New York Post: A WHITE HOUSE 180: I don't understand this -- this is the New York Post, which is a New York newspaper presumably written and edited by people who live in New York and who directly experienced 9.11. So why would they be so utterly convinced not only that 9.11 was inevitable, but that the Bush administration was absolutely blameless -- "the White House's adamant refusal to let [Rice] appear - followed by its abrupt about-face - makes it seem like the administration had something to hide, and came clean only when forced. That's not the case, of course. The Bush folks have provided testimony from more than 20 executive office personnel and coughed up classified documents on an unprecedented scale. We have no doubt that the record of this president on the issue of 9/11 and the War on Terror - which has been so distorted in recent weeks - can be defended easily. "
Idon't understand why they would not think they should hold their judgement until the hearings are over, at least. This stikes me as an hysterical certainty -- along the lines that of course the Emperor is wearing clothes!
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Poor Martha (2)
The Globe and Mail Martha Stewart lawyers seek new trial Another losing legal strategy from the people who got Martha convicted in the first place. These lawyers are NOT "a good thing" for her.
Plan B for Iraq?
Dead foreigners mutilated, dragged through Iraqi streetsl: This is horrible - such anger, such despair. But I wondered about this quote: "There are some that are doing everything they can to try to prevent� a June 30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters." So does this mean that there is a possibility the US will NOT turn over Iraq to an Iraqi government at the end of June? I had never heard this before -- in fact, I thought Bush was bound and determined to have a July 1 photo op of the transfer. Maybe Plan B is for Bremner to fly home after dumping Iraq in the UN's lap.
Ya gotta believe!
Bush Plans for Tax Cuts Barely Avert House Setback
". . . the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, restated a view that has been cited by other Republican House leaders: tax cuts pay for themselves by generating economic growth that more than makes up for lost revenue. 'We, as a matter of philosophy, understand that when you cut taxes the economy grows, and revenues to the government grow,' Mr. DeLay said. 'The whole notion that you have to cut spending in order to cut taxes negates that philosophy, and so I'm not interested in something that would negate our philosophy'."
It used to be called the divine right of kings -- this certainty that everything a king did was divinely inspired, regardless of whether it made any sense. So now they're describing as a "philosophy" their nonsensical idea that cutting taxes will increase government revenues. So if taxes were cut to zero, then government revenues would increase to infinity, I guess.
This is what happens when you put the religious imans in charge -- they decide that EVERYTHING they believe is RIGHT because they are inspired by faith, not facts. And therefore ANYTHING they believe must be right because THEY believe it.
". . . the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, restated a view that has been cited by other Republican House leaders: tax cuts pay for themselves by generating economic growth that more than makes up for lost revenue. 'We, as a matter of philosophy, understand that when you cut taxes the economy grows, and revenues to the government grow,' Mr. DeLay said. 'The whole notion that you have to cut spending in order to cut taxes negates that philosophy, and so I'm not interested in something that would negate our philosophy'."
It used to be called the divine right of kings -- this certainty that everything a king did was divinely inspired, regardless of whether it made any sense. So now they're describing as a "philosophy" their nonsensical idea that cutting taxes will increase government revenues. So if taxes were cut to zero, then government revenues would increase to infinity, I guess.
This is what happens when you put the religious imans in charge -- they decide that EVERYTHING they believe is RIGHT because they are inspired by faith, not facts. And therefore ANYTHING they believe must be right because THEY believe it.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
217 days to find the middle 30 per cent
The Democrats cannot depend on Bush to go down in flames -- he's not going to start swearing in public, or screwing interns, or embezzling money, or giving the finger to the 9.11 widows. And as for saying something stupid, he's been doing this for four years and the American electorate doesn't appear to care.
In 217 days, at least 35 per cent of the American public will vote for Bush because they like his "straight-talking" persona and his macho war-mongering. Another 35 per cent of the voters will vote for John Kerry because they are democrats who hate Bush and like Kerry.
