Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
James Wolcott
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Legal Fiction
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness
This Is Not Over


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
A La Gauche
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Bluegrassroots
Political Strategy
Cutting to the Chase
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Friday, December 17, 2004


The Beginning of the End?

The current issue of the National Journal has a series of articles on the troubles that the World's Biggest Asshole is facing.

The articles spurred me to take another look at the recent election results and what I found was pretty interesting.

In 2004, the WBA won his race by a 55-41 margin.

In 2002, he won by a margin of 63-35.

In 2000, he won by a 61-37 margin.

In 1998, he won 63-34.

In 1996, he won 68-31.

In 1994, he won 74-24.

But more interesting than the WBA's steadily declining margin of victory is the fact that, of the 32 House races in Texas, he fared the worst amongst Republican incumbents.

If you ignore Pete Sessions, who was forced to run against the Democratic incumbent thanks to the WBA's redistricting plan, the WBA had the worst showing of any victorious GOP incumbent.

I don't know what this all means exactly, but I think it bodes well.

Anyway I, for one, will be checking the Public Campaign Action Fund's "Daily DeLay" blog on a regular basis.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 3:49 PM




Feingold for President?

That's the title of a post written for The Nation's "The Online Beat" by John Nichols. Nichols writes:

The crowd at the Democratic Party's annual dinner in western Wisconsin's Vernon County was large, loud and longing for a little partisan passion.

Far from feeling beat down by the November presidential election result, the more than 100 rural Democrats who gathered in small city of Viroqua this week were ready to fight against the war in Iraq, against economic policies that favor big business over working people and family farmers and against the warping of the public discourse by a media that is more concerned about Scott Peterson's conviction than the future of Social Security.

... These rural Democrats even had a suggestion for the who should lead that opposition. And it wasn't Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. When I was describing what a serious opposition party would stand for at this moment in history ... a bearded fellow in the crowd shouted, "We've got someone who can do it -- the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act: Russ Feingold."

The crowd cheered.

And they aren't alone. While it might be predictable that Wisconsin Democrats would be excited by the prospect of their just-reelected senator seeking the presidency, the buzz about a possible Feingold for President campaign in 2008 is growing nationally.

... (Hotline) editors suggested that Wisconsin's junior senator -- who has been outspoken in his criticism not just of the Patriot Act but of the war in Iraq and the corporate free-trade agenda -- could be a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Noting that, against serious opposition, Feingold ran more than 140,000 votes ahead of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in Wisconsin, a source told Hotline, "He just accomplished an impressive victory in a heartland swing state in a year that wasn't so kind to (Democrats)." The source went on to suggest that Feingold "will be looked at as a new voice for the party as it moves forward."

... The interest in a Feingold candidacy has even sparked the development of a "Russ Feingold for President" Internet forum.

... As the jockeying begins for 2008 -- and, make no mistake, the jockeying has begun -- it is a safe bet that Feingold will again ponder a run. And with the unsolicited support that he's getting from his home state and elsewhere, he might well be inspired this time to do more than just explore a candidacy.

Now here's a candidate I could support without reservation.

Feingold's lone vote against the Patriot Act was something that GOP opponent Tim Michels tried to hammer away at in the fall campaign. Instead of trying to run away from this vote, Feingold acknowledged and embraced his "no" vote, running an effective TV ad that framed that vote as one of courage and conviction.

It occurred to me as I watched that Feingold ad that had John Kerry been in the same position, he would have offered a rambling, defensive, unconvincing reply that was laden with Washington lingo.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:23 PM




Allow Me to Redefine What You Want

One of the tenets of effective propagandizing is to ignore the substance of your opponents’ viewpoint and, instead, assign a false agenda to them.

Here’s a case in point. Midge Decter, a member of the Heritage Foundation’s board of trustees and wife of neo-conservative icon Norman Podhoretz, delivered a speech a few months ago at Hillsdale College about same-sex marriage. In her speech, Decter argued the following:
Why, then, are these (gay) men fighting so hard for it? The answer is, the right to legal marriage that they are demanding is not about them – it is about the rest of us. It is, and is meant to be, a spit in the eye of the way we live.

… It would be a shame, I think, if we had to tinker with so rare and precious an inheritance as our Constitution because people who hate the way we live storm the streets … this idea of creating a new level of marriage – call it whatever you want – smacks of the congenital passion of politicians to invent a compromise where none will serve.

For it is not a compromise that the homosexual rights movement is after. They are radicals. What they want is not a room of their own; they want to bring the whole damned house down … I will say it again, they do not want what the rest of us have – they want to bring the whole house down.
(Italics are from the original text of the speech, published in a Hillsdale College publication.)

Decter's speech is a classic attempt to throw the debate out of kilter by creating a phony assertion – that gay couples' campaign for legal marriage rights is simply a backdoor way to express their contempt for the lives of straight people – "a spit in the eye of the way we live," in Decter's grandiloquent words.

But this argument has always seemed illogical. Seeking to secure the same legal status that heterosexual couples have is hardly a criticism of the way they live – indeed, it seems to be quite a validation of the way they live.

Conservatives have every right to argue against same-sex marriage rights, but legitimate debate is obfuscated when one side insists upon redefining what other people say they want – especially to the ridiculous level that Decter does.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:22 PM




Head's Up

From Reuters
Astronomical quantities of arms and ammunition have poured into Darfur in the last two weeks and the government appears to be preparing for a major military offensive, the African Union said Friday.

"The quantity of arms and ammunition brought into Darfur to meet the present buildup of troops in the region is (so) astronomical that the issue is no longer whether there will be fighting or not, but when fighting will start," Nigerian Major-General Festus Okonkwo said in a briefing to African Union-sponsored peace talks in Nigeria.

Okonkwo, who heads the AU cease-fire monitors in Darfur, said his efforts to mediate had yielded minimal results and the region was now a "time bomb that could explode at any moment."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:47 PM




The Contradicting Economy

Via the Carpetbagger, I came across this Washington Post article that notes that Bush's entire economic program is based on contradictions.

During his remarks yesterday, he stated
One thing is for certain: In all we do, we've got to make sure the economy grows. One of the reasons why we have a deficit is because the economy stopped growing. And as you can tell from the previous four years, I strongly believe that the role of government is to create an environment that encourages capital flows and job creation through wise fiscal policy. And as a result of the tax relief we passed, the economy is growing.
So the point here is that "tax relief" leads to economic growth and, as he has said repeatedly, we ought to make his tax cuts permanent in order to help make that economic growth permanent.

Yet, at the same time, as the Post point out, his justification for privatizing Social Security is based upon a series of doom-laden economic predictions
Bush warned the conference yesterday that in 2018, the Social Security system will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in Social Security taxes. By 2042, the system will be able to pay beneficiaries no more than 75 percent of their promised benefits.

"Once that line in the red has been crossed, the shortfalls will grow larger with each passing year," he continued.

But those projections are based on a dire view of the nation's economic future, one in which the growth in economic productivity crashes from the 3.4 percent rate of last year to 1.6 percent from 2012 on. Economic growth is anticipated to be cut nearly in half from historic trends, to 1.8 percent between 2015 and 2080.
According to my quick calculations based on this chart, the GDP has increased by an average of 3.7% a year since 1963. Yet Bush is predicting that, for some reason in the future, something is going to happen to drastically slow it down - and that is why we'll need Social Security privatization.

At the same time, Bush is selling his permanent tax cuts as a way to keep the economy strong and growing into the future.

So which it is?

Either his tax cuts are going to keep the economy strong, in which case we really don't need to privatize Social Security, or his tax cuts are not going to help, in which case we'd be better off repealing them and using that money to help offset the massive costs of transitioning to his privatized Social Security system.

He can't have both.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:25 AM




I Hate Polls

This is not one of my typical "I hate polls" rants - in fact, this one should probably be called "I hate the New York Daily News."

Read this
Many people want to see Sen. Hillary Clinton take on Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race, a new national poll shows.

