Administrative announcement:

Light blogging until the Democrats return to power.



Okay, that's just a joke. But we've had several long posts eaten up by Blogger and have lost our way for the moment.

posted by Quiddity at 11/30/2004 02:12:00 PM

Zell Miller is a liberal!

That's what you'd have to believe if you lived in George Will Land. In another absurd essay, Academia, Stuck To the Left, Will writes:

The great secret is out: Liberals dominate campuses.

But we essentially knew this even before the American Enterprise magazine reported in 2002 on examinations of voting records in various college communities. Some findings about professors registered with the two major parties or with liberal or conservative minor parties:

Cornell: 166 liberals, 6 conservatives.

Stanford: 151 liberals, 17 conservatives.

Colorado: 116 liberals, 5 conservatives.

UCLA: 141 liberals, 9 conservatives.

How did the American Enterprise magazine do the classification? Read the story from their September 2002 edition: (emp add)

Those who registered themselves in either the Democratic, Green, or Working Families Party we classified as members of a party of the Left – they are coded “L” in red in the results below.

Those registered in either the Republican or Libertarian Party we classified as members of a party of the Right – they are coded “R” in blue in the results below.

posted by Quiddity at 11/28/2004 08:00:00 AM

Ugly:

We had written a long post but Blogger ate it. So here is the short version. Rush Limbaugh has on one of his pages a rotating set of slides (Flash) promoting himself and his radio show. One slide was particluarly rancid. It's this:

image double original size

CLARIFICATION: This is not one of our creations. The image was on Limbaugh's website. Some people might think we made this up (as we often do to make points), but that's not the case this time.

posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2004 09:34:00 AM

Pell-mell:

October 14 - Remarks by President Bush and Senator Kerry in the Third 2004 Presidential Debate (excerpts, emp add)

MODERATOR: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President, two minutes. And let's continue on jobs. You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual. Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas, who is being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, education is how to help the person who has lost a job. Education is how to make sure this -- we've got a work force that's productive and competitive. You got -- four more years, I've got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers and school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms, to continue to expand Pell grants, to make sure that people have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma.

MODERATOR: Senator Kerry.

SENATOR KERRY: The fact is that he's cut job training money.   ...   They've cut the Pell grants and the Perkins loans to helps kids be able to go to college.

MODERATOR: Mr. President.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Whoo! Let me start with the Pell grants. In his last litany of -- of misstatements, he said we cut Pell grants. We've increased Pell grants by a million students. That's a fact.

MODERATOR: Senator Kerry?

SENATOR KERRY: But you know why the Pell grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualified for them, because they don't have money. But they're not getting the $5,100 the President promised them. They're getting less money. There are more people who qualify; that's not what we want.

MODERATOR: Mr. President.

PRESIDENT BUSH: ... we ought to have an aggressive effort to make sure people are educated, to make sure when they get out of high school there's Pell grants available for them, which is what we've done. We've expanded Pell grants by a million students.

November 23 - US aid for college students slashed

Nearly a quarter of low- and moderate-income college students who currently qualify for federal Pell grants will see their awards reduced or eliminated under a change in federal rules that Congress allowed in its new spending bill passed over the weekend, according to an estimate from higher education analysts.

About 85,000 of the 5.2 million students currently eligible to receive Pell grants will become ineligible. And 1.2 million others will get a smaller award under a new formula the government will use to determine how much families can afford to pay for college, according to estimates from the American Council on Education, or ACE. The change will take effect for students starting or returning to classes next summer or fall.

posted by Quiddity at 11/23/2004 10:43:00 PM

Prices:

Last week we went to the grocery store and went to the frozen pizza section. There was a nice Red Baron pepperoni Pizzaria Style (rising crust). Normal price was $6.39 - but it was on sale at two for $9.00. So it was purchased and cooked and eaten (and pretty good for store bought).

This week another trip to the frozen section of the same store had the same pizza - and on sale again - but at a discount price of two for $10.00.

