Even though I generally make an annual sojurn to Vegas with some co-bloggers without current or imminent parental responsibilities, I’ve never tried In-N-Out. But an unscientific survey of chefs — including Thomas Keller! — ranks it as America’s best fast food chain. I’m sure some commenters will be willing to weigh in on the topic…
Wednesday, August 11. 13:00 PDT, and other times. Google isn’t new, and for the love of god, don’t rely on me.
I have to agree with David Bernstein when it comes to the assertion that Sotomayor “will soon take on one of the most demanding jobs in the land.” Granting that the job has some high-level intellectual demands and pressures, I would say that in fact being a Supreme Court justice is relatively undemanding for a job of its prestige and influence. I would note, for example, that one year Sandra Day O’Connor was reimbursed for 28 trips. I think it’s safe to say that there are a lot of more demanding jobs out there.
Having grown up and spent most of my formative years on the West Coast, I am constantly befuddled by the aversion of East Coasters to drives of even moderate distance. Easterners seem, in my experience, largely incapable of conceiving of any drive that takes longer than 45 minutes. Baltimore to Philly? Might as well be the Bataan Death March. New York to Boston? I heard about a guy who tried it once, but I think he was eaten by wild animals near Providence, wherever that is. To be sure, there are good reasons why people should shun long drives, including environmental concerns and the relatively high accident rate of automobile travel. These are not, however, the concerns that my Eastern interlocutors most often invoke. Rather, they just can’t seem to imagine sitting in a car long enough to get from one place to another.
It is not this way in the West. You wouldn’t want to do it everyday, but it was not uncommon for myself and my friends to drive from Seattle to Portland for a day trip, returning the same evening. That’s 170 miles one way, give or take. Hell, while I was at UO it wasn’t even that unusual to do a Eugene to Seattle round-trip in a single day. Mention to an urbanite from the Boston-DC corridor that you’re considering a trip that might take an hour (time spent in traffic doesn’t count, for some reason), and they’ll respond with a blank, stunned stare. Let me illustrate this point with a short play:
Hans- Stasi Interrogator
John- Captured CIA spy hailing from Boston
Hans: Ve have vays of making you talk. Ve shall drive you to ze place of torture vere ve shall find ze location of your nuclear bomb.
John: (meekly) How long of a drive?
Hans: Four hours, but do not vorry. Ve give you a nice New York Review of Books and a thermos coffee-
John: (whispering) Four…. hours? (shrieking) OH GOD, GOD NO! I’LL TALK! I’LL TALK!
The Brazilians may finally be getting some decent aircraft for the Sao Paulo:
The Government of Brazil has requested proposals from several foreign suppliers, including the United States, to provide the next generation fighter for the Brazilian Air Force. In this “FX-2” competition, the Government of Brazil has yet to select the United States Navy-Boeing proposal. This notification is being made in advance of receipt of a letter of request so that, in the event that the US Navy-Boeing proposal is selected, the United States might move as quickly as possible to implement the sale. If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, the Government of Brazil will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft…
Assuming that the F/A-18 can operate off Sao Paulo (and they could operate from USS Midway, so I don’t see why not), this would transform the carrier from a curiosity into a useful unit. In particular, the F/A-18 has actual defensive capabilities, which the A-4 lacks. Of course, it’s still unclear to what use the Brazilians would put Sao Paulo.
What we don’t know is if a successful Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would discredit the regime to the point that it would be forced out of power or if such an attack would be used to discredit the opposition, causing Iranians to close ranks behind their extremist leaders.
Generally, when bombs fall on people, they get mad at the people doing the bombing. It’s a simple enough lesson, but one that many, in their unconsidered haste to bring about the regime’s downfall, miss quite entirely. The second of Johnson’s possibilities, or a version of it at least, seems much more likely to result from a missile attack; this would only enhance the government’s hardline posture, and give needless credibility to its attempts to focus attention on outside “enemies.”
If Israeli bombing discredits the Iranian regime, it will be approximately the first time in the history of the world that such a thing has happened. The closest case would appear to be that of Slobodan Milosevic after the Kosovo War, but a much more compelling argument can be made that Milosevic fell because he gave up, rather than because he fought.
