close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20120610035039/http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/

Last updated:
2:04 PM, 9 June 2012



Jim Miller on Politics

  Email:
jimxc1 at gmail.com



What's he reading? Francis Parkman.

News Compilers
(Why These?)

A&L; Daily
Drudge
egopnews.com
Hot Air
Jewish World Review
Lexis-Nexis
Lucianne
Mediaite
memeorandum
Monsters and Critics
Newsalert
Newsback
*newser
Orbusmax
Presseurop
Rantburg
Real Clear Politics
SciTech Daily
Yahoo


Big Media
(Why These?)

Atlantic Monthly
BBC
CNN
Chosen Ilbo
*Daily Mail (UK) *Deutsche Welle
Fox News
Globe and Mail (CA)
Guardian (UK)
Investor's Business Daily
Le Figaro (FR)
Le Monde (FR)
The Local (Sweden)
National Review
New Republic
New York Times
The New Yorker
Politico
Seattle PI
Seattle Times
Slate
Slashdot
The Spectator (UK)
Der Spiegel
Telegraph (UK)
Times (UK)
El Universal
U. S. News
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times


References:

Adherents
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Census Quick Facts
Dave Leip's Election Atlas
FactCheck
Federal Statistics
How Stuff Works
NationMaster
Refdesk
Snopes
StateMaster
Tax Facts
Unionstats
Wikipedia


Smart Media
(Why These?)

ABC News Note
The American Spectator
Michael Barone
City Journal
Commentary
Front Page Magazine
Michael Fumento
The Hill
Charles Krauthammer
Media Research
Michael Medved
New York Sun
Number Watch
Pajamas Media
Public Interest
Roll Call
Spinsanity
Tech Central Station
Townhall
The Weekly Standard


Blogs
(Why These?)

My Group Blog:
Sound Politics

Northwest:


The American Empire
AndrewsDad
Chief Brief
Clear Fog Blog
Coffeemonkey's weblog
Croker Sack
"DANEgerus"
Economic Freedom
Federal Way Conservative
Freedom Foundation
Hairy Thoughts
Huckleberry Online
Andy MacDonald
NW Republican
Orcinus
Public Interest Transportation Forum
<pudge/*>
Northwest Progressive Institute
*Progressive Majority
Matt Rosenberg
Seattle Blogger
Seattle Bubble
Washington Policy Center
West Sound Politics
Zero Base Thinking


Other US:


Ace of Spades HQ
Alien Corn
Ann Althouse
American Thinker
The Anchoress
Armies of Liberation
Art Contrarian
"Baldilocks"
Balloon Juice
Baseball Crank
La Shawn Barber
N. Z. Bear
Beldar
Bleat
Big Government
Bookworm Room
Broadband Politics
Stuart Buck
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Chef Mojo
Chicago Boyz
Classical Values
Gina Cobb
Confederate Yankee
Jules Crittenden
Daily Pundit
Discriminations
Gregory Djerejian
Daniel W. Drezner
Econlog
Econopundit
Election Law
John Ellis
Engage
Dean Esmay
Gary Farber
Fausta
FiveThirtyEight
Flares into Darkness
Flopping Aces
The Long War Journal
Gateway Pundit
Grasping Reality With Both Hands
Keith Hennessey
Hugh Hewitt
Siflay Hraka
Instapundit
Iowahawk
Joanne Jacobs
Jeff Jarvis
The Jawa Report
Brothers Judd
JustOneMinute
Kausfiles
Kesher Talk
Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion
Little Green Footballs
Michelle Malkin
Greg Mankiw
Marginal Revolution
Mazurland
Megan McArdle
Minding the Campus
The ModerateVoice
Mudville Gazette
"neo-neocon"
Betsy Newmark
Newsbusters
No Watermelons Allowed
Ambra Nykola
*The Optimistic Conservative
The Ornery American
OxBlog
Parapundit
"Patterico"
Daniel Pipes
Polipundit
Political Arithmetik
Political Calculations
Pollster.com
Power and Control
Power Line
Protein Wisdom
QandO
Radio Equalizer
RedState
Riehl World View
Right Wing News
Rightwing Nuthouse
Dr. Sanity
Scrappleface
Screw Loose Change
Linda Seebach
Sense of Events
Joshua Sharf
Rand Simberg
Smart Politics
Stability For Our Time
*Strange Maps
The Strata-Sphere
Andrew Sullivan
Don Surber
Sweetness & Light
Taking Hayek Seriously
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf
TigerHawk
USS Neverdock
VDH's Private Papers
Verum Serum
Villainous Company
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Monthly
Wizbang
Dr. Weevil
Matt Welch
Winds of Change
Meryl Yourish
zombietime


Canadians:


*BlazingCatFur
Colby Cosh
Dust My Broom
Five Feet of Fury
Kate McMillan
Damian Penny
Bruce Rolston


Latin America:


Babalú
Caracas Chronicles
The Devil's Excrement
Venezuela News and Views


Overseas:


"Franco Aleman"
Bruce Bawer
Biased BBC
Tim Blair
Peter Briffa
Brussels Journal
*Bunyipitude
Butterflies and Wheels
Crooked Timber
Davids Medienkritik
Egyptian Sand Monkey
EU Referendum
Greenie Watch
Guido Fawkes
Harry's Place
Mick Hartley
Oliver Kamm
JG, Caesarea
¡No-Pasarán!
Fredrik Norman
Melanie Phillips
John Ray
samizdata
Shark Blog
Natalie Solent
Somtow's World
Bjørn Stærk
Laban Tall
Michael Yon
This is Zimbabwe

*Science Blogs:
The Blackboard
Cliff Mass Weather
Climate Audit
Climate Depot
Climate Science
Future Pundit
Gene Expression
The Loom
In The Pipeline
Roger Pielke Jr.
Real Climate
A Voyage To Arcturus
Watts Up With That?

Media Blogs:
Andrew Malcolm
Dori Monson
David Postman
Rhetorical Ammo
Tierney Lab
*White House Dossier

R-Rated:
Horse's A**
Huffington Post

*new



Pseudo-Random Thoughts


Six Pitchers, one no-hitter.
The six pitchers tied the record for the most used in a no-hitter and each played an important role, from Charlie Furbush quickly entering the game after Millwood left in the seventh to Brandon League finding the nasty splitter that had eluded him in recent weeks to Wilhelmsen being so oblivious that teammates had to tell him he just completed a no-hitter.

"He was surprised," Montero said.  "He didn't know. . . . I jumped on him and I was like, 'Hey, it's a no-hitter!'  And he went, 'What?!"  And then he was so happy after that.  He was so focused on the game.  That's what happened."
That doesn't happen every day.  Especially against a team as good as the Dodgers are this year.

Fun fact:  The pitcher who got the win, Stephen Pryor, pitched just 1/3 inning.
- 2:04 PM, 9 June 2012   [link]


Want To Test Your Knowledge Of Jevons Paradox?   Try applying it to this op-ed by William Ruckelshaus and K. C. Golden.

Here's enough to get you started.

Here in the Northwest states, three decades of investment in energy efficiency are delivering impressive results:  We're harvesting enough energy savings to power more than four cities the size of Seattle.  Those efficiency upgrades are saving us more than $2 billion a year on our energy bills.  We're squeezing more work out of our existing hydropower, and adding new renewables like wind, solar and geothermal power.  Renewable energy isn't "alternative" in the Northwest — it's the backbone of our power system, and the reason why we enjoy some of the cleanest and most affordable electricity in the nation.

The region's growing clean-energy economy isn't just about energy efficiency and renewable-energy companies.  It's Boeing gaining a competitive edge by marketing the world's most efficient commercial aircraft while developing sustainable fuels for aviation.

By now, I assume that everyone knows about Jevons Paradox, but in case you need a review, you can find one here.  Incidentally, I'm not sure that economists would find it particularly paradoxical.

