Heh.

Almost Four Years

This blog is almost four years old. So was the picture on the sidebar. No more. I replaced it with a picture from today. New picture, older me.

Worthwhile Listening

I've been listening to speeches during my thrice weekly run on the treadmill. I think I'll start linking one each Monday.

First, a classic.

Free audio, video, and transcript available at the link. A taste:

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.

...

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.

...

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Don't miss the rest of it. It's all that good.

Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

Heh. Via Instapundit.

The Big Tent

You want a big tent? It's fiscal conservatism. The people are overwhelmingly in favor of it.

You offer that, you follow through on it, and you get the Republicans, the moderates, and a sizable chunk of disaffected Democrats.

Everything else is beside the point right now. You lose the fiscal conservative fight now and allow the United States to head deeper into Statism, and it's over. If the government controls healthcare, it will "[redefine] the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists." You can kiss freedom goodbye in the longterm.

So instead of utterly failing our future generations, leaving them to toil under the yoke of an obscenely powerful government, we should make our stand now. Embrace fiscal conservatism. Leave the rest to federalism.

It's easy. It's a no-brainer. It's even Constitutional. People are sick of the spending, sick of the debt, sick of the bailouts, sick of the handouts, sick of the back room deals, sick of the taxpayer funded bribes, sick of the bureaucrats. They want unyielding, unapologetic fiscal conservatism.

Fiscal conservatism is the big tent.

Coakley Spoofs

Originally posted in the comments on Althouse.

"Who are these impudent scoundrels asking questions of me?!"
"They're reporters, ma'am."
"Reporters?! And to whom do they report?"
"The people, ma'am."
"The people? Really? How droll."

-----------------

"Shake their hands?!"
"Yes, ma'am."
"You can't be serious."
"It's the standard thing, ma'am."
"You mean, I am to touch them?!"
"Yes, the candidates are generally expected to shake the hands of the people they meet at an event."
"God, save me from this prole hell!"
"..."
"..."
"No, ma'am. I don't think the surgical gloves will go over..."

------------------

"I'm glad you agreed to come, ma'am."
"What is this Fenway Park anyway?"
"Ma'am?"
"Well, I mean it's got to be the worst park I have ever seen. I see no trees, no meandering water features...? Are they inside?"
"..."
"It looks like we're standing outside of some sort of coliseum!"
"Baseball, ma'am. It's a baseball park."
"Baseball?"
"Yes, ma'am."
"Oh, a sport..."
"Yes, ma'am."
"..."
"You should probably smile, ma'am."
"Oh. Perhaps after I am deloused."

---------------------

"What was that strategist screeching about? 'Lose the seat', as if I don't know where it is!"
"He's worried that you'll lose the election, ma'am."
"What election?"
"The Senate election, ma'am. The one you're running in."
"There's no election."
"Yes, ma'am, there is."
"Oh please, you say that as if the people were allowed to vote in it or something."
"They are, ma'am."
"They are? That's ridiculous. The people don't even know anyone important; that's why they're 'the people'. I don't believe you."

-----------------------

"We have to leave immediately!"
"Ma'am?"
"My allergies. It's horrible."
"Your allergies, ma'am?"
"Yes. My God, I fear I will be stricken blind by them at any moment. We must leave at once!"
"We've only just arrived. The people have assembled here to hear you speak. Perhaps we can fix whatever is causing you offense. What are you allergic to?"
"What do you think? Look at them! It's a sea of synthetic fibers out there!"

------------------------

Good Evening, Massachusetts!
with Ted Clark

"I'm here tonight with Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Senatorial candidate. Hello, Martha."
"Hi, Ted."
"So Martha, you've been receiving some criticism these last few weeks."
"Unfairly, yes."
"What are some things that voters might not know about you?"
"The news has been sidetracked with trivial matters, but I have great plans to fix the problems of this country."
"What's an example of one of your plans?"
"Well, Ted. Take feral dogs for instance."
"Alright. What about feral dogs, Martha?"
"I calculate that if we adopt a public shoot on sight policy for loose dogs, we will not only end problems with feral dogs, we will save hundreds of millions of dollars in animal shelter costs."
"You want people to shoot loose dogs on sight?"
"Yes, precisely."
"That's... bold."
"That isn't my only plan."
"Oh?"
"No, cats are a problem too. Really there are just far more cats than this nation can support."
"There are? I didn't realize..."
"Yes. Now we must adopt a one cat policy. No one may have more than one cat. If a household has a cat, and the cat becomes pregnant, and the pregnant cat gives birth to kittens, police should be dispatched to the household to then execute the excess kittens."
"Oh!"
"Yes. I've got a plan for widows too."
"Uh..."
"They cost quite a lot to our system. But we can eliminate those costs entirely. I was just reading about this former custom in India called Sati..."
"Ah! Well, we might not have time for that. Uh, how about we move on to Obama. I hear he's coming out here to support you."
"Yes. I appreciate his support."
"What do you think about his healthcare plan?"
"I think any plan that would help us weed out the people we don't need to be spending money on would be great."
"And what do you mean by 'weed out?'"
"I think everyone knows what I mean, Ted."
"Mmkay. Well, what do you think of his plans to address our country's economy?"
"He is right about the banks. All of this financial mess is the fault of the banks."
"Mmhm."
"I even brought a graphic to illustrate the problem with the banks. Here it is."
"That's a map of Israel."
"I think that about sums it up."
"What does that even mean?!"
"Thank you so much, Ted, for having me on."
"Do you want to be elected?"
"Of course! And before we go, I'd like to send out a big @$%& you all to the voters of our state."
"Uh... Right."
"Oh, and children suck. Especially the crippled ones. Ick."
"This is Ted Brown, and thank you for watching Good Evening, Massachusetts!"

