Heh (þ: TigerHawk).

Pat Robertson talked to Paula Zahn today, and boy did he let loose a doozy:

“And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, ‘Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.’ ”

Robertson said the president then told him, “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”

Now, I suppose Robertson could be completely and totally demented by this point (I mean, he is the guy that blamed 9/11 on gay people, and I doubt his mental faculties are on the rebound); either way, it’s fairly clear that at least half of the people participating in this alleged conversation had no grip on reality.

Tim Sandefur writes:

[Robert] Bork is contemporary conservatism. This is the great tragedy of conservatism. ...

The cure, you see, for the misery of homosexuals in a society which condemns homosexuality, is to ratchet up the persecution. This is the logic of Torquemada, for Christsake! How can this man be taken seriously? And yet he is not only taken seriously; he is the intellectual leader of today’s conservatives.

I don’t personally have a great handle on the whole “nature versus nurture” argument myself (either way, I’m wired up to be attracted to women who invariably treat me like a doormat, but that’s neither here nor there), but if there’s even the possibility that homosexuality is an innate trait, I find the Borkian conviction that being homosexual is legitimate grounds for persecution to be loathsome. And, even if homosexuality is a chosen behavior, I think notions of individual autonomy in consensual activity far outweigh any aggregate community interest in discouraging that activity.

Today’s New York Times provides more evidence that the Selective Service Administration has way too much time on its hands. Choice quote from the article:

In 1987, Congress enacted a law requiring the Selective Service to develop a plan for “registration and classification” of health care professionals essential to the armed forces.

One wonders what Senator Kerry’s vote on this piece of legislation was… I’ve tracked it down to Senate roll call #384 in the first session of the 100th Congress (on what became P.L. 100–180), but I don’t have the roll calls for that Congress at my fingertips at home (where I am today, since it’s fall break).

Steven Taylor writes:

[I]t is a mystery to me as well as to how any voter could be undecided at this juncture.

I think there are essentially two classes of undecided voters: the uninformed undecideds, who (more likely than not) will probably stay away from the polls in the end, unless some element of the political zeitgeist manages to work its way into the cerebellum; and the informed undecideds (probably a smaller category), who are essentially ambivalent between the choices on offer in this presidential election, but who will probably vote nonetheless.

Ironically, even though I know with almost absolute certainty my vote isn’t going to be pivotal in this election, I’m still vacillating between three options:

• Voting for Bush, because (a) I don’t want to spend the next four years hearing Democrats whine about Bush not winning the popular vote again and (b) despite his screw-ups, he’s the only serious candidate dedicated to sticking it out in Iraq.
• Voting for Kerry, because (a) Bush deserves to be punished for his screw-ups, (b) gridlock might lead to more fiscal discipline and none of Kerry’s promises being enacted into law, and (c) my current colleagues probably expect me to vote for him, and I need all the help I can get when it comes to landing the tenure-track job here.
• Voting for Badnarik, because even though he’s a complete and total lunatic and completely wrong on Iraq, it would send a (marginal) directional message to both parties that they can’t take libertarian votes for granted.

There’s more on this theme from the lovely and talented Jane Galt.

Update: Additional thoughts (on Badnarik, at least) abound from Will Baude and Will Wilkinson, both quasi-inspired by Matt Yglesias, while Carina of An Inclination to Criticize supports the “honking bozo” Badnarik.

I previously posted on this theme ten months ago, and that post has much to recommend it… even if I did not quite predict John Kerry’s descent into Deanesque moonbattery at the time.

Now, the heavy lifting begins after the final end of the Ayers lawsuit. Personally, I was never very clear on what the plaintiffs actually wanted (I suspect they would have been content with a segregated, “separate but truly equal” system), but in the end it ended up as more of a desegregation case than an equal financing case.

I tend to think that this state needs to focus its limited resources on K-12 education and community colleges, providing scholarships for the truly needy to attend four-year institutions while making the middle and upper class pay something close to “retail” for university educations, and shutting down or privatizing the non-doctoral institutions (Alcorn State, Delta State, Mississippi Valley State, and Mississippi University for Women). Unfortunately I think Ayers is a hindrance, not a help, toward those goals.

Former Malaysian dictator prime minister Mahathir Mohamad endorses Kerry, while syphilocon Pat Buchanan and Russian dictator president Vladimir Putin endorse Bush.

Update: Xrlq points out that Arafat may be backing Kerry, although I haven’t seen this reported in mainstream media, so I’m somewhat skeptical (☣: LGF). And, Iran endorses Bush. My head is starting to hurt.

