Talking Points Memo sums up the inconsistencies mind-boggling dishonesty of the Bush Administration's economic claims as adroitly as I've ever seen:
The Bush administration promised their fiscal policy wouldn't lead to deficits. When it did they made excuses and said it wouldn't be for long. Now that the deficits are huge and there as far as the eye can see, they say deficits never really mattered in the first place. Bad policy, bad character, and eventually -- one has to assume and hope -- bad politics.
Don't you hate it when you're planning a wedding, and one of you wants it outdoors and the other wants it in a church? Well, these fine folks have the perfect solution: the world's only inflatable cathedral! You pick the location, they put a church there for you. I wonder if it converts into a moonwalk for a fun activity at the reception...
Despite living in Indianapolis, I haven't really followed college basketball lately. I'm gratified to learn, however, that my alma mater is doing really well with former UK coach Rick Pitino at the helm.
GREENVILLE, N.C. -- Louisville coach Rick Pitino has preached the importance of defense to his players. It's obvious they're listening. [Ed.: The latter fact alone is a refreshing change, as one of my frustrations with the latter years of coach Denny Crum's tenure was hisapparent inability to motivate his team...but that's a rant for another time.]
Marvin Stone had 23 points and nine rebounds, and Reece Gaines added 22 points as (No. 18 ESPN/USA Today, No. 15 AP) Louisville used its fullcourt pressure to beat East Carolina 87-70 on Thursday night. [Ed.: Great googly moogly! They're #15?!]
The Cardinals (11-1, 3-0 Conference USA) won their 10th straight and are off to their best start since the 1996-97 season. It was also their fourth road win, already surpassing last season's three.
They played a terrific all-around game, shooting 58 percent and moving the ball well on offense while using their suffocating defense to shut down the Pirates.
Stone and Gaines combined to shoot 18-for-23 from the floor. Ten players scored for the Cardinals, who committed only nine turnovers.
"Our team played a great game at both ends,'' Pitino said. "We're very excited about this win. It's not an easy place to come into and we played dominating basketball.''
Today promises to be another slow day, blogging-wise; there are several projects I'm trying to finish up before the weekend. Today's Washington Post editorial page alone has several things I'd like to comment on, and I haven't even touched my blogroll, but those may have to wait until lunchtime at least.
There are plenty of things to criticize about the University of Michigan's admissiosn policies, but why is the President calling it a "quota system" when it's really, really, really not a quota system. If Michigan had established, say, a fixed number of black students (a "quota," as it were) to be admitted each year, then that would be a quota system. That's just what quota means. Wouldn't it be possible for this administration to make an honest argument once? Aren't conservatives embarrassed by the fact that their president never makes one?
Over the objections of their own ethics committee chairman, the leadership significantly weakened the "gift ban" that Republicans had adopted with much self-congratulatory fanfare after winning control of the House eight years ago.
Once again lobbyists will be permitted to send catered meals, worth up to $50 per person, to members and staff working late. House leaders suggested that their only concern is for their hardworking young employees; the change will allow "low-paid staff" to "eat pizza ethically." What a relief! But $50 a head can buy a lot of toppings. And unlike a business lunch, which at least has the veneer of offering a chance to exchange information, these corporate meals on wheels are designed for a single purpose: to curry favor. The Post's Juliet Eilperin last year recounted the case of a lobbying firm representing drug companies that sent dinner to the speaker's office as the House worked late on a prescription drug bill; many more such episodes go undisclosed. Some Hill offices have even been known to phone K Street when the hunger pangs hit.
A second change sounds benign but may be even more pernicious, as it restores the ability of lobbyists and lawmakers to cavort together at lavish resorts. This is the kind of practice that led to the adoption of the gift rule in the first place. Members, who in any case still had ample opportunity for subsidized travel, now will be free to accept all-expenses-paid trips to charitable events such as golf and tennis tournaments, so long as the charity pays. Again, the leaders cloak their retreat in piety: Who could be against helping out a worthy cause? But the new exception is so broadly worded that special interests will be free to earmark charitable donations to pay for a member's travel and lodging. The lobbyist can then enjoy both the tax deduction and the pleasure of the lawmaker's company on the links, while the member will know full well who is footing the bill.
I didn't get around to commenting on the brewing dust-up over the allocation of Senate committee funding and office space in the closely-divided chamber. At long last rediscovering their collective spine, Democrats promised troublt for the GOP unless the latter agreed to the same allocations they enjoyed when the split was 51-49 in the Democrats' favor. This morning the GOP agreed to the arrangement, paving the way for the Republicans to attempt to enact their agenda.
This exhibition-round victory for the Dems is significant, though, in that it presages stiff opposition to the GOP's hopes to act as if they enjoyed an overwhelming mandate. Folk might whine about obstructionism," but by this time it's pretty clear that the public is quite comfortable with divided government, thank you, with plenty of skepticism of everyone's agenda to go around.
This brouhaha raises the interesting question of, now that the precendent has been twice cast aside, just when it might be re-invoked. For example, what if the Democrats gain a 52-48 majority in 2004? Or the GOP a ? Or would Congress eventually decide it's comfortable with a more balanced distribution of resources? I'd expect we won't see a return to the old system until one party obtains a filibuster-proof majority (not necessarily 60-40, if support on either side is wobbly enough).
