Saturday, April 01, 2006
Friday, March 31, 2006
Re: Hewitt and Lileks and the SecDef
Scooter is too modest to say so, but he was the one who sent Lileks a photo of said desk, which Lileks then ran in the Bleat. [I don't think one can search the Bleat, otherwise I'd find the right day. Maybe Scooter has that day's Bleat framed and hanging on his wall and can point me to it.]
Hewitt far behind the curve...
Mentioned SecDef's "stand-up desk" tonight. Lileks and I have been all over that.
Re: Airplanes
I grew up very close to Love Field in Dallas, some might say deafeningly close. Could tell the time of day by the landing times of those hideously brightly colored Braniffs. (Remember those?) I was north of the airport so it was landings only for me from my house.
Anyway, as for the fascination, there was a restaurant built out at Love, not in the terminal just out on its own, with one of its entire walls made of glass...just so folks could go out and enjoy a meal watching, pretty nearby, the jets landing and taking off. It is long gone now and was pretty pricey in the 60s so we didn't often go, but I loved it.
Anyway, as for the fascination, there was a restaurant built out at Love, not in the terminal just out on its own, with one of its entire walls made of glass...just so folks could go out and enjoy a meal watching, pretty nearby, the jets landing and taking off. It is long gone now and was pretty pricey in the 60s so we didn't often go, but I loved it.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Re: Immigration
Yes, I read your post. Thanks.
When you're sitting in a car, watching planes and talking to yourself, it all comes together. When you try to write it, it all falls apart.
Morality, economics, compassion, empathy, patriotism, legal issues, fear, racism...the pieces of the whole puzzle just go on and on. It reminds me of trying to understand how to "fix" the economy. What is good for one sector is bad for another. Today's economic indicator (which could be good or bad) is offset by tomorrow's (which is the direct opposite of the previous days). In the end, it's all so complicated and intermingled that 99.9% of the people just throw up their hands and say..."whatever".
That is where I am (almost) on this issue. It's so complicated and there isn't an easy solution and any steps to get to a solution will cause just as many negative effects as positive ones.
When you're sitting in a car, watching planes and talking to yourself, it all comes together. When you try to write it, it all falls apart.
Morality, economics, compassion, empathy, patriotism, legal issues, fear, racism...the pieces of the whole puzzle just go on and on. It reminds me of trying to understand how to "fix" the economy. What is good for one sector is bad for another. Today's economic indicator (which could be good or bad) is offset by tomorrow's (which is the direct opposite of the previous days). In the end, it's all so complicated and intermingled that 99.9% of the people just throw up their hands and say..."whatever".
That is where I am (almost) on this issue. It's so complicated and there isn't an easy solution and any steps to get to a solution will cause just as many negative effects as positive ones.
Airplanes (2)
Even if you know why they can fly (and I do, Bernoulii, etc.) , it's still the most exciting thing I know to watch a monster plane take off. The second most exciting thing is to see these beasts land.
Immigration
LJ, I'm sensing from you what I feel. I'm overwhelmed. I'm assume you've read what I said about you and your excellent post.
Airplanes
This is so easy for me. I cannot not watch an airplane take off or land. I've taken dates to the old Hooks Airfield [Update: Hooks is not right but I can't recall the name. It was on Westheimer.] in Houston and IAH and my ex-wife to the edge (and it was the the edge) of the old Austin aiport to watch planes take off and land. More later.
More on immigration...maybe
The mother-in-law is visiting us for 10 days, so I needed to get out of the house this afternoon. Not to give away TOO much personal info, I decided to make the short drive over to the DFW airport observation area and watch planes. And think.
After the day-long back and forth about immigration, that subject was still on my mind.
(And I've been trying to write this post for an hour and am not able to articulate in writing the questions and points I've been thinking about most of today. I've gone through 4 drafts and am getting a bit frustrated.)
So I'm saying now, to h*ll with it.
Why do people like to watch airplanes take-off and land? After about, oh 3 or 4, it sorta loses it's appeal. Is it the "hoping for a crash" thing (ala car races)? And I wasn't alone - there were about 5 or 6 vehicles there. It wasn't a nice day (very windy and cloudy). Are that many mother-in-laws visiting at a given time????
After the day-long back and forth about immigration, that subject was still on my mind.
(And I've been trying to write this post for an hour and am not able to articulate in writing the questions and points I've been thinking about most of today. I've gone through 4 drafts and am getting a bit frustrated.)
So I'm saying now, to h*ll with it.
Why do people like to watch airplanes take-off and land? After about, oh 3 or 4, it sorta loses it's appeal. Is it the "hoping for a crash" thing (ala car races)? And I wasn't alone - there were about 5 or 6 vehicles there. It wasn't a nice day (very windy and cloudy). Are that many mother-in-laws visiting at a given time????
Crunchies
Not read the book. Occasionally look at the website. Most of my understanding comes from Goldberg's criticisms. My admittedly shallow impression is that crunchies (1) live in the city, (2) enjoy tasty and preferably "natural" food and (3) go to church. Uh, ok. Used to live in the city (don't anymore because I have a child who needs to play outside and go to a school that's rated better than "satisfactory"); have never considered eating dinner a "rite" and enjoy an occasional double cheeseburger; and go to church. Goldberg argues they are cons who have made a lifestyle choice, AND, by labeling themselves differently, denigrate "traditional" cons, and I think I agree.
Re: predestination
Speaking of which. There are lots of related topics you and I are interested in. (to dangle, etc) Here or somewhere else? You still have Scooterblog.
Re: tomato
Then you fit nicely into my [that is to say your] predetermined ideological niche. [Burn's voice] "Excellent."
