I was wrong. Good, and surprisingly lucid and not about the church.

MoDo Time...Good, or evil?

I say... well..I say it's probably Good, and about the Catholic Church's little problem

Anthrax is so October 11.

It looks like Bush has chosen his new candidate for Vice President in '04.

Click here to find out who it is.

I've added comments. We'll see how that goes. Say hello.

Bob Novak just gave members of Congress who wish to get Tom Ridge to testify under oath a game plan.

You see, it was okay to drag Clinton aides in to testify over unspecified nebulous allegations.

So, it's time to invent some possible wrongdoing by Ridge and drag him in to talk about it.

Their rules.

The American Prospect is off to a pretty good start with their new blog of sorts, TAPPED. Hopefully they'll make me eat my snarky comment about their boring wonkishness. Welcome to the game.

Tucker Carlson in that TV Guide article linked below:


Even for conservative Carlson, Crossfire is the gold standard of political talk shows and Hannity & Colmes, Fox's conservative-versus-liberal show, is a joke. "Hannity & Colmes is a place for cut-rate Al Sharptons to go on," says Carlson. "Nobody with serious ideas wants to be seen on it."



Good point, bow-tie baby.

Howie Kurtz does this almost every single week, and he's not alone. He pits one or more conservative pundits or reporters for right wing publications against journalists for mainstream newspapers.

Here's his take on that:


Bedford, Tex.: Hi, I watched "Reliable Sources" on Saturday and I was curious why
there was a conservative (Laura Ingraham) but no liberal pundit. I consider Roger
Simon and Dana Milbank to be beat reporters and not liberal pundits.

Howard Kurtz: They're certainly more liberal than Laura Ingraham. I refuse to play
the Crossfire game of matching up partisan liberals and conservatives and let them
go at each other.



The liberal media rears its ugly head once again.

Someone I met this past weekend in D.C. (and, I met lots of interesting and entertaining people) made a somewhat obvious point that had never occurred to me before. I'm no strong advocate of draconian gun control, but nonetheless the paranoid antics of the NRA piss me off quite regularly. In any case, much of the paranoia surrounding things such as gun registration and background checks on gun purchases involves the concern that if government has that information, it will be all too easy for them to round all the guns and gun owners up when the U.N. takes over, or whatever.

But, why bother - the NRA has already collected the names and addresses of a huge number of gun owners in this country. One-stop shopping when the black helicopters land.

Cat fans, go here .

Vaara is too quick for me. He has found another Le Pen endorsement!

I still stand by my point - that there isn't all that much air between Le Pen and some of our own elected right wing nuts...


Now, if some reporter would just ask Trent Lott what he thinks of Le Pen...

George W. Bush says that Ronald Reagan has no soul.
.



Mr Bush claims a man who dyes his hair cannot be trusted and
"doesn’t know who he is ... has no soul".

From TVGuide

"It used to be I could do [Crossfire] in my sleep, but not with [Begala and Carville]. It's going to
take a few years to get used to them." - Bob Novak



After years of having nothing but too-bland liberals like Bill Press (whom I admire a lot) and Alan Colmes (whom I don't) arguing "from the Left" it is refreshing to finally have a pair that can fight back. I know there are plenty of people who wish shows like Crossfire would just go away and think that they do nothing to elevate the quality of political discourse in this country. But, it is time to expend energy playing by their rules, and not waste time trying to change them.

Bow-Tie Baby Tucker Carlson's rhetoric is not more hyperbolic than either Carville's or Begala's. None of them come close to the rhetoric of the right wing TVpundits and pundettes that have been legitimized by our mainstream media for years - Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, Ingraham, diGenova, Toensing, Babs Olson, nor even the rantings of "respectable print pundits" like Michael Kelly, William Safire, nor of course the non-stop barrage of hate-radio wingnuts like Limbaugh, Liddy, Savage, "Dr." Laura, etc... Somehow, they've managed to lobotomize the Left - and even Lefties find firebrand centrists Begala and Carville a bit off-putting for some reason.

A show like Crossfire isn't for everyone. But, no one on the Left should be anything but thrilled that Carville and Begala are finally stepping up to the plate. The politicos and pundits on our side need to take a page from the Harry Truman/LBJ school of rhetoric.

On a related note, thanks to James Carville for being a gracious host AND guest this past weekend.

According to this article, House Republicans prefer to continue their support for domestic terrorism organizations than pass a bankruptcy bill.

The steaming pile of dung of a bill shouldn't pass, period. So, one cheer for them, I suppose.

John Dean doesn't make clear if he really knows, or just really suspects, the identity of Deep Throat. But, he's planning to out DT nonetheless, and says that he's an 'ole pal of Fat Tony Scalia.

Let the games begin..

I'll pile on along with the rest of the country... WHAT WAS CARDINAL LAW THINKING? All but calls a 6 year victim of child molestation a little tramp.

Vaara has been busy tracking down various endorsements of Le Pen by individuals and groups in the U.S. Now, I know that there are those who would argue that just because Lott, Barr, and Ashcroft are "associated with" a group does not mean they endorse all of their views. But, on the other hand, as the leader of the free world once said - You can judge a man by the company he keeps. (This article ties Ashcroft a bit more closely to the CCC, or at least some of its members).

While the National Review doesn't quite endorse Le Pen, this article, under the guise of simply arguing that Le Pen's chances are greater than some think (which I agree with), doesn't do so without sounding somewhat gleeful at the prospect. Again, it is not quite an endorsement of Le Pen's views, but rather a kind of "serves you right" indictment of his opponent[s].

Who's next?

Hey, it isn't racial profiling....

My sixth-grade teacher once told me the thing
that makes this country great is that in the United
States, we are free to speak our minds. I began
to seriously doubt the truth of that sentiment on
April 19 when I was detained overnight in
Milwaukee along with several others of the
well-known, non-violent organization Peace
Action ("Security fear keeps peace group at
airport," April 20).

We were on our way to demonstrate and lobby
our representatives in Washington, D.C. As I
approached the airline ticket counter at Mitchell
International Airport to get my boarding pass, I
was told that I couldn't fly because my name
appeared on a "no fly" list.

Over at the The New Republic they flesh out something I've been thinking for some time now - what on Earth is Glenn Hubbard doing to his career? Mainstream academic economists cover the political spectrum from ever-so-slightly center-left, like Paul Krugman, to far right (much like our punditocracy). But, this comment has nothing to do with Hubbard's political or economic views, but the fact that he has managed to turn the Council of Economic Advisors into yet another prop shop for the malAdministration.

Vaara, using his powers of real-time translation, comments on an article in Le Monde about Chechnya. With all the column-inches, blog-rants, and forum fighting spent on Jenin, why does no one care about Chechnya?

I also noticed he makes the same point I do about federal government money loving red-staters... I hadn't actually seen that on his Blog before I posted it.

May I see your papers please?.



WASHINGTON, April 28
— In a rare disagreement,
White House and Justice
Department officials are
divided over whether to declare
that local and state police
departments have the power to
track down illegal immigrants as a new tactic in the global war on
terror.

If adopted as policy, an opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel at the
Justice Department would reverse a longstanding legal tradition and
allow local police officers to make arrests for civil violations of
immigration law, such as overstaying visas.


Independent of what one's feelings are for immigration and immigrants - legal or illegal - this is a very disturbing development. When I lived in a certain European country, as a non-citizen I was required to carry a passport or equivalently suitable identification with me at all times. Of course, so were the citizens of that country. If Ashcroft's latest great idea is implemented, police will have the right to ask for such identification. Who carries their passports with them? Hell, what percentage of Americans even have a passport? One might argue that we are already required to carry identification such as a driver's license, which is effectively if not literally true, but a driver's license says nothing about whether or not you are a legal resident or citizen. People can get them and then have a residency permit expire.

Since few or no Americans carry their passports, if individuals are required to provide positive proof of their legal status every time a policeman feels like giving someone a hard time, a lot of people are going to find themselves in annoying situations.

There is a simple solution - just bug the brown people with funny accents. Lots of them are citizens too. So much for equal treatment.

Americans abroad expect to be treated the same as, if not better than, than the locals are. In another European country I spent some time in the foreigners were easy to spot - they put a big red stripe on their license plates.

In addition to frightening the civil libertarians, these measures and their potential consequences should worry the States' Rights people. Blurring the roles of federal and state law enforcement, federalizing driver's license and identificaton requirements, and the like, will all erode the independence of states in these matters.

