Now that Aristide has left Haiti, can a libertarian paradise be far? At last, a country will be governed by enlightened self-interest. Not forever, will individuals defer to the boot of the socialist tyrant.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
The Unforgiving Right.
I wasn't a big fan of political correctness the first time around. In the late 1980's, I remember sneaking around to eat fried zucchini at Carl's Jr -- spectacular little golden crispies perfect in the ranch dressing they came with. Carl's Jr. was conveniently located in the USC Student Center -- but what had been a plus of accessibility became a minus when I found out I had a friend who was not above a public scene berating her friends for doing business with someone who gives to anti-abortion causes.
Since and before that period, the left has typically been forgiving of disagreements, tolerant of those holding different views. This week, Pew in the NYTimes we learn that political candidates have a choice: even if the voters agree with you on most other issues, 34% of them will not vote for you if you favor gay marriage, and only 6% would not vote for you if you oppose gay marriage.
By backing gay marriage, you lose a third of your vote. Being against it, you lose 6%.
This means, as an electoral strategy, there's really only one option.
Since and before that period, the left has typically been forgiving of disagreements, tolerant of those holding different views. This week, Pew in the NYTimes we learn that political candidates have a choice: even if the voters agree with you on most other issues, 34% of them will not vote for you if you favor gay marriage, and only 6% would not vote for you if you oppose gay marriage.
By backing gay marriage, you lose a third of your vote. Being against it, you lose 6%.
This means, as an electoral strategy, there's really only one option.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
How Far It Will Go
Derek, I think the question of "How Far This Will Go", as regards the granting of marriage licenses by mayors and registrars throughout the country, is not the important one for the winning of this debate in the US. I take that going far means being able to make the marriages stick, having them stand up in courts from the locals to the state supreme courts to the federal supreme court.
However, even if all the licensings hold through the supreme court, that will not signal victory, as long as the constitutional amendment hangs credibly over. Some have already argued that the amendment is not likely to pass this year, but I think no one has credibly argued that the amendment possibility can be dismissed out of hand. Thus, the important impact will be to deflate the amendment threat.
How to do? Well, those who back the amendment are under the impression that what they are doing is simply protecting the institution of marriage in keeping with the desires of the vast majority of americans, in the face of social tinkering at the edges of a few liberal theorticians of activist judges who drink chardonnay with gays at those parties they all go to together. Their calculus is simply that if only 10% of the country wants gay marriage, they can certainly get that 3/4 of a vote through the House and Senate, and 3/4 of the states.
What should be done at this stage is to demonstrate that the fraction of the country which is against the amendment is much larger than the 25% needed to stop it.
There are several contributing approaches. However, an importantly useful one would be to have mayors in every state come forward to offer licenses to same-sex couples. This would demonstrate that gay marraiges are supported not just by a few people on the coasts. So, the addition of NM and NY are important to the movement -- and I hope that it continues state after state.
Like all political movements, what's needed are feet.
However, even if all the licensings hold through the supreme court, that will not signal victory, as long as the constitutional amendment hangs credibly over. Some have already argued that the amendment is not likely to pass this year, but I think no one has credibly argued that the amendment possibility can be dismissed out of hand. Thus, the important impact will be to deflate the amendment threat.
How to do? Well, those who back the amendment are under the impression that what they are doing is simply protecting the institution of marriage in keeping with the desires of the vast majority of americans, in the face of social tinkering at the edges of a few liberal theorticians of activist judges who drink chardonnay with gays at those parties they all go to together. Their calculus is simply that if only 10% of the country wants gay marriage, they can certainly get that 3/4 of a vote through the House and Senate, and 3/4 of the states.
What should be done at this stage is to demonstrate that the fraction of the country which is against the amendment is much larger than the 25% needed to stop it.
There are several contributing approaches. However, an importantly useful one would be to have mayors in every state come forward to offer licenses to same-sex couples. This would demonstrate that gay marraiges are supported not just by a few people on the coasts. So, the addition of NM and NY are important to the movement -- and I hope that it continues state after state.
Like all political movements, what's needed are feet.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Twenty Five couples were married by the mayor of New Platz, New York, and gave them all licenses. NY Law does not specifically outlaw same-sex marriages. The state attorney general declined to declare the marriages null and void, saying it was unnecessary. Pataki said the marriages were illegal.
So, say mayors over this great land of ours start doing this. Suddenly, it's not just a "few activist judges". It's massive re-interpretation of the law, holding the rights to equality under the state and federal constitutions to be the last word on the issue.
So, say mayors over this great land of ours start doing this. Suddenly, it's not just a "few activist judges". It's massive re-interpretation of the law, holding the rights to equality under the state and federal constitutions to be the last word on the issue.
New Paltz, NY
It's the latest place to join the gay marriage debate. The Green Party mayor says it's a question of equal rights. However, New York state law defines marriage as a union of a man and woman, so as with the short-lived New Mexico experiment (and for that matter its counterpart in San Francisco), it's not clear how far this one will go.
Still, we continue the countdown to legal US gay marriages, May 17 in Massachusetts.
Still, we continue the countdown to legal US gay marriages, May 17 in Massachusetts.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Experimental Verification
My opinion about Bush's claim: That's a significant and interesting hypothesis. I suggest we take the logical next step and attempt experimental verification.
Watch out for that Prosperity and Security Dip
Bush says that if we put a Democrat in the White House come Novermber we'll lose all that prosperity and security we've been basking in under his tenure.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Bush to Dump Cheney!
In this article, Bush says of Cheney: "'In fact, I made the choice myself, and I have taken the measure of this man. They don't come any better, and I am proud to have Dick Cheney by my side."
With an endorsement like that, the question becomes: will he wait until the RNC convention week to slash Cheney's calf tendons? Or will he do it during the week of the DNC convention (I would -- you'd steal half the news column inches).
With an endorsement like that, the question becomes: will he wait until the RNC convention week to slash Cheney's calf tendons? Or will he do it during the week of the DNC convention (I would -- you'd steal half the news column inches).
Grey Suggestion
Regarding mandatory licensing: Think of musicians who "cover" the songs of other bands and songwriters. They do not have to negotiate with the songwriter or the original publisher. They cover the songs they want to cover, and for the privilege of doing so they pay a mandated fee to ASCAP.
There are also associated mandated royalties.
Artists get to (re)create. Original authors get paid. The lawyers are out of the loop. Everyone is happy (except, of course, the lawyers).
There are also associated mandated royalties.
Artists get to (re)create. Original authors get paid. The lawyers are out of the loop. Everyone is happy (except, of course, the lawyers).
Grey Album and Grey Tuesday
The NYT has now covered the Grey Album and corresponding Grey Tuesday protest.
Our copyright regime is in a bad way, on many fronts. The Grey Album case demonstrates the need for uniform mandatory licensing of published music and video, to allow an open market for artists to sample, mix, and (re)create.
Our copyright regime is in a bad way, on many fronts. The Grey Album case demonstrates the need for uniform mandatory licensing of published music and video, to allow an open market for artists to sample, mix, and (re)create.
A Question for W
Or his spokesperson. "Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan has warned of severe repercussions if current deficit-spending trends continue. Should we cut Social Security benefits, as he has proposed, or repeal the Bush tax cut?"
Greenspan helps the Bush Administration toward Electoral Debacle.
Greenspan says that these deficits are murder, but there's an easy way to fix them:cut social security beneifts, as soon as possible.
I mean, sure, he's not formally a member of the administration -- but such subtlties can easily be lost in the clamor and shouting. The administration is going to cut Social Security benefits! As soon as possible! Next month? This month? Did you cash the check yet?
Couple decreasing Social Security benefits with the decrease in Medicare benefits, and you see that this administration is no friend to seniors, who vote in large numbers. Exactly, what has this administration done to make seniors' lives better? Other than let the crime rates of robbery against them increase, so that they're no longer safe in their own homes? The only answer is that Bush is pushing seniors further into poverty, so that soon they can lose their own homes and be forced into the street. Maybe the crime rate against homeless seniors is lower.
I mean, sure, he's not formally a member of the administration -- but such subtlties can easily be lost in the clamor and shouting. The administration is going to cut Social Security benefits! As soon as possible! Next month? This month? Did you cash the check yet?