Tomatoes: My Bad
I blew it. I added that parenthetical later in the wrong place and have since moved it. I'm not Crunchy.
Re: tomatoes
You are a Crunchy if you like "old style" tomatoes. You're not a Crunchy if you find them and refuse to pay for them. As usual, Scooter, you defy categorization.
Re: immigration issues
Very interesting discussion here. At this point, have only two observations, one about myself and one about LJ.
I am so ambivalent about this subject. On one hand, on the other hand, and on, well, several other gripping hands. I've never found persuasive the Michael Savage "they're destroying our country" nonsense. Really? I live in Houston and I expect we have a large population of illegals. Do I pay higher taxes to support some of them? I don't know, but probably. Are they a crime problem? Not that I can tell. [Although the experience in California sounds like it might be different.] Are they destroying the fabric of Houston civilization? No.
On one of several other (gripping and otherwise) hands, should they jump to the front of the line to be legal? That doesn't seem fair to the people who have played by the rules. Are they taking jobs from Americans? GWB doesn't seem to think so. There was a pretty big fight on NRO today about JAWD today, indicating the complexity of these questions. (Scooter can weigh in on the economic considerations re when Americans will do a job vis-a-vis an illegal.)
LJ's response may have surprised Scooter, but it didn't me. Although he's ostensibly a lefty, he has a legacy of patriotism and a right/wrong default that he received from his father. Those combined (not to psychoanalyze too closely) inform LJ's views. And I can't disagree with a thing he said here.
I am so ambivalent about this subject. On one hand, on the other hand, and on, well, several other gripping hands. I've never found persuasive the Michael Savage "they're destroying our country" nonsense. Really? I live in Houston and I expect we have a large population of illegals. Do I pay higher taxes to support some of them? I don't know, but probably. Are they a crime problem? Not that I can tell. [Although the experience in California sounds like it might be different.] Are they destroying the fabric of Houston civilization? No.
On one of several other (gripping and otherwise) hands, should they jump to the front of the line to be legal? That doesn't seem fair to the people who have played by the rules. Are they taking jobs from Americans? GWB doesn't seem to think so. There was a pretty big fight on NRO today about JAWD today, indicating the complexity of these questions. (Scooter can weigh in on the economic considerations re when Americans will do a job vis-a-vis an illegal.)
LJ's response may have surprised Scooter, but it didn't me. Although he's ostensibly a lefty, he has a legacy of patriotism and a right/wrong default that he received from his father. Those combined (not to psychoanalyze too closely) inform LJ's views. And I can't disagree with a thing he said here.
Tomatoes and Immigration
Warning: Useless post.
One the arguments I've heard used this week from those wanting to "ship them all home" goes like this:
"Oh yeah, well, in the 50's under Ike they said if we sent them all home there'd be no one to pick the tomatoes. Well we got around that, we developed machines to pick the tomatoes."
I guess the argument is that we got around the labor shortage by technology.
BUT, my response to that is this, sure we machine pick tomatoes now but we also had to develop tomatoes that could withstand the much rougher treatment that these machines give the tomatoes. Accordingly, I HATE the cheap store-bought tomatoes . One has to spring for the "organic, hand-picked" types to get anything remotely edible...which I hate to do on general principles (guess I'm no Crunchy-con). Any tomato on a fast-food hamburger, for instance, is like a piece of cardboard.
Granted, I'm too young to recall store-boughts before they became machine picked, but I've heard they used to be much better.
Got my tomatoes in the ground in January thanks to our mild winter. The fruit are just starting to redden.
One the arguments I've heard used this week from those wanting to "ship them all home" goes like this:
"Oh yeah, well, in the 50's under Ike they said if we sent them all home there'd be no one to pick the tomatoes. Well we got around that, we developed machines to pick the tomatoes."
I guess the argument is that we got around the labor shortage by technology.
BUT, my response to that is this, sure we machine pick tomatoes now but we also had to develop tomatoes that could withstand the much rougher treatment that these machines give the tomatoes. Accordingly, I HATE the cheap store-bought tomatoes . One has to spring for the "organic, hand-picked" types to get anything remotely edible...which I hate to do on general principles (guess I'm no Crunchy-con). Any tomato on a fast-food hamburger, for instance, is like a piece of cardboard.
Granted, I'm too young to recall store-boughts before they became machine picked, but I've heard they used to be much better.
Got my tomatoes in the ground in January thanks to our mild winter. The fruit are just starting to redden.
Re: Girlfriend
Absolutely agree with you on the cultural and economic side as she wrote, just not on the patriotic side. Acknowledging that the vast majority of those who are here aren't going anywhere, why not inculcate them with the stuff she listed so that we don't see the kind of c--p we saw at those "impromptu" demonstrations over the weekend.
They (and I mean the ones coming for good reasons) get that "job that no American wants to do," their kids learn valley speak, but no one teaches them that Washington never lied (of course, don't really mean that last one...but the stuff from her article, the patriotic stuff). It is hard enough to get that stuff into native kids given the state of our schools.
Aside: Every Thursday at my Lions Meeting, we start by singing the first verse of America and saying the pledge...I know I'm a dork but I appreciated that today.
They (and I mean the ones coming for good reasons) get that "job that no American wants to do," their kids learn valley speak, but no one teaches them that Washington never lied (of course, don't really mean that last one...but the stuff from her article, the patriotic stuff). It is hard enough to get that stuff into native kids given the state of our schools.
Aside: Every Thursday at my Lions Meeting, we start by singing the first verse of America and saying the pledge...I know I'm a dork but I appreciated that today.
Re: Girlfriend
I believe we have gone WAY out of our way to welcome them to our church - that is why we are where we are.
