James Woods gave an interview for his upcoming film, entitled Northfork. Apparently the film is really good and you should go see it. The interview is at Salon--so you have to watch an ad to get it.
But then the interviewer, Amy Reiter, gets a little more than she bargained for, when she starts to ask him about politics.
"If a rational person heard this conversation they'd think, Oh, he's making a good point or she's making a good point, they'd hear it that way. But the way you could potentially report it, I could sound horrible: "James Woods and Arnold Schwarzenegger," or whatever the fuck. I don't even want to be in that category.
So I, to try to help my friends who made a beautiful film, try to get their film promoted, am making a deal with the devil. You're going to talk about the film for five minutes and never mention it in the article, I'm sure, or mention it in one line just to get it out of the way. And I actually tried to help you get through it quickly because I knew it was just a pretext to talk about the other stuff.
No, that's not true.
I don't know if these are facts. I'm just saying they're impressions. So I'm just sitting here getting my ass again to the gangplank, getting my ass chopped off by the pirates, and talking to Salon.com so I can be humiliated and degraded, and it's fine because I'm doing it for the movie, but honestly, it just saddens me because it would be wonderful to have a conversation with somebody who says, "Well, yeah, that's a good point," and then wrote a kind of balanced article about it. That would be great. Then I'd be actually interested in talking about politics."
On the one hand it's easy enough to sympathize with his point; personality journalism is about destroying its subjects. On the other hand, it's hard not to see him as a bit over the top and paranoid for a guy who really doesn't have to worry about where his next meal is coming from. If he doesn't like doing press, I suppose he could just stop.
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Further thoughts from Me
Apparently my titles haven't really been titles, this is confusing, but a learing experience
Ann Coulter Latest Book Reviewed (but not by me)
Actually it's reviewed by Anne Applebaum at the Washington Post, who raises some very salient flaws within the book. Check it out!!!
I have finished Hillary's Living History--makes me want to listen to Sidney Blumenthal's work. I'm starting to reevaluate the Clintons. That said, Ms. Clinton's work would still benifit from a more honest discussion of earlier accusations of infidelity, and a more complete analysis of how her Healthcare proposal failed so spectacularly.
The book does succeed in humanizing her a bit; it portrays, for example, a picture of Hillary Clinton loving her daughter Chelsea. I admit this is a radical idea, but it is possible that Hillary, rather than being the demonic force of evil that some portray her as might have been a human woman, subject to the feelings and problems of people everywhere.
Actually it's reviewed by Anne Applebaum at the Washington Post, who raises some very salient flaws within the book. Check it out!!!
I have finished Hillary's Living History--makes me want to listen to Sidney Blumenthal's work. I'm starting to reevaluate the Clintons. That said, Ms. Clinton's work would still benifit from a more honest discussion of earlier accusations of infidelity, and a more complete analysis of how her Healthcare proposal failed so spectacularly.
The book does succeed in humanizing her a bit; it portrays, for example, a picture of Hillary Clinton loving her daughter Chelsea. I admit this is a radical idea, but it is possible that Hillary, rather than being the demonic force of evil that some portray her as might have been a human woman, subject to the feelings and problems of people everywhere.
The Mushy Middle
Is there a middle ground in America? The other day I was listening to Rush while driving around at lunch and he made comments to the effect that there isn't. The "moderates" are simply people too weak to make up their minds. They will move with the crowd. So for President Bush to try to reach out to the middle ground is foolish; he should focus on his base.
Cal Thomas has a different take in his article today. He states "Bush is basically a conservative who seeks to portray himself as a non-fire-breathing moderate, except when it comes to the war on terrorism. This is where the country is, and it is where the Democratic presidential candidates and much of their leadership are not."
This may seem a trivial question to you--but it is key. If there is no middle ground, as Rush would have you believe, than the election is all about energizing the base. The more energized your base is, the more likely you are going to win an election. And the best things President Bush could do to energize his base are to commit to putting a hardline Conservative on the bench.
On the other hand, if their is a middle, than whoever gets their first might win--or they might not. The real question is how important is the middle. How decisive.
Is there a middle ground in America? The other day I was listening to Rush while driving around at lunch and he made comments to the effect that there isn't. The "moderates" are simply people too weak to make up their minds. They will move with the crowd. So for President Bush to try to reach out to the middle ground is foolish; he should focus on his base.
Cal Thomas has a different take in his article today. He states "Bush is basically a conservative who seeks to portray himself as a non-fire-breathing moderate, except when it comes to the war on terrorism. This is where the country is, and it is where the Democratic presidential candidates and much of their leadership are not."
This may seem a trivial question to you--but it is key. If there is no middle ground, as Rush would have you believe, than the election is all about energizing the base. The more energized your base is, the more likely you are going to win an election. And the best things President Bush could do to energize his base are to commit to putting a hardline Conservative on the bench.
On the other hand, if their is a middle, than whoever gets their first might win--or they might not. The real question is how important is the middle. How decisive.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Bow Wow Wow
Seems like i'm doing more than usual on Race right now. I guess its a hot issue. Anyway Michelle Malkin talks about race in her latest article, as it relates to education.
"In Oberlin, Ohio, local school board president Tony Marshall argues that only black high school teachers should teach "black history." Non-black educators may be able to teach black students to write well, conduct research, and digest accurate facts and information. But arming black students with the same fundamentals that every other student needs to succeed is apparently not what Marshall wants for his kids: "A black teacher brings an experience and understanding of being black that no else can bring."
If Marshall had to choose between hiring white historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and black rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg, in other words, he'd rather have the pot-smoking, profanity-spewing, gang-banging convicted felon in the classroom because of Snoop's skin-deep "experience and understanding."
OK let's unpack this just a little bit. Why does Ms. Malkin assume that a Black history teacher won't give a student the "same fundamentals that every other student needs to succeed?" Are blacks inherently less capable teachers?
Then there is the bizarre comparison in the second paragraph. Would Marshall really pick Arthur Schlesinger Jr. over Snoop Doggy Dog? Or even the other way around, which is of course what I meant to say. Let's go to the video tape, which in this case is a news story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Michael Williams, interim director of Cleveland State University's black studies program, said schools should choose a black teacher if that person is most qualified.
If two teachers are equally qualified, Williams gives the edge to the black teacher.
"That person still has the advantage of the culture," said Williams, who is black. "They understand the nuances of the culture."
Oberlin School Board President Tony Marshall, who is black, agrees. The phrase "color-struck" might mean nothing to a white person, he said, but a black teacher would know that it suggests a black person who prefers lighter-skinned blacks to darker-skinned blacks.
"A black teacher brings an experience and understanding of being black that no else can bring," Marshall said.
So let's make this point clear--Michael Williams and Tony Marshall appparently agree that if there are two teachers who are equally qualified to teach a class, you should give deference to the black teacher. So I guess, it begs the question; does Ms. Malkin see Snoop Doggy Dog and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as equally qualified to teach history?
Seems like i'm doing more than usual on Race right now. I guess its a hot issue. Anyway Michelle Malkin talks about race in her latest article, as it relates to education.
"In Oberlin, Ohio, local school board president Tony Marshall argues that only black high school teachers should teach "black history." Non-black educators may be able to teach black students to write well, conduct research, and digest accurate facts and information. But arming black students with the same fundamentals that every other student needs to succeed is apparently not what Marshall wants for his kids: "A black teacher brings an experience and understanding of being black that no else can bring."
If Marshall had to choose between hiring white historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and black rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg, in other words, he'd rather have the pot-smoking, profanity-spewing, gang-banging convicted felon in the classroom because of Snoop's skin-deep "experience and understanding."
OK let's unpack this just a little bit. Why does Ms. Malkin assume that a Black history teacher won't give a student the "same fundamentals that every other student needs to succeed?" Are blacks inherently less capable teachers?
Then there is the bizarre comparison in the second paragraph. Would Marshall really pick Arthur Schlesinger Jr. over Snoop Doggy Dog? Or even the other way around, which is of course what I meant to say. Let's go to the video tape, which in this case is a news story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Michael Williams, interim director of Cleveland State University's black studies program, said schools should choose a black teacher if that person is most qualified.
If two teachers are equally qualified, Williams gives the edge to the black teacher.
"That person still has the advantage of the culture," said Williams, who is black. "They understand the nuances of the culture."
Oberlin School Board President Tony Marshall, who is black, agrees. The phrase "color-struck" might mean nothing to a white person, he said, but a black teacher would know that it suggests a black person who prefers lighter-skinned blacks to darker-skinned blacks.
"A black teacher brings an experience and understanding of being black that no else can bring," Marshall said.
So let's make this point clear--Michael Williams and Tony Marshall appparently agree that if there are two teachers who are equally qualified to teach a class, you should give deference to the black teacher. So I guess, it begs the question; does Ms. Malkin see Snoop Doggy Dog and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as equally qualified to teach history?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Your Weekly Rush
Here's Rush on why blacks don't vote Democratic.
"Why they do so is something you can't say if you want to be around tomorrow. I've danced around this for 15 years, because people react to it with an emotion unseen in discussing other voting blocks. There's nothing complicated about it. The reason 94% of the black population is never going to vote for Bush or a Republican no matter what that Republican does is that they've chosen a way of life where Democrats are the masters and they're on their plantation. They have been made wards of the state.
They have been made totally dependent thanks to a deliberate effort by liberal Democrats to make them a permanent voting block."
Yep. 94% of American blacks have chosen a life where they are slaves.
This is a very ugly kind of race baiting, but beyond that, it's ludicrous. While a larger number of blacks are on welfare as compared to society as a whole, the number is nowhere near 94%. And we only count those people who vote. It is the black middle class that votes, not those on welfare. And why do they vote for Democrats as opposed to Republicans. Well I suspect it has to do with Democrats being willing to try to solve America's problems as opposed to ignoring them and blaming the victims. But it's also possible, Rush, that racially divisive rhetoric by Republicans might drive some away.
Here's Rush on why blacks don't vote Democratic.
"Why they do so is something you can't say if you want to be around tomorrow. I've danced around this for 15 years, because people react to it with an emotion unseen in discussing other voting blocks. There's nothing complicated about it. The reason 94% of the black population is never going to vote for Bush or a Republican no matter what that Republican does is that they've chosen a way of life where Democrats are the masters and they're on their plantation. They have been made wards of the state.
They have been made totally dependent thanks to a deliberate effort by liberal Democrats to make them a permanent voting block."
Yep. 94% of American blacks have chosen a life where they are slaves.
This is a very ugly kind of race baiting, but beyond that, it's ludicrous. While a larger number of blacks are on welfare as compared to society as a whole, the number is nowhere near 94%. And we only count those people who vote. It is the black middle class that votes, not those on welfare. And why do they vote for Democrats as opposed to Republicans. Well I suspect it has to do with Democrats being willing to try to solve America's problems as opposed to ignoring them and blaming the victims. But it's also possible, Rush, that racially divisive rhetoric by Republicans might drive some away.
Going through Slow Period
Stuff at work is picking up and so I'm not here as much as I'd like to be, and after reading 6 articles trying to find one worth commenting on, I can testify that my low post days aren't the worst that can happen. The best article I can find is one by the always good Paul Krugman. He compares President Bush's popularity to Prime Minister Blairs problems, and comes up with three potential reasons that President Bush seems to be faring better.
"One answer, surely, is the kid-gloves treatment Mr. Bush has always received from the news media, a treatment that became downright fawning after Sept. 11. There was a reason Mr. Blair's people made such a furious attack on the ever-skeptical BBC.
Another answer may be that in modern America, style trumps substance. Here's what Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said in a speech last week: "To gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier." To say the obvious, that remark reveals a powerful contempt for the public: Mr. DeLay apparently believes that the nation will trust a man, independent of the facts, because he looks good dressed up as a pilot. But it's possible that he's right.
What must worry the Bush administration, however, is a third possibility: that the American people gave Mr. Bush their trust because in the aftermath of Sept. 11, they desperately wanted to believe the best about their president. If that's all it was, Mr. Bush will eventually face a terrible reckoning."
