TODAY IN BAD IDEAS. The New York Timesreports today on a bill that's gathering steam in congress to extend intellectual property protection to the design of clothing and handbags. In other words, once someone has laid claim to a certain design of dress, no one else can make the same one without permission of the original designer. The bill has been languishing in the House for over a year, and has now been introduced in the Senate by Chuck Schumer.
TURNOUT AMONG THE OUT.The LA Timesreports today (via Political Wire) that gay men and lesbians have extraordinarily high election turnout:
92.5% of gay men reported that they voted in the 2004 presidential race, and almost 84% said they cast ballots in the 2006 midterm election. Among lesbians, the results were almost as impressive; nearly 91% said they voted in 2004; for the midterm, the figure was 78%.
THE NATIONAL REVIEW CALLS OUT MITT ROMNEY... FOR BEING TOO CONSERVATIVE! I have to say, I'm shocked that the National Review ran this piece by Mark Hemingway calling out Mitt Romney for embracing the political philosophy of W. Cleon Skousen. Romney recently mentioned his admiration of Skousen during his much remarked-upon discussion of Mormonism with an Iowa talk-radio host. Skousen was once Romney's professor and Romney affirms his admiration for the man. What does it take to be too conservative for the National Review anyway? Take it away Mark:
BUSH APPOINTEE: TERRORISM WILL LEAD TO INTERNMENT CAMPS. Rick Perlstein, who apparently receives secret memos from the great media watchdog in the sky detailing egregiously overlooked stories, today tells the tale of Peter N. Kirsanow, an evilly mustachioed Bush appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights commission who said some rather remarkable things:
TODAYS MUST NOT READ. South Carolina's The State today published what has to be he single worst piece of political coverage I've ever read. Really. It's that bad. It's the most ineffective hit piece I've ever seen. Basically, the author, editorial page editor Brad Warthen, doesn't like John Edwards -- for no particular reason. So he lists three utterly trivial incidents as "evidence" that Edwards is "phony." See if you can grasp this logic, because I sure can't: