And So It Seems to Go

Freudian Slip?

2004-08-07T03:35:00.000+09:00

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
- George W. Bush, August 5, 2004

Bush's Figurehead

2004-08-04T06:31:00.000+09:00

So in the wake of the 9/11 Commission Report, George Bush says he'll appoint a national intelligence director--and it turns out to be a toothless figurehead that doesn't even comply with the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

In any case, to me the best summary of the whole process leading up to this comes from an Alaskan lawyer named Dick Haggart:

President Bush today enthusiastically endorsed a proposition that he had previously proposed be delayed until after the election and which he had previously opposed in its entirety, and which was originally contained in a report that he had originally wanted withheld until after the election from a Commission he did not want established in the first place. Next on the News Hour, Israel enthusiastically endorses the Nazis.

The Republican spin machine will lie about ALL of that, of course, but it's good to remember.

Canadian Immigration says, "Those are real, eh?"

2004-07-31T23:57:00.000+09:00

It seems that Canadian immigration officials are taking the term "full disclosure" to its logical extreme:

Toronto Sun: Baring all for Canada

FOREIGN STRIPPERS MUST SUPPLY NUDE STAGE PHOTOS TO OFFICIALS

By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN

IMMIGRATION OFFICERS are having to pore through naked pictures of hundreds of exotic dancers to keep impostors out of Canada. Foreign strippers planning to table dance in clubs here must now provide photos of themselves with no clothes on to qualify for a visa for Canada, immigration officials say.

"Stage photos during performances are required," said Sergio Mercado, of the Canadian Embassy in Mexico.

More at http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/07/27/558388.html

(I've never associated Canada with strip clubs, but my Canadian friend Liz swears that her hometown of Windsor, Ontario is the "strip club capitol of North America," an assertion I am in NO position to challenge on the basis of first-hand knowledge whatsoever.)

The White House vs. A Black Hole

2004-07-17T07:51:00.000+09:00

It used to be thought that once something had fallen into a black hole it was lost and gone forever, and the only information left behind was just mess and spin.

- Physicist Stephen Hawking, talking to BBC'sNewsnight.

Stephen Hawking has argued for nearly 30 years that nothing that disappears into a black hole is ever seen again, that all information is destroyed. Now, he's changed his mind.

So it turns out there is a difference between a black hole and the White House

Scotsman.com News: Hawking U-Turn on Black Holes

"...like rubbernecking a highway accident made entirely of words"

2004-04-22T22:18:00.000+09:00

Goddamn, I wish I could be as eloquent as this:

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war34.html

Drifting With The Tide

2004-04-15T22:34:00.000+09:00

You're floatin' in a big sea of shit and instead of just stayin' in the boat, no, you reach out and you pick up this one little turd and you say "This turd, well this turd pisses me off. I'm gonna do somethin' about this turd!
- Master Sergeant Dix (Fred Ward) in 1988's Off Limits, to his men, Army CID investigators looking into the murder of prostitutes in 1968 Saigon.

Call it Outrage Fatigue, but for anyone paying attention to what the US government is doing and what's it's becoming harder and harder to focus one's anger. I mean, there's not enough hours in day to enumerate the incompetence, greed, lies, delusions, stupidity, hypocrisy, and yes, evil generated by the bunch occupying the White House. How does one pick out which little turds floating in the sewer that is the Bush Administration to focus on?

Kevin Drum, for example, blogger for the Washington Monthly, and regular chronicler of the the incompetence, greed, lies, delusions, stupidity, hypocrisy, and yes, evil generated by the bunch occupying the White House, has his limits, too, as he discusses the Bush Administration's latest Outrage Du Jour:

DEATH SQUAD OUTRAGE: Matt "Death Squad" Yglesias wonders why there hasn't been more outrage among liberals about the rumored appointment of John Negroponte as Iraq's new ambassador cum viceroy beginning July 1. [For those who've forgotten the Reagan Administration's grotesqueries in Latin America and Iran-Contra, a] brief explanation of Negroponte's unfitness is here.

So why no outrage from this corner? Aside from the fact that it's still just a rumor, the answer is.....weariness. I mean, there are only so many hours in a day and only so many things to be outraged about.

After all, Bush already appointed Negroponte as ambassador to the UN, so we know he doesn't have any problem with his background. And he originally appointed Henry Kissinger as head of the 9/11 commission, so we know he has no shame. And he's also appointed Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter to positions in his administration, so we know he's not worried about associating with Iran-Contra almost-but-not-quite felons. And the original rumor was that Paul Wolfowitz would be the new ambassador to Iraq, so we know that irony is lost on him.

Where can one start? Where can one finish? It's the kind of thing that could--literally--drive a person mad.

I don't drink, really. Maybe I should start.

Endless Vacation

2004-04-13T17:01:00.000+09:00

President George Bush has spent more than 40% of his presidency at one of his three retreats, sparking criticism from Democrats that he is not taking his job seriously at a crucial time in US history.

Mr Bush was on his 33rd visit to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, at the Easter weekend, where he has spent 233 days or almost eight months since his inauguration, according to a tally by CBS news. Add his 78 visits to Camp David and five to Kennebunkport, Maine, and he has spent all or part of 500 days out of the office while in office.
- Gary Younge, in "President spends 40% of time out of the office" in The Guardian, April 12, 2004

--------------------------

By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his presidency.

Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.
- Mike Allen, from a Washington Post story, August 7, 2001

It's not just that George Bush, whose job can fairly be said to be most important in the world, is spending so much time on vacation--it's also that the time he spends on vacation is identical to the time he spent before 9/11/2001.

A terrorist attack that kills 3,000 Americans and its horrific aftermath; continuing terrorist threats; the drastic structural changes needed in intelligence, analysis, and response systems; two huge military operations in afghanistan and Iraq; diplomatic fallout from the pissed-away international goodwill resulting from the Iraq misadventure; AND a tanking economy. All of this and George Bush can't be bothered to cut down on his seemingly endless vacations to attend to these pressing issues?

Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

2004-04-09T16:33:00.000+09:00

The wonders of technology: courtesy of Audible.com, I downloaded this morning the audio of Condoleezza Rice's 9/11 Commission testimony, mere hours after she gave it. I've only listened to the first several minutes of her testimony while riding the train to work--specifically the woodenly delivered, cover-your-ass statement she gave at the beginning. The wonders of technology: courtesy of Audible.com, I downloaded this morning the audio of Condoleezza Rice's 9/11 Commission testimony, mere hours after she gave it. I've only listened to the first several minutes of her testimony while riding the train to work--specifically the woodenly delivered, cover-your-ass statement she gave at the beginning.

I'll listen to the rest later, but first I'm in the middle of Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, which arrived from Amazon Japan a couple of days ago. Fascinating stuff so far.

I'll say more later, but I will say first that it's not the anti-Bush hatchet job the mouth-breathing Bush apologists (who, of course, are merely parroting the talking points that they're getting from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh). So far Clarke is NOT coming across as particularly partisan*.

*Okay, he does seem particularly pissed off at the FBI and its one-time Director, Louis Freeh. He doesn't come right out and say explicitly that he thinks Louis Freeh is so incompetent that he could't find his own ass with both hands and a flashlight, but it's pretty evident that's what he thinks.

Ms. Rice's Testimony II

2004-03-30T16:32:00.000+09:00

I confess that I don't read newspaper editorials (as opposed to signed columns and opeds) that closely or frequently. But if this and other recent examples I've seen are any indictation, the disconnect between the Post's editorials and the factual information being generated on their own news pages seems to be approaching Wall Street Journal-like proportions.
- from Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo, concerning the Washington Post editorial "Ms. Rice's Testimony

Speak of the devil: looks like Joshua Micah Marshall read the same editorial I did, but does a more thorough job in demolishing the peculiar logic underlying the Post's half-hearted conclusions.

Check it out for yourself at talkingpointsmemo.com.

Ms. Rice's Testimony (washingtonpost.com)

2004-03-30T15:32:00.000+09:00

PRESIDENT BUSH is within his legal rights in preventing national security adviser Condoleezza Rice from testifying publicly before the Sept. 11 commission. Precedent is on his side. And we see no reason to credit Democratic insinuations that Ms. Rice has something to hide, given that she spent four hours answering the commission's questions in closed session and has offered to answer more.
- from "Ms. Rice's Testimony", an editorial from the March 30 Washington Post.

