Scattered in among my links now are Nathan Newman, Open Source Politics, Opinions You Should Have, and corrente. Good luck finding 'em -- to paraphrase the sign in Travis Bickle's apartment, someday I'm gonna get my links organiz-iz-ized -- but find them you should, and check them out if you haven't.
(Oh, and skippy, too.)
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
$87 BILLION: COMPARE AND CONTRAST
A Washington Post chart puts it in perspective.
(Thanks to Atrios, who also has the chart, here.)
A Washington Post chart puts it in perspective.
(Thanks to Atrios, who also has the chart, here.)
THE CENTRAL BATTLE IN THE WAR ON TERR... WHOOPS, NEVER MIND
NAJAF, Iraq (AP) — Nine of 25 people arrested in the deadly car bombing that killed a prominent Shiite cleric have links to al-Qaeda, a senior police official said Tuesday.
--USA Today, September 2, 2003
NAJAF, Iraq — U.S.-led occupation forces in this holy city have released four of seven suspects arrested in the car bombing here last month that killed more than 100 people, and they have yet to find any direct evidence linking the blast to Al Qaeda or other foreign terrorist groups, officials said Monday.
The four were released because of a lack of proof against them, said Lt. Col. Chris Woodbridge, who heads the Marine battalion occupying Najaf. They were turned over to Iraqi police, Woodbridge said, but U.S. authorities are convinced they were not involved in the attack.
The three suspects still held by U.S. forces remain in custody while authorities check inconsistencies in their statements, but they too may eventually be cleared, Woodbridge said. All seven detainees appear to be Iraqis, despite initial reports that several foreigners were detained....
Early reports after the bombing said that as many as 19 suspects had been detained by Iraqi police, but U.S. officials now say that number appears to be inflated. At one point, Najaf police said two Saudis had been arrested. Another suspect was described as a Jordanian but turned out to be an Iraqi with business dealings in the neighboring Arab nation, Woodbridge said....
Authorities now say those assertions linking the bombing to Al Qaeda or foreigners appear to have been premature.
"This bombing in Najaf could have been done by any number of groups, or even by people who just want to cause trouble and don't want stability in Iraq," Thomas Fuentes, chief FBI investigator in Baghdad, said Monday.
--L.A. Times, September 9, 2003
NAJAF, Iraq (AP) — Nine of 25 people arrested in the deadly car bombing that killed a prominent Shiite cleric have links to al-Qaeda, a senior police official said Tuesday.
--USA Today, September 2, 2003
NAJAF, Iraq — U.S.-led occupation forces in this holy city have released four of seven suspects arrested in the car bombing here last month that killed more than 100 people, and they have yet to find any direct evidence linking the blast to Al Qaeda or other foreign terrorist groups, officials said Monday.
The four were released because of a lack of proof against them, said Lt. Col. Chris Woodbridge, who heads the Marine battalion occupying Najaf. They were turned over to Iraqi police, Woodbridge said, but U.S. authorities are convinced they were not involved in the attack.
The three suspects still held by U.S. forces remain in custody while authorities check inconsistencies in their statements, but they too may eventually be cleared, Woodbridge said. All seven detainees appear to be Iraqis, despite initial reports that several foreigners were detained....
Early reports after the bombing said that as many as 19 suspects had been detained by Iraqi police, but U.S. officials now say that number appears to be inflated. At one point, Najaf police said two Saudis had been arrested. Another suspect was described as a Jordanian but turned out to be an Iraqi with business dealings in the neighboring Arab nation, Woodbridge said....
Authorities now say those assertions linking the bombing to Al Qaeda or foreigners appear to have been premature.
"This bombing in Najaf could have been done by any number of groups, or even by people who just want to cause trouble and don't want stability in Iraq," Thomas Fuentes, chief FBI investigator in Baghdad, said Monday.
--L.A. Times, September 9, 2003
This is inspired:
How about we pitch in to get our troops in Iraq those cutesy license plate holders for their Humvees? You know, the ones that read "We're spending our children's inheritance"?
--Tresy, posting at Corrente (inspired by this L.A. Times story about how even $87 billion won't be enough money for rebuilding in Iraq)
How about we pitch in to get our troops in Iraq those cutesy license plate holders for their Humvees? You know, the ones that read "We're spending our children's inheritance"?
--Tresy, posting at Corrente (inspired by this L.A. Times story about how even $87 billion won't be enough money for rebuilding in Iraq)
Several Dead, 30 Wounded in Israel Homicide Bombing
--headline of a breaking story at Fox News
I'm sorry, but every time Fox resorts to this tic of right-wing political correctness it sticks in my craw. Several people are dead -- is there any need for the word "Homicide" in that headline?
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, you have to understand that it's politically incorrect at Fox News, and elsewhere on the Right, to call such a terrorist act what rational people call it -- what CNN calls it in its headline:
Five Killed in Suicide Bombing Near Tel Aviv
Yes -- it's a suicide bombing.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: When you know that the bomber committed suicide, you know something about that bomber's willingness to part from a reasonable attachment to self-preservation. When your news source follows right-wing-PC diktats and calls the attack a "homicide bombing," you don't know (at least from the headline) that salient fact about the act. (The Fox story does go on to say that "the bombing left at least four dead, including the bomber," but the use of the word "suicide" is apparently strictly forbidden -- it never appears in the story.)
(UPDATE: On what has turned out to be a truly horrible day in the Middle East, CNN now speaks of two suicide bombers, while Fox sticks with "homicide bombers" and stubbornly avoids the un-PC "s" word.)
--headline of a breaking story at Fox News
I'm sorry, but every time Fox resorts to this tic of right-wing political correctness it sticks in my craw. Several people are dead -- is there any need for the word "Homicide" in that headline?
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, you have to understand that it's politically incorrect at Fox News, and elsewhere on the Right, to call such a terrorist act what rational people call it -- what CNN calls it in its headline:
Five Killed in Suicide Bombing Near Tel Aviv
Yes -- it's a suicide bombing.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: When you know that the bomber committed suicide, you know something about that bomber's willingness to part from a reasonable attachment to self-preservation. When your news source follows right-wing-PC diktats and calls the attack a "homicide bombing," you don't know (at least from the headline) that salient fact about the act. (The Fox story does go on to say that "the bombing left at least four dead, including the bomber," but the use of the word "suicide" is apparently strictly forbidden -- it never appears in the story.)
(UPDATE: On what has turned out to be a truly horrible day in the Middle East, CNN now speaks of two suicide bombers, while Fox sticks with "homicide bombers" and stubbornly avoids the un-PC "s" word.)
How pathetic is this paragraph from the 9/11 column Christopher Hitchens published yesterday in Slate?
Let me take the strongest objection to my interpretation, which is that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were exploited by conservatives to settle accounts with Saddam Hussein and that many Americans have been fooled into war by thinking that Iraq was behind the attacks. Leave aside the glaring and germane fact that Saddam was and is in partnership with the forces of jihad; not even the sorriest illusion is in the same category as a book published by The Nation, written by Gore Vidal and flaunted at "anti-war" rallies, which argues that it was essentially George Bush who helped organize and anticipate the atrocity. That's a level of degeneration unplumbed by any other faction. So, the pitiful peaceniks are the chief moral losers, whichever way you slice it.
Let's translate that into plain English:
Some people think Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and so we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Well, those people are wrong and I’m right -- Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots, because I said so. And even if belief in a Saddam–Al Qaeda alliance were looney (which it isn't, because I said so), some people think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, which is way loonier, and if some people who oppose the war believe something that’s really looney, that makes all criticism of the war, even by people who don’t believe anything looney, morally bankrupt (and looney).
OK, that last "(and looney)" isn't really reflected in the Hitchens text. He just thinks we're all moral degenerates.
(And apparently we're far worse degenerates than government officials who coddle the Saudis -- Hitcheypoo criticizes Saudi-coddling elsewhere in the column, but barely has an unkind word to say about the coddlers themselves. I guess Hitchens believes that a private citizen who waves a Gore Vidal book in the street is more reprehensible than a White House that looks the other way while terrorism is enabled.)
Let me take the strongest objection to my interpretation, which is that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were exploited by conservatives to settle accounts with Saddam Hussein and that many Americans have been fooled into war by thinking that Iraq was behind the attacks. Leave aside the glaring and germane fact that Saddam was and is in partnership with the forces of jihad; not even the sorriest illusion is in the same category as a book published by The Nation, written by Gore Vidal and flaunted at "anti-war" rallies, which argues that it was essentially George Bush who helped organize and anticipate the atrocity. That's a level of degeneration unplumbed by any other faction. So, the pitiful peaceniks are the chief moral losers, whichever way you slice it.
Let's translate that into plain English:
Some people think Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and so we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Well, those people are wrong and I’m right -- Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots, because I said so. And even if belief in a Saddam–Al Qaeda alliance were looney (which it isn't, because I said so), some people think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, which is way loonier, and if some people who oppose the war believe something that’s really looney, that makes all criticism of the war, even by people who don’t believe anything looney, morally bankrupt (and looney).
OK, that last "(and looney)" isn't really reflected in the Hitchens text. He just thinks we're all moral degenerates.
(And apparently we're far worse degenerates than government officials who coddle the Saudis -- Hitcheypoo criticizes Saudi-coddling elsewhere in the column, but barely has an unkind word to say about the coddlers themselves. I guess Hitchens believes that a private citizen who waves a Gore Vidal book in the street is more reprehensible than a White House that looks the other way while terrorism is enabled.)
Conservatives will apparently buy any book that says Bill Clinton was evil. Think that means they'll buy the forthcoming book by Joseph Stiglitz, The Roaring Nineties? John Cassidy talks about it in this week's New Yorker.
Stiglitz writes as something of an insider: from 1993 to 1995, he was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers; from 1995 to 1997, he was its chairman. At the time, he was not known to have voiced serious concerns, but now he argues that many of the problems afflicting the country date back to the Clinton Administration. “Americans should face up to the fact that in the very boom were planted some of the seeds of destruction, seeds which would not yield their noxious fruits for several years,” Stiglitz writes. Accounting standards were allowed to slacken, deregulation was mindlessly pursued, and corporate greed indulged. In short, he says, “we were too swept up by the deregulation, pro-business mantra.”
... It was the Clinton Administration, Stiglitz reminds us, that deregulated the two sectors at the center of the boom-bust cycle: telecommunications and finance. It was the Clinton Administration that shifted tax policy in a regressive direction, by cutting the capital-gains tax in 1997. And it was the Clinton Administration that stood idly by as corporate executives exploited captive boards and lax accounting standards to enrich themselves beyond all economic justification.
This is going to be a tough one for conservatives. If they pass up the book, they'll miss a chance to wallow in Clinton-bashing -- which for many of them would be as unthinkable as a junkie passing up a score. But if they embrace the book, they're embracing a critique of their favorite economic patent medicines -- incessant deregulation, tax cuts for the well-to-do, and the cosseting of tycoons.
Me, I have no problem with criticism of Clinton's decision to embrace right-wing snake oil. It used to make me crazy when Clinton failed to articulate the arguments for more progressive policies, while Gingrich and right-wing chat-show blowhards were out there day after day, laying out their case and thus dictating the terms of the debate -- after which Clinton would "accept the inevitable," compromising with the Gingrichoids once again. Blame Clinton? For often being a crypto-Republican, sure, why not?
Stiglitz writes as something of an insider: from 1993 to 1995, he was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers; from 1995 to 1997, he was its chairman. At the time, he was not known to have voiced serious concerns, but now he argues that many of the problems afflicting the country date back to the Clinton Administration. “Americans should face up to the fact that in the very boom were planted some of the seeds of destruction, seeds which would not yield their noxious fruits for several years,” Stiglitz writes. Accounting standards were allowed to slacken, deregulation was mindlessly pursued, and corporate greed indulged. In short, he says, “we were too swept up by the deregulation, pro-business mantra.”
... It was the Clinton Administration, Stiglitz reminds us, that deregulated the two sectors at the center of the boom-bust cycle: telecommunications and finance. It was the Clinton Administration that shifted tax policy in a regressive direction, by cutting the capital-gains tax in 1997. And it was the Clinton Administration that stood idly by as corporate executives exploited captive boards and lax accounting standards to enrich themselves beyond all economic justification.
This is going to be a tough one for conservatives. If they pass up the book, they'll miss a chance to wallow in Clinton-bashing -- which for many of them would be as unthinkable as a junkie passing up a score. But if they embrace the book, they're embracing a critique of their favorite economic patent medicines -- incessant deregulation, tax cuts for the well-to-do, and the cosseting of tycoons.
Me, I have no problem with criticism of Clinton's decision to embrace right-wing snake oil. It used to make me crazy when Clinton failed to articulate the arguments for more progressive policies, while Gingrich and right-wing chat-show blowhards were out there day after day, laying out their case and thus dictating the terms of the debate -- after which Clinton would "accept the inevitable," compromising with the Gingrichoids once again. Blame Clinton? For often being a crypto-Republican, sure, why not?
Monday, September 08, 2003
The most heartening recent poll is, of course, the Zogby poll that shows Bush with a 45% positive and 54% negative rating; of this poll's respondents, "a majority (52%) said it’s time for someone new in the White House, while just two in five (40%) said the president deserves to be re-elected."
A new ABC News poll isn't nearly as satisfying, but it contains some signs that the public is starting to get the point:
...71 percent [of Americans] still worry about further major [terrorist] attacks — and fewer than half, 45 percent, are confident the government can prevent them.
Indeed, one of the biggest changes in the last year is a decline in the number of Americans who think the Bush administration is doing a good job handling the war on terrorism — still a majority, but down 18 points from a year ago, to 55 percent....
