Have fun.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Halliblog
This is basically how the nervous nellies in the campaign finance community and the pro-reg people at the FEC seem to be thinking:
Look, the basic issue is that no one has figured out the grand "if only I had 10 million bucks to spend I could have the most trafficked site on the internet" issue. If that were true, it would happen. It doesn't. Who the hell would read a Halliburton blog or website? If they had 10 million to spend on it, what would they spend it on?
Many of the most popular websites are low tech and require little money or bandwidth (aside from the bandwidth which inevitably results from having a lot of traffic). Think Drudge. Aside from the proliferation of intrusive pop-ups, that dude's site hasn't changed in 8 years. As I told the FEC, aside from maintaining a computer, paying for my basic broadband connection, etc... I've probably had about $150 in direct expenses to keep this site running.
The only way I can really imagine that a "Halliburton blog" devoted to glorifying dear leader and Dick could really attract traffic based on the amount of money they spent would be if they, say, offered 10 free Itunes downloads in exchange for reading the propaganda of the day or other kinds of freebies. And those kinds of expenditures could easily be called illegal in-kind contributions without actually stopping the operation of such a website.
It'd be nice if we could spend our time thinking about important things.
Suppose Halliburton, a corporation with close ties to the Bush-Cheney ticket, set up a blog to help their ticket win. If the blogger had journalistic status, there would be no limit on what the corporation could pay the blogger or spend bankrolling the blog's activities. There would be no restriction on coordination between the blog and the Bush-Cheney campaign.
The blog could solicit campaign contributions, steer traffic to the Bush-Cheney campaign website, amplify an attack strategy against their opponents, and directly advocate a vote for or against. The blog also would not have to disclose where it was getting its funding and would not have to publish any disclaimer alerting readers that it was a virtual extension of the Bush-Cheney campaign.
As technology evolved, maybe the Halliburton-sponsored Bush blog would make and circulate videos that could be posted on the blog, and e-mailed to millions of voters, with all the costs paid by the corporation and with no restrictions as to content, disclosure or disclaimers, Darr said. But in their testimony, bloggers said one sure way the FEC could undermine the democratizing potential of the Internet is to imagine abuses that have not occurred and to impose regulations that would require every blogger to hire a lawyer and an accountant for fear of violations.
Look, the basic issue is that no one has figured out the grand "if only I had 10 million bucks to spend I could have the most trafficked site on the internet" issue. If that were true, it would happen. It doesn't. Who the hell would read a Halliburton blog or website? If they had 10 million to spend on it, what would they spend it on?
Many of the most popular websites are low tech and require little money or bandwidth (aside from the bandwidth which inevitably results from having a lot of traffic). Think Drudge. Aside from the proliferation of intrusive pop-ups, that dude's site hasn't changed in 8 years. As I told the FEC, aside from maintaining a computer, paying for my basic broadband connection, etc... I've probably had about $150 in direct expenses to keep this site running.
The only way I can really imagine that a "Halliburton blog" devoted to glorifying dear leader and Dick could really attract traffic based on the amount of money they spent would be if they, say, offered 10 free Itunes downloads in exchange for reading the propaganda of the day or other kinds of freebies. And those kinds of expenditures could easily be called illegal in-kind contributions without actually stopping the operation of such a website.
It'd be nice if we could spend our time thinking about important things.
Ho Ho Ho
Justice is unimportant, just the comfort of the Nantucket crowd.
GREENFIELD: Yes. Wolf? I've got to make one other thing -- the one thing nobody's talked about: This might be a decent case for a presidential pardon, which doesn't get the reporters of the hook legally in the future, but says, you know, this is the wrong circumstance under which to send two people to jail. I know that sounds a little odd, but I've been thinking about this and it strikes me that, that might not be the worst solution to this.
BLITZER: All right. I suspect, though, that some people could say if the president decided to pardon these journalists, he might be participating in some sort of cover up.
GREENFIELD: I'd like to see the press attack the president for protecting the press. That would be an interesting approach.
Kelo
Quite a few of us in left blogistan have taken a lot of criticism for our support of the recent Kelo eminent domain decision or our tepid objection to it. One talk radio host who I'm a fan of expressed a desire to smack me in the face over it.
I don't want to go into a long discussion of this. I think probably the decision was correct - it certainly reflected established law and practice in any case - and was probably preferable to most alternative decisions.
However, I also quite welcome the Kelo backlash. It was probably Nathan Newman who took the lefty "contrarian" view of the case which got me thinking more about it (too lazy to hunt up the exact post). I'd spent some time in New London in the past few years and certainly see what's happening there as nothing more than a land grab. I'm familiar enough with some of the players to know that motives are almost certainly not pure. I would've liked the process there to be stopped. However, as with many things, the question wasn't "is this bad" - the question was "should the Supremos establish some precedent to keep this kind of thing from happening." The answer to the first question was of course yes. The answer to the second one was arguably, if not definitively, no.
I also don't think that in this case there should be any kind of federal remedy. Preening members of Congress who are pushing against this kind of use of eminent domain while simultaneously pushing for privately owned toll roads, which would certainly need the power of eminent domain to get built, are just, well, strutting for the cameras. A federal remedy seems rather silly.
But, by all means, let there be a backlash. Eminent domain has been used for years, sometimes for good and more often for ill, in the name of urban renewal or neighborhood improvement. Minority and poor neighborhoods were generally the targets. I'm quite happy for more middle class people to be a bit angry at the idea that the state can make you sell your house to them. When an issue goes from being something that can happen to other people to something that can happen to you, maybe you start to take notice.
So, please all you people who are concerned about this issue - make it a local one, make it a state one.
I don't want to go into a long discussion of this. I think probably the decision was correct - it certainly reflected established law and practice in any case - and was probably preferable to most alternative decisions.
However, I also quite welcome the Kelo backlash. It was probably Nathan Newman who took the lefty "contrarian" view of the case which got me thinking more about it (too lazy to hunt up the exact post). I'd spent some time in New London in the past few years and certainly see what's happening there as nothing more than a land grab. I'm familiar enough with some of the players to know that motives are almost certainly not pure. I would've liked the process there to be stopped. However, as with many things, the question wasn't "is this bad" - the question was "should the Supremos establish some precedent to keep this kind of thing from happening." The answer to the first question was of course yes. The answer to the second one was arguably, if not definitively, no.
I also don't think that in this case there should be any kind of federal remedy. Preening members of Congress who are pushing against this kind of use of eminent domain while simultaneously pushing for privately owned toll roads, which would certainly need the power of eminent domain to get built, are just, well, strutting for the cameras. A federal remedy seems rather silly.
But, by all means, let there be a backlash. Eminent domain has been used for years, sometimes for good and more often for ill, in the name of urban renewal or neighborhood improvement. Minority and poor neighborhoods were generally the targets. I'm quite happy for more middle class people to be a bit angry at the idea that the state can make you sell your house to them. When an issue goes from being something that can happen to other people to something that can happen to you, maybe you start to take notice.
So, please all you people who are concerned about this issue - make it a local one, make it a state one.
Exporting Wingnuttery
One of the several reasons I opposed our little Iraq adventure was because I thought this gang was incompetent. That was always the reason which was most derided by the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and Generals Sullivan and Hitchens.
But holy shit. Who could've imagined they'd be this incompetent?
But holy shit. Who could've imagined they'd be this incompetent?
The Liberal Media
Jeff Greenfield just told Wolf Blitzer:
You know, pardoning Judith Miller. So she doesn't have to testify. So Fitzgerald can't make the case he presumably might be making against a prominent Bush administration official.
Sure, Jeff. Sounds like a great case to me.
...sam heldman reminds us:
This might be a good case for a presidential pardon.
You know, pardoning Judith Miller. So she doesn't have to testify. So Fitzgerald can't make the case he presumably might be making against a prominent Bush administration official.
Sure, Jeff. Sounds like a great case to me.
...sam heldman reminds us:
Ken D nailed it above -- civil contempt (i.e., putting somebody in jail in order to induce them to comply with a court order, such as an order to testify, with the proviso that they can get out of jail as soon as they agree to do so) is not a crime, and therefore not pardonable. Jeff Greenfield was supposed to know something about the law, wasn't he??
Chimpeachment
Zogby:
President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.
The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.
...
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.
Cash
Corn says a likely reason for Time's actions is that it would've cost them money. I did actually know that. What I really meant was that I didn't understand how this decision fits within the mythos of the "media protects their sources at all costs." Cooper was, presumably, willing to actually go to prison to protect his source. However, Time is likely not willing to sacrifice a bit of cash for the same reason.
The point is that it's a longstanding tradition that the ethics of journalism require that journalists protect their sources to protect their profession. In one act, Time has basically thrown this concept out the window. It no longer matters if journalists are willing to protect their sources. Those who pay their salaries (some of those, anyway) won't back them up, so the commitment of the individual journalist is largely irrelevant.
And, now, will all those people writing impassioned defenses of source protection and the journalists who protect them now write angry condemnations of Time? Will Howie Kurtz bash his bosses?
The point is that it's a longstanding tradition that the ethics of journalism require that journalists protect their sources to protect their profession. In one act, Time has basically thrown this concept out the window. It no longer matters if journalists are willing to protect their sources. Those who pay their salaries (some of those, anyway) won't back them up, so the commitment of the individual journalist is largely irrelevant.
And, now, will all those people writing impassioned defenses of source protection and the journalists who protect them now write angry condemnations of Time? Will Howie Kurtz bash his bosses?
Interesting
The Republicans are going to push legislation which would revoke federal funds from states which used eminent domain to seize property for purposes they don't think is appropriate.
