Thursday, February 26, 2004
Terry MacAuliffe Out in January
Served one term, as do most. I liked him better than most. Let's see if his legacy - improved technological infrastructure - has an effect.
The General Writes to Mel Karmazin
As always, thought provoking.
... anyway, it's glad to hear Stern's on our side. For years the only liberal voices on the radio were the "shock jocks." Sure, they weren't exactly Nancy Pelosi liberals, but they were basically socially liberal with a bit of a "fight the power" attitude. The last few years they've all been suckups to power. Look where that's gotten them.
...I'm listening to Stern for the first time in years.
... anyway, it's glad to hear Stern's on our side. For years the only liberal voices on the radio were the "shock jocks." Sure, they weren't exactly Nancy Pelosi liberals, but they were basically socially liberal with a bit of a "fight the power" attitude. The last few years they've all been suckups to power. Look where that's gotten them.
...I'm listening to Stern for the first time in years.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Amendment Appears to be DOA
The people at DU tracked down all the responses and their aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass it.
...Oxblog has another tally.
...Signorile has a good column in TAP:
...Oxblog has another tally.
...Signorile has a good column in TAP:
-
So here we are. And actually, it feels better in a weird way -- more honest. Gay Republicans have suddenly stopped spinning in their dervishes of denial, at least momentarily. Groups like the Log Cabin Republicans deluded themselves for more than three years, backing Bush even as he promoted abstinence-only programs at the expense of AIDS-education ones that work, supported Senator Rick Santorum after the Pennsylvania Republican's vile statements about gays, and pushed hard for discriminatory faith-based programs. They stood by him -- making an occasional tepid criticism, but still backing him -- as Bush nominated individuals like Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, who compared homosexuality to "necrophilia" and fought against repealing sodomy laws. (Last weekend, in another slap, Bush brazenly installed Pryor in a recess appointment after the guy had been filibustered by the Democrats because of his extremism.)
After three years of calling Bush's critics members of a traitorous "fifth column," you have to admit that it's rather delicious seeing Andrew Sullivan deciding that Bush has declared "war" on him, and admitting, "I guess I really was naive."
In this way, I feel bizarrely thankful to Bush for finally drawing the battle lines more clearly so that apologists like Sullivan can't deny any longer the sham of "compassionate conservatism."
Risking the loss of the apologists -- and perhaps many independents, moderate Republicans, and some Democrats -- couldn't have been an easy decision for the Bush camp. Karl Rove is hoping that the Christian right's devotion and turnout will now outweigh anything that counteracts it. But he shouldn't be so sure. For gays and lesbians, this amendment is equivalent to the Stonewall Rebellion, to Anita Bryant's crusade, and to the government's negligence at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, at least in terms of enraging people and moving them to action.
Already there have been rallies in the streets of Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco, and more are on the way. And the alliances that have been built among gays and the larger progressive movement today can't be underestimated. It was gays and young progressives of every stripe, after all, who catapulted Howard Dean and now need a place to funnel their energy. And for many progressives the marriage amendment is less about same-sex marriage than about government control and the reshaping of the laws of our country-- a further extension of the USA PATRIOT Act and projects like Total Information Awareness.
Perle Out
Interesting.
-
W A S H I N G T O N, Feb. 25? A controversial associate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has resigned from his seat on a key Pentagon advisory panel, ABCNEWS has learned.
Richard Perle, a lightning rod for critics of the Bush administration's national security policies, informed Rumsfeld more than two weeks ago he was quitting the Defense Policy Board. He confirmed the decision in a letter to the defense chief last Wednesday.
MB Williams for Maine!
Mary Beth of Wampum is running for Maine state legislature. Here's the campaign weblog. And, here's a Portland Phoenix article with a bunch of dumb quotes from me.
Death to Homosexuals
Lovely little editorial in a Jasper, Alabama newspaper.
You know, I'd be okay with these people advocating a bit of Biblical justice now and again for nasty sins of the flesh if they were a bit more concerned with some of the stuff that Jesus talked about.
You know, I'd be okay with these people advocating a bit of Biblical justice now and again for nasty sins of the flesh if they were a bit more concerned with some of the stuff that Jesus talked about.
Blogger in Print
Jim C. of the Rittenhouse review has an essay in the Philadelphia Daily News.
He writes more about it here.
He writes more about it here.
Greenspan and SS
Greenspan's comments on Social Security are totally inappropriate given his job. But, if you want all those taxes that you paid for a mandatory pension/insurance program over your entire life to just disappear in a puff of smoke, vote Republican.
On the other hand, I worry less about this issue than some. People always tend to miss the political economy of this issue. Yes, yes, the boomers are retiring. Yes, yes, the mythical SS trust fund will be out of money in about 35 years unless we make tiny tiny tiny changes to the system now. Yes, yes, Medicare is getting more and more expense.
But, look, the real issue is that fact that those retiring boomers are going to be voting as well. Forget drug coverage - that's small potatoes. By about 2025, assuming we're still here, we'll be building thousands of free-of-charge luxury nursing homes.
