Friday, April 30, 2004
The chess match to the end-game is finally engaged:
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Deal Is Reached to Cede Control of City to Iraqi Troops
Ceeding military control to Iraqi's was going to be necessary at some point. Now the real test comes: did we just give up? Did we in effect just turn over control to the insurgents? Or will the Iraqi army be an effective force in putting down rebellion and "democratizing" the country?
My guess - the insurgents turn their attacks increasingly on our retreating units, with no help from the Iraqi army, until we have fully pulled out of the middle of Iraq. Basically we are somewhere between Scenario 1b and 2, only it is happening now, rather than on June 30th (see my post dated April 14th). Looks like Bush's strategy is to concede defeat, pull out, let the country go to hell, and call it "victory."
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Deal Is Reached to Cede Control of City to Iraqi Troops
Ceeding military control to Iraqi's was going to be necessary at some point. Now the real test comes: did we just give up? Did we in effect just turn over control to the insurgents? Or will the Iraqi army be an effective force in putting down rebellion and "democratizing" the country?
My guess - the insurgents turn their attacks increasingly on our retreating units, with no help from the Iraqi army, until we have fully pulled out of the middle of Iraq. Basically we are somewhere between Scenario 1b and 2, only it is happening now, rather than on June 30th (see my post dated April 14th). Looks like Bush's strategy is to concede defeat, pull out, let the country go to hell, and call it "victory."
"Can you say, Orwellian?"
This goes beyond merely "rose colored glasses" to actual political censorship (of an inherently nonpolitical tribute). What are they so afraid of?
CNN.com - 7�ABC affiliates ordered not to air 'Nightline' - Apr 29, 2004
In the meantime, we have efforts like "Clean Skies" designed to increase air polution and so on. It is 1984, twenty years later.....
This goes beyond merely "rose colored glasses" to actual political censorship (of an inherently nonpolitical tribute). What are they so afraid of?
CNN.com - 7�ABC affiliates ordered not to air 'Nightline' - Apr 29, 2004
In the meantime, we have efforts like "Clean Skies" designed to increase air polution and so on. It is 1984, twenty years later.....
Thursday, April 29, 2004
What is all this talk about Bush's boost in the polls?
Here's the New Republic claiming that Bush is getting a war boost:
Up is Down
And here's the real results of the poll, showing Bush's approval ratings plummeting, but no advantage yet for Kerry in the election:
The New York Times > Washington > Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes
Here's the New Republic claiming that Bush is getting a war boost:
Up is Down
And here's the real results of the poll, showing Bush's approval ratings plummeting, but no advantage yet for Kerry in the election:
The New York Times > Washington > Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes
Hurray, Sante Fe!
First, marriage license for gay people. Now, cleanest air in the country.
I'm a big fan of the southwest. Intend to retire there one day, but never considered Sante Fe. Now I am....
CNN.com - Lung association ranks most polluted cities - Apr 29, 2004
First, marriage license for gay people. Now, cleanest air in the country.
I'm a big fan of the southwest. Intend to retire there one day, but never considered Sante Fe. Now I am....
CNN.com - Lung association ranks most polluted cities - Apr 29, 2004
Conservative Rose-Colored Glasses?
Is the Iraq cup half-empty or half-full? If you look at the opinions of conservatives - even somewhat respectible ones like Andrew Sullivan - they blog about the media's "over-focus" on a "few" murders in a "couple" of cities in Iraq, while the rest of the war is going "well."
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish
Meanwhile, we get daily reports on CNN about dozens of troops killed, polls that Iraqi's have lost confidence in the invasion/liberation, and increasing hand-wringing at home.
So which is it? Is it just a overblown cake-walk? Is the situation deterioriating or coming under control?
I'll tell you - it is a LONG-TERM WAR. There is NO END IN SIGHT. We bought the pony and now we've got to ride. Even if it gets better, it'll get worse. So, trying to paint it one way or another is pointless. Bush led us into decades of chaos that no one will be able to extract us from (for if we leave, it'll only encourage more terrorism, and we'll be back in no time).
This all came home to me reading more of Clarke's book last night. He was describing UNSCOM, the situation in 1991 as the first Iraqi war ended and the Sunnis and Kurds rose up and we had 72 hours to help out and we did nothing. What did we do? We said - oh, well, let Saddam kill them all after all. We'll just create UNSCOM and have the UN monitor them forever.
I remember this moment. I remember thinking HUH? WHA? We just had a war and now, we're going to create a beaurocratic monitoring force? WE'LL BE THERE FOREVER. And now - it hit me. THAT WAS THE POINT! UNSCOM was a SCAM! Now, I don't know if it was a scam by BIG BAD BUSH or a UN scam, but someone made out on that - leave Saddam in power and there was something paid off somewhere. It MAKES NO SENSE OTHERWISE.
And it's the same with Little Evil Bush. He doesn't care if the situation is deteriorating - his poll numbers go up. He WANTS THE WAR TO LAST FOR DECADES. Because then he has a long-term pipeline to Republican administrations, war funding, and kickbacks to his friends. It is a BEAUTY for him, and he's basically sealed the deal.
Is the Iraq cup half-empty or half-full? If you look at the opinions of conservatives - even somewhat respectible ones like Andrew Sullivan - they blog about the media's "over-focus" on a "few" murders in a "couple" of cities in Iraq, while the rest of the war is going "well."
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish
Meanwhile, we get daily reports on CNN about dozens of troops killed, polls that Iraqi's have lost confidence in the invasion/liberation, and increasing hand-wringing at home.
So which is it? Is it just a overblown cake-walk? Is the situation deterioriating or coming under control?
I'll tell you - it is a LONG-TERM WAR. There is NO END IN SIGHT. We bought the pony and now we've got to ride. Even if it gets better, it'll get worse. So, trying to paint it one way or another is pointless. Bush led us into decades of chaos that no one will be able to extract us from (for if we leave, it'll only encourage more terrorism, and we'll be back in no time).
This all came home to me reading more of Clarke's book last night. He was describing UNSCOM, the situation in 1991 as the first Iraqi war ended and the Sunnis and Kurds rose up and we had 72 hours to help out and we did nothing. What did we do? We said - oh, well, let Saddam kill them all after all. We'll just create UNSCOM and have the UN monitor them forever.
I remember this moment. I remember thinking HUH? WHA? We just had a war and now, we're going to create a beaurocratic monitoring force? WE'LL BE THERE FOREVER. And now - it hit me. THAT WAS THE POINT! UNSCOM was a SCAM! Now, I don't know if it was a scam by BIG BAD BUSH or a UN scam, but someone made out on that - leave Saddam in power and there was something paid off somewhere. It MAKES NO SENSE OTHERWISE.
And it's the same with Little Evil Bush. He doesn't care if the situation is deteriorating - his poll numbers go up. He WANTS THE WAR TO LAST FOR DECADES. Because then he has a long-term pipeline to Republican administrations, war funding, and kickbacks to his friends. It is a BEAUTY for him, and he's basically sealed the deal.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
More Thoughts on the Kerry/Bush Service Record Spat
It really is the stupidest of debates. But I have to admit, this shit works in the polls. It is very scientific. That's the only reason Bush has his bump up lately - because his constant hammering at Kerry has defined his opponent and "created" a view of Bush as "defending our country."
