kolmapäev, märts 31, 2004
Note to the Media
You are not liberal. The liberal radio network is not redundant. It will be no more dishonest and angry than conservative radio.
|
You are not liberal. The liberal radio network is not redundant. It will be no more dishonest and angry than conservative radio.
teisipäev, märts 30, 2004
To My Readers
Of whom I believe there may be at least two. You know who you are. Not that I've been posting terribly much to begin with, but expect things to slow down around here over the next few days. I got myself a conference to go to. It is, of course, in DC so I don't get any travelling out of it, but I do have to give up my entire work day. Doing actual work.
This is going to suck.
My point is, whatever posting I do, it's going to be early morning or late night only for the rest of the week.
I'm sure my presence will be sorely missed.
|
|
Of whom I believe there may be at least two. You know who you are. Not that I've been posting terribly much to begin with, but expect things to slow down around here over the next few days. I got myself a conference to go to. It is, of course, in DC so I don't get any travelling out of it, but I do have to give up my entire work day. Doing actual work.
This is going to suck.
My point is, whatever posting I do, it's going to be early morning or late night only for the rest of the week.
I'm sure my presence will be sorely missed.
Personal Responsibility
Gas prices are high because of Congress.
Are there really people out there who can't see through this crap?
|
Gas prices are high because of Congress.
Are there really people out there who can't see through this crap?
Outsource This
Things like this really reinforce my concern that John Kerry's getting on the wrong side of the outsourcing issue. Not politically, mind you. Clearly, jokes about outsourcing Bush's economic team and calling Bush out of touch are good for him. But ultimately Bush is right and Kerry is wrong.
Or, Bush's advisors are right, Bush shouldn't have forced them to apologize, I have no idea where he stands now, and Kerry's wrong.
Now, with regard to outsourcing, I can't say I particularly like it from a consumer's perspective. I'm in constant fear that my Dell is going to break down and I'm going to have to learn Hindi in order to get it fixed. That said, it's an unavoidable consequence of free trade, which is itself an unavoidable consequence of globalization. Free trade is, generally speaking, a good thing. Where I do agree with Kerry is that if we make free trade agreements, we need to enforce them. And I actually like his corporate tax plan quite a bit. There is no good reason to give companies that outsource jobs tax breaks for it. Then again, it's not a great idea to punish them either. But given the state of the US job market right now, it's understandable. I would actually support such a measure in the short-term.
My problem with Kerry's position is that he doesn't make that distinction. He's just coming out against outsourcing all together. That's a mistake. Because he's wrong and evidence is going to keep popping up showing that he's wrong. He should be saying that free trade is good and outsourcing is fine, but let's slow down and fix things up here first. But I imagine Bush would call that trying to take both sides on an issue because god forbid someone actually think an issue through and devise a complex policy.
|
Things like this really reinforce my concern that John Kerry's getting on the wrong side of the outsourcing issue. Not politically, mind you. Clearly, jokes about outsourcing Bush's economic team and calling Bush out of touch are good for him. But ultimately Bush is right and Kerry is wrong.
Or, Bush's advisors are right, Bush shouldn't have forced them to apologize, I have no idea where he stands now, and Kerry's wrong.
Now, with regard to outsourcing, I can't say I particularly like it from a consumer's perspective. I'm in constant fear that my Dell is going to break down and I'm going to have to learn Hindi in order to get it fixed. That said, it's an unavoidable consequence of free trade, which is itself an unavoidable consequence of globalization. Free trade is, generally speaking, a good thing. Where I do agree with Kerry is that if we make free trade agreements, we need to enforce them. And I actually like his corporate tax plan quite a bit. There is no good reason to give companies that outsource jobs tax breaks for it. Then again, it's not a great idea to punish them either. But given the state of the US job market right now, it's understandable. I would actually support such a measure in the short-term.
My problem with Kerry's position is that he doesn't make that distinction. He's just coming out against outsourcing all together. That's a mistake. Because he's wrong and evidence is going to keep popping up showing that he's wrong. He should be saying that free trade is good and outsourcing is fine, but let's slow down and fix things up here first. But I imagine Bush would call that trying to take both sides on an issue because god forbid someone actually think an issue through and devise a complex policy.
Corroboration
This is exactly the issue with Richard Clarke. Everything he's saying is backed up by numerous sources. Some of them are more credible than others, but there's no reason Bob Woodward, Hugh Shelton, Don Kerrick, and Brian Sheridan would all be lying. Well, I'm sure there's some reason Ann Coulter could come up with, but realistically, shouldn't we all consider that maybe they're telling the truth?
And so what if they are?
The most baffling thing about all this is that the charges themselves are not all that bad. Pre-9/11 ignorance is understandable and nobody, despite the insistence of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, is actually saying that Bush should have stopped the attacks from happening. Clarke is suggesting that there might have been a slight chance to do so if there was more intelligence sharing, but again, that seems like something everyone can agree with. But so far, nobody I've seen except Richard Perle has actually challenged Clarke on the substance of his arguments instead of spreading lies about his character. I don't like Perle very much and I don't agree with him, but I have to say I respect him for trying to keep the discourse at the level Clarke intended. The fundamental question here really is whether Bush or Clarke has a better understanding of how to combat terrorism. That's the debate we should be having and instead it gets buried by a White House that is terrified of having to justify its actions.
|
This is exactly the issue with Richard Clarke. Everything he's saying is backed up by numerous sources. Some of them are more credible than others, but there's no reason Bob Woodward, Hugh Shelton, Don Kerrick, and Brian Sheridan would all be lying. Well, I'm sure there's some reason Ann Coulter could come up with, but realistically, shouldn't we all consider that maybe they're telling the truth?
And so what if they are?
The most baffling thing about all this is that the charges themselves are not all that bad. Pre-9/11 ignorance is understandable and nobody, despite the insistence of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, is actually saying that Bush should have stopped the attacks from happening. Clarke is suggesting that there might have been a slight chance to do so if there was more intelligence sharing, but again, that seems like something everyone can agree with. But so far, nobody I've seen except Richard Perle has actually challenged Clarke on the substance of his arguments instead of spreading lies about his character. I don't like Perle very much and I don't agree with him, but I have to say I respect him for trying to keep the discourse at the level Clarke intended. The fundamental question here really is whether Bush or Clarke has a better understanding of how to combat terrorism. That's the debate we should be having and instead it gets buried by a White House that is terrified of having to justify its actions.
esmaspäev, märts 29, 2004
Appeasement
Damn those Spanish appeasers!
Sending more troops to Afghanistan. Wow. It's almost as if they think they can fight the war on terror without the war in Iraq. But that's just crazy, isn't it?
Sending more troops the country where the terrorists are actually hiding. Silly Spaniards. They're playing right into the terrorists' hands.
|
Damn those Spanish appeasers!
Sending more troops to Afghanistan. Wow. It's almost as if they think they can fight the war on terror without the war in Iraq. But that's just crazy, isn't it?
Sending more troops the country where the terrorists are actually hiding. Silly Spaniards. They're playing right into the terrorists' hands.
MTV
In an interview airing on MTV tomorrow, Kerry endorses the idea that homosexuals are born gay. Good for him.
|
In an interview airing on MTV tomorrow, Kerry endorses the idea that homosexuals are born gay. Good for him.
Hip-Hip-Hypocrisy
You know that dishonest Bush campaign claim that Kerry "proposed" a 50 cent gas tax because he once floated the idea in a newspaper interview, never following it up with an actual, well, proposal?
Turns out in the May 24, 1999 issue of Fortune, Bush's top economic adviser Gregory Mankiw advocated--wait for it--a 50 cent gas tax.
Mankiw said this would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming. He called it "the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer."
Man, those Bush people just keep looking more and more dishonest, don't they?
|
You know that dishonest Bush campaign claim that Kerry "proposed" a 50 cent gas tax because he once floated the idea in a newspaper interview, never following it up with an actual, well, proposal?
Turns out in the May 24, 1999 issue of Fortune, Bush's top economic adviser Gregory Mankiw advocated--wait for it--a 50 cent gas tax.
Mankiw said this would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming. He called it "the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer."
Man, those Bush people just keep looking more and more dishonest, don't they?
Priorities
Of all issues, you set up camp outside Karl Rove's house for in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants????
Not to denigrate the educational pursuits of illegal immigrants or anything, but is this really the most important issue we should be harassing Karl Rove at home over?
Aren't Americans dying somewhere?
|
Of all issues, you set up camp outside Karl Rove's house for in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants????
Not to denigrate the educational pursuits of illegal immigrants or anything, but is this really the most important issue we should be harassing Karl Rove at home over?
Aren't Americans dying somewhere?
pühapäev, märts 28, 2004
Insert Pot/Kettle Joke Here
The Bush campaign is upset that Kerry quoted the Bible.
Yeah, because Bush never talks about religion.
Jackasses.
|
The Bush campaign is upset that Kerry quoted the Bible.
Yeah, because Bush never talks about religion.
Jackasses.
Meet the Clarke
Man, that's a weak title.
You know, I'm living in the DC area and I can't find Clarke's book anywhere right now. Maybe it's my insistence on only going to stores that I have gift cards for, but still, it's selling.
Man was amazing on Meet the Press today. Intelligent, articulate, earnest, and focused on the substance of his arguments. He made many good points and, in the process, made the Bush people look terrible. Talking about raising the level of discourse, repeatedly noting that Bush has his staff trying to ruin him on taxpayer money. Pulling out the quotes from Woodward's book was brilliant. I've been pointing to them in discussion with my friends about this all week. Every major point he makes (that Bush didn't consider terrorism urgent, that they didn't have a plan until September, that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted to attack Iraq) is backed up by Woodward, who had White House cooperation.
What's amazing to me is that none of that is controversial. I mean, this is the first time all of it has come together in one book written by an insider, but hardly anything Clarke has said this week has been news to me. And the fact that the White House hasn't actually refuted any of it says a lot. Instead, they just go after his character and pretend they've discredited him.
Also, his statement about already planning to donate part of the profits and needing to keep the rest because the Bush people will ruin his future in government, well played. Very well played.
|
Man, that's a weak title.
You know, I'm living in the DC area and I can't find Clarke's book anywhere right now. Maybe it's my insistence on only going to stores that I have gift cards for, but still, it's selling.
Man was amazing on Meet the Press today. Intelligent, articulate, earnest, and focused on the substance of his arguments. He made many good points and, in the process, made the Bush people look terrible. Talking about raising the level of discourse, repeatedly noting that Bush has his staff trying to ruin him on taxpayer money. Pulling out the quotes from Woodward's book was brilliant. I've been pointing to them in discussion with my friends about this all week. Every major point he makes (that Bush didn't consider terrorism urgent, that they didn't have a plan until September, that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted to attack Iraq) is backed up by Woodward, who had White House cooperation.
What's amazing to me is that none of that is controversial. I mean, this is the first time all of it has come together in one book written by an insider, but hardly anything Clarke has said this week has been news to me. And the fact that the White House hasn't actually refuted any of it says a lot. Instead, they just go after his character and pretend they've discredited him.
Also, his statement about already planning to donate part of the profits and needing to keep the rest because the Bush people will ruin his future in government, well played. Very well played.
Thievery
The conspiracy theory pretty much writes itself about this.
All paranoia aside, though, it's really unsettling. Why did someone know this guy had Kerry's FBI files? What do they think is in them? Who told them it was in them? You don't break into a historian's house and steal a presidential candidate's FBI files if you don't expect to find something in them. Do you?
|
The conspiracy theory pretty much writes itself about this.
All paranoia aside, though, it's really unsettling. Why did someone know this guy had Kerry's FBI files? What do they think is in them? Who told them it was in them? You don't break into a historian's house and steal a presidential candidate's FBI files if you don't expect to find something in them. Do you?
laupäev, märts 27, 2004
Memo to Karen Hughes
From the White House:
Karen, if you want to profit off of your connection to the president and first-hand knowledge of the workings of the White House by writing a positive book about President Bush, go right ahead.
No reason to question your motives whatsoever. Everything you say will obviously be true because it will be positive. Not like that career government employee who worked for four presidents. He's lying scum. Be sure to mention that in any interviews you do. Also, if you don't mind, suggest that he's a racist. If you want to say he's gay, we won't mind that either.
