Since the boss has already called it, we might as well go ahead and assign blame. Though there’s plenty of blame to go around, I place the bulk of it on Bush. He killed the Reagan coalition.
That coalition has consisted of the religious right, small-l libertarians and other small government types. Likewise with people who are strong on national defense.
Since getting elected, he’s let spending get out of control, enacted a massive prescription drug benefit in an already bankrupt Medicare program, signed McCain-Feingold, and on and on. He also insisted that his tax cuts stay in place, regardless of the deficit.
The only group that can be satisfied with Bush is the religious right and they alone are not enough. In fact, keeping them probably cost the coalition votes after the Schiavo affair.
This is all most disappointing for people who favor smaller government.
It’s a bad weekend for famous black men I’m fond of, after Bernie Mac’s passing. The legendary Isaac Hayes has also passed away:
Soul singer and arranger Isaac Hayes, who won Grammy awards and an Oscar for the theme from the 1971 action film “Shaft,” has died, sheriff’s officials in Memphis, Tennessee, reported Sunday.
Hayes was found dead Sunday at age 65.
Relatives found Hayes, 65, unconscious in his home next to a still-running treadmill, said Steve Shular, a spokesman for the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department.
Paramedics attempted to revive him and took him to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead shortly after 2 p.m., the sheriff’s department said.
No foul play is suspected, the agency said in a written statement.
Hayes was a longtime songwriter and arranger for Stax Records in Memphis, playing in the studio’s backup band and crafting tunes for artists such as Otis Redding and Sam and Dave in the 1960s.
After reading a couple of stories about Hayes’s passing, I guess my only complaint about him would be that he helped pave the way for disco.
Remember the good old days when everyday events were coordinated by Karl Rove? Today could have counted as one but, alas, Karl Rove is nowhere to be found.
Child rapists can’t be executed, Supreme Court rules
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that child rapists cannot be executed, concluding that capital punishment for crimes against individuals can be applied only to murderers.
Patrick Kennedy, 43, was on Louisiana’s death row after being convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
The ruling stemmed from the case of Patrick Kennedy, who appealed the 2003 death sentence he received in Louisiana after being convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing “evolving standards of decency” in the United States.
FBI arrests hundreds in child sex crackdown
In a series of raids, authorities have arrested more than 300 members of prostitution operations and removed 21 juveniles from sex-selling rings, the FBI announced Wednesday.
FBI Director Robert Mueller announces the arrests of hundreds suspected in child sex rings.
The sweeps were conducted in 16 cities nationwide over the past five days, authorities said.
“Our top priority in these cases has always been to identify children victims and move swiftly to remove them from these dangerous environments,” FBI Director Robert Mueller said.
Mueller said this week’s sweeps bring to 433 the number of child victims recovered in the five years since the FBI began its Innocence Lost initiative. The program was designed to combat a growing problem of underage prostitution.
That makes for an interesting contrast: the executive branch (currently controlled by Republicans with an FBI head appointed by President Bush) is busting up child sex rings and protecting children while those latte-sipping libruls on the Supreme Court are sparing the most gruesome child rapists. Sadly, the left is but a shadow of its old self these days without Rove to play off of, so this story is not getting the exposure it deserves.
As far as the death penalty goes, I’m mildly against it. I don’t favor it and would vote against it at a state level if given a chance, but am strongly opposed to SCOTUS getting involved and overruling the desires of state residents. Allah goes into more detail about that here.
That’s how Instapundit refers to James Hansen, apparently the most intemperate of the global warming alarmists (yes, he’s worse than Gore because he’s Gore’s science advisor). Here’s Hansen’s latest proposal:
James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress – in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming – to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the “perfect storm” of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.
Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.
Hansen isn’t clear as to which court would have jurisdiction, nor is he very specific on any other details. Frankly, any attempt to prosecute people for their opinions like this strikes me as authoritarian and something that should be avoided. In addition, when scientists become activists I find it pretty alarming; they’re supposed to be dispassionate about their conclusions and should be aiming for the truth. Maybe they are, but episodes like this make me question their objectivity.
