Author: Loquitur Veritatem

See https://politicsandprosperity.com/about/.

More about Israel, and the Left

I wrote recently and approvingly about Israel’s Gaza offensive. Now, according to an AP story, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has pledged to escalate a broad Israeli offensive in northern Gaza, saying troops will remain until Palestinian rocket attacks are halted. Sharon’s resolve is sure to invoke more wrath and scorn from the left, which reflexively hates Israel.

Why does the left hate Israel? Richard Baehr of The American Thinker spells it out:

1. It is an easy way to express one’s hatred for America.

2. Israel is viewed as an outpost of colonialism, and an active practitioner of it.

3. Israel is a western nation, and hence can be judged by the left. Israel is not protected by cultural relativism, as the Arabs are.

4. Leftist Christian churches can escape any lingering guilt about the Holocaust, by turning Israel into a villain. Some leftist churches hate Israel because they think this will help protect their members in the holy land — in other words they feel threatened.

5. Ferocious Muslim hatred of Israel and the Jews reinforces the natural cowardice of many on the left who go along with the Muslims to stay out of their line of fire.

6. Jewish leftists are prominent in the anti-Israel movement. This opens the floodgates for everybody else.

7. Israel is attacked because the secular left is appalled by the influence of religious settlers and their biblical connections to the land of Israel, and by the support for Israel by evangelical Christians, and Christian Zionists.

I think there’s a lot of merit in what Baehr says. I’m especially persuaded by the first three points, and the rest seem more than plausible.

Here’s my take: Israel owes its existence and strength, in large part, to the United States, which is Israel’s longtime benefactor. Israel and the United States are natural — if tacit — allies in the war on terror. The left hates America because America isn’t what the left wants it to be. In fact, the left’s hatred for America is so strong and deep that it’s fair to say that the left regards America as its main enemy. Israel — a staunch friend of the left’s main enemy — is therefore the left’s enemy, as well.

The Splenetic Krugman Truth Squad

According to Jeff Salamon, writing in today’s Austin American-Statesman,

Paul Krugman, whose incendiary columns occasionally run on the op-ed pages of the American-Statesman…, made the leap from famous-within-his-profession Princeton economics professor to famous-period pundit when he accepted a twice-weekly column at the no-longer-quite-so-Gray Lady. Krugman has been so tough on the current administration that he has even inspired a self-styled Krugman Truth Squad, who are even angrier than he is. Even when they get him dead to rights — and they do, sometimes — their rhetoric is so over the top (typical KTS blog headline: “Krugman Hate Crimes”) that you notice their spleen, rather than their facts.

The spleen is understandable. Krugman is the Goebbels of the pseudo-academic left. It’s hard to react to out-and-out vicious, lying propaganda with pure reason, even though the Krugman Truth Squad has reason (and facts) on its side.

But I’m not indulging in reason tonight. Just call me a member of the splenetic Krugman Truth Squad. And proud of it.

One Baseball Tradition Ends, Another Continues

A few days ago I posted about the fact that all the teams then leading major league baseball’s six divisions were pre-expansion (pre-1961) franchises. So much for that piece of trivia. The Anaheim Angels, one of the first two expansion franchises (est. 1961) caught up with the Oakland Athletics (descended from the Philadelphia Athletics, est. 1901) and went on to win the American League West title by beating the A’s today.

For those few of you who might be interested: The other 1961 expansion team was the Washington Senators, a team that replaced the original American League Senators (1901-60), which moved to Minnesota for the 1961 season and has been there since, as the Twins. The expansion Senators lasted only 11 seasons (1961-71) and moved to Texas, as the Rangers. You may know all that, but did you know that there were two Washington Senators teams in the National League (1886-9 and 1892-9)? Which means that Washington is about to get its fifth baseball franchise.

How many chances do you get to show that you can support a baseball team? If your name is Washington, it seems that you get as many chances as you want.

Birds of a Feather

AP, via Yahoo News!, reports this:

Brokaw, Jennings Show Support for Rather

By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK – While acknowledging mistakes in CBS anchor Dan Rather’s “60 Minutes” report that questioned President Bush’s service in the National Guard, competing news anchors Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings offered support Saturday for the beleaguered newsman.