Now, the Dems try some of the same medicine. The Bushie's opened the door. But that doesn't matter - the Dems were probably just waiting for the chance. And what is the overall effect of this spat? You're left with more of an impression of Kerry as a war hero, in the end. That's the impression the Dems want - an important first step to countering the Bush's impression.
I say, why even have candidates at all? Couldn't all this just be done with fictional characters and clever ad teams? After all, all these impressions are just manufactured anyway. No one really cares about policies or the actual people. I think that would be better just to work from scratch - leave you free of the nasty baggage these real people present.
It really is the stupidest of debates. But I have to admit, this shit works in the polls. It is very scientific. That's the only reason Bush has his bump up lately - because his constant hammering at Kerry has defined his opponent and "created" a view of Bush as "defending our country."
Now, the Dems try some of the same medicine. The Bushie's opened the door. But that doesn't matter - the Dems were probably just waiting for the chance. And what is the overall effect of this spat? You're left with more of an impression of Kerry as a war hero, in the end. That's the impression the Dems want - an important first step to countering the Bush's impression.
I say, why even have candidates at all? Couldn't all this just be done with fictional characters and clever ad teams? After all, all these impressions are just manufactured anyway. No one really cares about policies or the actual people. I think that would be better just to work from scratch - leave you free of the nasty baggage these real people present.
Why doesn't McCain run for President?
Oh, that's right, he did. But his moderate views didn't appeal to the right-wing Republican cabal that now rules the White House.
Here's Lautenberg defending Kerry, and McCain saying "a pox on both your houses."
CNN.com - Defending Kerry, senator blasts 'chickenhawks' - Apr 28, 2004
McCain wins the point on this round - Kerry stood up to the Bush smear tactics yesterday. Now the Dems are on the offensive. But enough is enough. There has to be a way to look tough and keep the high ground, too, right?
But I guess not. McCain is a proven loser. So, I may not like the fact that the Kerry campaign has to stoop to Republican tactics to win this silly point about who was where in Viet Nam. But I think they've correctly assessed that giving as good as they get is the only way to win.
Oh, that's right, he did. But his moderate views didn't appeal to the right-wing Republican cabal that now rules the White House.
Here's Lautenberg defending Kerry, and McCain saying "a pox on both your houses."
CNN.com - Defending Kerry, senator blasts 'chickenhawks' - Apr 28, 2004
McCain wins the point on this round - Kerry stood up to the Bush smear tactics yesterday. Now the Dems are on the offensive. But enough is enough. There has to be a way to look tough and keep the high ground, too, right?
But I guess not. McCain is a proven loser. So, I may not like the fact that the Kerry campaign has to stoop to Republican tactics to win this silly point about who was where in Viet Nam. But I think they've correctly assessed that giving as good as they get is the only way to win.
Monday, April 19, 2004
The President's polling numbers have been steadily down for 2004 (basically, ever since the Democrats and the media began a more serious analysis of his administration). But still, polls show basically that 50% of Americans "approve" of the way he is handling his "job."
Bush: Job Ratings
Maybe it's the wording of the question, like we're giving an employee evaluation report. Yeah, the guy shows up to work most mornings. He puts in a good eight-hour day. Doesn't work too hard, isn't the brightest bulb, but he seems earnest. Give him a "pass."
But after all we've been told about the lies, after all the cockeyed theories have been proven wrong, can 50% of American's really still believe that this President is good for this country? I can't believe that....that's the most depressing statistic of all.
Bush: Job Ratings
Maybe it's the wording of the question, like we're giving an employee evaluation report. Yeah, the guy shows up to work most mornings. He puts in a good eight-hour day. Doesn't work too hard, isn't the brightest bulb, but he seems earnest. Give him a "pass."
But after all we've been told about the lies, after all the cockeyed theories have been proven wrong, can 50% of American's really still believe that this President is good for this country? I can't believe that....that's the most depressing statistic of all.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Another state capitulates to right-wing homophobia.
We have our own little Al-Sadr hard-line religious mob-mentality taking over our country....
The New York Times > National > Kentucky Lawmakers OK Gay - Marriage Ban
We have our own little Al-Sadr hard-line religious mob-mentality taking over our country....
The New York Times > National > Kentucky Lawmakers OK Gay - Marriage Ban
What will happen when we turn Iraq over to Iraqis on June 30th?
The President refuses to think about it, but here are the likely scenarios:
1. THE BLOODY SCENARIOS. Immediate chaos followed quickly by the imposition of a radical-Islamic state. The handover to a hand-picked "Interum Government" is met with a renewed uprising by Al-Sadr and Sunni forces. The Interum government quickly disbands. Al-Sadr and the Sunnis join forces - Sunnis agree on making Iraq a radical-fundumentalist Islamic state in exchange for leadership positions in the Army and government. The war against American forces now becomes a war with the "official" Shiite Iraqi government, which begins inducting troops and training forces, with secret Iranian backing. Within a few quick weeks, American forces are driven out of Bagdad and towns from Najif to Fallujia, with casualties mounting on both sides. from here, two sub-scenarios:
1a. American Military Successes - Congress authorizes increasing American forces, and the "full war" in Iraq resumes. Forces beat back Iraqi troops and regain control of the country. A "true" occupation is now in force and there is no plan ever for any turnover. The U.N. condems U.S. military action, calls rise for a complete "pull-out" from Iraq, and we are now in a stalemate situation in which we either i. stay and run the country forever or ii. pull out and let the country go to hell.
or
1b. American Military Plays It Safe - We decide to cut our losses and avoid images of heavy Iraqi civilian casualties in the international press. The "seige of Bagdad" lasts two weeks, until we "withdraw in order to let civilians bury their dead." But the American will to fight and kill Iraqis is broken. Forces retreat further south and north. Within months, a showdown is set with the rest of Kurdish northern Iraq, which we finally turn over to the new Iraqi Shiite government through some negotiated settlement. The new Shiite Iraq officially embraces Iran and acquires nuclear technology. The intelligence is publicized by Bush and the CIA but greeted with skepticism (the "crying wolf" phenomena). However, Bush looses the election and the new Kerry government creates a plan to keep the Iraqi Shiites in check.
OR
2. THE "BLOODLESS" SCENARIO. The soon-to-be-negotiated truce largely holds, but only if Al-Sadr and Sunni loyalists are included in the power turnover. Everything looks smooth as of June 30th as the new government takes over and we start standing down our troops. The American press quickly forgets about Iraq and Bush is re-elected because he's "created a Democracy in the middle East." But over the course of the next year, the new government slowly begins unsavory initiatives, one at a time, each one without too much clamor in the press, like 1. Start restricting the rights of women then 2. Start officializing the Shiite moslem religion into law and 3. Start providing a haven for radical terrorism and 4. Aliging itself with Iran and 5. Developing WMD and nuclear weapons as Bin Laden enters the country. But the war is "over" and we have "won" according to the Bushies. All this happens more slowly and without much bloodshed but it is billed as an "American success" and a "new democratic Iraq" and by about the second year of Bush's second term, a nuclear bomb is exploded somewhere in the U.S.
