit in 1917, and the
"war readiness campaign" of 1918.
1932 - United Transfer Act was raised to fund federal programs during the
Great Depression.
At no point was the United Transfer Act, or estate tax as we know it today,
implemented because our fore-fathers were interested in avoiding the
accumulation of wealth, they simply taxed the rich because no one else had
any money. It's purpose was not to avoid aristocracy, but to keep the
country running.
"Jeff's post is interesting but largely misses the point... Point being,
concentrated wealth = concentrated power. Concentrated power does not a
healthy democracy make... With the latter you have 100x more resources to
push your particular agenda (or whatever else you can do with concentrated
power). All I'm saying is that you should earn the right to push your
particular agenda (with $$$) over the course of your lifetime - not have
that power handed to you."
I agree with Jason on this point, however he is going after the wrong
problem with our country. For people with a lot of money to be able to
influence change in this country more than the "every man" then there is a
breakdown within our government, not a problem with the very rich. Our
country is supposed to be founded on the principle of one person = one vote.
That's how we are SUPPOSED to make changes in this country, by majority
vote. Most cynics, or informed citizens, realize that public policy can be
purchased, and Jason seems to be implying that it is done so by the very
rich. If this is the case, it is not because the very rich have more money
than we do, but because the politicians are allowing it to happen. Changing
the amount of money that a billionaire's son or daughter receives will not
change this, but rather lower the amount of kickback the politician
receives.
Plain and simple, the estate tax is not fair and takes money away from the
intended recipient designated by the deceased, and puts it in the hands of
the government to spend as it sees fit. It IS a case where the government
feels they have a better idea of how to spend the money than the individual,
and not an issue of avoiding an aristocracy. The traditional definition of
an aristocracy dates back to the monarchies of the middle ages, where the
ruling class was not designated by wealth, achievement, or intelligence, but
rather hereditary. The founders of the American government countered the
possibility of this happening not by imposing an estate tax, but rather
through a representative democracy. This way the people collectively decided
who the best people are to run the government, avoiding the "passing" of
power from generation to generation by birth right.
Thanks for your time.
Greg.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/09/2003 08:12:00 AM
Citing �Best Chance,� Gore Endorses Dean in �04 Race
Citing �Best Chance,� Gore Endorses Dean in �04 Race: "Al Gore has decided to endorse Howard Dean for president, aides to the men said Monday, a move that rocked the Democratic presidential field and hastened Dr. Dean's evolution from a long-shot maverick to a leading candidate of the Democratic establishment."
Aw yeah...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/09/2003 07:59:00 AM
12/08/2003
google is easily manipulated
We've had discussions before on whether blog entries should be indexed with other web pages or separately...
Truth? I think not.
Posted by: Bill / 12/08/2003 11:52:00 AM
Google speak truth...
http://www.google.com/search?q=miserable+failure&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/08/2003 08:36:00 AM
12/05/2003
Third Party WatchBlog: A vote for Revolution
Third Party WatchBlog: A vote for Revolution
I went to this article thinking it would be about something different - something I care deeply about - which is "revolutionizing" our electoral system. Its not - and its wierd - but I link to it anyway. Have at it.
I do, however, care passionately about scrapping our electoral college system. The 2000 election showed, in no uncertain terms, that the system is broken. We've been riding on a donut for too long (you know the flat-tire replacement wheel - you still with me?) and its time to jack up the rig and put some new steel-belts on this sucker. The person who the majority of Americans voted for is not President. That is wrong and we need to fix it. I don't care that it went to a Republican - if the Supreme Court had chosen to annoint Al Gore I would be here saying the same thing (except without Ashcroft monitoring my blog posts).
Its time for a mini-revolution... and that's scrapping the electoral college and building a true democratic system.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/05/2003 01:04:00 PM
12/04/2003
Early Flood of Political Ads Saturates Airwaves in Iowa
Early Flood of Political Ads Saturates Airwaves in Iowa
I need to start watching more TV (yeah right - the TV goes back in the garage soon) - I really haven't noticed many political ads at all.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/04/2003 08:24:00 AM
12/03/2003
Networks Don't Follow the Money in Medicare Story
[From FAIR-L mailing list]
December 2, 2003
The nightly network newscasts devoted significant broadcast time to the
debate over the restructuring of Medicare. But while some reports
described the corporate interests that stood to gain under the plan to
offer a prescription drug benefit, few addressed the question of why
Congress would pass a law so beneficial to the pharmaceutical and health
insurance industries. In short, network news failed to heed the old
advice: follow the money.
A CBS Evening News report-- aired on November 25, after the bill had
passed-- mentioned that the "biggest corporate winner by far is the drug
industry itself, mostly because under the new law Medicare is barred from
negotiating drug discounts." Such admissions were not uncommon. But left
unmentioned was the fact that pharmaceutical companies, as well as health
insurers and HMOs, are big contributors to the same politicians who cast
the votes on this legislation.
The pharmaceutical industry gave $21.7 million to Republicans and $7.6
million to Democrats in the last election cycle alone, according to the
Center for Responsive Politics. The insurance sector gave $11.7 million
to Democrats and $25.9 million to Republicans during the same time frame.
In fact, those contributions, the CRP has found, were a fairly reliable
indicator of how a given member of Congress voted on the bill: House
Republicans who supported the bill got more than three times as much
pharmaceutical money as the minority of Republican opponents; the handful
of Democratic supporters in the House received more than twice the health
insurance contributions taken in by Democrats who voted no (Capital Eye,
11/24/03).
The simple fact that the "winners" in the Medicare debate were also big
political contributors was mentioned in only one report in the weeks
before the bill passed, according to a search of the Nexis database. This
was a November 23 segment on ABC's World News Tonight. Correspondent Jake
Tapper noted that "buried in the energy and Medicare bills are goodies for
many corporations," and he referred to a report by the group Common Cause
describing "Bush policies that directly benefit contributors' companies.
The Medicare bill should boost earnings for Pfizer, the Federation of
American Hospitals and Johnson & Johnson." Tapper also raised another
important point: "Campaign contributors not only sometimes benefit from
laws their favored politicians support, they also often help write them as
they did with these two bills."
In another ABC World News Tonight report (10/19/03), on the health
insurance industry, ABC medical correspondent Tim Johnson noted, "With
tremendous clout in Washington-- the industry spent more than $37 million
on political donations last year-- reform has been slow in coming."
Unfortunately, reporting that tied the Medicare bill's benefits for the
healthcare industries with those industries' generosity to politicians was
extremely rare. Back in July, CBS Evening News aired a report on the
Medicare issue by Joie Chen (7/25/03) that made the connection:
***
Chen: Lawmakers were blunt about the influence drug companies have on the
debate.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.): There's a pharmaceutical lobbyist and a half
for every member of Congress. They have spent over $100 million in
contributions, entertainment and lobbying expenses all focused on us.
Chen: And expect that influence to increase this fall as the House and
Senate try to work out their differences over how to fix Medicare and make
prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
***
But whether that influence increased or not, CBS never again mentioned
pharmaceutical or other healthcare industry contributions in its coverage
of the Medicare debate.
NBC Nightly News, meanwhile, seems to have never mentioned the Medicare
bill and healthcare industry campaign contributions in the same story all
year. When NBC analyzed the politics of the Medicare debate (11/24/03),
reporter David Gregory claimed that "the president knew keeping a campaign
promise on prescription drugs could be a key to his re-election,"
explaining that "it's older Americans who will make up crucial voting
block next year, an estimated one out of every four votes." Bush,
according to Gregory, pushed the Medicare bill because he calculated that
"this campaign promise could result in political gold." The actual
political gold that Bush and the legislators who voted for the bill will
receive-- in the form of millions of dollars worth of campaign
contributions-- was apparently not worth reporting.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/03/2003 12:40:00 PM
12/02/2003
genitive
CS- being our resident pedant, would you care to comment on this post?
Posted by: Bill / 12/02/2003 09:21:00 PM
DNC: Kicking Ass - Mile-high lies?
DNC: Kicking Ass - Mile-high lies?: "Recounting President Bush's trip to Iraq this past week, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told journalists of an unexpected encounter between Air Force One and a British Airways flight. Now, British Airways pilots say the incident never happened."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/02/2003 04:46:00 PM
Dean hits the Hardball out tha park
Anyone catch Dean on Hardball last night? I stayed up past my bedtime to watch it and was glad I did. It solidified my support for Dean. I had been wavering a bit following his tepid performance in some of the recent debates. It seemed to me as though he had problems with the TV medium. Rather its the 30 sec soundbite psuedo-debate format which casues the problems (as it does to most candidates). In the one-on-one Hardball format (held in front of a live audience at the Harvard Kennedy school - w/ questions from the audience) he was masterful.
Whenever I've heard him in this type of format - where he's free from the soundbite constraint - he's given me goosebumps. Dean is my guy. I'm caucusing (sp?) for him Jan. 19th (my 1st caucus).
Bush is strong and getting stronger. Quite simply, Dean is the only Dem who could even be competitive. Americans are crying out for a pol to give it to them straight. We don't care if you make/made mistakes - just say what you mean and mean what you say. This qualification instantly nixes almost all the other candidates. Gephart, Lieberman and to some extent Kerry are to wishy-washy. Kucinich says what he means but what he means is damn wacky. Braun and Sharpton say what they mean but don't have the whole package (under the right circumstances I'd seriously consider voting for Braun). Edwards is almost there - but needs to sack-up from time to time. Clark started to late and doesn't have enough back-up. I really, really would love to see him join forces w/ Dean now- early on - so they could form a solid ticket early.
Dean's my man. I'm convinced he'll run the best race against Bush. If the economy goes up and Bush continues greasing palms from LA to NY, Bush will win - but at least we'll have a strong progressive with a spine battling him every step of the way.
If the economy does a boomerang and Bush missteps a couple times we could have a progressive in the Hizouse for the first time in a long time. Yeah, Seabiscuit's a movie but crazier things have happened. GO DEAN!
And so, my conservative bretheren a quick questionnaire.
1) So far, what's the one thing you dislike most about Dean? What's the thing you like most?
2) CS said a while back his vote for Bush wasn't a lock. If you had to choose between casting a vote for Bush and casting a blank ballot (I'm not crazy enough to think you'd vote for Dean) - what percentage would you assign to those possiblities? i.e. for sure voting for Bush = 100% Bush, 0% Blank. Wavering a bit = 70% Bush, 30% Blank.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/02/2003 02:52:00 PM
Slashdot | Web 'Rules' Changing?
12/01/2003
Pay particular attention to question 17
How Appealing's 20 Qs with Judge Richard Posner is up. Word.
Posted by: CS / 12/01/2003 02:57:00 PM
Josh
Josh
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/01/2003 02:33:00 PM
MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action
MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action
'Fair and Balanced?': Fox News Was PR Brains Behind GOP's 'All Nighter' Protest Over Blocked Judicial Nominees
MoveOn.org Launches Online Fox Watch Group to Track Fox News's Partisan Bias
WASHINGTON, DC -- The wall between objective journalism and partisan politicking at Fox News fell last week when it became clear that Fox News staff contributed to the orchestration of the Republican-led 39-hour Senate talk-a-thon intended to counter the Democrat filibuster against four of President Bush's most radically conservative judicial nominees.
'While Howard Dean has claimed the mantle of the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,' Fox News has clearly become the public relations wing of the Republican Party,' said Eli Pariser, international campaigns director for MoveOn.org.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 12/01/2003 12:15:00 PM
11/30/2003
Salon.com Books | America's storyteller
Salon.com Books | America's storyteller: "Studs Terkel didn't invent the oral history, but as far as modern journalism is concerned, he might as well have. His 11 books of interviews with people from all classes and all walks of life -- about subjects ranging from race to religious faith to World War II, the Great Depression and the world of work -- when considered together, make up one of the greatest documentary projects about American life of the last century. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/30/2003 05:01:00 PM
11/29/2003
Molly Ivins | 11/27/2003 | A couple of real turkeys
Star Telegram | 11/27/2003 | A couple of real turkeys: "The Health Reform Program of Boston University estimates that of the bill's $400 billion price tag, $139 billion will go to increase drug company profits over eight years -- a 38 percent increase in what is already the world's most profitable industry."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/29/2003 10:45:00 AM
11/28/2003
Mmmm, turkey
Corn chowder, turkey, gravy, squash, stuffing, mashed potatoes, spinach, cranberry sauce, and pecan pie. So good. Can't move.
Posted by: Bill / 11/28/2003 02:16:00 PM
11/26/2003
Longhorn Developer Center: Finance for Geeks (The Business of Software)
Longhorn Developer Center: Finance for Geeks (The Business of Software): "Summary: Eric Sink provides a geek-oriented overview of accounting and company funding."
Eric Sink kicks achilles.
[As a part of the drive for more "above the brow" cussin, I submit the above.
Per the popular vernacular: "BLANK kicks [insert word for posterior]" what is it, exactly, we're trying to convey. The physical act of kicking [posterior] has little or no value - indeed, in many cases it could be cause for litigation. Rather, what we're trying to convey is that the target of such a kudo is strong, has the ability to impose their will on others - usually, I would argue, by virtue of a higher intellectual agility or a particular socio-political trait - not brute physical force. i.e. When we say "Mike Meyers kicks [posterior]." what we're saying is that Mike Meyers is a comic genius. He operates on a plane at which the cost of labor is much lower and the perentage of success is much higher. I mean, Austin Powers, Waynes World, So I Married an Axe Murderer, that little sugar-toxic kid chained to the jungle gym on SNL... come on...
And so, I submit that kicking someone's achilles more directly conveys the intent of the phrase than kicking someone's [posterior]. Why, if you were a thinking being, (and we're assuming the literal intent of kicking [posterior] is to inflict injury and not just because you have a hankering or fetish or somesuch) would you kick the fleshiest part of the body? (Insert joke about some people having more flesh to work with than others here). Rather, with a simple split-second analysis one could certainly see that the achilles would be a (in the vernacular of the Millitary-Industrial complex currently being controlled by the illuminati-ish Bush clan) "high value target". The same could be said of other, less flesh-protected parts of the anatomy. Nose. Rib Cage. Basal-Skull hair line. I digress.
But I say achilles. Achilles is the highest value target of them all. Achilles is what I will kick. And so does Eric and his software crafting [posterior].]
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/26/2003 12:12:00 PM
fox news
re the interview
are there really people out there who think that the guy wasn't twisting the general's words? does that guy really believe he was just "reading back the statement" with no implications? how completely self-absorbed and/or witless do you have to be to lie like that in front of millions of viewers?