No matter one thinks of the appropriateness of the Kelo decision, this is yet another interesting move by the states' rights crowd.
...and, meanwhile, they want to encourage privately developed toll roads, which of course would require eminent domain to obtain the necessary contiguous land parcels. Such consistency.
(2nd link thanks to lerxst)
(seen on CNN)
No matter one thinks of the appropriateness of the Kelo decision, this is yet another interesting move by the states' rights crowd.
...and, meanwhile, they want to encourage privately developed toll roads, which of course would require eminent domain to obtain the necessary contiguous land parcels. Such consistency.
(2nd link thanks to lerxst)
(seen on CNN)
Your Liberal Media
Alterman:
Why Rove felt compelled to launch this particular McCarthyite missive now is not ultimately knowable. Perhaps he is growing desperate, as the President's popularity ratings spiral south, and Americans--by a 49 to 44 percent margin--tell pollsters that George W. Bush, not Saddam Hussein, holds the greatest responsibility for the horrific war in Iraq. But Rove is no dummy. He knows he can say just about anything about anyone and conservative pundits will bark "Amen." His vicious denigration of the patriotism of so many New Yorkers (and American soldiers, I might add, many of whom are liberals) was not so different from the false and malicious charges leveled not merely by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh but also by allegedly responsible commentators, including Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Beinart. (It was Beinart, you will recall, who, in his famous "A Fighting Faith" article, introduced the redbaiter's well-worn tactic against MoveOn.org of seeking to blame the organization for petitions it did not write and websites it did not control. He also sought to draw an equation between the questioning of the Administration's military strategy and the support of the communist side during the cold war.)
Rove's defenders, including White House press secretary Scott McClellan and New York Governor George Pataki, changed the subject to Durbin rather than offer even meek criticism of the second most powerful man in America (after Dick Cheney). But remember: Durbin paid tribute to America's ideals. Rove not only lied about liberals, he mocked the very concepts of "moderation," "restraint" and "understanding" as un-American. Durbin criticized no one but the torturers; Rove slandered more than 20 percent of Americans who proudly identify themselves as liberals.
And where were the mainstream media in all this? With just a few honorable exceptions they were passing along without prejudice Rove's slander and lies and the deliberate distortions of Durbin's words. Typically, Washington Post media cop Howard Kurtz adopted the White House spin with a report titled "Downplaying Durbin, Jumping on Rove." The smart guys at The Note explained that Democrats were asking for this kind of thing with their general wimpiness. Apparently, it's not a reporter's business to decide what's true anymore, just who sounds more macho.
There's a lesson for liberals in all this: American politics has become a game with no rules and no referee. Play by the old rules--fairness, honesty, good faith--and face political extinction.
Senator Biden Has Switched His Home State
He is now officially the senator from the great state of Bank of America.
Terry Returns
From Afghanistan. Well, he's been back for awhile, but he's just resumed blogging publishing his online magazine. Some of you may remember sending him pens.
Principles
I really don't understand this.
You see, the way this works is that it allows our media to collectively pretend that Cooper was a stand up journalist fighting to preserve his source anonymity until the very end while letting his employer, Time Magazine, bail him out. We can preserve the myth that journalists are noble crusaders, that Cooper was grand and good and noble because he was "willing" to go to jail for his source, even as the publisher makes the whole battle moot.
When it comes to defending the supposed principles they were fighting for, this seems like a rather bad outcome. The whole point was that to protect the freedom of the press you had to protect the identity of confidential sources. From this perspective Time taints their entire publication -- you can't rely on anyone working for that magazine to protect their sources because the publishers/editors will sell out all of their journalist's sources.
NEW YORK - Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of The New York Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time.
You see, the way this works is that it allows our media to collectively pretend that Cooper was a stand up journalist fighting to preserve his source anonymity until the very end while letting his employer, Time Magazine, bail him out. We can preserve the myth that journalists are noble crusaders, that Cooper was grand and good and noble because he was "willing" to go to jail for his source, even as the publisher makes the whole battle moot.
When it comes to defending the supposed principles they were fighting for, this seems like a rather bad outcome. The whole point was that to protect the freedom of the press you had to protect the identity of confidential sources. From this perspective Time taints their entire publication -- you can't rely on anyone working for that magazine to protect their sources because the publishers/editors will sell out all of their journalist's sources.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
A Life Transformed
Since I ceased being a blogger an hour or so ago and became the publisher/editor/chief political correspondent/cat photographer/scifi critic/media critic/missing persons expert/blogger ethics expert/janitor for an exciting new online magazine, my life has truly been transformed. I discovered, in my coupon clipping box, a deed for a 6000 sq. ft. Nantucket cabin. I've been to 17 parties hosted by the charming and delightful Sally Quinn. I've played Bridge with Nedra Pickler, and twister with Candy Crowley and Jeff Greenfield. I've convened 38 panels on blogger ethics, something I never managed to do when I was actually a blogger. My debut appearance on Meet the Press will happen this Sunday, where I will be given the opportunity to weigh in on the topics of "Bush or Christ - Who best to worship this Sunday?" and "The Democrats - Traitors or Losers or Both?"
I feel sad for the rest of the bloggers in the losersphere. See ya suckers. Oh Brit? Watch this drive!
I feel sad for the rest of the bloggers in the losersphere. See ya suckers. Oh Brit? Watch this drive!
Recruiting
I think lukery will win his ten bucks.
Last month they said they'd need 9760 per month through September for the Army to reach its annual goal of 80,000 recruited. Now they're claiming the June goal was 5650 and claiming they exceeded it by 500.
Operation Yellow Elephant is failing.
Last month they said they'd need 9760 per month through September for the Army to reach its annual goal of 80,000 recruited. Now they're claiming the June goal was 5650 and claiming they exceeded it by 500.
Operation Yellow Elephant is failing.
New Format
Just to warn people that the new format necessitates a few changes around here. First, I'm going to add the WWWA news ticker to make sure we all keep abreast of the latest developments on missing white women everywhere. Second, there will be no more bad news about the war. It's all good in Iraq, and if you disagree you're undermining and a traitor. Third, a lot more TomKat coverage. TomKat is what the nation wants to hear about, and since every other news, commentary, and editorial outlet is doing TomKat watch, so must we do it here. Fourth, sharks bitches! SHARKS! Fifth, I plan on doing an entire issue entitled "The Internet Transforms Modern Life," because I've got quite a scoop about that. Sixth, I plan to begin a series about how Leprechauns will save Social Security as long as we add private accounts. Seventh, Lou Dobbs will write an occasional column entitled "The Brown Menace." Eighth, a regular feature will promote books containing known falsehoods. Ninth, John Tierney will occasionally guest blog edit the magazine for a semi-regular "proof women are shit" edition. And, finally, number 10, Mallard Filmore will be the daily comic because there's nothing funnier than a duck reading John Stossel transcripts.
FEC Follies
Well, it's basically 3 Democrats versus 3 Republicans, and unless the Republicans pull a "let's support something unreasonable in hopes that it opens the door for Congress to chuck McCain-Feingold out entirely," it's the Dems who are the presumptive "bad guys" in this (they can, of course, prove me wrong and I hope they do).
The entire process has, in fact, driven me rather crazy as I've spent the last couple of days thinking about this stuff way too much. No one has yet to give me a satisfactory answer to any variations of the following simple questions:
Why is somebody who prints up and mails out weekly vanity newsletter entitled to the media exemption but not me?
Why is Michael Savage entitled to the media exemption but not me?
Why is Salon.com entitled to the media exemption but not me?
The entire process has, in fact, driven me rather crazy as I've spent the last couple of days thinking about this stuff way too much. No one has yet to give me a satisfactory answer to any variations of the following simple questions:
Why is somebody who prints up and mails out weekly vanity newsletter entitled to the media exemption but not me?
Why is Michael Savage entitled to the media exemption but not me?
Why is Salon.com entitled to the media exemption but not me?
Well, That Was Fun
Actually I've had more pleasant experiences. It's difficult because in a sense each commissioner had an agenda and they tended to ask leading questions in hopes of obtaining a certain answer, but not being quite familiar enough with either their pet concerns or all of the arcane nuances of campaign finance law I wasn't always entirely sure just what they were getting at...
FEC
Well, I went to one of the sessions this morning and will be testifying later. I skipped out on the middle session because I really don't need to hear what Kristinn of the Free Republic has to say about anything.
Reading the tea leaves, my take is that enough of the commissioners are moving towards a reasonable place on this stuff, though whether they make it all the way remains to be seen. At the heart of the issue, really, is why anyone would imagine those communicating through outlets blessed by Time Warner, Disney, and General Electric should get a pass from intrusive regulation while those operating on the internets, where there are no scarcity issues and no barriers to entry, should face scrutiny.
Hopefully I will help them to understand that just a bit more, though I think they're starting to get it....
Reading the tea leaves, my take is that enough of the commissioners are moving towards a reasonable place on this stuff, though whether they make it all the way remains to be seen. At the heart of the issue, really, is why anyone would imagine those communicating through outlets blessed by Time Warner, Disney, and General Electric should get a pass from intrusive regulation while those operating on the internets, where there are no scarcity issues and no barriers to entry, should face scrutiny.
Hopefully I will help them to understand that just a bit more, though I think they're starting to get it....
Principles
What can one say:
NEW YORK When Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times return late Wednesday afternoon to face the federal judge who ordered them to jail last fall for refusing to reveal confidential sources, two different outcomes may emerge.
While New York Times officials have maintained that Miller will not reveal the source who leaked to her the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, a source close to Time Inc. told E&P that the company is considering handing over documents that would reveal the source.
