January 29, 2004
Pants on Fire
In regards to the imminent threat Bush put forward as his reason for going to war with Iraq, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said on Tuesday that "...some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.' Those were not words we used." Kos has a nice entry from a report by the Center for American Progress that debunks this so thoroughly that you won't even finish reading it.
Posted on 08:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Those Arts-Loving Republicans
Laura Bush announced today that her husband would seek an $18 million dollar increase for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)--so that it could teach Americans about "three centuries of artistic genius." Its a nice gesture, but it was Bush's friends that slashed the NEA's funding by 40% in 1996, from $170 to $99 million (from which it has never recovered). And its not exactly what this country's artists are dying for--a chance to educate Americans about old art. In fact, this money won't go to artists at all. God forbid we give money to the NEA that's actually intended for artists, or to make art.
I can't seem to locate any studies on per-capita arts spending across the world from data any later than 1995 (hmm, I guess funding for those got cut too). But in 1995, it went like this (rough numbers):
USA: $6
Ireland: $9
Australia: $25
UK: $26
Canada: $46
Netherlands: $46
France: $57
Sweden: $57
Germany: $85
Finland: $91
Now by 2003, US federal spending on the arts had fallen to $0.40 per capita. Yes, that's 40 cents. And that's not adjusted for inflation against the $6/person number from 1995. Does anyone notice a pattern in those numbers above? It would seem that the more you spend on the arts, the less likely you are blow your money on bombs and drop them on countries that haven't attacked you and have no ability to do so in the future.
So maybe that's why Bush has decided to up the budget for the NEA--he's hoping it will help pull us out of Iraq. No, this decision has two other motivations, and here they are. First, if one was going to give more money to the NEA, then there's no way its going to actually fund art production. Thus the decision to put it towards talking about old conservative art that isn't so challenging. Second, he's not going to actually fund anything anyway. You have to remember that Bush does this at least once/week, sometimes more--he tosses out a new spending initiative as a trial balloon to see what people think (i.e. men to Mars, 'No Child Left Behind', new firefighters, etc.). If they like it, he gets some goodwill. If they don't, no biggie because he'll throw another one out next week and they might like that one more. But those that did like it generally won't follow it long enough to see that he never actually finds the money to fund the program.
You see, the NEA 'announcement' was just a little tiny blip in a large budget picture today. The administration announced that oops, we made a little mistake on that medicare giveway (uh, I mean 'bill'), and we were off by oh, 30%. That 30% comes out to $140 billion dollars, sending the already record deficit soaring over $500 billion this year.
You'll forgive me if I don't get excited about Bush's newfound interest in the arts.
Posted on 08:12 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 28, 2004
Bush's Blind Hope
Bush fought tough against the formation of the bi-partisan 9/11 commission, but in the end, he would have looked so bad to not allow it that he let it through. However, he saddled it with an unreasonable deadline, designed to finish with enough time to spin the results before the election. Throughout these past months, he's refused to turn over documents requested by the commission. Condoleeza Rice refuses to testify, and the panel is still trying to get Bush and Cheney on the stand.
Bush obviously expects a negative result from this commission, despite his stonewalling them on documents and testimony. So when they came asking for a couple more months yesterday the White House said it was Congress' decision. Oh surprise, the Speaker says there's no way they'll extend the deadline.
Bush never wanted the commission.
He's done everything he can to block it.
He refuses to help it.
He won't let anyone else help it.
Now he complains they can't finish the job on time.
Can we say 'guilty before being proven guilty'? When are the American people going to wake up and realize what's going on here? Why doesn't this President want a full investigation into this country's worst attack in modern history? I've got news for Bush--if the commission finds that the White House could have done more to prevent the attacks, it won't matter *when* it comes out.
Posted on 10:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 27, 2004
Bush the Stupid or Bush the Stupid Liar?
Bush got his first chance to respond to David Kay's remarks that Iraq didn't have WMD before the war. The whole thing was pretty unbelievable, but the wildest was his repeated assertion that Saddam wouldn't let the weapons inspectors into Iraq. "And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."