Yikes! Even discount prices are on the rise. Looks like something is afoot.

posted by Quiddity at 11/23/2004 03:04:00 PM

Kristof's bright idea:

We don't often agree with Nicholas Kristof, but in today's NYTimes Op-Ed about reforming the electoral process he says something we've been harping about for years:

Funnel campaign donations through a blind trust. The funkiest idea in politics is to make donations anonymous even to the recipient. Citizens would make contributions through a blind trust, so that candidates wouldn't know to whom they were beholden.

If officials don't know who their major contributors are, they can't invite them to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom or write tax loopholes. A donor might boast about having made a contribution, but special interests will realize they can save money by telling politicians that they have donated when they haven't, and then politicians will doubt these boasts.

Such a system of shielding names of donors exists in 10 states, to some degree, for judicial candidates. A provocative book by Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres, "Voting With Dollars," makes an excellent case that the system be applied more broadly, but we need some innovative state (Oregon, do you hear that?) to take the leap.

Chile is a nice role model. While the U.S. was finishing campaigns that were another embarrassing roll in the hay for politicians and lobbyists, Chile was holding its first elections using a new law with a blind trust for campaign donations of more than $500. Patricio Navia, a Chilean elections specialist at New York University, says the system has loopholes but is a big improvement.

"It's a clever idea," he said. "It's a promising way of separating special interests and politicians."

As far as the problem of donors informing the politician about the money they've given, we think laws similar to those about insider trading and other disclosure rules for the stock market would be effective, and make the Blind Trust model work.

posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2004 10:03:00 AM

Not just the voters?

In the New York Times story Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill, we read: (excerpts, emp add)

House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including President Bush, in the election.

Some lawmakers and Congressional aides interpreted the House leaders' insistence as reflection of the new political strength of the anti-abortion movement and of Christian conservatives, who played an important role in re-electing Mr. Bush this month.

We're sure that Christian/social conservatives like the legislation, but we don't think it's a pure instance of catering to constituents. From our observation of the Republicans in Congress, it appears that they themselves are hostile to abortion. It's part of their character. Unlike other constituent concerns that can be negotiated or traded for something else (by an indifferent congressman), abortion is shaping up to be a non negotiable issue.

What does this mean? It probably means that pro-choice and moderate Republicans are going to get frustrated and maybe - maybe - bug out of the party in the next few years.

posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2004 09:33:00 AM

Worse this year than last:

November 2004 isn't over yet, but it has surpassed November 2003's US fatality count. With the exception of March, every month in 2004 has had a greater US fatality count than in 2003.



SOURCE: Iraq Coalition Casualties website.

posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2004 03:50:00 PM

Faulty logic:

We are hearing more about health savings accounts - something Bush was promoting during the presidential campaign. We won't go into all the details or our objections to them, but it's useful to read what Bush said about them in the third presidential debate. He said: (emp add)

There is a -- look, there's a systemic problem. Health care costs are on the rise because the consumers are not involved in the decision-making process. Most health care costs are covered by third parties, and therefore, the actual user of health care is not the purchaser of health care. And there's no market forces involved with health care. It's one of the reasons I'm a strong believer in what they call health savings accounts. These are accounts that allow somebody to buy a low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic plan and couple it with tax-free savings. Businesses can contribute, employees can contribute on a contractual basis. But this is a way to make sure people are actually involved with the decision-making process on health care.

First, knock down the assertions:

• The "consumers" of company provided health care are the companies. They care about the costs and do what they can to find, or bargain for, low rates.
  
  
• There are "market forces" involved with health care (see above).

Bush is selling the idea that if each person purchased health care, he or she would shop around for the best deal. Sort of like looking for the best value for a can of beans in the supermarket.

