Kerry's Folly

I think John Kerry is making a real mistake by emphasizing the sorry state of America's economy during the bulk of Bush's term. The economy is its own tempestuous beast, and all a President does is grab onto its back and try to ride it for eight years as it bucks and snorts unpredictably.

Yes, that means that Clinton doesn't get credit for the record-busting economic boom he saddled up on. Reagan, same thing. Conversely, Bush doesn't get the blame for the sulking little pony he's been sitting on for the bulk of his term.

So, what does a President get credit for? Mr. Yglesias nails it:

The real lesson of the Clinton era isn't that Democratic policies made the economy boom, but that these policies -- higher taxes on the wealthy, higher spending on the poor, more regulation to protect labor and the environment, a higher minimum wage, and a budget aimed at sustaining Social Security for the long-term -- were perfectly compatible with the longest economic expansion of American history. Conversely, nothing Bush has done or is proposing -- tax cuts for the wealthy piled upon tax cuts for the wealthy, and giveaway after giveaway to corporate lobbyists -- is either necessary or sufficient to bring about economic growth. Taken to extremes, interventions could do real harm: A $70 per hour minimum wage or a total ban on burning coal would shut the economy down, but this isn't what we're talking about. The minimum wage has been much higher in real terms in the past and the economy grew steadily, while we were enforcing clean air standards properly just a few years ago with no visible ill-effects.

Put this way, we can see what the real debate in America is all about. There's one party that wants the government to do more to clean the environment, to protect workers' rights, and to raise the funds necessary to spend more on health care and education while narrowing the deficit, and there's another party that's ideologically committed to doing none of these things.

Alright, alright, that's all pretty well known. But what are the real world effects of Democratic vs. Republican administrations. Luckily we have two economic booms over the last twenty or so years to examine, one under Clinton and one under Reagan. Neither President gets the credit for the boom itself, but both get credit for how they steered the bounty of the boom. Let's take a look, shall we?

The benefits of the Clinton boom were dispersed far more broadly than the gains under Ronald Reagan, in part because Clinton systematically implemented policies that encouraged and rewarded work for those on the economy's bottom rungs.

Consider the scorecard. During Clinton's two terms, the median income for American families increased by a solid 15% after inflation, according to Census Bureau figures. But it rose even faster for African Americans (33%) and Hispanics (24%) than it did for whites (14%).

The growth was so widely shared that from 1993 through 1999, families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution saw their incomes increase faster than those in the top 5%. By comparison, under President Reagan in the 1980s, those in the top 5% increased their income more than five times faster than the bottom 20%.

Likewise, the poverty rate under Clinton fell 25%, the biggest eight-year decline since the 1960s. It fell even faster for particularly vulnerable groups like blacks, Hispanics and children. Again the contrast with Reagan is striking. During Reagan's two terms, the number of Americans in poverty fell by just 77,000. During Clinton's two terms, the number of Americans in poverty plummeted by 8.1 million. The number of children in poverty fell by 50,000 under Reagan. Under Clinton the number was 4.1 million. That's a ratio of 80 to 1.

Leave aside the question of how much Clinton's drive to eliminate the federal deficit contributed to the economic boom that powered most of these gains. He also developed a comprehensive set of initiatives to spread the benefits of prosperity to more families by demanding and honoring work.

Welfare reform pushed more low-income families into the job market, where they could benefit from the rising tide. Then Clinton made work more rewarding with increases in the minimum wage and the earned-income tax credit, the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program (to cover the children of working-poor families), and expanded funding for day care. He eliminated the deficit while cutting taxes for average families.

Is there any wonder that the Republican party parades out the gay marriage issue? They're trying to distract you, folks.

Meanwhile, Senator Kerry has been blaming President Bush for the rain. Well, now the sun is coming out and I'm afraid Kerry will have to change his tune. My advice: stop pointing frantically at the retreating clouds and start talking about who gets soaked and who stays dry while the Republicans are handing out umbrellas.

Dubya to Libya, "Lubya"

Last year, the leader of Libya agreed to dismantle certain weapons programs. Bush and his supporters crowed that this was evidence that the doctrine of pre-emption, striking fear into the hearts of sponsors of terror, was a success! Yep, good old Quadaffi. Our new buddy.

Why hasn't Bush been crowing even more loudly now that Libya appears to be taking the pre-emption doctrine to heart? It seems that Quadaffi sat down with a protractor and ruler and figured out that the country with the most ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorists is none other than Saudi Arabia. So, perhaps in an effort to make Bush proud, Libya allegedly put together a little plan to kill the Saudi Prince.

Pre-emption. It's so hot right now.

Bush Campaign up to Hitler Tactics Again

Willie Horton 2004? The GOP's "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed" commercial bootstraps MoveOn.org's Hitler/Bush commercial entry to Kerry Campaign. The entry was one of 1,500 that slipped by MoveOn's screeners of its Website and since when did MoveOn become part of the Kerry Campaign?

The Bush Campaign should be ashamed of itself, further proof that nothing is beyond its pale.

How's that proverb go?...Desperate times call for desperate measures.

A Tale of Whoa!

Not quite "A Man and his Hole" nor in the same league as "Real Ultimate Power" but nonetheless entertaining. Enjoy.

Fahrenheit No. 1 at Box Office

From the WSJ:

The frenzied hype for Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" paid off at the box office, as the incendiary movie burned through $21.8 million in domestic ticket sales, setting a new bar for documentaries.

After weeks of debate and political mud-slinging, "Fahrenheit 9/11" cruised past even the best expectations for the film. In its opening weekend, it outperformed the entire run of Mr. Moore's previous record-setting documentary "Bowling for Columbine."

Ratings for the weekend:

(1) Fahrenheit 9/11 (Lions Gate)--$21.80mil
(2) White Chicks (Sony)--$19.60
(3) Dodgeball (Fox)--$18.50
(4) The Terminal (DreamWorks)--$13.90
(5) The Notebook (New Line)--$13.03
(6) Harry Potter (Warner Bros.)--$11.42
(7) Shrek 2 (DreamWorks)--$10.50
(8) Garfield (Fox)--$7.00
(9) Two Brothers (Universal)--$6.20
(10) The Stepford Wives (Paramount)--$5.20

cite.

Bulletin: Supreme Court Rules on Detainees!

Michael Moore op/ed, a must see

I saw Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 last night in Georgetown (all 4 (or 5) screens were sold out and cheering/crying). I'll have more later, but for now I'm more inclined to support David Edelstein's piece today on Slate, than Christopher Hitchens's vitriolic rant from a couple days ago.

Moore to come.

Jon Stewart's Show Should Be On CNN

New Link -- Electoral Vote Counter

Keep score at home. I've just updated our blogroll located on the right with www.electoral-vote.com, a most welcome and important addition.

As everyone knows, our Founding Fathers didn't trust "we the people" (or at the time white male landowners) with actually directly electing the President of the United States. Instead, when it comes to electing the most important public office, a body of electors, chosen by the winning political party in each state and numbering the total number US Congressmen that state has, actually places the votes that elect the President and Vice President of United States.

Electoral votes are pivotal. In 2000, even though Al Gore won the popular vote, George Bush eventually became president because won more electoral votes. Based on current poll numbers in the 50 states, the electoral vote counter gives you a running tally of how the presidential candidates are doing in respect to electoral votes.

As of today for the Election 2004, Electoral-Vote has the current electoral count at ...drum roll ... tap dance ..."Ozzie Smith" back flip....

Kerry 300 Bush 238!

Ryan's Out

Nobody's very surprised that Jack Ryan dropped out of the U.S. Senate race today. As we at 2GL have noted previously, it's unfortunate that Mr. Ryan's strange sexual preferences became public. However, I think Mr. Ryan is off the mark in his press release:

"It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," added the statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign — the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."

Barack Obama conducting a brutal scorched earth campaign about sex? That is absurd and paranoid. Quite to the contrary, when asked about Ryan's swinging, Obama has declined to comment.

