New Post

Had a place holder post here for a little while while I was trying to get my comments to work. Anyway also putting a nice picture on the comments page to label it.



It's actually from an anti war performance of Lysistrata back in the spring of last year (2003). Obviously made it a bit more painterly.

Trying to add comments

After hogging all the attention up till now, trying to add a comments section. We'll see how that goes.

For my vast audience of economists

Apparently the Bush Administration is doing something bad with economics.

"No one should be surprised when economic or budget forecasts coming out of Washington are influenced by politics, especially during an election year. But when economic history is rewritten -- with political consequences -- that's going too far. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, chaired by Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, is trying to get away with exactly such revisionist history. The CEA's Economic Report of the President, released Feb. 9, unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid. Instead of using the accepted start date of March, 2001, the CEA announced that the recession really started in the fourth quarter of 2000 -- a shift that would make it much more credible for the Bush Administration to term it the "Clinton Recession." In a subsequent press conference, Mankiw said that the CEA had looked at the available data and "made the call."

This simple statement masks an attack on one of the few remaining bastions of economic neutrality. For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER], a private nonpartisan research group based in Cambridge, Mass."

You know what, even if I buy the idea that the recession is all Clinton's fault (which I don't), isn't it still Bush's responsibility to clean it up? I mean the reason we had a recession in 2001 might be Clinton's fault, but the reason we still have a recession in 2004, well, I'm comfortable saying that that's President Bush's fault (in so far as any president is responsible for the economy, which i don't believe is very much, actually).

I'm Think I Has the Answer

To my problems getting empty wallet economics up and looking the way it should. So enjoy.

Poor Mr. Lowry

Rich Lowry has a certain malady which I might catorigize as inability to understand that the part is not the whole. Now, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I feel confident that I can diagnose the medical conditions of people I have never met.

Inability to understand that the part is not the whole syndrome (or I.T.U.T.T.P.I.N.T.W. Syndrome) is rampant among conservative circles. It sees its fullest expression in the idea that one cannot protest the Iraq War and the decisions of the Bush administration in leading us into the Iraq war without attacking American Soldiers. In other words, President Bush is the Commander and Chief and Donald Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense, part of the American Military Apparatus. Therefore to attack them is to attack the American military, and in turn attack each individual soldier.

Now a child could explain to Mr. Lowry and other proponents of this sort of argument what is wrong with it. The part is not the same as the whole; particularly in this case. Nobody sensible thinks that each individual infantryman made the decision to go to war. Such decisions were made at the top; and by very few.

By the same token Rich Lowry takes exception with Senator Kerry playing up his past as a Soldier in Vietnam because of his post service anti-war activities.

"Asked about the testimony the other day by Knight Ridder, Kerry said he relied on the Winter Soldier Investigation "because some of it was highly documented and very disturbing. I did in my heart what I thought was correct to help people understand what was going on. I've always honored the service of people over there. I never insinuated that everybody fell into one pot. I was looking forward to telling the truth about some of the things that were happening."

This is a statement shot through with mendacity. Let's take it sentence by sentence: 1) The Winter Soldier testimony was not "highly documented," but -- as Mack Owens of the Naval War College has reported -- totally unsubstantiated. The fantastic stories of atrocities should have been unbelievable to any Vietnam vet.

Taking it sentence by sentence is a good idea Mr. Lowry. Need I point out that the military exonerated itself for the atrocities on numerous occasions. Yet there are still records of them having occurred. I'm not sure if the Winter Soldier was true or false, but the fact that the Navy claimed it unsubstantiated isn't exactly a nail in the coffin. I'm also curious as to why you chose to pick up Senator Kerry's quote mid-sentence.

2) Kerry didn't "help people understand what was going on," but rather helped publicize lies.

That's only if you believe that such atrocities did not take place. But they did. Frankly even using your last sentence the best you can say is unsubstantiated. That's not the same as a lie.

3) Kerry didn't "honor" the service of vets, but said, "We are ashamed of ... what we are called on to do in Southeast Asia," and maintained that in the vets, America "has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence."

