Cross-pollination
If I was willing to claim "we just don't know" what makes the best military, then why wouldn't I also claim that "we just don't know" whether English or bilingual education is best for kids?
(Just asking it of myself before someone else does.)

M.S. is 2-for-2 today on influencing my opinion, though the timetable from "he makes his point" to "I'm convinced" is significantly different.

My gut instinct is that teachers' unions have a financial interest -- wholly aside from the good of students -- in preserving bilingual education. But the way around teachers' unions probably isn't a referendum. (Is it a voucher system?)

My zipper's stuck!
Bet you didn't know what issue really decided the Oklahoma governor's race. I'm really not sure what to think about the state where I grew up.

Military Annoyance
Andrew Sullivan decries The Army's Bigotry and Stupidity. (Currently the top item on his "dish"; when you get to reading it there might be newer material above it.)

I've officially come around on at least two issues now where I used to vociferously argue the other side. (Ironically, on the gay marriage Sullivan also gets credit: His cover story in TNR won me over as much as anything, even if it didn't happen right away.)

My previous take about gays in the military was that, as civilians, we just don't know what it takes to optimize our military performance.

(This also presupposes that optimal performance is the only thing one cares about with the military. As long as we're not committing atrocities, I'm certain this is true. Of course I argued with people who claimed that the exclusion of gays (or blacks or women before that) was an atrocity. That's so far removed from what I'd think a reasonable person would call atrocious, but how do you argue with people who think that? It's futile.)

I suppose by the same logic, I should have sided with the Joint Chiefs on their extreme reluctance to go into Iraq, since again they know much better than I do. Then again, Rumsfeld also knows better.

But anyway, if there's any tactical value at all to firing gay speakers of Arabic exactly when we need as many Arabic speakers as we can get, I sure as hell don't see it. So now I'm more than willing to believe -- in fact I do believe -- that full inclusion of gays in the military, ending the discrimination against them, etc., really is significantly better on pure military tactics. Which is exactly what you (one of you) tried to tell me a year or two ago.

Speaking of pistol-packing legends...
Eric S. Raymond has weighed in on Election 2002.

Sailor vs. the Machine
I love the libertarians!

(Thanks to Greg Sorenson for pointing her out!)

Shorter and better than what I've written...
John Ellis answers three big questions about the 2002 elections.

Speaking of Instapundit
And also of the issues mentioned below -- on this story Glenn Reynolds opines:
Ashcroft is wrong, though -- this isn't a reason to join the war on terrorists to the war on drugs. It's a reason to get rid of the war on drugs, and thus deprive terrorists of a covert source of funds.

Michael Moore, meet Nelson Muntz
Sunday, November 3, 2002
Years from Now, They'll Call It "Payback Tuesday"

Ooh! May I?
(via Instapundit)

In case you were wondering
(I actually was wondering this...)
Before the election, Democrats worried that absentee ballots cast for Wellstone — and mailed too late to be changed — might cost Mondale the election. That didn't happen. The secretary of state's office counted roughly 12,000 absentee votes for Wellstone, but Coleman won by some 52,000 votes.
--St. Paul Pioneer Press

South Dakota update
Johnson (D) apparently won. State officials are ready for a recount but the Republican Thune probably won't ask for one.

He's a lot classier than I would have been in his shoes.

This story sets me a little on edge but it was probably nothing.

It's unclear where on party lines this story cut but the people who wanted the polls to close early (or to throw out ballots from the final hour) were asinine.

So South Dakota will have still have two Democratic senators, neither of whom is in the majority party (NO PORK FOR YOU!), but will probably go easily to Bush in 2004 the way it always does for Republican presidents.

Life imitating The Onion
Actually I think people like this will end up deciding our next few elections. (At least I hope so: I'm really sick and tired of the bellwether being anti-trade, pro-union, anti-social-freedom Rust Belt folk -- don't even get me started on old people) What those people would value is an exercise for the reader.