Elections are not coronations. Politicians who forget that suffer for it.

The Blanche Lincoln Poll Is "Iffy?"

John Brummett thinks so:

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln is getting creamed by no-name Republicans in a new Rasmussen Poll. But, as it happens, there’s national criticism right now that Rasmussen’s polling may be weighted in favor of Republicans.

I think Rasmussen’s polls are fine. All you do is transfer five points from the Republican to the Democrat and you have a pretty good poll.

Read the rest of it, and then read this critique that was emailed to me (and Brummett):

Mr. Brummett,

I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the shot you took at the polling firm Rasmussen Reports in your column from this past Saturday(1/9/10). First of all, you mention "national criticism" about Rasmussen's polling being weighted in favor of Republicans. There has been a recent spate of "shoot the messenger"-style anti-Rasmussen pieces appearing on left wing blogs, driven mostly by lefty firm Media Matters, but I hardly think that really constitutes a "national criticism".

Secondly, you failed to mention in your piece, questionably in my view, that Rasmussen is one of the most consistently accurate pollsters currently in operation. Their final poll on Bush/Kerry in 2004 showed the President winning 50.2% to 48.5%. The actual final tally was 50.7% to 48.2%. Likewise, their final poll in the 2008 race showed Obama beating McCain 52% - 46%. The actual result was 53% to 46%. These results make Rasmussen the most accurate pollster of the last two Presidential elections, hands down. Nobody else is even close.

They are also consistently one of the most accurate in state polling. Rasmussen called the recent Gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey almost exactly right in each case. In your column you compare a Rasmussen poll of the 2006 Arkansas Governor's race, which had Beebe up only 7 points, with polls "about the same time" from Opinion Research and Survey USA that had him up by 17. You then immediately declare that in reality Beebe "won by 14", obviously trying to imply that Rasmussen was way off in that race when others were right on. You must have really had to search the archives to find the snapshot in time when polls taken "about the same time" were that divergent, because the final Rasmussen poll before election day showed Beebe winning by 12, which was basically right on the money. The juxtaposition of a Rasmussen result from some amorphous point in time in the race with the final electoral tally is not relevant in any way unless you are trying to mislead your readers into thinking Rasmussen was off by 100% in their polling in this case, when that's simply untrue. The obvious way to judge Rasmussen's accuracy on the 2006 Arkansas race is to compare their final poll, taken days before the election, with the final result. Had you done that, you would have correctly informed your readers that Rasmussen was spot on. Instead, you chose to unfairly demean the firm's accuracy by comparing a poll from some other point in the race, meaninglessly and misleadingly, with the final result. If you have to leave out the most obvious comparison in order to make your case, then shouldn't that alert you that your premise is hollow?

You seem to be attacking the accuracy of a pollster who delivers information you don't like while leaving out the inconvenient fact that Rasmussen has a proven track record of calling both state and national races in a very accurate manner. Indeed, they may be the most consistently accurate pollster out there. The reason Rasmussen often has Obama's approval rating 5% lower than other pollsters is because Rasmussen always polls likely voters, whereas firms like Gallup poll "adults" on that question. Likely voters always skew more Republican than overall adults. Every pollster knows this, which is why they poll "likely voters" instead of adults before elections. It's really no more complicated than that. Rasmussen's robo-calling model simply sticks with polling likely voters, because they are the ones who's opinions matter at the ballot box.

If you really wanted to turn your ire toward lousy polling, why not look at the CBS poll and other mainstream media polls of its ilk? These polls routinely vastly over sample democrats, sometimes giving them ridiculous partisan advantage gaps of over 20 points, in order to arrive at the numbers they publish. In reality, the partisan gap in actual elections has never been even close to that high in the modern era. Obama, for instance, won by only 7 points in a big Dem year with significant Republican crossover.

Thanks for your time,

So, Brummett, what say you?

Happy New Year, Have Some Macro

My Fuji Finepix F30 was inadvertently killed. Replaced it with a Fuji FinePix F200EXR. It's been a long time since there was any macro photography on this blog. Here's some from playing around with the new camera.


Self-portrait:



Macro with flash: