We're speechless:

Let's see what's been in the news lately ...

• President Bush to appear before 9/11 Commission jointly with Vice-President Dick Cheney. The same Cheney who helped head up the search for a running mate for Bush in 2000.
  
  
• Republicans complaiing about Kerry's use of scripture.
  
  
• Bush senior defends his son in tearful speech

  An emotional former President George Bush, senior, has defended his son's Iraq war and lashed out at White House critics.
  
  It was "deeply offensive and contemptible" to hear "elites and intellectuals on the campaign trail" dismiss progress in Iraq since last year's overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the elder Bush said ...
  
  The former president appeared to fight back tears as he complained about media coverage of the younger Bush that he called "something short of fair and balanced."
  
  "It hurts an awful lot more when it's your son that is being criticised than when they used to get all over my case," said Bush, who has often complained about media coverage of both Bush presidencies.

And we're supposed to come up with satire for this sort of stuff? Or point out the inanity of the situation?

If Americas don't see how absurd the Republicans are, then they deserve the government they've got.

posted by Quiddity at 3/31/2004 05:17:00 AM

In the news:

Bush Campaign Blasts Kerry's Bible Quote

Kerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at "our present national leadership." Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?"

"The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Kerry said. "When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?"

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry's comment "was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack."





posted by Quiddity at 3/29/2004 03:32:00 AM

Essential reading:

And we do mean essential reading. Tom Tomorrow on why you can't be sure of any "facts" you encounter while reading the New York Times Op-Ed pages.

posted by Quiddity at 3/28/2004 11:38:00 PM

Talking point:

Partial list -

Rice	CBS' "60 Minutes"	March 28	.. when we went to Camp David to plan our response to the al Qaeda attack; it was a map of Afghanistan that was rolled out on the table.
Rice	Interview by Network Correspondents	March 24	We go to Camp David. It's the map of Afghanistan that we roll out, not the map of Iraq.
Rice	NBC's "Today"	March 22	I can tell you that when we got to Camp David, it was a map of Afghanistan that was unrolled on the table ...
Rice	CBS' "Early Show."	March 22	... when we got to Camp David on Sept. 15, it was a map of Afghanistan that was spread out on the table ...
Rice	ABC's "Good Morning America"	March 22 *	... at Camp David, the first thing that we did was to roll out a map of Afghanistan...
Rice	CNN's "American Morning"	March 22	... the meeting that Dick Clarke, of course, missed -- or was not invited to -- was at Camp David, when I can tell you that we rolled out a map, not of Iraq, but a map of Afghanistan.
s
McClellan	Press Briefing	March 22	... at the National Security Council meeting, what happened? There was a map that was unrolled on the table, and it was a map of Afghanistan.

* - no press report or transcript could be found for this quote. This is our own audio clip taken from ABC's morning program. (Yes, we tape a lot of stuff.)

In developing this post, we searched the web and individual websites looking for Rice's statement this past week. Imagine our surprise, then, when we encountered this photo and caption in a story from September of 2001

ABC News story for 29 September 2001

September 29 - President Bush receives a briefing with CIA Director George Tenent at Camp David. A map of Afganistan is on the table. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andy Card also attended. (Eric Draper/White House Photo)

OUR COMMENTARY: It strikes us as mindless to point to a thing - and not a particularly notable thing at that (a map on a table) - and hope that addresses concerns about policies discussed, promoted, and implemented. Rather childish, we think.

Grown-ups in charge? Nah.

NOTE: Rice was on Fox & Friends early last week (22 March?), and (we believe) also on Hannity sometime later. So she might have mentioned a "map on the table" a couple more times than our list indicates. Unfortunately, we can't find transcripts or audio for those events.

UPDATE: We checked, and in Condoleezza Rice's Washington Post Op-Ed of 22 March, she does not mention maps being rolled out onto tables. There is no mention of maps at all.

posted by Quiddity at 3/28/2004 10:49:00 PM

The doctor apparently can't count:

From the New York Post, we read the following: (excerpts, emphasis added)

... Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) slammed Clarke ...

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said.

Frist, who has reviewed some of the still-classified material, quoted Clarke as having said: "The [Bush] administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office."

Clarke, who served under both Bush presidents and President Bill Clinton, claims he provided dire warnings to the Bush White House in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks but that little was done.

posted by Quiddity at 3/27/2004 10:33:00 PM

And while the battle between Clarke and the White House rages on:

Here is a chart of the continuing carnage in Iraq, derived from the information provided by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count website:


Seems like we've moved rather quickly from 500 to nearly 600.

posted by Quiddity at 3/27/2004 07:18:00 AM

This is your president speaking:

In an appearance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, president Bush said the following: (emphasis added)

First, our economy is growing: It's strong and it's getting stronger. Secondly, inflation is low, and interest rates are low. Manufacturing activity is up. The unemployment rate today is lower than the average rate in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. New Mexico's unemployment rate is 5.7 percent, down from 6 percent a year ago. Things are improving. Things are getting better. Thanks to being the most productive work force in America -- and I might say thanks to good policies -- this economy is strong, and it's getting stronger.

We think Bush meant to say "the most productive work force in the world", but was he really saying that the work force in New Mexico is "the most productive work force in America"?   Presidents are loathe to show regional preferences (just look at the waffling over which sports team the White House roots for), so it seems unlikely Bush was touting New Mexico as the pinnacle of productivity. So file this as yet another Bushism - subcategory: subject-object-reversal (derived from "America is the most productive work force").

posted by Quiddity at 3/27/2004 06:40:00 AM

Be careful what you ask for:

Remember a little over a year ago when there was a furor over Trent Lott's warm remarks about Strom Thurmond?

At the time, the blogosphere was active (both on the left and by some on the right like Andrew Sullivan) and credited with helping remove Lott from his position as Majority Leader of the Senate. As the time, we had reservations - not because we endorsed Lott's statements - but because we saw the affair more as an opportunity for the White House to put their man - Bill Frist - into a leadership position in the Senate. The White House and right-wingers were, on the whole, dissatisfied with Lott because he wasn't aggressive enough for their cause. They wanted a change. And if the "good government" blogosphere got credit, that had the advantage of disguising the real power being exercised. (Ask yourself, since then has a similar blogosphere effort had any effect on the leadership in the House or Senate?)

