Funmurphys: the Blog

I'm Daniel Drezner's Doppleganger

So I took the same quiz as Daniel Drezner and got the same result - I'm an enterpriser, which means that I'm a rabid Republican but don't realize it. I'm an enterpriser because I t think that big companies aren't as big a danger as Islamic exteremists and that just saying "Nice Doggie" without holding a big stick isn't the best strategy. Or something. Well, that's about as good analogy as the quiz, which isn't a surprise since it's just another lousy online collection of simplistic questions.

I then went on to get 8 out of 8 at the ABC online Shia-Sunni quiz -- just like Mr Drezner. So Mr Drezner, you're not alone.

Hmm, could it be that people who can answer 8 questions about who's Sunni and who's Shia are enterprisers?

The Married Man Defense

The jury is still out in the Scooter Libby case, but I've weighed the evidence and have to agree that community service of this sort would be appropriate.

OK, according to the offense, I mean the prosecutor, the case is about Mr. Libby lying when he claimed he had forgotten that he had earlier learned about Mrs. Wilson from VP Cheney and other official channels and it was as if he had heard it for the first time from Tim Russert. According to the defense, the case is did Mr. Libby hear about Mrs. Wilson from Tim Russert as Mr Libby testified.

I have to say the case is about how many married people there are on the jury. If I were the defense, I would have offered up the married man defense - if I had been allowed to mount a memory defense unlike the actual accused. I can't tell you how many important things I have relearned over the years as if for the very first time despite hearing it from my wife earlier (or at least that's what she claims). "I told you that" -- what married man isn't familiar with that refrain. How many a married man has forgotten an anniversary, a birthday, or some other significant event?

So as a married man, a man who looked over at his son at Night At The Museum and said "You wear glasses?" to the immediate scorn of both wife and son, I can believe that Scooter Libby forgot something, something that people telling him thought vital, something that even he thought vital. I have no idea if he did or not, but I can believe it.

Blogger Council or Nannies for Bloggers?

Ann Althouse reports that Eric Alterman floated the idea of a blogger council that can condemn bloggers to being disbelieved:

"I think it would be valuable if we had... uh... I mean, there's some sense where blogs correct themselves if you read enough of them, but I still I think it would be good if we had some sort of, you know, blogging -- you know -- council, where we could condemn people. Sort of... responsible body. You could still blog if you want. Nobody's going to stop you. But we're going to... everybody's gonna know that you're not to be trusted... unless you can sort of apologize or answer for yourself."

Apparently I can vote, drink, drive a car, raise children, fight in a war (well, I may be too old (and out of shape) for that) but I can't figure out when a blogger isn't to be trusted? Perhaps Mr. Alterman hasn't really figured out this whole blogging thing after all. Or perhaps he is jealous of the Watchers of Weasels Council (which should be noted doesn't condemn, but instead elevates worthy posts).

"Responsible body", "condemn people"? Eric, what are you thinking? Have you missed the whole point of the re-democratization of communications? Here's how it works - you can gather together a group of like minded people, give yourselves a snazzy title (I prefer the blogging nannies), and publish lists of bloggers that you think should be condemned for their blogging sins and ask them to foreswear blogging until they grovel abjectly at your feet. You can even call this condemnation excommunication, wear funny hats and force them to kiss your ring in order to be recommunicated if you so desire. Just don't ask me to ever take you seriously again, or for that matter trust you. Because in the Book of Kevin, you've just condemned yourself to perpetual untrust, no matter if you make an actual, real apology and answer for your clear lack of understanding.

And speaking of people who puff themselves up beyond all recognition, who is Jonathan Chait to sit in judgement of Rudy Guiliani? Mayor Guiliani isn't my ideal presidential candidate (we can't dig up Ronnie just to have him run again, can we?), but I'm tired of people who have done bupkis tell me what to think of people who have actually done a few things in their life.

Not All Science Is As Fun And Pointless

If you're like me, you hear "like nailing jello to a wall" and you immediately translate the phrase to "impossible." Fortunately, not everybody thinks that way, as this scientifically inclined person demonstrates. The man (while I don't know the person's gender, I'm assuming only a man spends so much time on a project like this) chronicles his attempts to nail jello to a wall, starting with the expected tragedies but culminating in triumph.

He then attempts to nail jello to a wall while the jello is vertical! Did he succeed? You'll have to check the extended entry to find out:

The Talented Mr. Russert

Tom Maguire of Just One Minute Fame has made the case that Tim Russert could have lied (OK, just let his memory go dim) in the Scooter Libby perjury case because he was covering for prior less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth statements. Frequent commenter, Barney Frank, claims he should get credit for the white lie leading down a slippery slope of further cover up possibility. I'm sorry to tell both Mr. Frank and Mr. Maguire that there is a very fine movie that pre-dates Mr. Russerts legal entanglements, The Talented Mr. Ripley, that starts with a far more innocent misdirection and ultimately ends up in a far darker place than perjury. The movie is well worth seeing. The Libby Trial, not so much.