Polled
That's a representative sample (certainly, it may genuinely be a representative sample of those who actually watched the speech):
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of Americans who watched President Bush's Iraq speech Tuesday night showed that 46 percent had a "very positive" reaction to what they heard.
The poll was taken immediately after the speech, and the 323 adults interviewed were 50 percent Republican, 23 percent Democratic and 27 percent independent. The margin of error was plus or minus 6 percentage points.
Another 28 percent said they were "somewhat positive" about what they heard, and 26 percent said they had a "negative" reaction.
"It's difficult to tell from these poll results how the speech will affect general U.S. public," said CNN polling director Keating Holland.
"Many Americans did not watch the speech. Those who did were 2-to-1 Republican, so most were arguably already in the president's camp."
Corned
David Corn:
Bush's speech will not alter the landscape--here or in Iraq. It was the rhetorical equivalent of treading water. Before the speech, NPR had asked me to talk about the address afterward with a conservative pundit. Minutes before we were to go on, an NPR worker called. We've decided, she said, that there was not enough in the speech to warrant an analysis segment. I could hardly protest.
Dear Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg:
And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation's uniform.
Love,
George W. Bush
So, What'd I Miss?
Amazing that the best place to avoid seeing Bush's speech was DC. Anyway, did he wear a cool new Star Trek uniform?
...Reid sez:
...Reid sez:
“Tonight’s address offered the President an excellent opportunity to level with the American people about the current situation in Iraq, put forth a path for success, and provide the means to assess our progress. Unfortunately he fell short on all counts.
“There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President’s Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. “Staying the course,” as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek.
“The President’s numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq, they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and Al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America.
“Democrats stand united and committed to seeing that we achieve success in Iraq and provide our troops, their families, and our veterans everything they need and deserve for their sacrifices for our nation. The stakes are too high, and failure in Iraq cannot be an option. Success is only possible if the President significantly alters his current course. That requires the President to work with Congress and finally begin to speak openly and honestly with our troops and the American people about the difficult road ahead.
“Our troops and their families deserve no less.”
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Irresponsible
Apparently some FEC commissioners believe the media exception should only apply to those who are "responsible." Missed that part of the constitution.
Sometimes I wonder if these people ever actually consume what constitutes our media these days. Do they ever watch/listen to Imus? Savage? Limbaugh? Tucker Carlson?
...Kos says it was a deliberate softball question.
Sometimes I wonder if these people ever actually consume what constitutes our media these days. Do they ever watch/listen to Imus? Savage? Limbaugh? Tucker Carlson?
...Kos says it was a deliberate softball question.
Timetable
Bush, 1999:
I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.
The Press
Not to get meta, but god I get annoyed every time my name pops up:
First, it wasn't the headline, it was the content of the post. Second, it didn't link to a diatribe it linked to this rather non-diatribe like post by Chris Mooney. Third, it wasn't "over global warming" it was over a member of congress sending an intimidating letter to a scientist.
Duncan Black _ who founded the www.atrios.blogspot.com blog _ featured a headline Monday on his Web site, "Bite me, Congressman," that linked to a diatribe against a Republican House committee chairman over global warming.
First, it wasn't the headline, it was the content of the post. Second, it didn't link to a diatribe it linked to this rather non-diatribe like post by Chris Mooney. Third, it wasn't "over global warming" it was over a member of congress sending an intimidating letter to a scientist.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Journalismists
I'm not in the mood to pick fights with people who are roughly on my team today so I'll skip the linkage, but I find a lot of the talk about the Miller/Cooper cases a bit puzzling. There are a lot of people who think that it's a major blow to freedom of the press if Miller/Cooper go to jail. It is true that the Sentelle penned opinion which may lead them there is not something those of us in favor of press freedom should be happy with, but that's a separate question of whether this is really the test case onto which people want to hang their source privilege hat.
There are also those who continue to want to draw the distinction between "journalists" and "other people." As someone who's about to go testify to the FEC and argue that what I do doesn't differ in any important way from what other players in the "legitimate" media do I find this very troubling. Journalism is not what people are, it's what they do.
The ability to maintain source confidentiality should not hinge on what one's job description is. A journalist should not and cannot have blanket immunity from ever testifying in court about what they know. That's an abuse of a privilege, and the kind of abuse which tends to lead to the limitation of the scope of that privilege.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Plame case situation crosses the line between maintaining source anonymity and covering up a crime. Certainly I sympathize with those who believe that any erosion of press freedom should be of concern. But the self-righteous claims of absolute privilege ring rather hollow in this case.
There are also those who continue to want to draw the distinction between "journalists" and "other people." As someone who's about to go testify to the FEC and argue that what I do doesn't differ in any important way from what other players in the "legitimate" media do I find this very troubling. Journalism is not what people are, it's what they do.
The ability to maintain source confidentiality should not hinge on what one's job description is. A journalist should not and cannot have blanket immunity from ever testifying in court about what they know. That's an abuse of a privilege, and the kind of abuse which tends to lead to the limitation of the scope of that privilege.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Plame case situation crosses the line between maintaining source anonymity and covering up a crime. Certainly I sympathize with those who believe that any erosion of press freedom should be of concern. But the self-righteous claims of absolute privilege ring rather hollow in this case.
Liars
A majority say the Bush administration "intentionally misled the American public."
57% say thay intentionally exaggerated the evidence.
57% say thay intentionally exaggerated the evidence.
Indeed
What Roxanne says.
(I'm less sympathetic to the idea that any kind of privilege should apply here, but unless there's some reason to distinguish between Cooper and Miller other than We Hate Judith "The Queen of All Iraq" Miller (which we do), they presumably deserve equal treatment under the law).
(I'm less sympathetic to the idea that any kind of privilege should apply here, but unless there's some reason to distinguish between Cooper and Miller other than We Hate Judith "The Queen of All Iraq" Miller (which we do), they presumably deserve equal treatment under the law).
Ominous
The summer of 2001 was declared "summer of the shark" despite the fact that the number of shark attacks wasn't abnormal. Then a little tragic event happened and they shut the hell up about sharks for a little awhile.
Kurtz and Rather had this exchange around that time;
CNN just spent 22 minutes at a live press conference about a shark attack.
Kurtz and Rather had this exchange around that time;
KURTZ: Do you think now that we are headed into an era of more serious and sober news, as opposed to you know, the devoting lots of air time to sharks and Tom and Nicole and stories of that kind, or, three months from now, six months from now, as this story ebbs and flows, will we slip back into covering mini-scandals and celebrities and some of the lighter fair in the news business?
RATHER: Well, it is a key question. I wish I had the answer to it, Howie. I hope, and I honestly do believe that for a long period now there will be rethink among American journalists, in particular those who have some television, about concentrating more on serious news.
But I've thought that any number of times before, for example, in the wake of the Gulf War, I thought there would be a re-emphasis on foreign coverage. There wasn't. I thought there would be a sort of return to our journalistic base camp of trying to report more about things that are important, perhaps at the expense of things that are interesting, like celebrity news.
And I was wrong then. So I am really reluctant to make a prediction. But I think, given the seriousness of what's happened here, that for at least the short and medium range future that there will be a re-emphasis on more serious news coverage. I certainly hope so.
KURTZ: It does have the feel of a major league wake up call. Given the very widespread and low opinion of the news business, particularly in the last 10 or 15 years, why do you think that in a recent Pew Research Poll, 89 percent gave positive marks for the media for their coverage of this tragedy over the last couple of weeks. Why the shift?
RATHER: I hope it's because the coverage was pretty good. Mind you, I think we deserved what we got in the preceding 10 or 15 years, and I do not exempt myself from that criticism. I think the public was right on point.
But when this story broke, I mean, what journalist could not say, man, this is really serious for my country, and for that matter, for the world, and I want to get out and do a really responsible job. And even those journalistic entities who had strayed very far from what I consider to be the best journalism pulled themselves together. So I think it must be that the public looked, and they listened, and even though we made mistakes, saw how hard we were trying and felt that we did a pretty good job.
CNN just spent 22 minutes at a live press conference about a shark attack.
Don't Show It
I don't think it matters much either way, but I agree with David Corn that it'd be pretty silly for the networks to show Bush's speech. I also agree with him that usually I'd be annoyed if they didn't. But, there's no actual event prompting this speech other than his declining poll numbers, and somehow that doesn't really seem like a good enough reason. Press conference, yes. Speech alone, no.
More Grokster
After reading Matt's take, it seems like that Grokster decision wasn't so bad after all, though I wouldn't have known that from listening to CNN's inane reporting on it. If the liability issue mostly comes down to how such technology is marketed, rather than what it's used for, then civilization will continue to march onward...
Cheney Slanders Hagel
Watch the video.
Then, if you want, call Hagel's office for a response.
Washington, D.C. Office
248 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-4224
Fax: (202) 224-5213
transcript here.
Then, if you want, call Hagel's office for a response.
Washington, D.C. Office
248 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-4224
Fax: (202) 224-5213
transcript here.
Tuesday Speech
My prediction is that the goal is to make people believe that we're at war in a country called Afghaniraqistan.
Worse and Worse
Well, at least Judy may go to jail today.
The Sunday magazine has become unreadable.
NEW YORK In a lengthy memo published the newspaper's Web site, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, announced several new policies in response to a recent report by the paper's Credibility Committee. Among them is a fresh attempt to diversify the Times' staff and viewpoints, and not in the usual racial or gender ways, but in political, religious and cultural areas as well.
The aim, he wrote, is "to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation."