OR
3. The COP-OUT SCENARIO. The June 30th date is postponed (until November 30th?, after the election?) Instead, there will be a "series of turnovers" over the summer. Iraqi's are impatient with this and sporadic insurgencies and violence continues, along with more negotiations and settlements. However, during this time, Al Queda allies more strongly with Iraqi insurgents, small incidents of terrorism continue in allied countries (Italy, Japan, Austrailia, Britian). The life of the average Iraqi becomes more and more miserable; more middle-class Iraqi's flee the country; the potential length of stay of any radical regeme that ultimately takes over gets longer. The OMB releases a new estimate that doubles the estimated cost of the war. However, Bush spins it, Americans don't care, Bush continues the "stay the course" line and with no big U.S. terrorism, wins re-election. November 30th arrives, Bush requests another 100 Billion infusion from Congress, and now, scenarios 1 or 2 or 3 play out again, only now, our deficit starts to soar, the economic recovery falters, and the world enters a world-wide recession.
The President refuses to think about it, but here are the likely scenarios:
1. THE BLOODY SCENARIOS. Immediate chaos followed quickly by the imposition of a radical-Islamic state. The handover to a hand-picked "Interum Government" is met with a renewed uprising by Al-Sadr and Sunni forces. The Interum government quickly disbands. Al-Sadr and the Sunnis join forces - Sunnis agree on making Iraq a radical-fundumentalist Islamic state in exchange for leadership positions in the Army and government. The war against American forces now becomes a war with the "official" Shiite Iraqi government, which begins inducting troops and training forces, with secret Iranian backing. Within a few quick weeks, American forces are driven out of Bagdad and towns from Najif to Fallujia, with casualties mounting on both sides. from here, two sub-scenarios:
1a. American Military Successes - Congress authorizes increasing American forces, and the "full war" in Iraq resumes. Forces beat back Iraqi troops and regain control of the country. A "true" occupation is now in force and there is no plan ever for any turnover. The U.N. condems U.S. military action, calls rise for a complete "pull-out" from Iraq, and we are now in a stalemate situation in which we either i. stay and run the country forever or ii. pull out and let the country go to hell.
or
1b. American Military Plays It Safe - We decide to cut our losses and avoid images of heavy Iraqi civilian casualties in the international press. The "seige of Bagdad" lasts two weeks, until we "withdraw in order to let civilians bury their dead." But the American will to fight and kill Iraqis is broken. Forces retreat further south and north. Within months, a showdown is set with the rest of Kurdish northern Iraq, which we finally turn over to the new Iraqi Shiite government through some negotiated settlement. The new Shiite Iraq officially embraces Iran and acquires nuclear technology. The intelligence is publicized by Bush and the CIA but greeted with skepticism (the "crying wolf" phenomena). However, Bush looses the election and the new Kerry government creates a plan to keep the Iraqi Shiites in check.
OR
2. THE "BLOODLESS" SCENARIO. The soon-to-be-negotiated truce largely holds, but only if Al-Sadr and Sunni loyalists are included in the power turnover. Everything looks smooth as of June 30th as the new government takes over and we start standing down our troops. The American press quickly forgets about Iraq and Bush is re-elected because he's "created a Democracy in the middle East." But over the course of the next year, the new government slowly begins unsavory initiatives, one at a time, each one without too much clamor in the press, like 1. Start restricting the rights of women then 2. Start officializing the Shiite moslem religion into law and 3. Start providing a haven for radical terrorism and 4. Aliging itself with Iran and 5. Developing WMD and nuclear weapons as Bin Laden enters the country. But the war is "over" and we have "won" according to the Bushies. All this happens more slowly and without much bloodshed but it is billed as an "American success" and a "new democratic Iraq" and by about the second year of Bush's second term, a nuclear bomb is exploded somewhere in the U.S.
OR
3. The COP-OUT SCENARIO. The June 30th date is postponed (until November 30th?, after the election?) Instead, there will be a "series of turnovers" over the summer. Iraqi's are impatient with this and sporadic insurgencies and violence continues, along with more negotiations and settlements. However, during this time, Al Queda allies more strongly with Iraqi insurgents, small incidents of terrorism continue in allied countries (Italy, Japan, Austrailia, Britian). The life of the average Iraqi becomes more and more miserable; more middle-class Iraqi's flee the country; the potential length of stay of any radical regeme that ultimately takes over gets longer. The OMB releases a new estimate that doubles the estimated cost of the war. However, Bush spins it, Americans don't care, Bush continues the "stay the course" line and with no big U.S. terrorism, wins re-election. November 30th arrives, Bush requests another 100 Billion infusion from Congress, and now, scenarios 1 or 2 or 3 play out again, only now, our deficit starts to soar, the economic recovery falters, and the world enters a world-wide recession.
The Times gives a reasonable analysis of Bush's speech, but overlooks some critical points, like: 1. All of Bush's single-minded rhetoric was scripted talking points (likely scripted by Cheney and Wolfowitz, as they insinuate); 2. We know the pros and cons of this Imperialist ideology. What is the Time's analysis of the likely success of this ideology (in transforming the Arab world and making the U.S. safer)? Why does the Times here refuse to engage the validity of the ideology being espoused in this speechification? 3. What does Bush's steadfast refusal to even address reality signify? Does it signify that HE IS AN IDIOT WHO IS READING A SPEECH WRITTEN BY CHENEY AND WOLFOWITZ or does it signify that HE IS SUCH A SINGLE-MINDED IDEOLOGUE THAT HE CAN'T EVEN RECOGNIZE REALITY. I think it signifies the former, rather than the latter, but it'd be nice to know what the Times thinks.
The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: President Makes a Case for Freedom in the Middle East
The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: President Makes a Case for Freedom in the Middle East
OUR COUNTRY IS RUN BY AN IDIOT!
I watched the President's press conference last night. Oh my God! What a blathering idiot he is. He didn't have a response for a single question - and couldn't even formulate a response without looking down at his talking pionts. And when someone went "off script" and asked him an question that Cheney hadn't scripted the answer to, like "what would be your greatest mistake over the last three years," he just blabbered on and on without making a point till it seems like he forgot what the question was - he can't even formulate an English sentence! (You need to put an "s" on the end of plurals, Mr. President.)
And the most bothersome thing is that none of the press calls him on it. Fox News called the press conference a "home run." I guess Fox News is just happy if the president doesn't trip over his feet and start convulsing on the stage. CNN says, "he dodged a few questions," as if he even UNDERSTOOD what the questions were.
WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!
What does it take to show people that our country is being led by a three-year-old child? There he is right on television for the world to see as he makes a fool of himself, and still people say things like, "I thought it was a good speech....I though he said the right things." Oh...my...God! Don't you think it's the slightest bit alarming that the world's most powerful leader can't formulate an English sentence, or comprehend a question from a reporter?
I will say one thing. I have rethought my earlier assertion that the Bush administration was SO much worse about terrorism than the Clinton administration. I want to be more fair about this.
1. We WERE attacked by Al Queda in the first year of Clinton's administration as well. It wasn't nearly as deadly and we'd never heard of Al Queda then, but lets face it, Clinton's first year wasn't that well organized either.
2. This whole "they are at fault" etc. really isn't the point. I really don't think anyone could have stopped September 11th. SOMETHING was bound to happen - the terrorists win every now and then. Overall, we've done a pretty good job stopping them no matter the administration.
