A follow-up on the Green Bay, Wisconsin nativity scene story from Sunday -- last night, someone described as "a white male, 5-foot-10 to 6 feet tall, weighing between 150 and 170 pounds, and wearing a gray parka-type jacket and gray hat with earflaps" apparently vandalized the pagan symbol on the Christian-and-pagan nativity scene, leaving the Christian elements of the scene intact. In response, the Mayor of Green Bay has imposed a moratorium on any new religious symbols being added to the holiday display, leaving only the Christian symbols in place.
By the way, a word of praise to Green Bay's Finest is in order. The perp was a white male, of average height and average build, wearing... a parka! In Wisconsin, in the winter, at night, you say? Well, that should narrow down the list of suspects considerably. That's some nice detective work there, boys!
December 18, 2007
Hillary Not At Her Best
A question making the rounds on the internets: does this photograph make you more or less likely to vote for Hillary Clinton? The photographer captured her not looking anything close to her best; she looks older and her hair is not dealing with the weather very well. She's looked better, even recently.Fact is, people wouldn't be asking this question of a male candidate. We like wrinkles and gray hair on our male politicians. Hillary Clinton, like any other politician, shouldn't have to look perfect at all times to earn either your respect or your vote.
I think she looks more or less like a lot of professional women in their late fifties or early sixties. Maybe I'm just used to seeing professional women; I'm a professional myself and I've never functioned in a professional world without interacting with an appreciable number of professional women who look more or less like that. Yes, the law is still a male-dominated profession, but I can't think of a time since I got my license that a woman in her early sixties serving as a lawyer (or a judge) was particularly remarkable. I look at that picture and I see a lawyer who, as opposing counsel, could probably make my life pretty difficult if she wanted to. Hillary Clinton is 60 years old; her adult daughter old enough to be having children herself if she wanted to be, so if she looks a little bit grandmotherly, that's why.
And there's nothing wrong with that. I will be that age myself one day. Hopefully, we all live at least long enough to have days when we look like that. Now, to be sure, politicians are in the business of projecting a particular public image. But part of the image they should project is one of experience, seriousness, and knowledge. Had she gotten a face lift, or been out in the weather in Iowa or New Hampshire with hair so elaborately coiffed that it looked perfect, or enough makeup on to conceal all the wrinkles, I might be more inclined to think she was presenting herself as something that she really isn't.
I also came across a meme last night that leaders of other nations, particularly Muslim countries, might not take her seriously as President because she is female. This is an implied argument that even if we Americans take her seriously, other nations might not, so we should pick a man. That's stupid. Besides, anyone remember Margaret Thatcher? Lady Thatcher is living proof you trifle with the female head of state of a powerful nation at your own risk. How about Indira Gandhi? Benazir Bhutto? Golda Mier? No one would suggest that any of these women were weak, wilting violets on the world stage. Thatcher was ready to nuke Argentina. Mier would have nuked Syria if she'd had nukes at all.
My concerns about Hillary Clinton as President have nothing to do with her having a few wrinkles around the mouth and eyes, and certainly nothing to do with the strange idea that because some unnnamed, unspecified foreigner doesn't think women should hold political power, that should influence America's collective decision about our next leader even a tiny bit. My concerns about a Hillary Clinton White House have to do with the kinds of policies she'd advocate and implement as President.
Labels:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
December 17, 2007
Not Likely To Help Much
John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are pretty much tied for second place in the Republican primary for New Hampshire. Which is about the only place in the country that I see McCain's newest endorsement possibly being a "plus" for him -- and even there, it isn't all that much of a help anyway.To begin with, I have some difficulty with the "momentum" concept these days. As a California voter, I really don't care that much how South Carolina votes in its primary. I am still provisionally most attracted to Rudy Giuliani and if he comes in fourth place in Iowa and third place in New Hampshire, that doesn't change the fact that despite some serious flaws, he's still the closest to my way of thinking on most policy issues and appears to possess ten times the leadership skills of the rest of the Republican candidates put together. As a big-state voter for most of my adult life, I look at the farm-subsidy concerns of Iowa as strictly parochial; my state's concerns are issues of national importance, because California is a state that is a microcosm of the whole nation.
So momentum may not change anyone's mind about their preferences, but it may change things like free media, ability to claim "winner" status, and most of all, fundraising prowess. That may change the way some people vote, and it may change the ability of a candidate to campaign beyond a certain point. If Rudy drops out of the race before the California primary, my vote will in all likelihood wind up going elsewhere.
And if momentum matters at all, then to remain viable, McCain must come in at least second place in New Hampshire.
To the extent that results in the early states do still matter, though, getting his friend Joe Lieberman's endorsement will give John McCain a little bit of extra luster in New Hampshire. Let's go to the rulebook: New Hampshire has a modified-open proportional primary. It has set its primary before the earliest date allowed for it under the RNC rules, so it has sacrificed half of its delegates for the privilege of having the first primary in the nation. So, assuming that the national GOP actually enforces this rule, there will be 12 delegates at stake in New Hampshire, and a candidate needs to get more than 10% of the vote to get delegates, and the overall winner gets any delegates unallocated by the proportional distribution of the vote.
Using the latest RCP polling averages, we see Romney at 32%, McCain at 18.5%, Giuliani at 16.5%, and Huckabee at 11%. No other Republican is polling above the delegate-award threshold. If these were the actual results of the New Hampshire Republican primary, that would result in Romney getting 7 delegates, McCain and Giuliani getting 2 each, and Huckabee getting 1. A big win for Romney, a disappointment for McCain, and a "third-place-as-expected" for Giuliani.
But, anyone who is a registered Republican or not affiliated with any party can vote in the Republican primary. So the Lieberman endorsement is an outreach to those non-Republicans to vote in the Republican rather than the Democratic primary, and to pick McCain over the other candidates with cross-party appeal (Giuliani and maybe Ron Paul, who is floating around at about 7%). That may switch over -- what? One delegate from Romney to McCain?
To win the Republican primaries, a candidate has to appeal to Republicans. That's why Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani are all running to the right. In my opinion, Giuliani has run farther to the right than is necessary to maintain general-election viability; he has run farther to the right than he needed to in order to earn a plurality of votes overall. But that may be the lensing effect of very early primaries in states with very distinctive economic and social concerns like Iowa and New Hampshire, as opposed to states with more generalized populations like Ohio and Texas.
So we'll see. I don't think Lieberman's vote is going to change McCain's dynamic very much. It may be a bigger help to Lieberman than to McCain.
December 16, 2007
Putting Soffit House To Good Use
Last Night, The Wife and I had another couple over for dinner. We haven't entertained at all since we moved in, and it was high time to do so. Having friends over for a meal and meeting the two-bottle minimum is our very favorite way to spend a weekend night, and I'd forgotten how much I miss doing that.
Eric and Trent both seemed to have a good time. They both just got through finals in college, and it's fun to see young people whose minds are being excited by so much new learning. I don't think Trent was prepared for the idea that dinner and drinks would be the only activity for the night, but they are both in their early 20's, so it's possible he just didn't think it through that they wouldn't be able to go out dancing later in the evening. But we had a great time -- they're so young and idealistic! And they drink martinis -- and peer-pressured The Wife into drinking one, too. I don't think she was quite prepared for how strong a martini can be.
I would have done my famous marinated trip-tip, but the critters' vet appointment (all them got clean bills of health) took much longer than we had anticipated, so I wouldn't have had time to give the steak a good soaking. Instead, we bought ribeyes and I did a spice rub on them. They were served with Italian roasted potatoes and steamed broccoli. We had two appetizers -- insalate Caprese (the Roma tomatoes at the market didn't look very good, so I used domestic vine tomatoes instead) and fondue. Dessert was chocolate creme brulee, with a Grand Marnier float as part of the carmelizing. Rich and decadent. Here's the fondue I made:
Eric and Trent both seemed to have a good time. They both just got through finals in college, and it's fun to see young people whose minds are being excited by so much new learning. I don't think Trent was prepared for the idea that dinner and drinks would be the only activity for the night, but they are both in their early 20's, so it's possible he just didn't think it through that they wouldn't be able to go out dancing later in the evening. But we had a great time -- they're so young and idealistic! And they drink martinis -- and peer-pressured The Wife into drinking one, too. I don't think she was quite prepared for how strong a martini can be.
