Two weeks ago, the conventional wisdom (a clear oxymoron) was that Dean had the nomination sown up. Now they say Kerry has it. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.
In 2000, John McCain stomped Bush in New Hampshire, and Gore was tied with Bradley -- and much for the same reason: In NH, people can register on voting day, and independents can vote in party primaries. In 2000, the centrists all voted Republican and for McCain (something that was seen in other cross-over states), and the core Democrats went for the more leftist Bradley (incidentally causing Gore to move left).
This time there was no race for the Republicans, so all those independents voted in the Democrat race, and against Dean. Even Lieberman helped, as his 9% was much better than his poll numbers.
Iowa, as always, is too parochial and too weird a system to draw conclusions from.
So the real test will be next week when 7 states vote, several of which will have closed party primaries. Dean needs to win some of these, to be sure, but Kerry needs to show he can win a primary without independants. Further, Kerry needs to show that he can win in the south and west, which looks mighty iffy right now. My take is that the results will be all over the place, with Kerry, Dean and Edwards each winning some. Only Lieberman and Clark look to be gone by mid-February. Sharpton or Kucinich would be gone too, if either was in this to win, but they're not.
Note aside: Best line I've heard so far: Against Bush, who would vote for Kerry who did not vote for Gore?
I hope you like the redesign. I've been meaning to do this for weeks, but just now found the links to free styles time.
The NY Post reports that Al Franken assaulted a heckler yesterday at a Howard Dean rally.
"I got down low and took his legs out," said Franken afterwards.Somehow, I doubt he would have done the same to a Dean supporter -- or even a LaRouchite -- heckling a Bush/Cheney rally. And if a secret service agent did it, he'd be up in arms about the stifling of dissent in John Ashcroft's Amerika.
Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.
"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."
The trouble started when several supporters of fringe presidential candidate Lyndon Larouche began shouting accusations at Dean.
Franken emerged from the crowd and charged one male protester, grabbing him with a bear hug from behind and slamming him onto the floor.
I posted here last November that the Massachusetts Supreme Court (and more particularly the plaintiffs) was making a strategic mistake by attempting to short-circuit the legislative and/or initiative process with regard to gay marriage. I felt that this kind of major social change cannot be forced by the courts -- we saw this with Roe v Wade.
Only after there is significant nationwide majority support for gay marraige can the courts properly intervene -- dealing with the recalcitrant stragglers -- as has most recently happened with the sodomy ruling, and previously with issues such as interracial marriage. Not so much a "Living Constitution" argument, as an implementation of the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause.
Bush's SOTU comments on gay marriage and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment are exactly the reaction I expected. In a republic, one can accept the decisions of elected legislatures, or the People by initiative, even if you don't like the results. But judical fiats are not seen as legitimate. The only exceptions to this are where the Constitutional basis is utterly obvious, and the status quo is unacceptable (e.g. Brown v Board of Education).
So, I reiterate -- attempts to judicially mandate gay marriage will backfire, as the current majority is against it, does not see the Constitutional imperative, and will do whatever it takes to slap down adventurous courts. Forcing the issue of the FMA is not in anyone's interest.
Professor Volokh posted the other day about a case from Bournemouth, England where
...a PREACHER who spoke out against the "sin" of homosexuality -- inflaming a Bournemouth crowd and sparking a furore over freedom of speech -- was rightly convicted of a public order offence, top judges have ruled. . . .To make a long story short, the crowd was justified in its assault, and the preacher goes to jail for goading the crowd into assaulting him.
The late Mr Hammond, a preacher for 20 years, was prosecuted after holding a controversial sign while preaching in The Square, Bournemouth, in October 2001.
The sign contained the words: "Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism", as well as making references to Jesus.
Hugh Tomlinson, QC, appearing for Mr Hammond's executors [Hammond had died by then], said: "He (Mr Hammond) was subjected to a number of assaults. Soil was thrown at him and water poured over his head.
Israel's ambassador to Sweden was kicked out of Stockholm's Museum of National Antiquities after he destroyed an artwork featuring a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber, the artists said.Apparently the Swedes are upset.
The art installation, called Snow White and located in the museum's courtyard, featured a basin filled with red water, designed to look like blood.
A sailboat with the name Snow White floated on the water, and placed like a sail was a photo of a smiling Hanadi Jaradat, the female lawyer who blew herself up in the Haifa suicide bombing attack in October which killed 21 Israelis.
"For me it was intolerable and an insult to the families of the victims. As ambassador to Israel I could not remain indifferent to such an obscene misrepresentation of reality," the ambassador told Swedish news agency TT.
Kristian Berg, the museum's director, said he realized the installation might have been emotional for Mazel, but that destroying art was unacceptable: "If you don't like what you see, you can leave the premises."Now, which is more likely to offend: a preacher preaching that which is written in his religion's holy book regaring acceptable behavior, or "art" that seemingly glorifies a terrorist who killed 21 of one's fellow citizens, among a wave of such attacks that had killed thousands?