And that brings us to the recent remarks by Bill Frist about Richard Clarke:

... I do not know if Mr. ClarkeÂ’s motive for theses charges is partisan gain, personal profit, self promotion, or animus because of his failure to win a promotion in the Bush Administration.

In his appearance before the 9-11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation.

Would Trent Lott have said something like that? We think not.

posted by Quiddity at 3/27/2004 05:50:00 AM

Worth saving:

As part of our general research and pack-rat activities, we've often saved news stories about the Bush administration. Those stories have always been from newspapers or journalistic entities like Salon or Slate. We've never saved blogger posts.

Until today.

Josh Marshall's TPM has an excellent (and disturbing) post on the attacks against Richard Clarke and the egregious behavior of senator Bill Frist. Majority Leader no less. What Frist did today was truly reckless, and Marshall calls him on it. The whole affair, and TPM's summary of it, was so remarkable that we felt we had to have a local copy of Josh's post.

posted by Quiddity at 3/26/2004 10:36:00 PM

How to evade answering a question:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has this to say in response to charges that he sought authority to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11:

"I can't find anybody who knows me who thinks that I go around insisting to the president that he do something like that."

"Nor can I find anyone who was around during that period in senior levels who thinks that I even might have done something like that."

So, the next time somebody asks you if you did something you shouldn't, just say, "I can'f find anybody who thinks I did it."



posted by Quiddity at 3/26/2004 09:33:00 AM

Loopy:

There has been a lot of chit-chat over whether Clarke was "in the loop" or not. This reminds us of when Bush Sr. claimed he was "out of the loop" vis-a-vis Iran-Contra. Our view is that the expression "out of the loop" is practically meaningless. It has no firm definition. Does it mean "not involved at all" or does it mean "not primarily involved" or does it mean "partially involved but not a decision-maker"?

It is far better to say things that have clear meaning , for example: "He was not part of the policy-making apparatus" or "He was the responsible agent for program X". Those things can be answered without reference to the subjective concept of "in the loop".

posted by Quiddity at 3/25/2004 04:19:00 PM

Worth reading:

While we share Richard Clarke's view that the Bush administration did not do enough on terrorism prior to 9/11, we think people should be careful, and not automatically endorse 100% of what he's saying. In that vein, we suggest reading the article in Time magazine: Richard Clarke, at War With Himself.

UPDATE: We see that Political Animal (aka Calpundit) thinks the Time article has serious problems. We agree that some of what Romesh Ratnesar wrote is foolish, but we also think he's on to something when he asserts that Clarke is not the dispassionate civil servant playing it totally straight.

We don't think this is a reason to dismiss Clarke, but we think it's important to understand where everybody is coming from in this debate. Clarke, in our opinion, has done a few things that may make him vulnerable to Republican attacks. Therefore, it is wise to embrace Clarke's criticism on policy, but one should be careful before embracing Clarke the man.

That said, we do think Clarke did a noble thing when he apologized to the families of the 9/11 victims. That alone, may have done more to establish his good name to the general public than his long-time servie as a counterterrorism official.

posted by Quiddity at 3/25/2004 10:15:00 AM

Vulnerable:

In the 9/11 Commission public hearing today, John Lehman challenged Richard Clarke?s credibility:

LEHMAN: Until I started reading those press reports, and I said this can't be the same Dick Clarke that testified before us, because all of the promotional material and all of the spin in the networks was that this is a rounding, devastating attack -- this book -- on President Bush. That's not what I heard in the interviews. And I hope you're going to tell me ... that this tremendous difference -- and not just in nuance, but in the stories you choose to tell -- is really the result of your editors and your promoters, rather than your studied judgment, because it is so different from the whole thrust of your testimony to us.

CLARKE: ... as to your accusation that there is a difference between what I said to this commission in 15 hours of testimony and what I am saying in my book ... I think there's a very good reason for that. In the 15 hours of testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq.

That's not convincing. Clarke's criticism of the Bush administration is not confined to the decision to invade Iraq. Clarke says there were problems with the administration's pre-9/11 anti-terrorisms actions and policies. So why didn't he make those views known in 15 hours of testimony? Something isn't right.

To clarify: There were six hours of testimony before a joing congessional committee - not the 9/11 panel - where Clarke, speaking as a member of the administration, presented the administration's position. Fair enough. But Lehman is referring to 15 hours of testimony before the 9/11 panel at a time when (presumably) Clarke is a private citizen, and would be expected to make his critical views known.

posted by Quiddity at 3/25/2004 01:04:00 AM

It's bad out there in right-wing radioland:

We've sampled some right-wing radio and they seem to have settled on three charges against Richard Clarke:

• He's making noise merely to peddle his book.
  
  
• He's a disgruntled bureaucrat unhappy with his demotion.
  
  
• He wants to work in a Kerry administration.

As noted below, the last two charges are completely false. But the right-wing radio will score points merely by repeating the same charges again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and againand again and again and again and again and again and again

posted by Quiddity at 3/24/2004 12:19:00 PM

This punk is also a liar:

We took a look at Ben Shapiro's latest piece of crap at Townhall.com. He writes:

• When Bush created the new Homeland Security Department, Clarke became the special adviser for cyberspace security. Dissatisfied with his new position, Clarke resigned in 2003.
  
  
• Clarke's statements will surely be seen for what they are: ... a possible shot at re-entering the bureaucracy in a John Kerry administration.
  
  
• [Joe] Wilson, like Clarke, is now seeking a permanent position in a Kerry administration ...

From the Salon interview with Richard Clarke:

Before Sept. 11, I was so frustrated with the way they were handling terrorism that I had asked to be reassigned to a different job. And the job I proposed was a job I helped to create -- a job to look at the nation's vulnerability to cyber-attack.