I would have done my famous marinated trip-tip, but the critters' vet appointment (all them got clean bills of health) took much longer than we had anticipated, so I wouldn't have had time to give the steak a good soaking. Instead, we bought ribeyes and I did a spice rub on them. They were served with Italian roasted potatoes and steamed broccoli. We had two appetizers -- insalate Caprese (the Roma tomatoes at the market didn't look very good, so I used domestic vine tomatoes instead) and fondue. Dessert was chocolate creme brulee, with a Grand Marnier float as part of the carmelizing. Rich and decadent. Here's the fondue I made:8 oz. gruyere cheeseThis is a pretty rich fondue. Do not skip the flour -- otherwise the cheese will float out a layer of grease on top of the mixture, and you want that fat to be mixed into the whole. I had more of the fondue for dinner tonight, and it doesn't keep quite as well as I might like, so the last of the leftovers needs to go bye-bye tonight.
8 oz. emmenthaler cheese
6 oz. white wine
2 tbsp. flour
garlic powder
black pepper
chives
cayenne pepper
nutmeg
mustard seed
bay leaf
lemon juice
Chill the wine. Grate the cheese, set aside. In a medium saucepan, combine the wine and flour, stir until flour is completely dissolved. Place on medium heat, add spices and lemon juice. Bring to a simmer, stirring constantly. Remove bay leaf, discard. Slowly add the cheese, about 4 oz. at a time; stir until completely melted before adding next batch. When all cheese is melted, transfer mixture to heated fondue pot and serve very warm, with long forks and bite-sized chunks of ciabatta bread, broccoli, and/or fresh apples.
Labels:
Cooking,
Friends and Family,
Soffit House
Why Not Just Have The Display In Front Of Your Church Where It Belongs?
This year's battleground in the War On Christmas: public displays of nativity scenes.
For instance, in a small town in Connecticut, a town had a long tradition of having a Christian nativity scene on the town square (a public park). After a protest by an atheist, the town agreed to allow the atheist organization to post its own holiday season display, and the result was a three-paneled sign that included an image of the World Trade Center with the slogan "Imagine No Religion." In response, the town's mayor ordered a Christmas tree to be put up, partially blocking the view of the atheist sign.
And in Green Bay, Wisconsin, the city council voted to erect a nativity scene in front of City Hall. They did so after a group advocating separation of church and state objected to a nativity scene in the nearby small town of Pestigo, inviting the group to "pick on someone their own size." So then, a local Wiccan asked for -- and was granted, out of necessity -- permission to erect a pagan wreath to the public display. So then, another resident asked for -- and was denied -- permission to add a Festivus pole. The Mayor of Green Bay justified his decision by saying that Festivus is not a religious holiday but rather a pop culture phenomenon.
Here's what I say -- no public holiday displays at all. These kinds of displays belong on people's houses and their churches. Public property needs to be business-as-usual, nothing more and nothing less. I offer three reasons for this:
First of all, if it's not appropriate for a city to promote Christianity by making the town square available for a nativity scene (and it's not), it is also not appropriate for the city to promote atheism by making the square available for the atheists' sign urging people to abandon their religions. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and having a governmental entity impliedly urge abandonment of religion is as much an Establishment as it would be to promote any particular religion.
Oddly, though, this seems to not be an option. "...if the town were to put a stop to all the displays, then the atheists win, [a Connecticut town councilman] said." That's not so much a win for atheists -- who now have a dog in the fight for primacy in placement of their holiday display -- but for people who advocate separation of church and state. Religious people, too, like the separation of church and state (or at least, they ought to).
Secondly, this makes people have to start asking a lot of unnecessary questions. For instance, I think the atheist sign in Connecticut played too easily with an image that political; the atheists there would have been better-advised to invite people to join a solstice party and spread a positive message -- like conveying wishes for peace and health. We also have to ask whether the Connecticut town's decision to later place the Christmas Tree in front of the atheists' sign is an endorsement of Christianity as being better than atheism, which completely defeats the purpose of being inclusive and non-judgmental. Public officials should not be wasting their time deciding whether a Wiccan is being serious when he offers a wreath with a pentagram as a genuine expression of religious sentiment or not -- or inquiring into the nature of Festivus.
Finally, it's not good public policy but also good religion to conform to the safest, truest, and best reading of the Establishment Clause. Why do public officeholders who are religious feel the need to use their public resources to promote their religions anyway? It's particularly obnoxious in Green Bay, where the City Council seems to have deliberately picked a Constitutional fight, whether or not they are in the right in that dispute (which they partially are and partially are not). But Green Bay's taxpayer's dollars could have been conserved by simply doing nothing and better spent doing something else, or nothing at all.
For instance, here's a story about a town in Michigan that got it right and agreed to move its nativity scene to a church, where it can be as public a display of religion as anyone could ask for, without violating the Constitution. The "atheists" didn't "win" in that town. Everyone did, including the Christians who now get to have their nativity scene displayed without incorporating secular or non-Christian elements, as would otherwise be required in such a holiday display.
For instance, in a small town in Connecticut, a town had a long tradition of having a Christian nativity scene on the town square (a public park). After a protest by an atheist, the town agreed to allow the atheist organization to post its own holiday season display, and the result was a three-paneled sign that included an image of the World Trade Center with the slogan "Imagine No Religion." In response, the town's mayor ordered a Christmas tree to be put up, partially blocking the view of the atheist sign.
And in Green Bay, Wisconsin, the city council voted to erect a nativity scene in front of City Hall. They did so after a group advocating separation of church and state objected to a nativity scene in the nearby small town of Pestigo, inviting the group to "pick on someone their own size." So then, a local Wiccan asked for -- and was granted, out of necessity -- permission to erect a pagan wreath to the public display. So then, another resident asked for -- and was denied -- permission to add a Festivus pole. The Mayor of Green Bay justified his decision by saying that Festivus is not a religious holiday but rather a pop culture phenomenon.Here's what I say -- no public holiday displays at all. These kinds of displays belong on people's houses and their churches. Public property needs to be business-as-usual, nothing more and nothing less. I offer three reasons for this:
First of all, if it's not appropriate for a city to promote Christianity by making the town square available for a nativity scene (and it's not), it is also not appropriate for the city to promote atheism by making the square available for the atheists' sign urging people to abandon their religions. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and having a governmental entity impliedly urge abandonment of religion is as much an Establishment as it would be to promote any particular religion.
Oddly, though, this seems to not be an option. "...if the town were to put a stop to all the displays, then the atheists win, [a Connecticut town councilman] said." That's not so much a win for atheists -- who now have a dog in the fight for primacy in placement of their holiday display -- but for people who advocate separation of church and state. Religious people, too, like the separation of church and state (or at least, they ought to).
Secondly, this makes people have to start asking a lot of unnecessary questions. For instance, I think the atheist sign in Connecticut played too easily with an image that political; the atheists there would have been better-advised to invite people to join a solstice party and spread a positive message -- like conveying wishes for peace and health. We also have to ask whether the Connecticut town's decision to later place the Christmas Tree in front of the atheists' sign is an endorsement of Christianity as being better than atheism, which completely defeats the purpose of being inclusive and non-judgmental. Public officials should not be wasting their time deciding whether a Wiccan is being serious when he offers a wreath with a pentagram as a genuine expression of religious sentiment or not -- or inquiring into the nature of Festivus.