Just get your book out as soon as possible. Seriously, we need help.
|
From the White House:
Karen, if you want to profit off of your connection to the president and first-hand knowledge of the workings of the White House by writing a positive book about President Bush, go right ahead.
No reason to question your motives whatsoever. Everything you say will obviously be true because it will be positive. Not like that career government employee who worked for four presidents. He's lying scum. Be sure to mention that in any interviews you do. Also, if you don't mind, suggest that he's a racist. If you want to say he's gay, we won't mind that either.
Just get your book out as soon as possible. Seriously, we need help.
David Brooks Is Right. We're All Wrong.
A handful of thoughts on this story.
Setting aside the whole declassifying information for partisan purposes thing that should make every American sick, does this make sense?
Frist says Clarke lied in his testimony. He then acknowledges that he hasn't actually read it. I assume we can all see the logical disconnect there.
Bob Graham witnessed the testimony. He sees no contradiction.
The 9/11 commission has his testimony, they brought up no contradictions in his testimony, and they'll eventually release a report which would identify any contradictions. So we need to drag him through the mud now why? Oh, right. Because Bush is in trouble.
This has been pointed out a few places, but you apparently don't need to declassify this stuff to charge him with perjury, so this is clearly all about politics. Shouldn't it be a little unnerving that Frist cares more about making Clarke look bad than dealing with the issues Clarke raises or at least, you know, seeing his testimony before accusing him of lying?
How can Republicans not have a problem with all this?
Kerry's handling this brilliantly. He's not saying anything about the substance of the allegations or the work of the commission. He's refusing to politicize that and he's not endorsing Clarke's views, which would strengthen attacks on Clarke's partisanship. Instead he's asking the same questions anyone who's not completely blinded by Bush love should be asking. And he's observing that Bush has chosen to ignore what Clarke said and go after Clarke personally. He' absolutely right to stay out of it, though. Clarke can and will fight for himself.
Then again, David Brooks says Clarke's lying, so clearly I'm wrong.
I apologize. Mr. Brooks has shown me the error of my ways.
|
A handful of thoughts on this story.
Setting aside the whole declassifying information for partisan purposes thing that should make every American sick, does this make sense?
Frist says Clarke lied in his testimony. He then acknowledges that he hasn't actually read it. I assume we can all see the logical disconnect there.
Bob Graham witnessed the testimony. He sees no contradiction.
The 9/11 commission has his testimony, they brought up no contradictions in his testimony, and they'll eventually release a report which would identify any contradictions. So we need to drag him through the mud now why? Oh, right. Because Bush is in trouble.
This has been pointed out a few places, but you apparently don't need to declassify this stuff to charge him with perjury, so this is clearly all about politics. Shouldn't it be a little unnerving that Frist cares more about making Clarke look bad than dealing with the issues Clarke raises or at least, you know, seeing his testimony before accusing him of lying?
How can Republicans not have a problem with all this?
Kerry's handling this brilliantly. He's not saying anything about the substance of the allegations or the work of the commission. He's refusing to politicize that and he's not endorsing Clarke's views, which would strengthen attacks on Clarke's partisanship. Instead he's asking the same questions anyone who's not completely blinded by Bush love should be asking. And he's observing that Bush has chosen to ignore what Clarke said and go after Clarke personally. He' absolutely right to stay out of it, though. Clarke can and will fight for himself.
Then again, David Brooks says Clarke's lying, so clearly I'm wrong.
I apologize. Mr. Brooks has shown me the error of my ways.
reede, märts 26, 2004
So Wrong
When exactly did some guy criticizing the president become justification for declassifying classified information?
Sweet Jesus, these people are shameless, arrogant thugs.
|
|
When exactly did some guy criticizing the president become justification for declassifying classified information?
Sweet Jesus, these people are shameless, arrogant thugs.
Hey Ya! World Net Daily Sucks!
What?
Try to follow this one.
Though the Democratic Party is known for its aversion to weapons and has pushed legislation limiting firearm rights, ex-Presidents Carter and Clinton joined a star-studded fund-raiser last night featuring the rap duo Outkast, which promotes itself with an image of one member of the group brandishing a handgun.
Democrats support gun control legislation that outlaws some kinds of firearms. They held an event featuring a band that has promoted itself with one photograph of a group member holding a gun that is legally available under said legislation. Yeah, you got them there. That sure is some hypocrisy.
On Outkast's website, outkast.com, one member of the group, Dre (aka Andre Benjamin), is seen prominently brandishing a smoking gun in his right hand. (After going to site, click on the right-hand image labeled "The Love Below.")
Yep. There it is. He is holding a gun. I can never listen to Outkast again. Sure was fun while it lasted.
The second event, featuring Outkast, appeared to be targeted at a different economic class, with 5,000 people expecting to pay just $50 each.
Silly Democrats. Campaign events are for the rich.
Also, we should all note that poor black people like music by gun owners.
More importantly, $50 for an Outkast concert. Hell, I'd consider paying that even if it went to Bush.
Outkast won the Album of the Year Grammy last month for their latest project, "Speakerboxxx/The Love Below," which has sold over 3.5 million copies. CBS apologized to the Native-American community after the group appeared on the broadcast in feathers and war paint dancing around a teepee.
Outkast offends Native Americans. You need to know this in order to understand how Democrats are evil.
The award-winning album contains profanity-laced songs with titles such as "Where are My Panties?" "She Lives in My Lap" and "Vibrate."
Not only are they gun owners, but they use profanity. Not like our president. Just ask Tucker Carlson.
As WorldNetDaily reported, in 2002 Outkast was the featured act in an annual music festival held in Columbia, S.C., that organizers called a "signature family event." Those in charge of the event believed the duo would help save the financially troubled festival.
Outkast helped save a financially troubled family music festival. So really, they're socially conscious, charitable people. No, this doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the article. But we broke the big story that they were performing at a public event two years ago and you need to be reminded of that.
So in conclusion, Outkast are a bunch of violent, foul-mouthed, Injun haters who also promote families and political awareness. Democrats should reject support from anyone who owns a gun.
Ugh. I just looked at the World Net Daily website. I need to go take a shower.
|
What?
Try to follow this one.
Though the Democratic Party is known for its aversion to weapons and has pushed legislation limiting firearm rights, ex-Presidents Carter and Clinton joined a star-studded fund-raiser last night featuring the rap duo Outkast, which promotes itself with an image of one member of the group brandishing a handgun.
Democrats support gun control legislation that outlaws some kinds of firearms. They held an event featuring a band that has promoted itself with one photograph of a group member holding a gun that is legally available under said legislation. Yeah, you got them there. That sure is some hypocrisy.
On Outkast's website, outkast.com, one member of the group, Dre (aka Andre Benjamin), is seen prominently brandishing a smoking gun in his right hand. (After going to site, click on the right-hand image labeled "The Love Below.")
Yep. There it is. He is holding a gun. I can never listen to Outkast again. Sure was fun while it lasted.
The second event, featuring Outkast, appeared to be targeted at a different economic class, with 5,000 people expecting to pay just $50 each.
Silly Democrats. Campaign events are for the rich.
Also, we should all note that poor black people like music by gun owners.
More importantly, $50 for an Outkast concert. Hell, I'd consider paying that even if it went to Bush.
Outkast won the Album of the Year Grammy last month for their latest project, "Speakerboxxx/The Love Below," which has sold over 3.5 million copies. CBS apologized to the Native-American community after the group appeared on the broadcast in feathers and war paint dancing around a teepee.
Outkast offends Native Americans. You need to know this in order to understand how Democrats are evil.
The award-winning album contains profanity-laced songs with titles such as "Where are My Panties?" "She Lives in My Lap" and "Vibrate."
Not only are they gun owners, but they use profanity. Not like our president. Just ask Tucker Carlson.
As WorldNetDaily reported, in 2002 Outkast was the featured act in an annual music festival held in Columbia, S.C., that organizers called a "signature family event." Those in charge of the event believed the duo would help save the financially troubled festival.
Outkast helped save a financially troubled family music festival. So really, they're socially conscious, charitable people. No, this doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the article. But we broke the big story that they were performing at a public event two years ago and you need to be reminded of that.
So in conclusion, Outkast are a bunch of violent, foul-mouthed, Injun haters who also promote families and political awareness. Democrats should reject support from anyone who owns a gun.
Ugh. I just looked at the World Net Daily website. I need to go take a shower.
I'm Lazy
This looks like a good summary of Clarke's book.
Saved me 300 pages of reading and 25 bucks.
|
This looks like a good summary of Clarke's book.
Saved me 300 pages of reading and 25 bucks.
neljapäev, märts 25, 2004
|
Freedom, Sweet Freedom
"I saw a threat," Mr. Bush said a moment later. "The Congress saw a threat,
the United Nations Security Council saw a threat in the form of Saddam
Hussein. He was not only a threat to people in the Middle East because of
terrorist ties, he was a threat to America or anybody else who loved
freedom."
Okay, I understand Bush needs to say something to defend the war. And I don't agree with him, but I'll give him that Saddam might have been a threat to America. I think a reporter badly needs to challenge him on that and get him to explain exactly how, but it's not entirely unreasonable. But that last part, about Saddam being a threat to everyone who loves freedom?
Please God, tell me that's not what he really thinks.
We're not talking about Doctor Doom here. We're not talking about the Borg. We're talking about Saddam Hussein. An evil man running a small country with a pathetically weak army that didn't even want to fight for him. He wasn't Hitler. He had no grand designs for world domination. He wasn't going to enslave western Europe. He didn't hate freedom. He just denied it to his people in order to maintain his power. But he was no threat to my freedom or the freedom of the average Swede. So stop trying to make yourself look like Churchill.
Jackass.
|
"I saw a threat," Mr. Bush said a moment later. "The Congress saw a threat,
the United Nations Security Council saw a threat in the form of Saddam
Hussein. He was not only a threat to people in the Middle East because of
terrorist ties, he was a threat to America or anybody else who loved
freedom."
Okay, I understand Bush needs to say something to defend the war. And I don't agree with him, but I'll give him that Saddam might have been a threat to America. I think a reporter badly needs to challenge him on that and get him to explain exactly how, but it's not entirely unreasonable. But that last part, about Saddam being a threat to everyone who loves freedom?
Please God, tell me that's not what he really thinks.
We're not talking about Doctor Doom here. We're not talking about the Borg. We're talking about Saddam Hussein. An evil man running a small country with a pathetically weak army that didn't even want to fight for him. He wasn't Hitler. He had no grand designs for world domination. He wasn't going to enslave western Europe. He didn't hate freedom. He just denied it to his people in order to maintain his power. But he was no threat to my freedom or the freedom of the average Swede. So stop trying to make yourself look like Churchill.
Jackass.
Blindness
Something that's bothering me significantly right now is the way so many Republicans and Bush supporters have so readily discarded Richard Clarke's complaints. I can understand why the White House and Republican politicians would fight so hard to discredit Clarke and pretend his comments don't matter. What I don't get is the blindness of people who buy in to it that spin easily. The man is a highly respected career civil servant who votes Republican. Why is he so clearly untrustworthy? So far, the Bush administration has made very few legitimate complaints about Clarke. The only one that comes to mind, if this is even true, is that he allegedly jumbled the sequence of events between the first WTC bombing and the attempt to kill the first Bush. If that's the case, then yes, he got a fact wrong. That doesn't invalidate his argument.
From what I've seen, these are the basic points the White House is making:
1. Clarke was out of the loop
2. Clarke was in charge of everything and screwed up
3. He wrote a really polite resignation letter
4. We sent him to brief the press once and he didn't criticize us
5. His book is coming out only seven months before an election
6. He was angry that we demoted him when he suggested that his position should be demoted
7. He knows Rand Beers
8. He wrote a book
Setting aside the internal contradictions of some of these arguments, how is this case convincing to anyone? I mean, really, there's nothing they've said that actually challenges any of his facts. And yet, these people buy into it. Shouldn't it bother you that what he said might be true? Has it occurred to you that the White House has no answer for his actual allegations accept to accuse him of contradictions where there obviously are none? I really can't accept that someone who's running around screaming "Look at the Fox News transcript! He's lying!" seriously believes it proves anything. And I have to think these people know their arguments are dishonest.
