|
No, Really...We Believe You Weren't Lying |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Whojhouse
|
|
Wednesday, 09 February 2005 11:16 |
|
It turns out that the Medicare overhaul that was passed in 2003 is actually going to cost $720 billion and not the $400 billion that the Bush Administration had originally estimated. But the President insisted today that the White House did not purposely low-ball Congress when it lobbied for its passing. He added, "We look forward to working with Congress to make sure that the Medicare reforms that are in place are fully enacted, and the people can realize the benefits of them." Ah yes, there truly is nothing like the benefit of a bankrupted treasury. It turns out that the initial projections were light because they included what it would have cost from 2004 to 2013, before it was actually in effect. The recent, higher projections are for the decade 2006-2015 and account for the benefit being "fully phased in," according to the White House. That must be why the war is costing so much more than they originally said- they projected it only for 2003. You know, before it was fully phased in! Some House Republicans are angry at the increase in the cost of the program and have said that they would not have supported it had they known the real cost. Welcome to the club, fellas. Seriously, does this Administration really think anyone is buying their most recent after-the-fact cost adjustment? The sad thing is the answer is no, and what's even worse is they don't care. But I'm sure they're telling the truth about Social Security.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 February 2005 11:21 )
|
|
Possibly Something Special |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Tuesday, 08 February 2005 11:00 |
In case you haven't heard the news, at a Middle Eastern summit today, Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas promised to halt all acts of violence and put a peace deal on the table.
The goals that outsiders have been saying for years might actually come
true. Sharon promised withdrawals from the West Bank and to release
prisoners who have been taken without cause while Abbas promised a
cease fire of terrorism and to inject more democracy into the election
of Palestinian leaders.
While this is only a beginning (or a rebeginning after Oslo so to
speak) step, anyone interested in global terrorism ought to take note.
One of the key issues in the "Why terrorists hate us" argument is the
United States' history with backing Israel most of the time and the
lack of a Palestinian state. I have little doubt that this move was
directly due to the passing of Yassir Arafat and Abbas being elected.
It is highly doubtful the Bush Administration had much to do with this,
even though Secretary Rice visited the region recently. Still, just as
signified through the Iraqi elections, so to does this event bring hope
of peace and development in the Middle East. It's all we can hope for.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 February 2005 05:35 )
|
|
Dogwood Movie Review: "Troy" |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Fenlenium
|
|
Tuesday, 08 February 2005 03:51 |
|
Troy Sucked. Brad Pitt was awful; Legolas was awful; the dialogue was awful; and the story was pathetic. Eric Bana was kind of cool. But honestly, calling Brad Pitt an 'actor' at this point is a stretch. The only shred of it worth remarking on is a quote from Odysseus, played by Boromir (Sean Bean). A secondary character in the movie, Odysseus is the title character in Homer's Odyssey, which along with The Illiad tells the story of the Trojan Wars in a far more convoluted, yet poetic manner than Troylet. Alas, the quote of which I speaketh: War is young men dying and old men talking. You know this. Ignore the politics.
The rest of the flick is typical hollywood garbage. You're never invested in any of the characters, you have no idea who to root for, and the logistics of the battle scenes are patently unbelievable. But, then there's that gem from Odysseus, which 2,000+ years later rings as true as ever. Enough to redeem the movie, I think not.
|
|
Do You See What Happens Rony? |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Friday, 04 February 2005 04:45 |
Via Powerline and Hugh Hewitt, I was pointed to Swiss blogger Rony Abovitz's post about a string of events that happened at the World Economic Forum in a discussion under the title, "Will Democracy Survive the Media?"
In short, Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN, made some wild
accusations that the U.S. military was targeting U.S. and foreign
journalists with the intention of killing them. As you can
imagine, this shocked some including moderator David Gergen. When
Abovitz asked for proof and clarification, Jordan backpedaled slightly
but remained steadfast in his assertions. Not oddly enough, many Arab
and European journalists were in agreement with Jordan, as if they had
some sort of proof that journalists killed in Iraq were targeted
instead of being collateral or accidental victims.
Now, we believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty (with the
except of Michael Jackson of course.) This someone in this case being the U.S.
military. On its face, the notion is ludicrous, but with solid
evidence, such evidence would have to be examined. There is, of course, at
this time no evidence and we're relieved.
But this story doesn't end here. Firstly, in conclusion, Abovtiz notes,
"The U.S. makes no claims about being perfect - we only make claims that
we are open enough to correct our problems, and to admit freely to
ourselves and the world if we are wrong.
As a last note, I think that this article is a good pointer to the
future of the news: average people, freely saying what they want, as
they saw it, for anyone to see. To me, that is freedom of the press."
I happen to actually agree with his last point, but think an addendum is deserved. Freedom of the press
may give them the right to print what they believe. But that doesn't
mean we have to believe it or even lend it a shred of validity.
What if Jordan actually ran with such a story on the nonexistent evidence he
claims to possess? (Jordongate.) This story sounds just about as absurd as the notion
that Jews were told not to come to work on the morning of 9/11. Such
stories ought to be debunked and the news outlet discredited for
reporting them. Freedom of the press is not a license to lie.