Re: Girlfriend
I don't think she meant to lay the absolute blame on us though I see how you could read it that way.
There is a Barry Levinson movie (I forget the name) about immigrants who come to Baltimore and a generation or two later the families have gone from being wallpaper hangers to successful businessmen. I think I recall a scene where the immigrants step of the boat to red, white and blue bunting and fireworks. I think that's the feel she's going for.
Given the overall tone of the column, to me what she said was more like gently chiding church members who don't proactively walk up to the visitors on Sunday and introduce themselves and welcome them.
Of course if I go to a new church (or move to another country), I have the responsibility to assimilate and participate, it's just nice if someone comes over, shakes my hand and tells me a little about the church.
There is a Barry Levinson movie (I forget the name) about immigrants who come to Baltimore and a generation or two later the families have gone from being wallpaper hangers to successful businessmen. I think I recall a scene where the immigrants step of the boat to red, white and blue bunting and fireworks. I think that's the feel she's going for.
Given the overall tone of the column, to me what she said was more like gently chiding church members who don't proactively walk up to the visitors on Sunday and introduce themselves and welcome them.
Of course if I go to a new church (or move to another country), I have the responsibility to assimilate and participate, it's just nice if someone comes over, shakes my hand and tells me a little about the church.
Re: My real girlfriend
Scooter, I have a question for you and your girlfriend:
Whose responsibility is it to assimilate - the immigrant (whether legal or illegal) or the country they are coming into?
I'm sorry, but I believe it's the immigrants responsibility. If I were moving to another country, it would be MY responsibility - not the countries or the people to assimilate me. I should make the effort. I should try to fit in. Be proud of my heritage, of course. In the privacy of my home, speak my language and teach it to my children, sure. But not to expect or demand everyone and everything in the public domain (schools, health-care, voting ballots, driver's license tests, etc.) to be in my native language.
What I got from her column was that it is my fault. I totally disagree.
Whose responsibility is it to assimilate - the immigrant (whether legal or illegal) or the country they are coming into?
I'm sorry, but I believe it's the immigrants responsibility. If I were moving to another country, it would be MY responsibility - not the countries or the people to assimilate me. I should make the effort. I should try to fit in. Be proud of my heritage, of course. In the privacy of my home, speak my language and teach it to my children, sure. But not to expect or demand everyone and everything in the public domain (schools, health-care, voting ballots, driver's license tests, etc.) to be in my native language.
What I got from her column was that it is my fault. I totally disagree.
My real girlfriend...
...has hit another home run. Move over Condi; Peggy's back.
Today's column on Medal of Honor Winners, Patriotism, Immigration and History put a genuine lump in my throat.
Today's column on Medal of Honor Winners, Patriotism, Immigration and History put a genuine lump in my throat.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Re: Re: Immigration Question (Part 2) [Update]
As I suspected, LJ the Moonbat and Scooter the Wingnut are in almost entire agreement here. We've just got to figure out how to do it.
It will be costly. LJ, this paleo-con couldn't have said it better.
Update: I suppose I wouldn't have said "exploiting" for all the Sowell/Williams/Capitalism reasons I've stolen before.
It will be costly. LJ, this paleo-con couldn't have said it better.
Update: I suppose I wouldn't have said "exploiting" for all the Sowell/Williams/Capitalism reasons I've stolen before.
Re: Another question
No, I cannot read any drafts other than my own. I had no idea that you and Mike could read mine. Rather unfair, don't you think?
Part of Answering my own Immigration Question
Historically, I've been pretty, traditionally, left on this issue because I believe that the vast majority of illegal aliens are here for a good reason...making their lives better here or the lives of their loved ones better THERE. (I readily acknowledge that my Capitalist underpinnings are screaming at me that if Mexico had a freer market, 99% of this problem would go away...my "feelings" are getting away with me here.)
For that reason, I'm FOR giving that vast majority of illegal aliens (let's call them what they are) AMNESTY (or whatever other term one cares to give it) provided they are at least willing to give lip service to becoming a citizen if that is his or her goal and we can track to ensure that the lip service is followed up. If citizenship not the stated goal, then the tracking even more important.
So, part of my benevolent dictatorship's fiat would include that.
For that reason, I'm FOR giving that vast majority of illegal aliens (let's call them what they are) AMNESTY (or whatever other term one cares to give it) provided they are at least willing to give lip service to becoming a citizen if that is his or her goal and we can track to ensure that the lip service is followed up. If citizenship not the stated goal, then the tracking even more important.
So, part of my benevolent dictatorship's fiat would include that.
Another question
I have not yet succumbed to the temptation to view LJ's or Michael's "drafts." LJ, I don't know if you have that ability. Heck, since I haven't tried, I don't know if I do.
having said that, can we agree not to view?
having said that, can we agree not to view?
Re: Re: Immigration Question (Part 1)
LJ,
I have no idea why CNN would call it that...unless what the committee's approval was of something different...or blended. I haven't been able to keep up. That's why I wanted to remove all the political stuff from my question.
But you're right about your post "the overall problem with politics, talk-radio, right v left, etc." On the other hand, that is a "problem" I'm not willing to give up. Politics, like capitalism, is about competition....products, services or ideas. I'm not willing to give up the freedom to speak even if it leads to such a problem however much I'd prefer civility and cool logic. I want the most free Marketplace of Ideas we can get even if it's painful. The best idea should win. If, on occasion, it does not as it might not here, show me the better system.
For the more specifics of your post: The right's "base" will not support McCain's/Kennedy's bill. I don't get Medved in the PPA (People's Republic of Austin) and I'm actually surprised that he'd support Kennedy/McCain/McCain/Kennedy...unless it is just from the practical/pragmatic aspect of those already here (the dreaded "amnesty" issue).
