|
|
Ever Shut Up? -at-hotmail.com LINKS: Altercation Ted Barlow Bartcop Buzzflash CalPundit Joe Conason Counterspin Central Cursor The Daily Howler Dean 2004 blog Digby Drug Policy Digest Eschaton The Hamster Instapundit Mark Kleiman Media Whores Online Pandagon Neal Pollack Sky Blog Spinsanity Take Back The Media Talk Left Talking Points Memo Tapped Matthew Yglesias Music that I enjoy: Beastie Boys Beck The Disco Biscuits Bob Dylan G-Love and Special Sauce Grateful Dead Ben Harper Jimi Hendrix Jack Johnson moe. Phish Pink Floyd Martin Sexton Wilco Archives 
|
Sunday, February 16, 2003
How Much Longer? How much longer will the administration try to pretend that Iraq is a bigger threat than North Korea? LONDON, Feb. 16 — North Korea plans to build four nuclear power plants, each bigger than the Yongbyon plant currently at the center of a standoff with the United States, according to a published report Sunday.Especially when we just heard this a few days ago... WASHINGTON — North Korea has an untested ballistic missile capable of reaching the western United States, intelligence officials said today.This is some scary stuff... Wanna Be A Super Hero? Is it just me, or do you get a creepy feeling sometimes that our president thinks he might be a super hero? According to White House aides, Bush is an avid consumer of spycraft: he always begins his 8 a.m. intelligence briefing by asking about the latest on “the threat.” He closely tracks developments on specific intercepts and keeps in his desk drawer a list of top Qaeda operatives, with the names of those captured and dead crossed off (at this stage roughly 10 of the top 30).Hmmm... Monday, February 10, 2003
Quotes “I’m not sure that the way you make people more moderate in the region is by bombing Baghdad.” Friday, February 07, 2003
Crying Wolf? So they're raising the terrorist threat level to “orange” (high risk). How does that make you feel? What will your response to this be? Well, if the first 28,000 people to vote on this poll (left side of the page) are any indication, you probably won't do much of anything. I wonder if this has anything to do with past "warnings" that turned out to be nothing at all? Remember the dirty bomb plot that was lacking both a bomb and a plot? I can't help but think of the boy who cried wolf. I think this is more of a, "hey, don't forget about those evil-doers out there!" statement than anything else. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I'm inclined to believe that they're just lubing us up for the impending air strikes on Baghdad. Drug War Update The Office of Management and Budget has just informed the DEA that their war on drugs isn't producing results. One would think this is good news, but unfortunately it isn't so... You see, the DEA thinks that the only problem is that of presentation. They seem to think they haven't been doing a good job of showing us what they're doing. [sigh...] Mark Kleiman has the details. Open Letter To Knucklehead Dear Knucklehead, Why do you keep insisting that Clinton's Agreed Framework was such a bad idea? What would you have him do? Bush stupidly said, "We won't even talk to you unless you stop with the nukes first! I won't be blackmailed!" And you cheered loudly, Knucklehead. You then proceeded to immediately paint the picture of Clinton as the little wussy appeaser. You were quite proud of yourself, I might add. Now that Kim Jong Il has said, "Screw you! I'm making even more nukes now, and if you don't like it you better come sit down and talk.", what would you have George do? What's the alternative to this filthy, rotten, hideous idea of "appeasment"? China holds the key, and they're obviously not going to bail us out on this one... What do you suggest here? If appeasment is such a horrible policy, surely you have must have an alternative.... What is it? Unless you like the idea of a mushroom cloud over Japan, or you enjoy the thought of thousands of dead American soldiers in South Korea, negotiation (aka: appeasment) is all we've got! Your logic implies that there is some magical solution that Clinton should have embraced. Apparently Dubya thought he would frighten the North Koreans into doing as they were told. Now his rhetoric is backfiring on him. Don't you think if there was another solution to this problem, our President would be embracing it to save face? When he was pounding his chest and making those statements to Kim Jong Il, he must've thought China would bail him out. That didn't happen and now he's quietly sneaking into the negotiating seat while hoping nobody will notice. Any idea why that is, Knucklehead? I think it's time for you to take a deep breath and admit that Clinton's plan was a good idea (South Korea and Japan (the likely destination for North Korean nuclear weapons) were even happy with the deal). Deep down inside, you must know it's true. Just fess up... The ability to admit when you're wrong is a very admirable trait. It's not a fault to change your mind about something. Clinton struck a deal. It wasn't a bad idea, it's just that North Korea didn't keep their