I came across this astonishing bit from the editorial pages of the allegedlly liberal Washington Post. While they come to, in my mind, the correct conclusion (Condeleeza Rice should testify publicly before the 9/11 Commission), they indulge in some incredibly tortured--and factually incorrect--logic on the way there. For example, the above excerpt says they can't credit that Rice could be hiding something, since she did already speak to the Commission.

And she did--behind closed doors, secretly, and with no legal ramifications if she lied since she didn't speak under oath. Not publicly. Not for the open record. And most assuredly not under threat from the possible sanctions from being under oath. Is the Post editorialist really as naive as he or she seems to be coming across?

And the Post seems to have bought her paper-thin excuse about not setting a precedent National Security Advisors testifying before Congress--except its already been done (does the name "Sandy Berger" ring any bells down there at the WashPost editorial desk?).

The Washington Post has come a long way from being the paper of Woodward and Bernstein.

I Can't Hear You, I've Got My Fingers in My Ears

2004-03-29T17:12:00.000+09:00

I have a confession to make: I am the foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times and I didn't listen to one second of the 9/11 hearings and I didn't read one story in the paper about them. Not one second. Not one story.

Lord knows, it's not out of indifference to 9/11. It's because I made up my mind about that event a long time ago: It was not a failure of intelligence, it was a failure of imagination.
- Thomas Friedman, in Awaking to a Dream, in the March 28thNew York Times.

So we have here a globetrotting foreign-affairs reporter (one who apparently doesn't understand the compound modifier, but never mind), who admits he can't be bothered by new information.

Of course not. That might involve admitting that his cheerleading of Bush's Iraqi misadventure was, you know, wrong.

Over the last year, he keeps reporting fact after fact about why this was a bad idea, about the toxic effects that this bit of strategic dick-waving as had on world opinion, on Arabic opinion, and on the Real War on Terror--and keeps concluding that invading Iraq was a good idea.

So now the facts have apparently overwhelmed him, and he resorts to seemingly drug-addled fantasies like in his latest column.

The New York Times pays this guy? Why?

Straight from the Horse's Mouth.

2004-03-29T16:51:00.000+09:00

At this point, I've heard at least two interviews with Clarke, most of his direct public testimony before the 9/11 Commission (I'll listen to the rest later this week), and have read approximately five zillion rehashing, rephrasings, and distortions of both the testimony and his new book. So time to bite the bullet and go direct to the source: I've ordered it through Amazon Japan, and will tear into it when it arrives. (I suppose I could have picked up a copy at Kinokuniya Books on Saturday, but I didn't feel like paying their inflated price for it.

I suspect, based on Clarke's interviews and testimony, for the book to be far more nuanced than either mouth-breathing right-wing foamers OR the feeling-vindicated left-wingers have been putting out as their messages. Of course, I'm mostly on the side of the left-wingers, given the outright lies and paper-thin distorions I've been hearing from the Bush apologists. But I'll see for myself soon enough.

A Political Fantasy

2004-03-29T16:41:00.000+09:00

I have this neat, but wholly unrealistic, idea.

Imagine Kerry standing up and giving the following speech:

"If elected, I will concentrate on domestic issues, on jobs, on the economy. I will concentrate on getting America working again. I will concentrate on money in your pockets and government services to your schools, communities and cities.

I will pay little attention to terrorism, I will pay little attention to getting us out of the illegitimate war in Iraq, I will pay little attention to the global fight against Al Qaeda.

I will leave that to my vice-president, Richard Clarke."

-- Comment posted by a Phoenician in a time of Romans on Kevin Drum's Political Animal blog.

Another Useful Technology

2004-03-26T16:55:00.000+09:00

For those who'd like to hear Richard Clarke's actual testimony, instead of the media distorted stories (with quotes from Bush Administration spinmeisters thrown in by lazy reporters for "balance"), might want to check out Audible.com. They're offering free audio downloads of witness testimony from the public hearings of the 9/11 Commission. Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright--they're all there. The sound quality is not so hot (AM radio level, really), but the files are surprisingly small. This is the kind of technology I wish had been available during the Iran-Contra Hearings umpty-ump years ago.

I began listening to Richard Clarke's testimony on my iPod this morning while riding the train to work. Powerful stuff--especially his apology

Which is, of course, highlights something that has never even occurred to the Bush Administration to do. Not a single apology, not a single sense of contrition, not a single shred of personal responsibility.--just excuses, finger-pointing, denials, and stonewalling.

"Bringing integrity to the White House," my ass.

How Not to Lie

2004-03-26T15:14:00.000+09:00

I have to admit, I find the whole brouhaha over Richard Clarke's new book, Against All Enemies, invigorating. Not so much for his revelations--or, really, confirmations of what everybody paying any attention had already suspected or known--but for the panicky, riding-off-in-all-directions response of the Bush Administration.

The hallmark of any good liar is remembering the lies you've told, so they don't trip you up later. This is a cardinal rule that, in their haste, the Bush spinners have forgotten, since they've wound up contradicting facts and (I love this) each other in their attempts to smear Clarke. This stuff is raw meat for the political bloggers, who've been gleefully piling on. A blogger named Atrios has compiled a handy list of the more recent fact-challenged sputterings of the Bush spinmeisters.

For more up-to-the-minute looks at the contradictions and prevarications of the Bushies--and, in their comments boxes, the impotent sputterings of the rightwing trolls grasping for any thin reed to justify the Bush Misadminstration actions--check out:

Kevin Drum's Political Animal

Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Point Memos

J. Bradford DeLong's site

Joe Lieberman Shoves His Foot into His Mouth

2004-03-23T11:57:00.000+09:00

The accusations by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counter terrorism specialist, that the Bush administration failed to take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously prior to Sept. 11 overtook other campaign developments Sunday and promised to reverberate this week as the Sept. 11 commission conducts a public hearing. ... But his Democratic colleague, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, said on Fox that he saw "no basis" for the allegation that the administration was too focused on Iraq in the wake of Sept. 11. "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric and not to go about what happened in the past so totally that we divide ourselves," he said.
-from "Debate Grows Over Bush's Handling of Terror Threat" by Carl Hulse, in the March 22 New York Times

Was Joe Lieberman completely asleep for the last, oh, TWO YEARS? Is he so keen to justify his
eagerness to go to war with Iraq that he swallows everything said to him by the Bush Administration? This makes him either an intellectually dishonest sleazbag or dumber than a bag of hammers.

How the hell can this guy call himself a Democrat? Why doesn't he just come out of the closet and declare himself a Republican, which is what he really is?

Still Timely

2004-03-19T18:20:00.000+09:00

A couple of days ago, I was taking a break at work and mousing around at Snopes.com, hitting the randomizer button to see what came up.

One of the things that popped up was the following, a letter from a high-level career US State Department Foreign Service Officer--Mary A. Wright, Deputy Chief of Mission in Ulaan Bator, Mongolia--to her boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, written exactly one year ago on the eve of last year's invasion of Iraq. The sad thing is that just about everything in it came true or is still true: it must have been maddening for a career diplomat to see US foreign relations driven straight into a ditch by the Bush Administration, with the help--or at least complicity--of a boss you admire.

The thing is, there was a good chance that I could have been working as a Foreign Service Officer myself: the State Department has been running an aggressive recruiting drive, and last year, I took--and passed--the Foreign Service Written Examination, entitling me to take the next step offered to only a few, the all-day Oral Assessment. I, in fact, traveled to San Francisco from Tokyo last November to take the Oral Assessment.

Owing to a personal screw-up (my fault, entirely), I missed my appointment. But I didn't feel bad about it: partly because I'd been offered a very good job just before I'd left for San Francisco, and but also because I'd had very big doubts about working for this Administration, however nonpolitical and indirect my role would be. Sure, the job sounded exciting, stimulating, and fulfilling--but I wouldn't be just representing my country, I'd also be representing the incompetent, greedy, delusional thugs running it.

I went on my trip to San Francisco and my appointment, still unsure even the day before whther I would show up. I thought that if I did pass the Oral Assessment (and the third and last step, the Final Review and Security Background Check), with any luck these assclowns would be out of office by the time the State Department actually offered me a position. As it was, my recordkeeping incompetence made that decision for me, but I don't really regret it. The only thing I regret is that I wore a pair of brand-new shoes that day when I went into San Francisco--a pair so ill-fitting that they were actively painful to walk in after a few hours.

