Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.
--Rush Limbaugh on his short-lived TV show, April 11, 1994, six days after the suicide by shotgun of the chronically depressed, drug-dependent leader of the rock group Nirvana
Want to explain to me again why I'm supposed to go easy on Rush Limbaugh, Howie?
(Quote from The Way Things Aren't by Steve Rendall, Jim Naureckas, and Jeff Cohen of FAIR.)
Monday, October 13, 2003
IT'LL BE A GREAT DAY WHEN THE SCHOOLS HAVE ALL THE FUNDS THEY NEED AND THE PENTAGON HAS TO SELL NUDE PICTURES OF DONALD RUMSFELD TO BUY OMBERS
How much do we care about our kids in this country? So much that local school districts have to do stuff like this:
JUNCTION CITY, Oregon (AP) -- Cleve Dumdi -- a 70-year-old respected sheep rancher, husband of a former county commissioner -- was walking in this small Oregon town one day when a longtime acquaintance hailed him from across the street.
"Hey Dumdi!," the man hollered. "Didn't recognize you with your clothes on!"
It's the kind of ribbing Dumdi has had to bear ever since he disrobed and perched on his tractor for a 2004 nudie calendar featuring the men of Junction City's Long Tom Grange.
All proceeds from calendar sales go to the Junction City school district, which has had to give up at least three classroom teachers, art, music, gym class and field trips after recent severe state cutbacks in education budgets.
The calendar, which is being sold online for $17, is the latest gambit to raise money for local schools in a state where teachers already have lined up to sell their blood plasma and ranchers have auctioned off the rights to hunt for buffalo and antelope on their property....
Look, I don't want to be totally humorless about this -- the calendar is done in good fun, in the manner of England's Ladies of Rylstone calendar, which raised money for leukemia research. But come on, people. These are our schools. These are our kids. Pay some damn taxes. The sight of slightly embarrassed middle-aged naked people is entertaining for a year or two, but for school funding it's not a long-term plan.
How much do we care about our kids in this country? So much that local school districts have to do stuff like this:
JUNCTION CITY, Oregon (AP) -- Cleve Dumdi -- a 70-year-old respected sheep rancher, husband of a former county commissioner -- was walking in this small Oregon town one day when a longtime acquaintance hailed him from across the street.
"Hey Dumdi!," the man hollered. "Didn't recognize you with your clothes on!"
It's the kind of ribbing Dumdi has had to bear ever since he disrobed and perched on his tractor for a 2004 nudie calendar featuring the men of Junction City's Long Tom Grange.
All proceeds from calendar sales go to the Junction City school district, which has had to give up at least three classroom teachers, art, music, gym class and field trips after recent severe state cutbacks in education budgets.
The calendar, which is being sold online for $17, is the latest gambit to raise money for local schools in a state where teachers already have lined up to sell their blood plasma and ranchers have auctioned off the rights to hunt for buffalo and antelope on their property....
Look, I don't want to be totally humorless about this -- the calendar is done in good fun, in the manner of England's Ladies of Rylstone calendar, which raised money for leukemia research. But come on, people. These are our schools. These are our kids. Pay some damn taxes. The sight of slightly embarrassed middle-aged naked people is entertaining for a year or two, but for school funding it's not a long-term plan.
Why does the Bush administration hate the troops?
Nearly one-quarter of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq still have not been issued a new type of ceramic body armor strong enough to stop bullets fired from assault rifles.
Delays in funding, production and shipping mean it will be December before all troops in Iraq will have the vests, which were introduced four years ago, military officials say.
Congress approved $310 million in April to buy 300,000 more of the bulletproof vests, with 30,000 destined to complete outfitting of the troops in Iraq. Of that money, however, only about $75 million has reached the Army office responsible for overseeing the vests' manufacture and distribution, said David Nelson, an official in that office....
--AP
Nearly one-quarter of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq still have not been issued a new type of ceramic body armor strong enough to stop bullets fired from assault rifles.
Delays in funding, production and shipping mean it will be December before all troops in Iraq will have the vests, which were introduced four years ago, military officials say.
Congress approved $310 million in April to buy 300,000 more of the bulletproof vests, with 30,000 destined to complete outfitting of the troops in Iraq. Of that money, however, only about $75 million has reached the Army office responsible for overseeing the vests' manufacture and distribution, said David Nelson, an official in that office....
--AP
I'm delighted that a number of newspapers, including USA Today, are running the story about the phony letter that's appeared over various soldiers' signatures in many different newspapers -- but why haven't any of the stories pointed out that this "Astroturf" (phony grassroots) propaganda technique was being used last winter by an online division of the Republican National Committee?
This scares me a bit:
BERLIN (Reuters) - Call it the "Arnold Effect."
The straight-talking Hollywood action star's election win in California has had an electrifying impact on Germany, leading to calls Friday for top politicians to voice clear ideas in simple language or be swept away at the polls.
"The more confused we are by what they say, the greater our longing for a man or woman with simple words," wrote Bild newspaper columnist Franz Josef Wagner. "The only problem is that it's the wrong ones who usually master simple language."
Schwarzenegger's victory in the California race for governor has led to editorials calling for German politicians to abandon their barely comprehensible speaking style in favor of "Klartext" (straight talk).
..."My first thought was 'Oh my God, not another Austrian emigrant -- the first one caused enough damage"' wrote Peter Boenisch, a former government spokesman and newspaper editor, in an analysis on Schwarzenegger for the tabloid Bild.
"But Germany urgently needs something Schwarzenegger-like: a can-do spirit, unconventional thinking, courage, strength and vision. We're facing the worst crisis since the war," he wrote....
"People want to be entertained and not bothered with problems," wrote the liberal Sueddeutsche Zeitung. "People want a strong leader."...
All right -- let me say that Arnold Schwarzenegger is not, at the end of the day, actually a believer in Nazism. And let me also say that Germans have tried really, really hard to learn from their mistakes in the middle of the last century.
OK, I said those things. I still don't feel any better.
BERLIN (Reuters) - Call it the "Arnold Effect."
The straight-talking Hollywood action star's election win in California has had an electrifying impact on Germany, leading to calls Friday for top politicians to voice clear ideas in simple language or be swept away at the polls.
"The more confused we are by what they say, the greater our longing for a man or woman with simple words," wrote Bild newspaper columnist Franz Josef Wagner. "The only problem is that it's the wrong ones who usually master simple language."
Schwarzenegger's victory in the California race for governor has led to editorials calling for German politicians to abandon their barely comprehensible speaking style in favor of "Klartext" (straight talk).
..."My first thought was 'Oh my God, not another Austrian emigrant -- the first one caused enough damage"' wrote Peter Boenisch, a former government spokesman and newspaper editor, in an analysis on Schwarzenegger for the tabloid Bild.
"But Germany urgently needs something Schwarzenegger-like: a can-do spirit, unconventional thinking, courage, strength and vision. We're facing the worst crisis since the war," he wrote....
"People want to be entertained and not bothered with problems," wrote the liberal Sueddeutsche Zeitung. "People want a strong leader."...
All right -- let me say that Arnold Schwarzenegger is not, at the end of the day, actually a believer in Nazism. And let me also say that Germans have tried really, really hard to learn from their mistakes in the middle of the last century.
OK, I said those things. I still don't feel any better.
GREAT MOMENTS IN TRANSPARENTLY DISHONEST SPIN
The most recent Gallup Poll shows a mixed set of results on ratings of George W. Bush. The president's job approval rating is up slightly from his previous rating, which was the low point of his presidency....
The poll was conducted Oct. 6-8 and shows Bush's job approval rating at 55%, with 42% disapproving. This represents a modest improvement from the previous Gallup Poll of Sept. 19-21, when 50% approved and 47% disapproved -- the most negative approval ratings in Bush's presidency to date.
--Gallup poll analysis at Gallup.com
* Mixed Results in Latest Bush Ratings
Not so 'mixed' - up 10%
--citation of the Gallup poll at Lucianne Goldberg's Lucianne.com
So now, if Bush is up 5% in a poll, he isn't just up 5% -- he's really up 10%, because the spread between "favorable" and "unfavorable" has now changed 10% in his direction.
This is a highly creative use of numbers. Somehow I don't think Lucianne and her allies ever read the numbers quite this way during the last presidency.
********
Here's what Gallup actually means by "mixed results":
Forty-two percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the economy, compared with steady ratings in the mid-40s from July through September. Currently, 55% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy. Bush's current economic ratings are the worst of his presidency.
...Ratings of Bush's handling of Iraq have also hit a new low. Just 47% approve while 50% disapprove, the first time this approval rating has dipped below 50% in the year in which Gallup has tracked his handling of Iraq.
...Consistent with what has been the case throughout his presidency, the public still has a generally positive impression of Bush. Sixty percent view him favorably, while 39% hold an unfavorable view. While still firmly in positive territory, this is the lowest rating Bush has received since he took office, tied with a 60% favorable rating in August 2001.
The most recent Gallup Poll shows a mixed set of results on ratings of George W. Bush. The president's job approval rating is up slightly from his previous rating, which was the low point of his presidency....
The poll was conducted Oct. 6-8 and shows Bush's job approval rating at 55%, with 42% disapproving. This represents a modest improvement from the previous Gallup Poll of Sept. 19-21, when 50% approved and 47% disapproved -- the most negative approval ratings in Bush's presidency to date.
--Gallup poll analysis at Gallup.com
* Mixed Results in Latest Bush Ratings
Not so 'mixed' - up 10%
--citation of the Gallup poll at Lucianne Goldberg's Lucianne.com
So now, if Bush is up 5% in a poll, he isn't just up 5% -- he's really up 10%, because the spread between "favorable" and "unfavorable" has now changed 10% in his direction.
This is a highly creative use of numbers. Somehow I don't think Lucianne and her allies ever read the numbers quite this way during the last presidency.
********
Here's what Gallup actually means by "mixed results":
Forty-two percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the economy, compared with steady ratings in the mid-40s from July through September. Currently, 55% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy. Bush's current economic ratings are the worst of his presidency.
...Ratings of Bush's handling of Iraq have also hit a new low. Just 47% approve while 50% disapprove, the first time this approval rating has dipped below 50% in the year in which Gallup has tracked his handling of Iraq.
...Consistent with what has been the case throughout his presidency, the public still has a generally positive impression of Bush. Sixty percent view him favorably, while 39% hold an unfavorable view. While still firmly in positive territory, this is the lowest rating Bush has received since he took office, tied with a 60% favorable rating in August 2001.
Sunday, October 12, 2003
WWJN? (WHAT WOULD JESUS NUKE?)
The U.S. State Department has condemned an on-air suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson that the agency ought to be blown up with a nuclear device.
Robertson, who heads the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, made the remark while interviewing author Joel Mowbray on "The 700 Club" television program last week. Mowbray wrote a book called "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers America's Security."
"I read your book. When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer.' I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up,'" Robertson said during the interview.
...Robertson also advocated bombing the State Department during a June interview with Mowbray.
"Well, it looks like Congress had better do something, and maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up," Robertson said.
--AP
Yes, yhe State Department denounced the remark, but nothing has been said, as far as I know, by the folks who got so worked up a few months ago about John Kerry's far milder call for "regime change in the United States."
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the link.)
The U.S. State Department has condemned an on-air suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson that the agency ought to be blown up with a nuclear device.
Robertson, who heads the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, made the remark while interviewing author Joel Mowbray on "The 700 Club" television program last week. Mowbray wrote a book called "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers America's Security."
"I read your book. When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer.' I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up,'" Robertson said during the interview.
...Robertson also advocated bombing the State Department during a June interview with Mowbray.
"Well, it looks like Congress had better do something, and maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up," Robertson said.
--AP
Yes, yhe State Department denounced the remark, but nothing has been said, as far as I know, by the folks who got so worked up a few months ago about John Kerry's far milder call for "regime change in the United States."
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the link.)
Some fun facts about CEO pay:
CEOs at companies with the largest layoffs, most underfunded pensions and biggest tax breaks were rewarded with bigger paychecks, according to a new report, “Executive Excess 2003: CEOs Win, Workers and Taxpayers Lose.”
Median CEO pay skyrocketed 44 percent from 2001 to 2002 at the 50 companies with the most announced layoffs in 2001, while overall CEO pay rose only 6 percent. These layoff leaders had median compensation of $5.1 million in 2002, compared with $3.7 million at the 365 large corporations surveyed by Business Week.
At the 30 companies with the greatest shortfall in their employees’ pension funds, CEOs made 59 percent more than the median CEO in Business Week's survey....
...At the 24 Fortune 500 companies with the most subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, median CEO pay over the 2000 to 2002 period was $26.5 million -- 87 percent more than the $14.2 million median three-year pay at firms surveyed by Business Week.
The top layoff leader in terms of layoff numbers is Carly S. Fiorina at Hewlett-Packard. She fired 25,700 workers in 2001, and saw her pay jump 231 percent, from $1.2 million in 2001 to $4.1 million in 2002.
The top layoff leader by percentage pay increase is AOL Time Warner's Gerald M. Levin, who presided over 4,380 layoffs in 2001. Levin's pay increased a staggering 1,612 percent, from $1.2 million in 2001 to $21.2 million in 2002.
The highest paid layoff leader was Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski, who took home over $71 million in 2002, a $34.7 million raise, even though he was forced out in disgrace mid-year. In 2001, Tyco laid off 11,300 workers. The top 50 layoff leaders cut a total of 465,252 jobs in 2001.
This report, by Sarah Anderson, John Cavanagh, Chris Hartman, and Scott Klinger, “ was done for the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
CEOs at companies with the largest layoffs, most underfunded pensions and biggest tax breaks were rewarded with bigger paychecks, according to a new report, “Executive Excess 2003: CEOs Win, Workers and Taxpayers Lose.”
Median CEO pay skyrocketed 44 percent from 2001 to 2002 at the 50 companies with the most announced layoffs in 2001, while overall CEO pay rose only 6 percent. These layoff leaders had median compensation of $5.1 million in 2002, compared with $3.7 million at the 365 large corporations surveyed by Business Week.
At the 30 companies with the greatest shortfall in their employees’ pension funds, CEOs made 59 percent more than the median CEO in Business Week's survey....
...At the 24 Fortune 500 companies with the most subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, median CEO pay over the 2000 to 2002 period was $26.5 million -- 87 percent more than the $14.2 million median three-year pay at firms surveyed by Business Week.
The top layoff leader in terms of layoff numbers is Carly S. Fiorina at Hewlett-Packard. She fired 25,700 workers in 2001, and saw her pay jump 231 percent, from $1.2 million in 2001 to $4.1 million in 2002.
The top layoff leader by percentage pay increase is AOL Time Warner's Gerald M. Levin, who presided over 4,380 layoffs in 2001. Levin's pay increased a staggering 1,612 percent, from $1.2 million in 2001 to $21.2 million in 2002.
The highest paid layoff leader was Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski, who took home over $71 million in 2002, a $34.7 million raise, even though he was forced out in disgrace mid-year. In 2001, Tyco laid off 11,300 workers. The top 50 layoff leaders cut a total of 465,252 jobs in 2001.
This report, by Sarah Anderson, John Cavanagh, Chris Hartman, and Scott Klinger, “ was done for the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Well, we are trying, I guess. The St. Petersburg Times reports:
Earlier this year, American officials in Iraq contracted with two United Nations agencies to provide 72-million new textbooks for Iraqi schoolchildren to replace the old books crammed with photos and praise of Saddam Hussein.
But when Iraq's schools reopened last week, there were few, if any, revised textbooks in the classrooms.