Living as I do in a Blue State, I'm getting really tired of having to subsidize the Red States. Though Andy Sullivan waxes rhapsodic over all those parts of the country that he has never actually been to, the conservative libertarian in him should be shocked at the fact that they seem to survive only due to the generous contributions of tax dollars by Blue Staters like me. As those liberals (cough) over at the Tax Foundation make clear, so many of those havens of rugged individualism sure do seem to enjoy sucking on the federal government's tit.

A quick glance at the numbers (very quick, so give or take a state) shows us that out of the 30 Red States that Crazy Andy idealizes, 21 of them received more than $1.05 in federal tax dollars for every $1.00 they sent to D.C. in '00.

In those crazy big government liberal states, only 7 out of 20 did.

It seems that Vaara and I get similar criticism - too juvenile, too sophomoric, etc. While I take these criticisms somewhat seriously, as I am still trying to find the appropriate voice for this, why is it people seem to think us lefties have to emulate the boring wonkishness of The American Prospect? As Vaara also points out, every other citizen of blogistan is doing their best to emulate P.J. O'Rourke, the Michael Moore of the Right, so what's wrong with us CommucRATS having a bit of fun?

I've gotten this criticism from people who appear to be (you can never tell) both Lefties and Righties and, all I have to say is - lighten up and look around. What I write here can't possibly be any sillier than Ann Coulter's stuff, and she gets paid for it.


Of course, she gets paid by lying bigotboy David Horowitz who has been busted yet again by the fine folks at MWO.

Washington Post in plagiarism scandal.

I wonder if Howie Kurtz will be covering this...

Howard Kurtz is an incompetent idiot who fails to do his job.

A typical Reliable Sources:


Is the media doing a good job?

Yes.



I know this post will guarantee that thin-skinned Howie the kiss-ass will never get a quote for me, and thus prevent me from achieving Blogger Nirvana.

Howie sucks.

My illiterate friend the O'Rourkian seems to take great delight in the fact that Salon is in a less than perfect financial situation.

Fair enough, but which Conservative publications survive without subsidies? Definitely not the Washington Times...or, is that the Moonie Times?

It's late, I'm packing, but exciting things are happening!.

Haley Barbour has always been an uber-Buckraker. But, this article tells us why.

But, before I go...

Vaara is back. And he's pissed. And, he's much wittier than me and knows much more French. Reason enough to pay a vist.

I'll be gone Fri-Sun. - have to pay tribute to an American Hero at the Rajun Cajun's place. See y'all on Monday.

The Filthy Critic hates Murder by Numbers .



Murder by Numbers stinks. This "thriller" is about as perfunctory as a third-grade class repeating the pledge of allegiance. All the obligatory words are there and they're in the right order, but they're repeated by rote by people who don't give a shit. And they're already obvious to even Lloyd and the Harelip. It's as bland as its title and as unoriginal as its use of numbers for letters (Murd3r 8y Num8ers). It's like they thought, "Hey, that letter-number thing worked for Seven so maybe it'll work for us if we're even more obnoxious about it."

The fact that Mickey Kaus professes to be a Peggy Noonan fan is just one of the many reasons I question his sanity and judgment. For those of us who are utterly fascinated that anyone actually chooses to publish her hallucinatory meditiations on the raw beauty of Reagan's feet and her endless studies in Hypocrisy to Rival That of Even Bill Bennett written in her WSJ column which should be entitled "Why Opposite Rules of Conduct Apply to Republicans and Democrats Because I Say So," here's a funny slam by David Podvin.


I recall once seeing Ronnie napping barefoot in a hammock. As I looked reverently at those manly Republican feet that had kicked the poo out of communism, I felt a deep yearning to cradle them in my hands. I longed to caress them, to fondle them, to adore them, to rub all ten of his precious little supply side piggies against me, and – yes - to tell them I love them.

Rest assured, no female - not one - has ever has had her heart all-aflutter over Slick Willie's malodorous metatarsals.

There are times when even the strongest and wisest among us (and I will reluctantly agree to have myself included in that category) feel that we are adrift at sea. Like little Elian Gonzalez helplessly wafting in the Caribbean, we are prayerful that the Lord will send magic Christian dolphins to save us from drowning. From the cynical liberal perspective, this must seem almost “quaint”, as must anything that does not include cheating on one’s wife with a fat Jewish girl.

Just heard on Lou Dobbs Moneyline on CNN:

Apparently the CEO of Worldcom had the company lend him $350 million, unsecured, to make the margin call on his in-the-toilet stock portfolio.


Sure must be nice.

GEORGE WILL ADMITS MEDIA HAS A CONSERVATIVE BIAS!!!!

Shocker.


...talk radio, the Fox News Channel and
Washington's conservative think tanks have made conservatism a more than merely equal participant in political arguments."



Here is the evidence.

In his next column, he will inform us that water is wet.

I'm so glad the grownups are in charge now...:


Mistake in translation almost proves deadly

IAN BRUCE

A SHORTAGE of linguists has hampered both the US war effort in Afghanistan and slowed the interrogation of Taliban and al
Qaeda prisoners, according to a preliminary Pentagon intelligence study on the conflict.

Funding has now been allocated to produce interpreters fluent in the local languages of Pashto, Dari, Uzbek and Turkmen to
avoid repeating embarrassing early mistakes which could have killed innocent civilians.

At one stage, leaflets were dropped in an area marked for a bombing strike which should have read: "Stay in your houses or
we will kill you." But the rushed translation produced pamphlets which actually said: "Stay in your houses and we will kill you."

The error resulted in a mass exodus of confused locals convinced that their homes were about to be pulverised by a B52
bombardment.



The good news is that Susan MacDougal is writing a book!

Here are two great flash movies (small ones) by my friend A.S. This one highlights the ever-evolving rhetoric of our All Hat and No Cattle leader. This one wonders why 9/11 should be exempt from an investigation.

A federal judge is about to declare the federal death penalty unconstitutional.

About time. I have never understood why people who claim to fear big government are all too willing to grant that government the ultimate power of life and death over its citizens.

Do any of you On the Right want to explain it to me?

Attack of the google spiders!

I guess I actually exist now.

Between Josh Marshall's catch of this USAID job listing and this New York Times article about US money being funneled to anti-Chavez organizations under the guise of promoting democracy, is there any doubt our men in black were all over this one?

I don't know whether to be thankful or horrified over the fact that the whole thing was an incompetent mess.

Lesson to Nadirites:


"We campaign with poetry, we govern with prose." M. Cuomo, relayed by Bill Clinton.

Not to dwell on Cynthia McKinney, but I see that Charles Kuffner has moved his position slightly, and has convinced me to move my own. I guess there is a purpose to public discourse after all.

My version is that if C. McKinney wants to call for an investigation of 9/11 she should. If she wants to call for an investigation of the connections between military contractors and "Bush Pioneers" she should. But, to mention them in the same breath automatically implies a connection unhelpful to either cause. There may be a connection of course, but... that's a different issue.

Still waiting for Arianna Huffington to write her Brock-like mea culpa...the stories she must have...

But, while I'm waiting she gives us Media Blake-Out. Post 9/11, I was sickened by the disgusting self-congratulatory backslapping of our media who expected us to praise them for finally deciding to do their jobs . These idiots can now barely hide the drool that is dribbling down the corners of their mouths at the thought of an OJ re-run.

These people are a menace.

And conservatives wonder why they can't get the African-American vote.

I haven't read the book, of course, but the thing about the excerpts is that they aren't very funny.

Goldblatt obviously hasn't been to the theater or seen a Chris Rock show lately. Self-parody is alive and well in the black community.

His whiny, self-pitying, and cruel article makes clear he has more in common with DW Griffith than Voltaire.


There's nothing more hilarious than watching white males play the victim card. Boo-freaking-hoo.


[note, I completely edited this post due to the fact that the first try was a mess.]

My number 1 fan the illiterate (joke) O'Rourkian gives me this (him in italics, me in self-important bold):





"Is there anyone out there who can make a case that
Ashcroft/De Lay are qualitiatively different then
LePen. I argue they're worse. "

Well, I may be an illiterate fool (hey, I may be
illiterate, but I know how to spell 'qualitatively'
;-)) but I don't think you argue that at all.
I think you say it, but you don't provide any evidence
whatsoever. Neither does Krugman - his whole paragraph
is "And then there's John Ashcroft." leaving us to
fill our minds with his evil deeds! - so I guess
you're in good company.




As I keep saying over and over, I don't think Krugman was equating them. So, stick with me. And, you're right, I didn't make the case, except with DeLay (See below), I was just trying to pick a fight.




But while Le Pen has campaigned for the forced
repatriation of non-white French citizens, called the
holocaust a 'detail of history' and also denied it
ever happened, called for the 'incineration' of a
Jewish member of the cabinet, and been arrested for
street fighting with socialists, I don't recall
hearing anything similar from Ashcroft or DeLay.



Well, let's focus on Ashcroft. I think Delay made his own case the other day.

Ashcroft wrote "Traditionalists must do more [to defend Confederate leaders ] or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

Despite the revisionist goons who like to claim that that whole mess way back when wasn't about slavery, a quick reading of the declarations of secession puts that notion to rest. Slavery, not a perverted agenda? ahem.

Ashcroft fought repeatedly against voluntary school desegregation.

He questioned people about their sexual orientation when he hired them.


I wouldn't expect him to give a rat's ass about the Holocaust one way or the other necessarily, so I'm not surprise he hasn't said much about it.

Street-fighting? Who cares.

Calling for the incineration of a Jewish cabinet member? Okay maybe you have me there.

The point is that LePen and Ashcroft are *NOT THE SAME*, the issues each faces are different, but they definitely are in the same ballpark.




In what sense do you think they are worse? And I mean
based on their actions - not on some 'well de Lay is a
Christian fundamentalist, and they're all mad, they
want to bring about the apocalypse" level which is the
way the left usually attacks the right - but what have
they actually DONE?



As for DeLay, I didn't say he was a Christian Fundamentalist. I said he was a Christian Reconstructionist. He sees the Handmaid's Tale as a How-To Manual.



"Compared to Le Pen, Bush is a civil libertarian and
Haider is a flower child, and the French know it
better than anyone." uber-liberal Salon 4-24-02.


I didn't make the comparison to Bush, so don't claim that I, or Krugman, did.
I'd disagree about Haider.


Ashcroft and DeLay have a lot more common with LePen than they do with Al Gore. Given his recent rhetoric, DeLay IMHO is as bad as they come. Ashcroft may not call for the forced expatriation of all non-white Americans, but he's fought quite a bit to keep them in their place, and seems to think the War on Terror is nothing but rounding up all the Brown people he can find and putting them in detention centers for minor Visa violations.

I myself committed minor Visa violations while in Europe. It is pretty easy to do. Many of my foreign friends - students, people between jobs, etc.. have too. The system is a mess, it happens all the time.

I'm glad no one put me in a detention center.

[on edit, too many typos, was typing on the run..]



Thanks,

The O'Rourkian



Cheers -A.

From every review I've read (I won't pretend to have read the book) it sounds like Frank Bruni should have entitled his new book about the Bush Campaign Je m'Accuse!.

Eric Alterman gets in another dig.

To my 3 fans, and 1 stalker:

Light day today, actually have to do a bit of work.

From what I've been told, Gene Lyons' column was pulled from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette this week because his editors couldn't confirm the Susan Schmidt story, even though it has been published in The Washington City Paper, The American Prospect, etc..

If my information is incorrect, I apologize, but in any case here is the column:




SCHMIDT STRIKES OUT

Is there a bigger bunch of crybabies in American public life than our esteemed Washington press corps? In my experience, nobody comes close. Exactly how this came to be is a small mystery. Journalism used to be one of the rough-and-tumble trades. Reporters didn't have to be tough guys, but, like cops, took a dim view of human nature and saw skepticism as a virtue. "If your mother says she loves you," the slogan went "check it out." A thick skin was a basic job requirement. If you were going to make a career handing it out, you'd better learn to take it.

Alas, today's Washington reporters have grown as delicate as houseplants. Who knows why? Maybe it's the fault of college journalism departments for turning a trade into a "profession." Maybe of cable TV, which made political reportersinto minor cele-brities, increasing their self-importance. It could be Washington's status-obsessed salon society, basically junior high school with money.

No matter. The capital's crybaby culture has rarely been more perfectly captured than in a recent article by Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler. Post reporters have been getting rude e-mails, if you can believe such a terrible thing. Several, poor babies, got their feelings hurt. "Some of the stuff coming into electronic mailboxes here in recent weeks is simply vulgar," Getler huffed. "Some is threatening, some is hateful." Alas, "the number of people willing to say almost anything via e-mail is increasing, especially if the target happens to be a woman staffer."

Since he quotes none of it, Getler's complaint is hard to evaluate. Here at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, we're made of sterner stuff. The merely vulgar gets featured on the "Voices" page, my favorite part of the paper. Name-calling, race-baiting, religious diatribes, anti-Semitism, sexual taunts, you name it. Only the major dirty words are forbidden. Half the time you can't tell when writers are joking. Somebody recently opined that I have horns and a tail, like Satan. Parody or unintentional self-parody? Searching for a farrier who can fit shoes on cloven hoofs, I'm too busy to decide.

Getler says some e-mails are too coarse to quote. That's easy to believe. During the Clinton years, I used to get letters from a loon in Florida who called himself a "pacifist," but warned darkly that he had violent friends. In the crudest language ima-ginable, he portrayed my "Mommie dearest, sister, wife, or daughter" raped, then dismembered by "blacks or Hispanics." I always wondered if "Sock," as he signed himself, had any pants on when he typed that stuff up.

Did I cry to my editors? No, I figured it was like the time Rep. Tommy Robinson publicly threatened to "sue my ass and kick my butt." (Or maybe it was the other way around, two buttocks references in one sentence being unusual even for the tough guy ex-sheriff.) Empty talk from a blowhard.

Apart from informing the occasional anonymous caller that he's a coward, I've only twice reacted to nasty communications. After an anonymous posting on the crackpot FreeRepublic website published the grotesque lie that I was a well-known pedophile at the same time somebody was spending lots of money mailing me glossy magazines with photos of bodybuilders who definitely had no pants on, together with what the U.S. Postal inspector said were X-rated gay videos, I smelled a setup and filed complaints. Mostly, though, journalists figure crank mail comes with the territory.


Not so the sensitive flowers at the Washington Post, whom Getler's article never names, although their identities are obvious. One is our old friend Susan Schmidt, dubbed "Stenographer Sue" by the scrappy activists at mediawhoresonline.com for what they deem her practice of taking dictation from Kenneth Starr. Anyhow, here's the part of the story the ombudsman left out, although it's been widely reported elsewhere. Subjected to a barrage of informed criticism of her comically one-sided articles--Schmidt's March 20 dispatch on the "Ray Report" on Whitewater contained not a single reaction from any-body mentioned in its pages, the equivalent of reporting a football game by mentioning only the home team's touchdowns--she tried to get even.

Schmidt traced her correspondents' e-mail addresses, found out where they worked, and forwarded messages to their bosses in a seeming attempt to get them in trouble for malingering on the job. It backfired. Her antagonists not only didn't get fired, they exposed Schmidt's pettiness for the world to see. In response, the MWO website has posted close to a hundred letters devoid of obscenity but filled with pungent critiques of her peculiar behavior. Trying to turn a debate on substance into a debate on manners made the Post look ridiculous. Meanwhile, if Schmidt had put half the ingenuity into her reporting she did trying to silence her critics, maybe they wouldn't frighten her so.

Over at MWO they document just how low the white house press whores have sunk. Uncle Karen retires, and not only does no one bother to dig into the "real reason", they spin it as proof of feminism's failure.

Huh?

not quite sure it's evil, just pointless.


Which, as I said before... gets lumped in with evil.

Eschaton Prediction

I haven't checked yet, but tonight's Modo Prediction is...



EVIL!

I'm watching the disgusting display on CNN with Connie Chung in Rome. She's had plenty of time to do a bit of research - she can't tell the difference between pedophile, pederast, child molester, homosexual...

And, the Church in full CYA mode. Apparently Law apologized to his fellow cardinals for inconveniencing *them*.

I'm not catholic, so some of it is none of my business. But, Law shouldn't just resign - he should be in jail.

Michelangelo Signorile weighs in on this subject fairly comprehensively.