Brokaw blasted what he called an attempt to “demonize” CBS and Rather on the Internet, where complaints about the report first surfaced. He said the criticism “goes well beyond any factual information.”

“What I think is highly inappropriate is what going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad … that is quite outrageous,” the NBC anchor said at a panel on which all three men spoke….

The Guard story, aired on Sept. 8, was discredited because it relied on documents impugning Bush’s service that apparently were fake.

“I don’t think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career,” said Jennings, anchor on ABC….

Political jihad. That’s cute, Brokaw. But Rather’s the one who’s been on a political jihad for most of his “journalistic” career.

I agree, Jennings, never judge a man by only one event in his career. Rather’s bias shows up nightly. That’s more than 4,000 events since he took over as the anchor of CBS Nightly News. Not enough evidence for you? Plenty for me.

We’ll Be Watching You

The U.S. Supreme Court is the “you” in this case. The 2004-5 term of the Court opens Monday. Cases to watch, according to an AP story at Yahoo! News:

The death penalty, free speech and prison sentences are back on the agenda, along with new topics such as medical marijuana and out-of-state wine purchases that are likely to produce significant disagreement….

Here’s the death penalty issue:

A case sure to elicit strong opinions will be argued this month when justices are asked to rule on the constitutionality of executing killers who committed their crimes when they were juveniles….

The juvenile case will decide the fate of about 70 people on death row who killed when they were teenagers, including a Missouri man who was 17 when he helped push a woman off a railroad bridge in 1993. The United States is among only a few countries that allow execution for crimes committed before age 18.

Let the punishment fit the crime, I say. Don’t gas the guy, throw him off a railrod bridge.

This year’s top free speech case asks if the government can force cattle producers to pay for programs such as the “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner” ad campaign. The court’s ruling is significant because the government forces growers of many agricultural products, from eggs to alligators, to share expenses for marketing. The eventual ruling would affect nonagriculture government programs, too….

And farmers and ranchers, of course, are passing on the cost of those ad campaigns to consumers. So, by forcing farmers and ranchers to support the ad campaigns, the government is effectively forcing taxpayers to subsidize advertising. Why doesn’t the government just ship 10 percent to the ad agencies and drop the advertising? We’d all be better off.

As for medical marijuana, maybe it should be legalized, with a proviso that marijuana growers must join forces with the Miller Brewing Company for a “high time” advertising campaign.

Allowing inter-State shipment of wine to individual consumers should be an easy one. If a State allows the importation of alcoholic beverages pursuant to the 21st Amendment — and I guess all States do — then barring the shipment of wine to individual consumers within the State amounts to State regulation of interstate commerce, which is reserved to the federal government. Next case.

The Meaning of "Hate Speech"

The left is fond of saying that those who challenge the veracity and virtue of leftists, leftism, and leftism’s lapdogs are guilty of “hate speech.”

I wondered how it could be hateful to say, truthfully, that John Kerry consistently voted against programs that would help the armed forces of the United States deter and defeat our enemies. Yet, Democrats strove mightily to portray Sen. Zell Miller’s righteous anger about Kerry’s voting record as hatred.

Similarly, Democrats strive mightily to portray those who favor self-reliance, free markets, and property rights as “haters” because they don’t believe in the redistribution of income and wealth.

Thinking about all of that has led me to this insight: If the left hates what you say, it’s “hate speech.”

High Irony in the Cozy World of Government Contracting

Here’s a story from BBC News that won’t make even a small dent in the spin and counter-spin about the presidential debates:

US air force official imprisoned

The former number two buyer for the US air force has been sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption.

Darleen Druyun, 56, admitted to boosting the price of a tanker plane deal to win favour with Boeing, the company she was about to work for.

She also pleaded guilty to giving Boeing a competitor’s secret data.

The judge said the stain of her offence was very severe, and the case “must stand as an example”, given the high office she held….

There are two ironies here. First, Druyun was caught doing something blatantly that others manage to do more subtly in Washington. I couldn’t begin to count the number of retiring generals, admirals, and high-ranking bureaucrats who, shortly before they retire, start making nice to contractors to whom they’d like to sell their consulting services for, say, $150 an hour.

Second, I remember that when Druyun was still in her government job she was a panelist at a symposium on ethical practices for government contractors. Of course, she was all in favor of ethics. Isn’t everyone in Washington?