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

(Yes, the co-author is that William Ruckelshaus, the man who ignored the recommendations of his scientific advisors and banned DDT.)
- 1:37 PM, 9 June 2012   [link]


Is Obama A Slow Learner?  That's what Fred Barnes thinks.
President Obama has been touted by friends and family as the smartest man ever to sit in the White House.  Perhaps.  Yet he surely is the slowest learner to gain the presidency and probably the most intellectually inflexible.  Obama is not only presiding over the most sluggish economic recovery in 80 years, but the economic future looks even worse.  In May, a woefully small number of jobs were created, the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent, and the rate of growth in the first quarter of 2012 was shaved from 2.2 percent to 1.9 percent.  Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office warned that if Obama leaves his economic program in place, a recession in 2013 is all but certain.

His response?  Let’s do more of the same.
In contrast, FDR was famous, perhaps too famous, for being willing to change policies when the old ones had failed.

I came to a similar conclusion about Obama, some time ago.  As engineers might say, his feedback loops appear not to work as they should.

(There is an alternative explanation, which I should go into at some length — and with some sympathy for Obama:  He probably believes that his policies may not be the best way to make the economy grow, but they are more just than alternative policies.)
- 9:50 AM, 9 June 2012   [link]


Was Obama A Socialist?   Yes.
On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism.   In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party.  The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.
Is Obama now a socialist, or to be precise, a social democrat?

That's harder to say.  Obama is, unquestionably, an Obamaist; he believes in himself more than he should.  But it is hard to tell what else he believes in.

And, of course, the definitions of socialist vary widely.  Obama would be comfortable in some of the parties that call themselves socialist, but not others.

But we can be certain that Obama was a socialist by American standards, and that he has tried to conceal that fact from the voters.

(Kurtz's book, Radical-in-Chief, has much more on Obama's past associations.  Incidentally, Kurtz begins the book by saying that he was not expecting to find that Obama was a socialist.)
- 8:24 AM, 8 June 2012   [link]


Nate Silver's First Prediction:  Last month, I said that I would bet on Romney if the odds favored Obama by close to 60 percent, as they did then at InTrade.  I was even willing to go down to 55 percent and still bet on Romney.

This month, I repeated that and again hedged, saying I wasn't sure how much lower I would go.  (And I am still not sure.)

Now, Nate Silver, who is pretty good with numbers for a Democrat, has issued his first prediction:  He would bet on Obama, right now, if the odds were 60 percent or less in favor of Obama.  To be precise, he gives Obama a 61.6 percent chance of winning.

He adds this caution:
One of the confusing aspects of this presidential race so far is that national polls have often shown a race that is nearly tied — or Mr. Romney sometimes leading — while Mr. Obama has more often had the lead in polls of crucial battleground states.  Sites that project the presidential outcome based on the state polls have thus seemed to show a tangible advantage for Mr. Obama, while those that look at the trend in national polls seem to imply that the race is too close to call.
(For an example, see Gallup's daily tracking poll, which currently gives Romney the edge, 47-45.)

This discrepancy doesn't bother me because I don't think the polls are very good predictors this early in the race.  (I do think pollsters should be interested in the discrepancy, since it shows that some of them are getting bad results.)

So, there you are, two competing estimates.  Each of us plan to update our estimates regularly, though I won't do the updates as frequently as Silver will.

And InTrade?  As I write, they are giving Obama a 53.8 per cent chance of winning.

(I do not plan to construct a formal model, as Silver has, since I don't think we know enough about voters' thinking to do so.  If I were to construct a model, I would want to do my own polling to test parts of it as I went along.)
- 7:39 AM, 8 June 2012   [link]


How Bad Was That NYT Piece On Romney's House In La Jolla?  So bad a columnist for the far-left Nation magazine said it shouldn't have run.
[Ari] Melber said he likes and reads the Times, but said that the paper used a campaign reporter to essentially publish a hit piece on Romney’s wealth and policy positions and disguised it as a human interest story in a non-political section.   Melber called it a “thin, silly story” and “an attempt — implicit or otherwise — to draw connection between [Romney's] personal wealth and his candidacy.”
Ouch.

(I thought the piece was silly, and took up far too much space — more than a page, all together.  But I did think the reporter, Michael Barbaro, was unintentionally revealing by giving us examples of leftist intolerance.)
- 7:15 PM, 7 June 2012   [link]


We Have A Suspect In Those NYT Security Leaks:   New York Times reporter David Sanger has had some striking stories on our anti-terrorism successes during the Obama presidency, stories with enough details so that even John Kerry wonders whether they should have been published.