Obama's strategy amid the Ryan revelations has been to appear to take the high ground, confining his rhetoric to issues like shrinking wages and rising health-care costs and avoiding anything that could drag him into the divorce controversy.

Ironically, the harshest critics of Ryan have been within his own party. Come on, Jack. Can't you at least bow out with some class?

It Don't Matter Who Begat You...

In 2000, revered CEO Lee Iacocca backed George W. Bush for President.

In 2002, he explained why:

When I was campaigning for George W. Bush, somebody asked me how well I knew him," said Iacocca, an independent-minded Democrat. "I said, 'I don't know him at all, but I knew his mom and dad for many, many years. He's from good stock.'

Now, Iacocca is backing Kerry for President.

"All of my best friends are Republicans, and they ask me, `Are you crazy or something? Why are you doing this?' Well, it's simple," he said. "I tell them the world is changing, our country is changing and we need a leader who understands that change that's taking place. And most important, we need a leader who will level with us about how we can adapt to that change and make things change for the better."

And so Iacocca learns another of life's lessons: Senator Bill Frist is usually wrong.

Heavyweights

Check out this list of people:

Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of Centcom, 1997-2000; special envoy to the Middle East, 2002-2003; author of Battle Ready

Gen. Wesley Clark Supreme allied commander, Europe, 1997-2000; led NATO military campaign in Kosovo Rand Beers Counterterrorism adviser to President Bush, 2002-2003; national security adviser to Sen. John Kerry Sen. Joseph Biden Ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Thomas P.M. Barnett Strategic adviser to the Defense Department, 2001-2003; faculty member of U.S. Naval War College; author of The Pentagon's New Map Fouad Ajami, Director of Middle Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University

Sir Jeremy Greenstock British diplomat in Dubai and Saudi Arabia, 1969-2004; U.N. representative, 1998-2003; special representative for Iraq, 2003-2004

Youssef Ibrahim Managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group; former Middle Eastern correspondent for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal

Bob Kerrey Senator from Nebraska, 1988-2000; president of New School University

Chas Freeman U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992; assistant secretary of defense, 1993-1994

These are people who must be taken seriously. Now, read what they had to say when they all sat down to talk about the Iraq situation. It's pretty interesting.

Also, I think it's about time to start talking about Vice President Biden.

Biden: I was in the Oval Office the other day, and the president asked me what I would do about resignations. I said, "Look, Mr. President, would I keep Rumsfeld? Absolutely not." And I turned to Vice President Cheney, who was there, and I said, "Mr. Vice President, I wouldn't keep you if it weren't constitutionally required." I turned back to the president and said, "Mr. President, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are bright guys, really patriotic, but they've been dead wrong on every major piece of advice they've given you. That's why I'd get rid of them, Mr. President -- not just Abu Ghraib." They said nothing. Just sat like big old bullfrogs on a log and looked at me.

Easing the Jones

Sometimes I get this weird need for right-wing nuttery. I want to see someone so far off the wacko chart that I get embarrassed for them. Strange, isn't it?

When I get the craving, sometimes I'm just not satisfied with the self important smarm of Bill O'Reilly. Even the wild-eyed burned-out lunacy of Ann Coulter sometimes just doesn't cut the mustard for me. Yes, sometimes I need it all crammed into one greasy little package of loveable smugness.

So, every once in a while I'll drop into Fox News' website and see what Hannity's been up to. (In a similar vein, sometimes when channel surfing at home I'll stop on the public access channel if I see someone in a dim studio wearing an Uncle Sam hat and a Superman costume waving a Bible.) The Han-man usually does the trick.

I have the need this morning. Watch with me as our hero slithers around Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton

And Lanny, Lanny, Lanny, how are you? You just left Bill Clinton, didn't you?

DAVIS: I just left a big audience where he was speaking on the book party launching this great book.

HANNITY: He loves this. It's all about me; it's all about me. He loves this. This is great for him.

DAVIS: An autobiography is, by definition.

HANNITY: "My Life," me, me, I, I, I.

All right. Let's forget about what the right-wing conspiracy thinks. Let's go to "The New York Times," your beloved "New York Times" that reviewed Mr. Clinton's book.

Let's put up on the screen some of what it said.

[ed.- blah blah we've all seen it]

DAVIS: Well, look, this same reviewer used almost the same words about Hillary Rodham Clinton's book, and she sold a million copies. This reviewer obviously has a jaundiced view of the Clintons and writes almost similar reviews. You could have Scotch taped and pasted.

The fact is Bill Clinton...

HANNITY: But wait, wait. Why are you discrediting him? You go right to your same old strategy of if they don't say anything nice about the Clintons, trash them.

DAVIS: Because if you read the review, you would compared to what she wrote about Hillary Clinton, you would say this is a pretty biased...

HANNITY: OK, so that's -- why are you trashing the person? Why can't you just say, "OK, that's just one person's view"? Why do you have to go after them?

DAVIS: It is -- It is certainly one person's view. But your viewers who just heard you read those nasty quotes should know that if you read the Hillary Rodham Clinton review...

HANNITY: You are crazed, Lanny.

DAVIS: ...this reviewer wrote, you would find almost the same words used.

The fact is she's entitled to her opinion, but she misstated facts and you're not entitled to misstate facts. She said in her reviewer that Bill Clinton lied about real estate and she, in fact, is wrong about Whitewater...

HANNITY: I don't care. I really don't care about the Clintons.

DAVIS: You quoted it.

AAAAAhhhhhh. I feel better. Don't you?

Hypocrisy Continues for House Leader Dennis Hastert

Sometime in the near future, if he hasn't already done so, GOP Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert will ask young Senate hopeful Jack Ryan to step down from running for office in November. Ryan, of course, is the gentleman embroiled in a sex scandal after it was recently disclosed that he pressured his wife at the time, actress Jeri Ryan, to perform sex acts with him at so-called swingers bars in New Orleans, New York, and Paris. Ryan steadfastly denies the extent of his ex-wife's allegations and further asserts that unlike Jeri he was the faithful cuckold in their marriage.

What exactly did Jack Ryan do that was so ghastly for Hastert and his cohorts? Molest young children? Torture small dogs? Cheat on his taxes?

Perhaps Jack was trying to spice up a foundering marriage with an extreme form of PDA. Who cares? Who was harmed?

What is most troubling is the behavior of the leaders of the GOP. It appears obvious that not much has changed since Monica-gate, despite all the rhetoric vis-a-vis 9/11.

Strike up the band again, Denny Hastert. I guess you've yet to learn from the parable, he who is without sin cast the first stone. Perhaps you were never accused of risque behavior with your wife Jean (and maybe for good reason). But you sure have been accused of cheating on her (see article above). What's worse?

Again, who cares? The GOPs best bet in the awkward affair is to face the music. Stand by your man. Illinois is a dead state for Republicans as it is and Ryan, before this entire flap, was trailing Obama significantly anyway.

If there is one lesson to learn from all this, it is that Barak Obama is the real deal. Stoically standing by and refusing to exploit Ryan's misfortune, Obama has proven that he is a natural born leader. For once, there is reason to look up to a politician.

Dick Effing Cheney

A little exchange between Cheney and Leahy on the Senate floor is the perfect microcosm of the Cheney administration's approach to discussions of policy.

Leahy says "Hi Dick." (paraphrase)

Cheney says "I don't like what you've been saying about Halliburton" (paraphrase)

Leahy says "Well, sir, I don't like that you've been calling me a bad Catholic." (paraphrase)

Cheney says "Go fuck yourself" (direct quote)

It's not a tumor!

More mutants. My brother just sent me this photo from one of his classes in med school. It's called "Loss of Myostatin Gene Expression" and vitamin supplement companies are already trying to cash in on it. Damn, that's a mighty strong looking cow.

I only have one thought--be afraid, be very, very afraid.

Ebert gives Fahrenheit thumbs up

From the SunTimes:

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.

