damn those wealthy leftists arguing against tax cuts!

I've been meaning to comment on this for a while, but it fell through the cracks. The International Herald Tribune's Raymond J. Keating rehearses the tax cuts spur the economy argument, claiming there will always be "wealthy leftists who understand their particular businesses quite well, but fail to grasp how the economy works or the critical role that wealth plays in our economic system." I wonder where Warren Buffet falls in Keating's taxonomy of economic thinkers. Buffet, as pointed out by Lambert on Eschaton, says that dividend tax cuts are welfare for the rich and a bad idea. I guess he must not understand "the critical role that wealth plays in our economic system." Or something.

huh?

Mark Bowden takes issue with Democrats calling themselves progressives.

Liberals were advocates of social reform, civil rights, disarmament and environmental protection... in a word, change. They believed in using government to further social progress... "Progressive" sounds like skim liberalism, as though you were in favor of change but not too much of it, only in baby steps.

I'm genuinely confused here. Does Bowden think that progressivism is closer to the center than liberalism? Liberalism is a tricky word, of course, meaning different things in different parts of the world. But as this definition points out, progressive is often used in the U.S. in the place of liberal due to the association of more centrist candidates like Clinton and Gore being labeled liberals.

What I just can't figure out is what leads Bowden to believe that progressivism advocates slower change than liberalism. Look at the positions of the Democratic candidates who have accepted the progressive mantle, Sharpton and Kucinich, compared to those of, say, Joe Lieberman. You want to talk about liberalism lite? Try Republican-lite.

say it ain't so, sammy

It turns out all 76 of Sammy Sosa's bats that were confiscated following his ejection last night (for a corked one) are clean. In other words, his claim that he accidentally used one of his batting practice bats in the game appears to be true.

Perhaps I was being naive and falling for Sosa's image as one of the "good guys" in baseball, but I never really had any doubt about him telling the truth. For a few reasons...

1) Have you ever looked at Sammy Sosa? He is built. While a corked bat would (in theory) still increase his distance, the vast majority of his homers clear the wall by a mile. Runs are runs, and Sosa's been around long enough to know that.

2) If he systematically used a cork bat, wouldn't it have been discovered by now? Sosa's known for breaking more bats than the average player, so there's been ample opportunity for him getting caught.

3) His explanation is reasonable. People come to BP to see HRs. It's for show. If Sammy wants to put on a good show, let him put on a good show.

All this talk of how his reputation will be tarnished forever? Come on. Is George Brett's (granted, his offense was excessive pine tar, not a corked bat)? Albert Belle's is, but he was a pretty big asshole, too. Will the media ever realize that they create stories like this? I'd bet that most baseball fans you'd talk to would be more than willing to forgive Sosa.