The point, Keller wrote, "is not that we should begin recruiting reporters and editors for their political outlook; it is part of our professional code that we keep our political views out of the paper. The point is that we want a range of experience. We have a recruiting committee that tracks promising outside candidates, and that committee has already begun to consider ways to enrich the variety of backgrounds of our reporters and editors.
...
Keller said there had already been successes, namely, the coverage of conservatives by David Kirkpatrick and Jason DeParle, and a number of recent Sunday magazine pieces. "I intend to keep pushing us in this direction," Keller declared.
The Sunday magazine has become unreadable.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Fast Trains
New Japanese train to go 360 kph (223mph).
Let's imagine that it could realistically average 160mph.
Philadelphia to Pittsburgh: <1.5 hours
Boston to Washington: <3 hours
Los Angeles to San Francisco: 3 hours
Los Angeles to Phoenix: <3.5 hours
Well, you get the idea...
Let's imagine that it could realistically average 160mph.
Philadelphia to Pittsburgh: <1.5 hours
Boston to Washington: <3 hours
Los Angeles to San Francisco: 3 hours
Los Angeles to Phoenix: <3.5 hours
Well, you get the idea...
Thermonuclear
It's been obvious, but now it's 150% certain. The new strategy is criticism of iraq=criticism of afghanistan=support for taliban=support for al qaeda = cheering on crashing twin towers. Cheney on Chuck Hagel:
Amazingly, this was 3 days ago and it was pretty much ignored.
...Will Bunch has more.
Since 9/11, we've had people like Chuck Hagel and other politicians and we've had people in the press corps and commentators who've said we can't do Afghanistan.
Amazingly, this was 3 days ago and it was pretty much ignored.
...Will Bunch has more.
"Neal Pollack" is Dead, Long Live Neal Pollack
Sadly, "Neal Pollack" is dead, though Neal Pollack is still alive.
To honor his memory, let's remind ourselves of a few of his greatest hits.
His introduction to the blogosphere, Welcome to the Maelstrom.
A Man Wronged
Ow!
Shuffle off to Buffalo
Orchestral Maneouvers of Weapons of Mass Destruction In The Dark
Left No More.
Al Jacked Up And Nowhere to Go
Bulled by the Gore and its follow up You Must Understand Me.
To honor his memory, let's remind ourselves of a few of his greatest hits.
His introduction to the blogosphere, Welcome to the Maelstrom.
A Man Wronged
Ow!
Shuffle off to Buffalo
Orchestral Maneouvers of Weapons of Mass Destruction In The Dark
Left No More.
Al Jacked Up And Nowhere to Go
Bulled by the Gore and its follow up You Must Understand Me.
What's Hagel Going to Do About It?
I was just about to ask that question, but I headed over to Big Media Matt's place to see if he'd beaten me to the punch, which he has.
Props
I'm surely not the first person to make this observation, but it makes me physically ill when I think about the fact that Bush is going to use members of the military as props in his Tuesday night speech to the country.
DeLay vs. DeLay
Tom Delay speaking to the College Republicans:
Tom DeLay on 9/20/2001:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), in a bit of a role reversal, came to the defense of Rove by repeating some of the most provocative lines to College Republicans and saying, "That's not slander. That's the truth." The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal proclaiming "Karl Rove Is Right.
Tom DeLay on 9/20/2001:
DELAY: Well, there's no American that wants us to fail, that's for sure. When we went home, every member that I've talked to had the same experience that I had. Everywhere I went, it didn't matter who you were talking to -- I ran into some of the most liberal constituents that I had. People would come up to me, hug me, kiss me. They would -- they'd just say they're with us, you know, "We want this done and we want it done right, and we're with you." I mean, the prayer rallies that we went to, the vigils that we saw.
Groundhog Day
Whenever I go to a Nexis search to see what various pundits were writing about Iraq at the time I always mess it up the first time. When I put in a search range for the dates, I always put in the Fall of 2003 as the starting point, instead of the Fall of 2002, as it's still hard to comprehend that we've been in Iraq for over 2 years.
This is from a George Will column in August of 2003:
So, almost 2 years ago, we had Wolfowitz hitting exactly the same themes that they're hitting now - we've trained a bunch of Iraqis and all we need to do is train a few more.
This is from a George Will column in August of 2003:
Abizaid briskly defines the modest, nuts-and-bolts but potentially momentous development that must happen soon: "We've got to do a lot more to bring an Iraqi face" -- beyond the nearly 60,000 Iraqis already under arms in reconstituted security forces -- "to the security establishments throughout Iraq very quickly." As Wolfowitz says, the basic U.S. strategy is to "get us into the background before we become the issue."
So, almost 2 years ago, we had Wolfowitz hitting exactly the same themes that they're hitting now - we've trained a bunch of Iraqis and all we need to do is train a few more.
Enlist
I've written this before, but I really want to get back to this point in as unsnarky a way as possible, because this is a serious issue. Given the obvious problems with military recruiting it's absolutely stunning that no prominent leader has put out a patriotic call to enlist. We joke about the College Republicans, but why didn't Senator McCain go give a speech politely suggesting that they consider serving their country?
We all know the basic answers to this question, but the media and our political leaders have been unwilling to confront exactly what those answers mean.
We all know the basic answers to this question, but the media and our political leaders have been unwilling to confront exactly what those answers mean.
In Through 2008
This Week:
Fareed then gently reminded Will that our army is going to be fucked by the end of 2006 unless Operation Yellow Elephant starts having more success.
Then Will said that Iraq is our Chechnya.
Someone pour me a drink.
George Will: There is the 2008 election in this country that could produce a victory for the insurgents."
George Steph: How is that?
George Will: By a crack in the American... by electing a president who says 'if elected I will withdraw.'
Fareed then gently reminded Will that our army is going to be fucked by the end of 2006 unless Operation Yellow Elephant starts having more success.
Then Will said that Iraq is our Chechnya.
Someone pour me a drink.
Therapy
AP:
LONDON - U.S. officials held secret talks in Iraq with the commanders of several Iraqi insurgent groups recently in an attempt to open a dialogue with them, a British newspaper reported Sunday.
The commanders "apparently came face to face" with four American officials during meetings on June 3 and June 13 at a summer villa near Balad, about 25 miles north of Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, according to The Sunday Times.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Secrets
I've been slowly meandering my way through old episodes of Stargate, a show I'd never really watched before. Suddenly I'm curious about something. If the basic premise of the show, or something roughly similar, were true - we have access to ancient technology that allows us to travel to other planets, aliens exist and potentially threaten Earth - what would you do if you were president? Would you tell the world or keep it secret?
Inside the Mind of a Washington Journalist
CJR with John Harris:
There you have it. The "tons of questions raised... merited aggressive coverage" even though the answers to those questions "didn't lead anyplace all that great."
And, then, he follows with:
Gee, I wonder why.
Most news organizations -- the Washington Post included -- were devoting lots of resources, lots of coverage, to the campaign fund-raising scandal which grew out of the '96 campaign, and there were a lot of very tantalizing leads in those initial controversies. In the end they didn't seem to lead anyplace all that great. But there were tons of questions raised that certainly, to my mind, merited aggressive coverage.
There you have it. The "tons of questions raised... merited aggressive coverage" even though the answers to those questions "didn't lead anyplace all that great."
And, then, he follows with:
The White House was unbelievably resentful -- they thought it was much ado about nothing, they thought that this was a scandal-obsessed press corps.
Gee, I wonder why.
Pretty Stunning
I saw this poll result before and it shocked me, though I wasn't sure I was so shocked. But, Wolcott provided the reason:
What amazes me is that more Americans now blame Bush for provoking the war with Iraq than blame Saddam Hussein. That's not an argument I've heard anyone make on cable talk or on the op-ed pages. Somehow Americans drew that conclusion all on their own! The tide of popular opinion turning against the war is washing away walls we didn't even know were there.
Chickenhawks on Parade
Everyone else has linked this story, but it sure is good fun:
In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s offered a range of answers. Some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn't need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.
"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I'd like to survive to see that," said Vivian Lee, 17, a war supporter visiting the convention from Los Angeles,
Lee said she supports the war but would volunteer only if the United States faced a dire troop shortage or "if there's another Sept. 11."
"As long as there's a steady stream of volunteers, I don't see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who has a cousin deployed in the Middle East.
In an election season overwhelmed by memories of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military's newest war ranks supreme among the worries confronting much of Generation Y'ers. Iraq is their war.
"If there was a need presented, I would go," said Chris Cusmano, a 21-year-old member of the College Republicans organization from Rocky Point, N.Y. But he said he hasn't really considered volunteering.
Shitfaced Tom
Little birdies have told me that Tom DeLay has fallen off the wagon so much that he keeps, well, falling down. This video seems to confirm that idea.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Being a Teen in the Naughties
Stories like this just fill you with warm fuzzies:
According to the school's usage policy, students who violate it will be "disciplined." Who knew being "disciplined" by a school meant "charged with felonies." Well, their lives could be fucked before they've even begun.
(via slashdot)
Thirteen Kutztown Area High School students are facing felony charges for tampering with district-issued laptop computers.
According to parent testimony and confirmed by an otherwise vaguely-worded letter from the Kutztown Police Department, students got hold of the system's secret administrative password and reconfigured their computers to achieve greater Internet and network access.
Some students used the newfound freedom to download music and inappropriate images from the Internet.
According to the school's usage policy, students who violate it will be "disciplined." Who knew being "disciplined" by a school meant "charged with felonies." Well, their lives could be fucked before they've even begun.
(via slashdot)
War Game
Kenneth Baer discusses the impact of a possible and realistic oil supply disruption.
