|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Candidates - Give 'Em $25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, October 18, 2003 |
|
|
|
The Benefits of Power
It must be nice to get special treatment because you are a Senator. I am pretty sure that if my wife had been kidnapped and robbed, as recently happened to the wife of Sen. Judd Gregg, the FBI probably would not get involved.
That is just speculation, but I can assure you that we certainly would not be reimbursed by the bank for our loss The day after his wife was abducted and forced to withdraw cash from a McLean bank, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) called the branch manager and chastised her for the bank's "stupid" actions during the robbery and soon was refunded the $4,000 that was stolen, three Wachovia employees said.
The branch manager, Parisa Davoudian, said Gregg hung up on her after demanding to speak to a higher-ranking Wachovia Bank official. Davoudian and two of her employees, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that a customer who was robbed of her own money, as Gregg's wife was, typically would not be entitled to a refund. They also said that Wachovia officials had decided before the senator's inquiry that the robbery was a customer loss and not a bank loss.
[edit]
The next morning, five minutes after the bank opened, Judd Gregg called and asked for the branch manager, the manager said. When Gregg asked, "How much money did you give the guy," Davoudian said, she explained that Gregg's wife had written a check for $5,000, and the robber had gotten $4,000 before fleeing.
"You guys are so stupid," Davoudian said Gregg told her, "to give money to this guy who brings my wife into the bank with a knife." Davoudian said she was shocked by Gregg's comments. She thought he was calling to thank the bank. "I was shaking," she said.
Gregg then asked her, "What is the bank's policy about giving us the money back?" Davoudian said. She said she told the senator she would have to speak to her boss.
"He said, 'I want somebody calling me back with an intellectual answer,' and he hung up the phone," Davoudian said.
Three bank employees said that within the hour, the bank had credited the Greggs' account with $4,000. All three said that was unusual, especially after a robbery is classified a "customer loss."
Maybe Gregg was so rude because they really, really needed that $4,000.
Oh wait, that can't be it because according to this CNN article, he is worth $1,916,026.
In that case, maybe he is just a selfish ass.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 17, 2003 |
|
|
|
Promising Blogs
Via Southern Appeal we learn of two new and seemingly promising blogs:
Sebastian Holsclaw, a famous Yglesias commenter
and
Staunch Moderate, which is a good name and an enticing political outlook that I have recently been contemplating myself.
Check 'em out.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Good Question
While flipping through the channels tonight, Mrs. Oregon came across the USA made-for-TV movie "Sniper: 23 Days of Fear" about, obviously, the sniper shootings in DC last fall and raised a good point: isn't a nationwide showing of a movie in which John Muhammad and Lee Malvo are portrayed as the snipers somewhat prejudicial, considering that they are currently trying to pick a jury for Muhammad while Malvo hasn't even gone to trial?
The official USA synopsis repeatedly says things like Meanwhile, John Allen Muhammad (Bobby Hosea) and his teenage protégé, John Lee Malvo (Trent Cameron), listen intently to the news on their car radio. The media is in a frenzy, and Malvo is nervous. But Muhammad encourages him to relax as they head towards Kensington, Maryland - and within the hour, a young mother will die while vacuuming her van at a gas station.
[edit]
Muhammad and Malvo spend the night in their car while returning to Virginia, and fatally shoot two men at two separate gas stations over the next four days. Their blue Chevy Caprice slips easily through checkpoints, as officers continue to comb traffic for white trucks. After a tenth victim is killed outside a Virginia Home Depot, there is a report of an alleged eyewitness account. The Chief is tight-lipped on the topic due to his distrust of the press, and his distrust grows when the account ends up merely being a ploy for media attention.
Malvo and Muhammad continue to phone in threats, and then strike again outside a Virginia restaurant, this time leaving a note. Chief Moose appeals to the snipers directly on live television, promising to listen if they communicate further with authorities. Malvo responds with demands for money.
I don't have any nagging doubts about whether Muhammad and Malvo were in fact that actual snipers, but are they not entitled to the presumption of innocence? Broadcasting a movie prior to any conviction, or even trial, in which both are shown to be the perpetrators seems to make a mockery of this right.
I'd really like to hear other's thoughts on this.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Funniest Thing I Ever Read in ForbesFans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. It just gets better as you read on. Just for the record, I'm completely on board with this theory, though take the argument for why blowjobs lead to better teeth with a grain of salt.
posted by
Helena Montana at 3:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multilateralism is Starting to Pay Off
The US just convinced the rest of the UN Security Council to support our latest Iraq resolution and we are already seeing dividends New Zealand would be represented at the Madrid Conference and would announce $5 million to support the reconstruction and humanitarian activities of the NZDF engineers, and a further $500,000 to support New Zealand non-governmental organisations working with partners in Iraq, Ms Hobbs said.
New Zealand had already provided $4.3 million for emergency humanitarian relief efforts and had committed a further $1 million for rehabilitation of the Iraq agriculture ministry in Baghdad.
Coupled with the $87 billion we are about to spend, New Zealand's $11 million really ought to go a long way toward stabilizing Iraq.
Well, I guess I can't blame them. I wouldn't be willing to invest too much money in anything being run by Bush either.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who Is Bob Beckel?
I don't really know. Apparently he was Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager, a regular on Crossfire and a guest host for Larry King Live. Sounds good.
And during an interview with Buzzflash, he said And the worst among worst now is in virtual control of the Right, and that's Tom DeLay, who I think is the single most dangerous man along with John Ashcroft in America. We're going after DeLay. We have people looking into his various money organizations. DeLay is about as forgiving as a cornered rattlesnake, and this boy needs to be cut down to size. The Democrats for some reason are intimidated by DeLay. They let him get away with too much. You know how long that story lasted on DeLay when he let that guy write that piece of legislation for a contribution? Hell, it went away in a day or a day and a half. If that had been Clinton -- they'd have kept it going for weeks.
So now I like him. He has a website and maybe if enough people click through from here, we can get Beckel to join our crusade to get Tom DeLay known world-wide as "The World's Biggest Asshole."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Does It Take To Get Into The Washington Times?
Not intelligent, well-reasoned arguments, apparently.
Diana West says It's just a matter of time before taking shots at the president ... will seem evasive at best, even obstructionist. Soon, the burning question Democrats must answer will be not what they think is wrong with President Bush's policy, but what they, as members of the anti-war elite, would do in his place.
This is a tough question. It forces members of the anti-war elite to admit they would have left Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime in place .
[edit]
Opponents of the war necessarily supported the continued reign of the Iraqi despot. The opposite of "regime change" is the status quo — or worse.
I didn't realize that this war was an either/or proposition - either you launch a unilateral war based on misperceptions and manipulated intelligence or you support Saddam Hussein. Hmmm ... that is a tough choice.
I am not going to waste my time refuting this idiotic argument. I just wanted to share it with you.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revisiting Old Posts
While reading this NYT article on the Plame investigation and Alberto Gonzales' assurances regarding the integrity of the investigation, I started thinking about my post from yesterday in which I highlighted this Ashley Snee, a spokesman for Mr. Gonzales, said he believed the delay was acceptable because no one in the White House had any idea there was an investigation. But The New York Times and The Washington Post had reported the day before that the C.I.A. had forwarded the matter to the Justice Department for possible investigation. I was angry about this idiotic argument that the White House was somehow unaware of any investigation while every major news source was reporting it. So I did a little research and found out that it wasn't just a one day delay, but actually at least a two day delay.
