Television alert:

Scheduled for Meet the Press this Sunday, 30 November:

Mike Allen of the Washington Post, pool reporter on the President’s trip to Baghdad, discusses the surprise visit to the troops. Then David Broder, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Katty Kay, Dana Priest, William Safire and Robin Wright in a roundtable discussion.

Should be absolutely horrible.

posted by Quiddity at 11/29/2003 05:43:00 PM

Thought for the day:

If Ralph Nader wants to do something for this country, he should run for president - of the AARP.

posted by Quiddity at 11/29/2003 09:17:00 AM

The Metric System - Bah!

Calpundit has a post about the metric system and how its base units were arrived at. We've long held that the metric system has serious problems - but not for the reasons you might suspect. We wrote about it four years ago - before the days of weblogs. Here is that commentary:

What's wrong with the metric system.

While the historical trend is certainly in the direction of complete acceptance of the metric system, it still has grave defects. There are two main problems: ungainly terminology, and a poor choice of initial values. The system was introduced in 1799 in the wake of the French Revolution. It was probably part of the reaction against the old society as well as being in the spirit of 'reason', which was all part of the phenomenon known as the Age of Enlightenment. Science was finally emerging and showing it to be quite a contender as a system of thought. The impact of Newton's success in physics (in the early 1700's) on the general outlook was tremendous. The power and potential of rational thought freed men to re-inspect the world about them. As a result there was a tendency to start afresh, and construct a new politics and society without reference to tradition. The metric system was a part of that.

The problem with the metric system was that reason was allowed to trump everything else. 'Reason' became its own standard. Take the case of the meter. It was determined initially as 1/10,000,000 the distance between the pole and the equator. So what? Here we have a fetish being made over round numbers. And who cares about the distance between two locations on a particular planet? Maybe it was felt that by basing the measurement on our earth, the system would have universal appeal, as well as sort of ethical neutrality. But it was still silly to go about it that way. The standard length should have been something closer to an inch.

TERMINOLOGY:
If you like polysyllables, the metric system is for you. Consider the large number of one syllable words the English system has: inch, foot, yard, mile, ounce, pound, ton, (fluid) ounce, cup, pint, quart. But metric insists on appending a prefix to the base element; kilo-meter, centi-gram, deka-liter. Somehow this is supposed to be rational. One is taught to know the prefixes, which then can be appended to one of several bases (meter, gram, liter, watt, ampere, hertz, ...). That's why the names of metric measurements are so long. Do people really parse the words to reassure themselves that a kilometer is 1000 meters? Of course not. To burden the terminology with a naming convention that helps 5th graders understand the relationships is absurd. And anyway, most of us seem to use either milli-, centi-, or kilo- as prefixes. I have yet to read texts containing: decimeter (about 4 inches) or hectogram (about 1/4 pound) or dekaliter (about 10 quarts). So what we end up with are 2 or 3 familiar sizes, and we put two-digit numeric values ahead of them, e.g. 60 centimeters [6 syllables] (instead of 2 feet [2 syllables]).

INITIAL VALUES:
First, consider lengths. The meter was determined for strictly ideological reasons. As a result, there are no lengths that are human scaled. The centimeter is not as useful as the inch (hand scale) or foot (body scale). Next, examine standards of weight. Sorry, but the gram is just too lightweight for my taste. And liquid measurements suffer from the same problem. I'll take a cup of sugar over 225 milliliters any day.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE:
Steal the terminology from the English system, use multiples of 10 (or 2's or 5's), and have the base elements be human scaled. Tweak some relationships (like 1 pint = 2.5 cups). And keep those one-syllable names! A proposal:

Element	How defined	Present day English
LENGTH
inch	1.1 English inch	1.1 inch
foot	10 inches	.916 foot
yard	3 feet	.916 yard
rod	100 feet	1.8 rods
furlong	1000 feet	.720 furlong
mile	5000 feet	1.042 mile
WEIGHT
ounce	weight of cubic inch of water	.769 avoir.ounce
pound	10 ounces	.480 pound
invent wordA	1000 pounds	480 pounds
ton	5000 pounds	1.202 ton
VOLUME
ounce	cubic inch	.738 oz
cup	10 ounces	.960 cup
pint	2 1/2 cups (25 oz)	1.20 pint
quart	2 pints (50 oz)	1.20 quart
gallon	2 quarts (100 oz)	1.20 gallon
barrel	50 gallons	1.935 (31 gal barrel) 1.428 (42 gal barrel)
cord	1000 cubic feet	.769 cord
AREA
acre	40,000 sq. feet (200x200)	.771 acre
invent wordB	1 square furlong	7.8 hectare
sq. mile	25 million sq. feet	1.085 sq. mile

posted by Quiddity at 11/28/2003 02:54:00 PM

Who knew in advance?

We were surprised to find this in the Yahoo slideshow about Bush's Baghdad visit:

Iraqi Governing Counsel member Ahmad Chalabi sits in the audience as he awaits the arrival of President Bush (news - web sites) at Baghdad International Airport Thursday, Nov. 27, 2003, in Baghdad, Iraq (news - web sites). Bush paid a surprise Thanksgiving day visit to American troops in Baghdad. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

It's a minor point, but did Chalabi know more about the visit than even some Secret Service agents?

UPDATE: According to Juan Cole:

It turns out that President George W. Bush did meet on Thursday with four members of the Iraqi Interim Governing Council. All 24 had been invited to a Thanksgiving Day event at the Baghdad Airport, but they were not told the nature of the event. So, only four showed up.

