News item:

Coup attempt in Qatar on October 12/13.

From weblogger The Agonist: On the evening of October 12, “scores” of high-ranking Qatari army officers were arrested. Sources say that “U.S troops were involved in the crackdown, establishing roadblocks and, in plain clothes, participating in the arrests of suspects.” Some sources say that the plotters had al Qaeda links, others that they had Saudi links. But all sources agree that the goal of the plotters was “to change Qatar’s foreign policy.”

From UPI: Diplomatic circles in the Middle East are buzzing with rumors of a failed coup against the Qatari regime on the night of Oct. 13. At least two members of the royal family are said to have joined with officers of Yemeni and Pakistani background, along with individuals from Islamic organizations, all opposed to the growing U.S. military presence.

posted by Quiddity at 10/30/2002 09:47:00 PM

Michael Kelly's error:

In today's op-ed, Michael Kelly expresses his view that the term "chicken hawk" refers to civilians "who advocate war but who declined a significant opportunity to serve in uniform" and that "the central implication here is that only men who have professionally endured war have the moral standing and the experiential authority to advocate war."

Wrong, Mr. Kelly.

The term "chicken hawk" is applicable in one specific instance (out of 8 possibilities). It is therefore, pace Kelly, not a "general trump-it-all insult that the antiwar crowd aims at the pro-war crowd."

For those with limited language and logic skills - like Kelly - we offer this table as a visual aid.

			military & veterans
			cautious	pro-war
civilian government	cautious	no military experience
		military experience
	pro-war	no military experience	chicken-hawk
		military experience

posted by Quiddity at 10/30/2002 06:19:00 AM

What? Huh?

The GOP has a new Flash Animation out. Halloween themed, don't you know. One frame that caught our eye was this:



We were intrigued by the citation of Meet The Press for October 6, 2002. So we took a look at the transcript (by the way, an excellent resource for finding old Meet The Press transcripts - and others - is here). Tom Daschle was the guest. Here is the exchange on taxes:

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned the economy. This is what you said just about two weeks ago about it, and the tax cuts: “The tragic set of financial and economic circumstances we are witnessing today, is directly connected to the tragic decline in our fiscal circumstance. ... President Bush’s solution appears to be pretty clear. ...They have one all-purpose, economic antidote to everything, and that is tax cuts—tax cuts largely dedicated to those at the very top.” Having said that, it now appears on the verge of a war with Iraq, would you be in favor of postponing the Bush tax cut, the implementation in order to have money to pay for the war and also reduce the deficit?

SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, I have said from the very beginning that what we ought to do is to not dig the hole any deeper. The president has proposed that we make permanent all of the tax cuts, that we make permanent all of the specific, very expensive and costly and I think imbalanced approaches to tax policy. And what we have said is we won’t do that. We’ll have that vote, and I think we ought to stop that from occurring and we ought to have a vote on it right now.

MR. RUSSERT: But what about the existing tax cuts that are in place? Why not...

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, let’s take first things first.

MR. RUSSERT: If you feel so seriously about it, Senator, why not postpone the tax cut, freeze it and not let it take place?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, because the president has said he’d veto something like that. There’s no way that that will become law. It would be a futile effort in part because the administration is so opposed to it. So that isn’t going to get us anywhere. What I think we can do, though, in spite of the administration opposition is keep this from becoming permanent so we don’t lose another $400 billion in the first 10 years and $4 1/2 trillion in the second 10 years. We can avoid that from happening. We can put some semblance of fiscal responsibility back into the budget by taking at least that minimal step.

Got that? Not making the tax cut permanent is now considered to be raising taxes. Earlier, the GOP was saying that freezing the tax cut was a raise, but now they've gone further with that "logic." Now, even if the Senate/Democrats do nothing, it's considered raising taxes.

And another thing. It's "Taxes Raised" (past tense), even though the time frame is eight years in the future.

Amazing.

posted by Quiddity at 10/29/2002 10:13:00 PM

Big news:

The Sideshow links to a thought-provoking article at The Consortiumnews.com. According to the author, the Bush administration is directly responsible for North Korea's decision to go nuclear. Here are the key events:

	stimulus	response
2001
shortly after taking office	Bush cut off talks with North Korea and snubbed South Korea’s President Kim Dae-Jung over his détente strategy
2002
After the Sept. 11 terror attacks	Bush began counting North Korea as part of his “axis of evil,”
Early 2002	In late 2001, Bush sent to Congress a “nuclear posture review,” which laid out future U.S. strategy for deploying nuclear weapons. Leaked early this year, the NPR put North Korea on a list of potential targets for U.S. nuclear weapons. In doing that, Bush reversed President Clinton's commitment against targeting non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons. As part of the nuclear review, the Bush administration also discussed lowering the threshold for the use of U.S. nuclear weapons by making low-yield tactical nukes available for some battlefield situations.
March		The North Korean government warned of “strong countermeasures” against Bush’s nuclear policy shifts.
March		The New York Times reported that “North Korea threatened earlier this month to withdraw from the (1994 nuclear suspension) agreement if the Bush administration persisted with what North Korea called a ‘hard-line’ policy that differed from the Clinton administration’s approach.”
May	Raising the tensions even more, Bush personally lashed out at North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il during a closed-door meeting of Republican lawmakers. In a lectern-thumping, disjointed tirade that unnerved some Republicans present, Bush denounced Kim Jong Il as a "pygmy" and compared him to "a spoiled child at a dinner table," Newsweek magazine reported
Summer		U.S. intelligence was seeing evidence of a resurgent nuclear program in North Korea.
July		"U.S. officials have known since early July that North Korea had acquired key equipment for enriching uranium," the Wall Street Journal reported.
October	U.S. diplomats confronted Pyongyang with the evidence ...	... and were surprised when North Korean leaders admitted that they were working on building nuclear weapons.
25 October		North Korea issued a press release at the United Nations explaining its reasoning. The statement cited both Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric and the administration's decision to target North Korea for a possible preemptive nuclear strike.

