tdaxp

"Chickens, Eggs, & Connectivity," by Stephen DeAngelis, Enterprise Resilience Management Blog, 14 July 2006, http://enterpriseresilienceblog.typepad.com/enterprise_resilience_man/2006/07/chickens_eggs_c.html.

"Report: Indian gov blocks Blogspot, Typepad, Geocities blogs," by Xeni Jardin, Boing Boing, 17 July 2006, http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/17/report_indian_gov_bl.html (from Digg).

In a prescient article last Frday, Enterra cofounder Stephen F. DeAngelis criticized the proposed law Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 that is currently in the House of Representatives. The bill would begin firewalling the Old Core, particularly the United States, away from the New Core, especially China. It would make disconnection in one area (technological freedom) as an excuse to roll-back connectivity in other market arenas. It's a bad idea all around -- it will isolate America from her allies in this Global War against Terrorism, it isolates American businesses from their partners abroad, and by imposing regulations on technology companies it will lesson our nation's advantages over competitors.

Steve's post is worth reading, especially this bit where he emphasizes the need for economic growth. Economic development enables freedom, or as he says

Not only is such a bill likely to make the U.S. even less well liked abroad, it is unlikely to achieve the goals it desires. While some may see it as a chicken-and-egg discussion (which comes first freedom or capitalism?), historically economics have had a greater impact on the politics than vice versa. Whatever Tienanmen Square represents symbollically, Shanghai is the real face of change in China and it is driven by economics. For all intents and purposes, Shanghai is developed, capitalistic, world-class city despite the controls the central government has tried to impose on Internet content.

Don't believe it? Then compare China to India -- both are developing states, but China is a party dictatorship and India is a multiparty democracy. A perfect test case is blogs, and thus it is no surprise that India is attacking free speech on blogs:

India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) passed an order to ISPs Friday to block several websites. The list is confidential. Indian ISPs have been slowly coming into compliance. SpectraNet, MTNL, Reliance, and as of Monday afternoon, Airtel. State-backed BSNL and VSNL have not started yet but likely will soon. The known list of blocked domains is *.blogspot.com, *.typepad.com and geocities.com/*.

Anyone who believes that a bill that restricts trade with countries that censor information will only hit dictatorships is misguided. Underdeveloped countries generally begin turning on themselves, from China to India to France. Slapping de facto sanctions on those states only hurts their economies -- and their citizens' freedoms -- more.

Support freedom. Support economics. Oppose the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006.

John D. Jacob, an ally of Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), lost his bid to unseat Chris Cannon (R-UT) in a party primary. The vote was 55.7% to 44.2%. This election is important because Jacob attacked Cannon for being "soft" on immigration. (Tom Tancredo is the leader is the current leader of the Know-Nothing wing of the Republican Party.)

The victory is even sweeter for pro-growth Republicans because Tancredo weakened his own ally:

Tom Tancredo’s PAC sponsored some particularly nasty ads against Cannon, that had Jacob apologizing on radio constantly for the last two weeks about non-authorized ads. Big momentum loser and got Jacob significantly off message.

Immigration is good for America. It's our destiny. It's the right thing to do.

"Bigotry Beneath the Fog," by Eugune Robinson, Washington Post, 23 June 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201466.html (from MyDD).

My old nemesis, the Voting Rights Act, took a powerful blow because of wily House Speaker Dennis Hastert

Speaker Dennis Hastert was ready to move forward with a feel-good, election-year extension of the landmark 1965 act that guaranteed voting rights for African Americans disenfranchised by Jim Crow law and custom in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia. In 1975 the act was expanded to cover Alaska, Texas and Arizona, where citizens with limited command of English -- Latinos, mostly -- were being treated as if they were black folks in the South.

Hastert understood that reauthorizing the act would be useful in efforts to convince voters that the Republican Party as presently constituted is just ultraconservative, not actually racist. But Hastert was sandbagged by fellow Republicans who rebelled in a private caucus meeting Wednesday. The renewal probably could have won easy approval on the House floor, since Democrats would have voted for it, but Hastert's policy is to not bring out any bill that lacks majority support from Republicans, so he had no choice but to yank it.

This is great news.

