Wednesday, December 31

the bush "hatred" story line is rubbish...

and, of course, is being used for political gain. "those leftist are only hate-filled blabbermouths." there's your talking point, GOP. I've got a check mark next to most every pundit on the right for their use of the 'hatred' line. its a great way to dismiss the left's arguments, ain't it- and to present the fiction that the presidential contenders have offered only hate, and no policy.
B.S.
Robert Samuelson's peice in the post addresses this whole linguistic slieght of hand. point is, most folks don't love or hate bush. while i tend to think bush has done more dividing than uniting in american politics, it is no great suprise that most americans remain ambivilent on the president- ( i would wager most are indeed apathetic, eh?)

btw, note this lil stat: "One poll in December found that 3 percent did. The hating may have been slightly higher in the Clinton presidency, because the same poll asked respondents whether they now hate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and 5 percent said they did."

lots of blogs are going on about this showing the right "hates" twice as much as the left. the bigger point, in my mind, is that the overwhelming majority (in this poll) don't consider themselves haters at all.

Sunday, December 28

because he quotes pliny the younger, i must post to counterspin's fairly well laid out apology (in the old sense of the word) for dean-fans. here it is.

So so long with no posts...

been busy with eggnog and family these past days. but, christmas giving and getting ushered in several books that i'd been eager to read- so hopefully we'll be posting up on the paperback edition of blinded by the right and cass sunstein's republic.com someday soon.

Monday, December 15

this will sound like raindrops on a parade...

but, since when has capturing Hussein been a test of success in Iraq? Almost every article I've been reading has extended the proper jubilation (the pure good that it is to have this guy, like Milosovich, in custody) to a broader jubilation that his capture will convince many Americans that our going to Iraq was the right thing to do, and the right time to do it.

Did any dissenters to the war doubt that we'd get Hussein?
NO!

Rather, they doubted we'd find WMD. That, friends, is the true measure of success. Moreover, to proove that we entered the war at the right time, we need to uncover weapons that show an immediate threat to our country.
Having a dictator in hand is wonderful. I wish we could grab up a few others as well. But we went to war because of a supposed threat, not merely to remove Hussein. Until that threat is shown, the dissenters are not satisfied.

Saturday, December 13

The Candid Sham

David Brooks has the finest example of low and unthoughtful journalism that I've seen in some time. Unthoughtful because it reminds me of the arguments made by young wanna-be pundits in 7th grade; low because it uses its sarcastic tone to perpetuate irresponsible claims. (don't worry, I find it low when 'liberals'--Moore and Dowd come to mind--do the same thing).
But this Brooks article takes the cake. Its argument is this: Bush is candid and forthright.
Now his administration has taken to honesty like a drunken sailor. It has made a fetish of candor and forthrightness. Things are wildly out of control.

dissenters to Bush policies, such as shutting all except Iraq allies out of reconstruction contracts, are really upset at the face value of his public pronouncements.

And then he gets plain low:
Sometimes you've got to be slippery to accomplish real good. The Bush administration is thus facing an insincerity crisis. It has become addicted to candor and forthrightness. It needs an immediate back-stabbing infusion.

Perhaps Al Gore could be brought in to offer advice.


shnapp...you really got 'em good with that one Brooks.
The whole article sapps with the arrogant attitude of 'if you don't agree with me, you are utterly wrong and must be a lier.' But apart from the eggregious school boy attitude* with which Brooks writes, I think he missed a chance to do something good.

I would have really loved to see Brooks make a case for his points. For instance, is it really true that "[t]he Clinton administration pretended to fight terrorism without committing the sin of unilateralism by trying very hard." Within that point...is it true that unilateralism is harder than consensus builing? Seems I could find some beggers to differ.
Would be a good debate, anyway. But oh well, Brooks has it fgured out for us.

Primarily, I would have loved for Brooks to proove the central point of his article--that Bush is "drunk on truth serum." Now that's a two-day seminar. Good debate topics abound: what amounts to truthfulness in leadership? is a leader required to disclose conflicting viewpoints when presenting a national policy? is it 'truthful,' as Brooks seems to suggest, to say one thing publicly, but act differently behind closed doors? to what extent can rhetoric escape reality when a leader speaks publicly?

Sadly, Brooks is unwilling to launch that debate. Instead, he takes us on a ride in his world, where Clinton and Gore are forever fibbers and Bush is the honest straight talker. That rhetoric, which is precisely the line many of his peers at Weekly Standard push, is a party line rhetoric. It does not accept debate; rather, it assumes absolute rigidness.

But, what if we did debate?

How about these fine examples of candor:

~ do the words "weapons of mass destruction" mean anything to you? I've got no beef if the President really really believed that Hussein could send unmanned drones over to drop nukes on us. But at least be candid enough to express the doubts that were expressed to you.

