One of The Few Times I'll Talk About Torture Without Mentioning Asher Roth
Apr 22, 2009 in Ye Olde Politicks
I blew a a big chunk of Friday evening reading the torture memos; probably not the kind of sunny-attitude stuff to start a weekend on. DJ L'il Bit had to drag me out of my melancholy. It was the kind of down you can only feel when you discover that it's your country that is the bad guy on the Saturday morning cartoon. That said, I don't feel bad that Obama's done nothing so far. Read on...
Official Juniorbird.com 2008 General Election Endorsements
Nov 2, 2008 in Ye Olde Politicks
OK, I've ensured that I'm registered to vote, and soon it will be time for all of us to get out there and get our democracy on. There's a lot going on this year; it will be an exciting election night. If you're looking for recommendations on how to vote, I've a few ideas for you here. Read on... (plus 4 Comments)
Help Me Resolve This Voting Dilemma
Oct 2, 2008 in Ye Olde Politicks
I made up this metric for who I'd vote for just yesterday. It had the virtues of being simple, of being easy-to-measure, of being relevant, and of being something I was comfortable with, and being something I was passionate about. The metric was: I wouldn't vote for any Senator who voted for the bailout bill. So, I need your help: both McCain and Obama voted for the bailout bill. What third-party candidate should I vote for?... Read on... (plus 11 Comments)
In Which I Admit, With Great Guilt, My Apathy
Aug 28, 2008 in Ye Olde Politicks
So I grew up in a part of the country where national politics was everyday news. All the Senators and Cabinet members and whatnot were just down the B-W Parkway and their foibles were as likely to make the Maryland section of the paper as the National. And I absorbed it all -- I had opinions on all the Secretaries, every Senator, the fitness of the overall Congressional delegation from each state, to say nothing of policy issues. But I didn't watch Obama tonight. Sadly, I just don't care.
In Which I Suggest That the Death of Hundreds of Thousands Might Not Be So Bad After All
Feb 12, 2008 in Ye Olde Politicks
Election season is nigh; candidates are dropping right and left. Central to this year's campaign is Iraq. How soon do we get out? Obama and Clinton say "real soon now",1 while McCain suggests we're in it for the long haul and Huckabee punts, saying he'll stay in there as long as the military wants but not a second longer. The two parties offer an interesting and inadvertent dichotomy, because no party puts the needs of the Iraqis first.2 This results in a campaign in which the Republicans want to sacrifice American lives to save Iraqis, and Democrats want to let Iraqis die to save Americans. To say this is an unexpected reversal of roles is an understatement. And, although I'm deeply uncomfortable with the concept, I do support a policy that has Iraqis dying so Americans don't. In fact, I think we should get on with the Iraqis dying as soon as possible.
Read on... (plus 5 Comments)
Official Juniorbird.com Primary Election 2008 Endorsements
Feb 4, 2008 in Ye Olde Politicks
Despite the fact that, through some bureaucratic snafu, I appear to be unregistered to vote, I'm going to make my usual elections endorsements here. So, if you vote like I say you should, then you'll make up for the fact that I can't vote! Especially if you don't usually vote. So, go out, vote early, and vote often! Read on... (plus 5 Comments)
It's Official: I Can't Vote For Hillary
Jun 21, 2007 in Ye Olde Politicks
I had been skeptical of her ability to make good decisions, given her support for the Iraq war, but this really proves that her judgment can't be trusted. I mean, some things are just obviously bad decisions. And, please, going Canadian at a moment like this? I think you'll agree with me after you see this embarrassment: Read on... (plus 3 Comments)
Is it Possible That The Sheriff of Nottingham is Playing Dick Cheney?
Apr 8, 2007 in Ye Olde Politicks
In BBC's Robin Hood, I mean? And, if so, would that mean that Robin Hood is John Kerry? (It's necessary to actually have watched this show to answer this question.)... Read on...
Dems: Say Goodbye to the White House
Jan 20, 2007 in Ye Olde Politicks
Well, now Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running for President in '08. That means that us lefties can say goodbye to the White House for probably the next 12-16 years. The decision of these two people to run in two years says awful things about the Democratic Party machinery and its long-term planning capability.1 Obama and Hillary2 can't win in 2008, and, by overexposing them now, we'll ensure that they can't win later. It's lose-lose and it will keep a Republican in the White House for eight years or more.
Read on... (plus 6 Comments)
Dear George W. Bush
Jan 11, 2007 in Ye Olde Politicks
Thanks for introducing the plan that'll allow us to win the war in Iraq. I really appreciate that you've gotten to the heart of it and discovered that an increase of 16% in our forces is what we need to win. This simple solution really gives us victory without having to change what it is we're doing at all, and that's an approach that every American can appreciate. Read on...
Juniorbird.com Mid-Term Election 2006 Endorsements
Nov 5, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
Somewhere along the line, somebody got it into their heads that I knew something about this politics thing, and that I should make endorsements so that others know how to vote. Hah! Yet another fast one put over on y'all. But I will turn the lens created by my massive brain, regular reading of the LA Times, and BA in Poli Sci towards the morass of sleazy ads that is our 2006 midterm elections, and tell you how to vote to create my perfect society of all-powerful supermen, bwa ha ha ha! Read on... (plus 6 Comments)
Sometimes Stupid Isn't Funny Anymore
Oct 24, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
I have this half-written, incredibly snarky entry that, with substantial humor, skewered the Bush Administration. It's a funny entry, written in the form af a primer on the concept of planning, because I once thought that all we needed was a good plan and we could win the war in Iraq, the war on terror. It was really funny, but sometimes the times we live in are not funny. Sometimes the times we live in are fucking hopeless. It's not that our leaders don't know how to plan; our problem is, they don't even know how to win. Read on... (plus 2 Comments)
Curses! Foleyed Again!