John McCain, who knows a little bit about national security, is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the leaks.
On CBS “This Morning,” McCain charged, “This is the most highly classified information and it’s now been leaked by the administration at the highest levels at the White House and that’s not acceptable.”  He intimated that the White House was “breaching national security” either by leaking the information or tacitly encouraging it.

“It makes the president look very decisive; and it gives very little credit to the other men and women who make these things happen," the Arizona Senator stated.  "This puts American lives in danger, revealing our most highly classified operations both in cyberwar and in drones.”
. . .
McCain also called for a special counsel to investigate the matter.
Yesterday, in a New York Times review of David Sanger's Confront and Conceal, Thomas Ricks gives us a big hint on who a special prosecutor might want to question:
And throughout, Mr. Sanger clearly has enjoyed great access to senior administration officials, most notably Thomas Donilon, the national security adviser.

Mr. Donilon, in effect, is the hero of the book, as well as the commenter of record on events.
Is that evidence too indirect?  Well, consider this reprimand from Secretary Robert Gates, which is also found in Sanger's book.
“By Wednesday of that week, Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the raid. [that took out bin Laden]

“‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend,’ Gates said in his trademark droll tones, according to an account later provided by his colleagues.

“What was that, Donilon asked?

“‘Shut the f@*k up,’ the defense secretary said.”
(Gates is not known for employing vulgarity.)

Donilon is, to say the least, an odd choice for National Security Advisor.  Morgenson and Rosner say he is one of those responsible for the Fannie Mae disaster — and he had little national security experience or education, before becoming a deputy to General James Jones (who doesn't think much of Donilon).
- 1:10 PM, 7 June 2012
Ken Allard, who knows something about leaks, agrees with me that Thomas Donilon is a likely suspect — and has much to say the possible costs of those leaks.
- 9:27 AM, 8 June 2012   [link]


Does Smoking Marijuana Increase The Risk Of Lung Cancer?   That's what the British Lung Foundation is saying.
Most people (88%) believe smoking cigarettes is worse than cannabis but in fact the risk of developing lung cancer is 20 times greater from a cannabis joint than a legal tobacco cigarette.

A new report from the British Lung Foundation (BLF) claims there is an alarming disconnect between the public perception of cannabis as a relatively safe drug, and the serious, even fatal impact it can have on the lungs of people who smoke it.
Is the BLF right?

To some extent, I suspect that they are, simply because inhaling smoke from any kind of burning leaves can't be good for the lungs.

But, as for the larger claim, the 20 times more dangerous, I would have to look very hard and long at the actual studies before I came to a firm opinion.  So, for now, I would describe the 20 times more dangerous claim as plausible, but unproven.

(I estimate that it would take, literally, weeks of digging before I could evaluate this claim, partly because the field is so politicized.  I did skim through the BLF report, and didn't see any obvious defects in their arguments.  The report includes some qualifiers that you won't find in their press release.

For similar reasons, I haven't looked into the claims that marijuana can trigger schizophrenia in vulnerable young people.)
- 8:20 AM, 7 June 2012   [link]


From "Survived" To "Narrow" To "Solid" To "Decisive"  I am amused by the way "mainstream" journalists slowly figured out how to describe Walker's win in the Wisconsin recall election.

On election night I saw a lot of "survived" or "narrow", but, by the morning after, the networks mostly seemed to have figured out that "solid" was more accurate, and by yesterday evening PBS was describing it as "decisive".

I think the journalists were fooled by their own exit poll, which did show a "narrow" result, and it took them some time to realize that the actual votes did not match the poll.

(For the record:  I still think "solid" is about right.  And I would remind my fellow Republicans that Obama did carry Wisconsin in 2008, 1,677,211 (56%) to McCain's 1,262,393 (42%).  As a well-known blogger keeps saying, "Don't get cocky.")
- 7:33 AM, 7 June 2012   [link]


D-Day And The Weathermen:  One reason D-Day succeeded, 68 years ago, is that the Allied weathermen gave our side a better prediction than the German weathermen gave their side.

