Present your nomination for best ensemble song from a musical in the last 10 years.
My nomination: La Resistance, from South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.
or, just have another open thread.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Boehlert
Link:
It was fitting that reporters were in danger of outnumbering pro-life supporters outside Terri Schiavo's hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla., on Thursday morning. When one man began to play the trumpet moments after Schiavo's death was announced at 9:50 a.m., a gaggle of cameramen quickly surrounded him, two or three deep.
Has there ever been a set of protesters so small, so out of proportion, so outnumbered by the press, for a story that had supposedly set off a "furious debate" nationwide? That's how Newsweek.com described the Schiavo story this week. Although it's not clear how a country can have a "furious debate" when two-thirds of its citizens agree on the issue or, in the case of some Schiavo poll questions (i.e., Were Congress and President Bush wrong to intervene?), four out of five Americans agree.
But the "furious debate" angle has been a crucial selling point in the Schiavo story in part because editors and producers could never justify the extraordinary amount of time and resources they set aside for the story if reporters made plain in covering it every day that the issue was being driven by a very small minority who were out of step with the mainstream.
Over
It's always nice to collect a scalp, but it's probably better to have an increasingly damaged DeLay in power than out. I think DeLay's pretty much carving his own epitaph here.
Jodie
Back when Ellen Degeneres's character on her sitcom came out, the character was regularly referred to as prime time's "first openly gay character." I thought I was the only one who remembered Jodie Dallas, Billy Crystal's character on Soap.
It's stunning how stagnant/backwards the Reagan years were, and how we were once again "shocked," years later, by a gay character on the tube.
When fans greet Billy Crystal at the Broadhurst's stage door, they're as likely to dish about his old sitcom as they are "700 Sundays."
"I get a lot of men who are now 40, but were 12 or 13 at the time and who found a positive role model in Jodie on 'Soap,'" Crystal said at the GLAAD Media Awards in the Marriott Marquis, where he was a top honoree.
Crystal rose to fame in the 1977-81 comedy playing Jodie Dallas, TV's first openly gay character.
At the time, gay groups accused him of promoting stereotypes, while religious zealots slammed ABC for airing the show at all. The hullabaloo died down after Crystal's character won the audience over.
When fans greet Billy Crystal at the Broadhurst's stage door, they're as likely to dish about his old sitcom as they are "700 Sundays."
It's stunning how stagnant/backwards the Reagan years were, and how we were once again "shocked," years later, by a gay character on the tube.
Don't Do it, Jon
The inevitable rumors (though, not necessarily true ones) swirl that ABC will try to steal the Daily Show from Comedy Central. While I'm sure that offer would come with significantly more moola than CC pays, it's impossible to believe that the Disney Network would give them the kind of freedom they currently enjoy...
Next?
Whenever one of these little sideshows happen, the players are desperate to stir up another one. Something to look forward to...
They Get Letters
Romenesko:
From BRIAN MORTON, Baltimore City Paper: I find it quite amusing that the National Press Club has now closed off its panel on "Who Is A Journalist" to "NPC members and credentialed media only" after originally opening it to the public. You see, when I wrote my political column at the Baltimore City Paper from 1994-96, I was credentialed to the House Periodical Press gallery. Since I resumed writing in in 2002, I haven't bothered to re-apply for those credentials, so I am now "uncredentialed" press. But to me, the real irony is, I'd wager that no fewer than three members of the panel -- Garrett Graff, Ana Marie Cox and of course, James Guckert, wouldn't be allowed to come in and see themselves pontificate from the dais, as they wouldn't otherwise meet the Press Club's own requirements.
And in response to Glenn Kenny's argument that "it's just one stupid
panel," Mr. Kenny, Matt Drudge addressed the NPC before, and has used
it as a resume item ever since -- I believe he still keeps a link to the text of his address on his website. So, unless you want to hear about "Jim Gannon, the courageous journalist who spoke before the prestigious National Press Club" every time he's paid to trot out before some conservative organization and blast the "mainstream media," you might want to invest in it a little more concern. Me, I'm waiting to see the NPC panel: "Plagiarism: Does It Hurt Your Career?" Aside from Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair, perhaps, since the NPC's Jonathan Salant doesn't consider Guckert a journalist, recent revelelations might suggest he would be a more appropriate person to join them.
Astonishing
I think we've now gained pretty key insight into the psychosis that has gripped the Washington Post editorial board. Apparently it is their belief that one should not criticize leaders for doing so could undermine them.
Wow.
Wow.
SpongeDob Stickypants
Today on CNN:
But the aspect of it that concerns us the most is that all the great moral decisions in this country, whether it's the sanctity of life or the definition of marriage, or what we can do with the Ten Commandments, all of them are made by the courts. Our founding fathers intended that this would be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But now the final arbiter of every significant moral issue comes down to unelected, unaccountable judges to the judiciary.
...
But neither of them check the courts. They're totally out of control. And there is, you know, almost a feeling of futility when it comes to the courts handing down decisions that contradict the will of the people.
You know, we saw it two weeks ago with regard to executing minors. Seventy percent of the people disagree with that. It doesn't matter what the people think and the -- neither the executive nor the legislature will step in.
Funnier Every Day
Why do these panel thingies always just get sillier and siller...
...and JimmyJeff GannonGuckert gets busted for more plagiarism...
...and JimmyJeff GannonGuckert gets busted for more plagiarism...
Saint Rudy
Holy crap. Can we please have Rudy just go away now:
The most vivid recent example occurred on Feb. 9 in Columbia, S.C. Mr. Giuliani had initially been booked by the South Carolina Hospital Association through the Washington Speakers Bureau to speak for his usual $100,000 fee. But then a massive tsunami devastated South Asia and “we just didn’t feel that a big old party was the right thing,” said Patti Smoake, the hospital association’s spokeswoman. Instead, the South Carolinians held a fund-raiser called “From South Carolina to South Asia.”
Mr. Giuliani agreed to speak at the new event. He even wrote a $20,000 check to the Red Cross, the event’s beneficiary, according to figures cited by a South Carolina hospital official and obtained by The Observer. He batted away the inevitable political speculation that accompanied his visit to the crucial Republican primary state, telling a local reporter he was visiting “because I enjoy coming to South Carolina and because this is a worthy cause.”
Mr. Giuliani didn’t mention it at the time, but he also walked away from the tsunami benefit with $80,000 at a time when celebrities from Bill Clinton and the first President Bush to George Clooney were donating time to the relief effort. There was nothing illegal, or even particularly unusual, about his taking a fee from a charity event. But taking the money was not the move of a man whose political future depends on the good will of the voters of South Carolina, the decisive state in the 2000 Republican primary widely viewed as the immovable object between a socially liberal Republican like Mr. Giuliani and the nomination.
Geeking Out on Econ
This exchange between Roubini and Altig is a good read for the econgeeks of the world. The basic debate is hard landing vs. soft landing given our wee twin deficit problem. I was struck by one of Altig's concluding comments near the end:
I actually highly doubt that this is true at all. Over the short and medium term at least, I doubt the borrowing desires of the federal government are affected at all by the price of borrowing. And, over the longer term, more such borrowing increases the need to borrow even further to cover debt servicing obligations. Plenty of countries have piled on ever increasing amounts of debt at very high interest rates.
The government is not a rational actor in any sense. And, as long as we have people in power who see no conflict between huge spending increases and massive tax cuts - and, in fact, advocate piling on trillions in new debt - there's no reason at all to think that an uptick in the cost of borrowing would even register.
-- How much "the US needs to finance itself" is not some fixed number. Markets reconcile the demand and supply for dollar-denominated assets. Thus far, Asian central banks, for example, have demanded, and we have supplied. We have, admittedly, supplied in abundance, but that is in part because the price has been low. As the price rises, we will do less.
I actually highly doubt that this is true at all. Over the short and medium term at least, I doubt the borrowing desires of the federal government are affected at all by the price of borrowing. And, over the longer term, more such borrowing increases the need to borrow even further to cover debt servicing obligations. Plenty of countries have piled on ever increasing amounts of debt at very high interest rates.
The government is not a rational actor in any sense. And, as long as we have people in power who see no conflict between huge spending increases and massive tax cuts - and, in fact, advocate piling on trillions in new debt - there's no reason at all to think that an uptick in the cost of borrowing would even register.
Wingnuttia Overload
James Dobson is on CNN bitching about the courts going against "the will of the people" (ignoring the fact that, in this situation, the courts are clearly with the people). And, after his basic culture of life whine, he brought up the example of how people are overwhelmingly in support of "executing minors" and those dastardly courts won't let it happen.
The Big Money
The ability of MoveonPAC to raise money through their email list is astounding:
I wonder how frequently they can pull that off. It's a bit too early for me to be thinking about any fundraising activities, but I think people should seriously consider the fact that if even a modest portion of the money which went into the Dean/Kerry campaigns last year is diverted to congressional campaigns...
Early Tuesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., sent an appeal over the Internet urging people to contribute to the re-election campaign of Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.
In less than 24 hours, more than 15,000 contributors gave $634,000 to Byrd’s campaign, according to the National Journal’s daily Internet publication “Hotline.” The average donation was about $42.25.
In Obama’s appeal, sent out by the MoveOn Political Action Committee, he wrote, “In 2006, Senator Byrd will be the target of Republicans because he stands up for what he believes. Will you join me in supporting Senator Byrd’s campaign for re-election, before a critical deadline this Thursday?”
I wonder how frequently they can pull that off. It's a bit too early for me to be thinking about any fundraising activities, but I think people should seriously consider the fact that if even a modest portion of the money which went into the Dean/Kerry campaigns last year is diverted to congressional campaigns...
On Rhetoric
LG&M writes:
The shift in rhetoric had a lot to do with the stagnation, decline, and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Back in the day, conservative rhetoric about the Soviet Union was focused primarily on its lack of individual freedom, and not on the inferiority of Soviety-style communism as an economic system. Enemy #1 can't be much of a problem if it's an economic basketcase. And, remember, in the 70s there were pretty big concerns about the state of American capitalism.
The success in selling the idea that the level of the top marginal tax rate, which impacts a small percentage of the population, has some giant impact on the aggregate economy is stunning.
I think this is something that progressives need to pay more attention to. Mark Smith, a UW political scientist, has spent a lot of time looking at back copies of the National Review to study conservative rhetoric on tax policy. In the wake of Goldwater, conservative arguments in favor of tax cuts tended to be libertarian ones, linking tax cuts with increased freedom. Particularly starting with Reagan, the libertarian arguments became much less prevalent, and were largely replaced by arguments linking tax cuts to economic growth. The latter strategy had significantly more public appeal. It's important, therefore, for progressives not to concede the premise that tax cuts produce economic growth; the evidence for this is, to put it mildly, weak.
The empirical case against the link between economic growth and tax cuts does not, of course, end the policy debate. The fact that the American economy prospered when the top marginal rates were essentially confiscatory does not, in itself, justify confiscatory tax rates (which I generally oppose as well.) But if conservatives are forced to defend tax cuts in libertarian terms, they will lose most of the time. The fact that the Bush tax cuts didn't come anywhere close to producing the job growth their advocates claim, for example, is something that progressives can't emphasize enough.
The shift in rhetoric had a lot to do with the stagnation, decline, and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Back in the day, conservative rhetoric about the Soviet Union was focused primarily on its lack of individual freedom, and not on the inferiority of Soviety-style communism as an economic system. Enemy #1 can't be much of a problem if it's an economic basketcase. And, remember, in the 70s there were pretty big concerns about the state of American capitalism.
The success in selling the idea that the level of the top marginal tax rate, which impacts a small percentage of the population, has some giant impact on the aggregate economy is stunning.
Hilarity
I think the SSA's chief actuary is pulling a fast one on the reporter here, claiming to be a good soldier when in fact he put the knife in:
Consider what he's saying here. Currently the price/earnings ratio in the S&P is about 20. So, in another words, if we're fortunate enough to experience a massive stock market crash sometime soon, then average annual rates of return after that might be as high as George Bush says they will be!
Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security program, defended the administration's assumptions.
"Keep in mind that we are trying to make projections over a very long time, 75 years," Mr. Goss said. "I would suggest that 5 percent [average annual rate of return in the market] at the moment makes perfect sense. But if you buy at another time, when the price-earnings ratio is 10, you would expect a higher return over time."
Consider what he's saying here. Currently the price/earnings ratio in the S&P is about 20. So, in another words, if we're fortunate enough to experience a massive stock market crash sometime soon, then average annual rates of return after that might be as high as George Bush says they will be!
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
On Fame
For some reason I like this little tale from Tom Tomorrow:
Last summer at the Democratic convention I shared a cab with Jason Bateman on the way to some party after we'd both done Air America bits. Neither of us had any idea who the other was, which led him to riff on the moment of recognition we would each eventually have when we realized, oh, it's that guy. Somehow group hugs were invoked, if I'm remembering correctly. I guess you had to be there.
Well, I have no idea if Jason Bateman has to this day ever seen a Tom Tomorrow cartoon, but Jason, if you're out there, I've had my moment of realization.
I'm always incredibly reluctant to add anything new to the short list of tv shows I watch on a regular basis, but at the suggestion of my very smart wife, I finally gave Arrested Development a try, and it really is one of the most brilliant shows on the air right now. If you're not watching it, you're missing a show of sublime absurdity.
Plagiarist
One of the Gannon issues which sort of got lost in the shuffle when all the hotmilitaryescortm4m stuff came out was the fact that, among his other issues, he was a serial plagiarizer. Media Matters caught him lifting from GOP docs verbatim, and my good friend Ron has him stealing stuff from the Associated Press.
Meanwhile this letter to Medianews is good:
I put the part in bold for all the people in the media who, for reasons which I still have not been able to fathom, seem to get really really confused about why this was ever an issue to begin with.
Meanwhile this letter to Medianews is good:
From WELDON BERGER: Subject -- Kristinn Taylor [letter below]. Neither Jeff Gannon nor James Guckert have a First Amendment right to appear at the National Press Club. He does have a First Amendment right to refer to himself as a blogger and journalist, but the press club's Jonathon Salant said in an e-mail to me this morning that the press club does not consider him to be either, and that his participation in the panel arises from his having been cleared into the briefings almost daily over a period of two years despite White House guidelines mandating a hard pass, with the attendant FBI background check, for anyone who plans to attend regularly (something that was made quite clear to me with respect to Eric Brewer, the contributor to my blog who has been cleared to attend the briefings on an occasional basis).
In addition to any other questions regarding Gannon/Guckert's role as a
journalist, blogger Ron Brynaert has unearthed a few examples of Gannon/Guckert having apparently plagiarized from at least one AP story. So long as he's on the panel, someone probably ought to pursue that issue as well.
Why the press club expects to learn anything Gannon/Guckert hasn't already said is something of a mystery. He says he doesn't know why he was accorded special treatment, and he says he is a journalist; there's no reason to think he'll elaborate on either issue or that he'll come up with anything that will clarify the "who is a journalist" question.
I put the part in bold for all the people in the media who, for reasons which I still have not been able to fathom, seem to get really really confused about why this was ever an issue to begin with.
What he Said
Yglesias spares me from having to address the Post's deeply misguided editorial on the Grokster case. It really is necessary to point out that a technology now taken for granted - the MP3 player - was fought by the industry. The RIAA sued Diamond Multimedia over their Rio player.
And, when Apple was running it's "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign, Michael Eisner testified to the Senate that the ad campaign was encouraging illegal piracy.
And, when Apple was running it's "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign, Michael Eisner testified to the Senate that the ad campaign was encouraging illegal piracy.
Legalese Perjurer
Apparently it's one of those days for me. It is indeed the year 2005, and not 2004, no matter what some of my misfiring neurons are telling me.
Insomnia is not quite correct in asserting that Sanchez committed perjury, but he did cleverly tell the technical truth while misleading the senior senator from Vo Dilun, Jack Reed.
Insomnia points out that Sanchez is guilty of a wee bit of perjury, lying to the senior Senator from Vo Dilun, Jack Reed:
At arecent May, 2004 Senate hearing, this exchange took place:
This may be true, but the key phrase is "at any time in the last year." In other words, what Sanchez really said was "I approved those measures, but, hey it was a long time ago man!"
And, in fact, he did approve those measures in a September 2003 memo, more than a year before his Senate testimony.
As the ACLU writes:
Insomnia points out that Sanchez is guilty of a wee bit of perjury, lying to the senior Senator from Vo Dilun, Jack Reed:
At a
U.S. SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI): General Sanchez, today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison. Is that correct?
SANCHEZ: Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year.
And, in fact, he did approve those measures in a September 2003 memo
As the ACLU writes:
NEW YORK -- A memo signed by Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez authorizing 29 interrogation techniques, including 12 which far exceeded limits established by the Army’s own Field Manual, was made public for the first time by the American Civil Liberties Union today.
"General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army’s own standards," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. "He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."
...
The Sanchez memo dated September 14, 2003, specifically allows for interrogation techniques involving the use of military dogs specifically to "Exploit(s) Arab fear of dogs…," isolation, and stress positions.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Heh-Indeedy
Billmon:
Now that I, too, am a professional whore, I can see that the sharp distinction I used to draw between the working press and the shoe scrapings of the PR industry was simply a vanity of vanities -- a product of my youthful arrogance and the gnawing fear that I, too, might someday end up like the withered fossils I used to see lining the press club bar rail every Friday night. (That much, at least, I got right.) And whatever real distinction there may have once been between journalism and flackery has long since been swept away by the howling, gibbering tsunami of the cable news channels, leaving only a few dazed refugees clinging to the treetops in the print press. And pretty soon they'll be gone, too.
My point, to the extent I have one, is that Gannon/Guckert is going to fit in very well on that NPC panel -- as long, that is, as he's there to represent the professional journalists, not the bloggers. When it comes to blogging, Jim/Jeff doesn't have much to offer other than his cloddish prose and half-congealed "thoughts," which consist almost entirely of recycled Fox News talking points -- recycled in the same sense that cow shit is recycled grass. To be sure, this does put Bulldog squarely in the top IQ quintile among conservative bloggers. But if the press club wanted an authentic representative of the rant and rave right, it should have invited Powerline or Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler or even the gang at Little Green Footballs, who I'm sure would have been happy to attend if they could have brought their flaming crosses along.
No, Guckert is on the panel for the same reason Wonkette is: anal sex. Jeff gets paid to give it and Anna Marie gets paid to talk about it, and the "bottoms" at the National Press Club get paid to . . . well, you know. How anal sex got to be THE ticket to blogging fame and fortune (instead of a giant bottle of Astroglide) I don't fully understand, but I wish somebody had told me when I started out, because I would have bought a copy of this book instead of wasting all my time on those dull reads about Iraq, terrorism, the global economy and so on. Or, more likely still, I would never have taken up blogging in the first place, since when it comes to anal sex, there's no way a rank amateur like myself can compete with the pros.
But Anna Marie, at least, can write -- a good three or four paragraphs worth when she really gets going. Guckert, on the other hand, needs to get it through his head that his most valuable job skills are on the other end of his torso. And if he's counting on getting by on his notoriety as the world's only conservative gay prostitute journalist with a blog, he'd better watch out -- that's a niche market that could easily be overrun by competitors. For all Jeff knows, Wonkette's owner may already be trolling the second and third-tier talk show hosts, looking for prospects. Some of the guys in the RNC press office might decide to get in on the action, too. After all, when it comes to blogging -- not to mention anal sex -- the barriers to entry are relatively low. There's always a prettier face . . . or whatever . . . willing to take on the established brand names.
