Saturday, October 12, 2002
SHERMAN -- State Rep. Ron Clark, whose nomination to a federal judgeship was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Oct. 2, has officially abandoned his re-election campaign but said he still hopes to win the race in November.
Clark said he would stop campaigning for the District 62 seat, which includes Grayson and Fannin counties, and asked Democratic nominee Donnie Jarvis to stop campaigning as well.
Clark still hopes to win on Nov. 5 to set up a special election for the post.
Jarvis congratulated Clark on his appointment to the federal bench in Beaumont. An aide to Jarvis said Jarvis would not stop campaigning, the Herald-Democrat in Sherman reported in its Friday editions.
Clark had continued to campaign after the Senate confirmed his nomination as a federal judge, saying he wouldn't really become a judge until the president signed his confirmation papers.
Clark, a Sherman attorney, said Thursday he had learned President Bush was signing his confirmation papers. Bush had nominated him for the federal bench last year.
Clark confirmed that he had written the president, asking that the completion of his confirmation process be held up.
Clark had been quoted recently as saying he wanted to stay in the Legislature through the end of next year's 20-week session.
Clark said it is important for a Republican to represent District 62. Republicans hope to elect one of their own as House speaker, unseating incumbent Pete Laney, D-Hale Center. House members will elect the speaker when they convene next year.
It's too late for Clark's name to be removed from the ballot, or for another Republican to be on the ballot in his place, but if Clark wins anyway, it would trigger a special election, allowing Republicans a chance to hang on to the seat.
The Federal Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits federal judges or judicial nominees from participating in partisan politics or running for any political office.
And, while you're at it get these for your collection if you haven't already:
A fun book with some very simple but effective arguments for why, as the title says, we're right and they are
And, of course, the hilarious classic:
which is worth the purchase price for its fantasy chapter about chickenhawks in 'nam.
According to a press release on the Republican National Committee website, “Marc Racicot graduated from Carroll College in 1970, where he was an Army ROTC Graduate and Class President.” This is curious, since Carroll College only started its ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) program in 2001.
Well, the RNC has "made a little error" at least.
We're back with CNN SATURDAY EDITION. And the markets plumped up from five-year lows in the middle week. was good news, right? But we've seen these gyrations before, and at least in terms of the docks, and what happened this week, that was good news for the market. A billion dollars a day the economy was losing with those docks on the West Coast shut.
ARENA: Christine, wasn't there already a great deal of economic damage that was done just -- I mean I was reading reports about, you know, warehouses that were...
ROMANS: Absolutely. Absolutely. Ten billion dollars was the estimate of the damage done to this economy. To put that into context, some of the low-end estimates for a quick strike against Iraq is about 50 billion. This is a cooling off period. We got 80 more days, so if this rears its ugly head again -- there are some folks who are concerned that it could be a big cost to the U.S. economy.
Meanwhile, you got toys out on ships in the middle of the ocean.
ARENA: Right, so what does this mean for Christmas?
ROMANS: Right, t-shirts, toys, GM auto parts. We've already plants closed down. So folks are very optimistic that this is resolved, but it doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination the economy is moving along here.
WALLACE: As you know, President Bush was reluctant to get involved. He was hoping the two sides could resolve their differences and he would not have to step in. He did. Is there a sense from the people you talked to you he got in too late?
ROMANS: Well, some people would say that. Although one source of mine told me that this was a tailor-made crisis for him, to flex his economic muscle and sort of say, "Hey listen, no, I am really paying attention to the economy and I have saved this economy billions of dollars by this move." His opponents of course would say that he did wait too long and already, there was already $10 billion of damage to the U.S. economy.
Walkout prevents vote on monitors
6 commissioners oppose oversight of Nov. 5 polling
BY KARL ROSS
Silently and in unison, six Cuban-American Miami-Dade County commissioners abandoned the commission chambers Thursday, effectively blocking a plan to bring to the Nov. 5 election outside monitors who usually oversee polling in troubled countries.
Those who want the monitors say their presence may be the only way to restore credibility to the county's election system following the disastrous Sept. 10 primary. But opponents say it's embarrassing to Miami-Dade.
The highly unusual simultaneous departure just before a public hearing on the issue left the commission without a quorum and forestalled any vote on whether to contract the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Democracy to oversee the Nov. 5 vote.
The 13-member body needs seven commissioners present to be able to take action. After the six left, six who support using monitors remained. One commissioner, who is about to leave office, was absent from the meeting.
''It looks like an exodus to me,'' said Commissioner Betty Ferguson, one of those remaining. ``I think it's a deliberate walkout, and I feel insulted.''
Community activists -- many concerned about what they believe was the disenfranchisement of black voters in recent elections -- were stunned.
Many had sat through several hours of a zoning meeting because of a scheduling glitch to wait for discussion of the monitors.
''This is Third World politics,'' said Max Rameau, a member of the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition. ``You have a government with questions about its legitimacy. And instead of trying to alleviate those questions, they're reinforcing those questions. This is encouraging people not to vote.''
What a freaking joke. And, they're just getting warmed up for '04.
Friday, October 11, 2002
Meanwhile, I think we are all disgusted at the Demoncrats for the way they slandered poor Mike Taylor in Montana and caused him to drop out of the race by hinting that he was a gay hairdresser who swindled students out of $159,000 when he ran a beauty school in Colorado. The plain fact is he was a straight hairdresser who swindled students out of $159,000 when he ran a beauty school in Colorado, but do you think that matters to these bigots? No, they continue to show pictures of him as a hairdresser, which makes viewers think he is gayo-American just because of how he looks and acts.