U.S. officials said that most of the new books, which are being printed primarily on local presses, may not get to Iraqi children until sometime in November. And some books may even be delayed until next April.
In the breach, references to Hussein were crossed out by hand and decals pasted over his pictures....
About 1,000 of the country's 13,500 school buildings have been refurbished so far, according to U.S. officials.
U.S. officials say the schoolbook revision project was carried out by a committee of Iraqi teachers. The committee went through more than 500 different books, deleting such statements as "learn the instruction of the Leader and all science shall be yours."
The new Iraqi education ministry also has pledged to increase salaries for teachers. In the past, teachers were paid the equivalent of $5.33 to $13.33 a month; the new scale calls for monthly wages of $66.66 to $333.33.
At the link there's information about other aspects of the reconstruction, some of it good, more of it bad. The report is summed up in this sidebar, which begins:
Status of goals
Two months ago, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq listed hundreds of projects it wanted to accomplish by Oct. 3. When that day passed on Friday, some of the tasks were done and some were not. Here is a sampling:
SECURITY
Locate, secure and eliminate WMD.
Actual: Not yet.
Defeat internal armed threats.
Actual: Not yet....
Click the link for the rest.
Earlier this year, American officials in Iraq contracted with two United Nations agencies to provide 72-million new textbooks for Iraqi schoolchildren to replace the old books crammed with photos and praise of Saddam Hussein.
But when Iraq's schools reopened last week, there were few, if any, revised textbooks in the classrooms.
U.S. officials said that most of the new books, which are being printed primarily on local presses, may not get to Iraqi children until sometime in November. And some books may even be delayed until next April.
In the breach, references to Hussein were crossed out by hand and decals pasted over his pictures....
About 1,000 of the country's 13,500 school buildings have been refurbished so far, according to U.S. officials.
U.S. officials say the schoolbook revision project was carried out by a committee of Iraqi teachers. The committee went through more than 500 different books, deleting such statements as "learn the instruction of the Leader and all science shall be yours."
The new Iraqi education ministry also has pledged to increase salaries for teachers. In the past, teachers were paid the equivalent of $5.33 to $13.33 a month; the new scale calls for monthly wages of $66.66 to $333.33.
At the link there's information about other aspects of the reconstruction, some of it good, more of it bad. The report is summed up in this sidebar, which begins:
Status of goals
Two months ago, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq listed hundreds of projects it wanted to accomplish by Oct. 3. When that day passed on Friday, some of the tasks were done and some were not. Here is a sampling:
SECURITY
Locate, secure and eliminate WMD.
Actual: Not yet.
Defeat internal armed threats.
Actual: Not yet....
Click the link for the rest.
This is truly appalling:
Catholic Churches Say Condoms Don't Stop AIDS - BBC
The lives of Roman Catholics in some of the countries worst hit by HIV/AIDS are being put at even greater risk by advice from their churches that the use of condoms does not prevent transmission of the disease, according to a British television program.
..."The moral argument against the use of condoms is being superseded by a clinical argument which is flawed," said Steve Bradshaw, reporter on the BBC Panorama program "Sex and the Holy City" that will be aired in Britain on Sunday night.
"The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon," Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, told the program.
"The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."
...The Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki told the program: "AIDS...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."
While in Luak near Lake Victoria, Gordon Wambi, director of an AIDS testing center, said he had been prevented from distributing condoms because of church opposition.
...The World Health Organization, guardian watchdog of global wellbeing, rejected the Vatican view.
"These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million," the WHO told the program....
Don't you dare accuse me of "anti-Catholic bigotry" for objecting to this. In this case, the church of my youth is working strictly in the secular realm, peddling junk science and playing games with human lives. And if you must accuse me of anti-Catholic bigotry, accuse the Centers for Disease Control as well -- although information on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV infection was once taken down from the CDC's Web site, it's back up now:
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
AIDS is, by far, the most deadly sexually transmitted disease, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. In fact, the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.
Catholic Churches Say Condoms Don't Stop AIDS - BBC
The lives of Roman Catholics in some of the countries worst hit by HIV/AIDS are being put at even greater risk by advice from their churches that the use of condoms does not prevent transmission of the disease, according to a British television program.
..."The moral argument against the use of condoms is being superseded by a clinical argument which is flawed," said Steve Bradshaw, reporter on the BBC Panorama program "Sex and the Holy City" that will be aired in Britain on Sunday night.
"The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon," Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, told the program.
"The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."
...The Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki told the program: "AIDS...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."
While in Luak near Lake Victoria, Gordon Wambi, director of an AIDS testing center, said he had been prevented from distributing condoms because of church opposition.
...The World Health Organization, guardian watchdog of global wellbeing, rejected the Vatican view.
"These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million," the WHO told the program....
Don't you dare accuse me of "anti-Catholic bigotry" for objecting to this. In this case, the church of my youth is working strictly in the secular realm, peddling junk science and playing games with human lives. And if you must accuse me of anti-Catholic bigotry, accuse the Centers for Disease Control as well -- although information on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV infection was once taken down from the CDC's Web site, it's back up now:
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
AIDS is, by far, the most deadly sexually transmitted disease, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. In fact, the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.
Well, we made everyone in America think you're a filthy traitor, but -- whoops! -- we just noticed we really have no case against you. Awfully sorry about that....
No spy rap vs. cleric? Expect just minor Gitmo charges
WASHINGTON - Army investigators are leaning toward filing slap-on-the-wrist charges versus a Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay who was investigated for espionage, a military source told the Daily News yesterday.
The "handful" of minor charges against Capt. Yousef Yee could be leveled by next week and are not expected to include the more serious allegations of spying, sedition or aiding the enemy, according to the source familiar with the probe.
"It's very weak," the military source said, saying the charges are likely to be related to dereliction of duty and disobeying a general order. "It's nothing compared to espionage or anything like that." ...
--New York Daily News
Oh, and by the way,
Several military sources said that although many questions remain in the larger espionage investigation, there is no indication a spy ring operated inside the camp.
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the link.)
No spy rap vs. cleric? Expect just minor Gitmo charges
WASHINGTON - Army investigators are leaning toward filing slap-on-the-wrist charges versus a Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay who was investigated for espionage, a military source told the Daily News yesterday.
The "handful" of minor charges against Capt. Yousef Yee could be leveled by next week and are not expected to include the more serious allegations of spying, sedition or aiding the enemy, according to the source familiar with the probe.
"It's very weak," the military source said, saying the charges are likely to be related to dereliction of duty and disobeying a general order. "It's nothing compared to espionage or anything like that." ...
--New York Daily News
Oh, and by the way,
Several military sources said that although many questions remain in the larger espionage investigation, there is no indication a spy ring operated inside the camp.
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the link.)
Ever read an actual Republican Party platform? Ever read the Texas Republican Party platform? Kevin Drum at Calpundit has, and it's more extreme than you could possibly imagine. I can give you some of the highlights (it is the official position of the Texas Republican Party that Social Security and the minimum wage should be abolished), and I can point out Neanderthal social attitudes (not only do Texas Republicans oppose adoptions by homosexuals, they believe no gay person should be allowed to be in the same room with a minor unsupervised) -- but read read Kevin's post (and the excerpts) for yourself.
Kevin says, "Texas-style conservatism has already put George Bush, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove in charge of the country, and it is very much the future of the Republican party." I agree. Forget Schwarzenegger and Giuliani. Look at the Republicans who actually run the country, in the White House and Congress and on the Supreme Court. Kevin's absolutely right -- this is why we loathe the GOP, and it's why we're right to do so.
Kevin says, "Texas-style conservatism has already put George Bush, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove in charge of the country, and it is very much the future of the Republican party." I agree. Forget Schwarzenegger and Giuliani. Look at the Republicans who actually run the country, in the White House and Congress and on the Supreme Court. Kevin's absolutely right -- this is why we loathe the GOP, and it's why we're right to do so.
I said yesterday, in response to a post at Calpundit, that I think it would be a really bad idea to do what some people are proposing -- start a drive right now to recall Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But I think this would be a perfect time for Democrats to turn the recall table on Republicans in a different way.
I think -- right now -- someone needs to draft an amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing for recall of elected and appointed officials in the federal government. Ideally, this amendment would be introduced as a bill by a member of Congress, but a petition drive calling for a constitutional convention (see Article V of the Constitution) could be rather frightening to the GOP, too.
We don't actually have to succeed -- if this gets a big enough favorable response and enough press, it will reinforce the impression of a weakened, wounded, vulnerable administration.
Just what we want going into 2004.
Recall Bush? Recall Cheney? Recall Rummy? Let's write a law that could make it happen.
(UPDATE: Yeah, I know -- a constitutional convention can go off half-cocked and produce any amendments it wants, and any con-con that took place in contemporary America would probably approve amendments outlawing abortion, mandating school prayer, banning gay marriage, and so on -- but that's no reason not to threaten to go that route. This is meant to rally refuseniks and put the regime on notice. Remember how Bob Barr called for Clinton's impeachment well before Monica? It's meant to be like that.)
But I think this would be a perfect time for Democrats to turn the recall table on Republicans in a different way.
I think -- right now -- someone needs to draft an amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing for recall of elected and appointed officials in the federal government. Ideally, this amendment would be introduced as a bill by a member of Congress, but a petition drive calling for a constitutional convention (see Article V of the Constitution) could be rather frightening to the GOP, too.
We don't actually have to succeed -- if this gets a big enough favorable response and enough press, it will reinforce the impression of a weakened, wounded, vulnerable administration.
Just what we want going into 2004.
Recall Bush? Recall Cheney? Recall Rummy? Let's write a law that could make it happen.
(UPDATE: Yeah, I know -- a constitutional convention can go off half-cocked and produce any amendments it wants, and any con-con that took place in contemporary America would probably approve amendments outlawing abortion, mandating school prayer, banning gay marriage, and so on -- but that's no reason not to threaten to go that route. This is meant to rally refuseniks and put the regime on notice. Remember how Bob Barr called for Clinton's impeachment well before Monica? It's meant to be like that.)
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Judging from this AP report, it appears that the Bush administration's new Iraq strategy consists largely of having Dick Cheney's Big Lies delivered in a high, girlish voice:
Rice Says Iraq Never Disarmed
...Condoleezza Rice told a foreign policy forum in Chicago that the team led by chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay "is finding proof that Iraq never disarmed and never complied with U.N. inspectors."
In fact, she suggested, if the U.N. Security Council knew last winter what Kay's group has uncovered now, it never would have rejected the U.S. call for war.
"Right up until the end, Saddam lied to the Security Council. And let there be no mistake, right up to the end, Saddam Hussein continued to harbor ambitions to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction and to hide his illegal weapons activity," she told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
..."We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks," Rice said. Still, she added, the possibility that the Iraqi leader could be behind another attack "beyond the scale of 9-11 ... could not be put aside." ...
Oh, for the love of Mike.... Iraq clearly had WMDs a long time ago. They're not there now, dammit. A hundred thousand Americans were in Saddam's own country overthrowing his government and he couldn't get his chem-bio-nuke act together to attack a single one of those soldiers unconventionally. The UN couldn't find the WMDs and the best we've come up with is one stinking vial of botulinum toxin squirreled away far from any battalion of soldiers or military outpost.
Do these Bushies ever get sick of lying?
(UPDATE: And don't forget that that vial of botulinum toxin had been sitting in a refrigerator since 1993, as Billmon notes, and is a precursor agent, not a bioweapon on its own.)
(UPDATE: Actually, it's awfully hard to beat the debunking of the Kay report by Fred Kaplan in Slate, which points out weasel-word after weasel-word and shows that no one's yet found evidence of an imminent threat.)
(UPDATE: I said "botulinum toxin" above, but of course it wasn't toxin at all, as a reader has pointed out. And see this later post for more, from the L.A. Times.)
Rice Says Iraq Never Disarmed
...Condoleezza Rice told a foreign policy forum in Chicago that the team led by chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay "is finding proof that Iraq never disarmed and never complied with U.N. inspectors."
In fact, she suggested, if the U.N. Security Council knew last winter what Kay's group has uncovered now, it never would have rejected the U.S. call for war.
"Right up until the end, Saddam lied to the Security Council. And let there be no mistake, right up to the end, Saddam Hussein continued to harbor ambitions to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction and to hide his illegal weapons activity," she told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
..."We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks," Rice said. Still, she added, the possibility that the Iraqi leader could be behind another attack "beyond the scale of 9-11 ... could not be put aside." ...
Oh, for the love of Mike.... Iraq clearly had WMDs a long time ago. They're not there now, dammit. A hundred thousand Americans were in Saddam's own country overthrowing his government and he couldn't get his chem-bio-nuke act together to attack a single one of those soldiers unconventionally. The UN couldn't find the WMDs and the best we've come up with is one stinking vial of botulinum toxin squirreled away far from any battalion of soldiers or military outpost.
Do these Bushies ever get sick of lying?
(UPDATE: And don't forget that that vial of botulinum toxin had been sitting in a refrigerator since 1993, as Billmon notes, and is a precursor agent, not a bioweapon on its own.)
(UPDATE: Actually, it's awfully hard to beat the debunking of the Kay report by Fred Kaplan in Slate, which points out weasel-word after weasel-word and shows that no one's yet found evidence of an imminent threat.)
(UPDATE: I said "botulinum toxin" above, but of course it wasn't toxin at all, as a reader has pointed out. And see this later post for more, from the L.A. Times.)
The New York Times has posted the front-page Financial Times story "Rumsfeld Says Not Told of Postwar Shake-up" -- it's here.
Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, said on Tuesday he had not been told by President George W. Bush or the National Security Council that the White House was to restructure the handling of postwar Iraq before the media were briefed on the plan by NSC officials.
Mr Bush has ordered the creation of an "Iraq Stabilization Group," which will be run by Condoleezza Rice who is head of the NSC, which co-ordinates foreign policy in the White House....
In an interview with the Financial Times and three European news organisations, Mr Rumsfeld insisted that the new NSC role appeared to be no different from the policy-co-ordinating structure that had existed for more than a year.
He said he did not know why Ms Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, had felt it necessary to send a memorandum about the new organisation to cabinet officials or brief the New York Times about the move.
"That's what the NSC's charter is," Mr Rumsfeld said. "The only thing unusual about it is the attention. I kind of wish they'd just release the memorandum."...
And here's the Washington Post story in which he blows up when asked about it ("I said I don't know. Isn't that clear? You don't understand English?").
Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, said on Tuesday he had not been told by President George W. Bush or the National Security Council that the White House was to restructure the handling of postwar Iraq before the media were briefed on the plan by NSC officials.
Mr Bush has ordered the creation of an "Iraq Stabilization Group," which will be run by Condoleezza Rice who is head of the NSC, which co-ordinates foreign policy in the White House....
In an interview with the Financial Times and three European news organisations, Mr Rumsfeld insisted that the new NSC role appeared to be no different from the policy-co-ordinating structure that had existed for more than a year.
He said he did not know why Ms Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, had felt it necessary to send a memorandum about the new organisation to cabinet officials or brief the New York Times about the move.
"That's what the NSC's charter is," Mr Rumsfeld said. "The only thing unusual about it is the attention. I kind of wish they'd just release the memorandum."...
And here's the Washington Post story in which he blows up when asked about it ("I said I don't know. Isn't that clear? You don't understand English?").
Meanwhile, back at the quagmire....
U.S. Can't Locate Missiles Once Held in Iraq Arsenal
The United States military has been unable to locate a large number of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that were part of the arsenal of Saddam Hussein, officials say, compounding the security risks for airports and airlines in Iraq and around the world.