It’s a shame it comes down to something like this as well. As a non-scientist I am forced to trust people who do understand these things to make informed judgments of my own. It’s difficult to trust their conclusions when they put someone like Hansen front-and-center and he makes statements like this. I suspect it does more harm to their cause than good.
For my own part, I’m content to go with what the scientists say on this issue, mostly. One very basic item would make it much easier to go along with the scientists unequivocally. In all I’ve read about climate change in the popular press, I haven’t seen that they even have a model that can predict the earth’s average temperature from one year to the next, much less decades into the future (if anyone can point me to an example of this, please put it in the comments). Hopefully this is something they took care of long ago.
Also, whether climate change is true or not, that doesn’t tell us what, if anything, needs to be done about it. My personal preference would be a revenue neutral, distribution neutral carbon tax.
The Boston Globe has a story that appears typical of religion in general, not just Judaism:
At the Reform movement’s seminary, 60 percent of the rabbinical students and 84 percent of those studying to become cantors are female. Girls are outnumbering boys by as much as 2 to 1 among adolescents in youth group programs and summer camps, while women outnumber men at worship and in a variety of congregational leadership roles, according to the Union for Reform Judaism.
The evidence is everywhere. At Temple Sinai in Sharon, nine of the 11 members of this year’s confirmation class were girls. At Temple Beth David in Canton, last Saturday’s Bible study drew 11 women and no men. At Temple Isaiah in Lexington, the executive board for the last year had eight women and one man. And at the Prozdor, an intensive supplementary high school program at Hebrew College in Newton, 59 percent of the students are female.
“After bar mitzvah, the boys just drop out,” said Sylvia Barack Fishman, a professor of contemporary Jewish life at Brandeis University and the coauthor of a study on “Gender Imbalance in American Jewish Life,” which was publicly released last week.
Some of the men might be driven away from Judaism in this instance because of petulance (We can’t run things so we’ll just leave!!), but that does nothing to explain why the pews (churches or synagogues) are more heavily populated by females than males. It has always been my impression that women are more religious than men; indeed, I suspect that a lot of male attendance at church is due to wives and mothers pressing them into it.
I haven’t seen a lot of research into this, and a quick Google search wasn’t all that helpful, but it would be interesting to check into. Are women more religious than men and if so, why?
Thinking ahead to November, I was trying to imagine how the Democrats, particularly Obama’s most ardent supporters, might react if he lost. As bad as they were at accepting Kerry’s loss, Obama’s loss would be far worse.
To begin with, his supporters will try to poison the well by claiming that some sort of cheating had occurred, regardless of how little actual proof there is (see Ohio, 2004). This will justify labeling McCain as illegitimate and the existing politics of demonizing one’s competitors will continue. To be fair, Republicans do this too: Republicans were harping on the fact that Clinton never got more than 50% of the popular vote, even though it means nothing. Democrats are far quicker, though, in making allegations of cheating.
Immediately afterward, Obama’s supporters will be saying hysterical things like “He was our only hope; all hope is lost!” and other such nonsense. This will be the most nauseating part for those of us who follow politics obsessively and aren’t in love with Obama. Obama is clearly a very intelligent man who is a wonderful speaker (see the Jefferson Jackson Dinner from Iowa) and is inspirational at times. However, his resume’ is paper thin and the emotional investment his most ardent supporters have in him is inexplicable, at least if you try to nail down specifics.
Then the recriminations will start within the Democratic Party. The Clintons will certainly be at the forefront of these. The election will have revealed flaws in Obama and in retrospect he will appear to be a weak candidate, though there will be no way to have known this in advance.
Hopefully, at this point, acceptance will set in, but I doubt it.
If McCain loses it’s hard to tell how Republicans will react. My only misgiving will be that Obama will have a Democratic Congress; if the Republicans were in control I would probably vote for Obama.
