Not Frist, obviously. Not really Reid, either.
McCain. The big winner. The really big winner.
While extremist right wingers deplored the deal, just about everyone else loved it. Running a country as large as the United States isn't easy- partisanship has its place in policymaking, but when it comes to the business of governance itself, there is simply too much to lose to have allowed a house of Congress to close up shop while the President and his hatchet slip a roofie into the national Red Bull and vodka.
What people love about McCain- hell, what I love about McCain- is that he is beholden to noone. Politicking is about branding, same as in cars and colas. Bush was "Decisive Leadership," while Kerry was "Careful Reflection." McCain is "Principled Maverick;" doing the thing he thinks is right, no matter who else agrees or disagrees with him. This is not unlike the Karl Rove spin on the President (a decisive man of principles), except for the fact that the President is in more pockets than a Times Square hooker when the disability checks come out. McCain is nobody's pocket.
Of course, the bulk of Republican activsts feel like McCain stabbed them in the back, making it that much harder for him to win the Republican nomination in 2008. He certainly has more name recognition than any of his possible primary opponents- and far more than any possible Democrat except for John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hilary Clinton (in none of those cases is the name recognition a plus). McCain- a man whose love of country is unquestionable- has just won the Presidency in 2008, if he can get past the primaries against people with half the qualifications and a tenth the integrity.
The Republicans have to be careful. Control of all three branches of government is a recipe for backlash- which has already begun. The social conservatives do not mask their contempt for anyone whose worldview differs from their own. Their attempts to install a theocracy of (a particular brand of millenial apocolyptic) Christitanity are naked, unbridled efforts to expand and enlarge their power base- not to serve God. McCain, who is neither overtly religious nor particularly interested in the social consertive's pet issues (abortion, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo), will not have that wing of the party's support. Between 25 and 45 percent of the primary voters- out of play.
Slightly off topic- a three way race in 2008. Frist vs. Hillary vs. McCain.... hmmmmmm. Social conservatives obviously back Frist and latte liberals get behind Hillary. The middle gets in back of McCain. A little electoral math and I could see a three way tossup. Hmmmmmmmm...
Of all Republicans, I do not fear McCain's leadership. I do not necessarily agree with him- recent comments he's made praising Bush on the the war made me wince- but I believe that he will make all his decisions with the best interests of the nation at heart, and after having listened to all the evidence (unlike the current President). An informed, cautious leader- one can only hope.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Filibuster, shmilibuster
As I write this, it looks as though the Gang of 12 has worked out a deal to avoid the nuclear option. This means that the President's judicial nominees to the Courts of Appeals across the country will get their "up or down" votes.
The Gang of 12, of course, are six moderates of each party, headed informall by John McCain (R-AZ). McCain- war hero, patriot, early 2008 front runner, and scourge of Bushies everywhere. Even though McCain has been hated by the right wing of his own party since 1999, he is loved by just about everyone else. Including me, for what it's worth. He is the biggest winner in this debacle.
The big losers in this are Frist, Reid, and Bush. They wanted a showdown, and couldn't get their own people in line. Both parties are run by the fringes now- the middle just took back some ground.
The Gang of 12, of course, are six moderates of each party, headed informall by John McCain (R-AZ). McCain- war hero, patriot, early 2008 front runner, and scourge of Bushies everywhere. Even though McCain has been hated by the right wing of his own party since 1999, he is loved by just about everyone else. Including me, for what it's worth. He is the biggest winner in this debacle.
The big losers in this are Frist, Reid, and Bush. They wanted a showdown, and couldn't get their own people in line. Both parties are run by the fringes now- the middle just took back some ground.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
On Relativism
The scourge of relativism has been much in the news of late. I was thinking about it today because of an online discussion elsewhere. It would seem that every right-of-center person with an opinion and a microphone awaits the day that relativism leads us down the road to perdition.
Relativism is simply the acknowledgement that different circumstances require different treatment. There is no absolute right or wrong, only murky uncertainties. Its opposite, absolutism, sees no uncertainty- regardless of circumstance, right is right and wrong is wrong.
This of course is nonsense.
Consider the two extreme hypotheticals of abortion politics- the rape victim and the woman who just doesn't feel like having a kid. An absolutist sees no difference between the two, while a relativist recognizes that there is a world of difference between the two. The circumstances are different, therefore they should not be judged by the same standard.
Absolutism has given us the likes of Eric Robert Rudolph and Fred Phelps, the Bolsheviks and al Qaeda. We really need to do away with it- absolutely.
Relativism is simply the acknowledgement that different circumstances require different treatment. There is no absolute right or wrong, only murky uncertainties. Its opposite, absolutism, sees no uncertainty- regardless of circumstance, right is right and wrong is wrong.
This of course is nonsense.