Despite enjoying Bowling for Columbine thoroughly, especially the Charlton Heston bit, I was initially reluctant to see Michael Moore's new film for no better reason than I feared that it would just piss me off. I have since reconsidered, and at least have to see it for this part, described by Ebert:

Although Moore's narration ranges from outrage to sarcasm, the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself. That's when Bush, who was reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida children, is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, and yet lingers with the kids for almost seven minutes before finally leaving the room. His inexplicable paralysis wasn't underlined in news reports at the time, and only Moore thought to contact the teacher in that schoolroom -- who, as it turned out, had made her own video of the visit. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there is odd indeed.

Fahrenheit 9/11 opens tonight in the District. It won the coveted Palme d'Or at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival.

X-man found in Germany

You gotta read this. Mutant "strong" baby amazes scientists.

Somewhere in Germany is a baby Superman, born in Berlin with bulging arm and leg muscles. Not yet 5, he can hold seven-pound weights with arms extended, something many adults cannot do. He has muscles twice the size of other kids his age and half their body fat. DNA testing showed why: The boy has a genetic mutation that boosts muscle growth.

The discovery, reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, represents the first documented human case of such a mutation....

Researchers would not disclose the German boy's identity but said he was born to a somewhat muscular mother, a 24-year-old former professional sprinter. Her brother and three other close male relatives all were unusually strong, with one of them a construction worker able to unload heavy curbstones by hand.

And I thought my cousin Roy was gifted for being born double-jointed.

Treasonous, you say...

Go ahead and release the hounds, but it's sure damn funny. Today's link of the day.

Compliments of Sister Hazel.

Saint Reagan?

John Kerry yesterday:

''I was part of that effort in the 1990s that had the courage to do what Ronald Reagan, for all his rhetoric -- and God rest his soul, we loved him for his strength in many things -- but I don't recall vetoes of major appropriations bills. I recall a lot of talk about deficits; I don't recall balancing the budget. I recall deficits getting larger."

Alright. Fair enough. I think it's fairly well understood that Reagan didn't balance the budget and his economic policies inspired massive deficits. Kerry was against massive deficits then, and he's against them now. Sounds reasonable, right? Ah ha, you forgot one key fact: Reagan is dead.

So, the Boston Globe (and of course Drudge) characterize this as a "broadside" against Reagan. Not only that, the Globe "journalist" included the following sentence (keep in mind, this is not an editorial, but a supposed piece of hard news): "Kerry's remark about Reagan was unusual and awkward, given the senator's praise for Reagan's optimism after his death."

Um... can't a man be optimistic but have misguided economic policies? Absolutely. Is this poor and biased journalism? Without a doubt.

Imagine what the Bush campaign, clinging with every fingernail to ride the Reagan wave, had to say about it. No need to imagine, folks, it's right here for you:
"Kerry's attack on President Reagan is beyond the pale, and will be very troubling to most Americans."

You could almost choke on the fake outrage.

Enough Already!

I know that I've said it before, but if I read another article that ends with the ignominious "stay tuned," I will gouge my eyes out with this wooden ruler. What a cheap way to end a story. It's as if the writer so can't wait to finish his drivelling tripe that he is willing to cheapen it further by using the oldest, most worn out trick known to the modern world.

Is it the command, "(you) stay tuned," which drives me batty?---as if the writer has such control over me (hey, he got me reading the article in the first place) that he even can control me in the foreseeable future. That could be it. But it also could be because the nefarious phrase reminds me of all the "Batman" shows that I watched so diligently as a kid waiting for that climatic ending when my hero in his purple tights saves the day, finally capturing his foe, only to be disappointed with a sigh time after time when the announcer says, "Stay tuned next time, friends. Same bat channel, same bat time...."

Oh, how that phrase even today infuriates me. The irony of things: Not only was the bad guy's plot to rule Gotham foiled but my dream as the viewer of a final ending was likewise thwarted. For a young innocent child, the "Batman" experience is his first real taste of disappointment, which will resonate throughout his long life. Every evening, the Fox Network uses similar teasers for their nightly news: "Do you drink water while sitting down? Do you wear socks to bed? See how drinking water while sitting down and wearing socks to bed can actually kill you. Tonight on News at 11."...

And how many times do you actually get around to watching that news program for the answers? An episode of the Sopranos or your tenth time watching "Meet the Parents" invariably interferes. Yet another of life's questions left unanswered.

So here now is this article from today's Chicago SunTimes, which caused the latest commotion. If you're listening SunTimes or anyone else who writes articles that I may someday read, please stop the bleeding. Stop saying "stay tuned" ; it's not only tiresome but conjures up painful memories of heroic men in colorful tights and bad guys with dark lip stick.

Besides, is it even possible to "tune" anymore? We no longer own receivers that need to be adjusted to proper frequency. Point and click is more applicable. Really, they should say, "Point and click next time." I could probably live with that.

Patriot Act Snuffs Patriotic Act

In Helena, Montana, there were a good number of folks who shrugged off East Helena, home of one of the few operating lead smelters on Earth, as nothing more than a dingy burg to drive quickly past on the way to Townsend. Once a year, however, East Helena would rise to a fiery glory. Yes, every Fourth of July the bulk of Helena's residents would turn the taillights of their shiny new trucks toward the setting sun and head for the most magnificent fireworks display west of, well, Bozeman. From atop the slag piles of black mine tailings that neighbor the highway, the members of the VFW would fire off one glittering fiery flower after another as the Helenans gasped with delight.

Not this year.

What could have quashed this display of grand patriotism? Check it out:

According to Bill Houston of East Helena VFW Post 10010, the Safe Explosives Act, which went into effect last year as a response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, requires that anyone with a private group wishing to put on a fireworks display needs to undergo an extensive background check, which can take 90 days or more. The deadline passed without anyone at the VFW realizing it was time to start planning.

Yes, friends, it's the good old Patriot Act.
The Independent Record puts it in perspective:

The VFW - the decidedly unsubversive group that has put on Independence Day fireworks shows over East Helena for decades - simply wasn't aware of this red tape and missed the deadline. So it is too late for Fourth of July fireworks.

This is hardly the end of the world. Still, as we look into the dark skies over East Helena on the evening of July 4, it will be hard not to remember that darkness is symbolic, too.

HAT TIP: Pops

New Links

In honor of Abe and his Montana friends, I've updated the links (under Major US News) on the right to include the Great Falls Tribune and the Helena Independent Record.

Our action in this respect may be interpreted in a number of ways, most important of which is that as far as we at 2GL are concerned, the news of Big Sky Country is "Major" to us.

Iraq, the land of the free?

Disgarding for the moment the daily car bombings, the hijackings, the kidnappings, the beheadings, the drive by shootings, and the assassinations, Iraqi citizens could have it better than us Americans.

Iraq's interim Constitution, Article 14 provides:

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.

(my emphasis)

Sounds mighty Socialist, huh? Definitely, anti-American. A right to education? Ha! Wasn't that shot down in San Antonio Independent School Dis. v. Rodriguez? I wouldn't be surprised if Ayn Rand were tossing around in her grave.

In fact, according to Balkinization today (guest lecturer Cass Sunstein), this provision of the Iraqi Constitution is actually a "cut and paste" job from FDR's 2d Bill of Rights proposal, which included:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

You needn't know anything about history to know how that turned out. Even Social Security will likely face its death knell as soon as the baby boomers hit their retirement.

Welfare? Education? Health Care? Forget about it. Every year each of these is so chipped away at that eventually only the rich will have access to anything close to "adequate."

Will any of these even exist in the public sphere in 20 years? Who knows. Perhaps by then we'll be taking advice from Iraq on how to govern at home. We surely haven't had any developments domestically since '99.

Birds of a feather...

Now it's Putin's Russian Federation being accused of serious human rights violations for its conduct in Chechnya. Amnesty International reports:

Russian and Chechen security forces continue to carry out human rights violations with impunity. These include extrajudicial killings, "disappearances" and torture, including rape, and ill-treatment; such violations are in breach of the obligations of the Russian Federation under international human rights and humanitarian law to protect the right to life, dignity and security of the person and not to be subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment.