In any case, here's FSO Mary Wright's letter:

U.S. Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
March 19, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell
US Department of State
Washington, DC 20521

Dear Secretary Powell:

When I last saw you in Kabul in January, 2002 you arrived to officially open the US Embassy that I had helped reestablish in December, 2001 as the first political officer. At that time I could not have imagined that I would be writing a year later to resign from the Foreign Service because of US policies. All my adult life I have been in service to the United States. I have been a diplomat for fifteen years and the Deputy Chief of Mission in our Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan (briefly) and Mongolia. I have also had assignments in Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Grenada and Nicaragua. I received the State Department's Award for Heroism as Charge d'Affaires during the evacuation of Sierra Leone in 1997. I was 26 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and participated in civil reconstruction projects after military operations in Grenada, Panama and Somalia. I attained the rank of Colonel during my military service.

This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration's policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.

I hope you will bear with my explanation of why I must resign. After thirty years of service to my country, my decision to resign is a huge step and I want to be clear in my reasons why I must do so.

I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq.

I wrote this letter five weeks ago and held it hoping that the Administration would not go to war against Iraq at this time without United Nations Security Council agreement. I strongly believe that going to war now will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally support the international community's demand that Saddam's regime destroy weapons of mass destruction.

However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance. In our press for military action now, we have created deep chasms in the international community and in important international organizations. Our policies have alienated many of our allies and created ill will in much of the world.

Countries of the world supported America’s action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America. Since then, America has lost the incredible sympathy of most of the world because of our policy toward Iraq. Much of the world considers our statements about Iraq as arrogant, untruthful and masking a hidden agenda. Leaders of moderate Moslem/Arab countries warn us about predicable outrage and anger of the youth of their countries if America enters an Arab country with the purpose of attacking Moslems/Arabs, not defending them. Attacking the Saddam regime in Iraq now is very different than expelling the same regime from Kuwait, as we did ten years ago.

I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans. Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted.

I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a "preemptive attack" against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to "preemptively attack" America and American citizens.

The international military build-up is providing pressure on the regime that is resulting in a slow, but steady disclosure of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should not give extremist Moslems/Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic "holy soil" of Saudi Arabia will be an anti-American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government and American citizens.

Although I strongly believe the time in not yet right for military action in Iraq, as a soldier who has been in several military operations, I hope General Franks, US and coalition forces can accomplish the missions they will be ordered do without loss of civilian or military life and without destruction of the Iraqi peoples' homes and livelihood.

I strongly urge the Department of State to attempt again to stop the policy that is leading us to military action in Iraq without UNSC agreement. Timing is everything and this is not yet the time for military action.

I disagree with the Administration's lack of effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Likewise, I cannot support the lack of effort by the Administration to use its influence to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis and Israeli military operations kill Palestinians and destroy Palestinian towns and cities, the Administration has done little to end the violence. We must exert our considerable financial influence on the Israelis to stop destroying cities and on the Palestinians to curb its youth suicide bombers. I hope the Administration's long-needed "Roadmap for Peace" will have the human resources and political capital needed to finally make some progress toward peace.

I disagree with the Administration's lack of policy on North Korea.

Additionally, I cannot support the Administration's position on North Korea. With weapons, bombs and missiles, the risks that North Korea poses are too great to ignore. I strongly believe the Administration's lack of substantive discussion, dialogue and engagement over the last two years has jeopardized security on the peninsula and the region. The situation with North Korea is dangerous for us to continue to neglect.

I disagree with the Administration's policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America.

Further, I cannot support the Administration's unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration's secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens.

Resignation.

I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration;s policies.

Mr. Secretary, to end on a personal note, under your leadership, we have made great progress in improving the organization and administration of the Foreign Service and the Department of State. I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts to that end. I hate to leave the Foreign Service, and I wish you and our colleagues well.

Very Respectfully,
Mary A. Wright, FO-01
Deputy Chief of Mission
US Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Department of Irony

2004-03-19T11:52:00.000+09:00

In a morning meeting on Wednesday, [L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American administrator in Iraq] warned the Iraqi leaders that they risked isolating themselves and their country if they continued to snub the United Nations. According to Iraqi and American officials, Mr. Bremer pointedly warned them of a "confrontation" with the United States if the Iraqis failed to invite the organization back
- from Dexter Filkins' March 17th New York Times story ("Iraq Council, Shifting Stance, Invites the U.N. to Aid Transfer"

Courtesy of Kevin Drum (Formerly Calpundit, now The Washington Monthly's Political Animal):

One Republican's Opinion

2004-03-14T07:52:00.000+09:00

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

- Theodore Roosevelt, “Lincoln and Free Speech,” The Great Adventure (vol. 19 of The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, national ed.), chapter 7, p. 289 (1926).

Responding to Bluenoses, Redux

2004-03-10T14:28:00.000+09:00

Found on a mailing list:

I recently became aware of a woman, Victoria Woodhull, who was an early advocate of, among other things, women's suffrage and Free Love. She was most active in the 1870s. She was also the first woman to be nominated for President of the US (by the Equal Rights Party). Read more about this amazing woman at http://www.victoria-woodhull.com/index.htm

Anyway, at one time she published a newspaper [Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly] advocating her liberal views. The following is an excerpt of a letter to the newspaper in 1871 by Stephen Pearl Andrews, who was trying to set the record straight on what he believed Free Love was all about. It's amazing how much his words fit today's debate on gay marriage, and I think he stated the basic issue better than any current arguments I've read (which, to be honest, has not been extensive). Some things never change...

The first popular objection to Free Love, to be anticipated as existing in the public mind, is the prevalent belief that the Bible has prescribed an indissoluble monogamy, or the life-marriage of one man and one woman, as the only form of the union of the sexes which God approves. This belief results from the interpretation which some of the words of Christ in relation to marriage have almost uniformly received. . . . The Scriptures have been held, at various periods with equal unanimity, to teach that the sun revolves around the earth; that kings reign of divine right, and must not, for any cause, be resisted; and that the world was created in six literal days. With the progress of astronomy, politics and geology, each of these convictions has given way before the scientific discovery of adverse facts and principles. . . .

In this country; and in this age, we have, in one sphere of social affairs, a successful and triumphant practical illustration of the theory that the recognition of the rights of the individual is the talisman of order and harmony in society. . . . Not only is he permitted "to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience," but, equally, to neglect or refuse to worship Him altogether; and the result is peace and fraternity; in the place of the inquisition, the burning fagot and war.

For one, I reject and repudiate the interference of the State in my morals, precisely as I do the interference of the church to prescribe my religious deportment or believe. The outrage on human rights is in my view no less in kind to assume to determine whom men and women may love, and what manifestation they may make of that sentiment, than it is to burn them at Geneva or Smithfield for heretical practice or faith.

Such, then, is Free Love—neither more nor less. It is simply a branch or single application of the larger doctrine of the Sovereignty of the Individual. It decides absolutely nothing with regard to the form or continuity of the love relation. Whosoever believes that the parties immediately concerned are the proper parties to determine the form and duration of that relation; whosoever wishes to discard legislative enactments, and adopt a "higher law" as the appropriate regulator of affairs of the heart, is, a Free Lovite, no matter what he expects will be the result as the operation of that law.

The attempt to degrade Free Love into the partisanship of an unbridled licentiousness is partly the result of an honest confusion of ideas, and partly the effect of natures conscious as yet of no greater elevation of sentiment in themselves than the promptings of unregulated desire. This fog will rapidly disappear . . .

The Myth of St. Ralph

2004-02-27T13:55:00.000+09:00

As Nader embarks upon his fourth protest run against the Democrats in as many elections, there is something slightly ridiculous about the shock of his liberal critics. They still don't know who they're dealing with. Nader is not a heroic figure tragically overcome by his own flaws; he is a selfish, destructive maniac who, for a brief historical period, happened upon a useful role.
- Jonathan Chait in "Make You Ralph: The Myth of the Good Nader" inThe New Republic

Strong words, but Chait backs them up, puncturing the myth of St. Ralph with example after example from Ralph Nader's history. As Chait says in his prelude: "The qualities that liberals have observed in him of late--the monomania, the vindictiveness, the rage against pragmatic liberalism--have been present all along. Indeed, an un-blinkered look at Nader's public life shows that his presidential campaigns represent not a betrayal of his earlier career but its apotheosis."

