...not that I put a lot of stock in the latter report, mind you. My distinct impression is that Bush long ago made up his mind that he wants nothing short of an invasion (let's face it, using "military force" could mean just bombing any Iraqi WMD sites we know of, and that's a step that seems to offer not only some good effect but also offers some chance of gaining support, but the hawks don't seem to offer limited strikes as an option), that he's going to go ahead with it regardless of what anyone else thinks, and that Bush's petulance at the way things aren't going according to his script is obvious to both an increasingly skeptical American public and allies smarting under the daily dish of dissing from Administration officials. I don't think this combination spells a successful policy or a benefit to the national interests.
For a while, the Bush Administration seemed undecided as to what they'd call their so-called "economic plan." "Stimulus package" seemed a tantamount admission that the economy wasn't doing so well, after all, so "growth package" was kicked around. But I like the moniker used by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle: the "Leave No Millionaire Behind Act"
It doesn’t appear to have registered that if the White House geniuses really thought Saddam capable of attacking with “weapons of mass destruction,” the well-publicized U.S. troop buildup in Kuwait offers the fattest target since Pearl Harbor.
The so-called "liberal media" strikes again, this time in a Washington Post puff piece about economists disagreeing with White House adviser Glenn Hubbard that deficites don't effect interest rates, in light of the fact that Hubbard himself contended they did in a recent textbook, and DeLong has called him on. While noting that the writer "space to tell his readers that Glenn Hubbard is "owlish," that Larry Lindsey's shirttail often hangs out, that Glenn Hubbard writes meticulous handouts and gives crisp Powerpoint presentations," Brad DeLong points out, utterly fails to go into the substance of the disagreement:
[T]his Washington Post reporter tells his readers absolutely nothing of why Paul [Krugman] and I are annoyed with Glenn. It's an outsiders-critical-of-administration-official story--which, in the context of Washington, is dog-bites-man: not news at all.
This is not a partisan point. The article is at least as unfair to Glenn Hubbard as it is to me. ...A reader knows no more about why Glenn believes that reductions in dividend taxes are a very good thing after reading the article than she did before she started reading it.
And so from Glenn's point of view as well as from my own, the article is a loss: it is a failed chance to educate Americans about what kinds of taxes are good and what kinds of taxes are bad, as well as a failed chance to educate Americans about why it would be much better to be running budget surpluses than budget deficits.
How do we create a press corps that will think that its business is to inform readers about economic policies and their effects rather than about the owlish visage, crisp Powerpoint presentations, and untucked shirttails of economic advisors? How do we create a press corps that will raise the level of the debate over economic policy in this country, rather than lower it?
Upon reflection, I don't think there's any way that Jerry Thacker's nomination could be the result of a poor vetting process. Thacker's anti-gay message isn't buried in an old interview- it's the only reason anyone has heard of him. In private life, Jerry Thacker may be a conflicted and multifaceted human being. But as Jerry Thacker, Public Persona, he has written one book, and is known for one thing- he's the HIV+ guy who thinks gays are wicked. His career as an activist exists for that reason alone- he's the Good Person who tours the country condemning Nasty Homosexuals for their "deathstyle".
It's like nominating Ward Connelly for a panel on affirmative action, and then pretending that you didn't know he was against affirmative action. It's his whole reason for being.
How could this not be an intentional message to the anti-gay right? If it wasn't, was Bush nominating people out of the phone book?
Remember when Bush said, "I'm a uniter, not a divider?" Does the evidence--the sum total of his actions over the past two years of his administration--support that contention? I think not, but of course that'd hardly be the first or biggest whopper he's told...
Textfiles.com is a collection of--you guessed it!--ASCII text files from the BBS/USENET days, including texts, ASCII art, computer/hacking tutorials, game walkthroughs, occult, UFO, humor and more.
The Senate has put the kibosh on the odious and ominous Total Information Awareness domestic snooping program. The move comes in the wake of urging from public interest groups from both sides of the political spectrum for legislators to scrap the proposal to collect a massive database of information of US citizens. Senators voted to block funding for the program until the Pentagon explained its impact on civil liberties (and with Iran-Contra figure John Poindexter in charge of it all, that ought to be a hot one!).
According to this Sports Illustrated column, women in sports have their priorities screwed up: They're busy setting records and getting ignored, instead of adhering to the hallowed sports tradition of getting attention by using their sex appeal.
Great googly moogly! An 18-year old man whose car was stuck by a drunk driver suffered horrific injuries, not the least of which was that his head was almost entirely severed from his body, held on only by skin, the spinal cord and major blood vessels. Yet emergency room doctors were able to reattach the head, and after many hours in rehabilitave therapy, the young man is making great progress in his recovery.