The main worry about Mr Webb, however, is that he is a genuine fire-breathing economic populist. He appears actually to believe the sort of stuff that Mr Obama only says during Democratic primaries. Since vice-presidents sometimes become presidents, this matters. American workers, says Mr Webb, “are at the mercy of cut-throat executives who are vastly overpaid, partly as a consequence of giving [the workers'] jobs away to other people.” Illegal immigration and globalisation “threaten to dissipate” the American middle-class way of life. He predicts that, unless the government acts to restore “economic fairness”, America “may well go the way of ancient Greece [or] greed-ridden Rome”.
America may be horribly unequal, but it is not, as Mr Webb imagines, apocalyptically so. And judging by his book, Mr Webb has only a shaky understanding of the economic system he decries. He thinks South Korea is more productive than America, and that “most” investors are among the wealthiest 1% of Americans. (In fact, about half of Americans own shares.) He is worryingly hazy about how he would make America fairer. But his instincts are plainly hostile to the free flow of goods, investment and people across borders. Mr Obama, who has recently started to sound less protectionist on the campaign trail and has appointed a team of impeccably centrist economic advisers, can surely do a bit better.
If the Republicans still controlled Congress, I would seriously consider voting for Obama. However, the thought of one party controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue is chilling given how it’s worked out in the past (Republicans and Democrats alike). Add Jim Webb to the ticket and a vote for Obama would be even less appealing to me.
The creationists deserve a few props here. Since the Dover loss they’ve switched strategies away from claiming that ID is science and are instead focusing on “academic freedom”. That the concept of academic freedom doesn’t generally apply at the elementary and secondary levels seems to be of no consequence. The Louisiana legislature has passed, by a veto-proof majority, a bill that protects the “academic freedom” of teachers to teach creationism as science:
Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, has introduced the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act in the form of Senate Bill 561. The bill is now in the Senate’s education committee, which Nevers chairs.
The Louisiana Family Forum suggested the bill, Nevers said.
“They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory. This would allow the discussion of scientific facts,” Nevers said. “I feel the students should know there are weaknesses and strengths in both scientific arguments.”
Opponents, however, maintain that creationism is religion, not science.
“Louisiana is being used as a pawn in the Louisiana Family Forum’s scheme to force a narrow set of religious views on public schools and, indeed, on the entire state,” said Barbara Forrest, Ph.D., a reseacher, author and professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University.
According to the Senate’s digest, Nevers’ bill prohibits the state or any school official from hindering a public school teacher “from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories” such as evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning. It also prohibits officials from censoring materials on the topics.
As a soon-to-be-resident of Louisiana, it has me wondering what I’ll be walking into. This will do nothing to help the image of the state, or of the state’s high school graduates. Indeed, I can see it making the more prestigious schools avoid Louisiana graduates and it will probably discourage the best professors from working at Louisiana’s finer schools, such as Tulane and Loyola.
Furthermore, if Governor Jindal signs the bill, as opposed to just letting it become law without his signature, it will reduce his chances of being McCain’s VP pick. It would make McCain have to defend, at least for a time, something he has spoken out against. The choice of Jindal, who otherwise seems like a very fine governor, would also make the ticket look provincial. If you’re trying to shore up the image of the Republican Party, I don’t see how Jindal will help do that if he signs this bill.
BTW, if you want to see Professor Forrest, referenced in the news article, describe the Dover trial, she does so here. The letter from her and the Louisiana group she founded can be seen here.
School vouchers is an idea I’ve supported ever since I first read Capitalism and Freedom in 1989. It’s an idea so simple, and sound, that it’s a wonder it hasn’t been embraced. Yet here we are, forty-six years after CaF was published and choice hasn’t caught on (except when dismembering a fetus) and is even reviled by most of the American public (I can’t find the source, but a few days ago I read that close to 60% are against vouchers, no doubt reflecting teachers’ unions’ well-funded opposition).