Benefits for the elderly are in the long run going to increase, not decrease - the changing demographics of voters guarantees that. The only question is whether we start making them pay for it now while they're still working, or if we put the entire burden on younger workers.
...just one more comment. When I say I don't worry about this issue, the issue I mean was Benefits for Old People. What I do worry about, as does Greenspan, is the long run fiscal outlook of the country. Greenspan believes, apparently, that the way to solve the problem is to simply cut promised future SS benefits. Though, to have much of an impact those cuts would have to be pretty drastic.
So, that brings us to the preznit. The preznit keeps repeating his mantra from the 2000 election. Specifically:
As I know, and as I assume Alan Greespan knows, but which I doubt Preznit Bush knows, is that this kind of transition-to-mandatory-private-plans in which you pay relatively old workers their full expected retirement benefits then over time phase out a bit of SS taxes for younger workers and funnel the money into private accounts has a price tag. A rather large price tag. Specifically, it'll cost, give or take, 1 trillion dollars out of general funds. Aside from the merits of such a plan, back in the good old Lockbox days, this was a feasible plan. The money was there.
Now, however, there isn't 1 trillion dollars sitting there to be used to partially-sorta-privatize social security even a little bit.
What Greenspan is advocating, literally, is robbing Al Gore's Lock Box.
On the other hand, I worry less about this issue than some. People always tend to miss the political economy of this issue. Yes, yes, the boomers are retiring. Yes, yes, the mythical SS trust fund will be out of money in about 35 years unless we make tiny tiny tiny changes to the system now. Yes, yes, Medicare is getting more and more expense.
But, look, the real issue is that fact that those retiring boomers are going to be voting as well. Forget drug coverage - that's small potatoes. By about 2025, assuming we're still here, we'll be building thousands of free-of-charge luxury nursing homes.
Benefits for the elderly are in the long run going to increase, not decrease - the changing demographics of voters guarantees that. The only question is whether we start making them pay for it now while they're still working, or if we put the entire burden on younger workers.
...just one more comment. When I say I don't worry about this issue, the issue I mean was Benefits for Old People. What I do worry about, as does Greenspan, is the long run fiscal outlook of the country. Greenspan believes, apparently, that the way to solve the problem is to simply cut promised future SS benefits. Though, to have much of an impact those cuts would have to be pretty drastic.
So, that brings us to the preznit. The preznit keeps repeating his mantra from the 2000 election. Specifically:
-
As you know, in the 2000 campaign, I articulated a point of view that we ought to have personal savings accounts for younger workers that would make sure those younger workers receive benefits equal to or greater than that which is expected. I still maintain the same position, but I haven't seen his comments completely.
As I know, and as I assume Alan Greespan knows, but which I doubt Preznit Bush knows, is that this kind of transition-to-mandatory-private-plans in which you pay relatively old workers their full expected retirement benefits then over time phase out a bit of SS taxes for younger workers and funnel the money into private accounts has a price tag. A rather large price tag. Specifically, it'll cost, give or take, 1 trillion dollars out of general funds. Aside from the merits of such a plan, back in the good old Lockbox days, this was a feasible plan. The money was there.
Now, however, there isn't 1 trillion dollars sitting there to be used to partially-sorta-privatize social security even a little bit.
What Greenspan is advocating, literally, is robbing Al Gore's Lock Box.
A Memo to the Media
From Brad DeLong:
Even if you can't get to Snow, I'm sure they can bother our dear Scottie about this one.
-
It was funny over the past week and a half to watch Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, and George W. Bush decline to endorse their own macroeconomic forecast--they ran from it as if it were a highly poisonous reptile, in a spectacle that the National Journal's Stan Collender described as an "extremely rapid (indeed, almost unprecedented) backing off from an important projection in an official report... only the latest in what has become a steady series of embarrassing gaffes from the White House's budget and economic team."
But one thing disappointed me. No reporter asked the natural follow-up question:-
Mr. Secretary, the macroeconomic forecast you have just declined to endorse underlies all of Treasury's and OMB's budget estimates. Are you also saying that you decline to endorse the numbers in the administration's budget, and that those numbers are now inoperative as well? If not, then how can you endorse the budget number without endorsing the forecast it is built on?
-
Even if you can't get to Snow, I'm sure they can bother our dear Scottie about this one.
Supremos Rule States Can Deny Ministry Scholarship
This is kind of interesting. I'm actually a bit surprised. I tend to think of myself more on the absolutist sides of these issues, but even I thought this one was in a bit of a grey area. Of course, it's states *may* deny not that they have to.
Campaign Slogans
Tbogg has some suggestions for Bush/Cheney '04 slogans.
The official slogan (really horrible I think) is "Steady Leadership in Times of Change." I forget where I saw this, but someone around the 'net suggested the following alternative:
The official slogan (really horrible I think) is "Steady Leadership in Times of Change." I forget where I saw this, but someone around the 'net suggested the following alternative:
-
Don't Switch Horsemen Mid-Apocalypse
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Liars
You know, after all these years I just can't believe these people. And, I can't believe the media for just printing their bullshit practically unchallenged. Here is the Musgrave FMA amendment:
About which Robert Bork says:
Which goddamn part of "NOR STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, SHALL BE CONSTRUED" did this lying fascist not comprehend? As written, even if a state passed a law saying "MAN ON MAN MARRIAGE ALLOWED," no court could construe that the law actually meant what it said.
