Saturday, August 24, 2002

Quis custodiet istos custodes?

The FBI has intensified its probe of a classified intelligence leak, asking 17 senators to turn over phone records, appointment calendars and schedules that would reveal their possible contact with reporters.

In an Aug. 7 memo passed to the senators through the Senate general counsel's office, the FBI asked all members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to collect and turn over records from June 18 and 19, 2002. Those dates are the day of and the day after a classified hearing in which the director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, spoke to lawmakers about two highly sensitive messages that hinted at an impending action that the agency intercepted on the eve of Sept. 11 but did not translate until Sept. 12.

Barry Crimmins sez:

Dr. Robert J. Goldstein of St. Petersburg, Fla. has been charged with possession of a= nonregistered destructive device and attempting to use an explosive to damage and destroy Islamic centers. He allegedly had 40 weapons, 30 explosive devices, a list of about 50 Islamic worship centers in Florida, and detailed plans to bomb an Islamic education center. What do you bet Goldstein has bond set long before several Islamic prisoners who have not been charged with anything yet still rot in prison?

Fundraising follies.

Bush has taken 28 out-of-town political trips in his first 16 months in office, compared with the 20 that federal records show for Clinton in the corresponding period.

Bush's road trips this year have raised more than $27 million for Republican parties and candidates. He also has headlined several Washington fundraisers, including last week's record-setting $33 million dinner benefiting the RNC.
One senior administration official said each trip's official component, known around the White House as the "policy event," is scheduled first, and then the fundraisers are added. That does not comport with statements from local party officials, who say they know about the fundraisers long before a hall is booked for the official event. Other White House officials said fundraising plans drove the schedules for several recent trips.

The administration has requested an increase in the White House travel budget from $1.6 million to $3.8 million.

I actually agree with Reynolds that Turley's use of the word "camps" was likely a bit of hype. But I also think it's rather Kausian* to get more concerned about the hyperbole surrounding the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges or legal representation than the thing itself.

Emphasis is everything.

*trying out a new word here.

Jeb's pal Reiger seems pretty obsessed with Biblical discipline. Is this what he means?

Deuteronomy 21

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Don't forget to read W.'s blog.

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

All quiet on the Blogistan front.
Joe Conason on Perkins:

Perkins gets the blahs
"Do you want our government run by corporations? Vote Democratic in November. That's the text of the latest attack ad rolled out by the party of Terry McAuliffe. The Democratic National Committee chairman plans to air them in selected battleground states and congressional districts throughout the country." So claimed conservative columnist Joseph Perkins in an Aug. 16 column that insisted Democrats are as culpable as Republicans for the corporate crime wave. He really doesn't know what he's talking about, beginning with the fact that there is no such DNC ad, except in his fevered mind. What Perkins quotes is actually the text of the clever online "ad" blurbed here a couple of weeks ago. (Meanwhile, the creative types at have added two new ads to their "Money" series on the deficit and offshore tax havens that prove McAuliffe should hire them.) So far no word on whether Perkins, obviously well-trained as an editorialist for the Wall Street Journal, will retract his bizarre error.

Instapundit has this to say:

UPDATE: Okay, one more thought. Isn't it odd that national sovereignty, and a whole raft of individual protections under international (and American constitutional) law can go by the wayside in the effort to prosecute war crimes, but that anything that might make a reporter's life more difficult is obviously beyond the pale?

Okay, it's not really odd that a reporter would think that. What's odd is that anyone else would take it seriously. Then again, it's not at all clear that anyone else does.

He's talking about Robert Fisk, and I didn't bother reading the article he's referring to, but it brought to mind the media attention about the recent police abuses in Portland. One thing that disturbed be was that the media's coverage emphasized the police's behavior toward reporters (video showed they deliberately sprayed a cameraperson). And, while it is true that the press constitutionally have a special role, and do and should enjoy some special protections, they are all too quick to decide that THEY are the story. The coverage that I read/saw had a definite tone of "well, the protesters deserved it but why are they picking on US!!"

Beyond Corporate notes the unrecognized benefits of the religious hijacking of public schools.
Right Wing Terrorism Watch

I think the score is now 4-1, though that 1 was pretty sketchy.

SEMINOLE -- The plan for the military-style "mission" showed adrawing of an "Islamic Education Center."

Timers on plastic explosives would go off in 15 minutes, taking down buildings and killing Muslims. Bombs and land mines would detonate in
parking lots and playgrounds, killing police and fleeing students.

This was the blueprint of a 37-year-old podiatrist from Seminole, Robert Jay Goldstein, who had compiled a list of 50 Islamic centers and mosques in the Tampa Bay area and Florida, federal authorities said Friday.

"He had enough weapons to take on an army," said Cal Dennie, Pinellas County sheriff's spokesman. Indeed, authorities removed an arsenal of weapons and enough explosives to destroy not only his townhome, but up to 10 others.

"OBJECTIVE: Kill all 'rags' at this Islamic Education Center -- ZERO residual presence -- maximum effect," the plan read.


Jack Grayson says about a year ago Kristi Goldstein told him her husband was no longer a practicing Jew. Grayson says he remembers Goldstein wearing a cross when he dropped off his rent check.

That Christianity sure is a stinking turd of a religion.

At least he didn't have any Giant Puppets of Death!

Freepers respond:

To: Friedrich Hayek; JohnHuang2

Damn---does this guy think we are at war? And at war with someone who has vowed to annihilate us and has no qualms about who they kill, how many, etc.? What's
wrong with him?

I don't mean to say I told you so, but I predicted some time ago that we'll see an increasing number of Americans who, if they do not wiew government as taking action to
protect us, will take things into their own hands.

9 posted on 8/24/02 8:09 AM Pacific by gg188

Judy Woodruff, liberal media extraordinaire:

WOODRUFF: Well, you may have heard protesters in John's piece, protesters in the background. Our White House team says it was the usual relatively small group of protesters who often follow Mr. Bush on the road. In Oregon last night a demonstration against the president got a bit out of hand. Police in full riot gear shot pepper spray and rubber bullets at protesters who pounded on police cars and refused to back off from a barricade.

I guess Bush is the new Grateful Dead.

Jeb Bush plays the bigot card. You see, apparently anyone who thinks that someone who has views such as these:

In the article, Regier says that husbands must have authority over their wives, who should not work outside the home unless it is financially necessary. 'Scripture is clear in stating that women are to be `helpmates' to their husbands, that they are to bear and nurture children, that they are to be 'workers at home.' ''

and who, in good Christian form, tried to lie about it, shouldn't be in charge of child welfare just has a problem with people of faith. According to Jeb:

Gov. Jeb Bush charged Friday that critics of his new state child welfare chief -- a fundamentalist Christian who advocates corporal punishment -- are displaying ''bigotry'' and a ''double standard'' against people of faith.


Bush, in Miami with Regier to announce a multiagency effort to find children who are missing from DCF custody, called The Herald's stories that revealed Regier's writings ''outrageous'' and ``just wrong.''