I have heard of many underhanded tricks in my time but this has got to be the lowest and sleaziest yet! Using real pictures of a candidate! Imagine! Talk about the politics of destruction!
You will never find us Republicans doing that. We are proud to say that when William Simon (who got a judge to overturn his $78 million fraud verdict, so there) used a picture of "Red" Grey Davis to say he was a crook, it was a fake. That is what I hope all Americans will remember.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Christian Coalition leaders fired up the faithful Friday with a pro-Israel rally and a pitch to renew the group's power by rousting out the vote in November for conservative candidates.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., exhorted the crowd at the Washington Convention Center to vote liberals out of office.
``If you don't do it, it ain't gonna be done,'' he said. ``You will be doing the Lord's work, and he will richly bless you for it.''
She didn't actually say that, but the reality of what she did say is made a bit more obvious by bringing it into the present.
PS:I don't envy you those cocktail cruises with the folks from The Nation any more, what with Hitchens and now Ron Rosenbaum giving the old magazine a swift kick on the way out the door. (My take on Christopher, whom I met only once 20 years ago: his defense of Rushdie was pretty goddamn noble; his work from Bosnia should've won about 200 awards, and he was one of the several hundred people-friend and foe-whom Bill Clinton drove crazy.) Sorry to see Ron walk down that now-banal path trod by so many lesser journalists, although I am glad that some of his best friends still are Negroes and folksingers. I am intrigued, however, by the assertion made by both he and Hitchens that John Ashcroft's public evisceration of Amendments Four through Six, while deplorable, are not as bad as they could be. Christopher says we should be more afraid of Osama bin Laden and Ron says Big John is not as bad as Castro. So, that is another way the world has changed: all we need in an Attorney General of the United States is that he not be as frightening as a mass murderer nor as brutal as a senile authoritarian. Bar's pretty low, there, isn't it? A. Mitchell Palmer, come on down.
What I am intrigued by is the fact that -- pace David Brock. Nice try, John McCain-these defections seem to flow only rightward. Where are the high-profile conservatives driven middleward by their Movement's reliance on the foul detritus of white supremacy in the south and the gun-totin' nativist lunacy in the West? Where's the Papist columnist revolted by the fact that every Republican candidate must receive the blessing of the folks at Bob Jones University, which for years has bestowed honors upon the truly horrid Ian Paisley, whose rhetoric has inspired more acts of actual terrorism in Ireland than could be imagined by those vicious lefty journos and bloodthristy postmodern film critics who've stolen the Left from Chris and Ron? The Right must have some kind of union, dont you think?
CNN seems to be backtracking from earlier report. Not sure what's up.
Well, anyway, that was weird. CNN did the big breaking news thing then pretended it never happened. Nice going.
I like a good laugh from time to time, but I agree with Atrios's reaction on this one [the PBS comedy show about Florda]. Comedy serves mostly to distance oneself from the subject matter. While this could serve as a form of "release", and could be -let's say, "healthy" -the immediate consequence is also that it "devalues" the subject matter. In that sense, it's really, at the end, detrimental to the criticism that these comic skits try to convey. Sometimes, when I watch Jon Stewart, I laugh at this jokes, but the immediacy of the matters of which he makes fun of, worries me since most of the things he says will soon become just another "joke". I don't know if the comic relief that comedy provides makes these matters more easily accessible, but they also make it easier to dismiss them. If had a membership with PBS, I would also cancel it over this one.
Part of me wants to agree with the Pegster that America has changed, but that part has to disagree with her on the date. I'm an "America changed on December 9, 2000" kind a guy. That was the day that the Supreme Court decided to stop the vote counting in Florida, casting a permanent shadow on the last branch of government that we thought we could count on. In theory, untainted: in reality, corrupt to the bone. We ceased knowing how our government would work from that point forward because each branch of government went to war with the other, and it seems like we've been off-balance ever since. From secret trials to secret meetings, from month-long Presidential vacations to indeterminate sentences, from government by lack of mandate to government by quiet executive orders. Everything is done on the sly now: a subtle rule change here, lobbyists assuming positions without congressional review there, judicial appointees with no paper trail, and if you do want those papers, or any others, be prepared to file a suit for them. It's all very good-old-boy muddled, done with a wink and a thin-lipped, humorless grin and no need-to-worry-your-pretty-little-head, we know what we are doing. Call it the evil of banality.
If we can't get passionate, like Peggy says, maybe its because the government won't tell us what they are doing, and the media is too busy admiring the scenery out the side window of the car, when they should be facing forward and telling us where these people are taking us. They both feed us gloss and sound bites, press releases and dog and pony shows, but nothing we can sink our teeth into. It's a symbiotic dance we aren't invited to.
(btw, there was another murder this morning.)
And just to to add one more final comment to this ridiculous story -- if I run for political office one day and the videos of me during my glam-rock period come out, well...sucks to be me!*
*no such videos actually exist. really.
So, give all your money to:
Or, find the competitive race near you courtesy of Liberal Oasis (scroll down to the right).
(however, if you do want to support me you can always do it by purchasing some junk through the amazon links to the left).
What Percent of Americans are Homosexuals?
