IMPECCABLE LOGIC, WRONG CONCLUSION:
"According to surveys, the average American has sex 138 times per year. I am currently at 0. Since there is only a little more than 1 month remaining in the year, it looks like I am going to be quite "occupied" for the next few weeks."
-Riiight. But here's some real food for thought: the average is 138. People like David have 0 (and there's no small number of them). So somewhere out there, someone is saying "138 times? Who has sex that rarely?"
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
25.11.02
QUOTE: Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but is Jonah Goldberg (who advocated carpet-bombing Canada last week in NR) saying that progressive taxation might not be completely evil?
"By far, the most common objection from readers involves the ever-growing size of the federal government and the ever-increasing amounts of money it takes from us. Depending on where you live, you can go well into the month of May, in effect, working for the government because citizens (or I should say many citizens) are paying somewhere between 40 percent and 50 percent of their incomes in taxes. Do I think this is outrageous? Yes. Do I think it is counterproductive? Yes. Do I think we would be freer and the country would be better off if we cut those taxes? Absolutely. Do I think we have become less free because of those taxes? Well? yes and no.
Imagine if, starting tomorrow, every American citizen made a minimum of $1 million a year. If the federal government took 50 percent of your income, you'd still have $500,000 per year. So while, yes, that's an outrageous tax rate and, yes, you'd be more free if the government took "merely" 40 percent ? or better yet 5 percent ? you would still be more wealthy than you'd have been if you only made $100,000 a year. In principle, i.e., for the purposes of this discussion, the share of your wealth taken by the government is not as relevant as the question of how wealthy you've become.
Now, obviously, we're not all millionaires. But we are all ? and that includes the poor ? much, much wealthier than we were in grandpa's day. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation crunched the numbers in the 2001 Census last year and found that, "Today, the typical American defined by the government as poor has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a VCR, a microwave, a stereo, and a color TV. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not over-crowded . . ." Meanwhile, 41 percent of "poor" people in America own their own homes. And, today, adjusted for inflation, "expenditures per person among the poorest fifth of households equal those of the average household in the early 1970s." [my emphasis]"
"By far, the most common objection from readers involves the ever-growing size of the federal government and the ever-increasing amounts of money it takes from us. Depending on where you live, you can go well into the month of May, in effect, working for the government because citizens (or I should say many citizens) are paying somewhere between 40 percent and 50 percent of their incomes in taxes. Do I think this is outrageous? Yes. Do I think it is counterproductive? Yes. Do I think we would be freer and the country would be better off if we cut those taxes? Absolutely. Do I think we have become less free because of those taxes? Well? yes and no.
Imagine if, starting tomorrow, every American citizen made a minimum of $1 million a year. If the federal government took 50 percent of your income, you'd still have $500,000 per year. So while, yes, that's an outrageous tax rate and, yes, you'd be more free if the government took "merely" 40 percent ? or better yet 5 percent ? you would still be more wealthy than you'd have been if you only made $100,000 a year. In principle, i.e., for the purposes of this discussion, the share of your wealth taken by the government is not as relevant as the question of how wealthy you've become.
Now, obviously, we're not all millionaires. But we are all ? and that includes the poor ? much, much wealthier than we were in grandpa's day. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation crunched the numbers in the 2001 Census last year and found that, "Today, the typical American defined by the government as poor has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a VCR, a microwave, a stereo, and a color TV. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not over-crowded . . ." Meanwhile, 41 percent of "poor" people in America own their own homes. And, today, adjusted for inflation, "expenditures per person among the poorest fifth of households equal those of the average household in the early 1970s." [my emphasis]"
LINK: Looks like the Saudis are finally catching hell, and not a moment too soon. The Administration is, of course, completely silent. Figures.
LINK: When Michael Moore starts getting hit from the Left, it's a fairly good sign he's in trouble. Kim's comments, among others, will be appreciated on this subject:
"Indeed, though Moore does note that gun violence is down, he doesn't get into the issue of why. For a movie that's supposed to be concerned with getting to the bottom of things, he is awfully unconcerned with telling his viewers about the reasons -- such as the waning crack epidemic, changing demographics, changes in policing, the economic boom and, of course, gun control laws -- that caused gun murders to drop from 18,253 in 1993 to their present number, or what we can learn from the experience of the last decade to make sure that this rate keeps dropping. A decline in murders in New York City alone -- from 1,927 in 1993 to 643 in 2001 -- had, for example, a considerable impact on the declining national rate. Not a lot of those killers or victims were the sort of sports-hunters or militiamen Moore goes out of his way to interview and make fun of.
That similar outcomes -- death by firearm -- may have different causes in different parts of the country is a fact Moore never considers in his quest for a grand theory of gun violence. But gun violence in fast-growing new communities such as Littleton may well stem from somewhat different influences and pressures than, say, the murders that routinely take place about a mile north of my Washington apartment."
"So I have a challenge for Mr. Moore: Bring your camera to Washington. I can show you the building on Girard Street where you can follow the path of a bullet from the front door to the neatly bored hole in the plasterboard 50 feet back, a relic from when a man was killed out front. The shrines to the recently dead that decorate certain neighborhoods, with their Moët bottles and teddy bears and giant Tweety Birds covered in indelible Magic Marker scrawls, will look great on the big screen.
Sure, it will be less glamorous to take on the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs over the more than 4,000 abandoned and neglected buildings that blight the city than it was to harass a stooped and elderly Charlton Heston at his Hollywood home. And it might not make you an international hero to challenge principals and teachers at persistently failing high schools -- you know, the kind where half the students drop out and the ones that graduate at, say, age 21, can barely read or do simple math. But in the end, it might make a hell of a lot more difference."
"Indeed, though Moore does note that gun violence is down, he doesn't get into the issue of why. For a movie that's supposed to be concerned with getting to the bottom of things, he is awfully unconcerned with telling his viewers about the reasons -- such as the waning crack epidemic, changing demographics, changes in policing, the economic boom and, of course, gun control laws -- that caused gun murders to drop from 18,253 in 1993 to their present number, or what we can learn from the experience of the last decade to make sure that this rate keeps dropping. A decline in murders in New York City alone -- from 1,927 in 1993 to 643 in 2001 -- had, for example, a considerable impact on the declining national rate. Not a lot of those killers or victims were the sort of sports-hunters or militiamen Moore goes out of his way to interview and make fun of.
That similar outcomes -- death by firearm -- may have different causes in different parts of the country is a fact Moore never considers in his quest for a grand theory of gun violence. But gun violence in fast-growing new communities such as Littleton may well stem from somewhat different influences and pressures than, say, the murders that routinely take place about a mile north of my Washington apartment."
"So I have a challenge for Mr. Moore: Bring your camera to Washington. I can show you the building on Girard Street where you can follow the path of a bullet from the front door to the neatly bored hole in the plasterboard 50 feet back, a relic from when a man was killed out front. The shrines to the recently dead that decorate certain neighborhoods, with their Moët bottles and teddy bears and giant Tweety Birds covered in indelible Magic Marker scrawls, will look great on the big screen.
Sure, it will be less glamorous to take on the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs over the more than 4,000 abandoned and neglected buildings that blight the city than it was to harass a stooped and elderly Charlton Heston at his Hollywood home. And it might not make you an international hero to challenge principals and teachers at persistently failing high schools -- you know, the kind where half the students drop out and the ones that graduate at, say, age 21, can barely read or do simple math. But in the end, it might make a hell of a lot more difference."
LINK: Michael Ledeen beats the drums on Iran one more time, on the revolution that's soon to be. You heard it there first.
24.11.02
21.11.02
LINK: Robert Reich makes a good suggestion for the Democrats on taxes: defer payroll taxes now, and pay for in by re-instating the estate tax. I think it's a good proposal, inasfar as it goes. The only thing I don't like is when he starts talking about "the top 2% of all taxpayers"... it's such an abstract concept.
So, herewith, my genius taxation suggestion: get rid of taxes on gas. Get rid of taxes on cigarettes and liquor (the so-called "sin" taxes). Most importantly, get rid of sales taxes. They all directly take money out of the pockets of everyone, money which could be used as further disposable income, or as the basis for building savings accounts, stock portfolios, etc. Replace the income lost by the government by raising income taxes (or creating them, as may be necessitated by removing sales taxes). But rather than raising marginal rates for the top tax bracket, either create a new bracket of only obscenely wealthy people (making more than one million dollars a year-- any old high number will do), or find a way (I haven't gotten one yet) to institute the tax from the top down, rather than from a certain threshold up. You avoid the charge of overtaxing small businessmen and entrepreneurs because you're not directly taxing them first, and you avoid the charge of soaking the rich because you're merely beginning by taxing those who can most easily afford it, and proceeding downward through income levels as necessary (this would require keeping the taxation level, even for the ultra-rich, something reasonable, but that can be done).