And from an interview on PBS' NewsHour this Monday:

If John Kennedy -- if John Kerry -- gets elected president, and if John Kerry offers me a job, I will not accept it. I don't want to be part of the Kerry administration. I've done 30 years in government. That's not what this is about.

posted by Quiddity at 3/24/2004 10:11:00 AM

Liar:

Scott McClellan said about Richard Clarke: (March 22, 2004)

Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made.

Fact: Clarke left the Bush administration in March 2003. One year ago. McClellan, most likely keying off of Clarke's resignation letter of 20 January 2003, is using that date to get to 14 months, which he then rounds up to one-and-a-half years.

A minor point, to be sure, but another example of how these guys are using every advantage they think they can muster in order to defend themselves.

If he thought he could get away with it, he'd round up to a decade.

posted by Quiddity at 3/24/2004 09:33:00 AM

Have you heard this one?

We were listening to our local AM talk radio (sorry, no audio clips available) and they were interviewing Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a FOX News Channel foreign affairs and terrorism analyst. In a discussion on Clarke's charge that Bush didn't act on the terrorism threat, he said:

• Clarke & Co. had outdated thinking.
  
• Clarke & Co. were focused overseas. No plan for an attack on the homeland. A new, more comprehensive plan was required.

the usual stuff, but then he said:

• The world changed when the USS Cole was attacked. That meant a new plan was required. (Wasn't the world supposed to have changed on 9/11? Now we learn there were two "world changing" events.)

and then he said ....

• The Bush administration had a slow start fighting terrorism because of the delay in settling the 2000 election.

Man, what a sorry excuse.

posted by Quiddity at 3/24/2004 09:14:00 AM

Where we're headed:



posted by Quiddity at 3/23/2004 11:46:00 PM

As long as we're doing timelines:

Reader T.A. directed us to a page at the Center for American Progress. It reviews the priorities and budget decisions for Clinton-Reno and for Bush-Ashcroft regarding counterterrorism.

Article: 9/11: Internal Government Documents Show How the Bush Administration Reduced Counterterrorism

Our diagram of how the policies relate in time and priorities:



posted by Quiddity at 3/22/2004 09:43:00 PM

Timeline:

Here are the key events prior to 9/11 as related by Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes:



UPDATE: Giving credit where credit is due. We were in a rush this morning and failed to credit Sadly No for the transcript of the 60 Minuts program which we used when creating the chart above. Also, thanks to Sisyphus Shrugged for first making us aware of said transcript.

posted by Quiddity at 3/22/2004 08:06:00 AM

This is no excuse:

In the 60 Minutes program on former counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, we hear the administration's view from Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice’s right-hand man in National Security Council. He says this about Clarke's accusation that the administration failed to act responsibly to the threat posed by al-Qaeda: (emphasis added)

I don't know what he's said about the prior administration, which, again, was in office and dealing with this problem for eight years. We were in office dealing with this problem for 230 days.

Low quality .wav file of that quote can be heard here.

posted by Quiddity at 3/21/2004 08:08:00 PM

John McCain isn't stark raving mad:

Althought you might think so judging from this image on the web page for Fox News Sunday:



John looks like he's staring down a cobra.

Our congratulations to the team at Fox News for providing us with a fair-minded picture of the senator.

posted by Quiddity at 3/20/2004 07:43:00 PM

Nice:

A friend sent us this graphic. We like it.

posted by Quiddity at 3/20/2004 01:27:00 AM

A change in mood?

On the one-year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, we were surprised to note the following:

On the local 11:00 news, a lead story that devoted several minutes to a young 21-year old widow of a soldire that died as a result of wounds received. She said on camera that she didn't think we should be in Iraq (but not stridently).

Also on the local news, a statement that 570 soldiers have died; of that total, 430 since the "mission accomplished" event.

An ABC Nightline program devoted to soldiers recovering from battlefield injuries. Injuries that caused them to lose one or more limbs. (Always a difficult thing to watch.)

These items are a contrast from the triumphalist rhetoric we had expected. (For example, while our television viewing was not extensive today, we didn't see any footage of Saddam's statue being pulled down.)

posted by Quiddity at 3/20/2004 12:02:00 AM

What about all the rest of them guys?

This Friday, Charles Krauthammer writes: (excerpts, emphasis added)

When confronting an existential enemy ... there are only two choices: appeasement or war.

In the 1930s Europe chose appeasement. Today Spain has done so again. Europe may follow.

Today there is no doubting the intentions of Arab-Islamic radicalism. It is not this grievance or that (U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia). It is not this territory or that (Palestine, Andalusia). The intention, endlessly repeated, is the establishment of a primitive, messianic caliphate -- redeeming Islam and dominating the world.

Spain will now withdraw from Iraq, sever its alliance with America

First of all, there was never an alliance in the generally understood definition that applies to states:

A formal agreement establishing such an association, especially an international treaty of friendship.

Second, why all the attention to Spain? Krauthammer asserts that radical Islam is out to dominate the world. So why isn't he spending more of his time critiquing most of Latin America, most of Asia, and virtually all of sub-Sahara Africa? At least Spain showed up for a while in Iraq, and it was involved in Afghanistan. Spain makes up 0.6% of the world population. They've done their share.

Krauthammer should direct his outrage elsewhere.


posted by Quiddity at 3/19/2004 03:49:00 PM

Dick Cheney speaks truthfully!

In a speech today at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Vice President Dick Cheney said this about Saddam Hussein:

... President Bush gave an ultimatum to the dictator -- to leave Iraq or be forcibly removed from power.

That's pretty much what it was all about, removing Hussein from power:

• Bush getting personal revenge.
  
  
• Fufilling the dreams of the Project for the New American Century
  
  

  ---

• Not about WMD
  
  
• Not about connections with al-Qaeda

posted by Quiddity at 3/17/2004 05:57:00 PM

If he were alive today:

posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2004 09:40:00 PM

Mr. President, who are these individuals you're referring to?

From the White House website:

Q Candidate Kerry has suggested he has support of world leaders. Do you think he should -- that should be a factor in the campaign? Was that an appropriate thing for him to say?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think it's -- if you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts.

STATEMENTS BY BUSH: (all we did was search for "talk" in his speeches and addresses in 2004 - you don't expect us to read them all, do you?)