An August 2002 Gallup Poll asked the public to estimate what percent of American men were gay, and the percent of American women who are lesbians. While the answers ranged widely, the average estimates by the public were that 21.4% of all men are gay, and that 22% of all women are lesbians. About a quarter of the public thinks that more than 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.
Analysis shows that younger Americans give higher estimates of the number of men and women that are homosexual than do older Americans. Republicans and conservatives estimate lower percentages than do\ Democrats and liberals.
Actually the whole poll is interesting. Very contradictory answers to things.
Thursday, October 10, 2002
We're going to war. There's not much point in having doubts now, not that there ever was. I hope that we achieve our goals quickly and leave the region better off, with a reasonable facimile of liberal civil society. Nothing will make me happier than looking back at this time next year and wondering what I was so worried about. Here's hoping.
Here's what we're in for, folks.
U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today.
The plan also calls for war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders and a transition to an elected civilian government that could take months or years.
UPDATE: And Digby says, in Matthew Yglesias's comments, in response to Yglesias saying "But if I don't get what I want and it does come to war, you won't see me out on the streets rallying for a Hussein victory either.":
I don't think the pro-Saddam rally will be well attended.
But, there will be prayer vigils and sleepless nights on the part of those of us who hope that this incompetent administration doesn't fuck it up so much that all hell breaks loose in the region, including the real possibility of nuclear war and many american and arab casualties. And we'll be wishing fervently that terrorism on US soil doesn't become something we'll have to learn to live with because we just can't seem to kill all the people who hate our guts and multiply exponentially with every aggressive action that we take. And we'll sure hope that we can get some cooperation from the unstable regimes that finance them without having to invade and depose their leaders, too.
And, if everything works out, let's keep our fingers crossed that we can turn the mideast into a democratic paradise quickly because judging from our experience in Afghanistan, our President meant it when he said he "wasn't into nation building." We really don't need to fight this war again.
And I know that a lot of us will probably get together around the dinner table and water coolers to talk about the enormous sums of money remaking the mideast is costing and will continue to cost for years to come, while we worry about whether we'll have jobs or health care or a chance of a comfortable retirement.
So, rather than attending pro-Saddam rallies, people who are against this war being waged by someone in whom they have no faith will be instead be gathering together to fervently pray that his adventure goes perfectly every step of the way.
You've likely heard of the lock-out of longshoreman in port facilities on the West coast and how President Bush has now invoked the Taft-Hartley Act to force the workers to go back to work. There's been a lot of sloppy reporting on this case -- and we'll be saying more about that. But for the moment let me draw your attention to this. Eugene Scalia (yes, son of Antonin) is the Solicitor of the Department of Labor. He's actually not quite an appointee. President Bush couldn't get enough votes to get him confirmed so he put Scalia in the job through a recess appointment this last January, as he did with Otto Reich at State. So Scalia is the head lawyer on the government's negotiations between the Pacific Maritime Association and the longshoreman's union, the ILWU.
So far so good.
But it turns out that Scalia has a bit of a conflict. Before he became Solicitor one of his legal clients was -- you guessed it -- the Pacific Maritime Association. Click here to see the key page of Scalia's public disclosure statement, which has just been added to the TPM Document Colleciton.
The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting. Arguments that stumble into each other like drunks are not serious. Washington is abuzz with the "real reason" this or that subgroup of the administration wants this war. A serious and respectful effort to rally the citizenry would offer the real reasons, would base the conclusion on the evidence rather than vice versa, would admit to the ambiguities and uncertainties, would be frank about the potential cost. A serious effort to take the nation into war would not hesitate to interrupt people while they're watching a sitcom.
But citizens ought to be more serious, too. They tell pollsters they favor the Bush policy, then they say they favor conditions like U.N. approval that are not part of the Bush policy. Many, in polls, seem to make a distinction between war, which they favor, and casualties, which they don't. Neither side in this argument has an open-and-shut case, and certainly agreeing with the president's case doesn't make you a fool. Agreeing with the president even though you didn't hear his case—because he apparently didn't much care if you heard it—is a different story.
Q Can I just ask a question about coalition building? There was a sense a few weeks ago that the U.S. was willing to act against Iraq. Then in the last few days we've seen that there would be no way that the U.S. would act unilaterally because it had an ally in the U.K. And now today you say that it would have a large coalition. Who else is there that's going to be part of this large coalition if it doesn't go the U.N. route?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that I'll let various nations speak for themselves. There was a description earlier of the types of things that people are hearing that other nations around the world may engage in as part of a military coalition. But I think it's fair to say that it would not be small, a coalition, that -- a coalition of the willing to protect freedom. And the United States, the United Kingdom and others have been working to talk to other nations about this. Again, we hope that this will be done because the United Nations will act. But there's no assurance. And so to assure the peace, the President has said that if the U.N. fails to act, we will work with our coalition.
Q You can't give us any more sense of who these others are?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's only proper to let other nations speak for themselves. It's not the role of the American spokesman to do that for other countries.
"The Democrats may wonder, when this is done, why they didn't get this over with in August."
Well, one reason could be that it wasn't brought up until September, after a month of claiming nothing was in the works, with Rumsfeld wondering why the press kept asking about it, and Andrew Card saying they were holding off until September due to marketing concerns.
Other than that, he's probably right.
Nathan Newman has a nice rundown of what's been accomplished in California under Davis. That doesn't mean he took the initiative on all or even most of these things, but it's pretty clear that most of them wouldn't happen under a Republican governor.
Fall on your own swords Greens, don't bring the rest of us down with you.
