Very funny

I haven't had a chance to read the article he mentions, but DC comic Jeff Maurer wrote something that made me laugh out loud at work to the point of being very awkward.

On the front page of today's Washington Post is an article entitled Eight Issues that Will Shape the 2006 Elections. The eight issues are: Bush, the economy, corruption, immigration, Iraq, turnout, the Northeast, and Red States. I'd like to point out that the last three of these are not issues. They are outcomes. That's like a football coach telling his team that the keys to winning are touchdowns, points, and winning.

Anyway, check out this guy's blog; he's a very funny person, and he has a very good, interesting perspective on politics that consists of more than the false Democrat/Republican dichotomy.

I don't want to be veering too far from politics...

but OOOOH baby! DIRT!

Lance Bass, band member of 'N Sync, says he's gay and in a "very stable" relationship with a reality show star.

Bass, who formed 'N Sync with Justin Timberlake, JC Chasez, Joey Fatone and Chris Kirkpatrick, tells People magazine that he didn't earlier disclose his sexuality because he didn't want to affect the group's popularity.

"I knew that I was in this popular band and I had four other guys' careers in my hand, and I knew that if I ever acted on it or even said (that I was gay), it would overpower everything," he tells the magazine.

I for one never saw this coming. Not in a million years.

In the spirit of postings about movies:

Here's another!

For those who read the Dukakis editorial in the NY Times...

Here’s an interesting paper on the origin of the minimum wage:

ABSTRACT. American economics came of age during the Progressive Era, a time when biological approaches to economic reform were at their high-water mark. Reform-minded economists argued that the labor force should be rid of unfit workers—whom they labeled “unemployables,” “parasites,” and the “industrial residuum”—so as to uplift superior, deserving workers. Women were also frequently classified as unemployable. Leading progressives, including women at the forefront of labor reform, justified exclusionary labor legislation for women on grounds that it would (1) protect the biologically weaker sex from the hazards of market work; (2) protect working women from the temptation of prostitution; (3) protect male heads of household from the economic competition of women; and (4) ensure that women could better carry out their eugenic duties as “mothers of the race.” What united these heterogeneous rationales was the reformers’ aim of discouraging women’s labor-force participation.

I will admit, much to the chagrin of my girlfriend and many of my friends, that I do not support the minimum wage. Moreover, I think the case against the minimum wage can be made even from a liberal, social-safety-net perspective. The only reason it has endured so long is that it seems to make so much sense from a non-economic perspective: If people aren’t making enough money, let’s make all businesses pay them more. Problem solved.

Of course, if the logic of wages were that simple, I would advocate a minimum wage of $200 per hour, or more. Unfortunately, people respond to incentives, and businesses are simply going to respond by firing those people whom they deem not worthy of that wage, i.e. the exact poor, low-skilled laborers that the minimum wage was enacted to protect. I think there are much more economically viable and equally effective methods of battling poverty, including a negative income tax. Of course, every policy runs into its own snags, but any EC11 student at Brown (or any of mine, at least) can tell you why a price floor is unnecessarily punitive. It provides for the same loss of trade without even gaining any tax dollars to redistribute. The minimum wage is a naïve, overvalued part of the American welfare state, and it needs to go.

P. S. I had a similar argument with my girlfriend about this a couple of weeks ago that ended with her ordering a copy of Mankiw’s Principles of Economics online. I don’t think she’s had a chance to read it yet.

Amazing pictures

Courtesy of my friend Brendan, some amazing pictures of... clouds.

But they're actually really cool.

I lied... third post

{Update 4:13 PM} In my joy at finding such a cornicopia of humor I may have missed the obvious... this is in all likelihood a joke... but it is still hilarious.

This is the last one I promise:

Thank You, Rush Limbaugh!

I'm very pleased to announce the latest addition to the 'ensorsements' section of my blogroll: Rush Limbaugh! Yes, Mr. Limbaugh firmly announced his support of me on his radio program a few days ago. You can follow this link to listen to what he had to say. Here's a snippet:

You know, what's happening with Lieberman is that the Democratic base is trying to run him out of the United States Senate, and they've got this media tycoon who has literally no political experience whatsoever, and we've played audio sound bites of some debates that they've had. It's clear this guy is just mouthing phrases he's been taught by the lunatics of the left-wing fringe.

I find this analysis to be completely on target. Ned Lamont doesn't know anything besides what he reads on crazed left-wing blogs; he's nothing but a political amateur that's trying to buy my Senate seat with his ill-gotten gains from his media empire. I love how Rush can simplify complex issues down to the core truth like this.

So, thanks again, Rush. You're the best!