end of the bargain. He didn't have a crystal ball. There was no way he could have known that they wouldn't follow through. Sure, you can call him naive for thinking that they would actually do what they said they would do. But it's hard for any reasonable person to acknowledge that it was a bad idea. Think of it this way... Bill agrees to give George a widget in exchange for George giving him a different type of widget. They made a trade. An agreemnt. Bill gives his widget to George, but George never reciprocates. George has just failed to uphold his end of the deal. Sitting on the sidelines, Knucklehead immediately starts screaming "Bill is an idiot! His agreement was stupid! I can't believe that moron made such an idiotic deal!" Are you feelin' me? You catchin' my drift? Get over yourself, Knucklehead... Clinton was right, your boy was wrong. I know it's painful, but try to deal with it. Man up! Your friend, Privatizing Social Security I know, I know... We're about to invade Iraq and North Korea is making us look stupid, so what the hell am I doing talking about Social Security? Something different, I guess... A libertarian buddy of mine just forwarded this article to me. To sum it up, it's basically singing the praises of privatization. Apparently, you used to be able to "opt out" of Social Security (you no longer have that option since the loophole was closed in 1983, according to the article). Here's a clip: Employees of three Texas counties are enjoying rapid growth in their retirement incomes, better benefits than those offered by Social Security and the satisfaction of knowing that the money deposited in their accounts belongs to them and will be there when they retire. Privatizing Social Security is not a distant dream; for some Americans it is a present reality. Fairness and true social security demand that all Americans have the same opportunity.What the article doesn't tell you is that, once you "opt-out", you're left high and dry if you haven't accumulated enough wealth in your account. If you had an accident or something after you "opted-out", you'd be on the fast track to welfare. There's no argument (from me, anyway) that investing SS money would give you far greater returns. Unfortunately, this program is (gasp!) socialized. Hence the name, Social Security. Everybody pays in and that money immediately gets dispursed. It never goes into any trust fund, or lock box, or anything. That means that in order to invest this money (privatize, if you will), you have to TAKE IT OUT of the system. Once you take it out, you have one of 2 consequences to deal with. You either have to 1) Decrease benefits because there won't be enough to pay out. or... 2) Increase premiums to make up the difference. I don't think most people are willing to pay more (they never are), and I don't think seniors (and other SS recipients) are willing to benefit less. Both of those options (or consequences) are political suicide. And since the credit card conservatives in the White House spend more than any democrat ever dreamed of spending, this whole "privatization" scheme is even farther out of reach. Which brings up an interesting point. This is a perfect example of how a surplus would greatly benefit the system. If we ran a surplus, we could afford to privatize without decreasing benefits or increasing premiums... But that's just out of the question, I know. Especially to libertarians. "A surplus?! Aaaaaaaaaaagggghhhh!!!!" The Gold Urinal I've been taking a little break from blogging, but I got this joke in my email and it made me chuckle. I felt inclined to share... Before the inauguration, George Bush was invited to a get acquainted tour of the White House. After drinking several glasses of iced tea, he asked Bill Clinton if he could use his personal bathroom. He was astonished to see that the President had a gold urinal. That afternoon, George told his wife, Laura, about the urinal. "Just think," he said, "When I am President, I'll get to have a gold urinal!" Later, when Laura had lunch with Hillary at her tour of the White House, she told Hillary how impressed George had been with his discovery of the fact that in the President's private bathroom, the President had a gold urinal. That evening, Bill and Hillary were getting ready for bed. Hillary turned to Bill and said, "Well, I found out who pissed in your saxophone." Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Attention Potheads! Mark Kleiman has another good post about marijuana prohibition. His basic stance on the issue is this: If I got to make the laws, I think I'd make selling cannabis, or trading it for anything of value, a crime, but legalize growing your own, using it, or giving it away. That wouldn't eliminate sales activity entirely, but it would eliminate mass-marketing. Yes, I can think of a bunch of objections to a "Grow your own" policy, but it may still be the least bad of our options.This seems like a good policy to me. It's important for those against the drug war to understand that while the war itself is a nasty and counterproductive beast, completely legalizing cannabis would create a new set of problems. This is something I didn't want to admit early on, and I have a suspicion that most of the anti-drug-war crowd feels the same way I did. As usual, Mr. Kleiman does a wonderful job of laying it all out there... If you want people to listen, you've got to be reasonable. Update: CalPundit illustrates another drug war debacle. Spies, Lies, and Iraq If you haven't already, I command you to go read this Newsweek article about spies and the credibility of our human intelligence with regards to Iraq. The article really illustrates the importance of actual, concrete evidence. Remember the story last September about Saddam's Greek mistress who claimed to have seen Osama bin Laden at Saddam’s palace? Well, it was aired on ABC's Prime Time Thursday complete with reports that she had once seen him in front of a mirror declaring, “I am Saddam. Heil Hitler!”. While that may be great TV, the CIA says Saddam has never taken a mistress of European descent. That damn liberal media bias won't ever go away will it? I just heard a Limbaugh-wannabe on my local right-wing squawk radio station whining about how biased the media was for not reporting news about some fancy remote-controlled machine under one of Saddam's palaces that buries WMD's with mountains of sand at the push of a button. No joke. The host was actually trying to pass this off as a major revelation. The information came from a defector. It hasn't made headlines. This could mean only one thing, right? That friggin' liberal media is protecting Saddam Hussein! What an outrage! But seriously... Perhaps the most disturbing thing about all this, to me anyway, is the blatant disregard for the truth: Burned repeatedly in the past, the CIA is wary of intelligence that comes from defectors, who are often seeking visas, cash, revenge or all. “Defectors tell you 150 percent of what they know,” says one CIA official. Iraqi defectors who offer themselves to the CIA are put through strenuous interrogations and lie-detector tests. The credible ones are given new identities and homes in America or Germany. The rejects are cast loose to fend for themselves. Some of them are nonetheless embraced by the INC—and, according to CIA officials, recycled to the more sympathetic (and more credulous) hawks in the Pentagon. Their stories are then worked over by Wolfowitz’s special intelligence unit—and passed on to the White House.Explains quite a bit about why we have all these conflicting stories out there, doesn't it? How could anyone not be outraged by this? Go read the article. Monday, February 03, 2003
Interesting Bit On Fox News Reports Interesting to me anyway... When I was watching the tube this morning, the anchor lady (?) behind the Fox News desk said something remarkably close to this: "President Bush sent Congress a $2.23 trillion spending plan Monday that would accelerate tax cuts to bolster the weak economy, overhaul some of the government's biggest social programs and shower billions of additional dollars on defense and homeland security." (emphasis mine)I made a mental note of it, not being the least bit surprised at the bias I had just witnessed, since it's par for the course at Fox News. I later mentioned it to a friend of mine who happens to work at a radio station, and he produced this AP report for me. I was surprised at the similarity between what I had heard and what I read. Apparently, it's common practice in broadcasting to use AP stories word for word in exchange for paying a subscription fee. I guess they will usually make some slight stylistic alterations to customize them, but it's not unusual for them to use the stories as their own. The interesting thing is that story went on to make some very critical comments: "Instead of offering the nation a plan for long-term economic prosperity, the Bush budget burdens us, and our children, with trillions of dollars of new debt," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D).Fox News used the opening paragraph of the AP story and then scrapped all the rest of it. That's quite an interesting way to make slight stylistic alterations, isn't it? I know this isn't really news to most of you, but I thought I'd go ahead and post it anyway. Fair and balanced. We report, you decide... Friday, January 31, 2003
Thanks Jeb! Jeb Bush caused $50,000 worth of damages to the intramural complex at Florida State University. He used the complex for his inaugural ball and his guests ruined the field and rendered it useless for the entire semester. This decision was made even though the Campus Recreation Board has a resolution that discourages use of the intramural fields for activities other than recreation, Dirks said.Thanks again Jeb! Thursday, January 30, 2003
