No Oil for Pacifists
body{margin:0px;padding:0px;background:#ffffff;color:#111111;font-family:Lucida Grande,MS Sans Serif,Lucida Sans Unicode,Verdana,Geneva,Lucida,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;}
a:link{color:#B4445C;}
a:visited{color:#B4445C;}
a:active{color:#ff0000;}
#logo{padding:0px;margin:0px;}
div#mainClm{float:left;width:73%;padding:20px 3% 0px 5%;background:#ffffff;}
div#sideBar{margin:0px;padding:0px 10px 14px 10px;text-align:left;}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{padding:0px;margin:0px;}
h1{padding-left:3%;padding-top:20px;border-bottom:dotted 1px #000000;border-top:solid 6px #D3EAF2;color:#16A3C2;background:#eeeeee;font:bold 340%/0.8em Helvetica Neue Black Condensed,Arial Black,Arial,Sans-Serif;text-transform:lowercase;}
h2{color:#000000;font-weight:normal;font-family:Helvetica Neue Black Condensed,Arial Black,Arial,Sans-Serif;}
h3{margin:10px 0px 0px 0px;color:#333333;font-size:105%;}
h4{color:#FFC069;}
h6{color:#FFC069;font:normal 210% Helvetica Neue Black Condensed,Arial Black,Arial,Sans-Serif;text-align:right;text-transform:lowercase;}
#sideBar ul{margin:0px 0px 33px 0px;padding:0px 0px 0px 0px;list-style-type:none;font-size:80%;text-align:right;}
#sideBar li{margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;padding:0px 0px 0px 0px;list-style-type:none;font-size:80%;text-align:right;}
#description{padding:0px;margin:1em 12% 0px 5%;color:#ACB877;background:transparent;font-weight:light;font-size:80%;text-transform:uppercase;}
.blogPost{margin:0px 0px 30px 0px;font-size:100%;}
.blogPost strong{color:#000000;font-weight:bold;}
#sideBar ul a{padding:2px;margin:1px;width:100%;color:#999999;}
#sideBar ul a:link{color:#999999;}
#sideBar ul a:visited{color:#999999;}
#sideBar ul a:active{color:#ff0000;}
#sideBar ul a:hover{color:#E37C93;text-decoration:none;}
pre,code{color:#999999;}
strike{color:#999999;}
.bug{padding:5px;border:0px;}
.byline{padding:0px;margin:0px;color:#444444;font-size:80%;}
.byline a{color:#935781;text-decoration:none;}
.byline a:hover{text-decoration:underline;}
.BLOG_mobile_video_class{
display:none;
}
#header{padding:7px 0px 30px 0px;margin:23px 0px 0px 0px;border-top:1px solid #eeeeee;background:#ffffff;color:white;}
#bloggerBug{padding:30px 0px 0px 0px;}
@import url(http://www.blogger.com/css/navbar/classic.css);div.b-mobile {display:none;}
function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } }
No Oil for Pacifists
Aristotle-to-Ricardo-to-Hayek turn the double play way better than Plato-to-Rousseau-to-Rawls
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Picture of the Day
From Big Sur California, where there aren't enough Republicans to object to signs like this: source: Big Sur Spirit Garden
posted by Carl @ 10/15/2008 02:04:00 PM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Blame Canada
Well, not anymore.
posted by Carl @ 10/15/2008 10:57:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Lefty Follies
UPDATE: belowHow did a seven year-old girl from Connecticut get registered to vote? How did "Mickey Mouse" seek registration in Florida? How did Indianapolis, Indiana, wind up with 105% of its adult population registered to vote? Ask the Barack-connected, sign-up happy, pressure-group ACORN--and Obama. Don't bother asking the Department of Justice. As Assistant Village Idiot says, "This irks us to no end."BTW, has everyone forgotten earlier this year when lefties, three Supreme Court justices and the media insisted there was no evidence of vote fraud in Indiana?MORE:ACORN's contaminated Ohio too--says the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.(via Instapundit, reader OBH)
posted by Carl @ 10/15/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Depends On What You Mean By "Lobbyist"
The Obama campaign has raised around $500 million, but the Senator famously promised to eschew contributions from lobbyists. Leftists love him for it. Barack's pledge is more than a bit phony. By "lobbyists," Obama means only those who are federally registered as having lobbied Congress. That definition doesn't include in-house lobbyists, state lobbyists, or spouses of lobbyists (several of which have contributed). It doesn't cover people like me who lobby Executive Branch or "independent" agencies.1 And it doesn't extend to law firm partners who share in the revenues generated by their lobbyist partners' efforts.How much does that matter? Lots, according to this week's Legal Times: The polls aren’t the only thing favoring Sen. Barack Obama: D.C.’s top law firms have given the Democratic presidential nominee more than triple the cash they’ve donated to Republican Sen. John McCain.Big D.C. firms typically skew blue, but the divide is even wider than it was four years ago, when Sen. John Kerry and former Sen. John Edwards, a prominent former trial lawyer, made up the Democratic ticket. So far this election cycle, Washington-area lawyers and staff from the D.C. 20--Legal Times’ ranking of the District’s highest-grossing law offices--have given roughly $1.5 million to Obama and $450,000 to McCain. The Obama contributions already dwarf the $936,000 given by D.C. 20 firms to the Kerry-Edwards ticket at this point in 2004. The 2004 Republican ticket--led by President George W. Bush--had collected $483,000 during the same period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. . .Plaintiffs firms are another source of cash for Obama. They’ve typically favored Democratic candidates who have opposed Republican-backed efforts at tort reform. In 2004, prominent members of the plaintiffs bar rallied especially strongly around the Democratic ticket, partially thanks to Edwards. Plaintiffs lawyers played high-profile roles for Edwards’ 2004 and 2008 presidential bids.So, I hear you say, what about lawyers outside the Beltway? Well, they also skew 3:1 for Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (approx. $28 million for Obama; $9 million for McCain). The Legal Times lists the top D.C. and other lawyer contributors, grouped by law firm:  source: October 13th Legal TimesI'm not arguing against the right of a lawyer--like any other citizen--to support a candidate.2 I'm just arguing against hypocritical artifice.______________________1 By any laymans' definition, I lobby for a living. I have lobbied Congress in the past, and properly registered for those periods. But not recently, and accordingly am not now registered. So I could contribute to the Democrats: Obama's exclusion doesn't apply to former lobbyists.2 Indeed, how could I?--I work for a firm whose lawyers gave more to McCain than lawyers from any other DC firm, and whose lead partner is "a national co-chairman of Lawyers for McCain."
posted by Carl @ 10/15/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Job Market 2009
 (via reader Tim H.)
posted by Carl @ 10/15/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
From the One's Mouth
Right Wing News' John Hawkins updated his list of Obama quotes.
posted by Carl @ 10/14/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
From, incredibly enough, the New York Times: Market by market, square by square, the walls are beginning to come down. The miles of hulking blast walls, ugly but effective, were installed as a central feature of the surge of American troops to stop neighbors from killing one another."They protected against car bombs and drive-by attacks," said Adnan, 39, a vegetable seller in the once violent neighborhood of Dora, who argues that the walls now block the markets and the commerce that Baghdad needs to thrive. "Now it is safe."(via Instapundit)
posted by Carl @ 10/14/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Stormy Weather
I predicted the financial crisis would foster regulatory overkill and embolden those less committed to the free market. I also said the crisis doomed McCain and would elect Obama. I've shown the Obamessiah to be a far-left liberal, condescending and paternalistic to the core. Which means Washington soon will be swarming with debate-squelching "progressives," substituting their top-down certainty of what's best in place of countless individual decisions of the polity in a free market. Don't believe me? Well, Obama advisers Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein said so, in the April 17th Boston Globe: In a standard economic analysis of the mortgage market, the working hypothesis is that borrowers are capable of choosing the best mortgage for their financial circumstances.This assumption might have been reasonable back in the days when nearly every mortgage was a simple 30-year fixed-rate loan. It is now preposterous.Thaler and Sunstein want increased transparency, in the form of electronic loan documentation that easily can be evaluated against other lenders. This seems odd: if they believe consumers are incapable of understanding finance, more data are unlikely to help.In any event, especially should the crisis worsen, next year is looking like progressivism's Perfect Storm, says Ross Douthat in the Atlantic: The convergence of an economic crisis and complete Democratic control of Washington should alarm even those conservatives eager to wash their hands of the GOP. The best reason for even the most disaffected right-winger to root for a McCain victory is simple: To the extent that much of the progressive agenda is a program in search of a crisis to justify its implementation, an election that delivers a liberal candidate who's adored by the media to White House, gives him huge majorities in both houses of Congress, and presents him with a worldwide state of emergency in which to govern, has the potential to be not just another loss for conservatives, but a once-in-a-generation defeat.Meaning that the nanny state is back or, if it hadn't gone, will be locked-in. That can't be good for the economy.
posted by Carl @ 10/14/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
5 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Monday, October 13, 2008
Barking Mad
Lefties adopted the paranoid style of politics three decades ago; Michelle Malkin catalogues recent evidence.
posted by Carl @ 10/13/2008 12:04:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
See the Plants, Stay for the Suicide
As I detailed last spring, Switzerland granted constitutional rights to plants. Switzerland's apparently impervious to mere blogsphere fisking, because the rule's now in effect: "Unfortunately, we have to take it seriously," Beat Keller, a molecular biologist at the University of Zurich. "It's one more constraint on doing genetic research."Dr. Keller recently sought government permission to do a field trial of genetically modified wheat that has been bred to resist a fungus. He first had to debate the finer points of plant dignity with university ethicists. Then, in a written application to the government, he tried to explain why the planned trial wouldn't "disturb the vital functions or lifestyle" of the plants. He eventually got the green light.Ok, so plants are protected. Are humans? Less so, should the western-Swiss canton of Vaud adopt legislation to force state-funded hospitals and nursing homes to permit assisted suicides on premises: All state-subsidised old people's homes in canton Vaud may be obliged to open their doors to the controversial practice of assisted suicide.The assisted suicide organisation Exit, which already helps terminally ill patients in a number of nursing homes, has launched a people's initiative to force a local debate on the issue - a Swiss first.Swiss law tolerates assisted suicide when patients commit the act themselves and helpers have no direct interest in their death. Switzerland has five assisted suicide organisations, which help around 350 people each year. . .Exit's initiative asks for nursing homes receiving state subsidies to allow elderly residents to receive assistance to suicide if they request it, in accordance with article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code and article 34 of Vaud's cantonal Penal Code. "When a nursing home stops us, they are contravening the law," said [Jérôme] Sobel.To be clear, I'm not necessarily opposed to "voluntary suicide" if--as in the United States--enacted by legislation or referendum (rather than courts through a "right" to die). My concerns are more narrow: Conflicts of interest: The Schiavo case was troubling precisely because the decisionmaker--the husband--had an inherent conflict of interest, both financial and romantic. Healthcare institutions may have a similar financial conflict, especially for indigent patients. The legislation bring make such institutions into the suicide process--and I'm worried that could leak into the decision.Freedom by compulsion: What if a institution or doctor objects to assisted suicide? Lawyer/blogger Wesley Smith wonders whether there's an exemption for, say, Catholic homes and hospitals. If not, whose freedom overrides whose choice and conscience? Why must one side's moral objection give way?Slippery slope: The Swiss already sanction suicide by mentally ill patients, the result of a Swiss Supreme Court decision involving a bi-polar man. That seems, well, crazy--and potentially much worse where the ill may be a captive audience for the suicide movement, turning final exit to forced exit.Conclusion: This is a grave and difficult issue, important to many. But not, it seems, the Swiss, whose laws are laughable: Defenders of the law argue that it reflects a broader, progressive effort to protect the sanctity of living things. Last month, Switzerland granted new rights to all "social animals." Prospective dog owners must take a four-hour course on pet care before they can buy a canine companion, while anglers must learn to catch fish humanely. Fish can't be kept in aquariums that are transparent on all sides. The fish need some shelter. Nor can goldfish be flushed down a toilet to an inglorious end; they must first be anesthetized with special chemicals, and then killed.Perhaps, in Switzerland, it's better to be a pet than a patient.(via Planet Gore, Secondhand Smoke)
posted by Carl @ 10/13/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
4 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Media Bias, Part XXVII
This week marks the release of Oliver Stone's latest "propaganumentary," titled "W". Because credulous lefties doubtlessly will elevate the script to holy (well, secular) writ, mystery writer Andrew Klavan provides a "Q&A" on the partisanship of the left-coast media, i.e., Hollywood, in Sunday's Washington Post: 2. Hollywood liberals speak truth to power.In a pig's eye -- and a pig wearing lipstick at that. Sure, left-wing filmmakers are fearless when depicting snarling, evil Republican politicos, as in "The American President," or savage environment-destroying businessmen, as in "Michael Clayton," or the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, as in the Edward R. Murrow hagiography "Good Night, and Good Luck." But those make-believe right-wingers and long-dead senators have no power whatsoever over the filmmakers. The people who do have power are the executives and directors who hire them, the reviewers who bolster their product and the elite opinion-makers who lavish them with prizes and prestige -- and they're all part of the Hollywood left-wing establishment. To the true Hollywood power, liberal filmmakers speak nothing but slavish conformity . . . and after a while, they start to think it's the truth. . . 5. Hollywood leftists are patriotic in their own way.Words -- despite what you might have learned at university -- actually have meanings. The meaning of the word patriotism is "love of country." If you don't love your country, you're not a patriot. "When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke," the late director Robert Altman told the Times of London in January 2002. "America is dumb," actor Johnny Depp, who lives in France, said in 2003. Receiving an award in Spain in 2002, actress Jessica Lange told the audience, "It makes me feel ashamed to come from the United States -- it's humiliating."Making anti-war films while American troops are under fire is not patriotic. Exporting movies that consistently show the United States in a bad light is not patriotic. Ceaselessly casting America and its government as the bad guy is not patriotic, either. And while, yes, I admit that there are many people of good will and patriotism on the left, those who love truth, courage, tolerance and America might be forgiven for wondering whether it isn't time for regime change in Los Angeles.Read the whole thing.
posted by Carl @ 10/13/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Found: Economist With N>2 Arms
Columbia University econ prof Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Economics Nobel, tilts way left, supports Barack Obama and is short-listed for high office should the Democrats win. So his analysis of the mortgage crisis could be important, right?Well, it depends on when you ask: Joseph Stiglitz, Jonathan Orszag and Peter Orszag, Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-based Capital Standard (March 2002), at 5, 6: [O]n the basis of historical experience, the risk to the government from a potential default on GSE debt is effectively zero. . . This analysis shows that, based on historical data, the probability of a shock as severe as embodied in the riskbased capital standard is substantially less than one in 500,000 -- and may be smaller than one in three million. Given the low probability of the stress test shock occurring, and assuming that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hold sufficient capital to withstand that shock, the exposure of the government to the risk that the GSEs will become insolvent appears quite low.Given the extremely small probability of default by the GSEs, the expected monetary costs of exposure to GSE insolvency are relatively small -- even given very large levels of outstanding GSE debt and assuming that the government would bear the costs of all GSE debt in the case of insolvency. For example, if the probability of the stress test conditions occurring is less than one in 500,000, and if the GSEs hold sufficient capital to withstand the stress test, the implication is that the expected cost to the government of providing an explicit government guarantee on $1 trillion in GSE debt is just $2 million.Joseph Stiglitz in the December 2007 Vanity Fair: Bush’s own fiscal irresponsibility fostered irresponsibility in everyone else. Credit was shoveled out the door, and subprime mortgages were made available to anyone this side of life support. Credit-card debt mounted to a whopping $900 billion by the summer of 2007. "Qualified at birth" became the drunken slogan of the Bush era. American households took advantage of the low interest rates, signed up for new mortgages with "teaser" initial rates, and went to town on the proceeds.All of this spending made the economy look better for a while; the president could (and did) boast about the economic statistics. But the consequences for many families would become apparent within a few years, when interest rates rose and mortgages proved impossible to repay.Joseph Stiglitz in the July 24, 2008, Financial Times: The US government is about to embark on another example of such a [private/public] partnership, in which the private sector takes the profits and the public sector bears the risk. The proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entails the socialisation of risk -- with all the long-term adverse implications for moral hazard -- from an administration supposedly committed to free-market principles. . .We should not be worried about shareholders losing their investments. In earlier years, they were amply rewarded. The management remuneration packages that they approved were designed to encourage excessive risk-taking. They got what they asked for. Nor should we be worried about creditors losing their money. Their lack of supervision fuelled the housing bubble and we are now all paying the price. We should worry about whether there is a supply of liquidity to the housing market, so that those who wish to buy a home can get a loan. This proposal provides the necessary liquidity.A basic law of economics holds that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Those in the financial market have had a sumptuous feast and the administration is now asking the taxpayer to pick up a part of the tab.Guess that's what Democrats mean by "change." (via The Corner, twice, Peter Wallison)
posted by Carl @ 10/13/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
1 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Newspaper Column of the Year
Mark Steyn on National Review Online: Speaking personally, I’m not looking for a messiah in the White House. . .The day after the debate I bumped into two Obama supporters in St Johnsbury, Vermont who said isn’t it great that he's on course to win. Well, they were cute chicks, and I know an obvious pick-up line when I hear one, so I stopped to chat. God Almighty, it was like reverse Viagra: After ten minutes of Babes For Barack, I never want to meet a female woman of the opposite sex for the rest of my life. Their basic pitch was: How do you solve a problem? Like, Obama!How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?That’s John McCain's problem. Traditionally, when an unknown politician emerges on the national scene, it’s a race to define him. Governor Palin is a good example: within days, the coastal sophisticates were mocking her as a chillbilly ditz with a womb that spits out inbred kids faster than the First National Bank of Welfare Swamp issues subprime mortgages. That’s politics as usual: Define your opponent. But Obama is defined by his indefinability. When I pointed out to my Vermont gals that he lives in a swank pad that was part of some shady real estate deal with a convicted fraudster (Tony Rezko), that he entrusted his daughters' entire religious education to a neo-segregationist anti-American nut who preaches that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people (Jeremiah Wright), that he attended fundraisers with a political patron who’s an unrepentant terrorist proud of plotting to blow up young ladies just like them at a dance at the Fort Dix military base (William Ayers), when I pointed all this out, they looked at me as if I’d brought a baseball bat to a croquet match. Mere earthbound politicians are defined by their real estate deals and sleazy buddies, but Obama is defined only by his vibe. As his many admirers in France would say, he has a certain je ne sais quoi. And, if you try to pin down quoi precisely, then they don’t want to sais.Besides, said one of the cuties, it’s racist to try to link him to unsavory white men (Ayers). And black men (Wright). And Arabs (Rezko). And, just to be on the safe side, any dodgy Uzbeks or Papuans who might have been lurking around the greater Chicago area for the last quarter century. The ladies weren’t exactly covering their eyes and going, "Neee-neeee-na-na, can’t hear you," but the other cutie did begin waving at me her Obama sticker -- the one with the giant blue-frosted O embedded in a manicured candy-striped upland -- like the villain in the movie trying to hypnotize you with his pocketwatch. I began frantically looking around in hopes that a passing Hare Krishna or Scientologist type could get me out of there. But, no: Gaze into the giant zero of the Obama logo, the hole in the star-spangled donut, the vast fathomless nullity that is the gaping keyhole to the door of utopia. To a sad shriveled Republican cynic, there’s nothing there but the wide open spaces of Obama’s blank resume. But a believer will see therein the healing of the planet and the receding of the oceans. The black hole of Obama will suck you in through the awesome power of its totally cool suckiness.Read the whole thing.(via reader Doug J.)