• March 3, 2004     --    I talked to some people who I think would say, my life is changed because of a miracle.
  
  
• February 16, 2004     --    I just want to remind everybody that tax -- the child credit is going down next year. And if you listen to some of them talking out of Washington these days, that's fine with them.
  
  
• February 19, 2004     --    I've talked to a lot of small manufacturers who explained what it means to have their power disrupted as a result of an antiquated electricity grid.

TO BE CLEAR: The first item is cited because some people, like the "foreign leaders" Kerry referred to, may not want their identies known. As to the last item, we don't deny that manufacturers are concerned about reliable power, but we are skeptical that president Bush himself has "talked to a lot of small manufacturers" about the electric grid.

posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2004 08:00:00 PM

Good fun:

Check out this parody page:

Bush Wants Kerry to Identify Supporters So He Can Invade Them

posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2004 05:57:00 PM

CNN links to uggabugga's Bushisms Analyzed page:

BusinessWeek has a story on Bush's mangled syntax:

"Analyzating" Bush's Grey Matter
The President's tendency to mangle words and syntax may be due to an undiagnosed language and hearing disability, say some experts

The BusinessWeek article is linked to from a CNN page on "bushspeak" - which includes a link to our own analysis of Bush's use of language.

In the BusinessWeek story, we read:

To some learning-disability experts, the signs are clear: Bush might want to pay them a visit. These experts haven't tested the President, so they caution that they can't be certain of the diagnosis. Yet, ample signs indicate that something unusual is going on in the left side of his brain, where language and hearing are processed.

and

[One] reason [Bush has trouble speaking might be] something called central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). ...

According to an article on the Internet by Judith W. Paton, a San Mateo (Calif.) audiologist, CAPD is a physical hearing impairment that doesn't show up as hearing loss but rather affects hearing beyond the ear. In effect, the auditory nerves don't handle the raw data from the ear properly. It's usually found with a cluster of other symptoms. Among the tell-tale signs she cites: Confusion of similar sounding words, terse communications, better hearing when watching the speaker, and trouble hearing when it's noisy.

Well, maybe. All we can say is that when we analysed the Bushisms, we didn't find any clear pattern. Sure, there were sound-alike problems, but there were instances where the noun or verb was the opposite of what was called for (e.g. "at home" instead of "abroad"). There were even subject-object switches. And many other errors that don't fit into a pattern of auditory failure. The overall impression we got from the analysis was that Bush was a lazy speaker (and thinker).

But we're certainly interested in learning more about what ever it is that makes Bush speak the way he does. There are known special-function areas of the brain for visual processiong (e.g. edge filters), so perhaps there are similar special-function areas for language processing (hearing, thinking, and speaking). And maybe some of those are unusual in Bush (either congenital or from long-term alcohol consumption).

What we need to do to settle the matter, is have Bush's head in an NMR scanning device while he is being interviewed by Tim Russert. Wouldn't that be something? (While we're at it, let's scan Russert's head as well.)

posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2004 01:22:00 PM

This man is a disgrace:

William Safire writes today in the New York Times: (excerpts, emphasis added)

... Senator John Kerry, campaigning last week in Chicago, let loose with his opinion of Republicans opposing him as "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen."

Was it wise for a candidate for president to characterize Republicans - tens of millions of American voters, including even veterans - as thieves and liars?

[Safire writes of the] blunderbuss slander of Republicans as "the most crooked, you know, lying group"

... Kerry now revels in reviling millions of those crooked, lying Republicans.

That was not what Kerry was talking about. Kerry was not characterizing "tens of millions of American voters." Kerry was not engaged in "slander of Republicans." Kerry was not "reviling millions of ... Republicans."

Kerry is a smart politician and he would love to get Republican votes. He would not offend millions of potential voters.

Safire treats his readers as fools.



posted by Quiddity at 3/15/2004 05:30:00 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your National Security Advisor:

From the Meet the Press transcript of the interview with Condoleezza Rice: (emphasis added)

• ... after 9/11, the president was looking at a situation in which he was presented with an intelligence picture of a Saddam Hussein who had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons ...
  
  
• The international community had a serious credibility problem where it came to weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to enforce tough resolutions, and what the president and the coalition did was to rescue, really, that credibility ...
  
  
• [Iraq had] the most dangerous regime in the world's most dangerous region ...
  MR. RUSSERT: More dangerous than North Korea?
  I think more dangerous than North Korea ...
  
  
• The president wants to know, as much as anybody, and probably more than anyone else, what became of the weapons of mass destruction. We were all somewhat surprised that we have not yet found them.
  
  
• Did we know on September 10 that September 11 was imminent? No, we did not.
  
  
• The president, of course, is the president, and he does have a schedule to keep ...
  
  
• MR. RUSSERT: Will you testify under oath in public about September 11?
  Tim, this is not a matter of preference; this is a matter of principle. It has long been a legal and constitutional principle that assistants to the president, the presidential staff, do not testify before legislative bodies. But this is not a matter of preference. ... as a matter of principle, we cannot breach this wall between the legislature and the executive.

posted by Quiddity at 3/14/2004 05:17:00 PM

Funny:

Post on the Yahoo message board for this story:

Bush praises man in speech on women's rights - 03-12-2004
U.S. President George W. Bush has marked International Women's Week by paying tribute to women reformers -- but one of those he cited is really a man.

If Barbara Bush was your mother, you would not know the difference between a man or a woman either. People need to back off and recognize.... bush is a darn good president. I will vote for him again and I will vote for jeb too when he runs against tipper gore in 2008. I think jeb has a son that I would vote for too. I know jeb's brother marvin has presidential aspirations, so I will vote for him in 2016 when jeb's term runs out. By this time in election 2024, I will vote for jeb's kid. Not noelle, the crackhead first daughter of florida, but jeb's son, the rightful air to the family throne. By this time one of saddamm hussein's illegitimate sons will have taken over iraq and we can go ahead and fight gulf war III, Saddam's illigit grandson vs. Bush's great nephew. After this, the world will enjoy global peace .

posted by Quiddity at 3/14/2004 11:41:00 AM

Who is that guy?