The story first appeared on-line in the Washington Post on September 27th (Saturday evening) and Gonzales did not send out his memo until Tuesday September 30th. Even if the White House was not officially notified by the Justice Department until Monday the 29th, they surely would have been aware of the investigation on Saturday evening.
As such, there were at least two days in which those involved could have destroyed relevant documents well before ever receiving Gonzales' memo. And now that I am getting close to conspiracy theory/tinfoil hat land, I may as well go all the way and ask if is it possible that the leak to the Post about the investigation was designed to provide White House staff with a head's-up and an opportunity to destroy relevant documents (which I sort of talked about here). Clearly, had word of the investigation not been leaked and, instead, dropped on the White House by the Justice Department without any forewarning, there would have been no time to cover the trail.
Well, now I am starting to frighten myself. Anyway, I was just wonderin'.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! Bush Reads the Headlines All By Himself
When President Bush was interviewed recently by Fox News' Brit Hume, much of the ensuing media coverage focused on Bush's answers to questions about the Iraq war and the U.S. economy. In a recent column, former White House correspondent Helen Thomas notes the disturbing (yet relatively unnoticed) answer that Bush gave when he was asked by Hume how he gets his news.
Bush replied that he strolls into the Oval Office each morning and asks chief of staff Andrew Card: (in Bush's own words) "What's in the newspapers worth worrying about?" In the Fox News interview, Bush continued, "I glance at the headlines just to kind of (get) a flavor of what's moving. I rarely read the stories."
This has long been his standard practice, Bush told Hume. Then came this exchange:PRESIDENT BUSH: "I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there's [sic] opinions mixed in with news."
BRIT HUME: "I won't disagree with that, sir."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." Bush's twisted idea of "objective sources" is getting one's news spoon-fed by the likes of Andrew Card and Karl Rove. In her column, Helen Thomas offered this commentary on Bush's reading habits (or lack thereof):"Bush is spoon-fed the relevant news from his staff. Top aides usually know the buttons not to push when it comes to bad news. More often they will tell the president what he wants to hear -- the good news if there is any .... Bush is missing a lot by getting the news filtered by his staff. If he read a newspaper every day he would be sharing an experience with most Americans. Otherwise, he's just out of the loop."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ironic Agenda
According to a new study (PDF) by NGLTF most "pro-marriage" and "pro-family" groups dedicate the vast majority of their time and resources to talking about homosexuality, not marriage or family. The web sites of nine of the co-sponsoring organizations have a total of 2,369 documents containing the word "homosexual," but only 1,423 that contain the word "divorce", 952 with "health care," 832 with "poverty," 207 with "health insurance," 190 with "domestic violence," and 85 with "child support."...contrary to President Bush's October 3, 2003 proclamation, there is no focus at all in the week's planned activities on building strong and healthy marriages. (italics mine) Apparently the "Marriage Protection Week" co-sponsors believe that the key to "building stronger and healthier marriages" is to devote your life to demeaning and degrading gay people as "evil" or "domestic terrorists." I'd wish someone would ask President "Compassionate Conservative" Bush if he agrees with these characterizations or if he believes that "homosexuality=death".
Perhaps we should all start by asking our congresscritters if they're aware of the truly hateful rhetoric behind "Marriage Protection Week" and the "Federal Marriage Amendment." This is sort of an obvious point to make, but a good one nonetheless. Regardless of how Joe and Mary Schmoe may feel about gay marriage, I'd argue that most people would find this kind of language offensive and objectionable.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is O'Reilly Wearing Out His Welcome?
That is my (admittedly unscientific) conclusion based upon my (admittedly extremely unscientific) survey of people's opinions based solely on their Amazon.com reviews of his three books.
Amazon has a feature that allows for viewing reviews in various ways - from the most recent to the most helpful but also by score (1 star to 5 stars.) I tabulated the reviews of his three books by score, multiplied the number of reviews by the corresponding rating, added them up and divided by the number of total reviews. The (admittedly unscientific) results are as follows: The O'Reilly Factor - 336 Reviews
5 Star Reviews - 143 (42% of reviews) 4 Star Reviews - 76 (23%) 3 Star Reviews - 49 (15%) 2 Star Reviews - 17 (5%) 1 Star Reviews - 51 (15%)
Total Score = 1251 (divided by 336 reviews) Average Review = 3.72
The No-Spin Zone - 253 Reviews
5 Star Reviews - 110 (43% of reviews) 4 Star Reviews - 53 (21%) 3 Star Reviews - 31 (12%) 2 Star Reviews - 15 (6%) 1 Star Reviews - 44 (17%)
Total Score = 929 (divided by 253 reviews) Average Review = 3.67
Who's Looking Out For You?- 265 Reviews
5 Star Reviews - 90 (34% of reviews) 4 Star Reviews - 19 (7%) 3 Star Reviews - 8 (3%) 2 Star Reviews - 16 (6%) 1 Star Reviews - 132 (50%)
Total Score = 714 (divided by 265 reviews) Average Review = 2.69
From a two book average review score of 3.7, O'Reilly has dropped a whole point to 2.7.
And while, for his first two books, 42.9% of reviewers gave O'Reilly 5 stars, only 34% of the reviews for his latest have been 5 star ratings.
But more interestingly, for his first two books, only 16% of reviewers gave O'Reilly a 1 Star rating, while a whopping 50% of the reviewers of "Who's Looking Out For You" have given it the lowest possible rating.
What does it all mean? Other than I have too much free time, not a whole hell of a lot.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, October 16, 2003 |
|
|
|
Homer Gets a Tax Cut
Alan Kreuger's economics column in today's NYT is a must read. He mostly reports the findings of Prof. Larry Bartel's new Simpsons-quoting report examining why so many Americans have supported tax cuts that don't benefit them.In the most extensive analysis yet available, Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton University, gives a simple but persuasive explanation: "unenlightened self-interest." Middle- and lower-income Americans supported tax cuts they suspected went largely to the rich because they thought they, too, would benefit, if only by a small amount, and because they failed to connect the tax cuts to rising inequality, their future tax burden, or the availability of government services.
Professor Bartels analyzed a small battery of questions added to the National Election Survey, a poll of 1,500 people interviewed in the six weeks before the November 2002 election, and again in the month after the election. The survey turned up some remarkable results, which he reports in "Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind."
[edit]
Larry Bartels concludes that "most Americans support tax cuts not because they are indifferent to economic inequality, but because they largely fail to connect inequality and public policy." In this sense, Homer Simpson had it backward when he said, "Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand." Pity that there doesn't appear to be a copy of the entire report floating about yet.
posted by
Helena Montana at 5:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another Misconception
The other night, I was watching the news and they reported that actor Ed Asner said that his hero was Joe Stalin. I must admit that, for a nanosecond I thought to myself, "Oh shit, what a stupid thing to say!" But then I noticed that I was watching Fox News, so I relaxed.