Well, maybe not Tom DeLay. Though DeLay’s real sin is being a “take no prisoners” Republican in the mold of Newt Gingrich. If you’re too nasty to the opposition, they stop giving you a free pass for behaving like everyone else on Capitol Hill. Then the opposition suddenly discovers ethics — not theirs, of course, just your lack of them.

Ha, Ha Funny Stuff from the Left

So Daily Kos comments about something or other that Fox News’s White House reporter Carl Cameron wrote about Kerry, apparently in jest, which Fox News quickly retracted and apologized for. Kos says this:

If a network calls itself “fair and balanced”, it shouldn’t have a blatant anti-Kerry reporter on the beat.

Okay, so how about if all the networks that don’t call themselves “fair and balanced” — because they know better — take all their blatant anti-Bush reporters off the White House beat? That would leave a lot of empty seats in the press briefing room, wouldn’t it?

Not to mention empty anchor desks. But, the anchors I have in mind are empty suits, anyway.

P.S. By Fox’s standards, CBS should have apologized for the fake National Guard memos about Bush’s service before airing them.

Whose Side Are They On, Anyway?

The American Thinker highlights more moral confusion on the left. First, Thomas Lifson:

…John F. Kerry pledged that he would end America’s program to develop miniature nuclear “bunker-buster” weapons, the type of weapon which would be suitable to remove the threat from underground nuclear weapons facilities belonging to rogue states. Yet in the very same debate, Kerry decried the progress made by North Korea and Iran toward nuclear weapons, weapons which are produced using underground facilities of the type which could only be destroyed by ultra-powerful bunker-busters.

How do we explain Kerry’s position that the United States should not possess weapons capable of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states, a threat he identified as the most important one facing the United States? The answer to that question can be found in the writings of leftist theoreticians, critical of what they call American “dominance.”

They have openly expressed their fears that a world in which the United States is the most powerful actor will be unjust, and is undesirable. Of course, no candidate for president will go so far as to baldly state the thesis that the United States is not to be trusted with power, and that we need to be checked and balanced by the power of foreign states, comparably armed and able to project their power against us. But these intellectual doctrines seem to have been incorporated into the national security thinking of John F. Kerry, the would-be next Commander-in-Chief, because they explain his peculiar views on disabling America’s ability to address the threat of North korean and Iranian nukes….

Then, Justin Hart:

Al Gore’s now infamous MoveOn.org speech in May 2004 highlights a theme that has “dominated” left-leaning scholarship for last three years. Said Gore: “An American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does.”…

This “dominance motif” is the bedrock of modern leftist thought, seeding a host of conspiracy theories and birthing a thriving industry of Bush-bashing tomes. Understanding the history, rhetoric and proponents behind these claims illustrates the flawed worldview of the left….

[There is] a vein of leftist scholarship and publications warning of the “imperial grand strategy” that the Bush administration has “embraced.” All of these writers allude to the 2002 policy document, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America….

In [leftists’] minds, there is…something inherently sinister about it. To summarize their fears: The birth of “neocons” during the first Gulf War gave rise to the “Bush Doctrine” of “forward deterrence.” Before the 2001 attacks, “preemption” was a rhetorical device employed by U.S. administrations since WWII, that has now become a declarative policy under Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell and associates. Employing an “Arab façade”, the Bush Administration has struck a “Faustian bargain,” vying for U.S. hegemony while simultaneously “socializing” a military economy, driving huge deficits and creating “powerful pressures” to cut federal spending.

Bush is seen as a “born-again global crusader,” fixated on enriching his oil-rich peers. He advocates a Pax Americana, with a swagger of “open contempt” for international law, and displays an insatiable desire for global dominance. The common premise across these worldview conspiracies is that the Bush Administration has insidious designs to dominate and “run the planet by force to protect their privilege.”

Empire, where’s the empire? Where’s the global dominance? Where’s the international law? (Hint: It’s not to be found in the United Nations.)

Have these people died and gone to some magical kingdom where lions and lambs commingle in peace? Tell me how to find it. I’ll check my weapons at the gate.