What the Democrats have to worry about are the middle 30 per cent. This group doesn't hate Bush, perhaps they even like him, but they can be persuaded to vote against him and for Kerry if they have a good reason. So the Democrats must give them a reason. Showing that Bush was cowardly and misguided on 9.11 won't be enough -- if they come to distrust Bush, they won't necessarily go to the polls to vote for Kerry instead, they're just as likely to stay home.
The Democrats need to get them off the couch.
First, they need some excitement. Kerry needs to make himself into a better public speaker -- sure, he's been making speeches for 30 years in the Senate, and maybe that's the problem. Quit being so ponderous! Establish the 10-word sentence as a personal goal. Tell a joke or two. Go on Leno, Oprah, The Daily Show.
Second, he needs to stop using the "Bring it on" line and any other line that is linked to Bush. This was OK during the primaries, when he had to convince the faithful that he could take Bush on, but it doesn't work anymore with people who were not offended when Bush first said this.
So third, Kerry should be making his own lines, now -- this campaign needs to be focused on John Kerry, front and centre, and no toe-scuffing or shilly-shallying or gracious self-effacement. To counter the Bush persona, he needs to create a cult of personality for himself and he has to do it in 217 days.
He needs a slogan like "The Kerry Way" or "It's time for the Kerry way" or some such phrase that focuses on himself. He can mention jobs and security and health care and the deficit and international alliances and all that other stuff in passing, but don't clutter things up. Don't make the mistake of thinking this campaign is about the issues. Its about being the person that the voters can "trust" -- and maybe this isn't so bad really. If 9.11 taught Americans one thing, its that shit happens, and so they must trust president to do the right thing. Their trust in Bush was misplaced, of course, but too many don't realize it -- they need to feel they can trust Kerry before they will vote for him.
In 217 days, at least 35 per cent of the American public will vote for Bush because they like his "straight-talking" persona and his macho war-mongering. Another 35 per cent of the voters will vote for John Kerry because they are democrats who hate Bush and like Kerry.
What the Democrats have to worry about are the middle 30 per cent. This group doesn't hate Bush, perhaps they even like him, but they can be persuaded to vote against him and for Kerry if they have a good reason. So the Democrats must give them a reason. Showing that Bush was cowardly and misguided on 9.11 won't be enough -- if they come to distrust Bush, they won't necessarily go to the polls to vote for Kerry instead, they're just as likely to stay home.
The Democrats need to get them off the couch.
First, they need some excitement. Kerry needs to make himself into a better public speaker -- sure, he's been making speeches for 30 years in the Senate, and maybe that's the problem. Quit being so ponderous! Establish the 10-word sentence as a personal goal. Tell a joke or two. Go on Leno, Oprah, The Daily Show.
Second, he needs to stop using the "Bring it on" line and any other line that is linked to Bush. This was OK during the primaries, when he had to convince the faithful that he could take Bush on, but it doesn't work anymore with people who were not offended when Bush first said this.
So third, Kerry should be making his own lines, now -- this campaign needs to be focused on John Kerry, front and centre, and no toe-scuffing or shilly-shallying or gracious self-effacement. To counter the Bush persona, he needs to create a cult of personality for himself and he has to do it in 217 days.
He needs a slogan like "The Kerry Way" or "It's time for the Kerry way" or some such phrase that focuses on himself. He can mention jobs and security and health care and the deficit and international alliances and all that other stuff in passing, but don't clutter things up. Don't make the mistake of thinking this campaign is about the issues. Its about being the person that the voters can "trust" -- and maybe this isn't so bad really. If 9.11 taught Americans one thing, its that shit happens, and so they must trust president to do the right thing. Their trust in Bush was misplaced, of course, but too many don't realize it -- they need to feel they can trust Kerry before they will vote for him.
Gephardt? Give me a break!
Political Animal says the rumours are flying about Dick Gephardt for VP -- this would be a disaster for Kerry's presidential run. Even Dick Cheney has more resonance with voters than Gelphardt does. And the GOP would again have a lengthy congressional record to dig up obscure votes for taxes or against the military. Kerry needs someone young, sexy, articulate -- either Brad Pitt or John Edwards. Remember, guys, its about winning the Gore states plus two.
Well, of course
IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
This is hardly even news, really, though perhaps not well understood in the US. When the Bush government has talked about Saddam Hussein as a threat, a leader of terrorism, giving weapons to terrorist groups, the danger of his WMD, and so forth, it was his anti-Israel activities and his credibility in the Arab street as a threat to Israel that they perceived to be the problem. Now that he is gone, it is Israel that has gained some breathing room and, with American soldiers in Iraq, a bulwark against aggression from Syria and Iran. You could argue, I guess, about whether this is a good thing for the world or the region, or not, but this has always been what its all about.
This is hardly even news, really, though perhaps not well understood in the US. When the Bush government has talked about Saddam Hussein as a threat, a leader of terrorism, giving weapons to terrorist groups, the danger of his WMD, and so forth, it was his anti-Israel activities and his credibility in the Arab street as a threat to Israel that they perceived to be the problem. Now that he is gone, it is Israel that has gained some breathing room and, with American soldiers in Iraq, a bulwark against aggression from Syria and Iran. You could argue, I guess, about whether this is a good thing for the world or the region, or not, but this has always been what its all about.
Something Wicked This Way Comes
9/11 uproar focuses on enigmatic Rice
This has gone on so long that I'm convinced there is some reason why either Rice or Bush is scared of Rice testifying in public, under oath -- something she cannot spin or explain or deny. I have no idea what it could be, but there is some question she expects to be asked that she does not want to answer in public.
This has gone on so long that I'm convinced there is some reason why either Rice or Bush is scared of Rice testifying in public, under oath -- something she cannot spin or explain or deny. I have no idea what it could be, but there is some question she expects to be asked that she does not want to answer in public.
It's Paul Martin's Liberal Party now, not Chretien's
John Ibbitson's column "Chrétien assails Martin in a most diplomatic tone"
Well, here I go again with Ibbitson -- honestly, I bear the man no ill will, but he's been around Ottawa for too long, I think -- "The problem with Paul Martin's decision to effectively run in opposition to the Liberal Party is that the Liberal Party could decide to run in opposition to him." Bunk! Chretien is NOT the Liberal Party anymore, as much as he may want to believe it. And if Chretien wants to embarass himself by sniping away from the sidelines and making cutsey speeches about how well he would have handled the sponsorship scandal, let him blow -- Martin should welcome this, because it will remind Canadians exactly why they were so disgusted with the Chretien's duck-and-cover style, and so happy to see Chretien go. Martin is cleaning the stables, a Herculean task, and yes, it gets a little messy sometimes.
Well, here I go again with Ibbitson -- honestly, I bear the man no ill will, but he's been around Ottawa for too long, I think -- "The problem with Paul Martin's decision to effectively run in opposition to the Liberal Party is that the Liberal Party could decide to run in opposition to him." Bunk! Chretien is NOT the Liberal Party anymore, as much as he may want to believe it. And if Chretien wants to embarass himself by sniping away from the sidelines and making cutsey speeches about how well he would have handled the sponsorship scandal, let him blow -- Martin should welcome this, because it will remind Canadians exactly why they were so disgusted with the Chretien's duck-and-cover style, and so happy to see Chretien go. Martin is cleaning the stables, a Herculean task, and yes, it gets a little messy sometimes.
Old bums exit there; new bums enter here
UPI: Chalabi's road to victory So, it took 600 American deaths, 3000 troops legless or armless, likely more than 10,000 Iraquis killed, and tens of thousands injured, just so Ahmad Chalabi, another man with a moustache, could take over in Iraq.
UPI writes "Chalabi, barely a year since he returned to his homeland after 45 years of exile, has emerged as the power behind a vacant throne. He also appears to have impressive amounts of cash at his disposal and a say in which companies get the nod for some of the $18.4 billion earmarked for reconstruction." And exactly how is this guy ever going to win an election? He can't do it. So if he becomes Prime Minister, as this article says is likely, a free election will never actually be held in Iraq. But you can bet that the US army will turn over to Chalabi all the prisons and the torture chambers which they have never actually closed down. Chalabi will need them, because otherwise he would not be able to hold on to power.
Oh, its just too depressing to write about anymore. . .
