Friday, June 28, 2013

How many recess appointments would a recess appointer appoint if a recess appointer could re-recess appoint recess appointees?

With no pro forma session in this recess, the President should immediately issue an order re-recess appointing all of his current recess appointments. That way if the Supreme Court were to invalidate his currently serving recess appointees in the Noel Canning case on the basis that the pro forma sessions meant there wasn't really a recess, those appointees' appointments would only be invalid up until the re-recess appointment.

UPDATE: Weigel says it isn't true, that the House never adjourned, which will mean it will not technically be in recess. Considering that only the Senate confirms nominees, I'm not sure why a recess in the House would matter. But Weigel thinks it does, and so do the Republican members of the House and Senate that he checked in with, so maybe it does.

(via Tripp on FB)

If only we could find a way to harness the power of "fuck you, liberals!"

You smart Liptak!!!

Adam Liptak at the NTY:
The more meaningful way to look at the court is as a movie, one starring Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. as a canny strategist with a tough side, and his eyes on the horizon. He is just 58 and is likely to lead the court for another two decades or more.
Is that really true? The average life expectancy for a male in the U.S. is  between 75.35 and 75.92 (depending on which study you look at). I believe those are averages of all people, which means it includes everyone who died prior to age 58, something that Justice Roberts obviously has not done. So the applicable average for him is probably a bit higher. According to the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables, the average time that a 58 year old male has left is 22.82 years. Plus, Supreme Court justices probably get the best medical care that this country offers, so Roberts' actual expectancy might be a bit higher.

So yeah, Liptak is right.  Odds are, Roberts will spend another two decades on the court unless he decides to retire.

(When I started writing this post I didn't think he would be right. So much for my "you stupid Liptak!!!" idea. Somethings the evidence just doesn't bear out the original concept for a post. But after I went through all the trouble of looking this shit up--all to make a fairly minor point about a barely relevant detail in an article that focuses on something else--I might as well post it. So I am.)

Thursday, June 27, 2013

SuperDavis



I find it remarkable how well a Taiwanese animation group can represent American politics. Did Wendy Davis' filibuster make that many waves internationally? I mean, it was an amazing feat, even though it is pretty clear that her efforts will ultimately fail.


Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Conflict with all of Central Asia?

I accidentally discovered the existence of Conflict Kitchen this morning. It sounds like an interesting place.

I also found this job advertisement, but I was puzzled by the list of preferred languages. Is there some conflict with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Turkey that I never heard of? (I'll give them Uzbek, Tajik and Turkmen on the theory that they are all minority languages in Afghanistan)

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Aren't you a lawyer? Why no law-talk?!?!

Yeah, I realize all the kool blogs are talking about Supreme Court opinions today. As I think I've mentioned a few times before, I'm much less likely to write a blog post saying what I see a lot of other people saying. I mean, what's the point? Others will probably say it better and will definitely have a bigger megaphone than I will ever have on this humble site. I just don't have much urge to join in the pile-on even when I totally agree with the pile-oners.

In any case, in terms of my day-to-day work1, this is the most significant Supreme Court action this week. And that will remain true even if the Court orders everyone to get gay married tomorrow.
----------------------------
1- Look, extremely rare reference on this site to my actual job!!! I think I haven't done that since ought-four.


Probably not what they intend

I gotta agree with Dave Weigel. The face on this shirt does remind me of Lady Cassandra.


"For reasons of safety, it is not planned for the torch to be lit"

If it's not lit, doesn't that undermine much of the point for this stunt? I mean, it won't really be the "longest Olympic torch rally" because the rally is about carrying the flame from Olympus, Greece (the site of the ancient Olympics) to wherever the current games will be played.

If you count the travels of the unlit torch as part of the rally, then you should really start counting miles from the moment the torch is manufactured. As far as I can tell, no one ever does that.


"We'll be the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall"


John McCain is bragging about his efforts to make the U.S. border patrol into the infamous Grenztruppen der DDR. Hurray for gunning down people just trying to make a better life for themselves!

(via MatthewB on FB)


Losing the plot

The entire IRS scandal is the allegation that the agency subjected conservative groups to greater scrutiny because of their politics. It's not the greater scrutiny that made it wrong (the IRS is allowed to investigate whether tax laws are broken), it's the fact that the agency might have treated people differently because of their politics.