Posted by: Bill / 11/26/2003 12:14:00 AM
11/25/2003
Jim Moore's cybernetics, politics, emergence, etc.: Home Page - Blogs from Iowans
Blogs from Iowans
Slowly, as the corn grows, we Iowans are quietly taking over the world...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/25/2003 09:05:00 AM
11/24/2003
Jeff on Clark
From Jeff B.
quicktime:
http://www.89posting.com/clark/wesclarknew.mov
windows media:
http://www.89posting.com/clark/wesclarknew.wmv
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?4908&FOX_News_Live&Setting%20the%20Record%20Straight&wvx-300
This has been floating around in a couple places, so some of you may have already seen it.
Clark was on Fox new and when they start saying their usual bs, Clark goes off on the guy who then backs down and tries to use the fact that his son is a marine as defense for asking asinine questions.
If he'd been this good since day one of his campaign, he might actually have a chance by now.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/24/2003 10:28:00 PM
Salon.com News | Kennedy, Vietnam and Iraq
Interesting longer article on whether Kennedy had decided to withdraw from Vietman prior to his death - with a tangent to the current Iraq war.
[aside: Not a fan of the new profanity-enhanced 614. My pastor has been known to grace the pages of 614. Don't have a real problem with using an expletive for emphasis but the traditional banned-on-TV ones (and conjunctions thereof) are so passe'. The combined educational expense of the 614'ers - both publically and privately financed - should well exceed $1M. I think we can come up with some new ones. That's, of course, not to say that we should be able to spell - or construct correct syntax - competently on on a regular basis.]
Salon.com News | Kennedy, Vietnam and Iraq
"This is a story with never-ending ramifications, so long as we continue to live in the nuclear age. For today, it has two lessons worth stating plainly. First, that to prevent the use of nuclear weapons of any type, by anybody, must remain the central goal of American policy at all times. Neither Kennedy, nor Johnson, nor McNamara in serving both presidents ever lost sight of this. Ask yourself whether you feel confident that the same care, on this transcendent issue, is being exercised today. For the second lesson, difficult though it may be to face, is that the largest danger that nuclear weapons will be used has come, so far in history, from ourselves. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/24/2003 12:14:00 PM
11/23/2003
You're a boner biting bastard uncle fucker
I haven't posted in a while b/c I've actually been busy working rather than posting about it. ;) Spent last week up in Wichita, KS writing/installing new software. They roll up the sidewalks there around 9pm, so getting dinner between 10:30 and midnight is a bit of a challenge. Luckily there is a new restaurant/bar downtown called Old Chicago serving until 1:30am. Also, something like 50 beers on tap. Recommended.
Re: our new tag line, I'm skeptical as we're often dashing out letters for our readers of a more delicate constitution, but here it goes...
"Fuck! Shit! Cock! Ass! Shitty boner bitch! Muff! Pussy! Cock! Butthole! Barbara Streisand!"
-Cartman
Update: censored per new tag line. apologies to all offended.
Posted by: Bill / 11/23/2003 08:18:00 PM
11/22/2003
Obligatory lawyer complaining about working too much post--look away, 'cause you know what's coming
Hello from my office in California. The only upside about working today is that the f--king ABC preempted the 12:30 OU game vs TX Tech for the Stanford/Cal game. They call it the "Big Game". Big? Both teams suck. I'm an alum and I don't even care. Jeez. How can you preempt the future Nat. Champs for that?
But, since they're not on TV, I wouldn't see them anyway, and so why not be at work?
Posted by: CS / 11/22/2003 12:52:00 PM
11/21/2003
Hoo-wee, bo', they's some fightin' goin' on
Wow. Dan Drezner and Lileks, easily in my top 5 of internet commentators, are having a fight. Complete with cusswords. Gnat and the boy would be so displeased. Lileks is in AH's post below, Drezner is here, the mucho linkage is here.
To placate Utech a bit, here are a couple of thoughts:
Drezner, I think, misses Lileks's point (pedantic side note: it is in fact "Lileks's", not "Lileks'", unless you are 85). He just wants the Peace Peace guy to be respectful. Hey, guess what, he's not. (Effing anonymous bloggers...oh, nevermind). Lileks seems a bit too troubled by the whole deal. Yeah sure, f--k that guy. Whatever. Who cares. He's a jackass.
I do think that numbering the dead Minnesotans is a mistake, but only because it would be misinterpreted as Vietnam era-style body counting (see, e.g. Tagorda). I am entirely sure that's not what he meant. I think the operative term there was Minnesotan. Which, roughly translated and in context, means "A guy who lives really far away from the problem and is doing you and the world a grand favor which truly cannot be repaid, so disagree if you want but quit being such a huge cuntlick."
(Aside: We have the best profanity at 614.)
(Aside the second: if my translation is correct, the Minnesotan language seems to be a lot like Chinese; small number of syllables, much meaning.)
Posted by: CS / 11/21/2003 03:10:00 PM
More from the Lileks fan club
OK, so I don't quite get the trekkie thing, and he does talk about his kid too much, but other than that, James Lileks simply has a way of expressing his ideas (which I tend to share) in powerful prose. And he does it every day. Today he hits Michael Jackson, terror in Turkey, the WTC memorial and the Maureen Dowd of Iraq, Salam Pax.
Posted by: Aaron / 11/21/2003 10:44:00 AM
Salon.com News | Operation Iron Hammer: Make noise, kill cows
Salon.com News | Operation Iron Hammer: Make noise, kill cows: "The administration seems to revel in heavy-handed branding of military action, imbuing all operations with a tough-talking grandiosity. I often try to picture the room in which young members of the administration sit around and pitch potential labels for these operations. Or, no, perhaps it's a single insomniac general with creative writing aspirations and a very big thesaurus. One thing is certain -- there are no historians or fact-checkers working the job. If there were, they would have politely advised the president that 'Iron Hammer' already has a claim to fame. In 1943 and again in 1945, Hitler developed Plan Iron Hammer to wipe out Soviet electrical capacity by attacking the country's main turbine stations. In both cases, Iron Hammer failed completely. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/21/2003 08:38:00 AM
11/20/2003
So that's why they like medical marijuana
Definitive proof that at least two judges of the Ninth Circuit have experimented with mind altering substances is here.
Judge Hall (the dissenter) must have to pull double duty caring for her addled colleagues and actually being right (scroll down in opinion) at the same time.
Volokh politely talks down to the less intelligent (that is, most other people, especially the non-Hall panel) here.
And the damn shame of it all is that one of the errant judges once trod the same halls as I. Hell.
Posted by: CS / 11/20/2003 07:50:00 PM
The Onion | Working Man Proud Of Job He Hates
(I resolve to post solely links and pull quotes until Utech yells mercy)
The Onion | Working Man Proud Of Job He Hates:
"In spite of Festge's frustration with many aspects of his job, his relationship with Eagle Cooling is almost certainly long-term. His pride, as well as his recent purchase of a 2004 Dodge Dakota financed with a six-year loan, virtually guarantee his continued submissive compliance.
'I know there are more interesting, higher-paying careers, but we can't always do what we like, now, can we?' Festge said. 'Nor should we. There's too much selfishness out there. People should work hard and shut up. That's how the world works. I'm the real deal. And at the end of a long, horrible day of backbreaking manual labor, that makes me feel pretty good.'
Festge added that after punching out on Friday, he plans to get shitfaced."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/20/2003 03:50:00 PM
ESPN.com: SPORTS NATION - SportsNation: Roast Your Rivals!
ESPN.com: SPORTS NATION - SportsNation: Roast Your Rivals!:
"How many Longhorns does it take to change a tire?
One. Unless it's a blowout, and then they all show up."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/20/2003 10:42:00 AM
11/19/2003
Utech is trolling
Jeff: "the over/under on someone from Sixfourteen blogging more than a pull quote from an article and a link to it is next Tuesday"
Also, Jacob Levy is touting Libertarians for Lieberman in response to Howard Dean's uncleanliness.
Posted by: Aaron / 11/19/2003 05:59:00 PM
Why Howard Dean is the root of all that is evil and unholy
Re-regulation? Oh, boy...
(Hat tip: the Steve the Dinosaur, which is a good blog, BTW)
Posted by: CS / 11/19/2003 02:12:00 PM
Calpundit: Howard Dean: Pro-War?
Calpundit: Howard Dean: Pro-War?:
"Yes, goddamit, it is possible to support the war on terror but not support the war in Iraq."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/19/2003 12:18:00 PM
No George McGovern (washingtonpost.com)
11/18/2003
Fast Company | The Wal-Mart You Don't Know
Fast Company | The Wal-Mart You Don't Know
"Wal-Mart is not just the world's largest retailer. It's the world's largest company--bigger than ExxonMobil, General Motors, and General Electric. The scale can be hard to absorb. Wal-Mart sold $244.5 billion worth of goods last year. It sells in three months what
number-two retailer Home Depot sells in a year. And in its own category of general merchandise and groceries, Wal-Mart no longer has any real rivals. It does more business than Target, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penney, Safeway, and Kroger combined. 'Clearly,' says Edward Fox, head of Southern Methodist University's J.C. Penney Center for Retailing Excellence, 'Wal-Mart is more powerful than any retailer has ever been.' It is, in fact, so big and so furtively powerful as to have become an entirely different order of corporate being."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/18/2003 04:09:00 PM
11/17/2003
Third Party WatchBlog: One Party vs. Multiple Party Government: 2004 Election Issues
Third Party WatchBlog: One Party vs. Multiple Party Government: 2004 Election Issues:
"The current state of all this migration has resulted in roughly 1/3 of registered voters being Democrat, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 falling into the Libertarian, Green, third party, and Independent camps. Also, it has left the Democratic Party with little more than very liberal and somewhat liberal makeup. And similarly this has left the Republican Party with little more than somewhat conservative and very conservative supporters. One other significant group of citizens should be mentioned here, namely, the disaffected non-voters who for a variety of reasons do not participate in the political process. This non-voters group is rapidly approaching equal numbers with all registered voters. But for the purpose of examining one party vs. multiple party government, they are relatively of little consequence save for their growing numbers."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/17/2003 12:24:00 PM
Salon.com News | Selling Pvt. Lynch
Salon.com News | Selling Pvt. Lynch
"Welcome to the strange world of Jessica Lynch Media Week, where seeing was not necessarily believing. As Gary Dorsey of the Baltimore Sun put it, 'After the fog of war came the fog of media, followed by the fog of war and media, then clarifications and alternative views, then the fog of publicity and the war of competing media.' "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/17/2003 12:10:00 PM
ajc.com | Opinion | Mistakes of Vietnam repeated with Iraq
ajc.com | Opinion | Mistakes of Vietnam repeated with Iraq
"Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/17/2003 12:03:00 PM
11/16/2003
For Middle Class, Health Insurance Becomes a Luxury
For Middle Class, Health Insurance Becomes a Luxury
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/16/2003 08:52:00 AM
11/15/2003
Hello from California
Still working at 11:30 Friday night. Prob'ly got 2 hours left. Flight at 6:45 AM. All that talk of not enough working and too much blogging for CS is perhaps inaccurate, yes?
P.S. The Irish do indeed kick ass. 'Specially the fighting kind. But I repeat myself.
Posted by: CS / 11/15/2003 01:29:00 AM
11/13/2003
Whoa, Nelly
Ahem--lest certain individuals who may know me think the less of me (or the more, really, but clearly I don't have the right kind of wardrobe for the thing) the "high school threesome" that AH refers to was not mine, but rather I saw it on TV.
Posted by: CS / 11/13/2003 08:47:00 PM
Simply the best thing ever
Even better than CS's high school threesome: Guiness is Good For You.
And the Irish kick ass:
"In England, post-operative patients used to be given Guinness, as were blood donors, because of its high iron content. This practice continues in Ireland."
- via Oxblog
Posted by: Aaron / 11/13/2003 06:30:00 PM
Interesting
http://www.fundrace.org/moneymap.php?cand=RepVDem&zoom=State
Posted by: Jeff / 11/13/2003 03:31:00 PM
11/12/2003
Didn't think it was possible
But Jason's article actually made me want to be a texan.
Well, not really. 65-13 will do that to you. But the parade of horribles in the Nation's article read more like a list of achievements.
Posted by: Aaron / 11/12/2003 12:40:00 PM
Is Texas America?
Is Texas America?
We are currently saddled with a right-wing ideologue sugar daddy, James Leininger out of San Antonio, who gives immense campaign contributions and wants school vouchers, abstinence education and the like in return. The result is a crew of breathtakingly right-wing legislators. This session, Representative Debbie Riddle of Houston said during a hearing, "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/12/2003 09:58:00 AM
JP Brown's Serious LEGO - CubeSolver
JP Brown's Serious LEGO - CubeSolver
This guy has a lot of time on his hands...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/12/2003 09:42:00 AM
11/11/2003
The New York Times: 25 of the most provocative questions facing science
25 of the most provocative questions facing science
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/11/2003 08:26:00 AM
11/10/2003
Lawrence Lessig
Lawrence Lessig: "Ok, so NBC produces a show about Private Lynch. She says the story is not true. But nonetheless, NBC runs the show. CBS produces a show about Ronald Reagan. The man who Would Save Reagan from TV and others say it is biased against Reagan. CBS cancels the show.
Apparently it is ok to bend the truth, but only in one way. "
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/10/2003 04:38:00 PM
Clark Community Network || CCN Home
NYTimes: States Pay for Jobs, but It Doesn�t Always Pay Off
States Pay for Jobs, but It Doesn�t Always Pay Off: "There is no official data on how much is distributed in subsidies across the country. Alan Peters, a professor of urban planning at the University of Iowa, and one or two other academics have tried to estimate the total loss of city and state tax revenue through abatements, lower income taxes, outright payments, training grants, wage subsidies and the like. Their estimates start at $30 billion a year and range up to $50 billion, with Mr. Peters putting the number somewhere in the $40 billions, based on a recent survey of tax expenditures.
'It seems like almost every state is giving away grandmother, grandfather, the family jewels, you name it, everything,' Mr. Peters said. The anecdotal evidence of the escalating bidding war is greater than the statistical, he said.
The giveaways come in many forms. Iowa, for example, has just authorized $75 million a year until 2010 to finance subsidies to corporations. The State of Washington has offered Boeing a $3.2 billion subsidy package to locate the manufacture of its 7E7 airliner in the state. New York is creating more 'Empire Zones,' which are patches of land set aside in various counties where companies can locate nearly tax free. One way or another, the cities and states, in forfeiting more than $30 billion a year in tax revenue, are channeling to the private sector enough to hire 375,000 schoolteachers at $50,000 a year plus benefits."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/10/2003 12:37:00 PM
NYTimes: Op-Ed Columnist: Living on Borrowed Money
Op-Ed Columnist: Living on Borrowed Money: "It has become increasingly difficult to get into � or stay in � the middle class. In speeches, reports and interviews, Senator Edwards has been pointing out that despite income gains, most families have been unable to save money and are dangerously vulnerable to setbacks like job losses and illnesses.