UPI writes "Chalabi, barely a year since he returned to his homeland after 45 years of exile, has emerged as the power behind a vacant throne. He also appears to have impressive amounts of cash at his disposal and a say in which companies get the nod for some of the $18.4 billion earmarked for reconstruction." And exactly how is this guy ever going to win an election? He can't do it. So if he becomes Prime Minister, as this article says is likely, a free election will never actually be held in Iraq. But you can bet that the US army will turn over to Chalabi all the prisons and the torture chambers which they have never actually closed down. Chalabi will need them, because otherwise he would not be able to hold on to power.
Oh, its just too depressing to write about anymore. . .
Monday, March 29, 2004
Who audits the auditors?
Liberals brace for another report from auditor who exposed sponsorship scam: "After striking political gold with Fraser's Feb. 10 report on a relatively tiny advertising program, opposition critics are giddy with anticipation about potential foul-ups in a $7.7 billion program. "
The Conservatives had better remember that those who live by the sword die by the sword too.
Of course, after years of Mulroney court cases, when the RCMP and the Justice department went nuts sniffing out a scandal that wasn't there, I guess I can understand the Conservatives trying to get a little of their own back.
But I think the Auditor General has to tone it down a notch -- as a taxpayer, I don't think we should be so hysterical about every single dollar spent -- I don't want to be spending a thosand of my tax dollars making sure that a hundred dollars is properly spent. Perhaps next time, the Auditor General should audit the government auditors, to make sure that we haven't gone so audit-crazy that half of our civil service is being paid to audit the other half.
The Conservatives had better remember that those who live by the sword die by the sword too.
Of course, after years of Mulroney court cases, when the RCMP and the Justice department went nuts sniffing out a scandal that wasn't there, I guess I can understand the Conservatives trying to get a little of their own back.
But I think the Auditor General has to tone it down a notch -- as a taxpayer, I don't think we should be so hysterical about every single dollar spent -- I don't want to be spending a thosand of my tax dollars making sure that a hundred dollars is properly spent. Perhaps next time, the Auditor General should audit the government auditors, to make sure that we haven't gone so audit-crazy that half of our civil service is being paid to audit the other half.
Shorter John Ibbitson: I'm shocked - shocked! - that parliament would do some business
John Ibbitson How much more 'in extremis' could things get?
First, let it be said that I know nothing about the Flemish Cap issue. But neither does John Ibbitson, apparently, though he doesn't let this minor fact deter him from heaping sarcastic scorn on parliament for passing a motion last week dealing with Canadian sovereignty over this area of the Grand Banks. Instead of dealing with issues which actually affect the day-to-day lives of thousands of Canadians, I guess parliament is supposed to be dedicated 24/7 to pounding the government over the sponsorship scandal, and how dare they do anything else. Particularly, how dare they vote on an issue which, to understand it, would require John Ibbitson to actually do some research, like phone a few people in Newfoundland and find out what the issue is so that he could so inform the rest of us.
First, let it be said that I know nothing about the Flemish Cap issue. But neither does John Ibbitson, apparently, though he doesn't let this minor fact deter him from heaping sarcastic scorn on parliament for passing a motion last week dealing with Canadian sovereignty over this area of the Grand Banks. Instead of dealing with issues which actually affect the day-to-day lives of thousands of Canadians, I guess parliament is supposed to be dedicated 24/7 to pounding the government over the sponsorship scandal, and how dare they do anything else. Particularly, how dare they vote on an issue which, to understand it, would require John Ibbitson to actually do some research, like phone a few people in Newfoundland and find out what the issue is so that he could so inform the rest of us.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
The post-political
" Terrorists Don't Need States":Fareed Zakaria quotes an unnamed government official: "States have been getting out of the terror business since the late 1980s. We have kept many governments on the list of state sponsors for political reasons. The reality is that the terror we face is mostly unconnected to states." Zakaria continues "Today's terrorists are harbored in countries like Spain and Germany --entirely unintentionally. They draw on support not from states but private individuals -- Saudi millionaires, Egyptian radicals, Yemenite preachers."
This article makes me wonder about whether we are seeing something new developing.
