Andy McCarthy writes about Democrat hypocrisy in the Foley matter:

Oddly, under circumstances where Foley is now gone because he could not last 30 seconds as an elected Republican once his conduct was revealed, we are now observing a frenzied call for Hastert’s head for not doing enough to investigate behavior that actually pales in comparison to Clinton’s. That frenzy, without a hint of irony or embarrassment, is being stoked by some of the very same people who affirmatively minimized conduct that was orders of magnitude worse than Foley’s in order to close ranks around a much more consequential public official who, far from being gone in 30 seconds, was enabled by this support to cling to office for years, finish his term, and remain the Democratic Party’s top star.

And as Dennis Wingo notes in comments, the irony abounds:

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won’t let us do to al-Qaida

Bad news for the likes of Hot Air America, though. Billionaire moonbat George Soros is giving up on politics.

Guess he decided that he’s pissed away enough millions on a losing cause that deserved to lose. Too bad he can’t come up with something useful to do with his money. I could have funded some interesting space ventures with what he wasted on Kerry and company.

Arnold Kling writes about his journey from leftism to libertarianism (similar to mine, except his took a lot longer), and the ways in which both philosophies are similar, and those in which they are different:

1. Far Leftists and libertarianism have much in common.
2. Libertarians know something that Far Leftists do not.

What I believe that Libertarians have learned is what social psychologists call the Fundamental Attribution Error. The error is to attribute behavior to a person’s character when this behavior is in fact based on context. In one classic experiment, the subject is asked to watch a person read a speech that the subject knows that the speaker did not write. Subjects attribute to the person the beliefs contained in the speech.

The Far Left believes that bad policies come from evil motives. In this view, villains, such as powerful corporations, oppose good policies, and political incumbents lack the strength and courage to overcome the villains.

Libertarians believe that context is more important. We believe that government power is inherently corrupting, regardless of who holds leadership positions or how they are influenced. We believe that the market does a relatively good job of channelling self-interest toward socially desirable ends.

This encapsulates my views toward NASA. Contra the strawman views that I’m occasionally falsely accused of holding, it is not a diabolical, hegemonic government agency, run by evil people who want to Keep Humanity Out Of Space (though it’s often hard to figure out just what it would be doing differently if it were). It’s simply a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent, as government bureaucracies are wont to do, with many good and smart people working for it responding to the incentives within. Sadly, the administrator seems generally to not understand this.

Bush’s refusal to relinquish power diabolically marches on.

First it was low unemployment. Then he made the gas prices fall, no doubt in connivance with his oil buddies. Then he got Rove to turn off the hurricane machine. And now, through machinations unknown, but probably having something to do with Skull and Bones, he’s conspired to bring the Dow within fifteen points of an all-time high.

How much more devastation can we allow this evil man to wreak on our beleagered nation?

Dick Morris writes that the public finally got to see the private Bill Clinton that those who worked for him saw. He also takes apart his disingenuous strawmen and falsehoods.

Apparently, the times that Clinton seems most angry and finger poking (“I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski”) are the times that he’s most vociferously defending his lies.

[Update at 4 PM EDT]

Paul Sperry recalls his own encounter with an enraged Bill Clinton:

What happened over the next 10 minutes was nothing short of a “scene.” The party-goers collapsed in around us. I watched the blood rush to Clinton’s gargantuan face as he launched into a tirade against ex-Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, the FBI, Bob Dole and Republicans in general, similar to his Sunday attack on right-wingers and Fox News and Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove during the Wallace interview. All the while, he tried to intimidate me by getting in my face, just as he did Wallace.

Clinton’s not just intellectually intimidating, he’s physically imposing. He’s tall (6 feet 2 inches) and big-boned. Luckily, I’m the same height and was able to stand toe-to-toe and eye-to-eye with him. I’ll never forget the maniacal look in his bloodshot eyes. There was a moment, fleeting, where I sensed he wanted to try to take a swipe at me. His volcanic temper, hidden so well from the public by his handlers, erupted less than 12 inches from my eyes.

[Update at 6 PM EDT]

Myrna Blythe says that Bill is Hillary’s biggest problem.

Debra Saunders writes about the sham of the environmentalist liberal glitteratti:

Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meet that has it all — the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Clinton.

You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95 to 0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)

Debra Saunders writes about the sham of the environmentalist liberal glitteratti:

Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meet that has it all — the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Clinton.

You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95 to 0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)

Debra Saunders writes about the sham of the environmentalist liberal glitteratti:

Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meet that has it all — the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Clinton.

You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95 to 0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)

Paul Krugman today attempts to answer the question, “Why is the insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?”

In 2005, the percent of uninsured was 15.9%. In 2000, it was 14.0%. In 2000, private insurers covered 72.4% of Americans or 204 million. In 2005, they covered 67.7% or 201 million.

Total number of covered individuals increased from 243 million to 249 million. From 2000-2005, the number employed rose from 137 million to 142 million. The number unemployed rose from 6 million to 8 million.

Could it be that we were experiencing a boom in 2001 and coverage peaked as a percent and that it will rise again if we have another boom with 4% unemployment? The percent of the population working has dropped from 67.1% to 66%.

Could it be that people are feeling secularly more healthy and feel like they can go without health insurance? Between 1999 and 2004, life expectancy at birth has risen from 76.7 years to 77.9 years. At least average health overall is improving by that indicator.

Could it be that the sector is over-regulated? CATO estimates that about 1/6 of daily uninsured would buy insurance if it was less heavily regulated. That would allow health care deregulation to take us from 15.9% to 13.3% uninsured and allow everyone else to save a total of $170 billion a year or $680 per covered individual per year or about 1.4% of GDP.

In short, insurers are covering more people. They are helping increase the average lifespan of all Americans. They are doing it despite a substantial burden of regulation.

Continue reading Anti-Krugman 2:
Single Horrible Payor →

Particularly those on cable news networks struggling to get enough viewers to even count as being in last place. Do not exude idiotic commentary if there’s any chance that James Lileks will hear of it:

Hear ye: if ever I announce that the lightning is sending me messages about how the government seeks to control what I think, please have me commited for paranoid schizophrenia.

He is also spectacularly unimpressed with Ahmadinejad coddlers.