The Supreme Court today decided a landmark copyright case in favor of artists, writers and the entertainment industry, upholding a 1998 federal law that extended the life of copyrights by 20 years.
A loose coalition of independent scholars, publishers and Internet archivists had argued that, by lengthening existing copyrights, the law, known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in honor of the late singer-congressman, effectively made those copyrights perpetual--in violation of the constitutional provision that says Congress may spur intellectual productivity by granting copyrights for "limited times."
But by a vote of 7-2, the court held that Congress enjoys essentially unfettered power to determine the length of copyrights, as long as they are for some specified period. Congress had a number of good reasons to pass the Bono Act, including encouraging more creative activity and harmonizing U.S. and European intellectual property law, the court said, and it is not up to the judiciary to second-guess such policy judgments.
I've always opposed the provisions of the Copyright Term Extension Act; its passage amounted to depriving US citizens of material that would have been in the public domain to the benifit of parties that either have little to do with a work's creation, or would have enjoyed decades of opportunity to profit from it. However, the SCOTUS decision is correct--the Constitution gives Congress to make these decisions. The proper venue for fighting this reprehensible legislation is not through the courts but in Congress. Congresscritters should be encouraged to repeal this law, and those responsible for its passage should have the fact that they place corporate interest above the public interest trumpeted far and wide.
Update:Matthew Yglesias agrees: "It's pretty clear that the law in question was terrible public policy, but the lawsuit on the subject strikes me as an excellent example of a good policy initiative casting about for a legal rationale."
Destroy All Monsters has just posted a news tidbit by me. Hopefully more will be coming soon, but so far they seem to have been swallowed by email difficulties between there and here.
I'll join many of my fellow bloggers in pointing out Ted Barlow's new, one-week-only format. Here's my contribution, cribbed from some Star Trek novel I read ages ago:
Q: How many Romulans does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One to change the bulb and 100 to blow up the ship in disgrace
The Republican ticket is a lock. Bush has matured into a masterful and commanding leader, and Dick Cheney is a widely respected policy heavyweight who has become the most active Vice President in American history. Combine this with high approval ratings, an untouchable war chest, a friendly Congress and an upcoming romp to victory in Iraq, and you've got an unbeatable combination for four more years ... and beyond!
Or do you? I remember the election, and the thing that struck me, and most of the voting public, about Dubya, wasn't that he was a "masterful leader" so much as that he was an "embarrassing fool". A cartoonish, empty-headed serial idiot with a resume made up entirely of draft dodging, tequila shots, and gifts from daddy and a political platform composed entirely of lies, impossible promises, and stunningly, shockingly, record-breakingly empty rhetoric. And don't tell me that this is some liberal propaganda - I watched the debates, I watched every step of the way, I watched you babbling on with a smirk on your face like some 4th grader giving the class his book report on a book he didn't even read. Every time you spoke it was a breakthrough in the field of stupidity, opening up unexplored vistas of idiocy beyond anyone's wildest imaginings. You don't even read the paper, you don't even have a single clue what's going on in the world, and you don't even [bleep]ing care. Knowing who is in charge of Pakistan isn't like knowing the square root of pi - it's in the paper every day, it's not like some outrageously esoteric thing that only super big nerds know about. If you are going to be President, it’s something you might want to look in to.
...But you know what? Stupid's not a passing thing. Stupid's not some phase in life, like when you were really into MC Hammer or when you abused alcohol and cocaine for twenty years, which you suddenly recover from and no one is supposed to talk about anymore. Stupid's forever, my friend, and you can't get away from it. Stupid sticks. Stupid shows.
The first lesson is that linkrot is incredibly rapid. The second lesson is that it thus becomes critically important not just to link but to quote--and to quote extensively. The third lesson is that not even fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency can defeat linkrot. If you want your links to be worth anything in two, three, or five years, download *all* the pages you're linking to to your hard disk.
I've been writing this blog for less than a year, and I've already noticed link rot, especially among the news sources I cite. Often, as the essay states, the content still exists but is much more difficult to reach. Earlier I decided against downloading everything--although I do save much--but I'm reconsidering.
It's also a sobering reminder that we're hardly living in a color-blind society. The Administration may well have its reasons for opposing affirmative action, but to paraphrase an earlier GOP mantra, I don't see them offering any alternative plans.
Sorry, as should be obvious by now (good giref, no posts 'til 2:30 p.m.!), today's been a little busy...I hope to have a burst of blogging a little later this afternoon.
Seriously, folks, cutting taxes may be all well and good if you're really going to cut spending along with it. (And yes, a case coul be made for running a temporary deficit during a recession.) But the plain fact is that spending hasn't decreased at all under Bush II, in part because of the so-called War on Terror, and the coming fracas with Iraq is going to carry a big price tag (even if the White House did revise the numbers downward), most of which the US gets to pay by itself this time. The bottom line, so to speak, is that however much the Administration talks up how important it thinks these things are, it has not the slightest intention of paying for them.
Cutting government revenue while increasing government spending is a recipe for massive government debt, and those bills are going to come due someday--it isn't free money. The dishonesty of Bush's economic plans are self-evident.
Democratic Veteran has it right: "Borrow and Spend, the conservative philosophy for the 21st Century, brought to you by your friendly Credit-Card Conservatives."