Anyway hopefully I'll be back with something cool. Hope you are all having a nice morning.
Stuff at work is picking up and so I'm not here as much as I'd like to be, and after reading 6 articles trying to find one worth commenting on, I can testify that my low post days aren't the worst that can happen. The best article I can find is one by the always good Paul Krugman. He compares President Bush's popularity to Prime Minister Blairs problems, and comes up with three potential reasons that President Bush seems to be faring better.
"One answer, surely, is the kid-gloves treatment Mr. Bush has always received from the news media, a treatment that became downright fawning after Sept. 11. There was a reason Mr. Blair's people made such a furious attack on the ever-skeptical BBC.
Another answer may be that in modern America, style trumps substance. Here's what Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said in a speech last week: "To gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier." To say the obvious, that remark reveals a powerful contempt for the public: Mr. DeLay apparently believes that the nation will trust a man, independent of the facts, because he looks good dressed up as a pilot. But it's possible that he's right.
What must worry the Bush administration, however, is a third possibility: that the American people gave Mr. Bush their trust because in the aftermath of Sept. 11, they desperately wanted to believe the best about their president. If that's all it was, Mr. Bush will eventually face a terrible reckoning."
Anyway hopefully I'll be back with something cool. Hope you are all having a nice morning.
Monday, July 28, 2003
Anti-Semitism
Suzanne Fields writes today on the growth of Anti-Semitism on the left. And in so far as such Anti-Semitism exists on the left, we here at Make me a Commentator!!! would like to condemn it. Anti-Semitism is another name for racism, anther name for hatred, and hatred is ugly, whether motivated from the left or from the right.
There is a tendency among all people to ally with those who seem to support your cause. The left in America does not like President Bush, and many find out military occupation of Iraq very troubling. Islamic Fanatics feel much the same way. However, lets not delude ourselves into thinking that makes Islamic Fanatics nice people. Whatever we may think about the founding of Israel, the fact is it is the most democratic nation in the middle east, and an ally of the United States.
This does not mean that the left should not criticize Israeli policies. Indeed we have a duty to do so. And to clarify for some on the right--it is possible to disagree, even disagree vehmenantly with the policies of a nation without hating that nation, or its citizens.
Suzanne Fields writes today on the growth of Anti-Semitism on the left. And in so far as such Anti-Semitism exists on the left, we here at Make me a Commentator!!! would like to condemn it. Anti-Semitism is another name for racism, anther name for hatred, and hatred is ugly, whether motivated from the left or from the right.
There is a tendency among all people to ally with those who seem to support your cause. The left in America does not like President Bush, and many find out military occupation of Iraq very troubling. Islamic Fanatics feel much the same way. However, lets not delude ourselves into thinking that makes Islamic Fanatics nice people. Whatever we may think about the founding of Israel, the fact is it is the most democratic nation in the middle east, and an ally of the United States.
This does not mean that the left should not criticize Israeli policies. Indeed we have a duty to do so. And to clarify for some on the right--it is possible to disagree, even disagree vehmenantly with the policies of a nation without hating that nation, or its citizens.
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Adding to my Stuff
I've decided that it would be nice to keep an ongoing list of the quotes I've put up at the top. It's in roughly chronological order, but it is not dated. Here it is. Enjoy!
I've decided that it would be nice to keep an ongoing list of the quotes I've put up at the top. It's in roughly chronological order, but it is not dated. Here it is. Enjoy!
Saturday, July 26, 2003
The Green Party - 2004
In the interest of full disclosure, allow me to announce that I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. And more to the point I live in Florida. At the time I didn't realize quite how committed President Bush would be to pushing his extremely conservative agenda.
But times change--and Norman Soloman, who is occasionally nutty, has some good advice for the greens; advice I intend to take to heart.
"In discussions about races for the highest offices, sobering reality checks can be distasteful to many Greens, who correctly point out that a democratic process requires a wide range of voices and choices during election campaigns. But that truth does not change another one: A smart movement selects its battles and cares about its impacts.
A small party that is unwilling to pick and choose its battles -- and unable to consider the effects of its campaigns on the country as a whole -- will find itself glued to the periphery of American politics.
In contrast, more effective progressives seeking fundamental change are inclined to keep exploring -- and learning from -- the differences between principle and self-marginalization. They bypass insular rhetoric and tactics that drive gratuitous wedges between potential allies -- especially when a united front is needed to topple an extreme far-right regime in Washington."
In the interest of full disclosure, allow me to announce that I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. And more to the point I live in Florida. At the time I didn't realize quite how committed President Bush would be to pushing his extremely conservative agenda.
But times change--and Norman Soloman, who is occasionally nutty, has some good advice for the greens; advice I intend to take to heart.
"In discussions about races for the highest offices, sobering reality checks can be distasteful to many Greens, who correctly point out that a democratic process requires a wide range of voices and choices during election campaigns. But that truth does not change another one: A smart movement selects its battles and cares about its impacts.
A small party that is unwilling to pick and choose its battles -- and unable to consider the effects of its campaigns on the country as a whole -- will find itself glued to the periphery of American politics.
In contrast, more effective progressives seeking fundamental change are inclined to keep exploring -- and learning from -- the differences between principle and self-marginalization. They bypass insular rhetoric and tactics that drive gratuitous wedges between potential allies -- especially when a united front is needed to topple an extreme far-right regime in Washington."
Friday, July 25, 2003
Are You Safer Now than you Were Four Years Ago?
In my case yes, but largely because I moved across town. Still this is a slogan that some of the Democratic presidential candidats are bringing out. It's not an entirely wise slogan, as Jonah Goldberg points out today in his article.
"Voters surely felt more insecure after Pearl Harbor, that doesn't mean they thought FDR was wrong to prosecute WWII. Bush can make the case that the risks we face today are worth preventing greater risks tomorrow.
So, Bush's opponents need to make the case that voters are less safe because of Bush's actions and that they would do things better than Bush has."
There are a few areas where the Democrats can make that case. Certainly, President Bush's recent actions have alienated much of the world. Perhaps the Democrats would have moved slower on Iraq; is that necessarily wrong? Particularly if they went into Iraq with a real coalition instead of the lame one we seem to have now.
But he is correct that if Democrats are going to say that Bush screwed up, they also need to talk about what they could do better.
In my case yes, but largely because I moved across town. Still this is a slogan that some of the Democratic presidential candidats are bringing out. It's not an entirely wise slogan, as Jonah Goldberg points out today in his article.
"Voters surely felt more insecure after Pearl Harbor, that doesn't mean they thought FDR was wrong to prosecute WWII. Bush can make the case that the risks we face today are worth preventing greater risks tomorrow.
So, Bush's opponents need to make the case that voters are less safe because of Bush's actions and that they would do things better than Bush has."
There are a few areas where the Democrats can make that case. Certainly, President Bush's recent actions have alienated much of the world. Perhaps the Democrats would have moved slower on Iraq; is that necessarily wrong? Particularly if they went into Iraq with a real coalition instead of the lame one we seem to have now.
But he is correct that if Democrats are going to say that Bush screwed up, they also need to talk about what they could do better.
Why Not Saudi Arabia?
Rich Lowry asks the question today, that many have asked, on the left and the right. Most of the September 11th Hi-Jackers were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama bin Ladin. And yet we seem comfortable giving them the pass, rather than putting serious pressure on them to reform their ways.
Mr. Lowry explains this discrepency by pointing to a very successful Saudi Arabian foreign policy. "Saudi flack Prince Bandar has extensive personal relationships with top Washington policy-makers -- he used to play racquetball with Colin Powell -- and knows the way to official Washington's heart: cash. The Saudis make a practice, for instance, of buying former U.S. ambassadors to Saudi Arabia. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office," Bandar once said, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."
So, when a terrorist conspiracy with Saudi links murders 3,000 Americans, the Saudis are treated very gently. Coddling the Saudis has become an ingrained Washington habit."
He suggests that Democrats take the offensive on this issue; that making an issue out of Saudi Arabia would be their duty as the opposition party, and would be a patriotic thing to do as well. A public service, as it were.
Rich Lowry asks the question today, that many have asked, on the left and the right. Most of the September 11th Hi-Jackers were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama bin Ladin. And yet we seem comfortable giving them the pass, rather than putting serious pressure on them to reform their ways.
Mr. Lowry explains this discrepency by pointing to a very successful Saudi Arabian foreign policy. "Saudi flack Prince Bandar has extensive personal relationships with top Washington policy-makers -- he used to play racquetball with Colin Powell -- and knows the way to official Washington's heart: cash. The Saudis make a practice, for instance, of buying former U.S. ambassadors to Saudi Arabia. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office," Bandar once said, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."
So, when a terrorist conspiracy with Saudi links murders 3,000 Americans, the Saudis are treated very gently. Coddling the Saudis has become an ingrained Washington habit."
He suggests that Democrats take the offensive on this issue; that making an issue out of Saudi Arabia would be their duty as the opposition party, and would be a patriotic thing to do as well. A public service, as it were.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Life is but a Dream
Well Ms. Ann Coulter's latest work takes aim at the CIA. Apparently the CIA is to blame for the Governments inability to prevent September 11th. Also, President Bush should be exonerated for failing to make any changes at the CIA since September 11th. She doesn't say that, but it's assumed.
But even that little tidbit pales in comparison to the whopper she tells later on in the article. "For 50 years liberals have called Republicans idiots, fascists, anti-Semites, racists, crooks, shredders of the Constitution and masterminds of Salvadoran death squads. Only recently have they added the epithet "liar." Even noted ethicist Al Franken has switched from calling conservatives "fat" to calling them "liars.""
Minor point first. Actually Franken in his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," relayed that he originally planned to call it "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar." So it's not entirely a switch.
Major point second. Can anybody think of a five letter name that refutes Ms. Coulter's larger point. Starts with N, and remarkably it has a X right in the middle of it. That's right--it's Nixon. You remember Nixon, Ms. Coulter? Liberals did call him a liar as I recall. Of course this isn't technically a lie. You can't believe that Ann expects anybody to take her literally.
Oh and how about this particularly nasty phrase. "Clinton also lied every time he said "God bless America," though he doesn't believe in God or America, and I don't recall any Republican ever ripping his skin off about that." Thank God for Clinton, eh, Ms. Coulter? Without him to attack, you'd have to figure out some way to actually suggest that George Bush was good for America. A task which is presumably beyond you.
Well Ms. Ann Coulter's latest work takes aim at the CIA. Apparently the CIA is to blame for the Governments inability to prevent September 11th. Also, President Bush should be exonerated for failing to make any changes at the CIA since September 11th. She doesn't say that, but it's assumed.
But even that little tidbit pales in comparison to the whopper she tells later on in the article. "For 50 years liberals have called Republicans idiots, fascists, anti-Semites, racists, crooks, shredders of the Constitution and masterminds of Salvadoran death squads. Only recently have they added the epithet "liar." Even noted ethicist Al Franken has switched from calling conservatives "fat" to calling them "liars.""
Minor point first. Actually Franken in his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," relayed that he originally planned to call it "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar." So it's not entirely a switch.
Major point second. Can anybody think of a five letter name that refutes Ms. Coulter's larger point. Starts with N, and remarkably it has a X right in the middle of it. That's right--it's Nixon. You remember Nixon, Ms. Coulter? Liberals did call him a liar as I recall. Of course this isn't technically a lie. You can't believe that Ann expects anybody to take her literally.
Oh and how about this particularly nasty phrase. "Clinton also lied every time he said "God bless America," though he doesn't believe in God or America, and I don't recall any Republican ever ripping his skin off about that." Thank God for Clinton, eh, Ms. Coulter? Without him to attack, you'd have to figure out some way to actually suggest that George Bush was good for America. A task which is presumably beyond you.
Conservative Troubles Redux
George Will has sounded off on the rumblings on the right, referenced by Tony Blankley, but does it more specifically. He references four groups of conservatives.
Foreign Policy Conservatives (as opposed to Neo-Conservatives), are unhappy because of recent statements that the Iraq war was fought to uphold a United Nations resolution and to liberate an oppressed people; neither goal lies within the strict national interest criteria.
The Low-Taxes Conservative has much to be happy about, but has to be concerned that, although President Bush has cut taxes, he hasn't dong anything to reduce spending.
The Constitutionalist Conservative is upset with the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold affirmative action programs, and the Religious Conservative or Social Conservative is upset with the Courts decision to strike down the Texas sodomy law.
You might be a bit confused as to how the last two are President Bush's fault. Well, I'll tell you--it's because of Alberto Gonzales. Remember that name. He is on whatever list of potential candidates for the Supreme Court exists, and some would put him at the front. He is a Latino Justice, and would most likely make his way through the nomination process unscathed. And, of course, he's much more moderate than the Social Conservatives and Constitutionalist Conservatives would like. President Bush has been warned and warned again that many hardcore conservatives will be angry and upset if he nominates Gonzales.
This puts President Bush in an interesting position. Does he really want to pick a(nother) fight with Congress? Or with is political base?
For a more liberal view of Gonzales and the forthcoming fight you might check out Salon's article on it. If you aren't a member you will have to watch an ad or something.
George Will has sounded off on the rumblings on the right, referenced by Tony Blankley, but does it more specifically. He references four groups of conservatives.
Foreign Policy Conservatives (as opposed to Neo-Conservatives), are unhappy because of recent statements that the Iraq war was fought to uphold a United Nations resolution and to liberate an oppressed people; neither goal lies within the strict national interest criteria.
The Low-Taxes Conservative has much to be happy about, but has to be concerned that, although President Bush has cut taxes, he hasn't dong anything to reduce spending.
The Constitutionalist Conservative is upset with the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold affirmative action programs, and the Religious Conservative or Social Conservative is upset with the Courts decision to strike down the Texas sodomy law.
You might be a bit confused as to how the last two are President Bush's fault. Well, I'll tell you--it's because of Alberto Gonzales. Remember that name. He is on whatever list of potential candidates for the Supreme Court exists, and some would put him at the front. He is a Latino Justice, and would most likely make his way through the nomination process unscathed. And, of course, he's much more moderate than the Social Conservatives and Constitutionalist Conservatives would like. President Bush has been warned and warned again that many hardcore conservatives will be angry and upset if he nominates Gonzales.
This puts President Bush in an interesting position. Does he really want to pick a(nother) fight with Congress? Or with is political base?
For a more liberal view of Gonzales and the forthcoming fight you might check out Salon's article on it. If you aren't a member you will have to watch an ad or something.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
The Hussein Boys
They are dead, as we all know. Interesting article at the New York Times today on the Brothers Grim, as they call them. Basically they say that while they are nice symoblic victories, we need to get Iraq rebuilt before the people are really going to loosen up and like us.
"Electricity and other vital services have to be restored on a round-the-clock basis throughout Iraq. Reliable Iraqi police and security services need to be trained and vetted, new jobs found for the unemployed, and the oil industry restored to full production.
Paul Bremer III, Washington's chief civilian administrator in Iraq, plans to unveil today the most specific plan to date for reviving Iraq's economy and public institutions, complete with target goals for the next 60 and 120 days. Realizing his hopes will require more money than Washington originally planned and the active support of the Iraqi people. The demise of the Hussein brothers should make it easier to win that support."
The one thing I do like about the article; it underscores the monsterousness of the Hussein regime. While there are questions about how much of a threat Iraq was to the United States, there can be no question that it was an evil regime.
They are dead, as we all know. Interesting article at the New York Times today on the Brothers Grim, as they call them. Basically they say that while they are nice symoblic victories, we need to get Iraq rebuilt before the people are really going to loosen up and like us.
"Electricity and other vital services have to be restored on a round-the-clock basis throughout Iraq. Reliable Iraqi police and security services need to be trained and vetted, new jobs found for the unemployed, and the oil industry restored to full production.
Paul Bremer III, Washington's chief civilian administrator in Iraq, plans to unveil today the most specific plan to date for reviving Iraq's economy and public institutions, complete with target goals for the next 60 and 120 days. Realizing his hopes will require more money than Washington originally planned and the active support of the Iraqi people. The demise of the Hussein brothers should make it easier to win that support."
The one thing I do like about the article; it underscores the monsterousness of the Hussein regime. While there are questions about how much of a threat Iraq was to the United States, there can be no question that it was an evil regime.
Rumblings on the Right
There is a bit of dissatisfaction on the right in regards to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Not that there is any serious movement to replace him or vote for someone else, but there are cocerns. Tony Blankley commented on that in his most recent article, and suggests it is probably a reflection of the essential divisions within the Republican Party or Conservative Movement.
" . . . conservatism is a house of many mansions, and it is a logical impossibility to have policies that satisfy us all. Conservatives are both muscular military interventionists and isolationists; free traders and protectionists; libertarians and cultural traditionalists.
Almost all of us believe we are anti-statist. And yet some of us want morality enforced by the state. Others are cheerfully supportive of rounding up vaguely suspicious-looking Arabs. And in fact, a majority of self-identified conservatives support such federal welfare schemes as Social Security, Medicare and even prescription drug subsidies for seniors. (Although in the last case, most conservative leaders and intellectuals oppose such an expansion of federal entitlements.) But, crosscutting all these varieties of American conservatism is a deeply visceral distaste for political compromise and expediency. And that distaste turns quickly to distrust of conservative leaders when they reach the national governing level."
He mentions Rush Limbaugh's criticisms of President Bush as a reflection of this distrust and distaste. I always find it intersting that one assumes that if a pet politician makes a decision it is because of political concerns. As if it is impossible that President Bush and Rush Limbaugh could disagree on an education policy, for example.
He does end with the positive news that President Bush has down so well on foreign policy that he will hold the party together. We'll have to see on that score.
There is a bit of dissatisfaction on the right in regards to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Not that there is any serious movement to replace him or vote for someone else, but there are cocerns. Tony Blankley commented on that in his most recent article, and suggests it is probably a reflection of the essential divisions within the Republican Party or Conservative Movement.
" . . . conservatism is a house of many mansions, and it is a logical impossibility to have policies that satisfy us all. Conservatives are both muscular military interventionists and isolationists; free traders and protectionists; libertarians and cultural traditionalists.
Almost all of us believe we are anti-statist. And yet some of us want morality enforced by the state. Others are cheerfully supportive of rounding up vaguely suspicious-looking Arabs. And in fact, a majority of self-identified conservatives support such federal welfare schemes as Social Security, Medicare and even prescription drug subsidies for seniors. (Although in the last case, most conservative leaders and intellectuals oppose such an expansion of federal entitlements.) But, crosscutting all these varieties of American conservatism is a deeply visceral distaste for political compromise and expediency. And that distaste turns quickly to distrust of conservative leaders when they reach the national governing level."
He mentions Rush Limbaugh's criticisms of President Bush as a reflection of this distrust and distaste. I always find it intersting that one assumes that if a pet politician makes a decision it is because of political concerns. As if it is impossible that President Bush and Rush Limbaugh could disagree on an education policy, for example.
He does end with the positive news that President Bush has down so well on foreign policy that he will hold the party together. We'll have to see on that score.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Provocative Question from Mr. Paul Krugman
Who, frankly, seems to ask a lot of provocative questions. His latest article contains a great intro with "Who's Unpatriotic Now?" Of course he's playing off the idea that those who thought invading Iraq was a bad idea were unpatriotic, and possibly America-haters. In it he comments that the US may be weaker now, with our Military so committed around the world.
"Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes."
The whole article, as always, is worth checking out.
Who, frankly, seems to ask a lot of provocative questions. His latest article contains a great intro with "Who's Unpatriotic Now?" Of course he's playing off the idea that those who thought invading Iraq was a bad idea were unpatriotic, and possibly America-haters. In it he comments that the US may be weaker now, with our Military so committed around the world.
"Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes."
The whole article, as always, is worth checking out.
New Link
You're never going to believe this, but I added a new link. It's pretty good--well written. Solid. Go check it out.
You're never going to believe this, but I added a new link. It's pretty good--well written. Solid. Go check it out.
sabotage
David Horowitz, who has never been accused of moderation, writes today, in part about his old bugga-boo. Having been a former member of the Far Left, he never passes up a moment to take a shot at them, and then comments on how the Democratic party is following in their footsteps.
"Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has followed suit in its own timid way, shedding the mantle of appeasement to become the party of sabotage. Not a day has gone by since American forces liberated Iraq that Democrats have not attempted to undermine the leadership that brought about the victory. The greatest triumph of American policy since the end of the Cold War has become the unending target of Democratic snipers -- among them all its presidential nominees and its chief congressional spokesmen."
Not a day has gone by? Not a single day? That sounds like a little bit of hyperbole.
Perhaps Mr. Horowitz should console himself by remember that we live in a democracy. A democracy is by its nature a combative system. Republicans never let up on Clinton, did they? So why should he expect democrats to follow an opposite path from his own party?
More to the point, if President Bush did allow disingenuous information to be presented to the American People in order to convince them to go to war, than he needs to answer for that. I'm not talking about impeachment (a pipe dream at best), but I am talking about an electoral process.
David Horowitz, who has never been accused of moderation, writes today, in part about his old bugga-boo. Having been a former member of the Far Left, he never passes up a moment to take a shot at them, and then comments on how the Democratic party is following in their footsteps.
"Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has followed suit in its own timid way, shedding the mantle of appeasement to become the party of sabotage. Not a day has gone by since American forces liberated Iraq that Democrats have not attempted to undermine the leadership that brought about the victory. The greatest triumph of American policy since the end of the Cold War has become the unending target of Democratic snipers -- among them all its presidential nominees and its chief congressional spokesmen."
Not a day has gone by? Not a single day? That sounds like a little bit of hyperbole.
Perhaps Mr. Horowitz should console himself by remember that we live in a democracy. A democracy is by its nature a combative system. Republicans never let up on Clinton, did they? So why should he expect democrats to follow an opposite path from his own party?
More to the point, if President Bush did allow disingenuous information to be presented to the American People in order to convince them to go to war, than he needs to answer for that. I'm not talking about impeachment (a pipe dream at best), but I am talking about an electoral process.
Monday, July 21, 2003
Rebuilding Iraq
Pretty much all the Conservative Commentators are focused on defending President Bush and his statement in the State of the Union. All I have to say is that there is one way to clear this up immediately; find the Weapons of Mass Distruction. If you find them, all these questions melt away.
But Fred Kaplan has written an interesting article on why we need to get the UN involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, and why our Unilateral Plans may not have been entirely successful.
"The problem is not merely that India has refused to honor Bush’s request for 17,000 peacekeeping troops unless the operation is put under U.N. auspices, or that France and Germany made similar refusals (no doubt with barely straight-faced schadenfreude). Nor is it that the “coalition” has failed to muster more than a handful of nations to send more than a few hundred troops on a mission that is straining the powers of 148,000 top-notch American soldiers.
These much-noted embarrassments are but symptoms — logical corollaries — of the underlying problem, which is that Bush and his top advisers deluded themselves into presuming, against all historical precedent, that they could rebuild Iraq on their own in the first place."
Check out the entire article. I hope we get the UN involved sooner rather than later. If no WMD's are found and we continue losing our troops, pressure will mount for President Bush to bring the troops home--better to work on getting the UN in to cushion the blow.
Pretty much all the Conservative Commentators are focused on defending President Bush and his statement in the State of the Union. All I have to say is that there is one way to clear this up immediately; find the Weapons of Mass Distruction. If you find them, all these questions melt away.
But Fred Kaplan has written an interesting article on why we need to get the UN involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, and why our Unilateral Plans may not have been entirely successful.
"The problem is not merely that India has refused to honor Bush’s request for 17,000 peacekeeping troops unless the operation is put under U.N. auspices, or that France and Germany made similar refusals (no doubt with barely straight-faced schadenfreude). Nor is it that the “coalition” has failed to muster more than a handful of nations to send more than a few hundred troops on a mission that is straining the powers of 148,000 top-notch American soldiers.
These much-noted embarrassments are but symptoms — logical corollaries — of the underlying problem, which is that Bush and his top advisers deluded themselves into presuming, against all historical precedent, that they could rebuild Iraq on their own in the first place."
