According to the latest SurveyUSA poll of NC registered voters, John Edwards would defeat Bush 50-47. Although the margin if error is 3.9%, this is evidence that NC is not a guaranteed Red state should Edwards win the nomination.
The press release indicates that Edwards has solid leads among women and independents and has the edge across all regions of the state.
Bush beats Kerry 53-42 in the same poll.
2.27.2004
Krugman: The Trade Tightrope
Weighing in on the jobs and outsourcing debate, Paul Krugman argues that free trade is a better strategy than protectionism, but that any successful policy in this country must be politically viable - especially in the face of mass unemployment. . .
"The point is that free trade is politically viable only if it's backed by effective job creation measures and a strong domestic social safety net. And that suggests that free traders should be more worried by the prospect that the policies of the current administration will continue than by the possibility of a Democratic replacement.
Put it this way: there's a reason why the two U.S. presidents who did the most to promote growth in world trade were Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, while the two most protectionist presidents of the last 70 years have been Ronald Reagan and, yes, George W. Bush."
"The point is that free trade is politically viable only if it's backed by effective job creation measures and a strong domestic social safety net. And that suggests that free traders should be more worried by the prospect that the policies of the current administration will continue than by the possibility of a Democratic replacement.
Put it this way: there's a reason why the two U.S. presidents who did the most to promote growth in world trade were Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, while the two most protectionist presidents of the last 70 years have been Ronald Reagan and, yes, George W. Bush."
Oscar bites his fingernails over politically active stars
Keep an eye on this one in the context of the recent indecency crackdowns. While I don't expect we'll see any indecency at the Oscars (other than awarding Oscars to undeserving candidates), I sure hope we don't see politically outspoken individuals censored.
2.26.2004
In case of emergency, break glass
Nice cartoon demonstrating a scene that many of us expect to see later this year.
2.25.2004
The Marriage Amendments, if they had any integrity
Whitehouse.org comes through bigtime. Send this to all your friends.
There is also a move afoot to ask conservative lawmakers who advocate the FMA to sign "fidelity oaths" swearing that they have never done anything which calls into question their commitment to the sanctity of marriage. Atrios has that one.
I'm off to Houston. Y'all play nice.
There is also a move afoot to ask conservative lawmakers who advocate the FMA to sign "fidelity oaths" swearing that they have never done anything which calls into question their commitment to the sanctity of marriage. Atrios has that one.
I'm off to Houston. Y'all play nice.
2.24.2004
Divided We Fall
"I'm a uniter, not a divider."
George W. Bush, presidential campaign slogan, 2000.
Of all this administration's deliberate attempts to mislead, distortions, misdirections, and outright lies, has there been a bigger lie that the "uniter, not a divider" quote? DrFrankLives' excellent post post below touches on this issue, about which I've been meaning to post all day, but haven't found the time until now. Yesterday saw the publication of an Associated Press article on the rise of anger at George W. Bush, or what the right attempts to demonize as "Bush Hatred." Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, is quoted as saying that the "level of polarization surrounding Bush, the division between Republicans who favor him and Democrats who don't, exceeds even that for President Clinton in September 1998 during the impeachment battle." A "uniter" indeed.
But what else could be the result of the biggest compendium of divisive policies in recent memory? Bush divides us by class with his tax cuts, creates racial tension through recess appointments of extremist judges, and polarizes our political system by characterizing dissent as treason. He distances us from our historical allies with a unilateral foreign policy, and alienates us from the global community by repudiating international treaties. His lackeys rewrite legislative rules to marginalize the minority party, and his Education Secretary calls the largest teachers' union a 'terrorist organization." Now he wants to institutionalize a class of second-class citizens with a Constitutional Amendment. Why am I not surprised?
Ironically, the only thing that Bush has unified is the Democratic Party, which has a unity and energy that has been unparalleled in my lifetime. The pendulum swings, Mr. Bush. Push the envelope too far and the envelope will push back. In the face of unrelenting, intentionally divisive policies, more Democrats than ever are politically active, and more and more seem willing to step up and say . . . you guessed it: Bring it on.
George W. Bush, presidential campaign slogan, 2000.
Of all this administration's deliberate attempts to mislead, distortions, misdirections, and outright lies, has there been a bigger lie that the "uniter, not a divider" quote? DrFrankLives' excellent post post below touches on this issue, about which I've been meaning to post all day, but haven't found the time until now. Yesterday saw the publication of an Associated Press article on the rise of anger at George W. Bush, or what the right attempts to demonize as "Bush Hatred." Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, is quoted as saying that the "level of polarization surrounding Bush, the division between Republicans who favor him and Democrats who don't, exceeds even that for President Clinton in September 1998 during the impeachment battle." A "uniter" indeed.
But what else could be the result of the biggest compendium of divisive policies in recent memory? Bush divides us by class with his tax cuts, creates racial tension through recess appointments of extremist judges, and polarizes our political system by characterizing dissent as treason. He distances us from our historical allies with a unilateral foreign policy, and alienates us from the global community by repudiating international treaties. His lackeys rewrite legislative rules to marginalize the minority party, and his Education Secretary calls the largest teachers' union a 'terrorist organization." Now he wants to institutionalize a class of second-class citizens with a Constitutional Amendment. Why am I not surprised?
Ironically, the only thing that Bush has unified is the Democratic Party, which has a unity and energy that has been unparalleled in my lifetime. The pendulum swings, Mr. Bush. Push the envelope too far and the envelope will push back. In the face of unrelenting, intentionally divisive policies, more Democrats than ever are politically active, and more and more seem willing to step up and say . . . you guessed it: Bring it on.
Gay Marriage Amendment
I have been outraged by this President before. I am simply stupefied today. Today, an American President - the leader of a country that was once called "the last, best hope for freedom" - has taken a stand which requests that the Constitution of the United States of America be amended to PREVENT a group of its citizens from attaining equality.
In the past, some Presidents have used the power of their office to oppose amendments which sought to expand the freedoms of Americans. Those positions are almost universally reviled now as the mistakes of men who viewed the world in the context of their time instead of in the context of progress.
So will this speech and this action by George W. Bush go down in history as the action of a coward. A bigot. A little man of no historical vision who sought political expediency over the good of the country.
A uniter, not a divider? Surely, you jest.
Regardless of one's position on the merits of gay marriage or civil unions, it is fundamentally dishonorable and, dare I say it, NONCONSERVATIVE, to assert that the Constitution needs to be amended to prevent it.
There is a reason that this has never been done before in the history of the Republic. The Constitution and its Amendments protect the People from their Government. This Amendment, regardless of its ultimate form, uses that great document, that passport to human freedom, to restrict the rights of the People. Worse, it does not restrict the rights of us all, as the failed 18th Amendment did - but of only some of the People. Regardless, we are all belittled by it.
From the time of its inception, the history of the Constitution has been one of progress, of improvement. The definition of "the People" has been steadily expanded. Today, George W. Bush - a man who has never presented the slightest sign of any recognizable political or personal courage - has defiled his office by placing its authority behind an effort to restrict that expansion of freedom.
Shame.
In the past, some Presidents have used the power of their office to oppose amendments which sought to expand the freedoms of Americans. Those positions are almost universally reviled now as the mistakes of men who viewed the world in the context of their time instead of in the context of progress.
So will this speech and this action by George W. Bush go down in history as the action of a coward. A bigot. A little man of no historical vision who sought political expediency over the good of the country.
A uniter, not a divider? Surely, you jest.
Regardless of one's position on the merits of gay marriage or civil unions, it is fundamentally dishonorable and, dare I say it, NONCONSERVATIVE, to assert that the Constitution needs to be amended to prevent it.
There is a reason that this has never been done before in the history of the Republic. The Constitution and its Amendments protect the People from their Government. This Amendment, regardless of its ultimate form, uses that great document, that passport to human freedom, to restrict the rights of the People. Worse, it does not restrict the rights of us all, as the failed 18th Amendment did - but of only some of the People. Regardless, we are all belittled by it.
From the time of its inception, the history of the Constitution has been one of progress, of improvement. The definition of "the People" has been steadily expanded. Today, George W. Bush - a man who has never presented the slightest sign of any recognizable political or personal courage - has defiled his office by placing its authority behind an effort to restrict that expansion of freedom.
Shame.
"Without a trace of irony" alert
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 24, 2004
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran. The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech -- including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers -- in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders.
The United States supports the Iranian people's aspirations to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights, and determine their own destiny. ###
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran. The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech -- including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers -- in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders.
The United States supports the Iranian people's aspirations to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights, and determine their own destiny. ###
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
Fascinating article from the London Guardian about a secret Pentagon report on the coming impact of climate change:
"The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. "
Forget the political implications for the White House - this is seriously scary stuff!
"The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. "
Forget the political implications for the White House - this is seriously scary stuff!
Just chuckle as you shake your head . . .
Monkeytime returns, with this gem:
"Anyone who's seen him [Nader] speak live knows that he connects with crowds in a way Kerry and Edwards can only dream about."
Yeah. OK.
"Anyone who's seen him [Nader] speak live knows that he connects with crowds in a way Kerry and Edwards can only dream about."
Yeah. OK.
2.23.2004
Unorthodox Rivers flowing up draft board
Nice words for former NC State star QB Philip Rivers. I'd love for him to end up with my Cowboys, but the buzz seems to be that the Steelers, Bills or Dolphins will snag him first. There's even some talk that the Chargers trade down and pick Rivers.
2.22.2004
Support the Edwards Campaign
The Edwards campaign has a new fundrasing meter up. They've raised over $750,000 online since Wisconsin, and are shooting for a million more by Super Tuesday. Click here to help out:
2.20.2004
While we're talking about Ralph Nader
Go here for a great flash ad on why his run is a bad idea, and what you can do about it.
