A new voice has emerged in the re-election campaign of President Bush, that of Dennis Miller, who is gaining a reputation as a conservative comic by attacking Democrats with biting humor.
Miller flew on Air Force One from San Francisco to Los Angeles with the president on Friday, and later gave a stand-up routine at a Bush fund-raiser in Los Angeles.
Over the past year Jay Leno has had a number of conservative figures on the Tonight Show. They include Bill O'Reilly, Shepard Smith, and others. Dennis Miller has also been on to pontificate. Of course, Leno has liberal guests as well, but we did think it strange to see O'Reilly and Smith, who strike us as uninteresting, offensive, and puerile. Some time ago we suspected that Leno had a conservative streak in him, and that seemed to be justified when Fox News Sunday ran a clip of Leno during last week's roundtable. The topic was Al Gore's potential move to start up a liberal radio network (or some such thing). To make a point, Tony Snow showed the following clip:
LENO: "Gore says there's no outlet in this country for the liberal viewpoint. You know, except for ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, Bravo, BET, Showtime, Lifetime, MTV, Oxygen, National Public Radio and IFP."
"Other than that, there's nothing."
Leno's joke was repeated in the Washington Times by Suzanne Fields in her Op-Ed.
We think Leno has every right to do what he does, and we're not calling for any action. However, it does seem strange to us that he's promoting people and notions from the bellicose right. But then, they have become the voice of "mainstream conservatives".
The Washington Post has a detailed story about New York Times reporter Judith Miller and her influence over U.S. military officials and operations. She is also closely connected to Ahmed Chalabi of the INC. In the wake of this news, Eric Alterman writes, "... if this story is true, it is really beyond belief." We agree. Miller has become part of the team(s), and should not be considered an impartial reporter. We diagram key points from the Post story below:
UPDATE: Miller has connections with Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum (story)
Donald Rumsfeld is an advocate of using relatively small military force to get the job done. He's following in the footsteps of Gen. George Armstrong Custer, who felt the same way and put that idea to the test on 25 June 1876.
The folks over at busybusybusy have really been busy lately. Check out the impressive set of "shorter" postings that have appeared over the last two weeks. They are excellent distillation of essays by major pundits (liberal and conservative). Save time! Get to the 35-word essence of what George Will said (down from the original 800 words; a 95% reduction).
Often after reading lengthy and unfocused essays, you have to re-read it and figure out what the main points were (especially with W. F. Buckley Jr.). No more. busybusybusy has done it for you. A public service, if there ever was one.
All this talk about how "diversity" is needed in universities, companies, and the military is really besides the point. Do we really need diverse points-of-view in mathematics class? Basically, the diversity argument is being used to promote affirmative action, and we're not convinced by it. Why not state the truth? That some groups have been discriminated against for a long time, had 2nd class status (economically and socially), and need to be given preferential treatment in order to bring them into the mainstream of society. The notion that preferences should only apply to proven instances of past discrimination strikes us as unnecessarily limiting. O'Conner was close to the truth when she wondered if affirmative action would be needed 25 years from now. If one looks at the history of other groups (Irish, Italians), it takes about 100 years for assimilation. Taking the end of Jim Crow laws in the 1960's as the starting point, African-Americans probably will be substantially integrated into society in another 50 years or so. That sounds about right.
CAVEAT: We think that normally it takes about 100 years, but note that due to the current drug laws, an incredible proportion of black men have been in jail or prison (about 1/3, if you can believe it). While we're not going to go so far as to say that the drug laws are a proxy for Jim Crow, they're pretty darn close. We will be very interested to see how African-Americans fare when soft drugs are decriminalized (yes, it's going to happen).
Has there been a more vigorous critic of Bush in the Senate other than Robert Byrd? He keeps on going, as they say. His latest (via Buzzflash) is about covering up (as it applies to Bush/Iraq/WMD's/deception).
From a news story about the Republicans pressing for a change in filibuster rules, we found in the message thread a link to a thoughtful essay on the topic at the American Enterprise Institute (yes, them). Excerpt:
The Framers knew all about filibusters and about the traditions of unlimited debate in parliaments and previous legislatures. They wrote a provision in Article II giving each house of Congress the sole power to set its own rules. They did not specify that those rules barred provisions to allow unlimited debate, or to have a higher number than a majority to shut off debate, either on a bill, a confirmation, or a rule itself. Therefore, it is clear that the Framers were willing to allow them in either house.
Remember that Rule XXII, the cloture rule that provides for an end to debate and a specified time for votes, does not raise the bar on passage of a bill or nomination from 50 to 60, or on a rules change from 50 to 67 or two-thirds of those present and voting. It lowers the bar from 100. There is no rule in the Senate--and there has not been one for nearly 200 years - that forces the previous question and an end to debate. Before Rule XXII was instituted in 1917, there was no way, if a single determined Senator took the floor and kept it, to force action on a bill or a nomination. The Senate operated under unlimited debate. It did so through the lifetimes of all the Framers. Not one objected to the way the Senate operated during this time as a violation of their constitutional intent.
and
The filibuster is basically a conservative instrument; it delays government action in order to overcome intense minority opposition and to build broader popular support. Do conservatives really think they will always be in charge, that impediments to government action will be to their detriment instead of to their advantage? Do constitutionalists really want to stretch the document beyond recognition for a short-term political gain, getting a few of their allies or buddies onto the bench?
From another posting in the thread: "... the judicial system is designed to be non-partisan. There should be neither Conservative or Liberal judges appointed to the bench. Since they are appointed for life it is important that they stay above of the partisan fight and be interpreters of the law, period." That's somewhat simplistic, but it gets to the heart of the matter. If a supermajority is (effectively) required for judicial nominations, then partisan judges are less likely get on the federal bench, and that's a good thing.
