"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
5.11.03
LINK: Religious terrorism of another variety... I remember how close we were to bulding an effigy for Guy Fawkes Day my freshman year, and then going out to the Arb and burning it... we were such crazy kids
SO: The Democrats got shellacked in Mississippi and Kentucky, and will have the same happen in a week or two in Louisiana. Florida will almost certainly go Republican in 2004 on the basis of Jeb Bush's re-election in 2002 and the open Senate seat, which will drive GOP voters to the polls. The Republicans seem to have perfected their own 72-hour strategy, neutralizing the advantage Democrats used to have in getting out the vote. And McCain-Feingold, if it's upheld by the Supreme Court, promises to give Republicans a huge hard money advantage over Democrats. With this in mind, I ask the following question, inviting you all to chime in as you like:
Have we entered a new period of GOP electoral dominance?
Have we entered a new period of GOP electoral dominance?
INTERESTING INFO: Becky made a big to-do yesterday about the poll that shows that 44% of voters would vote against President Bush no matter who was running. Best of the Web notes another interesting feature of the poll:
"But then the poll pits Bush against the five major Democratic candidates, and not only does Bush beat each one handily, but not one of them manages even the 44% of those polled--and remember, this is the same poll--who said they would definitely vote against Bush. Bush beats Dick Gephardt 48% to 43%, John Kerry 48% to 42%, Howard Dean 49% to 41%, Joe Lieberman 52% to 41%, and Wesley Clark 55% to 36%.
Maybe the Dems should give up on the nominating process altogether and just run slates of uncommitted electors next November."
Which, you know, isn't really such a bad idea.
"But then the poll pits Bush against the five major Democratic candidates, and not only does Bush beat each one handily, but not one of them manages even the 44% of those polled--and remember, this is the same poll--who said they would definitely vote against Bush. Bush beats Dick Gephardt 48% to 43%, John Kerry 48% to 42%, Howard Dean 49% to 41%, Joe Lieberman 52% to 41%, and Wesley Clark 55% to 36%.
Maybe the Dems should give up on the nominating process altogether and just run slates of uncommitted electors next November."
Which, you know, isn't really such a bad idea.
4.11.03
A RUSH AND A PUSH: David Brooks swings for the fences, and by and large makes it. The beginning:
"Um Haydar was a 25-year-old Iraqi woman whose husband displeased Saddam Hussein's government. After he fled the country in 2000, some members of the Fedayeen Saddam grabbed her from her home and brought her out on the street. There, in front of her children and mother-in-law, two men grabbed her arms while another pulled her head back and beheaded her. Baath Party officials watched the murder, put her head in a plastic bag and took away her children.
Try to put yourself in the mind of the killer, or of the guy with the plastic bag. You are part of Saddam's vast apparatus of rape squads, torture teams and mass-grave fillers. Every time you walk down the street, people tremble in fear. Everything else in society is arbitrary, but you are absolute. When you kill, your craving for power and significance is sated. You are infused with the joy of domination.
These are the people we are still fighting in Iraq. These are the people who blow up Red Cross headquarters and U.N. buildings and fight against democracy and freedom. They are the scum of the earth. And they are being joined in their lairs by the flotsam and jetsam of the terrorist world. "
"Um Haydar was a 25-year-old Iraqi woman whose husband displeased Saddam Hussein's government. After he fled the country in 2000, some members of the Fedayeen Saddam grabbed her from her home and brought her out on the street. There, in front of her children and mother-in-law, two men grabbed her arms while another pulled her head back and beheaded her. Baath Party officials watched the murder, put her head in a plastic bag and took away her children.
Try to put yourself in the mind of the killer, or of the guy with the plastic bag. You are part of Saddam's vast apparatus of rape squads, torture teams and mass-grave fillers. Every time you walk down the street, people tremble in fear. Everything else in society is arbitrary, but you are absolute. When you kill, your craving for power and significance is sated. You are infused with the joy of domination.
These are the people we are still fighting in Iraq. These are the people who blow up Red Cross headquarters and U.N. buildings and fight against democracy and freedom. They are the scum of the earth. And they are being joined in their lairs by the flotsam and jetsam of the terrorist world. "
LINK: More trouble brewing, I think, over the possible consequences of the Hell coin-flip question, also from our good friends at Crescat Sententia.
LINK: Larry Miller on a very personal example of how conservatives aren't fundamentally opposed to unions.
THE ESSENCE OF MY CONSERVATISM:
So let's say I'm in the Grad Library, doing research for my paper on Augustine's aesthetics (4A North, my favorite part of the Grad). I come across two books on the topic, one published by Oxford University Press, the other by some no-name publishing company. Is one of those probably going to be a better source for me?