Another concern is Osama bin Laden: With reports of continued al Qaeda-inspired attacks, the number of Americans who say he must be killed or captured for the war on terrorism to be a success has jumped, from 44 percent a year ago to 62 percent now.
Bush's overall job approval rating, which soared to a record 92 percent shortly after the attacks, dipped to 56 percent in this poll, its lowest since before 9/11.
ABC ascribes the dip in Bush's approval to the economy, but
...Forty-nine percent now approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, down from 56 percent in late August and from 75 percent in late April.
Interesting.
A new ABC News poll isn't nearly as satisfying, but it contains some signs that the public is starting to get the point:
...71 percent [of Americans] still worry about further major [terrorist] attacks — and fewer than half, 45 percent, are confident the government can prevent them.
Indeed, one of the biggest changes in the last year is a decline in the number of Americans who think the Bush administration is doing a good job handling the war on terrorism — still a majority, but down 18 points from a year ago, to 55 percent....
Another concern is Osama bin Laden: With reports of continued al Qaeda-inspired attacks, the number of Americans who say he must be killed or captured for the war on terrorism to be a success has jumped, from 44 percent a year ago to 62 percent now.
Bush's overall job approval rating, which soared to a record 92 percent shortly after the attacks, dipped to 56 percent in this poll, its lowest since before 9/11.
ABC ascribes the dip in Bush's approval to the economy, but
...Forty-nine percent now approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, down from 56 percent in late August and from 75 percent in late April.
Interesting.
Today, as you may know, Donald Rumsfeld essentially accused anyone who disagrees with the administration of treason, but he wasn't the only one throwing around charges of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Joining him was the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), which ran this ad, headlined "Unwittingly Aiding Al-Qaeda" (warning: it's a PDF file), on the op-ed page of today's print New York Times. Sample text:
instead of putting their ideological biases aside, professional activists have worked to obstruct common-sense anti-terror tactics with a torrent of lawsuits and media demagoguery....How amused our enemies must be to find some Americans pushing to extend absolute rights and other legal courtesies to deadly al-Qaeda foot soldiers.
Back in January, Dwight Meredith of P.L.A. (who's giving up blogging and will be missed) noted that the WLF was trying "to prevent funding of legal representation for the poor by attacking the constitutionality of IOLTA (Interest On Lawyer Trust Account) programs." Meredith wrote,
WLF has litigated a case with a potential recovery of $20 all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States in order to, in its own words, “deal a death blow” to groups that provide legal representation for the poor.
(Meredith gives details of the case here.)
Meredith (with an assist from blogger Skimble) notes that WLF pursues ideological lawsuits like this despite the fact that it's a 501(c)(3) corporation, which means that contributions to it are tax-deductible. Meredith also links to a list of WLF's many fat-cat donors (tobacco companies, big drug companies, etc.) and a list of foundation donors (Scaife, Scaife, Olin, Scaife, Olin, Olin...).
Here's the WLF Web site. The foundation specializes in, among other things "business civil liberties" litigation. In other words, it's a plucky fighter attempting to obtain justice for poor, downtrodden megacorporations.
With tax-deductible contributions.
Some of which are used to lecture us on patriotism.
instead of putting their ideological biases aside, professional activists have worked to obstruct common-sense anti-terror tactics with a torrent of lawsuits and media demagoguery....How amused our enemies must be to find some Americans pushing to extend absolute rights and other legal courtesies to deadly al-Qaeda foot soldiers.
Back in January, Dwight Meredith of P.L.A. (who's giving up blogging and will be missed) noted that the WLF was trying "to prevent funding of legal representation for the poor by attacking the constitutionality of IOLTA (Interest On Lawyer Trust Account) programs." Meredith wrote,
WLF has litigated a case with a potential recovery of $20 all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States in order to, in its own words, “deal a death blow” to groups that provide legal representation for the poor.
(Meredith gives details of the case here.)
Meredith (with an assist from blogger Skimble) notes that WLF pursues ideological lawsuits like this despite the fact that it's a 501(c)(3) corporation, which means that contributions to it are tax-deductible. Meredith also links to a list of WLF's many fat-cat donors (tobacco companies, big drug companies, etc.) and a list of foundation donors (Scaife, Scaife, Olin, Scaife, Olin, Olin...).
Here's the WLF Web site. The foundation specializes in, among other things "business civil liberties" litigation. In other words, it's a plucky fighter attempting to obtain justice for poor, downtrodden megacorporations.
With tax-deductible contributions.
Some of which are used to lecture us on patriotism.
From a story on the search for bin Laden at ABCNews.com:
U.S. special forces are stationed across the border [with Pakistan] in Afghanistan with approximately 45 checkpoints should bin Laden head there, but authorities said there are many unfrequented routes and it is impossible to seal the entire border.
Special forces in Afghanistan, however, are not as specialized as they once were, [former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince] Cannistraro told ABCNEWS. This specifically hurts the hunt because, he added, in order to deploy intelligence resources to collect information on bin Laden, the U.S. needs Arabic speakers.
"If you've drawn off many if not all of your Arabic language resources and sent them off to Iraq you're shorthanded in terms of dealing with intelligence collection problem of fixing bin Laden's location," said Cannistraro. "So there are fewer resources to deal with in trying to basically find and capture, the principal leader of a terrorist organization that's killing Americans."
(Emphasis mine.)
U.S. special forces are stationed across the border [with Pakistan] in Afghanistan with approximately 45 checkpoints should bin Laden head there, but authorities said there are many unfrequented routes and it is impossible to seal the entire border.
Special forces in Afghanistan, however, are not as specialized as they once were, [former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince] Cannistraro told ABCNEWS. This specifically hurts the hunt because, he added, in order to deploy intelligence resources to collect information on bin Laden, the U.S. needs Arabic speakers.
"If you've drawn off many if not all of your Arabic language resources and sent them off to Iraq you're shorthanded in terms of dealing with intelligence collection problem of fixing bin Laden's location," said Cannistraro. "So there are fewer resources to deal with in trying to basically find and capture, the principal leader of a terrorist organization that's killing Americans."
(Emphasis mine.)
"The front lines of freedom": Did that strike you as a memorable phrase in Bush's speech last night? Did it strikes you as a phrase that might make its way into our national memory? Or let me try this another way: Did you even notice that Bush said "the front lines of freedom"? National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg and (again) Kathryn Jean Lopez claim to think it was one for Bartlett's. Are they desperate for straws to grasp, or what?
From The Corner, National Review Online's group blog, last night:
THE SPEECH: I CONFESS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I was half expecting a WMD surprise.
She's kidding, right? No, she's not kidding. She still thinks massive quantities of WMDs are going to be found in Iraq.
Hey Kathryn Jean, wanna buy a bridge?
THE SPEECH: I CONFESS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I was half expecting a WMD surprise.
She's kidding, right? No, she's not kidding. She still thinks massive quantities of WMDs are going to be found in Iraq.
Hey Kathryn Jean, wanna buy a bridge?
U.N. inspectors found Iraq's nuclear program in disarray and unlikely to be able to support an active effort to build weapons, the atomic agency chief said in a confidential report obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reiterated that his experts uncovered no signs of a nuclear weapons program before they withdrew from Iraq just before the war began in March.
The United States and Britain invaded Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein's regime was developing nuclear arms as well as chemical and biological weapons.
"In the areas of uranium acquisition, concentration and centrifuge enrichment, extensive field investigation and document analysis revealed no evidence that Iraq had resumed such activities," ElBaradei said in the report, made available to the AP by a diplomat.
"No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq," he said....
--AP
And, beyond that, there's the Newsweek story that reports,
U.S. analysts are also taking more seriously stories detained Iraqi leaders are telling about what happened to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. U.S. sources say that captured Iraqis insist Saddam’s top strategic objective was to persuade the United Nations to relax sanctions on his regime. So, after Saddam’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel, head of his unconventional weapons programs, defected to Jordan in 1995, Saddam ordered intensified efforts to hide or destroy blueprints, “dual use” technology and any remaining germs or chemicals. Not only was material stashed or obliterated, but records showing what had been destroyed were also pulped. Some U.S. and British intel officials still say stockpiles of chemical or biological agents will turn up. But U.S. Defense analysts are paying more attention to a “working hypothesis,” based on stories told by Iraqi captives, that no live WMD may ever be found.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reiterated that his experts uncovered no signs of a nuclear weapons program before they withdrew from Iraq just before the war began in March.
The United States and Britain invaded Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein's regime was developing nuclear arms as well as chemical and biological weapons.
"In the areas of uranium acquisition, concentration and centrifuge enrichment, extensive field investigation and document analysis revealed no evidence that Iraq had resumed such activities," ElBaradei said in the report, made available to the AP by a diplomat.
"No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq," he said....
--AP
And, beyond that, there's the Newsweek story that reports,
U.S. analysts are also taking more seriously stories detained Iraqi leaders are telling about what happened to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. U.S. sources say that captured Iraqis insist Saddam’s top strategic objective was to persuade the United Nations to relax sanctions on his regime. So, after Saddam’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel, head of his unconventional weapons programs, defected to Jordan in 1995, Saddam ordered intensified efforts to hide or destroy blueprints, “dual use” technology and any remaining germs or chemicals. Not only was material stashed or obliterated, but records showing what had been destroyed were also pulped. Some U.S. and British intel officials still say stockpiles of chemical or biological agents will turn up. But U.S. Defense analysts are paying more attention to a “working hypothesis,” based on stories told by Iraqi captives, that no live WMD may ever be found.
Remember the little " ____ days without U.S. death" sign in this cartoon? Well, now life imitates art.
(And it appears that there's yet more damage to the Iraq-Turkey pipeline.)
(And it appears that there's yet more damage to the Iraq-Turkey pipeline.)
Iraq Pipeline May Be Out for 2 Weeks
--CNN/Money, August 17, 2003
Iraq-Turkey Oil Pipeline Down Another 5 Weeks - Army
--Reuters, September 8, 2003
--CNN/Money, August 17, 2003
Iraq-Turkey Oil Pipeline Down Another 5 Weeks - Army
--Reuters, September 8, 2003
GOP chairman Ed Gillespie whined on Meet the Press yesterday about tough rhetoric from Democratic presidential hopefuls.
So I guess that means he'll immediately distance himself from Ben Stein, the actor, game-show host, former Nixon speechwriter, and proud Bush supporter, who said in an interview published Saturday that Gray Davis is "a thug...a thug in a gray flannel suit."
Right?
So I guess that means he'll immediately distance himself from Ben Stein, the actor, game-show host, former Nixon speechwriter, and proud Bush supporter, who said in an interview published Saturday that Gray Davis is "a thug...a thug in a gray flannel suit."
Right?
The weirdest thing about the speech last night was Bush's demeanor. We got Sincere, Earnest, Almost Contrite Bush; gone was Desperately Trying to Refrain from Calling Everyone Who Disagrees with Me an Idiot Bush, whom we saw in the press conference just before the war and, most recently, in a Labor Day speech defending his tax cuts.
You could say the speech had an Eddie Haskell quality, except that Eddie Haskell used to shift gears only to fool the Cleavers; Bush almost seemed to be fooling himself. Does he really think he's the nice guy he strained to be last night? If so, that's close to pathological.
He said "free" and "freedom" 21 times (in a speech of 2,276 words); he said "Osama" and "bin Laden" 0 times.
Bush was an oil man and his father was an oil man. What you do when you're an oil man is go for the big win, the huge strike that will make you not merely successful but wildly successful all at once, and until the time comes that you have that huge success you continually ask people for money so you can stay in the game.
As writers on Bush (Bill Minutaglio, Molly Ivins/Lou DuBose) have pointed out, oil men call the object of their quest an "elephant field" -- a stretch of land that provides gusher after gusher. Iraq was supposed to be an elephant field. A victory in Iraq was supposed to transform the region completely and almost instantly, producing one nice, compliant Middle East regime after another, as if by magic. It was a ridiculous, outlandish notion, but Bush was a second-generation oil man -- in his experience, mature, rational adults are supposed to believe in ridiculous, outlandish notions of instant transformation.
We have to pony up to keep him in the game, but I bet on some level he still thinks this will someday pay for itself, if not pay off big time -- after all, that's the way things work in Midland, Texas.
You could say the speech had an Eddie Haskell quality, except that Eddie Haskell used to shift gears only to fool the Cleavers; Bush almost seemed to be fooling himself. Does he really think he's the nice guy he strained to be last night? If so, that's close to pathological.
He said "free" and "freedom" 21 times (in a speech of 2,276 words); he said "Osama" and "bin Laden" 0 times.
Bush was an oil man and his father was an oil man. What you do when you're an oil man is go for the big win, the huge strike that will make you not merely successful but wildly successful all at once, and until the time comes that you have that huge success you continually ask people for money so you can stay in the game.
As writers on Bush (Bill Minutaglio, Molly Ivins/Lou DuBose) have pointed out, oil men call the object of their quest an "elephant field" -- a stretch of land that provides gusher after gusher. Iraq was supposed to be an elephant field. A victory in Iraq was supposed to transform the region completely and almost instantly, producing one nice, compliant Middle East regime after another, as if by magic. It was a ridiculous, outlandish notion, but Bush was a second-generation oil man -- in his experience, mature, rational adults are supposed to believe in ridiculous, outlandish notions of instant transformation.
We have to pony up to keep him in the game, but I bet on some level he still thinks this will someday pay for itself, if not pay off big time -- after all, that's the way things work in Midland, Texas.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Another New York Times story from Friday that's well worth reading is this one on Big Pharma's rather spectacularly successful efforts to keep any government price controls out of legislation providing prescription drug benefits for seniors. And, gee, guess which of the two major parties was key to Pharma's victory?
In a letter dated April 9, 1999, Jim Nicholson, then the Republican National Committee chairman, wrote to Charles A. Heimbold Jr., then the chief executive of Bristol-Myers, to discuss plans for a coalition to lobby for issues important to drug companies.
"We must keep the lines of communication open if we want to continue passing legislation that will benefit your industry," Mr. Nicholson wrote in the letter....
Like that one? Here's another:
...when Mr. Bush won the election, the drug makers celebrated. As one industry executive said, "There were a lot of high-fives around here."
One more:
"Having both houses of Congress Republican-controlled was great," one drug lobbyist said. "Like in Monopoly, when you get to add hotels."
But read the whole story, and get mad.
In a letter dated April 9, 1999, Jim Nicholson, then the Republican National Committee chairman, wrote to Charles A. Heimbold Jr., then the chief executive of Bristol-Myers, to discuss plans for a coalition to lobby for issues important to drug companies.
"We must keep the lines of communication open if we want to continue passing legislation that will benefit your industry," Mr. Nicholson wrote in the letter....
Like that one? Here's another:
...when Mr. Bush won the election, the drug makers celebrated. As one industry executive said, "There were a lot of high-fives around here."
One more:
"Having both houses of Congress Republican-controlled was great," one drug lobbyist said. "Like in Monopoly, when you get to add hotels."
But read the whole story, and get mad.
A story from Friday I neglected to link....
More than 100,000 low-income families could lose their rent subsidies next year under a spending bill passed today by a Senate committee and recently approved by the House, housing advocates said.
The advocates cited a new study by the Congressional Budget Office.
If the nonpartisan budget office's forecast of housing costs next year proves accurate, it could be the first time in the 30-year history of the federal housing voucher program that Congress has failed to renew all existing vouchers. Under the program, known as Section 8, the vouchers pay the difference between the market rent of an apartment and 30 percent of a household's income....
To ensure that all vouchers were paid for, Congress has in previous years often appropriated more money than necessary. This year, Congress changed the financing to focus on the target of vouchers more closely. The new formula requires an extremely accurate prediction of costs to keep all vouchers renewed....
--New York Times
Look, I'm sure there are conservatives who can make eloquent arguments for cutting this program back or even eliminating it altogether. If so, they should step up to the microphone and explain why it's good for the country to throw widows and orphans out on the street. Instead, the White House and the GOP Congress are changing course after three decades, yet they're claiming not to be ("At the present time," an assistant housing secretary says, disingenuously, "we believe what has been allocated will be sufficient to take care of the number of vouchers we have"). It's cruel, but it's standard operating procedure for these guys, isn't it?
More than 100,000 low-income families could lose their rent subsidies next year under a spending bill passed today by a Senate committee and recently approved by the House, housing advocates said.
The advocates cited a new study by the Congressional Budget Office.
If the nonpartisan budget office's forecast of housing costs next year proves accurate, it could be the first time in the 30-year history of the federal housing voucher program that Congress has failed to renew all existing vouchers. Under the program, known as Section 8, the vouchers pay the difference between the market rent of an apartment and 30 percent of a household's income....
To ensure that all vouchers were paid for, Congress has in previous years often appropriated more money than necessary. This year, Congress changed the financing to focus on the target of vouchers more closely. The new formula requires an extremely accurate prediction of costs to keep all vouchers renewed....
--New York Times
Look, I'm sure there are conservatives who can make eloquent arguments for cutting this program back or even eliminating it altogether. If so, they should step up to the microphone and explain why it's good for the country to throw widows and orphans out on the street. Instead, the White House and the GOP Congress are changing course after three decades, yet they're claiming not to be ("At the present time," an assistant housing secretary says, disingenuously, "we believe what has been allocated will be sufficient to take care of the number of vouchers we have"). It's cruel, but it's standard operating procedure for these guys, isn't it?
Unidentified assailants fired at least one surface-to-air missile at a C-141 U.S. military cargo plane as it took off from Baghdad International Airport, but failed to hit it, coalition provisional authorities said.
The attempted strike occurred around 5:30 a.m. (0130 GMT) on Saturday, hours before U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrapped up his visit to Iraq. Details of the incident were made available on Sunday.
The missile was detected both visually and instrumentally, officials said.
The incident -- which caused no injuries or damage -- is the third of its kind since Washington declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1...
--CNN
According to a later CNN story, that three-attack figure isn't exactly accurate:
Without offering any details, coalition military spokesman Col. George Kirvo said that such incidents have happened "many times" in the past....
Don't say I never told you that this kind of thing is happening.
The attempted strike occurred around 5:30 a.m. (0130 GMT) on Saturday, hours before U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrapped up his visit to Iraq. Details of the incident were made available on Sunday.
The missile was detected both visually and instrumentally, officials said.
The incident -- which caused no injuries or damage -- is the third of its kind since Washington declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1...
--CNN
According to a later CNN story, that three-attack figure isn't exactly accurate:
Without offering any details, coalition military spokesman Col. George Kirvo said that such incidents have happened "many times" in the past....
Don't say I never told you that this kind of thing is happening.
Friday, September 05, 2003
COMFORT, Texas -- The father of a Texas soldier killed in an ambush in Iraq that former prisoner of war Jessica Lynch survived said that Lynch's million-dollar book deal will taint the memory of the soldiers killed in the ambush.
"Pretty severe, isn't it?" Randy Kiehl, the father of Army Spc. James Kiehl, said Wednesday from his home in Comfort, Texas. "That she makes money off the death of my son and off the deaths of so many others."
James Kiehl was among seven members of the 507th Maintenance Company stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, killed in the ambush on March 23 near An Nasiriyah. Lynch survived the attack and was taken prisoner of war. She was later rescued from a hospital and became a national hero.
On Tuesday, a publisher announced that Lynch signed a $1 million deal for a book that will tell the story about her capture and rescue.
"Where's the million-dollar book deal for the other members of the 507th who were killed?" Randy Kiehl said. "How do they tell their story?..."
--WDIV TV (Detroit)
Unfortunately, Jessica Lynch is blond, cute, photogenic, and alive. She was a poster child for the war at a moment when it wasn't going as well as expected. For a while she made it possible for the Pentagon to tell a simple story of an ordinary young person who found courage under fire and defied the malign wishes of swarthy embodiments of pure evil. Real life, of course, is more complicated than that -- Jessica Lynch's story wasn't as well shaped as the myth that formed around her, and James Kiehl's story was, well, unpleasant, so the administration certainly wouldn't have wanted anyone to dwell on it.
The families of the Iraq War dead are, unfortunately, going to have to watch another round, or several more rounds, of Jessica Lynch hype. I hope these waves of hype are brief. I hope somehow the families find solace.
(Link via Publishers Lunch.)
"Pretty severe, isn't it?" Randy Kiehl, the father of Army Spc. James Kiehl, said Wednesday from his home in Comfort, Texas. "That she makes money off the death of my son and off the deaths of so many others."
James Kiehl was among seven members of the 507th Maintenance Company stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, killed in the ambush on March 23 near An Nasiriyah. Lynch survived the attack and was taken prisoner of war. She was later rescued from a hospital and became a national hero.
On Tuesday, a publisher announced that Lynch signed a $1 million deal for a book that will tell the story about her capture and rescue.
"Where's the million-dollar book deal for the other members of the 507th who were killed?" Randy Kiehl said. "How do they tell their story?..."
--WDIV TV (Detroit)
Unfortunately, Jessica Lynch is blond, cute, photogenic, and alive. She was a poster child for the war at a moment when it wasn't going as well as expected. For a while she made it possible for the Pentagon to tell a simple story of an ordinary young person who found courage under fire and defied the malign wishes of swarthy embodiments of pure evil. Real life, of course, is more complicated than that -- Jessica Lynch's story wasn't as well shaped as the myth that formed around her, and James Kiehl's story was, well, unpleasant, so the administration certainly wouldn't have wanted anyone to dwell on it.
The families of the Iraq War dead are, unfortunately, going to have to watch another round, or several more rounds, of Jessica Lynch hype. I hope these waves of hype are brief. I hope somehow the families find solace.
(Link via Publishers Lunch.)
One more good find from Rational Enquirer -- and this one, from MSNBC, might be the most infuriating:
A $20 million budget shortfall is forcing cuts at U.S. ports of entry that could impact security, MSNBC.com has learned. The deficit has led officials to make a series of security compromises that include replacing INS inspectors with their less-qualified, lower-paid Customs counterparts on heavily trafficked Sundays and holidays....
“It is imperative that we react quickly at all our locations and that we do not spend money we do not have,” says the July 2 memo written by Denise Crawford, who oversees U.S. Customs and Border Protection field operations in North Florida. Crawford’s memo also notes that, although it’s possible additional money could be found, “any supplemental money that could be allocated will likely fall far short of what we would need based on our current spending levels.”
...In some cases, INS inspectors are simply removed from all overtime work and the port operates short-staffed. In other instances, Customs inspectors are used to fill the jobs typically done by INS personnel.
The sense you get from this story is that some of what's being done is intended, at least in part, to undermine Depression-era pay rules for INS workers -- because, I guess, union-busting is way more important than, you know, preventing another 9/11. Of course, the real question is why we're not committed to paying whatever price is necessary to have the best security we can. But of course we aren't -- this is the Bush administration, after all.
Please read this one.
A $20 million budget shortfall is forcing cuts at U.S. ports of entry that could impact security, MSNBC.com has learned. The deficit has led officials to make a series of security compromises that include replacing INS inspectors with their less-qualified, lower-paid Customs counterparts on heavily trafficked Sundays and holidays....
“It is imperative that we react quickly at all our locations and that we do not spend money we do not have,” says the July 2 memo written by Denise Crawford, who oversees U.S. Customs and Border Protection field operations in North Florida. Crawford’s memo also notes that, although it’s possible additional money could be found, “any supplemental money that could be allocated will likely fall far short of what we would need based on our current spending levels.”
...In some cases, INS inspectors are simply removed from all overtime work and the port operates short-staffed. In other instances, Customs inspectors are used to fill the jobs typically done by INS personnel.
The sense you get from this story is that some of what's being done is intended, at least in part, to undermine Depression-era pay rules for INS workers -- because, I guess, union-busting is way more important than, you know, preventing another 9/11. Of course, the real question is why we're not committed to paying whatever price is necessary to have the best security we can. But of course we aren't -- this is the Bush administration, after all.
Please read this one.
Experts say the driving force behind the opium trade - those with the men, muscle, and motive to keep it going - are Afghanistan's warlords, both within the outlawed Taliban movement and within the ranks of pro-US military commanders who work in the hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants.
So says The Christian Science Monitor.
Lovely -- sort of like the Crips and Bloods, I guess.
(Another one spotted by the Rational Enquirer.)
So says The Christian Science Monitor.
Lovely -- sort of like the Crips and Bloods, I guess.
(Another one spotted by the Rational Enquirer.)
The United States acknowledged it will miss -- by more than three years -- an important international deadline for destroying its arsenal of chemical weapons.
The US Defense Department said in a statement it will not to able to liquidate 45 percent of its chemical stockpile by April 29, 2004, as required by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.
...The military is now expected to reach the elusive milestone by December 2007, the Pentagon said.
No detailed explanation for the postponement was given. But the department pointed out that its chemical demilitarization program "has had several delays due to unresolved political and operational issues that forced operational shutdowns or postponed start-up dates."....
--AFP/Yahoo News
So does this mean that some other country can now declare the U.S. a "rogue nation" that deserves to be bombed to within an inch of its life until "regime change" is accomplished?
(Link via Rational Enquirer.)
The US Defense Department said in a statement it will not to able to liquidate 45 percent of its chemical stockpile by April 29, 2004, as required by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.
...The military is now expected to reach the elusive milestone by December 2007, the Pentagon said.
No detailed explanation for the postponement was given. But the department pointed out that its chemical demilitarization program "has had several delays due to unresolved political and operational issues that forced operational shutdowns or postponed start-up dates."....
--AFP/Yahoo News
So does this mean that some other country can now declare the U.S. a "rogue nation" that deserves to be bombed to within an inch of its life until "regime change" is accomplished?
(Link via Rational Enquirer.)
Sen. Trent Lott says he'll sign a deal with an unidentified publisher this week to pen his memoirs.
--Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion-Ledger
The success of Hillary's book must be killing him.
Not much to add, but this is mildly intriguing:
While Lott said he would "let the chips fall where they may," the senator assured Congressional Quarterly that his memoirs would not be "a revenge book."
Marty Wiseman, head of the Stennis Institute for Government at Mississippi State University, expects Lott to write about his betrayal by people he considered friends as he struggled to keep his leadership job.
"I know he thinks people turned on him," Wiseman said.
The political science professor also said he expects Lott to disclose how his relationship with President Bush has changed....
Ronald Reagan used to say that GOP's Eleventh Commandment is "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." If Trent's prepared to break that commandment, I am delighted.
--Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion-Ledger
The success of Hillary's book must be killing him.
Not much to add, but this is mildly intriguing:
While Lott said he would "let the chips fall where they may," the senator assured Congressional Quarterly that his memoirs would not be "a revenge book."
Marty Wiseman, head of the Stennis Institute for Government at Mississippi State University, expects Lott to write about his betrayal by people he considered friends as he struggled to keep his leadership job.
"I know he thinks people turned on him," Wiseman said.
The political science professor also said he expects Lott to disclose how his relationship with President Bush has changed....
Ronald Reagan used to say that GOP's Eleventh Commandment is "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." If Trent's prepared to break that commandment, I am delighted.
This relates to what I posted immediately below:
U.S. employers cut jobs in August at the fastest pace since March, the government said in an unexpectedly grim report on Friday showing Americans are struggling to find jobs even as other areas of the economy are recovering.
The number of workers on U.S. payrolls outside the farm sector slid 93,000 in August, the seventh consecutive month of declines, after dropping 49,000 in July. The number was far worse than the increase of 12,000 expected by economists.
A recent string of better than expected data on retail sales, durable goods, consumer sentiment and housing had led economists to believe the tough labor market might be starting to improve....
The economy shed jobs in a wide range of sectors. Manufacturing jobs fell 44,000, the 37th straight month of decline while service jobs tumbled 67,000....
--Reuters
What's unexpected about this? Employers have us where they want us -- working harder because we're afraid not to. They don't need to hire more of us.
U.S. employers cut jobs in August at the fastest pace since March, the government said in an unexpectedly grim report on Friday showing Americans are struggling to find jobs even as other areas of the economy are recovering.
The number of workers on U.S. payrolls outside the farm sector slid 93,000 in August, the seventh consecutive month of declines, after dropping 49,000 in July. The number was far worse than the increase of 12,000 expected by economists.
A recent string of better than expected data on retail sales, durable goods, consumer sentiment and housing had led economists to believe the tough labor market might be starting to improve....
The economy shed jobs in a wide range of sectors. Manufacturing jobs fell 44,000, the 37th straight month of decline while service jobs tumbled 67,000....
--Reuters
What's unexpected about this? Employers have us where they want us -- working harder because we're afraid not to. They don't need to hire more of us.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
The productivity of U.S. companies in the second quarter posted the biggest gain in more than a year as businesses produced more with fewer workers. New claims for unemployment benefits climbed last week to the highest level since the middle of July.
--ABC News
I know this will never happen, but I'd like to see American workers go on a productivity strike. Not a traditional strike -- we'd all go to work, we just wouldn't do overtime or stay late or take work home or go in on the weekend or do whatever it is we might have started to do whenever it was that the boss said we'd "all have to work a little bit harder" to get through some temporary tough spot that seems to have become permanent. We'd do this, in my fantasy, until unfilled positions were filled and workloads became a bit more reasonable.
The bosses would piss and moan, and the conservative pundits would say we were radicals who were going to drive the country into a depression. But the new workers would take their new paychecks and buy stuff. The economy would improve. It would be win-win.
I admit I can't really imagine this happening.
Before it could happen, we'd need to get over our national Stockholm syndrome -- we'd need to worry a little less about whether there are barriers to getting rich and a little more about whether there are barriers to getting a job.
--ABC News
I know this will never happen, but I'd like to see American workers go on a productivity strike. Not a traditional strike -- we'd all go to work, we just wouldn't do overtime or stay late or take work home or go in on the weekend or do whatever it is we might have started to do whenever it was that the boss said we'd "all have to work a little bit harder" to get through some temporary tough spot that seems to have become permanent. We'd do this, in my fantasy, until unfilled positions were filled and workloads became a bit more reasonable.
The bosses would piss and moan, and the conservative pundits would say we were radicals who were going to drive the country into a depression. But the new workers would take their new paychecks and buy stuff. The economy would improve. It would be win-win.
I admit I can't really imagine this happening.
Before it could happen, we'd need to get over our national Stockholm syndrome -- we'd need to worry a little less about whether there are barriers to getting rich and a little more about whether there are barriers to getting a job.
Back in March 2002, Karl Rove made a defiant speech about judicial nominations. He didn't mention Estrada, but he was talking about judges like Estrada. I think today is a good day to remember Rove's words, because today he had to eat them:
As the Senate Judiciary Committee was voting Thursday evening to reject U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering for an appellate court position, presidential adviser Karl Rove was telling an influential Christian political action group that President Bush would continue to nominate conservatives as federal judges.
"We're not going to have a pleasant day today [in the Senate]," Rove told the Family Research Council at the Willard Hotel, according to a tape recording given to The Washington Post by an attendee. ". . . This is not about a good man, Charles Pickering. This is about the future. This is about the U.S. Supreme Court. And this is about sending George W. Bush a message that 'You send us somebody that is a strong conservative, you're not going to get him.'
"Guess what?" Rove added. "They sent the wrong message to the wrong guy."
Har-de-har-har.
By the way, I have to give two thumbs up to my homeboy, Charles Schumer -- he's steady and relentless in this fight (in other words, he fights with the tenacity of a Republican, and I say that as a compliment). I disagree with the guy sometimes, but I often wish he were the Democratic leader in the Senate. Too Eastern? Too, er, ethnic? That shouldn't matter. Do the Republic ever worry about naming one Southerner after another to leadership positions? The number of people below the Mason-Dixon Line who'd be put off by Schumer is roughly equivalent to the number of people up here who find Tom DeLay repellent (or, in the old days, Trent Lott). If Daschle loses his reelection bid next year, I say give the job to Chuck.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee was voting Thursday evening to reject U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering for an appellate court position, presidential adviser Karl Rove was telling an influential Christian political action group that President Bush would continue to nominate conservatives as federal judges.
"We're not going to have a pleasant day today [in the Senate]," Rove told the Family Research Council at the Willard Hotel, according to a tape recording given to The Washington Post by an attendee. ". . . This is not about a good man, Charles Pickering. This is about the future. This is about the U.S. Supreme Court. And this is about sending George W. Bush a message that 'You send us somebody that is a strong conservative, you're not going to get him.'
"Guess what?" Rove added. "They sent the wrong message to the wrong guy."
Har-de-har-har.
By the way, I have to give two thumbs up to my homeboy, Charles Schumer -- he's steady and relentless in this fight (in other words, he fights with the tenacity of a Republican, and I say that as a compliment). I disagree with the guy sometimes, but I often wish he were the Democratic leader in the Senate. Too Eastern? Too, er, ethnic? That shouldn't matter. Do the Republic ever worry about naming one Southerner after another to leadership positions? The number of people below the Mason-Dixon Line who'd be put off by Schumer is roughly equivalent to the number of people up here who find Tom DeLay repellent (or, in the old days, Trent Lott). If Daschle loses his reelection bid next year, I say give the job to Chuck.
Press release from Tom DeLay:
DeLay: Estrada the Victim of a “Political Hate Crime;" Democrats' Campaign Against Qualified Nominee Ugly, Dishonest
WASHINGTON – House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today condemned Senate Democrats' dishonest and vicious campaign against federal appellate court nominee Miguel Estrada, who withdrew his name from consideration for the bench this morning.
“The Democrat's character assassination of Miguel Estrada was a political hate crime,” DeLay said. “We have witnessed the Democrats at their ugliest.”
Hmm, let's see ... James Byrd was beaten, chained by his ankles and dragged for three miles along a logging road until his head came off ... Matthew Shepard was lashed to a fence post, beaten and left to die ... Miguel Estrada will be offered a six-figure job in the private sector and get a cushy deal from Regnery or Crown Forum or HarperCollins for a ghostwritten book ...
Yeah, I see the similarities.
DeLay: Estrada the Victim of a “Political Hate Crime;" Democrats' Campaign Against Qualified Nominee Ugly, Dishonest
WASHINGTON – House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today condemned Senate Democrats' dishonest and vicious campaign against federal appellate court nominee Miguel Estrada, who withdrew his name from consideration for the bench this morning.
“The Democrat's character assassination of Miguel Estrada was a political hate crime,” DeLay said. “We have witnessed the Democrats at their ugliest.”
Hmm, let's see ... James Byrd was beaten, chained by his ankles and dragged for three miles along a logging road until his head came off ... Matthew Shepard was lashed to a fence post, beaten and left to die ... Miguel Estrada will be offered a six-figure job in the private sector and get a cushy deal from Regnery or Crown Forum or HarperCollins for a ghostwritten book ...
Yeah, I see the similarities.
Miguel Estrada, after two years of waiting for U.S. Senate confirmation, has decided to withdraw from nomination to a federal appeals court, a source close to the Washington attorney said on Thursday.
The source said Estrada, who has been blocked by Senate Democrats who see him as part of President Bush's attempt to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues, simply got tired of waiting and having his legal career on hold.
--Reuters
Grown-ups accept reality, even when it's not to their liking. Estrada is being a grown-up. When will Bush and Rove follow suit and stop trying to nominate judges who are far out of the mainstream?
The source said Estrada, who has been blocked by Senate Democrats who see him as part of President Bush's attempt to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues, simply got tired of waiting and having his legal career on hold.
--Reuters
Grown-ups accept reality, even when it's not to their liking. Estrada is being a grown-up. When will Bush and Rove follow suit and stop trying to nominate judges who are far out of the mainstream?
You could easily have figured all this out for yourself, but on last night's NBC News, the EPA's inspector general, Nikki Tinsley, discussed the government's deceptively reassuring report on air quality at ground zero in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 -- a report she knew wasn't telling the full story -- and laid the blame for the deception where it belongs.
Here's the story, by Lisa Myers. And here's the transcript of the full interview. An excerpt:
Tinsley: The press releases were part of a collaborative process. The agency and all aspects of the federal government wanted to speak with one voice. I think that’s a good thing. I think that the federal government should speak with one voice. Our concern with the few press releases that we talk about in our report is that that one voice did not fully inform the public.
Myers: And the one voice was dictated, to some extent, by the White House?
Tinsley: That’s what our work shows.
Myers reports that
more than 25 percent of dust samples collected before Sept. 18 showed unsafe levels of asbestos. And the EPA had no test results at all on PCBs, dioxins or particulates in the air that can cause respiratory problems.
But the EPA reported that the air was safe. Here's more from the interview:
Tinsley: Our work shows on two earlier press releases, September 13th and September 16th, that there was Council of [sic] Environmental Quality involvement. And deleting cautionary statements from the press releases and adding some assurances.
The Council on Environmental Quality is part of the Executive Office of the President.
The decision to make the report reassuring was apparently not up for discussion:
Myers: You must have had lengthy discussions with the White House about your report?
Tinsley: We did not discuss our report with the White House. We wanted to interview the CEQ employee that was involved in the collaborative process. We were never able to get access to that person to interview that person. So the only information we have on CEQ’s involvement comes from EPA employees.
Myers: So the White House refused even to talk to you?
Tinsley: Council of Environmental Quality did not talk to us. And we were contacted by White House counsel that said that we weren’t going to have that interview.
So, once again, the deception trail leads to the White House. Once again, the fish stinks from the head.
Here's the story, by Lisa Myers. And here's the transcript of the full interview. An excerpt:
Tinsley: The press releases were part of a collaborative process. The agency and all aspects of the federal government wanted to speak with one voice. I think that’s a good thing. I think that the federal government should speak with one voice. Our concern with the few press releases that we talk about in our report is that that one voice did not fully inform the public.
Myers: And the one voice was dictated, to some extent, by the White House?
Tinsley: That’s what our work shows.
Myers reports that
more than 25 percent of dust samples collected before Sept. 18 showed unsafe levels of asbestos. And the EPA had no test results at all on PCBs, dioxins or particulates in the air that can cause respiratory problems.
But the EPA reported that the air was safe. Here's more from the interview:
Tinsley: Our work shows on two earlier press releases, September 13th and September 16th, that there was Council of [sic] Environmental Quality involvement. And deleting cautionary statements from the press releases and adding some assurances.
The Council on Environmental Quality is part of the Executive Office of the President.
The decision to make the report reassuring was apparently not up for discussion:
Myers: You must have had lengthy discussions with the White House about your report?
Tinsley: We did not discuss our report with the White House. We wanted to interview the CEQ employee that was involved in the collaborative process. We were never able to get access to that person to interview that person. So the only information we have on CEQ’s involvement comes from EPA employees.
Myers: So the White House refused even to talk to you?
Tinsley: Council of Environmental Quality did not talk to us. And we were contacted by White House counsel that said that we weren’t going to have that interview.
So, once again, the deception trail leads to the White House. Once again, the fish stinks from the head.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Just got a copy of the new New York Times bestseller list. Not only is Al Franken's book still #1, but the Joe Conason and Jim Hightower books have moved up to the top 10. In addition, Hillary Clinton's book moves from #6 back up to #4 and Michael Moore's Stupid White Men moves back into the top 15.
Ann Coulter's book is, alas, still hanging around (#5), as is Buzz Patterson's Dereliction of Duty (#32 on the "extended" list), but How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life, Hillary's Scheme, and Dick Morris's Off with Their Heads, recently seen on the list (or the extended list), are nowhere to be found.
Ann Coulter's book is, alas, still hanging around (#5), as is Buzz Patterson's Dereliction of Duty (#32 on the "extended" list), but How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life, Hillary's Scheme, and Dick Morris's Off with Their Heads, recently seen on the list (or the extended list), are nowhere to be found.
"Weakness is provocative. It entices people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do..."
--Donald Rumsfeld on CNN, March 23, 2003, accurately predicting the consequences of his decision to maintain an inadequately large military force in Iraq after the fall of Saddam
--Donald Rumsfeld on CNN, March 23, 2003, accurately predicting the consequences of his decision to maintain an inadequately large military force in Iraq after the fall of Saddam
"...if we don't do something quickly, if we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that...."
--George W. Bush, first debate with Al Gore, October 3, 2000
--George W. Bush, first debate with Al Gore, October 3, 2000
WOW [Jonah Goldberg]
I just got a galley for David Duke's new book, Human Accomplishment. Very, very cool looking book. I'm kind of scared to start reading it though because it looks like the kind of book you can't stop reading. I think it's going to be a big deal.
OK, that's not exactly what National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg just posted at NRO's blog. Actually, it is what he just posted, except that I've substituted the name of one racist for the name of another: Charles Murray. (The Murray book Goldberg is raving about, incidentally, will be published in November not by some tiny righty-fringe publisher, but by Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins.)
So Charles Murray is making a comeback. Charles Murray! Charles "Bell Curve" Murray!
Is it literally impossible now to relegate a right-winger permanently to the margins if that right-winger hasn't killed an abortion doctor, or donned a sheet and burned a cross? Is nothing these people say considered sufficient grounds for banishment from decent society?
I just got a galley for David Duke's new book, Human Accomplishment. Very, very cool looking book. I'm kind of scared to start reading it though because it looks like the kind of book you can't stop reading. I think it's going to be a big deal.
OK, that's not exactly what National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg just posted at NRO's blog. Actually, it is what he just posted, except that I've substituted the name of one racist for the name of another: Charles Murray. (The Murray book Goldberg is raving about, incidentally, will be published in November not by some tiny righty-fringe publisher, but by Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins.)
So Charles Murray is making a comeback. Charles Murray! Charles "Bell Curve" Murray!
Is it literally impossible now to relegate a right-winger permanently to the margins if that right-winger hasn't killed an abortion doctor, or donned a sheet and burned a cross? Is nothing these people say considered sufficient grounds for banishment from decent society?
Here's Michael Medved, the right-wing film critic, pundit, and radio host, writing last September:
Multiple sex partners: Trendy but toxic
...Deferred gratification remains the one indispensable element in establishing and sustaining civilization – focusing our efforts on future benefits rather than immediate pleasures. The often tedious, punishing work involved in shaping a skyscraper, designing an airplane or discovering a polio vaccine may provide scant satisfaction for our deep-seated, instinctive desires, but such effort characterizes the inescapable superiority – yes, superiority – of advanced cultures over tribal barbarism.
...The basis for monogamous marriage remains the same as the foundation for all social advancement – placing a priority on the long-term well-being of society rather than personal and immediate gratification. "Polyamory" adventure may feel like fun and might arguably represent a natural inclination for the species, but it's difficult to argue that it serves the interests of our offspring. For that reason, most parents will continue the attempt to control themselves – our children, and our civilization, depend on it.
Here's Medved in an undated interview from last year:
But the point that I emphasize in Hollywood vs. America, and that I've emphasized in all my work, has been that the real power of TV, movies and popular music is not that someone is going to see something and then run out and immediately imitate it. That happens, but it doesn't happen with everyone. What happens with everyone is that we allow mass media to normalize outrageous and unacceptable behavior. ... if you see the most glamorous people in the world engaging in some behavior, whether it is violence or promiscuous heterosexual sex or homosexuality or foul language or whatever it is, it provides a sanction, an acceptability, for others to do the same.
Think Medved brought up any of this when adulterer, serial groper, and former orgiast Arnold Schwarzenegger was a guest on his radio show yesterday?
(Hint: Medved has told doubting righty purists on his show that Schwarzie's OK, and his site provides a convenient link to the Schwarzie campaign's official site.)
Multiple sex partners: Trendy but toxic
...Deferred gratification remains the one indispensable element in establishing and sustaining civilization – focusing our efforts on future benefits rather than immediate pleasures. The often tedious, punishing work involved in shaping a skyscraper, designing an airplane or discovering a polio vaccine may provide scant satisfaction for our deep-seated, instinctive desires, but such effort characterizes the inescapable superiority – yes, superiority – of advanced cultures over tribal barbarism.
...The basis for monogamous marriage remains the same as the foundation for all social advancement – placing a priority on the long-term well-being of society rather than personal and immediate gratification. "Polyamory" adventure may feel like fun and might arguably represent a natural inclination for the species, but it's difficult to argue that it serves the interests of our offspring. For that reason, most parents will continue the attempt to control themselves – our children, and our civilization, depend on it.
Here's Medved in an undated interview from last year:
But the point that I emphasize in Hollywood vs. America, and that I've emphasized in all my work, has been that the real power of TV, movies and popular music is not that someone is going to see something and then run out and immediately imitate it. That happens, but it doesn't happen with everyone. What happens with everyone is that we allow mass media to normalize outrageous and unacceptable behavior. ... if you see the most glamorous people in the world engaging in some behavior, whether it is violence or promiscuous heterosexual sex or homosexuality or foul language or whatever it is, it provides a sanction, an acceptability, for others to do the same.
Think Medved brought up any of this when adulterer, serial groper, and former orgiast Arnold Schwarzenegger was a guest on his radio show yesterday?
(Hint: Medved has told doubting righty purists on his show that Schwarzie's OK, and his site provides a convenient link to the Schwarzie campaign's official site.)
I saw Paul Bremer on ABC News last night saying,
We have met every single request for security that has been made of us.
A little background: That was in response to a question from the New York Times reporter who'd just published this in the paper:
Even in the aftermath of the deadly car bombings, some council members said, they are being left to protect themselves....
Dr. Raja Habib Khuzai, a Governing Council member, said today that she had been pleading for days with American officials to provide her with cars and bodyguards, but that so far, they had failed to respond. In an interview, Dr. Khuzai said her brother had volunteered to become her bodyguard, along with three other men who have no training. She said she was paying them out of her own pocket.
Dr. Khuzai said the Americans had provided her with bodyguards several weeks ago, but had later taken them away. Lately, she said, she has been asking the Americans to train her guards if they cannot provide her with any of their own.
"They keep telling me they will train my men, but I have given them their names on 10 occasions, and they told me they lost the list," Dr. Khuzai said. "We are targets, you know. We could be next. I told the Americans I am very scared."...
Dr. Khuzai said she had been given security for her home by Iraqi security officials, four Iraqi men who had received one day each of training. Her requests for additional security, she said, have gone ignored.
"The guards sleep most of the time," she said.
Is Dr. Khuzai telling the truth, or is Paul Bremer? I know which one I believe.
(There's a transcript of Bremer's briefing here.)
We have met every single request for security that has been made of us.
A little background: That was in response to a question from the New York Times reporter who'd just published this in the paper:
Even in the aftermath of the deadly car bombings, some council members said, they are being left to protect themselves....
Dr. Raja Habib Khuzai, a Governing Council member, said today that she had been pleading for days with American officials to provide her with cars and bodyguards, but that so far, they had failed to respond. In an interview, Dr. Khuzai said her brother had volunteered to become her bodyguard, along with three other men who have no training. She said she was paying them out of her own pocket.
Dr. Khuzai said the Americans had provided her with bodyguards several weeks ago, but had later taken them away. Lately, she said, she has been asking the Americans to train her guards if they cannot provide her with any of their own.
"They keep telling me they will train my men, but I have given them their names on 10 occasions, and they told me they lost the list," Dr. Khuzai said. "We are targets, you know. We could be next. I told the Americans I am very scared."...
Dr. Khuzai said she had been given security for her home by Iraqi security officials, four Iraqi men who had received one day each of training. Her requests for additional security, she said, have gone ignored.
"The guards sleep most of the time," she said.
Is Dr. Khuzai telling the truth, or is Paul Bremer? I know which one I believe.
(There's a transcript of Bremer's briefing here.)
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
BUSH 42%, DEMOCRAT 42%
That's the real lead, though the polling outfit Rasmussen Reports buries it in paragraph #7:
Against a generic Democrat, the President is now tied, 42% to 42%.
Bush still beats Kerry and Dean handily, but that's because most people aren't political-minded and barely know who they are.
Against The Most Hated Woman In America, Hillary Clinton, Bush leads by a not-exactly overwhelming 48%-41%.
I checked Polling Report. An August Zogby poll shows Bush losing to "time for someone new," but this appears to be the first time Bush has failed to win when his theoretical opponent was defined as a Democrat.
Gosh and it seems like only last weekend that Adam Nagourney was penning his 9000th consecutive "the Democrats are doomed" story for The New York Times.
That's the real lead, though the polling outfit Rasmussen Reports buries it in paragraph #7:
Against a generic Democrat, the President is now tied, 42% to 42%.
Bush still beats Kerry and Dean handily, but that's because most people aren't political-minded and barely know who they are.
Against The Most Hated Woman In America, Hillary Clinton, Bush leads by a not-exactly overwhelming 48%-41%.
I checked Polling Report. An August Zogby poll shows Bush losing to "time for someone new," but this appears to be the first time Bush has failed to win when his theoretical opponent was defined as a Democrat.
Gosh and it seems like only last weekend that Adam Nagourney was penning his 9000th consecutive "the Democrats are doomed" story for The New York Times.
I said in the previous post that in the last couple of days New York Times reviewers have expressed contempt for new books by Al Franken and Joe Conason. Yes, these books are unapologetic, angry, and harsh; the right has been dishing out harsh rhetoric -- unnoticed by the kinds of people who review books for the Times -- since at least the late 1980s, and Franken and Conason are responding in kind, but their Times reviewers don't understand that.
Well, here's another rhetorical stinkbomb from the right that these reviewers will ignore: Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror by Richard Miniter, a new book from Regnery. It's getting the full Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy sendoff -- a big story on Sunday at the Drudge Report, a Robert Novak column, multi-part serialization in The Washington Times -- and, perhaps, bulk buys from right-wing foundations. It's #11 at Amazon as I write this. It will probably be a New York Times bestseller.
But it's almost certain that the Times won't review it, and that no one who writes for the Times will ever read it, or even register its existence. And most other moderate-to-liberal publications, possibly taking their cue from the Times, will ignore it as well. So its themes will find their way into our political discourse utterly unimpeded and unchallenged. (Hell, the Times hasn't even bothered to challenge Ann Coulter's Treason -- her fellow conservatives have to do that job.)
And Times reviewers will go their merry way, believing that politics in this country is generally discussed at an adult level, and tut-tutting at writers such as Franken and Conason, who choose not to conceal their anger for reasons these Times reviewers will never understand.
UPDATE: Now Caspar Weinberger is putting the boot in, denouncing Clinton in The Washington Times as part of the publicity campaign for Miniter's book. The Times denounces Franken and Conason for advancing black-and-white arguments, with no gray areas. Well, I don't see a whole lot of gray in what Weinberger writes -- he's essentially agreeing with the far-right boilerplate argument that all Islamist terrorism everywhere and at all times is and will always be Clinton's fault.
Now that this argument has been taken up by a respected elder of the establishment, do you think maybe the mainstream press will notice that intemperate language and demonization shows up a tad more often on the right?
Well, here's another rhetorical stinkbomb from the right that these reviewers will ignore: Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror by Richard Miniter, a new book from Regnery. It's getting the full Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy sendoff -- a big story on Sunday at the Drudge Report, a Robert Novak column, multi-part serialization in The Washington Times -- and, perhaps, bulk buys from right-wing foundations. It's #11 at Amazon as I write this. It will probably be a New York Times bestseller.
But it's almost certain that the Times won't review it, and that no one who writes for the Times will ever read it, or even register its existence. And most other moderate-to-liberal publications, possibly taking their cue from the Times, will ignore it as well. So its themes will find their way into our political discourse utterly unimpeded and unchallenged. (Hell, the Times hasn't even bothered to challenge Ann Coulter's Treason -- her fellow conservatives have to do that job.)
And Times reviewers will go their merry way, believing that politics in this country is generally discussed at an adult level, and tut-tutting at writers such as Franken and Conason, who choose not to conceal their anger for reasons these Times reviewers will never understand.
UPDATE: Now Caspar Weinberger is putting the boot in, denouncing Clinton in The Washington Times as part of the publicity campaign for Miniter's book. The Times denounces Franken and Conason for advancing black-and-white arguments, with no gray areas. Well, I don't see a whole lot of gray in what Weinberger writes -- he's essentially agreeing with the far-right boilerplate argument that all Islamist terrorism everywhere and at all times is and will always be Clinton's fault.
Now that this argument has been taken up by a respected elder of the establishment, do you think maybe the mainstream press will notice that intemperate language and demonization shows up a tad more often on the right?
Monday, September 01, 2003
SO-CALLED LIBERAL BOOK REVIEWERS
I suppose I should be grateful that, in today's New York Times, Janet Maslin said she sort of liked Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, or liked parts of it at least, and in yesterday's Times Book Review Michael Janeway spent fifteen paragraphs bashing Dick Morris's Off with Their Heads, then spent a mere three paragraphs using the same cudgel to bash Joe Conason's Big Lies. My first instinct was to be disappointed in these reviews, but all the right-wingers assure me that the Times is the house organ for left-wing propaganda, so I guess the lukewarm response to Franken and Conason must be some sort of mysterious form of lefty thought control.
Seriously, though: I don't really expect Times reviewers to lavish praise on every liberal book, but could Times reviewers at least make an effort to understand the way politics has been discussed over the last decade or so? Janeway is a former congressional aide and newspaper editor who now teaches journalism, yet he doesn't seem to have the slightest idea that Morris, in his book, is parroting shrill riffs popularized for years by Limbaugh, Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, and others of that ilk, while Conason is responding in kind to these folks, to Democrat-bashing cable pundits, to the Wall Street Journal editorial page -- you know the list, even though Janeway clearly doesn't. Maslin, at least, has a vague awareness of the nature of contemporary political rhetoric -- but when she refers to "the kicking, spitting spirit of current all-star political discourse," she suggests that only celebrities talk trash when they talk politics, rather than nearly every radio host on every all-talk station in America, 24 hours a day, for the past ten years or so. Maslin thinks we're "at the start of a brand new mud-slinging season, with books by Michael Moore, [Bill] O'Reilly, Molly Ivins and others in the wings" -- as if two liberals and one conservative constitutes a representative sampling of non-genteel political commentary today. Someone send this woman a CARE package of Regnery books, pronto.
Janeway, in damning Conason's book, sniffs, "stridency depletes itself fast." The hell it does. Try turning on your radio, Professor.
I suppose I should be grateful that, in today's New York Times, Janet Maslin said she sort of liked Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, or liked parts of it at least, and in yesterday's Times Book Review Michael Janeway spent fifteen paragraphs bashing Dick Morris's Off with Their Heads, then spent a mere three paragraphs using the same cudgel to bash Joe Conason's Big Lies. My first instinct was to be disappointed in these reviews, but all the right-wingers assure me that the Times is the house organ for left-wing propaganda, so I guess the lukewarm response to Franken and Conason must be some sort of mysterious form of lefty thought control.
Seriously, though: I don't really expect Times reviewers to lavish praise on every liberal book, but could Times reviewers at least make an effort to understand the way politics has been discussed over the last decade or so? Janeway is a former congressional aide and newspaper editor who now teaches journalism, yet he doesn't seem to have the slightest idea that Morris, in his book, is parroting shrill riffs popularized for years by Limbaugh, Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, and others of that ilk, while Conason is responding in kind to these folks, to Democrat-bashing cable pundits, to the Wall Street Journal editorial page -- you know the list, even though Janeway clearly doesn't. Maslin, at least, has a vague awareness of the nature of contemporary political rhetoric -- but when she refers to "the kicking, spitting spirit of current all-star political discourse," she suggests that only celebrities talk trash when they talk politics, rather than nearly every radio host on every all-talk station in America, 24 hours a day, for the past ten years or so. Maslin thinks we're "at the start of a brand new mud-slinging season, with books by Michael Moore, [Bill] O'Reilly, Molly Ivins and others in the wings" -- as if two liberals and one conservative constitutes a representative sampling of non-genteel political commentary today. Someone send this woman a CARE package of Regnery books, pronto.
Janeway, in damning Conason's book, sniffs, "stridency depletes itself fast." The hell it does. Try turning on your radio, Professor.
There's nothing surprising, really, in this New York Times article on the economy -- we've been in "recovery" for two years but we're losing jobs, the administration says happy days are nearly here again, blah blah blah, you know the drill.
But try reading it with Rumsfeld in mind -- especially the parts that talk about "declining loyalty on the part of employers" while "expectations for productivity and quality are going up." Isn't keeping employment low and making the workers who are in place miserable -- while demanding ever more productivity from those workers -- exactly what Rummy's doing in Iraq?
This is what you get when CEOs run the country.
But try reading it with Rumsfeld in mind -- especially the parts that talk about "declining loyalty on the part of employers" while "expectations for productivity and quality are going up." Isn't keeping employment low and making the workers who are in place miserable -- while demanding ever more productivity from those workers -- exactly what Rummy's doing in Iraq?
This is what you get when CEOs run the country.
Counting the insipid illustration, today’s New York Times op-ed page devotes a whopping ninety column inches -- the whole page except for an ad and a Bob Herbert column -- to a series of reminiscences entitled “An Ode to Loved Labors Lost.” The authors of the mini-memoirs are Tom Brokaw; Ari Fleischer; folk-rock singer Suzanne Vega; Scott Adams, creator of “Dilbert”; Nobel economics laureate Gary S. Becker; Vogue editor Andre Leon Talley; celebrity chef Alice Waters; and Laurie Notaro, a newspaper columnist who was recently a New York Times bestselling author.
Reading this just now, my father-in-law asked a good question: “Where are all the workers?”
Yes, where are they?
Is this what Labor Day means on David Shipley’s Times op-ed page -- something you did years ago, when you were fifteen, before your real life of success, wealth, fame, and getting other people to do the scut work began? You know, David, some people actually do tedious, exhausting, soul-deadening work all their lives, and some of these people can actually read and write. How about a few of their stories?
Reading this just now, my father-in-law asked a good question: “Where are all the workers?”
Yes, where are they?
Is this what Labor Day means on David Shipley’s Times op-ed page -- something you did years ago, when you were fifteen, before your real life of success, wealth, fame, and getting other people to do the scut work began? You know, David, some people actually do tedious, exhausting, soul-deadening work all their lives, and some of these people can actually read and write. How about a few of their stories?
Sunday, August 31, 2003
The New York Times Magazine has a mini-interview with Mario Cuomo. It's mostly silly, but he knocks one question out of the ballpark:
What would you do if you were in their [the Democratic candidates'] shoes, taking on this president?
You say, you won two wars, but you won them with Clinton's armed forces, not your own. When Cheney after the war in 1991 as the secretary of defense, on behalf of President Bush, called President Reagan to say thank you for the armed forces that just defeated Saddam Hussein, that was the proper thing to do. Too bad you didn't call Clinton. Because you should have. By the rough criterion that says if you're there when they win the World Series, then you get the credit, well then, you get the credit. But when you were left all to your own in Afghanistan and Iraq to reconstitute the places by restructuring them, and building them, well, you've failed so far -- miserably. So the thing you were left to do on your own, you did poorly. And then we turn to the economy. Are we better off three years ago than we are now? Are you kidding?
Nice.
What would you do if you were in their [the Democratic candidates'] shoes, taking on this president?
You say, you won two wars, but you won them with Clinton's armed forces, not your own. When Cheney after the war in 1991 as the secretary of defense, on behalf of President Bush, called President Reagan to say thank you for the armed forces that just defeated Saddam Hussein, that was the proper thing to do. Too bad you didn't call Clinton. Because you should have. By the rough criterion that says if you're there when they win the World Series, then you get the credit, well then, you get the credit. But when you were left all to your own in Afghanistan and Iraq to reconstitute the places by restructuring them, and building them, well, you've failed so far -- miserably. So the thing you were left to do on your own, you did poorly. And then we turn to the economy. Are we better off three years ago than we are now? Are you kidding?
Nice.
This is somewhat worrisome:
In southern Berkshire County, [Massachusetts,] where second-home purchases comprise as much as 80 percent of sales, the average price for a single-family home fell to $256,507 in the second quarter of this year, down from $344,386 in the first quarter -- a 25 percent drop. In addition, days on market increased by 15 percent to 225 days from April through June, up from 196 days in January through March.
--Boston Globe yesterday
The Globe reports this cheerily, saying, in effect, "Hey, you can get a bargain on a posh weekend home near Tanglewood." The Globe also notes that the vacation-home market in the other hot spot in Massachusetts, Cape Cod, is still going great guns. Still, a 25% drop in one quarter is a big drop. I wonder if this is an early slow leak in the housing bubble. People from New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts buy weekend houses in the Berkshires, and I haven't heard that employment among white-collar professionals in the region is noticeably worse than anywhere else. So what's up? Is this a bad sign? Are any other regions and economic strata going through something similar?
In southern Berkshire County, [Massachusetts,] where second-home purchases comprise as much as 80 percent of sales, the average price for a single-family home fell to $256,507 in the second quarter of this year, down from $344,386 in the first quarter -- a 25 percent drop. In addition, days on market increased by 15 percent to 225 days from April through June, up from 196 days in January through March.
--Boston Globe yesterday
The Globe reports this cheerily, saying, in effect, "Hey, you can get a bargain on a posh weekend home near Tanglewood." The Globe also notes that the vacation-home market in the other hot spot in Massachusetts, Cape Cod, is still going great guns. Still, a 25% drop in one quarter is a big drop. I wonder if this is an early slow leak in the housing bubble. People from New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts buy weekend houses in the Berkshires, and I haven't heard that employment among white-collar professionals in the region is noticeably worse than anywhere else. So what's up? Is this a bad sign? Are any other regions and economic strata going through something similar?
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Friday, August 29, 2003
One more thing from Bill Minutaglio's First Son (page 260 of the hardcover) -- a quote about George W.:
"He is not as ham-handed as the typical terrorist. He's much more of a stiletto as opposed to an ax murderer."
Now, who would have said that? Some squishy, NASCAR-hating, America-hating, bicoastal liberal squish?
Nope.
It was said by Mary Matalin, and she meant it as a compliment.
"He is not as ham-handed as the typical terrorist. He's much more of a stiletto as opposed to an ax murderer."
Now, who would have said that? Some squishy, NASCAR-hating, America-hating, bicoastal liberal squish?
Nope.
It was said by Mary Matalin, and she meant it as a compliment.
It's apropos of nothing, but I've been meaning for a while to post this excerpt from Bill Minutaglio's George W. Bush biography, First Son. It's based on Minutaglio's interview with Israel Hernandez, a young aide who began working for Bush around the start of his 1994 campaign to unseat Ann Richards as governor of Texas. I think it says a lot about the most powerful man in the free world -- specifically, about his nicknaming habit, which is usually treated in the press as macho heartiness rather than, well, weird:
On the day of the first official Bush for Governor campaign announcement and the start of the twenty-seven-city tour, Bush and Hernandez stepped off the King Air plane dubbed Accountability One and began the drive through Houston to the hotel press conference....
Now Bush was cackling as the limousine sped downtown and the striking Houston skyline, an Oz on the Gulf Coast, began rising before them. Bush was trying to think of a nickname, something better than Israel. The new aide was worried, not saying the obvious: "Shouldn't you be thinking of your speech?" A satisfied sound to his voice, Bush announced it: "And your name is now ... Izzy!"
The bewildered aide asked, "Isn't that the Olympic mascot?"
Bush roared back: "No, no, no, your name is Izzy!"
As the Team Bush caravan pulled closer to the Houston hotel and the horde of reporters, Bush suddenly burst into song: "Izzy Fuzzy? Wazzy Fuzzy? Izzy?" His aide began singing with him.
Yeah, Bush made that speech, and won that election, and reelection, then sort of won the presidency. But this is bizarre.
(For those keeping score, this is on pp. 276 and 277 of the hardcover edition.)
On the day of the first official Bush for Governor campaign announcement and the start of the twenty-seven-city tour, Bush and Hernandez stepped off the King Air plane dubbed Accountability One and began the drive through Houston to the hotel press conference....
Now Bush was cackling as the limousine sped downtown and the striking Houston skyline, an Oz on the Gulf Coast, began rising before them. Bush was trying to think of a nickname, something better than Israel. The new aide was worried, not saying the obvious: "Shouldn't you be thinking of your speech?" A satisfied sound to his voice, Bush announced it: "And your name is now ... Izzy!"
The bewildered aide asked, "Isn't that the Olympic mascot?"
Bush roared back: "No, no, no, your name is Izzy!"
As the Team Bush caravan pulled closer to the Houston hotel and the horde of reporters, Bush suddenly burst into song: "Izzy Fuzzy? Wazzy Fuzzy? Izzy?" His aide began singing with him.
Yeah, Bush made that speech, and won that election, and reelection, then sort of won the presidency. But this is bizarre.
(For those keeping score, this is on pp. 276 and 277 of the hardcover edition.)
Hard to say much about the horrific car bombing in Iraq --75 dead? 80 dead? Horrible.
Here's a New York Times/International Herald-Tribune story from last November on Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, the Iran-backed, anti-Saddam, essentially pro-U.S. Shiite cleric who was killed in the blast; here's a BBC profile from today; here's a March Christian Science Monitor story on his Badr Brigade.
Here's a New York Times/International Herald-Tribune story from last November on Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, the Iran-backed, anti-Saddam, essentially pro-U.S. Shiite cleric who was killed in the blast; here's a BBC profile from today; here's a March Christian Science Monitor story on his Badr Brigade.
[Dodgy] Dossier was part of strategy decided with Bush
Tony Blair decided to publish an intelligence-based dossier on Iraq's weapons programme in a strategy decided during a telephone conversation with President George Bush, the Hutton inquiry was told yesterday....
He said a "tremendous amount of information and evidence" was coming across his desk last summer about the "weapons of mass destruction and the programmes associated with it that Saddam had".
Every day, he said, stories appeared saying we were about to invade Iraq and that military action had been decided.
He added: "President Bush and I had a telephone call towards the end of that [August] break and we decided: look, we really had to confront this issue, devise our strategy and get on with it"....
James Dingemans QC, the inquiry counsel, later referred the prime minister to an email written by Jonathan Powell, the Downing Street chief of staff, on September 17, a week before the dossier was published. Mr Powell urged caution in the presentation of the dossier, warning against claims that Iraq posed a threat, let alone an imminent threat, to the west, or even to its Arab neighbours.
"You need to make it clear," Mr Powell told Alastair Campbell, the prime minister's communications director, and Sir David Manning, his foreign policy adviser, "Saddam could not attack us at the moment. The thesis is he would be a threat to the UK in the future if we do not check him."
Mr Dingemans pointedly asked the prime minister whether such comments were reflected in the dossier.
Mr Blair sidestepped the point....
--Guardian
*****
UPDATE: Oh, and I forgot to mention that Alastair Campbell, accused sexer-upper of the dossier, has resigned.
Tony Blair decided to publish an intelligence-based dossier on Iraq's weapons programme in a strategy decided during a telephone conversation with President George Bush, the Hutton inquiry was told yesterday....
He said a "tremendous amount of information and evidence" was coming across his desk last summer about the "weapons of mass destruction and the programmes associated with it that Saddam had".
Every day, he said, stories appeared saying we were about to invade Iraq and that military action had been decided.
He added: "President Bush and I had a telephone call towards the end of that [August] break and we decided: look, we really had to confront this issue, devise our strategy and get on with it"....
James Dingemans QC, the inquiry counsel, later referred the prime minister to an email written by Jonathan Powell, the Downing Street chief of staff, on September 17, a week before the dossier was published. Mr Powell urged caution in the presentation of the dossier, warning against claims that Iraq posed a threat, let alone an imminent threat, to the west, or even to its Arab neighbours.
"You need to make it clear," Mr Powell told Alastair Campbell, the prime minister's communications director, and Sir David Manning, his foreign policy adviser, "Saddam could not attack us at the moment. The thesis is he would be a threat to the UK in the future if we do not check him."
Mr Dingemans pointedly asked the prime minister whether such comments were reflected in the dossier.
Mr Blair sidestepped the point....
--Guardian
*****
UPDATE: Oh, and I forgot to mention that Alastair Campbell, accused sexer-upper of the dossier, has resigned.
THEN AND NOW
The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street.
--Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard, airily dismissing objections to the war, March 6, 2003
You can't underestimate the public perception both within Iraq and within the Arab world about the percentage of the force being so heavily American.
--General John P. Abizaid, top commander for U.S. forces in Iraq, explaining why it would be a bad idea to send more U.S. troops to Iraq now, in The New York Times, August 29, 2003
The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street.
--Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard, airily dismissing objections to the war, March 6, 2003
You can't underestimate the public perception both within Iraq and within the Arab world about the percentage of the force being so heavily American.
--General John P. Abizaid, top commander for U.S. forces in Iraq, explaining why it would be a bad idea to send more U.S. troops to Iraq now, in The New York Times, August 29, 2003
NO COMMENT
"The culture of the Iraqis has been a culture of fear that foreigners would take advantage of the country."
--Ahmed Chalabi, quoted in yesterday's New York Times
"The culture of the Iraqis has been a culture of fear that foreigners would take advantage of the country."
--Ahmed Chalabi, quoted in yesterday's New York Times
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Yikes -- Drudge is linking to this column (also available here) in which Richard Reeves speculates that Hillary Clinton may seriously be looking at a presidential run.
For the record, our new senator has said she was not interested in the presidency....Not for the record, though, Hillary and her advisers, including her husband the ex-president, her money men and pollsters, will meet shortly after Labor Day -- Sept. 6, I hear -- to discuss whether or not she should go for it.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. If she decided to go for it, the howls of outrage -- on the part of both right-wing jackals and the mainstream media -- would probably be so loud that she might never get a fair hearing. On the other hand, when she ran for the Senate she went straight to voters in one-stoplight towns, and she persuaded them she wasn't a psycho banshee from hell, and won handily.
And she does tend to poll fairly well against Bush.
Well, we'll see.
For the record, our new senator has said she was not interested in the presidency....Not for the record, though, Hillary and her advisers, including her husband the ex-president, her money men and pollsters, will meet shortly after Labor Day -- Sept. 6, I hear -- to discuss whether or not she should go for it.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. If she decided to go for it, the howls of outrage -- on the part of both right-wing jackals and the mainstream media -- would probably be so loud that she might never get a fair hearing. On the other hand, when she ran for the Senate she went straight to voters in one-stoplight towns, and she persuaded them she wasn't a psycho banshee from hell, and won handily.
And she does tend to poll fairly well against Bush.
Well, we'll see.
And if you've somehow missed it, read the Schwarzenegger orgy story.
Expect a blistering condemnation by fellow Republicans such as William Bennett any minute now.
Not.
Expect a blistering condemnation by fellow Republicans such as William Bennett any minute now.
Not.
(UPDATE: In the original version of the following entry I raised questions about the origin of an incorrect statement concerning author-to-be Dee Dee Benkie. I have since been told that the incorrect fact appeared erroneously and efforts have been made by Ms. Benkie and her agent to correct the error, which, the agent tells me, was made by a third party. See this post from September 18, 2003.)
OK, I'm going to be petty for a moment. Hey, it's my blog.
Publishers Lunch (subscription only) reports on a forthcoming book from John Wiley & Sons:
First female President of the National Young Republicans and former Special Assistant to top Bush White House advisor Karl Rove, now a political consultant and commentator, Dee Dee Benkie's RED, WHITE, AND YOU: HOW TO BE A BETTER AMERICAN....
It is, in fact, true that the soon-to-be-author of the unfortunately titled Red, White, and You is the unfortunately named Dee Dee Benkie, and it is true that she worked for Karl Rove and was president of (to give it its correct name) the Young Republican National Federation. Feel free to search for her name at the Young Republicans' Web site, the unfortunately named YROCK!
But let's talk about that other claim -- that she's the first female president of the organization. Er, not quite. The YROCK! site lists all the previous chairs of the Young Republicans. The chair for 1985–1987 was named Marilyn R. Hudson; in 1991–1993 Enid Greene was chair (she was subsequently a scandal-plagued Utah congresswoman); and Monica Samuels held the job in 1997–1999.
BALANCE OF POST DELETED
OK, I'm going to be petty for a moment. Hey, it's my blog.
Publishers Lunch (subscription only) reports on a forthcoming book from John Wiley & Sons:
First female President of the National Young Republicans and former Special Assistant to top Bush White House advisor Karl Rove, now a political consultant and commentator, Dee Dee Benkie's RED, WHITE, AND YOU: HOW TO BE A BETTER AMERICAN....
It is, in fact, true that the soon-to-be-author of the unfortunately titled Red, White, and You is the unfortunately named Dee Dee Benkie, and it is true that she worked for Karl Rove and was president of (to give it its correct name) the Young Republican National Federation. Feel free to search for her name at the Young Republicans' Web site, the unfortunately named YROCK!
But let's talk about that other claim -- that she's the first female president of the organization. Er, not quite. The YROCK! site lists all the previous chairs of the Young Republicans. The chair for 1985–1987 was named Marilyn R. Hudson; in 1991–1993 Enid Greene was chair (she was subsequently a scandal-plagued Utah congresswoman); and Monica Samuels held the job in 1997–1999.
BALANCE OF POST DELETED
Is this funny?
"I am so smart my head hurts."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
("____ days without U.S. death" is brilliant.)
(Thanks to Phil and TBOGG for the link.)
"I am so smart my head hurts."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
("____ days without U.S. death" is brilliant.)
(Thanks to Phil and TBOGG for the link.)
Michael Dobbs has the story of the day in The Washington Post, "Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Thought" ("Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents....The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed...").
But Dobbs stumbles once in the online discussion of the article that started about an hour ago. I response to one question, he writes,
...the LOGCAP program was bid back in 2001: Halliburton was one of three companies that submitted proposals to the Pentagon. At that time, of course, nobody could foresee that the U.S. would be fighting a war in Iraq in 2003, and there would be a huge demand for contracting services.
Surely he knows what utter bullshit that is.
But Dobbs stumbles once in the online discussion of the article that started about an hour ago. I response to one question, he writes,
...the LOGCAP program was bid back in 2001: Halliburton was one of three companies that submitted proposals to the Pentagon. At that time, of course, nobody could foresee that the U.S. would be fighting a war in Iraq in 2003, and there would be a huge demand for contracting services.
Surely he knows what utter bullshit that is.
Just got an e-mail with Schwarzenegger's remark "gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman."
Another recipient of the e-mail, who's gay, replied to it: "See also Minnelli, Liza, and David Gest........"
Heh.
Another recipient of the e-mail, who's gay, replied to it: "See also Minnelli, Liza, and David Gest........"
Heh.
It's interesting that (see below) there are three new left-leaning books on the New York Times bestseller list, because it looks as if the popularity of right-wing books is starting to slip just a little bit.
Yeah, Ann Coulter's book is going great guns, as did Michael Savage's book back in the fall and winter. Dereliction of Duty by Robert (Buzz) Patterson did well, and Dick Morris logged a couple of weeks on the Times list.
But Peter Robinson can't get onto the main list with How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life (it was #25 on the last list and it's #26 on this one), despite his many, many plugs for the book on National Review Online's ostensibly noncommercial blog (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Other books that "reached" the extended list but struggled and failed to reach the Top 15 were Carl Limbacher's Hillary's Scheme and James Hirsen's Tales from the Left Coast: True Stories of Hollywood's Stars and Their Outrageous Politics.
And never sighted at all on any portion of the Times list are the morally bankrupt John Lott's The Bias Against Guns; Ain't No Rag by grizzled country musician/amateur polemicist Charlie Daniels; the loony Laurie Mylroie's Bush vs. the Beltway; and Dads, Dames, Demons, and a Dwarf, the memoir by shock jock Mancow Muller, a righty favorite because he appears on the Fox News morning show Fox and Friends.
So maybe we as a nation have absorbed about as much right-wing prose bile as we can stand. Maybe the moment for these screeds is over.
Yeah, Ann Coulter's book is going great guns, as did Michael Savage's book back in the fall and winter. Dereliction of Duty by Robert (Buzz) Patterson did well, and Dick Morris logged a couple of weeks on the Times list.
But Peter Robinson can't get onto the main list with How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life (it was #25 on the last list and it's #26 on this one), despite his many, many plugs for the book on National Review Online's ostensibly noncommercial blog (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Other books that "reached" the extended list but struggled and failed to reach the Top 15 were Carl Limbacher's Hillary's Scheme and James Hirsen's Tales from the Left Coast: True Stories of Hollywood's Stars and Their Outrageous Politics.
And never sighted at all on any portion of the Times list are the morally bankrupt John Lott's The Bias Against Guns; Ain't No Rag by grizzled country musician/amateur polemicist Charlie Daniels; the loony Laurie Mylroie's Bush vs. the Beltway; and Dads, Dames, Demons, and a Dwarf, the memoir by shock jock Mancow Muller, a righty favorite because he appears on the Fox News morning show Fox and Friends.
So maybe we as a nation have absorbed about as much right-wing prose bile as we can stand. Maybe the moment for these screeds is over.
Matt Drudge beat me to this, but yes, Al Franken Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is the #1 nonfiction hardcover on the new New York Times bestseller list (which should be posted on the Times Web site this weekend and will appear in the paper itself the following Sunday).
What's impressive is that the list covers sales in the week ending Saturday, August 23, but Lies didn't go on sale until Friday, August 22 -- its two-day sales beat every other book's seven-day sales.
Also new on the list are Joe Conason's Big Lies (at #11) and Jim Hightower's Thieves in High Places (at #13).
Maybe Random House and Penguin ought to start thinking about left-wing publishing imprints to go with their new right-wing imprints.
What's impressive is that the list covers sales in the week ending Saturday, August 23, but Lies didn't go on sale until Friday, August 22 -- its two-day sales beat every other book's seven-day sales.
Also new on the list are Joe Conason's Big Lies (at #11) and Jim Hightower's Thieves in High Places (at #13).
Maybe Random House and Penguin ought to start thinking about left-wing publishing imprints to go with their new right-wing imprints.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Yes, the Commandments monument got moved, and yes, that's a good victory -- but how many people in Alabama understand it? The one real poll I found, a Mobile Register-University of South Alabama survey from July, says 77% of Alabamans "approve" or "strongly approve" of the monument. The current issue of Church & State, the newsletter of Americans United for the Separation of Church & State (not available online yet), quotes a lawyer who joined the lawsuit against the monument who says she's "heard people say Judge Moore is the most popular man in the state"; the lawyer, by contrast, has had windows in her house broken and had to close her law office in Brewton when clients stopped showing up.
All we want is for these people to pray where their prayer doesn't suggest that their God is part of state authority. That gives them a hell of a lot of places to pray, and we never try to interfere with them in those places. If they think they have the inalienable right to turn the whole world into their church if they so please, could they at least grasp the concept that a reasonable person (or the Constitution) might believe that their freedom of worship has geographic limits, just as my freedom of speech doesn't allow me to mount a soapbox in their living rooms? Even if they disagree, could they please just try to get it?
All we want is for these people to pray where their prayer doesn't suggest that their God is part of state authority. That gives them a hell of a lot of places to pray, and we never try to interfere with them in those places. If they think they have the inalienable right to turn the whole world into their church if they so please, could they at least grasp the concept that a reasonable person (or the Constitution) might believe that their freedom of worship has geographic limits, just as my freedom of speech doesn't allow me to mount a soapbox in their living rooms? Even if they disagree, could they please just try to get it?
The office of Independent Council Kenneth Starr held two more closed hearings in its investigation of President Clinton on Tuesday and refused to unseal the transcript of a July 28 hearing it also held in secret.
Starr said he might continue to close hearings if he thinks it necessary.
"There are matters that do not need to be discussed in public in ways that embarrasses or humiliates the government or the defense and particularly the court," he said.
No, that never happened, of course. But this just did.
I guess you're only entitled to save face when W. has personally given you a nickname.
(Thanks to Atrios and Skimble for the link.)
Starr said he might continue to close hearings if he thinks it necessary.
"There are matters that do not need to be discussed in public in ways that embarrasses or humiliates the government or the defense and particularly the court," he said.
No, that never happened, of course. But this just did.
I guess you're only entitled to save face when W. has personally given you a nickname.
(Thanks to Atrios and Skimble for the link.)
Two lesbians from Ithaca, New York, recently got married in Canada. The Ithaca Times reports:
Kelly says her family is Irish Catholic, so she wasn't sure how they would react to her sexual orientation. "When I came out it was really scary. God love them - they all showed up at my wedding and they cried their eyes out [because] it was a ceremony of love and affection," she says. "It was no longer just about the general fears about things that are out there, it was about Maureen and Lisa."
Someone named wideawake at Free Republic responds:
Her family is not Irish Catholic. It is Irish apostate.
Apparently they chose to prioritize their perverted daughter's basest lusts over God and His truth.
They will eventually be held accountable for their failure to do the right thing.
Yikes. You're just waiting for the punch line, some sign that this is a joke, and it never comes. This maniac is serious.
Kelly says her family is Irish Catholic, so she wasn't sure how they would react to her sexual orientation. "When I came out it was really scary. God love them - they all showed up at my wedding and they cried their eyes out [because] it was a ceremony of love and affection," she says. "It was no longer just about the general fears about things that are out there, it was about Maureen and Lisa."
Someone named wideawake at Free Republic responds:
Her family is not Irish Catholic. It is Irish apostate.
Apparently they chose to prioritize their perverted daughter's basest lusts over God and His truth.
They will eventually be held accountable for their failure to do the right thing.
Yikes. You're just waiting for the punch line, some sign that this is a joke, and it never comes. This maniac is serious.
James Madison wrote this in 1785, in "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," in which he argued against a bill meant to levy a tax in Virginia in order to pay religious teachers:
...the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
Here's another excerpt:
...it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
...the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
Here's another excerpt:
...it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
HEY, JUDGE MOORE....
...the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
James Madison wrote that in 1785, in "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," in which he argued against a bill meant to levy a tax in Virginia in order to pay religious teachers. Here's another excerpt:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
...the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
James Madison wrote that in 1785, in "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," in which he argued against a bill meant to levy a tax in Virginia in order to pay religious teachers. Here's another excerpt:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Don't like federal court decisions on church-state separation? Do what Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) did -- introduce a bill (the "Religious Liberties Restoration Act") declaring those decisions null and void!
(a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively.
(b) WORD `GOD' IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The Pledge of Allegiance shall be, `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all.'.
(c) MOTTO `IN GOD WE TRUST'- The power to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The national motto shall be, `In God we trust'.
And if this flies, maybe they'll get to work on repealing that Fourteenth Amendment...
(a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively.
(b) WORD `GOD' IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The Pledge of Allegiance shall be, `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all.'.
(c) MOTTO `IN GOD WE TRUST'- The power to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The national motto shall be, `In God we trust'.
And if this flies, maybe they'll get to work on repealing that Fourteenth Amendment...
The Commandments monument has been moved (within the building).
I note from the article that the zealots now want Bill Pryor to resign as Alabama's attorney general because he wouldn't go so far as to abet open defiance of a federal court order. Think the zealots will now back a Democratic filibuster of Pryor?
I note from the article that the zealots now want Bill Pryor to resign as Alabama's attorney general because he wouldn't go so far as to abet open defiance of a federal court order. Think the zealots will now back a Democratic filibuster of Pryor?
The same lovely people who e-mail me the New York Times bestseller list just sent me the San Francisco Chronicle list -- and Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is the new #1 nonfiction hardcover. You'll see the list here, though I'm not sure when (Sunday?).
JUDGE ROY MOORE'S SUPPORTERS: WHY DO THEY HATE AMERICA?
Ilana Mercer, in a WorldNetDaily column entitled "Judge Moore and the Godless 14th Amendment," says we should repeal the Fourteenth so your state can establish a religion (and if you don't like the religion it establishes, tough noogies -- you should pack up and move):
If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect the individual from government, the 14th, in effect, defeated that purpose. What it did was to put the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.
Naturally, states can just as well violate individual rights. But, as Chodorov highlighted, there is no monopoly power behind a state's action. If a state wants to outlaw alcohol, then one can move to a state that doesn't. (That's one way for state legislators to ensure that their states will be as densely populated as the moon.) If a state wants to establish a religion, and its own constitution doesn't prohibit this, one can move to a state with a different constitution. Competition in government puts the brakes on folly and abuse and preserves freedom.
The 14th Amendment violated this balance, or as Felix Morley observed in "Freedom and Federalism," it nullified "the original purpose of the Bill of Rights, by vesting its enforcement in the national rather than in the state governments." This just about renders asunder the Ninth and 10th amendments – what powers do the states retain if the federal government has gobbled them all up?
When the federal government became the arbiter of individual rights – freedom of religion included – the doctrine of limitation of powers was badly damaged, if not destroyed. In the real world, as opposed to the arid arena of pure theory, government – especially centralized government – is the natural enemy of natural rights. Putting the central government in exclusive charge of protecting natural rights is the height of folly.
Judge Moore rightly proclaims his innocence in the Wall Street Journal. "The First Amendment says that 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed," he protests.
However, when the Justice proclaims, "The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state," he is neglecting that along came the 14th and did away with all that.
Justice Roy Moore has more on his hands than he bargained for, although his passions are well suited to begin the necessary groundswell that'll see the repeal of the 14th Amendment.
Ilana Mercer, in a WorldNetDaily column entitled "Judge Moore and the Godless 14th Amendment," says we should repeal the Fourteenth so your state can establish a religion (and if you don't like the religion it establishes, tough noogies -- you should pack up and move):
If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect the individual from government, the 14th, in effect, defeated that purpose. What it did was to put the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.
Naturally, states can just as well violate individual rights. But, as Chodorov highlighted, there is no monopoly power behind a state's action. If a state wants to outlaw alcohol, then one can move to a state that doesn't. (That's one way for state legislators to ensure that their states will be as densely populated as the moon.) If a state wants to establish a religion, and its own constitution doesn't prohibit this, one can move to a state with a different constitution. Competition in government puts the brakes on folly and abuse and preserves freedom.
The 14th Amendment violated this balance, or as Felix Morley observed in "Freedom and Federalism," it nullified "the original purpose of the Bill of Rights, by vesting its enforcement in the national rather than in the state governments." This just about renders asunder the Ninth and 10th amendments – what powers do the states retain if the federal government has gobbled them all up?
When the federal government became the arbiter of individual rights – freedom of religion included – the doctrine of limitation of powers was badly damaged, if not destroyed. In the real world, as opposed to the arid arena of pure theory, government – especially centralized government – is the natural enemy of natural rights. Putting the central government in exclusive charge of protecting natural rights is the height of folly.
Judge Moore rightly proclaims his innocence in the Wall Street Journal. "The First Amendment says that 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed," he protests.
However, when the Justice proclaims, "The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state," he is neglecting that along came the 14th and did away with all that.
Justice Roy Moore has more on his hands than he bargained for, although his passions are well suited to begin the necessary groundswell that'll see the repeal of the 14th Amendment.
Heroin from Afghanistan is sweeping through Russia with drug trafficking operations extending across the nation's eleven time zones, a senior government official said Tuesday....
He said that about 70 percent of heroin in Russia originated in Afghanistan, which accounts for about three quarters of the world's opium, the raw material for producing heroin. The opium production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since the fall of the hardline Taliban regime, which successfully suppressed production....
--Guardian, via AP
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the link.)
He said that about 70 percent of heroin in Russia originated in Afghanistan, which accounts for about three quarters of the world's opium, the raw material for producing heroin. The opium production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since the fall of the hardline Taliban regime, which successfully suppressed production....
--Guardian, via AP
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the link.)
From the Paul Bremer article in today's Washington Post:
Bremer met yesterday with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell before starting a vacation, taking his first days off since he was dispatched to run Iraq nearly four months ago.
Four months on the job and he gets a vacation? Anybody else have a deal like this?
Bremer met yesterday with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell before starting a vacation, taking his first days off since he was dispatched to run Iraq nearly four months ago.
Four months on the job and he gets a vacation? Anybody else have a deal like this?
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Last week I caught Paul Bremer moving the goalposts regarding restoration of power in Iraq. Today yankeedoodle at Daily War News points out that Bremer now says Iraqi oil production will return to prewar levels by October 2004 (revised from September 2003 after that date was substituted for July 2003).
Well, now we have this prediction from Bremer's pals at the Iraqi Governing Council:
The head of a technical committee charged with working out procedures for drafting a new Iraqi constitution said his team would complete its work within one and a half months.
"The committee ... will shortly start consultations with broad segments of Iraqi society and meetings with influential figures, experts in constitutional law, political parties and religious dignitaries" to formulate a mechanism for the proposed constitutional assembly, Fuad Massum told reporters.
The committee's "mission will take a month, or a month and a half, but not more," following which it will present a report to the interim Governing Council, which formed the committee on August 11, he said....
The story's dated yesterday -- August 25. Forty-five days from that is October 9. Think these guys will finish up on schedule?
Don't bet the house.
(Thanks to Atrios for the Daily War News link.)
Well, now we have this prediction from Bremer's pals at the Iraqi Governing Council:
The head of a technical committee charged with working out procedures for drafting a new Iraqi constitution said his team would complete its work within one and a half months.
"The committee ... will shortly start consultations with broad segments of Iraqi society and meetings with influential figures, experts in constitutional law, political parties and religious dignitaries" to formulate a mechanism for the proposed constitutional assembly, Fuad Massum told reporters.
The committee's "mission will take a month, or a month and a half, but not more," following which it will present a report to the interim Governing Council, which formed the committee on August 11, he said....
The story's dated yesterday -- August 25. Forty-five days from that is October 9. Think these guys will finish up on schedule?
Don't bet the house.
(Thanks to Atrios for the Daily War News link.)
Billmon notes the remarkable concentration of left, liberal, and otherwise anti-conservative books on Amazon's nonfiction bestseller list.
As I write this, Al Franken is #1, Joe Conason is #2, the forthcoming Bushwhacked by Molly Ivins and Lou DuBose is #4, Jim Hightower is #6, Fast Food Nation is #7, Robert Baer's Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude is #8, Barbara Ehrenreich is #9, Michael Moore is #10, Greg Palast is #11, one of Noam Chomsky's 672,396 books (so far) is #12, Barry Glassner's The Culture of Fear (an inspiration for Bowling for Columbine) is #20, Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States is #21, Rampton and Stauber's Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq is #22, and Eric Alterman is #23.
The righties have, er, Coulter, at #5.
"What more do I need to say? Conservative books sell. I can’t help it if liberal books don’t sell."
--Newt Gingrich, 1995
As I write this, Al Franken is #1, Joe Conason is #2, the forthcoming Bushwhacked by Molly Ivins and Lou DuBose is #4, Jim Hightower is #6, Fast Food Nation is #7, Robert Baer's Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude is #8, Barbara Ehrenreich is #9, Michael Moore is #10, Greg Palast is #11, one of Noam Chomsky's 672,396 books (so far) is #12, Barry Glassner's The Culture of Fear (an inspiration for Bowling for Columbine) is #20, Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States is #21, Rampton and Stauber's Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq is #22, and Eric Alterman is #23.
The righties have, er, Coulter, at #5.
"What more do I need to say? Conservative books sell. I can’t help it if liberal books don’t sell."
--Newt Gingrich, 1995
GOD HELPS SINGER WRITE SONG ABOUT ACCUSED RIGHT-WING TERRORIST
Gospel singer Gene Collett says he took a message from God and turned it into a song about accused serial bomber Eric Robert Rudolph.
He has released "The Ballade of Eric Robert Rudolph" to 1,270 gospel and country radio stations.
"Right or wrong in what he's done, his race is over, now only in his mind are the sweet fields of clover," Collett sings in the chorus. "Rudolph has run, and where has he trod, now he faces Caesar but his final judge is God."
At least one radio station in Western North Carolina is interested in the song.
"We need to jump on that big time," said Vann Campbell, of WRKR 1320 AM in Murphy, the Cherokee County town where Rudolph was arrested May 31. "His song is really neutral. It's not overly judgmental and it doesn't make (Rudolph) out to be a hero." ...
--Citizen-Times (Asheville, N.C.)
Yeah, I guess you could say it's "neutral" -- if you assume that the line "now he faces Caesar but his final judge is God" is a general reference to the fallibility of human beings and not, you know, a prediction that if Rudolph is convicted God will say it was cool because his bombs targeted abortionists and gay people.
Gospel singer Gene Collett says he took a message from God and turned it into a song about accused serial bomber Eric Robert Rudolph.
He has released "The Ballade of Eric Robert Rudolph" to 1,270 gospel and country radio stations.
"Right or wrong in what he's done, his race is over, now only in his mind are the sweet fields of clover," Collett sings in the chorus. "Rudolph has run, and where has he trod, now he faces Caesar but his final judge is God."
At least one radio station in Western North Carolina is interested in the song.
"We need to jump on that big time," said Vann Campbell, of WRKR 1320 AM in Murphy, the Cherokee County town where Rudolph was arrested May 31. "His song is really neutral. It's not overly judgmental and it doesn't make (Rudolph) out to be a hero." ...
--Citizen-Times (Asheville, N.C.)
Yeah, I guess you could say it's "neutral" -- if you assume that the line "now he faces Caesar but his final judge is God" is a general reference to the fallibility of human beings and not, you know, a prediction that if Rudolph is convicted God will say it was cool because his bombs targeted abortionists and gay people.
Secrecy and less than full cooperation on the part of the Blair government, as reported in yesterday's Guardian:
The government withheld from the Hutton inquiry pages from one draft of its dossier setting out the dangers Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed, it was revealed yesterday....
Yesterday the Hutton inquiry said that the government had not sent it three pages from the executive summary issued in Tony Blair's name of the September 16 version, drawn up eight days before the dossier was made public....
...The Cabinet Office did not respond when asked to comment about the missing dossier pages, nor did Downing Street when asked if it would release the witness statements of Mr Blair, Mr Campbell and other officials.
Apparently it's true that poodles resemble their masters.
The government withheld from the Hutton inquiry pages from one draft of its dossier setting out the dangers Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed, it was revealed yesterday....
Yesterday the Hutton inquiry said that the government had not sent it three pages from the executive summary issued in Tony Blair's name of the September 16 version, drawn up eight days before the dossier was made public....
...The Cabinet Office did not respond when asked to comment about the missing dossier pages, nor did Downing Street when asked if it would release the witness statements of Mr Blair, Mr Campbell and other officials.
Apparently it's true that poodles resemble their masters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)