McCain Musings

Mark over at Decision '08 has this article up analyzing the results on his John McCain poll. Now, Mark's a McCain '08 man, and I'm not, so keep that in mind as you read my remarks. This was supposed to be a comment, but ran too long.

-The poll essentially asked what you'd do if John McCain were the Republican nominee in 2008. The winning answer choice was "wait and see the other nominees before deciding", with 32% of the vote. Call me crazy, but I'm not seeing where other nominees are going to arise, and this led to my rejection of this option. If McCain's the GOP nominee, what else is there to consider? It doesn't matter who the Democrats send up, I'm not going to vote for the Democrat. (Of course, if they send Mark Warner, I'll have to pray that George F. Allen is the Republican nominee. Otherwise, loyalty to Virginia could get very expensive from a political standpoint. I digress.)

I suppose he's talking about third parties, but you'd think that no Republican would consider them. Then again, I'm not accustomed to dealing with political "independents"; reversing Pauline Kael, all my friends vote Republican.¹ I'm simply not sure what that response choice means, which is why I ignored it.

-I'm pleased to note that my response, "hold my nose & vote for McCain" is the second choice, within the margin of error at 30%. Not that there was any actual error, but I'm trying to spin this.

For the reasons I ramblingly laid out in "The McCain Bakery", I would vote McCain if he were to be the nominee. I see it as part of the deal each Republican makes when he steps up to the voting booth in the primaries. Put simply, "In the primaries, you will work for your man, and I will work for my man. In the general election, we will work for our man." One of the things that I regard as important in the transition from primary to general election is the expression of party unity and so forth, which I generally define as the defeated candidates pledging support to, and campaigning on behalf of, the nominated candidate.²

In the context of the 2008 Presidential election, my theorem means that I will work to the very last for George F. Allen, assuming his candidacy. Once the Republican convention is over and a nominee is had, I will work for that nominee, whether it be John S. McCain or George F. Allen.³ I may not give the campaign equivalent of the last full measure of devotion---leave that to the winning candidate's loyalists---but I will certainly try to find an articulable reason to carry the flag for the GOP nominee.

Just because your man isn't the lead locomotive doesn't mean that he's not needed somewhere else in the train.

----

¹ That's not actually the truth, but it was too good of a line to pass up.

² I readily admit to, at one level, being horrified when reading what then-Governor George W. Bush said about how he, Bush, and his brother Jeb, would "sit on their hands" in Texas and Florida respectively if Steve Forbes were our party's nominee.

Sure I understand---it's Steve Forbes for crying out loud; I haven't liked that guy ever---but to read those words was not a positive event. Handing the country to Al Gore is such a mark of political unity, Junior. What was that about loyalty?

³ I've been called a party hack in the past for articulating this viewpoint, but I don't think it wrong for the party which I more or less line up with to expect me to support its candidates. I may not always agree with the candidates my party machinery in Virginia and the several States have selected, but I'm remarkably reliable in doing something for them, even if it was simply speaking a favorable word to close friends. I do, however, specifically reserve the right to gripe, moan, complain, and otherwise grouse as I see fit.

UPDATE: Mark's not a McCain man at this point in time. Says he: Oh, but Country Pundit, I'm not a McCain '08 man...I haven't declared my loyalty to any candidate yet (though if I had my choice so far, it would probably be Condi)...

I regret the error. Sorry 'bout that.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 732 words, total size 5 kb.

Our Man in Zimbabwe

Courtesy of comments in a post at Samizdata, I've found a correspondent that keeps track of what's going on down in Robert Mugabe's little African paradise.

The Zimbabwean Pundit covers things from (apparently) the capital of Zimbabwe, Harare.

Inasmuch as I'd like to see Africa clean itself up and get on the economic development bandwagon, the fate of Zimbabwe is interesting to me. The United Methodist Church in Virginia has talked about sending sewing kits---apparently a pet project of the western end's UMC bureaucracy---to the people of Zimbabwe. Me, I agree with some of the commenters in that Samizdata thread; better to send automatic weapons, ammunition, and instructions for the disposal of an odious leader. Ahem.

One harbors the notion, echoed by various sorts, that a well-placed TLAM or two dozen might be appropriate as the beginning of positive reform in that country. And no, I'm not interested in colonizing Zimbabwe, thank you. Like much of Africa, it's not worth the investment from a purely economic sense. (Jamming a thumb or two in the eye of the Red Chinese might, however, be worth it. We still owe them for that EP-3E.)

Instead, my interest in Zimbabwe comes from that rather basic human decency that suggests that people should not suffer from famine, war, and social upheaval of the sort commonly found in Africa. You see, I'd much rather that innocents held in thrall by a corrupt thugocracy not starve or perish, thank you. I don't see any theoretical reason why NATO or the UN shouldn't hold Mugabe accountable at the point of a bayonet.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Korans in the Can?

Recently, a friend of mine asked for my opinion on the so-called "abuses" of the Islamic text known as the Koran and why I wasn't writing about it here.

As Admiral J.T. Kirk will put it in about two hundred and eighty years, "Here it comes."

My opinion is best put it in the form of a question: Why is it that I'm supposed to suck it up every time that some half-wit artist slurs my faith on my dime, but yet I'm supposed to understand and approve of Islamist "rage" when there are allegations that maybe a copy of the Islamic central text got flushed? I sense a great dichotomy in the Force. Ahem.

I'm not writing about it because I don't care. A loathsome "artist" named Andres Serrano used Federal funds from the National Endowment for the Arts to create a work named "Piss Christ", wherein he filled a glass with his urine and then dipped a Roman Catholic crucifix into it.¹ There was of course outrage at this work, apparently led by Senators Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Alphonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.). Naturally, the defense was centered around "artistic freedom" and the like; those who opposed this blasphemous and vile work were labeled as neanderthals who wanted to crush the freedom of expression, or something like it.