Charles Dodgson also piles on Krugman, which surprises me. He makes the same mistake Sully does (despite v.'s good point) of interpreting Krugman as saying that Ashcroft=David Duke and /or Le Pen.

In a way he makes his point for me. Which was Krugman comparing him to, Duke, or Le Pen, or who? Neither. He just said that our far right has a lot of power in our government, while their far right currently doesn't. We have "angry people" on the left, too, but they don't have any power here.


On the other hand, as much as I don't agree that Krugman was trying to make this particular comparison, I will. I think that Tom Delay and John Ashcroft are as far into scary fascist loony right land, or even moreso, than Le Pen. DeLay has essentially admitted he's a flat-out Christian Reconstructionist. Is that not scarier than Le Pen? Can anyone seriously argue that Ashcroft is "to the Left" of Le Pen either?

We judge Le Pen based on European press coverage of him. Trust me, given a dose of DeLay and Ashcroft, their headlines would read "Fascist" too.


Is there anyone out there who can make a case that Ashcroft/De Lay are qualitatively different then LePen. I argue they're worse. Prove me wrong, please.


just to re-state...DeLay is a CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONIST. I'll take LePen, thank you.

My pal v. has this response to Sullivan:


Your indignation at Krugman's comparison of Bush to Le Pen is misplaced. Consider the following points, which form part of the electoral platform of Le Pen's
Front National (available in French at lepen.tv):

-Eliminate the income tax
-Eliminate the inheritance tax
-Withdraw from international environmental treaties
-Recognize that human life begins at conception
-Outlaw abortion
-Eliminate civil unions for same-sex couples
-Reinstitute the death penalty
-Partially privatize the state pension system

Call Le Pen what you want, but don't try to tell us he wouldn't, if he were in the U.S., be right in the mainstream of the GOP.

So maybe Sullivan, and by implication Krugman, have points after all...

Let's contrast Chubby-neck Sullivan* with Mickey "With Dems like these..." Kaus. take on Krugman's latest (linked below).

Sullivan's all upset because he thinks Krugman compared Bush to an "anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, racist thug." On the other hand Kaus is all upset that because Krugman failed to sympathize with Le Pen voters, as well as the fact that he failed to fully state his case about Ashcroft.

The point Krugman is obviously making, as Sullivan well knows, is that those people who represent Krugman's "angry people" are running the country, not that those representatives are identical to Le Pen. DeLay and Ashcroft are heroes to our angry people . Our angry people don't necessarily want the same things as their angry people. But, hey, it's Planet Andy, where everything goes.

As for Kaus, well, I suppose you can interpret Krugman's statement:

In both cases, what really seems to bother them is the loss of certainty; they want to return to a simpler time, one without that disturbing modern mix of people and ideas. "

in a variety of ways. But, actually I think it is a fair and concise characterization, if not elaborate discussion of, the issues Kaus, himself surrounded by an increasingly disturbing modern mix of people and ideas in Santa Monica, raises in sympathetic solidarity with his National Front comrades.** The word "disturbing" doesn't pass judgment on whether those concerns are legitimate or not. I'm sure Krugman has less sympathy to those concerns than does Kaus, but he didn't necessarily dismiss them entirely.

As for his characterization of Krugman's use of the word "Ashcroft" as a bogeyman, well he's correct but that was the point. DeLay is not as nationally known, plus it was a recent and relevant anecdote, so he required some explanation. Ashcroft's record is understood by your general Times-reading audience. Krugman needed to include more than one example of the loony authoritarian right to illustrate his point. One may disagree with Krugman's assessment of Ashcroft, but it didn't require explanation, not in an 800 word column anyway.

Multiple people, in punditville and blogistan both, have compared the French and American outcomes in different ways. Kaus may disagree with Krugman's assessment, but I'm puzzled by the reaction it inspired.



*Ever since Andy took a swipe at "jiggly-thighed lesbians", I have no qualms about mocking his various physical idiosyncrasies.

**Note, I am not really accusing Kaus of being in solidarity with ""anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, racist thug[s]". I was just practicing my new rhetorical trick that Andy taught me [see above]. On the other hand, given Kaus' stand on immigration and his occasional cryptic references to a budding Mexican Separatist movement that is behind every corner in California...

Check out this guy. He thinks I'm a "baddie". I think he's an illiterate fool. I guess both can be true.

Looks like Ted Olson is back in the groove.

Is he working on wife number 5 or 6? So hard to keep track of the family values crowd...


Watch out Larry King, he's gaining on you..

Speaking of Al Gore's Internet:

Many existing high-speed networks can send 1.5 million bits of data a second, equivalent to one good-sized novel every five seconds. The new network could carry 3 billion bits each second - about 400 copies of that hefty novel.

Legislation introduced in October by Sen. Albert Gore (D., Tenn.) included initial financing for development and construction of a national research network.

Backers say federal financing for the project is necessary to develop the technology and convince industry that vastly speedier computer networks are commercially viable.

Chicago Tribune January 2, 1989



Senator Albert Gore Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, is one who has listened to these arguments. He has introduced a bill in Congress to provide $1.75 billion over three years to finance a data network that would link the nation's universities and supercomputer centers. The bill is believed to stand a strong chance of passage this year.

New York Times, September 2, 1990.

Makes we want to give that liberal media a good cockpunching.

Tina at Datalounge has this suggestion:

I think P-FLAG should give the Cheneys an award for
being such supportive parents of their lesbian child and
make Lynne give the acceptance speech. I dare them to do
it! I would love to see the hemming and hawing Lynne
would have to go through.


What a brilliant idea. Or maybe Big-Time Dick could explain his 5 years in the wilderness when he wouldn't even talk to his daughter.


thanks to v.

Asparagirl makes a good point about Germany's suggestion that Jews don't wear anything that brings attention to the fact that they are Jewish.

Such a request isn't too much different to the prevailing belief that women shouldn't be out alone at night, and definitely shouldn't be out alone at night in the " wrong kind of clothing " . These suggestions are an admission by law enforcement that they are unable to protect their citizens from harm all of the time. Of course this is true, but once such 'practical advice' gets out in to the ether, it almost becomes a moral imperative - any victim who failed to follow such dictates is somehow at fault.

Mommy Karen resigning?

something is afoot.

Poor Dana Milbank. No inside access for him. But, he did leave us with this gem by the Dauphin:



"Thank you for a warm welcome on a snowy day," said the casually attired president when the event began, half an hour behind schedule. Claiming inspiration from
the conservationist president, Theodore Roosevelt, Bush spoke of his family's pride at owning a ranch. "For us, every day's Earth Day," he said. "If you own your own
land, every day is Earth Day."

This new Paul Krugman article might just drive his arch-nemesis, that crazy bastard Andy Sullivan, right over the edge. Bad timing too, as it could disrupt his breakout performance in Much Ado About Nothing. [I was as shocked as everyone else,given the title of the show, to discover this wasn't a one-man show of Crazy Andy reading his monoblogues, but Shakespeare. In leather pants.]


In the United States, by contrast, the hard right has essentially been
co-opted by the Republican Party — or maybe it's the other way
around. In this country people with views that are, in their way, as
extreme as Mr. Le Pen's are in a position to put those views into
practice.

Consider, for example, the case of Representative Tom DeLay. Last
week Mr. DeLay told a group that he was on a mission from God to
promote a "biblical worldview," and that he had pursued the
impeachment of Bill Clinton in part because Mr. Clinton held "the
wrong worldview." Well, there are strange politicians everywhere. But
Mr. DeLay is the House majority whip — and, in the view of most
observers, the real power behind Speaker Dennis Hastert.

And then there's John Ashcroft.

What France's election revealed is that we and the French have more
in common than either country would like to admit. There as here,
there turns out to be a lot of irrational anger lurking just below the
surface of politics as usual. The difference is that here the angry
people are already running the country.

Monkey mail, round two.

A bit more polite this time, but other than a bit of name dropping zero substance.


Dear Mr. Atrios:

Is that your name?

Anyway, you are dumber than rock salt but nonetheless I for one welcome
you to Blogistan where far-left opinion is rare indeed. Kuttner's
American Prospect is unreadable and The Nation has descended into deep
anti-Semitism. But Atriosblog so far is quite amusing. And you are
deeply right about Blake.

Toobin is a liberal, by the way. I knew him when he clerked for Judge
Lumbard a thousand years ago and I'm sorry to say his judgment hasn't
improved since he was a lawyer-egg.


