This seems as though it will be the most momentous primary debate ever. With only two participants, it should seem more like a debate between two party nominees -- perhaps like JFK and Richard Nixon.
Unfortunately, I am at LaGuardia waiting for a flight and there's no WiFi. Man, the Northwest gate area is pathetically shabby. But the lack of WiFi is the worst part of it. At least the debate is on CNN and that's the channel the TVs are set on. And I've got my iPhone, so I can get in some rudimentary blogging and give you a place to comment. And perhaps I'll develop a little skill at thumb typing.
ADDED: At 8, the channel changed from CNN to some basketball game! I guess I will try to locate some live-blogging. I have never attempted to follow a debate by reading some blogger's stray thoughts. Maybe I will learn something about blogging. But... Damn!
AND: I've reached my destination. Madison, Wisconsin. And CNN is rerunning the debate. It's 1 ET, though, so I'm not absorbing it too well. I note that Barack Obama is wearing a lavender tie.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
"Lon Ponschock: Althouse should be willing to debate."
The Capital Times publishes an inane letter. So everyone who says the 9/11 conspiracy theory is nutty ought to show up for a debate about it? May I suggest that you get Bill Clinton then?
UPDATE: More from Bill Clinton: "You look like idiots."
UPDATE: More from Bill Clinton: "You look like idiots."
I just noticed that Dan Drezner called something "the Ann Althouse" idea.
In this segment of a Bloggingheads episode. [NOTE: You have to click on the segment titled "The dark side of libertarianism."] I don't think he gets it quite right, and I don't know why they talk about me by name but don't include anything I wrote in the sidebar list of links. But they're talking about Ron Paul's racist newsletter, and they refer back to the dispute I had with Reason Magazine libertarians. Drezner characterizes me as saying that if you believe in something — like libertarianism — that in the past was associated with something repugnant — like racism — you remain tainted by it.
I think my point is finer: If you believe in something that was once associated with something repugnant, you ought to care about demonstrating to people that your profession of belief in the idea is not a cover for something repugnant. A Reason Magazine editor subjected me to a haughty show of indignation because I wanted to see that demonstration: How dare I demand that anyone prove he's not a racist! But I'm saying that the fact that you don't care about disaggregating your philosophy from racism says something that matters.
By the way, Dan Drezner was quite disrespectful to me in the past about this, so I'm surprised to see that he remembers. Frankly, I'm surprised he even credits me with the capacity to have something he would call an "idea."
ADDED: Actually, I think he calls it the "the Ann Althouse question" — not idea. And, as reader_iam points out in the comments, Drezner isn't the one who brings up my name, his diavlog partner Henry Farrell does (at about 5:04). I should add that there is an old Bloggingheads — which I'm not going to dig up now — where Farrell and Drezner talk about me and Farrell is insulting — saying that he doesn't like my blog and doesn't get any ideas from it. That insult was over a year ago, I think, as was his encounter with the idea of mine that he still remembers!
AND: Here's the thing I wasn't able to dig up before. The exact clip of Henry Farrel saying he doesn't like my blog.
I think my point is finer: If you believe in something that was once associated with something repugnant, you ought to care about demonstrating to people that your profession of belief in the idea is not a cover for something repugnant. A Reason Magazine editor subjected me to a haughty show of indignation because I wanted to see that demonstration: How dare I demand that anyone prove he's not a racist! But I'm saying that the fact that you don't care about disaggregating your philosophy from racism says something that matters.
By the way, Dan Drezner was quite disrespectful to me in the past about this, so I'm surprised to see that he remembers. Frankly, I'm surprised he even credits me with the capacity to have something he would call an "idea."
ADDED: Actually, I think he calls it the "the Ann Althouse question" — not idea. And, as reader_iam points out in the comments, Drezner isn't the one who brings up my name, his diavlog partner Henry Farrell does (at about 5:04). I should add that there is an old Bloggingheads — which I'm not going to dig up now — where Farrell and Drezner talk about me and Farrell is insulting — saying that he doesn't like my blog and doesn't get any ideas from it. That insult was over a year ago, I think, as was his encounter with the idea of mine that he still remembers!
AND: Here's the thing I wasn't able to dig up before. The exact clip of Henry Farrel saying he doesn't like my blog.
"Sperm cells created from female embryo."
The Telegraph reports, adding that "it may be possible for lesbian couples to have their own biological children."
Or any 2 women. They don't have to be lesbians.
It's just that we — some of us! — feel sympathetic to the desire of a lesbian couple to have a child that is biologically related to both of them.
But any 2 women could have a baby together — once the technology advances so that sperm cells could be made from a woman's bone marrow.
And face it: A woman could be impregnated with her own sperm.
But right now, at this stage of the technology, a female embryo is being destroyed to create a sperm cell. One doctor calls this procedure "double-damned," but — what did you think? — he (she?) doesn't mean that it will provoke God:
Or any 2 women. They don't have to be lesbians.
It's just that we — some of us! — feel sympathetic to the desire of a lesbian couple to have a child that is biologically related to both of them.
But any 2 women could have a baby together — once the technology advances so that sperm cells could be made from a woman's bone marrow.
And face it: A woman could be impregnated with her own sperm.
But right now, at this stage of the technology, a female embryo is being destroyed to create a sperm cell. One doctor calls this procedure "double-damned," but — what did you think? — he (she?) doesn't mean that it will provoke God:
... Dr Robin Lovell-Badge, a stem cell and sex determination expert at the National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London, doubts it will work: “The presence of two X chromosomes is incompatible with this. Moreover they need genes from the Y chromosome to go through meiosis. So they are at least double-damned.”I don’t know how people will look at this ethically. You might want to think about it. You know, yourself. Whether it actually is ethical. It's not just a matter of how "people" "look at" it.
In Brazil, a team led by Dr Irina Kerkis of the Butantan Institute in Saõ Paulo claims to have made both sperm and eggs from cultures of male mouse embryonic stem cells in the journal Cloning and Stem Cells.
The researchers have not yet shown that their male eggs can be fertilised to produce viable offspring, but they are thinking about possibilities for same-sex human reproduction.
If all these experiments pan out, then the stage would also be set for a gay man to donate skin cells that could be used to make eggs, which could then be fertilised by his partner’s sperm and placed into the uterus of a surrogate mother.
“I think it is possible,” says Kerkis, “but I don’t know how people will look at this ethically.”
Ms. Eythorsdottir made a "chandelier" of "beads of glucose that clung to twine and caught the natural light" designed to disintegrate in 5 months.
And you're hearing about her in the NYT. But why? Because she's part of a design movement that embodies a philosophy of slowing down. Is the notion of savoring life so alien to you that you would buy household objects intended to create awareness of the passage of time?
As for timepieces that alert you at short intervals: My parents had a mantel clock that emitted a sequence of chimes every 15 minutes. It made me think — every 15 minutes — another 15 minutes, irretrievable. They were charitable enough to turn off the chimes when I was visiting.
Whether we need to buy objects to slow us down, we might still want protection from things that push us to speed up:
Of course, this idea about writing is not limited to blogging. Are those people at conferences really blogging, or are they taking notes?
I think that slow blogging idea could be applied to taking notes in class. I've suggested to more than one law student that it might be a good idea to close up the computer (or put down the pen) during class, to engage and really listen, and then, after class, write a page notes. The material could be clearer and better digested.
Don't you find, when you read those voluminous notes you took during class that they are full of redundancies and filler? You might be better off if you relied on — and hence developed — your memory. Listen closely during class and then, when it's over, write down what you now see as the main point, followed by a few things that struck you as interesting. Are these not better notes? And more important: Isn't your mind working better?
I've strayed pretty far from the absurd objects that got me started writing this post. I see there's something here that I love to laugh at, but also something that I can appreciate. But let me tie it together — with glucose beaded twine! — by saying that I also appreciate entrepreneurs who find a way to make money embodying a philosophy in a product. I don't object to commerce. I can buy or not buy what I want. And if their merchandise makes me laugh, have I lost? No, I've won.
So keep what you like, use what seems usable. Remember something important, along with the trifles that amuse you.
IN THE COMMENTS: Meade observes that one of my tags for this post is "fat." He writes:
Thorunn Arnadottir, an Icelandic designer, made a clock using a string of beads draped over a notched metal disc. One bead drops every five minutes, marking time in a way that seems to slow it down.... A rattan basket designed by Alastair Fuad-Luke, a British sustainable design facilitator, as he described himself recently, will tip over if filled too quickly, “thus momentarily slowing you down as you rebalance it,” explained Mr. Fuad-Luke. (A student of Mr. Fuad-Luke’s once designed an actual speed bump for a living room. “You’d either step over it,” he said, “or perhaps you’d lie down and give it a cuddle.”)Don't let the names deceive you: This is not a satire. This is the slowness movement. Personally, I like to take my time (or hurry up) when it suits me. I don't want some tippable object tripping me up. I don't want things that make life harder. Do we rejoice when we arrive at a traffic jam or hear that our flight is delayed? But why fly at all? Walk! It will take so much longer, and then maybe you will appreciate what it means to be alive.
As for timepieces that alert you at short intervals: My parents had a mantel clock that emitted a sequence of chimes every 15 minutes. It made me think — every 15 minutes — another 15 minutes, irretrievable. They were charitable enough to turn off the chimes when I was visiting.
Whether we need to buy objects to slow us down, we might still want protection from things that push us to speed up:
A 2005 study sponsored by Hewlett-Packard showed that the I.Q.s of workers who responded quickly to the constant barrage of e-mails they received during the day fell 10 points, more than double the I.Q. drop of someone smoking marijuana.The article links to Honoré's website. (Hey! The NYT is hotlinking! They didn't use to do that. I thought I'd have to cut and paste the URL, and here it would have slowed me down, possibly thereby enriching my life.) I see Honoré has a blog. You may ask: Is that slow? But here's his post on "slow blogging" (which I can't find a way to link):
“Fast isn’t turning us into Masters of the Universe,” [said Carl Honoré, author of “In Praise of Slow: Challenging the Cult of Speed.”] “It’s turning us into Cheech and Chong.”
By its very nature, blogging is all about speed - instant analysis and reaction from the front line. At every conference I go to there are always a few people in the audience, laptops open, screens glowing eerily in the half-darkness, blogging away in real-time while speakers strut their stuff on stage. I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I love the energy and insights that come from an instant reaction. I've read these real-time blogs and the best ones are sharp and profound. But sometimes I wonder how much these nimble-fingered bloggers are really getting out of the speeches - are they picking up all the shades of meaning, the different layers of the message? Might they see, hear and understand more if they gave their full attention to the speech, and then blogged a few minutes, hours or even days afterwards?That's a good point. Live-blogging can screw up your listening. I tend to do it precisely because something is long and I want to keep engaged. But some things are worth listening to with full attention, unprocessed into writing, and the writing you produce afterwards may be superior, with so much dross efficiently sieved out by your brain.
Of course, this idea about writing is not limited to blogging. Are those people at conferences really blogging, or are they taking notes?
I think that slow blogging idea could be applied to taking notes in class. I've suggested to more than one law student that it might be a good idea to close up the computer (or put down the pen) during class, to engage and really listen, and then, after class, write a page notes. The material could be clearer and better digested.
Don't you find, when you read those voluminous notes you took during class that they are full of redundancies and filler? You might be better off if you relied on — and hence developed — your memory. Listen closely during class and then, when it's over, write down what you now see as the main point, followed by a few things that struck you as interesting. Are these not better notes? And more important: Isn't your mind working better?
