Bob Lord

I put up this post the other day, speculating on whether right-wing bloviator Michelle Malkin is cringing at Superintendent candidate Diane Douglas’ “duck and cover” campaign style: Is Michelle Malkin Retracting Diane Douglas Endorsement?

When I googled Malkin and Douglas for any recent Malkin statements on Douglas, I stumbled onto this: Michelle Malkin endorses Andrew Thomas for Governor. Not a huge surprise that Malkin endorsed Thomas, but check out the harsh words she had for Ducey:

Many other national figures have endorsed Doug Ducey, but his campaign manager’s nasty, race-baiting comments about anti-amnesty conservatives are troubling to say the least. His close ties to Common Core racketeers at Achieve Inc. and McCain Central are also unsettling. And for me, those are insurmountable obstacles.

Douglas has been ballyhooing Malkin’s endorsement of her at every opportunity,  so you can imagine how the Ducey team feels about her being out there publicly promoting the Republican ticket. About the same way they look upon a root canal.

Ducey’s campaign is a Koch brothers run campaign, with Koch operative Sean Noble calling the shots. Noble generally is a team player. Here’s what he had to say about the down ballot statewide races after the primary:

Read more

A self-described centrist friend asked me my position on Prop 487 the other day. I told him probably no, but I really hadn’t studied it intelligently enough yet to say with any certainty. Prop 487, for those who don’t know, is the so-called anti-pension spiking ballot initiative for voters in the city of Phoenix.

He then went offered his opinion how we can’t have people retiring at 58, which was kind of odd, because he and I both are about that age, and he’s retired while I’m not. In fairness to him, his retirement is not funded by a public pension, as far as I know. But still.

I kind of pounced a little, as I tend to do in these situations. I should be a little more deliberate. I said something like “Are you saying there is a shortage of labor, such that we need people to extend their careers?” My question was rhetorical. I continued. “No, it’s just the opposite. We have a surplus of labor. If we force people to work longer before retirement, it will mean twenty somethings won’t find work. It will make our surplus of labor worse, which will allow corporate America to screw workers.”

He then brought up life expectancies, noting that people will be living longer and longer, and we can’t afford to fund retirements based on the longer lives. I noted that life expectancies actually are going the other way, at least for the lower half of the population ranked by income. He was skeptical, so I explained that it’s because of the American diet. I’m guessing health care plays a role as well. It’s also about the kind of work we do. Paul Krugman once remarked in a column about the social security retirement age how conservatives expect janitors to extend their careers because lawyers are living longer.

I wish we’d had time for a lengthier conversation. The points I made were far too narrow. Here’s the larger picture:

Read more

Picking the winner in the Arizona Governor’s race is about as difficult as it gets. Last I looked, the polls were dead even.

Making a rational choice, however, is about as it easy as it gets. Why? Because Doug Ducey’s platform — gutting the state income tax — is exactly what Sam Brownback just did in Kansas. It’s worked out so badly that even conservatives in Kansas are upset.

Progressives consider Arizona a red state, but compared to Kansas it’s a pale shade of pink. Nonetheless, there are close connections between the two. Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach has authored some of the bills introduced by Arizona Republicans to suppress the vote here. The Koch brothers have an outsized influence in both states.

Elected in 2010, Sam Brownback proceeded down the exact path Doug Ducey hopes to follow. And, as Thomas Frank of Salon reports in In Brownbackistan, everything is awesome! And don’t let any liberal tell you different, the results have been beyond ugly. Frank:

Read more

One very effective debate tactic is to assert a fact that “feels” like it contradicts your opponent’s position, but really doesn’t. This is a play on the concept Stephen Colbert refers to as “truthiness.”

Consider this situation: I’m encountering severe financial difficulties, so much so that I’ve concluded the only chance for my family is if they can collect on the life insurance policy I just purchased. My problem of course is that the policy won’t pay if my death is a suicide. But while standing on a corner I see my enemy staggering, drunk, across the intersection, about to be struck by an oncoming car. I’d love to see my enemy meet an early death, but my higher priority is my family. So, like actors in scenes from movies we’ve all seen, I dart out and push my enemy to safety a split second before the car ends my life.

The insurance company wouldn’t even consider invoking the suicide clause here, so effective is the sleight of hand. But what if they did? My heirs would say “How could you accuse him of suicide; he saved another man’s life? He was a hero.” They’d be correct, of course, except perhaps the hero part, but their assertion wouldn’t contradict my suicide. It would just feel like it does. The truth is that I took my own life. Saving my enemy’s life was a mere by-product of that act. In actuality, saving my enemy’s life was not in my thinking a benefit I sought from my action. Rather, it was a cost I had to pay.

How does all this apply to Israel?

Read more