So, why is it that racehorses don’t get faster as time goes on while human runners do? The answer is here.
Romney the big-government Republican?
It’s no secret that Romney is not the conservatives’ choice for the Republican nomination.
He’s not mine either. But my choices aren’t running, so I’m taking a look at Romney, just as I am at all the other candidates. I may have a certain advantage here (or disadvantage, depending how you look at it): I didn’t scrutinize him all that closely in 2008 because I didn’t think he had a chance of winning, so I don’t have a lot of preconceptions.
The topic of who Romney really is and why conservatives are saying all those mean things about him is a large one, and I plan to treat it in a series of longer posts that I hope will make it out of the draft stage pretty soon. But for now I’ll just say that, although I understand some of the reservations conservatives hold towards Romney, some of it seems based on assumptions that don’t have a lot of evidence to back them up.
Yes, Romney has changed his mind on a couple of issues, particularly abortion, and now states views that are more conservative than before. Not sure why that’s such a crime, except that it causes people to believe he’s insincere, then and/or now. But what about this “Romney loves big government” charge I hear so often?
Here’s a good statement of the sort of thing one reads. In this case it’s offered by our old friend, David Frum:
Why is it that the GOP base seems not to care a whit about Mitt? Perhaps it’s because he is the anti-Tea Party, anti-talk-radio, anti-anti-government candidate.
Romney will never be able to appeal to those who want “limited government.” He fundamentally cannot; he is, at bottom, a center-right candidate who believes that government, when run effectively and efficiently, can produce the best results for the most people.
Frum is no conservative, of course. But I’ve read that charge from many actual conservatives, and it’s usually offered in just the way Frum presents it here: without any evidence. It’s thought of as an obvious truth.
I’d love to see exactly on what it’s based. When I look at Romney’s actual record, I notice a couple of things. One is that the vast majority of his work experience has not been in politics at all, it’s in the private sector. Nothing “big government” about that. He has run for office and lost twice, the first a Massachusetts Senate race challenging Ted Kennedy in 1994, and the second his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. His only elected office was his single term as governor of Massachusetts, one of the the most liberal states in the union, from 2003-2007. As such, he dealt with a heavily Democratic-liberal legislature.
During his tenure, he raised fees and closed tax loopholes in order to raise revenue. Is this the origin of the “big government” charge? It was hardly extreme, considering he was dealing with Massachusetts and a large deficit, and ended up with a surplus for the state. That surplus was also arrived at by cutting spending (and note particularly the last sentence, which shows you the limitations Romney faced):
The state legislature, with Romney’s support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns. The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years. Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all of them were overridden by the Democratic-dominated legislature.
As for Romneycare, it’s a huge topic that I hope to treat more thoroughly another time. But for now I’ll just say that at the time it was passed it was recommended by the conservative Heritage Foundation as a private-enterprise alternative to the big-government public option that liberal Massachusetts might have passed some day had Romney not come up with this plan. Romneycare was considered quite consistent with conservative principles. Whether it panned out as expected is another story entirely, for another day.
Take a trip back in time and read what the Heritage Foundation had to say about Romneycare back in 2006:
In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney’s plan as one of the most promising strategies out there. I know, because I’ve been part of the Heritage Foundation team advising the governor and his staff on the design, which builds on some of my work with officials in other states.
The Heritage Foundation has changed its tune on the individual mandate that was part of Romneycare, at least at the federal level (which Romney hadn’t advocated in the first place; he was dealing only with the state). That’s the Heritage Foundation’s prerogative. But to be consistent, shouldn’t we accuse them of flip-flopping, too?
[NOTE: Feel free to come up with other examples of Romney’s big government proclivities.]
Whatever happened to those gorgeous stewardesses?
Why did they wave bye-bye?
Used to be that one of the most noticeable aspects of the commercial flying experience was the really spectacular good looks of those uniformed young women who demonstrated the oxygen masks and exit routes, and performed such quaint and now virtually defunct offices as passing out meals and distributing assorted magazines in plastic binders. For the most part they wore uniforms far spiffier than today’s (always featuring, if memory serves, sheath skirts, fitted jackets, and perky little hats), and their jobs were looked upon as glamorous ones, whatever the reality may have been.
Glen Whitman, Megan McArdle, and Daniel Foster all take a turn at explaining why it’s come down to today’s far less pulchritudinous and friendly skies. Whitman thinks deregulation priced the hotties out of the flight attendant market, but McArdle points out (rightly, I believe) that it was unions and feminism:
Stewardesses used to be subject to all sorts of extremely strict rules: they couldn’t be married, couldn’t gain weight, couldn’t get pregnant, couldn’t be much over 30. If you fire everyone who violates those rules, then yes, you will select for a much “hotter” group of women than the current crop.
