International House of Punditry

Ripped from the Headlines

2005-10-20T14:01:00.000-04:00

Remember when you were a kid? Dressing up for Halloween was a simple affair. Just put on a Spiderman costume from the local discount store. Or, if you had a generous mother, she'd make you something. My mom once sewed me a delicious Dracula cape of black velour with a red velvet lining. But when you get older, costumes demand more originality. If you are anyone, you've been invited to a Halloween party, and if you're fabulous, you're looking for something original and unique (rather than just renting some crap from the local costume shop.)

Here are some costumes that my friends in Washington may enjoy. Feel free to borrow these ideas if you're attending a Halloween party inside the Beltway and have no clue what to wear. They also work for political science department parties at universities anywhere. All are 100% current and guaranteed to catch people's eye.

JUDITH MILLER

Hero of the free press, or sellout who got tired of prison? Brave crusader for truth, or shill of the Bush administration? I don't know, and to be honest, I don't really care. But she's at the center of one of Washington's hottest topics--the Valerie Plame investigation! Here's what you'll need:

A brunette pageboy wig
Plain black and white striped prisoner outfit
Laser printer, yellow or orange paper, hole punch, string, Sharpie
Copy of The New York Times

Directions: Use Photoshop or Microsoft Word to create a fake "Get Out of Jail Free" card. If you have Photoshop it should be as easy as finding an image of one on the internet and blowing it up to a full page.

Print it out on orange paper (Chance) or yellow (Community Chest) and use the hole punch to make two holes in it. Tie a length of string through the holes so you can wear it around your neck (for a really professional effect, mount it on posterboard first so that it's firm.) Now take your Sharpie and write "To Judy--Remember the aspens! Love, Scooter Libby" across the bottom. There should be enough space for this, because a sheet of paper is wider than a Monopoly card.

Wear the sign around your neck and carry your copy of the Times. You'll be in a LOCK(UP) for best costume!

Harriet Miers

Is she an originalist or a Souter? Does she support gay rights, or oppose them? Would she overturn Roe, or does she think Griswold was rightly decided? No one knows! Mostly because she keeps telling people different things. The White House is mum, too. She's an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, dressed in a K-Mart pantsuit! The nice things about this costume is that you can get most of what you need down at the local thrift store. You will need:

Grandma's old wig (dirty blonde)
A K-Mart pantsuit (royal blue is preferable--it's what she wore on nomination day)
String of fake pearls
A gavel
Some Texas lottery tickets (optional--may substitute a button with Dubya's face on it, available at any souvenir store in town)

Directions: In order to make this costume work, I suggest applying some basic drugstore makeup: eyeliner and lipstick. Don't overdo it. Put on your pantsuit and pearls. Insert the Texas lottery tickets into your jacket/vest pocket (if the jacket or vest doesn't have a pocket, pin them to the jacket with a cheap brooch.) If you cannot obtain Texas lottery tickets, get the GWB button as a substitute. Put a small strip of masking tape under his face and write, in fine-point Sharpie, "HE'S SO COOL!" and wear that instead. Attend the party carrying the gavel. The judgment: one hot costume!

(I feel awful for making fun of this woman's lack of fashion sense sometimes. But then I remember I'm a total bitch.)

TOM DELAY

My personal favorite, and the one I'll be pursuing if I actually attend a party (my plans are up in the air because I may be out of town.) Tom DeLay was an exterminator who became the most powerful man in Congress. But by this weekend, his mugshot will be all over the Internet as he battles criminal charges in a Texas courtroom and struggles to maintain his relevancy. You will need:

Hairspray (NOT gel, hairspray--the aerosol kind)
A suit and tie
Handcuffs
Laser printer, string, hole punch