So maybe that explains it.

posted by Quiddity at 11/28/2003 01:38:00 AM

David Brooks would not approve:

posted by Quiddity at 11/27/2003 11:28:00 PM

Asking for it:

U.S. President George W. Bush carries a platter of turkey and fixings as he visits U.S. troops for Thanksgiving in Baghdad, Thursday, Nov 27, 2003. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus, Pool - enhanced by uggabugga) BAGHDAD, Iraq - President Bush flew to Iraq under extraordinary secrecy and security Thursday to spend Thanksgiving with U.S. troops and thank them for "defending the American people from danger."

posted by Quiddity at 11/27/2003 05:39:00 PM

Bush performs another stunt - avoids war dead:

President Bush flew From Waco to Baghdad for a surprise visit. In case you are wondering, the distance (one-way) is 7319 miles.

How is it Bush can find time for a flashy performance, yet not be able to attend even one funeral of the war dead?

What's next? Getting aboard a submarine for a trip to the Persian Gulf? A balloon ride over Tora Bora?

Face it. Bush is merely this thing that Karl Rove has dressed up in the uniform-of-the-moment and sends out to look martial. Really, it's not too different from what they did in the era of kings and nobility. Then, total incompetents donned suits of armor and were made the subject of paintings, woodcuttings, and coins.

All hail the 21^st Century King!

posted by Quiddity at 11/27/2003 04:20:00 PM

Pagans need not apply:

Went to the White House website, and saw this: Director of the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Jim Towey answered your questions in a special Thanksgiving edition of Ask the White House.

So went to that page, where we encountered this exchange:

Colby, from Centralia MO writes:
Do you feel that Pagan faith based groups should be given the same considerations as any other group that seeks aid?

Jim Towey
I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.

posted by Quiddity at 11/27/2003 12:16:00 PM

Low-hanging fruit:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) holds up a prescription bottle while talking to reporters at the Capitol, November 24.

posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2003 07:12:00 PM

Can you believe it?

Even we missed out on this information. Congratulations to our fine media for keeping everybody in the dark until after the bill was passed. From the wires: (excerpts)

Analysts: Medicare Drug Costs Will Rise

Seniors will face annual increases in premiums and deductibles - and a growing gap in coverage - for the prescription drugs they buy under the new Medicare law, budget analysts say.

For example, the $250 annual deductible at the start of the program in 2006 is projected to rise to $445 by 2013.

[In the first year of the program] after [$2,250 in drug costs], there would be no further coverage until beneficiaries' drug bills for the year reached $5,100, leaving a gap of $2,850 that they would have to pay out of their own pockets.

But after just one year, the Congressional Budget Office projects that seniors would see their $250 deductible and the $2,850 gap for which there is no coverage both jump 10 percent.

By 2013, the eighth year of the program, the deductible and the coverage gap are both projected to grow by 78 percent.

In other words, seniors would pay a $445 deductible and those with the largest drug bills would be entirely responsible for more than $5,000 in drug costs.

... the lawmakers [made the] decision to tie the cost of the program to increases in drug costs from inflation, new costly drugs coming on the market and expected increases in drug purchases ...

"The numbers inflate with the cost of the program. I think that's a good provision," said [Senator Don] Nickles, who voted against the bill.

But David Certner, an official of AARP, said: "One of our complaints has been that this benefit would become more unaffordable over time if pegged to drug costs. This bill does not do enough to hold down drug costs."

What the hell is going on? Nickles likes the provision, yet votes against the bill. Somebody from AARP is unhappy, but the organization supported the bill.

We think that accounting for inflation is important, but the focus on the drug cost inflation may make it rough for seniors. Their benefits (e.g Social Security) are usually pegged to general inflation which includes elements such as the cost of housing, energy, and so on. If drugs have a higher inflation rate - which seems likely - over time the Medicare benefit will diminish in value. There are a couple of ways to tackle this problem. One way is to keep the benefit to seniors constant by paying more as drug costs escalate, though at greater cost to the treasury. Another approach is to use market power to restrain the costs - like Wal-Mart does.

Yet the Congress decided to do neither.

posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2003 06:51:00 PM

Factoids:

Democrats (and Independents) that voted for the Medicare Prescription Bill. From the Senate website:

Baucus (D-MT)
Breaux (D-LA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Wyden (D-OR)

posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2003 01:56:00 PM

No big market forces here!

About the proposed Medicare prescription drug benefit, we read in the New York Times:

[The bill] relies on insurance companies and private health plans to manage the new drug benefit. They could negotiate with drug companies, but the government, with much greater purchasing power, would be forbidden to do so.

Supporters of the provision say it is necessary to prevent the government from imposing price controls that could stifle innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Critics say the restriction would force the government and Medicare beneficiaries to spend much more for drugs than they should.

Supporters of this bill are generally Republicans and conservatives. They don't want to give an entity (in this case the government) the power to exercise its market power on the (ostensible) grounds that it hurts innovation, etc. But that's precisely what big companies like Walmart and Microsoft do. And we've never heard Republican calls for restricting those companies ability to negotiate.

posted by Quiddity at 11/24/2003 06:56:00 AM

The Kennedy connection:

On PBS' NewsHour, Mark Shields expressed a view that is fairly common at this time of the 40th anniversary of president Kennedy's death. About conspiracy theories, with which Shields doesn't believe in:

... the idea that this small troubled tormented man could do something so large and change history by doing it is just somehow, offends people's sense of rationality. I think they're looking for something deeper, something to explain the magnitude of the enormity of what this little man did.

That's our view as well. If you agree with us, consider the following assertion about 9/11:

The idea that a small group of fanatics could do something so large and change history by doing it is just somehow, offends people's sense of rationality. I think war-hawks are looking for something deeper, something to explain the magnitude of the enormity of what this group did.