At first I thought that the more interesting bit of your post was why Medved would call it the McCain bill...unless it was to embarrass McCain. That was before I realized that you said Medved supported it.
Now, breaking my own rule of the question:
If we did put up the "WALL," can you imagine the EPA impact reports that would be required? "There are bears returning to Big Bend, Mr. INS/Homeland Security Guy, how can you put up a wall here?"
Hint as to the answer of my own question: If he's wearing a gang tat, send him back.
I have no idea why CNN would call it that...unless what the committee's approval was of something different...or blended. I haven't been able to keep up. That's why I wanted to remove all the political stuff from my question.
But you're right about your post "the overall problem with politics, talk-radio, right v left, etc." On the other hand, that is a "problem" I'm not willing to give up. Politics, like capitalism, is about competition....products, services or ideas. I'm not willing to give up the freedom to speak even if it leads to such a problem however much I'd prefer civility and cool logic. I want the most free Marketplace of Ideas we can get even if it's painful. The best idea should win. If, on occasion, it does not as it might not here, show me the better system.
For the more specifics of your post: The right's "base" will not support McCain's/Kennedy's bill. I don't get Medved in the PPA (People's Republic of Austin) and I'm actually surprised that he'd support Kennedy/McCain/McCain/Kennedy...unless it is just from the practical/pragmatic aspect of those already here (the dreaded "amnesty" issue).
At first I thought that the more interesting bit of your post was why Medved would call it the McCain bill...unless it was to embarrass McCain. That was before I realized that you said Medved supported it.
Now, breaking my own rule of the question:
If we did put up the "WALL," can you imagine the EPA impact reports that would be required? "There are bears returning to Big Bend, Mr. INS/Homeland Security Guy, how can you put up a wall here?"
Hint as to the answer of my own question: If he's wearing a gang tat, send him back.
Re: Immigration Question (Part 2)
Now Scooter, to answer your question:
I only wish it were as simple as waving a wand. But, in the LJ utopia, (1) the criminal element would be sent back to wherever they came from; (2) the current immigration laws would be strictly enforced; (3) very strict penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens; (4) very strict penalties for those who bring them over and are caught; (5) after a background check, any illegals who come forward voluntarily will be given green-cards and any who have been in the U.S. over a certain period (and I don't know what period I would come up with...3 years, 5 years, 8 years..I have no idea) would be granted citizenship if they want it, provided they are able to read/write/speak English (which also would become the official language of the country). For those that do not come forward and we then find them, back they go.
We can't send 11 (low estimate) to 30 (high estimate) million people back home, so we need to do something to get them paying more than just sales tax here. And I don't blame them for coming - I blame us for allowing it to get to this point, I blame employers for exploiting them, and I blame their countries (Mexico in particular) for not getting their own economic house in order and promoting illegal immigration to the U.S.
I only wish it were as simple as waving a wand. But, in the LJ utopia, (1) the criminal element would be sent back to wherever they came from; (2) the current immigration laws would be strictly enforced; (3) very strict penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens; (4) very strict penalties for those who bring them over and are caught; (5) after a background check, any illegals who come forward voluntarily will be given green-cards and any who have been in the U.S. over a certain period (and I don't know what period I would come up with...3 years, 5 years, 8 years..I have no idea) would be granted citizenship if they want it, provided they are able to read/write/speak English (which also would become the official language of the country). For those that do not come forward and we then find them, back they go.
We can't send 11 (low estimate) to 30 (high estimate) million people back home, so we need to do something to get them paying more than just sales tax here. And I don't blame them for coming - I blame us for allowing it to get to this point, I blame employers for exploiting them, and I blame their countries (Mexico in particular) for not getting their own economic house in order and promoting illegal immigration to the U.S.
Re: Immigration Question (Part 1)
Before I answer your question, just a comment about what I heard on the radio today. This, to me, points out the overall problem with politics, talk-radio, right v left, etc.
So I'm listening to Air America and on the Ed Schultz show, he is interviewing Senator Ted Kennedy about the immigration bill. Ed calls it "the Kennedy-McCain bill". After I get bored listening to Ted drone on and on and on, I turn the dial over to Michael Medved. Lo and behold, he is talking about the same subject. In fact, he supports "the McCain" bill". Hmm, no mention of Ted Kennedy. I guess that means it is a slightly different version of the one Ed and Ted were discussing. I get home and log onto CNN.com, to check the latest news and I see an article about the immigration bill. I read it and CNN is calling it "the Judiciary Committee bill". The article states that McCain supports this one. Wow...maybe there are 3 bills and McCane supports 2 of them? I wonder what the differences are???
After reading several sites, I'm getting the impression that in fact, they are one in the same. So why are they being called by 3 different names?? I get why AAR wanted to include Kennedy in the name and I get why Medved wanted to exclude Kennedy by name - what I don't get is why CNN mentions neither.
So I'm listening to Air America and on the Ed Schultz show, he is interviewing Senator Ted Kennedy about the immigration bill. Ed calls it "the Kennedy-McCain bill". After I get bored listening to Ted drone on and on and on, I turn the dial over to Michael Medved. Lo and behold, he is talking about the same subject. In fact, he supports "the McCain" bill". Hmm, no mention of Ted Kennedy. I guess that means it is a slightly different version of the one Ed and Ted were discussing. I get home and log onto CNN.com, to check the latest news and I see an article about the immigration bill. I read it and CNN is calling it "the Judiciary Committee bill". The article states that McCain supports this one. Wow...maybe there are 3 bills and McCane supports 2 of them? I wonder what the differences are???
