Saturday randoms

That sheriff in Arizona that’s blaming Rush Limbaugh for the shooting down there is a crappy cop. James Taranto criticizes the sheriff, but is forced to admit that, "in May he [i.e. the sheriff] contributed an op-ed piece to The Wall Street Journal opposing Arizona’s immigration law." I started laughing this morning while I was reading that. Apparently the only the sheriff that the WSJ could find in all of Arizona to write a pro-immigration op-ed is a crappy cop and a raging lefty. Taranto doesn’t seem to see an irony.

I can’t resist picking on Matthew Yglesias a bit:

  • Liberals actually seem to think that conservatives oppose the New Deal. I oppose the New Deal – no modern politicians do. The last Presidential nominee who opposed the New Deal (i.e. the last one that I would have considered voting for) was Wendell Wilkie. Also, liberals can’t complain that conservatives want to end the New Deal and that they aren’t serious about cutting government spending.
  • In this post, Yglesias tries on the formalist position. He suggests, "Right now, if you’re over 65 in America and you have a health problem, you’re entitled to have the federal government pay for your treatment. These treatments are often expensive, and are also often a pain-in-the-ass to undergo. What if in addition to being entitled to get the treatment you were also entitled to just pocket the money. Maybe at the margin you’d rather have a vacation in Paris and a shorter life than spend more time in the hospital." I couldn’t agree more. How long would Medicare last if relatively wealthy people were taking taxpayer subsidized trips to France? Not long I suspect. The truth can be a bitch.

Peace Corp workers seem to get raped a lot. Who would have thought?

Pregnancy and demographics in high school.

Dennis Mangan explains freegold.

George Will opines on limiting the power of the bureaucracy – unfortunately, he doesn’t have much to say that’s interesting.

OneSTDV explains the meaning of "civility," "In other words, the call for ‘civility’ is nothing more than a call for surrender to the liberal zeitgeist."

One way or another someone could make a lot of money by betting on municipal securities (perhaps via HYD?). If it runs down much further, I might go in on the assumption that municipals would get bailed out somehow. However, I certainly understand arguments for shorting high-yield munis.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Saturday randoms

  1. icr says:

    Willkie was a POS:
    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/01/050801crbn_brieflynoted3
    “In June, 1940, in Philadelphia, a remarkable thing happened in American politics: Wendell Willkie, a forty-eight-year-old utility executive who had never held office, won the Republican nomination for President, defeating the isolationists Robert Taft and Thomas Dewey. Willkie was something of a liberal in a party that hated the New Deal—a true uniter in a time of enormous division—and he supported Franklin Roosevelt’s foreign policy”
    (…)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Republican_National_Convention#Dark_Horse.2C_Well_Executed_British_Influence_Operation.2C_Or_a_Combination.3F
    “Using a variety of archival sources Thomas Mahl cogently argues Willkie’s nomination was a result of British influence operations. Sam Pryor likely colluded with the British Security Coordination and served as an important British agent of influence during the 1940 Republican convention by taking over as head of the convention committee when the original committee head, Ralph Williams, slipped and injured himself. Pryor’s objective was to nominate Wendell Willkie, who had never held political office and was a registered Democrat until September 1939, as the 1940 Republican presidential candidate.”

    “Pryor allegedly aided Willkie by staging a pro-Willkie crowd, reducing ticket allotments to non-Willkie delegations, and preventing former President and current candidate Herbert Hoover from delivering what people expected to be a rousing isolationist speech. Willkie’s success obtaining the nomination ensured FDR would not have to worry about the election because Willkie lacked any significant popular support. Willkie’s nomination was important to Britain because no other Republican candidate would have adopted FDR’s foreign policy for his campaign, which would have likely prevented FDR from providing Britain with destroyers for basing rights and from implementing a peacetime draft [1]”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: