You Are Quite Feeble

Is it sexism that we never asked the following of Governor George W. Bush of Texas back in 2000:

- Would a Bush White House look to make significant shifts in US monetary policy? Why or why not?
- What newspapers or magazines did you read regularly before running for president?
- What are some Supreme Court decisions that you disagree with?

On the other hand, we did get memorable answers asking him about:

- The Clinton Doctrine
- his lack of foreign policy credentials



Whatever happened to this Sarah Palin?

A few years ago after it became clear that Bush had won a second term, I wrote, in disappointment:

i never said it was the end of the world. i have faith that America always figures itself out eventually. I just never wanted to live in the part that went so wrong.

We've never seen such gross incompetence and disregard for the public trust by an administration, and at every possible level:

( a quick recap )

So here's my problem. Lots of people sat by and watched and acquiesced and put on their flag pins while much of this went on for the last seven years.

Here's something else I wrote back then:

i've read about times where the American people were happy that their president was a policymaker and a leader. i'm finding it hard to imagine someone new coming in and inspiring that optimism again.

I can choose one of three things to say with my vote:

( continued... )

"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

-H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

The above photos were taken last week. Romney was confronted about it at a town hall style campaign stop this past weekend, where a 20-something man simply asked him how he could compare any fellow American to Osama bin Laden.

"I don't look at all the signs when I'm having pictures taken. I have a lot of pictures taken with people," Romney said. "I don't really spend all that much time looking at the signs and the T-shirts and the buttons. I don't have anything to say about a sign somebody else was holding."

Audience members jeered, immediately recognizing this as the boilerplate bullshit that it was, and the original questioner volleyed once more.

"You know what? Lighten up slightly," Romney said. "There are a lot of jokes out there. I'm not responsible for all the signs I see."

Yeah, that would sound better if you hadn't taken the time for that extra photo where you're physically holding up the sign. Personally, I would have gone with the argument that this poor woman was just referring to an evil triumvirate that threatens this country's stability: 1) Osama, 2) Obama and 3) Chelsea Clinton's thoughts regarding the Museum of Modern Art.

(Manny Ramirez released a statement in support of Romney, reading in part, "You know people hand us signs all the time, but if you guys suspend him that's totally bullshit, OK?")

A couple of things need to happen now-- Romney needs to be called out in public (maybe at the next debate) if he doesn't issue a formal apology. And apologizing "to anyone who may have been offended" is not enough, because holding up that sign was no accident.

Next, people need to start making signs about Mormon underpants and how many wives Mitt's father had. He won't care, he loves jokes.

.:

Honestly, Mitt Romney scares me more than any of the other 'mainstream' Republicans if he gets to the general election. He's good-looking, extremely well-spoken, and his demeanor + politics together strike a pretty good balance between insufferable Massachusetts twat (see: Kerry, John) and aw shucks ol' country boy. Normally I'd add 'shrewd businessman' and 'smartest man in the bipartisan field' to the list, but he's proven in the last few weeks that he's willing to do and say anything to anybody in service of inflated poll numbers in the short term. Actually, maybe that is just more of Mitt's good business sense.

Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are both very polarizing candidates, who would each have to deal with a sizable part of the population that hates their guts and everything they stand for. Not only do Romney and Obama each have a relatively fresh start with the voters, but they ooze warmth and share a talent for making bitter, complicated issues sound like no-brainers.

Remember, George W. inadvertently used this strategy to great effect two elections in a row-- but only because he's forced to dumb things down for himself in the first place (ah, the days of Fuzzy Math). I'm just saying that the impact of people who voted for Dubya simply because he seemed like the kind of guy they'd "like to have a beer with" cannot be overstated.

.:

And that's not at all intended to put down Mary Cheney. She seems like a lovely woman:

"This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child."

Still, at what age do you tell your kid that his grandfather's buddies wanted a constitutional amendment declaring his parents second-class citizens?

Nancy Pelosi blinks a LOT. and Dick Cheney blinks quite infrequently.

by my totally unscientific estimate, i'd say the ratio of Pelosi to Cheney blinkage was about 25:1 for the duration of the speech.

it was distracting.

incredible-- a TV news outlet has actually decided to cover a story about illegal Republican campaign tactics.