Not surprisingly, it turns out that the Fox report was bogus. Here's a transcript of the comments that Fox twisted, courtesy of Atrios:
Interviewer: "If you could portray an historical biography and you had an unlimited budget, unlimited support cast and everything you could ask for, who would it be?"
Asner: "Well, you know something, they've played Hitler, nobody has ever really touched Stalin, it just occurred to me. It's not because I am a liberal or anything like that. Stalin is one big damn mystery, I wonder why nobody has tried it? Many people, you know, speak of the fact that he killed more people than Hitler – why does nobody touch him? It's strange. So, and he was about my size, my height – with a wig I probably could do it." Needless to say, it's one thing to want to play Stalin in a movie and quite another to worship the ground the dictator walked on. I guess that we can add this to the list of Fox News viewers' common misconceptions.
----------------- UPDATE: Eugene sent me links for the original Fox News story, which I've now linked to above, as well as their correction from the following day. I'm glad that they set the record straight, but that won't prevent right-wing web sites like RightNation.us from peddling the original story as fact ad infinitum.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 4:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great Kinsley
I was going to excerpt parts of this, but every paragraph was equally worthy so I'll just encourage you to go and read the whole thing.
Here's the beginning To President Bush, the news is like a cigarette. You can get it filtered or unfiltered. And which way does he prefer it? Well, that depends on the circumstances.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brave Words from the Election Observers
From the NYT The battle to subdue Azerbaijan's political opposition moved into the streets today and it was as intense, harsh and definitive as the dynastic victory in a presidential election that was held Wednesday.
Once again the chief weapon was the big stick as thousands of well-drilled soldiers, police and special security units charged through the streets, banging on their metal shields and clubbing both protesters and bystanders
[edit]
The central election commission announced preliminary results today that gave Ilham Aliev, 42, about 80 percent of the vote to succeed his ailing father, the country's longtime strongman, Heydar Aliev, 80.
The commission said the chief opposition candidate, Isa Gambarov, had won about 12 percent of the vote in an election that observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe primly said "fell short of international standards."
The observers listed violence; excessive use of force; intimidation of opposition supporters, journalists and others; prohibitive restrictions on political rallies and meetings; severely imbalanced media coverage; and manipulation of the voting, counting and tabulation processes.
If by "fell short of international standards" they mean "this was a ridiculously fraudulent, stolen and illegitimate election" then we are all in agreement.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Return of Manucher Ghorbanifar
The AP reports Acting through a prominent conservative with friends at the Pentagon, a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal has passed allegations to the Bush administration that enriched uranium was smuggled from Iraq into Iran five years ago and some may remain hidden in Iraq.
The intermediary, Michael Ledeen, said the CIA failed to aggressively check out the allegations because of its long-held distrust of Manucher Ghorbanifar, the middleman in the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages deals of the Reagan years.
The CIA agrees it is skeptical of information from Ghorbanifar, saying he has "proven to be a fabricator."
[edit]
The source of Ghorbanifar's information, who would talk only on condition his name not be used for fear of his safety, said he told the CIA it could meet with three people involved in the purported shipment. Those people, including a man formerly in the Iraqi military, could take the Americans to a laboratory in Iraq where unspecified "material" is stored, the source said. If the evidence proved valuable, a reward ranging from thousands to millions of dollars would be paid, he said.
Let's hope that this time around, the CIA and the administration know better than to trust this conniving, manipulating liar (whom I wrote a bit about back in June.)
But I wonder why the AP refers to Ghorbanifar as "a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal" and completely fails to mention that Ledeen also played a key role, most notably during the first sales of Israeli-owned, US-made missiles to Iran.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bushies & Iraq (Part II: What a Difference 8 Days Can Make)
*Colin Powell in Feb. 2001: Saddam Hussein Is Not a Threat"…the (United Nations) sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction .... That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Sec. of State Colin L. Powell, press briefing in Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001 *An Admin. Spokesman in Sept. 2002: There's No "Smoking Gun" in Iraq"A senior administration official said yesterday that American intelligence agencies have not come up with a smoking gun" -- adding, 'Not yet anyway.' " "Bush Seeks Backing in Security Council," Baltimore Sun, Sept. 6, 2002 *Then, 8 Days Later, President Bush: Saddam Hussein Is a "Grave" Threat"Saddam Hussein's regime has proven itself a grave and gathering danger ... I also welcome next week's congressional hearings on the threats Saddam Hussein's brutal regime poses to our country and the entire world." President Bush, weekly radio address, Sept. 14, 2002
"On Thursday, I met with Democratic and Republican members of Congress to discuss the threat posed by the Iraqi regime ... The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons … and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." President Bush, weekly radio address, Sept. 28, 2002 *But, Just Recently, David Kay: Saddam Had Little Capability to Produce WMDs"Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW [chemical weapons] munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. inspections.” Testimony by David Kay, chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, before Congress in Sept. 2003, quoted by the Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2003 Clearly, David, you're not reading from the most recent White House talking points on Iraq and WMDs. Please check your fax machine.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post Docks Boondocks
The New York Daily News reports that the Washington Post won't be printing Aaron McGruder's Boondocks comic strip this week because of references to Condi Rice's personal life:
On Tuesday, cartoonist Aaron McGruder had one of his young characters speculate: "Maybe if there was a man in the world who Condoleezza truly loved, she wouldn't be so hell-bent to destroy it."
A rep for the Post, which won't be resuming the strip until Sunday, said: "We had no way of knowing whether Mr. McGruder's assertion that Condoleezza Rice had no personal relationship was true or not."
I didn't realize that The Post factchecks the accuracy of its comic strips. If only it would do the same with its op/ed columnists.
According to McGruder's agent, "Not a single other paper in the nation chose to abort this week's strip."
For your edification, here is the offending strip.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Important Questions from a VT Columnist
Here we are, now, on Day 5 of President Bush's official "Marriage Protection Week." (Mr. President, given the tough economic times and widespread layoffs across the country, what week will you be choosing to proclaim "Job Protection Week"? Just curious.)
A lot of solid but predictable arguments have been made for why Bush's proclamation is a hateful effort to placate the Religious Right, why it's unnecessary, etc. However, Steve Swayne of the Valley News, a Vermont newspaper, has written a column that makes an interesting and persuasive point that I haven't seen anywhere else:It is tradition, however, that Bush invokes in the opening sentences of his proclamation. "Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America."
But if marriage is sacred and sanctified, why are civil authorities regulating it? Town clerks don't issue baptismal certificates. Justices of the peace don't check your name and address before you receive communion. Why should same-sex couples be denied civil marriage licenses?
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drip, Drip, Drip
Bush Orders Officials to Stop Leaks
Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge - told his top officials to "stop the leaks" to the media, or else.
News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately.
Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.
Considering Eug's recent post about the White House feigning ignorance about the Plume investigation, I found this story rather illuminating. Apparently plausible denial is not a concept Bush & Co. are familiar with. Let's hope it catches up with them sooner rather than later.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will They Learn Their Lesson?
