Then -

Roman dictum: Si vis pacem para bellum.

If you want peace, you must prepare for war.

Now -

If you want war, you must prepare for the peace that will follow.

posted by Quiddity at 8/31/2002 09:01:00 AM

The war matrix.




red = no military service, blue = military service (sometimes intelligence or other non-combatant position)

Sources:
Debate within the GOP, old Bush hands: 1, 2
Congressional approval / hearings: 1, 2
International opinion: 1, 2, 3, 4
Pundits: 1, 2, 3, 4

NOTE: This matrix captures the situation at the end of August. Since then, especially because of political forces in play, some of the individuals have shifted positions (e.g. Powell moving towards "Yes").
posted by Quiddity at 8/30/2002 08:40:00 AM

Kaus and Coulter update:

Still no sign of land.

The Mickster hasn't had anything to say about Coulter yet, but there have been a number of posts in the associated Fray section on Coulter (and right-wing tolerance of violent imagery). And not a few. For example, here are a dozen: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. These type make up about 1/4 of all the Kausfiles posts since the Coulter-McVeigh quote of a week ago. (The others are about the New York Times or Kaus being irrelevant.)

Mickey, the pressure is building. Quick, think of a response!
posted by Quiddity at 8/30/2002 01:19:00 AM

Trivia:

Echaton notes a Bill O'Reilly / Gays / Conservative tussle. What happened is this:

O'Reilly gives an interview for the September issue of The Advocate. He tells the magazine he doesn't care much one way or the other about gay marriage.

This upsets conservatives.

One group reacting vigorously is the Concerned Women of America.

Who is (are?) the Concerned Women of America?

They are an antii-abortion, anti-cloning, anti-homosexual, Christian group. (The Christian orientation, a key determinant of their outlook, is not evident from their name.) When first encountering groups like this, an interesting test is to see what position, if any, they have on evolution. The CWoA does have one (or rather, several). For example, this is what they claim the Darwinists' plan for indoctrination is:

Present the lie about man and God to demean what was created in God’s image.

Begin pushing the envelope toward the real goal: belief in naturalism instead of God.

Establish a cloak of deception to desensitize the public.

Claim evidence that is not substantiated as fact.

Skew the facts and repeat the lie so that the true history is not known.

Sway public opinion by equating evolution with progressive, intellectual thought.

Vilify resistance to the agenda.

Utilize Hollywood in the communication of a lie.

Use the courts to bring evolution into education.

Punish the truth-tellers.

Here at uggabugga, we consider ourselves Darwinists, but frankly were unaware of the program as outlined by the CWoA. We obviously missed getting the memo from Central Darwinian Command. But now that we've had a chance to view it, we are not surprised to see that the last item is:

Punish the truth-tellers.

Yeah!      Absolutely. That's the number one topic whenever we meet. But how, we wonder, did the CWoA find out our secret? Somebody at the Trilateral Commission must have blabbed.  Or maybe it was the Bilderbergs.  Or maybe the Council on Foreign Relations.   Or...   (Read all about it here.)
posted by Quiddity at 8/29/2002 11:32:00 PM

posted by Quiddity at 8/29/2002 04:14:00 AM

Hey Kaus! Yeah, you!

Your mother wears army boots! Your sister is a thespian! And you openly matriculated in front of people at college!

Ahh. That felt good.
posted by Quiddity at 8/27/2002 08:10:00 PM

The essay defending Coulter in the Wall Street Journal Online - with a number of substitutions:

Our attention has been drawn recently to Adolf Hitler, the national socialist firecracker and best-selling author of "Mein Kampf." There are many surprising dimensions to the Hitler phenomenon. He has defied expectation, overturned prejudice even, in so many ways. He surprises, at the most basic level, by his effortlessly guilt-free flights of extroversion, his fierce national socialism.

We have been programmed to think that such impassioned outrage, and outrageousness, are permissible only by Communists, certainly not from honorable Austrian-born villagers. From Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, yes.   Adolf Hitler -- heaven forbid. He cannot claim that his affronts have been much exaggerated by his enemies -- he has certainly courted outrage, called modern art "degenerate," dreamed out loud that all Jews be obliterated, and once praised the Sturmabteilung (stormtroopers). It's merely that such effrontery sounds more palatable in the mouths of Communists. After all, why isn't he happily occupied practicing the peaceful arts, a painter of watercolors in Vienna as befits his heritage?

Well, Mr. Hitler isn't and it has upset a lot of entrenched opinions. Prejudices of this kind stem from a lazy assumption that really blistering free speech belongs more to critics of Germany's flaws than to celebrators of its virtues. The difference between Mr. Hitler and the Communists' fuming is surely very clear. They meant it literally, bombs and all. Mr. Hitler, on the other hand, acts out his thoughts in a kind of "what if" political theater, a tongue-in-cheek agitprop, and believes that most Germans understand the difference. Most Germans apparently do, as his book has topped the bestseller lists for many weeks now. Why then don't his infuriated critics get it?

