Last updated:
8:20 PM, 29 March 2015



Jim Miller on Politics

  Email:
jimxc1 at gmail.com



What's he reading? Francis Parkman.

News Compilers
(Why These?)

A&L Daily
Drudge
egopnews.com
Hot Air
Jewish World Review
Lexis-Nexis
Lucianne
Mediaite
memeorandum
Monsters and Critics
*newser
Orbusmax
Rantburg
Real Clear Politics
SciTech Daily
Yahoo


Big Media
(Why These?)

Atlantic Monthly
BBC
CNN
Chosen Ilbo
*Daily Mail (UK)
*Deutsche Welle
Fox News
Globe and Mail (CA)
Guardian (UK)
Investor's Business Daily
Le Figaro (FR)
Le Monde (FR)
The Local (Sweden)
National Review
New York Times
The New Yorker
Politico
Seattle PI
Seattle Times
Slate
Slashdot
The Spectator (UK)
Der Spiegel
Telegraph (UK)
Times (UK)
El Universal
U. S. News
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times


References:

Adherents
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Census Quick Facts
Dave Leip's Election Atlas
FactCheck
Federal Statistics
How Stuff Works
NationMaster
Refdesk
Snopes
StateMaster
Tax Facts
Unionstats
Wikipedia


Smart Media
(Why These?)

ABC News Note
*The American
The American Spectator
Michael Barone
City Journal
Commentary
Front Page Magazine
Michael Fumento
The Hill
Media Research
Michael Medved
New York Sun
Number Watch
PJ Media
Public Interest
Roll Call
Spinsanity
Townhall
The Weekly Standard


Blogs
(Why These?)

My Group Blog:
Sound Politics

Northwest:


The American Empire
AndrewsDad
Chief Brief
Clear Fog Blog
Coffeemonkey's weblog
Croker Sack
"DANEgerus"
Economic Freedom
Federal Way Conservative
Freedom Foundation
Hairy Thoughts
Huckleberry Online
Andy MacDonald
NW Republican
Orcinus
Public Interest Transportation Forum
<pudge/*>
Northwest Progressive Institute
*Progressive Majority
Matt Rosenberg
Seattle Blogger
Seattle Bubble
Washington Policy Center
West Sound Politics
Zero Base Thinking


Other US:


Ace of Spades HQ
Alien Corn
Ann Althouse
American Thinker
The Anchoress
Armies of Liberation
Art Contrarian
"Baldilocks"
Balloon Juice
Baseball Crank
La Shawn Barber
Beldar
Bleat
Big Government
Bookworm Room
Broadband Politics
Stuart Buck
Keith Burgess-Jackson
*Bush Center
Chef Mojo
Chicago Boyz
Classical Values
*College Insurrection
Confederate Yankee
Jules Crittenden
Daily Pundit
Discriminations
Gregory Djerejian
Daniel W. Drezner
Econlog
Econopundit
Election Law
John Ellis
Engage
Dean Esmay
Gary Farber
Fausta
FiveThirtyEight
Flares into Darkness
Flopping Aces
The Long War Journal
Gateway Pundit
Grasping Reality With Both Hands
Keith Hennessey
Hugh Hewitt
Siflay Hraka
Instapundit
Iowahawk
Joanne Jacobs
Jeff Jarvis
The Jawa Report
Brothers Judd
JustOneMinute
Kausfiles
Kesher Talk
Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion
Little Green Footballs
Megan McArdle
Michelle Malkin
Greg Mankiw
Marginal Revolution
Mazurland
Minding the Campus
The ModerateVoice
*The Monkey Cage Mudville Gazette
"neo-neocon"
Betsy Newmark
Newsbusters
No Watermelons Allowed
Ambra Nykola
*The Optimistic Conservative
The Ornery American
OxBlog
Parapundit
"Patterico"
Daniel Pipes
Polipundit
Political Arithmetik
Political Calculations
Pollster.com
Power and Control
Power Line
Protein Wisdom
QandO
Radio Equalizer
RedState
Riehl World View
Right Wing News
Rightwing Nuthouse
Dr. Sanity
Scrappleface
Screw Loose Change
Linda Seebach
Sense of Events
Joshua Sharf
Rand Simberg
Smart Politics
The Spirit of Enterprise
Stability For Our Time
*Strange Maps
The Strata-Sphere
Andrew Sullivan
Don Surber
Sweetness & Light
Taking Hayek Seriously
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf
USS Neverdock
VDH's Private Papers
Verum Serum
Villainous Company
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Monthly
Wizbang
Dr. Weevil
Matt Welch
Winds of Change
Meryl Yourish
zombietime