Couple decreasing Social Security benefits with the decrease in Medicare benefits, and you see that this administration is no friend to seniors, who vote in large numbers. Exactly, what has this administration done to make seniors' lives better? Other than let the crime rates of robbery against them increase, so that they're no longer safe in their own homes? The only answer is that Bush is pushing seniors further into poverty, so that soon they can lose their own homes and be forced into the street. Maybe the crime rate against homeless seniors is lower.
Gail Collins Alert
Today, she's commenting on the motivations and uselessness of including marginal candidates in the coming Democratic debates. A couple of great zings, and a couple of insightful statments.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Late Today
White House Aides clarified Bush's position on the ammendment, saying that it will define marriage as between a man and a woman, but that whether or not same-sex couples can have civil unions will be left to the states.
The obvious question to ask Bush is: which rights does he think should be reserved to heterosexual couples under marriage which will not be extended to same-sex couples under civil unions?
Also: how does his stance of being against marriage, but for civil unions determined by the states, differ from that of Kerry or Edwards, if at all?
The obvious question to ask Bush is: which rights does he think should be reserved to heterosexual couples under marriage which will not be extended to same-sex couples under civil unions?
Also: how does his stance of being against marriage, but for civil unions determined by the states, differ from that of Kerry or Edwards, if at all?
Top 2 Bush Dog Jokes
Both courtesy Jay Leno:
#2. Some sad news. President Bush's lap dog died. And I didn't even know Tony Blair was sick. I was shocked.
#1. Over the weekend, the Bush family dog, Spot, had to be put to sleep. He was 15 years old and the president said they had to put him to sleep due to a series of heart problems over the years. That's gotta make Dick Cheney kind of jumpy, huh?
#2. Some sad news. President Bush's lap dog died. And I didn't even know Tony Blair was sick. I was shocked.
#1. Over the weekend, the Bush family dog, Spot, had to be put to sleep. He was 15 years old and the president said they had to put him to sleep due to a series of heart problems over the years. That's gotta make Dick Cheney kind of jumpy, huh?
Congress Is Urged to Pass Amendment to the Constitution
It's Fighting Time.
President Bush is backing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
Here's the smart strategy for Dems if they want to be in the White House come January: The candidates should keep way the hell out of the argument -- holding to the line they have been for the time. They should be against "marriage" -- just as Edwards credibly says he is, and Kerry wishes he could. The should be for "civil unions." Only a pendant would give a damn about the penny's worth of difference for the name. Like all civil rights struggles, this will be won inch by inch.
While they do that, the argument should be fought as it is now -- by cities (San Francisco), states (Massachusetts) and the people in the streets. This will engage President Bush and the RNC directly in a fight with people normally well below him, while leaving the Democratic contender out of it.
Simultaneously, this will inflame Bush's traditional base -- the conservative Christian right -- who will rally to the convention.
Instant replay of 1992, but this time from the floor. Bush takes the tactic of appearing as a rational, compassionate person -- but his followers cannot. The question for the American people come November, then, will be: can we see ourselves with those nut jobs in the RNC?
Of course, this could backfire. It may just well be that most of the country can well see themselves with the nut jobs on the RNC. Generally speaking, relying on the moderation and rationality of hundreds of millions of people has never really worked well for any political movement. C'est Democracie!
President Bush is backing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
Here's the smart strategy for Dems if they want to be in the White House come January: The candidates should keep way the hell out of the argument -- holding to the line they have been for the time. They should be against "marriage" -- just as Edwards credibly says he is, and Kerry wishes he could. The should be for "civil unions." Only a pendant would give a damn about the penny's worth of difference for the name. Like all civil rights struggles, this will be won inch by inch.
While they do that, the argument should be fought as it is now -- by cities (San Francisco), states (Massachusetts) and the people in the streets. This will engage President Bush and the RNC directly in a fight with people normally well below him, while leaving the Democratic contender out of it.
Simultaneously, this will inflame Bush's traditional base -- the conservative Christian right -- who will rally to the convention.
Instant replay of 1992, but this time from the floor. Bush takes the tactic of appearing as a rational, compassionate person -- but his followers cannot. The question for the American people come November, then, will be: can we see ourselves with those nut jobs in the RNC?
Of course, this could backfire. It may just well be that most of the country can well see themselves with the nut jobs on the RNC. Generally speaking, relying on the moderation and rationality of hundreds of millions of people has never really worked well for any political movement. C'est Democracie!
Just in Case You've Forgotten
Why is it important to have a candidate who can verbally brawl -- who can bring it to Bush? In case you've forgotten the kind of un-nuanced debating Bush is capable of -- unburdened by a slavish dedication to the facts, ahem -- he recently mentioned that the Democrats have candidates who are "'for tax cuts and against them, for NAFTA and against NAFTA, for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act, in favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.'"
Monday, February 23, 2004
Evil ATMs
They're called card skimmers and they could be installed on an ATM you're about to use.
I mean, I had heard about the whole "wheel a fake out-of-cash ATM into the local mall" scheme, but this is really something.
I mean, I had heard about the whole "wheel a fake out-of-cash ATM into the local mall" scheme, but this is really something.
Ralph Nader's Doppelganger
How are Ralph Nader's entry into the Presidential race, the recent outbreak of gay marriages in the Bay Area, the Ten Commandments monument at the Alabama Supreme Court, and Bob's recent prediction of a GOP convention meltdown all related to each other?
Timothy Noah (Chatterbox at Slate) has the answers for you right here.
Timothy Noah (Chatterbox at Slate) has the answers for you right here.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Brooks goes Meta
Rather than bang the issues that his boy Bush can run on and win against the Democrats David Brooks used his Saturday column to write an apologists' screed on how difficult it is to be a candidate. ("They own you like a racehorse").
When your candidate is morally bankrupt and inconsistent, write that any rational human being would become morally bankrupt and inconsistent in an election.
When your candidate is morally bankrupt and inconsistent, write that any rational human being would become morally bankrupt and inconsistent in an election.
Friday, February 20, 2004
So far from being right was I
Whereas, over 3000 couples have been married in San Francisco; the judge consolidating the 2 lawsuits against them into one, and denying the injunction for not demonstrating "irreparable harm" if the weddings continue; with probably 3000 more weddings before March 29, there will be a total of 6000 wedded couples, many of whom will go home to states where they will demand recognition;
with protests errupting across the country for legal gay marriage;
with marriage licenses being issued in New Mexico, and New Mexico law recognizing marriage as between "two parties", not mentioning gender, and so the likelihood of that continuing;
and, whereas Massachusetts heads forward to gay marriages statewide come May, with couples marrying there also heading home to their many states to demand recognition;
and, whereas, I still believe the US Economy is in the crapper, and the fact that the war was run on a sham is now obvious to all Americans; with Colin Powell and Condi Rice -- the two members of the administration which might have made some democrats vote for Bush -- likely to quit after the election; with Bush's profligate spending irking his economically conservative base; and having delivered nothing to his religious base through fait-based initiatives; and with so many children being left behind because he unfunded his "no child left behind" education act;
and, whereas, it therefore seems likely that the only issue Bush will have energizing his conservative christian base is fighting the gay marriage issue, which will crest close to June/July, forcing itself across the country at the time of the Republican national convention in New York -- a city well known for it's gay activist protests (pace, ghosts of 1968 Daley Chicago Police)
I suggest that the entire floor of the RNC will be carpeted with "stop the gays!" Christian Conservatives, who will not play well on National Television, and who will respond when egged on from the podium, making the convention seep with intolerance.
Be it resolved that it seems Derek was right, and I was wrong: the gay marriage issue, pushed as it is being pushed now, can well push the Republican party into a corner by re-playing the 1992 Buchannan speech fiasco ("I'm sure it sounded better in the original German." -- Molly Ivins) in enormous spades.
Sure, 2/3 of Americans are now against Gay marriage in principle. But, I have a feeling once there are a couple gay marriages around, and the sky isn't falling in, it will be "live and let live" for the majority of Americans, who won't want to be associated with a vitriol spitting party come November.