I have no idea if Russert was telling the truth about his conversation with Libby (Don Imus thinks he wasn't), although his actual testimony was that while he doesn't remember discussing Mrs. Wilson (which I can believe) with Libby, it was impossible that he told Libby about Mrs. Wilson. However, I can't believe Mr. Russert couldn't remember whether or not he told his boss he had cooperated with the FBI while NBC was fighting the grand jury subpeona. That I just simply can not believe. Nor can I believe that the FBI lost the notes from that initial conversation with Mr. Russert. Oddly enough, I haven't seen either mentioned in conventional news outlets.

We Can't Handle The Truth

Last night I was watching the local news (mainly for the weather) when they did a story about a Washington University coed raped in her dorm room. They talked about the suspect, read a description, and never mentioned he's black. I only know that because they showed the composite sketch. My wife thought it odd that they would mention gender, height, weight, age, hair length, even the cap he was wearing, in describing him, but not his skin color. Fox 2 News has the same lack of information. KMOV, the TV news outlet in town we usually watch(and I'm not sure why we were watching KSDK instead of KMOV - maybe because Karen Foss retired) has no trouble in using his skin color. I guess KMOV isn't worried all us bigots will be confirmed in our error.

So today I'm not surprised by this news: Another rape a Duke University, but no mention of (black) skin color. The media just keeps protecting us from our baser instincts - or so they think.

Think they'd ever caught Michael Devlin if they didn't include the color of the pickup in its description? White, BTW.

Pelosi and the Plane

I think Speaker Pelosi is being unfairly attacked over "Air Pelosi". Just because I disagree with many of her political positions, that doesn't give me the right to distort her positions or otherwise treat her unfairly. As Speaker of the House she's supposed to get the use of an airplane - just like Dennis Hastert did. Maybe I'm just a fool, but I don't believe the claims she demanded something bigger and better than what Hastert got - they play to the political dislike of her. I'm friends with many people who have political positions that I disagree with (some even to the right of me), and I'm no less their friend because of it. Why do we treat people who we have different political positions differently than those we do agree with? Why are we willing to believe the worst of those who have different politics?

And even if the worst were true - if Speaker Pelosi did demand Air Force 3 - the biggest jet after AF1 & 2 to ferry around her and her pals, would that somehow invalidate her political positions? Would the military campaign in Iraq be justified by that? Would hiking the minimum wage now be discredited? Universal Healthcare run and funded by the Federal government would have been just the ticket except Nancy Pelosi demanded an overlarge plane to fly around in? Of course not.

The United States has enough real enemies that we don't need to treat each other like enemies.

Republican Hopeful Thumbnails

McCain: I don't like him, I hate McCain-Feingold, no.

Romney: Who?

Giuliani: I like him, clearly a good executive, the only thing he can do about abortion and gun control as president is appoint good judges, yes.

More Heat Than Light

Just before the November elections, some nice lady in California, Jill Asher, called me a crazy nut case for opposing Amendment 2 here in Missouri. Clearly Ms. Asher is passionate about the subject because her step mother has Alzheimer's which is a terrible disease. However, she isn't particularly knowledgable about the amendment, and while she linked to a pro and anti site each, she didn't both to link to the actual text of the amendment.

"So when I hear about you nut cases voting against Amendment 2, you are voting to halt research against this horrible disease that affects my family - and soon will affect YOURS in some way. I guarantee that as you age, you or one family members will be doomed with this horrific disease - or other's that can be cured with stem cell research."

First off, stem cells aren't likely to cure alzheimer's.

Secondly, there is a distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells that Ms. Asher is ignoring. I'm all in favor of studying adult stem cells. Pour the money there, please.

And finally, a vote against amendment 2 wasn't a vote to halt any research whatsoever. Amendment 2 was a preemptive change -- it ties restrictions in Missouri to Federal restrictions. Since there are no stem cell research restrictions in Missouri, no reaserch would have been halted if Amendment 2 didn't pass -- and no reaserch started because restrictions were lifted by the passage of Amendment 2. The only effect is on the ability of institutions, mainly Washington University, to attract money and researchers for embryonic stem cell research because Missouri would be no worse than any other state. Needless to say, supporters didn't mention this angle.

"Sorry if I sound bitter, but I can't imagine that so many people would actually vote against funding that will help us all in the future, and possibly find cures for so many diseases. I know I probably won't change your mind, but I hope you get a crystal clear picture of what you will be going through in the future."

Funding? What funding? Maybe you are confused because California voted on funding embryonic stem cell research, but here in Missouri there was no funding involved.

Also, next time you have a failure of imagination, maybe you should do more investigation and ask yourself "maybe I'm wrong?". It works wonders for me.

And no, you won't change my mind with a post like that. You're passion means nothing to me; your reasoning, facts, and acknowledgment of my reasoning and facts mean everything.

"Do you understand what stem cell research can do for you and your family?"