Consider the two extreme hypotheticals of abortion politics- the rape victim and the woman who just doesn't feel like having a kid. An absolutist sees no difference between the two, while a relativist recognizes that there is a world of difference between the two. The circumstances are different, therefore they should not be judged by the same standard.
Absolutism has given us the likes of Eric Robert Rudolph and Fred Phelps, the Bolsheviks and al Qaeda. We really need to do away with it- absolutely.
Monday, May 02, 2005
The Persistence of the Non-Story Story
In a news week dominated by the Runaway Bride, you would think that nothing of import happened. On the contrary, the world got a shitload scarier. North Korea launched a warhead-capable missile; Iraq got bloodier (again); DeLay remains dirty; and the President continues to push Social Security deform.
Yet, every network continues to run the puff pieces. Jennifer Wilbanks was found alive- huzzah. Why we ever cared at all escapes me, but why we continue to care is simply baffling. And we do care- according to CNN this past weekend, the Wilbanks story was the most read piece online. So naturally, they pushed it on the air. The 24 hour news cycle needs content like a junkie needs junk (thank you, William S. Burroughs). The viewers latch on to non-stories, like Terry Schiavo, the Pope, Jennifer Wilbanks, and now Laura Bush's stand-up routine.
The truth is that everything in this country depends on laziness. Politicians are lazy- "raise the flag and lower the taxes" is easier to sell than fixing the problems. The media are lazy- finding it easier to trump one family's embarrassment into a national circus. Viewers are lazy- the whale in the Delaware and the Michael Jackson trial are easier to follow than the intricacies of foreign relations, or the looming energy crisis.
Democracy depends on an informed electorate, and the role of informer-in-chief has traditionally fallen to the press. However, in an age when the world is absolutely awash in information, we are increasingly ill informed. I am beginning to think that it is by design.
Yet, every network continues to run the puff pieces. Jennifer Wilbanks was found alive- huzzah. Why we ever cared at all escapes me, but why we continue to care is simply baffling. And we do care- according to CNN this past weekend, the Wilbanks story was the most read piece online. So naturally, they pushed it on the air. The 24 hour news cycle needs content like a junkie needs junk (thank you, William S. Burroughs). The viewers latch on to non-stories, like Terry Schiavo, the Pope, Jennifer Wilbanks, and now Laura Bush's stand-up routine.
The truth is that everything in this country depends on laziness. Politicians are lazy- "raise the flag and lower the taxes" is easier to sell than fixing the problems. The media are lazy- finding it easier to trump one family's embarrassment into a national circus. Viewers are lazy- the whale in the Delaware and the Michael Jackson trial are easier to follow than the intricacies of foreign relations, or the looming energy crisis.
Democracy depends on an informed electorate, and the role of informer-in-chief has traditionally fallen to the press. However, in an age when the world is absolutely awash in information, we are increasingly ill informed. I am beginning to think that it is by design.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
DeLay v. Judicial Independence
I've got to hand it to ol' Tommy- when other politicians would try to fly under the radar until the feces comes away from the fan, he just keeps on keepin' on. His attack on the courts continues- now with an extraordinarily unusual attack on a single sitting Supreme Court Justice.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s work from the bench as “incredibly outrageous” because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.
I agree- it is outrageous that a Supreme Court Justice would do his own research. What really irks me about this comment is the arrogance about how international law has no place in American jurisprudence. That may be the case in Texas, but in the Constitution of these United States, international law is federal law. (See Article I, Section 8, "Congress shall have power to define and punish... Offences against the Law of Nations." See also Article VI, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." See also The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900) ("International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.")
Essentially, DeLay believes that any reference to anything other than the simple letter of the law is treasonous. He goes on to note that there are a “lot of Republican-appointed judges that are judicial activists.”
Like Mr. Justice Scalia, perhaps?
What? Scalia? The bulwark of "strict constructionism?" Surely he, of all judges, sets aside his personal opinions and decides cases on the plainest reading of the Constitution itself!
Not hardly, numbnuts. The Times today ran an editorial citing the times has Scalia has used his robe to undo and undermine the explicit instruction of Congress, voting to overturn the Gun Free School Zones Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Moreover, "strict constructionism" is a fallacy. The concept that the Constitution should be narrowly construed to limit its application to the "plain meaning" is a red herring. There are, indeed, times when the Constitution means precisely what it says- in a Federal civil trial, if you're suing for more than $20, you have the right to a jury.
Or do you? A strict constructionist would say, simply, twenty bucks is twenty bucks. However, there is a perfectly valid and rational argument that the Seventh Amendment means "twenty bucks in 1789 dollars," about five grand today.
Most of the questions are rarely that specific. What does the "equal prtection of the laws" mean? What constitutes due process? What is "liberty," as that term is meant by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? What is interstate commerce? These are terms that require explication, and to do that we have judges.