Boycotting Rush Limbaugh To expand on the post from Atrios about sponsors buying ads on Rush Limbaugh's show, I've posted TBTM's list here and made it a little easier to read: Companies that say they don't care about the boycott and will advertise with Rush anyway.(Translation: Don't buy their shit!) Blue-Emu (topical cream) Current advertisers who haven't responded to the message yet: OnStar (GPS navigation/emergency assistance for your vehicle) And last but not least, Bose claimed to have stopped purchasing, but there are still reports of people hearing them advertise their wave radios on the show. So... There you have it. If there's anything you can do to stop using these products, do it. And make sure you tell them why you're doing it. It's time to Take Back The Media! Oh Boy... More bad news on the economy... WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — The U.S. economy slowed dramatically in the final quarter of last year, growing at a annual rate of just 0.7 percent as consumers turned cautious in the face of war worries, a rollercoaster stock market and a stagnant job climate and increased their spending by the smallest amount since 1993.We need more tax cuts for the super wealthy! Stat! Powell's Evidence Well, the leaks are starting to come out about the evidence Colin Powell is to present on February 5th... WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — Senior White House officials are examining aerial photographs, communications intercepts, and reports from Iraqi informants and foreign governments that purportedly show Iraqi officials intimidating Iraqi scientists and hiding weapons equipment and documents from U.N. inspectors, Bush administration officials and congressional sources said yesterday. Looks like more of the same. Circumstantial evidence but no solid proof of anything. I'm reluctantly in favor of removing Saddam from power. I'd rather it be done without using military force, but if it comes down to that, I understand it's necessary. My biggest problem is that their claimed reason is because of an "imminent threat" to the homeland. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. If their reason was "down the road he may aquire nuclear weapons so we need to take care of this now", I'd be a little more supportive. But this administration seems a little too eager to go to war and a little too reluctant to share details of what might be involved and what might happen afterwards. Why can't they just level with us? We can take it... Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Privatize This! When discussing anything with conservatives (libertarians in particular) you'll discover that they have a recurring theme... The private sector will always do better than the government at anything. No matter what. It's not hard to see their point. I mean, if widget manufacturer A makes a bigger and better widget than manufacturer B and it's priced at or about the same price as widget B, which one are you going to buy? It's a simple concept and you can see why they embrace it. It makes sense. But does it work across the board? This is where you run into conflict with the strict conservative/libertarian crowd. Their answer to this question is yes. Yes, yes, yes. Across the board. No exceptions. Nothing. This whole concept is based on one motivating factor. Profits. That's it. Their motivation is to make the bottom line as big as possible. But look what happens when you apply this to the health care industry... What's the best way to make money in this industry? What it boils down to is that you've got to get the patients to pay the most money possible while paying the doctors as little as possible. But what if you can't afford it? Do you just go crawl off into a corner somewhere and die? Nobody is going to let that happen... Health care is treated like it's a privilege when it should be treated as a basic human right. This is an obvious flaw in the whole "free-market-cures-everything" argument being put forth by the conservatives. We're talking about basic health care that is needed for survival. The right to stay alive. It's certainly not the same thing as seeing who can provide the biggest, baddest widget for the best price. It's about staying alive. That's a basic human right. The Hamster pointed me to this article in the Washington Post that illustrates this point quite nicely. The push to "modernize" Medicare along free-market lines misses the whole reason why Medicare got created in the first place. The free market is very good at providing goods and services where a profit can be made, and inequalities among those goods and services are usually not morally troublesome. It doesn't bother me if I drive a Saturn and you drive a Porsche. Both of us can get to where we need to go. Contrary to popular belief, it's not always the best thing to privatize everything. If you want a widget and you want it at a good price, the free market is where it's at, but it's not the answer for everything. There are plenty of areas where it's just not practical. Education comes to mind as well... Back Again Blogging has been light over the long weekend (long for me, anyway)... I went up to Atlanta for two nights to see moe. at the Tabernacle. Then, needless to say, I was watching the Tampa Bay Bucs win their first ever superbowl by kicking some Raider ass! I can't help but point out that I saw this one coming. Anyway... I should be back to my regular updates now, so you can rest easy. Monday, January 27, 2003