Slate's Fred Kaplan has a good piece on the most recent UN Security Council resolution on Iraq, noting that it will probably pass but won't change much There is good reason for this lack of enthusiasm. The resolution essentially changes nothing. Its drafters have paid lip service to accelerating the process of Iraqi self-governance and strengthening the United Nations' role in this process. But a close reading of the resolution indicates that all power remains in American hands, that no real authority is transferred to the United Nations, and that a new Iraqi government remains a long way off.
That is not particularly surprising, but I was somewhat stunned by this latter paragraph Those compromises will probably be enough to push the resolution through. They do reflect, albeit to a very limited degree, a realization that the United Nations must be more actively involved in the occupation if a new, democratic Iraq is ever to take hold. James Dobbins, former head of peacekeeping operations in the Bush and Clinton administrations, thinks this will be but the first of several resolutions that move steadily in a more multilateral direction. The other member-states of the Security Council are thinking along these same lines—which is why they will probably approve this resolution, however half-heartedly.
Since when has agreeing to Bush's demands ever encouraged him to seek further compromise? Democrats voted to give him the authority to use military force in Iraq on the assumption that he would use it as a bargaining chip. Instead, he used it to start a war. And the Security Council agreed to a resolution demanding renewed inspections on threat of force, also thinking Bush would use it as a bargaining chip. Instead, he used it to justify his war.
Bush seeks only the appearance of multilateralism and legitimacy that comes from receiving UN support. But history has shown that he has nothing but disdain for genuine multilateralism, so why the members of the UN think that they can get him to move in that direction by providing cover for his unilateral impulses is beyond me.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Child Slave Labor
From MSNBC Seventy-four child workers as young as 4 years old — their skin broken and palms callused from months of hauling granite — were receiving food, clothes and medical care in the West African state of Benin on Thursday after being rescued from the traffickers who sold them into heavy labor.
Children told their rescuers that at least 13 of their young companions had died in the past three months — worn out by smashing and carrying rocks and sleeping, without adequate food, in the open, U.N. officials said.
[edit]
The first rescue under the pact came Sept. 27, when authorities brought back 116 children who had been put to work in the granite quarries of southwest Nigeria. Three of the children died later at a camp where Nigerian authorities brought them before repatriation, Lauriano said.
On Thursday, Benin authorities crossed into Nigeria for what Lauriano said would be a six-week mission to find more children and retrieve them.
Child labor and labor-trafficking are common across West Africa, while mass operations to rescue the victims are extremely rare. An estimated 15,000 children from impoverished Benin work in Nigerian granite pits, officials said.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does The White House Read The Newspaper?
In this New York Times article about Ashcroft refusing to recuse himself from the Plame investigation, the following paragraphs appear Mr. Ashcroft and Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, have also been under fire for their initial handling of the case. The Justice Department allowed the White House to wait overnight on Sept. 28 before sending an electronic message ordering White House employees not to destroy records related to the leak.
Ashley Snee, a spokesman for Mr. Gonzales, said he believed the delay was acceptable because no one in the White House had any idea there was an investigation. But The New York Times and The Washington Post had reported the day before that the C.I.A. had forwarded the matter to the Justice Department for possible investigation.
Is the White House some sort of metaphysical black hole in which things don't actually exist until they are aware of them?
How could they not know there was an investigation? There are only two explanations, really: either they don't read the papers, or they are lying.
From what I know about Bush, I am not sure which one is most likely.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
War Profiteering
By Halliburton. I, for one, am shocked According to the two lawmakers, Halliburton has charged the government $1.62 to $1.70 a gallon for gasoline that could be bought wholesale in the Persian Gulf region for about 71 cents and transported to Iraq for no more than 25 cents. The fuel was sold in Iraq for 4 cents to 15 cents a gallon, the letter said.
[edit]
Based on information that Mr. Waxman's office obtained from the Corps of Engineers, Halliburton received $304,486,577 to import 191,965,150 gallons of gasoline into Iraq as of Sept. 18. That would come to $1.59 a gallon on average, the letter said. Halliburton's contract calls for the government to cover costs and pay a profit margin of 2 percent to 7 percent, which would bring the price of gasoline to $1.62 to $1.70 a gallon.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the letter continued, the average wholesale price of benchmark Arab Gulf gasoline from April through September was about 71 cents a gallon. Industry experts who Mr. Waxman's office spoke to said it should cost no more than 25 cents a gallon for Halliburton to transport gasoline by tanker-trailers from neighboring countries to Baghdad. That would leave at least 66 cents a gallon unaccounted for, based on the Dingell-Waxman letter.
Iraqis pay the equivalent of 4 cents to 15 cents a gallon for gasoline, which means that American taxpayers are footing the bill for bringing oil into Iraq.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 15, 2003 |
|
|
|
Call me crazy...
but I don't have a problem with Hostettler's Marriage Protection Act.
Why? Well the MPA would...
...make already existing legislation (DOMA) stronger. ...take the wind of the sails of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment movement. ...allow states that want to have gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnership registries to do so. ...would help introduce gay marriage at a rate that the American public culture can accept. ...be much easier to overturn than a constitutional amendment. ...help defeat Bush next year by taking away the GOP's most important wedge issue-- gay marriage.
Let me be frank. Right now, gay and lesbian couples have very paltry options if they want to legally protect their relationships. Vermont's unions only work if you live in Vermont. Same goes for DC's and California's Domestic Parternship registries. After that, nada. zip. zilch. The state and local level protections in hiring, housing, public accommodations, and adoption are piecemeal but have been rising steadily over the years. I'm optimistic.
But the Federal Marriage Amendment? If it were passed? We'd end up with a lot less than we have right now.
Here's the heart of the conundrum-- if adopted, the Federal Marriage Amendment would not be overturned until the vast majority of Americans are actually pro-gay marriage. This would happen at a much slower rate if our relationships are "unlegal" everywhere.
I hate to admit it, but America just isn't ready for gay marriage yet. But once a few states have gay marriage and the people see over time that all of civilization doesn't collapse on itself...well, you get my drift. We all know the younger generation (under 40) have much stronger support for gay marriage. I can't help but feel that pushing for this right now seems, well, almost a way to guarantee our second-class status remains for a long time.
Honestly, I also don't have the confidence in the Democratic party or progressives in office to defeat the FMA right now. Not when they know they could lose their jobs over it and see their country go further down the drain under Republican dominance. We need to rip a page from the Republican playbook-- we really need to focus on winning right now. This is a winning issue for them and a losing issue for us.
I suppose what I'm asking for, from our allies and my fellow GLBT folks, is for a little more patience and a lot less myopia. We've had so much historical change in so few years that I'd hate to see us totally blow it at the end.
Maybe I'm just feeling beaten up by the Pragmatic Solution Stick. If so, let me know.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 6:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antidote to Marriage Protection Week
Reuters reports that female promiscuity creates healthier offspring in birds. Really, it's a lovely read. It's from the British wire, so they use words like "randy." Take that Don Wildmon.
posted by
Helena Montana at 5:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must See TV
Greg Thielmann will be on 60 Minutes II tonight talking about manipulated intelligence The person responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell says the Secretary of State misinformed Americans during his speech at the U.N. last winter.