* fil·i·bus·ter Etymology: Spanish filibustero, literally, freebooter Date: 1851 1 : an irregular military adventurer; specifically : an American engaged in fomenting insurrections in Latin America in the mid-19th century 2a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly. b : an instance of this practice
Via the always stimulating Cal Pundit comments area, we went to whitehouse.org's Patriotic Posters page. Some good stuff. Excellent Photoshop* work. WARNING: Occasional strong language (e.g. here).
* - is "photoshop" entering the public domain? From an article on copyrights:
The owner of a trademark can lose it if they aren't seen to actively protect it. "Escalator" used to be a trademark. So did aspirin, cellophane, cornflakes, thermos, trampoline, and many other common words; these words passed into common usage because their owners didn't defend them. You can see, then, why major corporations get so twitchy when people start saying things like, "Would you xerox this for me?" and "Hand me a kleenex."
A professor of history writes in the Washington Post about "revisionist historians". When reading it, remember that George W. Bush received a bachelor's degree in history while at Yale
There are a couple of good reviews of Sunday's Meeet The Press dust-up between Howard Dean and Tim Russert. Of interest is Russert going to the Treasury Department for "impartial" figures showing how tax policy affects citizens. What did the Treasury supply? In at least one instance, a highly atypical family that will have taxes cut from $2,000 to $45 under the Bush plan. First of all, is that extremely low rate of taxation something to be celebrated? Either it's exceptional, and therefore unfair to the rest of us, or it represents a really bare-bones federal government. A back-of-the-envelope-estimate: If all households were taxed at that rate, total federal revenues from income taxes would be about $5 billion, or about 1/400th of the current budget. Talk about shrinking the size of government.
Also, the $2,000 to $45 tax example has been used by Bush in several speeches this year, so it's really more of a selling point, instead of a typical case.
In any event, Russert uses that peculiar example to claim that if the tax cuts were to be rolled back as Dean proposes, it means a tax hike of 4,000%. Wow! Somebody stop that man!
The two reviews of MTP worth reading are at Liberal Oasis, and American Politics Journal's Pundit Pap (scroll down to MTP).
ABC News (via Good Morning America) has a substantial excerpt posted. Guess what? It's got plenty of footnotes!
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO? In the interview on GMA, Diane Sawyer remarked that "Republicans censured McCarthy". Ann Coulter - if she knew the history her book is supposed to chronicle - should have said "Some did, but not a majority of Republicans." Which would have been technically true since the Senate vote was 67 -22, but Republicans were split evenly, 22 - 22. Instead, Coulter gave a peculiar response (if memory serves, about not impeaching Ken Starr). Talk about not knowing your material.
FOOTNOTE MADNESS: Here is how those footnotes can really add up. From the book: (these are all consecutive sentences in the book, where there were paragraph breaks)
While journalists assailed Bush for creating an atmosphere of intolerance for those who "object to patriotic oaths," they didn't mind creating an atmosphere of intolerance toward those who support patriotic oaths.6
Later, while campaigning at a naval base, Bush said of Dukakis, "I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks a naval exercise is something you find in the Jane Fonda Workout Book."7 Again, there were wails of "McCarthyism" all around. Showing the left's renowned ability to get a joke, one reporter earnestly demanded to know: "Did Bush mean to imply that Dukakis is anti-military?"8 Bush responded to the hysteria over his Jane Fonda joke, saying, "Was that funny? Reasonably funny? A naval exercise -- I thought that was pretty funny."9
Historians claimed they had not seen "patriotism used with such cynical force" since the fifties. It was "disturbing," historians and political analysts said, for Bush to manipulate symbols to "raise doubts about the Democratic nominee's patriotism."10 Historian William Leuchtenburger, at the University of North Carolina, said, "I don't recall anything like this before. I don't think there has been an issue like this -- an issue so irrelevant to the powers of the presidency."11
6. Phil Gailey, "Bush Campaign Takes a Disturbing Turn with Attacks on Patriotism," St. Petersburg Times. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid.
UPDATE: Guess what? No mention today of Coulter in the National Review Online's The Corner. What is the world coming to?
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday added nearly $6 million to their 2004 reelection campaign war chest, bringing the total for their first week's fund-raising to $11.9 million."
"You're laying the foundation for what will be a national victory come November, 2004," Bush said at an event in predominantly Democratic New York, where he raised $4 million.
Reflecting expected campaign themes, Bush's speech dealt with domestic issues of reviving the economy and reforming the health care system and with vows of American victory in a war against terrorism.
"We know for our country and for our cause, better days lie ahead," he said.
Your tax dollars are paying for this, so where's Dean's speech? And Kerry's? And all the others?
By the way, Bush's speech was full of conservative bromides (e.g. "I will continue to advance our agenda of compassionate conservatism, applying the best and most innovative ideas to the task of helping our fellow citizens in need. There are still millions of men and women who want to end their dependence on government and become independent through hard work."). Yeah, right. Worth a look, if you can stomach it.
In the Los Angeles Times there is a story about Apple's new, very fast processor, and also about some new features they are providing (in the instant-messenger class). The story ends with: "Apple's efforts to add features to iChat underscore the degree to which computer makers are pushing communications and entertainment instead of traditional workplace productivity functions to persuade people to buy new PCs." posted by Quiddity at 6/24/2003 05:09:00 AM
We posted a set of quotes from Bush's mid-term politicking in October and November 2002, focusing on his claims that Iraq had WMD's and ties to al Qaeda (here and here). But for some reason we skipped his speech of 7 October 2002. That was the "big one" in terms of laying out the reasons for (eventually) going to war against Iraq. Reading it now, it's clear there was a lot of emphasis in the wrong places (to put it charitably). Here, for instance, are some of the more notable comments Bush made on that day: (emphasis added)
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
... surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. ... . Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end.
