Monthly Archives: November 2003

Katherine Harris, Superstar

The Florida Blog points to this stimulating but very high-bandwidth Flash animation about possible Florida GOP Senate candidate Katherine Harris: GRAND THEFT AMERICA.

I do have two and half beefs with the show. First, I'd have liked footnotes for the statistics. Second, it leaves out my favorite Katherine Harris story, in which she demonstrated ignorance of the laws she was supposed to administer. And (the half), there's an explitive that may offend sensitive viewers, especially the sort not already sickened by electoral manipulations.

Posted in Florida | Comments Off on Katherine Harris, Superstar

Another Step Towards the Return of the Spoils System

The radicals in the Republican Party are morphing the non-partisan civil service into something that more and more resembles the spoils system. This is one of those below-the-radar changes likely to have massive if obscure effects.

Continue reading

Posted in Administrative Law | Comments Off on Another Step Towards the Return of the Spoils System

Polls: When ‘Approval’ Doesn’t Mean We’ll Vote For You

These poll numbers do not add up. In the latest Marist poll 44%, say they’ll vote against Bush. Bush's strong fans, 38% in number, are ready to re-elect him now. “The remaining 18% are not committed either way.”

It follows that if the election were today, in order to win Bush would need to get two votes out of the undecided column for every one his opponent got: a big gap, albeit not unbridgable. (And it's early days anyway, and the Republicans are going to have 200 million dollars to make up the gap.)

But, despite the negative re-elect numbers, among those polled Bush's “approval rating” is 53%. These numbers are not mathematically inconsistent, but they don't make political sense.

Continue reading

Posted in Discourse.net | Comments Off on Polls: When ‘Approval’ Doesn’t Mean We’ll Vote For You

The Administration Takes Advantage of Lie Fatigue

This story should be page one in every major paper, but as far as I can tell from a search on news.yahoo.com, the only paper in the land to carry it is the Ocala [Fl.] Star Banner: Rumsfeld retreats, disclaims earlier rhetoric: Rumsfeld denies he ever made several pre-war statements.

Think about it. The Secretary of Defense is either delusional, or a really stupid, clumsy liar. Asked about his claims that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms, he didn't try to argue that most of the country (by area, not population volume) welcomes the US-led invasion, but rather denied he had ever said it:

“Never said that,” he said. “Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said.”

But he had. On TV.

It used to be that brazen lying was bad for political figures (for example, Gary Hart). Is there some special reason that Rumsfeld gets a free pass? Or is the media, the nation, so saturated with Administration lies that it has stopped caring? Or is it that 'objective' journalism as practiced today doesn't allow reporters to point out lies, just to report if someone else — and it has to be a heavyweight politician, a mere web site doesn't count — tries to make an issue of the lies? (Calling Sen. Daschle's office. Calling Sen. Daschle's office. Why is the lead item on your homepage meat labeling rules???)

The Ocala Star-Banner has an average daily circulation of about 50,000.

Posted in Politics: US | 4 Comments

Email outage

The law school is doing electrical work and has shut down our network, including our email server. As a result, any email sent to me today will either be held until tomorrow or bounce.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Email outage

Profile in Courage

You do read some humbling things online. Here's one: t a c i t u s: Failure of nerve.

Impressive as this is essay is, I wonder if the non sequitor with which it concludes is correct: Is it wrong to think that, on average, politicians who have served in the military may be more sensible in their use of force than those for whom combat is an abstraction? And even if that is wrong, does it follow that it's wrong to suspect draft-evaders, again on average, of middle-aged over-compensation?

History is an uncertain guide. For example, both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon served in the Navy, and both escalated in Vietnam. Clinton had a draft deferment and built a great big military. Current events, however, strongly suggest a conclusion.

Posted in Readings | Comments Off on Profile in Courage