By all accounts, they have tried long and hard to keep ranks closed against him to shut him out of the political game. Why would anybody even pretend to believe that Mr. Hitler wishes any real harm to the gypsies or wishes to remove all Jews from society? The answer, one suspects, is that he and his foes insist on different visions of Germany. His foes see a fragile society full of rifts and flaws, oppressions and simmering resentments that can turn into open strife any moment. Ergo, free speech, however offensive, belongs morally on their side as an instrument of social palliation. Mr. Hitler, as he has often demonstrated, inhabits a sturdier Germany with a self-confident unapologetic culture centered in the fatherland. In his Germany, political and personal, even ethnic quips get thrown about with abandon in fierce raillery, everybody laughs about it afterwards and the country is none the worse for wear.

Considering that most political organizations would prefer to filter out his kind, Mr. Hitler's very survival as a public figure has been his most startling trick, indeed has offered a kind of breathtaking spectacle. For much milder remarks than he daily defiantly serves up, we've seen veteran politicians hounded out of office. Yet there he still is enduring on the tightrope, however threadbare it may be by now, his Chaplinesque signature likeness precariously aloft, a shock of dark hair riffled by the breeze and nimbly gambading above the shark pool.

Friends and foes alike, at this point, have put down their banners and turned to gape at the pure principle of anti-gravity he has come to represent. He himself admits in a recent profile that no mainstream political party will accept him. So he chooses, he says, to talk directly to mainstream Germany over their heads, and book buyers have rewarded him handsomely for it. It's hard to know if this means that they applaud all of his harsher utterances, or simply his defiance and longevity in the face of adversity. Watching Mr. Hitler survive tenaciously on the tightrope, they're delighted to see it done.

Scary, isn't it?

Note: This is not as absurd a parallel as one might think. Hitler did use humor - of a mordant sort. He did have a bestseller (1933). He did make outrageous comments from time to time before assuming power - before people realized that he was serious.

Additional note:
We know that most people shy away from comparisons involving Hitler. We do too. But in this case it was felt to be warranted. All that was done in the rewrite above was replace various nouns (e.g. Hitler for Coulter, Germany for America, Mein Kampf for Slander, etc.) and personal pronouns. The Journal essay was a defense of Coulter's wild language. This substitution exercise was performed to show how the writer dismissed what she (or Hitler) actually said, that having a bestseller makes it all a big harmless joke, and therefore people shouldn't worry so much. We strongly disagree.
posted by Quiddity at 8/27/2002 07:42:00 PM

The NEA & the Washington Times "story":

Bob Somerby once again does serious journalistic spade-work. It's amazing that the Times article had any legs, but alas, that's what happened. Even Peter Beinart got fooled. For, as Rober Kuttner put it, "the column in the Times is about the most dishonest piece of journalism I’ve read in years".

Last week, we took a look at the NEA site dedicated to 9-11, and were impressed by the enormous amounts of lesson plans, links to other resources, and other packages for parents and teachers. For instance, here is an example from one of the papers:

The purpose of memorials is to bring people together to express their grief and at the same time to reduce feelings of isolation and vulnerability. In addition, these activities can help to increase feelings of security. Appropriate memorial activities may include listing the attributes of lost friends or loved ones; developing memory books; distributing memory ribbons; planting a flower or a tree; lighting candles; saying a prayer; creating a mural or collage about the life (lives) of the deceased; and writing a poem, story, or song about the person(s) who died.

Pretty subversive, huh?

While we admire what The Daily Howler has done, we are also saddened. This sort of chasing down lies shouldn't be necessary. After all, hasn't the Washington Times already demonstrated that it's an unreliable, biased newspaper? (Remember how they mishandled Clinton's post 9-11 speech?) They should be ignored. Same for Coulter. Same for Limbaugh. Same for Hannity. Same for O'Reilly.

The burden of proof - that they are reliable journalists - is on them. They have to demonstrate that they're honest reporters. Big ratings don't mean a thing - except that they have big ratings. The audience for these folks have already made their minds up. For them Fox is fair and balanced. There is no spin at the O'Reilly Factor. Rush is the voice of truth. Etc.

But then people say, "These stories and personalities get into the major media, like CNN." True. That's the fault of the major media, and they will have to keep their house in order on their own. They know the score. They know who the clowns are and who does serious work. If they bring on the crazies, it's their shame.
posted by Quiddity at 8/27/2002 05:56:00 PM

Kaus on Coulter:

Well, it looks as though the Mickster's approach is to avoid commenting about Coulter, and instead, blow kisses at Media Whores Online for recent "responsible" [his italics] behavior. Presumably, this neutralizes his earlier critique about connections between MWO, obscure leftist talk of violence, and actual violence.