But there are problems with that model. First of all, individuals are unlikely to be skilled at choosing the right plan. Staff at a company, staff dedicated to handling the health care of employees, will be better at it than an individual and make better choices. Second, the notion that moving from centralized purchasing to diffuse one will mean lower prices is absurd. Why is Wal-Mart so successful? Because they can negotiate with strength. Bush is saying the opposite, that multiple small buyers will do better. Third, health care is not like a can of beans. It doesn't correspond well to an idealized market (many suppliers, many purchasers, trading all the time, transparency, etc.) Health care often has limited choices, and it has "stickyness" (rules about preexisting condition), to name a couple of problems.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2004 01:39:00 PM

Smile:

In the news:

A 10-year-old grilled cheese sandwich a Florida woman says bears the image of the Virgin Mary was back on eBay after the Internet auction house initially canceled bids that went up to 22,000 dollars.

The EBAY listing for that is here.

But we started out by typing in "grilled cheese" into EBAY's search engine, and got these amusing items as well:

• Virgin Mary's Used Gum in Grilled Cheese!! LOOK & SEE!
• make your own virgin mary grilled cheese kit
• Burnt George W Bush on Grilled Cheese - no Virgin Mary
• Motorola Digital Camera w/o Virgin Mary grilled cheese
• Visions of Grilled Cheese as Mary would make
• Virgin Mary in Spam, not grilled cheese LOOK AND SEE!!!
• NO VIRGIN HERE! ODB in my Grilled Cheese YO!
• Virgin (Un)Grilled Cheese-You Name the VisionVirgin Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen in Grilled Cheese!

posted by Quiddity at 11/16/2004 02:41:00 PM

Another one:

In the wake of our suggestion for a new seal for the Department of Justice, and in light of the purge going on at the CIA, we suggest a change there as well. It appears that career specialists at the agency will be shown the door - to be replaced by reliable, loyal political types. The goal, apparently, is to silence any views that differ from the administration. So out with the eagle. In with a myna bird. And the motto "nemine contradicente" (with no one speaking in opposition) should go on the shield, replacing the compass.

Old seal:


New seal:


posted by Quiddity at 11/15/2004 07:34:00 PM

Divider:

When Bush was campaigning this year he was also the President of the United States. However, that didn't stop him from disparaging one of those states: Massachusetts. We took a look at all of the speeches Bush gave in October and November. Up until the last debate in mid October, he rarely mentioned Massachusetts, but after that, he went all over the country and used "Massachusetts" as a code for something bad (typically about taxation). It's quite remarkable that he did that. Can you imagine the reaction if Kerry did as much Texas bashing as Bush did with Massachusetts?

Here is a summary of the speeches where Bush mentioned Massachusetts in a negative way. And yes, we know it's virtually all a standard speech that he was giving time and again. So what? (Note: We excluded those statements where Kerry was identified as "the senator from Massachusetts" - which could be argued is benign.)

