" /> Who Can Really Say?: August 2004 Archives

« July 2004 | Main | September 2004 »

August 31, 2004

Notice


Comments have been disabled on new posts, although I'm not sure about the old ones (which is most of the problem anyway, but I'm doing the best I can). I'll be on a 56K modem for most of the next 10 days and don't want the hassle of deleting comment spammers over a dial-up. When we're back, I'll figure out with the NetKungu Babes how to block it.

UPDATE: Aw, screw it! As it turns out the change I made only disables comments on new posts, and all of the spam is on posts that are weeks old anyway. I'll deal with it along the way I suppose.

So if you're interested in a place to buy cheap viagra for the next ten days, be sure to review the comments!

Posted by Peter at 9:39 PM |

Life Is Full Of Tradeoffs


Via Instapundit, Virginia Postrel comments on Giuliani's speech:
One could tell a similar story about crime in New York City. Giuliani probably assumed listeners would make the connection, though I'm not sure how many people outside New York did. (Based on what I saw on TV, pundits weren't providing much context.) The speech might also remind New Yorkers, especially those who dislike Bush, why, before 9/11, they may have disliked Giuliani. Stubornness is useful in the face of determined evil, but it also tends to run over innocent--or, in some cases, less guilty--bystanders.

When Giuliani talks about terrorism, I think he's right, and persuasively so. When he was making headlines with dubious Wall Street prosecutions--most famously of Michael Milken--I thought he was a dangerous fanatic. Even as mayor, I distrusted his authoritarianism. But like most people who prefer their streets clean(ish) and safe, I do prefer New York today to New York before Giuliani. Unfortunately, the two sides of his crime-fighting persona are inseparable.

What to make of all this? The usual lessons, I suppose: Life is full of tradeoffs. Power requires checks and balances. And you probably don't want John Lindsay fighting terrorism.

The most remarkable thing about the speech wasn't its content but how it was delivered. Giuliani spoke fluidly, but in an utterly conversational way, as though he had no text. Instead of trying for old-style oratory, which works for few contemporary speakers, he gave a model 21st-century performance. If you didn't see the speech, check out the video, available via this C-Span page.
Life is full of tradeoffs. I think I have a new proposed epitaph.

Posted by Peter at 9:35 PM |

August 30, 2004

Hoist, Meet Petard


Too busy, too rushed, but read this. In a way, VA has it's own McGreevey.

Posted by Peter at 10:08 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Conventional Blogging


I'm trying to eat dinner (late) and get other stuff done, but I'm astonished to have just witnessed Ron Silver, noted liberal actor, speak ardently in favor of Bush at the Republican Convention. I'll bet Jeff Jarvis likes it.

This will probably turn out to be a theme -- they've got Ed Koch's endorsement, and Zell Millers. (If that's not a Marvel Teamup I don't know what is.) Both have more political power than Ron Reagan's endorsement of Kerry, since that wasn't much of a surprise and in any case Reagan never won an election as a Democrat, never mind as a Democrat in NYC as Koch has.

But what's next? Ok, a Kennedy in-law (Arnold, later this week) but again, there's no surprise. But Caroline Kennedy would be a nice catch. I'm not holding my breath.

P.S. It's taken long enough for me to write this that they're now showing a very patriotic film about the armed services with a chorus singing in the background -- lot's a boats and ships cutting through the water, jets flying in tight formations, etc. Due to the Democratic Convention, I'm guessing it might be hard to say the GOP is overplaying this hand.

P.P.S. Since I'm getting more wordy than I intended, I'll add that the convention started off with the usual Pledge of Allegiance, National Anthem, etc. But then a group (I assume) of Broadway performers came on and performed a medley of Broadway Hits (Oscar and Hammerstein and Leonard Bernstein were heavily represented). My first reaction? What the F? Is it a political convention or an Awards Ceremony?

Posted by Peter at 9:20 PM | | Comments (0)

How to Blog


From Simon's World, a great post on how to blog.

Now if only someone would write a book like this about sex.

(Another free drink to Vodkapundit.)

Posted by Peter at 6:36 PM | | Comments (0)

Snacktime


I'm busy getting ready for vacation and so probably won't blog much for the next three days. But here's a quick link to a brief intro by Daniel Drezner to David Brooks's piece in the NY Times Sunday Magazine this week on the future of the GOP. Drezner whetted my appetite and the first half of Brooks's piece measured up. But the second half (or so) bogs down in a variety of policy proposals Brooks thinks the party should advocate. It's a smorgasbord and a bit much to digest.

Still it's worth at least a taste.

Posted by Peter at 6:16 PM | | Comments (0)

August 29, 2004

Amen Brother!


I live in the blue corner of a magenta state, and so it isn't a surpise that I don't know much about the oxymoronic musical form known as Christian Rock. Rob Long, in Slate, confirms my worst fears:
I've listened to my fair share of it, too?long drive across the country; busted iPod?and there's something so weird about it. It sounds like regular bad music when you first tune in. The lyrics always seem like regular bad music lyrics, too?"I feel your body next to mine/ And that makes my whole life shine"?but after a second or two you realize that they're singing about Jesus, not some girl named Mandy, and the whole thing just seems, well, creepy. Because rock music?and most other forms of entertainment, when you really think about it?is fundamentally about carnal desire. And Jesus, when you really think about it, is fundamentally not.

Which is all a long way of saying that I don't think I'm going to enjoy the "entertainment" portion of the Republican National Convention.
In light of my post yesterday I didn't appreciate the bit about the broken iPod. But I digress. More from Long on the entertainment-at-the-Convention angle:
I'm aware that I'm going to sound like one of those liberal Democrat media snobs?which is unfair, because I'm a conservative Republican media snob?but who are these people? I live in Venice, Calif., so I happen to know who Daize Shayne is?Google her yourself, if you're interested?but most of the other names are drawing big blanks. There are rumors, of course, that Britney Spears is a closet Bushie?which might be true; she's from Orlando, right??and we've all seen Ted Nugent's Republican spiel. But the sad truth is, the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that their celebrities are, like, actually famous and ours are, well, singing weirdly erotic songs about Our Savior.
Amen Brother!

Posted by Peter at 9:41 AM | | Comments (0)

August 28, 2004

Vacation Planning


This Thursday I'll be leaving at 2:30 AM to head off for the Block Island ferry landing in Point Judith, RI. By 9:00 AM that day I should be setting foot on the island discovered by Dutch explorer Adrian Bloch in the early 17th century. Remarkably, Googling Adrian Bloch gets me nothing to link to about that, but then by chance I found this bit:
Why Block Island? Formed by glaciers nearly 10,000 years ago, this seven mile long, three and a half mile wide micro-climate with an area of 11 square miles hosts a unique and precious community of flora and fauna?some flourishing, some rare?The Nature Conservancy calls one of the 12 last great places in the Western Hemisphere. Originally settled by the Manisses Indians, it was named after Dutch navigator Adrian Block, who stumbled across it in 1614, then occupied by a party of English from the mainland in 1661. The 6400-acre island population (1990), 836.
There's a map at the top of that page to help you locate the island. And the Google mystery is solved -- she misspelled his name "Block" instead of "Bloch". But you can find out a little bit more about Block Island here, the Block Island Times here, and a 360 degree panoramic view here. (I'll be staying near Southwest Point). While on the island several visits to Club Soda and other spots will be in order.