What it really boils down to is the tension between the branches of government that has been ongoing, more or less continuously, since the founding. What scares me about its current incarnation, is that DeLay has the people who could do something about it (i.e., Congress), in the palm of his corrupt, clammy hands. He has raised the possibility that Congress could obliterate all Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, an unrealistic possibility, but one that I think would in fact be constitutional.
Courts must be independent. Life tenure exists to shield the courts from the passions that inflame the political branches. Sometimes, judges must make unpopular decisions. Brown v. Board of Education was vehemently despised in the South- it still is in many parts. It was also the right decision. The thought that a judge should be impeached for applying the law is a terrifying thought- they had "judges" in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, too. None were particularly noted for their independence.
Then again, I think Tom "That Petulant Worm" DeLay has modeled his leadership style after those two nations.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s work from the bench as “incredibly outrageous” because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.
I agree- it is outrageous that a Supreme Court Justice would do his own research. What really irks me about this comment is the arrogance about how international law has no place in American jurisprudence. That may be the case in Texas, but in the Constitution of these United States, international law is federal law. (See Article I, Section 8, "Congress shall have power to define and punish... Offences against the Law of Nations." See also Article VI, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." See also The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900) ("International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.")
Essentially, DeLay believes that any reference to anything other than the simple letter of the law is treasonous. He goes on to note that there are a “lot of Republican-appointed judges that are judicial activists.”
Like Mr. Justice Scalia, perhaps?
What? Scalia? The bulwark of "strict constructionism?" Surely he, of all judges, sets aside his personal opinions and decides cases on the plainest reading of the Constitution itself!
Not hardly, numbnuts. The Times today ran an editorial citing the times has Scalia has used his robe to undo and undermine the explicit instruction of Congress, voting to overturn the Gun Free School Zones Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Moreover, "strict constructionism" is a fallacy. The concept that the Constitution should be narrowly construed to limit its application to the "plain meaning" is a red herring. There are, indeed, times when the Constitution means precisely what it says- in a Federal civil trial, if you're suing for more than $20, you have the right to a jury.
Or do you? A strict constructionist would say, simply, twenty bucks is twenty bucks. However, there is a perfectly valid and rational argument that the Seventh Amendment means "twenty bucks in 1789 dollars," about five grand today.
Most of the questions are rarely that specific. What does the "equal prtection of the laws" mean? What constitutes due process? What is "liberty," as that term is meant by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? What is interstate commerce? These are terms that require explication, and to do that we have judges.
What it really boils down to is the tension between the branches of government that has been ongoing, more or less continuously, since the founding. What scares me about its current incarnation, is that DeLay has the people who could do something about it (i.e., Congress), in the palm of his corrupt, clammy hands. He has raised the possibility that Congress could obliterate all Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, an unrealistic possibility, but one that I think would in fact be constitutional.
Courts must be independent. Life tenure exists to shield the courts from the passions that inflame the political branches. Sometimes, judges must make unpopular decisions. Brown v. Board of Education was vehemently despised in the South- it still is in many parts. It was also the right decision. The thought that a judge should be impeached for applying the law is a terrifying thought- they had "judges" in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, too. None were particularly noted for their independence.
Then again, I think Tom "That Petulant Worm" DeLay has modeled his leadership style after those two nations.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Tom DeLay, Part II
Tom DeLay, whom I have taken to calling "that petulant worm," sent an email to his constituents (read: the people who asked to receive email from him) that basically denied doing anything wrong. However, he didn't deny doing what has been alleged, just that it was wrong.
It's about time that the Democrats fought back. What's more, we need to use DeLay to our advantage next year, running attack ads depicting Republicans as little more than DeLay hatchet men- much like they did when Newt Gingrich was speaker. To the extent that people know about Tom DeLay, they generally loathe him.
With good reason, I'd say.
It's about time that the Democrats fought back. What's more, we need to use DeLay to our advantage next year, running attack ads depicting Republicans as little more than DeLay hatchet men- much like they did when Newt Gingrich was speaker. To the extent that people know about Tom DeLay, they generally loathe him.
With good reason, I'd say.
Monday, April 18, 2005
I think I'm back...
I've been enervated of late. I've been dealing with some things in my personal life, and the news has just been so depressing, I just didn't see the point of shouting in the darkness for the benefit of my few readers. While Terri Schiavo and the Pope led the news every night, while Michael Jackson collected broadcast minutes, while pharmacists decided to make policy from the cosmetics counter, while the Religious Right tries to abolish judicial independence (if not the courts themselves), this whole country just fell ever more slowly into disrepair. I couldn't fathom blogging about it. I could barely fathom reading about.
