Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Where in the World
do you put a state run casino if you're the state of Minnesota? At the horse track, of course. Which to me makes no sense.
Setting aside my opinion about whether we actually need any more gambling establishments here (that opinion is no, especially when the state is running it), why build a damn casino right next to one already operating? To compete for the same customers that are going to Mystic Lake? Why not place the thing somewhere else in the metro, say, Plymouth or Maple Grove? That way gamblers in the northwest metro don't have to go all the way to Shakopee to indulge.
In any case if the people of the state of Minnesota want more money spent on government that what the current tax system brings in, the proper solution is to suck it up and raise taxes to cover the spending. Better yet, don't spend the extra money in the first place.
|
Setting aside my opinion about whether we actually need any more gambling establishments here (that opinion is no, especially when the state is running it), why build a damn casino right next to one already operating? To compete for the same customers that are going to Mystic Lake? Why not place the thing somewhere else in the metro, say, Plymouth or Maple Grove? That way gamblers in the northwest metro don't have to go all the way to Shakopee to indulge.
In any case if the people of the state of Minnesota want more money spent on government that what the current tax system brings in, the proper solution is to suck it up and raise taxes to cover the spending. Better yet, don't spend the extra money in the first place.
|
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Cassini Picture of the Day
Just because I feel like it, here's another Cassini photograph from Saturn:
Cool!
|
Cool!
|
Tories in Trouble
The British Conservative Party must be pretty pathetic if even the hecklers have to be hired. Perhaps they could borrow some of Ann Coulter's.
The BBC has some 'splaining to do.
(via Instapundit)
|
The BBC has some 'splaining to do.
(via Instapundit)
|
A Slow Opinion Day at the Strib
It must be a slow day for the opinion writers at the Star Tribune today, since they headlined today's Op-Ex section with the Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Death Match. I mean, three pieces on the subject with two of them on the front page of the section. They can be found here, here, and here.
I don't want to disappoint the fellows who picked the theme, but I would guess the debate between supporters of evolution and supporters of the theory of intelligent design ranks well below the the top 10 issues of most importance to the average Minnesotan. Moreover, if this is just an attempt to alert the gullible Minnesota public to the Evil Plan TM of the NeoconRethuglicans to establish a theocracy, not to worry. The chances of the teaching of evolution being banned in our schools in favor of intelligent design is about the same as our Timberwolves winning this season's NBA championship.
|
I don't want to disappoint the fellows who picked the theme, but I would guess the debate between supporters of evolution and supporters of the theory of intelligent design ranks well below the the top 10 issues of most importance to the average Minnesotan. Moreover, if this is just an attempt to alert the gullible Minnesota public to the Evil Plan TM of the NeoconRethuglicans to establish a theocracy, not to worry. The chances of the teaching of evolution being banned in our schools in favor of intelligent design is about the same as our Timberwolves winning this season's NBA championship.
|
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The Liquor Cabinet
At the Frater's place this list of additions to JB Doubtless' liquor cabinet happend to catch my eye. After the pangs of regret at missing the chance to buy reduced-tax booze passed, I got to thinking about how I would change the contents of his shopping cart. So here's my roadmap to happy, long term inebriation:
I wonder how much I could have stiffed the state for?
|
- One bottle of Lagavullin
- One bottle of Glenmorangie 15 year old
- One bottle of Talisker
- One bottle of Absolut
- One bottle of Booker's
- One bottle of Basil Hayden's
- One six pack of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
- One six pack of Newcastle Brown Ale
- One six pack of Kingfisher lager
- One six pack of Harp
- One bottle of Jameson Gold
- One bottle of the Tyrconnell Irish single malt
- One bottle of Bailey's Irish Creme
- One gallon Chippewa Springs bottled water
I wonder how much I could have stiffed the state for?
|
Compromise, Democrat Style
The Star Tribune ran a Tom Teepen piece that attempts to make the case that the proper course in resolving the Senate impasse over appellate judges is to give the Democrats what they want. He claims that the Dems are just being good citizens and in a neutral, non-partisan fashion are objecting to Bush's appellate picks because (in his words):
What he doesn't tell us is the Democrats have adopted the up to now-unheard of tactic of filibustering judicial nominations to prevent a floor vote, and he never explains how these nominees are "too thinly qualified or as bearing records that fix their jurisprudence far outside the mainstream".
