Interesting post from Gregory Sullivan over at Pajamas Media.  Here's a taste, but I recommend reading the whole thing:

Hillary Clinton’s big idea is to think the government can run a vertically integrated version of Medicine. I have my doubts. Bad managers like vertical integration because they are immune to outside pressure to perform. There are no upstream producers giving you things before you’re ready to process them, and no downstream vendors selling things before you’re ready to supply them. And vertically integrated monopolies run by the government don’t even have to worry about the customers. No one can go to another vendor. And the opposition party cannot offer an alternative other than the destruction of what been cobbled together, which is like asking if you’d like your ration card torn up during a famine once the thing gets going. The beast will never die once Igor pulls the switch, until it collapses under the weight of its own bureaucracy.

While Notre Dame is clearly out of its depth against football powerhouses like Air Force and Navy, you have to give some credit to their athletic department administrators for their forward thinking.  How else to explain their decision to dump Northwestern, another program that would have crushed the Irish this season, from the schedule and slip Duke into the mix.  They were even smart enough to slot Duke for their final home game to ensure the seniors didn't go out with a winless record this year for the home crowd.  Well played.

From Sports Illustrated online this morning:

Dara Torres broke the U.S. record in the women's 50-meter freestyle by swimming a 23.87 in her heat. The 40-year-old broke the mark of 24.21 Kara Lynn set on March 18, 2004.

I hope this story is "real," but, given everything that seems to be going on in big-time athletics, let's just say I need to buy more salt at the grocery today.

Breitbart.com has an update on the Homeland Security Halloween party fiasco that resulted in charges of insensitivity after an employee with dreadlocks, darkened skin, and a prison costume was awarded a prize for his costume.  From this morning's update:

Costume Flap Imperils Immigration Post

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just when it appeared Julie Myers had cleared every hurdle in her quest to officially become the nation's top immigration official, a dreadlocked wig and a prisoner's outfit could cost her the job.

Myers, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ran into trouble earlier this month after she and two other agency managers gave the "most original" costume award to a white employee who came to the agency's Halloween party dressed as an escaped prisoner with dreadlocks and darkened skin.

...

Myers has apologized repeatedly for the costume incident, saying she was "shocked and horrified" to learn the employee had altered his skin color and conceding "it was inappropriate for me to recognize any individual wearing an escaped prisoner costume."

So let me make sure I understand this.  We want the person in CHARGE of Immigration Enforcement to not be able to recognize when one of her own employees has put on makeup as a disguise?  That explains a lot about the government's complete inability and unwillingness to close the borders.  I need to go get some whiskey for my coffee and a case of Tums...

As the father of 2 small kids, ages 6 (almost 7) and 3 (almost 4), I find myself amazed at how difficult it seems to be to find socks that fit their feet properly.  My lovely wife thinks I'm insane for continually coming home with socks from different stores, trying to find ones that both fit their feet, and stay up on their calves but without being too restrictive.

We've picked up socks at Gymboree, Children's Place, Kids' Gap, Old Navy, Target and Walmart (sorry Mom & Dad).  At this point, I've had the most luck recently with some Gold Toe product that Target is selling for girls.  Even with our daughter's notoriously finicky foot behavior, where her socks have to go on JUST so, with no bumps or things she can feel anywhere, which generally entails a process of well over a minute to put on a single sock, somehow I've hit paydirt the past few times I've grabbed socks from Target that I figured were in the right color schemes, and would hopefully fit.

I have not had as much success with socks for our son, on the other hand.  Much to my wife's dismay, I picked up a couple of different multi-sock packages from different stores in the past couple of months.  The first pack was for boys ages 4-6.  With a 4th birthday on the distant horizon of late February, I figured those would work fine.  Looked a bit large as an initial fit, but I figured with washing and drying, they'd wind up pretty much right where he'd like them.

