More on Rush

I don't know if this is a snafu or if this is a change, but, at least for right now, the free side of Rush Limbaugh's website no longer exists. Apparently you have to pay to access anything on his site. Which is his right.

Interesting timing though.

No need for further suspense

Rush has admitted to taking painkillers. So there it is.

I'm not happy about Rush's failings, and while I'm sure I will have further commentary on this issue, that's all I have for now.

Another Great Column by Paul Krugman

Check this out!

"What's really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that "he looks French."

Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals."

Right on the money, Mr. Krugman. There is nothing funny than listening to Rush Limbuagh fume about how the left hates President Bush. Come on! You Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years, and said much, MUCH worse things about him. You accused him of murder, of rape, of espionage for a foreign power. And now you are upset because some are questioning President Bush's economic plan or his decision to invade Iraq? Come off it.

Anyway read the rest of Krugman's column; it's all good.

Edited because I misspelled Rush Limbaugh's name, and with suggestions from our Military Correspondent, Justin.

Arnolds Greatest Movie Line?

Jonah Goldberg weighs in on the California Recall situation, and opines on Governor Schwarzenegger's greatest line. "Considering the array of forces against him, particularly in liberal feminist circles, he actually managed to make his greatest movie line a reality. In "Conan the Barbarian," he was asked, "What is best in life?" and he responded, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"

Well, by that standard, Schwarzenegger's certainly enjoying the good life. But you can listen to lamentations only so long before you've got to get to work. And he's got a lot of work to do."

I don't know if that's really his greatest line. What about "I never realized how lonely I was." from Junior? Or "I knew you wouldn't let me down." from Total Recall? Or "I don't know what the problem is, but I'm sure it can be solved without resorting to violence." from Twins? Or "I want my life back." from the Sixth Day?

At any rate, Goldbergs right about the mountain of problems Arnold's going to be facing.

Strong words from Calpundit

Thanks to Tom Tomorrow who pointed this out.

Calpundit has a strong analysis of the modern Republican Party. "Republicans won't rest until abortion is completely outlawed, Social Security is abolished, the welfare state is completely rolled back, the book of Genesis is taught in science classes, and the federal income tax is abolished.

When I occasionally repeat (milder) versions of this here, my conservative commenters think I'm nuts. "Every party has a few wingnuts," they say. "These guys don't have any real influence."

And the thing is, I think they're telling the truth. With a couple of exceptions, I think the kind of conservatives who visit here don't believe this. It's absurd. It's a caricature."

The whole article is worth reading, particularly for its analysis of the Texas Republican Party Platform.

Great Article by Alan Reynolds

Published at the normally very conservative Townhall (who also print articles by Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Ben Shapiro, and so on), Alan Reynolds takes on the contrast between how the Bush Administration presented the WMD evidence before the Iraq war and what they are saying now. He goes through the various rationales for the difference and deflates each of them, concluding with the rationale that the Administration never really said that we faced an imminent threat.

"The latest and least defensible defense of the CIA has been to flatly deny that administration spokesmen ever claimed Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons or that such weapons posed any imminent threat. A Wall Street Journal editorial thus claims, "The Imminence Test and the Stockpile Standard ... are postwar inventions, and political transparently political inventions." That is a remarkable remark, and one that relies entirely on extremely short memories."

So not the best of times for the CIA. Reynolds is a senior fellow at the Cato institute; a libertarian organization that staunchly opposed the war. Not surprisingly, Ms. Coulter doesn't spend a lot of time on them in her work, as that would kind of put the lie to the idea that only traitorous liberals opposed the war.

Leaks

Well Mr. Tony Blankley has weighed in on the leak of Ambassador Joseph Williams wife's cover. He basically portrays it as a case of institutional rivalry gone wild. The CIA and the White House are not very cozy, a problem that was not helped by the President requiring George Tenet to take the blame for the yellowcake story being in the State of the Union.