Seriously, though, the fact that we're all talking about this ridiculous panel session only shows that Bill Bennett didn't know the half of it when he wrote The Death of Outrage. The idea that a guy who posted naked pictures of himself pissing on the Internet -- and became famous for it -- would be invited to get up in front of an audience at the National Press Club to discuss journalism and blogging with a woman who has made anal sex her signature riff . . . well, The Death of Shame, Intelligence, Good Taste and Sanity makes a better title.
The O.C.
I was struck by this sentence at Calculated Risk which I haven't verified but don't doubt:
The O.C. - home to B1 Bob Dornan, the Nixon Library, John Wayne Airport, Kevin Drum, and Fox Teen Dramas - isn't quite what people think it is. I began my blogging career during my mercifully brief tenure there. I lived in Laguna Beach for most of that time, an odd oasis in an odd place. But, despite its history and reputation, the O.C. is not the uniformly rich white county one might think. Large chunks of it are home to immigrant and minority communities (primarily Vietnamese and Hispanic). Quite clearly large chunks of the population are not in the "$550,000 house-buying crowd."
One reason for the high prices in California generally is the stickyness of the housing market. While the anti-tax measure Prop. 13 is widely talked about as a tax rebellion, its provisions put a serious damper on mobility, and seriously reduce the availability of older (in California, older=coastal, mostly) properties. Prop. 13 restricted the growth in property tax levies on existing homeowners, meaning that if you sell and move within California your property taxes are going to increase drastically.
Laguna Beach, aside from being somewhat out of step culturally and politically with the rest of Orange County, was representative of the consequences of Prop. 13. There were numerous families who were "income poor/property rich." That is, they were rich only in terms of assets, but their only asset was their home. It wasn't cheap to rent there, but relative to current buying prices (median single family home $1.7 million, median condo/townhome $788K) it was incredibly cheap . And, it's important to note, while there are some pretty elaborate homes, most of the housing stock is 50s era-ish and fairly modest.
Anyway, I'm meandering here and perhaps I don't actually have a point. To sum up:
O.C. - Not what you think!
Laguna Beach - property rich/income poor!
Housing bubble? shhhh!!
Prop. 13 - wack!
The median home price in OC is $555,000.
The O.C. - home to B1 Bob Dornan, the Nixon Library, John Wayne Airport, Kevin Drum, and Fox Teen Dramas - isn't quite what people think it is. I began my blogging career during my mercifully brief tenure there. I lived in Laguna Beach for most of that time, an odd oasis in an odd place. But, despite its history and reputation, the O.C. is not the uniformly rich white county one might think. Large chunks of it are home to immigrant and minority communities (primarily Vietnamese and Hispanic). Quite clearly large chunks of the population are not in the "$550,000 house-buying crowd."
One reason for the high prices in California generally is the stickyness of the housing market. While the anti-tax measure Prop. 13 is widely talked about as a tax rebellion, its provisions put a serious damper on mobility, and seriously reduce the availability of older (in California, older=coastal, mostly) properties. Prop. 13 restricted the growth in property tax levies on existing homeowners, meaning that if you sell and move within California your property taxes are going to increase drastically.
Laguna Beach, aside from being somewhat out of step culturally and politically with the rest of Orange County, was representative of the consequences of Prop. 13. There were numerous families who were "income poor/property rich." That is, they were rich only in terms of assets, but their only asset was their home. It wasn't cheap to rent there, but relative to current buying prices (median single family home $1.7 million, median condo/townhome $788K) it was incredibly cheap . And, it's important to note, while there are some pretty elaborate homes, most of the housing stock is 50s era-ish and fairly modest.
Anyway, I'm meandering here and perhaps I don't actually have a point. To sum up:
O.C. - Not what you think!
Laguna Beach - property rich/income poor!
Housing bubble? shhhh!!
Prop. 13 - wack!
Social Security and Divorce
big error, I blame the SSA - repeated language on their site about "benefits based on" without pointing out the "one half" part See in bold:
I'm not sure there's anything precisely wrong with Professor B's post here, but whether she meant to or not I think it implies some things about our wonderful Social Security program which aren't quite true.
If you were married for ten years or more, and you get a divorce, upon reaching retirement age you are entitled to the one half the level of retirement benefits that your former spouse is entitled to if your former spouse is alive and full benefits if he/she is dead as long as you didn't remarry before age 60. If you were married for ten years or more, and you get a divorce, and your former spouse subsequently dies, your dependent-aged children are entitled to significant benefits, as are you pre-retirement as long as you have dependent-aged children and haven't remarried.
Not disagreeing with the general thrust of the post -- that women who abandon careers to stay home with children do, for a variety of reasons, put themselves at serious financial risk. But, Social Security is fairly generous to spouses, though not as generous as I thought, even if they're divorced.
I'm not sure there's anything precisely wrong with Professor B's post here, but whether she meant to or not I think it implies some things about our wonderful Social Security program which aren't quite true.
Now, I've looked at the little forms the government sends out telling us what our social security expectations are. And mine are, basically, jack shit--because I spent most of my adulthood to date in school, earning at most about $10K/year. Mr. B., who supported me through all that education? He's gonna get plenty of money from social security (assuming it's still around, of course). This is one of the reasons why, when we started IRAs, we started mine first, and contributed more money to it. Then, of course, we cashed them in to buy the house, so I'm back with jack shit for retirement money. One of the reasons I'm working now, and he's not, is because I'm well aware of what that means.
And what about divorce? No one gets married wanting to divorce, and very few of us have kids thinking that we won't be together forever, so saying "we're never going to divorce" doesn't count. The fact is, about half of marriages split up. And if you are so unlucky that some unforseen circumstance down the road means that that's you, and you've been staying at home raising kids, the court is *not* going to consider that "his" income was half yours. The paychecks have his name on them, they're "his" money, and if you're lucky you'll get some kind of "child support," and that is it. And you and the kids will be fucked.
If you were married for ten years or more, and you get a divorce, upon reaching retirement age you are entitled to the one half the level of retirement benefits that your former spouse is entitled to if your former spouse is alive and full benefits if he/she is dead as long as you didn't remarry before age 60. If you were married for ten years or more, and you get a divorce, and your former spouse subsequently dies, your dependent-aged children are entitled to significant benefits, as are you pre-retirement as long as you have dependent-aged children and haven't remarried.
Not disagreeing with the general thrust of the post -- that women who abandon careers to stay home with children do, for a variety of reasons, put themselves at serious financial risk. But, Social Security is fairly generous to spouses, though not as generous as I thought, even if they're divorced.
Meow
Quite the cat fight between the media peeps today. And, it appears that Big Media Matt will now join the show, and share the stage with our favorite cock-headed man whore.
More fun at Romenesko's place...
More fun at Romenesko's place...
Bizness
I've removed the google ads and replaced them with Blogads' new "classified ads." They're image free and cheaper. Rates will vary to keep the number of ads at a minimum.
Click if you're interested in advertising...
Click if you're interested in advertising...
Moonie Tuesday
The owner of the flagship conservative daily newspaper says it's time to end American democracy.
Some day I'll understand how some idiot on the left that no one's ever heard of can be turned into a national symbol when he says something stupid, and the billionaire owner of the premier propaganda outlet of the right is completely ignored.
Some day I'll understand how some idiot on the left that no one's ever heard of can be turned into a national symbol when he says something stupid, and the billionaire owner of the premier propaganda outlet of the right is completely ignored.
World O'Crap
Link:
IMHO, it's insights like that which prove that JimJeff is indeed a legitimate journalist. See, while most people think that the First Amendment merely forbids the government from abridging protected free speech, Jeff knows that it actually forbids anybody from saying mean things about him in their blogs -- a thought worthy of the great newswoman Ann Coulter!
Max Speak
I really can't bring myself to get too upset about this stuff, but nonetheless the dynamics at play in the choice of public figure bloggers are all too obvious. As Max writes:
One doesn't have to dislike Wonkette and her site to recognize that she isn't really an appropriate representative of political bloggers or lefty political bloggers. Full disclosure -- I've been on a panel with Wonkette. I'll also be on one this weekend with Michael Wolff. Most importantly, I actually don't really like doing these things so this post should not be put in the green-eyed monster category.
There aren't any, so you're not going to see any, not that anybody in his or her right mind would want to. If there were, perhaps I would be invited to yet another panel on blogging that does not include any political bloggers, but that does include faux journalist and even faux-er blogger Jeff Gannon/Guckert.
I do not believe this is an oversight or dumb-assed misassessment of who is writing blogs. More likely, it is journalists who organize these things preferring to protect their shrinking franchise on acceptable opinion-mongering. They do this by organizing a geek show and calling it a panel on blogging. Serious bloggers need not apply.
One doesn't have to dislike Wonkette and her site to recognize that she isn't really an appropriate representative of political bloggers or lefty political bloggers. Full disclosure -- I've been on a panel with Wonkette. I'll also be on one this weekend with Michael Wolff. Most importantly, I actually don't really like doing these things so this post should not be put in the green-eyed monster category.
Bloggered
I swear blogger ate about 15 posts today, each more exciting than the last. And, most importantly, my magnum opus on biofuels has been lost for all eternity.
damn you blogger!
damn you blogger!
Monday, March 28, 2005
Sybil the Soothsayer
I really picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
In comments, Harold came upon some more Bill Tierney information.
Here's what he told Sean Hannity on 3/24/03, according to the Freepi:
Here's what he told Art Bell's replacement on Coast to Coast on 2/14/03:
And, just click this link to a google search which provides more than enough to drive you insane. Will add fun things as I find them.
Here he is talking to Pat Robertson...
...here he is talking about his experiences at Gitmo...
...here he is writing for the Weekly Standard...
...here he is on why he got discharged...
...he's a favorite of the lizardoids.
...here in the Moonie Times he's referred to as a "Muslim interpreter" (whatever the fuck that is) in a column about "Radical Islam in the military."