Sorry Mr. K. - we're not buying it.
posted by Quiddity at 8/27/2002 05:33:00 AM

Bush speaking out (or not) on invading Iraq:

In the New York Times, we read:

"You've got the vice president making this detailed speech about why we should go to war," said Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who has been a frequent critic of the administration on Iraq. "The president is not saying anything."

but...

"When Cheney talks, it's Bush," said William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and a hard-liner on Iraq.

This is like the olden days when the monarch was inscrutable (because weak-willed, dim-witted, or worse) and it was the duty of lesser nobility and court officials to speak for him.
posted by Quiddity at 8/27/2002 05:17:00 AM

Bush's impeccable logic:

Forest fires are bad.

Forest fires only happen in forests.

No forests = no forest fires.

Perhaps Gale Norton showed him this:

In any event, Bush has signed on to the concept, and as he said on Saturday (Aug 24): "Forest policies have not focused on thinning, the clearing of the forest floor of built-up brush and densely packed trees that create the fuel for extremely large fires like those experienced this year."

posted by Quiddity at 8/26/2002 03:20:00 PM

Law-abiding Texans:

A U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics report out today has this headline:

U.S. CORRECTIONAL POPULATION REACHES 6.6 MILLION

One in 32 Adult Residents Incarcerated or Under Community Supervision

Which seems strange. After all, what nation wants to boast about having "one in 32" in jail, parole, or probation?

Fun fact:

Texas led the Nation at year end 2001 with 4,818 adults under correctional supervision per 100,000 adult State residents ...

That's nearly 5% - and considering that men constitute about 80% those "under correctional supervision", it means that in Texas, 7.7% of them are currently in the system (3854 / 50,000). That's one in 13.

Think about that. It's not one in 13 in the inner city. It's not one in 13 of an ethnic group. It's one in 13 of all men statewide.

Thanks to InstaPundit and TalkLeft for bringing this to our attention.

posted by Quiddity at 8/25/2002 07:43:00 PM

New York Times vs. the neoconservatives.

Recently the New York Times has come under attack for allegedly misrepresenting Kissinger's position on Iraq. The most recent assault was on Fox News Sunday, where a fat 15 minutes was devoted to the subject. On the show, impartial commentators Paul Gigot, Charles Krauthammer, and William Kristol all agreed that the Times was acting badly. The newspaper declined to send a representative, but Fox was able to find an ex-editor who didn't have much to say one way or another. What did the Times actually say? On August 16, the headline was:

Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy

And the relevant lines are:

Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.

Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.

The New York Times said that Kissinger doesn't oppose the goal of toppling Hussein, or even how (military action), but that the planning was unsatisfactory. Thus, he was deemed to have "broken ranks" with Bush over his planning. Which Kissinger has.

Those who accuse the Times of misleading reporting are simply lying. But the important thing to note is that the critics are not out to clarify the Kissinger/Iraq issue. Their goal is to discredit the Times. Pure and simple.
posted by Quiddity at 8/25/2002 11:18:00 AM

Invading Iraq, benefits of:

There has been considerable discussion by neocons about what Kissinger's position is, and how it was reported in the press - particularly in the New York Times. Those who are pro-invasion point to this OpEd by Henry, and as New York Times (!) columnist Bill Keller wrote:

Among the many blessings Dr. Kissinger sees in a Saddam-free Iraq, he even offers some consolation for possibly anxious business clients: "a better balance in oil policy within OPEC."

The message is that once Saddam Hussein is gone, OPEC will keep oil prices down. Why? Perhaps because the U.S. colossus demands such things. Perhaps out of gratitude.

Or perhaps not.

It would seem that with the constant threat emanating from Iraq, the Saudis and other Gulf States are eager to keep the U.S. on their good side by being moderates within OPEC. After all, they may need help if they're invaded (or simply menaced). But with the removal of Hussein - and the threat(s) he poses - other issues will come to the surface (e.g. Israel/Palestine), and it's entirely possible that OPEC could get uppity and cause trouble.

Now, that's not to say it's a good idea to have a troublemaker around so that your allies stick with you. After all, a troublemaker is a troublemaker. But it's clear that you can't accept blithe assurances of good economic times once he's gone. Especially in a region with so many unresolved tensions as the Middle East.

posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2002 04:37:00 PM

Word games:

On Friday, August 23, the Los Angeles Times reported on California's Republican gubernatorial candidate thusly:

President Bush arrives in California today to raise desperately needed cash for gubernatorial hopeful Bill Simon Jr., a routine visit that has turned into a political predicament for the White House.

Bush advisors have cringed at the prospect of an appearance by the president, who has professed zero tolerance for corporate wrongdoing, alongside a candidate whose family investment firm faces a $78-million judgment in a case involving alleged fraud.

That was also the language used the same day on the NBC Nightly News.

So, there's a court case, a jury renders a decision, and it's still an alleged offence?

These days, the press won't call a spade a spade. No wonder the electorate has a poor grasp of the candidates' background (and policies). It's pretty much nothing but "horse race" analysis and the occasional gaffe.
posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2002 01:49:00 AM

Ted Turner put up $5 million for a joint U.S./Russian operation that recently spirited 100 lbs of uranium out of Yugoslavia in order to keep it out of the hands of terrorists. It's hard to imagine Richard Mellon Scaife doing something like that. His interest is funding conservative organizations.
From the Washington Post:

Scaife's trusts and foundations have given at least $146 million to university programs over the last 40 years – the equivalent of $373 million in inflation-adjusted dollars. At least two-thirds of that was directed to supporting conservative intellectuals and funding research on topics of deep interest to conservatives.

Of the two, who spent the money wisely?
posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2002 12:20:00 AM

Worth a look: Troubletown cartoons.

A new cartoon is available each Monday.
posted by Quiddity at 8/23/2002 11:33:00 PM

This is all you need to know.
From a Salon (Premium) article on Fox, Murdoch, tabloids, and the political discourse these days:

[Progressive politicians and Democrats] repeatedly underestimate the voter's capacity to support measures contrary to the voter's good simply because they are packaged in an entertaining way. They cannot fashion responses to naked charlatanism because they don't take it seriously enough as a political force. They don't understand that it doesn't matter if Bill O'Reilly is really a blue-collar hero as long as he can play one on television. They repeatedly are surprised by how seductive is the fakery of the carnival midway, even though that's how Rupert Murdoch got rich enough to afford a Newt Gingrich of his very own.

And a bit more on the Confidence Men theme, by Joshuah Micah Marshall (of Talking Points Memo), in this Washington Monthly article.

posted by Quiddity at 8/23/2002 08:35:00 PM

Fit or Fat?

Bush runs and runs and runs and runs. From this story in the Washington Post:

"It helps me to clear my mind."

[ As David Letterman said recently, "Mission accomplished!" ]

Bush said he usually runs six days a week ...

A treadmill is ... on Air Force One, where he ran for 90 minutes on a flight to Europe in May.

"It's sad that I can't run longer. It's one of the saddest things about the presidency."

"... I'm convinced that running helped me quit drinking and smoking ..."

"I expect the White House staff to be on time and sharp and to exercise."

Smoking? Tell us more, George.

Re W.H. staff exercising: Does that include Larry Lindsey and Spencer Abraham?



posted by Quiddity at 8/22/2002 10:26:00 AM

Well, she wasn't really there when McVeigh was being shuttled around in chains, but she is on the record with those thoughts. As reported in the New York Observer.

Kaus: You have 24 hours to repudiate this woman.

UPDATE: Mickey has posted two items in the 48 hours since the Coulter story broke. One, about the New York Times reporting of Kissinger's position vis-à-vis Iraq. (Kaus and conservatives agree: The New York Times is hoplessly biased.) The other, about stock analysts. And the Coulter permalink on his page is still firmly in place. E.g.:

Ann "Too Far" Coulter--Sometimes it's just far enough.

TIRESOME UPDATE #2: It's now 72 hours and Mickey has come in with a third item. Yes! It's another attack on the New York Times. Still no comment on Coulter though.


posted by Quiddity at 8/22/2002 02:38:00 AM

Bush receives the kindest cut:

Bush and Rumsfeld took some time out from their defense briefing to speak to reporters.



What actually happened was shown on CBS:

In a report by Bill Plante:

BUSH: ... when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man. And that we will look at all options and we will consider - uh, .. uh, .. uh, .. uh - all technologies available to us and diplomacy and intelligence.

The four seconds where Bush was trying come up with the items he was going to consider were unflattering to the President. He looked hesitant and not focused on the issues.

However, a different George Bush was seen on ABC:

In a report by Terry Moran:

BUSH: ... when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man. And that we will look at all options and we will consider - uh, ^† all technologies available to us and diplomacy and intelligence.

How did ABC do that? Instead of a continuous shot, which would have shown a "jump", the viewer saw Bush at the podium up until the words "we will consider", and then the image was switched (†) to a side view - the four-second fumbling excised - where "all technologies available" was heard as if he spoke whole thing seamlessly.


There is a noticeable difference when comparing two video clips, but it still carries some punch in an audio version which is available as a 250k .wav file here. The first part is CBS / Bill Plante, the second part is ABC / Terry Moran. (The .wav file is as small as possible: 8bit, mono, 8khz sampling.)