Oct 6, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
All the liberals I know are pretty thrilled at this whole Mark Foley (R-FL) gets caught molesting underage congressional pages thing; they're enjoying the potential lost GOP House seat, the bloodiness of the scandal, the threat to Hastert leading the House. But not me; I think it's all a Republican conspiracy, and, like most Republican conspiracies, it's working. Read on... (plus 3 Comments)
Those Who Fail To Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It. Oops.
Sep 24, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
One thing about me -- a detail which makes me substantially less useful as a person from whom you can borrow a book -- is that, like many geeky boys, I enjoy my military history books. My tastes in this genre tend strongly to more-technical works which completely describe the challenges individuals and states face and then give a complete history of how that challenge was surmounted (or not). Right now I'm reading a particularly interesting (to me), if perhaps somewhat detailed and dry, book, The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War. I've recently come to a chapter that describes the oft-forgotten Bosnian crisis of 1908, a historical event that, at the time, appeared to be a complete victory for Germany and Austria-Hungary but which turned out to be, unexpectedly, a complete disaster for those two Powers. Read on... (plus 3 Comments)
Clearly I'm Insensitive to Issues of International Politics and Security
Aug 11, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
While hearing about the latest round of foiled terrorists and new flight security restrictions, all I've been able to think is "thank goodness I didn't have to fly across the Pacific without my iPod, water, and hand lotion!" I realize this makes me a complete boor. Read on... (plus 5 Comments)
Let's Outsource Fear!
Jun 8, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
Well, we finally got Zarqawi, which clearly means that we only have one problem left -- Iran and its nukes. Lots of people suggest that we should engage the Iranians in productive dialog, resolving security issues jointly and building a better world. Others say that only pussies engage others and resolve things jointly. Of course, it's the latter group that's in power, which is why I feel the need to put forth the following solution, one which is simultaneously macho and engaged. We spend too much of our time worrying about whether or not some crackpot terrorist is going to nuke us; I hereby propose that we outsource our worrying to the Iranians. If they're spending all their time worrying about whether or not the US gets nuked, they're unlikely to provide fissile material to people who want to nuke us. Read on...
I Hereby Propose
May 31, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
That all us lefties henceforth refer to Republicans as Franquistas. You know, as in, "those Franquistas in the GOP," or "my Franquist opponent." Read on...
Untitled Immigration Rant 2
Apr 13, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
Watching the talking heads on TV, it seems like everyone's spouting off about keeping the borders secure, about not rewarding immigrants who have come to the US illegally, and about how much it costs to finance illegal immigrants here in the US. Well, I've got bad news for you all, but those are exactly the wrong questions to be asking here. In fact, these questions are wrong in two ways: there is a better question to ask, and these questions distract from the real issues. Read on... (plus 2 Comments)
Untitled Immigration Rant
Apr 2, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
Since all the kids these days are taking a position on immigration, I guess I'd better throw in my two cents. Goodness knows, I'm sure to have either an exciting, progressive position or a fantastically racist. Or, more likely, both, since I'm both a raving liberal and a white American. If I were in charge, I would fix it all by: Read on... (plus 8 Comments)
The R Word
Feb 23, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
Apparently, we're all supposed to get our panties (or, I guess, in my case, boxer briefs) in a twist because a bunch of our ports are going to be run by people from Dubai. Apparently, said people from Dubai will, with malice aforethought, leave our ports open to terrorist attack. There is no specific rationale -- apart from a general and vague divergence of overall goals -- presented for why destroying our port infrastructure will be the goal of these same ports' new managers, but this viewpoint is certainly widely accepted as reasonable. But it's not reasonable; it's racist. Read on... (plus 2 Comments)
Well, That's Some Democracy We Got Us Over There In The Middle East (Or, Why I'm Actually Happy Hamas Won)
Jan 26, 2006 in Ye Olde Politicks
It's a good thing that Hamas won the latest Palestinian Authority election. I'm all for it. I'm a Jew, and sympathetic to old-fashioned Zionism, but, most of all, I'm an American and, by birthright, I believe in democracy and opportunity for everyone, and this is the best way to give democracy to the Palestinians and opportunity and, even, security, to the Israelis. Read on... (plus 6 Comments)
I'm a Bad Democrat
Oct 3, 2005 in Ye Olde Politicks
Um, yeah. I have a confession to make. I'm a lifelong, vote-the-party-line Democrat. I think the Republican party is an evil, reactionary, racist, corrupt party. But I don't think that Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court is all that bad. Read on... (plus 10 Comments)
Dear Justice Letter
Jul 1, 2005 in Ye Olde Politicks
Well, that's pretty unexpected -- I know everyone was planning on a Supreme Court seat opening up via death, but I don't know that there was any reason to anticipate a seat coming open via retirement. There are many questions why, but, not being a SCOTUS follower, I won't speculate. However, as a blogger, it's my God-given right to spout off as to how she will be replaced. Read on...
Restore Terry Schiavo's Rights!
Mar 21, 2005 in Ye Olde Politicks
The case of Terry Schiavo, currently playing itself out in the Federal courts, is a sad one. I can understand the positions of both Terry's husband -- that her feeding tube should be removed -- and of her parents -- that Terry's life should be prolonged. What I can't understand is Congress's need to involve themselves in this case. The involvement of the Federal and Florida Legislatures is a simple violation of both Terry and Michael's rights, and a frightening violation of the seperation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. Per the decision of several courts, Terry should have her feeding tube immediately removed. Read on... (plus 1 Comments)
Wolfowhat?