posted by Carl @ 10/12/2008 07:49:00 PM
¦
5 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Prediction Five
UPDATE: belowThe trend is steady, i.e., fatal for Republicans:  source: FiveThirtyEight.comThough there's probably less there than meets the eye, the Alaska legislature's preliminary finding of Palin abuse of power in "Troopergate" can't help. But the underlying reason for the trend is so obvious that even high school senior Arjun Modi could grasp and graph it: source: State of the Union (graph covers Sept. 25-Oct. 9)According to Modi, "the correlation between the two data sets is a robust 0.77."To be fair, correlation isn’t causation. It’s possible (even probable, at least to some extent) the stock market declines reflect fears an Obama presidency--working with a Democrat-dominated Hill--will raise taxes and impose costly energy and environmental regulations. (One analyst I spoke with called last-week's sell-off "Prophet profit-taking," though with the entire market at 52 week lows, there's little profit left.) Still, I’m skeptical Obama-induced sell-offs were the prime engine in the recent losses. And I can't figure out why McCain refrains from tying Obama to the problem.But whether cause or effect, the Dow and McCain's polls are dropping together. In contrast to last week, Obama's now ahead in Nevada and Florida. Colorado, New Jersey and Iowa are solid blue, and New Hampshire looks increasingly likely to join Democrat New England. Even this typo isn't enough to swing New York to McCain. Virginia appears lost in view of the fact that the Democrat running for Senate, who could win by 30 points over his widely-hated Republican challenger, will increase Democrat voter turnout in the state.  source: RealClearPoliticsObama's got nearly a 70 vote cushion. I still think Nevada and Florida might move Republican near the end of the month--but that's only 32 votes. So, with the stock markets still falling, I don't see the current trend changing. And it appears likely that Republican losses will turn the next Senate veto-proof for Obama.MORE:On the other hand, this poll seems crazy.
posted by Carl @ 10/12/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
1 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein: This race would be far more interesting with a conservative on the ticket.MORE:Glenn Reynolds reprints some related thoughts.MORE & MORE:Assistant Village Idiot: Like many conservatives, I have been frustrated by John McCain on the economy lately. What we like about McCain is that on foreign policy he will be firm but not brutal. We know it is in his bones, and if he does something in that area that puzzles us, we will trust him. But on the economy, he does not have conservative principles in his bones. Lord knows what are in his bones there. Does he have bones there?
posted by Carl @ 10/12/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Ask the Neo-Con, Part VIII
Reacting to Thursday's cartoon, the commenter who declines to share his name went off-topic: [i]f you still believe in DEMOCRACY, we could have a direct election and do away with the Electoral College for starters. We can make a legal system that focuses on truth and justice, instead of winning. There are many positive things we can do to make life better and better for everyone. Let's do it.....quickly.I'm surprised I've not explainind the neo-con view on the electoral college before: It's the law: Selecting the President and VP via the electoral college isn't a whim--it's in the Constitution: Article II, Section I, clause 2 and Amendment 12 (plus various statutes). As a result--and Anony doesn't address this--killing the Electoral College would require approval by two thirds of the House and Senate and legislatures of three fourths of the states. These provisions have been in place since 1804, and the process hasn't changed significantly since 1887. So radical change by Constitutional Amendment would be, at best, take decades, and may not even pass, as even the National Archives recognized: To be ratified and become effective, a constitutional amendment must also be approved by the legislatures of 39 out of the 50 states. By design, the Electoral College system grants the states the power to elect the president of the United States. How likely is it that 39 states are going to vote to give up that power? Moreover, 12 states control 53 percent of the votes in the Electoral College, leaving only 38 states that might even consider ratification. Though agitation persists and bills to amend the Constitution are introduced at the start of each Congress, the last serious attempt at change died in the early 1970s. Which is as it should be--changing the Constitution should be slow and strenuous.There were reasons: The Founders favored the Electoral College over direct election for a reason: "to discourage "regionalism" (meaning multiple, but only regional, parties)." In other words, the Constitution's framers were trying to forestall fights between a few "favorite sons," which might produce perpetual plurality presidencies, lacking a popular majority. See Martin Diamond, The Electoral College and the American Idea of Democracy (1977), at 4. This was Hamilton's point in Federalist No. 68, and Madison's in Federalist No. 39--that a President could best govern where his support was distributed throughout the nation. And this reason remains relevant, as Richard Dunham wrote in a November 2000 Business Week: If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates would have little incentive to visit less populated states. Nominees would concentrate on big cities and population states, mainly in the Northeast and California. "Their time would be better spent in places like Brooklyn," says Senator Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.). As a result, the college "keeps us from having a regional Presidency," says Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.).For these reasons, Cato's John Samples concludes that "The filtering of the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic."Be careful what you wish for: The electoral college reflects the Constitution's underlying Federalist approach. It's also a compromise, just like the Framer's most famous compromise: representation in the Senate by state rather than by population as is the House. If the electoral college is undemocratic, so is the Senate. But neither Anony nor bloggers nor mainstream writers suggest re-configuring the latter. See Diamond, at 9-10 (should "we regard the discrepancy with horror in the one case and practically ignore it in the other?"). In sum, the electoral college was one of a number of compromises essential to securing the adoption of the Constitution. Leveling one single plank would likely require further and unpredictable trade-offs, with possible unintended consequences. That's too risky for our governance.If it ain't broke: What, exactly, is wrong with the current system? Apart from a conclusionary reference to "democracy," Anony doesn't say. But America is a representative republic, not a pure democracy, so that alone isn't sufficient (as even libertarian Ron Paul concludes). There might be some urgency were the popular and electoral vote often at odds--but that happened only three times: 1876: Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes.1888: Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes.2000: Republican George Bush, with 50,456,062 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,996,582, but won only 266 electoral votes.Three close cases, each resolved, isn't enough ammunition. Especially given the advantages of the current approach. In fact, Lawrence Reed says the electoral college enhances election stability, even when the outcome is contested: Even on the three previous occasions when a split decision between the popular and electoral votes occurred, the Electoral College was the mechanism for a decisive conclusion to an election and a certain transition to a final winner. If popular votes alone determined the outcome, a dozen presidential elections would have been close enough for the result to be contested without end, or at least without an end that most Americans could see as fair and honest. What dragged out the contest between Bush and Gore were the partisan lawsuits and the tortuous methods employed to recount votes or decipher voter "intent."Indeed, the closeness of the 2000 election in so many places--multiple states as well as the nation as a whole--suggests that we should thank our lucky stars the Framers gave us the system we have.It is precisely because of the Electoral College that the recounting of votes focused on one state instead of many. If the popular vote decided the winner, we would still be bogged down in questionable recounts in dozens, if not hundreds, of counties across the country. The potential for mistakes and abuse would have been enormously compounded, and the cloud over the eventual winner would have been all the more dark and ominous.Is that really the result Anony wants? Indeed, the current approach likely reduces the incentives and opportunity for fraud: in a direct election, parties that can run-up votes in a "controlled" jurisdiction might be tempted, whereas the electoral college "eliminates any reason to run up the vote" because the added ballot in a non-swing state is meaningless.Conclusion: I doubt Anony's thought this through. As politics prof Gerard Fitzpatrick observed, "Before scrapping the Electoral College, we should reflect upon the nature of our democracy and the consequences that such "reform" would have on it." And we should remember, as I've said, perfection is impossible: "One can debate voting systems endlessly, but Ken Arrow won a Nobel demonstrating that every voting system is flawed." So, think carefully first.The design Anony attacks is familiar, logical and tested. In assessing the scheme, Hamilton concluded in Federalist No. 68 that, "if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent." That's good enough for neo-cons like me.
