Essential reading:

We are in complete agreement with George Soros' view as expressed in his Atlantic magazine article. Excerpts:

The terrorist attack on the United States could have been treated as a crime against humanity rather than an act of war. Treating it as a crime would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. Protection against terrorism requires precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering—all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which the terrorists operate.

Declaring war on terrorism better suited the purposes of the Bush Administration, because it invoked military might; but this is the wrong way to deal with the problem. Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harboring terrorists. Yet terrorists are by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by states.

The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war. Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy.

The terrorist threat must be seen in proper perspective. Terrorism is not new. It was an important factor in nineteenth-century Russia, and it had a great influence on the character of the czarist regime, enhancing the importance of secret police and justifying authoritarianism.

We've said it before, and we'll say it again: al Qaeda is not a state power. In fact, taking the adminstration at its word, the most recent alert was triggered by the concern that al Qaeda would hijack an airliner (or two). What more proof do you need that these guys don't have any weaponry? Sure, they are a menace with truck bombs, but the Bush adminstation has been treating al Qaeda as if they had submarines and jet fighters and laser guided bombs. They don't. The core is about 2,000 guys, mostly in Afghanistan. They were not captured when there was the opportunity (immediately after September 11), and now, two years later, it will be much harder to get them - partly because of the Iraq invastion, partly because the global (and expecially Islamic) community is less likely to go along. Bush wasted an opportunity to soundly defeat al Qaeda, and as Soros points out, used September 11 to advance other agendas (Total Invormation Awareness, PATRIOT Act, bigger military budget, invading Iraq).

posted by Quiddity at 12/29/2003 12:34:00 AM

Diagramming the world (cont.):

Our latest is a logical connections map for the countries in Africa. (Click here for full size.)




Other diagrams (only 4 so far) can be found at our Top Secret website: http://threetwoone.org/diagrams

UPDATE: We corrected the spelling of Zimbabwe (thanks Josh, and added Eritrea (thanks Andrea). The diagram was originally created in about 1988 and we forgot to update it. We're working on Eurasia, and that has changed a whole lot in 15 years. It's not going to be easy (especially with oddballs like the bit of Russia that's isolated from the rest of the country.)

posted by Quiddity at 12/26/2003 05:25:00 PM

Kaus' willful ignorance:

In Kausfiles, we read:

In Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Alan Murray declares that McCain-Feingold "doesn't work." Why? Because a heretofore unkown [sic] group, Americans for Justice, Healthcare and Progressive Values, has run TV ads denouncing Howard Deans's lack of foreign policy experience, etc. .... Why were these ads so outrageous? a) They raised perfectly valid points. b) They weren't last-minute attacks--the election is weeks away. c) Their backers are suspected of being Gephardt-friendly, but the ads doen't [sic] seem to have been coordinated with the Gephardt campaign. And d) perhaps because of (c), the ads don't seem to have been at all effective.

But the well known outrage was this, as reported by DKos:

Just did an extensive search into the sordid career of the 'Honorable' Edward F. Feighan, President of the Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values. This is the group that ran the attack ad on Howard Dean featuring Osama bin Laden's picture.

Kaus. A disappointment. Again.

And he's a bad speller!

posted by Quiddity at 12/26/2003 12:07:00 PM

Bush in 15 words:

Calpundit has an interesting post about Blair's recent frustration in dealing with the president. In the comments section, Derelict had this to say about Bush:

... his entire life has been one continuous series of unearned honors, privileges, and financial rewards ...

A perfect summary.

posted by Quiddity at 12/23/2003 06:48:00 PM

How not to do it:

Gallop Poll Surveying American Attitudes Towards Homosexual Unions What is your general attitude towards homosexuals? NO OPINION YUCK THEY"RE DISGUSTING DON"T CARE (AS LONG AS THEY STAY IN THE CLOSET) This whole AIDS thing is really the fault of gays misbehaiving, right? NO OPINION YOU BET PROBABLY IT'S NOT ALL THEIR FAULT Should Gay Pride Day be celebrated not once a year, but on the 2nd Saturday of each month? NO OPINION NO YES, IF THE PERVERTS WANT TO, BUT NOT IN MY CITY Should gays be allowed to visit elementary schools for show-and-tell, with the topic of S/M and B/D sex play? NO OPINION HELL NO YES, IF ONLY TO PREVENT AN EXPENSIVE ACLU LAWSUIT Which is more disgusting, two men kissing in public, or butch lesbians wearing flannel shirts and work overalls? NO OPINION TWO MEN KISSING LESBIAN / FLANNEL Do you support a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage? NO OPINIONYES NO

posted by Quiddity at 12/23/2003 08:31:00 AM

Campaign 2004 violence watch:

A week ago we wrote:

..... we boldly make the following prediction:

There will be at least one major act of violence against the Democratic candidate(s) for president.