Mar 17, 2005 in Ye Olde Politicks
So Bush followed up his appointment of a prominent anti-UN pundit to the position of UN Ambassador with the appointment of a divisive individual to be the head of a bank with the word "World" in it. What in the world is going on? Read on...
It's A Purge!
Dec 1, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
So now Tom Ridge is gone. In quick succession Ridge, Tommy Thompson, and Colin Powell have been cast aside by the Bush administration -- three of the GOP's most prominent, admired moderates have become irrelevant. It's important to think back four years to understand what went on here. In 1999-2000, Powell's name was bandied about for Veep, if not more. Thompson and Ridge were popular governors of moderate states, percieved to have broad appeal. Vice President in 2004 was not unreasonably suggested as a goal for these individuals as well. Flash forward to today, these three prominent Republicans have been cast aside -- good riddance, most say. Powell is percieved as irrelevant, powerless in the Iraq war, his international reputation in tatters and his domestic reputation not much better. Ridge is remembered as the guy who created silly colored alerts. Who is Tommy Thompson again? Nobody would ever remember that he was, effectively, the architect of welfare reform. Why would this happen? Well, Bush has consistently spoken to the center but acted for the right. If the right wishes to continue to run the GOP, they need to neuter the center. What better way to do so than give all of the center's leaders the opportunity to fail, and then make sure they do? Irrelevant people can't become policy leaders, in or out of office. What's my prediction? Look for Rudy Giuliani to succeed Ridge in Homeland Security. Right now, the biggest threat to the right in 2008 is a McCain/Giuliani ticket; giving Rudy a job that's too big to succeed at is the best way to remove that threat. It's a purge, all right -- a quiet purge, but a purge nonetheless.... Read on...
Arafatrospective
Nov 13, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
I can understand a lot of the choices that Yasser Arafat made during his lifetime. He probably understood quite early on how his people were being used by both the Arabs and the Israelis to justify various political policies, and that none of these policies would improve the lot of his people. Why not choose, under these circumstances, to try and take over first Jordan and then Lebanon? Of course, as with his stewardship of the Palestinian Authority, it all came to pieces in the end. So what will Arafat be remembered for? For leading his people for so many decades, yes, but also for destroying the Lebanese state -- a shining beacon of freedom and commercial success in the Middle East -- for his years of virtual exile in Tunisia, for Sabra and Shatila, for the years the Israelis confined him to his complex in the Gaza that he supposedly ruled. Will future schoolchildren see the picture of Clinton standing between Arafat and Rabin at Wye River and see no success there at all? Sadly so. It's a pity, but Arafat's death was the only thing that could lead to any re-start of the Middle East peace process. Both Bush and Sharon came into power on a ticket that said, basically, "we don't trust Arafat and don't intend to deal with him." How could Arafat bring his people a state under those circumstances? Abandoning Arafat was an odd decision, just seven years after Israel and America had put him in charge of the new Palestinian state that they had created. Arafat had failed to end terrorism; but Palestine and Israel suffered about what the British called in Ireland an "acceptable level of violence." It's not clear that Arafat ever wanted to fully neuter the terrorists -- they were, after all, his only weapon. It was also never clear that one can expect a people who had lived in a state of resistance for 40 years to suddenly abandon their way of life and become a peaceful, democratic state within just a few years. But, then, there's a set of people in America who think it natural that African-Americans should be able to easily overcome 400 years of oppression after only 30 years of official (if not actual) non-oppression. I dare say that our President falls within this group, so it's at least logically consistent that he should think that the Palestinians can give up, pretty much instaneously, their history of living in resistance. Arafat certainly couldn't give up living in resistance. He never put aside the guerilla's lifestyle or, more importantly, the guerilla's constant focus on having another option. Guerillas must always be able to "bug out" so they always need to have a Plan B in case the regular army shows up in the middle of Plan A. Arafat tried to keep too many Plan Bs open, especially by re-starting the Intifada and supporting the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Unfortunately, the peacemaker has to put all of his eggs in one basket -- not least because after burning your bridges, you can't retreat. The Intifada was definitely a retreat, althouh an understandable one with Sharon's election. But, in the end, he's dead, and Bush has re-dedicated himself to the Middle East Peace Process, at least publicly. Perhaps, in history,... Read on...
The White House Won't Take My Official Concession Phone Call
Nov 3, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
Well, the apparently oft-underestimated Mr. Bush has done it again. And this time, better, which is actually a good thing because, well, if Bush can learn to get elected better maybe he can learn to fight world terrorism and fix the economy better too. All yesterday everyone had heard all about the big turnout, which would usually be a bad thing for Bush because: In the past, non-voters have been overwhelmingly working-class and minorities, both of whom skew very Democratic Who schleps out to the polling place if they don't want a change? This election broke both of those trends. The new turn-out? Didn't skew Democrat, didn't want a change. But hopefully, that doesn't mean four more years of the same. I can't imagine that we can go forward without doing something about: The deficit The rising cost of health care Potential non-positive long-term outcomes in Iraq and even Afghanistan Nukes in Iran Bush now has a mandate. Four years ago, before he showed his true colors, he managed to get No Child Left Behind through which, while an awful idea, was at least a moderately interesting attempt at change. I'm hopeful that we'll see some moderately interesting attempts at change in the future. But I wouldn't bet on it. What would I bet on? Deficit gets bigger Market goes up, but not over 11,500 in the next 4 years as the economy never really takes off Unemployment goes "down" as average income of bottom quartile goes "down" (translation: poorest 25% lose their jobs, take worse-paying jobs) Unemployment goes "down" as more unemployed give up Afghanistan becomes a narco-state; central government only really controls Kabul area "Elections" in Iraq lead to a central government that only controls a small area Kurdish part of Iraq returns to functioning as an effective seperate state Iran's influence in Iraq becomes immense US airstrikes on nuclear facilities in Iran topple Tony Blair's government (soon!) North Korea detonates a nuclear weapon That's enough depressing news for one morning, but, in four years, we can come back and see how right I was (or wasn't, hopefully). But I'm conceding, so here's this: "George W. Bush, I hereby give you the full opportunity to prove me wrong." Now, for all you who live in the US, here's what people outside the country think: UK: The Times Of London, Financial Times, The Economist, BBC Israel: The Jerusalem Post Arab World: Al Jazeera Italy: Corriere Della Sera Germany: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung France: Le Monde, Le Figaro Spain: El Mundo, ABC China: China Daily News (I've tried to be as "fair and balanced" as I can be in selecting news sources, modulo who updates regularly and and who doesn't make you pay for content.) Happy reading! And happy next four years, majority of voters! (Note: Yes, I did take the Kerry banner and electoral vote count off of my site. No, not because I'm embarassed at having backed a loser. The election's over, so why tease?)... Read on... (plus 5 Comments)
Oh I Love The Electoral College, Yes I Do
Nov 2, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
(Note: as of this hour, the election has not yet been called for anyone.) I'm all for the Electoral College. Bush may end up in the White House, but I'll still love the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a good, Federal institution. It's one of those things that makes us the United States of America, not just the Large Country Dominating The Continent Of (North) America. Electing a President is, ideally, about putting someone in office with some kind of a mandate. Someone who a lot of Americans will follow and respect. America is a very diverse country, split on many many lines. Mandates do not come from being elected the president of Corn-Growing America, or Coal States America, or Urban America, or Sunny Year-Round America; mandates only come from being elected by Chicken-Farming America and Porn-Watching America and Meat-And-Potatoes-Eating America all at the same time. The Electoral College makes candidates try to do that. You can't carry Illinois without appealing to Immigrant America and Banking America and Cow-Ranching America all at the same time. This creates a truly Federal state. We're all different, but, in a good year, we all come together behind a Reagan or a Clinton. In a bad year, like 2000, well, Gore tries to be President of Urban America and Bush manages to appeal to slightly more different kinds of Americans, getting Gun-Toting America, NASCAR America, Kids-Playing-Soccer America, Freeway America, and Tracts Of Identical-Looking Houses America: a smaller coalition numerically, but a more Federal one. And so Bush wins, even though more people hate him with deep and abiding vitriol, because all the people who hate him are the same whereas some of the people who like him are different. So that's the test this year: we know Bush kept Gun-Toting America and NASCAR America, and that Kerry kept Urban America, but can either of them appeal to the people who live in Tracts Of Identical-Looking Houses? Whoever can get Freaked Out About Muslims America, Ambivalent About Iraq America, Unemployed America, Broke Since We're Paying For Health Care America, and Tasty Mexican Food Cooked At Home America will win this year. Ain't that great? Ain't that American?... Read on...
On Tuesday, Some Reasons You Should Vote Against Bush
Oct 30, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
I've been way too busy to write as much as I'd have liked about politics over the last few months. This bothers me deeply, because I believe this is one of the most important elections we've seen since, well, we kicked out the elder Bush. If there's any undecided voters among the dozen or so people who seem to actually read this thing, I hope I give you some guidance here. The plan is simple: both of our candidates are controversial. There's a lot to hate, and little to love, about both. Makes you reminisce about the days of Clinton and Reagan, who both had much to hate but also much to love, huh? Because this election is so much about hating and demonizing the other side, I'm not going to try to talk you into loving my guy. You probably already hate him. Maybe I can make you hate the other guy more. So far I know, everything I say here is true -- I realize that's not trendy these days, but it's all I've got. I'm going to cover a few specific points here: How Bush is not a conservative That Bush is all about tax-and-spend That Bush is against taking responsibility for, and suffering the consequences of, one's actions How Bush isn't really serious about national security Why you shouldn't care about cultural issues, like gay marriage Why things under Bush can't get better How Bush Is Not A Conservative Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan. Dwight D. Eisenhower. These men were conservatives. They did three things: Keep government out of business Keep government small Loves the free market Bush's record is clear. He: Believes government should decide what business's business is Has massively expanded the Federal government's size and reach Is against the free market and prefers selective government control of the economy Bush Believes Government Should Decide What Business's Business Is Bush gave business some great tax breaks, it's true, but he gave these tax breaks to manufacturing, not to service, not to consultants, not to car washes or McDonalds' franchisees or graphic designers. Sure, we've had targeted tax cuts for years, but isn't that unconservative? Shouldn't the market decide where businesses should do business? Should one business pay less in taxes than others just because we feel like it, or should all businesses start on the same level playing field and the market decide where to allocate capital? Remember, manufacturing businesses profit disproportionately from infrastructure like roads and water and power when compared with, say, a hair salon. Why should the manufacturer pay less for the construction and maintenance of this infractructure than another business who uses it less does? This government interventionist focus goes beyond tax breaks. For years, the Bush administration has given subsidies to select industries (the steel industry, for instance). These subsidies protect these industries from foreign competition. While, in some cases, the foreign industries are supported by their own governments, in other cases (steel, again), many American companies are just less efficient. Why not let the market tell us what businesses America should be in? Why inefficiently allocate capital to industries in which America cannot compete? And if you're going to, how about you at least have a guy in charge who'll have a free and open discussion about it, rather... Read on...