Basically, we take the view that all evidence to date indicates that al Qaeda is a menace, but nothing on the scale of a state power. But people want to believe that there is something big (and in Bush's case "evil") out there, and so start swinging at figures like Saddam, who fit their own conspiracy theories.

posted by Quiddity at 11/22/2003 10:58:00 PM

Here is your sound bite:

In agreement with our analysis (below), we read in the New York Times the following:

Overall, a beneficiary would pay $3,600 of the first $5,100 of drug costs, and that does not include the premium, expected to average $35 a month, or $420 a year ...

Now the premium really is a cost for drugs, so the thing to get people to understand is this:

Under the drug plan, you pay 4 of the first 5½ thousand dollars.

posted by Quiddity at 11/22/2003 10:35:00 PM

First time, ignore the question. Second time, deny the premise:

From the joint press conference (Bush & Blair) in London:

Q: And, Mr. President, if I could ask you, with thousands on the street -- with thousands marching on the streets today here in London, a free nation, what is your conclusion as to why apparently so many free citizens fear you and even hate you?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'd say freedom is beautiful. It's a fantastic thing to come to a country where people are able to express their views.

Q Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't know that they do. All I know is that it's -- that people in Baghdad, for example, weren't allowed to do this up until recent history. They're not spending a lot of time in North Korea protesting the current leadership. Freedom is a wonderful thing, and I respect that. I fully understand people don't agree with war. But I hope they agree with peace and freedom and liberty. I hope they care deeply about the fact that when we find suffering and torture and mass graves, we weep for the citizens that are being brutalized by tyrants.

And, finally, the Prime Minister and I have a solemn duty to protect our people. And that's exactly what I intend to do as the President of the United States, protect the people of my country.

posted by Quiddity at 11/21/2003 02:27:00 AM

A new name:

Earlier this week, Nicholas Kristof wrote:

We need a name for this war. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" never rolled off the tongue, and "Iraq war" creates confusion with the 1991 war. So send in your entries by mail or e-mail.

Here's our suggestion:     Operation Blunderbuss

It neatly conveys two ideas:

• A big blast of shot - which is a centuries-earlier version of "Shock and Awe".
  
  
• The blunders that have taken place in the post-war phase (most notably the disbanding of the Iraqi army).

posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2003 05:53:00 PM

More observations on the Medicare drug benefit:

Here is a chart that shows who is paying what - as a percentage - for a range of drug costs (note: even if your costs are zero, you will be paying a base amount [the premium of $420].)



Also, the way the plan is structured, if your drug costs are less than $830/yr ($70/mo), you are paying more than you would if there were no drug plan. (In other words, only at that point do Medicare payments equal- and therefore pay back - the annual premium.)

Another question that needs to be answered is, "What's the distribution of drug costs today?" We doubt very much that there are significant numbers of people with annual drug costs over $5,000 (or $400/mo). But maybe there are. Also, what's with the region between $2,200 and $4,600 ($183/mo and $383). Do a lot of people inhabit this regiion? (If the costs fall into what's known as a normal distribution, then there will be a peak somewhere - perhaps in that range of costs.)

UPDATE: Our question has been answered! Thanks to reader Joe, we learn of a study by the Commonwealth Fund. On slide 40 of the pdf file, we see:

About 25% of Medicare beneficiaries pay between $2,000 and $4,500 - which nearly coincides with the $2,200 - $4,600 region where the proposed Medicare plan provides no additional drug coverage.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The New Republic Online has a good description of some of the features of the bill.

posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2003 01:51:00 AM

Visualizing the (proposed) Medicare Drug Benefit:

Using information from the New York Times and Easterblog (!), we created a chart that shows who will be paying what for prescription drugs. This chart applies to most people. Those deemed poor (income less than $12,000 and/or assets less than $6,000) will have subsidies or waived deductables or waived coverage gaps.



Easterbrook writes:

Assuming any of this can be understood, the first provision appears to mean the typical senior will pay $420 per year to receive a benefit of $1,444--75 percent of the difference between $275 and $2,200--plus catastrophic coverage for most costs over $3,600. A premium of $420 for $1,444 of reimbursement plus catastrophe protection isn't bad, considering that a high percentage of the insureds will claim benefits.

So this part of the plan, which will be what is used by the majority of middle-class reasonably-healthy seniors, is okay but not a fabulous new windfall. Once typical middle-class seniors realize what they're getting is okay but not hugely great, there is bound to be grumbling; the political expectation seems to be that drugs for seniors will become free. Some middle-class seniors will also protest that they are being charged not $420 but $695 for the $1,444 benefit--the premium plus the deductible. But the $420 premium pays for the $1,444 reimbursement that a senior otherwise wouldn't get. The first $275 the patient would be paying whether the plan existed or not.

CLARIFICATION / CORRECTION: Easterbrook writes about, "catastrophic coverage for most costs over $3,600", but that's misleading. It sounds like solid coverage when drug costs exceed $3,600. According to the Times, the Medicare plan restarts when "the beneficiary has spent a total of $3,600 out of pocket. " That event takes place when the drug costs reach $4,600 ($383/mo). Easterbrook is writing about coverage when the beneficiary's out-of-pocket payments exceed $3,600.

Our view: We're not particularly impressed with the plan. Considering the initial $420/yr premium and the $275 deductable, the program pays 40% until the costs reach $4800 - after which drugs are virtually free.

We should point out that the 40% is an average; the benefit ranges between 55% and 30% when total costs are below the $4,800 "FreePoint". In fact, the benefit gets worse (declining from 55% to 30%) as the patient gets sicker. (What's really happening is that the benefit is pegged at $1444 while costs increase, so the percentage of coverage declines as a result.)