Canadians:


BlazingCatFur
Colby Cosh
Five Feet of Fury
Kate McMillan
Damian Penny
Bruce Rolston


Latin America:


Babalú
Caracas Chronicles
The Devil's Excrement
Venezuela News and Views


Overseas:


"Franco Aleman"
Bruce Bawer
Biased BBC
Tim Blair
*Andrew Bolt
Peter Briffa
Brussels Journal
*Bunyipitude
Butterflies and Wheels
Crooked Timber
Davids Medienkritik
Egyptian Sand Monkey
EU Referendum
Greenie Watch
Guido Fawkes
Harry's Place
Mick Hartley
Oliver Kamm
JG, Caesarea
*Le Monde Watch
¡No-Pasarán!
Fredrik Norman
Melanie Phillips
John Ray
samizdata
Shark Blog
Natalie Solent
Somtow's World
Bjørn Stærk
Laban Tall
*David Thompson
Michael Yon
This is Zimbabwe

Science Blogs:
The Blackboard
Cliff Mass Weather
Climate Audit
Climate Depot
Climate Science
*Judith Curry
Future Pundit
Gene Expression
The Loom
In The Pipeline
Roger Pielke Jr.
Real Climate
A Voyage To Arcturus
Watts Up With That?

Media Blogs:
Andrew Malcolm
Dori Monson
David Postman
Rhetorical Ammo
Tierney Lab
*White House Dossier

R-Rated:
Horse's A**
Huffington Post

*new



Pseudo-Random Thoughts

Last Wednesday, I said that the timing of the Bowe Bergdahl announcement suggested that the Obama administration didn't know what was happening.

Here's an exchange from Josh Earnest's latest press conference between Earnest and a reporter named "Francesca":
Q  Was the White House aware that the Army would release its report today on Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and whether he deserted or not?

MR. EARNEST: I’m not aware of any plans for them to do that, but this is a process that’s being run by the United States Army, so I’d direct you to the Pentagon for an answer.
Which appears to confirm my speculation.

(As I explained on Wednesday, this is good sign.  For all their faults, we will be better off if our bureaucrats are making decisions, and setting policies, rather than Obama.)
- 8:20 PM, 29 March 2015   [link]


President Obama Has At Least Two Obsessions, Says Peter Wehner:  Weakening Israel and emptying Gitmo.
So we have a president with at least two obsessions: One of them is attacking the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and weakening the Jewish State of Israel; the second is to empty Guantanamo Bay and release terrorists committed to killing as many Americans as possible.
I'd add race issues to those two, but I think that Wehner is right.

And that should trouble all of us.

In general, calling someone "obsessive" is not a compliment.  There are exceptions, of course; companies, for instance, sometimes like to claim they are obsessive about quality.   But, on the whole, when we say someone is obsessive, we are implying that they are not entirely rational, or maybe not rational at all.

If Obama is obsessive about these two great issues, then he can not be easily argued out of his positions, as anyone who has tried to persuade an obsessive to change his mind about something can tell you.  It is generally a waste of time even to try.

(For some background on Obama's relations with Israel, see this post by David Bernstein.   It has a misleading title; there is nothing false about Obama's dislike for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it's a good summary anyway.)
- 8:02 PM, 29 March 2015   [link]


The Odd Presentation Of Names In That Press Conference Transcript:   Before I wrote the post just below, I followed James Taranto's link to the transcript of the press conference, and was surprised because Taranto had used a standard way of presenting a press conference or interview, but the original did not.  Taranto had given Jonathan Karl's full name and company, and then identified Josh Earnest and Karl by their last names, in bold.

Here's how the White House press office displayed some of the same material:
Q  Josh, just a quick one first on Yemen.  I know you’re asked this every time something terrible happens in Yemen.  But now that we have essentially complete chaos in Yemen, does the White House still believe that Yemen is the model for a counterterrorism strategy?

MR. EARNEST:  Jon, the White House does continue to believe that a successful counterterrorism strategy is one that will build up the capacity of the central government to have local fighters on the ground to take the fight to extremists in their own country, and the United States can serve both to diplomatically offer up some political support to central governments.  We can offer very tangible support to local security forces in the form of training and equipping, and we can also support the operations of those security forces through whether it’s the deployment of ISR capability, or even in the case of Iraq, military airstrikes.
(ISR = "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance".)