~"This administration is committed to your effort. And with the support of Congress, we will continue to work to provide the resources school need to fund the era of reform." Bush, 1/8/03 BUT
The President's '03 budget (the first budget after signing No Child Left Behind) proposed to cut NCLB programs by $90 million overall, leaving these programs more than $7 billion short of what was authorized under the bill.

~"I want to thank the Boys & Girls Clubs across the country. The Boys & Girls Club have got a grand history of helping children understand the future is bright for them, as well as any other child in America. Boys & Girls Clubs have been safe havens. They're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country. Part of the vision for America is that we have a mosaic of all kinds of people providing love and comfort for people who need help." Bush, 1/30/03
BUT
In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed eliminating all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club of America. In his 2003 budget, he proposed cutting the program by 15% (from $70 million down to $60 million).
(these two examples come from the Democrats in the House Appropriations Committee)

Now- you might argue- Bush isn't lying, he just thinks the states should pay for these things, not the federal government. Well, then...be candid damnit. How often has Bush argued that program funding needs to shift to the states. That would be the candid approach, no? And as I've mentioned before, the same applies with the tax cuts. If the goal is to deplete federal funds for vast programs, let's have a conversation about that. It is, of course, an old idea- and something reasonable people can debate and reach reasonable conclusions. But instead, Bush talks about frosting on cake, while hiding the substantive details of the (yellow)cake.

By the way, note Josh Marshall's observation today:
Yesterday, President Bush said that if Halliburton's overcharged then they've gotta pay up.

"I appreciate the Pentagon looking out after the taxpayers' money," the President said. "They put the issue right out there on the table for everybody to see, and they're doing good work. We're going to watch, we're going to make sure that as we spend the money in Iraq that it's spent well and spent wisely. And their investigation will lay the facts out for everybody to see."

Yet, just a week earlier, acting on the president's orders, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed a directive which hamstrung precisely the sort internal audits of the funds Congress just approved for work in Iraq -- just the sort of crackerjack oversight the president says he loves.


*By the way...I am still a school boy (grad school counts)... so I can still use such tones. Na na ne boo boo.

Thursday, December 11

Instapundit, among other blogs, got rather upset recently at the lack of media coverage on a demonstration in Iraq. It was an anti-terrorism demonstration- with signs displaying such slogans as "No to Terrorism and killing citizens!" Insti's complaint is that if this were an anti-american demonstration, the press would have been all over it.

The silliness of this bit of rampage is a prime example of typing before you think. Apart from the rather vulnerable presumption (how much coverage of the Bush effigy in London get?), if Professor Reynolds had taken a moment to pause and reflect on this, he may have come to a realization: THIS WAS AN ANTI-TERRORIST DEMONSTRATION!
Covering this would be like covering an anti-cancer demonstration. Everyone agrees. There's no controversy on this point.

Now. Had the same demonstration been held in Palistine, or amongst an Al Queda camp, we might have a story.
(No, I don't think the majority of Palistinians are terrorists- but there is no doubt a powerful group there that has made it a military objective to kill use terror and kill citizens.)

Wednesday, December 10

Is the New Republic trying to egg Alterman on?

A cover story dissing Bruce Springsteen? wow. This may be a first, and for that I'll give it half a nod. But really now, aren't there enough grad seminar paper topics out there to achieve first-writer status on before taking a splinter against the grain of Bruce adoration? Seems, almost, that TNR just wanted to jab one of its oft critics.

He is an actor, you know...

So after the ratings-getter of covering the CA election, the press could, I guess, give a damn about the new California governor. Ok, he's been on tv...but I refer to journalism as a critical government check. From CalPundit:

As the LA Times reports today, Arnold was on CNN yesterday and suggested that he might suspend Proposition 98, an initiative that guarantees a certain minimum level of school funding. To anyone who wasn't in California during the campaign it's hard to get across the depth of the deceit this demonstrates. Here was his TV ad on the subject of education:

Question: Will you have to cut education?

Schwarzenegger: No. We can fix this mess without hurting the schools. For me, children come first. Always have, always will.

I'm telling you, this ad ran a dozen times a night on every station in the state. He said over and over that education wouldn't be touched and that he supported Proposition 98. It was a cornerstone of his campaign. But less than a month after being sworn in he casually proposes gutting Prop 98 and then sends out his chief flack to make weasel noises about what the meaning of "cut" is. It's really unbelievable.


Where's the press? Had you heard anything about this?

Tuesday, December 9

Hey. I know a smart way to get optimum international support in rebuilding Iraq. Bar the coutries that opposed the timing of the war from making rebuilding contracts. That's super smart.

Monday, December 8

Gore will endorse Dean tomorrow.

Is the race over? For some, it no doubt is. In any event, more on this after "the event" tomorrow.

Who's afraid of Hillary Clinton?

Watching her on Meet the Press, I'm left to wonder at the extreme hatred so often furled at Mrs. Clinton. If anything, she's a reaonable straight talker. Takes the questions head on- and often quite a moderate. Certainly this is old news... but I just read abunch of rightie comment sections...and it amazes me the hatred she faces. Why?