posted by Carl @ 10/12/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
3 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Science Gore Ignores
UPDATE: belowWhen warming-zealots swarm, point to Dr. Roy W. Spencer, author and principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, who spoke to the Texas Public Policy Foundation on Tuesday: The major climate models used by global warming advocates all assume a far greater sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide changes than what we observe in the empirical satellite data. That’s why all of these scenarios produce such outlandishly high forecasts about future global temperatures. . . Al Gore’s apocalyptic temperature scenario assumes that carbon dioxide causes temperature changes. Except there is one problem -- global temperatures precede carbon dioxide levels by approximately 800 years. Ice core data reveals the opposite of what Gore claims.Spencer's presentation included this chart: source: Spencer at 2According to Planet Gore's Drew Thornley, Spencer also said: Only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are CO2, and only about 5 percent of CO2 is man-made. Furthermore, it takes 5 years to go from 39 molecules of CO2 to 40 molecules.Nature consumes about 50 percent of our CO2 emissions.Some 90-95 percent of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.Spencer was interviewed by the Houston Chronicle that same day, and it's worth a read: You've argued that temperature doesn't necessarily move in lock step with carbon dioxide emissions. But it's still not a good idea to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were 270 parts per million in the atmosphere. We're now at 385 or 390 ppm. Big greenhouses run CO2 at 1,000 ppm. I think the assumption that CO2 is necessarily bad is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific statement. Nature has picked a certain balance, but I don't see it as preordained, or necessarily the best balance. If you talk to some plant physiologists they make it sound like life on Earth is actually starved for CO2. I think that is a position that ought to be impassionately considering, rather than automatically assuming that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is bad because that is not a scientific statement.If you and other global warming skeptics are right, and the IPCC is wrong, why do so many scientists feel so strongly about climate change?Most scientists don't understand the big picture, and they are willing to defer to the climate modelers. The climate modelers are willing to put all of the different pieces together into the climate model. And then the climate model is supposed to magically give you the answer. I'll bet a lot of the scientists are skeptical, but they won't admit it publicly. If you talk to most of the scientists who are ardent about the issue, they have a political or ideological worldview that says mankind needs to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It's a religious belief and it's widespread in the scientific community.Agreed.MORE:Surf to Planet Moron's astute take: [Spencer's talk] is a standard smear tactic used by global warming deniers in which they take observed data and apply it in a straightforward manner to reach verifiable conclusions.Okay, that doesn’t sound as bad when you say it out loud. However, we’ve already established that The Consensus is true so the real question is not so much how do we subject it to critical examination that may yield superior climate models and in so doing generate information that could be better acted upon by policy makers, it’s how do we defend it from any and all criticism.Fortunately, Al Gore has two suggestions on how to better shore up the science underlying The Consensus: 1. Vandalism 2. Suppression(via Planet Gore)
posted by Carl @ 10/11/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
4 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy: For what it's worth, I like the idea of a black president, believe that Obama is an admirable person in many ways, and have doubts about McCain's temperament similar to those expressed by George Will. Nonetheless, I fear that the conjunction of an Obama victory, a strongly Democratic Congress, and a major economic crisis will produce a massive and difficult to reverse expansion of government.Agreed.
posted by Carl @ 10/11/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
This Can't Be Bad
Reflecting fears of a global recession, futures of light sweet crude oil fell below $80/barrel: source: New York Mercantile Exchange
posted by Carl @ 10/11/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Friday, October 10, 2008
This Can't Be Good
Stephen Branchflower's report to the Alaska legislature accusing Sarah Palin of abuse of power (and of not cooperating with the investigation) is here. More after I read it.MORE:Talk about a frame-up: Page 8 contains four findings; the first two are relevant: Finding Number One For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides "The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."Finding Number Two I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.Uh, read that last sentence again? If it was lawful, why waste megabytes? As Beldar says, the 263-page piece of political circus . . . actually explicitly refutes itself on its single most key page! . . .Branchflower reads the Ethics Act to prohibit any governmental action or decision made for justifiable reasons benefiting the State if that action or decision might also make a public official happy for any other reason. That would mean, of course, that governors must never act or decide in a way that makes them personally happy as a citizen, or as a wife or mother or daughter, and that they could only take actions or make decisions which left them feeling neutral or upset. This an incredibly shoddy tower of supposition, and a ridiculous misreading of the law.Further, the report never addresses Monegan's late-August admission: "For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff," Monegan said Friday from Portland. "What they said directly was more along the lines of 'This isn't a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.'"Jules Crittenden calls the scandal "a hasp and a hinge or two shy of a gate." Agreed--but the report shows that seasonal witch burning (a specialty of the MSM) isn't confined to the lower 48.MORE & MORE:Beldar in the same post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion -- after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters.
posted by Carl @ 10/10/2008 09:11:00 PM
¦
3 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
Even as Chemistry Nobel winner Paul Crutzen affirms that "if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage," don't forget the IPCC's "chief climate scientist," economist Rajendra Pachauri, asserting (in late 2003) that global warming results from both industrialization and its absence: There is absolutely no reason to believe that, in the longer term, lower economic development would, all other things being equal, result in lower emissions.(via Planet Gore)
posted by Carl @ 10/10/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Sense of Humor
Remember Canadian writer Heather Mallick, who described Sarah Palan as "a toned-down version of the porn actress look," and characterized Republican men as "sexual inadequates"? Remember that her column eventually was deleted by the CBC, which also apologized? Had you heard that Mallick this week denounced her critics?: Extremist right-wingers in the U.S. apparently read CBCNews.ca, and within days of my column's appearance, hundreds of e-mails from Americans began landing on my personal website. Then Fox News took up the cause and it got bigger and worse, not like a rolling stone, more like a dung beetle having a field day.Confirming that the far right, observed by the suppress-worthy FOX, believe in equality and don't objectify women, unlike the sexuality-fearing left?Well, apparently it's all fit-to-print to the New York Times, as seen in Monday's business-section story by Ian Austen, headlined "Boss Is Not Amused After Columnist’s Humor Brings a Retort From Fox News": Heather Mallick, an opinion columnist for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Web site, is known for her use of humorous exaggeration.Nice to know comparing conservatives to XXX-rated action is merely humor--wonder if Susan Brownmuller agrees? BTW, the Times quoted an email: Ms. Mallick said she believed that the complaints had been "orchestrated" by Fox News and came largely from Americans."My problem is that I have to write with a certain kind of reader in mind, and that person is always going to be my vision of an intelligent Canadian," Ms. Mallick said. "I don’t write for Fox viewers."And on her blog, Mallick defended "protecting writers' safety when villagers approach with torches and pitchforks," and further dissed those villagers: "Fox viewers are, like their hosts, too violently brutish to alienate." Except . . . you did alienate them, along with your "intelligent Canadian" boss--while tossing aside journalistic ethics, taste, feminism, etc.Don't worry: it's merely "humorous exaggeration," as was "Piss Christ" and "Dung Mary," in contrast to an all-male Georgia golf club (24/7 outrage coverage required). Just ask the New York Times.(via TimesWatch.org)
posted by Carl @ 10/10/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Blogging Will Remain Light
Until I get something better than this temporary 1 GHz "Wintel" box.
posted by Carl @ 10/09/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
3 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Finance, Part III
UPDATE: belowAn anonymous commenter claims "greedy, dishonest capitalists are destroying capitalism." This has obvious relevance to this week's presidential debate where, as Betsy Newmark says: we just learned that McCain wants to buy everyone a house and Obama wants to provide everyone health care. And we're a country that's broke.I responded to "Anony" as follows: This isn't about fraud--which, in some ways, makes it more troubling.And that's what's wrong with both Obama's and McCain's answers: the current crisis was not caused by evil captains of industry ripping off the little people; nor was it created (though it may have been eased) by sleepy or over-ideological or bribed regulators; nor is the flaw Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Community Reinvestment Act, deregulation, mark-to-market, or even those nasty speculators. Rather, it was a failure of risk takers and their private managers. This is vastly worse, especially for part-time economists and full-time free marketers like me. The masters-of-the-universe are presumed wise enough to establish value and cover risks. Derivatives, and securitization-of-everything-not-nailed-to-the-floor,-plus-some-things-that-are, are supposed to spread risk and flow profits to the smart. IT DIDN'T WORK. And the obvious (though not necessarily proper) response will be: socialism and over-regulation, perhaps on a global scale.If that's the solution, how much faith in Adam Smith will be discarded? If that remedy is right, how much of trusting trade to David Ricardo is misplaced? As I said in comments, this line of thought--considering killing a system that still could produce spectacular wealth--is far more frightening than fraud.MORE:Right-leaning Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi distanced himself from free markets Friday, "when he suggested global financial markets should be shut down while policy makers "rewrite the rules of international finance.'" And Assistant Village Idiot has similar thoughts--read his excellent analysis.MORE & MORE:Anthony Faiola in the Washington Post predicts "the end of American capitalism."(via MaxedOutMama, The Corner, twice)
posted by Carl @ 10/09/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
8 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Cartoon of the Day
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's RJ Matson, on October 2nd:  source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
posted by Carl @ 10/09/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
We've Become Japan
With interest rates today cut to 1.5 percent, i.e., given inflation, nominally negative, we're in for substantial deflation.