In comments, Harold came upon some more Bill Tierney information.
Here's what he told Sean Hannity on 3/24/03, according to the Freepi:
Former weapons inspector Bill Tierney... said on the Sean Hannity radio show that we will be shocked with what we are going to find in Iraq. He has no doubt we will find huge amounts of what Iraq swears it does not have.
In addition, Tierney said that he has told our government where Hussein has hidden an underground uranium plant. Tierney said "I can drive there with my eyes shut."
Here's what he told Art Bell's replacement on Coast to Coast on 2/14/03:
Tierney's methods of ascertaining this location were rather unconventional. "I would ask God and just get a sense if something was valid or not, and then know if I needed to pursue it," he said. His assessments through prayer were then confirmed to him by a friend's clairvoyant dream, where he was able to find the location on a map. "Everything she said lined up. This place meets the criteria," Tierney said of a power generator plant near the Tigris River that he believes is actually a cover for a secret uranium facility.
And, just click this link to a google search which provides more than enough to drive you insane. Will add fun things as I find them.
Here he is talking to Pat Robertson...
...here he is talking about his experiences at Gitmo...
...here he is writing for the Weekly Standard...
...here he is on why he got discharged...
...he's a favorite of the lizardoids.
...here in the Moonie Times
Howler
Somerby:
So how about it? Is there something “exceptional about the blogs” when it comes to slander, misstatement and error? Is it true that newspapers “have done the same thing?” As the discussion progressed, Andrew Sullivan seemed to say that blogs do have a special problem in this area; Shafer kept insisting that they didn’t. But at no point in the eleven-minute discussion did any panelist state the obvious—that we have seen, in our recent history, exceptional waves of group misstatement driven by the mainstream media! In particular, as everyone knows (and knows not to say), Campaign 2000 was a two-year orgy of spin and misstatement about Candidate Gore—a slander campaign that was endlessly driven by the Washington Post and the New York Times. Nothing even remotely like it has ever arisen from the web (Matt Drudge excluded). But in an eleven-minute attempt to decide if the web has a special problem with slander, none of the panelists—nobody; no one—bothered to state this obvious fact about the coverage of Election 2000, an election which changed our political history. Go ahead—watch or read this part of the discussion, and marvel at the way our recent history has been disappeared by mainstream and “liberal” pundits. Indeed, how thoroughly have our mainstream pundits managed to bury this part of our past?
Quote of the Day
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, on his desires to muck up teaching evolution
Press Club Wankers
I was rather annoyed this weekend when Even the New Republican's Michelle Cottle let Howie Kurtz goad her into saying that the media was biased against Christian Conservatives because it was... get this... actually showing lots of images of the Schiavo protesters on TV. The exchange:
So, here we have "the liberal" mocking these people while simultaneously saying the media was mocking them simply by putting them on TV. Lord knows how biased the media would have been had they not put them on TV. Heads I win tails you lose.
But, the general issue of how groups are represented by the media is important, particularly the all-important (joke) issue of how bloggers are represented. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, but congratulations right wing bloggers - your representative to a an event at the National Press Club is JimmyJeff "Deuce Bigalow" GannonGuckert.
KURTZ: Well, some of them are now being resurrected by newspapers to show that this has happened before.
Michelle Cottle, has the press ridiculed, or maybe I should say marginalized, religious people who believed the Terri Schiavo must be kept alive as a matter of Christian morality?
MICHELLE COTTLE, THE NEW REPUBLIC EDITOR: Well, it's not that they get out there and make fun of them. It's just you come with a ready-made kind of visual here. You have people on the streets praying. They're (UNINTELLIGIBLE), you have very dramatic and even melodramatic protests and things like this.
These people are very easy to kind of just poke fun at without even saying anything. You just kind of show these people. And the majority of Americans who don't get out there and do this kind of, you know, really dramatic displays feel a little bit uncomfortable on that level.
So, here we have "the liberal" mocking these people while simultaneously saying the media was mocking them simply by putting them on TV. Lord knows how biased the media would have been had they not put them on TV. Heads I win tails you lose.
But, the general issue of how groups are represented by the media is important, particularly the all-important (joke) issue of how bloggers are represented. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, but congratulations right wing bloggers - your representative to a an event at the National Press Club is JimmyJeff "Deuce Bigalow" GannonGuckert.
WSJ Gives DeLay the Boot
I was shocked as I groggily read this morning's WSJ editorial page, part of my daily burden. It started off as a standard defense of Tom DeLay, blasting the prosecutor as a partisan Democrat, and generally criticizing anyone who thinks there's something to it. But, then, suddenly it veered away from Wingnuttia and into the reality-based community and concluded with this paragraph:
Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.
Lies and the Lying Liars
The GOP are so shameless - misrepresenting the views of ordinary constituents.
Bring On the Patent Wars
You can get much better IP law discussion elsewhere, which is why I mostly stay away from it. However, this ruling against Sony Corp. ordering them to stop selling Playstations (stayed pending appeal) brings up one of my pet hopes/beliefs - that a proliferation of intellectual property lawsuits between the Big Bizness entities will eventually cause more of them to start lobbying for sensible modifications to IP laws.
Once upon a time it seems we had a better understanding of what the purpose of IP laws were. Their primary purpose is to encourage innovation and creativity, and not to create and preserve asset titles for corporations and individuals. Now, I'm all for innovators and artists being able to profit from their works, but the ability to do so is a means to an end, not the end itself. The end itself is supposed to be a benefit to consumers in the form of more new gadgets and more and better chick lit. If the IP system stifles innovation and creativity, rather than fostering it, then it's time for a change.
Along these lines, it's nice to see Mark Cuban joining in the battle. I'd prefer this all to be a consumer-led rather than business-led battle, but my guess is sensible progress is unlikely to be made until it's more the latter.
Once upon a time it seems we had a better understanding of what the purpose of IP laws were. Their primary purpose is to encourage innovation and creativity, and not to create and preserve asset titles for corporations and individuals. Now, I'm all for innovators and artists being able to profit from their works, but the ability to do so is a means to an end, not the end itself. The end itself is supposed to be a benefit to consumers in the form of more new gadgets and more and better chick lit. If the IP system stifles innovation and creativity, rather than fostering it, then it's time for a change.
Along these lines, it's nice to see Mark Cuban joining in the battle. I'd prefer this all to be a consumer-led rather than business-led battle, but my guess is sensible progress is unlikely to be made until it's more the latter.
Me or Them
Watching CNN I'm suddenly struck by this feeling that I'm watching a newscast from another time, or another country. The stories they're doing, the basic narrativesthey're pushing, seem to be totally divorced from the reality I inhabit...
maybe it's me.
maybe it's me.
Bullshit
What's with this NYT article being so forgiving to judges and creditors who don't understand a plainly simple law:
Reading through the rest of the article, most of the examples are of people just getting shafted. What's with the "oh, no one knows about this little law" crap.
A longstanding federal law strictly limits the ability of his mortgage company and other lenders to foreclose against active-duty service members... The problem, most military law specialists say, is that too many lenders, debt collectors, landlords, lawyers and judges are unaware of the federal statute or do not fully understand it... Little-Known Legislation... But the news was apparently slow in reaching those who would have to interpret and enforce the law... "There are 50,000 judges in this country and God knows how many lawyers," said Alexander P. White, a county court judge in Chicago and the chairman of one of the American Bar Association's military law committees. "Are people falling down on the job - the judges, the bar, the military? Probably." And broad understanding of the law "is not going to happen overnight."
Reading through the rest of the article, most of the examples are of people just getting shafted. What's with the "oh, no one knows about this little law" crap.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Wall of Wankers
In response to this:
Please send me the names and place of business and business numbers of pharmacists who refuse to prescribe such things as birth control.
They have rights, and so do we.
...just to add -- not all of the country is like where I live. I think there are 15 pharmacies and who knows how many pharmacists within a 10 block radius of where I live. Genuine competition exists in my area, but not for everyone.
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.
Please send me the names and place of business and business numbers of pharmacists who refuse to prescribe such things as birth control.
They have rights, and so do we.
...just to add -- not all of the country is like where I live. I think there are 15 pharmacies and who knows how many pharmacists within a 10 block radius of where I live. Genuine competition exists in my area, but not for everyone.
Blow Some Shit Up
Taibbi's NY Press article on "National Security Democrats" is worth reading.
And, look, I agree with those who say that Democrats have an image problem on foreign policy. And, I agree with those who think that this image problem is to some degree based on an actual lack of foreign policy substance.
But, on foreign policy as with everything else, the "me too!" position gets you nowhere.
The Democrats who made it impossible for Democrats to have an articulate distinct position on foreign policy are the ones who pushed the party into supporting the Iraq war.
I don't actually disagree with the general proposition that the Democrats need a bit of piss and vinegar in their foreign policy, but they have to figure out where to aim that piss. Peter Beinart and Joe Biden and the rest of the gang didn't aim their piss, they let George Bush grab their dicks and point them towards Baghdad. And, now, two years later, they want to lecture the rest of us on how to be perceived as "strong."
The way to be perceived as strong isn't to let George W. Bush tell you where to point your dick.
And, look, I agree with those who say that Democrats have an image problem on foreign policy. And, I agree with those who think that this image problem is to some degree based on an actual lack of foreign policy substance.
But, on foreign policy as with everything else, the "me too!" position gets you nowhere.
The Democrats who made it impossible for Democrats to have an articulate distinct position on foreign policy are the ones who pushed the party into supporting the Iraq war.
I don't actually disagree with the general proposition that the Democrats need a bit of piss and vinegar in their foreign policy, but they have to figure out where to aim that piss. Peter Beinart and Joe Biden and the rest of the gang didn't aim their piss, they let George Bush grab their dicks and point them towards Baghdad. And, now, two years later, they want to lecture the rest of us on how to be perceived as "strong."
The way to be perceived as strong isn't to let George W. Bush tell you where to point your dick.
Remember When
David Neiwert has a (as usual) good post. But, I want to highlight this part:
I lived through it, but even now the journalistic "excesses" of the Clinton years shock me when I'm reminded of them. I was hunting for something unrelated today, and I came across a full segment on Fat Tim's Meet the Press where he interviewed Gary Aldrich. Aldrich, you may remember, claimed in his book that the Clintons hung crack pipes from the White House Christmas Tree.
Yes, that is precisely the problem with this model of "balance." But what seems to have eluded everyone on the right is that this is not an isolated problem with C-SPAN. It is, in fact, pervasive throughout the media -- and particularly from self-identified "conservative" media like the "fair and balanced" Fox. And it has been going on for a long time now.
It was not uncommon, in the 1990s, to see clearly outrageous liars like Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and L. Jean Lewis treated not only with kid gloves, but as the chief source of supposedly credible "investigations" into Bill Clinton's private life.
As impeachment fever reached its crescendo in 1999, this willingness to treat blatant falsehoods as "the other side of the story" became pervasive. It was not uncommon to see Barbara or Ted Olson, or Mark Levine, or Ann Coulter, or some other congenital frothing-at-the-mouth Clinton-hater fulminate all over the tube daily with some bizarre speculation or other based in nothing but groundless conspiracy theories and a heavy dose of bile. It continued through the 2000 election, when we were told constantly that "Al Gore says he invented the Internet" and, later, that machine recounts were more accurate than hand recounts.
I lived through it, but even now the journalistic "excesses" of the Clinton years shock me when I'm reminded of them. I was hunting for something unrelated today, and I came across a full segment on Fat Tim's Meet the Press where he interviewed Gary Aldrich. Aldrich, you may remember, claimed in his book that the Clintons hung crack pipes from the White House Christmas Tree.
Heard Just Now On Local Fox Affiliate
Wonderful contextless news. At the Schiavo protests, "a scuffle broke out between rival protesters."
rival protesters?
rival protesters?
Bluggers Suck
Digby gives us the latest version of "bluggers suck" and "journalists r000l" from the LA Times's David Shaw, who writes a column about why bluggers aren't high-minded journalists like him so they therefore don't deserve reporters' privilege.
One of my biggest pet peeves is how journalists, when talking about bluggers and blugging, construct these definitions of "journalist" and "news media" which exclude 90% of what their profession has become. "Journalists" are not some small subspecies of gumshoe reporters writing impeccably sourced and edited copy for respectable dailies. "Journalism" clearly includes "respectable" print dailies, tabloids, columnists, TV news reporters and anchors, Bill O'Reilly, talk radio hosts, gossip columnists, and partisan liars and propagandists of all kinds who are regularly given a platform. All of these people frequently mess up, as this lovely website documents regularly.
I'm happy for people to make serious criticisms of the blugosphere, though when they do they should stop comparing bluggers to something which is only a very tiny part of what modern day "journalism" is. And, while they're at it, they could focus some more attention on something they've been ignoring for years -- talk radio.
Shaw also includes the inevitable paragraph about bluggers and libel which they always like to screech about:
ummm... David, "if I am guilty of what the courts call a "reckless disregard for the truth" *I* could be sued and lose a lot of money, or at least the little I have.
If you don't want to get sued for libel, uh, don't libel anyone. I'm not sure why journalists are obsessed with the concept of libel in relation to blugs. Libel isn't that difficult a concept to understand, and it isn't that hard to avoid doing it. Simple rule of thumb: be careful what you say about people who aren't clearly public figures. More generally, don't make shit up, don't make claims you know to be false, and make sure opinions are expressed as opinions rather than as statements of fact.
One of my biggest pet peeves is how journalists, when talking about bluggers and blugging, construct these definitions of "journalist" and "news media" which exclude 90% of what their profession has become. "Journalists" are not some small subspecies of gumshoe reporters writing impeccably sourced and edited copy for respectable dailies. "Journalism" clearly includes "respectable" print dailies, tabloids, columnists, TV news reporters and anchors, Bill O'Reilly, talk radio hosts, gossip columnists, and partisan liars and propagandists of all kinds who are regularly given a platform. All of these people frequently mess up, as this lovely website documents regularly.
I'm happy for people to make serious criticisms of the blugosphere, though when they do they should stop comparing bluggers to something which is only a very tiny part of what modern day "journalism" is. And, while they're at it, they could focus some more attention on something they've been ignoring for years -- talk radio.
Shaw also includes the inevitable paragraph about bluggers and libel which they always like to screech about:
If I'm careless --- if I am guilty of what the courts call a "reckless disregard for the truth" --- The Times could be sued for libel ... and could lose a lot of money. With that thought --- as well as out own personal and progessional copmmittments to accuracy and fairness --- very much much in mind, I and my editors all try hard to be sure that what appears in ther paper is just that, accurate and fair.
ummm... David, "if I am guilty of what the courts call a "reckless disregard for the truth" *I* could be sued and lose a lot of money, or at least the little I have.
If you don't want to get sued for libel, uh, don't libel anyone. I'm not sure why journalists are obsessed with the concept of libel in relation to blugs. Libel isn't that difficult a concept to understand, and it isn't that hard to avoid doing it. Simple rule of thumb: be careful what you say about people who aren't clearly public figures. More generally, don't make shit up, don't make claims you know to be false, and make sure opinions are expressed as opinions rather than as statements of fact.
Chicks With Opinions
Just a bit more comment on Russert's morning sausage-fest. It is of course true that on many issues women are frequently excluded from such discussions. It's also true that had the topic been "economic policy" or "foreign policy" or something I probably wouldn't have even noticed (to my discredit). The lack of female participation in the public discourse on those issues is mostly just part of a larger pattern of female exclusion from the public discourse (not a good thing, of course, but standard operating procedure). But it's even more horrendous to me that on an issue which is regularly discussed as being important to women -- if not precisely portrayed as a women's issue, it's frequently lumped in with "family" issues which is just code for "stuff adult chicks care about" -- that neither Russert nor his booker noticed that there was something amiss in their choices of guests.
Ho Ho Ho
Time for another conference on blogger ethics:
At the same time one of Florida's most visible television reporters brought the news to viewers around the state, he earned hundreds of thousands of dollars on the side from the government agencies he covered.
Mike Vasilinda, a 30-year veteran of the Tallahassee press corps, does public relations work and provides film editing services to more than a dozen state agencies.
His Tallahassee company, Mike Vasilinda Productions Inc., has earned more than $100,000 over the past four years through contracts with Gov. Jeb Bush's office, the Secretary of State, the Department of Education and other government entities that are routinely part of Vasilinda's stories.
Vasilinda also was paid to work on campaign ads for at least one politician and to create a promotional movie for Leon County. One of his biggest state contracts was a 1996 deal that paid nearly $900,000 to air the weekly drawing for the Florida Lottery.
Meanwhile, the freelance reporter's stories continued to air on CNN and most Florida NBC stations, including WFLA-Channel 8 in Tampa.
IOKIYAR
Typical:
DENVER -- Gov. Bill Owens (R) has been crisscrossing the country for years promoting the virtues of this state's strict constitutional limits on government spending. He has repeatedly urged other states to adopt restrictions of their own, based on Colorado's "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" amendment, known here as TABOR.
But this summer, Owens says, he'll be traversing his own mountainous state pushing the opposite message. Midway through his second term, Owens is working to persuade Coloradans to suspend the limits he championed and let the state government spend $3 billion more in tax money than TABOR would allow.
Owens thus becomes another low-tax, limited-government advocate who has found those principles hard to hold onto amid a sluggish economy and a sharply diminished flow of federal money to the states.
In the past two years, Republican governors including Nevada's Kenny Guinn, Idaho's Dirk Kempthorne, Georgia's Sonny Perdue and Ohio's Bob Taft have dumped no-new-taxes pledges to push for major new revenue and increased state spending.
Men's Faith in America
Today's Meet the press roundtable on faith in America:
![]()
Why are there no women qualified to talk about this subject? Must be genetic.
Caption contest? I suggest: "All your uterus are belong to us."
Maybe next week Russert will convene an all female roundtable to talk about why there aren't any women on Meet the Press roundtables...
Why are there no women qualified to talk about this subject? Must be genetic.
Caption contest? I suggest: "All your uterus are belong to us."
Maybe next week Russert will convene an all female roundtable to talk about why there aren't any women on Meet the Press roundtables...
Saturday, March 26, 2005
He's the King of Crap
Sucker DeLay is such a Liar!
CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy unfolding in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal -- without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the raging debate outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.
The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family standing vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman -- U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Floridians to Congress - Bugger Off
Link:
The poll shows approximately 63 percent of likely voters in Florida disapproved of the intervention last week by Congress and the president.
...
The poll surveyed 600 likely voters by phone in Florida. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points. Among Republicans polled, 56 percent say they disapproved of the intervention while 41 percent approved. Among Democrats and independents, 67 percent and 68 percent disapproved respectively.
A Consequence of Recession
One inevitable consequence of recession, especially one which accompanied an interest rate spike which made meeting mortgage payments difficult (either because you're unemployed or because you took Uncle Alan's advice and got an ARM), would be that large numbers of people would dip into their 401(K) plans. They'd pay their taxes, pay the 10% penalty, and drain the accounts.
On a positive note, however, this could cause the stock market to crash so much that price earnings ratios would fall to levels low enough that the future growth predictions by privatizers would be plausible!
On a positive note, however, this could cause the stock market to crash so much that price earnings ratios would fall to levels low enough that the future growth predictions by privatizers would be plausible!
Roach
Stephen Roach has what seems to be a comprehensive sober realist view of the current economic situtation of the U.S.