All this being said, there's still some connecting of the dots to do. I have no idea what the numbers on all of these things are, so they may be (in whole or part) prohibitively expensive--this, I think, may especially be the case when it comes to sales taxes. But, of course (as those who followed the proposed car tax in Virginia this past election cycle can tell you), these types of taxes are widely loathed, and with good reason. There is a lot to be said for opposing something you're not disposed to like anyway, which can also score you lots of political points. Anyone care to challenge me on my assumptions?
So, herewith, my genius taxation suggestion: get rid of taxes on gas. Get rid of taxes on cigarettes and liquor (the so-called "sin" taxes). Most importantly, get rid of sales taxes. They all directly take money out of the pockets of everyone, money which could be used as further disposable income, or as the basis for building savings accounts, stock portfolios, etc. Replace the income lost by the government by raising income taxes (or creating them, as may be necessitated by removing sales taxes). But rather than raising marginal rates for the top tax bracket, either create a new bracket of only obscenely wealthy people (making more than one million dollars a year-- any old high number will do), or find a way (I haven't gotten one yet) to institute the tax from the top down, rather than from a certain threshold up. You avoid the charge of overtaxing small businessmen and entrepreneurs because you're not directly taxing them first, and you avoid the charge of soaking the rich because you're merely beginning by taxing those who can most easily afford it, and proceeding downward through income levels as necessary (this would require keeping the taxation level, even for the ultra-rich, something reasonable, but that can be done).
All this being said, there's still some connecting of the dots to do. I have no idea what the numbers on all of these things are, so they may be (in whole or part) prohibitively expensive--this, I think, may especially be the case when it comes to sales taxes. But, of course (as those who followed the proposed car tax in Virginia this past election cycle can tell you), these types of taxes are widely loathed, and with good reason. There is a lot to be said for opposing something you're not disposed to like anyway, which can also score you lots of political points. Anyone care to challenge me on my assumptions?
QUOTES: Jonah Goldberg, currently Canadian Enemy #1, says a couple of quite significant things on the subject of drug prohibition:
"THIS IS YOUR BOYFRIEND ON DRUGS [Jonah Goldberg]
The fundamental assumption made by many pro-drug legalization advocates is that people are rational actors who can weight their interests on their own without the aid or hindrance of government or community. Admittedly, not all advocates of legalization make this assumption, but even they have a rosy optimism about what cheaper, more reliable access to more potent drugs would do to society (I include some NR editors here). It's a rich argument. But whenever I read stories like this , I become even more unconvinced they're right. "
"ONE MORE POINT [Jonah Goldberg]
People keep emailing me to ask sarcastically, Potato chips (or some other snacks) are addictive so why not outlaw them too? This is a response I get from college kids all the time and, frankly, I find it absurd and a little offensive. If you knew drug addicts, as I have, who stole from friends and family and ruined their lives and -- in one case died in jail -- all out of a desire for one more fix, you wouldn't make the comparison. Heroin makes you irrational in a way that potato chips simply do not. And to say there isn't a difference between UTZ pretzels and smack is to trivialize a lot fo tragedy for a cute debating point. I've never seen anybody steal their mother's jewelry or become prostitutes for some Pringles."
"THIS IS YOUR BOYFRIEND ON DRUGS [Jonah Goldberg]
The fundamental assumption made by many pro-drug legalization advocates is that people are rational actors who can weight their interests on their own without the aid or hindrance of government or community. Admittedly, not all advocates of legalization make this assumption, but even they have a rosy optimism about what cheaper, more reliable access to more potent drugs would do to society (I include some NR editors here). It's a rich argument. But whenever I read stories like this , I become even more unconvinced they're right. "
"ONE MORE POINT [Jonah Goldberg]
People keep emailing me to ask sarcastically, Potato chips (or some other snacks) are addictive so why not outlaw them too? This is a response I get from college kids all the time and, frankly, I find it absurd and a little offensive. If you knew drug addicts, as I have, who stole from friends and family and ruined their lives and -- in one case died in jail -- all out of a desire for one more fix, you wouldn't make the comparison. Heroin makes you irrational in a way that potato chips simply do not. And to say there isn't a difference between UTZ pretzels and smack is to trivialize a lot fo tragedy for a cute debating point. I've never seen anybody steal their mother's jewelry or become prostitutes for some Pringles."
19.11.02
ADDENDUM: To my earlier "Hitch Watch" post: I think violence is acceptable in revolutionary movements-- the American Revolution is sufficient to demonstrate that point-- but only as a means, not as an end. In theory, this separates the American independence movement from those two other famous, but entirely unsuccessful, revolutions: the French and the Russians, where violence became the typical mode of operation. Thoughts, anyone?
18.11.02
HITCH WATCH: He actually says something I disagree with this time!
"I hate and despise Hezbollah and Palestinian suicide-murderers, as they ought to be called, but they'd have to work day and night for years to equal the total of civilians killed in Lebanon alone, or by Sharon alone. Lebanese and Palestinian irregulars are, by the way, entitled by international law to resist foreign occupation that has been internationally condemned. Fact."
The really troubling bit not being the argument as such (I'd quibble over whether or not international law allows them to behave the way they do, though I'd be more inclined to agree for Lebanon than for Palestinians), but the idea that this argument has weight because Israel's occupation has been "internationally condemned." I don't suppose it requires much more explanation for why thinking this way is a bad thing (though Kim will probably wish to take that issue up with me)-- I'd prefer not to make my morality democratic, thank you very much. But then, of course, he redeems himself:
"This doesn't mean that we are stuck with some dismal moral equivalence. The IRA or the Al Aqsa Brigades can be reminded, as can states and governments, that some actions or courses of action (bombs detonated without warning in civilian areas; kidnapping; rape) are crimes under every known law. And the evidence is that such awareness, along with some of its moral implications, does become available to them. (The same thought can also be instilled by other less pedagogic means.) Then of course, you should try and imagine Nelson Mandela or Salvador Allende—leaders of peoples who really did have a beef with the "empire"—ordering their supporters to crash civilian planes into civilian buildings."
Which I think makes a slightly more important point-- violence to limited extent for a reason other than, say, schadenfreude, seems to be a tool at the disposal of oppressed groups or peoples. But it is not the only such tool, nor will it be able to acheive an acceptable end, short of eradicating the oppressors, which is itself so morally repugnant that no decent person could accept that. I think I have more to say on the subject, but it's not coming to me right now... maybe later.
"I hate and despise Hezbollah and Palestinian suicide-murderers, as they ought to be called, but they'd have to work day and night for years to equal the total of civilians killed in Lebanon alone, or by Sharon alone. Lebanese and Palestinian irregulars are, by the way, entitled by international law to resist foreign occupation that has been internationally condemned. Fact."
The really troubling bit not being the argument as such (I'd quibble over whether or not international law allows them to behave the way they do, though I'd be more inclined to agree for Lebanon than for Palestinians), but the idea that this argument has weight because Israel's occupation has been "internationally condemned." I don't suppose it requires much more explanation for why thinking this way is a bad thing (though Kim will probably wish to take that issue up with me)-- I'd prefer not to make my morality democratic, thank you very much. But then, of course, he redeems himself:
"This doesn't mean that we are stuck with some dismal moral equivalence. The IRA or the Al Aqsa Brigades can be reminded, as can states and governments, that some actions or courses of action (bombs detonated without warning in civilian areas; kidnapping; rape) are crimes under every known law. And the evidence is that such awareness, along with some of its moral implications, does become available to them. (The same thought can also be instilled by other less pedagogic means.) Then of course, you should try and imagine Nelson Mandela or Salvador Allende—leaders of peoples who really did have a beef with the "empire"—ordering their supporters to crash civilian planes into civilian buildings."
Which I think makes a slightly more important point-- violence to limited extent for a reason other than, say, schadenfreude, seems to be a tool at the disposal of oppressed groups or peoples. But it is not the only such tool, nor will it be able to acheive an acceptable end, short of eradicating the oppressors, which is itself so morally repugnant that no decent person could accept that. I think I have more to say on the subject, but it's not coming to me right now... maybe later.