So the fact that the IRS also went after groups with liberal words in their name doesn't mean the scandal has any greater scope, it means there is no scandal. If the IRS went after groups all along the political spectrum that's fine. In fact, that's the IRS's job. Those kind of searches may have been "inappropriate" under the agency's internal rules, but it completely diffuses the original scandal. I mean, I originally thought this one was real. But because the political-driven targeting allegation is not holding up, I don't think it is anymore.

Not that any of that will deter continued scandal wankery over this one. If Benghazi is any guide, there doesn't have to be a there there for scandal mania.


Monday, June 24, 2013

WWZ

All the criticism of the movie has made me want to read World War Z. It really does seem like it's much more up my alley than the zombie book I imagined it to be.

No Showden

While I personally think the whole "Snowden is a traitor/Snowden is a hero" debate is silly, it's hilarious how he lured a bunch of reporters onto the Moscow to Havana flight and then didn't show up. Apparently, the reporters didn't realize he wasn't there until the cabin doors closed and they were trapped on board. That's a 12 hour and 40 minute flight! And then they will be in Cuba, and not wherever Snowden is.

I wonder if he's even going to Ecuador? (but I hope he is, because I sort of called it weeks ago). Also, cue conspiracy speculation.

ADDING: It gets even funnier, the reporters trapped on the Moscow to Havana can't have alcohol and they are required to stay in Cuba for three days.


Saturday, June 22, 2013

Glennzilla on the charges against Snowden

I don't agree with Glenn Greenwald as much as I used to, but he's 100% right about the charges that have been brought against Snowden. Charging him under the Espionage Act is totally ridiculous, especially considering that he didn't actually engage in any espionage even though he had ample opportunity to.

ADDING (6/24/2013): also this.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Wow



(via B2)

Not a strike

So how would this strike work exactly? As I said almost a decade ago, the whole gay marriage debate is not over whether gay marriages will occur. Gay people were holding marriage ceremonies and throwing parties before any jurisdiction in the nation viewed them as a legal marriage. The gay marriage social phenomenon exists independently of the political issue, and that phenomenon will continue to exist even if conservatives somehow reverse the tide of history and outlaw gay marriage everywhere. The gay marriage political issue is about whether the unions are legally recognized. That is, how the government will treat people after the ceremony is over.

And that's what is at stake in both Supreme Court cases. The DOMA case is over whether the federal government can deny the benefits of marriage to people who are legally married in the state they live. The Proposition 8 case is over whether a state violates the equal protection clause of the constitution when it denies legal recognition to same sex marriage when it recognizes opposite sex marriage. Both are about government recognition of same sex unions. If both cases come down "against gay marriage" they won't stop people from having same-sex commitment ceremonies, throwing parties, and calling them marriages.

A strike is when a group of people withhold something (usually their labor) in an attempt to change a policy or practice. So how will conservative activists go on strike if they don't like the Supreme Court ruling? What will they withhold for their strike. They would be able to withhold government recognition, because they are not the government. They can ignore the ruling if they want, but that won't have any practical consequence and thus is not what is normally known as a strike.

Most Americans ignored last month's "defalcation" ruling, but I wouldn't call them on strike over it. And even if it were, it has had zero effect on challenging the validity of that ruling.


A prisoner exchange is no way out of the Gitmo mess

I don't see how the U.S. government could possibly agree to free five Guantanamo prisoners with actual ties to the Taliban, while continuing to imprison the remaining majority that the U.S. military has concluded should be released.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Exercising my magical predictive powers

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the U.S. will impose sanctions on Uzbekistan for human trafficking, but waive them for Russia and China.


Tourists care more about being shot than sanctions on financial instutitions and against weapons shipments

Among the causes listed in this article for the Syrian Pound's plummeting value:
Western sanctions that have collapsed Syria’s main money-earning industries of oil and tourism
uh, I don't think that sanctions are the reason that tourists aren't going to Syria. And I say that as someone who, until 2 years or so ago, was a fairly big booster of Syrian tourism. I personally recommended to several people that they visit there, because it really was a great place to visit.

In fact, the sanctions that were in effect in 2005 had no effect on my trip, other than the brief pre-trip anxiety mentioned in this post. If not for the violence, I would still be plugging the virtues of Syria as a place to visit. It really had a lot going for it: a lot of diversity, fantastic ruins from several different ancient civilisations, super-safe while at the same time perceived as being really dangerous (thus giving you bonus cool points for going), it's a great place to practice Arabic (if you're into that sort of thing), and the cost of everything there was really cheap. Sure, I had to keep the ew-jay thing under my hat, but otherwise, it was one of my best trips.