We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq.
I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.
DEPARTMENT OF COINCIDENCES: Just after finishing this post, we went to the New York Times and to read Krugman's latest. He also refers to the October 7 speech.
Josh Marshall (of TPM) directs our attention to a Weekly Standard article, The War Against Bush, that challenges a recent New Republic essay about the Bush administration's dishonesty in the push for war. We took a look at the Standard's article, and were surprised to read the following: (emphasis added)
... Ackerman and Judis focus their analysis of the Saddam-al Qaeda relationship on the alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001. They write: "None of the intelligence agencies could place Atta in Prague on that date. (Indeed, receipts and other travel documents placed him in the United States.) An investigation by Czech officials dismissed the claim, which was based on a single unreliable witness."
But there are times Atta may have been abroad that are not accounted for in these documents and receipts. And assessments of the reliability of the witness vary, with some high-ranking Czech officials insisting to this day that the meeting took place. It's fair to say the alleged Atta meeting was disputed, but it's hardly accurate to imply that officials were unanimous in their belief that it didn't happen.
Got that? The claim that a meeting took place is disproved by records showing Atta was not in Prague, the report that he was there came from an unreliable witness, and Czech officials have dismissed the claim. But that doesn't stop the Weekly Standard writers. No. They doesn't even require evidence for their position. After all, "there are times Atta may have been abroad that are not accounted for in these documents and receipts." Who could disagree? Atta might have been on the moon, for all we know. Or maybe Atta met Bin Laden in Tokyo, after conferring with Marley's Ghost. Anything is possible when you don't have positive information. And simply to cite people, like "some high-ranking Czech officials," who offer an opinion, sans evidence, is not compelling.
Clean layout, crisp summary of the issues, link-heavy, progressive, frequent posts, and the blogger is not much older than Matt Yglesias. Or so he claims. The only drawback is he's a supporter of Kucinich, but then, nobody's perfect.
In a U.S. News & World Report column about frivolous lawsuits, owner Mort Zuckerman serves up a couple of doozies:
"A woman throws a soft drink at her boyfriend at a restaurant, then slips on the floor she wet and breaks her tailbone. She sues. Bingo -- a jury says the restaurant owes her $100,000! A woman tries to sneak through a restroom window at a nightclub to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She falls, knocks out two front teeth, and sues. A jury awards her $12,000 for dental expenses."
Great stuff -- and, unfortunately for Zuckerman, totally bogus. ... Ken Frydman, Zuckerman's spokesman, did not dispute that the pair of cases in the column two weeks ago were imaginary, but would not address whether the magazine will publish a retraction.
Via CalPundit, and Instapundit, we got to OxBlog, where, in examining the issue "Did Bush lie?", we read:
... there is considerable evidence that high-ranking officials, possibly including the Vice President, knew in advance of the State of the Union address that Iraq had not purchased uranium from Niger. If so, all of the officials involved in that process of deception should be severly disciplined.
Which spurred us to thumb through the ol' United States Constitution, where we encounter:
Article II Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I Section 2. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. Section 3. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
So, at least we wouldn't have to put up with Rehnquist's absurd attire. (Click on that last link, if you dare!)
If Cheney is impeached (impeacheneyed?), who will Bush turn to?
NOTE: We try to keep the image size under 800 pixels wide for the 25% of our visitors with 800x600 displays. That means the text is slightly less readable than we would like. Just thought you should know why.
Not Geniuses is an interesting weblog that has three contributors - each with a distintly different point of view*, but trending liberal. It deserves a look. Our favorite commentator is Joe Rospars, who recently penned a good commentary about the White House editing of the EPA report, and conservatives' (dis)respect for science.
* - E.g. in their (collective) blogroll, they have Tacitus as well as Liberal Oasis. Go figure.
Heard on the Fox News Sunday panel (22 June 2003):
KRAUTHAMMER: Democrats, or I would say the liberals, have been in some way deranged by the President. By their hatred of him.
KRAUTHAMMER: Howard Dean is the McGovern of our time. And he represents sort of the crazed hatred of Bush which is not shared by Americans who like him.
How about that? "Americans who like" Bush, don't have a "crazed hatred" of the man. Who would have guessed?
...a review of the president's public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied ...
and
There is no evidence the president did not believe what he was saying ...
But then he goes on to say:
... a strong argument can be made that he exaggerated the danger posed by banned Iraqi eapons ...
... the threat of banned weapons, genuine or not, does not seem to have been, as the president was suggesting, the decisive motivation for going to war.
On the question of taxes, Mr. Bush made a claim in his State of the Union address that was not true, and he repeated it often afterward.
What is more important is that the tax relief most people will receive is quite meager, hardly the impression the president sought to leave when he campaigned around the country for the plan.
Mr. Bush kept emphasizing the tax benefits for people with modest incomes ... But the indisputable fact is that the bulk of the tax cut will go to the wealthy.
The question on Iraq and taxes is whether Mr. Bush stepped across the line dividing acceptable politicking from manipulation.
NOTE: Rosenbaum fails to mention that Bush claimed a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, which wasn't even an exaggeration. It was a lie.
Governor Rick Perry called for a 30 day session set to begin June 30th, and the focus will be 'Congressional Redistricting'.
State Democrats kept it from happening in the regular session by running off to Oklahoma so a vote couldn't be taken.