Some Will Yell "Censorship"

George Mason University — a State university in northern Virginia — has cancelled a speaking engagement by Michael Moore, according to The Washington Post:

GMU Disinvites Moore

Speech, $35,000 Fee Drew Criticism

By Amy Argetsinger and Lisa Rein

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, October 1, 2004; Page A01

George Mason University canceled a scheduled speaking engagement by liberal filmmaker Michael Moore yesterday after two conservative state legislators and others complained that public money should not support an overtly political event.

Moore, the outspoken director of the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” was to have received about $35,000 for his Oct. 28 speech at the Patriot Center on the Fairfax campus — an event that university officials had arranged a week ago and had not begun to publicize.

Word spread quickly, and after complaints from the legislators and some members of the community reached the office of President Alan G. Merten this week, the school announced that the event, coming so close to the presidential election, would be “an inappropriate use of state resources.”….

It is the second time in recent weeks that a public university has canceled an appearance by Moore, currently on a 20-state “Slacker Uprising Tour” of college campuses that has drawn sellout crowds as well as heated criticism at almost every stop. The president of California State University-San Marcos, near San Diego, canceled a $37,000 campus appearance by Moore….

Del. Vincent F. Callahan Jr. (R-Fairfax), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and considered a moderate on many issues, called Moore “a sleazebag of the first order.”

“They should have Democrats and Republicans speak, but not somebody whose living is libel and slander. . . . That’s not appropriate for a first-class university,” Callahan said….

The same goes for Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, James Carville, Paul Begala and any number of similarly vicious idiots out there — left and right — who have nothing to add to the sum of human knowledge. The citizens of Virginia (and I was one of them for most of 40 years) shouldn’t pay one red cent to support the gaseous emissions of the lunatic fringe.

Advice to GMU: Take the $35,000 and buy 7,000 pocket copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States from the Cato Institute. (Maybe Cato would throw in a few more thousand copies for such a large order.) Spread the copies all over campus. The contents would be an eye-opener for most students. They’d learn something about the wisdom of the system that Moore and company are busily trying to tear down.

You Say Slacks, I Say…

…trousers. Virginia Postrel writes about slacks:

Ed Haggar, who coined the term “slacks,” has died. From the Dallas Morning News obit:

Mr. Haggar teamed with legendary Dallas advertising pioneer Morris Hite to coin the term “slacks,” his son said. Pants were largely known as trousers until then.

“During the war years, people tried to get more casual during the weekends, during slack time or down time,” [his son] Eddie Haggar said. “Dad and Morris Hite…came up with the name slacks.”

….

Yeah, but, women wear slacks; men wear trousers. See:

Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart, on the set of The Philadelphia Story, 1940. Hepburn is wearing slacks. Grant and Stewart are wearing trousers. (And Grant is wearing white socks — with a pin-striped suit. Who’d ever believe it could happen?)

Doing What You Have to Do, Israeli Style

Arab terrorists and their sympathizers — from Manhattan to Paris and Bonn — will call it a crime against humanity. I call it doing what you have to do to protect your people from their enemies. What is it? This:

Armored Vehicles Mass at Gaza Border

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

JEBALIYA REFUGEE CAMP, Gaza Strip – Armored vehicles massed on Gaza’s border Friday after Israel’s security Cabinet approved a large-scale military operation — dubbed “Days of Penitence” — to stop Palestinian rocket fire….

The Cabinet approved the offensive late Thursday, at the end of a day of heavy fighting between troops and Palestinian gunmen in the Jebaliya refugee camp, the Palestinians’ largest and most densely populated.

In bloodshed Friday, five Palestinians were killed and at least 22 were wounded in fighting in the camp. The army said troops fired at one group of militants planting explosives and another setting up a rocket launcher….

On Friday, fighting erupted in Jebaliya and nearby towns. In separate incidents, Israeli troops fired two tanks shells and a missile from an aircraft at a group of militants attempting to launch a rocket….

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the security Cabinet he was determined to stop the rocket fire. Israeli officials said the operation would be open-ended.

“What can we do,” a participant quoted Sharon as saying. “The Jews, too, have a right to live.”…

On Friday morning, some 200 tanks, armored personnel carriers and bulldozers assembled along Israel’s border north and east of Gaza. Troops were setting up makeshift camps, apparently in preparation for an extended operation. Some officers were going over maps….