The lack of accounting for the missiles — officials say there could be hundreds — is the primary reason the occupation authorities have not yet reopened the Baghdad International Airport to commercial traffic, officials said. The terminal has been rebuilt and the runways repaired, and Australian soldiers are running the air traffic control system.
But portable missiles were fired at incoming planes several times in recent weeks, one senior official said. Most of those incidents have not been reported to the public....
--New York Times
We are paying $500 to Iraqis who turn these missiles in -- but, of course, they go for $5,000 on the black market.
And TBOGG takes note of a few details in this story about changes made in the House to Bush's request for Iraq/Afghanistan money:
From Bush's request for rebuilding Iraq, the House version drops $50 million for traffic police; $300 million out of $509 million Bush wants for prisons; and $153 million that included money to buy garbage trucks for $50,000 apiece.
Also dropped from Bush's request is $100 million for restoring Iraq's marshlands, systematically emptied and destroyed by deposed President Saddam Hussein's government to punish Shiite Muslims who live there; $13 million for ZIP and area codes; $100 million to build seven public housing communities; and $150 million to begin building a new children's hospital in Basra.
Way to win hearts and minds, guys!
U.S. Can't Locate Missiles Once Held in Iraq Arsenal
The United States military has been unable to locate a large number of shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that were part of the arsenal of Saddam Hussein, officials say, compounding the security risks for airports and airlines in Iraq and around the world.
The lack of accounting for the missiles — officials say there could be hundreds — is the primary reason the occupation authorities have not yet reopened the Baghdad International Airport to commercial traffic, officials said. The terminal has been rebuilt and the runways repaired, and Australian soldiers are running the air traffic control system.
But portable missiles were fired at incoming planes several times in recent weeks, one senior official said. Most of those incidents have not been reported to the public....
--New York Times
We are paying $500 to Iraqis who turn these missiles in -- but, of course, they go for $5,000 on the black market.
And TBOGG takes note of a few details in this story about changes made in the House to Bush's request for Iraq/Afghanistan money:
From Bush's request for rebuilding Iraq, the House version drops $50 million for traffic police; $300 million out of $509 million Bush wants for prisons; and $153 million that included money to buy garbage trucks for $50,000 apiece.
Also dropped from Bush's request is $100 million for restoring Iraq's marshlands, systematically emptied and destroyed by deposed President Saddam Hussein's government to punish Shiite Muslims who live there; $13 million for ZIP and area codes; $100 million to build seven public housing communities; and $150 million to begin building a new children's hospital in Basra.
Way to win hearts and minds, guys!
There's a lot to chew on in CNN's California exit poll.
Most interesting fact, in my opinion: This was a revolt of the haves. The recall was rejected by voters with household incomes between $30,000 and $49,999, and by voters with household incomes between $15,000 and $29,999. For household incomes under $15,000, the vote was 50-50. The pro-recall majorities were in the upper brackets ($50,000-$74,999 and up), and the biggest majority (62%-38% in favor of recall) was in the $75,000-$99,999 bracket. (For a gloss on this, I wish I had my copy of Barbara Ehrenreich's Fear of Falling handy.)
Schwarzenegger got 24% of the vote of people who call themselves liberal, including 16% of those who call themselves "very liberal." He got 22% of the vote among people who disapprove of Bush.
Oh, and he got 42% of gays and bisexuals.
Of those who voted, 39% said they were Democrats, 38% Republicans. Soi what happened to that big registration advantage Democrats have? It doesn't help much if the extra Democrats don't actually vote.
64% of voters didn't think Schwarzenegger addressed issues in enough detail -- but 38% of that group voted for him anyway.
Here's my favorite: 15% of voters who "strongly approve" of Gray Davis's job performance say they voted to recall him anyway. Um, should we repeat the question?
Most interesting fact, in my opinion: This was a revolt of the haves. The recall was rejected by voters with household incomes between $30,000 and $49,999, and by voters with household incomes between $15,000 and $29,999. For household incomes under $15,000, the vote was 50-50. The pro-recall majorities were in the upper brackets ($50,000-$74,999 and up), and the biggest majority (62%-38% in favor of recall) was in the $75,000-$99,999 bracket. (For a gloss on this, I wish I had my copy of Barbara Ehrenreich's Fear of Falling handy.)
Schwarzenegger got 24% of the vote of people who call themselves liberal, including 16% of those who call themselves "very liberal." He got 22% of the vote among people who disapprove of Bush.
Oh, and he got 42% of gays and bisexuals.
Of those who voted, 39% said they were Democrats, 38% Republicans. Soi what happened to that big registration advantage Democrats have? It doesn't help much if the extra Democrats don't actually vote.
64% of voters didn't think Schwarzenegger addressed issues in enough detail -- but 38% of that group voted for him anyway.
Here's my favorite: 15% of voters who "strongly approve" of Gray Davis's job performance say they voted to recall him anyway. Um, should we repeat the question?
I'm with Kevin Drum of Calpundit -- please, no quickie campaign to recall Schwarzenegger.
I haven't read all the comments that follow his post, but the ones I've read present this as a choice between playing nice and taking a stand. But do you know that old political saying -- "When your enemy's drowning, throw him an anvil"? People who want to recall Schwarzenegger want to throw him an anvil when he's not even damp.
Let him screw up first. Then consider -- consider -- a recall campaign. Don't get so far ahead of the general population's opinion that you look ridiculous, just because you want payback for Florida '00 and the Texas legislature '03.
Sustain the anger. Develop counterarguments. But don't try to take Schwarzenegger down between election cycles unless there is genuine widespread outrage. There'll be a real election soon enough -- I'm not sure I fully believe that revenge is a dish that's best served cold, but that can be a really satisfying way to serve it. Meanwhile, if Schwarzenegger makes an absolute bollocks of the job, he'll be a big fat millstone around Bush's neck a year from now in the state with more electoral votes than any other.
I haven't read all the comments that follow his post, but the ones I've read present this as a choice between playing nice and taking a stand. But do you know that old political saying -- "When your enemy's drowning, throw him an anvil"? People who want to recall Schwarzenegger want to throw him an anvil when he's not even damp.
Let him screw up first. Then consider -- consider -- a recall campaign. Don't get so far ahead of the general population's opinion that you look ridiculous, just because you want payback for Florida '00 and the Texas legislature '03.
Sustain the anger. Develop counterarguments. But don't try to take Schwarzenegger down between election cycles unless there is genuine widespread outrage. There'll be a real election soon enough -- I'm not sure I fully believe that revenge is a dish that's best served cold, but that can be a really satisfying way to serve it. Meanwhile, if Schwarzenegger makes an absolute bollocks of the job, he'll be a big fat millstone around Bush's neck a year from now in the state with more electoral votes than any other.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Davis is out, Schwarzenegger wins -- Tom Brokaw cut into the local news just after 11:00 Eastern time to make the call. If it's this obvious this early, presumably neither vote is even close. Not that I'm the least bit surprised.
Wasn't there anyone in the national Democratic Party with a pulse and a brain who could have prevented this train wreck? This wasn't just a California race. This became the biggest news in the country. Why was Gray Davis allowed to embody the Democratic Party in this moment of intense national focus on politics? Why did Clinton and so many presidential candidates dutifully flock to Davis's side, sending a message that being a Democrat means supporting a status quo hated by the citizenry? Yes, I know that hatred was largely misplaced. But, as I've said before, a campaign isn't a damn poli sci seminar, and certainly not a campaign this short -- the time to educate the voters was long past.
Why didn't anyone tell Davis to stop signing bills that looked like interest-group pandering? Why didn't anyone see that the party's only hope was to deemphasize the "no on recall" mantra and unite behind a replacement candidate, Bustamante or someone else, with a message that it was OK if you wanted change? And why, if Gray Davis or his allies really did have a hand in it, was the eleventh-hour mudslinging -- however much fun it was for a couple of days -- allowed to happen? Didn't we learn anything about modern attitudes about politicians' sexual behavior from the Clinton years? Did supporters of Davis really think that this wouldn't be, rightly or wrongly, ascribed to Davis and, rightly or wrongly, seen as last-minute desperation?
I don't really care if I'm pissing off people who usually agree with me. This was a debacle, and it was preventable.
I'm sure a lot of people deserve blame, but I blame Terry McAuliffe. If Karl Rove can micromanage races across the country for the GOP, then McAuliffe could have developed a clue somewhere along the line and done something, anything, to prevent this embarassment.
Lord, it's worse than I thought -- maybe this isn't accurate, but Fox is projecting that Schwarzenegger got a majority of the vote on the recall ballot. A majority, in what was, or should have been, a three-man race. For Republicans everywhere, that would have to feel even better than that damn Supreme Court decision in 2000
How the hell did we allow this to happen?
Wasn't there anyone in the national Democratic Party with a pulse and a brain who could have prevented this train wreck? This wasn't just a California race. This became the biggest news in the country. Why was Gray Davis allowed to embody the Democratic Party in this moment of intense national focus on politics? Why did Clinton and so many presidential candidates dutifully flock to Davis's side, sending a message that being a Democrat means supporting a status quo hated by the citizenry? Yes, I know that hatred was largely misplaced. But, as I've said before, a campaign isn't a damn poli sci seminar, and certainly not a campaign this short -- the time to educate the voters was long past.
Why didn't anyone tell Davis to stop signing bills that looked like interest-group pandering? Why didn't anyone see that the party's only hope was to deemphasize the "no on recall" mantra and unite behind a replacement candidate, Bustamante or someone else, with a message that it was OK if you wanted change? And why, if Gray Davis or his allies really did have a hand in it, was the eleventh-hour mudslinging -- however much fun it was for a couple of days -- allowed to happen? Didn't we learn anything about modern attitudes about politicians' sexual behavior from the Clinton years? Did supporters of Davis really think that this wouldn't be, rightly or wrongly, ascribed to Davis and, rightly or wrongly, seen as last-minute desperation?
I don't really care if I'm pissing off people who usually agree with me. This was a debacle, and it was preventable.
I'm sure a lot of people deserve blame, but I blame Terry McAuliffe. If Karl Rove can micromanage races across the country for the GOP, then McAuliffe could have developed a clue somewhere along the line and done something, anything, to prevent this embarassment.
Lord, it's worse than I thought -- maybe this isn't accurate, but Fox is projecting that Schwarzenegger got a majority of the vote on the recall ballot. A majority, in what was, or should have been, a three-man race. For Republicans everywhere, that would have to feel even better than that damn Supreme Court decision in 2000
How the hell did we allow this to happen?
Not even bothering to wait until the polls close to declare their guy a winner, the folks at Fox News are saying Schwarzenegger is comfortably ahead in exit polls, according to Kathryn Jean Lopez, blogging at National Review Online.
By the way, does anyone think that some of Schwarzie's most fervent supporters might get a tad rowdy tonight?
By the way, does anyone think that some of Schwarzie's most fervent supporters might get a tad rowdy tonight?
That one-joke homophobia machine, Reverend Fred Phelps, is at it again. The proprietor of godhatesfags.com, whose last big stunt was a protest at the opening of New York City's Harvey Milk High School, wants to do something special for the folks of Matthew Shepard's hometown, Casper, Wyoming. The Denver Post reports:
To commemorate the fifth anniversary of gay college student Matthew Shepard's gruesome death, the Rev. Fred Phelps wants to erect what he calls an "absolutely beautiful" monument in Shepard's hometown of Casper, Wyo.
About 6 feet tall and 3 1/2 feet wide, Phelps' monument would bear a brass plaque reading: "Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's solemn warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."
...."He's a bad cold that won't go away," Casper City Manager Tom Forslund said of Phelps, who has announced he'll protest gay rights in Fort Collins, Casper and Laramie later this month. "He just is a very strange person. He sends faxes to us. I got three of them this morning."...
From godhatesfags.com itself, here's a rendition of the proposed monument.
According to both the Post (Phelps's site concurs), a federal court ruling may require Casper to allow the monument:
In July 2002, the 10th Circuit ruled that governments that allow statements like the Ten Commandments to be posted on public property must permit all other messages, too.
The folks who put up the Commandments monument have offered to take it back.
I don't know what Phelps's point is. He's so over the top that he alienates and embarrasses people who might agree with him. But I guess he must be having the time of his life doing this. Most guys his age would just want to buy a Porsche.
To commemorate the fifth anniversary of gay college student Matthew Shepard's gruesome death, the Rev. Fred Phelps wants to erect what he calls an "absolutely beautiful" monument in Shepard's hometown of Casper, Wyo.
About 6 feet tall and 3 1/2 feet wide, Phelps' monument would bear a brass plaque reading: "Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's solemn warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."
...."He's a bad cold that won't go away," Casper City Manager Tom Forslund said of Phelps, who has announced he'll protest gay rights in Fort Collins, Casper and Laramie later this month. "He just is a very strange person. He sends faxes to us. I got three of them this morning."...
From godhatesfags.com itself, here's a rendition of the proposed monument.
According to both the Post (Phelps's site concurs), a federal court ruling may require Casper to allow the monument:
In July 2002, the 10th Circuit ruled that governments that allow statements like the Ten Commandments to be posted on public property must permit all other messages, too.
The folks who put up the Commandments monument have offered to take it back.
I don't know what Phelps's point is. He's so over the top that he alienates and embarrasses people who might agree with him. But I guess he must be having the time of his life doing this. Most guys his age would just want to buy a Porsche.
Is this guy Rush Limbaugh, who became so upset about the fact that three Democratic presidential candidates said he should be fired from his second job, the same Rush Limbaugh who urged his listeners to make it as difficult as possible for the Dixie Chicks to do their first job?
(Thanks to TBOGG for the first link.)
(Thanks to TBOGG for the first link.)
I don't normally get my news from the right-wing frothers at Free Republic, but if what this person is saying is true, it's appalling on multiple levels, and it strongly suggests that the next recall we should have is for our entire news media, possibly worldwide:
There are literally 100's of journalists, local, national, and international waiting at the Brentwood Polling center at this very moment waiting for Arnold to vote.
They are all disappointed that he hasn't shown up yet, but they are breathlessly awaiting his arrival.
Too bad no one called them to report that Arnold voted over 2 hours ago at his polling center in Pacific Pallisades.
This is what hundreds of them are doing: waiting for him to walk out of a polling place so he can smile and wave at them.
And they don't even know where he votes, or that he voted already.
What else don't these people have a clue about?
There are literally 100's of journalists, local, national, and international waiting at the Brentwood Polling center at this very moment waiting for Arnold to vote.
They are all disappointed that he hasn't shown up yet, but they are breathlessly awaiting his arrival.
Too bad no one called them to report that Arnold voted over 2 hours ago at his polling center in Pacific Pallisades.
This is what hundreds of them are doing: waiting for him to walk out of a polling place so he can smile and wave at them.
And they don't even know where he votes, or that he voted already.
What else don't these people have a clue about?
Far too few people seem to want to think about the fact that Governor Schwarzenegger won't just be able to go around making rousing speeches with the word "terminate" in every sentence -- he'll actually have to, you know, govern, i.e., engage in a tedious, unsexy bureaucratic process involving long, dull documents that bring changes, many of them unpleasant, to ordinary people's lives. Mark Paul of The Sacramento Bee is a grown-up and hasn't forgotten this non-entertaining fact. On Sunday he tried to imagine Governor S's first year in office:
...The camera crews sent to the Capitol to record the doings of California's new celebrity governor had largely occupied themselves broadcasting pictures of angry crowds of police, firefighters and librarians protesting the impending loss of their jobs from Schwarzenegger's elimination of the car tax, a local revenue source.
