Email etiquette

If you type in all caps, you are screaming at me.

If you don't take the time to punctuate with any semblance of effort, you are saying you have more important things to do than communicate with me.

If I ask two questions and you only answer one, I know you didn't take time to read my email, and probably should be skeptical of the one answer you did give.

If I copy someone on an email to you but you only reply back to me, it looks like you're hiding something (or, again, aren't paying attention).

Email's great and email's fast, but email also says a lot about how you value me.

I've never wanted to be in a Mamet play more

Stumbled on this in today's Political Diary from the Wall Street Journal:

"I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind. As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.... [Now I] question my hatred for 'the Corporations' -- the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live. And I began to question my distrust of the 'Bad, Bad Military' of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world.... I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism"

-- Playwright David Mamet, writing in the Village Voice on why he is no longer a
"brain-dead liberal."

That. Is. Awesome.

Impressive reporting

CNN's article on the resignation of Elliott Spitzer, the Democratic governor New York (can we call him "former governor" yet?) fails to mention his party affiliation. It makes a reference to the party affiliation of the Lt. Governor's mother's party affiliation, but you have to read the sidebar of the article to learn that "The first-term governor had been considered a rising star in the Democratic Party."

That's it. Nothing in the article proper. And this isn't a blurb, either - it's nearly 1,000 words long.

It's impressive. Really. Quite a feat. Way to rise above partisanship, CNN!

(note: the article will be continually updated throughout the day, so at some point the above post may become out of date if they fix the article. Currently, though, everything above is fact.)

Conservative blood

The Economist has a great quote in this week's edition:

"A disappearing species is good for fund-raising; blood on your hands is not."

The article's about the culling of endangered species in Africa. It made me think of the Grand Old Party, though, and how it is getting significantly outraised by the Dems. Could it be because they've sacrificed the party's conservative principles in the name of keeping power? 

Look where that's getting ready to get you....

On the DC streets

I just walked by Trent Lott on F Street in DC. I nodded and he nodded and we went on our ways. He was all by himself - that's what happens when you leave the Senate behind.

VRWC or VACC?

I like this headline in today's Newday:

Clinton accuses media of pro-Obama bias at debate

So maybe the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" she use to complain about really is just a Vast Anti-Clinton Conspiracy."

If she thinks the media doesn't like her, she really shouldn't go here.

McCain is not the answer

If you watched McCain's debate performance last night you can't help but be a little fearful of the man. Several people have noted to me that Senators are endorsing him just because they're scared of him and don't want to deal with him on the Senate floor after he loses.

But other than his temper, we need to be worried about the ideals he holds. Would he be an excellent defender of our national security? Probably. But what about liberty? Free enterprise? James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal points to some things that had me worried in last night's debate as well:

Two of McCain's comments--"I did it out of patriotism, not for profit" and "sometimes people lost their jobs"--lead us to think that McCain's problem with economics goes beyond mere indifference. He seems to view the making of money--that is to say, the production of goods and services that people want, and the act of supplying them through voluntary exchange in a free market--as a less than honorable pursuit.

Post-Florida, it is very easy for a lazy voter to pick McCain. The media loves him and will tell you everything you need to know about how wonderful he is (you saw this in the debate last night, with regular banners at the bottom of the page while McCain was speaking letting viewers know you can read more about his economic plan or his defense plan or his other plans at CNN.com - but they never highlighted this on any other candidate that I saw).

But he isn't the answer to the Republican's problems. He talks a good game on defense, and I believe him. He talks a good game on spending, and he probably means it but who knows if he'll act. He voted against the tax cuts that have, until recently, kept the economy afloat. He limited the rights of inviduals to give to candidates through McCain-Feingold. He is zealously trying to regulate carbon and add layers of taxation on Real People through McCain-Lieberman. And he's mean, as he showed last night.

McCain is not the answer.

The wife and I haven't been good about updating our wine blog, so I'm posting this interesting tidbit here: new research indicates that expensive wine really does taste better.

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology and Stanford's business school have directly seen that the sensation of pleasantness that people experience when tasting wine is linked directly to its price. And that's true even when, unbeknownst to the test subjects, it's exactly the same Cabernet Sauvignon with a dramatically different price tag.

I don't think this is going to have me shopping those dusty $90 bottles at the back of the wine store anytime soon - a little Fish Eye Pinot Grigio or Redwood Creek Cabernet Sauvignon suits me just fine, and for as little as $6 - but I will certainly keep this in mind next time someone else is picking up the tab.