The Texas House Democrats may not be able (or willing) to do it again. The first time, it only involved a few days, but Perry can call sessions again and again.
News reports are that "[Democrats are] likely to look to the state Senate. Two-thirds of the Senators would have to vote in favor of taking up redistricting. And the Senate is two Republicans short of having that majority."
However, it's entirely possible that a couple of Senate Democrats could be peeled off by giving them ultra-safe Congressional districts to run in.
We suspect that the legislation will go through, but then be challenged in court.
ADDENDUM: We read "Republicans say the current districts don't accurately reflect the Republican-leaning voting habits of Texans." (It's something we also heard Brit Hume say recently.) Currently the Texas representation in Congress is 17 Democrats - 15 Republicans. But what about Florida? There, the representation is:
R - Miller, Jeff; Florida, 1st D - Boyd, Allen; Florida, 2nd D - Brown, Corrine; Florida, 3rd R - Crenshaw, Ander; Florida, 4th R - Brown-Waite, Ginny; Florida, 5th R - Stearns, Cliff; Florida, 6th R - Mica, John; Florida, 7th R - Keller, Ric; Florida, 8th R - Bilirakis, Michael; Florida, 9th R - Young, C.W.; Florida, 10th D - Davis, Jim; Florida, 11th R - Putnam, Adam; Florida, 12th R - Harris, Katherine; Florida, 13th R - Goss, Porter; Florida, 14th R - Weldon, Dave; Florida, 15th R - Foley, Mark; Florida, 16th D - Meek, Kendrick; Florida, 17th R - Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana; Florida, 18th D - Wexler, Robert; Florida, 19th D - Deutsch, Peter; Florida, 20th R - Diaz-Balart, Lincoln; Florida, 21st R - Shaw, E.; Florida, 22nd D - Hastings, Alcee; Florida, 23rd R - Feeney, Tom; Florida, 24th R - Diaz-Balart, Mario; Florida, 25th
18 Republican, 7 Democratic Representatives in a state that has two Democratic Senators, and was evenly divided in the 2000 Presidential race.
Sounds like the Democrats "deserve" to pick up five seats - about the same amount they would lose in Texas under the Perry/DeLay scheme.
In a New York Times Magazine article about the new-found popularity of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer (aka P.B.R.), we read:
The single key text in Stewart's [Pabst's marketing manager] codification of the meaning of P.B.R. is the book ''No Logo,'' by the journalist Naomi Klein. Published in 2000, ''No Logo'' is about the incursion of brands and marketing into every sphere of public life, the bullying and rapacious mind-set that this trend represents and evidence of a grass-roots backlash against it, especially among young people. Klein's view is that this would feed a new wave of activists who targeted corporations. Stewart's view is that the book contains ''many good marketing ideas.'' He says it ''really articulated the feelings, the coming feelings, of the consumer out there: eventually people are gonna get sick of all this stuff'' -- all this marketing -- ''and say enough is enough.''
This story comes out right in the middle of baseball season, which allows us to rant about an extremely irritating development: The presentation of ads during televised baseball games - when the "long shot" from center field is shown. There, the pitcher winds up, throws the ball, and the trajectory of the ball crosses in front of an ad as it moves toward the batter. This unnecessary distraction used to be confined to the American League (Seattle was the first, if memory serves), but soon afterward all teams were doing it. For a while the Premium games (playoffs, World Series) were exempt, but they succumbed as well. From our point of view, it makes the game totally unwatchable. In no other sport (auto racing excepted) are we aware of a case where an ad is placed so the viewer must see it while following the movement of a ball, puck, or player. How much money is raised by baseball's every-pitch-you-see-an-ad situation? We suspect it's pretty small. And all it does is ruin the game.
[Kass] recognizes how scientific expertise has created dilemmas demanding anew the kind of moral insights that generations have gleaned from Scripture.
From the book description:
The first [section of the book] shows how the universal history described in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, from creation to the tower of Babel, conveys, in the words of Leon Kass, "a coherent anthropology" -- a general teaching about human nature -- that "rivals anything produced by the great philosophers." Serving also as a mirror for the reader's self-discovery, these stories offer profound insights into the problematic character of human reason, speech, freedom, sexual desire, the love of the beautiful, pride, shame, anger, guilt, and death.
NOTE: The first eleven chapters of Genesis consists of 6,770 words (King James Version). Which means there are only 615 words per topic*, or a bit less than 1½ pages of text in a typical book**. Clearly, Leon Kass is extrapolating way beyond what's there.
* 6,770 / 11 : (1) human nature, (2) human reason, (3) speech, (4) freedom, (5) sexual desire, (6) the love of the beautiful, (7) pride, (8) shame, (9) anger, (10) guilt, and (11) death. ** typical book has 42 lines with 11 words per line.
THE LOWS OF last Oct. 10 have proven, so far, to be The Bottom. Through yesterday's close, the Standard & Poor's 500 has gained 29.9% gain over the 245 days since Oct. 10's lows. Even from the somewhat higher lows of March 12, the S&P has rallied 26.6% over 92 days.
But is the rally sustainable? Yes. Was Oct. 10 the bottom? Yes.
I have consistently highlighted in this column the positive macroeconomic developments that have made this rally possible, and they will keep it well fueled for some time to come: the decisive resolution of the war in Iraq, the end of monetary deflation risk, investors' increasing risk tolerance, a robust earnings recovery, the market's deep undervaluation and a bet-on-a-miracle tax cut.
[big snip]
A year from now, I think investors will look back at today's markets and say, "What was I thinking? How did I miss that?" Today's stock prices are going to been seen as very cheap, indeed. And today's bond yields are going to seem comically low.
Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics, an economics consulting firm serving institutional investors. You may contact him at don@trendmacro.com
The end is in sight for the funds at MetaMarkets.com, a mutual-fund company that attempted to bring greater visibility to portfolios by announcing holdings in real time via the Internet. The San Francisco-based company announced Thursday that it plans to liquidate its funds, which have been struggling amid the tech downturn.
Specifically, the company will liquidate its $9.9 million OpenFund and its $1.4 million IPO & New Era Fund, according to MetaMarkets' Web site. "Accordingly, over time the Fund's investment portfolio will be liquidated and invested in money market instruments or other liquid assets until the Fund's assets are distributed to investors," the site says in reference to the funds.
The OpenFund, launched in August 1999, is down 26 percent this year after losing 42 percent in 2000, according to fund tracker Morningstar. The IPO & New Era fund, started in 2000, is off 57 percent this year, according to the company's Web site.
MetaMarkets is now looking to be acquired by a large finance or media corporation, and has brought in investment bank Allen & Co. to find a partner. "Capital is scarce and we have to ally ourselves with powerful partners," says Donald Luskin, chief executive of MetaMarkets and a daily columnist for The Industry Standard's Web site. "This is an environment that is hostile to innovation."
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.
[...]
Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion.
In the end, E.P.A. staff members, after discussions with administration officials, said they decided to delete the entire discussion to avoid criticism that they were selectively filtering science to suit policy.
This has gone on long enough. Who were the "administration officials"?
Also, "Who put that student's thesis in the British report?" And "Who put the Niger-uranium line in the State of the Union speech?"
The New York Times has an editorial about the Library of Congress' purchase of the world map compiled by Martin Waldseemüller in 1507. The Times notes that: "The map is the first to correctly show that America is a separate continent, and the name "America" — a tribute to the Italian navigator Amerigo Vespucci — is printed across what we now call Brazil." and that "The Library of Congress has been trying to acquire the Waldseemüller map since 1903."
Better late than never. For an image of the map, click here.
Breaking news this morning is that fugitive serial rapist Andrew Luster was captured before dawn today by bounty hunter Duane "Dog" Chapman. Chapman is a well known bounty hunter who's bagged: Quinton Wortham, Capital Hill rapist; Wayne Williams, Atlanta child murderer; William Scatarie, white supremacist and convicted murderer of Denver radio shock jock Alan Berg.
MESSAGE TO THE RIGHT WING: You can say all you want about how much you like this guy, but by all rights he should be six feet under.
Why?
Because he once served time in a Texas prison for first-degree murder. Think about it. If Chapman had:
A typically incompetent judge-appointed lawyer.
Alberto R. Gonzales (currently White House counsel) prepare the death-penalty memoranda.
Bush review the case.
Ol' Dog wouldn't be around today.
But you might say that Chapman deserved a second chance because he became a born-again Christian and had turned his life around. Sorry. That doesn't cut it with Bush. After all, he didn't let that stop Texas from executing Carla Faye Tucker. Let's read what Bush had to say on the matter: (emphasis added)
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, Carla Faye Tucker was a convicted murderess who was on Death Row and she - you know - converted her life to Christ.
JIM LEHRER: While she was on Death Row?
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: While she was on Death Row. And the reason I knew that was because she was on "Larry King Live" and other TV shows telling her story, and she was a compelling witness to the Lord, I thought. And unfortunately I saw her, and I say unfortunately because like many other Americans I fell in love with her story. And I was most impressed by her, and yet my job as the governor of Texas is to uphold the law of the land. My job isn't to judge somebody's heart. I believe that's up to the almighty God to make that decision. And so when confronted with the facts - the two questions that a governor - at least I ask - is guilt or innocence and was … Carla Faye - either had full access to the courts of law in the state of Texas and Washington, D.C., in the federal courts - when I answered those affirmatively, I signed the - the execution went forward.
"The Dean" of D.C. reporters takes time to examine what Grover Norquist is up to - by reading Norquist's recent Washington Post Op-Ed. Broder admits that Norquist is a serious player, and that "his description of what Republicans will do ... commands attention". Broder then writes: (emphasis added)
The consequence of [these tax cut proposals] -- not spelled out in his essay but clearly in his mind -- is a massive rollback in federal revenue and what he regards as a desirable shrinkage of federal services and benefits. In short, the goal is a system of government wiped clean, on both the revenue and spending side, of almost a century's accumulation of social programs designed to provide a safety net beneath the private economy.
Broder continues his essay by noting that Norquist's candor may have political impact - perhaps by energizing Democrats. Which may be true. But it's odd that Broder makes no comment about the merits (or impact) of the goal itself. Eliminating "almost a century's accumulation of social programs designed to provide a safety net".
Get Donkey! brings to our attention a June 5 speech by Jim Jeffords of Vermont: (excerpts, emphasis added)
The events of the past two years have only heightened my concern over the President's veer to the right, and the poisoning of our democratic process of government.
The promises of candidate Bush, who pledged to bring a new tone to Washington and packaged himself as a compassionate conservative, are unmet. On issue after issue the Bush Administration is not what it claims to be.
Pundits asked after last November's election: will the President over-reach with his Republican majorities in the House and Senate? Well, President Bush hasn't just over-reached, he has set a new standard for extreme partisan politics that on many occasions has been supported by the Republican-controlled Congress. In place of thoughtful policy we now have superficial and cynical sound-bites. Instead of confronting pressing national problems, our President lands airplanes while Rome burns.
While our troops search for W-M-D's in Iraq--we have found our own W-M-D's right here in Washington - at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They are President Bush's weapons of mass distortion, or better distraction. The Bush Administration says one thing and does another to take the focus off the present realities.