Preparations for the trip have been expensive. As I type I'm ripping music to load on my new 20gb iPod, which puts me in the class (not literally) of entering freshman at Duke University. I'm not nearly done ripping CD's, but by the time I am I should have something like 8-9 gigs of music (1400+ songs) that would play for 4-5 days straight through if the battery lasted that long.

Add in the cost of a used battery for the jinxed Powerbook G3 I've been trying to use all summer (delivery due on Monday from the estimable Powerbook Medic) and the cost to bring a car over on the ferry, and I'm down almost $500 without buying so much as a case of beer, never mind a lobster dinner that will enter into the mix eventually.

With the Powerbook and an Airport Express base station the house will be wired even though only to a local phone line, so I'm planning on sending some pics and blogging to some degree anyway while there.

In case you're wondering, I don't know shit about Macs generally, but there's an Apple saleslady enthusiast embedded in the household and hey -- the stuff works.

Posted by Peter at 5:05 PM | | Comments (0)

August 27, 2004

Gutenberg meets Blogs


Belmont Club quotes Editor and Publisher on the Media and the SwiftVets, and then has this to say:
The article is a candid and unconscious description of the actual nature of news. It is not just raw information or pixels pushed onto a screen, but a system of semantic entities: an series of information objects, containing properties and methods containing embedded logic, set loose on society. The power of the Mainstream Media lay in the fact that they controlled the generation of news objects; how they arose, what they did, how they ran their course. They were the news object foundry; able to make them "type safe"; define what they could do, and what they could not. . . .

So when the Swiftvets story shouldered its way into the public consciousness despite the best efforts of the "gatekeepers" to consign it to oblivion, it posed an existential challenge to the news foundries. For where one could come, more would follow. The Mainstream Media responded to accusations by Swiftvets that Kerry had misrepresented his combat record in Vietnam by creating their own alternative news object, whose methods were restricted to OutrageAgainstBush( ) and SympathyForKerry( ), with read only properties Responsible and Respectable. They could no longer block the data, but they could still transform it.

Yet for good or ill, the genie is out of the bottle. Before the Gutenberg printing press men knew the contents of the Bible solely through the prism of the professional clergy, who could alone afford the expensively hand copied books and who exclusively interpreted it. But when technology made books widely available, men could read the sacred texts for themselves and form their own opinions. And the world was never the same again.
The rest isn't long, and fleshes out the point quite well.

INSTANT UPDATE: Having been suitably impressed with the first Belmont Club post I'd read today, I come upon the next, so I might as well add this one to the pot:
John Kerry's troubles have largely been forced on him by the Democratic Party platform. He has been given the unenviable task of presenting it as the War Party when in fact it is not, nor does it want to be. The Democrats could have chosen to become a real anti-war party, in which case it would have nominated Howard Dean or it could have elected to become a genuine war party and chosen Joseph Lieberman. Instead it chose to become the worst of all combinations, an anti-war party masquerading as the war party. . . .

But the Democratic Party decided to package this man, who was decent on his own terms, in the most dishonest possible way: to use his Vietnam service to deodorize the monstrous fraud at the heart of their own platform. Kerry's problems with Swiftvets are not because his credentials as a warrior are insufficient. Rather they are because no credentials are sufficient to foist this bait-and-switch on the American electorate without exciting adverse comment.

If any proof were needed that the Sixties were dead, the subterfuge of the Democratic Party would be Exhibit A. Instead of running under their own colors, or barring that, changing them, they have decided to sail beneath a false flag, as if under a cloud of shame. That in itself is tacit admission that they can no longer walk in their own guise; and what is worse that they cannot look themselves in the face, nor go into battle daring to win nor willing to lose in their own name, as is the mark of men.
I'm on that page.

Posted by Peter at 9:29 PM | | Comments (0)

August 25, 2004

He's My Liar


Mark Steyn often nails the point home, and he does it again in the Jerusalem Post:
This is an election campaign, not a coronation ? though you may be confused on that point if you get your news from the Times and the networks. Let us stipulate that the snoots at the Times are right ? that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are a "Republican-financed group of partisans." Just as the handful of Swift boat veterans prepared to support John Kerry are a Democrat-financed group of partisans. After all, it seems unlikely that they're picking up their own hotel bills and air fares as they travel around the country as his loyal, if small, "band of brothers."

So both groups are "politically motivated." Good for them. That's what multi-party democracy is all about. The New York Times and CBS News are also "politically motivated." So is this column. It's a political column, and it's "politically motivated." One day I'll start a ballet column, and that will be balletically motivated.

So now that we've got all the preening patrician media snobbery out of the way, would it be too much to expect so-called political journalists to investigate Kerry's Cambodian stories? You know, the way they did when the comparatively minor question arose of whether Bush was AWOL from his National Guard base three decades ago. Boy, The New York Times loved that one:

February 4: "Military Service Becomes Issue in Bush-Kerry Race"

February 11: "The President's Guard Service"

February 13: "Seeking Memories of Bush at an Alabama Air Base"

February 15: "Still the Question: What Did You Do in the War?"

As the Times put it, "Mr. Bush himself also made the issue of military service fair game by posturing as a swashbuckling pilot when welcoming a carrier home from Iraq."

Well, the other feller made his military service fair game by posturing as a swashbuckling Swift Boat lieutenant to the exclusion of the other 59 years and eight months of his life. The story now is not John Kerry's weird secret-agent fantasies but the media's willingness to act as elite guardians of them. They're his real "band of brothers," happy to fish him out of their water, even if their credibility sinks in the process.
Well, actually Steyn almost does it again. What he misses (and he's not the only one who's done this) is that Kerry used his "seared . . . seared" memory of his presence in Cambodia to embellish his credibility while debating important foreign policy matters in the United States Senate. How so? Because he had been betrayed by President Nixon, so Kerry said, who Kerry'd heard on the radio while in Cambodia, denying that troops were there. Indeed, even were Kerry to ultimately prove he'd been in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, Nixon was not President then and and did not make the statements Kerry claims were made, at least not during Kerry's window of opportunity to be in Cambodia, meaning his entire 4 months of Vietnam combat duty.

But hey. Bush lied, people died, right? Or to put it another way, maybe that just makes Kerry's supporters protective because to them, he's "my liar".

[Linked to Beltway Traffic Jam.]

Posted by Peter at 7:43 PM | | Comments (6)

I was first! Really!


Back on the 17th I linked to Daniel Drezner's bit about why Ultimate Frisbee won't be in the Olympics anytime soon. Now, Drezner links to this from SI.com, and joins my thoughts on judged events:
One could argue that there is some degree of subjective judgment in any sport -- umpires calling balls and strikes, officials determining if a runner jumped the gun, etc. However, it is exceedingly rare for the subjective elements in these sports to overwhelm the objective components. In gymnastics or ice skating, the entire competition is based on subjective judgments.

This doesn't mean that judged competitions aren't exciting. Gymnastics, diving, ice skating can be entertaining, and they demand physical excellence -- but they're not sports.
So where does this leave me? Ahead of the curve, and loving it? Eh.

Dan, if you're looking for other subjects to blog about, feel free to mosey about the place. ;>

Posted by Peter at 6:52 PM | | Comments (0)

August 24, 2004

Can You Make this Stuff Up?


I can't.

For more on the Bizzarro world where Democrats extol the patriotic virtue of Vietnam service, try Christopher Hitchens, who isn't happy about it at all.

Posted by Peter at 9:53 PM | | Comments (0)

QT


Ladies Lady and gentlemen, may I present to you the blog of Quentin Tarentino.
In response to your other question, I had to delete some of the entries because my lawyer told me it wasn't wise to call a kid negatively influenced by PULP FICTION a "dumbass," and then create a "stupid rant with way too many fucks in it for your own good."

I apologize to those who read what I said yesterday, but I was a bit drunk in the evening. That's what happens I guess. It wasn't wise at all to post some of the bullshit I posted. No offense meant to anyone.
How am I supposed to ever grow a blog audience with stuff like this as my competition?

(Via Jeff Jarvis.)

Posted by Peter at 9:22 PM | | Comments (0)

August 23, 2004

Najaf and Fantasy


This is being linked to all over the place and I'll join the parade. Here's a soldier's story from Najaf.
No, I would not sacrifice myself, my parents would not sacrifice me, and President Bush would not sacrifice a single marine or soldier simply for Falluja. Rather, that symbolic city is but one step toward a free and democratic Iraq, which is one step closer to a more safe and secure America.
It's not hard at all to find similar statements from our service men and women in Iraq. And if Kerry's campaign was more like this, it would make him a 99% more credible choice come November. [Yeah, and if pigs could fly . . . .}

Posted by Peter at 7:10 PM | | Comments (0)

Just Win, Baby


Every candidate for public office has a backstory -- essentially a profile of the candidate's background -- a summary biography if you will. In local races it will go something like this. "Jane holds a degree in X and for the last 15 years has been active on the Zoning Board and then the Board of Education. She works as a Vice President for YZ Corp. and before that she ran a small business that sold widgets. Jane is married to John and they have 3 children." When I was a kid my Dad was a borough councilman. When he ran for re-election, Mom, Dad, and us 4 kids all posed for a picture to be used in campaign literature. There's your backstory.

The bigger the election, the closer folks look at the backstory, and the more elaborate it's likely to be. In a Presidential election, there's often a campaign biography with lot's of details. The idea is to help the voters get a measure of the candidate. And it should go without saying that it's common practice in politics to attack the backstory when able. It happened a bit to George H.W. Bush and to Bob Dole, to Al Gore and to Bill Clinton (no links to these two as I'm a) too lazy to find them and b) I take it for granted everyone remembers them).

Part of the problem with attacking the backstory is that there's no agreement as to what constitutes fair game. If Jane, above, had an abortion when she and John were in college, is that fair game? Does it matter if she's pro-life or pro-choice? What if she had a drinking problem last year, or 20 years ago? Does it matter how much time has passed? Does it matter if a DUI conviction was involved? The two parties (and the press) seem on some level to agree that some things don't get reported or attacked, but they can't agree on what they are because it's too tempting to take the first bite out of the opponent.

That's especially so as the dirt gets juicer. What if Bush was about to be court martialed because he went AWOL but it was all papered over with the helpful assistance of his Dad's friends? What if Kerry was a prima donna who used the angles and the slighest injuries to get his Purple Hearts and go home so he could start his political career?

Which brings us to Kerry and Bush, to medals and discharges. The rhetoric used to assert or defend the various claims would be hilarious for their hypocrisy if the stakes weren't as high as they are. Kerry is entitled to his Purple Hearts because he has the documents to prove it. Bush is entitled to respect for his service record because he has the honorable discharge to prove it. Or not, take your pick, and remember, points will be deducted for consistency. Meanwhile, the good government types (and we all are good government types, aren't we?) ask for some sanity.

No, what's really hilarious about it all is that we keep having these arguments as if they are fresh and new. They are not. They are as old as the first election. It is the purest of politics, an oil that lubricates the very machinery of elections. There is no standard, against which we can measure which attack is fair and which isn't because in politics, there is no fairness. There is only winning on election day.

[Shameless link to Beltway Traffic Jam.]

Posted by Peter at 6:43 PM | | Comments (0)

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum


Daniel Drezner links to some depressing interesting articles on both Kerry's and Bush's deficit, budget, and tax proposals.

Posted by Peter at 7:13 AM | | Comments (0)

August 20, 2004

SwiftVotes


I linked here and here to stuff on the SwiftVets ads and book about John Kerry's medals, etc. Things have heated up in the last few days as major media outlets are beginning to acknowledge the story exists.

Donald Sensing has an interesting post on the matter today. Sensing is a retired Army officer and has this to say about how medal citations and other reviews are often self-written:
The only thing I've heard or read Kerry reply that has any merit as a defense is that official Navy records back him against the SBVT's charges concerning his combat decorations. Whatever the actual merits of SBCVT's contentions, that defense is simply going to be too difficult to overcome in the public mind.

They say that Kerry wrote up his own recommendations for medals. Well, maybe, but so what? I once wrote my own officer efficiency report, the most critical document in an officer's advancement potential. I was told to do so by my rater. I wrote his narrative and my senior rater's narrative, too (a lieutenant colonel and a colonel). They read it and signed it without changing a word.

Anyone reading that OER will come away convinced that I was the greatest soldier since Achilles. Come to think of it, I recall writing the recommendation for one of my own medals, too, at direction of my commander, who read it and signed it.

This happens a lot more than you might think.
Fair enough. It's another example of why trying to pry votes away from Kerry with micro-attacks upon individual events thirty years ago is a loser. The SwiftVets may be right for all I know. But at this stage of the game, in this context, it ain't gonna fly.

But, Sensing is also right that there's one bit of all this that sticks to Kerry, and that's the bit about Cambodia. Major media remains silent on that point, but Kerry has referred at least several times, and critically, in his official capacity as a Senator, to the fact that while he was in Cambodia on a secret or illegal mission over Christmas in 1968, President Nixon was denying that American troops had crossed the border. Sensing quotes the crucial bit from the Congressional Record:
"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.

I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me, ...
Seared? To quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Anyway, even the Kerry camp, although not Kerry directly (yet), has backed off his claim of further international travel. They had to because a) Kerry wasn't in Cambodia and b) Nixon wasn't President in December 1968 and made no statements about troops in Cambodia for many months (I'm not sure but it might have been 1970) after taking office.

So, the problem with Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story is not that it isn't true, although it appears it isn't. The problem is that he used it to substantiate his arguments in the US Senate. This says it well:
Why does it matter? Because Kerry has said the Cambodia incident ? of being sent on a covert mission to "a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops" was "seared" in his mind and changed his view of America.

Team Kerry's excuse is that maybe he accidentally crossed the border or his time frame was fuzzy, but that just won't square with his passionate 1986 claim, on the Senate floor, that the Christmas memory was "seared ? seared ? in me."

Unlike the conflicts over Kerry's medals, this isn't a he said/he said dispute ? Kerry either was or wasn't in Cambodia. Eventually a reporter will ask him point-blank if he still claims he was in Cambodia that Christmas ? yes or no.

