Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Down with OPB?
I'll be posting links to Other People's Blog entries in the next few days. I'm working on a new project. I can't say what it is, but I'll give you a hint. I am trying to figure out a way to set FTP transfer mode (ASCII or Binary) on an ad-ware FTP prog in order to avoid having to do it from a DOS shell command line on a bunch of files.
I notice that fletch has featured my hometown in his most recent entry.
Max speaks about a subject that ties into my upcoming entry on anti-boortz.
Lastly, even though I cannot stomach his politics, I find that Les Jones has a new entry in his Biology category.
Update: Downloaded WS_FTP Pro. Its an evaluation version, but if this takes more than 30 days, I'm not doing it anyway. Anyway, no more problem with the transfer mode.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
The Cracked Crystal
I should mention: I've never missed a single blog-based new year prediction. My record is immaculate. Maybe this will be the first year I get one wrong, but are you willing to take that chance? Read and heed - this is what happens in 2004:
January: Dennis Kucinich fails to win the Iowa caucuses in what would have been an upset.
February: Economists and pundits hail gains in floral delivery sector. Gains are short-lived.
March: John "F." Kerry, if still in race for nomination, still does not "get it."
April: Spring comes to certain parts of the nation. North Dakota sees thinning of permafrost layers.
May: Rain, heavy at times.
June: Weather-based predictions are down. Segue portends increase in political predictions. Wife has birthday.
July: Iraq transforms into stable democracy. US begins "transfer of power" according to schedule. Much winking and back-slapping among cabinet members. Colin Powell's bon homie seems somewhat strained.
August: Republican National Convention is held in New York City. Timing and location carefully chosen to avoid any hint of politicizing past terror events. Timing also chosen to allow Republican candidates enough time to wage expensive primary campaign. Tom Delay's potential plans to house delegates in Houston and commute to the convention are never realized.
September: John "F." Kerry, if still in race for nomination, still doesn't "get it."
October: Chicago Cubs fail to win World Series.
November: Hillary Clinton is unable to capitalize on her possible 2004 presidential bid due, in part, to rumors that she is a lesbian.
December: The nightmare is over: only one month until the inaguration of a Democratic party President, unless George W. Bush won the November election. Snow in some regions.
Monday, December 29, 2003
Real Life Intrudes
I will be on leave today, in order to deal with real life demands. I hope to be back tomorrow.
Sunday, December 28, 2003
In the mixed metaphor department
Olliver Willis reports the big story: that Paul Bremer puts the lie to Tony Blair's claims.
Another good cause
Frankly, I'm impressed. Some background:
My family, eldest sister included, are political conservatives.
We only exchanged ornaments among adults for this year's Christmas. (Unfortunately, I did not get to see eldest sister during this year's abbreviated celebrations.)
My eldest sister's family has given to my family a knit stocking Christmas ornamnent for Christmas this year. It is red, white, and green with a brown card attached. Upon that card is this inscription:
Bosnian Handicrafts Bosnia & Herzegovina Handmade by Rajka. www.bosnianhandicrafts.com With the purchase of these lovingly made products you get an item which you will cherish, while directly assisting refugee women to improve their lives. As most of our products are made out of local raw materials your purchase also supports the reviving of Bosnian economy. I did my research before I chose to endorse this as a good cause. It appears that while the CEO is a Serbian Christian, the women who are earning a livelihood through this project include Muslims and Croats. In other words, the formerly warring factions are coming back together on this cause. And that is something that conservatives and liberals can both appreciate.
If you are reading: thanks, sis.
Frankly, I'm impressed. Some background:
My family, eldest sister included, are political conservatives.
We only exchanged ornaments among adults for this year's Christmas. (Unfortunately, I did not get to see eldest sister during this year's abbreviated celebrations.)
My eldest sister's family has given to my family a knit stocking Christmas ornamnent for Christmas this year. It is red, white, and green with a brown card attached. Upon that card is this inscription:
If you are reading: thanks, sis.
Death to Saddam...?
As per my usual habit of being the last to chime in about last week's blogospheric buzz, I will now comment on whether I think Hussein should get the death penalty.
Let me first disclaim that I will be perfectly happy either way. I will not be among the hand-wringers crying pity for the man should Saddam find himself suddenly without a head.
