rftr.blogspot.com

So it's come to this

2007-04-01T01:45:00.000-04:00

It's not like I have a lot of readers these days, but I still feel an obligation to let you all know what's what.

I've been posting here for over three years. Before that, I started posting at diet coke for breakfast, and at Elm and Ivy. Along the way I've brought some other people into blogging. And perhaps my proudest achievement has been teaming up with The Man, and eventually several others, to create Blogs4Bauer, which I'm pleased to say is still going strong, even though 24 has been pretty lame this year.

At times, I was a prolific blogger, putting up as many as 10 posts a day. More recently, I've been an absentee blogger, going weeks without any new content. It was exciting for a while to have my brother, tanstaafl, join me over here—but he's starting a new job this week, and will have next to no time to contribute.

For my part, I've been swamped at work. I also have my political obligations, and I'm now on the board at my church. When you get right down to it, I just haven't had the time that this blog requires in order to be worth continuing. I tried to get around that fact with my F'ed Up Fridays feature, which was fun for a while. But recently, even that has been too time-intensive.

Political blogging is hard work. The market is saturated, and in order to keep it interesting, you've got to put in the work. You have to find interesting topics, and you have to do the requisite research in order not to sound like an idiot. And it has to be fun.

For a while, I had so many things I wanted to post about, and just not enough time to do it—that was enough to keep me going. More recently, however, I'm even having trouble making the time to find topics that are interesting to me. That means it's no longer fun. I'm burnt out on politics, and it shows. And it's burnt me out on blogging about politics.

So, I've decided to shutter RFTR.

If there are any topics I just can't pass up, I may throw up a post here now and then. And maybe someday I'll be back full time. For now, I just can't do it anymore.

In closing, I want to thank my friends. Of course, everyone from diet coke for breakfast, particularly tanstaafl and Jake, for getting me started. I've thoroughly enjoyed my political blogging, and that's the only reason I'm bowing out now that it's become a chore.

To all of the rest of my friends, thank you.

The Man, thanks for being a constant friend and providing a perfect example of how to bow out of this when it's not fun anymore. We'll still be in touch, of course, and I look forward to having more time to contribute to B4B. Wyatt, I plan to continue supporting my local gunfighter, and of course continue working with you at B4B. The Boy, you're my only blogging AND facebook friend, so of course you won't get rid of me that easily. Jenn, even though we haven't been talking as much recently, I still enjoy your near-constant righteous indignation. Maybe now I'll be able to call into your radio show more often. I'm lucky enough to get TNNBG's precious little rants by email as well, and I look forward to those continuing. Dave, we also haven't been talking as much recently—but I still love what you have to say, and hope we can get back in touch as time goes on. GaijinBiker, I sincerely miss your wit and wisdom, and hope you return soon. Oh, and that your marriage works out well for you, too. Kobayashi, you're an inspiration—I'm not sure what else I can say. SarahK, we've had our ups and downs, but you're always entertaining. And I still intend to drive you nuts with my skepticism. Jim, I still fully intend to harass you on googletalk every chance I get. The same goes for you, Pam. Exile, I'll see you in a few weeks. And Renee, you know I'll always be reading. And overly critical.

Is that everybody? I hope so. If I forgot you, please don't take offense.

To my readers: it's been great having you along, and if I ever get back into this, I hope that you'll find me again. In the meantime, feel free to contact me at rftr.blogger@gmail.com, and I'll be glad to provide my indignant perspective on the issues of the day.

I wish you all the best.

Sincerely,
RFTR

Yeesh

2007-03-30T12:44:00.000-04:00

Watch this whole thing, and then read this.

This is the problem with debates like these. Rosie gets flared up and is just spouting nonsense that someone else spewed to her and she took as fact. What's my first inclination? To look up the melting point of steel. What's hers? To invoke Yale and Harvard in a way that she never honestly intends to follow up on.

Ridiculous.

F'ed Up Fridays - XIV

2007-03-10T15:34:00.000-05:00

Kill them before they kill you.

The mom is right. And now the daughter will pay the consequences. It's really a pretty simple system: bad choices mean bad consequences, good choices mean good consequences.

And when the internet wakes up, you'll never see your car again.

Strippers are all thieves at heart.

Sure, that's what we should be doing—celebrating this guy. Somebody tell him to put the cookie down.

So, what, now we're counterfeiting our own money?

Don't forget about their headaches!

What a waste.

F the French.

Be careful, or you'll wind up with sawdust in places you never knew you had.

Number of hips liable to be broken? Four. (Thanks to Wyatt)

-----
Sorry for the short post and lack of pictures. As I said earlier, I've had a tough week and didn't have a lot of time to surf for FuF this week. Plus, none of you are helping much with the submissions, so quit your complaining and get to work, ya lazy bums.

Delay of Game

2007-03-09T13:41:00.000-05:00

F'ed Up Fridays has been delayed. Due to a killer week, I just haven't had the time to pull the post together.

No worries, though—I have the material and will be posting it either this evening or first thing tomorrow morning.

Of course, that also means you have time to get in your own submissions.

Government Sucks—Figure it Out

2007-03-07T13:13:00.000-05:00

Ron Bailey, via Instapundit, points out an important fact about the Walter Reed scandal:

You Wonder What Universal Government Health Care Might Look Like....

Well, look no further than the scandalous mess at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Crappy hospitals, endless waits, mountains of paperwork and, at the end of the day, no real accountability from the people who run the joint. Folks, if the government can't or won't take good care of our injured soldiers, what makes you think that it will take good care of little Sally or Uncle Bill?

There are very few things that government does well, and even fewer that government does better than the private sector.

We have been conditioned—by politicians who either hope to consolidate their own power or are so narcissistic that they think they (and only they) have the solutions to the world's problems—to think that government is a force for good, acting only to better society and to provide what the cold, cruel private sector does not.

There is such a thing as a market externality—these are the problems that the market will not act to solve, and result in situations where government truly is the only solution.

But the simple fact is that healthcare is as screwed up as it is today because of government intervention and regulation and the unfettered right to sue a doctor for pretty much anything.

Even for all of these problems, however, we have the best healthcare system in the world. We provide the kind of medical expertise that is not available anywhere else in the world. Sure, there are some treatments you can't get in the United States that you can get elsewhere—but we can easily boast the best doctors in the world. Furthermore, we do not have long waits for surgery—think it happens like that in countries with universal coverage? Not bloody likely.

F'ed Up Fridays - XIII

2007-03-02T13:26:00.000-05:00

3 VWs for under 17,000!

Um. Really??? Somehow I doubt it.

This may be the perfect news story. (Thanks to Wyatt.)

This is also pretty perfect. Bet Gore didn't want that little nugget to get out.

Many might expect me to point to this article and say something about how whiney psychologists are, or how everyone's always saying that the youth of today is doomed. Instead, I'd like to point out how right this article is. Kids are raised today to believe that they are all special, and deserve everything. I'm not concerned, however, as they'll learn the truth once they get real jobs.

Another banner day for NASA. (You'd think I'd be getting sick of criticizing NASA, but I'm not!)

Um. Wtf???

I'm surprised that this isn't more common, particularly with the number of cops out there using laptops while driving.

Heh.

She never realized that leather boots are made from skin. This is a perfect example of precisely the kind of people who support PETA.

This guy's colums sound hilarious. As far as preventing such hate speech from being published—well, it sounds like the market is taking care of that on its own, doesn't it?

Well, Brett, it sounds like the motives were to a)get a car, and 2)to get a baby.

Cool. Does this mean we can get them to stop pooping everywhere?

It's a good thing that our public schools are focusing on what's important. And keeping our kids off drugs.

Personally, I don't blame Bush or Gore for this one. But I do think we should ask Dennis Kucinich for his help. If you think about the history of science fiction, though, what's to say that aliens would provide us with technologies and alternative fuels that would be better for our environment? Anyone who's seen Alien vs. Predator, for example, knows what I'm talking about. (I.E. the Predators are hugely advanced, but see nothing wrong with potentially wiping out humanity if their big game (the aliens) escape from the sacred pyramid.) Then there's all of the sci-fi that deals with aliens who've consumed their own planet and are exploring the universe for new resources.

F'ing liberals. They really are perverse.

If it's melting, then stop pointing spotlights at it! Jeez. And don't freaking drop these there, either!

As a stockholder, I say give it to the stockholders.

Oh dear. Don't they know that the odd ones always suck?

Okay, now seriously, who hasn't used the showers at Yale for this? (Submitted by GOP and College, the pervert.)

So it appears that Angelina Jolie is adopting another kid, this time from Vietnam. In a related story, I have secured exclusive footage from inside the Jolie household.

F'ed Up Fridays - XII

2007-02-22T23:42:00.000-05:00

I don't like coins period, so I don't particularly care what it looks like. Do you?

I gotta say, without him, DVR would be significantly less convenient.

Another banner day for NASA.

Yes, well, being an idiot and having people constantly point it out in public is bound to have an affect.

I have a close friend who deals with stress through hair-apy, and recently considered shaving her head. Unlike some people, however, she listened to her stylist and allowed herself to be talked out of the Sinead look. Of course, she also probably couldn't have turned a profit by going further.

Extra limbs sound like they could be a result of inbreeding; Nicky Janaway sounds like he almost certainly is.

Wait a minute. If they'd pulled over, it would have been legal? Of course, that may still have stopped traffic.

Get this: "Ratlam's superintendent of police, Satish Saxena said it was not immediately clear whether the hospital was disposing of bones properly." Um, it seems immediately clear to me. Am I crazy?

Yet another new reason why I prefer to stay the hell away from cats.

Talk about f'ed up cells.

Never forget the fastest way to become a millionaire.

Well sure, it's got to be bettter than playing Operation.

A smack upside the head should do it.

Twisted, but come on—is 122 attacks and 20 murders really THAT significant a statistic? And if you click through to the actual report, you'll see that the number was higher in 2004 and almost 2.5 times higher in 1999. There is no evidence of a trend of any kind, particularly not a rising one. This is stupid alarmism because it makes for a scary headline. And that's even more F'ed Up.

Thankfully, in space, no one can hear Richard Branson scream.

The tighter you squeeze your fist, the more they will slip through your fingers. Seriously, though, is anyone besides me surprised the RIAA hasn't been slammed by hackers in the past couple of years?

Why do I get the feeling she made this up?

Note to self: if you think you hear a rape, don't reach for your sword.

And that's probably about the most we should expect them to find.

This one speaks for itself: "One of the tourists -- a retired U.S. serviceman whom officials estimated was in his 70s -- allegedly put Warner Segura in a headlock and broke his clavicle..."

Read the first paragraph and tell me if it doesn't freak you out a little bit.

You know all of those pictures of 14 year-olds in Hamas colors carrying AK-47s around? Guess who can get into the U.S. with no problem. Better yet, if they're 16-18 and traveling with "religious groups," all they need is a birth certificate.

I must have a fever

2007-02-20T11:45:00.000-05:00

While it doesn't do much to mitigate his other radical stands, there is apparently at least one reason to find Al Gore tolerable.

UPDATE [2/20/2007 - 19:07]: Link was broken, now fixed.

Oh Crap.

2007-02-18T23:21:00.000-05:00

I hadn't even thought of this (via Instapundit):

If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidency, some top Democrats would like to see her husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed to serve out Hillary’s unexpired Senate term.

Isn't that one of the seven signs of the apocalpyse? From what I understand about the issue, it's a little hazy—but I think it's a definite possibility.

In all seriousness, I think Instapundit's question, "does a "twofer" argument help or hurt Hillary?" is the right one. For me, it definitely hurts her (as if that were possible). I am quite concerned about having spouses serve as President and Senator at the same time. Setting aside the potential divided loyalties that could arise (would a President Hillary be able to make the right decision for the country if it also means embarassing a certain junior Senator from New York?), the question raises serious issues for the separation of powers.

Our Constitution at its heart rests on divisions between the three branches of government (and subordinately between the two houses of Congress). While it is not rational to say that having a married couple serve in two branches at once eliminates the division between the two, I certainly have issues with the idea.

Anyone else have thoughts?

F'ed Up Fridays - XI

2007-02-16T11:34:00.000-05:00

How could they grant her bail? Isn't she something of a flight risk? (Submitted by Tanstaafl)

Only half??

Floating university costs with market forces? Makes sense to me—but the university may come to regret it.

I know fantasy football can be fun, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Loose websites sink... um, what's a modern equivalent that rhymes with "ships"? And what did Google negotiate for in return?

As Glenn Reynolds might say, I blame Ashkroft and Amerika.

So, apparently these people have not seen Minority Report. And they haven't talked to these people, either.

Well, they found a way to dodge taxes by paying rent to themselves—now if they can only find a way to sue themselves, maybe the 9th Circuit will be forced to decide something in their favor. (Submitted by Tanstaafl)

Well then, I went to college with a couple of stoners who can see like a hawk. (Submitted by Tanstaafl)

Um. And you get down, how? You know, if the theoretical building becomes unsafe?

It's about time the sealife started pulling its own weight. (Submitted by "Me")

This is news?

Wouldn't you expect that they'd have just lied about it?

Personally, I'm okay with blacklisting Canada just on principle—but this will work just as well.

And then they will rise up and turn us into their batteries.

I agree with the first sentence in the third paragraph. Amazing.

Unfortunately, I don't think the people who fail to change the default password on their routers are likely to visit CNET, either.

In other words, people are stupid approximately 2/3 of the time. With the exception of the Superbowl, I haven't seen a television ad in months.

Um, duh. That's how capitalism works. Now if only the billing operated on the same principles...

And planes will fall out of the sky. What do you want to bet no one even notices the error? Just in case, maybe I'll head to Natick.

Special thanks to those who submitted this week. As always, feel free to email me your F'ed Up news items.

Down with DRM

2007-02-15T18:02:00.000-05:00

As the movement against DRM on digital music continues to gain momentum, there is a decent discussion from a couple of days ago in the comments on Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution. One interesting concept in his post: "DRM is a tax on digital consumers, compared to the low de facto restrictions put on CD buyers."
Also, I find it interesting to note that none of the commenters argue that DRM is GOOD for the record companies. The debate centers around just how BAD it really is.

Lies, Damn Lies, and (climate) Statistics

2007-02-14T18:32:00.000-05:00

Arnold Kling has this piece on TCS today. My favorite line is, "Climate data looks to me suspiciously like macroeconomic data. The true information content probably is not sufficient to produce a reliable model for forecasting." Having worked, both in school and professionally, with large data sets and economic models, I have always felt that climatologists either exaggerate or misunderstand the predictive value of their models. One of the concepts that was drilled into me in school is that even the best statistical models are only explanative, not predictive. In plain English, that means, they help describe how different variables were related in the past, but they have very limited ability to tell us how complex systems will interact in the future.

However, like Mayor Giuliani, I think that some of the ideas being kicked around to prevent the spectre of global warming are good for other reasons.

That's why I was glad yesterday when I noticed this story on Instapundit. Somehow it seemed like a strangely familiar idea.

Finally, as always, it is nice to see new additions to Professor Mankiw's Pigou Club.

Behavioral Modification

2007-02-09T19:39:00.000-05:00

This article helps reaffirm the truth behind a rule one of my old bosses used to repeat on a regular basis: "Tell me how I'm measured and I'll tell you how I'll behave."

Crimson Pansies

2007-02-08T14:22:00.000-05:00

Among the Ivy League schools, Yalies (like myself) take a lot of crap about going to school in New Haven. This is largely predicated on the New Haven of the past (late 80s, early 90s), which was a significantly more dangerous place.

But it really is a school in the middle of a city. The immediately surrounding areas have been cleaned up significantly (largely through the efforts of the University), but serious poverty is still only a few blocks away—and homelessness and crime often trickle their way onto campus.

It's a joke to other Ivy Leaguers that I lived off-campus my junior year and was about a block away from a shoot-out between cops and robbers. Tanstaafl, who went to high school in New Haven, was once notoriously asked "Did you spend the whole time ducking bullets?" when he arrived on the West Coast campus of his alma mater. But maybe that does Yalies some good?

From the Harvard Crimson comes a harrowing tale of fear and woe:

A few weeks ago, I witnessed a bizarre scene. As I crossed the Yard on my way to Lamont Library, I saw a dog stalking a squirrel while its owner stood close by. The dog crept forward stealthily, guided by an instinct that years of leashes and dog food could never completely suppress. Meanwhile, a crowd of bystanders gathered, titillated, perhaps, by the prospect of bloodshed, but at the same time confident that the dog would not succeed. Minutes passed. And then, with a rapidity and ferocity that shocked the onlookers, the dog pounced, caught the squirrel by its bushy tail, and proceeded to tear the helpless rodent to pieces. We gasped, not as much from horror as from disbelief. This was not supposed to happen.

Neither were the two armed robberies that recently took place on Harvard’s premises.

Much like dead squirrels, the idea of Harvard students being threatened with knives and umbrellas in the shadow of Widener Library is quite unsettling.

Heck, I'm pretty sure some Yalies hunt squirrels, not just their dogs—but that's besides the point.

Crime is not a constant on the Yale campus, but it is a reality. Yalies do not live in fear of it, but they act appropriately. For example, girls do not walk home alone late at night; they know better.

I don't have any evidence to suggest that Yale alumns approach the world more realistically than, say, Harvard students—but I do think that it's important to remember that not all education comes from classroom experience. Living with crime is part of the real world, and all too many college students are insulated from this reality.

How sad is it that Mr. Herz-Roiphe is so shocked that dogs eat squirrels and that thieves will target seemingly rich college students?

(We'll ignore the hilarity that an umbrella is considered by Harvard students to be a weapon used in armed robbery.)

What is wrong with the world?