This all goes back to that idea of intellectual honesty I mentioned way back like 5 days ago in my first post. These people who say "He's friends with a Kerry advisor so I don't trust him" have to know that's not good enough. They have to know that doesn't actually refute his facts in any way. But they still say it and more importantly, they pretend it resolves the issue. Now, there is an incredibly serious question being raised by Clarke about the president's honesty and his competence. Shouldn't it concern you in some way that no real evidence has been presented to refute him? I know you like Bush, but if Clarke's right, Bush's poor judgement could endanger all of our lives. Shouldn't we all want to get to the truth of this, no matter who we support? It concerns me when people let their love of Bush get in the way of seriously considering the very serious criticism surrounding him. I get that political operatives can be more interested in winning than being right, but what the hell is wrong with regular citizens who think the same way?
|
Something that's bothering me significantly right now is the way so many Republicans and Bush supporters have so readily discarded Richard Clarke's complaints. I can understand why the White House and Republican politicians would fight so hard to discredit Clarke and pretend his comments don't matter. What I don't get is the blindness of people who buy in to it that spin easily. The man is a highly respected career civil servant who votes Republican. Why is he so clearly untrustworthy? So far, the Bush administration has made very few legitimate complaints about Clarke. The only one that comes to mind, if this is even true, is that he allegedly jumbled the sequence of events between the first WTC bombing and the attempt to kill the first Bush. If that's the case, then yes, he got a fact wrong. That doesn't invalidate his argument.
From what I've seen, these are the basic points the White House is making:
1. Clarke was out of the loop
2. Clarke was in charge of everything and screwed up
3. He wrote a really polite resignation letter
4. We sent him to brief the press once and he didn't criticize us
5. His book is coming out only seven months before an election
6. He was angry that we demoted him when he suggested that his position should be demoted
7. He knows Rand Beers
8. He wrote a book
Setting aside the internal contradictions of some of these arguments, how is this case convincing to anyone? I mean, really, there's nothing they've said that actually challenges any of his facts. And yet, these people buy into it. Shouldn't it bother you that what he said might be true? Has it occurred to you that the White House has no answer for his actual allegations accept to accuse him of contradictions where there obviously are none? I really can't accept that someone who's running around screaming "Look at the Fox News transcript! He's lying!" seriously believes it proves anything. And I have to think these people know their arguments are dishonest.
This all goes back to that idea of intellectual honesty I mentioned way back like 5 days ago in my first post. These people who say "He's friends with a Kerry advisor so I don't trust him" have to know that's not good enough. They have to know that doesn't actually refute his facts in any way. But they still say it and more importantly, they pretend it resolves the issue. Now, there is an incredibly serious question being raised by Clarke about the president's honesty and his competence. Shouldn't it concern you in some way that no real evidence has been presented to refute him? I know you like Bush, but if Clarke's right, Bush's poor judgement could endanger all of our lives. Shouldn't we all want to get to the truth of this, no matter who we support? It concerns me when people let their love of Bush get in the way of seriously considering the very serious criticism surrounding him. I get that political operatives can be more interested in winning than being right, but what the hell is wrong with regular citizens who think the same way?
Sierra
RNC spokesman Jim Dyke in response to anti-Bush ads being run by the Sierra Club this week: "The Sierra Club is a political organization whose top priority for 2004 is not protecting the environment but working to defeat Republicans and President Bush."
Well, okay, but isn't the whole point that the best way to protect the environment is to defeat Republicans and President Bush? The two goals are pretty closely linked in the minds of environmentalists. It seems weak to try to question their motives when the logic supporting their strategy is so obvious.
Then again, what's the other option? Actually trying to defend Bush's environmental record?
|
RNC spokesman Jim Dyke in response to anti-Bush ads being run by the Sierra Club this week: "The Sierra Club is a political organization whose top priority for 2004 is not protecting the environment but working to defeat Republicans and President Bush."
Well, okay, but isn't the whole point that the best way to protect the environment is to defeat Republicans and President Bush? The two goals are pretty closely linked in the minds of environmentalists. It seems weak to try to question their motives when the logic supporting their strategy is so obvious.
Then again, what's the other option? Actually trying to defend Bush's environmental record?
Foreign Leaders
This may be the best Max Boot column I've ever read. Usually his stuff veers into neocon propaganda, but he makes several very important points here:
1. Bush's insistence that Kerry name his foreign leaders is fundamentally dishonest and unfair because there is no way Kerry can actually make those leaders' views public.
2. Kerry's comments raise a very important point about the fact that the US isn't very well liked abroad and that is a real problem that Bush wants to ignore.
3. The vote in Spain wasn't about appeasement. It was, however, partially a rejection of Bush.
4. European distaste for Bush could have very real implications for the war on terror if the public continues to elect leaders who oppose Bush.
5. Not all animosity toward the US is Bush's fault. Some of it has been constant for a long time, but Bush's arrogance and dismissal of European opinions don't help.
6. A Kerry victory wouldn't automatically fix things.
This issue is actually one of the major reasons I oppose Bush. I see serious consequences in his antagonitic attitude toward countries that have historically been our allies. And whether he leaves office in 2004 or 2008, the next president will have to spend years fixing our relationship with the rest of the world. The strong opposition to Bush in Europe is already weakening the war on terror by driving leaders to pull support away from us. This trend would only get worse with four more years. It also gives the French a clear example of why the EU needs to rise up as a competitor of the US. Because the Americans can elect a dimwitted jackass who will have the power to walk all over the international community.
The US is in a situation right now where it needs all the support it can get. There are terrorists hiding out all over the world and we need the help of local law enforcement to find them. Some would say we lost bin Laden because the Afghan fighters we sent in to Tora Bora couldn't be trusted. There are probably a lot of officers and soldiers in Pakistan who don't care much about our goals. This makes it more difficult to find terrorists. What happens when the French police or German intelligence or the Spanish prime minister decide they don't need to be that aggressive in helping us fight? Well, the Spanish pull their troops out of Iraq and we've got a big problem. If we're going to keep running around fighting wars with coalitions of the willing, we need to make sure there are some countries left that are still willing.
Kerry won't be able to fix all of this, nor should he. We can't subordinate our own needs just to get a thumbs up from Estonia. But he'll try and that's something Bush hasn't done. When Kerry goes to the UN for support, people will believe that he actually wants it. And showing respect to allies goes a long way. The contempt Bush shows for everyone who disagrees with him leaves little incentive to negotiate with him and find common ground. Instead, we wind up renaming french fries. That's just the kind of maturity we need in government at this moment in history. A president who acts like a 12-year-old who didn't get invited to a birthday party.
|
This may be the best Max Boot column I've ever read. Usually his stuff veers into neocon propaganda, but he makes several very important points here:
1. Bush's insistence that Kerry name his foreign leaders is fundamentally dishonest and unfair because there is no way Kerry can actually make those leaders' views public.
2. Kerry's comments raise a very important point about the fact that the US isn't very well liked abroad and that is a real problem that Bush wants to ignore.
3. The vote in Spain wasn't about appeasement. It was, however, partially a rejection of Bush.
4. European distaste for Bush could have very real implications for the war on terror if the public continues to elect leaders who oppose Bush.
5. Not all animosity toward the US is Bush's fault. Some of it has been constant for a long time, but Bush's arrogance and dismissal of European opinions don't help.
6. A Kerry victory wouldn't automatically fix things.
This issue is actually one of the major reasons I oppose Bush. I see serious consequences in his antagonitic attitude toward countries that have historically been our allies. And whether he leaves office in 2004 or 2008, the next president will have to spend years fixing our relationship with the rest of the world. The strong opposition to Bush in Europe is already weakening the war on terror by driving leaders to pull support away from us. This trend would only get worse with four more years. It also gives the French a clear example of why the EU needs to rise up as a competitor of the US. Because the Americans can elect a dimwitted jackass who will have the power to walk all over the international community.
The US is in a situation right now where it needs all the support it can get. There are terrorists hiding out all over the world and we need the help of local law enforcement to find them. Some would say we lost bin Laden because the Afghan fighters we sent in to Tora Bora couldn't be trusted. There are probably a lot of officers and soldiers in Pakistan who don't care much about our goals. This makes it more difficult to find terrorists. What happens when the French police or German intelligence or the Spanish prime minister decide they don't need to be that aggressive in helping us fight? Well, the Spanish pull their troops out of Iraq and we've got a big problem. If we're going to keep running around fighting wars with coalitions of the willing, we need to make sure there are some countries left that are still willing.
Kerry won't be able to fix all of this, nor should he. We can't subordinate our own needs just to get a thumbs up from Estonia. But he'll try and that's something Bush hasn't done. When Kerry goes to the UN for support, people will believe that he actually wants it. And showing respect to allies goes a long way. The contempt Bush shows for everyone who disagrees with him leaves little incentive to negotiate with him and find common ground. Instead, we wind up renaming french fries. That's just the kind of maturity we need in government at this moment in history. A president who acts like a 12-year-old who didn't get invited to a birthday party.
kolmapäev, märts 24, 2004
Balance
This is unfortunate.
I could get into a thing about how Bush did it first or the RNC lies are worse, but really this is the type of crap that just pisses me off. It's willfully dishonest, but more importantly, it's unnecessary. Bush is underfunding No Child Left Behind. We can say that without lying. We can call it an unfunded mandate. We can hit him for irresponsibility. We can do all that on the basis of facts. Yes, there is a gray area on the question of whether the full funding is truly necessary or if local school districts are just wasting what they have, but he's not giving as much as the law allows. Why do we also need to lie?
And on job training, I'd have no problem with them pointing out the cuts Bush has made and not mentioning the new program he's proposing. That seems fair. Slightly misleading, but politics is politics and Bush is cutting the program. He's cutting a major job training program. People would get that. You don't need to overreach.
The final bit about logic and the deficit strikes me as perfectly fine, though. The Democrats aren't arguing that Bush is spending too much. They're arguing that he cut revenues too much. Anyone with a basic understanding of the facts knows that the target here is the tax cuts, not education spending. And the point is that Bush proposed a major education initiative that invovled a massive boost in funding without collecting enough in taxes too pay for it. You can like the spending without liking the fiscal irresponsibility. It's not a contradiction. It's just a more complicated argument than you can fit in a 30-second web ad.
See? I told you I'd criticize Democrats sometimes.
|
This is unfortunate.
I could get into a thing about how Bush did it first or the RNC lies are worse, but really this is the type of crap that just pisses me off. It's willfully dishonest, but more importantly, it's unnecessary. Bush is underfunding No Child Left Behind. We can say that without lying. We can call it an unfunded mandate. We can hit him for irresponsibility. We can do all that on the basis of facts. Yes, there is a gray area on the question of whether the full funding is truly necessary or if local school districts are just wasting what they have, but he's not giving as much as the law allows. Why do we also need to lie?
And on job training, I'd have no problem with them pointing out the cuts Bush has made and not mentioning the new program he's proposing. That seems fair. Slightly misleading, but politics is politics and Bush is cutting the program. He's cutting a major job training program. People would get that. You don't need to overreach.
The final bit about logic and the deficit strikes me as perfectly fine, though. The Democrats aren't arguing that Bush is spending too much. They're arguing that he cut revenues too much. Anyone with a basic understanding of the facts knows that the target here is the tax cuts, not education spending. And the point is that Bush proposed a major education initiative that invovled a massive boost in funding without collecting enough in taxes too pay for it. You can like the spending without liking the fiscal irresponsibility. It's not a contradiction. It's just a more complicated argument than you can fit in a 30-second web ad.
See? I told you I'd criticize Democrats sometimes.
How Dare He?
Well, this may be even stupider than the people who criticized Kerry for being rich. Setting aside for the moment that the only source for this story is the American Spectator--actually, no. Let's start with that. Can the American Spectator ever be trusted to print anything remotely true about a Democrat? Especially something that is anonymously attributed to a Kerry staffer. Second, you're upset because he showed up late in a ski suit? Is that really uncommon near a ski resort? But I really don't see how these people have the right to question John Kerry's faith or his ability to receive Communion. If receiving Communion offends God, that's between John Kerry and God, not John Kerry and the American Life League. Considering he's running against Captian Flight Suit, there's also something hilarious about anyone criticizing Kerry for seeking a photo-op.