...[Schwarzenegger] soon grew grumpier as his audit committee delivered the bad news. The structural deficit for the coming year was $8 billion. Backfilling the loss of the car tax, as Schwarzenegger had quickly promised in order to get the police protests out of the news, would cost another $6 billion over a year and a half. The recent court decision throwing out pension obligation bonds added $2 billion more. And the governor's promise to shift property taxes from schools back to cities and counties, if implemented, would widen the budget gap by another $2 billion.
The state's fiscal situation was "serious indeed," the audit group reported. With a gap of $18 billion there was no way to balance the budget without breaking Schwarzenegger's campaign vows to protect education and to not raise taxes, they told him.
Faced with the inexorable arithmetic, the governor at first stalled. With no time left to write his own budget, in January he offered the version left by the departed administration, filling the deficit with dubious assumptions borrowed from Sacramento's handy inventory of wishful thinking: $6 billion from a tax amnesty; $2 billion from Indian gaming tribes; $5 billion from the federal government, $3 billion in spending cuts. Fiscal experts and pundits howled. From Washington, where the Bush deficits were mounting to astronomical heights, there came only gales of laughter. Perhaps California could get assistance, Washington wags said, from a new federal entitlement program: ASDC, or Aid to States with Defective Constitutions....
I'm not sure I buy the part where he realizes he has to "bypass the unyieldingly anti-tax conservatives in his own party" -- but read it to the end, because I do think something's going to happen to make it end the way Paul thinks it's going to end.
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the link.)
...The camera crews sent to the Capitol to record the doings of California's new celebrity governor had largely occupied themselves broadcasting pictures of angry crowds of police, firefighters and librarians protesting the impending loss of their jobs from Schwarzenegger's elimination of the car tax, a local revenue source.
...[Schwarzenegger] soon grew grumpier as his audit committee delivered the bad news. The structural deficit for the coming year was $8 billion. Backfilling the loss of the car tax, as Schwarzenegger had quickly promised in order to get the police protests out of the news, would cost another $6 billion over a year and a half. The recent court decision throwing out pension obligation bonds added $2 billion more. And the governor's promise to shift property taxes from schools back to cities and counties, if implemented, would widen the budget gap by another $2 billion.
The state's fiscal situation was "serious indeed," the audit group reported. With a gap of $18 billion there was no way to balance the budget without breaking Schwarzenegger's campaign vows to protect education and to not raise taxes, they told him.
Faced with the inexorable arithmetic, the governor at first stalled. With no time left to write his own budget, in January he offered the version left by the departed administration, filling the deficit with dubious assumptions borrowed from Sacramento's handy inventory of wishful thinking: $6 billion from a tax amnesty; $2 billion from Indian gaming tribes; $5 billion from the federal government, $3 billion in spending cuts. Fiscal experts and pundits howled. From Washington, where the Bush deficits were mounting to astronomical heights, there came only gales of laughter. Perhaps California could get assistance, Washington wags said, from a new federal entitlement program: ASDC, or Aid to States with Defective Constitutions....
I'm not sure I buy the part where he realizes he has to "bypass the unyieldingly anti-tax conservatives in his own party" -- but read it to the end, because I do think something's going to happen to make it end the way Paul thinks it's going to end.
(Thanks to BuzzFlash for the link.)
Came out of nowhere to became a national cultural phenomenon and a household name? Yes.
Regarded as an entertainer, but really more of a successful businessman? Yes.
Took a form of entertainment that was considered marginal and tawdry and helped bring it into the mainstream? Yes.
Producer of an entertainment product that is looked on with disgust by the liberal intelligentsia but eagerly embraced by the American heartland? Yes.
Denounced as a hater of women despite a long-term marriage? Yes.
Accused of racism? Yes.
Willing to acknowledge past drug abuse? Yes.
Icon of 1970s hedonism who now wants to be taken seriously as a political force? Yes.
So why isn’t Larry Flynt going to be the next governor of California?
Regarded as an entertainer, but really more of a successful businessman? Yes.
Took a form of entertainment that was considered marginal and tawdry and helped bring it into the mainstream? Yes.
Producer of an entertainment product that is looked on with disgust by the liberal intelligentsia but eagerly embraced by the American heartland? Yes.
Denounced as a hater of women despite a long-term marriage? Yes.
Accused of racism? Yes.
Willing to acknowledge past drug abuse? Yes.
Icon of 1970s hedonism who now wants to be taken seriously as a political force? Yes.
So why isn’t Larry Flynt going to be the next governor of California?
And one more for California, from Bertolt Brecht:
Andrea: "Unhappy is the land that has no heroes!"
Galileo: "No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes."
Andrea: "Unhappy is the land that has no heroes!"
Galileo: "No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes."
Monday, October 06, 2003
For Cali's Election Eve I want to post a few excerpts from Cintra Wilson's essay collection A Massive Swelling, because her rants are about the recall-slash-Schwarzenegger-coronation even if they were written years before it happened. I wish Salon were still free with Cintra Wilson posting diatribes every week or two, but I'll content myself with this -- read up, Arnold:
Most celebrities suffer from an advanced strain of Hubris, which leads them to believe that everything they do is cute and interesting. These stars believe that they are well-rounded, Renaissance-style “artists” and are capable of doing more than the thing that they originally gained success for -- i.e.: Actors start thinking they can sing, write, or direct. Models start thinking they can act, or sing. Authors and songwriters start thinking they can paint. Once in a great while, we will be surprised by the versatility of a talent, but most of the time we are hushed into a helpless viewing of an enormous ego performing far outside of its element, flailing grotesquely, wrongly and shamelessly. We shall call the unfortunate disease that compels a star to disgrace itself with an unbecoming art medium “Brunitis,” lovingly named after Bruce Willis’s blues album debut, The Return of Bruno, which left us all paralyzed with feelings of hopelessness and despair.
*****************
...if a person actually becomes famous, they are somehow ethically exempt from acceptable human conduct, and nobody, due to some grave universal error, is allowed to say anything when they step outrageously out of line. An acrobat friend of mine we’ll call Sparky was hanging out with a famous heavyweight actor, doing what Hollywood people do: drinking heavily and hanging around at three A.M. Being Themselves....The actor politely asked to see [Sparky’s] watch, and Sparky obliged.... The actor put the watch on the coffee table, pulled a .45 that had been concealed in his pants, and shot it, the incredible blast terrifying everyone in the living room into a sickly green silence. The actor started smirking, in his trademark multiplex fashion. To dispel the vapor of unsafe and terrible feeling that pervaded the room, another guest drawled, “Hey, Sparky, now why don’t you give him your necklace.” Everybody chuckled with blood-sweating relief, and the evening went on. The actor never apologized, Sparky bought himself a new watch, and the incident just became another laughable, aura-enhancing, iconic legend of how that star is such a bitchin’ psycho.
*****************
Nearly all the men, young and old, that I met in L.A. openly kept Club Internationals and Penthouses around the house in stacks as high as their neck, dating back to the seventies, with dog-eared “favorite” shaved-crotch shots that they treated with the tenderness of old friends. Male Lip Service to Belief in Feminism vs. Male Desire of the Basest Forms of Feminine Exploitation is a big conundrum in L.A. One is left with the overall impression that most men in L.A. are so disgusted and confused by their own tacky sexual peccadilloes that they simply bury themselves in mounds of vice, and instead of eschewing the depravity of porn, try to embrace the normalness of it by having it be as much an obvious part of their lives as cigars or Wellbutrin.
*****************
We treat our celebrities, regardless of artistic merit, like an untouchable royal family, which causes most of us to act like dribbling serfs despite the value of our individual lives. We regard ourselves as slow-minded, vermin-infested bedwetters when presented with the gold-plated auras of media success in others. The implication of Fame, in this value-warped society, is: You’ve made it. You and your grand talents are so bright, you are somehow, both physically and spiritually, light-years beyond all us bone-sucking hacks. I yowl in disgust at this bias.
Most celebrities suffer from an advanced strain of Hubris, which leads them to believe that everything they do is cute and interesting. These stars believe that they are well-rounded, Renaissance-style “artists” and are capable of doing more than the thing that they originally gained success for -- i.e.: Actors start thinking they can sing, write, or direct. Models start thinking they can act, or sing. Authors and songwriters start thinking they can paint. Once in a great while, we will be surprised by the versatility of a talent, but most of the time we are hushed into a helpless viewing of an enormous ego performing far outside of its element, flailing grotesquely, wrongly and shamelessly. We shall call the unfortunate disease that compels a star to disgrace itself with an unbecoming art medium “Brunitis,” lovingly named after Bruce Willis’s blues album debut, The Return of Bruno, which left us all paralyzed with feelings of hopelessness and despair.
*****************
...if a person actually becomes famous, they are somehow ethically exempt from acceptable human conduct, and nobody, due to some grave universal error, is allowed to say anything when they step outrageously out of line. An acrobat friend of mine we’ll call Sparky was hanging out with a famous heavyweight actor, doing what Hollywood people do: drinking heavily and hanging around at three A.M. Being Themselves....The actor politely asked to see [Sparky’s] watch, and Sparky obliged.... The actor put the watch on the coffee table, pulled a .45 that had been concealed in his pants, and shot it, the incredible blast terrifying everyone in the living room into a sickly green silence. The actor started smirking, in his trademark multiplex fashion. To dispel the vapor of unsafe and terrible feeling that pervaded the room, another guest drawled, “Hey, Sparky, now why don’t you give him your necklace.” Everybody chuckled with blood-sweating relief, and the evening went on. The actor never apologized, Sparky bought himself a new watch, and the incident just became another laughable, aura-enhancing, iconic legend of how that star is such a bitchin’ psycho.
*****************
Nearly all the men, young and old, that I met in L.A. openly kept Club Internationals and Penthouses around the house in stacks as high as their neck, dating back to the seventies, with dog-eared “favorite” shaved-crotch shots that they treated with the tenderness of old friends. Male Lip Service to Belief in Feminism vs. Male Desire of the Basest Forms of Feminine Exploitation is a big conundrum in L.A. One is left with the overall impression that most men in L.A. are so disgusted and confused by their own tacky sexual peccadilloes that they simply bury themselves in mounds of vice, and instead of eschewing the depravity of porn, try to embrace the normalness of it by having it be as much an obvious part of their lives as cigars or Wellbutrin.
*****************
We treat our celebrities, regardless of artistic merit, like an untouchable royal family, which causes most of us to act like dribbling serfs despite the value of our individual lives. We regard ourselves as slow-minded, vermin-infested bedwetters when presented with the gold-plated auras of media success in others. The implication of Fame, in this value-warped society, is: You’ve made it. You and your grand talents are so bright, you are somehow, both physically and spiritually, light-years beyond all us bone-sucking hacks. I yowl in disgust at this bias.
If you read a lot of blogs, which I assume most of you do, it's likely that you've already seen this column from National Review Online -- because an awful lot of bloggers have (quite properly) gasped at its unabashed stupidity. If you don't read a lot of blogs -- I know some of my readers don't -- prepare to gasp yourself as Jennifer Graham prefaces a defense of Rush Limbaugh's comments on black quarterbacks:
A couple of years ago, the husband and I were eating out — something you don't do often with four kids under 10 — when he lowered his voice and gestured for me to look at the next table.
I did so, expecting to find something peculiar, such as Karl Rove conspiring with Elvis.
What I saw: A young family of five — father, mother, three young children, well-dressed, well-behaved, enjoying their night out, too. Except for the well-behaved children — mythical creatures with which we have no personal experience with — the family was unremarkable.
But they were black. And my husband whispered that in a nation where 70 percent of black children are born into homes without fathers, it was great to see a picture-perfect black family dining together. "I almost want to go give the guy a high five," he said, somewhat sheepishly.
He didn't, of course. When we left, we nodded, smiled at the children and promptly forgot the exchange...in which both of us unconsciously revealed that — horrors! — we are very desirous that black Americans do well.
It's true. We desire Condoleezza Rice to do well! We desire Colin Powell to do well! We desire Clarence Thomas to do well! We desire practically every black American — with the possible exception of O.J. — to do well!
Words fail me.
Fortuntely, words don't fail TBOGG and Atrios and Steve Gilliard (scroll down) and Jesse at Pandagon and Tom Tomorrow.
There's not much I can add to what they say, except perhaps in response to this statement by Graham:
The people on Rosa Park's bus did not want her to succeed. Today, with few exceptions, they would.
I don't believe that for a minute. When it comes to race, Americans -- liberal, moderate, and conservative -- are, generally speaking, starting to get it. But Americans don't like disorder. We don't like people who "make trouble" -- who disrupt routine and stop traffic and demand that a status quo that works for most people be changed because it's harmful to others. The Montgomery bus boycott was devastating to downtown businesses. In particular, if you believe the capitalism-worshipers at National Review Online, even the ones who denounced Trent Lott late last year, would have a good word to say about a modern Rosa Parks, you're deluding yourself.
A couple of years ago, the husband and I were eating out — something you don't do often with four kids under 10 — when he lowered his voice and gestured for me to look at the next table.
I did so, expecting to find something peculiar, such as Karl Rove conspiring with Elvis.
What I saw: A young family of five — father, mother, three young children, well-dressed, well-behaved, enjoying their night out, too. Except for the well-behaved children — mythical creatures with which we have no personal experience with — the family was unremarkable.
But they were black. And my husband whispered that in a nation where 70 percent of black children are born into homes without fathers, it was great to see a picture-perfect black family dining together. "I almost want to go give the guy a high five," he said, somewhat sheepishly.
He didn't, of course. When we left, we nodded, smiled at the children and promptly forgot the exchange...in which both of us unconsciously revealed that — horrors! — we are very desirous that black Americans do well.
It's true. We desire Condoleezza Rice to do well! We desire Colin Powell to do well! We desire Clarence Thomas to do well! We desire practically every black American — with the possible exception of O.J. — to do well!
Words fail me.
Fortuntely, words don't fail TBOGG and Atrios and Steve Gilliard (scroll down) and Jesse at Pandagon and Tom Tomorrow.
There's not much I can add to what they say, except perhaps in response to this statement by Graham:
The people on Rosa Park's bus did not want her to succeed. Today, with few exceptions, they would.
I don't believe that for a minute. When it comes to race, Americans -- liberal, moderate, and conservative -- are, generally speaking, starting to get it. But Americans don't like disorder. We don't like people who "make trouble" -- who disrupt routine and stop traffic and demand that a status quo that works for most people be changed because it's harmful to others. The Montgomery bus boycott was devastating to downtown businesses. In particular, if you believe the capitalism-worshipers at National Review Online, even the ones who denounced Trent Lott late last year, would have a good word to say about a modern Rosa Parks, you're deluding yourself.
The LA Weekly says that, yes, a Gray Davis ally is behind at least one of the Gropinator stories.
The Times maintains that none of the women came forward at the behest of Schwarzenegger’s opponents. That claim, however, is looking increasingly dubious. One of the three women in the story says she came forward at the urging of Jodie Evans, described by the Times as a peace activist and "co-founder of the women’s peace group Code Pink." At best, this is an incomplete, misleading description.
Here’s what the newspaper should have said about Evans. She is actually a former close colleague of Gov. Gray Davis, a longtime Democratic operative and a friend of noted Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland. Evans is also the ex-wife of Westside financier Max Palevsky, the man who gave Gray Davis his first job in politics as the fund-raiser in Tom Bradley’s 1973 mayoral campaign.
A few thoughts:
* Why are Democrats so much worse at lowball politics -- more ham-fisted and more likely to leave fingerprints -- than Republicans? (Surely you don't think anyone will ever suffer any consequences for outing Valerie Plame, do you?)