Citing statistics from an influential recent book, 'The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers are Going Broke,' by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi, he noted that over the past 30 years home mortgage costs have risen 70 times faster than the average father's income. So you end up with two parents working like crazy just to keep the family economically afloat."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/10/2003 12:30:00 PM
11/09/2003
Beavis and Butthead Moronathon
2 quick notes on J's NYT article below:
1) I think that the article doesn't take into account financial aid from the state, which is a large (the largest) part of the funding for state schools; and
(With all due respect to those who may or may not have reason to be upset by the sheer dicketry of the next comment, i.e. DMC, which respect is immense, because I can say, after having met her last weekend that she is a genuinely swell gal and that we would get along quite nicely even if she wasn't part of the larger 614 coterie, and that any and all insensitive and jackassish viewpoints, the aforementioned dicketry and schadenfreude are solely the work of the twisted and obnoxious author and none of his brethren at 614; so please reserve the brtual verbal ripostes for me and not, by proxy, AH, because he's kind of weak in the knees):
2) Watching kids who went to the Ivy League on loans struggle with their debt after college is much like watching the Beavis and Butthead Moronathon. Except that with B&B, the decisions undertaken are slightly better though out.
Posted by: CS / 11/09/2003 07:48:00 PM
Rich Colleges Receiving Richest Share of U.S. Aid
Rich Colleges Receiving Richest Share of U.S. Aid
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/09/2003 02:14:00 PM
11/08/2003
For CS
I'll draw you a cartoon of the new $20 bill for $20.
Posted by: Aaron / 11/08/2003 05:57:00 PM
Ouch
"A&M's worst loss in 108 years of football"
UPDATE: Our punter must have been bored as all hell today.
Posted by: CS / 11/08/2003 05:18:00 PM
A pretty good round of golf
OU was only five strokes over par against Texas A&M.
'Course, they were playing football.
UPDATE: Via Fark comments: "this is the first time I have ever seen one team score more points (77) than the opponent gained in total yards (51)"
Posted by: Aaron / 11/08/2003 02:39:00 PM
11/07/2003
The new dirty fuel
Ethanol. Easterblogg lays out the case.
Posted by: CS / 11/07/2003 02:19:00 PM
Lileks reviews Matrix 3
"It takes a special kind of idiot to think that people who go to church and raise children don�t worry about the Meaning of It All."
Here.
Posted by: CS / 11/07/2003 11:24:00 AM
11/06/2003
The Political Compass
I forget if we've taken this one yet. Seems I'm most like Nelson Mandela. Snap!
My results
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/06/2003 10:54:00 AM
The Salt Lake Tribune -- Cowardly CBS pulls 'Reagans,' caves in to conservative attack
The Salt Lake Tribune -- Cowardly CBS pulls 'Reagans,' caves in to conservative attack
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/06/2003 10:31:00 AM
11/05/2003
Now THAT'S some High Quality Invective.
DMC passes along this link. Money graf:
In sum, for those who are concerned about such things, this bill will not substantially increase energy supplies, will not reduce dependence on foreign oil, and will not accelerate the development of viable new technologies. It will, however, provide a politically useful but ultimately dishonest symbol of action while dispensing a stunning amount of pork for the well connected at taxpayer expense.
Posted by: Aaron / 11/05/2003 03:32:00 PM
The Doc Searls Weblog : Wednesday, November 5, 2003
The Doc Searls Weblog : Wednesday, November 5, 2003: "On the creepy side, the Sun seems to be blowing up."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/05/2003 12:12:00 PM
Kieran Healy's Weblog
Kieran Healy's Weblog: "Kevin Drum updates the score in the ongoing debate between Mann, Bradley and Hughes (climate scientists) and McIntyre and McKitrick (a couple of economists). The latter claim to have re-analyzed data from a famous paper of the former�s on global warming and found numerous errors that, when corrected, make the results go away. The climatologists have responded vigorously, saying that their critics have botched the job. Both sides are preparing further responses at the moment, so the issue is on hold."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/05/2003 12:08:00 PM
Calpundit: Why Are We In Iraq?
Calpundit: Why Are We In Iraq?
I think its important to realize:
1) We can't leave Iraq now because of the long term threats against us.
2) The reason we can't leave now is because Bush rushed to war. Because he believed weak evidence of WMD. Because he flipped off the UN.
3) If he hadn't rushed to war we still could have the result we have now. No Saddam. But we wouldn't be footing the entire bill and Americans wouldn't be the only ones dying. And we would have at least the option of leaving - or reducing our force.
Now we can't leave. We will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and more Americans will die. Becasue Bush rushed to war. If he hadn't rushed to war the situation would be the same except half as many Americans would be dead now and half of the hundreds of billions of dollars would still be here - not over there. If we had to have war I like the second option a lot better. Bush was wrong to rush. Its time to start realizing that truth.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/05/2003 12:06:00 PM
OxBlog
Calpundit: Rush Sings!
Calpundit: Rush Sings!
I love this! None of this statement is false (giggle):
"Rush Limbaugh is a fat, drug-addcited, deaf, racist, unemployed loser."
Leading the right wing to higher ground... (er...)
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/05/2003 11:51:00 AM
11/04/2003
Reason # 463 why we need comments
Also found this from Jeff U:
Jason,
You said you have a bumper sticker that says "Vote Republican. It's easier than thinking." Given the fact that Republicans often contend they are the party of rational thought while Democrats are the party of emotion (which seems fairly close to truth, IMO) shouldn�t the bumper sticker actually say "Vote Republican. It's easier than feeling."? Just a thought.
J
Posted by: Aaron / 11/04/2003 11:04:00 PM
Reason # 462 why we need comments
Just checked the email two weeks later and found this from Greg "the other white meat" Utech:
I hope the response I put together for Jason doesn't run too long, but I see
some GLARING holes in his validation for an estate tax. (I'll be quoting
from the sixfourteen website.)
"The vast majority of people like you and I, Jeff, will never have any
contact whatsoever with the estate tax. That's what kills me about normal
people being so up in arms over it."
Jason, with your short sighted attitude you may be right that you will never
come in contact with the estate tax. Those of us that plan for the future
early, and wisely will. Right now the estate tax for 2003 will be in effect
for estates over $1 million dollars. That amount raises to $1.5 million in
2004, and settles nicely at $2 million in 2006. The estate tax takes into
account cash, securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities,
business interests & all other assets. Taking into account even the most
basic 401K program, saving $200 a month from 25 to 65 @ a mild 6% annual
growth would net an individual $298,973 at the end of the 40 years. However
the classic portfolio (60% stock, and 40% bond) has had an average yield of
9% over the past 75 years resulting in $584,662 at the end of 40 years. If
you happen to get lucky with a 10% yield you are looking at $740,231. A good
amount of money, but not quite at the $2 million mark. Lets take real estate
into account. Housing prices rise at an average of 5.7% annually
(nationwide, house prices rose at annual rate of 3.8 percent during the
first three months of 2003, down from 5.4 percent at the end of 2002 and 8
percent at the start of last year - so lets just average the three). This
means that a $150k house purchased in 2003 would be worth around $560k in
2033, but we'll round down to say $400k for a more realistic housing market
taking into account a less active market than we have seen recently. Still
not quite there. What about life insurance? It is certainly taxable under
the existing estate tax policy. Let's put the person in a $500k insurance
policy, which isn't out of the realm of possibility. I had some quoted for
me this morning, and it only costs me $39 per month, $1 million came in at
$71 per month for 30 years. Add the $500k to the house, plus 401k, and you
are still short. That doesn't take into account any cash savings, business
assets, automobiles, boats, clothes, furniture, vacation homes, investments,
etc... $2 million isn't out of the reach of most of us, provided we save
properly. Now why should the government be allowed to tax my heirs on the
hard work and smart money management that I have put forth over the past
35-40 years? They shouldn't.
"If you really want to provide a better life for your children you'll take
the money generated from the estate tax and vote to put it into schools and
health care. That's by far the best way to truly provide for your children
(with the added benefit of caring about other people in society as well)"
I think that any intelligent individual in the United States can agree that
the government isn't exactly efficient in how they spend our money. Most
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc... would probably agree that the
amount of money the government wasted last year was at least 3% of the
annual budget. The last number I saw on the annual revenue raised from the
estate tax was $30 billion dollars, or roughly 1% of the annual budget for
the US government. So unless an individual feels that the government is
efficient down to the penny, with no waste... estate tax is paying for
government inefficiency, and not being used for schools, health care, or
other worthwhile programs - which we also pay for with dividend taxes,
income taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc... So it really isn't fair
to say that the best way to help our children is to put the estate tax into
schools and health care because even if the money DID make it there it would
be a small fraction of the amount pulled from an estate tax, whereas the
estate could go to help the individuals' children or designated heirs.
"That's not the point of the estate tax at all. The entire point of the
estate tax is that if wealth is left to concentrate generation after
generation, we're going to devolve back to the aristocracy from whence we
came."
The history of the estate tax is as follows:
1898 - War Revenue Act imposed to raise funds for the Spanish-American War
by taxing estates
1902 - War Revenue Act repealed
1916 - United Transfer Act imposed to increase government funds following
WWI. The tax was imposed to help fund the looming deficit in 1917, and the
"war readiness campaign" of 1918.
1932 - United Transfer Act was raised to fund federal programs during the
Great Depression.
At no point was the United Transfer Act, or estate tax as we know it today,
implemented because our fore-fathers were interested in avoiding the
accumulation of wealth, they simply taxed the rich because no one else had
any money. It's purpose was not to avoid aristocracy, but to keep the
country running.
"Jeff's post is interesting but largely misses the point... Point being,
concentrated wealth = concentrated power. Concentrated power does not a
healthy democracy make... With the latter you have 100x more resources to
push your particular agenda (or whatever else you can do with concentrated
power). All I'm saying is that you should earn the right to push your
particular agenda (with $$$) over the course of your lifetime - not have
that power handed to you."
I agree with Jason on this point, however he is going after the wrong
problem with our country. For people with a lot of money to be able to
influence change in this country more than the "every man" then there is a
breakdown within our government, not a problem with the very rich. Our
country is supposed to be founded on the principle of one person = one vote.
That's how we are SUPPOSED to make changes in this country, by majority
vote. Most cynics, or informed citizens, realize that public policy can be
purchased, and Jason seems to be implying that it is done so by the very
rich. If this is the case, it is not because the very rich have more money
than we do, but because the politicians are allowing it to happen. Changing
the amount of money that a billionaire's son or daughter receives will not
change this, but rather lower the amount of kickback the politician
receives.
Plain and simple, the estate tax is not fair and takes money away from the
intended recipient designated by the deceased, and puts it in the hands of
the government to spend as it sees fit. It IS a case where the government
feels they have a better idea of how to spend the money than the individual,
and not an issue of avoiding an aristocracy. The traditional definition of
an aristocracy dates back to the monarchies of the middle ages, where the
ruling class was not designated by wealth, achievement, or intelligence, but
rather hereditary. The founders of the American government countered the
possibility of this happening not by imposing an estate tax, but rather
through a representative democracy. This way the people collectively decided
who the best people are to run the government, avoiding the "passing" of
power from generation to generation by birth right.
Thanks for your time.
Greg.
Posted by: Aaron / 11/04/2003 11:02:00 PM
Best Work Assignment Ever...
...is being asked to surf the internet to see if a company has any major public issues. Rokken. Now, if only it was Playboy.com...
Posted by: CS / 11/04/2003 03:04:00 PM
11/03/2003
It's not about anecdotes...
...but I would like to see you try and tell my girlfriend's father, who
1) waded across the Danube to escape the Iron Curtain;
2) after being told that if he'd try to escape again (it was about his 4th try), he'd be killed, (natch);
3) then spent a year away from his family, part of that time in the equivalent of refugee camps;
4) only to not have his daughter recognize him when they finally met again;
that this country is just like the real fascist state he left behind.
Just a thought.
Posted by: CS / 11/03/2003 07:40:00 PM
Professional 614'ers Convention
Was a success! A great time was had by all. It was great to see all of the co-conspirators, soak in the game day Norman-town atmosphere again (which is much, much better than the soggy days between 1995 - 1999) and meet new folks. Best of all we kicked those 'pokes back to Stillwater. And nary a word of political contrition was'n spoke. So back to that fun arguing stuff :)...
Third Party WatchBlog: Post 9/11: How America Went from a Republic to a Fascist State
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 11/03/2003 04:11:00 PM
10/31/2003
It's a sign-of the apocalypse
Went to the store this morning, and the total came to --yes, you know-- exactly $6.14. See you in a few hours.
Posted by: CS / 10/31/2003 09:49:00 AM
10/30/2003
$240 worth of pudding
CS: Now I know what you're thinkin'
AH: "CS, AH, BV, TNR, JW, JB, and MK, where did you get two-hundred and forty dollars?"
BV: (shake head and put finger to mouth) Shhhhhh.
JW: Aw yeah.
TNR: Don't worry your pretty little head about it, baby
MK: It ain't your concern.
JB: Now if you excuse me, I gotta whisper some sweet nothings to this puddin'.
Here's to get-togethers, old friends, OU football and $240 worth of pudding. See you guys in Norman-town, after a brief stopover in Tennessee.
P.S. F--k State.
P.P.S. This is weird. Luckier socks?
Posted by: CS / 10/30/2003 05:44:00 PM
NORMAN-TOWN HERE I COME!
People get ready... there's a train a'commin down to Norman-town. See you fools in 24 (give or take). Go Sooners! Beat State!!!
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/30/2003 03:24:00 PM
Strong like Bull!
The economy, that is.
J's predicted response: "It would have been better without the administration's economic policies."
Posted by: CS / 10/30/2003 10:54:00 AM
10/29/2003
This is interesting.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/29/2003 11:00:00 AM
The most blatantly untrue thing Bush has said to date
Bush's Urgent Task: To Calm Public's Growing Impatience
"'I'll say that the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership, and America is more secure,' Mr. Bush said, describing how he will run on his record. 'That will be how I'll begin describing our foreign policy.'"
Its opposite day!