There is a lot of talk about Bush's new negative ad that targets Senator John Kerry on the issue of fighting terrorists.

In particular, some are wondering who that suspicious fellow is supposed to be in the lowest rectangle (as shoen in this screenshot). Arab-Americans think the ad plays on ethnic stereotypes and want it pulled. Who might that shifty-eyed fellow be?

To find out, move your mouse over the image (Javascript enabled browsers).

posted by Quiddity at 3/11/2004 11:01:00 PM

Action - reaction:

Group Calls for Kerry to Apologize

By STAN PELSON Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON March 10 - The president of a national fraternal organization says Senator John Kerry should apologize for his remarks about Republican critics. On Wednesday, after an appearance with supporters at Chicago's Union Station, Kerry described his political opposition as "the most crooked ... lying group I've ever seen."

Henry Belston, president of the Fraternal Association of Crooks and Liars (FAOCAL) said that the statement by the senator was "totally uncalled for and an insult to thousands of Americans." The organization, FAOCAL, has in recent years tried to separate themselves from being associated with what they consider far worse examples of human behavior. "Look," said Mr. Belston, "We're crooks and liars and make no apologies for it. Since 1996 we've been running a campaign to define ourselves in the public's mind."

"But now Senator Kerry says his political opponents are just like us. That's outrageous. We may be crooks and liars, but we have a certain amount of respect for our craft. For instance, we think a lie has to be deployed carefully and with restraint in order to maintain its potency. Yet Bush and his political allies lie again and again and again - and that's just in five minutes time. Also, who the hell lies about WMD in order to start a war that doesn't even bring political benefits the aggressor? It doesn't make any sense. Please, don't associate crooks and liars with the White House. We may not be honorable, but at least we're competent."

The organization's leadership is expected to meet later this week and vote for a resolution calling on Kerry to apologize. However, there is some division within FAOCAL, and the vote will probably not be unanimous. Almost every member thinks that Bush is a sorry example of a liar, but hard-core crooks may abstain from the vote. That's because, in the words of one of them, "When it comes to crooked behavior, Dick Cheney has retired the trophy. You've got to be impressed by the man. He's got his fingers in every pie: Haliburton, the Iraqi War, outing CIA agents, cozying up to Supreme Court justices, threatening Hans Blix - the list goes on. And then, in a stroke of brilliance, when he comes under scrutiny, he claims he’s acting in the nation’s best interest by hiding out in a 'secret undisclosed location'. I admire that inventiveness. He's a crook par excellence. You can't deny it."

Despite the fact that some members consider Cheney the ‘quintessential crook,’ the organization’s top priority is to refute Kerry’s charge that the president and his supporters are a ‘lying group’. "One thing at a time," a FAOCAL official said. "Right now it's lies. A year from now when Bush is out of office, we'll deal with the administration’s crooked behavior. It’ll be a huge task."

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2004 11:08:00 PM

White House way off-message:

We were surprised to read that, as part of his presidential campaign, Bush is touting the benefits of free trade. Now, while that may be a good policy in general, there may be times when trade regulation is appropriate. Perhaps there are instances where trade is unfair. Or perhaps regulation of trade (i.e. protectionism) may be needed to help transition workers (or the economy) to a different mix. And of course, there is always the virtue of appearing to care about people affected by free trade. So it was surprising to read this story: Bush Touts Free Trade, Warns of 'Isolationists' And of course, the jobs picture isn't pretty, so the administration is pretty quiet on that front. But why has Bush ignored one genuinely bright spot in the economy, that "overall home ownership levels have hit record levels -- nearly 70 percent of heads of household own their homes"

Let us be clear. We don't want Bush to win this year, but strictly as an exercise in political judgement, why hasn't the administration touted the home ownership angle? Why wade into the free-trade/outsourcing swamp?

Is the White House political apparatus broken?

NOTE: Yes, we know that ownership is largely the result of low interest rates (courtesy of Greenspan), but that shouldn't prevent the White House from trying to get credit for the situation.

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2004 10:01:00 AM

White Knight-Ridder:

Two bloggers have some interesting things to say about Knight-Ridder's coverage of the news:

Matthew Yglesias in TAPPED

For my money, the most interesting part of Michael Massing's review of media coverage of Iraq intelligence before the war was the revelation that while most of the press fell down on the job, Knight-Ridder's Washington Bureau was far better. Unfortunately, since the chain doesn't own any papers in the nation's major news markets, no one noticed. Now I check for their coverage of the issue all the time and it's still the best.

Kevin Drum of Calpundit

... read the last seven paragraphs of the Knight-Ridder piece. Those are unusually bald assertions for a straight news piece, especially since they don't include the usual "according to sources" or "some critics say" pretense.

We plan on making Knight-Ridder's Washington Bureau webpage a regular part of our reading. You might want to also.

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2004 09:44:00 AM

Suggestions:

As part of a campaign to encourage Americans to exercise and lose weight, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has a new website: smallstep.gov, where one can find a list of 100 "small steps" to get you started. If you have seen one of the public service announcements, you might have seen the list scrolling (very quickly) down the screen. Most of the suggestions are reasonable, but these caught our eye:

40. Pace the sidelines at kids' athletic games.
41. Take wheels off luggage.
47. Bike to the barbershop or beauty salon instead of driving.
52. Avoid laborsaving devices.
80. Stop eating when you are full.
98. Walk to a co-worker's desk instead of emailing or calling them.
100. Use a snow shovel instead of a snow blower.

24. Skip seconds.
88. Don't take seconds.

Sure, most of the 100 suggestions are reasonable, but "Take wheels off luggage"? That would probably lead to more physical problems than less. And using a snow shovel is a quick way to get to Heart Attack City. And how many women are going to bike to and from the beauty salon? Not many, we bet.

