Reticulator

Jul 062007
 

MoveOn.org is having an awful lot of trouble moving on:

Petition: Stop Executive Overreach

You’ve probably seen the news that President Bush let Scooter Libby, the one man who was convicted for the lies around the Iraq war, go free.

The obstruction of justice doesn’t stop there. The Senate recently subpoenaed documents from the Vice President’s office around the illegal wiretapping program and so far he has not complied. It’s clear this administration thinks it’s above the law.

It makes one wonder how they got that name, anyway.

Jul 052007
 

Hillary Clinton on Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence:

Today’s decision is yet another example that this administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies… This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.

Yet is there a single news reporter who asked her how this statement would be applied to Sandy Berger if she is elected president?

(Thanks to Michael Reagan and his column for reminding us about Sandy Berger. No thanks to the main stream media, though.)

Jul 042007
 

Paul Greenberg writes:

I’m all for the wonderful mosaic of cultures in this country – social, religious, linguistic, culinary and every other kind in this country of countries. Each contributes something to the way we all see things, think about things. We learn from each other. But here there is room for only one, indivisible, unhyphenated civic culture. A civic and civil culture that gives us a common tongue to argue in, and common ground to stand on.

Note that having English as the one official language of this country, the language used for government work, would be quite compatible with our being more of a multi-lingual society. It would be quite compatible with kids learning more languages in school, and perhaps ought to be accompanied by such if it were ever to be made official policy. It’s no threat to our having a multitude of cultures and languages — unless all aspects of our cultures and private lives become government business. If that’s the case, then government is too big.

This was in Paul Greenberg’s recent article on immigration reform : Me, Ma, and Ben Franklin. So was Greenberg for the recent immigration bill or against it? He explains in the introductory paragraph to the article in which the above quote appeared.

I didn’t much like the immigration bill that just stalled in the U.S. Senate. In fact, I disliked it. Intensely. And I was for it. You can imagine how the folks who were against it felt about the bill.

Jun 272007
 

Here’s John Edwards on Ann Coulter:

“I think she [Mrs. Edwards] was making it clear that we can’t continue to tolerate this kind of name-calling and hate-mongering,” Edwards said. “We have to elevate the discussion because this is all calculated to keep us from talking about … the things that affect people’s lives, like men and women dying in Iraq.”

Source: We Have to Elevate the Discussion

And then watch Edwards’ supporters respond by spewing venom and hatred against Coulter at this blog at the New York Times.

Edwards Coulter P.S.

One of my favorites was this one posted by “Joe”.

I hate Ms. Coulter and I do not understand why she is aloued [sic] to have a voice on TV.

Joe

This was mild in comparison to what some of them said.

Maybe these people think Edwards’ advice applies only to the other side.

Jun 262007
 

Google News has been giving a lot of play to the Supreme Court decision in the student vs school case. Yet to read the headline news late tonight, there was no news about the Supreme Court and political speech. Earlier today, Google gave some play to both Supreme Court decisions, but now their minds seem fixated on drugs. (Yeah, I know they say a computer program picks the stories. Blaming the computer is one of the oldest dodges in the book. That one was going around before most of these Google people were even born.)

Besides, a search for “Supreme Court Federal Election Wisconsin Right Life’ gives 281 hits, while a search for “Supreme Court Morse Frederick”gives only 245.

Jun 212007
 

The Best of the Web at opinionjournal.com  is more tolerant and easygoing than I am.   I admire them for that.   I suggested in …but acknowledged… that journalists not be allowed to use the word “but.”  After reading Best of the Web, one realizes that it might suffice to publish a dictionary that explains the special definitions of words like “but” and “many”, as used by journalists.

 … according to the AP’s Sara Kugler, “many believe [it] could be a step toward entering the 2008 race for president.”

To make sense of this assertion, you need to be fluent in the dialect of American English known as Journalese. In Journalese, many can be either singular or plural, and it is a first-person pronoun.

Which is to say, Bloomberg is the candidate of the media, ideologically as well as professionally. The positions Kugler enumerates are all very popular among journalists. And while they are also popular among Democrats, Democratic politicians do not necessarily support them, or support them sincerely.

The URL: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010234

Jun 202007
 

A letter writer to the WSJ writes today

… the essential question: What is the driving force behind the “earmark” phenomenon? It’s so clearly destructive, yet it persists….

The problem is simple. Earmarks bound for my home district are “economic opportunity.” Earmarks bound for your home district are “pork.” Until that reality changes, folks like Sen. Coburn are rolling this boulder uphill. Fiscal responsibility? For thee and thee, but not for me.