[edit]
“…The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence,” says Thielmann. “They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior administration officials.”
Sadly, this "shoot first, ask questions later" approach is typical in Washington where pretty much everything is vulnerable to distortion in the name of advancing ideological objectives.
I just hope Thielmann's wife isn't a covert CIA operative.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limbaugh and the Failed War on Drugs
Matthew Briggs of the Drug Policy Alliance has written a column referring to the drug-abuse revelations from talk-show host Rush Limbaugh as he makes the case for reforming the nation's drug laws.
In the column, Briggs writes:"Limbaugh is not the first well-known Floridian to land in hot water over prescription-drug abuse. Gov. Jeb Bush's daughter, Noelle, was arrested in 2002 for trying to buy Xanax with a fake prescription. At the time, the Drug Policy Alliance called for privacy for the Bushes, but also pointed out the discrepancy in Florida's treatment of drug abuse among people with less political power and financial means. For the past 10 years, more have been sentenced to Florida state prisons for drug offenses than for any other offense." Briggs later adds:"... I hope Limbaugh's life isn't destroyed by unjust, unscientific and uncompassionate drug laws. No one deserves that, friend or foe." The Drug Policy Alliance describes itself as "the nation's leading organization working to end the war on drugs," replacing this failed 'war' with policies "based on science, compassion, health and human rights and a just society..."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How Do These People End Up In Positions Of Power?
From the Washington Times [Richard] Perle, who was honored at the event, commended Israel for striking last week at a Palestinian camp inside Syria in response to a suicide bombing of a cafe in Haifa that killed 20 persons.
The attack, he said, was an appropriate application of a doctrine originated by President Bush that calls for striking not only at terrorists but at any country that harbors or protects them.
"I am happy to see the message was delivered to Syria by the Israeli air force, and I hope it is the first of many such messages," Mr. Perle said to applause.
Perle seems to be the only person on the planet who wants to see Bush's doctrine of pre-emption widely adopted and expanded.
And then, for good measure, he spent some time denouncing an unofficial peace plan negotiated between Israeli opposition leaders and moderate Palestinians.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonah Gets Defensive
The other day, Calpundit criticized Jonah Goldberg for his tendency to solicit tips and information from Corner readers For crying out loud Jonah, if the left is really making a big deal out of this it shouldn't be too hard to find examples on your own. You've even got access to Google and Nexis, don't you?
The folks over at NRO do this kind of thing constantly, and it bespeaks not only an unflattering laziness but an especially egregious form of political hackdom.
Needless to day, Jonah does not take kindly to accusations of political hackdom That's B.S. If I had a researcher and asked him or her the same question it wouldn't indicate that I'm a hack, would it? Well, sometimes I rely on Corner readers for the same thing -- especially when I can't catch every TV radio show, let alone every columnist . But more often, I rely on them to tell me when I'm all wet or don't know what I'm talking about. There's no reason to assume that I rely on them to tell me what to write. And, frankly, I resent the charge of hackdom from Calpundit -- a generally intellectually honest guy. I think I deserve a bit more credit and I know our readers do.
You might think you deserve more credit - but you don't.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bushies & Iraq (Part I: Help Wanted in Iraq .... Well, Maybe)
Over the past year, I have stumbled on some rather glaring and revealing quotes about Iraq from leading voices within the Bush administration. Over the next several days, I'll offer these quotes in separate packages -- each of which exposes the administration's hypocritical, unilateral and deceptive efforts with regard to Iraq. As this first part reveals, the Bush administration has found it difficult to make up its mind as it seeks, then rejects, then asks for, then dismisses, and continually second-guesses the need for other countries to contribute troops or resources to post-war Iraq. Enjoy....
The Administration: Other Nations Will Definitely Have a Role in Iraq"Should force be required to bring Saddam to account, the United States will work with other nations to help the Iraqi people rebuild and form a just government."
President Bush, weekly radio address, Oct. 5, 2002 The Administration: Well, At Least Some Kind of Role"[President Bush] again outlined a vision for a broader role in Iraq for the United Nations, though it remains narrower than what France and many other countries seek."
"At U.N., Bush Stands Firm on Iraq, but Also Asks for Help," New York Times, Sept. 24, 2003 The Administration: But Not You Two"The United States had until now resisted enlisting France and Germany because of their efforts to delay the war."
Barry Schweid, staff writer, Associated Press, Aug. 20, 2003 The Administration: This Is Costly and Deadly -- We Need Help"With the costs of stabilizing Iraq hovering at $4 billion a month and with American troops being killed at a steady rate, administration officials acknowledge that they are rethinking their strategy and may seek a United Nations resolution for help that would placate other nations, like India, France and Germany."
"After the War: Occupation," New York Times, July 19, 2003 The Administration: Brother, Can You Spare a Battalion?"Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a series of phone consultations with European allies Wednesday, campaigned to enlist more foreign troops to bolster the U.S-led military presence in Iraq."
Barry Schweid, staff writer, Associated Press, Aug. 20, 2003 The Administration: Wait ... It's Only Speculation"At the State Department Wednesday, spokesman Richard Boucher said soliciting other troops (for Iraq) at this point was only a matter of speculation."
Barry Schweid, staff writer, Associated Press, Aug. 20, 2003 The Administration: We Want Others' Help"We expect and hope that our friends contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq. It is in your interest that you do so."
Quote by President Bush from: "Bush Insists Iraq Money 'Worth' Investment," Baltimore Sun, Sept. 10, 2003 The Administration: But Not Their Help"Earlier this year, Turkey offered peacekeepers as part of a support package for Iraq that included teams to repair electrical facilities, water purification plants and hospitals, as well as economic aid. But the Pentagon rejected the offer. 'Right now, we're looking to those people who were with us in the coalition,' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said then."
Barry Schweid, staff writer, Associated Press, Aug. 20, 2003
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shake Hands With The Devil
From what I have been able to gather, Romeo Dallaire's book on his experience as head of the UN mission to Rwanda during the 1994 genocide is due to be released on Tuesday (at least, that is what Random House of Canada told me.)
While searching around for some information on it, I came across this eerie article from last month Retired lieutenant-general Romeo Dallaire sent his ghostwriter home for the weekend, fully expecting to see her again.
Sian Cansfield was 44, a smart, impassioned journalist with a gift, her friends said, for getting into the minds of her subjects. She'd been working for the general for a year, trying to reach into his tortured psyche, to pull out his words as the deadlines pressed.
Dallaire's book had to tell how the peacekeeping mission he had led, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, had let 800,000 Rwandan civilians die in the mid-1990s.
His account of UNAMIR was a story of international indifference and political failure, but it was also one of the most profoundly disturbing tales of the century.
Cansfield had to help the general relive the terror of large-scale murder - the friends he would never see again; the leering child soldiers, machetes still red with blood; the sight and stench of mutilated bodies, whole families, entire villages hacked up and stacked at the side of the road. Since returning home, Dallaire had attempted suicide at least twice. Now, the general was worried about the emotional toll on his writer.
Cansfield was burning out.
So at the end of May 2002, she found herself back at her home in west Toronto, ordered to take a weekend of rest. On the morning of Saturday, June 1, she filled her cats' dish to overflowing, then she called a cab.