Rough weather forced a one-day postponement, but our weathermen saw the break in the weather coming on 6 June, and the German weathermen didn't.

In fact, they predicted bad weather for enough days so that many of the German commanders took some time off.  Rommel, for instance, actually traveled to Germany.  Other generals left their posts for staff exercises.  As a result, there was no coordinated response to the Allied landings.

(The German weathermen were not at fault for their incorrect prediction.  They no longer had the weather stations in the Atlantic that might have seen the high moving east that the Allied weathermen saw.  Earlier in the war, the Germans had deployed small ships, often converted trawlers, in the Atlantic to gather weather information, but those ships were all gone by D-Day.  Partly because the British liked to capture them for their code machines and books, a story told in Seizing the Enigma.)
- 5:44 PM, 6 June 2012   [link]


What Happens If You Correct The Wisconsin Exit Poll?   As almost everyone knows by now, the exit poll in Wisconsin was biased toward the Democrats.  Michael Barone couldn't wait for the final returns to come in to make a quick estimate of what would happen if you corrected for that bias.
The Wisconsin exit poll evidently reported the race for governor in the recall ballot as 50%-50%.  With 92% of the vote in, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s excellent website reports the score as 54%-46% Walker.  Let’s say that’s the final results: only 13% of precincts from Milwaukee County and 3% of precincts from Madison’s Dane County—the Democrats’ two reservoirs of big majorities—remain uncounted.  It has been emblazoned on mainstream media that the exit poll also showed Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney in the state 51%-45%.  But if you think the exit poll was 4% too Democratic—and that’s in line with exit poll discrepancies with actual vote results over the last decade, as documented by the exit poll pioneer, the late Warren Mitofsky*—that result looks more like 49%-47% Romney.  Or assume the remaining Milwaukee County precincts whittle Republican Governor Scott Walker’s margin over Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to 53%-47%, which looks likely, the Obama-Romney numbers would look like 48%-48%.
Which, as Barone reminds us, is very close to the results in 2000 and 2004 in Wisconsin.   Bush lost to Gore in 2000 by 5,708 votes, and to Kerry in 2004 by 11,384 votes, so there is good reason to think that a Republican presidential candidate can win Wisconsin, even though it hasn't happened since 1984.

He concludes, as I would, that the exit poll is not good news for the Obama campaign.

(Barone can't resist adding that Mitofsky found that the biggest errors came in precincts polled by "female graduate students".  That reminds me of a story told by George Gallup.  He had found that he had two biased interviewers, one a partisan Democrat, who almost always found more Democrats than anyone else, and the other a partisan Republican, who almost always found more Republicans than anyone else.  He thought the two balanced each other out.)
- 2:52 PM, 6 June 2012   [link]


Pictures Of The Transit Of Venus from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory.

It's a very pretty three-minute video, but I should warn you that NASA put a music track on it, rather than an explanation of what you are seeing.  (Mostly views at different wave lengths, I believe.)

(Here's background from the usual Wikipedia article.)
- 9:38 AM, 6 June 2012   [link]


Kudos to Professor Volokh.
I’m pleased to say that I’ll be consulting with Aaron Walker’s defense lawyer in the case I discussed last week, in which a Maryland judge issued a “peace order” — in other states, generally called a “restraining order” — that the judge seemed to interpret as limiting Aaron Walker’s blogging about Brett Kimberlin.
And Volokh is doing for free.

I wouldn't say that freedom of speech always belongs only to those who can afford legal protection — but it sometimes does, so we should respect those lawyers who defend that essential freedom, without charging the usual hourly rates.

(If you are not familiar with Brett Kimberlin, take a look at some of the recent posts about him by Patrick Frey.)
- 8:48 AM, 6 June 2012   [link]


Vice President Biden Insults Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Himself, and his wife, Jill Biden.
I know, literally, Barack and I talk about it.  Neither one of us would have had any shot,” Biden said.  “The same with our wives.  Both wives are smarter than both of us.   Literally, these very accomplished women would not have any chance without some help.
No chance at all, without government help?