He writes:
"Energy independence" is the kind of phrase which sounds nice, but it isn't really a possibility as long as we consume any nontrivial quantity of oil - both for energy and for its other numerous uses. I don't imagine we'll be "independent" as long as there's a drop of oil left in the ground somewhere.
Still, there are two reasons to wean ourselves off oil fairly quickly. The first is that by reducing oil consumption we reduce the likelihood of supply disruptions. The more slack there is global production, the less likely such disruptions could happen.
The second reason is to lessen the impact of such disruptions. And, in this case, it isn't just about reducing the need for oil, it's about increasing the available substitutes for oil. Let's take hybrid cars. While they reduce oil consumption, they still require it. That's a problem. Hybrid cars that can also be charged from an outlet, if necessary, and run without gas for some period would be preferable. Yes, some of that electricity is produced using oil, but not all of it. In addition, in the case of supply disruption presumably electricity generating plants will have more access than the local gas station.
The problem with an oil supply disruption isn't simply that it'll increase the price of energy. The problem is that for large chunks of our economy (commuting/freight transportation/etc...) there simply is no substitute for oil. No oil, car no go, truck no go, plane no go.
He writes:
But, as all the panelists -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- said yesterday what is really missing is the leadership to make energy independence and security a top priority.
"Energy independence" is the kind of phrase which sounds nice, but it isn't really a possibility as long as we consume any nontrivial quantity of oil - both for energy and for its other numerous uses. I don't imagine we'll be "independent" as long as there's a drop of oil left in the ground somewhere.
Still, there are two reasons to wean ourselves off oil fairly quickly. The first is that by reducing oil consumption we reduce the likelihood of supply disruptions. The more slack there is global production, the less likely such disruptions could happen.
The second reason is to lessen the impact of such disruptions. And, in this case, it isn't just about reducing the need for oil, it's about increasing the available substitutes for oil. Let's take hybrid cars. While they reduce oil consumption, they still require it. That's a problem. Hybrid cars that can also be charged from an outlet, if necessary, and run without gas for some period would be preferable. Yes, some of that electricity is produced using oil, but not all of it. In addition, in the case of supply disruption presumably electricity generating plants will have more access than the local gas station.
The problem with an oil supply disruption isn't simply that it'll increase the price of energy. The problem is that for large chunks of our economy (commuting/freight transportation/etc...) there simply is no substitute for oil. No oil, car no go, truck no go, plane no go.
Wanting to Hurt the Troops
If I were motivated by a desire to hurt the troops, I'd underfund the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Senate Republicans voted against budget increases for Vets three times this year.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Department of Veterans Affairs told Congress that its health care costs grew faster than expected and left a $1 billion hole in its budget this year, lawmakers said Thursday.
House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer, the Republican from Indiana, said the department can meet this year's health care costs by drawing on spare funds and money from other operations, including building construction.
But next year's health care budget falls well over $1 billion short, said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.
"I was on the phone this morning with Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson letting him know that I am not pleased that this has happened," said Craig, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.
"This shortfall results from either deliberate misdirection or gross incompetence by this administration and the Department of Veteran Affairs," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington.
Senate Republicans voted against budget increases for Vets three times this year.
Banning Bill O'Reilly
This sounds like an excellent idea. Proposed version:
Congress shall have power to prohibit the speech of William "Falafel" O'Reilly.
Anti-American
Those of you who haven't blocked it out remember the Clear Channel organized "pro-war" or "pro-America" rallies that happened in the days before the war started. What was notable at the time (and Digby did note) was that the truth was that these were not pro-war rallies or pro-America rallies. In truth, they were anti-American rallies. The enemy to rally participants was not Saddam Hussein or al Qaeda, it was the Dixie Chicks. It was liberals. It was "the freaks in the limousine, the ones with the hairy armpits and the lesbian, whatever that is." In other words, it was other Americans - not Americans with actual political power, just normal Americans who they disagreed with.
This is what we're getting more of now. Under the guise of patriotism, the "enemy within" is being attacked. Now, apparently, according to senior Republicans, the enemy within is all who question Dear Leader. These people hate Americans.
This is what we're getting more of now. Under the guise of patriotism, the "enemy within" is being attacked. Now, apparently, according to senior Republicans, the enemy within is all who question Dear Leader. These people hate Americans.
Action Alert
This week Karl Rove headlined a couple of fundraisers for the Republican candidate for governor of New Jesrsey, Doug Forrester. Call his campaign office and demand to know if Forrester stands by Karl Rove's assertion that Democrats like Dick Durbin are motivated by a desire to see troops die (especially if you live in New Jersey or imagine that you do). Demand that he return the money he raised. Find out if he's proud to stand with Karl Rove, and if also thinks that New Jersey Democrats are motivated by a desire to see our troops die.
609-452-0101
609-452-0101
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Ken Mehlman Says Liberals Want Our Troops to Die
So this is the nice quiet RNC chief who is so unlike that nasty Howard Dean:
Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking in Puerto Rico, said there was no need to apologize because "what Karl Rove said is true."
Peter Daou Speaks
From the Daou Report:
I'm devoting much of today's report to Karl Rove's vile comments denigrating half of the American public. My office overlooks Ground Zero, and I'm looking at the gaping footprint as I write this. My wife and I were in New York that day, on our way to the WTC for a morning meeting. A chance phone call dragged on a few minutes too long and most likely saved our lives. I lost friends in the towers, and when I walk past the site, as I do almost every evening, the pain is as real as it was on September 11th, 2001.
I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon's civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the "Cedar Revolution." I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I've seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn't presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn. Today, Karl Rove took that rhetoric to a new, filthy low.
Kelo v. New London - A (Slight) Contrarian take
Yes, this is a bad decision, but we must think of what the alternative might have been. I don't know what was in the hearts of the justices who ruled the way did, they may be fully on board this apparent belief in the unlimited power of eminent domain. This is not something I support. However, the alternative could've been a conservative written opinion severely limiting the power of eminent domain and the concept of public use, which would've eviscerated a truly necessary government power.
Clinton Demands Pataki Repudiation
As she should.
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton demanded Thursday that Gov. George Pataki repudiate a top White House advisor's comments about liberals' reaction to Sept. 11 remarks delivered while Pataki sat nearby onstage.
Clinton, D-N.Y., joined Senate Democrats who called on Karl Rove to apologize or resign for his comments Wednesday night in Manhattan to the New York state Conservative Party.
The senator said Pataki was at the event, and should speak out against Rove's characterization.
Rove Resign Yet?
I hate these people. Go read Americablog.
For the record, my motives aren't to get more troops killed. If those were my motives I'd ship them off to a war on false pretenses without sufficient equipment to keep them safe.
For the record, my motives aren't to get more troops killed. If those were my motives I'd ship them off to a war on false pretenses without sufficient equipment to keep them safe.
Learn Damnit Learn
I'm for some reason reminded of the climactic scene in War Games when the computer is playing tic tac toe against itself over and over and Matthew Broderick is yelling at it telling it to LEARN! LEARN!
Learn, Democrats, Learn.
Learn, Democrats, Learn.
Rove: Liberals Want Troops To Die
The Kool Kids will probably wet themselves with glee at this bon mot from Karl.
But, this is the new strategy on Iraq: blame the critics. We're all Dixie Chicks now.
...Paul Waldman tells Chuck Schumer what he should have said in response:
But, this is the new strategy on Iraq: blame the critics. We're all Dixie Chicks now.
...Paul Waldman tells Chuck Schumer what he should have said in response:
Karl Rove's comments are even more despicable than what we've come to expect from Republicans. There is no depth to which they will not sink, no tragedy they will not exploit for political gain. The next time Mr. Rove wants to come to New York to lecture us about what September 11 means, he'd better hope this New Yorker isn't in the room.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Meanwhile in Spain
Link:
Aznar's gang are a bunch of sick twisted bastards. Here's the short version of what happened. After the horrible terrorist act, Aznar went around telling everyone it was ETA. Spain's intelligence service figured out pretty quickly that it probably wasn't. Aznar managed to convince most of the Spanish media that ETA was involved. Some involved in the investigation started leaking to a Spanish radio station that it probably was Islamic terrorists. The rest of the Spanish media, intimidated by Aznar and the national tragedy, was incredibly hostile to these reports. Aznar's government went as far as replacing scheduled programming on state run TV (on the Friday evening before the Sunday election) with a documentary about ETA terrorism. By this time, enough information had come out that the media began to turn and the Spanish population began to rebel, including massive grass roots demonstrations on the day before the election. All this was enough to probably help push the opposition PSOE party over the edge.
Aznar's involved with an American style think tank which was recently pushing the notion that the opposition - PSOE - must have known about the attack, the one Aznar lied about, before the fact. Proof? They must have known because otherwise they couldn't have used it to their advantage in the elections.
Sick twisted bastards, trained well by our right wing sick twisted bastards.
MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's previous center-right government "manipulated and twisted" the Madrid train bombings of March 2004 in a bid to salvage general elections three days later, a parliamentary commission found on Wednesday.
In a 200-page report after a year of bitter wrangling, the commission accused Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party (PP) government of ignoring police warnings that its support for the Iraq war increased the threat from Islamic terrorism in Spain.
The PP, which lost power to the Socialist party amid a backlash at its handling of the Islamic militant bombings, was the only party not to support the commission's findings.
Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, including a tape by an Islamic group saying the attack was a reprisal for Spain's role in Iraq, the PP insisted Basque separatist guerrillas ETA were the prime suspects in the attacks which killed 191 people.
"The objective was to influence public opinion about the authors of the attack and avoid political consequences which might harm the electoral interests of the Popular Party," read the final report. The report alleged the PP was afraid of public outcry if the bombings were linked to its unpopular support for the Iraq war.
