I'm Calling 'Bullshit' on NYTimes Select

According to the Times 'Most Emailed Articles' list, Maureen Dowd's Oct 12 Column 'To Sir, With Love' is the Times' most emailed article in the last 24 hours.

Bullshit. The upshot of duck-girl's article: 'Scooter and Karl leak Harriet Miers's missives to President Bush.' In other words, one of her idiotic "channeling" articles, in which (here) she pretends she's a fawning Harriet Miers writing George Bush. Dowd's columns of this type -- a form perfected by William Safire, who didn't do it to mock someone, but instead to say what he thought Nixon or Sharon might say if they had the opportunity -- have always been simpering awful. No one is emailing this around. No chance.

Certainly not more than the OpEd article suggesting we let infants run around in split-pants, such as the Chinese do.

The Times is padding it's "popularity" list in order to sell NYTimes Select. ('Gosh! what are we missing?').

Bet with Steve and Bob

Resolved: If Dick Cheney is indicted while serving as Vice President, he will step down within 2 weeks.

Pro: Bob
Con: Steve

Terms: one Luxury Caffienated Beverage

Bob also points out: who would be top contender for VP? What about John McCain?

Blogs: Way Too Public

[WaPost]It seems that some bloggers are finding out that their blogs are being read.

Gosh, wouldn't that be a nice problem to have.

If I Were Conservative, I'd be Really Angry Too.

We know how angry all the conservatives are with Bush. After all, instead of picking a heavy-weight conservative academic for the Supreme Court, he picked the Church Lady.

Maybe that's not very nice to point out, but consider the ramifications for the right:

• She has no tried-and-true bedrock judicial principles -- never having been a judge -- which probably couldn't be spun out of her in a 10 minute whirl-wind conversation with liberal academic juggernaut Ginsberg. She wouldn't even know what hit her. Ginsberg can quote precedent and history till the cows come home. Miers would totally Souter in that position.
  
• Even if Miers doesn't Souter, and keeps to her religious principles of being anti-abortion, religious principles are not going to hold up on a 40 year timescale. So, if Miers gets on the court, and starts saying, "Yeah, and God says, no abortion neither", Chief Justice Roberts is going to say, "um, right. Okay. So, I guess you are going to want to write your own opinion then?" and so she does. Which then gets ignored a generation down the line, and which -- even if Roe v. Wade were revisited with a 5-4 against outcome, would completely undermine the precedent.
  

Tooo bad for all those conservatives. They made the devils' bargain with the Wingnuts to get Bush into office, and lo and behold, it's the Wingnuts who get their Supreme Court position, not them.

Where We're Going With This: Bush Off The Cliff

Judith Miller testified for the second time in front of the Grand Jury today. Libby and Rove are going to have additional shots.

Where is this all going? Well, it seems inevitable that, at the present rate, we will be (perhaps not soon) having Rove on a witness stand in court answering charges. And, you can bet, the question will be put to him: "Why did you, acting as Special Advisor to the President, feel the need to specifically discredit critics of the President's policy to go to war in Iraq?"

With the country polling at >50%, saying that Bush should be impeached if it should become public that he lied to send us to war in Iraq, this could be a very, very interesting trial.

Kinda Interesting

This blog (elsewhere) makes an interesting description of what may be the tribal warfare between the Office of the President (Rove and Bush) and office of the Vice President (Libby and Cheney), making the case that that Cheney has been MIA for months, and isn't responding to the President's calls.

NYTSelect subscribers: Possibly more than zero, definitely less than 100,000

Over at Slate, Mickey Kaus points out the first sign of chest-thumping by NYT Editor-in-Chief Bill Keller regarding NYTSelect (as reported by BusinessWeek):

Keller hailed early returns on TimesSelect, which grants online access to the paper's columnists only to Times subscribers and those who pay $49.95 a year, saying a "couple hundred thousand people" have signed on for the service. However, a Times spokeswoman later clarified this figure, explaining that it includes current Times subscribers, who get TimesSelect for free, saying that the paper was not disclosing how many people were paying for TimesSelect.

A couple of points. First, as chest-thumping goes, this is pretty mild stuff. Where is he comparing the revenue to projections, or to the haul provided by WSJ subscribers (his self-termed arch-rivals)? Next, his unqualified reference to a "couple hundred thousand" subscribers provokes the natural question: How many print subscribers to the NYT are there, exactly? Answer: 1.25 million. Thus, Herr Keller's claim amounts to a statement that 1 of 6 print subscribers have signed up for NYTSelect. In the absence of other evidence, I'm assuming that the number of those who are actually paying for the service, rather than leaping the hurdles to (free) online access via their print subscription, are negligible. Thus my inference that since Keller claims ~200,000 subscribers, less than half (and in fact, probably less than 20%) are actually anteing up for the service.

N.B. 100,000 is a key number because Martin Nisenholtz at NYTDigital has stated in advance that they were looking for this kind of buy-in from the public to justify the service - see this pre-launch story at Editor & Publisher.

A Very Long Game

The Houston Astros just beat the Atlanta Braves in an 18 inning, 5 hour, 50 minute game to win the first round of the playoffs. The 10th through 17th innings were completely scoreless. I'm so glad I wasn't watching that game.

Judith Miller To Blow Wide, Wide Open. Fitzgerald Is Going to Indict Her.

Check it.

Patrick Fitzgerald has just staged a prosecutorial coup. He apparently got Judith miller to lie on the stand last Friday, in front of the grand jury. He then called her lawyer, said "Why is your client lying?" -- and now, Judith Miller suddenly admits to having had the June conversations --- earlier conversations with Scooter Libby than she's ever admitted before. It also means she could be tried as a co-conspirator.

Seems that while Miller languished in prison, Fitzgeraled found out somehow that Miller talked to Scooter back in June, earlier than July as she had previously admitted. So, he promised to restrict his questions to her about Scooter Libby only, she got sprung from prison, and testified. Then, he got her to answer questions under oath which indicated she had not spoken to Libby before July. After her testimony, Fitzgerald called her lawyer and asked: "Why did your client lie about the June Meetings?", to which the lawyer and Miller repsonded by suddenly discovering and turning over her notes about that meeting to Fitzgerald. In only a few hours. Now that's fast-faxing.

Now, it's all well and good when the questions put to you in front of a grand jury allow you to keep limited answers. But it's a no-no to commit perjury in front of a grand jury. It makes you look like a co-conspirator.

So, what do you think Fitzgerald will do in this case? I'll tell you: he'll indict her. And she could chose to continue her "I'm a journalist, and will say nothing" pose, or she could turn state's evidence and talk -- not only about Scooter, but about anybody and everybody she spoke to about Joseph Wilson's wife.

Oh, and if Scooter Libby talked to Miller in June about Wilson and Plame? It would demonstrate a long-running attempt to discredit Wilson, rather than the "four days in July, knee-jerk reaction, no-conspiracy-here" claim Scooter and Rove have been claiming.

Freaky Scary: Bush Jaw Spasms

AMERICAblog points out that Bush has suddenly started having jaw spasms at the end of every sentence. ( Video here ). They state that this is a symptom of someone addicted to cocaine or alchohol.

Whatever it is, it's a bloody frequent and scary tic.

HUGE: Senator Brownback is not on Board with Miers for Supreme Court (yet)

[NYTimes]
This is huge, because Sen Brownback is of Kansas, and is discussed at length in "What's the Matter with Kansas", where he is described as a Republican "Con" -- a conservative elected as the Kansas' moderates were swept out of office by religious conservatives who took over the Kansas GOPs (he's also a member of the Judiciary Committee, which must approve her nomination for it to be voted on by the full Senate). It explains that he was converted to the anti-abortion cause late in life (ahem) and is likely a political opportunist taking advantage of religious conservatives zeal, and making the most of the "promising the undeliverable" bargain that Republicans have with religious conservatives (i.e., GOP politicians promise to repeal abortion, and are foiled at every turn, which fuels their outrage, which fires up their base, which re-elects them, etc. etc.)

So what does it mean when he says "Ms. Miers had not persuaded him to vote to confirm her"? He left his meeting, he says, not convinced she would overturn Roe v. Wade. As one who speaks for the religious right, his lack of backing is shocking -- it's the academic conservatives (think tanks, etc) who have been against her. Brownback will run for President in 2008, and likely wants Roe v. Wade un-repealed so that his base is still fired up. If he votes to kill her in committee, he could see other GOPers follow his lead.

Wow.

DeLay Still In Power in the House

In the day of Lyndon Johnson, Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the House was the leader of the Majority Party in the House, setting the agenda, and determining the legislative direction. Not any more.

Even though DeLay has been indicted and forced to relinquish his title as Majority Leader, he's still in charge. How do we know?