I'm better now, and I'm back on the saddle. You can thank Tom DeLay for that. This petulant worm with the weatherman hair has been ruling the House of Representatives like a petty feifdom. When he doesn't get his way, he pouts. Consider his remarks on the future of the judges who dared to called the Terri Schiavo False Hope Act for what it was- a unconstitutional encroachment on the power of the judiciary, a co-equal branch of government. DeLay threatened the courts with their comeuppance.
Yet the only comeuppance delivered thus far has been DeLay's. He has been exposed for what he is- merely corrupt, more interested in his own power than in the good of his country. Democrats need to keep the attack up and get this cancerous buffoon out of the Capitol.
I'm better now, and I'm back on the saddle. You can thank Tom DeLay for that. This petulant worm with the weatherman hair has been ruling the House of Representatives like a petty feifdom. When he doesn't get his way, he pouts. Consider his remarks on the future of the judges who dared to called the Terri Schiavo False Hope Act for what it was- a unconstitutional encroachment on the power of the judiciary, a co-equal branch of government. DeLay threatened the courts with their comeuppance.
Yet the only comeuppance delivered thus far has been DeLay's. He has been exposed for what he is- merely corrupt, more interested in his own power than in the good of his country. Democrats need to keep the attack up and get this cancerous buffoon out of the Capitol.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Everytime I post something lately, it seems to start with an apology for disappearing...
What can I say- I do have actual life responsibilities, and they have been unreal of late.
This Terri Schiavo thing infuriates me. I have nothing but sympathy for both sides- I cannot imagine how difficult this must have been for husband, and I also understand the parents' position. No one wants to bury their child. However, about 19 judges have heard this case- each one has consistently found that Terri's express wishes were not to be kept alive artificially. That really should have ended it.
Congress, however, saw an opportunity to appease the religious right, to energize the base. Cynically, the party that for years has fancied itself the party of small government and states' rights tried to take the matter out of the state's hands. These people cut short their vacations, worked into the wee hours on a weekend, and passed a bill that applies to exactly one person. The President, predictable as ever, signed it into law.
We are a nation in the midst of a war that is going badly. Our dollar is now about equal to the yen. Jobs are disappearing overseas. And Congress cuts short its break to intervene in the tragic yet completely personal dispute over someone who is the functional equivalent of a doorstop. The only part of her brain that works is the medulla oblongata, which regulates the involuntary functions- in her case, heartbeat and lungs. She is gone, and she's never coming back. Is this what the President means when he talks about the Culture of Life? She's alive, in the sense that plants are alive, but she is not living.
I absolutely understand why her parents do not want to let go. I also understand why her husband has to. Congress? That I do not understand.
This Terri Schiavo thing infuriates me. I have nothing but sympathy for both sides- I cannot imagine how difficult this must have been for husband, and I also understand the parents' position. No one wants to bury their child. However, about 19 judges have heard this case- each one has consistently found that Terri's express wishes were not to be kept alive artificially. That really should have ended it.
Congress, however, saw an opportunity to appease the religious right, to energize the base. Cynically, the party that for years has fancied itself the party of small government and states' rights tried to take the matter out of the state's hands. These people cut short their vacations, worked into the wee hours on a weekend, and passed a bill that applies to exactly one person. The President, predictable as ever, signed it into law.
We are a nation in the midst of a war that is going badly. Our dollar is now about equal to the yen. Jobs are disappearing overseas. And Congress cuts short its break to intervene in the tragic yet completely personal dispute over someone who is the functional equivalent of a doorstop. The only part of her brain that works is the medulla oblongata, which regulates the involuntary functions- in her case, heartbeat and lungs. She is gone, and she's never coming back. Is this what the President means when he talks about the Culture of Life? She's alive, in the sense that plants are alive, but she is not living.
I absolutely understand why her parents do not want to let go. I also understand why her husband has to. Congress? That I do not understand.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Back from vacation....
I was in New Orleans for the better part of a week, hence the radio silence. To be honest, I haven't much motivation of late. I've been busy in every aspect of my life and haven't had much time for blogging. Also, I've been thinking about shifting the focus of the blog away from day-to-day politics and more towards political philosophy and analysis, which was my initial goal anyway. As my acute anger at the President subsides, I don't feel the need to debunk everything he does- even if it is bunk. It's not easy to be in the reality-based community.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
A must read piece...
In the days following the election I wondered how we could lose. I mean, after all, we were right! We had the facts and the evidence on our side. Jonathan Chait explains in an excellent piece in The New Republic that being right doesn't really matter to conservatives- what matters is ideology.
Conservatives believe that big government impinges upon freedom. They may also believe that big government imposes large costs on the economy. But, for a true conservative, whatever ends they think smaller government may bring about--greater prosperity, economic mobility for the non-rich--are almost beside the point. As Milton Friedman wrote, "[F]reedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself...."