All through the transcript, reporters are identified only by their first names; all through the transcript, Josh Earnest is identified as "MR. EARNEST".

Doesn't that remind you of a grade school class, with one teacher, and a bunch of kids?

(As a practical matter, that transcript makes it almost impossible, for anyone who does not follow White House reporters closely, to identify the reporters, without doing searches.  There are, as I can tell you, a lot of men named "Jim"; there are even a lot of reporters with my common first name.  And some of the questions aren't linked to any reporters, even by first names.)
- 8:07 AM, 27 March 2015   [link]


What Would Failure In Yemen Look Like?  Last September, President Obama was claiming success for his policies in Yemen.  Now, the United States has been forced out of that country, and the pro-American president has had to flee for his life.  There is a multi-sided civil war going on in the county, with none of the principal factions friendly to the United States.

About everything that could go wrong for us in Yemen, has.

So reporters naturally asked Obama's spokesman, Josh Earnest, whether the administration still considered their policies in Yemen a success.

They do.   Or at least say they do.  (You can get directly to the entire "Best of the Web" through this search.)

If I were a White House reporter and quick witted enough, I would have followed up by asking that question in the title: What would failure in Yemen look like?

I might even have said something snarky about Obama imitating Monty Python's Black Knight.

(Background:  If you want to know the basics about Yemen, you might start with this BBC Q&A.

Adam Baron argues that any foreign intervention in Yemen would be a mistake.   He may be right, but I must note that the Iranians appear to have had some success with their intervention.)
- 7:27 AM, 27 March 2015   [link]


Alex Berezow Is Unhappy With The NYT's Science Coverage:   Very unhappy, as the title of his post shows: "The New York Times Should Seriously Consider Not Writing About Science Anymore".

Here's the essence of his complaint:
The NYT's science coverage is particularly galling.  While the paper does employ a staff of decent journalists (including several excellent writers, such as Carl Zimmer and John Tierney), its overall science coverage is trite.  Other outlets cover the same stories (and many more), in ways that are both more in-depth and more interesting.  (They are also usually free to read.)  Worst of all, too much of NYT's science journalism is egregiously wrong.
On the whole, I agree with him, though I wouldn't put the argument as strongly.  The coverage of science at the Times has deteriorated and there are too many mistakes in the articles on science.  (Though, to be fair, those mistakes are often outside the Tuesday "Science" section, and made by a reporter who does not specialize in science coverage.)

Unfortunately for readers, our newspaper of record is especially likely to be wrong on food issues, wrong, in other words, on the issues that are most likely to affect our daily choices.   If you see a scientific article on food in the Times, distrust it, and spend some time verifying it, before you act on it.
- 8:11 PM, 26 March 2015   [link]


If You Know About Schrödinger's Cat, you'll like this cartoon. (It's the fifth in the slide show.)

And, if by some chance you don't know about the paradox, look it up.   It will boggle your mind.

Thanks to Jack is Back for the pointer.
- 3:04 PM, 26 March 2015   [link]


The More We Learn About Troy Kelley's Associate, Jason Jerue, the more interesting he becomes.
In 2010, when attorneys sued Troy Kelley — now the Washington state auditor but then the owner of an escrow-services company and Jerue’s boss — they failed to track down Jerue for a deposition.  Few at the company, Post Closing Department, said they ever saw him.

Jerue’s wife said under oath the couple had separated and she didn’t know where he was — even when he was tending to their baby — or the names of his friends, “except by their fictitious X-Box names,” according to court records.
. . .
Jerue and Kelley met in the early 1990s in California when they both worked for First American Title Insurance Company, according to court documents from that state and Washington. Kelley was an in-house attorney.

Both men were fired in 2000, and both sued for wrongful termination.  Their cases were so similar they were consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Kelley withdrew his claim days after First American’s attorneys won a motion that would have let them explore allegations that Kelley stole artwork from a company office after his termination, according to the court docket and documents filed in California.
There's much more in the article, but that's probably as much as I can give you, without going beyond fair use.

But I can remind you of this:  Jerue has been working for the auditor's office, part time — by email from California.  And there is some confusion about what Jerue's last name is, since it appears in three different forms in official documents.

Meanwhile, there's another small mystery about our Democratic auditor:
Much of Kelley’s day-to-day activity even before now has been a mystery.  He’s less visible than most state elected officials, and his involvement in the internal workings of the Auditor’s Office is hard to determine.