Wednesday, October 09, 2002
Or maybe not.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration sided Wednesday with auto manufacturers in opposing a California requirement that a percentage of passenger vehicles sold in the state achieve zero emissions, meaning reliance on all-electric cars.
The Justice Department maintained that federal law overrides any state effort to regulate fuel economy for cars and trucks.
In a 37-page filing with a federal appeals court in San Francisco, the department lawyers argued that California's zero emission mandate impinges on what is solely a federal responsibility.
``The Energy Policy and Conservation Act provides that when a federal fuel economy standard is in effect, a state or a political subdivision of a state may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards,'' the department argued.
Apparently it's time for Congress to use its article III powers to limit the apellate functions of the courts.
In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the
Congress shall make.
Sounds creepy to me.
UPDATE: CalPundit has some comments on this.
It turns out PBS also has another idea for how to treat the Florida issue too. No, not with a competing investigation or an expose that shares our focus. Oh no! PBS has opted instead, literally, to treat the issue as a joke, with a satirical show about Florida. Counting on Democracy’ is out; counting on comedy is in.
Again, here is what ITVS told us: "PBS did commission a documentary on the Florida recount. It is completed and will be on the PBS national schedule in October. The title is WHO COUNTS? ELECTION REFORM IN AMERICA. The show is very different from COUNTING ON DEMOCRACY. Here is a short description: "Comedian and Saturday Night Live" cast member Darrell Hammond and former CNN Washington Bureau Chief Frank Sesno headline Who Counts? Election Reform in America, to be broadcast on Thursday, October 17, 10 p.m. on PBS.
"Who Counts? will combine original comedy and reporting on the 2000 presidential election -- with balloting issues in Florida as a key element -- in looking at election reform today. Darrell Hammond will portray Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton and himself in all-new material written and produced especially for the one-hour program. He will be interviewed in character by Mr. Sesno, who will also narrate."
Many gun owners see every gun control measure, no matter how benign, as another step towards taking away their right to bear arms. This is true both because of paranoia whipped up by right-wing politicians and pundits who want to manipulate gun owners into supporting their other causes (regressive taxation, reversing environmental laws, et al) and because some gun control advocates sincerely do want to ban all guns. As long as a complete ban on gun ownership is even a possibility, then many (if not most) gun owners will oppose any attempts at gun control.
Once this is done, the majority of gun owners, knowing that their rights are safe, won't object to reasonable gun control measures. A few will, but they'll be much easier to overcome when their hysterical ravings are ignored by the majority of gun owners.
I've seen a lot of people say similar things and it is just plain wrong. I think parallels to the abortion issue are reasonable, and Roe v. Wade hasn't put a stop to people trying to ban abortions and frankly they've had quite a lot of success. It just changed the battle. I don't think "we can't ban guns, so not to worry, but there's only one gun licensed gun shop in your state. Oh, and there's a 5 day waiting period. And we're going to spend money to teach kids that guns are bad." will pacify gun enthusiasts, any more than "Abortion is legal but there's only one place you can get one in the state. Oh, and there's a 5 day waiting period. And we're going to spend money to teach teenagers that those who get abortions are evil." will pacify pro-choice advocates.
The point is, gun control advocates reasonable or unreasonable (a subjective judgement) are always going to be supporting measures which at some level make it more difficult to get guns and increase registration and tracking requirements. Gun control opponents, again reasonable or unreasonable, will generally oppose such matters, and taking away the "gun ban" fantasy won't change that. Or, perhaps more accurately, to the extent that the "gun ban fantasy" is not a fantasy it won't in anyway be lessened by a Supreme Court affirming the individual right to bear arms.
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Act I: The Debate.
After accusing Davis of setting "an awful ethical tone" in office, Simon demanded in the debate that the governor give a simple "Yes or No" answer as to whether he accepted such an illegal donation while in his government office.
Davis refused, saying that he had done nothing that violated the law. "I have always abided by the law and have no recollection of not doing so," Davis said.
In an after-debate news conference, Simon was pressed by skeptical reporters if he had evidence that the governor had accepted an illegal campaign contribution and said-- amid similar cries of "Yes or No" that echoed his debate words to the governor -- that he did and it "would be presented very shortly."
Act II: The Evidence.
LOS ANGELES - The head of a law enforcement group backing Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon released two photos Tuesday that he claimed show Democratic Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) illegally accepting a $10,000 campaign contribution in the state Capitol.
Monty Holden, executive director of the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, said the 1998 photos were taken in the office of the lieutenant governor, the post Davis held at the time.
California law makes it a crime to receive contributions in state office buildings.
Davis strategist Garry South dismissed the photos as "bogus" and said the office shown was not the lieutenant governor's office.
"There's nothing in this office that was in the lieutenant governor's office," he said. "Not the artwork, not the doors, not even the carpet. Bogus."
The photos show Davis accepting a check from Al Angele, then executive director of COPS. Davis was running for his first term as governor at the time.
Davis said the meeting took place in his campaign office in Los Angeles, which would not be illegal.
Angele said the charge by current members of COPS — a group that once supported Davis — is "totally unbelievable."
"I've never been in (Davis') office in my life," said Angele, now a Davis appointee to the Board of Prison Terms. "I don't understand it. It's out of left field."
Simon initially made the allegation Monday after the candidates met in Los Angeles for their first debate before the Nov. 5 election.