"It was clearly an informative attitude inappropriate for a democratic government," said the report.
Aznar, who stood down at the elections, told a hearing of the commission last year he still believed ETA was linked to the attacks. The commission said in Wednesday's report it found no evidence of any ETA involvement in the bombings.
Aznar's gang are a bunch of sick twisted bastards. Here's the short version of what happened. After the horrible terrorist act, Aznar went around telling everyone it was ETA. Spain's intelligence service figured out pretty quickly that it probably wasn't. Aznar managed to convince most of the Spanish media that ETA was involved. Some involved in the investigation started leaking to a Spanish radio station that it probably was Islamic terrorists. The rest of the Spanish media, intimidated by Aznar and the national tragedy, was incredibly hostile to these reports. Aznar's government went as far as replacing scheduled programming on state run TV (on the Friday evening before the Sunday election) with a documentary about ETA terrorism. By this time, enough information had come out that the media began to turn and the Spanish population began to rebel, including massive grass roots demonstrations on the day before the election. All this was enough to probably help push the opposition PSOE party over the edge.
Aznar's involved with an American style think tank which was recently pushing the notion that the opposition - PSOE - must have known about the attack, the one Aznar lied about, before the fact. Proof? They must have known because otherwise they couldn't have used it to their advantage in the elections.
Sick twisted bastards, trained well by our right wing sick twisted bastards.
Long Term Contracts
I've repeatedly made the point that it's ridiculous to imagine that any sort of long term (near lifetime) contracts can be guaranteed to be enforced and honored. I consider this to be a bug. Apparently The Economist is puzzled that anyone would expect companies to honor their contractual obligations to workers, and think it's a feature.
I hope the publishers of the Economist have taken a long hard look at "Buttonwood's" contractual pension benefits, if there are any, and decided to cancel them.
(via DeLong)
I hope the publishers of the Economist have taken a long hard look at "Buttonwood's" contractual pension benefits, if there are any, and decided to cancel them.
(via DeLong)
Stop Clapping
Operation Tinkerbell was a success. We've won!
Fuck yeah!
On a tangential note, Christopher Durang is great. One of the best performances I've ever seen was a theater school production of The Marriage of Bette and Boo...
Fuck yeah!
On a tangential note, Christopher Durang is great. One of the best performances I've ever seen was a theater school production of The Marriage of Bette and Boo...
Good Gaggle
Holden:
E&P has more.
Q Scott, how concerned is the administration about the potential for Iraq to become a sort of training ground for Islamic extremists who may go back to their home countries and use these techniques to destabilize their governments? There's a new report on that recently.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me mention a couple things. As the President has said for some time now, Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism. Wherever you stood before the decision to go into Iraq, I think we can all recognize that the terrorists have made it a central front in the war on terrorism.
[snip]
Q Just following up on that question, you said at the outset of that, the terrorists have made it a central front in the war on terrorism. I thought it was a central front in the war on terrorism before we invaded.
MR. McCLELLAN: It is. It's part of the war on terrorism, yes.
Q It was.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, it is.
Q It is now --
MR. McCLELLAN: Both.
Q Was it prior to --
MR. McCLELLAN: Both. It's part of the war on terrorism, David.
Go ahead.
E&P has more.
US Flag Code
What's particularly frustrating by the flag burning amendment is that according to the US Flag Code, the appropriate way to dispose of a flag, as all patriotic Americans know, is to burn it.
Any anti-flag burning legislation would have to be based entirely around intent - was your intent to protest the actions of your government? If so, go to jail. Was your intent to follow the US Flag code? Good for you.
Any anti-flag burning legislation would have to be based entirely around intent - was your intent to protest the actions of your government? If so, go to jail. Was your intent to follow the US Flag code? Good for you.
Flag Burning
Well, it's back yet again, because it's what the people who died on September 11 would've wanted. Or something. Some days I wish they'd just pass the damn thing.
But, serious question for the constitutional lawyer types - anyone ever give any thought to how a flag burning amendment might impact 1st amendment issues more broadly? It seems to be that a direct abridgement of 1st amendment rights by amending the consitution, no matter how narrow the language of the amendment, would still open the door to further reinterpreatation of this stuff. Once the legality of outlawing a certain kind of, uh, political undermining is enshrined in the constitution it could presumably result in further limitations on political speech...no?
But, serious question for the constitutional lawyer types - anyone ever give any thought to how a flag burning amendment might impact 1st amendment issues more broadly? It seems to be that a direct abridgement of 1st amendment rights by amending the consitution, no matter how narrow the language of the amendment, would still open the door to further reinterpreatation of this stuff. Once the legality of outlawing a certain kind of, uh, political undermining is enshrined in the constitution it could presumably result in further limitations on political speech...no?
O'Reilly Calls for the Arrest and Detention of the Entire Air America Staff
Hilarious:
Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.
Samueluskin
The person responsible for ruminating about economic issues in one of the nation's premier newspapers really shouldn't display Luskin-like ignorance of the subject.
No One to Demonize
Harold Meyerson begins his column:
I suspect he's right. They're desperate to keep Dixie Chicking people, to put the blame on the opposition rather than themselves.
This is also related to the instapundit game - criticize the Democrats for not speaking out on something, and then when they do criticizing them for "politicizing it." The only way to oppose torture is to support it, the only way to oppose the war is to support it. Apparently the only way to have an anti-war movement is not to have one.
Fuck yeah!!
In the absence of an antiwar movement, the American people have turned against the war in Iraq. Those two facts, I suspect, are connected.
I suspect he's right. They're desperate to keep Dixie Chicking people, to put the blame on the opposition rather than themselves.
This is also related to the instapundit game - criticize the Democrats for not speaking out on something, and then when they do criticizing them for "politicizing it." The only way to oppose torture is to support it, the only way to oppose the war is to support it. Apparently the only way to have an anti-war movement is not to have one.
Fuck yeah!!
Facts, Schmacts
Knute Berger writes in the Seattle Weekly:
I'm not a big fan of the News Hour - I think it's "yell TV" without the yelling much of the time, just a quieter more lethargic version of the feistier cable shows. Two sides come on to tell their story, and we are left none the wiser about which competing version of reality is true.
But, for all of Fox's "popularity," according to PBS the News Hour gets 2.7 million daily viewers, which is about what Fox's most popular show, The Falafel Hour, gets.
- Unfortunately, Americans have little appetite for truly "fair and balanced" coverage. If we did, the News Hour With Jim Lehrer would be a smash hit and Fox News would be banished to the media dustbin. In fact, viewers have flocked to the faux "fair and balanced" coverage of Fox that acts as a transparent mask over a right-leaning agenda. Its popularity is partly due to the perception that the rest of the media have a left-wing bias, allowing Fox to offer itself as the feisty counterbalance.
I'm not a big fan of the News Hour - I think it's "yell TV" without the yelling much of the time, just a quieter more lethargic version of the feistier cable shows. Two sides come on to tell their story, and we are left none the wiser about which competing version of reality is true.
But, for all of Fox's "popularity," according to PBS the News Hour gets 2.7 million daily viewers, which is about what Fox's most popular show, The Falafel Hour, gets.
Klein - Big Liar
Maura Moynihan skins Ed Klein alive and demonstrates that he is indeed a complete and total fraud, which will only ensure that gets the royal media treatment.
I really wish we could get a panel together on blogger ethics so we could figure this stuff out.
I really wish we could get a panel together on blogger ethics so we could figure this stuff out.
Bringing Them All Down
Reading between the lines of the latest coingate scandal, I think Tom Noe has just informed the Republican party of Ohio:
[link added]
You're going down with me, bitches!
[link added]
Clap Louder
DeLay says Houston just like Iraq:
WASHINGTON - When House Majority Leader Tom DeLay sat down with reporters on Tuesday on Capitol Hill, he was asked to assess President Bush's campaign in Iraq and to respond to criticism that the military mission is not going well and the White House needs to develop an exit strategy.
DeLay offered this response: "These things take time and they take a long time, and some people get weary of the constant barrage that we see in the media.
"You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston is violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways," DeLay said.
"And if you took that as the image of what is a great city that has an incredible quality of life and an incredible economy, it's amazing to me. Go to Iraq. And see what's actually happening there.
"Everybody that comes from Iraq is amazed at the difference of what they see on the ground and what they see on the television set."
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Pickled
I've tried to lay off the Pickler recently, as I believe she had a wee bit of cancer unpleasantness, but what the fuckity fuck...
I look forward to a match between the Pickler:
and the Bowler:
I look forward to a match between the Pickler:
and the Bowler:
Strib
Link:
What kind of America do you want to live in? I don't want to live in Hugh Hewitt's America or Trent Lott's America or Bill Frist's America or Assrocket's America. I don't want to live in an America in which I read that FBI report and think -- Fuck Yeah! That's America.
Apparently they do.
Well fuck their anti-American shit.
The comments that were criticized came late in a long, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor in which Durbin reflected on the United States' obligation to be better than reprehensible regimes of the past. He talked at some length about mistakes American presidents made in previous wars (repealing habeas corpus during the Civil War, interning Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, taking over the steel industry during the Korean War), and he urged President Bush to recognize and rectify his mistake in prisoner treatment during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Durbin's entire speech is too long to reprint, but lengthy excerpts can be found on the page opposite.
Durbin was spot on in his assessment of Guantanamo. That's why he was so roundly attacked. He told the truth. And his message is of vital importance; the United States is better than this.
The issue of whether Durbin's rhetoric crossed a line is small potatoes compared with the undeniable truth that American treatment of its prisoners has crossed many, many lines -- of morality, of international law, of practical benefit.