Cordial Debatery
Oct 1, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
I think I'm required, by statute, to comment upon the seminal political event of our times: the most cordial debate in Florida last night. And what a debate! It was filled with bon mots, with snappy comebacks, with deft verbal takedowns. Oh wait, it wasn't. No Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. No Who am I? What am I doing here?. No, these were the boring debates. Bush stuck to his script, mostly, and Kerry stuck to his. It was like paralell speeches; in four years, I suggest the candidates debate at remote locations, by telephone, without hearing each others' positions at all. In fact, all of the responses could be pre-recorded, except that would remove all of the fun of hearing Bush go "um, uh..." and, most classically, "... ... ... ..." Now, I may have a different view of what went on, becuase I listened to the debate on that great innovation of the early 20th century, the radio. History fans out there may remember that, in the 1960 debate, people who listened on the radio thought Nixon kicked Kennedy's butt while those who watched the debates on TV felt that Nixon was a sweaty, bearded monkey, and too stinky to vote for. What I heard on the radio was a lot of dead air, all of it coming from the President. He's always been good at being brief and to-the-point when speaking about complicated issues (yes, they do teach you that in b-school), but he took briefness to new levels; I can't remember hearing any other debate in which the participants didn't need every single second they had to expound on their various points and messages. Now, Bush's responses weren't all bad, and they were always on-message, but the silence did not help him look smart and prepared. When the President was not being quiet, he was being stubborn. He continued to not take responsibility for, or even acknowledge, that he might have made any errors at any time. I've always been surprised that he's taken that approach, because Republicans have been all about personal responsibilty in the last two decades and, frankly, I believe that the Commander in Chief has the leeway to say "I made the best decision I could at the time for the safety of the American people and, while later events have shown us that we might have taken a different approach, I certainly don't regret having prioritized this country's security and moved quickly and decisively to confront a threat." But Bush doesn't, which I don't think helps him appeal to swing voters. Bush was certainly most fixed in his dismissal of negotiations with North Korea, an issue on which I believe Sen. Kerry is entirely correct. So I was pretty shocked when the NPR analysts started telling me that George won. I was prepared to believe it was a tie, but, from my perspective, Kerry came off brief, cogent, smart, and consistent. It wasn't until I saw the Daily Show later that night and watched Rudy Giuliani talk about how Bush had kicked Kerry's butt that I realized the GOP was in full-on spin mode. The President lost! The question: will Kerry's bump in the... Read on... (plus 1 Comments)
Tricky Dick Cheney
Sep 8, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
So Dick Cheney said that if we elect Kerry we can expect the terrorists to blow something big up. I wonder how he knows? But seriously, this is a major escalation in the war of words. It's long been traditional for one candidate to suggest that he or she is more qualified than his or her opponent. This is a different statement: Cheney is saying that he and Bush are qualified, and that Kerry and Edwards are simply not qualified at all. That's much more aggressive and negative than what we're used to hearing. But it's not new; Lyndon Johnson's daisy ad did it to Barry Goldwater, and Dukakis did it to himself in 1988 by riding around in an M1 Abrams. Is such an extension of the traditional "I'm better than my opponent" assertion a valid one? Does history justify using this extreme tactic? Certainly Kerry's history does not provide the justification. He served in Vietnam (whatever you think of his performance there, there's no suggestion he didn't go there and spend several months on active duty under fire). He has, overall, voted money for military appropriations. He may be less of a hawk than the administration, but, even if we are to assme from the evidence offered that he is less qualified than Bush, there's no indication from his past that he's totally unqualified. There's a contrast here with the "daisy" ad. Goldwater was an avowed hawk who clearly professed an eagerness to go toe-to-toe with the Reds, even if it meant shooting it out. For Johnson to suggest that such behavior could lead to war was not unrealistic. But it was a little harsh, and Johnson accepted it as such; the ad only ran once. So the Bush campaign has a chance here. They can step back from Cheney's statements and start talking specifics about the issues. They can stop sowing generalized fear and start concentrating on hopeful messages. And then maybe we can stop worrying about what our candidates were doing in 1968-69 and 1972-73. Because, frankly, we've got real problems here in 2004.... Read on...
George W. Nixon
Sep 3, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
I heard a piece on NPR the other day in which a number of European commentators stated that they couldn't understand how anybody would vote for Bush. After having seen his keynote speech last night, I have to say that I disagree with those commentators: I could absolutely see how somebody would vote for Bush. He talks about a lot of nice things, but in a very Republican way: he's not afraid to make the Big Lies, and he's not afraid to go back on whatever he says because he can tell the Big Lie later and say he did what he said he'd do even though he didn't. So, yes, I'll admit, he had me going from time to time during his speech. He spoke to a few key points, issues to which I want to hear solutions. He spoke plainly, at times well enough and at other times tripping over himself. He looked like a monkey, but he looked like a cowboy monkey. In a suit. On TV. The problem is, everything he said at the last convention was a Big Lie. Immigration reform? Nothing. Not being the world's policeman? Well, we're only policing Iraq and Afghanistan and keeping a wary eye on Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Improve schools? I don't think No Child Left Behind would have worked, but the administration hasn't bothered to fully fund it, so we'll never know, will we? Keep government out of our lives? Well, Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage is the biggest new entitlement since the Johnson era, the TSA is the biggest Federalization of privately-run jobs since probably World War II, the Department of Homeland Secuirty is the biggest new Federal department since the Johnson administration again, and, oh, we want to get the government into the bedroom and add an amendment as to who you can or can't marry. Bringing responsibility to the White House? Who's been held responsible for 9/11 or Abu Ghraib or the intelligence failures that led us to think there were WMD in Iraq? Oh, but Bush doesn't flip-flop. It's true; he doesn't go back and forth. He says one thing, does another, but keeps saying the first. That's consistently mendacious, at least. As Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, said, "Watch what we do, not what we say." I've watched what you've done, Mr. President, and I won't be voting for you in November.... Read on...