Clearly what needs to be done is the equivalent of saying to him, "Thank you, Ralph, here's your gold watch for your fine service, now get the fuck out of public life before you screw things up more.

Ambitious Goals

2004-02-24T09:39:00.000+09:00

The rule of law, the very foundation for a free society, has been under assault, not only by criminals from the ground up, but also from the top down. An administration that lives by evasion, coverup, stonewalling, and duplicity has given us a totally discredited Department of Justice.

- From the Republican National Committee's "Party Platform", approved 8/31/00

The only difference between the RNC's claim of yesteryear and the reality of today is the Bush Administration's goal seems tio be not merely discrediting one department, but the entire government from top to bottom. Well, nobody ever said that the Republicans weren't ambitious.

How to Lie With Statistics

2004-02-21T11:47:00.000+09:00

Somewhere around here, I have a copy of that classic book How to Lie With Statistics. Any updated version is going to have to include a chapter on the Bush Administration, as economist Brad DeLong shows:

Let's get George W. Bush a copy of the 2004 Economic Report of the President!

IHT: Bush backs off a jobs forecast: "Bush said Wednesday that the economy was growing and getting stronger, and he cited figures showing that the economy has created 366,000 jobs since last summer.

If we got him a copy, he could read p. 94: "Because the labor force is constantly expanding, employment must be growing moderately just to keep the unemployment rate steady. For example, if the labor force is growing at the same rate as the population (about 1 percent per year), employment would have to rise 110,000 a month just to keep the unemployment rate stable, and larger job gains would be necessary (and are expected) to induce a downward trend in the unemployment rate."
And then he could divide 366,000 jobs since last summer by five months, and discover that it is 72,000 jobs per month--which is less than 110,000.

Using his own economic report as a source, it appears that the number of NET new jobs is actually shrinking by about 30-40,000 a month over that period. "Bringing integrity back to the White House", indeed.

Top 12 Reasons Why Gay People Shouldn't Marry Each Other

2004-02-21T09:13:00.000+09:00

Courtesy of the Gator Gay-Straight Alliance:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespan.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Military Comparisons

2004-02-20T09:12:00.000+09:00

John Kerry = Silver Star
George Bush = Gold Brick

Colin Powell's Memory Problem

2004-02-19T11:12:00.000+09:00

I particularly condemn the way our political leaders supplied the manpower for [the Vietnam] war. The policies determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live, were an anti-democratic disgrace.

I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well-placed managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal alliegance to our country.

-- Colin Powell, from his 1995 memoir My American Journey (page 144 of the Ballantine edition), quoted by Daniel Schorr on NPR this evening.

I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by
learning how to fly airplanes.
-- George Bush on his Texas Air National Guard stint, to the Houston Chronicle, May 1984

So, remind me again where Colin Powell's reputation as an upright and moral person came from?

P.S.: Whenever I've gone to Amazon today, their Recommendation engine keeps pushing a book called The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell by Oren Harari at me. From the title, I assume it's one of those shallow management self-help books that gullible business people fill their office bookshelves with. Seems to me that they could save themselves some money by just remembering one guiding principle to Colin Powell's success, as his time in the Bush Administration seems to demonstrate: Know what to kiss--and when.

Wardrobe Malfunction-Related Activity

2004-02-15T08:18:00.000+09:00

It's Reuben Bolling's Tom the Dancing Bug:

Squirm squirm squirm, part 1

2004-02-14T18:13:00.000+09:00

The Daily Show has a crack at the Bush/Air National Guard story, and the in-over-his-head press secretary Scott McClellan

Squirm squirm squirm, part 2

2004-02-14T17:47:00.000+09:00

The line between political reporting and comedy gets blurred again: witness this exchange as White House spokesman Sott McClellan tries to stick to his talking points:

Q: The President, in his interview on Sunday, was asked the first question about possible release of records, the first question about possible release. He was asked, when there were questions about Senator John McCain's record, Wesley Clark's record, they authorized the release of their entire file. The President was asked, would he do that? And he replied, "Yeah." So why is the President reneging on that pledge?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, do you want to continue on and go through the rest of that questioning?

Q: Because that was the first question to which he answered in the affirmative -- don't try to parse it out.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, here's the question, quote from Tim Russert. "But you will allow pay stubs, tax records" --

Q: Let's go with the first question. You're parsing.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think you are, because the issue that Tim Russert raised was whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama.

Q: Read the first question, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: "But you will allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period." "Yes. If we still have them." We have provided you with that information, and we will continue to.

Q: Read the first question.

MR. McCLELLAN: I just -- you read the first question. I read this question. It was the --

Q: Right. It was the very first question --

MR. McCLELLAN: The context of this discussion --

Q: The very first question, when he said, "entire record," the President said, "Yeah."

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, John, let's look at the context of the discussion. The context of the discussion was clear about whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama. It was very clear.

Q: The first question was about entire --

MR. McCLELLAN: We can agree to disagree on this issue, but I think it was very --

Q: We're going to end up on The Daily Show again with this one.

Blog Problems

2004-02-14T16:54:00.000+09:00

My regular readers (all three of you) may be wondering what happened to my Salon blog. Well, the software I was using--Radio Userland*, for which I paid $40 a year for the privilege--failed me, and I was unable to post. My attempt to fix the problem, trying find answers in the inadequate and badly designed documentation resulted in my deleting the contents, and although I backed-up the relevant data files (which for some reason must be kept on the local computer), nothing I've found within the piss-poor documentation has helped me restore it, including the "Restore/Back-up Weblog" page that allegedly tells me how to restore things.

There is an active user-discussion forum on Userland's website, I'm told, but when I asked for help, I got a couple of social retards telling me that I should RTFM. The active Radio user support community so far, based on the those two, seems to be composed of self-absorbed wankers, JUST what I wanted to confront after struggling all Sunday afternoon with the goddamned thing. Problem-solving by begging for help from the socially inept is not my idea of a good time--or good user support.

Not even Mail-to-Blog function wasn't working (even in that case, God help me if I made an error or forgot to close marked-up text, because I couldn't fix what I posted if I were able). In the meantime, until some grownups appear on the user-discussion to offer actual help on solving my problem, I'll be experimenting with other blog software and sites. One or more of these might be permanent, if I give up on the "innovative"** Radio Userland software. Some experimental sites, using the non-Japan political posts I've been writing over the last month or two. The content of the two are essentially identical, and when I have the time I'll try migrating the Japan stuff I have the text files for. If you have any opinions about the layout, formatting, or other issues, please let me know. You can find the other blog at TypePad, which uses MovableType. The one you're reading now uses Blogger .

*"Radio UserLand is a powerful and easy-to-use weblog tool that automatically builds your site, organizes and archives your posts, publishes your content, and aggregates your news -- without your needing any knowledge of HTML, FTP, or graphic design to accomplish all this." Pretty much all a lie, really.

**Innovative is what Scott Rosenberg calls Radio Userland. Not useful, accessible, or helpful, I notice.

Where was George?

2004-02-13T17:06:00.000+09:00

Courtesy of Kevin Drum at Calpundit, it looks like some guys at the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972 do remember George Bush, kinda sorta...

BUSH A NO-SHOW AT ALABAMA BASE, SAYS MEMPHIAN
FedEx Pilot Bob Mintz, backed up by a Carolina colleague, recalls no Dubya at Dannelly AFB in 1972.
JACKSON BAKER | 2/13/2004

Copyright 2004 The Memphis Flyer

MEMPHIS – Two members of the Air National Guard unit that President George W. Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain.

The question of Bush’s presence in 1972 at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Alabama – or the lack of it – has become an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Recalls Memphian Mintz, now 63: “I remember that I heard someone was coming to drill with us from Texas. And it was implied that it was somebody with political influence. I was a young bachelor then. I was looking for somebody to prowl around with.” But, says Mintz, that “somebody” -- better known to the world now as the president of the United States -- never showed up at Dannelly in 1972. Nor in 1973, nor at any time that Mintz, a FedEx pilot now and an Eastern Airlines pilot then, when he was a reserve first lieutenant at Dannelly, can remember.