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/29/2003 08:44:00 AM
CNN.com - Love charged with drug possession - Oct. 29, 2003
CNN.com - Love charged with drug possession - Oct. 29, 2003
You've got to be kidding me. Courtney Love is caught with the same pain killers as Rush and she's charged while Rush gets sent to a cushy rehab. The hypocrisy of Rush and his cultist followers is finally seeing the full light of day. If the drones who can't wait to lap up his latest blather really believed what he was spouting, they'd be calling loudly for his arrest and sentencing with the toughest possible sentence - not defending his "honor". How many times did he rail against drug use and push for tough mandatory sentencing? Now here he is with his big fat pain-killer-numb foot in his mouth.
Like the Rev. said in a debate the other night, "Looks like if you're rich and white you get rehab and if you're poor and non-white you get jail time." (no doubt Miss Love will get off as well).
Another great Rev. line "In the next election its going to be the Christian Right against the right Christians." Amen bro.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/29/2003 08:23:00 AM
10/28/2003
Lines from E-mails I got today.
"I apologize if I'm creating confusing."
Ya don't say.
Posted by: CS / 10/28/2003 07:37:00 PM
Damn November!
Put on the flak jackets. November is gunning for you.
Posted by: CS / 10/28/2003 02:44:00 PM
10/27/2003
I knew I liked that show.
As [South Park's] co-creator, 32-year-old Matt Stone, sums it up: �I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.�
Posted by: CS / 10/27/2003 06:53:00 PM
Iowa is full of s--t
No, really. Look here. Trailing only Texas and California, the two most populated states.
Just 'cause it's funny.
Posted by: CS / 10/27/2003 05:46:00 PM
Some day, I hope someone will say this about me
"In a nutshell, [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come." --Jamey Lee West
And his blog is good too.
Posted by: CS / 10/27/2003 04:48:00 PM
Bad Mileage: 98 tons of plants per gallon
Bad Mileage: 98 tons of plants per gallon: "'Every day, people are using the fossil fuel equivalent of all the plant matter that grows on land and in the oceans over the course of a whole year,' he adds."
We have interesting conservatives up here in 614. They (I think) genuinely care about the environment. I think I'm fair in saying most conservatives don't - or are at least reluctant to implement any environment-friendly initiatives that cost corporations real money.
1. Is this statement true?
2. If so, what are your guys' ideas as to how to get conservatives on board with becoming more environmentally conscious (suggestion: get the Republican party to recognize that global warming is actually happening).
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/27/2003 03:29:00 PM
Hilarious Blasphemy
And new possibilities for Spam; pope Spam.
Posted by: CS / 10/27/2003 03:04:00 PM
Apple - iTunes
Apple - iTunes
Downloaded iTunes this weekend - it runs on Windows now. Its sweet. Bought my first two tunes, $.99/ea, easy as could be.
The only potential issue is that it downloads in mp4 format so I don't know yet how hard it is to get them into mp3 format.
Ahhh... all the music, none of the guilt. Finally.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/27/2003 12:13:00 PM
Everything is indeed OK
cool movie
- (click on the "play movie" link 1/3 of the way down)
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/27/2003 09:21:00 AM
10/26/2003
I know Rush infiltrated ESPN, but really...
Check out ESPN.com's sportscentury profile of Jackie Robinson.
"Robinson's debut for the Dodgers in 1947 came a year before President Harry Truman desegregated the military and seven years before the Supreme Court ruled desegregation in public schools was unconstitutional."
umm... didn't Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas stand for the proposition that SEGREGATION in public schools was unconstitutional?
Posted by: Aaron / 10/26/2003 09:10:00 PM
"But fatalism is unAmerican, so I press on."...
...is one of my favorite Posner quotes. I imagine I will soon have more, because the Poz (aka Ricky P aka Posner the Posnerian) is going to be the December guest of Howard Bashman's 20 Questions for the Apellate Court Judge.
Sweet.
Sweet.
And SWEET again.
Posted by: CS / 10/26/2003 04:57:00 PM
Lies and the lying liars who tell them, part 2
I like blogging from the office on Sunday even more. I swear. Really.
Posted by: CS / 10/26/2003 02:38:00 PM
10/25/2003
Lies and the lying liars who tell them
I like blogging from the office on Saturday. No, really.
Posted by: CS / 10/25/2003 04:19:00 PM
10/24/2003
Why I like the British
A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing.
From Steyn. And oh yeah, it has a ringing condemnation of multiculturalism and its, hmm, the gentlemanly term would be inadequate response to the problem of Muslim immigrants who rape.
Posted by: CS / 10/24/2003 08:19:00 PM
Jacob Levy on Lieberman. More on why I (for now) think that Lieberman is the only Dem I would vote for.
And yes, DMC, I'm fully aware that I ended that last sentence with a preposition. On porpoise.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/24/2003 04:28:00 PM
Google Press Center: Zeitgeist
Google Tracks The Zeitgeist - hadn't seen this before. Real-time real-world data.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/24/2003 04:15:00 PM
As always
Read Lileks:
When I said I�d never vote for those people again, I mean those whose default mode consists of turning the American people away from the war so they can get their committee chairmanships back. This isn�t necessarily a partisan thing - if I had the choice between a Democratic presidential candidate who was strong on defense (and by strong I mean just that, not the �strength� that comes from writing up interminable treaties with belligerent tyrants and believing that we�ll be safe behind a mound of paper) and an isolationist whackjob like Pat Buchanan, I�d chose the D pill in a second. It�s the Ds of the Daschle stripe who bug me, the ones who seem to think the Iraq invasion was something we did for kicks and grins, and didn�t have the same geopolitical or moral imperatives as, say, President Clinton�s decision to invade Haiti once Raoul Cedras kicked out the UN observers.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/24/2003 10:26:00 AM
10/23/2003
Thought of the Day
It is hard to get a flight to American Samoa. What, like Pago Pago is far away or something.
Posted by: CS / 10/23/2003 08:47:00 PM
Heh
Alexis de Tocqueville: "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
Posted by: CS / 10/23/2003 02:58:00 PM
Bumper Sticker:
Vote Liberal: All our ideas fit on bumper stickers.
Posted by: CS / 10/23/2003 02:53:00 PM
Oh and now I'm thinking about putting a Jesus fish and a Darwin fish on my bumper. Maybe Jesus fish + Darwin fish = _______ (something... can anyone think of something good?)
I'm currently reading Skeptics and True Believers which is a great discussion about why some people are willing to accept ideas that change their worldview and some aren't. Great book.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/23/2003 08:20:00 AM
What belief do you hold so dear you would emblazen it on your means of transportation?
I like the Jesus fish/Darwin fish thread. Whenever I see stuff like that I wonder to myself what type of symbol/bumper sticker I would actually put on my car. Most of the ones I see seem designed solely to piss someone of the opposite belief off. That doesn't seem bumper-worthy to me.
The only thing on my bumper right now is an Oklahoma sticker (go Sooners!). I did buy a "Vote Republican. Its easier than thinking." bumper sticker once but its just on the stereo in my office.
I'm astounded that someone would actually purchase and place on their vehicle a cartoon character peeing on the brand name of a corporation which did not manufacture their particular truck. I guess I just don't care that much about what massive corporation manufactured my car. (Now a Doonesbury character peeing on Ashcroft I could see).
And I promise one day I will be in a situation which will allow me to throw a brick through the window of someone with a confederate flag symbol on their truck and get away with it. Those of you with the stars and bars be warned. Vengenance will come in the form of a brick through your back window. And vengance will be mine. This is one form of free speech I'm willing to break the law to oppose.
Fortunately volokh has a thread on just this subject.
What's bumper-worthy to you?
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/23/2003 08:16:00 AM
10/22/2003
it's french, bitch
stephen colbert video mocking abrams report etc.
Posted by: Bill / 10/22/2003 10:16:00 PM
invoking the symbol of martyrs in a little chrome symbol on an SUV
People smarter than us at the Volokh Conspiracy are debating the Darwin fish. I especially liked Jacob Levy's post.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/22/2003 02:27:00 PM
Rescuing the Democrats
Rescuing the Democrats
True.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/22/2003 12:03:00 PM
The Doc Searls Weblog : Wednesday, October 22, 2003
The Doc Searls Weblog : Wednesday, October 22, 2003
A fair analysis of the Terry Gross/O'Reilly spat.
My (unfair?) analysis: O'Reilly = Howard Stern - sex + conservative self righteousness + fear mongering. (which, of course, is the standard recipie for success if espousing mass-media conservative blather)
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/22/2003 10:58:00 AM
Dean's governing style called blunt, impetuous
Bush Spending for '04 Tops Any Rival's
Deal?
JW: Two things.
One. Is it too much to ask to get you to put a sentence of context on your links?
Two. If I agree not to link to Ann Coulter, would you agree to refrain from linking to Michael Moore?
Posted by: Aaron / 10/22/2003 10:37:00 AM
Salon.com Books | Big whoppers
Via Email
Gentlemen,
I should have e-mailed you that I was taking issue with one of your conspirators posts. Sorry about that. I figured, after the fact, that Aaron is kind enough to pop over occasionally, so Jason would probably find out that I was talking about him eventually. If you had comments or trackback capability though�ehh, never mind.
Two other thoughts about Jason's most recent posted comments on my posts (from my father's brother's cousin's former roommate):
First, Jason mentioned that he nor I will ever have to worry about the estate tax, barring one of us hitting PowerBall. Just for fun, I did a cashflow to figure out how my wife and I would hit $5 million in total liquid net worth at retirement age. I assumed retirement age at 65, assumed a real return of 8% compounded annually (net of inflation) and assumed we had no money in our pockets, bank accounts, brokerage accounts or 401(k)s right now. It turns out we would have to contribute about $1700/month between the two of us in order to reach an inflation-adjusted $5 million in liquid assets at age 65. That's in total dollars, so it includes both pre-tax contributions like 401(k)s and post-tax contributions like IRAs and bank and brokerage accounts.
Just for fun I dug out last quarter's 401(k) statement. Now, I'm also assuming that I make less money than any of you do, but we don't have to compare schlong size via e-mail if that's okay with you. Anyway, between Katie, me and our employers we contributed about $3000 to our combined 401(k) account alone. That puts us about $700/month behind, but considering we are pretty much at the bottom of our earning curves, I don't think it's an exceptional stretch to believe that by the time we turn 65 my wife and I will have $5 million sitting in our retirement accounts, and that's if we choose not to contribute any post-tax money and don't inherit a dime. So, in short, not only do Kate and I have to worry about it, so do all of you. This is actually a very real issue for people of our age and earning potential.
Second, Jason talked about the estate/death tax as a way of paying back a society that provided them with education, healthy and safe food, clean air and water, security, healthcare and so on. I disagree. I believe we pay that every time we earn a paycheck in the form of income taxes. We pay that every time we purchase gas or beer or wine or vodka or cigars in the form of excise taxes. We pay it in property taxes, sales taxes, road tolls, taxes on our utilities and the like. We don't get presented a bill at the end of our lives, we pay as we go. And not only that, we pay other people's share as well.
Ultimately I still believe this issue boils down to one of perspective. Jason continues to argue that an heir doesn't deserve the money they are given, a point I'm not contending. I don't think an heir necessarily deserves a dime, much less $20 billion. The point I'm making is the individual who earns the money deserves to decide what happens to it. All of it. I mean, the government has already taxed it as the person earned it, then they take 55% at the end of the person's life, then that remaining 45% that the heirs receive is taxed at 30% as income. I'm struggling to see what's fair about that.
As always, keep up the high quality invective.
Cheers.
Utech
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/22/2003 07:14:00 AM
Via Email...
Re: this post
For the record, no, I don't think the portion of the
advertising budget being spent in Moscow goes to USA
Today. It goes for things like this:
http://www.moneyfactory.com/newmoney/files/Banknote_Vol1_Iss1_Ru.pdf
And I don't necessarily think that Russians were
confused last time because they're gullible. They
were being confronted with a transition process that
was the product of very different social and
governmental institutions. Thus, it was something
that _could_ be effectively addressed with information
education.
I'm not saying the government might not have been able
to accomplish its aims more cheaply or efficiently.
Just that I think some (even sizeable) investment in
informing people about the new bills was defensible.
After all, it doesn't do much good to improve the
security features of your currency if bank tellers in
regions of the world were 50% of your bills are
circulated don't know what to look for.
-DMC
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/22/2003 07:12:00 AM
10/21/2003
Translations
J's post translated:
1) Money = power;
2) I don't like people with "too much" power who did not earn that power;
3) The government is the best judge of what "too much" is;
4) The best way to provide for your children is to not let them have your money when you die;
5) Everyone should willingly be taxed because they depend on society for the support from which they made their $$. And society's contribution is proportionate to what the individual earned.
Appropriate responses:
1) Largely true, but not completely. There are other forms of power.
2) Fair enough
3) Unsurprisingly this is where we differ. The basic wedge between the Utech and the Wellnitz side of the debate is the role and scope of government in our lives. Not gonna change any minds here, I think. But it seems that J thinks of the government as the default holder of assets; i.e. the government has title to everything and it ought to go back to the gov't when we feed the tree. Utech thinks of the gov't as something we put money into to fund x and y and z, but the money we put into it is ours, at least initially. That's why your W-2s show your pre-tax income.
4) Hmm...I don't think that is true. Giving the same amount of money to, say 100 people pro rata can't be as beneficial to one of them as if he got the whole lot. Maybe you can argue a Benthamesque utilitarian greater good here--but you didn't.
5) This is my favorite part : society "g[ives us] clean air to breathe." I'm pretty sure that this was already there without the society. No, wait--I'm positive. J also says: "Its not 'about the state being better at determining what happens to an individual's life savings than the individual themselves'. That's the argument people use against any kind of tax." But the "you owe something back to society" is the argument used to justify every tax. And I don't think that anyone arguing here would deny that on principle; the difference is in the details and the concept of a particular tax. Appeals to general principle just aren't that useful here.
Anyway: the $$ from the estate tax is already taxed when it is earned. So, it's taxed twice on death. Seems silly.
Where do I stand on this? I used to think I was against the estate tax completely, but I have since changed my mind. Reason? It has to do with the dimishing marginal utility of the dollar. Perhaps I will get around to posting on it at a later date. I would, contrary to Jason, favor a much, much, much, higher threshold before it kicks in as per my admittedly and necesarilly subjective notions of general fairness and good sense.
Posted by: CS / 10/21/2003 05:32:00 PM
Creepy Creationism
AH, that Creation Psuedo-Science fair is really freaky. I've found out recently that I'm related (by marriage) to people who are sympathetic to this point of view. There are a lot of people who believe the Earth is 10,000 years old and don't want to hear any evidence to the contrary. And, it seems (as the link points out) that they're willing to go as far as making up their own "science" to prove it. (shudder).