Well here's the deal. The results so far indicate that adult stem cell therapies can provide all the benefits more easily than embryonic stem cell therapies. I understand the desire of scientists to study everything, but ethical factors should and do limit research from time to time. No doubt not all that long ago vivisection would have provided a great deal of useful medical knowledge, but it was outlawed for ethical concerns. And it would be much easier to experiment on people without their knowledge, but again we limit that as well for ethical reasons. Now I understand we disagree about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, but please understand that ethical concerns are my objection to embryonic stem cell research, which means appeals to utility fall on deaf ears.

What I disliked most about the amendment was the deception involved. The amendment claimed to ban all human cloning while it specifically only banned creating a clone for reproduction and not for research. The Amendment claimed to guarantee access to stem cell cures for Missourians but there are no restrictions on the cures and there are no embryonic stem cell cures at the moment.

Ms. Asher called me a crazy nut case (yeah, that will help change my opinion) while linking my ballot measures roundup post wherein I thought I made clear the reasons I was opposed to the Amendment and summed up: "While I don't think this amendment will make much difference one way or another, I'm voting against it because (1) it is deliberately misleading, and (2) it doesn't belong in the constitution."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how that makes me a crazy nutcase.

Superbowl XLI

The game: lopsided except for the score.

The ads: dull, dull, dull.

The halftime show: not bad.

I was looking forward to the superbowl, I was rooting for Indy, but when the half time show is the high point of the experience, something is wrong. Very wrong.

Maybe it's time to scrap the Roman Numerals and use Arabic. Maybe it wasn't time to hold the Superbowl in a stadium that isn't a dome. Maybe it's just another football game.

Around the Web

Don Surber covers Tennis. AJ Strata covers hardball.

Mark puts girl scout cookies to the taste test.

McQ runs with a great idea: benchmark government.
My addition: benchmark foreign aid (althought I now that answer to that one - it makes things worse).
My outside the box: benchmark pundits. Include both accuracy of claimed facts, how often they leave out info that conflicts with their claim, and how often their prognostications are correct.

David Adesnik at Oxblog looks at an exchange between Mike Huckabee and Tim Russert to examine the intersection of politics and religion, and then asks a great question:
"In contrast, advocates of separation faith from policy have to answer the question that conservatives love to ask: Was it wrong for Martin Luther King Jr. to draw on his Christian faith to inspire the civil rights movement?"

Caroline Glick notices that the Palestinian state already exists, and it "is a terror state and an economic basket case fully funded by the international community." See that note above about how foreign aid leaves recipient worse off. Speaking of thinking outside the box, maybe we should focus on actually improving one of the existing states of the two state solution and lay off trying to force the other state to cough up more territory. Just a thought.

Eamonn Fitzgerald reports on John Naisbitt's views on, among other things, global warming and newspapers. Naturally, we like them because they coincide with ours.

Patterico looks at evidence that prison doesn't deter crime and discovers that by careful design of a study to select just the right sample group you can prove anything you want.

Sweet Smell Of Success

I like movies. A lot. But the other day, 3/4 of the Murphy Family tried to pick out a movie at our local Hollywood Video and failed. Or almost failed, as after we all agreed we couldn't find anything we wanted to see or see again for free, I noticed The Sweet Smell of Success. Well, I just had to get it, after reading Libertas:

Have you guys ever seen The Sweet Smell of Success? Man! What a great flick. Cancel your Netflix account now and use that money to buy The Sweet Smell Of Success. And everytime you get an urge to watch the latest piece of junk — liberal or otherwise – that emanates from Hollywood, watch The Sweet Smell Of Success. You’ll thank me for it later.

You know what? Thanks, whichever one of you there that wrote that. While I was the only one to watch it (horrors, it was in black and white!), I loved it enough for all of us. And I never thought I'd ever say this, but Tony Curtis was a better actor than 95% of the people in the business today. I knew about Burt Lancaster, but not Tony.

Why Is Scooter Libby On Trial?

I've promised one last Plame post numerous times, but the Scooter Libby trial requires comment -- if only for the sheer fun of saying the defendant's name. If you want the ins and outs, Tom Maguire is as always your man. I'm taking a big picture look.

First off, near as I can tell just about everybody who got roped into Fitzgerald's investigation has had trouble with remembering what actually happened -- who said what to whom when -- or has changed their story, yet only Mr. Libby is on trial. Mr. Fitzgerald claims that is because Mr. Libby deliberately mislead him and impeded his investigation, but his investigation into what? He determined that no crime occured, and that determination had nothing to do with who leaked first, it had to do with Ms. Plame-Wilson's status.

Secondly, Joe Wilson has lied long and loud and clear yet he suffers no penalty for doing so. I'm not even sure he actually went to Niger since he's lied about everything else. And as it turns out, he is the guy who actually leaked his wife's status as an ex-NOC -- up until he yapped to Mr. Corn, his wife simply worked at the CIA. It's bad enough Armitage, Fleischer, Rove and Libby let out that much, but Joe himself the most damage.

Third and last, why is Fitzgerald and the government wasting time with this prosecution when real live CIA leaks that actually caused harm are going uninvestigated and unpunished?