Whoa, did you see that? "...he did not let us in." Hello George! Don't you recall ordering Hans Blix and his *weapons inspection team* out of Iraq so that you could deliver your 'shock and awe'? This is the second time Bush has made this assertion--the last was in a joint conference with Kofi Annan (who looked dumbfounded at the statement). So I ask: is Bush stupid (he forgot that we did have weapons inspectors in Iraq for months, reporting on their progress at the U.N., etc.), or is he a stupid liar (he knows there were inspectors, but figures, like everything else, that if he repeats the lie enough people won't call him on it)? I suspect the former.
Earlier in the interview, he also said this about whether he was ill-served by the prewar intelligence (you know, the people who supposedly told him that Iraq was about to blowup the planet): "...I've got great confidence in our intelligence community." Again, is he stupid (he thinks the bearer of incorrect information that leads to war with a non-threatening country deserves his confidence), or is he a stupid liar (he has confidence because they told him Iraq wasn't a threat and he blew them off anyway and lied to everyone else)? On this one, I suspect the latter.
Joe Conason also did a double-take on the first quote and analyzes much of the remarks here. The NY Times critiques the remarks, but blows it on both issues.
Posted on 11:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
New Hampshire Wrap
Well, I got the order almost right, was correct on how close Edwards and Clark were, and thought Dean would get more. Ah well. While watching Kerry's speech tonight, I felt like he has a new polish and a broader message. It almost seemed as if he's started to co-opt the other democrat's themes--that we're in a two-class system of rich and the rest (Edwards); to stand with us in fighting the drug companies and the polluters and creating a country with health care for all (Dean). I'd still like to see the genuine article(s) get a shot at this nomination. Don't put all your eggs in a Kerry basket yet.
Kerry will now get the full brunt of the right-biased media. They already started tonight on Fox, talking about how he'll be slammed on his anti-national security votes, his anti-this, anti-that. Trying to scare people on his voting record. Watch and see what kind of coverage he gets.
Edwards is still on the rise, and could continue that trend. Next Tuesday will be interesting, with 7 states in play, and no clear multi-state winner (as of now). Clark pulled a 3rd, but I'm not sure that helps him much. Others see it as a near-fatal blow.
Posted on 11:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 26, 2004
Investigate Thyself, Ashcroft's Evils, and Cheney Finally Makes Sense
With David Kay's remarks getting more play than they would like, the White House now says it will take 'another look' at prewar intelligence that led them to believe that Iraq had WMD before the war--even thout they don't think they'll find anything.
Bush officials are still actively striving to redefine the term "WMD." Ashcroft said today that WMDs include "...evil chemistry and evil biology..." Creepy.
Cheney said today: "...the world's democracies must send an unmistakable message that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction only invites isolation and carries with it great costs." I couldn't agree more. We're a world democracy pursuing non-existent WMD's in Iraq; we have only invited (and received) isolation; and we have incurred great costs--both financial and human. They're letting Dick out of the tunnels more in recent days. I say bring him on.
Posted on 10:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush the Record Setter
The CBO predicted today that the federal budget deficit will reach a record $477 billion this year, with debts over the next decade to reach $1.9 trillion (and that's without including an extension of the Bush tax cuts). Hmm, didn't Bush say just last week that he'd cut the deficit in half over the next five years? Well, that was in the State of the Union, and he doesn't worry too much about accuracy in that small speech.
Posted on 10:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
New Hampshire Predictions
After correctly predicting the winning order in Iowa, I feel a bit of pressure to not only accurately predict New Hampshire, but to also do it with a list that isn't quite supported by the polls.
The conventional wisdom and most polls would put the order this way: Kerry, Dean, Clark or Edwards, and who cares after that. However, my contention all week has been that Dean's yell was way overplayed by the media, and I think the people in New Hampshire are starting to figure that out. Dean has been rising for the last many days (ever since his ABC Primetime interview, in fact), and is only 3 points behind Kerry in Zogby's latest, although nobody else agrees with these numbers. Edwards has been up all week. Clark hasn't really moved much, and Kerry has sat high, and maybe fallen a bit.
