The baseball loving denizens of San Francisco have been abused perhaps the most by arena naming. Their new, lovely ballpark was originally named Pacific Bell or PacBell park. While corporate it was an apt title considering the park basically sits on well, you know, the Pacific. Then PacBell was sold to SBC, and the somewhat apt named was dropped in favor of the foreign SBC Park. No news on whether AT&T Ballpark is in the mix. They should just call it Barry Bonds Hits Homeruns Here and be done with the problem.

Posted at March 6, 2006 8:37 AM in response to Whose Name Is It Anyway?

<span class="Apple-style-span">kwijibo is correct that the assumption that employers are "dying" to employ the elderly is false. Beyond this point, Tierney's piece strikes me as familiar anti-Welfare tactics but for a different generation and different program. Change some language and drop everyones age by 2/3rds and you'd have a nice anti-poor/black column about the need to stop Welfare laziness and sloth. Makes me wonder if this the real anti-SocSec language. If President Reagan can make up stories about lazy welfare mamas than why not bag on old people?</span&gt

Posted at June 14, 2005 10:27 AM in response to Timesman John Tierney

It does seem a bit politically daft, at least from a GOP perspective, to not at least nod to a successor. This is especially important given that the vice president won't be running.
My question is how often has this happened? What are some recent examples of a successor not being anointed, and then the operation suffering from it? As a student of UK politics I can point to about a thousand examples from our friends 'cross the Atlantic, but what about at home?

Posted at June 7, 2005 3:08 PM in response to Lame Duck Watch

I agree that hiring Bolton as the new UN Ambassador is like appointing King Herod head of a maternity ward, and further grant that Bolton is the antithesis of progressives' ideals on internationalism and global cooperation. There is, however, a pretty big rift not in how progressives view internationalism, but how they wish it to be conducted. I've heard it explained that liberalism-in-action-abroad breaks down into two views of isolationist-tendencies and interventionist attitudes. Many progressives (I'd venture to say most) want to help people abroad, but are quite retiscent to intervene in others affairs. On the other side, many progressives want to help people abroad, and feel much less restraint in interveneing to do the helping. I suspect most authors at the Cafe are in the second camp, but clearly the support behind some recent Democratic presidential candidates was full of the first camp.
I hate to play Bill Kristol and bifurcate things, but I don't think Democrats will ever be known for being "strong on security" until this divide is bridged, or at least mollified.

Posted at June 1, 2005 8:21 AM in response to Yes, It's About the Message, but It's Also About the Fight. . .