She travelled east in the taxi. If they took the most direct route, they drove down Bloor St. past the Korean bakeries, through the canyon of concrete towers near Yonge St., and out to the leafy fringes of Rosedale, headed in the early din for the heights of the Bloor St. Viaduct.
Her friends say Cansfield made a final call that morning, leaving a message for the general.
Then Cansfield, not even five feet tall, lifted her tiny frame up over the viaduct's concrete rail and jumped.
I can't find a link to it, but if you want to read it, e-mail me and I'll send it to you.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope the article in Monday's Washington Post by Jim VandeHei is correct in predicting that President Bush will suffer political fallout due to his bogusly named "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) Act. But I seriously doubt it. Bush signed NCLB into law in January 2002.
First, here's what VandeHei wrote in The Post article:"Bush hoped to enhance his image as a 'compassionate' conservative by making this education program one of the first and highest priorities of his administration. But he could find the new law complicating his reelection effort, political strategists from both parties say, as some states report that as many as half or more of schools are failing to make the new grade and lack the money to turn things around promptly. So why does Bush have little to worry about? Because parents and the public are relatively ignorant of NCLB, its impact and the fact that Bush has underfunded it by $9 billion. Consider this excerpt from an Education Week article:"The Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the nation's attitudes toward public schools found that 40 percent of [Americans] knew very little and 36 percent knew nothing at all about the legislation passed nearly two years ago .... 'It is an uninformed public on No Child Left Behind,' Lowell Rose, the poll director for Phi Delta Kappa, said at a press conference ..." Teacher unions, civil rights groups and leading Democrats have not done a good job of publicizing the shortcomings of NCLB. If they get their act in gear, there is some hope -- as the poll indicates. For example:"Under the law, a school's performance is evaluated annually based on the performance of its students, but 84 percent of those surveyed said a better way to judge the job a public school is doing would be to determine whether students show 'reasonable improvement from where they started.' Only 14 percent said the best way to measure a public school's success would be on a 'fixed standard' such as a test."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where's Billy?
Tripping over his party loyalty on his way to the moral outrage pedestal. Slate's Tim Noah has the goods on Bill Bennett's weasely words regarding the Tooncinator. The quotes are so outrageous that I have to repeat them all. From Hannity & Colmes:Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future. … I think a man big enough to run for an office like that is big enough to have the truth told about him. But I don't think it's relevant, and I don't think it bears particularly on the merits now. And I think the three of us would probably agree there's way too much of this in politics. … Look, you take a man in the totality of his actions, and that's the way it should be viewed. And if you look at everything, look at the record of the man as an adult, as a father, as a husband, and as a professional. And I think it comes out pretty well. From Scarborough Country:And better as a young man than as an older man, not good at any time, some of those things. But given the context in which he lived, he seems to have outgrown all that kid stuff. I have been with him in a situation with his wife and his family. And we have had a couple of dinners together. He's an impressive father and husband. And it is how men grow up, I think, in the end that matters, don't you? That's what women's wish is, is that we will, in the end, all grow up. To a Newhouse News Service reporter:Outrage was killed in 1998. The public, having turned its face away from President Clinton's outrages, was not likely to turn its face toward outrage when the two plausible options seemed to be the embrace of a radically less-than-perfect actor-cum-politician or the continued demise of the state of California. I guess that kind of tortured logic helps explain how he can acknowledge his multi-million dollar gambling losses, yet claim he's not an addict. Elayne's so lucky to have a fella like you.
posted by
Helena Montana at 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LRA Strikes Again
From MSNBC Rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) raided a bar in Lira district in northern Uganda, rounded up bar patrons and gunned them down, killing all 22 of them, an army spokesman said on Wednesday.
''The incident occurred just after 7 p.m. local time (1600 GMT) when about 15 rebels rounded up the four women and 18 men and shot them to death,'' army spokesman, Second Lieutenant Chris Magezi told Reuters.
Magezi said the rebels fled into the bushes after the attack on Monday night, which he said took less than 30 minutes.
The State Department classifies the LRA as a terrorist organization. Maybe some of them will show up in Iraq and then the US will have some incentive to try and do something about them.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 |
|
|
|
The Pleasure Principle, Bauer-style
This rancid quote from Gary Bauer was absolutely buried at the end of the Newsweek cover story on Rush's woes:From a moral standpoint, there’s a difference between people who go out and seek a high and get addicted and the millions of Americans dealing with pain who inadvertently get addicted. Runty little Calvinist creep.
Uggabugga has some bones to pick the Newsweek piece, displayed in characteristically chic chart form.
posted by
Helena Montana at 5:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How the Right Interprets Opposition to Bush
Many Democrats fervently oppose many of President Bush's efforts related to domestic security, new police powers, etc. Why? Because the party "hopes" America is weakened by the war on terrorism. At least that's the pathetic accusation that is subtly being made by NewsMax.com, the ultra-conservative website that features Bill O'Reilly and other inflammatory pundits. (One article on NewsMax's home page is headlined: "Columnist Who Backed Clinton the Rapist: I'm No Lefty")
A special link on NewsMax's home page urges right-wing visitors to the site to "support President Bush." The prez urgently needs their support, NewsMax declares, for these reasons:"The major media are in attack mode -- and have eroded the President's public support. Despite claims to the contrary, the U.S. economy is rebounding after a Clinton-inspired recession. And despite Democrat hopes, America is safer and more secure after President Bush's war on terror." Okay. I expect these people to make the case that America is much safer now under Bush, that Dubya is the best prez since Honest Abe himself, blah, blah .... whatever -- feel free to make your (extraordinarily weak) case. And I can even understand why they might write: "And despite Democrat claims, America is safer and more secure..." But "despite Democrat hopes"!? Is this how angry, pissy and desperate the Right has become? It's a reaction straight out of a Maoist purge -- question the regime's policies, and you obviously hate your country and wish it ill.
Damn ... fellow Dems, the Right has finally figured us out. We deeply "hope" that America becomes more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Yes, even though we live in this country, as do our friends and family, we somehow hope that another attack occurs.
How did the Right ever get so clever?
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 5:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did Sonny Purdue really beat Roy Barnes last year?
It doesn't look like we'll ever really know, according to this Wired story:a former worker in Diebold's Georgia warehouse says the company installed patches on its machines before the state's 2002 gubernatorial election that were never certified by independent testing authorities or cleared with Georgia election officials.
If the charges are true, Diebold could be in violation of federal and state election-certification rules. The charges also raise questions about the integrity of the Georgia election results and any other election that uses patched Diebold systems that have not been re-certified.
According to Rob Behler, an engineer hired as a contractor to work in Diebold's Georgia warehouse last year, the Diebold systems had major functioning problems.
Behler said 25 to 30 percent of the machines in one shipment to the warehouse either crashed upon booting or had problems with their real-time clocks, causing the systems to register the date inaccurately then boot improperly or freeze up altogether.
[edit]
the Georgia gubernatorial race...ended in a major upset that defied all polls and put a Republican in the governor's seat for the first time in more than 130 years.