It's been nearly twenty years, but I daresay that the New York Times et cetera were in the vanguard of those howling "oppression" because Helms et al suggested that perhaps the Federal dollar should not be spent on such things. The "artsy" types back in my home town certainly would have rallied in defense of the artist, because there's a hidden clause in the Constitution that says that art, so long as it is offensive to Christians, is always good. That which offends the public morality of Christians is good, if you will.²

The same controversy arose in the City of New York back in 1999, when Chris Ofili produced and exhibited a work that consisted of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, festooned with elephant manure. Then-NYC mayor Rudolph Guiliani publicly suggested that the grant for the Brooklyn Museum ought to be pulled. The American Civil Liberties Union of course swung into injunctive action, doing its evil best to defend this blasphemous work.³ Once again, the refrain was that Christians should get over it, that it's no big deal that two of the more central figures in the Christian pantheon are defaced for the sake of art. "Deal with it, you silly Christians! It's not important!"

It is with the memories of this in my mind that I approach the stories of Koranic desecration and the reports of rioting.⁴

Much has been said by a variety of people about how it is a great tragedy that the Islamic central text. This has come from curious quarters, indeed. The same quarters that would suggest that I, as a Christian, have no right to complain about the "Piss Christ" are now suggesting that the Koran deserves some sort of protection because a bunch of suspected terrorists and/or Islamist combatants consider it an important text. In other words, I am supposed to shudder with rage because a guard at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, might not have treated this text with appropriate deference.⁵

I think not.

If I'm supposed to applaud and genuflect my deeply held personal beliefs to the altar of artistic freedom when important aspects of my faith are tarred in the manner of Serrano and Ofili, then the "Arab street" can kindly do likewise. Therefore, I offer the following advice to the Department of Defense:

Find a Mason jar amongst the troops at Guantanamo Bay. Fill it with urine, then dunk the Koran. Dub it the "Piss Koran", and have someone claim it as their artistic work. Give them some money from the NEA, get some general officer to write a memo opposing it, and talk Sean Hannity & Bill O'Reilly into attacking the work on their national radio programs. I guarantee that within a day, the intelligentsia of this nation will be defending the right of our warrior artists to their artistic freedoms. Moreover, the inevitable riots in the Arab world will be met with a sneering "tut tut" from the opinion-makers on high. It will allow us to make use of previously unexploited resources in prosecuting the war effort, and I would think that such would be a good thing.

To rip off a quote from Admiral Motti, "Artistic freedom is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it."

----

This post was inspired by the following entry at SoxBlog. I really need to find that song he's referencing.

¹ Roman Catholic crucifixes in general (and this one in particular) consist of a representation of the cross along with a figure of Jesus Christ. This is of course different from those that Protestants would be more familiar with, which do not include a figure of Jesus Christ.

² Additional witness to this is born by the divergent reactions to Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. The former was hailed by the cultural elites, while the latter was reviled.

³ In the process of researching this piece, I ran across an article from Inkwell relating the story of how the work no longer exists, due to a fire in a storage house. Ha ha.

⁴ I am unmoved by riots in response to the so-called "desecration" of the Islamic central text. These people will riot for any thing at any time; they have effectively cried 'wolf' ten or fifteen too many times. In retrospect, I would suggest that the the Islamic demonstration probably lost its moral effectiveness some time around the publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. As P.J. O'Rourke (approximately) put it, "A book critical of Islam was written by an Indian national and published in the United Kingdom. Naturally, the demonstrators burned the American flag outside American embassies."

⁵ When news of this broke, I asked myself the following question: "If someone was trying to interrogate you, and urinated upon a copy of the King James Version, how would you respond?" After a few seconds, it occurred to me: "I'd shrug. If they want to go ahead and punch their tickets on the Express Elevator to Hell, then let them. Considering what I know about torture methods used on prisoners, that's pretty tame."

Posted by: Country Pundit at 02:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1085 words, total size 7 kb.

Robby Gordon, Round Two

Earlier, I posted an irate defense of Robby Gordon in relation to his remarks about potential competitive advantages enjoyed by Miss Danica Patrick, an IRL rookie contender and eventual fourth-place finisher in the 2005 Indianapolis 500. In the article, I linked to several posts by other publications, noting a) uniform negativity on the part of the posts and b) a "considerable level of ignorance when it comes to motorsports" on the part of "many" posters and commenters.

My remarks seem to have hit a nerve on the part of one of the named parties. Marc, of Full Throttle, stopped by and posted the following comment, reproduced in full:

I note you linked my site as uniformly negative (Full Throttle), I'll take slight issue with that.

Was I negative in how Gordon stated what he did? Yes, but not just because of this incident. He has a long history of making ill advised comments. So much so his sponsors have required contract language that protects them from Gordons occasional rantings.

I did generaly agree with the substance of what he said. I don't agree the advantage given is much to worry about. Example: You cite a fuel mileage advantage. Well where was it. Patrick ran low on fuel, turned down the boost and it cost her 2 positions in the final standings.

Advantage given by a 0.8 differential in qual speeds? That difference amounts to about 60 feet from the pole position and the outside of the fourth row, hardly significant.

And then there is this little shot given by you: "A lot of bloggers rallied to Ms. Patrick's defense, usually focusing upon ad hominem insults towards Mr. Gordon. Additionally, it seems that many posters and commenters display a considerable level of ignorance when it comes to motorsports"

Followed up by this: "The estimated number of turns involved in the Indianapolis 500 has been revised; the track is 2.5 miles long and the race is 500 miles; 200 laps are necessary. 200x4=800. I had previously estimated off the cuff that it was 500 laps in length, which would lead to the earlier 2,000. The error is regretted."

Regrettable? No it just shows how disengaged you are from Indy and the IRL in general.

That would be called pot-kettle-black.

And now, the response:

First off, I'd like to thank Marc for stopping by and commenting. Since I don't have any ad revenues, traffic and interaction is the payoff for this publication. Yee haw.