There are several details that need to be examined. For example, will any of these figures be inflation adjusted (especially those that are used to determine who is poor)?

Our best summary of the program is that is appears to be "half a loaf" (actually, more like 40% of a loaf). And that may not be good enough. We don't know what the general situation is for seniors, but we suspect that paying up to $3,500 for drugs (premiums, deductables, patient-share) may well be beyond the budgets of those who are not poor, but not well-off either.

posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2003 09:47:00 PM

An appeal for a little help:

We think that one of the most important resources at this time is the Iraqi Coalition Casualty Count website. (URL is: http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx) It is scrupulously maintained and has detailed information you won't get anywhere else.

Do you have a PayPal account? Can you spare, say, $3.00?

Please consider giving to keep the site up and running.

Thank you.

(This appeal is our own idea. We have no connection to the website. We just happened to notice that they are asking for support.)

posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2003 08:04:00 PM

Taking Scalia seriously:

Back in May 2002, Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia had an essay published in First Things entitled God's Justice and Ours. (We think it may have originally been delivered as a speech a month earlier.) We invite readers to ponder these lines:

... the core of [St. Paul's] message is that government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God.

...

It is easy to see the hand of the Almighty behind rulers ... who at least obtained their thrones in ... battles whose outcome was determined by the Lord of Hosts, that is, the Lord of Armies.

So, Mr. Scalia, if Bush fails to succeed in the war in Iraq, does that mean the hand of the Almighty isn't behind the president, and that Bush - by your standard - has no moral authority?

posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2003 12:01:00 PM

This is an excellent visual representation:

Via MediaWhoresOnline Watch Watch Watch Watch * we encountered a chart created by Ed Stephan that shows the steady increase in military fatalities since the start of the Iraqi war. The original chart is good, but we decided to enlarge it - yet make it fit the screen for the 26% of our readers who have 800 pixel wide monitors (and move some of the text around a bit). Here it is:



NOTE: The chart was also featured at the onegoodmove weblog.

* IMPORTANT NOTE: We don't know what's going on, but MWOWWWW appears hijacked and is now completely purged of content. It was working this morning, but the buzz is that there has been turmoil at that blog for some time now.

posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2003 11:09:00 AM

We give up!

This is from the concluding paragraph of Nicholas D. Kristof's most recent essay in the New York Times:

We need a name for this war. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" never rolled off the tongue, and "Iraq war" creates confusion with the 1991 war. So send in your entries by mail or e-mail.

We don't know why we didn't think of that before. A new name! That's the ticket.

Our suggestion: Operation Ivy Peninsula Freedom Serpent Strike Iron Cyclone Desert Hammer Scorpion

ALSO: We took a quick look at Safire's essay as well. It was so slimy that we had to wash our hands afterwards. He writes: "Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who became Jacques Chirac's toy spitz in opposing America as well as neighbors in Europe ..." Spitz is a breed of dog. Yet somehow Safire never gets around to using the word "poodle". Imagine that.

posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2003 12:58:00 AM

Burn baby, burn!

That's our 3-word summary of the energy bill. Just burn lots of stuff. Oil, coal, ethanol, gasoline, and natural gas. (Yes, the bill also contains objectionable parts like the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 *) There is little interest in conservation or alternate energy sources. In fact, a provision to encourage use of renewable resources was removed during the House-Senate conference. The House "GOP majority strongly favors more extensive development of domestic oil and gas resources." There you have it. This is not a forward-looking policy. Businesses are going to get tax breaks for what they already are doing. It's a complete sellout. And the president will eagerly sign the bill if it gets to him (which is something Gore wouldn't do). Thanks, Ralph.

NOTE TO SCIENTISTS: You may have to rerun your computer models on global warming. Looks like there will be plenty more CO₂ for us all to deal with.





* More on PUHCA. Repeal will lead to all sorts of mergers and consumer-unfriendly situations. From Forbes: (excerpts)

PUHCA was passed after financial turmoil hit the nascent electricity sector as huge holding companies drew on the stable finances of their regulated utility arms to invest in other, riskier businesses.

The turmoil in the 1930s pushed some 53 holding companies into bankruptcy when lenders called in loans, spurring public calls for reform in the utility industry.

To ensure reliable electricity service to consumers, PUHCA limited the geographical reach of each utility and required utilities' businesses mesh operationally.

The Act prohibited utilities from mixing non-utility operations and power generation to prevent them using revenue from their protected markets to subsidize other ventures. It also limited how much debt a utility could accumulate.

Feel better now?

ADDITIONAL NOTE: We expect much hilarity when the media discuss the repeal of PUHCA (pronounced, apparently, "Poo-huca"). Just like Dingell-Norwood was a hit with well known political comedians Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts back in 2000. Remember, if it sounds funny, you should feel free to completely ignore what it's about.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2003 10:58:00 PM

Drill this into your head:

Calpundit calls Mickey Kaus out on a low blow. Kaus goes after Howard Dean with this line:

... there's a second, more troubling interpretation, which is that Dean ________

Fill in the blank with whatever you'd like to accuse Dean of. In Kaus' case it's a theory that Dean is a cunning opportunist (or worse).

Isn't that nice? When one decides to "interpret" something, there are virtually no limits where you can go. Not only that, but Kaus tltles his entry

Hello! Opposition Researchers!

What can you say but ....

Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat - Mickey Kaus is a Fox News Democrat -

If the tapestry above doesn't get to you, stare at this for 10 minutes:

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2003 06:18:00 PM

We thought of it first!

From Middle East Online (thanks to Counterspin for the head's up):

Bush's homemade statue to be toppled in London

CND spokeswoman says idea is to highlight how fake toppling of Saddam statue in Baghdad was on April 9.