Although if Christ ever did say "Come to me, all you who would use my church in a cheap attempt to shamelessly promote your ambitions," the Bible could have been a lot more interesting.
|
Well, this may be even stupider than the people who criticized Kerry for being rich. Setting aside for the moment that the only source for this story is the American Spectator--actually, no. Let's start with that. Can the American Spectator ever be trusted to print anything remotely true about a Democrat? Especially something that is anonymously attributed to a Kerry staffer. Second, you're upset because he showed up late in a ski suit? Is that really uncommon near a ski resort? But I really don't see how these people have the right to question John Kerry's faith or his ability to receive Communion. If receiving Communion offends God, that's between John Kerry and God, not John Kerry and the American Life League. Considering he's running against Captian Flight Suit, there's also something hilarious about anyone criticizing Kerry for seeking a photo-op.
Although if Christ ever did say "Come to me, all you who would use my church in a cheap attempt to shamelessly promote your ambitions," the Bible could have been a lot more interesting.
And Your Point Is?
The Republican congressional staff has put together a list of "rich" people who would face tax increases under John Kerry's plan. This, apparently, is meant to make Kerry's plan look bad. The list is based on the 2.3 million tax returns in the top tax bracket:
1.82 million families
6.24 million people
741,000 businesses
535,216 sole proprietorships
52,135 farms
230,933 small businesses
713,050 people paying some self employment taxes
Okay, now, keeping in mind the very broad and dishonest Republican definition of a small business owner, what the hell does any of this prove? 1.82 million families? Fine, but they can still be rich families. How does that matter? They're still making whatever they're making. 6.24 million people if you include all of the members of those families. When the acceptable Republican definition of rich stopped including families with children, I have no idea. 52,000 farms, okay, that really doesn't sound like very many. And if they're in the top tax bracket, they're pretty successful farms.
So my question is, are people really dumb enough to consider this a damaging criticism of Kerry? Did anybody not think his policy would have raised taxes on some families? I don't really see where they're going with this one. Well, I do, but I just hope people aren't stupid enough to buy it.
|
The Republican congressional staff has put together a list of "rich" people who would face tax increases under John Kerry's plan. This, apparently, is meant to make Kerry's plan look bad. The list is based on the 2.3 million tax returns in the top tax bracket:
1.82 million families
6.24 million people
741,000 businesses
535,216 sole proprietorships
52,135 farms
230,933 small businesses
713,050 people paying some self employment taxes
Okay, now, keeping in mind the very broad and dishonest Republican definition of a small business owner, what the hell does any of this prove? 1.82 million families? Fine, but they can still be rich families. How does that matter? They're still making whatever they're making. 6.24 million people if you include all of the members of those families. When the acceptable Republican definition of rich stopped including families with children, I have no idea. 52,000 farms, okay, that really doesn't sound like very many. And if they're in the top tax bracket, they're pretty successful farms.
So my question is, are people really dumb enough to consider this a damaging criticism of Kerry? Did anybody not think his policy would have raised taxes on some families? I don't really see where they're going with this one. Well, I do, but I just hope people aren't stupid enough to buy it.
Unity
This is a great column in general, but the last two paragraphs seem to be the key to what's wrong with Bush:
It's funny, in retrospect, that Bush ran for president as a uniter. To unite a country, you have to acknowledge and reconcile differences. Bush doesn't work toward unity; he assumes it. He doesn't reconcile differences; he denies them. It's his tax cut or nothing. It's his homeland security bill or nothing. It's his terrorism policy or nothing. If you're playing politics, this is smart strategy. But if you're trying to help the country, it's foolish. The odds are that 50 percent of the other party's ideas are right. By ruling them out, you start your presidency 50 percent wrong.
Some of the resulting mistakes may be inconsequential. Some may cost 3,000 lives. Some may cost 2 million jobs. "If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years … we would not have had the kind of job growth we've had," Cheney bragged three weeks ago. That's the way this administration thinks: We do things differently. But being different doesn't guarantee you a better result—just a different one.
I'm always disgusted when Bush tries to pretend that Democrats are really responsible for division in Washington, when he claims he really tried to be a uniter. Some people dismiss the extreme partisanship in politics today as a symptom of the deeply divided nature of our country today. I don't buy that. Sure, there's maybe 30% of people who are so skewed that you'll never get them behind you. I'm talking here about the kind of people who worship the Gospels according to Coulter, Limbaugh, and Moore. It's one thing to listen to those guys for entertainment, but it's another to believe every word they say. The other 70% are up for grabs. I can't imagine there's anything Clinton could have done to get the support of a Limbaugh fan. Among the country in general, though, once the economy started turning around, he was very well liked. Despite the partisan anger in Congress, he had the support of a lot of Republicans in the public a lot of the time. That, of course, changed somewhat after the whole impeachment thing, but the point is that he didn't govern in an intentionally divisive way.
There's a lot to be said for that. There is also, certainly, a downside. Clinton is often criticized by liberals for compromising too much and being too centrist precisely because he wanted everyone to like him. This is a problem Bush doesn't have. As long as enough people like him to get him re-elected, he doesn't much care what the rest of us think. We all just fall in the "against us" category and we are therefore disregarded. This is, ultimately, a result of Bush's narrow-minded insistence that his way is the only way. He's had many opportunities to compromise but he refuses on principle, regardless of whether the compromise is better policy. When Democrats tried to expand the tax credit to poorer families, for example, Bush rejected it, despite the fact that putting money in the hands of people who desperately need money practically guarantees they will spend it right away, thus stimulating the economy. Instead, Bush insisted on giving the biggest chunk of his tax cut to rich people who were much less likely to spend it. In terms of stimulus, giving more money to the people who need money seems like the obviously preferrable option, but it wasn't Bush's idea and it would help people who won't vote for him, so he opposed it. Even when his approval ratings were artificially inflated by fears of terrorism, Bush made no gestures to work with Democrats. The few times that he did, as with Ted Kennedy and the Medicare bill, he intentionally screwed them.
I have a friend who recently told me that it isn't Bush's fault and Al Gore would be just as divisive. This is why I would disagree. Gore's agenda was very centrist and, once you got through the GOP propaganda, not very objectionable. I would say the same for Kerry's. Bush's policies directed at privatizing as many government programs as he can, ballooning the deficit, cutting taxes as much as possible, and actively seeking to piss off our allies justifiably bother a lot of people. But in the end, we're talking about style here, not substance. People say Clinton could sell anything and I believe it. And if he couldn't sell it, he'd keep trying until he did. Bush? He can't even sell members of his own party on immigration reform. And that doesn't seem to bother him at all.
After all, he's a uniter. Who cares how many people he actually unites? He just keeps saying it, so it must be true. He did restore honor and integrity to the White House, you know.
|
This is a great column in general, but the last two paragraphs seem to be the key to what's wrong with Bush:
It's funny, in retrospect, that Bush ran for president as a uniter. To unite a country, you have to acknowledge and reconcile differences. Bush doesn't work toward unity; he assumes it. He doesn't reconcile differences; he denies them. It's his tax cut or nothing. It's his homeland security bill or nothing. It's his terrorism policy or nothing. If you're playing politics, this is smart strategy. But if you're trying to help the country, it's foolish. The odds are that 50 percent of the other party's ideas are right. By ruling them out, you start your presidency 50 percent wrong.
Some of the resulting mistakes may be inconsequential. Some may cost 3,000 lives. Some may cost 2 million jobs. "If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years … we would not have had the kind of job growth we've had," Cheney bragged three weeks ago. That's the way this administration thinks: We do things differently. But being different doesn't guarantee you a better result—just a different one.
I'm always disgusted when Bush tries to pretend that Democrats are really responsible for division in Washington, when he claims he really tried to be a uniter. Some people dismiss the extreme partisanship in politics today as a symptom of the deeply divided nature of our country today. I don't buy that. Sure, there's maybe 30% of people who are so skewed that you'll never get them behind you. I'm talking here about the kind of people who worship the Gospels according to Coulter, Limbaugh, and Moore. It's one thing to listen to those guys for entertainment, but it's another to believe every word they say. The other 70% are up for grabs. I can't imagine there's anything Clinton could have done to get the support of a Limbaugh fan. Among the country in general, though, once the economy started turning around, he was very well liked. Despite the partisan anger in Congress, he had the support of a lot of Republicans in the public a lot of the time. That, of course, changed somewhat after the whole impeachment thing, but the point is that he didn't govern in an intentionally divisive way.
There's a lot to be said for that. There is also, certainly, a downside. Clinton is often criticized by liberals for compromising too much and being too centrist precisely because he wanted everyone to like him. This is a problem Bush doesn't have. As long as enough people like him to get him re-elected, he doesn't much care what the rest of us think. We all just fall in the "against us" category and we are therefore disregarded. This is, ultimately, a result of Bush's narrow-minded insistence that his way is the only way. He's had many opportunities to compromise but he refuses on principle, regardless of whether the compromise is better policy. When Democrats tried to expand the tax credit to poorer families, for example, Bush rejected it, despite the fact that putting money in the hands of people who desperately need money practically guarantees they will spend it right away, thus stimulating the economy. Instead, Bush insisted on giving the biggest chunk of his tax cut to rich people who were much less likely to spend it. In terms of stimulus, giving more money to the people who need money seems like the obviously preferrable option, but it wasn't Bush's idea and it would help people who won't vote for him, so he opposed it. Even when his approval ratings were artificially inflated by fears of terrorism, Bush made no gestures to work with Democrats. The few times that he did, as with Ted Kennedy and the Medicare bill, he intentionally screwed them.
I have a friend who recently told me that it isn't Bush's fault and Al Gore would be just as divisive. This is why I would disagree. Gore's agenda was very centrist and, once you got through the GOP propaganda, not very objectionable. I would say the same for Kerry's. Bush's policies directed at privatizing as many government programs as he can, ballooning the deficit, cutting taxes as much as possible, and actively seeking to piss off our allies justifiably bother a lot of people. But in the end, we're talking about style here, not substance. People say Clinton could sell anything and I believe it. And if he couldn't sell it, he'd keep trying until he did. Bush? He can't even sell members of his own party on immigration reform. And that doesn't seem to bother him at all.
After all, he's a uniter. Who cares how many people he actually unites? He just keeps saying it, so it must be true. He did restore honor and integrity to the White House, you know.
Kaplan
This has been linked a lot of places already and I don't have anything new to add really, except, damn, this is some good analysis.
|
This has been linked a lot of places already and I don't have anything new to add really, except, damn, this is some good analysis.
A Digression
Allow me to indulge briefly in my frustration over the state of Georgetown basketball and this opinion expressed by Mary Beth Sexton:
"Esherick Firing Is Disturbing Precedent"
That precedent being, if you don't win games, we will fire you. Yeah, that's really not a message we should be sending to coaches. Coaches should be welcome to run a good team a horrendously poor performance without fear of being held accountable for their failures. Otherwise, they might try to win, and we really don't want that.
Coach Esherick is an incredibly fine man and a fine coach.
Now, I don't question the first part of that statement. He always seemed like a nice guy. But I don't know anyone who would agree with the second part. Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason he was fired was because he wasn't a fine coach.
When anyone denigrated the team’s efforts or its coach this past season, they were denigrating a group of their fellow students who worked incredibly hard every day in practice, traveled almost every week and went out intending to win games for their school.
We shouldn't criticize people who work hard. Well, I'm sure Whoopi Goldberg works very hard on his sitcom, but it still isn't funny.
I also can’t imagine that another coach would want to come to Georgetown after watching a man who dedicated his life to the basketball program get fired after one season in which the team struggled.
Okay. This right here. This is problem with your argument. It's not one season. It's pretty much every season since he took over. It's not like this one bad season was a surprise. It was the logical antecedent to the last bad season. In five years running the team, he had one good one. And he didn't have many good players left to rebuild with. The team needs new blood. And it needs a new coach. The general consensus among people I know was that this firing was long overdue, not unjustified.
|
Allow me to indulge briefly in my frustration over the state of Georgetown basketball and this opinion expressed by Mary Beth Sexton:
"Esherick Firing Is Disturbing Precedent"
That precedent being, if you don't win games, we will fire you. Yeah, that's really not a message we should be sending to coaches. Coaches should be welcome to run a good team a horrendously poor performance without fear of being held accountable for their failures. Otherwise, they might try to win, and we really don't want that.
Coach Esherick is an incredibly fine man and a fine coach.
Now, I don't question the first part of that statement. He always seemed like a nice guy. But I don't know anyone who would agree with the second part. Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason he was fired was because he wasn't a fine coach.
