Slow day today

But tomorrow we will be back to full speed, with increased full efficiency.

Let us all now Praise Linda Chavez

Chavez finally, once and for all, exposes Howard Dean for a hypocrite. All the other accusations I had blown off, but in today's article Ms. Chavez gives undeniable proof in her very first paragraph.

"Howard Dean stepped into the culture wars this week by proclaiming as "silly" a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigation of the on-air smut that passed for halftime entertainment at this year's Super Bowl. "There's a great many far worse things on television that you can inadvertently turn on when you happen to be cruising through cable at regular viewing hours," Dean said from the campaign trail. He didn't explain how he would know, however, since he and his wife have repeatedly told us that they don't subscribe to cable television.

Did you see that? He claims to know that there is a lot of smut on Cable television, and yet he also claims that he and his wife don't watch cable television. Obviously one of these is a lie.

One possibility is that his assertion that there is a lot of smut on cable television is dead wrong; there's no reason to worry about seeing sexually provactive stuff on televsion. Hmmmm. I'm not sure that hold water.

The other possibility is that Dr. Dean is lying and he and his wife suscribe to lots of cable television, but are just lying about it. What liars! They probably sit around all night watching cable tv and laughing at what dopes we are for thinking they don't.

Yep those are the only too possibilities. There's no way Dean could have gotten the idea that there was a lot of smut on cable tv unless he had cable tv. I mean it's not like he's been on the campaign trail for months and staying in a lot of hotels that provide cable to their customers. It's also not like this is an issue that might get discussed in the press quite regularly.

So there you have it Dean is definately a hypocrite. All praise to Ms. Chavez for bringing this to our attention.

Unusual Statement by Howard Dean

This is from an interview in Salon today.

"First of all, I say what I think and I stand up for what I believe in even when it's not popular. No Child Left Behind and the war are two examples of that. It's easy to stand up when the polls are in your favor. The president I admire most in the last 60 years is Harry Truman because he did exactly that and he's one of the great presidents of the last century."

So Harry Truman was a great president because he stood up when polls were in his favor? That's funny, I could have sworn it was the other way around.

More on the Intelligence Community

On the heels of Saffires article on the triumphs of the CIA comes an article by David Brooks suggesting that the CIA problem is in how they conduct their business. He calls it scientism.

"This was at a time, just after the war, when economists, urban planners and social engineers believed that human affairs could be understood scientifically, and that the social sciences could come to resemble hard sciences like physics.

If you read C.I.A. literature today, you can still see scientism in full bloom. The tone is cold, formal, depersonalized and laden with jargon. You can sense how the technocratic process has factored out all those insights that may be the product of an individual's intuition and imagination, and emphasized instead the sort of data that can be processed by an organization.

This false scientism was bad enough during the cold war, when the intelligence community failed to anticipate seemingly nonrational events like the Iran-Iraq war or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But it is terrible now in the age of terror, because terror is largely nonrational."

All well and good, and there is a grain of truth to Brooks words. But the accusation is contextless. The reason that the CIA is in trouble is that the Bush Administration would like to blame them for the failure of intelligence that led us into Iraq. Brooks, presumably, believes that even though we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction, nor have we proven any connection between Iraq and Al-Queada, President Bush still made the right call in invading. That this decision, which came from President Bush's "heart," should trump all the "scientism" of the CIA.

"Individuals can use intuition, experience and a feel for the landscape of reality. When you read an individual's essay, you know you're reading one person's best guess, not a falsely authoritative scientific finding."

Yeah but which individual should we trust, Mr. Brooks? Many people's intuition before the war suggested that we had successfully contained Saddam. Should those people have been trusted? Or is it strictly President Bush's intuition we should trust?

Interesting article

This isn't the deepest of posts. Just read an article by William Saffire I thought was interesting, on espionage in the cold war.

The ending though has to be ominous for the CIA. "Now is a time to remember that sometimes our spooks get it right in a big way."

Not sure whether Saffire is being ironic and suggesting they get it right most of the time, or if he is referencing the fact that the White House would prefer that the blame for the decision to prematurely invade Iraq go to the CIA.

