Regardless of whether or not Roger Clemens might have used steroids, which I have discussed below, http://quakerfox.blogspot.com/2007/12/steroids-baseball-and-roger-clemens.html,
the following quote from his 60 Minutes interview gives us a hint of just how self-absorbed a person Mr. Clemens may be:
""I'm angry. What i've done for baseball, I don't get the benefit of the doubt," Roger Clemens said.""
I guess the hundreds of millions of dollars wasn't recompense enough for all Roger did for baseball.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/clemens.hgh.steroids.2.624432.html
Monday, January 7, 2008
Roy Williams Does it Again
Roy Williams and his Tar Heels somehow found a way to win a game that was seemingly lost, yesterday at Clemson, 90-88 in over-time. I won't go into specifics because that can be found elsewhere, but will include a post I did on another blog at halftime:
"At the half perhaps the most apt description thus far would be, in he words of the immortal Charlie Bown, “aaaarrrrgggghhhh!”
"At the half perhaps the most apt description thus far would be, in he words of the immortal Charlie Bown, “aaaarrrrgggghhhh!”
Deon and Quinin and Marcus have got to step up with Brendan and Bobby gone this year. They clearly can all do better. The outside shooting has got to improve. If Wayne and Danny and Ty cannot consistently hit the 3, we are right back in the hell of last year’s Georgetown game.
Almost all of the great UNC teams have had excellent wing men or three point shooters: Charlie Scott, Walter Davis, MJ, Donald Williams, Vince Carter and Rashad McCants.
Rashad McCants (34 points in 31 minutes yesterday by the way, good going!) was so fundamental to the 2005 team. You could not pack the zone with him in there. If you look at the losses in 2005, except for Santa Clara, without Felton, all the losses involved bad games or games with foul trouble by Rashad.
Wayne has similar skills but has not yet had the same amount of seasoning as Rashad, who was the team star along with Felton and May from day one. Mark my words: If this team is to win it all, Mr. Ellington must start to resemble Vince Carter and Rashad McCants and be able to take control of a game the way that they could. But then again, what do I know? I could be wrong. Let’s hope for a big second half by Mr. Ellington.”
As most BB fans know by know, Ellington ended up hitting a career high 36 points including the game winning 3-pointer with less than a second left in the game. Kudos to Mr. Ellington.
Friday, December 21, 2007
The Wisdom of Fight Club
Fight Club was one of those cult movies where either you got it or you didn't. I found it to be one of the most amazing movies that I have ever seen and the book is excellent as well.
It may seem strange to find wisdom in a movie superficially about disaffected men of questionable sanity beating the hell out of each other, but I definitely did.
The movie is full of quotes, many of them perhaps distasteful to some, that are replete with insight. Zen Buddhism is often associated with such quotes, which by attacking certain sacred cows, often in a seemingly profane way, help liberate our minds from a conventional and incorrect way of thinking.
(I am adding this at a later point, but it struck me to see whether or not I am the only one to see the Zen aspects of the movie and I note that recent works exploring these very concepts (and the closely related Taoist ones) have recently been published: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol11no2/ReedFightClub.htm
http://strykerxbase.tripod.com/writings/taoism.htm)
The prophet in Fight Club, played by Brad Pitt, is a character named Tyler Durden. One of the more remarkable things about the 2 disc DVD was a sort of rap song done by the Dust Brothers with lyrics spliced together with some of the more powerful quotes by Brad Pitt and in his voice, from the movie. It sounds corny but the effect is to smack you in the face with some of the themes of life dealt with in the movie.
Here are the lyrics to the "song" "Tyler Durden":
And you open the door and you step inside
We're inside our hearts
Now imagine your pain as a white ball of healing light
Thats right
Your pain, the pain of self is a white ball of healing light
I dont think so
This is your life
Good to the last drop
It doesnt get any better than this
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time
This isnt a seminar
This isnt a weekend retreat
Where you are now you can't even imagine what the bottom will be like
Only after disaster can we be resurrected
It's only after you've lost everything you are free to do anything
Nothing is static
Everything is evolving
Everything is falling apart
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake
You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else
We are all part of the same compost heap
We are the all singing all dancing crap of the world
You are not your bank account
You are not the clothes you wear
You are not the contents of your wallet
You are not your bowel cancer
You are not your grande latte
You are not the car you drive
You are not your fucking khakis
You have to give up
You have to realise that someday you will die
Until you know that
You are useless
I say, let me never be complete
I say, may I never be content
I say, deliver me from swedish furniture
I say, deliver me from clever art
I say deliver me from clear skin and perfect teeth
I say you have to give up
I say evolve, and let the chips fall as they may
I want you to hit me as hard as you can (x2)
Welcome to fight club
If this is your first night - You have to fight
Here are some uncoupled excerpts of some of the wisdom from the book and movie:
"It's only after you've lost everything, that you're free to do anything."
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.
May I never be complete. May I never be content. May I never be perfect. Deliver me from being perfect and complete.
Only after disaster can we be resurrected.
Maybe self-improvement isn't the answer.... Maybe self-destruction is the answer.
I want you to do me a favor. I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
Fuck damnation, man! Fuck redemption! We are God's unwanted children? So be it!
First you have to give up, first you have to *know*... not fear... *know*... that someday you're gonna die.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.
You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.
The things you own end up owning you.
I don't wanna die without any scars
Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?
Listen to me! You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen. We don't need him!
I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species.
Fuck what you know. You need to forget about what you know, that's your problem. Forget about what you think you know about life, about friendship....
Hitting bottom isn't a weekend retreat. It's not a goddamn seminar. Stop trying to control everything and just let go! LET GO!
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.
We are all part of the same compost heap.
You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.
It may seem strange to find wisdom in a movie superficially about disaffected men of questionable sanity beating the hell out of each other, but I definitely did.
The movie is full of quotes, many of them perhaps distasteful to some, that are replete with insight. Zen Buddhism is often associated with such quotes, which by attacking certain sacred cows, often in a seemingly profane way, help liberate our minds from a conventional and incorrect way of thinking.
(I am adding this at a later point, but it struck me to see whether or not I am the only one to see the Zen aspects of the movie and I note that recent works exploring these very concepts (and the closely related Taoist ones) have recently been published: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol11no2/ReedFightClub.htm
http://strykerxbase.tripod.com/writings/taoism.htm)
The prophet in Fight Club, played by Brad Pitt, is a character named Tyler Durden. One of the more remarkable things about the 2 disc DVD was a sort of rap song done by the Dust Brothers with lyrics spliced together with some of the more powerful quotes by Brad Pitt and in his voice, from the movie. It sounds corny but the effect is to smack you in the face with some of the themes of life dealt with in the movie.
Here are the lyrics to the "song" "Tyler Durden":
And you open the door and you step inside
We're inside our hearts
Now imagine your pain as a white ball of healing light
Thats right
Your pain, the pain of self is a white ball of healing light
I dont think so
This is your life
Good to the last drop
It doesnt get any better than this
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time
This isnt a seminar
This isnt a weekend retreat
Where you are now you can't even imagine what the bottom will be like
Only after disaster can we be resurrected
It's only after you've lost everything you are free to do anything
Nothing is static
Everything is evolving
Everything is falling apart
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake
You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else
We are all part of the same compost heap
We are the all singing all dancing crap of the world
You are not your bank account
You are not the clothes you wear
You are not the contents of your wallet
You are not your bowel cancer
You are not your grande latte
You are not the car you drive
You are not your fucking khakis
You have to give up
You have to realise that someday you will die
Until you know that
You are useless
I say, let me never be complete
I say, may I never be content
I say, deliver me from swedish furniture
I say, deliver me from clever art
I say deliver me from clear skin and perfect teeth
I say you have to give up
I say evolve, and let the chips fall as they may
I want you to hit me as hard as you can (x2)
Welcome to fight club
If this is your first night - You have to fight
Here are some uncoupled excerpts of some of the wisdom from the book and movie:
"It's only after you've lost everything, that you're free to do anything."
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.
May I never be complete. May I never be content. May I never be perfect. Deliver me from being perfect and complete.
Only after disaster can we be resurrected.
Maybe self-improvement isn't the answer.... Maybe self-destruction is the answer.
I want you to do me a favor. I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
Fuck damnation, man! Fuck redemption! We are God's unwanted children? So be it!
First you have to give up, first you have to *know*... not fear... *know*... that someday you're gonna die.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.
You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.
The things you own end up owning you.
I don't wanna die without any scars
Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?
Listen to me! You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen. We don't need him!
I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species.
Fuck what you know. You need to forget about what you know, that's your problem. Forget about what you think you know about life, about friendship....
Hitting bottom isn't a weekend retreat. It's not a goddamn seminar. Stop trying to control everything and just let go! LET GO!
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.
We are all part of the same compost heap.
You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.
The Christ in Christmas?
Under the Julian calendar of the Roman empire, the Winter Solstice fell on December 25th.
As the shortest day of the year, December 25th had a special significance as a time of rebirth, given that it was the day when the days began getting longer. Accordingly, ancient peoples in Europe often marked the Winter Solstice with ebullient festivals, such as the one honoring the Invincible Sun. Although the early Church (and later groups like the Puritans) attempted to ban the celebration of the Winter Solstice, ultimately, they gave in and attempted to graft a Christian meaning upon it, which wasn't too hard since the Christian God Jesus also was highly symbolic of rebirth.
Placing the celebration of Christ's birth on the Winter Solstice set things up nicely to coincide with placing the celebration of his death and resurrection during the Spring festivals, aka Easter (from the word for the old German moon goddess and related to the modern word estrogen), which often celebrated the death and rebirth of the spouse of the moon goddess.
The Julian calendar was later superseded in the middle ages and the Winter Solstice fell back to around the 22nd day of the year, although December 25th continued to be the date upon which the pagan winter holiday/Christmas continued to be observed.
So the next time one of those fundamentalist busybodies talks about "putting the Christ back into Christmas," tell him that Christ never was in Christmas to begin with and to get their own holiday.
As the shortest day of the year, December 25th had a special significance as a time of rebirth, given that it was the day when the days began getting longer. Accordingly, ancient peoples in Europe often marked the Winter Solstice with ebullient festivals, such as the one honoring the Invincible Sun. Although the early Church (and later groups like the Puritans) attempted to ban the celebration of the Winter Solstice, ultimately, they gave in and attempted to graft a Christian meaning upon it, which wasn't too hard since the Christian God Jesus also was highly symbolic of rebirth.
Placing the celebration of Christ's birth on the Winter Solstice set things up nicely to coincide with placing the celebration of his death and resurrection during the Spring festivals, aka Easter (from the word for the old German moon goddess and related to the modern word estrogen), which often celebrated the death and rebirth of the spouse of the moon goddess.
The Julian calendar was later superseded in the middle ages and the Winter Solstice fell back to around the 22nd day of the year, although December 25th continued to be the date upon which the pagan winter holiday/Christmas continued to be observed.
So the next time one of those fundamentalist busybodies talks about "putting the Christ back into Christmas," tell him that Christ never was in Christmas to begin with and to get their own holiday.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Steroids, Baseball and Roger Clemens
Did Red Sox and Yankee pitching great Roger Clemens use steroids?
Obviously, I don't know for sure, but let's take a look at his career stats on Baseball Reference:
From age 30 to 33, Clemens' record is 40-39 with ERA's around 4 and the highest Whip's of his career.. Then all of a sudden he "recovers" and actually gets, if not better at age 34, at least as good as he had been ten years earlier, continuing on par with his best seasons up to age 42, and has continued on at an excellent perfomance level, although down somewhat, the last two seasons up to the age of 44. For example, in 2004 with Houston, at age 41, with an E.R.A. under 3 and a Whip of 1.157, roughly equivalent to his Cy Young Award winning season of 1987 with the Red Sox, when he was 24.
What other power pitchers in history have done that?
Not Bob Feller or Sandy Koufax. They both retired in their early 30's. Steve Carlton's last really good season came at age 37. Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver continued at a high rate until age 36.
Certainly not Walter Johnson, the pitcher without equal to whom Clemens is often compared. Although Johnson had some success after 35, much of this was attributable to his finally playing on an American League champion team in 1924 and 1925, after years of Senatorial futility.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml
Throughout baseball history we have always seen the same relative curve of productivity, in which a player's statistics rise during the twenties, level off around age thirty and then decline either rapidly or gradually between thirty and forty. Indeed, many who are labelled all time greats are considered so because their stats tapered off much less after age thirty than other good or excellent players.
Ted Williams is a good example of this. Also, Hank Aaron certainly comes to mind here, playing at a high level until age 40, while another all time great, Willie Mays declined a bit more after his 35th birthday, allowing Aaron to pass him in the race for the all time lead in home runs.
Pete Rose, the all time hit leader was still able to punch out 172 hits at age 41, while Robin Yount, who at one time seemed a threat to Pete Rose's base hit record, declined preciptiously in his mid-30's and retired at 37, far short of Rose's record.
On the other hand, there is nothing that categorically eliminates the possibility of improving after age 30. There are rare human specimens among us. George Foreman won the heavyweight title in his mid-40's after all.
In the realm of baseball, Warren Spahn of the Boston and Milwaukee Braves, went 23-7 with an E.R.A. of 2.60 at age 42, although he never really suffered a mid-career decline in the way that Clemens did. Nolan Ryan continued at a high level until age 44, although much of his late success seems attributable to his finally gaining some mastery over his career-damaging wildness.
Among Clemens' contemporaries, Randy Johnson seems to have pitched into his 40's without much decline in performance.
Some might argue that pitchers' pitch counts are closely monitored these days and that less arm stress could allow pitchers to continue at a high level into their forties.
Nevertheless, such counter-examples such as Spann and Ryan are rare and less likely to be legitimate during an era when the acknowledged usage of performancing-enhancing substances was rampant.
Certainly, it is unprecedented to see an explosion in statistics like that of Barry Bonds, who at age 36 started racking up on-base percentages over a hundred points higher than any he had ever achieved, including his three MVP seasons, which was three years past the point where his talented father, Bobby Bonds, played his last full season.
For Clemens, the rumbers are not so stark a difference, but he still had three or four of what are arguably his best seasons, after the age of 34, beginning in 1997, after four mediocre seasons, at an age when most power pitchers' best years are behind them, and his former team the Red Sox let him go.
It might just be a coincidence.
Obviously, I don't know for sure, but let's take a look at his career stats on Baseball Reference:
From age 30 to 33, Clemens' record is 40-39 with ERA's around 4 and the highest Whip's of his career.. Then all of a sudden he "recovers" and actually gets, if not better at age 34, at least as good as he had been ten years earlier, continuing on par with his best seasons up to age 42, and has continued on at an excellent perfomance level, although down somewhat, the last two seasons up to the age of 44. For example, in 2004 with Houston, at age 41, with an E.R.A. under 3 and a Whip of 1.157, roughly equivalent to his Cy Young Award winning season of 1987 with the Red Sox, when he was 24.
What other power pitchers in history have done that?
Not Bob Feller or Sandy Koufax. They both retired in their early 30's. Steve Carlton's last really good season came at age 37. Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver continued at a high rate until age 36.
Certainly not Walter Johnson, the pitcher without equal to whom Clemens is often compared. Although Johnson had some success after 35, much of this was attributable to his finally playing on an American League champion team in 1924 and 1925, after years of Senatorial futility.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml
Throughout baseball history we have always seen the same relative curve of productivity, in which a player's statistics rise during the twenties, level off around age thirty and then decline either rapidly or gradually between thirty and forty. Indeed, many who are labelled all time greats are considered so because their stats tapered off much less after age thirty than other good or excellent players.