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert nominated "Rep. David Dreier of California, chairman of the Rules Committee and an affable leader who would step aside should DeLay be cleared and seek to return to his post."([see Baltimore Sun article]). And how many votes did he receive in the GOP House Caucus? ZERO. None. Nada. The House Speaker's hand-picked candidate got no support from the membership.

ALL votes when to Roy Blunt of Missouri -- who is now the Majority Speaker. And who is Roy Blunt? Well, we now know that Roy Blunt is a congressman who took $150K from DeLay -- who had ostensibly raised the money from corporate donors not for political purposes, but to pay for "entertainment at the 2004 Republican National Convention." National Election Law takes a dim view of raising money not for political purposes (which the Federal Election Commission does not control) and then using it for political purposes (which it does).

So, it was DeLay's co-conspirator in dirty money-laundering scandal who is now the Majority Leader.

And the guy is toast.

Our Own Derek Fox in the New York Times

In case you missed the article, here it is.

Senator Reid: Bush is Still Hallucinating

[Article]: In response to Bush's speech calling for more American sacrifice to support the Iraq war (as if the $300B price tag weren't enough) Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Bush failed to outline a strategy for achieving military, political and economic success in Iraq.

'Instead, the president continued to falsely assert there is a link between the war in Iraq and the tragedy of September 11th, a link that did not and does not exist,' he said.

So, in addition to hallucinating, Bush wants us to pay more. Oh, and he threatened Syria and Iran, too, so now we have to support his hallucinations that Syria and Iran are related to Sept 11.

More GOP Corruption: DeLay and Blunt

[News Article]
After Tom DeLay had to step down as House Majority Leader because of his indictment in Texas, Missouri Senator Roy Blunt (R -- what else?) took his place.

The AP reports that, examining public fundraising records finds the following:

• After raising "too much money" for entertainment expenses for the June 2000 Republican National Convention, DeLay transferred $50,000 of that on March 31st 2000 (way before the convention) to Roy Blunt's "Rely on Your Beliefs Fund" (this, while both funds were run by the same guy -- Jim Ellis -- who was indicted with DeLay in Texas). Eight days later, Blunt's fund gave $10K to DeLay's personal chairty for children, and started payments which totaled $40K to a political consulting firm run by DeLay's former chief of staff, and which employs DeLay's wife (note to Rove: see how I'm not naming names?). If you're keeping score at home: $10K+$40K=$50K -- the amount of DeLay's transfer. Blunt says he had no idea DeLay's wife worked for that consulting firm, and that it was just a coincidence.
  
  
• Later, on May 24 2000 (still way before the convention), DeLay's convention fundraising group transferred $100k to Blunt's group. Then, over the next three weeks, Blunt's group donated this $100K to the Missouri Republican Party. The next month, Missouri GOP began spending lots of $$ to aid Blunt's son's candidacy for Missouri Secretary of State. Blunt says Missouri's GOP's support of his son after his donation is a coincidence.
  

Natch, this scenario raises bells to anyone who remembers back when the House ethics committee found that DeLay offered (allegedly) $100K to help former Congressman Nick Smith's son Brad, who was running for Congress at the time, in exchange for Smith's vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill. The House Ethics Committee gave DeLay a public admonishment. Smith originally claimed that DeLay mentioned $100,000 in contributions, but later stated that no specific figure was mentioned. (Roll Call, 11/22/04)

This raises the question: now that Blunt -- who is just as dirty as DeLay with filthy corrupt fundraising scandal -- is the House Majority Leader, are the Republicans capable of finding anyone in the House who isn't mired in scandal and corruption?

White House in Full Flight

The White House is drowning. Here's a rundown:

• Conservatives are pissed about the Miers nomination. They see themselves as part of a 30-year long intellectual effort, and what Bush has done is appoint The Church Lady, ready to do her Superiority Dance on the bench. [WaPost] "Is she the most qualified person? Clearly, the answer to that is 'no,' " Trent Lott said on MSNBC's "Hardball," contradicting Bush's assertion. Their point is simple: they expected an conservative intellectual heavyweight equal to balancing the liberal muscle of Bader Ginsburg, and Miers is decidedly not. She is therefore highly vulnerable, if confirmed, to the well-grounded argumentation of Ginsburg, and so could be turned. Natch.
  
• The Senate is defying the White House to veto its defense bill, as Bush said he would, by passing on a 90-9 vote rules setting limits on interrogating detainees. Thanks for the spine, folks. [WaPost] McCain mourns "what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget . . . that which is our greatest strength: that we are different and better than our enemies."
  
• Now that Judith Miller has testified, Fitzpatrick has said that this wraps up his investigation into the Plame affair, and his charge to investigate expires at the end of the month. He will signal today or tommorrow if he will obtain indictments, by naming targets of the Grandy Jury's investigation, expected to be Scooter Libby and/or Karl Rove. [reuters]
  
• Bush's body-man in the Senate, Bill Frist, is presently under SEC investigation for insider trading, and so is weakened in political standing. This, simultaneous with the loss of long-time Bush ally Tom DeLay in the House, leads to a congress whose reigns in the White House have been practically cut.
  
  Looking like a hard October for the Hizzuzis.

Miers is long-time anti-abortion

The Seattle Times: One evening in the 1980s, several years after Miers dedicated her life to Jesus, she attended a lecture at her church with Nathan Hecht, her companion, then a colleague at her law firm. The speaker was Paul Brand, a surgeon and the author of "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made," a best-selling exploration of God and the human body.

Afterward, Hecht said, Miers said words he never had heard from her before. "I'm convinced that life begins at conception," Hecht recalled her saying. According to Hecht, Miers has believed ever since that abortion is "taking a life."

"I know she is pro-life," said Hecht, one of the most conservative judges in Texas. "She thinks that after conception, it's not a balancing act — or if it is, it's a balancing of two equal lives."

....

Miers' campaign manager in her race for the Dallas City Council in 1989, Lorlee Bartos, recalled she was surprised to learn that her candidate was opposed to abortion rights.

"I wanted her to meet with a group of pro-choice women, and she said she wasn't pro-choice," Bartos said. "She said she had been pro-choice but had changed her view."

Said her friend Ed Kinkeade, a federal district judge: "People in Dallas know she's a conservative. She's not Elmer Gantry, but she lives what she believes. ... I'm like, y'all, has George Bush appointed anyone to an appellate court that is a betrayal to conservatives?"

Bush: "I have No Litmus Test"

Bush's first news conference since May is going on right now. A reporter just put it to him directly (paraphrased):

Q: Since you've known Miers for over ten years, it seems reasonable that you would have talked about her views on abortion, or gleaned from your conversations with her her views on abortion. Have you discussed abortion with the nominee?

Bush: I have no litmus test....

Q: But have you gleaned her opinion on abortion?

Bush: Not to my recollection, I've never sat down with her...

People Magazine for Scientists

Beginning this issue, Nature magazine is running short columns which give personal details on the lives and
research of authors of their journal articles. Called Authors, this week's issue tells of a scientist
and his study of the formation of sand dunes.

Miller's Martyrdom Complex

Seeing that Miller had public and private assurances from Libby that she did not have to honor any implied confidence of his, why did she go to jail for 85 days? Dan Froomkin gives the likely answer: so that she could convert herself from a journalistic pariah for her influential pre-war reporting about Iraq's WMD using a source who turned out to be a relative of the unreliable Chalabi into a martyr.

How nice.

US dollar falls to 14-year low vs Canadian

I'm thinking I might take a weekend trip south of the border to pick up some silver trinkets and inexpensive electronic goods.

Arnie Finds his Pen

Lattes all around! Arnie's vetoed the gay marriage bill in California.


So, that's lattes for Steve, Robin, Derek, Erica, Patrick.

No surprises here for anyone.

It's unofficial: Arnie can't find his pen

This guy is gonna cost me a couple of lattes. The word is that he can't find his official Governor's Pen™, and that is what is delaying him from signing that bill.

I've also heard that after the mid-term elections, the national speed limit is going to be reduced to 55MPH (again). Any takers on the con?

30 Days: the Countdown Begins

According to the California Assembly website, AB 849 (which would permit gay couples equal status in marriage) was enrolld on Thursday, Sept 22 and put on the governor's desk at 3pm. This is about 2 weeks since the bill was actually voted on, but the principle author enacted a delaying tactic, for the purpose of giving additional time to lobby Arnie to sign it. In the mean time, Arnie's declared he will veto it. He now has 30 days to do so.

TimesSelect: Good for You, Good for the Country

Now that the NY Times is charging $50/yr to read all their OpEd columnists, there are a couple of obvious reasons I love it.