For sure, as the anti-Kerry Swift vets pointed out ? thus embarrassing every reporter who missed it for over a decade ? Kerry's statements were clearly false, since Nixon wasn't yet president in Christmas 1968. But adding Nixon sure embellishes the tale.
Instapundit has relentlessly blogged on both the Cambodia story and the failure of Major Media outlets to give it the coverage it deserves. He says it's because they want Kerry to win. I think he's right.

Posted by Peter at 7:15 PM | | Comments (0)

August 19, 2004

Link (Sort of) of the Day


I'd meant to blog tonight about my Unified Theory of Everything, but was happlily interrupted by a variety of interruptive events and occurences, the likes of which I was prepared to explain until I was yet again interrupted. All of the interruptions were the usual sort of thing -- no cataclysmic cataclysms or anything. Grand jury subpoenas were not involved.

But I've been posting regularly and it hasn't beean all that bad a habit, so tonight I'll simply leave you with this surreal link to America at War.

No promises. I might post again tonight. Who can really say?

Posted by Peter at 9:31 PM | | Comments (0)

August 18, 2004

Sitzpinkler


Yes, sitzpinkler is a real German word, at least according to Britain's Telegraph. It's meaning? "In German, the phrase for someone who sits and urinates, a "Sitzpinkler", is equivalent to "wimp"."

The context? Germans have purchased almost 2 million WC Ghosts, battery operated devices that attach to toilet seats. Upon lifting the seat, it emits a voice alarm warning the said Liftor that "stand-peeing is not allowed"!

What to do when confronted with the warning? On the one hand, I'd be tempted to piss on the gizmo itself until it started to smoke. On the other hand, I might just stand and piss with the seat down.

But while home anyway I piss sitting down a fair amount of the time. The casual unassuming reader might wonder whether this means I shit a lot too. Au contraire. As it happens, given the floorplan, I can, say, watch a Yankees game, have Jeter at the plate with no one out and men on first and third, and avoid hopping from one foot to the other while balls are fouled off right and left by simply walking into my bathroom and sitting down to piss, which allows me to a) avoid the noise that would drown out the play-by-play and b) actually watch the game through the open door of the bathroom in a comfortable seated position.

I highly recommend keeping such floorplan considerations in mind when buying a house.

Posted by Peter at 7:29 PM | | Comments (0)

Alternate Take


From Brothers Judd:
Indeed, the only incumbent American presidents to inspire genuine hatred from their opponents--FDR, Nixon, Reagan & Clinton--all won re-election rather easily.

Posted by Peter at 7:06 PM | | Comments (0)

August 17, 2004

Synchronized Politics


Daniel Drezner explains why Ultimate Frisbee will never be an Olympic sport.

That's a shame because there's been no shortage of bloat in new Olympic Sports. Without doing a thorough survey, let me pick on Synchronized Diving.

I'll start by saying that I'm hard pressed to find any Olympic sport that doesn't involve a high degree of athletic talent, and I'll even include table tennis. But table tennis, as an example only, has a virtue that synchronized diving does not -- you see, it's an actual competition -- you know, where the athlete wins because they score more points, lift more weight, run faster, jump higher, that sort of thing. The athletic talent is joined to a contest involving that talent, and the one who wins the contest is deemed the best athlete because of their very athleticism. We don't score table tennis by who looks the best hitting or returning the ball.

Synchronized diving, and gymnastics, and figure skating, etc., don't work this way. What they share in common, instead, is that the athlete who wins achieves victory by getting the most votes. The athletic ability (difficult coordinated contortions in the air for example) is not connected to anything other than who looks the best doing it. The top ballet dancers are also top athletes but ballet isn't (yet) an Olympic sport. Why should looking good doing something be an end in itself? The answer, of course, is that there's no way to actually connect synchronized diving in a meaningful way to such a contest, so we've made that way up by concocting the "judge". It's all done for the judges.

As bad as it is making up a competition to justify it's very existence, synchronized diving is worse. Diving in itself is problematic, but why should only two divers make up the new sport? Why not two dozen? (We could call it Esther Williams Diving!) Why not Parallel Parallel Beams, with two gymnasts? We have doubles skating, but why not "synchronized" skating? How about synchronized scarf waving rythmic gymnastics?

There are many things that require a high degree of athletic skill, but not all of those skills can be connected to a contest who's outcome is dependent upon them. Run faster, jump farther, throw something longer, combine athletic skill in a team sport to score more points -- all of these things can be measured, and when it's all done we know who won and why. But everything athletic is not sport, and the Olympics becomes increasingly ridiculous by ignoring the fact that neither is competing for votes. That's called politics.

Posted by Peter at 9:38 PM | | Comments (1)

Setting the World Straight


The Olympics aren't political, nor is the NY Times. And Jeff Jarvis is Mark Spitz.

Posted by Peter at 6:30 PM | | Comments (0)

Yvonne Craig? Alicia Silverstone?


With the Yankees playing in Minnesota for the next three nights, I'll be reading a very clever blog by a Twins fan, Batgirl. Definately worth the visit.

(Via Baseball Musings.)

UPDATE: I posted this last night in full brain fart mode. The title has been corrected.

Posted by Peter at 7:41 AM | | Comments (0)

August 16, 2004

Vote, and Vote Often


A few weeks back I was in an email debate exchange with a friend over whether Foul Evil Bush "stole" the FL election by denying thousands of Blacks the vote via the infamous felon's list, which was used to purge convicted felons from the voter rolls and suffered from false positive hits. So having recently visited that canard, when I read Bob Herbert's column this morning in the NY Times I figured to write something about it tonight.

Herbert recounts how some Storm Troopers State Police (from the FL Departement of Law Enforcement, which reports to Jeb Bush!) have "gone into the homes" and "interrogated" some elderly voters as part of what he calls (but never explains why) an "odd 'investigation'". Neither does he explains what's odd about investigating potential voter fraud involving absentee ballots in the recent Orlando mayoral election.

But I'm late (enough) to the parade that instead I'll refer you to Joe Gandelman's bit on it, where an update catches James Joyner saying about what I wanted to say.

Oliver Willis, though, buys it all hook, line, and sinker:
If you guys keep trampling on our right to vote, we won't even consider voting for your party, let alone actually voting for you.
Does he really mean that black's right to vote is dependent upon voter fraud?

Posted by Peter at 6:59 PM | | Comments (3)

Anarchists for Kerry!


You can't make this stuff up.

(Via Eugene Volokh.)

Posted by Peter at 5:46 PM | | Comments (0)

August 13, 2004

Squeal Like a Pig


Outside the Beltway on income taxes.
We actually commissioned a government study to demonstrate that, given an across-the-board tax cut, the people who pay the most taxes are going to get the biggest cut? That a guy who pays more than $57,000 a year in federal income taxes gets a bigger cut than a guy who only earns $57,000 a year? Really?

Further, if the guy making $57,000 a year gets a tax cut of $1090, does he really think it's a tax hike because he's now paying a slightly higher share of the overall tax burden than he once was?
I partly disagree with the last point. I think the guy who makes $57,000 a year ought to keep an eye on the tax burden paid by his income grouping because it's the only objective way to measure the re-distributive effects of a progressive tax system such as ours over time.

There are many ways to measure taxation -- the most direct way is to ask "how much did they take out of my paycheck this time?" or "how much did I pay in taxes this year".

But that's not the only way to look at it. The $57,000 guy is in the middle quintile of incomes. That quintile paid 10% of all federal income taxes in 2001 (as the first Bush tax cuts went into effect), and it is expected to pay 10.5% of all income taxes in 2004, which is after both tax cuts. But if there had been no Bush tax cuts, it would have paid 10.3% of all income taxes in 2001 (more than the 10% it paid with the cuts) and would have been expected to pay 10.4% in 2004 if not for those cuts. So let's see, paying 10% instead of 10.3% is good, right? But paying 10.5% as opposed to paying 10.4% is bad. See the table here.

Jeebus! It was all about screwing the middle class after all! One tenth of one percent! Sqeal like a pig, boy!

Not as such. The fact is, everyone is paying lower taxes under the Bush tax cuts, not just the rich. And the fact also is that if the top income earners are paying a percent of taxes that is disproportionate to their income share, then when you cut taxes they are going to get the biggest part of the tax cut. And finally, no one can predict the precise percentage share from year to year paid by any one grouping. To suggest that Bush could fine tune these results to the degree that he was able to increase the middle-class's tax burden by a huge 0.10% requires one to credit him with having a cerebral cortex, and we know how hard that is to do. Nah, I think he's just lucky.

Posted by Peter at 9:25 PM | | Comments (1)

Puff the Magic Dragon

Randy Barnett represents medicinal cannabis interests in the case pending this fall before the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the government filed its brief in Ashcroft v. Raich, the medical cannabis case I have been litigating, which is now before the Supreme Court. It contained no surprises but it continues to be disappointing to witness a Republican administration so completely uninterested in federalism (just as it was disappointing when the Clinton Justice Department brought suit in equity to shut down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, another pro bono client of mine). I realize that disappointment is only an appropriate response if one expects something better or different, and I do know better. Federalism diminishes the power of whichever party controls the Congress or Presidency or both. (And elected Democrats apparently do not think they can afford to look soft on drugs.) But it is still sad--and yes even a bit disappointing--that neither of the two major national parties has any genuine convictions in support of a principal so central to our constitutional system.

As little Jackie Papers said, Amen. He did say that, didn't he?

Posted by Peter at 5:36 PM | | Comments (0)

August 12, 2004

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That


[Again, deep, deep apologies for the entirely inadequate title at the top of this post. Those responsible have been sacked.]

Jim McGreevey resigned as Governor of NJ today to head off the disclosure, in a sexual harrassment lawsuit, that he's been having an affair with a man. He admitted he's gay, admitted the affair, apologized, etc.

It will be interesting to see how the gay angle plays out. There will be a lot said of his lifelong personal dilemna, but will it distract from this? Try some history. McGreevey met the guy several years ago on a trip to Israel, arranged his immigration to the US, and got him a job through Charles Kushner who today is under indictment for soliciting blackmail of a witness against himself in a federal prosecution. Upon being elected Governor, McGreevey appointed his lover to be the State's chief anti-terror advisor, but the guy had to leave the job because he couldn't get a national security clearance from the Fed's as he wasn't a citizen. And there was always the question of his qualifications for the job in the first place. So he then got jobs from other bigtime McGreevey supporters but left them or was fired for not showing up for work. Let me try it this way -- McGreevey was involved in a long-term affair with a male bimbo -- a Mimbo -- and he covered up for it, spent the State's tax money on it, even gave the guy an incredibly important job he wasn't qualified to hold. And now we find out about it because the Mimbo got pissed off that McGreevey wasn't what -- forking over the cash? Finding him another job? Wouldn't divorce his wife?

So I ask you, take all of the male pronouns and references regarding the boyfriend out of the last paragraph -- change them to the female. Is it any better? Would he have still not resigned? No -- there's no difference in this sense. Oh, if you want to make something of the gay angle well then have at it -- but he'd still be gone for all too many good reasons even if it had been a woman.

McGreevey's hand must have been forced for him to make the announcement now. If he leaves office after Septemeber 15 a Democratic Senator will be Acting Governor until a new election is held in 2005. If he leaves office before then, a special election will be held in November to fill the remaining year in his term. But McGreevey is on the spit now, and the coals are hot. What's the basis for thinking that he can, will, or should stay office for another three months, or even three weeks?

Posted by Peter at 10:19 PM | | Comments (0)

August 11, 2004

Indeterminate Breakfast Meat Visage

Scrappleface.

Posted by Peter at 8:48 PM | | Comments (0)

Jarvis Can Really Say, That's Who


Jeff Jarvis has tapped out the blogger in me today. After this I'm done. Besides, I've got stuff to do and the Yankees will be on in an hour.

Three days ago I linked to him, I did it a few minutes ago, I got the postage stamp bit from him (and Vodkapundit), but after this one I'm done. To follow up on the link on the 8th, Jarvis has an even better post on Red and Blue, a polity divided, etc. Must read stuff.

Posted by Peter at 7:12 PM | | Comments (0)

Vanity, Thy Name is Consumer


Vanity license plates have been around now for a couple of decades I'm guessing. But vanity postage stamps?

Next up -- we'll be able to take a blank box of Wheaties off the shelf at the store and have our picture printed on it at the checkout line.

Posted by Peter at 7:01 PM | | Comments (0)

On to Something


Jeff Jarvis has a different take than Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, on the Kerry Swiftboat debate. He quotes a Matt Welch comment critical of Reynolds, who responds to that here.

Me? I'm with Jarvis that we'd be better off paying more attention to the forest than the trees. Both forests have some pretty ugly trees in them afterall, and who knows, maybe this particular tree in the Kerry forest will become significant. It certainly looks diseased from several angles. But the whole forest itself is rather sparse too, and even if this tree turns out to be ok it isn't going to change my mind about what I think of the forest.

I really think we need to get over this whole military experience thing though. It's useful information, yes, but it isn't determinative -- if it were, we'd be finishing up the second Dole term right now, which would have followed a second Bush 41 term. And it isn't as if we don't have a Kerry record dating back 20 plus years that helps us understand where he's coming from on military and foreign affairs. Nor is there a shortage of things we can look at in the last 3.5 years to assess Bush. Even if you think Bush earned an honorable discharge, if you don't like his handling of the War, taxes, the economy, stem cells, abortion, etc., are you still supposed to vote for him? And if you think Bush is a liar about all of the above, are you going to vote for Nader if it turns John Kerry was never in Cambodia?

Hold it -- maybe I'm on to something here.

Posted by Peter at 6:45 PM | | Comments (0)

They Were For the Democrats Before They Were Against Them?


The recovering progressives support group has met again. I'm not sure, but twelve steps don't seem to be involved. Check it out.

Free drink to Vodkapundit.

Posted by Peter at 5:49 PM | | Comments (0)

August 10, 2004

Worldcomm Interruptus


Ok, I admit it. My paltry excuse for an imagination apparently defaults to bad latin parodies when a post title is otherwise beyond reach. At least there's a good pun in there, but I digress.