(Probably some combination of less Judeo-Christian hegemony, more of a priority on education, and more economic freedom.)

Demographics
A lot of people are predicting (or were, before this week's elections; maybe they still are) that we're about to have a long-term power shift in favor of the Democrats, brought on by an increase in the Latin population and by more and more non-white voters. I would like to claim they're wrong.

It's true that right now, the groups in question trend much more Democratic than white people do, and I also fear that part of this has to do with prejudice or alienation that non-majority people experience or feel. On the other hand, as time passes people feel more and more comfortable with cultural assimilation; the evil country-club white people become gradually less ignorant, and so on.

Also, (I realized this near the end of that last post) all the social-freedom issues I mentioned below are actually not issues that would necessarily be popular with devoutly Catholic Hispanics or tradition-minded, family-oriented blacks. Then again, a sane education policy (which might include vouchers if Republicans who like them -- like me -- can do a better job convincing people why they're good) would dovetail well with recruiting minorites to whichever party. In any case people who come to America voluntarily seem to do so out of the desire for freedom, with desire for prosperity in the mix too.

So bottom line, the effect of demographics will depend on how much politicians actually listen to individual voters rather than pandering to them with interest-group goodies. (Of course that's how a Republican/libertarian would choose to phrase it...)

Some issues that Democrats/left-leaning folk could look to for 2004 and beyond
I was thinking about this just now while on a very long walk. It seems to me as though the defining feature of the 2002 election is still national security and September 11 aftermath, 2002 having been the first true election year since the whole calamity. Democrats don't control their own destiny there; maybe they did at some point but nobody ever set forth an alternate vision while it was optimal to do so. Now Bush's plans will sink or swim. For the country that might be really bad if you think Bush is on the wrong track -- I happen to think he's on the right track. For the Democrats' poltical fortunes it might actually be quite good.

If things go well, at some point we satisfy whatever Powell, Rumsfield, Rice, et al consider to be the conditions of "victory." (As of a year ago I'd have considered evidence of Bin Laden's death a milestone for this; as of now, I don't know what to think about his life-or-death status. The more time passes without signs of his existence, the more easily I can believe he's dead. The fall of the Taliban was a milestone, as is the disruption of the al Qaeda network. Remnants of it may have relocated to other countries; how to handle that is too tough a question to settle on a weblog.) Then everybody celebrates and goes on with life, terror/war being no more of an issue in the next election than the Gulf War was in 1992.

If things go poorly, of course, then Bush's results speak for themselves.

But beyond that -- assuming (hoping!) that the path we're on is a lesser evil -- some places where I could see a shift in voting blocs:
Education: Typically seen as a Democrats' issue but popular enough (who on earth is against education?) to be an old stand-by. As mentioned below, you'd think that the Democrats' desire for funding and the Republicans' desire for results would dovetail better than they actually have. If somebody can make the business case for a particular plan/budget, that might be a breakthrough. Republicans have the first crack at it, being in power, but Democrats can seize the moment if our education system stagnates in a newsworthy way.

Drug Legalization: This seems like more of a shifting-paradigm issue than a zero-sum issue but if a party has just gone through surprising losses, any paradigm shift could be an opportunity. In the long run, (at least in the U.S.) personal freedom seems to prevail against old-fashioned mores. Support for better drug policies (the "war" on drugs has been a pathetic waste of money in my opinion) gets far more support than either party seems to be willing to admit. The downside here is that taking a stand like this would involve far more courage than major party leaders typically show.

Social Security: See "drug legalization" above and "courage" above. Given what major-party candidates have said and done here lately, it looks like only the Republicans would take the initiative on real reform. That might be good news for Democrats at the ballot box, but it would involve (has involved!) exactly the kind of reactionary attacks that I like least in politics. Nobody's better at scaring senior citizens than Democratic ad-makers.