And we mean life-threatening violence. Like attempted murder.

That was because of the already red-hot rhetoric that is swirling around. And we at uggabugga got a lot of static for that prediction.

We expected the first signs of that to come from the right, but the left is also reacting to the zeitgeist. On the progressive radio program Background Briefing (heard on Los Angeles' KPFK this Sunday) a caller said of Bush: (audio link)

"Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we really need him?"

Now most of this is just braggadocio, but we remain concerned about what may unfold in 2004.

(.wav file 1meg, will be removed after one week)

posted by Quiddity at 12/21/2003 08:09:00 PM

Dr. Krauthammer reviving a discarded practice:

Over at the Howler, there are some good observations about Charles Krauthammer inappropriately using his medical degree to "diagnose" Howard Dean. What Krauthammer has done is inexcusable, but not original. From Presidential Campaigns Paul F. Boller Jr. 1984, 1985 Third printing

Chapter Twenty-Eight
1896
McKinley, Bryan, and Free Silver

Page 176

Bryan and the Alienists

Bryan was the first presidential candidate to attract the attention of professional psychologists (or "aliensts" as they were then called). On September 27, the New York Times published an editorial entitled "Is Mr. Bryan crazy?" The Times thought he was and as proof presented a list of extravagant statements Bryan had made in the campaign. "No one," said the editors, "can look through it without feeling that these are not adaptations of intelligent reason to intelligent ends." The same issue of the Times featured a letter by "an eminent alienst" announcing that an analysis of Bryan's speeches led inescapably to the conclusion that the Democratic candidate was unbalanced and that if he won the election there would be a "a madman in the White House."

The eminent alienst's letter touched off an orgy of polemical psychologizing about Bryan. On September 29 the Times published a series of interviews with New York psychologists with the heading, "Is Mr. Bryan a Mattoid?" The next day there were more interviews and a new headline: "Paranoid or Mattoid?" Most of the psychologists interviewed regarded Bryan as mentally unfit, though they could not agree on the technical epithet: megalomania, delerium, mattoid, paranoia querulenta, querulent logorrhoea, graphomania, paranoia reformatoria. Admonished one psychologist: "We must rid our minds of the idea that Mr. Bryan is ordinarily crazy ... But I should like to examine him for a degenerate." Another professional thought paranoia was much too good for Bryan. "I do not think," he said solemnly, "that he was ever of large enough caliber to think clearly and consecutively. His mental territory is not sufficiently extensive. A sophomore at City College has a better education. To accuse him of paranoia is to flatter him, in as much as a paranoiac may have a large organization, even if perverted."

Footnote for the above is 30. In the Notes portion of the book, 30 is: Werner, Bryan, 108-109; Jones, Election of 1896, 306.

---

Chapter Forty-Five
1964
Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society

Page 318

Psychopolitics

Goldwater's sanity, like Bryan's in 1896 and T.R.'s in 1912 was partisanly called into question. The magazine Fact polled 12,356 psychiatrists on the question "Is Barry Goldwater psychologically fit to be president of the United States?" Only 2,417 replied: 1,189 said "No," 657 said "Yes," and 571 said they didn't know enough about it to answer. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association dismissed Fact's poll as yellow journalism and criticized the editor for trying to pass off the personal political opinions of psychiatrists as therapeutic exercise.

Footnote for the above is 36. In the Notes portion of the book, 36 is: Faber, Road to White House, 206.

posted by Quiddity at 12/20/2003 11:24:00 AM

Where was George?

We have absolutely no evidence to support our view, but we thought we'd share some observations.