From a May AI letter to President Bush:

The US administration has shown a consistent disregard for the Geneva Conventions and basic principles of law, human rights and decency. This has created a climate in which US soldiers feel they can dehumanize and degrade prisoners with impunity.

No wonder they've been so chummy of late--they're both accused of war crimes.

Someone's in the Kitchen with Tyson

The bankrupt Mike Tyson in the NYT today:

"Life's lessons are priceless,'' he said. "There isn't enough money to purchase the lessons I've learned. One lesson is never to trust again. In order to trust someone else, you have to trust yourself. When I was younger, I didn't trust myself. Trusting yourself means being responsible.''

I appreciate that Iron Mike has obviously been spending a lot of his time with therapists and analysts, but is this really what they're teaching him?

Ok, follow along...
Tyson vows never to trust others, because
(1) to trust others, you must trust yourself
(2) to trust yourself, you must be responsible.

Jack Attack

According to Capitol Fax (no link - it's just a fax, ma'am; just a fax), Jack "The Despondent Respondent" Ryan has issued a talking points memo to his supporter.

Under the header, "What Republican leaders should be saying," are these two gems:

"Are the liberal news media trying to cripple Jack Ryan's candidacy because they're scared he's going to win?"

And, "Are the liberal news media trying to drive Jack Ryan out of the race because they're scared he's precisely the kind of Republican who can pull votes from communities that Democrats usually take for granted?"

Meanwhile, the conservative Chicago Sun Times has seven Ryan-related stories in today's paper, along with an editorial entitled "Time For Ryan to Hit the Road". Oh, and close to 30% of Republicans said their views of Ryan had gone from favorable to unfavorable.

Come on, Mr. Ryan. I'm with you when you say this crap is none of the public's business, but crying about the liberal media is definitely not a turn-on.

P.S. -- Leno on Ryan:

Aren't Republicans the family values people? That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats on family values. Democratic politicians cheat on their wives. Republicans cheat too -- but they bring the wife along. Make it a family event! They include the whole family!

I'll trade you one Edgar for your Ryan

Sneed reports that there's no truth (yet) to the rumor that former popular governor Jim Edgar may fill in for Jack Ryan as Ryan's campaign for IL's open US Senate position takes a turn for the worse.

If I remember correctly, Edgar turned down a similar request from President Bush himself back before the primaries and declined gracefully citing health and family reasons.

Quotable Willy

Go and read Slate's snippets from Clinton's book. This is hilarious! My favorite so far:

"I was so exhausted I fell asleep while the stripper was dancing and the goat head was looking up at me."

We all know that feeling, Bill.

Delay-atory Tactics

On his way out the door, Rep. tosses an "F" bomb at Delay . From Time:

Relations between Republicans and Democrats in Congress have rarely been worse. But leaders in both parties hope an even bigger fight won't erupt after a Democratic Congressman last week lodged a complaint with the House Ethics Committee against majority leader Tom DeLay. Texas Representative Chris Bell — who lost his seat in a primary last March in a district that had been redrawn by a Republican redistricting plan DeLay helped engineer — charges that one of DeLay's political-action committees illegally funneled corporate money into the 2002 Texas state house races, an allegation that an Austin grand jury is investigating. Bell also accuses DeLay of putting a special provision into a House energy bill for a Kansas utility company in exchange for a $25,000 contribution to that PAC. DeLay insisted "there is no substance" to the charges and dismissed Bell as "a disgruntled member of the House" out for revenge.

Bell's complaint breaks an informal seven-year truce between parties on members of Congress filing such actions against one another, an agreement dating back to the nasty battle that led to the unseating of House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Now the gloves may come off. One DeLay ally has threatened to file retaliatory complaints against Democrats, though DeLay told reporters, "I do not encourage anyone to file complaints." Democratic leaders, who claim they had no role in Bell's action, also were eager to keep the conflict contained. Meanwhile, G.O.P. Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois says he will try to attach an amendment to a funding bill that would retroactively prohibit Bell or any other departing House member from filing an ethics complaint. Says LaHood: "I don't think we should be allowing members to throw a Molotov cocktail as they walk out the door

Rep. LaHood is the same gentleman who's demanding that GOP Senate hopeful Jack Ryan step down in light of recently released revelations that Ryan pressured his ex-wife to perform at "swinger" clubs.

The Sinking of Jack "Respondent" Ryan and the Hope of True Debate

Bad times for Jack Ryan, Illinois' Republican candidate for the United States Senate. See, Jack was once married to Jeri Ryan, smokin' TV actress. Jack and Jeri got a divorce a few years back. Why? Well, it's none of our business, really. But it's on the front page of the : Chicago Tribune today.

In her 2000 filing, Jeri Ryan alleged that after she and Jack Ryan left the first sex club they entered in New York, he asked her to go to another. She said he told her that he had gone out to dinner with her that night even though he didn't want to and "the least I could do in return was go to the club he wanted me to go."

She described the second place as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."

"Respondent wanted me to have sex with him there with another couple watching. I refused," Jeri Ryan continued. "Respondent asked me to perform a sexual activity upon him and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset.

"We left the club and respondent apologized, said that I was right and he would never insist that I go to a club again. He promised it was out of his system."

But later, Jeri Ryan said, Jack Ryan took her to Paris where he again took her to a sex club without first telling her where they were going.

"I told him I thought it was out of his system. I told him he had promised me we would never go. People were having sex everywhere. I cried. I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me and said it was not a `turn-on' for me to cry. I could not get over the incident and my loss of any attraction to him as a result. Respondent knew this was a serious problem. I told him I did not know if we could work it out."

Ouch. Does this make Jack unsuitable for public office? Well, the good folks of Illinois will have to be the judge of that. My guess: in November, it will not be a turn on for the Grand Olde Party to watch Jack Ryan cry.

So, the smaller part of me is admittedly giddy about the fact that Ryan, who was already dragging behind Democrat Barack Obama in the polls, now has about as much chance of becoming Senator as David Duke has of becoming Alderman of Bronzetown.

The better part of me, though, thinks that Ryan's personal sex life should not be an issue in the campaign. He didn't do anything illegal, after all. When will we finally reject discussions of people's sexual behavior in the public discourse about government? Truly, it has absolutely nothing to do with Ryan's fitness to argue policy or legislate on behalf of the people of Illinois.

And Ryan was shaping up to be a worthy opponent of the phenomenal Obama. I truly hoped for a vigorous debate between the two Harvard law grads... Ryan, who left a lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner city school in Chicago, and Obama, the first black editor of Harvard's law review, U of Chicago law professor, and longtime civil rights lawyer. This could have been a truly classical political matchup.

And it still might be. I honestly don't think that Obama will ever raise or discuss the issue of Ryan's sex life. In fact, my opinion of him (and it is nearly reverential) would be obliterated if he tried to use this for political advantage. I hope that the rest of the Democrats in Illinois will also let this unseemly dog lie. It's out there, it happened, it's unfortunate for Ryan that it became public, but it is not a real issue.
Let's not act like a bunch of Republicans about it.

UPDATE: He who shall not be named agrees:

And I can't get too excited over the turn this Senate race has taken. I want to beat Republicans because their ideas are discredited, not because of accusations hurled during divorce proceedings, however salacious those accusations may be.

Republican Governor to Resign Today

According to the WSJ:

Connecticut Gov. Gov. John G. Rowland will announce his resignation Monday night, amid a federal corruption investigation and a growing move to impeach him, his lawyer told the Associated Press.

The governor plans to announce his resignation on a live television address to the state at 6 p.m., lawyer William Dow III said. Earlier, a spokesman for the governor's office refused to comment....

The 47-year-old Republican, who was easily re-elected to a third term in 2002, admitted late last year that he lied about accepting gifts and favors from friends, state contractors and state employees.

Pesky Democrats...

"It's apparent that Russians and President Putin are interested in a second term for Bush," said Liliya Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center. "We've always had good relations with Republicans. We dislike Democrats, because Democrats always care about democracy in Russia."