Thursday, January 23, 2003
Was Scott Ritter Set Up? Justin Raimondo sure seems to think so: Since the court records have been sealed, and the case was merely "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal," the authorities will say nothing, at least in public. The entrapment was apparently so transparent, so obviously the clumsiest sort of Cointelpro-style operation badly bungled by our newly-empowered political police, that the charges were dropped to the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket. Could it be that the records were sealed not to protect Ritter, but to protect whomever tried to set him up? Interesting possibility to consider... (link via Cursor) BE VERY AFRAID
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Sorting Through The Confederate Memorial Mess Okay... The Minute Man admits to being "stuck at the starting gate, trying to figure out how TIME jumped from Memorial Day to Jefferson Davis's birthday." Next thing you know, Instapundit jumps on the bandwagon to declare that this whole thing is "bogus". So what's the deal here? Did Time write a false story? If you went to Insty or the Minute Man for your information, you'd be left thinking that they may have just made it all up. So let's take a look at what Time printed... George W. Bush issued a stern rebuke to Senator Trent Lott in December for his praise of the segregationist 1948 presidential bid of Strom Thurmond. But Bush has revived a practice of paying homage to an even greater champion of the Confederacy—Jefferson Davis. This is the part that has everyone in an uproar. How dare they suggest that he's "paying homage" to Jefferson Davis just because he sent a wreath to Arlington National cemetary! This is an outrage! Oh, wait... There's more. The very next paragraph accurately states:
Now I'll admit that the Time article was a bit short and vague, but it seems pretty clear to me that the outrage is over the fact that the wreath went to the Confederate Memorial at Arlington. Arlington National Cemetary is the resting place of not only Confederate soldiers, but soldiers from many different wars. Additionally, you have historical figures buried there like explorers, Supreme Court justices, black leaders, and even presidents. There are many monuments at the Arlington National Cemetery, and Bush chose to send one to the Confederate Memorial. His father was the one who stopped the practice for obvious reasons. Clinton, while delivering speeches at Arlington, never sent a wreath to that particular monument. Why did Dubya all of a sudden decide that this was a good idea? My guess is that it's another wink and a nod to the segregationist voters that they so desperately need... Sure, that's a cynical way to look at it, but that's what I've come to expect from this White House. So if you wanna know why people think the White House is making a linkage between the wreath and Jefferson Davis, you need only know a little bit about Arlington. You see, out of all the monunments at Arlington National Cemetery, Bush decided to send a wreath to the one with the following inscription: "To Our Dead Heroes, By The United Daughters Of The Confederacy" Their hero is Jefferson Davis. The administration is obviously sucking up to the seggy Southern vote. How much more evidence do you need? If you're still not convinced, Josh Marshall can give you some more details on this. UPDATE: Boy do I feel stupid. If Tucker Carlson is to be believed, the wreaths have always been sent and this whole thing may be a big hoax. I blame the Daughters of the Confederacy! Where's The Outrage? One negative result of agressive affirmative action policies is that underqualified applicants will get hired for a job they may not be able to perform. Wouldn't that also be the same negative result we get from legacy admissions? Mark Kleiman makes this observation: "I have never heard the beneficiaries of legacy admissions policies, including the one that got our current President into Yale, or of geographic diversity programs, such as the one that got our former President his Rhodes Scholarship, complaining about the resulting stigma." Me neither, Mr. Kleiman... Me neither. Odd isn't it? Where's the outrage?! Some People Still Don't Get It I know this is old news, but it seems some people just don't get it. We all remember Trent Lott's ugly statements at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration. I was under the impression that we all agreed that the comments were racist. I pointed out that Neal Boortz was unable to comprehend that the statement was racist. He changed his mind the next day and decided that it was best for Lott to step down, but the fact of the matter is that the self-proclaimed "talkmaster" didn't think that Lott's comments were racist. This struck me as odd, so I explained the (very simple) thought process one had to go through in order to arrive at the conclusion that Lott's comments were indeed racist. I was hoping that most people undestood