Thursday, October 16, 2008
"The Secret LIfe of Judges"
Any of my readers who are lawyers (and frankly anyone interested in government) should read this piece, by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the 2nd Circuit. It's the best explanation I've read of the role lawyers and judges play in our society, and some of the problems with that role.
Preaching to the Corner
A couple of times last night McCain seemed to forget that he was making a pitch to 60 million viewers and began to talk in conservative jargon (some of it about 30 years old). I'm not sure that calling someone a "redistributionist" has the same punch now that it had in the 60s. I also have a hard time seeing how mocking "the health of the mother" is useful when McCain's trying to make up ground with independents. I realize that he's following a conservative argument that the "health of the mother" exception has been broadened to cover things like mental health, but that's a dispute raised in the comments section of FreeRepublic.com, not in your last chance to talk to a broad audience of voters.
Angry McCain
When you spend much of the debate making angry faces, you can expect that something like this will happen:
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Game, set, match
Although Tom Brokaw and co. will inevitably insist on calling this a draw, I think Obama won by miles. He looked like an adult- calm, collected, with an overwhelming grasp of the issues. McCain came off as alternately sulky and spastic.
Nobody cares if McCain's feelings were hurt by John Lewis's comments. He's an adult, a U.S. Senator, and a candidate for president. I think Obama very effectively pivoted to what's actually at stake- you could see the CNN dials go off the charts when he noted that he didn't mind getting attacked for the next 3 weeks, but Americans couldn't afford to have the candidates wasting their time on useless attacks.
After that exchange, McCain's performance went way downhill. It seemed that he was trying to cram in every attack and talking point into each exchange. Sometimes this lead to incomprehensible sections where he would string together various bits of his stump speech without connectors- "we must drill now... independence from foreign oil... reform... vouchers" I thought his discussion of the Columbian trade agreement to be particularly difficult to follow. I think I'm fairly well informed about these things, and for the life of me I could not figure out what McCain was talking about. I can't imagine that many independent voters were able to either.
I thought that McCain raised the Ayers issue in a very disjointed way, and that Obama fielded the question with aplomb. I think it will be pretty difficult for anyone in the legitimate media to say that "Obama hasn't answered questions about Ayers."
McCain clearly was having difficulty keeping control of his emotions, alternately making bizarre faces, sighing loudly into his microphone, and at times seeming like he was about to snap (as Rod Dreher said "McCain was two tics away from a vein-popping "You can't handle the truth!" Jack Nicholson moment")
McCain needed a knockout to get back into the game, and he wasn't even close.
19 days.
Nobody cares if McCain's feelings were hurt by John Lewis's comments. He's an adult, a U.S. Senator, and a candidate for president. I think Obama very effectively pivoted to what's actually at stake- you could see the CNN dials go off the charts when he noted that he didn't mind getting attacked for the next 3 weeks, but Americans couldn't afford to have the candidates wasting their time on useless attacks.
After that exchange, McCain's performance went way downhill. It seemed that he was trying to cram in every attack and talking point into each exchange. Sometimes this lead to incomprehensible sections where he would string together various bits of his stump speech without connectors- "we must drill now... independence from foreign oil... reform... vouchers" I thought his discussion of the Columbian trade agreement to be particularly difficult to follow. I think I'm fairly well informed about these things, and for the life of me I could not figure out what McCain was talking about. I can't imagine that many independent voters were able to either.
I thought that McCain raised the Ayers issue in a very disjointed way, and that Obama fielded the question with aplomb. I think it will be pretty difficult for anyone in the legitimate media to say that "Obama hasn't answered questions about Ayers."
McCain clearly was having difficulty keeping control of his emotions, alternately making bizarre faces, sighing loudly into his microphone, and at times seeming like he was about to snap (as Rod Dreher said "McCain was two tics away from a vein-popping "You can't handle the truth!" Jack Nicholson moment")
McCain needed a knockout to get back into the game, and he wasn't even close.
19 days.
In a corner
McCain seems to have backed himself into a corner with his pronouncement that he'll bring up Ayers at the debate tonight. To begin with, it's never a good idea to tell your opponent exactly how you plan to "whip his you-know-what." I also don't think that raising Ayers unassisted will be helpful to McCain.