Finally, it's not good public policy but also good religion to conform to the safest, truest, and best reading of the Establishment Clause. Why do public officeholders who are religious feel the need to use their public resources to promote their religions anyway? It's particularly obnoxious in Green Bay, where the City Council seems to have deliberately picked a Constitutional fight, whether or not they are in the right in that dispute (which they partially are and partially are not). But Green Bay's taxpayer's dollars could have been conserved by simply doing nothing and better spent doing something else, or nothing at all.
For instance, here's a story about a town in Michigan that got it right and agreed to move its nativity scene to a church, where it can be as public a display of religion as anyone could ask for, without violating the Constitution. The "atheists" didn't "win" in that town. Everyone did, including the Christians who now get to have their nativity scene displayed without incorporating secular or non-Christian elements, as would otherwise be required in such a holiday display.
Labels:
'Tis The Season,
Constitutional Law,
News,
Religion,
Wisconsin
Vocabulary Builder
What do you call the 1,500th of something? A sesquimillenial. For instance, this is the sesquimillenial published post on this blog.
Candidate Analysis of Mike Huckabee
BiographyMike Huckabee will be 53 years old on the next Inauguration Day.
Born in 1955 to a blue-collar family, Mike Huckabee married his wife when he was 18 years old, graduated magna cum laude in two and a half years from Ouachita Baptist University, and an advanced degree in theology at a Baptist seminary in Texas. At age 23, he started working as a staffer for a televangelist, who characterized Huckabee's world view as one shaped by moral absolutes.
A professed believer in Biblical inerrancy, Huckabee served as pastor of several churches in Arkansas before entering politics. As President of the Arkansas State Baptist Convention, he worked hard to encourage churches to integrate, including several very prominent and formerly exclusive churches. He also worked as the president of a religious-programming television station.
He plays bass in a rock band called Capitol Offense. As Governor of Arkansas, he famously lost 110 pounds and held himself out as an example for improvement of personal health. He and his wife have three grown children.
Political Experience
Huckabee's first political race was for the U.S. Senate seat held by Dixiecrat Dale Bumpers in 1992; he was badly defeated, earning only 40% of the vote. However, he gained statewide notoriety from the race, and in 1993 was elected Lieutenant Governor in a special election (the old Lieutenant Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, became Governor when Bill Clinton became President of the United States). Interestingly, Huckabee was advised in this election by Dick Morris, who first came to prominence as an aide to Bill Clinton.
Huckabee was elected to a full term as Lieutenant Governor the following year with a convincing 59% of the vote, and while Lieutenant Governor made Tucker's life very uncomfortable, including spearheading "No" vote campaigns on two initiatives backed by Tucker. Tucker was caught up in the Whitewater scandal that plagued the Clinton White House and resigned in 1996, making Huckabee Governor. Huckabee, who was at that time the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, stepped out of that race and began serving as Governor. He was elected to his first full term in his own right in 1998 and won re-election in 2002, both times with single-digit margins of victory over his Democratic opponents. He announced his candidacy for the Presidency about three weeks after his second term as Governor had expired in January of 2007.
On The Issues
Abortion: Pro-life; would discontinue Federal support of all organizations that promote abortion in any way. Likens abortion to slavery. Rating: 0 of 1 points.
Amending the Constitution: Favors amendments to prohibit abortions and same sex marriages. Rating: 0 of 6 points.
Anti-Terrorism Policy: Believes expanding the military, especially the Army, will combat terrorism. Stresses emergency preparedness for response to terror attacks. Believes that America is currently engaged in a world war against terrorism, but lists anti-terrorism policy twelfth on a list of seventeen planks in his platform (immigration appears twice), suggesting that this is not a high priority for him. Rating: 2 of 7 points.
Balanced Budget: Would increase federal spending on a variety of health and public welfare programs, such as care for children with AIDS and obesity prevention. Arkansas' constitution requires the budget to be balanced each year. Rating: 0 of 8 points.
Civil Liberties: In addition to outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships, he has advocated quarantine of homosexuals who test positive for AIDS. Also has suggested amenability to a national ban on smoking and aggressive health promotion programs. Opposed to gun control. Encouraged aggressive policing of anti-pornography laws as governor of Arkansas. Has a consistent history of combatting racism in both private and public sectors. Rating: 1 of 9 points.
Education: Places emphasis on teaching the arts as well as other subjects at elementary and high school levels. As Governor, pushed hard to increase use of charter schools, raise teacher salaries and advocated for teacher testing. Would continue to fund abstinence-only sex education programs. Rating: 4 of 5 points.
Environment: Subscribes to "good steward" school of environmental regulation. As Governor, opposed creation of dams on Arkansas River. Supports "energy independence" as a critical factor in foreign policy and anti-terror policies. Opposed Kyoto Protocol because of imbalanced burden on U.S.; supports more nuclear power plants Rating: 4 of 4 points.
Free Trade: Advocates economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia for persecuting Christians and threatens sanctions against China. No stated position on NAFTA or CAFTA; supports trade pact with South Korea. Favors farm subsidies to "compete" with European and Asian nations that subsidize agriculture. Rating: 1 of 5 points.
Generalized Foreign Policy: Does not believe it is the job of the U.S. to export our brand of republican democracy. Wants to push Pakistan for greater accountability of foreign and military aid. Would try to strike a balance between maintaining U.S. sovereignty and earning the respect of other nations. Opposed to Law Of The Sea treaty. Rating: 2 of 6 points.
Health Care Reform: Opposed to universal or single-payer health care plans. Wants to push preventative care and create a "health" system rather than a "health care" system. Wants a diversity of different state programs and consumer-driven, not employer-driven, options for selection of health care plans. Successfully re-crafted state-level health care program for children in Arkansas, with emphasis on early-childhood health improvement. Rating: 3 of 3 points.
Immigration Policy: Advocates ocean-to-ocean fence, enhanced policing against employers, and beef up border patrols. Would also expand and streamline legal immigration and naturalization processes. Proposes that illegal immigrants will have 120 days after he takes office to register or go home. However, Huckabee does not appear to have a solid grasp of how the Federal Government works, at least with respect to this issue. (You may not have known that the INS no longer exists, having been subsumed by the PATRIOT Shuffle into part of the Department of Homeland Security back in 2003, but someone running for President probably should know that.) as Governor, was very welcoming to immigrants and advocated making a variety of state benefits, especially educational ones, available to illegal immigrants. Does not believe that illegal immigrants are taking a significant number of jobs away from citizens. Rating: 4 of 5 points.
Iraq: Opposes troop pullouts and believes that progress is currently being made towards quelling the insurgency and building a stable, prosperous Iraq under military leadership of General Patreaus. Stops short of saying we should establish "permanent" military bases, but opposes timetables for withdrawal of troops and seems to envision an open-ended deployment of troops in Iraq. Rating: 4 of 6 points.
Korea: No apparent stance on brewing Korean conflict. Rating: 0 of 5 points.
Middle East Peace Process: Will back up Israel with military, economic, and diplomatic support on nearly unconditional basis and would make state-of-the-art technology available to Israeli military. Opposed to creation of Palestinian state. Rating: 2 of 4 points.
Science and Technology: Claims to have a "commitment" to science. Disbelieves evolution, but says he sees no dissonance between evolution and Biblical teachings. In the event that there were a conflict between the two, he would believe the Bible over than the teachings of science. Rating: 0 of 4 points.
Separation of Church and State: He's a Baptist minister who says that his faith and religion "drive" all of his governmental decision-making. Does not believe it is possible or desirable to separate religion from politics. Advocates teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolutionary theory in public schools. Has called for impeachment of Federal judges who strike down prayer-in-school policies and advocated display of Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. Rating: 0 of 5 points.
Social Security Reform: Does not support privatization but does support "personal accounts" with individual control over social security investments. Opposed cutting block grants for entitlement such as SSI; to oppose cutting benefits or timing of benefit eligibility. Rating: 1 of 5 points.