I will not be among the blood-thirsty who will undoubtedly shriek with howls of displeasure, should they be deprived of the spectacle of an execution.
It's good that Saddam Hussein will come to justice, and I will be pleased that he does no matter what means is used. Before I move on, l must still mention that Oliver Willis made a fantastic appeal to my visceral feelings that scream "Death to Saddam!" But, after some reflection, I settled on the other answer instead.
Yes, I think we owe the Iraqi people something. I think they deserve a balm for the hurt they sufferred under Saddam, and seeing him executed would do their hearts good. But America has already given of her sons and daughters to the ultimate benefit of the Iraqi people, and it is time to look at American interests first.
Execution is not a deterrent for future enemies of America. An execution speaks the language of jihad: violence, revenge, and martyrdom. The sentiments that inflame the Arab world against us are universal feelings. We all share them. The extremists have found a way to fan the flame of those feelings to incite susceptible Arabs to violent action. Throwing another body on their fire is not going to defuse the situation in the least. Just ask Prime Minister Sharon, if you doubt.
On the other hand, keeping Saddam alive and in prison is a net positive for American interests. Whether it is an individual or a state, a killing sends a message of fear. It says we feel safer with a powerful enemy dead. To keep him alive is to trivialize him. We feel safe enough already, because our enemy has no power. We send the message: we really aren't afraid.
More importantly, it creates a chink in the armor of fanatacism. Recruits to the radical cause do not "hate America for our freedom," even though their leaders clearly believe religious freedom is a blight. The real reason that the leaders of Jihad are able to attract plentiful followers is that the followers believe America is waging a war on Islam and on Allah. These words are excerpted from bin Laden's 1998 call to arms:
Killing Saddam would not be unjust, but it would be a lost opportunity.
Saturday, December 27, 2003
The Generals
We all know where four-star general and war-time commander Wesley Clark stands on the Iraq war. But he isn't alone.
Retired USAF general and war-time commander Tony McPeak agrees, even though he was a registered Republican and endorsed Bush in 2000.
So does retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who, like General Clark, took bullets in Vietnam.
And, it isn't just the generals.
P.S. Shame on me for leaving out RTB's own Jo Fish.
Get Your Darwin On
I've stumbled upon a new blog of interest: Carl Zimmer's Loom, devoted to the biological sciences. It is only because of the 2004 presidential election that politics is my primary blogging interest right now. When it is over, I will have somewhat less to say on the subject of politics, and maybe somewhat more on the subject of natural science. I may even have a word or two to say about our flat-earther friends.
No matter what I do, mine will be the words of an amateur science booster, not the words of a working scientist. Zimmer's blog, on the other hand, is full of accurate and insightful science blogging. Read and enjoy.
Back to politics, now. Read this scathing indictment of the right-wing smear-mongers. Arthur also seems to share my discomfort with Dean's back-pedalling on this issue.
Friday, December 26, 2003
Tactics
(Or, why stupid hyperbole is effective).
A campaign really should be about issues. It's not going to be so simple, though. The Republican smear machine will be in over-drive, stopping at nothing to cling to power. One of their tactics will be stupid hyperbole.
Stupid hyperbole works. It works especially well when the opposition party is too scared of getting called "angry" to fight this tactic effectively. The answer to stupid hyperbole is to mock it unmercifully, and when those in power whine about how angry your mockery sounds, remind everyone what you are mocking.
Why does it work? I don't know. Its some kind of psychological or subliminal thing, I guess. You bleat on about how liberals hate America long enough, make it a theme on every talk show, in every newspaper editorial, and in your book titles, and eventually people will "have to admit" that liberals are "at least" less patriotic than regular people.
I remember the media trying time and again to put lies and exaggerations into the mouth of Al Gore during the 2000 elections. I was less aware of the tactics being used at the time, and when a person close to me suggested that I had "at least" to admit that he was prone to exaggeration (or else I was hopelessly biased), I found myself nodding my head in agreement. The facts of not one single case bore out the premise, but suddenly it seemed almost perverse to deny that Gore was a little more prone to self-congratulatory exaggeration than his opponent.
It's an insiduous tactic, but effective. It's the new politics, and it stinks.
Politicizing Paul Krugman
Via Atrios, Paul Krugman gives us a lesson in substantive reporting on politics and policy. Best line?