When anyone denigrated the team’s efforts or its coach this past season, they were denigrating a group of their fellow students who worked incredibly hard every day in practice, traveled almost every week and went out intending to win games for their school.
We shouldn't criticize people who work hard. Well, I'm sure Whoopi Goldberg works very hard on his sitcom, but it still isn't funny.
I also can’t imagine that another coach would want to come to Georgetown after watching a man who dedicated his life to the basketball program get fired after one season in which the team struggled.
Okay. This right here. This is problem with your argument. It's not one season. It's pretty much every season since he took over. It's not like this one bad season was a surprise. It was the logical antecedent to the last bad season. In five years running the team, he had one good one. And he didn't have many good players left to rebuild with. The team needs new blood. And it needs a new coach. The general consensus among people I know was that this firing was long overdue, not unjustified.
Aim Low
Very, very low.
Chairman Joe Barton, praising 21,000 new jobs in a month.
That's what, 280,000 less than we were promised when we passed this tax cut? Celebrate good times.
And now Evans talking about how valuable this tax cut is for small business owners.
|
Very, very low.
Chairman Joe Barton, praising 21,000 new jobs in a month.
That's what, 280,000 less than we were promised when we passed this tax cut? Celebrate good times.
And now Evans talking about how valuable this tax cut is for small business owners.
Efficiency
Alright. I'm watching this House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing for work. Don Evans is testifying. Now, this started around 10:20. Evans has to leave at 12:30. There are apparently 57 members of the committee. Every one of them is permitted a 3 minute opening statement and 5 minutes for questions after his testimony.
The obvious end result seems to be that most people aren't going to get to say much. Nearly all of the Republicans waived their openings, thereby getting 8 minutes for questions. But a bunch of the Democrats gave statements attacking Bush's tax cuts. None of this was terribly relevant to what Evans was going to say, a lot of it was just empty rhetoric, some of it was misleading, and it took up much of the first hour of the hearing. The only real important point was when one of them criticized Evans for questioning the patriotism of opponents of free trade, people he dishonestly calls "economic isolationists." Several minutes were wasted when someone proposed skipping the opening statements and there were some objections to that. A couple of Republicans also gave statements, selectively quoting economic statistics that make Bush's policies look good. Nothing surprising. Really nothing worth wasting 3 minutes for.
Then again, Evans' testimony wasn't terribly valuable either.
So the questions start and only a handful of people will have time to ask them. Now, during a hearing, "questions" usually consist of a long statement of opinion, with a short question as an afterthought. Really, not much different from the opening statements. Evans' responses, fittingly, never have much to do with the question. Evans repeatedly attacks Democrats for opposing drilling in ANWR. Around 12, the chairman decides that people who gave opening statements can't ask questions because of time constraints. This leads to several minutes of debate of that point.
And now it's 12:30 and I've got almost nothing worth telling my boss about.
My point is, this is how our government works. Every day. We're paying for them to waste their time debating procedural issues while cabinet members sit patiently in front of them, taking time out from doing their own jobs. This isn't a new insight and it's something I notice every time I have to watch one of these things. It's just, shouldn't we expect better?
|
Alright. I'm watching this House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing for work. Don Evans is testifying. Now, this started around 10:20. Evans has to leave at 12:30. There are apparently 57 members of the committee. Every one of them is permitted a 3 minute opening statement and 5 minutes for questions after his testimony.
The obvious end result seems to be that most people aren't going to get to say much. Nearly all of the Republicans waived their openings, thereby getting 8 minutes for questions. But a bunch of the Democrats gave statements attacking Bush's tax cuts. None of this was terribly relevant to what Evans was going to say, a lot of it was just empty rhetoric, some of it was misleading, and it took up much of the first hour of the hearing. The only real important point was when one of them criticized Evans for questioning the patriotism of opponents of free trade, people he dishonestly calls "economic isolationists." Several minutes were wasted when someone proposed skipping the opening statements and there were some objections to that. A couple of Republicans also gave statements, selectively quoting economic statistics that make Bush's policies look good. Nothing surprising. Really nothing worth wasting 3 minutes for.
Then again, Evans' testimony wasn't terribly valuable either.
So the questions start and only a handful of people will have time to ask them. Now, during a hearing, "questions" usually consist of a long statement of opinion, with a short question as an afterthought. Really, not much different from the opening statements. Evans' responses, fittingly, never have much to do with the question. Evans repeatedly attacks Democrats for opposing drilling in ANWR. Around 12, the chairman decides that people who gave opening statements can't ask questions because of time constraints. This leads to several minutes of debate of that point.
And now it's 12:30 and I've got almost nothing worth telling my boss about.
My point is, this is how our government works. Every day. We're paying for them to waste their time debating procedural issues while cabinet members sit patiently in front of them, taking time out from doing their own jobs. This isn't a new insight and it's something I notice every time I have to watch one of these things. It's just, shouldn't we expect better?
teisipäev, märts 23, 2004
More Lies
I remember seeing this in the Washington Post a few weeks ago.
White House officials contend that preserving the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans is a major small-business issue. Three-quarters of the richest taxpayers, they say, receive income from "flow-through" entities including S-corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships.
Okay, seriously, I know you're trying to cover your ass on this one, but if you're in the top 1% of Americans, how small can your business possibly be?
You gotta love the way the article goes out of its way to avoid flatly stating that Bush is lying on this one. That damn liberal bias really gets in the way of criticizing a Republican president, doesn't it?
NOTE: Link updated with original Washington Post story.
|
I remember seeing this in the Washington Post a few weeks ago.
White House officials contend that preserving the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans is a major small-business issue. Three-quarters of the richest taxpayers, they say, receive income from "flow-through" entities including S-corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships.
Okay, seriously, I know you're trying to cover your ass on this one, but if you're in the top 1% of Americans, how small can your business possibly be?
You gotta love the way the article goes out of its way to avoid flatly stating that Bush is lying on this one. That damn liberal bias really gets in the way of criticizing a Republican president, doesn't it?
NOTE: Link updated with original Washington Post story.
Addicted to Amar 2
You know, I have to agree with Amar on most of this. First of all, by way of background, a few years ago, Georgetown University was infested with what the black student leaders called "an epidemic of hate." Much of this epidemic consisted of one really drunk kid tackling a giant menorah in the middle of the night. There were also scattered incidents of racial slurs being written on dorm room doors and whatnot, but the students got to hold a bunch of rallies and pretend they were fighting something.
Fast forward. First, the black groups get this extremely vulgar and hateful email. Then, a group calling itself "The New Current" places racist flyers in copies of the campus minority magazine, The Fire This Time, a periodical best know for its "I Know That's Right!" campus opinion page and the "What's Up With That?" back page feature. This consisted of a series of gripes to which the reader would likely silently respond "What's up with that?" Then you get the more benign incidents. There was a joke about affirmative action made in a class. Some drunk guy called a black girl a nigger.
Now, I don't agree that we should assume those events never happened, but they certainly seem a lot less hateful if you get rid of the bigger ones. Personally, I support affirmative action, but I don't see anything wrong with jokes about the obvious fact that being a minority helps get you into colleges. One thing I have learned about Georgetown students, though, is that they love publicity. If they can get themselves on a TV camera, you better believe they will. So there is certainly something to be said for the argument that this has all been blown out of proportion by a handful of self-serving students.
I have chosen not to compare racism and love for the purposes of this entry. The less said about that, the better.
|
You know, I have to agree with Amar on most of this. First of all, by way of background, a few years ago, Georgetown University was infested with what the black student leaders called "an epidemic of hate." Much of this epidemic consisted of one really drunk kid tackling a giant menorah in the middle of the night. There were also scattered incidents of racial slurs being written on dorm room doors and whatnot, but the students got to hold a bunch of rallies and pretend they were fighting something.
Fast forward. First, the black groups get this extremely vulgar and hateful email. Then, a group calling itself "The New Current" places racist flyers in copies of the campus minority magazine, The Fire This Time, a periodical best know for its "I Know That's Right!" campus opinion page and the "What's Up With That?" back page feature. This consisted of a series of gripes to which the reader would likely silently respond "What's up with that?" Then you get the more benign incidents. There was a joke about affirmative action made in a class. Some drunk guy called a black girl a nigger.
Now, I don't agree that we should assume those events never happened, but they certainly seem a lot less hateful if you get rid of the bigger ones. Personally, I support affirmative action, but I don't see anything wrong with jokes about the obvious fact that being a minority helps get you into colleges. One thing I have learned about Georgetown students, though, is that they love publicity. If they can get themselves on a TV camera, you better believe they will. So there is certainly something to be said for the argument that this has all been blown out of proportion by a handful of self-serving students.
I have chosen not to compare racism and love for the purposes of this entry. The less said about that, the better.
Counterfactual
Damn, Gina. This Richard Clarke guy don't mess around.
Clarke answered Cheney's question Tuesday. During the Clinton administration, he said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with military action, covert CIA action and by supporting United Nations sanctions.
"They stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia," Clarke said, "They stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world."
"Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 [U.S. soldiers] were killed in [a bombing attack in Beirut,] Lebanon, and there was no retaliation," Clarke said. "Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed [in the bombing of] Pan Am [Flight] 103, and there was no retaliation."
"I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," Clarke said. "In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office, they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"
It's about time somebody other than Al Franken pointed out that the Clinton administration, while not perfect, did quite a lot to combat terrorism. If Clarke keeps hitting back like this, this story may not be going anywhere for a while.
|
Damn, Gina. This Richard Clarke guy don't mess around.
Clarke answered Cheney's question Tuesday. During the Clinton administration, he said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with military action, covert CIA action and by supporting United Nations sanctions.
"They stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia," Clarke said, "They stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world."
"Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 [U.S. soldiers] were killed in [a bombing attack in Beirut,] Lebanon, and there was no retaliation," Clarke said. "Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed [in the bombing of] Pan Am [Flight] 103, and there was no retaliation."
"I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," Clarke said. "In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office, they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"
It's about time somebody other than Al Franken pointed out that the Clinton administration, while not perfect, did quite a lot to combat terrorism. If Clarke keeps hitting back like this, this story may not be going anywhere for a while.
Rice, Rice Baby
According to today's White House Bulletin, Bush's allies are blaming Condoleezza Rice for Richard Clarke and Rand Beers' defection. They're saying she chose the wrong people for the job and she didn't place a high enough value on "loyalty."
There goes the VP slot on Jeb's ticket in 2008.
|
According to today's White House Bulletin, Bush's allies are blaming Condoleezza Rice for Richard Clarke and Rand Beers' defection. They're saying she chose the wrong people for the job and she didn't place a high enough value on "loyalty."
There goes the VP slot on Jeb's ticket in 2008.
8 Months Well Spent
Atrios hits on a very good point here. In 1998, Clinton uses diplomatic pressure to try to get the Taliban to cooperate. When that fails, he starts aiding their opposition. Bush comes into office, throws out Clinton's plan, spends 8 months devising a new one, and what does he come up with? Apply diplomatic pressure. If that fails, starting aiding their opposition.
Yep. Good thing Bush is at the wheel.
It's also worth noting that increasing aid to the opposition is exactly what Richard Clarke was pushing for in January 2001. It takes Bush 8 months to reach the same conclusion and Clarke's the incompetent one?
For what it's worth, I don't think this plan would have been terribly effective, but I guess we'll never know.
|
Atrios hits on a very good point here. In 1998, Clinton uses diplomatic pressure to try to get the Taliban to cooperate. When that fails, he starts aiding their opposition. Bush comes into office, throws out Clinton's plan, spends 8 months devising a new one, and what does he come up with? Apply diplomatic pressure. If that fails, starting aiding their opposition.
Yep. Good thing Bush is at the wheel.
It's also worth noting that increasing aid to the opposition is exactly what Richard Clarke was pushing for in January 2001. It takes Bush 8 months to reach the same conclusion and Clarke's the incompetent one?
For what it's worth, I don't think this plan would have been terribly effective, but I guess we'll never know.
Lies
Fact Check.
Bush is lying again, this time about Kerry's record on taxes. Why does this no longer even upset me?
See, here's what I don't get. Kerry has voted against tax cuts in the past and he has voted for tax increases. Neither of these will look good to a lot of voters. Why lie about it? Why not just show people what Kerry really voted for? This is just gratuitous, nearly pathological, deception.