The worst part of all this comes, not surprisingly, from Powerline. Hugh Hewitt
decided to get some clarification on this story from Abovitz on what
happened. In addition to revealing that there may indeed be a videotape
of the process, one in which might spell career death for Eason Jordan,
he noted,
"Last comment. This issue is turning into a right vs.
left agenda issue, a lynch mob against Eason Jordan
issue, and feeding into many different agendas. I hope
that any news media (bloggers, print, major, minor)
covering this can respect my original intent which was
to not leave this kind of allegation hanging in the
air, but to carry it through to the point where the
truth is known, and known to all sides."
Hinderaker from Powerline
seems to think this is evidence of media bias. Show me the money quote:
"What this story shows, I think, is how badly the left-wing media have
damaged the United States with their incessant accusations and
over-the-top coverage of stories like Abu Ghraib." I assume he is
in denial about what actually happened at Abu Ghraib. But more
importantly, drawing a conclusion between the agreement of
European and Arab journalists with Jordan and bad press for Bush in the
American media is madness and he knows it. Especially in the Arab
media, who clearly doesn't look toward American media for the stories
they "make up" (and they do.) Of course, having a problem with
the revealing of what happened at Abu Ghraib ought to show
his character enough.
Do you see what happens Rony? Do you see what happens
when you try to blow the lid off a good story? Its gets twisted,
turned, and spun out of control.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 04 February 2005 05:16 )
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Friday, 04 February 2005 01:14 |
There has been alot of talk lately about how President Bush's second term agenda
is going to drive the low income into poverty. Bush
himself even said he was going to cut upwards for 150 government
programs that aren't effective. What criteria he is going to use to
deem a program uneffective, I would love to know. This entry
in Tapped by Sam Rosenfeld notes how Bush is looking to implement the
old PAYGO rules. As Rosenfeld says, "The old rules required that tax
cuts or spending increases be offset by
equivalent spending cuts or revenue hikes elsewhere in the budget."
Makes sense from a balancing budget point of view, but when you think
about the people that will be screwed as a justification for a tax cut,
it certainly makes one have second thoughts. The justification for
cutting a budget item would be that they have to find room in the
budget for a tax cut which benefits only those not needing said budget item. That is one way to shift burden.
Over at Thinkprogress.org, there is an article Ideas on A Progressive
Economic Message
that is designed to highlight the problems with
the conservative economic agenda. Good ideas, good message. But is
there a prominent elected Democrat capable of delivering it? After
watching both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi deliver their response to the
SOTU, I'm just not sure. I realize that they specifically delivered
the address because it is tradition to have the House and Senate Minority
leaders to do so. But part of politics is flash and bullshit. The Democrats
can claim that the President's SS plan is filled with smoke and mirrors,
as it rightly is. But we must be careful not to look like we don't have
the answers either. If the story in the up coming months is Republicans
have a plan to fix SS and the Democrats don't, our Progressive Economic
Message is useless. Half of a good message is how it's delivered.
On the promised program cuts, there must be a way to contrast those
with Bush's vision of the Ownership Society. Under much of his plans,
the only people owning things will be those that already own things.
For example, people who can afford a mortgage and don't rely on housing
subsidies pretty much already own their house. People who do rely on subsidies, never will
and likely will be thrown out of their homes once those subsidies dry
up. Bush was very vague on which programs would be cut, so housing
might not be in the mix. Then again, he was vague on his SS plan as well. Then
again, his whole SOTU speech was very vague.
On SS, two things must happen. 1.) Create a clear plan to fix the current
system and do so now.
I would rather have a long debate on a grand
problem than implement a crass, half-assed solution like the one Bush
is proposing. But that time has come and gone. This agenda is on the
table and the media is going to run with the Republican's cries that we
don't have a clue whether we like it or not. Unless we actually
demonstrate that we do, once again, the political ball will be in their
court. 2.) Make clear that Bush's plan does not fix the problem, does
not guarantee the benefits promised, and is worse in the long run
because of the added risk. These two things have to be delivered
publically, forcefully, and constantly. The problem of course is that many real solutions
aren't politically popular. A Frayster recently told me that Democrats don't get that young people like the
idea of private accounts. Well, the truth hurts sometimes, and we must
convey to those people (the ones that actually vote, I suppose) that
Bush's plan screws them more than the current system will if fixed. The
time to do that is when voters are actually paying attention to the
process and this legislative fight hopefully will be nasty enough to
invoke serious, truthful and unbiased media coverage on the event.
Good luck Democrats and don't give up.