The best part, in my opinion:
"While he and the aide were driving, Bill Clinton called. He'd been flown to the United States on military transport, and was now at home in New York. Bush was sending a plane to take him to National Cathedral. Why didn't Gore drive to Chappaqua and fly down with him? Clinton gave him directions to get to the house, so that's where Gore went, arriving in the middle of the night. Clinton had waited up. He was doing some renovating, with the result that there was a refrigerator on the front porch. "Al arrives at about 3:30 in the morning, sees the refrigerator on the porch, and the first thing he says is, 'I see you've managed to bring a little bit of Arkansas to New York,' ""
"While he and the aide were driving, Bill Clinton called. He'd been flown to the United States on military transport, and was now at home in New York. Bush was sending a plane to take him to National Cathedral. Why didn't Gore drive to Chappaqua and fly down with him? Clinton gave him directions to get to the house, so that's where Gore went, arriving in the middle of the night. Clinton had waited up. He was doing some renovating, with the result that there was a refrigerator on the front porch. "Al arrives at about 3:30 in the morning, sees the refrigerator on the porch, and the first thing he says is, 'I see you've managed to bring a little bit of Arkansas to New York,' ""
The best part, in my opinion:
"While he and the aide were driving, Bill Clinton called. He'd been flown to the United States on military transport, and was now at home in New York. Bush was sending a plane to take him to National Cathedral. Why didn't Gore drive to Chappaqua and fly down with him? Clinton gave him directions to get to the house, so that's where Gore went, arriving in the middle of the night. Clinton had waited up. He was doing some renovating, with the result that there was a refrigerator on the front porch. "Al arrives at about 3:30 in the morning, sees the refrigerator on the porch, and the first thing he says is, 'I see you've managed to bring a little bit of Arkansas to New York,' ""
"While he and the aide were driving, Bill Clinton called. He'd been flown to the United States on military transport, and was now at home in New York. Bush was sending a plane to take him to National Cathedral. Why didn't Gore drive to Chappaqua and fly down with him? Clinton gave him directions to get to the house, so that's where Gore went, arriving in the middle of the night. Clinton had waited up. He was doing some renovating, with the result that there was a refrigerator on the front porch. "Al arrives at about 3:30 in the morning, sees the refrigerator on the porch, and the first thing he says is, 'I see you've managed to bring a little bit of Arkansas to New York,' ""
>SPEAKING OF AL GORE: I should point you to this wonderful profile of his in the Washington Post Magazine. It really reminded me of why I liked him so much as a politician in the first place:
"Even now, there exists this
OtherGore, an Al Gore who is very much apart from PoliticalGore, a Gore who seems to have thrived during the relative anonymity of the last two years. When he conceded in 2000, Gore spoke of defeat as something that can serve, as well as victory, to "let the glory out." For part of Gore, for OtherGore, it seems that glory is the freedom to write and think and ruminate and cogitate and generally do that data-downloading, information-gathering thing. It is the freedom to use phrases like "strategic frame analysis" and "meta-narrative" in the company of people who appreciate that language as much as he does.
In addition to the classes at Fisk and MTSU, Gore also hosts a weekly seminar at Harvard where a group of professors talk about one of his favorite subjects, globalization. Sometimes they talk about global warming; sometimes they talk about gender; this coming week, Gore says, as he drives, they will be talking about "the role of information technology in defining a span of, uh, felt collective identity."
"I don't have the language to describe what I'm trying to describe," Gore says, "but I will at the session." What he means is: He and his academic friends will be considering how the development of language, speech, written and now electronic communication has affected how people view themselves and their community. OtherGore is at the wheel now, explaining how, through a genetic mutation, human beings became able to speak, which affected their view of community; then they learned to write, then print, then there were popular editions of the Bible, and what followed, Gore says, as though this would be apparent to anyone, was "the Protestant Reformation, and then the Counter-Reformation and the wars associated with it, [which] really led to the creation of nation-states, and the Treaty of Westphalia . . ."
OtherGore goes on and on. It is transfixing; this aggressively intelligent man, a man who seeks to hold all of human history in his head, is also a man who, during the 2000 campaign, lurched back and forth on such relatively simple issues as what colors to wear and where to headquarter his campaign."
"Even now, there exists this
OtherGore, an Al Gore who is very much apart from PoliticalGore, a Gore who seems to have thrived during the relative anonymity of the last two years. When he conceded in 2000, Gore spoke of defeat as something that can serve, as well as victory, to "let the glory out." For part of Gore, for OtherGore, it seems that glory is the freedom to write and think and ruminate and cogitate and generally do that data-downloading, information-gathering thing. It is the freedom to use phrases like "strategic frame analysis" and "meta-narrative" in the company of people who appreciate that language as much as he does.
In addition to the classes at Fisk and MTSU, Gore also hosts a weekly seminar at Harvard where a group of professors talk about one of his favorite subjects, globalization. Sometimes they talk about global warming; sometimes they talk about gender; this coming week, Gore says, as he drives, they will be talking about "the role of information technology in defining a span of, uh, felt collective identity."
"I don't have the language to describe what I'm trying to describe," Gore says, "but I will at the session." What he means is: He and his academic friends will be considering how the development of language, speech, written and now electronic communication has affected how people view themselves and their community. OtherGore is at the wheel now, explaining how, through a genetic mutation, human beings became able to speak, which affected their view of community; then they learned to write, then print, then there were popular editions of the Bible, and what followed, Gore says, as though this would be apparent to anyone, was "the Protestant Reformation, and then the Counter-Reformation and the wars associated with it, [which] really led to the creation of nation-states, and the Treaty of Westphalia . . ."
OtherGore goes on and on. It is transfixing; this aggressively intelligent man, a man who seeks to hold all of human history in his head, is also a man who, during the 2000 campaign, lurched back and forth on such relatively simple issues as what colors to wear and where to headquarter his campaign."
LINK: Something David would be qualified to comment on, I think, about the problem of spam e-mail. Personally, I find my ad hoc filtering system to be, on the whole, effective, though I do occasionally remember those wonderful days when I used to not get any...
REASONS TO LOVE SLATE: They post one of the best critiques and defenses of Kurt Cobain that I've read-- refusing equally to deify him or to turn him into some sort of Voice-of-a-Generation freak show. And then they make fun of Pearl Jam for being as fake and insincere as ever (and manage to say some nice words about Al Gore in the process).
14.11.02
13.11.02
NOTE TO DAVID:
Re: your quote of Richard Just. I know they don't teach you basic reading skills in your science and math classes (who needs to read?), but he was speaking sarcastically. Granted, that would require reading in context, another skill they seem to have neglected to teach you. And if you understood the first thing about the Neoliberal movement (which has, as one of it's starting points, Michael Walzer's "Can There Be a Decent Left" from Dissent), you'd understand that there's a huge difference between Left and Right justifications for war in Iraq. Of course, you also make the mistake of assuming that the Democratic Party supervenes on the Left. But if, instead of complaining that you can't see anything worthwhile going on within the Left, you took time to read Dissent, The New Republic, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, anything from the Brookings Institution, Arthur Schelsinger's The Coming of the New Deal, Hubert Humphrey's The Education of a Public Man, or any one of hundreds of other sources that articulate substantial and meaningful Left positions, you'd already know that.
Re: your quote of Richard Just. I know they don't teach you basic reading skills in your science and math classes (who needs to read?), but he was speaking sarcastically. Granted, that would require reading in context, another skill they seem to have neglected to teach you. And if you understood the first thing about the Neoliberal movement (which has, as one of it's starting points, Michael Walzer's "Can There Be a Decent Left" from Dissent), you'd understand that there's a huge difference between Left and Right justifications for war in Iraq. Of course, you also make the mistake of assuming that the Democratic Party supervenes on the Left. But if, instead of complaining that you can't see anything worthwhile going on within the Left, you took time to read Dissent, The New Republic, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, anything from the Brookings Institution, Arthur Schelsinger's The Coming of the New Deal, Hubert Humphrey's The Education of a Public Man, or any one of hundreds of other sources that articulate substantial and meaningful Left positions, you'd already know that.
THE DECENT LEFT: Add Richard Just to the list of people who get it. Does this qualify as a Democrat taking a stand on an issue, David?