Factcheck.org isn't a bad resource in general. Sometimes it stretches a little to seem balanced, but otherwise, it's worth looking at. They'll email you when they post a new article if you want.
|
Fact Check.
Bush is lying again, this time about Kerry's record on taxes. Why does this no longer even upset me?
See, here's what I don't get. Kerry has voted against tax cuts in the past and he has voted for tax increases. Neither of these will look good to a lot of voters. Why lie about it? Why not just show people what Kerry really voted for? This is just gratuitous, nearly pathological, deception.
Factcheck.org isn't a bad resource in general. Sometimes it stretches a little to seem balanced, but otherwise, it's worth looking at. They'll email you when they post a new article if you want.
Soulless Utility-Maximizers
As far as I can tell, what David Brooks is saying is that George W. Bush is just like Martin Luther King because he's religious. The whole thing is about the pledge of allegiance and school prayer, but that seems to be subtext. Given that this is David Brooks, it's not surprising that much of the column makes no sense at all. Although, to be fair, most of the argument is just stolen from someone else's book. I would agree, though, that teaching objective comparative religion in public schools wouldn't be a bad thing, no more than teaching secular philosophy is.
If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics, then, if Chappell is right, you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement. It would not have succeeded as a secular force.
This is an argument I'll never understand. Does he really think that non-religious people simply couldn't grasp the idea someone of another skin color deserves to use the same water fountain as them? Does believing in God flip a switch in your brain that enables you to see the blindingly obvious? Clearly, though, religious people have a much better grasp on civil rights, as evidenced by their warm acceptance of homosexuals.
King had a more accurate view of political realities than his more secular liberal allies because he could draw on biblical wisdom about human nature. Religion didn't just make civil rights leaders stronger-- it made them smarter.
Yep. Look what religion did for the intelligence of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Sometimes I turn on the 700 Club and I could swear I'm watching a MENSA meeting.
Whether you believe in God or not, the Bible and commentaries on the Bible can be read as instructions about what human beings are like and how they are likely to behave. Moreover, this biblical wisdom is deeper and more accurate than the wisdom offered by the secular social sciences, which often treat human beings as soulless utility-maximizers, or as members of this or that demographic group or class.
Yes, the Bible is especially useful for understanding how one will behave: on an ark during a 40-day flood, inside a whale, when spoken to by a bush, when every firstborn son in their village is mysteriously slaughtered, when confronted by an angel in a field, or when risen from the dead by God's son. I'm not saying there isn't useful information in the Bible, but this is a bit much, isn't it? Then again, secular types consider human beings to be soulless utility-maximers, so what do I know? Brooks is correct about the social sciences. Let me tell you, in every social sciences book I ever read, there were references to human beings as soulless utility-maximizers on nearly every page.
For example, it's been painful to watch thoroughly secularized Europeans try to grapple with Al Qaeda. The bombers declare, "You want life, and we want death"-- a (fanatical) religious statement par excellence. But thoroughly secularized listeners lack the mental equipment to even begin to understand that statement. They struggle desperately to convert Al Qaeda into a political phenomenon: the bombers must be expressing some grievance.
What about "You want life and we want death" does Brooks think Europe doesn't get? He seems to miss the point that there is actually some grievance that makes them desire our deaths over those of others. To pretend there isn't a political element to their fanaticism is perhaps even more dangerous than to pretend there isn't a religious element.
|
As far as I can tell, what David Brooks is saying is that George W. Bush is just like Martin Luther King because he's religious. The whole thing is about the pledge of allegiance and school prayer, but that seems to be subtext. Given that this is David Brooks, it's not surprising that much of the column makes no sense at all. Although, to be fair, most of the argument is just stolen from someone else's book. I would agree, though, that teaching objective comparative religion in public schools wouldn't be a bad thing, no more than teaching secular philosophy is.
If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics, then, if Chappell is right, you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement. It would not have succeeded as a secular force.
This is an argument I'll never understand. Does he really think that non-religious people simply couldn't grasp the idea someone of another skin color deserves to use the same water fountain as them? Does believing in God flip a switch in your brain that enables you to see the blindingly obvious? Clearly, though, religious people have a much better grasp on civil rights, as evidenced by their warm acceptance of homosexuals.
King had a more accurate view of political realities than his more secular liberal allies because he could draw on biblical wisdom about human nature. Religion didn't just make civil rights leaders stronger-- it made them smarter.
Yep. Look what religion did for the intelligence of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Sometimes I turn on the 700 Club and I could swear I'm watching a MENSA meeting.
Whether you believe in God or not, the Bible and commentaries on the Bible can be read as instructions about what human beings are like and how they are likely to behave. Moreover, this biblical wisdom is deeper and more accurate than the wisdom offered by the secular social sciences, which often treat human beings as soulless utility-maximizers, or as members of this or that demographic group or class.
Yes, the Bible is especially useful for understanding how one will behave: on an ark during a 40-day flood, inside a whale, when spoken to by a bush, when every firstborn son in their village is mysteriously slaughtered, when confronted by an angel in a field, or when risen from the dead by God's son. I'm not saying there isn't useful information in the Bible, but this is a bit much, isn't it? Then again, secular types consider human beings to be soulless utility-maximers, so what do I know? Brooks is correct about the social sciences. Let me tell you, in every social sciences book I ever read, there were references to human beings as soulless utility-maximizers on nearly every page.
For example, it's been painful to watch thoroughly secularized Europeans try to grapple with Al Qaeda. The bombers declare, "You want life, and we want death"-- a (fanatical) religious statement par excellence. But thoroughly secularized listeners lack the mental equipment to even begin to understand that statement. They struggle desperately to convert Al Qaeda into a political phenomenon: the bombers must be expressing some grievance.
What about "You want life and we want death" does Brooks think Europe doesn't get? He seems to miss the point that there is actually some grievance that makes them desire our deaths over those of others. To pretend there isn't a political element to their fanaticism is perhaps even more dangerous than to pretend there isn't a religious element.
Lessons
So Israel kills a Hamas leader and Hamas threatens retaliation against the US, a country that had nothing to do with it.
Man, they learned the lesson from the Iraq war pretty quickly.
|
So Israel kills a Hamas leader and Hamas threatens retaliation against the US, a country that had nothing to do with it.
Man, they learned the lesson from the Iraq war pretty quickly.
esmaspäev, märts 22, 2004
Language
Let me get this straight: Kerry calls a secret service agent a son of a bitch for knocking him over on a ski slope. Bush calls a New York Times reporter a big time asshole for, well, being a New York Times reporter, I guess. And Kerry's the unlikable prick?
I realize I'm getting on this one a bit late here, but when I read this story last week, I just assumed Kerry called him something a lot worse. Son of a bitch? I don't think we should be disqualifying political candidates for using language you can hear on any given night on NBC during family hour.
|
Let me get this straight: Kerry calls a secret service agent a son of a bitch for knocking him over on a ski slope. Bush calls a New York Times reporter a big time asshole for, well, being a New York Times reporter, I guess. And Kerry's the unlikable prick?
I realize I'm getting on this one a bit late here, but when I read this story last week, I just assumed Kerry called him something a lot worse. Son of a bitch? I don't think we should be disqualifying political candidates for using language you can hear on any given night on NBC during family hour.
Terrorist Theatre, Scene 1: "A Very Strong Speech"
One of the many things about the Richard Clarke interview that stood out to me was Lesley Stahl insisting that Clarke should give Bush crediting for handling himself so well in the aftermath of the attacks, appearing strong, and giving such a good speech.
Because, you know, those terrorists, they sure do hate a good speech. Almost as much as they hate freedom. I can just imagine two terrorists in a van full of explosives on their way to blow up some national landmark, but then Bush’s speech comes on the radio:
Terrorist 1: He handles himself quite well.
Terrorist 2: Indeed. Better than I had expected.
Terrorist 1: We did not prepare for this. It appears our plans are ruined.
Terrorist 2: If only he didn’t handle himself so well.
Terrorist 1: I know. This is a great speech.
Terrorist 2: His words wound me.
Terrorist 1: Much like his freedom burns me. His freedom and my raging syphilis.
Terrorist 2: If he continues to handle himself so well, all hope is lost.
Terrorist 1: I cannot take another speech like this. Surely, it would kill me.
Terrorist 2: We must pray for Allah’s protection.
Terrorist 1: Even Allah cannot protect us from these strong words.
Terrorist 2: Then we shall retreat to our caves and never speak of America again.
Terrorist 1: Agreed. Let us abandon this jihad. The American’s speeches are simply too strong.
Terrorist 2: Did he just say “nuke-u-lar”?
|
One of the many things about the Richard Clarke interview that stood out to me was Lesley Stahl insisting that Clarke should give Bush crediting for handling himself so well in the aftermath of the attacks, appearing strong, and giving such a good speech.
Because, you know, those terrorists, they sure do hate a good speech. Almost as much as they hate freedom. I can just imagine two terrorists in a van full of explosives on their way to blow up some national landmark, but then Bush’s speech comes on the radio:
Terrorist 1: He handles himself quite well.
Terrorist 2: Indeed. Better than I had expected.
Terrorist 1: We did not prepare for this. It appears our plans are ruined.
Terrorist 2: If only he didn’t handle himself so well.
Terrorist 1: I know. This is a great speech.
Terrorist 2: His words wound me.
Terrorist 1: Much like his freedom burns me. His freedom and my raging syphilis.
Terrorist 2: If he continues to handle himself so well, all hope is lost.
Terrorist 1: I cannot take another speech like this. Surely, it would kill me.
Terrorist 2: We must pray for Allah’s protection.
Terrorist 1: Even Allah cannot protect us from these strong words.
Terrorist 2: Then we shall retreat to our caves and never speak of America again.
Terrorist 1: Agreed. Let us abandon this jihad. The American’s speeches are simply too strong.
Terrorist 2: Did he just say “nuke-u-lar”?
All in the Timing
Scott McClellan on Clarke: "If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?"
First of all, it's, what, seven months before the election? How far beforehand would have been okay with Scottie? Second, he didn't wait. This stuff made it into a Time article in August 2002. I would guess that much of the year and a half since was taken up by writing the book, editing it, publishing it, and whatnot. It's a somewhat time-consuming process. But really, what good would it do anyone after the election? Well, obviously, it would be better for Bush. Still, why are they so scared to actually face these accusations now while the American people are actually paying attention? Probably because many of them are true, but that's never stopped Bush from lying before. If Clarke is serious about fixing the problems with Bush's approach to terrorism, now is really the best time he could release this book. That Time article was discussed a little in 2002 and clearly quickly forgotten by many people. It didn't have the impact Clarke must have hoped for. Writing a book to be released over a half a year before the election seems like the logical follow-up. It's early enough that it shouldn't seem to a fair observer to be a partisan attack, but it's close enough that it might start a meaningful debate.
Wishful thinking, I know.
More importantly, though, is this the best they can do? Scottie questioning his timing? Condi Rice again falsely claiming nobody thought they'd fly planes into buildings and Dick Cheney mocking the guy on Limbaugh? No actual refutation of his facts? He co-teaches with a Kerry advisor? No wonder they were so worried about this book for so long.
|
Scott McClellan on Clarke: "If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?"
First of all, it's, what, seven months before the election? How far beforehand would have been okay with Scottie? Second, he didn't wait. This stuff made it into a Time article in August 2002. I would guess that much of the year and a half since was taken up by writing the book, editing it, publishing it, and whatnot. It's a somewhat time-consuming process. But really, what good would it do anyone after the election? Well, obviously, it would be better for Bush. Still, why are they so scared to actually face these accusations now while the American people are actually paying attention? Probably because many of them are true, but that's never stopped Bush from lying before. If Clarke is serious about fixing the problems with Bush's approach to terrorism, now is really the best time he could release this book. That Time article was discussed a little in 2002 and clearly quickly forgotten by many people. It didn't have the impact Clarke must have hoped for. Writing a book to be released over a half a year before the election seems like the logical follow-up. It's early enough that it shouldn't seem to a fair observer to be a partisan attack, but it's close enough that it might start a meaningful debate.
Wishful thinking, I know.
More importantly, though, is this the best they can do? Scottie questioning his timing? Condi Rice again falsely claiming nobody thought they'd fly planes into buildings and Dick Cheney mocking the guy on Limbaugh? No actual refutation of his facts? He co-teaches with a Kerry advisor? No wonder they were so worried about this book for so long.