Militants have been stepping up attacks on Israelis in recent months in hopes of portraying Israel’s planned withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 as a retreat under fire. The army has been pounding the militants in intensifying strikes to deny them such claims.

Mofaz, the defense minister, said that when Israel withdraws, it will not be under fire….

Palestinian militants have fired hundreds of rockets and mortar shells at Gaza settlements and Israeli border towns since 2000. Most attacks caused damage and minor injuries.

There have been two deadly strikes, including Wednesday’s hit on the border town of Sderot that killed two children playing on the sidewalk in a quiet neighborhood at the onset of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot….

“No government can tolerate the continuation of … missiles falling on the heads of the civilian population,” [Israeli government spokesman Gideon Meir] said.

Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat denounced the Israeli raid as “a war crime and state terror,” and said he feared all of Gaza would soon be reoccupied.

Aha! We finally got to “war crime and state terror.” As for the reoccupation of Gaza: “Whatever it takes” is my bit of unnecessary advice to the Israelis.

Palestinians want their land to be recognized as a sovereign nation? Not as long as they persist in terror attacks on Israel.

Why not have a summit? That would be John Kerry’s solution, despite the fact that a summit would simply be a ploy on the part of Arab terrorists (1) to make themselves look legitimate in the gullible eyes of world opinion and (2) to buy time in which to rearm and regroup.

What’s This about a Summit?

I didn’t watch the debate, for reasons explained here. But I did sample some of the live-blogging and post-debate posts. The best of the bunch — by 20 lengths — is James Lileks’s super-rant about Kerry’s summit idea. I have no idea exactly what Kerry said, nor do I think it matters exactly what he said, because Lileks has undoubtedly captured what I would have said had I heard exactly what Kerry said (got that?). Anyway, here’s a bit of Lileks:

…And another thing: the idea of a summit with the Muslim world doesn’t particularly billow my sails, either….

[D]o you think a summit in which the various satrapies of the Middle East and elsewhere convene for a marathon bitchfest about Gaza is going to make America beloved in Sadr City? They want us to extend a hand, yes, so they can lop it off. Ah, but what of the moderates. Those who have been turned against us because we threw out the Taliban and deposed Saddam – the relentlessly secular Saddam, as we’re often reminded. If it hasn’t occurred to these folks before, let me spell it out plainly: if you think there’s a war against Muslims now, you lack a certain sense of perspective. If tiptoeing around sacred sites and taking special care to pick off the snipers hiding in mosques so as not to disturb the plaster is a war against Islam, you will be looking for new terms when Putin drops a big bag of hammers somewhere someday….

So no, I’m not enthused about a summit, unless we get to set the agenda….Item three: we’re going to play a video of the events of 9/11. And then we’ll have a discussion. We’re willing to entertain all sorts of commentary, with one proviso: the moment you use the word “but,” you’re escorted from the building and put back on a plane home. You can never come to the US again. Your nice condo in the new Trump building will be sold for five dollars to a nice Jewish lesbian couple we met the other day at parent’s night at our school in Park Slope. One’s an artist, the other’s a lawyer….

Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century

B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer

What would you want in this situation? The answer starts with “S” and ends, five letters later, in “T.”

So, I get it. We are wrong and bad and stupid and stupidly wrong-bad. We failed to make France act as though it wasn’t, you know, France, a militarily insignificant nation that is understandably motivated by self-interest, and we haven’t convened a summit so we could be castigated for ignoring the extralegal use of Israeli helicopters to turn Hamas kingpins into indistinct red smears. You’d think we nuked Paris and converted everyone to Lutheranism.

Here’s the thing. I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well….

That’s it — in a nutshell, wrapped in a glorious rant. One of these days someone’s really gonna p*** off James.

Election Projections, Explained

REVISED 11/18/04

In Method 1, I assign all of a State’s electoral votes to the expected winner in that State, according to TradeSports.com. A price of greater than 50 indicates a Bush win; a price of less than 50 indicates a Kerry win. (A winning bet of $50 on Bush at a price of 50 returns $100, for a $50 profit; a winning bet of $60 on Bush at a price of 60 also returns $100, for a $40 profit; a losing bet on Bush at a price of 60 pays off those who bet on Kerry; and so on.) If the price is exactly $50, I record the electoral votes as a tossup and don’t allocate them to either candidate.