And now watching that all being destroyed. (Except for the cheapness.With the pound cratering, I'm sure you can get some great deals). I know that being ruined as a nice place to visit is way down the list of tragedies going on in Syria right now. But I still mourn the loss whenever Syria comes up in my life, like every time that I look at my phone.


Wednesday, June 19, 2013

"Untruthful," even in the least bit, is still lying

It has been a week and I was in vacation mode for most of that time, but I have not seen anyone call for James Clapper to be prosecuted. Lying to Congress is a crime.

It's rarely prosecuted even though people probably do lie to Congress as often as they lie under oath in the cases I am involved with, because it can be difficult to prove they actually intended to say something untruthful.  But Clapper presents a clear cut case. Last March, Senator Wyden asked Clapper "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" and Clapper responded, "No, sir... Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

It's clear now that Clapper knew that was false. In fact, Clapper has all but acknowledged that he lied, calling his answer the "least untruthful manner" to answer the question. Which is also not true. Even if we assume that Clapper had a legitimate interest in not disclosing the program in an open session of a Congressional committee, the least untruthful manner without making a disclosure would be to not answer the question.

Lying to Congress is still a crime. There is no exception for testimony given by the Director of National Intelligence (nor should there be). Clapper should be prosecuted. If he is not, then why should we believe any of this stuff?


Tuesday, June 18, 2013

"live pack swap"

Tesla is totally stealing my idea. I wonder how they deal with the "all batteries aren't created equal" problem?

the real conflict-of-interest

One of the main conservative arguments against public sector labor unions is that because unions lobby the same governments that their members work for, it creates a kind of conflict of interest. (For example, here and here and here). The exact same argument can be used against privatization of government services. And unlike labor unions which are governed by people elected by the membership, government contractors are non-democratically governed for-profit entities, with even more incentive to soak the public coffers. So the conflict of interest is actually many many times worse.

And that's why, as good of an idea it would be to make spies government employees again, it will never actually happen. That $56 billion dollar industry will make sure it doesn't.


Burns a building down, splits a family in two, puts people on the streets

It's worth noting that the "heavy pressure" came from a relatively small number of Washington insiders who are pretty squarely out of touch with the American people.

Which makes caving to the pressure all the more stupid.


Thursday, June 13, 2013

Mount Royal

I've been to Montreal several times before. But before this trip, I really had not spent much time in any other parts of Quebec, other than a few childhood trips to a ski resort in the Laurentian Mountains where everyone spoke English. In prior visits to Montreal, I have always been struck by how French the city is. Now that I've come back after spending time in other places in the Provence. I'm struck by how Anglo it is.

A day or two into a visit to any non-English speaking place, hearing English being spoken becomes something really noticeable. I can be in a crowded cafe with everyone talking. But if someone within earshot is talking in English it jumps out at me. And then when I come back home there's that brief transition period, where every conversation I hear jumps out at me. It doesn't take long before I acclimate and my brain stops reacting at the background sounds of my native tongue.

The weird thing is that's already happening now in Montreal. I took a walk earlier today shortly after we arrived and kept noticing all the English speakers around me. Now I'm in a cafe a few hours later and I realize that I have started ignoring the background English. It probably has a lot to do with the neighborhood we are staying in, but it's funny to feel the adjustment start with three days left before we go home.


Choo-Chooing West



clearing a very low bar

Via Rail's free wifi is much better than Amtrak's.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Hong Kong? Phooey!

I also think that Hong Kong was an odd choice. I guess it's not a terribly difficult flight from Hawaii, but neither is Australia and New Zealand, and I would go for those places before Chinese territory if I were him. Actually, I would guess the best choice would be Ecuador.

But what do I know? When he planned this out, this guy knew a lot more than I ever will about what the U.S. government is and isn't able to do when they're looking for someone.


Sunday, June 9, 2013

Canada

Every time that I visit Canada I am struck by how weird the average American's relationship with Canada is. Unless they happen to live near the border, I suspect that Canada barely enters into the consciousness of most Americans. And yet, there's this massive country right next to ours. Sure, it has a small population relative to the U.S., but a lot of famous people in the U.S. are Canadian. There certainly is the potential for it to come up on a regular basis. But for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to pierce the consciousness of most of the American public.