posted by Carl @ 10/08/2008 07:58:00 AM
¦
3 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Jews for Obama
Admittedly, this is the funniest Presidential ad I've ever seen--even if evil.(via reader Tim H.)
posted by Carl @ 10/08/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
From Noel Mostert's A Line Upon A Wind: The Great War at Sea, 1793-1815 (2008) at 111-12: It is strange to reflect on how alike these two were at the moment. They were types as unprepossessing as any within their respective milieux. Both were poor physical specimens, almost fragile in their thin, unimpressive frames, hardly the movers and shakers of land and sea. Yet it was already powerfully there. In Nelson, a mere junior post-captain, the thrust to impose himself on the war and its direction wherever he found himself was ever determined, irrepressible. So, too, with Napoleon. These two whose war it swiftly would become, upon whose genius and actions so much of fate and failure were decided, were here [Toulon] at the start the closest that they would ever be to one another. As he moved between posts to place cannon and to engineer fortifications, Napoleon's attention would continually be drawn to the harbor below and the ships that were seeking the range of his battlements. And from his quarterdeck, Nelson would perpetually be scanning through his glasses the heights where the other was clearly seeing the small figures bent on destruction of his own ship and the other vessels around him. Did each in his sweeping view of the scene on some occasion have the fleeting, unwitting sight of the other? Here the metaphysical, never far from the historical imagination, intervenes. For it is impossible not to be drawn to the strange quirk of destiny that should have brought them here, so close together at the very start: two minor players placed on the stage as the curtain rises on the first major act of the long drama that will steadily enlarge their roles and characters until they are finally delivered to a climactic duel.
posted by Carl @ 10/08/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
ARRG
My laptop died--so posting will be light.
posted by Carl @ 10/07/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Quiz #2 (With Answers)
Following last week's test of climate change comprehension, a second chance to improve your skills. Start with quotes from the October 1st Financial Times; quiz questions follow: Para 1: "The Sun has gone quiet, very quiet. The solar wind -- which is comprised of electrically charged particles streaming out from the star -- is weaker than at any time since scientists began accurate observations in the 1950s, and the number of sunspots in 2008 may be the lowest since the 19th century." [NOfP note: chart here]Para 4: "Experts are reluctant to predict the consequences for Earth and its inhabitants because there are so many complex interactions between the Sun’s output, the planet’s atmosphere and magnetic field, and cosmic radiation from outer space. Some climatologists say that, over a period of decades, a quieter Sun means a cooler Earth, although the relationship between solar activity and climate is particularly controversial."Para 5: "To add to the uncertainty, no one knows how long the Sun is likely to stay quiet. One extreme would be a continued period of inactivity, with very few sunspots or solar storms, that could last for decades. The last such suspension of the 11-year solar cycle occurred between 1645 and 1715, a period known by historians of astronomy as the Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the coldest period of the past millennium, known as the 'little ice age'."Para 8: "'Predicting the next maximum now is rather like forecasting next summer’s weather in the middle of winter,' says Jim Wild, a space scientist at Lancaster University."Para 19: "Although some people who are sceptical about the human influence on global warming like to emphasise the link between solar variability and climate, Prof Mayewski turns their argument on its head: 'The fact that we are not in conditions like the little ice age today shows that the atmosphere is being perturbed by human activities,' he says."Para 20: "If the Sun stays quiet for the next few years, it may temper the effects of man-made global warming for a while but most experts believe that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will eventually push temperatures higher again."Questions:1. Since when does "complex interactions" make "expert" "climatologists" "reluctant to predict" the weather "over a period of decades"? 2. How many "space scientist[s]" are shy about "forecasting next summer’s weather in the middle of winter"?3. If cooling short of a "little ice age" "shows" "human activities" alter the climate, what evidence would show the contrary?4. Does the admission that natural forces "temper the effects of man-made global warming" translate, as Planet Gore's Edward Craig suggests, into "sure, it's cooling, but it would be a lot colder if it weren't for global warming"?5. What are the odds this story was written back-to-front, i.e., first the conclusion, then the lede and facts?6. What are the odds Bernard on Free Republic is right?: Bernard's Law of Inverse Relationships - The strength of the solar wind is inversely proportional to the amount of hot air coming out of Washington, DC. This is especially true for science substitutes for scientific fact regarding climate change. Expect the solar wind to remain very weak for the next 35 days or so. Maybe longer.Answers:All questions were rhetorical.
posted by Carl @ 10/07/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Monday, October 06, 2008
Idiot Wind
UPDATE: belowMSU wants Michigan to tilt at windmills. Specifically, a new report from the university's Land Policy Institute evaluated the state's "potential offshore wind energy resource capacity." It concluded that Michigan "could produce more than 10 times the amount of current peak electricity if nearly 100,000 offshore wind turbines operated along the Great Lakes." All told, the report estimated that "Michigan's portion of the Great Lakes" could potentially generate as much as 321,936 Megawatts of electricity from offshore wind (report at 12). (The prior estimate was 16,500 megawatts (report at 1).)  source: Michigan's Offshore Wind Potential at 14Simply put, this is nuts. The report's high-end assumptions would populate tall turbines over huge portions of Lake Michigan. As Planet Gore's Greg Pollowitz observes: Just exactly where are they going to put these 100,000 turbines? The largest wind farm in Texas has about 400 or so turbines on 47,000 acres. If every turbine needs 100 acres or so, we're talking 10,000,000 acres on the lakes. There's no way this would ever pass.Can you imagine the effect on commercial shipping, not to mention sailing and pleasure boats? Or on beaches and marinas? Even were the proposed 150 meter-height turbines (see report at 6) moved back (report at 11), they would still be visible up to 44 km from shore [d = √(13 * (heightobserver + heightobject))].It's risky to rely on a university's windmill recommendation, as reflected in the September 30th Japan Times: The Tokyo District Court ordered Waseda University on Monday to pay some ¥200 million [about $1.9 million] in damages to the city of Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, because windmills installed at schools there, based on the university's plan, failed to generate the amount of electricity expected.The city entrusted the university in 2004 with compiling a basic program for wind generation as part of its efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and set up 23 small windmills at elementary and junior high schools at a cost of some ¥300 million.The power output was substantially lower than expected, prompting the city to seek ¥300 million in compensation from the Tokyo university and the company that built the windmills.I'm willing to concede that windmills might be part of the solution--a small part--only beyond the Kennedy family's line of sight.MORE:Thankfully, windmills may be an early casualty of the financial meltdown.
posted by Carl @ 10/06/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
1 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Chart of the Day
American wireless customers now send about 2.5 billion text messages per day, which is more frequent than placing phone calls, according to a Nielsen Mobile survey:  source: NOfP chart of Nielsen Mobile dataUnsurprisingly, teens are the vanguard: the typical U.S. teen mobile subscriber (ages 13-17) now sends or receives 1,742 text messages per month (compared to making or receiving 231 mobile phone calls).Yes, the comparison's a bit misleading because texting is quicker than talking. But that's precisely why texting is so handy, though don't expect a response at 3 am.(via Carpe Diem)
posted by Carl @ 10/06/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Prediction IV
The trend: remains the same: source: FiveThirtyEight.comSo, compared to a week ago, the count shifts towards Obama.But first: I told you Michigan was true blue--as McCain apparently concedes. I said Obama could pocket New Mexico--which even Rasmussen reflects. I foretold North Carolina was close--it's now a virtual tie. The state I know best--Florida--is either tied or leaning Dem. I said financial instability favored Obama--scooping even the New York Times! So it has, agrees Basball Crank, "the credit crisis that has been the financial equivalent of the Madrid train bombing, working naturally against the party in power in the White House"--though that could shift now that the bailout is law.Since then: Palin debated Biden. I thought Palin won, in view of Biden's numerous factual misstatements and repeated misreading of the Constitution. But the media ignored Biden's gaffes, and others saw it differently--Rich Hailey's reaction was best: "Joe won his debate, totally eviscerating President Bush. Unfortunately, Bush wasn't actually at the debate, so it was kind of an empty victory." All of which suggests the debate didn't sway uncommitted independent voters, meaning no obvious effect on the electoral count. So, the states: Pennsylvania remains out of Republican reach. Ohio's turned purple, and might be bluing. New Hampshire looks increasingly Democrat. Colorado will be close, but Omama's ahead.Don't believe the Mason-Dixon poll putting McCain ahead in Virginia--Mason-Dixon historically overstates Republican strength. I'm turning pessimist about Nevada (Nevada!) and West Virginia, though McCain leads in the latter state. But McCain is running stronger than expected in Minnesota.The changes: The Dems pick up Virginia and Ohio, hang on to Minnesota; McCain retains Florida, North Carolina and Nevada (barely).  source: RCPThe bottom line: Obama/Biden at 306 electoral votes, well more than the 270 needed. McCain/Palin drop to 232, and would have to retake Ohio (20 electoral votes), Virginia (13), plus capture Minnesota (10), or some similar blue state, to win. Or, if McCain wins Ohio, Virginia and Colorado while losing Nevada (or takes New Hampshire and Nevada while failing in Colorado) . . . a tie. Can you say "12th Amendment"?