More Lieberman Blog

I apologize for posting more Lieberman blog 2 minutes after the last post, but... this has to be quoted in full:

Why 15 year olds should KEEP OFF the Internet

Throughout my political career, I've often stood up and helped protect the children. I've protected children from filthy movies, obscene music, and violent video games. No matter the medium, I've helped shelter our children from it. But now is the time to start protecting our children from the Internet. Because the Internet is warping our kids' brains.

Ava Lowery, a 15 year old girl from Alabama, has become famous for her anti-war animations on her website, Peace Takes Courage. Now if that weren't bad enough, her most recent creation does the most unspeakable thing: it attacks me! You can watch it here, if you can stomach it.

It's clear from watching her animations that Ava is too immature to handle exposure to the Internet. None of our precious, impressionable young people are. Therefore, I will propose new legislation in the Senate next week that prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from accessing the Internet in any way. As a society, we've determined that people under 21 are not capable of handling alcohol. Well, let me be the first one to tell you that the Internet is much more dangerous than alcohol ever was. If put into the wrong hands, the power of the Internet can do much damage. We as a society certianly do not want that.

I fear that I will have an overwhelming desire to post every entry I read (notice that I have posted the first and second ones so far) so I will refrain and allow you to read the whole blog yourself.

Lieberman has a blog!

And it's an awesome one.

First there was Joementum. Now there's Liebermania.

But seriously, this is gold. Here's "Homeland Security Busts Bloggers":

If you've been following the campaign recently, you've probably heard of the Kiss Float. The Lamont campaign has been stalking me for two weeks now with this damn float. Wherever I go, it follows. It's gotten so bad, that I've had to stop publicly announcing my campaign events! But sometimes, even THAT doesn't keep it away.

So a few days ago, I put in a good word with my friends at Homeland Security. As you can see by the video, they took care of the problem.

Thanks to one of my campaign volunteers for putting this video together. I think it's pretty funny. I hope those rabble-rousing bloggers liked spending the night in jail!

Followed by comments such as these:

Renee said...
Homeland security? You're wasting my tax dollars because you are scared of a float?
8:52 PM

Anonymous said...
You previous posters really lack an irony detector.....

Sad.
10:43 PM

Brownie said...
I hope you told the officer he was doing a heck of a job.

Maybe you could confirm him to a high position in the Department of Homeland Security. It should take more than 42 minutes.

Will post more excerpts as I come across them.

Site administration

We just got spammed in our comments. As a result I'm turning on word verification for comments.

At some point I'll clear out the crap. Or maybe someone else wants to do it.

WOW

This is just awesome. Courtesy of the Sullivan.

All I can add is: meow.

{Update 10:10 PM} It might take a second or two to load.

Cause its evil, that's why!

Ok, so I’m angry.

So the House just passed a bill to ban online gambling, a subject about which I am very passionate. Of course, much of this comes from the sizable amount of money I have made over the past year by playing online, but there’s more than that. This is an act of blatant, unrepentant hypocrisy on the part of the federal government. Sports betting online is illegal, except of course online horseracing bets, which are totally legal, cause those are different. Online slots are illegal, but state lotteries, which may constitute the most regressive taxing system in America, are perfectly legal in 42 states and the District of Columbia. In fact, if you don’t want to drive down to the convenience store, you can buy your lottery tickets online! Just don’t spend any time on those evil sites that allow you a chance at skill games that offer some amount of positive expected value (poker, blackjack with bonuses). If anyone can think of a logically sound moral justification of this double standard, I’d love to hear it.

Of course, I am in favor of allowing all forms of gambling in this country, from poker to table games to lotteries. And when the government finally realizes that they have allowed millions of dollars in taxes to slip through their fingers by outlawing online gaming, they might even agree with me. Until then, we have to listen to justifications like this:

Supporters of the measure argued that Internet betting can be addictive and can lead people to lose their savings.

Leach said the problem is particularly acute for young people who are frequently on the Internet. "Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age," he said.

Of course, the same could be said for the stock market, but I digress.

At this point all I can hope is that this bill, if it is passed, will be as highly effective as most other prohibitions in this country. Like that time they banned alcohol and then no one ever drank it again and it was a big success. Or the way no one can buy drugs nowadays. Oh well, one can only hope…

2006 - chances for a Democratic senate

From David Schraub comes an interesting analysis and breakdown.

Consider me on the record that I think the Democrats will take back neither the House nor the Senate in 2006. There is just too much ground to make up. I think they will make significant gains, to be sure, but I think they will end up just short in both.

However, it's 2008 where they really stand a chance to clean up. Kos has the run-down of races in 2006 and 2008, and the latter looks really good for the boys in blue.

