Rudy Giuliani has been endorsed by Pat Robertson, which according to smart conservative commentators is a “big plus.” A depressing, if unsurprising, thought. Not only is Robertson an arch-reactionary who thought that with respect to 9/11 that the U.S. had it coming (especially ironic for Mr. “Noun-Verb-9/11″), Robertson is a purveyor of crank anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. As Michael Lind found:
Robertson’s theories about Jewish bankers and Jewish revolutionaries are central to his conspiracy theory, which in turn is central to his vision of his own destiny, his movement, and his ambitions for the American Right and the Republican party and the United States of America. Not since Father Coughlin or Henry Ford has a prominent white American so boldly and unapologetically blamed the disasters of modern world history on the machinations of international high finance in general and on a few influential Jews in particular. And not since Huey Long, with his Share Our Wealth movement, has there been a radical populist movement as powerful in American politics as Robertson’s Christian Coalition.
A lunatic conspiracy theorist endorsing someone with lunatic foreign policy views; seems about right.
For years, proponents of the death penalty have argued that it acts as a deterrent. This claim has been damn tough to prove, probably because it’s wrong. What’s ironic, though, is that the prohibitively large expense of prosecuting capital cases may successfully deter “tough on crime” prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in all but the rarest of instances, which, if the death penalty is constitutional at all, should be the only time it’s deployed anyway.
Might this be the first time that I can think of where the efficiency focus of law and economics might be used for some good?
I see that Derek Jeter’s defense has become so wretched that the Gold Glove has finally gone to a good defensive shortstop instead. However — because God forbid we go a year without a popular New York player winning a Gold Glove with his bat — David Wright somehow won the NL Gold Glove at third. I don’t mean to suggest that it’s similarly egregious; Wright is OK defensively, maybe better than his reputation. But you’d have to be crazy to think that he’s better than Feliz or Zimmerman.
Which reminds me: recently King Kaufman wrote about the all-time Gold Glove team. There are a couple people who won with their bats: Morgan was a good second baseman but although as a player he arguably had the highest peak between Mantle and Bonds he was no Mazeroski
with the glove. Griffey was a decent CF in his prime, but overrated; just among ones I’ve seen play every day Grissom and Cameron were better and Beltran not significantly worse. Parker probably wasn’t as good as Hernandez but was good, and I kind of like the idea of there being more light-hitting defensive specialists. The fun comes, however, in the runners-up:
What surprises me about this silly exercise is that current players didn’t dominate. Derek Jeter finished second in the shortstop voting, ahead of Vizquel, Concepcion, Aparicio and Belanger. That’s ridiculous, but at least he didn’t win.
Wow. Like, wow. It’s not like Jeter is a good-but-overrated defender like Griffey or Alomar. He’s a bad shortstop. This is clear if you watch his range, and also empirically unassailable. Only recent Prospectus numbers show him as even OK, and that 1)requires the implausible belief that he suddenly greatly improved in his early 30s, and 2)can’t be detected by more sophisticated methodologies, which show him as being just as bad as ever. To rank him above these guys is like claiming that Brad Ausmus is a better hitter than Manny Ramirez. Anybody who thinks that Jeter is a better defensive shortstop than Vizquel should never be permitted to watch a major league game again for their own good; they obviously don’t know what they’re watching anyway…
Silly Matt; if Musharraf really is like the Shah, won’t it just give us the opportunity to demonstrate that, were it not for Jimmy Carter, a few well placed bombs would have forestalled the Revolution and saved Iran for… er, “democracy”?
I mentioned during the Althouse/Valenti dustup that justly earned the former a Golden Wingnut Award that comments sections were awash in claims that Clinton was a serial sexual harasser, groper, etc. The problem is that such claims crucially rely on the claims made by Kathleen Willey, and these claims were so lacking in credibility that even Chief Whitewater Snipe Hunter Ken Starr wouldn’t go forward with them. So what has Willey been up to lately? Well:
In a new book alleging a campaign of slander and intimidation orchestrated chiefly by Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Willey points a finger of suspicion at the former first couple for the death of her husband, who was believed to have killed himself.