So too is the section where he quotes Donald Ritchie, the Senate’s official historian, explaining that “the authors of the Constitution really thought the House would be the driving engine, and the Senate would just be the senior group that would perfect legislation that came up from the House.” Given how often the Senate’s current role is defended on grounds of original intent, it’s crucial to understand that the Founders actually meant for the more representative body to be the more powerful of the two chambers.
I see arguments of this sort every now and again, and I don’t really understand them. A really common one comes in the form “the Founders didn’t want a standing military.” This latter one is wrong on the merits (some of the Founders didn’t want a standing military, while others were pretty happy with the idea), but more broadly it depends on the idea that the Founders were kind of stupid. If they didn’t want a standing military, then they should have been clear in the Constitution that they didn’t want a standing military. Really, the idea that tension with Britain, France, Native American tribes, and Spain might produce strong incentives for a standing military was too complicated for the Founders to think out? It would never have occurred to them? Similarly, the above argument doesn’t make a lot of bloody sense to me. I suppose it’s possible that the Founders may have intended the House of Representatives to be more powerful than the Senate. If they did, it would have been nice for them to so indicate in the Constitution, and to do so a lot more clearly than they did. From the perspective of a Martian (which, in this case, isn’t all that different from the perspective of a 21st century American) it’s really not at all clear that the House should have a stronger legislative role than the Senate. It has certain powers that the Senate lacks, but then the Senate has certain powers that the House lacks.
And so, I’m left to draw the conclusion that either a) the Founders couldn’t anticipate that their vague, uninstitutionalized desires regarding the structure of the legislative branch would quickly fall by the wayside, or b) that the Founders didn’t intend such, or at least didn’t intend such as a group. I’m leaning towards the latter.
Discussion and planning on online social networking sites led police to believe the group involved was the English and Welsh Defence League, or Casuals United.
The English Defence League claim not to be a racist group and say that they have no ties with the British National Party. One of the websites linked to the League is believed to have been set up by a known BNP member, but that has now been taken down in an apparent attempt to conceal any link.
This dude’s job kind of sucks.
If you think you face an uphill challenge at work today, spare a thought for Farah Ahmed Omar, the man in charge of Somalia’s navy. He has neither boats nor equipment and admits he has not been to sea for 23 years.
The interim government does not control much of the 3,000-km (1,860-mile) Somali coastline and then there is the headache of plentiful pirates. Mr. Omar said he was first put in charge of the navy in 1982, but speaking to the BBC by phone from the capital, Mogadishu, he did not sound too daunted by the task ahead.
Responsibility without power… Via Axe.
Ed Kilgore notes a new Gallup poll making clear what was always overwhelmingly likely — the widely-trumpeted May Gallup poll showing a significant “pro-life” majority was an outlier. When public opinion has been as stable over the long term as it’s been on abortion, that’s always the safe bet.
In addition — since, as Ed implies, the “pro-life” term is, especially in this context, a largely vacuous one that doesn’t necessarily imply support for criminalizing abortion — it’s also worth noting that the public wants Roe v. Wade to be upheld by a roughly 2-to-1 margin:
The Supreme Court legalized abortion 36 years ago in the ruling known as Roe versus Wade. If that case came before the court again, would you want Sotomayor to vote to (uphold) Roe versus Wade, or vote to (overturn) it?Uphold Overturn No opinion
Sotomayor, 6/21/09 60 34 6
Alito, 12/18/05 61 35 4
Alito, 11/2/05 64 31 5
Roberts, 8/28/05 60 33 7
Roberts, 7/21/05 65 32 4
As Ed says, somehow I’m guessing we’re going to hear a lot less about this than we did about the May outlier.
The bountiful harvest of California strawberries, melons, grapes, peaches and nectarines overflows the nation’s summer tables. But that luscious crop mostly emerges thanks to farm workers who labor in flat fields under a scorching sun – and has a price higher than the grocery-store bill. Every year many farm workers become sick, and some die. Typical of the fatalities was Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez, who was just 17. In May 2008, she died after picking grapes in Merced County for nine hours in 95-degree heat. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attended her funeral and promised to do more to protect workers.
I thought about excising the black comedy of the last line, but thought I should leave it in. Schwarzenegger may like the idea of protecting farm workers in theory, but if it might require a marginal increase in tax revenues to enforce the law, I think he’ll quickly forget the whole thing. Priorities, you know…