A new Quinnipiac University poll found 57% of voters like Clinton (D-N.Y.) and only 4% express anger toward her, though she is widely considered one of the most polarizing politicians in the country.

In a hypothetical matchup, Giuliani and Clinton are neck and neck: 45% to 43%.
Now look at the actual Quinnipiac University poll release
[O]nly 4 percent of American voters, including 9 percent of Republicans, are angry with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. The 57 percent of all voters who like her a lot or a little includes 91 percent of Democrats.

[edit]

In a long look at the 2008 campaign, voters say 50 - 43 percent that they would not like to see Sen. Clinton run for president. Voters say 45 - 41 percent that they would like to see former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani run.

In a hypothetical matchup, Giuliani gets 45 percent to 43 percent for Clinton.
The Daily News reports that many people want to see Clinton run and bases that on a poll that specifically states that a majority of people DO NOT want to see her run.

Idiots.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:18 AM




Daily Darfur

The Bush administration's complete hatred of the International Criminal Court just might end up stifling efforts to bring those Sudanese leaders responsible for the genocide to justice. The UN has a commission investigating the genocide right now and if their findings provide evidence of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity, Sudan would be obligated to try those responsible and punish them accordingly. As that is not likely to happen, it would be up to the international community to do so and they could either do so via some ad hoc tribunal akin to the ones created for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, or bring the case before the newly formed International Criminal Court. But Bush hates the ICC, so nobody knows what they are going to do
Diplomats warn an unseemly clash of ideologies could ensue. "Sudan is coming down the road towards us. Chances are this inquiry will make a recommendation that goes directly against US policy," said one UN diplomat. "The crunch is going to come on Sudan," said another.

So far the Security Council has resisted open hostilities over the issue, although there was disagreement over an investigation into massacres in Burundi. But diplomats suggest Europe could take a tougher stance over Sudan, including forcing a vote.

That could leave the US with the difficult choice of abandoning its position, or vetoing international justice for Sudan.
Amnesty International has released a new report "Darfur: What hope for the future?" that says that time is running out and calls for a faster deployment of AU troops and an expanded mission.

Reuters reports that those who have fled their villages for refugee camps are still being attacked by the Janjaweed.

Yesterday it was reported that the government had agreed to end its military operations in Darfur if the rebels would withdraw from some of the areas they had captured. Today there are reports that the government continues to attack villages.

In the Congo:

Medecins Sans Frontieres has pulled out of a town in eastern DRC amid rising concern at renewed fighting.

The International Crisis Groups says the DRC is on the brink of catastrophe.

The UN says that renegade soldiers fighting the Congolese army have been receiving weapons and support from Rwanda.

MONUC reports that there is evidence that Rwandan troops have been involved in attacks against villages north of Goma.

Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Charles Murigande, makes is clear that if the UN and Kabila do not disarm the Hutu militants, Rwanda is fully prepared to go after them inside the DRC
For the time being, after this new heightened tension, a lot of countries have been appealing to us to exercise restraint, telling us that they are consulting to develop the appropriate response to this problem of ex-FAR/Interahamwe, either by changing the UN mandate and having a stronger mandate that will enable MONUC to disarm these forces forcefully or by creating an African force under chapter 8, that would go there with the blessing of the UN to do the job. We are allowing these consultations to go on with the hope that they will end up providing us a solution, because we do not desire to go into the DRC. We do not desire to have a unilateral operation there. Actually, at one point I told President Kabila and even some of his vice presidents that what we are asking you is to have this problem resolved. I don't care the manner you are going to do it. If you can implore God to send some angels to do it or if you can implore Satan to send a legion of demons to do it, the bottom line is that it has to be done. So that is the situation.

[edit]

So it is as if, on behalf of the international community, there is a strategy to preserve this force and on behalf of the DRC the same strategy exists, and we are only expected to fold our hands and wait for these forces to come and finish the genocide they started. That is not an option we shall contemplate.
Oh, and just for good measure, the Lord's Resistance Army hacked seven civilians to death in southern Sudan last Friday.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:35 AM


Thursday, December 16, 2004


What a Woman!

Apologies if this is old news to Stateside sports fans, but my brother sent me an e-mail about this, and I (a happily married man with three children) had to agree with his assessment (as a happily married man with a young child): what a woman!
When the Mets signed Kris Benson for $22.5 million over three years last month, they might not have fully factored in the Anna Benson factor. On Tuesday's Howard Stern Show, Kris' wife Anna made it clear that she would get more than even with her husband if he slept with a baseball groupie. "I told him -- because that's the biggest thing in athletics, they cheat all the time -- I told him, cheat on me all you want," she said. "If you get caught, I'm going to screw everybody on your entire team, coaches, trainers, players. I would do everybody on his whole team." Anna also took credit for his contract negotiations.
The hyperlinnk is in the original story; if you click on it, you'll find that she's (surprise, surprise) not at all bad looking. But that's not the point: she made it into the "what a woman" category on the basis of the quote alone.


posted by Arnold P. California at 4:10 PM




This is a rare, fleeting moment...

I actually agree with Senator Trent Lott.
"I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," Lott, R-Mississippi, told the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday morning. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers."
...
Lott said the United States needs more troops to help with the war. The country also needs a plan to leave Iraq once elections are over at the end of January.

Lott doesn't think Rumsfeld is necessarily the person to carry out that plan.

"I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so," Lott said. "I'm not calling for his resignation, but I think we do need a change at some point."
However, the same applies to the recent McCain and Schwarzkopf denouncements of Rumsfeld, um, why so little so late, boys?

I suppose this means that Rumsfeld will step down soon, due to either more time with his family or some "nanny problem," and Bush will give him a Medal of Freedom.

It's good to be the king!



posted by Zoe Kentucky at 3:09 PM




Because They Have Style

Why do I read the Economist? For a number of reasons, but one of the most important is that it isn't in thrall to the American notion of "objectivity," which seems to mean "writing that's duller than watching paint dry." Check out this item buried in the middle of the current "Business this week" summary pages and you'll get an idea of what the main articles are like.
Americans will soon have high-speed internet access on commercial flights. Regulators agreed plans to allow operators to provide web access. More worryingly, regulators will consider allowing the use of mobile phones on flights too, so destroying one of the last remaining havens from other people's inane chatter.
By the way, the current Big Mac Index shows the dollar still overvalued against almost all world currencies--except, interestingly, the Euro, the pound, and a couple of other European currencies.


posted by Arnold P. California at 2:12 PM




That Is One Way of Looking At It

Bush today
One of the reasons why we have a deficit is because the economy stopped growing.
True, but some of the other reasons are that you've pushed through a series of multi-billion dollar tax cuts .. oh yeah, and started a war.

Moving on
If the deficit is an issue -- which it is -- therefore, it's going to require some tough choices on the spending side. In other words, the strategy is going to be to grow the economy through reasonable tax policy, but to make sure the deficit is dealt with by being wise about how we spend money. That's where Josh comes in -- he's the -- as the Director of the OMB, he gets to help us decide where the tough choices will be made. I look forward to working with Congress on fiscal restraint. And it's not going to be easy. It turns out appropriators take their titles seriously.
So suck it up Congress. You need to stop wasting money on programs that you like and that people actually use because Bush has more tax cuts to pass. And since those tax cuts are just going to continue to cause huge financial problems, I guess you all will just have to sacrifice.

And finally there is this, which I am not going to even respond to because Bush's hand-picked, sycophantic audience did it for me
I've got some principles that I've laid out. And, first, on Social Security, it's very important for seniors to understand nothing will change. In other words, nobody is going to take away your check. You'll receive that which has been promised. Secondly, I do not believe we ought to be raising payroll taxes to achieve the objective of a sound Social Security system. Thirdly, I believe younger workers ought to be able to take some of their own payroll taxes and set them up in a personal savings account, which will earn a better rate of return, encourage ownership and savings, and provide a new way of -- let me just say, reforming -- modernizing the system to reflect what many workers are already experiencing in America, the capacity to manage your own asset base that government cannot take away.