Willey, who claims she was groped by President Clinton in the White House, acknowledged in an interview with WND today that she stands by the speculation she poses about her husband’s demise in “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” set for release this week by World Ahead Publishing, WND Books’ partner.
Asked if she suspects her husband Ed, a lawyer and son of a prominent Virginia lawmaker, was murdered, Willey replied, “Most definitely.”
A highly credible source, no question. Given these crank accusations, however, only one question can remain: when will she be appearing on Hardball? The fact that Hillary Clinton is now the alleged source of the conspiracy makes her an even more attractive guest for shows where it’s now going to be all-90s-era-Clinton-lunacy-all-the-time!
This is true. I think the exclusion is because I don’t really think Norbiz will be gone for long…
Well, we American lawyers have been put to shame by our peers in Pakistan. After President Pervez Musharraf (one of Bush’s A#1 allies, don’t forget) suspended the Constitution, dissolved the high courts, and got rid of private television media, the lawyers got mad. Despite being beaten by plainclothes and uniformed police officers and arrested in droves, they are taking to the streets to protest this dissolution of democracy (happening, perhaps not surprisingly, in the name of democracy. Sound familiar?). Of course, Musharraf’s crackdown has absolutely zero to do with shoring up democracy against terrorism and everything to do with his own power (familiar again)?
I’m ashamed to admit that I agree with an astute law professor of Robert’s acquaintance who pointed out by email that “[i]t’s difficult to imagine, even if Bush suspended the Constitution and disbanded the courts, U.S. lawyers taking such an active, in-the-streets role. We’d be sitting in our offices, just writing vitrolic postings to our blogs….”
Guilty as charged.
With 90% reporting, its Beshear 59%, Fletcher 41%. Democrats also win Attorney General, Auditor, and Treasurer.
Fletcher had some serious corruption problems that hurt the entire ticket, but it’s still nice to see the Republicans getting crushed in a state that went 60% Bush in 2004. It’s actually rather a pity that McConnell doesn’t have to run at the same time as Fletcher…
D’Ho in fine form, courtesy of Max Blumenthal:
Pacing the stage like a drunken circus clown impersonating some bygone demagogue, and standing beneath a massive image of a woman being shot in the head, Horowitz launched into a long, frenetic rant about his own persecution at the hands of a shadowy liberal conspiracy.
The best part comes at the end, when he drifts off into a soliloquy about Jerry Springer and Jerry Falwell — who, last I recall, surrendered his carbon a while back — bringing social justice at the point of a gun, or something . . .
I’m glad that Matt alerted his readers to this classic SDB essay, which helpfully divides humans with vaginas into two categories: “women” (i.e. strippers and women who, hypothetically, will sleep with SDB or at least be incredibly flattered by awkward come-ons from co-workers) and “female persons” (women who won’t sleep with SDB.) This typology would be helpful if applied in other manifestations of wingnuttery. For example, perhaps future idiotic abortion regulations can be more explicit by dividing subjects into classes of “women” (i.e. people who share Rick Santorum’s conception of gender roles and hence can be presumed to be acting freely) and “female persons” (who reject 18th century conceptions of gender roles and hence need to have their most intimate personal choices extensively regulated.) I expect the essay to be quoted in the next Kennedy opinion upholding an arbitrary abortion regulation…
If you didn’t read Molly Ivors’ latest deconstruction of Maureen Dowd — which appears to be part of a much-needed if unintended series — you owe yourself the pleasure. (It was linked here the other day, with additional commentary from Scott.)
Having done that, you’ll find yourself in greater appreciation of this piece of abject stupidity from esteemed “law blogger” Ann Althouse:
Dowd has always paid attention to truth about the Clintons and feminism. I’ve really appreciated that.
Yes, and Chris Ruddy has always paid attention to truth about the Clintons and Vince Foster. I’ve really appreciated that.