Good Job Guys!

Didn't have time to chime in on this yesterday but wanted to shout out to the morons of Minnesota whose message vote puts Al Franken in the US Senate.

Unreal...

Sadly, not Kidding

Planning: Then and Now

Glenn said they were for it before they were against it. That works:

One of the Democrats' frequent talking points about Iraq is that the administration failed to plan the mission there adequately. It is ironic, then, that nearly all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives have voted to bar the administration from planning for the contingency of hostilities with Iran. The Hill reports:

An amendment to the defense authorization bill, introduced by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), a member of the armed services panel, failed Wednesday night by a vote of 216-202 with six Republicans voting in favor of the amendment together with 196 Democrats.

Andrews’ amendment, which had strong support from House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), would have prevented funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being used to plan a contingency operation in Iran.

In former times, a motto of many liberals was "No enemies on the Left." Today, the Democrats' mantra seems to be, "No enemies anywhere except the White House."

Just when you think the absurdity of it all can't possibly become any more absurd than it already is, Congress steps-up and hits it out of the park.

Just remember, this is what you voted for America.

Why Andrew Sullivan is irrelevant

Not only is he no longer conservative, he doesn't understand conservatives anymore:

The conservative pundits are now referring to Ron Paul as a "crackpot." Hannity predictably savaged him last night (see above). The Hewitt site has an image of a man in a tin-foil hat; Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt both call for removing Paul from the debates, when he has been the best thing about them so far. Bill Benett wants him out. I'm getting the usual ridicule for taking him seriously from the usual GOP apparatchiks. They're scared, aren't they? The Internet polls show real support for him.

No doubt, millions of conservatives went to bed terrified by the spectre of Ron Paul's truthiness.

You voted for it...

And now you got it:

Today the House of Representatives will debate whether global warming is so serious a threat to American national security that the director of National Intelligence, normally busy with issues like al Qaeda, Iranian nuclear research, and North Korean missiles, should be ordered to put aside other projects to create a special National Intelligence Estimate on climate change. So far, majority Democrats have pushed the proposal through the House Intelligence Committee — on a party-line vote — and there is a good chance it will become part of the final intelligence authorization bill passed by Congress.

These people are absurd.

James Lileks and the Star-Tribune

Stupid is as stupid does:

As it happens, they've killed my column, and assigned me to write straight local news stories.

Really.

There is no dearth of reaction in the on-line world. Some are gleeful, others are not. Most are incredulous.

Three months after I started at the Times, we let our popular local columnist, Steve Corbett go. The explanation was simple and obvious; he was the highest-priced member of the editorial staff and the paper needed to trim costs.

We'd scrimped as much as was possible on paper, binder clips and manila folders. The next step was logically the re-organization of personnel.

In James' case it's not so clear as that. Or is it?

The Value of Bad Research

Is mostly comedic. Take this for example:

An academic study of NBA officiating found that white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players, The New York Times reported on its Web site Tuesday night.

The study by a University of Pennsylvania assistant professor and Cornell graduate student also found that black officials called fouls more frequently against white players than black, but noted that that tendency was not as pronounced.

It's the methodology though that really kills: The study, conducted over a 13-season span through 2004, found that the racial makeup of a three-man officiating crew affected calls by up to 4 1/2 percent.

The NBA strongly criticized the study, which was based on information from publicly available box scores, which show only the referees' names and contain no information about which official made a call.

Box scores. That was it. Box scores...

At the risk of being indelicate (putting it mildly), did the good academics stop to ponder the fact that NBA rosters are composed, overwhelmingly, of black players. One would think refs would tend to call more fouls on black players when in most games at any given time 8 of the 10 players on the floor are in fact black.

Kevin Hinch skewers this nonsense beautifully in a column here. On behalf of white-stiffs everywhere, I give you the key and closing quote:

One might question the motives of people who would set out in search of racism in a business where the vast majority of the highest-paid employees and 38 percent of the refs are black. I don't. I question their half-assed methodology, which doesn't even yield half-truths.
It says nothing. It proves nothing. It is nothing. Except, of course, a distraction from the real issue of race in America.

It is also incredibly lame.

And somewhere Joel Przybilla is pissed.

Like so many big white stiffs in the NBA, the 7-foot-1 space-eater spends much of his professional life in foul trouble. Now he's forced to ponder how much worse it would be if the white refs didn't have his back.