Wrong.  They're still huge on him.  So, after repeated complaints from my lovely wife about how ridiculous these socks were, I bought a different multi-pack.  They're better, but seem rather tight through the ribbed portion of the sock that goes over the lower leg.  (There's probably some sock terminology to specifically identify and describe this portion of the sock, but I don't know what it is.  That will have to wait for another day.)  I guess at this point they'll have to do.

One final oddity that I noticed with both of the multi-packs of socks for my son, as well as the pack of socks I bought for myself recently, is that the packages are re-sealable plastic bags.  Like the kind of Ziploc bags you put leftovers in for storage.  And this is even pointed out on the bags as a selling point.  Why?  Are people storing their socks in re-sealable plastic bags in a dresser drawer for some reason?  Are they emptying out the socks and using the bag to store leftover food items?  I don't understand this marketing gimmick.  I would have bought the socks whether the bag was re-sealable or not.  What is the benefit I am getting out of this?

Maybe I should go do an online search for "re-sealable sweat sock packages" and see if there is some deep answer to this mystery.

Patrick Ruffini has a post on Hugh Hewitt's blog discussing the changing nature of media as it relates to political campaigns.  Here's the first part of his post, which I've clipped off to end at the part that made me curious (and I have highlighted the pertinent sections):

Let me throw out a counterfactual.

If we had had blogs when Bill Clinton was President, he would have been a lot less effective and his approval ratings lower.

Bloggers, who shape more and more of the coverage, deal largely in the printed word. Until YouTube, video was utterly irrelevant to our commentary. Even now, a well-informed blogger can go through an entire day without turning on the TV and watching the speech for him or herself.

On the whole, this will tend to devalue eloquence, smooth-talk, whatever you want to call it. It will reward the politician who is clear, direct, and succinct, whose words make sense in 12-point Times New Roman.

I think this is part of why Mitt Romney is having a hard time escaping the flip-flopper charge, something that also dogged Bill Clinton. Yes, he’s a Republican, so he doesn’t get media brownie points. There are also the YouTube-style ambushes you just wouldn’t have seen in 1992. (There was an amusing scene in The War Room in which Carville et al. were debating whether to use footage of Bush signs being made in Brazil that some volunteer taped off a college public access channel. That wouldn’t be up for discussion in 2008. Someone would have YouTubed it.)

But an overlooked point is that we now have an entire class of opinion leaders that look to the text-driven Internet, not television, to shape their coverage. To a large degree, these opinion leaders will be immune from the charms of a Clinton or a Romney. ...

Specifically with respect to Romney, I found this interesting.  More to the point, I listened to a podcast recently where Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, and John Podhoretz, columnist with the NY Post and I think now part of Commentary's online editorial team, were interviewed about the ongoing presidential campaigns.  Prof. Reynolds I think refers to himself as libertarian leaning, though he is also I believe widely perceived by those on the political left as being very conservative.  Mr. Podhoretz is, I think, a political conservative.  He was a long-time poster on National Review Online's The Corner.

In any event, what struck me in reading Mr. Ruffini's post was my recollection of the comments both Prof. Reynolds and Mr. Podhoretz made in assessing Romney's candidacy.  Both viewed Romney as the kind of candidate that became more UNattractive the more they were exposed to him, via ads, campaign appearances, etc.  I believe Prof. Reynolds even referred to Romney as having a certain "oily" quality that was off-putting the more he saw of the candidate.

I have certainly seen photos of Romney, and am vaguely familiar with his history, but I have never actually seen Romney give a speech or perform in a debate.  I have heard him interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and based only on knowing his general background and hearing him talk to Mr. Hewitt, Romney seemed like a pretty reasonable guy.

It just seemed surprising to me to hear two opinion leaders like Prof. Reynolds and Mr. Podhoretz, who I expect have seen a lot more of Romney in action than I have, both react with increasing dislike for him the more they see him.  And that seems to kind of contradict Mr. Ruffini's view that television exposure is to Romney's benefit.