But instead of discussing what goes on at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other prison camps, the right would prefer to get into a senseless argument about whether "we" are better than the Nazis or Saddam Hussein or the Soviets or Pol Pot or whomever a critic of Guantanamo might raise as a comparison. It's a tactic the group running Washington now has used again and again: They're quite deliberately changing the subject -- from Guantanamo to words spoken on the Senate floor.
It's not too late, as Durbin said of Bush in his speech: The senator should stop apologizing and keep up the criticism of the hellhole America's military has created at Guantanamo. He has no reason to be defensive; he's telling the truth. It's a truth Americans need to hear, and its tellers must resist intimidation.
What kind of America do you want to live in? I don't want to live in Hugh Hewitt's America or Trent Lott's America or Bill Frist's America or Assrocket's America. I don't want to live in an America in which I read that FBI report and think -- Fuck Yeah! That's America.
Apparently they do.
Well fuck their anti-American shit.
Holwer
Link:
Durbin asked an obvious question: If you’d read that report, would you ever have thought that it was describing American conduct? Or would you have thought what Durbin said—that it must describe an evil regime, the type we have long denounced? The answer to that is perfectly obvious—and so is the state of our fallen culture, the culture being trampled under by the Russerts, the McCains and the Wallaces.
But we’ve now reached a miraculous point in the crumbling of our discourse. We’ve reached the point where citizens are mocked by major scribes for wondering if we were lied into war—and where United States senators are told to apologize for denouncing the conduct described in that report. But then, lunacy has spread throughout our discourse over the course of the past dozen years. And your fiery “career liberals” have known to be silent. They looked away again and again. Now we see what that has bought us.
Remember: If you’re troubled to think that we may have been lied into war, that makes you a “wing nut” to today’s “mainstream” press corps. And if you think that FBI report sounds un-American, you need to apologize to the Senate! McCain, Russert, Kristol, Hume, Wallace? They’ve turned their backs on sanity itself. Everyone has to fight this spreading press culture—and you have to ask more from those who kept quiet while this culture of insanity was born.
Fristed
Frist is indeed the worst majority leader ever. Nonetheless I'm confused -- I thought on the previous cloture vote he had voted against cloture so that he would be allowed to bring up the cloture vote again. This time around the only Republican to vote against cloture was Voinovich -- wouldn't he have to be the one to bring up the vote?
There Are No Moderate Republicans
Regarding Graham, Yglesias says:
Precisely. (well, except, as storwino points out, Easley is North Carolina's governor... but, otherwise.)
Look, it's nice that Graham is saying smart, dissenting things about the direction of national policy. But he keeps voting for the policy. Just like Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and the rest of the gang, he has done nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to correct the situation. Instead, he's actively collaborated in generating the problems he cites. The things he claims to regret would have been somewhat mitigated had Graham lost his race to become a U.S. senator. He could help improve the situation tomorrow by resigning his seat and letting Mike Easley appoint a replacement.
A smaller step might be to use his votes on various committees to help restart the process of congressional oversight. But he hasn't done anything like that and he won't. I don't know exactly what's wrong with these people, but they deserve to be attacked more, not less, harshly than your ordinary party-line Republicans. Voting for bad policies you agree with is bad. Voting for bad policies that, when asked, you say are bad is ridiculous. Liberals should direct nothing but scorn at this crew unless and until they start doing something instead of offering nice remarks to film screening audiences.
Precisely. (well, except, as storwino points out, Easley is North Carolina's governor... but, otherwise.)
What We Know
Henry writes:
There's a lot of truth here, although I think there are additional points that need to be made. We need to distinguish between the "WMD" and "the threat." Without a real investigation we'll never know to what degree they hyped WMD claims they thought were false instead of simply hyping claims they did not know were true. Some of us with our faulty memories remember Donald Rumsfeld saying things like:
And George Bush saying:
And Ari Fleischer:
And Poodle:
All of these things can fall in Henry's basic frame - they believed he had certain weapons and while they were dishonest about their evidence and certainty of this, they still believed it.
But what they did do, without a doubt, was hype the degree to which such weapons, even if they existed, posed any kind of threat to the United States or even to Iraq's neighbors. We have a bit of a language problem, calling anything nasty a "weapon of mass destruction" when frequently we're talking about things which are very unlikely to produce a mass casualty event. A true "weapon of mass destruction" is capable of killing massive amounts of people. So, we're talking nuclear or a nasty plague or poisoning of an urban water supply or something which can actually succeed in killing massive amounts of people. Something like the much hyped Ricin doesn't even come close to deserving the label of WMD.
So, maybe they believed all the stuff about WMD (I'm still rather dubious about that too), but they certainly didn't believe the degree to which they hyped those WMD as posing any kind of genuine threat to us, and they certainly had no legitimate evidence of a nuclear program that had proceeded any further than my own nuclear program.[[UPDATE: Let me add here that the one thing I really don't believe is that they thought Saddam really had an active nuke program. Bad guy with lust in his heart, sure, but that describes every shitty dictator in the world.]]
They said he had WMD and, under the shitty definition of that word we've embraced, it's possible they believed it even if they didn't have the evidence they claimed to have (which was obvious at the time and one of many reasons I opposed this thing). But the kinds of weapons they believed they had were, for the most part, only useful as a deterrent to invasion, which appears to be the reason Saddam let the rumors about his evil laboratories persist. They just wouldn't be useful either for direct military uses or even for terrorist blackmail.
Believed in WMDs they hyped? Perhaps. Believed in the threat they hyped? Nope.
In many countries (including my home country, Ireland), police have a reputation for stitching people up; they seem prepared in some instances to commit perjury in order to get people convicted for crimes. Now in some cases, this is a completely cynical exercise – the police have no idea of whether the accused is guilty or not, but need to get a conviction for political or other reasons. But in others, it’s because the police think that they know who committed a crime, but don’t have the necessary evidence to get the person convicted in court. Therefore, they perjure themselves and lie about the evidence in order to get the conviction.
This, it seems to me, is what happened in the lead-up to Iraq. The Bush administration, like others, probably did genuinely believe that Iraq had an active nuclear program. But it didn’t have the necessary evidence to prove this, either to its allies or to its own people. It therefore cooked the evidence that it did have in order to make its claims more convincing. It didn’t deceive the public about its basic belief that there were WMDs in Iraq. But it did deceive the public about the evidence that was there to support this belief, in order to convince them that there was a real problem. In other words, it did “consciously mislead” the American people (and its allies). When the police are caught perjuring themselves to get convictions, they should (and frequently do) suffer serious consequences, even if they believe that they’re perjuring themselves in order to get the guilty convicted. That’s not what the police should be doing; they haven’t been appointed as judges, and for good reason. If the police persistently lie in order to get convictions, the system of criminal law is liable to break down. Similarly, when the administration lies about a major matter in order to get public support, it shouldn’t be excused on the basis that it thought that it was lying in a good cause. It’s still betraying its basic democratic responsibilities.
There's a lot of truth here, although I think there are additional points that need to be made. We need to distinguish between the "WMD" and "the threat." Without a real investigation we'll never know to what degree they hyped WMD claims they thought were false instead of simply hyping claims they did not know were true. Some of us with our faulty memories remember Donald Rumsfeld saying things like:
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
And George Bush saying:
He's a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he does.
And Ari Fleischer:
We know for a fact there are weapons there.
And Poodle:
We know that he has stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons[.]
All of these things can fall in Henry's basic frame - they believed he had certain weapons and while they were dishonest about their evidence and certainty of this, they still believed it.
But what they did do, without a doubt, was hype the degree to which such weapons, even if they existed, posed any kind of threat to the United States or even to Iraq's neighbors. We have a bit of a language problem, calling anything nasty a "weapon of mass destruction" when frequently we're talking about things which are very unlikely to produce a mass casualty event. A true "weapon of mass destruction" is capable of killing massive amounts of people. So, we're talking nuclear or a nasty plague or poisoning of an urban water supply or something which can actually succeed in killing massive amounts of people. Something like the much hyped Ricin doesn't even come close to deserving the label of WMD.
So, maybe they believed all the stuff about WMD (I'm still rather dubious about that too), but they certainly didn't believe the degree to which they hyped those WMD as posing any kind of genuine threat to us, and they certainly had no legitimate evidence of a nuclear program that had proceeded any further than my own nuclear program.[[UPDATE: Let me add here that the one thing I really don't believe is that they thought Saddam really had an active nuke program. Bad guy with lust in his heart, sure, but that describes every shitty dictator in the world.]]
They said he had WMD and, under the shitty definition of that word we've embraced, it's possible they believed it even if they didn't have the evidence they claimed to have (which was obvious at the time and one of many reasons I opposed this thing). But the kinds of weapons they believed they had were, for the most part, only useful as a deterrent to invasion, which appears to be the reason Saddam let the rumors about his evil laboratories persist. They just wouldn't be useful either for direct military uses or even for terrorist blackmail.
Believed in WMDs they hyped? Perhaps. Believed in the threat they hyped? Nope.
Some Thoughts from Lindsey Graham
Steve Clemons passes on some things he heard Lindsey Graham say at a recent screening of Seven Days in May:
Graham said that there were similarities between the political gamesmanship at play today and in what the film depicted some 40 years ago. He said that one of the reasons he worked to undermine those who wanted to trigger the so-called "nuclear option" over judicial nominations in the Senate is that he believed that one branch of government was trying to subordinate other branches.
He said that this was a time in politics -- particularly in the Congress -- in which policy decisions were tilting towards the loudest, often uninformed voices -- and that reasonable politics were being undermined.