Gay Rights: As with drug legalization, you have history on your side and you also have the chance at voter defections by people like me. What you want here is more of whatever has led to so much more societal acceptance of gay life than there was 10-15 years ago. (Sample size alert: Ten years ago I was a teenager in Oklahoma on my way to college, naive and unwittingly homophobic. I guess having everyone in the U.S. go through college again isn't feasible, though it would do wonders for Democratic poll #'s, just as getting everyone to get their first paycheck all over again would do wonders for Republicans, at least the fiscally conservative ones.)

On big government
(Still responding to Matt's post)

I think the Democrats took a losing (non-)position in 2002 partly because they're still looking for alternatives to their old big-government position, which seemed to be repudiated both by Reagan's electoral success and by 1994 elections.

History seems to have treated Reagan unkindly, at least in the urban liberal places I've lived lately, but his lines (Government is the problem, not the solution and such) resonated a lot more when regulations, bureaucracy, and so on, were more onerous than they are now. (Neither I nor anyone in my known audience is old enough to have really "lived through" the late 1970s; I turned five in 1980.) I think if you try to take people back to big government as your vision, you'll reawaken that Reagan/libertarian kind of reaction.

On the substance of it: Yes, the Internet as we know it wouldn't be possible without DARPA; ditto, space travel and NASA; ditto, social security. The problem with these examples is that what the Internet has become has far more to do with ordinary people's innovations; standing on the shoulders of giants, or maybe giants standing on the shoulders of NBA players. And both NASA and social security (topic for a future day: RESOLVED, social security is a giant pyramid scheme and always was, and nobody in this demographic will see a penny of it after the Baby Boomers suck it dry) have seen better days.

There are some things that government does well: Defense is one; infrastructure perhaps (good roads, minus the graft; getting high-speed Internet access to rural areas, again hopefully minus the graft). On education I think for the most part private schools do a better job than public schools but we need good public schools at least until there are signs that the private sector can do a good job with everyone and not just their current demographic.

These days Republicans seem to stand for strong national security combined with an otherwise smaller government. I like that on both counts. Granted, they also stand for a lot of things on social issues that I don't like. Still, the only reason I'd have to vote for a Democrat is because I was voting against the Republican opponent (be it a social demagogue or a corrupt bastard), AND there was no Libertarian in the race.

So what should Democrats stand for? In the short term, war/terrorism/Islamofascism is the 800-pound gorilla. Explain how you'd do a better job than the GOP. (Note: while I think I disagree, it's certainly possible that the best source of action here is something other than making Saddam such a high priority.)

In the longer term, I think the best thing Democrats have to offer is social enlightenment, at least relative to many Republicans in the South and Midwest. The paradox there is that so many of the correct position are winners nationally but losers in local races. (Conversely, the Republicans did a great job in 1994 of finding congressional candidates who'd appeal to a majority of people in their districts, only to find that somebody who views most Georgians like is someone whose views most New Yorkers will fear and loathe.)

The abortion issue is incredibly polarizing. I'll submit that pro-choice radicals have done a far better job of demonizing the other side than pro-life radicals; the problem with this is that it makes finding a bigger-tent position impossible. Democrats seem to have maxed out the mileage they can get out of the anti-anti-abortion scare tactics, even if NARAL et al milk those issues for good funding. If there were a reasonable way to advocate middle ground position, something like Legal in almost all cases, but none of this partial-birth stuff, and here are the concrete things we'll do to make having the baby more palatable, then either party could gain there.

Separation of church and state should be a winner but maybe it isn't. The key is to express your commitment to freedom of conscience without seeming to be hostile to religion.

Tolerance in general will probably be what revives Democratic fortunes, since I'm ashamed to admit how much good-old-fashioned bigotry is on the fringes of the Right. Not nearly as much as the fear-mongers where I live make it out to be, but still enough to be distatsteful. Unfortunately for the Democrats, there's no classy way to gain politically off of this. (Sometimes trying to tar good, decent, center-right candidates by the wackos who support them is just asinine.) But every time a Jerry Falwell type opens his mouth, the Donkeys get a gift.