The argument that Bush's foreign policy caused North Korea to scrap the 1994 agreement and go nuclear sounds persuasive. In addition, it's surprisingly simple. Threaten North Korea, and they react. No complicated Clash of Civilizations or mysterious global financial issues. So simple, in fact, that even Bush might understand it.

Putting our naïve hat on, we don't understand why people aren't shouting from the rooftops about this. The Bush administration's North Korea policy has been a disaster. Talking tough was not the right approach. The 1994 agreement was working until the delicate balance was upset by Bush. And these guys are considered good at foreign policy?

UPDATE: We've been trying to determine exactly when, and in what manner, the North Koreans resumed their nuclear program. It's possible that they started a uranium enrichment program in the late 1990's, but nobody is saying for sure. (By the way, the 1994 agreement was designed to halt the production of plutonium - which seems to have succeeded.) It still looks like the North Koreans didn't pursue a nuclear program until after Bush made his policy changes. The reason? The U.S. recently confronted North Korea with intelligence that - we presume - would have shown an operative nuclear program at an earlier date, if that was the case.
posted by Quiddity at 10/29/2002 07:38:00 PM

Mondale too old?

Walter Mondale, age 74, is being criticized in some Republican circles as being too old. E.g. Limbaugh: (emphasis added)

Anybody who thinks that Frank Lautenberg or Walter Mondull are going to serve full terms if they are elected next week, is probably smoking some of the marijuana that was intended for these patients in New York. Their ideology is as old and obsolete as the dinosaurs. I'm not saying anyone should get over confident, but just look at who the other side has to go to for help. It's absurd to vote for these two cadavers just because they the letter (D) next to their names.

But what about this guy? (From NYTimes)

The new board overseeing the accounting profession got off to a troubled start today when the members of the Securities and Exchange Commission split bitterly over the qualifications and competency of the board's new leadership. They voted 3 to 2 to approve formally the selection of William H. Webster, the former director of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., to head the new board.

The three Republicans on the commission and Republicans in Congress hailed Mr. Webster ...

How old is Mr. Webster? Well, he was born on March 6, 1924, making him 78 today.

Note: Links to Limbaugh tend to go bad after about a week.


posted by Quiddity at 10/29/2002 12:12:00 PM

Mr. Nice Guy:

Four day's after Paul Wellstone dies:

"The Democrats use every opportunity, no matter how tragic, to seize power." - Rush Limbaugh, 29 October 2002

posted by Quiddity at 10/29/2002 11:53:00 AM

Headlines:

New York Times:Thousands March in Washington Against Going to War in Iraq
Washington Post: 100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq
Washington Times: Anti-war crowd noisy, peaceful
Fox News Channel: Demonstrators Protest Iraq War Plans
David Horowitz' Front Page Magazine: 100,000 Communists March On Washington To Give Aid and Comfort to Saddam Hussein

posted by Quiddity at 10/29/2002 10:37:00 AM

Travelin' George:

It's been a busy month for the President. In 28 days, he's made 16 stops to campaign for Republicans. According to big Dick Morris (not our favorite guy, by the way):

"By campaigning for Republican candidates around the nation, Bush seems to be undermining the case for a military emergency requiring immediate action against Iraq."
- link -

Here's Bush's October/November schedule up to now:

		1	2 Remarks by the President at Bob Ehrlich for Governor Reception link	3	4	5 Remarks by the President in Manchester, New Hampshire Welcome link Remarks by the President at John Sununu for Senate Reception link
6	7	8 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome link Remarks by the President at Van Hilleary for Governor Luncheon link	9	10	11	12
13	14 Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome link	15	16	17 Remarks by the President at 2002 Unity Luncheon link	18 President Discusses Tax Relief Impact in Springfield, Missouri link	19
20	21	22 Remarks by the President at Pennsylvania Welcome link Remarks by the President at Bangor, Maine Welcome link	23	24 Remarks by the President at Charlotte, North Carolina Welcome link Remarks by the President at Columbia, South Carolina Welcome link Remarks by the President in Alabama Welcome link	25	26
27 Remarks by the President in Arizona Welcome link	28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome link Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome link	29	30 White House Radio Day	31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome link Remarks by the President at Indiana Welcome link Remarks by the President at West Virginia Welcome link	1 Remarks by the President in Pennsylvania Welcome link Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome link Remarks by the President at Kentucky Welcome link	2 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome link Remarks by the President at Savannah, Georgia Welcome link Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome link Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome link
3 Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome link Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome link Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome link	4 Remarks by the President at Iowa Welcome link Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome link Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome link	5	6	7	8	9

The Daily Kos also has some thoughts on this issue.

posted by Quiddity at 10/29/2002 07:58:00 AM

Pants on fire:



In addition to the image link, there is this commentary from Talking Points Memo (3:30 PM October 28).

UPDATE: And then the Washington Post published this story: Gingrich Accusations Come Under Scrutiny at 5:18 PM October 28 - almost certainly because of Josh Marshall's work. Go TPM!


posted by Quiddity at 10/28/2002 01:56:00 PM

Logos logo:

Leaders of two religious organizations are questioning Chevrolet's sponsorship of a concert and prayer tour aimed at evangelical Christians - NYTimes story




posted by Quiddity at 10/28/2002 05:28:00 AM

Sullivan's innumeracy:

Background: On October 22, Dana Milbank wrote an article in the Washington Post about Bush's misrepresentation of the facts: One item he mentioned was this: (emphasis added)

Other times, the president's assertions simply outpace the facts. In New Hampshire earlier this month, he said his education legislation made "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time."