''I don't believe that someone who described himself as a person lacking faith altogether would be receiving the same kind of scrutiny,'' Bush said. ``I think there's a double standard, and I'm bothered by it.''

Bush added: ``Somehow the implication is that people of faith somehow are strange, and I just reject that.''

Get used to it. This is the new standard response to all criticism of people's stone age viewpoints - "You're a bigot! It's unfair! White Christian nutcases have no political power in this country! Wahh!"

Reader D.M. sent in this analysis of the Bush administration.

The following are some thoughts concerning Bush's use of "tactical hubris" in various situation including with regard to Iraq.

As the 2000 campaign neared election day, the Bush campaign decided to employ the “bandwagon tactic.” That tactic is based on the presumption that late-deciding voters will break towards the campaign that is perceived to be the winner. Thus, the Bush campaign theorized, if we simply act and talk as if we will win, the late-deciding voters will break for us and our act will become self-fulfilling. To implement the tactic, Karl Rove predicted an electoral landslide as well as a popular vote victory of 7+ percentage points. In the last stages of the campaign, the candidate ignored battleground states in which the election would be close such as Florida, New Mexico, West Virginia , Iowa and Wisconsin to concentrate on states in which Mr. Gore had a substantial lead such as California and New Jersey. The apparent theory behind that choice was that the public and the press would decide that if Bush was sufficiently confident to campaign in “lost states,” he must have the election sewed up. From that conclusion the “bandwagon effect” would result in the undecided voters breaking for Bush.

The essence of that strategy was that an act of exaggerated or unjustified self-confidence could influence the behavior of others in a favorable way. A display of exaggerated self-confidence is the definition of hubris. In the case of the “bandwagon tactic,” hubris may have come within one Supreme Court Justice’s vote of costing G. W. Bush the Presidency. That close call, however, has not diminished the Bush administration’s use of tactical hubris.
On election night, the results of the election were unknown. No one knew who had won New Mexico, Florida or part of the west coast. The result of Florida would determine the election. Before absentee ballots had been tallied, before a decision on recounts had been made, before a lawsuit that ultimately decided the election was brought, George W. Bush announced that he was the winner. He was, his campaign declared, President Elect. While James Baker, the Brooks Brothers riot squad and more lawyers than worked the O.J. trial scrambled to ensure the accuracy of his statement, Mr. Bush was serenely confident in his victory. Given that no one, including Mr. Bush, Mr. Rove and Mr. Baker could possibly know how the Florida electoral votes would eventually be cast, the announcement may be best understood as an act of unjustified confidence, i.e. hubris.

Perhaps the Bush campaign felt that by prematurely declaring victory, he would buck up his supporters, cow Al Gore and his legions, and turn the media and public opinion in his favor and against a recount. Public opinion might then simply demand that the initial Florida results be certified and Bush be installed into office.

If Bush’s declaration of victory was a tactical use of hubris (as opposed to being simple hubris), it is difficult to assess whether or not it worked as planned. Clearly, Mr. Bush’s supporters were invigorated by the declaration. Mr. Gore however was not cowed. The media and, in particular, the pundits seemed to accept the statement and opine that Mr. Bush was the rightful winner even before a recount. The public did not seem to rise up and declare Mr. Bush the winner as a result of his announcement. Once the recount issue went to the United States Supreme Court, however, the tactic of hubris, if that is what it was, may have been a clear winner. A divided court, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia, issued an injunction halting the Florida Supreme Court ordered recount. The basis for such an injunction was that the actual counting of all votes cast in Florida would cause irreparable harm to one of the parties, namely Mr. Bush. The finding of irreparable harm has, as an unstated premise, that Mr. Bush was the rightful winner of the Florida electoral votes and, therefore, of the Presidency. Perhaps the display of hubris in declaring himself the winner reached the audience of five members of the Supreme Court and influenced their behavior. If so, score one huge victory for the tactics of hubris.

After his inauguration as President, Mr. Bush decided that the closeness of the election and his relative lack of a mandate should not temper his policy proposals. Some counseled that he should alter his domestic agenda given that he lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes. After all, a clear majority of Americans had voted against Bush in the election. Bush rejected that argument and decided that to proceed as if he had a mandate would, in fact, create that mandate. In essence, Bush decided that if he acted as if he had a mandate, others would get on board and he would, in fact, have a mandate.

The centerpiece of the Bush domestic policy during the campaign was a large tax cut that critics claimed would skew its benefits to the very wealthy while squandering the budget surplus. The tax cut proposal had been developed in 1999 when the Bush campaign worried that his primary challenge would come from Steve (flat tax) Forbes instead of John McCain. Despite the changes in the economy and the potential for deterioration in the budget picture should the economy head into a downturn, Bush decided to proceed with his tax cut proposal with minimal modifications. Thus, Bush decided that the way to deal with the lack of an electoral mandate was to act as if he had one with regard to his largest domestic policy prescription. The decision to proceed with the tax cut was not an act of hubris as Mr. Bush’s self-confidence was fully justified. Shortly after he proposed the legislation, one Democrat, Zell Miller of Georgia, announced that he would support the bill. The tax cut passed by respectable margins in both houses of Congress and became law.

A pattern may be perceived in the above. When faced with a decision, Bush decides on the outcome he desires, announces it as fact and hopes that his show of confidence will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. With regard to campaigning in “lost states,” the strategy did not work but no price was paid. With regard to the “President Elect” strategy, it may not have worked with the public but it may have worked with the only constituency that mattered, the Justices of the Supreme Court. On the tax cut, the strategy seems to have worked to Bush’s short-term political benefit. Whether or not it works in the long term depends on the future of the economy, the budget and the assignment of political blame should either crater.

The President’s Iraq policy follows the pattern. In his State of the Union speech, the President identified Iraq as one of the four countries operating as an “Axis of Evil.” He predicted that “the price of indifference would be catastrophic” with regard to those countries. He vowed that “America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.” Mr. Bush noted that “time is not on our side.” He would not “wait on events, while dangers gather…. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.”

In his Commencement speech at West Point, Mr. Bush made clear that efforts to remove Saddam from power in Iraq were needed and would be taken preemptively:

For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence . . . means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best . . .. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

[T]he war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.

And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

Those statements can only be read as announcing that the security of the nation depends, in part, on regime change in Iraq. Indeed, Richard Perle has stated as much when remarking that:

The failure to take on Saddam after what the president has said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism.

A funny thing happened on the way to the implementation of Bush’s announced policy. The Republican Party, the Republican foreign policy establishment, the uniformed military, our traditional allies, countries in the Gulf region, and increasingly, the American people failed to react to the show of confidence by rallying to support the policy.

Within the Republican Party, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Chuck Hagel and Majority leader Armey have all expressed reservations concerning preemptive military regime change in Iraq. The foreign policy establishment of the Republican Party including former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, General Norman Schwarzkopf and General Wesley Clark have expressed varying degrees of reservation concerning the policy.