Directions: In order for this costume to work, your hair must be long enough to part at the side, but not too long. The Hammer's famed coif has not moved an inch since he came to Congress in 1984. So it's the hair that really makes this costume. Take a shower, and BLOW-DRY your hair. Remember, you're going for a certain look here. Then carefully spray it to within an inch of it's life. When you are finished, your hair should be parted at the side, thick on top (thus the blow-drying) and utterly bullet-proof. Using your handy Photoshop (you can substitute Word if you don't have it, by inverting the white and black, but Photoshop produces a much more professional effect) create a mug shot ID plate: DELAY, THOMAS and below that some random numbers. Print it out, and then use your hole punch/string to make it suitable to wear around your neck (you might add a posterboard backing to make it more realistic.) Put on your suit, and your handcuffs. Please note: unless you have the novelty handcuffs which include a latch so that you can release yourself, you should only cuff one wrist, and leave the other cuff dangling free. It is nearly impossible to eat/drink/socialize when your hands are cuffed, and even if your date has the key, he or she may get lost in the crowd. Now, it's Hammer time!

So there you have it. Three 100% topical Halloween costumes. Only a poli sci dork like myself could come up with these (I dreamed all three up in the shower this morning.) I'll post more if I think of them. If any of you wind up on Wonkette, I expect credit!

2005-10-16T06:18:00.000-04:00

I am one of the few, the proud, who looks at Harriet Miers and says "Thank God!" Yes, I know it could have been much worse. Bush promised us "another Scalia or Thomas" so the conservative groups say, and while I don't personally have anything against Scalia or Thomas I also don't want the court shifting to the right at a time when Dr. James Dobson thinks he's the boss of us. I have never found the Supreme Court to be "activist" but then I also didn't find Men in Black to be "literature" in spite of Tom DeLay's recommendation of it.

My friend Mark has a good takedown of the Miers nomination over in his blog. Mark is at least as qualified to be on the high court as Miers is. He makes a number of excellent points about this nominee, and why the sour grapes of the conservative movement and liberal activists don't really stand up to scrutiny. Harriet Miers may not be John Roberts, but she's more than qualified for a seat on the court. She may not please Ann Coulter (whose entire contribution to jurisprudence is two law review articles that date back to the eighties) but she did a damn fine job in Texas. And while I know that there are others who are probably more experienced, I don't blame them for not wanting to go through a confirmation hearing with Joe Biden talking about himself.

The so-called establishment may be in an uproar about Harriet because she's Bush's crony. And the right wing may be up in arms because her conservative bonafides aren't established. But me? I look at the Miers nomination as an opportunity. This woman has real potential, and she's not scary. Once you understand that, it's hard to oppose her.

2005-10-13T07:14:00.000-04:00

Someone needs to bring up Governor Blanco on manslaughter charges for several hundred people she delayed in evacuating. Really, the woman deserves jail time.

But this? Absurd. If the Louisiana Attorney General honestly wants to bring charges in this case, he should look at why they weren't evacuated, which goes back to...well, Nagin and Blanco. Ooops.

And now, for something completely different

2005-10-01T16:52:00.000-04:00

Captain Ian Fishback has been instrumental in bringing the military torture scandal to light. He is also being detained by the military with virtually no access to the outside world and charged with various crimes, a typical tactic used against whistleblowers who expose corruption or lies in the military or Pentagon. For a more complete summation of his story (which I have not been writing about, admittedly) you can see Andrew Sullivan's blog, one of my favorites. Sullivan has been covering the torture scandal unapologetically, even as the right resorts to spin and excuses of fraternity-like antics.

The reason I mention all of this is that Sullivan is also maintaining an email address for contacting Fishback with letters of support. His family will deliver them--probably the only way you can let Capt. Fishback know that you're behind him if you disdain torture and humiliation tactics perpetuated by the American miliatary in violation of the Geneva Convention and basic human decency. Please send emails of support to SupportFishback@aol.com, and they will reach the Captain to let him know that many, many Americans are behind him in this effort.