This is gonna get good.
with protests errupting across the country for legal gay marriage;
with marriage licenses being issued in New Mexico, and New Mexico law recognizing marriage as between "two parties", not mentioning gender, and so the likelihood of that continuing;
and, whereas Massachusetts heads forward to gay marriages statewide come May, with couples marrying there also heading home to their many states to demand recognition;
and, whereas, I still believe the US Economy is in the crapper, and the fact that the war was run on a sham is now obvious to all Americans; with Colin Powell and Condi Rice -- the two members of the administration which might have made some democrats vote for Bush -- likely to quit after the election; with Bush's profligate spending irking his economically conservative base; and having delivered nothing to his religious base through fait-based initiatives; and with so many children being left behind because he unfunded his "no child left behind" education act;
and, whereas, it therefore seems likely that the only issue Bush will have energizing his conservative christian base is fighting the gay marriage issue, which will crest close to June/July, forcing itself across the country at the time of the Republican national convention in New York -- a city well known for it's gay activist protests (pace, ghosts of 1968 Daley Chicago Police)
I suggest that the entire floor of the RNC will be carpeted with "stop the gays!" Christian Conservatives, who will not play well on National Television, and who will respond when egged on from the podium, making the convention seep with intolerance.
Be it resolved that it seems Derek was right, and I was wrong: the gay marriage issue, pushed as it is being pushed now, can well push the Republican party into a corner by re-playing the 1992 Buchannan speech fiasco ("I'm sure it sounded better in the original German." -- Molly Ivins) in enormous spades.
Sure, 2/3 of Americans are now against Gay marriage in principle. But, I have a feeling once there are a couple gay marriages around, and the sky isn't falling in, it will be "live and let live" for the majority of Americans, who won't want to be associated with a vitriol spitting party come November.
This is gonna get good.
Gay Weddings On Until March 29
Judge Quidachay has denied the request for an injunction against the SF weddings, and called for a joint March 29 hearing on the two court cases that challenge them: Reuters.
With 2500 couples married last weekend, and weddings continuing at a pace of about 50 per day, we are now pushing 3000 US gay marriages. March 29 is 25 working days away, which means we can expect another 3000 or more by then. Moreover, the New Mexico front was opened only today.
No matter what happens in California on March 29, or in New Mexico between now and then, legal gay marriages will begin happening in Massachusetts only 49 days after that, on May 17.
Buckle your seatbelts, foks - it's going to be a bumpy couple of months.
With 2500 couples married last weekend, and weddings continuing at a pace of about 50 per day, we are now pushing 3000 US gay marriages. March 29 is 25 working days away, which means we can expect another 3000 or more by then. Moreover, the New Mexico front was opened only today.
No matter what happens in California on March 29, or in New Mexico between now and then, legal gay marriages will begin happening in Massachusetts only 49 days after that, on May 17.
Buckle your seatbelts, foks - it's going to be a bumpy couple of months.
Bush on Gay Marriage in the US.
"We believe that freedom should be defined. We have to come up with a solution if that freedom is not in accordance with our beliefs and culture.'"
Oh -- wait. That's not Bush talking about gay marriage in the US, that's the mayor of Tehran responding to the call for more social freedoms in his country.
I'm sure you can understand my error.
Oh -- wait. That's not Bush talking about gay marriage in the US, that's the mayor of Tehran responding to the call for more social freedoms in his country.
I'm sure you can understand my error.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Best Requiem for Howard Dean
Here's the best requiem I've seen yet for Howard Dean's defunct campaign. Who is this Matt Bai guy? Robin, have you been following him?
Good Advice for the Dem Nominee
Tom Friedman had some good advice for the Democratic nominee the other day. One of the strengths of Kerry, if we are indeed stuck with him, is his credibility on defense issues. This approach would play to those strengths. I like it.
The fact that George McGovern disagrees is just icing on the cake.
The fact that George McGovern disagrees is just icing on the cake.
The most exciting thing in the world today
The confrontation between reformers and the Islamist government in Iran is high drama, where the stakes are enormous, the politics are in the street, and democracy is the call word of reformists.
I'd like to think I'm on the same side as these reformists -- but the fact is I've never pushed a demonstration in the teeth of harsh oppression in my life. These people are the vanguard of democracy in the world -- fighting the true fight against tyrannical oppression, regardless of what words are used to describe and legitimize it, where the threats to their livelihoods and lives are real. But what have I done to help them? It is they who are helping me, being the vanguard against tyranny.
Here's the NYTimes article which describes the political attacks and counter attacks prior to tommorrows farcical "elections".
I'd like to think I'm on the same side as these reformists -- but the fact is I've never pushed a demonstration in the teeth of harsh oppression in my life. These people are the vanguard of democracy in the world -- fighting the true fight against tyrannical oppression, regardless of what words are used to describe and legitimize it, where the threats to their livelihoods and lives are real. But what have I done to help them? It is they who are helping me, being the vanguard against tyranny.
Here's the NYTimes article which describes the political attacks and counter attacks prior to tommorrows farcical "elections".
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
NASA sixes Dark Energy for Mars.
In this Nature article (subscription required), the NASA 5-year budget outlook notes that the Joint Dark Energy Mission -- to characterize dark energy in the universe, didn't show up in the budget, when it should have. It looks like it's "timeline has been stretched out", in response to the reordering of priorities to fund the moon/mars mission of Bus. Rocky Kolb says: "The immediate problem is that no one knows how to use dark energy to get to Mars."
Dean Quits.
His wife showed up for *that*.
I mean, if she doesn't show up to campaign for him, what's she there for at the end? Rub his face in it? Tell him how glad she is? Big wet kiss?
Anyhow, now all we gotta do is get rid of Kerry, and we've got ourselves a horserace.
I'm still liking Edwards/Dean! This won't be difficult -- Dean folks are Kerry folks, they'll slant Edwards. Edwards is building momentum anyhow, and so let's watch for what goes on Super Tuesday. He's easily the number 2 now, with credibility -- and there's going to be 1-on-1 debates. People will watch these. And they'll make their minds up based on them. Edwards has got much better presence than Kerry.
So, after Kerry blows it in debate, Edwards comes out on top in the remaining primaries. Then, Kerry has to appear to pass over the Vice Presidency ("sorry, not interseted") and then it falls to Dean. Who I'm really looking forward to seeing on the same stage as Cheney. And I'm really not looking forward to seeing on the same stage as Colin Powell.
I mean, if she doesn't show up to campaign for him, what's she there for at the end? Rub his face in it? Tell him how glad she is? Big wet kiss?
Anyhow, now all we gotta do is get rid of Kerry, and we've got ourselves a horserace.
I'm still liking Edwards/Dean! This won't be difficult -- Dean folks are Kerry folks, they'll slant Edwards. Edwards is building momentum anyhow, and so let's watch for what goes on Super Tuesday. He's easily the number 2 now, with credibility -- and there's going to be 1-on-1 debates. People will watch these. And they'll make their minds up based on them. Edwards has got much better presence than Kerry.
So, after Kerry blows it in debate, Edwards comes out on top in the remaining primaries. Then, Kerry has to appear to pass over the Vice Presidency ("sorry, not interseted") and then it falls to Dean. Who I'm really looking forward to seeing on the same stage as Cheney. And I'm really not looking forward to seeing on the same stage as Colin Powell.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
CNN screwing the pooch again?
CNN just declared Kerry the winner in Winsconsin based on their exit polling. Wolf Blitzer delivered the news.
However, 33% of the vote has been counted, and Edwards and Kerry each have about 45500 votes, with <200 votes separating them. Either they know the counties which have yet to report, and those are really skewed, or they're running a replay of 2000.
However, 33% of the vote has been counted, and Edwards and Kerry each have about 45500 votes, with <200 votes separating them. Either they know the counties which have yet to report, and those are really skewed, or they're running a replay of 2000.
Gay Marriages Live Another Day
The second hearing on the SF gay marriages, it seems, is still ongoing, but it looks like Judge James Warren will also refuse to stop the wedding bells for now. Apparently, a misplaced semicolon is the primary reason he finds himself unable to accede to the plaintiff's requests to issue an injunction against the weddings.
I am guessing it will be at least tomorrow afternoon before Judge Warren will be able to rule on the corrected brief - and perhaps as late as Friday.
Update: Judge Warren ended up issuing a stay rather than an injunction. This has the effect of allowing the City to continue carrying out gay marriages until at least March 29 (according to NPR). The ball is now back in Judge Quidachay's court - and gay marriages can continue at least until Friday.
I am guessing it will be at least tomorrow afternoon before Judge Warren will be able to rule on the corrected brief - and perhaps as late as Friday.