3. Was Bush "asleep" on terrorism and is Clarke correct in saying that the administration wouldn't take the threat seriously? Yes, probably. But if you think about it, Rice is correct - it really shouldn't be the President's job to "shake the trees" every day to stop an attack. Any President has a lot more things to worry about than just stopping one attack. That should be up to professionals. The problem is - we never had any professionals doing it. And the bigger problem is - we STILL DON'T.
I think the whole point about this September 11th commission and the Bush administration isn't that it was their fault that it happened - it's that, they really DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. The President has even admitted that he DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE (he wants the commission to suggest ideas, so that he can take credit for them). The only idea the Bushies could come up with was, "Attack Iraq!" - because, they had already come up with that! And Bush has no answers about why they didn't do anything about the PDB or how to transition authority in Iraq or what to do about American jobs or why he doesn't ever admit he's made a mistake, because he doesn't have a pea brain in his little head. But of course, he's at least got enough of one little ounce of a pea brain not to say the truth, which is, "well, the reason I need to testify with Cheney by my side is because I'm such a dope that Cheney doesn't let me say anything by myself."
You could see Condoleezza over in the side of the conference, her head hung low, looking so worried. A thought bubble over her head might have said something like, "Please, George, stop talking, before you say something REALLY REALLY REALLY stupid."
In the end, I think that this "weak on terrorism" argument is sticking to Bush not because Republicans were any more asleep at the wheel than Democrats, but because BUSH IS AN IDIOT. It is hard to claim that you "did everything you could" when YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Bush had some smart people around him (Powell, Rice) and some sinfully compromised ideologues (Cheney, Rumsfeld), some of whom had some plans for securing the country, others for their own personal expiation and aggrandizement, all of whom completely dissed Clinton's terrorism concerns, and when Bush got a PDB read to him with the title "Bin Lauden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" (let's all admit - the President doesn't read the morning PDB because he DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO READ....and wouldn't understand it if he could), Bush, being an idiot, DID NOTHING. Others (Rice, Powell) maybe tried to do some things, but let's face it, Chaney and Rumsfeld run the country, and really, the main concern in the Bush White House probably was (and still is) that Bush would be able to formulate a coherent sentence when he went on camera to face the nation.
I watched the President's press conference last night. Oh my God! What a blathering idiot he is. He didn't have a response for a single question - and couldn't even formulate a response without looking down at his talking pionts. And when someone went "off script" and asked him an question that Cheney hadn't scripted the answer to, like "what would be your greatest mistake over the last three years," he just blabbered on and on without making a point till it seems like he forgot what the question was - he can't even formulate an English sentence! (You need to put an "s" on the end of plurals, Mr. President.)
And the most bothersome thing is that none of the press calls him on it. Fox News called the press conference a "home run." I guess Fox News is just happy if the president doesn't trip over his feet and start convulsing on the stage. CNN says, "he dodged a few questions," as if he even UNDERSTOOD what the questions were.
WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!
What does it take to show people that our country is being led by a three-year-old child? There he is right on television for the world to see as he makes a fool of himself, and still people say things like, "I thought it was a good speech....I though he said the right things." Oh...my...God! Don't you think it's the slightest bit alarming that the world's most powerful leader can't formulate an English sentence, or comprehend a question from a reporter?
I will say one thing. I have rethought my earlier assertion that the Bush administration was SO much worse about terrorism than the Clinton administration. I want to be more fair about this.
1. We WERE attacked by Al Queda in the first year of Clinton's administration as well. It wasn't nearly as deadly and we'd never heard of Al Queda then, but lets face it, Clinton's first year wasn't that well organized either.
2. This whole "they are at fault" etc. really isn't the point. I really don't think anyone could have stopped September 11th. SOMETHING was bound to happen - the terrorists win every now and then. Overall, we've done a pretty good job stopping them no matter the administration.
3. Was Bush "asleep" on terrorism and is Clarke correct in saying that the administration wouldn't take the threat seriously? Yes, probably. But if you think about it, Rice is correct - it really shouldn't be the President's job to "shake the trees" every day to stop an attack. Any President has a lot more things to worry about than just stopping one attack. That should be up to professionals. The problem is - we never had any professionals doing it. And the bigger problem is - we STILL DON'T.
I think the whole point about this September 11th commission and the Bush administration isn't that it was their fault that it happened - it's that, they really DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. The President has even admitted that he DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE (he wants the commission to suggest ideas, so that he can take credit for them). The only idea the Bushies could come up with was, "Attack Iraq!" - because, they had already come up with that! And Bush has no answers about why they didn't do anything about the PDB or how to transition authority in Iraq or what to do about American jobs or why he doesn't ever admit he's made a mistake, because he doesn't have a pea brain in his little head. But of course, he's at least got enough of one little ounce of a pea brain not to say the truth, which is, "well, the reason I need to testify with Cheney by my side is because I'm such a dope that Cheney doesn't let me say anything by myself."
You could see Condoleezza over in the side of the conference, her head hung low, looking so worried. A thought bubble over her head might have said something like, "Please, George, stop talking, before you say something REALLY REALLY REALLY stupid."
In the end, I think that this "weak on terrorism" argument is sticking to Bush not because Republicans were any more asleep at the wheel than Democrats, but because BUSH IS AN IDIOT. It is hard to claim that you "did everything you could" when YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Bush had some smart people around him (Powell, Rice) and some sinfully compromised ideologues (Cheney, Rumsfeld), some of whom had some plans for securing the country, others for their own personal expiation and aggrandizement, all of whom completely dissed Clinton's terrorism concerns, and when Bush got a PDB read to him with the title "Bin Lauden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" (let's all admit - the President doesn't read the morning PDB because he DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO READ....and wouldn't understand it if he could), Bush, being an idiot, DID NOTHING. Others (Rice, Powell) maybe tried to do some things, but let's face it, Chaney and Rumsfeld run the country, and really, the main concern in the Bush White House probably was (and still is) that Bush would be able to formulate a coherent sentence when he went on camera to face the nation.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Wait a Minute - I finally see a Strategy in the Iraqi Affair!
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Sunni-Shiite Cooperation Grows, Worrying U.S. Officials
Yes, the whole idea is to drive the entirety of Iraq into an uprising against the U.S. By giving all three Iraqi factions a common enemy - us - we'll unite Iraq as never before!
Well, that is brilliant. That Bush, he's one smart tactician....
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Sunni-Shiite Cooperation Grows, Worrying U.S. Officials
Yes, the whole idea is to drive the entirety of Iraq into an uprising against the U.S. By giving all three Iraqi factions a common enemy - us - we'll unite Iraq as never before!
Well, that is brilliant. That Bush, he's one smart tactician....
Even now, they are still telling boldface lies!
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
TIME'S UP: LOGIC OF LIBERATION IS NOW THE LOGIC OF OCCUPATION
Almost exactly one year after our "liberation" of Iraq from Sadaam Hussein, the majority sentiment in Iraq is definitely shifting away from a feeling of liberation to one of resentment of the American occupation. Instability and insurgency is erupting all across Iraq as both Sunni and Shiite populations take arms against the American forces.
