OUCH

Lawrence Kaplan, at The New Republic Online:

"[W]hen [Kerry] did get around to discussing the matter of our national survival, he basically took a page from the post-Vietnam playbook favored by an earlier generation of Democrats. "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad," the candidate declared to rousing applause, "and shutting them down in the United States of America." Suggesting that Europeans won't send troops to Iraq simply because they can't stand his opponent, Kerry promised to be nicer to our allies so we could "bring our troops home." Unlike, say, in Bosnia, he pledged to go to war "only because we have to." Leaving unsaid exactly by whom and at what cost, he dedicated himself to making America "respected in the world." Finally, and without saying precisely what it is, Kerry said he knows "what we have to do in Iraq." He has a plan, you see. Just like a candidate from long ago claimed to have a plan to end a war--the war that put Kerry on the stage last night and which, for him at least, wasn't so long ago at all."

 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Trying to stop people from spending money in political campaigns is like trying to bail out the ocean with a strainer. The original campaign finance reform law begat soft money. McCain Feingold begat 527s. Whatever is next will beget something new. The money will be raised and spent, regardless of what rules Congress invents.

So, if you think that money in politics is a bad thing, what should you do?

Steven Taylor argues that "this system is an unmitigated joke that causes confusion and does nothing more than provide make-work for a great many lawyers seeking either to guarantee compliance or to find loopholes in the system. The rules do nothing to enhance our democracy. A wholly transparent system that allowed unlimited contributions and immediate and public (i.e., internet-based) system of disclosure would serve us far better."

I agree, but what caught my eye in the article was this:

"[T]he failure of [campaign finance reform] laws should be no surprise: as long as the federal government collects and spends over 20% of the GDP, the concept of "getting the money out of politics" is farcical. Not only is governing dependent on money, so long as the Congress, with the help of the President, is going to determine how trillions of dollars are spend, then the citizenry in its various manifestations are going to care how that money is spent." (Emphasis in original.)

Conservatives and libertarians who want to limit the size of government will, to the extent they are successful, also cause a decrease in the importance of government and thus the amount of money spent on political campaigns to achieve influence in government.

So if you favor campaign finance reform, vote for small government conservatives.

QED.

Heh.

Via MartiniMan, whose blog is on an extended roll.

 
OK, SENATOR, NOW WHAT?

John Kerry wants me to believe that he "will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."

Terrorists (presumably Islamic extremists, since they also attacked the Israeli embassy) have, once againattacked the United States. That's right folks, the terrorists attacked a US embassy, which is sovereign US territory. So my question to the Senator is: Tell me right now, with the information available to you right now, precisely what your "swift and certain" response would be, were you in the office you currently aspire to. You promised not to dither or waffle (that's what swift and certain mean to me, at least). So what's it going to be?

Granted that the bombing of the embassy in Tashkent is not of the same magnitude as 9/11. So you don't have to invade another country. But it is an attack and you said you would respond to "any attack." So I want to know what your response would be. Shall we confer with the UN, the French and the Germans? That would rule out "swift" and probably certain as well.

Oh, and don't bother to blame Bush for your inability to respond swiftly and certainly using international organizations such as the UN. The UN was broken long before 9/11. (Think Rwanda.)

You've got 24 hours.

 
JUST SHUT UP AND SING, LINDA

I grew up with Linda Ronstadt's music. I like it. She has a terrific voice. She recently made headlines in Vegas by upsetting her audience. She did that by lecturing them about what a great man Michael Moore is.

"I've been dedicating a song to him – I think he's a great patriot – and it splits the audience down the middle, and they duke it out," she said.

If she insists on continuing to do that, I guess I won't be going to any of her concerts. I couldn't care less what her politics are, but I'm not going to go to a concert and get a political lecture from her.

But the best is yet to come:

"This is an election year, and I think we're in desperate trouble and it's time for people to speak up and not pipe down. It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know." (Emphasis added)

Performing for those nasty Republicans and fundamentalists is such a bummer, man! I wonder whether she said something insulting to conservatives on stage. Given that quote, it wouldn't be a big surprise. And that would explain the audience reaction.

I guess it never occurred to her that her audience might feel the same way she does: That their enjoyment of the concert might be "clouded" if they discover that the person they came to see perform spends THEIR concert time giving them a political lecture (and maybe insulting their intelligence). If it is reasonable for Ronstadt to be offended by merely having to perform for people of different political leanings, think how much more reasonable it is for the people who paid to attend the concert to be offended by finding that they've come not to a concert but to a political rally.

If Ronstadt would rather not know the political makeup of her concert audience, then it might be wise for her not to inject politics into her concert. If she wants to make a political statement, she is perfectly free to oppose Bush, support Kerry, Nader or the man in the moon. But I don't think she should do it on the time that's been paid for by her audience for the express purpose of hearing her sing.

There are plenty of opportunities available to her to speak out on the issues she believes in. For example, I understand that there might be several openings in the Kerry campaign in the near future.

 
The New SAT

Starting next year, the College Board (the people who prepare, administer and grade the SAT, along with practically every other standardized test you ever head of) is introducing a significant change in the SAT. Instead of consisting entirely of multiple choice questions, there will be a new section of the test in which students will be required to write a short essay. The essay will be graded by two people (and a third if the grades differ significantly). Students will have about 25 minutes to complete the essay.

The grading cannot be done by machine.  Human beings will have to read each of these things.  Each grader will be looking for the following factors:

Whether the essay effectively develops a point of view on the issue and demonstrates strong critical thinking, generally using appropriate examples, reasons, and other evidence to support its position 

Whether the essay is well organized and focused, demonstrating coherence and progression of ideas 
 
Whether the essay exhibits facility in the use of language, using appropriate vocabulary

Whether the essay demonstrates variety in sentence structure
is generally free of most errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics

 
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING

A guy in his 20s knocked on my door this morning and introduced himself as working for the Democratic National Committee. They were, he said, "working hard to defeat President Bush in the election this year."

I told him that if he wanted to defeat Bush, he would be wasting his time talking to me. I didn't have the heart to point out to him that the approach he had obviously been told to take is going to be a real problem for the campaign. His opening line is free publicity for the opposition. And there's (almost) no such thing as bad publicity. Both he and the DNC should not say they are working to defeat Bush. They should say they are working to elect Kerry.

I was, however, kind enough not to introduce him to my wife, who vehemently dislikes Bush, but likes Kerry even less. She would have had his guts for garters.

It would have been great entertainment. But it's a little hard on some of the participants.

 
THE COST OF 9/11

I watched, horrified, from my living room window as the towers fell that day, but oddly enough, I did not know a single person who was there, much less anyone who died.

Sure, I know people who lost friends. But it was still kind of once removed.

Now I've met someone who escaped from the North Tower, but lost his wife in the South Tower. By reading this. You should meet him, too.

Via Martin Devon.

 
WHO KNEW?

Combat is stressful. Who could have guessed? I blame Ashcroft for not having anticipated this.