The press reports a singular lack of support for the policy within the uniformed officers at the Pentagon. The New York Times repeatedly publishes negative critiques of “war plans” leaked from sources within the Pentagon.

Despite a high profile trip to the region by Vice President Cheney, none of the Gulf states support the policy. German leadership is actively running against the policy in the upcoming elections. Even such a staunch ally as Great Britain has expressed reservations and has failed to commit to support preemptive military action in Iraq. Mr. Bush looked into Mr. Putin’s soul and found a $40 billion development deal between Russia and Iraq.

Recent polling suggests that the American people’s support for war with Iraq is tepid at best and falls precipitously in the event that American casualties are incurred, the war lasts for any extended period or the U.S. has to go it alone without the support of our allies. reports that the Bush administration is backing down from preemptive action in Iraq and is looking for a way to limit the political damage of such a reversal. The President meets with his “war cabinet” in Crawford and announces that no discussion of Iraq occurred. The President who once announced that “time is not on our side,” that the results of indifference could be “catastrophic” and declared that “this nation will act” now strikes a different chord. The White House announces that no decision has been made. Bush states that he “is a patient man” and decries the media “frenzy” concerning Iraq.

Perhaps hubris is no substitute for patient planning, consultation with Congressional leaders as well as allies, substantive debate and careful building of support among the American people.

Friday, August 23, 2002

Thanks to MWO, Cursor, Metafilter, Camworld, and a few others who linked me the last couple of days were my biggest days yet. Hopefully a few who came for Dick Cheney's email scam stick around. And, thanks to Baconslab for writing it and allowing me to steal it.
Something in this puff piece about Bush the Mighty jumped out at me:

Earlier this month, his annual physical showed the 6-foot, 189-pound president had a resting heart rate of 44 beats per minute, which puts him in the range of elite marathoners. He had 14.5 percent body fat. "I try to go for longer runs, but it's tough around here at the White House on the outdoor track," he told the magazine. "It's sad that I can't run longer. It's one of the saddest things about the presidency."

Now they've started lying about his height. I need a drink.

Bush chides press for 'silly' Iraq obsession By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES

MEDFORD, Ore. — President Bush believes "the press looks silly" for obsessing over Iraq in its coverage of a meeting on a different topic — missile defense — that he held with military advisers this week, said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

"The press yesterday and the day before reached an absurd point of self-inflicted silliness," Mr. Fleischer told reporters aboard Air Force One. "A self-inflicted point of silliness that goes beyond the usual August hype..."

True, they could be obsessing about sharks or blowjobs. Important stuff.

Thursday, August 22, 2002

Damn, I didn't know GOP Team Leader had 33 Different Teams!!

Which one should I enroll in?

African American Team
American Indian Team
Arab American Team
Asian American Team
Catholic Team
Conservative Team
Disability Team
Eastern European Team
Education Team
Environment Team
Evangelical Team
Farmer and Rancher Team
Greek American Team
Haitian American Team
High-Tech Team
Hispanic Team
Home School Team
Indian American Team
Irish American Team
Italian Team
Jewish Team
Labor Team
Law Enforcement Team
Lebanese American Team
Muslim Team
Senior Team
Small Business Team
Sportsman Team
Stock Car Team
Student Team
Veteran Team
Woman Team
Young Professional Team

I bet that Arab American and Muslim teams are really fucking popular. They sure do have a big tent!

Labor team? You've got to be kidding..

What team do the Log Cabin Republicans join?

Maybe not so big after all.

I guess a little dose of Malaria knocked the sense back into Tweety. I'm sure he'll be back to waxing moronic about earth tones and sublime masculinity on Hardball soon.

This invasion of Iraq, if it goes off, will join the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Desert One, Beirut and Somalia in the history of U.S. military catastrophes. What will set it apart for all time is the immense - and transparent - political stupidity.

A mission to attack an isolated enemy will isolate us. A mission justified by the fight with terrorism will give birth to millions of terrorist-supporting haters.

Terrorist Granny gets the Riot Squad treatment!!!

go get her guys!!!


Riot police grab a protester as they clear the streets around an event attended by President Bush in downtown Portland, Ore. on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2002. Police used pepper spray to clear hundreds of protesters away from an area near a hotel where Bush was holding a fund-raiser. (AP Photo/John Gress)

Richard Posner, who seems to get stupider every day, had this to say this morning on NPR about the tension between liberty and security.

Judge POSNER: If the country feels it's in danger, yeah, there are going to be abuses and excesses, but that's life.

Not so different from his impassioned defense of Bush v. Gore which amounted to "well, someone had to step in and do something. That's life!"

Bargain prices for Bush/Simon fundraiser.

"DANA POINT – The cost of getting into President George W. Bush's fund- raiser for GOP gubernatorial nominee Bill Simon just got a lot cheaper for some, indicating growing doubts about Simon's ability to win, say political experts from both parties.

The Friday-evening reception at the posh St. Regis resort in Dana Point, which follows a Bush appearance at the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana, was originally billed as $1,000 per person, with the money going to Simon's campaign. But e-mails sent to GOP activists at the end of last week added cut-rate tickets at $250 each.

"Nobody reduces the price of the tickets unless they're having trouble selling them," said veteran political consultant Harvey Englander, who has worked for numerous local Republicans, including Supervisor Todd Spitzer and former Assemblywoman Marilyn Brewer. "They need to sell more tickets. They need the bodies."
Terminus notes that Bush has announced exemptions on steel tariffs:

Incompetence Writ Large. This is priceless. Politically, it's really not a big story, but it shows in livid detail the egg all over Bush's face. Apparently, and not for the first time, Bush has decided to grant exemptions on his steel tariff policy, in order to prevent a trade war with the EU. Well done, Bush. Announce a policy that you don't believe in, that your political base doesn't believe in, and that everyone will immediately view as a naked political ploy. Then, totally capitulate to the EU, which should really get your base energized, and slink off into a corner to have a good cry. Nice one.

Sucks to be a shock jock. Opie and Anthony fired, show cancelled by syndicator. I wonder if they'll stay fired.
Speaking of Kaus, you can see Paul Krugman's response to his latest rant here. Kaus does here what he does a lot - takes a fairly innocent phrase, redefines it, and then throws it back at the writer.

[ahem] Just in case anyone was thinking of switching to Working Assets, which has very competitive rates (domestic and international with plan) and in my experience very friendly customer service, feel free to clink the link at the left..

and...they give you a whole bunch of free ice cream!
Alterman says this:

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that “at the grass roots” among African American voters, there is a growing perception that “Jewish people are attempting to pick our leaders. . . . There is some concern about that. It’s concern about any candidate being targeted by a special-interest group for voting on any one issue.”

