Why, when one is looking for this site on Google, does one get the following message?

Sorry, no information is available for the URL thepeoplescube.com

They’d like to know, too.

Jason Zengerle isn’t impressed with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga’s attitude about “winning”:

If there’s one animating idea that’s shared by liberal bloggers like Kos and Atrios and all the others, it’s, as Wallace-Wells called it, “the ideology of winnerism.”

Which is why it’s bizarre that these very same bloggers are always so eager to celebrate moral victories. After Howard Dean went down to defeat, they boasted about how they took a virtual nobody to the precipice of victory. Ditto for Paul Hackett. And the same thing is happening today now that Ciro Rodriguez–the former Texas congressman who became a blog darling after his Democratic primary opponent, incumbent Congressman Henry Cuellar, was shown hugging President Bush at the State of the Union–has apparently lost…

…But more often than not, these liberal bloggers (especially Kos) act like they already have taken over the world–writing manifestoes, issuing threats, and engaging in all sorts of chest-thumping behavior. But, like I said, their batting average is still a big fat zero.

What was it I called people who win “moral” victories? Oh, now I remember…

So I was looking at the Amazon page for Kos’ and Armstrong’s book, Crashing The Gate, which is about how to use the net to take back America for progressive politics (or at least I’m surmising that’s the theme, based on reviews and who wrote it), and I noticed something about the reviews. When a so-called “right-wing” book goes up (like by Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, or even non-bombthrowers), the review section quickly becomes flooded by “reviews” from people who have obviously neither purchased or read the book, and are usually ad hominem attacks on the authors. Such “reviews” generally get one star in terms of their utility to the other Amazon visitors.

But I saw none of that among the reviews for Crashing The Gate. Admittedly, most of the reviews were by fellow Democrats, but I suspect that if there are any negative reviews, they’ll at least be by people who’ve actually read the book, and have something intelligent to say about it.

I’m going to keep an eye on it, and see if my prediction is born out, over the next few days. And if it is, what does it say about the civility level of the two sides of the political spectrum?

[Update a few minutes later]

It’s not at Amazon, but here’s an example of a negative review by someone who has actually read the book. It’s certainly not laudatory (though Trevino does have some good things to say about it), but it’s also not the mindless feces flinging that often passes for many “progressive” reviews of “non-progressive” books at Amazon.

[Late evening update]

There’s one other interesting characteristic of these drive-by trolls. They not only haven’t read the book, but they aren’t prolific reviewers in general. For example, consider the reviewers for Glenn’s latest book. The majority of the reviews so far are one-star, never-read-the-book reviews. And when one clicks on “other reviews by this reviewer,” one comes up almost empty in all cases.

This seems like something that Amazon could do something about. It’s almost like spam, except it’s a lot more personal.

Ideas as to how Amazon could (fairly and objectively) do something about it are welcome.

So I was looking at the Amazon page for Kos’ and Armstrong’s book, Crashing The Gate, which is about how to use the net to take back America for progressive politics (or at least I’m surmising that’s the theme, based on reviews and who wrote it), and I noticed something about the reviews. When a so-called “right-wing” book goes up (like by Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, or even non-bombthrowers), the review section quickly becomes flooded by “reviews” from people who have obviously neither purchased or read the book, and are usually ad hominem attacks on the authors. Such “reviews” generally get one star in terms of their utility to the other Amazon visitors.

But I saw none of that among the reviews for Crashing The Gate. Admittedly, most of the reviews were by fellow Democrats, but I suspect that if there are any negative reviews, they’ll at least be by people who’ve actually read the book, and have something intelligent to say about it.

I’m going to keep an eye on it, and see if my prediction is born out, over the next few days. And if it is, what does it say about the civility level of the two sides of the political spectrum?

[Update a few minutes later]

It’s not at Amazon, but here’s an example of a negative review by someone who has actually read the book. It’s certainly not laudatory (though Trevino does have some good things to say about it), but it’s also not the mindless feces flinging that often passes for many “progressive” reviews of “non-progressive” books at Amazon.

[Late evening update]

There’s one other interesting characteristic of these drive-by trolls. They not only haven’t read the book, but they aren’t prolific reviewers in general. For example, consider the reviewers for Glenn’s latest book. The majority of the reviews so far are one-star, never-read-the-book reviews. And when one clicks on “other reviews by this reviewer,” one comes up almost empty in all cases.

This seems like something that Amazon could do something about. It’s almost like spam, except it’s a lot more personal.

Ideas as to how Amazon could (fairly and objectively) do something about it are welcome.

So I was looking at the Amazon page for Kos’ and Armstrong’s book, Crashing The Gate, which is about how to use the net to take back America for progressive politics (or at least I’m surmising that’s the theme, based on reviews and who wrote it), and I noticed something about the reviews. When a so-called “right-wing” book goes up (like by Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, or even non-bombthrowers), the review section quickly becomes flooded by “reviews” from people who have obviously neither purchased or read the book, and are usually ad hominem attacks on the authors. Such “reviews” generally get one star in terms of their utility to the other Amazon visitors.

But I saw none of that among the reviews for Crashing The Gate. Admittedly, most of the reviews were by fellow Democrats, but I suspect that if there are any negative reviews, they’ll at least be by people who’ve actually read the book, and have something intelligent to say about it.

I’m going to keep an eye on it, and see if my prediction is born out, over the next few days. And if it is, what does it say about the civility level of the two sides of the political spectrum?