In Method 2, I allocate all of a State’s electoral votes to Bush if the TradeSports.com price is 55 or greater, and all of a State’s electoral votes to Kerry if the Tradesports.com price is 45 or less. For prices between 45 and 55, I allocate a State’s electoral votes according to Method 2. Method 2 has no predictive power; it simply measures the uncertainty around the estimate yielded by method 1.

Method 3* translates the expected share of two-party popular vote into electoral votes, based on a statistical relationship for presidential elections from 1952 through 2000. I use two sources to estimate the leader’s share of the two-party vote: the popular vote-share share market at Iowa Electronic Markets; the leader’s share of the Bush-Kerry vote according to the Rasmussen tracking poll. I use those share estimates in the following regression equation:

Fraction of electoral vote going to the popular-vote leader =

– 8.327 (a constant term)

+ 29.249 x the leader’s fraction of the 2-party popular vote

– 23.161 x the square of the leader’s fraction of the 2-party popular vote

+ 0.0696 (if the leader is Republican, otherwise 0).

The r-squared of the equation is 0.95; the standard error of the estimate is 5.8 percent; and the t-stats on the coefficient and three variables are -2.908, 2.836, -2.509, and 2.507, respectively.

Electoral-vote percentages for the elections of 1952-2000 fell within or very close to the normal range of the estimates (mean, plus or minus standard error). However, Bush’s percentage in 2004 (53.2 percent) fell markedly below the normal range (62.4 to 70.2 percent). That result is consistent with a pattern that has emerged since 1980, when Reagan’s electoral-vote share was above the normal range of the estimate. Since then, the electoral-vote share of the popular-vote leader slipped steadily through the range, hitting bottom in 1996 and 2000, then dropping below the range in 2004.

Based on further analysis of the elections of 1952-2004, I have concluded that the Republican electoral-vote advantage applies only when the Republican candidate is winning decisively in the two-party popular vote (54 percent, or more). Thus, in tight races, method 1 is the best way to estimate the electoral vote. At any rate, it worked well this year.

I hereby retire methods 2 and 3. It’s method 1 for 2008.

__________

* Revised slightly on 11/18/04 to correct a minor data entry error.

A Profile of the Past

Drew Barrymore, in the first photo below, is a granddaughter of screen legend John Barrymore (1882-1942), shown in the second photo. She’s also a great-niece of another screen legend, Ethel Barrymore (1879-1959), shown in the third and fourth photos. Look at Drew’s profile, then at John’s and Ethel’s. Genetic inheritance at work.

Back to Baseball — Hyping the Heros

The big news of the moment: Ichiro is within one hit of George Sisler’s all-time, single-season record. Ichiro has 256 hits this season; Sisler had 257 in 1920. The difference is that Ichiro is batting .371, whereas Sisler batted .407 when he made his record. And he did it in 154 games, not the 159-plus it will take Ichiro to make the same number.

Remember when Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth’s all-time home run record by hitting his 715th? Well, Ruth hit 714 in 8,399 official at-bats. By the time Aaron got to 714 home runs he already had more than 11,000 official at-bats.

Then there was Pete Rose eclipsing Ty Cobb’s all-time record for base hits. Rose surpassed Cobb’s record (4,191 hits) but it took him about 2,400 additional at-bats in which to do the trick. That’s why Rose’s lifetime batting average is only .303 to Cobb’s .367.

Wake me up when someone is about to break a real record, like Ty Cobb’s lifetime batting average. It’ll never happen. I’d better set my alarm clock.

Speaking of the New Washington Baseball Team…

…as I have been in recent posts, “Best of the Web Today” at OpinionJournal.com notes the latest D.C. mania — naming the new team:

…WTOP radio is inviting listeners to suggest a new name for the Washington team. Among the “most popular” suggestions are Senators, Nationals and Monuments; the “most interesting” include Gridlocks, Filibusters and Ex-Expos.

We got to thinking: There’s been a trend recently toward the use of abstract singular nouns as team names: Utah Jazz, Orlando Magic, Colorado Avalanche. This has mostly been a basketball and hockey phenomenon, though baseball does have the Tampa Bay Devilry. Why not click through to this link and cast your vote for calling the team the Washington Kerfuffle?

Not me. I’ll vote for the Washington Spend-and-Tax, and nothing less.