Taxes: Strongly endorses the idea of replacing income tax with a national sales tax (unlike Romney and Giuliani) called the FairTax. Under his tenure as Governor, the average Arkansas citizen's state tax burden increased by 47%. Rating: 2 of 5 points.
Tort Reform: As Governor, signed into law limiting non-economic and punitive damages in medical malpractice cases to $1,000,000. Rating: 0 of 3 points.
Torture of U.S. Prisoners: Recently announced that he was opposed to waterboarding, changing his position from the usual GOP wishy-washiness about torture. Rating: 4 of 4 points.
Overall Impression: Well, I certainly don't like him, but you'd probably have guessed that even before reading this. Andrew Sullivan got it exactly right: with relatively minor exceptions, Huckabee would "...advance [] the key policy blend begun by George W. Bush: nanny-statism, big government conservatism, fiscal profligacy, and theo-democracy. He is the logical consequence of Bushism, with a pleasing and disarming affect." He promises everything I dislike about the Bush Administration with very little of the (scant) good things Bush has done. Huckabee is the best choice for those Republicans who think that the party and the country are on the right track.
Total score: 34 of 100.
Next up: Senator Barack Obama.
By the way, if current trends continue, there will be no analysis of Fred Thompson, as his national support level is currently at exactly 10% -- and has been dropping steadily since September. John Edwards has been hovering around his current level (12.5%) for close to a year, so I will likely get to him after Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden, while not of such low levels of support as to be mere background noise, have never met my "viability" threshold of 10% or more of national support within their own parties.
To get all of these summaries on a single page, scroll down to the topic headers on the right-hand index of the page, and click on "candidate analysis."
A professed believer in Biblical inerrancy, Huckabee served as pastor of several churches in Arkansas before entering politics. As President of the Arkansas State Baptist Convention, he worked hard to encourage churches to integrate, including several very prominent and formerly exclusive churches. He also worked as the president of a religious-programming television station.
He plays bass in a rock band called Capitol Offense. As Governor of Arkansas, he famously lost 110 pounds and held himself out as an example for improvement of personal health. He and his wife have three grown children.
Political Experience
Huckabee's first political race was for the U.S. Senate seat held by Dixiecrat Dale Bumpers in 1992; he was badly defeated, earning only 40% of the vote. However, he gained statewide notoriety from the race, and in 1993 was elected Lieutenant Governor in a special election (the old Lieutenant Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, became Governor when Bill Clinton became President of the United States). Interestingly, Huckabee was advised in this election by Dick Morris, who first came to prominence as an aide to Bill Clinton.
Huckabee was elected to a full term as Lieutenant Governor the following year with a convincing 59% of the vote, and while Lieutenant Governor made Tucker's life very uncomfortable, including spearheading "No" vote campaigns on two initiatives backed by Tucker. Tucker was caught up in the Whitewater scandal that plagued the Clinton White House and resigned in 1996, making Huckabee Governor. Huckabee, who was at that time the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, stepped out of that race and began serving as Governor. He was elected to his first full term in his own right in 1998 and won re-election in 2002, both times with single-digit margins of victory over his Democratic opponents. He announced his candidacy for the Presidency about three weeks after his second term as Governor had expired in January of 2007.
On The Issues
Abortion: Pro-life; would discontinue Federal support of all organizations that promote abortion in any way. Likens abortion to slavery. Rating: 0 of 1 points.
Amending the Constitution: Favors amendments to prohibit abortions and same sex marriages. Rating: 0 of 6 points.
Anti-Terrorism Policy: Believes expanding the military, especially the Army, will combat terrorism. Stresses emergency preparedness for response to terror attacks. Believes that America is currently engaged in a world war against terrorism, but lists anti-terrorism policy twelfth on a list of seventeen planks in his platform (immigration appears twice), suggesting that this is not a high priority for him. Rating: 2 of 7 points.
Balanced Budget: Would increase federal spending on a variety of health and public welfare programs, such as care for children with AIDS and obesity prevention. Arkansas' constitution requires the budget to be balanced each year. Rating: 0 of 8 points.
Civil Liberties: In addition to outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships, he has advocated quarantine of homosexuals who test positive for AIDS. Also has suggested amenability to a national ban on smoking and aggressive health promotion programs. Opposed to gun control. Encouraged aggressive policing of anti-pornography laws as governor of Arkansas. Has a consistent history of combatting racism in both private and public sectors. Rating: 1 of 9 points.
Education: Places emphasis on teaching the arts as well as other subjects at elementary and high school levels. As Governor, pushed hard to increase use of charter schools, raise teacher salaries and advocated for teacher testing. Would continue to fund abstinence-only sex education programs. Rating: 4 of 5 points.
Environment: Subscribes to "good steward" school of environmental regulation. As Governor, opposed creation of dams on Arkansas River. Supports "energy independence" as a critical factor in foreign policy and anti-terror policies. Opposed Kyoto Protocol because of imbalanced burden on U.S.; supports more nuclear power plants Rating: 4 of 4 points.
Free Trade: Advocates economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia for persecuting Christians and threatens sanctions against China. No stated position on NAFTA or CAFTA; supports trade pact with South Korea. Favors farm subsidies to "compete" with European and Asian nations that subsidize agriculture. Rating: 1 of 5 points.
Generalized Foreign Policy: Does not believe it is the job of the U.S. to export our brand of republican democracy. Wants to push Pakistan for greater accountability of foreign and military aid. Would try to strike a balance between maintaining U.S. sovereignty and earning the respect of other nations. Opposed to Law Of The Sea treaty. Rating: 2 of 6 points.
Health Care Reform: Opposed to universal or single-payer health care plans. Wants to push preventative care and create a "health" system rather than a "health care" system. Wants a diversity of different state programs and consumer-driven, not employer-driven, options for selection of health care plans. Successfully re-crafted state-level health care program for children in Arkansas, with emphasis on early-childhood health improvement. Rating: 3 of 3 points.
Immigration Policy: Advocates ocean-to-ocean fence, enhanced policing against employers, and beef up border patrols. Would also expand and streamline legal immigration and naturalization processes. Proposes that illegal immigrants will have 120 days after he takes office to register or go home. However, Huckabee does not appear to have a solid grasp of how the Federal Government works, at least with respect to this issue. (You may not have known that the INS no longer exists, having been subsumed by the PATRIOT Shuffle into part of the Department of Homeland Security back in 2003, but someone running for President probably should know that.) as Governor, was very welcoming to immigrants and advocated making a variety of state benefits, especially educational ones, available to illegal immigrants. Does not believe that illegal immigrants are taking a significant number of jobs away from citizens. Rating: 4 of 5 points.
Iraq: Opposes troop pullouts and believes that progress is currently being made towards quelling the insurgency and building a stable, prosperous Iraq under military leadership of General Patreaus. Stops short of saying we should establish "permanent" military bases, but opposes timetables for withdrawal of troops and seems to envision an open-ended deployment of troops in Iraq. Rating: 4 of 6 points.
Korea: No apparent stance on brewing Korean conflict. Rating: 0 of 5 points.
Middle East Peace Process: Will back up Israel with military, economic, and diplomatic support on nearly unconditional basis and would make state-of-the-art technology available to Israeli military. Opposed to creation of Palestinian state. Rating: 2 of 4 points.
Science and Technology: Claims to have a "commitment" to science. Disbelieves evolution, but says he sees no dissonance between evolution and Biblical teachings. In the event that there were a conflict between the two, he would believe the Bible over than the teachings of science. Rating: 0 of 4 points.
Separation of Church and State: He's a Baptist minister who says that his faith and religion "drive" all of his governmental decision-making. Does not believe it is possible or desirable to separate religion from politics. Advocates teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolutionary theory in public schools. Has called for impeachment of Federal judges who strike down prayer-in-school policies and advocated display of Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. Rating: 0 of 5 points.
Social Security Reform: Does not support privatization but does support "personal accounts" with individual control over social security investments. Opposed cutting block grants for entitlement such as SSI; to oppose cutting benefits or timing of benefit eligibility. Rating: 1 of 5 points.
Taxes: Strongly endorses the idea of replacing income tax with a national sales tax (unlike Romney and Giuliani) called the FairTax. Under his tenure as Governor, the average Arkansas citizen's state tax burden increased by 47%. Rating: 2 of 5 points.
Tort Reform: As Governor, signed into law limiting non-economic and punitive damages in medical malpractice cases to $1,000,000. Rating: 0 of 3 points.
Torture of U.S. Prisoners: Recently announced that he was opposed to waterboarding, changing his position from the usual GOP wishy-washiness about torture. Rating: 4 of 4 points.
Overall Impression: Well, I certainly don't like him, but you'd probably have guessed that even before reading this. Andrew Sullivan got it exactly right: with relatively minor exceptions, Huckabee would "...advance [] the key policy blend begun by George W. Bush: nanny-statism, big government conservatism, fiscal profligacy, and theo-democracy. He is the logical consequence of Bushism, with a pleasing and disarming affect." He promises everything I dislike about the Bush Administration with very little of the (scant) good things Bush has done. Huckabee is the best choice for those Republicans who think that the party and the country are on the right track.
Total score: 34 of 100.
Next up: Senator Barack Obama.
By the way, if current trends continue, there will be no analysis of Fred Thompson, as his national support level is currently at exactly 10% -- and has been dropping steadily since September. John Edwards has been hovering around his current level (12.5%) for close to a year, so I will likely get to him after Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden, while not of such low levels of support as to be mere background noise, have never met my "viability" threshold of 10% or more of national support within their own parties.
To get all of these summaries on a single page, scroll down to the topic headers on the right-hand index of the page, and click on "candidate analysis."
The New King
Brett Favre broke Dan Marino's career yardage record in style, with a 44-yard touchdown pass to Greg Jennings that placed Green Bay ahead of St. Louis 27-14 just now. A win plus a Carolina win over Seattle (currently the Panthers lead 3-0) will clinch a first-round bye for the Packers in the playoffs. Congratulations, Brett, and long live the new Passing King!UPDATE: Carolina did defeat the Seahawks, and Green Bay did defeat the Rams, so that's a first-round bye for the Packers. Dallas would need to lose at least
Favre's closest competition for the yardage record is Peyton Manning, who as of today has 41,220 career passing yards to Favre's 61,405. At the rate Manning has historically played, and if Favre retires at the end of this year, he will eclipse Favre's record by the end of the 2013 season.
Labels:
Sports
December 15, 2007
Another Anti-Theocratic Warning
This morning's reading is Peggy Noonan, in today's Wall Street Journal. Noting the rise of Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary polls, she theorizes (with some basis from supporting data in those polls) that the reason Republican voters are gravitating to Huckabee is his religion, to the point that other factors in forming that preference have been eclipsed. Here's the money quote:Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary. [¶] But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.
Notice that she's not saying that faith and religion are irrelevant; instead, she legitimates the interest in the faith of a President. This is different than Mitt Romney's have-it-both-ways take on that question; it's different than my take on that issue, too. Her objection is to making faith a "determining factor" in a voting decision, to the sublimination of personal characteristics that obviously related to how a person would perform as President.
For someone like me, it's easy to say, just look past a candidate's religion. I've never had the choice to vote for a serious Presidential candidate of my own religious preference. I considered myself Roman Catholic (albeit always a rather skeptical one) at one point in my life, so John Kerry would have been a match, but by 2004 I was quite firm in my abandonment of faith altogether; he certainly didn't campaign as an atheist -- and I wouldn't have voted for him even if he and I did share a common outlook on that issue. So I've never not had to hold my nose about the issue of religion. No current major candidate for President avows a secular outlook on life, much less eschews identification with a major denomination of Christianity.
To think about how dedicated Christians feel when confronted with this slate of candidates, and to understand how they could be attracted to Huckabee despite his otherwise-obvious flaws (I hope to have the full evaluation for you later today, Readers, and will certainly have it done by tomorrow), I have to ask myself -- would I vote for an atheist candidate for President just because he or she was an atheist? The answer is, of course not. What a nonsensical question. Being an atheist neither qualifies or disqualifies one for the Presidency, any more than would nearsightedness or a dislike of mushrooms in one's salad.
It's one thing to like Huckabee because you agree with him on his social policy platform. (Although I question exactly how much difference it makes at the Presidential level; these kinds of issues tend to get resolved at the state level.) He seems like a nice enough guy with a strong moral compass. (Query if that's something we care about in a President, either.) But it's something else entirely to vote for him for no other reason than his religion.
I take Hillary Clinton at her word when she says she's a Methodist. But I don't see Methodists lining up to vote for her because they have that in common with her; I see Methodists having splits of opinions about her based on her policies and her personality. That seems like a much better way to pick a President.
Labels:
Domestic Politics,
Religion
December 14, 2007
Movie Review: I Am Legend
Zombies in the movies generally come in three varieties: they can be zombies from outer space (of the alien or alien-human hybrid varieties); they can be undead zombies (either with or without a supernatural master); or they can be the horrible, unintended results of Scientists Tinkering With Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know. All three varieties must, of necessity, feed upon living human flesh; often when they do that, their victims become zombies themselves (alternatively, they might just become Zombie Chow, and only the wounded victims who survive the attack become zombies).But the essence of good zombies in movies is not where they come from, it's their mindless relentlessness combined with their utterly overwhelming numbers. The hero can kill a few here, a few there -- but there are always more, and they never, ever stop coming. That's why zombies are scary movie monsters; it's all about quantity.
As we learn in the first sixty seconds of the movie, I Am Legend's zombies have their origin in the third school of Zombie Genesis -- a benign attempt to genetically modify the measles virus, which in the short run seems to cure cancer, goes terribly wrong. Since the audience learns this almost immediately, I'm not counting this as a spoiler. Part zombies, part vampires, these monsters are scary, mostly believable, and sadly, not terribly original-looking. (One very moderate spoiler -- there are zombie dogs, too; unfortunately, they all look more like zombie wolves, and I think it would have been creepier if they had been drawn to resemble more familiar and benign breeds of what were formerly house pets.) On the plus side, it's simply not possible in most scenes to tell when they are CGI and when they are stuntmen in makeup. That sort of thing does cost quite a bit of money.
So, we've got ourselves a big-budget zombie movie here. It isn't trying to be original; you could pretty much call it 2.8 Years Later. It's just trying to give you a good ride. And you can't do a big-budget movie without a big-name movie star to draw in the crowds. (Can you? We'll see in January with Cloverfield.) And the really good news here is that Will Smith is a Top-Flight Movie Star. The camera loves him. Just like it loves Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Tom Hanks, and Angelina Jolie. He's a damn good-looking man, and he always finds a way to be the center of gravity no matter where he is in the shot. It's hard to believe he used to be the Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air.
So it's perfect to cast him as, literally, the last man on earth.
Somehow, he's one of a tiny percentage of people who are somehow immune to the zombie-virus. At night, the zombies rule the streets and he locks himself in his fortress house on Washington Square to watch movies and television news broadcasts from just before the death of humanity. By day, when the zombies can't be out on the prowl, he roams the eerily empty streets of New York, breaks in to houses and apartments to raid them for supplies and their old DVD's, and talks to mannequins and his dog as a way of keeping himself sane. This provides a handy device for exposition, as it turns out. Between his narrating his activities for a video diary he keeps, his conversations with his dog, and a couple of extended flashback sequences, the movie does a good job of providing a back story and the Rules Of Survival In A Ruined City Of Millions Of Flesh-Eating Zombies.One of those rules, apparently, is to stay in really good shape. Which makes sense, but which also gives Smith an opportunity to show off an astonishingly well-sculpted body, one which earned whistles of admiration from the (shockingly ill-behaved) opening night audience. I mentioned before that he's a damn good-looking man. I'm not gay, but if I were, I'd totally go for Will Smith. (What? I'm just saying...)
