Because you’re looking for it — and because, hey, what better way to ring in the New Year — here’s the cell phone video that’s leaked with the full Saddam execution:
It is, of course, graphic.
And here’s an ABC News story on the video.
Archive for 2006
I’ve always had particularly fond memories of the arcade game Asteroids, mainly because my grandfather Abe (who was in the vending business in Connecticut) got me an arcade-style — that is giant, stand-up — version of the game when I was a kid. It was set up to not require quarters, so I’d play it for hours in our basement.
Anyway, someone had the brilliant idea to do a mash up of the game where you play not as the spaceship, but as the asteroid: Asteroids Revenge.
Awesome.
I’ve only played it a bit, so maybe I’ve missed it, but my one compliant is: Where are the flying saucers from the old game that come in with wailing sirens and shoot bullets (or whatever) all over the place? Those were always the most fun part (and worth a lot of points).
(via Geek Press)
I’ve had my problems in the past with polls from American Research Group.
Essentially, they refused to put Rudy in their polls (at least on the first round of questions) well past the period of time when that decision made sense.
Now, it seems they have started polling the GOP primary more appropriately. And the results are pretty encouraging for Rudy supporters:
Iowa: Rudy leads GOP caucus goers.
New Hampshire: Rudy is in second place, but within the margin of error.
Nevada: Rudy leads GOP caucus goers.
South Carolina: Rudy trails McCain by 7 points.
The Iowa numbers are fairly remarkable, given Rudy’s soft organization (OK, lack of organization) at the ground level in most states. His virtual tie in New Hampshire is also remarkable, given how popular Maverick McCain is in the Granite State. South Carolina is the most worrisome state for Giuliani in this set of polls. Voters are only going to learn more about his social liberalism coming into 2008, so a win in the Palmetto State would require some pieces falling into place.
Now, I think those pieces can fall into place. Wins in Iowa and/or New Hampshire could give Giuliani significant momentum coming into South Carolina. Also, I think the more voters see of him the more they’ll like him — even (perhaps especially) social conservatives. But it remains a close race.
Let’s just say, though, I’d rather be Rudy than McCain. I’d really hate to be Mitt Romney (IA: 7%, NH: 9%, NV: 4%, SC: 5%).
…to National Review for including The Elephant in the Room in its roundup of “Best Books, 2006.”
It also looks like I’ll be speaking at their Conservative Summit, in late January — most likely on a panel with Ralph Reed about the role of the Religious Right (somehow, I think he has more in-depth knowledge of this topic than me, but I’ll do what I can). More details on that when I have them.
Also, thanks to anyone who’s bought, read, or written thoughtfully about the book this year. It’s really quite an undertaking to write a book (so many words … and I’m a man of few of them). But it’s worth it when it can move a debate forward meaningfully. It’s been great to get feedback from so many of you, both on your blogs and in reader emails (there are a lot of you disaffected western libertarians out there, I have the inbox to prove it … stay strong!).
Anyway, it was a productive 2006. Onto a better 2007 and a time of rebuilding for both our parties and our country.
God bless National Review. Over at The Corner, Mark Krikorian is flogging that old collectivist-conservative chestnut, compulsory national service. The problem, of course, is that we have a little thing called “individual liberty” in this country, something that should only be violated to such a grievous extent in cases of, say, world, civil or revolutionary war. But Krikorian dismisses such concerns as “the usual libertarian cowflop about being enslaved by the State.”
Hey, I already work half the year to pay my taxes, thank you very much. Conservatives hungry for a father figure to instill meaning in their lives can join the Peace Corps or something. On behalf of the rest of us, however: Piss off.
Back from the land of Goldwater (and the land of Bill Richardson and the land of Ahnold — it was a lot of driving), I’m figuring out how to use this “Flickr” thing the kids are so crazy about.
Lots of pictures of southwestern scenery are uploaded here. Most of it is of Sedona, Arizona, which is really just beyond belief — that is, so long as you stick to the hiking … if you venture into town, they’ll try to sell you a time share.
The rest of my photo archives will be posted here. (That is, some popular old sets, such as from the protest scene outside the 2004 Republican National Convention.)
Permanent links to all of this will be added to the sidebar at some point.
In the meantime, do the people who made that tractor (?) in the bottom picture know what that phrase translates to? It doesn’t seem like a very sensible name.
Over at Andrew Sullivan’s site, a guest blogger makes the case for Rudy having “the resume” to be president. Of course, I’ve also been making the case for Rudy in the “power rankings.”