An interesting chart on the popularity of "Hillary" as baby girl's name

I was particularly surprised because Senator Clinton is a divisive politician, and so should inspire loyalty in her base. But if her name is declining over all, that mean many more couples are dropping "Hillary" as a potential baby name than considering the name because of her.

I wondered if the same thing happened with other notable figures, so using information from the Social Security Administration I charted "George," "Laura," "William," and "Hillary" from 1988 to 2004

In the chart, the farther the bar drops down in a year, the less popular it is.



For those who want hard numbers, I apologize for the terrible formatting

Year    1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

George 0078 0079 0079 0087 0095 0104 0110 0115 0118 0121 0126 0123 0130 0129 0131 0138 0148

Laura   0023 0025 0029 0035 0038 0043 0046 0056 0066 0066 0075 0081 0085 0086 0106 0125 0129

William 0016 0015 0016 0019 0020 0018 0019 0020 0018 0019 0014 0014 0011 0010 0011 0011 0008

Hillary   0245 0209 0192 0165 0131 0165 0131 0261 0566 0725 0868 0856 0878 0886 ???? ???? 0805

The first thing to see is that "George," "Laura," and "William" start out as very popular baby names, with Hillary in the top few hundred. By the time Bill Clinton wins the Presidency Hillary has ascended to place 131, closing in on George's standing of 110.

Immediately the popularity of Hillary plummets. When Bill Clinton leaves office, "Hillary" on the far end of the 800s. And it keeps getting worse. In 2002 and 2003 "Hillary" drops out of the top thousand names. While Hillary "rallies" to position 805 by 2004, it's nowhere near as good as it was before she became First Lady.

So why don't parents want a baby Hillary? There are two possibilities that seem likely

1. Whatever her political appeal, Hillary Clinton is personally unpopular and few parents wish their children to be like her.
   
2. Hillary has a reputation as "masculine" warrior, which few parents consider appropriate for a baby warrior

If reason #1 is true, this bodes ill for her chance at the Presidency in 2008. Aaron's warning of Hillary's unelectability would be true. But if it's because she is "warlike," then Hillary would be a strong candidate to continue the Global War on Terrorism.

Time well tell.

"This letter constitutes formal written notification," Federal Elections Commission, 14 June 2005, http://query.nictusa.com/showimg/25056.gif (from South Dakota Politics).

I don't know what's the most bizarre part of this letter: that Daschle's mailing address isn't in Aberdeen (that's where he said he would move if he lost!), that the Federal Elections Commission thinks he is running against Thune in 2010, or that the the FEC uses fax numbers for email addresses.

Federal Election Commission
Washington, D.C. 20463

June 14, 2005

Thomas A. Daschle
P.O. Box 1656
Sioux Falls, SD 57101

Candidate ID Number: S6SD0028

Dear Mr. Daschle:

This letter constitutes formal written notification that "A LOT OF PEOPLE SUPPORTING TOM DACHLE INC" has filed reports of receipts and disbursements with the Commission and appears to have received contributions and/or made expenditures in support of your 2010 candidacy in excess of $5,000. Commission Regulations define a "candidate" as "... an individual who seeks nomination for election, or election, to Federal office, whenever any of the following events occur:

(1) The individual has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or has made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000.

(2) The individual has given his or her consent to another person to receive contributions or make expenditures on behalf of that individual and such person has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000.

(3) After written notification by the Commission that any other person has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000 on the individual's behalf, the individual fails to disavow such activity by letter to the Commission within 30 days receipt of the notification." (11 CFR § 100.3(a)).

You have thirty days from receipt of this notification to disavow these activities. To disavow send a letter directly to the Commission, marked Attention: Reports Analysis Division, stating that you are not a candidate for Federal Office and that you have not authorized the solicitation of contributions nor the making of expenditures on your behalf.

If you do not disavow these activities, you should file a Statement of Candidacy (FED Form 2). The FEC FORM 2 can be downloaded from the FCC website at http://www.fec.gov, or requested through the FEC Faxline at (202) 501-3413. (11 CFR § 101.1(a)).