His calendar isn’t much help.  It doesn’t account for his whereabouts on more than 150 nonholiday weekdays between when he took office in January 2013 and November 2014.

That’s about one in every three weekdays.
It could be that Kelley, and his staff, just aren't very good about filling out his calendar, but that seems unlikely.

Unfortunately, we can't ask Kelley about his calendar because he, and his official spokesman, aren't talking.

(In 2012, the Seattle Times endorsed Kelley.  Yesterday, the Times ran an editorial confessing they had endorsed him, and calling for him to "come clean".  But they aren't quite ready to admit they made a mistake in 2012.)
- 2:48 PM, 26 March 2015   [link]


Will The Scottish National Party "Win" The British Election On 7 May?  They might, and that should worry the United States (and everyone else who wishes Britain well).

First, some background:  In the last election, in 2010, you could have described the British party system as a two-and-a-half party system: Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat.

That would have been a simplification; there were a number of minor parties that won seats, but the three parties together won 88.1 percent of the total popular vote, and 610 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons.  (After the election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a formal coalition, and have been governing, together.)

All three parties have lost seats since 2010, and minor parties have increased their appeal, to such an extent that some see a six-party system, or even a seven-party system.
The Liberal Democrats have been the third party in the UK for many years; but as described by various commentators, other parties have risen relative to the Liberal Democrats since the 2010 election.[25][26]  The Economist described a "familiar two-and-a-half-party system" (Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats in third place) that "appears to be breaking down" with the rise of UKIP, the Greens and the SNP.[27]  Newsnight[28] and The Economist[29] have described the country as moving into a six-party system, with the Liberal Democrats, SNP, UKIP and Greens all being significant.   Ofcom, in their role regulating election coverage in the UK, have ruled that for the general election and local elections in May 2015, the major parties in Great Britain are the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats, with UKIP a major party in England and Wales, the SNP a major party in Scotland, and Plaid Cymru in Wales, and that the Greens are not a major party.[30]  The BBC's draft guidelines for coverage broadly concur with Ofcom.[31]  Seven parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, SNP, PC and Green) are the proposed participants in the election leadership debates.[32]
(I omitted all the standard links in that selection.)

The Scottish National Party (SNP) may be the third largest party after the election, and they might hold the balance of power between Conservatives and Labour.

If that happens, they have promised to put Labour into power, but not join in a formal coalition, which would allow them to make much mischief.  They would have enormous power, without any responsibility.
What the ever-cunning and canny Mr [Alex] Salmond appears to have in mind is not a coalition with Labour (which has already been rejected by Mr [Ed] Miliband), or even a less formal ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement which would involve giving general support.

Instead, he appears to imagine backing Labour on an issue-by-issue basis — in other words keeping it in power but not voting for all its legislation.  Mr Miliband might not relish such highly conditional endorsement, but if he wished to continue to rule he would have no choice but to accept it.
Stephen Glover goes on at length about what Salmond might demand in return for allowing Miliband to be prime minister — and the damage Salmond could do to English-Scottish relations.

I'll be following this election closely, but I don't plan, as of now, to make any predictions.   It's just too complex, especially with the likelihood that there will be a fair amount of tactical voting, with many voters choosing their second, or even third, choice, in order to block candidates they dislike.

(In principle, Conservatives and Labour could defeat the SNP by working together, in various ways, up to a grand coalition.  I don't think either party would find that attractive, now.

By "confidence and supply", Glover means that a party agrees to vote against no confidence motions, and for the money necessary to run the government.)
- 9:50 AM, 26 March 2015   [link]


The Alps Crash Was Mass Murder:  As I am sure you know by now.  Here's the Daily Mail story, which, as you would expect, has many pictures.
The co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings Airbus A320 locked his captain out of the cockpit before deliberately crashing into a mountain to 'destroy the plane', it was sensationally revealed today.

French prosecutor Brice Robin gave further chilling details of the final ten minutes in the cockpit before the Airbus A320 plunged into the French Alps killing 150 people.
But no speculation worth mentioning.