British demonstrators angry at Anglo-American policy over Iraq said they will topple Thursday a giant homemade statue of George W. Bush in London's Trafalgar Square during a protest march against his three-day state visit.

From our post of 10 April 2003: (actually, this is a brightened version of our original image which was rather dark)



It's not in the story (above), but we heard on the radio that the statue will be toppled (more accurately, pulled down) by a pink papier-mache tank.

All in all, it should be fun.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2003 01:30:00 PM

Found item:

We were recently sorting some old papers - which included newspaper clippings - and came upon an item that we'd completely forgotten about. But before getting into that, we'd like to say that we don't collect and save everything that we've read. In fact, we probably only have five clippings on politics from the last ten years. So how did we happen to save this thing? Was there some early buzz that we picked up? Certainly, this guy wasn't uppermost in our mind until 1999. Yet somehow we cut it out and put it aside.

Here are the first paragraphs of a Washington Post National Weekly Edition - for Jul 24-30, 1995

The Lone Star Takes a Shine to a Rising Son Gov. George W. Bush is establishing his credentials with a smooth first term By Sue Ann Pressley Washington Post Staff Writer AUSTIN, Tex. It was a rare moment of discord in his short, happy life as the governor of Texas: When, without warning, George W. Bush recently vetoed a guardianship bill intended to protect thousands of elderly and disabled Texans - a bill that had sailed through the legislature with scant opposition - some Democrats and other advocates quickly cried foul. Here, they said, was proof of what truly could be expected from the new Republican leader who has preached countless sermons about the lofty plane of nonpartisan politics. "While the governor was vetoing this bill," said Democratic state Rep. Elliott Naishtat of Austin, a co-sponsor of the measure, "he was signing bills that would appear to benefit wealthy people, and people or groups that can afford to retain high-powered lobbyists. I am extremely disappointed." So were the Gray Panthers, the Association of Retarded Children of Texas and officials with 30 other organizations. Bush's rationale was that the measure would burden the current state bureaucracy and that it complicated, rather than improved, an existing - but, critics say, insufficient - program. [The article goes on about Texas politics, compromise, lack of it, etc.]

Sure looks like Bush was a mean SOB from the get-go.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2003 09:39:00 AM

To tell the truth:

Via Roger Ailes we read the New York Times article on Limbaugh's comeback. Here is the key excerpt you should remember:

"When you have a constituency that strong and an audience that devoted, they will forgive you anything, short of murder," Mr. Friedman [a Democratic strategist] said. "I think the cause is so important to them that they're not willing to sacrifice a leader because of his personal flaws."

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2003 07:40:00 AM

Reverse strategy:

From Limbaugh's first day back.

Democrats can't meet us in the arena of ideas, so they call names and make wild charges hoping something will stick. When these people talk about us, when they accuse us of bad behavior - guess what? They're telling us who they are. It's a beautiful thing, my friends. It's a new way of listening to liberals. When they start telling us what rotten SOBs we are, just remember: they're telling us who they are.

Are you confused yet?

But seriously, this is just another brick in the wall. In this case, a rubber brick that reflects criticism 100%. It's all part of the walling off of the world so that Limbaugh and his supporters can believe in anything they want to.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2003 07:35:00 AM

Simplify, simplify:

From this news story:

EPA to propose easing rules for radioactive waste

President George W. Bush's administration is considering allowing low-level radioactive waste to be dumped at toxic waste sites and other facilities that currently aren't permitted to receive it.

The Environmental Protection Agency was expected to issue a notice Tuesday seeking public comments on the proposal. The notice asks the public to weigh in on whether certain levels of radioactive waste can be stored in landfills or hazardous material disposal sites.

Nuclear power companies can dispose of low-level radioactive waste at a handful of sites around the country, and about 20 sites can dispose of hazardous material.

The EPA notice says a rule change could simplify the process for getting rid of hazardous and radioactive waste for nuclear power companies and others that generate it.

We wonder - why not simplify the process further? Just dump the radioactive waste in the gutter. Then companies don't have to deal with the bother of trucking the crap to toxic waste sites, or to any waste sites whatsoever.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2003 07:00:00 AM

We screwed up!

In our haste converting an old diagram into a PowerPoint-like application (StarOffice's Impress) we made several errors. Misspelling, dropped connections, and connections that shouldn't be there. Our thanks to Mike and Mark for setting us straight. Click here for the full size diagram.



We'll be much more careful in the future (we have lots of diagrams to re-enter).

posted by Quiddity at 11/17/2003 11:28:00 AM

Details! Details!

We watched the Fox News Sunday round table discuss Stephen Hayes' Weekly Standard article that everybody is talking about. It's the one about what Douglas Feith sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee. As Josh Marshall writes "I was watching Fox News Sunday this morning and saw Fred Barnes --- Executive Editor of the Standard --- go almost apoplectic about how devastating and case-closing a piece it is." Fred was certainly excited. And he kept on mentioning that the reports were full of details. Here is a transcript of the round table on the Hayes article: (emphasis added)

SNOW: Fred, let me ask you about a series of memos that were first reported by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard which seemed to indicate that our intelligence agencies thought there were some very strong connections or at least some coincidences that would link Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Now we haven't been able to get anybody to bite on this officially, but looking at the memos it does appear that the intelligence community thought there was some pretty strong evidence that Saddam had been working with al Qaeda and for a considerable period of time.