The Hot Dog Stand Problem
(In response to Matt's post)

There's an old game theory chestnut about a town where everyone lives on the same street (uniform distribution). Two rivals decide each to open a hot dog stand. They know that everyone in town will go to the stand closest to their house and they also know (barriers to entry?) that no other hot dog stands are viable. By those rules, the two stands will end up right next to each other in the center of town. That's where national politics seem to have gone lately (see also Mickey Kaus's pre-election posts) and I'm surprised only that it took so long.

One complication does make two-party politics unlike the Hot Dog Stand Problem: Primaries favor candidates closer to the party base. This is why Richard Riordan won't be California's next governor even though he'd have won easily last night. But other than saving Gray Davis's political ass, primaries don't seem to affect things much. The sprint from party bases to the halfway point is almost as amusing as the embrace--and retreat from--ridiculous the trench issues.

All in all I like the fact that American politics gravitate to the center; better put, I guess I'm content with where the center is. It's not my ideal, and many Europeans would have the exact opposite criticism of it than I would, but it's a reasonable place. As a nation we have great things going for us; I worry about radicals on either side whose ideas would screw things up.

Above and beyond embracing the center, the trick in politics is to stand for something -- or at least to give off the appearance that you do. I think it's much easier to look like you stand for something when you actually do stand for something -- Bill Clinton being the exception who proves the rule. (He stood for nothing of any consequence -- go back and read the transcript of any of his State of the Union addresses and boggle that he managed to make a speech like that sound eloquent at the time.) Well, not just any old something: What you appear to stand for has to be something that people actually like. Walter "I will raise your taxes" Mondale learned this the hard way 18 years ago.

So we have George W. Bush. The president seems to stand for two particular things:
1. Winning a "war on terrorism," where the next phase is almost certainly Iraq
2. Tax cuts as long-run economic policy

To respond to points like that, you really have to either explain why the thing you oppose is bad, or why your alternative is better, or maybe both.
1. Democrats point out that nobody wants war with Iraq. Well yeah, nobody wants war but it might just be the case that ousting Saddam is a lesser evil than either enduring further attacks -- funded by him and people like him -- or one day being nuked. People made a lot of hay about how "Bush hasn't made his case" in favor of ousting Saddam. Conversely, I never saw a Democrat effectively make the case that we can effectively stop terrorism without stopping Saddam. The closest I saw to this was an argument that resources would be better allocated continuing to pulverize Afghan caves on the off-chance that Osama's cohorts are still lurking there.

(Also, after September 11, you really can't argue that we don't need to stop terrorism. Well, you can argue it but you'll lose.)

2. Democrats wanted blame Bush for the recession without actually criticizing tax cuts as such. Or at least some big-name ones would try to have it both ways, being critical and not critical at the same time. Tax cuts are extremely politically popular, for obvious reasons. Whether they're sound economic policy is case-by-case. I think the 2001 tax cut was sound; your mileage may vary. I never heard Democrats argue why this particular cut was unsound, or distinguish between sound and unsound tax relief, or better yet outline an economic policy more detailed than we're in a recession and it's Bush's fault, nyah nyah.

(Mainly because, despite the timing, it really wasn't. People make too big a deal about the economic consqeuences of September 11 but they don't seem to realize how much of the 1999-2000 portion of the tech boom was just a speculation bubble. In the long run we're much better off given how much the Internet has streamlined things but a lot of the growth of 1999-2000 was fictional, with scads of venture capital funding really dubious projects. Now that a non-dubious project that I spent two-and-a-half years of my life on seems to be about to go down the toilet because all the venture capital is gone, that actually makes me angry.)

Now I know why my roommate spent so much time with those election guides
For what it's worth, I voted for the safari guide on general principle. And I guess I'd admire the Bulgarian guy rather than mocking him, but that's why I almost voted for Tom Lantos two years ago and again this year -- this year I couldn't vote for him since the Outer Sunset was redistricted (probably correctly) from Lantos's South Bay district to Nancy Pelosi's urban SF district.


Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 00:44:50 -0800
From: Scott Coon <[FIRST NAME DOT LAST NAME]@silicon-age.com>
Subject: Quotes from the Candidates
To: [...]

Folks,

An election is a time to reflect that the governance of our nation, at all
levels, lies in the hands of men and women just like ourselves. Here are
some quotes I couldn't resist pulling from the California and San Francisco
2002 voter guides (I think that falls under fair use.) Some are there
because the candidate doesn't seem to know what party he or she belongs to,
or because they seem utterly irrelevant to the office the candidate is
actually running for. Others are just a not-so-sobering reminder of exactly
what government by the people means.
Last thought: some of these folks seem silly, but they're out there,
stumping for what they believe and trusting us to listen. God bless them
all. Enjoy....

Scott

****************************************************************************

WHY RUN FOR OFFICE?

Reinhold Gulke, American Independent, Governor
"Every Californian knows there is something wrong with California."

Kalee Przybylak, Natural Law, Lieutenant Governor
"It's been said that leaders of Native American cultures make their
decisions based on how it will affect the next seven generations. This
philosophy is the basis of my candidacy for Lieutenant Governor."

Glen Freeman Mowrer, Green, Attorney General
"It is a time for a war on inhumanity to our fellows."

Paul Jerry Hannosh, Reform Party, Lieutenant Governor
"'Righteousness exalts a nation...' Proverbs 14:34"

Alexandra Pastine, San Francisco Board of Education Commissioner
"'Be the change you want to make happen' - Gandhi"

Gary David Copeland, Libertarian, Governor
"Do we ignore Milton Friedman, Herbert Spencer, and Gene Roddenberry -
some of my favorite philosophers - at our peril?"

Jeanne-Marie Rosenmeier, Green, State Treasurer
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going. And
that's scary."


QUALIFICATIONS

Edward C. Noonan, American Independent, Secretary of State
"I have been involved with helping hundreds of fellow Californians who
have been threatened and/or arrested by Supermarkets for registering people
to vote...."

Diane Beall Templin, American Independent, Attorney General
"I support Biblical and Constitutional Principles of Life, Liberty and
Property. I have worked for Crime Prevention by teaching my own daughter,
now 25, right from wrong, hugs not drugs...."

Ernest F. Vance, American Independent Party, State Controller
"I am treasurer of three organizations: the Sacramento County A.I.P.,
the SCNRA Members Council, and of my local church."

Vesko G. Marinov, Bay Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors
"I have also coordinated the struggle for human rights in Bulgaria
during the final years of communism...."

Gail K. Lightfoot, Libertarian, Secretary of State
"I am a Retired Nurse with certificates in Public Health and ICU, CCU,
MICU, ER and IV Therapy...I know how to quickly assess situations, take
instant remedial action, and teach individuals and families to cope with
illness under extreme stress."

Nathan E. Johnson, American Independent, State Treasurer
"I am 59 years old and have lived in the San Diego area since 1959.
Living there has made me familiar with international border problems."

Dale F. Ogden, Libertarian, State Insurance Commissioner
"I have never held poolitical office and, if elected, would never seek
another political office."

Bill Doherty, San Francisco Board of Education Commissioner
"My occupation is: Safari Guide"


POLICY GOALS

Gail K. Lightfoot, Libertarian, Secretary of State
"I support...a vastly strengthened local library system through the
State Library."

Andrew Lee, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
"Timing streetlights so we don't sit in traffic isn't technically
difficult."

Steve Westly, Democrat, State Controller
"I'm also the only candidate for Controller who will protect a woman's
right to choose...."

Ernest F. Vance, American Independent Party, State Controller
"I am in agreement with the A.I.P. platform, and the 2nd Amendment."

Peter Miguel Camejo, Green, Governor
"Support the World Court."