I can’t wait until the CW has completed its 180-degree turn and acknowledged the obvious: Giuliani is, and long has been, the frontrunner for 2008.
Man, it felt good to not blog or write anything for the last week-plus. I’ve especially enjoyed not discussing the future of the Republican Party. May it rest in pieces.
But, alas, all good things must come to an end. So, here’s more from Brink Lindsey on “liberaltarians.” Needless to say, I think there’s a lot to be said for his arguments — especially given the fact that the GOP seems to have learned nothing from its defeat in November. While a libertarian alliance with the Democrats remains a fairly shocking proposition, it seems increasingly plausible.
Most notable fact from Brink’s latest piece: Democrats gained with libertarian voters in 2006, without alienating other major voting blocs. This at least puts a dent in the idea that no one can offer anything to libertarians without sending the rest of the electorate screaming from the room like a call girl from Milton Berle.
Â
(click to enlarge)
I’ll be on the road this week — until Saturday the 16th — so no posting is expected.
But, before I pack it in for the duration of my trip across the Southwest, let me just say that I am blogging from the Salt Lake City airport on a layover between NYC and New Mexico. And I am loving capitalism right now.
I needed to print a large document, so I checked into “Laptop Lane,” here at the airport — essentially, these are little offices with free phones and free printing that you can use for $0.65 a minute (after a $5 charge for the first five minutes).
Then, as pictured above, it turns out the airport here has these “charging station” kiosks, where you can charge your iPod, Treo, etc. I don’t need to use it this time, but what a fan-freakin’-tastic idea.
Bravo, capitalism. Bravo.
Comedy Central has picked up a show — originally created for Amp’d Mobile cell phones — called “Lil’ Bush: Resident of the United States.” It re-imagines the president, vice president, secretary of state and secretary of defense as grade schoolers. And, as you might imagine, it’s not exactly pro-lil’-Bush.
It’s a good thing, then, that Bush isn’t running for reelection, and that Cheney isn’t running to succeed Bush. Comedy Central and the company producing the show are certainly corporations. And the show definitely mentions the name of a candidate.
It has potential violation of McCain-Feingold written all over it. (Think I’m nuts? Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11″ had to curtail its advertising during the 2004 campaign season for just this reason.)
(via Darcy)
From the Washington Post today, an argument that libertarians should align themselves with the Democratic Party, and an argument that the Democratic Party should align itself with libertarians.
UPDATE: I should also link the underlying Brink Lindsey article from TNR to which the Washington Post column refers.
The New York Post is looking at what causes some schools in New York City to be good, while other schools — often just blocks away — are cesspools.
I offer some thoughts on the matter here [archived copy]:
The rich in New York City already have school choice. Parents with means can choose where they live based on the quality of the local public schools.They can choose to send their children to local private schools.
Heck, they can even send their children to any boarding school in the world, if they so choose.
And because these parents are educated consumers with lots of options, the schools that compete for their education dollars know they have to perform.
It’s called the free market, and we know it works - for cars, for clothes, for computers, for practically anything we buy or consume.
When companies have to compete, consumers win.
Yet when it comes to one of the most important products any of us will ever purchase - a child’s education - we treat parents (at least the nonrich) as prisoners instead of as consumers.
The culprit? Longtime readers won’t be surprised that teachers unions bear much (most) of the blame. But school administrators and a political class unwilling to break up the educational monopoly place a strong second.
The Economist asks whether the GOP is becoming a regional party of the South (or, OK, makes the argument that it is becoming that):
The problem for the Republicans is that a regional stronghold can become a prison. The South has one of the most distinctive cultures in the United States—far more jingoistic than the rest of the country and far more religious. Fifty-eight per cent of deep southerners identify themselves as either evangelical or born-again compared with a third of non-southerners (the figure in Mississippi is 73%). But for every non-southerner who waxes lyrical about southern charm there are many more who associate the South with racial bigotry and cultural backwardness. The 2006 election—which saw social conservatives such as Rick Santorum and Kenneth Blackwell go down to humiliating defeat—suggests that non-southerners have grown particularly impatient with the South’s brand of in-your-face religiosity.
The magazine also argues, as I have, that Mitt Romney, despite being from Massachusetts, is the “southern” candidate in the GOP field coming into 2008.
(Also, isn’t their graphic great?)
The Washington Post takes a look at the changing West: less resource extraction, more tree hugging.