DeLay

2005-09-28T13:56:00.000-04:00

Tom DeLay's indictment should come as a shock to no one. And yes, it was (at least in part) the result of a political vendetta by a partisan prosecutor. But that doesn't change the fact that DeLay has seemingly bathed in sleaze for the past few years. His ties to the seedy lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the willingness of his PAC to play a financial shell game with illegal donations (whether or not he was directly responsible) and the continuous House Ethics rebukes leave little credibility for DeLay to hide behind. He's brought this on himself, partisan or not, by making himself an easy target for charges of wrongdoing. Such is the utter arrogance of DeLay's coccooned existense in power.

I for one will not miss Tom. He's been a proponent of pork, leading the charge to drive up government spending with the President's budget team. He's refused to embrace cuts on absurdist grounds, preferring instead to continue funding bread and circuses (make that the Ronald Reagan Memorial Circus.) He has pushed for turning the federal government into a hyper-religious nanny state and eschewed any notion of personal responsibility, both at law and at life, both in his public views and his personal actions. DeLay wants the government to tell you what you can and cannot do based upon his own warped view of what Christianity entails, and somehow believes that his nanny state can be paid for on borrowing alone. He is reckless, arrogant and irresponsible. He deserves a fate no different than his fellow Texan, Speaker Jim Wright.

Big Surprise: Sheehan Lies

2005-09-28T13:53:00.000-04:00

In order to get into a meeting with Sen. John McCain, Cindy Sheehan apparently told the Senator that she would be accompanied by some of his constituents. McCain was disappointed to learn once the media whore was in his office that no one accompanying her actually lived in Arizona.

Gosh, Cindy Sheehan lying? What a SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM that is!

I love John McCain but he should have known better than to allow her to use him like this. She left the meeting to call him a "warmonger" and get herself some more press.

Porn Again

2005-09-20T16:51:00.000-04:00

It appears that Alberto Gonzalez is attempting to shore up his conservative credentials. I wonder if he's anticipating a Supreme Court appointment? The only people who embrace pornography witch-hunts are the hard-right religious conservatives who screamed loudest when his name was floated for the High Court earlier this year.

Life Imitates The Onion

2005-09-14T16:09:00.000-04:00

Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades
~The Onion, February 18, 2004

Gillette Ups the Ante, Reveals 5-Blade Razor
~msnbc.com, September 14, 2005

I thought James Taranto might include this in his "Best of the Web" but then I realized that the Onion headline has "fuck" in it.

2005-09-14T11:22:00.000-04:00

DIONNE NAILS IT: He declares the end of the Bush era to have come with the realization that the president is really not keeping us safe. If the federal response to a hurricane is so poor, would it have been better in the face of a terrorist attack? Dionne says that the president can no longer count on the aura of invincibility to push his agenda forward.

BREAD, CIRCUSES, HIGHWAYS: Thankfully he can still count on Tom DeLay. Always there to say the absurd with a straight face, Tom reassures us today that the federal government has simply no fat left to cut. Riiiiight. It's very important that Alaska build its bridge to nowhere among the many other billions of dollars in pork projects lawmakers pushed earlier this year. VERY important, right, Tom?

Day 2: The Baseball Metaphors Continue

2005-09-13T18:27:00.000-04:00

The best thing that I could say about these hearings is that they are really boring. And I'm a poli sci dork, so you know that if even I say that, I mean it.

The problem is that they are, for the most part, carefully scripted. From Schumer's continuous self-referrals to Biden's preening in anticipation of a 2008 campaign to Kennedy's self-important moments to Session's lame attempts to kill time by asking questions that are part of an eighth-grade civics class, the whole affair is being put on for the cameras. The questions with obvious substance--the ones about Roberts views--are largely predictable in that he offers his views up to a point. No one honestly expects that he will suddenly break into anguished sobs at the thought of those poor aborted fetuses anymore than they believe that he'll show up for the hearings in a Wonder Woman costume.

Probably the only thing that surprised me was that Roberts answered in the affirmative when asked if the Constitution contains a right to privacy. I'm wondering if he was coached in that regard. My own answer would have been something more along the lines of "Well, that's been established by precedent." Because there is no such right in the Constitution--it was crafted, based upon a very labored and torturous reasoning, for the express purpose of legalizing contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut. Which is not to say that it's a BAD precedent (I certainly wouldn't kick it off the books) but it seems like Roberts is trying to have it both way--acknowledging the validity of the right to privacy without paying homage to the Constitution as an evolving document. Because the basis of any originalist argument about abortion, gay marriage, sodomy statutes and a host of other social issues (including gender equality, a topic of today's hearings) holds that the right to privacy was "judicial activism."

So there you have it. Roberts endorsed "judicial activism" without acknowledging that he was endorsing it. And maybe it's my own legal background but it seemed a little bizarre that he got away with it. It was quite clever, however.

Let's not forget that Roberts is, for all practical purposes, the smartest guy in the room. The men who belabor the importance of their own role in the advise and consent process are the ones who have something to prove, not him.

Oh, and a memo to all: please find a new metaphor. Baseball is getting old.

Day One: The Senate Pays Homage to...the Senate

2005-09-13T03:32:00.000-04:00

There's something kind of sinister about the look on her face. It reminds me too much of Meryl Streep in "The Manchurian Candidate."

But I do like John Roberts. He's a good pick for the court, and I've never wavered on that one.

I suppose they make a lovely couple. They seem very much in sync, right down to the facial expressions (although hers seems more...piercing.)

2005-09-11T06:05:00.000-04:00

A day of reflection and memory. Let's not allow this day to become yet another political photo op. I still remember when Congress got together on the Capitol steps to sing "God Bless America."

2005-09-11T05:59:00.000-04:00

Something you can't blame on Bush

2005-09-10T10:45:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine sent me this, and I thought it was worth posting. It's from the son of an MD who flew to Louisiana to help out after Katrina.

Here's a bit of incompetence he relayed regarding the embattled (better word than incompetent?) Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco:

You've heard about a lot of the fuckups in the Hurricane Katrina emergency effort. I talked to Dad yesterday and he pointed out one you probably haven't heard of yet.

A lot of doctors (including him) rushed to New Orleans (at their own expense) to help in the effort. Doctors (especially in refugee centers like the convention center and the Superdome) were overworked and there weren't enough to deal with the health needs of refugees.

Dad doesn't have a license to practice medicine in Louisiana. He's licensed in Wyoming. Since licenses are issued by states, it's illegal for him to practice medicine in a state where he's not licensed. He can't (for example) just drive to South Dakota and go to work in a hospital there. He would need to be licensed by that state's medical board. He holds licenses in multiple states, but not Louisiana.

In emergencies like natural disasters it's normal for states to suspend this requirement and offer temporary reciprocity with the other 49 states, recognizing their licenses as being valid in the affected state. In an emergency, who cares where your doctor's license comes from? Usually this requires a proclamation from the governor stating that there's an emergency and that out-of-state licenses will temporarily be as good as in-state licenses.

In Louisiana, it took several days for the governor to issue such a proclamation. Meanwhile, doctors from all over the country just sat around in New Orleans, unable to do anything. Before you say "they should have helped people anyway" you should know a little about what could happen to them if they did. Practicing medicine without a license recognized in the state you're in is a major crime, usually a felony with a long prison sentence. Even if the state doesn't prosecute you for it, doing it voids your malpractice insurance which means you may lose your ability to practice anywhere. And if Dad practiced medicine without a license in Louisiana, he could face disciplinary action here in Wyoming. Committing a felony (even in another state) is often just cause for stripping someone of their medical license. And if anyone he treated in Louisiana later sued him for malpractice, he would have no insurance and no defense. Under the law, all unlicensed medical practice is malpractice, even if you don't do anything wrong.

These laws are designed mostly to protect people from impostors who aren't really doctors or who have lost their license for some reason. But they apply as much to people with out-of-state licenses as people with no licenses at all.