Secondly, I stand by my decision to count Marc's article as "negative". The clear text of the article is, to put it mildly, not complimentary of Mr. Gordon. A few choice selections:

-Because [Robby Gordon's] as dumb as a box of Vanilla Waffers!

-I guess it hasnÂ’t entered into this mental midgets mind that there is a minimum weight for Indy Cars. (The factual error regarding IRL weight policy was corrected and noted in a subsequent update.)

-But Gordon is still stuuuupid! (This was included in the update noting the real IRL weight policy.)

Somehow, I for whatever reason do not see Marc's 'general agreement' with what Mr. Gordon said. Perhaps it's buried somewhere in the box of vanilla wafers, like a Cracker Jack toy surprise.

As for Ms. Patrick's theoretical fuel economy advantage versus her actual performance (nearly running out of fuel, as things would have it) all I can say is that perhaps she didn't drive the thing intelligently. And yet she finished fourth. I would suggest that superior equipment and her unique competitive advantage would allow her a greater margin of error than would be available to the average driver, but that's a subject for the mathematicians, which I'm not.

With regards to the value of sixty feet, I suggest that Marc (and anyone else) ask Bobby Labonte if he'd like to have had an additional six feet at the 2005 Coca-Cola 600. You might not think that sixty feet matters in a race of several hundred miles, but it does: Sixty feet can be the difference between being unavoidably caught up in a wreck or slipping through unscathed. In motorsports, it's the little things that matter.

Marc also takes exception to my remarks regarding the ignorance of posters and commenters, noting with what I assume is glee the fact that I had made a mistake on the number of laps (and thus the number of turns) in the Indianapolis 500. My reply? "Come off it." In the flood of "Danica's hot; Robbie's fat!" posts and comments, I detected very few responses that addressed the substance of Mr. Gordon's remarks. It took considerable amounts of digging to find the Penske numbers quoted anywhere. I found, on the other hand, a lot of people throwing insults at Mr. Gordon.

I fail to see the equivalence between minor factual confusion and insults devoid of any grounding in motorsports. Asking "What does the '500' in 'Indianapolis 500' refer to, the number of miles it covers or the number of laps?" doesn't seem to be such a major problem, as opposed to people who line up to heap abuse on Robby Gordon, but would have a hard time distinguishing a Nextel Cup stock car from a Formula 1 machine. It's also worth noting that as far as factual (but corrected and openly admitted) errors go, Marc thought that fuel was counted in the IRL's weight calculation.

I don't consider his error to be significant either; it takes a certain level of knowledge of the sport to even get to the point where you worry about such errors. Furthermore, it's a good thing that he corrected the article, and openly said so, to boot. However, I think it worth noting by way of response to his criticism. I wonder if his error shows his 'disengagement' with Indianapolis and the Indy Racing League in general.

UPDATE: I found this post over at Catallarchy which goes in a slightly different direction, but make of it what you will. Thanks to the Cold Spring Shops for the pointer.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1010 words, total size 6 kb.

We're On The Map!

This just in: Comrade Commissar has seen fit to include this publication in his latest cartographic effort, seen here. This time, the map shows members of the Coalition of the Chillin'.

Your humble correspondent is pleasantly surprised to find his publication ensconced in the place once reserved for the city/empire of Trabzon. That being said, I'm wondering if I'm supposed to place any signficance in the particular location assigned to the publication; perhaps Comrade Commissar's trying to subtly send a message. Tee hee.

NB: It had occurred to me that Trabzon occupied a place perhaps similar to Gondor and Minas Tirith, holding back the evils of the foreign lands. Or perhaps not; I after all don't look a thing like Denethor and I don't have a palantir.

Much thanks to Comrade Commissar.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Revenge of the Star Wars Quizzes

This one, from Ryan James:

You scored as Darth Vader. Which Revenge of the Sith Character are you? created with QuizFarm.com

Tee hee.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Putting the 'Country' in 'Country Pundit'

Friends and neighbors, your humble correspondent is a life-long fan of the old television program, The Dukes of Hazzard. Heck, who wouldn't be? Fast car, good hearts, "two modern-day Robin Hoods", and a fight against a corrupt local bureaucrat who has his pudgy little fingers in everything.

Why do we care, you ask. Put shortly, I'm going to be out of town and on the road this weekend, 'cause I'm headed to DukesFest at the Bristol Motor Speedway in Tennessee. Yep, that's right. Your correspondent, a man of (desired) wealth and (questionable) taste is going to be surrounded by a lot of people from Flyover Country, and he will love every minute of it. It's not every day that I get the opportunity to revel in something like this, so I'm rather happy to be going.

I'm hopin' to get an autograph of John Schneider---that's all the budget's going to allow--and probably some pictures of various General Lee-configured Dodge Chargers, along with soakin' up the atmosphere provided by lots of fans of this delightful series from the early 1980s. As Hunter Thompson wouldn't have put it, those folks are good people.

In honor of this nifty occasion, I've gone and taken a ubiquitous Quizilla quiz, yielding the following result:

You are Bo Duke. You are caring and carefree. You
suffer from the "Peter Pan Syndrome"
and it doesn't look like you'll be growing up
anytime soon.


What Dukes of Hazzard Character are you?

Y'all have a good weekend; I can't guarantee any sort of weekend schedule. If all goes well, perhaps I'll have a report or two for public consumption in the near future.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 03:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Ben Stein Strikes Back

Ben Stein has weighed in on the revelation that W. Mark Felt was the infamous anonymous source "Deep Throat".

Mr. Stein's piece is more of the sort that I was expecting to hear. Would that I could have heard G. Gordon Liddy on the subject; it might have actually been worth listening to, unlike his radio program.

Mark at Decision '08 calls this piece "appallingly bad". I disagree, but let's take a look at the article:

Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?