Since Mr. Teepen neglected to do this, let me point you to an article from a liberal law professor who has looked at the President"s nominees. He comes to a rather different conclusion about their qualifications.
(Link courtesy of Jewish World Review)
Update: I removed a reference to the number of appellate nominations made by President Bush because I may have used the wrong number. Since I don't have the right number handy, I changed the post rather than leave the error in place.
|
Senate Democrats, resorting to the filibuster that requires a 60-vote majority, have balked at only 10 Bush picks, all for appellate benches -- and all for cause, as either too thinly qualified or as bearing records that fix their jurisprudence far outside the mainstream.
What he doesn't tell us is the Democrats have adopted the up to now-unheard of tactic of filibustering judicial nominations to prevent a floor vote, and he never explains how these nominees are "too thinly qualified or as bearing records that fix their jurisprudence far outside the mainstream".
Since Mr. Teepen neglected to do this, let me point you to an article from a liberal law professor who has looked at the President"s nominees. He comes to a rather different conclusion about their qualifications.
(Link courtesy of Jewish World Review)
Update: I removed a reference to the number of appellate nominations made by President Bush because I may have used the wrong number. Since I don't have the right number handy, I changed the post rather than leave the error in place.
|
Monday, April 18, 2005
Nasty Nick Coleman
I don't think Nick Coleman is a dumb person. A hack for the DFL yes, but he's not a dumb person. He does however seem to have a mean streak of the more petty kind, which he puts on display in Sunday's Star Tribune (previous posts about Coleman's writing style here and here). Nick, we understand that you are foursquare in favor of gay marriage, and that Senator Bachmann's ducking behind a hedge to avoid confronting some pro-homosexual protesters is somewhat funny. Problem is , writing a column about it that is actually funny requires more talent than the one that came up with the label "Senator Sneak". But since the topic of labeling now has come up, from now on I'll just refer to you as "Nasty Nick", or maybe "Nitwit Nick", or even "Catty Coleman".
|
|
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Now for Something Out of This World...
Just before signing off for the evening, I'd like to mention that the Cassini spacecraft is still orbiting Saturn and still taking pictures. This one is an infrared one of the moon Enceladus. NASA's journal page for Enceladus is here.
The blue color is water ice. I don't know much about the rest of them yet.
Update: Here's a link to a NASA archive of Cassini-Huygens pictures.
|
The blue color is water ice. I don't know much about the rest of them yet.
Update: Here's a link to a NASA archive of Cassini-Huygens pictures.
|
Friday, April 15, 2005
When you can't argue the facts,
argue the law. If you can't argue the facts or the law, attack the other lawyer. That's the phrase that came to mind upon reading this piece by C. Ford Runge in today's Star Tribune. He didn't really engage her position on the issue of gay marriage, he just tried to ridicule her and imply that she is so conservative as to be unbalanced. One would think a distinguished law professor could actually argue on the merits of her primary arguments. Instead, he writes about where Sen. Bachmann got her law degree, and quotes people who disagree with her, plus a few cherry picked quotes from her.
Why not just argue the merits? If her concerns about the federal judiciary and academic freedom on campuses are unfounded, show us why. Don't just use cheap debater's tricks.
Note: I don't know much about Sen. Bachmann nor do I have much of an opinion on the merits of same sex marriage, other than the issue should be decided by the legislature or the people directly rather than the courts, an argument that I made here a while back.
|
Why not just argue the merits? If her concerns about the federal judiciary and academic freedom on campuses are unfounded, show us why. Don't just use cheap debater's tricks.
Note: I don't know much about Sen. Bachmann nor do I have much of an opinion on the merits of same sex marriage, other than the issue should be decided by the legislature or the people directly rather than the courts, an argument that I made here a while back.
|
A Lefty's Advice to the Left
Originally I was planning to write a longer post about this Dissent article from Michael Walzer, who made a few waves with "Can There Be A Decent Left" (also in Dissent, and well worth reading). However after reading it became clear that this is another article that can be condensed down to : if the liberal left wants to ever gain power in this country, those who represent it will need to convince Americans that the Left a) understands how to defend this nation better than the other guys, and b) is actually willing to do so. In other words look back to the attitude of the Truman Democrats. He uses a lot more words to say it, though. It's good advice, as far as it goes.