this, but apparently I was wrong about that. This simple fact still eludes Henry Hanks over at the Croooow Blog (did I put enough o's in there?). He opines: "[Boortz] had a disagreement with [Al Gore] over whether or not a statement which endorsed a segregationist candidate was necessarily also a statement that showed a belief in genetic superiority" Obviously endorsing Strom Thurmond's candidacy and saying we would've all been better off segregated is a racist statement (a statement that showed belief in genetic superiority, if you will). It's a simple fact. Trent Lott's statements were racist. End of story. And trying to bring out the literal dictionary definition of the word "racism" doesn't change that fact. The shoe still fits! According to Henry Hanks logic, "belief in genetic superiority" and "simple hatred of another race" are two completely different things. Most of us understand that all of that is considered "racism". Apparently this notion still eludes him. Some people just don't get it. Sigh. Update: He's a persistent little bugger, that Henry Hanks is. Now he's making all kinds of sense by saying that Lott's comments were "grotesque and bigoted". Hey, no argument there. But apparently that does not mean that they were racist, gosh darnit!! Whew boy... Foot In Mouth Disease What is it with republicans and their inability to keep their feet out of their lower facial orifices? Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Answering The Tough Questions My archives are... ummm... missing in action for the moment, so I took the liberty of reposting this one about Neal Boortz since Henry Hanks obviously didn't get the memo. Here goes: Neal Boortz, who apparently isn't smart enough to understand what all the fuss is about, belligerently asks this question (scroll down to the "Shut up Al" part): "Just what part of Lott’s statement indicated a belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another?" Well Neal, in order for you to understand what all this is about, you first need to figure out the definition of "segregation". I've taken the liberty of looking it up for you. Webster defines segregation as follows: "the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means." Now... stay with me Neal. Why would we isolate an entire race? Why would we force them to live in restricted areas, and force them to go to seperate schools? Think real hard... I know you can do it... That's right! the only reason for doing anything like that would be because we thought we were better than them. More superior, if you will. With that in mind, Neal, let's take a look at what Trent Lott said. He said the people of Mississippi voted for Thurmond and he said that he was proud of them for doing so. He also said that we wouldn't have had all these problems if everyone else had done the same. Are you with me so far? Okay... On to the next piece of this frighteningly complex puzzle. Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948 on one issue and one issue only. Wanna guess what that might have been? [insert Jeopardy theme...] If you said the issue was segregation, you win a prize! (sorry, not sure what the prize is just yet, but I'll be in touch). Atrios was kind enough to dig up the actual ballot if you don't believe me. There you have it. Lott was telling everyone that he was proud to vote for segregation, and he went on to say that we would've all been better off if we'd done the same. Now, when you take his statement, then couple it with the definition of segregation and Thurmon's campaign issue, you have your answer. Trent Lott "indicated a belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another". It even fits your strict definition of the word. Pretty simple when you think about it... Let me know if I can help you with anything else... Okay, Neal? And Henry? Update: Mr. Hanks weighs in again to say that what I wrote was a "distortion of what the Talkmaster [sic] said on the radio that day". (and he also seems to think that using Bernard Goldberg's appearance on Donahue is somehow reinforcing his argument, but I digress...) First, Henry, there was no distortion. Second, I mentioned nothing of what was said on the radio that day. I was simply quoting him from his daily hate scribblings on his amateur web page. If you follow the link, it points to exactly what I said it did. I took absolutely nothing out of context. Neal Boortz was in utter disbelief that anyone, especially the presidential candidate who got the most votes in the 2000 election, could possibly interpret Lott's statement as racist. I was just explaining the simple thought process one must go through to come to said conclusion. Let me know if there is anything else I can clear up for you. Okay? Henry? Thanks for stopping by... Excellent Point! "It ought to be, but isn't, considered strange that the folks who support enforceable numerical targets as a way to monitor and manage educational quality oppose enforceable numerical targets as a way to monitor and manage integration efforts, and vice versa." Remember Susan McDougal? She was