Gail K. Lightfoot, Libertarian, Secretary of State
"I would increase eligible voter participation through easy to
understand election pamplets....By including a detailed explanation of
political party positions and principles along with photos and statements
from all candidates, I would empower voters to make voting decisions using
the election pamphlet...."
[Note: quote taken from the CA General Election Official Voter
Information Guide. The Guide contains statements and photos from
candidates
and explanations of political party positions and principles.]

Pat Wright, Libertarian, Lieutenant Governor
"My most recent crusade is the legalization of the domestic ferret in
California, one of two states to ban them. For being visible and
outspoken,
I've had one ferret confiscated at his vet and euthanized, and armed agents
broke down my door to seize my other ferrets. While ferrets are not an
important issue to most Californians, how government works should be. This
has been an education for me - one that will serve me, and you, well in
Sacramento."

Ed Kuwatch, Libertarian, Attorney General
"Finally, I would encourage businesses to put full walls and doors on
public restroom stalls."


OUTLOOK

Abel Mouton, San Francisco Community College Board
"There is something to be said for running City College while doing as
little damage as possible."

Edward C. Noonan, American Independent, Secretary of State
"Police and judges become corrupted when they side with Shopping
Malls...."

Laura Wells, Green, State Controller
"To know what to do, ask critical questions and Follow Your Heart."

Jim King, American Independent, Lieutenant Governor
"Therefore, I do not support a moralless secular-humanist agenda whose
true objective is to overthrow Western Civilization as we know it."

Donna J. Warren, Green, Lieutenant Governor
"And discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians will become a thing
of the past, like witch trials and bell bottoms."

Kalee Przybylak, Natural Law, Lieutenant Governor
"I believe that through utilizing 'natural laws' and creating a unity
consciousness throughout our electorate, we are better able to begin to
address the needs of a changing society."

Jeanne-Marie Rosenmeier, Green, State Treasurer
"The people of California are energetic, diverse, innovative,
and...well...great!"

Thank goodness South Dakota is irrelevant
To paraphrase an old Tostitos commercial featuring Chris Elliott:

I smell recount!

And kudos to everyone on both sides of the gotcha Kraftwerk, for getting both sides of the alleged voter fraud (some shenanigans involving Dem registration drives, Indian reservations, and so on; I didn't pay much attention to it) out on the table in advance. If you're curious and don't already know, you can go to The Weekly Standard and read the Jonathan V. Last piece that I started to read the night before last and didn't feel like getting into.

Anyhow, fraud or no fraud, as of this writing Tim Johnson (D-incumbent) leads by 500 votes out of 250K or so. I don't know whether that counts absentee ballots.

Question for New Yorkers, before I go to bed
Who is Tom Golisano and why couldn't California have had someone like him? Out here he might have actually won, at least given how despised both major-party goober candidates were.

Still more
(My core audience is on the east coast and asleep, right?)

AP declares Coleman as of half an hour ago but key Mondale quote:
"Some of the best looking precincts you ever saw in your life have yet to report."

South Dakota too close to call according to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader

Good grief: In Davison County a computer glitch halted vote counting while a replacement part was sought. That's never a good thing.

Minnesota county maps
Here's Becker County (53-44 Coleman, 65% reported as of now)
And Big Stone (54-42 Mondale, 96%, but nobody lives here)
Never mind, here's a map of them all. Anyhow...
Brown (interior SW): 57-39 Coleman, 94%
Carlton (eastern lake shore): 61-36 Mondale, 38%, relatively big population
Dodge = pro-Coleman, 32% in, no population
Goodhue = Colmen, 91%, decent population
Hennepin (read: Minneapolis) = 76% reporting, Mondale up by about 20,000 votes so far, huge population

Weird: Otter Tail = 100% reported but 0 votes for anyone

Shannon County
Is anyone else up way too late and suddenly wondering where in South Dakota Shannon County is? (Or why its Senate results are both so late and so lopsided?)

(Update: On this map it's the dark blue one near the bottom left corner.)