I've strayed pretty far from the absurd objects that got me started writing this post. I see there's something here that I love to laugh at, but also something that I can appreciate. But let me tie it together — with glucose beaded twine! — by saying that I also appreciate entrepreneurs who find a way to make money embodying a philosophy in a product. I don't object to commerce. I can buy or not buy what I want. And if their merchandise makes me laugh, have I lost? No, I've won.
So keep what you like, use what seems usable. Remember something important, along with the trifles that amuse you.
IN THE COMMENTS: Meade observes that one of my tags for this post is "fat." He writes:
Fat? I must have missed that part... must have read the post to quickly... need to slow... down, pay...After taking a goodly amount of time to laugh, I went back to the article to retrieve something I'd had in the post but edited out:
attention.
[The architect John Brown says] that fast can make you fat and make you sick. “A cookie cutter house in a new development is like a Big Mac and fries,” he said the other day. Not only are you undernourished by awkward spaces and huge houses, he said, but far-away developments require lots of driving, stealing your time and your health. Mr. Brown’s hope is to raise awareness “about resources and options,” he said. “If you learn about materials, think about where your house comes from, you’re going to be more involved with the culture of the house, rather than just engaging with it as a financial instrument.”"By the way, going back for that missing quote about "fat," I noticed a picture caption: "Christien Meindertsma knits rugs with wool from sheep she has met." Sheep she has met. Oh, I don't think that's good enough. A mere passing acquaintance with said sheep? Please form a lasting relationship with the sheep. Then, we'll see about obtaining the sheep's genuine enthusiasm about contributing its wool to your little knitting project.
"I’m thrilled that Grace Kelly is being talked about in fashion circles...."
"... absolutely without irony." (David Wolfe, fashion forecaster.)
So fashion is suddenly getting very conservative. What does it mean?
"There is an energy about being proper. It’s not about wholesomeness, it’s about respectability, about having manners again." (Thakoon Panichgul, designer.)
So fashion is suddenly getting very conservative. What does it mean?
"There is an energy about being proper. It’s not about wholesomeness, it’s about respectability, about having manners again." (Thakoon Panichgul, designer.)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Republican debate.
This time, no Fred and no Rudy, but Paul is still there, along with the 3 guys who've won primaries/a caucus. They're greeted — at the Reagan Library — by Nancy Reagan (who, unfortunately, looks terrible), and they take seats in front of Air Force One.
The first question is Reagan's question: Are you better off than you were 4 (or 8) years ago? Mitt reframes the question, because he's not running on Bush's record, as a boast about his stint as governor of Massachusetts. Anderson Cooper interrupts to inform him that he's not answering the question asked, and Mitt tells him to shut up — in so many words — and keeps talking about Massachusetts.
On the second question, John McCain taunts Romney about how the Boston newspapers endorsed McCain. He calls Mitt "my friend" and laughs and says he guarantees that the Arizona newspapers are going to endorse him. He's relaxed and happy and keeps inserting wisecracks.
ADDED: Asked about Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court, they all acted like they were respecting her (and Reagan), but proceeded to disrespect her. Only Paul admits he wouldn't have picked her. Huckabee says he's not stupid enough to sit in the Reagan Library and say he disagrees with Reagan and launches into a pro-life soliloquy. Ron Paul says he'd have picked a "much stronger constitutionalist." McCain says he's "proud" of O'Connor as a "fellow Arizonan," but he wants judges like Roberts and Alito who have a "proven record of strict interpretation." Romney says he wants judges like Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas that "follow the Constitution and do not make law from the bench."
MORE: McCain and Romney really went at it over the Iraq "timetables" issue, and McCain garbled his words many times — such as calling April a "year" — and I think this evidenced great tension. Romney's self-defence got cheers. McCain kept asserting that the quote meant what it clearly didn't mean. Saying that we don't want al Qaeda waiting "in the weeds" until we leave means that we should never announce a timetable. McCain claimed to read it as a plan to leave on a timetable.
It's possible that Romney is such a fence-straddler that he threw the word "timetables" out so people would pick up the signal that he wants to leave, but he embedded it in a sentence so slippery that he'd never have to own up to any meaning he didn't like. McCain acts sure that he knows the "buzzwords" and he sees how politicians use them, and someone truly devoted to sticking it out in Iraq would never have uttered the buzzword "timetables."
Anderson Cooper presses Romney: Why did you refuse to take a position on the surge on the ground that you're a governor, when 2 months later, you declared your candidacy? The impression one gets is that he was carefully crafting his position to run for President. So he preserved his ability to go either way on the war. He accuses McCain of throwing mud. And McCain just smiles and assures us he knows what politicians are doing with language.
The first question is Reagan's question: Are you better off than you were 4 (or 8) years ago? Mitt reframes the question, because he's not running on Bush's record, as a boast about his stint as governor of Massachusetts. Anderson Cooper interrupts to inform him that he's not answering the question asked, and Mitt tells him to shut up — in so many words — and keeps talking about Massachusetts.
On the second question, John McCain taunts Romney about how the Boston newspapers endorsed McCain. He calls Mitt "my friend" and laughs and says he guarantees that the Arizona newspapers are going to endorse him. He's relaxed and happy and keeps inserting wisecracks.
ADDED: Asked about Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court, they all acted like they were respecting her (and Reagan), but proceeded to disrespect her. Only Paul admits he wouldn't have picked her. Huckabee says he's not stupid enough to sit in the Reagan Library and say he disagrees with Reagan and launches into a pro-life soliloquy. Ron Paul says he'd have picked a "much stronger constitutionalist." McCain says he's "proud" of O'Connor as a "fellow Arizonan," but he wants judges like Roberts and Alito who have a "proven record of strict interpretation." Romney says he wants judges like Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas that "follow the Constitution and do not make law from the bench."
MORE: McCain and Romney really went at it over the Iraq "timetables" issue, and McCain garbled his words many times — such as calling April a "year" — and I think this evidenced great tension. Romney's self-defence got cheers. McCain kept asserting that the quote meant what it clearly didn't mean. Saying that we don't want al Qaeda waiting "in the weeds" until we leave means that we should never announce a timetable. McCain claimed to read it as a plan to leave on a timetable.
It's possible that Romney is such a fence-straddler that he threw the word "timetables" out so people would pick up the signal that he wants to leave, but he embedded it in a sentence so slippery that he'd never have to own up to any meaning he didn't like. McCain acts sure that he knows the "buzzwords" and he sees how politicians use them, and someone truly devoted to sticking it out in Iraq would never have uttered the buzzword "timetables."
Anderson Cooper presses Romney: Why did you refuse to take a position on the surge on the ground that you're a governor, when 2 months later, you declared your candidacy? The impression one gets is that he was carefully crafting his position to run for President. So he preserved his ability to go either way on the war. He accuses McCain of throwing mud. And McCain just smiles and assures us he knows what politicians are doing with language.
FINALLY: I think Huckabee was very appealing and modest. I liked in the end when, unlike the others, he declined to say that Ronald Reagan would endorse him. It would be "arrogant" to say that, so he just wants to say that he endorses Ronald Reagan. (But wait a minute. Isn't it actually arrogant to say it would be arrogant to say what the others just said? He's a crafty one too, that Huckabee.) Ron Paul is whatever he already is to you. McCain and Romney each helped and hurt themselves. There is so much at stake for them. They had to fight, and some of it looked pretty ugly. Yet they made their points. I think Romney established that McCain had been too hard on him about the "timetables" remark and that he's creative and capable on economic issues. But McCain is clearly the one with the rock-solid record on the war. He staked his reputation on it when Romney was being cagey.
That light you loved last April.
Last April, when I was in Austin, I blogged this photograph of a colored lamp in front of a convex mirror:
I got more comments on that photograph, and lots of people asked me what the store was. I couldn't remember. But I made a point of figuring it out when I was back in Austin last weekend. The store is Maya:
The round light isn't there, but the beautiful convex mirror is, along with some new, but similar lights:
Here's the Maya website, and I think they'll help you find that round light if you want. Ah! Here it is.
Me, I'm in love with the mirror. It's expensive — over $1800 — but as I thought about possibly buying it, I realized what I wanted if for was to take pictures, and therefore what I really should buy is a fisheye lens for my Nikon D50.
ADDED: Is this the fisheye lens I need? Tell me, camera nerds. You know I love distortion, and the question — as always — is: Just how much bloggable fun can I possibly have?
I got more comments on that photograph, and lots of people asked me what the store was. I couldn't remember. But I made a point of figuring it out when I was back in Austin last weekend. The store is Maya:
The round light isn't there, but the beautiful convex mirror is, along with some new, but similar lights:
Here's the Maya website, and I think they'll help you find that round light if you want. Ah! Here it is.
Me, I'm in love with the mirror. It's expensive — over $1800 — but as I thought about possibly buying it, I realized what I wanted if for was to take pictures, and therefore what I really should buy is a fisheye lens for my Nikon D50.
ADDED: Is this the fisheye lens I need? Tell me, camera nerds. You know I love distortion, and the question — as always — is: Just how much bloggable fun can I possibly have?
It's the coffee!
What's wrong with Starbucks? Certainly not that it's pushing out independent coffeeshops. They are prevailing. The big trick: Make better coffee! Meanwhile, Starbucks has been switching to push-button espresso machines. In New York City, I'm stuck patronizing Starbucks, and I was shocked when I saw that they had automated the machines. Starbucks used to seem like a luxury brand, and now it feels like a fallback when you can't get to the real thing.
ADDED: Starbucks also pre-steams big pitchers of milk. Even when the place isn't busy, those pitchers of hot milk are sitting around simplifying the barista's job. You go over to wait for your coffee and instead of seeing your cup made to order, you see a button pushed and old milk dumped in.
UPDATE: Schultz announces his plan:
The man who built the chain, Howard D. Schultz, has retaken the reins in an effort to revive it. He is scheduled to roll out a plan on Wednesday that will almost certainly involve shutting down more stores in the United States while accelerating expansion overseas.
Mr. Schultz has said he wants to refocus on the “customer experience,” recapturing some of the magic of the chain’s early years...
As the company grew and customer traffic increased, Starbucks expanded its food offerings while introducing efficiencies like those automated espresso machines. Gradually, complaints surfaced that Starbucks felt more like a fast-food restaurant than a coffeehouse....Part of the fast-food feel is the people who work there. You can call them "baristas," but you can tell that the job for them feels like a fast-food job.
Mr. Schultz had already outlined many of the problems in a Feb. 14, 2007, memo that is now famous. Entitled “The Commoditization of the Starbucks Experience,” the memo acknowledged that rapid growth had diluted the Starbucks magic.
ADDED: Starbucks also pre-steams big pitchers of milk. Even when the place isn't busy, those pitchers of hot milk are sitting around simplifying the barista's job. You go over to wait for your coffee and instead of seeing your cup made to order, you see a button pushed and old milk dumped in.
UPDATE: Schultz announces his plan:
Starbucks will close about 100 U.S. stores this year, scale back its U.S. expansion and begin focusing on faster growth overseas as it seeks to revive its cachet and rekindle sales growth that by one measure sagged to an all-time low last quarter.We don't need no stinking sandwiches.
The Seattle coffee-shop chain also will stop selling warmed sandwiches, which don't contribute much to profits but take employees' time and interfere with the smell of coffee in stores.
"Any rational observer has to conclude that John McCain has a better shot of winning than Mitt Romney does."