Thanks to Professor Lessig for the link.
Thanks to Professor Lessig for the link.
Looks like Nader is making another run at it. . .
He will make an announcement on Sunday.
In 2000, my view was that Nader's run was a good thing. I strongly supported much of the Green platform, thought that the two-party system did not fairly represent the American people and believed that real change is unlikely to come from your run-of-the-mill Democrats and Republicans. I just didn't think that Al Gore was capable (for politcal reasons or otherwise) of effecting anything than incremental change from the corporatist status quo. In other words, he was the lesser of two evils.
I still believe all of those things, but I now realize that the evil of George Bush is far, far worse than the evil of a centrist Democrat. So much worse, that I would not vote for a Ralph Nader (who I'm not sure has much more than a progressive ideology to offer anyway).
Perhaps he's just looking to move the Democratic candidate further to the left. My guess is that he is taking more of a long term view and realizes that real change is unlikely in a two-party system that caters to corporate interests. He may be right, but the first order of business is to retire George Bush to Texas.
In 2000, my view was that Nader's run was a good thing. I strongly supported much of the Green platform, thought that the two-party system did not fairly represent the American people and believed that real change is unlikely to come from your run-of-the-mill Democrats and Republicans. I just didn't think that Al Gore was capable (for politcal reasons or otherwise) of effecting anything than incremental change from the corporatist status quo. In other words, he was the lesser of two evils.
I still believe all of those things, but I now realize that the evil of George Bush is far, far worse than the evil of a centrist Democrat. So much worse, that I would not vote for a Ralph Nader (who I'm not sure has much more than a progressive ideology to offer anyway).
Perhaps he's just looking to move the Democratic candidate further to the left. My guess is that he is taking more of a long term view and realizes that real change is unlikely in a two-party system that caters to corporate interests. He may be right, but the first order of business is to retire George Bush to Texas.
2.19.2004
After Survivor, watch Frontline
The great PBS Frontline show is airing a report tonight at 9pm on corporate tax shelters called Tax Me If You Can. Like most Frontline material, it's probably worth watching. If you miss it, you can probably watch it on their great web site before long.
Daley on gay marriage: 'no problem'
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is actually taking a more progressive stance on this issue than many gay and lesbian activists.
"Some people have a difference of opinion -- that only a man and a woman can get married. But in the long run, we have to understand what they're saying. They love each other just as much as anyone else. . .
Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it."
He makes some very valid points in this article and deserves kudos for having the balls to state his opinion in public. I suspect that our Presidential candidates might share these views but can't come forward for political reasons. That's unfortunate, but I think a necessary evil if you want to be President.
Thanks to Atrios for the link.
"Some people have a difference of opinion -- that only a man and a woman can get married. But in the long run, we have to understand what they're saying. They love each other just as much as anyone else. . .
Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it."
He makes some very valid points in this article and deserves kudos for having the balls to state his opinion in public. I suspect that our Presidential candidates might share these views but can't come forward for political reasons. That's unfortunate, but I think a necessary evil if you want to be President.
Thanks to Atrios for the link.
George W. Bush and the FAA, redux
I received a polite email from Linda Gaither of the FAA in response to my request for info on how to obtain records related to a pilot who is now a public official. Here's the email:
Dear []
To obtain a copy of airman medical records you must have a signed
authorization from the airman in question, or if he is deceased a copy of
the death certificate. If you are unable to get a signed authorization from
the airman then you must have a subpoena signed by a judge.
You can either fax or mail in your request to our office.
Fax # (405) 954-4300
Mailing address
FAA
PO Box 26200
Oklahoma City, OK. 73125-9914
Attn: FOIA desk, AAM-331
If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know
Thank You
Now, I just need George W. Bush to sign a consent form. Somehow I think I'll be waiting for awhile.
Dear []
To obtain a copy of airman medical records you must have a signed
authorization from the airman in question, or if he is deceased a copy of
the death certificate. If you are unable to get a signed authorization from
the airman then you must have a subpoena signed by a judge.
You can either fax or mail in your request to our office.
Fax # (405) 954-4300
Mailing address
FAA
PO Box 26200
Oklahoma City, OK. 73125-9914
Attn: FOIA desk, AAM-331
If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know
Thank You
Now, I just need George W. Bush to sign a consent form. Somehow I think I'll be waiting for awhile.
D-E-A-C-O-N-S! Deacons!
How bout those Deacs!? Wake Forest University 90 - Dook 84.
His name is Chris Paul. You will hear of him many many times for the next three 1/2 years.
His name is Chris Paul. You will hear of him many many times for the next three 1/2 years.
2.18.2004
White House Backs Off Job-Growth Forecast
"I'm not a statistician. I'm not a predictor." - George Bush
These people really have no idea what they are doing. It all seems to be about shifting sands and media manipulation. They can say anything and never take responsibility. If America were a corporation and Bush were the CEO, he'd have been long ago fired by the Board. Fortunately, we have a shareholder's meeting coming up in November.
Thanks to Atrios for the link.
These people really have no idea what they are doing. It all seems to be about shifting sands and media manipulation. They can say anything and never take responsibility. If America were a corporation and Bush were the CEO, he'd have been long ago fired by the Board. Fortunately, we have a shareholder's meeting coming up in November.
Thanks to Atrios for the link.
Corporation as Psychopath
This looks like an interesting film (not yet released in the US) about a subject that really needs to be discussed more openly. While our Democratic candidates rail against corporate influence, I'm not sure any of them would be so radical as to suggest that fundamental change is worth considering.
Apparently the filmmakers enlisted a renowned FBI psychologist to diagnosis the corporation (a "person" at law) against an personality disorder checklist. The result: the corporation is a model psycopath.
Apparently the filmmakers enlisted a renowned FBI psychologist to diagnosis the corporation (a "person" at law) against an personality disorder checklist. The result: the corporation is a model psycopath.
SI.com gives the Wolfpack a little bit of love
Number 7 in the SI Power Rankings. Is the Pack back in hoops? I've been an NC State fan for too long to take anything for granted - the "Cardiac Pack" have a history of late season stumbles. Still, one can hope. . .
E is for Edwards...and Electability
John Edwards: "Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear." (link requires Real Networks software).
Let's get this straight, as the talking heads keep telling us after every primary, "Democrats are voting on electability." Well, Saletan takes a look at the numbers in this article in Slate
Saletan concludes, rightly, that Edwards is showing growing strength among Independents and crossover Republicans. Newsflash - these are the people that decide elections. Furthermore, Edwards is winning these votes while running a remarkably progressive/liberal campaign. Moderates like John Edwards, even when he is saying immoderate things. :-)
Now, given that Kerry is riding an oh-so-thrilling wave of "well, I guess I'll vote for him since it seems like he's going to win," if you can show that in the General Election, Edwards will appeal more to the middle of the country, then you can undercut that Kerry strength.
As Saletan writes:
if "agrees with you" voters continue their February pattern, and if "can defeat Bush" voters begin to split evenly between Kerry and Edwards, Edwards will beat Kerry in half the remaining states. But if "can defeat Bush" voters discover that Edwards is more electable and begin to vote for him instead of Kerry, Edwards will beat Kerry in most states, and the delegate count will turn.
Andrew Sullivan agrees. [wait a minute, if Crazy Andy likes us, we're doomed!]
I have said from the beginning that it will be harder for John Edwards to get the Democratic nomination than it will be for him to beat George W. Bush in November. But now you see why we've wanted a one on one race with somebody from the very beginning.
The tortoise just bit the hare on the ass.
Let's get this straight, as the talking heads keep telling us after every primary, "Democrats are voting on electability." Well, Saletan takes a look at the numbers in this article in Slate
Saletan concludes, rightly, that Edwards is showing growing strength among Independents and crossover Republicans. Newsflash - these are the people that decide elections. Furthermore, Edwards is winning these votes while running a remarkably progressive/liberal campaign. Moderates like John Edwards, even when he is saying immoderate things. :-)
Now, given that Kerry is riding an oh-so-thrilling wave of "well, I guess I'll vote for him since it seems like he's going to win," if you can show that in the General Election, Edwards will appeal more to the middle of the country, then you can undercut that Kerry strength.
As Saletan writes:
if "agrees with you" voters continue their February pattern, and if "can defeat Bush" voters begin to split evenly between Kerry and Edwards, Edwards will beat Kerry in half the remaining states. But if "can defeat Bush" voters discover that Edwards is more electable and begin to vote for him instead of Kerry, Edwards will beat Kerry in most states, and the delegate count will turn.
Andrew Sullivan agrees. [wait a minute, if Crazy Andy likes us, we're doomed!]
I have said from the beginning that it will be harder for John Edwards to get the Democratic nomination than it will be for him to beat George W. Bush in November. But now you see why we've wanted a one on one race with somebody from the very beginning.
The tortoise just bit the hare on the ass.
Final numbers + Dean to stop campaigning
Since I get to work earlier than the good Doctor, I'll post the final numbers in Wisconsin - which are I'm sure well-known to the talking-head-watchers:
Kerry: 40%
Edwards: 34%
Dean: 18%
Kucinich: 3%
Sharpton: 1%
And CNN is reporting that Howard Dean will announce today that he will stop campaigning but will leave his name on the ballot. Sort of a half-meaure, but I think this is now a two-man race.
Kerry: 40%
Edwards: 34%
Dean: 18%
Kucinich: 3%
Sharpton: 1%
And CNN is reporting that Howard Dean will announce today that he will stop campaigning but will leave his name on the ballot. Sort of a half-meaure, but I think this is now a two-man race.
2.17.2004
Exit polls from an inside source
A trusted source within one of the campaigns tells me the exit polls in Wisconsin are currently showing this:
John Kerry 41
John Edwards 33
Howard Dean 17.