But Tuesday, Simon backed off, saying it was a matter between COPS and the Fair Political Practices Commission. "It's not my allegation. ... This is California Organization of Police and Sheriffs speaking, not me," Simon told KGO-AM.
Act III: The Humiliating Loss...
The Bush plan (actually developed by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 and at that time called Defense Policy Guidance) is to maintain American dominance over the whole world. Right now, our permanent presence in southwest Asia is a mite weak, because nobody wants us there.
So, once we defeat Iraq, we can set up permanent bases there, just as we have in Germany and Japan and Cuba. Then nobody in the region will dare get out of line.
These days, with the government lying to us routinely, it's wise to look for the hidden agenda. Last Friday, at the Pentagon press briefing, we were told that our forces in Afghanistan had located and destroyed a buried cache of bombs, the largest such find since that war began.
One of the Pentagon reporters had the good sense to ask whether the munitions were aerial bombs. Yes, he was told, they were.
But, oops, the people we're fighting in Afghanistan don't have combat aircraft. Why would they have a huge supply of aerial bombs?
Something's wrong with this picture, and the Pentagon reporters picked up on it. All their subsequent questions about the bombs were met with "I don't know" and "We'll get back to you on that."
My best guess is that the bomb discovery never happened. Our noble leaders want us to believe they're doing a great job in Afghanistan, and, with the absence of any results, they make up stories.
Two weeks ago they showed us film purporting to be of an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile being fired at American aircraft over the no-fly zone. Maybe, but the missile they showed appeared to be far too large to be an anti-aircraft missile.
I'm doubtful. And one has to wonder why, over the past decade, the Iraqis have targeted our aircraft almost daily and have never hit one. In most such cases, we "retaliate" by blowing up the targeting installation.
WASHINGTON –– Saddam Hussein's apparent policy of not resorting to terrorist attacks against the United States could change if he concludes a U.S.-led attack against him was inevitable, CIA Director George Tenet said as President's Bush bid for congressional support to use force hit a snag in the Senate.
Tenet, in a letter read before a joint hearing of the House and Senate intelligence committees Tuesday, said that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons."
But Tenet went on to say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack against his country could not be deterred, "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action."
The union had agreed to a 30 day contract extension which management rejected.
Bush delivered the same stump speech he's been giving all around the country in his same halting three-words-at-a-time cadence. Then he lied and said he doesn't want to go to war... again. Nobody believes that.
This is another thing which bugs me. Warbloggers are all convinced we have to go to war. Bush is obviously convinced war is inevitable. So why does he keep pretending otherwise?
"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will."—Speaking about Saddam Hussein, Manchester, N.H., Oct. 5, 2002 (Thanks to George Dupper.)
I mean, I'm a bit against this whole war thing but even I'm not advocating uniliteral disarmament..
There is no need here for me to analyze yesterday's President Bush speech. His hair was short, his arguments succinct, his moral clarity both moral and clear. I think that his forceful presentation should, once and for all, silence the 30 percent or so of the American population that still, against all reason, continues to wring its wet hanky of whiny anti-war petulance. Those who believe that Bush needs to provide "evidence" against the war have obviously neither participated in war or evidence-gathering. Every day, it becomes more obvious to me that my arguments on this topic are the only ones that matter.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-never heard of Godwin's Law).
In any case, I remember the spittle flying through my screen when the German Foreign Minister made a similar comparison.
Monday, October 07, 2002
CINCINNATI -- President Bush, seeking warmaking power from Congress and the United Nations, said Monday night that Iraq's Saddam Hussein is the greatest threat to world peace and must be disarmed. ``The time for denying, deceiving and delaying has come to an end,'' he declared.
``Saddam Hussein must disarm himself or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him,'' Bush said in remarks prepared for delivery in a rare evening address to the nation.
Ken Layne has more on this.
JOE MADISON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: No, because I think you heard, even your own reporter said, there is not going to be a slam dunk here. There's not going to be any new revelations. He is going to present the same information that he has presented to the United Nations and to the American people before. The other thing that you have to keep in mind, that this poll was not taken of liberals versus conservatives, and when the bullets starts to fly in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's troops will not be asking people if you'reliberal or conservative to determine if you get shot...
GALLAGHER: No, but the poll was...
MADISON: I didn't interrupt you, Mike. Let me finish. GALLAGHER: No, no, no, but the question is really (UNINTELLIGIBLE). You know that...
MADISON: So the poll was not written. There's nothing to indicate it was written by liberals or conservatives...
GALLAGHER: The "New York Times?"
BLITZER: Let me pick up on that point because we're getting flooded with e-mail. Mike, this one for you. "The Bush administration is
making Iraq its cause celebre (ph) and diverting attention from other issues like the economy. It is short-sighted to think that a war
with Iraq will solve all our problems with terrorism."
What do you say to Gila from California?
GALLAGHER: Well, Gila needs to remember that this is about national security. And Gila shouldn't have a short memory and forget
what happened September 11, 2001. And that's what this is about. If people want to play political games and already say -- have
Joe Madison sit there in Washington and say this won't be a slam dunk before hearing the first word out of President Bush's mouth,
tonight. That's because people like Joe and Gila are rooting against the president and against this country. And listen, I say to Gila or
to Joe, if you don't like what this government stands for, go over to Baghdad and be a loyal to Saddam Hussein like McDermott is.