Some on my side of the aisle might say that starting the EPA was "bad", but put that aside for a moment. The 1973 Paris Peace Accords were, probably, a good thing. Retrieving a majority of our POWs is unarguably a good thing. Ending the Yom Kippur war and saving the state of Israel can, I think, be counted as good things. Diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China put another pistol to the head of the Soviet Union, and that's a good thing. Whether that was a good idea now is another issue for another article. Reducing the numbers of atomic weapons is another one of these probably good things.¹

Now cometh the snark:

Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.

Mr. Stein is a tad off here---the purpose of the break-in at the DNC HQ in the Watergate Hotel was to gather intelligence on what Lawrence F. O'Brien and others were up to. The 'agenda of peace' bit may be true, but I'm not entirely sure that's what we elect a President to do. It does, however, sound nice. It also rings true to Nixon's remark in his Inaugural Address that "the greatest honor history can bestow is that of peacemaker". As for succeeding in the generation of peace, I suppose that's a defensible remark; Nixon had lived through both of the World Wars, and compared to that, the relatively small brushfire wars of the late 1960s and 1970s weren't of much account.

Mr. Stein also takes some shots at John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, which delights me to no end, but I suggest reading them courtesy of the Spectator.

Mark's displeased with Stein's assertion that Nixon's enemies caused the fall of South Vietnam and the "killing fields" of Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. I see these as more-or-less defensible.

We know that RN didn't mind turning the Democratic Republic of Vietnam into a moonscape; this after all is the man who reportedly said, "We're going to bomb the bastards like they've never been bombed before", and promptly did so during Operation LINEBACKER II. "Nixon's enemies" were able to derail efforts to assist the Republic of Vietnam during the resumed efforts of the DRV to conquer it. Thus, I think it's defensible to lay responsibility for the RVN's fall at the feet of the anti-war majority in the Congress at the time.

The Cambodian question is a bit more difficult. I'm not going to get into it deeply, but I agree with Stein. Had RN been in office, I bet the Khmer Rouge would have been on the receiving end of a few Stratofortress sorties. Heck, we were already bombing Cambodia in the 1970s, so it wouldn't have been that hard.

Nevertheless, both instances were examples of where the American government was paralyzed either as a direct result of the Watergate process or still recovering from it, with a triumphantly anti-Nixon Congress asserting itself against the prerogatives of the President. I don't believe, based upon my understanding of RN, that he would have let the RVN or the Cambodian people go down in flames had he been either a) not bogged down in the defense of his Administration or b) hamstrung by the anti-war types in the Congress. The bogging and hamstringing pretty much occurred courtesy of the Watergate investigations and the subsequent 1974 election results. I find it hard to believe that a portion of the blame can't be laid at Felt's feet for this. Had he not acted out of what amounts to a spoiled brat mentality, then perhaps Saigon wouldn't be Ho Chi Minh City, and the name "Pol Pot" might be some sort of weird name for a kitchen appliance, instead of a blood-soaked name in history.

Mr. Stein closes with a rhetorical flourish that I'd consider worthy of Christopher Hitchens, were he a Nixon loyalist. The whole piece is, I think, a proper salvo against the Cult of Felt that is probably en route to being erected.

----

¹ If you've read Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, you might know why I'm not sure that reductions in the numbers of nuclear weapons are good things. In a nutshell, given the advances in ICBM/SLBM technology, the US/USSR had the ability to start thinking about counterforce strategy, i.e. killing our/their missiles in the silos. When you combine the ability to kill missiles in the silo (a function of accuracy more than yield) with a declining number of targets (through missile reductions) then a crippling first strike becomes plausible. That may, as Clancy's Soviet flag officer put it, increase the probability of a nuclear exchange, even if it's one-sided. That isn't very reassuring.

Normally, I tend to be rather flippant about the things---embracing Derbyshire's "I donÂ’t see how you can ever have enough nukes" position---but when push comes to shove, I don't like the bomb.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1028 words, total size 6 kb.

Manning Makes News

Recent find Laurin Manning has been featured in a piece dubbed "Citizen Web", published in the Free Times, a "free alternative weekly" operating out of Columbia, South Carolina. The piece is on South Carolina bloggers in general, and includes a couple of others in the write-ups.

Money quote: "[F]reewheeling, personal touch that gives her site its character and makes it a true blog."

I wholeheartedly agree. Plus, she actually uses the word "y'all" in typewritten text. That's classic. Congratulations, Miss Manning.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Narnia Fun

A chap named Colossus has compiled the "Top Ten Signs that Disney is Involved in the New "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe Movie"

Sample quote: "9. Instead of turning dissenting animals to stone, The White Witch turns them into little barrels of oil for her monstrous white SUV."

Read the whole thing.

Tip of the Executor hat to the Llama Butchers.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 03:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

What'd She Want to Hear?

Rocketing around the blogroll this morning, I found "Waaa, Waaa Watergate" from our source in the Palmetto State.¹

Apparently, Patrick J. Buchanan and Charles W. Colson were on the National Broadcasting Company's Today program to discuss the revelation that W. Mark Felt was the source known as "Deep Throat" for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post. Laurin notes that she was "appalled" by both their responses, but while she "expected nothing less from Buchanan", she was looking for something else from Colson. Additionally:

This would have been the perfect opportunity for the Nixon folks to exhibit decency, aplomb, and maturity while welcoming closure to the Watergate scandal. They miserably failed to do so.

Set aside for a minute two things: a) I haven't the foggiest as to what Buchanan & Colson said; a transcript would be appreciated, and b) interviewees are often held hostage to the interviewer's angle; inasmuch as I regard Katie Couric and Matt Lauer as subpar journalists, I'd imagine that it's hard for people to rise above their mediocrity. Send Colson et al to Charlie Rose and we'll see what happens.

