ArchPundit

Instapundit has nice words for

ArchPundit September 23, 2002 0 Comment

Instapundit has nice words for Counterspin Central’s Hesiod. The question I have is about this comment:
“That puts him head and shoulders above most of the anti-war critics. And most of the anti-war Democrats in Congress.”

But what serious critics is Glen talking about? Chomsky and gang can hardly be called serious. Congress has been largely avoiding the issue and I’m always confused by the strange notion that those opposed to the war are a monolith. I’m for the war, but most of the discussions I see breakdown into several categories; the looney left of people like Cockburn, skeptics of the truthfullness and timing of the administration, deterrence advocates, and multilateralists who aren’t even necessarily anti-war, but for going slow getting there. Of the four categories, Cockburn, Chomsky and the other fruitcakes are the smallest group and the least influential.

It seems many of the warbloggers are arguing against boogeymen most of the time that aren’t the real resistance out there. Zell Miller has voiced this the best by describing the discussions he had at home with some generally pretty conservative folks who are skeptical of this upcoming war. The real resistance isn’t the loony left, but people in the heartland who need to be convinced it is necessary. They are maybe not the best informed of us, but their skepticism is the same skepticism that the Founders had regarding overseas entanglements. The evidence of this is those who are voicing concerns. Jim Leach, Mark Kirk and other moderate Republicans are concerned about what is going on and not because they are wimps or leftist fruitcakes, but because their constituents are concerned.

Kaus has officially lost it.

ArchPundit September 22, 2002 0 Comment

Kaus has officially lost it. Not only is the article inane, it specifically distorts the debate over immigrants and welfare. The defect in the reform was that permanent residents were denied benefits. As Alan Sympson, no flaming liberal put it, these people are practically citizens and the fruitcakes in Congress who tried to limit their benefits are stupid if they didn’t undersand that.

Kaus, who does not have the excuse of stupidity, knows that is what the debate was over, but apparently doesn’t care. For a guy who used to be interesting, he is increasingly becoming a crank. Perhaps editing is what helped him and Sullivan be interesting.

Let’s stipulate that I need

ArchPundit September 22, 2002 0 Comment

Let’s stipulate that I need to get a life right off the bat. It is after midnight and I found a very interesting article while randomly going through blogs. Via Virginia Postrel I found this very good article on the evalution of different species under the Endangered Species Act.

Fellow environmentalists hate me when I bring up these subjects because, generally, they don’t have much of a grounding in economics. Ultimately though we do place values on all life. I actually think that if we force a valuation to be stated, most folks would be appalled by the amount we spend protecting children or endangered species. Opposition is very strong often for the reasons that Coursey ably mentions. Many refuse to put a dollar amount explicitly on life. The problem is we do put a value on it by how much we spend to protect it and explicitly stating that cost is essential in a society of scarce resources (for those less economically inclinded–all societies have scarce resources).

I’ll stop on the points because Coursey has obviously taken more time to develop the argument and you might as well read him.

There is anotehr interesting point in the article. In discussing his research, the reporter’s efforts to get a good story got in the way of reporting the findings. From Coursey’s description she kept trying to draw a conclusion that wasn’t necessarily warranted regarding the value of the Florida Panther. Even despite his best efforts she couldnt’ grasp the work was preliminary and it wasn’t necessarily normative. Certainly, we want to use social science to draw normative conclusions, but a positivist paper in itself is not adequate to make such conclusions.

Much of what we read in the press is dumbed down and interpreted far beyond what the work says. Often, this leads to Limbaugh and others ridiculing real research because, not only do they not understand it, it was even presented in context of the question.

Roesser fires, aims ready into

ArchPundit September 21, 2002 0 Comment

Roesser fires, aims ready into the circlular fire squad that is the Illinois Republican Party. Actually, the most recent numbers suggest the Dems aren’t going to sweep. Topinka is leading Dart and Madigan is in a tight race with Birkett. Then again, more talk like this and Rs aren’t going to turnout. This seems to be driving the most recent results in the 19th where Phelps surprisingly has a slight lead.

Roesser than makes some rather telling comments about homosexuality.

“School sports teams objecting to homosexual or transsexual behavior may be barred from participating in the state’s interscholastic sports. State workers with homosexual partners can receive equivalent benefits for partners at state expense; nonprofit groups such as the Boy Scouts of America may be fined up to $150,000 for refusal to hire homosexuals. ”

The first sentence is hard to figure–I’m guessing it means a school’s sports team can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation. I see no problem with this as long as there is some flexibility on religious ground. Anyone know if California allows for thisl?

I see no reason why state workers with same sex partners shouldn’t get the same rights as I have with my wife. And in Illinois, G-Ry has suggested he is open to such rules even. That is a moderate position. I’m guessing the fines are related to if the non-profits are working with state agencies and then we have long held that states may enforce non-discrimination with partnering organizations.