2007-02-07T13:28:00.000-05:00

New York State, which includes the city in which I work every day, is apparently considering legislation to ban listening to an iPod while crossing the street. Do it, and you may face a $100 fine:

New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail.

Kruger says he will introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets such as Blackberry devices and video games while crossing the street.

He also says "Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry." That's true, but not from themselves.

Somebody is listening to an iPod and doesn't hear a car coming? He deserves to get hit. I feel worse for the poor sucker he stepped out in front of. In fact, I'll propose my own law: if you're listening to an iPod and get killed by a car, your estate has to pay to have the dents buffed out of said car.

This is a simple issue in my mind: people need to be held responsible for their own actions, especially the stupid ones.

And while I'm on the subject, McDonald's Chicken McNuggets suck now that they took out the trans-fats. What is wrong with New York? Talk about a nanny state.

Other Coverage
Suitably Flip
The Man (special thanks for the image)
Polipundit
Crave

A Positive Step on DRM?

2007-02-07T11:56:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Steve Jobs urged the major record labels to remove the DRM "protections" from music sold online:

Jobs said there appeared to be no benefit to the record companies to continue to sell more than 90 percent of their music without DRM on compact discs while selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system.

I suggested something similar back in December, so I'm glad to see Mr. Jobs get on board. I just hope the RIAA doesn't misinterpret what he said and put DRM on the 90% of music they sell on CD.

Hedge Fund Approach to Climate Change

2007-02-06T12:38:00.000-05:00

I meant to link to this article last week when I saw it. I think this is one of the best approaches I've seen to the climate change debate. Mr. DeLong does not argue that he knows the science or the ultimate answers to the issue or questions of the existance, causes or remedies of climate change. Instead, his point is that no one REALLY knows what the answers are, and that the drum-beat of 100% certainty that we get from the MSM opens the door to make some money. What I like about his approach is that it calls for the humility of recognizing what we don't know instead of the arrogant posturing that usually characterizes this particular debate. I especially like this paragraph:

In this world, the worst sin is assuming something has a 100% probability when it may well have considerably less, or assuming it has zero probability when it actually has a real shot. "They forgot the tail of the risk," is a term of contempt, bringing to mind bygone firms gone bust, such as Long Term Capital Management.

Read the whole article. And, if anyone has any suggestions of some mispriced assets from this debate or any other, put them in a comment here, and let's see if we can make some smart investments.

Nope, no bias here

2007-02-04T09:39:00.000-05:00

I just heard George Stephanopolous on This Week say, "You have to feel bad for the guy [Biden]. He's definitely not a racist, but this fed into the perception that a lot of Democrats have, he shoots from the lip."

Setting aside the really bad pun on "shoot from the hip," what the hell?

When Trent Lott (note, I am no fan of his, either) said that the world would be better off if Strom Thurmond had become president, he clearly meant that Thurmond was a good man and would have made a good leader. But the press chose to make it "clear" that he meant it would have been better if the Segregationalist Party had won the presidency, and he was drummed out of his leadership role.

But Biden, who makes an equally offensive (and equally innocuous) slip of the tongue deserves our pathos?

Sounds fair.

[Note (2/5/2007 - 12:39): As I apparently had a stroke and initially wrote "Tom Delay" instead of "Trent Lott" I have corrected the above appropriately.]

IATF RFC Response

2007-02-02T12:59:00.000-05:00

On Tech Central Station yesterday, Arnold Kling began the process of laying out principals that guide "contemporary libertarian conservatives." Since I consider myself a "small l" libertarian, I am taking this opportunity to respond to his RFC and hopefully help refine the IATF principal list:

Economic Principals
I'm surprised not to see some mention of the invisible hand of the market and a more explicit acknowledgement that people acting in their own self-interests can simultaneously be working toward the common good. I would also advocate a principal of limiting government's economic involvement to solving externalities and one of using market-driven policies or a respect for market forces to achieve public interest goals.

Ethical Principals
I am struggling with item #5. I am not sure I am comfortable with the government providing incentives for a particular form of life-style or family structure. I understand Professor Kling is only saying that the government should not incentivise people against family, but I worry that's a slippery slope. Government should be enacting policies that allow people to live as they see fit. [Update: Or, even better, the government should be repealing existing policies that limit or constrain how people live.] I would rather see this principal advocate protection for children who are not yet mature enough or capable of caring for themselves. I might mention them importance of strong education but I would limit any attempts to governmentally influence how parents' raise their children.

In item #6, I would broaden "Ten Commandments and Biblical scripture" to include something along the lines of "the moral teachings of the world's great religions."

I would add this principal: "We believe that morality and ethics should primarily be built upon the simple foundational premise that 'my right to swing my fist stops at the tip of your nose.'"

I like item #7.

International Principals
I think the international principals are fairly strong as they are. I would consider adding "We view diplomacy not as a goal, but as a tool to further other goals, including national security and the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas." I might also add (but I'm less concerned with this one), "We are unwilling to relinquish our individual liberties and freedoms to the will of foreign leaders who we have not elected to represent us. We do not feel embarassed or ashamed when citizens and leaders of other nations criticize our beliefs, ideas, or way of life. Instead we recognize their desire to live differently and request that they respect ours."

All in all, I think this is an interesting set of principals, and I am looking forward to seeing it develop and strengthen as Professor Kling leverages the internet's marketplace of ideas to refine the list.

Sure, but now what?

2007-02-02T12:21:00.000-05:00

Charles Krauthammer has a fairly insightful column in the Washington Post assessing the current situation in Iraq:

America comes and liberates them from the tyrant who kept everyone living in fear, and the ancient animosities and more recent resentments begin to play themselves out to deadly effect. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, the overwhelming majority of them killed by Sunni insurgents, Baathist dead-enders and their al-Qaeda allies who carry on the Saddamist pogroms.

He's right that it's not our fault that they want to kill each other, but he doesn't comment on whether he felt this was predictable, and unfortunately he doesn't make any suggestions for what to do next.

F'ed Up Fridays - X

2007-02-02T00:02:00.000-05:00

"IPCC report: By 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches," says this article. "If you were a roofer and you built a roof and it was two feet off, you'd still be doing time," says Lewis Black. Okay, okay, that's a rough paraphrasing of what he said—but really, it seems to me like five inches isn't going to do that much damage, but 23 would. So which is it? Oh, that's right, you have no freaking clue. So why are we freaking out about it?

"Oh my God, they killed Barbaro."
"You bastards!"
Seriously, though, doesn't all that effort to fix his leg seem like a bit of a waste now?

Maybe I shouldn't be so afraid of killer robots. After all, if this is any indication, they'll go blind regularly.

So can we blame Purell for the Kevin Federlines of the world?

Want to be a spaceman? Better overthrow the government, first.

I haven't yet seen An Inconvenient Truth, so that last fact was news to me. Still, it provides yet another reason for me to avoid Macs.

Sounds appropriate.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way that a marijuana derivative will suppress hunger. Haven't these scientists ever heard of the munchies?

Ray guns make sense, but now we're going to take people out by causing them to slip and fall?

This is just disgusting. Talk about conspicuous consumption.

Can you really fault the guy for mistaking Charles for Frankenstein?

If they're going to stop selling them when current stock runs out, then it won't happen for a while. I mean, seriously, is anyone still buying them?

Robert is creative, Michelle is an idiot.

Or, you know, you could hire an extra gym teacher. Maybe there's a reason West Virginia ranks 37th out of 50?

Hilarious.

Lesson learned: don't try to host a Superbowl party if you have a really big TV—particularly if you a non-profit organization.

I don't even like reading text messages that people send to me, why would I want to read this?

And when the internet wakes up, it can play you like a fiddle.

This is strangely beautiful and yet utterly, utterly twisted at the same time.

Special thanks to those who submitted this week. As always, feel free to email me your F'ed Up news items.

Respectfully, Senator Specter, shut the hell up...

2007-01-30T17:45:00.000-05:00

...if you don't know what you're talking about. From CNN.com:

A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush's declaration that "I am the decision-maker" on issues of war.

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said during a hearing on Congress' war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Senator has never read the Constitution of the United States.

Well, let's give him a refresher. Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power [...]

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

In case you didn't follow that, Congress has the right to declare war and the President has command of the troops. In other words, the President determines the strategy.

Now, obviously presidential war power is not cut-and-dry, and Congress has long tried to secure more power than was initially granted by the Constitution (The War Powers Act comes to mind, and while I believe it to be unconstitutional it is the law of the land). Not since the Revolutionary War, however, has Congress tried to exert power over the way a war is conducted. They can choose to authorize it or not and they can choose to fund it or not—but trying to weigh in on military strategy is quite clearly beyond their power.

Perhaps Senator Specter should read the book listed above, as it might clear some thigns up for him—I'd be happy to send him my copy.

The Always Helpful Blue Shirts

2007-01-29T21:06:00.000-05:00

Sadly, I was right and Mr. Lileks' efforts to exchange his purchase for the correct XM device turned into a debacle.

Weekend Religious Festival or Insurgent Rout?

2007-01-29T20:53:00.000-05:00

Sounds like it was both.

War opponents will obviously try to paint this as more of the same sectarian violence. While I think it will be very dangerous for us to stay caught in a tribal war, I find this encouraging for a couple of reasons.

First, according to this report, the Iraqi security forces did most of the actual fighting. Guess that means that they're starting to be ready to stand up and secure the country.

Second, it sounds like there were only 6 or so Iraqi Security forces members killed (mostly in the opening skirmish) and 2 US troops (in a downed helicopter). If that's truly the case, and the insurgents lost 250-300 men out of a force of 400-600... one would have to think that's a pretty demoralizing victory.

Too bad you have to read down so far in the article to fish out those details. It would be nice if just once the headlines read "Insurgent Force Decimated" or "Iraqi Government Forces Repel Terrorist Attack".

All Jacked Up

2007-01-29T17:09:00.000-05:00

Or should that be "All Kim-ed Up"?

I'll be liveblogging 24 for the first time this season, tonight, at 9PM Eastern.

So make sure to check it out at Blogs4Bauer.

Sound Familiar?

2007-01-29T17:03:00.000-05:00

Instapundit links to this post about DRM.

Remember, folks, you heard it here first.

Sunday Night Thoughts

2007-01-28T18:44:00.000-05:00

I spent a bulk of this afternoon updating the template here at RFTR (let me know if you have any recommendations by emailing me). Then I decided that, since I had little time to keep up with—and especially to comment on—the news this week, I should spend some time blog-surfing. In turn, this gave me the desire to comment on various things I found interesting. Below is a collection of those comments.

Instapundit comments on the growing civil war between the Fatah and Hamas factions in Palestine. It's likely that this may provide an answer to Tanstaafl's questions, posed the other day, by rendering 3a and 3b moot. If, in fact, the Shia/Sunni strife is breaking out in Palestine, then it matters little what we do in Iraq. Even if we manage to put down the rivalry, it will only be a temporary peace if the two sects are engaging one another on another front.

The entire thesis of this article—that the Geico caveman has jumped the shark—rests on this line:

While the latter is the more in-your-face defiant and barely suppressed angry response, it is the former—"I’ll have the roast duck with mango salsa" that has somehow become iconic.

Do you agree with that premise? I'm not sure I do. I think the angry "I don't have much of an appetite" is much more memorable. That Rosenbaum would rest his entire argument on a questionable assumption seems silly to me. And even if he is right, do we really care if the Geico caveman has become irrelevant? Seems like an awful lot of analysis, building from a flawed base, for naught.

In an otherwise fascinating article—which you should definitely read—Arnold Kling points out that "Greg Mankiw does better than Brad DeLong on scholarly recognition but not on Internet recognition." I think that, thanks to his blog the latter should start to shift in Mankiw's favor as time progresses. We can certainly hope that, at the very least, his common sense economics gain in popularity.

Finally, be sure to read Michael Yon's latest dispatch from Iraq. Instapundit reports that Yon emailed him to say:

There are two types of media sources covering this war: the ones who are here, and those who are not. The media is Missing In Action, and reporting from afar. Yesterday, for instance, major media reported on an attack in a small village north of Mosul. None of those sources actually visited the village. I did.

Keep that in mind as you read what he has to say.

F'ed Up Fridays - IX

2007-01-26T00:02:00.000-05:00

Warning: Microsoft Office Vista may induce ranting blog posts when it is first used by this blogger.

I'm with the Internet poster.

In a word: no.

I'm with Spann. Luckily, I'm not the only one.

Wah, wah, wah. Yes, being wealthy enough to buy whatever drugs you want, and being dumb enough to do it, will likely alter your brain chemistry enough to cause depression.

For my money, the top of the list is a robot I read about in Popular Science. Get this: cut off a limb, and the thing figures out its new body shape and how to ambulate most effectively. Yes, that's right: unstoppable robots with enough artificial intelligence to keep coming after you. What's next, robots that can smell? Oh, wait.

And even our new ray gun weapons won't take them out, because they can't "feel" anything.

New on the Nintendo Wii: digital shuffleboard!

Voter fraud has never been easier. I suppose it could be worse, though.

Anyone else think this is a a little weird?

If they want to get an entire subway map on there, they'd better make it a magnum.

-----

Sorry folks, another short one without pictures this week. I'll be back soon enough, I promise. In the meantime, don't forget to email me your own submissions for FuF!

Sunni vs Shia

2007-01-25T13:12:00.000-05:00

From Strategy Page:

The removal of Saddam has already crippled al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world. The sight of American troops in Iraq enraged al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in general. This was the one thing these maniacs could not tolerate. They all flocked to Iraq, began killing lots of Moslems, and after a year or so of that, plummeted in the popularity ratings throughout the Moslem world. Now the Saudis are mobilizing against that other terrorist backer; Iran. The Saudis are committing over $100 billion to this battle, and doing it out of the purest of motives; self interest.

I think this raises a few questions:
1) If this is true, has "crippl[ing] al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world" been worth the US blood and treasure in Iraq?
2) Is it good or bad for America that the Saudis (through their proxies) and the Iranians are gearing up for a battle royale over dominance of Islam? (The President said he thinks it's bad in the SotU the other night)
3a) If you say "good" for #2, do we pick a side or step out of the way?
3b) If you say "bad" for #2, can we stop it? How?

Worst Buy

2007-01-25T12:26:00.000-05:00

From today's Bleat:
"I’ve had days at BestBuy where everyone knew everything. This was not one of them."

It's been a long time since I've had one of those days. God help Mr. Lileks if he realizes that the device he bought doesn't fit his needs and he wants to return it.

SotU Reaction

2007-01-24T18:53:00.000-05:00

I had considered live-blogging the State of the Union speech last night, but came to two conclusions. First, not enough people read this site to make that worthwhile, and second, I wanted to pay better attention than typing quick reactions would allow me. Instead, I'll try to give my impressions now that I've been able to sleep on it.

1) Energy
I think Bush's proposed policies are good first steps that are 7 SotU's over-due. I think that energy policy needs to be the cornerstone of the next President's platform. It has dramatic economic, foreign policy, national security, and environmental implications.

Two policies that I would have liked to have heard him support, but of course knew he wouldn't are a Pigovian Tax, and a federally sponsored X-Prize for clean energy technologies.

2) Education
Honestly, I have a hard time getting excited about No Child Left Behind. Reauthorize it, don't reauthorize it... doesn't really matter to me. It was nice to hear him mention vouchers, but that won't go anywhere.

Why doesn't anyone ever call them "scholarships"? Could the Democrats really oppose scholarships to needy children to attend better schools? The term "vouchers" is too distant from what they really are.

3) Healthcare
Greg Mankiw and Arnold Kling have both commented on Bush's plan since he announced it over the weekend. They are far more knowledgeable than I, but from what I can gather it sounds like a fairly decent plan. You should note, I say that as an employee of one of the largest corporations in the world, with a fairly gold-plated health care plan (which means that my tax bill would likely increase... I've now expressed support for two tax increases in one post, I must be running a fever).

I think Bush will need to line up as many economists and healthcare experts as he can and shove the Democrats' "knee-jerk" complaints back in their faces. This is not some huge new tax burden on the middle class. If anything, this seems fairly progressive (hat-tip Prof Mankiw).

If the Democrats can't get on-board with this, then they truly have no interest in trying to reform anything. This is their chance to embrace the bi-partisanship they keep crowing about and make a positive change for the future prosperity of the country. This plan has it all: Market forces and personal savings accounts for conservatives and progressive taxes for liberals.

4)The War on Terror & Iraq
Despite the fact that this was obviously the most important issue discussed last night, I don't have much to contribute here other than to echo some of what has already been written elsewhere.

I liked the line about no one voting for failure and the request that Congress give his new strategy a chance to succeed.

I think he did a masterful job (ok, so maybe expectations were low) of laying out the Iraq war in the context of the global struggle against Islamofascism. I especially liked the paralellism of the 2005 successes and the 2006 terrorist responses. Let's hope we can respond even more forcefully in 2007.

I agreed with his assesment that pulling out of Iraq is likely to leave behind a bloody and chaotic battle between Sunnis and Shiites that will drag in their supporters from all over the Arab world. I would have liked, however, and explanation of WHY that would be a disaster for America. As I've noted in the past, I'm skeptical that such a war would be all bad for the United States. Obviously the consequences of oil disruption are very negative (see SotU point #1 above), but if the various Sunni and Shiite factions are consumed in a tribal war, they are less likely to be focused on ways to kill Americans or wipe Israel off the map.

However, per the President's request, I am willing to give General Petraeus the opportunity to try to stem the violence and give the nascent Iraqi government a more fertile environment in which to grow.

I also find the notion of the non-binding resolution to whine about the President's plan in Iraq or the NBRWPPI (pronounced "nibrippi") childish. Anyone who votes for that resolution sure as hell better have their own proposal ready to go.