So with those principles in mind, I'm open-minded -- (laughter) -- with the members of Congress.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:28 PM




This is Not Good

From the Washington Post
After two years of fragile peace, one of Africa's most volatile regions -- the border area of Rwanda and Congo -- has been pushed back to the brink of war with Rwandan soldiers reportedly staging raids in eastern Congo and Congolese militias clashing separately with each other.

Fighting broke out Wednesday for the fourth successive day between Rwandan-backed rebels and Congolese government troops, the Reuters news agency reported. The fighting, near the Rwanda border, came as a spokesman for President Joseph Kabila of Congo declared his country "at war" with Rwanda.

[edit]

"I would say there's a new war brewing up there," said Felix Bamezon, the top official for the U.N. World Food Program in Congo. "People are really gearing up for a major confrontation."
There are currently 12,000 UN troops and observers in the DRC and they were sent there in order to prevent just this sort of thing from happening. That obviously worked.

The International Rescue Committee says 1,000 people a day are already dying in the DRC from malnutrition and disease stemming from the last war and that 3.8 million Congolese have died in the last six years.

If this does explode into a full-scale war, things are going to get even uglier very quickly.

Global Security offers this good overview of the situation.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:08 AM




2004's Silver Lining?

The results of a hidden election?
Democrats had great success in state legislative races this year, even as they performed poorly in the presidential race and campaigns for Congress. Many Democratic gains came in the heart of Republican territory.

Colorado Democrats took control of both the House and Senate for the first time since 1974. Montana Democrats won the state Senate and could control the state House, depending on the outcome of a legislative race that finished in a tie and is the subject of a court battle.

Overall, Democrats took power in seven legislatures and earned a tie in the Iowa Senate. Republicans won control in four chambers and added legislators in southern states that have been shifting to the party for 20 years.

Nationwide, Democrats added more than 60 legislative seats, reversing the 2002 results that gave Republicans more state legislators than Democrats for the first time in a half century.

Democratic state legislators now outnumber Republicans by two: 3,658 to 3,656. A pair of undecided races could leave it tied.

"It was like a hidden election," says Tim Storey, political analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "The result was remarkable and not easy to explain."
So while the inmates have taken over the asylum, there also appears to be an emerging democratic majority after all, starting from where we really want it to start-- from the ground up in traditionally Republican areas.

So much for a Permanent Republican Majority, Mr. World's Biggest Asshole, Americans overall may be more purple than they are red or blue.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:34 AM




OK, Now Maybe They're Going a Bit Too Far

I'm right behind the Dutch on many of their famously tolerant laws, e.g., legalizing and regulating prostitution, decriminalizing marijuana, and not limiting marriage and "registered partnership" (two different statuses in Dutch law) to opposite-sex couples.

I'm not so gung-ho about the 2002 legalization of euthanasia, though I'm not strongly against it, either. But the latest from the Dutch doctors' association would make my father (a physician) apoplectic:

Dutch doctors should be allowed — under very strict conditions — to help with mercy killings or euthanasia of patients who are not ill, but who are suffering from life, a special commission has advised.

Dutch doctors' organisation KNMG published the Dijkhuis Commission report Lijden aan het Leven (Suffering from Life)* on Wednesday.

*Offered for the large Dutch-speaking, pdf-downloading segment of our readership. Hi, Jaap! [Note: Jaap doesn't exist.]

Introducing Exhibit A of the depravity of this country of liberal laws (anti-equality wingnuts take notice):

The KNMG set up the Dijkhuis Commission in 2001 following the prosecution of a doctor for helping former Dutch senator Edward Brongersma die in 1998.

Brongersma, 86, was in good health, but no longer had any family or friends to care for him and claimed he was tired of life itself. A controversial figure, Brongersma was an outspoken advocate for paedophilia. He wrote a number of books and articles defending male homosexual paedophilia.

Gee, I wonder why he had no friends. Senator? Can you imagine him in the same chamber as Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum? I'm surprised they prosecuted the doctor for getting rid of this guy; in the U.S., he would have gotten a medal. Then again, they barely prosecuted him here.

His doctor Philip Sutorius was prosecuted for providing the drugs used to end the senator's life. The trial court in Haarlem acquitted the doctor after accepting Brongersma's tiredness of life were sufficient grounds for euthanasia.

But a higher court later overturned the verdict and convicted Sutoruis. Nonetheless, the appeals court also considered that his violation of the assisted suicide law was "so minor that any form of punishment would be inappropriate."

This might be a good time to suggest that in this season of giving, you think of the Dr. (Dr?) Edward Brongersma Society for Scientific Research. Dr. Brongersma founded the Society in 1979 to fund research on the sexual development of children and youth, including their sexual contact with each other and with adults.

But I digress: What next for those who are suffering from life?
The KNMG said on Thursday the medical profession would debate the commission's advice in 2005.
That should be fun to watch. Pass the popcorn. Hold the strychnine.


posted by Arnold P. California at 10:17 AM




Meddlesome Bureaucrats Stick Their Noses into Private Family Business

The Moroccan consulate in the Netherlands has refused permission for a baby girl, born into a Dutch-Moroccan family in Amsterdam, to be given the name Jihad, which means holy war. The girl was born on 27 November in De Baarsjes district of the Dutch capital* and a city council public servant accepted the registration of the name without question. But because the girl has dual nationality, the Moroccan consulate was also asked to give permission for the name. It refused. The council has since sent a letter to the parents asking them to respond.

*Good trivia question: what's the capital of the Netherlands? Modestly educated people will get it right: Amsterdam. Well-educated people will, with few exceptions, get it wrong and say The Hague.


posted by Arnold P. California at 10:17 AM




Daily Darfur

Save Darfur is seeking to raise money to run a half-page ad in the New York Times.

Government negotiators say Sudan is prepared to halt its military operations in Darfur if the rebels withdraw from some positions they captured earlier this year.

Joanne Mariner says that UN's Human Rights Committee is a joke
The record of the U.N. General Assembly, which includes all U.N. member states, is instructive. Just two weeks ago, the General Assembly's human rights committee rejected a resolution condemning violations in Darfur. Ninety-one countries voted in favor of the "no action" motion that killed the resolution, while only 74 voted against it.
The UN says that the conflict in Darfur has displaced 1.65 million people and affected many times that number. Relief agencies have managed to reach nearly 80% of those affected but only 60% of them have access to primary health care. If we estimate that some 3+ million have been affected, that means that some 2.4 million are getting some sort of assistance but only 1.5 million of them are getting any health care. It is clear that there are hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more, displaced people in Darfur who have no access to any sort of aid at all.

The BBC reports on the growing births of "dirty babies" - children conceived via rape.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:04 AM


Wednesday, December 15, 2004


Pre-Christmas Miracle

An AP story actually points out the painfully obvious-- the Bush Administration is living in a fantasy land, free from the confines of reality and facts.
Bush View of Economy at Odds With Forecast
Bush Paints Rosy Picture of U.S. Economy at Odds With Second-Term Forecasts at Forum

(AP) Dec. 15, 2004 - An economy with blue skies, happy workers and prosperity for all, just around the corner. That's the sunny picture painted Wednesday at President Bush's economic conference, where nary a discouraging word was uttered and Bush's second-term priorities were resoundingly praised. In reality, Bush will have a hard time getting any of his major proposals through a skeptical Congress.

Bush's plans to overhaul the tax code and Social Security and to limit lawsuit liability awards are generating stiff opposition, even among some groups that supported his earlier economic endeavors.

On the opening day of Bush's choreographed two-day economic conference, moderators and participants alike sang praises to his first-term accomplishments and second-term agenda. His proposals many still being formulated were hailed as the remedy for what still needs to be fixed.

Vice President Dick Cheney: "If we stay on that path, the years ahead will bring even greater progress and prosperity."

Larry Mocha, a Tulsa, Okla., manufacturer of truck air brake systems: "I want to thank the administration for all the positive things you've done for our economy. ... It hasn't always been this good."