October 15, 2004	Oshkosh, Wisconsin	In 20 years as a senator from Massachusetts, he has built the record of -- a senator from Massachusetts.
October 15, 2004	Cedar Rapids, Iowa	In 20 years as a senator from Massachusetts, he's built the record of a -- senator from Massachusetts.
October 16, 2004	Central Point, Oregon	In 20 years as a senator from Massachusetts, he's built the record of a senator from Massachusetts.
October 16, 2004	Sunrise, Florida	In 20 years as Senator from Massachusetts, he's built a record of -- a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 16, 2004	West Palm Beach, Florida	In 20 years as a Senator from Massachusetts, he's built up a record of -- a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 16, 2004	Daytona Beach, Florida	In 20 years as a Senator from Massachusetts, he's built a record of -- a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 19, 2004	St. Petersburg, Florida	In 20 years as a Senator from Massachusetts, he has built a record of -- a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 19, 2004	New Port Richey, Florida	In 20 years as a Senator from Massachusetts he's built the record of -- a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 19, 2004	The Villages, Florida	My opponent has his own history on the economy. In 20 years as a senator from Massachusetts, he has built the record of -- a senator from Massachusetts.
October 20, 2004	Eau Claire, Wisconsin	I'm running against a fellow who's promised $2.2 trillion in programs that cost -- that's how much they cost the government, $2.2 trillion, that's with a "T." That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 20, 2004	Mason City, Iowa	In 20 years as a Senator from Massachusetts, he has built a record of -- a senator from Massachusetts.
October 20, 2004	Rochester, Minnesota	See, I'm running against a fellow who has promised $2.2 trillion worth of new spending. That's a lot. That's with a "T." (Laughter.) That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 21, 2004	Hershey, Pennsylvania	In 20 years as a senator from Massachusetts, he's built a record -- of a senator from Massachusetts.
October 22, 2004	Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania	He promised about $2.2 trillion of new spending. That's with a "T." (Laughter.) That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 23, 2004	Ft. Myers, Florida	He's promised about $2.2 trillion of new spending. That's with a "T." (Laughter.) That's a lot even for a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 23, 2004	Lakeland, Florida	... he's promised about $2.2 trillion in new spending. That's with a "T." (Laughter.) That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 23, 2004	Melbourne, Florida	He's promised about $2.2 trillion of new federal spending. That's with a "T" -- trillion with a "T." That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 23, 2004	Jacksonville, Florida	He's promised $2.2 trillion of new federal spending -- that's trillion with a "T." That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 25, 2004	Davenport, Iowa	He's promised $2.2 trillion of new spending -- that's trillion with a "T." That's a lot even for a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 26, 2004	Dubuque, Iowa	Listen, he's promised $2.2 trillion in new spending in this campaign -- that's trillion with a "T." (Laughter.) That's a lot, even for a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 26, 2004	Richland Center, Wisconsin	The fellow I'm running against has proposed $2.2 trillion of new federal spending. That's trillion with a "T." That's a lot -- even for a Senator from Massachusetts, that's a lot.
October 26, 2004	Cuba City, Wisconsin	He's promised to spend $2.2 trillion in new money -- spending. That's trillion, with a "T." That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 26, 2004	Onalaska, Wisconsin	I'm running against a fellow who's promised $2.2 trillion of new federal spending. That's with a "T" That is -- that's a lot even for a Senator from Massachusetts.
October 27, 2004	Pontiac, Michigan	He's promised $2.2 trillion of new spending -- that's trillion, with a "T." That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 27, 2004	Findlay, Ohio	Around the campaign, he's been promising $2.2 trillion in new federal spending -- that's trillion with a "T." That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 27, 2004	Vienna, Ohio	I also want to remind you, he's promised $2.2 trillion of new federal spending -- that's trillion with a "T." That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 27, 2004	Lititz, Pennsylvania	During this campaign he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. Now, that is a trillion with a "T." That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 28, 2004	Yardley, Pennsylvania	He's proposed about $2.2 trillion in new federal spending. That's trillion with a "T." That's a lot. That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 28, 2004	Dayton, Ohio	During the campaign, he's promised a lot of new spending, $2.2 trillion of new spending. That's trillion with a "T." That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 28, 2004	Westlake, Ohio	He's also proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending. That's a lot. That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 28, 2004	Saginaw, Michigan	He said, I'm going to spend $2.2 trillion new money, when you add up all his promises. He doesn't really want to clarify that. That's $2.2 trillion with a "T." That's a lot. That is a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 29, 2004	Manchester, New Hampshire	No mention of Massachusetts at all. Normally there are two references in the speech to Massachusetts, but Bush's courage failed him while he visited a neighboring state.
October 29, 2004	Toledo, Ohio	... he's proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending -- that is trillion with a "T." That's a lot. That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 30, 2004	Grand Rapids, Michigan	During this campaign, he's also promised $2.2 trillion in federal spending -- that's trillion with a "T." (Laughter.) That's a lot. Even for a senator from Massachusetts, that's a lot.
October 30, 2004	Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin	He's also promised $2.2 trillion in new spending -- that would be trillion with a "T." (Laughter.) And that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 30, 2004	Minneapolis, Minnesota	... he promised $2.2 trillion in new federal spending. Now, that's trillion with a "T." That's a lot. Even for a Senator from Massachusetts, that's a lot.
October 30, 2004	Orlando, Florida	He's promised $2.2 trillion of new spending. That is trillion with a "T." That's a lot. That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 31, 2004	Cincinnati, Ohio	... he's promised $2.2 trillion in new federal spending -- that's trillion with a "T." That's a lot -- (laughter) -- even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 31, 2004	Miami, Florida	In this campaign he's also pledged to spend $2.2 trillion new dollars -- that's a lot, that's trillion with a "T." (Laughter.) That is even -- that's a lot for a senator from Massachusetts. I mean, it's --(laughter.)
October 31, 2004	Tampa, Florida	He's also promised $2.2 trillion in new federal spending. That's trillion with a "T." That's a lot. That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
October 31, 2004	Gainesville, Florida	... he's also promised $2.2 trillion of new spending. That is trillion with a "T." That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
November 1, 2004	Wilmington, Ohio	... he's promised about $2.2 trillion in new federal spending. That is trillion with a "T." That's a lot. That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
November 1, 2004	Burgettstown, Pennsylvania	... you begin to get a sense of his economic plan. That's $2.2 trillion with a "T." That is a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
November 1, 2004	Milwaukee, Wisconsin	He's proposing $2.2 trillion in new federal spending -- that's trillion with a "T." That is a lot. That's a lot even for a senator from Massachusetts.
November 1, 2004	Sioux City, Iowa	See, he's promised $2.2 trillion in new federal spending. That is trillion with a "T." That's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.