Please note that Senate candidates must send a copy of their Statement of Candidacy to the FEC via fax (202-219-0174) or electronic mail (2022190174@fec.gov), in addition to filing their official copy on paper with the Secretary of the Senate. (11 CFR § 400.20(b)(1))

 

Update: Ryne McClaren picks up the story (courtesy South Dakota Politics).

Update 2: On the same day, Clean Cut Kid and David Kranz of the Argus Leader pick up the story. Both are Democrat-sympathizers, so it is not surprising that they took their time with the information. At least CCK bothers to post his work online, unlike Kranz.

"Re: Rotten," by Cliff May, The Corner, 16 July 2005, http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_10_corner-archive.asp#069751.

Responding to news that one of Senator Santorum's aides had his privacy violated by a homosexualist "outer"...

 

Many people on the left strongly object to the “lifestyle choice” of working for a Republican senator.

It’s against their religion.

So they respond by exposing, attacking and attempting to humiliate those they find objectionable – those who are different from them, those whose behavior they can’t understand.

They believe the government should stay out of their bedrooms. They also believe they have the right to invade the bedrooms of anyone they choose.

Again, this is part of the faith of those on the irreligious left.

 

Why the man was attacked is obvious: radical homosexualists hope that by destroying any "middle ground," they can radicalize a population a la Lenin.


But the greatest criticism of Cliff May's post is that religion in America is rarely so cruel.

"Democratic Disarray in the Senate," by Ken Blanchard, South Dakota Politics, 15 July 2005, http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2005/week28/index.html#a0005605559.

South Dakota Politics jumps on the tdaxp "Republicans Won the Filibuster War" bandwagon

 

As the White House comes closer to a nomination, the Democratic Senate appears in near-total disarray. Conflicting statements from Democratic leaders appear to be ferocious one day and fawning the next. What is clear is that there is a dangerous and growing disconnect between Democratic leaders and their base. . . . [S]ince the fight over the filibuster rule, shifting Democratic positions have been not just inexplicable but incoherent.

 

If Turley's portrait is to be trusted, and he is after all a fellow Scot, two things are clear. One is the SouthDakotaPolitics was right to argue, against the wisdom of most conservative blogs, that the filibuster deal was strategic victory for Frist's Republicans.

 

Seven Democratic senators agreed to a proposal that protected the right of the filibuster while allowing some candidates to be confirmed. The result was a disaster for the Democrats. To this day, most people cannot figure out what the Democrats got from the deal. The four candidates that the Democrats had vowed to filibuster as the previously deemed "worst of the worst" were allowed to be confirmed, while the Democrats promised (according to some of the signatories) not to filibuster any nominee on the basis of ideology. At the time, Minority Leader Harry Reid heartily praised the deal and the dealmakers for a masterful and historic agreement. Now, the Democrats are facing either a breach of the agreement by voting on the basis of ideology or a vote with Republicans to prevent a filibuster under the prior agreement.

 

In case you are wondering, that's what winning looks like.

The second thing is that the Thune organization, and South Dakota Republicans in general, did more than just beat a powerful Senate incumbent in the last election. They crippled the Senate Democratic leadership at a key moment in the Bush presidency [a good example of node takedown -- tdaxp]. It seems almost certain that Bush will get at least two SCOTUS appointments, and perhaps as many as four. Not bad work.

 

Daschle's job was to waste everyone's time -- to slow down the collapse of the ancien regime. He succeeded.

But the correlation of forces is against the no-change center-leftists who run the Senate Democrats, and the random-change far-leftists who run MoveOn and other groups.

Other groups are winning, instead.

The speed of policies in American politics is not known.  But their direction is.

"Rhetoric Takes Nasty Turn in Congress," by Jim Abrams, Associated Press, 21 June 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101034_pf.html (from South Dakota Politics).

A good AP story that illustrates the difference between swarm attacks and opportunity attacks in politics

A Republican accuses Democrats of demonizing Christians. A Democrat talks of Nazis in connection with the treatment of terror suspects. Both sides cry foul, and apologies are hard to come by.

It's just another day of vitriolic gotchas at the Capitol.

House Republicans on Tuesday were all over Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, because of recent comments in which he referred to Nazis, Soviets and Cambodia's Pol Pot in describing the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

On Monday, House Democrats stopped debate on a defense spending bill to protest a comment by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., that, "like moths to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians."