If it finishes there, that's a win for Edwards, folks. All hail the Two Man Race.
John Kerry 41
John Edwards 33
Howard Dean 17.
If it finishes there, that's a win for Edwards, folks. All hail the Two Man Race.
Parties Will Not Hold N.C. Presidential Primary This Year
This is interesting. Even though Bush is formally unopposed, aren't write-in candidates allowed?
Highly Amusing Pranks
If you're in the mood for a laugh (frequently at the expense of corporate America), check out the Pranks section at zug.com. JT, you're not the "John Hargrave" who executed the Viagra prank, right? Thanks for the link.
Driving problems
[title and first line of this post changed to avoid mocking accident victims]
It never fails to amaze me when snow blankets North Carolina, but it always holds true: People in SUVs are, generally, clueless at driving in the snow and ice.
This picture is a perfect case in point:
Two high school kids were in this SUV on their way home from school this morning. Their parents probably bought it for them to keep them safe.
Here's a hint: SUVs may go better in the snow, but they don't stop any better than your mom's Celica.
Just because you have four wheel drive, doesn't mean you can go 45 miles per hour downhill and expect to be able to stop in your customary 250 feet. You will lock up. Then you will slide. Then you will freak out and overcorrect, and then you will hit dry pavement with your roaring four wheels of power and you will go into the ditch. I will then wave at you and giggle as I pass you in my wife's front-wheel drive powerless minivan.
Furthermore, and this particularly pisses me off:
DON'T BRAKE AT THE BOTTOM OF A HILL YOU STUPID MORON! I don't care how much courage you need to gather to drive up that imposing hill in your neighborhood. If you brake at the bottom, you won't make it to the top.
Grrrrrr...
It never fails to amaze me when snow blankets North Carolina, but it always holds true: People in SUVs are, generally, clueless at driving in the snow and ice.
This picture is a perfect case in point:
Two high school kids were in this SUV on their way home from school this morning. Their parents probably bought it for them to keep them safe.
Here's a hint: SUVs may go better in the snow, but they don't stop any better than your mom's Celica.
Just because you have four wheel drive, doesn't mean you can go 45 miles per hour downhill and expect to be able to stop in your customary 250 feet. You will lock up. Then you will slide. Then you will freak out and overcorrect, and then you will hit dry pavement with your roaring four wheels of power and you will go into the ditch. I will then wave at you and giggle as I pass you in my wife's front-wheel drive powerless minivan.
Furthermore, and this particularly pisses me off:
DON'T BRAKE AT THE BOTTOM OF A HILL YOU STUPID MORON! I don't care how much courage you need to gather to drive up that imposing hill in your neighborhood. If you brake at the bottom, you won't make it to the top.
Grrrrrr...
2.16.2004
RollingStone - National Affairs Articles
Although RS is no longer the music bible it once was (the rag has, like it's newer peers, begun to take on a Maxim-esque sheen), but it still contains some top notch reporting on national affairs. I highly recommend this column about Bush and the environment by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It's a blood-boiler.
A-Rod is a Yankee
This was the sports news shocker of the weekend for me - though it probably shouldn't have been. With the injury to Aaron Boone, the Yankees needed an infielder - and there is always money to spare in the Bronx.
Phil Taylor at SI.com argues that the Yanks are "gluttons" and that the Boss is the "king of excess." He says the Yankees are, "Not a great team with a majestic, historic aura, but just another big company dominating its market."
I'm a Yankees fan and after growing up in northern NJ, I always have been. And yet I don't disagree with Taylor - it is utterly ridiculous that the Yankees can seemingly just take what they are able to pay for. While I do think there's more to winning Championships than buying players (the Yankees have bought the right players, developed a number of critical ones in Jeter and Williams and managed them all as a team), such dominance is just not good nationally for the sport of baseball.
My Dad grew up as a Yankees fan, rooting for the likes of DiMaggio and Mantle, but he turned against Boss and Bombers years ago. I don't know that I am capable of such disgust (mainly because I like Joe Torre and the generally classy players on the team), but it's getting a bit boring isn't it? Obviously the luxury tax is not the answer; perhaps it's time for something different - maybe a few exposed breasts would do the trick.
Phil Taylor at SI.com argues that the Yanks are "gluttons" and that the Boss is the "king of excess." He says the Yankees are, "Not a great team with a majestic, historic aura, but just another big company dominating its market."
I'm a Yankees fan and after growing up in northern NJ, I always have been. And yet I don't disagree with Taylor - it is utterly ridiculous that the Yankees can seemingly just take what they are able to pay for. While I do think there's more to winning Championships than buying players (the Yankees have bought the right players, developed a number of critical ones in Jeter and Williams and managed them all as a team), such dominance is just not good nationally for the sport of baseball.
My Dad grew up as a Yankees fan, rooting for the likes of DiMaggio and Mantle, but he turned against Boss and Bombers years ago. I don't know that I am capable of such disgust (mainly because I like Joe Torre and the generally classy players on the team), but it's getting a bit boring isn't it? Obviously the luxury tax is not the answer; perhaps it's time for something different - maybe a few exposed breasts would do the trick.
Barry Bonds*
This item - Bonds Trainer Arrested for Trafficking in Steroids - slipped by without remark last week. I just wanted to post on it. My mama once told me that you are judged by the company you keep. I think it's time for Major League Baseball to start asking some serious questions.
There is little doubt in my mind that the record book is about to add a few asterisks. (And for the record, I would say the same goes for the Andro-induced homerun total of one of my favorite players ever - Mark McGwire).
There is little doubt in my mind that the record book is about to add a few asterisks. (And for the record, I would say the same goes for the Andro-induced homerun total of one of my favorite players ever - Mark McGwire).
The Texas Souffle
According to recently published reports, during the President's on again off again National Guard Service in Alabama, some local socialites referred to the future commander in chief as The Texas Souffle, because he "looked great on the outside, but was full of hot air."
On the upside for the President, that would mean at least SOMEONE saw him in Alabama. On the downside, those people appear to be excellent judges of character, if a little bit blind.
On the upside for the President, that would mean at least SOMEONE saw him in Alabama. On the downside, those people appear to be excellent judges of character, if a little bit blind.
Don't think you've been lied to?
Jackson Thoreau over at liberslant.com has done a nice job creating a timeline of quotes from the Bush Administration about the Iraqi WMD's. The only thing missing is the conversion from "WMD's" to "WMD programs" to "WMD program-related activities."
"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat. "
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004
"This is about an imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003
A $150,000,000,000 fraud has been committed against the American people - and with a smirk (to say nothing of the immense human cost).
"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat. "
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004
"This is about an imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003
A $150,000,000,000 fraud has been committed against the American people - and with a smirk (to say nothing of the immense human cost).
Somebody say WOLFPACK!
NC State stuns top-ranked Duke.
Not a headline you see very often in the basketball world. I had the pleasure of being in attendance at the Pork Palace last night and saw a great game that the Pack led almost from start to finish. And except for the Stanley Cup playoffs, I don't know that I've ever seen the RBC Center so loud. Looks like we're tourney-bound again!
While you're at the Sports Illustrated web site, feel free to check out the 2004 Swimsuit issue.
Not a headline you see very often in the basketball world. I had the pleasure of being in attendance at the Pork Palace last night and saw a great game that the Pack led almost from start to finish. And except for the Stanley Cup playoffs, I don't know that I've ever seen the RBC Center so loud. Looks like we're tourney-bound again!
While you're at the Sports Illustrated web site, feel free to check out the 2004 Swimsuit issue.
2.15.2004
Ricky Schroeder, crying in the locker room...
Have you ever seen the movie "The Champ" with a tiny Ricky Schroeder as the son of a boxer played by Ryan O'Neal? The movie ends with one of the most heart-wrenching scenes ever, as the little boy climbs up on the table on which his father has been laid out, dead from a horrendous in-ring beating, and will not let go. "Come on Champ, wake up [sob] wake up Champ, we gotta go home Champ [blubber] Come on Champ! [gasp]."
Haven't seen it? Well, if you want to know how sad and pathetic a scene it was, you can get the same feeling here.
Haven't seen it? Well, if you want to know how sad and pathetic a scene it was, you can get the same feeling here.
2.13.2004
Howard Dean is Right. . .
This week Howard Dean told CBS news: "I've actually said on the record that I think Senator Edwards would be a stronger candidate against George Bush than Senator Kerry..." [CBS Morning News, 2/12/04]
(via John Edwards' Campaign Blog)
I can only concur.
(via John Edwards' Campaign Blog)
I can only concur.
Greenspan: Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
Greenspan said today that the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent and paid for by reducing entitlement programs like Social Security. Once Bush is ousted, it's time for this guy to hit the pavement. It doesn't surprise me that he wants to "starve the beast" but I am surprised that he would be so blatantly partisan.
Bush and his pilot's license - hmmm...
I was intrigued by Atrios' earlier post on Bush's DWI conviction and its relationship to his truthfulness on any medical report he might have filed in the late 70s to maintain his pilot license. Did the President properly maintain his pilot's license in the late 1970s? Did he report the 1976 DWI conviction to the FAA? If so, did he receive any kind of waiver to maintain his license? If he did not maintain his license, how did he file flight plans while flying the Bush family plane?
So I went to the FAA page to look around.
My first stop was at the current form for the Application for Medical Certification.