If Bob Schieffer brings up Ayers, and Obama's response is hesitant or evasive, then McCain has an opening to go after him without much in the way of negative consequences. If McCain has to bring up Ayers himself, then he runs the risk of trying to distract people from a.) whatever question Schieffer actually asked him; and b.) the general problems with the economy, etc. Obama's got an almost fool-proof answer, quoting McCain's staffer who said that "when we talk about issues we lose." Now that Schieffer knows that McCain's going to bring up Ayers, what incentive does he have to put the issue out there?
If McCain doesn't go after Obama on Ayers, he'll have really let down his base, and he'll face more criticism of the "say it to my face" variety from the Obama camp.
If Bob Schieffer brings up Ayers, and Obama's response is hesitant or evasive, then McCain has an opening to go after him without much in the way of negative consequences. If McCain has to bring up Ayers himself, then he runs the risk of trying to distract people from a.) whatever question Schieffer actually asked him; and b.) the general problems with the economy, etc. Obama's got an almost fool-proof answer, quoting McCain's staffer who said that "when we talk about issues we lose." Now that Schieffer knows that McCain's going to bring up Ayers, what incentive does he have to put the issue out there?
If McCain doesn't go after Obama on Ayers, he'll have really let down his base, and he'll face more criticism of the "say it to my face" variety from the Obama camp.
10,000
CNYEXPAT reached a milestone late last night- our ten thousandth visit. I started this blog about a month and a half ago as an outlet for my interest in politics and the election, and as a way to share interesting ideas or stories that I'd read with friends (instead of mass-emailing them links). The blog has taken off in a way I hadn't imagined, and now has folks all over the country who read it regularly (including somebody from Wasilla!) and even some international readers.
I'd like to thank everyone who takes time out of their day to read what I have to say, and especially to those who find it worthwhile enough to pass on to their friends. As the election winds up I'll be thinking about in what direction I should take this blog, so ideas from readers will be much appreciated.
I'd like to thank everyone who takes time out of their day to read what I have to say, and especially to those who find it worthwhile enough to pass on to their friends. As the election winds up I'll be thinking about in what direction I should take this blog, so ideas from readers will be much appreciated.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Christopher Buckley canned at The National Review
After endorsing Obama, Christopher Buckley, a conservative writer and son of National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr., was fired from his father's magazine.
So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.
While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative†government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.
So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.
So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.
While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative†government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.
So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.
Palin and the Anchorage Daily News differ on the meaning of the Troopergate report
Take, for instance this passage:
Page 8, Finding Number One of the report says: "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."
Palin thinks this means she's been "vindicated," while the ADN says "In plain English, she did something "unlawful." She broke the state ethics law."
I realize she has some difficulty with English but this is pushing it.
Page 8, Finding Number One of the report says: "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."
Palin thinks this means she's been "vindicated," while the ADN says "In plain English, she did something "unlawful." She broke the state ethics law."
I realize she has some difficulty with English but this is pushing it.
Oh, the possibilities...
From Elapsed Time:
- In Development -
Scene 12
SARAH and family are seen packing the white Ford Explorer for the drive to Washington DC. SARAH wears a white parka with fur hood. She exudes confidence.
SARAH
(hurriedly)
Guys, we need to get going. Inauguration ceremony is in three days and we're going to need to drive all night.(counts family members to make sure everyone is present)Where's Piper? Piper!
PIPER
(Running)
Sorry mom, NookNook and I have something for you
(undersized eskimo appears from offcamera cradling a seal)
PIPER
I heard you and Dad talking about the Presidential Seal.
(seal barks and snorts in NookNook's arms)
SARAH
Aww, Piper.
(SARAH and PIPER hug)
Foolishness
Drudge, Foxnews and the Hannity Forums are abuzz this morning about a story in the Tampa/St. Pete news (link no longer working) that this summer ACORN submitted a voter registration form for "Mickey Mouse" this summer. A couple points on this (and the general allegations of "massive fraud" by ACORN)-
ACORN is required by law to turn in all voter registration forms it receives. This law makes sense, because otherwise it would be too easy to register voters and then throw out the forms from people who you think won't support your preferred candidate. ACORN has registered 1.3 million new voters by employing 13,000 registration workers. Clearly when dealing with those numbers, you're going to get some number of jerks who fill out bad forms, and cheating employees who fill out forms themselves instead of doing the hard work of actually registering voters. ACORN must, by law, turn in those forms- and in fact they try to flag the bad ones for registration officials.