I guess I don't have a real point here, just something that made me stop and wonder where a conversation between Ruffini, Reynolds and Podhoretz may go on this topic.

Richard Rubin has an opinion piece in today's New York Times.  It's not a lengthy item, but it is well worth the time to read it.  Here's the setup:

BY any conceivable measure, Frank Buckles has led an extraordinary life. Born on a farm in Missouri in February 1901, he saw his first automobile in his hometown in 1905, and his first airplane at the Illinois State Fair in 1907. At 15 he moved on his own to Oklahoma and went to work in a bank; in the 1940s, he spent more than three years as a Japanese prisoner of war. When he returned to the United States, he married, had a daughter and bought a farm near Charles Town, W. Va., where he lives to this day. He drove a tractor until he was 104.

But even more significant than the remarkable details of Mr. Buckles’s life is what he represents: Of the two million soldiers the United States sent to France in World War I, he is the only one left.

From Sports Illustrated online:

WNBA club wants woman, not Rodman, to coach

Ron Terwilliger, the owner of the new WNBA team in Atlanta, wants his coach to be a woman -- not just dress like one. The ex-Chicago Bulls forward, who made headlines a few years back by dressing as a drag queen, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he is interested in a WNBA coaching job.

You would think a team from Atlanta, home of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would be more open-minded in judging a coaching candidate by the content of his character rather than the content of his BVDs.

So now we get the latest lie from Bill Clinton:

Former President Clinton said Thursday that he is to blame for his administration’s failed health care plan, not his wife, who spearheaded the effort.

Um.  Ok.  Whatever.  As I noted back in September on the never-ending topic of the Clinton's holiday from the truth:

Imagine my surprise in skimming through the Chicago Sun Times profile from June 2007 of Patti Solis Doyle, where near the end of the article it states:

Doyle said her toughest time while working in the White House was not the impeachment of President Clinton but the failure of Hillary Clinton's health reform plan in 1994, "because for me that was truly her thing and it was a tough time having to regroup."

Why in the world would one of George Gipp's relatives agree to have the Gipper's remains exhumed for DNA testing to answer a question of paternity?  From the story (emphasis added):

Mike Bynum, an Alabama sports author who is researching a book on Gipp, said he came across an Internet posting several years ago by a woman who believed she was a descendant of the football great. She was a granddaughter of Eva Bright, a South Bend, Ind., woman Gipp had dated for about a year before his death, Bynum said.

Bynum said he helped put the woman in touch with Frueh and other Gipp relatives. Eventually, Frueh decided to have the body exhumed. Gipp's right femur was removed and the other remains reburied, Bynum said in a telephone interview.

The DNA testing of the bone was conducted at a laboratory in Dallas. Results this week showed no link between Gipp and Bright, Bynum said.

In a statement, Frueh said he had no regrets about the exhumation and felt it had been important to learn whether Bright's descendants were part of the Gipp family.

"Helping family is the strongest act of love that we can offer each other. And if it happened again, our response would be the same," Frueh said.

Helping family?  Something tells me there must have been a money angle in here somewhere.  Earlier in the story, it is explained that Frueh's decision made some of his ACTUAL family members angry.  I think I can understand that.  After all, Gipp has been dead for over 85 years.  It's not like there is some pressing need to get to the bottom of this paternity rumor now.

Of course, I suppose there's always at least the possibility this whole story is a ruse to cover up Notre Dame's  desperate attempt to clone Gipp in hopes of getting a quality team back on the field.

Imagine your employer has a Halloween party and one of the white employees shows up with make-up to darken his skin, wearing a prison uniform, and hair in dreadlocks.  Problem?  Sure.

But now imagine it's the Department of Homeland Security having the Halloween party and this happens.  From the story:

WASHINGTON —  A top immigration official has apologized after awarding "most original costume" to a Homeland Security Department employee who dressed in prison stripes, dreadlocks and dark makeup for a Halloween gathering at the agency.