Uprising: At Word of U.S. Foray, a Baghdad Militia Erupts
Basically - time's up. We've lost. There is really no hope now of instituting some kind of Western-valued, pro-America shining example of Democracy in Iraq. There's nothing to do now but slog through a long and turtuous attempt to stabilize the region, and fend off the increasing waves of anti-Western world-wide terrorism that's bound to come. How did it come to this? How did we loose this war for the hearts and minds of Iraqis in only a year? How is that it only took a year for the U.S. to institute itself into an intractable logic of occupation and terrorism that is coming more and more to be a mirror of the Palestinian/Isreali situation?
Let's count all the mistakes the Bush White House has made on this, starting at the beginning:
1. Manufactured intelligence to create a false motive for war - thus alienating alienating allies, pro-Western Arab regemes, and any American with half a brain enough to follow the news. We thought arms for hostages was bad, but for this alone, Bush should be impeached.
2. No international backing for the war - thus, an "illegitimate" war that sets up America as the prime target for hostilities. If we hadn't manufactured the intelligence and alienated our allies (on issues ranging from Kyoto to the Palestinian/Isreali conflict), we might have actually built an international coalition to "take down" Saddam's government.
3. No understanding of Arab mentality by anyone in the Bush White House, thus completely mishandling Arab nationalism, customs, pride, emotionalism, and centuries of Western love/hate resentment. Thus, the same person can go from tossing flowers to hand grenades in a year with just a few symbolic injuries to his pride, while no instructions or sensitivity training is given to the "liberating" forces (and no inclusion of Arab forces to help with this).
4. Points 2 and 3 above only excacerbate this point - which is, no planning whatsoever for a post-Saddam Iraq, including: a) not enough ground troups to maintain security post Saddam; b) focus on hunting for the fictional WMD's rather than on immediately improving the lot of the "liberated" people; c) no sense of concern or care for sacred/precious items, including artifacts, religious sites, etc.; d) no pre-planned Internationally backed judicial system that could be immediately implemented to arbitrate disputes and regulate behavior while being accepted as legitimate by most Iraqis; e) not enough Arab and international troups to give the Iraqi's a sense of being liberated rather than occupied by Americans (and, to a lesser extent, British).
5. Then, when all goes wrong in points 2 through 4, what do the Bushies do? Do they try to rectify the situation? No, they do what they do best: stonewall, misdirect, and play hardball politics. So, no opportunity to implement any corrections to their misguided course - instead, they just make matters worse and worse, until some brilliant dope gets it into his head that the best and shiniest example of how to build a democracy is to close down a beloved newspaper.
Now, if only this had been done with half a brain, we probably actually could have 1) made the world safer and 2) created some kind of fledging Arab religious democracy, in the mold of Isreal and 3) saved about 200 billion dollars in the process.
Who put these dopes in charge of the world? Oh, yea, that's right - our activist/conservative Supreme Court did.....(same Court that said it was no longer consitutional to bang down the doors of gay people and arrest them for being gay. Hmmm....well, I guess they do have SOME standards....)
Almost exactly one year after our "liberation" of Iraq from Sadaam Hussein, the majority sentiment in Iraq is definitely shifting away from a feeling of liberation to one of resentment of the American occupation. Instability and insurgency is erupting all across Iraq as both Sunni and Shiite populations take arms against the American forces.
Uprising: At Word of U.S. Foray, a Baghdad Militia Erupts
Basically - time's up. We've lost. There is really no hope now of instituting some kind of Western-valued, pro-America shining example of Democracy in Iraq. There's nothing to do now but slog through a long and turtuous attempt to stabilize the region, and fend off the increasing waves of anti-Western world-wide terrorism that's bound to come. How did it come to this? How did we loose this war for the hearts and minds of Iraqis in only a year? How is that it only took a year for the U.S. to institute itself into an intractable logic of occupation and terrorism that is coming more and more to be a mirror of the Palestinian/Isreali situation?
Let's count all the mistakes the Bush White House has made on this, starting at the beginning:
1. Manufactured intelligence to create a false motive for war - thus alienating alienating allies, pro-Western Arab regemes, and any American with half a brain enough to follow the news. We thought arms for hostages was bad, but for this alone, Bush should be impeached.
2. No international backing for the war - thus, an "illegitimate" war that sets up America as the prime target for hostilities. If we hadn't manufactured the intelligence and alienated our allies (on issues ranging from Kyoto to the Palestinian/Isreali conflict), we might have actually built an international coalition to "take down" Saddam's government.
3. No understanding of Arab mentality by anyone in the Bush White House, thus completely mishandling Arab nationalism, customs, pride, emotionalism, and centuries of Western love/hate resentment. Thus, the same person can go from tossing flowers to hand grenades in a year with just a few symbolic injuries to his pride, while no instructions or sensitivity training is given to the "liberating" forces (and no inclusion of Arab forces to help with this).
4. Points 2 and 3 above only excacerbate this point - which is, no planning whatsoever for a post-Saddam Iraq, including: a) not enough ground troups to maintain security post Saddam; b) focus on hunting for the fictional WMD's rather than on immediately improving the lot of the "liberated" people; c) no sense of concern or care for sacred/precious items, including artifacts, religious sites, etc.; d) no pre-planned Internationally backed judicial system that could be immediately implemented to arbitrate disputes and regulate behavior while being accepted as legitimate by most Iraqis; e) not enough Arab and international troups to give the Iraqi's a sense of being liberated rather than occupied by Americans (and, to a lesser extent, British).
5. Then, when all goes wrong in points 2 through 4, what do the Bushies do? Do they try to rectify the situation? No, they do what they do best: stonewall, misdirect, and play hardball politics. So, no opportunity to implement any corrections to their misguided course - instead, they just make matters worse and worse, until some brilliant dope gets it into his head that the best and shiniest example of how to build a democracy is to close down a beloved newspaper.
Now, if only this had been done with half a brain, we probably actually could have 1) made the world safer and 2) created some kind of fledging Arab religious democracy, in the mold of Isreal and 3) saved about 200 billion dollars in the process.
Who put these dopes in charge of the world? Oh, yea, that's right - our activist/conservative Supreme Court did.....(same Court that said it was no longer consitutional to bang down the doors of gay people and arrest them for being gay. Hmmm....well, I guess they do have SOME standards....)
Monday, April 05, 2004
My political postion.
You know - I should probably state here for the record my political position. I actually do not think of myself as a Liberal. I consider myself actually somewhat of a European-style moderate with a strain of Libertarianism. I do vote Democratic but only because the Republican party has been taken over with so much right-wing pseudo-Christian-conservative baggage that voting for a Republican is just plain stupid - even if it's for an admirable one like McCain (unless he's running on a Democratic ticket - a Kerry/McCain ticket would be a dream team, in my opinion). After all, what did Clinton do to help gay rights? He gave us DOMA and a legacy of "don't ask/don't tell." Yeah, thank you, Mr. Democrat.
But, despite that, Clinton led this country well - economic prosperity and not being constantly involved in a politically destructive war means a lot no matter what your race, creed, or sexual orientation, so, kudos. Plus, he was smart. I miss the damned philandering bastard. And like so many others, I have gotten to the point where I am so fed up with this administration's lying evil ways, I just had to have a place to rant. "The worst since Nixon," says Kennedy. I think he's right.
Anyway, just thought you might want to know, in case you read some strange "non-typically Liberal" opionions here, which I'm sure to have.