Deroy Murdock makes the case on NRO today.
I made the case back in July here (for his viability, that is, not for the reasons he should win).
Meanwhile, Rudy Blog notes that the conventional wisdom on Giuliani is changing, slowly but surely.
Chester Finn has a pretty brutal takedown of the modern GOP today on NRO:
What’s gone wrong with the GOP? Let me start by quoting a friend who is both gay and conservative (yes, I know several such): “I’m for low taxes, strong defense and limited government. Why doesn’t the Republican party want me?”
There’s a two-part answer to that question and neither half is good news. The first is that today’s GOP doesn’t really want gays — and it yearns to supervise everybody else’s bedroom and reproductive behavior as well as (implicitly, at least) their relationship to God. The second is that Republicans are no longer really in favor of limited government. Besides having their own version of a nanny state, they want to spend and spend, start program after program, ladle out the pork, make deals with influence peddlers, and spin the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street. Yes, they still pretend to favor low taxes but that’s an illusion; they pay for limitless government via huge deficits that will mean high taxes for my granddaughter.
And for daring to suggest that the GOP might back away from the homophobia and anti-immigrant nastiness, Mark Levin (another NRO-nik) dubs Finn’s article: “a prescription for disaster for the conservative movement.”
Like this year’s disaster?
Chuck Todd lays out the case that Hillary is no lock for the Democratic nomination in ‘08.
I have to say I agree. I’ve never met a Democrat who feels anything more than “like” about Hillary or anything more than “resigned” when it comes to her being the nominee.
The strongest case against her, in my mind, is that we need an end to the dynastic politics. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton — fucking shoot me in the head.
It should probably go without saying, but if Andrew Sullivan or anyone else wants to post a picture of Mormon temple garments, that’s his or her right. And not only is it a right, there’s not a single thing “offensive” about it.
This is America, and we value free discourse. We don’t have riots if someone prints a picture of Muhammad (yet), and we don’t have any reason to get our undies in a bunch over a discussion of the somewhat-odd-to-outsiders practices of various religions.
Mormons probably don’t believe anything wackier than any other religion (ahem, Catholics, Mr. Sullivan). And given that their history is shorter than those of other world religions, they’ve had a lot less time to commit atrocities on any sort of grand scale.
Mitt Romney’s candidacy is going to unleash a very rough-and-tumble public examination of Mormonism. People can’t be afraid to engage in this examination for fear of treading on others’ delicate sensibilities. Romney has eschewed the JFK approach, making it clear that his religious beliefs will directly dictate his public policies. There’s nothing wrong with an examination of Mormonism in any case, but he put this on the table.
Rush Limbaugh Show on Wednesday
Published by November 29th, 2006 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 CommentsI’m scheduled to be on the Rush Limbaugh Show at 1:15 p.m., tomorrow (Wednesday). I’ll be talking about the book.
A list of stations that carry the show can be found here.
I’ll also be traveling over the next few days. Wednesday night, I’ll be at the Dole Institute in Kansas. On Thursday, I’m scheduled to be on a panel in Washington, D.C., hosted by National Journal. We’ll be talking about the field for the ‘08 election. I’ll be — extremely unofficially — representing the pro-Rudy camp. My panel’s the one at 11 a.m.
UPDATE: I won’t be able to make the National Journal panel (trouble with travel out of Kansas). Hopefully, Rudy won’t go totally unrepresented.
Brendan Miniter has some praise today for Mitt Romney and his attempt to overturn gay marriage in Massachusetts. While, from a legal and political standpoint, Romney doesn’t have half a chance, Miniter believes there is value in the governor, “push[ing] the debate over marriage back into the court of public opinion … and into Republican presidential primaries, where he aspires to be the candidate with the strongest social conservative credentials.”
Why is this debate worth having?:
Although advocates of same-sex marriage will deny there is any connection to extending the institution to gay couples, a recent report released by the National Center for Health Statistics reveals why this debate is worth having now. The study found that although teen pregnancy rates are dropping, the number of out-of-wedlock births in America has been steadily rising since the 1990s. It seems women in their 20s and 30s are having children without getting married first. Last year the proportion of births that are illegitimate reached an all time high of 37%, or 1.5 million children.
Gee. I must have missed gay marriage becoming legal in the 1990s and causing women in the 20s and 30s to start popping out illegitimate children. Of course, to the extent any of these children are being had by lesbian couples — and they’d be out-of-wedlock births since lesbians can’t get married, except in Massachusetts, and even there not until recently — gay marriage could actually help reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births.