Julie Myers, assistant secretary overseeing Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division, was part of a three-judge panel that lauded the costume, worn by a white employee, last Wednesday. ...

...

The photo of Myers with the employee and any others taken by the official photographer showing the costume were discarded, Nantel said.

...

Even among the supposed Neanderthal conservatives at Fox News, the headline focuses on the offensiveness of the particular costume described.

I guess I'm just continually out of step with the news judgment of the mainstream media.  I'm much more bothered by the fact that the Department of Homeland Security would even have a Halloween party, presumably during the workday.  And I'm rather blown away by the fact that they had an official photographer at the event.

Runaway illegal immigration?  Ongoing threat of terrorism from Islamic fanatics?  Who cares!?  It's Halloween, and Homeland Security has to make sure to celebrate it, in a politically correct way, rather than keep its eye on the ball.  They'll have no one but themselves to blame when this kind of thing gets dragged back into public view after the next big terrorist attack in the U.S.

Having grown up about 15 miles east of Notre Dame, I've seen many of their football games through the years.  It was easy cheering them as a kid, when their teams were good.  And over time I've managed to become kind of indifferent to their sports success.  It's nice for them and for my hometown's economy, I suppose, when their teams do well.  But it's also kind of nice, from a karma perspective, to see them struggle and sometimes downright stink on occasion.

At this point, the Notre Dame football program is having a rough time of it.  Their mark for the season stands and 1-8, and they may be fortunate to win again this season.  Heck, they lost to NAVY this past weekend for the first time in my lifetime.

I was happy for Navy on hearing they finally beat ND.  The fact they did it in South Bend I'm sure made it even sweeter for them.

But I see via ESPN.com and AP that Navy has managed to turn my happiness for them into disappointment with this:

The Naval Academy canceled classes Monday, giving the 4,400 midshipmen another day to celebrate the football team's first victory over Notre Dame in 44 tries.

.....

The celebrations began in earnest late Saturday in Annapolis when the team bus pulled in. The academy gave plebes, or freshmen, free time Sunday from noon to 10 p.m., instead of a regular study period. Upperclassmen were given liberty until 4 p.m. Monday, allowing them to sleep in, study or just enjoy the victory.

The city of Annapolis has tentatively scheduled a celebration rally Wednesday afternoon, city spokesman Ray Weaver said.

Again, ND is 1-8.  They stink on ice.  This is not cause for a riotous 3 day weekend of celebration for the Naval Academy.

The perhaps apocryphal story about Lou Holtz (I think) when he coached ND's football team is that he told his players that when they scored a touchdown, he expected them to simply hand the ball to the officials.  Why?  Because he expected the players to act like they had scored a touchdown before.

Yes, Navy last beat Notre Dame when Roger Staubach was guiding the team.  A wild celebration in South Bend and simultaneously in Annapolis on Saturday and into Sunday to celebrate this win?  Ok.  But extending it another day for cancelled classes, and now having a celebration rally in mid-week?  All over the defeat of a one-win team?

It's a nice win, guys, but you didn't exactly blow out a national champion contender.

With next week's local elections in Mercer County, New Jersey, we have been somewhat inundated with campaign literature from those seeking County and State elective offices.  If you know anything about New Jersey, you may know that we are subject to some of the highest real property taxes in the country.  As a relative newcomer to the state, I can't speak to the history of New Jersey property taxes, but when we moved here almost five years ago, our property taxes, for very similar size parcels of land and pretty comparable houses, were instantly SIX TIMES higher than they had been in Delaware.  As you might imagine, we would LOVE to see a reduction in property taxes.

Politicians realize there is a lot of dissatisfaction on this issue among at least some voters.  So should I as a voter believe it when they tell me they recognize the problem and they will do something about it?  Let's consider the literature that arrived in the mail today from current incumbents Shirley Turn, Reed Gusciora and Bonnie Watson Coleman.

The banner headline in the flyer states:

We need leaders who are dedicated to reducing property taxes.