Investigators: Political Phone Messages May Be Illegal In N.H. (WMUR, New Hampshire)

long story short-- in multiple states, the Republican National Congressional Committee has been placing telephone calls with prerecorded messages ('robocalls') to voters over and over again, and at crazy hours (in some cases multiple times between 7:00 PM to 2.30 AM)... but recorded to sound like they're on behalf of a state's given Democratic candidate.

here's the fun part, though: one of the states where this is happening is New Hampshire... the RNCC has admitted to at least 200,000 such calls, and estimates are that probably 1/3rd to 1/2 of those are people on New Hampshire's Do Not Call registry. New Hampshire is one of the few states that will fine automated calls to people on this list for political calls. According to state law, each call/violation carries a $5,000 fine. So it's possible penalties in the hundreds of millions.

unfortunately the real damage may already have been done, as there are already stories circulating where people have been complaining (overheard while canvassing, in letters to local papers, etc) that they'll vote for a Republican candidate specifically because of the other candidate's harrassment. there are just two days remaining for this to become a big enough story for people to wise up... not that other stories about underhanded tactics have really made a difference, though... for instance, many people now know that the GOP has been push polling in several states, but most of the coverage was about it happening in Tennessee; but naturally polls currently show the Republican candidate to be favored. perhaps people just don't care. i guess expecting outrage is asking a bit much.

The GOP's nasty dishonest robo-call barrage (Daily Kos)

.:

there is not a single kind of outcome for the midterm elections that would surprise me at this point. all i know is, i'm still waiting for the first credible story of Democrats engaging in some kind of egregious voter fraud, harrassment, intimidation or whathaveyou. (edit: maybe this?)

but seeing Gore and Kerry standing around in Florida and Ohio in the aftermath of 2000 and 2004 while the GOP runs tactical circles around them is kind of pathetic. no points for the moral high ground here... maybe they need their own Rove.

.:

plus, er, everyone's heard that Saddam's been sentenced to death? and that announcement was made... *checks watch*... what, three days before our elections.

so this trial is held and verdict issued under the authority of a very illegitimate governing body thrown together with jurists handpicked by the US. (let's keep in mind that if they wanted to do it right, they could have tried him in The Hague for violations of international law... remember Slobodan Milosevic? but then again, they invaded Iraq illegally in the first place, so maybe it would have just been awkward at that point)

but would it have been a huge deal to wait until November 8th to announce Saddam's verdict? to at least make it APPEAR somewhat less ridiculous?

.:

Bush finally acknowledges that, OK, maybe it does have something to do with the oil. yes, I did enjoy Syriana, thanks for asking.

.:

insomnia's really not so bad. need to buy some melatonin today though.

The Globe is publishing a four-part piece called Exporting Faith.

Part 1 was yesterday, Bush brings faith to foreign aid.

For decades, US policy has sought to avoid intermingling government programs and religious proselytizing. The aim is both to abide by the Constitution's prohibition against a state religion and to ensure that aid recipients don't forgo assistance because they don't share the religion of the provider.

But many of those restrictions were removed by Bush in a little-noticed series of executive orders -- a policy change that cleared the way for religious groups to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in additional government funding. It also helped change the message American aid workers bring to many corners of the world, from emphasizing religious neutrality to touting the healing powers of the Christian God.

Your tax dollars are being spent to convert people to Christianity overseas, simple as that.

...in implementing the president's orders, the administration rejected efforts to require groups to inform beneficiaries that they don't have to attend religious services to get the help they need. Instead of a requirement, groups are merely encouraged to make clear to recipients that they don't have to participate in religious activities.

Bush made some of the changes by executive order only after failing to get Congress to approve them; the bill faltered in the Senate, where moderate Republicans joined Democrats in raising concerns about breaking down the barrier between government and religion.

``I got a little frustrated in Washington because I couldn't get the bill passed," Bush told a meeting of faith-based groups in March 2004. ``Congress wouldn't act, so I signed an executive order -- that means I did it on my own."

The legality of Bush's moves is being challenged by a group advocating separation of church and state. The lawsuit, claiming both that Bush overstepped his powers and that the orders violate the Constitution, is inching its way through the federal courts.

.:

Hate that new Chevrolet Silverado ad? So does slate's Ad Report Card.

I realize the notion being pushed here is that we'll face these hardships together and—aided, perhaps, by the hauling and towing capacity of a 2007 Chevy Silverado—overcome them.

truly fascinating SPIEGEL interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. he's a nut and a Holocaust denier. but the fact that even he seems to make sense some of the time shows you what a genuine mess history has wrought in the Middle East during the last several decades. it's not like logic has ever been a key factor in the affairs of nations, but even logic seems to fail in the face of all these ideological loose ends that can never be tied up properly.

and it just underscores exactly how foolish it has been (and will be) for the US to use Iraq as their personal plaything.

i've read about times where the American people were happy that their president was a policymaker and a leader. i'm finding it hard to imagine someone new coming in and inspiring that optimism again. the next president's term will happen with the economic repercussions and probably outright terrorist attacks that Bush's legacy will bring. with the horrifically short attention span of the American people, its not hard to imagine the next step... with more terrorism on our minds and a significant economic downturn, electing another Bush (warmonger, 'fuzzy math' coot) will seem like a great idea not too much further down the road.