The New York Times endorses John Kerry Anybody But Bush. I think Michele’s reaction pretty much mirrors my own:

Even our nation’s vaunted media can’t come up with enough cogent reasons to vote for Kerry other than he’s not George Bush.

In general, the calculus of strategic voting dictates that people should vote so as to minimize the chances of their least preferred (but “electable”) candidate taking office. From that perspective, at least, the Times’ position makes sense.

Meanwhile, The Belgravia Dispatch advances an alternative perspective (þ: Andrew Sullivan).

Do you vote for Kerry in the hopes of getting divided government and fiscal responsibility, or do you vote for Bush and help keep Kerry in Congress, where—if all 99 of Kerry’s Senate colleagues did as little as he did—genuine limited government would be far more likely?

Mike Rappaport writes:

Critics of the Patriot Act are forced to acknowledge that it was passed by wide margins in the Congress, including by Democrats. Their explanation is that it was passed in the wake of 9–11, which undermined Congress’s judgement. The antiterrorism legislation passed during the Clinton Administration is also explained as having been passed as a response to Oklahoma City. In both cases, the claim appears to be that Congress enacts improper legislation when overreacting to a visible public event or problem.

What is interesting is that this is the same explanation often given for the passage of environmental legislation. CERCLA is passed after Love Canal, the Clean Water Act is enacted after the Cuyahoga River bursts into flames, etc.

Interestingly, although the same phenomonon is at work, liberals and conservatives tend to view these cases differently. Liberals think that the environmental emergency teaches the public about the problem, but believe the terrorist act undermines their judgment. And visa versa as to conservatives.

Of course, I think both classes of legislation are instances of “Do Something” prevailing over good judgment.

Jason Kuznicki comments on a strange exchange between Pete Coors and Tim Russert:

Russert: "You see no inconsistency between sponsoring male nude revues and fetish balls and opposing gay adoption and gay marriage?"

Coors: “I don’t.”

Russert: “None whatsoever?”

Coors: “No.”

Russert: “And you’re comfortable sponsoring those kinds of events? That’s part of traditional family values?”

Coors: “Look, this is a very—you know, people are going to have a lot of different ideas about what this is all about. But it is about recognizing that everybody—everyone in this country—should be valued for what they are, and I believe that’s the way we recognize it at our company.”

Kuznicki writes:

When Coors Brewing, an organization with a long and very poor record on gay issues, suddenly sponsors a raunch fetish party, they are valuing us for who we are. But when we ourselves demand to be treated as ordinary people--That's an attack on the traditional family.

In a sense, it’s the hidden curse of diversity. For years, we insisted on the essential difference between gay and straight. We demanded that gays must be accepted as different.

Then some people apparently got the message: Gays are acceptable only if they are these strange, hypersexualized, fundamentally sub-human creatures. We can dance nude on stage or wet ourselves in public—but when we try to get married or raise a family, man, that’s sick.

The attitude of Pete Coors towards gays reminds me of Homer Simpson: “I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals flaming.”

Apparently comparing George W. Bush to the developmentally-disabled is a popular sport on the caring, sensitive left:

“He wasn’t the angry Bush of the second debate or the retarded Bush from the first,” [Daily Show host Jon] Stewart said.

Then again, maybe Stewart falls under the South Park exception.

According to the Clarion-Ledger, a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center indicates Mississippi Supreme Court justice Kay Cobb and U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker spoke at a Council of Conservative Citizens event in Byhalia, Miss. (a small town southeast of Memphis) four years ago, and that a sitting Republican member of the state legislature, Tommy Woods, is a member of the organization. (Woods is apparently something of a “joiner”; he’s also a Mason, Shriner, and a Gideon.)

The so-called “white-collar Klan” and its sponsorship of the quadrennial “Blackhawk” political rally was an issue in last year’s governor’s race, and Sen. Trent Lott’s links with the group added to the firestorm after his appearance at Strom Thurmond’s birthday celebration in 2002.

Heidi Bond points out a few cool uses of statistical theory to show probable electoral college outcomes, including this site by Andrea Moro, an econ prof at Minnesota; I actually had more-or-less the same idea a month ago, but was too lazy to do anything with it.

I would have figured Stephen Bainbridge was too smart to agree with a question with a premise this ignorant of history:

More to the point, will judges be returned to their historical role as neutral interpreters of the Constitution and precedent, or will the imperial judiciary be revitalized and extended for decades?