1) We all suddenly have an extra free hour in the morning. I've taken up more studious grooming habits, which benefits my social relationships. Long term dental care is expected to improve nationwide.
2) Mental health providers have reported a 20% decline in repoted situational depression since TimesSelect started. No longer are there masses of rational, intelligent people reading Krugman and realizing just how screwed we all really are.
3) Couples in the 24-38 year age-bracket are reporting more satisfying lovemaking, as their minds no longer wander during sex toward the possibility that it is they who David Brooks is refering to as "BoBos".
4) Without Nicholas Kristof single-handedly calling attention otherwise ignorable mass human crimes, like the genocide in Darfur or the horrendous treatment of women in Pakistan, we can look forward to cocktail parties discussing real estate prices and our parent's health. Oh, and the weather. Let's not forget the weather.
5) Frank Rich's well-reasoned and comprehensive arguments on all subjects have made us a nation of lazy thinkers. Now, we will be forced to sit down and spend 3-4 days each week writing our own biting critiques of the latest social and political ills, which will dramatically improve our expository skills.


Yes, friends, we can all look forward to the day when the question might once again be asked in earnest, "Who the hell is Maureen Dowd?"

NYTSelect = Failure

Mickey Kaus blogged about this this morning. Mainly, he points out that if TimesSelect were a big hit we would know already, as the NYT would be publicizing the heck out of it.

The thing that really impresses me though, is this page: Most Emailed Articles. Note how there are only two NYTS-protected Op-Ed columns in the list - at places 6 and 20. The Op-Ed columns used to take up most slots in the top 5, which merit special mention on the NYT home page. This is all the more incredible when you consider that NYTS readers know that most or all of their friends do not have access to NYTS - which should encourage them to email more, not less.

In other words, it is looking as if eight of the NYT's most-prized properties have suddenly dropped off the face of the Earth.

Two more things that I am noticing.

• The little orange NYTS logos all over the NYT home page are annoying to me, a non-subscriber. When I visit a website, I want to feel like I have full unfettered access, to click on any link - in a sense this is the primary sensation that the Web is all about. NYTS frustrates this aspect of the experience, and makes browsing the NYT less enjoyable all around. Contrast that feeling to the feeling you get when browsing Yahoo News, or Google News, instead.
• I don't really miss the columnists. Now forced not to read them - or dig through John Tabin's list for the privilege - I realize they spend most of their time parroting the party line on one side or the other, and there are many places to get that. As a whole the blogosphere has far more wit and cleverness than any individual anyway, so my time is better spent foraging.

I predict that the NYT, in the pattern of incompetent Administrations throughout history, will declare victory and beat a tactical retreat, within six months. In particular, they will free the Op-Ed columnists for us to read, email, and blog about once more. NYTSelect will be reserved for Archive users.

Suggestions to an HDTV convert

B. HDTV kicks ass over DVDs. Here are the issues in a nutshell: (1) DVDs provide output at regular television resolution;

Not true. DVDs can either output in 4:3 format, Widescreen "letterbox" (2.35:1) which preserves original theatrical presentation, or the "full" Widescreen (no black bars on top and bottom) format of 1.85:1, they can also output at higher than television resolution.

(2) You can only ever recover some of this back with "progressive scan" or "HD upconversion" DVD players;

DVDs can be encoded several different ways. High/Low compression, High/Low bitrate, High/Low resolution etc. etc. depending on whether or not the studio wants the DVD to fit in a single layer, double layer, or have the movie span several discs (I.E. Das Boot. I've got the 6 hour version). HD upconversion and progressive scan DVD players help out with DVDs that are encoded poorly (I.E. Blade Runner. This title was a royal bummer for me until I got a Denon player with HD upconversion). Other DVDs which are encoded from a pure digital format such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy or Toy Story do not benefit from HD upconversion. Also, DVDs which are encoded correctly will not need the added benefit of an HD upconversion.

(3) DVDs are digitized at a TV rate of 60 frames/sec, while cinema is filmed at 24 frames/sec; expanding the latter to fit the former results in additional degradation of your signal;

The NTSC standard television displays 59.94 fields/sec, and a single frame is made up of 2 fields (one field for even lines, one field for odd lines) yielding a frame rate of 29.97 frames/sec. It is also a little known fact that NTSC stands for "Not The Same Color"
DVDs which are encoded correctly (see above) will have a frame rate of 29.97 frames/sec, and will not suffer any loss in quality.

(4) The aspect of DVDs is all wrong; you have to fiddle around with the TV to get a "letterbox" DVD to display properly on your screen, and that's lame. Either that or you have a "pan and scan" which can never use all of your widescreen real estate, which is doubly-lame

It isn't the DVD's fault that the TV doesn't automatically switch to the proper format. If you are connecting using an S-Video cable or a composite (RCA) cable, there is no data which is transmitted to the TV which tells it to switch to the correct format. If you have a composite, DVI, or HDMI connection between your TV and DVD player, the TV will automatically switch to the correct format. Also, if you have a DVD which was encoded in "pan and scan", you purchased the wrong one. Many DVDs come in 2 formats. Sometimes the widescreen and 4:3 "pan and scan" are included on the same disc (like many of the James Bond titles) but some titles sell them completely separate. Watch out for this during your purchase, and always purchase the "Widescreen format" titles.

HDTV on the other hand can be compressed at the source, and decompressed at your box using a lossy format. At worst, these 2 formats are equal.

Some HDTV Clarity

So I have a confession to make: I recently purchased a 46-inch HDTV. Even more recently, I had it connected to a digital cable box + DVR (TiVO clone).

This appliance has brought some new-found clarity to my life. Here is what I have found:

A. HDTV kicks ass over TV. Tech columnists have been saying this for a while, but flipping from regular television to HDTV from the comfort of your own couch really puts this statement in a new light.

B. HDTV kicks ass over DVDs. Here are the issues in a nutshell: (1) DVDs provide output at regular television resolution; (2) You can only ever recover some of this back with "progressive scan" or "HD upconversion" DVD players; (3) DVDs are digitized at a TV rate of 60 frames/sec, while cinema is filmed at 24 frames/sec; expanding the latter to fit the former results in additional degradation of your signal; (4) The aspect of DVDs is all wrong; you have to fiddle around with the TV to get a "letterbox" DVD to display properly on your screen, and that's lame. Either that or you have a "pan and scan" which can never use all of your widescreen real estate, which is doubly-lame.

C. HDTV Movies are as good in your own living room as they are in any theater. This holds when you route the sound over your (decent) stereo system. I can say this because my cable provider includes the channel HDNet Movies which broadcasts only movies in HD. Meditate for a moment, if you will, on how brilliant that is. Last night Erica and I were enraptured by Winged Migration on this channel - freaking awesome, or as Erica said, better than the first time. And since I have the cable company DVR, I can record any of these that I want (Winged Migration is on there now). The quality comparison to DVDs is no contest, and I don't have to do any fiddling to use all of the real estate on the screen.

These primary revelations have in turn yielded two secondary revelations.

D. No wonder box office is down. People talk about the movies this summer being crap, but Hollywood always puts out mostly crap. I say more and more people are realizing that the local movie theater is a lower-quality or, at best, on-par experience to what they can get at home. And they would rather watch something stale at home, in comfort, in HD or via DVD, than go to the theater for something "fresh".

E. No wonder DVD sales have taken a hit. There's no way I'm buying another "letterbox", regular-TV, "premium edition" DVD of ANYTHING. I'm telling you - you might as well start reconstructing your 80's era collection of cassingles. I'll watch the movies I get on HDNet Movies. I'll rent from Netflix or my local video store. But I'm not in the market to buy, not any more - not until the DVDs also provide HD performance.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch Martha Stewart kick some nubile unimprisoned ass on The Apprentice (in HD, recorded earlier tonight).

Arnie on His Deeply Held Beliefs regarding Gay Marriage

Two things happen today: Arnie meets with gay leaders in his office, after he requested they come. Also, the gay marriage bill finally hits his desk, after being held up by a delaying tactic from the legislature, to give them opportunity to lobby Arnie.

Yesterday, the San Jose Mercury News interviewed Arnie on this and other topics. Here's the [original article] and a partial transcript. Of particular interest is the fact that
he can't remember if he's ever attended a gay wedding or committment ceremony. I suppose that's because he just doesn't pay attention to such things as gender -- he's a gender blind guy.


"Q: Let me change gears here for a moment, if you don't mind. I'm curious if you, Governor Schwarzenegger or private citizen Arnold Schwarzenegger, if you've have ever attended a gay marriage or a gay commitment ceremony -- a gay or lesbian marriage or commitment ceremony?

A: I can't remember.

Q: You've talked a lot about, you know, being deferential to the courts and to the people, but I'm curious what your personal views are on gay marriage. Are you personally troubled by it, as a father, as a Catholic? Does it bother you, or are you deferring to the wishes of the people, do you think?