To change that reality, we need term limits.   If your congressperson is rewarded by his constituents for getting pork for your district, and mine is rewarded by ours for getting pork for our district, it will be a race to the bottom.  If there are no effective controls on the greed of congressperson or voters, the most corrupt congressperson (and the most corrupt voters) will win.

What is needed is a way for the voters in our district to put limits on the greed and corruption of the voters  in yours, and vice versa.  Given that the power to pork is highly correlated with incumbency (and if you don’t believe me, listen to the incumbents argue as to why voters should re-elect them) term limits will be a control on this.  It will be a way for us to limit, not our own congresspersons, but yours.

And why should voters in our district be allowed to control who you elect?  Because your congressperson gets to spend our money on special treatment for you.

If Congress was restricted to dealing only with national issues, it might be a different story.   But there is no chance of that happening any time before the Revolution comes.

 

 

Jun 172007
 

The New York Times reports that internet sales growth is slowing.    It’s no longer growing at 25 percent a year.

Article:  Online Sales Lose Steam

I say that’s good news for internet sales.  Why?  Because it will force some of the really stupid web sales systems to be innovative and use the potential of the internet to sell their products.

The way it is right now, there are some really, really dumb web sites out there.    They probably get by with being dumb, because no matter what they do, they makes sales.  Well, no longer.

Some things we might see:

  • Better ways to browse the sellers’ wares.  Savable search results.   (I mean something a lot more than just the ability to save items in a wish list.)
  • Photos that are informative.  No more “click here for a larger photo,” only to get a window that’s larger while the product part of the image stays the same.   (Shoes.com does a little better with photos than many others, but could do even better.)

The NYT article talked about how shopping online is a chore while shopping in a retail store is fun.   I agree that online shopping is a chore, but to me it’s more fun that retail shopping, because as clumsy and crude as web sites are, I can get a better idea on the net of the universe of products from which I’m picking.  But I’ve never considered retail shopping to be fun — just a necessary evil to be avoided as much as possible.  The problem is, until now most online store sites haven’t felt much of a need to do better.

Jun 162007
 

Back in the very early 1980s I started a newspaper clipping file under the subject line “Academic Intolerance.” At the time it seemed ironic to find occasional examples of intolerance in institutions that were supposedly devoted to freedom of speech and inquiry. Since then the quantity and ferocity of the intolerance have increased to the point where the term no longer sounds oxymoronic.

I hadn’t known about this one, though, until I read Fred Thompson’s column today:

The head of Marquette’s philosophy department apparently didn’t get it. He took down Barry’s words and issued a statement that included the words, “while I am a strong supporter of academic freedom. I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not free-speech zones.” Since then, the Marquette philosophy department has stuck to its stance that Barry’s words are “patently offensive,” despite the fact that lots of other doors had slogans pasted on them.

You have to wonder just how oblivious that department chair is. The hallways and office doors of academia have long been free-speech zones. For decades I have been reading offensive and objectionable political statements on the doors of academic offices. I can point to a whole bunch of objectionable statements on the doors of the offices and labs where I work now. But while I usually disagree with what’s posted, I think it’s a great tradition. I think of how Martin Luther got the Reformation started by posting controversial statements on a door where they could be seen by passers by.

I see that this particular example has already been blogged to death. But it reminds me that this blog for some reason did not yet have an “Academic intolerance” category. It now does.

And whether or not Fred Thompson would make a good president, it’s great that he is bringing up issues like this. It will be good for the campaign if he can keep it up.

I long ago threw out my old clipping files. Maybe I shouldn’t have done that, now that governments and other institutions are learning how to censor the internet. I still have my old clipping indexes, and some of them are in a form that would allow me to track down the articles, at least until the newspaper archives get censored, too.

Jun 162007
 

Charles Krauthammer has a very sensible article on how to do immigration reform (and in the process, call the bluff of the extremists on both sides of the issue):

He states the problem thusly:

Comprehensive immigration reform is in jeopardy because it is a complex compromise with too many moving parts and too many competing interests. Employers want a guest worker program; unions want to kill it. Reformers want to introduce a point system that preferentially admits skilled and educated immigrants; immigrant groups naturally want to keep the existing family preference system. Liberals want legalization now; conservatives insist on enforcement “triggers” first.

There is only one provision that has unanimous support: stronger border enforcement.  Why not start by passing what everyone says they want?

And his conclusion:

Comprehensive immigration reform has simply too many contentious provisions to command a majority of Congress or the country. We all agree on enforcement, don’t we? So let’s do it. Make it simple. And do it now. Once our borders come visibly under control, everything else will become doable. Including amnesty.

The article: The Jeopardy of Reform