Again a quote that has been cut to ribbons, but this points back to Lowry's I.T.U.T.T.P.I.N.T.W. Syndrome. Some soldiers committed atrocities; many did not. And at any rate, I doubt Kerry ever argued that the Soldiers in Vietnam went there to commit atrocities. Instead they went there to serve their country, but due to the failures of the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon presidential, they were thrust into a hell. It's not surprising that some of them became monsters.

4) Kerry did insinuate that the atrocities were widespread, noting that they were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." These crimes tainted the nation -- "the crimes threaten [the country], not Reds," as "America lose[s] her sense of morality."

Kerry may have over stated his case back when he gave his testimony. But the rest of your statement only makes sense if, once again, you assume that the atrocities did not happen.

5) If Kerry wanted to tell the truth, he shouldn't have traded in falsehoods.

Again, only relevant if you believe there were no atrocities.

Unfortunately for Conservatives, outbreaks of I.T.U.T.T.P.I.N.T.W. Syndrome have remained relatively rare in the general public. Hence, many might see through the argument that because Kerry related reports of atrocities, he smeared every single soldier. Particularly with so many of these smeared soldiers are willing to join him at events.

For more on Kerry

Check out Counterspin--some good comments on it today. Particularly on how this really is most likely Karl Rove rather than Clark.

Empty Wallet Economics Update

I've finally decided to update the page that contains my economic theory, Empty Wallet Economics. Previously it was a jpeg or some stupid thing because of my limited computer skill and then my laziness. But now it's a normal old web page, with a new addendum. Enjoy.emptywallet explained.gif

Kerry

Well, if you don't know it now, you will know it soon. Kerry is being accused of Marital Infidelity (fancy words for foolin' around on his wife) by the Drudge Report.

We'll see how this plays out; so far Kerry hasn't responded (as far as I know).

In a related story the Enquirer has a front page story on Kerry's loose morals, drug use, and plastic surgery (the unholy trifecta). Rush Limbaugh was complaining about this during lunch, presumably because the Enquirer had a similar story about him that they all picked up on. Maybe it's because the story about Rush had more proof and the stories about Kerry are less provable.

Common Sense Person

Gary Aldrich writing today asks the following musical questions.

"If a decorated firefighter becomes an arsonist, is he still considered a hero?

If a dedicated FBI agent leaves his agency, then attacks it – and becomes a professional witness for the defense - is he still a “hero?”

The answers are obvious to any common sense person.

But, if a Vietnam-era soldier comes home, blasts his country, gives aid and comfort to our enemies, and tosses his war medals over the White House fence – in this unique circumstance – then he’s apparently still a hero in the minds of many, including the mainstream media."

Hmmmmm. So let me see if I follow the logic here. Kerry served with distinction in Vietnam and then after leaving the service protested against it. This is equivelant to an FBI agent leaving his agency and becoming a witness for the defense.

Well, I'd buy that. I mean let's consider why the FBI agent might have left the agency. If he goes to work for the defense, is it possible that he's found holes in FBI cases that the agency refused to address? Yes it's possible; it may even be likely. So this poor FBI Agent decided he had to leave a system he believed had become unjust and work for people he knew to be wrongfully accused (perhaps in Mr. Aldrich's America, nobody is falsely accused).

By the same token, Senator Kerry apparently returned from Vietnam and believed that the war was unjust. So he began protesting against it. One might consider that his patriotic duty.

The problem for Mr. Aldrich is that they haven't successfully rewritten history quite yet. I mean they would like us to remember Vietnam as a just war unjustly protested by drugged out hippies and communists. But they aren't there just yet. The pictures are still in our national memory.

Calling All Voters

Want to know how Conservatives really see you? Check out Emmett Tyrrell's latest article, "The Moron Vote." This is because only an "the angry, stupid, political neurotic who has proceeded into middle age convinced that the world is against him-her" would support Howard Dean.