In its current form, the medical certification states that one DWI conviction does not necessarily result in denial of the medical certificate. Good for the President. Importantly, however, the form does require the applicant to disclose any traffic related offense as well as this:
"18.n. Substance dependence; or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years. "Substance" includes alcohol and other drugs (e.g., PCP, sedatives and hypnotics, anxiolytics, marijuana, cocaine, opioids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and other psychoactive drugs or chemicals). For a "yes" answer to Item 18.n., the Examiner should obtain a detailed description of the history. A history of substance dependence or abuse is disqualifying. The Examiner must defer issuance of a certificate if there is doubt concerning an applicant's substance use. (See Item 47 <../Chapter%203/3.47.htm>). "
as well as this:
"18.s. Medical rejection by military service. The Examiner should inquire about the place, cause, and date of rejection and enter the information in Item 60 <../Chapter%204/4.60.htm>. It is of great assistance to the applicant and the FAA if the Examiner can help obtain copies of military documents for attachment to the FAA Form 8500-8. If a delay of more than 14-calendar days is expected, the Examiner should transmit FAA Form 8500-8 to the FAA with a note specifying what documents will be forwarded later under separate cover.
Disposition will depend upon whether the medical condition still exists or whether a history of such a condition requires denial or deferral under the FAA medical standards. "
Now, I don't know if the late-1970's Medical Certification form required similar information, but I would think it probably did, since we've always wanted sober pilots. One wonders whether former Lt. Bush revealed the following:
(a) his admitted alcohol problems/dependency or his alleged drug use,
(b) his DWI in 1976 or
(c) his denial of flight status in the Texas Air National Guard due to "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
This is a form to a federal agency. Lying on it is a federal offense.
The answers to these questions would be easy enough to determine if President Bush would authorize the release of his FAA pilot license records. Pilot records are available to the public, but only limited information, and a pilot must authorize the release of any information beyond "an airman's name, address, and ratings." The medical forms, et al, are understandably not publicly available, unless released by the pilot himself.
Do you think some enterprising White House reporter might ask Scott McLellan if the President would authorize the release of these records? Do you think the President would do so?
Guess we'll have to wait for 6:00 pm on a Friday before a holiday weekend to find out.
P.S. Credit for the original idea on this post must go to The Daily Brew, who thought about this in 2001.
So I went to the FAA page to look around.
My first stop was at the current form for the Application for Medical Certification.
In its current form, the medical certification states that one DWI conviction does not necessarily result in denial of the medical certificate. Good for the President. Importantly, however, the form does require the applicant to disclose any traffic related offense as well as this:
"18.n. Substance dependence; or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years. "Substance" includes alcohol and other drugs (e.g., PCP, sedatives and hypnotics, anxiolytics, marijuana, cocaine, opioids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and other psychoactive drugs or chemicals). For a "yes" answer to Item 18.n., the Examiner should obtain a detailed description of the history. A history of substance dependence or abuse is disqualifying. The Examiner must defer issuance of a certificate if there is doubt concerning an applicant's substance use. (See Item 47 <../Chapter%203/3.47.htm>). "
as well as this:
"18.s. Medical rejection by military service. The Examiner should inquire about the place, cause, and date of rejection and enter the information in Item 60 <../Chapter%204/4.60.htm>. It is of great assistance to the applicant and the FAA if the Examiner can help obtain copies of military documents for attachment to the FAA Form 8500-8. If a delay of more than 14-calendar days is expected, the Examiner should transmit FAA Form 8500-8 to the FAA with a note specifying what documents will be forwarded later under separate cover.
Disposition will depend upon whether the medical condition still exists or whether a history of such a condition requires denial or deferral under the FAA medical standards. "
Now, I don't know if the late-1970's Medical Certification form required similar information, but I would think it probably did, since we've always wanted sober pilots. One wonders whether former Lt. Bush revealed the following:
(a) his admitted alcohol problems/dependency or his alleged drug use,
(b) his DWI in 1976 or
(c) his denial of flight status in the Texas Air National Guard due to "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
This is a form to a federal agency. Lying on it is a federal offense.
The answers to these questions would be easy enough to determine if President Bush would authorize the release of his FAA pilot license records. Pilot records are available to the public, but only limited information, and a pilot must authorize the release of any information beyond "an airman's name, address, and ratings." The medical forms, et al, are understandably not publicly available, unless released by the pilot himself.
Do you think some enterprising White House reporter might ask Scott McLellan if the President would authorize the release of these records? Do you think the President would do so?
Guess we'll have to wait for 6:00 pm on a Friday before a holiday weekend to find out.
P.S. Credit for the original idea on this post must go to The Daily Brew, who thought about this in 2001.
Light posting today
I'm buried in a file, and Shoveldog's in court. Scotch Zombie is probably digging holes in his yard. While you're pining for our wit and wisdom, consider this email I received today:
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
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.
"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.
If everyone had a gun, teenagers could shoot the angry kid in school before he shoots anyone else.
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. Creationism should be taught in public 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 '80s 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.
The separation of Church and State applies only to nations under Islamic rule.
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
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.
"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.
If everyone had a gun, teenagers could shoot the angry kid in school before he shoots anyone else.
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. Creationism should be taught in public 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 '80s 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.
The separation of Church and State applies only to nations under Islamic rule.
2.12.2004
Insultmonger
Ending the workday on a lighter note. . . if you're a shovelwife or a MrsFrankLives or a ScotchSpouse, you might find some useful ammunition at this web site. Where else can you find a Swearasaurus, an Insult Generator, a dictionary of slang and an Insults Index. Here's a beaut from that masterful slinger of zingers, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf:
"The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere."
- Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush
Just the tip of the iceberg. . .
"The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere."
- Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush
Just the tip of the iceberg. . .
Allow me a completely unrelated post...
If you haven't seen Miracle yet, go see it. It's a bit overlong, and they could have cut out some of the middle, but the payoff is great.
Kurt Russell is perfect and there has simply never been better sports action in a movie. Ever.
The sports action is better and more realistic than North Dallas Forty and The Longest Yard.
It's better than Bull Durham's baseball.
It's even better than the action in Rollerball.
Any hockey purist, of course, will ask if it is better than Slap Shot. Well, it's better than Mystery, Alaska. It's different from Slap Shot, which launched the career of the Hanson Brothers. But even Slap Shot wasn't as realistic in its portrayal of the speed, precision and pure controlled violence of hockey.
Kurt Russell is perfect and there has simply never been better sports action in a movie. Ever.
The sports action is better and more realistic than North Dallas Forty and The Longest Yard.
It's better than Bull Durham's baseball.
It's even better than the action in Rollerball.
Any hockey purist, of course, will ask if it is better than Slap Shot. Well, it's better than Mystery, Alaska. It's different from Slap Shot, which launched the career of the Hanson Brothers. But even Slap Shot wasn't as realistic in its portrayal of the speed, precision and pure controlled violence of hockey.
Bush A No-Show At Alabama Base, Says Memphian
The AWOL stuff is just coming out of the woodwork. . .
According to the Memphis Flyer, a National Guard pilot doesn't remember seeing Bush at the Alabama base - and he was "looking for him":
"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” . . . 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."
According to the Memphis Flyer, a National Guard pilot doesn't remember seeing Bush at the Alabama base - and he was "looking for him":
"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” . . . 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."
Ezra's Take
Since I don't have time to really do anything substantive, and since Ezra does, and since what he says makes a lot of sense, go read it.
I'm not worried about this one. On to the real issues; there are plenty of them.
I'm not worried about this one. On to the real issues; there are plenty of them.
"Scandal" Notwithstanding. . .
Clark to endorse Kerry. From the AP. With a Nedra Pickler byline, no less.
Leave it to Kos
Kos has the goods on Drudge's "Intern Scandal."
Somehow I expected it to be something like this. Check it out, I'm too busy today to summarize.
Somehow I expected it to be something like this. Check it out, I'm too busy today to summarize.
Drudge Reporting Kerry Infidelity Scandal
Given the source, this could be a big load of crap but if it's true Edwards and Dean have new life for sure. We'll see how this unfolds.
In the spirit of be nice to Republicans day...
Michael Powell, who usually carries a fresh pack of prophylactics just in case the CEO of a media conglomerate wants to take him home for the evening, actually has some really interesting things to say about continued unfettered public access to Broadband. The link comes from Lessig. If you're not reading him, you should.
Powell Speech.
Powell Speech.
Token Bipartisan Post
This just in. . .
News sources report that immediately following the Super bowl, George W. Bush called the Patriots
and complemented them on a great game, while Al Gore called the Panthers and said he thought they were robbed.
Bill Clinton called Janet Jackson.
(via shovelwife)
News sources report that immediately following the Super bowl, George W. Bush called the Patriots
and complemented them on a great game, while Al Gore called the Panthers and said he thought they were robbed.
Bill Clinton called Janet Jackson.
(via shovelwife)
All Awol, all the time. . .
Atrios is your one-stop source for all things AWOL, and has no less that seven (count 'em) consecutive posts which address the issue.
Hesiod parses Campenni, and
Oliver Willis actually actually tracks him down.
Ezra makes the case that it really doesn't matter, but his commenters disagree.
Shoveldog doesn't know whether it matters or not, but is certainly amused.
Hesiod parses Campenni, and
Oliver Willis actually actually tracks him down.
Ezra makes the case that it really doesn't matter, but his commenters disagree.
Shoveldog doesn't know whether it matters or not, but is certainly amused.
2.11.2004
Dean chooses Edwards over Kerry
Dean says that Edwards would fare better against Bush than Kerry would. Edwards agrees. It's not surprising that Dean is being critical of the front-runner, he's got to find a way to get back in the race.
Meet The Prez
Yes, Jon Stewart is a genius, but in this clip from a recent episode of the Daily Show Bush buries himself.
Contract Sport: What did the Vice-President do for Halliburton
This piece by Jane Mayer appears in the February issue of the New Yorker and provides a fascinating look at the endless cronyism and corruption that typifies this Administration and the contracting process in Iraq. The article includes several interesting nuggets about the storied career of Dick Cheney; here's a good one (though this is nothing new):
"Halliburton allowed its C.E.O. to serve simultaneously as the head of George W. Bush’s Vice-Presidential search committee. Cheney demanded reams of documents from the candidates he considered. In the end, he picked himself—a move that his longtime friend Stuart Spencer recently described, with admiration, as “the most Machiavellian fucking thing I’ve ever seen.”"