In fact, the 15.8 percent increase in Department of Education discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 (the figures the White House supplied when asked about Bush's statement) was below the 18.5 percent increase under Clinton the previous year -- and Bush had wanted a much smaller increase than Congress approved.

The following day (Wed, Oct 23) Sullivan publishes an email he received from a reader. The key sections are: (emphasis [yellow] added)

A FEW DECENT POINTS?? An email provides some balance to my link to Dana Milbank's Washington Post article yesterday about president Bush's sloppiness with facts: Good dish . . . with the notable exception of touting Milbank's article. Although he accuses the President of lying (6 times by my count), his evidence is less than compelling. ... Milbank's statements are, if anything, more dubious than the President's. Then he goes on to make some basic logical errors. ... Finally, he closes with a basic error in arithmetic: "Other times, the president's assertions simply outpace the facts. In New Hampshire earlier this month, he said his education legislation made "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time." "In fact, the 15.8 percent increase in Department of Education discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 (the figures the White House supplied when asked about Bush's statement) was below the 18.5 percent increase under Clinton the previous year. . ." In fact, a 15.8 % increase is "bigger" than a previous year's 18.5 % increase (115.8 x 118.5 = 137.22; 137.22 - 118.5 = 18.72% ). Dana might wish to define an "increase" as a multiplicative factor, but dictionaries, math books, and common usage all refer to addition. ... [Milbank] has failed abysmally in his attempt to make a cogent case. And if this is the best available argument that Bush is a liar, he must be pretty darn truthful.

Sounds persuasive! At least it does if you're not paying close attention. But it's wrong. It's the result of mathematical ignorance or it's a deliberate trick. Here's why.

The first set of numbers (15.8 and 18.5) are percentages. But then the numbers are applied to real units (in this case dollars) which are subtracted to produce another real unit number (again, in dollars) - which is automagically treated as a "percentage" and (incorrectly) compared to a number in the first set. Let's look at some examples.

By applying the spending increases to a base amount of one hundred dollars, you get a number that, when incorrectly treated as a percentage, seems reasonable (say, anything between 5% and 30%), but it's purely an accident. (Or is it?)

Spending numbers should be adjusted for inflation and made per-capita if they are to have any meaning. Absent that kind of analysis, we speak of year-to-year differences in terms of percentage because it allows us to see if real spending is keeping up with, or exceeding previous levels (by subtracting inflation and population growth rates). And here is where the writer deceives us: By taking a (made-up) spending change and treating it as a rate of change.

Another possibility: Now it's true that the year-to-year increase in dollars is slightly greater under Bush. That's what the writer's 18.7% really measures: dollars, not growth rates. He (or she) has inadvertently arrived at a percentage increase in funding by Bush compared to year 0. But then it's used to gauge Clinton's increase also compared to year 0. Thus, we're really evaluating dollars vs. dollars - even though it's expressed in percentages. Bush's spending is measured by comparing it to a budget two years prior, but Clinton's by one year. (If you want to properly engage in this sort of oddball analysis, then Clinton's spending increase should be compared to the budget for year -1.)

Actually, we're not sure what approach the writer is making: using a base of $100 and then converting spending amounts to percentages - which was our first impression because of the stated emphasis on addition and disdain for multiplication, or, comparing apples to oranges (Bush-$-increase:spending-2-years-earlier vs. Clinton-$-increase:spending-1-year-earlier). Either way is wrong.

For Sullivan to be introducing this kind of "reasoning" into the debate shows how desperate (or ignorant) he really is. Where did this guy go to college?

Sullivan owes Milbank an apology for promoting this nonsense.

posted by Quiddity at 10/27/2002 04:52:00 AM

What's your answer, George?

From the GOP Flash animation.

1. What about the rest of us?
2. What do you mean by near retirement?
3. No changes? What about keeping pace with inflation?

posted by Quiddity at 10/26/2002 11:08:00 PM

A voice in the wilderness:

There is a book reviewer over at Amazon.com who merits a quick look. link

posted by Quiddity at 10/26/2002 01:03:00 PM

Using government resources for political gain:

We read in the New York Times that Bush is on the campaign trail.

His day of intensive campaigning started early in North Carolina, his fifth visit there this year, to help the Senate campaign of Elizabeth Dole, who briefly ran against Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination for president two years ago. It continued through South Carolina and Alabama as Mr. Bush repeatedly described the Senate's performance this year as "lousy."

In South Carolina, Mr. Bush appeared before a crowd of several thousand in an airplane hangar, alongside Mr. Sanford, who is challenging the incumbent Democrat, Gov. Jim Hodges.

Well, lookie here at the White House website. They got his speech and photos from the S. Carolina event. In case you are wondering if the speech was non-political, here are some excerpts [transcript from W.H. website]:

You need a governor who's willing to change the tone of this state. You know, there's just too much partisan bickering that goes on in the Statehouse. You need somebody who is going to rise above it all, somebody who doesn't need a poll or a focus group to tell him how to think, somebody who stands on principle. (Applause.) Somebody that's going to be the governor of everybody when he wins. And that person is Mark Sanford. (Applause.)

... he's going to make you a good governor. I urge you to -- as they're coming down the pike, to support this good candidate and his family with your vote, with your energy, with your enthusiasm and, sure enough, on election day, you will have Mark Sanford as your governor. (Applause.)

No question in my mind, the right man to take the place of Strom Thurmond is soon to be United States Senator Lindsey Graham. (Applause.)

The death tax is bad. The marriage penalty is bad. The child credit is good. Reducing income tax rates helps small business. For the sake of economic vitality, you need to have a United States senator who will make the tax cuts permanent. (Applause.) And that's Lindsey Graham.

Isn't using the White House website to promote a political speech a violation of the law?

Minor additional note: Bush made this comment:

... the best way to secure the homeland is to chase these killers down, one person at a time, and bring them to justice.

That's not correct. The best way to secure the homeland is to prevent (as best as possible) terrorists from acting in the first place. But, just like the corporate scandals, Bush lives in a world where one doesn't regulate or prevent problems. Instead, it's a world where all hell breaks loose and only afterwords, are the culprits sought for punishment.


posted by Quiddity at 10/25/2002 08:50:00 AM

Attention must be paid:

You've seen the anti-drug ad on television. But have you listened carefully to the words? Here they are (our emphasis):

In a little girl's voice with nursery rhyme music in the background:

This is Dan.
This is the joint that Dan bought.
This is the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought.
This is the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer that sold the joint that Dan bought.
This the cartel that uses the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer that sold the joint that Dan bought.
And this is the family that was lined up by Dan's cartel, and shot for getting in the way.

posted by Quiddity at 10/25/2002 12:20:00 AM

Idiot:

We read in the New York Times this story:

McAuliffe Describes Jeb Bush as the Democrats' Top Target

Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic national chairman, said today that his No. 1 goal in the Nov. 5 elections was to defeat Gov. Jeb Bush in Florida ...

"Jeb is gone!" Mr. McAuliffe declared brazenly, brushing aside the determination of the White House to protect the president's brother. "There won't be anything as devastating to President Bush as his brother's losing in Florida."

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

The top priority is to prevent the Senate from going Republican.

Getting a cheap emotional thrill from unseating Jeb Bush is far less important than preventing Bush from scrapping most of the New Deal and appointing conservative judges who will determine what (little) the government can do for decades.

McAuliffe should quit and someone less slimy and stupid should be given the post of DNC head. (Obviously not quit now, but at the appropriate time, like after the elections.)

posted by Quiddity at 10/24/2002 05:49:00 AM

Thank goodness for Viagra:

Following the introduction of that drug, over time, we won't be seeing spectacles like this.



It also should help curtail the absurd trade in powdered rhino horns

posted by Quiddity at 10/24/2002 05:20:00 AM

He's back!


NOTE: This is a parody image inspired by all those "EIB photo montages" found at Rush Limbaugh's website.

posted by Quiddity at 10/23/2002 07:06:00 AM

Calling Uncle Joe:

Then

"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem. Joseph Stalin

Now

[The Supreme Court] refused to consider whether a person could be on death row for so long that executing him could constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Convicted killer Charles Kenneth Foster argued that executing him after 27 years on Florida's death row would violate the Eighth Amendment. ... Breyer dissented from [the] decision not to get involved, maintaining that "it is fairly asked" whether executing a prisoner who had spent so long on death row was unconstitutional.

But Justice Clarence Thomas said the court was right not to get involved. "Petitioner could long ago have ended his 'anxieties and uncertainties' by submitting to what the people of Florida have deemed him to deserve: execution," Thomas wrote.

- Baltimore Sun

posted by Quiddity at 10/23/2002 05:38:00 AM

What hath Bush wrought?

2001

• California's electric market is dysfunctional. There are suspicious shortages and blackouts in the winter months when demand is lowest. Electricity prices in some cases rise to 10 to 40 times the usual rate.
• The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, charged with ensuring "just and reasonable" rates in wholesale electricity markets, does not act.
• California urges the President to get FERC to impose price limits, but Bush says the crisis is a matter of inadequate supply and that there is nothing he can do.
• More western states are affected by the crisis (including those with Republican governors). Political pressure builds.
• Bush eventually gets FERC to limit prices in June, and the crisis recedes, but not before the State of California is overcharged $9 billion. (Total to all of California - consumers, businesses, utilities, governments - is about $27 billion. Total to all western states is estimated at $60 billion.)

2002

• California has a budget deficit of $25 billion - 1/3 which is attributable to Bush's failure to act promptly during the state's energy crisis.
• The State of California cuts back on healthcare spending. In particular, it cuts back on funds it sends to the counties.
• As a result, Los Angeles County, which runs the largest public health care system in the nation, faces an $800 million shortfall and shuts down 11 clinics. DR. PAUL HUA, Imperial Heights Health Clinic:

  "There are going to be more people dying in the ER if you don't give them preventive care, definitely. There will be people dying out in the streets."

• During past health care crises, Washington provided hundreds of millions of dollars in relief to LA County. Local officials have been in closed-door meetings with federal authorities to appeal for more government assistance, but the Bush Administration, has said there will be no bailout.

Compassionate conservative, my ass. He's a son of a bitch.

posted by Quiddity at 10/22/2002 12:18:00 PM

Krugman on the march:

Paul Krugman has an excellent article in Sunday's New York Times magazine about changing income distribution and the politics of wealth. Most of the ideas seem like they came straight out of Kevin Phillip's book (whom he mentions only once - at the end), but they are still potent. We read:

... the growing concentration of wealth has reshaped our political system: it is at the root both of a general shift to the right and of an extreme polarization of our politics.

For at least the past 15 years it has been hard to deny the evidence for growing inequality in the United States. ... Nonetheless, denial of that evidence is a sizable, well-financed industry. Conservative think tanks have produced scores of studies that try to discredit the data, the methodology and, not least, the motives of those who report the obvious. Studies that appear to refute claims of increasing inequality receive prominent endorsements on editorial pages and are eagerly cited by right-leaning government officials. Four years ago Alan Greenspan (why did anyone ever think that he was nonpartisan?) gave a keynote speech at the Federal Reserve's annual Jackson Hole conference that amounted to an attempt to deny that there has been any real increase in inequality in America.

This is the 1998 Greenspan speech Krugman is referring to. Excerpts:

One story that has emerged from that body of research is now familiar: Rising demand for those workers who have the skills to effectively harness new technologies has been outpacing supply, and, thus, the compensation of those workers has been increasing more rapidly than for the lesser skilled segment of the workforce.

Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts, researchers have found that inequality in consumption, when measured by current outlays, is less than inequality in income. [Greenspan's emphasis]

As we consider the causes and consequences of inequality, we should also be mindful that, over time, the relationship of economic growth, increases in standards of living, and the distribution of wealth has evolved differently in various political and institutional settings. Thus, generalizations about the past and the future may be hard to make, particularly in the current dynamic and uncertain environment of economic change. We need to ask, for example, whether we should be concerned with the degree of income inequality if all groups are experiencing relatively rapid gains in their real incomes, though those rates of gain may differ.

WE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: When people start talking about consumption as a guage of inequality, it's a redirection from the issue at hand. The wealthy, having certain limits on time and energy, are unlikely to spend/consume all their money. So much of it is saved or invested, which gives them immense security and at times, influence (if they choose to use it). Consumption is a subset of economic activity. One could narrow it further and, for instance, speak of consumption for hygiene (CfH). The total number of bars of soap people use falls within a fairly narrow range - so, using CfH as a metric, there is equality throughout the land, and therefore no cause for concern. Busybodies like Krugman should stop their complaining.     (See how easy that was?)

The three things that Krugman refers to, "globalization'', ''skill-biased technological change", and ''superstar'' - which some claim are explanations for the inequality are precisely what Mickey Kaus wrote a decade ago (a New Republic article, and later a book - Amazon, B&N, review). Kaus will no doubt have something to say in response to Krugman's article.

More Krugman:

According to this story, highly paid C.E.O.'s really are worth it, because having the right man in that job makes a huge difference. The more pessimistic view -- which I find more plausible -- is that competition for talent is a minor factor. Yes, a great executive can make a big difference -- but those huge pay packages have been going as often as not to executives whose performance is mediocre at best. The key reason executives are paid so much now is that they appoint the members of the corporate board that determines their compensation and control many of the perks that board members count on. So it's not the invisible hand of the market that leads to those monumental executive incomes; it's the invisible handshake in the boardroom.

Much more than economists and free-market advocates like to imagine, wages -- particularly at the top -- are determined by social norms. [Give this man a Nobel Prize!]

[There have been] two huge changes in American politics. One is the growing polarization of our politics -- our politicians are less and less inclined to offer even the appearance of moderation. The other is the growing tendency of policy and policy makers to cater to the interests of the wealthy. And I mean the wealthy, not the merely well-off: only someone with a net worth of at least several million dollars is likely to find it worthwhile to become a tax exile.

As the gap between the rich and the rest of the population grows, economic policy increasingly caters to the interests of the elite, while public services for the population at large -- above all, public education -- are starved of resources. As policy increasingly favors the interests of the rich and neglects the interests of the general population, income disparities grow even wider.

Essentially what Krugman is saying is that the wealthy don't deserve the money they get. That those at the top have been rewarded, not through classic market systems (e.g. CEO supply and shareholder demand), but by alternate methods (connections¹, inheritance², deception³, and luck⁴). Also, the substantial wealth generated in the last decade or two was not "fairly" distributed within society.

The unanswered question is, what to do about it?

¹ The Bush brothers
² Richard Mellon Scaife
³ Wall Street analysts and assorted book-cooking
⁴ For example, if you got options in '99 and '00

posted by Quiddity at 10/19/2002 01:42:00 PM

Cheap shot:

Index Finger Length Can Predict Penis Size: Study

According to Greek scientists, the length of a man's index finger can accurately predict the length of his penis. The findings are published in the September issue of the journal Urology.

posted by Quiddity at 10/18/2002 08:28:00 PM

Sullivan reacts to the North Korea / nukes news:

Andrew Sulllivan churns out 307 words of his own in the wake of the news that North Korea has a nuclear program (and probably bombs). He mentions Clinton twice, The New York Times twice, McCain once, and ends up cheering Krauthammer. What's notable is that Sullivan has nothing to say about the Bush administration. Nothing about holding back the information prior to the big vote on use of force. Nothing about why one of the countries in the "axis of evil" wasn't examined more closely by the spy network. Nothing about Bush's easy-going approach to Pakistan (who provided key technology).

Nothing.

posted by Quiddity at 10/17/2002 11:19:00 PM

Is this true?

We took a quick look at Rush Limbaugh's website. Along with the predictable material, there was an item about Zogby. Rush doesn't like the numbers Zogby is reporting on the Florida governor's race, and now claims that he is "shucking and jiving for Democrats on every poll that he reports." Rush continues:

I hate to say this, because it was not always this way. Zogby even used to let me put some questions in his polls.

posted by Quiddity at 10/16/2002 12:06:00 PM

The Fleischer misdirect:

We read that:

President Bush does not support the push for firearms "fingerprinting" that has grown from the Washington-area sniper shootings, a spokesman said Tuesday, saying Bush is unconvinced of the technology's accuracy and is concerned about gun owners' privacy.

Besides, added White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, when it comes to new gun controls generally, "How many laws can we really have to stop crime, if people are determined in their heart to violate them no matter how many there are or what they say?"

"Stop crime?" That's a tall order, Ari. Maybe firearm fingerprinting won't stop crime. Maybe it will. Maybe it will merely reduce crime. But you can be sure of one thing, it will assist in finding the criminal. Even if the criminal manages to get a non-fingerprinted rifle, the police will be able to eliminate other suspects that have a fingerprinted weapon. But then, we're being logical.

Nice to see Bush concerned about privacy. Too bad it's only for gun owners.

posted by Quiddity at 10/15/2002 09:53:00 PM

It's official. Bush is nuts:

From Britain's Telegraph (via CalPundit):

"We will fight the war on terror on two fronts if need be," he said, repeating his insistence that there was a connection between al-Qa'eda and Saddam Hussein.

A two front war. Excellent. And this guy majored in history at college.