Schwarzenothing
Aug 3, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
While I didn't vote for the Governator, I was not unhappy to see him take office. A change was clearly needed in Sacramento; the state's problems were getting larger, and no creative ideas were percolating up to solve them. It seemed the entire culture in our "cow-town" capital was broken. Not that I approved of the strategy the Republicans pursued to "fix" things. Having passed up a perfectly good opportunity to beat Gray Davis a year earlier, by running an unelectable sleazy businessman instead of a respected big-city mayor, they chose to mount an off-cycle challenge. This gave the party the chance to run a comparative unknown, get some fresh blood -- a good thing -- but it also meant that, if Schwarzenegger got elected, he could not bring any new majority in on his coattails. While Schwarzenegger had a mandate, it did not replace any mandate a Tom Burton or Sheila Kuehl or even Ken Maddox had at their election. Why would a Senator or Assemblyperson, duly elected by his or her constituents and probably posessing a safe seat, think that Schwarzenegger's off-cycle election will effect him or her in a year or in four years, so long as he or she continues to bring home the bacon? So the Governator approached things with a false mandate. Then he behaved as if he had a real mandate, promising things to cities that he simply didn't have the constitutional powers to provide; Schwarzenegger assumed that the Legislature would snap to, because of his massive popularity. Legislators had, only a few years ago, redistricted themselves so that their seats were safe, so with no need to fear the Governor, and challenged on their home turf, they moved to their old negotiating tricks. So we've ended up where we are: nowhere. We haven't cut the budget, we haven't cut borrowing, we haven't even raised taxes to cover our expenses. We're behind what other states are doing to fix their deficits, and we're behind even after the state Republicans managed to get their guy in the statehouse through skullduggery. Frankly, since Gray Davis at least knew how Sacramento worked, I have a hard time believing that we would've ended up with an outcome any worse than this had he stayed in office; certainly Cruz Bustamante, as a member of the Legislature, would have had an easier time building a compromise solution (rather than calling our elected officials "girly-men"). It will be interesting to see where we get from this drama. Certainly a state with deficits, a do-nothing government, and no investment in education, health care or infrastructure is neither good for the little guy nor good for business. We can only hope that, in a few years, Meathead gives us a few useful alternatives, because the Governator appears to have lead us down the very same path everyone else had already taken us down.... Read on... (plus 1 Comments)
I Call Bullshit On This Iran Stuff
Aug 1, 2004 in Ye Olde Politicks
Apparently the administration would like us to think that Iran was, or, perhaps, is now, behind al Queda. I'll admit that, unlike Iraq and chemical weapons, there seems to be some actual evidence here. But, I still call bullshit. Why? First of all, allowing terrorists to pass doesn't equal supporting them; there's a real line between ignoring and aiding, as anybody who's had a friend with a chemical dependency issue knows quite well. A lot of countries don't exert full control over their borders and don't pay attention to every individual who may not belong; if all countries had tight borders and watched immigrants closely, none of the gardens in Los Angeles would ever be properly maintained. Second of all, there's, at best, a tenuous historical link between al Quaeda and Iran. Al Quaeda is an explicitly Sunni revolutionary group, and Iran has, historically, exported only Shi'ite revolution. The two are more contradictory than most Americans would like to think. Sunni revolution gave us Taliban Afghanistan, a 16-th century agrarian authoritarian state. Shi'ite revolution gave us the Islamic Republic of Iran, a modern state with a representative legislature, functioning judiciary, public K-12 and university system, research institutions, a literate population, and a capitalist economy. It's not France, but it's a far cry from Albania, too. Iran would not export a kind of authoritarianism that would undermine their own authoritarianism. Speaking of the Taliban, Iran and the Taliban did not get along at all. Iran supported other forces in Afghanistan (the ones we did, actually), and didn't object in any way when we invaded. Why would Iran help their former enemies' friends? The people who are telling us that Iran is helping al Queda told us:That Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, none of which we've foundThat Iraq helped al Quaeda, which they did notThat we wanted to catch Osama bin Laden, which apparently we don't, otherwise we'd have more people in Afghanistan running around after himThat we invaded Iraq to liberate it from oppression, which would be nice if we'd mentioned it before the actual invading partand so forth. So, this is not a bunch of people with a lot of credibility. Would the administration lie? Quite possibly! Oh, and none of this has been mentioned before. Not after 9/11, when the country could've been amped up to invade anyone. Not during the buildup to the Iraq war, when we could have lumped the two former enemies together as states supporting terrorism, posessing chemical weapons, and building nuclear weapons. Not right after the Iraq war, when we were in the Middle East, looking strong, looking like we could do anything (actually, everybody talked about us invading Syria then). No, this is only brought up 3-4 months before the election. That can't be any kind of fast one they're trying to pull, could it? Nope, this is crap. And I hope the administration knows it, because we don't have enough soldiers to invade Iran. Not unless we want to start a draft. Then, fortunately enough for the Bushes and Cheneys, they had daughters who wouldn't need to dodge the draft like daddy did.... Read on...