So how long did the governor of Louisiana take to issue the proclamation allowing out-of-state doctors to practice there? Several days. She didn't issue it until September 2, and even then some doctors in the state couldn't even find out it was issued because they didn't bother to tell much of anyone. The only reason my dad found out is because someone from the medical licensing board in Texas managed to get a copy and did everything you can imagine to get word to doctors on the scene.

A lot goes on in a disaster, so maybe you're thinking the governor of Louisiana had too many things to worry about. I think that's bullshit. Preparing for a disaster means making lists of the things you're supposed to do when disaster strikes. Issuing a reciprocity proclamation is standard procedure. Other states have done it the same day as other disasters. New York issued theirs on 9/11. Florida has issued them several times as hurricanes struck. Someone is supposed to have the list and make those things happen. In the meantime, the governor of Louisiana was all over tv, bawling her eyes out and tearfully congratulating herself and other politicians. Someone should have bitch-slapped her and told her to get a grip and do her effin job. I'm sure Winston Churchill was sad about the Blitz but did he spend his time weeping on the BBC? If he had, the BBC would probably be broadcasting in German today.

In Mississippi, the reciprocity proclamation was issued days earlier. I guess their governor spent less time on tv and more time doing his job.

Anyway this is just one fuckup among many at many levels. But it illustrates the problem of having an incompetent state government. Sometimes it really, really matters who you elect.

Awesome National Review Cover

2005-09-09T12:33:00.000-04:00

Something tells me Nagin is going to be pissed for different reasons.

Of course, it's not like he and Blanco are any less culpable in the deaths of thousands than Michael Brown.

2005-09-04T04:04:00.000-04:00

For the first time in my life, I am embarrassed by my own government, and ashamed of the total lack of leadership it has displayed.

I'm really disillusioned beyond belief right now. Americans are living in conditions that not even Somalis could expect. The administration has failed, totally, and is now doing damage control efforts on their public image. Things are only starting to fall into place, relief-wise, because the media got fed up and started bitching out the politicians on the air.

We're better than this. Our potential has been squandered. Our president is a disgrace. Our country has been shamed.

Not Feeling Anyone's Pain, Really

2005-09-01T04:55:00.000-04:00

It's not an exaggeration to say that Bush has totally dropped the ball again in the face of another disaster. I don't know how he manages to do it, but the president is usually caught off-guard and on vacation whenever something happens.

Last year, in the wake of tsunamis that killed thousands and thousands, Bush was unavailable to make remarks for three days while on his ranch. Amazing. He simply allowed others to speak for him, coming off as callous and indifferent. Perhaps with that in mind, he took steps to appear presidential this time around--including cutting his vacation short and ordering his plane to fly low over the ground, in between speeches to sell Social Security and redefine the war as something other than a mess. So far he's failed. What people remember at a time like this isn't Bush meeting with survivors (indeed, he met none) but Bush smiling with the troops as he compared Iraq to the struggle of WWII. And what people are going to remember is that when disaster strikes, Bush was usually on the ranch. August 2001 report warning of al Qaeda's determination to strike on American soil? Bush was on the ranch. Tsunamis? On the ranch. Hurricanes? Ranch. You get the picture.

I don't think it's any surprise his numbers are so low. The White House is apparently tone-deaf when it comes to handling the president, proven again and again by their refusal to allow anyone who might ask difficult questions into his town-hall meetings. Clinton would have been on the ground in Louisiana, hugging the homeless and feeling their pain (and asses) by now. Even when Bush tries to appear presidential, he just comes off as cold and aloof.

The Cult of Cindy

2005-08-28T04:46:00.000-04:00

I've come to really despise Cindy Sheehan in the past few weeks. It's not that she's anti-war; to quote Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!" No, her political views matter little to me. It's the whole smug, self-righteous air she wears. The way she's been elevated far beyond the ranks of anti-war opportunists (yes, I'll get into her opportunism in a moment) and into the upper echelons of moonbat agitprops. Cindy Sheehan is a tool.

