Hillary is Just Unbearable

How on earth is Hillary Clinton leading in the polls? Here's what I'm worked up about:

Clinton stood by her actions in the aftermath of former President Clinton' admission that he had an affair, including presumably her decision to stay in the marriage.

"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," Clinton said during a forum where the three leading Democratic presidential candidates talked about faith and values.

"I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," she said.

What an absolutely ridiculous poll-driven thing to say. Here's how I picture it happening. She and her advisers were sitting around talking about how to defend her decision not to leave Bill, and they hit upon the answer: Faith. It's perfect. It completely distracts from the issue AND it plays up her religious nature. Will anyone really buy this, though? Is "faith" an answer to why you did something stupid and unreasonable? And does anyone believe she actually has religious faith? I hope people start seeing through her soon.

Baseball and Race

Gary Sheffield's recent statements that MLB prefers Latin players over black players because Latinos are easier to "control" strikes me as absurd and downright silly. But it got me thinking about the various recent concern about the decline in the number of black players. I looked up the statistics, and here's what I see:


1991
White 68%
African-American 18%
Latino 14%

2006
White 59.5%
African-American 8.4%
Latino 29.4%
Asian 2.4%
Other 0.3%

Basically, there's a big drop in black and white players and a big rise in Latino players. (The number of black players does seem to have declined at a higher rate, though.) What, if anything, should be taken from this? There are certainly plenty of innocent explanations, such as MLB realizing there were many talented and Latino players out there and paying more attention to them; or Latinos now having a stronger interest in basesball than other groups. I'm not sure there is really much reason for concern based solely on these baseball statistics, though. If the decline in black participation were seen across all sports, I might be worried. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Fred Thompson: Worth a Look

I had never really seen what the fuss was about Fred Thompson, but now Greg Mankiw points out this great defense of federalism by Thompson. It definitely inspires me to look at him more closely. But will federalism really sell with the masses? I'd like to think so, but I'm not confident.

Online Dating Discrimination?

The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

This strikes me as a silly lawsuit. What's wrong with a web site focusing on heterosexual dating? Surely there would be nothing wrong with a web site that only handled homosexual dating? Yes, it is discrimination, in a sense. But it does not seem like invidious discrimination. They think they have a special formula for heterosexual relationships, and they have no idea if it applies to gay relationships. If they were the only online dating service, perhaps I could see a problem. But they are not.

The Spelling Bee: Yawn (at Best)

I'm not very impressed with all of this spelling bee stuff. Wouldn't kids be better off reading a book than memorizing obscure words?

Al Gore and Reason

Al Gore has a new book in which he accuses the Bush administration of not using reason:

Mr. Gore’s central argument is that “reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions” and that the country’s public discourse has become “less focused and clear, less reasoned.” This “assault on reason,” he suggests, is personified by the way the Bush White House operates. Echoing many reporters and former administration insiders, Mr. Gore says that the administration tends to ignore expert advice (be it on troop levels, global warming or the deficit), to circumvent the usual policy-making machinery of analysis and debate, and frequently to suppress or disdain the best evidence available on a given subject so it can promote predetermined, ideologically driven policies.

It's hard to take this sort of argument seriously: "The other side is not being reasonable, but we are." Doesn't everybody say that? It just means that the two sides disagree, which is, of course, the reason there are two sides.

Seriously, how is this any different from what Republicans would say about Democrats? All Gore is doing is trying to reframe his political disagreement with Republicans into a statement that he is reasonable and they are not. It seems to me that reasonable people can disagree. Just because someone disagrees does not make them unreasonable.

Obama's Health Plan: The Right Solution

Barack Obama has suffered a lot of criticism recently for failing to offer much substance. Well, at least in health care, that criticism is no longer valid. The details of Obama's health plan are now out:

Under Obama's proposal, everyone would be able to obtain health insurance, and the Illinois senator would create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage. In essence, Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money into the system to pay for the expanded coverage.

Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers. The plan that would be offered would be similar to the one covering members of Congress.

I think he's gotten this one exactly right. There is concern about too many people being uninsured. But the idea of having government agencies run aspects of the health care system, like with the John Edwards plan, will never fly. Obama found the right balance, in my view, both in terms of politics and policy. It's what I thought he should have done and I'm glad he did it.

ADDED: Based on other explanations I've seen, I'm going to have to think about whether I've characterized the plan accurately. More later.