“And I was looking for him,” repeated Mintz, who said that he assumed that Bush “changed his mind and went somewhere else” to do his substitute drill. It was not “somewhere else,” however, but the 187th Air National Guard Tactical squadron at Dannelly to which the young Texas flyer had requested transfer from his regular Texas unit – the reason being Bush’s wish to work in Alabama on the ultimately unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of family friend Winton "Red" Blount.

This keeps getting better and better.

Chutzpah

2004-02-13T15:08:00.000+09:00

Republicans Accuse Kerry of Planning Dirty Campaign

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON - The head of President Bush's Republican Party accused Democrat John Kerry's campaign on Thursday of planning the "dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics" in a scorched-earth bid to oust Bush in November.

- - lede from a Reuters story, Thursday, February 12, 2004

"God I hope so. After all we are at war, and all's fair," is how the person who brought this story of pre-emptive Republican smearing put it.

The chutzpah here is breathtaking. These are the same amoral smear artists who said in a sleazy campaign ad that said Georgia Senator Max Cleland was soft on defending America and that he lacked the "courage to lead" -- a Vietnam War vet who lost three limbs in battle serving his country -- all in support of a draft-dodging chickenhawk named Saxby Chamblis, who skipped Vietnam because of bad knees (although those bad knees, weirdly, don't seem to have stopped his being a runner). Also immediately popping into mind are the whispering campaign against John McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000, the infamous "Willie Horton" ad, and Lee Atwater's work in general.

Hell, I could have simply said two words and stopped there: Richard Nixon. 'Nuf said.

Even better, of course, is the pre-emptive nature of the Republican smear: the campaign hasn't even started yet. How do they know what Kerry and the Democratic National Committee have planned or intend?

Hmm, the Nixon reference I just made makes me think that DNC ought run a sweep for bugs at their headquarters.

Clearly, the whole RNC line of attack is an attempt to plant the notion that any criticism of Bush is a priori hate, part of an attempt by the Evil Democrats. As Paul Krugman put it in a November 2003 column, "All this fuss about civility, then, is an attempt to bully critics into unilaterally disarming — into being demure and respectful of the president, even while his campaign chairman declares that the 2004 election will be a choice 'between victory in Iraq and insecurity in America.'"

Dogs and Demons

2004-02-12T15:50:00.000+09:00

Information is unreliable, knowledge of new techniques used abroad scarce, and public funds distributed not to the sectors that need them but to those who pay bureaucrats the most--in this dim twilight world, Japanese officials are losing touch with reality
- Alex Kerr, from Dogs and Demons (2001)

A co-worker leaving Japan just gave me his copy of Alex Kerr's Dogs and Demons, his look at the dark side of Japan's economic miracle and slide. It's a book that's been on my purchase shortlist for some time now, and was referenced by writer Barry Eisler as a strong background source for his Japan-based thrillers about corruption and a hired assassin with qualms, Rain Fall and Hard Rain.

As the publisher's description on Amazon puts it:

Kerr ([author of ]Lost Japan), a 35-year resident of Japan and the first foreigner to win that country's Shincho literary prize, contends that the Japanese miracle has become a Japanese mess. Once admired, and perhaps feared, for its spectacular economic successes, Japan, Kerr claims, has become a land of "ravaged mountains and rivers, endemic pollution, tenement cities, and skyrocketing debts." What happened? He says that ideology and bureaucracy are to blame. Japan is in effect managed by an autonomous and corrupt government bureaucracy, driven by an ethos of economic growth at any cost and a mania for control. Everywhere Japan's natural beauty is being destroyed by useless construction projects, as nature must be controlled and construction companies rewarded. The great ancient cities too representative of old, underdeveloped Japan are being replaced by monuments and hotels that are concrete monstrosities. Japan's banking system has failed, yet no one really knows the extent of the damage, as the bureaucracy keeps accurate information hidden. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy continues to pour money into older industries, while Japan falls dangerously behind in the development of new information technologies. There is popular discontent, but protest is hard to come by, because the bureaucratically controlled educational system emphasizes obedience above all else. Japan is stuck, concludes Kerr, and he sees no easy way out. While perhaps alarmist in his message, Kerr fascinates with detailed descriptions of Japan's dilemma and offers a surprising, if controversial, vision of a land in trouble.

Future Reading

2004-02-10T16:53:00.000+09:00

Coming up on my reading list soon, I hope, is Charlie Wilson's War by George Crile, due out in paperback this April.

Also on the list: Pattern Recognition
by William Gibson.

Report from Tokyo

2004-02-09T22:08:00.000+09:00

Looks like I don't have to write a thing about the Democrats Abroad Japan caucus, now that the New York Times has done a story on the event.

Democratic Caucus

2004-02-09T15:13:00.000+09:00

Spent much of the afternoon yesterday at the Democrats Abroad Japan presidential caucus at the Foreign Correspondents Club. Far too hectic for me to describe coherently right now. Maybe later.

Turn on the Wayback Machine, Part 2

2004-02-06T15:33:00.000+09:00

Index: (n) A statistical measure of the changes in a portfolio of stocks representing a portion of the overall market.
- from Baystreet.ca

Another observation about my recently unearthed copy of Wired magazine from June of 2000 ("THE NEW ECONOMY IS HOTTER THAN EVER/The Wired Index: 40 Companies Driving the Future").

A quick Web check shows that most of the companies that were on the so-called Wired Index (25 out of 40, including Enron and MCI Worldcom) are no longer on it, which makes me wonder what the hell the point of calling it an "index" was. Clearly, even the kool-aid sellers at Wired finally figured it, since they've changed the name to THE WIRED 40. Of course, given how frequently they swapped companies in and out of the so-called index, it's utterly worthless as a financial indicator or metric: I'm tempted to use Patrick Hayden Neilsen's "goalposts" comment from below to describe it.

Turn on the Wayback Machine, Part 1

2004-02-05T16:48:00.000+09:00

I was cleaning my locker at my old office last night, when at the very bottom I found a few old magazines, including National Geographic, MacWorld--and the June 2000 issue of Wired magazine.

It would have been hard to miss, its cover having enough day-Glo orange ink on it to signal passing rescue planes. The image was a garish, Illustrator-produced depiction of a chrome-plated V-8 automobile engine, with chrome wings, tilted slightly upward as it rockets up, up, and away. The framing and angle made me think of it as a kind of robotic Socialist Realist painting (you know, the old Soviet or Red Chinese paintings of heroic tractor farmers and locomotive builders, giving their all for The Revolution). Ironically enough, though, the fantasy flying engine resembles the grill of a Ford Edsel, an association I have to wonder if no one notice or no one cared. The cover reads:

KEEP COOL
THE NEW ECONOMY
IS HOTTER
THAN EVER

The Wired Index

40 Companies Driving the Future

Yes, it is to laugh.

When I find the time, I think I'll page through this artifact and admire the wreckage: page after page of hype, breathless speculation, and financial corpses from the days when people drank the Kool-aid and were really trying hard to sell it to everyone else.

Al Sharpton, Republican Hand Puppet

2004-02-05T16:19:00.000+09:00

I posted some grudgingly admiring remarks about Al Sharpton the other day, and I meant them: I was beginning to respect him somewhat more.

It wasn't too difficult for him to improve in my eyes, since I have considered him an amoral and sleazy huckster since his disgusting--and unrepentant--role in the Tawana Brawley fraud, and it could hardly get worse than that, no could it? However, Sharpton has once again slid (or perhaps I should say slithered) down, if even a quarter of what is revealed in this Village Voice story by Wayne Barrett*.

Anybody remember the bussed-in mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000? Remember the organizer of that mob, Roger Stone, a longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative?

Guess who's advising, orchestrating, staffing, and essentially financing the the presidential campaign of the allegedly Reverend Al Sharpton? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

So now it turns out that Sharpton is a Republican hand-puppet, and it's Roger Stone's hand up his ass. I guess there really are no dirty tricks that Republicans won't stoop to.

*with special reporting by Adam Hutton and Christine Lagorio, and additional research from Andrew Burtless, Cristi Hegranes, Brian O'Connor, Abigail Roberts, Catherine Shu, and Jennifer Suh. Gotta give credit where it's due.