I think AIPAC et al are being very stupid by targeting black Congressman who don’t vote “right” on Israel. Congress could not be more pro-Israeli if it were taking orders from my (late) bubbe and zeida. One vote, one voice, here or there makes no difference.

Because it plays into anti-Jew stereotypes, this kind of heavy-handed financial intervention to pick the winner of a largely African American race is actually a boon to anti-Semites of the black and extremist left-wing varieties. (See under: “Louis Farrakhan” and “Alexander Cockburn.”) What AIPAC et al appear to be saying is “We will tolerate no dissent of any kind on Israel in American public life.” They do Israel and America’s Jews no favor.

I agree. In addition, it provides an exploitable wedge issue between the two most consistently democratic-voting racial/ethnic groups.

TAPPED picks on Reynolds for being a literalist.

Actually, him of "Impeach Mineta," is a selective literalist.
Where Ann Coulter leads, the Freepers follow. Over to you Mickey...

One down, Ann!

To: paulklenk


Women, Minorities and Gays Hardest Hit


To: cajungirl

Definitely not Raines.

Probably some younger editor who had a revelation this morning, looked back over the damage he had caused this country, and decided to darwin himself before he
could do more


To: Loyalist

Weeping on floor with inappropriate laughter!!


To: Lunatic Fringe

The only good liberal is a dead liberal!

38 posted on 8/22/02 10:24 AM Pacific by claptrap


To: 1bigdictator

My guess: His ties to militant Arab groups was to be exposed.

I'll second that supposition.


To: Don Munn

Rush just played "It's Raining Men" as bumper music...mean....

72 posted on 8/22/02 10:33 AM Pacific by July 4th


To: primeval patriot

If that was the case, joking about it isn't appropriate.

Especially since nobody here can recall reading anything he wrote.

Now, had this been Paul Krugman....

111 posted on 8/22/02 10:54 AM Pacific by Dog Gone


Talkleft has the scary lowdown on "sneak and peek" searches.

For those not familiar with "sneak and peak" searches, Section 213 of the newly enacted Patriot Act allows the police to enter and search a home without telling anyone they have done so, seriously undermining the Fourth Amendment and one’s ability to mount a fourth amendment challenge to the search or any other kind of defense.

Section 213 is not limited to terrorism investigations. It applies to the search and seizure of any property or material pursuant to a search warrant “that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States.”

Pandagon has some comments on paperless voting.

This is a big deal folks. As a democratic party hack I'm obviously concerned about what's going on in Florida, but more generally this should be of concern to everyone.
Poor, factually challenged, Mr. Perkins writes this:

Money . . .

Liabilities now total $1.6 billion in the Adelphia restatement.

WorldCom is thought to owe its banks approximately $4.5 billion.

Tyco has lost about 83 percent of its value since December.

Enron total shareholder value lost: $63,101,519,000.

Over the past 27 months, the nation's stock markets have lost about $5.5 trillion in value, or nearly three times what the U.S. government spends annually.

Do you want our government run by corporations? Vote Democratic in November.

That's the text of the latest attack ad rolled out by the party of Terry McAuliffe. The Democratic National Committee chairman plans to air them in selected battleground states and congressional districts throughout the country.

Sound familiar? It would if you'd checked out the great flash ads at Blah3 (on the left under '? campaign' - check out the money ones). The author (at the same link) has this to say:

Note to Mr. Perkins - Hey, Doofus, it's not a DNC ad. It was formulated by the folks at BartCop and built by a guy on his home computer. In your haste to blame something, anything on those nasty, partisan, hypocritical Democrats, you ignored the most basic fact -

The DNC had nothing - NOTHING - to do with those ads.

But that's what you upstanding Republics do, isn't it? Make an assumption and treat it like the gospel.

I'll be waiting for Mr. Perkins to make a retraction. Email to follow.

UPDATE: Blah3 now has its email to Perkins up.

As MWO points out (a good read today, as every day), the quote of the day at Mickey Kaus backed is:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

-Ann Coulter in an interview with the New York Observer.

The use of the word 'only' in this comment is particularly chilling.

Just wanted to add that the below letter was written by 'Baconslab,' and not me.

Wednesday, August 21, 2002

Subject: Please help

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am Mr Dick Cheney a special adviser on Petroleum and economic matters to the Head of State of The United States of America. Because of my strategic position in the former Government, and also being a close confidant of the Head of State, I was able to acquire personally, the Sum of $25,000,000,000.00USD (twenty-five billion United States Dollars) presently lodged in some offshore sham bank owned by his brother Neil.

I made this money largely through "CONSULTANCY FEE" And "Good Faith Fees" paid by the stupid chimp out of the public treasury, it really didn't matter what I wrote on the invoice. I especially loved writing out the "Good Faith" bills. The little monkey would say "this is for Jeezus, right Unka Dick?" and I'd say "yes Dubya, its kinda like a 'free will offering'. LOL. Texas is the 6th largest Producer/Exporter of Crude Petroleum in the world and The Largest Producer/Exporter of fucking morons.

As you are probably aware The United States of America is prone to Political/Economic Instability, HyperInflation, among other problems. I know, things were pretty cool here for the last ten years or so but with this dipshit at the wheel I'm thinking its time to git while the gittin's good. I have therefore resolved to Invest my money abroad, preferably in Real Estate Properties and Sex Toys for safety and optimum returns on Investments.

However, straight transfer of this money into a bank Abroad will present two major problems:

1. The tax incidence will be too high, even with the idiotic tax cut the chimp managed to get through our congress the taxes are too much. My mama didn't raise no fool. I've never paid taxes and I ain't about to start now.

2. This could look really, really bad.

So as a result of my personal greed, which borders on the psychopathic, I've had to find another plan. The solution is to Courier this money in cash abroad, through Courier Service Company here in the USA, the money will be packed in A Diplomatic Bag or Carton tagged Diplomatic luggage Which will be addressed to you. This system is secret and the money is therefore untraceable. It is the System used by most top Government officials in the USA to remove their fortunes to safety abroad.

I have therefore concluded every arrangement with a Courier Company in Wyoming to Courier this money abroad using the courtesy and safety of Diplomatic Bag (TM). All I now need is an honest partner who can receive the money on my behalf and help me to invest as aforementioned.

There is absolutely no risk involved in this transaction as the money will be delivered to you in United States Dollars Bills. Try not to throw your back out dude.

If you are interested in assisting me, please send me an email immediately, as you are to lodge this money in a bank Account and contact me for necessary arrangements for the investment after acknowledgement of the receipt of the money.

For your help and assistance in this deal, you will receive 30% of this money in cash, 10% will be set aside to offset all expenses while the remaining 60% is for me.

Finally, you are to please urgently email your personal phone and fax numbers for an easy communication and for me to instruct the Courier Company to dispatch the money to you before we go into other necessary details.

Expecting to hear from you.

Best regards,

Dick Cheney

Digby, channeling my pal Snotglass, on Ann Coulter(from my comments):

Liberals still don't get it.