Who says the media doesn't polish Bush's image?

Calling Howard Kurtz!

---

UPDATE:

In case you were wondering if the report on ABC was edited by Procrustes, here are some additional details: The total length was 91 seconds (or 90?). The breakdown was as follows:

TIME	VIDEO	AUDIO
00-04	Bush and Rumsfeld arriving in a pickup truck.	MORAN: "The President rolled up to waiting reporters, Secretary Rumsfeld riding shotgun."
05-08	Side shot of Bush & Rumsfeld.	MORAN: "The two men made light of invading Iraq."
09-23	Close-up of Bush at podium.	BUSH: "I know there's this kind of intense speculation that's been going on. I don't know how you would describe it. A churning." RUMSFELD:"Frenzy." BUSH: "Frenzy, is how the Secretary would describe it. But the subject didn't come up."
24-28	Side shot of Bush & Rumsfeld.	MORAN: "Mr. Bush, once again, as he has in recent weeks seemed to tone down his rhetoric about attacking Iraq."
29-37	Close-up of Bush at podium.	BUSH: "... when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man. And that we will look at all options and we will consider, um"
-	The 4-second edit.	um, um, um,
38-43	Side shot of Bush & Rumsfeld.	BUSH: "all technologies available to us and diplomacy and intelligence."
44-52	Gen. Tommy Franks in Kazakhstan.	MORAN: "But the war talk continues. In Kazakhstan, General Tommy Franks who would lead any campaign against Iraq, said that he was drawing up war plans."
53-71	Fort Hood, Texas	MORAN: "And later, addressing troops at Fort Hood, Texas, Secretary Rumsfeld, who is a leading advocate of going after Saddam Hussein militarily, had this to say." RUMSFELD: "The president has made no such decision that we should go into Iraq. He's thinking about it, but... (chuckles)"
72-91	Terry Moran @ Bush's Crawford ranch. Live (EDT), not tape.	Wrap up commentary by Terry Moran

It's impossible to know for sure why the 4-second edit took place without asking those who did it. However, there was a fair amount of time on atmospherics (arriving in pickup truck, joshing about the "frenzy"), which makes it unlikely that there was a severe time constraint. Also, invading Iraq is a major issue, and presumably less subject to the editing axe. In any event, viewers should be wary whenever ABC shows Bush and cuts from one angle to another while he is speaking.


posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2002 08:54:00 PM

How do you repeal drug laws?

Not with the help of politicians.

Let's look at a case history. The U.S. Constitution specifies the following amendment process:

Article V. - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution ... [which] shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof ...

There has been only one amendment ratified by conventions. The 21st, which ended Prohibition (the 18th amendment), and reads:

Amendment XXI - Amendment XVIII repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Even after it was obvious that Prohibition was a disaster, politicians stood aside and let state conventions be the agent for repeal.

Which probably explains why relaxation of laws for marijuana possession - this year in Nevada - is being pursued via the initiative process.

Some things never change.
posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2002 10:28:00 AM

Cursor notes that Bush was sent a letter encouraging him not to attend an Earth Summit conference in Johannesburg at the end of August. This was covered in more detail at the Guardian. There, they note that one of the organizations that signed the letter was The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. This group received $35,000 in 2001 from ExxonMobil as part of a Public Information and Policy Research program. As ExxonMobil puts it, "Funds were assigned to support organizations that address policy alternatives in a balanced, objective, and methodologically sound manner."

Who is The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and what are they all about? It appears to be a two-man operation, but that's besides the point. What's notable is how anti-Green they are. For example, here is the charming graphic that decorates their Green Shot section:



Cute, huh?

Of some interest is their archives collection. In it, we read commentary like:

For eight long years, environmental activists could pull up to the White House, pile out of their VW Things, and expect to shuffle their Birkenstocks across a red carpet right into the West Wing. But now that the lava lamps and "Gore 2000" signs have been removed, things are a little different over at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Who said the 60's are over? Apparently they still live on in the fevered minds of conservatives.
posted by Quiddity at 8/20/2002 06:51:00 AM

Bush visits South Dakota - news item.

posted by Quiddity at 8/19/2002 09:56:00 PM

Sunday Show Round-up. For August 18, 2002, the topic was Iraq, invade or not? Now or later?

Follow the leader -

NBC's Meet The Press:

(Moderator) BRIAN WILLIAMS: Senator Inhofe, what about the growing number of Americans we hear from and read about in opinion polls saying, “You know what? I just haven’t heard the case made yet to the extent that I could support going in, pre-emptively, in Iraq.”