Here's a woman whose son died in Iraq for a cause that is in many ways abstract. I supported the war effort until the point when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq; at that time I realized that the whole thing was a grandiose bit of social engineering--an attempt to put into play the "domino theory" of Middle Eastern political reform at the expense of American troops and tax dollars. Only then did I have second thoughts.

It was easy for me to sympathize with Cindy in the beginning. Ultimately there is no greater hero than a fallen soldier, and there is no great martyr than the mother of a fallen soldier. But Cindy's facade began to unravel within days of her media debut. First it became clear, via her hometown paper, that she had not only met with Bush a year ago but sung his praises at the time. Then her own family began to denounce her what for she was doing. And then, as if to underscore the fact that she is more than merely an aggrieved mother, she began making political pronouncements. Ill-informed political pronouncements. Remarks about Israel and the Middle East that were so ill-informed that they resulted in making Cindy a hero to neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Cindy is not at the center of something much larger than her. Her little act, a tumbleweed that blew through the slow August news cycle, has spawned a circle of political activists and and organizations to fund grandiose displays such as "Camp Casey" and led to backlashes such as the "You don't speak for us, Cindy" tour. Thousands of anti-war demonstrators and Bush backers have descended on Crawford in recent weeks. The media has sent correspondents. Bloggers are there. And Cindy basks in the adoring glow.

For Cindy this long ago ceased to be about her departed son. It's all about her. She basks in the media spotlight, and happily flogs the message of her handlers, right down to calling the insurgents in Iraq "freedom fighters." She trots in and out of Camp Casey, with its obscene display of crosses (many family members have demanded that their loved ones names be removed) and presumption of speaking for the families of people who find Cindy repulsive. She continues to heap scorn upon a man who only a year ago credited for bringing her family together. Yes, Cindy knows what she's doing. She loves it. She's getting off on it.

I find Cindy utterly repulsive. That's just my reaction to her as a person. I think that she does the entire anti-war movement a disservice. She is simply too skeezy. She's building her own notoriety (no doubt towards a lucrative book contract) at the expense of her dead son.

It sickens me. I hope she enjoys it while it lasts. But in my mind Cindy Sheehan is scum. She's an opportunist who took something sacred and turned it into a cheap circus. She doesn't deserve our support, only our scorn.

Sleepers

2005-08-15T16:26:00.000-04:00

There is an urban legend that snakes its way through the conservative youth movement that most liberal interest groups have been infiltrated by sleeper Republican cells. The story recalls Dan Savage's little Iowa affair back in 2000, except in this case it's mainly conservative youth who are paid to fade in amongst the MoveOn.orgs and the advocacy groups, and team up to sabotage them from within.

Usually it's regarded as just that--an urban legend--but quite often situations would make us wonder, such as when Al Gore decided to apply his own makeup in the 2000 debates and came out looking orange. Whoever did NOT tell him that that was a bad idea voted for Bush.

Today I got an email alert from the American Family Association (don't ask me why I'm getting this shit) regarding the NARAL ad that distorted Judge Roberts record. And lo, it turns out that the whole angry right is gearing up to defend Judge Roberts. This, after conservative groups had just started to show signs of dissent over Roberts pro-bono work for the gay lobby.

It's brilliantly ridiculous. Craft an extreme ad that contains a blatant distortment, get a major network (CNN--something tells me there's at least a couple in the ad department there) to pick it up, sit back and watch everyone shake their heads and the hard-right coalesce to defend Roberts. It sounds like just the sort of thing Karl Rove would be in charge of, sending carefully chosen young Republican interns out into the night with envelopes full of cash.

Honestly--there's ALWAYS something that crosses a line in the discourse coming from the left. the Bush-Hitler ad on MoveOn a year or two ago was a great example. Also, whoever told Cindy Sheehan to go on record saying that Israel should get out of Palestine. She's gone waaaay over the line for what people will put up with, even from a grieving mother. In the end, it alienates moderates and makes liberal interests (or at least interest groups) look somehow dishonest. And it gives Republicans a cause to rally around when they may be otherwise be cautious of various items on the President's agenda.