He's Got Joe Money! He's Got Joe Friends! He's Got Joe Chance!

2004-02-05T14:19:00.000+09:00

I don't really like William Saletan of Slate, but I was amused by his recent Joebituary.

Money is the Mother's Milk of Politics

2004-02-05T11:47:00.000+09:00

The day, I bitched about how much money Howard Dean has spent, to such little effect, in what I characterized as his dot-bomb of a presidential campaign. Thanks to OpenSecrets.org website, run by the Center for Responsive Politics, I was able to find out how much: as of January 31st, $31.4 million.

Since Dean shows receipts of about $41 million, he's spent 76.5% of his money so far. While I think it's a pretty high proportion of spending, it turns out, when you crunch the numbers, that Dean is doing best on a percentage basis (at least as of January 31st) among all the Democratic candidates, whose spending-to-cash-receipts percentages range from 85.9% (for Edwards) to 98.2% (for Sharpton). I stress that I am NOT an accountant, campaign wonk, or professional number-cruncher, so my math may be completely pointless.

In any case, the real shock for me is that Dean has NOT been the top spender in this presidential campaign. The top spender so far is, well, George W. Bush, who has spent $31.7 million dollars running essentially unopposed.

So what the hell has the Bush campaign spent nearly $32 million of their money on?

Rocket Ship Machiavelli

2004-02-04T16:36:00.000+09:00

I've been a big believer in space exploration since I was a kid. I watched the Apollo moon landings (and launches) on TV, visited the Kennedy Space Center, even drank Tang because that's what the astronauts drank. I believe that man's destiny is in space and in exploring the universe around us. I know it sounds starry-eyed (pardon the expression), maybe even laughably adolescent, but that's my view.

So I should be behind Bush's spanking new space inititiative, right? The Moon and Mars, to infinity and beyond?

Patrick Hayden Neilsen, science fiction editor and proprietor of the Electrolite blog, says it better than I could in Rocket Ship Machiavelli:

Still, it's been hard to avoid the suspicion that the whole thing is little more than a fairly shameless piece of political performance art, a stab at the old Vision Thing, particularly when "unnamed Administration sources" more or less blatantly say so. As 5,271,009 bloggers have already remarked, the money isn't even a sliver of what a real moonbase or Mars mission would cost, and the actual goals are comfortably far to the future of any plausible second Bush administration. Meanwhile, though, it definitely looks like the initiative's immediate effects include cutting a lot of actual space science (never popular with this crowd) and handing off more bags of cash to politically friendly construction companies and aerospace firms.

...I just have the sinking feeling that this Administration is unlikely to do a good job at this, certainly not if it turns out to involve spending any political capital at all. ...The phrase that summed up my reaction to Bush's grandiloquent announcement last week: I felt trifled with. I wanted to say, this is stuff that matters, you lying sack of shit.

Pretty much says it all, for me.

George Learns a Lesson from Tony

2004-02-03T23:35:00.000+09:00

So President Bush has announced a forthcoming "independent investigation into intelligence failures" regarding the Saddam Hussein's still-unfound weapons of mass destruction. I notice that he did so within days of the release of the notoriously stilted Hutton Report (which pronounced Tony Blair's government clear of wrongdoing in the "sexed-up" Iraqi intelligence dossier affair--a report I'm told gave every benefit of the doubt to the UK government and none whatsoever to the BBC.

Apparently Tony Blair has taught Bush the lesson that whitewashing works, and given how easily Bush and his cronies can stack the deck for the so-called independent investigation by the limiting its boundaries (Will the investigators be allowed to see what the White House did with intelligence? Will they be allowed to ask about the widely-reported pressure on the career analysts? Will their charter be restricted to "the CIA and NSA screwed up, and we're here to find out why"? As Scott Rosenberg of Salon.com put it:

Before the war, Bush's Iraq hawks, dissatisfied with the weasely intel they were receiving suggesting that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat, browbeat the CIA and zeroed in on a passel of dubious reports that indicated the dictator in fact possessed weapons of mass destruction. All indications suggest that the intelligence agency's best people looked on in horror as their procedures for vetting and verifying information were ignored by the war-or-bust crowd, and impossible-to-verify accounts were touted as gospel. (Seymour Hersh's New Yorker pieces on "stovepiping" provide the most thorough background here.)

The Hutton Report seems to be saying that whitewashing is better than stonewalling. Seems like Bush is capable of learning. Gee, thanks, Tony.

Eating Your Own

2004-02-02T23:19:00.000+09:00

I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat.
- Will Rogers

Now here's stupidity in action: certain political activists, who despise George Bush and his ruinous policies, rising up to support and work for Howard Dean for President--and if their boy doesn't win the nomination, threatening to vote for George Bush.

Don't believe me? Check out this forum from DeanforAmerica.com. Apparently, John Kerry and the others are insufficiently ideologically pure for them, and they'd prefer--actually try to bring about--even more damage, rather than sully themselves by voting for someone who's not 100% congruent with their beliefs.

So we get, like with the self-absorbed Naderites, voting as a form of therapy, self-expression, or temper tantrum. Cripes, no wonder the Republicans keep winning.

Back-pedaling-related program activities

2004-02-02T14:32:00.000+09:00

"Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

I just wanted to hear that again.

"Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Smoking gun-related activity program initiative!

Conclusive evidence-related involvement postulation enterprise!

This isn't just moving the goalposts, it's attaching the goalposts to a booster rocket and shooting them into the Sun. Look, a revitalized space program after all!

- from Patrick Hayden Neilsen's Electrolite blog.

The Dean Balloon Deflates, Part 2

2004-02-01T11:21:00.000+09:00

Dismal results have lifted the fog of hype. The visionary founder who until a few weeks ago was heralded as a revolutionary genius who would forever change the way business is done is out, replaced by an "old economy" suit who must try to turn around the floundering enterprise. Staff members have been asked to forgo pay, and advertising has been suspended to slow the organization's cash "burn rate." Haven't we seen this tale before?
- Andrés Martinez, "Will We Remember 2004 as the Year of the Dean Bubble?" in the New York Times.

Clearly, I'm not the only one he thinks of the Dean campaign as a failed dot-com, as a whole lot of overblown hype that crashed like the Hindenburg and now requires the services of grown-ups to bail out, as the above example of Andrés Martinez of Times Editorial Board demonstrates.

However, Scott Rosenberg of Salon.com disagrees, at least in part with this assessment ("Dean: More than a political sock-puppet")

...The collapse of the dot-com stock bubble was a disaster for many investors, but it never invalidated the fundamental accuracy of the insight that fueled it -- that the Internet would spark powerful changes in the way the world does business. Those changes have proceeded apace, even as the dot-com era recedes into memory as a spasmodic folly: Online sales boom. Internet use eats away at network TV viewing. Broadband and wireless extend their reach. New possibilities for self-expression beckon. Many dot-coms flamed out -- but the Internet is still reshaping the world.

...

At a time when too much of the Democratic party, and too many of its candidates, lay supine before the travesty of President Bush's policies, Dean used the Internet to punch a hole through the big-media blockade and get the true opposition message out: That Bush and his administration lied to America to start an unnecessary war, a war that has hurt rather then enhanced the nation's security. While other candidates hedged their bets, Dean spoke the truth, and when the mainstream media tried to marginalize his voice, the Net allowed the breadth and depth of the support for his message to be felt. Today, every Democratic candidate, including frontrunner John Kerry, embraces this position: They are all Deaniacs now.

Internet enthusiasts had long theorized that the Net could help route around the broadcast media's headlock on both the electoral process and the broader definition of the acceptable boundaries of political discourse; Dean and his supporters made it happen. Whether Dean's campaign somehow manages a comeback or, more likely, fades in coming weeks is utterly irrelevant to this accomplishment.

Dean supporters, like dot-com true believers, can take solace in this: The horse they backed may lose the race, but thanks to their efforts, it's a whole different race, on a transformed track

Despite the starry-eyed-vision-of-the-future view that seems to have lifted from the pages of Wired magazine, he might have a point--though I'd like to know where he got his alternative-history time machine enabling him to say that it's only because of Dean that the other candidates (with the obvious and grotesque exception of Lieberman) are criticizing the The Great Bush Iraqi Misadventure (or, as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart calls it, "Mess-O-Potamia"). The blood price of over 500 American dead might tend to attract some notice among discerning opposition candidates, don't you think?