* There are reasons not to like Gray Davis. Wouldn't it have been nice if some part of the Democratic Party had established itself as a beachhead of anti-Davis but also anti-GOP sentiment? (The Democratic Party agrees on a message for practically the first time in its history, and the message it agrees on -- save Gray Davis's job -- is about as popular as toxic waste.)
* If people with ties to an embattled Republican governor floated a story like this to Fox News, can you even conceive of any publication or group on the Right that would expose the connection rather than helping to circle the wagons?
* Schwarzenegger is still a sleazebag.
The Times maintains that none of the women came forward at the behest of Schwarzenegger’s opponents. That claim, however, is looking increasingly dubious. One of the three women in the story says she came forward at the urging of Jodie Evans, described by the Times as a peace activist and "co-founder of the women’s peace group Code Pink." At best, this is an incomplete, misleading description.
Here’s what the newspaper should have said about Evans. She is actually a former close colleague of Gov. Gray Davis, a longtime Democratic operative and a friend of noted Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland. Evans is also the ex-wife of Westside financier Max Palevsky, the man who gave Gray Davis his first job in politics as the fund-raiser in Tom Bradley’s 1973 mayoral campaign.
A few thoughts:
* Why are Democrats so much worse at lowball politics -- more ham-fisted and more likely to leave fingerprints -- than Republicans? (Surely you don't think anyone will ever suffer any consequences for outing Valerie Plame, do you?)
* There are reasons not to like Gray Davis. Wouldn't it have been nice if some part of the Democratic Party had established itself as a beachhead of anti-Davis but also anti-GOP sentiment? (The Democratic Party agrees on a message for practically the first time in its history, and the message it agrees on -- save Gray Davis's job -- is about as popular as toxic waste.)
* If people with ties to an embattled Republican governor floated a story like this to Fox News, can you even conceive of any publication or group on the Right that would expose the connection rather than helping to circle the wagons?
* Schwarzenegger is still a sleazebag.
Maybe you'll get a different link, but when I go to this Amazon page, the page includes a "sponsored link" to something called Dixie Outfitters -- which sells Confederate-flag T-shirts (for example, this one, which scares me, and this one and this one, from the "girl's" page, which I just find creepy).
Um, why is Amazon accepting sponsorship by proud supporters of this flag of racism and treason?
Um, why is Amazon accepting sponsorship by proud supporters of this flag of racism and treason?
Sunday, October 05, 2003
If Schwarzenegger wins on Tuesday, we probably shouldn't be surprised.
But we also shouldn't be disheartened. Think about what happened to the last two political figures who went through huge scandals involving sex -- Bill Clinton and Clarence Thomas.
Bill Clinton's job approval ratings were strikingly high through the Monica period (early '98 to early '99) -- they were mostly in the mid-60s. But after Clinton avoided conviction in the Senate, his ratings went down somewhat. What's more, the taint of the scandal lingered. It hurt Al Gore in 2000 and it hurts Clinton's reputation (and the Democrats') to this day.
Clarence Thomas had a similar experience. As Jane Mayer and Jill Abraham note in their book on the Thomas confirmation battle, Strange Justice, 47% of Americans believed Thomas and only 24% believed Anita Hill in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in October 1991, the month of the Thomas hearings. But a year later there was a significant reversal of opinion: 44% believed Hill and only 34% believed Thomas. And by that time Thomas had become a national punchline, a fact that even David Brock's hit job The Real Anita Hill couldn't change.
Americans don't seem to want to be told that sexual behavior disqualifies someone in the political sphere -- at least while the attacks threaten that person's career. But when the scandal fades, the accusations linger -- maybe because now it looks as if the guy got away with something sleazy. It makes no sense, but we don't want these people bounced, yet afterward we don't like the fact that they weren't bounced.
So I think a year from now there's going to be a perception that a sleazebag got away with something in California and made it to the governor's mansion. This is going to taint the Republicans -- nationally, because Schwarzenegger is newsworthy coast to coast. Whenever Governor Schwarzenegger screws up, we'll be reminded, yet again, that he's also a groper who likes to goosestep. And it's going to make campaigning in California difficult for Bush.
The Republicans really want this win. They should be careful what they wish for.
But we also shouldn't be disheartened. Think about what happened to the last two political figures who went through huge scandals involving sex -- Bill Clinton and Clarence Thomas.
Bill Clinton's job approval ratings were strikingly high through the Monica period (early '98 to early '99) -- they were mostly in the mid-60s. But after Clinton avoided conviction in the Senate, his ratings went down somewhat. What's more, the taint of the scandal lingered. It hurt Al Gore in 2000 and it hurts Clinton's reputation (and the Democrats') to this day.
Clarence Thomas had a similar experience. As Jane Mayer and Jill Abraham note in their book on the Thomas confirmation battle, Strange Justice, 47% of Americans believed Thomas and only 24% believed Anita Hill in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in October 1991, the month of the Thomas hearings. But a year later there was a significant reversal of opinion: 44% believed Hill and only 34% believed Thomas. And by that time Thomas had become a national punchline, a fact that even David Brock's hit job The Real Anita Hill couldn't change.
Americans don't seem to want to be told that sexual behavior disqualifies someone in the political sphere -- at least while the attacks threaten that person's career. But when the scandal fades, the accusations linger -- maybe because now it looks as if the guy got away with something sleazy. It makes no sense, but we don't want these people bounced, yet afterward we don't like the fact that they weren't bounced.
So I think a year from now there's going to be a perception that a sleazebag got away with something in California and made it to the governor's mansion. This is going to taint the Republicans -- nationally, because Schwarzenegger is newsworthy coast to coast. Whenever Governor Schwarzenegger screws up, we'll be reminded, yet again, that he's also a groper who likes to goosestep. And it's going to make campaigning in California difficult for Bush.
The Republicans really want this win. They should be careful what they wish for.
The big news in England today is that Robin Cook, Tony Blair's former foreign secretary, says in a forthcoming book that Blair knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction that could hit targets outside Iraq's borders within 45 minutes. An excerpt from the book is in The Times of London; I don't have an online subscription to The Times, but this is from The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday:
In an explosive allegation which challenges the Prime Minister’s honesty and dramatically undermines the case for military action, Cook says Blair told him on March 5 he no longer believed Saddam had WMD ready to fire within 45 minutes.
Cook claims John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, also "assented" that the Iraqi dictator possessed no such weapons....
...Cook claims that during a private meeting with Blair he told the Prime Minister it was clear from a briefing he had from John Scarlett that Saddam had no WMD that could strike at strategic cities. Cook also said Saddam probably did have several thousands of battlefield chemical munitions and asked the Prime Minister if he feared the Iraqi leader could use these against British troops.
Cook writes that Blair replied: "Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use." Cook adds: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion. The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of this view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the Prime Minister and both had assented to it."
In a New York Review of Books article (which unfortunately isn't available online except to subscribers and purchasers), James Fenton points out that John Scarlett has, in effect, verified Cook's claim. On August 26, Scarlett was testifying at the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelley, the weapons scientist who was the source of a BBC report undermining the Blair government's claims about Iraq. Scarlett said this about Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter, and Gilligan's source, Dr. Kelley:
SCARLETT: ...certainly Andrew Gilligan, when quoting his source, said that the source believed that the report was relating to warheads for missiles.
LORD HUTTON: Yes.
SCARLETT: Which, in fact, it was not; it related to munitions, which we had interpreted to mean battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry, quite different from missiles.
Fenton, in his NYRB article, makes clear what this means:
This, from Scarlett, was entirely new. After three months of daily public wrangling on this point, and nearly a year after the original dossier's publication, the Cabinet's head of intelligence finally vouchsafed the fact that the weapons of mass destruction Blair had thought merited a war were such as might be fired from mortars or small-caliber weapons -- devilishly tiny weapons of mass destruction. They were not installed in missiles that could reach Tel Aviv, Kuwait City, Cyprus, and other parts of the region. No wonder they have proved so elusive.
And yet Tony Blair had written this in his foreword to the September 2002 dossier:
Intelligence reports make clear that he [Saddam] sees the building up of his WMD capability, and the belief overseas that he would use these weapons, as vital to his strategic interests, and in particular his goal of regional domination. And the document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.
That was untrue, and it's obvious that in early 2003 it was widely known in the Blair government that it was untrue.
In an explosive allegation which challenges the Prime Minister’s honesty and dramatically undermines the case for military action, Cook says Blair told him on March 5 he no longer believed Saddam had WMD ready to fire within 45 minutes.
Cook claims John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, also "assented" that the Iraqi dictator possessed no such weapons....
...Cook claims that during a private meeting with Blair he told the Prime Minister it was clear from a briefing he had from John Scarlett that Saddam had no WMD that could strike at strategic cities. Cook also said Saddam probably did have several thousands of battlefield chemical munitions and asked the Prime Minister if he feared the Iraqi leader could use these against British troops.
Cook writes that Blair replied: "Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use." Cook adds: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion. The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of this view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the Prime Minister and both had assented to it."
In a New York Review of Books article (which unfortunately isn't available online except to subscribers and purchasers), James Fenton points out that John Scarlett has, in effect, verified Cook's claim. On August 26, Scarlett was testifying at the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelley, the weapons scientist who was the source of a BBC report undermining the Blair government's claims about Iraq. Scarlett said this about Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter, and Gilligan's source, Dr. Kelley:
SCARLETT: ...certainly Andrew Gilligan, when quoting his source, said that the source believed that the report was relating to warheads for missiles.
LORD HUTTON: Yes.
SCARLETT: Which, in fact, it was not; it related to munitions, which we had interpreted to mean battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry, quite different from missiles.
Fenton, in his NYRB article, makes clear what this means:
This, from Scarlett, was entirely new. After three months of daily public wrangling on this point, and nearly a year after the original dossier's publication, the Cabinet's head of intelligence finally vouchsafed the fact that the weapons of mass destruction Blair had thought merited a war were such as might be fired from mortars or small-caliber weapons -- devilishly tiny weapons of mass destruction. They were not installed in missiles that could reach Tel Aviv, Kuwait City, Cyprus, and other parts of the region. No wonder they have proved so elusive.
And yet Tony Blair had written this in his foreword to the September 2002 dossier:
Intelligence reports make clear that he [Saddam] sees the building up of his WMD capability, and the belief overseas that he would use these weapons, as vital to his strategic interests, and in particular his goal of regional domination. And the document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.
That was untrue, and it's obvious that in early 2003 it was widely known in the Blair government that it was untrue.
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Yesterday I told you about the backing and filling of George Butler, author of the book proposal in which Arnold Schwarzenegger either (a) said he admired Hitler or (b) said he kinda-sorta admired Hitler's line readings but really, really had no earthly idea what figures from history he admired. Apparently the discrepancy can be cleared up if we can get hold of outtakes Schwarzenegger took possession of in 1991, but ... well, Schwarzie's dog ate them -- or something like that:
The campaign appeared to refine its position on release of the footage from Mr. Schwarzenegger's initial statements on Thursday, when he said he was prepared to release the film outtakes to the public but was not sure where they were. "I don't know if I have them now," he said in an interview Thursday afternoon. "If I find them, I would."
Meanwhile, the campaign and Butler did an elegant little evasion two-step:
...Mr. Butler said yesterday that he had located a relevant transcript of about 20 pages. He read portions over the phone to a reporter, but he declined to provide the transcript in full without the authorization of the campaign. By the time that a spokesman for the campaign authorized the release at the end of the day, Mr. Butler could not be reached....
Mr. Butler said the book proposal had erroneously dropped a few words from a quotation attributed to Mr. Schwarzenegger. According to Mr. Butler's reading of the transcript, Mr. Schwarzenegger followed his comments about Hitler's public speaking by adding, "But I didn't admire him for what he did with it." He did not say, "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it," as he was quoted in the book proposal and in early editions of The Times.
Mr. Butler said he could not explain the inaccuracy. "I am amazed that something like that escaped me."
Yes, isn't that amazing.
Another fun detail:
Yesterday, Douglas Kent Hall, a writer and photographer who co-authored Mr. Schwarzenegger's autobiography, "Arnold: The Education of a Body Builder," said that on two occasions around 1980 he, too, had watched Mr. Schwarzenegger imitate Hitler gestures and appearance for laughs. Mr. Hall provided a photograph of Mr. Schwarzenegger clowning around in a barbershop, pulling his hair down over his forehead, employing the end of a comb as a short mustache, and raising his fist.
I haven't found the photo yet. I'd love to see it.
The campaign appeared to refine its position on release of the footage from Mr. Schwarzenegger's initial statements on Thursday, when he said he was prepared to release the film outtakes to the public but was not sure where they were. "I don't know if I have them now," he said in an interview Thursday afternoon. "If I find them, I would."
Meanwhile, the campaign and Butler did an elegant little evasion two-step:
...Mr. Butler said yesterday that he had located a relevant transcript of about 20 pages. He read portions over the phone to a reporter, but he declined to provide the transcript in full without the authorization of the campaign. By the time that a spokesman for the campaign authorized the release at the end of the day, Mr. Butler could not be reached....
Mr. Butler said the book proposal had erroneously dropped a few words from a quotation attributed to Mr. Schwarzenegger. According to Mr. Butler's reading of the transcript, Mr. Schwarzenegger followed his comments about Hitler's public speaking by adding, "But I didn't admire him for what he did with it." He did not say, "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it," as he was quoted in the book proposal and in early editions of The Times.
Mr. Butler said he could not explain the inaccuracy. "I am amazed that something like that escaped me."
Yes, isn't that amazing.
Another fun detail:
Yesterday, Douglas Kent Hall, a writer and photographer who co-authored Mr. Schwarzenegger's autobiography, "Arnold: The Education of a Body Builder," said that on two occasions around 1980 he, too, had watched Mr. Schwarzenegger imitate Hitler gestures and appearance for laughs. Mr. Hall provided a photograph of Mr. Schwarzenegger clowning around in a barbershop, pulling his hair down over his forehead, employing the end of a comb as a short mustache, and raising his fist.
I haven't found the photo yet. I'd love to see it.
"It really is an emerging situation," Limbaugh said on his syndicated radio talk show. "When I get all the facts, rest assured I will discuss it with you."...
"I'm not even going to characterize this on how you should look at this in the press," said Limbaugh, who said he got more than 35,000 supportive E-mails. "I'm going to come clean when I get all the facts and details."
--New York Daily News
Hey, Rush, do you need an indictment in your hand before you can tell us for sure whether you yourself bought pills in a parking lot?
"I'm not even going to characterize this on how you should look at this in the press," said Limbaugh, who said he got more than 35,000 supportive E-mails. "I'm going to come clean when I get all the facts and details."
--New York Daily News
Hey, Rush, do you need an indictment in your hand before you can tell us for sure whether you yourself bought pills in a parking lot?
Floyd Norris of The New York Times thinks the U.S. economy just had a terrific quarter -- but there's no reason to expect an encore:
The third quarter was a phenomenal one for the American economy, which probably grew at an annual rate of above 5 percent. Corporate profits soared....
Overlooked in some of the analysis at the time was the most obvious fact of all: checks totaling $13.7 billion were being mailed out by Uncle Sam to millions of families....
Now comes the aftermath. The checks were in the hands of Americans in July and August, and clearly lifted spending in the back-to-school season. We don't have September numbers yet, but there was probably some stimulative effect then. But it's over now....
"The fading of the tax-cut impact means consumption growth will slow significantly in coming months," said Greg Jensen of Bridgewater Associates, an institutional money management firm. "There is some chance this decline will be muted if corporations start hiring, but there are no signs they are doing that yet. Without a significant increase in labor compensation, spending growth will decline significantly and we could be in the early stages of a renewed dip in the economy."
The third quarter was a phenomenal one for the American economy, which probably grew at an annual rate of above 5 percent. Corporate profits soared....
Overlooked in some of the analysis at the time was the most obvious fact of all: checks totaling $13.7 billion were being mailed out by Uncle Sam to millions of families....
Now comes the aftermath. The checks were in the hands of Americans in July and August, and clearly lifted spending in the back-to-school season. We don't have September numbers yet, but there was probably some stimulative effect then. But it's over now....
"The fading of the tax-cut impact means consumption growth will slow significantly in coming months," said Greg Jensen of Bridgewater Associates, an institutional money management firm. "There is some chance this decline will be muted if corporations start hiring, but there are no signs they are doing that yet. Without a significant increase in labor compensation, spending growth will decline significantly and we could be in the early stages of a renewed dip in the economy."
Friday, October 03, 2003
In Newsday, Ellis Henican hoists Rush Limbaugh on several of his own petards. Quite delightful. Here's one from 1995, about racial sentencing disparities in drug cases:
"What this says to me," he told his listeners that day, "is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
Thanks to the good Roger Ailes for this one. (Roger thinks it may not be fair to chastise Rush for words he uttered about drugs at a time when he hadn't succumbed to them. I disagree. If you suddenly discover that a certain class of people doesn't consist exclusively of moral degenerates when you yourself find yourself in that class, maybe you were wrong all along to be such a mean-spirited son of a bitch.)
"What this says to me," he told his listeners that day, "is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
Thanks to the good Roger Ailes for this one. (Roger thinks it may not be fair to chastise Rush for words he uttered about drugs at a time when he hadn't succumbed to them. I disagree. If you suddenly discover that a certain class of people doesn't consist exclusively of moral degenerates when you yourself find yourself in that class, maybe you were wrong all along to be such a mean-spirited son of a bitch.)
The fun never stops:
John Rocker, the former Atlanta Brave who's hardly the voice of discretion, has come out in defense of Rush Limbaugh.
"All I will say, is people need [to] stop being so sensitive," Rocker said while appearing on Sporting News Radio's Peter Brown Show this week. "(Rush) wasn't trying to physically hurt or mentally hurt Donovan McNabb. I mean, he just wasn't doing it. I know Donovan is probably a little upset by it, but that certainly wasn't [Rush's] his intent. He has been a journalist and newsman long enough to know better than to intentionally, blatantly make a comment like that to intentionally offend somebody."...
Yes, that John Rocker. In case you've forgotten the Sports Illustrated cover story on him, the good folks at Time Warner still archive it:
* On ever playing for a New York team: "I would retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you're [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing."
* On New York City itself: "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"
You're with your own kind now, Rush.
John Rocker, the former Atlanta Brave who's hardly the voice of discretion, has come out in defense of Rush Limbaugh.
"All I will say, is people need [to] stop being so sensitive," Rocker said while appearing on Sporting News Radio's Peter Brown Show this week. "(Rush) wasn't trying to physically hurt or mentally hurt Donovan McNabb. I mean, he just wasn't doing it. I know Donovan is probably a little upset by it, but that certainly wasn't [Rush's] his intent. He has been a journalist and newsman long enough to know better than to intentionally, blatantly make a comment like that to intentionally offend somebody."...
Yes, that John Rocker. In case you've forgotten the Sports Illustrated cover story on him, the good folks at Time Warner still archive it:
* On ever playing for a New York team: "I would retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you're [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing."
* On New York City itself: "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"
You're with your own kind now, Rush.
One more:
A well-known nationally syndicated radio host on Thursday publicly described being groped and propositioned by Arnold Schwarzenegger more than 20 years ago, when she was starting in the business and he was promoting his film "Pumping Iron."
Joy Browne, a psychologist whose advice program is syndicated to nearly 200 stations nationwide, described on the radio an encounter with Schwarzenegger that took place during an interview about the documentary, which was released in 1977.
Schwarzenegger fondled her legs under the table during the interview, she said.
Then, she said, he left his Gold American Express card in the studio and insisted that Browne personally return it to his hotel room.
According to Browne, who was in her late 20s at the time, she took her young daughter along to return the credit card. Schwarzenegger, she said, answered the door in tight pants, wearing no shirt. He had champagne. He asked her if her daughter could "take a walk for a while?"
She declined....
--L.A. Times
A well-known nationally syndicated radio host on Thursday publicly described being groped and propositioned by Arnold Schwarzenegger more than 20 years ago, when she was starting in the business and he was promoting his film "Pumping Iron."
Joy Browne, a psychologist whose advice program is syndicated to nearly 200 stations nationwide, described on the radio an encounter with Schwarzenegger that took place during an interview about the documentary, which was released in 1977.
Schwarzenegger fondled her legs under the table during the interview, she said.
Then, she said, he left his Gold American Express card in the studio and insisted that Browne personally return it to his hotel room.
According to Browne, who was in her late 20s at the time, she took her young daughter along to return the credit card. Schwarzenegger, she said, answered the door in tight pants, wearing no shirt. He had champagne. He asked her if her daughter could "take a walk for a while?"
She declined....
--L.A. Times
Just in case you don't know every last embarrassing detail of the Nazi allegations, this is what's in The New York Times today:
In addition to the transcript, Mr. Butler wrote in his book proposal that in the 1970's, he considered Mr. Schwarzenegger a "flagrant, outspoken admirer of Hitler." In the proposal, Mr. Butler also said he had seen Mr. Schwarzenegger playing "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his collection at home" and said that the actor "frequently clicked his heels and pretended to be an S.S. officer."...
The Times also reports that George Butler is backpedaling desperately:
...early this morning, Mr. Butler called back, saying he had driven back to his New Hampshire home and found another transcript of the interview, with different wording: "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it. It's very hard to say who I admire, who are my heroes."
Mr. Butler that his transcribers had had difficulty rendering Mr. Schwarzenegger's remarks because of his accent and said the only way to resolve the discrepancy was to listen to the tapes, which are in Mr. Schwarznegger's possession.
And I guess Arnold really wasn't clicking his heels and imitating an SS officer -- he was really doing the Electric Slide, but Butler couldn't tell because Arnold's feet move with an Austrian accent.
In addition to the transcript, Mr. Butler wrote in his book proposal that in the 1970's, he considered Mr. Schwarzenegger a "flagrant, outspoken admirer of Hitler." In the proposal, Mr. Butler also said he had seen Mr. Schwarzenegger playing "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his collection at home" and said that the actor "frequently clicked his heels and pretended to be an S.S. officer."...
The Times also reports that George Butler is backpedaling desperately:
...early this morning, Mr. Butler called back, saying he had driven back to his New Hampshire home and found another transcript of the interview, with different wording: "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it. It's very hard to say who I admire, who are my heroes."
Mr. Butler that his transcribers had had difficulty rendering Mr. Schwarzenegger's remarks because of his accent and said the only way to resolve the discrepancy was to listen to the tapes, which are in Mr. Schwarznegger's possession.
And I guess Arnold really wasn't clicking his heels and imitating an SS officer -- he was really doing the Electric Slide, but Butler couldn't tell because Arnold's feet move with an Austrian accent.
To look at something that's 20, 30 years old, that's just not fair and not relevant. If you have to go back to the '70s, '80s and '90s to make your point, maybe it's not a point.
--conservative San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, quoted in Howard Kurtz's Washington Post column today in response to charges that Arnold Schwarzenegger harassed women
I didn't believe Gennifer Flowers when she said she had an affair with Bill Clinton. I felt the burden of proof was on the accuser. Then I didn't even listen to her whole story because her accusation -- that they had an adulterous affair to which she had consented -- seemed so, well, cheesy. Then I read Clinton's own testimony and learned that he lied to the American people when he denied the affair. Now I believe Gennifer Flowers. (I still don't believe Clinton when he testified under oath that he only had sex with Gennifer Flowers "once.'') ... I believe Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1978. I don't believe Clinton's attorney's denial. I believe that this White House -- or Clinton's outside operatives -- will do everything possible to smear the reputations of women who tell the truth about Clinton....
--Debra Saunders, writing on February 26, 1999, in the San Francisco Chronicle (quoted here)
--conservative San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, quoted in Howard Kurtz's Washington Post column today in response to charges that Arnold Schwarzenegger harassed women
I didn't believe Gennifer Flowers when she said she had an affair with Bill Clinton. I felt the burden of proof was on the accuser. Then I didn't even listen to her whole story because her accusation -- that they had an adulterous affair to which she had consented -- seemed so, well, cheesy. Then I read Clinton's own testimony and learned that he lied to the American people when he denied the affair. Now I believe Gennifer Flowers. (I still don't believe Clinton when he testified under oath that he only had sex with Gennifer Flowers "once.'') ... I believe Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1978. I don't believe Clinton's attorney's denial. I believe that this White House -- or Clinton's outside operatives -- will do everything possible to smear the reputations of women who tell the truth about Clinton....
--Debra Saunders, writing on February 26, 1999, in the San Francisco Chronicle (quoted here)
On ABC this morning, Jake Tapper said that a pro-Schwarzenegger demonstration is planned for today, organized by a group called “California Guys for the Arnold Lifestyle.”
(Yeah, I realize “demonstration” is probably a strong word for this event, which I imagine will basically be a happy hour with picket signs, involving maybe eight guys whose real goal is to get on The Howard Stern Show.)
This reminds me of an online-only Newsweek article I read earlier this week. The article suggests that over the past couple of years Vice, WYWS, and other “cool” magazines have been promoting what might be called the “Arnold lifestyle”:
… in [WYWS], two birds are killed with one stone when a leading porn Web master says, “I love the NRA, less government, less taxes, supply-side economics and freedom of speech. I believe in family values....”
Vice magazine’s conservatism is declared rather than inferred. Just before the American invasion of Iraq, its cover featured two concupiscent breasts, a sparkly crucifix and the motto, in Gothic script, THE WEST IS BEST. Last month, Vice’s cofounder Gavin McInnes wrote an article for Pat Buchanan’s magazine the American Conservative bearing the subtitle, “It’s getting cooler to be conservative,” in which he asserted it has “become fashionable to link liberalism with weakness and conservatism with honesty.”
Joy Press, writing last November in The Village Voice, noted that the Vicers, like Schwarzenegger, seem equally amused by hedonism and fascism:
"Hanging out with Ryan [hard-partying Vice photo editor Ryan McGinley] you feel like you're part of an infamous moment," brags McInnes. ". . . Even when you're puking or getting swastika's [sic] drawn on your passed out face you're thinking, 'I'm making history.' "
And Vice’s most notorious article reflects an attitude toward sexual consent that seems rather Schwarzeneggeresque:
Last year's "Vice Guide to Getting Reamed Up the Cake" outlined a five-month campaign to coax your reluctant girlfriend into getting "down with the brown." McInnes advises, "She won't like anal sex until her seventeenth time. It's an acquired taste. But you have to get her to want to go through that good pain, seventeen times. To get that response, you must employ the 'Pavlov's Dog' technique." The piece's underlying message is more Camille Paglia than Dr. Ruth: "Love hurts and sex is hostile."
If Schwarzenegger wins, maybe one of these guys can be his press secretary.
(Yeah, I realize “demonstration” is probably a strong word for this event, which I imagine will basically be a happy hour with picket signs, involving maybe eight guys whose real goal is to get on The Howard Stern Show.)
This reminds me of an online-only Newsweek article I read earlier this week. The article suggests that over the past couple of years Vice, WYWS, and other “cool” magazines have been promoting what might be called the “Arnold lifestyle”:
… in [WYWS], two birds are killed with one stone when a leading porn Web master says, “I love the NRA, less government, less taxes, supply-side economics and freedom of speech. I believe in family values....”
Vice magazine’s conservatism is declared rather than inferred. Just before the American invasion of Iraq, its cover featured two concupiscent breasts, a sparkly crucifix and the motto, in Gothic script, THE WEST IS BEST. Last month, Vice’s cofounder Gavin McInnes wrote an article for Pat Buchanan’s magazine the American Conservative bearing the subtitle, “It’s getting cooler to be conservative,” in which he asserted it has “become fashionable to link liberalism with weakness and conservatism with honesty.”
Joy Press, writing last November in The Village Voice, noted that the Vicers, like Schwarzenegger, seem equally amused by hedonism and fascism:
"Hanging out with Ryan [hard-partying Vice photo editor Ryan McGinley] you feel like you're part of an infamous moment," brags McInnes. ". . . Even when you're puking or getting swastika's [sic] drawn on your passed out face you're thinking, 'I'm making history.' "
And Vice’s most notorious article reflects an attitude toward sexual consent that seems rather Schwarzeneggeresque:
Last year's "Vice Guide to Getting Reamed Up the Cake" outlined a five-month campaign to coax your reluctant girlfriend into getting "down with the brown." McInnes advises, "She won't like anal sex until her seventeenth time. It's an acquired taste. But you have to get her to want to go through that good pain, seventeen times. To get that response, you must employ the 'Pavlov's Dog' technique." The piece's underlying message is more Camille Paglia than Dr. Ruth: "Love hurts and sex is hostile."
If Schwarzenegger wins, maybe one of these guys can be his press secretary.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
In the course of reviewing several books on George W. Bush for The New York Observer, Robert Sam Anson read The Faith of George W. Bush by Stephen Mansfield, so you wouldn't have to. So how did Bush find God?
Mr. Mansfield reports that Mr. Bush’s journey from Jack Daniels to Jesus Christ commenced with his attendance of a 1984 revival meeting conducted by evangelist Arthur Blessit, holder of the Guinness "longest walk" crown, for having hauled a 12-foot cross 38,800 miles across 284 nations.
Yikes.
A quick Net search reveals that Blessitt (with two t's) is still around and, according to his home page, still schlepping that cross. (Here you can find a spec sheet for the cross, and the accompanying tire -- I think he wheels it, which seems like cheating.) Blessitt's site notes that he was a minister on Sunset Strip in the 1960s. (Cool shirt! Cool love beads!) On his site Blessitt also discusses the day he first joined hands and prayed with Dubya ('He had a firm strong but tender grip") -- though his story seems to suggest that Bush later gave Billy Graham most of the credit for actually converting him. (Blessitt's story about a subsequent attempt to make contact with Bush reminds me a bit of that awkward scene in Truth or Dare in which a schoolmate of Madonna's meets her backstage and it's obvious that Madonna can barely endure the old acquaintance's non-fabulousness.)
Anson, in his book review, discusses a more recent prayer session between Bush and a marquee name of televangelism:
[Bush's] crusade for "regime change" in Iraq was sealed by an Oval Office kneel-down with Reverend [James] Robison. (According to Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Bush’s decision-making in this case was divinely simple: "Saddam is evil …. Evil-doers have no legitimacy. Removing Saddam is a moral act. Case closed.")
Again, yikes.
Mr. Mansfield reports that Mr. Bush’s journey from Jack Daniels to Jesus Christ commenced with his attendance of a 1984 revival meeting conducted by evangelist Arthur Blessit, holder of the Guinness "longest walk" crown, for having hauled a 12-foot cross 38,800 miles across 284 nations.
Yikes.
A quick Net search reveals that Blessitt (with two t's) is still around and, according to his home page, still schlepping that cross. (Here you can find a spec sheet for the cross, and the accompanying tire -- I think he wheels it, which seems like cheating.) Blessitt's site notes that he was a minister on Sunset Strip in the 1960s. (Cool shirt! Cool love beads!) On his site Blessitt also discusses the day he first joined hands and prayed with Dubya ('He had a firm strong but tender grip") -- though his story seems to suggest that Bush later gave Billy Graham most of the credit for actually converting him. (Blessitt's story about a subsequent attempt to make contact with Bush reminds me a bit of that awkward scene in Truth or Dare in which a schoolmate of Madonna's meets her backstage and it's obvious that Madonna can barely endure the old acquaintance's non-fabulousness.)
Anson, in his book review, discusses a more recent prayer session between Bush and a marquee name of televangelism:
[Bush's] crusade for "regime change" in Iraq was sealed by an Oval Office kneel-down with Reverend [James] Robison. (According to Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Bush’s decision-making in this case was divinely simple: "Saddam is evil …. Evil-doers have no legitimacy. Removing Saddam is a moral act. Case closed.")
Again, yikes.
With Schwarzenegger reeling from today's groping story, ABC News now declares that an old tale about Arnold (concerning Nazism, not sex) is true:
ABCNEWS obtained a copy of an unpublished book proposal with quotes from a verbatim transcript of an interview Schwarzenegger gave in 1975 while making the film Pumping Iron.
Asked who his heroes are, he answered, "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."
He is quoted as saying he wished he could have an experience, "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being total agreement whatever you say."
The author of the book proposal was Charles Butler, the director of Pumping Iron.
As the L.A. Times noted in 1996, this allegation appeared in Wendy Leigh's 1991 Schwarzenegger biography. Schwarzenegger later sued Leigh, but the suit concerned a 1988 newspaper article, not the book. Leigh went on to issue this apology: "Mr. Schwarzenegger has never espoused Nazi or anti-Semitic views, has never been an admirer of Hitler's evil regime, and he did not admire or approve of his father's alleged conduct." But the quote in the ABC story doesn't suggest that he admired Hitler's regime -- just Hitler himself, which isn't much better.
The 1996 L.A. Times article, by the way, quotes an chargefrom a 1992 Spy article that in the 1970s Schwarzenegger "enjoyed playing and giving away records of Hitler's speeches."
ABCNEWS obtained a copy of an unpublished book proposal with quotes from a verbatim transcript of an interview Schwarzenegger gave in 1975 while making the film Pumping Iron.
Asked who his heroes are, he answered, "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."
He is quoted as saying he wished he could have an experience, "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being total agreement whatever you say."
The author of the book proposal was Charles Butler, the director of Pumping Iron.
As the L.A. Times noted in 1996, this allegation appeared in Wendy Leigh's 1991 Schwarzenegger biography. Schwarzenegger later sued Leigh, but the suit concerned a 1988 newspaper article, not the book. Leigh went on to issue this apology: "Mr. Schwarzenegger has never espoused Nazi or anti-Semitic views, has never been an admirer of Hitler's evil regime, and he did not admire or approve of his father's alleged conduct." But the quote in the ABC story doesn't suggest that he admired Hitler's regime -- just Hitler himself, which isn't much better.
The 1996 L.A. Times article, by the way, quotes an chargefrom a 1992 Spy article that in the 1970s Schwarzenegger "enjoyed playing and giving away records of Hitler's speeches."
Meanwhile, in Iraq, as UPI reported a couple of days ago, we've utterly lost control of the guns:
The U.S.-led coalition forces are losing a bidding war for sophisticated weapons still widely available in Iraq, nearly six months after the fall of Baghdad. Anti-occupation groups and supporters of the old regime are financially able and willing to spend more for weapons, a series of interviews with underground arms dealers by United Press International has determined.
Adding to the concern, private contractors involved in security consulting to companies operating in Iraq say the street prices for some weapons appear to be increasing, indicating weapons are being bought at a higher rate than previously during the occupation.
Some security experts, who asked they not be named, say the higher prices for common military staples such as the AK-47 assault rifle could indicate an impeding attack by anti-U.S. forces and supporters of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party regime.
In the case of sophisticated weapons such as the Russian-made SA-7 and SA-9 surface-to-air missiles, which are portable and operated by one man, the coalition forces are being largely outbid by arms dealers helping the resistance....
We're being outbid for arms, though one arms dealer, Mazen Mikhael, says that may not be the whole problem:
"No, they have nothing to do with the prices," he said. "(The Americans) started (fighting the arms dealing) wrong. They let people sell weapons and buy heavy weapons. So no one pays any attention to them after that."
Well, of course we did. WWCHD?*
*(What Would Charlton Heston Do?)
(Thanks to Rational Enquirer for the link.)
The U.S.-led coalition forces are losing a bidding war for sophisticated weapons still widely available in Iraq, nearly six months after the fall of Baghdad. Anti-occupation groups and supporters of the old regime are financially able and willing to spend more for weapons, a series of interviews with underground arms dealers by United Press International has determined.
Adding to the concern, private contractors involved in security consulting to companies operating in Iraq say the street prices for some weapons appear to be increasing, indicating weapons are being bought at a higher rate than previously during the occupation.
Some security experts, who asked they not be named, say the higher prices for common military staples such as the AK-47 assault rifle could indicate an impeding attack by anti-U.S. forces and supporters of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party regime.
In the case of sophisticated weapons such as the Russian-made SA-7 and SA-9 surface-to-air missiles, which are portable and operated by one man, the coalition forces are being largely outbid by arms dealers helping the resistance....
We're being outbid for arms, though one arms dealer, Mazen Mikhael, says that may not be the whole problem:
"No, they have nothing to do with the prices," he said. "(The Americans) started (fighting the arms dealing) wrong. They let people sell weapons and buy heavy weapons. So no one pays any attention to them after that."
Well, of course we did. WWCHD?*
*(What Would Charlton Heston Do?)
(Thanks to Rational Enquirer for the link.)
So what happens if the Gropinator wins and really does roll back the car tax, as he's promised to do? UPI explains:
Arnold Schwarzenegger may have charged into a dead-end canyon by vowing to repeal an increase in California's so-called car tax, which just so happens to be a major funding source for police and fire protection in the city.
Almost immediately after Schwarzenegger promised this week to void a three-fold jump in the state's vehicle licensing fee [VLF], Democrats rounded up a bevy of police chiefs and firefighters for a news conference to warn that public safety faced a devastating hit should the $4.2 billion in additional fees fail to materialize.
"Public safety can easily eat up three-quarters of a city's general-fund budget," noted Rick TerBorch, chief of police in Arroyo Grande and the president of the California Police Chiefs Association.
"Given the extent that VLF funds local general funds -- 14 (percent to) 40 percent on average -- a cut in the VLF would be devastating."...
Californians with reasonable information-processing skills already know this, but everyone else -- Cali idiots and non-Californians -- needs to know that Davis isn't even remotely responsible for the car-tax increase:
In 1998, the state was flush with cash from the high-tech boom and the Legislature approved a Republican plan to reduce the VLF by two-thirds....
The plan, however, contained a provision that if economic times became tough, the VLF would automatically be restored to its original 2 percent.
..."One of the first things the public sector wants is police and fire protection," said state Sen. Richard Alarcon. "This VLF tax is exactly that kind of notion; it dedicates a specific source of revenue for police and fire services. It's a disingenuous message that somehow Gray Davis created this. He wasn't even in the Legislature at the time."
So when Schwarzie refers to "the Davis administration's tripling of the car tax," he's lying, big time.
Arnold Schwarzenegger may have charged into a dead-end canyon by vowing to repeal an increase in California's so-called car tax, which just so happens to be a major funding source for police and fire protection in the city.
Almost immediately after Schwarzenegger promised this week to void a three-fold jump in the state's vehicle licensing fee [VLF], Democrats rounded up a bevy of police chiefs and firefighters for a news conference to warn that public safety faced a devastating hit should the $4.2 billion in additional fees fail to materialize.
"Public safety can easily eat up three-quarters of a city's general-fund budget," noted Rick TerBorch, chief of police in Arroyo Grande and the president of the California Police Chiefs Association.
"Given the extent that VLF funds local general funds -- 14 (percent to) 40 percent on average -- a cut in the VLF would be devastating."...
Californians with reasonable information-processing skills already know this, but everyone else -- Cali idiots and non-Californians -- needs to know that Davis isn't even remotely responsible for the car-tax increase:
In 1998, the state was flush with cash from the high-tech boom and the Legislature approved a Republican plan to reduce the VLF by two-thirds....
The plan, however, contained a provision that if economic times became tough, the VLF would automatically be restored to its original 2 percent.
..."One of the first things the public sector wants is police and fire protection," said state Sen. Richard Alarcon. "This VLF tax is exactly that kind of notion; it dedicates a specific source of revenue for police and fire services. It's a disingenuous message that somehow Gray Davis created this. He wasn't even in the Legislature at the time."
So when Schwarzie refers to "the Davis administration's tripling of the car tax," he's lying, big time.
Yes, the one-two punch dealt to Rush Limbaugh this week has been astonishing and gratifying. But even though all of this couldn't have happened to a more deserving person -- the resignation under pressure after he revealed himself to be not just a racist but an unapologetic racist, and now the front-page story in the New York Daily News that charges him with being a heavy user of illegal pills -- I still have to ask: Why is this the most coverage the man has ever received from the mainstream media?
No one in American politics today has been as influential as Limbaugh for as long. Talk radio has veto power over virtually everything that passes through the political sphere in America, at every level of government, and that's the work of Limbaugh and Limbaugh imitators who ready (and properly) acknowledge his influence. Yet he and his fellow right-wing talkers have been virtually ignored by most newspapers, newsmagazines, and TV news operations -- the mainstream press doesn't challenge these blowhards' inaccuracies, discuss their vendettas, or pay any attention to their often overt prejudices. Limbaugh's a racist? That was an open secret -- but it wasn't The New York Times or CNN that documented it; it was the lefty group FAIR, years ago (the link is from 2000, when he was rumored to be in line for another job as a football commentator; the examples are from a 1995 FAIR book on Rush). For the most part, the Big Media paid no attention.
I'm happy that the press has just noticed that Limbaugh exists. Glad you could finally make it. Sorry you weren't here earlier.
No one in American politics today has been as influential as Limbaugh for as long. Talk radio has veto power over virtually everything that passes through the political sphere in America, at every level of government, and that's the work of Limbaugh and Limbaugh imitators who ready (and properly) acknowledge his influence. Yet he and his fellow right-wing talkers have been virtually ignored by most newspapers, newsmagazines, and TV news operations -- the mainstream press doesn't challenge these blowhards' inaccuracies, discuss their vendettas, or pay any attention to their often overt prejudices. Limbaugh's a racist? That was an open secret -- but it wasn't The New York Times or CNN that documented it; it was the lefty group FAIR, years ago (the link is from 2000, when he was rumored to be in line for another job as a football commentator; the examples are from a 1995 FAIR book on Rush). For the most part, the Big Media paid no attention.
I'm happy that the press has just noticed that Limbaugh exists. Glad you could finally make it. Sorry you weren't here earlier.
Add today's story about a series of (newly interviewed) women who say Schwarzenegger groped them to this story, this story, and this story and make up your own mind whether we have, you know, a pattern.
Conservatives will argue that there was a pattern with Bill Clinton, yet we didn't believe he was a sexual predator. Well, yeah, there was a pattern -- he was clearly a horndog, and only the truly naive found it implausible that he might be messing around with Monica. But stories about Clinton fall into two categories, often with regard to the same woman. Was Paula Jones a consensual lover, as David Brock originally wrote, or a victim, as per the later story? Was Clinton the considerate lover of Gennifer Flowers's book or the thug of her more recent accusations? Juanita Broaddrick wept on TV when she recalled Clinton; Monica Lewinsky squirmed with delight. What's the reality? What's his M.O.?
Schwarzenegger stories, by contrast, seem awfully similar: Approach woman who is in no position to cause serious trouble. Make indecent proposal. Fondle breasts. Laugh. Repeat as necessary.
That's not enough to convict the guy, but if I had a daughter, I'd hope she never got anywhere near him.
Conservatives will argue that there was a pattern with Bill Clinton, yet we didn't believe he was a sexual predator. Well, yeah, there was a pattern -- he was clearly a horndog, and only the truly naive found it implausible that he might be messing around with Monica. But stories about Clinton fall into two categories, often with regard to the same woman. Was Paula Jones a consensual lover, as David Brock originally wrote, or a victim, as per the later story? Was Clinton the considerate lover of Gennifer Flowers's book or the thug of her more recent accusations? Juanita Broaddrick wept on TV when she recalled Clinton; Monica Lewinsky squirmed with delight. What's the reality? What's his M.O.?
Schwarzenegger stories, by contrast, seem awfully similar: Approach woman who is in no position to cause serious trouble. Make indecent proposal. Fondle breasts. Laugh. Repeat as necessary.
That's not enough to convict the guy, but if I had a daughter, I'd hope she never got anywhere near him.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
The Bush administration is seeking more than $600 million from Congress to continue the hunt for conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein's government had an illegal weapons program, officials said Wednesday.
The money, part of the White House's request for $87 billion in supplemental spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, comes on top of at least $300 million that has already been spent on the weapons search, the officials said....
--New York Times
Was it Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
The money, part of the White House's request for $87 billion in supplemental spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, comes on top of at least $300 million that has already been spent on the weapons search, the officials said....
--New York Times
Was it Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
In case you really, really missed the dumb, simple-minded political jokes of the Reagan era -- good news! They're back!
The [Schwarzenegger] campaign plans a bus tour starting on Thursday in San Diego and ending on Sunday in Sacramento. Mr. Schwarzenegger will ride a coach christened "Running Man," after his 1987 movie. Supporters will ride on "Total Recall," like his sci-fi movie where he kills his wife. Reporters will ride on "Predator" and "True Lies."
Oy.
The [Schwarzenegger] campaign plans a bus tour starting on Thursday in San Diego and ending on Sunday in Sacramento. Mr. Schwarzenegger will ride a coach christened "Running Man," after his 1987 movie. Supporters will ride on "Total Recall," like his sci-fi movie where he kills his wife. Reporters will ride on "Predator" and "True Lies."
Oy.
What a splendid idea -- a gay-hostile mutual fund:
The Ave Maria Funds ... screen[...] out companies that offer non-marital partner benefits, regardless of whether they are same- or opposite-sex partners.
"Our Catholic Advisory Board believes that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacrament instituted by God, therefore when a company offers to put a non-marital union on par with marriage, it's a slap in the face to the Catholic Church and such companies should be screened out," said Mr. Schwartz.
...The funds' other three screens include abortion, pornography, and contributors to Planned Parenthood.
"The Catholic Advisory Board feels that Planned Parenthood is an evil organization that promotes and finances the murder of unborn children," said Mr. Schwartz.
...The top three holdings of the Catholic Values Fund are Automatic Data Processing (ADP), Genuine Parts (GPC), and Ross Stores (ROST). The top three holdings in the Ave Maria Growth Fund, Eli Lily (LLY), Patterson Dental (PDCO), and Factset Research Systems (FDS), will probably shift by the beginning of next year. Eli Lily, whose 11 main competitors offer non-marital partner benefits, recently announced it would do so as well as of January 1, 2004.
"If they do in fact implement the policy, we're going to have to sell the stock on January 2," said Mr. Schwartz....
Ave Maria advisors include Phyllis Schlafly, former baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn, and the former head of Domino's Pizza, Tom Monaghan.
(Thanks again to Nathan Newman.)
The Ave Maria Funds ... screen[...] out companies that offer non-marital partner benefits, regardless of whether they are same- or opposite-sex partners.
"Our Catholic Advisory Board believes that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacrament instituted by God, therefore when a company offers to put a non-marital union on par with marriage, it's a slap in the face to the Catholic Church and such companies should be screened out," said Mr. Schwartz.
...The funds' other three screens include abortion, pornography, and contributors to Planned Parenthood.
"The Catholic Advisory Board feels that Planned Parenthood is an evil organization that promotes and finances the murder of unborn children," said Mr. Schwartz.
...The top three holdings of the Catholic Values Fund are Automatic Data Processing (ADP), Genuine Parts (GPC), and Ross Stores (ROST). The top three holdings in the Ave Maria Growth Fund, Eli Lily (LLY), Patterson Dental (PDCO), and Factset Research Systems (FDS), will probably shift by the beginning of next year. Eli Lily, whose 11 main competitors offer non-marital partner benefits, recently announced it would do so as well as of January 1, 2004.
"If they do in fact implement the policy, we're going to have to sell the stock on January 2," said Mr. Schwartz....
Ave Maria advisors include Phyllis Schlafly, former baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn, and the former head of Domino's Pizza, Tom Monaghan.
(Thanks again to Nathan Newman.)
DISPOSABLE JOBS
A new U.S. data series released on Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a "tremendous churn" of jobs every quarter...
7.2 percent of all jobs in December 2002 did not exist three months earlier, while 7.3 percent of jobs in September 2002 had disappeared by the end of the year -- a significant churn that cannot be seen by looking at the Labor Department's monthly payrolls report.
--Reuters
What does this mean? It seems to mean we're hiring a lot of freelancers and temps, as Nathan Newman explains. The new economy?
A new U.S. data series released on Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a "tremendous churn" of jobs every quarter...
7.2 percent of all jobs in December 2002 did not exist three months earlier, while 7.3 percent of jobs in September 2002 had disappeared by the end of the year -- a significant churn that cannot be seen by looking at the Labor Department's monthly payrolls report.
--Reuters
What does this mean? It seems to mean we're hiring a lot of freelancers and temps, as Nathan Newman explains. The new economy?
A couple of weeks ago, an article in The New York Times reassured us that the Army and Army Reserve would meet their recruiting goals for the fiscal year that just ended yesterday. A couple of days ago, USA Today explained precisely why the Reserve is OK for now:
Although the [Army National] Guard and Reserve say their retention rates have not suffered this year, the figures could be misleading. Under an order known as "stop loss," soldiers on active duty are prohibited from leaving the service until their tours end.
Active-duty and Reserve commanders fear that when U.S. soldiers on yearlong rotations come home next year, many will choose to leave the service.
Assuming they're actually allowed to come home next year.
(Thanks to Skimble for the USA Today link.)
Although the [Army National] Guard and Reserve say their retention rates have not suffered this year, the figures could be misleading. Under an order known as "stop loss," soldiers on active duty are prohibited from leaving the service until their tours end.
Active-duty and Reserve commanders fear that when U.S. soldiers on yearlong rotations come home next year, many will choose to leave the service.
Assuming they're actually allowed to come home next year.
(Thanks to Skimble for the USA Today link.)
COUNTERREVOLUTION IN ONE STATE?
Lenin said, "Complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country is inconceivable," but apparently the government! yuck! folks of the Libertarian Party think they can have a counterrevolution in one state. AP reports:
A group of libertarians announced a project Wednesday to get 20,000 Americans to move to New Hampshire and work to transform it into a "free state" with fewer laws, smaller government and greater liberty.
...The 5,000 members have already pledged to move to the selected state, Free State Project organizers said. They hope to increase their numbers to 20,000 within two years and start transforming the state into a national model of liberty.
The Free State Project's Web site proclaims their desire for "the benefits of robust individual liberty" and denounces "the failings of the nanny state" (yeah, cops, an army, a minimum wage, a Pure Food and Drug Act, child labor laws -- who needs that crap?).
You know, guys, when the public schools are abolished, the roads are untended and full of potholes, and the police are replaced with private militias, fewer and fewer people from Boston and its suburbs are going to venture north for leaf-peeping and outlet shopping, and lots of fairly well-heeled recent Granite State arrivals are going to start thinking about moving out. And meanwhile, you guys are going to be so busy trying to keep the Christian Identity libertarians from drumming the Legalize All Drugs libertarians out of your little club that you might forget to make arrangements to remove -- and remove again -- the (massive amounts of) snow.
I really can't wait to see how this works out.
Lenin said, "Complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country is inconceivable," but apparently the government! yuck! folks of the Libertarian Party think they can have a counterrevolution in one state. AP reports:
A group of libertarians announced a project Wednesday to get 20,000 Americans to move to New Hampshire and work to transform it into a "free state" with fewer laws, smaller government and greater liberty.
...The 5,000 members have already pledged to move to the selected state, Free State Project organizers said. They hope to increase their numbers to 20,000 within two years and start transforming the state into a national model of liberty.
The Free State Project's Web site proclaims their desire for "the benefits of robust individual liberty" and denounces "the failings of the nanny state" (yeah, cops, an army, a minimum wage, a Pure Food and Drug Act, child labor laws -- who needs that crap?).
You know, guys, when the public schools are abolished, the roads are untended and full of potholes, and the police are replaced with private militias, fewer and fewer people from Boston and its suburbs are going to venture north for leaf-peeping and outlet shopping, and lots of fairly well-heeled recent Granite State arrivals are going to start thinking about moving out. And meanwhile, you guys are going to be so busy trying to keep the Christian Identity libertarians from drumming the Legalize All Drugs libertarians out of your little club that you might forget to make arrangements to remove -- and remove again -- the (massive amounts of) snow.
I really can't wait to see how this works out.
Sad news: The new New York Times list is out and -- drat! -- Bill O'Reilly did manage to knock Al Franken out of the #1 slot. Oh, well -- Al had five straight weeks at #1; let's see how the blowhard does.
It's a multiple-car culture-war (presidency-war?) pileup at the top of the list, by the way: The forces of darkness have O'Reilly at #1, Laura Ingraham's Shut Up and Sing! at #6, Reagan: A Life in Letters at #7, and, at #8, Persecution, David Limbaugh's account of the 23 years he spent in solitary confinement in a rat-infested prison in Marin County for owning a Bible (or something like that); lefties, libs, moderates, and Democrats have Al Franken at #2, Madeleine Albright at #3, Bushwhacked (the new Molly Ivins/Lou Dubose book) at #4, and Paul Krugman at #5. Hillary's at #10; the odd book out in the top ten is Walter Isaacson's Ben Franklin bio, at #9 (but he had a common-law wife and enjoyed life in France, so I'll put him on our side).
This list will be up at the Times Web site sometime Sunday night.
It's a multiple-car culture-war (presidency-war?) pileup at the top of the list, by the way: The forces of darkness have O'Reilly at #1, Laura Ingraham's Shut Up and Sing! at #6, Reagan: A Life in Letters at #7, and, at #8, Persecution, David Limbaugh's account of the 23 years he spent in solitary confinement in a rat-infested prison in Marin County for owning a Bible (or something like that); lefties, libs, moderates, and Democrats have Al Franken at #2, Madeleine Albright at #3, Bushwhacked (the new Molly Ivins/Lou Dubose book) at #4, and Paul Krugman at #5. Hillary's at #10; the odd book out in the top ten is Walter Isaacson's Ben Franklin bio, at #9 (but he had a common-law wife and enjoyed life in France, so I'll put him on our side).
This list will be up at the Times Web site sometime Sunday night.
Have you noticed that we've moved from the age of the culture wars to the age of the presidency wars?
--David Brooks in yesterday's New York Times
Uh, no, David, I haven't noticed that -- because we haven't. Obviously you missed the recent unpleasantness in Alabama; now here's the latest guerrilla attack:
GOLDEN, Colo. - A county treasurer is handing out booklets to potential jurors saying they are answerable "only to God almighty" and not to the law when it comes to deliberations.
Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall, a former state lawmaker known for his anti-abortion and pro-gun views, said the booklets are "my personal gift to the people." He said the booklets, many stamped with his name and elected title, were bought with $500 to $600 of his money and that of two political allies who work in the treasurer's office.
The 61-page booklets promote "jury nullification," a concept promoted by conservative groups that say juries have the right to not only decide guilt or innocence, but also whether laws are just and adhere to God's law.
"You are above the law!" the booklet says. "As a juror in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to God almighty."...
--AP
--David Brooks in yesterday's New York Times
Uh, no, David, I haven't noticed that -- because we haven't. Obviously you missed the recent unpleasantness in Alabama; now here's the latest guerrilla attack:
GOLDEN, Colo. - A county treasurer is handing out booklets to potential jurors saying they are answerable "only to God almighty" and not to the law when it comes to deliberations.
Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall, a former state lawmaker known for his anti-abortion and pro-gun views, said the booklets are "my personal gift to the people." He said the booklets, many stamped with his name and elected title, were bought with $500 to $600 of his money and that of two political allies who work in the treasurer's office.
The 61-page booklets promote "jury nullification," a concept promoted by conservative groups that say juries have the right to not only decide guilt or innocence, but also whether laws are just and adhere to God's law.
"You are above the law!" the booklet says. "As a juror in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to God almighty."...
--AP
REAGAN REDUX
In Fresno, Arnold Schwarzenegger fielded a question at a campaign event from a farmer wondering why California needed a state environmental protection agency when the feds already had one. Schwarzenegger had this to say: "What you just talked about is the waste -- overlapping agencies. They cost a fortune." He continued, "We have to strip that down and get rid of some of those agencies."
...Does Schwarzenegger mean the whole California Environmental Protection Agency, which is charged with upholding a variety of state laws to clean up the air and water? And how about another agency that Republicans in the state Legislature have been longing to gut, the California Coastal Commission? Would Schwarzenegger shrink this commission's budget to the point that it could no longer prevent development of the coastline?
These are among the questions that aren't getting answers these days. Candidate Schwarzenegger is refusing to directly engage the political press corps. It is left to his paid handlers, like Rob Stutzman, to later explain what the candidate actually said or meant.
So which agencies on the chopping block was Schwarzenegger actually talking about? "Not at this time," Stutzman told the Los Angeles Times with a laugh....
--from an editorial in The Sacramento Bee
In Fresno, Arnold Schwarzenegger fielded a question at a campaign event from a farmer wondering why California needed a state environmental protection agency when the feds already had one. Schwarzenegger had this to say: "What you just talked about is the waste -- overlapping agencies. They cost a fortune." He continued, "We have to strip that down and get rid of some of those agencies."
...Does Schwarzenegger mean the whole California Environmental Protection Agency, which is charged with upholding a variety of state laws to clean up the air and water? And how about another agency that Republicans in the state Legislature have been longing to gut, the California Coastal Commission? Would Schwarzenegger shrink this commission's budget to the point that it could no longer prevent development of the coastline?
These are among the questions that aren't getting answers these days. Candidate Schwarzenegger is refusing to directly engage the political press corps. It is left to his paid handlers, like Rob Stutzman, to later explain what the candidate actually said or meant.
So which agencies on the chopping block was Schwarzenegger actually talking about? "Not at this time," Stutzman told the Los Angeles Times with a laugh....
--from an editorial in The Sacramento Bee
I can't believe we paid attention to the conventional wisdom about the California recall -- that having two prominent candidates was a sign that Republicans in the state didn't have their act together. Now, Schwarzenegger is surging and McClintock has high favorables, according to the new L.A. Times poll.
It's the Democrats who can't get their act together. I'm in New York and I may be completely misunderstanding the nuances, but even from the East Coast the situation seem clear: Large percentages of California voters hate Davis and don’t want to be deprived of a delicious opportunity to act on that anger (and to stick it “the politicians” in general).
The Democrats' message is: Davis is really OK, or maybe he's not that great but it doesn't matter because this is a right-wing conspiracy, so vote no, but if you vote yes -- or no -- you should also vote Bustamante, who everyone knows is no friend of Davis, who angered Davis by getting in the race, but who won't say anything bad about Davis (nor will any other Democrat).
The Republicans' message is: Davis sucks. Vote Republican.
Gee, guess which one voters find more compelling.
But Cali Democrats have Goodness and Truth on our side, don’t they? There’s a budget deficit because the national economy is in the toilet. Enron was more to blame for the California energy crisis than Davis was.
Well, sure -- but campaigns aren’t poli-sci seminars. The Democratic Party had about as much chance of getting the populace to grasp these notions in the heat of a recall campaign as Michael Dukakis had of educating voters about the First Amendment problems of mandatory allegiance-pledging in 1988.
I'm going to seem like a turncoat for saying this, but Democrats should have abandoned Davis weeks ago. He should have resigned, and done so while it was still possible to say, “OK, he’s gone -- let’s go to court and find out whether we still have to have this recall, or whether we can just start fresh with Bustamante.” (At this point, the voters would never accept that outcome; now they want a kill, and for that purpose -- boy, am I sick to death of this metaphor -- they’ve found their Terminator.)
In D.C. a few years ago, Gingrich resigned, then Livingston resigned. More recently, Trent Lott stepped down from his leadership position. Perle and Poindexter have left the Bush administration. And guess what? Republican domination of Washington continues -- in fact, the Republicans became more powerful in the election cycle following Gingrich's abdication. These guys were pieces on the chessboard, strategically sacrificed. The game went on, and the Republicans are still winning.
(Hell, Nixon and Agnew resigned and Carter barely beat Ford.)
The recall was a horrible idea. California in the hands of the Republican Party, with a telegenic know-nothing as figurehead, is an even worse idea. And now it looks as if it’s going to become reality.
It's the Democrats who can't get their act together. I'm in New York and I may be completely misunderstanding the nuances, but even from the East Coast the situation seem clear: Large percentages of California voters hate Davis and don’t want to be deprived of a delicious opportunity to act on that anger (and to stick it “the politicians” in general).
The Democrats' message is: Davis is really OK, or maybe he's not that great but it doesn't matter because this is a right-wing conspiracy, so vote no, but if you vote yes -- or no -- you should also vote Bustamante, who everyone knows is no friend of Davis, who angered Davis by getting in the race, but who won't say anything bad about Davis (nor will any other Democrat).
The Republicans' message is: Davis sucks. Vote Republican.
Gee, guess which one voters find more compelling.
But Cali Democrats have Goodness and Truth on our side, don’t they? There’s a budget deficit because the national economy is in the toilet. Enron was more to blame for the California energy crisis than Davis was.
Well, sure -- but campaigns aren’t poli-sci seminars. The Democratic Party had about as much chance of getting the populace to grasp these notions in the heat of a recall campaign as Michael Dukakis had of educating voters about the First Amendment problems of mandatory allegiance-pledging in 1988.
I'm going to seem like a turncoat for saying this, but Democrats should have abandoned Davis weeks ago. He should have resigned, and done so while it was still possible to say, “OK, he’s gone -- let’s go to court and find out whether we still have to have this recall, or whether we can just start fresh with Bustamante.” (At this point, the voters would never accept that outcome; now they want a kill, and for that purpose -- boy, am I sick to death of this metaphor -- they’ve found their Terminator.)
In D.C. a few years ago, Gingrich resigned, then Livingston resigned. More recently, Trent Lott stepped down from his leadership position. Perle and Poindexter have left the Bush administration. And guess what? Republican domination of Washington continues -- in fact, the Republicans became more powerful in the election cycle following Gingrich's abdication. These guys were pieces on the chessboard, strategically sacrificed. The game went on, and the Republicans are still winning.
(Hell, Nixon and Agnew resigned and Carter barely beat Ford.)
The recall was a horrible idea. California in the hands of the Republican Party, with a telegenic know-nothing as figurehead, is an even worse idea. And now it looks as if it’s going to become reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)