• George Bush was informed Saturday afternoon that there was a good chance Saddam would be captured in a military operation later that evening.
  
  
• When the capture was announced on Sunday morning, two hours later Tony Blair came out and issued a statement.
  
  
• That same morning, journalists were wondering why it was taking the president so long to come out and talk to the nation.
  
  
• When Bush finally did appear (a little after noon), his remarks were brief, he did not interact with the press, and he didn't seem to be particulary engaged.
  
  
• However, the next morning Bush was more in control and handled questions reasonably well in a press conference.

Was Bush waiting until Saddam's identity was confirmed? That didn't stop Tony Bliar.

We get the feeling that Bush did something Saturday night. Celebrate avenging his dad's nemesis? Celebrate the occcupation's progress? And after that he was out-of-sorts and had to be prepped merely to get out there for 5 minutes on Sunday.

But he sobered up (or whatever) and was briefed and ready by the next morning.

Again, there is nothing to prove this, but we were struck by the press' comments about why Bush was taking so long to address the nation, and a review of all the events does lead to the suspicion that Bush was non compos mentis for a while.

posted by Quiddity at 12/18/2003 04:34:00 AM

Moral equivalence watch:

We read Tom Friedman's execrable column today and were struck by these words he wrote:

I believe the French president, Jacques Chirac, knows something in his heart: in the run-up to the Iraq war, George Bush and Tony Blair stretched the truth about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — but they were not alone. Mr. Chirac also stretched the truth about his willingness to join a U.N.-led coalition against Iraq if Saddam was given more time and still didn't comply with U.N. weapons inspections. I don't believe Mr. Chirac ever intended to go to war against Saddam, under any circumstances. So history will record that all three of these leaders were probably stretching the truth — but with one big difference: George Bush and Tony Blair were stretching the truth in order to risk their own political careers to get rid of a really terrible dictator. And Jacques Chirac was stretching the truth to advance his own political career by protecting a really terrible dictator.

Tom, there's a big difference between stretching the truth in order to take a country to war, and stretching the truth in other matters.

To make the point clear, let's do a rewrite of Frideman's words:

I believe the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, knows something in his heart: in the run-up to the World War II, Hitler stretched the truth about Poland's aggression against Germany - but he was not alone. Mr. Chamberlain also stretched the truth about the Munich accord bringing "peace in our time". I don't believe Mr. Chamberlain ever intended to press Poland for concessions, under any circumstances. So history will record that both of these leaders were probably stretching the truth - but with one big difference: Hitler was stretching the truth in order to risk his own political career to bring a new order to Europe. And Neville Chamberlain was stretching the truth to advance his own political career by protecting the authoritarian and stubborn Polish leadership.

posted by Quiddity at 12/18/2003 04:06:00 AM

Quick thought about the morning-after pill:

We read in the New York Times:

Opponents of the morning-after pill, including religious groups, told panel members that over-the-counter sales could encourage irresponsible sexual behavior.

But Dr. W. David Hager of the University of Kentucky, one of four committee members who voted against the motion, said he was worried about the implications for sexual behavior. Dr. Hager said Plan B would have a similar effect to the birth control pill, which he said ushered in "a new day and age for the expression of sexuality among young people."

If sexual behavior bothers the conservatives, then regulate sexual behavior, not the ancillary components related to sex. On the highways, we regulate speeding. We don't require that the car's engine sieze up at 90 MPH. Conservatives should instead:

• Consider a voucher program for sex. You get 10 vouchers each year (unless married) and turn one in each time you have sex. Penalty for a no-voucher encounter: $100.
  
  
• Or simply outlaw sex before marriage.
  
  
• Institute a Hotline so that people can report unlawful sexual activity.

That sort of thing. If conservatives really believe that letting people choose for themselves leads to "irresponsible sexual behavior", then by all means propose limiting that behavior, and shun the inefficient method of banning a morning-after pill.

posted by Quiddity at 12/17/2003 04:01:00 PM

Brooks - crap =

Howard Dean is the only guy who goes to the Beverly Hills area for a gravitas implant. He went to the St. Regis Hotel, a mile from Rodeo Drive, to deliver a major foreign policy speech, and suddenly Dr. Angry turned into the Rev. Dull and Worthy.