The article also brings to light some very troubling allegations about links between Cheney's Energy Task Force and the NSC folks looking at war with Iraq:
"Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”
"....Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially “huge.” He said, “People think Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues,” referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’s energy policy. “But if this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.”"
Imagine that: the oil and gas industry deciding how best to spend American lives and tax dollars in order to maximize their profits. Disgusting.
"Halliburton allowed its C.E.O. to serve simultaneously as the head of George W. Bush’s Vice-Presidential search committee. Cheney demanded reams of documents from the candidates he considered. In the end, he picked himself—a move that his longtime friend Stuart Spencer recently described, with admiration, as “the most Machiavellian fucking thing I’ve ever seen.”"
The article also brings to light some very troubling allegations about links between Cheney's Energy Task Force and the NSC folks looking at war with Iraq:
"Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”
"....Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially “huge.” He said, “People think Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues,” referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’s energy policy. “But if this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.”"
Imagine that: the oil and gas industry deciding how best to spend American lives and tax dollars in order to maximize their profits. Disgusting.
Still AWOL
Via Atrios, today's Dallas Morning News quotes Retired National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, who stated earlier this week that in 1997, Joe Allbaugh, chief of staff for then Gov. George W. Bush, asked a National Guard chief to review Bush's file to make sure "there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor." Burkett then states that he saw portions of Bush's file "discarded" in a trash can. Although the article further notes that Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. John Stanford, "dismissed Col. Burkett's account of the conversation as 'far-fetched,' conspicuously absent is a denial that a converstion between Allbaugh and National Guard officials occurred. "Of the accusation that the files were altered, [Stanford] said, 'I have no knowledge that such an event ever occurred.' Again, no denial.
And poor Scott McClellan. He's also quoted, but the best he can to is keep repeating, ""The president recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama." Well, W. "remembers" it. That settles it for me. How about you?
And poor Scott McClellan. He's also quoted, but the best he can to is keep repeating, ""The president recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama." Well, W. "remembers" it. That settles it for me. How about you?
Federal Marriage Amendment
The wording of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is getting a lot of attention from the blogs this morning, and for good reason. Despite being promoted as a compromise position which would allow civil unions, this amendment prohibits far more than same sex marriage. The text in question reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
As I read the second sentence, even if a State passes legislation which requires an employer or an insurance carrier to offer benefits to a same sex partner, such legislation would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. Eugene Volokh and Jack Balkin concur.
Further, a perhaps unintended consequence of this language which I have not seen discussed elsewhere would be the likely demise of common law marriage rights, still recognized in various forms by about a dozen states. As I read this text, no law, state or federal, legislative, judge-made or otherwise, can be interpreted to confer any legal incidents of marriage upon "unmarried couples," including heterosexual couples. In addition to prohibiting future legislation conferring marital benefits upon unmarried couples, this amendment will invalidate existing law which already does so.
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
As I read the second sentence, even if a State passes legislation which requires an employer or an insurance carrier to offer benefits to a same sex partner, such legislation would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. Eugene Volokh and Jack Balkin concur.
Further, a perhaps unintended consequence of this language which I have not seen discussed elsewhere would be the likely demise of common law marriage rights, still recognized in various forms by about a dozen states. As I read this text, no law, state or federal, legislative, judge-made or otherwise, can be interpreted to confer any legal incidents of marriage upon "unmarried couples," including heterosexual couples. In addition to prohibiting future legislation conferring marital benefits upon unmarried couples, this amendment will invalidate existing law which already does so.
2.10.2004
Out of the Loop. It's a Family Thing.
Slate's Fred Kaplan rather diplomatically points out that the best defense offered by conservatives against the charge that George W. Bush frequently lies is the argument that he's not lying, he's, well, stupid out of the loop. Reviewing his "interview" with Tim Russert, and noting Bush's ever expanding language regarding "pre-emptive warfare," Kaplan notes:
"If no commentators have noted, or perhaps even noticed, this new spin on American military policy, it may be because they don't take Bush's unscripted remarks seriously. (It's just Bush, talking off the top of his head. No sense parsing the implications.) That in itself is quite a commentary on this president."
Indeed. No one takes him seriously. The man is a lightweight. Everyone knows it. Not only does he not actively make policy, he doesn't even understand it.
"If no commentators have noted, or perhaps even noticed, this new spin on American military policy, it may be because they don't take Bush's unscripted remarks seriously. (It's just Bush, talking off the top of his head. No sense parsing the implications.) That in itself is quite a commentary on this president."
Indeed. No one takes him seriously. The man is a lightweight. Everyone knows it. Not only does he not actively make policy, he doesn't even understand it.
John Derbyshire is growing a brain.
First he levels President Bush for the laughable Meet the Press appearance, now he entertains a reader's email on global warming. He's still repulsive, but dang if he hasn't had a good few days over at The Corner
The email is scary. Dervyshire's take on it is one of the best, most succinct invocations of the disaster that Global Warming could become that I've read ina long time:
The reader writes: "However, I understand these things are unresolved and that scientists of good faith can disagree. I also know enough about catastrophe theory and the history of Ice Ages to know that they can possibly be caused by global warming and come on in 2-3 years. (Science News a few years ago announced findings from Greenland ice core samples. I remember the scientists saying we use to think ice ages came on over decades. Now we know they can come on in the time it takes to go through grad school.)"
Derbyshire responds: I live in balmy Long Island. A mere 300 human lifetimes ago this was the edge of the north polar ice sheet. We're not talking about a couple inches more snow here; we're talking about Boston, New York, & Chicago being ground up into teeny tiny pebbles by advancing ice sheets 200 ft thick. In the time it takes to go through grad school. What's that going to do to the value of my house?
Exactly. Rush Limbaugh will tell you that global warming will be good for crops, because warmer temps equal longer growing seasons. So no reason to worry. Yeah Rush, but how will you broadcast from under the Hudson Valley Ice Sheet?
The email is scary. Dervyshire's take on it is one of the best, most succinct invocations of the disaster that Global Warming could become that I've read ina long time:
The reader writes: "However, I understand these things are unresolved and that scientists of good faith can disagree. I also know enough about catastrophe theory and the history of Ice Ages to know that they can possibly be caused by global warming and come on in 2-3 years. (Science News a few years ago announced findings from Greenland ice core samples. I remember the scientists saying we use to think ice ages came on over decades. Now we know they can come on in the time it takes to go through grad school.)"
Derbyshire responds: I live in balmy Long Island. A mere 300 human lifetimes ago this was the edge of the north polar ice sheet. We're not talking about a couple inches more snow here; we're talking about Boston, New York, & Chicago being ground up into teeny tiny pebbles by advancing ice sheets 200 ft thick. In the time it takes to go through grad school. What's that going to do to the value of my house?
Exactly. Rush Limbaugh will tell you that global warming will be good for crops, because warmer temps equal longer growing seasons. So no reason to worry. Yeah Rush, but how will you broadcast from under the Hudson Valley Ice Sheet?
DOD Requests Bush's National Guard File
The Washington Post reports that the Department of Defense has requested George W. Bush's payroll records from an archive in Colorado in order to determine how to respond to numerous recent requests from news organizations to make such records public. During his interview with Tim Russert on Sunday, Bush agreed that he would make all records public in order to resolve the issue of whether he reported for duty in from May 1972 to April 1973. From the article:
According to military experts familiar with National Guard records, there are two documents that could indicate whether Bush reported for drills during that year. One is an annual summary of his points, the quantitative measure of his service. The summary includes each date he reported for a drill and how many points he received toward his annual requirement.
His official personnel record, obtained by The Post in 2000, does not include a summary of service for the time in Alabama. There is a sheet, where the name has been torn off, that includes dates for that period, but there is no way to confirm it refers to Bush because his Social Security number has been redacted. Also, no one who served in Bush's Alabama unit at that time has come forward, despite years of publicity on the subject. The brigadier general Bush was to report to in Alabama has said he has no recollection of Bush's doing so.
The other documents that should still be available are Bush's payroll records, which would show what drills Bush was compensated for during that period. Officials said yesterday that the DOD in Washington would review the master copy of Bush's payroll records, which have been stored on microfiche for 30 years at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Denver.
Looks like this one's got legs. We'll see how long it lasts.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall has more on the privacy issues.
According to military experts familiar with National Guard records, there are two documents that could indicate whether Bush reported for drills during that year. One is an annual summary of his points, the quantitative measure of his service. The summary includes each date he reported for a drill and how many points he received toward his annual requirement.
His official personnel record, obtained by The Post in 2000, does not include a summary of service for the time in Alabama. There is a sheet, where the name has been torn off, that includes dates for that period, but there is no way to confirm it refers to Bush because his Social Security number has been redacted. Also, no one who served in Bush's Alabama unit at that time has come forward, despite years of publicity on the subject. The brigadier general Bush was to report to in Alabama has said he has no recollection of Bush's doing so.
The other documents that should still be available are Bush's payroll records, which would show what drills Bush was compensated for during that period. Officials said yesterday that the DOD in Washington would review the master copy of Bush's payroll records, which have been stored on microfiche for 30 years at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Denver.
Looks like this one's got legs. We'll see how long it lasts.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall has more on the privacy issues.
2.09.2004
Herman Munster for President?
This is cheap, but funny, and the resemblance is rather striking.
Via Instapundit, who continues to think shallowly about deep issues, and Andymatic, about whom I know nothing.