More importantly, Roesser demonstrates the circling fire squad isn’t learning a lesson from this year. Why have the Republicans controlled the Governorship for 26 years? Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, and G-Ry are moderates of sorts. Thompson (with questions about his orientation rampant) never race or gay baited. Neither did Edgar. G-Ry did back in the good ‘ole days when he was shooting down the ERA, but has since turned into a social moderate on everything, but abortion. The Republicans haven’t won because they are pure conservatives. They have won because they aren’t Chris Lauzen, CPA, O’Malley, Al Salvi or Gary Bauer.

Who is going to win this year? Topinka–a moderate Republican woman from the ‘burbs. Who should be the future of the R’s if they want to win? Topinka and those like her. Who are the R’s likely to turn to? O’Malley and the jihad wing. Who is going to win state elections for a long time if that happens? The Dems.

The Illinois Republican Party can be right squared (meaning ideologically pure and conservative) or they can choose to be competitve. The most successful Rs in the last 26 years are telling them how, but will they listen to Thompson, Edgar, and G-Ry? Or will they delude themselves into believing ideological purity will somehow win over an increasingly liberal state?

This is an interesting view

ArchPundit September 21, 2002 0 Comment

This is an interesting view of what starting it means. First, no one but hoosier 1 and hoosier 2 saw anything of the sort. Second, generally one doesn’t ‘start it’ by having one’s back turned, doing one’s job, and being tackled in front of 10,000 fans.

History vs. Development and unfortunately

ArchPundit September 21, 2002 0 Comment

History vs. Development and unfortunately it appears that that development may win. What exactly does a nation do when it loses its history?

Via Welch, Laura Crane takes

ArchPundit September 21, 2002 0 Comment

Via Welch, Laura Crane takes environmental groups to task here and is correct.

One of the more amusing stories I’ve heard from some Earth Scientist types is Al Gore going out and overreaching on global warming. After he finished James Hansen came on and essentially corrected most of the speech. Hansen is an example of a real scientist and environmentalist who is serious and offers the information up in a manner that allows one to calculate the risk. Most of the environmental groups have resorted to screeds unfortunately. I pretty turn off anything from the NRDC and even treat claims from groups like the EDF with some skepticism.

The traditionally moderate groups have started to become more partisan in recent years. Audobon, a traditional bastion of Republican conservationists, has started to really take on harder issues and become less pliant. EDF actually links to an article that I think is unfair to the administration here.

The administration seems to be changing policy because the Court has forced it too. While I don’t trust this administration, I don’t know that they have a choice in this case.

What does this mean? Lowry and Shippan, in a recent paper, argue that the parties have diverged on the environment normed across time. It seems logical then that the environmental groups become more rabid as well. If the distance widens, keeping control of policy becomes more important and doing that requires scaring people in elections.

They no longer have influence in both parties and so there is no incentive to moderate themselves. The EDF still talks about market incentives, but it largely treats everything the administration says as suspect. This is a natural consequence of having the Republican Party becoming terribly hostile to any environmental initiatives. Boehlert may still be around, but so what–he is marginalized in his own party.

The challenge for environmental groups is to remain relevant in such an environment and to remain relevant, they must rely on solid science. The Skeptical Environmentalist isn’t taken too seriously except by those who want to believe it. That will change if environmental advocates trade in their trustworthiness for short-term political gains. James Hansen should be the model.

Gephardt takes a swing and

ArchPundit September 21, 2002 0 Comment

Gephardt takes a swing and gets a base hit. Some highlights:

“A lot of his verbiage is loose, unhelpful and not appropriate,” Gephardt said in an hourlong session with Post-Dispatch editorial writers and reporters.”

“It is sensible for the president to give the speech he gave at the U.N. the other day,” the congressman said. “I frankly wish he’d made it six months ago.”

My reactions are:
1) Thanks Dick, where were you 6 months ago? Holding his feet to the fire? Not well enough.

2) He seems to have read the New Republic article on the Dems needing to get their act together. He makes a coherent policy statement supporting action while differentiating himself from the Bumbler in Chief.

3) This man cannot be the nominee–he won’t win. I like him and he is one of the most honest men in government. He isn’t going to capture enough swing votes and for me, he is too protectionist.

And one more. They have

ArchPundit September 21, 2002 0 Comment

And one more. They have collected the articles on coalbed methane which is quickly becoming the industrial hog farm issue of the west. Amazingly, energy companies have found how to get environmentalists and ranchers together.

Going to HCN for the

ArchPundit September 21, 2002 0 Comment

Going to HCN for the trifecta is a little older of an article on the Navajo potentially using smaller trees for Homebuilding. This seems like it could provide jobs in clearing brush, building and then housing at lower rates than HUD does.