Update: Judge Warren ended up issuing a stay rather than an injunction. This has the effect of allowing the City to continue carrying out gay marriages until at least March 29 (according to NPR). The ball is now back in Judge Quidachay's court - and gay marriages can continue at least until Friday.
First Gay Marriage Hearing: Delay to Friday
It looks like I was right and Fox News wrong (below), since the first hearing on the SF gay marriages has already concluded. The judge in this case, Ronald Quidachay, stated that he was not yet prepared to rule on the request for preliminary injunction, and has scheduled his next hearing for Friday.
Now for the second court hearing, some time this afternoon.
Now for the second court hearing, some time this afternoon.
Security through obscurity, therefore no obscurity = no security
I'm feeling a bit of schadenfreude in the latest peck on Microsoft. Apparently, a new security attack has been devised from the leaked Windows code from last week. It hasn't taken very long to find an exploit, and I expect that newer ones will be appearing at an even more furious pace than they already are.
I'm having visions of a little Danish boy putting his finger in the hole of a leaky dam.
I'm having visions of a little Danish boy putting his finger in the hole of a leaky dam.
Monday, February 16, 2004
US Gay Marriages Number 2400
After a delirious and wet weekend of gay weddings, the SF county clerk's office has now married about 2400 couples. In addition to Californians, out of state couples from Texas, Colorado, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Zealand, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Thailand have been wed.
County Clerk Mabel Teng says she will continue to marry same-sex couples tomorrow until someone makes her stop. First court hearing is at 10am.
Correction: A Fox News story has the first court hearing this afternoon at 2pm, and the second at 5pm. The gay marriage rate has dropped substantially today, since the municipal offices are occupied with the city's other business and, in addition, the many volunteer staffers have returned to their regular jobs.
County Clerk Mabel Teng says she will continue to marry same-sex couples tomorrow until someone makes her stop. First court hearing is at 10am.
Correction: A Fox News story has the first court hearing this afternoon at 2pm, and the second at 5pm. The gay marriage rate has dropped substantially today, since the municipal offices are occupied with the city's other business and, in addition, the many volunteer staffers have returned to their regular jobs.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Gay Marriages Still Going
Contrary to my expectations from yesterday, SF municipal officials have opened City Hall for "special weekend hours" today and tomorrow and expect to issue ~400 licenses on each day. That will make about 1500 newlywed couples by opening of business on Tuesday.
Couples are being turned away because the City Clerks can't process the applications fast enough. The lines each morning are stretching around the block.
I really, really, really hope there is a documentary filmmaker out there with a camera, shooting yards and yards of DV. This needs to be recorded, and saved, and played in cinemas and broadcast on cable, over and over again.
Couples are being turned away because the City Clerks can't process the applications fast enough. The lines each morning are stretching around the block.
I really, really, really hope there is a documentary filmmaker out there with a camera, shooting yards and yards of DV. This needs to be recorded, and saved, and played in cinemas and broadcast on cable, over and over again.
The Sunday Morning Report
Meet the Press and Chris Matthews went back and forth on (among other things) gay marriage in San Francisco, saying pretty much the same thing as has been said elsewhere.
Face The Nation brought in Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family, to get the far right's commentary on the subject. Interesting, it was about as sputtering and angry as Buchannan was back in '92, and if he were to take the Republican stand at the RNC come summer, it may well freak out the soccer moms who lllllove Bush in a flight-suit talking about No Child Left Behind. Bush's stand on the subject during SOU makes one think that he's going to avoid looking mean about it -- which is what Derek has been saying for some time now, though I haven't believed it, until now.
The gay marriage issue could turn out to be a briar patch for the democrats. "Oh please, please don't bring it up Republicans", and they get on-stage for a national address talking about the national meltdown in values and structure and the death of 3000 years of human culture and how it will increase child rape and murder blah blah blah, and suddenly, the Republicans are looking not quite like the compassionate conservatives Bush wishes they were (again, as Derek has been saying).
I may have been wrong about this being an issue to avoid for this election -- if the Republicans are forced to come out against it, they will probably have to rail against it by peole like James Dobson, people most of those in the middle wouldn't want to be in that column.
This week with George Stephanopolous: long discussion on the outsourcing of middle-class and service industry jobs. No conclusions, no major insights, but clearly theres buzz on it.
Face The Nation brought in Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family, to get the far right's commentary on the subject. Interesting, it was about as sputtering and angry as Buchannan was back in '92, and if he were to take the Republican stand at the RNC come summer, it may well freak out the soccer moms who lllllove Bush in a flight-suit talking about No Child Left Behind. Bush's stand on the subject during SOU makes one think that he's going to avoid looking mean about it -- which is what Derek has been saying for some time now, though I haven't believed it, until now.
The gay marriage issue could turn out to be a briar patch for the democrats. "Oh please, please don't bring it up Republicans", and they get on-stage for a national address talking about the national meltdown in values and structure and the death of 3000 years of human culture and how it will increase child rape and murder blah blah blah, and suddenly, the Republicans are looking not quite like the compassionate conservatives Bush wishes they were (again, as Derek has been saying).
I may have been wrong about this being an issue to avoid for this election -- if the Republicans are forced to come out against it, they will probably have to rail against it by peole like James Dobson, people most of those in the middle wouldn't want to be in that column.
This week with George Stephanopolous: long discussion on the outsourcing of middle-class and service industry jobs. No conclusions, no major insights, but clearly theres buzz on it.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Gay Marriage, Looking Ahead
San Francisco municipal staff continue to issue marriage licenses to gay couples as fast as they can stamp those new "first applicant / second applicant" marriage certificates. City offices will be closed tomorrow and Monday. The two state lawsuits Bob refers to will have their requests for preliminary injunctions heard on Tuesday. Since SF mayor Gavin Newsom & Co. are actually violating state law (California's Proposition 22 defined marriage as the union of a man and woman) it is quite possible that they will succeed. What happens next?
On Tuesday, the judges will rule on the preliminary injunctions. As Bob pointed out to me on the phone, these suits may be thrown out on grounds that the suing parties have failed to show harm - however, personally I doubt this will carry the day. Rather, it seems likely under State law that the injunctions will be issued and stem the tide of same-sex newlyweds.
However, the subsequent fate of the lawsuits is not clear. Proposition 22 is a law, not a constitutional amendment. Thus even if (both) State judges rule against them, the gay newlyweds can appeal to the California State Supreme Court, seeking equal protection under the state constitution. This in turn would set us up for a Massachusetts-style legalization of gay marriage.
With both California and Massachusetts sanctioning same-sex marriage, opponents will suddenly be faced with a battle that they must wage on many fronts. Any couple, from any state, will be able to come to California or Massachusetts - driving distance for about 80% of the population - and get married, return home, and sue for their rights. In turn some of those suits are sure to rise all the way to the Supreme Court - not this (election) year, but soon.
It seems to me this could blow the whole thing wide open. At the very least, same-sex marriage will be a hot topic at least through May 17 (legal in Massachusetts) and beyond.
On Tuesday, the judges will rule on the preliminary injunctions. As Bob pointed out to me on the phone, these suits may be thrown out on grounds that the suing parties have failed to show harm - however, personally I doubt this will carry the day. Rather, it seems likely under State law that the injunctions will be issued and stem the tide of same-sex newlyweds.
However, the subsequent fate of the lawsuits is not clear. Proposition 22 is a law, not a constitutional amendment. Thus even if (both) State judges rule against them, the gay newlyweds can appeal to the California State Supreme Court, seeking equal protection under the state constitution. This in turn would set us up for a Massachusetts-style legalization of gay marriage.
With both California and Massachusetts sanctioning same-sex marriage, opponents will suddenly be faced with a battle that they must wage on many fronts. Any couple, from any state, will be able to come to California or Massachusetts - driving distance for about 80% of the population - and get married, return home, and sue for their rights. In turn some of those suits are sure to rise all the way to the Supreme Court - not this (election) year, but soon.
It seems to me this could blow the whole thing wide open. At the very least, same-sex marriage will be a hot topic at least through May 17 (legal in Massachusetts) and beyond.
Laws or Not, it's happening
San Francisco apparently decided to say, "Fuck it", and they're issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, starting Thursday, going through Friday and continuing on today (Valentine's Day). They've issued 665 already. This violates the california constituion which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Two groups the Aliance Defense Fund and Campaign for California Families are seeking an injunction in court.