"These arguments are almost all well-trodden territory at this advanced stage in the debate. But it is this last point -- the sudden puniness of the liberal worldview as embodied by its prescription for Iraq -- that saddens me most, and that liberals have grappled with least. Think of the major policy advances of the last century. The New Deal, the Great Society, the civil-rights movement -- all were fueled by a moralistic ambition and a faith in the power of humans to repair their world through action and ideas. There have never been any great liberal strains in American life that were fueled by a desire to just let things be. Think of the domestic causes championed by liberals at this magazine and elsewhere: public financing of campaigns, measures to conserve the environment, universal health care -- they are all ambitious in the great progressive tradition. No one at this magazine would ever say that corporate funding of campaigns is probably a detriment to American politics, but perhaps the best solution is to leave the system as is -- by meddling, we only risk making it worse. What's more, the American left has a rich tradition of ambition in the international arena. It was a liberal president who proposed the League of Nations and thus created an entire school of foreign-policy thought. It was a liberal president who stared down conservative isolationists and began preparing America -- years before Pearl Harbor -- to help rescue the Jews of Europe from genocide and the world from the greatest evil it had ever seen. It was a liberal president who invoked the lesson of that war to argue for intervention in countless conflicts during the 1990s. And it is liberals who have, over and over again, called attention to human-rights abuses, injustices, killings and torture throughout the world for decades upon decades -- and urged their government to do something, anything about them.
But here we are, on the brink of an attempt to remove one of recent history's most odious men from the world scene, and liberals have surveyed the situation and asked, "How can we find any rationale not to get involved?" They have noted that Saddam Hussein may be evil but that there are plenty of other evil people in the world. Or that conservatives are in it for the oil. Or that there are risks involved. Or that containment could prevent the dictator from ever using nuclear weapons.
All those arguments may well be true.
But not one of those arguments will lead to the liberation of a frighteningly Orwellian society based on fear and torture. Not one of them will protect the citizens of the Middle East's democratic nations against future attacks with weapons of mass destruction. Not one of them could lead to a beachhead -- however small -- of democracy in the Arab world. Not one of them will help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. Not one of them will allow America to take initial steps toward addressing the "root causes" of terror. Not one of them is worthy of the deeply moral traditions of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And not one of them will lead to progress in the Middle East -- yet these objections are apparently all most "progressives" have to offer."
"These arguments are almost all well-trodden territory at this advanced stage in the debate. But it is this last point -- the sudden puniness of the liberal worldview as embodied by its prescription for Iraq -- that saddens me most, and that liberals have grappled with least. Think of the major policy advances of the last century. The New Deal, the Great Society, the civil-rights movement -- all were fueled by a moralistic ambition and a faith in the power of humans to repair their world through action and ideas. There have never been any great liberal strains in American life that were fueled by a desire to just let things be. Think of the domestic causes championed by liberals at this magazine and elsewhere: public financing of campaigns, measures to conserve the environment, universal health care -- they are all ambitious in the great progressive tradition. No one at this magazine would ever say that corporate funding of campaigns is probably a detriment to American politics, but perhaps the best solution is to leave the system as is -- by meddling, we only risk making it worse. What's more, the American left has a rich tradition of ambition in the international arena. It was a liberal president who proposed the League of Nations and thus created an entire school of foreign-policy thought. It was a liberal president who stared down conservative isolationists and began preparing America -- years before Pearl Harbor -- to help rescue the Jews of Europe from genocide and the world from the greatest evil it had ever seen. It was a liberal president who invoked the lesson of that war to argue for intervention in countless conflicts during the 1990s. And it is liberals who have, over and over again, called attention to human-rights abuses, injustices, killings and torture throughout the world for decades upon decades -- and urged their government to do something, anything about them.
But here we are, on the brink of an attempt to remove one of recent history's most odious men from the world scene, and liberals have surveyed the situation and asked, "How can we find any rationale not to get involved?" They have noted that Saddam Hussein may be evil but that there are plenty of other evil people in the world. Or that conservatives are in it for the oil. Or that there are risks involved. Or that containment could prevent the dictator from ever using nuclear weapons.
All those arguments may well be true.
But not one of those arguments will lead to the liberation of a frighteningly Orwellian society based on fear and torture. Not one of them will protect the citizens of the Middle East's democratic nations against future attacks with weapons of mass destruction. Not one of them could lead to a beachhead -- however small -- of democracy in the Arab world. Not one of them will help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. Not one of them will allow America to take initial steps toward addressing the "root causes" of terror. Not one of them is worthy of the deeply moral traditions of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And not one of them will lead to progress in the Middle East -- yet these objections are apparently all most "progressives" have to offer."
QUOTE: The Daily Standard can actually manage to say something nice about the irrepressible (and hilarious) Dan Savage:
"Master of the anecdote, purveyor of leftist propaganda, and shameless producer of strawmen, Savage perhaps cannot be all things to all people. But there is one more role he plays in this book that is worth mentioning, that of the patriot. It may be telling of his overall seriousness that Savage sees this most public role, yet again, as a private matter, but let's not quibble too much. "Personally speaking," he writes, "I would rather live in a country where I can buy a drink, kiss a guy, and rent a hooker without risking a public beheading. I also think it's better for women to be free--free to get an education, to have a career, and obtain an abortion."
Unlike Susan Sontag and some other anti-American leftists, Savage is undivided in his affection for this country. He believes the United States is worth fighting for, just not some "1950s era dream of the United States." And, hey, that's seems fair enough."
"Master of the anecdote, purveyor of leftist propaganda, and shameless producer of strawmen, Savage perhaps cannot be all things to all people. But there is one more role he plays in this book that is worth mentioning, that of the patriot. It may be telling of his overall seriousness that Savage sees this most public role, yet again, as a private matter, but let's not quibble too much. "Personally speaking," he writes, "I would rather live in a country where I can buy a drink, kiss a guy, and rent a hooker without risking a public beheading. I also think it's better for women to be free--free to get an education, to have a career, and obtain an abortion."
Unlike Susan Sontag and some other anti-American leftists, Savage is undivided in his affection for this country. He believes the United States is worth fighting for, just not some "1950s era dream of the United States." And, hey, that's seems fair enough."
QUOTE: From a piece in Slate on Woody Allen:
"But he can't or doesn't seem to want to recognize the larger truth that everything we do and say and think fits together like a jigsaw puzzle that only death will complete. And this apparent resistance may be what has kept him from scaling what he sees as the loftiest artistic heights. The full integration of self may also be what he missed in his psychoanalysis, perhaps because he was apparently so intent on maintaining his emotional autonomy and using the couch for his own stealthy, homemade purposes, like a kid sneaking apples from the orchard next door. "
"But he can't or doesn't seem to want to recognize the larger truth that everything we do and say and think fits together like a jigsaw puzzle that only death will complete. And this apparent resistance may be what has kept him from scaling what he sees as the loftiest artistic heights. The full integration of self may also be what he missed in his psychoanalysis, perhaps because he was apparently so intent on maintaining his emotional autonomy and using the couch for his own stealthy, homemade purposes, like a kid sneaking apples from the orchard next door. "
12.11.02
"8). The government should challenge Americans to do things like conserve energy a la JFK challenging us to reach the moon by the end of the decade (end of the 1960s). Where is a good, presidential leader in congress. (on a personal note: John McCain!)"
The more appropriate analogy would be the time Democrats actually suggested Americans conserve energy. That went well, didn't it? And not having Presidential-type leaders in Congress is good: Congressmen are supposed to be creating good policy, not trying to further their own political ambitions. (and on a personal note: hell yeah!)
The more appropriate analogy would be the time Democrats actually suggested Americans conserve energy. That went well, didn't it? And not having Presidential-type leaders in Congress is good: Congressmen are supposed to be creating good policy, not trying to further their own political ambitions. (and on a personal note: hell yeah!)
"7). 9-11 changed nothing. We are still obsessed with being PC, with avoiding hurting anyone's feelings with criticism, with which celebrity is dating which celebrity, and with reality TV/ The Bachelor/ Anna Nicole Smith, and with huge gas-guzzling SUVs that fund terrorism. People say if we give up some of these vices, then the terrorists win. No, if we give these up, we win."
You know, reading that, it strikes me that if he didn't hate Americans (and the things they like) so much, he might have a better handle on why things are the way they are.
You know, reading that, it strikes me that if he didn't hate Americans (and the things they like) so much, he might have a better handle on why things are the way they are.
"6). The democrats have only themselves to blame for losing ground in the senate. Don't points 1-4 seem like excellent criticisms of the republican leadership? Aren't they typical democrat stomping grounds? Why did the democrats just sit back and agree with Bush about way too many things? Where was the dissent? The criticism?"
Actually, they sound like whiny points made by someone who can't conceive of what they'd do if they actually had power. And therein lies part of the problem: it's very easy to criticize, but there hasn't been a positive proposal about what the alternative is. And, interestingly, this view requires believing that no Democrat of good conscience could agree with Bush on anything. But as Todd Gitlin, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Walzer et al have proven, it is indeed possible to have a great deal of agreement-- we can agree on ends but not on means. This distinction seems to be totally lost on people commenting on the Left.
Actually, they sound like whiny points made by someone who can't conceive of what they'd do if they actually had power. And therein lies part of the problem: it's very easy to criticize, but there hasn't been a positive proposal about what the alternative is. And, interestingly, this view requires believing that no Democrat of good conscience could agree with Bush on anything. But as Todd Gitlin, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Walzer et al have proven, it is indeed possible to have a great deal of agreement-- we can agree on ends but not on means. This distinction seems to be totally lost on people commenting on the Left.
"5). Political debates are being dumbed down. For example, in the Posthumous-Granholm election in MI, the commercials these two candidates had were pitiful. I learned that Granhol is "liberal and extreme" and "too risky" whereas I also learned that "Posthumous cares about our children." Maybe the candidates could discuss some issues?"
As anyone who has taken an advanced class in American Politics could tell you, we've been in the age of candidate-centered politics since 1968 or so (if not earlier). Candidates don't discuss issues in part because there are any huge partisan arguments like there were in the 30s, 50s, 70s and 80s. Maybe that will change in the near future (and there's been a great amount of writing in the last week dedicated to the topic), but, barring a compelling national agenda-type issue, we're going to stay in the era of candidate-centered politics for awhile. But I agree that debates are, on the whole, pointless.
As anyone who has taken an advanced class in American Politics could tell you, we've been in the age of candidate-centered politics since 1968 or so (if not earlier). Candidates don't discuss issues in part because there are any huge partisan arguments like there were in the 30s, 50s, 70s and 80s. Maybe that will change in the near future (and there's been a great amount of writing in the last week dedicated to the topic), but, barring a compelling national agenda-type issue, we're going to stay in the era of candidate-centered politics for awhile. But I agree that debates are, on the whole, pointless.
"4). The tax cut was a huge mistake. If social security is in trouble, why should the government give cash back? Shouldn't they maybe help out social security? The tax cut was even a bigger mistake in hind sight because of the huge increase in military spending. Also, given today's climate, why should anyone support a tax cut on the local level. Don't we want more firemen and police officers? Aren't we short on teachers for public schools?"
Aside from the complaint about military spending, Amen.
Aside from the complaint about military spending, Amen.
"3). Why Tom Ridge as the head of the new department? He has NO intelligence gathering experience. He is a politician. Sounds like a bad choice to me..."
Because Cabinet-level officials are intentionally chosen to not be wedded to the system that's already in place. They are there to reflect the Administration's agenda, and are not supposed to be part of the civil servant portion of the department. Why not Tom Ridge? He has experience being in charge of a number of different agencies (I'd imagine they have them in Pennsylvania)... seems like as good a choice as any. Who would you pick instead?
Because Cabinet-level officials are intentionally chosen to not be wedded to the system that's already in place. They are there to reflect the Administration's agenda, and are not supposed to be part of the civil servant portion of the department. Why not Tom Ridge? He has experience being in charge of a number of different agencies (I'd imagine they have them in Pennsylvania)... seems like as good a choice as any. Who would you pick instead?
FISKING MAHER: Let's get going, shall we?
"1). Marijuana does not fund terrorism. Oil funds terrorism. Why doesn't Bush encourage people to cut their oil usage? Maybe thats because of some potential conflicts of interest. Has anyone ever heard of Texaco? Do they sell oil? I can't remember."
First off, try telling the Columbians who have been terrorized for the last twenty years by FARC that there's no connection between marijuana and terrorism. But, of course, as any good Kantian will tell you, the fact that marijuana is linkable to criminal activity is merely a consequence of the fact that drug use is always and everywhere morally wrong. Putting aside this point, though, "oil funds terrorism" is, in some senses true: certainly, no reasonable person could deny it about the Saudis. But this point won't hold up under scrutiny: why doesn't oil money from Canada, Mexico, northern Britain or Russia fund terrorism? It's reasonable to believe that it's not the money from oil alone that funds terrorism, but the ideological disposition of the people with the money that makes the difference. Why doesn't Bush encourage people to cut their oil usage? Fair question.
Then, of course, there's the reach too far: it cannot be the case that Bush is actuated by some policy principle that says that an oil-based economy is in the best interest for the near future for the country (that would require him being intelligent, and I suspect you'd deny him of that)--no, it can only be the case that he has a sinister motive. Notice, of course, there's no actual evidence given of a connection, nor an argument for why the link should even be made. Texaco?! That sounds like Texas! Wasn't Bush Governor of Texas?! Obviously he's in cahoots with them!!
"1). Marijuana does not fund terrorism. Oil funds terrorism. Why doesn't Bush encourage people to cut their oil usage? Maybe thats because of some potential conflicts of interest. Has anyone ever heard of Texaco? Do they sell oil? I can't remember."
First off, try telling the Columbians who have been terrorized for the last twenty years by FARC that there's no connection between marijuana and terrorism. But, of course, as any good Kantian will tell you, the fact that marijuana is linkable to criminal activity is merely a consequence of the fact that drug use is always and everywhere morally wrong. Putting aside this point, though, "oil funds terrorism" is, in some senses true: certainly, no reasonable person could deny it about the Saudis. But this point won't hold up under scrutiny: why doesn't oil money from Canada, Mexico, northern Britain or Russia fund terrorism? It's reasonable to believe that it's not the money from oil alone that funds terrorism, but the ideological disposition of the people with the money that makes the difference. Why doesn't Bush encourage people to cut their oil usage? Fair question.
Then, of course, there's the reach too far: it cannot be the case that Bush is actuated by some policy principle that says that an oil-based economy is in the best interest for the near future for the country (that would require him being intelligent, and I suspect you'd deny him of that)--no, it can only be the case that he has a sinister motive. Notice, of course, there's no actual evidence given of a connection, nor an argument for why the link should even be made. Texaco?! That sounds like Texas! Wasn't Bush Governor of Texas?! Obviously he's in cahoots with them!!
LINK: Joe Klein offers some advice to the Democratic Party. Bob Reich to follow suit tomorrow. Should be interesting.
LINK: For those who follow international human rights issues, Michael Ledeen again fights the good fight on Iran... this is news you won't get anywhere else.
"The demonstrations began on Saturday at 6:35 in the afternoon in Tehran. The pretext for the gathering was given by hundreds of cases of food poisoning, and the public revelation that students were being fed low-quality meat. Within an hour the security forces closed all streets leading to the university, and the students began singing the old Iranian national anthem ? banned by the mullahs. At 9 o'clock, ten bus loads of security forces arrived on the scene, and the thugs tried to force the students back into the university buildings, but they were driven back, as the students chanted "Hashemi (Rafsanjani), Pinochet, Iran will not be a Chile," along with "(failed reformist president) Khatami, resign!" and "referendum, referendum."
When the security forces were driven back, the students lit bonfires with wood and tires, at which point the security forces fired gas grenades at the crowds. The fighting went on until 1:30 in the morning. Thirty-seven students were arrested."
"The demonstrations began on Saturday at 6:35 in the afternoon in Tehran. The pretext for the gathering was given by hundreds of cases of food poisoning, and the public revelation that students were being fed low-quality meat. Within an hour the security forces closed all streets leading to the university, and the students began singing the old Iranian national anthem ? banned by the mullahs. At 9 o'clock, ten bus loads of security forces arrived on the scene, and the thugs tried to force the students back into the university buildings, but they were driven back, as the students chanted "Hashemi (Rafsanjani), Pinochet, Iran will not be a Chile," along with "(failed reformist president) Khatami, resign!" and "referendum, referendum."
When the security forces were driven back, the students lit bonfires with wood and tires, at which point the security forces fired gas grenades at the crowds. The fighting went on until 1:30 in the morning. Thirty-seven students were arrested."
HITCH WATCH: Back at it again on Slate on how this war is different... speaking of... when did they displace National Review Online as the thing you absolutely have to read seven different pieces from everyday?
"When a man thinks that any stick will do, said Chesterton, he is likely to pick up a boomerang. Shall we inquire into the "armchair" or otherwise sedentary lives of those who sympathized with Milosevic, or who published euphemisms about al-Qaida, or who went on fatuous hospitality trips to Baghdad and ended up echoing Baathist propaganda? You can be sure that they would yell about "the politics of personal destruction" or perhaps "McCarthyism" if such an imputation was made. Well, then, let them beware of licensing such a cheap form of ad hominem argument. Just as some of the greatest anti-war writers and poets were courageous soldiers, some of the best minds of World War II were civilian strategists and code-breakers, and some of the finest Resistance fighters were intellectuals who picked up weapons. There is no certain way of enforcing these distinctions morally, until the test actually comes. But now civilians are in the front line as never before, and we shall be needing a more rigorous terminology to reflect that dramatic fact."