Joseph Wilson Speaks

For those of you who don't remember Joseph Williams, he's the poor shmuck who disputed President Bush's Nigerian Yellow-cake Story and who's wife was subsequently outed by the Bush administration and Robert Novak. Geov Parrish caught up with him and got a very interesting interview on where the War on Terror should go from here and on the odds of Democracy in the Middle East.

He concludes his essay with this bit. "GP: Last question. With all of these grim issues, what gives you hope within all this?

JW: One of the things that has given me hope is having had the opportunity to go around my own country. I've been to Iowa several times, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, Massachusetts, California several times, I was supposed to be in Arizona today. ... I find that there is still no finer people than the American people, and there is no better system than the one that we have. And it is well worth fighting for and it is a democracy that's well worth taking back from those who have usurped it and taken it into their own hands.

You know it just sounds like supporting President Bush isn't a prerequisite to loving your country.

A Clarification

I was listening to Sean Hannity on Friday for a bit and he took a caller who was getting on with Hannity for the first part, until he suggested that some of our foreign policy might have been better handled and that might have prevented September 11th. Sean Hannity immedietly put him in the "Blame America" crowd, which as we all know is part of the larger "Hate America" crowd.

So for those of you who might be calling into the Sean Hannity show or talking to a conservative of his stripe her's how it works.

If you claim that September 11th happened because of President Clinton, is that "Blaming America First?" Nope. Clinton was the President of the United States, but his failures are his alone and can't be pinned to the rest of America.

If you claim that September 11th happened, in part, because we failed to "Get Tough" with the Middle East, is that "Blaming America First?" Nope. That would be correct, because the only reason we didn't "Get Tough" with the Middle East was that creepy evil liberals prevented it.

If you claim that September 11th happened, in part (no matter how small a part), because of American actions in, say propping up Saddam Hussein way back when, or in training terrorists against Russia that then turned against us? Yep, that is definately anti American, and you should just accept that you are a scummy liberal.

I hope this reference guid is of some use.

New Quotes

Well this weekend was busy and now I'm sick, so not much. But more this week hopefully. Still I did a new quote and new Quotes Page.

More on the NEA

The NEA has two purposes; one Republicans like to talk about and one that they don't. One reason is to support artists and the other is to provide art to communities and places where access to the arts is limited.

Obviously the first one is the one that we like to talk about. Artists are seen in this country as useless pansies who accomplish nothing. Like beggers but more annoying. That's not an accurate depiction in my opinion, but that is the standard portrayal. But should supporting artists really be the main goal of the NEA?

Why not focus on providing art to those who don't have it?

Well, Rush Limbaugh, unsurprisingly, has an answer to that. "This reminds me of the argument over funding the Kansas City Symphony when I lived there. There were all these fund-raisers, and when people didn't open their wallets at them, the symphony demanded that the government force them to pony up the dough. I mean, nobody wanted the symphony, okay?" So if people don't want to pay for art it shouldn't exist.

Even More Weekly Rush

Happened to listen to Rush while I was driving around at lunch. Apparently some news source is reporting that President Bush plans to ask for more money for the National Endowment for the Arts. (The downside to not listening to Rush for three hours is that I miss some things. The upside is that I haven't been driven insane). He then read an article on President Bush's man at the NEA and how they are changing how they fund the arts.

He read a very positive article about how the current NEA guy, Dana Giora, is doing a great job at funding the classics, the works of art that we all love, instead of, say, crucifixs soaked in urine. What was hillarious was listening to Rush try to keep his disdain for even the classics out of his voice. I mean he sort of wanted to attack the Bush adminstration for funding art, not attack art per se. But he really couldn't keep his disdain for the art world out of his voice.

He must have realized how he was coming off because he said twice words to the effect of "Now I'm not attacking Art." But it's pretty clear that he doesn't just dislike artists and people who want government to fund art, he dislikes it in general.

The Cowardly Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter takes on John Kerry today, and here's the story. He's French, he's a pacifist, and he's a gigolo. Yep. That didn't take long did it? Not nearly as long or as painful as actually reading Ann Coulter's madness.

He's a gigolo because he's been divorced to a wealthy woman and then married another wealthy woman. There's the proof right there.