Similarly, let's say I've jaunted over to 5S to do some research for my paper on Lenin's return to the Finland Station, and I find another two books that might be good, one by an eminent Sovietologist who holds a professorship at Harvard, with many similar publications to her name, and the other by a guy who, so far as I can tell, has no academic credentials worth mentioning. Is one of those books probably going to be a better source for me?
Let's say I go to write my final paper for Marxism-Leninism, and decide that instead of reading about a dozen books on my topic, as I have the last two times, I'm only going to read one book, since I think I can anticipate the arguments my professor will want to see pretty well. Is my paper probably going to be better or worse than the two I wrote before?
So let's say I'm in the Grad Library, doing research for my paper on Augustine's aesthetics (4A North, my favorite part of the Grad). I come across two books on the topic, one published by Oxford University Press, the other by some no-name publishing company. Is one of those probably going to be a better source for me?
Similarly, let's say I've jaunted over to 5S to do some research for my paper on Lenin's return to the Finland Station, and I find another two books that might be good, one by an eminent Sovietologist who holds a professorship at Harvard, with many similar publications to her name, and the other by a guy who, so far as I can tell, has no academic credentials worth mentioning. Is one of those books probably going to be a better source for me?
Let's say I go to write my final paper for Marxism-Leninism, and decide that instead of reading about a dozen books on my topic, as I have the last two times, I'm only going to read one book, since I think I can anticipate the arguments my professor will want to see pretty well. Is my paper probably going to be better or worse than the two I wrote before?
3.11.03
LINK: The good folks over at Crescat Sententia have been going apeshit over this post by the wonderful Sara Butler. I invite all of you to go apeshit over it as well (I happen to agree with it totally, but that's me)
UPDATE: People are indeed going apeshit. Check out the debate here, and throw in your two cents.
UPDATE: People are indeed going apeshit. Check out the debate here, and throw in your two cents.
HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES? From OxBlog:
"TWO INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS TODAY MUST BE MAKING THE GOP VERY HAPPY. First, the Democratic mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, endorsed Republican gubernatorial canddiate Bobby Jindal. Nagin was the last major political figure in the state to issue an endorsement, and both Jindal and his Democratic opponent, Kathleen Blanco, wanted it badly. The race will be close. (Louisiana's election is on November 15.)
Also, Bob Graham has apparently decided that he won't run for reelection. When he dropped out of the presidential contest, it was seen as a blow to the GOP, which thought it could pick up his seat if he didn't run for reelection, but not if he did. Now that seat again appears very much in play.
Finally, tomorrow brings gubernatorial elections in Mississippi and Kentucky. Polls show the Republican candidates with a slight edge in both races. Democrat John Street looks set to keep the Philadelphia mayorship."
"TWO INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS TODAY MUST BE MAKING THE GOP VERY HAPPY. First, the Democratic mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, endorsed Republican gubernatorial canddiate Bobby Jindal. Nagin was the last major political figure in the state to issue an endorsement, and both Jindal and his Democratic opponent, Kathleen Blanco, wanted it badly. The race will be close. (Louisiana's election is on November 15.)
Also, Bob Graham has apparently decided that he won't run for reelection. When he dropped out of the presidential contest, it was seen as a blow to the GOP, which thought it could pick up his seat if he didn't run for reelection, but not if he did. Now that seat again appears very much in play.
Finally, tomorrow brings gubernatorial elections in Mississippi and Kentucky. Polls show the Republican candidates with a slight edge in both races. Democrat John Street looks set to keep the Philadelphia mayorship."
2.11.03
HAHA, CON'T: Also from The Nation:
"The Aiken Solution Lives!
William Greider | The recent Senate roll call was a decisive rebuke to our warrior President and one that will be understood eventually as having pivotal meaning."
--In what alternate reality is getting 12 votes out of 100 a "decisive rebuke" of anything? Perhaps in the same one that considers the Red Sox to be rivals to the Yankees.
"The Aiken Solution Lives!
William Greider | The recent Senate roll call was a decisive rebuke to our warrior President and one that will be understood eventually as having pivotal meaning."
--In what alternate reality is getting 12 votes out of 100 a "decisive rebuke" of anything? Perhaps in the same one that considers the Red Sox to be rivals to the Yankees.
1.11.03
RANDOM FOOTBALL NOTES:
* Now that it's no longer tempting fate, I just want to say that I had the best impromptu costume for yesterday's Halloween shindig-- I smeared flour all over my nose and went as Jeff Smoker.
* And that's Michigan for you: snatching victory from the jaws of defeat from the jaws of victory.
* Now that it's no longer tempting fate, I just want to say that I had the best impromptu costume for yesterday's Halloween shindig-- I smeared flour all over my nose and went as Jeff Smoker.
* And that's Michigan for you: snatching victory from the jaws of defeat from the jaws of victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)