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/21/2003 01:41:00 PM
Class is Out
Jeff's post is interesting but largely misses the point... Point being, concentrated wealth = concentrated power. Concentrated power does not a healthy democracy make.
Jeff says:
Well, the first point of contention is somewhat immaterial to the debate on the estate tax, but it's worth mentioning. Gates himself didn't exactly start from meager beginnings. We all know about how he dropped out of Harvard and so on, but his father, as his bio explains it, was a Seattle area attorney. So he didn't start out from the same place as Jason (I assume) or me (I know). He was already a little higher up the totem pole to begin with. Not $40 billion higher, but higher nonetheless.
I agree with this. This is an argument that supports a somewhat high threshold before the estate tax kicks in. Gates Sr. gave Gates Jr. a comfortable life in which to thrive. I think that helps our society. But no family needs more than $5mil or so to provide the most comfortable environment possible for a budding entrepreneur. I have no problem with not taxing the first $5 mil of a person's estate.
The second point of contention is the idea that children of successful individuals should be excluded from enjoying the benefits of their parents' success. That may be true, from the child's perspective. That is, every mature adult's success should be borne of that adult's hard work since childhood and not as a result of wealthy parents. The problem is when you look at the handing down of wealth not from the lazy child's perspective, but from the perspective of the industrious parent.
That's not the point of the estate tax at all. The entire point of the estate tax is that if wealth is left to concentrate generation after generation, we're going to devolve back to the aristrocracy from wence we came. No one is trying to bust rich guys or their kids down to the ghetto. All we're saying is that a rich guy's grandkids should start out with $5 mil rather than $500 mil. With either amount you have enough money to do anything you want. With the latter you have 100x more resources to push your particular agenda (or whatever else you can do with concentrated power). All I'm saying is that you should earn the right to push your particular agenda (with $$$) over the course of your lifetime - not have that power handed to you.
I am not yet a parent, but I plan to be some day. And I know that for me, working hard, putting money into my 401(k) and having a brokerage account aren't only about being able to live out the last few years of my life without working. I don't plan to gauge how long Kate and I have to live and just coast on my retirement money in the hopes that my last $800 will pay the hourly wage for the physician to pull the plug on my ventilator. Rather, I'm working hard not just so that I can live the life I want to live but, as importantly, to be able to provide my children with an easier life. That's important to me. It's a goal.
This paragraph has nothing to do with the estate tax. The vast majority of people like you and I, Jeff, will never have any contact whatsoever with the estate tax. That's what kills me about normal people being so up in arms over it. If you really want to provide a better life for your children you'll take the money generated from the estate tax and vote to put it into schools and health care. That's by far the best way to truly provide for your children (with the added benefit of caring about other people in society as well).
It's frustrating to me to think that such a goal is unattainable because my right to my possessions is sacrificed with my life. That's the other side of the issue. It's not about taxing someone's hard work, it's about the state being better at determining what happens to an individual's life savings than the individual themselves.
I'm sorry, but this line "It's frustrating to me to think that such a goal is unattainable because my right to my possessions is sacrificed with my life." is just plain wrong. And I don't think I'll get much disagreement on this one. The only way the estate tax would effect you would be if you already attained one hell of a high-flying goal.
Its not "about the state being better at determining what happens to an individual's life savings than the individual themselves". That's the argument people use against any kind of tax. If you hold that statement up to a mirror what it reads is "Some individuals think they should keep all the money they ever will earn while all the time living in a society that educated them, gave them access to healthy and safe food, gave them clean air to breathe, provided safety, gave them a place to go when they get hurt, and on and on. These people choose to see the government as taking money from them instead of submitting a bill for services rendered."
Oh, and Gary (in the comments) said all of this as well as I could have.
And if you want to see where the Bush's money actually came from, check this out.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/21/2003 01:33:00 PM
Two fun filled links for ya
Jeff Utech doesn't like Jason's take on the death tax. And the comments over there are lots of fun, too.
And It's a Creation Science Fair!! Now with 200% more Random capitalization!! Be sure to Check out The project on "Women Were Designed For Homemaking" and don't spend too much time puzzling over the relationship between "microevolve" and "evolution" in "Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria."
Posted by: Aaron / 10/21/2003 10:41:00 AM
Muddy Buddy Austin 2003
Ran the Muddy Buddy this past weekend in Austin. Two people, one bike; alternate running and mountain biking for 5 legs (about 6 miles total), then crawl through a 50 foot mud pit together and across the finish line. My friend Jack unexpectedly went to Singapore for work this fall, so I filled in with his wife Amparo. We ticked it off in 56 minutes for a 51st place finish out of 150-200 co-ed teams. More importantly, we beat our friends Justin and Kristine by 7 minutes. CS- the San Jose one is this weekend...
Posted by: Bill / 10/21/2003 10:37:00 AM
10/20/2003
More on media consolidation
Everyone and their blogmother has jumped all over the Gregg Easterbrook's antisemitism and firing by Eisner/Disney/ESPN.com.
I'd link to more pages if Hosting Matters wasn't under another DOS attack.
Page 2 is hereby delinked.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/20/2003 07:30:00 PM
What you get when you type "Syas" instead of "Says" into a search engine
South Yorkshire Ambulance Service. Join today.
Posted by: CS / 10/20/2003 05:06:00 PM
Things I Overheard Today
The secretary who sits outside my office on the phone: "Our saying last week was 'f--k these f--kers.'"
Later that same conversation: "'Course my boobs will be down to my knees."
Posted by: CS / 10/20/2003 03:42:00 PM
PressThink: What's Conservative About the Weblog Form in Journalism?
PressThink: What's Conservative About the Weblog Form in Journalism?
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/20/2003 12:46:00 PM
Oddpost: Learn More
What Alabama's Low-Tax Mania Can Teach the Rest of the Country
What Alabama's Low-Tax Mania Can Teach the Rest of the Country
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/20/2003 12:06:00 PM
10/17/2003
I'm outta here...
weekend.start();
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 04:17:00 PM
Can't stop linking to Greenspun...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 04:12:00 PM
Greenspun tickles my "class-warfare" button...
Housing on both coasts: links to Times articles on insane housing prices and the booming luxury goods market.
OK - I really don't have a problem with a guy like Bill Gates buying a $40 mil jet (like the one I'm writing software for right now - er, supposed to be writing software for right now). He worked really hard, was really smart and got rewarded for it.
But I have a real problem with Bill's baby running around with $50Bil + interest when Bill kicks it. I mean what did he do to earn it? (Golddigging zygote comes to mind...)
Right wingers bitch about it not being fair to tax someone's estate that they worked so hard to build up. But you're not stopping Bill from buying the bling - you're making his kid work for it.
I mean are 3rd and 4th generation trust fund babies really pulling their weight? I can tell you right now if my grandpa invented the slinkie or something like that and I knew I was gonna get some ciz-ash dropped up on me when he went tits-up I wouldn't exactly be busting my balls to contribute to the 'ol GDP.
Er, like I'm doing right now :)...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 04:11:00 PM
OK to laugh?
Even though Greenspun talks about Jewishness and Muslimness in this post I'm still going to poke the politically-correct cellophane and say "Isn't anyone ashamed of having wimpy enemies" is both funny and correct.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 03:58:00 PM
Lessig gets misty
about great lawyers and the government admitting it was wrong.
Which, even though I read, still refuse to believe either exist/s/ed.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 03:55:00 PM
Exceptions
Ned continues a discussion Joel started about exceptions in software.
Fortunately for me I mostly ignore exceptions because I don't really give a damn how well my software works - just that I get paid (and quick!). Its possible this is wrong. [Force moral quandry to bottom of mental stack (*grunt*)... aaaannnnddd... its gone. Much better.]
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 03:50:00 PM
PressThink: What's Radical About the Weblog Form in Journalism?
PressThink: What's Radical About the Weblog Form in Journalism?
[via Gillmore]
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 03:32:00 PM
Thought of the day...
"Winners win."
if ("winners win" == true){
cubs.worldSeries = false;
sox.worldSeries = false;
yanks.payroll > 180000000;
bush.fundage > 400000000;
dems.2004 = screwed;
} else {
// only in the movies
}
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 03:30:00 PM
"Inasmuch as liberals have no morals..."
No, Jason, I've always thought of Ann Coulter as a paragon of well-reasoned discourse.
Which part do you find particularly loopy?
Posted by: Aaron / 10/17/2003 01:10:00 PM
Salon.com News | The ultimate punishment
Salon.com News | The ultimate punishment: "Scott Turow"
Scott Turow finds no good argument for the death penalty. I agree.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 01:02:00 PM
Ann Coulter is insane
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35101
OK, conservatives read this for me. Am I just seeing this through liberal-tinted glasses or is this woman insane?
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 12:54:00 PM
Non-OK people:
When was the last time that you saw an Eskimo Joe's shirt?
I just caught one on the free downtown bus, but can't remember the last time before that.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/17/2003 10:43:00 AM
Congrats...
I sent JB congrats on his candidate's Senate run privately but I'd like to publically give him Big Ups as well. Go, go power Jeff! Get that bidness done... he's got my vote (if I move to OK in the next year).
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/17/2003 08:09:00 AM
10/16/2003
OKC will rock
Lynyrd Skynyrd and 38 Special will be in concert the week before you guys arrive. Too bad.
Posted by: Bill / 10/16/2003 10:22:00 PM
Oh yeah...
... this is what it feels like to be a Cubs fan. I forgot for a sec.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/16/2003 08:20:00 AM
10/15/2003
Addition to the List of Coolest Names Ever
Big news from the man in DC
Sorry for the long post, but this isn't linkable.
-JB
CQ TODAY � POLITICS & ELECTIONS
Oct. 14, 2003 � 8:19 p.m.
Carson Gives Democrats Senate Hope in Oklahoma
By Gregory L. Giroux and Peter E. Harrell, CQ Staff
Rep. Brad Carson announced on Tuesday that he would give up the most politically competitive House seat in Oklahoma to run next year for the Senate seat that Republican Don Nickles is relinquishing.
The decision by Carson � one of a dwindling breed of moderate rural Democrats in the House � sets up a competitive race for a seat that would have been safely Republican had Nickles sought a fifth term.
The Democrats now appear guaranteed to have a legitimate contender in a conservative-leaning state that has been trending Republican. A 36-year-old lawyer and former Defense Department aide, Carson is the 10th-youngest House member at the moment, one of only two American Indians in the House and among only eight Rhodes Scholars in the 108th Congress. For all those reasons � as well as his moderate voting record � he has been seen as a rising star since his arrival in the House in 2001.
But Carson could face serious competition for the Democratic nomination in the July 27 primary if either state Attorney General Drew Edmondson or state Treasurer Robert Butkin enter the race.
In an interview Tuesday, Carson promised to offer "constructive solutions in a bipartisan way" on a range of issues that includes economic development and health care.
The Democrats' situation contrasts with that of the Republicans. Mayor Kirk Humphreys of Oklahoma City became the firm GOP front-runner Oct. 12, when Rep. Ernest Istook reversed course and said he would not seek the Senate seat. Citing his position as chairman of the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, Istook said he could have won the Senate race but did not wish to sacrifice his six terms of seniority in the House.
But it was also clear that the state's other senator, Republican James M. Inhofe, was supporting Humphreys for the seat � not Istook.
Oklahomans backed George W. Bush by a 22 percentage-point margin in the 2000 presidential election. Republicans also have won five consecutive Senate elections and hold four of the five House seats.
Carson acknowledged that Republicans "have a slight edge" in the state's political demographics, adding, "I'm going to have to run a more clever and shrewd campaign than the opposition. . . . The recipe is simple and not easy."
Yet Democratic leaders say they are encouraged by Carson's history � he won his seat with 55 percent in 2000 and won his second term with 74 percent in 2002 � and by the 2002 election of Democrat Brad Henry as governor.
Carson votes a more conservative line than most of his Democratic colleagues. On House votes this year that have pitted most Democrats against most Republicans, Carson has backed the Democratic position just 76 percent of the time, the 17th-lowest "party unity" score among the 205 House Democrats. He backed President Bush's 2001 tax cut (PL 107-16) and supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And on Oct. 2 he was among the 63 Democrats who voted for the final version of a bill (S 3) to ban a procedure described as "partial birth" abortion by its opponents.
Wide-Open 'Little Dixie' House Seat
Carson's move also is likely to create a competitive race in the 2nd District.
At least three Democrats intend to run: former Pittsburg County District Attorney Kalyn Free, LeFlore County District Attorney Rob Wallace and former state Sen. Billy Mickle. No Republicans have declared yet, but Gary Jones, chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party, said possible candidates include Dustin Rowe, a former aide to 3rd District Republican Rep. Wes Watkins (1977-91, 1997-2003) and Kent Pharaoh, who took just 26 percent of the vote against Carson last year.
A conservative Democrat would be heavily favored to hold the 2nd for the party. The district, which stretches from the Tulsa suburbs in the north to the conservative but traditionally Democratic "Little Dixie" region in the south, preferred Bush by 53 percent in 2000. But Democrats dominate state and local elections � and all nine counties in the state that preferred Vice President Al Gore in the last presidential election are in the 2nd.
Source: CQ Today
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
� 2003 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved
Posted by: Jeff / 10/15/2003 12:44:00 PM
Salon.com News | King Kaufman's Sports Daily
ESPN.com - MLB/PLAYOFFS2003 - Stark: A fan's cruel hand
ESPN.com - MLB/PLAYOFFS2003 - Stark: A fan's cruel hand
Speaking of melt-downs... I feel bad for this kid - but 8 runs in the eighth? The curse of the goat returns...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/15/2003 08:50:00 AM
Salon.com | Right Hook
OReilly Melts Down Yet Again...
This guy needs some of those pills Rush was poppin'.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/15/2003 08:46:00 AM
10/14/2003
More on Corn
The jackwad who wrote the Times article said something about us not pursuing the "sensible" policy of FDR that stopped overproduction. Arnold Kling weighs in (in a somewhat unrelated essay):
"The economists [as per a collection of interviews with famous economists who lived through the Great Depression; "The economists span the ideological spectrum"] agree that the New Deal mixed some harmful programs, such as ... the Agricultural Adjustment Act (which pursued the goal of raising farm prices using policies that included destroying crops) with some successful financial reforms."