My somewhat hyperbolic response (what the hell):




Toobin is liberal, he's just scared to play one on TV.

As for me being far-left? Only in Blogistan am I far-left, populated as it is with libertarian whiners writing their endless screeds about the evils of taxation and their Randroid tributes to personal freedom, ironically all on Al Gore's internet.

I'm a pissed off moderate Democrat who is tired of watching the feudalists and theocrats fight each other for control of the country. But, since the right wing loons have hijacked the media, and all debate is the center vs. the right, it's time to start screaming a little more loudly.

I appreciate the polite insult - I guess Lucianne jr. hasn't updated his "liberal insult of the day" email, and you couldn't come up with another one.



If I'd thought I bit more, I would have replaced the third paragraph with:

I'm a pissed off moderate Democrat who is tired of watching the feudalists and theocrats fight each other for control of the country. But, since the right wing loons have hijacked the media, and all debate is the center vs. the right, and the true "far-left" is utterly ineffective at spreading their message, it's time to for the center to start screaming a little more loudly.

And, I'd also add that I agree - The Nation is a combination of loony left anti-Semitism, fascist pompous drunk bully Chris Hitchens, and all sorts of limo liberalism at its worst. Oh, it does have Eric Alterman, who is the closest thing to a red meat liberal out there. I thought TAP would improve under Harold Meyerson, but whether he's been emasculated by Bob Kuttner, I was simply wrong, or he has yet to find his groove I don't know. Still some hope it'll get better.

I like Katha Pollitt too, but she descends into irrelevancy too often.

Please inform the networks that we don't care about Blake. Since there is nothing to cover, they still spend most of the time talking about how they might cover it.

Good news - CNN hired Toobin to be their legal analyst. He's sane, though a bit scared of being branded a liberal.

That darn liberal NPR again:

Transcript from today's Talk of the Nation:



SIMON: I have a question for YOU...

NEAL CONAN: Sure!

SIMON: ...Is that alright?

NEAL CONAN: You can try it.

SIMON: I hope you answer adverse questions, too... Do you ever try to find out what your AUDIENCE wants to listen to?

NEAL CONAN: Yes we do!

SIMON: You do?

NEAL CONAN: Mm-hmm.

SIMON: Today happens to be Earth Day. I would think that you'have THAT as a subject, but you don't. And I noticed last week that when Venezuela
had been undercut by our government, you had no program. You had programs about report cards. And you had programs about the expensive items
the Baby Boomers buy. And that has been a constant dumbing down on your part.

Certainly I remember Ray Suarez and Juan Williams -- if a news story broke, they would junk their program and have that story on that day. You
don't do that sort of thing. And I would say it's symptomatic of NPR. You're doing that, you're striving for a certain type audience, you're striving for a
niche that you're aware of, and you have an absolute disregard, as far as your listening audience is concerned.

NEAL CONAN: I... I... I... I... I would beg to disagree, and would suggest to you, sir, that we do have a letters segment every week where it is
APPROPRIATE for people who have complaints about the program to send them in to us, and we'll, uh, air them then, as opposed to trying to take up
time on a program about a separate subject on which you told the people who answered your phone call you wanted to address--

SIMON: YES, because I realize that you screen out questions.

NEAL CONAN: Yes, we do. And, and--

SIMON: You won't ALLOW your listeners to get through. You control it. Fine and well. Your screener would not have allowed me to ask that question.
And I think there are a great many people--

NEAL CONAN: SHE MIGHT HAVE SUGGESTED--

SIMON: --listening now who would have liked to have asked the same question.

NEAL CONAN: Well, she might have suggested that you send us an email letter, and I would suggest the same thing. In any case, we DO have people
on the line who DO want to talk about this subject, and I'm going to ask you to please clear out now and make room for them.

SIMON: I'll clear out.

I'm still trying to figure out which side each of the bloggers is on, in rough left/right terms. But, I'm heartened to see that quite a few who appear to be Righties are a bit bothered by this Venezuelan fiasco.

Now maybe a few will recognize why us America-haters on the Left were a bit unhappy when people like Abrams, Pointdexter, Negroponte, and Reich were placed into this administration. It is bad enough that these treasonous scums have been legitimized by the Bush baby, it is even worse that they are up to their old tricks again...

Haven't we been here before?

I find it rather amusing that Crazy Old Andy Sullivan is currently overcome with glee due to the appointment of Mary Cheney to the board of the Republican Unity Coalition. As Cheney says (quoted by Andy):

RUC is an organization that reflects my fundamental beliefs and principles. Working together we can expand the Republican
Party's outreach to non-traditional Republicans; we can make sexual orientation a non-issue for the Republican Party; and we
can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans.

That's twofer! Cheney a) admits sexual orientation is an issue for the Republican Party and b) gay and lesbian Americans have not achieved equality.

To those of us on Planet Earth, this isn't exactly news. But, for those on Planet Andy, point a) in particular should provoke howls of outrage.

Matt Welch sticks it to Nader in an article for Reason Magazine.




Eighteen hours earlier, I had watched the Nader 2000 crew engage in a far more flagrant manipulation of the truth,
more egregious than anything else I witnessed during my two months covering the campaign for the lefty news site
WorkingForChange.com. Even before the first preliminary exit poll data crossed the wires, young staffers, on the
orders of campaign headquarters, were frantically devising multiple formulas to "prove" that Nader didn’t cost Gore
the election, no matter what the results might say later. "That’s shocking," I told one of the harried idealists charged
with carrying out the deception. The faces around the computer, for what it’s worth, did not register any surprise.

We’ve come to expect this kind of professional dishonesty from the two major political parties, which is one of the
reasons many of us find them repellent. But coming from a "purity" candidate who wants to lecture us on "how to tell
the truth," it suggests a certain self-delusion. It’s one thing to display the schizophrenia inherent in trying to cobble
together a coalition of disaffected lifelong Democrats and party-hating anti-globalization activists. It’s quite another to
"speak truth to power" by fudging it.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote this letter to the New York Times on March 27, 1991.


To the Editor:
A woman I had dinner with the other night said to me that the atmosphere in this country since the Persian Gulf war is like that at a party in a beautiful home, with everybody being polite and bubbly. And there is this stink coming from somewhere, getting worse all the time, and nobody wants to be the first
to mention it.

KURT VONNEGUT

You know, it is quite possible that I am dumber than rock salt. But, the way I see it - so are most of the people who are paid pundits and pundettes. So, I don't see why that should stop me from adding my two cents to this ridiculous farce that is now our public discourse. As Mark Crispin Miller puts it:



..put on your goggles and your rubber boots, and venture forth into the endless shitstorm that is now our civic culture, and in that deluge try to make a reasonable argument.


Besides, anyone who has to get help from Lucianne Jr. to craft one simple unsophisticated insult shouldn't be passing judgment on the intelligence of anyone.

Hey, my first monkey mail!


Well, at the suggestion of Tim Blair I have taken a look at your new site and my personal view is : As Jonah Goldberg might put it, "You are dumber than rock salt!" Regards.

Oh, just in case readers are under the impression that I think my little titles like "Glasnost Watch" are witty, don't worry - I don't. They're just my homage to the increasingly insane Andy Sullivan.

Glasnost Watch


Another scorcher.


Oh, barf. The truth is that George Bush is a chucklehead. Was then; is now. If I visited Fort Knox and a huge gold ingot fell on my
head, it would not make me a mining engineer. Son Of Bush had the extreme good fortune to have wandered onstage for the most
convenient war in history, one in which his officials, if we let them, can justify for years any atrocity by claiming there are shadowy
“terrorists” under the bed.

Tim Blair referred to me a being from the left. Fair enough. But, I suppose I should write the Atrios Manifesto and clearly explain my politics. That would actually take work. It is so much easier to just link to things and make snarky comments.

Do either of my last couple of posts make sense? Never post before drinking coffee.

I would like to apologize to the French Green Party for my earlier joke. It wasn't meant to be a slam on them of course, but in any case, as this article makes clear they are a little bit more intelligent than their domestic counterparts.




"We're facing a choice that could be
considered impossible," Green Party candidate
Noel Mamere told supporters. "To block the
extreme right, we must resolve to vote Chirac
in the second round."

"We have a responsibility to society, I'm ready
to admit that clearly to you," Mamere said.