The thing about the article that bugs me is the way he makes a lot of the usual leftist accusations about the right and the Republican party without anything to back them up. The ones about the right and it's henchmen being only about greed, fear, religious fanaticism, only about ideology while the left is pragmatic, yada yada yada. It's dull, boring, and insulting, and I'm not even a Republican (not conservative enough). What is it about the lefties that causes them to view those who disagree with them to be not just wrong, but bad people? I mean, what is it that prevents many lefties from at least conceding the other side also wants to make America better, but disagree on the methods? Yes, some on the right do the same thing, but in my humble opinion it is more common on the left.
|
The thing about the article that bugs me is the way he makes a lot of the usual leftist accusations about the right and the Republican party without anything to back them up. The ones about the right and it's henchmen being only about greed, fear, religious fanaticism, only about ideology while the left is pragmatic, yada yada yada. It's dull, boring, and insulting, and I'm not even a Republican (not conservative enough). What is it about the lefties that causes them to view those who disagree with them to be not just wrong, but bad people? I mean, what is it that prevents many lefties from at least conceding the other side also wants to make America better, but disagree on the methods? Yes, some on the right do the same thing, but in my humble opinion it is more common on the left.
|
Monday, April 11, 2005
April 15th, 1945
What price is so high that we do not end things like this? Outside of avoiding war involving use of WMDs, I can't think of many offhand. (Link thanks to LGF.)
|
|
Saturday, April 09, 2005
The WSJ on Sandy Berger
This WSJ editorial about the deal cut by the Justice Department with Sandy Berger over his sneaking classified material out of the National Archives. Their willingness to cut Berger slack puzzles me. Here's some of their reasoning:
If the offender is a "high powered political figure", they should get more lenient treatment, according to the Journal. I argue that since Mr. Berger was indeed a high-ranking government official experienced in handling classified material who chose to unlawfully remove them from the Archives, he should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for his actions and should actually be punished more harshly. Permanently revoking his security clearances, and sending him to jail for awhile seem to me penalties more appropriate to his offenses.
|
After a long investigation,Apparently convenience justified stealing documents and then deliberately lying about it when he got caught in the Journal's view, as long as he didn't "deny any documents to history". Note that it doesn't bother them that lesser officials committing lesser offenses are treated more harshly. Why? Here's the Journal again:
however, Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and
recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not
trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to
prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow
above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and
that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them
out.
More than a few conservatives have been crying foul, or whitewash, in
part because Mr. Berger's plea means he'll likely avoid jail and lose his
security clearance for only three years. So we called Justice Department Public
Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not
deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy
originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy
originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of
all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11
Commission."
It's worth noting that Mr. Berger will
still have to explain his actions to a judge at sentencing--a judge who could
reject Justice's recommendation and give him to up a year in jail. We hope the
judge does insist on a full explanation of motive. Lesser officials have
received harsher penalties for more minor transgressions, so a complete airing
of the facts will show the public that justice is being done. But given the
minimal damage from the crime, this looks to be a case where prosecutors have
shown some commendable restraint against a high-powered political
figure.
If the offender is a "high powered political figure", they should get more lenient treatment, according to the Journal. I argue that since Mr. Berger was indeed a high-ranking government official experienced in handling classified material who chose to unlawfully remove them from the Archives, he should be held to a higher standard of responsibility for his actions and should actually be punished more harshly. Permanently revoking his security clearances, and sending him to jail for awhile seem to me penalties more appropriate to his offenses.
|
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
It Lives!
My Windows 98 partition, that is. It is deaf and dumb to the internet, but at least it boots. I did learn a few things while attempting to reinstall it.
1. You reboot. A lot.
2. If you're not rebooting it, it is rebooting itself
3. Windows 98 does not like being installed over a damaged copy of itself.
4. format c: fixes that problem.
5. It's a good thing I didn't have any important data on that partition.
6. Partition Magic is a very useful tool to have around.
7. So is Boot Magic.
8. It's gonna take a long time to download and reinstall all the security patches from the past seven years.
9. See #1 above.
|
1. You reboot. A lot.
2. If you're not rebooting it, it is rebooting itself
3. Windows 98 does not like being installed over a damaged copy of itself.
4. format c: fixes that problem.