Posted by: CS / 10/14/2003 07:21:00 PM
Blogs suck
The Politics of Personal Responsibility
While I agree with CS that the article (two posts down) is a bit of a strecth, the "and we can't possibly trust them with that decision" line asks a broader question...
Most of the time I take the view that says "if you give a dog dogfood he'll eat dogfood, if you give him steak he'll eat steak". Point being, if you give people a "vice" (something "bad for you", i.e. fast food, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, cable tv, etc.), make that vice easily available and cheap and advertize the heck out of that vice, people will choose that vice. Of course at every moment the individual has the opportunity to not choose the vice or to choose a non-vice instead. But if there is little benefit in choosing the non-vice or if the non-vice is signifigantly harder to come by or more expensive, more people will choose the vice. If everything else is equal people will choose the non-vice.
Same for corporations. Simple economics.
This is not to say that individuals and corporations are absolved of their responsibility in choosing the "vice". Its to say that there is an easily understandable reason behind why the majority of people choose or don't choose something.
There are levels:
1. a person who is truly physically or mentally addicted to the vice and has no real choice in the matter save some sort of incarceration or life-long treatment program
2. a person who goes out of their way to choose the vice, knowing that it is bad for them and not caring
3. a person knows the vice is bad but makes no effort whatsoever to avoid the vice
4. a person who, due to market forces, occasionally chooses the vice because its easier
5. a person perfectally balanced between vice and non-vice
6. a person who gives a minimum of effort to avoid the vice when they can, if they can "afford" it
7. a person who actively avoids the vice, regardless of whether they can "afford" it or not
8. a person who under no circumstances will consume the vice
That said... I have no idea where I'm going with this - just to open the topic for discussion: personal responsibility - how much of its personal? how much are we responsible for?
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/14/2003 11:29:00 AM
10/13/2003
I'm shocked that he teaches at Berkeley
That guy is full of s--t. Gee, maybe we should instead err on the side of underproduction so that people starve rather than get fat. I mean if we don't people will be forced to...choose to eat less. And we can't possibly trust them with that decision.
Jackass.
Posted by: CS / 10/13/2003 06:35:00 PM
The (Agri)Cultural Contradictions of Obesity
The new 20-spot be damned...
From here on in its nothing but fistfulls of Sacajawea golden dollaz for dis homie....
"That'll be $19.95, sir."
"Take this stack of golden chedda' beyatch. No true playa slings peach-colored greenbacks. Betta aks somebody..." [jangling sound fills the air as black-leather-clad fist slams down 20 coins on the countertop. jump cut to tight close up of FUBU logo engraved on back of leather glove. the shower of golden coins is somehow grotesque yet beautiful.]
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/13/2003 04:27:00 PM
More on the $$
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Of course, democritus knocks $2 mil off the price, so it's getting better.
Posted by: CS / 10/13/2003 01:24:00 PM
More OU/Texas Goodness
From a friend of mine who is a UT alum:
yeah, the performance was unseemly from our end for sure. All I saw was stats, but that's bad enough... like reading a book about the civil war...just print, but still horrifying.
Posted by: CS / 10/13/2003 11:30:00 AM
Re: Point 2 : Foreign circulation
Yes. They do get USA Today in Moscow. You'll even notice that the subscription price is in US dollars as opposed to local currency listed for other countries.
Side note: I'd be interested to know the budget situation for the bureau of printing and engraving. I have a feeling the administration (whether Bush or any other) doesn't have much direct influence on their spending patterns for launching new currency. (But hey, maybe I'm wrong and Bush thought the ad campaign sounded like a cool way to waste a bunch of money.)
CS Update: OK, I stand corrected on that point. I wonder what the circulation is over there. I'd rather they put it in the highest circulating paper, which, hey, could be USA Today.
Posted by: Bill / 10/13/2003 10:57:00 AM
Things I Heard on Saturday
My mom, on viewing outcome of the OU/Texas game: "Wow, that's like a basketball score."
Posted by: CS / 10/13/2003 09:57:00 AM
StartupJournal | Sound Advice
Faith Fades Where It Once Burned Strong
10/12/2003
Fortune.com - Technology - Joy After Sun
10/11/2003
Tex-Ass Kickin'
65-13!!!
65-13!!!
65-13!!!
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Texaz sucks!!
Go Sooners - National Championship Bound!
AH UPDATE: ESPN.com says it best: "Stoops knows the importance of this win. The Sooners improve to 6-0. They also further distance themselves from a Texas program that wants to be OU when it grows up."
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/11/2003 07:32:00 PM
10/10/2003
Rad
Tom Smith bashes George Will. Money quote:
I have some advice for Will, since he seems so full of wisdom for us Californians. Lose the bow tie. Get some Lasix, dude, and lose the nerd glasses. Eat some protein and go to the gym. Get off your high horse.
(Via Bainbridge.)
Posted by: CS / 10/10/2003 05:20:00 PM
The flaw in J's logic
Per his thought of the day: maybe, but I have already lived in OK, which is much more similar to Iowa than the Bay Area.
Posted by: CS / 10/10/2003 03:50:00 PM
"Dogs and cats, living together" or "Chicks for free"
On the $$$ tip: I agree with Jason (with the exception of his jibe at the Bush admin--as if any other president ever wasn't going to spend the money this way.)
Point 1: Why pay for the ads in USA today? It's a newspaper, it covers stuff like this for free. If the gov't did a big unveiling ceremony, BAM!--it's in USA Today anyway. For less than 35 million.
Point 2: Regarding the foreign circulation: what, they get USA Today in Moscow? There was also a widespread belief that the world would end on Jan 1, 2000. No amount of gov't spending makes people less gullible.
Point 3: the idiots will adjust. The money's on its way in, not its way out. And the point is that the gov't can back the dinero for cheaper. We do realize it has to back it.
Posted by: CS / 10/10/2003 03:27:00 PM
Clarisys, Manufacturer of Clarisys i750 VoIP USB Phone / speakerphone and provider of USB Headsets
Clarisys, Manufacturer of Clarisys i750 VoIP USB Phone / speakerphone and provider of USB Headsets
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/10/2003 01:53:00 PM
Money for nothin
DMC drops some knowledge on 614 via email:
Another angle on the utility of advertising the new currency design: Some large percentage of U.S. currency circulates outside the U.S. (this chart suggests it was more than 50% as of 1998: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/gif/ba280fig.jpg). (It's my understanding that a large portion of the counterfeiting the new design is supposed to combat originates outside the U.S. as well.) Other countries are not always as reliable in backing their currency as the U.S., thus folks in other countries are often much more skittish about accepting unfamiliar bills.
I was in Moscow in 1995 during the run-up to the new U.S. $100 bill, which was in common use over there by Russians who would exchange their savings (no one trusted banks) to avoid losing the value of their rubles to hyperinflation. The change caused huge panic among people who had already lost life savings once in the USSR-Russian Federation ruble changeover, and expected it to happen again. (With the ex-Soviet changeover, the government did repudiate all the old bills after a certain date--in contrast to the U.S. procedure of a period of common use, then pulling the older version of a bill out of circulation, but still allowing it to be exchanged by banks.) By October 1995, none of the Moscow banks would accept U.S. $100 (although they would accept your $20s and give you the $100s). I also saw currency exchanges offering 80 to 100 conversions (i.e. they'd take your $100 bill, but only give you 80 USD or ruble-equivalent in exchange for it). There was widespread belief that the bills would become worthless at 12:01 am January 1, 1996.
So, all of this is my long-winded way of saying that I too, have been surprised at all the ads, but I think much more of the advertising is directed abroad, and probably not wasted effort.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/10/2003 01:13:00 PM
Wrong
People aren't going to use different money if the gov't doesn't back it and say that it is legit. Our whole system is based on people believing in the full faith and credit of the gov't.
Furthermore, 1) people aren't very bright and likely won't want to accept the money anyway (see below) 2) they certainly aren't going to accept different money because YOU say it's real.
Taco Bell
Additional Stories
Posted by: Bill / 10/10/2003 12:16:00 PM
PS: GO CUBS!
Posted by: CS / 10/10/2003 12:04:00 PM
You know you're getting older when...
people stop saying you look older than you are and instaed ask you "How old are you? 21?"
Money: Good point--like we're not gonna use the money if the gov't didn't tell us about it. "No, thanks; like Marco Polo, I only use coins."
Posted by: CS / 10/10/2003 12:03:00 PM
P.S. Happy birthday to Gaston'
I'll PayPal you a beer...
Thought of the day: If CS and I traded places (I went to San Fran he came to Iowa) I bet our political inclinations would do a similar flip. He'd become more liberal, I'd become more conservative. Discuss. {We'll have to start taking data if he moves to the Windy City. Oh, and GO CUBS!!!}
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/10/2003 11:53:00 AM
Outrage of the hour...
You've got to be kidding me. I just saw an advertisement on USAToday - in the really expensive top spot, nicely animated with Flash - for the updated $20 bill design. I read a week or so back that we're spending like $35 mil to advertise about this updated design.
In an era of record deficits how can we possibly be wasting money on advertising for new money designs???!!!
Have any of you ever actually checked your 20-spot for counterfit-ness? Will you because you saw an ad on USAToday? Will anyone? Another one of the Bush administrations brilliant ways of wasting your and my money - this time on the actual money itself! Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/10/2003 11:50:00 AM
10/09/2003
It's my party and I'll cry if I want to
So, at 4:26 Eastern, 27 years ago today, I was from my mother's womb untimely rent. Other notable birth anniversaries on this day: Camille Saint-Saens, composer, and John Lennon, musician. (I guess the music gene skips some people.) Also, randomly, they killed Che Guevara today, Yale got its charter (yay) and Matt Damon's birthday was yesterday.
Predator: My money's on Carl Weathers.
Posted by: CS / 10/09/2003 12:12:00 PM
10/08/2003
so when are the other dudes from Predator getting elected governer?
Posted by: Bill / 10/08/2003 10:13:00 PM
Geography, Schools and Success, Part 2--UPDATE
I would like to point out in this update to my Geography, Schools and Success post that one governor has brought the University of Wisconsin at Superior onto the list of schools represented by alumni US governors with a bachelor's in international business and international economics. Stanford and Columbia Law School lose one alumnus from the list (aw, too bad).
Posted by: CS / 10/08/2003 05:18:00 PM
On the recall tip
Here, via Instapundit, is the map of all the counties broken out by candidate. Yes, J, you guys do have a problem.
Posted by: CS / 10/08/2003 03:20:00 PM
USATODAY.com - The California recall exit poll findings
USATODAY.com - The California recall exit poll findings
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/08/2003 12:22:00 PM
G.E. and Vivendi Announce Signing of Merger
Coming soon... the Friends Experience/Rollercoaster sit on Chander's lap!
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/08/2003 08:13:00 AM
Democrats drop the ball again...
can't this party - in one of the most liberal states in the nation - get its act together to beat a guy who talks like he just injected an eightball of quaaludes, grain alcohol and maple syrup into his adam's apple? yikes we suck.
post millenial Democratic party : political parties :: John Blake's '96-'99 Sooners : top tier NCAA football teams
I'm sure Tom Delay is on a plane to Cali as we speak to start Texas-gerrymandering the "Inland Empire".
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/08/2003 08:09:00 AM
Re: Things I Overheard at Work Today
Are you talking to my sisters at work??
Posted by: Aaron / 10/08/2003 01:07:00 AM
10/07/2003
Things I Overheard at Work Today
Woman: "And I told him, there were only two ways you could disappoint Mom [her]: become a Republican or join the military."
Posted by: CS / 10/07/2003 07:37:00 PM
Caaaaaaaaaaarrrgghh
I just got a call from the guy who sold me my car... one year ago. Jeez--leave me alone.
Posted by: CS / 10/07/2003 04:23:00 PM
Recall blogging?
Unfortunately for J, I can't help on the recall coverage and voting plans request.* Reason being, I don't plan to vote.
Before I get excoriated, there is a quasi-legitimate reason.
I am apparently not registered to vote, at least at my current place of residence. I received the info on the election a while back, and realized that it was addressed to the person who previously lived at my address. Apparently, after my pre-work extravaganza of laziness and living out of state, I forgot to register (usually done at the DMV. This makes me wonder about my car registration renewal, too, incidentally, as I registered previous to moving to my new place.) Chalk it up to getting lost in the paperwork of calling every credit card, association and magazine that has the old address. After receiving the voter info, I tried to register online, but it was too late to do so prior to the recall.
One of two things are possible here. One, I may still be registered at my old address across the bay. Problem there is that I would need to fight about 90 minutes of traffic round trip to get there and then search for the polling place. Not high on my list of to-dos. Second, I may be able to vote provisionally, which entials signing a card saying I am who I say I am, which will later be certified, etc etc. Problem with that is that during my extended absence the DMV tracked me down out of state (for wonderfully amzing and idiotic reasons) with that address, so it is possible that the old address would be out of the system (to the extent that they keep track of and change things like that--maybe I give them too much credit) and I would not be registered at all. Don't want to go and be turned away, or vote and not have it count. (Plus I want to go to the gym. So I'm shallow. Piss off.)
Oh, and lastly, my voting preferences are exceedingly unlikely to be implemented, as they (most likely) as follows:
No on the recall, Candidate: Tom McClintock**. Davis is likely out, and McClintock will get pasted.
Also, there is way too much Type M argumentation here, and way too many people buy into it. That may just tip the scale fopr me into not hustling to Oakland to find a place to that I may or may not be eligible to vote at.
The ironic thing is that the turnout is supposed to be at record levels, and I won't be voting in it. (This is ironic because the only other times I have failed to vote were when I was unable to request an absentee ballot in time. And I was out of the country for one of those elections.)
Don't worry, it won't happen again. And I'm moving to Illinois (hopefully soon) anyway, so it almost unfair of me to vote here (yes, that was a rationalization.)
UPDATE: Per a source at work, apparently when you move to a different county in California, your registration is terminated (ha). So, I can't vote at all until I re-register.
_____________________________
*Go here instead.)
**Even though I took the KQED quiz and Schwarzenegger was apparently my top choice on the issues. Never thought I'd say that. I mean, hey--I'm in favor of heavy workouts and high-protein too, but my programs are steroid -free and much lower volume than Arnold's. Plus I'm a lot fatter.
Posted by: CS / 10/07/2003 03:22:00 PM
...
When riding in an elevator with several other occupants and you notice the stench of BO, chances are it comes from the guy wearing velcro shoes.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/07/2003 11:55:00 AM
Car Owners' Hero Dresses for the Job
Total Recall Day [and other assorted puns/plays on words related to the word "recall"]
CS as the Cali delagate from 614 would you care to share with the world your voting plans - and perhaps a prediction and/or blog post from the front lines of the Cali recall? Aren't you planning a watch/slumber party with all your buddies :).