As I've said before, I think Michelle Obama could have become a successful gym teacher and, perhaps, a coach, without any government help.   Jill Biden earned a Ph.D. in English and has had a modestly successful career as an educator.
- 7:38 AM, 6 June 2012   [link]


The Basic Wisconsin Recall Numbers:  Governor Scott Walker increased his vote from 1,128,941 in 2010 to 1,332,692.  Challenger Tom Barrett increased his vote from 1,004,303 to 1,160,247.

So Walkers's margin increased from 124,638 to 172,445.  In 2010, he won by 6 percent; this year he won by 7 percent.  (Which, coincidentally, is about the same popular vote margin that Obama had, nationally, in 2008.)

That's another solid win for Walker.  Nonetheless, news organizations are saying, not that Walker gained over two years ago, but that he "survived".   For example.

As they say, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

(The 2012 numbers are from the very useful, but unofficial, Ace of Spades spreadsheet.  I would expect that the official results will have some minor differences, when they are released.)
- 6:19 AM, 6 June 2012   [link]


So Far, I Haven't Seen Any Reason To Change My Mind On Wisconsin:  Walker has a 57-42 lead, and a disproportionate share of the votes have come from the Democratic stronghold of Dane County (Madison), which is not, so far, giving Barrett the margin he will need.

However, I repeat, so far.
- 6:36 PM, 5 June 2012
In most counties, Walker is currently doing better than he did in 2010.
- 6:49 PM, 5 June 2012
The networks are projecting a Walker win, some rather grumpily, I would say.  Given how early it is, the final result will not be especially close.
- 7:15 PM, 5 June 2012
Not only will Walker win, he will get more votes than he did in 2010 (1,128,941 votes).  He currently has 1,082,788 votes with just 84 percent of the precincts counted.
- 8:40 PM, 5 June 2012   [link]


"Très Brooklyn"  According to a front page article in yesterday's New York Times:
In France, there is still a widespread belief that the daily diet in the United States consists of grossly large servings of fast food.  But in Paris, American food is suddenly being seen as more than just restauration rapide.  Among young Parisians, there is currently no greater praise for cuisine than "très Brooklyn," a term that signifies a particularly cool combination of informality, creativity and quality.
So now Paris has a few American-style food trucks selling hamburgers and soft tacos.   Expensive hamburgers and soft tacos.

The article doesn't explain why they chose Brooklyn, rather than, say, Manhattan, San Francisco, or Los Angeles.  Although Brooklyn does have its share of food trucks.
- 4:12 PM, 5 June 2012   [link]


How Good Is Elizabeth Warren's Research?  Not very, according to a long review found by Breitbart, and discussed by Professor Jacobson.
In those 60 pages, Professor Shuchman demonstrates time and again how Warren and her co-authors jumped to conclusions, proclaimed new findings which were not new, and most importantly, ignored or did not accurately reflect data.
I was struck by the harsh language in the selections quoted from the review.  Generally, academics make their criticisms of other academics softly and indirectly, even if they think the other academics are fools.

Megan McArdle, who knows something about economics and data — even though she voted for Barack Obama — is softer in tone, but almost equally critical in this first of a pair of posts.
Does this persistent tendency to choose odd metrics that inflate the case for some left wing cause matter?  If Warren worked at a think tank, you'd say, "Ah, well, that's the genre."  On the other hand, you'd also tend to regard her stuff with a rather beady eye.  It's unlikely to have been splashed across the headline of every newspaper in the United States.  Her work gets so much attention because it comes from a Harvard professor.  And this isn't Harvard caliber material--not even Harvard undergraduate.
These critiques make it more likely, in my opinion, that Warren got her job at Harvard because she was claiming to be a Cherokee and because, as a woman, she was a "two-fer".

I'm not saying that whoever hired her knew about these apparent defects in her work, but I am saying that they might not have looked at her research as hard as they should have.

And she wouldn't be the first left-winger to get a faculty position in part because of her politically correct conclusions.
- 3:36 PM, 5 June 2012   [link]


Walker Will Win In Wisconsin:  So says almost everyone, including — according to Drudge — the exit polls.