The division is over how to fight the war on terror. " there is a strategic policy difference between the institutional CIA view (which tends to see terrorism as an inextinguishable fever that can at best be kept at a relatively low temperature) and the White House view (that it is an enemy that is susceptible of definitive defeat if enough resources and shrewd policies can be brought to bear against it)."

He states that this element of rivalry is what caused the leak to happen. Some White House staffer wanted to shwo the CIA a thing or two and so leaked. Mr. Blankley suggests we put ourselves in the leakers shoes for a moment. "They must feel deeply conflicted. Their actions have backfired. Instead of brushing back disloyal CIA political players, there are FBI agents rifling through the White House files of the leakers' co-workers. Democratic Party partisans are crying out for special prosecutors. The president -- for whom they have been loyally working 14 hours a day -- probably to the significant neglect of their spouse and children -- is put on the defensive, passively expressing hope that the Justice Department will get to the bottom of this problem."

Of course that's all well and good, but while the President may not be directly responsible for the leak, he is still on the hook. If this rivalry is such a serious detriment, why didn't the President take steps to alliveiate it? Why did he allow such a fissure to exist between his staff and the CIA?

Part of the reason is that this administration, like all administrations, basically thought that once they got into power they could do whatever they wanted. That's why there has been friction between Donald Rumsfield and the Military. Between the State Department and the White House. And the CIA.

Good article by John Leo

Leo writes on the Conservative embarassments of the last week and a half. First he comments on the Schwarzenegger groping stories. "A lot of Republicans think that the Los Angeles Times' report on Arnold Schwarzenegger's groping problem was an unfair last-minute surprise. It wasn't. The Times article left five days for Arnold and his allies to respond and explain. Stories about Arnold feeling up and talking grossly to random women have been circulating for years. What was the Times supposed to do, sit on the evidence it had that the tales were true?"

Then commenting on Rush Limbaugh's drug problem (he also tackles the ESPN story), he states, "The first question is whether the left's famously sensitive concern for people who are hooked on drugs will emerge as strongly for a conservative talk-show host as it does for Hollywood drug users. The addict's brain is "hijacked by drugs," Bill Moyers once said on "Meet the Press," adding that "relapse is normal." If addictions are purely medical problems (in this case, presumably Limbaugh's response to the pain of his approaching deafness) look for Moyers and the entire cultural left to defend him. (Look, maybe, but don't expect.)" The problem with this formulation is that Rush has constantly and consistantly criticized drug users as junkies undeserving of our pity. I think if Rush talks honestly about addiction than he might get some sympathy.

If, however, he simply stonewalls the issue, than very little sympathy will be forthcoming.

Recreational Drugs vs Prescription Drugs

I told you we had our ducks in a row to let rush off. Ben Shapiro takes up the task today.

"Unlike recreational drug addiction, prescription painkiller addiction belongs squarely in the medical arena. Recreational drug addiction is just that -- recreational. A junkie first picks up marijuana, cocaine or heroin in order to have a good time. No one prescribes heroin for back pain. But for many who become addicted to prescription painkillers, the dealer who gets them hooked is their family doctor."

Ben comments on a family member who got hooked on painkillers, and how the awful struggles she went through to get off them. He then comments, "It is despicable how the media have equated prescription painkiller addiction with recreational drug addiction. There is a moral difference between the two types of addicts. All drug addicts deserve sympathy, but prescription painkiller addicts clearly deserve more sympathy than recreational users. "

I don't want to mock Shapiro's family experience, but two points need to be made. Firstly, illegal use of prescription drugs is illegal the same as recreational drugs. They are both crimes, and conservatives have, for quite a while, pushed a law and order agenda when it comes to drugs.

Second, I hope I don't need to remind everybody who many of our citizens, particularly those of the lower class, have no access to prescription drugs or to doctors to prescribe them. Prescription drug abuse is largely a problem of the middle or upper class, and, again, we are a lot more comfortable with drug abusers if they come from the upper or middle class.

New York, New York

Just letting you know that Make me a Commentator!!! is taking its entire permanent staff to New York to cover whatever might happen in the city between October 18 and October 24, 2003. We will be on the ground. In the restaurants. In the museums. At the theatre. Other various New York places.

We need to put this city on the map. It's practically unknown, as I'm sure you know, but in truth New York has a lot to offer America.

Also, expect pictures, assuming I can get the system to work right, and possibly audio from various New York people. But that trip starts October 18, so I'll be continuing my current broadcasting in between now and then.

Why Rush Doesn't Matter

Rush's drug problem that is. A lot of people are speculating that Rush's drug problem may force Conservatives to reevaluate their position on drug laws. One of these people is Harley Sorenson, who states; ""As for the reports that Limbaugh might be involved in illegal buys of painkilling drugs, I hope they turn out to be true. But not for the obvious liberal reason. Sure, I'd like to see a cruel know-it-all like Limbaugh with egg on his face, but, more important, I'd like to see sympathetic attention drawn to the problem of painkillers, prescription or otherwise.

If Rush used too many painkillers, it was because he was in too much pain. If he became addicted, and if his addiction led to his hearing problems, that's punishment enough for the man.

Sooner or later, folks, we have to become civilized enough to take the un-Limbaugh-like position that we don't punish sick people for being sick."

I would applaud these sentiment if I thought that they would change peoples minds about the best way to treat drug addiction. But they won't. Rush's problem is just a reflection of a problem we see in all our communities. Who hasn't known somebody they liked or loved who had a drug problem? Drugs have been a problem in middle class and upper class America just as they have in lower class America.

The ugly truth is that we see lower class, African-American and Hispanic drug crimes as essentially different from Middle Class or Upper Class drug crimes. This is territory we don't like to get into, but a young rich white guy caught for drug abuse has a much better chance of going to treatment and getting clean. He has a support system in place. He has more money and, in general, he's in less day to day pain. So we as a nation have generally decided that he's worth investing in. He's worth running through the treatment system. Poor non-white drug offenders, on the other hand are not worth investing in, and therefore get to go to jail. For more information on this subject, check this out. Naturally it's best to keep this line of thinking unsaid because it kind of puts to the lie some of what Republicans like to say about the lack of need for affirmative action programs.

So we've already got our rationales in place. After all does it really make sense for Rush to go to jail? Cal Thomas gave advice to Rush in his column today, saying; "Just as soon as he is legally able, Limbaugh should come clean about whether or not he has a drug problem. If he does, he should admit it and seek help. That's often difficult for one at the top of his profession, but confession, healing and restoration are more satisfying than silence and a high-priced lawyer."

What Arnold Wants?

Bob Herbert, writing at the New York Times, states,

"Welcome to the world of undiluted narcissism. The man who is now the betting favorite to become the next governor of the crazy state of California has spent a lifetime pirouetting in front of cameras and mirrors, contemplating his navel and every other part of his once-buff bod.

If there's a voter anywhere in the state who thinks this character will spend even a hot minute wrestling with the realities of budgets and such, that person should seek immediate counseling. There's a reason Mr. Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." He doesn't want to govern. He just wants to be adored."

If his goal really is adoration, I doubt he'll seek a second term. Assuming he wins and all.

The Booby Prize

So what will Governor Schwarzenegger face (assuming he wins)? A state with enormous spending and an aversion to tax hikes. Ms. Debra Saunders commented on this issue today.

"Assembly and Senate Democrats live in a la-la land. They think they can spend and spend, and only rich people and smokers will be subject to higher taxes."

"The question is: Does Arnold Schwarzenegger want to be another circus act -- like Davis and state lawmakers -- or will he say what Californians need to hear, knowing full well that there are no applause lines?"

Well, odds are Schwarzenegger will follow the example of President Bush, cut taxes, put no limit on spending, and blame economic woes on the previous administration. I mean, if President Bush isn't going to limit spending, why should Arnold?

New Quote

In case you haven't heard, Israel suffered an enormous terrorist attack yesterday and today has retaliated against camps in Syria.

So Eve of Destruction is running through my head, the version by the Turtles back before they realized they were a pop band.

Updated the quote page as well.