BARNES: And your first word was right, "connections", not just coincidences. The interesting thing about this report in particular is the detail that it has of meetings between officials of Saddam Hussein's government at top officials of al Qaeda. Have met repeatedly over thirteen years from 1990 to 2003. Met in many different places, and developed, really, an operational relationship of providing sanctuary for terrorists, and training of terrorists in explosives and weapons of mass destruction and so on. Look, they say this is raw intelligence but this is raw intelligence with great details, much of it coming from the CIA. You know - I love - the press' in particular selective use of intelligence which they accuse the Bush administration of - the same people who will raise doubts about this intelligence are praising the CIA assessment of what's going on in Iraq right now. Now - look - there are repeated meetings that went on between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. It's clear that there was a strong connection.

WILLIAMS: I don't know about a strong connection, the president himself has said we haven't proven anything.

BARNES: Whoa! Whoa! He said we haven't proven

HUME: 9/11

BARNES: Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11.

WILLIAMS: And I don't think there's any proof - that meetings may have occurred - there's no proof of any kind of connection that would say "here are funds, here are troops, here's our effort to attack Americans, to create terrorism". We don't know that Fred.

BARNES: You're setting up a straw man.

WILLIAMS: But that's what I think this is. I think if there are some connections here ...

BARNES: Strong!

WILLIAMS: I think there's a big difference between the CIA memo that was released this week, the one that Bremer knew about, and that every White House official that I know says, "Yes, that's a legitimate memo", and this one that is speculative.

BARNES: No, no! Please.

WILLIAMS: Because you're trying to make a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

BARNES: Juan, you cannot call that report speculative. It is filled with details. It doesn't speculate at all. There's no speculation in there. And Juan, I wonder why would your reaction be to try and knock it down, rather than say, "Hey, there really was a strong connection between Saddam and al Qaeda".

WILLIAMS: Because I think the American people realize that after 9/11 we had to do something about Afghanistan. Had to do something about al Qaeda. The whole issue about Iraq is separate and you're trying to make it - conflate them - because what we did was take preemptive action against Iraq. Most people - I think everyone on this panel - say, "Okay we did it, we're going to stay with this president", but you don't have to create this kind of, you know, cotton candy: "Oh yes, we knew there was a connection". Sounds a lot like what happened to Jessica Lynch. All of a sudden you realize this week that the Defense Department was building her up ...

BARNES: These are hard facts. You can call it speculative. You can call it cotton candy. These are hard facts, and I'd like to see you refute any one of them!

WILLIAMS: I think the case is not to refute it. I think the case is to prove it, and it's yet to be proven.

[Note: For about a week, a .wav file of this exchange will be available here. It is 1.5 meg in size. We do this to assure our readers that the transcripts are accurate.)

Now anybody can provide raw, unsubstantiated data, replete with details. For instance:

Fred Barnes was seen wearing a blue shirt and driving a Ford Taurus at 10:32 AM on Saturday. He parked the car next to a mailbox and then, wearing a red had and carrying a wrench and screwdriver, broke into the 2nd window to the right of the main entrance of the Library of Congress.

Plenty of details, but completely false.


posted by Quiddity at 11/16/2003 03:41:00 PM

Positive spin:



posted by Quiddity at 11/15/2003 12:54:00 PM

Politics first:



posted by Quiddity at 11/15/2003 09:24:00 AM

Excellent work:

There is some good material over at bushcheney04.com - a satirical site.

Check it out.

posted by Quiddity at 11/14/2003 01:16:00 PM

Heading down?

The folks over at SadlyNo.com have examined the figures of electricity generation in Iraq, and it looks like there is some deterioration in the last couple of weeks. Here is a chart of electricity production starting this summer:


From the CPA web site, which since early this month has been uploading daily reports on electricity production in Iraq.

posted by Quiddity at 11/14/2003 12:58:00 PM

Creeping Facism:

That's the title of Orcinus' recent posting. We share his outlook. For some time now in response to the question, "Is this country fascist?", we've said, "No, but it's moving in that direction." David Neiwert's essay is congruent with our view - and is a good summary of the present situation.

posted by Quiddity at 11/14/2003 11:30:00 AM

Medicalert:



Read about it at Eschaton (Atrios) and at Reason.com

posted by Quiddity at 11/13/2003 05:19:00 PM

Keep on pounding!



posted by Quiddity at 11/13/2003 09:04:00 AM

A diagram 4 U:

As part of our ongoing project of diagramming everything in the known universe, we present a map that shows the connections between the countries in the western hemisphere. Click here for the full size diagram.



posted by Quiddity at 11/10/2003 01:09:00 PM

A good read:

This November 6th essay by Jacob Weisberg has been linked to by digby and Talking Points Memo. We find it to be one of the best summaries of the intellectual dynamics surrounding the president and Bush's inability to exercise mature judgment when confronted with overly ambitious, or absurdly ambitious, plans and policies. Check it out.

posted by Quiddity at 11/10/2003 06:20:00 AM

Outrage!

Call Hannity, Medved, Hewitt, Prager, O'Reilly, Limbaugh (at rehab), Horowitz, Sullivan, Liddy, North, Savage, and all the other right-wingers. Take a look at the new nickels that are scheduled for introduction next year. In early 2004 the reverse will celebrate the Louisiana Purchase; later that year a different reverse will celebrate the Lewis and Clark expedition. Here's the side for the Louisiana Purchase:

What's the problem?

The pipe. It looks like something Tommy Chong got thrown in the slammer for. What kind of message is this sending our children?

ADDENDUM: We initially thought that one of the hands depicted was French, but it turns out that the one on the left symbolizes the American government and the one on the right symbolizes the Native American chieftains.

posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2003 10:02:00 AM

Reagan boosting:

In an essay (somewhere on the web, but we can't find it at the moment See UPDATE below), it was pointed out that the move to bolster Reagan's standing in the public eye was a reaction to a ranking of presidents that took place in the mid 1990's. Reagan was ranked (low) average, and apparently this got Grover Norquist excited and subsequently he began his crusade to venerate Reagan, which included naming roads, airports, and other sites after the former president.