After reading several sites, I'm getting the impression that in fact, they are one in the same. So why are they being called by 3 different names?? I get why AAR wanted to include Kennedy in the name and I get why Medved wanted to exclude Kennedy by name - what I don't get is why CNN mentions neither.
Immigration Question
Brothers,
If you were the benevolent dictator of our fair land, what would you do about the current hot topic? Forget about political strategies and implementation problems. If you could wave your scepter and make it happen, what would the end result be?
If you were the benevolent dictator of our fair land, what would you do about the current hot topic? Forget about political strategies and implementation problems. If you could wave your scepter and make it happen, what would the end result be?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Damnit Johnson
I know your doing it just to get under my skin but please stop with the "beg the question." I'll trade you something. What do you want?
Re: The Dennis The Peasant Blogging System...
I've been wondering why Michael hasn't updated us on the next installments. Perhaps this is the reason (from part 4)....
"Lie About Your Career – I’m sure you’ve acquired some pretty interesting anecdotes while working as an Assistant Manager on the night shift at the Sioux City Taco Bell, but that’s not the sort of thing that brings profits from the blogosphere. You have two choices in approaching your pseudo-career. Here they are:
1. Be as elliptical as possible about what you actually do, thereby ensuring that you aren’t providing enough information for you readers to come to the conclusion that you work the night shift at a Taco Bell. Or anything else, for that matter. If today’s big adventure was accidently dropping a case of taco shells into the toilet in the employee bathroom, write it up as something like... Today was a toughie. One of my biggest commodities positions took a sharp drop. Unfortunately, I didn’t see it coming and couldn’t unload it before it crashed. It’s going to take some time to clean this one up... See what I mean? Based on that, absolutely nobody could be really sure of what you actually do for a living.
2. Pretend you’re a lawyer. Lawyers think they sit on the left shoulder of God, can’t shut up, and usually don’t have the faintest idea of what they are talking about. You can say all the stupid sort of shit you normally would, and all you have to do is pepper it with a few things like... I can’t believe they gave Alito a ‘well qualified’. Never would have happened if I’d been on the committee – or – You know, if any of the Assistant Attorney Generals had any balls, they’d RICO Bush and Cheney.
That’s all it takes. Just drop a comment here and there, and you can have your readership believing just about anything about what you “do for a living”.
Hmm...this begs the question - are Michael and Scooter REALLY lawyers????
"Lie About Your Career – I’m sure you’ve acquired some pretty interesting anecdotes while working as an Assistant Manager on the night shift at the Sioux City Taco Bell, but that’s not the sort of thing that brings profits from the blogosphere. You have two choices in approaching your pseudo-career. Here they are:
1. Be as elliptical as possible about what you actually do, thereby ensuring that you aren’t providing enough information for you readers to come to the conclusion that you work the night shift at a Taco Bell. Or anything else, for that matter. If today’s big adventure was accidently dropping a case of taco shells into the toilet in the employee bathroom, write it up as something like... Today was a toughie. One of my biggest commodities positions took a sharp drop. Unfortunately, I didn’t see it coming and couldn’t unload it before it crashed. It’s going to take some time to clean this one up... See what I mean? Based on that, absolutely nobody could be really sure of what you actually do for a living.
2. Pretend you’re a lawyer. Lawyers think they sit on the left shoulder of God, can’t shut up, and usually don’t have the faintest idea of what they are talking about. You can say all the stupid sort of shit you normally would, and all you have to do is pepper it with a few things like... I can’t believe they gave Alito a ‘well qualified’. Never would have happened if I’d been on the committee – or – You know, if any of the Assistant Attorney Generals had any balls, they’d RICO Bush and Cheney.
That’s all it takes. Just drop a comment here and there, and you can have your readership believing just about anything about what you “do for a living”.
Hmm...this begs the question - are Michael and Scooter REALLY lawyers????
L'affaire de Condi
LJ, your comments are well taken. She's got no track record and, as Scooter points out, she's pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, both anathema (I wanted to use something else because I, and others, overuse that word but when I tried to find a substitute I couldn't so until Scooter finds something there it is) to the base.* There's no doubt her appeal is directly related to the probability of a Hillary nomination. Having said that, I don't think anyone who is serious thinks she's qualified. If you believe what she says, and I do, she doesn't either.
There's more here. There's a group of conservatives who can't stand the fact that black voters don't get that they've been abused and are being used by the Dems. I became convinced that this is true reading, among other things, Mona Charon's book (I plug this so often I should get some sort of royalty. This book addresses the good intentions of libs (that failed), rather than painting them as America-hating crazies).
[I've rewritten several endings to this, none satisfactory. eom]
* I was doing long and pointless parentheticals LONG before I knew Lileks existed. Of course now that I've seen Lileks, I bow (and scrape) to the master.
There's more here. There's a group of conservatives who can't stand the fact that black voters don't get that they've been abused and are being used by the Dems. I became convinced that this is true reading, among other things, Mona Charon's book (I plug this so often I should get some sort of royalty. This book addresses the good intentions of libs (that failed), rather than painting them as America-hating crazies).
[I've rewritten several endings to this, none satisfactory. eom]
* I was doing long and pointless parentheticals LONG before I knew Lileks existed. Of course now that I've seen Lileks, I bow (and scrape) to the master.
Re: The love affair with Condi
Interesting that you should blame the White House / Bush for the out-of-control spending. YOUR Senate leader, Dr. Frist, blames others:
"The Democrat alternative to Republican efforts to restrain spending is clear: Continue to spend beyond our means, mortgaging our children's future by saddling them with a debt of $8 trillion … and continue to ratchet up taxes to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility, stifling the American economy."
Pot to kettle.