Let me just add that the montery and fiscal policies under the Bush administration have encouraged asset accumulation and physical investment rather than job creation. And, now we're in a position where, as Roach argues, appropriate Fed policy is a fast increase of interest rates. But, due to the crappy post-recession jobs recovery, asset bubble led inflation means that Greenspan will have to hike interest rates in the middle of a fairly weak labor market.
perfect storm? Let's hope not.
Let me just add that the montery and fiscal policies under the Bush administration have encouraged asset accumulation and physical investment rather than job creation. And, now we're in a position where, as Roach argues, appropriate Fed policy is a fast increase of interest rates. But, due to the crappy post-recession jobs recovery, asset bubble led inflation means that Greenspan will have to hike interest rates in the middle of a fairly weak labor market.
perfect storm? Let's hope not.
I Did Not Know That
I'd heard a lot about Wolfowitz of Arabia's girlfriend, but I too don't remember hearing anything about, you know, his wife.
It's a rather strange thing, really, which parts of our personal lives our media consider to be okay to print, and which parts they don't. In Wolfofwitz's cases frequently details about his girlfriend have been deemed acceptable, but not details about his wife.
...ah, interesting - it appears that Pravda on the Potomac accepts the official view that they're divorced, but that this is perhaps not true.
It's a rather strange thing, really, which parts of our personal lives our media consider to be okay to print, and which parts they don't. In Wolfofwitz's cases frequently details about his girlfriend have been deemed acceptable, but not details about his wife.
...ah, interesting - it appears that Pravda on the Potomac accepts the official view that they're divorced, but that this is perhaps not true.
She also refused to confirm her marital status - reports of his appointment repeatedly describe Wolfowitz as divorced but The Mail on Sunday has been unable to find any records. Asked if she is separated or divorced, Clare replied: "That's my business."
On the claim that she wrote a letter to Bush, she said: "That's very interesting but not something I can tell you about."
A friend of Wolfowitz insisted last night that he had not been unfaithful: "Paul and Clare have been separated since 2001. It is my understanding they are now legally separated."
Quotes of the Day
"I advocate the use of force to rescue Terri Schiavo from being starved to death.
I further advocate the killing of anyone who interferes with such rescue." -- Hal Turner.
Second Quote of the Day:
"Web Site Updates Temporarily offline.
I am traveling to do something important."
--Hal Turner.
More on Turner here and here.
I further advocate the killing of anyone who interferes with such rescue." -- Hal Turner.
Second Quote of the Day:
"Web Site Updates Temporarily offline.
I am traveling to do something important."
--Hal Turner.
More on Turner here and here.
Blackout
Now that I've been up for awhile I can confirm what my initial sense was - that CNN has completely ignored the story about the "possible showdown" between local police and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It's a bizarre thing really, as it follows the narrative to the logical end. Crazies demand Jeb Bush "do something" and Bush getes his people ready to do just that - though, apparently, saner heads prevail. The unwillingness of the media to confront this story, which is the logical conclusion of having Jeb Bush try to substitute his authority for that of a judge, a storyline that the media have been desperately pushing all week, is to me an unwillingness of them to confront their own role in encouraging this. The orders of Bush and the orders of a judge are only as good as peoples' willingness to obey them, or the ability and desire of law enforcement agents to enforce them.
Two authorities, two law enforcement agencies -- what do they think would happen?
Two authorities, two law enforcement agencies -- what do they think would happen?
Wingnuttery
At some point my email address got lumped onto one of the various mass email lists for media out there, so occasionally I get an eruption of massive wingnuttery in my inbox.
The latest bit is that "Terri said she wanted to live!" based on her parents' lawyer's contention that she "tried to express a will to live" based on that tape of awful groaning they had...
oy...
and, the story of Jeb sending his thug squad in should be getting more play, and, generally, shame on CNN for putting the shitty in "shitty news channel."
The latest bit is that "Terri said she wanted to live!" based on her parents' lawyer's contention that she "tried to express a will to live" based on that tape of awful groaning they had...
oy...
and, the story of Jeb sending his thug squad in should be getting more play, and, generally, shame on CNN for putting the shitty in "shitty news channel."
Friday, March 25, 2005
Cowardly Jeb Cancels Appearance
Gov. Bush Cancels Appearance at Good Friday Service for Fear of Facing Schiavo Supporters
To: National Desk
Contact: Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition [phone number removed]
TALLAHASSEE, Fl., March 25 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Governor Jeb Bush was scheduled to attend and participate in an outdoor Good Friday service at 12:30 pm, at Florida State University. According to event organizers, the Governor canceled at the last minute.
As part of this event Jeb Bush would have publicly read from a printed program that includes the following text entitled the Fifth Station of the Cross; "Lord Jesus, sometimes I don't want to do what is right or to help someone in need, but you want me to respond positively to the needs of others in my life. Help me to say 'yes' and be willing to give heroic assistance to all who are in need."
"It is clear that Governor Bush canceled his scheduled participation in this Stations of the Cross service out of fear and guilt of seeing supporters of Terri Schiavo pleading for her life. Our prayer for Governor Bush is the same prayer he would have prayed publicly on this Good Friday, had he kept his scheduled appointment.
Pretty Dubious
By now all sensible people understand that the long run rate of productivity growth assumed by the Social Security trustees - 1.6% - is completely incompatible with the belief that the stock market returns will be at historical rates. One of those assumptions has to be incorrect - either long run productivity growth is assumed to be to low, stock market returns too high, or some combination.
Today DeLong informs us that the methodology the trustees used to arrive at their anemic 1.6% long run productivity growth letters was only put into place last year. And, if previously methodology had been used, the long run rate of productivity growth would be 1.9%, substantially lengthening the solvency of the trust fund.
Today DeLong informs us that the methodology the trustees used to arrive at their anemic 1.6% long run productivity growth letters was only put into place last year. And, if previously methodology had been used, the long run rate of productivity growth would be 1.9%, substantially lengthening the solvency of the trust fund.
Tin Jesus
Lovely:
Reminds me of a song:
Stop wasting my time
You know what I want
You know what I need
Or maybe you don't
Do I have to come right
Flat out and tell you everything?
Gimme some money
Gimme sone money
Videotape of Terri Schiavo blinking at her parents has inspired donations from people around the country to the foundation set up to help pay for the family's legal battle. But many other groups are soliciting donations in her name as well, some for a much broader agenda.
"Help Save Terri Schiavo's Life!" says the Web site of the Traditional Values Coalition, a Christian conservative group best known for its campaigns against gay rights. Next to a link to the Web site of her parents' foundation is a pitch to "become an active supporter of the Traditional Values Coalition by pledging a monthly gift."
"What this issue has done is it has galvanized people the way nothing could have done in an off-election year," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, the founder of the group, acknowledging that the case of Ms. Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, had moved many to open up their checkbooks. "That is what I see as the blessing that dear Terri's life is offering to the conservative Christian movement in America."
Reminds me of a song:
Stop wasting my time
You know what I want
You know what I need
Or maybe you don't
Do I have to come right
Flat out and tell you everything?
Gimme some money
Gimme sone money
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Speechless
Fox News had John Edwards (the guy who talks to the dead, not the former senator) come on to give his expert opinion on the Schiavo case (as seen on the Daily Show).
...crooks and liars has the video.
...crooks and liars has the video.
Bobo's World
Alabama bill would outlaw gay people from adopting, though how they'd determine your level of gayness is unclear. Maybe for men they'll show you pictures of Ken Mehlman and see if your little soldier snaps to attention.
Rule of Law
Fox's John Gibson:
psss... John, it's "flout" not "flaunt."
Just to burnish my reputation as a bomb thrower, I think Jeb Bush should give serious thought to storming the Bastille.
By that I mean he should think about telling his cops to go over to Terri Schiavo's (search) hospice, go inside, put her on a gurney and load her into an ambulance. They could take her to a hospital, revive her, and reattach her feeding tube. It wouldn't save Terri exactly; she'd still be in the same rotten shape she was in before they disconnected the feeding tube.
But the point is, the temple of the law is so sacrosanct that an occasional chief executive cannot flaunt it once in a while, sort of drop his drawers on the courthouse steps and moon the judges, as a way to protest the complete disregard courts and judges have shown here, in this case, for facts outside the law.
psss... John, it's "flout" not "flaunt."
"More Demagoguery Please"
Yes, someone needs to lock the "eat your vegetables caucus" and the "pain caucus" in the basement for a couple of years.
I'm all for responsible lawmakers doing responsible things, but when Hillarycare went down the Republicans didn't say "okay, let's do something responsible now" - they kept beating it even after it was dead and then won a bunch of seats.
There's no chance of doing anything genuinely decent with social security as long as the people who want to kill it are in power. The minority may be able to stop social security, but they can't pass their fantasy social security plan.
Besides, while Tim Russert may pat you on the head if you cut benefits, the voters sure as hell won't.
I'm all for responsible lawmakers doing responsible things, but when Hillarycare went down the Republicans didn't say "okay, let's do something responsible now" - they kept beating it even after it was dead and then won a bunch of seats.
There's no chance of doing anything genuinely decent with social security as long as the people who want to kill it are in power. The minority may be able to stop social security, but they can't pass their fantasy social security plan.
Besides, while Tim Russert may pat you on the head if you cut benefits, the voters sure as hell won't.
Fristy Flashback
From October:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday over a comment the Democratic vice presidential candidate made regarding actor Christopher Reeve.
Edwards said Reeve, who died Sunday, "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him.
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.
Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, called Edwards' remark "crass" and "shameful," and said it gave false hope that new treatments were imminent.
...
Frist, who was a heart surgeon before coming to the Senate, responded Tuesday in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign.
"I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve -- I think it is shameful -- in order to mislead the American people," Frist said. "We should be offering people hope, but neither physicians, scientists, public servants or trial lawyers like John Edwards should be offering hype.
"It is cruel to people who have disabilities and chronic diseases, and, on top of that, it's dishonest. It's giving false hope to people, and I can tell you as a physician who's treated scores of thousands of patients that you don't give them false hope."