Swarms are pulsing like a heartbeat or a lighthouse -- the intensity rises and falls. Think of swarming like the hydrological cycle, with warms "raining" (condescending from vapor to water) and evaporating (dispersing from water back to vapor) over and over again.

Congress isn't that advanced in its thinking yet, perhaps because the Congressional environment doesn't support the coordination and medium-term thinking swarming needs. Instead, Congressman fight like regular guerrillas, with little thought of the big picture.

"What's on Tim Johnson's Mind," by John Schaff, South Dakota Politics, 14 June 2005, http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2005/week24/index.html#a0005173860.

"Herseth," by Quentin Riggins, South Dakota Politics, 14 June 2005, http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2005/week24/index.html#a0005170580.

A great post on how Tim Johnson, who was always the boring version of Tom Daschle (but, unlike Daschle, actually bested John Thune in a Senatorial election), is acting like he doesn't want to run for reelection in 2008 (emphasis mine)

Tim Johnson has voted against yet another Bush judicial nominee, Thomas Griffith of Utah, this time aligning himself with a distinct minority of the Democratic far left. Heck, even Dick Durbin voted for this guy, and there isn't any more partisan Democrat than Dick Durbin. Maybe Sen. Johnson has some good reason for voting against these nominees, but we have yet to hear it. So let me invent a reason. Sen. Johnson is starting to vote like a man who has no intention of running for re-election in 2008. He almost lost last time, he does not have the Daschle patronage, and 2008 will be another presidential year in which this state will likely vote solidly for the Republican nominee. So Johnson is now free to vote his conscience, which is to the left of most South Dakotans. This scenario, naturally, would leave Johnson's Democratic seat open for 2008. I wonder if there is a Democrat with strong South Dakota ties who might be interested in returning...ahem...I mean joining the U.S. Senate?

Update: NROs Bench Memos has some information as to the importance of the Griffith nomination to the DC circuit. It should be noted that this Brett Kavanaugh fellow that the Democrats will be opposing has been ranked by the ABA as "well qualified" (their highest ranking) by a majority of the rating committee, and the rest of the committee rated him "qualified".

Yet Another Update: Evidence for my No Johnson in 2008 theory is that Johnson currently only has $15,839 on hand in his election account. I realize that the election is not until 2008, but that is a pretty small number. For example, Norm Coleman from Minnesota is also up for re-election in 2008 and he has over $500,000 in his account, raising $1.7 million last year to Johnson's $295,000. An unscientific sample of Senators up for re-election in 2008 shows that no one has less money on hand than Tim Johnson.

Tim's hesitance is understandable, with rumors that Stephanie Herseth wants to join John Thune as Republican Senator from South Dakota...

Dave Kranz says in today's Argus Leader that Representative Stephanie Herseth's pro-Republican votes are angering Democrats and raises the possibility of her switching parties:

Some South Dakota Democrats don't find much humor in Rep. Stephanie Herseth's increasing number of votes supporting President Bush on key issues. In fact, it is becoming common for doubting Democrats to wonder whether she eventually will switch parties.

That says a lot, coming from the Democratically-inclined Kranz. No votes or issues are mentioned, but they must surely include Herseth's support for the Patriot Act, her vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, her support for the war in Iraq, her A-rating from the NRA (Daschle had an F), etc... Maybe the state will send a real Republican to Washington to replace Herseth, who now has no power as a thirty-something, first-termer in the minority.

"Patent Reform Bill Introduced in U.S. House," by Zonk, Slashdot, 9 June 2005, http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/09/1216221&from=rss.

Is reform coming to America's insane patent system? Let's hope so.

kanad wrote to mention a ZDNet article covering the introduction of the Patent Reform Act of 2005 to the U.S. House of Representatives. From the article: "Probably the most sweeping change would be the creation of a process to challenge patents after they are granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. 'Opposition requests' can be filed up to nine months after a patent is awarded or six months after a legal notice alleging infringement is sent out. The bill is supported by the USPTO and Microsoft who have been recently asking for patent reforms ." More details of the bill are available at the Congressman's website."

I've supported patent reform before. The current system not only retards the software industry. It hurts America in the Global War on Terror.