A few months ago an old friend, an American who now lives in Australia, visited us. She brought her Aussie girlfriend with her and at one point the girlfriend mentioned the constant rivalry between Australia and New Zealand. "It's probably like the U.S. and Canada," she said, explaining. "No, it's not," piped up our friend. "In Australia I hear about New Zealand all the time, but when I lived in America, Canada barely came up. Canada isn't a rival to the U.S., at least not to Americans. It's absent." That's what I'm talking about. And that's why Canada as a mental concept to an American is so weird.

The existence of Quebec makes it odder still. While Anglo Canada could be dismissed as a cultural extension of American society, it's much harder to think of the French Canadians that way. When I am here, it certainly feels like I am in a foreign country, much moreso than when I visit Ontario or British Columbia (both of which really do feel like an extension of American, although with noticeably cleaner cities). What makes it strange is that this foreign land is so close, and yet so absent from the average United Statesian's mind. Even with the massive ego that comes with American exceptionalism, it's hard to see how so many of us manage to keep it up.

I'm not sure if I'm adequately expressing what I'm trying to get at here. But I'm giving it a shot.

Saturday, June 8, 2013

The mysterious economics of overbooking in the airline industry

I don't understand the economics of overbooked flights. Before today, I thought I got the basic idea--airlines are trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of a flight. So if a plane has 50 seats, and all 50 are sold but three people (for whatever reason) don't show up for the flight, the airlines view that as a loss because they could have sold those three empty seats to someone else. Never mind that they sold fifty seats for a fifty seat aircraft. The airline thinks, "yeah, but we could have sold 53 seats for that 50 seater!" And so, to capture those three hypothetical seats, they sell more seats than there are on planes and then figure if too many people show up they will just shuffle them to another flight with unsold seats, with the net result being more seats overall paid for.

But that logic doesn't hold when you add in the money that the airlines pay out to people who pay for tickets but find they have to fly later on an overbooked flight, or the incentives they offer passengers on overbooked flights to give up their seats if a flight is overbooked.

Take what happened to the noz clan today: we had tickets for the three of us (Mrs. Noz, Noz Jr. and I) to fly to Quebec City. The flight was overbooked, and when we showed up, I was assigned the last seat on the plane, with Mrs. Noz and Noz Jr. bumped to standby. They made an announcement asking for volunteers for people who were willing to give up their seat in exchange for a new itinerary on a later flight plus a $425 voucher. There were no takers. Because I was not willing to fly ahead of the others, all three of us missed the flight. Instead of taking three seats on a single direct flight, we took three seats on an itinerary with a connection, which meant we took three seats on two separate flights. They also gave us a $425 voucher for a future flight, to be used within one year, plus cash (well, two checks) totalling $2600.00.

So while they sold an extra two seats on our original flight when they overbooked it, they ended up paying us significantly more than we paid for our original ticket cost, plus we took up a total of six seats in their network, rather than just three. Yes, we made a profit off of our original round trip purchase, and that was from only using the first half of the round-trip itinerary. How did overbooking possibly benefit the airline in this case? Actually, everyone lost. Never mind the windfall, I think we would have had a happier day if we hadn't had our first vacation day flushed down the toilet by a greedy airline. It's even more infuriating because it seems that the airline was so bad at being greedy. I mean, if you're going to fuck people over to make more money, you should at least make sure that you will actually make more money. 


Tiger Woods is chasing me to Canada



I'm off to the Northlands to escape golf. Also to find the mythical Maison Canadienne de la Pizza et les Ordures, to try a pizza squishee, and to see whether the money really does smell like maple syrup.

Oh and to maybe just to relax and not worry about all that bullshit for a week or so until the madness in my neighborhood passes. I won't say that I won't blog from there because, well, I probably will. Jusqu'à ce que plus tard...

inevitable

Well sure, if they're monitoring most internet traffic and telephone data, of course they will find the leak. He/she must have communicated with Brian Gellman somehow. If nothing else, I bet the first contact was via the telephone or email.

Friday, June 7, 2013

PRISM

I agree with Scott Lemieux, the PRISM program is a lot worse than the Verizon order that leaked out earlier. PRISM is worse because intercepted the content of messages, not just data about the messages. I also think it's worse because I'm not sure that it is legal. As I mentioned before, the court order requiring Verizon to turn over data about its customers is legal under the 2008 FISA amendments.It's less clear to me whether this PRISM data mining is.