  Is this a scary photo, or what?

posted by Quiddity at 10/15/2002 03:11:00 AM

Fallwell apologizes for calling Mohammad a terrorist:

You've read the news. Once again Falwell apologizes for "certain statements of mine made during an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes [that] were hurtful to the feelings of many Muslims." But you see, according to Falwell, he "... answered one controversial and loaded question at the conclusion of an hour-long CBS interview which I should not have answered. That was a mistake and I apologize."

And who could forget Falwell's comment from a year ago when he said "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen'." Of course, he later said, "I would never blame any human being except the terrorists, and if I left that impression with gays or lesbians or anyone else, I apologize."

And before that, in 1999, Falwell said that, "... the Antichrist is a Jewish man who probably is alive today." Which was followed by - you guessed it: "I apologize to my Jewish friends here and around the world and I apologize to the Christians here for having created any kind of rift."

But this is nothing new. He's been at it for a long time. From Presidential Campaigns by Paul Boller (p 365):

1980 Carter / Reagan:

During the campaign, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, leader of the ultra-rightist Moral Majority, announced that he had a conference with the President in the Oval Office and the latter had told him homosexuals needed representation in the White House and he had several on his staff. But it turned out there had been no such conversation. Falwell had never even been in the Oval Office. Confronted by reporters, the Moral Majority leader admitted he had "fabricated" the tale.

We presume he apologized, but the book doesn't say.

Falwell knows what he's saying. The apologies are merely pro forma.

NOTE: We checked, and it appears that the Reverend did not apologize after his National Liberty Journal issued a parents alert that Tinky Winky had become a favorite character among gay groups.   Take that, Mr. Winky!

posted by Quiddity at 10/15/2002 01:44:00 AM

States' Rights when it pleases the Bush administration. And not when it doesn't.

We'll keep this short because it's so depressing.

California passed a law requiring a percentage of passenger vehicles to achieve zero emissions.

The federal Clean Air Act allows states to regulate auto emissions - and California has done so repeatedly in the past.

It is generally agreed that the federal law on fuel economy trumps all others; a state may not enforce a law related to fuel economy standards.

Automakers are opposed to California's zero emission law.

The Bush administration, supporting the automobile manufacturers in a 37-page filing with a federal appeals court, argued that California's zero emission mandate impinges on what is solely a federal responsibility. "The Energy Policy and Conservation Act provides that when a federal fuel economy standard is in effect, a state or a political subdivision of a state may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards," the department argued.

Everybody got that? States may not legislate fuel economy, but are permitted to legislate emissions. Therefore California's zero emission requirement is unlawful.

How can anybody defend that reasoning? (Maybe someone from the Federalist Society can do it, but nobody with a sound mind.)

posted by Quiddity at 10/14/2002 11:24:00 AM

The Zini telegram:

We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted airborne warfare in the Middle East. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep Iran neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Turkey a proposal or alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Turkey is to reconquer the lost territory in Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the Prime Minister of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with Iran is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Israel as a military partner. Please call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our air power now offers the prospect of compelling Iraq in a few weeks to make peace.

Signed, ZINI.

[FYI: Zimmerman telegram link is here]

posted by Quiddity at 10/13/2002 03:09:00 PM

We ask you to consider the following:

We've debated politics with a friend for some time now over the issue of invading Iraq and its political impact. Our friend believes that the idea is for Bush/Rove to "get the ball rolling" on Iraq, but to delay any action until early 2004 - so that a likely military victory will boost the electoral prospects of Bush and Republicans. That the war talk in 2002 is designed to divert from the economy, and that after the election an 18-month delay - using the inspections as a mechanism - will ensue.

Sounds reasonable, but we have an alternate view.

We think that Rove has read The Emerging Democratic Majority (book, New Republic article), and talked to Larry Lindsay. The bottom line is that the economy will still be reeling from a post-bubble recession, and that demographic trends will make many close states in 2000 tilt Democratic the next time around. This leads Rove to conclude that reelection in 2004 is unlikely. So what to do? What would you do if you were a conservative Republican?

Considering that the Senate is one vote away from turning Republican, why not go for broke and get total Republican control of the government, even if it's only for two years? That way you can:

Make the tax cuts permanent.

Cut more taxes.

Grant leases for drilling/mining as fast as possible.

Give big bucks to Faith-based outfits.

Usher in as many conservative 41-year olds as possible (with no track records) as judges.

Replace O'Connor and Rehnquist ASAP; hope Stevens or Ginsberg retire.

Refashion Medicare and Social Security so that private businesses get a piece of the action.

Minimize regulation of business and the environment. Allow big media to get even bigger.

Generously fund missile defense so that the programs take on a life of their own.

Upon reflection, we think that the judicial appointees are the real prize being contended for. All you need is an expansive interpretation of the "taking clause" and government activity is severely constrained.

Sure, Rove would love to win in 2004, and will definitely give it the old college try - but a Bush/Republican win is no sure thing. We've said it before and we'll say it again: The big election is 2002. That's why Iraq is being brought up now.

posted by Quiddity at 10/11/2002 09:27:00 PM

They are out of their minds:

We thought that the Bush administration would be content to knock off Saddam and then leave the mess to the UN to clean up. We were wrong. According to this New York Times article: U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report, we read that

The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today.

That will be a disaster.

posted by Quiddity at 10/11/2002 07:37:00 AM

Republicans voting against the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq:

SENATE:

RHODE ISLAND - Chafee

HOUSE:

INDIANA - Hostettler
IOWA - Leach
MARYLAND - Morella
NEW YORK - Houghton
TENNESSEE - Duncan
TEXAS - Paul

Did you know?