As mentioned earlier she comments on his bragging about his war career, although in typical Coulter Fashion she exagerates a bit. "As everyone has heard approximately 1 billion times by now, Kerry boasts that he has REAL experience with aircraft carriers, and if Bush wants to run on national security, then ... BRING IT ON!" I haven't even heard that five times I don't think, so what do I know.

She also calls Kerry a pacifist military type; showing again her disconnect from reality. And that is, of course, why I have taken to calling Ms. Coulter cowardly (and not just because I know she wouldn't like it much if she ever read it, although I admit that has some appeal as well). You see most of us have to argue from the real world, and that's tough. Tough enough that Ms. Coulter apparently isn't up to it.

Something to Add to Descriptions of John Kerry

Way back when it looked like Kerry was a very strong candidate and had a good shot at the nomination. And Rush Limbaugh and his minions started swinging away at him. The first description was "French-Looking" (as in the "French-Looking" John Kerry) which came from The Bush Administration.

Another descriptor used by Rush and others is "who served in Vietnam," as in "the French-looking John Kerry, who served in Vietnam." This one was a rare attempt to use subtlety (well, what passes for subtlety in Limbaugh Land). As we all know, John Kerry served in Vietnam. His service in Vietnam was a formative time for him, so it shows up in his speeches. And it's clearly a political asset running up against a guy who served in the National Guard, and may have failed to show up for duty for part of his term. So using the phrase "who served in Vietnam," they are trying to inoculate people from being impressed, by suggesting that Kerry's service to his country was nothing more than a political ruse.

Well the Wall Street Journal suggested another sobriquet for John Kerry on the front page of their paper. Of course being the staid and meaningful Wall Street Journal they aren't too upfront about it. But they do point out in the second paragraph of a front page story on Kerry that he served as Lieutenant Governor under Michael Dukakis. How much do you want to bet that we hear that a lot? It plays right into the idea (false idea in my mind) that Kerry is a joke and unelectable.

All this by way of stating the obvious; if Kerry is our guy, expect the right wing press to slam into him like there's no tomorrow. Although come to think of it, if there were no tomorrow, maybe they wouldn't bother, since the actual election isn't till November.

A Postulate without Evidence

At least as far as I know.

One of the postulates of the Limbaugh right is that the Clintons will do anything to get back into the White House. Up to and including purposefully scuttling the political ambitions of whoever gets the Democratic Nomination, so that Hillary can run in 2008. Yep the Clintons are just that evil and ambitious.

My question is, does anybody have any proof of this? I mean beyond the generic "Clinton is bad so any dispicable thing we attach to him will stick." If any conservative writer has any proof that the Clintons are trying to ruin Democratic Chances to take the White House this year, please let us know.

Your Weekly Rush; why he's so angry

Well here's Rush yesterday on the radio.

"You people have absolutely zero intellectual credibility or character to sit here, call this program and try to make some issue out of the Bush administration deciding to wait one month to start explaining why we needed to go to war in Iraq? Jeez. You people are reprehensible. You are absolutely reprehensible. You are the lowest piece of (blank) I've ever run to in this planet. I can't believe you people. You used to be at least fine, upstanding people to go out and have a drink with now and then, have a honest conversation about disagreements, but you people, you can't even be civil, you can't even be honest with yourselves! How can anybody have a conversation with you? You people lie to yourselves. You people are walking around in the biggest fog that I have ever seen. You people need therapy! You people all need to be sequestered somewhere for a couple of months to get your minds right because you people can't even be honest with yourselves. You are walking delusions."

I don't need to explain that by "You People" Rush means Liberal Democrats.

So why is Rush so mad? There are a couple of theories out there, most of them involving him being under or over medicated. But I don't buy that, personally. So what could it really be?

I think it is that Rush's house of cards is starting to fall apart. Look at what prompted this tirade. Some questions on how President Bush misled us into war. At this point only the most "faithful" still believe that the Administration didn't mislead the American people a bit. Most of the honest ones will admit that, but claim that the ends justify the means. But whether or not that remains the opinion of the American people remains to be seen. The fact is that things aren't going all that wonderfully in Iraq and American troops are paying a price.