He said that he worried that America today was vulnerable to a new generation of demagogues who would come in and "push all the buttons" on "9/11, terrorism, Guantanamo, and the like" and try and wreck the system of checks and balances that characterize America's style of democracy.
Drinking Liberally
Don't forget, locals, Drinking Liberally every Tuesday 6-9ish at Ten Stone at the corner of 21st and South.
For those of you around the country, find your own local chapter or start your own.
New people, don't be shy. I'd say the ratio of regulars to non regulars is about 60/40 these days, and we always welcome the addition of more regulars.
Jim says Chuck Pennacchio, candidate for U.S. Senate, is planning to drop by.
For those of you around the country, find your own local chapter or start your own.
New people, don't be shy. I'd say the ratio of regulars to non regulars is about 60/40 these days, and we always welcome the addition of more regulars.
Jim says Chuck Pennacchio, candidate for U.S. Senate, is planning to drop by.
Keyloggers
Well, I can't vouch for this but it certainly sounds creepy.
(via Toughenough)
...never mind. One more hoax to not worry about.
(via Toughenough)
...never mind. One more hoax to not worry about.
31
Recall, bitches!
(tip from dave)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suddenly ranks among the most unpopular governors in modern California history, as residents grow increasingly unhappy about the action hero-turned-politician's budget plans and his call for a special election, according to a new Field Poll.
Less than a third -- 31 percent -- of the state's adults approve of the job the governor is doing in Sacramento, down from 54 percent in February. The numbers are only slightly better among registered voters, 37 percent of whom are happy with Schwarzenegger's performance and 53 percent dissatisfied.
(tip from dave)
Denigrating the Jurors
I'd missed this but Tim Rutten had a good column a week back talking about the cable TV reaction to the Jackson trial. He points out that there's something more than a little unhealthy about the pundits and pundettes belief that its appropriate for them to declare open season on the jurors who are just private citizens doing their civic duty.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Ouch
I actually never thought war poll numbers would go this low:
(CNN) -- Nearly six in 10 Americans oppose the war in Iraq and a growing number of them are dissatisfied with the war on terrorism, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Only 39 percent of those polled said they favored the war in Iraq -- down from 47 percent in March -- and 59 percent were opposed.
The survey of 1,006 adults, conducted by telephone Thursday through Sunday, had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The Stalinist Right
Who knew that much of our conservative elite was deep in bed with a horrific Stalinist government? Well, I knew, but for some reason no one ever cares. Look over there! ANSWER got a parade permit!
Matt provides the teaser, Gorenfeld provides the meat.
Matt provides the teaser, Gorenfeld provides the meat.
Bolton
It's always nice to win battles, especially ones which were assumed to be hopeless. Kudos to the Dems for holding firm. Kudos to Voinovich for understanding the importance of maintaining the sytem of checks and balances. And, kudos to Steve Clemons for fighting this battle both on stage and behind the scenes that few thought could be won.
...take the poll.
...take the poll.
"Democrats Can't Help Denigrating and Demonizing Christians"
Another fine Republican bigot, who believes his religious freedom involves using the apparatus of the state and the military to force his religion onto others.
Rep. Hostettler says Just Say No to Jews in the Air Force!
Rep. Hostettler says Just Say No to Jews in the Air Force!
Osama Bin Forgotten
President Bush in Saturday's radio address, talking about Iraq:
Porter Goss on why we can't catch Osama:
Bush on September 11:
Now go see how Kristen Breitweiser feels about this.
No matter what the merits (or lack of) or realities of Goss's statement, it's 180 degree turn from the big swinging dick myth that the media has perpetuated about Bush's tough war on terror. It's at odds with Bush's promise to get Osama "dead or alive." It's at odds with the entire Bush Doctrine, at least iterations 1-8 of the Bush Doctrine.
This should ignite a shitstorm. It won't.
We went to war because we were attacked[.]
Porter Goss on why we can't catch Osama:
When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.
Bush on September 11:
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them.
Now go see how Kristen Breitweiser feels about this.
No matter what the merits (or lack of) or realities of Goss's statement, it's 180 degree turn from the big swinging dick myth that the media has perpetuated about Bush's tough war on terror. It's at odds with Bush's promise to get Osama "dead or alive." It's at odds with the entire Bush Doctrine, at least iterations 1-8 of the Bush Doctrine.
This should ignite a shitstorm. It won't.
Kudos
I suppose it's only fair we pat them on the head when they behave well, so kudos to Andrew Sullivan.
Fred Phelps is a Liberal
I had no idea. But in any case, let me say that Fred Phelps does not speak for me and I condemn his every action and certainly will not support him as the Democratic nominee for president in '08, even if he runs on a ticket with Barbra Streisand.
(via odub)
(via odub)
Congress - Irrelevant
The Bush executive branch just does whatever it wants no matter what the law is.
WASHINGTON -- A federal agency collected extensive personal information about airline passengers although Congress told it not to and it said it wouldn't, according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
A Transportation Security Administration contractor used three data brokers to collect detailed information about U.S. citizens who flew on commercial airlines in June 2004 in order to test a terrorist screening program called Secure Flight, according to documents that will be published in the Federal Register this week.
The TSA had ordered the airlines to turn over data on those passengers, called passenger name records, in November.
Meanwhile in Spain
PP driven out of power in Galicia.
There's some possibility that absentee ballots will swing one seat back, tipping the power back to PP, but it isn't that likely. Either way it's a huge surge for PSOE.
June 20 (Bloomberg) -- Spain's Socialist Party claimed a narrow victory in elections in the northern region of Galicia, ousting conservative leader Manuel Fraga from power after almost two decades as head of the government.
Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialists gained 11 percentage points in the vote to win 25 of the 75 seats in parliament, eight more than in the 2001 election. That left Fraga's People's Party with 37 seats, one short of a majority. The Socialists plan to form a coalition with the Galician Nationalists, who won 13 seats, to control the legislature.
``The result can be seen as a referendum on Zapatero,'' said Jesus Maestro, an analyst at the Institute of Social and Political Sciences in Barcelona. ``Picking up 11 points in Galicia isn't easy. But the PP has also shored up its vote much more than people expected.''
Yesterday's regional vote was the second in which the Socialists have gained support since their surprise victory in a national election on March 14 last year. Zapatero's popularity has been buoyed by his decision to pull Spanish troops from Iraq and economic growth of more than 3 percent.
There's some possibility that absentee ballots will swing one seat back, tipping the power back to PP, but it isn't that likely. Either way it's a huge surge for PSOE.
SK Bubba Gets an Apology
Conley's still a wanker in my book, but maybe it's possible for wankers to become better wankers.
America: Still Better Than Murdering Head Chopping Terrorists!
What else can you say except:
Fuck yeah!!!
...just to add, we see versions of this everywhere. For some reasons conservatives believe it isn't actually self-evident that the terrrorist act of capturing/killing/beheading someone is a bad thing, that one must confirm this by pointing it out over and over again. I shouldn't surprised as most of them also don't think that it's self-evident that it's a bad thing for the policy of the United States of America to be to torture people.
Fuck yeah!!!
...just to add, we see versions of this everywhere. For some reasons conservatives believe it isn't actually self-evident that the terrrorist act of capturing/killing/beheading someone is a bad thing, that one must confirm this by pointing it out over and over again. I shouldn't surprised as most of them also don't think that it's self-evident that it's a bad thing for the policy of the United States of America to be to torture people.
Funny
Apparently this ad is running in AM and PM editions of Congress Daily and in today's Hotline (insidery Washington pubs):
I haven't been following the story of the Duke much, but scroll around Josh Marshall's site for more info...
I haven't been following the story of the Duke much, but scroll around Josh Marshall's site for more info...
Times Change
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them.
--George W. Bush, 9/11/2001
When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.
--Porter Goss, on why we can't catch Bin Laden, in an interview for 6/27/05 edition of Time.
Quack
NYT:
The last paragraph is a polite way of acknowledging what has always been the case - the only thing that ever pushed this guy's job approval rating above about 54% was war and terra.
WASHINGTON, June 19 - Five months after President Bush was sworn in for another four years, his political authority appears to be ebbing, both within his own party, where members of Congress are increasingly if sporadically going their own way, and among Democrats, who have discovered that they pay little or no price for defying him.
...
On Monday, Mr. Bush will face another test of his clout, when the Republican-controlled Senate tries again to overcome Democratic opposition and confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. And with his poll numbers sinking as voters grow more restive about Iraq and the economy, he faces additional big challenges in coming weeks and months, from legislative battles over energy, trade and immigration to the possibility of a divisive Supreme Court confirmation fight.
...
"The political capital he thought he had has dwindled to very little, and he overstated how much he had to begin with," said Allan J. Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington.
"Congress is like Wall Street - it operates on fear and greed," Mr. Lichtman said. "The Democrats don't fear him anymore, and they're getting greedy, because they think they can beat him. The attitude you see among Republicans in Congress is, my lifeboat first."
In the last week, Mr. Bush has responded by lashing out at Democrats, casting them as obstructionists, a strategy that carries some risk given that it seems to acknowledge an inability by Republicans to carry out a governing platform. Searching as well for a more positive message, the administration, which has always been reluctant to acknowledge that events are not unfolding precisely as planned, has embarked on a public relations campaign intended to reassure Americans that Mr. Bush is attuned to their concerns.
...
But he has already had to postpone his next big initiative, an overhaul of the tax code. And barring some crisis that creates another rally-round-the-president effect, analysts said, Mr. Bush's best opportunity to drive the agenda may be past.
The last paragraph is a polite way of acknowledging what has always been the case - the only thing that ever pushed this guy's job approval rating above about 54% was war and terra.