The guy who has been inveighing against the Iraq war as the second coming of Vietnam spent his time talking about intelligence agency coordination as if he had been suckled at the Council on Foreign Relations. The guy who just a few days ago stood next to Al Gore as the former vice president called Iraq the worst mistake in American history has suddenly turned sober.

Sure, he did get off a classic Deanism. He conceded that the capture of Saddam had made American soldiers safer, but, unwilling to venture near graciousness, he continued, "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

Still, the speech was respectable and serious. Coming on the same day as President Bush's hastily called news conference, it affords us the opportunity to compare the two men's approaches to the war on terror.

And indeed, there is one big difference. George Bush fundamentally sees the war on terror as a moral and ideological confrontation between the forces of democracy and the forces of tyranny. Howard Dean fundamentally sees the war on terror as a law and order issue. At the end of his press conference, Bush uttered a most un-Deanlike sentiment:

"I believe, firmly believe — and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it — that freedom is the almighty God's gift to every person — every man and woman who lives in this world. That's what I believe. And the arrest of Saddam Hussein changed the equation in Iraq. Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."

Bush believes that God has endowed all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the most important of which is liberty. Every time he is called upon to utter an unrehearsed thought, he speaks of the war on terror as a conflict between those who seek to advance liberty to realize justice, and those who oppose the advance of liberty: radical Islamists who fear religious liberty, dictators who fear political liberty and reactionaries who fear liberty for women.

Furthermore, Bush believes the U.S. has a unique role to play in this struggle to complete democracy's triumph over tyranny and so drain the swamp of terror.

Judging by his speech yesterday, Dean does not believe the U.S. has an exceptional role to play in world history. Dean did not argue that the U.S. should aggressively promote democracy in the Middle East and around the world.

Instead, he emphasized that the U.S. should strive to strengthen global institutions. He argued that the war on terror would be won when international alliances worked together to choke off funds for terrorists and enforce a global arms control regime to keep nuclear, chemical and biological materials away from terror groups.

Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson. He is not a mushy idealist who dreams of a world government. Instead, he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.

The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral.

At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible.

In the world Dean describes, people, other than a few bizarre terrorists, would be working together if not for Bush. In the Dean worldview, all problems are matters of technique and negotiation.

Dean tried yesterday to show how sober and serious he could be. In fact, he has never appeared so much the dreamer, so clueless about the intellectual and cultural divides that really do confront us and with which real presidents have to grapple.  

OTHER THOUGHTS ON BROOKS: See Pandagon and Roger Ailes

posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2003 11:08:00 PM

Church & state:

In the news:

President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

... though Bush has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states "undermine the sanctity of marriage" and could mean that "we may need a constitutional amendment."

"I do believe in the sanctity of marriage ...

In the dictionary:

sanc·ti·ty \Sanc"ti*ty\, n.; The state or quality of being sacred or holy; holiness; saintliness; moral purity; godliness.

Bush shouldn't support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He should instead, advocate the repeal of the First Amendment.


posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2003 10:39:00 PM

To our readers:

We are probably going to be blogging lightly for the next week or so. There's not much to talk about except Saddam - and we've had enough of that, thank you very much. We know the basics:

Saddam was captured by the 4th ID. He was hiding in a hole. There may be more violence in the immediate future. Or maybe less. The U.S. and the world will argue about the trial of Saddam. He had lice in his hair. Bush's approval numbers have gone up. Dean is being attacked by everybody - because the capture of Saddam makes all his arguments against the war invalid. Joe Lieberman is more hawkish than Bush, Wolfowitz, and even Perle. Rush Limbaugh now has something to talk about for months. Saddam didn't "go down fighting like a man." He drove a taxi. The trial of Saddam might take place near election time. And so on.

But do we have to endure Saddam's face on the cover of Time, all the newspapers, and even on the local morning news?

Enough already!

posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2003 02:18:00 PM

At a military theater near you:

posted by Quiddity at 12/15/2003 06:38:00 AM

Remember:



Dead men tell no tales.

posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2003 05:27:00 AM

What to watch for in 2004:

Twenty minutes into the first hour of Rush Limbaugh's program this Friday a caller was talking about how the Bush administration will make sure Haliburton won't rip off the country. Limbaugh agreed and then talked about how the ultra left wants to make a big deal about these sorts of things. Then the subject moved to the left and Dean. At which point Limbaugh said:

Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen.