Blogging here was, let's say, impaired, around 9:00 AM today when Worldcomm threw a switch, or uploaded some data, or jostled something with their elbows and cut off the service to my ISP. (Extra credit to anyone who can tell me where the "jostling with elbows" comment comes from.) Commonly, an outtage like this might have caused concern or inconvenience. But despite the occasional Google hit from "gunners palace", Who Can Really Say? remains essentially undiscovered.

My inconvenience truly attained a marginal degree when I got home from work and the outtage remained. Just before leaving for work this morning I'd gotten an email notifying me that new comments had been left to a post from almost 3 weeks ago. My first comment spammer!! I was making the big time and the damn blog was down! On coming home I wanted to delete the spam but couldn't for the very same reason that no one could read the spam. I'm so torn.

No, the real inconvenience was suffered by the NetKungfu Babes who thoughtlessly thankfully host this blog, and who's day was scrambled by the total interruption in their business. Obviously things have been made right by the movement of servers from one place to the other, etc. etc. So goes the life of the internet.

Posted by Peter at 9:56 PM | | Comments (0)

August 9, 2004

Legends and Monsters


Fay Wray has died at 96. From the NY Times obit:
Over the years, Miss Wray said, she came to feel that Kong had "become a spiritual thing to many people, including me."

"Although he had tremendous strength and power to destroy, some kind of instinct made him appreciate what he saw as beautiful," she said in a 1993 interview. "Just before he dies, he reaches toward me, but can't quite reach. The movie affects males of all ages. Recently, a 6-year-old boy said to me, `I've been waiting to meet you for half my life.'"
I've already referenced my previous experience as a child today and I don't want to make it a habit. But if you were a kid in the 60's before VCR's, you kept your eye out for a King Kong listing in TV Guide. For me it was that, and for some reason, The Giant Behomoth. The IMDB entry for that movie:
Director Eugene Lorie (along with co-director Douglas Hickox) attempted to repeat the succes of Lourie's earlier hit, `Beast from 20,000 Fathoms'. To a small degree they succeeded with this English-made sci-fi thriller about a four footed, amphibious dinosaur on the loose in London.

The basic similatities between `Beast from 20,000 Fathoms' and `The Giant Behemoth' are by no means coincidental, since Eugene Lourie not only directed but wrote the screen play for `Behemoth'.

The animation is the best non-Harryhausen work done during the 1950s (with the exception of `The Black Scorpion'). The model is detailed and well designed (unlike those in `The Lost Continent' and `Dinosaurus').

Willis O'Brien (King Kong's creator) did much of the animation, although reports say he was rushed to get it finished. The results, however, are still enjoyable for fans of stop motion. Admittedly the monster looks pretty silly when it swims underwater -- but the minisub they send down after the monster is even sillier, so forget about taking THAT part too seriously.
Heh. And I don't remember "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" at all. Shows you what I know.

Oh -- and I forgot Mighty Joe Young, which was right up there too.

Posted by Peter at 9:34 PM | | Comments (0)

I'm Not Worthy

Instapundit collects some good stuff, and post some emails he's received, about the Kerry Swiftboat brou ha ha.

Posted by Peter at 8:46 PM | | Comments (0)

Democratus Ostrichus


The LA Times reports that John Kerry's plan to get international aid and support for Iraq is well, not getting much aid and support from the nations that are supposed to well, give the aid and support.
Kerry in recent appearances and interviews has been intensifying his effort to spotlight what he sees as the Bush administration's mistakes in Iraq ? especially the failure to broaden international involvement ? as a fundamental difference between the two candidates. But Kerry's proposals depend on changing the minds of foreign leaders who do not want to defy their electorates by sending forces into what many consider to be a U.S.-made mess.

"I understand why John Kerry is making proposals of this kind, but there is a lack of realism in them," Menzies Campbell, a British lawmaker who is a spokesman on defense issues for the Liberal Democratic Party, said in a typical comment.
This is news? Well, to be fair, I suppose it is, at least to a variety of Americans, primarily the Democratus Ostrichus, a form of donkey that can actually bury it's head in the sand.

Posted by Peter at 8:41 PM | | Comments (0)

Wine is where the heart is


Todd Zywicki at Volokh writes about the "Wine Wars", also known as the sale of wine over the internet.
What about underage drinking? This may come as a shock to Conspiracy readers (who certainly would never have done such a thing in their younger days), but apparently some kids these days are able to buy beer and wine at the local 7-11, notwithstanding the vigilent efforts of the sleepy, hourly-wage sales clerk behind the counter at 11:00 p.m. Friday night. In fact, studies show that minors can fairly routinely purchase alcohol from traditional bricks-and-mortar sellers.

Does this mean that minors will be buying Pinor Noir over the Internet? Probably not. The FTC surveyed liquor enforcement officials in several states that permit direct shipping and they reported few, if any, problems with direct shipping leading to increased underage access. This is not surprising, of course, as intuition tells us that minors are not likely to get a hankering for a perky Merlot, swipe their parent's credit card, order wine on-line, and have it shipped to them for arrival several days later, and to make sure that there is some adult at home to sign for the package when it arrives.
Which brings me back to 1968, as my parents approached their 20th wedding anniversary. Us kids decided to chip in a few quarters and nickels, etc. and buy Mom and Dad a bottle of wine for their anniversay. The local liquor store actually delivered, and for all I know they ran monthly accounts for their customers. I was elected among us kids to be the one to place the phone call and make the order. At the age of 12 and a half, I'd won my first and last election. The call went something like this:

Me: I want to order a bottle of wine (I have no idea how I decided what wine I wanted, but I told him).

Clerk: Sorry kid. We can only sell you wine if you're over 21.

Me: Yeah I know, but it's for my parent's anniversary.

Clerk: Nice try but you're a kid.

Me: Mom! (calling out which was probably more like yelling loud enough for the whole house to hear) -- Can you help me out here?

The surprise was trashed, but the sentiment was appreciated, and the bottle of wine was delivered as planned after my mother told the guy it was ok.

So regardless of how this internet wine sale thing works out, I'm all in favor of an anniversary gift exception for kids.

Posted by Peter at 7:20 PM | | Comments (0)

August 8, 2004

Wright Flyer

We went to the Franklin Institute today. Saw the Wright Flyer, which was pretty cool. But I'd say I'm disappointed that I learned more about the plane from the Institute's website than I did from visiting the museum (other than actually seeing it, that is).

Anyway, here's another excellent bit from Jeff Jarvis.

UPDATE: One of my housemates took some pics of the visit to the Franklin Institute. And check out her blog's main page (scroll down) to see some cool 3D renderings she plays with.

Posted by Peter at 8:50 PM | | Comments (0)

August 7, 2004

We Contort, You Ascribe

Alvin, the venerable deep sea sub in operation for 40 years, will be retired.

From the AP:

The name Alvin was bestowed whimsically by scientists amused by a popular song featuring a singing chipmunk. Some have suggested the new vessel be named for one of that chipmunk's companions, Simon or Theodore.

From the NY Times:

Alvin's name is derived from that of Allyn Vine, the Woods Hole scientist who largely inspired it.

Developing . . . .

Posted by Peter at 6:45 AM | | Comments (0)

August 5, 2004

Help! Help! I'm Being Repressed


There's a general sense that's grown up over the last 30-40 years that everyone ought to be free from discrimination by anyone against anyone for anything , and here's a great example of how the entire notion is often so badly misunderstood.