I agree with Matt Welch that Le Pen's success in France could actually be a good thing. In my earlier post I said that we can usually ignore our country's Inner Freeper. Ignore was a poor word choice. I should have said something more along the lines of "avoid confronting." But, being forced to confront your dark side is probably a good thing. France, much like the US, is very good at ignoring the ugly parts of their culture, so maybe a little reality check is appropriate.

Extra traffic thanks to a link by Tim Blair. Hadn't been to site before, but I suspect I've run across him before somewhere....

He has a bunch of slams against Earth Day. Jokes are fine of course, but what is it about Earth Day that gets conservatives' knickers in a twist? I mean, I know the sight of faux hippies frugging to Phish and playing hacky sack drives them insane, but why otherwise?

They may not believe that all those evil liberal regulations and taxes are a good way to protect that thing called the environment, but on the other hand they shouldn't be so against the the concept of protecting it. (Unless they're in the James Watt school of Environmentalism - Rapture is coming, so why worry?)

Even conservatives should appreciate that rivers aren't on fire too much in this country anymore, that the air in Los Angeles is much more breathable, that more and more bodies of water are suitable for swimming and fishing, etc... etc... The Clean Air Act has been a great success. One can debate the cost effectiveness of the various regulations, of course. But, obviously the EPA hasn't destroyed the economy.

Speaking of Instapundit, he asks imagine if Buchanan or Duke were polling so well. I argue that they would, easily (and sadly), if our election system resembled France's.

You know, I've been doing this less than a week and I assume obsessive posting is just part of blogger newbie enthusiasm.


BUT, anytime I think I waste too much time here communicating to my 3 fans, I check the obsessive non-stop rantings of InstaPundit and realize I'm at least 10 posts behind...

Fun Freeper Quotewatch

"If America adopted the French system to elect their president an equivalent outcome in the first round would be George W. Bush and Pat Buchanan. Al Gore and Ralph Nader wouldn't be on the second round ballot."

Uh-oh, looks like someone isn't happy with Landover Baptist. Although, after perusing their site, if I were Landover Baptist I'd redirect to them, surrender, and retire. They can't possibly come up with parody more extreme than the real thing.

More on France.

Like all countries, France has a racist xenophobic fascist theocratic seedy underbelly. With our two party system, we can usually ignore ours, until it starts blowing up buildings full of people. These people are never really given an opportunity to have their numbers quantified by their revealed preference - their secret ballot - at least at the national level.

France, with its many many party system, regularly gets to be shocked and horrified that 15% of their voters would vote for Le Pen and his party, but also can take comfort in the fact that is, after all, only 15%.

However, now that Le Pen will go up against Chirac with only two names on the ballot, France will discover how many of their people are willing to put their version of David Duke in office. Although it is hard to imagine that he would win, what will getting 35-40% of the vote mean for France?


Here at home, in a two man race between Al Gore and David Duke...what percentage of the vote would Duke get?

We can take comfort in the fact the he is unlikely to win the bonus round, but Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the French chapter of the Free Republic, is projected to come in second place in the first round of presidential elections.

From the article:

PARIS (AP) - In a huge upset, extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen qualified on Sunday to face President Jacques Chirac in the runoff for French president, according to media projections based on exit polls.

Le Pen, who virulently opposes immigration, was projected to place second by all three major French networks, beating Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who was in third place.

The projected result was seen as a political earthquake. For months, polls had consistently projected that Chirac, a conservative, and Jospin, a Socialist, would be the top two finishers in Sunday's first round of voting.

Le Pen is founder and head of the National Front party, which historically has blamed immigrants for high unemployment and urban violence. He is notorious for once describing the Holocaust as "a detail" of history. He has denied he is anti-Semitic.

Le Pen, 73, has played a central role as kingmaker in past presidential elections, with a typical score of 15 percent. He placed third in the last two races. This is his fourth presidential campaign.


Francois LeNader, when asked for a reaction, stated "C'est une victoire pour le Parti Vert français!"

The idea of sending Clinton to sort out the mess in the Middle East keeps being floated. As the Bush administration would rather eat babies than do that, I don't expect it to happen. But, I'm curious - who would they be less likely to send on a diplomatic mission - Clinton or Jesse Jackson? email me.

Another note on McKinney and the morality of this "war".

First of all, it is quickly becoming less and less clear who we are at war with.

Second, a war can be both "moral" and "corrupt" at the same time. As in, we're right to bomb Afghanistan, but we're wrong to pay inflated prices for those bombs to enrich our cronies. In addition, the broader war may be "moral", but the associated details may not be. As in, we we're right to get rid of the Taliban, but we should at least raise an eyebrow about the fact that the newly installed President and our chief envoy are both long time Unocal bigwigs, providing some red meat for them conspiracy theorists who think it was all about oil in the first place.

Third, a war can start out being moral, but then be hijacked for other purposes. Given that it is increasingly unclear what we are doing, where we are doing it, how, why, to and even by whom, this global fog of war provides great opportunities for the defense industries to loot the treasury. Close ties to the administration makes it that much easier to do. Using war efforts to further commercial interests, as we are currently doing in Colombia is nothing new..Wrapping it all in the flag and declaring it a just and moral cause doesn't mean that underneath there is some seriously nasty and corrupt business going on, using my tax dollars and potentially taking lives..


As for Charles Kuffner's assertion that if Gore were President, McKinney wouldn't have accused him of these things. He's probably wrong about that. The article he links to did not come out of the Cato Institute, but from The Nation. I wouldn't expect them to be silent if Gore were in office right now, and I bet that applies to McKinney as well. She made her original remarks on a Pacifica program, to an audience which would by large and singing precisely the same song if Democrats were in charge. This is the "Nader Left", not Democrats. McKinney is a Democrat, but her biggest fans outside of the African-American community are likely essentially Greens, who like nothing more than a good chance to take down the evil DLC.

Finally, Kuffner perceives her remarks to be a simply political ploy to get attention and score points. And, I don't. Her original remarks were made, as I said, on a Pacifica show - hardly a way to get national attention. What she said didn't make it into the Washington Post until a couple weeks later. My guess is that the reporter who wrote the story didn't get the information from her office, though I do not know that. To me it seems that it was given national play to discredit her, and to give a signal to others who would raise questions about what would happen to them if they did.

Into the Buzzsaw...

Glasnost Watch

This Article in the San Francisco Chronicle goes way too easy on the New York Times for its disgusting treatment of the failed coup in Venezuela. Nonetheless, it is nice to see any media criticism. And no, Howie doesn't count.

But, the real scorcher of the day comes from the LA Times. Of course, in these times writing a scorcher is simply a matter a of pointing out the obvious. In this case:

George W.
Bush is a geopolitical
incompetent. He has
allowed a clique of hawks
to induce him to take a
position on invading Iraq
from which he cannot
extract himself, one which
will have nothing but
negative consequences for
the United States--and the rest of the world.
He will find himself badly hurt politically,
perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish
the already declining power of the United
States in the world.

Twice a week I play a little game, and try to predict whether MoDo uses her powers for good or for evil in her next column. I lump irrelevancy, which she frequently embraces, in with evil. I forgot to make a prediction yesterday, but in any case today she is aligned with the forces of good:

"And Ozone Man is back, panting for another
deadlocked election, fantasizing about those
hanging chads, droning about wetlands, carping
about polluters. Earth-in-the-balance to Al: You
lost. Scalia said so.

MWO provides their response to the ridiculous article by the Washington Post Ombudsman in response to criticisms of Ceci Connolly, Steno Sue Schmidt, and Marie Arana.


MWO explains it better than I could.

Avedon Carol states that David Corn's equation of Senator Inhofe's remarks with Congresswomen McKinney's is incorrect, with in her mind the former being "fruitbat territory" and the latter not. She may have just been trying to slam Inhofe, but I worry she inadvertently undercuts Corn's central point. I don't think Corn was trying to compare the relative Truth of the comments, but rather highlight the selective outrage of her critics.

Charles Kuffner claims that McKinney's comments were simply "read meat" for her fans. If only it were so. To me, it is more a dainty sliver of sashimi. Tasty, but not exactly coronary-inducing. Compared with the littany of lies that is Republican Red Meat, I'm quite happy for a bit of fiery rhetoric by the Dems. And, since nothing McKinney said was factually incorrect....where's the problem?