posted by Quiddity at 11/13/2004 03:31:00 PM

Changes:

Now that Alberto "The Geneva Convention is obsolete" Gonzales is slated to become the head of the Department of Justice, we can look forward to a new attitude - and a new seal:



Translation: The ends justify the means. (Other Latin expression pages are here and here.)

posted by Quiddity at 11/12/2004 05:15:00 AM

Late night listening:

For those of you in the Los Angeles area looking for something like Air America, there is a two hour nighttime liberal talk-radio program which airs Monday through Friday. It's on AM 1540 from 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM. During the day it's a sports talk station ("The Ticket") but at night they run the Free Speech Show (http://freespeechshow.com) which has some highly informed hosts and guests. The style is youthful and free-form with a positive attitude (as much as is possible these days).

Currently the station is running nighttimes with 10,000 watts, but it is expected to go to 40,000 watts later this year. As it is, a few people can get the station as far north as Santa Rosa, but reception in Southern California is alleged to be spotty. That's typical for an upper-frequency station with modest power.

In any event, it's the only AM liberal talk we know of in Los Angeles. The three big talk radio stations are thoroughly conservative:

• KFI - AM 640 - Rush Limbaugh, Laura Schlessinger, John Ziegler
• KABC - AM 790 - Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Larry Elder
• KRLA - AM 870 - William Bennett, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Savage (Phew! What a roster.)

Anything to break that uniformity is welcome, so give the Free Speech Show a listen.

NOTE: For FM, there is KPFK (90.7) which seems to have become much more pragmatic these days (though there still is a Nader-like contingent). The only other FM talk is KLSX, home to Howard Stern, but it's not political like the other stations mentioned in this post.

posted by Quiddity at 11/10/2004 07:12:00 PM

Follow the leader:

In a story about the U.S. not acting in response to further reports on global warming, we read: (emp add)

"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost," said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Headed into his second term, Bush said he believes he "made the right leadership choice" by repudiating the U.N.-sponsored pact negotiated in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, Connaughton said.

The same kind of talk can be found in Jack Welsh's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal from October 30. Excerpts: (emp add)

In five days, America votes not for its president, but for its leader. I make that distinction because rarely in American history has the occupant of the White House had such a burden of leadership to bear. We are in a war to protect our very way of life, and it is a brand new kind of war, with no foreseeable end and enemies as evil as they are invisible.

The next leader of the United States needs Ronald Reagan's optimism, courage, and conviction, but with a fiercer enemy, he will need to be a leader for the ages--a leader in the extreme.

