Clinton, however, had no…lofty ideals in his self-made scandal. He brought sex into the arena by first lying to the public during the campaign over Jennifer Flowers; then again by attempting to hush Paula Jones in her civil suit; then finally by giving false testimony to a Grand Jury. In the process, he managed to become the only president ever to be disbarred by allowing his attorney to submit a false statement to a federal judge. (There must be a standing joke here to the effect that if you aren
Clinton, however, had no…lofty ideals in his self-made scandal. He brought sex into the arena by first lying to the public during the campaign over Jennifer Flowers; then again by attempting to hush Paula Jones in her civil suit; then finally by giving false testimony to a Grand Jury. In the process, he managed to become the only president ever to be disbarred by allowing his attorney to submit a false statement to a federal judge. (There must be a standing joke here to the effect that if you aren
Clinton, however, had no…lofty ideals in his self-made scandal. He brought sex into the arena by first lying to the public during the campaign over Jennifer Flowers; then again by attempting to hush Paula Jones in her civil suit; then finally by giving false testimony to a Grand Jury. In the process, he managed to become the only president ever to be disbarred by allowing his attorney to submit a false statement to a federal judge. (There must be a standing joke here to the effect that if you aren
The UCLA Alumni Association is fed up with nutty professors. Alumni associations actually have a lot of power in the war to take back academia from the radical left, but they have to care, and exercise it.
[Update on Monday evening]
As Jane Bernstein points out in comments, if you read the fine print, it’s not the UCLA Alumni Association–it’s another group (probably less official) called the Bruin Alumni Association. Kudos to them anyway.
Shanghai’s housing bust comes after a doubling of prices in the previous three years, a run-up fueled by massive speculation. With China’s economy booming and Shanghai at the center of worldwide attention, investors from Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere were buying as fast as buildings were going up. At least 30% to 40% of homes sold were bought by speculators, says Zhang Zhijie, a real estate analyst at Soufun.com Academy, a research group in Shanghai.
This is bad news, because it could be the first stage of a collapse of the Chinese economy, with potentially very dire results for all of us.
I’m sure that all the people (many of whom were no doubt self-styled feminists) who were wailing and keening about Tookie Williams will be protesting this any minute now:
An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
[crickets chirping]
Well, maybe tomorrow.
But it’s probably not the Iranian government’s fault. I’m sure they just do things like this out of an inferiority complex, and in response to the evil Western influences, and McDonalds, and Britney.
I’m sure they’ll behave better when they get nukes.
[Sunday evening update]
Just for the record, I don’t agree in any way with the commenter who is pining for a “Curtis LeMay type, who won’t care who’s in office.”
Well, you learn something new every day (more, if you’re lucky, and work at it).
Here’s an interesting story for WW II buffs. There were several reasons that Operation Market Garden was a failure, but this is one that I’d never heard before. The troops didn’t get properly reinforced because they couldn’t communicate with radios, due to high concentrations of iron in the ground around Arnhem. It’s the old story of “for want of a nail.” If they’d had satellite phones, the war might have ended months earlier (and the Battle of the Bulge been prevented).
Glenn thinks that a lot of the current concern about polygamy is an offshoot of the gay marriage debate. I think that’s right, but we need to clarify terms here:
There’s a pretty good argument that polygamy is usually bad for the societies it appears in, producing a large surplus of sullen, unmarriageable young men.
Polygamy per se (a marriage of more than two individuals) doesn’t result in frustrated young men–that would be polygyny (the specific case in which it is one man married to multiple women). It could be balanced out with polyandry (in which one woman has several husbands). Judging by the fact that males are…ummmmm…orgasm challenged relative to healthy females, and the prevalence of porn fantasies (and perhaps real incidents, though I have no personal experience) about one woman satisfying a number of men, and all enjoying it, at least at the time, could in fact be popular if it weren’t for that pesky male imperative to know whether or not your kids are really yours.
But I’m not aware of many societies that have general polygamy–it seems to be one or the other, with polygyny dominating for fairly obvious evolutionary-psychological reasons.
Of course it is. And, as Ron Bailey points out, there’s never been a time when it wasn’t, for all the reasons he describes and more, and the Dems are just as (if not more) guilty of this than the Bush administration (contra Chris Mooney’s ideologically blinkered thesis).
The same applies to space “science” (though in fact much of NASA spending has very little to do with science, despite the popular myth). And in light of how something as supposedly objective as “science” can get politicized, it’s foolish to think that major government-funded engineering projects (like the president’s Vision for Space Exploration) aren’t, or that the politics don’t drive the architecture decisions much more strongly than economics or the loftier goal of building a space-faring civilization.
It may indeed be the case that the “stick” and a Shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle are necessary to maintain (at least in the short term) Congressional support for the overall program (though that’s not at all clear to me), but we shouldn’t fool ourselves that this will result in significant progress in our space capabilities, particularly relative to more flexible, versatile, diverse and ultimately lower-cost means of achieving the desired goals.
In today’s New York Times, the article “Go Ahead, Try to Stop K Street,” an argument is quoted from Newt Gingrich that you have to shrink government to curb lobbyists. “There is $2.6 trillion spent in Washington, with the authority to regulate everything in your life,” he said. “Guess what? People will spend unheard-of amounts of money to influence that. The underlying problems are big government and big money.”
Curbing the budget will only reduce the acceleration of lobbying, not reduce lobbying. It is a bargain. The Indian tribes are just smart to get in on it (if not in their choice of representation). In my joint paper with Livingston and Jurist, we say the following:
National lobbying of Congress and the President in 2004 totaled $1 billion. That may seem like a lot, but it is a pittance compared to the $2.3 trillion in Federal outlays. Congress and the President also pass laws and make executive orders that implicitly subsidize through loan guarantees, forbid activities altogether, impose work and investment rules that implicitly tax certain activities, and establish through the courts and federal agencies how property rights are defined. Thus, it is possible that Congress and the President influence perhaps twice as much of the economy as the Federal Government spends. Given that, $1 billion to buy influence on Capitol Hill is surely a bargain. With 589 bills passing both houses of Congress (enrolled) in the 108th Congress, that works out to about $3.3 million of lobbying per enrolled bill. Adding in campaign contributions per enrolled bill (about $400 million per session for the President