You know - I should probably state here for the record my political position. I actually do not think of myself as a Liberal. I consider myself actually somewhat of a European-style moderate with a strain of Libertarianism. I do vote Democratic but only because the Republican party has been taken over with so much right-wing pseudo-Christian-conservative baggage that voting for a Republican is just plain stupid - even if it's for an admirable one like McCain (unless he's running on a Democratic ticket - a Kerry/McCain ticket would be a dream team, in my opinion). After all, what did Clinton do to help gay rights? He gave us DOMA and a legacy of "don't ask/don't tell." Yeah, thank you, Mr. Democrat.
But, despite that, Clinton led this country well - economic prosperity and not being constantly involved in a politically destructive war means a lot no matter what your race, creed, or sexual orientation, so, kudos. Plus, he was smart. I miss the damned philandering bastard. And like so many others, I have gotten to the point where I am so fed up with this administration's lying evil ways, I just had to have a place to rant. "The worst since Nixon," says Kennedy. I think he's right.
Anyway, just thought you might want to know, in case you read some strange "non-typically Liberal" opionions here, which I'm sure to have.
Anti-gay hate mongering on the web....
Boy, this stuff is bothersome. It's like reading KKK or Nazi propaganda. Go to the Family Research Council or any other dozens of sites. Some of the most disturbing things (besides bizarre Protocols-of-Zion like treatesies, like the "Gay Agenda Manifesto") are when people start citing statistics to argue against gay marriage.
We all know how to lie with statistics. But boy, these people have some doozies. And they all site the same supposed studies. You can get a good summary of them here:
Making sense (trying to!) of varying statistics on gay monogamy
What do we make of all this weird science? People citing dozens of obscure, suspect studies to argue that gay couples are less monogamous than straight couples, therefore, undeserving of marriage.
Man, where do you even start debunking this crap?
Could we have a few basic points, like:
1. Comparing a "gay relationship" to a "married couple" is hardly a comparison, when by relationship they mean casual dating to just about anything. When the studies cite people who have made an "explicit marriage-like public commitment," then the monogomy stats go way up.
2. Most of the studies in the non-monogamy camp are from the '70's and early '80s. We know how the community has changed since then. These statistics-mongers act as if the "average homosexual couple" is some lab experiment rat in a time-bubble with some inherent non-monogomous acting color-coded flavor that is some immutable quality. The idea of an evolving community and changing norms is, of course, anathema to them from the start. Even so, we all know there were monogamous couples even then. None of these "studies" had any methodology for non-skewed selection methods - so where did they get the few hundred people they asked? These aren't studies - they're anecdotes told by gay people for gay people. Like using black lingo to prove that blacks aren't educated....
3. Men as a whole are less committed to monogamy than women. The studies make no mention of the higher monogamy rates (than straights) in lesbian couples.
4. Next, let's take the promiscuity statistics paintbrush that is so often used to paint gay people as some kind of strange, sex-crazed less-than-human beasts. Let's do this. Let's ask straight men this question: "if you are talking about the number of sexual partner's you've had with your male friends, would you think it better to have a larger, or a smaller, number?" I think that you would find a very high majority saying it would be better to have a larger number. What does this prove? It proves that men like having sexual partners. (Nature/nuture/culture - the reason for it is less important.) The same thing is true of gay men and straight men; less so of lesbians and straight women. Straight men have sex with women - logically, there would be less opportunity to have as many sexual partners than if they had sex with men who also had a greater interest in having more sexual partners. I'm saying nothing new, folks - this has been said a zillion times. The points here are many: 1) it's a gender thing, not a gay thing; 2) using it to deride gay people is the worst prejudicial stereotype, like "hook-nosed, money hungry Jews" and "ignorant, lazy Blacks"; 3) what the hell has it to do with partnerships, or committment in the first place? It's a red herring - everyone has more partners when they are young and single, then they find a partner, fall in love, and have less partners. That's relationships and sexuality: gay or straight, it's the same.
5. Okay. Even if, as the one and only recent, fairly scientific study suggests, only 50% of Vermont gay male civil union couples are committed to sexual monogamy compared with 70% of straight married men - a statistic that I would be happy to grant - then, we are saying that gay people don't deserve the legal protections of marriage because of 20% more gay couples than straight couples might have an arrangement that allows for sex outside of marriage? Regardless of whether or not monogamy is "bad" or "good" for marriage (an entirely debatable argument), I think that there is enough jurisprudence in the American justice system that effectively disallows discrimination based upon statistical profiling. Otherwise, colleges could disallow minority students (to keep their grade point averages up) and so on and so on. Besides, if the issue is infedelity, isn't the logical response to make infidelity illegal, not gay marriage? What about the rights of the 50% of monogamous gay couples who are creating a fine, upstanding example of fedilitous commitment? Shouldn't these people's marriages be considered better role models (and more legal?) than, say, those of Bill Cllinton, Jim Baker, or Brittany Spears?
6. Okay. Another big point here that isn't so obvious. All these studies are asking people's *opinion* about monogamy. None of them actually study how many couples *really are* monogamous. So, fewer gay couples *think* that they ought to be monogamous. But isn't the real question, how many couples are cheating on their partner? And isn't "cheating" defined when you are violating the terms of your relationship? (That is, monogamy for one couple might be - no lusting in your heart - while for another, lusting is okay if you don't touch. For a third, maybe a little touching in the showers, but that's where they draw the line.) The point is, of those 70% of straight men who "ought" to be monogamous (however they define that), how many of them actually are? There's no study. And my sense is, if you DID do a study of this- a CHEATING study - I think you might find that gay couples cheat LESS than straight couples (if you could ever get a straight answer out of a straight couple - it's unlikely that most cheaters are going to confess). Even if a small percentage of gay couples have drawn the line in a little further place than their straight partners, aren't the odds that they'll break that code smaller? At least the gay couples have openly discussed the terms of their relationship more. Does that mean they stick to their agreements more? Maybe not. But common sense says it is likely so. But what are the stats? That's the crucial point - all this other stuff is hogwash.
7. Okay - but let's debate the hogwash, just for fun. So, even if 50% of gay couples commit to monogomy without the support of legal marriage, isn't it logical to think that allowing gay couples to marry and providing full marriage rights might actually *encourage* even more gay couples to tighten their standards for monogamy (again, assuming that "monogamy" has many definitions, and you may or may not think that tighter standards are necessarily better)?
8. Here's the final radical-conservative answer to all this: "It is much more likely that allowing gays to marry will increase non-monogamous heterosexual relationships than it will encourage monogamy amongst gay couples." Man, talk about Queer Eye for the Straight Marriage. So, all these newly married gay folk are going to be going around to their straight neighbors, throwing "key" parties and fixing them up at swinger clubs? I just don't know how one explains the extreme paranoia exhibited by this kind of thinking. What are these people on? How dissatisfied with their own sex life can they be? They must be REALLY horny....
I can just imagine the conversation at one of these Conservative Anti-Gay Christian households: "Damn, Martha. The homosexuals down the street just got married! Guess that means I've got to go out tomorrow and sleep with the nearest prostitute I can find...."
Boy, this stuff is bothersome. It's like reading KKK or Nazi propaganda. Go to the Family Research Council or any other dozens of sites. Some of the most disturbing things (besides bizarre Protocols-of-Zion like treatesies, like the "Gay Agenda Manifesto") are when people start citing statistics to argue against gay marriage.