Judges as “neutral interpreters of the Constitution and precedent”? When, exactly, did the Supreme Court ever act like neutral interpreters of the Constitution? John Jay sat around on his buttocks all day while he was the first Chief Justice, but I don’t think this is the mythical “neutral interpretation” period.

Wow, this is pretty gutter politics, even by Southern—and particularly west Tennessee—standards. Apparently the accused candidate denies any involvement. (þ: A Millsaps student from the district via email.)

Update: The Special Olympics organization is not amused; more details from the AP and Bill Hobbs.

You know, if George Bush had said something this idiotic, he’d be the laughingstock of America. But the unfortunate phrasing of the day award goes to John Edwards on the stump:

People like Chris Reeve [of blessed memory – ed.] will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again.

There’s nowhere to even start with that one.

Disgusting—and if the RNC orchestrated this, some GOP officials should go to prison (þ: Dead Parrots).

Apropos of this earlier post, OxBlogger David Adesnik plugs away at this theme, while Russell Arben Fox is apparently “nobody”.

I forgot to mention yesterday that David Cobb was the latest maroon talking about a “backdoor draft”—though I have to say at least John Kerry et al. have been kind in handing a free movie title to the adult film industry.

Steve Verdon catches Kevin Drum sounding like Donald Wildmon.

Today’s WaPo has an interesting article on the use of instant-runoff voting in San Francisco (þ: PoliBlog). While IRV isn’t exactly perfect, I think it’s better by a mile than plurality voting in multicandidate elections, leaving aside the argument over whether we should have multicandidate elections—which is in essence a debate over whether or not the meaningful policy space is unidimensional.

James Joyner comments on this op-ed by Duke political scientist Peter Feaver in today’s WaPo. I think both are correct to lament the politicization of the military, although I think three decades of Democratic Party antipathy, in rhetoric and deeds, toward the U.S. armed forces as an institution are largely responsible for that politicization, rather than any pro-miltary efforts by the Republicans.

More to the point, I wonder if this partisanship is part of the reason why the needs of servicemen and servicewomen, and their dependents, are overlooked by policymakers. It is often observed that African-American voters benefit very little from their overwhelming affiliation with the Democrats—swing voters, generally middle-class folk with 2.5 kids and a dog, get far more attention from both parties—and I think a similar dynamic keeps miltary families lagging in pay and benefits and crowded in substandard on-base housing. If more of the Democratic-leaning rank and file voted, I suspect Democrats and Republicans would do more to take care of the people who defend this country and their families.

As mentioned earlier, Green Party presidential nominee David Cobb appeared at Millsaps for about an hour; he spoke for about 20 minutes, then let audience members ask him questions for the remainder of the time. There was some local TV media in attendance from channels 3 and 13, at least.

I’ll have to say that even though Cobb’s political beliefs are quite opposed to mine in many ways, he’s a very effective speaker, and I think his personal story of growing up as a poor white kid on the Gulf Shore in Texas resonates well with audiences. Of course, he said a bunch of outlandish things (and I think his economic analysis of raising the minimum wage to a “living wage” is frankly laughable, and his “the Iraq War was for oil” analysis is far too simplistic), but I think he also talked with sophistication and depth about a lot of social and political issues—in fact, his discussion of voting reforms (proportional representation and IRV) was about the best I’ve ever seen or heard.

He also had some interesting things to say (in response to a question from me) about his ongoing semi-partnership with Michael Badnarik on the campaign trail; even though the LP and Greens differ on a lot of issues, I think it’s interesting that they both have worked together to achieve common goals—something you’d never see two major-party political candidates do. One thing I’d have been interested in seeing him talk about was how Ralph Nader’s candidacy was affecting his—how do you manage a campaign with another candidate with better name recognition doing essentially the same riff?

Anyway, while I have to say I found a lot of Cobb’s material worthy of eye-rolling, I enjoyed hearing him speak and I think a lot of Americans would be well-served to listen to what he and folks like Badnarik have to say; it’s certainly a breath of fresh air after the canned inanity of Kerry-Bush, and like Cobb said, a lot of the ideas we take for granted today in American politics (good or bad) came from minor parties and their supporters before they were “cool.”

Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb is speaking at Millsaps today at 2:30 p.m.; expect some vague reportage after the appearance, but no liveblogging since Millsaps hasn’t installed any wireless Internet service yet. (Normally I teach Intro from 2:45 to 4 today, but I cancelled class so my students could attend if they chose to do so.)

Robert Clayton Dean at Samizdata makes an interesting argument as to why libertarians should vote.