Via Instapundit, who continues to think shallowly about deep issues, and Andymatic, about whom I know nothing.
Absent Without Leave
Kevin Drum's latched on like a pit bull to the Bush AWOL issue, and has some new insights.
Atrios points out a blatant lie on the same topic in Bush's autobiography.
It's taken four years, but finally, the issue is being discussed.
Atrios points out a blatant lie on the same topic in Bush's autobiography.
It's taken four years, but finally, the issue is being discussed.
2.08.2004
"I worked it out with the military."
In his interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, George W. Bush said the following:
Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of their records and said there was no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.
President Bush: Yeah, they’re‑‑they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.
Russert: You did‑‑were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?
President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.
"I worked it out with the military"???????
The inestimable Trapper John, regular contributor to DailyKos, NAILS it with this post, called "It's not just about AWOL."
We now have tape of George W. Bush saying he got special treatment to get out of the Guard 8 months early. Screw what he did in Alabama during that time he was mysteriously not reporting for duty (for about the same number of months one might take to, oh I don't know, kick a cocaine habit).
What we have here is a man who has issued orders retaining Guard and Reserve soldiers beyond their service dates, and he just admitted that he "worked it out with the military" to leave the Guard early so he could go to Harvard Business School.
I have friends in the Guard and Reserve, friends with businesses, families, careers, educations - all on hold - because this man sent them to Iraq. Now they can't come home, and their tours have been extended beyond what any of them signed up for. But HE was able to get out early.
This quote, handled properly, should completely deflate the obvious White House tactic of turning any question about the President*'s Guard Service into an attack on the Guard itself. As soon as they try that, whatever Democrat is in the room should immediately pipe up and say : "If he's so proud of the Guard, why the hell did he leave early? If he loves the men in the Guard now so much, why has he trapped them in service beyond their tours of duty? Does he think he is better than the men serving their county now?"
If this quote, and Trapper John's fabulous idea of a hypothetical "Lieutenant Smith" who realized a lifelong dream of getting into Howard Business School but can't because he's stuck in Iraq, doesn't end up in a Democratic ad this fall, then something is seriously wrong.
We are going to beat this man. We are going to beat him soundly. If the English could jettison Churchill after he won World War II, for crying out loud, then throwing Chimpy McAwol out now is not such a big deal.
Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of their records and said there was no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.
President Bush: Yeah, they’re‑‑they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.
Russert: You did‑‑were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?
President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.
"I worked it out with the military"???????
The inestimable Trapper John, regular contributor to DailyKos, NAILS it with this post, called "It's not just about AWOL."
We now have tape of George W. Bush saying he got special treatment to get out of the Guard 8 months early. Screw what he did in Alabama during that time he was mysteriously not reporting for duty (for about the same number of months one might take to, oh I don't know, kick a cocaine habit).
What we have here is a man who has issued orders retaining Guard and Reserve soldiers beyond their service dates, and he just admitted that he "worked it out with the military" to leave the Guard early so he could go to Harvard Business School.
I have friends in the Guard and Reserve, friends with businesses, families, careers, educations - all on hold - because this man sent them to Iraq. Now they can't come home, and their tours have been extended beyond what any of them signed up for. But HE was able to get out early.
This quote, handled properly, should completely deflate the obvious White House tactic of turning any question about the President*'s Guard Service into an attack on the Guard itself. As soon as they try that, whatever Democrat is in the room should immediately pipe up and say : "If he's so proud of the Guard, why the hell did he leave early? If he loves the men in the Guard now so much, why has he trapped them in service beyond their tours of duty? Does he think he is better than the men serving their county now?"
If this quote, and Trapper John's fabulous idea of a hypothetical "Lieutenant Smith" who realized a lifelong dream of getting into Howard Business School but can't because he's stuck in Iraq, doesn't end up in a Democratic ad this fall, then something is seriously wrong.
We are going to beat this man. We are going to beat him soundly. If the English could jettison Churchill after he won World War II, for crying out loud, then throwing Chimpy McAwol out now is not such a big deal.
2.07.2004
One Upmanship
Even with the considerable political fallout in Britain from the obvious whitewash of the Hutton Inquiry, George W. Bush has done Tony Blair one better with the appointment of Laurence Silberman to the panel investigating intelligence failures leading up to the events of September 11. Today's New York Times editorial critical of the newly appointed panel notes that Silberman is a Republican and a "Reagan appointee," but such a description is far too modest for a man of Silbermans' partisan credentials.
As most observers know, Silberman has had a hand in some of the most egregious and craven partisan maneuverings of the last ten years, helpfully catalogued by David Neiwert here. My personal favorite is his collaboration with Judge David Sentelle to orchestrate the replacement of independent counsel Robert Fiske with Kenneth Starr in the Whitewater Investigation. Think of what the country could have been spared had that substitution not taken place.
If, like the Hutton Inquiry, Bush's "bipartisan" panel is to be nothing more that a whitewash, I suppose we should be grateful for such a transparently partisan choice. The appointment of Silberman all but insures that no one will take the findings of this inquiry seriously.
As most observers know, Silberman has had a hand in some of the most egregious and craven partisan maneuverings of the last ten years, helpfully catalogued by David Neiwert here. My personal favorite is his collaboration with Judge David Sentelle to orchestrate the replacement of independent counsel Robert Fiske with Kenneth Starr in the Whitewater Investigation. Think of what the country could have been spared had that substitution not taken place.
If, like the Hutton Inquiry, Bush's "bipartisan" panel is to be nothing more that a whitewash, I suppose we should be grateful for such a transparently partisan choice. The appointment of Silberman all but insures that no one will take the findings of this inquiry seriously.
2.06.2004
2.05.2004
Oh man, this is rich
Someone at MSNBC had fun with this one:
I don't think they're going to find any...
I don't think they're going to find any...
Lather, rinse, repeat...
John Hood is one of the smartest guys on earth. The leader of the John Locke Foundation, the libertarian "think tank" here in Raleigh, is an accomplished writer and a heck of a good pundit. He has a future as a national Talking Head if he feels like getting his hands dirty. His blog "Daily Journal" on Carolina Journal is usually informative (wrong, but informative). I hesitate to tackle him here, because, frankly, he has more time and resources than I do, combined with a first-class brain.
But in his latest column, directed at analyzing why NC continues to lag behind in the doldrums of the recession while the rest of the country allegedly speeds ahead (here's a hint: been to Kannapolis lately? Buy any locally-made socks?), he falls back into the kind of lazy Republican orthodoxy that he usually manages to avoid. It's a reflex - when things aren't quite right, grab a bottle of supply-side. Lather, rinse, repeat...
Here's the nut graph:
So why are North Carolina’s non-manufacturing private employers not experiencing the level of economic recovery of their Southern peers? I’m sure someone will rush to tell me that it’s George W. Bush’s fault. And I’d have to agree in part, because the president hasn’t cut federal taxes enough to offset the damaging impact of state and local tax increases that our politicians keep foisting on us down here.
Did you get that? Our slow economy is slow because W hasn't cut taxes ENOUGH to make up for all the state and local taxes that have been "foisted on us."
Now, I understand that the bylaws of the John Locke Foundation apparently do not allow one to consider reality when it conflicts with ideology, but that paragraph is just laughable. Do you think it ever crossed Mr. Hood's exceptionally gifted mind that perhaps state and local taxes have gone up in part BECAUSE W has cut federal taxes and services? There is now more for states and localities to pay for. Hence, user fees increase, sales taxes go up, and tuition bills skyrocket (something Mr. Hood evidently thinks is a good thing ).
It's not that complicated. As the Federal Government requires more (see Alert, Orange), and pays less (see tax cuts and non-Pentagon budget cuts, Bush Administration), state and local governments have to meet the burdens of government - which, however fervently the John Locke Foundation might wish, do not go away.
But in his latest column, directed at analyzing why NC continues to lag behind in the doldrums of the recession while the rest of the country allegedly speeds ahead (here's a hint: been to Kannapolis lately? Buy any locally-made socks?), he falls back into the kind of lazy Republican orthodoxy that he usually manages to avoid. It's a reflex - when things aren't quite right, grab a bottle of supply-side. Lather, rinse, repeat...
Here's the nut graph:
So why are North Carolina’s non-manufacturing private employers not experiencing the level of economic recovery of their Southern peers? I’m sure someone will rush to tell me that it’s George W. Bush’s fault. And I’d have to agree in part, because the president hasn’t cut federal taxes enough to offset the damaging impact of state and local tax increases that our politicians keep foisting on us down here.
Did you get that? Our slow economy is slow because W hasn't cut taxes ENOUGH to make up for all the state and local taxes that have been "foisted on us."
Now, I understand that the bylaws of the John Locke Foundation apparently do not allow one to consider reality when it conflicts with ideology, but that paragraph is just laughable. Do you think it ever crossed Mr. Hood's exceptionally gifted mind that perhaps state and local taxes have gone up in part BECAUSE W has cut federal taxes and services? There is now more for states and localities to pay for. Hence, user fees increase, sales taxes go up, and tuition bills skyrocket (something Mr. Hood evidently thinks is a good thing ).
It's not that complicated. As the Federal Government requires more (see Alert, Orange), and pays less (see tax cuts and non-Pentagon budget cuts, Bush Administration), state and local governments have to meet the burdens of government - which, however fervently the John Locke Foundation might wish, do not go away.
Blumenthal: There was no failure of intelligence
Nice article today in the London Guardian by Sidney Blumenthal. In a nutshell, Blumenthal argues that there was no intelligence failure leading up to the war in Iraq, but there was a systematic and concerted effort by the Administration to ignore evidence that didn't help the case for war. Cherry-picking.