Check out the entire article. I hope we get the UN involved sooner rather than later. If no WMD's are found and we continue losing our troops, pressure will mount for President Bush to bring the troops home--better to work on getting the UN in to cushion the blow.
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Friday, July 18, 2003
The Sixth Great Supply Side Periods
Larry Kudlow, conservative commentator, lists Six Great Supply Side periods, of which the sixth is the current economic disaster we call the Bush Economic Plan. Let's look at some of the earlier periods to see what we might need to get ready for.
1). Ulysses S. Grants presidency (1872?). Of course Grant's presidency is remembered also for scandal. After all, check out this passage from an essay by an Illinois Junior High School Student.
Grant is often accused of failing as a president because of the many scandals and the corruption that marked his presidency. The federal government's corruption was, for the most part, due to the spoils system. Because Grant was unwise in his appointments within the federal government, many of those under him proved themselves untrustworthy. Although Grant was not personally involved in any of these scandals, he is blamed because he stood by those people.
2). Presidents Harding and Coolidge (1921 to 1928). Of course again we have the spectacle of corruption. As the White House website comments on President Harding, "By 1923 the postwar depression seemed to be giving way to a new surge of prosperity, and newspapers hailed Harding as a wise statesman carrying out his campaign promise--"Less government in business and more business in government."
Behind the facade, not all of Harding's Administration was so impressive. Word began to reach the President that some of his friends were using their official positions for their own enrichment. Alarmed, he complained, "My...friends...they're the ones that keep me walking the floors nights!"
Looking wan and depressed, Harding journeyed westward in the summer of 1923, taking with him his upright Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover. "If you knew of a great scandal in our administration," he asked Hoover, "would you for the good of the country and the party expose it publicly or would you bury it?" Hoover urged publishing it, but Harding feared the political repercussions.
He did not live to find out how the public would react to the scandals of his administration. In August of 1923, he died in San Francisco of a heart attack. "
Also, shortly after the Harding and Coolidge Administration (within a matter of months, really) we have what has come to be known as the Great Depression.
The third Period was under JFK (1961-63). Not much to say there--everybody wants to connect their ideas to JFK. Funny how the fifties are remembered a time of incredible prosperity, and then JFK institutes his policy of Supply Side Economics and we get the seventies--but of course that was LBJ's fault.
The Fourth Period was under Ronald Reagan (of course). I'm not going to comment on any scandals in the Reagan administration, but I will comment that his economic policies did empty out the budget.
I'll just quote Kudlow here. "The fifth was -- if you can believe it -- Bill Clinton's second term." Not sure I can believe it--but since Kudlow isn't offering any evidence, I guess I have no choice. But once again we see that the economy tanked right after Supply Side theories were put into place. And didn't Clinton go through some kind of impeachment scandal his second term?
So now that we have our Sixth Supply Side President we know what to expect--a scandal ridden administration and a despression/panic. Something to look forward to.
Of course this is all based on the flimsiest of threads. So don't be surprised if I am wrong.
Larry Kudlow, conservative commentator, lists Six Great Supply Side periods, of which the sixth is the current economic disaster we call the Bush Economic Plan. Let's look at some of the earlier periods to see what we might need to get ready for.
1). Ulysses S. Grants presidency (1872?). Of course Grant's presidency is remembered also for scandal. After all, check out this passage from an essay by an Illinois Junior High School Student.
Grant is often accused of failing as a president because of the many scandals and the corruption that marked his presidency. The federal government's corruption was, for the most part, due to the spoils system. Because Grant was unwise in his appointments within the federal government, many of those under him proved themselves untrustworthy. Although Grant was not personally involved in any of these scandals, he is blamed because he stood by those people.
2). Presidents Harding and Coolidge (1921 to 1928). Of course again we have the spectacle of corruption. As the White House website comments on President Harding, "By 1923 the postwar depression seemed to be giving way to a new surge of prosperity, and newspapers hailed Harding as a wise statesman carrying out his campaign promise--"Less government in business and more business in government."
Behind the facade, not all of Harding's Administration was so impressive. Word began to reach the President that some of his friends were using their official positions for their own enrichment. Alarmed, he complained, "My...friends...they're the ones that keep me walking the floors nights!"
Looking wan and depressed, Harding journeyed westward in the summer of 1923, taking with him his upright Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover. "If you knew of a great scandal in our administration," he asked Hoover, "would you for the good of the country and the party expose it publicly or would you bury it?" Hoover urged publishing it, but Harding feared the political repercussions.
He did not live to find out how the public would react to the scandals of his administration. In August of 1923, he died in San Francisco of a heart attack. "
Also, shortly after the Harding and Coolidge Administration (within a matter of months, really) we have what has come to be known as the Great Depression.
The third Period was under JFK (1961-63). Not much to say there--everybody wants to connect their ideas to JFK. Funny how the fifties are remembered a time of incredible prosperity, and then JFK institutes his policy of Supply Side Economics and we get the seventies--but of course that was LBJ's fault.
The Fourth Period was under Ronald Reagan (of course). I'm not going to comment on any scandals in the Reagan administration, but I will comment that his economic policies did empty out the budget.
I'll just quote Kudlow here. "The fifth was -- if you can believe it -- Bill Clinton's second term." Not sure I can believe it--but since Kudlow isn't offering any evidence, I guess I have no choice. But once again we see that the economy tanked right after Supply Side theories were put into place. And didn't Clinton go through some kind of impeachment scandal his second term?
So now that we have our Sixth Supply Side President we know what to expect--a scandal ridden administration and a despression/panic. Something to look forward to.
Of course this is all based on the flimsiest of threads. So don't be surprised if I am wrong.
Troubling Comments
Salon printed an interview with Ray McGovern, a 27 year veteran of the CIA who's organization, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, has recently sent a letter calling for Dick Cheney's Resignation. In it he talks about the failure of intelligence.
"The current situation is, by definition, a huge problem for the intelligence community. The people not at all demoralized right now, by and large, occupy senior-level positions. It's a sad commentary, because leadership is the key. George Tenet is very malleable and likes to be a team player. Witness what he did on Feb. 5: He sat himself down behind Colin Powell as Powell served up this embroidery of intelligence information before the U.N. Security Council, and Tenet sat there like a potted plant, as if to indicate that the CIA stands -- or sits -- behind everything the secretary of state is saying.
That was an incredibly demoralizing gesture for folks in the CIA who've resisted tremendous pressure ever since 9/11 to prove a link between Iraq and 9/11. There's no evidence of that, and these people, to their great credit, said, "Sir, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to write something I don't believe." So here's Tenet sitting behind Powell, and Powell's drawing a picture of al-Qaida operatives in Iraq. Sure, there were a couple there, but what Powell didn't say was they were in a place that was not controlled by Saddam's government. [The small Ansar al-Islam militant group, which fought Saddam from its enclave in northern Iraq until its fighters were killed or expelled during the war, has been linked to al-Qaida.] So the evidence used to "prove" this link was fraudulent from the get-go. And these analysts had to watch this on TV, with Tenet sitting right behind Powell as he's telling this cooked-up story.
Oh well, if those pansy CIA Agents have their feelings hurt because their research contradicts the President, they should resign. After all the CIA's mission is to prepare cases to justify what the President or Vice President have already decided to do.
Salon printed an interview with Ray McGovern, a 27 year veteran of the CIA who's organization, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, has recently sent a letter calling for Dick Cheney's Resignation. In it he talks about the failure of intelligence.
"The current situation is, by definition, a huge problem for the intelligence community. The people not at all demoralized right now, by and large, occupy senior-level positions. It's a sad commentary, because leadership is the key. George Tenet is very malleable and likes to be a team player. Witness what he did on Feb. 5: He sat himself down behind Colin Powell as Powell served up this embroidery of intelligence information before the U.N. Security Council, and Tenet sat there like a potted plant, as if to indicate that the CIA stands -- or sits -- behind everything the secretary of state is saying.
That was an incredibly demoralizing gesture for folks in the CIA who've resisted tremendous pressure ever since 9/11 to prove a link between Iraq and 9/11. There's no evidence of that, and these people, to their great credit, said, "Sir, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to write something I don't believe." So here's Tenet sitting behind Powell, and Powell's drawing a picture of al-Qaida operatives in Iraq. Sure, there were a couple there, but what Powell didn't say was they were in a place that was not controlled by Saddam's government. [The small Ansar al-Islam militant group, which fought Saddam from its enclave in northern Iraq until its fighters were killed or expelled during the war, has been linked to al-Qaida.] So the evidence used to "prove" this link was fraudulent from the get-go. And these analysts had to watch this on TV, with Tenet sitting right behind Powell as he's telling this cooked-up story.
Oh well, if those pansy CIA Agents have their feelings hurt because their research contradicts the President, they should resign. After all the CIA's mission is to prepare cases to justify what the President or Vice President have already decided to do.
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Ann Coulter's Latest
Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?
Manifestly it's entirely possible to disagree with Ann Coulter and her extreme branch of Conservatism while loving your country and believing in it. Manifestly, it's possible to love your country and believe that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Manifestly it's possible to believe that President Bush has been a failure economically and in the foreign policy arena and still want a strong prosperous America.
And yet Ann Coulter characterizes those who dare to question President Bush's policies as a treasonous fifth columnists, stirring up fears of terrorist liberals who hate America and try to destroy it.
What else can you say of such a person?
Article here.
Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?
Manifestly it's entirely possible to disagree with Ann Coulter and her extreme branch of Conservatism while loving your country and believing in it. Manifestly, it's possible to love your country and believe that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Manifestly it's possible to believe that President Bush has been a failure economically and in the foreign policy arena and still want a strong prosperous America.
And yet Ann Coulter characterizes those who dare to question President Bush's policies as a treasonous fifth columnists, stirring up fears of terrorist liberals who hate America and try to destroy it.
What else can you say of such a person?
Article here.
Strong Words from Ariana Huffington
At its core, Watergate was about making sure that Nixon won an election. Yellowcake-gate is much more than a dirty trick played on the American public. It's about the Bush administration's pattern of deception as it shoved this country into a preemptive war — from the much-advertised but nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda to the hyping of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
No one died as a result of Watergate, but more than 200 U.S. soldiers have been killed and thousands more wounded to rid the world of an imminent threat that wasn't. To say nothing of the countless Iraqis who have lost their lives.
And those numbers will only rise as we find ourselves stuck in a situation that Gen. Tommy Franks predicts will continue for at least four more years.
Something to consider.
At its core, Watergate was about making sure that Nixon won an election. Yellowcake-gate is much more than a dirty trick played on the American public. It's about the Bush administration's pattern of deception as it shoved this country into a preemptive war — from the much-advertised but nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda to the hyping of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
No one died as a result of Watergate, but more than 200 U.S. soldiers have been killed and thousands more wounded to rid the world of an imminent threat that wasn't. To say nothing of the countless Iraqis who have lost their lives.
And those numbers will only rise as we find ourselves stuck in a situation that Gen. Tommy Franks predicts will continue for at least four more years.
Something to consider.
Why it Matters
Well, conservative commentator after conservative commentator has argued that this whole Africa story is a big bit of nonsense. That even if it was a lie, it's one small part of a much larger truth. Take Herbert London's assessment today. "The furor over nuclear material is a sideshow conducted to mobilize Democratic voters. As such, it is a sideshow with deadly consequences because it tries to obviate the legitimate conditions for invasion." I'm not sure what deadly consequences Mr. London is talking about; does he worry that we will hop in a time machine and go back and halt the invasion?
But let's run down how this invasion of Iraq has failed, so far. We didn't get Saddam. He's still out there, possibly waiting for a come back, once we leave. We didn't find the Weapons of Mass Distruction. Either they weren't there, or they have been transported to country X (to be determined after the election), or they just haven't been found yet. Now it's possible that the ongoing occupation will eventually lead to accomplishing both those goals, but until they have been accomplished, than there's nothing wrong with asking how we got here.
Well, conservative commentator after conservative commentator has argued that this whole Africa story is a big bit of nonsense. That even if it was a lie, it's one small part of a much larger truth. Take Herbert London's assessment today. "The furor over nuclear material is a sideshow conducted to mobilize Democratic voters. As such, it is a sideshow with deadly consequences because it tries to obviate the legitimate conditions for invasion." I'm not sure what deadly consequences Mr. London is talking about; does he worry that we will hop in a time machine and go back and halt the invasion?
But let's run down how this invasion of Iraq has failed, so far. We didn't get Saddam. He's still out there, possibly waiting for a come back, once we leave. We didn't find the Weapons of Mass Distruction. Either they weren't there, or they have been transported to country X (to be determined after the election), or they just haven't been found yet. Now it's possible that the ongoing occupation will eventually lead to accomplishing both those goals, but until they have been accomplished, than there's nothing wrong with asking how we got here.
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Wait A Minute, Didn't we Invade Iraq?
Thomas Friedman decries the focus going into attacking President Bush's possible misdirections leading up to the recent war in Iraq, but, unlike many others, he has a good point.
"For me, though, it is a disturbing thought that the Bush team could get itself so tied up defending its phony reasons for going to war — the notion that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that were undeterrable and could threaten us, or that he had links with Al Qaeda — that it could get distracted from fulfilling the real and valid reason for the war: to install a decent, tolerant, pluralistic, multireligious government in Iraq that would be the best answer and antidote to both Saddam and Osama."
This is a fair point. And if a pluralistic democratic society arises from the ashes of Iraq, than that will stand as a proud legacy of President Bush. But I'm not sure that the current focus on the veracity of Bush's claims will really distract the administration. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't this, it would be something else distracting us.
Thomas Friedman decries the focus going into attacking President Bush's possible misdirections leading up to the recent war in Iraq, but, unlike many others, he has a good point.
"For me, though, it is a disturbing thought that the Bush team could get itself so tied up defending its phony reasons for going to war — the notion that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that were undeterrable and could threaten us, or that he had links with Al Qaeda — that it could get distracted from fulfilling the real and valid reason for the war: to install a decent, tolerant, pluralistic, multireligious government in Iraq that would be the best answer and antidote to both Saddam and Osama."
This is a fair point. And if a pluralistic democratic society arises from the ashes of Iraq, than that will stand as a proud legacy of President Bush. But I'm not sure that the current focus on the veracity of Bush's claims will really distract the administration. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't this, it would be something else distracting us.
What a Difference a Day Makes!
David Limbaugh in 2000.
As to character issues, Bill Clinton has given Gore his stamp of approval. "My experience is that he is exceedingly honest and exceedingly straightforward." That's like Bonnie Parker denying that Clyde Barrow was a bank robber. Even major media outlets are beginning to show concern about Gore's similarity to Clinton in the veracity department.
David Limbaugh today.
I also believe the deliberate effort to paint President Bush as a deceiver will damage our nation far more than this lone sentence. Those responsible for charging Bush with deceit and those repeating it endlessly in the media have to know that the next time the administration accuses another rogue nation, based on intelligence data, of engaging in a vigorous program to produce WMDs, many may well believe the information has been hyped. Perhaps those responsible for such a diminution of the credibility of the president and our intelligence agencies will delight in this outcome -- as they are inclined to oppose military interventions in such circumstances anyway.
Yep. David Limbaugh finds it reprehensible that we liberals would criticize our President's honesty. Such criticism only makes us weaker in front of the world. We should stand behind him, just like Republicans stood behind Former President Clinton.
This is such nonsense its hard to joke about it. It makes me angry--how dumb does David Limbaugh think we all are? After he and his brother spent eight years tearing down the Clinton presidency, calling him a liar at every turn, to come around and complain that attacking this President is betraying the nation is just, well, it shows what he thinks of his fellow citizens.
And as for Democrats holding President to the Bush making us look bad, maybe you should talk to your President about not being insane.
David Limbaugh in 2000.
As to character issues, Bill Clinton has given Gore his stamp of approval. "My experience is that he is exceedingly honest and exceedingly straightforward." That's like Bonnie Parker denying that Clyde Barrow was a bank robber. Even major media outlets are beginning to show concern about Gore's similarity to Clinton in the veracity department.
David Limbaugh today.
I also believe the deliberate effort to paint President Bush as a deceiver will damage our nation far more than this lone sentence. Those responsible for charging Bush with deceit and those repeating it endlessly in the media have to know that the next time the administration accuses another rogue nation, based on intelligence data, of engaging in a vigorous program to produce WMDs, many may well believe the information has been hyped. Perhaps those responsible for such a diminution of the credibility of the president and our intelligence agencies will delight in this outcome -- as they are inclined to oppose military interventions in such circumstances anyway.
Yep. David Limbaugh finds it reprehensible that we liberals would criticize our President's honesty. Such criticism only makes us weaker in front of the world. We should stand behind him, just like Republicans stood behind Former President Clinton.
This is such nonsense its hard to joke about it. It makes me angry--how dumb does David Limbaugh think we all are? After he and his brother spent eight years tearing down the Clinton presidency, calling him a liar at every turn, to come around and complain that attacking this President is betraying the nation is just, well, it shows what he thinks of his fellow citizens.
And as for Democrats holding President to the Bush making us look bad, maybe you should talk to your President about not being insane.
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
A Look Inside
Added a new document to the list of special Stuff over there on the right (and by right I mean left of course). As always you apparently need to make this webpage full screen to make that stuff on the left look right. Anyway it's an interview with the founder of this website-- Me! Enjoy.
Added a new document to the list of special Stuff over there on the right (and by right I mean left of course). As always you apparently need to make this webpage full screen to make that stuff on the left look right. Anyway it's an interview with the founder of this website-- Me! Enjoy.
Quote from Our Commander in Chief
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.
For the moment you can access this quote at Whitehouse.gov.
Just so you know, Saddam Hussein did let inspectors in, unless you choose to believe that the President gets to define reality. In which case, you are in good company.
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.
For the moment you can access this quote at Whitehouse.gov.
Just so you know, Saddam Hussein did let inspectors in, unless you choose to believe that the President gets to define reality. In which case, you are in good company.
George Tenet
Of course you all know that Tenet, a Clinton Appointee, has taken the blame for bad information that President Bush presented in his State of the Union address. Well, Cal Thomas has chosen to damn him with faint praise. And then just to damn him.
"CIA Director George Tenet, who was named to the post by President Bill Clinton, performed an act unheard of in the previous administration by taking responsibility for an erroneous intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger. . . .
Clearly, Tenet should resign or be fired. He failed in ways that contributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and he stumbled on a matter of basic intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. He has hurt the president, and that is an unpardonable political sin for one in a high-profile position. The president says he has "full confidence" in the director. One wonders what Tenet would have to do to enjoy, say, half-confidence."
Nice.
Tenet gets the bill not only for President Bush's deception in the State of the Union, but Cal Thomas also holds him responsible for September 11th. I wonder if Thomas really thinks that he can smear Tenet with the blood of 3,000 dead Americans and not have some of the blood find its way into the Oval Office. Still let us not follow in Mr. Thomas's footsteps. I personally hold nobody responsible for September 11th except those who committed the atrocity and those who funded it.
Of course you all know that Tenet, a Clinton Appointee, has taken the blame for bad information that President Bush presented in his State of the Union address. Well, Cal Thomas has chosen to damn him with faint praise. And then just to damn him.
"CIA Director George Tenet, who was named to the post by President Bill Clinton, performed an act unheard of in the previous administration by taking responsibility for an erroneous intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger. . . .
Clearly, Tenet should resign or be fired. He failed in ways that contributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and he stumbled on a matter of basic intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. He has hurt the president, and that is an unpardonable political sin for one in a high-profile position. The president says he has "full confidence" in the director. One wonders what Tenet would have to do to enjoy, say, half-confidence."
Nice.
Tenet gets the bill not only for President Bush's deception in the State of the Union, but Cal Thomas also holds him responsible for September 11th. I wonder if Thomas really thinks that he can smear Tenet with the blood of 3,000 dead Americans and not have some of the blood find its way into the Oval Office. Still let us not follow in Mr. Thomas's footsteps. I personally hold nobody responsible for September 11th except those who committed the atrocity and those who funded it.
Monday, July 14, 2003
Time Isn't After Us
Listening to Hillary Clinton's memoirs, and thought I'd take a trip down memory lane in regards to the Clinton Impeachment. Came across an article written directly before the 1999 State of the Union. One might have expected Clinton to be in an apologetic mood--but instead he continued to articulate his policies. As Mr. Marshall puts it, "Glassman, Matthews and their indignant colleagues rightly understand that Clinton refuses to concede the legitimacy of the drive to impeach him. In fact, that's what's really behind all the calls for Clinton to come clean, to admit this or that misdeed, to show that he "gets it," that he takes responsibility and so forth. For most Americans, Clinton has apologized enough -- perhaps too much. (If there's one thing Clinton has done this year that really has transgressed the bounds of good taste it's his repeated, maudlin apologies. If he keeps it up, it may rise to the level of an impeachable offense.)
But apologizing for his personal misdeeds will never satisfy his critics. And, truth be told, neither will any apologies for misleading the public, or lying, or anything else. What Clinton's critics want aren't apologies, but vindication. They want the president to apologize in a particular way, and carry himself in a particular manner, so that he retroactively validates the idiot jihad that Kenneth Starr, the right wing and many in the press corps have been waging against him and his administration for at least four years. What drives the critics to distraction is that Clinton has steadfastly refused to do that; and the public has, in general, supported him in his refusal."
Interesting. Anyway hope you are all enjoying whatever day you happent to find yourself in.
Listening to Hillary Clinton's memoirs, and thought I'd take a trip down memory lane in regards to the Clinton Impeachment. Came across an article written directly before the 1999 State of the Union. One might have expected Clinton to be in an apologetic mood--but instead he continued to articulate his policies. As Mr. Marshall puts it, "Glassman, Matthews and their indignant colleagues rightly understand that Clinton refuses to concede the legitimacy of the drive to impeach him. In fact, that's what's really behind all the calls for Clinton to come clean, to admit this or that misdeed, to show that he "gets it," that he takes responsibility and so forth. For most Americans, Clinton has apologized enough -- perhaps too much. (If there's one thing Clinton has done this year that really has transgressed the bounds of good taste it's his repeated, maudlin apologies. If he keeps it up, it may rise to the level of an impeachable offense.)
But apologizing for his personal misdeeds will never satisfy his critics. And, truth be told, neither will any apologies for misleading the public, or lying, or anything else. What Clinton's critics want aren't apologies, but vindication. They want the president to apologize in a particular way, and carry himself in a particular manner, so that he retroactively validates the idiot jihad that Kenneth Starr, the right wing and many in the press corps have been waging against him and his administration for at least four years. What drives the critics to distraction is that Clinton has steadfastly refused to do that; and the public has, in general, supported him in his refusal."
Interesting. Anyway hope you are all enjoying whatever day you happent to find yourself in.
Time Isn't Holding Us
Before we begin, I'd just like to point out that the Republicans want you to know that the American People don't care about this story. They don't care because they love and trust their President, President George W. Bush. Republicans would like to repeat that the American People don't care at every opportunity, so don't be surprised if it crops back up.
Paul Greenberg has discovered another similarity between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. In 1939, Albert Einstein convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to build the nuclear Bomb, based on fears that Germany might get there first. After the war, it happened that Hitler was not even close.
Let's count all the differences between World War II and the present.
1). President Roosevelt, sensitive to the Isolationist Republicans, did not actually begin his project until 1941, and the project was worked on during the war between the United States and Germany.
2). Roosevelt did not in fact order American troops in to invade and occupy Germany; he started a weapon development program. In fact he didn't declare war on Germany until after Pearl Harbor.
3). Roosevelt did not sell World War II to the American people on the basis of imminent Atomic Bomb attacks.
4). The few International Organizations had completely failed to contain Hitler; contrariwise, it's becoming more and more evident that since his expulsion from Kuwait, Saddam has been contained.
5). While the Germans were not, in fact, close to developing the atom bomb, there existed abundant evidence that they were looking for it.
So you see, perhaps the two situations aren't exactly the same. But as Mr. Greenberg would be the first to point out, the American people don't care about possible deception by the President. They believe and trust in their President.
Before we begin, I'd just like to point out that the Republicans want you to know that the American People don't care about this story. They don't care because they love and trust their President, President George W. Bush. Republicans would like to repeat that the American People don't care at every opportunity, so don't be surprised if it crops back up.
Paul Greenberg has discovered another similarity between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. In 1939, Albert Einstein convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to build the nuclear Bomb, based on fears that Germany might get there first. After the war, it happened that Hitler was not even close.
Let's count all the differences between World War II and the present.
1). President Roosevelt, sensitive to the Isolationist Republicans, did not actually begin his project until 1941, and the project was worked on during the war between the United States and Germany.
2). Roosevelt did not in fact order American troops in to invade and occupy Germany; he started a weapon development program. In fact he didn't declare war on Germany until after Pearl Harbor.
3). Roosevelt did not sell World War II to the American people on the basis of imminent Atomic Bomb attacks.
4). The few International Organizations had completely failed to contain Hitler; contrariwise, it's becoming more and more evident that since his expulsion from Kuwait, Saddam has been contained.
5). While the Germans were not, in fact, close to developing the atom bomb, there existed abundant evidence that they were looking for it.
So you see, perhaps the two situations aren't exactly the same. But as Mr. Greenberg would be the first to point out, the American people don't care about possible deception by the President. They believe and trust in their President.
Sunday, July 13, 2003
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Your Weekly Rush
Well, it turns out that Dean is a loser, according to Rush. He read a letter from a friend, who said, "I had a thought while you were talking about how the press was playing up Howard Dean's fund-raising "success." Everybody is saying he has raised $7 million. Whoop-de-do! Seven million dollars is the equivalent of convincing only 3,500 people to give you $2,000 [the maximum individual donation].
Now, if you can't do better than that in a country of about 300 million people, you certainly don't have very many people who care about your being president. Dean should have had that amount from a bunch of Vermontomaniacs before he even started."
Of course, Rush would have a hard time understanding the significance of Dean's fundraising success. These are donations, collections from individual Americans, bypassing both the Party Machines and the Corporate Trough. So they show a level of support that is greater than it appears.
I also don't think that most of the donators to Dean have given $2,000 as this letter suggests. I mean, sure if you divide $7 million by $2,000 it looks like pretty weak support. But if you divide it by $200? $20? What is the average size of a donation over at Dean Headquarters?
Anyway the election hasn't even started yet--we'll see what happens when it does.
Well, it turns out that Dean is a loser, according to Rush. He read a letter from a friend, who said, "I had a thought while you were talking about how the press was playing up Howard Dean's fund-raising "success." Everybody is saying he has raised $7 million. Whoop-de-do! Seven million dollars is the equivalent of convincing only 3,500 people to give you $2,000 [the maximum individual donation].
Now, if you can't do better than that in a country of about 300 million people, you certainly don't have very many people who care about your being president. Dean should have had that amount from a bunch of Vermontomaniacs before he even started."
Of course, Rush would have a hard time understanding the significance of Dean's fundraising success. These are donations, collections from individual Americans, bypassing both the Party Machines and the Corporate Trough. So they show a level of support that is greater than it appears.
I also don't think that most of the donators to Dean have given $2,000 as this letter suggests. I mean, sure if you divide $7 million by $2,000 it looks like pretty weak support. But if you divide it by $200? $20? What is the average size of a donation over at Dean Headquarters?
Anyway the election hasn't even started yet--we'll see what happens when it does.
Friday, July 11, 2003
I Get Mail!
Just got this in my mail box just now.
AOQUILI
Premium Seaweed Soap
Wash your way to a great looking body.
Hmmmm. I think maybe I have enough Seaweed in my life.
Also adding a new link: to Bush Lies, another Blog. It looks very well done, although I suppose it's not hard to sense a point of view.
Just got this in my mail box just now.
AOQUILI
Premium Seaweed Soap
Wash your way to a great looking body.
Hmmmm. I think maybe I have enough Seaweed in my life.
Also adding a new link: to Bush Lies, another Blog. It looks very well done, although I suppose it's not hard to sense a point of view.
The Bar Changes--Again!
I'm talking about the bar at which we decide to invade or not to invade a country. A couple of months ago it was widely admitted that the celebration of the Iraqis in their liberation was justification for the invasion, even if we never found those Weapons of Mass Destruction. And there was talk about the new mission of America to liberate oppressed people everywhere.
Well of course at the time we all knew that was largely nonsense, but now the proof is in the pudding. And America has just been handed a big steaming bowl of pudding named Liberia. As one might expect, Conservatives are backpeddling on their conception of American duty to rescue the poor benighted peoples of the world.
For example, Mona Charen commented, "But when Americans are asked to risk their lives, it should only be to protect the interests of the United States. Those interests were very much at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Liberia, they are not. John Quincy Adams said 180 years ago that America was "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Perhaps someday the world will maintain an all-volunteer force of liberators to save places like Liberia and Burma and Sierra Leone. But that day is not at hand, and the United States cannot range abroad "in search of monsters to destroy."
This is a minor problem for President Bush after all. If it turns out it wasn't about Weapons of Mass Distruction and it wasn't about liberating oppressed people and fighting evil regimes, well, what was it about? Those people at the anti-rallies seem to have some theories.
I'm talking about the bar at which we decide to invade or not to invade a country. A couple of months ago it was widely admitted that the celebration of the Iraqis in their liberation was justification for the invasion, even if we never found those Weapons of Mass Destruction. And there was talk about the new mission of America to liberate oppressed people everywhere.
Well of course at the time we all knew that was largely nonsense, but now the proof is in the pudding. And America has just been handed a big steaming bowl of pudding named Liberia. As one might expect, Conservatives are backpeddling on their conception of American duty to rescue the poor benighted peoples of the world.
For example, Mona Charen commented, "But when Americans are asked to risk their lives, it should only be to protect the interests of the United States. Those interests were very much at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Liberia, they are not. John Quincy Adams said 180 years ago that America was "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Perhaps someday the world will maintain an all-volunteer force of liberators to save places like Liberia and Burma and Sierra Leone. But that day is not at hand, and the United States cannot range abroad "in search of monsters to destroy."
This is a minor problem for President Bush after all. If it turns out it wasn't about Weapons of Mass Distruction and it wasn't about liberating oppressed people and fighting evil regimes, well, what was it about? Those people at the anti-rallies seem to have some theories.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
This Just In: Politicians take Corrupt Money
OK, maybe this isn't the biggest news ever, but here's the story anyway. The story is by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman who are careful to ensure that we blame both mainstream parties. Given that they are speaking to a left wing audience, one has to question the wisdom of attacking the Democratic party at this time.
It's also interesting to note that they focus on corporate criminals--apparently any corporation caught in any wrongdoing should be unable to donate money to a major political party. Any statute of limitations on that?
OK, maybe this isn't the biggest news ever, but here's the story anyway. The story is by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman who are careful to ensure that we blame both mainstream parties. Given that they are speaking to a left wing audience, one has to question the wisdom of attacking the Democratic party at this time.
It's also interesting to note that they focus on corporate criminals--apparently any corporation caught in any wrongdoing should be unable to donate money to a major political party. Any statute of limitations on that?
Slavery
As many of you know, President Bush gave a recent speech on Slavery at Goree Island in Senegal. This speech is being somewhat over analyzed by some, but it does have some good points.
"In the year of America's founding, a man named Olaudah Equiano was taken in bondage to the New World. He witnessed all of slavery's cruelties, the ruthless and the petty. He also saw beyond the slave-holding piety of the time to a higher standard of humanity. "God tells us," wrote Equiano, "that the oppressor and the oppressed are both in His hands. And if these are not the poor, the broken-hearted, the blind, the captive, the bruised which our Savior speaks of, who are they?"
Down through the years, African Americans have upheld the ideals of America by exposing laws and habits contradicting those ideals. The rights of African Americans were not the gift of those in authority. Those rights were granted by the Author of Life, and regained by the persistence and courage of African Americans, themselves."
Interesting words. For those who want to read the speech, here is the link.
As many of you know, President Bush gave a recent speech on Slavery at Goree Island in Senegal. This speech is being somewhat over analyzed by some, but it does have some good points.
"In the year of America's founding, a man named Olaudah Equiano was taken in bondage to the New World. He witnessed all of slavery's cruelties, the ruthless and the petty. He also saw beyond the slave-holding piety of the time to a higher standard of humanity. "God tells us," wrote Equiano, "that the oppressor and the oppressed are both in His hands. And if these are not the poor, the broken-hearted, the blind, the captive, the bruised which our Savior speaks of, who are they?"
Down through the years, African Americans have upheld the ideals of America by exposing laws and habits contradicting those ideals. The rights of African Americans were not the gift of those in authority. Those rights were granted by the Author of Life, and regained by the persistence and courage of African Americans, themselves."
Interesting words. For those who want to read the speech, here is the link.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Something to Consider
From the New York Times.
"Two years ago the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, which I headed, made a stunning finding: If rich countries contributed a total of around $25 billion per year, the increased investments in disease prevention and treatment could prevent around eight million deaths each year in poor countries throughout the world. The United States' share would be around $8 billion, given the size of its economy in relation to other donors. Most of this money is needed in Africa, where the countries are among the poorest and the disease burden is the highest.
Projected spending by the United States on global health in the fiscal year 2004, even with the president's new AIDS initiative, is roughly $2 billion, or one-fourth of what's needed from us. More money could, among other things, keep AIDS patients alive through antiretroviral therapy, help mothers survive the complications of childbirth and prevent hundreds of thousands of children from dying from malaria and vaccine-preventable diseases.
Here's where America's richest 400 could change history. In 1995, the top 400 income earners paid almost 30 percent of their incomes in taxes. After the Bush tax cuts and other factors, the proportion will be less than 18 percent. Suppose the super-rich applied their tax savings toward Africa's survival. That extra 10 percent of income — which translates to nearly $7 billion based on the incomes in 2000 — would provide a huge chunk of the $8 billion that the United States should contribute to the global health care effort. This money could readily and reliably be given to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which could then put it to spectacular use in saving those eight million lives each year. For individuals who already have all the earthly possessions that can possibly be amassed, could there be a better way to give meaning to vast wealth?"
I don't know how many of the richest 400 people in the United States read this website (my estimate - 0) but if there are any, then perhaps this is advice you might take to heart. Also please send me money to make a series of documentaries, including "American Bagboy."
From the New York Times.
"Two years ago the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, which I headed, made a stunning finding: If rich countries contributed a total of around $25 billion per year, the increased investments in disease prevention and treatment could prevent around eight million deaths each year in poor countries throughout the world. The United States' share would be around $8 billion, given the size of its economy in relation to other donors. Most of this money is needed in Africa, where the countries are among the poorest and the disease burden is the highest.
Projected spending by the United States on global health in the fiscal year 2004, even with the president's new AIDS initiative, is roughly $2 billion, or one-fourth of what's needed from us. More money could, among other things, keep AIDS patients alive through antiretroviral therapy, help mothers survive the complications of childbirth and prevent hundreds of thousands of children from dying from malaria and vaccine-preventable diseases.
Here's where America's richest 400 could change history. In 1995, the top 400 income earners paid almost 30 percent of their incomes in taxes. After the Bush tax cuts and other factors, the proportion will be less than 18 percent. Suppose the super-rich applied their tax savings toward Africa's survival. That extra 10 percent of income — which translates to nearly $7 billion based on the incomes in 2000 — would provide a huge chunk of the $8 billion that the United States should contribute to the global health care effort. This money could readily and reliably be given to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which could then put it to spectacular use in saving those eight million lives each year. For individuals who already have all the earthly possessions that can possibly be amassed, could there be a better way to give meaning to vast wealth?"
I don't know how many of the richest 400 people in the United States read this website (my estimate - 0) but if there are any, then perhaps this is advice you might take to heart. Also please send me money to make a series of documentaries, including "American Bagboy."
Round the Horn
Well let's toss the ball to Ben Shapiro, who states in his article today, "But will the Bush administration push for war or play the waiting game?
It is not comforting to see the Bush administration relying on the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency to shut down the mullahs. These organizations didn't get the job done in Iraq or North Korea, and Iran is infinitely more dangerous than either of those countries. Playing the waiting game is not a viable option."
Wait a second . . . if Iran was infinitely more dangerous than Iraq, why didn't we handle them first? And doesn't the use of the term infinitely imply that they are infinitely dangerous? And if Iran is infinitely dangerous, well, what good will invading them do us?
Of course it's always possible that Young Mr. Shapiro is indulging in a bit of hyperbole.
At second, we have David Limbaugh, relating the events surrounding Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie. "Even before the release of the movie, scheduled for March 2004, Gibson is getting his wish. "Everyone who worked on this movie was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting to Christianity… (and) people being healed of diseases."
There are funny things I could say here, but i'm not going to mock another person's faith. Suffice it to say that I suspect Mr. Gibson's difficulty in getting his picture released has more to do with his decision to release it in Aramaic without subtitles, than any anti-Christian prejudice.
Rounding the horn, at third we have Brent Bozell, commenting on Michael Savage's firing. According to him it's nice that we are willing to slap a conservative for wishing the death of a caller on the air, but liberals wish death to conservatives all the time (or, at least twice), and nothing happens to them.
I will note that Julianna MalVaux's comments on Clarence Thomas were pretty over the top, and reprehensible, but I don't think they go to the same place that Mr. Savage's comments did. Mr. Savage was attacking a member of his audience, not a public figure.
And at home plate we have, well, me. I always play catcher. Doesn't involve moving around a whole lot and I can heckle the batter. Stupid batter. You couldn't hit the ball if you had an automated ball hitting machine.
Sorry, got carried away.
Well let's toss the ball to Ben Shapiro, who states in his article today, "But will the Bush administration push for war or play the waiting game?
It is not comforting to see the Bush administration relying on the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency to shut down the mullahs. These organizations didn't get the job done in Iraq or North Korea, and Iran is infinitely more dangerous than either of those countries. Playing the waiting game is not a viable option."
Wait a second . . . if Iran was infinitely more dangerous than Iraq, why didn't we handle them first? And doesn't the use of the term infinitely imply that they are infinitely dangerous? And if Iran is infinitely dangerous, well, what good will invading them do us?
Of course it's always possible that Young Mr. Shapiro is indulging in a bit of hyperbole.
At second, we have David Limbaugh, relating the events surrounding Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie. "Even before the release of the movie, scheduled for March 2004, Gibson is getting his wish. "Everyone who worked on this movie was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting to Christianity… (and) people being healed of diseases."
There are funny things I could say here, but i'm not going to mock another person's faith. Suffice it to say that I suspect Mr. Gibson's difficulty in getting his picture released has more to do with his decision to release it in Aramaic without subtitles, than any anti-Christian prejudice.
Rounding the horn, at third we have Brent Bozell, commenting on Michael Savage's firing. According to him it's nice that we are willing to slap a conservative for wishing the death of a caller on the air, but liberals wish death to conservatives all the time (or, at least twice), and nothing happens to them.
I will note that Julianna MalVaux's comments on Clarence Thomas were pretty over the top, and reprehensible, but I don't think they go to the same place that Mr. Savage's comments did. Mr. Savage was attacking a member of his audience, not a public figure.
And at home plate we have, well, me. I always play catcher. Doesn't involve moving around a whole lot and I can heckle the batter. Stupid batter. You couldn't hit the ball if you had an automated ball hitting machine.
Sorry, got carried away.
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Bush and Blair
Nicholas D. Kristof, over at the New York Times, has an interesting comparison of President Bush and Prime Minister (for the moment at least) Blair.
"Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair took very similar positions over the last couple of years, and both exaggerated the Iraqi threat; and yet Mr. Blair is perhaps the leading statesman in the world today and Mr. Bush is regarded by much of the globe as a dimwitted cowboy. Or, as an Oxford don put it to me after perhaps too much sherry, "a buffoon."
The main reason is that the White House overdosed on moral clarity.
Mr. Bush always exudes a sense that the issues are crystal clear and that anyone who disagrees with him is playing political games. This fervor worked fine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and in proper doses, moral clarity is admirable. But too much hobbles policy-making and insults our intelligence.
Mr. Blair stands with Mr. Bush on Iraq but acknowledges the complexity of the issues."
Mr. Kristof is correct, but too optimistic in my mind in his prognosis. He seems to believe that President Bush has it within him to acknowledge the complexity of the modern world, when most trends within his political philosophy are heading in precisely the opposite direction. Conservatism is more and more a black and white, us vs. them philosophy, and I don't expect President Bush to transcend that.
Nicholas D. Kristof, over at the New York Times, has an interesting comparison of President Bush and Prime Minister (for the moment at least) Blair.
"Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair took very similar positions over the last couple of years, and both exaggerated the Iraqi threat; and yet Mr. Blair is perhaps the leading statesman in the world today and Mr. Bush is regarded by much of the globe as a dimwitted cowboy. Or, as an Oxford don put it to me after perhaps too much sherry, "a buffoon."
The main reason is that the White House overdosed on moral clarity.
Mr. Bush always exudes a sense that the issues are crystal clear and that anyone who disagrees with him is playing political games. This fervor worked fine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and in proper doses, moral clarity is admirable. But too much hobbles policy-making and insults our intelligence.
Mr. Blair stands with Mr. Bush on Iraq but acknowledges the complexity of the issues."
Mr. Kristof is correct, but too optimistic in my mind in his prognosis. He seems to believe that President Bush has it within him to acknowledge the complexity of the modern world, when most trends within his political philosophy are heading in precisely the opposite direction. Conservatism is more and more a black and white, us vs. them philosophy, and I don't expect President Bush to transcend that.
New Scheme Proposed
I'm referring, of course, to Debra Saunder's suggestion that the United States consider something like a Question Time utilized in the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Blair has to face Parliment and answer for his actions.
She states, "A U.S. president wouldn't have to adhere to the British model, where the prime minister confronts members of Parliament most Wednesdays when the House of Commons is in session. Neither Bush -- nor any other American president -- would have the time to prep for a 30-minute Q&A on a near-weekly basis. But a U.S. president could go before Congress from time to time to answer questions when he or she is trying to push through dicey legislation. Bush, for example, could have discussed the prescription drug plan or taken on the mealy-mouthed Democrats about what should happen in Iraq.
Americans, some say, may not react well to the rowdiness of a Question Time. "There's no decorum" in the U.K.'s Question Time, noted Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. It would be "offensive" to see members of Congress jeer at an American president as members of Parliament jeer at Blair."
Well, that's one reason why President Bush would never do it. This is not called an imperial presidency for naught. And as for President Bush answering questions about his policies, we'll see exactly how he (and Karl Rove) feels about that in the debates next year.
I'm referring, of course, to Debra Saunder's suggestion that the United States consider something like a Question Time utilized in the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Blair has to face Parliment and answer for his actions.
She states, "A U.S. president wouldn't have to adhere to the British model, where the prime minister confronts members of Parliament most Wednesdays when the House of Commons is in session. Neither Bush -- nor any other American president -- would have the time to prep for a 30-minute Q&A on a near-weekly basis. But a U.S. president could go before Congress from time to time to answer questions when he or she is trying to push through dicey legislation. Bush, for example, could have discussed the prescription drug plan or taken on the mealy-mouthed Democrats about what should happen in Iraq.
Americans, some say, may not react well to the rowdiness of a Question Time. "There's no decorum" in the U.K.'s Question Time, noted Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. It would be "offensive" to see members of Congress jeer at an American president as members of Parliament jeer at Blair."
Well, that's one reason why President Bush would never do it. This is not called an imperial presidency for naught. And as for President Bush answering questions about his policies, we'll see exactly how he (and Karl Rove) feels about that in the debates next year.
Monday, July 07, 2003
This Current Scheme Sucks
I'm talking of course about this awful color scheme. It will be changed and changed soon.
In other news, you might check out William Saffires mordently funny Nixonian analysis of Bush. I don't agree with Nixon's observations, but it's still pretty funny--particularly Nixon's take on the modern candidates.
"Kerry can't smile and Lieberman smiles too much. Gephardt has no eyebrows and Edwards comes across as tricky. Dean would be a godsend for us, blowing his cool in debate. Joe Biden would give Bush the most trouble, but he's waiting too long."
I'm talking of course about this awful color scheme. It will be changed and changed soon.
In other news, you might check out William Saffires mordently funny Nixonian analysis of Bush. I don't agree with Nixon's observations, but it's still pretty funny--particularly Nixon's take on the modern candidates.
"Kerry can't smile and Lieberman smiles too much. Gephardt has no eyebrows and Edwards comes across as tricky. Dean would be a godsend for us, blowing his cool in debate. Joe Biden would give Bush the most trouble, but he's waiting too long."
Perspective
As you probably know or may not, Ann Coulter has written a new book, entitled "Treason." There's a good review of it over at Opinion Journal Online. One interesting quote; "Ms. Coulter's work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy's political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator's remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who executed 86 American POWs in the Ardennes campaign in December 1944; otherwise known as the Malmedy Massacre. In his impassioned efforts on behalf of the accused--one never to be repeated in his investigative career--the senator charged that the U.S. Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men."
Salon also has a good review of it by Joe Conason, but you have to click through an ad to get a day pass and read it--I think it's worth it, but it's up to you.
Conason states, "It turns out that all her raking over the ancient history of communism and anti-communism serves only as preparation to construct false contemporary analogies. Just as anyone who disagreed with McCarthy was a traitor, so was anyone who opposed the war in Vietnam or dissented from Reagan's war in Nicaragua or doubted Bush's war in Iraq.
In Coulter's beloved country there is no place for debate, only conformity. And in "Treason" there is no space for the complicated, mundane reality of American political life. Conservatives good, liberals bad, is her shrieking mantra."
The answer isn't to shriek "Liberals Good, Conservatives Bad," it's calm reasoned debate. Or at least that's my opinion.
As you probably know or may not, Ann Coulter has written a new book, entitled "Treason." There's a good review of it over at Opinion Journal Online. One interesting quote; "Ms. Coulter's work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy's political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator's remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who executed 86 American POWs in the Ardennes campaign in December 1944; otherwise known as the Malmedy Massacre. In his impassioned efforts on behalf of the accused--one never to be repeated in his investigative career--the senator charged that the U.S. Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men."
Salon also has a good review of it by Joe Conason, but you have to click through an ad to get a day pass and read it--I think it's worth it, but it's up to you.
Conason states, "It turns out that all her raking over the ancient history of communism and anti-communism serves only as preparation to construct false contemporary analogies. Just as anyone who disagreed with McCarthy was a traitor, so was anyone who opposed the war in Vietnam or dissented from Reagan's war in Nicaragua or doubted Bush's war in Iraq.
In Coulter's beloved country there is no place for debate, only conformity. And in "Treason" there is no space for the complicated, mundane reality of American political life. Conservatives good, liberals bad, is her shrieking mantra."
The answer isn't to shriek "Liberals Good, Conservatives Bad," it's calm reasoned debate. Or at least that's my opinion.
The Whole and the Sum of It's Parts
Emmett Tyrell, writing at Townhall today, traces the history of Anti Americanism to the Count de Buffon (whom he assumes to be French). Buffon apparently felt that the humidity of the States made it impossible for people to maintain the same moral and intellectual vigor as they had in Europe. Chaulk one up for Mr. Tyrell, he is able to disprove this particular argument.
He then states, "European intellectuals (and, for that matter, many of their American equivalents) are easily enraptured by academic daydreams about reality." The main thesis of his article seems to be that the normal bull fight loving citizens of Europe (well Spain) still love us--it's only the Intellectuals and Pseudo-Intellectuals that have a problem with the US. Well if that's true than Prime Minister Blair must have nothing to worry about.
Emmett Tyrell, writing at Townhall today, traces the history of Anti Americanism to the Count de Buffon (whom he assumes to be French). Buffon apparently felt that the humidity of the States made it impossible for people to maintain the same moral and intellectual vigor as they had in Europe. Chaulk one up for Mr. Tyrell, he is able to disprove this particular argument.
He then states, "European intellectuals (and, for that matter, many of their American equivalents) are easily enraptured by academic daydreams about reality." The main thesis of his article seems to be that the normal bull fight loving citizens of Europe (well Spain) still love us--it's only the Intellectuals and Pseudo-Intellectuals that have a problem with the US. Well if that's true than Prime Minister Blair must have nothing to worry about.
Sunday, July 06, 2003
Saturday, July 05, 2003
New Addition to Classic Commentary
Decided my Empty Wallet Economics was getting kind of lonely, so decided to add my Parable of the Ten Guys Who Went to Dinner.
More to come I hope--it's in text format, for complication of use.
Decided my Empty Wallet Economics was getting kind of lonely, so decided to add my Parable of the Ten Guys Who Went to Dinner.
More to come I hope--it's in text format, for complication of use.
Friday, July 04, 2003
The Strength of the Republicans
The great strength of Conservative Republicans is that they hold the White House, they hold the Senate, and they hold the House of Representatives. They have greater power to get their message out than ever before, including Fox News, the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh and so on and so forth. They talk happily about this being the twilight of American Liberalism and some portray the 2004 election as the end of the Democratic Party.
And yet, they still manage to with a straight face, describe themselves as a persecuted Minority. I'll bet there are any number of racial minorities who wish we would persecute them the way that we persecute Conservatives.
The great strength of Conservative Republicans is that they hold the White House, they hold the Senate, and they hold the House of Representatives. They have greater power to get their message out than ever before, including Fox News, the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh and so on and so forth. They talk happily about this being the twilight of American Liberalism and some portray the 2004 election as the end of the Democratic Party.
And yet, they still manage to with a straight face, describe themselves as a persecuted Minority. I'll bet there are any number of racial minorities who wish we would persecute them the way that we persecute Conservatives.
Words to Consider
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Happy 4th of July.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Happy 4th of July.
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Your Weekly Rush : More Anger Ahead
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh was going off on the redefinition of patriotism by Liberals. You see, according to Rush, some Liberals are upset at being called unpatriotic. Said liberals have decided to redefine liberalism as attacking the President and tearing down the Country.
Well, I'm going to stop pretending not to understand what this is all about. It's true; Rush and other Republicans have attacked the patriotism of Liberals on a regular basis, and if you don't believe me, just look at the story right below this one.
What's new is this bizarre idea that Conservatives have that seems to indicate that attacking the President is the same as attacking the country. You'll notice them not ascribing to this theory during the Clinton Presidency. During that time, they apparently felt that attacking the President was fine. It's attacking a Conservative president that is attacking the country, according to Rush.
Just another example of Republicans stacking the deck against Democrats.
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh was going off on the redefinition of patriotism by Liberals. You see, according to Rush, some Liberals are upset at being called unpatriotic. Said liberals have decided to redefine liberalism as attacking the President and tearing down the Country.
Well, I'm going to stop pretending not to understand what this is all about. It's true; Rush and other Republicans have attacked the patriotism of Liberals on a regular basis, and if you don't believe me, just look at the story right below this one.
What's new is this bizarre idea that Conservatives have that seems to indicate that attacking the President is the same as attacking the country. You'll notice them not ascribing to this theory during the Clinton Presidency. During that time, they apparently felt that attacking the President was fine. It's attacking a Conservative president that is attacking the country, according to Rush.
Just another example of Republicans stacking the deck against Democrats.
I'm Angry
Ann Coulter has written a new book entitled Treason with a long subtitle that I'm not all the interested in looking up. Basically her point is that Liberals are guilty of being commie lovers and of hating America, and then when people call them Commie-lovers and America-haters they smear them.
In her article today, she continues along the same vein, saying, "The left's shameful refusal to admit collaboration with one of the great totalitarian regimes of the last century – like their defense of Bill Clinton – quickly transformed into a vicious slander campaign against those who bore witness against them."
Heres a simple logic preposition that Ms. Coulter seems to want us all to accept.
Statement 1: Some Liberals were also Communists and/or Spys.
Statement 2: Some Liberals denied being Communists.
Statement 3: All Liberals are guilty of a shameful refusal to admit collaboration with the Soviet Union.
Wisely she chooses not to focus on their culpability of liberals, but instead on how innocent J. Edgar Hoover and others are maligned by the left. By making it about individuals she can avoid talking about Hoover and Joseph McCarthy's effect on America.
She pulls out the old argument about how FDR shuffled Japanese Americans into camps while being praised as a genius. Make no mistake, it was a disgraceful moment in American history and in FDR's generally noble life.
But of couse she makes no mention of his declining health, or the fact that he privately didn't like doing it. He was pressured into doing it by the Governors of California, Oregon and Washington. She also ignores that many liberals of the time criticized. Indeed her analysis seems to be FDR did it, he's a liberal, Liberals are guilty. I'm sorry, Ms Coulter but perhaps a more indepth analysis might be required.
Ann Coulter has written a new book entitled Treason with a long subtitle that I'm not all the interested in looking up. Basically her point is that Liberals are guilty of being commie lovers and of hating America, and then when people call them Commie-lovers and America-haters they smear them.
In her article today, she continues along the same vein, saying, "The left's shameful refusal to admit collaboration with one of the great totalitarian regimes of the last century – like their defense of Bill Clinton – quickly transformed into a vicious slander campaign against those who bore witness against them."
Heres a simple logic preposition that Ms. Coulter seems to want us all to accept.
Statement 1: Some Liberals were also Communists and/or Spys.
Statement 2: Some Liberals denied being Communists.
Statement 3: All Liberals are guilty of a shameful refusal to admit collaboration with the Soviet Union.
Wisely she chooses not to focus on their culpability of liberals, but instead on how innocent J. Edgar Hoover and others are maligned by the left. By making it about individuals she can avoid talking about Hoover and Joseph McCarthy's effect on America.
She pulls out the old argument about how FDR shuffled Japanese Americans into camps while being praised as a genius. Make no mistake, it was a disgraceful moment in American history and in FDR's generally noble life.
But of couse she makes no mention of his declining health, or the fact that he privately didn't like doing it. He was pressured into doing it by the Governors of California, Oregon and Washington. She also ignores that many liberals of the time criticized. Indeed her analysis seems to be FDR did it, he's a liberal, Liberals are guilty. I'm sorry, Ms Coulter but perhaps a more indepth analysis might be required.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
President Bush Speaks
Speaking on the current situation in Iraq. "There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is 'bring them on'. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
Nice to know that President Bush is willing to stand up to Iraqi terrorists from the safety of the White House. His bravado, I mean bravery, is an inspiration to us all.
Speaking on the current situation in Iraq. "There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is 'bring them on'. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
Nice to know that President Bush is willing to stand up to Iraqi terrorists from the safety of the White House. His bravado, I mean bravery, is an inspiration to us all.
Helpful Advice from David Limbaugh
Yes, David Limbaugh, related to a famous radio personality whose name escapes me at the moment, has some helpful advice for the Democratic base. We need to take prozac. You see we are too angry and are therefore making up charges about President Bush. Like that silly charge that he claimed we would find Weapons of Mass distruction in Iraq, and now we haven't found them. We should remember that ". . . People know Bush is not a liar and has been an exemplary commander-in-chief." If we calm down we can reject a liberal candidate in favor of a more viable centrist candidate.
And on the upside, if we elect a centrist candidate, that candidate will be much less likely to challenge President Bush in debates or on the campaign trail. The candidate can run on a sort of "Hooray for President Bush (but vote for me for President)" slogan. And then even if our Democratic candidate wins, he'll be a centrist. Of course Republicans will paint him as a little more liberal than Stalin, but they won't mind all that much. So everybody wins (except for those few cursed souls who fail to take their prozac and hold out for actual liberal ideas.
Now If you'll excuse me . . . darn, can't get this stupid lid off . . . Stupid prozac . . .
Yes, David Limbaugh, related to a famous radio personality whose name escapes me at the moment, has some helpful advice for the Democratic base. We need to take prozac. You see we are too angry and are therefore making up charges about President Bush. Like that silly charge that he claimed we would find Weapons of Mass distruction in Iraq, and now we haven't found them. We should remember that ". . . People know Bush is not a liar and has been an exemplary commander-in-chief." If we calm down we can reject a liberal candidate in favor of a more viable centrist candidate.
And on the upside, if we elect a centrist candidate, that candidate will be much less likely to challenge President Bush in debates or on the campaign trail. The candidate can run on a sort of "Hooray for President Bush (but vote for me for President)" slogan. And then even if our Democratic candidate wins, he'll be a centrist. Of course Republicans will paint him as a little more liberal than Stalin, but they won't mind all that much. So everybody wins (except for those few cursed souls who fail to take their prozac and hold out for actual liberal ideas.
Now If you'll excuse me . . . darn, can't get this stupid lid off . . . Stupid prozac . . .
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Your Weekly Rush
Was listening to Rush as I drove around town today and heard him say something interesting. He said, "If I had a million dollars, no if I had a dollar for everybody who's said words to the effect that if you told me we'd have a Republican Senate, a Republican House of Representatives, a Republican White House and a Republican Supreme Court and we'd be seeing the kind of legislation and actions that we are seeing . . . " Rush went on to confirm that these were in some cases big donars to the Republican cause.
Yep--you Republicans really aren't getting a lot of bang for your buck are you? You should all stop giving your money to President Bush and start giving it to me. I won't advance your agenda either, but at least I'm not pretending to.
Was listening to Rush as I drove around town today and heard him say something interesting. He said, "If I had a million dollars, no if I had a dollar for everybody who's said words to the effect that if you told me we'd have a Republican Senate, a Republican House of Representatives, a Republican White House and a Republican Supreme Court and we'd be seeing the kind of legislation and actions that we are seeing . . . " Rush went on to confirm that these were in some cases big donars to the Republican cause.
Yep--you Republicans really aren't getting a lot of bang for your buck are you? You should all stop giving your money to President Bush and start giving it to me. I won't advance your agenda either, but at least I'm not pretending to.
An Interesting Point
Joe Conason, who I became aware of as a Clinton apoligist, has been writing a daily blog for Salon. It's quite good, truth to tell, although he doesn't use fancy colors like I do. At any rate, today he comments on Grover Norquist who is finding himself in the news more and more, and must find the sensation unpleasent. Grover Norquist, you will remember, is the one who is planning for decades of conservative dominence, based on the Republican ability to Gerrymander.
Well, what does this mean for Democrats? Well Conason has a radical solution: "Differences among the Democratic factions can scarcely be minimized in the aftermath of the divisive (and ongoing) debate over the war in Iraq. But if lockstep unity is possible in the Republican Party -- whose factions encompass anarcho-libertarians like Norquist and religious fundamentalists like his comrade Ralph Reed -- then the various kinds of Democrats might at least consider learning to talk to each other."
Talking to each other. Hmmmm. Respecting each other despite our differences? That's so crazy it just might work.
Joe Conason, who I became aware of as a Clinton apoligist, has been writing a daily blog for Salon. It's quite good, truth to tell, although he doesn't use fancy colors like I do. At any rate, today he comments on Grover Norquist who is finding himself in the news more and more, and must find the sensation unpleasent. Grover Norquist, you will remember, is the one who is planning for decades of conservative dominence, based on the Republican ability to Gerrymander.
Well, what does this mean for Democrats? Well Conason has a radical solution: "Differences among the Democratic factions can scarcely be minimized in the aftermath of the divisive (and ongoing) debate over the war in Iraq. But if lockstep unity is possible in the Republican Party -- whose factions encompass anarcho-libertarians like Norquist and religious fundamentalists like his comrade Ralph Reed -- then the various kinds of Democrats might at least consider learning to talk to each other."
Talking to each other. Hmmmm. Respecting each other despite our differences? That's so crazy it just might work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)