In Orlando, a woman has been fired from her job at a company owned by Muslims, because she violated a company policy -- she brought "unclean" meat (a/k/a pork) to work for lunch and ate it in the company cafeteria. She'd been warned not to do it, but a BLT broke the proverbial camel's back. (Sorry for the obvious and trite metaphor but I couldn't resist).
Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.

However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.

Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean," Local 6 News reported. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.

"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.

"Yes," Morales said.

Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"

" Yes," Morales said.

Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.

Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.

However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.

"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.

"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."
Being the solid American that she is, Morales has filed a lawsuit.
Orlando attorney Mark Nejame is close to the Muslim community, Local 6 News reported. He said Kweli's intentions may cross constitutional parameters, according to the report.

They're making it seem that if you don't follow a certain set of religious practices and beliefs then you're going to be terminated and that's wrong," Nejame said. "If this case prevails, what it will mean -- the implications of this case -- is it will eliminate accommodations of religion."
No, it won't. Morales is Catholic. If her religion required her to eat pork, then she'd have a case. But just because Catholicism has no rule against eating pork doesn't mean she must be accomodated by allowing her to do it.

Eugene Volokh explains:
There are a couple of good reasons for this. First, a contrary rule would itself be religious discrimination. If a secular employer is free to fire an employee for violating the employer's secular views about morality or decency (e.g., a secular employer fires an employee for adultery, for homosexuality, or for eating dog meat, which the employer finds disgusting or immoral), that's not illegal religious discrimination. There's just nothing religious there. Likewise, a religious employer should be equally free to fire an employee for violating the employer's religious views about morality or decency (e.g., for adultery, for homosexuality, or for eating pig meat).

We all have a sense of right or wrong, a sense of which lines should be crossed. Are religious one's the only one's that can't be crossed?
Second, for deeply religious employers, most of their decisions may be influenced by the employer's religious faith. If an employer fires an employee for treating coworkers unfairly, for being lazy, or even for theft, the employer's reasoning might be colored or even dictated by the employer's religion. If such religious influence made the employer's action into religious discrimination, religious employers would be highly constrained (again, in ways that secular employers would not be).

Now the firing may well be foolish, arbitrary, or unfair in the eyes of non-Muslims (or even of many Muslims), just as many people find firing based on sexual orientation to be foolish, arbitrary, or unfair. It may be the sort of thing that very few secular employers would do. But as a general matter, employers are still legally allowed to fire people even based on foolish, arbitrary, and unfair reasons, so long as they're not discriminating based on the employee's race, religion, sex, and other such attributes. So it seems that this employer was acting within its legal rights.
The notion that's slowly taking hand is that if I don't practice your religion, then your religious actions/beliefs can never affect me, because if they do, then my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are necessarily infringed. But taken to it's extreme, the notion that no act or law can be based upon religious motivations would require us to repeal the laws against murder and theft. (You know, the Ten Commandments and all that stuff.) But if you think about it, which religion isn't against murder or theft? Aren't they all? And if that's true, then it would only be those few who are non-religious, and who's moral conscience was also ambivalent to murder and theft, who would be affected. You know, murderers and thieves, that type. And so, to make certain the religious freedom of these people was not infringed, we'd have to repeal the laws against murder and theft, right?

Posted by Peter at 9:57 PM | | Comments (0)

August 4, 2004

Who will win?


In the NY Daily News, Zev Chafets writes that Bush will win in November. He starts with a wonderful anecdote I'd heard before.
In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. "How could that be?" she demanded. "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon."
Heh heh heh. Anyway, he goes on:
John Kerry is not a bad man. He probably wouldn't make a bad President. But he is a bad candidate in a terrible situation. He represents the wing of the Democratic Party that is imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority. In short, he is the standard bearer for the unbearable.

These people don't comprise a majority of the electorate or even Democratic voters (how could they and remain an elite?), but they have convinced themselves that they and their candidate - if packaged properly - will prove irresistibly attractive to lesser Americans.
I appreciate where he's coming from but talk is cheap, even if it's a funny anecdote or a fair assessment. There's no shortage of this talk from either side (although I'm too lazy to track down the links) about how victory is surely at hand because the opponent's failures are so obviously apparent. Blah blah blah blah blah.

Chafets handles the Democrats. I want to handle the GOP, who's fans seem to me to have the confidence of Baltimore Colts supporters on the eve of Super Bowl III. But it's now late in the 3rd quarter and the team is behind, yet not out of it. There's a sense that Unitas will soon play (the GOP Convention will kickoff the real campaign) and success will be at hand. Well it didn't work out that way for the Colts although it might have. And it can still work for the GOP's supporters too (this race is closer today than SB III was late in the 3rd quarter), but if their hand is as strong as they thinks it is, in a political sense, they why is the game still so close?

If you want to know who I think will win, click here.

Posted by Peter at 7:33 PM | | Comments (0)

August 3, 2004

Acts of Patriotism


I support a Constitutional Amendment that would read something like this:
Congress shall make no law with a title that is contrived to create a politically manipulative acronym, nor a law that otherwise has as it's title a phrase that suggests the law will indeed accomplish the statement in the title.
Perhaps I go to far. I mean, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did indeed obtain some civil rights, so maybe the second clause needs some work. But help me out here. The full name of the Patriot Act is (drum roll please): Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer if Congress's laws achieved half of the title's aspirations, with judge a tad less cynicism.

Be that as it may, Instapundit notes the first of a series on the Patriot Act at Law.com:
"The USA Patriot Act has become a brand," says Georgetown University Law Center professor Viet Dinh, who was instrumental in drafting the act as head of the DOJ's legal policy shop from 2001 to 2003. "Activists lump everything that is objectionable about the war on terror, anything wrong with the world really, onto the USA Patriot Act. No more than 10 percent of what people ascribe to the USA Patriot Act on any given day, is in the Patriot Act itself."
I wish I'd thought of that objection when I was opposing it. But while I think that the Patriot Act was a bad idea, and that most of it consisted of longstanding bureaucratic wishlists that had little to do with fighting terror, I also think that we still haven't seen any sort of very useful analysis of what has worked and what hasn't. This article is a good start at unpacking the debate, but we need much more.
I think he's right, especially about the what has worked and what hasn't part.

Posted by Peter at 9:00 PM | | Comments (0)

Lorena Who?


South African newspapers have the best stories.
A migrant worker from Myanmar cut off his penis on Friday after drinking himself into a rage when his wife refused him sex, Thai police said.

Po Dong, 29, a dock worker at the Thai port of Samut Prakan, attempted intercourse with his wife, Kate, on Thursday night.

When she refused he stayed up all night drinking whiskey and made another attempt on Friday, Samut Prakan Police Major Narong Simsawat said.

When this attempt at intimacy also was rebuffed, Po Dong flew into a rage and severed his penis with a pair of scissors. He then cut the severed member into several pieces and stabbed himself in the stomach while screaming abuse at his wife.

He was reported in serious but stable condition on Friday afternoon.
I'm figuring his wife thought the cutting into several pieces bit was a nice flair.