posted by Carl @ 10/05/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Palin Facts
The McCain campaign launched the Palin Truth Files website, with an archive of backgrounders on "Troopergate" and other issues. Baseball Crank also is on the case. Either could be useful counterweights when liberals mistake satire for fact.Of course, there's no remedy for what Amanda Carpenter calls "The Pornification of Sarah Palin": Simply put, conservative women who don't hide their femininity are forced to pay a price. Luckily, women like Palin are willing to pay it with a smile to make it easier for all the young women who will follow in her footsteps later.By contrast, Obama's fact-check proof and treated like the new Che: source: AP via Yahoocaption: "A model wears a short dress with a portrait of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, a creation by French designer Jean-Charles de Castelbajac during his spring-summer 2009 ready-to-wear collection presented in Paris, Friday, Oct. 3, 2008."(via Powerline, Ace of Spades, Wolf Howling)
posted by Carl @ 10/05/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
1 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
Historian Paul Johnson in this week's Forbes: This summer's atrocious weather tempted me to tease a Green whom I know. "Well, what about your weather theory now?" (One of the characteristics of Greens is that they know no history.) He replied: "Yes, this weather is unprecedented. England has never had such an August before. It's global warming, of course." That's the Greens' stock response to anything weather-related. Too much sun? "Global warming." Too little sun? "Global warming." Drought? "Global warming." Floods? "Global warming." Freezing cold? "Global warming."I wish the great philosopher Sir Karl Popper were alive to denounce the unscientific nature of global warming. . .The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels--the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming--has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory's conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully. The global warming activists' target is the U.S. If America is driven to accept crippling restraints on its economy it will rapidly become unable to shoulder its burdens as the world's sole superpower and ultimate defender of human freedoms. We shall all suffer, however, as progress falters and then ceases and living standards decline.(via Planet Gore)
posted by Carl @ 10/05/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Chart of the Day
A chart of Senators or Representatives who received over $30,000 from PACs or individuals employed by the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers over the past decade: source: Open SecretsPrior chart here.(via Patterico)
posted by Carl @ 10/04/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
Speaking at last week's West Coast Green convention, former VP Al Gore outlined his position on the now-passed bailout: We need to stop bailing on the financial crisis and bail in green energy. Green revolution is the solution to the financial crisis. I actually do think that the green revolution is the solution to the financial crisis, the national security crisis, the debt crisis and the climate crisis. They are all connected.Next step: Gore blames hanging chads and rising seas on a one-armed man. (via Planet Gore)
posted by Carl @ 10/04/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
1 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Photo of the Day
You don't need the green markings to spot the border between North and South Korea:  source: Global SecurityAs then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a late-2002 Pentagon briefing: If you look at a picture from the sky of the Korean Peninsula at night, South Korea is filled with lights and energy and vitality and a booming economy; North Korea is dark. It is a tragedy what's being done in that country. And the suggestion that it is a result of rhetoric from outside I think is -- misses the point.(via Moonbattery)
posted by Carl @ 10/04/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
1 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Friday, October 03, 2008
Media Bias, Part XXVI
This time, it's blatant.(via Instapundit)
posted by Carl @ 10/03/2008 12:04:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
Author and Copenhagen Business School adjunct professor Bjørn Lomborg in the Times (London) on September 30: Global warming is seen everywhere as one of the most important issues. From the EU to the G8, leaders trip over one another to affirm their commitment to cutting CO2 to heal the world. What they do not often acknowledge - in part because it would lose them support - is that the solutions proffered are incredibly costly and will end up doing amazingly little good, even in a century's time. This is the truly inconvenient truth of the politics of global warming. Let's be clear. I'm not contesting the existence of global warming. Doing so is silly, given the clear and strong results from the UN climate panel. Global warming will most probably warm the planet by between 1.6 and 3.8C above current temperatures by the end of the century. The total cost of the consequences of this warming is estimated by William Nordhaus, of Yale University, to be $15 trillion. However, we need to keep our cool: global warming's total cost will be only about one half of 1 per cent of the net worth of the 21st century; that is the current worth of all the wealth projected to be generated in this century. Panicking is unlikely to lead to sensible policies. It could lead to exorbitantly expensive policies, which will do great harm. Many of the proffered global warming policies are designed to help politicians bathe in the warm glow of good intentions, with little or no regard to the mounting costs and infinitesimal benefits. It is a well-rehearsed point that the Kyoto Protocol was a terribly inefficient, hugely costly way to do virtually no good. Even if every industrialised country, including the United States, had accepted the protocol, and everyone had lived up to its requirements for the entire century, it would have had virtually no impact, even a hundred years from now. It would reduce the global temperature increase by an immeasurable 0.15C by the year 2100. The cost of implementing Kyoto, taking the average figure from the various top macroeconomic models, would have been almost £100 billion annually for the rest of the century.See also Lomborg in the August 15th Guardian: The bottom line is that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs (the benefit is about 0.25% of global GDP). Global warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070, when the damages will begin to outweigh the benefits, reaching a total damage cost equivalent to about 3.5% of GDP by 2300. This is simply not the end of humanity.
posted by Carl @ 10/03/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
1 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Moonbat Logic
Are you sixty or older? Voting for McCain? Then you might be racist--due to brain damage!--as reported by Chicago Tribune correspondent Howard Witt: Older white voters heavily favored Sen. Hillary Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama during the Democratic primary season, and national polls indicate that group now leans toward Sen. John McCain by 10 percentage points or more.Pollsters and political scientists cannot pinpoint how much of that anti-Obama sentiment may be related to racial prejudice. But sociologists say their research indicates that implicit racial biases influence the voting decisions of many Americans of all ages — and that, for very basic physiological reasons related to the aging of their brains, many older citizens may be unable to suppress their prejudicial impulses, whether at the family dinner table or in the privacy of a voting booth.Next up: Obama spends some of his $455 million on Geritol.(via Moonbattery)
posted by Carl @ 10/03/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Liberal Lesson Plan
Despite stripping funding for the left-wing ACORN pressure group from the financial rescue plan, the Senate "produced a mortgage-bailout bill that in important ways is even worse than the measure defeated Monday in the House." Yet, such over-the-top pork wasn't the worst leftist atrocity this week. That honor belongs to public school teachers in Virginia: An e-mail distributed by a Virginia teachers union encouraged members to bring politics into the classroom by wearing blue in support of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and simultaneously suggested that the union's voter registration efforts include those "you teach."The Virginia Education Association (VEA) e-mail drew strong criticism Wednesday from elected Republican officials and some residents after the state Republican Party obtained a copy. The author of the e-mail conceded Wednesday that the e-mail should have been worded differently. The VEA is an affiliate of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union. . . The e-mail said teachers should wear blue Tuesday for "Obama Blue Day" and to "register two voters or talk to two people who may be on the fence/or a McCain supporter and sway them to become a Obama supporter." The e-mail also states: "There are people out there not yet registered. You teach some of them." . . .VEA President Kitty Boitnott said the charges are baseless and that the e-mail does not suggest teachers rally support for Mr. Obama, Illinois Democrat, from students. "It's a ridiculous statement," said Mrs. Boitnott, a librarian at Chamberlayne Elementary School in Henrico County.Admittedly, it's hardly news that education bureaucrats and teachers' unions are slaves to socialist group-think. And public school teachers are exempt from "Hatch Act" prohibitions on electioneering by government employees (see 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501(4)(B), 1502(a)), so pro-Obama gushing on Boitnott's blog is legal. Further, it's true that very few public school students are old enough to vote.Still, consider the logic: most public school teachers, and most of their media cheerleaders, love performing in loco parentis, for example, supporting a sex-education curriculum and attacking conservatives perceived as hostile. As Sigmund, Carl and Alfred says, "Teachers make their living influencing the direction of children"--and typically tout their credentials as role models. Yet here, the state union President denies any connection between a teacher's conduct and the lesson transmitted to captive students. Convenient, eh? MORE:From the CBS affiliate in Denver: Metro State College is investigating a professor who asked students to write an essay critical of Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. One student said the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them. The adjunct professor, Andrew Hallam, stayed silent Thursday as he took his class on a field trip to an art museum. Hallam said he would issue a statement Thursday, but none came. The college said Hallam will continue working during the investigation. "I was shocked, I was holy cow, this is just an open door for him to discuss politics with us," Jana Barber first told CBS4 Wednesday, a student in the class. Barber shared the class' first assignment with CBS4 Wednesday. Hallam asked students to write an essay to contradict what he called the 'fairy tale image of Palin' presented at the Republican National Convention.(via Right Wing News, normblog)
posted by Carl @ 10/03/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
0 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Oink, Oink
The DC Examiner is right about the Senate's version of the bailout: Leave it to the U.S. Senate to take a flawed but necessary bailout bill and make it far worse by festooning it with a host of special-interest tax "earmarks." And to compound the outrage, they then used an unconstitutional ruse to force the bloated "emergency bailout" bill down the House’s collective throat. Among the tax earmarks in the bill are special breaks for a grab box of items and industries ranging from auto racing tracks to film-and-television production and wool research. Also included, believe it or not, are earmarks for makers of "certain wooden arrow shafts." Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Senate limits this particular favor only to arrows "designed for children" and measuring "5.16 inches or less in diameter." Another provision would give special tax breaks to litigants in the Exxon Valdez oil-spill case – people who already have been rewarded by the courts – at a cost to taxpayers of $49 million.If the whole financial system really is on the verge of collapse, why are senators wasting precious time doing the bidding of special-interest lobbyists seeking tax breaks for race tracks, toys and wool research? Can’t senators help themselves? Is their self-dealing so deeply ingrained that they think nothing of exploiting a national economic emergency to grease the way for special favors that will bring in contributions to their campaign war chests?
posted by Carl @ 10/02/2008 11:25:00 AM
¦
6 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
QOTD
Bob Krumm: To test Nancy Pelosi’s hypothesis that after eight years of President Bush the economy is in far worse shape than it was under President Clinton at a time of “budget surpluses,” I went to Lending Tree to see what kind of mortgage terms I could get to buy my first home today. It was the spring of 1996 and I was newly stationed at Fort Hood, Texas along with my very pregnant wife who was one month away from delivering our first child. We found the home we wanted to buy in Harker Heights, just a few miles east of post. The purchase price was $110,000, and because we were only going to be there a few years, a 30-year loan made little sense. So we bought the home on a 15-year fixed-rate VA mortgage of 8.0%, zero points and zero down. If I remember correctly, the monthly payment ended up being $1,211.So what kind of offer did I get today in the midst of this horrible financial crisis? I got four offers, the lowest of which was a 15-year fixed-rate VA mortgage of 6.0%, zero points and zero down, yielding a monthly payment of $948.20. Yes, that’s right, as bad as everyone says the economy is today, I can get the same mortgage as I had twelve years ago for about $250 a month less than I was paying 12 years ago in the midst of a “great” economy.But what about the rise in prices of real estate, you might argue? Good question. So I checked Realtor.com to see what my old house might cost today. While that particular home isn’t currently on the market, another home with the same floorplan and in the same subdivision is listed at $139,000. Plugging that amount into the 6.485% effective annual percentage rate of the mortgage I was offered today and I could buy my old home again today for $1,209.69 a month–about a dollar less than what I was paying for the same home in 1996.(via Instapundit)
posted by Carl @ 10/02/2008 12:03:00 AM
¦
2 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Media Bias, Part XXV: The Good Guys Win One
I've previously posted about Canadian writer Heather Mallick, whose September 5th CBC column savaged Americans in general, and Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin in particular, saying among other things, "It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman." The incomparable James Lileks torched her; Fox News protested; the Canadian National Post called Mallick, and the CBC, a "disgrace." These critiques were well supported and richly deserved. Mallick's angry and intolerant article is reflected her entire body of work. The day of her CBC column, Mallick also appeared in the Guardian (U.K.) claiming Palin "did lie about billion-gallon slurps of oil and gas available for Americans to blow," faulting Palin's "smugness, her certainty that what's good for Wasilla is good for the world." And speaking about the role of the media in the abortion debate at a Canadian legal symposium earlier this year, Mallick: [E]xpressed approval of student associations that cut off funding to pro-life groups — because "the rights of Canadian women are not up for debate." She also theorized that pro-life stirrings in the mainstream media were mostly the result of over-the-hill male editors seeking to control through repression the lithesome bodies that, in their decrepitude, they could no longer enjoy in the bedroom.It's trite, but true, to note that--contrary to claims--the left, not the right, is both borderline paranoid and mired in hate speech. It's equally obvious to observe that--again, contrary to claims--the media is a cheerleader for the left.To its credit, the CBC manned-up. Last week, Vince Carlin, the network's ombudsman, concluded that Mallick's piece failed journalistic standards: Policy calls for opinions to be based on fact. Ms. Mallick’s item generally stays in the opinion column but she does offer some flat statements that appear to offer “facts” without any backup. For instance, there is no factual basis for a broad scale conclusion about the sexual adequacy of Republican men. In fact, that type of comment, applied to any other group, would easily be seen as, at best, puerile. Similarly, the characterization of Palin supporters as white trash lacks a factual basis. I asked Ms. Mallick to explain the basis for these characterizations. In a note she explained her opinions of Ms. Palin, but did not provide a factual justification for the statements. . .There is a significant difference between censorship and appropriate editorial oversight. CBC journalists are required to exercise appropriate oversight over material that appears on CBC outlets. Ms. Mallick is entitled to her opinions, and those opinions should not be censored, but those opinions must also be expressed in a manner that meets our Journalistic Standards and Practices. Liberty is not the same as license.On Monday, CBC publisher John Cruickshank admitted error: [T]he CBC ombudsman . . . objects that many of her most savage assertions lack a basis in fact. And he is certainly correct.Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan.And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site.Interestingly, Cruickshank also copped to a more systemic failure: Ombudsman Carlin makes another significant observation in his response to complainants: when it does choose to print opinion, CBCNews.ca displays a very narrow range on its pages.In this, Carlin is also correct.This, too, is being immediately addressed. CBCNews.ca will soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions and be home to a diverse group of writers with many perspectives. In this, we will better reflect the depth and texture of this country.Annoyingly, Mallick's column was pulled from CBC's website, though the author isn't ashamed: it remains available at her website. For those not wanting to boost Mallick's page views, it's still cached in Google and largely captured by Lileks. David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen says Mallick "expresses openly what many, quite possibly most of her MSM colleagues are actually thinking." I don't doubt it. In contrast to Canada, here in the United States, Mallick and the MSM have the liberty to be left-wing loonies, a right they excercize in full, modulated by occasional acknowledgement of liberal bias. I only wish taxpayer-supported "National Liberal Radio" was as honest as the CBC was this week.
posted by Carl @ 10/02/2008 12:02:00 AM
¦
1 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Cartoon of the Day
I see XKCD shares my obsession with sporks: source: XKCD
posted by Carl @ 10/02/2008 12:01:00 AM
¦
4 Comment(s) so far
¦
Links to this post
Home
"a great name for a blog"--RightPundit
"Blogging at its finest"--CJ
"he don't like liberals and he don't pull no punches"--Matt Crash!
"Great name, lively commentary, great name, good satire, great name"--Logomachon
"the best-named blog on the Web"--4 Right Wing Wackos
"Noch schöner aber: no oil for pacifists"--KosmoBlog
"the best goddamned neocon blog name I've ever heard"--Richard Delevan
"a dandy, very comprehensive blogging". . . "Best Blog on the web"--Powerboss
"A new favorite emerging"--Paul's Rants
"He cites facts and other articles when he rants"--Pittsburgh and Beyond
"provides a typically link-rich deconstruction"--Virtual Fret Noise
"a damn good lesson in how to combine incisive commentary with well-chosen links. . .You have to admire this man's talent"--A Certain Slant of Light
"Extremely well thought out and helpful. . .a rather good blogger"--True Grit
"Very, very informative, with lots of links to sources"--MaxedOutMama
"a steak of a blog . . . a must read"--Sigmund, Carl & Alfred
"a must read for digging into hard questions on policy [and], values [of] the Right and Left"--True Grit
"among the best I've ever read on a blog!"--Tom Carter
"seriously exemplary blogging!"--Publius Pundit's Robert Mayer
"One of the best bloggers ever!"--Stan at Transcending Sovereingty
"This guy is a classic blogger, and he shreds the NYT"--The News Junkie at Maggie's Farm
One of "The 20 Best Named Blogs"--Right Wing News
"Digital Anti-Fog"--Patriot
"definitely worth your time"--Snarky Bastards' Jamie
"He clearly has more time to waste than I"--Snarky Bastards' Jamie
"great name, by the way!"--I'm Down With That
"lots of links and charts and stuff"--Virtual Fret Noise
"[He] has already done the footwork"--Capitalist Lion
"[S]tart getting educated. His blog will do that for you"--Ilona at True Grit
"I love reading your obsessively backed-up posts"--Assistant Village Idiot
"still the best blog name in the universe"--Combs Spouts Off
LAST TEN
Picture of the Day
Blame Canada
Lefty Follies
Depends On What You Mean By "Lobbyist"
Job Market 2009
From the One's Mouth
QOTD
Stormy Weather
Barking Mad
See the Plants, Stay for the Suicide
By topic
Post Election Dems
Leftist Nonsense
The Swimming Pool's Empty
More than Hicks--We're Hitler!
The Dems' Two Week Hate
JFK: The First Neo-Con
Valerie Plame, Perjurer
Move On, Rove Haters (comment)
Iraq
No WMDs? No Problem
Democracy Justified Invasion
Preemption Obviates Imminence
16 Words--Each True
The Left Forgets Why
Iraqis Want us to Stay
The New Constitution
Military Recruiting Is Fine
Civil Rights in Iraq
Policing the World
The Left Isn't Right
Ask the Neo-Con
The Just War Doctrine
Chicken Hawk: Rebutted
The Value of War
Rawls Was Wrong
Immigration and Assimilation
Liberals Lie About Invading Iraq
Proud Alum of the Electoral College
Dogmatic Secularism v. Faith
Faith Isn't Fascism
Secularism is a Religion
Secularism is a Religion--Part II
Is God Unconstitutional?