5. It's a good thing I didn't have any important data on that partition.
6. Partition Magic is a very useful tool to have around.
7. So is Boot Magic.
8. It's gonna take a long time to download and reinstall all the security patches from the past seven years.
9. See #1 above.
|
Monday, April 04, 2005
This is a Public Service Announcement
to the very small part of the public that actually visits this place. The will be little or no posting here the next few days while I am recovering the home PC from a Windows Update related disaster that prevents my PC from booting into Windows. Fortunately my Mandrake Linux partition is OK (which allows me to make this post) , but since I need Windows for work it looks like the long delayed Win98 re-install here at the estate is about to happen.
In more useful news, today is Opening Day for the Minnesota Twins and most of Major League Baseball. More proof for the existence of God. Also that He has a sense of humor.
|
In more useful news, today is Opening Day for the Minnesota Twins and most of Major League Baseball. More proof for the existence of God. Also that He has a sense of humor.
|
Saturday, April 02, 2005
From the Strib's letters page
From today's Star Tribune letters page:
I have one word to describe the content of this letter: nonsense. I don't normally reference letters to the Strib, but this one just annoys me to no end. Look at the almost complete stream of nonsense in this letter:
They still do. About 703,000 in fiscal year 2003, not counting the illegal immigrants. Source link:
http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/2003/ImmTable01FY03.xls
You felt free to get this published in a pretty good sized regional newspaper, so I guess that you are not expecting jack-booted Republican thugs to bash in your door and haul you off to a Bush re-education camp. Now if this a particular fantasy of yours I'm sure it can be arranged to send some faux-Nazi types to your home to give you a thrill, however.
How is this a change? Same-sex partners have never been allowed to marry here, until some arrogant judges on the MA Supreme Judicial Court decreed otherwise. Whether it is a good idea or not is open to question, but same-sex marriage is a departure from the norm in this country, and if it became the norm would be a good example of how the country has changed.
A reference to the Terri Schiavo case, I expect. Let me point out one thing here. The crux of the matter was that Ms. Schiavo was unable to decide the issue for herself. The issue was who would decide, which in this country has always been contentious. Not a good example to make the point.
No doubt a reference to abortion. Unless it was done in secret, I am unaware that Roe v. Wade had been overturned. Unfortunately.
This is probably another reference to the Schiavo case. In what has it affected freedom of religion? I would argue none, unless one counts panicked editorials from the Star Tribune proclaiming religious people have taken over the government.
Yes. An actual point.
The fact this letter was printed contradicts this one. The writer's examples in every case except one actually contradict his/her case. Enough said.
|
Land of the free?Name withheld to spare the author - ed.People used to come to America to escape persecution. Boy, have times changed.
Disagree with the administration? Not here. Want to marry your same-sex partner? Not here. Want to decide end-of-life issues for yourself? Not here. Want to allow smoking in the business you own? Not here. Want control of your own body? Not here. Want freedom from religion or freedom of religion? Not here. Want freedom of speech? Not here.
This country is becoming a frightening place to live. People are forcing their beliefs on others and stomping on the Bill of Rights.
I have one word to describe the content of this letter: nonsense. I don't normally reference letters to the Strib, but this one just annoys me to no end. Look at the almost complete stream of nonsense in this letter:
People used to come to America to escape persecution. Boy, have times changed.
They still do. About 703,000 in fiscal year 2003, not counting the illegal immigrants. Source link:
http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/2003/ImmTable01FY03.xls
Disagree with the administration? Not here.
You felt free to get this published in a pretty good sized regional newspaper, so I guess that you are not expecting jack-booted Republican thugs to bash in your door and haul you off to a Bush re-education camp. Now if this a particular fantasy of yours I'm sure it can be arranged to send some faux-Nazi types to your home to give you a thrill, however.
Want to marry your same-sex partner? Not here.
How is this a change? Same-sex partners have never been allowed to marry here, until some arrogant judges on the MA Supreme Judicial Court decreed otherwise. Whether it is a good idea or not is open to question, but same-sex marriage is a departure from the norm in this country, and if it became the norm would be a good example of how the country has changed.
Want to decide end-of-life issues for yourself? Not here.
A reference to the Terri Schiavo case, I expect. Let me point out one thing here. The crux of the matter was that Ms. Schiavo was unable to decide the issue for herself. The issue was who would decide, which in this country has always been contentious. Not a good example to make the point.