Quotable Willy

"If you look back on the '60s and think there was more good than harm, you're probably a Democrat. If you think there was more harm than good, you're probably a Republican."

--Bill Clinton, kicking off his book tour

Bush The Diplomat.

May 17, 2004 -

"I think we, the United States and Russia, share a common understanding of how we should move forward," Rice said in a Russian voice-over in a television interview aired after she completed her series of meetings with top Russian officials, including a closed-door meeting with President Vladimir Putin.
(snip)
Rice met with Putin on Saturday to deliver a personal letter from President George W. Bush with "general affirmation of our desire to work with them [the Russians] on Iraq and on the broader partnership," a senior U.S. diplomat told reporters Sunday.
(snip)
Kremlin and government sources would only reveal the issues discussed with Rice, but offered no further details of the talks.

June 8, 2004:

BUSH: And it is my pleasure to continue to work with you as we make sure our relations are as close as they possibly can be.

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As translated.) First of all, I would like to thank the U.S. President for having invited me to such a wonderful place. Indeed, we had a very thorough discussion which pertained to virtually the entire spectrum of the U.S.-Russia relationship.

June 10, 2004 headline: "Putin Takes Bush's Side Against Democrats on Iraq":

"I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same."

June 19, 2004:

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said yesterday that his government had warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was preparing attacks on US soil and on American interests abroad before the US invasion of Iraq.
(snip)
But a White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration is not sure what information Putin was referencing.
(snip)
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who spent days searching through CIA intelligence for proof of Iraq's threat to present to the United Nations last year, said he had never come across such information.
(snip)
Another State Department official said people were "scratching their heads" over Putin's remarks. A US intelligence official in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the CIA and other agencies did not immediately recall what Putin was referring to and expressed doubts that the information was significant.
(snip)
[Tamara Wittes, a scholar at the Brookings Institution] said that the United States has been lenient this year toward some of Putin's more controversial political moves in Russia, and that Putin may be expressing his gratitude. "Bush is facing some very significant questions on this specific issue in the midst of an election campaign, so maybe this is Putin's way of lending him a hand?" she said.

Sorry, Pootie Poot. Not buyin' it.

Bush Family Fued?

Capital Hill Blue reports that Bush 41 disagrees with his son's handling of Iraq.

Speaking of dishonesty

CC reported that the so-called "Liberal" media is dispensing lies about the connections between Iraq and 9/11 citing a NYT's article that states "...there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11."

CC then criticizes NYT strenuously, "Never any evidence of even a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.[?] Uh, that makes this part of Statement 15 from the 9/11 Commission report weird..."

First, this is from an Op/Ed piece, which are intended to be arguments for a position, not a headline as CC's link states. But who's being disingenuous, my learned brethren? I guess it depends on your definition of "link."

It seems the far right, and yes, Superstar is on the "far far" right citing Ann Coulter as if she were Mahatma Ghandi or Benjamin Franklin reincarnated, is now engaging in some good ole' fashioned Karl Rove spinning after the 9-11 commission confirmed that there was nary a link between Saddam and 9/11. The meeting with Atta in Prague never occurred b/c he was in the US.

Of course there's some evidence of some contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda--"the enemy of my enemy is my friend." But contact was also detected among, in your own words: Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunsinia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea.

Did we send our troops to occupy any of these nations? Did we attack Iran or Saudi Arabia, both of which played much stronger roles in the 9-11 attacks than beleagured Iraq. Again, how many of the 19 "suiciders" were from Saudi Arabia?

Back to the facts, from the Times, headlined "Saddam link to 9/11 not likely":

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein had any connection to the September 11 attacks by the al Qaeda terrorist network, a federal commission said yesterday.

This is from the WASH TIMES! far from the so-called liberal newspaper that the CC's and the Dick Cheney's of the world love to self-servingly bash and attempt to discredit. Where is this article among the bevy cited in your link?

Argue, cajole, spin, deflect, twist all you want Cheney, the simple fact is that you sold us a war on "overwhelming" evidence that Iraq had WMD coming out of their ears, played a role in 9-11-01, that Iraqi oil would pour out of the country easily paying for a war, and that the Iraqis would accept our soldiers as liberators adorning them with flowers, confetti, and their first born. Not one of these has come to fruition, yet the lies go on.

It's axiomatic to say that the first casualty of any war is the truth and Iraq Part deux is no exception. With this in mind and Rummy's declaration that we're in for a long, hard slug, we should be prepared for not only more war but far more lies.

We're sorry. Let us rephrase that...

"Ladies and gentlemen, your President."

Upon further review, VP Cheney was in charge on 9/11:

"Pursuant to the president's instructions, I gave authorization for them [hijacked passenger jets] to be taken out," Cheney told Rumsfeld, who was at the Pentagon. Informing Rumsfeld that the fighter pilots had received orders to fire, Cheney added, "It's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out."...

Cheney, who told the commission he was operating on instructions from Bush given in a phone call, issued authority for aircraft threatening Washington to be shot down. But the commission noted that "among the sources that reflect other important events that morning there is no documentary evidence for this call, although the relevant sources are incomplete." Those sources include people nearby taking notes, such as Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Cheney's wife, Lynne.

In the 1970s, Laurence J. Peter wrote a popular book that sought to explain why so many positions in so many organizations seem to be teeming with employees who exhibit strong signs of incompetence. He concluded that "in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." This concept has since been known eponymously as the "Peter Principle."

Well, it's again apparent that the current President of the United States is actually several grades above his level of incompetence. Notwithstanding his failure to competently grasp the English language, there's continuously been questions as to who calls the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

On countless occasions, the President has either not known or cravenly deferred to others when difficult decisions need to be reached. From intelligence reports leading up to 9/11, to the Plame leak, to prisoner maltreatment at Abu Ghraib, to the Chalabi mishap, and now to executive decisions on 9/11, the President has shown the resolve and decisiveness that he's ever wont to proclaim in his best John Wayne impersonation.

Yes, he's been decisive. He's "decisively" deferred to others and then conveniently pled ignorance when things go awry.

Will the real President of the United States please stand up? We hardly know you with all the rampant secrecy, subterfuge, and the fact that you rarely give press conferences. Looking back, I wonder if those who voted for Bush were aware that they were really voting for Dick Cheney for president in 2000? Has a VP ever wielded so much raw power?

If anything is clear in this mess we call the Bush Administration, it is that Rasputin, the mysterious monk who ruled Imperial Russia, is not dead. He was never executed. He's alive and well with a pacemaker and is hiding out in an undisclosed secret location somewhere in the Pennsylvania mountains.

Just beware, if you ask him any questions, you'll likely get a recording. That other guy is just a fill-in, a face man; he's better for the pictures.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Vice President.

BORGER: But you say you disagree with the commission...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: On this question of whether or not there was a general relationship.

BORGER: Yes.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Yeah.

BORGER: And they say that there was not one forged and you were saying yes, that there was. Do you know things that the commission does not know?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Probably.

BORGER: And do you think the commission needs to know them?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: I don't have any--I don't know what they know. I do know they didn't talk with any original sources on this subject that say that in their report.

BORGER: They did talk with people who had interrogated sources.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.

BORGER: So they do have good sources.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Gloria, the notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida just simply is not true.

(snip)

BORGER: Let me just ask you, bottom line, though, on 9/11...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: On 9/11...

BORGER: ...Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: We have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on 9/11. The one thing we have is the Czech intelligence service report saying that Mohammad Atta had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official at the embassy on April 9th, 2001. That's never been proven. It's never been refuted.

(snip)

BORGER: Let me ask you what your response is to the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, who said upon looking at this 9/11 report that this administration, quote, "misled America."

Vice Pres. CHENEY: In what respect? I haven't seen that.

BORGER: In terms of the relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: We never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. We never said that. You can't find any place where I said it, where the president said it. I was asked that, as a matter of fact, by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" on the Sunday after the attack and said, `No, we don't have any evidence of it.' Later on we received this information from the Czechs, but again, as I say, we've never been able to prove that nor have we been able to knock it down.