If it is legal, the system is pretty broken. Essentially all three branches of government are now working together to rob people of privacy. It's a total failure of the checks and balances system, Which makes it all the more depressing. We used to have laws against this kind of thing. But then the Bush administration was caught breaking them. Rather than enforcing the law, Democrats and Republicans worked together to legalize the conduct. I just don't see any chance of it getting any better.

UPDATE: It looks like section 215 of the Patriot Act is the basis for the PRISM program.

UNDOF watch

With Austria out, that leaves just India and the Philippines. And the Filipinos are also considering a pullout (as I mentioned last month).

I don't see how a peacekeeping force that used to be staffed by forces from five nations can survive with just one. If UNDOF goes, I'm not sure what will happen.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

House Republicans trying to kill the dream


I don't understand how Congress can cut off funding for the decision to not initiate deportation proceedings against a person. Deportation proceedings and actually deporting people cost money. Not initiating those proceedings and not shipping those individuals to a foreign country doesn't.

I guess they are cutting off funding of the review process to figure out who fits within the executive order. If the house measure actually passes the Senate (and it won't), the White House could just respond by relaxing the standards of its policy so they don't have to spend any money figuring out if the possible deportee graduated high school, served in the military, or have a criminal record. Is that what Steve King wants?


I hope they enjoy that list of all my stupid calls

Call me a cynic, but is this really news to anyone? Ever since the 2008 FISA amendments passed (with then-Senator Obama's support, much to his disgrace) which legalized this kind of sweeping data collection, I have been assuming the government has been gathering these kinds of records all the time.

I'm not trying to minimize what the Obama administration is doing. As Booman said, he took the law and he ran with it. My outrage-o-meter was primed about this stuff back in 2008 when Congress shamefully tried to retroactively legalize the Bush administration's illicit surveillance program. We lost. The law was changed and what had been a clear criminal act no longer is. I still think government shouldn't be allowed to do stuff like this, but under current law it can. If I thought the current revelation might prompt a movement to repeal the 2008 amendments, that would be something. But I don't think it will because the GOP doesn't really have a problem with this program. So there is no opposition to take on the administration on this issue and nothing will come of this.


killed by the bottomer line

At this point, I no longer think that immigration reform is going to pass Congress. Rubio's decision to vote against his own bill, plus the House Republicans insistence that immigrants should not be allowed to get health care supported by the tax dollars they will pay, have convinced me that my earlier cautious optimism was too optimistic.

What I thought was the bottom line--that the business community that funds both parties' campaigns really wants immigration reform, and that the GOP really needs to prove they aren't rabid immigrant haters if they want to win national elections in a country with a growing Hispanic population--did not take into account the bottomer line: that the GOP is currently being steered by a bunch of  ideological lunatics who aren't able or inclined to make such political calculations.

Maybe I'm wrong. There could still be a last-minute deal that saves immigration reform in some form or another. But given how it has played out so far, I just don't see how the same anti-immigrant forces that have prevented GOP leaders from agreeing to an immigration deal until now won't sink that hypothetical last-minute deal as well.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Qusayr falls

Assad now has his damascus-to-coast corridor. the big question is whether Hezbollah fighters go home (or remain garrisoned in Qusayr), or if they show up fighting with government forces against the new rebel front east of the Aleppo to Hama road. If Hezbollah is willing to go there, then the advantage really has shifted to Assad.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

the Wall Street Journal stands bravely against the all-powerful bike lobby

I had read others writing about the crazy lady in the below video, but it was only just now that I was finally able to watch it. It blows my mind that this is not a parody:




Monday, June 3, 2013

Now Featuring Capital Letters!

I started using all small letters in emails while I was in law school, probably because of laziness. I don’t actually remember how it started. But at some point I began thinking of my no-cap messages as a signal of informality. Unlike my law school work, which had to be, you know, all grammatical and shit, my personal email were supposed to be something I could dash off without worrying about typos or making much sense. (At one point I also decided I needed a personalized sign off to all of my emails, and I settled on “the and,” which I think started with a typo that I thought was funny. Then it wasn’t anymore, so “the and” went away.) My lack of capitalization in personal email carried on for years. When I became a law talkin’ guy it became an even more significant marker of the boundary between my personal life and my work.