That's the rationale of the Dean campaign.

We know that political speech is protected, but are there no limits? Can Limbaugh say anything about Dean? The assertion by Limbaugh that the Dean campaign will campaign on the theme that "Bush knew" is totally false. (Yes, we're aware of Dean's comments that Bush didn't pay enough attention to warnings, but that's different from a charge that Bush knew.)

This little episode today by Limbaugh has caused us to make up our mind on a subject we've been thinking about for a while.

We've seen over the last couple of years a vicious political debate. Exhibit A is Ann Coulter's Treason. Democrats are traitors, don't you know. And then there were the ads that tied Daschle with Saddam. And so on.

It's going to get worse as the presidential race heats up. The end result will be whole bunch of people enraged at the Democrats.

So, donning our Nostradamus hat, we boldly make the following prediction:

There will be at least one major act of violence against the Democratic candidate(s) for president.

And we mean life-threatening violence. Like attempted murder.

posted by Quiddity at 12/12/2003 11:09:00 AM

Slightly old news:

We missed this essay at the time, which appeared during the Thanksgiving weekend (but were reminded of it since it appears in this week's Washington Post Weekly edition). It's by Jim Hoagland, and it's about the decades-long attack on government (and bureaucracies). Called Dissing Government, it contains these observations: (excerpts)

The relentless and prolonged assault by politicians and the public on the competence and motives of their government bureaucracies is slowly but surely undermining democracy in the Americas and Europe.

That is the provocative thesis of an important new book, "Dismantling Democratic States," just published by Princeton University Press. Professor Ezra Suleiman shows that the phenomenon of bureaucracy-bashing perfected by recent U.S. presidents of both parties is rapidly spreading into European societies that once revered "neutral" civil servants as the guarantors of the nation-state's legitimacy.

Part of the value of Suleiman's book ... is to show that this is a culmination rather than a departure from trends that have been long building and that these trends follow the spread of mass media and marketing in all societies. The problem is not just Bush.

The Princeton professor also analyzes the demoralizing effect of the repeated descriptions of government ineffectiveness voiced by Bill Clinton and Al Gore to justify their campaign to overhaul the bureaucracy ...

posted by Quiddity at 12/11/2003 08:00:00 AM

Presidential ticket:

uggabugga doesn't endorse any Democratic candidate. Our position is ABB - Anybody But Bush. However, the recent attention given to Gore's endorsement of Dean and subsequent talk about a possible Dean/Clark ticket, forces us to admit:

We would love to see Clark debate Cheney.

The 2000 debate between Cheney and Lieberman was a real downer. And for so long Cheney has been given a free ride (most notably by Tim Russert of Meet the Press). We want to see Cheney grilled.

posted by Quiddity at 12/10/2003 12:05:00 AM

Compare and contrast: (excerpts from two news stories)

THEN (6 Nov 2002)

By a wide margin, voters approved movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to spend $550 million a year on after-school programs.

Bolstered by Schwarzenegger’s fame and $1 million of his money, the measure attracted the endorsements of police chiefs, district attorneys and business leaders around the state.

The League of Women Voters and the California Federation of Teachers led the opposition, arguing that Prop. 49 would take away the Legislature’s flexibility to use taxpayer money for other needs, like health care and environmental programs.

"Of course we regret the fact that it looks like it’s winning," said Trudy Schafer, Program Director for the League of Women Voters before the final results were tallied. "But we had a goal of educating the public to the kind of danger that Prop. 49 posed for funding of certain programs."

"There is going to be a real challenge to do the budget given this mandated spending," said Schafer.

Prop. 49 is the latest in a series of state propositions to call for allocating a percentage of the state’s general fund – the budget’s largest pot of unrestricted money – for a specific purpose.

NOW (9 Dec 2003)

In what may prove a dramatic reversal of a key campaign promise, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday he is considering suspending Proposition 98, the landmark school funding guarantee.

"We're working with, you know, the education community to see how we can work together, for them to help with us this budget crisis," Schwarzenegger said during an interview on CNN that aired Tuesday.

