5 days from the Church shooting, and, as predicted, I’m really only reading about it only lefty blogs. But not only has the mainstream media failed to talk about “who’s to blame,” but they haven’t even talked about it at all.
An idea that was bandied about quite often in 2004, especially during the Veepstakes, was the idea of a shadow cabinet. There are a bunch of reasons why not to do this. First of all, it puts more people out there as targets.
Second, it makes it look a little bit like politics at this point. Most of the lists I see on blogs are full of other presidential candidates. Does that make sense?
So, we don’t need to know who the next Secretary of Agriculture is going to be. But one or two names might not hurt. If the Kainementum is a mere headfake, all bets are off. But would it hurt for Obama to come out and say he would ask Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense?
There are persuasive arguments against inviting the Republicans in. But—win first.
When two students shot up Columbine High School on Hitler’s birthday in 1999, a lot of fingers were pointed. It was movies, music, video games, the parents, the bullies—there had to be some rationale for kids murdering kids. Why there has to be much more of a rationale for that, than say, the senseless killing of thousands of Iraqis, I can’t say.
To be fair, even the NRA was blamed. But it was two individuals that pulled the trigger. And we hear a lot about the concept of “individual responsibility” from the Right. But they sure weren’t afraid to use the Columbine tragedy for full effect against people besides the shooters.
To be clear, I don’t believe in zero-sum morality. In other words, I think more than one person can be 100% to blame for something, or, certainly, more than one person can share blame for something.
In other words, I believe that I personally share some blame for the death of people in Iraq. I don’t think it’s necessarily criminal liability, but moral liability, to be sure.
So, when a guy walks into a Unitarian congregation and blasts innocent people because they are “liberal” and don’t hate “gays” we have to ask:
Will there be any discussion of the hate-mongers out there that create the conditions that shake these nuts loose enough to do things like this? The Rush Limbaughs, the Michael Savages, the Sean Hannitys, the George W. Bushes, and Dobsons, the Pat Robertsons, the Senator Coburns?
I’m pretty sure we won’t hear about that outside of the lefty blogs and Air America. What’s funny is, they talk about exactly this kind of thing and they won’t hear it. Video games and movies, clearly fantasy and fiction, that involve shooting aliens and vampires are more culpable for Columbine.
And the right thing to do, assuming this is more or less true, which could be a hazard given the source: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07272008/news/nationalnews/obamas_secret_rescue_mission_121815.htm?page=0
This is the funniest thing I’ve read all day. A couple of professors came up with a “weighted voting system” that would preserve small state influence while shifting towards popular votes counting. You can read a rundown here.
The inventors scoffed at the current proposal where some states choose to select all of their electoral votes based on the national popular vote, and the idea of a pure popular vote because it would “never happen.”
And their proposal, using some kind of formula? What do these guys think this is—Japan? It’s too complicated.
For better or worse, our system makes it nearly impossible to change the Constitution when the country is so electorally divided.
On the one hand, I’ve never thought that the integrity of our country required states to have anything to do with anything, especially nation-wide elections. On the other hand, since they do no change is likely.
It’s baked in the cake. It wasn’t–as alleged–to save “small” states. It was about slavery, and they didn’t walk it back when they had a chance in the 1860s.
Too bad. Until then, keep campaigning in Ohio and leave Alaska out of it.
From the man-banshees at Daily Kos to the egg-white eggheads at The American Prospect, Liberalworld is working itself into a little snit over Obama’s potential choice of Sam Nunn or Evan Bayh as a running mate.
This disease presents with two symptoms: (1) an amnesia about the free passes that were given to the candidate himself; and, (2) an afterthought-only concession that the key metric should be the effect on chances of victory.
First of all, the President is the President. If you want to be Vice President, you don’t get to negotiate on policy unless you’re Dick Cheney. If Obama chose Tom DeLay as his running mate, there would be almost no impact on the agenda of the country. So, I find almost no significance in the past positions of the running mate.
Second, Obama got away with bloody murder on a number of liberal issues in the primary. He tolerated homophobic Christians to win pivtoal South Carolina. He has never once voted against funding the Iraq war. His healthcare plan is not universal. Indeed, his path to stardom in the Democratic Party was launched on a vision of “purple” America.
The difference between me and many primary Obama voters is that I salute him for this. Excellent politics! The proof is in the pudding. He got enough people to believe he was really going to bring about a progressive resolution, destroyed Hillary on his phantom Iraq record and won the primary by further convincing everybody that he won after Super Tuesday.
Most of that was bullshit from the minute it came out the bull’s ass, but it was brilliant and it worked. Hillary’s crew was too disjointed and unprepared to do anything about it. And so far, so is McCains. (Ignore the media: he’s winning in both the national polls and the state-level EV polls).
Let’s also not forget his cult embarassing FISA vote. But, again, politically brilliant.
So, tell me. Why on earth would he not choose Sam Nunn or Evan Bayh if his brilliant operators determined that it would grease the skids into the White House?
All of the objectors come up with some slapped-together post hoc rationale why these guys won’t help, but its’ all obviously concocted after the litmus tests have failed.
I can’t say whether either of these two will work or not. That’s why I’m not running a presidential campaign that put a first term senator into a Democratic nomination and then has him 4-8% up in national polls.
Personally, I’d love to see him pick a Republican. Divide and conquer.
Stewart remarks on Obama’s “tasteless and offensive” response:
“Really? You know what your response should’ve been? It’s very easy here, let me put the statement out for you: Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists! Of which Barack Obama is not. It’s just a fucking cartoon!”
This Neo-Progressive outrage machine is becoming part of the problem. This is nothing worth talking about. Banks are failing. There is a story out in Vanity Fair that suggests that the collapse of Bear Sterns had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, but was engineered by other traders.
I know it’s a bit of an overload, but things going on right now should be paid attention to.
An Australian blogger has an article entitled 20 Things That Windows 7 Must Include. He might have named it 20 Things That Windows 7 Will Not Include.
Microsoft utterly failed with Windows Vista because it did not deliver any of the features that interested people that they said would be included.
MS apologists decry that Windows has to work with so much hardware that it’s very hard to write bug free code for the infinite permutations of accessories out there. Linux seems to do just fine. But, even if that was not the case, Microsoft could easily require certain standards to be met for equipment to work with Vista. Just forget backward compatibility. Of course one of the main complaints with Vista is that it doesn’t support a lot of hardware. People should expect that. The problem is, you don’t get anything for the trade off.
When Mac OS X ultimately stops supporting PowerPC hardware, it will be because that hardware is getting old, and because the optimizations for the new hardware will be dazzling and have a real impact on workaday uses, just like the OS X transition did, just like the PowerPC transition did before that.
If Windows 7 doesn’t do something meaningful and large, Microsoft is in big trouble.
I think they might know that, because it seems awfully odd to me that they licensed their mail server technology to Apple for the iPhone and opened up their other standards recently. maybe they are looking for a future in office apps?
I dunno. I just know that I still use XP. On my Mac.