(Tacked to the end of the story are earlier stories with speculations that have since proved to be false.  I found them mildly interesting, for what they show about "experts", and the need of journalists to put up something after a disaster.)
- 8:06 AM, 26 March 2015   [link]


Today's Michael Ramirez Cartoon is excellent.
- 3:04 PM, 25 March 2015   [link]


The Small Surprise In The Bergdahl Announcement:  The charges are no surprise to anyone who has followed the story.
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban after abandoning his post in Afghanistan and then freed five years later in a controversial trade for five Guantanamo detainees, was charged Wednesday with desertion.

U.S. Army Forces Command announced the decision at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

He was charged with misbehavior before the enemy, which carries a maximum sentence of up to life in prison. He was also charged with desertion, which carries a maximum of five years.
But this was mildly surprising: today's date.  I expected the announcement would come at a time when it would attract less attention, probably late on a Friday, the traditional time to break bad news.

That it did not gives me a little hope; it makes me think that the Army is not doing everything it can to protect the Obama administration, politically.

(By the way, it is common for federal bureaucracies — and the Army is, among other things, a bureaucracy — to escape, somewhat, from a president's control, late in his administration.  It is not hard to understand why; the bureaucrats begin to look ahead, having less reason to fear punishment, and less reason to expect rewards, from the current administration.)
- 2:32 PM, 25 March 2015   [link]


Another Victory For Seattle In The City's War Against Cars:   Though it wasn't reported that way.
A semi-truck hauling fish overturned on State Route 99 near the Alaskan Way Viaduct Tuesday afternoon.  Blocking all southbound lanes for nine hours.  The lanes were re-opened just before midnight.

The accident happened near Atlantic Street, just south of the viaduct.

Traffic on the viaduct was at a standstill and the gridlock extended through the streets of downtown Seattle.  Entire busloads of people stuck on the viaduct decided to disembark and walk off the viaduct.

Traffic flow was reversed so drivers could exit off the viaduct off the Columbia Street on-ramp.  Motorists were also on exiting Highway 99 at Denny Way, just north of the Battery Street Tunnel.
Why is this a victory?

Because incidents like this will make at least a few drivers decide — the city hopes — to switch to public transportation, preferably rail transportation.

(For the record:  Seattle elected officials routinely deny waging a war on cars — and, just as routinely, pursue policies that make it harder to drive, and more expensive to park, in Seattle.)
- 12:29 PM, 25 March 2015   [link]


"Jazz Hands"  I'll admit that I had never heard of that way of performing, and, though I am fascinated by politics, would not have guessed that jazz hands would be proposed as a substitute for clapping, to protect sensitive folks.

It can be so hard to distinguish intentional from unintentional parody these days.  If I had been told about that, without the context, I think I would have guessed that it was intentional, that someone was mocking politically correct groups, especially feminists.

(The National Union of Students has a long, and very leftist, history.)
- 9:37 AM, 25 March 2015   [link]


Another EB-5 Visa Scandal:  First, a review from the Wikipedia article.
The EB-5 visa provides a method of obtaining a green card for foreign nationals who invest money in the United States.[1]  To obtain the visa, individuals must invest $1,000,000 (or at least $500,000 in a Targeted Employment Area - high unemployment or rural area), creating or preserving at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers excluding the investor and their immediate family.[1] Initially, under the first EB-5 program, the foreign investor was required to create an entirely new commercial enterprise; however, under the Pilot Program investments can be made directly in a job-generating commercial enterprise (new, or existing - "Troubled Business"[2]), or into a "Regional Center" - a 3rd party-managed investment vehicle (private or public), which assumes the responsibility of creating the requisite jobs.  Regional Centers may charge an administration fee for managing the investor's investment.

If the foreign national investor's petition is approved, the investor and their dependents will be granted conditional permanent residence valid for two years.[2]   Within the 90 day period before the conditional permanent residence expires, the investor must submit evidence documenting that the full required investment has been made and that 10 jobs have been maintained, or 10 jobs have been created or will be created within a reasonable time period.[2]
(Which is accurate, as far as I know.)

You don't have to be an expert on investment, or government, to see weaknesses in this program.  If there is a good business opportunity in a "Targeted Employment Area", then there is no need to pass out visas to encourage investors, even foreign investors, who can just send money.  If the bureaucrats try to enforce the provisions of the law, then the approval is likely to be delayed for years, at a time when many investors think in months, not years.

But there can be a way for people with the right connections to speed up matters, and that's what the Virginia governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, is accused of doing.
Not long before he became governor of Virginia, Democrat Terry McAuliffe received special treatment on behalf of his electric-car company from a top official at the Department of Homeland Security, according to a new report from the department’s inspector general.