"To maybe have a suspension or to have some relief there so we can pull out of these next two years and then pay it back, maybe," Schwarzenegger said.

Proposition 98 was passed by voters statewide in 1988. It mandates that public schools – kindergarten through 12th grade and community colleges – receive about 40 percent of the state's revenues.

What a moron.

posted by Quiddity at 12/09/2003 11:37:00 PM

There are no Republican criminals on NBC:

We watched NBC's Today show this morning and were stunned. In a two minute twelve second report on Bill Janklow's conviction for manslaughter - which contained almost a minute of the political past and future of Janklow and South Dakota

the word "Republican" was never used

Don't believe us? Listen to the (1 meg) .wav file here.

Is this a big deal? Not really, but it contradicts the claims by Bernie Goldberg that the mainstream media is quick to tar conservatives and Republicans.

(Due to storage limitations, the audio file will be deleted after a couple of weeks.)

posted by Quiddity at 12/09/2003 07:49:00 AM

Heard on the radio:

This morning on the Laura Ingraham radio show, she was discussing Howard Dean with Rich Lowrey of the National Review. They were agreeing that Al Gore is "loony left" and that Dean is also a leftist. About Dean, Rich Lowrey said: (quoting from memory, no transcript or audio available)

All those years he's been masquerading as a centrist up in Vermont.

Well, there you have it. No matter what any Democrat does, according to right-wing radio, if it looks good, it's merely a masquerade.

posted by Quiddity at 12/09/2003 07:26:00 AM

Connected:

GORE
SORE
SORT
PORT
PART
PERT
PEST
TEST
TEAT
TEAL
DEAL
DEAN

Or as animation:

NOTE: We're not particularly happy with some of the words in the chain (e.g. TEAT, PEST, SORE) but we did this in a hurry, and it's not easy to find words to make the transition between a consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel word (GORE) and a consonant-vowel-vowel-consonant word (DEAN) in single-letter steps.

UPDATE: We were pretty sure this post would generate some responses, and it did. A better chain was suggested by:

Kevin GORE GONE DONE HONE HOPE HOSE LOSE LOST MOST MOAT BOAT BEAT BEAM BEAD LEAD LEAN DEAN

Phil GORE PORE PORT PERT PEAT BEAT BEAN DEAN

Michael GORE TORE TORT TOOT LOOT LOON LOAN LEAN DEAN

John (computer assisted!) GORE MORE MORN MOAN LOAN LEAN DEAN

Peter (these are dictionary words) GORE LORE LORN LARN DARN DERN DEAN

posted by Quiddity at 12/09/2003 03:38:00 AM

How much time did Russert devote to Hillary in 2004?

We watched Tim Russert interview Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press and it seemed like he was spending a fair amount of time on the Hillary-in-'04 theme. So we looked at the transcript, and here's the breakdown (by words spoken by both Russert and Clinton).



One-eighth of the interview was about Hillary in '04 - something that's not going to happen. That time could have been devoted to real issues, like the Medicare prescription drug benefit - which Sen. Clinton voted against

posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2003 08:05:00 PM

Spread the word!

This just in (NYTimes as reported on Yahoo):

Medicare Plan for Drug Costs Bars Insurance

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs under the new Medicare bill to be signed on Monday by President Bush, the legislation says.

Millions of Medicare beneficiaries have bought private insurance to fill gaps in Medicare. But a little-noticed provision of the legislation prohibits the sale of any Medigap policy that would help pay drug costs after Jan. 1, 2006, when the new Medicare drug benefit becomes available.

This is one of many surprises awaiting beneficiaries, who will find big gaps in the drug benefit and might want private insurance to plug the holes just as they buy insurance to supplement Medicare coverage of doctors' services and hospital care.

Congress cited two reasons for banning the sale of Medigap drug policies. Lawmakers wanted to prevent duplication of the new Medicare benefit. They also wanted to be sure that beneficiaries would bear some of the cost.

And how!

• First of all, those with medigap insurance are bearing the cost. Insurance is about redistributing risks, not evading costs (incurred by the pool of insured).
  
  
• Second, it means it's impossible to get coverage for the no-benefit-range when drug costs are between $2,200 and $4,800. Therefore, seniors will face the possibility of paying out-of-pocket amounts up to (and occasionally beyond) $3,600.
  