Leninism Left Liberals Loathing the Lord
Live-blogging the Bush Campaign
The Oddesy Begins
Leftist Voter Intimidation
Re-Election Secured
Political Humor
Dems Sell Short
Rock-Solid Proof
Kerry Supporter Needing Exit Strategy
Don't Quit your Day Job
Moonbats Face Extinction
Lit-Crit
Books
Obscure Books
Plays
Law and the Constitution
The Next Supreme Court
Legality of the 2000 Election
Legality of the 2004 Election
Liberal Authoritarian Jurisprudence
The 10th Amendment--Left Behind
Impeach Justice Kennedy
Legislating Isn't a Trial
2nd Amendment Triumphs
Warrantless Wiretapping of Foreign Nat'l Security Intel
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Phony Environmentalism
Kyoto is Japanese for Poverty
Lomborg Exonerated
Neither Consensus Nor Accuracy
Cargo Cult
Some Science is Junk
Pollution Already Reduced
Pollution Still Easing
Doomsayers Give Earth 8 Months
Ice Returns; Polar Bears Saved; Gore Sinks
Warming Facts Summary (on DA)
Warming Charts & Quiz
Obama's Bad Energy Fix
McCain Joins the Cult
Drill Now
The Economy for Stupids
Bush Economy: Better Than You Think
Bush Cut Taxes of the Poor
Economic Snapshot
Poor isn't Permanent
The Poor Get Richer
Health Care Myths
Free Health Care Overused
The Issue Is Entitlements
Domestic Policy
Democrats for Fixing Social Security
Healthcare: US v. Britain
Healthcare: US v. The World
Standard of Living: US v. Europe
Space Travel Without NASA
Got To Admit It's Getting Better
End Farm Subsidies
Gay Marriage
Cal. Makes It a Trend
NY Cliff Dives in a Manhattan Minute
Mass. Court Overturns Democracy
Liberal Law Professors Lie
Full Faith--the Real Issue
Israel & Palestine
Divestment Nonsense--Part I
Divestment Nonsense--Part II
Muddled-Headed Bile, Not Brave Boycott
The 'Poor, Poor Palestinians'--Not!
U.S. & Israel Didn't "Do" Anything
Palestinians, Not Israelis, Kill Innocents
Europe: Anti-Jew, not Anti-Israel
The Media: Ditto
Israel: Wrong Whether (X) Or Not(X)
Potempkin Intifada
Terror and Diplomacy
The UN--Ignore 'um
Liberals Join Team Jihad
No Court Martial for Fallujah Marine
Kofi's Lies
We Comply with the Geneva Conventions, Pt. I
We Comply with the Geneva Conventions, Pt. II
Boumediene Is Bad Law
We Comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention
LINKS
InstaPundit
The Corner
Power Line
Hugh Hewitt
RedState.Org
Norman Geras
Protein Wisdom
Charles Johnson
Right Wing News
Open Source Media
Captain's Quarters
RealClearPolitics
Best of the Web
Michelle Malkin
Victory Caucus
Day By Day
Jeff Jarvis
EconLog
NOFP Tools
E-mail NOfP
Carl Frank
lives, works and thinks
inside the beltway.
See my complete profile
ARCHIVES
- NOfP Archives -
02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
02/15/2004 - 02/22/2004
02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
02/29/2004 - 03/07/2004
03/07/2004 - 03/14/2004
03/14/2004 - 03/21/2004
03/21/2004 - 03/28/2004
03/28/2004 - 04/04/2004
04/04/2004 - 04/11/2004
07/25/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 08/08/2004
08/08/2004 - 08/15/2004
08/15/2004 - 08/22/2004
08/22/2004 - 08/29/2004
09/05/2004 - 09/12/2004
09/12/2004 - 09/19/2004
09/19/2004 - 09/26/2004
09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004
10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004
10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004
10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004
10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004
10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004
11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004
11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
12/12/2004 - 12/19/2004
12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004
12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005
01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005
01/16/2005 - 01/23/2005
01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005
01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005
02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005
02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005
02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005
02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005
03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005
03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005
03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
04/10/2005 - 04/17/2005
04/17/2005 - 04/24/2005
04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 05/08/2005
05/08/2005 - 05/15/2005
05/15/2005 - 05/22/2005
05/22/2005 - 05/29/2005
05/29/2005 - 06/05/2005
06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005
06/12/2005 - 06/19/2005
06/19/2005 - 06/26/2005
06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005
07/03/2005 - 07/10/2005
07/10/2005 - 07/17/2005
07/17/2005 - 07/24/2005
07/24/2005 - 07/31/2005
07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005
08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005
08/14/2005 - 08/21/2005
08/21/2005 - 08/28/2005
08/28/2005 - 09/04/2005
09/04/2005 - 09/11/2005
09/11/2005 - 09/18/2005
09/18/2005 - 09/25/2005
09/25/2005 - 10/02/2005
10/02/2005 - 10/09/2005
10/09/2005 - 10/16/2005
10/16/2005 - 10/23/2005
10/23/2005 - 10/30/2005
10/30/2005 - 11/06/2005
11/06/2005 - 11/13/2005
11/13/2005 - 11/20/2005
11/20/2005 - 11/27/2005
11/27/2005 - 12/04/2005
12/04/2005 - 12/11/2005
12/11/2005 - 12/18/2005
12/18/2005 - 12/25/2005
12/25/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 01/08/2006
01/08/2006 - 01/15/2006
01/15/2006 - 01/22/2006
01/22/2006 - 01/29/2006
01/29/2006 - 02/05/2006
02/05/2006 - 02/12/2006
02/12/2006 - 02/19/2006
02/19/2006 - 02/26/2006
09/10/2006 - 09/17/2006
10/01/2006 - 10/08/2006
10/08/2006 - 10/15/2006
10/22/2006 - 10/29/2006
11/12/2006 - 11/19/2006
12/03/2006 - 12/10/2006
12/10/2006 - 12/17/2006
04/15/2007 - 04/22/2007
04/22/2007 - 04/29/2007
04/29/2007 - 05/06/2007
05/06/2007 - 05/13/2007
05/13/2007 - 05/20/2007
05/20/2007 - 05/27/2007
05/27/2007 - 06/03/2007
06/03/2007 - 06/10/2007
06/10/2007 - 06/17/2007
06/17/2007 - 06/24/2007
06/24/2007 - 07/01/2007
07/01/2007 - 07/08/2007
07/08/2007 - 07/15/2007
07/15/2007 - 07/22/2007
07/22/2007 - 07/29/2007
07/29/2007 - 08/05/2007
08/05/2007 - 08/12/2007
08/12/2007 - 08/19/2007
08/19/2007 - 08/26/2007
08/26/2007 - 09/02/2007
09/02/2007 - 09/09/2007
09/09/2007 - 09/16/2007
09/16/2007 - 09/23/2007
09/23/2007 - 09/30/2007
09/30/2007 - 10/07/2007
10/07/2007 - 10/14/2007
10/14/2007 - 10/21/2007
10/21/2007 - 10/28/2007
10/28/2007 - 11/04/2007
11/04/2007 - 11/11/2007
11/11/2007 - 11/18/2007
11/18/2007 - 11/25/2007
11/25/2007 - 12/02/2007
12/02/2007 - 12/09/2007
12/09/2007 - 12/16/2007
12/16/2007 - 12/23/2007
12/23/2007 - 12/30/2007
12/30/2007 - 01/06/2008
01/06/2008 - 01/13/2008
01/13/2008 - 01/20/2008
01/20/2008 - 01/27/2008
01/27/2008 - 02/03/2008
02/03/2008 - 02/10/2008
02/10/2008 - 02/17/2008
02/17/2008 - 02/24/2008
02/24/2008 - 03/02/2008
03/02/2008 - 03/09/2008
03/09/2008 - 03/16/2008
03/16/2008 - 03/23/2008
03/23/2008 - 03/30/2008
03/30/2008 - 04/06/2008
04/06/2008 - 04/13/2008
04/13/2008 - 04/20/2008
04/20/2008 - 04/27/2008
04/27/2008 - 05/04/2008
05/04/2008 - 05/11/2008
05/11/2008 - 05/18/2008
05/18/2008 - 05/25/2008
05/25/2008 - 06/01/2008
06/01/2008 - 06/08/2008
06/08/2008 - 06/15/2008
06/15/2008 - 06/22/2008
06/22/2008 - 06/29/2008
06/29/2008 - 07/06/2008
07/06/2008 - 07/13/2008
07/13/2008 - 07/20/2008
07/20/2008 - 07/27/2008
07/27/2008 - 08/03/2008
08/03/2008 - 08/10/2008
08/10/2008 - 08/17/2008
08/17/2008 - 08/24/2008
08/24/2008 - 08/31/2008
08/31/2008 - 09/07/2008
09/07/2008 - 09/14/2008
09/14/2008 - 09/21/2008
09/21/2008 - 09/28/2008
09/28/2008 - 10/05/2008
10/05/2008 - 10/12/2008
10/12/2008 - 10/19/2008
if (location.href.indexOf("archive")!=-1) document.write("
Blog Information
Profile for NOfPHost
|
|