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/07/2003 08:07:00 AM
10/05/2003
Rush is dumb
We all knew that.
But I disagree with CS (and numerous others, including Gregg Easterbrook) - McNabb is overrated. Trust me. I drafted him in the first round of my fantasy football league. So while other geeks are getting 150 yards and a pair of touchdowns from Priest Holmes or Clinton Portis, I get negative points for my number one pick. Annoying as all hell.
On the same tip, I traded for Steve McNair, a black quarterback kicking ass and dispensing with that superfluous "taking names" bit. Bill Simmons has a point here: If McNabb is overrated because he's black, shouldn't McNair be getting at least as much attention?
And if anyone from the Old School league is reading this, I'd be happy to package the pair of scottish QBs for a starting running back.
Posted by: Aaron / 10/05/2003 10:58:00 PM
10/03/2003
BV, that's awesome!!!
Can I borrow $17,499.99? pleeeeeeeeease...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/03/2003 02:39:00 PM
I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what they did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?
More on Limbaugh: this column in Slate has another good take. (Link from Volokh.)
Posted by: CS / 10/03/2003 11:10:00 AM
tech note
for geeks. also check out the specs on the laptops and desktops they sell.
Posted by: Bill / 10/03/2003 12:38:00 AM
i hung my head
I finally picked up American IV: The Man Comes Around. Go buy it now. 'nuff said.
CS UPDATE: Yes! I have it too, and "I Hung My Head" is among my favorite songs on the album. BV's right--go get 'er.
Posted by: Bill / 10/03/2003 12:33:00 AM
10/02/2003
Speaking of Limbaugh (again)
ESPN is under fire by Eagles' management and players, for "institutional racism," both as a result of the Limbaugh remarks and for the Playmakers series.
This is annoying. Memo to the Eagles players: take your median $763,000 salary and go pretend to be oppressed somewhere else.
Posted by: CS / 10/02/2003 03:43:00 PM
Re: Rush Limbaugh and Novak
Regarding Rush: Pray tell, Young Wellnitz--how does race work in the world today? Please enlighten.
Easterblogg is right on this one. Personally, I think that Limbaugh was wrong on the merits, but didn't say anything terribly offensive per se. As for him being a troll-king, you are overreacting--plain and simple. Not that that's unusual for us here on our little blog.
Re: Novak, well, if he did reveal the source negligently or purposefully, the and the leaker (assuming similar state of mind), should be rounded up behind the barn and shot with a .22 behind the ear. That way, there's less dry-cleaning involved--the bullet just sort of rattles around in there. Higher caliber, more dry cleaning. On the other hand, use of a .22 neccessitates more than one bullet--and I'm pretty sure the guilty parties aren't worth the ammo.
I will say 'shame' that you are playing politics with this--it's not a partisan nor an ideological issue. It's an issue of honor.
UPDATE: Limbaugh's exact words were:
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well," Limbaugh said on Sunday's show. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Posted by: CS / 10/02/2003 02:45:00 PM
Best political quiz yet.
Here. I got a 29, Yin a 20, Bainbridge a 35.
AH UPDATE: Shocker, I got a 29, too.
Posted by: CS / 10/02/2003 02:34:00 PM
Ultra Right-Wing Commentator Showing Their True Colors
This week the nation gets to see first hand the true colors of two of the most strident hard-right commentators.
First we have Robert Novak who - in response to a malicious leak by a Senior Bush Administration official - exposed an undercover CIA agent to the world. We hear that as many as six other journalists were called by the despicable leaker and had the good sense to not publish the story. Yet Novak, who railed against every supposed psuedo-scandal brought against Clinton, chose to endanger the life of a woman serving her country. Novak should resign or be fired for this disgusting breach of ethics.
Second we have the troll-king Rush Limbaugh who - like Trent Lott before him - made statements which revealed his true feelings towards non-whites. Statements which bely a total ignorance about the way race works in the world today. Good riddance Rush!
[more later]
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/02/2003 01:13:00 PM
10/01/2003
Marianne Remembers A Bat - A Short Story For The People
When she was a child, Marianne�s father had broken his jaw while attempting to kill a bat with a tennis racket. The bat had been flying around the large upstairs room, looking down at Marianne whimpering at the top of the stairs. She hadn�t been exactly scared of the bat and wasn�t normally given to whimpering but she had seen people do this on TV and it seemed the appropriate response. In hindsight, fifteen years later, she felt foolish for such a pathetic reaction.
Walking by the open stairway door, her father had seen her clutching her hands to her chin at the top of the stairs. �What�s wrong, honey?�, he asked up to her, putting his hand on the fourth stair for balance. In keeping with the imitation from TV she merely whined and pointed. Her father had worn a concerned, somewhat baffled look which faded to mild disgust following his processing of the situation and his daughter�s poor response to it.
Having retrieved a tennis racket from the garage, he instructed her to go downstairs and keep the door closed. Marianne, huddled on the couch beneath a woven blanket, had heard a series of bangs and crashes before the body came crashing down the stairs. Her father never gave details as to what exactly had happened but when Marianne opened the door her father lay at the foot of the stairs, unconscious. His jaw had caught the corner of the large, gold-framed family photo on the way down and Marianne could see the pink-tinged bone poking through her father�s lower cheek.
His jaw had been wired shut for five months during which time he could only grunt and point by means of communication. Marianne supposed this period of her childhood had a bit to do with why she sometimes, seemingly at random, became so fearful of her father she felt the need to go outside immediately.
Once they had returned from the hospital, Marianne�s older brother had gone upstairs with the green fishing net to finish what his father had started. Following a successful, albeit louder capture, the two, Marianne and her brother, took the struggling bat outside and, in a moment of silent but profound closeness, had driven over the bat together, each with a hand on the large black steering wheel of their parent�s 1985 blue Pontiac station wagon.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/01/2003 04:09:00 PM
Congrats!
Go for all 50...
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 10/01/2003 12:47:00 PM
It's not all that I do, but it's what I do best
Kicking ass and taking names, er, bar exams. Passed my second bar as of today.
Posted by: CS / 10/01/2003 11:52:00 AM
9/30/2003
David Brooks is a voice of reason
Here.
Posted by: CS / 9/30/2003 11:47:00 AM
9/29/2003
Desert Camping
After my current contract is up in November or December (possibly Jan.) I'm looking to do about a week of solo camping. I'd like to go somewhere warm/hot, possibly desert, good camping/hiking - possibly southwest (New Mexico, Arizona, Utah). Any suggestions?
Like every SuperMan I must from time to time retreat to my Fortress of Solitude.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/29/2003 03:41:00 PM
Silicon Valley - Dan Gillmor's eJournal - Remembering the People Who Give Back to the Net, and All of Us
Silicon Valley - Dan Gillmor's eJournal - Remembering the People Who Give Back to the Net, and All of Us
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/29/2003 09:13:00 AM
9/28/2003
Beef for dessert?
Who's had cheeseburger fries? Can we get a review here?
Posted by: Bill / 9/28/2003 11:54:00 PM
9/26/2003
The Digital Imprimatur
Underemployment
GOP considered harmful.
Number of People Living in Poverty in U.S. Increases Again
Way to go Bush! Those tax cuts are working wonders. Oh, but wait those numbers are from 2002. Surely all those businesses those multi-zilti-zillionaries started will start crankin' out new jobs soon - 'cuz they got all that tax cut loot that they just can't wait to start using to improve our economy. New Hummer be dammed! In fact I'm thinking about hiring someone just on the grand or so tax cut I got - because that's what everyone does with their tax cut, right?
You just gotta re-elect Bush and then the economy will gear up, right?? Just wait until then. Just wait a little longer. Guess we'll have to wait until next year to find out how many more children are living in poverty this year.
[sarcasm above __^)
The poverty rate rose to 12.1 percent in 2002, affecting 34.6 million people, from 11.7 percent in 2001, or 32.9 million people, the bureau said. The number of entire families living below the poverty line increased to 7.2 million last year, or 9.6 percent of all families, from 6.8 million, or 9.2 percent, the previous year.
...
The official poverty levels, updated each year to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, were $18,392 for a family of four, $14,348 for a family of three, $11,756 for a two-person household and $9,183 for an individual.
The nation's median household money income, adjusted for inflation, declined 1.1 percent, to $42,409 in 2002, the bureau said.
That's astounding. First that so many people live in poverty and second that a family of four could possibly survive on $18,392/year. To put it in perspective for this crowd, move that decimal one place to the left on your next paycheck and then try to live off that - by yourself.
My wife and I live a pretty darn frugal life and our minimum budget is at least $2000 above what a family of four is supposed to be able to live on. The only way we could have two kids and live on that much money would be to completely ignore all health issues (whether we have insurance or not), never ever eat out, never ever travel, never ever buy new clothes, etc. And that's if nothing goes wrong... ever. If someone gets sick, one of us gets hurt, one of us loses our job, our car gets totaled - then its time to start piling on the debt. And we live in one of the cheapest places to live in America!
Way to go Republicans. Good one. Did the thought process go something like this:
"OK, we just got off the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history. Hmmmmmm. That sucked. I know, since they balanced budgets, encouraged investment in technology and tried to raise the economic level of all sectors we'll just do the opposite! That'll work! Instead of the longest period of economic expansion & a balanced budget we'll incur the largest Federal debt in history! Instead of respecting science and research we'll completely ignore and debunk any and all research - because we're sure it just ain't right (insert Texazz drawl). Instead of trying to raise the economic level of everybody we'll just funnel more money to the people who have the most because, damit, that just makes more sense."
Stupid, greedy Republicans ruining our country ;).
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/26/2003 12:40:00 PM
9/25/2003
Texas Sucks
From my old friend Jeremy Cowen who I met while writing for the sports desk of the Oklahoma Daily and with whom I journeyed to one of the scariest places on Earth: College Station.
On a tour of south Texas, the Pope took a couple of
days off for some sightseeing. He was cruising along
the coast when there was a frantic commotion just off
the shore.
A helpless man, wearing a orange Texas jersey, was
struggling frantically to free himself from the jaws
of a 25-foot shark.
As the Pope watched, horrified, a speed boat came
racing up with three men wearing crimson and white
Oklahoma jerseys. One quickly fired a harpoon into the sharks' side. The other two reached out and pulled the semiconscious, Longhorn from the water. Then using long
clubs, the three beat the shark to death, and hauled
it, too, into the boat.
Immediately the Pope shouted and summoned them to the
beach. "I give you my blessing for your brave
actions," he told them.
"I've heard that there were some bitter hatred between Longhorns and Sooners, but now I have seen with my own eyes that is not true." As the Pope drove off, the Harpooner asked his buddies "Who was that?"
"It was the Pope," one replied. "He is in direct
contact with God and has access to all of Gods wisdom.
"Well" the harpooner said "he may have access to Gods
wisdom but he doesn't know anything about shark
fishing. Is the bait holding up OK or do we need to
get another one"?
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/25/2003 04:33:00 PM
Call e forn ia
Anyone catch the Jerry Springer show last night on MSNBC/CNN? Hilarious. I loved it when the crowd was cheering and booing. The moderator could barely keep control. To paraphrase some of my favorite parts:
On Huffington's taxes:
"You're taxes have loopholes so big I could drive my Hummer through it"
After Huffington's "direct and personal" attack:
"I have a part for you in Terminator 4"
Responding to critizism of Bush:
"You're in the wrong state. Why don't you go to New Hampshire?"
...and during the post debate press coverage...
On collecting money from the federal gov't:
"After I go to Sacramento I will be known as the Collectinator"
Posted by: Bill / 9/25/2003 10:42:00 AM
9/24/2003
This just in: too much hanging eith PhDs will kill your sense of humor
Ted at Crooked Timber thinks Donald Luskin is NOT FUNNY. OK, rather he thinks that all jokes should be duly linked and footnoted, with perhaps footnotes within in the footnotes to eliminate any unwanted meaning. Ted seems a bit lacking in the sense of humor department.
Another proof: the phrase "Crooked Timber" is easily interpreted, ah, a mite dirtily. (These guys seem not to have noticed either. Or these guys. Or these.) Whilst I opine not at all on the straightness of the members', er, members, they have to have thought of that. Right? Or I am just the sicko? Don't answer that.
Posted by: CS / 9/24/2003 06:26:00 PM
British people are weird with their dog names
This dog's name is Mr. Jeffries Knightsfollie Ladiesman. Grandson of Biggles, the face of Hush Puppies shoes. And with BIG ears. (Nod to those other dorks, at OxBlog.)
Posted by: CS / 9/24/2003 06:02:00 PM
Blog for America : Morning News Roundup | September 24, 2003
Blog for America : Morning News Roundup | September 24, 2003
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/24/2003 04:16:00 PM
Telemarketing
The NYTimes reports and links to the text of the decision overturning the national do-not-call list.
Unbelievably, Judge West of the Western District of Oklahoma found that, despite an authorization to establish a "single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations" 42 USC � 227(c)(3) and another authorization to "prohibit[] . . . abusive telemarketing acts or practices" 15 USC � 6102(a)(1), the Federal Trade Commission lacked the authority to prohibit telemarketing calls to those consumers who choose to put their names on the list.
Calling people who don't want to be called isn't abusive?
As DMC emailed, this is why people think poorly of Oklahoma.
UPDATE: Whoops, should have noticed this before: The authorization to establish the single national database is in 42 USC - an authorization to the Federal Communications Commission, not the Federal Trade Commission. The decision may be ridiculous, but not for the reason that I first thought.
Posted by: Aaron / 9/24/2003 12:59:00 PM
Sam Gentile's Blog
.Text
.Text is a possibility Blogger replacement.
Don't know if you guys noticed but many of the features that were in BloggerPro are now free.
Note to Blogger/Google: we still need RSS, comments and easy blogrolls per user - or else we will probably bolt to something else.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/24/2003 12:23:00 PM
Technophobia
This article illustrates why we currently have voting technology that is sub-standard.
It does not, however, illustrate that the most advanced and wealthy society in the world could not produce a usable system inside of a year if we diverted the cost of, say, a single day of Iraqi reconstruction.
Fear of technology is not a reason to avoid pursuing computer and internet voting technology. Computers run our airplanes, our nuclear power plants, forecast the weather. If we can do that we can do something vastly simpler like cast and record votes.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/24/2003 12:01:00 PM
Qweshun...
AH: Why eliminate Iowa caucuses / New Hampshire primaries?