Senator JIM INHOFE, (R-Okla.): Well, first of all, the American people don’t have and shouldn’t have the information that the national security team has. You know, the whole thing’s about leadership. ... Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction—I believe, including nuclear. ... We have the best national security team that’s ever been assembled. I think the star of that team is Condoleezza Rice. We should let them listen to the confidential information they have, the intelligence they have and act and exert leadership and quit worrying about who else is going to join us.

Pay no attention to other opinions. And there's only one task to do in the Middle East -

Fox "News" Sunday panel discussion:

BRIT HUME: Let's be clear about this. We're not talking here about passing a piece of legislation. We're not talking about having a policy that's popular in the polls. We're not talking about getting a Senate resolution that approves the idea of the war. The only thing that matters, only thing that ultimately matters if you attack Saddam Hussein is that you succeed in toppling him. And it's hard to imagine an aftermath in Iraq that would be worse than the present circumstances. Almost impossible to imagine.

...

JUAN WILLIAMS: ... if our priority is, as the President has said, is the war on terrorism, why are we sacrificing the potential, - and here I'm echoing Scowcroft and Kissinger - why are we sacrificing the potential, to have our Arab and Asian allies withdraw and pull away from us in terms of seeking out terrorists?

BRIT HUME: Success in Iraq will take care of all of that.

There you go. Don't think, just do it.
posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2002 05:31:00 PM

Did you know?

Argentina's Poor Turn to Gardening for Food

That's the headline of a recent Reuters story. In it, we read:

With unemployment at a record 21.5 percent after a crippling recession forced a devastating public debt default and currency devaluation, thousands of families must find new ways to survive in what was once known as the world's breadbasket -- a country that, according to private estimates, has the capacity to feed 300 million people.

About one out of every four children do not have enough to eat in Argentina -- a major producer and exporter of grains, oilseeds and meat, where half of the population now lives in poverty. Groups of unemployed sporadically block highways to demand food and work.

Which leads to the question of what, if anything, the United States should do about it.

Can Argentina be helped? Does the United States have a program where farmers grow more food than the market demands, a program that could be harnessed for good?

Of course there is. And it was extended, and expanded, when Bush signed the $170 billion Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

Not only would shipping the excess food feed the starving poor, but it would stabilize that country and help avoid another foreign policy headache. It would burnish the U.S. reputation abroad and allow Bush to point to his first genuine case of being compassionate.

Now here at uggabugga, we didn't particularly like the Farm Bill, but as long as we're shelling out big money for excess butter, corn, and peanuts, let's get something in return and use it.

Here's another example of a situation where Bush has a program in place, little or no extra money is needed, but he doesn't use it to help people (the other notorious instance was his refusal to push FERC to stop electricity price scalping).

Feeding starving people (especially children) is the first rung on the compassionate stepladder. Yet Bush won't even do that.
posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2002 09:44:00 AM

Concerned about financial scandals? Looking for The Enforcer to insure a just playing field for everybody? All eyes turn to the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Notice anything? How about those Roman numerals? What date is that? 1934?

The SEC is a product of the "socialist" Franklin D. Roosevelt administration! Or at least, that was one of the epithets hurled at the guy. Back then, Republicans claimed he was out to destroy capitalism. Boy, were they wrong.

These days, some conservatives harken to pre-FDR times, but do they want to dismantle the SEC along the way? Probably not, but you can be sure they'd like to remove that irritating date from the seal.
posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2002 01:02:00 AM

Question we'd love to hear the press corp ask our graduated-from-Yale-with-a-history-degree President:

Q: Do you think that an invation of Iraq might have the same outcome as Gallipoli?

That's right, don't give him a clue by asking, "Do you think an attack upon Iraq could turn into a disaster like Gallipoli?"

Actually, the question isn't simply one to stump the prez. There are lots of parallels: A Western nation invading an Moslem one. A truly "expeditionary" attack, where one is dependent on supplies (back then by sea, today by air). Virtually no support from neighboring countries. Etc.

And it didn't turn out well at all.
posted by Quiddity at 8/17/2002 10:17:00 PM

Revisiting the 2000 election.

This is a painful topic, so we'll keep it short.

Gore won more popular votes, but the Constitution specifies that the president be determined in some other manner. The Electoral College and all that goes with that (procedures, standards, and apportionment of Representatives, which is determined by "ordinary" law).

We're not fans of the current system (we'd prefer Electors voted as each congressional district does, plus two votes for however the state went overall), but the rules are the rules.

Which brings us to the issue of how those Electors voted in 2000. For there is an interesting provision in the Constitution, the 12th Amendment, which reads in part:

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

This is meaningful because both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney look like they were inhabitants of the same state (Texas). Republicans brushed this issue off, noting the Cheney changed his voter registration from Texas to Wyoming.