Clown Show to Infinity and Beyond!
Members of Congress write letters:
The fate of Terri Schiavo
FLORIDA TODAY Readers
Sworn court testimony disputes editorial's stance
We only have to go to the opening paragraphs of FLORIDA TODAY's Tuesday editorial "An outrageous act" about Congress's involvement in the Terri Schiavo case to see that even basic assertions of fact are at best disputable.
It states that Terri is in "a persistent vegetative state for 15 years since her heart attack" and "medical evidence showed Terri has no chance of recovery."
Did the editors interview registered nurse Carla Iyer, who personally treated Terri for a year and a half?
She said in a sworn court affidavit that Terri "was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis saying things like 'mommy' and 'help me" and 'hi' when I came into her room."
Iyer says Terri would sit up in the nurse's station from time to time and laugh at stories they told. She felt pain and would indicate so. Carla fed her by mouth and not by tube. Does this sound like a woman in persistent vegetative state for the past 15 years?
Hardly.
Or are the editors aware of Dr. William Hammesfahr, Nobel Prize nominee neurologist, who examined Terri for 10 hours and said, "Terri does not require a feeding tube to be fed" and that "with proper therapy she would be able to regain some speech and mobility."
This is a story about a woman neglected proper care and therapy by those now wishing to see her expire. It's a story about disguising a right-to-kill edict in right-to-die clothes.
I only pray that our judicial system won't continue to be party to it.
U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon
District 15
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Run Away! Run Away!
CBS:
CBS/AP) Congressional leaders have insisted their only motivation in getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case was saving a life. But Americans aren’t buying that argument, a CBS News poll finds.
Just 13 percent of those polled think Congress intervened in the case out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics. Of those polled, 66 percent said the tube should not be inserted compared to 27 percent who want it restored. The issue has generated strong feelings, with 78 percent of those polled -- wheter for either side of the issue -- saying they have strong feelings.
Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago.
...
Democrats tried to block the legislation from coming to a vote on the floor of Congress, and some accused the Republicans of acting out of political motives.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said "Congressional leaders have no business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts that have extensively considered the issues in this intensely personal family matter."
"This rush to exploit a personal tragedy is not fair to those involved and will not create good policy," she said.
And Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said, "If you don't want a decision to be made politically, why in the world do you ask 535 politicians to make it?"
Craptacular AP
The AP article which drove all of the coverage of Social Security today was really horrible for reasons described here and here. It also contained a major factual error.
Toot Toot
Florida Senate tells Jeb to shove it... over to you, Governor...
...and, Bush screams Run away! Run away!
...Jebbie tries to kidnap her, Judge orders law enforcement not to do it... You can't make this stuff up....
...and, Bush screams Run away! Run away!
Meanwhile, President Bush suggested that he and Congress had done their best to help the parents prolong Schiavo's life, and the White House said it has no further legal options.
...Jebbie tries to kidnap her, Judge orders law enforcement not to do it... You can't make this stuff up....
DeLay - Unfiltered
From Think Progress, which also has the audio file.
And so it’s bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.
And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others. The point is, it’s, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and that’s to destroy the conservative movement. It’s to destroy conservative leaders and it’s, uh, not just in elected office but leading. I mean Ed Feulner, today at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the National Journal. I mean they, they, this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in, and, and you need to look at this and what’s going on and participate in fighting back.
Don’t, you know, the one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldn’t get in politics or you’re going to lose your tax exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for president. That law we’re trying to repeal; it’s very difficult to do that. But the point is, is when they can knock out a leader then no other leader will step forward for awhile because they don’t want to go through the same thing. When, if they go after and get a pastor then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church and that’s what’s going on in America: “The world is too bad. I’m going to go get inside this building and I’m not going to play in the world.” Uh, that’s not what Christ asked us to do. And, and so this, they understand that it is a political maneuver, and, and they are, uh, going to try to destroy the conservative movement and we have to fight back.
So, please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a senator give him a call. Tell him, they’ll say, “Our bill can pass in the House.” Tell him, “That’s fine. Your bill’s okay but the House bill is better and, uh, I want the House bill.” Particularly if you know Democrats, uh, don’t let them get off the hook, um, by hiding behind one House and the other is adjourned. We can do anything we need to do to pass any bill that we need to pass. So I appreciate what you’re doing. God bless you and thank you for the Family Research Council.
Quote of the Day
"The entire hip, awesome 'South Park Republican' caucus could stand on a beer mat with the entire anti-torture Republican caucus and still leave room for a beer."
Clown Show Marches On
11th circuit refuses to hear case en banc, and Jeb Bush has a "renowned neurologist" who has come up with a different diagnosis, and now the Florida State Senate is supposed to do something, though I didn't figure out what.
Sadly, the "renowned neurologist" wasn't the one who has been making all of the Fox News rounds and making a bunch of fools look even more foolish than usual. The guy has been going around telling people he's a "Nobel Prize Nominee" for medicine, because a very silly congressman nominated him. But, it gets funnier.
The congressman actually wrote to nominate him for a "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine," which doesn't, you know, exist. And, okay, we'll cut him some slack and say that what he meant was Nobel Prize in Medicine. But, said member isn't eligible to nominate anyone for the Medicine prize.
Sadly, the "renowned neurologist" wasn't the one who has been making all of the Fox News rounds and making a bunch of fools look even more foolish than usual. The guy has been going around telling people he's a "Nobel Prize Nominee" for medicine, because a very silly congressman nominated him. But, it gets funnier.
The congressman actually wrote to nominate him for a "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine," which doesn't, you know, exist. And, okay, we'll cut him some slack and say that what he meant was Nobel Prize in Medicine. But, said member isn't eligible to nominate anyone for the Medicine prize.
Crisis
We can debate whether this would be the best way to deal with long term funding issues for Social Security -- as long as Republicans are running around calling the trust fund a "myth" it quite clearly isn't. And, in any case, I'd prefer at least a modest increase in the income cap if we're going that way. However, here's the economy-destroying measure which would make the program able to pay fully promised benefits for the next 75 years:
As I said, I don't support doing that because a) "pre-funding" is a sucker's game as long as Zombie Greenspan and his Republican Acolytes roam the Earth and b) it makes the tax code more regressive. But, nonetheless it's pretty damn painless.
Assuming the Trustees' intermediate assumptions are realized, the deficit of 1.92 percent of payroll indicates that financial adequacy of the program for the next 75 years could be restored if the Social Security payroll tax were immediately and permanently increased from its current level of 12.4 percent (combined employee-employer shares) to 14.32 percent.
As I said, I don't support doing that because a) "pre-funding" is a sucker's game as long as Zombie Greenspan and his Republican Acolytes roam the Earth and b) it makes the tax code more regressive. But, nonetheless it's pretty damn painless.
Oops
Pull the plug fristy:
Frist wrote a book in 1989 called Transplant where he advocated changing the definition of "brain dead" to include anencephalic babies. Anencephalic babies are in the same state as Terri Schiavo except that she suffered a physical trauma that put her into a vegetative state while the anencephalic babies are born that way.
This remarkable discovery buttresses the argument that Frist's advocacy for Schiavo is wholly political. How does he explain this remarkable inconsistency? Here is the relevant passage on Frist as quoted by the New Republic in 2003:
"And, although Frist writes frequently about the ethical issues surrounding transplants--for example, the question of when death begins--he approaches these issues in starkly scientific terms, with little patience for religious objections.
"Near the end of the book, for example, Frist suggests changing the legal definition of 'brain death' to include anencephalic babies, who are born with a fatal neurological disorder but show just the slightest hint of brain-stem activity. Such a change would make it possible to harvest their organs for transplant--something the Catholic Church and pro-life groups oppose. 'Three thousand anencephalic babies were born a year, enough to solve our demand many times over--but we never used them.'"
Let the Wonkery Begin
New trustee estimates are in, and they pushed the insolvency date up to 2041. Time to dive in and see what nonsense they pulled to get there...
first pass - significantly lowered mortality rates from previous year, lowered the already ridiculously low immigration rates...
...increased near term inflation estimates...
Max says:
It looks like the biggest jiggering is with the mortality tables. What I'd love is a model ran with last year's assumptions intact, with the 2004 actual data added, but that I'll never see...
...they do discuss how changes affect the long run actuarial balance, but not the solvency year.
Anyway, summing up, from what I can glean:
people live longer
teenagers work less
inflation higher
old people work less
first pass - significantly lowered mortality rates from previous year, lowered the already ridiculously low immigration rates...
...increased near term inflation estimates...
Max says:
Some minor cookery in view: they bumped the two key years back one each, so they can say, look, things are gittin worse. The Trust Fund cash deficit is presumed to begin in 2017 instead of 2018, and the Fund's assets exhausted in 2041 instead of 2042. The actuarial imbalances get marginally larger, as predicted here this morning. The only question is how they jigger the assumptions, which evidently they do, albeit to minor effect.
It looks like the biggest jiggering is with the mortality tables. What I'd love is a model ran with last year's assumptions intact, with the 2004 actual data added, but that I'll never see...
...they do discuss how changes affect the long run actuarial balance, but not the solvency year.
Anyway, summing up, from what I can glean:
people live longer
teenagers work less
inflation higher
old people work less
Whiners
Wow, some Democratic members of Congress sure are wimps.
Call Adam Schiff's office and tell him that he'll be hearing from a lot of people just how "personal and inappropriate" this bankruptcy bill atrocity is if he votes on its final passage, especially when they're sentenced to a lifetime of indebtedness to hospitals and credit card companies.
And, tell him to stop being such a baby. He has lots of power, the people whose lives this bankruptcy bill will help to destroy don't.
Washington D.C.
326 Cannon HOB
Washington D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4176
Facsimile: (202) 225-5828
Pasadena, California
35 S. Raymond Ave. #205
Pasadena, California 91105
Phone: (626) 304-2727
Facsimile: (626) 304-0572
[EDITS IN BOLD] The House hasn't voted on final passage of the bill yet.