Dean's new stump is better than the old one. Its a bit more relaxed, more like he was earlier in the campaign (Kos agrees). He's a governor--a Washington outsider. Kerry has the lead and the momentum. It could go either way, but I call it like this: Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark. My caveats are that Dean will be within 3 points of Kerry, and Edwards will surge past Clark and come within 8 points of Dean.
Posted on 10:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Goodbye Cow Brain Lipstick
Only many years behind the rest of the industrialized world, the FDA announced today that it was banning the use of cattle blood in place of cow's milk for calves, the use of cattle blood and chicken crap for cow feed, and the use of cow brains and other various parts in cosmetics and dietary supplements. I'm sorry all you cow brain makeup lovers...you'll now have to find some other animal's grey matter to cover up those unsightly blemishes.
Don't worry though. The chickens and pigs don't lose out, as they still get to eat all the cow remains they ever wanted (or didn't want). And the cows don't lose out either, because they get to eat the chickens and the pigs. Wait a second! Isn't that basically feeding cows to cows? HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson called the rules "a giant step forward."
Posted on 10:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 25, 2004
The Power of the Blog
Minnesota Public Radio is running a live call-in show tonight (9-11pm EST) on the effects of internet blogs (such as this one) on the 2004 presidential race. Guests will include some major blogger voices, including Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall. WILL-AM (Urbana,IL) is amongst the stations hosting the show, including a live feed.
Posted on 01:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Media Distortion Example
For those of you who saw Dean's Iowa concession speech on TV or heard it on the radio, you were likely given a picture of a crazy man, screaming his head off. In an excellent illustration of just how easily the media's portrayal of an event like this can vary from the reality of the situation, an amateur camcorder movie has been posted on the web. This 2 minute excerpt shows Dean from the perspective of the crowd, and it is quite a different experience than what I describe above. The difference stems from two things: the audio on the camcorder footage encompasses both crowd noise and Dean; and the camera also shows both groups. The major media outlets instead have been showing footage of Dean up close, with audio drawn primarily from his microphone. Watch the clip and make your own conclusions.
Posted on 02:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 24, 2004
Fiction Shoots Into Reality
Congress passed a whopping $328 billion spending bill this week, despite democratic party efforts to block it. While this bill contains countless pork projects, overtime cuts, school voucher programs, and gifts for the corporate media, the tiny little measure I'd like to concentrate on was a present for none other than the NRA.
Currently, when one goes to buy a gun at a licensed gun dealer (not a gun show or private sale), the dealer is lawfully required to run a background check. These records are stored for 90 days and then destroyed. Why are they disposed of at all?--in order to limit the ability to track guns used in crimes. Now, you might think 90 days is pretty short, but the NRA thinks it's way too long. Buried in this spending bill was a little measure that changes this limit to *24 hours*. You see, the chances that a crime gun could be traced within 24 hours of its purchase is practically nil, and thats just how the NRA wants it. It allows them to perpetuate their myth that criminals don't buy guns, they steal them--so there is no reason to further limit gun purchasing because it will have no effect on crime.
Whats eerie, though, is the degree to which these actions are played out and even predicted in a novel I recently read, called Balance of Power, by Richard North Patterson. The book centers around a fictitious president, congress, NRA, and others in an informed novel about gun rights and the powers of special interest in the halls of Washington. In the book, there is a balance in Washington, with a republican congress and a democratic president. The single-party power we have in real life, however, allows the NRA even more control than they have in the book, and this new measure is the evidence. I highly recommend this book as a gripping political suspense story backed up by extensive research into the issues of gun rights and lobbyist control of the US government.
Posted on 03:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More Anecdotal Pro-Edwards Evidence
While listening to Morning Edition this morning on NPR, I heard a short report from the Conservative Political Action Conference in Virginia. Amongst the threads in this segment was a series of conservative opinions about who they think best stands against Bush from the Dems. Who are they most afraid of? Not Kerry, Clark or Dean...its Edwards. They cite his ability to be seen as a "common man"; that he's "from the south"; that he "shares Bush's values"; and that he would "take republican votes."