I had planned to make a guesstimate on his margin, but don't think it fair to, now that the exit polls have, apparently, leaked.  But I will say that I expect the margin to be greater than the 5 percent that Drudge is reporting.
- 3:07 PM, 5 June 2012
In 2010, Walker defeated Barrett 1,128,941-1,004,303, or 6 percent (52-46).
- 5:23 PM, 5 June 2012   [link]


Obama's 4th Of July With Unrepentant Terrorist Bill Ayers?   Here's the Breitbart story.
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama disavowed any connection with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground radical who was one of Obama's early backers and his colleague on the board of the Woods Fund in Chicago.  We now have proof that Obama's association with Ayers continued even after Obama had been elected to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate--in the form of a now-scrubbed blog post placing Obama at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow radical Bernardine Dohrn, on July 4, 2005.
Like Keith Koffler, I consider that blog post evidence, but not proof.  Which is why I put a question mark on that headline.
If true – I wouldn’t go so far to say that a 7-year old blog post is definitive evidence of anything – it would put Obama in Ayers’ backyard even after being elected Senator.

Some of the best evidence that Obama and Ayers had an enduring relationship beyond Ayers just being someone who lived neighborhood and oh-I-couldn’t-help-but-bump-into-the-dude, as Obama has suggested, is Obama and his campaign’s response to suggestions that it was something more.
And I agree with the second point that Koffler makes.  They do behave as if they have something to hide.

So I think it probable that Obama did attend that celebration, but not certain.

(And I can't help but wonder how Ayers and Dohrn celebrate the 4th.   By providing an American flag doormat for their guests?  By drinking toasts to the coming demise of the United States?)
- 1:14 PM, 5 June 2012   [link]


"Guilt By Existence"  Joe diGenova has a good line.
The Department of Justice may be engaged in a politically motivated attack on the state of Florida over efforts there to purge thousands of people who may be ineligible to vote from the state’s voter rolls.

“I don’t think there’s any question that in the Civil Rights Division there’s a mindset of guilt by existence.  It’s phenomenal,” conservative attorney Joe diGenova told CNSNews.com.  “If you exist and you’re in that jurisdiction and you happen to be of one party, that’s it.”
Is he right?  Probably.

After the disputed 2004 gubernatorial election, Washington state used similar methods to clean up our voting rolls, with no objection from the Justice Department and, as far as I know, not a single person losing their right to vote.

(You can find some background on diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing here and here.)
- 8:23 AM, 5 June 2012   [link]


The Flying Cat:  Just in case you missed it.
Many animal lovers find it hard to part with their pets when they die.

So when cat Orville, named after the famous aviator Orville Wright, was run over by a car, his artist owner decided to turn him into a permanent piece of artwork as the ultimate tribute by transforming him into a flying helicopter.
I can't decide whether cat lovers or cat haters will like this recycled cat best.

Orville is now shaped just like a flying squirrel, which makes sense aerodynamically and, perhaps, artistically.
- 7:57 AM, 5 June 2012   [link]


Archives

June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002, Part 1 and Part 2
November 2002, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
December 2002, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

January 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
February 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
March 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
April 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2004, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2004, Part 1, Part 2. Part 3, and Part 4
October 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2005, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2006, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2007, Part 1 and Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2007, Part 1 Part 2, and Part 3, and Part 4
June 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2007, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2007, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2008, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
May 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. and Part 4

January 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2010, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2010, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2012, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2012, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2012, Part 1 and Part 2






Coming Soon
  • FDR and Waterboarding
  • How Long Do Wars Last?
  • Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, and Crescent Wrenches
  • De-Lawyering and Attorney General McKenna


Coming Eventually
  • JFK and Wiretaps
  • Green Republicans
  • The Rise and Fall and Rise of Black Voting
  • Abortion, Cleft Palates, and Europe
  • Kweisi Mfume's Children
  • Public Opinion During Other US Wars
  • Dual Loyalties
  • The Power Index
  • Baby Dancing
  • Jocks, but no Nerds
  • The Four Caliphs




Best Posts


Books


Strange Obama


The Unknown Bush


University Reform


Uncorrected Mistakes


Vote Fraud


The Gang of Four


Articles


Assignment Desk
(What's This?)


Columns


Common Mistakes
(What's This?)


Chomsky Cult Program


*new