A: You know, to me, I have never really felt that strong one way or another because to me, I don't, you know, I'm not personally hung up on the whole thing....But I try not to, as much as possible, not to get my own personal opinion in there. Because, I think that if you represent the people of California and the people of California voted on that issue, and overwhelmingly voted on that issue, and Proposition 22 won, I don't want to be the one that says, `Look, I decide right now your vote doesn't mean anything. And the money that you spent on that campaign was a waste of money and it's gone.' And I think it just shows you also, at the same time, how much out of touch the Legislature is with the people.

Q: But it (Proposition 22) was five years ago, right?

A: It doesn't matter. The only way can redo it -- Look, Proposition 13 was in 1978, does it mean that now we should go, the legislators should go, and re-do Proposition 13? What would you say if --

Q: Well polls show that opinions have changed on gay marriage --

A: You're absolutely correct. I believe that too. But then they have to go back to the people, like I do. The reason why I have to go with our budget reform back to the people is because it involves Prop 98. I cannot say, `That was in 1988 and people misunderstood it and now they think totally different.' No, I have to go back to the people to get my budget approved because it does have an effect on education. You know, it will stabilize education funding so it doesn't go up and down the way it is right now, but it will effect it. And so therefore, I think that it you want to change that, I have no objection to people going out and trying to change it, but they have to go back to the people. That's just the way it works. Thats the way the law is....

I have the utmost respect for gay people, for gay couples....In this particular case, I'm the governor and I've got to protect the people of California and I've got to protect the people of California's right that if they vote there should be no other power that should change it other than the courts....

Q: So then would you take some sort of pledge vowing not to use the gay marriage veto in --

A: No, I'm out of the pledge business....

Q: But you said you're not hung up on the issue, would you agree not to use the gay marriage issue for political advantage?

A: I will never use it. Did you see me saying one word at the Republican convention?

Q: No, but you know things could always change down the line...

A: No, no, no, no. There is no change. I don't want to set up one group of people against another group of people. No....That's not my style....

"

TimesSelect: Not aimed at the readers, but aimed at the writers

you can see that, they did this simultaneously with a site-redesign. The result of this redesign is that all the OpEd columnists appear on the far right, below the scrolll -- you have to move down the page, rather than having them appear at the top.

Anyone doing site design *knows* that's horrible real estate. People look center, left, right, scroll down and repeat. The new position for columnists insures that they get far less attention that the now top of the page center Editorials -- which nobody is interested.

So what's going on? It seems to me that the NYTimes figured out that their columnists had become celebrities -- no holes barred -- in the blogosphere, only because they are columnists at the NYTimes, and the NYTimes was getting no ownership of that action.

What to do? You demote them all, move them aside to a lower place of feature and you make it harder for readers to read them, because you can't renegotiate their contracts once they exist. And now you've got a new ceiling, something to bargain with. If your columnists become famous and want more cash, you can offer them better placement. Or, make their columns free of charge. Which will increase their celebrity, and presumably their book marketability and lectureship fees.

In other words -- TimesSelect wasn't invented to get money from readers; TimesSelect was invented to claw back money from their writers.

NYTSelect & Syndication

Turns out, as long as we are willing to wait a day or two, we need suffer no anxiety over not having primo access to our favorite NYT columnists via TimesSelect. All of our gnashing of teeth was for naught!

John Tabin has pointed out that every NYT columnist is also published at other papers via the wonders of national syndication. And some of these papers have free-access websites. So as long as we are willing to hoof it around the web somewhat, we need suffer no deprivation. He's even going to make it easy for us, collecting links on this page right here.

Ahh, the joys of free OpEd access. Plus, just look at all the suffering we are missing!

Tip via Kausfiles.

WaPost Features NYTimes Taunts

Guest Blogger Andrew Sullivan is featured on the OpEd page at the WaPost, where today he says: "I would have linked to John Tierney's excellent NYT op-ed today on how Wal-Mart is better able to deal with natural disasters than FEMA. But only Times Select readers can read the link. So I won't. Nyah nyah."

A Site to Bookmark

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive (or go directly to today's column).

Don't know if NYTS is savvy to them yet, but at least we can all get our fix for today.

TimesSelect, Day 1

There they go: Today's Krugman, Herbert are now behind the locked gates. Will the digirati crack? Or will they walk right past the gates to stroll in the open bloggish gardens surrounding them on all sides?

Uh oh. Calif. Gay Marriage Bill was Stalled to Lobby Arnie

Seems that the explanation for why Arnie hasn't signed the bill yet is that its author used a tactic to stall the bill for 12 days from getting to Arnold's desk, so that he could be lobbied longer.

Bob, getting the phonecalls again

Zellweger has split after a five month stint with her husband.

Her reason for splitting? Bob's sexiness, and, I quote: "I was a fool for leaving him."

George Bush Needs a Bathroom Break

At least, according to this note he wrote to Condi during a Security Council Meeting today.

And There It Goes

Starting next Monday, the NYTimes OpEds will be access restricted. The yearly fee is $50 (which includes other services as well).

So the question is -- how long until I can't stand not reading Paul Krugman again?

Wha? This Doesn't Make Any Sense

Less than 2 weeks after President Bush praized Mike Brown, head of FEMA, with "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job", regarding his response to the Katrina disaster -- Brown first was relieved of all duties regarding Katrina, and now he's resigned.

So what are we to conclude from this? That Bush is a big ol' liar? That he can't tell the difference between a horrible job over which one should (and did) resign, and a "heck of a job?"

Is it really a good idea to have a President who makes statements which everyone knows is a complete lie, including himself?

The Post is a Stooge

Dear Washington Post Ombudsman,

In Howard Kurtz's column today, we see Post National Editor Michael Abramowitz scrambling to apologize for printing, unchallenged, a claim by an anonymous Administration official that a state of emergency was not declared in Louisiana until after September 3. Since Gov. Blanco declared just such a state on Friday, August 26 - more than a week before the Post story - this was a shockingly false claim to appear in the Posts' pages.

The story's co-writer, Spencer Hsu, attempts to explain away this deception by saying:

We don't blow sources, period, especially if we don't have reason to believe the source in this case actually lied deliberately.

Two questions about this quote:

1. Is it true that Mr. Hsu would protect his dissembling source, even if he did believe that his source had "lied deliberately" to make a stooge of the Post? Is this official Washington Post policy?
2. If Mr. Hsu does not believe that his source "lied deliberately", then exactly how does he think the source came to state this falsehood? Since the claim itself is so egregiously wrong, there was obviously a very deliberate lie planted by someone somewhere along the line - either by the source itself or by a trusted informant of the source. In other words, someone upstream from the Washington Post lied deliberately either about: (a) The date when a state of emergency was declared in Louisiana; or (b) The source's state of knowledge regarding when, exactly, a state of emergency had been declared in Louisiana. Does Mr. Hsu mean to claim that the second case is more forgivable than the first? Is this, also, official Washington Post policy?

Thank you very much for your time.

Derek Fox

Robin in the Room

I'd like to point out that Bob is now the Robin in the room on 13D.

Press Release on Schwarzenegger's Veto

[Here]
Press Secretary Margita Thompson says: the matter is before the courts, deciding on voter's ballot initiative -- exactly where it should be. Out of respsect for California's voters, he will veto the bill.

Any Other 2-for-1er's?

Steve feels confident enough that Arnold will veto the Gay Marriage bill, that he unilaterally altered the terms of his bet (see comment under Derek's Post, "Why Bob Should Buy Some Lattes in Bulk") to 2:1 -- he buys me two if I win, while I buy him one if he wins, pointing out that in nearly all previous bets I've lost to him in the past 2 years (and it's been nearly all the bets) taking the cynical side has been a big win for him.

So, how about it, Derek, Robin, Patrick, Erica? Anybody else feeling confident enough to join Steve in the 2-for-1 odds level? I'll mention again that I conceded in the comment below that I had not known that the California Legislature went out of session Sept 9th (pointed out by Derek), after which they would have had to call an emergency session to revive the bill, but could have brought it back up to try to override his veto if he had vetoed it before then, a seemingly very strong argument to explain Arnie's several days delay (now, 5 days, and 2 days past Sept 9th)
in vetoing the Bill after announcing his intention to do so.

Like I said, any other 2-for-1 takers?

Rumsfeld Channeling Washington?

From McCullough's 1776 (p 256):

Once, during the Siege of Boston, when almost nothing was going right and General Schuyler had written from Albany to bemoan his troubles, Washington had replied that he understood but that "we must bear up against them, and make the best of mankind as they are, since we cannot have them as we wish."

In other words: you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might like to have.

