Secretary of Corn

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture.  Is anybody who isn’t from Iowa happy with this pick?  I’m with Ezra Klein (except for the last sentence, which perfectly demonstrates why libertarians and liberals will likely never form a political alliance):

At the end of the day, though, Vilsack is arguably less the problem than his agency. In 1862, when the Department of Agriculture was founded, agriculture composed 82 percent of American exports. America had three times as many farms as it does now — and those farms were far more labor intensive, in a country that had one-third the population. Agriculture, in other words, was the main export and one of the nation’s largest employment sectors. You needed a Department of Agriculture. Today, agricultural exports make up 8 percent of the total. Agricultural industry employs a tiny fraction of Americans and is dominated by a few large producers. It is an interest group that has attained cabinet status. That it would be headed by a governor from a state whose reliance on agricultural exports makes it a throwback to the days when the agency had a more obvious claim to existence makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is why you’d have a Department of Agriculture rather than, say, a Department of Food.

Hollywood’s Cyrstal Ball

Before I get back to the all-important most date-able TV characters list (soon, I promise!), I’d like to briefly dissect this ridiculous piece by Mike LaSalle.

He poses a question: Did the Hollywood films of 2008 predict the economic collapse of 2008? Instead of just answering “No” and moving on to something — anything — else, LaSalle wrote this:

It would be too neat to say that 2008’s movies explicitly anticipated the financial crisis, but a recurring theme of civic catastrophe haunted the year, repeatedly telling us that something wasn’t right, that things had spun out of control and that our institutions were on the brink of systemic failure.

How on earth is this theme unique to the films of 2008? Has LaSalle seen any other movie released, well, in any other year? His evidence:

This theme crossed genres and fueled movies of varying quality. “Eagle Eye” was a likable but silly action ride, in which an all-knowing computer creates havoc and comes within one second of wiping out the entire U.S. government. “Blindness” showed how helpless our society might be in the face of a sudden epidemic. “City of Ember,” a futuristic fantasy, depicted a postapocalyptic underground society, days away from collapse, run by greedy, shortsighted government officials. “WALL-E,” an animated postapocalyptic fantasy, depicted an Earth wiped out by pollution, in which survivors lived on a spaceship.

I can play this game too.  Live Free or Die Hard (2007) was a likeable but silly action ride, in which a human hacker creates havoc and comes within one second of wiping out the entire U.S. government. Children of Men (2006) showed how helpless our society might be in the face of a sudden epidemic.  V for Vendetta (2006), a futuristic fantasy, depicted a dystopian society run by greedy, shortsighted government officials.  Apocalypto (2006) depicted an entire civilization wiped out by pollution.

The State of Columbia

I’m for it.  But really, Yglesias, your first argument for it is that the Democrats would pick up two additional Senators?  He’s right that there’s no principled opposition to statehood.  So let’s keep the argument for statehood entirely in terms of principle.

As for the flag, I like this design.

Obama’s Birth Certificate

I am not inclided to engage conspiracy theorists (Ed Morrissey does a fine job here).  I’d search the Obama-isn’t-eligible-to-be-President sites myself to see if any of these crackpots have even attempted to an offer an explanation, besides a vague concern for the intergrity of the Constitution, about what the danger of a foreign-born President, duly elected by the American people, actually is.  But I don’t think I can stomach five seconds at any of these sites.

Whenever I’m confronted by xenophobic, born-in-America drivel, I’m always reminded of my favorite story about Ayn Rand, as told by Cato’s David Boaz:

When a heckler asked her at a public speech, “Why should we care what a foreigner thinks?”, she replied with her usual fire, “I chose to be an American. What did you ever do, except for having been born?”

I’d love to ask that question to anybody challenging the President-elect’s patriotism.

Far Left?

Two good points by Ta-Nehisi Coates (emphasis mine)

OK, I went and read it after I decided to post. Am I the only not surprised that, in the midst of economic calamity and two wars, Obama’s going with some experienced hands? I feel like I keep reading this  “Newsflash: Barack Obama isn’t a leftie” story since the primaries. I never thought he was really to the left of Hillary Clinton. He just happened to be anti-war. That isn’t the same thing.

And:

How are the things after the “but” in opposition to what precedes it? Buchanan opposed the Iraq War. Hitchens supported it, but thinks Hillary would be awful. The thing that’s bugging me is Obama’s early nominations had swung hard left, whatever that would be, there’d be a ton of stories with headlines like “Obama abandons bipartisanship” and ledes like “He ran on change and bipartisanship, but President-Elect Obama has veered sharply to the left…”

Armisen’s Obama

Jocelyn Guest, on SNL’s Obama:

While Armisen handily pulled off the arduous task of poking fun at a man we’d follow off a cliff, many critics agreed that his interpretation left a little something to be desired. Fred neither looks nor sounds quite like Barry.

The New Yorker’s Kelefa Sanneh put it this way: “[Armisen] speeds up at the end of a phrase to make everything he says seem declarative, and the way he frowns as a sign that he’s listening intently—but not much more; his Obama has no backstory.” Because the rest of the political impressions on the show have been so spot on this season—Tina Fey’s Palin, Jason Sudeikis’ crazy-eyed Joe Biden—an imperfect Obama stands out. With four-years of Barack-baiting to go, it might be time for Michaels to let go of Armisen and pick a replacement. So now big question looms: Who, If anyone, shouuld Michaels hire to match the hype surrounding Obama himself?

Darrell Hammond’s Bill Clinton aside, most SNL presidential impressions have never been particularly accurate.  We still remember Dana Carvey’s George H.W. Bush not because he actually sounded or looked like the man but because he spoke to our idea of him.

As for the two impressions from this season Sanneh praises, Fey’s Palin works so well not just because Fey looks and sounds a lot like Palin (and she does, of course), but because Palin is an easy target.  The jokes practically write themselves.  Likewise with Joe Biden.  Sudeikis’ impression isn’t nearly as precise (in appearance, voice, mannerisms) as Armisen’s Obama.  But it’s funny because Biden is funny.  Obama isn’t.

The bigger problem is that since Fey left to go do 30 Rock, SNL’s writing has suffered tremendously.  Despite the immensely talented cast, SNL typically only has two or three genuinely funny sketches.

Cabinet Talk

Guest blogging Marc Ambinder’s place, Mike Memoli has a good summary of the political/electoral ramifications of potential Cabinet picks.  But:

Rhode Island and Maine: Jack Reed for Defense would give Republican Gov. Don Carcieri a chance to flip a Senate seat in Rhode Island by appointing a Republican. Gov. John Baldacci could even things out by appointing a fellow Democrat in Maine to replace Sens. Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, should either be picked.

None of this is going to happen.  Everyone seems to agree Gates will remain at Defense, at least initially.  Why sacrifice the filibuster-proof Senate?  On that, the latest from Minnesota: Franken says it’s down to double digits.

Isn’t Corruption Fun?

The New Republic’s John Judis on Obama’s selection of Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce:

I was never crazy about Richardson as Secretary of State for reasons I no longer need to enumerate, but I think he’s a perfect choice for Secretary of Commerce. He is an experienced governor; he has run a cabinet department; and he is, above all, an effective pol in a job that is highly political. The Secretary of Commerce is as close as you get to what the Postmaster General used to be. I know one shouldn’t say this aloud, but he is the cabinet officer in the best position to reward supporters and significant constituencies with money and contracts. And he represents a very important Democratic constituency.

Emphasis mine.  You’re right — you shouldn’t say that aloud.  For that matter, you shouldn’t even be thinking it.