"When a man thinks that any stick will do, said Chesterton, he is likely to pick up a boomerang. Shall we inquire into the "armchair" or otherwise sedentary lives of those who sympathized with Milosevic, or who published euphemisms about al-Qaida, or who went on fatuous hospitality trips to Baghdad and ended up echoing Baathist propaganda? You can be sure that they would yell about "the politics of personal destruction" or perhaps "McCarthyism" if such an imputation was made. Well, then, let them beware of licensing such a cheap form of ad hominem argument. Just as some of the greatest anti-war writers and poets were courageous soldiers, some of the best minds of World War II were civilian strategists and code-breakers, and some of the finest Resistance fighters were intellectuals who picked up weapons. There is no certain way of enforcing these distinctions morally, until the test actually comes. But now civilians are in the front line as never before, and we shall be needing a more rigorous terminology to reflect that dramatic fact."
QUOTE: which will have to do, until I get back from class and can give Maher the working over he deserves
Dennis Miller on Leno -- the anti-Maher! (courtesy of the Media REsearch Center):
"It's not a perfect world. Listen I think Bush's old man could have ended this whole dilemma in the Middle East around 12 years ago. We were like two exits away on the Jersey Turnpike from croaking this toad and we back off because the coalition doesn't want us to go up the road. Are you kidding me? The coalition? This better not happen again. You know Tony Blair is a cute kid and one of my favorite Martin Short characters in waiting, but the simple fact is we don't consult the Brits on anything anymore. We haven't listened to them since our boys dressed up like the Hakawi tribe and boosted all the Tetley tea in the Beantown Harbor around 200 years ago. I don't want to ask the Brits what to do here. We gotta assassinate Saddam Hussein. Why have we taken assassination off the table as a viable political tool? And yet they'll tell you the collateral damage of civilians is acceptable. But you're not allowed to assassinate the main pain in the ass. My theory is if you have trouble with your conscience pretend you're trying to kill the guy next to him and think of him as collateral damage, alright?! If that will allow you to get to bed at night." [applause] Miller: "Listen. Negotiating with Saddam Hussein is about as practical as practicing aroma therapy on a French man. Okay? It's not going to happen."
Dennis Miller on Leno -- the anti-Maher! (courtesy of the Media REsearch Center):
"It's not a perfect world. Listen I think Bush's old man could have ended this whole dilemma in the Middle East around 12 years ago. We were like two exits away on the Jersey Turnpike from croaking this toad and we back off because the coalition doesn't want us to go up the road. Are you kidding me? The coalition? This better not happen again. You know Tony Blair is a cute kid and one of my favorite Martin Short characters in waiting, but the simple fact is we don't consult the Brits on anything anymore. We haven't listened to them since our boys dressed up like the Hakawi tribe and boosted all the Tetley tea in the Beantown Harbor around 200 years ago. I don't want to ask the Brits what to do here. We gotta assassinate Saddam Hussein. Why have we taken assassination off the table as a viable political tool? And yet they'll tell you the collateral damage of civilians is acceptable. But you're not allowed to assassinate the main pain in the ass. My theory is if you have trouble with your conscience pretend you're trying to kill the guy next to him and think of him as collateral damage, alright?! If that will allow you to get to bed at night." [applause] Miller: "Listen. Negotiating with Saddam Hussein is about as practical as practicing aroma therapy on a French man. Okay? It's not going to happen."
11.11.02
LINK: TNR on the Fabulousness that is Sex and the City. Surprisingly, rather than being simply a killjoy as far as the show goes, the author manages to insinuate... well... read it for yourself:
"Now, a part of the reason for the show's portrayal of women seeking sex for sex's sake is that the series' two creators, Darren Star and Michael Patrick King, are gay. On this level, Sex and the City is part of a long imaginative streak in popular art, a trend that includes Cole Porter and Lorenz Hart and George Cukor and Rock Hudson and most of the writers of the 1970s series Bewitched and many other gay figures whose portrayals of heterosexual life brilliantly subverted heterosexual conventions even as they were providing models for (unwitting) straight boys and girls. But there is a quality to Sex and the City's subversions that is more bitter than playful, an element that is almost vindictive.
Running through Sex and the City is a subtext that amounts to a manifesto for a certain kind of raw, rough, promiscuous, anonymous gay male sex. Star and King sounded the call to arms in one of the very first episodes, when they had Stanford Blatch, Carrie's loyal gay friend, declare that "the only place where you can find love is the gay community. It's straight love that's closeted." A few seasons later, the women sit around watching gay-male porn films. "That's the way to do it," says Samantha, "no 'I love you'--just good old-fashioned fucking." Nobody contradicts her. One of the most recent of the half-hour-long episodes had the women finding happiness for a full ten minutes in a gay men's dance club. A segment this past season sent Carrie and Samantha, both blondes, on a train across the country, joking all the way about Some Like It Hot. Some of the quartet's boyfriends in the show's first two seasons actually wore their sweaters tucked into their pants; and if the actors playing these straight guys weren't gay, I'm Montgomery Clift. Sex and the City's ongoing impersonation is admirably resourceful and daring. But the show's misogyny is not admirable at all."
"Now, a part of the reason for the show's portrayal of women seeking sex for sex's sake is that the series' two creators, Darren Star and Michael Patrick King, are gay. On this level, Sex and the City is part of a long imaginative streak in popular art, a trend that includes Cole Porter and Lorenz Hart and George Cukor and Rock Hudson and most of the writers of the 1970s series Bewitched and many other gay figures whose portrayals of heterosexual life brilliantly subverted heterosexual conventions even as they were providing models for (unwitting) straight boys and girls. But there is a quality to Sex and the City's subversions that is more bitter than playful, an element that is almost vindictive.
Running through Sex and the City is a subtext that amounts to a manifesto for a certain kind of raw, rough, promiscuous, anonymous gay male sex. Star and King sounded the call to arms in one of the very first episodes, when they had Stanford Blatch, Carrie's loyal gay friend, declare that "the only place where you can find love is the gay community. It's straight love that's closeted." A few seasons later, the women sit around watching gay-male porn films. "That's the way to do it," says Samantha, "no 'I love you'--just good old-fashioned fucking." Nobody contradicts her. One of the most recent of the half-hour-long episodes had the women finding happiness for a full ten minutes in a gay men's dance club. A segment this past season sent Carrie and Samantha, both blondes, on a train across the country, joking all the way about Some Like It Hot. Some of the quartet's boyfriends in the show's first two seasons actually wore their sweaters tucked into their pants; and if the actors playing these straight guys weren't gay, I'm Montgomery Clift. Sex and the City's ongoing impersonation is admirably resourceful and daring. But the show's misogyny is not admirable at all."
QUOTE: The New Republic salivates over the possibility of a Democratic nominee for President who might actually have positions on issues:
"But if Sunday's ABC interview is indicative, Kerry seems to have finally found a strong voice, at least on domestic policy. The Bush tax cut, Kerry said, has "taken ... money literally out of Social Security, out of Medicare, and given it to the wealthiest of Americans." Republicans, he continued, "have been content not even to continue unemployment compensation for working people, not to help them get health care." Earlier, Kerry had even linked the tax cut to law enforcement--traditionally a GOP strength. "We don't have enough police officers," Kerry told Stephanopoulos, "and this administration is cutting the COPS program. They're reducing the number of police officers that we struggled to put there."
Note the key emphasis here: Kerry isn't focusing on budget surpluses as some abstract accounting principle. He's talking about the real-life implications of running high deficits--namely, less money for spending on current programs and less money for the future, when the retirement of the baby-boomers will place ever-greater claims on Medicare and Social Security. This is the Democrats' best hope of attacking the Bush tax cut (and blocking new ones), because it presents the choices as they actually exist: Tax cuts for the wealthy or saving and funding programs for everybody else."
"But if Sunday's ABC interview is indicative, Kerry seems to have finally found a strong voice, at least on domestic policy. The Bush tax cut, Kerry said, has "taken ... money literally out of Social Security, out of Medicare, and given it to the wealthiest of Americans." Republicans, he continued, "have been content not even to continue unemployment compensation for working people, not to help them get health care." Earlier, Kerry had even linked the tax cut to law enforcement--traditionally a GOP strength. "We don't have enough police officers," Kerry told Stephanopoulos, "and this administration is cutting the COPS program. They're reducing the number of police officers that we struggled to put there."