The following states only have Republican representatives: ALASKA, DELAWARE, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING
The following states only have Democratic representatives: HAWAII, MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS, RHODE ISLAND, NORTH DAKOTA

posted by Quiddity at 10/11/2002 07:16:00 AM

Who cares about the economy?

In the last 4 1/2 months the market has turned every stockholder into a big loser. Since May 20 the DOW has dropped 28% and the broader index, the S&P 500, is down 29%. (The hapless NASDAQ is off 33%, but isn't as "connected" to the economy as the other indices).

That's enormous.

Considering that we're a month away from a national election, you might expect the economy - and the administration's approach to it - would be at the top of the agenda. But instead, everybody's talking about Iraq.

Score one for Karl Rove.

posted by Quiddity at 10/09/2002 03:21:00 PM

WFB speaks!

William F. Buckley comments on Bush and the economy. He spends time on the simplistic notions that taxes reduce incentives to work, welfare reduces incentives to work, etc. Then he says this:

If government "does nothing," natural inclinations, as prophesied by Adam Smith, are unharnessed, productivity increases, and prosperity is enhanced. But the political adage goes further than that. It tells you to do nothing but to affect to be doing a great deal.

and this:

That, two months ago, is the kernel of President Bush's economic policy. Much of it is indeed laissez faire, but there is a hard sprinkling of government programs there, to give at least rhetorical help to those Americans who have lost their jobs, lost their pension funds, and struggle to meet their mortgage payments. What is being asked now, a month before the political payday, is: Are those words from Bush in August hard-hitting enough to persuade the voters that he has a serious concern other than the future of Saddam Hussein?

Indeed. Are those words enough to persuade? Has Bush affected to be doing a great deal? Has the rhetorical help done any good?

Here we have a leading light of the conservative movement stating explicitly that Bush has done nothing about the economy. If the Democrats don't use that kind of political manna, they're fools.

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 03:08:00 PM

Facts and figures:

From the CIA World Factbook (2001).

	Egypt	Iran	Iraq	Jordan	Saudi Arabia	Syria	Turkey	Oman	Qatar
GDP - per capita	$3,600	$6,300	$2,500	$3,500	$10,500	$3,100	$6,800	$7,700	$20,300
Government type	republic	theocratic republic	republic	constitutional monarchy	monarchy	republic under military regime since March 1963	republican parliamentary democracy	monarchy	traditional monarchy
Suffrage	18 years of age; universal and compulsory	15 years of age; universal	18 years of age; universal	20 years of age; universal	none	18 years of age; universal	18 years of age; universal	in Oman's most recent elections in 2000, limited to approximately 175,000 Omanis chosen by the government to vote in elections for the Majlis ash-Shura	suffrage is limited to municipal elections

The CIA notes this about Qatar: closest approximation of the native pronunciation falls between cutter and gutter, but not like guitar

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 02:42:00 PM

Fox vs. Zahn:

From this AP story (via cursor.org):

Paula Zahn considers an offer from CNN.

Roger Ailes fires her.

Ailes says about Zahn, "I could have put a dead raccoon on the air this year and got a better rating than last year."

Ailes sued Zahn's agents, claiming breach of contract.

CNN unveils the new studio for Paula Zahn's "American Morning" show.

A publicist for Fox News Channel calls a reporter to to point out how much better Fox's morning show, "Fox & Friends," was doing in the ratings.

Fox spokeswoman Tracey Spector said, "[The new studio] is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

When the CNN studio opened, trucks carrying Fox signs circled the Manhattan block around it.

People distributing Fox merchandise and wearing Fox t-shirts passed by the studio window, according to CNN.

"Fox & Friends" morning show.

Anchors talked about Zahn on the air with a stuffed raccoon toy on the table in front of them.

Fox anchor Steve Doocy, cameras in tow, presented Zahn with a gift basket including the stuffed raccoon after the new studio opened.

In January, the disc jockey Mancow, a "Fox and Friends" contributor, called Zahn a "knucklehead." Because she's the enemy, he said, "I just want to punch her in the face."

Two months later, Mancow performed an on-air skit with an actor he said was portraying Zahn. He hit the actor in the face, knocked him down and shouted, "I'll kill you, Paula. We will kill you, Paula."

Mancow also made an off-color remark about Zahn that refers to the anchor's hobby as a cello player.

Other comments from Fox.

Fox News Channel spokesman Robert Zimmerman said "Paula Zahn's supposed attempt at reinventing herself as a journalist is like putting a fresh coat of paint on an outhouse."

A Fox News Channel spokeswoman, Irena Steffen, said that "we don't go out of our way to shoot at her."

CNN and Zahn have attacked Fox, she said, declining to provide examples. ... "Why don't you ask why she's making a mountain out of a molehill?" Steffen said. "Why don't you ask why she's turning this around and why she's making herself into a victim?"

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 09:40:00 AM

All together now:

Oct 7 - 1:29:29 AM
Andrew Sullivan (entry):

STILL MASSIVE SUPPORT: The Times does its best to spin their poll this morning. But the critical number is the 67 percent support for war against Iraq, despite the intense and relentless campaign by the elites at the Times and elsewhere to turn that number around. They have failed. Now they will try to change the subject.

Oct 7
Rush Limbaugh (article):

Mullah Howell Raines of the New York Times has run a push poll, and has finally produced the picture America that Democrats want: an America that cares more about the economy than the war on terrorism vis-à-vis Iraq. Not only was the poll conducted over a three day period, the last being a Saturday when Republicans are traditionally weak (no pollsters worth their salt survey on weekends), but they used a tiny, ultra-liberal group of 668 "people."

Oct 8
Dick Morris (article):

... take a close look at the poll: The phrasing of the questions is so slanted and biased that it amounts to journalistic "push polling" - the use of "objective" polling to generate a predetermined result, and so vindicate a specific point of view.