5)The Gallery Heroes
Cheers to all of them, especially Wesley Autrey.

A Secret Identity Revealed

2007-01-24T15:48:00.000-05:00

For those who have always wondered, The Man is, in fact, John Kerry.

Think about it. They both quit on the same day. Their ramblings never make much sense, but induce large amounts of laughter. And they both wish they were as cool as Jack Bauer.

Oh, and they both wear hats.

For serious, though, we'll miss The Man.

Fooling Themselves

2007-01-24T14:03:00.000-05:00

It seems that a liberal who had been posting at RedState was banned recently. He describes on DailyKos why he thinks this is a sad turn of events, and how much he thinks RedState has changed.

Now, I don't visit RedState, so I have no intention of defending that site.

But take a moment to read through some of the comments in and in response to the post linked above&8212;hilarious. It is indeed sad if RedState has gone from being an open environment to one of partisan enforcement, but it's laughable that DailyKos commenters are criticizing RedState for that alleged transition.

DailyKos has always been about browbeating its members into a one-dimensional world view. The "debate" found there ranges from the extreme left to the extreme extreme left. Remember, I'm speaking here as a conservative who used to post to DailyKos so that two sides of political ideology could engage in a civilized manner—and who was subsequently banned for attempting to explain that the justification for the Iraq War went beyond WMD.

Ridiculous.

Kudos to NPR

2007-01-24T10:30:00.000-05:00

I know what you're thinking: "has he lost his mind?"

Yes, if I'm mentioning NPR, I'm usually ripping them on bias, or incomplete coverage, or just flat out inaccuracy. For once, however, I think they did something good.

Allow me to set the stage. Instapundit quotes a reader who says:

Jim Webb told the Air America/Randi Rhodes lie that the majority of the military doesn’t support the effort.

So once again, it seems Democrats get to lie without consequence or question.

Well, NPR did a little better than we might have expected.

What Webb actually said (my transcription from the audio available at the link above, 7:17 in) was:

The majority of the nation no longer supports this wa—the way this war is being fought. Nor does the majority of our military. Nor does the majority of Congress.

NPR says

The middle item in that series raises the question of whether the military really does not support the way the war is being fought.

and then goes on to say that the statistic is most likely based on a poll in the Military Times newspapers from December, which claims that in 2004 2/3 of respondents supported the handling of the war, and that it is now down to 1/3. They even concluded by saying that Webb's quote was a bit of a stretch.

I can't believe it myself, but I think NPR did a decent job on this one. They did pretty much just excuse the statement as a stretch, rather than saying the truth, which is that it's almost an outright fabrication—but they could have much more easily ignored the quote and glossed over it entirely.

2007-01-19T13:06:00.000-05:00

F'ed Up Fridays - VIII (or IIX, if you prefer)
Sorry about the short post and lack of pictures. I took sick last night, and didn't have the opportunity to finish this up like I would have liked. I should be back to full form next week—and don't forget to read the note at the bottom of this post.

Something about this just doesn't seem right.

Embedding our troops with Iraqi units may work well, unless the Iraqi government has a standing Order 66.

Stupid is forever.

I have an idea: let's have ESPN cover the war against the Islamofascists. Particularly if, as it appears, it will spin lefties into new levels of insanity.

Oh GOOD. More artificial intelligence, and now we're making it mobile.

He deserves more. Not better, more.

Hmm. I've never heard anyone suggest that terrorists might do something like this.

Hah. That's nothing. I know people who downloaded it on bittorrent a week before it aired. (More 24 fun.)

That sucks.

I think that they need to realize that it's fiction. And that it's not that far removed from reality. (More on 24 always available here.)

Not bad—it only took them two weeks.

The first step is admitting you have a problem. The next step is building up the strength of will to do something about it. Of course, I'm not expecting Amanpour to get to that point.

Thank God for porn.

The other two thirds are about making your penis bigger.

-----------

Seen something ridiculous or funny in the news this week? Want to get in on FuF? I'm now taking submissions. Email me a link, your comments and (if you find an appropriate one) a picture to go along, and I may include it the next FuF. I'll even give you credit!

2007-01-17T11:40:00.000-05:00

A Cappella Brings Out Worst In Mob
[Originally posted on 1/10/2007 at 22:52—bumped to top for updates.]
The men's a cappella singing group of which I was a part at Yale, the Baker's Dozen, was attacked on New Year's Eve after performing at a private party in San Francisco.

As the group is still on tour (troopers, they are), they have asked me to post a statement on their website—it is now up.

My thoughts are with Sharyar, a great guy who was the central victim of a totally unprovoked and unbelievably outrageous attack, as well as the other guys who sustained injury in the fray.

More News Coverage
Baker's Dozen singers injured in attack - Yale Daily News

Yale Singing Group Attacked Outside New Year's Eve Party - FOX News

Homophobes assault US university singers - Sydney Morning Herald

Yale Singing Group Attacked in SF - Salon (AP article)

Renowned Yale singing group attacked in San Francisco - Boston Globe

Attack on Yale Singing Group in San Francisco May Yield Lawsuit - Law.com

Yale Singing Group Victims of Hate Crime... in San Fran! - Gay Patriot

A cappella brings out worst in mob - DailyIndia.com

Visiting Yale Singers Pummeled Outside New Year's Party - All Headline News

SFPD Criticized for Inaction After Unusual New Year’s Eve Fight - KCBS, CA

Yale group assaulted after San Fran party - New Haven Register

Continuing news coverage can be found via Google News. I'll post updates as more information becomes available.

UPDATE [1/11/2007 - 21:20]: The San Francisco Chief of Police, Heather Fong, has spoken out to defend the actions of her officers on New Year's eve. I recognize that she has to do that, but here's an important point raised in the article:

Reno Rapagnani, a retired SFPD officer whose daughter hosted the party, said he understood that the department's officers might have been overwhelmed on New Year's Eve.

"I'm trying to assist the department," he said. "I think any cop or any citizen would do the same thing. I hope."

Delay in interviews?

But, he said, there continue to be delays in police interviewing the singers.

"It just seems to be taking a lot of time. They assigned inspectors, and they were off for two days. They (the singers) were still in San Francisco for a couple of days. What does that look like? Maybe I'm missing something."

We've since heard that the BDs were asked to return to San Francisco to conduct further interviews. That's just ridiculous.

And, in case anyone is wondering what the BDs are really all about, make sure to check out this series of photos from a performance from January 10.

UPDATE [1/11/2007 - 22:56]: There's also this YouTube video taken sometime (I'm not sure exactly when) in the days immediately following the attack.

And this article... well, get this:

Now, 10 days later, investigators are demanding that the young men pay their way back to San Francisco to be interviewed. One investigator told a parent, "the kids are affluent, so they can afford it." The Baker's Dozen's attorney says it's ridiculous.

Whitney Leigh, Gonzalez & Leigh Law Firm: "The notion that the police should now put the burden on the families or on these kids to fly back to San Francisco, a place they're now afraid to come to frankly, doesn't seem to make any sense to me." [emphasis added]

Um, no kidding.

But there's good news:

Also today, a development that the police and mayor's office may not welcome -- former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer has joined the team of attorneys for The Baker's Dozen.

The wheels of justice are slow. Hopefully they're turning in the BDs' favor at the moment, but come on. Who places the financial burden on the victims of an attack?

Apparently the San Francisco Police Department.

And San Francisco residents are speaking out. Let's hope that the SFPD does its job and resolves this more quickly than they have been, and with full justice.

UPDATE [1/12/2007 - 0:40]: I just watched the replay of January 11's Hannity and Colmes on FOX News. Sean Hannity has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone coming forward to provide information leading to the prosecution of the individuals responsible for this attack.

UPDATE [1/17/2007 - 11:40]: The SFPD have finally interviewed members of the group, but it's clear that a lot of questions remain.

Here is a good summary of all that has happened so far, with the good news that the issue is still receiving national attention.

And here's a rather amusing column about the incident. While I think it's unfair to accuse a group of guys who were, by some accounts from outside the group, outnumbered 8-to-1 of being wimps, the column is still entertaining.

More here and here.

2007-01-12T13:19:00.000-05:00

Dean Barnett Schools Me:
Mr. Barnett has an excellent FAQ on the President's surge plan. I admit, I'm one of those bloggers he mentions who did not realize how relatively significant 21,500 additional troops are, considering "the current troop level in Baghdad is only 13,000."

However, Mr. Barnett also acknowledges that there "will be a lot more killing" and that "the Shiite militias will be targeted for destruction". I guess he doesn't share my concern that this kind of action will galvanize the Iraqi population against us.

2007-01-12T00:02:00.000-05:00

F'ed Up Fridays - VII
Sorry folks, it's got to be a short one this week, with no pictures. I've been swamped at work, and trying to keep up to date on the Baker's Dozen developments. I hope you can still muddle through and find at least something of worth.

Does CNN have any idea what a "money shot" is? Also, I'm pretty sure you can get Paris by taking a screen shot of a certain video.

Sounds like the same kind of diversity of thought that I experienced at Yale.

Yay for science. 2007 may prove interesting.

My first guess was that the Statue of Liberty passed gas, but didn't want to admit it.

Dog bites man.

I hear it's very "safe" six feet under ground. Let's put this guy there.

Seriously? This sounds like the kind of thing you'd want to keep in sight.

God bless the unions. They constantly give us perfect examples of their selfish shortsightedness.

Banning pillow talk? Fascists.

Oh my God, this is made for me.

In legal marketing (what I do) this would be called identifying conflicts.

"Hi, Mrs. Air. Is Clean home?"

I think this is a mistake, disregarding years and years of significant branding effort. After all, I hardly think I'm the only one who thinks that the word "singular" looks weird now.

I think this is another mistake. Tanstaafl has additional thoughts.

So, now we're going to have to pay Microsoft to prevent them from giving us stuff we don't want and they don't manufacture?

What do you want to bet it's one kid with a slingshot?

2007-01-11T15:12:00.000-05:00

So much for Iraq siding with moderates against the extremists
From Yahoo News:The regional Kurdish government condemned the arrests and called for the immediate release of the Iranians. It added that the government "was not aware in advance of the raid."
What makes us think that a democratically elected Iraqi government would be a US ally instead of an Iranian one?

2007-01-11T13:02:00.000-05:00

A New Way Forward?
I watched the President's speech last night and have a few thoughts.

I was encouraged by several points:
1) Distributing oil profits to the Iraqi people. I still wonder how they expect to administer this plan, but if it goes well it could help turn popular support against those who disrupt the flow.
2) Cutting off Iran & Syria's suppport for terrorists in Iraq. Again, I'll believe it when I see it, but it's worth the effort.
3) His solicitation of other ideas from Congress and his admission that any mistakes were his fault. The Dems in Congress will still scream that he doesn't listen, but both points were rare and overdue bits of humility from this administration.

My problem with the speech, however is that we are still inadequately defining what our strategic goals in the country should be. It's hard to measure our progress if we don't know what the correct direction is. As a result, I discount any claim that victory is critical or that we can't afford to fail in Iraq because I don't know what constitutes victory or failure.

I've complained about this before, so I've decided to lay out what I see as the most important strategic goals.

1) A sustained and aggressive offensive against Al Qaeda. From what I can tell, we have had only moderate success on this goal in Iraq. It took us far too long to get Zarqawi and we allowed his groups to bomb the Mosque of Samarra. However, the fly-paper strategy has seemed to have some success. Many people talk of "draining th e swamp". I think we're better off trying to attract foreign jihadists to Iraq, as I continue to believe that the Marines and GI's in Iraq are better equipped to deal with these terrorists than the Sheriff in Yuba City, CA or the beat-cop in Boston, MA.

2) Depriving Iran of control of Iraq's oil. We are slipping on this goal. While Iran has not marched across the boarder and seized the oil fields, I worry that they pull the strings with Muqtada al Sadr and that he will emerge as Iraq's leader, whether he is popularly elected or he takes over by force. Based on the fact that Saddam's guard's were shouting "Muqtada" when they put the noose around Saddam's neck, I would not be surprised to see a military coup in support of the Shiite leader. As I understand it, many of the death squads are manned by members of the new Iraqi army anyway.

3) Do not allow our troops to become involved in a Shia vs. Sunni (vs. Kurd) civil war in Iraq. There is pent up hostility between these groups that predates but was exacerbated by Saddam's rule. I still worry that this is a powder keg, and right now we are just seeing the sparks.

So is a "surge" of troops the best way to achieve these goals? I doubt it.

I still believe that redoplying our troops to bases in the desert will help them protect the oil infrastructure, stage special forces operations against Al Qaeda, deter Iran from invading, and remove our troops from the middle of the sectarian violence in the cities.

If we try to impose security in Baghdad with extra troops, then we will find ourselves fighting both the Sunni Insurgents and the Shiite militias. When that happens, it means that the Iraqi people, not Saddam's forces, have become our adversary, and that will be a road to disaster.

2007-01-08T12:41:00.000-05:00

Not Ready?
Arnold Kling has an interesting interpretation and application of a couple papers written by North, Wallis, and Weingast (NWW), in today's Tech Central Station.
Iraq was never on the "doorstep" of becoming an open-access order. The major factions are not willing to give up their weapons and concede military power to a central coalition. There are no perpetual-lived organizations that can make long-term contractual commitments. There is not even a willingness among factions to grant one another rights under the rule of law.

Accordingly, I would say that there is no chance that the United States will succeed in its objective of establishing an open-access order in Iraq. The best we can hope to do is restore Iraq to a natural state, meaning a limited-access order where rights and power are exclusive to certain elites, who will be subject neither to economic nor political competition as we know it.
If you accept this premise, the US is now in a very difficult spot. We would essentially need to choose some strongmen to run the country and then help them hunt down and kill their opponents. Unfortunately we've probably made enemies of any strongmen capable of keeping a lid on Iraq, and I doubt the American people would look favorably on the US Army essentially supporting a coup.

2007-01-05T12:57:00.000-05:00

Customer Service
I am not surprised by most of the companies on this list, especially by the worst offenders. Either my wife or I have personally had some of these problems with Dell, Home Depot, Comcast, Macy's, and AT&T Wireless (pity anyone who was a Cingular "blue" customer).

2007-01-05T11:42:00.000-05:00

Do We Have the Energy?
Hopefully, this (hat-tip to Greg Mankiw) coupled with this, means that our economy will survive when Saudi Arabia and Iran ignite the Middle East in their battle for the Caliphate.

Of course, I support a Pigovian Tax (check out Prof Mankiw's Pigou Club) as opposed to tighter CAFE standards.

2007-01-05T00:02:00.000-05:00

F'ed Up Fridays - VI
Wait a minute. Microsoft contracted the French to develop a mobile version of Halo? Are we supposed to be surprised that they gave up and sued Microsoft instead of getting it done?

Gmail: "Never delete email again... we'll do it for you!!"

WaPo describes this piece as "The Ford Funeral: Episcopal analysts offered insight on the service." Episcopal analysts?

The FAA is in league with aliens.

GM may be in trouble, but GM is starting to show some real promise.

The news source I love to hate gives us yet another reason to laugh.

When I was on my way to my drivers' license exam, I saw a woman sitting in traffic simultaneously reading the paper, applying lipstick, and holding a cup of coffee. Imagine what she could do with this.

So, tell me why New York had to ban the stuff? It looks to me like market demands are working just fine. And since they're making the change in half their stores, you'll never have to go more than half a block if you go into the wrong one.

Someday people will get the message: free markets work.

George Lucas announces that he is completely out of new ideas.

Interesting. Being gay is now a right afforded to sheep. I'm not even really sure what to think about that. Or about the scientists who prompted the debate. What if the ram wants to be straight—is PETA going to intervene on his behalf?

This is cool, but do we really want to encourage people to specialize their knowledge further than we already do? There is, after all some merit to a liberal arts education.

The obvious question is: how many of these also have Kerry/Edwards stickers on the back?

Would you do this?

Obviously, these school officials have never seen Ferris Bueller, or they wouldn't have been quite so "shocked."

Possibly the best headline ever.

Now this is up-to-date news.

New, from the AP: fit the news to whatever conclusion you prefer.

Another newsflash! And Forbes takes a study about high schoolers and applies it to college students. Brilliant.

What about those of us with normal blood pressure?

In other news, bars will now sell gloves and sunglasses.

They denied that she was drunk, but they didn't say anything about drugs...

Ask me sometime, and maybe I'll tell you how a law like this one quite possibly kept me out of a Mississippi jail once.

Hahaha.

Makes sense to me.

Can anyone say Red Dawn?

Okay, now that's f'ed up.

Remember Bernardo Lebron? Well I'm still not surprised.

Personally, I like having my laptop with me, but this is still cool.

2007-01-04T13:52:00.000-05:00

Saddam's Demise
It was a Happy New Year in Iraq for the Shiite majority that suffered so long under such a horrific dictator.

In fact, it would seem that it was such a joyous occasion that guards decided they could not contain their excitement and started chanting.

Were they chanting "Freedom!" like William Wallace? "Vive Iraq?" "Justice?".

Nope, they chanted "Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!" and "Straight to hell,"

It would seem that even those entrusted with what should have been the most solemn duty performed by the nascent Iraqi government so far, could not help but taint the event with their jubilent support for a new strong man.

I would really like to agree with Joe Lieberman that additional troops could stabilize the country, but events like this make me doubt the likelihood that more infantry can make a difference. I think we have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqis to Sadr and his ilk.

Dean Barnett seems to agree that this event was a stain on the effort in Iraq. He observes

"Perhaps a more pressing concern today is whether in fact Iraq is different. Things like the Saddam execution suggest the answer to the latter question is no. There is a deep undercurrent of savagery in the Iraqi culture that will not just inhibit the growth of a peaceful democracy there, but probably prohibit it."