Two groups the Aliance Defense Fund and Campaign for California Families are seeking an injunction in court.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Hell Freezing Over
When conservative talk show hosts turn on President Bush, its gotta be a pretty cold day in hell. In case anyone missed it, Bill O'Reilly has apologized and admitted that he was wrong about WMD, and that he is more skeptical of the Bush administration.
That said, I'm still standing by my bet with Bob that Bush will take the election. I'll be casting my vote against Bush (even if the Democratic candidate turns out to be an adulterous, coke snorting, fundamentalist, miltary deserter), and I'll lose, but at least I'll be taking home a sweeeeeet latte.
That said, I'm still standing by my bet with Bob that Bush will take the election. I'll be casting my vote against Bush (even if the Democratic candidate turns out to be an adulterous, coke snorting, fundamentalist, miltary deserter), and I'll lose, but at least I'll be taking home a sweeeeeet latte.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Conservatives Shine Spotlight on Kerry’s Antiwar Record
The Nut Jobs are already out to go after Kerry.
I mean, that's the advantage to appealing to these people. You don't have to tell them what to do -- they just do it.
Kerry needs to nip this one in the bud -- something like "It is far better to fight a war and come home to question it, than never go to war but to send others off to fight and die for you."
They're questioning his moral courage. But Kerry won't fight back. Because he doesn't know how to bring it.
I mean, that's the advantage to appealing to these people. You don't have to tell them what to do -- they just do it.
Kerry needs to nip this one in the bud -- something like "It is far better to fight a war and come home to question it, than never go to war but to send others off to fight and die for you."
They're questioning his moral courage. But Kerry won't fight back. Because he doesn't know how to bring it.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Ansar
Safire is insisting today, not for the first time, that there is a link between Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda and that that connects Saddam to Al Qaeda. Ansar al-Islam was a fundamentalist militia that, pre-US invasion, controlled a small area sandwiched between the Kurdish controlled region and the Iranian border and fought the secular Kurds. He says that Saddam "supported" Ansar. That's unlikely. Any material support to Ansar, going through Iraq would have to go through Kurdish territory. It's more likely that any support Ansar received came through Iran. I'll give you the Ansar-Qaeda link William, but you'll need to convince me of the Saddam-Ansar link before I'll buy your story.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
He doesn't remember
Rumsfeld doesn't
remember the claim that Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes according to this BBC article.
remember the claim that Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes according to this BBC article.
Definitively Apologist
Elvis has left the building, and David Brooks is a George Bush Apologist (tm). The latter is definitively true, now that he's started a column with the words: Op-Ed Columnist: Bush on Bush, Take 2: "Like most of us, President Bush doesn't have the facility for perfectly expressing his situation in conversation. But if he did, he might have said something like this to Tim Russert in the interview broadcast Sunday...."
Actually, if by "us", Brooks means politicians, columnists and commentaters, then Bush's poor performance expressing himself on Russert shows that he very much not like most of us -- turning in the most bewilderingly inexpressive discusssion on the Sunday morning shows of the political season.
Brooks -- I would say that Bush's lack of candor is because he doesn't know what he's talking about. I had the pleasure of watching the show with a psycho-biology student who was studying for an exam. Every few minutes, she would say something like: "Look, see how he's looking at 3 o'clock? That means he's accessing aural information. He's just repeating what somebody else told him." and "Now 6 o'clock? He's accessing emotional information. His emphaticness is not derived from some special set of facts he has access too, but to his emotional state."
Actually, if by "us", Brooks means politicians, columnists and commentaters, then Bush's poor performance expressing himself on Russert shows that he very much not like most of us -- turning in the most bewilderingly inexpressive discusssion on the Sunday morning shows of the political season.
Brooks -- I would say that Bush's lack of candor is because he doesn't know what he's talking about. I had the pleasure of watching the show with a psycho-biology student who was studying for an exam. Every few minutes, she would say something like: "Look, see how he's looking at 3 o'clock? That means he's accessing aural information. He's just repeating what somebody else told him." and "Now 6 o'clock? He's accessing emotional information. His emphaticness is not derived from some special set of facts he has access too, but to his emotional state."
Monday, February 09, 2004
Who Steals Movies?
A new website has just popped up to explain to the larger population why we should respect movie bootlegging and movie bootleggers. Worth a look - if nothing else, as counterpoint to propaganda from the other side.
My favorite section: Talk To Your Kids.
My favorite section: Talk To Your Kids.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
Friedman Transfers More Anger
As we have seen before, Tom Friedman is transferring his anger at the deceptions of the Bush Administration - which made him look foolish for backing the Iraq War for its stated purposes of WMD disarmament - towards other aspects of its policy. Last week we had the incipient catastrophe for the poor and working classes that is being referred to as the "White House Budget" (also well-covered by Kristof). This week: the failure of the Administration to plan for postwar Iraq. Speaking of the heroic volunteers who serve in our nation's armed services, Friedman says:
Hmm. I guess you're right, Tom - if we forgive them their "hyping" of Saddam then everything else pretty much falls into place.
We owe them so much more respect, so much more sacrifice of our own and so much better leadership from a Bush team whose real sin is not hyping Saddam's threat, but sending Americans to remove him without a plan for the morning after.That's nice, Tom. I guess the fact of the Administration's hyping of Iraq's WMD - where by "hyping" I mean, of course, "declaring that they present an imminent threat to the security of the United States when in fact they do not exist" - has nothing to do with the relative disengagement of the Super Bowl-watching populace from the ongoing sacrifices of the war; nothing to do with the Administration's lack of preparation for the must-be-waged-now-at-any-cost war's aftermath; and nothing to do with their refusal to part with even one cent of the surplus-era "Bush tax cuts" to the wealthy 1%.
Hmm. I guess you're right, Tom - if we forgive them their "hyping" of Saddam then everything else pretty much falls into place.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
Robin's Biz Book
Robin has been too modest to mention it in these pages, but she has a business book that has been working its way up the sales charts. The title is Retire on Less Than You Think: The New York Times Guide to Planning Your Financial Future by Fred Brock, who writes the weekly "Seniority" column for the NYT, and it is currently ranked #161 at Amazon.
I grabbed a copy at my local Borders, and it's a good read. Even if you're not in a retirement planning frame of mind, it could make a great gift for the parents.
I grabbed a copy at my local Borders, and it's a good read. Even if you're not in a retirement planning frame of mind, it could make a great gift for the parents.
Did David Hasselhoff help end the Cold War?
Oh, I know what you're thinking. But what you're failing to take into account is that Germans love David Hasselhoff. I mean, Germans really love David Hasselhoff. And love can move mountains... it can even tear down walls.
See the Beeb for full coverage. (And thanks to NPR's Wait wait, don't tell me for the lead.)
See the Beeb for full coverage. (And thanks to NPR's Wait wait, don't tell me for the lead.)
Bush to appear on Meet The Press
Now That's Good Television.
Tim Russerts' not going to give him a pass. More than any other Sunday morning commetator, he uses journalistic documentation to present the case against, and puts questions to his guests which are made obvious and necessary by the documentation he presents.
Tim Russert's going to kick his ass.
Tim Russerts' not going to give him a pass. More than any other Sunday morning commetator, he uses journalistic documentation to present the case against, and puts questions to his guests which are made obvious and necessary by the documentation he presents.
Tim Russert's going to kick his ass.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Apple Display Activity
At the Caltech campus computer store, they have just put all of the Apple flat-panel displays on special - in stock only.
And I know y'all know what that means. Yummy!
And I know y'all know what that means. Yummy!
Bush and the National Guard Facts Summary
If like the rest of us you are having trouble keeping the facts of W's National Guard service straight, check out this handy table.
Perhaps the national media (cough! NYT cough!) didn't do W a favor when they gave him a pass on these questions back in 2000.
Perhaps the national media (cough! NYT cough!) didn't do W a favor when they gave him a pass on these questions back in 2000.
NYTimes, WaPost and WSJ dishing the same spin.
The NYTimes, The WaPost and now the WSJ are all spinning Tenent's speech as saying "We never said Iraq was an imminent threat."
Looks like Bush hit the Trifecta.
The WSJ's line (which will disappear in a news cycle): "U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat but painted an objective assessment of their varying opinions, CIA chief Tenet said in his first public defense of prewar intelligence. (Read Tenet's speech.)"