Want control of your own body? Not here.
No doubt a reference to abortion. Unless it was done in secret, I am unaware that Roe v. Wade had been overturned. Unfortunately.
Want freedom from religion or freedom of religion? Not here.
This is probably another reference to the Schiavo case. In what has it affected freedom of religion? I would argue none, unless one counts panicked editorials from the Star Tribune proclaiming religious people have taken over the government.
Want to allow smoking in the business you own? Not here.
Yes. An actual point.
Want freedom of speech? Not here.
The fact this letter was printed contradicts this one. The writer's examples in every case except one actually contradict his/her case. Enough said.
|
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Today's Dumb Star Tribune Stuff
There are two items in today's Star Tribune that merit comment. The first is a Steve Sack cartoon criticizing, lo and behold, Jesse Jackson for being too eager to get himself in front of a TV camera. It's taken Sack and the Strib this long to notice? Of course it may be that he chose to side with Schindler family in the Schiavo mess, so the Strib may feel he's betrayed them. Don't worry folks, I'm sure he'll get back to his regular GOP-bashing very soon.
The second item is an extremely one-sided, somewhat incoherent editorial on the Terri Schiavo case. It seems to have the following points:
That Christian extremism is a danger to the United States. Their evidence - Paul Krugman says so, the people demonstrating in support of Terri Schiavo and her parents, Republican (but not Democratic) support for a law to request a Federal court review of her case, pharmacists who decide their conscience will not allow them to dispense birth control and morning after pills in the way the Strib approves of, and last but not least consideration of changing filibuster rules to end Democratic obstruction of appeals court judicial nominations. I fail to understand how that adds up to imminent theocracy, but we'll look at them just the same.
First , the Krugman argument. Krugman thinks anything GOP is extremist, and has a peculiar notion of what's dangerous. The idea of these various groups of people acting peacefully on their convictions seems to scare him (and the Strib) for some reason. After all neither the Strib nor Krugman objected to people acting on their disagreements with the Iraq war or globalization, or siding with Islamic fascists who oppose the very rights that liberals and the left claim to favor. And the Schiavo protestors were relatively polite, even. I didn't notice anyone advocating theocracy out there, for that matter Could it be the Strib and Krugman just have different standards for those who disagree with them?
As far as the pharmacists, I should point out to the Strib the pharmacists they mentioned can choose to act on their convictions just like those on the left. It's called civil disobedience and if they are willing to pay the legal price, it's none of the Strib's business.
In the case of the judicial nominations, an alternative to the Strib and DFL version is that a majority of the Senate would approve these judges but the minority Democrats abused Senate procedure to gain an unconstitutional veto over the president's choice of judges. The Strib seems to think only liberal judges can be trusted to follow the law, whereas in at least one case - that of Judge Prior, he showed himself quite capable of enforcing laws that he disagrees with in the case of judge Roy Moore (no relation to Michael). Rubbish. The filibuster is a creation of Senate rules, not the Constitution and if it is abused by the minority, one can expect the majority to do something to curb the abuse.
The other thing the Strib brings up is Dr. Ronald Cranford, who in their eyes is the sole medical authority on the condition of Terri Schiavo. Apparently he cannot be disputed because he won an argument with a TV commentator. What they don't mention is the numerous neurologists who disagreed with his evaluation of Ms. Schiavo( see one's opinion here ). Apparently in the Strib's eyes the opinion of a TV talking head is more representative of the "know-nothings and charlatans who are waging war on law and reason and science and medicine in the United States." I guess that means that if you disagree with the Strib, you are not a "learned" person. How condescending. How intolerant. And wrong.
Update: I've included a link to the Sack cartoon now that one is available. I also wonder if I shouldn't change to title of this post to something along the lines of "The Strib's Fear of Religious Faith" or something.
|
The second item is an extremely one-sided, somewhat incoherent editorial on the Terri Schiavo case. It seems to have the following points:
That Christian extremism is a danger to the United States. Their evidence - Paul Krugman says so, the people demonstrating in support of Terri Schiavo and her parents, Republican (but not Democratic) support for a law to request a Federal court review of her case, pharmacists who decide their conscience will not allow them to dispense birth control and morning after pills in the way the Strib approves of, and last but not least consideration of changing filibuster rules to end Democratic obstruction of appeals court judicial nominations. I fail to understand how that adds up to imminent theocracy, but we'll look at them just the same.