BORGER: Now the report says, though, that there isn't any relationship, so...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: They've concluded, based on what they've done.

BORGER: And you're not there.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: They've concluded and I haven't had a chance to read all of their report. They've concluded based on the work they've done that there was no connection, that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. And I can't say they were. I've never seen evidence that supports that, except this one report from the Czechs.

(snip)

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Gloria, I don't feel persecuted. I don't need to. The fact of the matter is, the evidence is overwhelming. The press is, with all due respect, and there are exceptions, oftentimes lazy, oftentimes simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework.

BORGER: But it's the commission that reached--I mean, I know. I don't want to go back over the old ground here, but...

As you can see, Cheney's key argument is essentially that nobody has been able to prove conclusively that there wasn't a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

You know what this reminds me of? A little scenario that took place in connection with Rove's push polling campaign against McCain in 2000. Remember, when anonomous "polling" calls were made to South Carolinans, asking whether they would continue supporting McCain if they learned that he had fathered a child out of wedlock with a black woman? (McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh). They got some idiot from Bob Jones University to run around claiming that McCain actually had fathered a child with a black woman. The idiot was confronted on CNN, "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

The Broken Record President

Just when you thought we had conclusively and collectively determined that President Bush deceived us about Saddam's terrorist connections, he comes out with this bold new coherent statement bolstered by additional evidence and solid reasoning... right. From earlier today:

He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy of the United States of America, just like al- Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections.

See? He's like al-Qaeda (both bad guys)!

And by "connections", he means isolated incidents of contact that led to no corroborative efforts. I wonder who had more "connections" that actually led to collaboration -- Saddam and "terrorists" or Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld & Co. back in the 80's.

President Bush is going to keep recycling the same tired pap until he loses the election in November. Maybe he'll keep on after that. Years down the road when he's tottering in a rocker back in Texas, an aging embarassment to this country, neighbor to a happily married gay couple, he'll be heard to mutter again and again...
"See, he was like al-Qaeda, see. A threat to Amurca. See, he was sorta like a terrist. He was gay, see. Gotta understand, I was a war president, wasn't i Laura? Yeah, I was. A war president. A threat because he met this guy, see... the guy was a terrist! See, he wished he had nuculer stuff. He really wished it. A threat, see. A threat."

Getting down to these.

What was your first thought when you learned that your Attorney General's office advised your President that he might be able to get away with torturing other human beings?

How did you feel when your Attorney General refused to produce the memo in which his office advised the President that he could torture people?

What did you think about Biden telling Ashcroft that there was a reason we have prohibitions against torture: so American soldiers like Biden's son don't get tortured by others?

What did you think about the Attorney General's lack of an explanation for keeping the torture memo secret, in open contempt of Congress?

Sure, some accused Ashcroft of being the worst attorney general in history, and some bristled at the thought of the most powerful men in free America trying to figure out how to legally torture people, but I think we all know the real issue here:

Senator Biden is tacky.

Unbelievable.

Another Trumpet...

From the New York Times:

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

...

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

...

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

And you thought the press would slumber forever. Welcome back, honest journalism. We've missed you.

Oh, my...

Jacko paid $15.3MILLION to settle his 1994 molestation suit. Hey, $15.3 million, sounds innocent to me.

John Kerry a Reaganite?

Perhaps more than Bush 43, Wash Whispers raises this week.

More Tall Tales

From McSweeney's Reasons to Dispatch Bush (Day 53):

Meet The Press, February 7, 2004:

RUSSERT: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

PRESIDENT BUSH: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

Rose Garden press conference, June 1, 2004:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly —

BUSH: Chalabi?

Q: Yes, with Chalabi.

BUSH: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him.

Q: I guess I'm asking, do you feel like he misled your administration, in terms of what the expectations were going to be going into Iraq?

BUSH: I don't remember anybody walking into my office saying, Chalabi says this is the way it's going to be in Iraq.

(Source: NBC News, 2/7/04. See transcript at: msnbc.msn.com. President Bush Discusses the Iraqi Interim Government. The Rose Garden, 6/1/04. See transcript at: www.whitehouse.gov.)

This

speaks for itself.

CC continues to bottom feed

[UPDATE-It's funny how time (as well as Ann Coulter) has a way of fogging the facts. It's well-documented that the Reagan administration was firmly split between the hardliners and the pragmatists with George Shultz and James Baker personifying the latter.

To quote Peter Robinson, former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan:

Well, there was a constant tension in the Reagan White House between these groups of people. Now, I wondered, 'Why does the president have those pragmatists around?' Incidentally, I'm sure the pragmatists wondered why he put up with speechwriters like us. But, there's a certain inherent…you know the Gospel tell us to be innocent as doves, but also wise as serpents and it's important to understanding the way Ronald Reagan conducted himself as president to remember that he was a union president. What does a union president do? He stakes out a position and when he has to he cuts the best deal he can. Just so, in the White House, Ronald Reagan was using us speechwriters, us true believers, to stake out his position, to move the public, to claim the moral high ground. But then when it came the moment when he had to deal with Congress or with the Soviets, he'd send in the pragmatists and get the best deal that he could. So there was a certain…He was never a wild-eyed ideologue, he was a shrewd and practical man who was working with reality as it came to him to do the best for the country that he could.

He should probably know, Ann.]

Mass. Dems rush to change law mid-stream

I'm not sure if I agree with this obvious power move, but considering the GOP's blatant gerrymander in Texas, do you blame 'em?

This is getting interesting.

Speaking of Donkey Punches...

Shmoopy, honey bunny, babydoll, butternut squash, my boo, love of my life, cuddly-wuddly, love-muffin, peaches-n-cream, pookie, and now the "c-word"?

Yeah, that dreaded c-word, the one-syllable word for female genitalia that makes women the world over cringe and viciously maim any user (hint: rhymes with hunt), has been deemed a term of endearment. University president states that its okay Chaucer used it that way.

Men worldwide collectively sigh in relief. "P-word" possibly next off blacklist.

Quick thought--Watching the Watchdogs

With the proliferation of blogs reaching astronomical levels, the media pendulum continues to swing back and forth on their utility. From the BBC, "Weblogs are sometimes criticised for being the self-obsessed ramblings of people who have little to say and too much time on their hands in which to do it." Perhaps.

Perhaps the media's a bit paranoid. Webloggers have tremendous influence from fueling the Bush air national guard debate to Kerry's haircuts. They unmercilessly criticize the media for reporting too liberally, too conservatively, too little, or in the case of a former president's funeral, too much.

Reflecting on a fellow bloggers attack on the LA Times's recent presidential poll, it dawned on me: no matter whether I support a particular blogger's viewpoint or not(this case I didn't), in the end, I support the process. Bloggers are the new watchdogs of a media, powerful in their own right in formulating public opinion and molding public policy, which has long gone unquestioned and unchallenged.

In essence, bloggers take the letters and comments section of the op/ed pages to an all new level, aloft on the information superhighway. They keep the media in check, whatever the issue. It is here where they are most effective and should be lauded. As watchdogs of the so-called fourth branch of government, bloggers fulfill a invaluable public purpose and here's one person who hopes they'll grow further.

I just hope the latest fad doesn't fade as quickly as it appeared. Maybe soon we'll be coined as the new fifth branch of government. Maybe by then we'll need our own watchdog--watchdog of the watchdog of the watchdog.

Blog out.

[UPDATE: just found that TIME is running a big spread on bloggers this week.]

New Move: The Dirty Enron

In one scheme, Enron made $222,678 in a three-hour period by shipping power from California to Oregon, masking the original source of the power, and then selling it back to California at highly inflated rates.

The records also show that Enron employed at least five other schemes, dubbed "sidewinder," "ping pong," "donkey punch," "spread play" and "Russian roulette."

Enron refused to comment except to say it is co-operating with all investigations.

Uh... Are you kidding me?