This correlates well with a long segment of one of CSPAN's call-in shows last weekend between campaign rallies in Iowa. Many republican callers shared their dissatisfaction with Bush on several issues (usually fiscal). The one democrat that most interested them? Edwards.
Watch Edwards the next chance you get. He is *good* with an audience. He knows how to speak and explain himself. Winning trial after trial requires considerable ability to formulate a cohesive argument. Sure, Edwards has his policy problems just like very other democrat in the race. But the one I'm most interested in is the one best able to compete in November. Kerry-Edwards could be a winning ticket, but I wonder about Edwards-Clark. You heard it here first.
Posted on 12:52 AM | Comments (0)
Still no WMD, Except for Cheney's Brain
David Kay, lead weapons inspector in Iraq since the war "ended", stated today that Iraq had no WMD at the start of the war. Of several mainstream news sources, only the NY Times and LA Times ran it on their front (web) page tonight. Not CNN, the Washington Post, USA Today, or MSNBC thought this statement worthy of frontpage coverage. Yahoo saw fit to mention Blair's defiance of Kay's statement.
Needless to say, Kay is leaving his post, and the CIA has appointed someone that Bushco hopes might not make such statements. Scott McClellan, Bushco's spokesman said "Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found." Bush may be dissapointed, however, as George Tenet (CIA director) appointed Charles Duelfer, someone who has already said he thinks the chances of finding any WMD in Iraq are "nil." Hmm, could Tenet's pick be payback for the White House outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame?
But really, folks, we should take our lead from America's #2 guy, Dick Cheney. Cheney not only still believes that Osama and Saddam were best buddies, but he stated yesterday on NPR that a couple semi-trailers they found last May constituted "conclusive evidence ... [of] programs for weapons of mass destruction."
You might recall the initial finding of these trailers, which was plastered all over the front pages of every site as the elusive WMD smoking gun. These claims were quickly debunked, however, and have been so repeatedly ever since. They turn out to have more likely been weather stations of some sort. Kay called the initial release of this bogus information "premature and embarrassing", and a "fiasco."
The White House had no comment on Cheney's remarks. Its amazing how Cheney can continue to make these undeniably false claims over and over, yet it does not become headline news everywhere. Don't you think "Vice President Repeatedly Deceives Public on WMD and Iraq link to 9/11" would make a nice headline?
Posted on 12:19 AM | Comments (0)
January 22, 2004
Vote Eating Machines
Paul Krugman has a characteristically relevant column in the NY Times today about the problems with voting machine technology. If you haven't followed this story (its appeared all over, including in Salon and on Slashdot) , then you're probably not aware of the depths to which Bush may be able to also steal the '04 election. Diebold, manufacturer of tons of these things, is run by a man in Ohio who is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." (Oh, he also happens to be a major Bush fundraiser.) The machines, which are filled with security holes, and which Diebold refuses to let anyone analyze the code for, have absolutely no paper trail or any other method of vote history verification. Coming to a poll near you...
Posted on 11:19 PM | Comments (0)
Dean's Yells, Where's Judy?, Go Edwards, and Duh!
First-off, lets talk about Dean's now-infamous yell in his Iowa concession speech (if you didn't catch this, Dean concluded his speech after the Iowa caucus with a rapid, rumbling, and excited yell). The media is all over this--how its ruined him in the polls , how people think he's crazy, etc (read Howard Kurtz' media roundup for more info). C'mon. The guy was excited, tired, and trying to rally his tired troops with a lively speech. I'd suggest critiquing his positions on the issues instead of his guttural noises.
Second, have you caught any of this blathering questioning Dean's fitness for the presidency because his wife isn't around enough? Article after article appeared before and after Iowa about Judith Steinberg Dean--who is she, why doesn't she wear makeup?, where's her jewelry?, why doesn't she campaign 24/7 with Howard?, how can she be that busy?, what does it all mean?, etc, etc. The woman is a doctor with a high school teenager at home. Whats she supposed to do? Spouses can have different interests and responsibilties, and its refreshing to see a man seeking the white house that is comfortable enough with equality that he doesn't need his wife cheerleading behind him like a prop.