"The Democrat alternative to Republican efforts to restrain spending is clear: Continue to spend beyond our means, mortgaging our children's future by saddling them with a debt of $8 trillion … and continue to ratchet up taxes to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility, stifling the American economy."
Pot to kettle.
Re: the Love Affair with Condi
I agree with LJ about most of the folks following the two reasons you cited electability with women and African Americans...in fact, I cited those same two reasons in my Re: Condi v. Hillary (more on) (update) post. Mostly I'd be for her because I believe she has the same foreign policy views as W.
I did mention earlier that she's pro choice but I think that if she espoused the originalist view of judicial nominees, she'd get a pass on that from the base. I also think she has a pro affirmative action position. I'm not too concerned about either of those (or most non-economic domestic issues). Immigration is the hot button today (interesting blend of domestic and foreign policy) and maybe will still be in November, but it might wane by '08 especially if some congressional band-aid is put on it and nothing catastrophic happens. It shouldn't wane but it might. I don't know where she stands on that one.
I think most have learned (even some dems like Bill) that the single best thing the executive can do for the economy is GET OUT OF THE WAY and keep some kind of lid on, if not reducing, taxes. I don't think Senator Clinton has learned that, nor any of the last dozen or so dem contenders. (And for the record, my biggest Bush disappointment has been his inability to stop spending like a drunken sailor. Deficits are overblown as an issue as the Reagan recovery showed but are still problematic....Bush has been an utter failure on domestic spending.) Difficult to imagine the strength of today's US economy if Bush had held down domestic spending to merely Clintonian levels.)
Much like the Dem's view of the last election (anybody but Bush), I fear that may be where the GOP may have to go in '08 if the junior senator from NY is the opponent. Sadly, as the dems learned, that is no way to run a campaign.
I did mention earlier that she's pro choice but I think that if she espoused the originalist view of judicial nominees, she'd get a pass on that from the base. I also think she has a pro affirmative action position. I'm not too concerned about either of those (or most non-economic domestic issues). Immigration is the hot button today (interesting blend of domestic and foreign policy) and maybe will still be in November, but it might wane by '08 especially if some congressional band-aid is put on it and nothing catastrophic happens. It shouldn't wane but it might. I don't know where she stands on that one.
I think most have learned (even some dems like Bill) that the single best thing the executive can do for the economy is GET OUT OF THE WAY and keep some kind of lid on, if not reducing, taxes. I don't think Senator Clinton has learned that, nor any of the last dozen or so dem contenders. (And for the record, my biggest Bush disappointment has been his inability to stop spending like a drunken sailor. Deficits are overblown as an issue as the Reagan recovery showed but are still problematic....Bush has been an utter failure on domestic spending.) Difficult to imagine the strength of today's US economy if Bush had held down domestic spending to merely Clintonian levels.)
Much like the Dem's view of the last election (anybody but Bush), I fear that may be where the GOP may have to go in '08 if the junior senator from NY is the opponent. Sadly, as the dems learned, that is no way to run a campaign.
The love affair (and I don't mean just on this blog) with Condi
Can either of you explain to me the love affair the right has with her? I will admit I don't watch the Sunday news shows very often, so if she is on them saying something other than comments on foreign policy, I have no idea where she stands on any other issue(s). Social Security, Medicare, immigration, the deficit, education, etc. She doesn't have a voting record. And any statement she makes she could back-track on, saying she was just stating the administration's view, not hers. And to be fair, I've never understood the left's affection for Hilllary either. And this was even before she became a Senator. I can tell you right now that if they are the nominees in '08, I may not even vote.
I have a theory. The right loves her because she is the only person who they think can beat Hillary. Not not because of issues or policy, but because (1) the female vote - because she is more "likeable" than Hillary and (2) the African-American vote.
Now, to sound intelligent, all the voters interviewed in exit polls will give different reasons for voting for her, but in the end, there will only be 2. And the right-wing press will do the same, spinning it as once again, America identifying with the ideals of the Republican party, but in reality that will have nothing to do with it.
And, on a final note, as someone with "no dog in this fight", Condi is not (imho) an attractive woman.
I have a theory. The right loves her because she is the only person who they think can beat Hillary. Not not because of issues or policy, but because (1) the female vote - because she is more "likeable" than Hillary and (2) the African-American vote.
Now, to sound intelligent, all the voters interviewed in exit polls will give different reasons for voting for her, but in the end, there will only be 2. And the right-wing press will do the same, spinning it as once again, America identifying with the ideals of the Republican party, but in reality that will have nothing to do with it.
And, on a final note, as someone with "no dog in this fight", Condi is not (imho) an attractive woman.
Monday, March 27, 2006
JesusH on a postage stamp!
There's lonely, then there's CONDI lonely. Good G-d man, get ahold of yourself.
Editor's Note (Condi edition)
Michael and LJ have just learned that Scooter is ill. We are merging on his location to take him to the appropriate facility. Stand by.
"Condi"
To be really shallow, I've never thought much of her hairstyle either, but yesterday she looked HOT.
Condi
I'm sorry Scooter, she's not pretty, let's not pretend she is. And hie thee to a dentist, woman. There, I said it.
Re: Condi
Don't understand most of your last paragraph. What do you mean "alleviating her pro-life stance among the base?"
UPDATE: Of course, Scooter meant "pro-choice:" as he has corrected in his post.
UPDATE: Of course, Scooter meant "pro-choice:" as he has corrected in his post.
Re: Condi v. Hillary (more on) (update)
Nullifying the single women's vote, electrifying the African-American vote...it'd be a slaughter of Reaganesque proportions.
Not to mention the very shallow looks vote. She's never looked more beautiful than she did on Wallace's program yesterday...in spite of the tooth gap.