Note the key emphasis here: Kerry isn't focusing on budget surpluses as some abstract accounting principle. He's talking about the real-life implications of running high deficits--namely, less money for spending on current programs and less money for the future, when the retirement of the baby-boomers will place ever-greater claims on Medicare and Social Security. This is the Democrats' best hope of attacking the Bush tax cut (and blocking new ones), because it presents the choices as they actually exist: Tax cuts for the wealthy or saving and funding programs for everybody else."
QUOTE: Josh Marshall, via Howie Kurtz:
"I wasn't surprised by the news that Dick Gephardt was stepping down as House Minority Leader. I wasn't, that is, until I saw the text of his comments, in which he pretty much implies that he's stepping down to try to run for president. What's this dude smoking? This is sort of like having your girlfriend dump you and then you say, 'Okay, baby, I can live with that. But I've got another idea for you. How 'bout you and me get married? Huh? Huh? Yeah, baby. . . . Whaddya think???'"
"I wasn't surprised by the news that Dick Gephardt was stepping down as House Minority Leader. I wasn't, that is, until I saw the text of his comments, in which he pretty much implies that he's stepping down to try to run for president. What's this dude smoking? This is sort of like having your girlfriend dump you and then you say, 'Okay, baby, I can live with that. But I've got another idea for you. How 'bout you and me get married? Huh? Huh? Yeah, baby. . . . Whaddya think???'"
QUOTE: Mickey Kaus, on the fallout from last Tuesday:
"Suddenly, it's 1983! Wait, I've lived through this already. Defeated Democrats need "ideas," says Michael Waldman. And make it snappy! (Get Gary Hart! Didn't he have "new ideas"?) .. I respect Waldman -- his politics are close to mine, and he wrote a good, entertaining book about the Clinton Presidency. But 1) "ideas" aren't like a crop of wheat you can reliably grow if you just put enough think-tank farmers on the case. It's fair to say that if Democrats can't say immediately, off the top of their heads, what they believe in that's different from Bush, the Brookings Institution isn't going to tell them; 2) Nor is it just a question of new neoliberal, market-oriented "means" to traditional liberal "ends." The Democrats' problem may be that some of the old "ends" -- the ones they would give you off the tops of their heads -- have been grokked and rejected. Like what? Like the relentless pursuit of "more" economic equality. 3) So what's a new, more acceptable Democratic end? Off the top of my head: Affirmative government to insure social, not economic, equality -- in part by guaranteeing health care to all (not a new "idea"!); 4) Waldman says Democrats should "look squarely at welfare reform and crime, and instead of kvetching about Republican plans, offer some of their own, proposals that do not undo the social progress made under a Democratic administration." Right. But what if Bush's proposals are the ones that don't undo the social progress made under Clinton? On some level, Waldman seems to want the Dems to come up with an alternative just for the sake of having an alternative."
"Suddenly, it's 1983! Wait, I've lived through this already. Defeated Democrats need "ideas," says Michael Waldman. And make it snappy! (Get Gary Hart! Didn't he have "new ideas"?) .. I respect Waldman -- his politics are close to mine, and he wrote a good, entertaining book about the Clinton Presidency. But 1) "ideas" aren't like a crop of wheat you can reliably grow if you just put enough think-tank farmers on the case. It's fair to say that if Democrats can't say immediately, off the top of their heads, what they believe in that's different from Bush, the Brookings Institution isn't going to tell them; 2) Nor is it just a question of new neoliberal, market-oriented "means" to traditional liberal "ends." The Democrats' problem may be that some of the old "ends" -- the ones they would give you off the tops of their heads -- have been grokked and rejected. Like what? Like the relentless pursuit of "more" economic equality. 3) So what's a new, more acceptable Democratic end? Off the top of my head: Affirmative government to insure social, not economic, equality -- in part by guaranteeing health care to all (not a new "idea"!); 4) Waldman says Democrats should "look squarely at welfare reform and crime, and instead of kvetching about Republican plans, offer some of their own, proposals that do not undo the social progress made under a Democratic administration." Right. But what if Bush's proposals are the ones that don't undo the social progress made under Clinton? On some level, Waldman seems to want the Dems to come up with an alternative just for the sake of having an alternative."
QUOTE: from Slate, about how Radiohead killed off British rock, by reducing it to workman-like formula. To wit:
"Idlewild's musical references to American indie rock bands of the '80s are not hard to get. The problem is that there are so many of them, and they follow one after another, so that it gets hard to keep track of the band from song to song. "There's a Seventeen contest in my home/ There's a Seventeen contest in my own home," sings the Idlewild front man, Roddy Woomble. The song, "Little Discourage" sounds exactly like early-mid period REM . The music is derivative; on the other hand, the fact that Idlewild is really, really good at writing derivative music is a virtue, not a crime. (Radiohead's first hit single, "Creep"?which starts off the '90s disc of Capitol's great new box set of Capitol tracks from the '40s through the '90s?sounds like a straight-up parody of Nirvana.) Idlewild's "I Don't Have the Map" is definitely one of the best Smiths rip-offs ever?with the odd but heartfelt imprecation "Don't buy local lamplight" leading into a wave of Pixies-ish guitars , which then resolves into a believably angry and alienated chorus of "You can't cope without the contact." The band's two-guitar attack is perfectly poised in the commercial but still heavy-sounding area that the Pixies opened up in 1987."
"Idlewild's musical references to American indie rock bands of the '80s are not hard to get. The problem is that there are so many of them, and they follow one after another, so that it gets hard to keep track of the band from song to song. "There's a Seventeen contest in my home/ There's a Seventeen contest in my own home," sings the Idlewild front man, Roddy Woomble. The song, "Little Discourage" sounds exactly like early-mid period REM . The music is derivative; on the other hand, the fact that Idlewild is really, really good at writing derivative music is a virtue, not a crime. (Radiohead's first hit single, "Creep"?which starts off the '90s disc of Capitol's great new box set of Capitol tracks from the '40s through the '90s?sounds like a straight-up parody of Nirvana.) Idlewild's "I Don't Have the Map" is definitely one of the best Smiths rip-offs ever?with the odd but heartfelt imprecation "Don't buy local lamplight" leading into a wave of Pixies-ish guitars , which then resolves into a believably angry and alienated chorus of "You can't cope without the contact." The band's two-guitar attack is perfectly poised in the commercial but still heavy-sounding area that the Pixies opened up in 1987."
5.11.02
WELL, AT LEAST WE DIDN'T LOSE THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S RACE: And it is using that as a starting point that I would like to make the following (highly) counterfactual claim: The Democratic Party didn't do that badly yesterday. Don't get me wrong, they sucked it up all over the place, losing every even remotely winnable election. So what's the good news?
1. Pryor wins in Arkansas, Harkin wins in Iowa, and Baucus wins in Montana: these represent, generally, the three types of elections Democrats found themselves in: where the region favored the Republican, where there was a stronger than expected challenge, and where there was no challenge to speak of (though there should've been). Pryor won, in no small part (did you see the ad where he reads the Bible to his children? Classic) because he wasn't afraid to give himself a moral dimension. Apart from how this plays well in AK (no Bill Clinton jokes, kiddies), it makes smart politics: defeat the 'family values' guy by not being afraid to display your own family values-- that is, nullify the issue (or make the issue yours, when you're dealing someone with the lapsed ethics of a Tim Hutchinson). In other words, be willing to put up a fight-- don't concede any ground at all, and it makes it harder for your opponent's attacks to stick.
As far as Harkin and Baucus go, you'd have to do more research than I have into the elections to see why Ganske couldn't maintain his traction and Taylor couldn't ever get any in the first place. But if I were Chairman of the DNC (and, God willing, one day I will be), I'd be picking the brains of the people working for those candidates. They did something right.
2. CNN's most recent numbers have Democratic candidates ahead in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Oregon, as well as scoring pickups in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Michigan, Maine, Kansas and Illinois. That's a hell of a lot of state machinery that just came under Democratic control. Any rehibilitation of the party that will occur is going to have to start on the statewide level, and this is a good sign that Democrats can expect more help in the next election and beyond. Obviously, the longer any of these people can stay in office (and the more Dems they can drag with them) the better, but even marginal changes in states like Illinois, Pennsylvania and Kansas will have huge electoral implications in the future.