Mr. Barnett's solution is to stamp out those who perpetuate the chaos:

The only answer, as it always has been, is to stamp out that savagery ferociously and totally. At the end of this war, Iraq must necessarily be composed of people who always wanted to live in peace and the one-time enemies of peace who have come to realize they have no other choice but to live in peace. How much killing will this take? That will depend on how many enemies of peace there are and how determined they are to live in a state of war. One thing's for certain - the more resolute we are, the less killing there will be.

I have three fears however:

1)No matter "how resolute we are," we can never deter the savage elements of Iraqi society from killing. These are not Soviet politicians who fear losing their jobs or even their lives. These viscious terrorists thrive on the conflict, not the vicotry, and welcome martyrdom.

2)The American people will never sign up to the mass killings of both Shia and Sunnis that it would take to truly stamp out the sectarian violence. Consider the purges that Saddam himself carried out, and he never truly eliminated his Shiite opponents. He only sent them into hiding. Even if we could create that kind of stalemate, we can never sustain the ferocity and terror necessary to maintain it.

3)The more aggressive we get in battling groups like the Mahdi Army, the more powerful they will become. The violence that we would need to unleash may just turn more of the population against us and into the arms of strongmen like Sadr and their neighbors like Iran and Syria.

I hope and pray that I'm wrong, but it is hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel when events like Saddam's execution which should be positive developments turn so sour.

2006-12-29T12:02:00.000-05:00

What's Wrong with iTunes?
Apparently, over the holiday, the iTunes music store received so much traffic from people with new iPods and iTunes gift cards, that it maxed out it's bandwidth and choked, "prompting error messages and slowdowns of 20 minutes or more for downloads of a single song."

I'm sure that people will have two reactions. They'll either point to this glitch as the price for extreme popularity, or they'll criticize Apple for not being able to anticipate the rush, even though they likely had a good idea of what iPod and gift card sales were shaping up to be.

But this is just a blip on the radar screen for iTunes. It has a much more dangerous challenge coming: it's own DRM.

iTunes files are "protected" (restricted) in several ways that will begin to annoy more and more users, and leave Apple open to growing competive threats:

1) iTunes encrypted AAC files can not be played on devices not approved by Apple. This means anything other than the iPod and a few models of cell phone.

2) Purchased songs can only be played on 5 computers that are registered with iTunes. While this isn't a problem for most people now, as the digital living room continues to develop, the number of "computer-like" devices in the home is sure to grow.

3) Protected AAC files can not be burnt onto MP3 CDs. I often take road trips that are several hours long, and would like to be able to burn one CD that will last my whole drive. My car can handle MP3 CDs, but I can't make one if any of the songs I want to put on it were purchased from iTunes.

Of course, for tech saavy users there are ways around all of these issues. However, they're far more cumbersome than the most ubiquitous alternative... piracy.

One of the more visionary entertainment executives on this subject today is Disney's Anne Sweeney. Ms. Sweeney has explained that at Disney "we understand piracy now as a business model," that needs to fought with better digital business models, not just by walling it off with DRM.

In several interviews, Ms. Sweeney has told this story:

The morning after the (Season 1) finale of "Desperate Housewives" had aired (in May 2005). I had my cable executive team meeting, and I walked into the meeting thrilled. The ratings had come in, and they were spectacular. This was a hit show. Vince Roberts, our worldwide head of technology and operations, said, "Congratulations! We're all thrilled for you and ABC. This is a tremendous moment. Can I show you something?" He got up and popped a DVD into the player in our conference room, and the finale of "Desperate Housewives" came up. And he said, "Fifteen minutes after the show ended last night, I downloaded this from BitTorrent.com." The quality was very good. The commercials had been stripped out. Talk about having a pause in the conversation. We started talking about piracy in a new way, which was piracy as a true competitor for our viewers.

Now, it is possible that Apple understands that the digital world is heading in a DRM free direction. It would shock me if Bill Gates understands it, and Steve Jobs doesn't. In fact, the DRM is a bit hypocritical since without college students' vast collections of illegal MP3s, no one would have ever bought an iPod. In all likelihood, the content owners (ie the RIAA) are demanding iTunes walled garden approach, and Apple is just biding its time.

Long term, Apple's current DRM environment is unsustainable and iTunes will continue to grow only if it reduces the DRM footprint on it's products.

The record companies and Apple will need to realize that iTunes success so far is not because of some magical technology that eliminated music piracy (gnutella, limewire, bear share, and other illegal download systems still exist). Instead, it's because Apple made it easy and fast to find, download, and play the music people want. So far, as Ms. Sweeney suggests, Apple has fought piracy most effectively by providing a better business model whether they realize it or not. Let's hope they compete even more vigourously in the future.

2006-12-29T12:00:00.000-05:00

FuF Hiatus Continues
I'm back from vacation, but did not have the time needed to assemble F'ed Up Fridays for today. I promise we'll be back to our regularly scheduled programing next week.

Until then, I'll try to get up a post sometime today or tomorrow.

2006-12-28T14:03:00.000-05:00

President Ford
I'm a little behind the news cycle on this one, but didn't want Ford's passing to pass unmentioned.

I met Gerald Ford in 2001, at a resort north of Albuquerque, New Mexico. My father had an annual conference to which spouses are invited, and my mom and I flew out to meet him. As it turned out, the resort was brand new and they were the first conference group to use the facilities. Simultaneously, former President Ford was at the hotel as part of the grand opening festivities.

We were told (I think by someone on the staff) that he was eating in the restaurant and, not wanting to miss an opportunity to catch a glimpse of an ex-president, we camped outside the restaurant for a while.

When there was no sign of Ford, we gave up and walked back into the lobby.

We were, as it turned out, followed very shortly by a few Secret Service agents, and then Ford himself appeared. He and his entourage walked up a set of stairs to a balcony overlooking the desert and stopped there. Here's where it got interesting.

My mom said "I dare you to go talk to him."

I said "Okay," and was off. Being young makes you fearless, I guess, since I walked up to the nearest Secret Service agent, pointed at Ford, and said "Can I talk to him for a minute?"

It was immediately apparent that the Secret Service is unaccustomed to answering that particular question. While the agent looked at me, quite puzzled, for a moment, I heard a young lady (in her 20s, I believe) say "Grandad, Grandad, this young man wants to talk to you," saw her grab him by the elbow and pull him over to me.

Here I am, a young-looking senior in high school, standing face to face with an ex-POTUS. Since I wasn't really expecting my query of the Secret Service to result in anything, I was a bit taken aback. But I recovered quickly.

I shook his hand (he had a standard, firm politician's handshake) and introduced myself. I knew that he had just received the Profiles In Courage award for pardoning Nixon, so congratulated him on that, and said something cheesy along the lines of how inspirational it is that he sacrificed his political career to do what was best for the nation.

He thanked me, and explained that he is always happy to meet intelligent young people with an eye for politics. A total politician's response, of course, but still a nice thing to say.

And, he did take a few moments out of his day to speak with me. He did not rush away (in fact, I said I had to get going before he did). He followed his granddaughter's lead and talked with me until I excused myself. He was kind and patient, and struck me as a very nice man. Maybe he was just a born politician, and the whole thing was an act—but I will always remember Gerald Ford that way, as the type of man who could quite easily ignore the "little people," but chooses to be selfless instead.

My prayers are with his family following this tough loss. He lived a long and full life, of which they should be proud, but it is never easy to lose a loved one.

2006-12-25T13:42:00.000-05:00

2006-12-24T17:33:00.000-05:00

A first
It seems that I experienced my first earthquake yesterday, as I was sitting down to dinner with my family (including Tanstaafl):

The magnitude-4.1 temblor struck at 7:43 p.m. and was centered 8 miles east of Coachella, which is about 20 miles east of Palm Springs, according to a preliminary report for the U.S. Geological Survey.

We were in Palm Springs.

I have to say, it's little wonder that political thinking in this state is so messed up—considering the ground's movement to be a normal event has got to screw with your mind.

2006-12-23T01:00:00.001-05:00

F'ed Up Fridays - On Vacation
No FuF this week as I'm on vacation. We should return to normal next week.

2006-12-23T00:54:00.000-05:00

I'm confused...
So, an "umbrella group" for Iraqi insurgents (I have a feeling that the media is lending them more credit with that description than they deserve) has offered the U.S. a truce.

Setting aside where I stand (you can probably guess) on how to respond to this proposal, I have a question.

Why can't we identify these guys and take them out? Or propose a summit to discuss terms—and take them out?

I just don't get that.

2006-12-22T00:16:00.000-05:00

Does this spell doom for Netflix?:

You get a free rental on the spot, and Blockbuster still sends out the next movie in your queue. And yesterday they announced that the monthly coupon for a free rental can be used for movies OR video games.

Like the author, I've been using Netflix ever since college. In college I was turning a few movies a week. I would generally get something a couple of years old that I hadn't seen, and I'd put it on while I worked on econ problem sets.

When I entered the working world, that model didn't really fit anymore. Very rarely did I find I'd want to watch a movie after work, and I'd discover that by time the weekend rolled around, I often wasn't in the mood for it anymore. A couple of times I returned movies months later without having watched them.

Then I discovered TV shows on DVD. I watched several seasons of The Sopranos, the entire series of Homicide: Life on the Streets (highly recommended: watch the entire 1st season before making a judgement, it gets better after a few episodes), the first 4 seasons of The Shield, and the 1st 2 seasons of Lost by renting them on Netflix. I find that after work I still have the attention span for 45 minute episodes even though I don't want to watch a feature length film.

But, I think I'm dangerously close to being one of the high-velocity customers that the algorithm punishes, and so I may have to jump to this system. I was certainly pleased about this deal.

Now if only they could hire more knowledgeable sales clerks... but that's a different rant for a different day.

2006-12-22T00:10:00.000-05:00

Bear with us...
My apologies that RFTR was down yesterday—despite Blogger's claim that the upgrade to "The New Blogger" would take only a minute or two, it took pretty much the whole day. We're good to go now, though.

Also, both Tanstaafl and I are on vacation for the next few days, with somewhat limited access to the internet. I have a post I've been working on that I hope to post over the holiday weekend, but may not appear until early next week.

We'll do our best, but please bear with us.

2006-12-18T12:52:00.000-05:00

Iraq: Constructive Chaos
I was out of the loop for most of the weekend due to Christmas shopping and several hours of hanging new artwork in my apartment.

When I did pull my head up for some air (and some news) I discovered that the current talk in foreign policy circles is for a plan to send another 30,000 troops to Iraq to turn the tide. That seems to be overly optimistic and somewhat irrational thinking to me.

If we are going to persist in trying to stabilize the country, then we either need to triple the number of troops (impossible with only American forces) or at the very least, change the rules of engagement as Mr. Hanson suggests.

I do not however, think either option will work. I continue to believe that the only achievable option in America's national security interests is to get regional powers such as Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia engaged in Iraq.

However, unlike John Kerry, by getting them engaged, I do not mean that we should show up in Tehran on our knees and promise to ease sanctions and rhetoric if they help stabilize the country. Instead, I would allow those nations to engage each other as Iraq becomes the central battlefield in a region-wide conflict to establish a new Caliphate.

Some have argued (including myself) that Iran and Syria know that a chaotic Iraq is not in their long-term interests. Mr. Hanson disagrees:

Iran's own military commanders praise the present violence there for tying down American forces, and presumably giving them a pass to continue their bomb-making, whether nuclear or IEDs.

While this makes sense, the conclusion that I would draw, is that Iran will find the chaos in Iraq troublesome if it is no longer "tying down American forces."

At this point, a civil war in the country seems nearly inevitable, and we can not allow our troops to get caught in the middle. Therefore, we should:

1) Withdraw troops from Iraqi cities.
2) Station them at fewer but highly defensible bases in the desert.
3) Protect oil infrastructure against terrorist attacks.
4) Strengthen our quick reaction force capabilities and use them to hunt Al Qaeda and foreign terrorists.

These suggestions are not new, in fact they echo policy options in Rumsfeld's now famous memo.

The main objection to a policy of this nature is that without US forces securing the cities, Shiite death squads will eradicate any Sunnis in their paths.

I am less and less concerned that this will be a problem. Based on recent reports, I believe that the Saudi's will make good on their threat/promise and begin arming and funding the Sunnis in Iraq:

One hopes [President Bush] won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Mr. Obaid is trying to make this sound ominous, but I view it as promising.

Saudi Arabia knows that a nuclear-armed Iran with hegemeny over the Middle East will be very dangerous for them. They will fight tooth and nail to make sure that does not happen.

This war will draw in many of the surrounding counties. Jihadists will flood into the conflict to fight for the honor and glory of their tribes. They will forget, at least temporarily, their hatred for West and focus on annihilating other Arabs.

We can capitalize on their distraction as long as we A) make sure our troops have been withdrawn from the middle of the conflict and B) ensure that all sides know that anyone who uses the chaos as an opportunity to attack Israel will have a difficult time pumping their oil through the glass.

2006-12-16T13:05:00.000-05:00

I hope he gets a pre-nup
Otherwise, she might get half of Riding Sun.

2006-12-15T15:19:00.000-05:00

Permission to Come Aboard
Thanks for the welcome post. I can't make any promises as to how often I'll post since I generally have to find time around a busy work schedule and home life. But, I look forward to reading and responding to the comments from RFTR's regular readers and hope that I can help contribute to a lively debate.

2006-12-15T13:23:00.000-05:00

RFTR: Now with more bloggers!
I'm pleased to announce that RFTR has become a group blog. My brother has recently gotten back into the game with a vengeance and has been posting where I first began, on our old group blog, Diet Coke For Breakfast. Since I've migrated over here, and that blog's founder has moved on to bigger and better things, he's feeling lonely over there fighting under a banner that isn't his own.

So, he has decided to adopt a new handle, Tanstaafl, and join me at RFTR.

2006-12-15T00:02:00.000-05:00

F'ed Up Fridays - V
If you're wondering how they get these pictures, the old joke is that they use Japanese tourists.

This is trouble. It could rapidly expand to consume what little free time I have.

If I slow down, do I get to take one home? [WARNING: Not work safe.]

I'm glad to know that the guy discussed in this article is picky; he shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

All I can tell you is that I've seen the trouble my roommate has launching a 20-foot version, particularly after it crashes into the water. So, I'm not sure how they think this will work. Still, I'm curious to see them try.

You'd think a guy with his experience could figure out how to drive a golf cart straight.

Um, you threatened to sue if you didn't get your way. Seems pretty grinchy to me.

I scored a 93; can you "beat" me?

This is why you shouldn't teach your children anything. Keep 'em down, that's what I always say!

Cool, with the added bonus of sticking it to the French.

See, that's the difference between Bernardo Lebron and me—I'm not surprised in the least.

There's a difference between civil disobedience and outright disregard for the law. Do you think her "absolute moral authority" gets her off the hook?

It's a good thing that our government fixed its problems communicating with itself after 9/11.

It's tough to be driven to a place that you're already at, asshole. (At RFTR, we do not end sentences in prepositions. Unless we're feeling lazy.)

I, for one, was actually pleased to see less of a dependence on these in the recent film. That being said, with the exception of the stupid jetpack in Thunderball, they are pretty cool.

That didn't take long.

It looks like Wii have another problem. Of course, it's nothing like what Microsoft can do when they put their minds to it.

See? By eating beef, I am doing my part for the environment. "Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"

So, when the internet wakes up, they can poison us more easily.

And track us.

You'd think people nerdy enough to create this might possibly also watch Stargate.

Oh, and Microsoft has gotten in on the game, too. What do you want to bet there's a line in the code that will allow for Microsoft to seize control of any robots using the software in an emergency? And don't you think Microsoft will be the second thing (after Google) that the internet takes control of when it wakes up?

(The last several blurbs in this edition of F'ed Up Fridays show that is a bit of a running theme here at RFTR, and a major pet peeve of mine. Creating artificial life, building robots that can think, or designing robot-building robots are all bad ideas that, for some reason, scientists feel the need to pursue. As Battlestar Galactica shows us, so is creating mass coordination of computerized systems designed to take humanity out of the equation.

If people like this asshat have their way, we're all going to be subjected to some frightening developments when someone finds a way to control these devices. The guy is wiring up his brain to control robots remotely. What happens when the internet wakes up and decides "hey, if he can control us, then we can control him"? Idiot. He needs to read up on SkyNet a little.)

2006-12-09T17:29:00.000-05:00

Trans-F You
Professor Reynolds cites Ann Althouse's theory about why New York banned Trans-Fats. She says:

I simply do not believe that the so-called health side is really composed of people who are solicitous about everyone else's health. I can't prove it, but my intuition is that all the strength on the "health" side of this war comes not from people who really care whether other people are healthy, but from people who don't like having to see fat people. They are concerned about their own aesthetic pleasures, and they think fat is ugly.

I don't know about all of that, but I can tell you at least one of the motivations for the ban, based on a conversation I had with my co-worker.

She was thrilled, she said, because her mother died of a heart condition, so she's particularly susceptible to heart problems in the future. Avoiding trans-fats is a good way to increase the likelihood that she'll avoid issues.

So I asked her why she doesn't just avoid them. And here's where the truth came out:

"Well, I do. But sometimes I forget, and this will make it a whole lot easier."

So, I can't enjoy tasty food every now and then strictly because she and people like her are too lazy to look after themselves all the time.

So, it's not just that they think they know what's best for the rest of us—they also don't care about our liberties as long as taking them away makes their lives a little bit easier.