We all know how to lie with statistics. But boy, these people have some doozies. And they all site the same supposed studies. You can get a good summary of them here:
Making sense (trying to!) of varying statistics on gay monogamy
What do we make of all this weird science? People citing dozens of obscure, suspect studies to argue that gay couples are less monogamous than straight couples, therefore, undeserving of marriage.
Man, where do you even start debunking this crap?
Could we have a few basic points, like:
1. Comparing a "gay relationship" to a "married couple" is hardly a comparison, when by relationship they mean casual dating to just about anything. When the studies cite people who have made an "explicit marriage-like public commitment," then the monogomy stats go way up.
2. Most of the studies in the non-monogamy camp are from the '70's and early '80s. We know how the community has changed since then. These statistics-mongers act as if the "average homosexual couple" is some lab experiment rat in a time-bubble with some inherent non-monogomous acting color-coded flavor that is some immutable quality. The idea of an evolving community and changing norms is, of course, anathema to them from the start. Even so, we all know there were monogamous couples even then. None of these "studies" had any methodology for non-skewed selection methods - so where did they get the few hundred people they asked? These aren't studies - they're anecdotes told by gay people for gay people. Like using black lingo to prove that blacks aren't educated....
3. Men as a whole are less committed to monogamy than women. The studies make no mention of the higher monogamy rates (than straights) in lesbian couples.
4. Next, let's take the promiscuity statistics paintbrush that is so often used to paint gay people as some kind of strange, sex-crazed less-than-human beasts. Let's do this. Let's ask straight men this question: "if you are talking about the number of sexual partner's you've had with your male friends, would you think it better to have a larger, or a smaller, number?" I think that you would find a very high majority saying it would be better to have a larger number. What does this prove? It proves that men like having sexual partners. (Nature/nuture/culture - the reason for it is less important.) The same thing is true of gay men and straight men; less so of lesbians and straight women. Straight men have sex with women - logically, there would be less opportunity to have as many sexual partners than if they had sex with men who also had a greater interest in having more sexual partners. I'm saying nothing new, folks - this has been said a zillion times. The points here are many: 1) it's a gender thing, not a gay thing; 2) using it to deride gay people is the worst prejudicial stereotype, like "hook-nosed, money hungry Jews" and "ignorant, lazy Blacks"; 3) what the hell has it to do with partnerships, or committment in the first place? It's a red herring - everyone has more partners when they are young and single, then they find a partner, fall in love, and have less partners. That's relationships and sexuality: gay or straight, it's the same.
5. Okay. Even if, as the one and only recent, fairly scientific study suggests, only 50% of Vermont gay male civil union couples are committed to sexual monogamy compared with 70% of straight married men - a statistic that I would be happy to grant - then, we are saying that gay people don't deserve the legal protections of marriage because of 20% more gay couples than straight couples might have an arrangement that allows for sex outside of marriage? Regardless of whether or not monogamy is "bad" or "good" for marriage (an entirely debatable argument), I think that there is enough jurisprudence in the American justice system that effectively disallows discrimination based upon statistical profiling. Otherwise, colleges could disallow minority students (to keep their grade point averages up) and so on and so on. Besides, if the issue is infedelity, isn't the logical response to make infidelity illegal, not gay marriage? What about the rights of the 50% of monogamous gay couples who are creating a fine, upstanding example of fedilitous commitment? Shouldn't these people's marriages be considered better role models (and more legal?) than, say, those of Bill Cllinton, Jim Baker, or Brittany Spears?
6. Okay. Another big point here that isn't so obvious. All these studies are asking people's *opinion* about monogamy. None of them actually study how many couples *really are* monogamous. So, fewer gay couples *think* that they ought to be monogamous. But isn't the real question, how many couples are cheating on their partner? And isn't "cheating" defined when you are violating the terms of your relationship? (That is, monogamy for one couple might be - no lusting in your heart - while for another, lusting is okay if you don't touch. For a third, maybe a little touching in the showers, but that's where they draw the line.) The point is, of those 70% of straight men who "ought" to be monogamous (however they define that), how many of them actually are? There's no study. And my sense is, if you DID do a study of this- a CHEATING study - I think you might find that gay couples cheat LESS than straight couples (if you could ever get a straight answer out of a straight couple - it's unlikely that most cheaters are going to confess). Even if a small percentage of gay couples have drawn the line in a little further place than their straight partners, aren't the odds that they'll break that code smaller? At least the gay couples have openly discussed the terms of their relationship more. Does that mean they stick to their agreements more? Maybe not. But common sense says it is likely so. But what are the stats? That's the crucial point - all this other stuff is hogwash.
7. Okay - but let's debate the hogwash, just for fun. So, even if 50% of gay couples commit to monogomy without the support of legal marriage, isn't it logical to think that allowing gay couples to marry and providing full marriage rights might actually *encourage* even more gay couples to tighten their standards for monogamy (again, assuming that "monogamy" has many definitions, and you may or may not think that tighter standards are necessarily better)?
8. Here's the final radical-conservative answer to all this: "It is much more likely that allowing gays to marry will increase non-monogamous heterosexual relationships than it will encourage monogamy amongst gay couples." Man, talk about Queer Eye for the Straight Marriage. So, all these newly married gay folk are going to be going around to their straight neighbors, throwing "key" parties and fixing them up at swinger clubs? I just don't know how one explains the extreme paranoia exhibited by this kind of thinking. What are these people on? How dissatisfied with their own sex life can they be? They must be REALLY horny....
I can just imagine the conversation at one of these Conservative Anti-Gay Christian households: "Damn, Martha. The homosexuals down the street just got married! Guess that means I've got to go out tomorrow and sleep with the nearest prostitute I can find...."
A great essay in this month's Atlantic Monthly.
Personally, I think that Rauch's "slow states-rights" approach overlooks one thing: the 1967 decision saying that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional in the U.S. is a very applicable precident to gay marriage, which Rauch largely sidesteps. Liberals and Conservatives are both well aware of the civil rights precedents and parallels: Introducing the U.S. Constitutional argument makes it a national issue (and is why conservatives call for a constitutional amendment).
However, Rauch hits it on the head with his closing paragraph: "If conservatives genuinely oppose same-sex marriage because they fear it would harm straight marriage, they should be willing to let states that want to try gay marriage do so. If, on the other hand, conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they believe that it is immoral and wrong by definition, fine—but let them have the honesty to acknowledge that they are not fighting for the good of marriage so much as they are using marriage as a weapon in their fight against gays."
The Atlantic | April 2004 | A More Perfect Union | Rauch
Personally, I think that Rauch's "slow states-rights" approach overlooks one thing: the 1967 decision saying that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional in the U.S. is a very applicable precident to gay marriage, which Rauch largely sidesteps. Liberals and Conservatives are both well aware of the civil rights precedents and parallels: Introducing the U.S. Constitutional argument makes it a national issue (and is why conservatives call for a constitutional amendment).
However, Rauch hits it on the head with his closing paragraph: "If conservatives genuinely oppose same-sex marriage because they fear it would harm straight marriage, they should be willing to let states that want to try gay marriage do so. If, on the other hand, conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they believe that it is immoral and wrong by definition, fine—but let them have the honesty to acknowledge that they are not fighting for the good of marriage so much as they are using marriage as a weapon in their fight against gays."