What's wrong with this country?

Who is Andy Ostroy?

And how did this Daily Kos-lite drivel get published at Abcnews.com?

Virginia Tech shootings: I think I've now seen it all

This past week's shocking events on the campus of Virginia Tech University have left the nation grasping for answers. "Why?" we ask. An understandable and natural question which has lead to the predictable litany of explanations (availability of guns, dehumanizing technology, video games, violent pop culture) and suppositions emanating from psychologists, politicians, clergy, activists, media and celebrities.

But what happens when we try to rationalize the irrational?

Well, we get this kind of drivel. The most cogent answer to the question of "Why?"--that Seung-Hui Cho was most likely (or even, obviously) emotionally disturbed--is simply not enough for many in our society. Rather, that's too neat and dismissive of an answer. We have to become more sophisticated in our analysis and in doing so, the question morphs into "What drove him to insanity?" This leads to only one natural and obvious outcome: It's our fault.

The parents of these fine children are so devastated, they are residing in a community hospital. They feel deeply pained by their son's circumstance. The mother and father meant no harm; they as all parents hoped to provide the best for their children. They are troubled and think themselves responsible. Perhaps, America has let the Cho family down. They expected so much, all Americans do. However, little is received. The rewards are few. Many in the Korean community think the problem lies in the life of an émigré; however, even native born Americans struggle to make a decent wage or create a comfortable caring environment for their children. Most of us think our lack of personal success is our fault. When our offspring struggle or hurt another, we are pained. A Grandfather feels responsible for his own progeny and the product of their love. As a child Seung-Hui Cho was ridiculed and bullyed. As an adult he hid; he hoped to avoid the taunts and teasing.

According to this article, it would seem as if everyone but the man who pulled the trigger is responsible. But this obtuse line of thinking actually shouldn't surprise us. It parallels the predominant mindset which accompanies much of today's nanny culture. George Bush and the United States were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, not the 19 hijackers that commandeered the jets or a megalomaniacal religious fascist sitting in a cave in Afghanistan. 9/11 was merely the case of Churchillian chickens coming home to roost.

In his seminal book, Terror and Liberalism, author Paul Berman develops the point that when confronted with the irrational, elements within Western liberal democracies have historically resorted to such attempts to rationalize. French Socialists perceived Hitler's rants against the Jews as "excessive" and they grated on the ear, but they were not altogether without merit. Rather than simply dismissing their enemies, the Socialists wanted to understand them. After all, that's what sophisticated, rational people do. Similarly, in the wake of 9/11 many believed that Bin Laden and his thugs, while thoroughly distasteful, were only responding to the actions of the imperialist oil-suckers from the West. Strange for Saudi plutocrats to react in such a way, but so be it. In other words, rational people have a tendency to try to explain the irrational in rational terms. Bin Laden is an awful person, but he must have his reasons.

Which brings us back to Virginia Tech. Yes, Mr. Cho committed a dastardly deed. But to simply chalk it up to the man's insanity is neither rational nor sophisticated. We must analyze more thoroughly in our zeal to consider all of the possibilities. How can one person become so unhappy, angry, isolated and desperate? It defies rationality, so we must broaden our scope. Which seems more likely? That the young man was on a lifelong path to mass destruction fueled by his own inner demons or that factors imposed upon him by his environment created and encouraged those demons? It is incomprehensible that a young man could arrive in such a dark place on his own. How could one even hope to explain that? But if one considers the hardships of emigrating to a new country which provided he and his family with few rewards (like a middle class station, his sister with a Princeton degree and him with a Virginia Tech education), inadequate social services (which allowed him to slip through many a crack) and subjected him to the kind of ridicule and bullying that no other child in the country apparently undergoes, it becomes very clear why this young man snapped. And our hearts should go out to him. We mourn his life and loss. Indeed. And we should do the same when Alec Baldwin's daughter goes on a three state killing spree as well.

Poppycock. It is a fool's errand to try to explain the irrational mind with our inadequate concepts of rationality. Try as we might to understand the inner workings of Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Kaczinsky, we cannot. And efforts to do so only muddy the waters. The rationalists will tell us that there is always a 'why.' I would humbly submit that as unnerving and terrifying as the concept may be, there is not always a 'why.'

Question for the Ages

Why do they make you pay to read Paul Krugman?