We're accustomed to thinking of liberalism and conservatism as parallel ideologies, with conservatives preferring less government and liberals preferring more. The equivalency breaks down, though, when you consider that liberals never claim that increasing the size of government is an end in itself. Liberals only support larger government if they have some reason to believe that it will lead to material improvement in people's lives. Conservatives also want material improvement in people's lives, of course, but proving that their policies can produce such an outcome is a luxury, not a necessity.
In other words- just because privatizing Social Security will not actually save the system or make anymore richer doesn't mean that they won't do it; because it was never about those things in the first place. It was always about attacking the size of government.
Conservatives believe that big government impinges upon freedom. They may also believe that big government imposes large costs on the economy. But, for a true conservative, whatever ends they think smaller government may bring about--greater prosperity, economic mobility for the non-rich--are almost beside the point. As Milton Friedman wrote, "[F]reedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself...."
We're accustomed to thinking of liberalism and conservatism as parallel ideologies, with conservatives preferring less government and liberals preferring more. The equivalency breaks down, though, when you consider that liberals never claim that increasing the size of government is an end in itself. Liberals only support larger government if they have some reason to believe that it will lead to material improvement in people's lives. Conservatives also want material improvement in people's lives, of course, but proving that their policies can produce such an outcome is a luxury, not a necessity.
In other words- just because privatizing Social Security will not actually save the system or make anymore richer doesn't mean that they won't do it; because it was never about those things in the first place. It was always about attacking the size of government.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
I haven't been updating lately...
Life has been intruding, requiring me to attend to things that acctually make me money. Also, the news has just been so depressing lately. Iraq has elected a pro-Iranian, fundamentalist premier, now Syria and Iran have become best buddies- just about the only stability in that entire region came from the fact that Iraq, Iran, and Syria were all basically equal in strength, and all basically hated each other. Looks like we have transformed the Middle East, after all- former enemies have united. Against us, but at least it's something.
Oh, and North Korea. They're not just a third world nation lorded over by a grown up Cartman with a bizarre fondness for Members Only jackets in beige. They're a third world nation lorded by a grown up Cartman with a bizarre fondness for Members Only jackets in beige with nukes.
On top of that, several conservative commentators have opined lately that the USA is headed toward full-on fascism. Not even a right wing pseudo-journalist gay prostitute in the press room can cure that kind of existential angst. What have we wrought, oh Lord? What have we done to displease You?
Things used to be easy for me- every time things went awry, every time the shit hit the fan, I could always count on a few simple things to get me through- donuts, The Daily Show, porn- but now, nothing. I don't even count the days until 2008- I just slump in my chair idly waiting for something to happen. It could be a small thing. It could be the second coming. All I know is that we're stuck with GWB and there's not a goddamn thing we can do about it.
Please bear with me- I'm in a funk.
Oh, and North Korea. They're not just a third world nation lorded over by a grown up Cartman with a bizarre fondness for Members Only jackets in beige. They're a third world nation lorded by a grown up Cartman with a bizarre fondness for Members Only jackets in beige with nukes.
On top of that, several conservative commentators have opined lately that the USA is headed toward full-on fascism. Not even a right wing pseudo-journalist gay prostitute in the press room can cure that kind of existential angst. What have we wrought, oh Lord? What have we done to displease You?
Things used to be easy for me- every time things went awry, every time the shit hit the fan, I could always count on a few simple things to get me through- donuts, The Daily Show, porn- but now, nothing. I don't even count the days until 2008- I just slump in my chair idly waiting for something to happen. It could be a small thing. It could be the second coming. All I know is that we're stuck with GWB and there's not a goddamn thing we can do about it.
Please bear with me- I'm in a funk.
Friday, February 11, 2005
It's been a long week...
I've been rather busy, hence the long absence. So what am I doing on Friday night? In bed, laptop at the ready, blogging. Yeah- some fun. Most of the best stories have blogged elsewhere, so I'm really just getting caught up. Nothing too brainy tonight.
Clearly my favorite story of the week is Gannonpot Dome. So it would seem that the Bushies have found a way to keep the liberal media in check. They gave daily press passes to a right wing fake reporter with a fake name who worked for a fake news organization. He was uncovered when he asked a obviously partisan question on Social Security that described Democrats as "divorced from reality." He allegedly worked for Talon News, an agency that fronts for GOPUSA and only employs Republican activists, not professional journalists. I guess that's one way to get your message out.
North Korea has nukes. Super. We will no doubt be invading Manitoba to divert the world's attention.
Howard Dean is back, heading up the DNC. This is a good move- he's from outside the beltway, he has a kind of goofy charisma that John Kerry lacked, he's not afraid to stick his neck out. Exactly what the Dems have been missing lately.
That's really all for now- I will probably do some real blogging Sunday.