Hard for me to argue with that.  I'm certainly all in favor of reducing property taxes.  Sounds like these three might have something to say that I would want to hear.  So we read on to find:

Rising property taxes burden local families.  Seniors on fixed incomes can't afford to make ends meet.  And it's getting more and more expensive to live here.

Ok, still sounds pretty good at this point.  Moving on...

So it's crucial to support leaders with a proven record of dedication to reducing property taxes.  And we have three leaders who've done exactly that.

The red flags start to go up a little here.  Why?  That niggling qualification of "dedication to."  As a voter, I'm looking for a proven record of reducing property taxes.  Not just someone who uses it as a campaign issue so he can say he is "dedicated to" doing something.  Show me you've done it.  Admittedly, the second sentence seems to indicate that perhaps these candidates do indeed have a track record of reducing property taxes.  This would be a good thing, though I have to admit, we have yet to see any reduction in OUR property taxes in New Jersey.  But still, let's read on.

Senator Shirley Turner, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, and Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman have already revoked unfair tax exemptions for private clubs that wanted us to pick up their tax bills.

Um, ok.  I guess that's a good thing.  I'm not exactly sure how an exemption for a private club means that I am somehow paying their tax bills.  My understanding is that an exemption means they don't have a tax bill.

But, semantics aside, I understand that what they are trying to claim is that these private clubs aren't paying "their fair share" of the tax burden for the services provided.  Perhaps.  But without specifics of how many tax exemptions have been revoked, where those private clubs are located, and what kind of actual effect on real people's tax bills are at issue here, it's a little hard to get too excited.

They've also sponsored legislation to reduce government waste and close wasteful tax loopholes.  But they know the job is far from finished.

And with our support, they'll keep fighting to reduce property taxes.

That's it?  This is the sum of their "proven record" to reduce property taxes?  They managed to get the tax exemptions for some private clubs revoked, and think it would be a good idea to cut government waste (however nebulously that may be defined) and close tax loopholes (i.e., raise the taxes somewhere else)?  Where are the hard numbers of what the government is taking in, from where, and how much they seek to cut from spending and reduce from our property tax bills?

Fortunately, there's another page with "The Turner-Guscior-Watson Coleman Plan."  Surely this will provide the specifics I'm looking for:

Fix the broken school funding system
Shirley Turner, Reed Gusciora, and Bonnie Watson Coleman are fighting to make school funding fair for all students and families, no matter where they live or how much they earn.  Shirley, Reed, and Bonnie also support saving taxpayers money by reducing school bureaucracy.

Nothing specific here.  How much money is going to the schools?  What does "fair" funding mean?  There are plenty of studies and reports indicating that the amount of money spent per student does not correlate with school and/or student performance.  What indicators of "unfairness" do we currently have with regard to funding specifically?  And if the current school funding system is broken, what's the plan to "fix" it?  How does making it "fair" somehow "fix" it?

Get taxpayer money back from companies that broke their promise to create more jobs.
Companies like MSNBC received millions of taxpayer dollars to create more good-paying jobs.  But they left New Jersey without keeping their promise.  Shirley Turn, Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Reed Gusciora will keep working to get our money back from these corporate deadbeats.

Again, where are the specifics?  Did the state actually PAY companies like MSNBC millions of dollars so the companies would create jobs in the state?  Or are these just more sweetheart deals with tax breaks and incentives for the companies, and then the investments didn't work out for the companies and their grand plans didn't materialize?

And what to make of "working to get OUR money back."  Sounds to me like this is a politician hissy fit issue and nothing that relates to real reductions in real people's property tax bills.  My guess is the politicians gave MSNBC and others tax breaks and incentives, and now they are simply trying to collect all of the foregone tax revenues.

But should we blame the politicians who gave these tax breaks and incentives, and never bothered to keep spending in check?  No!  The problem is the "deadbeat corporations" who didn't create jobs for more potential taxpayers.