Why Bob Should Buy Some Lattes in Bulk

Allow me to address Bob's argument point-by-point:

• Arnold didn't threaten to veto ahead of time because he was hoping the bill wouldn't pass (it was close). If the bill doesn't pass, Arnold doesn't have to end his straddle on gay marriage and alienate a consituency (which he does, either way);
• Once the bill passes, Arnold is forced to choose. If he doesn't veto the bill then it becomes law so that's as good as signing. This is a tough decision, though, so it takes him 24 hours;
• Making and announcing the decision early indicates that he takes the issue seriously, and avoids engendering the bitterness of dashed hopes;
• After announcing his decision, though, he will want to hold off on the actual veto until the legislature goes out of session. This forces the Democrats to call a special session should they be so crazed as to want to attempt an override;
• In the end, the veto is the only politic course of action. If the legislature wants it badly enough they can always override, but the people have spoken, via the ballot proposition, in a pretty strong way;
• Arnold's not gay.

Why Arnold Will Not Veto The Marriage Bill

Now that Steve, Robin, Patrick and Derek have taken the con side of my bet (Pro: That Gov. Arnold does not veto the California Gay Marriage Bill), maybe I should explain my logic a little.

The California legislature passed the Religous Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act on Tuesday Evening (Sept 6th). From that time, Arnie has 30 days in which to sign the bill into law or veto it, after which it passes into law without his signature. After 24 hours, (Sept 7th) Arnie announced that he intends to veto the bill.

For those of you who watch political theatre, this is a complete mis-ordering. As Governor, you don't announce your intention to veto a bill *after* it has passed the legislature, you do so before it has passed, to force the legislature to modify it into a 2/3s veto-proof form, which is nearly impossible to do, and likely would make it acceptable to the Governornor anyhow.

It's now Sept 10th -- a good three plus days after the bill was passed. What's he waiting for? Can't find a pen? Busy with leg curls?

Arnie took 24 hours, not to decide to veto the bill, but to decide *to announce* that he would veto the bill. With 30 days in front of him, this is a political opening, not closing, of the debate: if he wants to sign the bill, he wants to get a bounce from the proponents, and so he needs a conversion story. Announcing that he will veto the bill begins that conversion.

And why would Arnold want to sign the bill? Well, apart from issues of basic fairness, let's say that, somewhere, there's a parallel universe, identical to this one, except that in that Universe, Mr. Universe had sex with other body builders. In that parallel universe, Mr. Universe would be governor, fully knowledgeable of the fact that the gay community has a habit of leaving closeted politicians alone if they generally support gay rights, and outing those who work against them. In that Universe, if Mr. Universe vetoed a gay marriage bill, I think you would see a few gay bodybuilders outing the Governor, which would devestate his support among his base.

Thus, I ask myself: what's the probability that that universe is this universe? Given the Governors aggressive personality, his known penchant for sexual aggression (so far only seen with women), and the obvious joy he takes in domination and humiliation of other men (documented on the body bulding circuit -- for example, by mocking a body builder he used to compete with about his having had sex with his wife), I give it a good 30-50%.

And, if I'm right about that, Arnold will simply announce: "I have always believed that this is a matter to be decided in the courts. Leaving this sort of legal confusion around can only lead to civil strife, which the California economy cannot afford. Therefore, in order to put this matter in front of the courts as quickly as possible and bring the debate to a decisive end, and not cause any more damage to the California economy, I have decided to pass this bill. Vote Arnold for Senator, 2008".

Note, however -- even if I am wrong about why Arnold wants to pass the bill, his waiting 4 days and not simply signing his veto casts suspicions on his intentions. And, motiviations aside, still gives me a read of him that he intends to attempt a conversion story.

bob Sez: no veto

It's beingwidely reported Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared he will veto the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would give state recognition to same-sex marriage in California.

I'm offering a cappa bet, to anyone who accepts via a comment below, prior to a change in the present situation, that Arnold will, in fact, not veto the bill.

Takers?

Onion Strikes Katrina

God Outdoes Terrorists Yet Again. And be sure to follow the link to the second page to see "Bush Urges Victims To Gnaw On Bootstraps For Sustenance"

A Stunning Statistic

For Bush, a Deepening Divide: "A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last Friday illustrates the point vividly. Just 17 percent of Democrats said they approved of the way Bush was handling the Katrina crisis while 74 percent of Republicans said they approved. About two in three Republicans rated the federal government's response as good or excellent, while two in three Democrats rated it not so good or poor."

Bush: "Trent Lott's new house is gonna be AWESOME!"

New Orleans is a totall mess, but I can't wait to kick back at Trent's new crib, sez Bush:

"We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)"

Comment Spam

So, we're getting comment spam. I turned on a requirement of typing in a distended word. If that doesn't stop it, I'll also limit comments to registered users (since so far the comments are anonymous.

In a nutshell

Since we haven't had a post on Hurricane Katrina, I thought I'd sum it up:

The disaster is being called a casualty of the war in Iraq, and also "George's Blue Dress". The body of water which was once New Orleans is now being called "Lake George". Martial Law has been declared in the area, yet there aren't enough troops to enforce the law. Snipers are firing from rooftops keeping people indoors for hours while they go unchallenged. Why?:

1) Bush said yesterday that no one could have foreseen that the levees would break. This is in direct contradiction to a FEMA report in 2001 naming the New Orleans levee system as one of the top three potential disaster areas. The money for reinforcement was diverted to the war in Iraq.

2) Bush, Cheney AND Condi were all on vacation AFTER the storm occured. Bush waited three days until he decided to 'cancel' his vacation. He flew over New Orleans at 35,000 ft to see the devistation, and is just this morning receiving a 'briefing' of what is going on. Why does he need a briefing, and why did THAT take so long. People reading news are most likely more well informed than the the Commander in Chief. One of Bush's stops before the disaster was a cake eating photo op with John McCain. The cake said "Let them eat cake". For godsake, all you had to do was listen to NPR to know that by Tuesday, that cake would be in bad taste, REGARDLESS of who it is for
Condi - She was out catching a show of "Spamalot", seen purchasing a $1000 pair of shoes (when another shopper approached her and scolded her for being so callous about the disaster, Condi had security physically remove her from the building). She also spent some time catching a tennis match, and also hitting a few to Monica Seles. Condi finally cut her vacation short on Thursday morning, four days after the disaster began. Quite possibly the most disgusting reaction to a national disaster since Bush finished reading "My Pet Goat" while the World Trade Center fell.
Cheney - So where the hell is Cheney? The Washington Post reports that he is on vacation at his home outside Jackson, Wyoming. "He'll be back any day now".


3) FEMA, an organization which has been gutted by the Bush administration is advocatingdonations to Pat Robertson's "Operation Blessing". Bush praises the FEMA director this morning: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.". 'Brownie' (Michael Brown) also told Katie Couric this morning "people are getting the help they need.". This was also after making a comment that they are "...to help those who are stranded, who chose not to evacuate, who chose not to leave the city..." Apparently, Brownie isn't aware that there is a fairly large number of people in America who do not own cars, could not afford them, nor can they afford to just pick up and leave. These people live hand-to-mouth and demonstrably could not evacuate the area IF THEIR LIVES DEPENDED ON IT.

4) Trent Lott's house was destroyed (well, one of them anyway), and Fats Domino is missing.

5) The US is stalling on help because "The United States Government is not yet requesting international assistance at this time."

6) Thousands of Louisiana's poorest are being bussed out to the Astrodome in Texas. These people, who couldn't afford to leave, will most likely not be able to afford to come back. That, coupled with the fact that many businesses have been destroyed, reinforces the possibility that a significantly large part of the LA population will never return. Dennis Hastart, in an interview with the Chicago Daily Herald editorial board said that "It doesn't make sense to rebuild".

7) Reps are already backtracking on the "Consumer Protection Act of 2005" (which made it harder for people to declare bankruptcy.) Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Rep. Mel Watt, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee announced today that when Congress returns next Tuesday, they will introduce legislation to protect the thousands of families and small businesses financially devastated by Hurricane Katrina from being penalized by anti-debtor provisions contained in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, scheduled to take effect on October 17, 2005. Reps. Conyers, Nadler, and Jackson Lee released the following joint statement:

"We are concerned that just as survivors of Hurricane Katrina are beginning to rebuild their lives, the new bankruptcy law will result in a further and unintended financial whammy. Unfortunately, the new law is likely to have the consequence of preventing devestated families from being able to obtain relief from massive and unexpected new financial obligations they are incurring and by forcing them to repay their debt with income they no longer have, but which is counted by the law.

Ooops. I guess they didn't see that coming. My final thought on this whole disaster is that it couldn't have happened to a redder group of States. You go in to a disaster with the government you voted for, not the government that would actually help you out.