Smith is clever and resourceful, but it's been three years since he's seen another living human being, and he's at the end of his rope. His loneliness and his fortitude are at odds with one another, as he continues to try to not only survive but to turn things around and bring humanity back. When he struggles with these competing impulses -- the seeming hopelessness and futility of his struggle, the memories that haunt his nightmares, the horrors that confront his new existence -- Smith shows some decent acting chops. I don't think he's as good an actor as Denzel Washington, but he's more than capable of handling a role like this. And since he is, for the better part of an hour, the only person on camera, he's got to deliver the goods.
New York, denuded of all humanity, is as much a star of the movie as Will Smith. The writers have set many of the outdoor scenes in the movie in readily-recognizable areas of the city, like Grand Central Station and Times Square. The Brooklyn Bridge, shot in half by a missile in an apparently futile attempt to prevent zombies from escaping, is the repeated icon of the movie. The artists did a good job of portraying what New York would look like once all of its human inhabitants have died and been eaten. Grass and weeds grow through the streets, some of which are still gridlocked.
Central Park's deer roam freely through the streets, and they make prey for animals escaped from the zoo -- as well as the zombies. (Will Smith also hunts them with a shotgun, while driving at breakneck speeds down the Avenue of the Americas and 42nd Street.) There is surprisingly little broken glass for a city that surely did not go down without a fight. Between the deer, his Central Park vegetable garden, and the scavenged canned, bottled and preserved food of seven million New Yorkers (you know, that stuff does go bad eventually), Smith can eke out an existence -- grim but not without its luxuries like hot running water and high-end exercise equipment. He even still has electricity -- at least, he's got some gasoline generators and that's apparently enough to keep a bank of computers and televisions and other electronic devices running so he can seem to live like an upper-middle class Manhattanite when he's in his fortress of a residence.
Oh, and guns. Lots and lots of guns. Hey, if six million zombies all wanted to eat you for fourthmeal, you'd get some weapons, too.
Several scenes are obviously done with mattes, but many more look exactly as if the shots had taken place at the real, iconic locations in the real city, as if somehow the producers had been able to wall off traffic in front of Grand Central Station for eight blocks in either direction for an entire day of filming. (As if.)
I mentioned before that the movie isn't trying to be original. It could hardly be original; this is the third time the novel of the same name has been made into a movie. In 1964, the novelist adapted his story to a screenplay that became the Vincent Price movie The Last Man On Earth, originally released in Italy; in 1971, the same basic story, again scripted by the novelist, was turned into the Charlton Heston vehicle The Omega Man.
Bear in mind, this movie is quite violent and there are scenes of violence on children (not shown directly) and dogs, both of which could be particularly disturbing for some people. It is also fairly short at just over an hour and a half; but it's a pretty intense movie so I don't think the audience could handle much more than that anyway. (It may not surprise you that there is a video game to go with the movie.) The script will not be described as subtle, gentle or elegant. It rather clumsily divides the movie into two recognizable acts, with a denouement at the end of appropriate brevity. But it has some good moments, too, and Smith has sufficient acting skill to pull the audience in to the more emotional parts of the story even if they have all been projected well in advance of their punch.
Fact is, there's really only so much you can do with a zombie movie -- you can, however, do it very well. For the most part, that's what this movie does. It may not be High Art, but it is well-made, scary, tension-filled fun.
Labels:
Movies
December 13, 2007
Presidential Preference
Judging from the great response to the recently-expired poll about who you Readers would least like to see as President, I seem to have hit a nerve. Twenty-nine responses is pretty good for this blog.
The question was written to make a forced choice -- if you had to pick between these alternatives, you would be willing to accept X over Y.
Just over half of the respondents said that the kind of person they would least like to see as President was someone who had not graduated from college. That seems right to me; sure, Presidents like Harry Truman didn't graduate from college but the era of history when college wasn't a necessary step in one's career is long past. We rightly demand that our leaders be well-educated.
But five of you -- 17% -- said you'd rather have a President who didn't finish college than an atheist as President. Seriously? Hopefully, you're not just trying to needle me. If you really dislike atheists that much, what keeps you coming back here, to keep on reading what this atheist has to say about stuff?
What is it about atheists, in your minds, that disqualifies them for the job worse than people who are not well-educated? Is it a Star Jones kind of rationale? If so, I have to ask -- do you think that the only reason a President (or anyone else) does something good and moral as opposed to something bad and immoral is the fear of divine punishment or the promise of divine reward? Because that's not morality -- that's a carrot-and-stick mentality. It might get you the results you want, but that's not the same thing. And as we've seen with our past two Presidents, an overtly religious leader is hardly a guarantee of moral conduct while in office.
Let's say someone were to say this in a public speech: "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." The sort of thing I might say. You would not vote for that person for President of the United States. Right?
There were some other responses, too. Three votes for "Muslim," which means that three respondents would rather have an atheist President than a Muslim one. In the current geopolitical environment I suppose I can see and understand, if not necessarily agree with, that position. I think that one brand of religious doctrine is pretty much the same as another; none of it is real. I don't care if my President prefers Star Wars to Star Trek or vice versa; same thing with the Old Testament, the New, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or any other holy book you could identify. As for a Muslim being disloyal to the interests of America, I think that's nonsense. I trust the voters to be able to at least figure out whether a candidate is going to be loyal to the country or not, regardless of their religion.
Two votes for "Mormon." This is interesting. You'd rather have a Muslim than a Mormon in the Oval Office? Personally, I don't see any reason why a Mormon shouldn't be President although I can think of a lot of reasons why a particular Mormon running for that office this cycle is not a very attractive choice. Maybe you were referring to that particular person rather than Mormons in general.
Two votes for "Homosexual." Back in the days when being homosexual was an embarrassment and a reason to blackmail someone, I could see that. But these days? No big whoop. Jodie Foster sort of came out of the closet today, not that her fifteen-year relationship with a woman has been much of a secret. I doubt it will have any impact at all on her ability to attract an audience to a movie she stars in, directs, or writes. Certainly we're not talking about an entertainer with this matrix, but there just isn't the same kind of stigma associated with being gay now as opposed to what there was fifty years ago. Nor should there be. There has been some theorizing that both Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan were gay. (Okay, perhaps there could have been better role models for gay Presidents. But the point is that it might not be breaking any new ground to have a gay President.) But it doesn't make sense to me that the sort of person who would be repelled by the idea of a gay President (a minority of Americans, by the way) would prefer an atheist to a homosexual.
Two votes for "Philanderer." Umm... haven't we had quite a few philanderers as Presidents? Some of them have been rather effective administrators who presided over peaceful, prosperous eras of our history. Who the President sleeps with doesn't seem to have anything to do with how he (or she) does the job. Well, I suppose it's fair to say that one might not want any more philanderers, and cheating on one's spouse might be seen as a bellwether of other kinds of moral laxity. But again, you'd rather have a gay, monogamous President than a straight President who sleeps around?
No votes for "Woman," "African-American," or most interestingly, "Naturalized American." Since a woman and an African-American are very serious candidates right now, I'm not surprised at that. "Naturalized American," though, is a bit interesting -- several Republican candidates for President were reluctant to suggest that the Constitution should be amended to allow a naturalized American to hold our highest office. Personally, I don't see a problem with the idea -- I think the voters can figure out, and the rigors of a modern election will certainly prove, the loyalty and character of any candidate. It seems you agree with me on that. I don't know that there is an imperative to do this, though; the only political figure who merits any particular consideration is Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I'm not entirely sure that there would be a huge public demand for his candidacy if he could run.
I'll have to give some thought into how to get such a good reaction in the future. The polls are a lot more fun when a lot of people play.