My question for Laurin is this: What words would you have wanted to hear? I understand (broadly) the sentiments that she expresses, but I'll be darned if I can actually put text to them. It may be that I'm too busy clenching a fist and cursing the name of Mark Felt to figure it out myself, but then that's all the more reason for her to put words in Colson's mouth instead of me.

I'm just having a hard time figuring out what charitable utterances could be reasonably expected from the men who had to ride out the receiving end of the firestorm fed by Mark Felt's actions. Had I been in the position of Colson or others who received prison time, I bet my reaction would have involved a couple of uses of the now-famous [Expletive Deleted] device.

For what it's worth, I heard Colson on All Things Considered yesterday, and he seemed surprisingly restrained for a man that served time in prison for the affair. He actually says that he's grateful for the period, because it led to his religious conversion and the beginning of his prison ministry program. It was, I suppose, about as gracious a statement as could be expected.

Go figure.

----

¹ Somewhere, there is irony in the facts that both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of South Carolina are deemed "red" States by virtue of their voting patterns, but both of them have blue flags.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

J-Pod Strikes Back Out

The loathsome John Podhoretz writes:

In its second week at the boxoffice, ROTS's take fell 50 percent from the first week. This is significant because it indicates word of mouth on the movie is lousy and that those who went to see it the first week aren't making a return trip (second and third viewings are the reasons a movie takes the leap from success to blockbuster).

Bah. I may be the only refutation of Mr. Podhoretz, but I can say with confidence that I've seen The Movie three times so far, and I intend to go several more times. Three viewings either surpasses or ties my record for Attack of the Clones, and stands second in the overall personal record of "Number of Times Seeing a Movie in Theaters".¹

Maybe Podhoretz is just trying to be the contrarian. I don't know for sure, despite reading most of his annoying verbiage on the subject. Enh, who cares? Not every contributor to the National Review is on the order of John Derbyshire, who himself is not faultless.

----

¹ The holder of the all-time record is The Phantom Menace, with between seven and ten viewings, all at the same theater. I saw it numerous times hoping that a good movie would somehow emerge. Much like the kid shoveling manure in hopes of finding a pony, I too was disappointed in the end.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

The McCain Bakery

There's a new poll up at Decision '08. Go take it, it's on the top of the page. In the spirit of full disclosure, I selected "hold my nose and vote for [Arizona Republican John S. McCain, III]". In the comments section to the post announcing the poll, I wrote the following:

I'd vote for him, holding my nose, complaining, and griping all the while. I believe that some measure of conservative influence could be exerted on him, certainly more than if some nationally-prominent Democrat were in the office.

It's the bread and butter of politics; half a loaf is more preferable than no loaf, regardless of what Robert M. LaFollette might have said about the subject.

It's an academic discussion, anyways; everyone knows that George Allen's going to be the nominee and President. No, I'm not biased, ha ha.

I wrote that and I stand by it, even the part that says George Allen's going to be the next President. (He's a Virginian, I'm a Virginian, do the math...)

Now, I suppose some may ask why it is that I'd go holding my nose, complaining, griping, and yet still vote for McCain. My reasoning is simple: There are structural advantages inherent in our political system that reward the party holding office, without regards to the details of the office holder's expression of the party's ideology. You can't take the Republican out of a President McCain, which is what I'm relying upon.

A theoretical President John S. McCain would not be able to install intellectual clones of his in every single Presidential appointment. Similarly, he could not nominate too many Democrats to prominent posts while leaving qualified Republicans waiting in the wings simply in the name of bipartisanship.¹ The theoretical President McCain would, sooner or later, have to dip into the well of Republicans to fill posts, if he sought to have his nominees confirmed.²

Set aside for a minute the fact that John McCain would probably go on the media offensive with his particular brand of passive-aggressive warfare the instant a Republican Senate did anything that he determined to be feet-dragging.³

Regardless of what he or his supporters might think, John McCain can not operate "in the center" by continuous formation of triangulated coalitions. Bill Clinton managed it for a while, but he was blessed with advantages that McCain does not have.⁴ A legislative strategy that relies upon the breaking of ranks in both parties is terribly unsound, in my opinion. I don't believe our system is set up to permit such a thing: Sooner or later, party discipline would be reasserted and the defectors on either side would be punished. When this happens, McCain's operational center would evaporate, and he would have to come home to the Republican Party to continue his agenda. Therein lies our half loaf.

If Republicans are in the majority, then he'd have to consult with the party because he could just about count on unified Democratic opposition. "John McCain supports free food for the poor and universal health care? Well, we don't." In such a circumstance, he would have no choice but to come back to the GOP for support.

If Republicans are in the minority---horrors!---then the same would be true. He would have to, at some level, give the Republicans a seat at the bargaining table in order to hold any semblance of party discipline. After all, there's no reason to march in lockstep if total defeat is inevitable; better to present a unified front in the hopes of getting at least a few of your concerns addressed.

From a movement conservative's viewpoint, this kind of calculation is probably intolerable. A McCain presidency would probably not be marked by wholesale enactments of legislation hot off the presses from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or the Family Research Council. However, the possibility of enacting some of the legislation exists, and that possibility is larger under a Republican President than a Democratic President. There might not be any grand slams for four runs hit during a McCain Administration, but we'd be on the field putting guys on base and playing what George F. Will might recognize as the steady production of runs through the methodical advancement of runners. That's half a loaf, and I'll take it.

Robert M. LaFollette reportedly criticized "half a loaf" because it dulled the appetitite for the whole loaf. He said this to justify his unyielding positions and refusal to compromise. By his theory, Republicans should settle for "no loaf" and refuse to vote McCain in 2008 if it comes to that. (I hope it doesn't.)

Call me a party hack---a friend of mine does---but I think I'd much rather have half a loaf on a daily basis than a whole loaf every so often. It is better, I think, that our people are in power. With the McCain Bakery, we have the hope of half a loaf. With the Clinton Bakery, there is no hope of any loaf. We won't even get asked if we want crumbs.