Says Dick Morris. Read the whole thing. It's pretty convincing — assuming Hillary is the candidate.
IN THE COMMENTS: This modest post opened up a great comments thread.
IN THE COMMENTS: This modest post opened up a great comments thread.
How can paper ballots violate constitutional rights?
I saw on Instapundit — through to Slashdot — that the ACLU was suing a county for moving from touchscreen machines to paper ballots, and I couldn't even think of a bad argument. Slashdot describes the argument this way:
More here:
IN THE COMMENTS: Rastajenk writes:
ADDED: Here's how the complaint puts it:
[T]he system chosen tabulates all votes at a central location. This means that voters don't get notified if their ballot contains errors, and thus they have no chance to correct it.What? I still don't get it.
More here:
The ACLU alleges that the optical-scan system and centralized vote tabulation would not give voters notice of ballot errors — such as voting for two candidates for one office.So the constitutional violation is that the paper doesn't prevent you from mismarking it? If you're supposed to check one box and you check two, the paper doesn't call you a fool?
Opponents of the system say scanning should be done immediately at the precinct level to alert voters to such errors and allow them to correct invalid ballots.
IN THE COMMENTS: Rastajenk writes:
I am a precinct captain in Ohio...I'm persuaded that the scanners are better, but I still don't see a constitutional argument.
The system used in our county places scanners at each precinct; the voter marks his paper ballot and slips it into the scanner himself. If it is marked properly, the voter sees the ballot counter increase by one...he knows his ballot has been counted, right there on the spot.
If he doesn't mark it correctly...if he marks three school board members when he should have voted only two...or if he leaves blank an issue where he had no opinion...or if he doesn't vote at all for an uncontested position...any of these kinds of situations, the scanner would beep and produce a message saying where the error occurred, and give the voter a chance to repair the error, or accept it as is.
It's a very simple safeguard to address the whole undervote/overvote issue that Florida 2000 introduced to the world. If a person needs a new ballot, there are very simple procedures for giving him one and voiding the original.
What the ACLU is doing is promoting the system used in our county over the system proposed in Cuyahoga, wherein all the paper ballots are collected and sent to a central counting location. Any number of shenanigans can occur there that cannot occur in our situation. For once in my life, I am in the ACLU's corner on this one.
Ohio Sec of State Brunner issued a report last month recommending all counting be done in central locations. Brunner is a Dem; connect the dots.
Another feature of our precinct-counted system is that at the end of the day, I produce and post at that location a report of our activity: how many votes each candidate or issue received in our precinct. I can compare that report to official reports on the county's website and verify that they are the same; each precinct official can do the same for his precinct. At no point can the numbers suddenly change or not add up correctly using this system. Accountability starts at the bottom, not at some closed-door top level. This is what the ACLU is against. Forget the invectives about stupid voters; support them on this as I have.
ADDED: Here's how the complaint puts it:
The dual system of voting created by Defendants has resulted in the following inequity: voters living in election jurisdictions using voting systems without error notification... are significantly less likely to have their intended votes counted than voters who live in election jurisdictions that use voting systems with error notification....This seems to be an attempt to use the Equal Protection argument from Bush v. Gore:
Equal protection applies... to the manner of [the exercise of the right to vote]. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964)....
The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards.
"I encourage conservative and libertarian — or just mischievous — students to flood the system with complaints about anything that offends them."
Glenn Reynolds is stirring up trouble for Brandeis University.
ADDED: I don't like this form of protest. Real individuals would be dragged into what is an ugly process, so it's not a prankish display of disrespect for campus authorities. I would like to see Brandeis students do what Wisconsin students did when the university invited them to feel offended and tattle: Ignore the system.
AND: For those who wish I'd say something more about the Brandeis incident. I did. Back in November.
ADDED: I don't like this form of protest. Real individuals would be dragged into what is an ugly process, so it's not a prankish display of disrespect for campus authorities. I would like to see Brandeis students do what Wisconsin students did when the university invited them to feel offended and tattle: Ignore the system.
AND: For those who wish I'd say something more about the Brandeis incident. I did. Back in November.
"So it is over. Finished. In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate vs. to take on Hillary Clinton...."
Michael Graham has moves through the denial stage, toward anger:
There is weeping in National Reviewdom today.
Ramesh Ponnuru says it's 1996 all over again:
And the worst part for the Right is that McCain will have won the nomination while ignoring, insulting and, as of this weekend, shamelessly lying about conservatives and conservatism.
You think he supported amnesty six months ago? You think he was squishy on tax cuts and judicial nominees before? Wait until he has the power to anger every conservative in America, and feel good about it.
Every day, he dreams of a world filled with happy Democrats and insulted Republicans. And he is, thanks to Florida, the presidential nominee of the Republican party.
There is weeping in National Reviewdom today.
Ramesh Ponnuru says it's 1996 all over again:
McCain is Dole: the old war hero who has run before, who does not enthuse either economic or social conservatives but has a pretty conservative record. Giuliani is Forbes: the socially liberal, economically conservative New York candidate. Huckabee is Buchanan: the social conservative with rhetoric that scares economic conservatives. Romney is Gramm, the movement-oriented candidate with boatloads of money but difficulty connecting with grassroots conservative voters.... The social-Right candidate takes out the movement candidate, the economic conservative ends up not playing a huge role, and the nomination goes to the old guy whom much of the Right distrusts.ADDED: I should note that Ponnuru is happy with the development. He endorsed McCain a year ago. I assumed otherwise because: 1. The editors of National Review have endorsed Romney, and 2. Dole lost!
"If we had people dancing on top of dead bodies that would indeed be disrespectful."
But a float depicting a pile of dead Holocaust victims for a Carnival parade called "Shockers"... come on! That's "extremely respectful, it's a warning, it's something shocking that we don't want to happen ever again."
"Kennedy is well known in the court's press corps for never using 1,000 words when 5,000 words would more murkily murk his murk."
James Kilpatrick is sick of Supreme Court cases and he's not going to write about them anymore.
(Via How Appealing.)
(Via How Appealing.)
"This is a very hard case. I'm thinking very hard."
Said 2d Circuit judge Guido Calabresi at oral argument yesterday, reminding me of that "Math is hard" Barbie doll that Mattel had to reconfigure when feminists complained. But, it's common for judges to call cases "hard." Yet it's odd to say — at oral argument — "I'm thinking very hard." It sounds like a quip. It's a hard case, so I'm thinking hard. But it's not an amusing case. It's the case of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer who was convicted of aiding terrorists, and the hard question was the requisite level of intent:
To prevent [Sheik Omar Abdel] Rahman from advocating further violence, prison officials had required Stewart and the rest of Rahman's legal team to pledge not to carry messages on his behalf. Stewart broke that pledge. In one instance, she called a reporter in Cairo to announce that Rahman was urging a terrorist organization to withdraw from a ceasefire with the government of Egypt.
Stewart has said her goal was to keep Rahman relevant in Egyptian politics and improve his morale. That argument evinced little sympathy from the bench.
"You can have the intent of serving a client," Judge Calabresi said, "but if the means of furthering that intent are a conspiracy to kill people, than don't you have that intermediate intent as well?"
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Romney and McCain tied at 30% each.
With 1% of the vote reported in the Florida primary. According to CNN TV.
ADDED: With 20% reporting, they're showing 36% for McCain and 31% for Romney — but they're not projecting based on the exit polls.
MORE: Now, its 34 to 33% with 32% of the returns in. Exciting. For McCain and Romney. For Rudy, it's pretty sad, but I think he lost it on his own, and not just because of the wait-for-Florida strategy. I had liked him best early on, but I disconnected from him a while back.
AND: TIME.com says Giuliani will endorse McCain.
AND: CNN just projected McCain as the winner.
AND: Giuliani speaks. He's saying lofty things about having a higher purpose. He wasn't in this for himself, he says. He believes in a cause, and he'll fight for it. He believes in the Republican Party. "This is a big party. I'm even in this party."
AND: From the McCain campaign: "Not as late a night as many expected. Romney outspent McCain by a huge margin. We find out on the 31st how much Romney has spent on his campaign. It will be an astonishing figure. At this point, he’s just hurting the Republican Party with his negative attacks."
AND: Romney speaks. He's got a memorized speech — you can tell when he makes a little misstep and starts over — and now the crowd is supposed to chant "They haven't" but they aren't chanting chantily enough. So Mitt and his crowd are stiff? So what? America is great, Mitt tells us. But the politicians are bad, so it's time for "the citizens" to take over. He's listing a lot of issues, like: People should get married before they have kids. He gives Bush credit for keeping us safe. Now, he's emphasizing the economy, which, you may already know, is in his DNA. He's "actually had a job in the real economy" — unlike those other politicos. Though he started out saying he had just congratulated John McCain, he ends triumphantly, as if he'd won, and clearly, he'll keep barreling along.
AND: McCain's speaking now. He emphasizes that this was an all-Republican primary. He's nicely modest about his margin of victory as he compliments Romney for "fighting hard." He thanks Huckabee for his "good humor and grace." He calls Giuliani his "good friend" and an "exceptional leader." He refers to Super Tuesday. It's a "national primary" and "I intend to win it," he says with a big smile. He talks about being inspired by Ronald Reagan, and outlines the story of how he's always been a conservative. The Republican Party only does well when it sticks to conservative principles, he says. (I note that's what Rush Limbaugh has been saying for the past week — in the context of attacking McCain mercilessly.) "We have a ways to go, but we're getting close."
ADDED: With 20% reporting, they're showing 36% for McCain and 31% for Romney — but they're not projecting based on the exit polls.
MORE: Now, its 34 to 33% with 32% of the returns in. Exciting. For McCain and Romney. For Rudy, it's pretty sad, but I think he lost it on his own, and not just because of the wait-for-Florida strategy. I had liked him best early on, but I disconnected from him a while back.
AND: TIME.com says Giuliani will endorse McCain.
AND: CNN just projected McCain as the winner.
AND: Giuliani speaks. He's saying lofty things about having a higher purpose. He wasn't in this for himself, he says. He believes in a cause, and he'll fight for it. He believes in the Republican Party. "This is a big party. I'm even in this party."
AND: From the McCain campaign: "Not as late a night as many expected. Romney outspent McCain by a huge margin. We find out on the 31st how much Romney has spent on his campaign. It will be an astonishing figure. At this point, he’s just hurting the Republican Party with his negative attacks."
AND: Romney speaks. He's got a memorized speech — you can tell when he makes a little misstep and starts over — and now the crowd is supposed to chant "They haven't" but they aren't chanting chantily enough. So Mitt and his crowd are stiff? So what? America is great, Mitt tells us. But the politicians are bad, so it's time for "the citizens" to take over. He's listing a lot of issues, like: People should get married before they have kids. He gives Bush credit for keeping us safe. Now, he's emphasizing the economy, which, you may already know, is in his DNA. He's "actually had a job in the real economy" — unlike those other politicos. Though he started out saying he had just congratulated John McCain, he ends triumphantly, as if he'd won, and clearly, he'll keep barreling along.
AND: McCain's speaking now. He emphasizes that this was an all-Republican primary. He's nicely modest about his margin of victory as he compliments Romney for "fighting hard." He thanks Huckabee for his "good humor and grace." He calls Giuliani his "good friend" and an "exceptional leader." He refers to Super Tuesday. It's a "national primary" and "I intend to win it," he says with a big smile. He talks about being inspired by Ronald Reagan, and outlines the story of how he's always been a conservative. The Republican Party only does well when it sticks to conservative principles, he says. (I note that's what Rush Limbaugh has been saying for the past week — in the context of attacking McCain mercilessly.) "We have a ways to go, but we're getting close."