Not so fast!

Where you register to vote isn't the best standard for determining where you reside. A better one is what you declared when filing Federal tax forms. However, those are one year behind, and all that we'd know is that Cheney lived in Texas in 1999.

It's a shame that there isn't a generally agreed upon, nation-wide standard to determine where you reside.

But wait! There happens to be one. It's called the Census, and fortunately coincided with the election year of 2000.

So, where did the Cheney's say they resided when they filled out the form? If it's Texas - the likely possiblity - then none of the Texas electoral votes may be counted.

Or perhaps Cheney filled the census forms for both Texas and Wyoming. In that case he violated the law:

Title 13, Section 221 (Census, Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers) of the United States Code reads:

• (b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

posted by Quiddity at 8/17/2002 09:44:00 PM

Draw your own conclusions:

posted by Quiddity at 8/17/2002 08:31:00 AM

Letter written to Spinsanity on March 8, 2002

I see that you wrote on March 7, 2002:

McAuliffe ... launched a preemptive strike against plans to privatize Social Security:

The President wants to turn Social Security into Social Insecurity, by pursuing a privatization plan that would cut benefits and expose our retirement savings to the whims of a volatile stock market. Anyone who thinks private retirement accounts are a good idea should talk to Enron employees.

By re-framing privatization in terms of "Social Insecurity," McAuliffe attacks the plan with a silly catchphrase. Worse yet, McAuliffe tries to tie "private retirement accounts" to Enron, a popular political strategy in recent weeks. The 401 (k) plans held by Enron employees, however, differ substantially from most privatization plans, in part because Enron employees who lost the most were heavily invested in a single company's stock (Enron's) -- a practice which likely would not be allowed under a privatized Social Security system. Moreover, the crude phrasing of the attack appears to suggest that 401 (k) plans are not a "good idea" in general, even though they are a widely-used vehicle for retirement savings supported by both political parties.

Let's look at this closer.

Social Security is an insurance program that, up until now, has provided a guaranteed retirement income - an income that isn't based on the vagaries of the stock (or bond) market.

Changing Social Security away from an insurance model and towards an investment model, allows the "Security" part to be questioned. Using the term "Insecurity" doesn't seem that far-fetched.

But more importantly is the reference to Enron. You say that many Enron 401k plans differed from most privatization plans in it's stock-weighting. True. But on the other hand the plans were similar to privatization plans in that they are dependent on market trends. Thus, McAuliffe's reference is not out of line.

As to whether 401k plans are a "good idea", it depends on what the goal is. If 401k plans are viewed as supplemental to a basic, reliable, Social Security, then they are attractive. However, if private retirement accounts are going to be the only (or an overwhelmingly large) component of a retirement plan, they may not be such a good idea after all. It seems clear that McAuliffe was referring to the latter notion, because the subject of debate these recent weeks has not been "401k plans, good or bad?" but instead, "should we privatize Social Security?"

Regards,

There was no reply, nor was there any subsequent commentary at Spinsanity's website.

These guys haven't been giving proportional attention to the lies and spin out there. Somehow they think that they must devote 50% of their time to Democrats, which leads them nitpicking liberals, while letting tons and tons of distortions by Republicans be unchallenged.

posted by Quiddity at 8/17/2002 08:13:00 AM

When will this guy learn to stop giving us that look:


One gets the sense that photographers look for this sort of thing.
posted by Quiddity at 8/16/2002 09:52:00 AM

Hey everybody, let's put on a show!

Okay, let's not. But perhaps we can engage in a little Coulter-ish behavior to amuse ourselves. Let's examine the White House transcripts for the Economic Forum sessions that the President attended (4 on specific topics, plus one plenary) - which took a total of about 90 minutes - and count the number of times there was "laughter": here (2) and here (3) and here (12) and here (3) and here (18). Which comes to 38 instances, or about one laugh every other minute. And at a time of great concern about the economy. The outrage!

The funniest session, judging from the numbers, was the one on Healthcare Security (18 instances), which makes complete sense. I know I'm always amused when it comes to illnesses that threaten my life and financial condition.

Actually, we're not exactly Coulter-ish here. These facts are true.
posted by Quiddity at 8/15/2002 01:41:00 AM

This just in...

To: President of the United States
Subject: Economic Forum at Baylor - Summary you requested

Cut taxes, privatize everything, and regulate lawyers (but not businesses). Basically, don't change your mind on anything. We love you George!

posted by Quiddity at 8/15/2002 01:05:00 AM

Noted statistician and detail-man, Rush Limbaugh, proudly points to his research into the 2000 presidential elections. Not only that, but there's a picture of him standing next to a map!