Looks like Bush hit the Trifecta.
The WSJ's line (which will disappear in a news cycle): "U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat but painted an objective assessment of their varying opinions, CIA chief Tenet said in his first public defense of prewar intelligence. (Read Tenet's speech.)"
Locution Disclosed
Short days lengthening -
The hibernator blinks in the
Too-bright sun. Cheney speaks.
The hibernator blinks in the
Too-bright sun. Cheney speaks.
Tenet Cuts off the Administration at the Knees
In this article : Tenet Says Analysts Never
Painted Iraq as Imminent Threat, Tenet takes away Bush's fall back position. After David Kay came forward to say that "we were all wrong about there being WMD in Iraq", Bush and Rice came forward to say "Saddamm was an imminent threat to the US". Now, Tenet is saying "Wait, the CIA never said that."
This places the White House as the site where the decision to say that was made.
Painted Iraq as Imminent Threat, Tenet takes away Bush's fall back position. After David Kay came forward to say that "we were all wrong about there being WMD in Iraq", Bush and Rice came forward to say "Saddamm was an imminent threat to the US". Now, Tenet is saying "Wait, the CIA never said that."
This places the White House as the site where the decision to say that was made.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Brooks and the Bottom Line on WMD Intelligence
I read the Brooks column, and in my opinion it's pretty thin soup. In the end he seems to be complaining about the group thought processes of committees and bureaucracies. With this I can sympathize; unfortunately however I believe we are stuck with them. Plato long ago presented the various options, but I think it's too late now for us to pin our hopes on a Philosopher-King. As for mafia-cracies... I suggest Brooks spend some time writing a newspaper column in Russia and report back to us.
He opens by dismissing accusations that Administration officials pressured the CIA to slant the intelligence on Iraq, citing David Kay, Senate Intelligence and an internal CIA probe as support. I understand why he would want to get this one out of the way quickly, but all the same, can't agree with the way he goes about it. Rather than cite three sources of dubious impartiality, rat-a-tat-tat, and whistle Dixie in hopes that this silences the critics, I would have stated that this is an accusation of which the Administration rightfully deserves to be cleared, once and for all, by the President's forthcoming independent commission. Anything less gives the impression that he thinks this Administration has something to hide.
Nonetheless, let us assume that his assertion is correct: the Administration did not pressure anyone at CIA to slant the prewar intelligence on WMD. Instead, let us stick to facts. First fact: Dick, Rummy, and Condi knew the answer they wanted on Iraq before ever asking the question. We knew this before the O'Neill book: Woodward includes quotes to this effect from Wolfowitz in Bush at War, an Administration must-read. You can blame the fact on whatever forces you want (erroneous Clinton-era intelligence? Neocon think-tank excesses?) but that doesn't change its status as a fact. And let me assure you - since as a scientist, I've seen it happen enough times - knowing the answer you want ahead of time is a sure way to get it, even if it's not the truth.
Second fact: the Administration oversold the intelligence that it had. Three examples, conceded by all: (1) Nigerian yellowcake; (2) The aluminum "centrifuge tubes" that turned out to be artillery shell casings; (3) Dick's comment on the 3/16/03 "Meet the Press" that "we believe that he has... reconstituted nuclear weapons." W presented items (1) and (2) in SOTU No. 2, and has since apologized for the first but not the second; Powell avoided any mention of either in his UN presentation. Dick's claim was disowned by anonymous Administration sources the day it was made. It is simply not possible to claim that the CIA was insisting on the truth of these accusations, to the degree that the Administration was presenting them to the nation.
Third fact: the Administration cherry-picked the intelligence that it had, presenting only one side of a complex story, without any concession to uncertainty or doubt. This is so obvious that it is going nearly unmentioned in the current debate. Yet Brooks in his sly way puts his finger right on it: It is simply not possible for a bureaucracy like the CIA to deliver clear, dramatic intelligence of the sort that the Administration presented to the public. This helps clarify how Fact #1 - knowing the answer they wanted before asking the question - led to a wrong answer on Iraqi WMD.
Fourth fact: the Administration - in the person of Condoleeza Rice - is now arguing that it "had no choice" but to presume that Iraq had WMD in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. This is an interesting argument, consistent with everything we know about the CIA intelligence, none of which established with certainty Saddam's lack of WMD. However, it was not an argument that the Administration made in any way before the war. In fact, it is not an argument that the Administration made in any way before one week ago, when David Kay resigned and began his media tour. This fact is in some ways the most telling of all: accepting Condi's comments at face value, we conclude that the Administration was privately presuming what it was publicly claiming to know for certain - and was eventually proven to be false.
Ultimately then, even if no Administration official ever exerted political pressure on the CIA to slant intelligence reports on Iraqi WMD, the Administration remains responsible for the way it characterized that intelligence - a characterization which turned out to be completely, utterly, and totally divorced from the truth - to the American people in order to sell the Iraq war. As we have demonstrated, this was no accident: they knew the answer they wanted ahead of time, and they were willing to cherry-pick, presume, and oversell the intelligence in order to get it. Again, reference Wolfowitz: the way to justify an Iraq invasion "bureaucratically" was to argue that Saddam was not disarmed of his WMD and to then link him to Al-Qaeda. Given this concession, and the insight - even brilliance? - of the strategy, there is no reason for anyone, liberal or conservative, to express surprise at the subsequent course of events.
But none of those subsequent events have anything to do with bureaucratic group-think failures at the CIA - whatever those may be.
He opens by dismissing accusations that Administration officials pressured the CIA to slant the intelligence on Iraq, citing David Kay, Senate Intelligence and an internal CIA probe as support. I understand why he would want to get this one out of the way quickly, but all the same, can't agree with the way he goes about it. Rather than cite three sources of dubious impartiality, rat-a-tat-tat, and whistle Dixie in hopes that this silences the critics, I would have stated that this is an accusation of which the Administration rightfully deserves to be cleared, once and for all, by the President's forthcoming independent commission. Anything less gives the impression that he thinks this Administration has something to hide.
Nonetheless, let us assume that his assertion is correct: the Administration did not pressure anyone at CIA to slant the prewar intelligence on WMD. Instead, let us stick to facts. First fact: Dick, Rummy, and Condi knew the answer they wanted on Iraq before ever asking the question. We knew this before the O'Neill book: Woodward includes quotes to this effect from Wolfowitz in Bush at War, an Administration must-read. You can blame the fact on whatever forces you want (erroneous Clinton-era intelligence? Neocon think-tank excesses?) but that doesn't change its status as a fact. And let me assure you - since as a scientist, I've seen it happen enough times - knowing the answer you want ahead of time is a sure way to get it, even if it's not the truth.
Second fact: the Administration oversold the intelligence that it had. Three examples, conceded by all: (1) Nigerian yellowcake; (2) The aluminum "centrifuge tubes" that turned out to be artillery shell casings; (3) Dick's comment on the 3/16/03 "Meet the Press" that "we believe that he has... reconstituted nuclear weapons." W presented items (1) and (2) in SOTU No. 2, and has since apologized for the first but not the second; Powell avoided any mention of either in his UN presentation. Dick's claim was disowned by anonymous Administration sources the day it was made. It is simply not possible to claim that the CIA was insisting on the truth of these accusations, to the degree that the Administration was presenting them to the nation.
Third fact: the Administration cherry-picked the intelligence that it had, presenting only one side of a complex story, without any concession to uncertainty or doubt. This is so obvious that it is going nearly unmentioned in the current debate. Yet Brooks in his sly way puts his finger right on it: It is simply not possible for a bureaucracy like the CIA to deliver clear, dramatic intelligence of the sort that the Administration presented to the public. This helps clarify how Fact #1 - knowing the answer they wanted before asking the question - led to a wrong answer on Iraqi WMD.
Fourth fact: the Administration - in the person of Condoleeza Rice - is now arguing that it "had no choice" but to presume that Iraq had WMD in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. This is an interesting argument, consistent with everything we know about the CIA intelligence, none of which established with certainty Saddam's lack of WMD. However, it was not an argument that the Administration made in any way before the war. In fact, it is not an argument that the Administration made in any way before one week ago, when David Kay resigned and began his media tour. This fact is in some ways the most telling of all: accepting Condi's comments at face value, we conclude that the Administration was privately presuming what it was publicly claiming to know for certain - and was eventually proven to be false.