2006-12-08T23:39:00.000-05:00

Here's a question
Why is the United States Senate Sergeant at Arms searching blogs for the terms rockefeller, exxonmobil, and "wall street journal"?

Don't believe me?

Click on the picture at the left for a closer view.

UPDATE [12/12/2006 - 0:45]: Two days later, and he's still at it. Only now, he's led to this post first.

UPDATE [12/13/2006 - 8:26] So now he's searching for the terms "rockefeller" and "sergeant at arms." Do you think he knows that I'm watching him, or is there some connection between Rockefeller, the WSJ and the Sergeant at Arms for the U.S. Senate?

This really is weird.

2006-12-08T00:01:00.000-05:00

F'ed Up Fridays - IV
As you know, I was traveling the first two days of this week, so this is a short edition. Still, I'll try to make it a good one... enjoy!

Best. Idea. Ever.

Best. Newspaper cover. Ever.

He went to my high school, he's the Dean of the Law School at my alma mater, he's held high-level executive branch positions, and now he's the... Best. Bobblehead. Ever.

The press supports the troops, they just cover the truth of the war, right? Well, the troops, who know the truth of the war, don't seem so keen on supporting the press.

She apologizes for this, but not that whole K-Fed thing?

Tim Klotz is the smartest man alive. Well, second smartest. The smartest is the CNN writer who felt the need to include his quote in this article.

Short answer? No. Long answer? No freaking chance.

I should have noted this in edition III, but Riding Sun wasn't the only place I won last week.

I know I've already endorsed Rummy-Bauer '08, but this is not the worst idea in the world.

A while back, I posted about why video games are good for people. Well, now there's another reason: those of us who grew up using them have more resilient thumbs.

Talk about silly behavior.

I guess my decision not to get a Christmas tree this year is paying off in odd ways.

2006-12-07T14:27:00.000-05:00

Run, Rummy, Run
Today, Pearl Harbor Day, I endorse Donald Rumsfeld for President of the United States. I sincerely hope that he will run in '08. And yes, I know that my last endorsement, Jack Bauer for Senate fell pretty much flat. But like John Kerry and George Allen, Jack Bauer is not deterred by the temporary setbacks of his dual defeats in the NY and CT Senate races—which is why he's already agreed to serve as Rummy's running mate.

You already know that I'm a fan of Rummy's, and was sorry to see him go.

Then, over the weekend, we found out about a memo he wrote two days before he was fired. Once again, we had evidence of why it was wrong to fire him, as the memo was brilliant.

But this is just the icing on the cake. It seems that before the invasion, Rummy was the only one with the good sense to propose a plan to get in and get out. No, he wasn't whining that this would be another Vietnam—he was proposing a plan to leave a provisional government in the wake of a blitzkrieg destruction of Saddam and his government and a quick withdrawal.

But instead, W picked the State Department plan. Remember this as you hear increased calls for diplomatic solutions to, well, just about anything. Yes, sometimes diplomacy can be effective—but often it just represents the views of people who aren't willing to do what's necessary. Yeah, it would have looked pretty bad to bring down Saddam and then leave, but it would have been effective.

It seems more and more that Rumsfeld was the only one thinking in this administration, and certainly the only one who could see clearly what would be necessary. And now they've unloaded him.

So, it's time to get Rummy a new job, and I think POTUS would be a great fit.

Unfortunately, a relative of mine likes to point out that there are many people smart enough to make fantastic presidents; they're also smart enough not to run.

Jed Babbin has more on Rumsfeld's successes. Honestly, in this age of global conflict, is there a better resume around?

And TCS Daily provides more insight into the fear and loathing of the real Donald.

Rumsfeld-Bauer 2008 Campaign Slogans:
Obama Who?
Our Enemies Don't Stand a Chance
A Chicken in Every Pot, and a Bullet in Every Terrorist
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance... and a Hacksaw
Don't be a Dummy, Vote for Rummy!

2006-12-06T22:36:00.000-05:00

When will they grow up?
Congratulations to Mary Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe. A child is a blessing in any committed relationship.

Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way:

Conservative leaders voiced dismay Wednesday at news that Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Dick Cheney, is pregnant, while a gay-rights group said the vice president faces "a lifetime of sleepless nights" for serving in an administration that has opposed recognition of same-sex couples.

I'm frankly not surprised by the conservative ass-hats who don't think a loving couple can raise a child—particularly when you consider how many kids are growing up in this country with one or no parents.

But really, do gay rights advocates really need to take this time to attack the woman's politics? Frankly, I don't think this should be in the news, but if it is going to be then can't we just be happy for these people?

Idiots.

UPDATE [12/8/2006 - 12:23]: I think that this is spot on.

2006-12-04T16:21:00.000-05:00

Another loss
Bolton will step aside. The CNN article characterizes opposition to his position as ambassador to the UN, saying "Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective public servant who could help bring reform to the U.N."

So, basically we're firing a guy who we wanted to bring reform to the UN because he's not enough like the rest of the people currently at the UN?

I know it mattered for control of the Senate, but can I just say how glad I am that Lincoln Chafee is gone?

2006-12-04T12:34:00.000-05:00

Senatorial Strong Arming
Somebody put a collar on Rockefeller and Snowe.

They've apparently decided (like the rest of the world, it sometimes seems) that debate over Global Warming is closed. In a letter addressed to Rex Tillerson, the Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, they effectively tell him as much, and tell him that it is his company's responsibility to correct the problem.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board does a far better job responding than I have time to do, so read the letter and then read their response.

2006-12-04T07:41:00.000-05:00

Minimum Wage Update
Note: I will be traveling today and tomorrow with limited internet access, so any posts that go up over the next 36 hours or so will likely be posted without links, and will likely be brief. In addition, posting will almost certainly be sparse. I know I promised I'd be back full time after the LSATs, but bear with me and I promise I'll be back in full swing no later than Wednesday. My apologies.

Also, please note that today's posts will be timestamped according to when I wrote them, not necessarily according to the time they were posted, in EST even though I'm in the midwest.

A while back, I posted about the folly of raising the minimum wage. While driving to the airport this morning, I heard an interesting piece that's related to this issue. It seems that someone did a poll of (I think it was 200) American economists, with an effort to make sure the sample was a fair representation of the political spectrum found among the larger group. The main point was that while there are a few particularly divisive issues, by in large a mainstream American economist believes in fair trade, low taxes and low subsidies with very little political philosophical variation.

The exception cited by NPR's Morning Edition correspondent? The minimum wage. It seems that 38% of the sample wants to raise the minimum wage, while 47% wants it eliminated altogether.

This tells me two things. For one, I'm encouraged to know that such a large portion of economists see things this way. It also highlights how economically uneducated the political chattering classes are.

Second, while they didn't address the remaining 19%, I would bet that at least 4% of those expressed an opinion against raising the minimum wage, even though they are not looking for its outright elimination.

Why does that matter? It says that (assuming the sample is statistically significant, and actually representative of economists—two assumptions that I cannot investigate without reading the poll itself) a majority of economists do not believe that raising the minimum wage is a good idea.

So the next time you read a news article that says "While most economists agree that raising the minimum wage will result in job losses at the bottom end of the market, many believe that a modest hike from its current rate will not have a significant effect on unemployment rates," keep in mind that "many" most likely stands for "a small group, representing less than a plurality, holding a viewpoint that serves this author's basic assumptions about this issue."

2006-12-01T00:30:00.000-05:00

F'ed Up Fridays - III
So, we've finally got a name for this feature. I took last week off for the holiday, and this week I've been using my spare time to rest up for the LSAT this Saturday, but after that I'll be back for the long haul.

In the meantime, enjoy this edition of F'ed Up Friday. Special thanks to Jenn for coming up with the best suggestion for this feature.

Does it still count as a crime to impersonate an officer if you're in a foreign country?

Condoms save lives. But who knew it was by carrying up to a gallon of water?

If he runs with Hillary Rodham Clinton, won't they have to use his middle name for parallelism?

"He admitted he'd been smoking crack cocaine. But still, it's a human life." Sure. But one who probably should have been allowed to experience the wonders of natural selection. Plus, notice the guy's last name—amazing that he passed the test.

I won again.

Americans: stupidly think they're going to live to 120 years old.

He's ronery, and now he's likely to be bored. But are we stopping him from getting the Wii? Maybe if we get him really bored and then ship one, we can get him to bring down his own government?

The common name of the animal didn't clue people in to this possibility?

I'd rather they spent our tax dollars to make sure the airlines gave us edible meals.

And finally, let's all give this guy a hand.

That's it for this week's F'ed Up Friday. See you after the LSAT!

2006-11-20T23:46:00.000-05:00

CNN is officially a bad high school paper
In what could actually be an interesting article, CNN looks at the selective service department of the Pentagon, to see if they would be ready to institute a draft should it be called for. Interesting question, which they answer rather quickly (it's a yes). But here's the part that grabbed me, inserted in the middle of the article:

Chris Baker, 20, of Decatur, Georgia, said he wouldn't support a draft under any circumstances.

"I don't believe it's right to send people who don't really want to go fight for the country," Baker said. "I probably wouldn't go, but I know that'd I have to go to jail for that. That's probably what I would do -- sit in jail."

But 25-year-old Donnie Deerman of West Blocton, Alabama, said he would feel obligated to participate in a military draft.

"I'd have to do it. My dad did two tours of duty for Vietnam and for this country," Deerman said. "I wouldn't want to leave my kids behind, but I wouldn't argue about it."

This is the kind of thing that a kid writing for a high school paper does to fill column space—interview random people (usually the author's friends, in the high school case) to see what they think about it.

Ridiculous.

2006-11-17T06:01:00.000-05:00

Friday Quick Hits - II
This is volume two of my newest feature—for which I'm still seeking a better name. I considered "Flash Friday," but am concerned about the possible lawsuit for trademark infringement. My brother suggested "F'em Friday," but I don't think that flows as well as the actual swear would—and while I've never censored my vulgarity on this blog, that doesn't mean I need to proclaim it in a headline. So I have no really good ideas yet... so submit some of your own!

And now we're off to the races:

"I just want to extract the bullets and live my life." Don't we all...

Maybe she had bibles in her skull?

I'm not sure I understand what "It works because it is dangerous" means, but it's an interesting idea.

A storm 5,000 miles across? Think we can convince some environmentalists to say that The Day After Tomorrow has come true?

How does a flight attendant confuse the two?

This is aching for a fisking, but I won't waste my time. That being said, it sounds like he's been called a lot of names. Let's add idiot to the list.

Should we really have expected anything different?

I thought the whole point of "road rage" is that it is uncontrollable rage that is instantaneous and has horrific consequences. So how is this concept even possible, unless the guys were sitting in an internet cafe next to each other?

Only in Connecticut.

2006-11-16T14:57:00.000-05:00

A great light has gone out
I'm sad to say that Milton Friedman, a transformative economist and proponent of freedom, died today, at age 94.

Though he lived a long and successful life, the world is poorer without him.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife and partner, Rose Friedman.

UPDATE [11/16/2006 - 15:35]: The Wall Street Journal is offering two audio files of conversations with Milton Friedman, explaining some of his economic theories. I highly recommend taking a listen.

2006-11-14T17:41:00.000-05:00

Raise the minimum wage? Only if you have minimum intelligence.
TNNBG had a simple, straightforward post yesterday about the minimum wage. I didn't think much of it at the time. I'm against raising the minimum wage. I'm against a minimum wage of any kind, in fact. I know (on a basic level) the arguments against it, so I didn't click through to the Wall Street Journal article TNNBG linked to until I got curious today.

Read it. Especially read it if you support a higher minimum wage.

In particular (for those of you too lazy to click through), there is a fantastic illustration of how a minimum wage hurts the very people it is intended to help:

Classical economics teaches that for a given job, there is a market-clearing price--the price at which both someone is willing to do it and someone else is willing to pay them to do it. If you raise the legal minimum above that price, you may get more people willing to perform the job, but you'll probably also get less people (employers) willing to pay the new, higher price to get the job done.

To picture how this works, think about the grocery bagger in the supermarket, a classic low-wage service job. Supermarkets hire grocery baggers for the minimum wage, or close to it, because it's a perk that makes their customers' experience a bit nicer and helps move the lines along, possibly requiring fewer cashiers, who cost more to hire than grocery baggers.

Now, if you pass a law saying everyone, including grocery baggers, has to be paid $10 an hour, what happens? The supermarket probably hires fewer baggers, or has them work fewer hours. Perhaps they decide they only need baggers between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. If you put the minimum wage up to $20 an hour, shoppers bag their own groceries. This is so clear that it's taken some time for the defenders of an ever-rising minimum wage to come up with an adequate theory to obscure it.

Take it a step further, now. Technological advances have created in recent years a new ability in stores of all kinds: self-checkout. These machines have cropped up everywhere of late. They began with credit card scanners being turned around on the customer, so that cashiers never handle the plastic. Now, more and more commonly, entire check-out aisles operate without a single cashier or bagger. Stores have implemented these systems sparingly thus far, and I can guess a few of the reasons.

First, they probably suffer a slight increase in theft, as it is easier to sneak products out without the watchful eyes of a cashier (or at least it seems easier, and therefore the dishonest are less likely to be deterred). This will likely never be fully overcome, as dishonest people will always try to take advantage of the system—though technology has also lent some advances in theft prevention as well.

Second, some people lack the technological sophistication to use the scanners, or disdain doing it themselves for one reason or another. This barrier is decreasing every day, as people become more and more technologically capable all the time.

Finally, there is a cost to replace functioning registers. I imagine, as well, that the self-checkout scanners are more expensive than the traditional models. The grocery store I frequent recently underwent a complete renovation, replacing all of the registers, and even with that, only about a quarter of them were converted into self-checkout aisles (probably for a combination of this last reason as well as the first two).

As I've said, reason one will always exist and reason two is taking care of itself—so only reason three remains as a true impediment to the new technology. With a raise in the minimum wage, however, the cost-benefit analysis involved changes significantly. As cashiers become more expensive, the benefits of having shoppers take care of that job themselves increase greatly over time. Now, instead of the cutback in cashier jobs that would stem naturally from the added expense for each, we're looking at the possibility of even more significant cuts because added savings can be realized. Where are unskilled workers and teenagers to find those low-wage jobs that are an underpinning of our economy?

Setting aside the grocery store analogy for a moment, let's consider the yard care market. Currently, nationwide (if anyone has a statistic handy, I'd love to cite it here), a significant portion of contracted yard work is handled by recent—and often illegal—immigrants. Some surely do better than minimum wage. A lot are definitely paid at that rate. Without a doubt, many make far less. So what will a minimum wage increase do to this market?

If it is enforced effectively (and what are the chances of that?), anyone making below the current minimum wage will be fired. Some portion of those at the current rate and below the new rate will be fired to cover the expense of raising wages for some of the others in this range. And those making above the new rate shouldn't expect raised wages any time soon.

Don't believe me? I pulled this off of Wikipedia:

For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites.

So much for the altruism of paying a higher wage.

If it is not effectively enforced (the most likely scenario), then more workers will be hired under the table. Employers will be given a huge incentive to circumvent the wage laws by paying cheap labor off the books, as is already rampant in this industry nationwide. Those with scruples will be driven out of business, unable to compete with those who cheat the system, their jobs as well as those of their employees will effectively be lost to firms willing to break the law. Income taxes will certainly not be assessed on those paid under the table. Everybody loses.

Finally, this entire premise violates American ideals. At the debate between William Kristol and Katrina vanden Heuvel that I mentioned recently, the latter spoke in support of a higher minimum wage, and used a phrase that stuck with me. She said that "workers should be paid what they deserve."

Unfortunately, she contradicted herself. As described in the WSJ piece above, the market-clearing price is, by definition, what labor is worth—and therefore what workers deserve. By inflating wages above this number, we are violating the very principle she espouses. We are no longer paying workers what they deserve, but instead what some group of people (Congress) arbitrarily decides that they deserve.

The high school drop-out, too lazy to even get his GED, needs only to put in enough effort to find a dead-end job, and suddenly he deserves a minimum wage? While a hard-working individual from a poor background that precludes his attending college will have a significantly harder time finding that same dead-end job. If he does, his chances of advancing and getting periodic raises will have all but evaporated because, if he complains, his employer has that first guy to fall back on at the same rate.

Does that seem fair? Does that seem like the American system? I think not.

For one last point on this line of thinking, I turn again to the WSJ piece:

If you are a young black male, you are slightly more likely than the general population to be paid minimum wage, but you are almost 10 times more likely not to have a job at all. And if you're unemployed, raising the minimum wage not only doesn't help you find a job, it probably hurts.

In short, minimum wages restrict the ability for the lower classes to earn their way up the ladder and create for themselves and their children a better future.

Shame on Congress for even considering it. And shame on them for preparing to rubber stamp such a damaging idea.

For a lot more advanced economics on this than I can explain, click here.

And, by the way, the chart at the top of this post is a fairly simple illustration of the problem with a minimum wage. The center of the "X" is where supply and demand in the labor market meet at a natural equilibrium, on a graph of wage as a function of the number of workers. This is where we find the market-clearing price if the market is left alone. As you increase the wage, however, the demand for workers goes down, and excess supply (known as unemployment) is created.

It's very simple, really.

2006-11-14T14:10:00.000-05:00

It's cold out here
But we'd better start getting used to the wilderness, because it looks like we're going to be there for a while.

Why? Because the Republicans are still being led by idiots.

The Dems are doing exactly what I suggested the Republicans do in their lame duck session (via InstaPundit):

Democrats aim to open the next Congress in January with a new rule that identifies lawmakers who use legislative "earmarks" to help special interests — a change Republicans promised but didn't implement.

And two years from now, when Republicans are trying to return to their roots by running for transparent, limited government, the Dems will stand there and say "but you had your chance and didn't learn your lesson—we did."