Subsidizing Multi-millionaires

I recently expressed some realism about the return of major league baseball to D.C.:

…To succeed financially, the new Washington team must draw well from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Attendance will be high for a few years, because the closeness of major-league baseball will be a novelty to fans who’ve had to trek to Baltimore to see the increasingly hapless Orioles. But suburbanites’ allegiance to the new Washington team won’t survive more than a few losing seasons — and more than a few seem likely, given the Expos’ track record. As the crowds wane, suburbanites will become increasingly reluctant to journey into the city. And, so, the taxpayers of D.C. (and perhaps the taxpayers of the nation) are likely to be stuck with an expensive memento of false civic pride.

Now, here’s Michelle Malkin:

THE MOTHER OF ALL STADIUM BOONDOGGLES

By Michelle Malkin · September 30, 2004 11:10 AM

The media cheerleading here in the D.C. area over the Expos deal is nauseating. I have nothing against baseball. I have everything against taxpayer-funded sports statism. (A commendable exception to the media slavering over this government rip-off is the Washington Times, whose scathing editorial today is dead-on.)….

And what did the WashTimes have to say? Among other things, this:

…To finance the $440 million project, the District would issue 30-year bonds. Annual debt-service costs would total more than $40 million. Those annual costs would be financed by $21 million to $24 million from a gross-receipts tax imposed on businesses with more than $3 million in annual revenues; $11 million to $14 million from taxes on tickets and stadium concessions; and $5.5 million in rent payments from the ballclub.

The team’s owners will receive all the income from ballpark naming rights, which can be quite substantial. The Redskins, whose stadium was privately financed, will receive more than $200 million over 27 years from Federal Express. It is outrageous for taxpayers to be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 30 years while the taxpayer-subsidized owners pocket perhaps hundreds of millions more for the naming rights of a ballpark they received as a gift. Should such a travesty come to pass, it would be the real legacy of Mayor Williams.

And just wait until fans start staying away in droves and the team’s owners lobby for better terms. Won’t the taxpayers of D.C. be happy then?

"Sick" Isn’t the Right Word…

…for the sub-species of the lowest form of life responsible for this:

Pair of Car Bombs in Iraq Kill Dozens, Including Many Children

By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: September 30, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 30 — In one of the most horrific attacks here since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a pair of car bombs tore through a street celebration today at the opening of a new government-built sewer plant, killing 41 Iraqi civilians, at least 34 of them children, and wounding 139 people.

The bombs exploded seconds apart, creating a chaotic scene of dying children and grieving parents, some of them holding up the blood-soaked clothes of their young, and howling in lament. Arms and legs lay amid pools of blood, with some survivors pointing to the walls of the sewer plant, now spattered with flesh….

Does anyone think there would be less of this if the U.S. were to cut and run from Iraq? Well, there might eventually be less of it if the Ba’athists who are behind it were to retake power. Then the atrocities would go on as before — behind the scenes, where the squeamish of the world could pretend that nothing is amiss.

To paraphrase President Bush: You’re either for decency or you’re against it. And if you’re for it you sometimes have to fight for it. And the fight often is unpleasant. But the alternative is surrender to the forces of evil. And I do mean evil — of the sort that was unleashed against the children of Baghdad today.

Thinking Ahead to ’08

UPDATED BELOW

Here’s a scenario: Bush is re-elected. Iraq slowly progresses economically and politically. Other rogue nations (Syria, Iran, N. Korea) are tamed by military action or the fear of it. The economic recovery looks like a replay of the 1990s (if not better). Deficits are no longer an issue because tax revenues rise with the recovery. Social Security reform is underway, and there are good prospects for Medicare reform.

Upon Bush’s re-election, Edwards and Clinton (of the female gender) instantly become the leading contenders to head the Democrat ticket in ’08. By ’08 they will have spent almost four years exposing their left-wing positions to the country and bashing each other. Out of that wreckage a less compelling nominee might crawl.

Thus, given my scenario, Republicans should be able to hold onto the White House simply by putting up someone — not named Bush — whose politics are to the right of the Democrat nominee’s.

Hold that thought.

UPDATE:

What about Barack Obama? Too young and inexperienced to be a candidate in ’08. But if Repubs hold the White House in ’08, look for Obama in ’12.