[/chickenlittle]

.:

It's time to stop killing meat and start growing it. (slate)

You munch a strip of bacon then pet your dog. You wince at the sight of a crippled horse but continue chewing your burger. Three weeks ago, I took my kids to a sheep and wool festival. They petted lambs; I nibbled a lamb sausage. That's the thing about humans: We're half-evolved beasts. We love animals, but we love meat, too. We don't want to have to choose. And maybe we don't have to. Maybe, thanks to biotechnology, we can now grow meat instead of butchering it.

With all the problems facing humanity—war, terrorism, poverty, tyranny—you probably don't worry much about whether it's right or wrong to eat meat. That's understandable. Every society lives with two kinds of moral problems: the ones it's ready to face, and the ones that will become clear or compelling only in retrospect. Human sacrifice, slavery, the subjugation of women—every tradition seems normal and indispensable until we're ready, morally and economically, to move beyond it.

Can you imagine how battered a president Kerry would have been by now? He'd be stuck with Bush's Iraq mess; he'd be constantly told he's Neville Chamberlain on Iran for doing exactly what Bush has been doing; he'd be ruthlessly attacked by the Hannity right over Teresa, immigration, gays, and any other cultural issue they could exploit. And the GOP would have escaped the responsibility for their fiscal insanity, while Kerry took lumps for raising taxes. As a matter of principle, I do not regret endorsing Kerry. My decision was based on the manifest incompetence and unconservatism of Bush. But in the sweep of history, it is fitting that Bush, for the first time in his entire life, actually face the consequences of his own recklessness. It is also important for conservatives to see up-front what abandoning limited government and embracing fundamentalism leads to: the collapse of a coherent conservatism. There was a silver lining in Bush's re-election: the unsentimental education of conservative triumphalists.

- andrew sullivan's daily dish

i just found out that Donald Rumsfeld has uncomfortably close ties to one of my true loves... the artificial sweetener commercially known as Nutrasweet. bane of forgotten, twitching lab animals everywhere.

where there was once a war raging over the historically aspartame-occupied regions of my heart, this realization has suddenly rendered that eternal question, Coke Zero or diet Coke, completely and utterly moot. i tell you today that nothing but Coke Zero and similarly conceived Splendariffic goodness shall henceforth pass betwixt the threshold of my apartment doorjambs, let alone be permitted to moisten my very lips.

great scott... where did this come from?

Bush: Arab Co. Port Deal Should Proceed

yeah, this was the only principled stand he could take, and not to mention explain with any credibility... but it's not like that has stopped him before. good form, dubya.

.:

for the record, i don't really care if dick cheney accidentally shot a guy in the face and we didn't find out for three days. why do you?

here's a good Wikipedia link if you're not really sure what the Mohammed cartoon thing is all about.

it's strange to see who is taking which side, and in particular how the New York Times and AP both have refused to print or distribute (respectively) these undeniably newsworthy cartoons. we've seen the Times print photos and articles that have been blatantly sacrilegious before (as well they should have), and the AP has always left the "appropriate or not" part up to their clients, simply providing content as opposed to taking an active censorship or editorial role.

and now the response to these cartoons by much of the Muslim world (i.e. death threats, riots) is providing plenty of fuel to the pervading anti-Islam sentiment in this country. this is a sentiment that will grow stronger with time, especially if Americans are consistently shielded from images of planes full of flag-draped coffins returning from the Gulf. back when the invasion of Iraq first happened, if you turned on the network news, what did you see? embedded reporters enthusiastically showing viewers the technology behind our armaments, and the resulting fireworks lighting up the skies.

why encourage a wartime shift to initiating a dialogue if there are no apparent human consequences to waging war, and the only effect of any of this is an increasing culture of fear at home? unfortunately most people don't realize that the government we took down in Iraq was fervently secular. and this misunderstanding quickly merged into the simple good vs. bad equation once the terrorists moved in.

our aggression in Iraq didnt even have to have a religious angle to get anyone pissed off at the United States. and now Islamic radicals are quickly turning the current situation into one that will provoke even moderate Muslims. and the further that the vicious circle continues, more and more Westerners will find it themselves equating Islam with terrorism. that, in particular, is a trend that needs to be reversed before any progress will be made.

a woman was on NPR yesterday, an Arab Voices Speak contributor... in recalling her impressions of the beginning of the current war in Iraq, she provided a troublingly succinct assessment of why patriotic American and patriotic Arab minds are finding it impossible to bridge the gap.