Posted by Peter at 7:38 PM | | Comments (0)

Make Megan Happy


Megan McArdle of Asymmetrical Information is starting a new blog (of sorts), Unpopular Culture. Her description of it?
What I wanted to do was give readers a place to read novels in serial. I got the idea from a service (now defunct) that used to email me sections of a great work every day, so you could read (for example) The Arabian Nights in five-minute chunks. When the service expired, it occurred to me that something like that would make a neat idea for a weblog. With the comments feature, I thought it would be kind of cool if it eventually turned into something like an online book club. But even if not, I think it's still pretty neat to have somewhere where you can go to spend a relaxing ten minutes reading a great classic work. . . .

The first book I chose is A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain, which has the triple advantages of being a) literature b) accessible to the modern reader and c) hilarious. You'll make this girl very happy if you check it out.
I have to admit I've never read it, but I've started. Make Megan happy.

Posted by Peter at 6:35 PM | | Comments (0)

Jeff of Orange


Read Jeff Jarvis:
Only I heard this news yesterday, too. And so what if some of what the terrorists gathered on that thankfully incompetent geek-jihadist's laptop was three years old? Does that mean they shouldn't tell us that these specific buildings have been and may still be under surveillance and then under attack?

Can't have it both ways, folks: Can't scream they they don't tell us what they know -- and then when they tell us what they know, it's not good enough for you. It's what they know. Can't scream that they're not connecting the dots and when they connect some, you scream because you don't like the picture it draws.

I'm no fan of Bush or Cheney. I think Tom Ridge is an incompetent dolt. I think John Ashcroft is a dangerous fanatic. But you don't hear me heh-heh-hehing this morning. You hear me thanking the lady at the security checkpoint for X-raying my loafers.

Enough with the gotchas. Enough with the demonizing. Enough with thinking that the bad guys are our guys. Enough with the naive, simplistic blame game.

I hated it when the right did all this to Bill Clinton: Bill and Hillary are evil, they said, and if we just get them out of the White House, heaven will be ours. And so I hate it when the left does this to George Bush: Dick and George are evil, they say, and if we just get them out of the White House, heaven will be ours.

Grow up.

Life isn't that simple. I hated Richard Nixon and wanted him out of office and think he was, indeed, a crook and pond scum. But I don't think that everything he did in office was maliciously motivated and evil. I hated Lyndon Johnson because he ran a war I hated and because I was young; I wanted him out of office and added my young, cracking voice to the mobs demanding that; yet I see now that LBJ also did great good. I don't much like George Bush or Dick Cheney but I don't think that they wake up every morning asking how they can ass-f* the world today. It's not that simple, folks.

Posted by Peter at 5:37 PM | | Comments (0)

August 2, 2004

On the Orange Alert Case


The latest Orange Alert in NYC, NJ, and Washington DC is the result of a lodestar find -- we captured the laptops of an Al Quaeda bad guy.

Rantingprofs noted the incisive interview of Tom Ridge on the Today Show this morning:
Secretary Ridge, meanwhile, appeared this morning on The Today Show. The sheer absurdity of some of the questions demonstrates some of the problems.

Matt Lauer asks about the quality of the intelligence since the "reliability" of intelligence has been called into question -- you know, on WMD and Iraq.

Wow, I suppose it's a good thing he asked that, since some of the audience probably wonders as well. But seeing as this alert is based on precisely the kind of intelligence everyone complains was missing on Iraq -- you know, the guy's actual laptop -- you'd think the answer might be, you know, kind of self-evident.

There was another question that I thought absolutely summed up the problem with media coverage of the War on Terror. Lauer goes through some of the kinds of intelligence they apparently have, elevators, location of security guards, ways to get past security, so forth, and says (incredulously): they are "walking in our midst as we go to work each morning."

Gee, ya think?
The Today Show is virtually unwatchable.

Posted by Peter at 8:19 PM | | Comments (0)

Declare the Pennies on Your Eyes

Matt Drudge is reporting that "REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS". Someone should tell him to stop teasing.

Seriously, he leads with that headline, and in the first paragraph says that a "centerpiece" of a "BUSH/GOP" 2nd term agenda will be replacing the income tax system with a national sales or value added (VAT) tax.

The rest of the article, though, refers to a book coming out this week by House Speaker Dennis Hastert in which, it appears, Hastert will advocate just such a change. But there's a big leap from a politician's book that's probably no better than something off a vanity press (most of them aren't) to a policy proposal or a presidential party platform plank. Oh wait. Last I checked there was no difference.

There's so much wrong with the way we collect federal income taxes now that any shot at the system or the IRS is easy, if not sometimes even cheap. To gather support though, any change would have to be revenue neutral, and a straight sales tax or VAT doesn't do that. Outside the Beltway, I think, gets it right:

Even a somewhat progressive consumption tax--perhaps excluding food and medicine and taxing certain "luxury" items at a higher rate--would still result in lower income people paying substantially more federal tax than they do now (most pay none under the current system) and would be a tax cut for the super rich who, despite the rhetoric coming out of Boston last week, pay a grossly disproportionate share of the tax burden.

Certainly, though, such a proposal would shake up the campaign. Getting rid of the IRS would be a very popular idea, indeed. I don't think it could survive the demagogic reaction that would surely follow, however.

And it's so easy to demonstrate this (that the proposal would alter the distribution of tax burdens) that I'll be surprised if Bush is so stupid to pursue it, at least in the form it's being presented by Hastert in the quotes by Drudge.

Posted by Peter at 7:47 PM | | Comments (0)

August 1, 2004

Sunday Baseball


I went trolling around some baseball blogs this morning and was reminded that Phillies fans should be visiting Mike's Baseball Rants.

And from Mike I found Rich's Weekend Baseball BEAT. Earlier in July Rich started posting a series on the original Bill James Baseball Abstracts, reviewing and excerpting them one at a time. He's completed the first four Abstracts (1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980) so far. I bought the 1982 Abstract in May of that year and was instantly hooked. I own them all plus a few other James' books, some not seen here.

P8010822.jpg

Next, pictures of my sock drawer. Anyways . . .

Rich quotes from the '79 Abstract:
. . .You will note, if you read carefully, that I often use mechanical metaphors. I am a mechanic with numbers, tinkering with the records of baseball games to see how the machinery of the baseball offense works. I do not start with the numbers any more than a mechanic starts with a monkey wrench. I start with the game, with the things that I see and the things that people say there. And I ask, ?Is it true? Can you validate it? Can you measure it? How does it fit in with the rest of the machinery?? And for those answers, I go to the record books.

What is remarkable to me is that I have so little company. Baseball keeps copious records, and people talk about them and argue about them and think about them a great deal. Why doesn?t anybody use them? Why doesn?t anybody say, in the face of this contention or that one, ?Prove it. Baseball?s got a million records and if that is true you can prove it, so prove it.? Why do people argue about which catcher throws best, rather than figure the catchers? records against base-stealers? I really don?t know.

But that, essentially, is what I do. I hope you like it. But if not, your money will be expeditiously [my emphasis] refunded.
That's really all James is about. Remember that the next time you hear some idiot baseball announcer or columnist dump on him, or Billy Beane, or Theo Epstein. And no, I don't count Joe Morgan among idiot baseball announcers. I wouldn't want to insult the idiots.

Posted by Peter at 11:09 AM | | Comments (0)