Stop the Presses
Oh my God!!!!!
John Kerry's homes are worth $33 million! Can you believe it? It's over. I could never vote for a man who owns homes that are worth $33 million, even if most of the money is his wife's. Can't do it. I mean, the White House isn't worth $33 million, is it? How could Kerry possibly function in a house that's not as expensive? He'd be all, "Ah! This house isn't worth $33 million!" Then he'd curl up on the floor and cry, drying his eyes with his money, of which he has so much. He'd just sit there for four years, marveling at how much less than his other homes this one costs. He's clearly unfit for the presidency.
Guess I just have to vote for Bush now. At least he isn't a rich man with a large, valuable piece of property, like a ranch of some sort, somewhere in Texas or anything.
|
Oh my God!!!!!
John Kerry's homes are worth $33 million! Can you believe it? It's over. I could never vote for a man who owns homes that are worth $33 million, even if most of the money is his wife's. Can't do it. I mean, the White House isn't worth $33 million, is it? How could Kerry possibly function in a house that's not as expensive? He'd be all, "Ah! This house isn't worth $33 million!" Then he'd curl up on the floor and cry, drying his eyes with his money, of which he has so much. He'd just sit there for four years, marveling at how much less than his other homes this one costs. He's clearly unfit for the presidency.
Guess I just have to vote for Bush now. At least he isn't a rich man with a large, valuable piece of property, like a ranch of some sort, somewhere in Texas or anything.
"So Much Fun"
Yeah. Right. Fun. Nothing says party like a colonoscopy.
I really don't see how one goes from having a tube shoved up their ass to shopping and dinner. Not really my idea of a fun day.
|
Yeah. Right. Fun. Nothing says party like a colonoscopy.
I really don't see how one goes from having a tube shoved up their ass to shopping and dinner. Not really my idea of a fun day.
The Next Ten Words
This is the part of the Washington Post article on the Clarke book that struck me the most:
In his experience, Clarke writes, Bush's description by critics as "a dumb, lazy rich kid" is "somewhat off the mark." Bush has "a results-oriented mind, but he looked for the simple solution, the bumper sticker description of the problem."
This, fundamentally, seems to be the biggest difference between Bush and, well, anyone with a moderately firm grasp on the issues facing this country. It is also probably the starkest contrast between him and Kerry. Serious, intelligent people don’t think in sound bites. Taxes, terrorism, health care, gay rights, free trade—none of these issues can be resolved on a bumper sticker. Which may be why none of them actually have been resolved in the last four years. What Bush supporters seem to see as refreshing straightforwardness is really just a complete lack of intellectual curiosity that betrays a very weak understanding of the issues at hand.
When Bush talks about how the economy works and how his tax cuts are creating jobs, I always wonder if he would be capable of explaining that dynamic beyond “People will want to buy things and other people will get jobs making those things.” I’m not expecting a dissertation or a graduate thesis here, but when he says things like “I’m going to buy some ribs and this woman’s going to make some money,” I’m terrified that he might really think the economy is that simple. And he has never given us any reason to believe that his understanding goes any deeper than that.
There was an episode of the West Wing early in its fourth season, when it was setting up the thinly veiled Gore v. Bush II metaphor, where Josh goes off on a rant about the “fortune cookie candidacy.” A few weeks later, the climax of the whole arc is this moment in the only debate where Gov. Ritchie (Bush) makes this statement: “The American people know how to spend their money better than the federal government does.”
How often do you hear that one coming out of Bush’s mouth?
This is followed by a response from Bartlett that encapsulates all of the frustration that people like me feel towards Bush and towards all of those voters who decided Gore was just too smart to like: “That's the ten-word answer my staff's been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They're the tip of the sword. Here's my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I'll drop out of the race right now. Every once in a while... every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren't very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for ten words.”
Generally speaking, I feel lazy quoting television to make my point for me, but right here, Aaron Sorkin says it a hell of a lot better than I would. Thing is, I don’t doubt for a second that Kerry knows the next ten words. But Bush, has he ever even been asked?
|
This is the part of the Washington Post article on the Clarke book that struck me the most:
In his experience, Clarke writes, Bush's description by critics as "a dumb, lazy rich kid" is "somewhat off the mark." Bush has "a results-oriented mind, but he looked for the simple solution, the bumper sticker description of the problem."
This, fundamentally, seems to be the biggest difference between Bush and, well, anyone with a moderately firm grasp on the issues facing this country. It is also probably the starkest contrast between him and Kerry. Serious, intelligent people don’t think in sound bites. Taxes, terrorism, health care, gay rights, free trade—none of these issues can be resolved on a bumper sticker. Which may be why none of them actually have been resolved in the last four years. What Bush supporters seem to see as refreshing straightforwardness is really just a complete lack of intellectual curiosity that betrays a very weak understanding of the issues at hand.
When Bush talks about how the economy works and how his tax cuts are creating jobs, I always wonder if he would be capable of explaining that dynamic beyond “People will want to buy things and other people will get jobs making those things.” I’m not expecting a dissertation or a graduate thesis here, but when he says things like “I’m going to buy some ribs and this woman’s going to make some money,” I’m terrified that he might really think the economy is that simple. And he has never given us any reason to believe that his understanding goes any deeper than that.
There was an episode of the West Wing early in its fourth season, when it was setting up the thinly veiled Gore v. Bush II metaphor, where Josh goes off on a rant about the “fortune cookie candidacy.” A few weeks later, the climax of the whole arc is this moment in the only debate where Gov. Ritchie (Bush) makes this statement: “The American people know how to spend their money better than the federal government does.”
How often do you hear that one coming out of Bush’s mouth?
This is followed by a response from Bartlett that encapsulates all of the frustration that people like me feel towards Bush and towards all of those voters who decided Gore was just too smart to like: “That's the ten-word answer my staff's been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They're the tip of the sword. Here's my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I'll drop out of the race right now. Every once in a while... every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren't very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for ten words.”
Generally speaking, I feel lazy quoting television to make my point for me, but right here, Aaron Sorkin says it a hell of a lot better than I would. Thing is, I don’t doubt for a second that Kerry knows the next ten words. But Bush, has he ever even been asked?
pühapäev, märts 21, 2004
Not So Current Events
The top story on Reliable Sources is about Jayson Blair fabricating stories. No mention of Jack Kelley.
Way to stay on top of things there, Howie.
You would think that the fact that he's talking about how unsuccessful Blair's book is should be a hint about how little people care about this story.
UPDATE: There was indeed a brief discussion of Kelley following the 15 minute interview with Blair. Although to be fair to Kurtz, he's been sitting on this Blair interview for at least two weeks now and it kept getting delayed by breaking news.
|
The top story on Reliable Sources is about Jayson Blair fabricating stories. No mention of Jack Kelley.
Way to stay on top of things there, Howie.
You would think that the fact that he's talking about how unsuccessful Blair's book is should be a hint about how little people care about this story.
UPDATE: There was indeed a brief discussion of Kelley following the 15 minute interview with Blair. Although to be fair to Kurtz, he's been sitting on this Blair interview for at least two weeks now and it kept getting delayed by breaking news.
Labels
Ted Kennedy on Meet the Press: "John Kerry is more liberal than I am just as George Bush is a compassionate conservative."
So how long will it take the RNC to post "Ted Kennedy says John Kerry is more liberal than he is!"?
I give it two hours.
Kennedy challenging Russert on whether Bush is actually conservative has to be the best moment on a Sunday talk show I've seen in weeks.
|
Ted Kennedy on Meet the Press: "John Kerry is more liberal than I am just as George Bush is a compassionate conservative."
So how long will it take the RNC to post "Ted Kennedy says John Kerry is more liberal than he is!"?
I give it two hours.
Kennedy challenging Russert on whether Bush is actually conservative has to be the best moment on a Sunday talk show I've seen in weeks.
laupäev, märts 20, 2004
Free Speech, Only $500 a Word
This seems more than a little excessive, no? I mean, if you're going to a 50 Cent concert, it's your responsibility to know what you're getting into. I understand the need to stop unprovoked public obscenity, but isn't this just a step away from fining filmmakers for cursing in their movies?
Also, there's something off about a system where saying fuck would cost you more than it would to get fucked.
Not that I know what a prostitute costs in Florida, but my understanding from film and television is that it would be less than $500. And TV never lies.
|
This seems more than a little excessive, no? I mean, if you're going to a 50 Cent concert, it's your responsibility to know what you're getting into. I understand the need to stop unprovoked public obscenity, but isn't this just a step away from fining filmmakers for cursing in their movies?
Also, there's something off about a system where saying fuck would cost you more than it would to get fucked.
Not that I know what a prostitute costs in Florida, but my understanding from film and television is that it would be less than $500. And TV never lies.
The Tightest Security in Britain
My ass.
Two guys were able to climb Big Ben? All the way to the top? And nobody was able to stop them? If that's the best the British can do, we might as well start erasing London from maps now.
On a side note, two guys climbed Big Ben. How cool is that? Certainly makes those ANSWER punks look like wusses. "Ooooh, we've got a petition and now we're going to walk down the street with some signs." Get back to me after you get a couple of guys to the top of the Washington Monument.
|
My ass.
Two guys were able to climb Big Ben? All the way to the top? And nobody was able to stop them? If that's the best the British can do, we might as well start erasing London from maps now.
On a side note, two guys climbed Big Ben. How cool is that? Certainly makes those ANSWER punks look like wusses. "Ooooh, we've got a petition and now we're going to walk down the street with some signs." Get back to me after you get a couple of guys to the top of the Washington Monument.
International Men of Dated Pop Culture References
Ha ha.
See, it's funny because leaders of allied nations hate our president.
Leave it to a bunch of middle-aged conservative white men to decide that Austin Powers references are still clever.
|
Ha ha.
See, it's funny because leaders of allied nations hate our president.
Leave it to a bunch of middle-aged conservative white men to decide that Austin Powers references are still clever.
Damn That Liberal Media
Rumsfled considered an Iraq attack "sooner"?
No, Rumsfeld considered an Iraq attack THE DAY AFTER 9/11. It wasn't, you know, a few days before Bush got on board. It was September 12. It was his response to the attacks. This, right here, is how seriously these people take the war on terrorism.
He wanted to retaliate against Iraq for something he knew it had no involvement with because it would be easier. That headline just does not even hint at the level of deception and incompetence the article describes.
|
Rumsfled considered an Iraq attack "sooner"?
No, Rumsfeld considered an Iraq attack THE DAY AFTER 9/11. It wasn't, you know, a few days before Bush got on board. It was September 12. It was his response to the attacks. This, right here, is how seriously these people take the war on terrorism.
He wanted to retaliate against Iraq for something he knew it had no involvement with because it would be easier. That headline just does not even hint at the level of deception and incompetence the article describes.
reede, märts 19, 2004
Let's Make a Deal
Would it be possible to just trade Joe Lieberman to the Republicans for John McCain and a 2nd round draft pick or something?
|
Would it be possible to just trade Joe Lieberman to the Republicans for John McCain and a 2nd round draft pick or something?
Eight pints of fishing maggots
Heh. Crocodile penis.
"Also recovered at the shop was a short video and an e-mail relating to the dolphin skeleton. The video showed him pouring maggots over a dead dolphin in an old bath in his garden. The e-mail sent to a taxidermist chat-room explained what it was all about. "I've got a problem," Hudson wrote. "Her indoors brought home a dolphin the other day... I skinned it and took most of the flesh off it, put it in an old bath and threw eight pints of fishing maggots on it. They are eating it slowly.""
See, what I don't get is that they actually have a law banning the use of a dolphin skeleton for commercial purposes. What purposes for the use of a dolphin skeleton are they okay with over there?
Cobra snake wine, on the other hand, would be a great name for a band.
|
Heh. Crocodile penis.
"Also recovered at the shop was a short video and an e-mail relating to the dolphin skeleton. The video showed him pouring maggots over a dead dolphin in an old bath in his garden. The e-mail sent to a taxidermist chat-room explained what it was all about. "I've got a problem," Hudson wrote. "Her indoors brought home a dolphin the other day... I skinned it and took most of the flesh off it, put it in an old bath and threw eight pints of fishing maggots on it. They are eating it slowly.""