"On CNN they show the missiles being launched. On Al-Jazeera they show the missiles landing."

i don't know where things go from here. an 'exit strategy' is completely besides the point right now.

.:

Reza Aslan, author of the brilliant No god but God, writes in Slate:

...the sad irony is that the Muslims who have resorted to violence in response to this offense are merely reaffirming the stereotypes advanced by the cartoons. Likewise, the Europeans who point to the Muslim reaction as proof that, in the words of the popular Dutch blogger Mike Tidmus, "Islam probably has no place in Europe," have reaffirmed the stereotype of Europeans as aggressively anti-Islamic. It is this common attitude among Europeans that has led to the marginalization of Muslim communities there, which in turn has fed the isolationism and destructive behavior of European Muslims, which has then reinforced European prejudices against Islam. It is a Gordian knot that has become almost impossible to untangle.

And that is why as a Muslim American I am enraged by the publication of these cartoons. Not because they offend my prophet or my religion, but because they fly in the face of the tireless efforts of so many civic and religious leaders—both Muslim and non-Muslim—to promote unity and assimilation rather than hatred and discord; because they play into the hands of those who preach extremism; because they are fodder for the clash-of-civilizations mentality that pits East against West. For all of that I blame Jyllands-Posten. We in the West want Muslim leaders to condemn the racial and religious prejudices that are so widespread in the Muslim world. Let us lead by example.

should be able to get to tonight's speech from the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/video

the transcript is here, but i recommend watching it (if you can avoid punching your computer monitor)

i'm still quite skeptical about his true motives, his intelligence, whether he's even the de facto President, but he delivered a brilliant speech tonight.

it was written to be powerfully straightforward, and i hope people are able to keep in mind what's essentially being said: i am a 2nd term president, i'm willing to take responsibility and give you an 'explanation' for this war now that i am being held accountable to no one. and even now i'm only going to read this to you in prime time. i will not be taking questions.

September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.

each passing day makes it more and more easy for this administration to simply equate Iraq to global terrorism. the line between cause and effect here has become hopelessly blurred. no one acknowledges the 9/11 commission findings, no one talks about the mastermind behind the attack that became Dubya's blank check for preemptive war. why not?

the media and the American public have moved on to questions about what happens now. not "where's Osama", not "why did we go to Iraq", not "why did they say Saddam had nukes", but now, "how do we win the war in Iraq?" it's freaking brilliant. these questions will never be properly asked because iraq has now magically become the principal stage for the G.W.O.T. as Bush claimed it was in the first place. the details of the actual timeline are really not worth talking about at this point. it's amazing to me, it really is.

our troops will either be withdrawn too early, in which case Iraq collapses on itself... or they will stay and, as the months and years pass, steadily help to obscure the story of how it all started. it's already been rendered irrelevant.

i am not a skeptical person. i did not listen to this speech assuming the president was going to be disingenuous. in fact, i don't think he is at all. this is just his report on what is now happening according to the new reality. remember:

"We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

CNN lists sixteen parts of the Patriot Act that will expire if not renewed by Congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/patriot.provisions.ap/index.html

some fun stuff:

Section 212: Permits Internet service providers and other electronic communication and remote computing service providers to hand over records and e-mails to federal officials in emergency situations.

Section 225: Amends [Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act] to prohibit lawsuits against people or companies that provide information to federal officials for a terrorism investigation.

.:

watched The American President a little while ago. got a little choked up. i did.

i really hate how every time i see a portrayal of a POTUS in film or tv, or even archive footage of a former president, the prevailing thought is "too bad the real president would never pull that off." honestly now, i'd take Bill Pullman at this point.

.:

can we all stop misusing the word "DEMOCRATIC"? something that is "DEMOCRATIC" or a "DEMOCRACY" is not necessarily RIGHT, or FAIR, or FREE. for instance, the fact that capital punishment is legal in this country is a prime example of DEMOCRACY at work. most of your fellow citizens approve of government-sanctioned killing. keep in mind that if we lived in a state that was literally "DEMOCRATIC" a lot of us would be extremely unhappy.

thanks for your time.