"The truth is that much of the intelligence community did not fail, but presented correct assessments and warnings, that were overridden and suppressed. On virtually every single important claim made by the Bush administration in its case for war, there was serious dissension. Discordant views - not from individual analysts but from several intelligence agencies as a whole - were kept from the public as momentum was built for a congressional vote on the war resolution."
The substance of this story is nothing new - reasonable people have known that we've been deceived for months - but it's timely given recent claims by the Smirk and it lays out some concrete examples of where good intelligence was overlocked by the hawks.
"The truth is that much of the intelligence community did not fail, but presented correct assessments and warnings, that were overridden and suppressed. On virtually every single important claim made by the Bush administration in its case for war, there was serious dissension. Discordant views - not from individual analysts but from several intelligence agencies as a whole - were kept from the public as momentum was built for a congressional vote on the war resolution."
The substance of this story is nothing new - reasonable people have known that we've been deceived for months - but it's timely given recent claims by the Smirk and it lays out some concrete examples of where good intelligence was overlocked by the hawks.
2.04.2004
I hereby acknowledge
a valid and actually somewhat positive Monkeytime post on Edwards. I'm not expecting Crow a la King to be eaten over there, but the acknowledgement of a path to the nomination is at least a start.
Oh yeah, re: last nights results --- Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Oh yeah, re: last nights results --- Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
2.03.2004
Long Live the SCLM
Is it true? Are we experiencing a renaissance of the So-Called Liberal Media? Nah.
But, as I posted earlier, the Bush AWOL issue is actually getting some real live coverage, and TBogg's got the goods on a White House press conference where reporters actually asked real questions.
And, via the sleuthing of Atrios, we have this Reuters piece, the first line of which is, well, maybe slightly slanted left.
The punchline is, . . . the article's from Forbes.
Go figure.
But, as I posted earlier, the Bush AWOL issue is actually getting some real live coverage, and TBogg's got the goods on a White House press conference where reporters actually asked real questions.
And, via the sleuthing of Atrios, we have this Reuters piece, the first line of which is, well, maybe slightly slanted left.
The punchline is, . . . the article's from Forbes.
Go figure.
HUGE victory for Edwards in SC. Clark pulls 8%
When you call the vote within 15 minutes of the polls closing, you've had an ass kicking. 46%! Kerry at 29% Sharpton at 9% and poor Wes Clark is down at 8. Lieberman? Going Joe-where at 2.
From MSNBC.com:
Now, on to Oklahoma.
From MSNBC.com:
Now, on to Oklahoma.
I Don't Believe It. . .
I never thought I'd see the day, but I just heard the Bush AWOL issue given some real air time on NPR. Apparently Terry McAuliffe used the "A" word over the weekend and the media actually picked up on it. Conspicuously absent in the White House response was a specific denial. What I heard was something to the effect of: "Like many Americans George Bush proudly served in the National Guard. . . and received an honorable discharge. . ." Yeah, that's right, but, um, how about that AWOL issue?
Must... not.... do.... backflips.. yet...
National Review et al have the early exits posted:
AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13.
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11
So, Edwards campaigned in 3 states, and he's winning two of them and placing second in the other. Heh.
Refuse... to... believe... good... news... must... resist....
IF Edwards were to swamp Kerry in SC, the last thing hundreds of thousands of voters in Missouri and Oklahoma would hear on their car radios before they go vote is "A BIG VICTORY IN SC FOR SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS, AS HE TROUNCES JOHN KERRY IN THE FIRST SOUTHERN STATE..."
Now that would be very nice indeed...
AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13.
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11
So, Edwards campaigned in 3 states, and he's winning two of them and placing second in the other. Heh.
Refuse... to... believe... good... news... must... resist....
IF Edwards were to swamp Kerry in SC, the last thing hundreds of thousands of voters in Missouri and Oklahoma would hear on their car radios before they go vote is "A BIG VICTORY IN SC FOR SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS, AS HE TROUNCES JOHN KERRY IN THE FIRST SOUTHERN STATE..."
Now that would be very nice indeed...
Palmetto Blues
As South Carolina voters go to the polls, Ezra Klein puts the Democrats' much bemoaned problems in the South in the proper perspective with his post, A National Party. After all, it's not always about a strategy to win electoral votes, its about building a party that represents the entire country. When Democrats openly cede the South to the Republicans, there is an implicit admission that the party doesn't represent the values and ideas of the South, and that's a fallacy. As Ezra points out, the Democrats have let the GOP frame the debate for far too long, with divisive and disastrous results. Something to think about on the day of the South Carolina Primary.
What to do when you're very wrong?
Why, belittle and undervalue the thing you are wrong about.
John Edwards not failing? De-emphasize his victory.
Kerry spending heavily in an effort to compete - contradicting your contention that SC doesn't matter? Post a four day old article from a newspaper that did not endorse Edwards.
Come on, Monkeytime, you can do better than this.
-----------------
I was out on the street for John Edwards all day on Saturday, and I did phone banks when I wasn't on the street. If the precincts I worked are any indication, John Edwards is going to crush in the primary today. Just my two cents.
He's also pulled into a three way tie for first in Oklahoma.
So, let's say he wins OK and SC. He will then have waxed General Clark in the two states where they both are strong. Clark will NOT survive the week. It will be Edwards v. Kerry in Virginia and Tennessee next week, with a battle royale in Wisconsin later in the month.
After that, it's the big boys on Super Tuesday.
John Edwards not failing? De-emphasize his victory.
Kerry spending heavily in an effort to compete - contradicting your contention that SC doesn't matter? Post a four day old article from a newspaper that did not endorse Edwards.
Come on, Monkeytime, you can do better than this.
-----------------
I was out on the street for John Edwards all day on Saturday, and I did phone banks when I wasn't on the street. If the precincts I worked are any indication, John Edwards is going to crush in the primary today. Just my two cents.
He's also pulled into a three way tie for first in Oklahoma.
So, let's say he wins OK and SC. He will then have waxed General Clark in the two states where they both are strong. Clark will NOT survive the week. It will be Edwards v. Kerry in Virginia and Tennessee next week, with a battle royale in Wisconsin later in the month.
After that, it's the big boys on Super Tuesday.
2.02.2004
Well, well, well. Look who woke up.
Todd Morman returns, with another Edwards hatchet piece.
Shorter Monkeytime: John Edwards is more conservative than me. So he sucks.
It is a shame that after a long absence, a writer as talented as Morman could only come up with something as weak as this piece. Using the excellent Salon piece on Edwards' stump speech as a springboard, Morman does his best arrogant intellectual impression, belittling the writer and Edwards while making the same tired point over and over. He complains bitterly about Edwards' vote on the war, and the tone of the post changes little from this paragraph:
Quote from Salon article Sometimes he is blatantly hokey -- "I believe in you" is one of his concluding lines. But Edwards uses subtler tactics as well, creating a feeling that he -- and you -- can confide in each other.
Morman then continues: Confide in each other? How sweet. I'm sure my cockles will be all warm and fuzzy as I confide to Edwards my feelings about that decision he made to support Bush's absurd occupation of Iraq, a decision based on evidence any first-year law student could have seen was pure garbage. I'd also really love to, you know, confide to Edwards the notion of a filibuster, which a courageous Senator with marvelous powers of oratory just might have pulled off during the fall of 2002.
When, you know, it might have mattered.
Believe it or not, it gets snarkier and more insipid as it goes on. Forgetting that Edwards and Kerry saw reams of classified information that he will never see, Morman declares that the evidence was such that "any first-year law student" would have agreed with him. Whatever, Todd.
Morman resembles nothing so much as a bitchy wallflower at a high school dance, complaining about the popular girls.
Morman's post, when it stops being bitchy, takes Edwards to task for not opposing the Iraq resolution in October 2002. He wonders why the skills Edwards possesses weren't put to use opposing the war. Here's a thought: MAYBE EDWARDS THOUGHT THE WAR WAS JUSTIFIED!
Many people who consider themselves progressives were, perhaps reluctantly, in favor of authorizing military force. Tom Schaller's piece, referenced by Shoveldog below, discusses the evolution of this point of view among Democrats. In short, not all of us are perfect like Mr. Morman and Governor Dean, and we attempted to take thoughtful, principled and openminded looks at the war. It is in the conduct of the buildup to and the aftermath of that war where George W. Bush has really screwed the pooch, and John Edwards has been rock solid in his criticism and ideas in that regard.
The bottom line is that John Edwards, pro-war resolution vote and all, is still in this race, three months after Todd Morman said he would get out. He is now the clear alternative to Kerry - the other pro-war vote candidate. Imagine - the two guys who disagreed with Morman are the two who are winning the votes of Democrats around the country.
Funny how that works.
Shorter Monkeytime: John Edwards is more conservative than me. So he sucks.
It is a shame that after a long absence, a writer as talented as Morman could only come up with something as weak as this piece. Using the excellent Salon piece on Edwards' stump speech as a springboard, Morman does his best arrogant intellectual impression, belittling the writer and Edwards while making the same tired point over and over. He complains bitterly about Edwards' vote on the war, and the tone of the post changes little from this paragraph:
Quote from Salon article Sometimes he is blatantly hokey -- "I believe in you" is one of his concluding lines. But Edwards uses subtler tactics as well, creating a feeling that he -- and you -- can confide in each other.
Morman then continues: Confide in each other? How sweet. I'm sure my cockles will be all warm and fuzzy as I confide to Edwards my feelings about that decision he made to support Bush's absurd occupation of Iraq, a decision based on evidence any first-year law student could have seen was pure garbage. I'd also really love to, you know, confide to Edwards the notion of a filibuster, which a courageous Senator with marvelous powers of oratory just might have pulled off during the fall of 2002.
When, you know, it might have mattered.
Believe it or not, it gets snarkier and more insipid as it goes on. Forgetting that Edwards and Kerry saw reams of classified information that he will never see, Morman declares that the evidence was such that "any first-year law student" would have agreed with him. Whatever, Todd.
