While this point is well taken, I suspect that if the New York and Delaware Senate succession rules mandated special elections, then we wouldn’t have either Secretary of State Clinton or Vice President Biden. Depending on your perspective that’s maybe a plus, but the increased risk (even in a relatively safe state such as New York) would certainly affect the President’s calculus for nominating a cabinet.
I don’t really pay much attention to college football these days — an admission that I think would earn me an ass-kicking from Rob, Scott and Paul if I lived within driving distance of, well, anywhere — but this must have been just about the crappiest bowl game ever.
It’s been a while, evidently, since a bowl game ended with so few points on the board. The 1959 Cotton Bowl, the only same with fewer total points, ended in a nil tie. The account in the Dallas Morning News the next day is pretty amusing.
Early in the second period, the Air Force took the initiative, sweeping 52 yards to the TCU 6. Oddley enough, only one pass was employed by the smallish Falcons in that drive, one for 14 yards from substitute Quarterback Eddie Rosane to End Tom Joswiak. After TCU slowed the attack, Halfback George Pupich tried a field goal from the 12 but was wide to the left.
In defense of the unsuccessful kickers on both teams – Pupich and Spikes – it should be noted that the 10-mile-per-hour wind – played some tricks.
All the more reason to abolish the Air Force, if it can’t compete in a 10 m.p.h. wind. What were the Russians supposed to make of this? Frankly, I’m amazed we ever won the Cold War.
Wow. Anyone else suddenly in the mood to be mounted by the sweaty carcass of Dennis Prager?
What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.
What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can — indeed, ought to — refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?
Prager is, of course, exactly right. What if people didn’t feel like paying taxes? Or obeying traffic laws? What if a non-Christian member of Congress didn’t feel like taking a ceremonial oath on the Bible? What if women didn’t realize that breastfeeding is icky? What then? What?!?
On a completely, totally unrelated note, Prager wondered earlier this year why so many women are depressed.
2008 kind of sucked, except for the obvious. Hopefully 2009 will be better. Stay safe tonight; we can’t exactly afford to lose any regular readers…
The College Board has decided, against the wishes of many college admissions officials and advocates for low-income students, to institute “score choice,” allowing students to withhold from colleges all but their highest combined SAT score.
I’m against this for a number of reasons. First, it’s pretty clear this policy will disadvantage students who cannot afford to take the test multiple times or shell out for tutors and classes to help them raise their score. Secondly, the College Board claims this will decrease student stress by giving teens the ability to hide scores if they happened to have a really bad day on testing day. In practice, though, this option already exists; it’s called “canceling” your score. One of my best friends had a sort of mini panic attack the first time she sat for the SAT. She walked out of the testing center, called the College Board, and canceled the score. No harm, no foul.
I developed a migraine during the ACT in 1991, and canceled my score. With the various test prep and tutor options, the deck is already stacked heavily in favor of those who wish to buy a good SAT score. This policy change will only exacerbate the problem.
“What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?” he said during an interview Tuesday, offering his most extensive comments since leaving government.
During a lunch meeting two blocks from the White House, where he served under his longtime friend, President George W. Bush, Mr. Gonzales said that “for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror.“
I can think of 4537 people who might dispute that characterization. And 1042 other people. And these other 2998 people. Oh, and the three quarters of a million dead Iraqis, untold dead Afghanis, uncounted dead Somalis, and all the others that might think that Alberto Gonzales isn’t actually a casualty of the War on Terror.
My vacation has limited my blog reading, so I assume someone else has already discussed this. But since I haven’t seen it much, I feel compelled to point out that missed in many discussions about the Burris appointment is the fact that the Senate is probably unable to prevent him from being seated as a matter of constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (and 8-0 among justices deciding on the merits) in Powell v. McCormack that “in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.” It is possible to distinguish the cases — the fact that Burris is appointed obviously mitigates the problems with Congress interfering with the integrity of elections that Douglas discusses in his concurrence. Still, the bottom line of Warren’s majority opinion is unequivocal and directly on point; if Burris were to litigate an exclusion a lower court would almost certainly rule in his favor, and I doubt that the Supreme Court would overrule. The Senate could expel him after seating with a 2/3 majority, but (absent strong evidence that Burris obtained the appointment illegitimately) this seems unlikely. Reid’s remedy is likely to be to prevent him from joining the Democratic caucus.
I would also add that I think that the principle in Powell is sound and should apply to this case. It’s important to remember that the seat belongs to Burris, not Blagojevich. Powell was entitled to his seat despite some credible evidence of self-dealing (although there was certainly a racist double standard in the Senate’s sudden discovery of pure ethics in Powell’s case.) It’s hard to argue that the alleged corruption of a third party should allow Congress to prevent Burris from taking his seat when the alleged corruption of the member himself did not. The fact that he was elected rather than appointed tips the scales back, but not enough; if Burris was appointed legitimately (and he was), I don’t think the Senate can or should exclude him before the fact. If Illinois doesn’t want Blagojevich to exercise the powers of his office, it should impeach him.
UPDATE: Jack Balkin argues that Powell in fact can be distinguished. For the reasons discussed above, I don’t find his argument convincing, at least as a normative matter. The biggest omission is any evidence that the appointment of Burris was in any way illegal. If credible evidence that Burris bribed Blagojevich emerges, then I agree that the Senate can properly refuse to seat him. Otherwise, his appointment was legal, he is fully qualified, and the Senate cannot refuse to seat him without effectively overruling Powell. Since I think the case was correctly decided, that settles the question for me.