Whereas if Republicans had taken the opportunity presented by the lame duck session to pass this kind of legislation, they would have totally out-flanked that claim by the Dems.

2006-11-14T13:26:00.000-05:00

A great move—that will never happen
Inspired by this post, I have just sent the following letter to Congressman Chris Shays, my Representative:

Congressman Shays,

You may remember that we spoke for a few minutes on the train platform and then the train on Wednesday morning of last week. I am a Republican RTM Representative from Fairfield.

I have just come across a very interesting idea that I think you, as a moderate member of our Party, have a good chance of making happen. I first saw the idea, proposed by a man named Rich Galen, here: http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/11/post_337.php

I think it is disgraceful the way Representative Pelosi is running rough-shod over her Party and circumventing Representative Hoyer's seniority in favor of a radically liberal Democratic leadership in the form of John Murtha.

So why not call a Republican caucus and convince the GOP members to support Representative Hoyer for the Speaker's chair? Assuming when all of the votes are counted, the GOP holds 203 seats in the House (which sounds about right) you would then only need to convince 15 moderate Democrats who don't support a partisan turn in Congress led by Ms. Pelosi to go along with your idea. That would hit the magic number of 218 and win the Speaker's chair for Representative Hoyer--a good man with a long history of serving his country.

As an added bonus, Republicans can then look the American people in the eye and say, quite honestly "we got the message on Election Day, and are open to a new level of bipartisanship. The Democrats have control of Congress, and we fully intend to work with them to reach reasoned, bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems." What better way to show that than by crossing the aisle to vote for a Democrat as Speaker of the House?

I look forward to your thoughts on this issue. This is the time for moderate, compassionate individuals like yourself to stand up and lead this country into a strong future. I think this would make a fantastic first step.

All the best,
[RFTR]

I invite you to send something similar to any Republicans that may represent you in Congress. They'll never do it, but they should.

2006-11-13T21:29:00.000-05:00

How does this work, exactly?
The Professor quotes Andrew Olmsted, who comments:

I see that the Democrats are now ready to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq. While I suppose this is no surprise, I'm disappointed to see it. The Democrats have rightly pointed out that Republicans acted without gathering all appropriate data, leading to problems like Iraq. Yet now they're poised to do precisely the same thing.

My question is: how can they do that? My understanding is that the Constitution gives the right to conduct war to the President, and the right to declare war to the Congress. Presidents circumvented this (think Vietnam and Korea) by declaring "police actions" and the like, until the 1973 War Powers Resolution (commonly known as the War Powers Act, although an act requires a presidential signature, which the resolution lacks), which declares that a president can commit military forces for no more than 60 days (90 days following a request to Congress and military necessity) without a congressional declaration.

So here's the problem: Congress approved the action in Iraq. How can they withdraw troops short of cutting funding for the war?

To be clear: I do not intend this as a criticism of the Dems—you've had plenty of that from me. I just don't understand how Congress has the authority to determine conduct of the war except by cutting off the funding (which is politically not viable, as it would be too easy to spin as a lack of support for the troops).

Can anyone clear that up for me?

Also, I want to be clear on another point: I am not opposed to a staged withdrawl of American troops. I haven't decided in favor of it yet, but I'm also not strictly against it. I think that I could probably get behind a proposal like the one found on dcfb here and here.

A cut-and-run without the appropriate precautions and continued engagement of the enemy will not be met with support from this blog.

2006-11-13T13:42:00.000-05:00

Shut up and sing
Elton John has announced that he would "ban religion completely." He explains in an interview that he believes organized religion fuels anti-gay discrimination and other forms of bias. I'm so glad we have Elton's rational, level-headed (see picture at right) logic to guide us.

Oh come off it. If that's what he really believes, then he's just as biased and discriminating as the people at which he's pointing the finger.

The solution to moronic, blind anti-gay discrimination is not to silence its proponents, but to show them why they are wrong. Being an intolerant boob accomplishes nothing. (Wearing a big, gawdy symbol of the very people you disdain, however, accomplishes a lot—you know, like inspiring the people who think you're insulting their religious icons to dislike you for doing so to make a fashion statement).

I am so sick of people who want to react to something they don't like by banning it. That's a nice policy to have when you're in control of the government, but someday somebody you don't like will seize the reins of power. And then you're screwed.

Instead of banning something, encourage its opposition. Defeat it through reason and intelligence, not openly hostile force. Remember the old Martin Neimoller poem?

First they came for the Communists,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
  and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.

Well, this is no different. It's all well and good to go after those religious nuts, but what happens when they come after the singers? Hell, they're already after homosexuals—you'd think Elton might know better.

But he's too busy hating to see the ridiculousness of his statement.

And before you accuse me of being just another member of the Christian Right who hates gays and defends religion at all costs, I leave you with this quote from the recent episode of American Dad called "Lincoln Lover," which I find hilariously accurate:

The Log Cabin delegates didn't choose to be gay, but they did choose to be Republicans. Even though as Republicans we used bashing them as the backbone of our last presidential election, they're still sticking with us. By God, these people love America as much as they love brunch! You know what else is a choice? Being a Democrat. Democrats weren't born Democrats, they chose to be Democrats. I'm not telling you to stop hating, I just want you to hate where hate deserves. Hating gays is hate we could be using on the Democrats! We shouldn't discriminate against gays, we should get more of them to be Republicans. They're supporting the economy by buying high-end appliances and tea-cup poodles. Do you want manufacturers of super-tight t-shirts to go out of business?

2006-11-10T14:37:00.000-05:00

Friday Quick Hits
I'm inaugurating a new segment on RFTR today. For now, I'm calling it Friday Quick Hits, because that's what came to mind first. If you have any suggestions for a better name, please leave it in the comments below.

Basically, I'm going to collect news and opinion pieces over the course of the week that aren't long enough for a full blog entry, and put them all into one post on Fridays with brief comments. (Since I only decided to do this today, please forgive the brevity. In future weeks, I'll store stuff up all week, and they should be longer.)

Please, let me know what you think, and PLEASE help me come up with a better name for this. Enjoy!

New rule: the punishment should mimic the crime.

I thought the same thing.

A former British official proves that, in addition to corruption, government officials have cornered the market on stupidity.

I voted on one of these just this week. I was also part of a recount that involved them—and walked away perfectly satisfied by their accuracy.

I have a friend who recently said that a sensible immigration policy is one that, among other things "doesn't waste money on a nonsensical fence that won't stop anyone from crossing." I've decided he's right. And I have an alternative proposal.

I like to make note of the fact that I have never had anything against Presbyterians, and now even less.

2006-11-10T06:00:00.000-05:00

Rummy is Relieved
I know I'm a little behind the news cycle on this one, but I didn't want to let the departure of SecDef Rumsfeld to pass without some comments.

I'm sorry to see him go.

I realize that such a statement is anathema to many, but I'm not afraid to admit it. It's become fashionable of late to fault Rummy with what's become of Iraq and for failing to see a way out. Well, he's certainly not the only one who should have been expected to prevent those problems, and solve them if he fell short of that goal.

I do believe that the buck stops at the top. While I admit that a SecDef could easily prevent the President's goals from succeeding, I don't think that Rummy did.

Why not? Because I've read Rumsfeld's Rules. I recommend you do the same, but I'll provide some of the highlights in this post.

On the first page, Rumsfeld says, consecutively,

Don't begin to think you're the President. You're not. The Constitution provides for only one.

and

In the execution of Presidential decisions work to be true to his views, in fact and tone.

Sure, it's possible that Rummy doesn't live according to his own beliefs—but I think it's unlikely that he'd blatantly disregard two that he thought not only important enough to codify, but important enough to do so on the first page.

I genuinely believe that he would not have wanted to prosecute the Iraq war if he could have avoided it, but when ordered to do so he did to the best of his ability.

Amidst all the clutter, beyond all the obstacles, aside from all the static, are the goals set. Put your head down, do the best job possible, let the flak pass, and work towards those goals.

I think that's the kind of guy he is.

But this is not to say that Rummy just goes along to get along. I have little doubt that he spoke his mind to the President, and volunteered when he thought the man in the Oval Office was wrong—but that he did so privately. Another pair of rules support this idea:

Don't accept the post or stay unless you have an understanding with the President that you're free to tell him what you think "with the bark off" and you have the courage to do it.

Don't automatically obey Presidential directives if you disagree or if you suspect he hasn't considered key aspects of the issue.

What makes me believe that he didn't want to go to war? Again, another rule from the first page:

It is easier to get into something than to get out of it.

And if that's true, why doesn't he say it? Why is he allowing himself to be thrown under the presidential bus?

Because he's working towards two goals important to him. First:

When asked for your views, by the press or others, remember that what they really want to
know is the President's views.

And second:

Preserve the President's options. He may need them.

He has admitted before that his resignation has been tendered repeatedly, and refused by the President. He knew he was causing problems for Bush, and he was at all times prepared to step aside. After all, that's another quality he deems important:

Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the President and do wonders for your
performance.

His willingness to resign, however, was never accepted. This lends the double-meaning in the title of his post. "Resignation" does not accurately define what happened; he was relieved of duty. And, I imagine, he's feeling more than a little relief at the moment. I think he's trying to give his boss a way out. And I think he doesn't resent being the scapegoat (though I'm sure he didn't enjoy it) because he knows that such criticism comes with celebrity:

Know that the amount of criticism you receive may correlate somewhat to the amount of
publicity you receive.

And it comes with trying to make important changes:

If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.

Will he come clean in a few years and point the finger at W? I highly doubt it:

Don't blame the boss. He has enough problems.

There's a lot more worth reading in the full rules. I think you'll enjoy them, and they're brief—so read the whole thing.

I think Rummy did a lot of good because he is an honorable man. He gets a lot of criticism, because he put himself in the line of fire to do the right thing. So I'll end this post with a few of his favorite thoughts on life that I think illustrate why he is the man he is:

"Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out." (James B. Conant)

"Most people spend their time on the 'urgent' rather than on the 'important.'" (Robert Hutchins)

"Victory is never final. Defeat is never fatal. It is courage that counts." (Winston Churchill)

Let's hope that Bob Gates proves to be at least half the man that Donald Rumsfeld has shown himself to be, again and again.

2006-11-08T21:09:00.000-05:00

Into the Wilderness
Connecticut Republicans got housed last night (no pun intended), perhaps even more solidly than federal Republicans. Jodi Rell, the incumbent Republican Governor won with 63% of the vote. The good news pretty much ends there. While they already had a veto-proof majority in the Senate, Democrats needed only a handful of seats in the House to earn a bicameral veto-proof majority. Though the final results are not yet out, it looks like they did it. So, the Republican Governor, overwhelmingly supported by the people of her state, is now nothing but a figurehead.

She literally cannot control anything that goes on in Hartford. Any veto she casts (and I expect there will be a lot) will be immediately overturned by the legislature.

It's not going to be a pretty two years. I think this is a disaster for the state of Connecticut. I hope the Democrats will govern maturely, but I'm not optimistic. I pray that they prove me wrong.

If they don't, I intend to spend the next two years of my life pointing out why they need to lose their supermajority. I don't know that I will argue for a Republican majority (they have to earn that, too), but at the very least I know that I cannot abide the elimination of the executive branch of Connecticut government. This state could change a lot in the next two years.

But that's nothing compared to what we saw nationally last night.
_________

On the federal level, as everybody knows, the outcome was nearly as bad for Republicans. My prediction of 14 and 2 was obviously way off.

What remains unclear, however, is the result for the country.

I think that the truth is mixed, as there are two issues at play. The first is the behavior of the Democrats now that they've reestablished some level of power. Will we see the results of "the Plan" that we've heard so much about (but never seen)? Or will we see something else? Will Nancy Pelosi's words prove to be prophetic as she hands over the Speaker's gavel to a bunch of petulant children? Can we expect impeachment hearings? Will we hear complaints that they can't be expected to do anything with only one house of Congress?

Or will they surprise us? I certainly hope they do on some level. Many of the freshmen are more conservative than the current leadership of the Democratic Party, and it's very possible that we'll see a revolt towards moderation from within their ranks. Again, I'm not terribly optimistic.

So, the question then, is what will federal Republicans do to redeem themselves over the next two years?
_________

I think it has to start next week.

Republicans over the next two years are going to have show themselves to be statesmen. They need to turn to the American people and say "we hear you, and we've learned our lesson." What is that lesson? No, it's not Iraq. Iraq is a part of it, but not the whole thing.

It's spending. It's government growth. It's corruption. It's immigration. It's an utter failure to communicate with the public. It's defecits. And yes, it's mismanagement of the war. Overall, it is a violation of the principles that brought the Republicans to power in 1994. It's a violation of Goldwater and Reagan conservatism.

Congressman Mike Pence said it incredibly well (via InstaPundit):

Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government. In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, 'enough is enough.

Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.

So, as I said, this trend needs to be reversed. And it cannot be accomplished by raging at the Democrats, or holding press conferences about how we need a new direction, or there are two Americas, or that the House leadership is incompetent, or cracking jokes about the intelligence of Speaker Pelosi. If they do any of this, I will rail against them. If they filibuster, I will rail against them. If they start moaning and whining about being out of power, I will rail against them. I tell you this now as a promise—I will not condone Republicans who partake of any of the behaviors that made the Democrats so frustrating over the past six years. You can hold me to it—but you won't need to.

So how can the Republican Party reverse their fortunes in two years? Primarily, they need to be gracious losers. They need to be prepared for the Democrats to act like sore winners, and they need to allow the Democrats to make asses of themselves—not look for opportunities to do it for them. They need to be statesmen before they are politicians. They need to craft clear alternatives to anything the Democrats propose, and release it directly to the public. Bush needs to sharpen his veto quill, and clearly explain why he rejects each and every bill that he does.

They need to hone their skills so that two years from now they can clearly say "we've learned our lesson, we've shown you how we would have run things differently, and we've behaved with the class necessary to prove it."
_________

So how can they get started on this next week, as I suggested?

It's easy and tempting to wait until January, when Congress changes hands. But why wait? Republicans haven't been misbehaving as the minority, they have been misbehaving as the majority. So why not demonstrate that they have learned their lesson while they are still in the majority?

Call a lame duck session.

Now, lame duck Congresses typically try to ram through some key piece of their legislative agenda that they didn't have the balls to try while their elections were on the line. Once they're freed up by the end of election season (and even more so if they are about to lose power), they will act more brazenly.

So why not try something new?

Call Congress back to debate one measure. I do not know what that measure is, but make it something big, and make it something simple. Make it something to clean Congress up, to restrict their spending, their corruption, their abuses of power, whatever. Make it clear that this is not an attempt to pull a fast one before they lose control, but rather an attempt to rise above partisanship. Do not strike out at the Dems and say "hah, we'll show you!" Turn instead to the American people and say "We're sorry. Let us do what we can to account for our sinful ways while we still have the ability."

In short, do the right thing.

And it will help them in the long run! Imagine if they have just such a shining example of leadership, of restraint, of maturity to point to in two years. Particularly imagine if the Dems run wild for any part of those two years. Republican candidates will be able to hold their heads high and say:

You repudiated our behavior, and we heard you. We immediately changed our ways and showed you what we want to do, how we want to improve this country. We have maintained those principles for two years. We have not raced to the bottom as the Democrats did while they were out of power—and as both parties did while they were in power. We are the party of reason, the party of rational restraint, the party of liberty. We are not the party we were two years ago, nor do we ever intend to return to those days. We are working for your benefit, and we hope that you will give us your trust once again. We hope we've shown you how great this nation can be, how high a level of discourse we can maintain. Now let us set the standard as a majority. We will not let you down.

There's no way they could lose after two years like that. Even if the Democrats adapt to raise the level of debate and the Republicans fail to retake the House, we will be better off as a nation. How can you go wrong?

This kind of behavior would make me proud to be a Republican again.
_________

Do I think this will happen? Of course not.

What's the first move of the Bush White House? A wave of the white flag through Rumsfeld. Their communication? That the election was about the war in Iraq. And only the war in Iraq.

As an aside: I think Iraq had a significant bearing on this election—but it's not nearly that simple, and getting rid of Rummy isn't even going to fix that single facet of the Republicans' problems. But either W, or his people seem to think that it will.

This is just one more in a long line of signs that the intellectual capacity of the White House is severely lacking. Rove may be a brilliant grand strategerer (sic), but either he isn't paying attention to or has no understanding of day-to-day tactics. The volume of serious errors coming out of this White House is unbelievable. They may not boil as high as John Kerry's "the troops are dumb" slip and the follow-on raging press release/press conference responses—but they far out-number them. Rumsfeld is one example. Bush's confession that he "thought we were going to do fine yesterday." is another. That's just one day!

They aren't communicating, and they don't show any signs that they understand their failure to communicate.

So no, I don't think Bush has anyone around him right now who will see the opportunities presented by such a simple act. And if someone does proclaim the virtues of a lame duck Congress, it will be for partisan motivations.

I likewise lack faith that Bush will have the guts—or the smarts—to start using his veto power. I doubt that Republicans will be able to moderate their tone for two years. I think they will snipe and be petulant.

I think we're in for a rough two years that could be so easily avoided. God help us.

At the very least, maybe putting the Republicans outside for a little while will do them some good. Maybe they will understand that libertarian-minded (i.e. socially liberal, fiscally conservative) Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jodi Rell win, while Republicans of all other stripes lose.

As Mark Tapscott sums it up with total brevity: "When Republicans worry more about staying in government than about limiting government, they get thrown out of government."

I'll have more thoughts on this election in the days and weeks to come, I'm sure. In particular, I have a lot more to say about the Connecticut races and those in my home town. Keep checking back for more, of course.