Is this the person you want to be listening to a year from now?
"Imagine if next year was different."
Barack Obama responds to the State of the Union address.
A word on the aesthetics of this video. I'm getting a real 1960s vibe from the gray suit and the gray curtain in back. It seems to evoke lo-fi black-and-white TV. I kept thinking: Rod Serling. But then I realized what they want you to think is: JFK.
Barack Obama responds to the State of the Union address.
A word on the aesthetics of this video. I'm getting a real 1960s vibe from the gray suit and the gray curtain in back. It seems to evoke lo-fi black-and-white TV. I kept thinking: Rod Serling. But then I realized what they want you to think is: JFK.
"We had to flip the whole interface around."
Blogger is finally available in Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian — languages that read from right to left. It's not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East. But blog on.
"He's totally eclipsed. Nothing he says is going to be important for anything that happens in the next 12 months. The speech is a nonevent."
Did you watch the State of the Union Address?
We did, talking over it a lot of the time. How can we feel that a man who is President doesn't matter anymore? Somehow we do. At least when he's making a speech. He may yet do something that could make us change our well-settled opinions. But let's hope that nothing much happens in the next year. When things capable of transforming the reputation of a President happen, they're usually bad. So let's hope the battered old man drifts further into oblivion over the next year, and when the State of the Union comes around again we have the occasion to get all excited about the seemingly boundless potential of another human individual.
We did, talking over it a lot of the time. How can we feel that a man who is President doesn't matter anymore? Somehow we do. At least when he's making a speech. He may yet do something that could make us change our well-settled opinions. But let's hope that nothing much happens in the next year. When things capable of transforming the reputation of a President happen, they're usually bad. So let's hope the battered old man drifts further into oblivion over the next year, and when the State of the Union comes around again we have the occasion to get all excited about the seemingly boundless potential of another human individual.
So Teddy Kennedy came right out and called the Clintons liars.
"With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion."
That's my interpretation.
That's my interpretation.
Monday, January 28, 2008
So everyone was piling on Hillary on the Sunday shows...
That is, except for Hillary herself, whom we see a lot of in those clips. I don't know if it's all in the editing, but those attempts she makes to defend herself make her look even more unappealing.
"If you're going to de-sex the awards into subdivisions of Best Actor — if you're all actors, and the gender doesn't matter..."
"... then why not just give one prize, eligible to every performer in a leading role?"
Asks Chris Pizzello.
Yes, why all this sex segregation? Are women and men separate categories or aren't they? If you want two categories, why not drama and comedy?
Or does the Screen Actors Guild just want us to start thinking of "actress" as an insult? The women are quite different — but let's have some less retrograde terminology? Yet neologisms seem mocking or ludicrous.
Actmen and actwomen... dramamen... oh, it makes me sick....
Asks Chris Pizzello.
Yes, why all this sex segregation? Are women and men separate categories or aren't they? If you want two categories, why not drama and comedy?
Or does the Screen Actors Guild just want us to start thinking of "actress" as an insult? The women are quite different — but let's have some less retrograde terminology? Yet neologisms seem mocking or ludicrous.
Actmen and actwomen... dramamen... oh, it makes me sick....
"Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."
That's how Toni Morrison described Bill Clinton. But now, she's supporting Obama, and it's not necessarily a contradiction. He's definitely blacker than Hillary Clinton, and Morrison never said that the blackest candidate ought to win. Her standard is somewhere in here:
Finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. I suspect that reflects a theory of government I'd object to if I could see through the incredibly annoying writing.
ADDED: If Frank J. wants to call Toni Morrison "a racist dumbass of monumental proportions" with any credibility, he ought to proofread his own writing. His headline — "Just So Someone Says It Publically" — has a gross misspelling. And whining about a class where he had to read "Beloved" and got a bad grade on his paper for "saying exactly what I thought of Toni Morrison," he tries this quip: "Man did I need a Tom Clancy novel as a pallet cleanser after that." Frank, a "pallet" is a narrow hard bed. Perhaps the pages of a pulpy novel are useful to soak up after an episode of bedwetting.
AND: Yes, yes, I know I typoed "necessary" for "necessarily" in the second sentence of the original post. (Now corrected.) If you want to criticize someone for bad spelling, you can never make a typo? I guess not. But Frank J. called Toni Morrison "a racist dumbass of monumental proportions," which was an incredible insult, and I thought he needed some push back.
In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.Translate that purple prose, please.
Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace - that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.
Finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. I suspect that reflects a theory of government I'd object to if I could see through the incredibly annoying writing.
ADDED: If Frank J. wants to call Toni Morrison "a racist dumbass of monumental proportions" with any credibility, he ought to proofread his own writing. His headline — "Just So Someone Says It Publically" — has a gross misspelling. And whining about a class where he had to read "Beloved" and got a bad grade on his paper for "saying exactly what I thought of Toni Morrison," he tries this quip: "Man did I need a Tom Clancy novel as a pallet cleanser after that." Frank, a "pallet" is a narrow hard bed. Perhaps the pages of a pulpy novel are useful to soak up after an episode of bedwetting.
AND: Yes, yes, I know I typoed "necessary" for "necessarily" in the second sentence of the original post. (Now corrected.) If you want to criticize someone for bad spelling, you can never make a typo? I guess not. But Frank J. called Toni Morrison "a racist dumbass of monumental proportions," which was an incredible insult, and I thought he needed some push back.
"Following links is like putting on 3-D glasses."
That's a line from Sarah Boxer's big review of a lot of books about blogs in the February 14 issue of The New York Review of Books.
Oh, we saw "U2 3D" — the IMAX 3D U2 concert film last night. I'm trying to write a post about it, but I got distracted by this book review. I'm more interested in books about blogs than a humongous in-your-face concert film, but I'll just say the technology had one of us seeing double — the technology is not perfect — and me longing for the lush beauty and composition of traditional film. Also I don't really see the point of getting that close to Bono's face. His eyes are all but invisible behind those wraparound glasses — the wraparound 3D glasses curved inward in back and gave me a headache right behind my left ear — and his face is not expressive. He's a great rock and roll frontman because of his whole-body expression, which projects to the whole arena. So get back, get back, and see the whole arena, which did look very deep and real in 3D. Technology... Did you know the kids at concerts these days wave cell phone and camera digital screens around instead of cigarette lighters?
But back to Boxer's review. She's got a book of her own about blogs — an anthology of blog "masterworks" — but she's skeptical about blog books:
Boxer has a nice, compressed history of the development of blogging:
Boxer has a feeling for what makes blogging bloggy:
Oh, we saw "U2 3D" — the IMAX 3D U2 concert film last night. I'm trying to write a post about it, but I got distracted by this book review. I'm more interested in books about blogs than a humongous in-your-face concert film, but I'll just say the technology had one of us seeing double — the technology is not perfect — and me longing for the lush beauty and composition of traditional film. Also I don't really see the point of getting that close to Bono's face. His eyes are all but invisible behind those wraparound glasses — the wraparound 3D glasses curved inward in back and gave me a headache right behind my left ear — and his face is not expressive. He's a great rock and roll frontman because of his whole-body expression, which projects to the whole arena. So get back, get back, and see the whole arena, which did look very deep and real in 3D. Technology... Did you know the kids at concerts these days wave cell phone and camera digital screens around instead of cigarette lighters?
But back to Boxer's review. She's got a book of her own about blogs — an anthology of blog "masterworks" — but she's skeptical about blog books:
Political blogs are among the trickiest to capture in a book because they tend to rely heavily on links and ephemeral information. But even blogs that have few or no links still show the imprint of the Web, its associative ethos, and its obsession with connection—the stink of the link. Blogs are porous to the world of texts and facts and opinions on line.What's the point of writing or reading a book about blogs? Write a blog or read blogs. What are books doing here?
Boxer has a nice, compressed history of the development of blogging:
When the blog boom came, the tone of the blogosphere began to shift. A lot of the new blogs—though certainly not all of them—weren't so much filters for the Web as vents for opinion and self-revelation. Instead of figuring out ways to serve up good fresh finds, many of the new bloggers were fixated on getting found. So the very significance of linking began to change. The links that had once mattered were the ones you offered on your blog, the so-called outbound links pointing to other sites. Now the links that mattered most—and still do—are those on other blogs pointing toward your blog, the so-called inbound links. Those are the ones that blog-trackers like Technorati count. They are the measure of fame.She also has this list of words she found on blogs:
Now that fame and links are one and the same, there are bloggers out there who will do practically anything— start rumors, tell lies, pick fights, create fake personas, and post embarrassing videos—to get noticed and linked to. They are, in the parlance of the blogosphere, "link whores." And those who succeed are blog celebrities, or "blogebrities."
anyhoo, bitchitude, fan-fucking-tabulous, hole-esque, nastified, alternapop, coffin-snatching, YouTube-ization, touzing, Daddio, manky, nutters, therapised, Boo-Ya Nation, dildopreneur, dudely, flava, haz-mat, nut sac, sexbot, underwearian, fugly, vomit-y, consciousness-jumped, tear-assed, fetbryo, grapetastically, mommyblogdaciousness, Nero-crazy, Engrish, pidginized, votenfreude, angsty, malgovernment, bejesus, JumboTron, man-dresses, babe-aliciousness, droit de senny.The squarest old man I've ever known said "anyhoo" a lot. We laughed at him behind his back... in the 1970s.
Boxer has a feeling for what makes blogging bloggy:
Bloggers are golden when they're at the bottom of the heap, kicking up. Give them a salary, a book contract, or a press credential, though, and it just isn't the same. (And this includes, for the most part, the blogs set up by magazines, companies, and newspapers.) Why? When you write for pay, you worry about lawsuits, sentence structure, and word choice. You worry about your boss, your publisher, your mother, and your superego looking over your shoulder. And that's no way to blog.Yes, blogging must be free. Don't give those bloggers a job. But do send them money! Help them be independent. Place ads and hit the PayPal button.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Fun with mirrors.
We go to the Austin Museum of Art to see the Roy Lichstenstein show — which we loved — and get sidetracked into the hands-on kid's area where we take a lot of pictures in a tunnel of mirrors (and stick a few plastic dots on the white walls):
Okay, now stop that and tell me what dots and mirrors have to do with Roy Lichtenstein? Seems more like Wonder Bread and the funhouse.
The dots are the dots from newspaper printing that he enlarges and emphasizes for distinctive effect. Don't you think our children need to get more excited about dots so they can appreciate pop art? I do! I dot!
The mirrors relate to some of the prints on display, especially a series called "Reflections" that has as its subject matter works of art partly obscured by reflections, like this one called "Reflections on Minerva." I'm thinking Roy went to museums and got annoyed — and then inspired — by the glass that covers so many works of art and makes them hard to see.
Roy Lichtenstein seems to have a mania for processing images. You get the feeling he might look at anything — good or bad — Monet's haystacks, a stock photo of 1970s interior decoration — and want to work his set of artistic tricks on it just for the pure delight of taking one thing and making it into something else.
Okay, now stop that and tell me what dots and mirrors have to do with Roy Lichtenstein? Seems more like Wonder Bread and the funhouse.