Now, I believe we made a good trade: one milquetoast economist for one all-purpose media voice with a set of steelies.
I thought at the time that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election if he had been able to manage the debate better, forcing a policy debate instead of a beauty contest. During that election season, I kept wondering why Gore and the media felt like Bush's Texas record was not news, why Gore's record as Clinton Veep was not news, but colorful media charicatures of the candidates' personalities were news.
Dean won't allow that to happen. In every interview and debate, and in every statement, he sticks to policy and rebuffs the snide interviewers who are just dying to know if maybe he really isn't too angry to be elected. It looks like Paul Krugman is going to be one of his few allies in the media.
That said, the NY Times still needs to hire some damn editors. Paul, this is wrong: "We learn from The Washington Post that reporters covering Mr. Dean are surprised..." The Washington Post writes about Mr. Dean, but the person they are covering is Dr. Dean. It isn't that hard folks.
P.S. It appears the Beagle2 may not have made it, after all. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. In the meantime, Mars Express is successfully deployed, so all is not lost.
P.P.S. Oh deer, I love the nature photography at Smoky Mountain Journal.
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
London, the Beagle has Landed
Not yet. I just wanted to beat everyone to the punch, because that's tomorrow's headline. I'm excited that Mars is getting attention. I don't expect there to be found any convincing evidence of life having existed on Mars (whether there ever was any or not), but the prospect of doing science on a planet 85 million miles away from home is awe-inspiring.
Posting will be light until the new year. If you are celebrating the mandatory holidays, be safe and happy.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
That's Mister Angry Liberal To You, Bub
I have been reading a lot of negative op-ed about Howard Dean this morning. Let's see, I've been reading:
This, This, This, This, This, and This. (You assemble this much negative opinion about the Republican candidate, and Sean Hannity will use it to prove that the left is composed entirely of Bush-haters.)
That is (count 'em) six op-eds from four papers, of which three are read nationally. In order, The Washington Post, the Washington Times (three articles - there are others from them, but I didn't want them hogging the space), the Wall Street Journal, and the DFW Star-Telegram.
What these fine papers have in common is not ownership by the Moonies. No, that's just the Washington Times. They do not all share a rabidly right-wing editorial department. No, that leaves out the Post. What they have in common is that they ask us to take them seriously, when they are not well-informed enough on the subjects they are discussing to know that Howard Dean is not a "Mr.", but a "Dr." Every one of these op-eds refer to Dr. Dean as "Mr. Dean" any time they do not use his full name or his other title (that would be Governor, for you national opinion writers out there.)
Now I understand that national talking head pundits (especially those on the far right) are not known for being great thinkers. But folks, that's why newspapers have editors. If I owned a heavy-weight national paper and my editors couldn't catch such obvious errors, I would fire them.
Of course, it's not just major newspapers getting it wrong. But you expect this kind of thing from the GOP. (Can't you just hear Gillespie now, "It's no fair! Why do they get a medical doctor and we have to run a failed businessman?")
Oh, here's a good one: Let's look at the quality of education we can hope to get from Project Vote Smart. Ha! Ha! Those folks aren't owned by Diebold are they?
Enough.
Monday, December 22, 2003
Good News for Soldiers
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan says soldiers are not guinea pigs.
The last I heard of this scandal (this was before 9/11), a high school buddy of mine had been relieved of duty in the USAF because he refused the shots. I never found out what eventually became of him. I would like to know if he was one of the ones who saw it through to the end, but I will likely never find out.
JAG, if you are out there & reading --- congratulations. Drop me a line sometime.
Who is Working On This?
People who know me know that I am no worrier. When Tom Ridge elevated the security threat level to Fuschia (check behind you every seven steps) yesterday, I hardly even blinked.
I mean, I recognize the reality of the threat. I really do. I just can't motivate myself to worry about it. Everytime a hellish post-apocalyptic scene pops into my visual imagination, I remember that we have the most expensive intelligence services on the face of the planet and that they are surely doing their best. I guess it helps also that I live in a rural area. There is a nuclear power plant nearby, but I can't help thinking that Al Qaeda views our cows as a low-value target. I say all of this to make clear that I am not being alarmist when I mention this other threat.