So his latest article is on how Senator John F. Kerry is going to win the Moron Vote over to his side. Apparently it's through gross distortion. Oh wait a second, that's Tyrrell's method for turning people against John F. Kerry.

This ties back to the whole National Guard issue you may have been following. Tyrrell paint's a picture of Kerry as having been the leader on this issue and as using it against President Bush. "Now Sen. John Pierre Kerry is the frontrunner, and he has developed a fine ploy for corralling the moron vote. He and McAuliffe have stirred up this controversy about how frequently the president attended National Guard meetings three decades ago. And they have transformed their entire party into the most heroic congeries of patriots and GI Joes ever seen on earth. The morons are entranced."

Yep. American voters; any of you who are interested in seeing George W. Bush's missing national guard time cleared up, this whole scandal has been cooked up to trick you, the Moron Voter. I so wish more people knew about Tyrells opinions. Wouldn't it be nice if, just as they asked Clark to defend Michael Moore, someone asked President Bush, "Do you agree with Emmit Tyrrells assessment that people who are supporting Democratic candidates are morons?"

Kerry's War Protesting Record

It's clear that the Right will make this an issue. Apparently Kerry, after having fulfilled his duty to the United States Military, thought the Vietnam War was an unjust and criminal war. So naturally that makes him a traitor. In particular there is a picture of Kerry at a protest with Jane Fonda in 1970. Joe Conason breaks it down in today's post.

"On Monday, Rush Limbaugh published a photograph of Fonda at what appears to be an antiwar rally, under the headline "John Kerry With Hanoi Jane in September, 1970." And indeed, a blurry face about two rows behind her does resemble the young Kerry.

But Limbaugh, like so many who attack Kerry for working with Fonda against the war, distorts reality. Fonda didn't travel to Hanoi until August 1972. Obviously that was two years after the September 1970 rally and, more important, a year after she joined demonstrations led by Kerry and his fellow vets in Vietnam Veterans Against the War."

So I guess the accusation is that Kerry's failure to predict that Jane Fonda would visit Vietnam and steer clear of her should make him ineligible for the Presidency.

Rush does (as Conason points out) sound a little nuts discussing this. "You want to go out there and you want to attack George W. Bush, the commander-in-chief, in charge of the war on terror, fine.

We've got pictures of Jane Fonda in Hanoi. We've got pictures of Kerry throwing those medals of other people over the fence. We got Tom Hayden. We got the Chicago Eight. We've got all those people spitting on the soldiers when they came back. We've got all the Democrats calling them "baby killers." We've got it all, if you want to bring it back up."

I really really really doubt that Rush has pictures of all "those people" spitting on soldiers or all the Democrats calling them "baby killers." Really, all the Democrats? That doesn't make any sense.

Can Kerry Win?

Well Geov Parrish writes today on why Kerry might win after all. Two weeks ago he wrote on why he thought Kerry was a sure loser, but today he's not as sure.

"My mistake was in assessing the ability of George W. Bush to run, successfully, against John Kerry. That hasn't changed. But what I left out of the equation is that Bush must also run against himself. That is the race that will define November. And, as we've seen in these last few days, when Bush confronts himself, it's his prospects for a second term that lose.

Bush's unprecedented appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday was a revelation to the political junkies who watch Sunday morning TV. We now understand why this president has avoided news conferences that aren't pre-scripted, or any other environments where hard questions might be asked. Put simply, he can't answer them."

I strongly disagree with Parrish's assessment of Kerry; I think the man has a lot of strengths to go along with a few weaknesses. But I agree that this election will hinge on what President Bush does or fails to do more than on what Kerry (or whoever our final nominee is) does.

For another look at President Bush's performance on Meet the Press, check out Archy's review of Peggy Noonan's review.

And Now I'm not Sure What to Say

Reading Bill Murchinson's article today on The Disunited States of America. Nice article. Says directly what many of his colleagues are dancing around. Running against President Bush for President gives comfort to the enemies of the United States.

"Maybe, provided you believe polls produced nine months before the election, the president is about to retire in disgrace: a political Bernie Ebbers. Whatever the case, we should brace for the possibility of a campaign in which the leader of the war on terrorism is daily called, by many of his own constituents, a fraud and a betrayer.