----

¹ I have no inherent opposition to this practice other than to say that it should be carefully and considerately done, with the potential for concrete rewards being more than just a spirit of good feeling and/or praise from the New York Times or Washington Post editorial boards. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's term during the Nixon Administration is my ideal of the way to go about this; William Cohen's term as Clinton Adminstration Secretary of Defense is the polar opposite of it. I'm still not sure why Cohen was nominated, although I can understand---in the model of say Lloyd Cutler and Charles F.C. Ruff that when the President calls, you say "Yes, sir" and do your duty.

² This is of course contingent on a Republican majority in the Senate. A Senate helmed by Harry Reid would of course change the math. I don't have sufficient information to project how a President McCain would handle a Democratic Senate. Like Han Solo, I'm tryin' not to think about it.

³ This is my primary complaint against John McCain, that he doesn't seem to deal well with reasonable disagreement. Suppose for a minute that I, John McCain, and some other friends were in New York City in the 1950s, trying to figure out how to go to Chicago, and were going to take a train to do so. McCain suggests taking the New York Central's 20th Century Limited. I, preferring the service provided on the Pennsylvania Railroad's Broadway Limited, suggest taking it to Chicago. Now it's up to the group to decide which train to take.

McCain's reaction isn't going to suggest that reasonable people have differences of opinion and that while there's a perfectly reasonable case for the Broadway Limited, the Century is preferable. Oh no, not John McCain. He's going to come out and say something on the order of, "My friends, my friends. I believe we should take the Century because it is the best available means of transportation. And oh by the way, Country Pundit over here only suggests the Broadway because he's a dishonest moral reprobate who is in thrall to the Philadelphia interests which hold seats on the Pennsylvania's board of directors."

He pulled that little stunt far too many times during the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform debate. I opposed campaign finance reform and took the line of the National Review (as best I remember) because I was worried about serious inequalities in the grants of power given to the established media outlets. I was not, as it were, on anyone's payroll, and I wasn't some corrupt thing oozing my way through K Street and the halls of power. It was an honest difference of opinion, but McCain didn't see it that way. I don't exactly enjoy being fired upon by fellow Republicans, but John McCain seems to have an interest in lining the walls of his office with the heads of other Republicans. I don't have time for that mentality.

⁴ Among them, a largely compliant media landscape that is dead and gone at this point and an apparent lack of inflexible principles. Whether Clinton simply could put a good face on defeat or was an unprincipled man---both are possible---I don't see McCain being the kind of man who could swing triangulation for long. It takes a wheeling, dealing, not afraid to trade anything mindset. McCain's style seems to be more on the order of "Let me tell you what you'll be giving up to get my support".

Posted by: Country Pundit at 10:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1423 words, total size 9 kb.

How Things Change - The FRCP & Me

Inspired by Laurin Manning:

24th February 2004:

YOU ARE RULE 11!

You were designed to make sure that attorneys in federal cases make reasonable inquiries into fact or law before submitting pleadings, motions, or other papers. You were a real hardass in 1983, when you snuffed out all legal creativity from federal proceedings and embarassed well-meaning but overzealous attorneys. You loosened up a bit in 1993, when you began allowing plaintiffs to make allegations in their complaints that are likely to have evidenciary support after discovery, and when you allowed a 21 day period for the erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion. Sure, you keep everything running on the up and up, but it's clear that things would be a lot more fun without you around.

---

30th May 2005:

YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!

You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a stickler for details and particularity, you have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a plaintiff provide a short and plain statement of a claim on which a court can grant relief. While there is much to be lauded in your approach, your good nature sometimes gets you in trouble, and you often have to rely on your good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.

Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

---

I'm sure that there's a psych type in the audience who could explain this to me. Please take the opportunity to do so; it's always fun hearing those sorts of explanations.

Meanwhile, I'll be mourning the apparent destruction of my car's CD player. How'm I supposed to drive down the road listening to Lisa Gerrard or Liz Phair? Thank God the radio still works; if I couldn't get the local NPR affiliate and others, I'd probably be inspired to do "something rash", as an annoying protocol droid once put it.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 3 kb.

General Veers' Report

"Com scan has detected an energy field protecting an area of the third planet on the Sol system. The field is strong enough to deflect European bombardment."

The thrust of this article might be obvious, but if it's not, here's the deal: The EU Constitutions fall to 0-2 in the 2005 season, losing this time to the Dutch Hedonists in regulation play, 61-39. OK, all kidding aside, the Dutch said 'No' to the EU constitution for whatever reason, and I don't have anyone on the ground in the Netherlands to explain it to me.

CNN has the article that I turned to. It's got an amusing quote from the Dutch PM, a chap named an Peter Balkenende: ""The Dutch voters have a clear and uncomplimentary solution, and we will have to respect the voters' choice. No means no, and this is the choice of the people."

I don't know what his definition of "uncomplimentary" in this instance is---be fair, English is probably his second or third language---but I hear a whiff of "The people have spoken, the bastards".¹ I'm sure his media guys were not happy with him essentially calling the Dutch voters stupid.

At any rate, hopefully this means that this pitiful European rebellion will be crushed with one swift stroke, and the Old World nations can get on with the process of market reforms et cetera so that they're capable of playing a meaningful role against serious concerns, like the Islamists. Pull their own weight, such as it were. This is pleasant news at the end of the day.

¹ Reportedly attributed to Mark Twain, but I heard that it attributed to Dick Tuck, a dirtbag operative for the Democratic Party active from the 1950s until the 1970s.

Theme for this post gratuitously stolen from The Llama Butchers.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Robby Gordon v. Danica Patrick

It has come to my attention that Kelley of Suburban Blight has taken issue with Robby Gordon over his comments regarding possible unfair competitive advantages enjoyed by Indy Racing League rookie driver Danica Patrick.