See, what I don't get is that they actually have a law banning the use of a dolphin skeleton for commercial purposes. What purposes for the use of a dolphin skeleton are they okay with over there?
Cobra snake wine, on the other hand, would be a great name for a band.
Addicted to Amar
Meet Amar.
This is what I expect will be a regular feature here, updating everyone, by which I mean me really, on the thoughts of Mr. Amar Weisman, recent Georgetown graduate and, if I understood this right, owner of a villa in Spain.
Today, besides learning that Amar owns no green clothing, we learn that John McCain might actually disagree with John Kerry on some issues. Them being members of different political parties, this had never occurred to me before.
It was a story because a) most people think McCain hates Bush and it would create a ticket that would kick W's ass and b) McCain's initial comments were not really close to a denial. The Kerry/McCain ticket was always kind of a longshot, what if proposition. Nobody actually took it seriously. Basically, it's just more interesting to talk about McCain than the virtues of Bob Graham. If it's a crime to not want to talk about Bob Graham, I think we're all guilty. We've got a decision that isn't actually going to be made for several months, but we also have political analysts who need to talk about something. It's sad but true. This was no more or less of a story than Kerry's "foreign leader" comments, Kerry going snowboard, or the Bush campaign accidentally buying merchandise from Burma.
It's a long 8 months until November and we have to fill it somehow. If the McCain VP story is the most pointless fluff journalism we see in the next year, we will be incredibly lucky. I'm not hopeful.
Also, he spelled temperamental wrong.
|
Meet Amar.
This is what I expect will be a regular feature here, updating everyone, by which I mean me really, on the thoughts of Mr. Amar Weisman, recent Georgetown graduate and, if I understood this right, owner of a villa in Spain.
Today, besides learning that Amar owns no green clothing, we learn that John McCain might actually disagree with John Kerry on some issues. Them being members of different political parties, this had never occurred to me before.
It was a story because a) most people think McCain hates Bush and it would create a ticket that would kick W's ass and b) McCain's initial comments were not really close to a denial. The Kerry/McCain ticket was always kind of a longshot, what if proposition. Nobody actually took it seriously. Basically, it's just more interesting to talk about McCain than the virtues of Bob Graham. If it's a crime to not want to talk about Bob Graham, I think we're all guilty. We've got a decision that isn't actually going to be made for several months, but we also have political analysts who need to talk about something. It's sad but true. This was no more or less of a story than Kerry's "foreign leader" comments, Kerry going snowboard, or the Bush campaign accidentally buying merchandise from Burma.
It's a long 8 months until November and we have to fill it somehow. If the McCain VP story is the most pointless fluff journalism we see in the next year, we will be incredibly lucky. I'm not hopeful.
Also, he spelled temperamental wrong.
The Sexy Urinal
It took a cutting edge design company to come up with this?
Bathroom Mania. The rest of their products are disappointingly normal.
Is it me or is this very strange though? Creating urinals that allow you to piss in a woman's mouth. Am I supposed to find that attractive? I mean, I get it. It looks like she's blowing you. But still, you're pissing in her mouth. Usually, I need to pay someone to let me do that.
|
It took a cutting edge design company to come up with this?
Bathroom Mania. The rest of their products are disappointingly normal.
Is it me or is this very strange though? Creating urinals that allow you to piss in a woman's mouth. Am I supposed to find that attractive? I mean, I get it. It looks like she's blowing you. But still, you're pissing in her mouth. Usually, I need to pay someone to let me do that.
America's Objectives
Saletan coming at you:
"Nineteen Italians get killed in a war that Bush and Cheney started against the will of most Italians, but it's Kerry, not Bush, who has shown contempt for Italy and other "friends of the United States." Better yet, the foreign leaders with whom Kerry has consorted don't just oppose Bush's policy in Iraq; they "oppose America's objectives." If Jacques Chirac imagines that what he opposed in Iraq was Bush's method of achieving objectives shared by France, he fails to understand that Bush's policies, by definition, are America's objectives."
Pretty much the clearest distillation of everything that's wrong and dishonest about the Bush campaign so far that I have seen. These are truly some shameless, disgusting people. That's obvious. Their supporters have to know that.
So why do they support them?
Apparently, to do otherwise would be to appease terrorists. So sayeth the Krauthammer.
|
|
Saletan coming at you:
"Nineteen Italians get killed in a war that Bush and Cheney started against the will of most Italians, but it's Kerry, not Bush, who has shown contempt for Italy and other "friends of the United States." Better yet, the foreign leaders with whom Kerry has consorted don't just oppose Bush's policy in Iraq; they "oppose America's objectives." If Jacques Chirac imagines that what he opposed in Iraq was Bush's method of achieving objectives shared by France, he fails to understand that Bush's policies, by definition, are America's objectives."
Pretty much the clearest distillation of everything that's wrong and dishonest about the Bush campaign so far that I have seen. These are truly some shameless, disgusting people. That's obvious. Their supporters have to know that.
So why do they support them?
Apparently, to do otherwise would be to appease terrorists. So sayeth the Krauthammer.
Stop Making Sense
Krugman and Dionne on Spanish democracy.
Oddly enough, they seem to think free people in other countries actually have a right to make their own decisions and that Spanish voters shouldn't consider what George W. Bush wants before voting. Could there really have been a higher principle at stake here than recklessly lashing out at whatever Arab looks at you cross-eyed? They even dare to suggest that you can fight terrorism without invading Iraq.
This is just madness, as Charles Krauthammer can tell you. And over here, in my America, whatever Krauthammer says goes.
The contempt for democracy coming from the right at the moment is truly is breathtaking.
|
Krugman and Dionne on Spanish democracy.
Oddly enough, they seem to think free people in other countries actually have a right to make their own decisions and that Spanish voters shouldn't consider what George W. Bush wants before voting. Could there really have been a higher principle at stake here than recklessly lashing out at whatever Arab looks at you cross-eyed? They even dare to suggest that you can fight terrorism without invading Iraq.
This is just madness, as Charles Krauthammer can tell you. And over here, in my America, whatever Krauthammer says goes.
The contempt for democracy coming from the right at the moment is truly is breathtaking.
neljapäev, märts 18, 2004
Wonder
This is important. Well, in a relatively unimportant way, really. But still.
Tomorrow night, 9:00, Fox. New episode of Wonderfalls.
Interesting television that's damn near guaranteed to be cancelled within a month. Catch it while you still can.
I swear, I'm going to start posting about things of some significance eventually.
|
This is important. Well, in a relatively unimportant way, really. But still.
Tomorrow night, 9:00, Fox. New episode of Wonderfalls.
Interesting television that's damn near guaranteed to be cancelled within a month. Catch it while you still can.
I swear, I'm going to start posting about things of some significance eventually.
Links!
This is me learning html on the fly.
I've added links to the handful of blogs I read pretty much daily. If you just want to cut out the middleman, you can go directly to them and leave me here to wallow in my pit of lonliness.
|
This is me learning html on the fly.
I've added links to the handful of blogs I read pretty much daily. If you just want to cut out the middleman, you can go directly to them and leave me here to wallow in my pit of lonliness.
Eternal Sunshine
Opening tomorrow.
Hell of a good movie. Assuming anyone's reading this, I advise you to see it. And I'm some guy on the internet, so you know I know what I'm talking about.
|
Opening tomorrow.
Hell of a good movie. Assuming anyone's reading this, I advise you to see it. And I'm some guy on the internet, so you know I know what I'm talking about.
There goes one reason to make fun of Tennessee
From CNN
Guess we'll have to settle for the many, many other reasons from now on.
This, from a 12 year old: "I think they should go further, try to see if they can ban them," she said. "It's not a Christian thing."
I weep for the future of the South.
|
From CNN
Guess we'll have to settle for the many, many other reasons from now on.
This, from a 12 year old: "I think they should go further, try to see if they can ban them," she said. "It's not a Christian thing."
I weep for the future of the South.
Yes, the timestamp is in Estonian
No, there is no good reason for that.
|
No, there is no good reason for that.
Why?
Let’s get one thing out of the way right now. The 911 isn’t a reference to terrorist attacks or to some weird ambulance fetish. It’s my birthday and yes, that is a bit awkward. Also, my real name isn’t Gordon Shumway, amazingly enough. But this is the internet and I’d like to maintain some level of privacy.
I always wondered what kind of people do this. Set up their own websites to babble incessantly about current events as if their opinions actually matter to anyone. Turns out it’s people like me. To be honest, what this is really about is that I have quite a bit of free time at my office and I spend much of it harassing my friends with links to various wacky news stories I pick up on. I imagine this is quite annoying. But I still feel the need to share these things. Or at least to provide myself with the appearance of sharing things.
I fully expect that no one will ever read this. Which kind of makes me wonder why I’m writing it. Does this make me crazy? Because, well, essentially I am talking to myself here. And if a man stands up and shares his opinions and nobody’s listening, what’s the point?
I suppose I could ask Dennis Miller.
Zing. Anyway, this is how it’s going to work. I’ve spent quite a bit of time roaming the internet reading blogs and comments recently and I have found a staggering level of intellectual dishonesty. Or maybe just deep, deep ignorance. Either way, we badly need to raise the level of debate in this country and it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen any time soon. So this is my chance to vent. And to fact check to the best of my ability.
Ultimately, what gets posted here will rely largely on how much time I have on a given day and how bored I am. I could very well never post again. In the interest of full disclosure, I am liberal, leaning more toward the whole third way centrist progressive angle. I dislike President Bush quite a bit, as will probably become obvious very quickly. I support John Kerry and, to the extent that there’s no other viable choice, the Democratic party. That said, I’m going to be shooting for balance here.
Odd are, I’ll miss horribly.
But I am going to try to give Bush credit when it’s due and criticize Kerry when he deserves it. I will not make intentionally misleading statements about either. I will not automatically buy into either side’s spin. Fair and balanced news, but with less Neil Cavuto. And I’m probably going to veer off into various obscure bits of pop culture from time to time. I’m driving this train, so who knows where it’s going to go. Basically, this is my journal.
Man, I feel ridiculously self-indulgent right now. Is there any point to all this?
Oh, right, nobody’s going to answer.
Ok then. Let’s get this party started right.
|
Let’s get one thing out of the way right now. The 911 isn’t a reference to terrorist attacks or to some weird ambulance fetish. It’s my birthday and yes, that is a bit awkward. Also, my real name isn’t Gordon Shumway, amazingly enough. But this is the internet and I’d like to maintain some level of privacy.
I always wondered what kind of people do this. Set up their own websites to babble incessantly about current events as if their opinions actually matter to anyone. Turns out it’s people like me. To be honest, what this is really about is that I have quite a bit of free time at my office and I spend much of it harassing my friends with links to various wacky news stories I pick up on. I imagine this is quite annoying. But I still feel the need to share these things. Or at least to provide myself with the appearance of sharing things.
I fully expect that no one will ever read this. Which kind of makes me wonder why I’m writing it. Does this make me crazy? Because, well, essentially I am talking to myself here. And if a man stands up and shares his opinions and nobody’s listening, what’s the point?
I suppose I could ask Dennis Miller.
Zing. Anyway, this is how it’s going to work. I’ve spent quite a bit of time roaming the internet reading blogs and comments recently and I have found a staggering level of intellectual dishonesty. Or maybe just deep, deep ignorance. Either way, we badly need to raise the level of debate in this country and it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen any time soon. So this is my chance to vent. And to fact check to the best of my ability.
Ultimately, what gets posted here will rely largely on how much time I have on a given day and how bored I am. I could very well never post again. In the interest of full disclosure, I am liberal, leaning more toward the whole third way centrist progressive angle. I dislike President Bush quite a bit, as will probably become obvious very quickly. I support John Kerry and, to the extent that there’s no other viable choice, the Democratic party. That said, I’m going to be shooting for balance here.
Odd are, I’ll miss horribly.
But I am going to try to give Bush credit when it’s due and criticize Kerry when he deserves it. I will not make intentionally misleading statements about either. I will not automatically buy into either side’s spin. Fair and balanced news, but with less Neil Cavuto. And I’m probably going to veer off into various obscure bits of pop culture from time to time. I’m driving this train, so who knows where it’s going to go. Basically, this is my journal.
Man, I feel ridiculously self-indulgent right now. Is there any point to all this?
Oh, right, nobody’s going to answer.
Ok then. Let’s get this party started right.