As Kuffner seems to ignore, both of her basic points are true. He seems to think that it is standard practice for Friends of the Administration to be war profiteers. Or, at least, he implies that the serendipity of the administration's close ties to the defense industry is something we just have to accept. The question of whether our military actions are morally justified or not should be separate from the administration's connection to military contractors. But, that doesn't mean that it is. It doesn't mean that the tremendous [proposed] increase in the defense budget is. It doesn't mean that the new Secretaries of the various armed forces are not just funnelling funds back to their previous employers.

The point is that currently there is an atmosphere which discourages even asking such questions. I want to know where this $50+ billion is going, to whom, why, and is the money being spent wisely? The demonization of anyone who dares to raise these questions, simply because they dare to suggest the obvious - maybe government contracts go to [horrors!] well-connected buddies, and maybe those expenditures are padded, is ridiculous. The connection between Cheney, Halliburton, and Brown&Root is obvious. The connection between Poppy Bush and the Carlyle Group is well established. The connections between Secretary White, who did give some military business to Enron, and Enron, are well established. Frankly, anyone who raises these questions deserves a medal. God knows Bob Woodward isn't doing it.



And, I'd also like to suggest that had Fritz Hollings made the same comments he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much press.

Eschaton Prediction

Now I'm annoyed. People will not stop talking about McCain running as a Democrat in '04. So, let me give my prediction. If McCain runs for president in '04, he runs not as an Independent, not as Democrat, but as.... (no Marshall, not as Bull Moose party candidate)... as... as... as.. as..


a....

REPUBLICAN!

well, duhh.


Richard Reeves makes clear why.

Hey Ashcroft, did you catch Eric Rudolph yet?

The Anthrax mailer?

Osama Bin Laden?

Anybody?

Didn't think so.

Josh Marshall reminds us that the State Department has asked all non-essential personal to leave Venezuela, and is paying their way to do so.

So, Al, why don't you tell us what you really think?

Under the presidency of George W. Bush, the environmental and energy policies of our government are completely dominated by a group of current and former oil and chemical company executives who are trying to dismantle America's ability to force them to reduce the extremely dangerous levels of pollution in the earth's atmosphere.

The first step was to withdraw from the agreement reached in Kyoto to begin limiting worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases. Then the administration cancelled an agreement requiring automobile companies to make the leap to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Other acts of sabotage are taking place behind the scenes. Just as Enron executives were allowed to interview candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — and to veto those they didn't think would approve of Enron's agenda — ExxonMobil has been allowed to veto the United States government's selection of who will head the prestigious scientific panel that monitors global warming. Dr. Robert Watson, the highly respected leader of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, was blackballed in a memo to the White House from the nation's largest oil company. The memo had its effect last Friday, when Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the "let's drag our feet" candidate, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri of New Delhi, who is known for his virulent anti-American statements.

On Salon's Table Talk, M.C. discussed her recent meeting with Butch Hollowell, a member of Gore's recount team, at a Democratic fundraiser.. Some tidbits:

-It was obvious to him that many ballots were deliberately spoiled. Easy to claim, impossible to prove, of course.

-A Democratic observer in Santa Rosa county was arrested. Why? For objecting to the county's secret recount.

Good golly Miss Molly!




Posted on Sat, Apr. 20, 2002



That ethical vision chart looks pretty blurry

AUSTIN - When in the course of the usual reasoned, civil debate on public affairs - conducted always with courtesy and good cheer - one finds one's self snarling,
"Oh, shut up!" one has, I fear, been reading too much George Will.

Being instructed what to think by the peerlessly pompous Mr. Will, perched upon his superiority and apparently in a permanent state of dudgeon over everybody
else's stupidity, is reminiscent of being bullied by a snotty teacher. One is tempted to respond with the classic, frozen-faced Texas inquiry, "No bull?"

Will is often worth reading, if only so you can figure out why you disagree with him. Lately he has been leading an entire phalanx of right-wing commentators in full cry
over President Bush's loss of "moral clarity" in the Middle East. The sheer implausibility of finding moral clarity in the Middle East does not deter them. Better minds
than Bush's are defeated by that challenge, but the moral-certainty crowd admits no shades of gray.

Since Bush himself is fond of moral certainty - it's good-doers vs. evildoers in BushWorld - he must be uncomfortable with what Will magisterially dismisses in a
recent Newsweek essay as the "intellectual confusion and moral miasma ... that now permeate U.S. policy and media coverage concerning the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict."

Backstage with Bush Filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi


"I was indoctrinated in the Democratic Party," Pelosi says. "I was raised in San Francisco in the 1970s. My mother was chair of the California Democratic party when I was growing up and our house was the Northern California Democratic party headquarters."

Even so, Pelosi admits, when she was on the road with Bush, "I wanted him to win, in this sick way. I didn't vote for him, but secretly I wanted him to win because it would've been good for my career. If he was elected president I would be a member of the White House press corps. That was the unspoken among all the reporters: 'If he wins, it's good for us.' "

"We don't care what you say, intifada all the way." - chanted today at at the Rally Against War and Racism .

And they said that after 9/11 irony would be dead.

Hey, that must be a record. It took 50 minutes for the first Mumia reference.

There are various gatherings around the country celebrating the birthday of one Adolf Elizabeth Hitler. The D.C. celebration is currently being carried live on C-Span.


He's the German Ethel Merman don't you know? .

David Corn points out that when Cynthia McKinney blames Bush and the Carlyle Group for 9/11 (which she didn't even do) a firestorm erupts. However, when Senator Inhofe blames Bush and God for 9/11, there isn't even a peep. Thanks to The Hamster for the link.

What is the Bull Moose smoking?

Though he doesn't ever quite come out and say it, I suspect Marshall's a bit concerned with the fact that his party is run by its theocratic fringe.

I can respect that, but anyone who uses the term Bush Doctrine without collapsing into a serious case of the giggles is not someone to be taken seriously.

Glasnost Watch

Why does Bill Moyers hate Amurka so much?

Actually, the link doesn't seem to address the issue I was interested in. But, on tonight's episode of NOW Bill Moyers dares to discuss the failed coup in Venezuela and our involvement in it.

Haha, just when I'm grooving on Clinton's speech my pal S.D. points out that in it, Clinton says:

Thank you, Secretary Reich, for your enthusiasm, for being enthusiastic about the right things. In your heart alone you have enough domestic content to bethe Secretary of Labor. (Applause.)

S.D. weighs in with:

If our prez knew then what he knows now about the infidel Reich, he could have acknowledged him by saying, "Secretary Judas Reich".


Okay, so it wasn't a perfect speech...

100 visitors already? The counter blocks my IP, so that's real.

You like me, you really like me !

As bartcop points out, today is the High Holiday for the loony right, and more importantly the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

To remember that day, I'd like to post an excerpt of a speech President Clinton gave soon afterwards. I had a very difficult time locating it (thanks for the assist, longstocking). The all powerful google was not helpful. Any attempt to find it led me to page after page after page from the loony right, who in their profound and disgusting ignorance, managed to interpret this speech as a threat to their right to preach hate. It was nothing of the kind. It was a call to arms to the rest of us to speak up. To oppose their message. Well, I'll just let the Big Dog speak for himself, and let you be the judge. It was probably his finest speech.



Excerpt from Clinton's Speech:


In this country we cherish and guard the right of free speech. We know we love it when we put up with people saying things we absolutely deplore. And we must always be willing to defend their right to say things we deplore to the ultimate degree. But we hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see -- I'm sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.

Well, people like that who want to share our freedoms must know that their bitter words can have consequences, and that freedom has endured in this country for more than two centuries because it was coupled with an enormous sense of responsibility on the part of the American people.

If we are to have freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, and, yes, the freedom to bear arms, we must have responsibility as well. And to those of us who do not agree with the purveyors of hatred and division, with the promoters of paranoia, I remind you that we have freedom of speech, too. And we have responsibilities, too. And some of us have not discharged our responsibilities. It is time we all stood up and spoke against that kind of reckless speech and behavior. (Applause.)

If they insist on being irresponsible with our common liberties, then we must be all the more responsible with our liberties. When they talk of hatred, we must stand against them. When they talk of violence, we must stand against them. When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it. The exercise of their freedom of speech makes our silence all the more unforgivable. So exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake. I never want to look into the faces of another set of family members like I saw yesterday -- and you can help to stop it. (Applause.)




over to you, Pigboy.