Liberals are shining a light on the decisions that led us into this war and that have failed to plan sufficiently for the peace. This would be ok if President Bush were an ordinary president like a Clinton or a George H. W. Bush. But a great deal of the Current President Bush's power comes from his ability to project power and legitimacy. If Democrats keep nibbling at his credibility, well, his legitimacy will slowly drain away as well.

Frankly if I had pinned the hopes of my movement on President George W. Bush I'd be angry too. And I'd look around for someone to take my anger out at.

Still he does take it a bit far. Remember this bit? "You people all need to be sequestered somewhere for a couple of months to get your minds right because you people can't even be honest with yourselves." Hmmmm. I think the Chinese Commies had something like this. They called it an "Education camp." Not sure if that fits in well with American traditions and values, but I guess Rush would know better than I do.

Walter E. Williams

Well, it's time for another Walter E. Williams article. After a dry spell, all of a sudden he's drawing my attention quite regularly.

This week he explores the old conservative canard that, well, if those third worlders can only make $0.70 a day on their own, and we give them $2.00 a day, that's charitable of us. He concludes his article with these sentences. "Union leaders and their useful idiots in the anti-globalism movement have also called for minimum wages and better working conditions for workers of multinational firms in Third World countries. Here's my question to you: Do you believe these people really care about the world's poor like Nhep Chanda? If you do, I have a fountain of youth I'd like to sell you.

There might be a few ministers, college students and other uninformed people who sincerely care about the Third World poor. But the thrust of the public relations campaign against the multinationals comes from the U.S. and European union movements and some businesses who see their jobs and profits threatened. They wish to raise the cost of overseas operations in order to forestall company relocation, or as Gephardt said he wants, an international minimum wage high enough so that American workers are not competing with slave, sweat shop and child labor around the world."

I truly am not sure where to start. First of all, why is preserving American Jobs some sort of dirty nasty secret agenda? I would think every American would want there to be employment opportunities in the United States. Your might, Dr. Williams, feel that this method of preserving American Employment opportunities is problematic, but I can't believe that you oppose the goal.

Secondly, what a baffling ending. Is Mr Williams saying he supports American companies investing in slave labor? Child Labor? I mean I guess I could understand it if he felt that what we call slave labor wasn't really that (Throughout his article he ignores the very real coercive power that some of these corporations use on their employees). But I don't know how you get around the child labor bit.

Frankly it's clear that Williams will support corporations no matter what they do.

Empty Wallet Economics

Well, Paul Krugman's latest article takes on the theory that the reason that President Bush's deficits are decidedly un-conservative is that he's not conservative enough. His response; "Is domestic spending really exploding? Think about it: farm subsidies aside, which domestic programs have received lavish budget increases over the last three years? Education? Don't be silly: No Child Left Behind is rapidly turning into a sick joke.

In fact, many government agencies are severely underfinanced. For example, last month the head of the National Park Service's police admitted to reporters that her force faced serious budget and staff shortages, and was promptly suspended.

A recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities does the math. While overall government spending has risen rapidly since 2001, the great bulk of that increase can be attributed either to outlays on defense and homeland security, or to types of government spending, like unemployment insurance, that automatically rise when the economy is depressed.

Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see? Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950."

Of course Krugman isn't taking into account the enormous boom to the economy that the tax cuts will inevitably cause. I mean after a Democrat returns to the White House and we get majorities in the House and Senate, and they start implementing a more well thought out economic plan, then President Bush's plans will really kick in and we'll see the economy working like it's supposed to.

Something else the Republican Party would like you to Believe

Inheriting a lot of money, failing at business repeatedly, being bailed out by one's father's friends, talking a city into building a baseball stadium and giving you all the land around the stadium qualifies a Republican to be President. Working as a trial lawyer and being successful at it disqualifies a Democrat. As a matter of fact it doesn't matter what a Democrat does; unless he is poor his whole life up till running for President, there's something hypocritical in him running for President.

Rich Lowry takes this tack in his latest article on John Edwards. It's pretty predictable that whoever moves to the front of the Democratic pack is a jerk in the eyes of Republicans. Anyway Lowry point is that, as a trial lawyer, Edwards is used to manipulating people and therefore shouldn't be President.