Treasury Secretary John Snow: "We are the envy of the world."

Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein: "I'm pleased to say the economy is now in very good shape."

"It's not exactly `Crossfire,'" joked American University political scientist Alan J. Lichtman.

Lichtman said the administration was clearly using the forum to pitch the president's program, not gather new ideas. "The jury is still out" on how effective the tactic will prove, he said.

The forum kicked off an intense White House public relations effort to win public support. It may take a lot of salesmanship.

Bush's proposal to let younger workers invest some of their Social Security withholdings in the stock market has drawn substantial opposition. Proponents say such a system promises higher long-term returns, allowing the government to spend less. But opponents say it could leave retirees holding the bag in times of prolonged market downturns.

"This is not a recipe for strengthening the system," said Henry J. Aaron, an economic analyst at the Brookings Institution, not among those invited to the forum.

The AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, opposes any diversion of money from the current system into personal accounts. Last week, it told its 35 million members Bush's proposal would "make the problem worse." The AARP supported Bush's legislation last year that created a Medicare prescription-drug benefit.

Bush's still-undefined tax restructuring has drawn fire from powerful interest groups. The National Retail Federation opposes any overhaul that moves in the direction of a national sales tax. Other organizations have pleaded for retaining particular tax breaks. The Tax Relief Coalition, which supported the president's earlier tax cuts, has been noncommittal.

Trial lawyer groups oppose limits on jury verdicts, while deficit hawks are wary of Bush's proposal to make his first-term tax cuts permanent.

None of those groups, nor their concerns, were represented at Bush's forum.

While the economy does appear to be recovering, things are not as bright as participants suggested. Job creation remains anemic, budget and trade deficits are at record highs, and a long-slumping dollar threatens to drive up interest rates.

The only time participants painted a dark picture was when they talked about financial burdens suffered because of large legal judgments or because of estate taxes, echoing Bush's invocation of a "death tax." Bush would permanently eliminate estate taxes and put limits on jury awards in medical malpractice and asbestos lawsuits.

"If we can achieve legal reform in America, it'll make it a better place for people to either start a business and-or find work," Bush said Wednesday, participating in a panel on limiting lawsuits.

"All we're asking for is fairness, Mr. President just as you've said," said Home Depot Chairman Bob Nardelli, who hosted a $3 million fund-raiser for Bush at his Atlanta home during the campaign.
The Cheney and Snow quotes (that I bolded) struck me as some destined-to-be-famous last words.

It's a little like Chicken Little in reverse-- if they say everything is hunky-dorey, you know the sky (or the Dow or the dollar) is getting ready to fall.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:02 PM




Another Conservatve Blowhard for Fox

As if we needed another reason not to watch Fox News Channel, the TV column in The Washington Post reports:
Sen. Zell Miller, the fire-and-brimstone-preaching Dixiecrat who tried to challenge MSNBC's Chris Matthews to a duel after delivering the keynote speech at the Republican National Convention, has been welcomed with open arms by Fox News Channel.

The cable network announced yesterday it has signed the departing Georgia Democrat as a contributor, beginning in January.

Details were scant. Kevin Magee, FNC's vice president of programming, told The TV Column, "We will plug him in wherever we can use him."
I love that sentence from The Post news item: "Details were scant." Yes, at Fox, details are every bit as scant as objectivity.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:46 PM




Sadly, I'm Inclined to Agree

The National Review has come out against the "nuclear option," mainly because they think the filibuster, especially of a Supreme Court nominee, will work in their favor
It may be wiser to insist on political accountability for filibusters of judicial nominees than to change the rules to prevent them. In the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans took Senate seats from the Democrats. The Democrats' filibusters against Bush's judge picks were an issue in all of them.

The consequences might be worse for the Democrats in the case of a Supreme Court vacancy. Only small portions of the electorate have paid attention to the political battles over appellate-court nominations. The public will be paying attention during a Supreme Court fight. Many voters will root for Bush's nominee and many will root against. But it is unlikely that middle-of-the-road voters will have much tolerance for attempts to block a vote.
I guess it all depends on who Bush nominates. If he nominates some Bork-like candidate who will be easy to demonize, there will be no need to filibuster as such a candidate might be relatively easy to defeat. On the other hand, if he nominates some Estrada-like candidate with a limited paper trail and no outrageous record to highlight, I think the Democrats might have a hard time maintaining a filibuster. As the National Review says
The Democrats will probably not be able to resist the liberal pressure to wage a filibuster when a Supreme Court vacancy arises. But at some point, we strongly suspect that the filibuster would collapse. That collapse would do more for Republicans - and for the cause of confirming conservative judges - than a rules change. (A rules change might demoralize Democrats, but it would also enrage them. An unsuccessful filibuster would just be demoralizing.)
A filibuster of any Supreme Court nominee can only be seen as a victory if the nominee or the president decides it is not worth the fight and withdraws the nomination. But that would probably require the filibuster to hold for quite some time and I think Democrats would be hard-pressed to convince people that leaving a seat on the Court vacant for weeks or months is the right course of action.

Filibusters work via attrition and if there isn't a significant opposition to a nominee from the very start, I just don't see how the Democrats can hope to maintain the support necessary to filibuster a qualified and seemingly "moderate" nominee indefinitely.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:07 PM




Nightly Nigeria?

Once Darfurians are done dying in droves, will Eugene's posts go from Daily Darfur to Nightly Nigeria?


posted by Arnold P. California at 2:06 PM




WWSD?

WWSD stands for What Would the Sanhedrin* Do, of course.

Maybe that's what this judge was asking himself--I think I recall from some of the drier passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (what goyim call the Old Testament) sartorial regulations for public officials.

When Rehnquist, C.J., inspired by a performance of Iolanthe, had the Supreme Court's seamstress (who knew?) put stripes on his robe, it seemed--well, a lot of things: silly, cute, arrogant, senile. But it looks as if it was only the beginning of a trend.

Note to other judges inspired by the Alabama story: my grandmother has woven beautiful talesim for all six of her grandsons, plus at least one rabbi and assorted cousins and nephews. Many of these were created when she and/or the recipient lived in Alabama, so she's got that local authenticity, too. She's 89 now, but still spry, and I'm sure she'd be happy to set you up with something from the Leviticus line of raiments.
And these are the judgments...which thou shalt set before them. It should have stated: which thou shalt teach them. R. Jeremiah, or according to some, R. Hiyya b. Aha, said: This refers to the insignia of the judges [which they have to set before the public]. R. Huna, before entering the Court, used to say: Bring forth the implements of my office: the rod; the lash; the horn; and the sandal. [Bab. Talmud, Tr. Sanhedrin 7b]

The sandal?

*(or do I mean to link to these Sanhedrin?)


posted by Arnold P. California at 11:45 AM




More of This Please

From The Hill
Furious that Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) voted with Democrats on a controversial bill, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is pushing to get her removed from his powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.

On Sept. 30, nearly five weeks before Election Day, Wilson was the only Republican committee member to vote for a motion that would have forced the Bush administration to release internal cost estimates of the Medicare prescription-drug law.
Considering that the administration intentionally lied about the cost of the Medicare bill, this seems pretty reasonable. Of course, the motion lost anyway, so you might wonder why her vote matters
A House GOP source said Barton is doing what he has to do, suggesting that the chairman needs to get rid of Wilson to send a message to the rest of his panel members that he expects them to be loyal.
The GOP leadership is going mad with power and they cannot long maintain their positions if they continue to browbeat their members in this manner.