Expect more talk about our leader in the years ahead.

By the way, how about those enemies that are "invisible"? Talk about a phantom menace.

posted by Quiddity at 11/10/2004 01:02:00 PM

Biggest bullshitter:

So, Don Evans has resigned. Good riddance, we say.

Why? Because of an extraordinary performance on Meet the Press on January 13, 2002. Russert had been inquiring about Bush's support from Enron, which had been in the news the previous three months due to the scandal and melt-down of the stock. Enron had been Bush's biggest financial supporter and Russert was citing the numbers - in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars - which had gone to the Bush campaign. Then Evans responded. We reproduce that portion of the interview below. (emp add)

MR. RUSSERT: The concern that people raise is the closeness of Enron and the Bush administration. And May 6, 1999, Mr. Lay wrote this letter to Texas executive: “As Texans, we have witnessed first hand the tremendous ability and tenacity of our Governor. ...I hope you will join me as a volunteer and affirm your strong support for his race by making the maximum contribution...” And this was a result in ’94, as he mentioned, $47,500 from Ken Lay and Enron executives and PACs to Governor Bush’s race: ’98, $150,000; Texas inaugural, $50,000; the president race in 2000, $113,000; the Florida recount, $10,000; the inauguration, $300,000. And Mr. Lay was appointed to the transition team.

And then we have this, the Bush administration. John Ashcroft has recused himself because he received $57,000 from Enron. Lawrence Lindsey, economic adviser, was an Enron consultant. Robert Zoellick, the trade rep., was a board advisory member for Enron. Karl Rove, an investor in Enron; Marc Rocicot, the incoming RNC chairman, a lobbyist for Enron; the secretary of Army, Thomas White, an Enron executive—the tentacles are deep.

SEC’Y EVANS: Tim, let me tell you about fund-raising and campaigns. Let me tell you about the largest contribution I remember during the 2000 campaign. You just talked about a lot of money that Enron raised. Let me tell you about the largest contribution I remember during the 2000 campaign. We flew into Portland, Oregon. We went straight to the Boys and Girls Club. And I remember the president—governor at the time—sitting on the gymnasium floor talking to the boys and girls. And he was talking to these children in the Boys and Girls Club. He said—talking about their future, talking about, “How many of you are going to go to college?” A bunch of them raised their hand. “Remember how important it is to learn to read.”

Well, I was standing there. A man walked over to me and he handed me an envelope, and on that envelope it said, “Governor George W. Bush.” Now, being the financial chairman at the time, I thought it probably had a check in it. And I said to him, “Are you supporting the governor?” And he said, “Yes, I am.” And I said, “Why?” And he said to me, “Because I want to trust America. And this man makes me feel good about America.” I took away from that conversation, from Ken Dortz, that this is a man that wanted a president that would bring trust in this country.

I walked out of the door, being the normal financial chairman, took the envelope out of my pocket. I opened it up and looked at it. Pulled out a cashier’s check for $38.39. Ken Dortz, who had two children in the Boys and Girls Club, knew what his rent was, he knew what his utility bills were and he knew how much his food was going to cost him that month. He had $38.39 left.

I’m not going to disappoint Ken Dortz and this president is not going to disappoint Ken Dortz. All through the campaign, when I talked to people about making contributions, I said, “For this contribution, you’re going to get good government, you’re going to get a president that has a great mind, a big heart and an extraordinary leader and this whole world can trust. And if you’re looking for anything else, you got the wrong candidate.” That’s a message we consistently—and it’s just—and that’s the truth.

MR. RUSSERT: In all honesty, would Ken Dortz had the same access to the Bush administration than Ken Lay?

SEC’Y EVANS: If Ken Dortz wants to call me up on the phone, I’ll be glad to take his call.

MR. RUSSERT: But could he call the secretary of treasury and meet with the vice president?

SEC’Y EVANS: Ken Dortz represents the hundreds of millions of hard-working people all across this country. It’s not just Ken Dortz; it’s the hundreds of millions of hard-working Americans that love this country.