on Crossfire last night, and she was a class act. This is a refresher course on who the lady is and why she was in jail. The first and most obvious question asked, was.... Why? Why did you go to jail? "I went to the very first meeting with those people [Ken Starr's Independent Counsel]. I sat at a table, a little bit bigger than this one, that had a lot of documents on it. We walked in the first meeting and offered to answer any question they asked. They then said that they had documents that were incriminating. I said, let me see them, I'll tell you what they are. Very first meeting. Every subsequent time I talked to them, I asked to answer questions, and they wanted a proffer. And when I told them that I couldn't give them a proffer because I didn't know anything that the Clintons had done that was illegal -- for those of you like me that don't know what a proffer is, that's where you incriminate somebody who is more powerful than you so you can get your sorry self off. But I didn't know anything that the Clintons had done." Her ex-husband wasn't a strong as she was. In order to save his own ass, he started telling them what they wanted to hear... "After I met with them and offered to answer the questions, then my ex-husband started to cooperate with them. And he would come back from his meetings with them, having made up all of these stories. He would be laughing about it, and saying, listen to this one. Listen to this, Susan, how does this sound? And swirling these real events into lies to implicate the Clintons, and laughing about it. Every time he'd go to these meetings with the independent counsel, he'll be coming back to the house and saying, oh, gosh, you remember the time I was at the Capitol, well, I'm going to say that this happened." And you know what happened to him, don't you? This is his reward for lying to Ken Starr in order to bring down the president... "The reason Jim did that, he told me, was that he did not want to die in jail. And I told him, I understand that. And so I tell people, be really careful of the pact that you make and with whom, because Jim did die in jail and he died calling the independent counsel and begging for help, because he was supposed to have been put in a prison hospital and he wasn't. He died in lockdown without his medicine. So be very careful of the lies you tell. Because you may not have a chance to ever take them back." And this next exchange is very chilling. This is what Ken Starr was doing with your tax dollars folks... CARVILLE: So they want you to lie? What a bunch of thugs. And you know what else? If she had agreed to lie about having an affair with Clinton, early on, they would have let her go. She wouldn't have had to say another word about anything if only she'd tell Ken Starr that she had sex with Bill Clinton: "The very first offer they gave me was to say -- that if I would say I had an affair with him -- this was during the first race, during the first presidential campaign -- that they would go really easy on me and I wouldn't have to say anything else. That would be all I would have to lie about." Ladies and gentlemen, Ken Starr's Independent Counsel... Neal Boortz I can't believe I tuned into Donahue too late last night! I turned it on about 10-15 minutes into the show, but Neal Boortz (the neanderthal who didn't know Trent Lott's comments were racist) had already stormed out of the studio. Apparently, Donahue was too much for the self-proclaimed talk master to handle. I wish I had seen that. The show was about Affirmative Action and angry white men (Turns out, the show was appropriately named) . When I tuned in... Donahue said something to the effect of "Neal Boortz just had a hissy fit and ripped his microphone off and stormed out." Damn, I wish I had seen that. Neither the Donahue transcripts or Boortz's website have any details, but I'll be sure to post them as soon as I get them. In the mean time you can take pleasure in the fact that Neal Boortz is a crybaby who can't argue a point unless the argument is framed in a way that favors him. If you try to get him to look at something a different way, he'll just take his ball and go home. Developing curiously... Update: Neal Boortz weighs in on the issue. He claims he was "set up" and that "It was absolutely clear at that point that I was not going to be given a chance to participate in the discussion on that program." That's right, Donahue invited him on the show and then had no intention of ever talking to him. What kind of idiot does he take us for? Who would believe that? (nevermind, there are plenty who will actually believe every word that escapes the man's lips update: See? Here's one now). Also, reading between the lines, it appears that Donahue quoted Boortz, who has a history of saying really racist and stupid things, and Boortz didn't have the balls to admit he ever said it in the first place. Another interesting thing to note (again, reading between the lines) is that it appears they were trying to get him to talk, but he froze under the pressure. When the producer told him to speak up, he