McAuliffe was among several politically powerful individuals from both parties, including Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), seeking special visas for foreign investors through a program administered by the department.  But intervention on behalf of McAuliffe’s GreenTech Automotive company by Alejandro Mayorkas, now the department’s No. 2 official, “was unprecedented,” according to the report.
Those who have followed McAuliffe's career, even casually, will find nothing surprising in this story.

Mayorkas appears to have been rewarded for his efforts.  Which tells us something about the Obama administration.

(For the record:  I have long thought that we should simply abolish this program, that it makes no sense economically, and is subject to abuses, of many kinds.

His Wikipedia biography will show you why I am not surprised to see McAuliffe in still another scandal.)
- 8:28 AM, 25 March 2015   [link]


Good Line, Mitt.
While discussing his upcoming charity boxing match with former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield on Fox News, Romney said, “I can fight anybody so long as Candy Crowley isn’t the referee.”
(This Wikipedia biography makes Crowley sound a little odd.)
- 3:20 PM, 24 March 2015   [link]


The House Of Representatives Delivered A Resounding Vote Of No Confidence In President Obama's Policies Toward Iran:  The letter cautioning Obama was signed by 367 members of the House, a more than two-thirds majority.

The reproof was bipartisan; majorities of both parties signed the letter.   Many prominent Democrats signed, including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Chairwoman of the National Democratic Party Debbie Wasserman Schultz, civil rights hero John Lewis, and far-left congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.

Not all Republicans signed the letter.  I was not surprised, for instance, that Justin Amash did not sign.

You can look at the signatures to see whether your representative signed the letter; you can even, as I just did, look to see who in your state's delegation signed.

For Washington state, there are eight signers, in order: Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R, 5th), Suzan DelBene (D, 1st), Derek Kilmer (D, 6th), Rick Larsen (D, 2nd), Dave Reichert (R, 8th), Dan Newhouse (R, 4th), Jaime Herrera Beutler (R, 3rd), and Denny Heck (D, 10th).

The two who did not sign are: Jim McDermott (D, 7th) and Adam Smith (D, 9th).No one who knows even a little about Jim McDermott will be surprised by his refusal to sign.  I was a little surprised that Adam Smith did not sign.

In this area, I don't know of any local journalists who will ask our representatives why they signed, or why they did not sign.  That's unfortunate, because the decision to sign, or not sign, is one of the most important in this Congress, and voters should know why their representatives chose to reprove — or to back — President Obama's increasingly reckless efforts to get an agreement, any agreement, with Iran.

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

(If you haven't already, you really should read the brief letter.  It's polite — and powerful.)

- 8:42 AM, 24 March 2015
Correction:  Derek Kilmer did sign the letter, which makes more sense, from what I know about the 6th district.  Thanks to a sharp-eyed reader for spotting the name, which I had somehow missed, on three separate readings of the list.  I've corrected the text above.
- 6:41 AM, 25 March 2015     [link]


Archives

June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002, Part 1 and Part 2
November 2002, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
December 2002, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

January 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
February 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
March 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
April 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2004, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2004, Part 1, Part 2. Part 3, and Part 4
October 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2005, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2006, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2007, Part 1 and Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2007, Part 1 Part 2, and Part 3, and Part 4
June 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2007, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2007, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2008, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
May 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. and Part 4

January 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2010, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2010, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2012, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2012, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2012, Part 1, Part 2 Part 3, and Part 4
August 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3and Part 4
December 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2013, , Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4
March 2014, Part 1. Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

January 2015, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2015, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2015, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4






Coming Soon
  • Plan 17 Conservatives
  • FDR and Waterboarding
  • How Long Do Wars Last?
  • Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, and Crescent Wrenches
  • De-Lawyering and Attorney General McKenna


Coming Eventually
  • JFK and Wiretaps
  • Green Republicans
  • The Rise and Fall and Rise of Black Voting
  • Abortion, Cleft Palates, and Europe
  • Kweisi Mfume's Children
  • Public Opinion During Other US Wars
  • Dual Loyalties
  • The Power Index
  • Baby Dancing
  • Jocks, but no Nerds
  • The Four Caliphs




Best Posts


Books


Strange Obama


The Unknown Bush


University Reform


Uncorrected Mistakes


Vote Fraud


The Gang of Four


Articles


Assignment Desk
(What's This?)


Columns


Common Mistakes
(What's This?)


Chomsky Cult Program


*new