In any case, Scott Rosenberg has a bit of a credibility problem when it comes to talking about the power of the Internet, considering his big participation in the dot-com bubble: Salon.com was supposed to change the face of journalism, and through a lot of hard work and effort burned through millions of dollars to try to do so, to limited actual effect. Instead, its stock price tanked (it's now sold OTC) and it's on life-support, kept alive by occasional infusions of cash. So Rosenberg has a bit of a disincentive to dis his own experience and play up the possibilities of dot-coms like his. Maybe he has a point, but consider the source.

Sources:

Will We Remember 2004 as the Year of the Dean Bubble?. Howard Dean's implosion calls to mind the fate of too many high-flying dot-com companies in the wake of the 2000-2001 crash. By Andrés Martinez. [New York Times: Opinion]

Dean: More than a political sock-puppet Whatever happens now to the Dean campaign, it already achieved a great purpose. [Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment]

Link

Twenty Things You Have to Believe to Be a Republican

2004-01-31T22:49:00.012+09:00

Making the e-mail rounds (and repeated in the media, including by the Reno Gazette-Journal's Cory Farley, I couldn't resist reposting this. Sorry if you've already seen it.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
"Standing Tall" for America means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 1980s is irrelevant.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Someone Else Pays

2004-01-30T16:37:00.000+09:00

And, you know, it's absurd to me for people to come and look at the people in South Carolina in the face and say, "It's an honor for your sons and daughters to go abroad and die for others. But it is a burden for rich people to pay their tax at home." I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either all of us should be honored to sacrifice or none of us should.

- The Rev. Al Sharpton, in the South Carolina primary debate

While I wouldn't vote Sharpton for County Dogcatcher, thanks to his disgraceful role in the Tawana Brawley fraud--for which he has, as far as I know, refused to apologize--he nevertheless has been unafraid to make sense during his quixotic Presidential run, and he, in my opinion, really hits the nail on the head with his observation above.

Lying Liars and Backpedalers

2004-01-30T14:17:00.000+09:00

Q: On the question of Iraq, two issues. First, you've been using the phrase, "gathering threat" and "grave danger," which obviously are words that the President, himself, used many times before the war. You have not used the word "imminent threat." And the essence of Dr. Kay's comments recently would suggest that there was no way for there to be an imminent threat.

Does the President now believe that, in fact, while the threat was gathering, while the threat may have been grave, that, in fact, it was not imminent?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've said all along that it was a grave and gathering threat. And that in a post-September 11th world, you must confront gathering threats before it's too late.

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word "imminent." Those were not words --

Q: The President himself never used that word?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those were not words we used. We used "grave and gathering threat." We made it very clear that it was a gathering threat, that it's important to confront gathering threats in this post-September 11th world, because of the new dangers and new threats that we face.

- White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, at a press
briefing on 27 January 2004.

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.

- Scott McClellan, speaking to reporters on 10 February 2003.

The problem with being a liar is having to remember all the lies you've already told. And the people at the Center for American Progress have compiled a nice list refuting the Bush Administrations latest backpedaling on alleged threat posed by Iraq and the overheated language, hyperbole, and occasional bald-faced lie they used to sell this exercise in neo-con political stupidity. Some highlights of the things the Bush Administration said include:

"...a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our
allies."(Dick Cheney, 1/31/03)

"...a serious and mounting threat" (Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03)

"...unique and urgent threat"(President Bush, 11/23/02)

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."(President Bush, 11/3/02)

"...a significant threat to the security of the United States."
(President Bush, 11/1/02)

"...a real and dangerous threat" (President Bush, 10/28/02)

One additional form of "threat" that the White House didn't use, though it was the most appropriate one--empty threat.

Truth-Tellers 2

2004-01-30T11:25:00.000+09:00

And speaking of comedic truth-tellers, how could I forget The Onion? This week, they have a brilliant and subtle commentary disguised as a news story, one that expect would go right past the dittoheads:

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges To Restore Honor And Dignity To White House

BOSTON - Addressing guests at a $2,000-a-plate fundraiser, George W. Bush pledged Monday that, if re-elected in November, he and running mate Dick Cheney will "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

"After years of false statements and empty promises, it's time for big changes in Washington," Bush said. "We need a president who will finally stand up and fight against the lies and corruption. It's time to renew the faith the people once had in the White House. If elected, I pledge to usher in a new era of integrity inside the Oval Office."

Bush told the crowd that, if given the opportunity, he would work to reestablish the goodwill of the American people "from the very first hour of the very first day" of his second term.

"The people have spoken," Bush said. "They said they want change. They said it's time to clean up Washington. They're tired of politics as usual. They're tired of the pursuit of self-interest that has gripped Washington. They want to see an end to partisan bickering and closed-door decision-making. If I'm elected, I'll make sure that the American people can once again place their trust in the White House."

Bush said the soaring national debt and the lengthy war in Iraq have shaken Americans' faith in the highest levels of government.

"A credibility gap has opened between the Oval Office and America," Bush said. "The public hears talk, but they don't see any result. But if you choose me as your next president, the promises I make in my inaugural address will actually mean something. The president of this country will be held accountable for his promises, starting Jan. 20 of next year."

The rest at http://www.theonion.com/4004/top_story.html

Truth-Tellers

2004-01-29T23:14:00.000+09:00

Today, the people of New Hampshire put me in the ring, and that's where we're going to stay.

- Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, after his 5th-place finish in the New Hampshire primary, from "Lieberman vows to stay in race; Finish stuns supporters" in the January 28th Stamford (CT) Advocate.

------------ ------------- ---------------

Lieberman is trailing in the polls, but surging, at least according to his campaign headquarters, which sent out a press release that begins, quote: "The energy on the ground in New Hampshire is incredible.''

With all due respect, somebody at Lieberman headquarters is smoking crack. There is no energy on the ground in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is currently the same temperature as Pluto.

- Dave Barry, from "How to campaign on a faraway planet" in the January 27th Miami Herald.

Between Dave Barry and Jon Stewart's Daily Show, I may be getting more honest and concise coverage than I'm getting from the New York Times

The Dean Balloon Deflates

2004-01-29T22:15:00.000+09:00

Howard Dean is shaking up his campaign staff, and campaign manager Joe Trippi is a goner. The AP reports that former Gore aide Roy Neel is coming on as campaign chief. Earlier, Dean told the AP's Nedra Pickler that he was considering revamping his staff, but "I'm not asking anybody to leave. There may be some additions, but nobody is leaving, at least I hope they're not leaving."

- from Trippi's out at Salon.com

Gee, wasn't it only a couple of months ago that Joe Trippi was being held up as some sort of genius, someone who'd tapped into the power of the Internet with the internet-organized Dean Meet-ups and the blogs, someone who'd changed the face of campaigning forever?

More and more, Dean's run is looking like a front-loaded, free-spending, oversold attempt to build up "mindshare" (as the marketing weenies used to call it) and use that momentum as its road to success. But enthusiasm and all that money (I've heard reports the Dean campaign has blown through most of all that money it raised (Dean's Money Advantage Dwindles, from the Washington Post) couldn't substitute for old-fashioned organizational skills.

Sounds familiar to me: Is this the Internet Bubble of political campaigns?

Glengarry Glen Bush

2004-01-27T22:42:00.000+09:00

Oh look, David Mamet is writing George Bush's dialogue, minus the random "fucks". Taken directly from the White House website, complete and unaltered:

Remarks by the President to the Press Pool

Nothin' Fancy Cafe

Roswell, New Mexico

11:25 A.M. MST

THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs.

Q: Mr. President, how are you?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs.

Q: What would you like?

THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like.

Q: Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.

THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch -- what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?

Q: Right behind you, whatever you order.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?

Q: But Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?

Q: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?

Q: Ribs.

THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.

Q: What do you think of the democratic field, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?

Q: An answer.

Q: Can we buy some questions?

THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people -- they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.

Q: Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally.

END 11:29 A.M. MST

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040122-5.html]

Paul Krugman on Democracy at Risk

2004-01-23T21:47:00.000+09:00

Well, speak of the devil. In today's New York Times, the always reliable Paul Krugman weighs in on the unreliabilities and dangers of the current practice of electronic voting. Hopefully, people will pay attention.