I, and other advocates of gay marriage, are thrilled to have this debate. There isn’t a shred of evidence that gays, as opposed to straight people, have had any negative impact on the institution of marriage. Meanwhile, it’s very clear that marriage will be a stabilizing force for kids who are adopted by gay couples.
So, let the debate commence. I’d love to hear what Romney could actually add to the debate — save for platitudes aimed at winning over voters on the Christian Right.
David Bernstein makes an excellent point: There’s a damn good reason Israel “harasses” old women and children at checkpoints.
One of the only good things to have come out of George W. Bush’s generally disastrous foreign policy has been the end of “even-handedness” between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs. One side is a democracy trying to survive in peace; the other side is a band of murderers.
It’s not the first time it’s come up. It won’t be the last.
My feeling: It wouldn’t work if McCain is beaten in the GOP primary by the other “centrist,” Rudy Giuliani. It could work if McCain and Rudy are beaten by the Christian Right candidate, Mitt Romney.
I’ll be away from the computer through Thanksgiving. But while I’m gone from my beloved New York City, I’ll be mourning the passing of the One Times Square Cup Noodles sign. People always think I’m kidding when I say that Times Square is my favorite part of the city, but it is. Capitalism, consumerism, unfettered commerce and materialism. I cannot get enough.
I wish I’d known it was being removed. I would have taken roughly 1,000 more pictures of it.
It had actual steam rising from the noodles, people. Actual steam. Wake me when it’s New Years…
…discovers the West.
Mitt Romney: Dense or Disingenuous?
Published by November 21st, 2006 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 CommentsApparently, Mitt Romney has never heard of federalism.
In trying to get to the right of Rudy and McCain, Romney is criticizing John McCain for opposing gay marriage at the state level but also opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level.
While I disagree with McCain’s support for the Arizona gay marriage amendment (which failed on November 7), this sort of cultural federalism is exactly what the GOP needs to start embracing.
Romney, of course, is far too busy courting the National Review crowd to make any such fine distinctions. But his lack of intellectual honesty (or capacity) ought to be kept in mind as the campaign proceeds.
Rudy’s left-wing enemies in New York City want to go on the attack against him.
John Podhoretz writes this morning: Bring it on.
The Salt Lake Tribune picks up an interesting trend out West:
After the Republican landslide of 1994, Democrats spent six years in a Western political wilderness. But since 2000, Democrats regionwide have hacked into the Republican majorities.
A Tribune analysis of U.S. House results shows that Democrats have narrowed a 20-point GOP edge in 2000 to a slim 48 percent to 47 percent deficit in 2006. In three states - Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico - Democrats have turned their red states blue, winning a majority in the House races.
In 1996, the eight states in the Rocky Mountain West sent 18 Republicans and four Democrats to the House. When Congress convenes next year, there will be 11 Democrats and 15 Republicans representing the Western districts.
Democrats now control five of the eight governorships and, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, picked up seats in five of the eight legislatures in 2006.
Where have we heard this all before?
The paper also offers this handy map (download as PDF here):
It might be a little tough to read unless you download it, but, essentially, red is Republican, blue is Democratic (sorry for insulting your intelligence). You see a solid Republican advantage in most states since 1994. The red over blue dominance reached its peak in most places in 2000. But that’s been followed by a steady uptick in the Democratic vote in all eight states of the interior West over the last three elections.
Republicans can choose to believe this is just a blip (or that it hasn’t been caused by the GOP’s abandonment of small-government principle in favor of a God-and-government coalition). But the numbers don’t lie. Especially that pull-out pie chart in the bottom right-hand corner.
(HT: Darcy)
Some people have written in asking if I’m really banned at Heritage.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes.
UPDATE: OK, a slightly longer answer since this has taken on a life of its own.
Here’s what happened, to the best of my knowledge: I spoke to a small group called the Prosperity Caucus last Wednesday night. Heritage had had a very soft commitment to host the group this month, as the conservative think tank sometimes does. When Heritage found out I was the speaker, however, they asked the Prosperity Caucus to meet elsewhere.
Heritage is well within their rights — they’re under no obligation to host anything they don’t want to.
Their official response, which takes no issue I can see with any of the facts set out here, is here.
…about Newt Gingrich. But the man gives good interview:
“I am not ‘running’ for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.”
Clear as a frosted shower door.
Recent Comments