Bill Richardson's out

CNN is reporting that Bill Richardson's dropping out of the presidential race. I think that's a shame. He's a likable moderate (in some ways) Democrat, but he really underperformed in the race this year. If he's at the top of his game, I think he could be a real threat in November.

But not, apparently, in January.

Of course, with his exceptional resume and skills, he's clearly at the top of the list in the Dem veepstakes. He'd be a great accompaniment for Hillary or Edwards - probably too many racial overtones for Obama to tap him, but, hey, why not go all out?

Delegate Count

Since presidential primary elections are usually over by Valentine's Day nowadays, it's easy to forget that what really matters is the number of delegates a candidate has, because it's the delegates who do the actual selecting of their party's presidential nominee.

This year, because the fields are so wide open and populated with so many qualified candidates, politicos are drooling over the idea that conventions could become relevant again, that no candidate will get a majority of delegates.

I'm one of them. I'd think it'd be neat.

Here's how things stand at the moment:

So Romney's "two silvers" haven't been particularly bad for him, and McCain's big win didn't do all that much for him on the delegate front - though of course prominent wins open the door for future prominent wins and more delegates, just as the inverse is true for losses.

Now, these totals, particularly the Democrat total, include some superdelegates, and I haven't dug in enough to understand exactly how those have already been pledged. You can look on CNN's delegate scorecard to see how these breakdown.

I highlight this just to once again say that, at this point, it's too early to annoint anyone, or to shove out folks like Romney and Edwards.

We don't need Mike Huckabee

Here's a new ad from the Club for Growth offering more reasons not to elect Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee for president.

Nominating Mike Huckabee would be an abomination for the Republican party. We do not need his brand of big-government conservative populism - from him or anyone. Rapid government growth is antithetical to the very foundation of the Republican party. Republicans over the past seven years have ignored that, and have severely damaged the party's brand. It's time for a leader who can once again articulate that government is the problem, not the solution.

Mike Huckabee doesn't believe in smaller government. State government grew 20% under his administration in Arkansas. I spent a few days in Arkansas back in 2005 conducting research on the political climate, and all the conservatives I talked to were embarrassed at what Huckabee had done to the state. That's not what we need in a president, and that's certainly not what we need representing the Republican party on the national stage.

I watched his speech last night as he accepted third place in New Hampshire, a shockingly high finish for him among the independent-minded voters there. He is charming and seems friendly, but at the end of the day he's just a snake oil salesman. We need a leader of substance, someone who can articulate a message of limited government (the way both Mitt Romney and John McCain did in their speeches last night). And that means we don't need Mike Huckabee.

Thank Goodness

Now that Ralph Wiggum is running for president, I have someone to vote for if the Republicans accidently give the nomination to Mike Huckabee. Whew.

Populism and the election

The biggest threat to America? Populism, according to David Strom in a new article on Townhall.

Government policies have proven time and again capable of slowing economic growth, but with few exceptions they have never proven capable of stimulating the economy in the long term. Even policies that economic conservatives think of as "pro-growth," such as deregulation, tax cuts and reducing trade barriers are more accurately thought of as the removal of government-created barriers to growth than actual government stimulants to economic activity.

"The economy," simply put, is not manageable like a machine. It is dynamic, driven by the choices, actions, and desires of over 300 million Americans, and ultimately the billions of people around the world. However frustrating it is to think that our fortunes are hostage to the actions of people across the globe, there is almost nothing positive the government can do to change that fact. We all live on the same planet and are tapping into the same resources to better our lives. It is the inventiveness of individuals and firms that shape those resources into useful products and services that truly make up the economy.

That's a great assessment. Real People make the economy go, not government. We forget that pretty easily - and candidates forget it real fast.

Sadness

Maybe I shouldn't have complained about the carbon-hating SimCity Societies game. I indeed received it for Christmas, and after about half an hour of waiting for it to install, and then more time to receive an update for it, I got a non-apologetic grey pop-up telling me my graphics card was too old and sorry to trifle with.

*sigh* At least my new iPod works. I'll take solace in its sleek brushed silver design.

Are the Republicans being ripped apart?

Why is there no clear front-runner in the Republican race for president? The Washington Post analyzes the situation and does a good job summing it all up.

Is the GOP grounded in the social issues embodied by Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee or the foreign policy experience of former POW John McCain? Do Republicans see their futures in a former CEO such as Mitt Romney, who promises to tackle Washington incompetence, or in a leader such as Rudolph W. Giuliani, who talks tough on terrorism and crime? Should the party embrace anger about immigration or optimism about America's potential?

