Download Full Content – Printable Pickings
Dilbert gets the lead because he blogged on Bjorn Lomborg’s visit to Bill Maher’s show. You gotta go with two of our favorites together.
… The primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena. Cognitive dissonance is, at its core, the inability to recognize and accept other explanations. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point. The more your brain is trained for economics, the less it is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, or so it seems.
The joke about economists is that they are always using the phrase “On the other hand.†Economists are trained to recognize all sides of an argument. That seems like an easy and obvious skill, but in my experience, the general population lacks that skill. Once people take a side, they interpret any argument on the other side as absurd. In other words, they are relatively susceptible to cognitive dissonance.
Recently I saw the best case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It was on Bill Maher’s show, Real Time, which I love. Bill was interviewing Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, who has a book about global warming, called “Cool It.” The economist made the following points clearly and succinctly: …
Sam Thernstrom in American.com wonders if Bush can find his way out of the Kyoto konundrum.
Tomorrow morning, President Bush will deliver what may be the most important environmental speech of his administration, as he addresses participants at an international White House summit on global warming. Key developing nations such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and South Korea will be at the table, along with Australia, Russia, and the European Union, ready to hear the president’s ideas about alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol. It remains to be seen, however, whether Bush will propose truly bold policy options that might actually change the way people think about warming—and even if he does, whether anyone is still listening.
Bush has been something of an enigma on climate change for friends and foes alike. More than any other head of state, he understands what’s wrong with the Kyoto-style approach favored by Europeans. Yet Bush has been unwilling to make climate change a personal priority, rarely speaking about it at any length. Indeed, he has mostly let cabinet secretaries and other staffers craft his policy—and explain it publicly. The result has been a series of frustrating and inconsequential half-steps that have failed to reshape the way Americans and foreigners think about the problem. This week’s summit represents Bush’s last chance to display real leadership. …
WSJ editors want to know when Iran will pay a price for killing Americans.
The traveling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad circus made for great political theater this week, but the comedy shouldn’t detract from its brazen underlying message: The Iranian President believes that the world lacks the will to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, and that the U.S. also can’t stop his country from killing GIs in Iraq. The question is what President Bush intends to do about this in his remaining 16 months in office. …
Peter Wehner posts in Contentions on Katie Couric’s thoughts. This is a good example of why Pickerhead has often praised free speech. It makes it easy to spot the idiots.
David Brooks says the netroots make lots of noise but they don’t run the Dem party.
In the beginning of August, liberal bloggers met at the YearlyKos convention while centrist Democrats met at the Democratic Leadership Council’s National Conversation. Almost every Democratic presidential candidate attended YearlyKos, and none visited the D.L.C.
At the time, that seemed a sign that the left was gaining the upper hand in its perpetual struggle with the center over the soul of the Democratic Party. But now it’s clear that was only cosmetic.
Now it’s evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the “netroots.†You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups — high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington. …
Hugh Hewitt post gives a flavor of the debate last night
Power Line has a debate post too.
… Fifth, part of me hopes that Edwards did make headway because he’s too phony for anyone but a committed Democrat not to see through. After the slick talking demagogue said that, as president, he would take away the health care of members of Congress if they don’t pass a bill providing universal coverage, Tim Russert reminded Edwards that in 2004 he said we can’t afford universal coverage. Edwards stammered that things had changed since then. Did he mean that the great Bush economy has made universal coverage affordable, or did he mean he’s running as a leftist in this cycle?
Sixth, the highlight of the evening came when Biden warned that if Hillary is the candidate, a lot of unpleasant “stuff” from the Clinton administration will come back into play. As the camera showed Hillary’s face going glacial, Biden added that he was referring to policy stuff. The glacier did not melt, but after a few moments a painted smile appeared on it.
Seventh, the sound-bite of the evening was probably when Hillary seemed to reject the view of an unnamed guest on Meet The Press who acknowledged that if we captured the number three guy in al Qaeda and that person knew the whereabouts of a bomb that was going to explode in three days, we might need to beat the information out of him. The unnamed guest, of course, turned out to be Bill Clinton. After a brief pause, Hillary said, “well he’s not up here right now.” She then added, with smile (real this time), that she would have to talk to him about the matter. …
Another Power Line post covers the debate by introducing us to the new blog at the Weekly Standard. Are we seeing Karl Rove as blogger?
The Weekly Standard has rolled out its new CampaignStandard blog edited by Matthew Continetti. With Fred Barnes leading off, with Richard Starr coming out from behind his editorial desk to pinch hit, with the pseudonymous “well-known campaign consultant” Richelieu batting third, with Bill Kristol batting cleanup, the lineup looks a little like the punditocratic equivalent of the 1927 Yankees to me. Here’s Bill Kristol summing up last night’s Democratic debate in a midnight post:
Last night, for the first time this election cycle, I watched a Democratic presidential debate. It was appalling. But it was also, in a way, encouraging. Before last night, I thought it was 50-50 that the Republican nominee would win in November 2008.
Now I think it’s 2 to 1. And if the Democrat is anyone but Hillary, it’s 4 to 1.
Susan Estrich does the John Edwards obit.
What do you think of when you hear the name John Edwards?
I was doing a forum with my friend and FOX colleague Rich Lowry last night at the University of Richmond, and the ever-gracious editor of the National Review was his usual gracious self when it came to answering questions about what he saw as the strengths of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
But when the topic turned to the former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee, he couldn’t resist. I’m paraphrasing, and he did it funnier, but the point was that the only thing he’d be fearful about if he were to meet Edwards in a dark alley was that Edwards might point a can of hair spray in his eyes.
The audience went nuts. …
Mark Steyn Corner posts on Vancouver allowing Muslims to smoke.
Thomas Lifson posts in American Thinker on the continuing deterioration of NY Times finances under the clown prince Pinch Sulzberger.