MADISON: You know, I'm going to tell you something. Now, Mike, we are both, and spent some time in Dayton, Ohio, about 50 miles
-- I know it's true. And because I'm stating a fact, let me tell you, don't you ever question my loyalty to this country...
GALLAGHER: You're un-American. You're un-American.
GALLAGHER: ...you hate America. And that's why...
MADISON: Well, this is not a ...
GALLAGHER: ... People like you are being deemed irrelevant. Madison. ... Debate. Now, it's name calling. GALLAGHER: It's true.
MADISON: I mean, this is...
GALLAGHER: ... You're un-American. You're either with us or with the terrorists.
BLITZER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Mike, let him respond (inaudible). You can't make an accusation like that
without giving him a chance to talk.
MADISON: He can't -- as a matter of fact, he can't make an accusation like that without knowing the person.
GALLAGHER: I do know the person...
MADISON: That's the best...
GALLAGHER: I know what you stand for, and that's why your whittling away and saying that you know President Bush won't
have a slam dunk tonight because you're hoping he doesn't. Listen, I asked a simple question...
BLITZER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. All right...
GALLAGHER: You're either with us or with the terrorists, Wolf. The president's (inaudible). Which side are you on, Joe?
MADISON: I made my remarks based on the CNN reporter who talked to the people inside the White House, just this morning, who
indicated not to expect anything new. If you were listening to CNN, then you would have heard that.
GALLAGHER: Of course, I'm listening to CNN.
(Ignore extra spots in tables)
22. Question: Would you favor or oppose invading
Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam
Hussein from power if you knew that — -
A. There would be 100 U.S. casualties
BASED ON 503 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM X
BASED ON 282
LIKELY VOTERS IN FORM X
|National Adults (Oct 3-6 2002)||
|Likely voters (Oct 3-6 2002)||
B. There would be 1,000 U.S. casualties
BASED ON 523 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM Y
BASED ON 262
LIKELY VOTERS IN FORM Y
|National Adults (Oct 3-6 2002)||
|Likely voters (Oct 3-6 2002)||
C. There would be 5,000 U.S. casualties
BASED ON 476 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM Z
BASED ON 262
LIKELY VOTERS IN FORM Z
|National Adults (Oct 3-6 2002)||
|Likely voters (Oct 3-6 2002)||
Reader Keith Thompson wonders, if Al Gore should run and win the Presidency in 2004, will he be prevented from running in 2008 by the 22nd Amendment? It does say No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
I look forward to some Republicans trying to make that argument..
Here's the story.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused on Monday to be drawn into New Jersey's Senate dispute, allowing the Democrats to replace their candidate one month before the election.
The case resurrected memories of the court's intervention in the Bush-Gore presidential contest. But this time the justices stayed out and let the decision of a Democratic-dominated state supreme court stand.
Facts, shmacts. We've got a novel to write!
UPDATE: dave notes in the comments:
Here's the Times story from Oct. 3:
"The seven justices — four Democrats, two Republicans and an independent — after noting that the law did not specifically prohibit a change of candidates within 51 days of the election, ordered the state attorney general to oversee the printing of new ballots and their delivery to all eligible absentee voters."
Okay, it's more correct than I thought - I forgot that Whitman followed jersey tradition in keeping the court balanced - so, though 6 were appointed by her some were democrats.
Dominated is still overkill as a word, and the unanimity renders the point moot.
UPDATE 2: Digby, who still needs his own blog, says:
Look, if you are going to make these political distinctions about our courts, which are supposed to be non-partisan (particularly at the Supreme Court level) the least the AP could do is be consistent and refer to the U.S. Supreme Court as Republican dominated.
This is what Justice Stephens meant in his dissent in Bush vs. Gore. He worried that the partisan nature of the decision would lead to a lack of faith in the impartiality of judges, and by extension, the justice system. No shit.
Footnote: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who had picked up the story, has now retracted his reference to the e-mail. But although Leopold provided the e-mail on condition that his source, the former Enron executive, not be named, the Times published the name Friday after Krugman passed a copy to a colleague with the name only partially scratched out. "I am sick to my stomach. . . . I have screwed up very seriously," Krugman told Leopold by e-mail. Says Leopold: "The Times broke its promise to me. . . . I felt like the Times news division sold me out."
It is going to be the latest steamy political blockbuster to embarrass the Conservative Party, but this time it is different: it has been written by the Tory leader himself.
With the party still reeling over the Edwina Currie, Alan Clark and Jeffrey Archer diaries, Iain Duncan Smith has at last found a publisher for his own first novel.
Mr Duncan Smith's manuscript was rejected by several literary agents and publishing houses and a Conservative spokesman indicated a year ago that it had been shelved, with the party leader "concentrating on the political situation".
Mr Duncan Smith's literary agent, Guy Rose confirmed, however, that he was preparing to make an announcement of a deal for the book, titled Ithaca, "very soon" - possibly even at this week's Frankfurt Book Fair.
Mr Duncan Smith wrote the thriller over three summer holidays before being catapulted to the head of his party.
Its central character is John Grand, an unhappily married art dealer whose adventures take him to Washington, Greece and London in a tale of "deception and power" which includes a gay villain, who gets his come-uppance.
Speaking about his literary effort last year, Mr Duncan Smith gave no clues as to whether Ithaca was based on real-life events at Westminster - as has been suggested of Mrs Currie's own steamy political romans a clef.
"The homosexual character comes a cropper due to his own deceit," he said. "The novel is about how someone can be so determined to get to the top that they will do almost anything."