Friday, December 5

Sometimes TNR's notebook captures essence so well

From this week's issue:
FREEDOM'S JUST ANOTHER WORD

'The tradition of free speech exercised with enthusiasm is alive and well here in London. ... They now have that right in Baghdad as well." --President Bush, during a visit to England, November 19

"As many as 5,000 police will protect Bush [from protesters] during the visit, at a cost of nearly $9 million."--The Washington Post, November 19

"American soldiers handcuffed and firmly wrapped masking tape around an Iraqi man's mouth after they arrested him for speaking out against occupation troops. Asked why the man had been arrested and put into the back of a Humvee vehicle on Tahrir Square, the commanding officer told Reuters at the scene, ... 'This man has been detained for making anti-coalition statements.' He refused to say what the man said." --Reuters, November 11

Fun in the North State

Give a peek to Blue Ridge Blog. I like to see what the good folks that share my geographic community are up to, and this one's a nice place to spend awhile. Grab yourself a coffee, sit back, and enjoy. A beautiful site.

ps...it's got pictures of the recent snow up in the mountains

Thursday, December 4

Marci Hamilton on the aforementioned Locke v. Davie
(must the state give money (financial aid) for religious instruction, where state gives money for secular instruction?)

Ms. Hamilton puts her thoughts on table regarding the latest Supreme Court adventure into the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Take a look to read what I leave out--a look at James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance.
Her key graf:
So while Zelman [v. Simmons Harris (holding that voucher schemes wherein religious schools are an option do not violate establishment clause)] addressed whether the Establishment Clause permitted money to flow from the government through a private individual into religious educational coffers, Locke asks whether the government must funnel money intended to educational purposes to all possible religious uses. The answer must be "No."


First, not the important twist in this case that Hamilton highlights. Zelman was an establishment clause case--the question the was whether it is an unconstitutional state-establishment of religion to offer vouchers where the parents might choose religious schools. Since the ultimate choice is left to the parent, rather than the state, the court held there that the state did not violate the establishment clause.
In Locke, the plaintiff brings a free exercise challenge--arguing that the state's decision not to fund his religious training violates his right to free exercise of religion.
It is fairly dogmatic in our religion/first-amendment cases that direct funding of religious institutions by the government is a no no. While the government can certainly indirectly benefit religion (it is no violation for a person to spend his government-job paycheck on a Bible), the more direct funding will turn the majority of judges to the view of an establishment clause violation. Washington State is avoiding such a violation by denying Davey funding.

As Hamilton points out, Davey is working on two theories: one is to pound Zelman's principle that, in a general funding scheme (vouchers in Zelman), there is no establishment clause violation if a student ends up with religious instruction rather than secular; theory two is that the state is practicing viewpoint discrimination--favoring secular over religion.

The problem with argument one is that this isn't a general funding scheme. It also lacks the crucial ( and somewhat problematically theoretical) factor in Zelman wherein the State separates itself from the religious funding by not directly giving money to the religious institution. A voucher scheme is more like a government paycheck with which the employee buys a Bible, whereas here the government directly funds the religious training.

As for the viewpoint discrimination, I think that argument misses the boat. Washington state isn't discriminating between religious viewpoints--favoring, let's say, Judaism over Baptist training. Rather, it is refusing to directly fund any religious training.
Here, Washington is deciding on whom to confer certain benefits. Conversely, the Free Exercise clause protects persecution. It comes into play where the government impedesyour ability to practice your religion. O'Conner asked during the hearing what was the burden on Davey's religion. That the government did not give Davey money for religious training did not prevent him from seeking such training.

The government is prohibited from crafting laws that directly (after Employment Div'n v. Smith) burden religious exercise. But the government is not required to facilitate religion.

Tuesday, December 2

Should the state subsidize religious training?

[From Linda (I want her job) Greenhouse in the Times]

The Supreme Court appeared troubled and deeply divided today over the prospect that the Constitution might require states to subsidize religious training if they choose to provide college scholarships for other kinds of study.
It was the further implications of the case, more than the case itself, that disturbed a clear majority of the justices as they heard arguments on the validity of the state of Washington's Promise Scholarship Program, which makes awards on the basis of academic merit and financial need but excludes students pursuing a degree in theology.

The federal appeals court had ruled that Washington State's exclusion of theology students from scholarships violated the fed constitution's right to free exercise.

The broader implications? Voucher programs.
O'Conner and Kennedy both worried aloud that a ruling upholding the appeals court would effectively force any state offering tuition vouchers as part of a "school choice" program to include religious schools.


O'Conner noted the country's tradition of not funding religious instruction with tax money.

What's in a name?

Pinkerton in TechCentral on the meaning of conservatism.

As [South Park's] co-creator, 32-year-old Matt Stone, sums it up: 'I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.'"


Lazily, no comment on the piece. The above quote isn't even a key graff. just thought i'd put it in.