2GL beats AP in reporting Barr v. Clinton outcome

NYT has further background on the case, filed at 3:57 PM today:

[Larry] Flynt's article [The Flynt Report] included allegations by Barr's former wife that the congressman had an affair in the mid-1980s. It also said that in contrast to his public opposition to abortion, he drove his wife to a clinic to have an abortion performed.

Barr alleged Carville gave Flynt Barr's FBI files and other documents as part of a smear campaign, but Flynt denied it, saying his information came from a private investigator and records from Barr's divorce. A lower federal court had dismissed the case in March 2003.

Flynt obtained the information on Barr after he ran a full page in The Washington Post offering $1 million to anyone who would acknowledge having had an extramarital affair with a member of Congress. Flynt said his goal was to "expose the hypocrisy" of members of Congress urging Clinton's impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Barr served four terms in Congress before losing a primary campaign in 2002.

Okay, maybe my blog title here is the kind of over-the-top, shameless self-promotion more endemic to other sites, but sometimes you just can't resist.

Buyer Beware

Ten surprising foods you should never eat. Yeah, those Wow! chips are nasty little buggers who can really crawl up in ya.

I can probably think of ten more, beginning with chinese food, starbucks brownie frappacino, and Chipotle burritos, but why ruin anyone's day. Ignorance is bliss.

Sissies.

The gadfly who wouldn't die

The district court's dismissal of Bob Barr's suit against Bill Clinton and James Carville, for conspiring with Larry Flynt to defame the former GA Congressman, affirmed on appeal.

Hasn't the public had enough of you?

Quote of the Day--Turning 30

"If at age 20 you are not a Communist, then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not a Capitalist, then you have no brains."
--George Bernard Shaw

Whatever that means. Happy belated, Abe. Chin up, a couple of fast facts on turning 30. On the good side, Seth Green, still scoring movie roles as a teenager, also turned 30 this year, and Mick Jagger will be 61 in July!

Cheers, big guy.

Son of Sam enters fray

David Berkowitz blogs from NY prison.

2GL to wait before adding to blogroll.

Yeah, as if you didn't see this coming

Sen. McCain declines to join Democratic ticket. Now JFK has time to work on this guy.

Portent for Bush?

Tony Blair's Labour Party taking a big hit in Britain's mid-term elections. Labour drops to third because of Iraq.

Hat tip: Kos.

The lies, the merciless lies

State Department on defensive after wrongly reporting in April that terrorist acts declined last year. Terrorists and victims actually rose steadily.

At what point do we say that this man's credibility is sufficiently shot?

Other Eyes Smile Tenderly...

Still in peaceful dreams I see
the road
leads back
to you.

Goodbye, Ray.
And thanks.

No soup for you

Court blocks woman's damage suit against BoSox for her injury from screaming foul ball. Facial damage required reconstructive surgery and eight plates planted in her face.

In ruling that woman assumed the risk of injury by attending game, the three-member court reasoned that even someone with scant knowledge of baseball should realize that "a central feature of the game is that batters will forcefully hit balls that may go astray from their intended direction."

Case Dismissed.

Oh Brother II

Frist proposes renaming the Pentagon after Reagan.

Let's just rename planet earth after the man. From what I'm hearing from folks out here, and this might surely be a Beltway thing, the press and Republicans in general are drastically overblowing this state spectacle. Honoring him as if he were equal parts George Washington and Abraham Lincoln is completely farcical. Many people are keeping mum during this ceremonial week in respect for the dead. But from what I hear, many people still despise the man and his presidency.

I was apartment hunting recently in Georgetown. My girl and I arrived slightly earlier than the older lady who was to show us the basement apartment. Fortunately, her beau upstairs, an elderly mustachioed gentlemen in his late sixties early seventies, let me in. Pleasantries were exchanged. He was actually from Chicago. I liked his laugh. It was a goofy laugh, one you'd hear in a movie, overcharacterized but instantly comical, like that weird goth artist with the hyena laugh in that movie "The Big Lebowski."

I didn't know what to say. It's been a while since I was stuck talking to a stranger but I was instantly curious. Someone who'd lived in DC for 52 years, 10 presidencies, must have a million and one stories.

I asked, "Will you be heading to the Capitol for Reagan's procession?"

A pause hung uncomfortably in the air. I guess I knew in asking that it was a politically loaded question. He replied, "I have a Kerry bumper sticker."

"Me too," I said nervously.

Here's a man of considerable age and education, University of Chicago, unable to set aside political differences even at the death of a president. I didn't know if I should feel sorry for his bitterness or what. I squirmed for a few minutes before rebounding and then the landlady showed.

If there's one thing I took from this chance encounter, as well as additional discussions with co-workers and others, it's that the gushy rhetoric, non-stop TV coverage, and calls for naming the District after him is far from reflective of how the public views Reagan even after 15 years. Honor him and move on. Too much coverage can be grating, like bloggers who can't stop writing about the same subject.

[PS. WSJ writes in an interesting article how the commemoration, code named Operation Serenade, has been organized for years by former Reagan staffers as means of building his legacy.]

CC's War on Logic

Our good friends over at CC, taking their cue from your President, invoke the image of 9-11 (yes, picture and all), then proclaim that "we are in fact at war."
Not, apparently, a war like this:

war (n.)
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000

But, in fact, a war like this:

War\, n. 1. A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition of territory, for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers; declared and open hostilities.

Note: As war is the contest of nations or states, it always implies that such contest is authorized by the monarch or the sovereign power of the nation. A war begun by attacking another nation, is called an offensive war, and such attack is aggressive. War undertaken to repel invasion, or the attacks of an enemy, is called defensive. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998

CC further explains that this "War" is solely against "a radical strain of Islamofascism that uses terror as its chief weapon". Then they ask... "Any questions?"

And I've got a few. First, if this is a real live war, which "nation or state" are we at war against? Also, why aren't the enemies we capture prisoners of war? Why is it that in this War we don't care about the Geneva Convention?

Also, if the bombing of an American building by a radical, anti-American, non-governmental group calls for a literal WAR against that group, not action by American and international justice systems, what should we have done about this?


Attack the Michigan Militia with tanks and napalm?

Finally, if this "War" is solely against "a radical strain of Islamofascism that uses terror as its chief weapon". How can the military effort in Iraq be part of the "War on Terror". Wasn't Iraq, like North Korea, just a troublesome country ruled by a psychopath who tortured his own people? (Or maybe Saddam didn't really torture his people... I mean, was it really "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"?) Was Saddam bent on radical Islamic worldwide domination? Wasn't it Saddam's very opposition to such a worldview that caused Rumsfeld to shake his hand and give him cash in the 80's.

Sorry, CC. Pictures of explosions do not change the fact that, according to your own definition, there has been no true justification for "real live war" on "a radical strain of Islamofascism"(a.k.a. "Terror") since Afghanistan.

Congressional Bill to Reinstate the Draft

The writers at 2GL are unfortunately too old, lame, and likely too weathered to be eligible for any future military draft. But this Bill, to be voted on in June 2005, is definitely something worth keeping an eye on, especially in light of Don Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are also provisions covering any would-be draft dodgers out there:

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Congress may want to further consult Cheney and Bush 43 on any other hidden loopholes.

He didn't start the fire...

The Nation has this haunting description of Reagan's real legacy. You can almost imagine St. Peter reading it at the pearly gates.

Statistics Don't Lie, Statisticians Do

As we at 2GL have recently noted, one of the difficulties of fighting a "War" against a concept (terror) is that it provides few yardsticks for progress. However, your President found one: the annual number of deadly terrorist attacks.

I am not certain that a reduced number of deadly terrorist attacks would be "clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against terror as your Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said recently.

In fact, I think if we are going to measure the effectiveness of the "War On The Concept Of Terror" we will have to ask people if they are more terrified now than they were prior to the "War." With all of the Bush Administration's terror warnings and scare talk, I doubt many of us are comforted. I'd venture to guess that "terror" in this country is at an all time high.