Well, I think its a bit premature to be blustering around about 2008, but as to '06: I think that where the Democrats have the best chance is the Senate by far. The House has comparatively few races up for grabs, due in part to gerrymandering; if the Democrats are going to take something it would most likely be the Senate. Schraub throws some water on that idea, but I have hope. Obviously, much depends on what happens between now and November; I think that the GOP has set the Democrats up for a good win, and I think that the national mood will certainly contribute to Democratic turnout, but ultimately these races will be local, and will be determined largely by the candidates doing the actual running.

In this respect, the crop seems good this year. There are quite a few candidates that I like, including Webb from Virginia, whose inclusion (he's not your blue-blooded liberal) should be doing more to douse the dumbass idea that giving Leiberman the boot in the ass is pulling the party to the left.

To expand on my post below...

Let me elaborate.

First, I don't like Joe. I don't like the man himself - he strikes me as an arrogant sonofabitch, although I don't necessarily disagree with the things he says. However, I don't know much about Lamont. Since I'm not a registered Democrat, I probably won't have a chance to vote for either one, but obviously the outcome of the primary will be very important to me.

I think there's a lot of anger on the left not because of what he is saying but how he is saying it. I.e., there's a difference between coming out and supporting the war and coming out and attacking your own constituents for undermining the effort. I think that's what gets me most about the guy - you can support the war and still criticize its handling without being unpatriotic - not that being 'unpatriotic' is something undesirable, in any case.

Besides, did you see that ad he made attacking Lamont? It was just silly.

As to the second, well, let's just say I found this article in Time recently. I guess that answers that. Still, I can't help but feel like our course is still muddied, in comparision to our action in Iraq. Even after reading, I don't get an overriding sense of action that is guiding this administration's actions. But maybe that's for the better?...

{Update 5:34 PM July 11} And this response from Fred Kaplan at Slate

Saturday night drunken ramblings

Two questions in my inebriated state:

1) What do y'all think of Leiberman? I happen to be registered in Connecticut where I grew up, so the issue is one that I'm fairly familiar with... but I want to hear what you guys have to say

2) What is the US policy to deal with North Korea and Iran? Are military options on the table? Are we pursuing diplomacy? I don't really know, and I can't really tell. Do we even have a policy? Or are we just bumbling along?

That is all.

Marriage fights and the court's decision

From the Suv':

The court surely has a point. And this is how these decisions can actually be a boon to the marriage cause. They may help galvanize a broader gay and straight effort to make the case democratically, rather than legally and constitutionally. Since our arguments are so strong, why would we leery of this? We have already made huge strides. We've seen dramatic polling drops in opposition to marriage for gay people in the last couple of years. The FMA has withered on the vine. We have civil marriage in one state, Massachusetts. That's a Big Deal. If someone had asked me seventeen years ago, when I helped pioneer this argument, if I thought that by 2006 I'd be engaged and planning a legal wedding in America, I would have wondered what they were smoking. But next year, I'll tie the knot - as thousands already have, in America and across the globe. In California, the legislature has already voted for civil marriage, and shows no sign of going back. These state court decisions, moroever, undermine even further the case for a federal amendment and reveal the extremism and un-conservatism of its backers.

And I would also add (as pertinent to Dave's post below) that this is another issue that politically is being neutralized - not through any Democratic political proficiency, mind you, but neutralized nonetheless.

Are the Dems at a Disadvantage? Discuss...

Given pathetic poll turnout in the United States, political parties are pumping up issues not just for their own sake but also for the sake of increasing voter turnout. This has been a particularly effective strategy for Republicans (Read, gay marriage). "In 2004, an Ohio referendum on gay marriage was widely credited with helping George Bush beat John Kerry in that state" (The Economist, 7/1). Apparently though Dems are firing back at the Republicans somewhat by using one of their supposed "strong-suits," the minimum wage. To counter this ploy to get more progressives out to the polls, however, Republicans in some states like Michigan are passing laws to increase the minimum wage through their legislatures rather than putting it to a voter referendum that might boost poll turnout amongst progressives. It seems that Republicans can get away with letting these types of laws through legislatures without alienating much of their support base. I suppose--at least in this case--the unsexiness of economics works in their favor. My question is can the Dems do the same thing back to Republicans? Can Dems compromise on so-called Republican "strong-suits" or do the Republicans have an advantage? In the case of gay marriage at least it doesn't seem to me like Democrats (at least on a state level) have much room to give. Anyway, thoughts?

One More Reason to Hate Hillary Clinton

In this week's Economist, there is an article about flag burning. Most perplexing, unsurprisingly, is Senator Clinton's position on a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning:

"Hilary Clinton, true to her strategy of trying to straddle her party's liberal and centrist wings, opposed the amendment but called for federal legislation to ban flag desecration."