That's how long it took Sean O'Keefe, NASA Director, to screw up after the President's moon base initiative was announced. Of all the things that we are using the space shuttle for, only one is worth risking a human life for -- the Hubble telescope. So, in a rush to misjudgement, that's the one thing that they are not going to continue supporting. Everything goes to the ISS, which, once complete, will be scrapped. The technical term for this is "turd-polishing."
Rand Simberg warned that NASA was such a complete mess that without massive changes it would squander its new opportunity. It took two days. NASA has become just another bureaucratic swamp that can't tell spit from Shinola. Bush's plan is a good one, but it won't work until everyone in NASA management is let go. We need folks whose vision extends past the next Congressional hearing.
Patterico links, via Radley Balko, to this NY Times op-ed defending third-world sweatshops against the mindless feel-good opposition of most Democrat candidates. Sone additional quotes from the piece:
I'd like to invite Richard Gephardt and the other Democratic candidates to come here to Cambodia and discuss trade policy with scavengers like Nhep Chanda, who spends her days rooting through filth in the city dump.Carol Mosley Braun is available [and it's warm in Cambodia, for those stumping though -20F New Hampshire --ed].
One of the most unfortunate trends in the Democratic presidential race has been the way nearly all of the candidates, including Howard Dean, the front-runner, have been flirting with anti-trade positions by putting the emphasis on labor, environmental and human rights standards in international agreements.
While Mr. Gephardt calls for an international minimum wage, Mr. Dean was quoted in USA Today in October as saying, "I believe that trade also requires human rights and labor standards and environmental standards that are concurrent around the world."
....Cambodia has a fair trade system and promotes itself as an enlightened garment producer. That's great. But if the U.S. tries to ban products from countries that don't meet international standards, jobs will be shifted from the most wretched areas to better-off nations like Malaysia or Mexico. Already there are very few factories in Africa or the poor countries of Asia, and if we raise the bar higher, there will be even fewer.
The Democratic Party has been pro-trade since Franklin Roosevelt, and President Bill Clinton in particular tugged the party to embrace the realities of trade. Now the party may be retreating toward protectionism under the guise of labor standards.
That would hurt American consumers. But it would be particularly devastating for laborers in the poorest parts of the world. For the fundamental problem in the poor countries of Africa and Asia is not that sweatshops exploit too many workers; it's that they don't exploit enough.
Carol Moseley Braun (no relation to either Oswald Mosley or Eva Braun) a defeated one-term Senator who unsuccessfully aspired to mediocrity, has dropped out from the Democrat presidential race. This will, no doubt, be front-page news (not!).
The only real questions are 1) why did this take so long, and 2) why did the Democrat Party allow such a marginal candidate to participate in so many debates? After all, they have no problem excluding the Greens or Libertarians from general election debates, when these folks have a much better chance of winning.
Memo to Kucinich and Sharpton: One of the reasons no one is paying any attention to the Democrat debates is because you lot are still there, reducing the credibility of an already wounded party. You're like the New Year's Eve party guest who's still there on the 5th. Do either of you think that you would win even DC in the general election? Sheesh. Pat Robertson would beat either one of you in 45 states. Time to go.
Drudge has excerpts of the Moveon.org propaganda selection session here. It amazes me that all these showbiz folks, who think Bush is Hitler and far worse than any of our enemies, are so quick to forget even their own past. After 9/11 none of them could get on a plane to attend their own Emmy awards, which were postponed for a month, and then postponed again when no one was willing to stop cowering in the basement venture forth.
Which was too bad, because it would have been a service to America for the show to go on, with America's media royalty standing tall for America. But these folks, who are right up front about how everyone else needs to sacrifice for their causes, weren't willing to get off their self-centered duff for the country that gave them all they have. For fear of al Qaeda.
But that was then, this is now. Somehow, even though they fear George Bush's Amerika more than al Qaeda, they feel safe enough to attend the Moveon.org rant-session and diss the modern "Hitler" [no, not bin Laden -ed]. Without a trace of irony.
Mark Steyn reports on the difference in Britain between speech criticizing Jews and speech criticizing Muslims. To state truthful things about Islam (e.g. it is harsh towards women) is reprehensible, and grounds for dismissal of a reporter. To advocate the killing of Jews is OK, though.
Let me see if I understand the BBC Rules of Engagement correctly: if you're Robert Kilroy-Silk and you make some robust statements about the Arab penchant for suicide bombing, amputations, repression of women and a generally celebratory attitude to September 11 – none of which is factually in dispute – the BBC will yank you off the air and the Commission for Racial Equality will file a complaint to the police which could result in your serving seven years in gaol. Message: this behaviour is unacceptable in multicultural Britain.Apparently so. (via Instapundit)
But, if you're Tom Paulin and you incite murder, in a part of the world where folks need little incitement to murder, as part of a non-factual emotive rant about how "Brooklyn-born" Jewish settlers on the West Bank "should be shot dead" because "they are Nazis" and "I feel nothing but hatred for them", the BBC will keep you on the air, kibitzing (as the Zionists would say) with the crème de la crème of London's cultural arbiters each week. Message: this behaviour is completely acceptable.
