0
comments
Friday, September 25, 2009
Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan Treasury official, believes so.
0
comments
Thursday, September 24, 2009
On October 6, the Supreme Court is set to hear a case regarding the right of dogfighters to sell videos depicting animal cruelty. Their argument is 1) The videos do not actually depict cruelty (quite subjective really), and 2) Freedom of Speech protects their right to depict this. For instance, they claim that the videos show nothing worse than the typical documentary you see on the Discovery Channel, the History Channel or even Animal Planet. Several prominent news organizations side with the dogfighters on first amendment grounds.
As you can imagine, animal rights activists support the 1999 federal law that bans trafficking any depiction of animal cruelty.
Who wins? The first amendment or animals?
I'm voting for the animals on this one.
In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that there are some things that are so obnoxious they do not deserve first amendment protection. What was that? Child pornography. I would put wanton depictions of animal cruelty in this category as a level of speech not worthy of any first amendment protection. The only exceptions would be those for legitimate educational purposes.
0
comments
In a small victory, Obama received assurances from Russia that it would not block sanctions levied against the Iranian regime over the nuclear issue. Why is this a small victory? Russia wouldn't commit to any specific sanctions.
0
comments
Not quite sure why, but HBCU's are more likely to get the NCAA screw job than are big, rich BCS conference schools.
Analysis
Best guess is that HBCU's are poorer, and thus smaller NCAA compliance staffs. Thus, errors are more likely to go unnoticed longer. Because HBCU's have relatively small alumni bases, are rarely on television and don't win national championships, few people raise a stink when they get heavier penalties.
Read the full report here.
1 comments
As usual, brilliant commentary from The Monkey Cage piques my interest. This time the discussion asks, "Are Republicans Now Officially a Southern Party?"
The answer is yes, if you believe reporting from the Daily Kos. It's certainly as liberal a blog as you're going to find, but that still shouldn't discount the regional variation found in their poll.
Analysis
To those of that study and teach Southern Politics, this is not news. Ever since the southern GOP ceded policymaking and candidate recruitment to the Southern Baptist Convention, er...the religious right wing of the party, the GOP has successfully (but gradually) alienated secular conservatives from the rest of the nation.
That's not to say the GOP can't ever regain majority status in Congress or reclaim the White House. Should DC Democrats overreach in their ambitions, a corrective election will surely occur in which the GOP will gain seats outside the South. Republicans are currently winning in about 90% of the seats they should be winning, so growth regions must lie outside the South. But, if Obama and congressional Democrats emerge victorious on health care reform, look for Republicans to hunker down in their minority (and southern) status.
0
comments
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Republicans in New York salivate at the thought of knocking off (fairly) unpopular Governor David Patterson. If you don't know who he is, here's the Saturday Night Live version. Given the disappointment of Eliot Spitzer, many simply see Patteson as an incompetent fill-in.
Seriously, New York is a Democratic state. Why does the GOP think they can win there? The answer is in the power of Republican moderates. They do reasonably well in the state legislature and statewide office. Remember George Pataki and his nineteen terms in office? Republicans in New York and New England are a completely different breed of Republican than you find in the South or in Sarah Palin.
Speaking of Governor Palin (we still call her that even though she quit on Alaska). She traveled to Hong Kong to speak to a group of Asian bankers and money makers. Giving a strongly partisan speech, she articulated her view on a range of subjects: foreign policy, American indebtedness, the righteousness of tax cuts and her disillusionment with the "change" brought by President Obama. Essentially, Palin is capitalizing on her fame to travel the speaking circuit. It's good money, it's good visibility, and when you're not an actual office holder with actual responsibilities it's a lot easier to be critical of those actually trying to affect change.
Finally, Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison look set to stage a battle royale. The candidates are hitting each other just above the belt right now. But, it's still October. The primary is not until March. And, they've barely raised/spent much money. When that happens, it'll get fierce. Below is a sampling of the current Youtube attack ads the campaigns are running against each other.
1 comments
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
In attempting to reform America's health are system, President Obama may have inadvertently given legs to a rebirth of both the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
In health care, Republicans have an issue in which opposition to the president can coalesce and hopefully (for them) serve as a launch pad for successful 2010 campaigns. Republicans won't win back majority control in Congress, but they should gain seats.
Providing intellectual heft to the GOP is the conservative movement. Julian Zelizer suggests that conservatives are using health care reform as the bailiwick to once again promote long lost conservative principles such as fiscal restraint and federal government of limited and enumerated powers.
0
comments
Kathleen Parker (who?) and Bill Clinton both agree that criticism to Obama's health care reforms are not (wholly) founded in racism. Wow, that's a hard position to take. I wonder if they think the sun is hot, too?
Of course, not all the negative reaction to Obama (including) Joe Wilson's infamous outburst are ground in racism.
That still doesn't mean race doesn't matter and isn't related to the current debate.
Obama, learning the mistakes from the Henry Louis Gates saga (remember that?), smartly tried to defuse the latest media-driven flap by stating that he didn't believe Wilson's comments were driven by racial animus. I mean, really, do you expect the president to accuse a sitting member of Congress of racism?
How does matter, then? A recent Senate GOP mailer directly injects race into the discussion by scaring people into thinking that health care will essentially become a lottery rationed out by race.
Or, take that crusty old fart, Rush Limbaugh. Out of fear of young black students, he's taken to advocating segregating school buses. Real smart, Rush. That's certainly the best way to prepare young Americans to engage in a multicultural society.
I still stand by my earlier comments that there is a fundamental disrespect that some of Obama's opponents have towards him and all of his policies because he is black. Many more people oppose Obama because of principled conservatism or libertarian beliefs. Kudos to them. But, that does not hide the fact that some opposition to Obama is race-based. They'll never accept his legitimacy.
0
comments
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Real-life commitments kept me from blogging on this, but here is the text and video of Obama's speech on financial regulation from last week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)