Perhaps Ms. Clinton can explain to me exactly where in that swamp of bullshit I can find her actual position on this issue. What does she think about the fact that her centrist strategy is totally transparent? I will be really frustrated if she wins the nomination in '08. Her politics aside, we all know that the Dems can't win by running Northeastern intellectual types. And then think of all the bullshit that the opposition is gonna cook up about her being a woman. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks a Clinton run in '08 isn't just the Dems pissing against the wind.

Putin

Don't quite know what to say:

Vladimir Putin's decision to stop a small boy as he walked through the Kremlin and kiss his stomach was prompted by a desire to "touch him like a kitten," the Russian president said on Thursday.

The five-year-old boy, identified as Nikita Konkin by the press, was clearly stunned by the kiss and speculation over Putin's motivation has run wild in the week since it happened.

Curious Internet users propelled the issue to the top of a list of questions put to Putin in an interactive Web cast. (Live Watch Putin and the boy -- :45)

"People came up and I began talking to them, among them this little boy. He seemed to me very independent, sure of himself and at the same time defenseless so to speak, an innocent boy and a very nice little boy," Putin told the Web cast.

"I tell you honestly, I just wanted to touch him like a kitten and that desire of mine ended in that act."

-snip-

He stopped and spoke to Nikita who turned away shyly. "What is your name?" Putin asked, kneeling down in front of the fair-haired boy and holding him by the waist.

"Nikita," the clearly shocked boy answered, looking from side to side.

Putin then lifted the boy's shirt and kissed him on his stomach. The Russian president then patted the boy on the head and walked off through a crowd of astonished tourists.

Wow

Well, I know I am not posting about politics and I am pimping my other blog, but I just gotta make sure people read these nerdy, nerdy jokes.

One more thing...

Sorry, somewhat lame, but, if you haven't seen it, SPIDERMAN 3

One word: Venom.

Cool video

No politics with this one, but for those that don't know I have a soft spot for cool experimental video.

It's a cool collage of pictures. The same effect could be gotten by taking a video and lowering the framerate, but there's something about the inherent jerkiness of the image that makes it really effective, in my mind.

I would also say that, without the internet, I would see about 1% of this kind of stuff that I do see. It's an amazing infrastructure we have that can link artists with viewers, and also turn viewers into artists. I hope that in fifteen years we can look back and see some amazing stuff that has been created as a result - but only if asshats like Stevens are thwarted (see below).

{update 11:34 AM} Verdict from the gf: its ok. kinda cheesy. but i like the cat at the end

A little Sullivan for your morning

Andrew Sullivan responds to an email critcizing him for being naive in valuing the human rights of the terrorists:

A couple of responses. I believe in an aggressive fight against our enemy. I would have sent twice the number of troops to Iraq. I'd add a war-tax to gasoline. I would have expended whatever resources needed to find and kill Osama bin Laden. I'm in favor of an aggressive, dynamic, enterprising war against these barbarians. But I believe that part of that long war is continuing to insist on humane treatment of prisoners of war. And I believe that the laws of warfare need to be written and, if necessary, adjusted, to fight this new war. So I'd be happy to see the 1978 FISA law amended to make it easier to wiretap genuine security threats. I have no problem with the Swift program. I'd be happy to see enemy combatants detained indefinitely as prisoners of war, if so proved under a fair process.

Where I dissent is in the claim to grant the president extra-constitutional monarchical power to make this stuff up as he goes along, and to shred the Anglo-American principles of justice and war-making at the same time. I also believe that the United States must never torture any prisoner of war or enemy combatant, and must always treat them humanely. Real intelligence is gained by steady and long-term infiltration of terror networks, not crude torture of random individuals in dark cells. So let us fight by using our strengths - an executive whose errors are subject to checks from both judiciary and legislature and a free, robust press. That's a democracy's advantage in wartime over dictatorships - an openness to internal criticism and thereby correction. The results of one man deciding everything are already evident in the shambles of the Iraq invasion. We are better than that - and it befuddles me to see how little faith some "conservatives" now have in the procedures of constitutional democracy.

I don't have anything to add to what he says, other then I've been reading Sullivan for a while, and I savor the ability to read coherent writing specifically about this subject - the need to fight the war aggressively, but also with a fundamental respect for human rights, regardless of those rightholders inhumanity.

And for this argument, the man is repeatedly called a liberal. Kinda funny, eh? I may not agree with everything he has to say but I love to hear him say it.

Ted Stevens laying it down

Happy fourth of July, from the esteemed senator:

There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.

We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people [...]

The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Really clears up the issue, doesn't it?

{update 10:28 AM} I realize that the above quote with no context makes no sense - Stevens is taking part in a debate about net neutrality, and is attempting to make a coherent argument in favor of the telcos. Needless to say - failed.

{update July 5, 3:51 PM} Link to the audio post