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2004 08:11:00 AM

Innovation - Tom Friedman style:

Get 'em while they're hot. Only $19.99 each.

posted by Quiddity at 3/08/2004 10:42:00 AM

One more time: (inspired by this TF column)

March 7, 2004 OP-ED COLUMNIST There Is No Secret Sauce By TAM VEERARAGHAVAN BANGALORE, India I am delighted to write to you today as the new foreign-affairs columnist for the New York Times . My name is Tam Veeraraghavan. Ah, you say, you've never heard of Tam Veeraraghavan, but the name sounds vaguely Indian. Well, I am an Indian. I live in Bangalore. And I'm now the pundit you read in this newspaper. Now some of you might think that I'm an example of how outsourcing is hurting American workers. Well let me introduce you to Yamini Narayanan, an Indian-born 35-year-old with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Oklahoma. She recently moved back to Bangalore with her husband to be closer to family. When I asked her how she felt about the outsourcing of jobs to India, she responded with a revealing story: "I just read about a guy in America who lost his job to India and he made a T-shirt that said, `I lost my job as the New York Times foreign-affairs columnist to India and all I got was this T-shirt.' And he made all kinds of money. Five dollars here, ten dollars there. But it was nothing like his former salary at the Times. "Only in America, she said, shaking her head, would someone be foolish enough to think that anecdotal stories of success could be applied to everyone. And that, she insisted, was the reason America might not fear outsourcing to India: America has more deluded columnists than any other country."   ARTICLE TOOLS E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Format Most E-Mailed Articles     Columnist Page: Tam Veeraraghavan Forum: Discuss This Column   "There is a reason Americans shouldn't worry, said Mrs. Narayanan. "America allows you to explore your mind," she said. "And now that you've taken over Tom Friedman's job, he'll be spending plenty of time exploring that vacant universe.Although what good it will do, remains to be seen." In the coming weeks, I'll be telling you why we shouldn't, in Tom Friedman's words, "protect ... the 1 percent of jobs that might be outsourced." They are merely knowedge-based jobs that people have spent a lifetime learning how to do. But now America is poised to triumph in the non-knowledge-based economy. That should translate into big savings for parents who won't need to send their children to college. And if they don't like it, they can hope for a better deal when they get reincarnated in the next life. Mr. Veeraraghavan joined The Times last week after submitting his resume from an Internet cafe and curry shop. His latest book, "I'll Be Driving Your Lexus and You'll be Planting Olive Trees" (2003), won the 2003 Overseas Press Club award for best in-your-face book on foreign trade and has been published in 20 languages.

posted by Quiddity at 3/07/2004 01:47:00 PM

How old?

Back on 20 October 2003, Josh Marshall of TPM made the following observation:

... this weekend ... I watched the discussion panel on Meet the Press. With the exception of Robin Wright, who’s a real pro, the group has become as perfect an example of Washington’s geriatric and right-leaning insider culture as you’ll ever see.

We can't find the guest list for that day, but whatever it was, it couldn't compare with the pundits on MTP last week. They were:

WHO	BORN	AGE
David Broder	11 Sep 1929	74
William Safire	17 December 1929	74
Robert Novak	26 Feb 1931	73
Doris Kearns Goodwin	4 Jan 1943	61

Impressive!

posted by Quiddity at 3/07/2004 04:43:00 AM

I have an obligation:

On ABC national news, Bush was shown reacting to the criticism of the campaign ads that included footage of a casket being carried by firemen. Bush was shown saying:

"I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency. I will continue to mourn the loss of life on that day, but I'll never forget the lessons."

And then the reporter said that "The president went so far as to call it his obligation to the victims of 9/11" but the network did not broadcast that part of Bush's statement. However, earlier that evening on a local ABC affiliate, Bush was shown saying:

"I have an obligation to those who died. I have an obligation to those who were heroic in their attempts to rescue. And I won't forget that obligation."

NOTE: 150k .wav file of both statement by Bush is here.

UPDATE: In Sunday's New York Times article, there was no mention of the "obligation" statements by Bush.

posted by Quiddity at 3/06/2004 07:43:00 PM

In case you missed it:

We removed a set of images from our post below, and replaced it with this:

WE GET LETTERS: please remove the photos The photos of people jumping are awful. Please, I agree with your point, but the images are just too, too disturbing. OUR RESPONSE: I shall remove the photos as you request. But first, I would like to say why they were put up. I consider those images to be the most powerful and terrifying of all from the day of the attack. Why? Because some people decided, in a matter of a half-hour or so, to kill themselves. What was going through their minds at the time must have been awful. And looking down and deciding to jump is frankly, something I cannot imagine. Because Bush decided to make political points out of dead bodies (though I read that the image in the ad was actually of actors and props made up to look like they were from Ground Zero), I decided to put the ultimate imagry of the pain and suffering with Bush's campaign theme (Steady leadership in times of change). I debated whether to put those images up, and consulted with a number of people on the subject. The feeling was that it was extremely strong, but justified in light of what Bush did with his ads. I apologize for causing upset with my readers, and will take down the images.

posted by Quiddity at 3/06/2004 11:09:00 AM

Word counts:

We read the stories about Martha Stewart with attention to the number of times Merrill Lynch was mentioned. Why? Because when it comes to many of the Wall Street scandals, Merrill is often part of the picture, as you can see here (click on image for full-size).



In any event, here is how many times the following newspapers mentioned Merrill Lynch in their lead story about Martha Stewart:

New York Times	2
Washington Post	1
Los Angeles Times	2

posted by Quiddity at 3/06/2004 10:13:00 AM

Outrage:

• You are a soldier in the Iowa National Guard.
• You take a drug test.
• You get shipped to Iraq.
• You work in units that provide medical treatment and supply convoys, and have been the target of insurgents' attacks.
• When you return, you are informed that you FAILED the drug test, and may be dishonorably discharged.

(More at Democratic Veteran. Story at TheIowaChannel.com)

posted by Quiddity at 3/05/2004 10:54:00 AM

Jobs - where are they?

No doubt, you've heard about the tepid job growth in February:

U.S. employers added a paltry 21,000 workers to their payrolls last month, according to a surprisingly weak government report on Friday that appeared certain to weigh on President Bush as he seeks re-election.

But did you know this? (from the same story)

The report also showed job creation in December and January was weaker than previously thought, adding to the gloomy tone of the report. The department revised lower its count of jobs gains in January to 97,000 from 112,000 and for December to just 8,000 from 16,000.