UPDATE to Reactions: Moving Ideas's State of the Union 2005: Reality Check
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 04 February 2005 04:16 )
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Whojhouse
|
|
Thursday, 03 February 2005 11:10 |
|
Emmitt Smith, the NFL's all-time leading rusher, retired today after 15 seasons. Over that time he won three Super Bowls and rushed for 18,355 yards and 164 touchdowns, also an NFL record. He was the heart and soul of the Dallas Cowboys dynasty that dominated the NFL from 1992-1996. Smith was a member of the famed "Triplets," who along with Quarterback Troy Aikman and Receiver Michael Irvin, came to Dallas and resurrected a fallen franchise. As a lifelong, devoted Cowboys fan this is a bittersweet day. I never could accept seeing Emmitt in the Arizona uniform; it was alien. It was like if Derek Jeter finished his career with the Devil Rays. But he wanted to keep playing after Dallas gave up on him and he earned that right. He earned it in the final week of the 1993 season when he single handedly beat the Giants at Giants Stadium. The winner of that game would have a first round bye and home field throughout the playoffs. Oh yeah, and he did it after separating his shoulder in the middle of the third quarter. That game went to overtime where he carried on nine of eleven Cowboy plays, including a stiff arm to Lawrence Taylor on his final carry to set up the game-winning field goal. He finished with 229 total yards and a touchdown on 32 carries and 10 receptions, the heaviest workload in team history, then spent the night in a hospital.
He earned it four weeks later when he took over Super Bowl XXVIII; on one drive carrying seven of eight plays and scoring a touchdown. In that game he rushed for 132 yards and two touchdowns, earning MVP honors. And he earned it hundreds of other times that I won't list now for the sake of probably anyone except my brother who may be reading this. Off the field he was a superstar as well, always carrying himself with the utmost class and professionalism. So I was happy for him that he continued to be effective, even if for the lowly Cardinals. But I have to admit that I am became emotional when I learned that he would retire as a Cowboy. It just seems right. Dallas is where his legacy was made. I don't know how to sufficiently thank Emmitt for what he gave to the Dallas Cowboys and their fans. He was the engine that drove the first Cowboys dynasty of my life and for that he will always be one of my sports heroes. I will never forget the excitement and pride I felt as a Cowboys fan during those years. So Emmitt, congratulations on one of the most remarkable careers in NFL history. And most of all, thank you.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 03 February 2005 11:27 )
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Thursday, 03 February 2005 05:59 |
There is quite a bit of reaction to the President's State Of The Union
address. I noticed on the cable and major network analysis that most
columnists and reporters painted this speech in a very broad way,
calling most of it bold. Well for my part, I'd say we can take
all that analysis and shove it right out the window. It might not
be their fault considering the time to fact check before analyze
is pretty slim, but this is just ridiculous. From what I saw last
night, the right's calls of foul about the "liberal media" have finally
paid off. I guess the silver lining is that they can no longer claim to be represented unfairly by the mainstream media....I guess.
Thinkprogress.org
has one of the best post-SOTU debunkings I've seen today. They list a
claim from Bush and show whether it is true, false, or doesn't square
with his past performance and claims. I specifically like this one
about the young people who roll with gangs,
President Bush said: "Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs."
FACT: President Bush has proposed a 40 percent cut in federal juvenile crime prevention funds, which would effectively "pull the plug" on good local programs that reduce gang and youth violence.
FACT: President Bush has sponsored a 44 percent overall reduction in delinquency-fighting and anti-gang funds since 2002.
Aren't members of the media paid to find out this stuff? How does
President Bush get away with this? Will anyone be talking about this
claim today or tomorrow, instead of calling his overall vision "bold?"
I'm waiting...
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Wednesday, 02 February 2005 11:11 |
|
7:10: Considering I'm going to be watching this thing, I might as well live blog it! My killer 500Mhz laptop isn't being very cooperative however, and considering I might only be able to stand so much of this, there is a chance this effort could come to a screaching halt. So stayed tuned! 8:50 - Countdown to SOTU with Oberman and Matthews, 10 minutes left. Lots of glad hadning going on. I see Number 2 (Cheney) and Scotty (Dennis Hastert) looking chippy. 8:58 - Wonkette has the opening remarks! I wish we had that sort of access. Of course, it's going to take about 20 minutes of applause before we even hear a peep. 9:04 - Hearing Matthews call Ashcroft a "lame duck" should have been satisfying, expect you then remember who is taking his place. BTW, this laptop is brutal. It takes about 5 seconds after I type something before it shows up on the screen. 9:08 - Why Republicans have a blue finger is beyond me. Yes, it was a brilliant idea. But I wonder how much that really has to do with solidarity toward Iraqis and how much has to do with pro-Bush spectacle.. Bush looks very grown up right now, I'm not kidding. 9:15 - More claims that NCLB has raised scores. Just this morning, I had a conversation with a teacher in one of these "troubled schools." There is so many people breathing down her back, she says she can't do her job. And if she raises doubts about the student or their parents not carrying their load, SHE gets in trouble. Way to level accountability... 9:18 - Less dependant on foreign energy, sounds familar? Yes, he said it last year as well and we're even more dependant on it. Also, a few minutes ago he said he's going to cut 150 government programs that aren't working. Who decides if they aren't working? 9:20 - I happen to agree with his immigration reform. Strengthen the borders but give guest visas to workers. Make sure we KNOW who is getting in here by funneling them through the system. It has to happen. It might cut down on the amount of scares and threats we got like the one last week in Boston. 