Ted Williams is a good example of this. Also, Hank Aaron certainly comes to mind here, playing at a high level until age 40, while another all time great, Willie Mays declined a bit more after his 35th birthday, allowing Aaron to pass him in the race for the all time lead in home runs.
Pete Rose, the all time hit leader was still able to punch out 172 hits at age 41, while Robin Yount, who at one time seemed a threat to Pete Rose's base hit record, declined preciptiously in his mid-30's and retired at 37, far short of Rose's record.
On the other hand, there is nothing that categorically eliminates the possibility of improving after age 30. There are rare human specimens among us. George Foreman won the heavyweight title in his mid-40's after all.
In the realm of baseball, Warren Spahn of the Boston and Milwaukee Braves, went 23-7 with an E.R.A. of 2.60 at age 42, although he never really suffered a mid-career decline in the way that Clemens did. Nolan Ryan continued at a high level until age 44, although much of his late success seems attributable to his finally gaining some mastery over his career-damaging wildness.
Among Clemens' contemporaries, Randy Johnson seems to have pitched into his 40's without much decline in performance.
Some might argue that pitchers' pitch counts are closely monitored these days and that less arm stress could allow pitchers to continue at a high level into their forties.
Nevertheless, such counter-examples such as Spann and Ryan are rare and less likely to be legitimate during an era when the acknowledged usage of performancing-enhancing substances was rampant.
Certainly, it is unprecedented to see an explosion in statistics like that of Barry Bonds, who at age 36 started racking up on-base percentages over a hundred points higher than any he had ever achieved, including his three MVP seasons, which was three years past the point where his talented father, Bobby Bonds, played his last full season.
For Clemens, the rumbers are not so stark a difference, but he still had three or four of what are arguably his best seasons, after the age of 34, beginning in 1997, after four mediocre seasons, at an age when most power pitchers' best years are behind them, and his former team the Red Sox let him go.
It might just be a coincidence.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Federal Sentencing Opinions Issued
The influential 7th Circuit judges, who were formally considered friends of limited government, Richard A. Posner and Frank Easterbrook got slammed by Justice Antonin Scalia today in the Court's two sentencing decisions, which I find delightful.
They had essentially ignored the precepts of the Booker decision (now what part of the term "advisory" do you not understand Mr. Easterbrook?) and their post-Booker sentencing work can now be deposited where it belongs: in the garbage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/washington/10cnd-scotus.html?hp
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/10/todays_booker_o.html
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/09/seventh_circuit.html
They had essentially ignored the precepts of the Booker decision (now what part of the term "advisory" do you not understand Mr. Easterbrook?) and their post-Booker sentencing work can now be deposited where it belongs: in the garbage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/washington/10cnd-scotus.html?hp
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/10/todays_booker_o.html
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/09/seventh_circuit.html
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Romney, Giuliani and Clinton Losing Support
Look what is happening here in the polls. People are saying that they are sick of the same old connected people running things. Outsiders like Huckabee and Paul and semi-outsiders like Obama are making a charge. The more the Club for Growth and the WSJ criticize Huckabee and Ron Paul, the better they seem to do in the polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html
Friday, December 7, 2007
Mormon Romney
Jack Tapper makes an excellent point here about GOP candidate George Romney's "freedom of religion" speech and how Romney is missing the point:
"His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/mitt-moroni.html
Indeed, it is the secularists who have generally been willing to ignore people's religion as candidates as long as they don't make religion part of the race, as opposed to the issues. What people like Romney want to do is bash non-believers and secularists, while all the while saying "don't you dare try to bring my religion into this. Unfair!"
Unless I no longer understand evangelicals, they will never, ever support a Mormon. Not only do they consider Mormonism a cult, the Mormons are just a little to successful at converting both heathen and other Christians to the point of being considered competition, not to mention that the New Jerusalem is in Israel and not Missouri, in their estimation.
Romney has had it. But on the positive side, at least he wasn't brainwashed like his dad.
"His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/mitt-moroni.html
Indeed, it is the secularists who have generally been willing to ignore people's religion as candidates as long as they don't make religion part of the race, as opposed to the issues. What people like Romney want to do is bash non-believers and secularists, while all the while saying "don't you dare try to bring my religion into this. Unfair!"
Unless I no longer understand evangelicals, they will never, ever support a Mormon. Not only do they consider Mormonism a cult, the Mormons are just a little to successful at converting both heathen and other Christians to the point of being considered competition, not to mention that the New Jerusalem is in Israel and not Missouri, in their estimation.
Romney has had it. But on the positive side, at least he wasn't brainwashed like his dad.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
NFL Officiating
What a surprise! The NFL thinks its officials make no mistakes. Due to its poor rule choices and its semi-pro referees and short schedule, officiating decides the results in the NFL more than in any other major sport. The Ravens-Patriots game Monday night may have been one of the worst officiated 4th quarters that I have ever seen.
Speaking of integrity, the NFL hires "journalists" to do post-game commentary on its network after games. How critical can someone be when they are an actual employee of a league that is known for allowing near-zero dissent. I
I was watching the NFL Network after the Ravens game(disclosure: I live in Maryland but I am a Redskins fan) and boy, do they have some impact journalists on there.
Question example: What do you think the Patriots were thinking on that last drive?
Talking head: We sure are glad we have Tom Brady as our quarterback.
Yeah, that's right.
All those 300 lb. guys who are out there slugging each other in the head on the front line were silently muttering to themselves, "I sure am glad we have Tom Brady, I sure am glad we have Tom Brady, instead of "count on four, count on four, count on four...."
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/12/05/head-nfl-ref-on-official-who-called-ravens-samari-rolle-boy/
Speaking of integrity, the NFL hires "journalists" to do post-game commentary on its network after games. How critical can someone be when they are an actual employee of a league that is known for allowing near-zero dissent. I
I was watching the NFL Network after the Ravens game(disclosure: I live in Maryland but I am a Redskins fan) and boy, do they have some impact journalists on there.
Question example: What do you think the Patriots were thinking on that last drive?
Talking head: We sure are glad we have Tom Brady as our quarterback.
Yeah, that's right.
All those 300 lb. guys who are out there slugging each other in the head on the front line were silently muttering to themselves, "I sure am glad we have Tom Brady, I sure am glad we have Tom Brady, instead of "count on four, count on four, count on four...."
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/12/05/head-nfl-ref-on-official-who-called-ravens-samari-rolle-boy/
Police Offer to Help Group Change their Message or Else
Authorities in Gwinnett County have dropped a misdemeanor criminal charge against an anti-abortion activist who was arrested for driving a truck emblazoned with images of aborted fetuses.
Gwinnett County Solicitor Rosanna Szabo said she "administratively dismissed" the disorderly conduct charge against Robert Dean Roethlisberger Jr.On the day after Thanksgiving, Roethlisberger drove a truck with banners displaying images of aborted fetuses, including a bloody and headless torso. Roethlisberger works for Operation Rescue, a national anti-abortion organization.
Roethlisberger, 44, of Belton, Mo., had been charged under a provision of Georgia law that makes it a crime to use "obscene and vulgar or profane language" in the presence of a person under age 14.
In making her decision to drop the charge, Szabo said, "I have reviewed the evidence and law in this case, and concluded that the physical display of the images in question — as shocking and offensive as they are — does not constitute 'obscene and vulgar or profane language' as specifically prohibited by this statute."
This was a pretty outrageous violation of the 1st Amendment by the Gwinnet police and the article does not make clear that such actions by the police are illegal under the U.S. Constitution regardless of what the Georgia statute may say.
Why the arresting officer's name is not mentioned is beyond me, as is the absurdity of the quote by Cpl. Spellman, which makes clear that the Gwinnett police intended to violate Roethisberger's constitutional rights.