That's an average of 42,000 for each of the three months. If that rate holds (42k/mo), there will be a half-million net new jobs in 2004. Not a whole lot.

Oddly though, that the unemployment rate is steady at 5.6%

UPDATE: There is this, from another news article:

The number of unemployed workers in the United States who have exhausted regular jobless benefits without qualifying for more was expected to reach a record 760,000 by the end of last month, and that number could swell to more than 1 million by midyear, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And let's not forget that the Republicans in Congress declined to extend the unemployment benefits recently.

posted by Quiddity at 3/05/2004 09:28:00 AM

De gustibus non est disputandum*:

Sept. 11 Families Outraged by Bush Campaign Ad   - excerpts:

Families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks voiced outrage on Thursday at President Bush's first ads of his re-election campaign that use images of the devastated World Trade Center to portray him as the right leader for tumultuous times.



Long time Bush adviser Karen Hughes defended the four commercials -- which began running on Thursday in at least 16 important battleground states -- as "tastefully done."

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said the campaign will not withdraw the ads. "There is no bigger issue in this country than who is better prepared to deal with the realities that 9/11 created for this country."

Tastefully done? Why such restraint? After all, we're constantly being reminded that we are in a war (with a self-described "war president"). Why not go all out and push the envelope? Like this ...

WE GET LETTERS: please remove the photos The photos of people jumping are awful. Please, I agree with your point, but the images are just too, too disturbing. OUR RESPONSE: I shall remove the photos as you request. But first, I would like to say why they were put up. I consider those images to be the most powerful and terrifying of all from the day of the attack. Why? Because some people decided, in a matter of a half-hour or so, to kill themselves. What was going through their minds at the time must have been awful. And looking down and deciding to jump is frankly, something I cannot imagine. Because Bush decided to make political points out of dead bodies (though I read that the image in the ad was actually of actors and props made up to look like they were from Ground Zero), I decided to put the ultimate imagry of the pain and suffering with Bush's campaign theme (Steady leadership in times of change). I debated whether to put those images up, and consulted with a number of people on the subject. The feeling was that it was extremely strong, but justified in light of what Bush did with his ads. I apologize for causing upset with my readers, and will take down the images.

Seriously though, a quick review of message posts (on Yahoo associated with this story) showed something we haven't seen in a long time - vocal support for Bush. For most of 2004, posts had been uniformly hostile to Bush (economy, WMD, etc.). But invoking 9/11 appears to help the president - at least in the short term and with a subset of the electorate. Looks like 2004 will be a really dirty campaign.

* - In matters of taste, there is no cause for argument.

posted by Quiddity at 3/05/2004 12:02:00 AM

uggabugga - a modern day Nostradamus?

Okay, we're tooting our own horn today (Toot! Toot!). Back in December of 2002, we posted the following diagram about the Democratic party's quest for a nominee. Looks like we got it right. (Well, mostly right: Kerry vs. Edwards, Dean fade, Lieberman/Gephardt no traction, Rove play war card.     And a few wrong: Dean money problems, Biden a factor.)



posted by Quiddity at 3/04/2004 07:55:00 AM

A taste of his own medicine:

March 4, 2004 OP-ED COLUMNIST Small and Smaller and Smallest and Smallerest By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN BANGALORE, India Jerry Rao wants to write the Op-Ed column in your newspaper. Ah, you say, you've never heard of Jerry Rao, but the name sounds vaguely Indian. Anyway, you already read a newspaper for the Op-Ed columns. Well, Jerry is Indian. He lives in Bangalore. And, you may not know it, but he may already be the pundit you read in your newspaper.. "We have tied up with several small and medium-size newspapers in America," explained Mr. Rao, whose company, LpresA, has a team of Indian journalists able to do outsourced Op-Ed columns requested by newspaper editors across the U.S. All the necessary political data is entered into a database that can be viewed from India. Then an Indian journalist, trained in U.S. clichés and beltway conventional wisdom, fleshes it out. "This is happening as we speak — we are doing several thousand essays," said Mr. Rao. American pundits don't even need to be in their offices. They can be on a beach, said Mr. Rao, "and say, `Jerry, you are particularly good at doing trite, banal essays, so you could do Tom's essays." He adds, "We have taken the grunt work" so U.S. pundits can focus on twiddling their thumbs and thinking up appalling new metaphors. Mr. Rao's ability to service U.S. newspapers this way is at the core of a business revolution that has happened over the past few years. I confess: I missed this revolution. I was totally focused on 9/11 and Iraq. But having now spent 10 days in Bangalore, India's Silicon Valley, I realize that while I was sleeping, my eyes were closed. There has been a convergence of a variety of software applications — from e-mail, to Google, to Microsoft Office, to specially designed outsourcing programs — that, when combined with all those PC's and bandwidth, made it possible to create global "work-flow platforms." These work-flow platforms can chop up any newspaper job - reporting, opinion writing, editing - into different functions and then, thanks to scanning and digitization, outsource each function to teams of skilled knowledge workers around the globe, based on which team can do each function with the highest skill at the lowest price. Then the project is reassembled back at headquarters into a finished product. Thanks to this new work-flow network, pundits anywhere in the world can contribute their talents more than ever before, spurring innovation and productivity. But these same pundits will be under more pressure than ever to constantly upgrade their skills in this Darwinian environment. So now I wonder: when they write the history of the world 20 years from now, what will they say was most important? Will it be the convergence of PC's, telecom and work-flow software into a tipping point that allowed India to become part of the global supply chain for the media, at the expense of high paying jobs like mine?

posted by Quiddity at 3/04/2004 06:39:00 AM

Gedankenexperiment:

Imagine you have a machine that allows you to travel backwards in time. Imagine also, that you have a copy of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and a portable movie projector (it runs on batteries). From the list of entries below, indicate which ones you would go to and show the film:

• Norwich, England in 1144
• Blois, France in 1171
• Lincoln, England in 1255
• Munchener, Germany in 1285
• Chinon, France in 1321
• Zurich, Switzerland in 1348
• Vienna, Austria in 1421
• Toledo, Spain in 1501
• Frankfurt, Germany in 1614
• Haidamacks, Russia in 1734
• Wurzberg, Germany in 1818
• Odessa, Russia in 1905
  
• Kielce, Poland in 1946

If you selected any entries from the list above, discuss how and why human nature changed at that time such that showing the film would not incite violence towards Jews.

posted by Quiddity at 3/03/2004 01:10:00 PM

A cultural observation:

We should begin this post by putting our cards on the table: We don't like hip-hop or rap. Never have, and probably never will.