As he prepared to invade Iraq and win the support of other nations, the President promised the world that the US had a plan in place to rebuild that nation. But it quickly became apparent that there was no plan.
His polls and famous advisors tell him to talk about compassion and job growth, and how he is helping Main Street. But that is all it is, talk. In reality he adopts hard right proposals that favor those who need help least and neglect those who need help the most.
The Bush tax cut will threaten the country's long-term well-being by starving the federal government of revenue for essential services, such as homeland security, transportation infrastructure, education and health care. Our States are bearing the brunt of our dismal economic conditions, and these cuts will brutalize them.
While pretending to have compassion for our schoolchildren, the approach of No Child Left Behind is heartless.
The Bush Administration continues to protect special interests and ignore public support for strong environmental protections and conservation measures.
What makes the actions of the Bush Administration so troublesome is the lack of honesty. It amounts, in the end, to a pattern of deception and distortion; ultimately that does not respect the wisdom of the American people.
Phew!
For what it's worth, here you have a moderate former Republican saying that Bush is a liar, a policy disaster, extremely partisan, and not a bit compassionate. No wonder the right-wing radio loves him. But what about the rest of the country?
Via Incoming Signals we were directed to a graph showing the effects of various copyright laws. Essentially, a whole lot of stuff is off-limits compared to what would have been if the original copyright provisions were in effect.
Incoming Signals is a hard-to-classify blog. For example, there is a link to Buildings of Disaster, where one can purchase a miniature replica of Chernobyl to accent your living room decor.
It's a good site to visit when you want to take a break from heavy political stuff. You'll find links to the many-stringed-guitar, for example.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
The senator acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions, he said.
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
A few hundred thousand destroyed computers? Sounds good to us!
President Bush countered those questioning his justification for the invasion of Iraq on Monday, dismissing "revisionist historians" and saying Washington acted to counter a persistent threat.
"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.
The word is out: Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds (from the Observer).
An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.
Now go read our transcript from last week's Fox News Sunday, and pay attention to what Brit Hume was saying about the two trailers. (Either further down on this page, or at this URL). Incoherent excerpts:
BRIT HUME: Oh, please. BRIT HUME: They're hot dog stands, Juan, that's what they were. BRIT HUME: Making cider? BRIT HUME: ... What we have found is an array of facilities on board those mobile labs that the analysts say could not possibly have been used for anything else. BRIT HUME: So, they're making stuff like Viagra? BRIT HUME: Juan, that's, that really - that's the tooth fairy stuff.
The Rittenhouse Review comments on a ranking (by MSNBC?) of public high schools in the nation. We agree that the methodology is suspect, but we thought it might provide us with a crude way to rank state public school systems. So we made a table. In the first column is the state, and for fun, how it voted in 2000. Roughly speaking, Blue (Gore) states are high-tax, high-service states. The 2nd column is the number of "Top High Schools" each state had (out of a total of 800+). The 3rd column are the number of Electoral College votes each state will cast in 2004 - which is a rough proxy for population. Surprisingly, many states had nearly the same number of top high schools as Electoral Votes, but that was just a happy coincidence
Generally speaking, outstanding states (with # Top Schools >= 2 * Electoral Votes) were Blue. But there were some Red states as well (N. Carolina, Utah, Virginia). And keep an eye on Colorado, Florida, and Texas. They almost qualified. Sub-standard states (# schools < 1/3 Electoral Votes [min 6]) were often Red. Food for thought
Anyway, here is the table:
State & how voted in 2000 Red=Bush, Blue=Gore
Performance:
better than expected:
worse than expected:
2004 Electoral College votes
Ala.
4
9
Ak.
2
3
Ariz.
3
10
Ark.
3
6
Calif
163
55
Colo.
17
9
Conn.
14
7
D.C.
4
3
Del.
1
3
Fla.
50
27
Ga.
19
15
Hawaii
0
4
Ida.
2
4
Ill.
25
21
Ind.
1
11
Iowa
1
7
Kan.
5
6
Ken.
1
8
Louis.
0
9
Me.
1
4
Md.
41
12
Mass
17
10
Mich.
15
17
Minn.
14
10
Miss.
0
6
Mo.
6
11
Mont.
1
3
Neb.
0
5
Nev.
6
5
N.H.
0
4
N.J.
35
15
N.M.
1
5
N.Y
116
31
N.C.
39
15
N.D.
0
3
Ohio
16
20
Okla.
6
7
Ore.
5
7
Pa.
11
21
R.I
1
4
S.C.
12
8
S.D.
1
3
Tenn.
4
11
Tex.
50
34
Utah
14
5
Vermont
0
3
Va
61
13
Wash.
8
11
W.Va.
1
5
Wis.
10
10
Wy.
0
3
Excel spreadsheet of the data available here (caution, some variable state names: NY, N.Y., Penn, Pa.)
Busy, busy, busy draws our attention to a recent essay by Buckley (and summarizes it nicely). We took a look, and found these passages a fine example of foolishness:
[A critic of Bush] glides over the question as if taxes were a zero-sum game, an increase in the federal figure giving us a decrease in the state figure and vice versa. But it is not so.
but two paragraphs later, we read
[Critics of Bush] fail to acknowledge, let alone emphasize, that aid by Washington to the states has got to originate in aid from the states to Washington. If Californians want more public money, they can raise it directly, by increasing the taxes on Californians, or indirectly, by getting it from Washington, which will get it from Californians.