First , the Krugman argument. Krugman thinks anything GOP is extremist, and has a peculiar notion of what's dangerous. The idea of these various groups of people acting peacefully on their convictions seems to scare him (and the Strib) for some reason. After all neither the Strib nor Krugman objected to people acting on their disagreements with the Iraq war or globalization, or siding with Islamic fascists who oppose the very rights that liberals and the left claim to favor. And the Schiavo protestors were relatively polite, even. I didn't notice anyone advocating theocracy out there, for that matter Could it be the Strib and Krugman just have different standards for those who disagree with them?
As far as the pharmacists, I should point out to the Strib the pharmacists they mentioned can choose to act on their convictions just like those on the left. It's called civil disobedience and if they are willing to pay the legal price, it's none of the Strib's business.
In the case of the judicial nominations, an alternative to the Strib and DFL version is that a majority of the Senate would approve these judges but the minority Democrats abused Senate procedure to gain an unconstitutional veto over the president's choice of judges. The Strib seems to think only liberal judges can be trusted to follow the law, whereas in at least one case - that of Judge Prior, he showed himself quite capable of enforcing laws that he disagrees with in the case of judge Roy Moore (no relation to Michael). Rubbish. The filibuster is a creation of Senate rules, not the Constitution and if it is abused by the minority, one can expect the majority to do something to curb the abuse.
The other thing the Strib brings up is Dr. Ronald Cranford, who in their eyes is the sole medical authority on the condition of Terri Schiavo. Apparently he cannot be disputed because he won an argument with a TV commentator. What they don't mention is the numerous neurologists who disagreed with his evaluation of Ms. Schiavo( see one's opinion here ). Apparently in the Strib's eyes the opinion of a TV talking head is more representative of the "know-nothings and charlatans who are waging war on law and reason and science and medicine in the United States." I guess that means that if you disagree with the Strib, you are not a "learned" person. How condescending. How intolerant. And wrong.
Update: I've included a link to the Sack cartoon now that one is available. I also wonder if I shouldn't change to title of this post to something along the lines of "The Strib's Fear of Religious Faith" or something.
|
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
The Father of American Rocketry
I don't have anything special to write today, other than speech pathology evaluations can be surprisingly unpleasant. It has something to do with the camera they shove through one's nose to look down one's throat, I think. But today I want to feature a different kind of photography. Million Monkeys Typing is in a rocketry frame of mind, so here are links to interesting rocketry photographs. The first is of Robert Goddard, along with a brief description of his work. The next two are photos of some of fruits of his research: the launch of Apollo 11 in July 1969 and the first launch of the first operational space shuttle, Columbia (here in a picture from better days). She was lost along with her crew on 01Feb2003. A combination history/memorial site of her last mission can be found here.
|
|
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
The Strib on Kofi Annan and Oil for Food
The Strib's Wednesday editorial (available Tuesday night on the web site) defends Kofi Annan from Senator Norm Coleman's call for the Secretary General to resign. I don't have the time to write about this item extensively this evening, but I would like to point out that the Strib is being inconsistent in defending Kofi Annan for the same kind of conduct that it regularly accuses President Bush of and condemns him for. They even equivalence Abu Ghraib and Oil for Food. Well, the Strib should remember that corruption in the Oil-for-PalacesFood program caused far more suffering than the soldiers at Abu Ghraib (as wrong as that was).
|
|
One man's peek at this year's Twins
Just wanted link this post about the Twins prospective lineup for this season. I'm not enough of a stats person (baseball stats seem to be a fairly esoteric thing) to properly appreciate Aaron Gleeman's analysis, but I like his writing anyway.