And it is for exactly that reason that I hope they continue to do so.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:12 AM




Exploiting 9/11

Kerik should never work in NYC again. This is just so unbelievably low.
Apparently Kerik had at least one affair (the Daily News says two simultaneous ones) in an apartment that was originally donated...for use by weary Ground Zero workers. Kerik later requested to rent the apartment, though it's not clear for how much, or at which stage he started using it for his tryst(s). One building resident recalled seeing the former chief, "I said to myself, 'Hey, that's Bernie Kerik!' It was surprising. But then I thought, well, maybe he keeps a place down here because he's involved with security and 9/11."
He used the apartment intended for 9/11 workers to boff his mistresses? Now that's a novel way of exploiting a national tragedy for personal pleasure. What a pig.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:20 AM




Daily Darfur

Continued fighting has cut off access to some 360,000 people who are now out of reach of humanitarian aid.

The UN is saying that there are indications that the rebel Sudanese Liberation Army was responsible for the deaths to two aid workers.

Knight Ridder reports that Arab herders are taking over the land abandoned by those who have fled the government and the Janjaweed.

Jan Pronk, U.N. envoy to Sudan, says that the UN will recommend up to 10,000 peacekeepers for Sudan if Khartoum and southern rebels sign a peace deal. These 10,000 troops will be focused on ending the civil war, not on assisting in Darfur.

Pronk will be speaking about Sudan at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC on Friday.

Eric Reeves was interviewed regarding the movement to get companies to stop doing business with Khartoum.

Finally, I'm getting a little tired of seeing the press mindlessly report that "at least 70,000 people have been killed" in Darfur. That 70,000 estimate first came out in October and the World Health Organization estimates that between 6,000 and 10,000 people are dying a month (and that is only among the people the WHO actually has access too - there are hundreds of thousands that they don't have access too.) Based on calculations and analysis done by Eric Reeves, the estimated number of people who have died is more like 338,000. Even if that number is an overestimate, it seems clear that at least 100,000 or more have died. The press needs to stop just waiting around for some UN agency to give an updated death toll (which they have no real incentive to do) and start reporting this figure accurately.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:42 AM




The Delusional Is No Longer Marginal

That's the title of a recent speech by Bill Moyers. Agree with him or not, the man can write, and he puts into better words than I've yet seen the feelings that led many of us to despair a month ago. He was writing in particular about how difficult it is for journalists to report on long-term, potentially catastrophic damage to the environment, but much of what he said could apply to most policy issues across the board.
As difficult as it is, however, for journalists to fashion a readable narrative for complex issues without depressing our readers and viewers, there is an even harder challenge—to pierce the ideology that governs official policy today. One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the oval office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Moyers explains how the Rapturites don't really care if we destroy the planet--indeed, from their point of view, trashing the place might be a good way of hastening the Rapture. He tries to end on an upbeat note, but, as you might imagine, it's not easy, and frankly I didn't feel upbeat at all after reading the speech.

My own view is probably close to that of Moyers. Religion is an important part of my life, and my religious beliefs guide my thoughts and actions on political issues as well as on more private matters. But I am at heart a rationalist who thinks evidence and logic should be taken into account, and I despair at an administration that is oblivious to both--and even more at a nation that would return that administration to office.




posted by Arnold P. California at 6:42 AM


Tuesday, December 14, 2004


What Were They Thinking?

This episode goes well beyond It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time and barely catches the edge of What Were They Thinking? (just short of the border with Are They Insane?).


posted by Arnold P. California at 4:50 PM




Rumsfeld Gets Slammed

MSNBC reports:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has come under attack from Republican Sen. John McCain and retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf over his handling of the Iraq war.

In separate interviews, McCain, of Arizona, said he had “no confidence” in Rumsfeld, citing his handling of the war in Iraq and the failure of the Pentagon to send more troops, while Schwarzkopf, the allied commander in the first Gulf War, said Rumsfeld seemed to be passing the buck when quizzed last week about the armor supply for troops on the ground.

... Asked about his confidence in the secretary’s leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. “I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence,” McCain said. He estimated that 80,000 more Army personnel and 20,000 to 30,000 more Marines would be needed to secure Iraq.

“I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.,” McCain said. “There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.”

... Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.

“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.

Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:50 PM




Man Bites Dog

Wow! I may be a humble, anonymous blogger piggybacking on someone else's reporting, but how many real journalists have ever been able to run this famous headline with subject matter to match?


posted by Arnold P. California at 4:41 PM




Fantastic Article

Andrew Ferguson has a great article over at the Weekly Standard on Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist and how they raked in $82 million from Indian casinos in return for access to GOP bigwigs.

At one point, Abramoff, Scanlon and Reed were hired by one tribe to shut down a casino that was operated by some other tribes that was eating into their profits. Abramoff et al. managed to get the new casino shut down, and then got themselves hired on as lobbyists for one of the tribes running the casino they had just shut down, promising to get it re-opened ... for a massive fee, of course.

I can't do justice to the piece here, but it is marvelously written and exceptionally informative.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 3:37 PM




Did Texas Execute An Innocent Man?

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed on Feb. 17 for intentionally setting a fire that killed his three children. To the end, he proclaimed his innocence and the Chicago Tribune reports that he may have been telling the truth
While Texas authorities dismissed his protests, a Tribune investigation of his case shows that Willingham was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. According to four fire experts consulted by the Tribune, the original investigation was flawed and it is even possible the fire was accidental.

[edit]

"There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire," said Hurst, a Cambridge University-educated chemist who has investigated scores of fires in his career. "It was just a fire."

[edit]

When he could not, he said, it "made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation. ... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea--at least not scientifically--if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."
Via Abolish the Death Penalty

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:57 PM




Bulls**t

C. Boyden Gray's The Committee for Justice responds to the Washington Post piece on the "nuclear option" I mentioned yesterday with this flat-out lie
Third, whatever the merits of tit for tat about the Clinton years -- for example, more nominees were left dangling at the end of President George H.W. Bush's single term than at the end of Clinton's two -- it is undeniable that he was an all-time judicial confirmations champion, despite a Republican majority during six of his eight years.
Maybe the good folks at CFJ ought to take a look at the Congressional Research Service's report "Judicial Nomination Statistics: U.S. District and Circuit Courts, 1977-2003" (pdf format) - especially Table 2(b) that shows that Reagan had 375 of his 403 nominees confirmed, while Clinton had 372 of his 443 nominees confirmed. Reagan not only had a higher number of his nominees confirmed, he also had a greater percentage confirmed.

I think the fact that Clinton made 40 more total nominations but had 3 less total confirmations speaks volumes.

CFJ also makes this point
First, up front the Post reports that 10 of the President's 229 judicial nominees have been filibustered. This ratio includes district court confirmations and is therefore greatly inflated. Since the filibuster strategy was inaugurated in the 108th Congress, the Democratic minority has blocked 10 of 34 total appellate nominees -- almost one-third.
The Senate has actually confirmed 34 of Bush's appellate nominees and filibustered 10 - they haven't "blocked 10 of 34." And while we are on the subject, Clinton made 71 nominations to the appellate courts during the six years of GOP control and had 21 of his nominees blocked by inaction. Hey, that is "almost one-third."

Anyway, the Committee for Justice does us all a favor by reprinting a piece by AEI resident scholar Norman Ornstein entitled "Ghost of Abe Fortas Hangs Over Discussion of Judicial Filibusters" in which he makes clear that those who argue that the filibuster is unprecedented and needs to be eliminated are "wrong on the facts, wrong on the history, and wrong on the strategy."

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:25 AM




That Old-Time Religion

Christianity Today's Weblog pointed us to this story. Students at Cary Christian School in North Carolina are reading about "Southern Slavery, As It Was," from the League of the South, a group that could be generously described as neo-Confederate. Here's my absolute favorite quote from the booklet:

Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection.
Pardon me while I wipe a tear of nostalgia from my eye. OK, better now. And by the way, here's the money paragraph from the story.
At a time when a number of Triangle Christian schools have lost enrollment and even closed, Cary Christian has seen rapid growth since it opened in 1996.



posted by Helena Montana at 11:07 AM




TPLGOP

Missouri Republican Cynthia Davis loves the GOP
"It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go," she added. "I think a lot of people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going to take it back."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:52 AM




Daily Darfur

The UN has suspended its aid operations in South Darfur after two aid workers were killed.

Passion of the Present has made available an analysis of the situation written by Azza Anis, a Sudanese native who is currently a professor at Saint Mary's University in Halifax.

Rebels have accused the government of launching a new offensive and say they won't meet with government negotiators until the violence ceases.

The Boston Globe has this editorial
The nations of the world must demand that the UN Security Council authorize a much larger African Union force for Darfur, one with a mandate to protect and resettle the potential victims of genocide in their home villages. There should be no international power failure when it comes to ending a genocide.
AlterNet runs a first-hand account of the situation in Darfur.

Elsewhere in Africa:

Congo says its forces have been clashing with Rwandan forces in the East.

Amnesty International says that fighters in Liberia sexually assaulted two-thirds of Liberia's population during the decade of war and have not been punished.

Zambia hosts more than 191,000 refugees, mostly from neighboring Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda, and the UN World Food Programme said there had been poor donor response to the $3.2 million appeal it launched to cover their food needs and that the WFP will now have to halve its rations.

The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda upheld the sentencing of Pastor Elisaphan Ntakirutimana and his son Dr. Gerald Ntakirutimana for genocide. The title of Philip Gourevitch's "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed with Our Families" comes from a letter written by seven Tutsi Adventist pastors to their church president, Pastor Ntakirutimana, telling him that they were about to be slaughtered by Hutu militants. Reportedly, the pastor's response was "You must be eliminated. God no longer wants you." Some 2,000 people were subsequently murdered in the church. Ntakirutimana was arrested in Laredo, Texas in 1996 and deported.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:51 AM




California Whines

I understand that folks in cold climates have to scrape frost off their windshields at this time of year. But when I had to scrape frost off my bicycle this morning, that was too much.

Why did I ever leave San Diego?


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:09 AM




Schadenfreude v. Due Process

I must admit to sharing a bit of Josh Marshall's pleasure over a federal Magistrate Judge's takedown of former Bush-Cheney New England campaign chief Jim Tobin. Tobin's the guy who (allegedly) ran a phone-jamming scheme against a Democratic Senate candidate in New Hampshire in 2002, and the magistrate judge equated him with "a Manchester street hooker" (digression: that's got to be a hard way to make a living; if I were a "street hooker," I'd pick a warmer street than one in Manchester NH).

Perhaps Tobin deserved the harsh words. But the judge also threatened to throw him in jail if "he gets so much as a speeding ticket" before trial. I hope this was just hyperbole.

A bunch of folks, including some from New Hampshire, fought a revolution a couple hundred years ago so that we could have some rules in this country about when the government can deprive citizens of their liberty. One of the biggies is that you can't be imprisoned just because the government says you committed a crime; they've got to prove it to a jury's satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial in which you have all sorts of procedural rights.

Bail is an exception to this, where you're temporarily locked up before your trial or have to put up a bunch of money to get out--but the government's got to have a good reason to do that. In fact, there are only two permissible reasons: you're a danger to the community; or you'll probably skip town before trial. In Tobin's case, the prosecutor didn't think either of these applied, so he agreed that Tobin could stay out of jail on his own recognizance. The judge apparently disagreed and required Tobin to surrender his passport. That doesn't seem like an overly harsh precaution, so long as Tobin is still out of jail.

But if Tobin does get a speeding ticket and gets thrown in jail, I'd take strong exception.

[Maigstrate Judge] Muirhead threatened to jail Tobin if he gets so much as a speeding ticket before his trial begins Feb. 1.

"He’s no different than a street hooker in Manchester," Muirhead said. "If he’s guilty, then I find his crime as offensive as any other crime."

The bold part is the key part. It doesn't matter how reprehensible the judge thinks the crime Tobin's accused of would be if Tobin had committed it. There are only three possibilities: (1) He's a danger to the community--not likely, since there are no elections to tamper with before his trial date; (2) He's a flight risk--apparently no evidence of that, either, unless you think that his hypothetical speeding violation suggests he's in a hurry to get somewhere far away; or (3) He can't be jailed or even required to post a bond.

The Constitution doesn't allow for a fourth alternative in which Tobin gets locked up because the judge thinks his crime would be "offensive" if he really did it. That's the function of sentencing, which, the Queen of Hearts notwithstanding, comes after the jury's verdict.


posted by Arnold P. California at 4:14 AM


Monday, December 13, 2004


Koufax Awards

Wampum is taking nominations for the 2004 Koufax Awards.

Go make your voice heard.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:57 PM




Tom Wolfe Knows Bad Sex

Tee-hee.
American author and journalist Tom Wolfe won one of the world's most dreaded literary accolades on Monday -- the British prize for bad sex in fiction.

The prize is awarded each year "to draw attention to the crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel."
...
"But the hand that was what she tried to concentrate on, the hand, since it has the entire terrain of her torso to explore and not just the otorhinolaryngological caverns -- oh God, it was not just at the border where the flesh of the breast joins the pectoral sheath of the chest -- no, the hand was cupping her entire right -- Now!"

Judges described Wolfe's prose as "ghastly and boring." Wolfe has said in interviews he intended the book's sexual descriptions to be dry and clinical.
A few weeks ago Wolfe on the Daily Show promoting his new book em>I am Charlotte Simmons, which is excerpted above. I could tell it was going to be lousy from the way Wolfe talked about his research for the book about college-age sexuality. Wolfe was agast at the behavior and mores of today's youth-- young people living together without being married! Oh the horror! Um, did Wolfe sleep through past three decades or something?

Frankly I've known some older folks from Wolfe's generation who say the same thing-- it wasn't like that when I was your age-- but it's often with a hint of jealousy, that their lives would have turned out very differently if they hadn't felt like they needed to be married in order to have sex. Wolfe came off as a total preachy prude, wishing for days of yore when young people were properly repressed and followed strict rules of behavior. Jon Stewart called him on it as well.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 4:55 PM




"The Baby Jesus Is Fine"

You have to appreciate any wire service story that includes a quote like that. From the London bureau of Reuters:
A protester has attacked a controversial waxwork Nativity scene featuring England soccer captain David Beckham as Joseph and his pop star wife "Posh Spice" Victoria as the Virgin Mary.

"He pushed Posh and Becks over. It caused some damage but we don't know how much. The baby Jesus is fine," said a spokeswoman for Madame Tussaud's waxwork museum in London on Monday.

Anglicans, Catholics and Presbyterians have united in calling the exhibit a new low in the cult of celebrity worship. But Madame Tussaud's said it was popular with the public, who were outraged at Sunday's vandalism.

"People were appalled. We had members of the public complaining that the Nativity was the only reason they were coming in today," the spokeswoman said. "Staff gave chase but the attacker managed to escape. We are hoping to reopen the exhibit as soon as possible."
It's not easy being Jesus. Especially when your dad is the studly pop icon David Beckham.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:20 PM




Remembering a Simpler Time
I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security.
George W. Bush, first presidential debate, October 3, 2000. (Thanks to the Progress Report for this moment in history).

Times change, of course, and a flexible leader like Dubya changes with them: he now wants to dedicate one-half of the deficit to Social Security.


posted by Arnold P. California at 1:13 PM




Once Again

Republicans continue to mull over the use of the "nuclear option" to end the Democrats' power to filibuster judicial nominees.

The Post article notes that Republicans prefer to call it the "constitutional option," a change I noted here.

But so long as the GOP keeps making this point
Republicans counter that, even though the number of filibustered nominations is small, the Democrats are trampling on the Constitution by denying a straight up-or-down vote for even a single nomination. The Constitution, they note, requires two-thirds majorities for treaties, constitutional amendments and other specific matters but calls for only the "advice and consent" of the Senate on judicial choices, with no reference to any super-majority for confirmation.
I will keep making the point that when they were the Senate majority under President Clinton, they denied "straight up-or-down votes" to 53 of his nominees (21 Court of Appeals nominees & 32 District Court nominees) by simply failing to give them hearings or votes.