Clearly my favorite story of the week is Gannonpot Dome. So it would seem that the Bushies have found a way to keep the liberal media in check. They gave daily press passes to a right wing fake reporter with a fake name who worked for a fake news organization. He was uncovered when he asked a obviously partisan question on Social Security that described Democrats as "divorced from reality." He allegedly worked for Talon News, an agency that fronts for GOPUSA and only employs Republican activists, not professional journalists. I guess that's one way to get your message out.
North Korea has nukes. Super. We will no doubt be invading Manitoba to divert the world's attention.
Howard Dean is back, heading up the DNC. This is a good move- he's from outside the beltway, he has a kind of goofy charisma that John Kerry lacked, he's not afraid to stick his neck out. Exactly what the Dems have been missing lately.
That's really all for now- I will probably do some real blogging Sunday.
Friday, February 04, 2005
The Morning Roundup
File Under "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" Two countries that hated each other for years will now finally be able to make peace. Good, right? Ummmm- maybe not. Despite the heartfelt embrace between a dead soldier's mother and an Iraqi human rights activist who cast a vote in her nation's first "free" election in half a century, things in Iraq remain messy. The lead story in the Times today reveals that the early returns show a Shiite party with strong links to Iran in the lead.
Should this party retain its lead and ascend to power, these two historically warring nations can resolve their differences and unite in their hatred of the United States. Just in time for the invasion of Iran, which Condi says is "not on the agenda at this point"(emphasis added). Meaning that it will be as soon as we've cleaned up our present quagmire.
George Dubya's Rolling Misinformation Tour 2005 The Pres hit the road yesterday, to hype up his Social Insecurity Fiasco. Oddly, he only seemed to visit Red States with Democratic Senators who have vowed to stop him. Coincidence? I think not. And despite the oft stated assertion that young people generally support the plan, the Times found many who did not (note- they conducted man on the street styles interviews in the bluest of Blue States, Boston, Mass).
More media outlets are analyzing the plan in detail, and are finding what the Post found yesterday- it's just a loan to government, immediately paid for with massive new Federal borrowing, followed by benefit cuts on the back end. This plan will not save Social Security as much as cripple it for good, and Progressives need to keep the pressure on the President and the Congress to dump it.
All parties agree- doing nothing is not an option, but the system can be saved with good ideas in more or less its present form with a minimum of difficulty. Despite the President's assertion in teh SOTU that he will listen to all ideas, he immediately stated that he would not consider raising the payroll tax. That's too bad, because Salon notes in the above piece that raising a two percent increase would keep the system afloat.
What would two percent mean? The payroll tax is split 50/50 between employer and employee, so two percent would actually be borne by the worker as a one percent raise. For a worker making $50K (simply to keep the math easy), 1% equals an extra $500 per year. Assuming that the worker receives 26 paychecks per year, he would pay an extra $19.24 per check.
And that's without benefit cuts. How much more could be saved if we also raised the retirement age? If we means tested benefits? If we invested the Trust Fund in something other than Treasury bonds? Fix the system- don't dismantle it.
How Hard Could It Be? That is the slogan for Kinky Friedman's campaign to become the Governor of Texas. Kinky, one of my favorite people in the universe, is the writer/humorist/musician who rose to marginal obscurity in the 1970s with his country band The Texas Jewboys, and went on to write a series of hysterical mystery novels in 1990s. Kinky draws his inspiration from former pro wrestler and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who the Kinkster notes, " didn't realize that wrestling is real and politics is fixed."
The Times writes, To get on the ballot he needs 45,000 signatures, none from anyone voting in a Republican or Democratic primary. But he voiced confidence, saying, "There's so much apathy; that leaves me a lot of people."
Two Passings Of Note Max Schmeling passed away at 99, prompting me to ask, was Max Schmeling still alive? Seriously, Max Schmeling was a true giant- even though the Nazis touted him as the pinnacle of Aryan supremacy, he fought them every step of the way. He refused to join the party, he saved some Jews from the camps, and when the Nazis ordered him to divorce his Czech wife, he refused that as well.
And Ossie Davis, the actor and activist, has passed away at 87- he will be missed.
Should this party retain its lead and ascend to power, these two historically warring nations can resolve their differences and unite in their hatred of the United States. Just in time for the invasion of Iran, which Condi says is "not on the agenda at this point"(emphasis added). Meaning that it will be as soon as we've cleaned up our present quagmire.
George Dubya's Rolling Misinformation Tour 2005 The Pres hit the road yesterday, to hype up his Social Insecurity Fiasco. Oddly, he only seemed to visit Red States with Democratic Senators who have vowed to stop him. Coincidence? I think not. And despite the oft stated assertion that young people generally support the plan, the Times found many who did not (note- they conducted man on the street styles interviews in the bluest of Blue States, Boston, Mass).