Just as in art, when post-modernism overturned modernism, and in sociology, when post-feminism destabilizes feminism, so to in politics, perhaps we are facing a post-political century in which "isms" themselves are rejected.
Perhaps the new terrorists are rejecting both despotism and democracy, which both represent a state approach to social organization.
It would be difficult for any committed politician to conceive of people whose basic orientation is apolitical, but this seems to be what Zakaria is actually describing -- terrorists whose goal is NOT to take over a state, but rather to destabilize it, to detach people from allegience to it, to demonstrate the state's irrelevance to their lives.
In favour of what? I'm not at all sure, perhaps the goal is the creation of a new allegiance to the family, the tribe, maybe the region, but nothing bigger than that.
This article makes me wonder about whether we are seeing something new developing.
Just as in art, when post-modernism overturned modernism, and in sociology, when post-feminism destabilizes feminism, so to in politics, perhaps we are facing a post-political century in which "isms" themselves are rejected.
Perhaps the new terrorists are rejecting both despotism and democracy, which both represent a state approach to social organization.
It would be difficult for any committed politician to conceive of people whose basic orientation is apolitical, but this seems to be what Zakaria is actually describing -- terrorists whose goal is NOT to take over a state, but rather to destabilize it, to detach people from allegience to it, to demonstrate the state's irrelevance to their lives.
In favour of what? I'm not at all sure, perhaps the goal is the creation of a new allegiance to the family, the tribe, maybe the region, but nothing bigger than that.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Strange days indeed
Central Planning - Bush went for a 10-strike and missed 9/11. By William Saletan:
"Life is complex and surprising. You can't anticipate everything in a big plan. You have to accept that, and you have to organize yourself to catch the things your plans will miss."
Or, in the words of John Lennon "Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans."
The fatal flaw of Bush and his government is that they don't understand how anything actually works, including the government of which they are nominally in charge. Saletan continues "For failing to understand this lesson before 9/11, perhaps Bush and his national security team can be forgiven. For refusing to accept the same lesson now, after all the deaths and all the hearings, they cannot."
Ideologues cannot learn -- they refuse to change their ideas because that would mean losing their ideology. They think the world is divided into people who are right and people who are wrong. And their hurbis is also thinking that they are the ones who are always right.
Somebody told me there'd be days like these . . .
"Life is complex and surprising. You can't anticipate everything in a big plan. You have to accept that, and you have to organize yourself to catch the things your plans will miss."
Or, in the words of John Lennon "Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans."
The fatal flaw of Bush and his government is that they don't understand how anything actually works, including the government of which they are nominally in charge. Saletan continues "For failing to understand this lesson before 9/11, perhaps Bush and his national security team can be forgiven. For refusing to accept the same lesson now, after all the deaths and all the hearings, they cannot."
Ideologues cannot learn -- they refuse to change their ideas because that would mean losing their ideology. They think the world is divided into people who are right and people who are wrong. And their hurbis is also thinking that they are the ones who are always right.
Somebody told me there'd be days like these . . .
Republican means never having to say you're sorry
washingtonpost.com: Media Notes Extra: "In an age when seemingly everyone wants to score partisan points (see Clarke, Richard), proceeding on the basis of what's good for the country seems old-fashioned, almost quaint. But we could use more of it in this snake pit of a capital."
Once again, the only time Kurtz complains about the tone in the Capital is when the Dems are the ones scoring the so-called "partisan" points -- look at that Clark, for heaven's sake, apologizing for 9.11 -- what a boor!! Only a secret closet Democrat would actually be sorry for the deaths of 3,000 Americans! And for the good of the country, of course, the Dems should quit telling the truth and go back to being mealy-mouthed losers -- that's what America needs today.
Once again, the only time Kurtz complains about the tone in the Capital is when the Dems are the ones scoring the so-called "partisan" points -- look at that Clark, for heaven's sake, apologizing for 9.11 -- what a boor!! Only a secret closet Democrat would actually be sorry for the deaths of 3,000 Americans! And for the good of the country, of course, the Dems should quit telling the truth and go back to being mealy-mouthed losers -- that's what America needs today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)