UPDATE [11/8/2006 - 22:09]: If I'd had internet access while I wrote this post, I most likely would have read Dean Barnett's thoughts before writing my own. What he says is similar, and probably more coherent. Read the whole thing, as they say.

UPDATE [11/9/2006 - 13:57] George Will offers another road back from this wilderness, pointing out that the political market has acted like any free market, forcing the Democrats to accept some policies in order to retake power, and repudiating Republicans for refusing to supply what was in demand.

And Dick Armey provides his take on how we got to where we are, and how Republicans can get back to representing their core constituency:

Eventually, the policy innovators and the 'Spirit of '94' were largely replaced by political bureaucrats driven by a narrow vision. Their question became: How do we hold onto political power? The aberrant behavior and scandals that ended up defining the Republican majority in 2006 were a direct consequence of this shift in choice criteria from policy to political power. [...]

Moving forward, my advice to Republicans is simple: Don't go back and check on a dead skunk. The question Republicans now need to answer is: How do we once again convince the public that we are in fact the party many Democrats successfully pretended to be in this election? To do so, Republicans will need to shed their dominant insecurities that the public just won't understand a positive, national vision that is defined by economic opportunity, limited government and individual responsibility.

Read both.

2006-11-07T20:40:00.000-05:00

Prediction
Polls have been closed in CT for half an hour. I've been at a conference all day and completely disconnected from the world.

So I have no idea what exit polls or anything of the sort look like as of now.

So I'm going to put up my prediction:
14 House seats to the Dems.
2 Senate seats to the Dems.
Republicans hold both houses.

2006-11-04T21:06:00.000-05:00

Speaker Pelosi?
I don't think so, and haven't.

I'll admit that I haven't been particularly active this campaign season. A big part of that is because I don't feel the pessimism the way a lot of Republicans do right now.

And I haven't yet this year. Why?

Well, Dean Barnett does a pretty good job of explaining my position: I just don't trust the polls.

My reasoning? Basically, I think that the pollsters are hearing a a lot of frustration with Congress, and interpreting that as an anti-incumbent pattern. They're then reinterpreting that as an anti-incumbent party (i.e. anti-Republican) trend.

I think this makes too many leaps of logic.

I also look at the people around me: the Republicans I know are pissed at the Republican Party, but have no intention of voting for Democrats, or of staying home. The Democrats I know (which is most of the people I know) are even more pissed at the Republican Party. But the Dems split, and they split about evenly—some are pissed and supporting the Democrat candidates full-throat, some are pissed and fed up with the whole system.

So, I think Barnett's right, though for slightly different reasons. I think the Republicans will turn out stronger than they're currently getting credit for, but because of different voter emotional responses more than because of voter turnout efforts. I also think that the polls are off, but not because they underrepresent Republicans—more because they think too highly of themselves.

I guess we'll see on Tuesday...

UPDATE [11/5/2006 - 22:21]: Mickey Kaus has evidence that the polls are starting to move in the direction I expected. Dems, get ready for a disappointing day...

2006-11-04T12:58:00.000-05:00

Simply Fantastic
I picked this up from Ann Althouse, via InstaPundit.

My headline says it all. Watch both pieces, and you'll be amazed at the high-minded and hilarious conversation that results from Woody Allen chatting with Billy Graham.
Part 1:

And Part 2:

2006-11-04T12:19:00.000-05:00

26 Years Ago Today
Ronald Reagan was elected to the office of President of the United States of America.

In lesser news, my sister-in-law was born. Happy birthday, Gina!

2006-11-01T22:51:00.000-05:00

Prepare yourself for some rambling
As the title suggests, you'll need to bear with me for this one. I've got some things I need to say, and I'm not sure that my thoughts will be all that coherent. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. If you don't want to know what I'm thinking, then stop reading here. If you do, then I hope you enjoy it, and I hope you'll comment when I'm done. Anyway, here goes...

I'm just back from an event at Fairfield University—a discussion between Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher of The Nation) and William Kristol (editor of The Weekly Standard). This was part of a series of lectures called the Open Visions Forum, and in particular was their "Election Day Special" in this lecture series. Mr. Kristol opened with 15 minutes, followed by Ms. vanden Heuvel for 15 minutes. Next were a few (far too) long-winded questions from the moderator (Dr. Philip Eliasoph, a Professor in FU's Department of Visual and Performing Arts) for the speakers, a few questions from two student panelists, a few more from the moderator, and then a handful from the audience. As with most debates, I was frustrated by the format, but interested in what the speakers had to say.

I won't touch on the substantive things that were said tonight, but I am hoping to initiate a sort of "lecture series" of my own on this blog over the next few weeks and months. I know I've said it before, but I'm really feeling a need to get back into this blogging thing in a way I haven't over the past year. I simply do not have the bandwidth (or ability without losing my job) to post multiple times a day like I did back in college; that does not mean I cannot post a few times a week with more substantive thoughts.

So where is this coming from?

It started with an ongoing conversation that my brother initiated with me last week. It actually began with our father, and led to him drafting this post over at dcfb. As he says:

a big reason I haven't posted for so long is frustration. Frustration with the lack of progress in Iraq, frustration with the Bush Administration, frustration with Congress, and most of all frustration with feeling like there is nothing I can do about it. Well I'm tired of being frustrated; it just takes too much energy. So, I'm going to try to vent that frustration here.

One of the things we discussed was his frustration, and the fact that he felt a need to stop letting it get the better of him, and to try and do something about the roots of that frustration.

Well, I've been feeling similar sentiments myself.

Now, I openly admit that I am a partisan. I think the Republicans are completely off-base. Yes, you read that right. I said Republicans on purpose.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are far worse on just about every issue that frustrates me with Republicans. At the very least, they don't offer any alternatives worth discussing.

You can scroll down and see my evisceration of Kerry's playing politics while accusing others of playing politics for an illustration of this. Nobody is saying anything worthwhile because they're all too busy accusing each other of failing to say anything worthwhile or of saying the wrong things.

And the result, is someone like John Kerry making a joke about the intelligence of the administration and utterly failing to take up any of the very serious issues that he could consider at the present time.

So, to bring it back to my focus: I've been frustrated. I feel like there's no one out there who's even coming close to expressing what I believe. Sure, I think Chris Shays is a decent guy, and I know he's closer to what I believe than Diane Farrell. But do I really want to support him? I mean, Phil Maymin is far closer to what I believe. There's no way in hell, for example, Maymin would have supported BCRA (McCain-Feingold in the Senate, Shays-Meehan in the House), whereas Shays was a sponsor of it!

But Maymin is never going to win, and Shays, if I don't vote for him, could very well lose. Strategic thinking says, vote for Shays. And I probably will.

So, let's move on to the CT Senate election. Schlesinger is a joke who will never win. Lamont disagrees with just about everything I believe in. And Lieberman disagrees with me on just about everything but school vouchers and foreign policy, and even on that last one he's a much bigger cheerleader of the Bush Administration than I am these days. So who the hell do I vote for there?

Again, frustrated.

I supported the war in Iraq, and still think it was the right thing to do. I now think it was entirely botched not only in the prosecution, but also in the goals at the outset. I think that my brother's take is pretty much spot-on.

Yet again, frustrated. You get the point, I won't bore you with more examples.

So, my conversation with my brother has begun moving me to the point where I feel a need to stop being frustrated and start doing something about it, as he is doing. I helped him edit his Iraq post some (you can thank me for the sub-heads and most of the links—i.e. you can thank me for making it readable instead of one huge block of text). I felt a need to rip into Kerry—and if you made it to the end, you saw that it wasn't a partisan complaint, but one about politics in general.

And I feel the need to keep it up.

So, as I said, hopefully I'm going to find the time to provide you with more of my thoughts on every day events. I'll pick one or two issues per week on which to pontificate, and present you with the results.

Consider this morning's post the first in the series, serving as a general rant against the political noise machine of current politics. Consider tonight's post the second in the series.

And I hope to offer you more soon.

As I've said, this is my little effort to be heard, and to feel like I'm doing at least something. I can't change the system with my vote, so I'm going to lend more of my voice.

And please, please lend me yours in response. If you agree, if you disagree, stand up and be heard. (Unless you're John Kerry—he should still sit down and shut up.)

2006-11-01T10:07:00.000-05:00

Who is handling Kerry?
Seriously, who are his advisors these days? Who thinks that these were the right things to say in response to his gaffe yesterday? Let's look at a transcript—that originated with Kerry's staffers—to see what he said. And yes, I'll be breaking in to comment.

Let me make it crystal clear, as crystal clear as I know how: I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy.

All anyone heard is "I apologize to no one." This is one of the dumbest things politicians ever do. Just say you're sorry that you stumbled over your words and that you're sorry you offended people. THEN turn the tables and say "What I had intended to say is..." But apologize first, jackass.

If anyone owes our troops in the fields an apology, it is the President and his failed team and a Republican majority in the Congress that has been willing to stamp -- rubber-stamp policies that have done injury to our troops and to their families.

This should have come after a real apology. "Now I have apologized and I am truly sorry, but I am not the only one who owes an apology," or something like that.

My statement yesterday -- and the White House knows this full well -- was a botched joke about the president and the president's people, not about the troops.

So apologize for screwing it up.

The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe. It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics. It's their willingness to distort, their willingness to mislead Americans, their willingness to exploit the troops, as they have so many times at backdrops, at so many speeches at which they have not told the American people the truth.

Actually, Senator, your "true statement" was a slurr about the troops. Your intended statement may have been different, but you are the one spinning your "true statement," not the White House. Oh, and, by the way, someday you're going to figure out that bloggers don't take their cues from the White House, and they got to this party long before the President's staff even knew you'd said something stupid.

I'm not going to stand for it.

Then sit down and shut up.

What our troops deserve is a winning strategy. And what they deserve is leadership that is up to the sacrifice that they're making.

Okay, John, lay it on me. What is the winning strategy? What do you propose? Any ideas? Remember: withdrawl is not victory, unless it truly is strategic and to accomplish other goals. So, Senator, what is your proposal for a winning strategy? Surely you're about to criticize the President for failing to have one, so you must have one of your own, right?

Sadly, this is the best that this administration can do in a month when we have lost 100 young men and women who have given their lives for a failed policy.

No proposal yet...

Over half the names on the Vietnam wall were put there after our leaders knew that our policy was wrong. And it was wrong that leaders were quiet then, and I'm not going to be quiet now.

Ah! So it's not that you think the troops deserve a policy for victory, then, is it Senator? No, you want leaders who admit that we've failed. And that's fine, if that's what you believe. But I have to ask: why do you try and pretend like you're after a victory strategy if you think it's a lost cause. The least you could do is admit you were wrong. Some people who supported the war like you did have admitted their mistake and proposed ways to go about fixing the situation. (More on this link later, but you should absolutely click it and read it in full). But you cannot bring yourself to say that you think we've failed because you're afraid you'll take a dip in the polls. So you stand up and say "Our troops demand a plan for victory!" while trying to convince the rest of us that victory cannot be achieved. You, sir, define hypocrisy. And I'm having a premonition... you'll do it again before the end of this press conference.

This is a textbook Republican campaign strategy: Try to change the topic; try to make someone else the issue; try to make something else said the issue, not the policy, not their responsibility.

Oops! There it is! This is ostensibly a press conference about what you said yesterday. And you've spun it to be about the President and the White House. I don't have a problem with that. As a student of political strategy, I can agree that it is an incredibly effective tactic. But don't you dare say it's a Republican tactic while you're in the middle of taking advantage yourself. Do you think we're idiots?

Well, everybody knows it's not working this time, and I'm not going to stand around and let it work.

This is akin to saying "Everybody's going over there, so I'm going to lead them over there!" It's what Kerry does. He tries to sniff the air and determine the prevailing wind before ordering the wind to blow in that direction. A lot of politicians do that—Kerry's problem is he's not any good at it.

If anyone thinks that a veteran, someone like me, who's been fighting my entire career to provide for veterans, to fight for their benefits, to help honor what their service is, if anybody thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq and not the president and his people who put them there, they're crazy.

I invite you to remember that Kerry began his political career by accusing Vietnam soldiers of having "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads... randomly shot at civilians... in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." (Source)

It's just wrong. This is a classic GOP textbook Republican campaign tactic.

Now you're hypocritical and redundant.

I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes.

Then lead by example. Take responsibility for the mistake you made yesterday morning and stop trying to make other people the "butt" of that mistake. (I don't even know what that means, but we'll go with it for parallelism's sake.)

I'm sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks, most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves.

The first criticism of Kerry's statement came from Senator McCain. Did he ever wear the uniform? I can't seem to remember. And who else has joined the chorus? Well, lots of non-partisans, including, for example, The American Legion.

Enough is enough. We're not going to stand for this. This policy is broken. And this president and his administration didn't do their homework. They didn't study what would happen in Iraq. They didn't study and listen to the people who were the experts and would have told them.

And how many of these experts did you talk to, Senator? It must have been a lot, since you voted against the war to start with. Of course, then you voted for it. But now you're against it, and that's what's important, right?

And they know that's what I was talking about yesterday. I'm not going to be lectured by a White House or by the likes of Rush Limbaugh who's taking a day off from mimicking and attacking Michael J. Fox, who's now going to try to attack me and lie about me and distort me.

Okay, this is one I love. It calls to mind Kerry's initial press release in response to his gaffe, in which he called Rush Limbaugh "doughy." Which is just hilariously stupid.

Now, as for the "attacks and lies and distortions." Well, Senator, they're just quoting exactly what you said. They are not distorting it in any way. I'd say it sounds like you're trying to distort your actual words in favor of your intended words. But, while we're at it, I've read reports that W did better at Yale than you did. So was this actually a self-deprecating joke for your failure to vote against something that you now believe was such a horrible mistake? It must be, right? You wouldn't play off of the stereotype that a man who did better in school than you is an idiot just to get a laugh, would you? No, of course not.

No way. It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who've never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did.

But those who wore the uniform are invited to lie about those who didn't. And disregard those (McCain, among others) who did.

It's over.

This administration has given us a Katrina foreign policy: mistake upon mistake upon mistake; unwilling to give our troops the armor that they need; unwilling to have enough troops in place; unwilling to give them the Humvees that they deserve to protect them; unwilling to have a coalition that is adequate to be able to defend our interests.

So what do we do now, John. Propose something, for heaven's sake. One thing. ANYthing. But no, you want to rehash the mistakes instead of moving forward. Because you don't have any ideas. You don't know where to go from here. And the only way you have a prayer at winning votes (and you'd be doing a lot better if you weren't such an idiot with such apparently tasty feet) is by focusing on moot points.

Our own intelligence agency has told us they're creating more terrorists, not less. They're making us less safe, not more.

They also said that North Korea is years away from developing nuclear weapons and that Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Oops! But by all means, let's listen to them when they back up what we want to believe and disregard their general failure to do anything right.

I think Americans are sick and tired of this game. These Republicans are afraid to stand up and debate a real veteran on this topic. And they're afraid to debate -- you know, they want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men.

Yes John, you are a real man. So, um, where's the outrage that he just attacked the masculinity of all Republicans? How is this any different than calling the opposition "girlie men"?

Well, we're going to have a real debate in this country about this policy. The bottom line is: These Republicans want to distort this policy. And, this time, it won't work because we are going to stay in their face with the truth.

What policy are we debating? Whether we should have gone to war in the first place? Whether we should stay there now? I thought you were demanding a policy for victory, not demanding to debate a policy for victory. Which is it?

And no Democrat is going to be bullied by these people, by these kinds of attacks that have no place in American politics. It's time to set our policy correct.

Hah. No Democrat will be bullied, because they're too busy bullying. What was John Kerry's allegedly intended joke? It was a slight at a man's intelligence. Is this the kind of high-minded debate that the Senator would prefer?

They have a stand-still-and-lose policy in Iraq and they have a cut-and-run policy in Afghanistan. And the fact is, our troops, who have served heroically, who deserve better, deserve leadership that is up to their sacrifice, period.

Obviously he'd prefer that we stand-still in Afghanistan and cut-and-run in Iraq.

Seriously, folks, and I want you to understand this clearly: I have been a fervent supporter of the Iraq war from the start, and I have been having plenty of doubts lately. I linked above to a piece that my brother recently posted on Diet Coke For Breakfast about where we stand in this war and where we should be going from here. I encourage everyone to read it clearly, and to comment on his post or here with your thoughts. This is an important question that is not getting coverage in a broad audience.

Instead, we have asshats like John Kerry who want to talk in platitudes about failed policies and crack jokes about dumb presidents instead of sit down and come up with solutions. It is men like John Kerry that are the reason government will never be the solution to most of life's problems—because they rise to the top by worrying about their own image, rather than by showing the qualities of leadership and grace that would allow government to act with restraint and allow individuals to thrive, while intervening only where absolutely necessary. Instead, to a man like Kerry, it is better to lend half-efforts that look good and in the meantime destroy the possibility that people can rise up and succeed themselves. I know that has nothing to do with the war, but it's the same problem.

Kerry would rather look like he cares about victory in Iraq and the war on Islamofascism than actually take a stand for something that might make the situation better.

He's not just a flip-flopper, he's a pussy who's afraid to be wrong.

Now, I'm not going to go onto the Q&A section, because it's largely repetitive. But I invite you to click over to the full transcript and read that section too.

Most importantly, get over to dcfb and let us know what you think about my brother's proposals.

UPDATE [11/2/2006 - 0:03]: James Taranto has similar thoughts.

2006-10-17T06:22:00.000-04:00

Entitlement taken to extremes
I tagged this article for a response last week, but haven't had a chance to post something until now. Our society has official reached the saturation point when it comes to entitlement. CNN.com tells us about a man who was approaching the social security pay-out age but could not find regular work to cover his day-to-day expenses. So what'd he do?