So, what about that survey? It was conducted in 1996, authored by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and published late in that year in the New York Times Magazine. In the September 29, 1997 edition of the Weekly Standard (by James Piereson of the John M. Olin Foundation), that survey was discussed and compared with another survey conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The ISI is described by the Standard as "an educational organization that promotes traditional approaches to the liberal arts and American history and government." We've looked at the members of the ISI panel that ranked presidents and it tilts right. Some of the members came from: the Hoover Institution; National Review; Claremont Institute; and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

In any event, we dug up our old copy of the Weekly Standard (we no longer subscribe, by the way), found the story and the survey results. Here they are:

Rank	Schlesinger Survey	Intercollegiate Studies Institute Survey
Great	Washington, Lincoln, F.D.Roosevelt	Washington, Lincoln
Near Great	Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, T.Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman	Jefferson, Jackson, Reagan, T.Roosevelt, F.D.Roosevelt, Eisenhower
High Average	Monroe, Cleveland, McKinley, Eisenhower, Kennedy, L.B.Johnson, J.Adams	J.Adams, J.Q.Adams, Cleveland, McKinley, Taft, Coolidge, Truman, Polk, Monroe
Low Average	Madison, J.Q.Adams, Van Buren, Hayes, Arthur, B.Harrison, Taft, Ford, Carter, Reagan, BushSr., Clinton	Madison, Van Buren, Ford, B.Harrison, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, BushSr.
Below Average	Tyler, Taylor*, Fillmore, Coolidge	Tyler, Fillmore, Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, Hoover
Failure	Pierce, Buchanan, A.Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover, Nixon	Buchanan, Grant, Harding, L.B.Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Pierce, A.Johnson
	* as reported in the Weekly Standard, but in the body of the story Taylor (and Henry Harrison) is listed as being excluded from both surveys. We suspect the name should be Garfield (which is not listed in this column).	Raised more than one rank indicated by blue Lowered more than one rank indicated by red (note: Wilson and L.B.Johnson lowered 3 ranks in ISI survey)

UPDATE: The backstory on the Reagan legacy movement, including the response to the Schlesinger survey, was reported by digby here. That post contains excerpts from a Mother Jones article on the Reagan Legacy Project. (But you only have to read digby - who is one of our favorite webloggers.)

BIG UPDATE: A reader (Matthew) asked if we could post the original Weekly Standard article to see what standards were used to rank the presidents. Alas, it's not online (as far as we can tell) and it's too long to type in. Also, the article hardly discussed criteria. But we can present a paragraph-by-paragraph summary below:

Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s ranking is something his father started 50 years ago.

For Schlesinger's poll, a jury of 32 (nearly all) liberal historians were used.

No surprise that the study fell along predictable ideological lines (e.g. FDR "great")

"Rather than a reliable ranking of presidents, the study was in fact just one more elaboration of the central assumptions of modern liberalism - namely that progress can only be achieved through an interventionist federal government that sponsors programs to redistribute income and promote equality."

Now a new study has appeared that offers a different perspective. Done by the ISI. (Names are mentioned, but no criteria.)

As in Schlesinger study, panelists ranked "great" to "failure".

Comparing the two polls finds areas of agreement. Washington & Lincoln were "great".

"The consensus extends from the founding of the Republic down to the First World War."

But it breaks down starting with Wilson. "The debate over the modern presidents mirrors the national argument over the role of the federal government in our society ..."

This explains some of the differences. ISI demotes FDR from "great" to "near great", Wilson & Truman down one notch, Kennedy down two notches, LBJ down to "failure".

"... despite their reservations about FDR the ISI panelists acknowledge his lasting influence and historical importance."

In 28 years from '33 to '61, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower served at least two terms, led the nation through the depression, WW2, and the early Cold War, and continue to be admired by historians.

Discusses the terms of post '61 presidents (assassinated, driven from office, defeated for reelection).

"In the judgment of the ISI historians, Ronald Reagan was the only genuinely successful president in this entire period." Recreated his party and reinvigorated the office.

"What of Clinton?" He has discussed his own place in history.

"While Clinton could take some comfort from Schesinger's speculation, which mirrored his own self-assessment, the ISI panel came to a different conclusion. Twenty panelists rated Clinton "below average" and 10 judged him a "failure". The panel's pessimism about the Clinton presidency derives from the avalanche of scandals that has buried his presidency, any one of which might eventually discredit him, as well as his failure so far to take the difficult steps required to keep our old-age entitlement programs solvent."
[Emphasis added. Also, if the vote was 20 "below average" and 10 "failure", how come Clinton is rated a "failure"?]

"But Clinton can claim some accomplishments." A generally prosperous economy.

Clinton is essentially a status-quo president.

"Clinton's main task have had less to do with the presidency than with saving his party and its favored programs from destruction at the hands of the Republicans." "If Clinton gets through his term without any debacles, he will in all likelihood be viewed by future historians as an "average" president.

posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2003 07:14:00 AM

Alabama BS:

The president gave a speech in Alabama a couple of days ago. Here is the key excerpt:

A free and peaceful Iraq will make it more likely that our children and grandchildren will be able to grow up without the horrors of September the 11th.

Sure sounds like Bush (re)connecting Saddam to 9/11, but even if that inference is subject to debate, the following is not:

If Iraq wasn't invaded, we probably would experience a massive terrorist attack supported by Saddam.

Does anybody believe that?