3. A lot of the really mediocre Democratic candidates for President were swept off the stage last night: Daschle and Gephardt are out (and I predict Gephardt is also out as Minority Leader), and Kerry and Edwards will, hopefully, have the sense not to waste their effort in two years. One of the unfortunate effects of last night is that the Dems pretty much rolled over on 2004: it will be hard to beat Bush, if not impossible. Of course, there is an intriguing possibility that keeps getting mentioned more and more seriously: Gary Hart. Imagine, a Democratic candidate with actual ideas about how to do things!
1. Pryor wins in Arkansas, Harkin wins in Iowa, and Baucus wins in Montana: these represent, generally, the three types of elections Democrats found themselves in: where the region favored the Republican, where there was a stronger than expected challenge, and where there was no challenge to speak of (though there should've been). Pryor won, in no small part (did you see the ad where he reads the Bible to his children? Classic) because he wasn't afraid to give himself a moral dimension. Apart from how this plays well in AK (no Bill Clinton jokes, kiddies), it makes smart politics: defeat the 'family values' guy by not being afraid to display your own family values-- that is, nullify the issue (or make the issue yours, when you're dealing someone with the lapsed ethics of a Tim Hutchinson). In other words, be willing to put up a fight-- don't concede any ground at all, and it makes it harder for your opponent's attacks to stick.
As far as Harkin and Baucus go, you'd have to do more research than I have into the elections to see why Ganske couldn't maintain his traction and Taylor couldn't ever get any in the first place. But if I were Chairman of the DNC (and, God willing, one day I will be), I'd be picking the brains of the people working for those candidates. They did something right.
2. CNN's most recent numbers have Democratic candidates ahead in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Oregon, as well as scoring pickups in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Michigan, Maine, Kansas and Illinois. That's a hell of a lot of state machinery that just came under Democratic control. Any rehibilitation of the party that will occur is going to have to start on the statewide level, and this is a good sign that Democrats can expect more help in the next election and beyond. Obviously, the longer any of these people can stay in office (and the more Dems they can drag with them) the better, but even marginal changes in states like Illinois, Pennsylvania and Kansas will have huge electoral implications in the future.
3. A lot of the really mediocre Democratic candidates for President were swept off the stage last night: Daschle and Gephardt are out (and I predict Gephardt is also out as Minority Leader), and Kerry and Edwards will, hopefully, have the sense not to waste their effort in two years. One of the unfortunate effects of last night is that the Dems pretty much rolled over on 2004: it will be hard to beat Bush, if not impossible. Of course, there is an intriguing possibility that keeps getting mentioned more and more seriously: Gary Hart. Imagine, a Democratic candidate with actual ideas about how to do things!
PREDICTIONS: If the Presidential election is the Super Bowl for nerds (and it is), then midterm Congressional elections are the World Series. I was in class for the last six hours, and I won't start watching CNN until I go and vote, so I haven't been swayed by any late-breaking info. My predictions:
California Gov: Gray Davis 1
Colorado Senate
Minnesota Senate: Walter Mondale 3
Iowa Senate: Tom Harkin 1
Lousiana Senate: Mary Landrieu 2
Arkansas Senate: Mark Pryor 2
Florida Governor: Jeb Bush 3
Georgia Senate: Max Cleland 2
South Carolina Senate: Lindsey Graham 1
North Carolina Senate:
New Jersey Senate: Lautenberg 1
New York Governor: George Pataki 1
Massachusetts Governor: Mitt Romney 2
Michigan Governor: Jennifer Granholm 1
MI Sec. of State: Land 2
MI Att. Gen.: Gary Peters 1
Missouri Senate: Jim Talent 3
South Dekota Senate:
Whatever happened to...?
Oregon Senate?
Montana Senate?
too close to call: Colorado Senate, N. Carolina Senate, S.D. Senate
dark horses: Tom Gosliano, NY Governor; Erskine Bowles, NC Senate
call: no more than 51 Senators from either party
What the numbers mean:
1- a lock. Bet the farm
2- not quite so certain. Bet the barn.
3- could go either way. Normally, I'd say bet the livestock, but you'd be better off taking those sheep and cattle and making a sacrifice to God on behalf of your candidate-- it's gonna be that close.
Tennessee Senate?
California Gov: Gray Davis 1
Colorado Senate
Minnesota Senate: Walter Mondale 3
Iowa Senate: Tom Harkin 1
Lousiana Senate: Mary Landrieu 2
Arkansas Senate: Mark Pryor 2
Florida Governor: Jeb Bush 3
Georgia Senate: Max Cleland 2
South Carolina Senate: Lindsey Graham 1
North Carolina Senate:
New Jersey Senate: Lautenberg 1
New York Governor: George Pataki 1
Massachusetts Governor: Mitt Romney 2
Michigan Governor: Jennifer Granholm 1
MI Sec. of State: Land 2
MI Att. Gen.: Gary Peters 1
Missouri Senate: Jim Talent 3
South Dekota Senate:
Whatever happened to...?
Oregon Senate?
Montana Senate?
too close to call: Colorado Senate, N. Carolina Senate, S.D. Senate
dark horses: Tom Gosliano, NY Governor; Erskine Bowles, NC Senate
call: no more than 51 Senators from either party
What the numbers mean:
1- a lock. Bet the farm
2- not quite so certain. Bet the barn.
3- could go either way. Normally, I'd say bet the livestock, but you'd be better off taking those sheep and cattle and making a sacrifice to God on behalf of your candidate-- it's gonna be that close.
Tennessee Senate?
4.11.02
QUOTE: Larry Miller, with possibly the best suggestion ever:
"That's what started me thinking about my favorite Chevy, the glorious '57. I've never had one, but always wanted one. Doesn't everyone love those? When one goes by, don't you all say, "Hey, look, a '57 Chevy!" No one's ever going to say, "Hey, look, a '93 Buick!"
And that's when I got the idea. Why don't we build them again? Seriously. They've got to have the plans sitting on a shelf somewhere, right? Then why not? I know the engines and safety of cars has gotten a lot better over the years, so why doesn't General Motors just start building 21st century cars inside and '57 Chevys outside?
Okay, maybe it sounds stupid. On the other hand, think about it: Have many of you out there would jump at the chance to buy a brand new '57 Chevy? I would. Wouldn't we all? Wouldn't everyone in the world? I mean, there wouldn't be one unemployed American, there'd be endless rows of factories dotted all over the country, Michael Moore would be dancing with George Will, because we'd all be building and buying '57 Chevys. There'd probably be a big drop in the murder rate, too, because we'd all be too busy cruising around in our cool '57 Chevys. Can you imagine what every town and city would be like on a Saturday night? Hell, the whole country would look like "Happy Days." "
"That's what started me thinking about my favorite Chevy, the glorious '57. I've never had one, but always wanted one. Doesn't everyone love those? When one goes by, don't you all say, "Hey, look, a '57 Chevy!" No one's ever going to say, "Hey, look, a '93 Buick!"
And that's when I got the idea. Why don't we build them again? Seriously. They've got to have the plans sitting on a shelf somewhere, right? Then why not? I know the engines and safety of cars has gotten a lot better over the years, so why doesn't General Motors just start building 21st century cars inside and '57 Chevys outside?
Okay, maybe it sounds stupid. On the other hand, think about it: Have many of you out there would jump at the chance to buy a brand new '57 Chevy? I would. Wouldn't we all? Wouldn't everyone in the world? I mean, there wouldn't be one unemployed American, there'd be endless rows of factories dotted all over the country, Michael Moore would be dancing with George Will, because we'd all be building and buying '57 Chevys. There'd probably be a big drop in the murder rate, too, because we'd all be too busy cruising around in our cool '57 Chevys. Can you imagine what every town and city would be like on a Saturday night? Hell, the whole country would look like "Happy Days." "
LINK: Well, it's hard to say that a Republican wouldn't know from dirty tricks, but it just so happens that the reputable media has dismissed these stories as being as false as the Jenin 'massacre.'
3.11.02
QUOTE: David
"homework... i'd rather be flirting with women"
-Is it just me, or does anyone else find the mental image of David Hucul flirting with women to be... unexpected*? Not that I mean anything against you, David, but it's sort of like... well... picturing me flirting with women**.***
*does not mean David Hucul is homosexual
** REALLY does not mean I'm homosexual
*** ...not that there's anything wrong with that...
"homework... i'd rather be flirting with women"
-Is it just me, or does anyone else find the mental image of David Hucul flirting with women to be... unexpected*? Not that I mean anything against you, David, but it's sort of like... well... picturing me flirting with women**.***
*does not mean David Hucul is homosexual
** REALLY does not mean I'm homosexual
*** ...not that there's anything wrong with that...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)