I do not support Operation Rescue but we do not need Cpl. Spellman of the Gwinnett Police telling them how to convey their group's message.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2007/12/04/abortion_1205_web.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
Gwinnett County Solicitor Rosanna Szabo said she "administratively dismissed" the disorderly conduct charge against Robert Dean Roethlisberger Jr.On the day after Thanksgiving, Roethlisberger drove a truck with banners displaying images of aborted fetuses, including a bloody and headless torso. Roethlisberger works for Operation Rescue, a national anti-abortion organization.
Roethlisberger, 44, of Belton, Mo., had been charged under a provision of Georgia law that makes it a crime to use "obscene and vulgar or profane language" in the presence of a person under age 14.
In making her decision to drop the charge, Szabo said, "I have reviewed the evidence and law in this case, and concluded that the physical display of the images in question — as shocking and offensive as they are — does not constitute 'obscene and vulgar or profane language' as specifically prohibited by this statute."
This was a pretty outrageous violation of the 1st Amendment by the Gwinnet police and the article does not make clear that such actions by the police are illegal under the U.S. Constitution regardless of what the Georgia statute may say.
Why the arresting officer's name is not mentioned is beyond me, as is the absurdity of the quote by Cpl. Spellman, which makes clear that the Gwinnett police intended to violate Roethisberger's constitutional rights.
I do not support Operation Rescue but we do not need Cpl. Spellman of the Gwinnett Police telling them how to convey their group's message.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2007/12/04/abortion_1205_web.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
A Lawyer Did That
After having discussions with friends and former professors, I have lately been especially disappointed with the treatment of the legal profession, not by the media so much, as by the Republican Party. A constant refrain from the GOP seems to be that there are too many lawyers in the United States.
One Republican candidate for the Senate from Colorado by the name of Peter Coors, once even made the charge that there are too many lawyers in the United States Senate. One has to wonder whether the chief lawmaking body in the United States could actually have too many people who studied law as opposed to being say, bug sprayers like Tom DeLay, but to many Republicans the proposition would seem self-evident. Doesn't it say in the Bible, "First kill all the lawyers"?
Accordingly, I have decided to try to highlight some of the positives of the profession and some of society's heroes who have studied law.
I don't mean this to stand in contravention to the fact that there are nauseating and corrupt individuals who either practice law or who carry law degrees, or as a defense of state bar associations who spend most of their time implementing practices which make legal fees more expensive for the average person.
But many of the greatest people have been lawyers and the rigorous study of law and philosophy can in fact promote those qualities which make men great. The study of law when implemented well by a good school melds the practicality of most learned professions with the acquisition of knowledge sought in the humanities.
Today, I will recognize the esteemed F.A. Hayek, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974 and author of the seminal work of political theory, The Constitution of Liberty.
One Republican candidate for the Senate from Colorado by the name of Peter Coors, once even made the charge that there are too many lawyers in the United States Senate. One has to wonder whether the chief lawmaking body in the United States could actually have too many people who studied law as opposed to being say, bug sprayers like Tom DeLay, but to many Republicans the proposition would seem self-evident. Doesn't it say in the Bible, "First kill all the lawyers"?
Accordingly, I have decided to try to highlight some of the positives of the profession and some of society's heroes who have studied law.
I don't mean this to stand in contravention to the fact that there are nauseating and corrupt individuals who either practice law or who carry law degrees, or as a defense of state bar associations who spend most of their time implementing practices which make legal fees more expensive for the average person.
But many of the greatest people have been lawyers and the rigorous study of law and philosophy can in fact promote those qualities which make men great. The study of law when implemented well by a good school melds the practicality of most learned professions with the acquisition of knowledge sought in the humanities.
Today, I will recognize the esteemed F.A. Hayek, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974 and author of the seminal work of political theory, The Constitution of Liberty.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Questions Regarding Health Care
The United States seems to have the best health care in the world for people at the top of the chain, in the same way that Harvard and Yale are the best in the world in education. But this does not mean that the U.S. has better health care or education, necessarily.
We do know that the United States lags many European and British Commonwealth countries in average life expectancy and average high school scholastic achievement, so it is difficult to be dogmatic about these issues.
Regardless of what one's feeling about national healthcare are, one thing that it does not necessarily have to entail is the destruction of a competing private sector. Hillary Clinton did a huge disservice to her own general idea because many people now believe that any national system now has to be "socialized" and obligatiory as opposed to merely guaranteeing payment.
No matter how much libertarians and Republicans how that this issue is going away, it will not because they have failed to address three facets that the free market cannot adequately remedy:
1. Uninsured children
2. Unavailability of coverage for pre-existing conditions
3. Payment for potentially enormous outlays for coverage of questionable treatment.
We do know that the United States lags many European and British Commonwealth countries in average life expectancy and average high school scholastic achievement, so it is difficult to be dogmatic about these issues.
Regardless of what one's feeling about national healthcare are, one thing that it does not necessarily have to entail is the destruction of a competing private sector. Hillary Clinton did a huge disservice to her own general idea because many people now believe that any national system now has to be "socialized" and obligatiory as opposed to merely guaranteeing payment.
No matter how much libertarians and Republicans how that this issue is going away, it will not because they have failed to address three facets that the free market cannot adequately remedy:
1. Uninsured children
2. Unavailability of coverage for pre-existing conditions
3. Payment for potentially enormous outlays for coverage of questionable treatment.
The Republican Dream is Over for Libertarians
The title above is derived partly from a song by John Lennon on his first solo album after the Beatles broke up and for many of us who grew up as Republicans and worked for its success for years, hoping to return the nation to its small government foundations, admitting the dream is over comes concomitantly with the turning of one's back on a party that once embodied great hope for many of us freedom-oriented Republicans.
This is not my father's GOP. The days of Goldwater, Ayn Rand, YAF and Ronald Reagan are over and in the words of the immortal Jerry Mathers, they're "not never coming back." Instead, the McCarthyites and Nixonians have won and have completely eradicated libertarian influence in the Republican Party.
Getting over being a Republican can be a bit like leaving the religion one grew up in as a child.
It is not easy to do, but at some point, freedom-oriented people who believe in free markets and not interventionism have to realize that not only is there not much left for them in terms of policy in the GOP, that in actual fact, the party goes out of its way to insult and even antagonize libertarians.
While the Democrats through Daily Kos are saying "come on over, there are things that we can work together on," the GOP essentially thumbs its nose and says, "where else ya gonna go?"
Perhaps the saddest thing is that devoted Republicans worked 60 years to once again be in a position like they had in 2002, where they had a popular president and both houses of Congress. The GOP had the chance at that point to truly change the country. They could have passed a flat tax or abolished the income tax. They could have passed agricultural reform. They could have abolished agencies, starting with the Department of Education. They could have reformed Senior Citizens programs.
What did they do instead? First, they blew their political capital on an unnecessary war.
Then, instead of abolishing the Department of Education, the GOP instead decided to strengthen it, with No Child Left Behind.
Instead of reforming the tax code, they decided to make it even more unwieldy, and thus, all the easier to extract campaign contributions from lobbyists.
Instead of cutting farm aid, they decided to increase it.
Instead of reforming Medicare, they decide to create a new prescription drug program costing trillions of dollars, all the while deriding Democrats who sought to insure poor children as "socialists in favor of socialized medicine."
It is difficult to express just how abhorrently everyone in the GOP behaved during the period between 2002 and 2006. Corruption ran rampant, while the party violated virtually every one of its stated core values, shouting "freedom, freedom," every time they passed another bloated bill. Because they have nothing to stand on, their current presidential primaries have become focused on essentially two items: 1) being pro-war and 2)being anti-immigration. It is quite a come-down from the 1980's, when the GOP was the party of ideas and measured debate. It is now the party of yelling and screaming and know-nothingness and so now it is to the Democrats as the GOP will only continue to slip into oblivion.