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2003 10:29:00 AM

Where's the party?

Last week (Mon, Oct 27) the Washington Post had a tough editorial, Play Doctor -- and Judge, that was very critical of the recent legislation from Congress on late term (aka "partial birth") abortion, and critical of the intervention by Florida's legislature and governor in the Schiavo case. We present it below, and highlight every instance in the editorial where they identify the players as Republican:

THE SENATE LAST WEEK approved a prohibition on the procedure known to its opponents as partial-birth abortion, sending the measure to President Bush for his signature. That same day, the Florida legislature authorized the president's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, to order a feeding tube reinserted for Terri Schiavo, who has been in a vegetative state for 13 years. The measures are linked not only by the fact that each touches on the deeply felt religious, moral and political issues that arise at the beginning and the end of life. Perhaps precisely because the issues involved are so emotional, both laws exemplify legislators' overstepping their bounds, betraying a fundamental lack of respect for the proper role of doctors and courts.

"The legislation we just passed will save lives," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said after the vote on partial-birth abortion. This is untrue, and if Mr. Frist, a surgeon, doesn't know better, he should. The measure prohibits one form of abortion, performed in the late second trimester or third trimester of pregnancy; it is gruesome, as indeed are all abortions this late in pregnancy. But most states already bar abortions after the point of viability, unless the procedure is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, and Congress could have done likewise. Instead, outlawing this form of abortion will only lead physicians, in the relatively few cases in which this procedure is preferred, to perform abortions by other methods that could endanger the woman's future child-bearing ability.

What is most alarming about the legislation, however, is Congress's eagerness to play doctor. When the Supreme Court narrowly stuck down a similar Nebraska law three years ago, one of the major problems it cited was that the law made no exception for maternal health, as is constitutionally required. Congress sidestepped this impediment by declaring that the procedure "is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother." Yet the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the method may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, adding, "The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.'' We agree. The matter is now headed back to the courts, which we trust will not tolerate the dodge of overcoming constitutional requirements by legislative decree.

The heart-breaking case of Terry Schiavo in Florida presents even an even starker case of lawmakers usurping the medical and judicial function. Ms. Schiavo, now 39, has been in a "persistent vegetative state" since suffering heart failure in 1990; as a Florida appeals court described it, she "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs." Her husband, Michael Schiavo, argues that his wife would not have wanted to continue this way; her parents disagree. While there's no definitive proof, the Florida courts have consistently found clear and convincing evidence she would have wanted the feeding tube withdrawn. This was no casual conclusion but a searching, at times agonized, inquiry by the courts up and down the Florida legal system.

But as the five-year legal battle was about to come to a conclusion with the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube and her impending death, the Florida legislature intervened. It passed a extraordinary and temporary law designed to apply only in Ms. Schiavo's circumstances, and the governor quickly used his new authority to order her feeding tube reinserted. Mr. Schiavo plans to challenge the law in court. Such end-of-life decisions are wrenching, especially so when, as in Ms. Schiavo's case, the family is so bitterly split and there is no medical directive from the person involved. But we have a system in which such disputes are heard in and decided by courts, not legislatures. Unless, it seems, the legislators disagree.

As you can see, they didn't use the word "Republican" anywhere, only identifying Frist as R - Tenn.   The Post failed to note that the impetus for both actions came from Republicans.

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2003 09:48:00 AM

Moscow chit-chat:



posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2003 06:00:00 AM

Food for thought:

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo directed our attention to a speech by Zbigniew Brzezinski at the New American Strategies for Security and Peace conference. It's pretty good. We were struck by the following observations by Z-big: (emphasis added)

Since the tragedy of 9-11 which understandably shook and outraged everyone in this country, we have increasingly embraced at the highest official level what I think fairly can be called a paranoiac view of the world. . Summarized in a phrase repeatedly used at the highest level, "he who is not with us is against us."

This phrase in a way is part of what might be considered to be the central defining focus that our policy-makers embrace in determining the American position in the world and is summed up by the words "war on terrorism." War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower ...

... that skewed view of the world is intensified by a fear that periodically verges on panic that is in itself blind. By this I mean the absence of a clearly, sharply defined perception of what is transpiring abroad regarding particularly such critically important security issues as the existence or the spread or the availability or the readiness in alien hands of weapons of mass destruction.

I think that calls for serious debate in America about the role of America in the world, and I do not believe that that serious debate is satisfied simply by a very abstract, vague and quasi-theological definition of the war on terrorism as the central preoccupation of the United States in today's world. That definition of the challenge in my view simply narrows down and over-simplifies a complex and varied set of challenges that needs to be addressed on a broad front.

It deals with abstractions. It theologizes the challenge. It doesn't point directly at the problem. It talks about a broad phenomenon, terrorism, as the enemy overlooking the fact that terrorism is a technique for killing people. That doesn't tell us who the enemy is. It's as if we said that World War II was not against the Nazis but against blitzkrieg. We need to ask who is the enemy, and the enemies are terrorists.

But not in an abstract, theologically-defined fashion, people, to quote again our highest spokesmen, "people who hate things, whereas we love things" - literally. Not to mention the fact that of course terrorists hate freedom. I think they do hate. But believe me, I don't think they sit there abstractly hating freedom.

He doesn't come out and say it, but we see traces of the following notion which we have held for some time:

The terrorist threat isn't, and never was, as great as everyone has been led to believe.

posted by Quiddity at 11/04/2003 03:13:00 PM

For Atrios:



(Thanks to Tom Tomorrow for keeping us abreast of these events.)

posted by Quiddity at 11/03/2003 08:14:00 PM

Crazy:



posted by Quiddity at 11/02/2003 07:34:00 PM