There are definitely some truths to Dean's claims of media bias over the last few weeks. Howard and Judith talked on ABC Primetime Thursday after the debate tonight to try and smooth out some of these issues. I caught a bit of this, and Judy Dean comes across as a regular, intelligent woman that supports her spouse, and has her own life. When asked what she would do with all the media scrutiny of her hair and clothes that would occur in the white house, she said it just really wasn't that important, and that Howard's actions would overshadow her unfancy hair. Let's hope her high expectations of the media are accurate. I'm not so sure.
---
I correctly predicted John Edwards' 2nd place Iowa finish last week, and I like him more every time I see him speak.
First, he gave some very clear answers on the gun issue. He wants to extend the Brady assault weapons ban when it expires next year, close the gunshow loophole, and wants to require trigger locks. He clearly stated his support of the 2nd ammendment, but wants to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals. Frankly, it was refreshing for a candidate to come out so clear on a divisive issue (more on this later due to congress passing new NRA-backed gun laws today).
Second, is that he's clearly the most telegenic of the democratic candidates. I don't care much about looks, but being afraid everyone else does care, I pay attention to this.
Kerry, on the other hand, isn't that great on TV, but did fine overall. No big plus or minus for him in tonight's performance.
Dean was a bit apologetic and calm, did a good job, and I'd predict a boost in the polls for him.
---
Finally, why don't Dean and Kucinich realize the obvious best response to anyone who questions their postitions against the Iraq war resolution? What they have to remind everyone of is that all the US needed to do was wait a few more *weeks* before the 'shock and awe.' France, Germany, the U.N. and others only wanted a bit more time to continue the ongoing weapons inspections. At that point nothing had been found and all signs led them to believe there was nothing to find. Had Bush waited, he either would have had a broad, international, U.N.-led coalition in Iraq that shared the financial and death burdens of war, or we would have been satisfied that sanctions, etc., had been effective and war would have been avoided. In that case, we'd now have an additional 500 Americans, 10000 Iraqis, continued international support, and an extra 150+ billion dollars.
Posted on 09:44 PM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2004
State of the Union
I couldn't bring myself to watch Bush blather on TV this year, but I did read some excerpts, plenty of straight reporting, and plenty more commentary. While several people (i.e. Joe Conason) are talking about the so carefully worded sentence "...identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities", I was struck by how little was mentioned of any substance. Usually, the Bush team saves some whopper for the big speech so that the media has something to ooh and aah over. This time it was all little stuff that we all know will never actually happen.
Remember Bush's great plan to get us to the Moon in only twice as long as it took NASA to do it 40 years ago? No mention of that one.
Let's face it--the state of our union is trashed. Record deficit, stretched military, Osama running loose, hated around the world, the most divisive congress in recent memory, environmental problems galore, corporate scandals, backroom payoffs, etc, etc...
Posted on 05:56 PM | Comments (1)
CNN.com Plays Up Silly WMD Quote as Lead Story
For a while today, CNN.com's lead story was about a quote by a republican congressman named Porter Goss that suggests WMD may still be found. However, the way in which it was presented, with a headline that said "Congressman: Iraqi WMD details 'years away'", a photo from Iraq, and just the quote on the front page, just might lead one to believe that there was any actual reason to expect any WMD to be found in the next few years. A further reading of the article does at least pan out to reveal the facts that contradict this suggestion. Readers on this topic will note that a few weeks ago David Kay (lead of the WMD search team) told congress that there wasn't any sign of WMD's. A Washington Post interview with the top Iraqi weapons scientist uncovered their complex "WMD programs" (as Bush so carefully put it in the State of the Union last night)--in the form of scribbles on notepads of possible missiles they had no way to build. These scribbles looked more like kid drawings than scientific weapons plans. It seems well understood by all involved (including whomever chose to greatly reduce the searchteam size) that there never were any WMD and that Iraq had no capacity to change that.
Posted on 05:32 PM | Comments (0)