More media outlets are analyzing the plan in detail, and are finding what the Post found yesterday- it's just a loan to government, immediately paid for with massive new Federal borrowing, followed by benefit cuts on the back end. This plan will not save Social Security as much as cripple it for good, and Progressives need to keep the pressure on the President and the Congress to dump it.
All parties agree- doing nothing is not an option, but the system can be saved with good ideas in more or less its present form with a minimum of difficulty. Despite the President's assertion in teh SOTU that he will listen to all ideas, he immediately stated that he would not consider raising the payroll tax. That's too bad, because Salon notes in the above piece that raising a two percent increase would keep the system afloat.
What would two percent mean? The payroll tax is split 50/50 between employer and employee, so two percent would actually be borne by the worker as a one percent raise. For a worker making $50K (simply to keep the math easy), 1% equals an extra $500 per year. Assuming that the worker receives 26 paychecks per year, he would pay an extra $19.24 per check.
And that's without benefit cuts. How much more could be saved if we also raised the retirement age? If we means tested benefits? If we invested the Trust Fund in something other than Treasury bonds? Fix the system- don't dismantle it.
How Hard Could It Be? That is the slogan for Kinky Friedman's campaign to become the Governor of Texas. Kinky, one of my favorite people in the universe, is the writer/humorist/musician who rose to marginal obscurity in the 1970s with his country band The Texas Jewboys, and went on to write a series of hysterical mystery novels in 1990s. Kinky draws his inspiration from former pro wrestler and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who the Kinkster notes, " didn't realize that wrestling is real and politics is fixed."
The Times writes, To get on the ballot he needs 45,000 signatures, none from anyone voting in a Republican or Democratic primary. But he voiced confidence, saying, "There's so much apathy; that leaves me a lot of people."
Two Passings Of Note Max Schmeling passed away at 99, prompting me to ask, was Max Schmeling still alive? Seriously, Max Schmeling was a true giant- even though the Nazis touted him as the pinnacle of Aryan supremacy, he fought them every step of the way. He refused to join the party, he saved some Jews from the camps, and when the Nazis ordered him to divorce his Czech wife, he refused that as well.
And Ossie Davis, the actor and activist, has passed away at 87- he will be missed.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
State of the Union wrapup
The reports are in, and the results are mostly good for the President. Obviously, the headlines are dominated by the Social Security proposal, and virutally every story notes the chorus of Democratic boos, drawing comparison to the House of Commons. The Post also carries a story on how moderate Republicans reacted to some of the more conservative measures. All major media agree- expect a nasty fight.
It would seem that few commentators have noted the frequent appeals to young Americans. That's too bad, because for all his talk about the troubles of partisan politics, his speech was a blatant play for young voters. It's no secret that a majority of young Americans support fiddling with Social Security, while older voters are more skeptical and those facing imminent retirement adamantly opposed. But since older voters only have so many elections in front of them, the future, it seems, is with the future.
Hence, the President wants to toy with Social Security sooner rather than later, or at least make the effort. Young voters would be well advised to get off this bandwagon- the proposal is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The plan is not the 401(k) style nest egg builder that it sounds like. According to the Post, here's how it works.
It would seem that few commentators have noted the frequent appeals to young Americans. That's too bad, because for all his talk about the troubles of partisan politics, his speech was a blatant play for young voters. It's no secret that a majority of young Americans support fiddling with Social Security, while older voters are more skeptical and those facing imminent retirement adamantly opposed. But since older voters only have so many elections in front of them, the future, it seems, is with the future.
Hence, the President wants to toy with Social Security sooner rather than later, or at least make the effort. Young voters would be well advised to get off this bandwagon- the proposal is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The plan is not the 401(k) style nest egg builder that it sounds like. According to the Post, here's how it works.
- A worker elects to divert 4% of his FICA total wages into the personal account, up to $1,000 per year.
- The taxpayer may not choose how to invest the money- it must go into a conservative mixture of mostly government bonds.
- Upon retirement all the money that accrues in the account is his, but his Social Security benefit would also be reduced by the amount of the worker contributed into his account as opposed to traditional Social Security.
A "senior administration official" quoted in the Post explains, "The person comes out ahead if their personal account exceeds a 3 percent real rate of return, which is the rate of return that the trust fund bonds receive.... So, basically, the net effect on an individual's benefits would be zero if his personal account earned a 3 percent real rate of return. To the extent that his personal account gets a higher rate of return, his net benefit would increase."
If the rate of return in the account mirrors the rate of return of the Social Security Trust Fund, then there is no gain and no loss. For what it's worth, the Congressional Budget Office projects a rate of return of 3.3%- a fraction higher than the Trust Fund's growth.
In the meantime, the federal government has control over your money, and since it has limited the investment to government bond funds it amounts to little more than a loan to the Feds at the interest rate they have chosen. One other thing- if the account does worse than the rate of return of Trust Fund, then the taxpayers loses that money.