Kelley accuses Mr. Gordon of, among other things, being a "loser" and a wimp" because of his remarks. For what it's worth, I'll throw my two cents in on the subject.

I agree with Mr. Gordon's comments, and wholly disagree with Kelley's.

The issue is whether Mr. Gordon's position, that Ms. Patrick enjoys an unfair competitive advantage, is warranted.

The point of having a sanctioning body for a given motorsport is to ensure fair competition, where driver versus driver is the defining competition. The means to acheiving this end usually involve some sort of standardization of the other half of the racing component, the car. The International Race of Champions (popularly known as "IROC") is one example of this. Quoting from their website: Take 12 of the world's top drivers, from different types of racing, put them in identically prepared IROC race cars, give them a set of rules which virtually eliminates the variables usually associated with racing (no pit stops, no qualifying, no driver set-up of the cars, etc.) and wave a green flag at them.

In my opinion, the other end is represented by Formula 1, wherein the technological side is equal to, if not superior to, the driver's skills in importance.

I would suggest that most other asphalt-based motorsports are somewhere in between. This includes the Indy Racing League and NASCAR, two American-based series.

With those preliminaries aside, let us consider the question of whether Ms. Patrick enjoys an unfair competitive advantage. An unfair competitive advantage can be many things, from a fuel cell that holds more fuel than the sanctioning body allows, to a more powerful engine than allowed, or any other thing that goes outside the boundaries of that particular series' rules. I do not, however, suggest that strict adherence to the letter of the law is the sole standard; I would prefer that something above and beyond mere rote compliance be sought.

The general rule in motorsport is that a lighter car is usually preferable. A lighter car confers several advantages, some of which are detailed below:

1. Acceleration
2. Fuel economy
3. Braking
4. Handling

Any one of these four factors alone can be determinative of success in any given race; in essence, they are the heart of what a car builder strives for. Ms. Patrick enjoys advantages in each of these categories due to her relatively low (100 pounds) weight when compared to the weight of other IRL drivers. In detail:

Acceleration - Given roughly equivalent horsepower, gearing, driver reaction times and aerodynamics, a lighter car will always out-accelerate a heavier car. Acceleration is important throughout a race, for the following reasons. First, when a start occurs, the lighter car will be able to close in faster on the cars ahead of it, or more quickly open a gap between it and the cars behind. In a late-race restart, these sort of intervals can be crucial.

Secondly, the lighter car will respond better in turns. Normally, drivers brake to some degree when entering a turn, either through active braking or by simply backing off the throttle. The lighter car will be able to regain speed more quickly than a heavier car when coming out of a turn. Inasmuch as most races involve a number of turns (roughly 2,000 800 at the course hosting the Indianpolis 500), quicker acceleration out of the turns can be crucial.

Fuel Economy - Fuel economy is usually quantified as the amount of laps that a given car can go on its load of fuel. Here again, Ms. Patrick's weight is valuable to her. The IRL mandates that all cars must weight 1,525 pounds before driver and fuel are added. Given that cars probably have a fixed maximum amount of fuel, driver weight is the only remaining variable.

Once again, assume equivalent cars in terms of horsepower, gearing, driver reaction times, and aerodynamics. Also assume that the two cars are driven in the same manner. The lighter car will have better fuel economy than the heavier car, and will probably be able to complete more laps per fueling. To obtain the same speeds as the lighter car, the heavier car will need to be driven with a higher rate of fuel consumption, thus shortening the number of laps available to the latter car. Such an advantage, if used properly, can be devastating. Cars that run out of fuel generally do not win races.

Braking - The ability to brake is vital in any race that involves turning. A lighter car will have less inertia entering a turn, thus reducing the amount of braking force required to successfully negotiate a turn. This translates into less wear and tear on the brake system, along with other advantages. Ms. Patrick theoretically will require a shorter braking period and will be able to come off of that shorter braking period taking advantage of her superior acceleration as she exits the turn. Once again, this sort of circumstance can be of tremendous advantage to a driver, as the driver would be able to either gain ground on those ahead or open the gap between the following cars.

Handling - Altering a vector (i.e. changing direction) is an action which requires sufficient force to overcome inertia. The greater the inertia of a given object, the greater the force required to alter its vector. A given object's inertia is generally equivalent to its mass. As the Wikipedia puts it, "An object with small inertial mass changes its motion more readily, and an object with large inertial mass does so less readily."

Ms. Patrick's car, having less mass than those of her competitors, will change its motion/alter its vector more easily. Her steering burden, if you will, is less than that of her competitors over the course of the race.

For the foregoing reasons, I believe that Mr. Gordon's remarks are entirely justified and that Ms. Patrick possesses an unfair competitive advantage. A car driven by Ms. Patrick would perform better than the same car driven by someone else, due to Ms. Patrick's weight disparity.

Kelley also makes several assertions in her article that I consider either inaccurate or unwarranted.

-Comparison of the Indy Racing League to the circumstance of Annika Sorenstam is unwarranted. To properly establish a comparison between Sorenstam and Patrick, Ms. Sorenstam would somehow be able to hit the ball harder than say Vijay Singh, benefit from using a lighter ball, and perhaps have shorter distances of play. The advantage that Ms. Patrick may enjoy could be of that magnitude.

-Mr. Gordon did not participate in the 2005 Indianapolis 500 not because of Ms. Patrick, but because of pre-existing commitments to his NASCAR Nextel Cup team which was racing in Concord, North Carolina. Mr. Gordon has raced in both the Indianapolis 500 and the Coca-Cola 600 for the past four years, and was prevented from doing so this year only because of a change in the Indianapolis 500's starting time. The CNN/SI article is incomplete in this respect.

In summary, I believe that Mr. Gordon's opinion was warranted.