Somehow, I feel like the security concern that requires the next most direct attention from the U.S. after international terror is the threat of a nationalistic and militaristic China. (I've misplaced a hat-tip here).
What if the next army to follow the Bush doctrine of pre-emption looks like this:
Now that would be a reason to worry. Don't get me wrong. I don't think it is even likely that the Chinese will aggress against a neighbor in the next few years. But the situation requires attention. My question is: who is working on this? What is the policy, and how is it being implemented? I'd just like to know, is all.
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Yikes! (And we're still getting that phony introductory rate, too!)
Via BFA & Oliver Willis:
(Real thanks to North Bay for Dean.)
The only thing I would have done differently, is to make sure the name on it reflected who gets the monthly statement: "John Q. Public".
TIME's Person of the Year
Time's Person of the Year: Hint: they pay the price for American Foreign Policy.
Good call, TIME. (For once.)
Saturday, December 20, 2003
Steal This Issue
My first instinct a few months ago, when the push for an expansion of Medicare became the priority of the Republicans in government, was to view it as cynical ploy to negate a key Democratic issue for 2004 elections. I felt very irked that the Republicans would more than likely be able to put together a package of give-aways to corporate interests, call it a Medicare expansion, and neutralize the Democrats on key policy proposals.
Dirty trick? Yes and no. Clinton stole Reagan's issues on balanced budgets and welfare reform. Dean or Clark is likely to take the issue of the war on terror away from Bush. Stealing issues is good. That's how we build concensus. An issue properly stolen becomes an entrenched part of the American way, allowing the parties to remake themselves and reflect their constituencies other interests more forcefully.
Medicare expansion is not likely an issue to stay stolen. The Bush folks decided to steal only the name and the price-tag, leaving most of the benefits for seniors behind. This leaves the Democrats in a better position than before. Now, instead of spending oodles of new money for a drug benefit and universal coverage, the candidates can offer to spend the same money and a little extra, but put it to work more efficiently, providing a greater benefit by using the legislation to control the monopoly pricing schemes of big Pharma and the corporate HMO's.
In 2004, this is likely to emerge as Karl Rove's biggest error in judgement. Already, the supposed beneficaries of the GOP plan are less than enthused. This is just after the AARP endorsed it and spent millions advertizing for it, and it is before the reality sinks in that no one receives any benefit in the next couple of years. By the elections, people are going to be ready for a serious proposal on health-care, with the only difference being that the price tag difference between the serious Democratic proposals and Republican legislation is going to be much smaller - making the Democratic sell much easier. I guess that's the danger of putting the political wing in charge and leaving the policy wonks out of the process.
Where Will The Next War Be?
My guess: Lybia. All the conditions are there. Consider the similarities to the events that triggered our last war:
But scariest of all?
We gave them 17 years. It's time for action.
Friday, December 19, 2003
And the Winner Is...
In the category of most apt to tickle smijer's funny-bone, the winner is: Rochester's Raging Grannies.
Bubba drew some interesting selections, himself.
Some random cool stuff from cnn.com
Seems they've broken a rule and put some interesting stuff on their page:
Freedom Tower. (I like this.)
and
The new telescope is cool.
Three and One Half Hours
A fantastic movie, for those who only read the Cliff Notes.
In happier news, I've added a couple of new links to the blog roll. Fanatical Apathy never fails to amuse, while Cal Pundit is one of the major political blogs; a staple for hard commentary and cat-blogging.
Enough. Time for work.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Move along folks, nothing to see here
One blog is more than enough. I'm spending all my time lately on the anti-boortz, so I don't have much time to put in here. I think today's anti-nuze would have wound up on this page if Boortz hadn't brought up "unilateralism." Its going to be a relevant issue, given the Republican talking points that are circulating.
Christmas is a week from now. These three fellows will spend it in prison (one on death row), for a crime they did not commit. Think about them, and if you can spare anything for their defense fund, the pay-pal link is at the bottom of the pop-up letter from Lorri Davis and Damien Echols.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Why does Bob Novak Hate America?
Via MSNBC, Bob Novak:
Monday, December 15, 2003
If you can't beat them, join them
The Good Life & Boortz are both making cracks about Saddam's resemblence to other well-known figures.