It's a gamble with the system. True, something needs to be done to ensure Social Security's long term viability, but the President's plan is little more than a roulette table where you only allowed to bet on black or red. You'll never get rich that way, and green zero will still come up once in a while.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
He must be proud
On the whole, I was impressed. He was polished and passionate. He stayed on theme and drove home his points. Good job.
From a political perspective, he was transparent about his motives. The generational appeal suggests that he is interested in adding mew Republicans to the party. He directly referenced young Americans at least three times, made several other references to "future generations," and even tied the war to his responsibility to future generations. He is trying to brand the Republican party as the party of youth.
The GOP political operation has always been better at marketing than Democrats. They fine tune their message with polls and focus groups. They test not only various language choices but also the various contexts within which to place the language. Tonight's context- maintaining a strong union for future generations- served as the backdrop for everything else.
The President did a great job tonight, much as it pains me to say, and his speechwriters must be ecstatic. His performance tonight was equal to his speech after 9/11, and was on par with Clinton. The loyal opposition has its work cut out for it.
From a political perspective, he was transparent about his motives. The generational appeal suggests that he is interested in adding mew Republicans to the party. He directly referenced young Americans at least three times, made several other references to "future generations," and even tied the war to his responsibility to future generations. He is trying to brand the Republican party as the party of youth.
The GOP political operation has always been better at marketing than Democrats. They fine tune their message with polls and focus groups. They test not only various language choices but also the various contexts within which to place the language. Tonight's context- maintaining a strong union for future generations- served as the backdrop for everything else.
The President did a great job tonight, much as it pains me to say, and his speechwriters must be ecstatic. His performance tonight was equal to his speech after 9/11, and was on par with Clinton. The loyal opposition has its work cut out for it.
More generational appeals
I am amazed at how much of this speech tries to attribute his policies as a legacy to future generations. Economic policy, social policy, military policy- he sees all of his major policies as building a world for the future. He has really tapped into his idealist rhetoric for this speech, not the realist language of past years. I am also quite impressed at how much he has grown as a speaker over the past four years. He has always been better in front of a friendly room, but he is holding his own against some unfriendly quarters.
Social Security
Makes requisite pitch to AARP members- if you're 55 and up, it will not change. Good.
Who was the lonely clapper for the scheduled rise in benefits?
I find it curious politically smart that he set up his pitch by quoting all Democratic politicians on the need to reform Social Security. It's an attempt to show that this is not a Republican attack on Social Security. But then he calls his plan "a better deal," subtly referring the New Deal.
Much of the speech so far has overtly appealed to generational interests. He has made direct appeals to "young Americans" on economic issues- this goes directly back to the post I wrote over the weekend about what Bush sees as his legacy- the long term disabling of the Democratic party. Making this direct plea to young people is a conspicuous and obvious pitch to recruit long term Republicans.
Who was the lonely clapper for the scheduled rise in benefits?
I find it curious politically smart that he set up his pitch by quoting all Democratic politicians on the need to reform Social Security. It's an attempt to show that this is not a Republican attack on Social Security. But then he calls his plan "a better deal," subtly referring the New Deal.
Much of the speech so far has overtly appealed to generational interests. He has made direct appeals to "young Americans" on economic issues- this goes directly back to the post I wrote over the weekend about what Bush sees as his legacy- the long term disabling of the Democratic party. Making this direct plea to young people is a conspicuous and obvious pitch to recruit long term Republicans.
First time he's pissed me off
"Junk lawsuits" "irresponsible class actions" "frivilous asbestos claims"
What-friggin-ever. Tort reform benefits no one except insurance companies, who jacked up the premiums to protect against liability and now want to weasel out of their responsibility to pay up.
"Comprehensive energy strategy?" What planet is he on? He did make the required pitch to ethanol (anyone watch last week's West Wing?) I'm all for reducing the reliance on foreign energy, but making the OPEC nations the 51st through 67th states is probably not the best idea.
What-friggin-ever. Tort reform benefits no one except insurance companies, who jacked up the premiums to protect against liability and now want to weasel out of their responsibility to pay up.
"Comprehensive energy strategy?" What planet is he on? He did make the required pitch to ethanol (anyone watch last week's West Wing?) I'm all for reducing the reliance on foreign energy, but making the OPEC nations the 51st through 67th states is probably not the best idea.
Economic puffery
Cut the deficit in half by 2009. Half the room gave him a standing ovation. Could it be that has raised the deficit?
Here we go....
He didn't start with the state of the union is strong. Free and sovereign Iraq. Nice touch. False, more or less.
Hmmm, the state of our union is "confident and strong." Nice touch- he has better writers working for him lately.
Hmmm, the state of our union is "confident and strong." Nice touch- he has better writers working for him lately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)