New York City Journal #1

I'm not sure how best to do this, so I'm going to do it this way. I am in New York for the next week, and in part I am going to pass on my experiences to you in a way that will be of some interest. But I intend to continue political stuff too. So we'll see.

Wrote this bit a while ago, while I was waiting for my room to come open.

I’m sitting in the Europa Café across the street from the old Ed Sullivan theater where David Letterman is currently doing his show. I can see the LAT which begins late night. I hae just finished a delicious chicken salad and will soon be eating a Pecan treat of some kind. It looks like Pecan Pie, but of course, it’s not. After this I’m going to go over to the CBS store and then find another subway stop and go down to lower midtown. Went to one off of Columbus Circle, and the subway card machine was busted. Stupid Manhatten.

It’s a quiet place and I am sitting at one end, minding my own business. Which is what I am best at.

I can’t post from here, natch. It’s a restaurant and there’s no internet hook up. We’ll have to see later—at around 3:00 apparently. That’s 3 hours and 20 minutes from now. So when you read this, it will be much later in the afternoon.

Dropped my luggage off at the Windsor Hemsley, a very old and proper hotel. Seemed nice enough, but you can’t really judge that till you see the room. And I have not as yet seen my room. Still can’t be that bad.

Well I can judge now--it's not great it's not bad. The bed is comfy enough and I don't plan on spending a ton of time in the room anyway. Took a picture of Grand Central Terminal while I was waiting for a ride to my hotel. Here it is.



More to come.

Is The Deficit a Bad Thing?

Well, it depends on if you want to borrow money to buy a house or a car or boat or something. You see there is a certain amount of credit out there. It's a large amount, but it's not infinite. The higher the deficit the larger a percent of that credit they hold. That reduces the amount available for you and me, and makes it more valuable. And one something becomes more valueable it becomes more expensive--as we all know.

Well Bruce Bartlett says that deficits don't affect interest rates all that much, but that increased scrutiny of the deficit will force President Bush to take action. "By early 2005, I expect the pressure to reduce deficits to be inexorable. While Republican control of the House and Senate may cause any budget deal to focus more on budget cuts and less on tax increases than they usually do, the latter are inevitable. It is simply unrealistic to think that a large deficit reduction plan can rely solely on budget cuts. Revenues will be on the table.

Remember that Ronald Reagan signed major tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. By 1988, he had taken back almost half of the 1981 tax cut. But at the end of the day, he cut taxes more than he raised them. That is why conservatives forgave him and why they will probably forgive Bush, as well."

He might be right, and when he's not facing reelection, maybe he will be forced to do the sensible thing. Or maybe not.

More thoughts on Rush Limbaugh

I thought these words from Robert Scheer very sharp.

Although Limbaugh is obviously a hypocrite, that is no reason to compound the madness of our drug problem by punishing him in what seems to have been a victimless crime -- unless he pressured his housekeeper/supplier into the Florida narco-underworld, which would make him far more culpable. But we liberals believe in innocent until proved guilty.

Limbaugh's experience is the best argument against the demonization of all junkies -- this one throughout his addiction held a big job and presumably paid a lot in taxes. The considerable harm he inflicts daily on the larger society can hardly be blamed on his addiction. The drugs may have even tempered his verbal brutishness. In any case, there is no evidence that the drugs caused him to daily savage others -- he was equally offensive before and during his drug abuse. To put it another way, his drug use, if it has caused pain to others, is the least of his crimes.

Why Can't Democrats be Republicans?

This is the question Emmet Tyrell asks today. Of course he asks it in a more condescending way. His way of putting it is, " At this point in the Democratic lunge for the presidential nomination, does Dr. Howard Dean have a monopoly on that sector of the Democratic vote that we may classify as the moron vote? Or is the idiotic Sen. John Pierre Kerry chipping away at these serried ranks of oafs?"

He then holds up Sen. Lieberman as the only possible choice, but spends most of his essay attacking Kerry and Dean.

Once again if the voters have a choice between Republican Bush and Republican Lieberman, one can only assume they will picke the Republican they know.

Maureen Dowd

I don't read or quote from Ms. Dowd all that much; but today she wrote a bit that sums up the Bush Administration's problem perfectly.

The Bush team prepared the ground for American doubt; they told us to expect a fairy tale and now resent the fact that we refuse to treat it like one.

The fundamental problem for the Bush administration is that it is endlessly propounding a contradiction: Wanting us to worry that we are battling for our lives against the terrorists, and wanting us to stop worrying about the state of the battle.

Ann Coulter on Rush Limbaugh

Well one thing we know for sure; Ann Coulter is impressed that Rush Limbaugh got a $300 Million Dollar Radio Contract. Yep, that's the key element from Rush's life that seems to impress Ms. Coulter. She mentions it five times. The ability to earn $300 Million Dollars by talking on the radio for three hours a day is impressive, I guess.

She also makes mention of the fact that since Liberals are so morally depraved, we can't be accused of hypocrisy, and she's careful to mention the moral failings of Former President Clinton and Senator Kennedy.

It's hard to know what Ms. Coulter is good for except making fun of liberals; certainly there's no real point to this column other than that. But, hey, if she can get paid for making fun of liberals she must be doing something right. Even if she isn't paid $300 Million just yet.

Not Much Blogging today

I'm afraid I was away from my computer most of the day so didn't blog. But tomorrow I will blog up a storm.

The Tyranny of Excluded Middle

You are familiar with this particular logical fallacy aren't you? You present too opposites as the only possible answers, excluding any potential middle positions. It's a great way of forcing a hardline position, and precluding any compromise.

Jonah Goldberg's latest article uses this device to great effect. It's about Rush Limbaugh's recent drug problems, and, of course, it covers the familiar bases of talking about how mean-spirited Liberals are. Goldberg does take the notable step of admitting this reaction may be in fact justified. "But look: Rush Limbaugh never pulled any punches either. I may agree with many of his views and I may even subscribe to his hard-hitting style from time to time, but I can't muster a huge amount of sympathy or surprise when it comes to the beating he's receiving."

Goldberg also decries the media focusing on the hypocrisy, rather than focusing on the actual sin of taking illegal drugs. But that's not exactly the problem. The argument is not really, as you postulate, between those who think all drugs should be legal and those who favor locking up all addicts as criminals. Granted, those are two positions in the argument, but there is a middle ground.

We spend an enormous amount as a society to lock up criminals for possession of drugs. We spend comparatively little helping people get off drugs. Comparatively wealthy drug users from Rush Limbaugh to white suburban kids get the opportunity to go through rehab; poor Black and Hispanic kids don't. If rehab is the answer for Rush Limbaugh, why isn't it the answer for everyone?

The Tyranny of Postulates

David Limbaugh writes a piece today about how Senator (and Presidential Candidate) John Kerry is wrong to ask President Bush for an explanation of the contrast between what they said we'd find in Iraq and what we've already found.

Here is the Postulate. President Bush got exactly as much out of the United Nations, Europe, et al. as was possible without compromising American integrity.

It's hard to disprove. I could point to statements by world leaders to the effect that if we had been more willing to work through the UN they would have supported us, but words are easy to speak. The fact is we don't know what they would have done.

And if you accept that postulate, well, than the rest of his article makes sense. "Moreover, this mantra about us not working with the international community is becoming annoying. These other nations were and are impervious to reason about Iraq, insisting on appeasement and non-enforcement of the U.N. resolutions." Impervious. It was just impossible for President Bush to ever get the UN to act. So there was no point in trying any further than he did. There's a fable from Aesop that applies here, something about a fox and some grapes.

The thing is, I'm not sure Senator Kerry is willing to give you your postulate. Assuming that we weren't in immediate danger from Iraq (which it now seems clear that we weren't), a competent President would have succeeded where President Bush failed. The other nations of the world recognized the threat Iraq presented, and would have supported us if we had approached them differently.

David Limbaughs article is also notable in how it moves from Senator Kerry's actual statement, that President Bush had misled the American people, to suggesting that Kerry called the President a liar, which he wasn't because he was presenting information he believed in. Note to D. Limbaugh, misleading isn't the same as lying. If President Bush presented false information to the American people in making his case, than he misled the American people, whether he believed the information or not. And I'm not even going to bring up the suggestion that as President, he has a responsibility to make sure the info presented to him is accurate.

Mr. Limbaugh ends with this chilling statement. "While we all understand that this is the presidential election season, it is also a season of war. Democratic presidential hopefuls like Kerry need to start behaving as though they appreciate that." What a cowardly response! This is America Mr. Limbaugh. We have the right and the duty to question the actions of our presidents. And our Presidential Candidates have even more of a duty to question the President, to set in sharp relief their policies and the policies of their political opponent.

Dennis Prager writes an Irresponsible Article

It's called The second American Civil War.

"Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.

Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War."

Yep. And from the tone of his article, it's clear that violence may not be that far off. He lists of issues where the two sides differ, being careful to focus on extremist positions for the left while promoting a very reasonable course for Republicans. One example;

"The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values -- the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism -- worth fighting and dying for."

What tripe!

He is comparing the far left to mainstream Republicans. I'm not going to deny there are some on my side of the aisle who don't have much respect or use for America. But they are in the minority. Most liberals love America and want it to return to values of fairness and equality and justice that we used to believe in.

But even if he presented both sides fairly, this would still be a wildly irresponsible article. We are all Americans. Yeah I disagree with the policies of President Bush and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and, well, Dennis Prager. But I don't doubt that they are trying to serve America in the best way they can.

I also thought veiled hints at forthcoming violence are, frankly, insane. Is that the way you want to win, Mr. Prager? Do you want to see liberal blood in the streets? If you don't you should clarify your position.

I shall conclude with the words of Thomas Jefferson, which seem particularly relevant at this juncture. "Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions."

Reviews from Rolling Stone

From the Rollingstone website, a fan review of the Chemical Brothers recent best of (well worth picking up).

singles 93-03 just good. many great and beauty musics aren't here. star guitar is the highest point of this album. the rollingstone's review is stupid-enough -unexplaination-. good work!

I am thinking of changing the name of this Website to "Stupid Enough Unexplaination."

Another Letter from Africa

I got another letter from Africa which starts this way. "As you read this, I don't want you to feel sorry for me, because, I believe everyone will die someday." Going out on a limb there, aren't you, Omar Salim?

In other news, Rush Limbaughs site is back to normal. So it must have been just a momentary screw up.

Imminent Threat

A lot of you might have picked up on this debate over what the word "imminent" means. Apparently Senator Ted Kennedy used it recently in talking about the Administrations case for war back in the winter. So naturally the right has responded, particularly Andrew Sullivan.

Let's trace this problem back to the roots. Democrats have consistently said that the United States should have rounded up more support for our invasion of Iraq before invading. We have had very limited support, primarily from Poland, the UK, and Australia. It also might have been a good idea to wait until our mission in Afghanistan were further along, so that our troops were not stretched quite so thin.

But we couldn't afford to wait, could we? According to the Bush Administration, we had to invade immediately because of the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and weapons of mass distruction. We were under such danger from Hussein's weapons of mass distruction that to wait was tanamount to suicide, and President Bush was not going to allow us to go down that route. So we invaded.

Now it appears as if maybe we could have waited. Maybe Hussein was largely contained and, in fact, the sanctions were working. And that's where we are now. Liberals, including some of our presidential candidates, are saying that the President deceived the American people as to the immediacy of the danger Saddam presented.

So here is the question for Conservatives. Could we have waited and invaded Iraq later when we had more support and had moved Afghanistan ahead? If we could have, why didn't we?

Here's an answer to a popular pinheaded conservative question. Of course we're glad Saddam is gone. I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue, though.

New Quote

Almost beginning to be a habit. Updated quotes page too.