By my count, 53 is more than 10. In fact, it is just about 5 times as many.

Maybe the Republicans would like to explain why every one Democratic filibuster of a Bush nominee is worse than their secretive, de facto filibusters of five Clinton nominees. And until they do, I am just going to keep making this point.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:57 AM




Very Frivilous Complaint Department

If you're going to report on a juicy lesbian celebrity news story is it too much to ask to refrain from calling them "gal pals"? It makes it sound like they go shoe shopping together or something. There are only a handful of famous lesbian celebrities "out" there and this story is about the biggest ones-- allegedly Ellen Degeneres has dumped her live-in girlfriend Alexandra Hedison to be with Portia de Rossi, who also dumped her girlfriend Francesca Gregorini so she could move in with Ellen.

That is some serious high-profile lesbian drama. Not pretty. I don't usually follow this kind of inane stuff, really, but Portia de Rossi, well, she's really hot. Not my usual type either, but undeniably hot. Go Ellen.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 11:44 AM




There's No Humor like Unintentional Humor

And the king of this is TownHall's Doug Giles. This guy is proof of the vastness of the right-wing echo-chamber, they must have a lotta empty space if they give him this much attention. His prose is way past purple, his metaphors are amazingly tortured and his views are as neanderthal as a closeted junior varsity football player.

He's also completely hilarious. Especially when he comes out with a "big ideas" kind of column, like this week's treatise on the nature of masculinity. Check out the lede.
I hate to get your panties in a wad, you pomosexual gender-line-blurrers , you, but the vast, vast majority of American men want to be more like William Wallace and less like Will and Grace.

Oooh, edgy. And he's cracked our lefty language code. Now we can't use "pomosexual." Curse you, Giles! See if you can make any sense out of the middle part. I can't, but maybe I was distracted by the subconscious homoerotic images. We pomosexuals are like that.

Traditionally, men have prized their autonomy more than Clay Aiken does his gale-force-wind-proof hair gel and his chartreuse neckerchief. Men, at least those who have not been morphed into obedient stooges of contemporary society, do not like to be confined, corralled, curbed, interfered with, or domesticated by anyone.

Y’know it is right for a man while he is a boy to be dependant upon mummy … petted and cajoled … flattered and fattened … by mother’s you-can-do-no-wrong-honey loving touch. But come on, America … somehow we have developed today a race of Nancy-boys, absolute caricatures of the classic male imago, who have extended their mommy’s breast feeding, culture’s coddling and government’s hand holding into their 30’s and beyond!

At the hub of man’s constituent make up is the natural and spiritual resistance to hanging on to any mortal or institution too long for subsistence. By natural command, man is to be independent and is hard wired to go and get a life apart from the nurturing and supportive arms of anyone … and that includes the government.

In ancient cultures, the young male was made to be sovereign, separated from the safe arms of the feminine touch usually at the ripe old age of … twelve. Young men were expected to separate, never to return to a codependent existence.

Traditionally, young men fled from getting in touch with their supposed “feminine side” and instead they tapped into the gritty and grubby competitive “real world” where you thrive or die. (By the way … if I want to get in touch with my feminine side … I’ll grab my wife.)

Three paragraphs later he bemoans that: "In ancient times the father was not a mere Al Bundy-like sperm donor who lived at Hooters, but a community elder, a moderator and a servant leader who created edicts and ordered kingdoms." See? Hilarious!

The entire column simply seems like sentences strung together for the sole purpose of using the words "emasculating" and "metrosexual" as often as possible. But what can you expect when he closes with this clarion call to all the manly men out there.
Look, our times demand strong men more than Mariah Carey does Evian … and only Evian water for her Pekinese. It is up to us middle-aged old boys to preserve and perpetuate the grand testosterone fog God created us to live in for the next generation of young warriors.

Well, Frederick, Arnold, Eugene? Will you stand up and be counted in Giles' man army? He promises a wet T-shirt contest once you all emerge from the grand testosterone fog.


posted by Helena Montana at 11:44 AM




The Life of the Talibes

The excerpts from this Sunday New York Times article almost make Eugene's Daily Darfur, by comparison, seem not so depressing. Anyway, this is something to remember when you and your roommate or spouse start arguing over which Pottery Barn holiday candle looks better on the coffee table:
They stand at my taxi window, scrawny and unwashed, holding up empty tomato tin cans. They scratch their scabby arms. They wipe their running noses. Listlessly, they chant verses from the Koran. More often, they dispense with the formalities and beg: "Cent francs, ma tante, cent francs, cent francs."

These are the talibes, or beggar boys, of Senegal, dispatched onto the streets by religious leaders, called marabouts, and ordered to collect a daily quota ranging from 250 francs to 650 francs (50 cents to $1.30), along with whatever else is dropped in their tin cans: sugar cubes, biscuits, milk powder, kola nuts. If they fail, they face a beating.

... Unicef reported last week that half the world's children, a billion people, face extreme deprivation. But there are degrees of misery even among the miserable, and the talibes who greet me every time I return home to Dakar are a troubling reminder that West and Central Africa, which I am leaving after two years, can be an appalling place to be a child.

Of the 27 countries with the worst child mortality rates, 26 are in Africa, most in this part of Africa. Children here not only reflect all that ails their countries, but they also pay the dearest price. AIDS has orphaned them, poverty has driven parents to sell them as cheap labor. And everywhere, warlords turn them into soldiers.

... Richard Maki, whom I hired as a translator in eastern Congo because he spoke four languages by the age of 18, had not taken the bait to fight, but other fighters ruined his chances for a college education. The cattle his father had set aside for his tuition were stolen when rival militias battled for control of his hometown.

... I have met girls who will never go to school because their mothers rely on them to fetch water and firewood, one reason girls' education rates in sub-Saharan Africa remain the lowest in the world. Only 56 percent of girls were attending school between 1996 and 2003, according to Unicef.
Before you resume deckin' them halls with boughs of holly, consider giving to a relief organization that tries to make life a little better for these kids.

Unicef is one possibility.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:17 AM




Anti-Semitism Has Gotten Bland and Predictable

Today the highest administrative court in France is expected to decide whether to ban Al Manar, an Arab-language TV channel, from the French airwaves. Al Manar is operated by the Hezbollah militia, which is based in Lebanon.

The French government has urged the court to deny Al Manar access to French TV viewers because of the channel's anti-Semitic and racist reports. The New York Times reports:
Last month, much to the chagrin of the French government, France's public broadcasting regulating agency granted Al Manar a license to continue its operations in France as long as it abides by French law.

The agency, known as the Audio-Visual Higher Council, functions like the [FCC] in the United States.

But four days later, the channel, which regularly transmits anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Israeli broadcasts, broke its agreement, French officials said. It broadcast a report claiming that Israel for years had spread H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, and other diseases throughout the Arab world.
This Jews-infected-(black/Arab/etc.)-babies-with-HIV allegation is, like, sooooo 1990.

C'mon, Hezbollah. You can do better than that. If you're determined to encourage hatred of Jews, why not come up with something that's fresh and timely -- like the Jews were the ones who poisoned Ukraine's opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko? Or simply revive the Jews-perpetrated-9/11 theory. At least that allegation is only three years old.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:57 AM




Don't Look Back, Civilization Is Gaining on You

With apologies to Satchel Paige for ripping off his line.

Some folks probably noticed the news last week that the Canadian Supreme Court had "legalized" same-sex marriages. This was a bit misleading, at least to American readers, since most would assume this meant that the court had overruled a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, as did the Massachusetts court. In fact, Parliament is considering making same-sex couples eligible to be married and asked the court for its opinion as to whether that law would violate Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms--in other words, whether the constitution required discrimination. Not surprisingly, the court said it was OK to go ahead with the equality legislation. Granted, the impetus for the federal legislation came from provincial courts that found marriage discrimination unconstitutional--a considerably different response from how our federal government reacted to the Massachusetts decision. But the upshot, whether you credit the courts or the legislature, is that Canada is on its way to marriage equality.

Thanks to the ACS blog for noticing that on the same day, New Zealand passed civil-union legislation and the right-wing Israeli government announced that it will not appeal a decision by a court in Nazareth (season's greetings, everyone!) that extends to same-sex couples the rights of inheritance, property, and taxation enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples.

Others have said it before, and I'll say it again: when you look at the demographic breakdowns in polls on the issue, there is a huge generation gap. The younger the respondent, the more likely he or she favors marriage equality. IIRC, there are clear majorities favoring marriage equality among the under-45 crowd. Attitudes toward GLBT folks are changing at a pretty decent clip. The fundies know they have to get discrimination locked into the Constitution now, if they can, because otherwise equality is going to arrive within a generation.

To quote the Steve Miller Band: time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' . . . . It's dusk, and the bigots' day is coming to an end. Not that there won't be pain, and some real consequences for many families, before midnight comes and Falwell turns into a pumpkin and Dobson et al. into mice. But we don't have to wait long for the midnight hour, when love come tumblin' down.


posted by Arnold P. California at 10:45 AM




Sex: The More Things Change ...

New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote an excellent column Sunday called "The Plot Against Sex in America." Here are excerpts:
When they start pushing the panic button over "moral values" at the bluest of TV channels, public broadcasting's WNET, in the bluest of cities, New York, you know this country has entered a new cultural twilight zone.

Just three weeks after the election, Channel 13 killed a spot for the acclaimed movie "Kinsey," in which Liam Neeson stars as the pioneering Indiana University sex researcher ...

At first WNET said it had killed the spot because it was "too commercial and too provocative" -- a tough case to make about a routine pseudo-ad interchangeable with all the other pseudo-ads that run on "commercial-free" PBS. That explanation quickly became inoperative anyway.

The "Kinsey" distributor, Fox Searchlight, let the press see an e-mail from a National Public Broadcasting media manager stating that the real problem was "the content of this movie" and ... (potential) "viewer complaints."

Maybe in the end Channel 13 got too many complaints about its own cowardice because by last week, in response to my inquiries, it had a new story: that e-mail was all a big mistake -- an "unfortunate" miscommunication hatched by some poor unnamed flunky in marketing.

... even as the "Kinsey" spot was barred in New York, a public radio station in North Carolina, WUNC-FM, told an international women's rights organization based in Chapel Hill that it could not use the phrase "reproductive rights" in an on-air announcement. In Los Angeles, five commercial TV channels, fearing indecency penalties, refused to broadcast a public service spot created by Los Angeles county's own public health agency to counteract a rising tide of syphilis.

Such rapid-fire postelection events are conspiring to make "Kinsey" a bellwether cultural event of this year.

... As for the right-wing groups that have targeted the movie (with or without seeing it), they are the usual suspects, many of them determined to recycle false accusations that Kinsey was a pedophile, as if that might somehow make the actual pedophilia scandal in one church go away.

... Empowered by that Election Day "moral values" poll result, it is pressing for a whole host of second-term gifts from the Bush administration ... "If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them," wrote Bob Jones III, president of the eponymous South Carolina university, to President Bush after the election. "Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil."

Such is the perceived clout of this Republican base at government agencies like the F.C.C. that it need only burp and 66 frightened ABC affiliates instantly dump their network's broadcast of that indecent movie "Saving Private Ryan" on Veterans Day.

... "Kinsey" is an almost uncannily helpful guide to how these old cultural fault lines have re-emerged from their tomb, virtually unchanged .... in "Kinsey," we watch desperate students pepper their professor with a series of uninformed questions: "Can too much sex cause cancer? Does suppressing sex lead to stuttering? Does too much masturbation cause premature ejaculation?"

Though that (question) sequence takes place in 1939, you can turn on CNN in December 2004 and watch Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council repeatedly refuse -- five times, according to the transcript -- to disown the idea that masturbation can cause pregnancy.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:31 AM




Daily Darfur

The Washington Post's Emily Wax had a good piece this weekend on the African Union's utter inability to provide any real protection or benefit to the people of Darfur.

Two Sudanese nationals working for Save the Children UK were killed when their convoy came under attack.

A coalition of NGOs held a press conference on Friday to demand that the UN invoke Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to stop the genocide in Darfur.

And then there is this
Foreign minister Mustafa Osman Ismail has angrily responded to the statement made by his German counterpart Joschka Fischer, who said that what is happening in Darfur is the worst kind of Human Rights violation in the world.

The Sudanese minister of foreign affairs said the Darfur situation is never in anyway worse than the Nazi situation and the holocaust of Jews.

He called upon the Germany to remember that holocaust is now part of their history.
The wording of the article is a bit awkward, but it seems to me as if Ismail is actually trying to justify the genocide in Darfur as being in no way worse than the Holocaust.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:50 AM




Legal Tidbits

Courtesy of law.com's daily Legal Newswire:

Rule of Law update: I mentioned a few weeks ago that the Supreme Court had on its conference list one of the cases in which a Mexican was given the death penalty after Mexico's right to be informed of his arrest under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was violated (apparently inadvertently). The Court has now agreed to hear the case, a welcome step in my view. The lower-court decision had essentially told the world that our domestic procedural rules trump a judgment of the ICJ--a plausible (though not necessary) reading of earlier jurisprudence, but a terrible idea.

The important thing for the Rule of Law is not how the case comes out. Rather, how the justices reason and the language they use will be critical. If they let the execution proceed, that's not necessarily a flouting of our obligations under the Convention and under our agreement to ICJ jurisdiction. As I wrote previously, the ICJ has simply ordered the U.S. to review these cases to see whether the Convention violation had any real effect on the Mexicans' trials. So if the Supreme Court either says there's no reason to think the case would have gone any differently had the Mexican Consulate been informed, or sends the case back to the 5th Circuit to have that court figure out whether the violation made any difference, no problem. But if the Court says that nowithstanding our clear obligation--voluntarily assumed--to adhere to the ICJ's judgment, federal courts can't interfere with an execution by the State of Texas, then we're thumbing our nose at international law. By the way, here's why Mexico says the violation did make a difference:
Mexico's lawyer, Sandra Babcock, told justices in its filing that Medellin's lawyer was suspended from practicing law for ethics violations during the case. Mexico, she said, would have made sure that Medellin had a competent lawyer and money for experts and investigators if it had known about the 1994 trial.
The comforts of home. This brief blurb says that the Netherlands is contemplating adopting U.S.-style class-action litigation rules. More surprising to me even than that is that, according to the item, Dutch business supports the move. I'll have to investigate.

Gambling on the Court. If you can't get excited about speculation over who Dubya will put on the High Court, you can "make it interesting." The final item is about a website where you can bet on who will be appointed, as well as who will be named Chief Justice in the likely event that the current Chief steps down during the coming four years.

There's also an ulterior motive to the Supreme Court betting. The U.S. Department of Justice argues that Internet gambling, which is unregulated, is illegal, and it has moved to block major media outlets from accepting advertisements from Betcom.com and its competitors.

Evans said the issue could eventually wind up in the high court itself, so he thought he'd drum up a little publicity by making the court itself the subject of wagers.

Like a true gambler, Evans expressed Betcom.com's motives in numbers: 80 percent is due to public interest in the Supreme Court, 20 percent because "of what our industry is up against."

I'm not sure whether the bet is on who will be nominated or on who will eventually be confirmed. In either case, I think the short odds on Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit are unwarranted, but that's especially so if the bet is on confirmation (though the quality of my prognostication might be reflected in my incorrect guess that the Supreme Court would defer deciding on the Mexican death penalty case and ask the Solicitor General for the federal government's views first). As obnoxious as Luttig's appointment would be to Democrats on paper, his appearance and manner are not at all telegenic, and his confirmation hearings will not help him with Democratic senators or their constituents. To put it bluntly, he comes across like an arrogant 12-year-old whom adults don't much feel like defending when the other kids beat him up--which they do regularly.


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:28 AM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com