Oct 8
David Tell, Weekly Standard opinion editor (article):

THE NEW YORK TIMES has lately come under a barrage of media criticism, not all of it from "the right," about the extent to which editorial bias has infected the paper's hard news columns. And already some of that criticism has been directed specifically against the paper's A-section reporting on its own, propriety public opinion research (commissioned in partnership with CBS News). So what I'm about to offer isn't exactly without precedent. The bias in question, however, may well be without precedent; I can't remember anything quite like it, at least. "Poll Says Bush Needs to Pay Heed to Weak Economy," written up by Times correspondents Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, and awarded pride of place--the front-page lede--in yesterday morning's edition, isn't just slanted (or misleading or imbalanced or overstated or any other word commonly applied to such things). The story is an outright fraud, a falsehood, a work of fiction.

Oct 8 - 1:47 PM
Mickey Kaus (entry):

The Times' poll report was a pretty amazing (i.e. awful) performance -- breaking new ground by giving readers very few of the actual numbers that would back up reporter Adam Nagourney's conclusions. "Trust the Times to interepret the numbers," he seemed to be saying. Not these days, buddy!

There's so much bias in the Times right now ...

Will update with any subsequent comments from the usual suspects. FYI: NYTimes poll story is here

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 08:37:00 AM

Odds and Ends:

Vets Group Wants Rumsfeld Out Over Alleged Shipment to Iraq (press release, article)

The American Gulf War Veterans Association (AGWVA) is calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his reported denial that he knew anything about U.S. shipments of chemical and biological agents to Iraq in the 1980s. If the defense secretary is unaware or in denial of the sale of biological materials to a country the United States is preparing to attack, then he represents a danger to the lives of service members, said Joyce Riley vonKleist, a spokeswoman for ANGWA.

Pat Robertson receives a $500,000 grant from the federal Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Cal Thomas (article) thinks it's A Bad Thing, and calls it

Welfare for religion.

We eagerly await Mickey Kaus' follow-on critique.

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 07:23:00 AM

Condoleezza Rice speaks:

There has been much talk about the goals associated with "regime change" in Iraq. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America - while not specifically about Iraq, mentions democracy as an objective. So, can we look forward to democracy in a post-Saddam Iraq? Apparently not. From Rice's opinion piece in Sunday's (Oct 6) New York Post:

We do not seek to impose democracy on others, we seek only to help create conditions in which people can claim a freer future for themselves.

Okay. Got it. No democracy required. Dictatorship or monarchy will do fine.

Then she wrote:

Germany, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey show that freedom manifests itself differently around the globe - and that new liberties can find an honored place amidst ancient traditions.

Throughout all of the administration's reports and speeches one encounters the word "freedom". Freedom is the sine qua non of their foreign policy - if you believe them. But apparently it's not Thomas Hobbes' kind of freedom. He defined it as "the absence of external impediments to motion," but in Rice's view, there are no absolutes. "... freedom manifests itself differently around the globe ..." She's a moral relativist. Goodness gracious! Does Bill Bennett know?

posted by Quiddity at 10/07/2002 03:24:00 PM

Some thoughts about Iraq:

We have put on our cynic's hat, and have come to the following conclusions:

• Recent pressure by the Bush administration to get the most intrusive inspections program are designed, in part, to weaken Saddam's position. Once a strongman is perceived as having no power, pretenders to the throne are likely to emerge.
• Ari Fleischer's "one bullet" comment was an effort in that direction.
• If Saddam were to be toppled by an internal group in the next 30 days it would be of immense political value. That's why the tough talk is taking place now.
• The whole Iraq issue is politics. If it was such an urgent issue, then why did Bush take a month-long vacation?
• In military terms, an attack on Iraq will probably be similar to the operations against Grenada and Panama. A totally outmatched opponent quickly defeated due to American superior weaponry.
• There is a low tolerance for battlefield casualties. While troops may be sent overseas, they will only be used as a last resort. Air power will be the preferred approach. Everything will be targeted. Remember the bombing of the television station/transmitter in Belgrade on the grounds that it was a "propaganda machine"? The same will happen to Iraq. The goal will be to sow dissent among the Iraqi people, and it may work.
• Rebuilding Iraq: "Everybody" is saying that it will take plenty of time and lots of money. That might be the sensible or moral thing to do, but we predict that beyond a token amount of aid (probably in the form of loan guarantees to businesses), the current administration doesn't care much about a post-Saddam Iraq. After all, in 2001 Bush was content to abandon California to the tender mercies of Texas energy firms. Why should they give a damn about the people of Iraq? Also, there is the issue of money. It's too risky to the U.S. economy to spend money on Iraq, so it won't happen. And a post-Saddam Iraq, no matter how chaotic, will probably pump the same amount of oil as before. We predict that after Saddam is out, Bush will:
  • Say to the world, "We did our part, now you do yours."
  • Secure a few key areas (ports, refineries, oil fields) and leave the rest to the UN.
  • Use backchannels to keep Turkey and Iran out of the area.
• Claims by Democrats that invading Iraq would be costly will be shown to be incorrect, and will be used against them in 2004.

We still think that a move into Iraq has lot of opportunities to go bad, and that it's ill advised. Once war starts, all sorts of things can happen. But we believe the likely outcome is a fairly easy victory for Bush - and that that's the goal. Win something. After all, on the other issues - especially the economy - the administration doesn't seem interested, or able to cope with them.
posted by Quiddity at 10/06/2002 09:53:00 AM

A quckie:

Is everybody tuckered out? We are. It appears that all the arguments about Iraq, Karl Rove, Bush's intelligence, Jeb's daughter, Torricelli, the economy, Sullivan and Kaus, have been thoroughly discussed. Maybe it's time to take a breather.

In any event, this week's Troubletown cartoon is well worth a look. Makes a good point about Rumsfeld.

posted by Quiddity at 10/03/2002 09:39:00 AM