This is not my father's GOP. The days of Goldwater, Ayn Rand, YAF and Ronald Reagan are over and in the words of the immortal Jerry Mathers, they're "not never coming back." Instead, the McCarthyites and Nixonians have won and have completely eradicated libertarian influence in the Republican Party.
Getting over being a Republican can be a bit like leaving the religion one grew up in as a child.
It is not easy to do, but at some point, freedom-oriented people who believe in free markets and not interventionism have to realize that not only is there not much left for them in terms of policy in the GOP, that in actual fact, the party goes out of its way to insult and even antagonize libertarians.
While the Democrats through Daily Kos are saying "come on over, there are things that we can work together on," the GOP essentially thumbs its nose and says, "where else ya gonna go?"
Perhaps the saddest thing is that devoted Republicans worked 60 years to once again be in a position like they had in 2002, where they had a popular president and both houses of Congress. The GOP had the chance at that point to truly change the country. They could have passed a flat tax or abolished the income tax. They could have passed agricultural reform. They could have abolished agencies, starting with the Department of Education. They could have reformed Senior Citizens programs.
What did they do instead? First, they blew their political capital on an unnecessary war.
Then, instead of abolishing the Department of Education, the GOP instead decided to strengthen it, with No Child Left Behind.
Instead of reforming the tax code, they decided to make it even more unwieldy, and thus, all the easier to extract campaign contributions from lobbyists.
Instead of cutting farm aid, they decided to increase it.
Instead of reforming Medicare, they decide to create a new prescription drug program costing trillions of dollars, all the while deriding Democrats who sought to insure poor children as "socialists in favor of socialized medicine."
It is difficult to express just how abhorrently everyone in the GOP behaved during the period between 2002 and 2006. Corruption ran rampant, while the party violated virtually every one of its stated core values, shouting "freedom, freedom," every time they passed another bloated bill. Because they have nothing to stand on, their current presidential primaries have become focused on essentially two items: 1) being pro-war and 2)being anti-immigration. It is quite a come-down from the 1980's, when the GOP was the party of ideas and measured debate. It is now the party of yelling and screaming and know-nothingness and so now it is to the Democrats as the GOP will only continue to slip into oblivion.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society is something known generally to lawyers and law students but perhaps not to libertarians at large. The group claims to "believe in limited government." http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/id.25/default.asp
At one time, when economic issues were the paramount libertarian issues in the U.S., the Federalist Society seemed almost libertarian. They promoted debate on issues, books on free markets and their web site declares their purpose as the following:
Our Purpose
* Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.
* The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
* This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.
http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/
Nevertheless, during the Bush years, lawyers associated with this group have espoused a whole host of anti-libertarian positions. This is important because according to some, membership in the organization is a sine qua non for being hired by the Bush administration.
To this day, some libertarians still seem to believe that the Federalist Society is a friend of freedom in general, as opposed to mostly being composed of ultra-conservative advocates of capitalism, akin to the Heritage Foundation.
In my experience, I find that the members of this organization are hostile to the libertarian perspective on the 4th Amendment and a whole host of other issues. They are not even particularly sympathetic to federalism, anymore. I find no more kinship with this group than with the GOP in general, for which it is nothing more than a front group.
It basically serves to promote the cramped constitutional thinking of Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, hardly champions of individual liberty, together with economic liberalism, as opposed to freedom in general. A true advocates of freedom in all its forms, such as William O. Douglas, is scorned because his writings were subtly based on the 9th Amendment and might be used to justify, gasp, abortion.
Yes, the Federalist Society has some freedom oriented publications recommended on their web site, but I see nothing about privacy rights or the fact that the hallowed United States Constitution has resulted in the largest prison system, both per capita and in sum, in the history of the world. Nor does this list appear to have been updated in a long time.
While the Federalists may have at one time been open to libertarian imput, this largely ended in the mid-90s.
I challenge anyone to point out one single Federalist appointee during the Bush administration who has embodied libertarian values in any way shape or form, or to point to any libertarian reforms that resulted from forums the group has advocated. This would be difficult because with a few exceptions for speakers from the Cato Institute, most of the fora involve only conservative speakers. A look at Special Projects, which have been done by the Society shows that virtually every single paper and conclusion therein promotes conservative ideals.
For instance, in the section on International and the War on Terror, libertarian or limited government viewpoints were almost entirely unrepresented, with the vast number of articles and papers offering support for virtually all of the Bush Administration's actions.
The only area where the Society's scholars seem to think the Administration has overstepped, is not surprisingly, with respect to the increasing federal criminalization of corporate crimes. Truly, that must be why the United States has more people in prison per capita than the Soviets ever did; it is because we imprison so many thousands and thousands of CEO's and bank presidents.
It may not be 1984, but there is certainly something truly "doublespeak" about a group that claims to believe in limited government but which seems unable to find anyone willing to write or speak in favor of positions held by vast numbers of libertarians.
Here is someone who is a card-carrying member of this group that I believe embodies its current anti-classical liberal membership:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07077/770524-85.stm
At one time, when economic issues were the paramount libertarian issues in the U.S., the Federalist Society seemed almost libertarian. They promoted debate on issues, books on free markets and their web site declares their purpose as the following:
Our Purpose
* Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.
* The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
* This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.
http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/
Nevertheless, during the Bush years, lawyers associated with this group have espoused a whole host of anti-libertarian positions. This is important because according to some, membership in the organization is a sine qua non for being hired by the Bush administration.
To this day, some libertarians still seem to believe that the Federalist Society is a friend of freedom in general, as opposed to mostly being composed of ultra-conservative advocates of capitalism, akin to the Heritage Foundation.
In my experience, I find that the members of this organization are hostile to the libertarian perspective on the 4th Amendment and a whole host of other issues. They are not even particularly sympathetic to federalism, anymore. I find no more kinship with this group than with the GOP in general, for which it is nothing more than a front group.
It basically serves to promote the cramped constitutional thinking of Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, hardly champions of individual liberty, together with economic liberalism, as opposed to freedom in general. A true advocates of freedom in all its forms, such as William O. Douglas, is scorned because his writings were subtly based on the 9th Amendment and might be used to justify, gasp, abortion.
Yes, the Federalist Society has some freedom oriented publications recommended on their web site, but I see nothing about privacy rights or the fact that the hallowed United States Constitution has resulted in the largest prison system, both per capita and in sum, in the history of the world. Nor does this list appear to have been updated in a long time.
While the Federalists may have at one time been open to libertarian imput, this largely ended in the mid-90s.
I challenge anyone to point out one single Federalist appointee during the Bush administration who has embodied libertarian values in any way shape or form, or to point to any libertarian reforms that resulted from forums the group has advocated. This would be difficult because with a few exceptions for speakers from the Cato Institute, most of the fora involve only conservative speakers. A look at Special Projects, which have been done by the Society shows that virtually every single paper and conclusion therein promotes conservative ideals.
For instance, in the section on International and the War on Terror, libertarian or limited government viewpoints were almost entirely unrepresented, with the vast number of articles and papers offering support for virtually all of the Bush Administration's actions.
The only area where the Society's scholars seem to think the Administration has overstepped, is not surprisingly, with respect to the increasing federal criminalization of corporate crimes. Truly, that must be why the United States has more people in prison per capita than the Soviets ever did; it is because we imprison so many thousands and thousands of CEO's and bank presidents.
It may not be 1984, but there is certainly something truly "doublespeak" about a group that claims to believe in limited government but which seems unable to find anyone willing to write or speak in favor of positions held by vast numbers of libertarians.
Here is someone who is a card-carrying member of this group that I believe embodies its current anti-classical liberal membership:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07077/770524-85.stm
Private versus Public Education
Are private schools actually better than public schools? While doctrinal purity requires that libertarians argue for them, is there actually authority for the position that they are better by virtue of being private, and not for some other reason?