The second point is that, even if the Mickey Mouse form gets turned in, no harm is done. In this specific case, problems in the form were noted by election officials, and Mickey wasn't registered. Even if election officials mistakenly put Mickey on the voter rolls, he's not going to fraudulently vote because he doesn't exist.
Even if the Obama campaign were operating a Boss Tweed style 1860s campaign, and picking up homeless people in a van and driving them around to vote under fraudulent names, my guess is that Mickey still doesn't get to vote. Polling places are typically staffed by the same non-nonsense middle-aged women who proctor college exams- and these people are not going to let Mickey Mouse vote. Imagine some homeless guy (trucked in by the campaign) stumbles up to the table- "Hmm... Mr. Mouse? No, sorry, I don't think that Main Street USA, Tomorrowland is in this election district."
In short, while it makes a great headline, submitting a registration form for Mickey Mouse is what the law courts call "harmless error" and the ball courts call "no blood no foul"- and anyone carrying the story who knows anything about elections should call this "story" what it is- foolishness.
ACORN is required by law to turn in all voter registration forms it receives. This law makes sense, because otherwise it would be too easy to register voters and then throw out the forms from people who you think won't support your preferred candidate. ACORN has registered 1.3 million new voters by employing 13,000 registration workers. Clearly when dealing with those numbers, you're going to get some number of jerks who fill out bad forms, and cheating employees who fill out forms themselves instead of doing the hard work of actually registering voters. ACORN must, by law, turn in those forms- and in fact they try to flag the bad ones for registration officials.
The second point is that, even if the Mickey Mouse form gets turned in, no harm is done. In this specific case, problems in the form were noted by election officials, and Mickey wasn't registered. Even if election officials mistakenly put Mickey on the voter rolls, he's not going to fraudulently vote because he doesn't exist.
Even if the Obama campaign were operating a Boss Tweed style 1860s campaign, and picking up homeless people in a van and driving them around to vote under fraudulent names, my guess is that Mickey still doesn't get to vote. Polling places are typically staffed by the same non-nonsense middle-aged women who proctor college exams- and these people are not going to let Mickey Mouse vote. Imagine some homeless guy (trucked in by the campaign) stumbles up to the table- "Hmm... Mr. Mouse? No, sorry, I don't think that Main Street USA, Tomorrowland is in this election district."
In short, while it makes a great headline, submitting a registration form for Mickey Mouse is what the law courts call "harmless error" and the ball courts call "no blood no foul"- and anyone carrying the story who knows anything about elections should call this "story" what it is- foolishness.
Perhaps this is why Obama's winning the youth vote
Because he's actively asking for it. Obama recently bought a block of advertising on Electronic Arts' Burnout Paradise, a racing game played online via XBox 360.
Things best not to say when your campaign is trying to prove it's not an angry mob:
Virginia State GOP Chair Jeffrey Fredericks invited Time's Karen Tumulty to observe a rally this weekend, and then apparently forgot that she was a reporter:
With so much at stake, and time running short, Frederick did not feel he had the luxury of subtlety. He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points — for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary." It is also not exactly true — though that distorted reference to Obama's controversial association with William Ayers, a former 60s radical, was enough to get the volunteers stoked. "And he won't salute the flag," one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, "We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born." Actually, we do; it's Hawaii.
With so much at stake, and time running short, Frederick did not feel he had the luxury of subtlety. He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points — for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary." It is also not exactly true — though that distorted reference to Obama's controversial association with William Ayers, a former 60s radical, was enough to get the volunteers stoked. "And he won't salute the flag," one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, "We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born." Actually, we do; it's Hawaii.
Monday, October 13, 2008
And the show has reached a new low
Jack Cashill, a conservative author well-known enough to make the folks at GOP house organ The National Review pay attention, has decided through careful "analysis" that Obama's book Dreams from My Father was written by... wait for it... Bill Ayers.