Theoretically:

• Tim Johnson could rout this county and pick up the win on absentee ballots and/or a recount


• Mondale could win Minnesota if the remaining precincts are mostly urban


• Mary Landrieu could win her December runoff


• Lincoln Chafee could bail

As long as all four are possible, there's still some doubt. Then again I was dead convinced in 2000 that Florida would turn out not to matter depending on how Iowa and Wisconsin and Oregon and New Mexico sorted themselves out.

Random musical digression
Apparently my happy-song of choice is by KC and the Sunshine Band.

(By comparison: The A's use Kiss for their victory music -- rock n' roll all night, and party every day. The Giants use one whose title/artist I can't remember but it has the dance beat and a train-whistle kind of riff and the woman singing something like, "I've got something to tell you, I have something to say," a combination of liking some guy and liking to groove -- the obligatory Tony Bennett comes about 5-10 minutes later. I think you'll hear "Get Down Tonight" after Cub victories, of all teams.)

'B' is for 'Babs'...
Then there's this.

I saw her speak in person once. Not sing, speak. It was this gathering of high-achieving adults and high school honor students, all in Las Vegas. She gave this ridiculous harangue of an after-dinner speech. I'd say, in my entire life, she's second behind only Mary McGrory on the list of the most disagreeable people I've ever met.

How different people react to politics...
There are those who love election night, who love politics in general, who might have strong opinions on the issues but even beyond that just love the process. Those are the people glued to CNN (or whatever their news source is) right now.

There are those who hate election night, who really don't like politics but have such deeply-held convictions that political awareness is a necessary evil. I feel that way at least; M.S. might also.

And then there's this guy. Whatever works, I suppose.

Not really about politics but it reminds me of politics...
I have mixed emotions about this column on the Pete Rose situation. Bill James is right when he says we just don't know, though Zumsteg is right about what a jury might think.

In any case, I was there when Rose got the long standing ovation in that "Memorable Moments" pre-game ceremony. I was quietly appalled. So much polarization results from the interaction of virulently pro and anti Rose people. If you ever follow either rec.sport.baseball or any web-based bulletin board on the sport, the last thing you want to see is a thread on Rose, with all the rehashing of did he really bet on baseball? and should he be in the Hall of Fame anyway? and so on.

My general opinion -- that he got exactly what he deserved, also exactly what he agreed to -- ends up getting drowned out by my extreme distaste for ever hearing about the subject again.

The political angle: This is probably about how I'd feel about Clinton if I were apolitical (Rose's hits record being analogous to some of the good things -- booming economy, for example -- that happened during Clinton's time in office), or at least if I were capable of discussing him rationally (beyond this sentence). Check back five years from now; maybe I'll have a reasonable perspective.

Or maybe history will have already buried him by then, who knows?

If a picture's worth a thousand words...
Then this speaks volumes, courtesy Howie Carr via Instapundit.

Also via Instapundit, yet more election shenanigans here.

You know what infuriates me most about how various people have reacted to Florida 2000? It's that the president -- and the party I support -- are accused of stealing an election by the very same people whose own side of the aisle perpetrates far more voter fraud (including Florida itself -- Gore didn't win the initial tally, nor any of the first four recounts; if he'd come out ahead the fifth time around, could he really claim with a straight face that this was the one to stop at? What if he lost the first nine times but found the winning combination in round 10? Round 20?) than Republicans could ever dream of.

Allegedly things look really good for the GOP tonight. I'm holed up in my bedroom, typing/surfing with headphones on (mmm... Winger...) to avoid inadvertently hearing CNN, desperately avoiding any sort of jinx. Yet I had to check Instapundit just for a quick fix.

(Note: If anyone cares, the extreme pessimism a few posts ago was NOT an anti-woof, at least not on purpose.)

Random thoughts before I go out and vote
Being unemployed actually led me to consider each decision carefully. Net effect: Some propositions will get "yes" votes that I'd have otherwise opposed. (Any ballot issue I begin with a rebuttable presumption of "no," on the if-it-ain't-broke principle.) Perhaps less randomness for local office choices.