The dots are the dots from newspaper printing that he enlarges and emphasizes for distinctive effect. Don't you think our children need to get more excited about dots so they can appreciate pop art? I do! I dot!
The mirrors relate to some of the prints on display, especially a series called "Reflections" that has as its subject matter works of art partly obscured by reflections, like this one called "Reflections on Minerva." I'm thinking Roy went to museums and got annoyed — and then inspired — by the glass that covers so many works of art and makes them hard to see.
Roy Lichtenstein seems to have a mania for processing images. You get the feeling he might look at anything — good or bad — Monet's haystacks, a stock photo of 1970s interior decoration — and want to work his set of artistic tricks on it just for the pure delight of taking one thing and making it into something else.
Caroline Kennedy says Obama is like her dad.
In a NYT op-ed:
AND: Bill Clinton says Obama is like Jesse Jackson.
IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian says:
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.That is: Put aside your plans to vote for Hillary Clinton and take advantage of this rare opportunity. Believe in the possibility of believing.
I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.The children need to believe, believe in the possibility of believing in... themselves!... or something. And that's why Obama should be President! Don't you get it?
AND: Bill Clinton says Obama is like Jesse Jackson.
IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian says:
Why do so many of Obama's supporter's statements remind me of an NPR pledge drive, where marginally talented radio personalities have to fill five hours with repetitive pablum that ends up portraying NPR programming as a kind of corrective laxative?
With a little effort, you could turn the narrative of the Obama campaign into a collection of secular carols to be sung at UNICEF non-denominational holiday events.
In Austin, Texas, I pay my traditional visit to the 10 Commandment monument.
I've been here before, to show you the setting of the 10 Commandments monument that the Supreme Court — in Van Orden v. Perry — said did not violate the Establishment Clause. But I'm back here in Austin, Texas, so let's focus on the size of this thing, using me — a woman of average height — for measurement.
Want to hear my law lecture?
Want to hear my law lecture?
Which, if any, groups favored Hillary Clinton in South Carolina?
Let's take a closer look at that CNN exit poll:
1. Hillary Clinton did not win a majority or even a plurality of white voters. (Edwards won a plurality of 40%.) She did win a plurality — 42% — of the white female voters (but Barack Obama still won 22% of them). Edwards won a plurality of the white males — 44% (but Obama still got 27% of them). Clinton only got 20% of the black women.
2. Hillary Clinton did not win a majority or even a plurality of the over 60 white vote. (She shared equally with John Edwards, each receiving 42%.) Barack Obama received a majority of the white vote in the 18-29 category.
3. Barack Obama received a majority of the male vote and a majority of the female vote — with exactly the same percentage, 54%.
4. Barack Obama received a majority of the vote in every age category except over 60 — and he won a plurality of the over 60 vote. Only by isolating the over 65 vote do you see a plurality for Clinton (40% over 32%).
5. Barack Obama received a majority or plurality of votes at all education levels, at all degrees of religiosity, at all levels of voting experience, in all regions, at all income levels, and in urban/suburban/rural areas.
6. Barack Obama received a majority among voters who considered each of the 3 main issues — health care, the economy, Iraq — the most important.
7. Barack Obama received a majority from voters who were married and who were unmarried, who placed issues first and who placed character first, who thought the economy was good and who thought it was bad.
8. Barack Obama received a majority from voters who called themselves liberals and who called themselves moderates and a plurality from those who called themselves conservatives.
9. Hillary won a clear majority — 84% — among voters who put "experience" first when asked to rank 4 qualities. Obama won for 2 of the other qualities — "can bring about change" and "electability" — and Edwards won for "cares about people."
10. Hillary Clinton won a plurality from voters who said Americans aren't ready to elect a black President (and a majority of those who said "definitely not ready," though Obama even got 9% of those).
What can Hillary do? Work hard on getting out the elderly vote? Harp on her experience some more? Scare voters about the unelectability of a black man? Hope the other states are not like South Carolina?
1. Hillary Clinton did not win a majority or even a plurality of white voters. (Edwards won a plurality of 40%.) She did win a plurality — 42% — of the white female voters (but Barack Obama still won 22% of them). Edwards won a plurality of the white males — 44% (but Obama still got 27% of them). Clinton only got 20% of the black women.
2. Hillary Clinton did not win a majority or even a plurality of the over 60 white vote. (She shared equally with John Edwards, each receiving 42%.) Barack Obama received a majority of the white vote in the 18-29 category.
3. Barack Obama received a majority of the male vote and a majority of the female vote — with exactly the same percentage, 54%.
4. Barack Obama received a majority of the vote in every age category except over 60 — and he won a plurality of the over 60 vote. Only by isolating the over 65 vote do you see a plurality for Clinton (40% over 32%).
5. Barack Obama received a majority or plurality of votes at all education levels, at all degrees of religiosity, at all levels of voting experience, in all regions, at all income levels, and in urban/suburban/rural areas.
6. Barack Obama received a majority among voters who considered each of the 3 main issues — health care, the economy, Iraq — the most important.
7. Barack Obama received a majority from voters who were married and who were unmarried, who placed issues first and who placed character first, who thought the economy was good and who thought it was bad.
8. Barack Obama received a majority from voters who called themselves liberals and who called themselves moderates and a plurality from those who called themselves conservatives.
9. Hillary won a clear majority — 84% — among voters who put "experience" first when asked to rank 4 qualities. Obama won for 2 of the other qualities — "can bring about change" and "electability" — and Edwards won for "cares about people."
10. Hillary Clinton won a plurality from voters who said Americans aren't ready to elect a black President (and a majority of those who said "definitely not ready," though Obama even got 9% of those).
What can Hillary do? Work hard on getting out the elderly vote? Harp on her experience some more? Scare voters about the unelectability of a black man? Hope the other states are not like South Carolina?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Waiting for the South Carolina results.
CNN has an on-screen countdown. 3:09 and counting down!
UPDATE: They plan to project the winner immediately. 22 seconds to go.
UPDATE 2: CNN projects "a strong victory for Barack Obama."
UPDATE 3: CNN shows Edwards and Clinton in a close fight for second, with Edwards getting more of the white vote than Clinton (39% to 36%).
UPDATE 4: There he is! Barack Obama! CNN has just told us that Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama and thinks he's like her father. And now we see Barack hand in hand with Michelle, who's wearing a Jackie Kennedy-invoking pink suit. "We are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again." Chant: "We want change! We want change!" The huge banner in back of him says "CHANGE we can believe in." The lectern in front of him says "Change." People want to tell you that white people won't vote for the African-American, but "we are here tonight to tell you that is not the America we believe in."
UPDATE: They plan to project the winner immediately. 22 seconds to go.
UPDATE 2: CNN projects "a strong victory for Barack Obama."
UPDATE 3: CNN shows Edwards and Clinton in a close fight for second, with Edwards getting more of the white vote than Clinton (39% to 36%).
UPDATE 4: There he is! Barack Obama! CNN has just told us that Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama and thinks he's like her father. And now we see Barack hand in hand with Michelle, who's wearing a Jackie Kennedy-invoking pink suit. "We are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again." Chant: "We want change! We want change!" The huge banner in back of him says "CHANGE we can believe in." The lectern in front of him says "Change." People want to tell you that white people won't vote for the African-American, but "we are here tonight to tell you that is not the America we believe in."
Austin protest #2: "Hey hey ho ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go."
Same afternoon. Austin, Texas. A big, organized pro-life march heads north on Congress Avenue toward the Texas Capitol.
ADDED: I wasn't standing around waiting for this march. I just happened upon this corner and had my little camera in my hand. I couldn't edit this clip, so this is just what I caught. It's just by chance that someone drops the American flag right in the beginning, something I didn't see until I uploaded the clip.
Austin protest #1: 9/11 conspiracy + anti-war + pomeranian.
"WAR is Hell/Heaven is PEACE/can't Support BOTH!"
"It's a FACT at least 7 of the 19 named Hijackers on 9-11 are still ALIVE."
Well, they've got dog on their side.
The interpretation of carpeting.
Remember the way Jeffrey Toobin — in "The Nine" — belittled Justice Anthony Kennedy through the interpretation of carpeting?
Maybe it's not so much about high and low class taste as it is a matter of Eastern and Western taste. Yes, I know Sacramento (Kennedy's home town) and Austin are far from each other. This hotel reflects the styles of 1886 and the tastes of a cattle baron. Sacramento was a gold-rush town in the 1800s. But some rough, adventurous people got rich in the 19th century. Shouldn't east-coasters like Jeffrey Toobin — he was a New York City preppie — and — I'm thinking — those law clerks — show a little respect for the sweep of American culture?
[Justice Anthony] Kennedy's vanity was generally harmless, almost charming -- sort of like the carpet in his office.When I read the book, I wrote:
Understatement was the rule for the decor in most justices' chambers. Everyone had a few personal touches -- O'Connor employed a southwestern motif, with Native American blankets and curios; Ginsburg had opera mementos; Stevens had the box score from the World Series game in 1932 when Babe Ruth hit is "called shot" home run against the Chicago Cubs. (Stevens had attended the game as a twelve-year-old boy.) Kennedy, in contrast, installed a plush red carpet, more suited to a theater set than a judge's chambers. Worse (or better, depending on one's perspective), the carpet was festooned with gold stars -- garish touches that made the office a sort of tourist attraction for law clerks and other insiders.
What the hell? So what if Kennedy has proletarian taste in carpet? Does that mean anything about him? And, supposing it does, why would a man who likes thick carpet and bright colors be less suited to make decisions for us than someone with high-class, refined tastes? Who are these asinine clerks who are trying to take the justice down a peg because of his carpet?...I'm thinking about that now, as I eat breakfast in the elegant restaurant in a beautiful, historic hotel in Austin, Texas and stare at the floor:
[Toobin is] promoting the theory that Kennedy -- as the next sentence reads -- "tried hard, maybe too hard, to impress"... Kennedy is a ridiculous man, don't you know...
Maybe it's not so much about high and low class taste as it is a matter of Eastern and Western taste. Yes, I know Sacramento (Kennedy's home town) and Austin are far from each other. This hotel reflects the styles of 1886 and the tastes of a cattle baron. Sacramento was a gold-rush town in the 1800s. But some rough, adventurous people got rich in the 19th century. Shouldn't east-coasters like Jeffrey Toobin — he was a New York City preppie — and — I'm thinking — those law clerks — show a little respect for the sweep of American culture?
The NYT endorses Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
Here and here. I was going to mention it yesterday, but it's a travel weekend for me and, also, I found it boring.
I do find it amusing that as I was typing the previous sentence — in this restaurant, The Driskill Grill, where I'm eating breakfast — I overheard a man at the next table say: "I like Obama. I like Edwards. I don't like Hillary Clinton."
From the Times:
(There's a sense in which Mitt Romney is hilariously uncool and utterly not in the same category as Obama, but I'm not talking about that.)
To be fair, the NYT referred not to the emotional style of the candidate, but to the emotional quality of some "small" "fringe" that a President would govern "from and on behalf of." But how does that apply to Romney? Here's their disqualification of Romney:
The NYT rhetoric is absolutely incoherent.
Ha, ha, suddenly I don't find the NYT endorsements boring at all. It must be these Texas scrambled eggs and sausage fortifying me.
So let's see why we're supposed to like Hillary Clinton more than Barack Obama. If the idea is to get away from "governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe," isn't Obama perfect?
Why worry about governing "from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe" when it's your small, angry fringe?