In fact, people in Washington D.C., like House Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton are trying to strangle a pilot program in its crib:
On Tuesday, a House Appropriations subcommittee is set to take up provisions in President Bush’s budget for $18 million to continue the five-year-old D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program for next year. It is part of an unprecedented $74 million earmarked for education in the District. In April, Mr. Fenty and D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray appeared before the House subcommittee on financial services and general government to speak in support of the initiative, which gives low-income students scholarships to attend private schools. Ms. Norton is not a member of that subcommittee, but she made a special appearance to attack the program.
Even worse, as The Post’s Valerie Strauss and Bill Turque reported Monday, it now turns out that Ms. Norton is preparing a plan that could end the program after just one more year. Ms. Norton won’t discuss her plan, and she would, rather disingenuously, have the public believe that she is acting only to ensure an orderly transition of students from a program doomed because of the opposition of others in her party. But, at best, by refusing to support the mayor, she is helping to doom a program that gives poor parents an opportunity that others in this country take for granted: the chance to choose a decent school for their children.
For parents such as Patricia William, that means the probable loss of an educational opportunity that has transformed her 11-year-old son. Ms. William is not alone in her praise of the program and in her panic about the possibility of its demise. The voucher pilot is intended to measure and compare children’s progress in private schools over a span of several years. But one result already is known: Poor parents do not want their children automatically consigned to failing schools any more than middle-class parents would. Talk to parents and grandparents of children afforded what should not be the luxury of choice and you’ll hear stories of thanks and success — stories of young women such as Tiffany Dunston, this year’s valedictorian at Archbishop Carroll High School. Ms. Norton turned a deaf ear to these accounts during a recent meeting, dismissing the scholarship families as “befuddled.” Catherine Hill, whose grandson graduated from the Academy for Ideal Education, told us that the only thing the group doesn’t understand is why Ms. Norton “hates a program that works so well.” (Her response to this editorial is here.)
The depth of the opposition to school choice has convinced me that a new approach is needed, though my proposal is a long shot at best. It is modeled on welfare reform and would involve breaking up the Department of Education and releasing the money to the states as performance-based block grants.
For instance, the almost $60 billion dollars in discretionary spending that was used to fund the DoEd this year could be allocated among the states and each individual block grant could be broken into thirds: one-third for construction of schools, purchase of books and computers; one-third for augmenting teacher pay; and, one-third for performance improvements. The data collection functions of the DoEd could be moved to Health and Human Services, along with administration of the block grants.
Whatever happens, something different needs to be done. Inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending on education has more than tripled since the mid-1960s and we have very little to show for it. Time to try something new.
Though I’m not that fond of the Democrats on most economic matters, I don’t think they are socialists (what they are would involve a much longer discussion). The idiocy of socialism and national ownership of industry is apparent to most thinking people. Nevertheless, my first reaction to tripe like this is alarm:
Once I have a chance to think about it, though, I realize that FNC and other news organizations have an incentive to keep people worked up: ratings. As ridiculous as the woman being interviewed is, she has almost no chance of seeing her perverse dream through to fruition. Same goes for the Democratic Congressman who is pushing for nationalization. It would revive people’s worst fears regarding Democratic incompetence and ambitions.
I must agree with Allah that it’s still creepy, and alarming.
For the last seven years I’ve thought a couple of things about Hillary Clinton: she wants to be president in the worst way; if there is a worst way to become president, she will find it. My suspicions have proven true, according to Ezra Klein:
This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).