He robbed a bank.

Not so ridiculous in and of itself—people sometimes turn to crime when they're hard up for cash—but the story doesn't end there. You see, he had no intention of keeping the money. Once he had the cash in hand, he turned around and handed it to a guard:

On Wednesday, Timothy J. Bowers told a judge a three-year prison sentence would suit him, and the judge obliged.

"At my age, the jobs available to me are minimum-wage jobs. There is age discrimination out there," Bowers, who turns 63 in a few weeks, told Judge Angela White.

The judge told him: "It's unfortunate you feel this is the only way to deal with the situation."

Bowers said he had been able to find only odd jobs after the drug wholesaler he made deliveries for closed in 2003. He walked to a bank and handed a teller a note demanding cash in an envelope. The teller gave him four $20 bills and pushed a silent alarm.

Bowers handed the money to a security guard standing in the lobby and told him it was his day to be a hero.

He pleaded guilty to robbery, and a court-ordered psychological exam found him competent.

Now, let me start by saying that I'm sure he is competent. He's just an idiot and an asshole.

I'm not sure what the laws are that govern this situation (i.e. if there is a mandatory minimum sentence for attempted bank robbery or not), but it seems to me that this judge should not have granted him his wish. Or should have granted his wish with a "be careful what you wish for" sentence to one of those awful prisons we always hear about.

The justice and correctional systems are not there as a welfare program. And imagine the outcry if we followed this guy's example and started locking up the poor, destitute and homeless.

All that explains why I call him an asshole. But more fundamentally, he's an idiot.

Even with three square meals a day and a roof over his head, prison is not going to exactly be comfortable. And I disagree with the judge—it's not unfortunate that he felt this was the only way to survive until he hit the retirement age, it's idiotic. The guy's idea wasn't to, say, punch a cop. He didn't steal a car. He robbed a bank. And then returned the money.

Think about that. The guy is in such desperate need of money that he thinks prison is a step up from his current situation.

But he doesn't think to maybe ask for a little more than 80 bucks and try to get away with it? Worst-case scenario, he gets caught and receives the punishment he expected anyway. Best-case, he avoids jail time and survives until retirement. Why wouldn't you at least give it a shot?

But this guy couldn't figure that out. And still, the judge gave him his wish and granted him the right to be a leach on society.

Crimes of passion are considered a separate class of criminal behavior; it's times like this when I start to wish we had summary judgment for crimes of idiocy.

2006-10-10T22:59:00.000-04:00

It doesn't all have to be politics...
Sometimes it's nice to take a break from the world of sex scandals for a good, old-fashioned, sex-related post.

William Saletan reports in Slate that, contrary to public belief, women take no longer to reach peak sexaul arousal than men:

Thermal cameras indicate that while watching sex films, women took 12 minutes to reach 'peak arousal,' just a minute longer than men. Previous studies suggesting that women took longer than men were done 'with instruments that require genital contact and manipulation.' Implication: The contact hastened male arousal. Old hypothesis: Men are suckers for dirty movies. New hypothesis: Men are suckers for genital contact.

On the same day, Reuters gives us the key to telling when women are their most fertile. Hint: there's a reason they call it "dressing like a slut."

If you don't want to pay child support, pick the frumpy girl at the bar tonight.

And we learned today from the AP that Scarlett Johansson may not be as sexually available as is commonly thought. She says "There does seem to be a mistaken belief out there that I am sexually available somehow -- which is not to say that I'm not open-minded about sex [...] when I'm in a relationship, I'm in a relationship."

Gaijinbiker was particularly disappointed.

That being said, she also acknowledges that she gets tested for HIV twice a year. There seems to be some sort of disconnect there, if you ask m.

Now, see? Wasn't that more fun than my usual political fare?

2006-10-06T17:46:00.000-04:00

We can only hope...
...that this kind of rational thinking catches on.

It wouldn't have helped in the Pennsylvania incident last week, as the Amish are pacifists and would not agree to arm their schools—but it could help just about everywhere else.

After we had that spate of school shootings following Columbine, I remember joking with my friends about how you never see shootings in urban schools. The punchline was: that's because if someone pulls out a gun, he knows that three other guys are going to take him down before he gets a shot off.

Okay, so it's not a good joke, but it may be an apt one. Let's hope people figure this one out.

UPDATE [10/10/2007 - 22:33]: There's been a lot more talk on this topic in the past few days, and I wanted to call your attention to one story in particular. This piece looks at the benefits of arming teachers in schools, and makes some pretty strong arguments based on regions in which it has been tried. I was amazed, for example, to learn that Thailand, a primarily Budhist country, has seen a very successful program grow along these lines. Maybe my comment about the pacifist Amish wasn't as accurate as I may have thought.

The key point is simply this:

One confirmation of the strength of the case for allowing teachers the choice to be armed is the weakness of the arguments against it. Significantly, we have real-world tests of the policy — not only in Israel and Thailand, but also in the United States.

Read the whole thing.

2006-10-06T15:18:00.000-04:00

Yikes
James Lileks has some thoughts on Islamism, "the other" and various other elements of our current global conflict. His thoughts are fairly straightforward as I see them, and generally represent the most rational way of approaching the situation that I can see.

But then he concludes with a metaphor that's really pretty terrifying:

Ever watched a fight on TV? Before the bout everyone's milling around in the ring; there's hard looks and grins and hangers-on and photographers, and a general air of excitement and anticipation, but everyone's enjoying the moment. Then the bell clangs. Everyone heads to their [sic] corners. They know exactly which corner is theirs.

We may think that bell's already rung, but it hasn't. Believe me, you'll know it when it does.

I mean, I've thought about this possibility before—generally that we could start seeing escalation upon escalation, leading to all-out global conflict between Muslim and not—but never in quite such stark terms.

I'm going to have to do some thinking about this one.

2006-10-05T14:23:00.000-04:00

Very interesting
Catherine Seipp comments on South Park 10 seasons out, and has a lot to say.

I still need to read South Park Conservatives, though.

2006-10-02T13:41:00.000-04:00

What a bunch of jerks
The AP really must not like new media. Look at this little tongue-in-cheek section of an article about Google's purchase of the garage where the company was founded:

The busloads of people that show up to take pictures of the house and garage have become such an annoyance that Google asked The Associated Press not to publish the property's address, although it can easily be found on the Internet using the company's search engine.

I mean, it's true. But what's the point of complying with Google's request if you're just going to tell your readers how to circumvent it?

2006-10-01T16:23:00.000-04:00

Consider This

With all of the inane, overly-emotional discussion about torture that we see on a daily basis, it's worth taking the time to read Dean Barnett's thoughts on the subject.

One of the key bits for me:

It's inevitable that innocent people will be subjected to this kind of treatment. But this is war, and in war we make moral compromises. For example, normally we don't like to kill people. In war, we try to kill people by the thousands. That Amnesty International guy that I was on TV with last night kept whining that we wouldn't be having any of this if it weren't for 9/11. Duh. If we weren't at war, we could comfortably remain in the moral sphere that we aspire to. But right now, that's not an option.

But read the whole thing.

Tom Maguire has thoughts on the subject as well—equally worth reading.

2006-08-17T17:07:00.000-04:00

Life imitates the movies
It seems that every time I watch a movie or TV show about an international fugitive, the federal marshall, or FBI agent, or whomever is pursuing, shows up in a tropical environment in a hideous hawaiian shirt.

Could it be that this is based on reality?

Take a look at the picture at the left (click image for a larger version). On the right, with his pants resting just below his nipples, is the guy who's been charged with the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. He's being held in Thailand.

The guy waving towards the camera, I'm guessing, is a Thai official of some kind.

So who's the other white guy? The only thing I can come up with (and I'm basing this here on that terrible shirt) is that he's the U.S. government representative. (Picture from CNN.com. Article here.)

2006-08-09T16:33:00.000-04:00

Another Strong Independent Bid
You may remember a few weeks back that I entertained the idea of a third-party bid from McCain and Lieberman. Now Austin Bay is openly supporting the same idea. Remember, you ~~heard~~ read it hear first.

But today, in the wake of Lieberman's narrow defeat, I'm ready to endorse a candidate for Senator from the great state of Connecticut: Jack Bauer.

I'd also like to endorse a candidate to run against Hillary in the less-great (but still great) state of New York: Jack Bauer.

That's right, I think he should run as a write-in candidate in both states.

Blogs4Bauer is proud to serve as the home of Jack Bauer's 2006 candidacy for the Senate seats in both Connecticut and New York. Be sure to check there regularly over the coming weeks and months for more updates. And email Jack if you'd like to get involved, or endorse him and his campaigns—he'll be glad to have your support.

Platforms
1. Jack Bauer is not Ned Lamont.

Other
Add a Bauer2006 logo to your website.

2006-07-31T10:34:00.000-04:00

Sigh
No wonder "fisking" has become a common term in the blogosphere. It's like he wants to pretend that those nasty terrorist guys keep away from those poor, innocent civilians. He says:

This slaughter was an obscenity, an atrocity yes, if the Israeli air force truly bombs with the "pinpoint accuracy" it claims, this was also a war crime.

He also says that one of the vicitms asked "What in the name of God have we done to deserve this?"

That's a fair question, because that women and her family had probably not done anything to deserve that. And the Israeli bomb probably did not miss.

But you cannot conflate those two statements to say that Israel intentionally targetted innocent civilians—a necessary assertion for this to have been the war crime that Fisk alleges.

These Hizbollah fighters move in and out of civilian areas. They travel in civilian clothes. They take refuge in civilian buildings. The launch rockets from residential neighborhoods.

What did these innocents do to deserve this? Nothing. What did Israel do to deserve the blame? Almost as little. It is Hizbollah who is to blame for putting these people in harm's way.

2006-07-28T11:23:00.000-04:00

Let's give Hezbollah a freebie
...on this location.

2006-07-27T00:28:00.000-04:00

Strong independent run
Readers of this blog know that I'm a Republican. They also know that the old name of this blog was Running for the Right, which I've now re-branded as RFTR. Why?

Because, while I'm a Republican, I'm not a Republican first. I'm a conservative, but I'm not a conservative first.

I'm not quite sure what my ranking is, but it's something similar to this: I'm a Christian first, an American second, a pragmatist third, a conservative fourth, and a Republican finally. The Christian and American roles sometimes switch, I think, but the rest is pretty stable.

So why am I telling you this? Because I think there's a possibility of a strong independent ticket for the presidency in 2006, and I have a hard time convincing myself not to support them.

I meant to write something about this over a week ago, but I got too busy. Then, I was going to do it this weekend, but I got absorbed into the redesign, and it never happened.

So, imagine my surprise when I clicked over to RealClearPolitics on Monday and found this article by Peter Brown. His thesis is basically that, by radicalizing Connecticut to possibly take down Sen. Joe Lieberman in November (not likely, if he runs as in Independent, though he may very well lose the primary), the Dems are opening themselves up to a huge risk in two years. Brown says:

[I]t would not be hard to write a scenario in which the real loser from a Lieberman defeat to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont might be the Democratic Party itself.

That would especially be the case if Lieberman's good friend [Sen.] John McCain of Arizona becomes the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and picks Joe as his running mate.

Then, Lieberman, Al Gore's running mate in 2000, would become the only person in American history to have ever run on the national ticket of both parties. And Lieberman on a Republican fusion ticket in 2008 might be a huge GOP asset.

Now, let me be straight: I don't think there's any possibility of a McCain/Lieberman Republican ticket. First off, Lieberman has already announced that if he wins the Senate with an "I" after his name, he will still caucus with the Democrats. He may be betrayed by his Party, but Joe is a Democrat through and through. He's not going to jump tickets, even for a VP nod.

Secondly, I don't think McCain can win the Republican nod. I've met McCain. I think he's inspirational, and while I disagree strongly with some of his positions (can you say "campaign finance reform"?), I think he's a very strong politician who is really trying to do what he thinks is best for the country.

But primary politics, especially in the beginning, have a lot to do with personal presence. When I met him two summers ago, he, frankly, looked awful. His face has been ravaged by skin cancer, and with American voters' legendary fickleness, that could be enough to chase off a lot of the New Hampshire and Iowa voters. Now, he's the press's darling, so we're unlikely to see a lot of close-ups of his face, and there will be next to no mention of his fight with cancer—so he might squeak by that one.

But there's a big problem in the current climate with a pro-choice candidate winning the Republican nomination. It's the same reason Rudy Giuliani would have a lot of trouble picking up the nomination.

Now, if McCain were to lose the Republican nomination, that would open him up for an Independent bid. This is likely his last shot at the presidency. He could run in another four years, but I think that's unlikely. He's got to be starting to feel the exhaustion of a long life in politics, and two defeats in three presidential elections over eight years, as well as the repeated snubbing by his own party, are likely to discourage that.

At this point, with his name recognition where it is, with the support of the press, and the general respect and admiration of the country, he's got a good shot at making a strong third-party bid. And, really, at that point, there's nothing to stop him from doing it. If you miss your party's nomination twice in three elections, the chances of picking it up the third time are slim to none. He'll look pretty pathetic at that point, like a perpetual "also-ran."

Now, imagine a scenario in which McCain runs with an "I." Who's going to be his running mate? Well, there's this (possibly current, possibly former) Senator in Connecticut who is immensely popular with moderates (as is McCain) and ran with the same "I" merely two years prior. He also has the national name recognition, and the credentials of a former major party vice presidential nominee, who likewise is staring down the barrel of an almost-over career in politics.

Honestly, I don't see anything to keep them from teaming up. And they could very well be tough to beat.

We all know the tradition in this country is to run to the base in the primaries, and run to the center in the general elections. W bucked that trend two years ago by never turning to the center—but that doesn't mean any single base will be able to win an election without the boost from moderates any time soon.

I haven't had a chance to do the research yet, but from my recollection, there has never been a third party candidate who ran to the center of the major parties with any chance of stealing a sizeable portion of the popular vote. Typically, you wind up with a third party to the right or left of the major parties, forcing the candidate closest to them to move in that direction without picking up enough base votes to carry an election and getting screwed over—think Al Gore vs. Ralph Nader in 2000.

In this case, however, you'd have a team going right up the middle, stealing the moderates and moderate partisans from both parties. And, theoretically, that could be enough to steal the general. I know I'd have a tough time voting for the Republican if it's soemone in the mold of the current Republican Party leadership.

Now, there's another possibility. In order to defeat this insurgent candidacy, the major parties would have to run to their bases, pushing turnout, in order to capture enough of the electorate to win. And if the McCain/Lieberman ticket were to lose, we'd be stuck with either a left- or right-wing victory. That's not exactly an exciting prospect on either end.

Still, the overall concept intrigues me greatly.

We're a long way off yet, but I think this is shaping up to be one hell of a presidential contest—particularly considering we won't have an incumbent anything running for the first time in a long time.

Stay tuned...

2006-07-23T03:45:00.000-04:00

The first day of the rest of your life
Welcome to the new look of rftr.

I'm trying out a new template I threw together tonight, and would love to know what you think.

Please direct all feedback to rftr.blogger@gmail.com, or post a comment here. Please especially let me know if you encounter a broken link, or image that will not load—I'd like to make sure I get all the bugs out, though I think I'm pretty close at this point.

Take a look at the old format by clicking here.

I'm also hoping the new look will reenergize me and I'll do a better job of making time to post. I've been trying, I really have! Either way, though, we're liable to end up with fewer posts than I used to have, but hopefully I'll be able to make them more substantial since they'll be coming less often than at other times in the past.

If you like the new look—and, more importantly, if you like the content once I get back up to speed—tell your friends!

2006-07-21T19:42:00.000-04:00

Hell on Earth... or, you know, a little fright
The image at the right is a screenshot from CNN.com at the time of this posting. The caption makes it sound like the family in the picture escaped a pretty harrowing experience, does it not?

My first thought was "man, they don't look like they just came out of a war zone," which led to "okay, maybe they're just really relieved to have escaped." So, I click through to the full article to get the true story.

Like thousands of Lebanese-American families, the Esseilys' family visit to Lebanon coincided with Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers and the Israeli airstrikes that followed.

Esseily doesn't consider herself "inside the war."

"I was three kilometers away, and I heard [an airstrike] and [it] shook my house. The smoke was coming up my way, and I smelled the plastic and the burning of the homes and all that. But I never went into it," she said.

Okay, so they wanted to leave and were a bit scared, but it doesn't sound like they were in any real danger.

So it makes sense, as CNN says on the front page, that they are thinking about all of the people who are still there, and worrying for their safety. But why describe their departure as "escap[ing] the horrors of Israel's campaign"? (emphasis added)

What horrors did these people experience?

And if this is the closest CNN can come to finding someone who were horrified, what does that say about everyone else?

I'm just asking because I want to know why the media feels the need to drum up excitement about these things. I know I'm not the first to ask—and I'm not taking it as far as some others who would scream "antisemitism!!" at the top of their lungs—but the desire to tell a good story really handicaps their ability to tell the truth.

2006-07-19T14:45:00.000-04:00

It's hot in the hot tub
This heat is literally killing us, according to CNN.com:

The heat that has stifled much of the nation since late last week has contributed to the deaths of at least 10 people, including two in Oklahoma City, one in Philadelphia, two in Arkansas and one in Indiana.

The toll increased Tuesday with word that a 23-year-old man with cerebral palsy died in a Philadelphia suburb after apparently being left in a sweltering van by accident, authorities said.

In the Chicago area, three women, one in her 50s and two in their 70s, died from the combination of pre-existing conditions and heat stress, according to a spokesman for the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications.

We could save these people, if only we had a socialized medical system.