Were you moved by Don Evans' touching story - which completely evaded the Enron issue?

We weren't.

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

Stinkin' thinkin'

It starts with this:

And leads to:

NOTE: There are similar moves afoot in Wisconsin and who knows where else.

posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2004 02:51:00 PM

All hail the leader:

We were surprised by a couple of developments in the last week by ostensibly moderate reporters and commentators.

Exhibit One is David Sanger of the New York Times. If you watched Bush's press conference after the election, it was clear that he was ungracious and acting like a shit. But here is how Sanger described the president on Washington Week (5 Nov): (emp add)

The first thing that struck you was his tone. This was a George Bush we hadn't seen in a long time. He was jocular, he was needling the press. He had a confidence we last saw after the mission-accomplished moment, when we thought Iraq was a quick victory. We hadn't seen ever since things turned bad in Iraq. Suddenly, it was back. His line, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital and now I intend to spend it," this was vintage George Bush.

Exhibit Two is Gloria Borger of U.S. News & World Report. Here is what she penned post-election: (emp add)

The good Bush instinct is to swing for the fences on domestic policy--reforming both Social Security and the tax code, for instance, which are laudable goals and no mean feats.

So, acting like a jerk is showing "confidence" and destroying a working social insurance program is "laudable". Terrific.

posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2004 07:06:00 AM

Where we are going:

You've heard that Bush is thinking about a non-progressive income tax, or maybe even no income tax at all (to be replaced by a consumption tax). Then there is the possibility of a Scalia-ized Supreme Court deciding there is no right to privacy (and by extension to an abortion). Plus, there is likely to be less regulation of business and fewer protections for the citizen. How should one conceptualize this change in policies?

In a nutshell, we are headed back to the 19th century.

Last month we posted on this phenomenon, and you might find the list of accomplishments over the last 100 years - many which will be reversed or crippled - of interest.

posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2004 08:27:00 PM

What was he thinking?

Arlen Specter shot off his mouth (1, 2) last week about court nominations and how they should not threaten a woman's right to an abortion (or something like that). Then, to nobody's surprise, he gets attacked by the religious right and other Republican senators.

It was clear from the election and the atmospherics surrounding it, that a Bush/Republican win was for a move to the right - along with silencing discordant voices (Democratic and Republican). So why did Specter say what he did? He risks his committee chairmanship, and plays his cards publicly, which is not a good strategy.

Why did he do it? We're stumped.

posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2004 11:18:00 AM

Missing something?

Last week (4 Nov) Juan Cole wrote:

Since Jack Kennedy was shot in 1963, all successful Democratic presidential candidates have been southerners: Johnson, Carter, Clinton.

But how about this line instead:

Since Jack Kennedy was shot in 1963 in Texas, all successful Democratic presidential candidates have been southerners: Johnson, Carter, Clinton.

Sounds scary, huh?

posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2004 01:08:00 AM

Must see cartoon:

Pat Oliphant this Wednesday.

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2004 06:19:00 AM

Values:

Everybody is talking about the fact that "moral values" was a big factor in the presidential election - to Bush's benefit. Did you know that Bush explicitly referenced values in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention this summer? Here is what he had to say: (emp add)

• In this world of change, some things do not change: the values we try to live by, the institutions that give our lives meaning and purpose. Our society rests on a foundation of responsibility and character and family commitment.
  • Because family and work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work.
  • Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child.
  • Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them.
  • Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.
  • And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.
• If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I'm afraid you're not the candidate of conservative values.
• If you voted against the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed, you are not the candidate of conservative values.
• If you gave a speech, as my opponent did, calling the Reagan presidency eight years of "moral darkness," then you may be a lot of things, but the candidate of conservative values is not one of them.

posted by Quiddity at 11/04/2004 09:22:00 AM

Explain this!