Not to sound too flippant about the whole thing, but this disaster has shown us that the war on terror/war on Iraq has made us extremely vulnerable in many areas. The Bush Team had always repeated the mantra "Americans want to feel safe", so they gutted everything they could to take us into a war where the money was funneled into defense spending, no-bid contracts, etc. Meanwhile at home we are left vulnerable to rising energy costs, inability to protect ourselves from natural disaster, and a distinct sense that we are worse off today than we were 5 years ago. They are running out of fuel in the south, they have no food, shelter or medical supplies, and the death toll will most likely outstrip the World Trade Center and the casualties in Iraq combined. This disaster is going to take us into a new recession, and Bush's unbridled spending will make sure that it lasts generations.

Robin is Visiting

IMG_251
Originally uploaded by rerutled.

Coffee in the morning.

David Brooks as Travis Bickle

David Brooks, NYTimes: "Floods wash away the surface of society, the settled way things have been done. They expose the underlying power structures, the injustices, the patterns of corruption and the unacknowledged inequalities. When you look back over the meteorological turbulence in this nation's history, it's striking how often political turbulence followed."

Travis Bickle, Taxi Driver : All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

George Will on Judicial Activism: It's a Good Thing

George Will comes out in favor of 'judicial activism' and says good conservatives should favor it, too. Why? Because it favors the Constitution in its constructionist mean over modern majoritarian impulses (popular in the Republican party because, hey, they're the majority); and the constructionist interpretation offers deference to the majority of the founding -- an unusually deliberative moment which deserves such deference.

What's useful about the OpEd is it draws a clean line between constuctionism (one conservative meme) and anti-activism, and effectively chides Republicans for giving in to the majoritarian spoils system. Activist away!

NPR : Hundreds Die in Panic on Baghdad Bridge -- poisoning?

NPR report claims that 158 people (according to the Iraqi ministry of health) died from poisoning during the same pilgramage, in addition to the hundreds who died in the crush on the bridge.

The End of New Orleans

As busses convoy out the remaining 20% of New Orleans' population to parts unknown, you've gotta ask: who are those people, and will they come back?

The 20% of New Orleans' population were those who could not afford to heed the mayor's evacuation call -- they don't have cars, and couldn't afford to leave otherwise. They live hand to mouth, and month-to-month at best. When they get to wherever they are going (the Astrodome in Houston for many of them), they are going to have to find jobs to survive in the interim, and once they do, why would they come back? Before you've even started about rebuilding, 20% of the population is gone.

And the remaining 80%? Their factories and workplaces are wiped off the map. There won't be anyplace for anyone to work; construction will be up, but it will be months before anyone could come back to the office job they used to have. And how do they live until then? To me, this sounds like, before you even start, New Orleans has lost 50% of its population. And losing that much it's hardly likely the city could recover to its pre-hurricane economic level for decades.

Genie Grants Scalia Strict Constructionist Interpretation Of Wish

The Onion offers relief for the day: "WASHINGTON, DC—A genie freed from a battered oil lamp by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted the conservative jurist a strict constructionist interpretation of his wish for 'a hundred billion bucks' Monday. 'Sim sim salabim! Your wish is my command!' the genie proclaimed amid flashes of light and purple smoke, immediately filling the Supreme Court building with a massive herd of wild male antelopes. When Justice Scalia complained that the 'bucks' had razed the U.S. Supreme Court building, trampling and killing several of his clerks and bringing traffic in the nation's capital to a standstill for hours, the genie said, 'Your honor, your wish is a sacred and unalterable document whose interpretation is not subject to the whims of society and changing social context.'"

Astrodome to Shelter Superdome Refugees

Now that's going to be a hell of a T-shirt.

American Pompeii

New Orleans Is Now Off Limits.

And outrageous: the military is performing the relief effort. Our National Guard is in Iraq, and the Military is doing relief at home. That's a complete reversal -- and a very inefficient use of our personnel resources.

Great OpEd in the Times -

by Francis Fukuyama : "With the failure to secure Sunni support for the constitution and splits within the Shiite community, it seems increasingly unlikely that a strong and cohesive Iraqi government will be in place anytime soon. Indeed, the problem now will be to prevent Iraq's constituent groups from looking to their own militias rather than to the government for protection. If the United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will further damage American credibility around the world and ensure that the United States remains preoccupied with the Middle East to the detriment of other important regions - Asia, for example - for years to come."

NYT Eds Don't Like Bush

New Orleans lies in ruins, and the NYT Editorial board can't resist the urge to needle President Bush about it:

But this seems like the wrong moment to dwell on fault-finding, or even to point out that it took what may become the worst natural disaster in American history to pry President Bush out of his vacation. All the focus now must be on rescuing the survivors.

Wrong moment, huh? Au contraire, mon amis! I think it's never a bad time to get snarky on the Dubyah.

Bush's Legacy

That household income has dropped for five straight years -- -the longest decline on record -- and poverty rates are up again to what they were before Clinton took office pretty much seals the deal.


It's time, with midterms in the next year, to wind up Bush's legacy. Here it is: he is absolutely the worst president we have ever had. This, coupled with situations ready to spiral out of control, are about to sink the country into the worst social unrest of the past century. Combine inside the torn psyches of Americans the twin disorder of realizing the lie and costs of Iraq, with the deteriorating economy at home, and genuine anger is the result.

Why do I come to this conclusion today? Wed, Aug 31? The answer is New Orleans. The destruction there, the active way this administration removed disaster preparedness which led to it's present state, the crime and disorder it sees, the real possibility that the city will not recover -- literally, effectively wiped off the map -- due to the lack of preparedness and the budget deficit which makes any real National response impossible; the likelihood of $3 gas --- all of this will chime in the ears of people who have come to accept that we are in a war based on lies, spending over a Trillion dollars to do nothing but create another civil war in a country which posed no military threat to us. People can handle the knowledge that they were liied to. However, when the lies have real consequences, they get very angry.

U.S. Poverty Rate Rises to 12.7 Percent - New York Times

That's six million more Americans living in poverty now than when Bush took office in 2000. Total number of Americans now living in poverty: 37 Million

The last time the poverty rate was this high -- 12.7% --- was 1993, just after W.'s dad left office.

Like I've said -- now is the time to be very, very rich in the U.S. Everyone else is losing ground.

Sheehanization

The steady, simple, and undeniable statement, made over and over in the press, is finally filtering its way into the higher edges of the Democratic party: We were led to war on a lie. Facts are funny, persistent things.

Gary Hart in the WaPost:: "The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating 'Stay the course' even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began."

Religious Extremist Calls for Presidential Assassination

Unbelievable. And all broadcast on a television show.

Well, okay, sure, the television show was "The 700 Club." it was Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Update 9:00pm, Aug 23: and now everyone is piling on Pat Robertson . As it should be.

NYT vs Onion on Intelligent Design

NYT says:

Proponents of intelligent design say biological marvels point to the hand of a higher being, but mainstream scientists are unconvinced.

The Onion says:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Score one for the Onion - or two, actually, since the NYT piece is second in a two-part series on the subject, altogether weighing in at maybe 3000 words, while the Onion gets the point across in a single headline.

US Blows Away NAFTA

Ugh The US and Canadian trade agreements are basically free trade. However, recently, the US has put a tarrif on Canadian soft lumber, and collected $5B doing so. Canada has taken the issue to every single body established under NAFTA to mediate, and all of them have found in Canada's favor. Last week, they went to the trial of last resort: the Extraordinary Challenge Committee. No kidding. It was put into the treaty by the US, who wanted it there as a 'last resort' for trade disputes. And they found in Canada's favor. And so the US said: "Tough, we'll still collect the tarrif. You can't stop us." Really. So, now Canada is going to the WTO to ask permission to levy $5B in retaliatory tarrifs.

Harvard Med School grad confuses science, religion

Apparently, Harvard Med School graduates - at least some of them - cannot be depended on to distinguish religion from science. Instead, they advocate as a matter of public policy that thinly-veiled religious doctrine be taught in American public school science classes.

Oddly, however, even in advocating this comingling of the magisteria, they do not promote or even mention the idea of teaching evolution by natural selection in Sunday School.

Thanks to TPM for the link. See also my earlier post on the similar difficulties afflicting some of our nation's Yale graduates.

Pope to Jews:

"Beware of rising Anti-semitism.

Jews to pope: Yeah, thanks for the heads up pope. Glad you've got your ear to the ground. Anti-semitism. We'll keep an eye out.

Cheney mourns Iraq war deaths? In This Chilly Weather?

They say Dick Cheney is mourning Iraq war deaths. How could they be so sure? He didn't even bother to put on his mourning parka.