Ultimately then, even if no Administration official ever exerted political pressure on the CIA to slant intelligence reports on Iraqi WMD, the Administration remains responsible for the way it characterized that intelligence - a characterization which turned out to be completely, utterly, and totally divorced from the truth - to the American people in order to sell the Iraq war. As we have demonstrated, this was no accident: they knew the answer they wanted ahead of time, and they were willing to cherry-pick, presume, and oversell the intelligence in order to get it. Again, reference Wolfowitz: the way to justify an Iraq invasion "bureaucratically" was to argue that Saddam was not disarmed of his WMD and to then link him to Al-Qaeda. Given this concession, and the insight - even brilliance? - of the strategy, there is no reason for anyone, liberal or conservative, to express surprise at the subsequent course of events.
But none of those subsequent events have anything to do with bureaucratic group-think failures at the CIA - whatever those may be.
Miss Jackson If You're Nasty
On all the American news shows and newspapers, no one is showing the bare breast that Janet Jackson had for the country.
Why is that at all interesting? Because the breast was not bare. The Canadian Globe and Mail printed a photograph of Miss Jackson with her breast bared, and described it in a column. It seems that her nipple was pierced with a star-burst, with multiple prongs radiating outwards across her nipple. It was kind of impressive. And I know from nipple rings.
Not your average naked nipple, either.
Why is that at all interesting? Because the breast was not bare. The Canadian Globe and Mail printed a photograph of Miss Jackson with her breast bared, and described it in a column. It seems that her nipple was pierced with a star-burst, with multiple prongs radiating outwards across her nipple. It was kind of impressive. And I know from nipple rings.
Not your average naked nipple, either.
Still Early tonight
At this writing Edwards won S. Carolina (22 delegates), and is ahead in Oklahoma (47 Delegates) for 69 total; Kerry won Delaware (23 Delegates) and Missouri (88) for a total of 111.
Waiting on AZ (64), New Mexico (37) and North Dakota (22) -- another 123.
You know, I'm loving Edwards.
Waiting on AZ (64), New Mexico (37) and North Dakota (22) -- another 123.
You know, I'm loving Edwards.
Monday, February 02, 2004
Brooks: Wrong Then, or Wrong Now?
David Brooks' Feb 3 column implies that either Brooks never believed in the case for war, or that he's simply inconsistent in preferring the intuition and experience of politictians, Mafia bosses, studio heads and anyone who has read a Dostoevsky novel in the past 5 years (is this to imply that Mafia bosses are behind in their required Dostoevsky reading?) over CIA analyst's conclusions.
Which of the two, depends on whether Brooks believed the case for war based on WMD in Iraq was made by accurate representation of CIA analysts' conclusions by Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice; or by Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice's mis-representation of analysts' conclusions -- documented in some cases such as the yellowcake assertion.
If the former, then the case for war in Iraq was never believable to Brooks (columns to the contrary -- Brooks, you backed the war) -- since he believes the methods of CIA analysts to be untrustworthy. Brooks would be guilty of banging war drums -- a mouthpiece for the Bush administration -- while not believing in what he says.
If the latter, it counters Brooks' thesis: that politicians' intuition and experience is more trustworthy than analysts' conclusions -- since we now know that Bush's intution and experience that 'we know WMD are in Iraq, that they are producing them' was profoundly wrong. Brooks would be wrong asserting as he did in the Feb 3 column that analyst's 'scientism' is less trustworthy than the 'intuition and experience' of politicians.
So Brooks: were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?
Which of the two, depends on whether Brooks believed the case for war based on WMD in Iraq was made by accurate representation of CIA analysts' conclusions by Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice; or by Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice's mis-representation of analysts' conclusions -- documented in some cases such as the yellowcake assertion.
If the former, then the case for war in Iraq was never believable to Brooks (columns to the contrary -- Brooks, you backed the war) -- since he believes the methods of CIA analysts to be untrustworthy. Brooks would be guilty of banging war drums -- a mouthpiece for the Bush administration -- while not believing in what he says.
If the latter, it counters Brooks' thesis: that politicians' intuition and experience is more trustworthy than analysts' conclusions -- since we now know that Bush's intution and experience that 'we know WMD are in Iraq, that they are producing them' was profoundly wrong. Brooks would be wrong asserting as he did in the Feb 3 column that analyst's 'scientism' is less trustworthy than the 'intuition and experience' of politicians.
So Brooks: were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?
An End to the Powell Vice Presidential Candidacy
And with one interview, Powell kills his chances of taking Cheney's place in the 2004 elections, by stating the answer to the question: Would you have recommended an invasion knowing Iraq had no prohibited weapons: "I don't know, because it was the stockpile that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world." He said the "absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus; it changes the answer you get."
The killer phrase: "I don't know." Bush and his administration are nothing if not certain. They offer ambivalence no quarter, no shades of grey twixt light and shadow. You're either with them or against them. Seems Powell is against them.
The killer phrase: "I don't know." Bush and his administration are nothing if not certain. They offer ambivalence no quarter, no shades of grey twixt light and shadow. You're either with them or against them. Seems Powell is against them.
Fact Gaps
Now, I don't agree with Friedman on his stance regarding the war with Iraq, I do believe he has a point about not getting much campaign mileage from the WMD issue.
As you pointed out before, "The Point is to Defeat Bush...", and this means that the candidates must pursue Bush at his perceived weakest points. Even though I believe that the American public has been lied to by the Bush administration, that we have been misled at every turn with manufactured evidence, and I also believe that Bush should one day be tried in an international court, I also believe many Americans don't see this as an issue.
Fact:
In a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in May of last year, they found that
33% of the American public believes U.S. forces found WMD in Iraq.
22% replied that Iraq actually used chemical or bio weapons
50% reported that Iraqis were among the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Factoid:
"Too many Americans...believe in their guts that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if the W.M.D. intel was wrong." - Thomas Friedman
Americans will one day understand the Iraqi war in the same way that we now understand the McCarthy era, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the Iran-Contra scandal, but not before the Presidential election. If the Democrats are to win, they need to focus on what The Public perceives to be Bush's weakest points. To be sure, when the facts of this scandal see the light of day, it will put to shame all previous presidential scandals combined, but right now defeating Bush is more important than any of that, and this means attacking Bush on what MOST Americans agree to be his weakest policies are (and as Friedman points out this is probably not WMD or Iraq).
Once Bush is defeated, History will expose him and his many criminal acts, and Friedman will be proven wrong; Bush WILL pay a long-term political price for his "faith-based intelligence".
As you pointed out before, "The Point is to Defeat Bush...", and this means that the candidates must pursue Bush at his perceived weakest points. Even though I believe that the American public has been lied to by the Bush administration, that we have been misled at every turn with manufactured evidence, and I also believe that Bush should one day be tried in an international court, I also believe many Americans don't see this as an issue.
Fact:
In a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in May of last year, they found that
33% of the American public believes U.S. forces found WMD in Iraq.
22% replied that Iraq actually used chemical or bio weapons
50% reported that Iraqis were among the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Factoid:
"Too many Americans...believe in their guts that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if the W.M.D. intel was wrong." - Thomas Friedman
Americans will one day understand the Iraqi war in the same way that we now understand the McCarthy era, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the Iran-Contra scandal, but not before the Presidential election. If the Democrats are to win, they need to focus on what The Public perceives to be Bush's weakest points. To be sure, when the facts of this scandal see the light of day, it will put to shame all previous presidential scandals combined, but right now defeating Bush is more important than any of that, and this means attacking Bush on what MOST Americans agree to be his weakest policies are (and as Friedman points out this is probably not WMD or Iraq).
Once Bush is defeated, History will expose him and his many criminal acts, and Friedman will be proven wrong; Bush WILL pay a long-term political price for his "faith-based intelligence".
Friedman Transfers His Anger Rather than Deal With Being Duped
Friedman offers the postscript on his being taken in by the WMD "intelligence" and accepting half-truths about it, giving the President a pass: Op-ed Columnist: Budgets of Mass Destruction: "Too many Americans, including me, believe in their guts that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if the W.M.D. intel was wrong."
So, he does the mature thing -- same column, he decides that he's REALLY ANGRY about how terrible a shape the economy is in, and suggests this will be the issue of the campaign.