That said, we were intrigued to encounter an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, Don't Know Why Norah Jones Is Hot? Critics of Hip-Hop Do

In it, we read: (emphasis added)

Norah Jones' "Feels Like Home" is at the top of Billboard's album chart...

For the last few years, the music business has been dogged by sluggish CD sales and preoccupied with the threat of Internet file-sharing. Now the industry has found an unlikely savior: a self-effacing 24-year-old piano-playing balladeer ...

... the New York Times editorial page [offered] the interesting theory that Jones' popularity among her core audience of baby boomers reflects widespread desire for musical consolation in difficult times.

But what exactly is troubling these millions of middle-aged listeners who seek solace in the music of a woman young enough to be their daughter?

[The] answer may be found elsewhere on the pop charts. Jones' was not the only Billboard milestone last week: For only the second time in history, all of the Top 10 singles were by African American artists. More precisely: All of the songs were by hip-hop performers.

A quarter of a century after the American mainstream first encountered hip-hop's radical revision of the pop-song form - replacing sung verses and traditional instrumentation with syncopated speech and dense, machine-generated rhythms ? the genre's conquest of hit radio is complete.

... is Jones' music actually more authentic than, for instance, [R&B star] Usher's? Such thinking rests on false assumptions: that acoustic instruments are inherently more soulful than electronic ones, that whatever is on hit radio is by definition pap, that teenagers have no taste.

... today's hip-hop-dominated pop rivals the mid-1960s heyday of Motown and the Beatles.

... it is right and fitting that middle-aged fans of Jones be repelled by hip-hop. If pop history tells us anything, it is that parents and kids rarely agree about where to set the radio dial. But those tempted to cheer Jones' success as a triumph of good taste should heed another historical lesson: In matters of musical taste ? from bobby-soxers at the Paramount to Beatlemaniacs at Shea Stadium ? the kids have usually been right. When it comes to identifying the day's vital music, don't trust anyone over 30.

Some observations:

We agree that hip-hop is a radical revision of the pop-song form. And what a revision! Replacing traditional instrumentation - which is code for no melody, no harmonies, and sometimes not even a base beat.

While hip-hop is doing well in the marketplace, we are puzzled why "traditional" musical forms have left the scene. We think it's mostly due to heavy-handed marketing and corporate control which has forced music in a particular direction.

As to the claim that "today's hip-hop-dominated pop rivals the mid-1960s heyday of Motown and the Beatles" - it may rival Motown and the Beatles in terms of sales, but not in terms of universal appeal. Back in the 60's, virtually everybody liked Motown (they were on the Ed Sullivan show - a bastion of middle-American taste). The Beatles, Mommas and the Poppas, Elton John, Beach Boys, and other artists were popular with all age groups. Where can such music be found today?

The author asserts that hip-hop has been around a quarter century. That's a long time. Now ask yourself, has hip-hop been used in any significant way in advertising? Hardly. It's not been used (except in extremely diluted form) to reach a young audience. Marketing execs aren't fools. Why do you think they've given hip-hop a pass? We think it's because hip-hop is by and large, not a cheerful art form and thus not something you can use to attract consumers.

Our complaint boils down to this: What the hell happened on or about January 1, 1990?

That marked the end of the 80's New Wave (Blondie, Dire Straights, Eurhymics, Frankie Goes to Hollywood) and the beginning of grunge and rap. Since then, only occasional artists like Oasis and Coldplay - with their melodes - have made an appearance, but overall, it's been pretty miserable. One intriquing social indicator: some years back, the animated cartoons show, The Simpsons, had an episode that looked at the music scene (focusing on Smashing Pumpkins). In it, Lisa comments that the music is bleak and depressing.

In a related vein, in 1994 there was a 25 year anniversary of Woodstock, and one thing stood out at the time: it was a coarse affair. (It wasn't quite skinheads banging against each other in a muddy mosh pit, but it was close.) Why was that? We can't help but think that a cloud of trepidation descended at the time, reflecting something, but we're not sure what.

posted by Quiddity at 3/03/2004 01:15:00 AM

Prager's inxanity:

Today, Andrew Sullivan is upset with Dennis Prager's latest commentary on Townhall.com. Why? The title is a clue:

San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy

Sullivan excerpts a couple of paragraphs and concludes, "So now gay people - many of whom are conservative and people of faith and are fighting simply to commit to one another under the law - are the moral equivalent of Osama bin Laden. This is Jerry Falwell territory." (Of interest is Sullivan's approving link - earlier in the same day! - to Prager's essay on The Passion of the Christ: "A sage and balanced analysis. ")

But there's more. Prager does not speak only about the gay issue, but more broadly against The Left. Here, are some choice excerpts: (emphasis added)

• America is engaged in ... a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.
  
  
• One enemy is ... secular extremism ... directed from home.
  
  
• America leads the battle against ... secular nihilism and is hated ...
  
  
• ... the Left is preoccupied first with destroying America's distinctive values -- a Judeo-Christian society (as opposed to a secular one), capitalism (as opposed to socialism), liberty (as opposed to equality) and exceptionalism (as opposed to universalism, multiculturalism and multilateralism).
  
  
• There have been many Christian countries, and they are no longer. They have been replaced by secular countries, and they are weakening. Only American civilization remains strong, and it does so because of its unique amalgam of values rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.
  
  
• This civilization is now fighting for its life ...    Join the fight, or it will be gone as fast as you can say "Democrat."

This is the paranoid style writ large.

posted by Quiddity at 3/02/2004 05:30:00 PM