Friday, July 29, 2005

Yes, but

I believe it's important to include, as one of our first posts, the one statement that was instrumental in prompting me to suggest to "JIMH" (don't know why he's stopped using his real name) that we set ourselves up as a "team blog" for the larger world's benefit (or detriment).

Without further ado (other than to give credit where credit is due, in this case, to the mysterious JIMH), here it is:

"By the way, I hate to destroy your opinion of me, but if I were appointed to the US Supreme Court, and was asked in the Judiciary Committee whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, I'd probably answer as follows: "As a matter of constitutional law, I believe it was wrongly decided; however, as a matter of social policy and individual responsibility, I don't believe the government should intrude on such personal decisions. Furthermore, as a matter of stare decisis, I see compelling reasons that the Court should not revisit the issue and no compelling reasons that it should, and, therefore, I would not be in favor of doing so."

... the foregoing being motivated by biographical parallels between the statement's author and the Administration's pending Supreme Court nominee.

And that, to my mind, deserves a wider airing!

Thursday, July 28, 2005

USATODAY.com - Longtime Tigers voice weighs in

USATODAY.com - Longtime Tigers voice weighs in: "The caller asks, 'May I speak with Ernie, please?'

'This is Ernie.'

The caller strays from the topic at hand for a moment, hankering for the man on the other end to continue in his sweet, slow Georgia drawl: 'Hi everybody. This is Ernie Harwell. It's a pleasant summer night here at Tiger Stadium. The Minnesota Twins are in town for the start of a three-game series.'"

And I'm 9 years old again, with a little transistor radio, listening to his calling the game--Frank Lary, Norm Cash, and my hero at the time, Al Kaline.

USA Today also has a tape of Harwell calling the end of Denny McLain's 30th win, along with some other classic sports announcers. Go to

USA Today Classic Radio Calls

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Senate Moves to Shield Gun Industry

Senate Moves to Shield Gun Industry: "WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday moved the National Rifle Association's top priority ahead of a $491 billion defense bill, setting up a vote on legislation to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits over gun crimes."

Put your Second Amendment prejudices to one side. Try to overlook the fact that the Congress has far more important things to do than to protect gun manufacturers. The important point is this:

The proposed law is bad economics! A free market and the "invisible hand" operate correctly only if a product internalizes ALL costs associated with its manufacture and use. As a result of misguided policies like this, we create an inappropriately low price for guns, and too many resources flow into this industry rather than into uses that would benefit society more.

Doesn't matter whether it's guns, cars, doctors, the oil industry, or ladders. It's just plain dumb.

This is Economics 1. Too bad more members of Congress didn't take that course.

Robert C. Jennings, U.S.M.R.

The Ira Wilson milk carton lives on.

Greetings to any new members who join

Welcome to the arena. Be prepared to do battle. Read the posts below. And let me know of others you think I should invite. Just remember that by default "I'm in control here now." [Pause for Reagan years flashback].

We should agree on some ground rules. Make sure to check for comments to a post. That may be where the debate is going hot and heavy. Put your reply or critique in a comment. Then the debate on certain points will be organzied under the original posting--just click on the comment and enjoy.

Just remember, this stuff might be seen by the public, even though I inserted code to prevent the web-crawling robots from indexing it for Google and other search engines. So try to avoid defamatory statements or anything that a law enforcement official could use against us. If you REALLY want it to be just between you and one recipient, use email.

Darn, there's just too much lawyer in me.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Prologue

Some old high school classmates have had ongoing email discussions/disputes about: George Bush, politics generally, Iraq, sports, economics, outsourcing, investing, unilateral intervention, terrorism, genocide, and more. I have almost four years' worth of emails on these and other sundry topics.

Rick Wolfe suggested that, rather than having to pore through email archives, we could pontificate more efficiently in a blog. Plus, it makes us feel "with it."

This blog unavoidably starts in the middle of the conversation. As we were saying . . . .

Random Punditry

What it says is what it's for.