9:25 - Worker to retiree ratio decades ago, 16:1. Worker to retiree ratio now, 3:1. Worker to retiree ratio in the future, 2:1. So we jumped from 16 down to 3 and we can still maintain the system, right? Why is a decrease of 1 going to make a huge problem? More crap on SS. Ideas on the table, he says. "We have to move forward with honesty," he says. Good, then stop lying to us. 9:29 - Ding ding! First lie! You'll earn more than you could under the current system. Like we said this morning, thats based on rosy forecasts. Look Mr. President, we HAVE personal retirement accounts. It's called social security and it's mine and it works. What you want to do is put it in the hands of Wall Street. Thats not any more personal, but it IS private. You don't get to define this one. 9:32 - Christopher Reeves widow is in the crowd. Tainted stem cells anyone? Culture of life, unless you are already living! 9:34 - I don't know if its the blogging or the speech, but this seems to be going pretty fast and the applause seems to be kept under control. No citizen should be turned away from the opportunities of being an American...unless you are a homo. 9:39 - Talking about Homeland Security and first responders and the like, he is pretty serious, looks very grownup and is completely free of that trademark smile/smirk. This is the Bush I wish we saw more often. The word terrorism didn't even show up until 9:38. Its when he shifts to those half-baked domestic policies that the corner of his mouth gets unturned. Like Pinochio, it appears to be a B.S. detector. 9:43 - Woodrow Wilson just took over Bush's body. I actually like this Bush, if his actualy policy followed through to those lofty goals. 'We have no right, or intention to impose our government upon anyone else." That may or may not be true, but I don't see plausible that anyone is going to believe that if it comes out of Bush's mouth. I wish the Dems would stop looking around before they stood up. Grow a spine! If you like what he said, stand up. You don't need to always follow the crowd! Voters don't give a shit if you stand up or sit down at this point. Most people aren't even watching this thing. 9:46 - Joe Biden just got caught on camera clapping by himself. It was funny. I wish he would run for President. Class act, straight shooter, doesn't waffle. 9:50 - More Iraq promotion. Some nice stories from real Iraqis. That's nice and all, but what about the soldiers that died? OUR soldiers. One from MA, that died on a raid to find insurgents, electrocuted by high voltage lines as I understand. You think the 12K death benefit is going to cover that funeral? 9:54 - Whojhouse is drunk, I'm no lackey, just honest. Luckily Bush slowing down a bit, I can't keep up. Ordinary Iraqis are anxious to secure their country? Maybe they heard about of the 12K death benefit. Must be alot of money over there. 9:58 - Holy crap, he mentioned troops deaths and injuries?!?! Honestly a tear came to my eye when that soldiers family got up, I just can't be cynical here. Bush says we're going to take care of all the soldiers who have come home wounded. You fucking better. 10:01 - Fenlenium is slow, Whojhouse is drunk, and my friggin back hurts from leaning over to type. Why am I doing all the work? Bush ought to refrain from using FDR references after an inaugeration like that. Franklin Delano Romanowski is rolling in his grave. 10:02 - Thats it huh. It wasn't so bad. Now we get to look at all the Republican douchebags. Jennings just said that Bush kissed Lieberman. I wonder how the Christian Coalition feels about that? Shattering moments according to Terry Moran. 10:05 - I will say watching this on HDTV was fascinating. The clarity of Hastert's man boobs was awe inspiring. What's the deal with Cookie Roberts? Has anyone thought she's EVER had interesting analysis to give? 10:11 - Hardball - Pledge to AARP and call to a generation (Us, I assume who are going to get the most screwed by Bush's private accounts.) A guest on Hardball specifically called them "private." Nice, I like. 10:13 - Democratic Response! I like Harry Reid, but he's about as interesting as a Tom Daschle, I mean a brick. He probably"get's it" better than Daschle, but I'm not sure he can deliver any better. Uh oh, too many details. Plagued by details! Yawn. Great ideas, but in this political climate we need more of a manly man. Noone with a soft voice. He IS making so much sense though, so don't get me wrong. 10:19 - Maybe I'm just too self depracating but it seems to me that if I didn't know a thing about the SS debate, Bush's delivery on it might win me over more than Reid's. Luckily I DO look through the B.S. of private accounts. 10:20 - Pelosi looks pretty good on the HDTV! However, she blinks too much and her eyes are too wide at times. Deer in headlights...who just happens to have a better direction laid out for this country. 10:23 - Oddly enough Pelosi just mentioned 9/11. Did Bush? I don't recall, but that seems impossible, I probably just zoned out. 10:26 - I checked Andrew Sullivan for a second and he noted that Reid also sounded lame. Great ideas, but not telegenic. You know, people who have a problem with Dean for DNC ought to take a look at what transpired. That was some great message delivered in a less than inspiring way. We hear Dean is going to make DNC chair. His first task ought to change the post SOTU response name from The Democratic Response to The Opposition Response and get a louder person to deliver it. You want to sound like you are CONVINCED certain actions of the majority party are dead wrong. You don't want to sound just like you are upset about losing the general election. 10:36 - Orrin Hatch is a douche. Develop our own energy sources and do it in an environmentally safe way? Then he says we should drill in Alaska? Its nuts not to do so? Analysts say that wouldn't even put a dent in our energy dependence. He blames environmental extremists on our energy problems. My god. Why not just blame gays as well. Matthews makes a good point, Bush's call for energy independence was just lip service. I just wish Matthews would SAY that instead of implying it. 10:39 - Alright, this is it, I can't take these ego-inflated pundits anymore. I'm done. Family Guy Season 2 DVD, here I come. Goodnight.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 02 February 2005 14:41 )
|
|
Bush SOTU Countdown (T Minus 4 Times and Counting...) |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Wednesday, 02 February 2005 06:45 |
Its probably a little too early to start counting down things that are
guaranteed to be Dubya free at some point in the future, but 4 years
from now it's a guarantee the State Of The Union Address will, so
why not? The thought of cringing through 4 more of these and realizing
that this is the face most of world gets to see when they think
about America really disappoints me. The worse part about it is
the Trademark Smile that might not even be a smile at all. We saw it
after the Iraqi elections, an upturned lip that seemed to be signaling
a great big "see, we were right" message (even though any honest person
knows that still remains to be seen.)