apparently got angry. She told him he didn't have to get all huffy about it and he promptly ripped off his microphone and stormed out of the room. What's the matter Nealy Poo? Can't handle debating people with much more intelligence than you? You throw a hissy fit and run away with your tail between your legs? That's about what I expected from you. Affirmative Action 101 Okay, so I was listening to some amateur Rush Limbaugh wannabe on the radio this morning and he was "explaining" a couple facts about Affirmative Action. Listen up folks, you're about to get educated: 1) Black people are "belly-aching" about where they are in life. They're trying to blame someone else for the bad decisions they've made. Thank god for squawk radio. I'm much smarter after having listened to that. All this time I thought Affirmative Action was a way to combat the already existing racism that runs rampant in our society. Even to this day. Whew! I'm glad those Rush Limbaugh clones are out there to keep me in line. Monday, January 20, 2003
CONGRATULATIONS AND GO BUCS! This is it. The league's best offense against the league's best defense. It all boils down to one game. You couldn't ask for a better match-up. Go Bucs! Thursday, January 16, 2003
Quotas It seems that there are a great number of conservatives who have been misled by various right-wing commentators. Affirmative Action programs do not use quotas to achieve their goals. I found this little description to be quite useful for those of you who are still confused. "Quotas are illegal, and any affirmative action program that uses them would be illegal as well. A quota system involves reserving a fixed number or percentage of available positions for members of a specific group while excluding members of non-targeted groups from competing. In sharp contrast, most affirmative action plans seek to increase the pool of qualified applicants by using aggressive recruitment and outreach techniques. Flexible goals are created only in order to evaluate progress. Affirmative action simply asks that a sincere effort be made to include persons who have previously been excluded due to legal and illegal discrimination in this country."(emphasis mine) It's true. The Supreme Court ruled that quotas were unconstitutional in the 1978 case "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke". So, any of you conservatives out there who have been misled by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and company can now laugh sheepishly and try to change the subject. Next! It's Ba-aaack! The GOP hard-on for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is back with a vengeance. This time they aren't playing around: WASHINGTON - Senate GOP strategists are mapping out a fresh plan for an early showdown over whether to allow oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge. This was defeated last April by a vote of 46 to 54, so I'm not sure they even have the 51 votes needed, but the irritating thing here is that they're willing to go for it in such a devious way. Now, in case you aren't familiar with this issue, let's go over a few of the main republican talking points... "We're only talking about 8% of ANWR. The other 92% wouldn't even be touched." While technically true, this statement ignores the fact that 95% of the Northern coast of Alaska is already open to drilling. But that isn't enough. They want the last 5% too. The area they want to drill is a very unique and rare section of Alaska. It's not just a big barron tundra with nothing on it, it's the one place that is critical to the ecological integrity of the refuge. 42% of the entire polar bear population dens there, for example, but that's just the tip of the iceburg (sorry, couldn't resist). "If we drill for our own oil, the prices would drop and we wouldn't have to be so dependant on those evil-doers in the Middle East." This is a bogus argument because we have less than 3% of the worlds oil and we consume a third of it. That renders us powerless. Simply put, OPEC determines what prices we pay and drilling in ANWR won't change that one bit. Nobody knows for sure how much oil there is, but the U.S. Geological Survey in 1998 predicted that an average of 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil could be recovered. That would supply the United States for about 6 months. "Drilling ANWR would create over 700,000 jobs!" Sorry. Wrong again... That inflated number comes from a 1990 study (commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute) that has been refuted by the Congressional Research Service and various other economists. To come up with the number they had to grossly inflate price of oil, use the (improbable) high end of the USGS estimates, and assume that drilling ANWR would drive world oil prices down by 5%. That's alot of fuzzy math if you ask me. But anyway... If we were really serious about ending our dependance on foreign oil, we should have passed the CAFE bill last year. Finding an alternative energy source is the answer. We can't possibly drill our way out of Middle East oil dependancy. |