Republican candidate Sonny Perdue managed to unseat Democratic incumbent Roy Barnes with only 51 percent of the vote. It was the first time an incumbent governor had not won his second term since Georgia law allowed back-to-back terms in 1978.
Pundits have attributed the upset to dissatisfaction with the incumbent for altering a Confederate symbol on the state flag and to effective stumping by President George W. Bush on behalf of Perdue.
Harris acknowledged no proof exists that anyone rigged the election systems, but she said, "We'll never know exactly what happened in Georgia because there's no paper trail to verify the votes."
posted by
Helena Montana at 5:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overkill
So far today, there have been 10 plugs for Rich Lowry's new anti-Clinton Screed, Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years, on The Corner. That includes this particularly snarky one by Lowry himself:
DON’T BUY THIS BOOK! [Rich Lowry] At least that would be Bill and Hillary's advice. In LEGACY: PAYING THE PRICE FOR THE CLINTON YEARS, I take a scalpel (and occasionally a sledgehammer) to their claims of political and policy mastery in the 1990s, on everything from the economy, to welfare reform, to crime, to health care. I defend Ken Starr and impeachment, and excoriate the Clinton foreign-policy record, which makes Neville Chamberlain look clear-eyed and strong willed in comparison. Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton have piled massive amounts of manure around the Clinton record. Legacy is your way of digging out. (End of sales pitch.) [As Tapped points out, Lowry isn't doing much to promote the civility that wingers have been pining for of late. But I digress....]
I understand the need to toot one's own horn from time to time, but ten posts in nine hours?! C'mon.
Still, I suppose I should be thankful. The Lowry promotion takes up all of the entrepreneurial energy previously devoted to pitching National Review's Digital service, which Kathryn Jean Lopez had been plugging relentlessly until today. And-when-I-say-relentlessly-I-mean-relentlessly.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 4:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Anti-Gay Cam-pain Week
For the record, this is the week that Bush and his right-wing friends have officially declared war on gay families-- Marriage Protection Week. They've decided they need an entire week-- October 12-18th-- to reminding us what a bunch of hypocritical, judgmental idiots they all are. At the moment the people making the most noise about this issue are getting the most attention-- the out and proud demagogues. Let's debunk this issue once and for all, shall we?
First, "Marriage Protection Week" has nothing to do with its name. It's a total misnomer. It's not about protecting marriage from the only thing that actually "destroys" a marriage-- divorce. While it is common knowledge that the divorce rate in the U.S. is 50% and that the top threats to marriages are financial problems, not gays, guess which group has a surprisingly high divorce rate? The very people who are preaching this week that marriage needs protecting-- Evangelical Christians. (Perhaps they should do something about that plank sticking out of their eye, eh?)
Second, how do gay relationships "threaten" or "destroy" straight marriages? Their answer is that gay couples only want to get married so that they can destroy straight marriages, not to protect and defend their own relationships against those who think they don't have a right to exist. Gay couples want the right to file income taxes together, get their health coverage extended to their spouses, get inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, social security benefits (and a thousand or so other rights) because its the pathway to certain destruction for American society? That's such an irrational argument that one can barely argue with it. Let's cut through the rhetoric. What they really mean is they don't like gay people and also believe that they should not have the same rights as other people.
Thirdly, I can't help but take all of this very personally, as they are openly declaring war on me and my family. How can anyone who calls themselves "pro-family" declare war on other families without caring about the consequences? Deny it all they want, but condemning us as people and as enemies of the American family, and waging a national campaign against our rights as families dips into the same well of hatred and ignorance that provokes violence against gay and lesbian people. Is it a coincidence that October 12th was the 5th anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's death? Or that barely two weeks ago a lesbian was gang-raped and beaten walking home from a local club in a gay-friendly neighborhood in Washington, DC.? While this actual campaign is not tied to those acts of violence (duh) many of us are not granted the luxury of pretending that anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay actions have nothing to do with one another. We fear the words because actions tend to follow.
I know on a fundamental level that Americans have and will continue to come around on this issue of basic equality. I am assured of this because I just spent a week in a small, conservative southern town in rural Alabama for my sister's wedding. I was the matron of honor, a highly visible position especially considering that I'm not even legally married. I already knew my sister's very conservative in-laws would be fine to me and my wife, that wasn't an issue. But what really surprised me when I was down there was all the people who came up to us at the wedding reception, both young and old, who wanted to introduce themselves and tell us about the various gay people in their families-- their aunts, children, sisters and brothers and so on. They told us how they prayed and worried about their Southern gay family members, not because they wanted them to change, but because of the hatred of other people.
Finally, I don't know how to respond to this issue anymore. In some ways I want them to really flaunt how they embrace discrimination against people they don't like. However, where are the other voices to stand up and help destroy this paper tiger of an issue once and for all? More than ever, we need our straight allies to stand up against this, people who have the common sense to see that this campaign isn't about protecting marriage at all but scapegoating gay people. At the very least, you can let your representatives know what you think and find out if they really support marriage. We need to band together to stand up against these bullies.
-----------------------------------------------------
Here are a few places that sum up the absurdity of this week better than I, as it obviously hits too close to home for me to laugh about it at the moment.
National Discriminate Against Committed Gay Couples Week!
Smear the Queer Week!
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 4:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Real Reagan?
Andrew Sullivan is reading the recently released collection of President Reagan's personal letters and has this to say What, for example, are we to make of the stereotype of a lazy president, always napping, watching movies rather than preparing for summits when you come across a passage like this: "This president doesn't have a nine to five or nine to three schedule, nor does he have a five day week. I take the elevator up to the living quarters in the White House with reports, briefings, and memorandums for which there is no reading time during the day. I spend my time until 'lights out' trying to absorb all of that. The same is true of the weekends - when I'm not attending a summit conference or making a speech somewhere." Reagan's biographers tend to back him up on this. But Reagan himself used to joke about his own idleness. In fact, it was a standard laugh-line of his. Was it all a ruse? Or is the truth somewhere in between?
What are we to make of this? Well, I'd say that the stereotype was pretty accurate. And so would Lou Cannon, author of "President Reagan: Role of a Lifetime" Reagan was a creature of habit who required at least eight hours of sleep and rest breaks during the day to perform effectively.
[edit]
A lenient schedule was a necessity for Reagan ... Reagan may have been the one president in history of the republic who saw his election as a chance to get some rest. When he grumbled shortly before the election that he was being roused too early to campaign, Stu Spencer told him cheerfully, "You better get used to it, Governor. When you're president, that fellow from the National Security Council will be there to brief you at seven thirty every morning." Reagan was not impressed. "Well," he said, with a characteristic pause, "He's going to have a helluva long wait." And a long wait it would have been, except that Reagan's national security advisers, whatever their other deficiencies, knew better than to arrive early at the Oval Office. The typical NSC briefing for Reagan began at 9:30 am and was over before 10:00.
[edit]
Reagan's easy approach to the duties and responsibilities of his office was to a large measure reflected in the White House daily schedule, especially the real schedule that was tucked into the president's packet of homework each evening, rather than the edited and sometimes fake version of this document that was distributed to the media the following morning. The real schedule shows that Reagan typically arrived at the Oval Office after nine and returned to the residence by half past five, often earlier if his presence was required at an evening social event. Usually, he took Wednesday afternoons off. On Fridays, he after left in midafternoon for Camp David. Except in times of crisis, and sometimes even then, his schedule allowed him at least two or three hours during the day for "personal staff time," a phrase that on the 1980 campaign plane had been considered a euphemism for "nap time."