You could probably still get a large group of young, hot women to take a job that involves free flights all around the world. But those jobs are no longer open, because airlines stopped firing all the old, fat parents. Thanks to a combination of feminist shaming, union demands, and anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, once they no longer fired people over a certain age, union seniority rules immediately started selecting for older workers, in two ways: layoffs are usually last hired first fired, and older people have a lot of sunk costs in terms of pension accrual and seniority, so they’re less likely to leave. If you fly a major airline, you’ll notice very few stewardesses in their twenties.
This, like Whitmans’ explanation, is probably correct as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough. McArdle is too young to remember flying way back when. But my first flight was as a child in 1960, and I do remember. And the stewardesses in those days were not just today’s attendants with all the older and fatter ones weeded out; they were, as a rule, far more lovely than the very youngest and slimmest among today’s crop.
It’s Foster who touches on some of the other factors that have changed since then, important parts of the picture:
I’d add another factor (one McArdle starts to get at) that is likewise probably interdependent on the other two: The labor market for young women has changed. Since the 60s heyday of Pan Am, women have vaulted past men in educational achievement at the same time that a variety of professions requiring college degrees have become more accessible to them. Thus many of the young, attractive women who might have opted for a career as a flight attendant now have more options available to them. Also, flying has become a decidedly more mundane ”” even dreary ”” affair in the last few decades, and thus is probably less appealing as a career than it would have been to a young woman in 1965, when the idea of the jet-set lifestyle was probably more alluring.
It’s apparent to anyone who remembers the olden days that not only have the stewardesses changed, but the flying public has changed as well. For example, whenever I used to fly, as a teenager and a young woman, I got all dressed up, pretty much like those stewardesses. No, I didn’t wear white gloves and a hat, but I always wore a dress, hose, and heels. And so did just about everybody else (or the masculine equivalent). Flying was special, very different from taking a Greyhound bus, and one dressed for the role.
In this drawing, take a look not only at the stewardess, but at those all-important passengers in the background (climbing that flight of stairs):
What’s more, the specialness extended to the experience itself. Planes were more often half-empty (or even less) rather than full to the brim. The methods airlines now use for making sure they don’t waste a trip and precious fuel by flying a plane that is less than heavily loaded with passengers were not as highly developed, and probably the profit margin per passenger was higher (the cost of a flight for the consumer was certainly higher in relative terms). I would guess that a stewardess’s job was a lot easier; if they served the customers with greater charm and a more dazzling smile it was probably because it was a lot more pleasant to do so.
What’s more, some of the perks must have seemed perkier. Nowadays it’s not that hard to do a great deal of traveling, if you get a lot of frequent-flier miles and points, and shop well to get the bargain seats. In the early 60s we ordinary folk couldn’t afford to do much traveling, and one of the great attractions of being a stewardess was the chance to do just that. Stewardesses joined the airlines to see the world; now there are a host of ways to accomplish the same feat.
[NOTE: For those looking for more photos of the olden days, a four-part illustrated series begins here. It’s a bit heavy with photos from the mini-skirted late 60s rather than the era I’m primarily talking about, but it’s full of eye candy for the guys and retro fashion for the ladies.
Here’s another look at flying back in the good-bad old days.]
Israel and the Shalit deal: the moral dilemma of hostage-prisoner exchange
The dilemma Israel faces when its enemies take hostages such as Gilad Shalit is an excruciating one.
IDF soldier Shalit was captured by Hamas over five years ago. He’s only 25 years old now, but it probably seems like several lifetimes to him and certainly to his parents. He was kept all that time under conditions that “multiple human rights organizations have stated…are contrary to international humanitarian law.”
The purpose of a kidnapping such as Shalit’s is to wring the susceptible Israeli heart into releasing a great many terrorists in exchange, and that is exactly what has finally happened. Eitan Haber reflects on the conundrum for Israelis:
Yet a day or two shall pass, and the very same media, which turned the Shalit family and its noble struggle into a “commercial product” filled with tears, will slam the number of terrorists released, and especially their “quality.” The most will be written about the life sentences. Various media outlets will compete for the exact number: 2,000 life sentences, or is it 2,135 [sic]? Not even one kind word will be dedicated to those who secured Shalit’s release from captivity. Plenty of bad blood and charges will follow. We’re world champions when it comes to that.
I’m not so sure all the self-flagellation is warranted. The dilemma is inherent in the situation, as the hostage-takers well know. Israel is a tiny country composed of people who are both tough and pushovers, and each citizen is almost like family.
Giving in to terrorists through such exchanges has several bad effects. It encourages a repeat; the hostage-takers have gotten exactly what they want. They will score not only the return of over a thousand terrorists (some of them murderers), but major propaganda points. Talk about cycles of violence!
And in return the Israelis get: Gilad Shalit. How to measure the value of a life? I can’t.
Jello sculpture’s back!
Yes folks, it’s been a while since jello has been featured here.
Some may thank me for that. But some may have missed those jello interludes.
This post is for that second category of reader, to whom I offer the following:
Well, I guess that’s not such a relief from politics after all.
The jello sculpture’s flavor is chocolate with salted caramel sauce (the latter is Obama’s favorite, and one of mine as well). It was made by Obama supporter Matt Micari of Boston, who also creates “mini Jell-O White Houses, stars, and Obama birther mugs.”
[NOTE: More about Micari’s jello efforts here.]
The debate venues and moderators: why so liberal?
I’ve seen quite a few remarks, both here and elsewhere, to the effect of “why do Republicans keep having debates in mostly liberal venues with mostly liberal moderators?” Why do they let themselves be set up that way?
One answer is that otherwise they’d be limited to Fox News. But another, which I saw on a comments thread on another blog (don’t remember where), and which I think bears repeating, is that Republicans ought to be glad that these debates are run mostly by liberals, because it gives the Republican candidates lots of experience in fielding the sort of questions they will have to answer in any debate with Obama: “gotcha” ones.
Friendly moderators of the conservative sort wouldn’t afford that opportunity. Right now these debates are not being watched by a lot of people, but the presidential ones will be. So those who are watching them now get not only an introduction to the candidates and a chance to see how they perform under fire, but how they perform under a very specific type of fire: liberal fire. It’s no use selecting a nominee in the primaries who wouldn’t do well in that sort of venue. Even a weakened Obama would eat him/her alive.
The Republican debate
Here’s a thread for all ye brave folk who are tuning in.
[NOTE: Stephen Green at PJ writes: “I haven’t seen this many people looking this uncomfortable being so close to one another since my first mixer.”]
Take your vitamins!
Oh, never mind.
And in completely unrelated news, this feat is astounding, especially to us non-runners. I’m glad it worked out well; seems potentially risky, though. I wouldn’t recommend it for most people. But then, most people wouldn’t try to do it in the first place.
Christie endorses Romney
No surprise here, except perhaps in the early timing.
Christie and Romney are the type of Republicans many call RINOs. They are somewhat moderate compared to conservative voters, some of whom don’t trust them to be unwavering enough in their support of conservative principles, especially on social issues.
I think that both Cristie and Romney are fiscally conservative, which is the most important thing at the moment (yes, I know about Romneycare; a longer post on that is coming one of these days). And although Christie and Romney are very different in style—and I prefer Christie’s blunt straight-shooter attitude and his sense of humor to Romney’s smoothness—one experience they share above all is being (or having been, in the case of Romney) Republican governors in Democratic states. That’s a special circumstance; probably only Ronald Reagan emerged from it with his conservative bona fides intact.
And sometimes I wonder whether some conservatives might even consider Reagan to be a RINO by today’s stricter standards.
Why is Eric Holder still Obama’s AG?
In today’s WaPo Marc Thiessen lists and describes the errors Attorney General Eric Holder has made since joining the Obama administration. It makes for sobering reading; “Fast and Furious” is only the most recent in a lengthy accounting. And yet:
President Obama says that he has “complete confidence” in Attorney General Eric Holder. That’s good news for Republicans. Pick almost any unnecessary, losing battle in Obama’s first term, and his hapless attorney general is at the center of it.
If not for the fact that so many of Holder’s decisions harm national security, he would be a political dream come true for the GOP ”“ delivering up reliably disastrous controversies for the president every few months.
Of course, with Obama’s proclivity for doing an about-face, he could abandon Holder at any moment, as would appear to be politically prudent. But there’s been speculation that that will happen for years, and it has not yet occurred.
Why not? My answer is not substantially different than it was back in February of 2010 when I wrote a post entitled “Is Holder about to be tossed?” (sound familiar?), in which I refer to Holder as a “proxy” for Obama and then add:
…[M]y gut senses a close identification between Obama and Holder, an almost-Vulcan-mind-meld between them on the legal issues involved…This is not a compliment to either man; I think both are sadly misguided.