I've heard this song before, and it's usually followed by a deafening silence when it comes to the Administration actually providing the proof it says it has. If they can prove their claims, then by all means I encourage them to do so, but until that time, their credibility is such that I decline to give them the benefit of the doubt.
After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process.
...As the U.N. inspections continue, some weapons experts said the aluminum tubes saga could undermine the credibility of claims about Iraq’s arsenal. To date, the Bush administration has declined to release photos or other specific evidence to bolster its contention that Iraq is actively seeking to acquire new biological, chemical and nuclear arms, and the means to deliver them.
In the Ipse Dixit comment thread, Bret pointed out a correction Time ran that I was previously unaware of; it indicates that, contrary to the original story, Bush did not resume a discontinued tradition, but rather simply continued a tradition--observed by both his father and Bill Clinton--of placing a wreath at the Confederate memorial in Arlington Cemetery. Bush I changed the date of the observance from Jefferson Davis' birthday to Memorial Day, and both Clinton and Bush II have observed the changed date.
Say what you will about the Civil War, the soldiers on both sides--like those in wars previous and subsequent--were not personally responsible for the policies of their governments. While commemorating war dead can still carry a political charge--as Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi recently learned--I think it's appropriate to acknowledge the humans who died on both sides. Indeed, doing so is a tacit acknowledgement that national conflicts are among political systems, not individuals, and yet it's individuals who suffer and die.
My friend Dodd wondered if anyone of the liberal persuasion would take Hillary Clinton to task for the following comment with regards to a brief she co-filed in the Michigan affirmative action case:
“Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character?” she said, quoting from Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “If we don’t take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves.”
All right, Dodd, count me in. Hillary Clinton without a doubt twisted King's words in a foolish and inexcusable manner. While I haven't researched the brief she intends to co-sponsor, her public comment is ridiculous, condescending, and contrary to King's vision, not to mention showing a conspicuous lack of political acumen.
But so what? Hillary Clinton's ridiculous comment hardly lets the GOP off the hook for its policies, or lack thereof, for combating the lingering racism that demonstrably still exists in this country and limits its opportunities for a significant segment of the population.
Opponents of affirmative action have also and often taken the meaning of Dr. King's words out of context--he dreamed that a race-neutral society would one day evolve, but never claimed that simply eliminating the more odious legal barriers would be enough; indeed, King explicitly supported remedial measures. Yet while I don't deny that principled opposition to affirmative action is a legitimate position, it falls short when no other alternative is offered (a criticism the GOP has been quick of late to tag the Democrats with).
I for one agree that "separate but equal" is inherently unfair, unconstitutional and un-American. Eliminating affirmative action is *not* going to eliminate racial disadvantage, so if I'm to be convinced it's the best course, I'll need to see the alternative.
I know it's all fun to bash Hillary, Dodd, and as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to it. I don't for a moment consider Hillary Clinton to speak for me or for the entire Democratic Party, and you can mark my words, I don't believe she ever will, as a nominated national candidate.
Bush, on the other hand, as the President and leader of the GOP, does arguably bear that responsibility, so having answered your challenge, I issue one to you: Do Bush's recent actions, including:
* the inaccurate use of the highly charged word "quota" four times to describe Michigan's affirmative action program, which is not at all a quota system * The revival of a tradition to commemorate Confedeate war dead that was discontinued by his own father, and
* The swift renomination of Judge Pickering, who has a record of judicial opinions arguably hostile to civil rights (and please, note that I'm not calling him a racist by any means)
support, or contradict, the notion that there's an unreconstructed segment of the Republican base that Bush feels he needs to appeal to?
Interesting Times reminds us that back in 2000, Bush could have followed a process that not only would have almost certainly led to his election as POTUS, but also done so by a perfectly legitimate and prescribed Constitutional process--and chose not to.
I was all getting set to unleash my contempt for the Bush Administration's nominee of a man who called AIDS the "gay plague" to serve on the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS. Just this morning, The Washington Post reported this about nominee Jerry Thacker, who is HIV-positive:
In his speeches and writings on his Web site and elsewhere, Thacker has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" rather than a lifestyle and asserted that "Christ can rescue the homosexual." After word of his selection spread among gays in recent days, some material disappeared from the Web site. Earlier versions located by The Washington Post that referred to the "gay plague," for instance, were changed as of yesterday to "plague."
White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said that Thacker's views are "far, far removed from what the president believes," adding that "the president has a total opposite view. ... The president's view is that people with AIDS need to be treated with care, compassion."