Morman resembles nothing so much as a bitchy wallflower at a high school dance, complaining about the popular girls.
Morman's post, when it stops being bitchy, takes Edwards to task for not opposing the Iraq resolution in October 2002. He wonders why the skills Edwards possesses weren't put to use opposing the war. Here's a thought: MAYBE EDWARDS THOUGHT THE WAR WAS JUSTIFIED!
Many people who consider themselves progressives were, perhaps reluctantly, in favor of authorizing military force. Tom Schaller's piece, referenced by Shoveldog below, discusses the evolution of this point of view among Democrats. In short, not all of us are perfect like Mr. Morman and Governor Dean, and we attempted to take thoughtful, principled and openminded looks at the war. It is in the conduct of the buildup to and the aftermath of that war where George W. Bush has really screwed the pooch, and John Edwards has been rock solid in his criticism and ideas in that regard.
The bottom line is that John Edwards, pro-war resolution vote and all, is still in this race, three months after Todd Morman said he would get out. He is now the clear alternative to Kerry - the other pro-war vote candidate. Imagine - the two guys who disagreed with Morman are the two who are winning the votes of Democrats around the country.
Funny how that works.
No Issue Ads?
Was it my imagination, or did I notice a couple of "issue ads" in last night's Super Bowl broadcast? And didn't CBS decline to air MoveOn.org's Bushin30seconds ad because it involved "controversial issues of public importance"? I guess the "shardsofglass" ice cream spot with it's edgy attack on the tobacco industry doesn't count?
Wired reported earlier last month that a PETA spot which included scantily clad females and sexual references had been declined as well due to "significant taste concerns." Let's see, an entire half time show built around sex, a beer commercial whose prominent feature is a horse fart, and CBS is worried about "taste"?
In essence, CBS rather transparent policy is not to run issue ads which which they disagree. The MoveOn.org ad was tasteful, subtle, and in my opinion, not even particularly controversial. Declining to run "The Reagans" was bad enough, but this is just deplorable. Remember when we actually had a responsible media?
Wired reported earlier last month that a PETA spot which included scantily clad females and sexual references had been declined as well due to "significant taste concerns." Let's see, an entire half time show built around sex, a beer commercial whose prominent feature is a horse fart, and CBS is worried about "taste"?
In essence, CBS rather transparent policy is not to run issue ads which which they disagree. The MoveOn.org ad was tasteful, subtle, and in my opinion, not even particularly controversial. Declining to run "The Reagans" was bad enough, but this is just deplorable. Remember when we actually had a responsible media?
Grand Exalted Editorial Panjandrum
That's me. Shoveldog. And that's Panjandrum of The Register, no less. Here, read all about it.
No, wait. Maybe you'd better start here,with here being an article, by Andrew Orlowski of The Register, which most appropriately and most deliciously sends up the pretension and hyperbole of the weblog infatuated techno-gurus in the wake of Howard Dean's loss in Iowa. It's one of the few intelligent articles I've read on the subject of those who insist on "attributing magical powers" to the internet and weblogs, and it clearly separates the incredible hype from the realities of the Dean campaign.
Now, this sort of article is the type of thing that really pisses Ed Cone off. Not because he disagrees, mind you, because he says almost exactly the same things, but apparently because someone else said it. Ed has written and blogged extensively about writing and blogging extensively and in the course of such writing and blogging has considered the Dean campaign and its internet strategy. And he's done it very well. Ed was involved in BloggerCon, the convention dreamed up by then relatively unknown Dave Winer. (You remember, the guy who thought he would hold a blogger's convention at Harvard, and invited Atrios and others, telling them that for $500 a head, he'd teach them a few things about blogging? Might have been a good conference, can't say, but the "invitations" rubbed a whole lot of terrific writers the wrong way.) In addition, Ed's now involved with the O'Reilly Digital Democracy Teach-in, and was recently a guest on MPR's"The Blogging of the President."
In between all that, though, he's found time to get really pissed off about this. Yes, this, another Andrew Orlowski article, which Ed inexplicably believes to be an "attack piece" directed toward Dave Weinberger. Read it. Then go figure. I made the mistake of commenting and telling him that I was sure he was correct about any factual mis-statements the article contained, but that I agreed with Orlowski's underlying opinion of the political/blogging gurus and their absurd, hyperbolic predictions about "emergent" phenomena in future campaigns. Which started this. Which prompted this, from Orlowski himself:
Ed - Your writing deserves no more, but no less criticism than anyone else in the political and social sphere. But you've constructed a straw man here, to avoid discussing the points I raise. This can't be construed as a personal attack, because I only discuss some items of David's public cultural product. Where he makes sense, I praise it. Where he doesn't make sense, I criticize it. By (over-)reacting so defensively, you give the impression that you wish to be placed above criticism.
I've encountered this characteristic several times - only people inside the blogging tent are allowed to criticize. And you wonder why world+dog finds this creepy...
Shoveldog - I hereby confer on you the title "Grand Exalted Editorial Panjandrum of The Register". You don't have to do any editing, but you may use the title as you wish: to impress the ladies, jump the queue at Starbucks, and play a starring role at blogging conferences. ;-)
Andrew Orlowski • 2/1/04; 4:21:10 PM
You know, Ed knows more about this stuff than I do, and I've told him as much. He's on panels and talk shows and I'm not. He's a professional writer and I'm just a spare-time blogger. But if I wasn't already convinced that Orlowski was right about the arrogance and hubris of the "emergent" class of self-appointed weblog/internet pundits, I certainly am now. Consider a few snippets from our comment exchange. From shoveldog: "I'm sure you're right. . . You're in a better position than I. . . Reasonable minds might differ." From Ed Cone: ". . . cannot be taken seriously. . . attack piece. . . get your eyes checked."
Shorter shoveldog: "We disagree, but I respect your opinion."
Shorter Ed Cone: "I'm right, and if you don't agree, you're an idiot."
You're really doing your part to disprove Orlowski's points, there, Ed. If he quotes you next time, will that make it better? In the meantime, I'll just take my title and go to the head of the line at Starbucks.
No, wait. Maybe you'd better start here,with here being an article, by Andrew Orlowski of The Register, which most appropriately and most deliciously sends up the pretension and hyperbole of the weblog infatuated techno-gurus in the wake of Howard Dean's loss in Iowa. It's one of the few intelligent articles I've read on the subject of those who insist on "attributing magical powers" to the internet and weblogs, and it clearly separates the incredible hype from the realities of the Dean campaign.
Now, this sort of article is the type of thing that really pisses Ed Cone off. Not because he disagrees, mind you, because he says almost exactly the same things, but apparently because someone else said it. Ed has written and blogged extensively about writing and blogging extensively and in the course of such writing and blogging has considered the Dean campaign and its internet strategy. And he's done it very well. Ed was involved in BloggerCon, the convention dreamed up by then relatively unknown Dave Winer. (You remember, the guy who thought he would hold a blogger's convention at Harvard, and invited Atrios and others, telling them that for $500 a head, he'd teach them a few things about blogging? Might have been a good conference, can't say, but the "invitations" rubbed a whole lot of terrific writers the wrong way.) In addition, Ed's now involved with the O'Reilly Digital Democracy Teach-in, and was recently a guest on MPR's"The Blogging of the President."
In between all that, though, he's found time to get really pissed off about this. Yes, this, another Andrew Orlowski article, which Ed inexplicably believes to be an "attack piece" directed toward Dave Weinberger. Read it. Then go figure. I made the mistake of commenting and telling him that I was sure he was correct about any factual mis-statements the article contained, but that I agreed with Orlowski's underlying opinion of the political/blogging gurus and their absurd, hyperbolic predictions about "emergent" phenomena in future campaigns. Which started this. Which prompted this, from Orlowski himself:
Ed - Your writing deserves no more, but no less criticism than anyone else in the political and social sphere. But you've constructed a straw man here, to avoid discussing the points I raise. This can't be construed as a personal attack, because I only discuss some items of David's public cultural product. Where he makes sense, I praise it. Where he doesn't make sense, I criticize it. By (over-)reacting so defensively, you give the impression that you wish to be placed above criticism.
I've encountered this characteristic several times - only people inside the blogging tent are allowed to criticize. And you wonder why world+dog finds this creepy...
Shoveldog - I hereby confer on you the title "Grand Exalted Editorial Panjandrum of The Register". You don't have to do any editing, but you may use the title as you wish: to impress the ladies, jump the queue at Starbucks, and play a starring role at blogging conferences. ;-)
Andrew Orlowski • 2/1/04; 4:21:10 PM
You know, Ed knows more about this stuff than I do, and I've told him as much. He's on panels and talk shows and I'm not. He's a professional writer and I'm just a spare-time blogger. But if I wasn't already convinced that Orlowski was right about the arrogance and hubris of the "emergent" class of self-appointed weblog/internet pundits, I certainly am now. Consider a few snippets from our comment exchange. From shoveldog: "I'm sure you're right. . . You're in a better position than I. . . Reasonable minds might differ." From Ed Cone: ". . . cannot be taken seriously. . . attack piece. . . get your eyes checked."
Shorter shoveldog: "We disagree, but I respect your opinion."
Shorter Ed Cone: "I'm right, and if you don't agree, you're an idiot."
You're really doing your part to disprove Orlowski's points, there, Ed. If he quotes you next time, will that make it better? In the meantime, I'll just take my title and go to the head of the line at Starbucks.
2.01.2004
Well played, Panthers, well played
The good fight was fought.
BUT JOHN KASAY KICKED THE DAMN BALL OUT OF BOUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUT JOHN KASAY KICKED THE DAMN BALL OUT OF BOUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