MORE: Having read Ezra Klein's explanations (here, here and here), I think I had it just about right, although of course it's a complicated plan with a lot of nuances. Overall, it seems like good politics and not bad policy.

It doesn't fix a lot of my biggest complaints about health care, though. For example, why can insurance companies negotiate with doctors to get lower prices than would an uninsured consumer? I've always wanted to try going with no insurance except for serious illness or injury, but the higher prices I would have to pay for basic care mean that it doesn't make sense.

Who's the Toughest?

Ann Althouse says:

Obama, I suspect, is simply weak on national security (which is why he was against the war all along).

This idea that Bush/Republicans are strong on national security is very strange. 9/11 happened on their watch, and almost 6 years later we still haven't gotten the guy who orchestrated it and Al Qaeda is as strong as ever. How exactly is that strong? As for Obama being weak, here's what he had to say recently: "It is time to end this war so that we can redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and all those who plan to do us harm." To me, that sounds stronger than what we're doing now.

Steroids and Doping

As Major League Baseball considers Jason Giambi's latest semi-confession, and the cycling world witnesses a full confession by a former Tour de France champion at the same time they are transfixed by the Landis trial, it occurs to me that there is perhaps only one solution to the current state of affairs: the athletes need to police themselves. The owners/sponsors/organizers won't do it, because they worry about the economic harm they will suffer if they appear to admit any past wrongdoing. The sports unions won't do it because they are run by extremists who believe that any constraint on athletes, even on drug-taking, is bad. So it's up to the athletes. They need to agree among themselves, outside of their unions, not to take performance-enhancing drugs, and to report on anyone who is doing so. It's for their health and for the integrity of their sport. Is there anyone bold enough to take the first step?

Ron Paul Takes it to Giuliani

I'm glad to see that Ron Paul is not backing down in the face of criticism:

Longshot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) on Thursday gave front-runner Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

I doubt I agree with all/most/many of Ron Paul's views, but Giuliani's claim that we were attacked because of our freedoms is one of the dumbest things to come out of the mouth of one of the serious Presidential candidates. People on all sides really need to challenge him on this.

Giambi's Comments

The recent Jason Giambi remarks about steriod use and the need for MLB to offer an apology has me re-thinking some things I said a while back. I used to think the controversy would blow over in a couple years, and McGwire, Bonds et al. would get in the Hall of Fame. Now I'm not so sure. Without sincere apologies and explanations from these guys, they might not be forgiven.

Dem Polls

The latest Iowa polls:

Edwards, who ran second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses and has worked hard to maintain his organization in the state, is at 29 percent. That's about where he has been for some time in Iowa, where caucus goers will do much to define the direction of the 2008 race as it hist full speed next January.

In second place is Illinois Senator Barack Obama with 23 percent.

Clinton musters a mere 21 percent -- down significantly from her position in several previous polls -- to secure the No. 3 position.

But nationally things are different:

Among Democrats Clinton has strengthened her status as front-runner, putting the brakes on a surge from rival Barack Obama, according to a Harris poll.

The poll found Clinton ahead by 13 points, 40 percent to 27 percent among Democratic voters nationwide. Her showing was better than a similar poll
in April which showed her leading Obama 37 to 32.

Three questions: (1) Does this mean anything at this point? (2) Who on earth supports Hillary Clinton? (3) And Why?

Giuliani's Perspective on Islamic Terrorism

Ann Althouse describes Rudy Giuliani as saying:

Giuliani says that what Paul said about 9/11 last night is something he'd have been surprised to hear anyone say even in the Democratic debate. Giuliani seemed to know that some people are talking about whether he characterized Paul's comment fairly last night when he lit into him, because he said he listened to it again and that there was "tremendous confusion in what [Paul] was saying." Paul said that because of our attacks on Saddam, al Qaeda wanted to kill us. That didn't make sense. Giuliani emphasized that he has been studying Islam and Islamic terrorism since the 1970s when he was in the Ford administration, and he knows that the reason they hate us is because of our freedom, notably our freedom of religion and the freedom for women.

Now, I'll grant him that our freedom of religion and freedom for women do not endear us to Islamic extremists. But does he really believe that's why 9/11 happened? It seems to me that the primary reasons were: (1) our constant meddling in the Middle East over the past few decades; (2) our support for currupt authoritatrian regimes in the Middle East; (3) our military presence over there; and (4) our support for Israel. None of this means that we "invited" the attacks or that we are somehow responsible. It just means that these are the reasons they attacked.

