This article about a poll indicating that the vast majority of so-called historians have already judged the Bush presidency a failure doesn’t give one confidence in the profession of history instruction.
No, academia isn’t biased at all…
This article about a poll indicating that the vast majority of so-called historians have already judged the Bush presidency a failure doesn’t give one confidence in the profession of history instruction.
No, academia isn’t biased at all…
Howard Dean’s going to be on Meet The Press this Sunday.
George, one of your progenitors in Hollywood once said, “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.”
”The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we’re doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.
Yes, I’d say unbelievable is exactly the right word.
”On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons,” he added.
Of course, most lousy directors and hackneyed script writers think they’re brilliant, profound and insightful.
I’ll probably go see the movie, but only for the special effects, which is all that Lucas was ever really any good at.
Rich Lowry describes the current state of the idiotic war on pot, and the continuing idiocy of John Walters. You’d never know that there’s a real war on, with stuff like this going on.
Jacques Chirac has managed to stay out of jail for a decade now, by continuing to be President of France for that period. It’s about his only significant accomplishment in the office.
For those interested, Iain Murray seems to have it covered.
Sara Townsley, a graduate student in biology (among other things–she should start a blog), offers a field guide to the Cornell University campus.
The Gray-Tufted Nostalgic Lamprey. Physically less imposing than their fearsome and often irreversibly tenured colleagues, comprising the bulk of the liberal arts faculty. These herbivorous throwbacks can be identified by their poor hygiene, old Volvos and apparent lack of vertebrae or testicles. As committed Marxists, a century of genocide poses a bothersome snag; thus, they’re prone to historical revisionism and faddish prejudices. These aging, conformist pseudo-radicals still regard themselves as courageous rebels, despite having built a habitat cleansed of all but lock-step sycophants. Found in organic markets, peace protests and pricey restaurants.
It sounds like a similar habitat to Ann Arbor, Madison and Berkeley.
Today is my first Cinco de Mayo since leaving southern California, and clearly the holiday is much less a part of the culture in southern Florida than it is there. It’s not a day that I’ve ever celebrated myself, and given the ongoing disaster that has been Mexican governments, alternating between feudalism and crony socialism, since Independence and up to the present day, I’m often puzzled that the Mexicans celebrate it, though I suppose they’re still better off than they were as a colony, given who the colonialists were. It wasn’t, of course, the day that they won their independence–that happened much earlier–but it was almost certainly the day that they cemented it.
But for Americans, there is one thing to celebrate today–it was a spectacular (which is to say, typical) military disaster for the French.
For years the Republicans have been champions of Federalism and the Democrats have been trying to have the Federal Government bring the States into national conformity. Now that Republicans control Congress and judicial nominees, we are likely to see those who favor and oppose Federalism switch sides.
The Republicans seem to be more aggressive at consolidating their new found power than Democrats are in holding onto theirs. For example, ramming through redistricting off cycle in Texas. Another example is the threat of the “Nuclear Option” underscores that collegiality and continuity are not more important to the current Republican leadership than partisan interests.
The Supreme Court is also moving in that direction and will do so decisively once there are a few more Republican appointees on the Court. Conditional federal spending like the No Child Left Behind Act largely invalidate any state independence of the sort granted in Lopez which lined out criminal, education and family law as provinces of the States. (I am surprised that no state has made it a felony to be a three-term Senator. That would test whether criminal law really is something a state can do and potentially allow term limits for federal officials to move forward.)
As red state policy becomes federal law, it will be more and more difficult for blue states to maintain their independent policies. There is a narrow window while Republican legislators and the Republican judiciary has not fully internalized the polarity switch. During this time, Democrats can try to cement Federalism before Republicans realize they no longer need this issue.
My guess is that the time for Federalism has passed and that Democrats will convert to Federalism more slowly than Republicans convert away from it. I look forward to reading how the Supreme Court Justices and some of the more self-important partisan publications will justify their newly-found interests in the opposite sides of the Federalism debate.
The Senate leadership is pondering repealing the cloture requirement of 60 votes to close debate and stop a filibuster for judicial nominees. Cloture would be repealed not through a formal rule change, but through a clever finesse of the rules. The parliamentarian responsible for interpreting how the rules apply would simply invalidate the cloture rule. This would be challenged and the rule would need 51 votes to keep it at that point assuming Dick Cheney is against.
The Senate Democrats have warned that they will bring all business to a halt in the Senate were this to occur. This is credible, but in turn may be finessed with something even more drastic.
Here is a new option–call it a thermonuclear option–that would allow the Senate to switch to a new majoritarian mode and continue to function. A member would call a point of order saying that none of the rules are in order because they had not been approved by a majority of the current members. The parliamentarian would rule that yes, after over 200 years of precedent, the original Senators clearly made a mistake in assuming that Senate rules bound future Senates. The majority could then go on to adopt any rules they want. This could allow it to continue to function without the participation of any Democrats.
Cloture should be an issue that cuts across party lines. If the Senate repealed cloture on all legislation, the House would have equal say in all matters for a change. This would be a big boon to states like California, New York and Texas that are highly underrepresented in the Senate. Democrat Senators from all States that have nine or more Representatives in the House should be in favor.
The flip side of course is that small state Senators should be opposed. There are many more small state Senators than large state Senators. For this reason, cloture is unlikely to ever be repealed without a massive buyout transferring money from large states to small to compensate them for the lost pork in future years. Even cloture removal just for judicial nominations would be a critical weakening of small state power.
While I like supermajoritarianism in general, I have not been a fan of supermajority requirement in the Senate and a simple majority requirement in the House. This systematically bleeds money from big states to small states. While perhaps a sensible policy during colonization, now it is just a pork fest. Arnold Schwarzenegger made that point after getting elected. My question is, “Why has the House not imposed its own 60% cloture requirement to balance the power in the Senate?”
More on legislative power can be found in “The Senate: An Institution Whose Time Has Gone?” in The Journal of Law and Politics, 1997.