The Republican counterargument will be fourfold: A) He is not very conservative; B) no one knows how conservative he is, and no one is going to find out, because discussing his views in any detail would involve "prejudging" future issues before the court; C) it doesn't matter whether he is conservative—even raising the question "politicizes" what ought to be a nonpartisan search for judicial excellence; and D) sure he's conservative. Very conservative. Who won the election?

- Michael Kinsley, Slate

The White House is suing The Onion for using the presidential seal on its website.

Citing the United States Code, [associate counsel to the President] Dixton wrote that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement." Exceptions may be made, he noted, but The Onion had never applied for such an exception.

The Onion was amused. "I'm surprised the president deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion," Scott Dikkers, editor in chief, wrote to Mr. Dixton. He suggested the money be used instead for tax breaks for satirists.

More formally, The Onion's lawyers responded that the paper's readers - it prints about 500,000 copies weekly, and three million people read it online - are well aware that The Onion is a joke.

"It is inconceivable that anyone would think that, by using the seal, The Onion intends to 'convey... sponsorship or approval' by the president," wrote Rochelle H. Klaskin, the paper's lawyer, who went on to note that a headline in the current issue made the point: "Bush to Appoint Someone to Be in Charge of Country." (link)

.:

Miers-o-Meter (slate.com)

doesn't 75% seem a little high?

"[Harriet Miers] once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met."

-David Frum, National Review Online (link)

December 1st, 2001
by Eric Berger (Houston Chronicle)

New Orleans is sinking.

And its main buffer from a hurricane, the protective Mississippi River delta, is quickly eroding away, leaving the historic city perilously close to disaster.

So vulnerable, in fact, that earlier this year the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters facing this country.

The other two? A massive earthquake in San Francisco, and, almost prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York City.

The New Orleans hurricane scenario may be the deadliest of all. In the face of an approaching storm, scientists say, the city's less-than-adequate evacuation routes would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of 10 left behind as the city drowned under 20 feet of water. Thousands of refugees could land in Houston.

Economically, the toll would be shattering. Southern Louisiana produces one-third of the country's seafood, one-fifth of its oil and one-quarter of its natural gas. The city's tourism, lifeblood of the French Quarter, would cease to exist. The Big Easy might never recover.

( continued )

this kind of negligence is nothing less than criminal. and it's frightening how little control people have over the priorities of their own country. i will go out on a limb and say that our absolute redneckiest red state confederate flag toting yokels would do a double-take if they truly understood how much money was being pissed away while the government buys toys it will never need or use (not that Democratic administrations are much better). naturally things like engineering solutions to prevent natural calamities are ready to get cut because our budgets are suddenly at the breaking point.

sure, now we are setting aside billions we don't have now that it's too late. Congress is holding an emergency session to approve $10.5 billion in emergency aid for the victims of Hurrican Katrina. it should be noted that they also annually approve a similar amount to continue our "star wars" missile defense program, which doesn't work and isn't useful against any real threats.

some estimates say that almost 50% of weapons funding ($70 billion+) have nothing to do with the 'war on terrorism'. but we'll probably be prepared for the second Cold War. and it's near impossible to tell where much of the remaining $400 billion in defense spending goes every year. something tells me it's not jack bauer.

to the uninformed, it would seem we've been chronically unprepared for what's happening in Iraq, and now we're unable to enforce security at home. shall we throw more money at the problem?

Derrick Z. Jackson contrasts the unimaginable wealth of the nations' oil companies against the pittance that they are contributing to the relief efforts. the ridiculousness is compounded when you consider that this tragedy will only enhance their profitability (and that had been increasing to record levels as it was).

Chevron has pledged $5 million to relief efforts. ExxonMobil and Shell have pledged $2 million apiece. British Petroleum and Citgo have pledged $1 million each.

This is nothing next to their wealth. Of the world's seven most profitable corporations, four are ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Chevron. ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable company, making $25.3 billion last year. It and the other three corporations had combined profits last year of $72.8 billion. ExxonMobil is also the world's most valuable company, with a market value, according to Forbes magazine, of $405 billion. The combined market value of ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Chevron is nearly $1 trillion.

"We're going to be looking at retailers whose prices may be way out of line."
-Mitt Romney on possible price gouging


"Don't buy gas if you don't need it."
-George W. Bush

:.

I keep hearing that it's coming. This is coming. That is coming. My answer to that is B.S... Where is the beef?

God is looking down on all this and if they are not doing everything in their power to save people they are going to pay the price.

-New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin

i'm not trying to make light of the situation, but i thought it was noteworthy that this guy managed to revive the greatest catchphrase of the 1980's and pull a reverse-Falwell in one breath.