But if you are interested in some pre-SOTU reading, may I suggest both Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's
Prebuttals to State of the Union Address. The fact that there are solid
prebuttals probably indicates we're not in for any
surprises tonight. I figure some FTD (Freedom Terror &
Democracy) messages, a push to extend the tax cuts to the richest 1%, a
call to make them all permanent, and some lies spliced in about Social
Security. On the
SS front, you might want to read Paul Krugman's last column that is
summed up quite nicely like this; By low, gloomy forecasts, SS is going to
go bankrupt. By high, overreaching forecasts, we can fix that with private
accounts. But by these same forecasts, SS won't be in any trouble at all.
Hence, there is no need to divert money into private accounts.
Any guesses on how long it will take before each of us
clicks to something else tonight. After this last year, I'm not sure
I'll make it through the introductory applause.
p.s. I guess both Andrew Sullivan and Wonkette
will be blogging the SOTU address tonight. If I find more, I'll post
them. Now that I have wireless internet in my house, I can read along
in real time! Woohoo!
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 02 February 2005 07:03 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
A Great Day For Freedom - Non Musical Version |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Tuesday, 01 February 2005 01:38 |
So we now see that Democracy in a war torn,
mostly Arab-Islamic state is possible. The lack of death on this day is mostly
attributable to the successful implementations of security measures that
actually worked. Sounds odd, doesn't it, but the full credit here should
go to whoever was involved in the planning and decision making for this day. To
be honest, I expected much worse.
It appears most of us in the blogoshpere are pretty happy with the way things
went. There are a few different analyses on different topics that are worth
nothing. Here,
we see Andrew Sullivan, a proponent of the war with honest criticism for the
mistakes made by the Bush team, saying, "Freedom is advancing. Out of
chaos and fear." Here
we see Matthew Yglesias, while glad that this election was out of the way so
that we can focus on the longer term issues with the country, wondering,
"What's changed?...Near as I can tell, all the outstanding policy issues
remain the same."
Here is the same Iraqi
blogger I pointed to last week with some pretty encouraging thoughts,
"About those who are going to keep protesting, holding and delaying our
march to the bright future, I would like to bring to their mind one small
thing, the new government will be formed in few days and they will have a long
year before the next elections and as an Iraqi I know that the new government
will use all the strength they will have or reach (the Iraqi way) to finish the
terrorists and any political party who may count on terrorism to apply their
agenda. No harm with democracy and we proved that we can live the democratic way and
will spend the few coming years to learn more about democracy."
No one said this process was going to be easy. I do think however, the success
of this day and the future success of the country does in fact depend on the
Iraqis themselves. The security of the country depends on both us to train a
sufficient force, but also to the Iraqis themselves to step up and volunteer
their time and put their lives on the line for their country. I'm sure Bush will get
the credit he is due. But after watching a WWII veteran salute the memorial
erected in his son's honor in Hawaii yesterday, I hope its not one iota more
than he deserves.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 01 February 2005 02:49 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Whojhouse
|
|
Sunday, 30 January 2005 03:54 |
|
On the day the wall came down They threw the locks onto the ground And with glasses high we raised a cry for freedom had arrived On the day the wall came down The ship of fools had finally run aground Promises lit up the night like paper doves in flight Now frontiers shift like desert sands While nations wash their bloodied hands Of loyalty, of history, in shades of grey From Pink Floyd's "A Great Day for Freedom"
|
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 30 January 2005 03:56 )
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Friday, 28 January 2005 05:53 |
Before the weekend sets in, we have a few random stories to throw at you.
1. At the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz, Veep Cheney decided instead of wearing black formal wear, he would dress for a mountain excursion. As Garance Franke-Ruta of TAP put it, "It's hard to imagine what Cheney was thinking when he prepped for this event." This is exactly the kind of story blogs excell at. What sort of respectable news outlet is going to make fun of the V.P.'s attire at a sad event? We are, because people do notice this sort of thing, and we personally think this is absolutely dumb. How do they manage to screw everything up?