The Atlantic | April 2004 | A More Perfect Union | Rauch
This father is probably deeply closeted which is why his son's happiness is so disturbing to him:
Father, Son Clash on Gay Marriage Issue
Father, Son Clash on Gay Marriage Issue
So, we've started reading Clarke's book (see left-hand link). We'll give you a report when we're done.
But after the first two chapters, let's say this:
Clarke is a little bit of a self-important nerd. You know the type: the computer systems guy who inists you use arcane passwords for everything on the server; the gym-coach/social studies professor who makes your fifth grade class play a baseball game with 19th-century equipment so that you'll understand "the real sport."
Some of the points in his book are a bit anal-retentitvely nerdy. But I'll say this -- that's exactly the kind of person I would want in charge of anti-terrorism. And I'd give the anal-retentitve nerd more authority on this subject than anyone else in politics. He pretty much blasts all three Republican administrations as being ineffective on terrorism. And there's no reason not to believe every word he says.
But after the first two chapters, let's say this:
Clarke is a little bit of a self-important nerd. You know the type: the computer systems guy who inists you use arcane passwords for everything on the server; the gym-coach/social studies professor who makes your fifth grade class play a baseball game with 19th-century equipment so that you'll understand "the real sport."
Some of the points in his book are a bit anal-retentitvely nerdy. But I'll say this -- that's exactly the kind of person I would want in charge of anti-terrorism. And I'd give the anal-retentitve nerd more authority on this subject than anyone else in politics. He pretty much blasts all three Republican administrations as being ineffective on terrorism. And there's no reason not to believe every word he says.
Friday, April 02, 2004
What the Bush Wimps are Really Scared Of:
Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel
Why did they block Clinton's papers to the commission? Because they're scared the truth will start to dawn on the public, and they'll lose their one and only campaign issue: that they're tough on terrorism.
But the Bush administration has been TERRIBLE on terrorism. And the public is just starting to realize that. After all, the worst attack on American soil didn't occur on Clinton's watch - because Clinton actually cared about monitoring the terrorists. Any dope could tap into public shock and outrage and bomb Afghanistan (or Iraq). Just because the Bush-puppet mouthed the right soothing words written by his speech writers, the American public believes he was "comforting" after the attack and "good for the country."
But he was not only terrible for the country, he was EVIL. Because their "selling" of the war, their diverting of the public's attention, their mouthing of soothing sentiments was all a ploy to allow their real purpose - invading Iraq, raising oil prices, giving away the surplus to their rich cronies. They were SUPREMELY DECEPTIVE and a good majority of the American public fell for it, even when the evidence to the contrary was right before their eyes the whole time.
But now, where are we, four years into the Bush administration? There is NOTHING that has improved for the American people - we are all worse off, and quickly heading into an irretreviable HOLE. Sure, all the federal stimulus must evenually start boosting the economy somewhat (finally 300,000 jobs after three years? If Bush had just USED the tax cut to pay workers directly - as we're doing in Iraq - he would have immediately employed people with over Two Million jobs.) So all they have to run on is their record on terrorism.
That's why they withheld the Clinton papers - which will show that Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism was ten times what the Bush's ever thought to do. And Clinton never made a big deal of this. WHY? Because we WEREN'T ATTACKED AT HOME. Clinton's record was a SUCCESS. But Bush's was an obvious FAILURE - and yet somehow, these supremely temeritous people now want the public to believe that their FAILURE shows how STRONG they are in protecting the country?
The big question is why so much of the public believes them. This is the one area where Bush is smart - they DO know how to create a climate of fear, how to intimidate people who don't go along, how to manipulate enough of the spineless media to "present both sides of the story" so that they can get their ENTIRELY FICTIONAL version of events to play to the public. They've done a really good job of this and have been able to convince about 50% of the public that their complete foreign policy ineptitute is somehow their great selling point.
Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel
Why did they block Clinton's papers to the commission? Because they're scared the truth will start to dawn on the public, and they'll lose their one and only campaign issue: that they're tough on terrorism.
But the Bush administration has been TERRIBLE on terrorism. And the public is just starting to realize that. After all, the worst attack on American soil didn't occur on Clinton's watch - because Clinton actually cared about monitoring the terrorists. Any dope could tap into public shock and outrage and bomb Afghanistan (or Iraq). Just because the Bush-puppet mouthed the right soothing words written by his speech writers, the American public believes he was "comforting" after the attack and "good for the country."
But he was not only terrible for the country, he was EVIL. Because their "selling" of the war, their diverting of the public's attention, their mouthing of soothing sentiments was all a ploy to allow their real purpose - invading Iraq, raising oil prices, giving away the surplus to their rich cronies. They were SUPREMELY DECEPTIVE and a good majority of the American public fell for it, even when the evidence to the contrary was right before their eyes the whole time.
But now, where are we, four years into the Bush administration? There is NOTHING that has improved for the American people - we are all worse off, and quickly heading into an irretreviable HOLE. Sure, all the federal stimulus must evenually start boosting the economy somewhat (finally 300,000 jobs after three years? If Bush had just USED the tax cut to pay workers directly - as we're doing in Iraq - he would have immediately employed people with over Two Million jobs.) So all they have to run on is their record on terrorism.
That's why they withheld the Clinton papers - which will show that Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism was ten times what the Bush's ever thought to do. And Clinton never made a big deal of this. WHY? Because we WEREN'T ATTACKED AT HOME. Clinton's record was a SUCCESS. But Bush's was an obvious FAILURE - and yet somehow, these supremely temeritous people now want the public to believe that their FAILURE shows how STRONG they are in protecting the country?
The big question is why so much of the public believes them. This is the one area where Bush is smart - they DO know how to create a climate of fear, how to intimidate people who don't go along, how to manipulate enough of the spineless media to "present both sides of the story" so that they can get their ENTIRELY FICTIONAL version of events to play to the public. They've done a really good job of this and have been able to convince about 50% of the public that their complete foreign policy ineptitute is somehow their great selling point.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Georgia Supreme Court upholds marriage rights for gay families!
Dick Cheney attends lesbian daughter's wedding!
Bush turns over Iraqi "nation-building" tasks to the U.N.!
Bush economic advisors develop realistic plan to balance budget and create American jobs!
Bush team comes out with plan to reduce dependence on oil and create alternative energy sources!
Bush, Rice, Cheney, and Tenant all personally apologize to victim's families and the nation for dropping the ball on September 11th!
What....really? NO...silly, it's April Fools!
Instead - welcome to the grim reality of Nazi America:
Georgia House Approves Gay Marriage Ban
Dick Cheney attends lesbian daughter's wedding!
Bush turns over Iraqi "nation-building" tasks to the U.N.!
Bush economic advisors develop realistic plan to balance budget and create American jobs!
Bush team comes out with plan to reduce dependence on oil and create alternative energy sources!
Bush, Rice, Cheney, and Tenant all personally apologize to victim's families and the nation for dropping the ball on September 11th!
What....really? NO...silly, it's April Fools!
Instead - welcome to the grim reality of Nazi America:
Georgia House Approves Gay Marriage Ban