If you were an Iraqi Baathist or a Shiite ayatollah, an American infantry corporal or a potential Islamic suicide bomber, a French foreign secretary or a United Nations diplomatist, how would you receive the news that Americans are fed up, potentially, with the president who started this war? Would this encourage or discourage you concerning prospects for the drip-drip of American hands being washed, Pontius Pilate-style, of a deadly and burdensome commitment?"

Well there it is. Although Murchinson turns to attacking Kerry specifically, doesn't this line of reasoning apply to any Democratic candidate? Presumably any candidate who loved their country would chose to set this out, and the fact that we've had 10 candidates running for the Democratic ticket shows the depravity of the Democratic Party.

That is, of course, if you believe that President Bush has done a good job on the war on terror. If you believe he's done such a good job, that to criticize him is a willful act of blindness stemming from a disdain for America. I don't. I think President Bush has done good in some areas (small ones), but for the most part he has not handled the post September 11th world very well at all. His invasion of Iraq in particular appears to have been a blunder in a number of ways (the rationales for the war have crumbled like crumb cake, they insufficiently planned for victory, and so on).

I mean if you thought President Bush was doing a bad job, well, wouldn't it be your patriotic duty to in a democratic fashion remove him from power?

In other news, those of you who read yesterdays article on David Brooks might be interested in James Pinkerton's take on the article from Salon.

What I meant to Say Was

I haven't tracked the ongoing story of how poorly the President did on "Meet the Press" because so many others have. But David Brooks' latest deserves a bit of comment. In it Mr. Brooks admits what a poor performance the President gave by marking down how he would have done it.

He gets to September 11th in 20 words. "Tim, I know I'm repeating myself, but I am a war president. Do you remember how you felt on Sept. 12, 2001?"

Oh, wait a second, I meant September 12th. I felt pretty bad on September 11th myself, but maybe it took a little longer for it to sink in for Mr. Brooks.

But anyway that gives you the argument; if we don't vote for President Bush, if we don't support his policies in the war on Terror than we are not remembering September 11th. "I look around and observe that many of my fellow Americans don't seem to be living on Sept. 12, the way I am. And if they don't feel in their bones the presence of war, I don't know what argument I can use to persuade them.

I look on the Democratic side and see that primary voters last Tuesday ranked terrorism last on their issues of concern. I see John Kerry accusing me of stoking a "culture of fear." On the Republican side, I notice conservatives are panicked and peevish toward me over spending and immigration."

Of course this argument doesn't work so well if you believe that the Democratic Presidential Candidates will fight the War on Terror with the same passion and a bit more common sense.

The New Pollution

Well now that Kerry is the front runner there's a ready made mantra against him, one that both the left (meaning those who support other Democratic Presidential candidates) and the right can use. But of course the right will use it more aggressively.

The mantra is this; Kerry supported the war on Iraq and based his conclusion on the same information the President got, so it's hypocritical of him to not support the war now. Here's a few examples.

"So let's be honest, if President Bush lied about the threat, so did Democrats in Congress, including Kerry and Edwards. If he exaggerated the threat, those Democrats were conspirators in the act. If he made a mistake in attacking Iraq based on available intelligence, so did Kerry and Edwards."
-David Limbaugh, "Kerry, Edwards and company: Have they forgotten?"

"The leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, presents an inviting target of inconsistency, hypocrisy and opportunism when his statements about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction are examined."
-Cal Thomas, "Time to take the offensive"

So let's take a moment and consider. Kerry has explained his vote with the argument that he underestimated President Bush's desire to invade Iraq. He believed that a show of force was necessary; but that President Bush went further than he expected. I buy this. Back when Saddam was forced to let inspectors back in; I had hopes that war could be averted. But then it turned out that President Bush had no intention of playing fair with Iraq or the United Nations. So on that level Kerry's statement makes sense.

The other argument is that President Bush and Senator Kerry looked at the same information and came up with the same answer. Well, that's nonsense. If there was institutional pressure to come back with a specific answer in Iraq, that pressure took place in the executive wing of the Government. By the time the information got to Kerry, the damage had been done. I suspect that most of us, looking at what Kerry was shown, would have signed off to a certain extent on the idea that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. But that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the information was not painting a complete picture in the first place.

A whole flock of new links

Well I've joined the Liberal Coalition (although you wouldn't know it from my posts today, which have been less liberal than normal). They haven't sent me my secret decoder ring or the keys to the liberalmobile, but as soon as they do I will spring into action, stricking fear into the hearts of conservatives (with the astounding power of snarky posts).

In other news, I continue to have a rich fantasy life.

At any rate, that explains the new list of links, right below my other list of blog links; Pen-Elayne on the Web gets to be on both lists because, frankly, she's just that good. Anyway check out the other websites--many of them seem quite good, although I haven't reviewed them all in detail.

Bush / Hitler Comparisons

Byron Williams, who I've quoted a couple of times recently, is apparently in hot water because of his opinion that comparing President Bush to Hitler is not accurate. So his article today explains his position.

"My reluctance to make the Hitler analogy was due in part to my own experience at the childrenÂ’s portion of the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem. Although the experience dates back 14 years, the memory still reverberates in my soul. The childrenÂ’s portion is, very simply, a 100-yard corridor surrounded by darkness with the exception of a few lights and mirrors that give one the impression of being beneath the stars. There are no photos, artifacts, or words, just a voice that echoes the names of children who died under the Nazi regime. Upon completion, one is left only with the futile attempt to understand what would prompt such evil.

Everything that Hitler did in 1933 was geared to the end product in 1945. We must never forget that among HitlerÂ’s sadistic objectives was the elimination an entire group of people from the face of the earth. By 1945, he had reached 66 percent of goal.

I am not an apologist for the antics of the Bush Administration, but as a theologian as well as a writer I cannot allow loose, insensitive historical analogies to go by without a response. If the comparison is based on the consolidation of power and the rollback of civil liberties, then history has provided myriad individuals who fall into that category, including Franklin Roosevelt and the treatment of Japanese Americans post-Pearl Harbor. There are many applicable analogies between this president and those who sought to rollback freedom more appropriate than the mass murderer of millions upon millions of innocent people."

I have to say that I find myself in complete agreement with Mr. Williams. Also I think it's fair to ask who benefits from an extended discussion in the Democratic party of whether or not President Bush is a lot like Hitler? This is an election year; perhaps one of the more important election years of our lifetimes. diluteute our message with this discussion is, in my mind, not the wisest course of action.

Advisors to the President

Well, Bob Herbert, in his latest article, has a suggestion for the President. "If I were advising the president, I'd suggest he form his own truth squad to vet his policies and public statements and advise him on ways to maintain a high level of credibility..

Good advice, but probably unnecessary. President Bush is going to govern according to a hardline conservativism; he's made that clear. People who agree with his philosophy don't see most of what Herbert points to (Iraq, the Deficit, etc.) as problems, but as evidences of President Bush's strength. The only places where President Bush is going to have a difficulty with his base is in programs like "Leave No Child Behind" or the recent Prescription Drug plan. When it comes to growing the government, they will care that a program initially estimated at $400 Billion (the Prescription Drug Plan) will now cost $583.

And it is doubtful that such a committee would really win over Mr. Herbert who closes his article with this comment. "It's time to put an end to the fantasies and the deceit, which have landed us in a quagmire overseas and the equivalent of fiscal quicksand at home.

It's not too much to ask that the president of the United States speak the clear truth about his policies and their implications. Mr. Bush would do himself and his country a favor by establishing a closer relationship with reality and a more intense commitment to the truth.

Those Americans who have put their trust in the president deserve nothing less."

New Quotes

This week's quote comes from my favorite album of last year (one of them anyway), Neil Young's Greendale. Thoroughly brilliant and well worth checking out.

Also updated the Quotes Page.