As an addendum to Matt’s post, allow me to note from the frozen tundra of Alberta that the NHL offers us a good controlled experiment in the effectiveness of salary caps in terms of ensuring competitive balance, as it’s gone from a good free-market system to a hard cap after cancelling the 04-05 season. (As I’ve noted before, the fact that a team from a small Alberta city played a Sun Belt team in the first finals after the lockout was treated as a real benefit of the new regime, because of course no such thing could have happened in 03-04.) So let’s check in on the new parity by looking at how the traditional big markets are faring:
- The Rangers, ghastly for years before the lockout, are 23-13-4 after two playoff appearances.
- Philadelphia are right behind them at 20-10-7.
- Boston, also a pretty bad team for the most part prior to the lockout, are 28-5-4. Let me repeat that: 28-5-4.
- The Canadiens, Yankees of hockey, are 21-9-6.
- Detroit, the Yankees of the post-
ClintonBush I era, are 24-7-5.
- San Jose, with a large, wealthy market all to themselves, are 28-4-4.
- Chicago, awful for the decade prior to the lockout, are 20-7-7.
If there’s parity or competitive balance there, I don’t see it. Sure, there are exceptions. Toronto, which may be the biggest market in hockey terms, suck, but they are what they were before the lockout: a thoroughly mediocre franchise whose pathetic fans seem to consider relevant because of an ersatz winning tradition derived from a period in which a six-team league guaranteed you some championships from the law of averages alone. Calgary, one of the smallest cities with a franchise, is 21-11-4, but since they play to 112% capacity it’s not really clear in what sense they’re a “small market” in the terms most relevant to the NHL. As Matt says, this isn’t to say that salary caps have no effect, just that they’re swamped by other factors. An analogy might be abortion prohibition: prohibition almost certainly reduces abortion rates, but because it’s so ineffective and because so many other factors are relevant, it’s common for countries with almost unregulated abortion to have much lower rates than countries with total bans.
One more comment from the thread. If you scroll down, you’ll see brother djw capably addressing most of the specious arguments, but I can’t resist bringing up one of my favorites from rec.sport.baseball — the “Cleveland Indians couldn’t keep all their stars” argument brought up to debunk the fact that baseball is the most competitive of the 4 major sports. Apparently, the fact that the Indians could only win 6 division titles in 7 years proves that baseball is hopelessly imbalanced and uncompetitive. You see, if baseball had true competitive balance…the same teams would win every single year for decades. If one were to take the various premises of the “socialism for billionaires” crowd seriously, as far as I can tell we would achieve “competitive balance” when about 20 teams win the World Series every year…
The answer is yes; it is Evil to cheer for Oklahoma State against Oregon. Against the Sooners, I’ll allow, it wasn’t so Evil. But against the Ducks, yes.
Lessee…. two teams with high powered offenses and no defenses to speak of… I’m going to say Oregon 55-Oklahoma State 44. Take the Ducks and the points, and definitely take the over.
…when you’re right 50% of the time, you’re wrong 50% of the time. At least I got the important part right.
Each spring, I have to teach an introductory, interdisciplinary social science course with the banal title, “Reading and Writing in the Social Sciences.” In years past, we’ve spent most of our time reading a selection of journal articles from the various disciplines in my program (i.e., history, poly sci, anth, sociology, psych and econ) and writing critical essays, book reviews, etc. Its a required course for our major, and students are about as enthusiastic about it as you’d expect them to be. This year, in the interest of making things a little more lively, I’m going to try and incorporate some academic blogs into the mix.
I figure for history, I’ll have students read Civil War Memory, or Rustbelt Intellectual, or any number of other sites. For econ, maybe Brad DeLong and Marginal Revolution among others (maybe Krugman and Freakonomics, too). For political science, maybe PoliBlog, The Monkey Cage, and of course American Power.
But what about psychology, sociology and anthropology? I suppose I could always have students poke through thae Academic Blog Wiki to find something they like, but I’m wondering if any of you folks have suggestions to get us/me started…
The PLAN is using its anti-piracy mission as an opportunity to learn:
Stratfor, a private intelligence agency based in the United States, said in a report that a Chinese antipiracy patrol would afford its navy “some very real opportunities for on-the-job training, covering everything from logistics far from home and combat against seaborne opponents to communications and joint operations with other, more experienced navies.”
The analysis also said the Chinese would probably monitor the way NATO warships, especially those of the United States, “communicate with each other and with their ship-borne helicopters.” The navy will acquire new skills, it said, “under the banner of internationalism.”
Duh-duh-DUH! Right; it would be a tragedy if the PLAN learned how to fight pirates by fighting pirates. Mild alarmism aside, it’s a genuine positive that the PLAN will have the opportunity to learn how to conduct joint operations.
At least one Arab state can be expected to leap to Israel’s defense:
Of the various premises on which the U.S. invasion of Iraq was sold to the American people, one of the most bizarre was that a post-Saddam Iraqi government would be friendly to Israel. As with claims about WMD and Al Qaeda connections, this one has proved to be a work of imagination.
Just as they did during Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah, Iraq’s leaders are now showing where their true sympathies lie. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Da’wa Party “issued a statement condemning the attacks and calling on Islamic countries to cut relations with Israel and end all ’secret and public talks’ with it.”
Khalid Hussain of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) told Gulf News “We have obligations towards Palestine and all Iraqi people are in solidarity with the people in Palestine, and we will support the people in Gaza.”
Iraq’s senior Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Sistani also issued a statement condemning the Gaza strikes. (Juan Cole has the English translation.) Iraqis all over the country expressed solidarity with the Palestinians.
Or maybe not. Lousy ingrates.