A reader points out that I may have been naive to believe a claim made by that Ten Commandments-lovin’ judge, Roy Moore of Alabama -- and Fox News may also have been naive.
The judge told Fox that the state of Alabama has spent $125 million to defend the massive Commandments monument he’s had installed in the state judicial building; I quoted his claim in this post.
As my reader points out, $125 million is a hell of a lot of money -- by comparison, Kenneth Starr’s investigation cost maybe $70 million. Americans United for Separation of Church & State has noted that the state’s attorney general, William Pryor, now a Bush judicial nominee, arranged legal help for Judge Moore, but private citizens paid for that help. Even if they hadn’t, though, as my reader points out, $125 million “would represent the full-time services of a team of 25 lawyers working exclusively on this case for a period of five years.”
Why would the judge exaggerate like this? After all, he lives in a deficit-ridden, tax-hating state, and he's claiming to have been responsible for huge government expenditures. Is this innumeracy? Is it some sort of delusion of grandeur? Or does the judge think Alabamans really don't hate taxes under all circumstances -- that they'd be happy to support Big Government if Big Government were in the service of the Big Guy Upstairs? And, if so, is he right about that?
Or could it be that he really has managed to cause the state to spend more than Ken Starr spent to investigate everything Bill Clinton ever did in his adult life? And if so, how did he do it?
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
If you follow right-wing thinking, you know that recently righties have been propounding what's called the "flypaper theory" to explain Bush administration policy in Iraq, and Bush's "bring 'em on" taunt in particular. Joshua Micah Marshall explains the theory (citing this essay by David Warren):
The thinking goes something like this. These guerilla engagements we're seeing in Iraq may not be such a bad thing. What we're doing is attracting all the terrorists to Iraq (i.e., like "flypaper") so that a) they won't be attacking us in America and b) we can fight them there on our own terms.
For a while, the righties almost seemed to have a case -- one could be cold-blooded and say that our casualty level in Iraq was "acceptable," and it was better to have U.S. soldiers in the line of fire than stateside civilians.
But that line of thinking seems like utter bullshit today, doesn't it?
The thinking goes something like this. These guerilla engagements we're seeing in Iraq may not be such a bad thing. What we're doing is attracting all the terrorists to Iraq (i.e., like "flypaper") so that a) they won't be attacking us in America and b) we can fight them there on our own terms.
For a while, the righties almost seemed to have a case -- one could be cold-blooded and say that our casualty level in Iraq was "acceptable," and it was better to have U.S. soldiers in the line of fire than stateside civilians.
But that line of thinking seems like utter bullshit today, doesn't it?
An explosion rocked a bus in Jerusalem on Tuesday night, leaving a number of casualties, police and rescue services said.
Police said it was not yet known if a bomb was planted or it was a suicide bombing.
--AP
Police said it was not yet known if a bomb was planted or it was a suicide bombing.
--AP
In Slate (scroll down to the Sunday entry), Mickey Kaus wonders aloud whether Schwarzenegger is a bully:
Schwarzenegger's reputation, meanwhile--which I've heard from one reliable source, one eyewitness ultra-reliable source, and one unreliable Premiere article-- is this: He bullies people "below the line." That is, he bullies the technicians, costumers, etc. who aren't billboardable talents. Is it to get his way? No--he's the star and he's going to get his way anyway. It's from an ugly sense of pleasure in others' discomfort. ...
Kevin Drum at CalPundit also wonders about this (here and here) and Robert Garcia Tagorda at Boomshock adds his own speculations (here) -- but I find it interesting that when talking about bullying, Kaus, Drum, and Tagorda never bring up allegations that Schwarzenegger gropes women who don't want to be groped.
I've previously linked Salon's summary of a 1991 Premiere story that says Arnold groped a female crew member on a movie set, as well as a British tabloid story that discusses several Schwarzenegger groping incidents (at least one of which occurred on British television). In yesterday's edition of London's Evening Standard Wendy Leigh repeated some of the same charges:
Most notably, Arnold has developed an apparent penchant for groping nubile young women. This has even extended to fondling the breasts of his Terminator co-star Linda Hamilton — in front of Hamilton’s then-boyfriend, Terminator producer James Cameron.
And when Arnold came to London in 2000, his behaviour led insiders to label him ‘the octopus’.
When TV presenter Anna Richardson interviewed Arnold for Big Screen at the Dorchester Hotel, he asked her pointblank if her breasts were real. He then pulled her onto his knee, circled her nipple with his finger, squeezed it and announced: ‘Yeah, they are real.’
And when Denise Van Outen interviewed him for The Big Breakfast, he slapped her bottom then brushed his arm against her breast. Afterwards, he smirked: ‘It was a handful. I never know if my wife’s watching. I’ll tell her it was a stuntman.’
If these stories are true, Schwarzenegger's using power -- star power and the power that comes from fear of physical force -- to get away with mini-sexual assaults. Doesn't this qualify as bullying?
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the Evening Standard link.)
Schwarzenegger's reputation, meanwhile--which I've heard from one reliable source, one eyewitness ultra-reliable source, and one unreliable Premiere article-- is this: He bullies people "below the line." That is, he bullies the technicians, costumers, etc. who aren't billboardable talents. Is it to get his way? No--he's the star and he's going to get his way anyway. It's from an ugly sense of pleasure in others' discomfort. ...
Kevin Drum at CalPundit also wonders about this (here and here) and Robert Garcia Tagorda at Boomshock adds his own speculations (here) -- but I find it interesting that when talking about bullying, Kaus, Drum, and Tagorda never bring up allegations that Schwarzenegger gropes women who don't want to be groped.
I've previously linked Salon's summary of a 1991 Premiere story that says Arnold groped a female crew member on a movie set, as well as a British tabloid story that discusses several Schwarzenegger groping incidents (at least one of which occurred on British television). In yesterday's edition of London's Evening Standard Wendy Leigh repeated some of the same charges:
Most notably, Arnold has developed an apparent penchant for groping nubile young women. This has even extended to fondling the breasts of his Terminator co-star Linda Hamilton — in front of Hamilton’s then-boyfriend, Terminator producer James Cameron.
And when Arnold came to London in 2000, his behaviour led insiders to label him ‘the octopus’.
When TV presenter Anna Richardson interviewed Arnold for Big Screen at the Dorchester Hotel, he asked her pointblank if her breasts were real. He then pulled her onto his knee, circled her nipple with his finger, squeezed it and announced: ‘Yeah, they are real.’
And when Denise Van Outen interviewed him for The Big Breakfast, he slapped her bottom then brushed his arm against her breast. Afterwards, he smirked: ‘It was a handful. I never know if my wife’s watching. I’ll tell her it was a stuntman.’
If these stories are true, Schwarzenegger's using power -- star power and the power that comes from fear of physical force -- to get away with mini-sexual assaults. Doesn't this qualify as bullying?
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the Evening Standard link.)
A car bomb caused the explosion at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad on Tuesday which wrecked the complex and caused scores of casualties, the U.S. military said.
"We can confirm that there was a car bombing at the Canal Hotel at 4:30 p.m.," a U.S. military spokeswoman told Reuters. The U.N. uses the hotel as its headquarters.
--Reuters
"We can confirm that there was a car bombing at the Canal Hotel at 4:30 p.m.," a U.S. military spokeswoman told Reuters. The U.N. uses the hotel as its headquarters.
--Reuters
Monday, August 18, 2003
Paul Bremer moves the goalposts just a wee bit:
The total – the total amount of power available [in Iraq] once we get to pre-war levels is about 4,000 megawatts ... we’ve been working our way up and we’re going to continue to work our way up and the next 60 days we’ll get to 4,000.
--Bremer's conference call with editorial writers, July 23, 2003
On restoring power, we expect to restore power to the pre-war level, and that's the maximum there is here, in the next six weeks, by the end of September ... we will be back at pre-war levels here in the next six to eight weeks.
--Bremer on CNN's Live from the Headlines today
I'll do the math for you: Sixty days from the time of the first statement is September 21. Six weeks from today is September 29. Eight weeks from today is October 13.
The total – the total amount of power available [in Iraq] once we get to pre-war levels is about 4,000 megawatts ... we’ve been working our way up and we’re going to continue to work our way up and the next 60 days we’ll get to 4,000.
--Bremer's conference call with editorial writers, July 23, 2003
On restoring power, we expect to restore power to the pre-war level, and that's the maximum there is here, in the next six weeks, by the end of September ... we will be back at pre-war levels here in the next six to eight weeks.
--Bremer on CNN's Live from the Headlines today
I'll do the math for you: Sixty days from the time of the first statement is September 21. Six weeks from today is September 29. Eight weeks from today is October 13.
It must be driving the right-wingers nuts that Detroit went through an extended blackout last week without looting, and its mayor is an earring-wearing, hip-hop-admiring Democrat named Kwame.
(Although it should be noted that Hizzoner is a DLCer.)
(Although it should be noted that Hizzoner is a DLCer.)
Atrios links this post (from Michael at a blog called A Minority of One), which recounts a rally last week in support of that huge granite Ten Commandments monument Judge Roy Moore had installed in Alabama's judicial building. Thousands of people attended. Michael notes this CNN story, which points out that a former Moore supporter, Alabama attorney general William Pryor -- yes, the Bush judicial nominee -- is distancing himself from Moore, saying he won't help Moore violate the court order that requires him to remove the monument. (This is probably a wise choice for a would-be federal judge, though it's too little, too late, considering that, as an employee of the state, Pryor formerly arranged for teams of lawyers in private practice to help Moore in his legal fight).
It should be noted that many of the people at the Ten Commandments protest were there to proclaim their opposition to GOP Governor Bob Riley's attempt to do the right thing and raise much-needed tax revenue. AS The Washington Post reports, Riley
says the state should act to improve schools funded at the nation's lowest level per child and to lift the tax burden from poor people, who pay income taxes starting at $4,600 a year for a family of four while out-of-state timber companies pay $1.25 an acre in property taxes. The changes would move Alabama from 50th to 44th in total state and local taxes per capita, he says.
The paper notes that Alabama's tax system currently "imposes an effective rate of 3 percent on the wealthiest Alabamians and 12 percent on the poorest." But Jesus has personally spoken to the anti-Riley protestors and told them that his tax increase is the work of Satan.
It should be noted that many of the people at the Ten Commandments protest were there to proclaim their opposition to GOP Governor Bob Riley's attempt to do the right thing and raise much-needed tax revenue. AS The Washington Post reports, Riley
says the state should act to improve schools funded at the nation's lowest level per child and to lift the tax burden from poor people, who pay income taxes starting at $4,600 a year for a family of four while out-of-state timber companies pay $1.25 an acre in property taxes. The changes would move Alabama from 50th to 44th in total state and local taxes per capita, he says.
The paper notes that Alabama's tax system currently "imposes an effective rate of 3 percent on the wealthiest Alabamians and 12 percent on the poorest." But Jesus has personally spoken to the anti-Riley protestors and told them that his tax increase is the work of Satan.
I guess Saddam isn't the same person as Osama anymore. I guess Saddam is now more important than the guy who actually masterminded the deaths of three thousand civilians on 9/11:
As the hunt for Saddam Hussein grows more urgent and the guerrilla war in Iraq shows little sign of abating, the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis, according to intelligence officials who have been involved in the redeployments.
The recent moves -- involving both analysts in Washington and specially trained field operatives -- follow the transfer of hundreds of elite commandos from Afghanistan duty to service in Iraq, Pentagon officials said....
--Boston Globe
The article quotes U.S. officials (and our pals, the Pakistanis) staunchly defending what we're doing, or not doing, in Afghanistan. But read to the end. Note that we're replacing Green Berets in Afghanistan with reserve troops who have no special-forces training. Oh, and note that someone from this not exactly touchy-feely think tank thinks we need to put more resources into Afghanistan.
As the hunt for Saddam Hussein grows more urgent and the guerrilla war in Iraq shows little sign of abating, the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis, according to intelligence officials who have been involved in the redeployments.
The recent moves -- involving both analysts in Washington and specially trained field operatives -- follow the transfer of hundreds of elite commandos from Afghanistan duty to service in Iraq, Pentagon officials said....
--Boston Globe
The article quotes U.S. officials (and our pals, the Pakistanis) staunchly defending what we're doing, or not doing, in Afghanistan. But read to the end. Note that we're replacing Green Berets in Afghanistan with reserve troops who have no special-forces training. Oh, and note that someone from this not exactly touchy-feely think tank thinks we need to put more resources into Afghanistan.
Besides being unusually tolerant of pop-up ads, the people who use the Information Please Almanac's InfoPlease.com site are rather skeptical of the Bush administration, as you'll see if you vote in this poll, then view the results. Also see this poll -- it seems users of InfoPlease are even more cynical than I am (I think Saddam's weapons did exist and were destroyed, but how long ago I don't know).
Alabama chief justice Roy Moore still won't remove that huge granite Ten Commandments thing from the state judicial building, even under court order and threats of fines.
You should know that Alabama has a $675 million budget deficit, a shortfall that presumably threatens police protection and clean drinking water and state child protective services and so on. But, as Fox News pointed out last week, Alabama has spent $125 million defending Moore's Ten Commandments monument, and "is spending $25,000 a day of taxpayers' money on the case," according to Moore himself.
You think that's what Jesus would do?
You should know that Alabama has a $675 million budget deficit, a shortfall that presumably threatens police protection and clean drinking water and state child protective services and so on. But, as Fox News pointed out last week, Alabama has spent $125 million defending Moore's Ten Commandments monument, and "is spending $25,000 a day of taxpayers' money on the case," according to Moore himself.
You think that's what Jesus would do?
I'm not quite sure how to describe this article or excerpt it without making some readers' eyes glaze over, but Gretchen Mortenson, a New York Times business writer, thinks we're in serious trouble because the mortgage-based securities market buys and sells an awful lot of Treasury bills and bonds, and thus has the potential to create huge spikes in interest rates. I'm not sure I've even described the process with pinpoint accuracy, but read the article -- it has the rather unambiguous headline "Mortgage Markets Are Out of Control."
Sunday, August 17, 2003
The guy who runs the blog Capitalist Lion is patting himself on the back: He thinks he's debunked what he sees as blame-America-firstism in The New York Times -- specifically, a sentence in this Times article:
Intelligence agencies say Al Qaeda already has dozens of missiles, many of them American-made Stingers left over from the war in Afghanistan in the 1980's when the United States supplied them to Afghan guerrillas seeking to oust Soviet troops from their country.
Mr. Lion plays what he thinks is a trump card:
Aside from the moral right or wrong of suppling the mujahideen with Stingers so they could stand something resembling a fighting chance against Soviet Hind helicopters, there's a neat little fact that tends to escape most of the people who jump on the We gave them weapons! bandwagon.
Batteries.
Yes, and not the kind that one picks up at the local 7-11. See, the Hughes/Raytheon's Stinger has fairly sophisticated targeting electronics built into the launcher, which are required to lock on to a target and fire the missile. It's a spiffy kind of chemical battery which has a finite life of about ten years. The missile itself also has a small thermal battery inside it, with roughly the same lifetime.
Without either battery providing the needed power, the tracking electronics don't turn on, the gyros don't spin up, and you have what amounts to a very expensive jack handle.
And finally, Stingers use a three-stage solid fuel rocket motor. It also has a finite life expectancy, and the older they get, the easier it is for the fuel to crack and crumble when the missiles are moved. Know what happens if you pull the trigger on one of those babies when it's too old? Yep. Time to play "It's raining Men" and get out the hefty bags.
Sounds reassuring. Too bad the folks at a Web site run by a little outfit called Jane's -- you know, the folks who've been trusted experts on military matters for a gazillion years -- beg to differ. Here's what the Jane's people say in an article about MANPADs (manportable surface-to-air missiles), including the Stinger:
One popular misconception is that these missiles become unusable after several years due to battery or other systems failures and are therefore useless after a period of time. While it is true that all MANPAD batteries have a finite shelf life, these can be replaced with commercially purchased batteries available on the open market and technically proficient terrorist groups might also be able to construct hybrid batteries to replace used ones.
Other concerns include deterioration of missile propellants and seeker coolant, and general storage issues. While these concerns merit attention, the commonly held assumption that these weapons have short shelf lives is erroneous. Most missiles are hermetically sealed in launchers designed for rough handling by soldiers in the field. Temperature extremes are also factored into the design of these weapons, reducing the threat of environmental degradation.
Clearly, the shelf life of MANPADs is, in large part, dependent on the conditions in which the weapon is stored. However, under ideal (factory specified) conditions, some versions of these weapons can remain operational for 22 years or more.
Mr. Lion also says this:
And finally, we have to look at the Stinger's range. It's about 10,000 feet, maximum. This would limit it to small prop aircraft, helicopters, or jet aircraft as they are taking off or landing. One couldn't pull one out of uncle Bob's pickup truck in the middle of an Iowa corn field and pick off a jumbo at 35,000 feet. It's just not going to happen.
An Iowa cornfield? Maybe not. But people can get way too close to the planes in certain neighborhoods in this country, especially in the East. I know because I grew up in one of those neighborhoods, near a major metropolitan airport. Trust me -- the planes fly low near residential streets. We'd be fools if we shrugged off the risk.
UPDATE: I posted some of what I've written here in Mr. Lion's comments box. He's responded by updating the post -- and his contention is that he's right and Jane's is wrong. Now, this isn't my area of expertise, but the last time I looked, Jane's was the gold standard for this sort of information. So there it stands.
I find it interesting that, in the course of arguing that unauthorized use of old Stingers is highly unlikely, Mr. Lion repeatedly invokes images of splattered terrorists -- he seems to think that fear of sudden death should be enough of a deterrent to prevent terrorists from learning how to jury-rig an outdated MANPAD. I'd like to point out that fear of going splat wasn't much of a deterrent to nineteen terrorists a couple of Septembers ago.
Intelligence agencies say Al Qaeda already has dozens of missiles, many of them American-made Stingers left over from the war in Afghanistan in the 1980's when the United States supplied them to Afghan guerrillas seeking to oust Soviet troops from their country.
Mr. Lion plays what he thinks is a trump card:
Aside from the moral right or wrong of suppling the mujahideen with Stingers so they could stand something resembling a fighting chance against Soviet Hind helicopters, there's a neat little fact that tends to escape most of the people who jump on the We gave them weapons! bandwagon.
Batteries.
Yes, and not the kind that one picks up at the local 7-11. See, the Hughes/Raytheon's Stinger has fairly sophisticated targeting electronics built into the launcher, which are required to lock on to a target and fire the missile. It's a spiffy kind of chemical battery which has a finite life of about ten years. The missile itself also has a small thermal battery inside it, with roughly the same lifetime.
Without either battery providing the needed power, the tracking electronics don't turn on, the gyros don't spin up, and you have what amounts to a very expensive jack handle.
And finally, Stingers use a three-stage solid fuel rocket motor. It also has a finite life expectancy, and the older they get, the easier it is for the fuel to crack and crumble when the missiles are moved. Know what happens if you pull the trigger on one of those babies when it's too old? Yep. Time to play "It's raining Men" and get out the hefty bags.
Sounds reassuring. Too bad the folks at a Web site run by a little outfit called Jane's -- you know, the folks who've been trusted experts on military matters for a gazillion years -- beg to differ. Here's what the Jane's people say in an article about MANPADs (manportable surface-to-air missiles), including the Stinger:
One popular misconception is that these missiles become unusable after several years due to battery or other systems failures and are therefore useless after a period of time. While it is true that all MANPAD batteries have a finite shelf life, these can be replaced with commercially purchased batteries available on the open market and technically proficient terrorist groups might also be able to construct hybrid batteries to replace used ones.
Other concerns include deterioration of missile propellants and seeker coolant, and general storage issues. While these concerns merit attention, the commonly held assumption that these weapons have short shelf lives is erroneous. Most missiles are hermetically sealed in launchers designed for rough handling by soldiers in the field. Temperature extremes are also factored into the design of these weapons, reducing the threat of environmental degradation.
Clearly, the shelf life of MANPADs is, in large part, dependent on the conditions in which the weapon is stored. However, under ideal (factory specified) conditions, some versions of these weapons can remain operational for 22 years or more.
Mr. Lion also says this:
And finally, we have to look at the Stinger's range. It's about 10,000 feet, maximum. This would limit it to small prop aircraft, helicopters, or jet aircraft as they are taking off or landing. One couldn't pull one out of uncle Bob's pickup truck in the middle of an Iowa corn field and pick off a jumbo at 35,000 feet. It's just not going to happen.
An Iowa cornfield? Maybe not. But people can get way too close to the planes in certain neighborhoods in this country, especially in the East. I know because I grew up in one of those neighborhoods, near a major metropolitan airport. Trust me -- the planes fly low near residential streets. We'd be fools if we shrugged off the risk.
UPDATE: I posted some of what I've written here in Mr. Lion's comments box. He's responded by updating the post -- and his contention is that he's right and Jane's is wrong. Now, this isn't my area of expertise, but the last time I looked, Jane's was the gold standard for this sort of information. So there it stands.
I find it interesting that, in the course of arguing that unauthorized use of old Stingers is highly unlikely, Mr. Lion repeatedly invokes images of splattered terrorists -- he seems to think that fear of sudden death should be enough of a deterrent to prevent terrorists from learning how to jury-rig an outdated MANPAD. I'd like to point out that fear of going splat wasn't much of a deterrent to nineteen terrorists a couple of Septembers ago.
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Did you know that you're engaged in trademark violation every time you use the word "oh"?
(UPDATE: Link corrected.)
(UPDATE: Link corrected.)
I hope all the right-wingers who think Al Franken deserves to be sued by Fox for using "fair and balanced" are equally disturbed by the large numbers of people who feel free to use "all the news that's fit to print," some of them conservative, many of them using it as they defame The New York Times. Surely conservative believers in the sanctity of trademark will find this an outrage ... no?
In Friday's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof said it disturbed him to learn that 83% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and only 28% believe in evolution. He finds belief in the virgin birth absurd, as did his grandfather, a Presbyterian elder.
I'm grateful that he wrote this, but I do want to point out that of I'd stayed in the Catholic Church I'd now believe in evolution and the virgin birth -- for all its faults, the Catholic Church made peace with evolution a long time ago, and it's one of many churches that have done so. I'm an atheist now, and I figure you can't believe in God without believing some things that defy reason. That's OK; the problem is not believing what massive amounts of evidence shows is true. I'm far more upset at people (including, reortedly, the president of the United States) who don't believe in evolution than I am at people who believe in the virgin birth.
I'm grateful that he wrote this, but I do want to point out that of I'd stayed in the Catholic Church I'd now believe in evolution and the virgin birth -- for all its faults, the Catholic Church made peace with evolution a long time ago, and it's one of many churches that have done so. I'm an atheist now, and I figure you can't believe in God without believing some things that defy reason. That's OK; the problem is not believing what massive amounts of evidence shows is true. I'm far more upset at people (including, reortedly, the president of the United States) who don't believe in evolution than I am at people who believe in the virgin birth.
I'm pleasantly shocked to learn that a Field Poll has Cruz Bustamante ahead of Arnold, according to The Washington Post. Hmmm -- I guess voting for Prop. 187, getting 187 champion Pete Wilson to chair your campaign, and getting Pete Wilson's advisers to run your campaign may not be a good idea in a state that's one-third Hispanic....
This story on Afghanistan was in a tiny box in yesterday's New York Times, with no byline. It didn't even get its own link online (scroll down):
The amount of land dedicated to growing the illicit opium poppy, which is the raw material for opium and heroin, jumped to 76,000 acres last year, according to State Department figures. Officials said the numbers continue to rise as growers take advantage of the limited reach of law enforcement under the fledgling government of President Karzai. Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium.
By contrast, in 2001, when the Taliban controlled the country and enforced an opium ban, only 4,200 acres were cultivated, according to the State Department's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.
Donald Rumsfeld responded to this in his usual Wally-Cleaver-meets-General-Buck-Turgidson manner:
A surge in opium cultivation in Afghanistan is "a whale of a tough problem" that defies easy solutions, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today.
Gee whillikers, yes, it is, isn't it?
The amount of land dedicated to growing the illicit opium poppy, which is the raw material for opium and heroin, jumped to 76,000 acres last year, according to State Department figures. Officials said the numbers continue to rise as growers take advantage of the limited reach of law enforcement under the fledgling government of President Karzai. Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium.
By contrast, in 2001, when the Taliban controlled the country and enforced an opium ban, only 4,200 acres were cultivated, according to the State Department's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.
Donald Rumsfeld responded to this in his usual Wally-Cleaver-meets-General-Buck-Turgidson manner:
A surge in opium cultivation in Afghanistan is "a whale of a tough problem" that defies easy solutions, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today.
Gee whillikers, yes, it is, isn't it?
Friday, August 15, 2003
And a big shout-out to all the fair and balanced blogs ... just go here, and, starting around #14 or so, we're most of the first hundred-plus hits you get. By all means check them out.
Hold it, fellas -- that unfairness and imbalance don’t move me! Let’s get real, real fair and balanced for a change....
Fair and balanced? Gosh, yes, fair and balanced! How fair and balanced? Why, so fair and balanced you could just plotz! Heavens -- that’s certainly fair and balanced, isn’t it? Why, it certainly is -- profoundly fair and balanced! Incontrovertibly fair and balanced! Mind-roastingly fair and balanced! By all accounts unprecedentedly fair and balanced! Well, you know what they say: Fair and balanced is as fair and balanced does. When the going gets fair and balanced, the fair and balanced get going. And, me, well -- I believe the fair and balanced children are our future. So half a fair and balanced league, half a fair and balanced league, half a fair and balanced league onward! Into the fair and balanced valley of death rode the fair and balanced six hundred! How do I love thee? Let me count the fair and balanced ways. Ah, look at all the lonely fair and balanced people. Because 911 is a fair and balanced joke in your town.
So are you ready, Rupert? Start suing.
Fair and balanced? Gosh, yes, fair and balanced! How fair and balanced? Why, so fair and balanced you could just plotz! Heavens -- that’s certainly fair and balanced, isn’t it? Why, it certainly is -- profoundly fair and balanced! Incontrovertibly fair and balanced! Mind-roastingly fair and balanced! By all accounts unprecedentedly fair and balanced! Well, you know what they say: Fair and balanced is as fair and balanced does. When the going gets fair and balanced, the fair and balanced get going. And, me, well -- I believe the fair and balanced children are our future. So half a fair and balanced league, half a fair and balanced league, half a fair and balanced league onward! Into the fair and balanced valley of death rode the fair and balanced six hundred! How do I love thee? Let me count the fair and balanced ways. Ah, look at all the lonely fair and balanced people. Because 911 is a fair and balanced joke in your town.
So are you ready, Rupert? Start suing.
Sorry -- I seem to have overlooked the fact that it's Fair and Balanced Day, when bloggers are supposed to post fair and balanced messages using the phrase fair and balanced as much as possible, in fair and balanced solidarity with Al Franken. I'll try to be fair and balance some of what I've posted with more fair and balancedness.
Oh, this is pathetic:
Actor and Democratic activist Rob Lowe isn't exactly moving from "The West Wing" to the right wing, but he's going to play a real-life role in Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign, people close to the situation said Thursday.
The 39-year-old actor has been asked by Schwarzenegger and his wife, Democrat Maria Shriver, who are longtime social friends, to take a senior position in the campaign, the sources said. Although Lowe is expected to have a co-chair title, his exact role is still being defined....
--L.A. Times
Rob Lowe -- not someone with political knowledge, but someone who plays someone with political knowledge on TV. It's like a frigging Baudrillard essay.
*******
I was thinking it was possibly a good sign that Warren Buffett was joining Schwarzie's campaign, and then (the good) Roger Ailes pointed out a Wall Street Journal editorial that noted this:
Friends of Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman are urging him to appear in a commercial for Mr. Schwarzenegger, much as he did for Proposition 13 a quarter century ago. Mr. Schwarzenegger has been quoted as saying that for years his favorite Christmas present for friends was Mr. Friedman's book "Free to Choose." Other prominent economic figures who are talking with Mr. Schwarzenegger about a role in the campaign include Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Art Laffer and Steve Moore of the Club for Growth.
Buffett's a critic of right-wing economics. Friedman, Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer, and Moore guys who, when they read Dickens, root for Scrooge and against Bob Cratchit. What sense does this make?
Oh, and now it's being announced that George Shultz will chair Schwarzie's economic team.
This is all about the cult of the macho amateur -- the guy who knows next to nothing but gets smart people to do the thinking for him. Many people like Schwarzenegger just as they liked Bush (and loathed Gore) -- because he swaggers, smirks, and has no idea what he's talking about. They think it's good that Schwarzie -- and Bush -- don't know anything. This, they believe, makes it easier for these macho swaggerers to get in touch with their exquisitely accurate moral compasses and superior ability to process what they're told by smarter (but lesser) folks who are experts.
Because that's part of what makes these guys great: they don't know Jack, but they're so personable they can attract many people who do know Jack -- so many, in fact, that their decisions will be better than decisions made by actual smart people. David Brooks actually made this argument in all seriousness in Salon in 2000 while endorsing Bush for president.
Expect Schwarzie's "all-star team" to get more and more bloated as election day approaches. Expect right-wing pundits to actually start calling it an "all-star team" (or, even worse and more likely, a "dream team").
Actor and Democratic activist Rob Lowe isn't exactly moving from "The West Wing" to the right wing, but he's going to play a real-life role in Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign, people close to the situation said Thursday.
The 39-year-old actor has been asked by Schwarzenegger and his wife, Democrat Maria Shriver, who are longtime social friends, to take a senior position in the campaign, the sources said. Although Lowe is expected to have a co-chair title, his exact role is still being defined....
--L.A. Times
Rob Lowe -- not someone with political knowledge, but someone who plays someone with political knowledge on TV. It's like a frigging Baudrillard essay.
*******
I was thinking it was possibly a good sign that Warren Buffett was joining Schwarzie's campaign, and then (the good) Roger Ailes pointed out a Wall Street Journal editorial that noted this:
Friends of Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman are urging him to appear in a commercial for Mr. Schwarzenegger, much as he did for Proposition 13 a quarter century ago. Mr. Schwarzenegger has been quoted as saying that for years his favorite Christmas present for friends was Mr. Friedman's book "Free to Choose." Other prominent economic figures who are talking with Mr. Schwarzenegger about a role in the campaign include Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Art Laffer and Steve Moore of the Club for Growth.
Buffett's a critic of right-wing economics. Friedman, Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer, and Moore guys who, when they read Dickens, root for Scrooge and against Bob Cratchit. What sense does this make?
Oh, and now it's being announced that George Shultz will chair Schwarzie's economic team.
This is all about the cult of the macho amateur -- the guy who knows next to nothing but gets smart people to do the thinking for him. Many people like Schwarzenegger just as they liked Bush (and loathed Gore) -- because he swaggers, smirks, and has no idea what he's talking about. They think it's good that Schwarzie -- and Bush -- don't know anything. This, they believe, makes it easier for these macho swaggerers to get in touch with their exquisitely accurate moral compasses and superior ability to process what they're told by smarter (but lesser) folks who are experts.
Because that's part of what makes these guys great: they don't know Jack, but they're so personable they can attract many people who do know Jack -- so many, in fact, that their decisions will be better than decisions made by actual smart people. David Brooks actually made this argument in all seriousness in Salon in 2000 while endorsing Bush for president.
Expect Schwarzie's "all-star team" to get more and more bloated as election day approaches. Expect right-wing pundits to actually start calling it an "all-star team" (or, even worse and more likely, a "dream team").
"I think the first thing that Americans ought to be pleased about is that we're better organized today than we were two-and-a-half years ago to deal with an emergency."
--George W. Bush
So, you see, 9/11 was really kind of a good thing.
--George W. Bush
So, you see, 9/11 was really kind of a good thing.
Our power just went back on. That SOB Murdoch must really have been desperate to shut down Fair and Balanced Day.
By the way, I'm going to throttle any idiot from National Review Online who proclaims that the Iraqi people are whiners because we had a power outage in America and it wasn't that bad (for fourteen whole hours, and in temperatures that were hot but well under 100 degrees).
By the way, I'm going to throttle any idiot from National Review Online who proclaims that the Iraqi people are whiners because we had a power outage in America and it wasn't that bad (for fourteen whole hours, and in temperatures that were hot but well under 100 degrees).
Thursday, August 14, 2003
A couple of weeks ago I predicted that the Bush administration would try to release David Kay's report on Iraq weapons right around the time of the early Democratic primaries and the State of the Union address. Now it looks as if the administration is planning to give us what it's got in September. In his blog, Joshua Micah Marshall speculates on what we'll get. You should read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt:
What many suspect is that Kay is going to pull an intel version of a classic 1990s-era document dump. In other words, come forward with a mound of documents detailing the Iraqis' extensive programs, their histories, the means used to conceal them, whom they imported parts from, and so forth. And then conveniently leave as a footnote the fact that these program had gone pretty dormant by 2002. The idea will be to make up with paper poundage what the report lacks in relevance. Hit them with twenty reams of report about the Iraqi WMD programs and then figure that the follow-on reports about how little was actually happening in 2002 are buried in the back of the papers after no one is paying attention.
All of this is to say that we're probably set for an elaborate festival of goal post moving courtesy of Mr Kay -- the widely telegraphed switch from weapons to 'programs' being the key sign.
Sounds about right to me -- although I still think it's possible we'll get a multimedia spectacle like the now-discredited Powell dog-and-pony show at the U.N.
What many suspect is that Kay is going to pull an intel version of a classic 1990s-era document dump. In other words, come forward with a mound of documents detailing the Iraqis' extensive programs, their histories, the means used to conceal them, whom they imported parts from, and so forth. And then conveniently leave as a footnote the fact that these program had gone pretty dormant by 2002. The idea will be to make up with paper poundage what the report lacks in relevance. Hit them with twenty reams of report about the Iraqi WMD programs and then figure that the follow-on reports about how little was actually happening in 2002 are buried in the back of the papers after no one is paying attention.
All of this is to say that we're probably set for an elaborate festival of goal post moving courtesy of Mr Kay -- the widely telegraphed switch from weapons to 'programs' being the key sign.
Sounds about right to me -- although I still think it's possible we'll get a multimedia spectacle like the now-discredited Powell dog-and-pony show at the U.N.
Remember when Jacques Chirac made a nasty remark about Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic and said they should try to make themselves seem a little more worthy of membership in the EU? Conservatives sneered. This was during the buildup to the Iraq War (all three countries in question were in the "coalition of the willing"), so of course conservatives were sneering a lot at Chirac and other representatives of "Old Europe." "New Europe" was forward-looking, eagerly shaking off the socialist yoke in anticipation of a free-market future, while "Old Europe" countries such as France and Germany were, as one Heritage Foundation pundit put it, "Socialist in outlook, resistant to change, and Luddite in their thinking ... stuck in the past, and one that is far from glorious."
Well, The New York Times had an article yesterday about three Eastern European countries facing shrinking GDP growth and skyrocketing deficits even as they plan to join the EU -- and the three countries were Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. What's the trouble? Well, in Hungary, at least, according to the Times, the trouble is ... socialism. Or at least a Socialist Party that's struggling to ensure that citizens have a decent standard of living as jobs flee to lower-wage countries.
Right-wing pundits in America wanted you to think that our Iraq War allies from Eastern Europe are all happy capitalists while "Old Europe" does business following the tenets of Stalin and Mao. Or something like that. This is nonsense. Too bad so many people believe it.
Well, The New York Times had an article yesterday about three Eastern European countries facing shrinking GDP growth and skyrocketing deficits even as they plan to join the EU -- and the three countries were Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. What's the trouble? Well, in Hungary, at least, according to the Times, the trouble is ... socialism. Or at least a Socialist Party that's struggling to ensure that citizens have a decent standard of living as jobs flee to lower-wage countries.
Right-wing pundits in America wanted you to think that our Iraq War allies from Eastern Europe are all happy capitalists while "Old Europe" does business following the tenets of Stalin and Mao. Or something like that. This is nonsense. Too bad so many people believe it.
Sensitive souls such as Sean Hannity got the vapors when a member of California's Democratic Party said, metaphorically, that as a declared candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger would now face "real bullets."
Think they'll have a similar reaction when people start showing up at Schwarzie's rallies wearing this shirt?
Think they'll have a similar reaction when people start showing up at Schwarzie's rallies wearing this shirt?
Is one of Schwarzenegger's top consultants a wife beater and a deadbeat dad? The consultant's ex-wives say so. Roger Ailes (the good one) has the details.
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
I'd give you a link to video of Ralph Nader being pied, but surely you won't actually click on it, will you?
Nah -- I didn't think so.
Nah -- I didn't think so.
He's rich as Croesus. He's praised Hillary Clinton. He called Bush's dividend-tax cut "voodoo economics."
And now Warren Buffett will be a Schwarzenegger economic adviser.
These folks are beside themselves.
This is starting to get interesting....
And now Warren Buffett will be a Schwarzenegger economic adviser.
These folks are beside themselves.
This is starting to get interesting....
I guess that conservative "big tent" just got closed for repairs -- I found this posted by Lee of the blog Right-Thinking from the Left Coast:
Cheetah
Take this however you like, but the black chick singing with Madonna in the new Gap commercials looks like a fucking monkey. I don't mean that in a racist, pejorative sense; I mean she actually looks like an ape. (I've had similar criticisms of the Williams Sisters. Ugh. Anyone remember when they only used to put attractive women in commercials?)
Good Lord.
You know, the "black chick" in question, Missy Elliott, happens to be one of the few smart, clever, inventive people making hit records right now, as a songwriter, record producer, singer, and rapper -- but even if that weren't the case, this would be a disgusting thing to say.
If there were a God, or any justice, Lee would be forced to walk through his native Bay Area -- all the neighborhoods -- with that damn post hung around his neck on a sandwich board printed in 128-point extra-bold type.
Cheetah
Take this however you like, but the black chick singing with Madonna in the new Gap commercials looks like a fucking monkey. I don't mean that in a racist, pejorative sense; I mean she actually looks like an ape. (I've had similar criticisms of the Williams Sisters. Ugh. Anyone remember when they only used to put attractive women in commercials?)
Good Lord.
You know, the "black chick" in question, Missy Elliott, happens to be one of the few smart, clever, inventive people making hit records right now, as a songwriter, record producer, singer, and rapper -- but even if that weren't the case, this would be a disgusting thing to say.
If there were a God, or any justice, Lee would be forced to walk through his native Bay Area -- all the neighborhoods -- with that damn post hung around his neck on a sandwich board printed in 128-point extra-bold type.
Sixty-one people were killed and dozens wounded in outbreaks of violence across Afghanistan in the troubled country's bloodiest 24 hours in more than a year, officials said Wednesday.
At least 25 people, mostly factional fighters, were killed after fighting erupted early Wednesday between forces of a sacked provincial official and his successor in a remote district of Uruzgan province, a cabinet minister said.
Also Wednesday, at least 15 died, including a woman and six children, and five were wounded when a suspected Taliban bomb blew apart a bus in the southern province of Helmand....
--Reuters
Mission accomplished.
At least 25 people, mostly factional fighters, were killed after fighting erupted early Wednesday between forces of a sacked provincial official and his successor in a remote district of Uruzgan province, a cabinet minister said.
Also Wednesday, at least 15 died, including a woman and six children, and five were wounded when a suspected Taliban bomb blew apart a bus in the southern province of Helmand....
--Reuters
Mission accomplished.
So Schwarzenegger's Kennedy in-laws aren't supporting his candidacy, nor is much of Tinseltown.
I admire their devotion to principle -- but don't they get it? If they want Schwarzie to lose, they should endorse him -- the Kennedys and Barbra Streisand and Robbins & Sarandon and all the people on this list. The Dixie Chicks should offer to do a few numbers at his rallies. Michael Moore should switch to an AHHNULD hat.
It's called a ratfuck, folks.
All the Limbaughnistas would desert Schwarzie in droves. National Review Online and the Wall Street Journal editorial page would start calling him a Nazi. Before long, Gary Coleman would be passing the big guy in the polls.
Sean Penn? Martin Sheen? Would someone please start the sabotage?
I admire their devotion to principle -- but don't they get it? If they want Schwarzie to lose, they should endorse him -- the Kennedys and Barbra Streisand and Robbins & Sarandon and all the people on this list. The Dixie Chicks should offer to do a few numbers at his rallies. Michael Moore should switch to an AHHNULD hat.
It's called a ratfuck, folks.
All the Limbaughnistas would desert Schwarzie in droves. National Review Online and the Wall Street Journal editorial page would start calling him a Nazi. Before long, Gary Coleman would be passing the big guy in the polls.
Sean Penn? Martin Sheen? Would someone please start the sabotage?
You can't help being confused if, like me, you're a non-Briton and you're trying to keep up with the story of Dr. David Kelly. Dr. Kelly was the weapons expert who committed suicide after he was identified as the source of a BBC report by Andrew Gilligan on the Blair government's "dodgy dossier," a report that was (choose one) (a) mildly hyperbolic (b) or scurrilous and utterly unsubstantiated. (The Sun, for instance, is solidly in the latter camp, to the delight of the knuckle-draggers at Lucianne Goldberg's Web site.)
The issue here is whether Andrew Gilligan was telling the truth when he reported that his source (Dr. Kelly) had named Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's communications director, as the person responsible for inserting into the dossier the claim that Iraqi could deploy a weapon of mass destruction within 45 minutes.
Susan Watts, a BBC reporter who also spoke to Dr. Kelly, has now appeared before the British government's inquiry into the matter, and has played a tape recording of her conversation with Dr. Kelly -- and here's where the confusion comes in. Here are three headlines from today's online Guardian:
Watts: 'Kelly did not blame Campbell'
Second BBC reporter [Watts] says Kelly told her Campbell 'sexed up' dossier
Kelly blamed 'someone' at No 10
All of these stories describe what the inquiry learned from one witness.
This makes my head swim -- but look at the third story, which discusses the tape-recorded conversation between Watts and Dr. Kelly. Here's some of the conversation in detail:
Watts then asked: "But on the 45 minutes?"
Dr Kelly replied: "Oh, that I knew, because I knew the concern about the statement. It was a statement that was made and it just got out of all proportion. You know someone, they were desperate for information. They were pushing hard for information which could be released.
"That was one that popped up and it was seized on and it was unfortunate that it was, which is why there is the argument between the intelligence services and the Cabinet Office/No 10, because things were picked on, and once they've picked up on it you can't pull back, that's the problem."
Watts went on to ask Dr Kelly if the 45 minute claim was published against his advice, to which he replied: "I wouldn't go as strongly as to say, that particular bit, because I was not involved in the assessment of it. No. I can't say that it was against my advice.
"I was uneasy with it. I mean my problem was that I could give other explanations which I've indicated to you. That it was the time to erect something like a scud missile or it was the time to fill a 40 barrel, multi-barrel rocket launcher."…
Watts asked Dr Kelly to expand on the issue of the 45 minute claim: "So would it be accurate then, as you did in that earlier conversation, to say that it was Alastair Campbell himself who..?"
Dr Kelly replied: "No I can't. All I can says is the No 10 press office. I've never met Alastair Campbell so I can't," Watts interrupted: "They seized on that?"
The scientist continued: "But I think Alastair Campbell is synonymous with that press office because he's responsible for it."
The big issue for BBC-bashers on both sides of the Atlantic is whether Andrew Gilligan, presumably hearing similar things from Dr. Kelly, leapt to a conclusion Dr. Kelly would not have endorsed (that Alastair Campbell was personally responsible for sexing up the dossier). The stories suggest that Gilligan did go too far -- but Dr. Kelly does detect Campbell's hand in the sexing-up.
And, more important, it's clear from this tape-recorded conversation that the Blair government seized on intelligence that could be interpreted several ways -- and then spun it in a way that made Saddam look far more dangerous than he was. (Sound familiar?) And it's clear that this troubled Dr. Kelly. As well it should have.
The issue here is whether Andrew Gilligan was telling the truth when he reported that his source (Dr. Kelly) had named Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's communications director, as the person responsible for inserting into the dossier the claim that Iraqi could deploy a weapon of mass destruction within 45 minutes.
Susan Watts, a BBC reporter who also spoke to Dr. Kelly, has now appeared before the British government's inquiry into the matter, and has played a tape recording of her conversation with Dr. Kelly -- and here's where the confusion comes in. Here are three headlines from today's online Guardian:
Watts: 'Kelly did not blame Campbell'
Second BBC reporter [Watts] says Kelly told her Campbell 'sexed up' dossier
Kelly blamed 'someone' at No 10
All of these stories describe what the inquiry learned from one witness.
This makes my head swim -- but look at the third story, which discusses the tape-recorded conversation between Watts and Dr. Kelly. Here's some of the conversation in detail:
Watts then asked: "But on the 45 minutes?"
Dr Kelly replied: "Oh, that I knew, because I knew the concern about the statement. It was a statement that was made and it just got out of all proportion. You know someone, they were desperate for information. They were pushing hard for information which could be released.
"That was one that popped up and it was seized on and it was unfortunate that it was, which is why there is the argument between the intelligence services and the Cabinet Office/No 10, because things were picked on, and once they've picked up on it you can't pull back, that's the problem."
Watts went on to ask Dr Kelly if the 45 minute claim was published against his advice, to which he replied: "I wouldn't go as strongly as to say, that particular bit, because I was not involved in the assessment of it. No. I can't say that it was against my advice.
"I was uneasy with it. I mean my problem was that I could give other explanations which I've indicated to you. That it was the time to erect something like a scud missile or it was the time to fill a 40 barrel, multi-barrel rocket launcher."…
Watts asked Dr Kelly to expand on the issue of the 45 minute claim: "So would it be accurate then, as you did in that earlier conversation, to say that it was Alastair Campbell himself who..?"
Dr Kelly replied: "No I can't. All I can says is the No 10 press office. I've never met Alastair Campbell so I can't," Watts interrupted: "They seized on that?"
The scientist continued: "But I think Alastair Campbell is synonymous with that press office because he's responsible for it."
The big issue for BBC-bashers on both sides of the Atlantic is whether Andrew Gilligan, presumably hearing similar things from Dr. Kelly, leapt to a conclusion Dr. Kelly would not have endorsed (that Alastair Campbell was personally responsible for sexing up the dossier). The stories suggest that Gilligan did go too far -- but Dr. Kelly does detect Campbell's hand in the sexing-up.
And, more important, it's clear from this tape-recorded conversation that the Blair government seized on intelligence that could be interpreted several ways -- and then spun it in a way that made Saddam look far more dangerous than he was. (Sound familiar?) And it's clear that this troubled Dr. Kelly. As well it should have.
The next governor of California, naked.
Don't thank me. Thank Daniel Radosh for sharing.
(Incidentally, if you want to know about the content of Arnold's character, Radosh provides three worthwhile links -- this one, this one, and especially this one, a rather exhaustive compilation of Schwarzie dirt, with links, all of which you should forward to Republican friends. Never forget: Arnold is being hailed as a hero by people who think Bill Clinton is the most morally compromised man who ever lived.)
Don't thank me. Thank Daniel Radosh for sharing.
(Incidentally, if you want to know about the content of Arnold's character, Radosh provides three worthwhile links -- this one, this one, and especially this one, a rather exhaustive compilation of Schwarzie dirt, with links, all of which you should forward to Republican friends. Never forget: Arnold is being hailed as a hero by people who think Bill Clinton is the most morally compromised man who ever lived.)
If you care, Right Wing News has posted lefty bloggers' choices for the twenty worst figures in U.S. history. A previous list from right-wing bloggers is here; RWN's gloss on the lists is here; they're stacked in an attractive chart here; and if that's not enough to slake your thirst for knowledge about this poll, well, I can't help you.
My opinion is: I think our list is better -- we were less focused on the present and we didn't pick anyone like Robert Byrd or Hillary Clinton, people who, whatever you think of them, have had relatively little effect on history. I'm basically pleased.
Now I plan never to think about this again.
My opinion is: I think our list is better -- we were less focused on the present and we didn't pick anyone like Robert Byrd or Hillary Clinton, people who, whatever you think of them, have had relatively little effect on history. I'm basically pleased.
Now I plan never to think about this again.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
OH, I'M SORRY. DID I SAY "HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA"? SILLY ME. I MEANT "HOLLYWOOD EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH ME VS. AMERICA."
Right-wingers don't even pretend not to be hypocrites anymore, do they? A few years ago, conservative film critic Michael Medved wrote a book called Hollywood vs. America. It was all about how sex and violence in entertainment are really, really bad. Now, when an oversexed Hollywood actor who makes violent movies is running for governor of California, you'd think he'd see it as a sign of the Last Days, wouldn't you? Well, no -- of course you wouldn't. The Hollywood candidate is a Republican, and so, as the folks at Free Republic note, Medved is thrilled -- he's on the radio (yes, he has a radio show; don't they all?) telling his listeners that the Hollywood actor is just the bee's knees, because he's a Republican and he's going to win.
By the way, I haven't read Hollywood vs. America, but I find it fascinating that its index includes both
Urine, 168-73
and
Vomit, 168-73
Medved talk about these subjects for six pages?
Right-wingers don't even pretend not to be hypocrites anymore, do they? A few years ago, conservative film critic Michael Medved wrote a book called Hollywood vs. America. It was all about how sex and violence in entertainment are really, really bad. Now, when an oversexed Hollywood actor who makes violent movies is running for governor of California, you'd think he'd see it as a sign of the Last Days, wouldn't you? Well, no -- of course you wouldn't. The Hollywood candidate is a Republican, and so, as the folks at Free Republic note, Medved is thrilled -- he's on the radio (yes, he has a radio show; don't they all?) telling his listeners that the Hollywood actor is just the bee's knees, because he's a Republican and he's going to win.
By the way, I haven't read Hollywood vs. America, but I find it fascinating that its index includes both
Urine, 168-73
and
Vomit, 168-73
Medved talk about these subjects for six pages?
Remind me again about how much better off the military is now that Bush has replaced Satan Clinton as commander-in-chief....
After Army Sgt. Vannessa Turner survived a still-unknown illness doctors feared would kill her, she thought her toughest battle was over.
But since a military flight brought Turner home she says she's had to fight to get medical treatment and can't even get personal items returned....
Arriving at her mother's home in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood last month after hospital stays in Germany and Washington, the six-year Army veteran says she was told that despite severe nerve damage in her right leg she'd have to wait until mid-October to see a doctor at the local Veterans Affairs hospital....
Veterans' advocates said Turner's frustration is not unusual. More than 110,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for their initial visit with a VA doctor or to see a specialist, the VA acknowledges....
The story goes on to point out that at one point Turner stopped breathing, and doctors thought she had only days to live. She has a fifteen-year-old daughter. When she was hospitalized in Germany, Senators Kennedy and Kerry had to intercede to get her family flown over. And now she's expected to fly herself back there to get her stuff.
Think Cheney ever goes through anything like this when he gets a chest twinge?
After Army Sgt. Vannessa Turner survived a still-unknown illness doctors feared would kill her, she thought her toughest battle was over.
But since a military flight brought Turner home she says she's had to fight to get medical treatment and can't even get personal items returned....
Arriving at her mother's home in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood last month after hospital stays in Germany and Washington, the six-year Army veteran says she was told that despite severe nerve damage in her right leg she'd have to wait until mid-October to see a doctor at the local Veterans Affairs hospital....
Veterans' advocates said Turner's frustration is not unusual. More than 110,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for their initial visit with a VA doctor or to see a specialist, the VA acknowledges....
The story goes on to point out that at one point Turner stopped breathing, and doctors thought she had only days to live. She has a fifteen-year-old daughter. When she was hospitalized in Germany, Senators Kennedy and Kerry had to intercede to get her family flown over. And now she's expected to fly herself back there to get her stuff.
Think Cheney ever goes through anything like this when he gets a chest twinge?
Nice to see we're still trying to win hearts and minds:
BAGHDAD - The editor of Iraq Today, a leading English-language daily, said the US military had handcuffed him, thrown him to the ground and banned him from one of its main Baghdad headquarters.
Hussein Fattah Pasha, said he had gone to attend a press conference at the Baghdad convention centre on Monday and had arrived shortly after 5:00 pm (1300 GMT), 30 minutes before it started.
But a US military officer told him he had missed the deadline to attend the conference of Iraq's new Governing Council and had to leave. Journalists are usually told to arrive one hour beforehand.
But the US officer did not impose the one-hour deadline on other journalists who arrived after Pasha and were allowed attend the conference, Pasha said.
Pasha said that, after a brief argument, involving some shouting, he was handcuffed, thrown to the ground and escorted from the building by seven soldiers, and that his press card was confiscated.
He added that he was meeting Tuesday with coalition officials on the matter.
--Yahoo News/AFP
BAGHDAD - The editor of Iraq Today, a leading English-language daily, said the US military had handcuffed him, thrown him to the ground and banned him from one of its main Baghdad headquarters.
Hussein Fattah Pasha, said he had gone to attend a press conference at the Baghdad convention centre on Monday and had arrived shortly after 5:00 pm (1300 GMT), 30 minutes before it started.
But a US military officer told him he had missed the deadline to attend the conference of Iraq's new Governing Council and had to leave. Journalists are usually told to arrive one hour beforehand.
But the US officer did not impose the one-hour deadline on other journalists who arrived after Pasha and were allowed attend the conference, Pasha said.
Pasha said that, after a brief argument, involving some shouting, he was handcuffed, thrown to the ground and escorted from the building by seven soldiers, and that his press card was confiscated.
He added that he was meeting Tuesday with coalition officials on the matter.
--Yahoo News/AFP
Who writes legal briefs for Fox News -- Eminem? You may have seen the Fox lawyers' snotty comments about Al Franken that were quoted at the Drudge Report; if you boycott Drudge on principle, Lisa de Moraes at The Washington Post has some of them ("In its fair and balanced way, Fox News refers in its suit to Franken as an 'unstable' and 'shrill' 'C-level commentator' who is 'not a well-respected voice in American politics'").
De Moraes then gets snarky:
[Fox's lawyers say that] the use of "fair and balanced" in the title [of Franken's book] and the resemblance of the cover to the O'Reilly book is "likely to cause confusion among the public about whether Fox News has authorized or endorsed the book and about whether Franken is affiliated with FNC." They are referring, of course, to the large segment of the population that still counts with its toes.
Ba-da-boom.
(By the way, here's O'Reilly's book cover. And here's Franken's. I link. You decide.)
De Moraes then gets snarky:
[Fox's lawyers say that] the use of "fair and balanced" in the title [of Franken's book] and the resemblance of the cover to the O'Reilly book is "likely to cause confusion among the public about whether Fox News has authorized or endorsed the book and about whether Franken is affiliated with FNC." They are referring, of course, to the large segment of the population that still counts with its toes.
Ba-da-boom.
(By the way, here's O'Reilly's book cover. And here's Franken's. I link. You decide.)
Is Wesley Clark running for president The Boston Globe thinks so.
In the strongest signal yet that retired US Army General Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO commander, is planning to join the Democratic presidential race, Clark told volunteers last week to step up their efforts and prepare for an announcement on Labor Day....
Interesting.
In the strongest signal yet that retired US Army General Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO commander, is planning to join the Democratic presidential race, Clark told volunteers last week to step up their efforts and prepare for an announcement on Labor Day....
Interesting.
The Evil Murdoch Empire is whining about the fact that Al Franken used the Fox News Channel trademark "Fair and Balanced" in the subtitle of his forthcoming book. But where was all this exquisite sensitivity to the importance of trademarks a few years ago, when Murdoch's book company, HarperCollins, published this?
Although Fox News, along with everyone else who cared to find out, has known for months that the title of Al Franken's forthcoming book will be Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, Fox has waited until now, when the book is probably being printed or is just about to be printed, to sue Franken and his publisher for alleged trademark infringement (Fox, appallingly, registered the phrase "Fair and Balanced" as a trademark in 1995).
I'm sure Franken's publisher, the Penguin Group, which also publishes Tom Clancy and a lot of other bigshots, and is a division of the rather large multinational Pearson Plc., will cope with this just fine. The courts have recognized that parody and satire need to have a fairly wide latitude in a free society, so this poke at Fox ought to pass legal muster.
But for now, I'm joining Eschaton and many other fine bloggers in solidarity with Al:
We are all Fair and Balanced.
I'm sure Franken's publisher, the Penguin Group, which also publishes Tom Clancy and a lot of other bigshots, and is a division of the rather large multinational Pearson Plc., will cope with this just fine. The courts have recognized that parody and satire need to have a fairly wide latitude in a free society, so this poke at Fox ought to pass legal muster.
But for now, I'm joining Eschaton and many other fine bloggers in solidarity with Al:
We are all Fair and Balanced.
Monday, August 11, 2003
You probably saw the story about Schwarzenegger’s lead in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. But did you click on the poll results? That’s where the truly disheartening news is: When asked, “do you regard Arnold Schwarzenegger as a candidate who deserves to be taken seriously or do you regard Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy as a joke?,” 73% of registered California voters said, “Taken seriously.” Among likely voters -- you know, the people who are usually considered more civic-minded and responsible -- the percentage who take Schwarzenegger seriously is even higher: 78%. When asked whether or not “Schwarzenegger would do a better job or a worse job than someone who had a career as an elected public official,” 52% of registered California voters (and 58% of likely voters) have no doubts whatsoever -- they say “Better.”
Well, that’s how Americans think, isn’t it? We don’t care about qualifications. We just trust cocky, swaggering, belligerent maleness. We figure that if you’ve mastered that, you’re qualified to do anything you feel like doing.
This is why George W. Bush is president. He didn’t know the head of the government of Pakistan; America didn’t care. He was a well-to-do smart-ass with high self-esteem and a BMOC smirk, and so America -- or at least 48% of those who voted in 2000 -- thought he was a straight shooter. And 9/11 and its aftermath have made him seem like even more of a straight shooter. We don’t even care if he misses all the time -- Osama, Saddam, the anthrax killer -- or shoots at nonexistent targets -- Saddam’s chemical weapons, Saddam’s biological weapons, Saddam’s nuclear weapons -- just as long as he keeps shooting straight.
Well, that’s how Americans think, isn’t it? We don’t care about qualifications. We just trust cocky, swaggering, belligerent maleness. We figure that if you’ve mastered that, you’re qualified to do anything you feel like doing.
This is why George W. Bush is president. He didn’t know the head of the government of Pakistan; America didn’t care. He was a well-to-do smart-ass with high self-esteem and a BMOC smirk, and so America -- or at least 48% of those who voted in 2000 -- thought he was a straight shooter. And 9/11 and its aftermath have made him seem like even more of a straight shooter. We don’t even care if he misses all the time -- Osama, Saddam, the anthrax killer -- or shoots at nonexistent targets -- Saddam’s chemical weapons, Saddam’s biological weapons, Saddam’s nuclear weapons -- just as long as he keeps shooting straight.
I see from the San Francisco Chronicle that Mel Gibson has yet again screened his crucifixion film, The Passion, for a select audience. The Chronicle mentions a recent screening attended by approximately thirty evangelical scholars, after which Ted Haggard, president of the National Evangelical Association, was fulsome in his praise for the film: "I thought it was the most authentic portrayal I've ever seen," Haggard said.
It was Haggard who said, according to a New York Times story a week or so ago, "Mel Gibson is the Michelangelo of this generation." The Times also quoted the reaction of Deal W. Hudson, publisher of the conservative Catholic magazine Crisis: "It's going to be the go-to film for Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made about the Passion of Christ." And prior to that the movie won raves at a screening attended by an aide to Senator Rick Santorum and the deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, according to The Washington Post.
I wonder whether these upright traditionalists know anything about the career of Monica Bellucci, who, according to the Chronicle story, plays Mary Magdalene in the film. If they don't, I recommend they go to Yahoo or Google, type her name in, and look at, well, pretty much any of the sites found. Or maybe they should just try a Google image search for the star of the religious Right's new favorite film.
Goodness, I feel more devout already.
It was Haggard who said, according to a New York Times story a week or so ago, "Mel Gibson is the Michelangelo of this generation." The Times also quoted the reaction of Deal W. Hudson, publisher of the conservative Catholic magazine Crisis: "It's going to be the go-to film for Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made about the Passion of Christ." And prior to that the movie won raves at a screening attended by an aide to Senator Rick Santorum and the deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, according to The Washington Post.
I wonder whether these upright traditionalists know anything about the career of Monica Bellucci, who, according to the Chronicle story, plays Mary Magdalene in the film. If they don't, I recommend they go to Yahoo or Google, type her name in, and look at, well, pretty much any of the sites found. Or maybe they should just try a Google image search for the star of the religious Right's new favorite film.
Goodness, I feel more devout already.
I see that Ann Coulter is trying to channel the spirit of her intellectual and moral hero, Joe McCarthy, but doesn't seem as if her looks are trying to channel the spirit of Joey Ramone?
(Thanks to TBOGG for the first link.)
(Thanks to TBOGG for the first link.)
Someone just e-mailed me to point out this CNN poll.
QUICKVOTE
Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?
Yes
No
It's 50-50 as I type this. Let 'em know what you think.
QUICKVOTE
Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?
Yes
No
It's 50-50 as I type this. Let 'em know what you think.
This makes me chuckle:
Get a load of this: Likely 2004 third-party presidential hopeful Ralph Nader thinks the 9/11 terrorist attacks wouldn't have happened if he had been president. He claims that amid all the big decisions new presidents have to make after inauguration, he would have ordered cockpit doors to be hardened against attack. He says an old report warning about how easy it is to get in the cockpit still sticks with him. What's more, he would have wiped out Osama bin Laden and his gang without a shot being fired. How? Bribe Osama's friends to hand him over.
--U.S. News (scroll down)
Yeah, and if he'd been a passenger on one of the four flights, he would have used his X-ray vision to spot the box cutters before they could be used! And ... and ... and if that didn't work, once the planes went off course he'd have used his superpowers to turn back time, so that none of the buildings would have been damaged! No, really!
Get a load of this: Likely 2004 third-party presidential hopeful Ralph Nader thinks the 9/11 terrorist attacks wouldn't have happened if he had been president. He claims that amid all the big decisions new presidents have to make after inauguration, he would have ordered cockpit doors to be hardened against attack. He says an old report warning about how easy it is to get in the cockpit still sticks with him. What's more, he would have wiped out Osama bin Laden and his gang without a shot being fired. How? Bribe Osama's friends to hand him over.
--U.S. News (scroll down)
Yeah, and if he'd been a passenger on one of the four flights, he would have used his X-ray vision to spot the box cutters before they could be used! And ... and ... and if that didn't work, once the planes went off course he'd have used his superpowers to turn back time, so that none of the buildings would have been damaged! No, really!
I think this is disgraceful:
Nearly two years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, key federal agencies have not consolidated a dozen separate "watch lists" intended to keep terrorists out of the country, even though sharing that kind of information might have caught two of the suicide hijackers before they carried out their plot.
The Department of Homeland Security says it is working to combine lists of potential security risks maintained by at least nine agencies, but it has no timetable for finishing the job. Officials say critics underestimate the complexity of the task, especially technical problems involving computers and databases not designed to share information. They add that it is important to verify accuracy among lists that often name the same person with different spellings, birth dates or hometowns.
--USA Today
Well, yeah, it's important to do the job right. But I thought the whole point of having can-do macho men like President Flightsuit running the country was that they don't go around whining and making excuses -- they just set a priority and get it done.
But hey, it's not as if anything really terrible can happen if the information isn't consolidated....
Last month, a congressional report criticized the CIA for waiting until August 2001 to give the FBI detailed information about Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhazmi. The two men, who were hijackers on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, were placed on a watch list. But by then they had lived for several months in San Diego.
No biggie, right?
Let's let this guy haave the last word:
"It's not a surprise that with 12 different lists held by nine different agencies that there have been difficulties in consolidating those lists," says Asha George of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security.
"On the other hand, it's been two years."
Nearly two years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, key federal agencies have not consolidated a dozen separate "watch lists" intended to keep terrorists out of the country, even though sharing that kind of information might have caught two of the suicide hijackers before they carried out their plot.
The Department of Homeland Security says it is working to combine lists of potential security risks maintained by at least nine agencies, but it has no timetable for finishing the job. Officials say critics underestimate the complexity of the task, especially technical problems involving computers and databases not designed to share information. They add that it is important to verify accuracy among lists that often name the same person with different spellings, birth dates or hometowns.
--USA Today
Well, yeah, it's important to do the job right. But I thought the whole point of having can-do macho men like President Flightsuit running the country was that they don't go around whining and making excuses -- they just set a priority and get it done.
But hey, it's not as if anything really terrible can happen if the information isn't consolidated....
Last month, a congressional report criticized the CIA for waiting until August 2001 to give the FBI detailed information about Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhazmi. The two men, who were hijackers on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, were placed on a watch list. But by then they had lived for several months in San Diego.
No biggie, right?
Let's let this guy haave the last word:
"It's not a surprise that with 12 different lists held by nine different agencies that there have been difficulties in consolidating those lists," says Asha George of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security.
"On the other hand, it's been two years."
Sunday, August 10, 2003
Charles Hanley of the Associated Press examines Colin Powell's prewar UN speech on Iraq and reveals, in great detail, that there's barely a claim in it that stands up to scrutiny. I don't know if your Sunday paper ran the story, but this one did, as did this one, and this one, and this one, under headlines such as "Powell's Case for Iraq War Falls Apart 6 Months Later." Pass it on to your right-wing friends.
So, according to Newsday and The Washington Post, a subordinate to Undersecretary of Defense Donald Feith met with Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms dealer you may recall from the Iran-contra scandal? And "the administration officials who disclosed the secret meetings to Newsday said the talks with Ghorbanifar were not authorized by the White House and appeared to be aimed at undercutting current sensitive back channel negotiations with the Iranian regime"? And the subordinate who met with Ghorbanifar was recently Feith's liaison to ... Ahmed Chalabi, the neocons' choice to head the government of Iraq and source of some of Judith Miller's most truth-challenged stories on Iraq weapons?
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
-- The Bush administration has been accused of persistently manipulating scientific data to serve its ideology and protect interests of political backers.
The charges are contained in a 40-page report by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform, the New York Times reported Friday.
The report accused the administration of compromising the scientific integrity of federal institutions that monitor food and medicine, conduct health research, control disease and protect the environment.
On many topics, including global warming and sex education, the report said, the administration "has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings." ...
--UPI
The charges are contained in a 40-page report by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform, the New York Times reported Friday.
The report accused the administration of compromising the scientific integrity of federal institutions that monitor food and medicine, conduct health research, control disease and protect the environment.
On many topics, including global warming and sex education, the report said, the administration "has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings." ...
--UPI
It also infuriated me that when the Defense Intelligence Agency declared that those "smoking gun" Iraqi trailers were probably used tomake hydrogen for weather balloons, not to make biological weapons, The New York Times, more or less buried the story by running it in the Saturday paper, which nobody reads, on the front page but below the fold. (It infuriated me, but it didn't surprise me.)
This absoluted infuriated me when I read it on Saturday:
An investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general into official statements about air quality after the collapse of the World Trade Center has found that White House officials instructed the agency to be less alarming and more reassuring to the public in the first few days after the attack.
The draft of the inspector general's report also says the agency "did not have sufficient data and analyses" to make a "blanket statement" when it announced seven days after the attack that the air around ground zero was safe to breathe. "Competing considerations, such as national security concerns and the desire to reopen Wall Street, also played a role in E.P.A.'s air quality statements," the report said...
The title for the original version of one news release was, "E.P.A. Initiating Emergency Response Activities, Testing Terrorized Sites For Environmental Hazards." In the final version, the second clause was changed to read, "Reassures Public About Environmental Hazards." In the same release, a section that said, "Even at low levels, E.P.A considers asbestos hazardous in this situation" was deleted and replaced with a section that read, in part, "Short-term, low-level exposure of the type that might have been produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is unlikely to cause significant health effects."...
--New York Times
I didn't get to Lower Manhattan much after the attacks, but I did get below Canal Street once in November 2001 and once in December. The air still smelled foul -- a really unhealthy chemical smell. Is this any surprise. Think of what's on a floor of a typical office building -- computers, photocopiers, fax machines, refrigerators, synthetic carpeting. Now imagine more than 200 stories of this incinerated. Oh, and throw in asbestos. Think it was safe to breathe at Ground Zero a week after the attacks?
An investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general into official statements about air quality after the collapse of the World Trade Center has found that White House officials instructed the agency to be less alarming and more reassuring to the public in the first few days after the attack.
The draft of the inspector general's report also says the agency "did not have sufficient data and analyses" to make a "blanket statement" when it announced seven days after the attack that the air around ground zero was safe to breathe. "Competing considerations, such as national security concerns and the desire to reopen Wall Street, also played a role in E.P.A.'s air quality statements," the report said...
The title for the original version of one news release was, "E.P.A. Initiating Emergency Response Activities, Testing Terrorized Sites For Environmental Hazards." In the final version, the second clause was changed to read, "Reassures Public About Environmental Hazards." In the same release, a section that said, "Even at low levels, E.P.A considers asbestos hazardous in this situation" was deleted and replaced with a section that read, in part, "Short-term, low-level exposure of the type that might have been produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is unlikely to cause significant health effects."...
--New York Times
I didn't get to Lower Manhattan much after the attacks, but I did get below Canal Street once in November 2001 and once in December. The air still smelled foul -- a really unhealthy chemical smell. Is this any surprise. Think of what's on a floor of a typical office building -- computers, photocopiers, fax machines, refrigerators, synthetic carpeting. Now imagine more than 200 stories of this incinerated. Oh, and throw in asbestos. Think it was safe to breathe at Ground Zero a week after the attacks?
Arnold Schwarzenegger is hoping his campaign will be a Charles Atlas moment in reverse.
"It's like the famous Muscle Beach scene where the scrawny guy is getting sand kicked in his face by a bodybuilder," said an Arnold adviser. "But in this case, everyone's cheering on the bodybuilder, because the scrawny guy is the mean, nasty, reprehensible one."
--Maureen Dowd today
Well, that's basically the central myth of the modern Republican Party, isn't it? Never mind that they're talking specifically about Gray Davis. To Republicans, the person with less power is always the oppressor and the powerful one is always the victim, right?
"It's like the famous Muscle Beach scene where the scrawny guy is getting sand kicked in his face by a bodybuilder," said an Arnold adviser. "But in this case, everyone's cheering on the bodybuilder, because the scrawny guy is the mean, nasty, reprehensible one."
--Maureen Dowd today
Well, that's basically the central myth of the modern Republican Party, isn't it? Never mind that they're talking specifically about Gray Davis. To Republicans, the person with less power is always the oppressor and the powerful one is always the victim, right?
Friday, August 08, 2003
It's the Gay Supremacy Hour. I'm sure I'm not the only one who reads Bravo's ad copy and wonders if we're talking hate crimes here.
--right-wing pundit Brent Bozell discussing Bravo's TV series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy
Remind me again: Liberals are the humor-deprived, alarmist, politically correct ones, right?
--right-wing pundit Brent Bozell discussing Bravo's TV series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy
Remind me again: Liberals are the humor-deprived, alarmist, politically correct ones, right?
So the California Democrats are being typical Democrats -- first they were going to back Davis to the end, then Bustamante got in, now Garamendi is in -- and I guess Garamendi got in because he didn't think Bustamante, Arianna Huffington, and the Green Party's Peter Camejo were going to divide the votes of GOP-wary voters enough, and he wanted to divide them even more, so Schwarzenegger's likely victory will seem even bigger.
I'd be upset, but I think I'm really going to enjoy it when the current crop of right-wing Arnold enthusiasts -- this guy, say, or this guy -- howl for his head and denounce him as the social liberal he apparently is when he fails to turn a state deep in recession into a thriving Limbaughnista paradise. I know how this works. I live in New York City, and I see how conservatives are turning on socially liberal GOP mayor Michael Bloomberg -- another rich guy who'd never public office -- for failing to work right-wing miracles, and for at the same time pursuing what are seen as squishy liberal ideas (the ban on smoking in restaurants). As right-wingers look to California, they're engaging in a lot of magical thinking -- they think platitudes like this ("The most important thing to have when you run a state is leadership . . . and in everything I ever did, I showed great leadership") constitute a bracing, inspiring political platform; they seem to think a macho guy, or at least a guy who plays macho guys on screen, can just kick the budget crisis's ass in two hours, no need for a sequel. Grown-ups know that real life doesn't work that way, but let's not tell the Republicans -- let's let them keep dreaming.
I wonder if Schwarzenegger will even finish out his (partial) term. When you're a pol, even a governor, you get challenged and rebuffed. When's the last time something like that happened to Arnold? Think he'll like it? Think he'll put up with it?
Politics is a process. Schwarzenegger may not be stupid, but I really don't think he's a process kind of guy. I'm think his semi-term in office could be highly amusing.
UPDATE: Rush says Arnold = Bloomberg. I loathe Rush, but he knows what he believes in.
I'd be upset, but I think I'm really going to enjoy it when the current crop of right-wing Arnold enthusiasts -- this guy, say, or this guy -- howl for his head and denounce him as the social liberal he apparently is when he fails to turn a state deep in recession into a thriving Limbaughnista paradise. I know how this works. I live in New York City, and I see how conservatives are turning on socially liberal GOP mayor Michael Bloomberg -- another rich guy who'd never public office -- for failing to work right-wing miracles, and for at the same time pursuing what are seen as squishy liberal ideas (the ban on smoking in restaurants). As right-wingers look to California, they're engaging in a lot of magical thinking -- they think platitudes like this ("The most important thing to have when you run a state is leadership . . . and in everything I ever did, I showed great leadership") constitute a bracing, inspiring political platform; they seem to think a macho guy, or at least a guy who plays macho guys on screen, can just kick the budget crisis's ass in two hours, no need for a sequel. Grown-ups know that real life doesn't work that way, but let's not tell the Republicans -- let's let them keep dreaming.
I wonder if Schwarzenegger will even finish out his (partial) term. When you're a pol, even a governor, you get challenged and rebuffed. When's the last time something like that happened to Arnold? Think he'll like it? Think he'll put up with it?
Politics is a process. Schwarzenegger may not be stupid, but I really don't think he's a process kind of guy. I'm think his semi-term in office could be highly amusing.
UPDATE: Rush says Arnold = Bloomberg. I loathe Rush, but he knows what he believes in.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: OBJECTIVELY PRO-SATAN
He is a Republican who loathed the GOP's campaign to impeach then-President Bill Clinton, telling George magazine in 1999 that he would "never forgive" his party for that. "We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure," he told the magazine. "I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period."
--Washington Post
He is a Republican who loathed the GOP's campaign to impeach then-President Bill Clinton, telling George magazine in 1999 that he would "never forgive" his party for that. "We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure," he told the magazine. "I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period."
--Washington Post
Thursday, August 07, 2003
Here's a random thing I keep meaning to mention:
Last weekend I had to fly out of town, and I was reading this article in an in-flight magazine. The article is about the Cyclone, the legend roller coaster at Coney Island. Here's what one rider says about the Cyclone:
“It is a roaring, churning, dropping, body-freezing, politically incorrect, this-can’t-be-happening horror."
What is the point of "politically correct" in that sentence?
Look, I know the answer. To this guy, and to a lot of other people, lefties are anti-fun. We're buzzkill. We're thou-shalt-not. To this guy, that notion has detached itself from politics and has taken on a life of its own -- on some level, this guy thinks anything that restrains you is political correctness.
And meanwhile, we're the ones who say, "You want to marry someone of your own gender? Go for it! Put elephant dung on a painting of the Virgin Mary and hang it in a museum? Hey, I'm there!" But we have still have the spoilsport rep, not Rick Santorum. It sucks.
Last weekend I had to fly out of town, and I was reading this article in an in-flight magazine. The article is about the Cyclone, the legend roller coaster at Coney Island. Here's what one rider says about the Cyclone:
“It is a roaring, churning, dropping, body-freezing, politically incorrect, this-can’t-be-happening horror."
What is the point of "politically correct" in that sentence?
Look, I know the answer. To this guy, and to a lot of other people, lefties are anti-fun. We're buzzkill. We're thou-shalt-not. To this guy, that notion has detached itself from politics and has taken on a life of its own -- on some level, this guy thinks anything that restrains you is political correctness.
And meanwhile, we're the ones who say, "You want to marry someone of your own gender? Go for it! Put elephant dung on a painting of the Virgin Mary and hang it in a museum? Hey, I'm there!" But we have still have the spoilsport rep, not Rick Santorum. It sucks.
I know that just by bringing this up I'm engaging in class warfare, but still...
Some of the nation's biggest banks have sheltered hundreds of millions of dollars from state taxes by creating investment funds that didn't sell shares publicly but paid tax-exempt dividends to the banks, Thursday's Wall Street Journal reported.
A review of Securities and Exchange Commission records shows that at least 10 major banks shifted more than $17 billion into such funds. Bank of America Corp. (BAC) alone transferred at least $8 billion into its fund, sheltering more than $750 million in income from 1999 through last May. The banks contend the funds were legitimate vehicles for raising investment capital, but many appear to have served little purpose beyond sheltering income. In effect, the funds converted interest income from the banks' loan portfolios into tax-exempt dividends....
--Yahoo News
And yes, this relates to the big story of the day:
Exactly how much the strategy has cost cash-strapped California, where many of the banks have their headquarters, is unclear. Revenue officials said a sampling of tax returns from just a handful of banks showed that the maneuver trimmed those institutions' levies by a total of $46 million in 2000.
Some of the nation's biggest banks have sheltered hundreds of millions of dollars from state taxes by creating investment funds that didn't sell shares publicly but paid tax-exempt dividends to the banks, Thursday's Wall Street Journal reported.
A review of Securities and Exchange Commission records shows that at least 10 major banks shifted more than $17 billion into such funds. Bank of America Corp. (BAC) alone transferred at least $8 billion into its fund, sheltering more than $750 million in income from 1999 through last May. The banks contend the funds were legitimate vehicles for raising investment capital, but many appear to have served little purpose beyond sheltering income. In effect, the funds converted interest income from the banks' loan portfolios into tax-exempt dividends....
--Yahoo News
And yes, this relates to the big story of the day:
Exactly how much the strategy has cost cash-strapped California, where many of the banks have their headquarters, is unclear. Revenue officials said a sampling of tax returns from just a handful of banks showed that the maneuver trimmed those institutions' levies by a total of $46 million in 2000.
What was it that William Bennett used to say? Oh yes....
One reason society needs to uphold high public standards in this realm is because sex -- when engaged in capriciously, without restraint, and against those in positions of relative weakness -- can be exploitive and harmful. Civilizations understand that we need to construct social guardrails to protect the vulnerable against the rapacious. And these social guardrails are not simply the products of the law; they are built as well by moral codes. Leaders who flout moral codes weaken them.
--William J. Bennett, The Death of Outrage (1998), page 21
So I guess Bennett and all his friends who denounced Bill Clinton back in the '90s will rise up as one and condemn this candidate for high office:
One journalist claims to have seen Schwarzenegger "making out" with his "Total Recall" costar, Rachel Ticotin. A former employee says he pawed Linda Hamilton while her then-boyfriend, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" director James Cameron, looked the other away. And two witnesses say they watched horrified as the brawny actor accosted a female crew member working on "T2," "put his hands inside her blouse" and sent her crying to a nearby trailer.
--Salon, February 7, 2001, citing a story in Premiere
During his promotional visit to Britain this week Arnold Schwarzenegger groped Denise Van Outen on the Big Breakfast and behaved in a similarly oversexed and over here fashion with a clearly panicked Melanie Sykes on ITV's Celebrity.
The Sun in England newspaper reports that Sykes was chatting with Arnold when, as cameras rolled, he grabbed her around the waist.
She pushed his hand away, saying: "Get your hands off me - I'm scared."...
Big Screen presenter Anna Richardson also claims that Arnold actually groped her breast during an interview for the show. She went to shake his hand, he pulled her on to his knee and said: "I want to know if your breasts are real." ...
"Before I knew what was happening he circled my nipple with his finger and gave it a squeeze." He then said of her triple-D breasts: "Yeah, they are real," Richardson recalled.
--8BM.com (U.K.); the link includes a screen shot of Schwarzenegger groping Ms. Van Outen
Bennett, Coulter, et al. will declare Arnold unfit to hold high office because of this -- right?
(Tawdry links courtesy of the comments page at Eschaton.)
One reason society needs to uphold high public standards in this realm is because sex -- when engaged in capriciously, without restraint, and against those in positions of relative weakness -- can be exploitive and harmful. Civilizations understand that we need to construct social guardrails to protect the vulnerable against the rapacious. And these social guardrails are not simply the products of the law; they are built as well by moral codes. Leaders who flout moral codes weaken them.
--William J. Bennett, The Death of Outrage (1998), page 21
So I guess Bennett and all his friends who denounced Bill Clinton back in the '90s will rise up as one and condemn this candidate for high office:
One journalist claims to have seen Schwarzenegger "making out" with his "Total Recall" costar, Rachel Ticotin. A former employee says he pawed Linda Hamilton while her then-boyfriend, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" director James Cameron, looked the other away. And two witnesses say they watched horrified as the brawny actor accosted a female crew member working on "T2," "put his hands inside her blouse" and sent her crying to a nearby trailer.
--Salon, February 7, 2001, citing a story in Premiere
During his promotional visit to Britain this week Arnold Schwarzenegger groped Denise Van Outen on the Big Breakfast and behaved in a similarly oversexed and over here fashion with a clearly panicked Melanie Sykes on ITV's Celebrity.
The Sun in England newspaper reports that Sykes was chatting with Arnold when, as cameras rolled, he grabbed her around the waist.
She pushed his hand away, saying: "Get your hands off me - I'm scared."...
Big Screen presenter Anna Richardson also claims that Arnold actually groped her breast during an interview for the show. She went to shake his hand, he pulled her on to his knee and said: "I want to know if your breasts are real." ...
"Before I knew what was happening he circled my nipple with his finger and gave it a squeeze." He then said of her triple-D breasts: "Yeah, they are real," Richardson recalled.
--8BM.com (U.K.); the link includes a screen shot of Schwarzenegger groping Ms. Van Outen
Bennett, Coulter, et al. will declare Arnold unfit to hold high office because of this -- right?
(Tawdry links courtesy of the comments page at Eschaton.)
Vatican omertà :
For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.
CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales has uncovered a church document kept secret for 40 years.
The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests - anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.
The policy was written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.
The document, once "stored in the secret archives" of the Vatican, focuses on crimes initiated as part of the confessional relationship and what it calls the "worst crime": sexual assault committed by a priest" or "attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals."
Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication." ...
--CBS
The Vatican says the document is being misinterpreted, that the policy was meant to prevent "scandal," not prosecution.
(I guess it's just a coincidence that preventing the former was rather effective in preventing the latter.)
(Thanks to Atrios for the link.)
For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.
CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales has uncovered a church document kept secret for 40 years.
The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests - anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.
The policy was written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.
The document, once "stored in the secret archives" of the Vatican, focuses on crimes initiated as part of the confessional relationship and what it calls the "worst crime": sexual assault committed by a priest" or "attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals."
Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication." ...
--CBS
The Vatican says the document is being misinterpreted, that the policy was meant to prevent "scandal," not prosecution.
(I guess it's just a coincidence that preventing the former was rather effective in preventing the latter.)
(Thanks to Atrios for the link.)
Those of you who read a lot of blogs may well have seen this; the rest of you, until now, have presumably had the good fortune to live blissfully unaware of...
the George W. Bush Elite Force Aviator 12" Action Figure!
Sorry. Now you know.
the George W. Bush Elite Force Aviator 12" Action Figure!
Sorry. Now you know.
So Schwarzenegger is in the race. And, by the way, so is Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, a Democrat -- and the L.A. Times reports that state insurance commissioner John Garamendi, a Democrat, might run, and that Democrats might be trying to rally around a replacement candidate, perhaps Bustamante or Leon Panetta.
This is a mess, and I'm worried about a circular firing squad on the Democratic side, as Schwarzenegger cruises to victory. (That's how this thing would go if it were happening in New York, where I live, or Massachusetts, where I grew up.) Oh well.
Jesse Ventura got away with a term as governor because he took over a state with a strong economy in the midst of a national economic boom. Arnold won't be that lucky. We'll get to see him sweat.
This is a mess, and I'm worried about a circular firing squad on the Democratic side, as Schwarzenegger cruises to victory. (That's how this thing would go if it were happening in New York, where I live, or Massachusetts, where I grew up.) Oh well.
Jesse Ventura got away with a term as governor because he took over a state with a strong economy in the midst of a national economic boom. Arnold won't be that lucky. We'll get to see him sweat.
Does every company that helps to produce and sell Iraqi oil now have blanket immunity against all lawsuits and criminal charges? The L.A. Times reports:
An executive order signed by President Bush more than two months ago is raising concerns that U.S. oil companies may have been handed blanket immunity from lawsuits and criminal prosecution in connection with the sale of Iraqi oil.
The Bush administration said Wednesday that the immunity wouldn't be nearly so broad.
But lawyers for various advocacy organizations said the two-page executive order seemed to completely shield oil companies from liability — even if it could be proved that they had committed human rights violations, bribed officials or caused great environmental damage in the course of their Iraqi-related business.
"As written, the executive order appears to cancel the rule of law for the oil industry or anyone else who gets possession or control of Iraqi oil or anything of value related to Iraqi oil," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Washington-based Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that defends whistle-blowers.
The executive order says that
any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void,
with regard to Iraq's Development Fund and
all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.
If the language is taken literally, you can't sue any company working in Iraq for anything -- for instance, "an operator of an oil tanker that suffered a major spill while hauling Iraqi crude could be immune from liability."
The Bushies say they're not interpreting the law that broadly. But the absolutist wording is there.
(Use "clipjoint" and user name and password if you can't read the L.A. Times story.)
An executive order signed by President Bush more than two months ago is raising concerns that U.S. oil companies may have been handed blanket immunity from lawsuits and criminal prosecution in connection with the sale of Iraqi oil.
The Bush administration said Wednesday that the immunity wouldn't be nearly so broad.
But lawyers for various advocacy organizations said the two-page executive order seemed to completely shield oil companies from liability — even if it could be proved that they had committed human rights violations, bribed officials or caused great environmental damage in the course of their Iraqi-related business.
"As written, the executive order appears to cancel the rule of law for the oil industry or anyone else who gets possession or control of Iraqi oil or anything of value related to Iraqi oil," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Washington-based Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that defends whistle-blowers.
The executive order says that
any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void,
with regard to Iraq's Development Fund and
all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.
If the language is taken literally, you can't sue any company working in Iraq for anything -- for instance, "an operator of an oil tanker that suffered a major spill while hauling Iraqi crude could be immune from liability."
The Bushies say they're not interpreting the law that broadly. But the absolutist wording is there.
(Use "clipjoint" and user name and password if you can't read the L.A. Times story.)
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
The congresswoman who has introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. House is expressing some frustration with political colleagues who don't think the legislation is necessary.
Marilyn Musgrave is a Republican from Colorado. The Christian legislator believes a constitutional amendment that enshrines God's definition of marriage is the only way to stop unselected judges from forcing homosexual marriage on a nation that does not want it....
--Agape Press
Congresswoman Musgrave thinks gay marriage is bad. But apparently she doesn't mind getting money from people who hang out with overt racists.
In 2002, her campaign "received $4,956 from the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund - $2,500 in cash and the rest in-kind donations of mailing list rentals or printing," according to the Rocky Mountain News. The head of Gun Owners of America is Larry Pratt, who also used GOA's Web site to urge others to give to Musgrave. Now, back in the 1990s, according to the News, a rally was set to take place in Estes Park, Colorado, and Mr. Pratt wanted to talk about guns there.
Estes Park, in 1992, always seems to follow Larry Pratt.
It was 10 years ago, Pratt said, and he didn't check the guest list at the rally, organized by the leader of a virulently racist, anti-Semitic group.
Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said he was there to get out his absolutist view on the repeal of gun laws. If others were there to spew hate, that was their business, he said.
That explanation wasn't enough to preserve his job as campaign co-chairman for Pat Buchanan's presidential run in 1996....
Pratt said he had been in touch with Pete Peters of the Christian Identity movement, who organized the Estes Park rally, until 1996, when word of his associations surfaced and he left the Buchanan campaign under pressure. Pratt also said he appeared as recently as a year ago on militia radio in Michigan.
And in November, he will be addressing the Virginia chapter of the League of the South, which the Southern Poverty Law Center added to its list of hate groups in 2000 as a neo-Confederate organization.
The guy is far enough out on the racist fringe that Pat Buchanan gives him a wide berth, but Marilyn Musgrave thinks he's OK. And, hey, she hates gay marriage, so God must agree with her ... right?
Marilyn Musgrave is a Republican from Colorado. The Christian legislator believes a constitutional amendment that enshrines God's definition of marriage is the only way to stop unselected judges from forcing homosexual marriage on a nation that does not want it....
--Agape Press
Congresswoman Musgrave thinks gay marriage is bad. But apparently she doesn't mind getting money from people who hang out with overt racists.
In 2002, her campaign "received $4,956 from the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund - $2,500 in cash and the rest in-kind donations of mailing list rentals or printing," according to the Rocky Mountain News. The head of Gun Owners of America is Larry Pratt, who also used GOA's Web site to urge others to give to Musgrave. Now, back in the 1990s, according to the News, a rally was set to take place in Estes Park, Colorado, and Mr. Pratt wanted to talk about guns there.
Estes Park, in 1992, always seems to follow Larry Pratt.
It was 10 years ago, Pratt said, and he didn't check the guest list at the rally, organized by the leader of a virulently racist, anti-Semitic group.
Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said he was there to get out his absolutist view on the repeal of gun laws. If others were there to spew hate, that was their business, he said.
That explanation wasn't enough to preserve his job as campaign co-chairman for Pat Buchanan's presidential run in 1996....
Pratt said he had been in touch with Pete Peters of the Christian Identity movement, who organized the Estes Park rally, until 1996, when word of his associations surfaced and he left the Buchanan campaign under pressure. Pratt also said he appeared as recently as a year ago on militia radio in Michigan.
And in November, he will be addressing the Virginia chapter of the League of the South, which the Southern Poverty Law Center added to its list of hate groups in 2000 as a neo-Confederate organization.
The guy is far enough out on the racist fringe that Pat Buchanan gives him a wide berth, but Marilyn Musgrave thinks he's OK. And, hey, she hates gay marriage, so God must agree with her ... right?
LET'S LEARN TO COUNT WITH NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE!
I have never liked homosexuality, nor tried to hide that fact; but ... I have always thought that the criminalization of homosexual acts was both foolish, and inhumane, and un-Christian.
--John Derbyshire at NRO's blog, The Corner
(Thanks to Agenda Bender for the link.)
I have never liked homosexuality, nor tried to hide that fact; but ... I have always thought that the criminalization of homosexual acts was both foolish, and inhumane, and un-Christian.
--John Derbyshire at NRO's blog, The Corner
(Thanks to Agenda Bender for the link.)
Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders say they dropped firebombs similar to napalm on Iraqi troops earlier this year, according to a report published Tuesday.
The Marines say that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad.
"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.
"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," Alles added.
He could not provide estimates of Iraqi casualties.
"The generals love napalm," said Alles. "It has a big psychological effect."
The firebombs were used again in April against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, the Marines said....
--San Francisco Chronicle
(And here's the San Diego Union-Tribune story.)
The Marines say that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad.
"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.
"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," Alles added.
He could not provide estimates of Iraqi casualties.
"The generals love napalm," said Alles. "It has a big psychological effect."
The firebombs were used again in April against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, the Marines said....
--San Francisco Chronicle
(And here's the San Diego Union-Tribune story.)
A federal judge has again rebuffed Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who had a massive granite Ten Commandments monument installed in the state's judicial building (and whose best-known defender is Bush judicial nominee William Pryor). But this could get ugly: A defiant Moore is invoking (surprise!) states' rights:
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's Judicial Building within 15 days.
The federal judge, who has ruled the 5,300-pound monument violates the constitutional ban on government promotion of religion, lifted a stay he had previously issued while Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore appealed.
Moore, whose stand was rejected by an appeals court, has said he will turn next to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling by Judge Myron Thompson came a day after Moore filed a brief claiming Thompson did not have the authority to make him remove the black granite monument from the building's rotunda. Moore contends Alabama's constitution permits the acknowledgment of God by the state and that the federal court has no jurisdiction to order the state to act otherwise.
--AP (emphsasis mine)
Yikes.
This won't play out until the Supreme Court rules (or declines to rule and lets this decision stand) -- but sooner or later there could be hell to pay:
Several religious groups have called on Christians across the country to come to Montgomery and kneel around the monument to prevent its removal.
John Giles, president of the Alabama Christian Coalition, said there would be a showdown if Thompson attempts to have the monument removed.
"The encroachment of the federal court on this matter will be met with considerable peaceful intervention," Giles said.
Peaceful? Well, maybe. In any case, I'm not looking forward to it.
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's Judicial Building within 15 days.
The federal judge, who has ruled the 5,300-pound monument violates the constitutional ban on government promotion of religion, lifted a stay he had previously issued while Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore appealed.
Moore, whose stand was rejected by an appeals court, has said he will turn next to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling by Judge Myron Thompson came a day after Moore filed a brief claiming Thompson did not have the authority to make him remove the black granite monument from the building's rotunda. Moore contends Alabama's constitution permits the acknowledgment of God by the state and that the federal court has no jurisdiction to order the state to act otherwise.
--AP (emphsasis mine)
Yikes.
This won't play out until the Supreme Court rules (or declines to rule and lets this decision stand) -- but sooner or later there could be hell to pay:
Several religious groups have called on Christians across the country to come to Montgomery and kneel around the monument to prevent its removal.
John Giles, president of the Alabama Christian Coalition, said there would be a showdown if Thompson attempts to have the monument removed.
"The encroachment of the federal court on this matter will be met with considerable peaceful intervention," Giles said.
Peaceful? Well, maybe. In any case, I'm not looking forward to it.
I am Catholic. I was nominated to be a federal judge by President Clinton. I was blocked by Republicans.
I was opposed by Republicans because my adherence to Catholic principles of social justice put me at odds with them and their values of social injustice.
That's from a righteously angry op-ed piece in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram by Michael Schattman, in response to scurrilous and inflammatory remarks by Senator Orrin Hatch and the demagogy of a so-called Committee for Justice. Republicans blocked Schattman, but now accuse opponents of the conservative Catholic appointee William Pryor of religious bigotry. Schattman writes:
Hatch, joined by other non-Catholic Republicans, even had the temerity to announce what made a "good Catholic" and therefore define other Catholics as bad.
The truth, which became painfully obvious as we prepared to attack Iraq, is that most Catholic Americans are "cafeteria Catholics," who choose from among the practices and principles offered by the church to the faithful.
There was no mass exodus from the military of Catholic chaplains and service personnel after the pope condemned the war. They made their peace between God and Caesar.
There is still no mass uprising of the Catholic right against the death penalty.
The only dish that most of these Catholics choose from the doctrinal cafeteria is opposition to abortion. This is the only Catholic position respected by fundamentalist Protestants -- not because it is Catholic doctrine but because it mirrors their own.
Amen.
(Thanks to Tapped for spotting this op-ed.)
I was opposed by Republicans because my adherence to Catholic principles of social justice put me at odds with them and their values of social injustice.
That's from a righteously angry op-ed piece in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram by Michael Schattman, in response to scurrilous and inflammatory remarks by Senator Orrin Hatch and the demagogy of a so-called Committee for Justice. Republicans blocked Schattman, but now accuse opponents of the conservative Catholic appointee William Pryor of religious bigotry. Schattman writes:
Hatch, joined by other non-Catholic Republicans, even had the temerity to announce what made a "good Catholic" and therefore define other Catholics as bad.
The truth, which became painfully obvious as we prepared to attack Iraq, is that most Catholic Americans are "cafeteria Catholics," who choose from among the practices and principles offered by the church to the faithful.
There was no mass exodus from the military of Catholic chaplains and service personnel after the pope condemned the war. They made their peace between God and Caesar.
There is still no mass uprising of the Catholic right against the death penalty.
The only dish that most of these Catholics choose from the doctrinal cafeteria is opposition to abortion. This is the only Catholic position respected by fundamentalist Protestants -- not because it is Catholic doctrine but because it mirrors their own.
Amen.
(Thanks to Tapped for spotting this op-ed.)
Yesterday I mocked the results of a poll of conservative bloggers, conducted by the blog Right Wing News, that was meant to determine the twenty worst figures in American history. Now Right Wing News has asked me to participate in a similar survey of lefty bloggers. I'm honored, I guess. I have until Friday at midnight to e-mail my picks, and I'm suddenly painfully aware of the massive lacunae in my knowledge of U.S. history. (Apparently, many of the righty bloggers RWN surveyed had no such anxieties and simply chose the last twenty people Sean Hannity insulted on his TV show.) If there are scoundrels you think I might inadvertently leave out, feel free to e-mail me at nomoremister@hotmail.com. I probably won't respond to most e-mails on this subject, and quite possibly I won't agree with some of your suggestions, but I'll be deeply grateful for your comments nonetheless.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Here’s David Brooks, writing in Bobos in Paradise, his book on upscale “bourgeois bohemians,” which was published in the spring of 2000:
Thanks in large part to the influence of the Bobo establishment, we are living in an era of relative social peace....[T]he college campuses are not aflame with angry protests. Intellectual life is diverse, but you wouldn’t say that radicalism of the left or right is exactly on the march. Passions are muted.
Here’s Brooks now, writing in a recent issue of The Atlantic, as quoted at National Review Online:
What we are looking at here is human nature. People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That's called community. It probably would be psychologically difficult for most Brown professors to share an office with someone who was pro-life, a member of the National Rifle Association, or an evangelical Christian. It's likely that hiring committees would subtly -- even unconsciously -- screen out any such people they encountered. Republicans and evangelical Christians have sensed that they are not welcome at places like Brown, so they don't even consider working there. In fact, any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool.
You see the difference. This is why I’m not pleased that Brooks will soon be a regular op-ed columnist in The New York Times. The Brooks of the late Clinton era may have had doubts about certain characteristics of his Bobos, but he thought they’d brought many good things to American life, even though so many of them were liberals (and many had been left-wing radicals). Now, by contrast, he sees a world out of balance, a world in which flabby, effete coastal moral relativists lord it over upright real Americans with a clear, God-given sense of right and wrong. In other words, he holds a lot of us in utter contempt -- and he’ll be using The New York Times to tell the world why. Why should we pay him to insult us when readers of the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times don’t have to do anything of the kind?
Thanks in large part to the influence of the Bobo establishment, we are living in an era of relative social peace....[T]he college campuses are not aflame with angry protests. Intellectual life is diverse, but you wouldn’t say that radicalism of the left or right is exactly on the march. Passions are muted.
Here’s Brooks now, writing in a recent issue of The Atlantic, as quoted at National Review Online:
What we are looking at here is human nature. People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That's called community. It probably would be psychologically difficult for most Brown professors to share an office with someone who was pro-life, a member of the National Rifle Association, or an evangelical Christian. It's likely that hiring committees would subtly -- even unconsciously -- screen out any such people they encountered. Republicans and evangelical Christians have sensed that they are not welcome at places like Brown, so they don't even consider working there. In fact, any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool.
You see the difference. This is why I’m not pleased that Brooks will soon be a regular op-ed columnist in The New York Times. The Brooks of the late Clinton era may have had doubts about certain characteristics of his Bobos, but he thought they’d brought many good things to American life, even though so many of them were liberals (and many had been left-wing radicals). Now, by contrast, he sees a world out of balance, a world in which flabby, effete coastal moral relativists lord it over upright real Americans with a clear, God-given sense of right and wrong. In other words, he holds a lot of us in utter contempt -- and he’ll be using The New York Times to tell the world why. Why should we pay him to insult us when readers of the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times don’t have to do anything of the kind?
Compare and contrast:
BUSINESSES STILL AREN'T HIRING. Businesses are still relying on productivity gains, not hiring, to generate any increases in output. So, while the economy has lost more than 1 million jobs over the last five quarters, real gross domestic product still grew at an annual rate of 2.8%.
--chart published in BusinessWeek earlier this year
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday there is no need to increase U.S. armed forces for now even though the military is being stretched by commitments in Iraq and elsewhere....
He said there were steps that could be taken to improve the efficiency of current troop levels, including putting civilians in jobs now being done by as many as 380,000 people in uniform.
"That's a pile of people," he said. "They need to be doing military functions."
--AP
To understand, Rumsfeld, just try to think like a CEO. If you're a CEO, you just keep squeezing your existing workers, demanding more and more work from them, maybe even new tasks they aren't trained to do, and you dare them to quit. As long as your fellow CEOs aren't hiring either, your workers will just grumble, stay late at the office and do what you tell them to do.
The difference, of course, is that when you do this in the civilian world, you just get crummy morale and corner-cutting. When you do it in a war zone, people die.
BUSINESSES STILL AREN'T HIRING. Businesses are still relying on productivity gains, not hiring, to generate any increases in output. So, while the economy has lost more than 1 million jobs over the last five quarters, real gross domestic product still grew at an annual rate of 2.8%.
--chart published in BusinessWeek earlier this year
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday there is no need to increase U.S. armed forces for now even though the military is being stretched by commitments in Iraq and elsewhere....
He said there were steps that could be taken to improve the efficiency of current troop levels, including putting civilians in jobs now being done by as many as 380,000 people in uniform.
"That's a pile of people," he said. "They need to be doing military functions."
--AP
To understand, Rumsfeld, just try to think like a CEO. If you're a CEO, you just keep squeezing your existing workers, demanding more and more work from them, maybe even new tasks they aren't trained to do, and you dare them to quit. As long as your fellow CEOs aren't hiring either, your workers will just grumble, stay late at the office and do what you tell them to do.
The difference, of course, is that when you do this in the civilian world, you just get crummy morale and corner-cutting. When you do it in a war zone, people die.
An article from the Uruguay-based English-language Merco Press says:
Patagonia is undergoing the strongest warming process ever in the last four hundred years according to a report jointly elaborated by Argentine and Chilean scientists, and published in the latest edition of the Dutch magazine, Climatic Change.
The report, “Long term climatic changes in the Southern Andes: variations in the XX century in the context of the last 400 years” consists in the reconstruction of temperature patterns in north and south Patagonia since 1640 based on the growth rings of autochthonous trees particularly the Nothofagus Pumilio, locally known as lenga, which grow from northern Neuquén to Tierra del Fuego. ...
This is the kind of thing that makes right-wingers snicker behind their hands, but if it's true, it's not good news.
Patagonia is undergoing the strongest warming process ever in the last four hundred years according to a report jointly elaborated by Argentine and Chilean scientists, and published in the latest edition of the Dutch magazine, Climatic Change.
The report, “Long term climatic changes in the Southern Andes: variations in the XX century in the context of the last 400 years” consists in the reconstruction of temperature patterns in north and south Patagonia since 1640 based on the growth rings of autochthonous trees particularly the Nothofagus Pumilio, locally known as lenga, which grow from northern Neuquén to Tierra del Fuego. ...
This is the kind of thing that makes right-wingers snicker behind their hands, but if it's true, it's not good news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)