[Update a few minutes later]

It’s not at Amazon, but here’s an example of a negative review by someone who has actually read the book. It’s certainly not laudatory (though Trevino does have some good things to say about it), but it’s also not the mindless feces flinging that often passes for many “progressive” reviews of “non-progressive” books at Amazon.

[Late evening update]

There’s one other interesting characteristic of these drive-by trolls. They not only haven’t read the book, but they aren’t prolific reviewers in general. For example, consider the reviewers for Glenn’s latest book. The majority of the reviews so far are one-star, never-read-the-book reviews. And when one clicks on “other reviews by this reviewer,” one comes up almost empty in all cases.

This seems like something that Amazon could do something about. It’s almost like spam, except it’s a lot more personal.

Ideas as to how Amazon could (fairly and objectively) do something about it are welcome.

Economist Vernon Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate (and my thesis advisor) said in “Trust the Consumer!” in today’s WSJ:

Health-care costs doubled over the decade ending in 2004, in fact reaching an all-time high measured as the share — 16% — of GDP; and they continue to greatly outpace inflation. Similarly, education costs from primary levels up through college continue to grow faster than other categories of national spending. Why?

Here is a bare-bones way to think about this situation: A is the customer, B is the service provider. B informs A what A should buy from B, and a third entity, C, pays for it from a common pool of funds. Stated this way, the problem has no known economic solution because there is no equilibrium. There is no automatic balance between willingness to pay by the consumer and willingness to accept by the producer that constrains and limits the choices of each.

I am not sure that an education subsidy is a bad idea. The nation’s take from higher tax revenues from graduates may well cover the cost at the margin. Graduates earn $25k/yr more than non-graduates mid career. If we can get the health industry to extend work life, a subsidy might be justified there too. But paying 60% of what the service costs instead of a 20% co-pay or a politically-set tuition would surely create a higher quality, lower cost product.

a) I’m busy tearing down walls and removing cabinets in the kitchen (though I could still listen while doing that, amidst the noise of the hammering and reciprocal sawing).

b) I haven’t seen any of the movies that are up for awards.

c) I have no interest in the glitterati–I think that for the most part they’re pompous, pretentious pseudointellectuals, attempting to make up for what they know are largely lucky breaks (surely there are many more great actors and directors than are given opportunities in Hollywood–just look at how much it helps to be have a family member in the business) in their success, by “giving something back” in the form of wacko progressive politics. I’ve also lived long enough in LA to have met many of them in real life, and for the most part, they’re not even people you’d particularly like to know.

d) I have no interest in listening to their inevitable ignorant digs, or outright rants, at the president, or Republicans (though I’m no big fan of the president or Republicans myself–I just find the Bush-hating derangement tiresome, when there are so many real things that they could be criticizing both for).

[Update a few minutes later]

It just occurred to me that I did see “Pride and Prejudice.”

But I’m still not watching.

a) I’m busy tearing down walls and removing cabinets in the kitchen (though I could still listen while doing that, amidst the noise of the hammering and reciprocal sawing).

b) I haven’t seen any of the movies that are up for awards.

c) I have no interest in the glitterati–I think that for the most part they’re pompous, pretentious pseudointellectuals, attempting to make up for what they know are largely lucky breaks (surely there are many more great actors and directors than are given opportunities in Hollywood–just look at how much it helps to be have a family member in the business) in their success, by “giving something back” in the form of wacko progressive politics. I’ve also lived long enough in LA to have met many of them in real life, and for the most part, they’re not even people you’d particularly like to know.

d) I have no interest in listening to their inevitable ignorant digs, or outright rants, at the president, or Republicans (though I’m no big fan of the president or Republicans myself–I just find the Bush-hating derangement tiresome, when there are so many real things that they could be criticizing both for).

[Update a few minutes later]

It just occurred to me that I did see “Pride and Prejudice.”

But I’m still not watching.

a) I’m busy tearing down walls and removing cabinets in the kitchen (though I could still listen while doing that, amidst the noise of the hammering and reciprocal sawing).

b) I haven’t seen any of the movies that are up for awards.

c) I have no interest in the glitterati–I think that for the most part they’re pompous, pretentious pseudointellectuals, attempting to make up for what they know are largely lucky breaks (surely there are many more great actors and directors than are given opportunities in Hollywood–just look at how much it helps to be have a family member in the business) in their success, by “giving something back” in the form of wacko progressive politics. I’ve also lived long enough in LA to have met many of them in real life, and for the most part, they’re not even people you’d particularly like to know.

d) I have no interest in listening to their inevitable ignorant digs, or outright rants, at the president, or Republicans (though I’m no big fan of the president or Republicans myself–I just find the Bush-hating derangement tiresome, when there are so many real things that they could be criticizing both for).

[Update a few minutes later]

It just occurred to me that I did see “Pride and Prejudice.”

But I’m still not watching.

I don’t know how history will rank Jimmy Carter among the presidents (my guess will be pretty low, definitely in the bottom quarter), but there’s not question in my mind that he’s absolutely the worst ex-president we’ve ever had:

Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America’s ambassador, John Bolton. “My hope is that when the vote is taken,” he told the Council on Foreign Relations, “the other members will outvote the United States.”

…Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, “The essence of my faith is one of peace.” In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush’s faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, “We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war.” Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel.

Shameful.