So what the hell. Hussein or Matthau? You decide.
 |  |
Slow News Day
Thankfully, there is still yesterday's news to talk about. I've found two interesting phenomena in the on-line debates of yesterday's breaking news.
1) There is a concensus here on the left that Bush handled something well for a change. Instead of his usual triumphalist displays, the president sounded a note of mixed optimism, stressing the fact that there is much work left to be done in Iraq.
Atrios has the most humorous take on Bush's new-found "humility and strength". Bush said, "this is good, BUT..." which obviously means he wants himself to fail in Iraq.
2) A lot of Democrats sincerely do not expect the Bush administration to allow Saddam to come to trial. The tin-foil hat variety believes that the U.S. will arrange an assassination before the trial date. Others believe the trial will be delayed past the 2004 elections. I know we are all cynical about Bush. We have good reason. I'm still very suprised to see the level of distrust climb this high.
One thing is very sure. The capture of Saddam will create a new opportunity to speed the transition of sovereignty to the Iraqis. Without him waiting in the wings to re-emerge as a political presence, there is one less worry on those lines. He was only one of three or four major political pitfalls of concern, but one in four is still a very significant reduction.
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Got Him
Good job to the men and women of the military who have captured the fugitive Saddam Hussein. Even though the Iraq war was bad policy, we can still appreciate the good that does come of it.
Here's hoping that Iraq will be a better place, for the Iraqis and for the world, when we leave it than it was when we arrived.
Update: Get your commentary here.
Saturday, December 13, 2003
The Primary Fight is Turning Ugly
I found this on BFA: Hold Your Nose
By the way, the anti-boortz is where all the action is right now. I'll still be posting here, but there may be a lull until traffic dies down over there.
Friday, December 12, 2003
Sorry, technical difficulties
My comments sections have been replaced. I was using "Comment This!" before, but apparently they crashed. So I am replacing them with Haloscan, which I have seen used elsewhere. A lot of comments were lost in the failure. I'll make an effort to recoupe them later on if possible. Sorry to anyone who was watching/participating in comments here.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
News You Could Have Guessed
Girls, girls... you're both very pretty.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
How could we have been so rude???
How many months have Human Rights activists had in their midst new converts, without giving welcome? George Bush campaigned on being against "Nation Building." Sean Hannity decried the Kosovo war as unnecessary. Legions from the right stayed home, rather than going out to wave flags and lavish praise on Bill Clinton, effusively, during Haiti and Kosovo. And now that they've become zealots for human rights?
Welcome one and all. Over to your left, you will find Amnesty International. Straight ahead, you will find Human Rights Watch, and the Human Rights Education Associates. Be cautioned that some of the atrocities documented by these organizations will cause your trigger finger to itch. Please consult with Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney (who now are heading up a coalition of human rights organizations of their own), for their guidance before rolling your tanks.
To date, we have no satellite imagery suggesting the possibility of some tractor trailers backed up to non-descript buildings in the wilderness of Uzbekistan. Wolfowitz and Cheney will be happy to explain to you how this plays into an enlightened foreign policy that gives due focus to human rights.
Welcome one and all. Make yourselves at home.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
There was a debate on tonight?
I worked late, and missed the first thirty minutes. So I decided to read the play-by-plays on some of my favorite blogs instead of tuning in late.
From what I hear, props to Kucinich for the gentle reminder (to all of us) that there are actually some issues involved. ("Issues? Those are so twentieth century.") So good for Dennis K.
And props to John Kerry for offering to instruct Ted K. on where he could put the polls.
Changing the subject, did you know that Hillary Clinton is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden?
Monday, December 08, 2003
Why Al Is Doing It
The real truth emerged approximately one tenth of a second after news broke that Al Gore will be endorsing Howard Dean. It emerged simultaneously on tens of thousands of blogs, and on talk shows across the 386 available television channels. And here I am to sum it up for you. Gore chose to endorse Dean because:
- He's gunning to run against Bush in 2008
- He wants to find out what the Vice Presidency would be like
- Make that Secretary of State
- He's heading off the draft Hillary movement
- He's working for Hillary
- He's taking a jab at the DLC
- He's working for the DLC
- He's trying to force the hand of the Clintons
- The Clintons forced his hand
- He's running in 2012
- Hillary's running in 2012
- He thinks Wesley Clark is too stiff
Did I miss anything?