Yeah, may be. Or, maybe both will be the issue of the campaign, and Friedman's not intellectually rigorous enough to admit -- even in the full glow that the worst nightmares of the nattering naybobbers were right -- that he was wrong to trust the President on WMD; and he would rather take it out on the President for another issue, rather than the one he was wrong on too.
Classic erosion of trust.
So, he does the mature thing -- same column, he decides that he's REALLY ANGRY about how terrible a shape the economy is in, and suggests this will be the issue of the campaign.
Yeah, may be. Or, maybe both will be the issue of the campaign, and Friedman's not intellectually rigorous enough to admit -- even in the full glow that the worst nightmares of the nattering naybobbers were right -- that he was wrong to trust the President on WMD; and he would rather take it out on the President for another issue, rather than the one he was wrong on too.
Classic erosion of trust.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
The Point is to Defeat Bush, Mr. Brooks.
David Brooks, the conservative NYTimes columnist who can hardly be considered an interested commentator more than a jeering sideliner in the Democratic nomination process, wrote a column this week mocking the Democrat's shift back and forth between Dean and Kerry on the basis of wanting to put forward someone who is "electable": (Electing the Electable). Some Democrats are decrying that much of the discussion is centering around personality and temperment -- rather than a hardheaded comparison of ideas -- worrying that the Democratic Primaries are not a substantive process of discriminating between the candidates' positions. These criticisms are cut from the same cloth: they allege that the lack of hard-headed discussion of health-care plans, economic policy, foreign policy, education policy reveals a Democratic party weak on ideas, and unable to muster intellectual ability to convince voters of their superiority to what Bush has to offer.
This ignores the obvious cause: the difference between any two of the Democratic front-runners (Kerry, Dean, Clark and Edwards) is tiny compared to the difference between any of them and George Bush -- a president who has lied to his country to send us to a war he wanted to have since day 1, regardless of how we felt about it; who cut taxes to the rich while burdening us with a $500B deficit, and probably $1Trillion in new debt, and shifted the tax burden so that the payoff to the wealthy is being made by the middle class; who permits crony capitalism in his White House, with a $1Billion no-bid contract to Haliburton to provide services in Iraq, who still has his Vice-President on its payroll, even as they stole $61Million of taxpayer money; and who introduces astounding $1Trillion dollar shoot to Mars in a cynical "starve the beast" ploy of loading government with economic burdens; who -- for the first time in our history -- violates our constitution and holds Americans in prison without appeal to the courts or access to attorneys; who permits members of his administration to out CIA operatives in an illegal ploy to intimidate the administration's critics; who cynically pushes education reform, to pretend he's doing somthing, and then robs it of the funding he proposed so that it cannot be carried out, so that he gets the credit for pushing education reform while people ignore that he sabotaged it so that he can tell his conservative backers that he didn't grow government; then he does the same exact thing, pushing expensive and ineffective Medicare reform which will make rich pharmeceutical companies and insurers, before telling people that it will cost much more than he had said, and you can bet he won't fund it, just like "No Child Left Behind", so that Medicare "withers on the vine", in Gingrich's famous phrase.
The question Democrats face this primary season is not to split hairs over which of their health-care plans is better. The question they face is to figure out which among them has the armor to go up against a $300M strong Bush re-election machine, and his self-motivated hangers-on who are not burdened by ethical concerns about playing dirty. And who among them has that instinct to use the issues that people care about -- and how Bush's administration has used the country with the whim and compassion of a Monarch.
I, for one, am glad the Dem's are not bloodletting each other -- and that we are talking about temperment, hair styles, and character. The real battle is not between Democrats, whose differences are tiny; the real battle is between Democrats and Bush. That's the battle to fight. And we need the best fighter to do it. So the main question to be answered in the primaries is: who can beat Bush best? And so, Democrats' discussions center on this, rather than fighting among ourselves, because any Democrat in the Presidency will be better for the country than 4 more years of Bush.
That's why we're talking about electing the electable, Mr. Brooks. It does not reveal the weakness of the Democratic party -- it reveals a unity of purpose.
This ignores the obvious cause: the difference between any two of the Democratic front-runners (Kerry, Dean, Clark and Edwards) is tiny compared to the difference between any of them and George Bush -- a president who has lied to his country to send us to a war he wanted to have since day 1, regardless of how we felt about it; who cut taxes to the rich while burdening us with a $500B deficit, and probably $1Trillion in new debt, and shifted the tax burden so that the payoff to the wealthy is being made by the middle class; who permits crony capitalism in his White House, with a $1Billion no-bid contract to Haliburton to provide services in Iraq, who still has his Vice-President on its payroll, even as they stole $61Million of taxpayer money; and who introduces astounding $1Trillion dollar shoot to Mars in a cynical "starve the beast" ploy of loading government with economic burdens; who -- for the first time in our history -- violates our constitution and holds Americans in prison without appeal to the courts or access to attorneys; who permits members of his administration to out CIA operatives in an illegal ploy to intimidate the administration's critics; who cynically pushes education reform, to pretend he's doing somthing, and then robs it of the funding he proposed so that it cannot be carried out, so that he gets the credit for pushing education reform while people ignore that he sabotaged it so that he can tell his conservative backers that he didn't grow government; then he does the same exact thing, pushing expensive and ineffective Medicare reform which will make rich pharmeceutical companies and insurers, before telling people that it will cost much more than he had said, and you can bet he won't fund it, just like "No Child Left Behind", so that Medicare "withers on the vine", in Gingrich's famous phrase.
The question Democrats face this primary season is not to split hairs over which of their health-care plans is better. The question they face is to figure out which among them has the armor to go up against a $300M strong Bush re-election machine, and his self-motivated hangers-on who are not burdened by ethical concerns about playing dirty. And who among them has that instinct to use the issues that people care about -- and how Bush's administration has used the country with the whim and compassion of a Monarch.
I, for one, am glad the Dem's are not bloodletting each other -- and that we are talking about temperment, hair styles, and character. The real battle is not between Democrats, whose differences are tiny; the real battle is between Democrats and Bush. That's the battle to fight. And we need the best fighter to do it. So the main question to be answered in the primaries is: who can beat Bush best? And so, Democrats' discussions center on this, rather than fighting among ourselves, because any Democrat in the Presidency will be better for the country than 4 more years of Bush.
That's why we're talking about electing the electable, Mr. Brooks. It does not reveal the weakness of the Democratic party -- it reveals a unity of purpose.
Dean on Meet the Press
Dean was on Meet the Press this morning. His problem: He talks too much, and too quickly. He doesn't know how to answer a complicated question with 30 words. When asked a question, he answers it with 5 minutes of a well-thought-out and complete answer --- which, politically appropriately, sometimes answers the question and sometimes does not. However, a long answer leaves the impression that you are trying to dig out. His responses were emphatic, pushed. The questions were not sharp, but they were pointed. Dean's responses made him look evasive, and ill-at-ease with his own answers. I know understand where the reputation of "angriness" for which he was unfairly crucified during the scream episode comes from.
However, nobody watches the Sunday morning programs -- they effect the opinion-makers, but that's about it. And, giving long and complicated answers permits him to get his ideas out there, without being quotable.
Dean's going to do badly in the democratic debates, because he does not project presidential reticence. On the other hand, he clearly has the fire to debate Bush head to head. Dean has a killer instinct, and when Bush makes innacurate statments, Democrats must have a candidate which stands up there and knows how to zing him with the "You're No Jack Kennedy" line, leaving Bush tharn, angry and speechless (or, hopefully, so angry that he talks himself into a hole -- which ought to be easy enough, since Bush responds to his emotions when he talks, which is a big mistake for a debater, and a major achilles heel for Bush).
However, nobody watches the Sunday morning programs -- they effect the opinion-makers, but that's about it. And, giving long and complicated answers permits him to get his ideas out there, without being quotable.
Dean's going to do badly in the democratic debates, because he does not project presidential reticence. On the other hand, he clearly has the fire to debate Bush head to head. Dean has a killer instinct, and when Bush makes innacurate statments, Democrats must have a candidate which stands up there and knows how to zing him with the "You're No Jack Kennedy" line, leaving Bush tharn, angry and speechless (or, hopefully, so angry that he talks himself into a hole -- which ought to be easy enough, since Bush responds to his emotions when he talks, which is a big mistake for a debater, and a major achilles heel for Bush).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)