Rate the pundits!! Taking its lead from HotOrNot and Richard Posner's silly-sounding book we now have Am I a Public Intellectual or Not?!

Are there any Republicans who aren't under investigation?




NEWARK, April 18 —
Agents from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and
the Internal Revenue Service
today raided the office of
James W. Treffinger, the
Essex County executive and
the current front-runner for
the Republican nomination
for United States Senate this
year.

Sandra Carroll, a special agent in the Newark
office of the F.B.I., confirmed the search of the
offices of Mr. Treffinger, the county's highest
elected official, and Ronald H. Manzella, the
appointed county administrator who handles
day-to-day business. Their offices are in the
Essex County Hall of Records here. Searches
were also conducted on a number of other
unspecified locations, she said. One person
familiar with the search warrants the agents were
carrying said that the agents had also searched
Mr. Treffinger's Verona home.

Anyone remember the term "golden straitjacket"? I'm not sure who coined it, but it gets thrown around by globalization fetishists like Tom Friedman.

The basic idea is that international organizations such as the WTO, IMF, etc... establish a framework of rules and punishments that are designed to punish countries that do counterproductive things such as have trade wars, subsidize preferred failing industries, run excessive budget deficits, pass pesky environmental legislation, etc... etc... To be in the club, you have to behave, and if you misbehave you get punished or booted out. Being booted out will deny you access to world capital markets, preferential trade agreements, etc.

I'm all for free trade. I'd be quite happy to abolish all tariffs and to work to reduce discriminatory trade restrictions. However, there is an important thing to keep in mind...


Despite the constant praise heaped on the "free market" and on "competition" by the Masters of the Business Universe, any CEO worth a bucket of spit despises these things. Competition is bad for profits, not good. Businesses look out for their own interests, not that of consumers, and anything they lobby for should be met with much suspicion, particularly when it is justified by pithy phrases like 'open markets', 'smooth capital flows', 'foreign direct investment', 'adam smith, 'golden hand' and the like. So, if American businesses are pro-WTO, one should be concerned that as times goes on, they will do their best to perform a bit of reverse alchemy on that golden straitjacket, if they haven't already succeeded.

Charles Kuffner takes Avedon Carol to task for her defense of Congresswoman McKinney. He has three main points. One is that her comments were essentially out of line. The WaPo article about her comments does its best to make it seem that her comments were unreasonable. What the article does, and what most people have done, is conflate two entirely separate points she makes, which she herself likely didn't mean to do. She says two basic things: a) The administration likely knew something beforehand. and b) There are people who are close to the administration that stand to profit from the war on Terra. It is only if you link these two things that her comments were potentially over the line. At least, over the line if she has no further evidence. In doing this, it makes it sound as if McKinney was saying the administration caused or let 9/11 happen in order to reap great profit. Though her radio remarks could be interpreted this way by a reasonable person, I admit, she didn't actually say it. And, her written statement makes quite clear what she meant. Points a) and b) above are well-established. Kuffner's second point is that congressional investigations are generally just a big waste of time, and this is best left to journalists. While the public face of congressional investigations, the hearings, are undermined by too much grandstanding (often by those trying to derail them), the behind-the-scenes part of the investigations can be very valuable. Without subpoena power, and given the Justice Department's current stance on FOIA requests , there is little journalists can do absent the resurrection of Deep Throat. His third point, the Al Gore Has Oil Interests Too comment is really silly. First, the "everybody does it" defense is never worth much. Second, this isn't just about oil, but defense. And, third, many members of Bush's administration were around for the Last Great Looting - those wonderful 80s scandals that were of such mindbogglingly huge proportion that the media decided it was best if we just forgot them all. People who dwell on such things are dealt with by asking the simple question, "Why DO you hate America so much?".

'I have faith in Jeb Bush' - Rosie O'Donnell.

pass the vodka.

Someone shut Rosie O'Donnell up. Now. Please. I'm referring to her apperance with Dianne "Deep Throat" Sawyer, but this article by Signorile explains the general issue fairly well.

California Politics Watch

Bill Simon doesn't know if he paid California taxes.

Sacramento -- Bill Simon, GOP multimillionaire candidate for governor, said
yesterday he wasn't sure he had paid any California income taxes last year --
and suggested that a request by Gov. Gray Davis that he release his tax forms
smacked of Karl Marx and "Big Brother."

Simon, responding to a call from Davis to prove he had paid his "fair share" of
taxes, insisted he would not make the information public. "I mean, that sounds
like somebody coming out of Moscow, you know? 'Their fair share,' " he told KSFO
560 radio host Brian Wilson on Tuesday. "You know, Karl Marx talked like that .
. . and there's going to be Big Brother that's going to decide what your 'fair
share' is," Simon said. "That is not a concept that is contained in the Internal
Revenue Code.

When did Paul Krugman get so cool? Though he always wrote well, he also was a self-promoting asshole. Maybe it is the male menopause.

This is so embarassing. There is absolutely nothing to report on the Blake story, but that's okay. It took less than half an hour to move onto the meta-story, which is how the media will cover the story. Just be honest - turn to the camera and say, "We're so sorry for wasting your time. There is nothing to report. This story is not important. No one is really interested in it, least of all us, and in any event it is 7:33 pm on Thursday and there is asbolutely no news here. We will now stop trying to fill airtime even though we have nothing to talk about and return to something important. Or, at least to something about which we have anything to report."


Haha! What a fantasy.

It is really sad watching Aaron Brown desperately try to convice us, or himself, that the Blake story is very important indeed.

Blake Blake BlakeBlake!!!

and we all thought it would be

SkakelSkakelSkakelSkakel!!!

that would provide the permanent distraction from the
maladministration.

 

 

I've finally arrived! I'm now on the mailing list of the Cato Institute! They did send me a handydandy pocket book of the constitution, but I will not be sending them the $5000 they requested.

Excellent article in the Boston Phoenix by Michael Bronski about the Right's latest target, Judith Levine. I suppose this is as good a time as any to ask - are there any Democratic child molesters?

George Steffie's Dream Comes True!!


My inside sources* tell me that George was never really interested in politics - he always wanted to be a media guy.

*I only have two inside sources, and they don't talk to me very often, so don't expect too much.

Glasnost Watch


Bush promised the U.S. people a "war on terrorism" that "we will certainly win." So far, all he's produced is the downfall of the weak and impoverished Taliban. He
hasn't captured Bin Laden. Pakistan is shaky. Saudi Arabia is pulling away. If he doesn't invade Iraq, he will look foolish where it matters to him most--in the eyes of
American voters. And he is being told this, in no uncertain terms, by his advisors on internal U.S. politics. Bush's incredibly high approval ratings reflect his being a
"war president." The minute he becomes a peace-time president, he will be in grave trouble--all the more so because of failed wartime promises.

link to full article in LA Times.

Brad Delong makes the obvious point that it actually matters if our president is a drooling imbecile. I think the fact that someone even has to make this point speaks volumes.

Josh Marshall finally finds the media whore decoder ring. Of course, what he forgot to mention is that Fair and Balanced only applies to the so-called liberal media when talking about Republicans. See The Daily Howler for examples too numerous to comprehend.

The fine folks at MWO recently asked if anyone still subscribes to Newsweek. Their criticism was more directed, but I think the broader point is valid. Is there ever anything worth reading in that piece of crap?

I refuse even to link to them. But, both TNR and Washington Monthly decide to discuss the McCain for Democratic Candidate for President fiction!

The objections to this concept are so many and so obvious I won't even bother to list them. But, the fact that our crack pundits have nothing better to write about, even when there is so much more to write about , proves that not much has changed since 9/11.

Privatizing Schools. This will end really badly, the only question is how long will it take.

Mass transit ridership is up! Comparing trips and miles is bit apples and oranges. On the other hand, ridership increased quite a bit in cities which actually have an almost workable system. How many L.A. residents even know they have a subway? Up 15% there... You know, maybe it is just my fondness for alcohol, but I'm a *big* fan of public transportation.

Eric Boehlert of Salon tells the Democrats that it is far worse than they think regarding media coverage of Bush. Remember when we were informed by our crack punditocracy that Bush would govern from behind the scenes and not be in our face all of the time like that evil Xlint00n. Boy would that be such a relief! Someone forget to tell the networks...Same campaign speech, every day, live on CNN!