Embarrassingly, Wallace played a clip of her when she appeared on his show last December following the Iraqi election, SHE APPEARED TO BE WEARING THE SAME OUTFIT! Someone really ought to be taking care of that. [Update: I realize that last comment was very SRRlike, I apologize to my reader.]
Not to mention the very shallow looks vote. She's never looked more beautiful than she did on Wallace's program yesterday...in spite of the tooth gap.
Embarrassingly, Wallace played a clip of her when she appeared on his show last December following the Iraqi election, SHE APPEARED TO BE WEARING THE SAME OUTFIT! Someone really ought to be taking care of that. [Update: I realize that last comment was very SRRlike, I apologize to my reader.]
Re: Gore in 2008 (Really Condi) [update]
I think she'd kill Hillary but I really think she's not interested...especially after seeing the daily beating taken by her boss.
Dick Morris seems to think (hope) she'd win.
Yesterday on Chris Wallace she seemed to be genuinely not wanting to run.
As to Rovian machinations, if it could be made to seem that she were really "answering the call," that could go a long way to alleviating her pro-choice ( initially said pro-life, sorry about that...thanks Michael) stance among the base, especially if she were to embrace judicial originalism and Bush the Younger were to get another member on the bench.
Dick Morris seems to think (hope) she'd win.
Yesterday on Chris Wallace she seemed to be genuinely not wanting to run.
As to Rovian machinations, if it could be made to seem that she were really "answering the call," that could go a long way to alleviating her pro-choice ( initially said pro-life, sorry about that...thanks Michael) stance among the base, especially if she were to embrace judicial originalism and Bush the Younger were to get another member on the bench.
Gore in 2008
Is he really out? Could he beat Hillary? He would certainly run left of her; are there enough true lefties out there to get him the nomination? And would he have a chance against Allen, Romney or McCain? (Like I know those are the likely nominees. What a horse race. Don't count out Giuliani or Huckabee.) McCain has a lot of ass-kissing (presidential and otherwise) to do if he thinks the delegates will nominate him, but he's started the process. Allen is smart and smooth. Romney, despite the fact that he's Mormon, seems to be appealing to the religious right.
Of course, everything is off the table if Condi can be persuaded. Scooter: I welcome your view here: Is she not really interested, or is this a Rove machination? Assuming it's not, could she be persuaded? Would she beat Hillary? How badly?
Of course, everything is off the table if Condi can be persuaded. Scooter: I welcome your view here: Is she not really interested, or is this a Rove machination? Assuming it's not, could she be persuaded? Would she beat Hillary? How badly?
Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power
Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power is a great look at the rise of the West's "style" of military culture and why it has been, to this point at least, essentially undefeatable (ok, maybe not a word).
It starts in the preface with a look at the march of the 10,000 back to Greece following the battle at Cunaxa and ends in the epilogue with a rather gloomy portrait of the future with genuine battles of West v. West (battles/wars that have generally produced the most brutal and horrific results).
The key elements of the brutal way Western cultures wage war include:
Relatively free soldiers, at least compared to the non-West.
Decisive or Shock Battle intended to obliterate the opposition.
Citizen soldiers.
Landed soldiers.
Technology and Appreciation of Reason (scientific method).
The Economy that can produce the Decisive or Shock Battle (my favorite chapter is entitled The Market--or Capitalism Kills...about the Battle of Lepanto in 1571).
The Discipline of Western soldiering.
(and the seemingly opposite of the foregoing Discipline) Individualism of same.
Finally, the Dissent and Self-Critique of the so-called loss of Tet.
There are great reviews at the amazon site so I won't try to give a real review here (a problem with reading a book five years following its publication.
Rather, I'll just excerpt a few passages that piqued my interest and made me want to read more of the author's work.
The first:
The great hatred of capitalism the hearts of the oppressed, ancient and modern, I think, stems not merely from the ensuing vast inequality of wealth, and the often unfair and arbitrary nature of who profits and who suffers, but from the silent acknowledgment that under a free market economy the many victims of the greed of the few are still better off than those under the utopian socialism of the well-intended. It is a hard thing for the poor to acknowledge benefits from their rich moral inferiors who never so intended it. (pp. 271-2; Lepanto)
It will come as no surprise to my reader that such a passage would be one of my favorites. It comes from the Capitalism Kills chapter.
The second:
For good or evil, few Westerners believe that a sacred cow is more important than a human, that the emperor is superior to the individual person, that a religious pilgrimage is the fulfillment of a human's life, that in war a suicidal charge is often required for an individual's excellency, or that a combatant must risk his or her life to save the emperor's picture. (p. 387; Midway)
The third:
How odd that the institutions that can thwart the daily battle progress of Western arms can also ensure the ultimate triumph of its cause. If the Western commitment to self-critique in part caused the American defeat in Vietnam, then that institution was also paramount in the explosion of Western global influence in the decades after the war--even as the enormous and often bellicose Vietnamese army fought for a regime increasingly despised at home, shunned abroad, and bankrupt economically and morally. (p. 439; Tet)
The fourth:
Buying and selling is a human trait, but the abstract protection of private property, the institutionalization of interest and investment, and the understanding of market are not. Capitalism is more than the sale of goods, more than the existence of money, and more than the presence of the bazaar. Rather, it is a peculiar Western practice that acknowledges the self-interest of man and channels that greed to the production of vast amounts of goods and services through free markets and institutionalized guarantees of personal profit, free exchange, deposited capital, and private property. (p. 445; Epilogue)
And finally:
Nope, can't reproduce that one...the last paragraph of the book...that's VDH's. You should read it.