There are other problems with Buckley's writing, including the meaningless statistics of what fraction of income taxes the top X percent is paying, but the item above, where he switches from no-zero-sum-game (for one argument) to it-is-a-zero-sum-game (to make a different point) is typical of the specious reasoning going on. But sometimes Buckley convinces his readers, no doubt due to the peculiar prose style he employs.
Bill Moyers' address to the "Take Back America" conference was tough on Bush. Really tough. Excerpts from the news article:
... Bill Moyers delivered a call to arms against "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class."
... Moyers charged that "rightwing wrecking crews" assembled by the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies were out to bankrupt government.
... Moyers warned, the result of [Bush's policies] will be the dismantling of "every last brick of the social contract."
"I think this is a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America," said Moyers ...
Moyers said "the social dislocations and the meanness of the 19th century " were being renewed by a new generation of politicians who, like their predecessors, seek to strangle the spirit of the American revolution "in the hard grip of the ruling class."
It is the most radical assault on the notion of one nation, indivisible, that has occurred in our lifetime. I'll be frank with you: I simply don't understand it - or the malice in which it is steeped. Many people are nostalgic for a golden age. These people seem to long for the Gilded Age. That I can grasp. They measure America only by their place on the material spectrum and they bask in the company of the new corporate aristocracy, as privileged a class as we have seen since the plantation owners of antebellum America and the court of Louis IV. What I can't explain is the rage of the counter-revolutionaries to dismantle every last brick of the social contract. At this advanced age I simply have to accept the fact that the tension between haves and have-nots is built into human psychology and society itself - it's ever with us. However, I'm just as puzzled as to why, with right wing wrecking crews blasting away at social benefits once considered invulnerable, Democrats are fearful of being branded "class warriors" in a war the other side started and is determined to win. I don't get why conceding your opponent's premises and fighting on his turf isn't the sure-fire prescription for irrelevance and ultimately obsolescence. But I confess as well that I don't know how to resolve the social issues that have driven wedges into your ranks. And I don't know how to reconfigure democratic politics to fit into an age of soundbites and polling dominated by a media oligarchy whose corporate journalists are neutered and whose right-wing publicists have no shame.
The White House leaned on reluctant Republican leaders in the House on Monday to act quickly on a Senate-passed bill to make millions of low-income families eligible for the $400-per-child tax rebates already in the works for middle-income parents.
[...]
The Senate last week voted 94-2 to expand a $1,000 child tax credit to low-income families after a campaign by Democrats and others that started just after the president signed the $350 billion tax cut and state aid package in May. The Treasury Department will issue checks worth up to $400 per child to eligible families later this summer.
Who were the two Senators that voted against the bill? Checking the record, we find the NAYs were cast by:
Inhofe (R-OK) Nickles (R-OK)
ADDENDUM:
Q: What is the state song for Oklahoma?
A: "Oklahoma", from the Broadway musicalOklahoma!, written by Oscar Hammerstein II, with music by Richard Rodgers (1943)
Amazing. A "red state" embracing something that emerged from the decadent "blue states". Does that mean Harvey Fierstein has a good chance to be the next governor of the sooner state? (After all, he just got another Tony Award.)
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate) 108th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 146
To amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to protect unbornvictims of violence.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 13, 2003
Mr. DEWINE (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr.VOINOVICH, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr.
NICKLES, Mr. SANTORUM, and Mr. FITZGERALD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to protect unborn victims of violence.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003 '.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
`Sec.
`1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child.
`Sec. 1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child
`(a)(1) Any person who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided for that conduct under Federal law had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother. `(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or `(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
In other words, it's murder.
But that's not how things are considered in the Bible. From Exodus ch 21 v 22:
22 If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges.
On ABC's This Week, guest pundit Joe Klein said that the big question is that this country, and the administration, may have overreacted to 9/11. And that invading Iraq may have been an overreaction to 9/11.
This Week roundtable: 9 minutes on Hillary's book, 5 minutes on the New York Times, 2 minutes on interned terrorist suspects, 0 minutes on missing WMD's.
MR. RUSSERT: Weapons of mass destruction: The president and people throughout the administration said that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat because he possessed weapons of mass destruction. Here’s what the president said.
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” And the vice president: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
Was there truly an imminent threat and where are the weapons of mass destruction?
DR. RICE: There are two separable issues here. What did we have in terms of intelligence estimates before going in and what have we found? In terms of intelligence estimates going in, the October 2002 intelligence estimate, national intelligence estimate, which is the definitive estimate by the intelligence community, said in its key judgments, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, for instance, on chemical weapons, 100 to 500 metric tons of chemical agent in the country; a biological weapons program that was being rapidly reconstituted; evidence of efforts to reconstitute a nuclear program. And it was not just American intelligence. There was supporting intelligence from all over the world. There was, of course, the United Nations weapons inspectors talking about unaccounted for stockpiles of VX and anthrax and sarin gas. And this didn’t start in September of 2002 with the president’s speech to the United Nations. This goes back to 1991 where we know that he had weapons of mass destruction, 1994 to 1995 where more came out about his biological weapons program after he finally revealed that when a high-level defector left the country and spooked him into revealing. In 1996, a testimony by then CIA director John Deutch saying, “He has weapons of mass destruction.” In 1998, after weapons inspectors left the country, President Clinton addressing the country from the Oval Office and saying, “He has weapons that I am certain he will use. That’s why we’re using military force against Saddam Hussein.” There’s a bit of revisionist history going on here. The truth of the matter is that repeated directors of Central Intelligence, repeated reports by intelligence agencies around the world, repeated reports by U.N. inspectors asking hard questions of Saddam Hussein, and tremendous efforts by this regime to conceal and hide what it was doing clearly give a picture of a regime that had weapons of mass destruction and was determined to conceal them.