With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan — she was the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it, which is testament to the other campaign’s beliefs that the contest wouldn’t count — and will likely win Florida. And because the race for delegates is likely to be close, she wants those wins to matter. So she’s fighting the DNC’s decision, and asking her delegates — those she’s already won, and those she will win — to overturn it at the convention. She’s doing so right before Florida, to intensify her good press in the state, where Obama is also on the ballot. And since this is a complicated, internal-party matter that sounds weird to those not versed in it (of course Michigan and Florida should count!), she’s adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.[Emphasis added]
I suspect that this is only the beginning of the Clintons’ shenanigans. Though I thought Bill Clinton was a good president, I abhorred the trail of slime he left in his wake, including the Marc Rich pardon and the speech he gave at the aircraft hangar the day he left office, when he reminded the listeners he wasn’t going anywhere. It was tacky in the extreme and diverted attention away from a new president getting inaugurated. Now we’re looking the possibility of four years of his wife as president, a woman who has none of his charm and all of his flaws. Lovely.
Andrew Sullivan has a reader email post that captures, for me, the reason that Obama has been catching on of late and could very well knock Hillary Clinton aside in the run for the Democratic nomination. A sample:
It’s remarkable how little Obama has focused on black voters until now, but that may have been a savvy move. Fair or not, many African-American candidates get pidgeonholed [sic] as having only niche appeal. But Obama has spent all this time branding himself as a candidate who strives to transcend race, so that now when he has to campaign hard in the black community in South Carolina and elsewhere people don’t see him as limited to one constituency. Oprah is the perfect metaphor for that strategy. He’s trying to get the best of both worlds.
This strikes me as being right. His main obstacle to the nomination is his skin color and the fact that he would be the first black president. Assuaging the concerns of non-black voters first seems like the best approach to handling this problem and then doubling back to deal with the black voters. By doing this he assures non-black voters that he is not to be feared and then makes up with a constituency of which he is a natural part.
He also has some experience issues, but these can be overcome by his appeal to peoples’ hopes and a desire to break with the past. Hillary Clinton has the same issues with experience with just four additional years in elected office. Also, it doesn’t hurt that Clinton has decided to attack his “naked ambition” by revealing a third-grade essay where he says he wants to be president. She has her own naked ambition (notice the lack of ironic quotes) that’s far more obvious and pernicious; she’s trying to attack him from the ambition angle before he does the same to her, a common tactic among politicians.
On a completely unrelated note, before I recently moved to Chicago I hadn’t had a land-line telephone since 1999. I’m starting to remember why. I didn’t realize that telephone spam had emerged as a problem. Some scam artist with an automated dialing machine (company name PFS, 317 area code) has been calling me and claiming that I have a very large debt that’s past due with a company I’ve never heard of. This alone is about enough to get me to abandon the land line again. Be warned.
I haven’t posted in quite a while, but I will try to do better.
George Will wrote a blistering column today about Fred Thompson which, for me, summed up many of the things I don’t like about Thompson. First on the list is that he’s a protege of John McCain and was involved with that awful campaign finance legislation. Indeed, that seems to be Will’s primary objection as well:
Thompson said he had advocated McCain-Feingold to prevent, among other things, corporations and labor unions from “giving large sums of money to individual politicians.” But corporate and union contributions to individual candidates were outlawed in 1907 and 1947, respectively.
Ingraham asked about McCain-Feingold’s ban on issue ads that mention a candidate close to an election. He blamed an unidentified “they” who “added on” that provision, which he implied was a hitherto undiscussed surprise. But surely he knows that bills containing the ban had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress before passage in 2002.
[....]
Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham, “I voted for all of it,” meaning McCain-Feingold, but said “I don’t support that” provision of it.
Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress’s especially “compelling interest” in squelching issue ads that “influence” elections?
Well, I suppose his objection is larger; Thompson seems to have some recollection issues when it comes to things he’s said and done in the past. You really should read the whole thing.
Even apart from his support for McCain-Feingold, Fred Thompson leaves me cold. If it comes down to a choice between him and Hillary, I suppose I’ll choose him, particularly if the House stays under Democratic control. But the Republican I like best these days is Rudy Giuliani, in spite of the amateurish foreign policy piece. He generally radiates competence, which I think we need.
This is a fairly lame post after such a long absence, but I’ll try to do better over the weekend, provided nothing comes up.