That carried over into this blog. I did not want this blog ever infected with my work. It was very important to me to keep a mental barrier between legal writing and this site. Also, as this site is basically a waste of time vanity project, I didn't want to have to waste even more time and feel like I had to proof read what I write here. Especially in the beginning, there was something very liberating about writing a longish rant--which probably had a ton of easily correctable mistakes, but I wasn’t sure because I didn’t look--and then publishing it for the world to see without looking back.In my mind, not using caps was like an implicit tag of informality, like the “dictated but not reviewed” notations I would see on the bottom of letters written by lawyers decades ago, as if using those magic words makes whatever errors there are okay.

Of course, I’m not sure if anyone else ever understood that’s what the lack of capitalization meant to me. Only one person actually asked me why I did it, Mithras, years ago at drinking liberally. After I explained he said, “why don’t you write a post explaining that?” So I’m doing that now.

Sometimes not using caps caused problems. In the first year of the blog, I went to Uzbekistan and hitched rides across the country. Outside of Tashkent (the capital) all internet access was dial-up only. In fact, the dial-up was a long distance call to Tashkent where the only ISPs were located. It took an eternity to connect, navigate to blogger, log in, and then get to the page where I could type in my post. So when I started dialing in, I would open a word processor document and start writing the post as I waited for the modem to connect and everything to load. By the time the connection was established and the new post page was loaded, I would often have the whole post written. Then I would cut and paste it into the new post field, hit the publish button and then wait until it slowly published the post. The problem was the word processor program (once I switched it to English from Russian/Cyrillic mode) would automatically add in capitalizations. I knew there was probably a menu function in the Russian version of MS Word that I could use to automatically convert all the capital letters to lower case, but because the menu was in Russian, I couldn’t figure it out. One time I went through and manually removed all the caps from the post, a tedious effort and one that seemed contrary to the entire point of my no-cap rule. After that I didn’t bother. And a few posts went up with capital letters. (see e.g. this and that). Later in the trip, I figured out which option in the Russian menu would let me remove caps and so I went back to the no-cap normal.

Then I continued on my merry way until the rise of iOS and its autocorrect function. Since 2007, an increasing number of posts were written, or at least partially written, on my iPhone or my iPad. In each case, I had to manually override the autocorrect every time I did not capitalize something that should be capitalized. I also often missed my chance to manually override and would then have to go back and manually remove the capitalization in the post. It was, and still is, a major pain in the ass.

Once again, I was always aware that the extra effort was contrary to the reason I didn’t use capitalization in the first place. But unlike when I was on the Uzbekistan trip, my iOS autocorrection was not a temporary condition I would leave behind when I flew home. On the contrary, it’s likely to be the future. It still took me a few years of mulling it over, but eventually I decided to end my no capitalization rule for this blog.

The question was, how would I do it. Should I phase out capitalization, or do it all at once? And when should I start? Phasing it out actually raised too many questions (like what are the phases, exactly) and seemed to be creating more work for me enforcing the phasing out rules than just sticking with no-caps. So I went with all at once. And when should I start? How about my tenth blogiversary?

Except I don’t exactly know when that is. As I mentioned before long ago, I created this blog a few weeks before I began posting. I don’t even remember how many weeks that was. So the actual blogiversary is probably in May, or maybe April My first post, however, was on June 4, 2003.

And what a post it was! That’s why I’m calling today my tenth blogiversary. Happy blogiversary to me! As a present I’m giving myself capital letters. Or maybe that’s more of a present for my readers (yes, both of you). In any case, from this point forward I will capitalize words when capitalization is normally called for. So enjoy!

I have ten more years to decide whether I will go ALL CAPS effective June 4, 2023.

the and


i've never had a flight that bad and i've flown air mali

what it's like to be an airline passenger on a domestic flight in somalia.


party of the rich

a lot of liberal bloggers are linking to this politico write-up of the college republican national committee's report on why the GOP lost the youth vote in the 2012 election. and no wonder they are, there's a lot of good stuff in there!

according to the report, among the few republican policies that are actually popular with the next generation of voters are economic.  but the GOP still manages to blow it because they come across as a party that only gives a shit about the wealthy:
“Policies that lower taxes and regulations on small businesses are quite popular. Yet our focus on taxation and business issues has left many young voters thinking they will only reap the benefits of Republican policies if they become wealthy or rise to the top of a big business,” the report says. “We’ve become the party that will pat you on your back when you make it but won’t offer you a hand to help you get there.”
which is a nice contrast to this argument by john tamney, an editor at forbes, that the republican party should openly embrace the party of the rich label. yes, he appears to be serious. i guess he didn't hear about that CRNC report.