  
• Third, there are some drugs that will be classified as "non reimbursable", which means if you are unlucky to need them, you will have to pay for them yourself (and these drugs cannot be covered by secondary insurance either).
  
  
• Finally, the Medicare drug plan does have an insurance aspect to it - since seniors will be paying $420 annually in premiums. As Gregg Easterbrook has written:

  ... the $420 premium pays for the $1,444 reimbursement that a senior otherwise wouldn't get ...

  But to compliment that, the 30% of seniors with drug costs under $830/yr will be paying more than if there were no drug plan at all.

PREDICTION: It's always risky to predict the future, but this Medicare bill is looking more and more like bad news for the Republicans.

ADDENDU M: Vox Populi (from the message thread on Yahoo associated with this story)

	age according to Yahoo profile
LINK	38	Seniors Screwed I thought this bill was supposed to help all seniors with the cost of prescription drugs. It seems it will cost seniors more money once they lose their gap coverage which several of my older relatives now buy. The big winners here are the drug manufacturers and large pharmacy chains. I am dumbstruck by the assertion that buying gap insurance is so that seniors bear some of the cost as the insurance they buy is not free and many cannot take on this extra burden. This is your classic money grab by the rich for the rich because they think they are the only ones who deserve money besides bush is in power and now they can steal legally.
LINK	55	Re: Seniors Screwed I agree with you 100%.That is exactly why I dropped my membership in AARP.I couldn't believe they were supporting such a horrible bill.
LINK	56	Re: Seniors Screwed I think we need to start an association that will supplant AARP and will truly represent people over 55!! Anybody willing to help get such an organization going? My e-mail address is on my profile. Write me!
LINK	52	Hey, Thanks........................ for screwing the little guy once again congress. Rich Congressmen have free health care & poor seniors are forced to choose between eating & taking their medications. Its sad, truly sad!
LINK		Re: Seniors Screwed Check out http://www.retiredamericans.org/ , which has already trashed AARP for their double-cross of senior citizens. As others have pointed out, AARP basically exists for selling seniors their own insurance policies, so anyone who thinks that they are a "senior advocacy" organization has already found out that they are anything-but. We will be cancelling our AARP membership, and have already called them to complain about their behind-closed-doors endorsement of the Republican Medicare bill. I can only hope the huge number of senior citizens votes with a vengence to throw the GOP bast*rds out of office and return them to minority party status in Congress and to defeat Dubya, who is perhaps the worst, dumbest, most partisan President in the history of the United States.
LINK		Exactly WHO did these bill benefit ....and why would a thinking person vote for it ....man, we need smarter, pac-free politicians.
LINK		BUSH invented making grandma cry! So grandma, you need some athritis medicine and can't afford it with the medicare changes and want to get insurance to cover the gap? Tough crap grandma, your boy Bush just shagged you rotten! Just look at the benefits grandma. You croak faster and your less of a burden on social security. Vote for Bush and its a vote for four more years of making your grandma cry!
LINK	28	Thanks for rushing the bill through, W You've just pissed off about every voting senior and guaranteed that you won't get reelected, saving the country another four years of government by, for, and of the highest bidder. Adios, @$$hole!
LINK		REMEMBER: BUSH & GOP WROTE THIS BILL in closed door sessions that excluded the Democrats in Congress. They did it for the benefit of the pharm-HMO-insurance industries who bribed them to do so. They did it under Bush's direct orders. Then they bribed, threatened and strong armed the bill through Congress. So seniors, focus that rage on Bush and the GOP in Nov. 2004 like they deserve. Vote the bastards out of office. Vote for Dr. Dean and a Dem Congress and you will get the medicare plan you deserve and need and already paid for. When you are looking for someone to blame for this atrocity- blame those responsible for it Bush and the GOP Congress. They don't care about you or any other American, all they care about is paying off the bribes they got in the form of "campaign contributions" from industry. Yes you definitely got screwed GOP/Bush style. Now get even.
LINK		Re: The way I see it I really get tired of people slinging the word *entitlement* around as a euphemism for welfare...this is lingo that Reagan/Bush invented to start divisiveness between the older and younger generations. The truth is Social Security, Medicare, and Disability are mandatory insurance policies that I have paid into all of my life before I became disabled..THEY ARE NOT *entitlements*! Welfare and Food Stamps are welfare and they go to about 5% of our entire population and 80% of that 5% are children. Get off the *blame the other citizen* game that the GOP has been pushing for years to gain more and more power. And remember, a vote for anyone other than a Democrat is a vote for the GOP...they enjoyed funding Nader and the Green Party in 2000 and they'll do it everytime they can to win at any cost.
LINK		Put the bastards in washington on medic Put the bastards in washington on the medicare and social secruity that I've paid for for fifty five years and you see a bunch of changes in the system. Instead they draw an outrages retirement and have a great medical system that I also paid for. Those worthless bastards never earned a clean dollar in their lives, but continue living on the dole of the hard working honest people like myself. I think it is time some BIG, major changes were made.
LINK		Get it Yet? Bush is screwing you When will all the neocons realize that Bush is screwing EVERYONE except his big money special interest friends.
LINK		This is why they snuck this bill in... in the dark of night and pushed it through with promises and threats from the repub "leadership". You just watch, there will be more bombshells as people finally are able to read this bill and see what a load of crap it is. This bill will kill seniors, pure and simple. Vote Repubs out in 2004, please, please, please. Signed by a primary care physician in California.

posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2003 12:28:00 AM

Someone suggested this:

Go to Google, type in "miserable failure" , then hit the "Feeling Lucky" button.

posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2003 04:20:00 AM

Rush Limbaugh - doing the right thing:

Yes, you read that right. Rush Limbaugh is doing exactly what we hoped he'd do. In the news:

Limbaugh Pokes Fun at Pain-Killer Probe

Yes!   Insult the authorities!

And not only that, but a couple of weeks ago Limbaugh reproduced on his website a Free Republic post that (humorously*) compared his under=$10,000 financial transactions to driving just under the speed limit (Rush's page is now behind a subscription wall, but post can be read here). You see, that means Rush was an ultra-law abider, just like someone who never speeds.

That will certainly go down well with the team looking into his money laundering.

We heartily encourage Limbaugh to continue doing this sort of thing, especially if he decides to make personal attacks part of his plan.

Go Rush!

* - at least it was supposed to be humorous

BTW, there is a pretty good short post on a Yahoo message thread tied to the "Pokes Fun" story.

Oh, and while we're at it, don't forget that Bush is reported (by Drudge) to have said, "Rush is a great American."

Perhaps that's why he's not in jail, just like Ken Lay. Great Americans, don't you know.

posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2003 03:48:00 AM

Republicans want to roll back the New Deal ... every vestige of it:

From the Washington Times:

GOP wants to kick FDR off the dime

WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 (UPI) -- A group of Republican congressmen is campaigning to replace Franklin Delano Roosevelt's image on the dime with that of Ronald Reagan.

The Los Angeles Daily News said Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the legislation to replace the Democratic architect of the New Deal from all future 10-cent coins.

About 80 lawmakers, all Republicans, have signed as co-sponsors of the Ronald Reagan Dime Act.

But the News said Republicans, perhaps anticipating a strong Democratic reaction, say they would be willing to share the dime. Souder said he'd be open to the idea of rotating images of both Roosevelt and Reagan on the coin.

If it chooses to do so, the U.S. Mint could put Reagan on a coin within months of his death. Reagan is 92 and suffers from Alzheimer's disease.

ANd from the Pasadena (CA) Star News:

... Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., has proposed the Reagan Dime Act, which according to a Souder spokesman was fueled by Republican outrage at the CBS miniseries "The Reagans.

posted by Quiddity at 12/04/2003 09:11:00 AM

Five paragraphs:

Body and Soul has an excellent post about Texas Tests and the Test-takers who Take Them. Be sure to read the 'standard' five paragraph essay. (Our favorite paragraph is the 2^nd one.)

posted by Quiddity at 12/03/2003 07:44:00 PM

Kaus relief:

There is a post in Slate's Fray (by Iron_Lungfish) about Mickey Kaus that is well worth reading. In fact, it's a Fray Editor Pick!

posted by Quiddity at 12/02/2003 10:56:00 PM