Someone needs to explain to these legislators that granting tax incentives is different than signing a contract with someone.  The government made a bad call.  Admit it.  Learn from it.  Move on.

Close wasteful tax loopholes that increase our property taxes.
Hundreds of people live in tax-exempt houses owned by wealthy private schools but send their children to public schools, costing taxpayers millions of dollars a year.  Shirley Turner, Reed Gusciora, and Bonnie Watson Coleman are fighting to close tax loopholes like this to stop shifting the tax burden onto local taxpayers.

Hundreds?  How many exactly.  And where?  Which private schools?  How many children from these tax exempt properties have been in the public schools in the past 10 years?  Which schools?  Millions of dollars a year were spent on the public schools for these children in particular?  Show me the numbers and breakdowns.

Cut government waste with more aggressive audits of state agencies.
Government waste is a big reason why property taxes keep rising.  Shirley Turner, Reed Gusciora, and Bonnie Watson Coleman supported legislation to increase aggressive audits of state agencies with a State Comptroller dedicated to cutting government waste.

Audits?  This is the best you can do?  There are no programs in the entire state that should simply be eliminated or cut back?

And still no specifics on how much government waste there is.  If it is a big reason why property taxes KEEP RISING ... oh, wait, what about that dedication to reducing property taxes?  You mean property taxes have been RISING in New Jersey?  Just like I've seen in my property tax statements?

Yeah, that figures.  Make a little noise about how much you want to change things.  Hope to hit a hot button issue for voters in your target demographic, and move on.

I'm already looking forward to next year's property tax increase.  At least I've been warned by the incumbents that it's coming.

CNN.com's lead story on their home page is a piece on a hijacked Japanese ship off the African coast.  The story is 21 paragraphs long (some of them albeit single sentence quotes).  There are several generic references to pirates and their activities in the waters off Somalia.

Then, finally in paragraphs 19 and 20, we get this (emphasis added):

Somali pirates are trained fighters, in some cases linked to powerful Somali clans, outfitted with sophisticated arms and equipment, including GPS satellite instruments. They have seized merchant ships, ships carrying aid, and once even a cruise ship.

The United States also has supported efforts to quell an Islamic insurgency in Somalia.

So, are these pirates somehow related to the Islamic insurgency?  The story doesn't say.  Curious.

Many of the crew on the Japanese freighter are apparently Filipinos who were recruited to serve on the ship.  And my recollection is that the Phillipines did us no favors a while back by paying ransom to Islamic terrorists for the return of other kidnapped Filipinos.  We shall see.  The old dictum of "that which is rewarded gets repeated" may soon become applicable.

Apparently Barry Bonds is saying he'll boycott the Hall of Fame if they display his "record breaking" home run ball with an asterisk on it.  From the story:

NEW YORK -- Barry Bonds would boycott Cooperstown if the Hall of Fame displays his record-breaking home run ball with an asterisk.

That includes skipping his potential induction ceremony.

The winning bidder for the ball apparently had fans vote on a web site for what to do with the ball, and the decision was to put an asterisk on it and send it to Cooperstown.

Mike and Mike, the ESPN radio morning team, went back and forth on whether the Hall of Fame should accept the ball and display it if it has an asterisk.  Mike Greenberg took the position in favor of accepting the displaying the ball.  Mike Golic took the position that the right thing to do would be to decline the ball if it has an asterisk.

I don't completely understand the logic of not accepting the ball if it has an asterisk.  For all those who say Bonds should still be in the Hall of Fame when his time comes, they typically acknowledge that some explanation of the apparent circumstances surrounding his "breaking the record" should be included.

So why isn't that perfectly acceptable for the stupid ball?!  Take it, asterisk and all, and include the explanation there as well.  If Bonds wants to have some say in his "rebuttal" in that explanation, then that can be addressed as appropriate.  But the ball is history of some kind.  It's silly to decline it because it might hurt Barry's feelings.