In the Face of the President

Bush got to see an anti-war protest today. Six mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq, including Cindy Sheehan, and dozens of supporters.

I'm guessing he's never seen one before.

Al Qaida Determined To Strike In US

It turns out that military intelligence officials knew that the 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta was in Al Qaida and might be in a US based terror cell one year before the attacks. The Sept 11 commission knew this information, but purposely left it out of their final report.

The End of Canada

Those crazy Separatists. At 35% of the population, they're interested in getting the debate for removing themselves from Canada going, now. They think the Canadian federation has been a raw deal for them; so why tolerate it?

About what you'd expect from the Quebec Separatists right? Sure. But who's talking about Quebec separatists?

These are people in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. (Young people, actually -- aged 18-29).

So if Quebec wants out at 40% of their population, and they're at similar numbers in those three major provinces -- and there's not even a crisis going on -- what, exactly, is holding this country together?

Turns out: not much.

For the record: the provinces which I don't have any statistics about their separtist ferver are: Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland (and Labrador), and Nunavit.

DeLay To Not Run in 2008

Resolved: that Tom DeLay declares candidacy for the Presidency in 2008.

Pro: Steve
Con: Bob. Who thinks DeLay's too busy opening foster homes for abused and neglected children.

Get dem Dukes!

With A.O. Scott's review of the Dukes of Hazzard movie, I can't understand why they aren't giving this gem a platform release.

Quick Geography Test

True or false: There exists a US-allied, oil-rich Islamic country called "Mauritania".

Ans: True. And they just had a military coup.

Yale grad considers evolution "one alternative"

It seems that Yale University graduates - at least some of them - cannot be counted on to distinguish between (1) The founding principle of modern biology and one of the most powerful unifying concepts in all of science, on the one hand; and (2) A dumb invocation of greater forces to "explain" the wonder and diversity of natural life, on the other.

It's a shock, I know. But 146 years after the discovery of evolution by natural selection, I humbly suggest that the Yale faculty consider introducing the subject into their core science requirement to alleviate the chances of such embarrassing episodes occurring in the future.

Bush to World & Senate Dems: Fuck You

He's now installed Big Time Asshole (that's an Administration technical term) John Bolton at the UN as our nation's - that is, your - Ambassador to the world. Reuters story.

Bush: Sympathetic to Boy Scouts, not to Soldiers

Bush went to a Boyscout Jamboree, where four scout masters had been killed during a lightning storm, and expressed his sympathy to the scouts. Sure, it's a tragedy.

But so are the close to 2000 deaths of American soldiers in the Iraq war. So why hasn't George Bush yet appeared at a funeral for an American soldier, to express sympathy to the family?

Roberts is Confirmed, so Why Does Bush Keep Talking About it?

Less than a week after his nomination for the Supreme Court, it's obvious that Roberts is headed for a successful appointment. The only major issue between him and the bench is the fact that he has almost no public paper trail revealing his judicial thinking, but he has an enormous paper trail in the Executive Branch: 1981-82, Aide to Attorney General William French Smith; 82-86, Aide to White House counsel Fred Fielding; 89-93, principal deputy solicitor general for Bush I. That's 11-12 years writing legal opinions for the Executive Branch -- all of which Bush had access to in making his decision. Compare that with 1.5 years on the D.C. Circuit, which is the paper trail the Senate has to examine his Judicial thinking. Executive privelige will keep the Senate from obtaining copies of Roberts' writings during those 12 years. It's safe to say that Bush knows every nuance of Roberts' judicial bent. The Senate cannot know it.

So, Bush's candidate will get onto the court, and I expect he'll be exactly the kind of Justice Bush's supporters want to see.

My point: this nomination is over.


So why is Bush still talking about it? Answer: to change the subject from the real subject: The Plame Affair.

Bush Always Knew About the Conspiracy In His Administration

The force of Derek's posts below is so convincing, it bears repeating.

Bush is playing poker with us -- holding cards, and looking over his shoulder is Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Stephen Hadley, Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. All of them are looking at his hand and saying the exact same things: "never said her name", "only if leaked classified information". Some of them are even bluffing: "had no involvement".

Now, we can't prove what's in that hand -- but we are hearing them all speak with the same voice, with the same words, because they are all playing the same hand. The President has always known, and he's helping them forward the conspiracy and obstruction. Anyone who plays poker can see that.

The important question which remains is - how do you get to see the cards?

Bush knew about Rove & Plame - Part 2

Since my last post on this subject, the President has finally made public reference to his 2003 pledge to lay off any members of his Administration involved in revealing the identity of a CIA covert operative - and her various front companies and all related government agents - to the world for the sake of a political vendetta.

What the President says now is that he will fire anyone found to have "committed a crime." (As Josh Marshall put it, he's set a high bar for his staff: no felons.) What he said then was that he would fire anyone found to have "leaked classified information." This is a revealing retreat on his part, mainly because the leaking of classified information is not itself a crime. Some news reports of the President's statement have claimed that he was clarifying (or "narrowing") his earlier position. Since the two statements refer to disjoint types of action, however, this cannot be the case.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, the President's statements - both directly and through spokesman Scott McClellan - have mirrored Karl Rove and his lawyer's justifications in near-eerie fashion throughout this scandal. His new position hews to this pattern, since obviously, Rove and his lawyer still hope to beat the rap, even though it is now public knowledge - not even denied by them - that Rove was involved in compromising Plame's covert status. They can maintain this hope because the governing statute sets a high bar for conviction; in any case, the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow.

We thus have four independent lines of argument that Bush knew - in 2003 - that Rove had played a role in compromising Plame's status:

1. His invocation of the phrase "classified information" in 2003, which was designed by Rove to exclude his own actions (see my previous post);
2. His lack of action in response to the revelation of Matthew Cooper's testimony about Rove. This absence of action confirms that the original pledge was not meant to apply to Rove;
3. His new statement, which appeals to an external standard for the first time, rather than referring to what actually happened (one presumes that the President can ask for the truth from his trusted aides);
4. His new statement, which retreats from the "classified information" standard, which would now very clearly indict Rove (who was too clever by half with that initial framing).

Simply because it is so hard to get one's head around, I'll say it again: The preponderance of the evidence implies that the President has, knowingly and for almost two years now, participated in keeping this traitor employed, with your tax dollars and a security clearance, in his Administration.

The White House Cover Up

Fitzpatrick is looking at Four Incidents of obstruction of Justice, two involving Rove, one involving Scooter Libby, and one involving Ari Fleishcer:

* White House chief political strategist Karl Rove reportedly told the grand jury that he first learned of Valerie Plame's identity from columnist Robert Novak -- but Novak's version of the story is that Rove already knew about her when the two spoke.

* Rove didn't mention his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to investigators at first and then said it was primarily about welfare reform. But Cooper has testified that the topic of welfare reform didn't came up.

* Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby apparently told prosecutors he first heard about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert, but Russert has testified that he neither offered nor received information about Plame in his conversation with Libby.

* And former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer apparently told prosecutors that he never saw a classified State Department memo that disclosed Plame's identity, but another former official reportedly saw him perusing it on Air Force One.

Civil Liberties for Security

As has always been said, ultimately, we will give up our civil liberties for security. After all, what do you have to hide?

Bloomberg: "Are they intrusive? Yes, a little bit. But we're trying to find the right balance."

Bush knew about Rove & Plame in 2003

Recall how in parsing the President's and Scott McClellan's statements in 2003 and 2004, we were all puzzled by their repeated invocation of the phrase "leaking classified information" when referring to the identification of Valerie Plame Willson as a CIA operative. For example:

George W. Bush - 30 September 2003 - "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

Scott McClellan - 7 October 2003 - "If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates."

This behavior seemed bizarre under the circumstances since the charge itself - knowingly revealing the identity of a CIA operative - makes no explicit reference to classified information. So why were Bush and his spokesperson treating this as just another leak?

At the time some thought this might be a clever attempt to broaden the outrage over a compromise of our national security into a full attack on government leaks, which have a tendency to embarass the Executive Branch more often than not. "Perhaps the Administration will use the scandal to push for an Official Secrets Act!" we thought.

In retrospect, though, I think this actually reveals that Bush and McClellan knew that Rove had been talking to reporters about Plame. Note how Rove & Luskin have recently been splitting this exact same hair between talking about Plame and "leaking classified information." Rove said that he "didn't know her name and didn't leak her name" (CNN, 31 July 2004) and Luskin now says that "Rove did not mention her name to Cooper" (Washington Post, 10 July 2005). This line of defense has even been refined to "Rove learned about Plame from a reporter" by several Rove loyalists. The explicit inference being that if reporters were giving this information to Rove, it could not be counted as classified information.