I do find it amusing that as I was typing the previous sentence — in this restaurant, The Driskill Grill, where I'm eating breakfast — I overheard a man at the next table say: "I like Obama. I like Edwards. I don't like Hillary Clinton."
From the Times:
Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.Why does that apply to Mitt Romney, who doesn't seem like the angry type? I think we could sort all the candidates — from both parties — by the level of their emotional heat. Giuliani and McCain are hot. Romney and Huckabee are cool. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are hot. Barack Obama is cool.
(There's a sense in which Mitt Romney is hilariously uncool and utterly not in the same category as Obama, but I'm not talking about that.)
To be fair, the NYT referred not to the emotional style of the candidate, but to the emotional quality of some "small" "fringe" that a President would govern "from and on behalf of." But how does that apply to Romney? Here's their disqualification of Romney:
Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.Shape-shifting? In other words: flexibly and pragmatically bending one way or another in an effort to respond to constituents. Isn't that exactly the opposite of "of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe"?
The NYT rhetoric is absolutely incoherent.
Ha, ha, suddenly I don't find the NYT endorsements boring at all. It must be these Texas scrambled eggs and sausage fortifying me.
So let's see why we're supposed to like Hillary Clinton more than Barack Obama. If the idea is to get away from "governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe," isn't Obama perfect?
Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.Oh, now it's all about experience and expertise.
Why worry about governing "from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe" when it's your small, angry fringe?
''Testosterone to me is so important for a sense of well-being when you get older."
''Everyone over 40 years old would be wise to investigate it because it increases the quality of your life. Mark my words. In 10 years it will be over the counter.''
Sylvester Stallone recommends human growth hormone. "HGH is nothing."
Sylvester Stallone recommends human growth hormone. "HGH is nothing."
Friday, January 25, 2008
Where am I?
Where have I gone to celebrate January Christmas? And did you, my dear reader, even notice that my December Christmas got ruined?
"I remember the first time my girlfriends and I admitted that we all felt the same about married sex as parents...."
"... we couldn't be bothered with it and felt guilty for not wanting to sleep with our husbands. It was a revelation. I remember thinking: 'Thank God! It's not just me!'"
Carrie Jones hasn't had sex with her husband in 4 years, doesn't intend to, and has written a book about marital celibacy.
Carrie Jones hasn't had sex with her husband in 4 years, doesn't intend to, and has written a book about marital celibacy.
Last night's debate.
I didn't post last night about the Republican debate because I was on an airplane, but since it was a JetBlue airplane I had TV reception and was able to watch the whole thing on the seatback in front of me. Admittedly, I slept through part of it, but I saw at least the first hour of it.
I turned on CNN in my hotel this morning and heard talking heads yammering about how there were "no fireworks." Oh, too bad!
On the subject of the media's ridiculous hunger for emotional outbursts, watch this "Daily Show" clip:
But let's discuss the debate. I thought Mitt Romney was especially good. Beginning with the first question, he let us see some of the depth of his expertise on economic matters.
Meanwhile, John McCain was challenged on a statement of his that conceded he was not well-versed on economics. McCain seemed to deny that he'd said any such thing. I say "seemed" because it was a little hedged: "I don't know where you got that statement." But as TPM makes painfully clear, he has disparaged his own understanding of economics on several occasions.
Romney must be terribly pleased that the central issue in the campaign is suddenly economics.
I turned on CNN in my hotel this morning and heard talking heads yammering about how there were "no fireworks." Oh, too bad!
On the subject of the media's ridiculous hunger for emotional outbursts, watch this "Daily Show" clip:
But let's discuss the debate. I thought Mitt Romney was especially good. Beginning with the first question, he let us see some of the depth of his expertise on economic matters.
Meanwhile, John McCain was challenged on a statement of his that conceded he was not well-versed on economics. McCain seemed to deny that he'd said any such thing. I say "seemed" because it was a little hedged: "I don't know where you got that statement." But as TPM makes painfully clear, he has disparaged his own understanding of economics on several occasions.
Romney must be terribly pleased that the central issue in the campaign is suddenly economics.
I'm assailed in the local paper for failing to take the 9/11 truthers seriously.
Oh, the pain! The pain that UW-Oshkosh emeritus biology professor Bill Willers imagines he's inflicting!
And again, I didn't make a personal attack.
By the way, Professor Willers, aren't you making a personal attack? Do you think you had the obligation to read my post with basic understanding before writing a letter like this to the newspaper?
Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness.
On Jan. 21, University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse wrote on her blog, “I don’t know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?”Here's the blog post in which I set aside the facts I don't know and raise a question designed to help readers work toward a general principle that would distinguish between the discrimination against a political viewpoint and the proper use of evidence of a person's qualities of mind.
This is an amazing statement coming from a professor of law — a position that presupposes a respect for carefully considered evidence.Presumably, by "position" he means that the position of professor of law presupposes respect for evidence. But it could more aptly mean that the position I took in my statement is, in fact, a recommendation that we ascertain the value of the evidence that a job applicant creates through speaking and thus a position that entails respect for evidence.
Her assault on Mr. Barrett, in which she makes no effort to consider the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement, is shamefully flippant — her word choice of “truly nutty” — and unworthy of an academic intent on attacking another.Professor Willers, calm down and reread. I put to the side the case of Kevin Barrett and said I did not know the facts. Moving to the level of abstraction, I asked a neutral question that was intended to facilitate thinking about what to do in the case of a job applicant who takes a truly nutty position. By the way, it's the work of a law professor to propose hypotheticals to assist students in thinking about legal problems outside of the context of a particular case.
Without going into details easily found on the Internet...Oh, my! It's on the Internet!
....a considerable army of architects, engineers, physicists, logicians, commercial and military pilots, first responders, military figures all the way to general officer, and government personnel including FBI and CIA agents has amassed a solid case countering the official story. That army is all the greater for the addition of similar experts from countries all over the world.So, apparently Willers is himself a 9/11 truther. Sigh.
Ms. Althouse has refused to debate the issue in public forum. That being so, how does the objective observer avoid a conclusion of moral cowardice on her part? As a professional, is she not obligated to present evidence rather than indulging in personal attack?Why would I debate about physics when I'm a law professor? Being "a professional" doesn't mean you're an expert in everything.
And again, I didn't make a personal attack.
By the way, Professor Willers, aren't you making a personal attack? Do you think you had the obligation to read my post with basic understanding before writing a letter like this to the newspaper?
There is irony surrounding Ms. Althouse’s questioning of Mr. Barrett’s intelligence...Oh, irony! That's really... ironic... because I was just pointing out the irony of your absurd little letter to the student newspaper.
....judgment and trustworthiness, because it leads one to the question, “If we know that a law professor is willing to attack someone for no reason that she could defend in a courtroom situation, would we not be entitled to question her intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness?” And there is little doubt that in a courtroom, in which she would face that army of experts and their facts, she would be reduced to dust on the floor.In answer to your hypothetical, of course you could take into account that the law professor attacked someone for no reason. I didn't do that, however, so that doesn't refer to me.
Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Our "script"... our "reality is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film," so we need a President "who's been in that."
Sylvester Stallone makes the pitch for John McCain.
So Huckabee's got Chuck Norris. And now, McCain has Stallone. Somebody needs a Schwarzenegger! Wait! Who's that on the phone?!
So Huckabee's got Chuck Norris. And now, McCain has Stallone. Somebody needs a Schwarzenegger! Wait! Who's that on the phone?!
Churchyard signs.
(Enlarge #1. Enlarge #2.)
IN THE COMMENTS: Inwood says:
STRANGER if you, passing, meet me and desire to speak to me, fuhgedaboudit; get on a blog and we'll write.
"I would rather be a cartoon than a genius!"
Says Dolly Parton, reacting to getting named #94 on a list of 100 Greatest Living Geniuses and asserting that "A cartoon character is how I see myself and it's worked for me for 40 years."
And here she talks about fashion (and lets her pop culture genius shine):
And here she talks about fashion (and lets her pop culture genius shine):
"People know I have no taste, no style and no class. If I have any class it's all low.
"Even after I got enough money where I could afford to dress properly, what kind of fun would that be? Hell, they know I look like a w***e. No matter how much I spend or how I dress, I'm still going to look cheap."
"Shame on you," says Bill Clinton, if you're worried the Hillary campaign is exploiting race.
So it's all in your head if you think the Clintons are doing anything to use race to beat Barack Obama.
Here's Dick Morris taking the strong position that they absolutely know what they are doing and mean to do it:
If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama's ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It's one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don't read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.Here's Mickey Kaus proposing what he thinks is a clever tactic:
Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election. And the Clintons attracted national scorn when they tried to bring it back in by attempting to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement. But here they have a way of appearing to seek the black vote, losing it, and getting their white backlash, all without any fingerprints showing. The more President Clinton begs black voters to back his wife, and the more they spurn her, the more the election becomes about race -- and Obama ultimately loses
He could try to make Hillary the pet candidate of Latinos the way he's being cast as the pet candidate of blacks--but that would require a shift to the right on immigrant legalization that he doesn't seem willing to make.)...Centralize affirmative action as an issue in the campaign? How would that play out? It seems to me that the candidates would like to get race back into the background — but Hillary first must use it to defeat Obama.
The more obvious move is to find a Sister Souljah--after Saturday--to stiff arm. The most promising candidate is not a person, but an idea: race-based affirmative action. Obama has already made noises about shifting to a class-based, race-blind system of preferences. What if he made that explicit? Wouldn't that shock hostile white voters into taking a second look at his candidacy? He'd renew his image as trans-race leader (and healer). The howls of criticism from the conventional civil-rights establishment--they'd flood the cable shows--would provide him with an army of Souljahs to hold off. If anyone noticed Hillary in the ensuing fuss, it would be to put her on the spot--she'd be the one defending mend-it-don't-end-it civil rights orthodoxy.
IN THE COMMENTS: Our ghostly reader from the distant past, Sir Archy, has favored us with another visit!
To Professor Althouse.
Madam,
As a Ghost of a former Scotch Elector, dead these 250 years and more, I have seen many an Election, and voted in not a Few. My unfortunate Death put an end to my climbing the Polling Booth steps, as the Franchise was not extended in Scotland in my Day to the Dead. That my Ghostly Condition entitles me to especial Consideration in certain American Constituencies is a piece of welcome Intelligence; I shall endeavor to inform your Readers of the Progress of my Efforts to claim my Place, after these many Years, as an American Elector.
But enough of my Fortunes—let us think on those of Mrs. Clinton: That Mrs. Clinton will be elect'd President, can admit of no Doubt. Consider the Clintons' Past-Mast'ry of arousing Passion & exciting Fear. Consider Mrs. Clinton's prospective Opponents: A Gentleman of good Fortune & Family, but insipid and uninspiring Mien; a half-pay Officer gone into Politicks, who, despite his heroick Past, has anger'd Half his Party; and a former Lord Mayor, who would play Dick Whittington, had he either the Sagacity of the Original, or the Cat of the Character. Are any of these Gentlemen a serious Obstacle to the Clinton Ferocity?
Consider her principal Opponent within her own Party: He should be the only Force that could halt Mrs. Clinton's inexorable Advance upon the White House. He is a fine and accomplish'd Gentleman of African descent, yet his Armour provides the Clintons two Chinks into which to insert the Rapier: The First is that he is a fine Gentleman, and not used to such vengeful Blows; the Second is that he is African, which in America opens him to a variety of Trips beyond the Dreams of any Stiletto-wielding Assassin. The Clintons have him down and are now engag'd in trying the Joints of his Breastplate. We only await Blood upon the Ground as Confirmation of his Demise.
That Mrs. Clinton should be elect'd President ought to occasion sombre Reflection among the American Electorate. The Maxims of a Democratick Nation imply the continual Rotation of Power, and that a Man (or now, a Woman) may answer Ambition with Effort, and rise by way of Politicks. That Power be always the Provinance of one Family or the Other, is a Situation fitter to Spain in my Day, where Hapsburgs & Bourbons contended to oppress an Empire, rather than for a manly Nation, founded on the Principles of British Liberty.
Giving careful consideration to the Qualities of the various Candidates for whom I should vote,
I remain, Madam,
Your humble & obt. Servant,
Sir Archy
"She's the one that's been to those little fancy lunches that women of power have, if not of color, and she even bid on Hillary's book..."
"She didn’t get it, but she’s disposed towards Hillary Clinton and probably would vote for her. Except she ain’t."
New York-type husbands and wives disagree and babble about Hillary Clinton in an article I thought would speak to me in my blog zone. Except it don't.
New York-type husbands and wives disagree and babble about Hillary Clinton in an article I thought would speak to me in my blog zone. Except it don't.
"Blinding you with his razor-sharp acumen...."
1. Keep the razor blades away from my eyes.
2. This is not acumen, John Gibson. This is pure stupidity and ugliness.
3. Even as he mocks the poor Heath Ledger for (apparently) using drugs, John Gibson sounds groggy and slurred. What does it take to overcome your normal inhibitions — whatever residue of humanity you've got inside — and to go on the radio and emit material like that?
2. This is not acumen, John Gibson. This is pure stupidity and ugliness.
3. Even as he mocks the poor Heath Ledger for (apparently) using drugs, John Gibson sounds groggy and slurred. What does it take to overcome your normal inhibitions — whatever residue of humanity you've got inside — and to go on the radio and emit material like that?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Fred's exit...
... catapults Romney into the lead in Florida.
(Or so says this one poll.)
BUT: Check out this NYT headline: "Romney Leads in Ill Will Among G.O.P. Candidates."
(Or so says this one poll.)
BUT: Check out this NYT headline: "Romney Leads in Ill Will Among G.O.P. Candidates."
"I'm jealous. I can't do it either. I can't cross my legs sitting in a chair like that."
Here's Rush Limbaugh talking about the way Hillary Clinton was sitting in her chair at the debate. (Subscriber link.) (Yes, I subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh website so I can keep track of these things for you.)
Anyway, in that voice, he's all:
Of course, he's being rude for some evil fun. But he's also ignorant, because there is a whole big thing about women not crossing their legs. It's both a health issue and a point of etiquette:
1. Crossing your legs at the knee is reputed to cause varicose veins and hip problems in women.
2. Women — at least women of a certain age — have been taught as a matter of etiquette to cross their legs at the ankles when they sit, and that is exactly what Hillary Clinton was doing at the debate.
I noticed the leg positions at the debate myself, because each of the 3 candidates were sitting differently:
1. Hillary had her legs exactly the way any good image consultant would advise any woman to sit. (It has nothing to do with chubbiness.)
2. Barack Obama — at the point when I noticed — had his legs crossed with the left ankle on the right knee, a position that would look insane if taken by a woman in any remotely serious situation, even if she is wearing pants. It's very casual. Arguably, it was rude for Obama to have his foot way up there with the sole aimed at Hillary.
3. John Edwards was sitting with his legs apart and feet planted on the floor — what you might call a "wide stance." This too would look awful on a woman, even if she were wearing pants. It too seems casual, and many men look crude in that position, which in some situations — such as on a subway car — is inconsiderate because it hogs extra space.
Bonus: Scholarship! "World Distribution of Certain Postural Habits."
IN THE COMMENTS: People are saying it's not about fat at all. It's about testicles. Why did he say "I'm jealous of people who can" cross their legs then? But it is funnier that way.
ADDED: And here I am, the one with the reputation for being the first one to notice when the subject is genitalia. Anyway, as the Althouse Blog Historian Ruth Anne Adams points out in the comments, the photographic record is clear that females my age were taught to cross our legs at the ankles:
I'm the one in the white eyelet lace skirt following all the rules. (Enlarge.)
There was also -- I'm not going to say -- never mind, I'm not going to say it because all I'm going to do is make women mad, don't want to do that, making women mad is going to send -- all right, I'm going to say it, but I'm going to stop doing this in the future. After the first part of the debate, standing up there at those podiums and then they took a commercial break, and Blitzer came back and they were all sitting in chairs. I'm going to pay for this. See, this is the kind of thing that you're not supposed to say, that when you say this, all it does is drive people to Hillary, women especially. (sigh) But see, I'm not going to tease you, it's really unfair to say I'm going to say something and then not say it. So I'm going to say it now. She was the only one sitting there who could not cross her legs.At this point, he takes a break and then comes back doing a voice that the transcript calls his "new castrati impression." That is, he affects an effeminate male voice — and he doesn't mind seeming homophobic or not knowing how the singular and plural are formed in Italian. He doesn't care about the pedantic distinction between a podium and a lectern either, we just saw.
Anyway, in that voice, he's all:
"That's just horrible, Mr. Limbaugh! I can't believe you said that. That's just horrible. Why do you even notice things like that, Mr. Limbaugh? I can't believe you!"Back to the regular voice:
It's very simple, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a leg man. I'm jealous. I can't do it either. I can't cross my legs sitting in a chair like that. I'm jealous of people who can and I'm jealous of other people who don't, and it makes me feel better about myself, okay? I can't do it, either.So, Rush is fat, and everyone knows it, and some people say it in the most mocking way. And maybe that makes him think he's got license to call other people fat — especially if they're liberals.
Of course, he's being rude for some evil fun. But he's also ignorant, because there is a whole big thing about women not crossing their legs. It's both a health issue and a point of etiquette:
1. Crossing your legs at the knee is reputed to cause varicose veins and hip problems in women.
2. Women — at least women of a certain age — have been taught as a matter of etiquette to cross their legs at the ankles when they sit, and that is exactly what Hillary Clinton was doing at the debate.
I noticed the leg positions at the debate myself, because each of the 3 candidates were sitting differently:
1. Hillary had her legs exactly the way any good image consultant would advise any woman to sit. (It has nothing to do with chubbiness.)
2. Barack Obama — at the point when I noticed — had his legs crossed with the left ankle on the right knee, a position that would look insane if taken by a woman in any remotely serious situation, even if she is wearing pants. It's very casual. Arguably, it was rude for Obama to have his foot way up there with the sole aimed at Hillary.
3. John Edwards was sitting with his legs apart and feet planted on the floor — what you might call a "wide stance." This too would look awful on a woman, even if she were wearing pants. It too seems casual, and many men look crude in that position, which in some situations — such as on a subway car — is inconsiderate because it hogs extra space.
Bonus: Scholarship! "World Distribution of Certain Postural Habits."
IN THE COMMENTS: People are saying it's not about fat at all. It's about testicles. Why did he say "I'm jealous of people who can" cross their legs then? But it is funnier that way.
ADDED: And here I am, the one with the reputation for being the first one to notice when the subject is genitalia. Anyway, as the Althouse Blog Historian Ruth Anne Adams points out in the comments, the photographic record is clear that females my age were taught to cross our legs at the ankles:
I'm the one in the white eyelet lace skirt following all the rules. (Enlarge.)
The end of momentum.
Somehow, the laws of political physics have changed.
Mickey Kaus's theories:
1. "[L]ate-focusing voters tune in to what the press is saying in, say, the two days before their state's election, which is usually something different from what the press says in the two days after the previous state's election."
2. "[V]oter rebellion against what the press says--Huck's Hot! Barack Rock Star!--and it's overdetermined."
Surely, we can think up some more theories. I'll start:
1. As long as we think a particular candidate isn't going to win, we feel free to embrace him, but once we see him realistically as President, we get cold feet.
2. When a candidate is first emerging, he has more control over his image and can make us like him, but if he's the frontrunner, his opponents do what they can to make him look bad.
3. ...
Mickey Kaus's theories:
1. "[L]ate-focusing voters tune in to what the press is saying in, say, the two days before their state's election, which is usually something different from what the press says in the two days after the previous state's election."
2. "[V]oter rebellion against what the press says--Huck's Hot! Barack Rock Star!--and it's overdetermined."
Surely, we can think up some more theories. I'll start:
1. As long as we think a particular candidate isn't going to win, we feel free to embrace him, but once we see him realistically as President, we get cold feet.
2. When a candidate is first emerging, he has more control over his image and can make us like him, but if he's the frontrunner, his opponents do what they can to make him look bad.
3. ...
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
"Mr. Ledger magically and mysteriously disappears beneath the skin of his lean, sinewy character."
"It is a great screen performance, as good as the best of Marlon Brando and Sean Penn."
Dead at 28. Heath Ledger.
IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo writes:
Dead at 28. Heath Ledger.
IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo writes:
My 15 year old son was quite shaken by this. He loves the movies. We both liked him in the ones already mentioned.Here's the video. I knew right away what you were talking about because I was looking for a clip to include with the original post. After watching it, I decided it wasn't the tone I was looking for.
But he was mostly waiting to see him in Batman, feverishly following all the viral teasers the studio has thrown out over the internet....
I don't know what happened to Ledger; we'll hear soon enough. My son had seen a recent interview that suggested something wasn't quite right with Mr. Ledger, all jittery and picking at his arms....
A bomb-making factory is discovered in a Columbia professor's house — 3 blocks from where I live.
From The Daily News (via Michelle Malkin):
UPDATE: What is Clatt's connection to all this?
Cops evacuated the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood around the Remsen St. home of Michael Clatts, a medical anthropologist, after finding seven pipe bombs fitted with fuses in his flat, police sources said.
The frightening cache was discovered almost by accident - Ivaylo Ivanov, the man living with Clatts, accidentally shot off the tip of his left index finger and sought police help in the street about 1:15 a.m.
When investigators went to the 37-year-old Ivanov's apartment, they found the bombs, already capped on both ends and filled with powder. One of the pipe bombs was inserted into a Nerf football, cops said.
A 9-mm. handgun, two ammunition magazines, a 12-gauge shotgun, silencers, a bulletproof vest, a crossbow and bomb-making equipment, including a drill and threading machine that could be used to make pipe bombs, were also recovered, cops said.
Investigators with the NYPD-FBI were questioning Ivanov, a native of Bulgaria, to determine whether he had any terrorism or Russian Mafia connections, a source told the Daily News.
"Russian Mafia aren't fazed by getting a fingertip shot off - and they certainly don't go to the cops for help," the source said.
UPDATE: What is Clatt's connection to all this?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers picked up the researcher, Michael Clatts, at John F. Kennedy International Airport yesterday morning as he was returning from Vietnam, where he had been conducting a research project for the National Institute on Drug Abuse....
Customs officers took Mr. Clatts to the Downtown Brooklyn precinct, where he refused to speak with detectives working on the case. Instead, he requested his lawyer be called and was later released....
Several neighbors in the building said they believed that Mr. Clatts would have been unaware of his roommate's alleged involvement in the crimes. Mr. Clatts travels often for his work, his neighbors have said, and he was not believed to be in the apartment this week when the arsenal was found.
Fred Thompson: "Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States."