In a March 9 e-mail, David Sirota, a fellow at CAP, accused 16 pro-business Democrats of supporting bankruptcy-reform legislation because they received political contributions from the commercial banks and credit-card companies that stand to benefit if the legislation becomes law.
The e-mail coursed through the blogosphere and generated angry phone calls from liberal activists to the offices of the 16 centrist Democrats. Sirota, a former minority spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, criticized 16 of the 20 Democrats who wrote Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) March 7 urging him to bring bankruptcy reform to the House floor.
...
Nearly every lawmaker who arrived at Thursday’s meeting with Podesta, former President Clinton’s last chief of staff, voiced concern about the Sirota broadside, calling it overtly personal and unhelpful to the two organizations’ shared goal of helping the Democratic Party grow.
It was unclear if Podesta was invited to the centrist group’s meeting as a result of Sirota’s e-mail, but the invitation came after the missive was sent March 9.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who did not support the bill in committee, told The Hill that he found the e-mail “personal and inappropriate.”
Call Adam Schiff's office and tell him that he'll be hearing from a lot of people just how "personal and inappropriate" this bankruptcy bill atrocity is if he votes on its final passage, especially when they're sentenced to a lifetime of indebtedness to hospitals and credit card companies.
And, tell him to stop being such a baby. He has lots of power, the people whose lives this bankruptcy bill will help to destroy don't.
Washington D.C.
326 Cannon HOB
Washington D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4176
Facsimile: (202) 225-5828
Pasadena, California
35 S. Raymond Ave. #205
Pasadena, California 91105
Phone: (626) 304-2727
Facsimile: (626) 304-0572
[EDITS IN BOLD] The House hasn't voted on final passage of the bill yet.
Morning Thread
The Supremes - the Clown Show's last stop?
...I certainly have no love for Rehnquist, but as we see from Drudge apparently the new spin is that because Rehnquist is ill he's somehow tainted. Lovely.
...I certainly have no love for Rehnquist, but as we see from Drudge apparently the new spin is that because Rehnquist is ill he's somehow tainted. Lovely.
Run away! Run away!
Ad Nags:
This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative," said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism."
Stephen Moore, a conservative advocate who is president of the Free Enterprise Fund, said: "I don't normally like to see the federal government intervening in a situation like this, which I think should be resolved ultimately by the family: I think states' rights should take precedence over federal intervention. A lot of conservatives are really struggling with this case."
Some more moderate Republicans are also uneasy. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."
"It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step."
...
"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
What Katha Said
Here. And, these numbers are just stunning.
She wrote great columns on the New York Times op-ed page when filling in for Tom Friedman — so why isn't she at The Times (soon to be seven men plus Maureen Dowd) or the Washington Post (18 male pundits plus Anne Applebaum)? Other names off the top of my head: Debra Dickerson, Ruth Rosen, Dahlia Lithwick, Nina Totenberg, Rebecca Traister, Joan Walsh, Sharon Lerner, Wendy Kaminer, Ruth Conniff, Laura Flanders, Natalie Angier, etc. etc. etc! Why doesn't Time (11 columnists, no women, even in Arts and entertainment) give Molly Ivins a slot?
DeLay
Jesselee is right to suggest that this may prove to be the undoing of Tom DeLay. DeLay has been smart enough to lay low so that he didn't become a household name. He hides behind Hastert even though he's the real power in the House and has never really put himself into the public consciousness.
Heh-Indeedy
Ezra writes:
In three little paragraphs, Tom has called the woman with a liquified cerebral cortex a gift from God, compared her situation to his own, and used her to uncover a vast left-wing conspiracy determined to topple Tom DeLay and the values ofAmericaconservatism.
"Judicial Tyranny"
And the Republican clown show continues:
U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore has defied Congress by not staying Terri Schiavo's starvation execution for the time it takes him to hold a full hearing on her case, a leading Republican senator said Tuesday.
"You have judicial tyranny here," Santorum told WABC Radio in New York. "Congress passed a law that said that you had to look at this case. He simply thumbed his nose at Congress."
"What the statute that [Whittemore] was dealing with said was that he shall hold a trial de novo," the Pennsylvania Republican explained. "That means he has to hold a new trial. That's what the statute said."
"What he's saying is, 'I don't have to hold a new trial because I've already determined that her rights have been protected,'" Santorum said.
"That's nice for him to say that But that's not what Congress told him to do," he added. "Judges should obey the law. And this judge - in my mind - simply ignored the law."
The Question
Kilgore writes:
Having set this issue up as he has, DeLay really can't back down. Though, I suppose the clock is ticking and there is a time limit.
So the question will remain: having framed the Schiavo case as "murder" and "barbarism" and "medical terrorism," does Tom DeLay now just say, "Well, the family had its day in court," and forget about it? Or will the culture-war implications of the case make it escalate?
Having set this issue up as he has, DeLay really can't back down. Though, I suppose the clock is ticking and there is a time limit.
Well, This is All Effed Up
Lack of coverage is odd, too. Well, I guess they can only handle one story at time.
BEMIDJI, Minn. (Reuters) - A 17-year-old who killed nine people and himself on a Minnesota Indian reservation identified himself as an "angel of death" and a "NativeNazi" on Internet postings, a newspaper reported on Tuesday.
Officials sealed off the remote town of Red Lake, 60 miles south of the Canadian border, while they investigated Monday's bloodbath, the worst U.S. school shooting since the 1999 Columbine massacre.
Floyd Jourdain Jr., chairman of the Red Lake Indian council, called the tragedy "the darkest day in the history of our tribe."
The shooter was Red Lake High School sophomore Jeff Weise, according to witnesses and school officials.
Weise identified himself in Internet site postings as "Todesengel," German for "angel of death" and "NativeNazi," the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported.
He also claimed to have been questioned by police in 2004 about an alleged plot to shoot up the school on the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birthday, but said he had nothing to do with that, the report said.
"I guess I've always carried a natural admiration for Hitler and his ideals, and his courage to take on larger nations," the newspaper quoted Weise as saying in one forum used by neo-Nazis.
CDs and DVDs
Barry has a post up about the differences in pricing strategies for DVDs and CDs. Let me just add that while there are numerous reasons for flat CD sales - shitty product, shitty radio/mtv, etc... - I imagine the single greatest one is the fact that they frequently cost more than DVDs.
One of Those Days
First Brooks writes a column bashing Republicans almost entirely without any false equivalence Democrat-bashing, and now the San Diego Bishop has changed his mind about a denying a funeral for a gay man.
Monday, March 21, 2005
007
Kleiman:
Nonetheless, if the distinction among the cases is so fine-grained, it's hard to credit the sincerity of people who throw around terms such as "murder" and "Dachau" when talking about Schiavo but make no objection to the Texas law, especially since the Texas law specifically lists "artificial nutrition and hydration" as among the services that can be discontinued.
Moreover, the law allows for (even if in the Hudson and and Nikolouzos cases it did not actually involve) the termination of life-sustaining treatment for patients with "irreversible" conditions (i.e., conditions from which they will not recover and which leave them unable to care for themselves) even if their higher brain functions are completely normal. Indeed, the law contemplates that a fully competent patient may be served by his health-care provider with a 10-day notice to find another provider or have his plug pulled; it even provides that the patient has the right to attend the committee meeting at which his fate is to be decided. (Sec. 166.046) And the law provides no substantive guidance other than the provider's decision that the requested life-sustaining care would be "inappropriate."
So, if I read the Texas law correctly, it would allow for Terri Schiavo's feedling tube to be disconnected if her health care provider so decided, and if her family couldn't find another provider willing to take the case, even if her higher brain functions were entirely normal (rather than, as appears to be the case, entirely absent), even if she were awake and asking to be allowed to live.
So, I repeat, where's the outrage? If you think Terri Schiavo is being murdered, you think that George W. Bush signed a bill allowing murder in 1999, and that bill is still on the books. Perhaps Mr. Bush flew to the wrong capital on Sunday; some people in Austin seem to need instruction about the "presumption in favor of life."
Quorum
Upyernoz does raise an interesting issue -- the fact that a law passed without a quorum is probably unconstitutional. Or, I guess, more to the point - a bill passed without quorum is not in fact a law.
Next Step?
It's almost a given that the federal judge will rule against the parents of Schiavo, at which point he'll be called an "activist" judge, where "activist" means "doing anything we don't like."
But, the lunatics have been whipped up into a fervor and the Republican Congress has made them think there's actually something they can do about this...
But, the lunatics have been whipped up into a fervor and the Republican Congress has made them think there's actually something they can do about this...
Regular Reminder
It's not the sex, it's the lying...The Bugman:
"She talks and she laughs and she expresses likes and discomforts," he said Sunday evening. "It won't take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo. It will only take the medical care and therapy that patients require."
Bases
Yglesias writes:
It's one of those completely true things which is at best ignored and more frequently treated as a crazy conspiracy.
weird.
Speaking of Iraq policy, I seem to have misset my clock radio last night and instead of the usual NPR got what I think was C-SPAN Radio where they had Marina Ottaway on. She, unlike pretty much everyone else one ever hears talking on this subject, did an admirable job of raising the elephant in the corner of American Iraq policy, the fact that near as anybody can tell the administration is still trying to finagle some kind of permanent military basing agreement in Iraq. That the administration has managed to hew consistently to this agenda without ever stating that this is one of their major policy goals is astounding, and that the American media is consistently unwilling to discuss the point is appalling. What's even more astounding about it is that one regularly hears and reads in expert commentary that we ought to "make clear" that this isn't what we're doing. Apparently, it's impolitic to note that Bush isn't making it clear that we don't want permanent bases because we do, in fact, want permanent bases.
It's one of those completely true things which is at best ignored and more frequently treated as a crazy conspiracy.
weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)