|
|
Bush Chaitred
The Star Tribune printed a piece by Jonathan Chait speculating the GOP will draft Dick Cheney to run for President in 2008. He holds this opinion despite the fact the Vice President has already stated he will not run for President. Since it is only just over 2 months into President Bush's second term Chait's speculations are worth somewhat less than the proverbial bucket of warm spit. However the guy just couldn't resist taking a personal shot at the president:
|
There's actually something refreshing and even noble about the desire to nominate Cheney. Critics of this administration, like me, tend to believe that Bush owes a great deal of his political support to his personality. In public Bush comes off as folksy, droppin' his g's and fixin' to clear brush at the old ranch. Although this persona strikes me as obviously fake, it strikes most Americans as genuine and wholesome. If he didn't have this regular-guy image, Bush could never get away with policies uniformly tilted toward the rich and the business lobby. That's exactly why Republicans chose Bush in the first place.The man just goes out of his way to call Bush a phony (and by implication a liar). It doesn't advance his argument in any way, unless implying the majority of voters who put him in office were stupid enough to be fooled by a charlatan of dubious intelligence is a crowd pleaser. Of course, given his personal feelings, expressed here (registration required) or here it's possible he can't just help himself. Just the kind of writer the Strib understands.
|
Monday, March 28, 2005
And Now for Something Completely Different
I don't follow this stuff as much as I like, but I am going to link to JPL's home page for the Deep Impact comet exploration mission. Deep Impact consists of two parts, a flyby spacecraft and a spacecraft that detaches from the flyby craft called the impactor, which does what one would expect from something called an "impactor". The scientist hope that by letting comet Tempel 1 run over the impactor at over 5 miles/sec they (and we) can learn what comets are made of. Could be they're made of stardust...
Anyway, here's the NASA mission page, too.
|
Anyway, here's the NASA mission page, too.
|
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Blogroll update
Just wanted to mention that I've added a few new inhabitants to the "Other Interesting Blogs" section of the blogroll. Welcome to David's Medienkritik, Le Monde Watch, Norman Geras, Harry's Place, and Winds of Change.
Update: I forgot Iberian Notes.
|
Update: I forgot Iberian Notes.
|
More Holiday Love from the Star Tribune
The Star Tribune elected to honor the Easter holiday by reprinting a cheap shot from the LA Times that attempts to make Tom DeLay into a hypocrite on the Schiavo affair. Rather than critique the piece myself, here's a link to Patterico's takedown of it, which is better done than what I would say anyhow.
|
|
Tiptoeing up to the Precipice
Lori Sturdevant almost, almost criticizes DFLers in today's Strib. Of course, she never quite gets there, but she almost manages to say something negative about the DFL senate majority:
|
Minnesota Senate DFLers learned at the feet of their longtime leader, Roger Moe, not to make a major move in the middle of a legislative session unless it helps set up the desired end game.So there must be some plausible end-of-session reason for the unusual budget-balancing bill the Senate majority popped out and passed last week -- however indecipherable it is now.
The bill the DFLers (sans Sen. Steve Kelley of Hopkins, who voted no) are boasting about this long weekend balances the state budget, all right -- in a way they themselves can't stand.
Now what she wants is higher taxes on Minnesotans who as a group are not exactly undertaxed to begin with, not a goal I agree with, but she at least recognizes the dishonesty in the Senate DFL's proposal. Too bad she just can't say it directly.
Contrast that to Garrison Keillor who on Easter just can't help but take a swipe at a fellow Christian.
The fate of Terri Schiavo is one that everybody over 50 has considered long ago. The particular hell of a living death is one our parents sought to avoid. They didn't ask us to suffocate them with a pillow, but they did make it clear that lying inert in a nursing home was not how they envisioned spending their twilight years. Twilight is supposed to be brief. They were crystal clear about this. The state courts of Florida, and now the federal courts, seem to be clear on this. What's not clear is the dramatic intervention of the president of the United States, striding into the White House after his last-minute flight from Texas, deciding to "err on the side of life." One hopes that he will go on to make even bigger mistakes in behalf of children who lack basic medical care, or in behalf of suicidal teenagers. All week the news was about lawyers and politicians and rhetorical flourishes and there was almost nothing about the woman herself or who she was, may she rest in peace.
Hey Gar, could you for just one day refrain from implying the president is a religious hypocrite? Does that just stretch the notion of Christian charity too much for you? May I suggest that you go back to Lake Woebegon and just stay there?
|
From the Now-I've-Heard-Everything Department
From John Rosenthal's Transatlantic Intelligencer, it appears that some of the left-wing opposition in France to the new European Union constitution is because it's an American plot. Damnit anyway, I told those guys at the CIA that they were being too obvious about this...
|
|