Democracy at Risk.

Electronic voting is not just a bad technology it's a threat to the republic.
By Paul Krugman.

The disputed election of 2000 left a lasting scar on the nation's psyche. A recent Zogby poll found that even in red states, which voted for George W. Bush, 32 percent of the public believes that the election was stolen. In blue states, the fraction is 44 percent.

Now imagine this: in November the candidate trailing in the polls wins an upset victory — but all of the districts where he does much better than expected use touch-screen voting machines. Meanwhile, leaked internal e-mail from the companies that make these machines suggests widespread error, and possibly fraud. What would this do to the nation?

Unfortunately, this story is completely plausible. (In fact, you can tell a similar story about some of the results in the 2002 midterm elections, especially in Georgia.) Fortune magazine rightly declared paperless voting the worst technology of 2003, but it's not just a bad technology — it's a threat to the republic.

(Read the rest here.)

Source: [New York Times: Opinion]

Democrats Abroad Japan

2004-01-22T22:44:00.000+09:00

Got a note from a former coworker the other day, which I was why I've been paying more attention to American politics recently:

I wanted to give you info on the Democratic Primary Caucus that will be held here in Tokyo on Feb 8th and is open to all US citizens to vote for Democratic candidate for President. The DNC recognizes 3 delegates at their convention from Japan, they are considered international delegates that are added to all of the other delegates from the states for the convention in Boston in 2004 for Democratic presidential selection...

The detailed info on the event is below.

The Democrats Abroad Japan Caucus will be held from 2-6 pm on Sunday, February 8th, in the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, which is in the Yurakucho Denki Building, right across from JR Yurakucho station.You can find a map to the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan here:

I'm probably going. I think I'm registered to vote in (and am supposed to receive an absentee ballot from) Alameda County, California, but I haven't had a chance to confirm it: therefore, if I want to be sure I'm having some voice in selecting the Democratic challenger to Bush.

My former co-worker also forwarded a note today from another Democratic Party activist:

We will be having a conference call with Representative Dennis Kucinich on Friday, January 23rd at 10pm at my house near Omotesando Crossing. Anyone interested in attending please call me at 090-1704-7400. - Brent.

I'm probably NOT going to that event--I don't think Kucinich is, shall we say, ready for prime time--but if I did I might ask Kucinich why he has such a bug up his butt about NAFTA.

The Iowa Caucus, in a Nutshell

2004-01-20T20:53:00.000+09:00

For those non-Americans stuck trying to understand or explain the Iowa
Democratic Caucus system, Wolf Blitzer of CNN offers a mercifully brief
explanation of the mechanics.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/19/wbr.caucuses.explained/

A New View of Democratic Primary Process

2004-01-20T16:55:00.000+09:00

Hey, I think I've found a reporter who I can trust to give me a new and informative angle on the Democratic primary process.

It's Miami Herald columnist Dave Barry, now on the campaign trail.

Horse Race Now! Horse Race Tomorrow! Horse Race Forever!

2004-01-19T15:33:00.000+09:00

Courtesy of Roger Karraker's Hellsheet
blog (Hellsheet n., colloq. journ.: 1. a critique of a newspaper
written to improve it. 2. by extension, any constructive criticism. 3. A
weblog by journalists, dedicated to improving the New York Times.):

Over at PressThink, one of the best analyses of journalism around, Jay Rosen really exposes the fatuity of "inside baseball" stories by the NYT's Adam Nagourney. PressThink: Horse Race Now! Horse Race Tomorrow! Horse Race Forever!

But it's really about much more than just Nagourney. It's about the lack of creative thinking by reporters as a group, who rely on easy cliches in lieu of real thinking. It's a long piece and there are more than a dozen comments from some other top-flight journalists. It's well worth your time.

I read it, and it's fascinating not just for the political journalism angle, but also because Rosen provides a history of the thinking and origins behind baseball maven Bill James's coining of the term "inside baseball" itself, and how it relates to political coverage.

It also seems to me that one big reason for horse-race stories is that they're dynamic, providing fresh meat daily (or at least plenty of leftovers for stew). And much as I despise horse-race coverage, especially of the opposition-says-black-candidate-says-white stenography type, I have to wonder what could replace it.

After all, after first few stories about specific issues and the candidates' positions on them, what can be said? "Candidate X still supports universal health and warm fuzzy kittens". Fine, and by the way, Francisco Franco is still dead. And if reporters just focus on "the issues," there's the risk, I suppose, that reporters would be reduced merely rewriting candidate press releases.

So what kind of non-horse-race, non-press-release-by-candidate stories are there out there? Well-written, interesting, and informative ones, not thumbsuckers or good-for-you-like spinach wonkfests?

Richard Perle, neo-con frootbat

2004-01-18T14:02:00.000+09:00

Came across a blogger calling himself Calpundit (love that name!) who's just finished reading Charlie Wilson's War...

a terrific book about the covert CIA war against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s that I'll have more to say about later. For now, though, I just want to share an excerpt from the book that's both timely and enlightening.

First some background. Richard Perle is one of the most hawkish neocons around, part of the group that seemed to think that we could waltz into Iraq, be greeted as liberators, and then turn the whole thing over to their favorite exiles within a few months.

It's a crazy idea on its face, and it makes you wonder what kind of people could believe something so transparently out of touch with reality. Well, here's a hint: they believe stuff like this because they are out of touch with reality.

You'll have to read it for yourself here.

Leave Every Child Behind

2004-01-15T19:44:00.000+09:00

Sadly appropriate commentary on the people who run the American govvernment, courtesy of Scott Rosenberg of Salon.com:

There's been a remarkable flow of emperor's-new-clothes-type snapshots of the Bush administration from Ron Suskind's book based on former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's White House recollections. Of all of them, one strikes me as especially outrageous -- more so than the charge that Bush entered office intending to oust Saddam (we pretty much knew that already, didn't we?): Dick Cheney's dismissal of O'Neill's concern over his administration's surplus-squandering, budget-busting, deficit-ballooning, generation-betraying tax cuts.

When O'Neill raised the issue after the 2002 elections, the book says, Cheney told him, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms. This is our due."

Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Matter how, exactly? Reagan proved that you can win re-election despite running up huge deficits -- and I suppose what Cheney is saying here is that that is all that matters to him. We can run a huge deficit and still win re-election, so who cares?

That makes a certain hardball sense. But a little voice in the back of our heads nags us with other pieces of history: like the fact that Reagan eventually came to see that bankrupting the government was not a good idea, and both he and his successor -- our current president's father -- agreed to tax increases that laid the foundation for the booming, job-creating, surplus-endowing economy of the '90s.

And then there is the little matter of the impact of deficits beyond the election. I suppose I should not be surprised that our most boardroom-brained, most corporate presidential administration should specialize in the sort of short-term thinking that has plagued so many American businesses. But sooner or later the national debt will come home to roost, engulfing us in runaway inflation, painful tax increases, decimation of services or some miserable combination of these calamities. If the late '90s was an era of ostrich-like wishful thinking on the part of stock-market speculators who couldn't imagine the good times ever ending, Bush, Cheney and company are recapitulating the same mentality today -- except, instead of playing fast and loose with investors' money, they're doing it with the entire U.S. economy.

Deficits don't matter. Up to a point, sure. But by any measure, we are way past that point. "We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations," Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address. But his economic policy could fairly be called "leave every child behind."

That's the awful, eerie poignance of "Child's Play," the winning entrant in MoveOn's "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest. May every American voter watch it, and weep.

[Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment]

CIA-gate Compare and Contrast Exercise

2004-01-14T12:09:00.000+09:00

Number of days between [Robert] Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days.

Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.

Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritical
goons ... priceless.

-- from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

2003-12-11T16:17:00.000+09:00

Finally got around to starting Al Franken's book, which I picked up in the States when I couldn't seem to find it in the foreign bookstores in Tokyo (it turns out that it WAS available here but in the British export trade paperback with a cover I didn't recognize and hence overlooked). No pictures of the Lying Liars themselves or even of Franken on the cover, just a shot of generic politician standing behind a bank of media microphones while hiding his face.

Funny, depressing, and mean-spirited (in good way)) so far. Kinda makes me glad I live outside of the right-wing mediasphere, so I'm exposed to their toxic-sludge-disguised-as-news directly.