Various observers have suggested that Luskin has been neglecting his duties to his client by persisting in contorted and quickly-refuted non-denial denials. However, what if Luskin has been taking his talking points - even his very words - directly from Rove? It certainly sounds as if Bush and McClellan in 2003, and Luskin now, have been working from the same playbook.

If true, this is really quite stunning. For two years, our President has known that his Deputy Chief of Staff was involved in the revelation of a covert CIA operative's identity, and has done nothing about it.

At the same time, it explains why he is refusing to do anything about denying this traitor a government salary - or even a security clearance - now, when everyone else knows it as well.

Man Beats his Wife, Now Only 3 Nights A Week!

If a man came home drunk 4 nights a week and beat his wife, would it be good news if he "slashed" that number from 4 nights a week to 3 nights a week?

Heck no.


So why does Bush think it's good news that the deficit is going to be $333B instead of $427B?

Is The White House Involved in a Cover-Up?

Looks like Rove identified Mrs. Wilson as a CIA operative to Time's Matthews and, by implication, to Novak. McCLellan denied Rove had any involvement in that sorry episode, back in October 2003. Now, McClellan won't even talk about it. Neither will Bush. Both have shut up, because it's been made public that Rove had big BIG involvment in that sorry episode.



So what is a cover-up? Usually, it's when the White House won't talk about what it has done, because what it has done was illegal.

Here, what Rove did was illegal. And the White House won't talk about it.

Sounds like Bush and McClellan are leading a cover-up.

Rove Gave Novak The Name?

Rove has been running around saying "I never said her name." A statement which is ridiculous as one to clear him of identifying a covert CIA operative, since he clearly said "Joseph Wilson's Wife" was CIA, and we here in the US aren't polygamists.

Even more interesting, though, is that, in the very first article which came out about the leak, Novak states clearly he was given the name:

From Talking Points Memo: "The first newspaper report on the Plame outing was written by Timothy Phelps and Knut Royce in Newsday on July 22nd, 2003, about a week after Novak's column first ran.

The story's lede read: 'The identity of an undercover CIA officer whose husband started the Iraq uranium intelligence controversy has been publicly revealed by a conservative Washington columnist citing 'two senior administration officials.''

As you'd expect from that introduction, the whole focus of the article was Novak's exposure of an 'undercover' or covert agent. And the article, as you might also suspect, had a number of quotes from Wilson and others arguing for how damaging it was to have revealed the identity of a covert agent.

They interviewed Novak too. And this was his response: 'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.'"

Same TPM reference above: it appears the prosecuter may be investigating conspiracy which includes Novak and his White House Sources.

University Admittance Gender Discrimination

You know how it goes -- it's the old story of one particular group not having the same natural abilities of another, so you see what used to be objective criteria get slanted, and bent. This is exactly what is happening in Canada, where University admission standards are being relaxed to let in more men.

White House Reporters Openly Mocking Scott McClellan

Today during the press breifing, reporters in the White House got so fed up with the administration's stonewalling the Karl Rove issue that they took to openly mocking the spokesperson about his lack of credibility.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan: "Q Does the President believe that it is outrageous for a Los Angeles advertising man to be conducting a campaign to persuade the town selectmen of Weare, New Hampshire, to approve the building of a hotel on the land where Justice Souter's house is located? Or does he regard this as an historic irony resulting from Souter's vote in the case of Kelo versus the City of New London --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen anything on it. Jim, go ahead.

Q You didn't see anything on it? You'd like to evade this one, wouldn't you.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I haven't seen anything on it, Les. I like to see reports before I comment on it.


Q No, it's the other ones he's trying to evade.


Q -- on why you can't answer Ed's question about whether -- generally speaking, whether the administration has a credibility problem. I think a lot of people are tuning in, wondering, can we trust what this White House says, can we trust what Scott McClellan says.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q I'm not talking about the case. Can you just address -- do you feel like there's a credibility problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you all in this room know me very well. And you know the type of person that I am. You, and many others in this room, have dealt with me for quite some time. The President is a very straightforward and plainspoken person, and I'm someone who believes in dealing in a very straightforward way with you all, as well, and that's what I've worked to do.

Go ahead, Carl."

NYTimes tastes blood

With one of their journalists in jail protecting a White House Senior Administration official who broke the law to get political revenge, I think the NYTimes is tasting a bit of blood. I suspect that, unlike past situations, they aren't going to give the WHouse a pass on this one. And here, today, a the NYTimes reports that a journalist twice asked Bush if he was going to fire Rove, during a photo op. Bush sat in stony silence.

Krugman endorses The Onion's prophetic wisdom

In Krugman's article today, he says that no one said it better than The Onion on Jan 18, 2001: Un-Spin the Budget - New York Times: "'We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent,'" "And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

Mr. Cooper, Karl Rove on Your Cellphone?

Not quite. NYTimes reports how Matt Cooper got the specific waiver from his source -- now known to be Karl Rove -- which permit him to completely reveal their conversation. No, Karl Rove didn't call Matt Cooper on his cell phone and say, "Gosh, Matt, this is silly. You go ahead and testify, I release you from your pledge of confidentiality to me."

Seems Matt Cooper's lawyer read the Wall Street Journal that morning, and Rove's lawyer was quoted as saying "If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting." And that was it. Cooper and his lawyer took that to mean that Karl Rove had released him from confidentiality.

Of course, the same release should also apply to Judith Miller, you'd think. Miller didn't see it that way.

Senate Back In Session; Bolton Still Unemployed

Yesterday, July 8th, marked the end of
the US Senate's July 4th recess, the first recess following the Democrats' successful filibuster of John Bolton's nomination to the UN. The recess offered Bush an opportunity to slip Bolton in, using the constitutionally protected "recess appointment" -- where Bush can place someone in office if the opening happens while the Senate is in recess, thus sidestepping their "Advise and Consent Power". While the wording of the constitution there implies that the appointment can only be made if the vacancy occurs while the Senate is not in session, this apparently has always been interpreted by both the Seante and the President to apply to any nomination which is open at all during a Senate recess -- thus, giving the President some leeway in forcing an appointment through. The appointment is effective only until the next elected congress takes their positions (January 2007 for the present group), so Bolton would have to stand down with a year to go in the Bush Presidency -- but, nonetheless, that's a good 1.5 years of uninterrupted Bolton in the UN, instead of 2.5 years. Like he couldn't get done in 1.5 years what he wants to do in 2.5?

But, Bush didn't do it. He's let Bolton's nomination languish, even through a recess. So what's the plan here, fellas? We going to put someone in at the UN, or are we going to let this nomination fiasco hang out? Seems to me keeping the wound festering only hurts the Bushies, and helps the Dems -- a constant reminder of Bush's arrogance of position, and his poor judgement in picking subordinates.

Judith Miller Stupidly Seeks Martyrdom

What the heck? Matthew Cooper says his source contacted him today and released him from his bond to keep the source confidential; so, Cooper's talking.

Judith Miller of the NYTimes is NOT talking, and is now in jail. Which means either her source is a different one from Cooper's (and so didn't release her, too), or she's just sitting in prison seeking journalistic martyrdom.

Whatever. Journalists who are told by a judge that the leak promoted no national benefit should be compelled legally to talk; and other journalists should recognize that this is not a violation of professional ethics. Keeping confidential the identity of a US government employee who uses the journalist to make public damaging information about a private citizen with the exclusive intent of punishing the citizen serves no ethical purpose. Journalists who do this consent to being weapons of political warfare, and no more. That's not good for the Republic.

Bush daughter Barbara is said to "volunteer" in S. Africa

She's been there six weeks. But, funny thing, none of the 20 hospital employees interviewed had seen her. And the Nurse's Supervisor at the children's burn unit where it's said she works, says she might have been there, but couldn't be certain, because none of the volunteers ever sign in.

Is little Barbara following in her father's "Alabama National Guard" footsteps? US Army no longer good enough to go AWOL with, she had to do it to a children's burn unit in South Africa?

Rove Is The Plame Leaker

Daily Kos gives the transcript for the McLaughlin Group; Lawrence O'Donell revealed that the Time Magazine papers, turned over to the Grand Jury, finger Karl Rove.

Bush's Supreme Court Candidate: John Ashcroft

Of course, Bush hasn't announced the candidate yet. This is just my flier.

Any why wouldn't W. appoint him?


He's got bona fide conservative credentials. Is known to be deeply religious. Has a JD from Chicago (BS from Yale, '64), was Governor of Missouri for 8 years, US Senator from Missouri, and has served as Attorney General.

Just my flier.

Does O'Conner's Resignation Require A Change In Bush's Tactics

As a swing vote on the court, O'Conner's resignation represents an opportunity to take additional ground in the important conservative battles.


Had Rehnquist retired (and he may yet), the opportunity was to lose a conservative vote on the court.