Prurient readers will be disappointed to learn, however, that there is no sex in the book: the Tory leader, unlike Mrs Currie, leaves the lovers he describes at the bedroom door.
Mr. Smith's agent went on to say that lifelong Tory Andrew Sullivan has read an advance copy and found it "very true to life."*
*Everyone can play! Submit your Sullivan quotes in the comments.
DALLAS -- The parent company of The Dallas Morning News on Sunday accused House Majority Leader Dick Armey of retaliating against the newspaper for its coverage of his son's failed congressional run.
The newspaper reported in its Monday editions that Armey tried to have language inserted into a $10 billion military appropriations bill to force parent Belo Corp. to divest itself of one of its three Dallas media properties.
Dallas-based Belo owns The News, three other daily newspapers and 19 television stations across the country.
Telephone messages left with Armey's office and an assistant by The Associated Press were not immediately returned Sunday night. The Morning News said Armey did not respond to requests for comment.
The actual provision was not in the working draft, but could be added when the bill is finalized this week.
ANOTHER ATTACK: The mayor of Paris was the target of a murder attempt over the weekend. His assailant was a disgruntled young man, who was also a Muslim who objected to homosexuality. After the assassination of Pim Fortuyn, it seems that Europe's gay leaders are becoming highly vulnerable to public violence. Fortuyn, of course, was murdered by a far leftist; mayor Delanoe was targeted by an anti-gay Muslim. But I wonder if these events will in any way cause the gay rights movement in Europe and here to re-think its proximity to the left and to multi-culturalism. It's still almost taboo for gay people to publicly criticize Islamic hostility to homosexuals; in fact, it's far more common to hear critics of Islamism being decried as racists among gay activists than to hear Islamic bigots being criticized for homophobia. Perhaps that will now begin to change, as it should. Can you imagine the fuss if an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian had tried to kill an openly gay politician? So why the double standard for the other religious right - among Muslims?
"It's still almost taboo for gay people to publicly criticize Islamic hostility to homosexuals."
Here's one, two, three, four , five ,six ,seven articles on the subject. Two post 9/11.
Look, here's another.
Sully's exceeded himself with this one.
On the other hand, we have this, this, this, and this.
BOBIGNY, Oct. 6 (Fox/Reuters Newswire) - Investigators in this predominantly Muslim suburb of Paris, itself heavily Muslim, have announced that the attacker, a 39-year-old man born in France of Algerian parents, is a devout Muslim, whose faith in this alleged "religion of peace" drove him to attack non-Muslim Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe.
Analysts in the United States, the free world's last bulwark against Islamo-fascist tyranny, speculated that the Muslim attacker's beliefs impelled him to commit the attack, since, like all Muslims, he is required by his God "Allah" to murder non-Muslims, especially those who are homosexual.
Algeria is a heavily Muslim country in northern Africa. Many Islamic militants come from there
Sunday, October 06, 2002
Simply INCREADIBLE, August 10, 1998
Reviewer: A reader from reader from the United States
Finaly a book that expresses the ideas of every THINKING white person. If your the type of person who liked the "Turner Diaries" and "Serpents Walk", then you must read this amazing second book by Andrew Macdonald. This book was even said to be with Terry Nichols at the time of his arrest. Andrew Macdonald is the pen name of Dr. Pierce (head of the National Allience). Writers of this caliber are hard to find
Anyway, I go back and forth on this one. Better to have small majority in House or in Senate? On one hand a small majority in the House gives you real control over the legislative agenda. On the other hand a small majority in the Senate (like now) gives you ability to derail Judicial nominees....
Investigators arrested two men Saturday who police said admitted they were involved in the murders of three women at the El Rinconcito Venezolano restaurant, saying robbery was their motive.
Lloyd Thomas Johnson Jr., 29, of Lake Worth and Randell Christian Leighty, 23, of Greenacres, each are charged with three counts of first-degree murder one count of armed robbery
Neither the headline nor story mentions their religious background. The middle name of one, as well as their Kansas background, makes it pretty obvious. Odd, this is irresponsible reporting - glossing over their Christian backgrounds is likely to reinforce prejudices, not tame them. I expect nothing different from the media elites. It's very different from their reporting on the recent attempted murder in Paris which includes the attacker's religion in the 3rd paragraph.
Senior law enforcement officials have told the New York Times that the FBI is tracking hundreds of muslims in its search for terrorist plots within the U.S.
"The surveillance campaign is being carried out by every major F.B.I. office in the country and involves 24-hour monitoring of the suspects' telephone calls, e-mail messages and Internet use, as well as scrutiny of their credit-card charges, their travel and their visits to neighborhood gathering places, including mosques."
"The campaign, which has also involved efforts to recruit the suspects' friends and family members as government informers, has raised alarm from civil liberties groups and some Arab-American and Muslim leaders. The men are suspected of ties to Al Qaeda or other groups affiliated with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network."
"Still, the F.B.I. has acknowledged that it has no evidence of any imminent terrorist threat posed by the so-called sleeper cells connected to Al Qaeda."
I was leafing through Norman Davies' wonderful history of Europe (imaginatively entitled Europe: A History), when the following caught my eye.
Theorists of propaganda have identified five basic rules:
1. The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.
2. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
3. The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends.
4. The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.
5. The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
Explains a lot, doesn't it?