BRIT HUME: He wouldn't come clean, would he? He wouldn't say "Look, this is what weapons we once had, these are the stocks we had that you know we have, and this is what we did with them." What he did was say "You can go anywhere you want." That is the behavior of a man confident that the weapons he had and the systems to develop them were very well hidden, as indeed they have now proved to be. You think about this, it all starts to make sense.
WILLIAM KRISTOL: Let me just follow up on that. He let them go pretty much where they wanted which suggests that he was confident they would not find large stocks of weapons. Either they were well hidden, they had degraded over time and he hadn't bothered to reconstitute them. What he didn't allow was the interrogation of the scientists, and that does suggest - there was a good report in the Los Angeles Times this morning - that what may have been going on is that he let some of the weapons degrade - these chemical weapons don't last forever - he got rid of some of them (hopefully he didn't ship some out of the country, but we're not sure about that) - but he did have an ongoing, very dispersed, weapons of mass destruction program. Research and development in little labs, ready to go the moment when sanctions came off. And his calculation may have been that with Blix failing to find weapons, with the U.N. Security Council failing to agree on a resolution authorizing the use of force - the second resolution, with France opposing it - that Bush wouldn't go to war, and that he'd be able to stall this out, keep these dispersed research programs going, sanctions come off, and he's back with weapons ...
[crosstalk]
WILLIAM KRISTOL: ... remains strong. But I think the urgency that we had to go to war right now ...
JUAN WILLIAMS: .. that Saddam Hussein did not want to appear impotent after the defeat in '91, and therefore kept up this fraud that he had some weapons. That he had the ability ...
BRIT HUME: Oh, please.
JUAN WILLIAMS: .. to defend himself. He did not have those weapons apparently, and what hurts American credibility then is you hear the President [and] others say "Well, we found these two mobile labs." Well, these two mobile labs have been taken apart. You know they have other functions ...
BRIT HUME: They're hot dog stands, Juan, that's what they were.
JUAN WILLIAMS: But they have, they can [be] used for other fermentation processes in addition to making germ warfare chemicals.
BRIT HUME: Making cider?
JUAN WILLIAMS: You know what? The point is we haven't found any evidence, no evidence at all that those mobile labs were being used to produce ...
BRIT HUME: Oh, wrong! Oh, wrong! There is all kinds of evidence.
JUAN WILLIAMS: No. There is nothing on either one of those mobile labs.
BRIT HUME: Well, no. That's absolutely incorrect. What we have found is an array of facilities on board those mobile labs that the analysts say could not possibly have been used for anything else.
JUAN WILLIAMS: That's not true. They could have been used for variable functions, in addition to making what you said.
BRIT HUME: Making what? Making what?
JUAN WILLIAMS: They could have been used for all kinds of things.
BRIT HUME: Name one.
JUAN WILLIAMS: Pharmaceutical use. Chemical use.
BRIT HUME: So, they're making stuff like Viagra?
MARA LIASSON: Weather balloons.
BRIT HUME: Juan, that's, that really - that's the tooth fairy stuff.
This weekend, a number of "Where are the WMD's", and "Misuse of intelligence" stories hit the wires, capping off a week of related stories. This one is typical: (excerpts)
The Bush administration pushed for war against Iraq last fall because of weapons of mass destruction despite a secret Pentagon report it did not have enough "reliable information" Iraq was amassing chemical weapons, a defense official said on Friday.
... a U.S. defense official confirmed a sentence in the report that said the DIA did not have enough "reliable information" that Iraq had chemical weapons.
"It (the report) talks about the fact that at the time in September 2002 we could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the weapons of mass destruction programs, specifically the chemical warfare portion,"
Republican Sen. John Warner urged Americans to trust the administration's claims. "I make the appeal to the American people to continue to repose trust in this administration as we go forward (in the search)."
ADDENDUM: Just for fun, we entered "WMD" into Yahoo's search-for-stories, and came up with this:
The Washington Post has a story that recaps the recent Democratic-legislators-bugging-out-of-Texas story, with emphasis on how Representative Laney's plane was tracked. It's detailed, and reports multiple instances where Federal law enforcement was called in to track down the Democrats. However, this line does not belong in the story:
Both parties, in Texas and other states, regularly try to redraw congressional boundaries to concentrate or dilute blocs of voters to favor their own candidates.
Nope. They don't regularly try to redraw boundries. If anything, they "regularly" (i.e. every 10 years) redraw boundries according to custom.
Normally we stay away from personal stories when processing the news, but in the case of the New York Times affair, we find ourselves curious about what makes Jason Blair tick. Was he simply a con-man, or is the story more complicated? What, for example, was Blair's reaction to the news that Raines and Boyd resigned? According to CBS Channel 2 New York, it's this:
Shortly after the high-level resignations at the Times were announced, CBS 2's Andrew Kirtzman snared an exclusive interview with Blair, who commented on the latest developments.
"I'm truly sorry for my actions and what they have done," said Blair. "I feel like, you know, I was in a cycle of self-destruction, but I never intend, and I never intended to hurt anyone else. And the pain that I have caused my colleagues, I'm sorry. The pain for my family and friends and anybody else."
Blair called the affair a "complicated human tragedy," and when asked by Kirtzman to define that phrase said, "It has to do with my own human demons, my own weaknesses, and it ranges from, you know, my struggles with substance abuse, to my own struggles with mental illness."
Asked about his future plans, Blair says he's "thought about doing some volunteer work with people who have mental illness. I've thought about doing volunteer work related to substance abuse."
What kind of mental illness leads a person to engage in deception of colleagues and friends? We will be very interested to learn more as this story develops.