Good-bye, Fred:
"I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."Thanks for putting in the effort... to the extent that you did. Now, nestle back into that comfy chair and enjoy the hijinks like the rest of us.
"Bill Clinton "is rather a master of what one might call 'strategic emotion,' the use of tears or anger to comfort voters or intimidate the press."
Blogs Matthew Continetti at the NYT:
During his presidency Clinton lashed out at, among others, then-ABC White House correspondent Brit Hume in 1993; reporters who continued to raise questions about his involvement with Monica Lewinsky in 1998; and the Senate Republicans who rejected the 1999 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
These days the former president’s "outbursts" serve a dual purpose: they lend the impression that Senator Clinton is the insurgent running against the media-supported Obama, while also creating the illusion that it is the former president, not his wife, who is actually the candidate for the Democratic nomination. Far from hurting Senator Clinton — who also understands how to deploy strategic emotion, as we saw before the New Hampshire Democratic primary — former President Clinton effectively has rallied a coalition of Democrats to her cause.
"Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks."
"But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself."
Josh Marshall on last night's debate.
(My comments on the subject are back here, delivered contemporaneously.)
Josh Marshall on last night's debate.
(My comments on the subject are back here, delivered contemporaneously.)
Oscar nominations — in a few moments.
Are you excited? Vaguely interested? Actively hostile?
UPDATE: The whole list should be here soon. I'll just say that I loved Julie Christie in "Away From Her" — so I'm glad to see she got nominated, though I hope she won't win just because she played a character whose brain was not functioning properly. (The Academites reward that sort of thing too much.) And I like seeing recognition for my 2 favorite actors — Daniel Day-Lewis and Johnny Depp. Let's make a short list of movies to see before the awards ceremony: "There Will Be Blood," "No Country for Old Men," "Juno," and "Atonement." I doubt if I'll bother with them all. And if they aren't going to put on a big show... well, there's so much less reason to bother.
UPDATE: The whole list should be here soon. I'll just say that I loved Julie Christie in "Away From Her" — so I'm glad to see she got nominated, though I hope she won't win just because she played a character whose brain was not functioning properly. (The Academites reward that sort of thing too much.) And I like seeing recognition for my 2 favorite actors — Daniel Day-Lewis and Johnny Depp. Let's make a short list of movies to see before the awards ceremony: "There Will Be Blood," "No Country for Old Men," "Juno," and "Atonement." I doubt if I'll bother with them all. And if they aren't going to put on a big show... well, there's so much less reason to bother.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Another debate? Democrats... CNN...
Wolf Blitzer is still blabbing... 8 minutes into it! He's stumbling oddly. What the hell?
8:23 ET: Clinton sounds stressed and intense. When Obama speaks, she turns and faces him, as if her sheer presence might intimidate him. When it's her turn, she challenges him on multiple grounds, including his recent praise of Reagan.
8:26: Obama tries to respond, and Hillary interrupts him and denies that she referred to his statement about Reagan. She's trying to throw him off and make him lose his cool. He'd started out the debate seeming quite relaxed, maybe too relaxed. Now, he's sizzling. Edwards is begging to get a chance to speak. But Hillary has been attacked, so she has the right to respond. "We're just getting warmed up," she says with some relish. It gets very tense, but at some point both Hillary and Obama are saying that Reagan's ideas may have been distinctive and transformative, but they were bad ideas. Shaking things up, Hillary throws in the charge that Obama represented a "slum landlord" in Chicago. Obama fails to insist on his right to respond, and Blitzer picks this point to let Edwards in. Obama was wronged there, I think.
8:39: Lots of talk about the mortgage problems, and then Blitzer goes back to the "slum landlord" issue and gives Obama a chance to respond. (Not that he has much to say about it... which is perhaps why he didn't demand response time earlier.)
8:43: "You never take responsibility for any vote," says Hillary to Obama. She keeps up the pressure, accusing him of always having an "explanation" for his bad votes. There are all those "present" votes, she says, and we need a straight answer. Hillary came into this debate well-armed, and she's succeeding in throwing him off. Obama is sweating visibly.
9:04: "Of course, the surge was able to pacify some parts of Iraq" — Hillary slips in the concession that the surge worked, even as she is saying that there is no military solution. It just goes to show you can say everything if you really try.
9:07: Edwards wants to know if the others will commit — as he has — to removing all combat troops from Iraq in their first year. Obama goes first and blows a lot of smoke. I don't hear a "yes." Blitzer doesn't pin him down. Was that a yes or a no? Now, it's Hillary's turn, and she waffles too. But, to me, Edwards is the one with the worst substantive position here. Nevertheless, I must say that Obama and Hillary were asked a simple question, neither answered, and they got away with it.
9:11: After the break: Fisticuffs!
9:15: We return from commercials to see that they are rearranging the furniture. Wolf Blitzer informs us that they are rearranging the furniture. I'm annoyed. They had plenty of time to rearrange the furniture during the commercials. Why am I supposed to watch them rearrange furniture? Of course, the break isn't over. This was pure fakery. We're supposed to be titillated by Wolf's repeated assertions that after the break there will be no rules. So put up with some more break, will you?
9:23: Hillary says she's on a "mission." I think the other 2 said they were on a mission as well. This "no rules" part of the debate seems like squishy blather. Or is it me, losing my focus?
9:28: "A race where you've got an African American, a woman... and John."
9:31: "Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black President?" Funny to hear Obama asked that straight out. Bill Clinton had a great "affinity" for black people, he says. He goes on about white southern men, growing up through changing times in the south. Hillary nods knowingly in the background. Obama: "I would have to investigate more Bill's dancing abilities... before I could accurately judge whether he is in fact a brother."
9:40: Is Bill Clinton too big of a presence in Hillary's campaign? Blah, blah, blah, "at the end of the day," blah, blah, blah, she's the one who is running for President. And "ultimately, it's really not about any of us"... it's about people... and their stories... Total non-answer. Ridiculous.
9:47: Edwards: Who will be tough enough and strong enough? Who can go everywhere in America and compete — head to head — with John McCain? I give him credit for trying. In this context, how is he supposed to say the white man is the best bet?
9:51: Obama says he can beat John McCain too. He can "attract independents and some Republicans." Yeah! Obama is the one of the 3 who's most likely to interest non-Democrats, because he's a different kind of candidate. And Hillary can get some because she's more of a centrist. Edwards is the least likely to get them, I think. For some reason, Obama announces that he's "a proud Christian" and gets big applause. "A proud Christian" — is that a good phrase? I thought "pride" was a sin.
10:00: Doesn't this thing end after 2 hours? One more question... "on this important day." Why would Martin Luther King — if he were alive today, and unfortunately he's not — vote for you? Edwards: poverty, poverty, poverty. This question provided on more opportunity for Edwards to say "poverty." Obama: "I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us." I like that. Hillary: change, values, blah, blah... And it's over.
POST-DEBATE UPDATE: Here's video — via Instapundit — of that first big interchange between Hillary and Obama:
Obama quote I noticed this time: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes." This was after Hillary claimed she never mentioned Ronald Reagan and brushed off whatever Bill may have said.
8:23 ET: Clinton sounds stressed and intense. When Obama speaks, she turns and faces him, as if her sheer presence might intimidate him. When it's her turn, she challenges him on multiple grounds, including his recent praise of Reagan.
8:26: Obama tries to respond, and Hillary interrupts him and denies that she referred to his statement about Reagan. She's trying to throw him off and make him lose his cool. He'd started out the debate seeming quite relaxed, maybe too relaxed. Now, he's sizzling. Edwards is begging to get a chance to speak. But Hillary has been attacked, so she has the right to respond. "We're just getting warmed up," she says with some relish. It gets very tense, but at some point both Hillary and Obama are saying that Reagan's ideas may have been distinctive and transformative, but they were bad ideas. Shaking things up, Hillary throws in the charge that Obama represented a "slum landlord" in Chicago. Obama fails to insist on his right to respond, and Blitzer picks this point to let Edwards in. Obama was wronged there, I think.
8:39: Lots of talk about the mortgage problems, and then Blitzer goes back to the "slum landlord" issue and gives Obama a chance to respond. (Not that he has much to say about it... which is perhaps why he didn't demand response time earlier.)
8:43: "You never take responsibility for any vote," says Hillary to Obama. She keeps up the pressure, accusing him of always having an "explanation" for his bad votes. There are all those "present" votes, she says, and we need a straight answer. Hillary came into this debate well-armed, and she's succeeding in throwing him off. Obama is sweating visibly.
9:04: "Of course, the surge was able to pacify some parts of Iraq" — Hillary slips in the concession that the surge worked, even as she is saying that there is no military solution. It just goes to show you can say everything if you really try.
9:07: Edwards wants to know if the others will commit — as he has — to removing all combat troops from Iraq in their first year. Obama goes first and blows a lot of smoke. I don't hear a "yes." Blitzer doesn't pin him down. Was that a yes or a no? Now, it's Hillary's turn, and she waffles too. But, to me, Edwards is the one with the worst substantive position here. Nevertheless, I must say that Obama and Hillary were asked a simple question, neither answered, and they got away with it.
9:11: After the break: Fisticuffs!
9:15: We return from commercials to see that they are rearranging the furniture. Wolf Blitzer informs us that they are rearranging the furniture. I'm annoyed. They had plenty of time to rearrange the furniture during the commercials. Why am I supposed to watch them rearrange furniture? Of course, the break isn't over. This was pure fakery. We're supposed to be titillated by Wolf's repeated assertions that after the break there will be no rules. So put up with some more break, will you?
9:23: Hillary says she's on a "mission." I think the other 2 said they were on a mission as well. This "no rules" part of the debate seems like squishy blather. Or is it me, losing my focus?
9:28: "A race where you've got an African American, a woman... and John."
9:31: "Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black President?" Funny to hear Obama asked that straight out. Bill Clinton had a great "affinity" for black people, he says. He goes on about white southern men, growing up through changing times in the south. Hillary nods knowingly in the background. Obama: "I would have to investigate more Bill's dancing abilities... before I could accurately judge whether he is in fact a brother."
9:40: Is Bill Clinton too big of a presence in Hillary's campaign? Blah, blah, blah, "at the end of the day," blah, blah, blah, she's the one who is running for President. And "ultimately, it's really not about any of us"... it's about people... and their stories... Total non-answer. Ridiculous.
9:47: Edwards: Who will be tough enough and strong enough? Who can go everywhere in America and compete — head to head — with John McCain? I give him credit for trying. In this context, how is he supposed to say the white man is the best bet?
9:51: Obama says he can beat John McCain too. He can "attract independents and some Republicans." Yeah! Obama is the one of the 3 who's most likely to interest non-Democrats, because he's a different kind of candidate. And Hillary can get some because she's more of a centrist. Edwards is the least likely to get them, I think. For some reason, Obama announces that he's "a proud Christian" and gets big applause. "A proud Christian" — is that a good phrase? I thought "pride" was a sin.
10:00: Doesn't this thing end after 2 hours? One more question... "on this important day." Why would Martin Luther King — if he were alive today, and unfortunately he's not — vote for you? Edwards: poverty, poverty, poverty. This question provided on more opportunity for Edwards to say "poverty." Obama: "I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us." I like that. Hillary: change, values, blah, blah... And it's over.
POST-DEBATE UPDATE: Here's video — via Instapundit — of that first big interchange between Hillary and Obama:
Obama quote I noticed this time: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes." This was after Hillary claimed she never mentioned Ronald Reagan and brushed off whatever Bill may have said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