More to the point this a further attack on our judicial system. Everybody hates Lawyers right? Well I hate to break it to you, but if you get hurt on the job, or if your doctor proscribes the wrong pill, or if the food your eating poisons you, well, the only way you can protect yourself is through the judicial system. Which is, of course, why conservative shills like Lowry want to tear the system down. They are fine with the system when it's filling our jails with non-violent drug offenders, but it bothers them that the people might use the legal system to protect themselves from corporate interests.

Lowry also resorts to distorting Edward's positions. "Anything that companies do to make a profit is basically a crime, and Edwards is going to go after them, just as he did as a trial lawyer in the medical malpractice cases that made his $12 million to $60 million fortune. Edwards makes no notable call for self-reliance or individual responsibility, since in his worldview people basically aren't up to it."

First of all, I'm pretty sure Edwards, as a lawyer, considers breaking the law a crime. If Lowry feels that companies can't make a profit without breaking the law, well perhaps that says a bit more about Lowry than it does about Edwards.

In conclusion, let's consider some of Edward's own words.

"Where I come from, voters are looking for answers, not attitude. They're tired of Democrats stopping in for a visit to say, "We know what's best, we know what's good for you."

Voters don't want be looked down upon and they aren't looking for a hand out. They want leaders who will them treat with respect. They want you to listen to their concerns, and give them a fair chance to do well in life. I will never keep quiet about what I believe or fail to articulate my values simply because someone might disagree with me. Democrats don't turn their backs on a challenge, and I never will.

We need to take on these issues. This president says he wants to have a values debate, and that's exactly what I will give him. On almost every issue, George Bush's values are not America's values. This administration values wealth over work...special interests over our interests, secret meetings over open debate, the privileged few over the rest of us."

Your Weekly Rush

Actually I've kind of dropped this feature, but I didn't mean to. I've picked it up and I'm gluing it back together.

Anyway here's some masterful insight into John Kerry. ". . . John Kerry. He's every bit as liberal as Dean, he may be more liberal than Dean, he's way more liberal than Dean.

What more can I say?

Equal Opportunity Annoyance

Just to show that I'm just generally angry at everybody, let me slam into Byron Williams latest column, "What is Patriotism?" In it he makes some good points about the unthinking way Liberals are assumed to be less than patriotic. He attempts to strike a non-partisan tone, suggesting that loyalty to one party is not Patriotism, per se.

He then mucks his argument up with his concluding paragraph. "If indeed the Bush Administration exaggerated the evidence that led to war, as the facts seem to indicate, and Democrats, Republicans, and independents are unwilling to hold them accountable, we can rest assured that however one defines patriotism, its application will fit easily within the contours of any bumper sticker."

Basically this would indicate that unless we, as a nation, hold President Bush accountable for leading us into Iraq, patriotism is a joke. But of course he presupposes a verdict in the trial of the Bush Administration. His belief is that evidence shows President Bush's culpability. His statement is not akin to saying "Unless we release convict X who is clearly innocent, justice is a joke in America." That statement may be true, but only if the innocence of convict X is not in doubt.

By the same token, I have my opinion on the deceptions the Bush administration engaged in during the lead up to the Iraq war. But I am willing to admit that others who genuinely love their country might have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that the Bush Administration is innocent.

In other words, this article annoyed me because it argued a point I agree with (that Patriotism is not the sole province of Conservative Republicans or any other group) and then at the end harpooned it's own argument by setting a standard of patriotism that would exclude most Republicans.

Wealth Redistribution = Opportunity Redistribution

One of the phrases that people like Robert Novak like to use (when he's not busy passing on illicitly obtained information or outing CIA agents) is Wealth Redistribution. He uses it today when talking about the current presidential campaign. "The theme is redistribution of wealth in America, and multi-millionaire trial lawyer Edwards propounds it most effectively with his concept of "two Americas."

But what Democrats actually want isn't wealth redistribution but opportunity redistribution. All Americans should have access to good education. All Americans should have equal access to employment, based on their skills. Certainly all Americans should have access to the political process, instead of it being a millionaires game.

Something to keep in mind.