Do the Iraqis Want us There?

Sen. McConnell throws down the gauntlet:

Citing media reports, McConnell said some lawmakers in Iraq's parliament wanted a vote to ask the United States to leave.

"I want to assure you, if they vote to ask us to leave, we'll be glad to comply with their request," he said.

That's a bold statement. If the Iraqis actually do vote that way, are the Congressional Republicans ready to back him up?

He also says:

"What we are all discovering, however, it's very difficult to set up a functioning government in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Quite a discovery. Of course, quite a few people knew that before the invasions.

Giuliani Supports Abortion!

The New York Times reports:

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. As the article later states, "In a New York Times/CBS News poll in March, 41 percent of Republicans thought abortions should be prohibited ... ." Presumably, then, 59 percent of Republicans would allow at least some abortions. As the only pro-choice Republican candidate, Giuliani might actually be in a pretty good position.

Obama's Wimpy Call for Better Fuel Economy

Obama's energy proposal:

In a frontal assault on the automobile industry, Sen. Barack Obama's call Monday for tougher fuel-economy standards and new financial incentives for hybrid cars would force a retooling of the way autos are built -- triggering a sometimes tepid response from business leaders in the Motor City.

The Illinois senator outlined a detailed energy proposal that echoes calls by other Democrats for higher fuel-efficiency standards and seeks to demonstrate he has environmental credentials as robust as those with longer voting records.

...

Obama, speaking to the Detroit Economic Club, said his proposals would cut the nation's oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels a day by 2020 and remove 50 million cars' worth of pollution from the air. He would achieve his goals in part by targeting a 4 percent annual increase -- approximately 1 mile per gallon each year -- in fuel standards.

This is a bit disappointing. Instead of a serious solution like a gas tax, Obama is asking for minimally higher fuel standards. It seems to me that one of the biggest reasons for the current state of affairs with the environment is liberals' refusal to propose real solutions.

Sarkozy Wins!

Wow, I never thought I would read something like this:

Nicolas Sarkozy, a blunt and uncompromising pro-American conservative, was elected president of France Sunday with a mandate to chart a new course for an economically sluggish nation struggling to incorporate immigrants and their children.

Even French conservatives tend to be anti-America and anti-free market so this is really shocking. I wonder if this is an anomaly or part of a larger shift in European viewpoints.

Abortion: The Solution

David Brooks on abortion:

If we could get this issue away from the abortion professionals and their orthodoxies, we could reach a sensible solution: abortion would be legal, with parental consent for minors, during the first four or five months, and illegal except in extremely rare circumstances afterward.

Exactly right! My sense has always been that 60-65% of the American public supports this view. But somehow the 15-20% of extremists on each side control the debate. And, of course, the courts got involved, which mucked things up terribly.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

From the AP:

Women make only 80 percent of the salaries their male peers do one year after college; after 10 years in the work force, the gap between their pay widens further, according to a study released Monday.

The study, by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, found that 10 years after college, women earn only 69 percent of what men earn.

Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the study found that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained. The group said that portion of the gap is "likely due to sex discrimination."

It's not clear exactly what this gap means, but let's be clear about what it does not mean. It does not mean that two first year associates, one female and one male, hired by the same firm to do the same job will make different amounts. They will, in fact, make the same salary.

As for what it does mean, my best guess is that women tend to take jobs that pay less than men. For example, there are more women who take elementary school teaching jobs and more men who become engineers. The article says that this is due "sex discrimination." That's probably not the best way to characterize it, however, as it seems to imply the cause is mainly the decisions of senior male hiring people. In truth, I think there's a broader issue of how society views the role of women and men that is the root cause.

Obama's Economics

The NY Times notes the following about Obama's chief economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee:

The two men met when Mr. Obama was teaching at the [U. of Chicago law school], and they both seem to favor achieving Democratic goals through market-oriented policies. As Mr. Goolsbee has written: “Moral exhortation doesn’t change people’s behavior. Prices do.”

I like the sound of that. A moderate Democrat on economic issues. That's what Obama needs to be.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the Comerce Clause

From today's Supreme Court opinion upholding the federal law that prohibits partial birth abortion, Justice Thomas said the following in dissent:

I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it.

Please, please, please, will somebody please challenge this law under the Commerce Clause? Justice Thomas is practically begging you to! It could bring some common sense back to the Commerce Clause doctrine! Or I suppose it could make things worse if they decide that the law has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. But even if they go that route, there is the advantage that they are exposed as idiots, for whatever that's worth.

"Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate"

This is kind of lame, in my opinion. If he really wants to be different than the typical politician, he shouldn't go for cheap shots like bashing Fox. Sure, Fox is biased. But so is everyone else (maybe not to the same degree, but there are more of them).

Obama's Health Care Pre-Plan

Obama on health care:

Obama said he's not wedded to any specific system, but he thinks the plan he'll eventually support will offer universal coverage and will squeeze efficiencies out of the health care system. It also will stress preventive programs, such as weight control.

"The status quo is unsustainable," Obama said. "Standing pat is not an option."

Obama said if he was starting from zero, he would likely support a single-payer system, similar to the government-run program in Canada. But he's leery of taking such a step because the United States already has a complex and established system of employer-based health coverage.

He said that the country is already moving toward a government-based health system.

"The government is already covering half the people," said Obama, noting that Medicare, Medicaid and veterans health systems cover a vast number of Americans.

To build a political consensus for a new system, Obama said he'll hold a series of similar meetings to gauge public sentiment. He plans to offer a health care proposal in a couple months, he said.

Some interesting statements. I'm not sure what to make of them. Saying he would support single-payer if starting from scratch might be his way of paying lip service to the extreme left view. The reference to "squeezing efficiencies" is a good sign that he will not go too far in expanding the government's role. It's still not really clear where he's going with this, though.

Mis-leading Headline of the Day

From Reuters:

"Three Yale students arrested for burning U.S. flag"

Wow, what a great free speech controversy, right! Um, maybe not. The article provides some context:

"Police said the three torched a flag hanging from the porch of a house in New Haven near the Ivy League school."

Obama on Yucca Moutnain

I'm a bit late in mentioning this, but here it is anyway:

Obama said he was opposed to plans to build a permanent nuclear waste repository
at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The senator suggested he
might support regional dump sites.

He "might" support "regional dump sites"? Seriously? Look, I can understand why people in and near Nevada don't want nuclear waste stored there. But we have to store it somewhere. If not Yucca mountain, then come up with another plan. You can't just reject Yucca and not offer an alternative.

Another Reason for Warming

More people, bigger cities:

Average temperatures across California rose slightly from 1950 to 2000, with the greatest warming coming in the state's big cities and mostly caused by urbanization -- not greenhouse gases -- authors of a study released on Wednesday said.

The study found that average temperatures in California rose nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (nearly one degree Celsius) in the second half of the 20th century, led by large urban centers such as San Francisco and Southern California.

"Everybody's talking about the carbon coming out of the SUV exhaust or the coal plant, but in the past 50 years in California the bigger impact has been urbanization and suburbanization," said Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, one of the study's authors.

"Exhaust from the SUV is just piling on," he said. "One is heating you from above, the other is heating you from below."

The New Equal Rights Amendments

Eugene Volokh posts about the revival of the ERA, and possible implications if it passes. Two problems he mentions are the fears that (1) passage would mean that women could not be excluded from combat and (2) separate girls sports teams would no longer be permitted.

See, this is why I get fed up with courts and lawyers. Any reasonable person can see that these two policies are, at most, minimally nefarious. They are not the reason for passing the ERA, and should not be implicated if it is passed. A general policy against gender discrimination can certainly accommodate well-meaning actions like these. But no, when courts and lawyers get involved, common sense goes out the window.

Look, men and women are physically different. There's nothing that can be done about that through government action. So just allow distinctions to be made where they make sense based on these differences. Sheesh. Courts should be able to deal with this, but if they can't, we can legislate something that will deal with the issues properly.

The Leegin Case: Resale Price Maintenance

Here's my view on the Leegin case. Minimum prices through resale price maintenance should be subject to the rule of reason, rather than being considered per se illegal, because manufacturers can set whatever prices they choose if they establish their own distribution network. It doesn't make sense to allow the equivalent of RPM through one distribution arrangement but prohibit it through another.

Cult of No Personality

Paul Krugman refers to "the personality cult the GOP once built around President Bush." That has to be one of the stupidest things Krugman has ever said. I think the best that can be said about Bush is that people used to think he was an affable, harmless idiot, and better than Gore. A cult of personality around Bush? I don't think so.

Fred Thompson on Warming

I really don't know much about Fred Thompson, but this was pretty amusing:

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our solar system have in common. Hmmmm. Solar system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.

Ask Galileo.