I wish this reader had been more able to resolve the conflict between Discipline of Western infantry (including the ability to fight and march in what had always seemed ridiculous rows of infantry shooting, kneeling and reloading that we see in the movies of the Revolutionary War...that just seem nuts to me though it makes much more sense to me in its origins of the phalanxes after reading Gates of Fire) and the Individualism of the pilots that led to victory at Midaway.
Though not excerpted, my favorite chapters (probably because I had so little knowledge of their subjects) were about the battles at Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) by Cortes and the Conquistadors and Rorke's Drift by the British over the Zulus.
I have tried to diligently reproduce VDH's paragraphs but my typing ability is less than stellar.
To the extent of any errors, I accept full responsibility. [Note: I've been up since 5:00 so I reserve the right to make extensive edits. Dang, big post, but at least none of the thoughts were original.]
It starts in the preface with a look at the march of the 10,000 back to Greece following the battle at Cunaxa and ends in the epilogue with a rather gloomy portrait of the future with genuine battles of West v. West (battles/wars that have generally produced the most brutal and horrific results).
The key elements of the brutal way Western cultures wage war include:
Relatively free soldiers, at least compared to the non-West.
Decisive or Shock Battle intended to obliterate the opposition.
Citizen soldiers.
Landed soldiers.
Technology and Appreciation of Reason (scientific method).
The Economy that can produce the Decisive or Shock Battle (my favorite chapter is entitled The Market--or Capitalism Kills...about the Battle of Lepanto in 1571).
The Discipline of Western soldiering.
(and the seemingly opposite of the foregoing Discipline) Individualism of same.
Finally, the Dissent and Self-Critique of the so-called loss of Tet.
There are great reviews at the amazon site so I won't try to give a real review here (a problem with reading a book five years following its publication.
Rather, I'll just excerpt a few passages that piqued my interest and made me want to read more of the author's work.
The first:
The great hatred of capitalism the hearts of the oppressed, ancient and modern, I think, stems not merely from the ensuing vast inequality of wealth, and the often unfair and arbitrary nature of who profits and who suffers, but from the silent acknowledgment that under a free market economy the many victims of the greed of the few are still better off than those under the utopian socialism of the well-intended. It is a hard thing for the poor to acknowledge benefits from their rich moral inferiors who never so intended it. (pp. 271-2; Lepanto)
It will come as no surprise to my reader that such a passage would be one of my favorites. It comes from the Capitalism Kills chapter.
The second:
For good or evil, few Westerners believe that a sacred cow is more important than a human, that the emperor is superior to the individual person, that a religious pilgrimage is the fulfillment of a human's life, that in war a suicidal charge is often required for an individual's excellency, or that a combatant must risk his or her life to save the emperor's picture. (p. 387; Midway)
The third:
How odd that the institutions that can thwart the daily battle progress of Western arms can also ensure the ultimate triumph of its cause. If the Western commitment to self-critique in part caused the American defeat in Vietnam, then that institution was also paramount in the explosion of Western global influence in the decades after the war--even as the enormous and often bellicose Vietnamese army fought for a regime increasingly despised at home, shunned abroad, and bankrupt economically and morally. (p. 439; Tet)
The fourth:
Buying and selling is a human trait, but the abstract protection of private property, the institutionalization of interest and investment, and the understanding of market are not. Capitalism is more than the sale of goods, more than the existence of money, and more than the presence of the bazaar. Rather, it is a peculiar Western practice that acknowledges the self-interest of man and channels that greed to the production of vast amounts of goods and services through free markets and institutionalized guarantees of personal profit, free exchange, deposited capital, and private property. (p. 445; Epilogue)
And finally:
Nope, can't reproduce that one...the last paragraph of the book...that's VDH's. You should read it.
I wish this reader had been more able to resolve the conflict between Discipline of Western infantry (including the ability to fight and march in what had always seemed ridiculous rows of infantry shooting, kneeling and reloading that we see in the movies of the Revolutionary War...that just seem nuts to me though it makes much more sense to me in its origins of the phalanxes after reading Gates of Fire) and the Individualism of the pilots that led to victory at Midaway.
Though not excerpted, my favorite chapters (probably because I had so little knowledge of their subjects) were about the battles at Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) by Cortes and the Conquistadors and Rorke's Drift by the British over the Zulus.
I have tried to diligently reproduce VDH's paragraphs but my typing ability is less than stellar.
To the extent of any errors, I accept full responsibility. [Note: I've been up since 5:00 so I reserve the right to make extensive edits. Dang, big post, but at least none of the thoughts were original.]
“Impeccably Multicultural”
While Mark Steyn was a day late and a dollar short in his Abdul Rahman Sun-Times piece yesterday, his column did contain this gem:
In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" -- the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:
''You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" -- the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:
''You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
Scooter = Webmaster
I fixed the right side...ta-da! (It was Michael's first Origins of SSJ post that did it... too many "......." separating parts un et deux of the first post.) Weakness of the site I suppose, that a post could affect the template.
Re: VW commercials
He's also the Russian space station guy in Armageddon. Saw two of them over the weekend and LJ is right, very Sprockets.
All Hail McAfee AntiSpyware/Antivirus
The scan took almost all day yesterday, honestly, about twelve hours. It detected and deleted over fifty trojans and more than 70 pups (potentially unwanted programs, mostly adware programs). The home machine is now running like new.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Re: 9/11 - The Pentagon
I can't speak for Charlie, but the "passengers" are dead, just not as a result of a "crash" at the Pentagon.
9/11 - The Pentagon
Let's start the reeducation here. It's the basic refutation of the "a missle, not an airplane full of living human persons, hit the Pentagon." Query for LJ and Charlie: Where are the people on that flight? Why are their mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children mourning their loss?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