Guvanah Ahnold
Oct 10, 2003 in Ye Olde Politicks
(Because what headline writer would voluntarily use "Schwarzenegger"?) I'm a Democrat. A big-time one. I'm a Democrat because, where I came from, the Republicans try to prevent African-Americans from voting and regularly support explicitly racist platforms. But, all in all, I'm not that unhappy with the result of our last election. Part of it is simply the natural feeling of being a supporter of the party that lost during bad times. If Arnold is the right choice, then he'll fix a lot of things, the economy will get better, and I'll be able to earn more money and have a more comfortable life. Ain't nothing wrong with that outcome. And if Arnold turns out to be the wrong guy for the job, then I get to say "I told you so." Plus the Dems win back the statehouse in 3 years. Ain't too much wrong with that either. But that's not the biggest part of my motivation. The biggest part is that, hey, democracy (small d) actually worked! Look at who we elected: a pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-choice Republican. How'd that guy get out of a primary? Oh, he didn't. A year ago, the GOP fielded a very weak Bill Simon against Gray Davis, inevitably losing, when they could have possibly won with Dick Riordan. But Dick (as he likes to be called) was too far to the left on social issues to make it out of the primaries. We skipped the primaries, and the majority of Californians got the governor they wanted. And, even before the election, we had dialog we never would have had because of the many fringe candidates in the election. Think Arianna Huffington didn't spice things up? Heck, even Mary Carey apparently had a lot to say! The lesson here is clear. We need to have this kind of open registration and race for future statewide offices. Folks worry about somebody winning with only a plurality of votes, but isn't it better to have somebody win with less than 50% of the votes from 70% of the electorate (as voted in this election), than it is for the winner to get just over 50% of the votes with only about a 40% turnout (Davis vs. Simon)? So roll on our recall election! Let's have 'em every few years!... Read on...
California Recall Vote Slate
Oct 6, 2003 in Ye Olde Politicks
Hey, I live in LA, I'm required to have an opinion on the recall election. Good thing I'm such an opinionated guy! There are three major questions: Recall Gray Davis or not? Whom to be the governor, if yes on the above? Should we require by law that the legislature put money aside for infrastructure improvements, before monies for any non-education purposes are procured (prop. 53)? Should the government stop collecting data on race for a variety of things (the "Racial Privacy Initiative, Prop. 54)? Here's what I think. And write this down, because you should vote the way I tell you to. 1. I have a number of problems with the whole recall thing. First of all, although he hasn't done a good job, I don't think Gray's done an awful job. He protests that the problems he's had to deal with have been caused by others -- and, as much as I'm all about taking responsibility, I'm inclined to agree. The power thing? Caused by the power companies. Our prolonged recession? Caused by the Bush administration. So, it's not his fault after all. And didn't the Republicans have a chance to get rid of him a year ago? Oh yeah, they did. And, just like the first time Gray got elected, the GOP failed to nominate a candidate who could win. That's nobody's fault but the Republicans; had they pulled together, they could've nominated Dick Riordan and won the statehouse but nooo, they fell for Davis's shrewd campaigning and nominated Bill Simon instead. So the Republican recall effort seems like two things to me: An attempt to bypass the usual election process and vote in a Republican governor who otherwise either wouldn't win the party's nomination or who would be unelectable in the view of the general voting public Sour grapes from having gotten soundly trounced on a statewide level two elections in a row Neither of these seem like reasons I would want to unelect Davis. Thus, my suggestion No On The Recall. 2. Well, even if we vote no on the recall, we've still got the opportunity to vote for a possible next governor. There are three main options here: Arnold Cruz McClintock! Arnold is the front-runner, but I fail to see why he should be governor. Notwithstanding his ten-point plan, he's failed to offer any clear ideas of how he'd fix things in Sacramento. The sexual harassment charges don't fundamentally change how I feel about him as governor, except insofar as it serves as further proof that this is a guy who did not plan to be governor, does not have the experience or knowledge to be governor and has not prepared himself in any way to be governor. He's an actor and bodybuilder, and has lived his life as such. That's fine, and there's nothing wrong with being an actor and bodybuilder. He's had a good career and a good life and has made a lot of people happy. On the other hand, that qualifies him in no way to be governor. Cruz Bustamante seems like a reasonably good guy. The Republicans have tried to paint him as Davis's right-hand man, but the two have, in fact, not been on speaking terms for three or so years now. Cruz's big advantage is that, unlike... Read on...
War. Huh! Good God Y'All
Sep 11, 2003 in Ye Olde Politicks
What is it good for? Well, apparently, absolutely nothing. Where are we today with Gulf War II (or III, if you count that little scrap Iran and Iraq had for 10 years in the '80s)? Well, we've appropriated (or are appropriating) $187 billion for the war so far (that's nearly 9% of the entire budget for FY 2003). We've not got the oil going yet, so there's no money in that, but at least Halliburton's busy rebuilding the country. We alienated many of our closest allies, including Germany and Russia, we scared the crap out of North Korea so that they want to have nuclear weapons, and we may have convinced Iran that they need nukes too. We've done little damage to Al-Quaeda, and haven't apparently decreased Palestinian suicide bombing any. Oh, and an American soldier or two seems to get killed every couple of days over in ol' Mesopotamia. All in all, this is a pretty depressing bill of sale. Makes ya wonder what the administration was up to when they decided to invade, eh? It's easy for an administration to get drawn into something bigger than it expects; happened to Kennedy, Johnson, even McKinley. Doesn't necessarily say anything bad about the administration; things look different before you get into a conflict than when you are actually in it. The question is: was the Bush Jr. administration dragged beyond their anticipated scope of involvement, or did they just not have a plan? Well, if they had a plan, such a plan would include: Specific goals to be accomplished within Iraq A timeline for said goals A plan to provide sufficient forces to take the country and accomplish said goals Funds to allow deployment of troops and other expenditures required to accomplish said goals A clear timeline or set of objectives that will clearly establish criteria for the withdrawal of US forces (in other words, a way out) Do we have any of those things? Well, there's clear goals -- the destruction of the Ba'athist party is obvious. Other goals are not so clear. Did we really worry about Iraq's WMD program? If so, we sure haven't accomplished the goal of destroying it (although we certainly disrupted it). Do we just want to steal Iraq's oil? Do we want to profit off of rebuilding it? There's been no publicly-released timeline, and comments surrounding the latest budget request suggest that our commitment in Iraq is open-ended Unless the plan was to get out in much less than a year, we clearly don't have sufficient forces to occupy Iraq. To have an adequate rotation policy we'd need to have less than half of the forces deployed there that we currently have. It's hard to believe that anyone thought that 75,000 troops would be adequate to occupy Iraq (although as few as 25,000 would be enough if domestic Iraqi forces were available to police the country; it's unlikely that the administration planned on this because they dissolved the Army, and it could take more than a year to build a new one -- a fact which they knew beforehand). It's hard to know if funds were allocated. Certainly making multiple budget requests doesn't look good. Even worse, there's no plan to pay for this -- just an increase in the deficit. And, while... Read on...