2. Good news on the Green car debate. In addition to the Neocon story from yesterday, Autoweek reports that companies are actually seeing a strong business case for hybrids, with increased usage of diesel and hydrogen fuel vehicles being considered. When business is starting to see your case, you know you are making progress.
3. 5 U.S. soldiers and 5 Iraqis were killed in attacks in Baghdad today. There should be no delusions that the violence will stop before, during or after the elections. But we're pretty sure its a necessary step in the rebuilding of that country. Is it going to change anything? We're not sure anyone could know. We do hear reports that at least 66-80% of Iraqis are hopeful about the results the elections will bring. Click here to read what an Iraqi blogger thinks about the prospect. He really seems to get that government needs to be respected so that order can be restored. Lets hope others do to.
4. Finally, we saw this Daily Kos piece (and this one) about blogs who are anti-Gonzales and we were going to sign-up until we realized we haven't stated an official position on the issue. So here it is in all its simplistic glory:
We disagree with President Bush, Alberto Gonzales and any analysis of the legal memos that suggest they, including Donald Rumsfeld, are without blame on this issue. We don't feel a legal explaination or analysis is needed to come to this conclusion, although others have made that case doing so. We have a gut feeling, an observation from the transcripts of the Senate confirmation hearings that shows Gonzales avoided most of the questions leveled on the subject, and the frustration that when something goes wrong under this administration's watch, the responsibility barely creeps up the totem pole.
That is good enough for us.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 28 January 2005 09:54 )
|
|
The Beginning Of The End Of America? |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Thursday, 27 January 2005 12:21 |
Ladies and gentlemen, we're seeing a disturbing global trend that could be the end
of American global dominance. Fred Kaplan, in an article entitled 2020 Vision, analyzes a report by the National Intelligence Council that comes to this very conclusion (read it here.)
The report supposes to present a long-term view of the future. As
Kaplan summarizes, "In this new world, a mere 15 years away, the United
States will remain 'an important shaper of the international
order'—probably the single
most powerful country—but its 'relative power position' will have 'eroded.'"
The report notes several key factors, one being a global security.
Because states like China and India are actually growing at extreme
rates economically, they will be able to offer a much more appealing
strategic security vision for other powerful Asian states to jump on
board, especially considering their proximity to each other and our
relative distance. Additionally, our sordid economic forecasts and growing
trade deficit, most of it being bought by said countries, could make us
vulnerable in future dealings should they come to collect. There are
also two recent indicators that ought to come to light. The Huygens probe
that recently touched down on the surface of Titan, while supported by
NASA, was primarily a project of the European Space Agency. Also, the
largest commercial airplane, the Airbus A380,
is owned by a French
company and will be built almost exclusively in Europe. The two largest
innovations of this new millennium had little to do with America. That
ought to worry some, especially those with grand imperial visions.
So what's our next big project? It certainly isn't
going to be medical-related embryonic stem cell research as the lines
approved and limited by the Bush Administration have been shown to be tainted with a foreign molecule. Great, grand, wonderful. Some of have called for our generation's Manhattan Project
to be a gigantic push to develop alternative fuels to the oil the world
is currently so dependent on now. Imagine that, a grand vision lead by
America to stop the wholesale pillaging of the Earth's most valuable
resource? Woodstock every 25 years? Sign me up! (We might actually have some hope in the Neocon movement for a green project, but like most topics around here, the Dogwood writers wish to remain alive and so we won't be holding our breath.)
Realize this, the key factors to our continued prosperity have
always been a respect and balance of both labor and free trade, an
exportation of American style hope and culture, and a dominant and
respected military. Clearly, we're seeing an erosion of the first two.
The Bush Administration is hell bent on reducing federal labor structures and the civil service unions.
Also, America's popularity abroad is plummeting and while much of that
is solely because of our foreign policy, it's not out of the realm of
probability that if current trends aren't changed, we could see a
wholesale rejection of all-things-American in Europe and the world. In
respect to the third issue, not even our current Defense Secretary and
President want to expand the miltiary at this time - likely due to them
having to admit that we actually are stretched thin.
I argued
after the election that the world would not end with a second
Bush term. With this recent news, while I don't think the world will
end soon, I'm afraid that we might have already jumped into the
hand basket to hell and doubt my previous statements. When oh when are
we going to wake up and realize there is something wrong in America?
Policy based on ideological assumptions makes zero sense at all. This
situation doesn't have to be a zero-sum game considering ours goals are essentially the same; either stop this from happening or prepare ourselves for such a transition making sure we don't fall to delusional expectiations.