The good Americans of the rural red states are so highly sophisticated that they are very familiar with the subtle irony and satire Coulter employs. They know her mildly inflammatory rhetoric is pretty much a (screamingly funny) joke and they see it as no more than poking harmless fun at a bunch of liberal New Yorkers.

This is so very different from what MWO does when they irresponsibly call members of the press "whores." They are inciting the many violent politically active liberals of the urban blue states who take such terms literally and believe that the members of the media are actually turning tricks in the seedy areas of Washington DC. They are incapable of understanding that "whore" used in this context is a metaphor (something which is much too complex a concept for the parochial big city libs.) They might feel compelled to act out some vigilante justice and hurt some of these journalists because they think MWO wants them to. They're that suggestable.

I've found that when speaking to liberals you need to speak very slowly and very literally. Many of them weren't Christian homeschooled and spent an unfortunate amount of time in public universities. Unlike the worldly creationist intellectuals who enjoy Coulter, liberals just aren't well educated enough to be able to distinguish rollicking good humor from an incitement to violence.

This debate just points out, once again, that radical liberals just don't understand the difference between cosmopolitan red staters and the provincial inhabitants of blue state America. Until they do, they will never have a governing majority or a political mandate like the one George W. Bush currently enjoys.

What the hell. Energized by recent stories touting possible Democratic success in congressional races I'm gonna put my finger in the wind and make a prediction -- Dems gain 11 House seats in November.

Optimistic, perhaps, but...

Vanity Site notes that Bush is allegedly reading a book about why he should ignore the military's advice.
Election and fraud of all kinds has been with us forever. It's committed by members of both parties in every imaginable way. Can anyone please explain to me how an un-auditable voting system is a good thing.
Kaus-approved Ann Coulter says:

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

MWO says:


Slate/Mickey Kaus-Recommended Ann Coulter Expresses Regret That NYT Journalists Have Not Been Murdered By Terrorists

In an interview with the New York Observer's George Gurley, Ann Coulter says she regrets that a terrorist did not attack the New York Times building.

Was it an offhanded, off-the-record remark? No, Coulter encourages Gurley to turn on his tape recorder so that he can be sure to record (and presumably report) her regret that New York Times journalists have not been killed.

We wonder again why's Mickey Kaus would concern himself with MWO's rhetoric, when someone he has recommended, and whose site he has permanently linked on his weblog at, has expressed disappointment that his fellow journalists working for the New York Times have not been murdered in a terrorist attack.

Coulter's comments should sicken anyone, and we hope and Mickey Kaus will reconsider their promotion of those who advocate such violence

Even the CNN anchor, Carol Lin, was a bit dubious about claims that that al-Qaeda training tapes showed an 'incredibly sophisticated operation included a mock urban environment.' She was like "'s just a bunch of rocks isn't it?"
Excellent column by Thomas Frank in the LA Times

The Rah-Rah Boys

There are no mea culpas from the gurus who prophesied an unending bull market. They're still
cruising from one posh gig to the next.

Thomas Frank is the editor of the Baffler magazine and author of "One Market Under God."

August 18 2002

CHICAGO -- Many of the '90s icons have passed from the scene: The swashbuckling dot-com entrepreneurs have moved back in with mom, the rule-breaking CEOs are being hauled before Congress for tongue-lashings, the day-trading seniors who were supposed to "beat the pros" are thanking God that Social Security still exists. But one group remains untouched: the public intellectuals of the bull market. The writers of Dow-worshipping books and commentators who handed down daring pronunciamentos from the silicon heights are still cruising from one posh gig to the next.

If you tuned in to CNBC at any point during the long, slow meltdown of the last couple of months, you probably saw the news reader turn to a representative of Forbes magazine, formerly one of the world's most enthusiastic pushers of bull market optimism, now cast as an expert on a market in retreat. If you kept watching for a few hours, you probably enjoyed the surreal sight of James Cramer, one of the late boom's most prolific publicists, trying to feign outrage at the same forces he once cheered. And you undoubtedly gaped in disbelief when you recognized Cramer's co-host as Larry Kudlow, the hyperexuberant economist who once proclaimed from the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal that the free-market policies of the Reagan/Clinton years were so profoundly correct that they would one day cause the Dow Jones industrial average to hit 50,000.

The Journal itself, far from showing contrition for its New Economy excesses of a few years back, recently ran a defense of the nation's beleaguered stock analysts by none other than James Glassman, coauthor of the 1999 book "Dow 36,000." In his article, Glassman argued that analysts from the big Wall Street firms are being unfairly singled out for blame by killjoys like the New York attorney general. "Every bear market requires a scapegoat," Glassman wrote, "and this time the chosen victims are stock analysts." Glassman is certainly right about the stock analysts. However guilty they are for puffing the bubble, analysts alone shouldn't be forced to bear the blame for the subsequent catastrophe. That burden should be shared--by, for example, Glassman himself, the editors of the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, Forbes magazine, Cramer and Kudlow.

The prominence of these people and others like them were, to a great degree, unrelated to their skills as economic prognosticators. Their trade was politics, and at it they were wildly successful. Americans were indeed persuaded to roll back the regulatory state in the 1990s, to give the corporations whatever they wanted, to slash welfare, to smash the labor unions and even to (sort of) elect the most pro-corporate administration since Herbert Hoover's, headed by a man who promised to privatize Social Security.

Bush defends Ann Coulter from Liberal Slander.

MISS COULTER: It's hardly a surprise that liberals would concoct such an absurd lie about me. They do it all the time. In fact, coming up with sickening lies about formerly flat-chested good girls who wear size 15 pumps is an integral part of one of their most important daily rituals - the ceremonial vivisection and cannibalization of living, white human infants.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that a fact?

MISS COULTER: Absolutely. And when they're done feasting on the tender young flesh of the white race, they regroup several hours later to defecate together on rug-sized reproductions of the United States Constitution. And then of course, they pray to Satan and Allah while strapping each other into latex gravity boot systems so they can hang upside down like rabid, naked fruit bats for the rest of the day and watch Phil Donahue on MSNBC while urine runs down their inverted torsos and in to their hideous, liberal, gaping maws!

THE PRESIDENT: The depth and accuracy of your knowledge never fails to amaze, Ann.

MISS COULTER: Don't patronize me. It won't work - because I haven't forgotten how you cozied up with Mr. Fatso Slut Murderer - Ted Kennedy - to write that Socialist education bill earlier this year. So tell me, President Bipartisan Lovefest, are you actually a liberal?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think I've successfully diffused this silly notion of you being a man. Why don't we wrap this up, Ann?

MISS COULTER: Answer the question! Are you now or have you ever been a member of the liberal intelligentsia?! Did you not attend Yale and Harvard Universities? Were you not born in CONNECTICUT?! Oh wait, so was I. Never mind on that one.

Max expresses just about what my take on McKinney is.
"Countdown to Westerfield Verdict" with a little digital clock on counting backwards on the screen? Even the CNN anchor seems a bit embarrassed by this...