So, while the BBC is "investigating" Kilroy, its only statement on Mr Paulin was an oblique but curiously worded allusion to the non-controversy on the Corporation website: "His polemical, knockabout style has ruffled feathers in the US, where the Jewish question is notoriously sensitive." "The Jewish question"? "Notoriously sensitive"? Is this really how they talk at the BBC?
Paul O'Neill, the guy that Bush fired as Treasury secretary after widespread displeasure with his public statements and constant public oppostion to Administration decisions, now writes a "get even" book dissing Bush, entitled "The Price of Loyalty." If this is loyalty, what would betrayal be? A better title would be "The Wages of Judas." I bet his next job offer will come along soon, him being so trustworthy. Maybe McNamera will hire him.
Here's a Financial Times article about O'Neill and the book, which examines the acumen that exemplified his tenure:
During his tenure as Treasury secretary, Mr O'Neill became well-known for speaking out frequently and frankly on a range of subjects including the dollar, the limited value of International Monetary Fund crisis lending and the problems with development aid.
His comments frequently had an impact on financial markets, with one remark about the low likelihood of an IMF rescue package for Brazil causing a rapid fall in the Brazilian currency.
The IMF subsequently announced a $30bn bail-out that succeeded in stabilising the Brazilian economy.
I don't know why I have such a bad feeling about Bush's upcoming space program announcement. Maybe it's having lived through Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, and seen it all come crashing down in a pointless bureaucratic morass, I'm cynical.
This may seem hopelessly naive, but we really thought, back in 1969, that Clarke & Kubrick's 2001 was a fair prediction. We were wrong of course, right down to PanAm. Instead of the Moon, Mars and Jupiter, we got Shuttle, some kind of tinkertoy "space station", some really neat robots, 14 dead heroes and lots of bureaucratic waste.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but it should also give one foresight when the same question comes up again. There should be only one goal for a lunar colony -- to be a permananet, self-supporting human habitation. Failing that, there is no real point.
Apollo was neat and all, but it was one-off. A Mars expedition now would be the same. I'd much rather see 10,000 people living permanently in Luna City, and a few vonBraun wheels in orbit, than one Mars landing. Because, given that, the rest of the solar system is wide open.
But if it's 2030, and we've got nothing permanent still, it won't matter much that we've been to Mars.
UPDATE: This article purports to have the details on the President's plan (via Transterrestrial Musings)
Lots of commentary the last few days on immigration reform proposed by President Bush. A few summaries:
Tuesday's Day By Day puts the MoveOn.org Bushitler ads into context. For those who don't know what Godwin's Law is, it comes from the old Usenet newsgroup days:
Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."This is essentially an early, empirical, anti-idiotatrian rule. You will note that this bodes ill for the Democrat's chances in November, as they've resorted to the Bush=Hitler thing long since. By Usenet rules, they've already lost. Having seen the MoveOn ad transcripts, I would have to agree.
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
Governing California, that is. That's what they all say, anyway. Poor Gray Davis didn't have a chance, because the state is too big and contains too many factions for effective government. All you can do is hope it doesn't get too bad, too fast. Here's Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Dog Trainer Times in todays paper:
By Friday, the easy part of Schwarzenegger's life — leaving Austria and starting over in America, winning the Mr. Universe contest with women hanging off of him, becoming a box office legend and pounding nails into Gray Davis' coffin — will have ended, and he'll have come eyeball to eyeball with his hairiest challenge ever:
Governing California.
GOP strategist Stu Spencer was on the money, as usual, when he reminded me recently that our epically sprawling, famously fractured, incorrigible state is ungovernable.
Amish Tech Support has the Dead Pool Rosters up. Question: Is there anyone who is both quite famous and over 50 who is not on anyone's list?
According to the New York Times, "British Cancel Another Flight as Allies Query U.S." Britain up in arms? That's not good at all. But reading the article, it turns out the "allies" are France and Mexico, even though one would assume they meant the UK from the headline.
Since both France and Mexico, UN Security Council members at the time, utterly opposed US intervention in Iraq, calling them allies is a bit of a stretch. Now, maybe Mexico is an ally of sorts, or at least not against us, but France is an enemy -- even Tom Friedman of the Times knows that.
UPDATE: The NYT story does have some criticism of the US from British pilots, however:
In another indication of the turmoil resulting from the increased security measures, an American official said that the cancellation of the British Airways flights was not in response to United States safety concerns, but rather was prompted by the refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board.I guess that got clogged in my BS filter the first time through.
New Bearflagger "The Lopsided Poopdeck" has this on the most recent deadly Iranian quake:
Iran asks "why are our quakes so deadly?" Here's a hint: you have tons of "moral police" who make sure boys and girls don't hold hands in the street (not to mention homosexual behavior certainly isn't allowed), and they make sure that girls wear scarfs so that their hair doesn't show, but you don't have the same number of people who go around making sure buildings are built properly.And other reasons. Mostly related to cranial-rectal inversion in the leading circles.
Here's my entry in the Amish Tech Support Dead Pool: