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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

New Color Scheme

Working on a new color scheme because the previous one was awful--but still haven't figured out how to put in a logo with the new set up. Still this is easier on the eyes. Enjoy!

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

New Look

Still working with it--can't get my table to come out the way way I like it--still the new logo is ok.