A sample of Cashill's reasoning:
I bought Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, for reasons unrelated to this project. As I discovered, he writes surprisingly well and very much like "Obama." In fact, my first thought was that the two may have shared the same ghostwriter. Unlike Dreams, however, where the high style is intermittent, Fugitive Days is infused with the authorial voice in every sentence. What is more, when Ayers speaks, even off the cuff, he uses a cadence and vocabulary consistent with his memoir. One does not hear any of Dreams in Obama's casual speech.
Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.
In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama's belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.
I've been trying to think of something snarky to say about all this, but I think it speaks for itself.
A sample of Cashill's reasoning:
I bought Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, for reasons unrelated to this project. As I discovered, he writes surprisingly well and very much like "Obama." In fact, my first thought was that the two may have shared the same ghostwriter. Unlike Dreams, however, where the high style is intermittent, Fugitive Days is infused with the authorial voice in every sentence. What is more, when Ayers speaks, even off the cuff, he uses a cadence and vocabulary consistent with his memoir. One does not hear any of Dreams in Obama's casual speech.
Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.
In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama's belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.
I've been trying to think of something snarky to say about all this, but I think it speaks for itself.
Anti-intellectualism
Interesting discussion on Slate's XX blog about Palin and anti-intellectualism, including the following post:
I don't doubt that there are some people who proudly call themselves anti-intellectual. I think most people who fall into the category, whether they'd call themselves that are not, are too consumed by everyday concerns—working hard, paying the bills, maybe raising kids or taking care of elderly parents, and trying to squeeze it all in before collapsing in a heap at the end of the day—to worry about the same things that elites do. And when they're tired or stressed out, they really don't like being told their views are worth less than someone else's.
I've become increasingly frustrated with the idea that people who aren't informed are simply too busy- too loaded down with work and dealing with kids and bills- to find the time to pay attention to what's going on, and that elites are people with loads of free time who sit around drinking lattes and reading the Essays of Montaigne. I'll posit that most folks are awfully busy, and that there are plenty of "elites" who work demanding, 80 hour a week jobs, have kids, etc. The difference, perhaps, is that some people choose to read the newspaper on the train and some people do the Jumble. Some people put the kids to bed and watch American Idol and others watch Nova or Charlie Rose. The newspaper and Nova are just as accesssible to the "Joe Six Packs" as they are to the "elites," so the question is where people put their priorities. I don't think it's at all problematic to think that perhaps the people who think that it's more important to be informed about science or government than to know what Perez Hilton said about Britney should be the ones running the show.
I don't doubt that there are some people who proudly call themselves anti-intellectual. I think most people who fall into the category, whether they'd call themselves that are not, are too consumed by everyday concerns—working hard, paying the bills, maybe raising kids or taking care of elderly parents, and trying to squeeze it all in before collapsing in a heap at the end of the day—to worry about the same things that elites do. And when they're tired or stressed out, they really don't like being told their views are worth less than someone else's.
I've become increasingly frustrated with the idea that people who aren't informed are simply too busy- too loaded down with work and dealing with kids and bills- to find the time to pay attention to what's going on, and that elites are people with loads of free time who sit around drinking lattes and reading the Essays of Montaigne. I'll posit that most folks are awfully busy, and that there are plenty of "elites" who work demanding, 80 hour a week jobs, have kids, etc. The difference, perhaps, is that some people choose to read the newspaper on the train and some people do the Jumble. Some people put the kids to bed and watch American Idol and others watch Nova or Charlie Rose. The newspaper and Nova are just as accesssible to the "Joe Six Packs" as they are to the "elites," so the question is where people put their priorities. I don't think it's at all problematic to think that perhaps the people who think that it's more important to be informed about science or government than to know what Perez Hilton said about Britney should be the ones running the show.
Palin gets booed at Flyers game
Sarah Palin was subject to a sustained minute of booing as she dropped the ceremonial first puck at a Flyers-Rangers game this weekend-
This clip has now been viewed by almost a million people, and the story was all over PA news. I'm not sure what the McCain people were thinking, sending her out there- Philly is hostile territory for Republicans (Kerry won the city with 81% of the vote), and Philly sports fans are evil- these people threw snowballs at Santa Claus.
This clip has now been viewed by almost a million people, and the story was all over PA news. I'm not sure what the McCain people were thinking, sending her out there- Philly is hostile territory for Republicans (Kerry won the city with 81% of the vote), and Philly sports fans are evil- these people threw snowballs at Santa Claus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)