Friday, September 26, 2003

Huge National Breakup! Here's a funny bit in the Globe; Paul Lewis jokes about having the democrats join Canada.  I say, why not!  Go for it!  Blue Staters can just be a part of Canada and get the medical system, political neutrality, and easy access to MJ they've always wanted.  Red Staters can continue to flog themselves with leather bibles, cut their taxes to negative zero, watch their Satanic Public Education Institutions fall into disrepair (or just get right in there and wreck'em). The best news for us Blue Staters is, WE WON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR BULLSHIT ANYMORE!  That's right!  No more wealth transfer to support Welfare Moralists. I knew there was an answer! Love this chart: 3:33:49 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

Bush's Extra Helpful Secret Service. There's some good discussion on this one floating around: Volokh has two pieces on it.  It's fairly well known that the Secret Service is doing this, has been doing this.  Protesters have ended up almost a half mile away from Bush, in some cases, and they have been put there based on their viewpoint.  I've learned all kinds of neat new phrases lately -- viewpoint-neutrality is one of them. In any case, check out the "justification" Volokh makes the egregious error of giving air time (I permit myself the same error because nobody reads what I write :) : How about this -- anti - Bush demonstrators are largely the hard left, with a history of violence. Witness: the anti-globalism demonstrations in Seattle. Left demonstrators, usually union thugs, often attacked and beat up peaceful anti-Clinton protestors. The violent and extreme left, including various communist organizations is suffused with hate-Bush attitudes, and regularly makes accusations that would seem to justify violence, and sometimes even calls for it. So, while generally I would agree that viewpoint discrimination is unfair, it may at times be justified. How about a throng of pro-Al Qaeda demonstrators dressed in voluminous robes that could conceal weapons or bombs wanting to get up close to the President? So according to this little gem, people on the Left are thugs, and violent.  But let's not stop there!  Goodness no!  Let's also convey that they're communist, suffused with hate, apologists for violence, and more or less members of Al Qaeda.  Wow!  That's quite a list.  I think there are going to be a lot of people out there on the left who are going to be quite intimidated by a list like that.  It's just way too much to try and get done in one day, and hold down a job at the same time.  It's like you'd have to go after it full time or something...really try and turn yourself into an archetypical RNC nemesis. I can't believe an author as well-read (in the the personal and blog sense) as Eugene Volokh would even bother responding to such a steaming pile of crap. 3:20:27 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

Pointless, Deceptive Generalization. Via The Ministry, we see yet another example of the cheap, easy way out of political discourse.  It boils down to, "See, folks?  Since that one guy over there hates X, that means everybody on their side does!  Woohoo!  We win!"  Pass the mustard. I truly don't mind saying that I think of this: It's fucking idiotic writing.  That being said, I am quite sure that if I go back through the ten months of archives on my site, I'm going to find the same damn kind of thing.  Grr.  I hate being a hypocrit.  Or maybe I'm not.  Full text search to the rescue! 3:07:15 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

Twenty More Questions. Paul Miller wonders about Iraq, and he's got 20 tough questions to prove it.  Let's look at some more: What percentage of money going to American contractors goes to Iraqi companies, who actually do the work? Where can we find accurate estimates of exactly how many people were being killed under Saddam?  It's probably in the same filing cabinet as the WMD info. How does the civilian death count in Iraq compare to, say, 9/11, which was the Administration's implied reason for going in? How many civilians have been victims of crime since the "end of major combat"?  How many have been murdered? How many hours per day of electricity do we have in Baghdad?  Did the Bush administration intend to attract foreign combatants to Iraq? What constitutes permissible criticism of the Administration's approach in Iraq?  There seems to be some sort of line, painted somewhere. How has the health care situation changed, from before the war, to now? Have we established a picture of the political movement underlying the guerrilla war? What actions are being taken against the religious extremists who are beginning to police the lives of women, denying their freedom? What is the percentage level of coverage for assets needing security, given the troop levels in the country? What is an average day in Iraq like for a young woman? Are there caps on the "cut" of the gross that an American corporation can take when sub-contracting rebuilding to an Iraqi company? Has Allbaugh's company arranged any of the contracts in Iraq? At what point will the books be laid open, so that third parties can audit the finances of the reconstruction effort in Iraq? What are the total projected costs of this action, over a five year period? What is the current best guess for how long large troop deployments (over 100,000) are going to be required? Since Mitch Daniels (former White House Budget Director) estimated the total cost of this war to be $50 to $60 Billion, significant revisions in the White House's budget plans must have occurred.  What are they? Why is the security around the Iraqi Council so weak?  Were Al Hashemi's security guards actually her brothers and family members? How long is the widely-discussed $87 Billion supposed to last, in budget terms?  What percentage goes to troops, and what percentage goes to American corporations rebuilding? How have the revenue estimates from Iraqi oil evolved over the past two years? What specific actions are being taken to ensure women's rights in Iraq, and prevent a repressive theocracy-simula from rising there? 1:49:59 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

The Shakeout Is Over. Talking Points has, as usual, good insight on the debate.  Let's put it bluntly -- it's time for the vanity candidates to get out of the race.  How many times do we have to listen to each candidate say roughly the same thing as the others, over and over?  Right now we have to listen to each anti-Bush remark about ten times.  The message is starting to become diluted.  Kucinich, Graham, Moseley-Braun, Sharpton, and Edwards need to get the heck out of there.  We should probably include Gephardt and Lieberman on that list too...the early race is done, and there are frontrunners now.  We have three of them.  That's enough.  With Bush's $200 million, the DNC is going to need to focus every single resource it has on what's ahead.  Frittering away cash and focus at this stage in the game is foolish.  The DNC needs to do a pre-primary, and turf the vanity folks out. 1:30:17 PM     | comment [] | trackback []