A short comment before getting to the main thrust of this posting: We think Kerry did as well as expected, given the state of the electorate. It was not a case of Kerry doing much worse than Democrats in general (witness the Senate pick-ups). It was, in our view, simply that the Democrat's positions on a range of issues - fiscal prudence, progressive taxation on all income, multilaterist foreign policy, civil rights, tolerance, taking science seriously, and economic regulation of the welfare capitalist state - were deemed "liberal-secular-empirical" and inappropriate for these times. We think that those positions are meritorious and should not be adjusted.

There is talk about how the Democrats have to embrace either religion or Social Darwinism - both the property of the Republicans - in order to succeed at the ballot box. We don't buy it. The Republicans in Washington are ideologues and so far their policies haven't hurt most Americans. Remember, the Iraq War has hardly affected the public. No taxes were raised. No draft was called. Similarly, the twin deficits have yet to make their impact. So the Republicans can indulge in their foolishness for a while. But eventually the hard impact will be felt and only then will the public see what they have wrought. Until that time, it's folly to try and imitate the snake-oil salesmen. Of course, the Democrats should still do more in terms of developing more of a voice through think-tanks, media presence, and organization.

That said, did you know that Kerry did worse in Florida than the Democrat who was running for a Senate seat? Here are the results:

Florida vote for President:

R - Bush 3,838,376 52%
D - Kerry 3,460,867 47%

Florida vote for Senate:

R - Martinez 3,553,450 50%
D - Castor 3,472,424 48%

How do you explain that Kerry was 5% behind Bush, yet the Democrat Castor was 2% behind Martinez? Was it that the Jewish vote went in part to Bush because of his (largely favorable to Israel) policies in the Middle East? We don't know, but it's something to contemplate.

posted by Quiddity at 11/03/2004 10:10:00 PM

It's official:

Welcome to the new America. A Christian nation that cares more about "moral values" than terrorism, the Iraq War, the economy, the deficit, and the Supreme Court.




UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan says Bill Bennett is now calling for a "culture war". That's what it looks like. From Bennett's NRO essay: (emp add)

Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society, through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it. Now is the time to begin our long, national cultural renewal ("The Great Relearning," as novelist Tom Wolfe calls it) — no less in legislation than in federal court appointments. It is, after all, the main reason George W. Bush was reelected.

posted by Quiddity at 11/03/2004 11:19:00 AM

I should have known:

Quiddity here, breaking from the usual style and speaking in the first person. This post may alienate some readers for my political orientation (moderate with a liberal tilt), but honesty is the best policy.

I have an unusual record when it comes to voting for president. It is listed in the table below with (highly simplified) reasons for each choice.

year	voted for	reasons
1972	McGovern	Vietnam War.
1976	Ford	Thought he was a reasonable moderate.
1980	Carter	Reagan too conservative.
1984	Mondale	Reagan too conservative, deficits, defense budget.
1988	Dukakis	Bush probably too conservative.
1992	Bush	Started out as a Tsongas supporter. Didn't trust Clinton. Bush seemed moderate (raised taxes) and was a multilateralist (1st Iraq War).
1996	Dole	Since the election wasn't going to be contested, voted for Dole because of his wry humor (Since then, assessment of Dole has plummeted.)
2000	Gore	Bush too conservative. Republican control of Congress. Supreme Court.
2004	Kerry	Bush way too conservative, deficits, Iraq War. Republican control of Congress. Supreme Court.

Notice anything? Every time I've voted for president, I've voted for the person who came in second (in Electoral Votes). I'm assuming here that Ohio goes for Bush.

I must say that of all the elections I've participated in, this one struck me as the most important, and a defeat will be very disheartening.

posted by Quiddity at 11/03/2004 02:10:00 AM

Think about it:

After a severe attack on the United States in 2001, Bush took the country to war for the stated purpose of defending the country.

If he loses in tomorrow's election, that will be a huge rejection of the man. Huge.

(Several currents in this stream: Bush's failure to address terrorism prior to 9/11, the rationale for war was found lacking, and the waging of the war was incompetent.)

posted by Quiddity at 11/01/2004 10:21:00 AM