I believe that this issue is less clear than in virtually all other areas of the economy, for two main reasons. First, education has often been seen as a duty to be undertaken, either by religious authorities or governments, but not as a profit center. Does the Catholic church make money on its parochial schools? I think not. They are subsidized by the church and are often recognized as excellent around the world.
Second, education is something that can often be provided at an extremely low marginal cost. The cost of adding one more student to a class of 500 may be close to zero. Indeed, much of what college students end up paying for has little or nothing to do with the accumulation of scholastic knowledge, which could arguably be acquired for close to free for someone with an inquiring mind dedicated to reading volumes in the library.(Oops, are we allowed to have state-provided libraries?)
Certainly, in the realm of universities, the question of public versus private quality is a dubious proposition. Is Stanford actually better than Berkeley? Is Southern Cal better than UCLA? Many would argue that UVA is superior to its private in-state counterpart, Washington and Lee, but the differences in all these cases seem to be minimal.
As someone who has attended both private and public high schools and universities, it has been difficult for me to perceive many substantive differences not due to either the make-up of the students or the social status of the students' parents.
One of my favorite anomolies of all in this realm of argumentation is that the law department and the economic department of George Mason University have become well known and have been among the foremost in making the argument for private provision and the superiority of the free market: did the students who went to GMU Law make either a poor decision or arguably a statist one in not opting to attend George Washington?
If such students had avoided GMU because it was a state (statist?) school, then the school would have been unlikely to achieve its current reputation as a free market evangelist.
I believe that this issue is less clear than in virtually all other areas of the economy, for two main reasons. First, education has often been seen as a duty to be undertaken, either by religious authorities or governments, but not as a profit center. Does the Catholic church make money on its parochial schools? I think not. They are subsidized by the church and are often recognized as excellent around the world.
Second, education is something that can often be provided at an extremely low marginal cost. The cost of adding one more student to a class of 500 may be close to zero. Indeed, much of what college students end up paying for has little or nothing to do with the accumulation of scholastic knowledge, which could arguably be acquired for close to free for someone with an inquiring mind dedicated to reading volumes in the library.(Oops, are we allowed to have state-provided libraries?)
Certainly, in the realm of universities, the question of public versus private quality is a dubious proposition. Is Stanford actually better than Berkeley? Is Southern Cal better than UCLA? Many would argue that UVA is superior to its private in-state counterpart, Washington and Lee, but the differences in all these cases seem to be minimal.
As someone who has attended both private and public high schools and universities, it has been difficult for me to perceive many substantive differences not due to either the make-up of the students or the social status of the students' parents.
One of my favorite anomolies of all in this realm of argumentation is that the law department and the economic department of George Mason University have become well known and have been among the foremost in making the argument for private provision and the superiority of the free market: did the students who went to GMU Law make either a poor decision or arguably a statist one in not opting to attend George Washington?
If such students had avoided GMU because it was a state (statist?) school, then the school would have been unlikely to achieve its current reputation as a free market evangelist.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Libertarians versus Conservatives
A friend emailed me the interesting post below by Doug Bandow, stalwart champion of small government values.
Doug, as a recovering Republican for life, I definitely agree with your analysis.
Where I might disagree with the Reagan quote, is that I do not honestly believe that there was ever any earnest desire on the part of most "conservatives" to cut government. Federalism was a tool they used to try to legitimize state-sanctioned racism in the South. Now that those battles are largely over, we have seen essentially zero support for federalism. In fact, prominent conservatives like Bush and Scalia have recently been in the forefront of opposing federalism, although Scalia has hidden behind hyper-technical distinctions.
"Conservatives" were also against welfare, which was perceived as largely going to minorities, but they love virtually ever other type of government hand out, except for health care for children.
Maybe someone can explain to me why it is a "conservative" value to give children federal vouchers for local schools, and to provide federal medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors but it is a "socialist" idea to give children federally-provided or assisted health care?
Of course, we all know what the answer is: Doctors and drug companies and HMO's are good, while teacher unions are bad.
I am definitely bitter, because I believe that these cretins used libertarians for years and delivered essentially zero to us in terms of policy. No, I do not consider captial gain tax cuts that do not apply to savings accounts to be libertarian, but rather just another type of government meddling, and there is not a single other accomplishment from the last 7 years that could remotely be described as libertarian.
The GOP is currently a coalition of big business (some, like Larry Kudlow, claim to be libertarians, but their fetish for war, targeted tax cuts and easy money puts paid to that notion), together with pro-war types who are too busy and important to serve in the military themselves, and moral crusaders who know what is right and wrong and are all too ready to shove it down the rest of our throats but there is no longer any type of intellectual cohesion to the Party's core beliefs.
As the moral element gains more and more influence in the party, the Big Business types are beginning to feel uncomfortable and are beginning to flee--after all, the anti-intellectualism and carping moralism of the busybody social conservatives are not a whole lot of fun at a cocktail party. Rush Limbaugh has become a real bore since he quit the good stuff and he was about the only life in the Party, although ahem, quite a step down from the erudite William Buckley, who inspired many with his cutting and clever remarks.
Today's GOP replaces "cutting and clever" erudition with screaming and shouting and personal attacks. There is very little in the current GOP coalition which is anything but vile and corrupt to its very core and I don't buy the fatuous argument that the Republicans are better than the alternative, which is generally made without much authority to support it.
If someone actually believes in and cares about freedom, 4 questions suffice to show that the Democrats are a far better alternative to the GOP.
Which party supports some forms of torture?
Which party supports a crabbed notion of privacy and freedom under the 4th Amendment?
Which party supports increasing the War on Drugs?
Which party supports rampant military interventionism around the world to a far greater degree?
Thus, I am now a Democrat. Maybe they will at least be willing to throw us libertarians a bone or two. The GOP sure never did.
Doug, as a recovering Republican for life, I definitely agree with your analysis.
Where I might disagree with the Reagan quote, is that I do not honestly believe that there was ever any earnest desire on the part of most "conservatives" to cut government. Federalism was a tool they used to try to legitimize state-sanctioned racism in the South. Now that those battles are largely over, we have seen essentially zero support for federalism. In fact, prominent conservatives like Bush and Scalia have recently been in the forefront of opposing federalism, although Scalia has hidden behind hyper-technical distinctions.
"Conservatives" were also against welfare, which was perceived as largely going to minorities, but they love virtually ever other type of government hand out, except for health care for children.
Maybe someone can explain to me why it is a "conservative" value to give children federal vouchers for local schools, and to provide federal medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors but it is a "socialist" idea to give children federally-provided or assisted health care?
Of course, we all know what the answer is: Doctors and drug companies and HMO's are good, while teacher unions are bad.
I am definitely bitter, because I believe that these cretins used libertarians for years and delivered essentially zero to us in terms of policy. No, I do not consider captial gain tax cuts that do not apply to savings accounts to be libertarian, but rather just another type of government meddling, and there is not a single other accomplishment from the last 7 years that could remotely be described as libertarian.
The GOP is currently a coalition of big business (some, like Larry Kudlow, claim to be libertarians, but their fetish for war, targeted tax cuts and easy money puts paid to that notion), together with pro-war types who are too busy and important to serve in the military themselves, and moral crusaders who know what is right and wrong and are all too ready to shove it down the rest of our throats but there is no longer any type of intellectual cohesion to the Party's core beliefs.
As the moral element gains more and more influence in the party, the Big Business types are beginning to feel uncomfortable and are beginning to flee--after all, the anti-intellectualism and carping moralism of the busybody social conservatives are not a whole lot of fun at a cocktail party. Rush Limbaugh has become a real bore since he quit the good stuff and he was about the only life in the Party, although ahem, quite a step down from the erudite William Buckley, who inspired many with his cutting and clever remarks.
Today's GOP replaces "cutting and clever" erudition with screaming and shouting and personal attacks. There is very little in the current GOP coalition which is anything but vile and corrupt to its very core and I don't buy the fatuous argument that the Republicans are better than the alternative, which is generally made without much authority to support it.