I knew reading that book would come in handy.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 4:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enter Demagogue's First-Ever W. Mockery Contest!
Given the Bush administration's penchant for ironic program titles (e.g. the Healthy Forests Initiative, the Clear Skies Initiative, and the grandaddy of them all--Compassionate Conservatism) we were hoping for something equally Orwellian for its new endangered species proposal. The Washington Post describes the new policy like this:
The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries.
Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitat.
This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the endangered straight-horned markhor in Pakistan; license the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina; permit the capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S. circuses and zoos; and partially resume the trade in African ivory. As you can see, this is in keeping with Bush's belief that (in the paraphrased words of the Daily Show's Ed Helms) "to save something, you have to kill part of it."
We're disappointed to say that, so far at least, administration spinners haven't come up with a name to turn this particular environmental frown upside down. That, dear readers, is where you come in. We invite you to enter Demagogue's first (but certainly not last) Mock W. Contest. The rules are simple:
1. Come up with a suitably humorous name for the endangered species proposal. We encourage the use of irony, puns, Bushisms, and even the odd non sequitur.
2. Submit as many entries as you like.
3. Send in entries using the comment field for this blog posting.
4. All entries must be received by 5pm on Tuesday, October 21st. The winner will be announced the following day.
5. The winner will get a collection of Richard Nixon Paper Dolls. For anyone who's ever wondered whether Tricky Dick wore boxers or briefs, this is a must.
Enter early and often, and tell your friends!
posted by
Noam Alaska at 2:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOP Arm Twisting
The Washington Post explains it Bringing legislation to the floor with only the narrowest prospect for victory has become a hallmark of the leadership of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Time and again, on high-profile bills involving Medicare, education and other programs, Hastert and his lieutenants have calibrated the likely yeas and nays to the thinnest margin possible, enabling them to push legislation as much to their liking as they can in a narrowly divided and bitterly partisan House.
More often than not, that direction is to the political right, and generally in line with President Bush's priorities.
The goal, insiders say, is to start negotiations with the narrowly divided Senate -- which is considerably more moderate than the House -- with a House position that yields as little ground as possible. That makes it more likely that the eventual compromise language will be more to House leaders' liking.
You just know that Tom DeLay (R-WBA) has to be deeply involved.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"P.S. -- Mom & Dad, Please Ship that Bulletproof Vest ASAP"
The Bush administration continues to lobby Congress for approval of its proposed $87 billion package for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Yet, first, the administration should do a much better job of spending the money that has already been appropriated for the military operations.
Exhibit A is from today's Washington Post:"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 .... Angry members of Congress said as many as 44,000 troops -- significantly more than the Pentagon's figure -- lack the vests due to the sluggish supply chain. Relatives of some soldiers have resorted to buying body armor in the United States and shipping it to their troops, congressional critics said." Gee, you have to hand it to the Pentagon -- what a nifty way to trim spending and leave more money for the big-ticket items: missiles, jet fighters and the like. If the Pentagon were to stop supplying combat boots, maybe parents of our troops would eventually pick up those costs too.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limbaugh Lies
Roger Ailes (the good one) notes that David Limbaugh is admitting that there is at least one mistake in his new book.
That is a good start, but what about these two?
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D'Souza vs. Atheists
Via Southern Appeal, I see that Dinesh D'Souza has set out to debunk atheism and, in doing so, relies on a common misperception. After giving us a Dinesh Note version of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," D'Souza concludes by saying that atheists should refrain from the ignorant boast that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. Rather, as Kant showed, reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.
Speaking as an atheist, as far as I know, atheists don't claim to know that there is no God. We merely don't believe in God. It is up to people who do believe in God to make a convincing argument about why they believe that. And in my experience, nobody has been able to do so.
If D'Souza wants to defend theism, he has to do better than attacking straw men.
Update: Will Baude has a lot of intelligent things to say about this D'Souza piece
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Things Are Just Great Over Here!
Hesiod is all over the astroturf campaign that is getting identical letters to the editor published in soldiers' names saying things are just dandy over in Iraq. Read all about it.
posted by
Helena Montana at 9:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
In case you're curious, Dacha Dude has posted the full e-mail from Joby Fortson. Via the Burnt Orange Report.
The memo is really a fitting ending to the whole Texas redistricting thing. This Ft. Worth Star-Telegram editorial is full of the convenient hand-wringing that newspapers resort to when unseemly things happen, but self-interest aside, they got it about right.And as if the unrelenting nastiness of the five-month squall wasn't enough, a legislative counsel to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, sent congressional aides a gloating analysis of the plan.
In the memo, Joby Fortson laughed at Democratic members likely to be ousted; discussed how the map cracks and packs some minority neighborhoods but makes other accommodations to get around the Voting Rights Act; and bragged about the crafting of new Republican strongholds.
"This is the most aggressive map I have ever seen," Fortson wrote, according to The Washington Post. "This has a real national impact that should assure that Republicans keep the House no matter the national mood."
Barton did not embrace the memo publicly, but he defended his aide's First Amendment right to express opinions.
It's good to know that free speech is alive and well in Barton's office. It's distressing to know that good sense apparently isn't.
posted by
Helena Montana at 9:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cutting Out The Middle Man
Bush has decided to ignore the major media outlets and take his lies directly to the American people The Bush administration, displeased with the news coverage of the war in Iraq, has accelerated efforts to bypass the national media by telling the administration's story directly to the American public.
[edit]
"I'm mindful of the filter through which some news travels, and somehow you just got to go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to the people."
Oh, the problem is the "filter." As the purpose of that filter is to point out that your words do not always accurately reflect reality, I can see how that would be a problem.
At least Dan Bartlett is open about it Bush aides make no apologies for targeting local media -- which, they say, tend to be less cynical. "We believe local media and regional broadcasters are more interested in letting viewers or readers see or hear what the president has to say," said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director. "It's less analytical and more reporting."
At last, Bush's agenda will no longer harmed by that damned "analysis." Now that the filter has been removed, I expect that those tax cuts will really boost the economy.
I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise, as we know that Bush is a news junkie.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, October 13, 2003 |
|
|
|
Running Afoul of a Powerful Lobby
Consider what these organizations and/or people have in common: the American Academy of Pediatrics ... The Children's Defense Fund ... actress Michelle Pfeiffer ... the national YWCA .... They're all concerned about the health and well-being of young people? That's a good try and surely true, but it's not where I'm headed. I'll continue the list: the United States Catholic Conference ... Hallmark Cards ... the U.S. Conference of Mayors ... and N.Y. Jets quarterback Vinny Testaverde. Give up?
Answer: All of these persons or groups are deemed to be "bad guys" by the National Rifle Association, arguably the most successful lobbying force in Washington, D.C. The New York Times' Bob Herbert writes about the NRA and its list in an interesting column today.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 2:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|