Yahoo! News has this article dealing with the issue. I would regard calculations coming from the Penske organization as highly reliable, due to their long-standing tradition of technical excellence in motorsports. Examining the starting grid, it appears that 0.8MPH is significant. A difference of 0.8MPH in qualifying speeds is the difference between starting from the pole and starting in eighth place. In motorsports, miniature advantages matter greatly.

If the IRL asked me, I would suggest that a rule change would be necessary. Weigh the car (1,525 pounds) with an equal load of fuel for every car and the individual driver in it. Measure that all-inclusive figure against a "Standard Car Weight", and either add or remove ballast as necessary to meet that figure.

However, it appears from the Yahoo! article that the IRL is not contemplating a rule change at this point in time.

UPDATE: As usual, I'm behind on the news cycle, but I don't care. A lot of bloggers rallied to Ms. Patrick's defense, usually focusing upon ad hominem insults towards Mr. Gordon. Additionally, it seems that many posters and commenters display a considerable level of ignorance when it comes to motorsports, but then that shouldn't be surprising. It is, after all, the blogosphere we're talking about. I'm pleasantly amused by the fact that the oh-so-intelligent blogosphere can't even spell Mr. Gordon's first name right.

I do, however, also note that a couple of people took the basic line that I did, pointing out that Mr. Gordon's position was pretty much defensible. They were of course shouted down, but that doesn't change the fact that I think they're right. I'd be interested in knowing the split in opinion between those who are veteran fans of the sport, and those whose knowledge of the sport began with a FHM pictorial for Danica Patrick. Put bluntly, would Ms. Patrick be so aggressively defended if she wasn't considered to be attractive?

I think not.

Anyways, here's some of the reaction, uniformly negative:
Backcountry Conservative
Outside the Beltway
Wizbang
Kevin Drum
Full Throttle
Doug Petch
The Q Speaks

Don Singleton

I'm still looking for actual posts that defend Mr. Gordon. Click here to see what Technorati has to say about it all.

UPDATE II: OK, I found something from The Unofficial Everybody's NASCAR Nextel Cup Blog. This fellow seems to have a solid handle on the situation. There might even be a case of some good old fashioned media bias or ulterior motives. Yee haw.

Also, this fellow has some mathematical figuring that supports my findings. So far as I know, it's the only mathematical work that anyone's done, other than "Robbie (sic) needs to lose weight!!!!!"

Here is another individual not buying into the hype regarding Ms. Patrick.

-The estimated number of turns involved in the Indianapolis 500 has been revised; the track is 2.5 miles long and the race is 500 miles; 200 laps are necessary. 200x4=800. I had previously estimated off the cuff that it was 500 laps in length, which would lead to the earlier 2,000. The error is regretted.

UPDATE III: It seems that even the National Review crowd is getting into this. Kathryn Jean Lopez weighs in, favorably quoting the following: This guy sounds right: "I thought race car drivers were real men, not whining children. So, this woman weighs less because she is a woman. The men are probably physically stronger because they are men. Should their steering be adjusted to make it harder for them to turn because they have this strength advantage over a woman driver because they are probably stronger than she is? "

Her correspondent is wrong. As I laid out earlier in the Handling section, Ms. Patrick's car would not require as much force to overcome its inertia. Any "strength gap" would probably be nullified. Oh, and by the way: IRL cars probably use power steering, to boot. The small size of the steering wheels and the small driver's cockpit doesn't leave a lot of room to work with in terms of steering motion.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 02:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1893 words, total size 13 kb.

A Newish Erie Lackawanna Website

You can't be a railfan from the East Coast and not have run across the Erie Lackawanna in some shape or fashion. Heck, when I first got into railroad enthusiasm, I didn't know a blessed thing about much other than the Norfolk and Western, but I soon found out about "The Route of Phoebe Snow".

Trains paid tribute to the Erie Lackawanna Railway in the March 2005 issue with a nice article about the line's fate after 1960, which saw the merger of the Erie Railroad with the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad. Additional tribute---maybe---was delivered later in the issue by dubbing the EL the Marcia Brady of Conrail. Once I stopped laughing, I realized that their reasons made sense, from the Kenobi certain point of view; the EL is beloved far beyond its geographic scope, and in large part due to the exterior appearance (much like Maureen McCormick, who got better as time went on) of their locomotives. People are suckers for gray, maroon, and yellow.

Anyways, back to the point of the post: I've found a new EL website, and it's located here. It's about two weeks old, and looks like the possible start of something pleasant. Here's to the Friendly Service Route.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

Er, Right

Rongorongo (Easter Island, C.E. 1800)
You are RONGORONGO. You are the script of the
language Rapanui. The language is still spoken,
but no one can read the script. Are you
ideographic? Phonetic? Ideo-phonetic?
Hieroglyphic? A comic strip? Illustrations for
a fairy tale? No one knows.

Which Indecipherable Script Are You?

Er, right. Uhh, hey Beavis...

Confused tip of the Executor hat to Comrade Commissar.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Supporting the War Economy

Buy Liberty bonds! Buy something, anything! Keep the consumer confidence index soaring, or else the terrorists will win!

Ahem.

Line item addendum to the FY2005 non-discretionary spending package:
One Bewitched - The Complete First Season (Black and White)

Expected date of expenditure: 21st June 2005

Funds allocated and earmarked. That is all.

UPDATE: Oh, crumbs. Four other season sets are out for programs that I enjoyed, and I'm going to have to sell someone's kidneys to finance them all:

-Danger Mouse
-The Lone Gunmen
-The Job
-Airwolf

Such a 1980s focus, but darn it, television was watchable back then! And I still have yet to find and buy the Buck Rogers season set. Colonel Deering'll never forgive me. JohnL, you be quiet.

UPDATE, 06 JUNE 2005: Scratch The Job off the list. Add multiple seasons of The Dukes of Hazzard and Knight Rider. 1980s machine-centric network TV lives. The more this DVD thing runs along, the more I think that it's an example of the maxim that "God loves us and wants us to be happy".

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.