If someone actually believes in and cares about freedom, 4 questions suffice to show that the Democrats are a far better alternative to the GOP.
Which party supports some forms of torture?
Which party supports a crabbed notion of privacy and freedom under the 4th Amendment?
Which party supports increasing the War on Drugs?
Which party supports rampant military interventionism around the world to a far greater degree?
Thus, I am now a Democrat. Maybe they will at least be willing to throw us libertarians a bone or two. The GOP sure never did.
Getting a Reasonable Picture on an HDTV Set
Most cable and satellite programming looks lackluster on an HDTV set and it will still be a while before most shows are available at a reasonable cost in HDTV. HBO and Showtime, for example are way behind in even providing properly formatted movies in 16:9, much less in High Definition.
One way to get some of the extra value out of that set whose abilities are being under-utilized is to use it more often for DVD viewing.
While DVD's are not up to HDTV quality, they can match what is known as EDTV quality, if but only if they are viewed on an HD- or EDTV with a DVD player using progressive scan technology (i.e., DVD players made in the last couple of years)and if hooked up via three component video cables or one HDMI cable.
Some of the newer and better HDTV's may actually be able to implement the progressive scan themselves, although results vary. Some of the cheaper sets may improve by using a progressive scan-equipped DVD player. This is a bit like Dolby technology, where you need to have it at least in one place in the chain, but some components implement Dolby better perhaps than others.
Nevertheless, this visual improvement of DVD's to EDTV quality is possible only provided that one's DVD players are hooked up properly.
Check your cables--almost no one uses the 3 component RCA cables necessary to pass the signal--in total, it is necessary to use at least five RCA cables, including two for at least two channels of audio depending upon your audio set-up, to pass the EDTV signal to a HDTV set. Using S-video or three component cables will not suffice.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/hdtv_edtv.htm
One way to get some of the extra value out of that set whose abilities are being under-utilized is to use it more often for DVD viewing.
While DVD's are not up to HDTV quality, they can match what is known as EDTV quality, if but only if they are viewed on an HD- or EDTV with a DVD player using progressive scan technology (i.e., DVD players made in the last couple of years)and if hooked up via three component video cables or one HDMI cable.
Some of the newer and better HDTV's may actually be able to implement the progressive scan themselves, although results vary. Some of the cheaper sets may improve by using a progressive scan-equipped DVD player. This is a bit like Dolby technology, where you need to have it at least in one place in the chain, but some components implement Dolby better perhaps than others.
Nevertheless, this visual improvement of DVD's to EDTV quality is possible only provided that one's DVD players are hooked up properly.
Check your cables--almost no one uses the 3 component RCA cables necessary to pass the signal--in total, it is necessary to use at least five RCA cables, including two for at least two channels of audio depending upon your audio set-up, to pass the EDTV signal to a HDTV set. Using S-video or three component cables will not suffice.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/hdtv_edtv.htm
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Mukasey's Confirmation in Jeopardy
Apparently some in the GOP such as Orrin Hatch, feel that it is the height of disrespect for a judge or nominee to have to answer questions. How gauche!
I don't feel sorry at all for this Mukasey at all. I find it amazing that so many politicians think he should be allowed to waltz into the position of Attorney General with nothing more than a wink and a nod, and then watch all the same politicos run for cover when the next scandal hits, claiming that they had no idea there could be torture.
This goes without even mentioning the sheer idiocy of Mukasey claiming in a hearing that he personally finds waterboarding, "repugnant." What possible relevance could Mr. Mukasey's personal tastes about waterboarding being repugnant possibly have? He's not the one who would be performing or monitoring it and it certainly does not answer the question as to whether it either is or was legal.
Let's find out if he despises war and famine as well and perhaps his opinions about children and animals.
I don't feel sorry at all for this Mukasey at all. I find it amazing that so many politicians think he should be allowed to waltz into the position of Attorney General with nothing more than a wink and a nod, and then watch all the same politicos run for cover when the next scandal hits, claiming that they had no idea there could be torture.
This goes without even mentioning the sheer idiocy of Mukasey claiming in a hearing that he personally finds waterboarding, "repugnant." What possible relevance could Mr. Mukasey's personal tastes about waterboarding being repugnant possibly have? He's not the one who would be performing or monitoring it and it certainly does not answer the question as to whether it either is or was legal.
Let's find out if he despises war and famine as well and perhaps his opinions about children and animals.
Scalia--Legal Genius?
As the Supreme Court begins to consider challenges to the Death Penalty under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, one thing that we can be sure of is that Reagan-appointee Antonin Scalia will find any execution method short of drawing and quartering to be Constitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/washington/31execute.html
Why? Because Scalia, utter genius that he is purported to be, believes that the founding fathers added the Clause to the Constitution as a form of place setting, just in case future generations forgot the date of the Constitution's enactment.
You see, in the bizarro Scalia-world, the Clause only prohibits things that had already been prohibited in 1786. Thankfully, this "crude" position goes even too far for some at the conservative, but generally rigorous, Hoover Institute, who note its lack of historical foundation and viability.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2920126.html
I particularly will unload on Scalia here because, in spite of his real talents, I believe he embodies much of what is wrong with our country at present.
He is rude. He is arrogant. He does not appear to work well with others, given the gratuitous insults he slings at his "brethern" on the Court.
While highly intelligent, he is not some sort of nonpareil legal genius, in terms of achievement or motor ability. See, e.g. Richard A. Posner, or Richard Epstein for examples of such creatures.
Nevertheless, Scalia is condescending and his own talent and abilities are seemingly being wasted, as he appears to be passing from the stage of being a legal trendsetter towards that of predictable rightwing vote(who thankfully, is not particularly good at assembling winning opinion coalitions.)
In performing his functions, he delights in making public statements about religion and appearing in public with administration members before ruling on cases involving them.
To those who question his legal reasoning with respect to his part in choosing the President in 2000, with respect to providing scant authority for his vote and the notion that the Bush v. Gore case was sui generis, his retort to "just get over it," seems to involve something less than Ivy League reasoning, particularly given the following limiting statement with respect to the decision's future applicability:
"Our consideration [in Bush v. Gore] is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
One can only wonder how many Ivy League credentialled Supreme Court clerks, Scalia and his conservative brethern needed to cobble together such a vapid statement of the obvious as a disclaimer against future criticism of their reasoning.
Nevertheless, legal scholars have been left wondering whether cases that involve "many complexities" are an exception in general to the doctrine of stare decisis, for it seems of such type, there could be quite a few.
Finally, Scalia has recently taken to undercutting Clarence Thomas in the media and criticizing some of his legal theories publicly, for being out of the mainstream, which might be the finest example of the pot calling the kettle a certain color since I don't know when.
Particularly aggravating to those of us who believe in limited government was a concurrence which Scalia issued in a case called Gonzales v. Raich, which dealt with criminal prosecution of medical marijuana users, in which Scalia voted for Alberto Gonzales' and the government's position. All of Scalia's and Thomas's earlier opinions, particularly one decision called Lopez in which gun rights were a subtext, indicated that Bush and the government should have lost on this one and certainly should not have gotten Scalia's vote, which not only undercut years of jurisprudential gains in this area, but essentially overruled Lopez in practice, if not on paper.
Thomas, in the minority on Gonzales, followed his earlier Lopez precedent and found the government's actions unconstitutional. Scalia, on the other hand, switched sides and wrote a self-serving concurrence attempting to at once distinguish his earlier opinions, and at the same time show everyone just how brilliant he is.
I remember in one law school class we once considered why so many lawyers begin to despair of the profession after not that many years of practice. I would submit Scalia's concurrence in this Gonazalez case as evidence therefor. While I am sure that it would get an "A" from Harvard, in its essence it is pure rubbish and he knows it. He just goes around picking and choosing things he likes from various Constitutional clauses, bakes them for 15 paragraphs, and voila, Bush wins.
Legal realism lives and Scalia is its patron saint!
And best of all, there is no way to "prove" that Scalia is wrong because he never truly states the basis of his decision, but merely points to a lot of doctrines and clauses that might support it. This is a concurrence, after all!
In terms of integrity and reasoning, however, Thomas wins this argument hands down. While I may not always agree with his outcomes or reasoning, Thomas, unlike Scalia, appears beholden to no power.
Both his concurrence in Gonzales and his vote in Bush v. Gore, per curiam, in an opinion devoid of any case law or legal reasoning have substantially lessened Scalia's reputation for brilliance. Where once, even reporters and people on the left would reference the power of Scalia's thrusts and attacks on this system, what remains seems to be bereft of power and futile. For some unknown reason, in the middle of his formulaic Gonzales concurrence, without offering any support therefor whatsoever, Scalia gratuitously informs us that "drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities."
Although I did indeed miss the Sixties, or at least all but 5 years of them, this statement certainly encapsulates Scalia's personality. It calls into question what pot Scalia has not been smoking.
Sadly, perhaps, being passed over for Chief Justice and moving into the twilight of a career that once promised so much more, presents the continuing diminishment of an individual whose analysis I once greatly admired, and who offered real insight into statutory (not Constitutional) analysis and interpretation.
As far as an honest and concise explanation for Scalia's result in Gonzales v. Raich, I would submit the following succinct amicus brief submitted by the Incredible Hulk, a conservative legal realist, as a far truer reason for Scalia's divergence from Lopez and for upholding Alberto Gonazles's position:
Guns Good! Pot bad!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454#concurrence1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/washington/31execute.html
Why? Because Scalia, utter genius that he is purported to be, believes that the founding fathers added the Clause to the Constitution as a form of place setting, just in case future generations forgot the date of the Constitution's enactment.
You see, in the bizarro Scalia-world, the Clause only prohibits things that had already been prohibited in 1786. Thankfully, this "crude" position goes even too far for some at the conservative, but generally rigorous, Hoover Institute, who note its lack of historical foundation and viability.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2920126.html
I particularly will unload on Scalia here because, in spite of his real talents, I believe he embodies much of what is wrong with our country at present.
He is rude. He is arrogant. He does not appear to work well with others, given the gratuitous insults he slings at his "brethern" on the Court.
While highly intelligent, he is not some sort of nonpareil legal genius, in terms of achievement or motor ability. See, e.g. Richard A. Posner, or Richard Epstein for examples of such creatures.
Nevertheless, Scalia is condescending and his own talent and abilities are seemingly being wasted, as he appears to be passing from the stage of being a legal trendsetter towards that of predictable rightwing vote(who thankfully, is not particularly good at assembling winning opinion coalitions.)
In performing his functions, he delights in making public statements about religion and appearing in public with administration members before ruling on cases involving them.
To those who question his legal reasoning with respect to his part in choosing the President in 2000, with respect to providing scant authority for his vote and the notion that the Bush v. Gore case was sui generis, his retort to "just get over it," seems to involve something less than Ivy League reasoning, particularly given the following limiting statement with respect to the decision's future applicability:
"Our consideration [in Bush v. Gore] is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
One can only wonder how many Ivy League credentialled Supreme Court clerks, Scalia and his conservative brethern needed to cobble together such a vapid statement of the obvious as a disclaimer against future criticism of their reasoning.
Nevertheless, legal scholars have been left wondering whether cases that involve "many complexities" are an exception in general to the doctrine of stare decisis, for it seems of such type, there could be quite a few.
Finally, Scalia has recently taken to undercutting Clarence Thomas in the media and criticizing some of his legal theories publicly, for being out of the mainstream, which might be the finest example of the pot calling the kettle a certain color since I don't know when.
Particularly aggravating to those of us who believe in limited government was a concurrence which Scalia issued in a case called Gonzales v. Raich, which dealt with criminal prosecution of medical marijuana users, in which Scalia voted for Alberto Gonzales' and the government's position. All of Scalia's and Thomas's earlier opinions, particularly one decision called Lopez in which gun rights were a subtext, indicated that Bush and the government should have lost on this one and certainly should not have gotten Scalia's vote, which not only undercut years of jurisprudential gains in this area, but essentially overruled Lopez in practice, if not on paper.
Thomas, in the minority on Gonzales, followed his earlier Lopez precedent and found the government's actions unconstitutional. Scalia, on the other hand, switched sides and wrote a self-serving concurrence attempting to at once distinguish his earlier opinions, and at the same time show everyone just how brilliant he is.
I remember in one law school class we once considered why so many lawyers begin to despair of the profession after not that many years of practice. I would submit Scalia's concurrence in this Gonazalez case as evidence therefor. While I am sure that it would get an "A" from Harvard, in its essence it is pure rubbish and he knows it. He just goes around picking and choosing things he likes from various Constitutional clauses, bakes them for 15 paragraphs, and voila, Bush wins.
Legal realism lives and Scalia is its patron saint!
And best of all, there is no way to "prove" that Scalia is wrong because he never truly states the basis of his decision, but merely points to a lot of doctrines and clauses that might support it. This is a concurrence, after all!
In terms of integrity and reasoning, however, Thomas wins this argument hands down. While I may not always agree with his outcomes or reasoning, Thomas, unlike Scalia, appears beholden to no power.
Both his concurrence in Gonzales and his vote in Bush v. Gore, per curiam, in an opinion devoid of any case law or legal reasoning have substantially lessened Scalia's reputation for brilliance. Where once, even reporters and people on the left would reference the power of Scalia's thrusts and attacks on this system, what remains seems to be bereft of power and futile. For some unknown reason, in the middle of his formulaic Gonzales concurrence, without offering any support therefor whatsoever, Scalia gratuitously informs us that "drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities."
Although I did indeed miss the Sixties, or at least all but 5 years of them, this statement certainly encapsulates Scalia's personality. It calls into question what pot Scalia has not been smoking.
Sadly, perhaps, being passed over for Chief Justice and moving into the twilight of a career that once promised so much more, presents the continuing diminishment of an individual whose analysis I once greatly admired, and who offered real insight into statutory (not Constitutional) analysis and interpretation.
As far as an honest and concise explanation for Scalia's result in Gonzales v. Raich, I would submit the following succinct amicus brief submitted by the Incredible Hulk, a conservative legal realist, as a far truer reason for Scalia's divergence from Lopez and for upholding Alberto Gonazles's position:
Guns Good! Pot bad!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454#concurrence1
Monday, October 29, 2007
Being a Good Parent
A wise man was once asked by a group of people what the key to being a good parent was. Hoping to lead them to the answer rather than simply provide it himself, he turned the question back onto his followers, asking them what makes one a good parent.
The answers came.
One person stated that providing health, material comfort and religion made for a good parent.
Another stated that inculcating knowledge, wisdom and the arts makes one a good parent.
A third stated that "being there" for your children is what really makes you a good parent.
The wise man laughed and said, "good answers, all, well, maybe not the one about being there, but when all is said and done there is one true measure of a parent's success in raising children."
At this, the entire group leaned forward to hear the erudite prophet gracefully impart the knowledge that millions had clamored to know since the beginning of homo sapiens, how to be a good parent.
Spake the wise man:
"See if you can't fuck them up just a little less than your parents fucked you up.
The answers came.
One person stated that providing health, material comfort and religion made for a good parent.
Another stated that inculcating knowledge, wisdom and the arts makes one a good parent.
A third stated that "being there" for your children is what really makes you a good parent.
The wise man laughed and said, "good answers, all, well, maybe not the one about being there, but when all is said and done there is one true measure of a parent's success in raising children."
At this, the entire group leaned forward to hear the erudite prophet gracefully impart the knowledge that millions had clamored to know since the beginning of homo sapiens, how to be a good parent.
Spake the wise man:
"See if you can't fuck them up just a little less than your parents fucked you up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
