Download Full Content – Printable Pickings
George Will with a column that well explains why Pickerhead would vote for Hillary Clinton before he’d vote for John McCain. Students of Ludwig von Mises often repeat his idea that the best form of government is a foreign prince – because you will watch him. Hillary is someone we would never let out of our sight.
… In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life, a small citizens group that posed no conceivable threat of “corruption” to anyone or anything, wanted to run an ad urging Wisconsin‘s senators, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, not to participate in Senate filibusters against the president’s judicial nominations. But Feingold was running for reelection, and WRTL’s proposed ad was declared an “electioneering communication” (any radio or TV ad that “refers to” a candidate for federal office). And the McCain-Feingold blackout period banned such ads 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election — when ads matter most because people are paying attention to politics.
The WRTL case could have been an occasion for McCain to say: This is not what McCain-Feingold was designed to do — it was intended to stop the (as he sees it) “corruption” of elected officials soliciting large “soft money” contributions (not for particular candidates, but for party-building and other activities). Or he could at least have kept quiet. Instead, he went out of his way to stick his thumb in the eye of critics: With his brief to the Supreme Court, he underscored the fact that suppressing inconvenient (to politicians) speech is exactly what he and his McCain-Feingold allies — Fred Thompson was an important one — had in mind. …
… There is fitting irony in the fact that if McCain’s campaign continues until the delegate selection process begins, he probably will have to accept federal matching funds and the absurd strings attached to them, stipulating the maximum amounts that can be spent in particular states. That would be condign punishment for the man who has dragged politics — the process by which the state is staffed and controlled — deep into the ambit of the regulatory state.
Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg have fun with Dem African proverbs.
Arnold Kling writing for Tech Central has W thoughts.
… Myth 1: Bush lost in 2000
It is a myth that George Bush lost the election in 2000. He lost the popular vote, but that is not how elections are decided. Both George Bush and Al Gore based their electoral strategies on the rules in place at the time, which determines the winner on the basis of electoral votes. Saying after the fact that the Presidency should go to the winner of the popular vote is like saying that the 1964 World Series Championship belongs to the Yankees because they scored more total runs, although the Cardinals took four games out of seven.
It is a myth that George Bush stole the vote in Florida. Every recount has given the victory there to Bush. There is no doubt in my mind that the real villain of 2000 is Al Gore. His challenge of the electoral results was blatantly unfair (recall, he wanted to recount only in certain precincts where he hoped to gain votes) and served only to transform a close election into an illegitimate one. Instead of working to unite the country, Gore set an example of deep partisan bitterness that maximized the long-term damage of the 2000 election for American politics. …
.. The Era of Bitterness
I think that many people are tired of the bitterness and partisanship of the Bush era. My main point, however, is that people over-estimate the extent to which this bitterness and partisanship is due to George Bush himself. My prediction is that we will see further bitterness in the years ahead, as the sore losers of 2000 and 2004 become the sore winners of 2008. In 2012, there will still be Islamic terrorism, millions of Americans will lack health insurance and America’s health care bill will still be unusually high, the rich will still be getting richer (unless the economy tanks), and the trend will be for more people to join the Long Tail that identifies with neither political party. Which is why both parties are becoming more shrill every year. …
WaPo says Jordanian man kills his sister for “honor” and gets sentenced to six months.
AMMAN, Jordan — A Jordanian court sentenced a man to six months in prison Monday for killing his pregnant sister _ an “honor killing” the man said was necessary to uphold his family’s reputation.
The court justified the lenient sentence, saying it was warranted due to the “state of fury” that led to the woman’s slaying.
Politico posts on one of the more egregious earmarks.
John Fund with some shorts.
Jim Taranto with a good post on the “democratic bubble”.
With just 476 days to go until the 2008 election, we have a feeling the Democrats are getting overconfident. True, President Bush is highly unpopular, but he isn’t seeking re-election, and the vice president isn’t running either–the first completely open race since 1952. True, too, the Democrats did very well in 2006, but that isn’t necessarily a portent; and indeed it argues that at least in House races the Dems will be defending more marginal seats.
The Democrats are particularly vulnerable to overconfidence because the “mainstream media” are on their side and tend to be insufficiently critical. (We explained how this hurt John Kerry in an article for The American Spectator two years ago.) Today we noted a couple of examples of credulous media puffery of Democrats. …
NY Times reports on Crocs.
In the summer of 2006, Crocs wearers ranged from children to senior citizens, from the image-indifferent to the celebrity chef Mario Batali. The suggestion of ubiquity was probably magnified by the fact that seeing one pair of the oversize and often brightly colored footwear felt like seeing five. The Washington Post noted the “goofy†shoes were spreading “like vermin,†and Radar Magazine anointed the “hideous†items “summer’s most unfortunate fad.†The good news for critics was that fads fade and that the Croc thing seemed to be at a peak. But a year later Crocs still have traction; in fact, the company’s sales through the first quarter of 2007 are roughly triple what they were for the same period in 2006, and imitations and knockoffs abound. …
Slate too.
… As fans will tell you, Crocs aren’t just footwear; they’re the closest thing to religion that the foot has experienced. The company’s stock has skyrocketed in value over the past year, and Crocs is now poised to launch a new product line this fall. Yet Crocs are heinous in appearance. A Croc is not a shoe; it is a Tinkertoy on steroids. How did this peculiar shoe-manqué achieve ubiquity—and can it possibly stick around?
In the interest of science and as a defender of fashion, I went to Paragon Sports in New York to buy my first pair of Crocs—the shoes were a bright patch in a sea of sportswear. …
… A first-time Crocs wearer will indeed find that the shoes are springy and light, as their fans aver, and cushion the feet with what some have called a “marshmallow fluffiness.” On a muggy New York day, the holes punched in the toe box allow for a soothing breeze to cool the sweating foot. Even so, the ratio of shame to comfort was extreme. When everyone else on the avenue is garbed in proper footwear—even something as unpretentious as flat sandals or ballet flats—an adult, it seemed to me, must blush at the sight of her bulbous feet. But those who wear Crocs all day long swear that the springy material holds up like nothing else; one painter reported that his chronic shin splints disappeared after he began wearing Crocs. Thus was born what one blogger has labeled the “Croc conundrum“: Crocs make you look absurd, but they can change your life. …