...just wanted to add something else. It isn't really just about limiting the ability of the courts to construe it. It would also, as written, prevent the executive branch from construing the law as reading as it is written. So, the legislature can pass it. The executive branch can't implement it. Arguing that constitutional amendments which prevent the implementation and enforcement of laws don't "restrict legislatures" isn't simply semantics, it's flat out wrong, unless we've moved into a sort of legal version of "if a tree falls in the woods..." That is, if we buy Bork's argument it just means that constitutional law never restrains legislatures, as they can theoretically pass whatever crazy-ass un-constitutional bills they want, but the courts will stop them from being enforced. The only way to buy Bork's point is by granting all governmental power to the Court, on the basis that they're the final referee.
...the truth is, of course, that the amendment actually outlaws all new marriages.
-
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
About which Robert Bork says:
-
Robert H. Bork, the conservative former judge and former Supreme Court nominee and a leading drafter of the amendment, called that argument "preposterous." He said that the text clearly restricted only courts, not legislatures.
Which goddamn part of "NOR STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, SHALL BE CONSTRUED" did this lying fascist not comprehend? As written, even if a state passed a law saying "MAN ON MAN MARRIAGE ALLOWED," no court could construe that the law actually meant what it said.
...just wanted to add something else. It isn't really just about limiting the ability of the courts to construe it. It would also, as written, prevent the executive branch from construing the law as reading as it is written. So, the legislature can pass it. The executive branch can't implement it. Arguing that constitutional amendments which prevent the implementation and enforcement of laws don't "restrict legislatures" isn't simply semantics, it's flat out wrong, unless we've moved into a sort of legal version of "if a tree falls in the woods..." That is, if we buy Bork's argument it just means that constitutional law never restrains legislatures, as they can theoretically pass whatever crazy-ass un-constitutional bills they want, but the courts will stop them from being enforced. The only way to buy Bork's point is by granting all governmental power to the Court, on the basis that they're the final referee.
...the truth is, of course, that the amendment actually outlaws all new marriages.
Bush Waffles on Marriage Rights
Larry King, 2000:
(thanks to reader pp)
-
BUSH: It doesn't matter. Let's talk about that issue. Each person needs to be judged with their heart and soul. I don't ask the question what somebody's sexual orientation is. I don't ask the question.
KING: So if you have gays working for you, that's fine. And you don't have a problem. You'd appoint gays in the Cabinet, et cetera.
BUSH: Well, I'm not going to ask what their sexual orientation is.
KING: Oh, so you wouldn't know.
BUSH: I'm going to appoint conservative people in the Cabinet. It's none of my business what somebody's -- now when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I'm going to stand up and say I don't support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women. KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?
BUSH: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into.
KING: You just did. You have an opinion.
(thanks to reader pp)
Strom Thurmond Wasn't A Racist
Trent Lott isn't either.
Nor is Jesse Helms.
Really, they are/were nice guys. Not racists at all. I mean, sure, they pandered to racists. But, you know, they weren't really racists themselves. It's just...politics, right? They just always did and said things against the interests of African-Americans to get votes - not because they themselves are bigots.
What a load of crap. As is the continued insistence that George Bush isn't anti-gay.
Nor is Jesse Helms.
Really, they are/were nice guys. Not racists at all. I mean, sure, they pandered to racists. But, you know, they weren't really racists themselves. It's just...politics, right? They just always did and said things against the interests of African-Americans to get votes - not because they themselves are bigots.
What a load of crap. As is the continued insistence that George Bush isn't anti-gay.
Bush - Worse Than Tom DeLay
Now that's scary.
... I'm thinking about why DeLay might be a bit hesitant. I don't think it's because DeLay has his finger on the pulse of America and has decided this is a bad idea. My guess is that he's figured out what BushRove hasn't. First, no one likes a loser. There isn't a lot of chance this will make it through the Congress (though it could). And, more importantly, this might cause a pretty nasty rift in the Republican party. Sure, the Dems will be all over the place on this vote, but they're used to that. The Republicans will have a significant number of defectors - particularly in the Senate. And, the failure by the leadership - Frist, Bush, and DeLay - to keep their members in line will infuriate the base.
They don't want a noble defeat. They want victory.
... I'm thinking about why DeLay might be a bit hesitant. I don't think it's because DeLay has his finger on the pulse of America and has decided this is a bad idea. My guess is that he's figured out what BushRove hasn't. First, no one likes a loser. There isn't a lot of chance this will make it through the Congress (though it could). And, more importantly, this might cause a pretty nasty rift in the Republican party. Sure, the Dems will be all over the place on this vote, but they're used to that. The Republicans will have a significant number of defectors - particularly in the Senate. And, the failure by the leadership - Frist, Bush, and DeLay - to keep their members in line will infuriate the base.
They don't want a noble defeat. They want victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)