Throw The Bastards Out
Jul 29, 2003 in Ye Olde Politicks
It must be worthless bastard season, because politicians are again screwing up our futures. In California, the legislature just passed a budget that is: Way, way late -- well past the beginning of the fiscal year the budget is for Fails to close a massive deficit Resorts to borrowing to cover the deficit Ensures that we have a budget crisis next year by not dealing with the deficit Ruins the state's credit rating (we now have worse credit than Alabama or Mississippi), making borrowing more expensive and costing us money down the line Why did this happen? Well, it looks to me like nobody in Sacramento has the guts to compromise and work for what's best for the state. Everybody's too busy scoring a few points with the partisan crowd that elects them. Everybody's gonna get term limited out. There's no incentive to cooperate, and, without such an incentive, our elected representatives would apparently rather take the relatively non-risky path of playing to the choir than potentially fix our state's big problems by working together and gaining wide acclaim. So throw the bastards out unless they're willing to do good for our state. And then, even when they do stupid things, politicians are still too much weasels to stick by their mistake. Apparently the Pentagon decided to start a Web site at which people could invest in futures on terror attacks. Investors essentially bet on where and when terrorist attacks take place. Anybody can play. Sounds absurd, right? Actually, it's not. In the 60s, the Navy invented this method of statistical prediction called Monte Carlo Analysis, which assigns values to variables of unknown value by letting people guess as to said value. Basically, it's based on the concept that, while intuition may be non-quantifiable, people's predictions are based on unspoken knowledge and said knowledge is of value. Thus, the guessed values will normally distributed about the actual value of the variable. This futures market is actually a spectacular way to gain valuable intelligence from previously unknown sources. This intelligence, while it may not be as quantifiable as that from other sources, provides useful "best guess" values and is after the example of Monte Carlo Analysis. Allowing news of this futures market to get out was certainly an error; a great deal of effort needed to be expended to sell the concept so that people could appreciate it wasn't just a morbid game. But, once the new was out and uncontrolled, well, either the idea was a good one or not. If it wasn't good, they shouldn't've done it in the first place. If it was, they should stick by it. Instead, politicians were so scared of looking bad that they backed down from a useful source of intelligence. If politicians can't stick up for unpopular ideas that are good for our national security, well, let's throw the bastards out.... Read on...
Darrel Frickin Issa And The Granolas
Jul 1, 2003 in Ye Olde Politicks
There's this recall thing going on in California. Some Republicans — in particular, a right-wing state legislator named Darrell Issa — want to recall our Democratic governor, Gray Davis. They have to get enough signatures on a petition to get the recall on the ballot, and the state Republican machine is in full signature-gathering mode. Once the recall is on the ballot (and it will probably get there), Davis basically has to run for office again — against as many other candidates as can qualify. No party primaries or anything. So it's very favorable to the Republicans. First of all, it would normally be several years before they had another shot at the statehouse. Second, there are maybe one or two likely GOP candidates (Issa and Schwarzenegger), principally because the Republicans have been so bad at getting candidates elected at the statewide level. The Democrats, however, have maybe as many as six reasonable candidates. How does a Cruz Bustamante, Antonio Villaraigosa or Jane Harman justify not running, especially against a weak candidate like Davis (his approval ratings are well under 30%). Republicans have had a hard time getting elected against Davis specifically because their core voters are less numerous than Democratic core voters — and, in polarized elections with weak candidates (like Davis and Simon last year), it's all about the core voters. But, if three Democratic candidates split the vote against one Republican, the GOP will take the statehouse. Now, normally you wouldn't think Whole Foods is the place to get signatures on a ballot that would put a Republican in Sacramento. But some guy got the idea that they would stand out front and try to get people's names on the petition. And, somehow, there were people signing! And not that many berating the guy with the petition. And that's what's wrong with Democrats. If this had been a Democratic petitioner in front of a Wal-Mart, he would've been constantly harassed, everybody who was thinking of signing would have been surrounded by three advocates for the second amendment, there would've been no signatures gathered that day, no boy. So should Democrats be aggressive and rude and disrespectful like Republicans? I'd rather not, I admit. But, times like these — when we might have a Republican in Sacramento because your basic Democrat on the street isn't smart enough to know a bad deal when he or she sees one. I have no idea how this'll turn out. What is it the Chinese say, live in interesting times?... Read on...