Giuliani tends to win them on economic issues, but they cannot get by his stand on social issues. They like Huckabee on the social agenda, but do not trust his economic stands. They like the Romney they see now, but they cannot forget the positions he once embraced in Massachusetts. And they dislike McCain's opposition to Bush's first-term tax cuts and his crusade to overhaul campaign finance laws.

Read the whole article. I'm not one who necessarily believes all the back-and-forth is a bad thing, though, and certainly don't believe it will "rip apart" the coalition as the Post suggests. The more options we have, the more discussion we can (hopefully) have about where we want to go as a party and as a country. The questions is will the best of all candidates rise into the eventual nominee?

News on Global Warming, Election '08 and Taxes

Here are a few interesting clips I've come across today:

Utah has implemented a flat income tax of 5%. Interestingly, despite cutting taxes for most people, the new tax is actually more progressive based on the elimination of some deductions. More states should experiment with major changes to the tax code. Let's see what works best.

The US dropped its carbon dioxide emissions 1.8% in 2006. Didn't hear about that one on the news? Total greenhouse gas emissions dropped 1.5%. The economy grew 2.9%. So, to be clear, the economy grew while naturally occurring innovation and lifestyle changes brought about through the free market achieved something that Europe has not been successful at doing over the past few years despite their mandatory rules to cut carbon. Isn't that the darnedest thing?

Anti-immigration madman - and erstwhile presidential contender - Tom Tancredo is said to be dropping out of the race. Good riddance.

Old Exec on Fire

The Old Executive Office Building is on fire.

This is my wife's favorite building in DC, and aside from that a lovely and historic building in its own right, so hopefully they will get it contained soon.

Good parenting pays

A man from Montreal found out that good parenting pays off. When he came home to discover his son smoking pot in the backyard, he sold the prize video game - Guitar Hero III - he had bought for his son.

He bought the hard-to-find game for $90. He sold it to a guy in Australia for $9,100. Not a bad trade.

The naughty son, however, will not go without a present on Christmas.

"I am still considering getting him a game for his Nintendo. Maybe something like Barbie as the Island Princess or Dancing with the Stars ... I know he will just love them," the father said.

I hope it shows the economic impact of a carbon tax?

British Petroleum really wants you to believe that it is a "good" energy company bent on saving the planet. They have taken corporate greenwashing to new heights, though, through their collaboration with EA Games and one of my very favorite gaming franchises, SimCity.

The new SimCity Societies hinges on the question of what kind of carbon footprint will your city leave. You have a choice, of course, as one review on Yahoo explained:

Bernstein is specific about how the developers wanted to implement choice. "We didn't want to impose a direction a city should go. We wanted to put out enough power alternatives to make a very green city or a heavily polluted one or something in between."

New, updated visuals help create not only a wide range of new cities, but do a much better job of modeling the effects of energy reliance. Put a series of smog-belching plants on the ground and the city will soon be literally draped in darkness. The warming effects of massive CO2 output can lead to natural disasters which, if exaggerated, are pretty obviously related to the way the city lives. By way of massive contrast, green-leaning societies look clean and livable, and we haven't yet seen a wind turbine fall over to crush a swath of Sims.

Global warming is a given in the game, and if you put too much carbon in your city then your city bares the cost in the form of droughts, etc. Amazing, the new micro effect of carbon, but I guess it is only a game.

BP is of course branded throughout the game - or at least on the renewable energy sources. I haven't read if nuclear is an option or if you only get to choose between evil coal and or luscious wind and solar.

To get a real taste of what SimCity has done, watch this video. I can't say I didn't see it coming, but I'm still flabbergasted.

Despite the stupid preaching about energy by BP in the game, though, it looks really fun.

Tickets, please

It is being unofficially reported that my Atlanta Braves will face off against my wife's Washington Nationals here in DC on March 30, 2008, as the first official game of the baseball season. I feel like this game traditionally is played by the World Series champions, but apparently the new Nationals' stadium is going to be SO COOL that it necessitates being game numero uno for the season.

It should be a very exciting game - Atlanta will contend for the World Series in '08, and the Nationals will not go quietly this year and may even compete for the number 2 or 3 slot in the East. All this in a very exciting new park.

So....if anyone has a spare couple of tickets they need to unload, say because you are called away on business or whatever, I'd be more than happy to go and provide a full report of the game to you afterwards.

(And did I mention that's the day before my wife's and my one-year wedding anniversary? What a great gift!!)