Sunday, December 07, 2003
You Won't Hear about This on Fox News
Listening to This American Life on the way to McDonalds for supper, I heard a disturbing report detailing how the U.S. reneged on a deal with Nauru, wherein they would close down their protected "off-shore" banking operations (practically their sole source of income), help a few N. Koreans defect through an embassy in China, and do some nice things, politically, for the U.S. - in exchange for U.S. aid, in the form of desalinization plants and other goodies to help them replace the banking economy.
The audio will be up on their web-site next week. The first half of the show deals with the treatment of Afghan refugees in Nauru, but the really scary part is the reporting about U.S. making and breaking deals in the war on terror.
So let's hear some reporting on this from the liberal media, can we?
I won't hold my breath.
The 33% Solution
Props to Fûz, at WeckUpToThees! for his unique sketch of an Iraq plan. It is a thought that I had not seen formally committed to BlogSpace before.
I have long questioned why no one ever mentioned the possibility of Balkanizing Iraq along the lines of its three principal ethnic groups. The obvious benefits would include enhanced protection for the minority Kurds, facilitized containment of a centralized Sunni population, and the extension of an olive branch to the Shi'a group most in danger of anti-western radicalization.
Sure it would make the Turks nervous, but it stands to strike at the root of America's problem in Iraq, and Fûz gives a good sketch on how to accomplish that task. Mad Props.
Saturday, December 06, 2003
Wash your mouth out, Grandma
I've been reading Howard Dean: A Citizens Guide...
This excerpt follows in the aftermath of the civil unions bill:
That picture is going to be stuck in my head for the next nine years.
Friday, December 05, 2003
Who would have won?
In the comments of another post, there was a discussion about whether Clinton would have won in 1992 without Perot in the race. Unfortunately, even for the best and brightest, there is no way to answer this question with certainty. Furthermore, we don't have a lot of data to go on, besides the election results themselves. But I got interested in the question and decided to do some research and rough calculations.
Let me stress that I have no empirical data about how Perot voters would have behaved in the 1992 election without Perot in the race. The only scrap I have is a mention of a poll from 1991, sans methodology, margins of error, and proper citation. For $25, you can purchase access to a journal article which did properly cite the poll, here - the paper is entitled "President Perot or Fundamentals of Voting Theory Illustrated with the 1992 Election" by Alexander Tabarrok and it is in the March, 2001 issue. If he is properly quoted in this pdf file, then a majority of those polled who expressed a first choice for Perot would have voted for Clinton as their second choice.
However, I'm going to give some credence to the theory that Perot voters would have skewed Bush if Perot had been out. I worked up my numbers based on the generous assumption that Bush would have taken 60% of the Perot vote (nearly twice the cut he took from the general pool), and Clinton would have scored a mere 30% of Perot voters. The other 10% stayed home.
The hypothetical results - assuming that the 60/30/10 split for Perot voters held at the same level in every state - were a real squeaker. Only five electoral votes separate that hypothetical election from an electoral tie. But the winner was still Bill Clinton.
Check my work.
Make your own hypothetical outcome in 1992. (Microsoft Exel required)
Have fun with it!
Update: Did you notice that Perot beat Clinton in Utah and Bush in Maine?
Top Gun!
Seriously, if you haven't already seen this -- watch now. Beware - large .wmv file:
Top Gun!
Update: Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that this footage appears to belong to these folks, though I picked it up off an e-mail that was passed along to me. Go buy something. Put it in my Stocking.
Too Big or Too Small?
There is plenty of room to debate how the tools of government are best used. But, where it concerns the "size" of government - I don't see any room for debate. The ideal size of government seems to be obvious:
281,421,906 People and one big piece of paper.
Voter apathy and undue "big money" influence are the only real ways to reduce the "size" of this government (and they are working!!). We stand a chance to lose focus on who the government is when we debate how big it should be, and we forget that the laws and programs we, the people, put in place are tools for accomplishing specific purposes.
It isn't hard to argue that it isn't the government's function to be sure granny can afford her prescription medications. It is a little tougher to argue that "we the people" have no responsibility to be sure our aging poor (or our hungry children for that matter) are taken care of. It is unproductive to argue that somehow "we the people" will manage to fulfill our true obligations without the use of the one instrument - the one tool - we all share access to: our local, state, and federal laws. Obviously I take the liberals view of the debate. I think a capitalist democracy works best when everybody gets a chance to participate, and when poverty is held at bay.