Nevertheless, back to the yardstick provided by your President for this "War." His Administration pointed to the most recent State Department "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report and cheered that the number of terrorist attacks had dropped to its lowest level in 34 years, declining by 45% since 2001!! Winning the "WAR"!!

Well, regardless of the accuracy of the yardstick, at least we're making progress there, right? Wrong.

The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate and was politically manipulated by the Bush administration. ...
Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years.

A personal tribute

At some point, hopefully really, really soon, I will cease blogging, e-mailing, annoying co-workers about former President Reagan's death and will move on with my life. Such a prospect is difficult, however, considering: EVERY SINGLE news outlet is engaging in a nationwide Reagan lovefest. "Come on over, everybody. I'm popping in Bedtime for Bonzo! Forget about what could've been. Bring over a bag of Bugles, cherry flavored colas, and wear your Caspar Weinberger T-shirts."

Needless to say, I'm eternally grateful simply because I won't have to go to work on Friday, a "National Day of Mourning." Tonight's the procession to the Capitol followed by Friday's ceremony at the National Cathedral, blocks from my house. Although I was never a real fan of Ronnie, I'll have to catch some of the festivities, but probably not the wake or the ceremony, considering you need tickets.

Wait, now that I think of the bumper to bumper gridlock, hordes of hot sweaty "Reagan-freaks" invading DC in sweltering heat, and, the omni-present, terrorist warnings, maybe I should rethink this. Maybe I'm getting carried away here. Maybe I should just lie low the next couple of days and just get stuck in traffic for the big guy. I'll even turn the radio off during commercials in tribute.

[P.S. Here's a decent article about Reagan's impact on the law, specifically his federal court appointments from Scalia to even Posner.]

Oh Brother.

Here we go...

You're No Reagan, II

Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture, which states:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Your President had his legal advisors prepare a memo proclaiming:

"The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture."

Link.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE!: The Washington Post has the cojones to call it a duck:

This week, thanks again to an independent press, we have begun to learn the deeply disturbing truth about the legal opinions that the Pentagon and the Justice Department seek to keep secret. According to copies leaked to several newspapers, they lay out a shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture. In a paper prepared last year under the direction of the Defense Department's chief counsel, and first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, the president of the United States was declared empowered to disregard U.S. and international law and order the torture of foreign prisoners. Moreover, interrogators following the president's orders were declared immune from punishment. Torture itself was narrowly redefined, so that techniques that inflict pain and mental suffering could be deemed legal. All this was done as a prelude to the designation of 24 interrogation methods for foreign prisoners -- the same techniques, now in use, that President Bush says are humane but refuses to disclose.

Read the whole thing. The free press awakes! You know how in every Lord of the Rings movie our heroes are surrounded and hopelessly outnumbered, then some bright and powerful army comes storming over the hills with war trumpets blaring? Let us hope this is the first of a chorus of trumpets...

COMMENTING

We at TGL have updated the "Comments" feature of our site. You no longer have to be a registered user to add to the fray. That is all.

Missive on Reagan

When I was wee, my mother told me if I didn't have anything nice to say about someone, I shouldn't say it all. Well, invoking her dictum for once, I'll refrain from the usual vitriol. And besides, I think Christopher Hitchens's hardhitter says enough.

If the late Ronald Reagan did anything right as president, aside from being born in the Land of Lincoln, he did infuse the US with a much needed shot of good old fashioned patriotism and national pride. With Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis in the rearview, the US was geared for a tremendous rebound. His verve, panache, and straight talk appealed to voters on both sides of the partisian fence. Although I loathed, even at a young age, the majority of his policies as well as his backhanded treatment of both domestic and international law, he should be credited with rallying the masses during a most crucial time in our nation's history.

Vive le Franco-America!

We love France. We hate France. We love France. We hate France. We now love France!

...at least for now.

...And You, Sir, Are No Ronald Reagan

It should come as no surprise that I disagree with much of what Reagan did while president. However, I have to commend his ability to adapt his approach to tax cuts depending upon the economic circumstances.

Or in the words of the Bush campaign, flip-flopping.

I never thought the day would come when I would prefer Reagan to the current president.

Palindrome of the day

"A toyota".

Double click on 2GL next time for such favorites as "Hannah" and "Madam, I'm Adam" and more...

Watch Your President...

Changing his campaign website to a Reagan tribute was one thing, but watch as your President now tries to pretend like he is Reagan:

Brokaw: “You're here in France for this great feeling, especially in Normandy, for the Americans as a result of what they did 60 years ago.

“But throughout Europe, even your friends will say big-time American businessmen, who are over here a lot, they've never seen anti-Americanism so high or the personal feelings against you so high as well. Is that important for you to remedy?”

Bush: “You know, look. It's important for people to know what --that I've got a future, that I believe in a future that's peaceful based upon liberty. And I remember my predecessor who's life we mourn, Ronald Reagan, they felt the same way about him.

“Tom, that doesn't mean a fella like me should change my beliefs. I'm not going to. I'm not trying to be popular. What I'm trying to do is what I think is right. And what is right is to fight terror.

Now watch as your President shows what a life spent living off the hard work and sacrifice of others can do to a man:

“Many people believe that you ought to be asking more of the American people at home to sacrifice more so that they feel more connected to what's going on the—“

Bush: “What does that mean, sacrifice more?”

Brokaw: “Well, like in World War II for example, they rationed gasoline. They gave up their meat supplies. You don't have to go that far. But there's a great sense, I think, that there's a disconnect between what American military people are doing overseas and what Americans are doing at home.”

Bush: “Yeah. I, you know, I—“

Brokaw: “You not agree with that?”

Bush: “I-- no, I don't."

Bring out the black marker and the shredder

Memory Hole lists the previously released documents that the government is now purging from public circulation.

Interesting list. I can understand the majority of these, especially in light of recent terror warnings, but what's with those documents relating to "The Animal Liberation Front in the '90's"? What are they the Army of the 12 Monkeys?

That Goofy Old Party

A few weeks ago, Al Gore gave an extraordinarily intelligent speech about the misguided leadership of President Bush. In that speech, he called for the resignation of numerous Bush Administration officials who have made very public, very obvious, and very detrimental mistakes. One of those officials has since resigned. The right wing (even typically-reasonable TOD) called him crazy, unhinged, said he'd officially lost it, etc. Noticeably absent was a willingness to take on Vice President Gore on the substance of what he said. They said he screamed like Dean. That was it. Even that was wrong. Everyone who actually watched the speech knows that Gore was soft spoken throughout the speech, and raised his voice only when passionately calling for the resignations.

Yeah, that crazy Democratic Party. Imagine actually calling for the resignation of Administration officials. How about calling for the resignation of the President himself?

Well, let me tell you what I think is crazy and unhinged, and I mean in substance. I think it is crazy to call for the imposition of felony penalties for anyone issuing a marriage license or performing a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. I think it is absurd to call for the United States to rescind its membership in the U.N. and physically evict the U.N., which is headquartered in New York, from U.S. soil. Calling for the disbanding of the IRS? That's ridiculous. Openly advocating the abolishment of all minimum wage protections? Unhinged. Calling for the re-unification of Church and State (that's Christian church, y'all) can only be the product of unstable minds.

Sure, but what radical fringe group openly supports all of those crazy ideas? That would be the Republican Party of Texas, which spawned your President. That's right. All this lunacy is in their official platform for 2004.

No word yet as to whether some of their more choice proposals from the 2000 platform survived, i.e. teach creationism in public schools, use military force to retake the Panama Canal, and strip the Supreme Court of its ability to decide the constitutionality of laws about abortion, religion, or anything else related to the Bill of Rights.

In thirty years, these people will be embarrassed by this. Their only defense will be temporary insanity.

Farewell to the Gipper

My fellow citizens -- those of you here in this hall and those of you at home -- I want you to know that I have always had the highest respect for you, for your common sense and intelligence and for your decency. I have always believed in you and in what you could accomplish for yourselves and for others.

And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way.

My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for the young people here -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here.

From Reagan's address to the 1992 National Republican Convention.

May he finally reach his shining city upon a hill.