Holder serves a purpose for Obama. If there is an issue on which the President is somewhat loathe to express his opinion fully, perhaps because he knows it will be unpopular or controversial, I believe that Obama purposely uses Holder as cover, to draw the opposition’s criticism and deflect it from himself.
Perhaps the proper word for the relationship might be “surrogate” or “mouthpiece.” This is not to say that Holder does not have opinions of his own. I am not claiming he is a puppet. But his opinions are so closely in sync with Obama’s on these issues that for all intents and purposes they are one.
For this reason, I disagree strongly with those who think Holder is about to go. I suppose Obama might sacrifice him if it becomes necessary for strategic reasons (after all, he’s been known to do such a thing). If the decisions they both support because so unpopular Obama feels the need to disassociate himself from Holder and use him as scapegoat, it will happen. But this would only occur in the most extreme of situations, because Obama is so wedded to these views himself, and they are completely integral to his own attitude about the legal status and treatment of terrorists.
Holder is also no ordinary Cabinet appointee for Obama. They have known each other since 2004, the year Obama first achieved a national profile. The two met at “a dinner party hosted by former White House aide Anne Walker Marchange, niece of Clinton friend Vernon Jordan.” Very soon after declaring himself a candidate in early 2007, Obama requested that Holder be part of his campaign, and “Holder served as a legal adviser and strategist and led Obama’s vice presidential search committee.”
Holder is a trusted adviser and member of Obama’s inner circle. It probably doesn’t hurt, either, that Holder is a graduate of Columbia and a former basketball player, much like Obama. But it’s their common attitude towards law that creates the strongest bond between the men. As Holder says, “We are on the same page.”
And I don’t think Obama is eager to turn that page.
What about that piece would I change if I were writing it today? Not a whole lot, really. Holder is a relative newcomer compared with Valerie Jarrett, who was Obama’s (and wife Michelle’s) mentor in matters both political and social in Chicago beginning 20 years ago, but he is highly important nevertheless, and not just as an appointee.
If Obama is the loner people say he is, then old and trusted friends—especially ones that predate his presidency—become even more important. If he jettisons them, who is left?
Bodybuilding run amok
Disturbing:
The Occupy Wall Street protests
You may notice that I haven’t written a word so far about the Wall Street protests, although plenty of others have. That’s because I don’t think these demonstrations are going to end up being especially important in the larger political scheme of things. I don’t envision the protests growing a whole lot bigger, for example, although of course I could be wrong about this.
But for now the protests seem to exist mainly as a conduit for those on the left who dearly wish the glory days of the 60s would return, when demonstrations were large and actually seemed to influence public policy. It would give them something so many aging boomers now have: the chance to look back with the warm glow of nostalgia and pride in their declining years at their fiery and politically meaningful youth.
The main impulses driving the Occupy Wall Street protests seem to be a combination of leftist class politics, anger at diminishing opportunities for money spent (often in the form of student loans), and the desire to vent (as well as, in a few cases, financial rewards for joining up). But I think one significant thing about these protests is that they are the first ones I’m aware of in this country that channel a supposedly anti-establishment rebellion that is nevertheless basically in league with a current administration rather than against it.
Think about it; isn’t it usually the current government that’s being raged against? I haven’t done an exhaustive search, but it appears that there’s a paucity of anti-Obama signs and sentiments among those camping out in Zuccotti Park. That’s not to say that the protesters aren’t frustrated with Obama in many ways, but he is not their focus but their cheerleader, having long employed divisive rhetoric to stir up anger against those titans of finance who have now become the targets of the protesters’ rage.
And this despite the fact that Obama himself benefited greatly from Wall Street, from which he drew supporters, contributors, and advisers. At the same time, however, his rhetoric has excoriated them, a neat trick that perhaps only Obama would have the audacity to try to perform.
It’s not that Obama has created the rage against Wall Street through his rhetoric. But he has fed it and encouraged it and has supported it, as part of his effort to become the most intentionally divisive president in memory. Peter Wehner writes:
It was Obama, after all, who ”“ more than any political figure in our lifetime ”“ promised to heal the breach. That was at the very core of his message, and his appeal, during the last presidential election.
For example, in his announcement speech on February 10, 2007, it was Obama who complained, “We’re distracted from our real failures and told to blame the other party”¦” He would not sink to such depths, he promised us.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters have probably forgotten that message, if they ever listened to it (or believed it) in the first place, and so hypocrisy on that score is probably not one of the things that frustrates them about Obama. If anything, they probably think he hasn’t been divisive enough—or at least not clever enough about his divisiveness. Now it’s time to up the ante, and if Obama won’t do it, they’re going to have to do it themselves.