A moment of silence for Bill Simon, who I'll vote for despite knowing his likely fate. Few things in life are sadder than campaign-impaired (popularity-impaired?) Republican politicians.

I bet I'm still listed as female on the vote rolls. Wonder where the mixup came in -- the California Libertarian party (seems unlikely), some data-entry drone in a state office somewhere, the Berkeley College Democrats themselves, or maybe even me filling out a form too quickly. They've never not let me vote but I've always felt sheepish.

It's actually deeply useful: The Ms. Matthew L. Bruce on my junk mail tells me exactly where the Libertarians sell their voter list. Likewise, if I ever get any mail addressed to Matthew J. Bruce from anyone other than Sprint PCS, I'll smell a rat.

Last but not least: East Coast polls are closing. Scott's very excited. I'm not. As politics go I'm an outspoken "don't tell me until the end" kind of guy. In 1998 I actually went to bed at 7 p.m. EST (granted my sleep schedule was all whacked) and didn't find out about Jesse Ventura et al until the next morning.

I'd love for the GOP to get the Senate but they won't. One or both of this blog's most faithful readers would probably like the Dems to get the House, but they won't either.

Oh, but I'd kill to trade home states -- just for one day -- with any of the several Minnesotans I know.

This singlehandedly made the City and County of San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot Worth Reading
(All emphasis is as in the original)

What this guy seems to overlook is that the current price shock is really on land rather than on structures. Nonetheless, I give him an A for effort, especially for something that's so simultaneously brilliant and crackpot. Read the whole thing and try to get a visual image of the last paragraph.

REBUTTAL TO PROPONENT'S ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION O
[...]

Homelessness is a housing issue. What is the difference between a person with drug and alcohol problems who lives ina house in Pacific Heights and one who is homeless on Market Street? Housing.

[...]

I am a building contractor and it makes me angry that we refuse to address the housing crisis. There is no excuse that we are not building housing that all San Franciscans can afford to own, including the homeless.

When I ran for mayor in 1999 I talked about building tiny housing units for our homeless. In 2000, I built a prototype unit that has a full kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom in 100 square feet. It cost me $12,000 to build. I towed this tiny house to City Hall, three times, yet Newsom, Ammiano, and Brown didn't have the courtesy to even look at it. Where was their leadership then?

What I love about Tom Ammiano
1. A few years ago (before moving out here) I got a big kick out of his coming really really close to unseating Willie Brown (and presumably dealing a big blow to machine politics, had he won)
- and yet-
2. Today I find that Ammiano has made my choice on lots of city ballot races easier: In the city voter guide, everyone who mentions being endorsed by Ammiano has lost my vote.

My roommate Scott and I disagree strongly (but quite amiably) about Willie Brown. He thorougly enjoyed Brown's comment a couple years ago about how narrow-minded so many of San Francisco's "progressives" are, especially in trying to keep newcomers out. I, on the other hand (while agreeing with Scott about that one comment):

There are two simple questions to ask yourself when evaluating a highy powerful big-city machine politician:
1. How corrupt is he? (It's almost never yes-or-no but rather to what degree.)
2. How effective is he? (That is, does the city "work" well enough to put up with the graft?)

Case studies:
Rudy Giuliani. In fairness I really don't know of him being corrupt. I guess he cheated on his wife. He speaks his mind, and (pre-September 11) offended a lot of people worth offending, which of course is a far cry from being corrupt. He singlehandedly made New York City liveable and thriving. Bottom line: I adore this guy.

Richard Daley the Younger: Corruption is the stuff of legend in the Chicago area, though in fairness this didn't start with him. Hit-or-miss on whether the city works. He's not satan but Chicago isn't quite well-run enough to justify his machine.

Willie Brown: I know there exist stories and skeletons but I've never bothered with the details. But given how atrocious city services are, especially for the high taxes and so on, any corruption would be intolerable.

Walter Mondale
Skim this until you get to the part about wireless access in Minnesota.