The question was written to make a forced choice -- if you had to pick between these alternatives, you would be willing to accept X over Y.
Just over half of the respondents said that the kind of person they would least like to see as President was someone who had not graduated from college. That seems right to me; sure, Presidents like Harry Truman didn't graduate from college but the era of history when college wasn't a necessary step in one's career is long past. We rightly demand that our leaders be well-educated.
But five of you -- 17% -- said you'd rather have a President who didn't finish college than an atheist as President. Seriously? Hopefully, you're not just trying to needle me. If you really dislike atheists that much, what keeps you coming back here, to keep on reading what this atheist has to say about stuff?
What is it about atheists, in your minds, that disqualifies them for the job worse than people who are not well-educated? Is it a Star Jones kind of rationale? If so, I have to ask -- do you think that the only reason a President (or anyone else) does something good and moral as opposed to something bad and immoral is the fear of divine punishment or the promise of divine reward? Because that's not morality -- that's a carrot-and-stick mentality. It might get you the results you want, but that's not the same thing. And as we've seen with our past two Presidents, an overtly religious leader is hardly a guarantee of moral conduct while in office.
Let's say someone were to say this in a public speech: "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." The sort of thing I might say. You would not vote for that person for President of the United States. Right?
There were some other responses, too. Three votes for "Muslim," which means that three respondents would rather have an atheist President than a Muslim one. In the current geopolitical environment I suppose I can see and understand, if not necessarily agree with, that position. I think that one brand of religious doctrine is pretty much the same as another; none of it is real. I don't care if my President prefers Star Wars to Star Trek or vice versa; same thing with the Old Testament, the New, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or any other holy book you could identify. As for a Muslim being disloyal to the interests of America, I think that's nonsense. I trust the voters to be able to at least figure out whether a candidate is going to be loyal to the country or not, regardless of their religion.
Two votes for "Mormon." This is interesting. You'd rather have a Muslim than a Mormon in the Oval Office? Personally, I don't see any reason why a Mormon shouldn't be President although I can think of a lot of reasons why a particular Mormon running for that office this cycle is not a very attractive choice. Maybe you were referring to that particular person rather than Mormons in general.
Two votes for "Homosexual." Back in the days when being homosexual was an embarrassment and a reason to blackmail someone, I could see that. But these days? No big whoop. Jodie Foster sort of came out of the closet today, not that her fifteen-year relationship with a woman has been much of a secret. I doubt it will have any impact at all on her ability to attract an audience to a movie she stars in, directs, or writes. Certainly we're not talking about an entertainer with this matrix, but there just isn't the same kind of stigma associated with being gay now as opposed to what there was fifty years ago. Nor should there be. There has been some theorizing that both Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan were gay. (Okay, perhaps there could have been better role models for gay Presidents. But the point is that it might not be breaking any new ground to have a gay President.) But it doesn't make sense to me that the sort of person who would be repelled by the idea of a gay President (a minority of Americans, by the way) would prefer an atheist to a homosexual.
Two votes for "Philanderer." Umm... haven't we had quite a few philanderers as Presidents? Some of them have been rather effective administrators who presided over peaceful, prosperous eras of our history. Who the President sleeps with doesn't seem to have anything to do with how he (or she) does the job. Well, I suppose it's fair to say that one might not want any more philanderers, and cheating on one's spouse might be seen as a bellwether of other kinds of moral laxity. But again, you'd rather have a gay, monogamous President than a straight President who sleeps around?
No votes for "Woman," "African-American," or most interestingly, "Naturalized American." Since a woman and an African-American are very serious candidates right now, I'm not surprised at that. "Naturalized American," though, is a bit interesting -- several Republican candidates for President were reluctant to suggest that the Constitution should be amended to allow a naturalized American to hold our highest office. Personally, I don't see a problem with the idea -- I think the voters can figure out, and the rigors of a modern election will certainly prove, the loyalty and character of any candidate. It seems you agree with me on that. I don't know that there is an imperative to do this, though; the only political figure who merits any particular consideration is Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I'm not entirely sure that there would be a huge public demand for his candidacy if he could run.
I'll have to give some thought into how to get such a good reaction in the future. The polls are a lot more fun when a lot of people play.
Labels:
Blog,
Domestic Politics
Logo For Lancaster, or, My Tax Dollars At Work
The city of Lancaster, California (the boundaries of which just barely enclose Soffit House) just got itself a new logo, and a new slogan, after a year's worth of marketing research and a $90,000 commission to a local graphic design house. Here it is:
The "plus" sign is supposed to incorporate an "L" for "Lancaster," and it will be a dynamic blue to accent our good air quality, and a green because, well, everyone likes green. Considering the level of readily-apparent corruption on the city council, I think they could have at least got a little more accuracy:
Labels:
Local Politics,
Really Bad Ideas
Travel With The iPhone: $2,100
So here’s a guy who no doubt likes having all the latest cool gadgets, and there’s no cooler, newer, gadgetier gadget than the iPhone. It searches for new e-mail every ten minutes, to keep you in touch no matter where you are on the go. Cool. But what if you’re travelling in China
Labels:
Really Bad Ideas,
Technology
Say It Ain't So
Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard for all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting. -- George Orwell, Collected Essays
It shouldn't have felt like a surprise. But it does. And it was never a really big secret, but it’s still a letdown to see so many baseball titans of recent years named as users of steroids in the long-awaited (long-dreaded, more like it) report by former Senator George Mitchell.Barry Bonds, we knew about (and while he still denies “knowingly” using the ‘roids, I doubt even he believes that). But Roger Clemens! The Rocket was on the juice! Aww, man! Could he have really still brought it on his own? (He angrily denies it.) Eric Gagne! This guy was unhittable when he won his Cy Young award with the Dodgers and he was the best thing to come along for Blue fans like me since Hideo Nomo. Jason Giambi (he owned up to ‘roiding a while ago). Andy Pettitte, Gary Sheffield, David Justice, Miguel Tejada. Mark McGwire, we knew he was using a now-banned substance (then within the rules) called Andro, the year he broke the single-season home run record. Jose Canseco. Kevin Brown. David Justice. Chuck Knoblauch. Mo Vaughn. It's a significant slice of the pantheon of modern baseball heroes.
The players’ union enabled it – and the owners turned a blind eye to it.
And what's really bothersome to a baseball fan is that it was not necessary. Steroids make you stronger. They make pitchers throw harder, they make batters hit harder. But the art is in hitting the ball -- or in throwing it so that it can't be hit in the first place. And the Anaheim Angels' World Series run proved that "small ball" is every bit as exciting as hitting home runs.
The fans will watch the game on TV, buy the tickets, eat the hot dogs. But the cheating leaves a bad taste in their mouths -- and it deceives the consuming public. And if too much of this crap goes on, the fans will take their business elsewhere. Baseball finally recovered from the strike of the 1990's, but now there's this to deal with.Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic. -- Ron Shelton, Bull Durham
Consider three facts. First, Baseball offers a unique form of entertainment, and represents a segment of the industry worth billions of dollars. Second, there have been rumors of players juicing up since the 1980's and there has never been any effective action taken against it. Third, Bud Selig has been running Major League Baseball since 1992.
Now, the point of having a Commissioner is to earn Congress' exemption from the antitrust laws by self-policing to protect the consumer of the product. Presenting a deceptively altered product is a form of consumer fraud, which was the reason that the office of the Commissioner was created in the wake of the Black Sox scandal of 1919 in the first place. But there has been a massive failure of self-regulation, and the blame must ultimately rest squarely with the person who was charged with preventing that kind of consumer fraud from taking place.
Some people have said that Barry Bonds should get an asterisk next to his single-season and career home run records in the books, because he cheated to get it. But now, it seems that there will be too many asterisks on too many records and statistics. There’s just no point in the asterisks anymore. It's either going to be something that baseball puts a stop to, or it's going to become part of the game. Selig has demonstrated not only that he does not care about players juicing up, but that he thinks it's good for business if they do.
If Bud Selig remains in charge, nothing meaningful will change. He's got to go. I nominate George Will to replace him.
The Christmas Resolution
This non-binding resolution of the House of Representatives is scheduled to come to a floor vote on Tuesday. I suppose that resolution #2 – that the House of Representatives “expresses continued support for Christians in the United States
Labels:
Constitutional Law,
Domestic Politics
December 12, 2007
Offshore Wind Farms
Britain is going to dramatically increase its use of offshore wind farms over the next two decades. When I first heard the story, I had to even wonder what an offshore wind farm was; turns out, it's exactly what it sounds like -- windmills mounted on land underneath the ocean. The expectation is that the UK will generate enough electricity this way by 2020 to meet the current needs of every household in Britain. Of course, by then, there will be more households and the average household is likely to consume more electricity, and this does not account for industrial or commercial electricity, but still, that would be a significant achievement if they could pull it off.Here in the U.S., wind farms are considered unsightly by many people, and so we don't have a lot of them. This is both wrong and short-sighted of us. Windmills, especially the thin-bladed modern variety, are actually quite lovely to look at, and they have a calming, hypnotic feel to them. Moreover, they're a very clean and efficient source of electricity, something that we badly need. The environmental impact of windmills is as close to zero as it gets -- a few birds get killed by them, and there is some waste generated in their manufacture.
A friend mentioned the other day that the wind farm in nearby Tehachipi generates more than enough electricity to power Los Angeles. But the contribution from that wind farm to L.A.'s power consumption is quite small. The reason is that the power is generated in Tehachipi, and then transmitted by power lines that go for about sixty miles to be routed from Pasadena to other points along the grid. The resistance of the wires to the electricity generates huge amounts of heat and thus a lot of the energy is lost along the way. I don't independently know if this is true or not, but it made for a pleasant discussion.
We theorized that if a more efficient conductor of electricity could be found than copper wire, substantial upgrades to the nation's power grid might not be needed, because we'd have a surplus of electricity. A warm superconducting substance would be ideal, of course, but simply reducing resistance would be a big step up.
But, this seems unlikely to happen, at least at the levels of economic efficiency that would inspire someone to supplement and eventually replace the millions of miles of existing copper wiring with a newer, more conductive substance, whatever that might be.
Of course, a windmill doesn't generate any electricity when there's no wind. But there are places where there is usually wind, and those are good candidates for wind farms. If the wind farm can be placed offshore, it doesn't render any land unavailable for other uses, either.
And generating more power is still something we'll need to do. Coal plants (oil is now used almost exclusively to power vehicles rather than generating electricity) still provide the bulk of electricity used in the U.S. Nearly everyone I know agrees that we need more nuclear power plants and the time to start building them is now.
Which brings me to my final thought for the evening -- why is it that only Hillary Clinton is talking about our nation's infrastructure? This is kind of important.
The summer blackout of 2003 and the winter blackout of 2005 should amply demonstrate that our electricity-generation and distribution system is fragile. Think for a second about the number of pipes under a typical city -- water, sewer, storm drains, electrical conduit, telephone cables, and so on. Not to mention if the city has underground transit. We've become utterly dependent on the internet and a high-speed communications infrastructure. How many tens of thousands of people make their living maintaining all of the elaborate machinery and equipment necessary to keep these systems working smoothly?
Then there's our transportation network. Our roads and highways are falling apart. A drive in Europe will convince you of that -- they maintain their roads in a way that puts us to shame. Aside from a series of commuter trains that run up and down the Atlantic Seaboard and a few cities with regional transit systems, we have functionally no passenger rail transit in this country. If it only took an hour to commute from Las Vegas to downtown Los Angeles, wouldn't that really ease the burdens on our freeways? Europe and Japan long ago made substantial investments in their rail transport infrastructure and they are reaping the benefits of those investments today; Americans have failed to do the same and now there are lots of people who would like to travel (and provide stimulus to the economy) find themselves electing not to do so because of the fuel costs involved. Yes, I'll be voting for the high-speed rail bond measure next election. It is my hope that one day I'll be able to take an hour-long train ride to visit my friend in San Francisco, or another hour-long ride to play in Las Vegas or marvel at the Grand Canyon, all for less than $100 round trip. An overnight ride should take me to visit my parents in Tennessee, and that should cost about what a plane ticket does.
We live in a complex world with a complex economy, and it takes a complex infrastructure to keep it all working. It's never going to get any easier or cheaper to update that infrastructure. The Brits are doing it. We should, too.
Labels:
Britain,
Technology
A Paean To The Unadorned Martini
I had a martini tonight with dinner. Then another for dessert. Damn, I do like martinis every once in a while.I like mine made with vodka, not gin. I know there are some snobs out there who insist that if it's made with vodka it's not a real martini. They're wrong. The point of the martini is to be cold, intoxicating, bitter, refreshing, and clean. Most of all, clean. Vodka has a cleaner taste than gin -- gin has that bitter juniper-berry taste to it; vodka is simply alcohol. Some people like "dirty" martinis, where a shot (or more) of olive juice is poured into the drink. Defeats the purpose if you ask me.
If you drink other kinds of vodka drinks, the quality of the vodka is not a huge issue. I tried high-quality vodka in tonic water, and decided after a while that the quinine and lime and carbonation wiped out whatever advantage high-quality vodka provided. But it's different with a martini. The drink is still, and so the feel of the vodka in your mouth matters. The best vodka is tasteless, so you can't make one without any vermouth. (A little goes a long way, though.) A good martini marries the satiny feel of the vodka with the subtle and pleasing bitterness of the vermouth.
A lemon twist is good sometimes, but more often than not, I like the martini to be served naked, with nothing but the clear liquid. If there must be an olive, I'd much rather it was black than green, and keep that goddamned pimento the hell away from my drink, thank you very much. I don't give a damn if you shake or stir my martini; I do care that you use dry vermouth, and not too much of it.
The martini is sexy. It has style and class. It's for grownups. (I exclude from this analysis choco-tinis, green apple pucker-tinis, glow-in-the-dark razzleberry martinis, and other similar sugary-sweet concoctions served in the same glass, which are for kids or getting sorority girls drunk.) Everyone knows what it is but not a lot of people actually drink them. It comes in its own distinctive kind of glass, which immediately brands the drink and the drinker. As far as I'm concerned, the glass must have a stem, or what's the point? You need that visual cue that instantly says "martini!" for the cachet of martini drinking to attach.
One martini is an indulgence. Two martinis, that's probably too many. Three martinis are not enough.
Labels:
Food
Leadership
A century ago, American soldiers in the Phillipines started doing something they called the "water cure," which today we would call "waterboarding." President Teddy Roosevelt responded to news of this going on by sending out a telegram to the commander of the forces in the region:The president desires to know in the fullest and most circumstantial manner all the facts, ... for the very reason that the president intends to back up the Army in the heartiest fashion in every lawful and legitimate method of doing its work; he also intends to see that the most vigorous care is exercised to detect and prevent any cruelty or brutality and that men who are guilty thereof are punished. Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.
The general in charge of operations in the Phillipines was then court-martialled. The verdict was a censure rather than a conviction for tolerating the torture. Roosevelt then conducted a personal review of the facts of the court-martial, and on his own authority dishonorably discharged the general.
Torture is wrong. Always and under all circumstances. It will never be to our advantage to torture people under our power. TR, who was both an aggressive patriot and a fundamentally decent man, knew this and did what needed to be done to make it real. In so doing, he preserved our national honor.
If we had real leadership in place today, history would be repeating itself.
Labels:
Ethics and Morality,
History,
International Politics,
Law
Romney Raises The Stakes
Once again, I have to question Romney's finely-parsed political stance. Does the sexual orientation of the giant flesh-eating rats really matter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