I welcome the debate on how we should use our government. I just don't want to let that debate drift too far from the fundamentals, including the fundamental fact that "we the people" are "big government."
Thursday, December 04, 2003
How a Two Party System Should Work
Did I mention that I'm for Howard Dean? There are so many reasons, but one more than any other. He has the potential to foment reform in the Republican party.
If Dean wins the White House with some reasonable coattails in 2004, and again in 2008, it will send a clear signal to the GOP. The message will be this: if you campaign as a compassionate conservative, then you darn well better govern as a compassionate conservative.
Ronald Reagan did it to our side. After eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush Sr, and Democrats getting creamed, we got a Democratic administration who - besides looking after the Democratic agenda - was ready to balance budgets and run tough-as-nails departments of Defense and State. We got a Democratic President who campaigned slightly to the left of center, and governed as a moderate. If not for the Reagan-Bush years, would we have ever seen a Bill Clinton?
After eight to twelve years in exile from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Republicans will be ready to do whatever it takes to get back into the bully pulpit - even if that means promoting good policy over party ideology.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Newt Strikes Again
Add another word to the Newt Gingrich List Of Names To Call Your Opponent. This one doesn't seem to be Newt's creation, but it is in his spirit that it is used. I saw it used for the 5,732,199th time today at Deinonychus. According to the rule of five millions, after the five millionth time I personally have seen a word used in Right-Wing talking points, it becomes an official part of the ditto-head reality.
The word, and its definition are as follows:
appease: 1. v. To not start a war 2. v. To disagree with the Bush Administration on foreign policy.
Let's try it in a sentence.
Wrong: George Bush continues to appease the ruthless dictator, Islam Karimov. He is happier while Karimov is in power.
Right: Democrats are a bunch of appeasers.
Up until recently, the "a" word has been used most succesfully against those who opposed the war in Iraq. Even Bob Dole is getting into the act. (WaPo via a Kos Diary). He didn't quite use the "a" word, but Bob Dole said, "I thank God F.D.R. was my commander in chief in WWII. Had it been Howard Dean we would have not participated." Here is what I said back (and if you don't believe me, check the comments posted on the Diary thread at Kos):
"I thank God F.D.R. was my commander in chief in WWII. Had it been Bob Dole, he would have been unable to tell the difference between WWII and GWII."
But let's get to the usage of "appease" found at Deinonychus. Steve's comments are interposed with Howard Dean's statements from Hardball. Dean will be D, and Steve will be S:
S Isn’t that a great message to send to other despots around the world – all you need to do to get into “the community of nations” is extort us with nuclear weapons.
D In turn -and, in turn, they will disarm, verifiably, and rid themselves of nuclear weapons. They don’t need nuclear weapons.
S When was the last time that appeasing a dictator got them to reform and disarm? Dean is either very naïve or slightly delusional.
Get this now: if we offer anything to the Koreans that might persuade them to verifiably abandon their nuclear weapons program, we are 1) being black-mailed, and 2) "appeasing" a dictator. Since Korea is certainly not going to disarm without us putting something desirable on the table, then we have talked ourselves into a mighty tight corner. Our choices are now to be terrible appeasers and to be blackmailed or go to war with a nuclear power.
This is a decidedly poor use of rhetoric in the diplomatic situation we face with Korea. But it sounds good for painting Democrats as "soft on defense". And hell, that's a lot more important than solving a nuclear crisis in North Korea.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
More Moore, and more
Big thanks to South Knox Bubba and Say Uncle, who both felt sorry for me and gave me a link. Thanks both! (Update: That should have been a shout out to Bubba, and the whole Rocky Top Brigade!)
I only have a minute, but since there is now a chance someone will actually read what's being written here, it behooves me to write. So I will go back to my favorite whipping boy, Judge Roy Moore. I want to contrast his approach to a run for Governor with that of a New Yorker.
Which strategy do you like best?
Judge Moore's strategy: Break The Law
Eliot Spitzer's approach: Enforce The Law
Both methods, from early indicators, appear to be winning strategies. Still, there's something about Spitzer's that I find more... legal.