UPDATE: looks like they pulled it. Someone has some sense.

Brad DeLong notes that Mitch Daniels is still a liar (my word).

And now comes the really fun part. On Monday Nicolas Bray wrote to me asking if I had caught OMB Director Mitch Daniles on Charlie Rose on Friday August 16. Charlie Rose tried to pin him down, and asked him the question: "How much do you believe the tax cut will contribute to the [long run] deficit?"

Mitch Daniels's answer? Zero. "If [the tax cut] contributes to greater economic growth, it will be a positive factor.... Surpluses don't produce good economies, good economies produce surpluses..."

I know of no analyst anywhere in the world whose run of the numbers suggests that the Bush 2001 tax cut--badly designed from a supply-side point of view--will induce enough economic growth to result in no loss of revenue. I know that there is no budget analyst within OMB, the Treasury, or the Congressional Budget Office who believes this.

Yet Mitch Daniels's dropping of the share of the deterioration in the deficit over the next ten years attributable to the 2001 tax cut from 50 percent (a rough consensus estimate) to 15 percent (in the now 'retracted' OMB July 12 press release) to zero (last Friday) has attracted remarkably little attention.

Take it away Mickey...

Instapundit points me to this comment by Jay Caruso about my objections to Instapundit's "Impeach Mineta" desires.

Addressing both of their comments at once: The issue, as I had said previously, is one of misdirection. It isn't that one can't critcize an administration official without adding "and as you know he/she was appointed by Bush so it is all Bush's fault! neener neener!" and nor have I claimed such a thing. But there is a difference between criticizing their policies and calling on them to be "impeached." Impeach is an imperative verb which is, in this case, directed at no one in particular. Not exactly a constructive call to arms for action because it is calling for an action that will not happen from a group of people (Congress) who are not responsible for the person's actions.

Instpundit says he thinks this could be an issue for Democrats. If by "this" he means the Bush administration's transportation/security policies I agree. If by "this" he means Mineta, who as far as I have seen has not done a single thing in opposition to the expressly stated policies and desires of his boss, then he's simply asking the Democrats to also redirect their possible concerns away from those responsible.

As Rush always tells us, Words Mean Things. And, as is occasionally the case, Rush is right. There's a reason "Impeach Mineta" gets the Borg all excited in a way that "Fire Mineta" would not. The latter emphasizes responsibility, the former doesn't. As Matthew Yglesias points says in my comments:

This has been Bush's real political genius — his supporters seem to disagree with him almost as often as I do, it's just that I see that Bush is to blame for all the absurd and incompetent things that his administration does.

Instapundit responds in my comments as well:

Hey, I've been blaming the Administration for this from day one, and I've been calling for firings. I've even got a post on the "Impeach Mineta" piece.

This is a freebie issue for the Democrats, and I've been pointing it out for months. They could do what Malcolm Wallop did with a dumb OSHA in 1976 (which wasn't nearly as dumb as the homeland security stuff), running some very clever attack commercials. Don't blame me if they don't pick it up.

Fair enough.

Ethel the Blog on Evil Doers and Doers of Evil Who Do Evil to Doggies.

Finishing in second place to no person on this planet in dog appreciation, I of course find the lower picture in the previous item a bit upsetting. Whether the dog was killed by the Evil of the Century of the Week or for propaganda purposes by the CIA or one of their bedfellows, I don't like to see, hear or even think of such things. But if you weep over the fate of a few dogs, consider the numbers in the following excerpt
from an organization that is routinely excoriated by the usual suspects for even considering that the routine torture and murder of animals for any research purpose might be a bad thing:

The U.S. military inflicts the pains of war on hundreds of thousands of animals each year in experiments. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA) together are the federal government's second largest user of animals (after the National Institutes of Health). They account for nearly half the estimated minimum of 1.6 million dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, primates, rats, mice, and "wild animals" used, as reported to Congress in 1983, the last year for which government figures are available.(1) Because these figures don't include experiments that were contracted out to non-governmental laboratories, or the many sheep, goats, and pigs often shot in wound experiments, the actual total of animal victims is probably much higher.

Since the other latest talking point is that Bush vetoed the Smithsonian's "ridiculous bug and worm" projec as proof he was a Fiscal Conservative or something, let's remind ourself what that is. As Josh Marshall took the time to find out - this was in Bush's own budget proposal. And, more than that, far from being a silly project there's a good reason for the money.

And the reason is pretty clear. The current set up has the collection in 730,000 gallons of alcohol just a few blocks from the White House. "The issue is that, in theory, we have a potential bomb sitting there and it's in the middle of the mall in Washington," a spokesman for House Budget Committee Democrats told the AP.

So, before you repeat this one, Tucker Carlson and friends, destroy all the mirrors in your homes so you don't have to have to look at yourselves.
Josh Marshall on the fake New York Times Iraq bias nonsense. Frankly, I've moved away from amusement and towards outright disgust over the people who peddle the latest talking point and the people who fall for it. You know who you are.
Brian Linse interviews Jim Capozzola of the Rittenhouse Review.
Former GOP Congressman and blogger LeBoutillier on Scowcroft, Poppy, and Junior.
Of course the New York Times wedding announcements are elitist and silly, but there's only one reason Tim Noah chose to write about the issue right now, as David E. makes clear in this Medianews letters exchange (Scroll down).

Timothy Noah's response to the NYT's decision to run same-sex wedding announcements is typical of his ilk. "Gays got their foot in the door? Then let's nail it shut."

It's been 12 years since little Timmy Noah had his wedding announcement in the Times, and he decides to write about them this week?

Tuesday, August 20, 2002

This Salon article is stupid.

Mired in scandal, California businessman Bill Simon is losing a can't-lose race against Gov. Gray Davis

This was never a can't-lose race -- even with Riordan in it would have been a battle.
Embryo Adoption Plan.

Well, here's one way to get to use the carpool lane..

I personally had a blast watching Carville go totally ballistic tonight. Good going James.
Bye Bob. Perhaps the Tubesteak Messiah is behind this one too...

Well, at least he got one vote.

You'd think Ken Starr's endorsement would have been good for something...

But, with Clinton's approval rating in the high 60s at the height of the impeachment mess, even some Republicans had to have decided these guys were up to no good.
My pal Stranger has the media sniffing around his shorts... watch out! And check out the latest flash vid.
Charles Murtaugh points to The Economist's (damn subscription ran out..) peek into the Heartland.
Signorile on why Cloning Is Okay If You're a Christian.

Still waiting for the anti-cloning crowd to get all upset about IVF.
Eschaton Endorsement

The Eschaton editorial board officially endorses John Linder in Georgia's 7th district Republican Congressional Primary Race.

We'll miss ya Bobby..

Wow, cops breaking ranks on the Texas Kmart raid. I smell lawsuits.

Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford ordered an investigation Monday into the weekend arrests of hundreds of people gathered peacefully at a westside parking lot by police who were assigned to stop illegal drag racing.

Officers on the scene called the arrests "utterly, utterly senseless" on Monday, and said the captain in charge, Mark Aguirre, ordered them to round up everyone who was outside the 24-hour Kmart Super Center or eating at the Sonic Drive-In next door.

The operation had been weeks in planning and involved dozens of officers. But officers involved said that when no drag racers were found, they were ordered to arrest the 278 people there.

Police on Sunday said 425 people were arrested, but Monday revised the count. Most were charged with criminal trespass.

"I couldn't believe we were being told to arrest all those kids. It was just utterly, utterly senseless," said one officer involved, who violated department policy by discussing the arrests and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Many, many law suits...

Charles Kuffner has more.

Bush reveals 18 hole plan to invade Iraq.
Unmedia thinks Roberts is exhibiting signs of Transnational Progressivism.

Monday, August 19, 2002

Reader D.M. writes in about this Thomas Sowell Column:

Sowell writes as follows:

"According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000 median income in the United States reached `the highest level ever recorded' up to that time. This included black and Hispanic incomes that `hit new all-time highs' for these groups. But did you hear the news reported in the media amid all the gloom and doom?"

Later in the column Sowell writes:

"One undeniable accomplishment of Bill Clinton's presidency: it kept Jimmy Carter from being the worst U.S. President in history."

Thus, Mr. Sowell apparently believes that Bill Clinton was the worst president in history. That is a remarkable position from a senior fellow at the HOOVER Institute.

At the time Mr. Hoover left office, the world was becoming a much more dangerous place. Hitler had been installed as Chancellor in Germany. Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia. Japan was intent on the conquest of Manchuria and had announced its withdrawal from the League of Nations. Issues of massive International debt were festering. See Freedom From Fear, The American People in Depression and War 1929 -1945 by David M. Kennedy, Oxford University Press 1999.

On the domestic front, things were ominous. There had been 5,000 bank failures in the previous 3 years. By the time Roosevelt took office, banks were closed by Government proclamation in 32 states. In Texas banks were open but depositors were prohibited from withdrawing more than $10 per day. From 1929 until 1933 $7 billion of depositor's money was lost through bank failures. Thirteen hundred cities and towns had defaulted on their debt obligations. GDP in 1933 was 1/2 of 1929 GDP. Residential construction declined by 4/5. Automobile production fell to 1/3 of 1929 levels. Three fourths of the assets of the 1929 stock market had evaporated.

Per capita income in Mississippi was $117 per year in 1933 after 4 years in office by the president for whom Mr. Sowell's institute was named. Unemployment was at 25%. Unemployment rolls for blacks were at levels roughly twice their representation in the population. Id.

Mr. Sowell ignores that record and proclaims Mr. Clinton to have been the worst president in the very column in which he writes that median income hit all time highs after 8 years of Mr. Clinton's stewardship. While i personally think that Warren G. Harding was the worst U.S. president, it would not take long to get to the name "Herbert Hoover" when that roll was called. Apparently Mr. Sowell does not think that peace and prosperity are important factors in evaluating a president.

Mr. Sowell ask the questions as to whether or not the news of the Clinton prosperity and rising wages "was reported in the media amid all the gloom and doom?" The short answer is that those facts were reported but one had to listen very carefully to hear them. The next question is why during the 2000 election was that? The media had plenty of time and inclination to report on Al Gore's wardrobe. Brian Williams, sartorially resplendent on CNBC, reported Mr. Gore's choice of apparel on many many occasions. Chris Mathews kept repeating that Mr. Gore reminded him of a waiter.

The press had plenty of time and space to report falsely on the discovery of the Love Canal pollution, the basis for the characters in a popular book and movie (Love Story), the prescription drug requirements of canines, the development of the internet and many other items. The media was seemingly obsessed with the number of sighs in a debate, the monies paid to Naomi Wolfe, whether or not Mr. Clinton's penis angeled to the side, the bowling of oranges down the aisle of an airplane, whether or not they had been nicknamed and various other maters both inane and banal. Why could the press not have spent a fair amount of its energies reporting the news Mr. Sowell highlights. Must be the liberal media at work.

On "We Wuz Robbed," Donna Brazile said that 18% of voters in Nov., 2000 were African-Americans.

So much for Al not inspiring the base.

Hey, Paul Krugman agrees with me.

Yet conservatives enthusiastically rely on populism — fake populism, based on staged shmoozing with ordinary Americans and attacks on the imagined cultural elitism of the liberal media. Why shouldn't liberals, who actually have the facts on their side, try engaging in the real thing?

I know that by raising this question I will have forever branded myself an evil anti-American....


I just saw that loathsome toad Ari Fleischer saying something along the lines of "this video of people using animals to test means of killing people shows us the evil that we're up against.."

I mean, come on, when did we all become PETA members?

It seems a bit silly to use animal testing as evidence of evil. Evil they may be, but... jeebus.
Spike Lee's "We Wuz Robbed" is on at 10:45 EDT on Showtime.
Will SOMEONE find a cure for uterus-obsession.

A group of breast cancer survivors who met with Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., to ask for his support of breast cancer research said all he wanted to talk about was some controversial studies that have linked breast cancer to abortions.

"He was obsessed with that," said Coral Cochran, a Terre Haute grandmother who has had two battles with breast cancer and was one of 11 women at the meeting.

"We were extremely disappointed," she said. Some of the women said they felt Hostettler was implying that they had abortions. One woman said she cried.

Hostettler said in an interview that he felt it was important for the women to know about the studies linking abortions to breast cancer. But, he said: "They didn't want to hear it."

He said he did not imply that any of those women had abortions.

I"m sure Betty Ford and Nancy Reagan, both of whom had masectomies, would have appreciated his concerns.
Smarter Andrew Sullivan notes that Andy's gonna think twice before turning the Dish over to hereditary Democrat Camille Paglia.

It’s not clear, however, that he is happy having done so. “I nearly always agree with Camille’s political viewpoints, but this one stumped me,” says Sullivan, in a statement that, at least in its initial clause, tells us all we need know about his mental stability.

“This one,” of course, refers to Paglia’s deranged tirade published at Sullivan’s site late last week.

Whatever could Paglia have said to stump the learned Sullivan?

Click the link to find out...
Comments appear to be busted... fixed
Tucker Carlson just responded to the slavery reparations issue by saying "should the descendants if the 320,000 men who fought for the Union have to pay as well?"

I have no idea where he got that 320,000 number or if I just misheard it. But, leaving the reparations issue aside, it does betray Tucker's view of Noble White Men fighting to free the Poor Blacks. In truth, over 200,000 blacks fought for the Union side in the Civil War - about 10% of the troops.
Body and Soul points me to this piece by David Corn. About a year ago he wrote a piece called 'Al, Don't Run' which if I remember correctly argued that Al shouldn't run because, well, Corn didn't like him much.