From the article he links:
A quiet battle is raging over the Bush Administration's plan to appoint a scantily credentialed doctor, whose writings include a book titled As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, to head an influential Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on women's health policy. Sources tell Time that the agency's choice for the advisory panel is Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington's Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager did not return several calls for comment
FDA advisory panels often have near-final say over crucial health questions. If Hager becomes chairman of the 11-member Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, he will lead its study of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, one of the biggest controversies in health care. Some conservatives are trying to use doubts about such therapy to discredit the use of birth-control pills, which contain similar compounds. The panel also made the key recommendation in 1996 that led to approval of the "abortion pill," RU-486—a decision that abortion foes are still fighting. Hager assisted the Christian Medical Association last August in a "citizens' petition" calling upon the FDA to reverse itself on RU-486, saying it has endangered the lives and health of women
Hager was chosen for the post by FDA senior associate commissioner Linda Arey Skladany, a former drug-industry lobbyist with longstanding ties to the Bush family. Skladany rejected at least two nominees proposed by FDA staff members: Donald R. Mattison, former dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, and Michael F. Greene, director of maternal- fetal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. Despite pressure from inside the FDA to make the appointment temporary, sources say, Skladany has insisted that Hager get a full four-year term. FDA spokesman Bill Pierce called Hager "well qualified."
Joking aside, I am so tired of this crap. This isn't some abstract war of ideology, this stuff impacts health and lives. The man refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women, for which he should lose his license to practice.
You know, I had reasonable left-leaning people say to me before the election that "the only reason it matters is because of the supreme court." I tried to explain to them the powers of the executive branch and the numerous political appointees involved and the record of our last descent into religious pseudo-scientific quackery. Did they listen? Noooo......
PARIS (Reuters) - A deranged homophobe stabbed Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe at an all-night party at City Hall early Sunday, inflicting a small abdominal wound that was not life-threatening, officials and police said.
But Delanoe, a Socialist homosexual elected last year, insisted to aides while lying bleeding on the parquet floor that the French capital's festival continue until dawn, they said.
A judicial source said the attacker was a 39-year-old practicing Muslim born near Paris, who told interrogators he acted "out of animosity toward politicians and homosexuals."
"He happened to be at City Hall and, seeing Delanoe pass by, he took out a knife he always carries in his pocket and he attacked," the source said, adding judicial officials considered the attack an isolated incident not linked to terrorism.
Something for everyone! He's a homophobic anti-government type, so that makes him a right wing attacker, but he's a Muslim which for some unfathomable reason makes him a left wing attacker! Something to do with our unaccountable affection I think.
Glennuendo (n.): The act of drawing a darkly ominous inference from an opponent's failure to discuss a political issue.
This technique was pioneered by Glenn Reynolds, and is therefore named in his honor.
UPDATE: nick sweeney chimes in with:
Disinglennuousness: the practice of saying, after the fact, that just because you linked to something outrageous with 'THIS IS INTERESTING' or 'EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS', you don't necessarily agree with the linked sentiments, their having been exposed as utter pig-bollocks.
Hey, this is fun! Let's not just pick on Glenn, however. There are so many bloggers with amsuingly transparent rhetorical tricks who can inspire us to make up some funny new words.
More submissions from Jesse from Pandagon:
ad hankering: (v.) The practice of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks, even if what they said had nothing whatsoever to do with an ad hominem.
den Beste ex machina (n.) . The creation of a fake political movement such as Transnational Progressivism that has virtually no basis in reality in order to disparage ideological opponents.
And, from the "other side" comes Flippy, with:
Atriosphy: The wasting away of the ability to make a coherent, serious argument from the left-wing position
Only time will tell which one of these new words enters into common usage...
Pope Canonizes Opus Dei Founder
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:38 a.m. ET
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Applauded by a huge crowd, Pope John Paul II raised to sainthood Sunday the Spanish priest who founded the conservative Catholic organization Opus Dei.
The canonization of Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer came only 27 years after his death, a remarkably short time by Vatican standards. It can take centuries for the Church to confer sainthood.
David Bralow, an attorney representing the Orlando Sentinel, said Noelle Bush's lawyers are asking the court to make an exemption to the rule.
"They're trying to have a secret trial for Noelle Bush," Bralow said. "If they are right, what happened to all the people who have been through drug court? ... It seems to me they are asking for something that no one else has had.
Sam Heldman writes Howie Kurtz's apology and correction for him.
Mark Kleiman has some more.
Here's the relevant bit of the news:
Mr. Genova also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.
Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline.
In April, Mr. Sheridan read the law the way the Democrats do today.
"Strict compliance to statutory requirements and deadlines within Title 19," Mr. Sheridan wrote, "are set aside where such rights may be accommodated without significantly impinging upon the election process."
Josh Marshall presents the argument nicely:
Now, I had heard about this issue before but I hadn't realized that the comparison was that spot-on. It's the same 51 day deadline. The Times asked Sheridan about the seeming contradiction and he replied that the two cases were not similar because "no primary ballots had been issued" last April when the earlier controversy took place and today 1600 absentee ballots have already been sent out.
But this argument only shows that Sheridan is dull as well as hypocritical. He seems to be arguing that the relevant issue is not the inviolability of the deadline but the practical effect of allowing a change after the deadline takes place. He says that in April it was okay to make the change because no ballots had yet been printed and thus no harm -- nothing "significantly impinging upon the election process" -- could come from listing different names on them when they were printed. In other words, the deadline is simply an administrative guideline and if changes can still be made after that date passes, then they should be.