But it's the same story time
and time again with this crowd, when evidence
of a problem is overwhelming, first deny there is a problem, second
ignore it and hope it goes away, and third destroy the messenger who
brought it to light. Pay attention, because this developing story
unfolds over 15 or more years, clearly out of reach of the imaginations
of our current Administration.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 27 January 2005 13:30 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Democrats are from the Shire, Republicans are from Mordor |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Whojhouse
|
|
Wednesday, 26 January 2005 12:01 |
|
The confirmation of Condoleezza Rice to the post of Secretary of State brings to light a major difference between Democrats and Republicans. The fact that only thirteen Democrats voted against confirmation says one of two things: they are either as spineless as I have feared or they still have some respect for the political process. There was no question that Rice was going to be confirmed; simple math told us that. So there would not have been much drawback for Democrats to get their 45 votes together to say to the country that this nomination was unacceptable; that this person who perpetuated myths that lead our country to war does not deserve to hold the position of top diplomat. Instead, with a few exceptions, they chose not to embarrass the President and his nominee; a nominee they obviously felt qualified for the job. It is hard for me to believe that Senate Republicans would have done the same had the circumstances been reversed. They surely would have stood together in opposition, determined to embarrass both the nominee and the President. That is what separates them from their opponents- they play to win at any cost while Democrats seem to let their collective conscience inhibit them from doing the same. Seems nice guys do finish last.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 26 January 2005 12:03 )
|
|
Your Date With History Awaits, Dr. Rice |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Fenlenium
|
|
Wednesday, 26 January 2005 03:41 |
|
After 9 hours of floor debate yesterday, where Teddy Kennedy led off an assault by Senate Democrats on the Bush Administration's run-up to war in Iraq and its faulty justifications, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is expected to be confirmed for her new post as Secretary of State today. While nearly every Republican who stood to speak scoffed at the thought of anyone daring to question Dr. Rice, even taking the time to belittle and taunt the opposition party, a handful of Democrats joined in stating their support for Dr. Rice's nomination as well. In a bizarre show of freshman malarkey, newly sworn-in Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado (having defeated brewing scion Pete Coors), stood to offer his endorsement of Dr. Rice, further stating that she having been educated in Denver, she would certainly "speak with the honesty and candor" that those from the West are known for. Ummm ... Whaaaaa? Dude, these terms are for like, 6 years, you don't have to start pandering to your home state for like, 10 more months or something. Apparently unaware of a pesky little clause in the Constitution which allows for the Senate to "advise and consent" the President on his Cabinet nominations, Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia accused Democrats of "whining and carping." Yessir, a WHOLE DAY to debate the nomination of this country's leading diplomat who, after the last four years, has quite a load of work cut out for her, and is the same Dr. who invoked images of mushroom clouds to scare Americans into supporting the Iraq war, is certainly just schoolyard sniping, no doubt. For his part, my personal least favorite Senator of all, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, did not fail to disappoint. Comparing the pure moral clarity of WWII to the current undeclared war in Iraq, Sen. McConnell was sure that if "there had been as many cameras on Omaha Beach on D-Day as there are in this room right now, General Eisenhower would certainly have been fired." O-kaay. Two encouraging signs from all this (for those of us in the opposition): Barbara Boxer - the junior California Senator has proven herself as a strong advocate for progressive priorities recently. She grilled Dr. Rice in committee hearings, and aside from John Kerry, was the only Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against her nomination. Ted Kennedy - ole Scotchy is back! Rumor has it, his wife has helped him (via Atkins) lose weight AND cut back on the sauce. Aides say he reversed a lifelong trend and actually LOST weight on the campaign trail, stumping for Kerry. The weight loss and this second-term President have reinvigorated the salty old bastard, it seems.
CNN - 'Rice confirmation expected Wednesday' UPDATE: Reuters - 'Rice confirmed as Secretary of State' by a vote of 85-13
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 26 January 2005 05:34 )
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Wednesday, 26 January 2005 02:41 |
I've said it before (it's here
somewhere, but there's no search button on the old site!) and I'll say
it
again; ABC News has some of the best Iraq coverage going. Last time I
remarked
about this, correspondent Martha Raditz was embedded in the command
centers and
their cameramen were going along on actual missions. Before, it was an
excellent look into day-to-day operations of American soldiers.
This
week, Peter Jennings is reporting on both the military operations and
the
civilian rebuilding. Criticism of ABC News, much of it I personally
think is
unjustified, and the other outlets in the time of post Rathergate has
caused
people to question the need for the traditional 6:30pm news anchor spot
at all.
This is evidence enough that while their ratings aren't what they used
to be,
the quality of reporting has not suffered. (Additionally, I believe the
need to
have a "face" to news organizations, such as Jennings or Brian Williams
with NBC, is just as important because it gives the reporting identity
instead of anonymity.)
Monday, Jennings asked a top commander what he thought of the reporting in Iraq
and specifically asked that he be 100% frank in his assessment. The gentlemen
remarked that he didn't think the advances in Iraq were getting nearly enough
attention. Yesterday, he reported that out the 1300 Iraqis they managed to poll
in various places across the war torn country, 2/3 of them had high hopes for
the future of the country. Jennings remarked that was some "serious
resolve." We also have heard that a great many Shia leaders appear to be
reaching across the isle so to speak in order to calm Sunni fears. The theme
this week is definitely
one of hope.
It will be interesting to see what happens a week from now. Clearly
there will
be violence during the elections and it may be widespread. But there
will
always be violence. What there hasn't been, in over 50 years in Iraq,
is a
democratic election. My personal opinion is that even opponents of the
war
cannot simply ignore that, especially those who thought highly of
intervention in other areas past. This is not to say this situation is
the same as those, but the idea that America has a duty to help other
regions of the world with their repression is not simply a neocon idea.