Now Corn is arguing that Al should run. Why? Because Al is the only one who can beat Lieberman!

It's time for the Nation to get a Washington Editor whose head isn't jammed 3 feet into his lower intestine.

Al Sharpton would beat Lieberman in the Democratic Primary.

TAPPED acts shocked by this article which says:

Today in the United States white people have no political representation. Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights. Explicit government policies have made whites second class citizens. Whites are a dispossessed majority in their own country.

Why did the white majority allow themselves to be stripped of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Why do whites remain loyal to the political parties that took away their rights?

What is the future for whites in a political system where both political parties pander to third world immigrants and support racial privileges for minorities? Having lost equal protection of law, what will whites lose next?

I'm shocked that they're shocked. This is the subtext of much of certain branches of conservatism - from Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh to Crazy Davey Horowitz, etc... etc... I applaud Roberts' courage in coming out and saying what he thinks. It's a breath of fresh air after the rhetoric employed by many others who basically believe this. Though the barely coded versions are easily decipherable, they also provide plausible deniability.

It's obvious what people think. I wish more would own up. The coded versions also lead us down the "no you're the racist for calling me a racist" path.
Pandagon provides us with the NEA lesson plan the Moonie Times and a bunch of Moonie gibber-gabberers are on about.

I assume this is the one they're particularly upset about, the one in which the article quotes it as saying '"discuss historical instances of American intolerance," so that the American public avoids "repeating terrible mistakes."'

Well, you be the judge. But, frankly, methinks the Moonie Minions are marching in lockstep again. Congrats guys!

"A lot of what's stated in these lesson plans are lies," said William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative policy think tank. "None of what is mentioned in these plans are facts. It's an ultimate sin to now defend Western culture. It does not matter today whether a student learns any facts or any skills. What matters now is the attitude they come away with when they graduate school."
The critics also have trouble with schools teaching about Islam, specifically when teachers describe it as a "peaceful religion." Instead, they say, schools should warn children that the root of the problem lies in Islamic teaching.

Max is on this too.

Instapundit is rolling around naked in a pile of his "Impeach Mineta" bumper stickers**, saying "there's an issue here for somebody."

Yes, the issue if you have one is, blame the guy that won't fire him or ask for that guy's impeachment. Nothing like misdirection.

** not literally, as far as I know.
If only they could get a videotape Hussein of gassing a dog...

BERGEN: Well, they certainly don't prove that there is one. I mean, one of the things -- one of the most interesting tapes to me that was recovered was a documentary about Saddam Hussein, and it criticizes Saddam Hussein for a wide variety of issues, including gassing Kurdish civilians in Iraq. But it is not only a sort of Western critique of Saddam, it is actually an Islamic critique of Saddam, calling him sort of a Muslim. So this videotape, to me, kind of confirms my general view that al Qaeda was, in fact, rather anti-Iraqi throughout its history.

BOETTCHER: Yes, I would agree with exactly Peter's analysis of this. There is -- let's say there is a lot of circumstantial evidence of ties and meetings that occurred back in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda and Iraqis. But does that constitute a real tie that exists to this day? There is simply no evidence there that we know of. There may be evidence there, but I don't know of it, that would make that definite tie.
While I'm in the "Keep McKinney" crowd for a variety of reasons I don't really feel like debating at the moment, the report of her recycling old endorsements for her campaign is a bit troubling. As I reported yesterday, she was running recordings by Clinton which some had wondered the same thing about.
Perhaps someone can tell me if the Mexican American Political Association is a powerhouse in the Latino community, but with their 1500 or so active nationwide members I don't think Gray Davis should be too concerned about their endorsement of Bill Simon.
One thing that always annoys me a bit when reading discussions about whether Democrats should or shouldn't be "populists" is that they usually miss one thing - while Kaus and others were busy trying to neuter your party, the Republicans became populists. It's all "the real people" versus "the elite" with them. Only with Republicans it's 3 college professors, Barbra Streisand, and the homosexual mafia who are the "elite." Rush Limbaugh is a populist. This article in TAP very briefly refers to this and then lets it go.

Sunday, August 18, 2002

Bill Simon's campaign is on life support, but nonetheless some of his most ardent supporters are undeterred.
Hesiod is all over the latest from Florida.

Is that a sock in your pants, or...
Automated calls with a recording of Bill Clinton endorsing Cynthia McKinney are going out in her district.
We all know that the lawsuit attempting to establish that Cheney was in reality a resident of Texas was squashed. UggaBugga raises an interesting way to determine Cheney's true residence -- the 2000 census.
Sometimes Jesse Ventura is OK.

Four years ago, you were elected governor of Minnesota as an independent. In June, you announced that you wouldn't seek re-election. So tell us, who proved the more formidable foe: the elitist left or the religious right?

I got more trouble from the religious right. They are much more vocal and organized. I vetoed a bill that would force women to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion. I made an offer to the right wing: ''I'll sign this bill if you make all optional surgical procedures have a 24-hour waiting period, which would include liposuction.'' They were appalled.

Who is the public figure you would most like to smack around in the wrestling ring?

George Will. [...]

This letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer tells an interesting story of an investment analyst getting slapped with lawsuits and confronted with an unfriendly judge and an unfriendly media.

I earn my living on Wall Street by researching companies I believe to be long on hype and short on substance. Some of the companies I research go beyond hype. Over 30 of the companies I have researched were ultimately discovered to be frauds. They include some of the largest recent Internet and telecom scams. The business press published our opinions about these companies long before their falls.

One of the smallest, least consequential, and most hyped and troubling companies I have researched is headquartered in Philadelphia and headed by Dr. William A. Carter. Hemispherx Biopharma Inc. has been ordered by regulators to stop promoting its drug, Ampligen, because it never had been approved for marketing anywhere despite 30 years of experimentation. It was taken public by Wall Street basement-level brokers who were later criminally convicted of securities fraud, money laundering and stock price manipulation. My research on this company is available on the Internet.


Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Albert W. Sheppard ruled in favor of Hemispherx and against me in nearly every pre-trial ruling. He made a dubious ruling on jurisdiction even though I hadn't even been in Philadelphia for 20 years and then decided that Hemispherx would be treated as a private plaintiff in his courtroom, even though it is a public company and despite the importance of public debate about the safety of its product. As an added bonus, Sheppard ruled that I could not mention many of the facts my research had uncovered; I was on trial for giving an opinion and was unable to show the jury the factual basis of my opinion.

Despite the "Sheppard-handicap," I won the jury's verdict on every single point. Then, 12 days before this paper published a story about the trial, Sheppard ordered a new trial. The story calls Sheppard a problem solver and me a problem Sheppard could not solve. What problem did Sheppard need to solve? Are there too many analysts warning investors of possible problems? Who is the problem? An individual who offers the public his opinion or a judge whose aggressive anti-free speech rulings precluded a full airing of the facts about this company?