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/24/2003 11:40:00 AM
9/23/2003
Before you get your Fisking pencils out...
I'm not saying Bush is responsible for the erosion of one man, one vote - and yes, I realize Cali. is a state and Bush has a federal jobbie-job - I'm saying the Bush years have been a time where a series of events have come together to threatean, or rather dilute - the essence of "one person, one vote" democracy.
And I vote for:
mbnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz(clang)
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/23/2003 02:39:00 PM
I am experimenting
I agree with AH that there's a Fisking comin' down. Since he claims first dibs, I'll only voice a somewhat tangential concern of mine and avoid the topic of the Recall topic entirely, even though J blames the President for something the federal executive has absolutely, positively no impact on whatsoever. (Damn--couldn't help myself.)
Often when I read one of J's crazy posts, the sterotypical game show buzzer sounds in my head--you know, the "You're wrong, thanks for playing, buh-bye now" buzzer. Often I desire to put this in onomatopoetic form on the blog, but there is no really good way to do that. "Buzz" doesn't really get the annoying quality down right, "err" is just inaccurate, etc. So I need feedback, dear readers, on what collection of letters most accurately represents the gleeful gameshow sound most accurately. Here are my choices so far:
a) nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnt
b) eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhh
c) dddddnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
I lean towards option (a). What do you all think?
Posted by: CS / 9/23/2003 01:19:00 PM
Get Klingy wit' it
Arnold Kling on what he's looking for in a candidate (hint: there's no "UN" in "candidate"):
The single question that I think will determine my vote in the 2004 Presidential election might be phrased as follows:
"Do you believe that the rifts within the United Nations indicate moral obtuseness on the part of (a) the United States or (b) other members of the UN?"
I would answer emphatically with (b). I fervently believe that it is the United States that holds the moral high ground. We absolutely must not treat the UN as if it holds the moral trump cards.
Read it all. (Link via Insty.)
Posted by: CS / 9/23/2003 01:07:00 PM
Oh, boy.
Saw this one coming.
This requires a full fisking sometime soon, but I have a meeting in ten minutes. I'll only note that: 1. Jason claims that holding an election would be undemocratic. 2. The original 9th circuit decision would have mandated that the recall (a) violate the California Constitution and (b) be performed in a technologically impossible manner. I'll leave the specifics of Bush v. Gore, error rates and the vitriol and hyperbole for a later post.
Without the "It's all Bush's fault" filter, there are actually a few points worth debating in there. Add eliminate the Iowa caucuses/ New Hampshire primaries, and we might get some interesting reforms.
Posted by: Aaron / 9/23/2003 12:59:00 PM
Bush Era Time Of diluted Democracy
From the first weeks of G.W. Bush's Presidency, democracy in America has been steadily diluted. From the Supreme Court's decision to stop counting ballots in Bush v. Gore to today's decision by a California court to go forward with the recall election in two weeks despite concerns about voting equipment, the true, inherent power of democracy in America has been poisoned.
Despite the fact that we are, in reality, a Republic, the self-image of America and Americans has always been that one person equals one vote and thus, the power of the government rests finally in the hands of the people. Throughout America's history there have always been forces arrayed against this ideal. From women's suffrage to Jim Crow people have always tried to deny others their inherent right to vote. Yet we have always made steady progress against those forces. We have won battle after battle. Now, when we all thought a new millennium would usher in an era of increased equality, an age in which technology would deliver even more efficient means of participation in government, instead we get George W. Bush and his war against the very essence of America.
He came into office as the first modern president to lose the popular vote. We found out later that he likely did not even win the electoral vote. Yet in the name of expediency over democracy, the Supreme Court quickly decided he should be President. Again, today a court finds that in the name of expediency we should hold an election in which it is virtually guaranteed that some of the votes cast will not be counted - perhaps a large percentage.
The argument that, due to technical reasons, we can never count every vote, is a hollow and cold rationale. This country has massive resources - our first order of business should be to ensure the single most important ideal on which this country was founded - which set us apart from centuries of history in which a country viewed its citizens merely as cattle to be moved from one pen to the other - should be always and absolutely ensured.
From Bush v. Gore, to the Patriot Act, to the California recall, in the three years Bush has been the leader of the world, the cause of democracy - one person, one vote - has been attacked.
This is not directly Bush's fault. It is hard to know where defense against terrorism ends and tyranny against democracy begins. However, his presidency will be remembered as a fearful time in which our core values were assaulted.
After three years its time for changes:
1. Remove Bush and all his hard-right ilk - who believe the power of the government should be concentrated in the hands the few - from power or proximity to power.
2. Bring all the resources of this country to bear on instituting a fair, 100% accurate and reliable voting system so one person truly and always equals one vote
3. Scrap the Electoral College system - an obsolete, inefficient system - in favor of a true democracy.
Its time for Americans to return to the self-image we hold so dear: we are a democracy. Its time to push back yet again against the forces aligned against one person, one vote.
Posted by: The Lone Iowan / 9/23/2003 12:17:00 PM
9/22/2003
More context-free links to amusing stuff.
I don't ever want to hear my boyfriend utter the word "jasmine," unless he's apologizing for something he did with a stripper. - Stacey Pressman, Page 2
Posted by: Aaron / 9/22/2003 02:10:00 PM
How 'bout we step into this here alley, Hollywood?
On visiting Owen Field as a Bruin.
Posted by: Aaron / 9/22/2003 01:26:00 PM
800 baby pigs shut down Oklahoma highway
A friend who went to UTexas sent me this, saying that things like this cause people to laugh at Oklahoma. He particularly liked the last bit:
Several motorists who stopped at the scene asked if they could take home a pig or two in their pickup trucks.
OK, yeah, that's funny. Not as funny as OU 59, UCLA 24, but funny anyway.
Posted by: CS / 9/22/2003 11:28:00 AM
9/21/2003
Boomer!
Nice game on Saturday.
Flipping channels last week I saw the word "Chouse" on HGTV "Extreme Homes". Senior year at OU, CS and I lived across the street from this building. I always wondered what it was (other than a church+house). Apparently it is the old St. Thomas More Catholic church. When it went up for sale a couple decades ago, this couple bought it. They removed all but a few pews, turned the area behind the altar into the master bedroom, moved in, and got married in their new home. Mystery solved.
Posted by: Bill / 9/21/2003 09:30:00 PM
9/20/2003
Wow.
277 yards and 3 touchdowns on punt returns.
And you're not even close to the best game by a guy from Oklahoma.
...
In trying to come up with the appropriate reference (The Last Boy Scout, I think, corrections?) necessary for November 1, I came up with the amazing fact that Google references zero documents for "movie gun football"
Clearly, Hollywood is missing something here.
Posted by: Aaron / 9/20/2003 11:16:00 PM
9/19/2003
Officially taking submissions...
...for the top ten best names of all time. Rule 1: the name must be of a real person. Rule 2: it must be cool, funny, or both. Rule 3: nicknames are acceptable only if: a) they replace a person's given name (i.e. Tom "The Hammer" Delay does not count); b) the person is generally called that by the public at large and/or it appears on a trading card bearing said person's likeness. My top ten nominees are as follows:
10) Blackjack Pershing
9) Boutros Boutros-Ghali
8) Thelonius Monk
7) Goose Gossage
6) Cabeza de Vaca*
5) Jack Youngblood**
4) Fyvush Finkel***
3) Ya Ya Dia [Pronunced Yaw Yaw Zhaw]
2) Boubacar Aw
1) Ebenezer Ekuban
*This name means--no BS--"Head of Cow." "Hi Alvar Head of Cow, meet Bob Groin of Antelope. Over here is Eddie Leg of Lamb."
**You might be wondering why this name, demonstrably The Coolest Name of All Time, comes in so low on my list. Well, it's not funny, just badass. Just like him: he played the 1979/80 NFC Championship Game and Super Bowl XIV, with a stress fracture in left leg. Yes, with a broken leg. Anecdotally, he is supposed to have said to the Doctor--"You don't understand--this is Dallas. Tape it up." Jack Youngblood, ladies and gentlemen.
***Those of you in the know will note that 'DeFyvush' did not make the list. That name rocks Rule 2 in both senses, but (sadly) fails Rule 1. Until I have a kid. Please note also that I share a birthday with the esteemed Mr. Finkel.
AH: UPDATE: Exhibit 42 why we need a comment feature. How can you leave our friend and one-time 614er Firm Dinkins (use ctrl+F) off that list? More Firm mentions here and here.
How about Walleye?
CS UPDATE: Hey--put your own list up, ya mooch.
Posted by: CS / 9/19/2003 03:37:00 PM
Pirates (Inside Joke Alert--All Outsiders Go About Your Business)
In honor of Talk Like a Pirate Day, I am going to update one of AH's favorite sayings:
On Drive to Denver: "Arrr, that John Denver's full of s--t, matey."
Posted by: CS / 9/19/2003 12:42:00 PM
Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar
Easterbrook is stealing my material. Bastard.
Posted by: CS / 9/19/2003 11:24:00 AM
Data Collection and Reliability
Todd: I relied on this, the official Indiana website's bio of the governor; it says Gov. O'Bannon of Indiana graduated from IU and IU Law. Not my fault if it doesn't say he died last week--no warranties given nor guaranteed. Regardless, it is interesting where he went to school because he was elected, and the current governor was not.
FYI: the actual, living current governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, went to Notre Dame, as Todd said, where he played baseball.
Posted by: CS / 9/19/2003 10:39:00 AM
9/18/2003
CS - Poor Data Collection
Much to my dismay, I come back to the blog to see CS posting BS to our blog. What current US governor graduated from IU (Go Boilers!)? And much to Marty's dismay, the current governor of the Great State of Indiana (who happened to graduate from Notre Dame), apparently was not significant enough to make the list.
Posted by: Todd / 9/18/2003 10:42:00 PM
Schools, Geography and Success--Part 2
Today: Current Governors of the United States of America as of September 2003 (territories excluded)
Part one is here.
Notes on the data:
1) All data drawn from links from the National Governors Association, the Republican Governors Association or, in rare cases, the homepage of a particular state. No warranties as to accuracy.
2) Schools are again separated into professional schools and mother institution for reasons explained in Part 1.
3) All schools listed below have one sitting alumnus governor; if there is more than one, then the number is listed next to the name of the institution.
The data:
Albany Law School
Amherst College (Mass)
Babson College
Boston U Law
Brown U
BYU
California State U, Northridge
Columbia U
Columbia Law--2
Creighton U Law
Dartmouth
Duke U
Eastern Montana College
Fresno State U
Furman U (SC)
George Washington U
Georgetown Law
Harvard U
Harvard Business School
Harvard Law--4
Harvard (M.Ed.)
Harvard (Public Policy School)
Hamilton College (NY)
Indiana U
IU Law
Louisiana State
Middlebury College
North Carolina Central U Law
Northwestern U
Northwestern U (MBA)
Ouachita Baptist
Pepperdine Law
Princeton U--2
St. Mary's College (MN)
Santa Clara U
Seattle U
SW Missouri State U
South Dakota State U
Southern Utah U
Stanford U
Stephen F. Austin State U
Syracuse Law
Texas A&M
Trinity College
Tufts U
Tufts U School of Law and Diplomacy (Masters)
Tulane U Law
U Alabama
UC Berkeley
U Cincinnati Law
U Georgia (DVM)
U Idaho
U Kentucky
U Kansas (MPA--public administration)
U Maine
U Minnesota
U MN Law
U Mississippi
U MS Law
U Missouri
U MO Law
U North Carolina
U Oklahoma
OU Law
U Penn
U Texas
U Texas--MPA (public affairs)
U Wisconsin
U Wyoming Law
Villanova U
Villanova Law
U Virginia (MBA)
U VA Law
Utah State (Ed.D)
Wake Forest Law
Yale--3
Of 50 governors, 25 were born in a different state than one they govern.
Notes on the data:
>>Still a lot of diversity of institution there, folks.
>>As AH pointed out, Columbia Law school has the governorships of the two largest states: Pataki of NY and Davis of CA. (As far as I can tell, Pataki also wins the contest for hottest daughter.)
>>Harvard still hands out mad beat downs to the rest of the country, with 8 total degrees awarded (though Romney of MA did a joint JD/MBA, skewing the total a bit.) Yale also does well with 3 degrees. (Yale Law whiffs, though.)
>>UVA Law, kicking ass among Senators, scores only one governor: Napolitano of AZ.
>>The MBA is looking strong, with three govs (Romney, Sanford and Hoeven) holding one; and from top schools, as well (Harvard, Virginia and Northwestern (Kellogg)), respectively. US News Rank 1, 11 and 4, respectively. (Interestingly and probably unrelatedly, they are all Republicans.)
>>We have a PhD, folks. Or more accurately, an EdD. The holder: Guinn of NV. (While holding the highest degree, he did also major in PE; these things may act to cancel each other out.)
>>RE: geography, half of all the governors were born outside their state. One, Granholm of MI, was born in a foreign country (Canada) and two, Wise and Doyle, were born in DC. While this doesn't take into account where they were raised, it is interesting, as 74% of the current US Senate (see Part 1) was born in the state they represent, whereas here the percentage is 50%.
>>Also per geography: The 3 biggest states claim the birthplaces of 8 governors: 3 governors (Davis, Pataki and Napolitano) were born in NY, 3 in TX (Perry, Owens and Bush), and 2 in CA (Richardson and Kempthorne).
Conclusions: geography of birth seems less strong here than in the Senate--a surprise to me. Harvard and Yale do well; Harvard especially.
Posted by: CS / 9/18/2003 06:12:00 PM
The same people who accuse America of coddling dictators are sputtering with bilious fury because we actually deposed one.
AS usual, Lileks hits it on the head.
Posted by: CS / 9/18/2003 11:07:00 AM
9/17/2003
Gotta represent the CLS
Re: Schools, Geography and Success--Part 1
Hey, we may not have any Senators, but Columbia Law does have (until the 9th circuit says it's ok to vote) the governorships of two of the largest states - Davis of CA and Pataki of New York.
CS RESPONDS: OK, I'll do governors, too.
Posted by: Aaron / 9/17/2003 05:19:00 PM
Of MBA's And Men
Great post CS! I think you may be taking 614 to new heights - with [new! improved!] actual data [flavor baked right in].
I too have spent an inordinate amount of time scouring the biographical information of "people in important places" - casting about for clues, a template, a pattern which I can emulate in my quest to become one of the "great men".
My interest in the subject was tweaked when, as a fresh-faced frosh at OU, in my Intro to Poly Sci class, I was introduced to the works of one Mr. Thomas R. Dye. Specifically "