A few questions will certainly arise, ones that I
myself have not come to grips with. Should elections succeed, should we see
violence succumb to the will of a free and open society; 1.) How much, if any,
credit will Bush deserve and how much will he actually get? 2.) Does this
vindicate the Bush Doctrine and the obvious mistakes made in enforcement of
that doctrine? 3.) Does the fact that no WMD exist have any effect on this
policy and its validity? 4.) And finally, was it all really worth it, the lives
and the money?
For some, the answers to those questions come without thought, but for the honest,
they aren't as easy to wrestle with. This morning we are informed that a
helicopter went down west of Baghdad and it's likely that at least 30
marines were killed. For myself, someone who actually believed in the power
of transformational Middle Eastern policy if actually done right, I
question whether I could have given the order for war in the first place
knowing that such sacrifice could end up being needless. I would think it would go along way to
have a Commander in Chief who thought the same way.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 26 January 2005 04:25 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Do As We Say, Not As We Do |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Adrock
|
|
Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:37 |
On Friday, Fenlenium touched upon the wingnuttery coming from the right
wing Christian conservative movement and their crusade against a sponge
that lives in a pineapple in the sea. I normally do think that
even mentioning such stories gives people like this more credit than
they deserve, but in this case, it was worth mentioning. Why? Because
it highlights the exact reasons for why a great majority of the people
against civil marriage rights for gays hold their position.
In a fitting rebuttal to such nonsense, Andrew Sullivan picks two
stunning quotes said today by people who suppose to believe in the same
thing. I think this site would be in remiss not to link you there, so
please click here to view the Daily Dish's quotes of the day.
UPDATE to
Wingnuttery Abounds: If you were wondering whether Michael Powell has a spine, Jeff Jarvis highlights
how the FCC has actually rendered some reasonable decisions in
answering complaints from the Parents Television Council about "moral
decency" in some TV shows. (Credit: A.S.)
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:45 )
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Whojhouse
|
|
Tuesday, 25 January 2005 10:42 |
|
The White House announced today that the budget deficit will hit a record $475 billion in fiscal 2005, driven by a request for an additional $80 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The news got worse as administration officials admitted that the government's long-term fiscal health has continued to get worse. In a side note, employers should look for those administration officials' names on monster.com tomorrow morning. I have no problem that the White House needs more money to help arm the troops in the Middle East. I have no problem that it is increasing our deficit. I do have a problem with the myriad of tax cuts that caused the deficit in the first place, but that's for another day. But my biggest problem is that this Administration blatantly misrepresented the cost of this endeavor two years ago to help sell it and marginalized those who tried to bring the true costs to light. And yet they had the gall to spend their entire campaign calling John Kerry a flip-flopper. Maybe this instance wasn't flip-flopping, but it sure as hell was lying. The Bush Administration has time and again either pulled a bait-and-switch or outright lied to further their agenda, both domestically and especially abroad. Their allies in Congress and on talk radio have surely been accomplices to these crimes. But what sickens me is that the so called "liberal media" has let them get away with it. I hope they realize that they are as much to blame as the lying liars themselves. Just as with the Democrats, maybe when the media grows a spine and does their jobs we'll finally get some accountability in the White House. Once again, we're not holding our breath.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:18 )
|
|
FOXNEWS: As Ever, Fair & Balanced |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Fenlenium
|
|
Tuesday, 25 January 2005 02:06 |
|
Lest anyone continue to cling to the notion that FOXNEWS is impartial, or even, real journalism, this clip from Inauguration Day coverage should dispel those rumors of professionalism at Bloward TV. It's a lovely little catfight which features Vanity Fair Editor Judy Bachrach - GASP! dare she? questioning the value of the inaugural party prayer service for the troops! - and the FoxNewsBunny seemingly arguing to keep her job. You can almost sense her producer standing off stage miming hanging noose gestures. Ack!
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 25 January 2005 02:12 )
|
|
Good Riddance, Bad Chairman |
|
|
|
|
Politics
|
|
Written by Whojhouse
|
|
Monday, 24 January 2005 11:15 |
|
Last week FCC Chairman Michael Powell announced that within the next few weeks he will resign his post. His resignation is an opportunity for President Bush to move away from his nepotistic nature and towards an approach where loyalties to the Administration take a back seat to ability and competence. In his four years as FCC Chair, Powell has either grossly misunderstood his role or blatantly disregarded it. In the arena of "indecency," where he most made his mark, Powell was quick to regulate what went over our airwaves. However he was not such a fan of regulation when it came to matters of media ownership and concentration- a hallmark of the chair's responsibility. Once again the President has a choice. He can move toward middle ground by appointing a more moderate commissioner who understands the importance of media concentration and who is willing to make tough decisions. Or he could continue with his tendency to hire and appoint those who have sworn allegiance not to the interests of the country, but to his Administration's agenda. While we hope the President will choose the former, we're not holding our breath.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 24 January 2005 11:18 )
|
|
|