And what does he proclaim? That the number of square miles "won" by Bush was much more than that by Gore:

Square miles of the country won: Bush 2,427,000, Algore 580,000

But wait! Haven't we forgotten something? If you are going to count all that taiga and tundra in Alaska, why not also include the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of our Pacific territories? After all, they voted in the presidential election too. From the NOAA:

... the EEZ around American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, the Northern Mariana Islands and other US possessions in the Pacific, [is] an area of nearly 1.5 million square miles.

Now, we're not sure how to allocate those 1.5 million square miles to Bush and Gore. We can't find the numbers (so far) - but we do know that Gore won Hawaii. As to the rest, the Northern Marianas Islands tilts Republican, but American Samoa is probably Democratic.

Did Bush "decisively" win in terms of area? If Gore did well with the outrigger demographic - which seems likely - then he bags 1.5 million square miles, which would put the totals at 2.4 million for Bush vs. 2.0 million for Gore. And there'd be much more plankton in Gore's territory. So there!

Here at uggabugga, we plan to see if there are other meaningful results from the 2000 election. We suspect that Bush comes out on top in the alligators-per-precinct category, and that you're more likely to find a copy of the Utne Reader in counties that Gore won. But much more work needs to be done in this critical area.

Whoops!

We just checked Rush's numbers again, and it appears that he's talking about the United States circa 1950 - that is, without Alaska and Hawaii. (But then, he's living in the past, so it's no surprise.) We should have paid attention when we read Limbaugh's "fact" that Bush won 29 states, and Gore won 19 (for a total of 48). Back then, the total area of the United States was about 3 million square miles. So correcting the numbers requires adding Alaska's 586,000 square miles to Bush's column, and assigning Hawaii's paltry 6,000 to Gore. The totals, for the 48 states, plus Alaska and Hawaii, and including the EEZ, are 3.0 million square miles for Bush, and 2.0 million for Gore.
posted by Quiddity at 8/14/2002 10:40:00 PM

Heard this line lately?

BUSH (economic forum, general remarks): ... by far the vast majority of CEOs are good, honorable people ... by far the vast majority of those leading corporate America are good, honorable people.

BUSH (economic forum, Corporate Responsibility): By far, the vast majority of people running corporate America are good, honorable people; good, decent people that care about their shareholders, care about their employees, care about communities in which they live. And that's important for people to know

BUSH (economic forum, Healthcare Security): We talked a little bit in these other seminars about how some have let us down, cheated, didn't tell the truth when it comes to their numbers on their balance sheets. And we'll find those, and hold them to account. But by far, the vast majority of Americans are really decent, honorable people.

And it's not just corporate America:

SAN JOSE MECURY NEWS EDITORIAL: ... remember that the vast majority of priests do not abuse children.

That's certainly an interesting point of view, but does it mean anything? The vast majority of people in (choose your favorite klepocracy) aren't corrupt, but would you want to invest there? The vast majority of people in (choose your inner-city) are law abiding, but would you want to walk down a dark alley there at night?

Sometimes, small percentages matter.


posted by Quiddity at 8/14/2002 03:36:00 PM

The Bush economic forum: Session on Corporate Responsibility. One of the attendees was June Lennon, small business owner and CPA, who as Commerce Secretary Don Evans put it, " has some thoughts on what has happened in the accounting world over the last 12 months." What did Ms. Lennon have to say?

MS. LENNON: Another way [to fight corporate fraud] is to simplify the tax laws [that] feed into this mess, and I know a lot of people -- I have been trying for years to get the tax code abolished. And people say, why are you, a CPA, doing that? I said, because it's so I can help my businesses -- my clients grow their business, instead of doing government paperwork for them.


THE PRESIDENT: ... thank you very much for that, June.


posted by Quiddity at 8/14/2002 03:32:00 PM

Anybody who thinks that global warming won't cost much - like those incorrigible folks at the Cato and Hoover institutions - should ponder the economic impact of the flood in the Czech Republic. Those who blithely assert that we've "weathered" climate changes in the past, should remember that back then, folks simply packed their meager belonging onto their goat and headed a bit further north. But guess what guys? Now we got infrastructure! The old historical models don't apply.

What needs to emerge, and will over time, is a consensus that fighting global warming makes economic sense - given the investment we've made in cities over the last, what, 500 years.


Forget the tree-hugging. Simply take a financial approach. Maybe that will convince the conservatives.

posted by Quiddity at 8/14/2002 03:29:00 PM

At the economic conference at Baylor, did Bush look like a guy dragged against his will to a high school science fair? Our George popped in, viewed some exhibits, sat down for ten minutes and pretended to pay attention, then said a few words before dashing off to the next room. Of course, none of it stuck. But he "put in an appearance", and that's all that matters to those guys.

posted by Quiddity at 8/14/2002 03:29:00 PM