It's not like we don't have our share of crackpots on the right, it's just that no one pays any attention to them. When Michael Savage says something ridiculous, it's just him being an ass. When Michael Moore says something silly, however, he's suddenly the guy who sat with Carter at the Democratic Convention last year (another nomination for sleeper agents: DNC interns who were checking floor passes that week.) OUR nutjobs are kept behind the scenes, in the pages of NewsMax. YOUR nutjobs are on Larry King Live saying the President Bush knew in advance about 9/11 (when they are not representing Georgia's Fourth Congressional District.)

It's my favorite conspiracy theory/drinking game.

Priorities

2005-07-29T14:12:00.000-04:00

The End of Big Labor? Or the Rebirth of Union Relevancy?

2005-07-25T19:47:00.000-04:00

When an organization begins to atrophy, it can either shake things up or it can face irrelevance. The AFL-CIO, which has been doing business as usual for the last several decades, is on the brink of irrelevance due to the lack of foresight at the top.

Today, two prominent labor unions split from the organization in a dispute over methods and membership. With the Teamsters and the SEIU leaving the fold, nearly 1/3 of the total AFL-CIO membership has declared independence from the stagnant umbrella of big labor. This is a huge blow to AFL-CIO president, John Sweeney, who has led a comfortable life as the head of Big Labor for the past decade (and was just reelected to another term.) It is also a declaration of independence by the individual unions--a rejection of the policies that have turned Big Labor into such a mess in the past twenty years.

For a long time now, Big Labor's strategy has been to cozy up the Democrats, throw money at populist politicians and attack globalization as undermining the domestic worker. This dismal strategy has been driving the AFL-CIO into the ground, as Democrats such as Bill Clinton pushed for greater free trade and Labor's hand-picked candidates such as Dick Gephardt faded into relative obscurity. The mantra of economic populism simply doesn't resonate to the American voter, who is more than happy to pay low prices for foreign goods sold in a non-Union Wal-Mart and has watched as American blue-chip companies such as GM and Ford faded under mounting losses while their unions demanded even greater concessions. All of this has left Big Labor at the breaking point. Fewer blue-collar Americans want to be involved with an organization that has a sense of entitlement to their dues, drives their employers into the ground, and remains stuck in the late '80s economically. Even liberals have come to understand the fundamental stagnancy of Big Labor, and the burden that its unrealistic demands place on American manufacturers, who are now more likely to move production out of the country than pay a hyper-inflated wage to start an assembly line in the States. The flexibility that is required to operate in the 21st century economy requires a willingness to compromise and reach consensus, rather than a strategy based upon throwing more and more cash at populist politicians that the rank-and-file members don't even support.

Teamsters President James Hoffa seems to understand this. He promises to make the union "more bipartisan. ... We're not going to be afraid to back a Republican." That shouldn't surprise anyone. Not only have Republicans championed the cause of drilling for oil in ANWR (something that the unions ardently supported, and which Democrats refused to back for fear of angering their environmental base) but it is Republicans who are leading the march towards globalization, and who are therefore writing the rules for the new economy. If labor unions want Republicans to do more than pay lip service to the problem of outsourcing, they have to realize that blindly backing Democrats is not the way to accomplish anything.

Of course, Hoffa understands that there is more to reforming labor than simply throwing money around. "Their idea is to keep throwing money at politicians," he said, referring to Sweeney's strategy. Hoffa wants to seek reform from within, which will require a shakeup not only of strategy, but also of the mindset that permeates Big Labor--that it cannot compromise, that it must prevail over management. This "win at all costs" mentality has led to the bankruptcy of many American corporations at the hands of their unions. Eastern Airlines stands out as one particularly glaring example. But Hoffa is shrewd. His detractors accuse him of splitting Big Labor, and rendering it less relevant. But they have only themselves to blame for long-term irrelevancy. If unions are to have a major role in the new economy, then it will come from the sort of reform Hoffa wants, and not the antiquated tactics of Sweeney and his ilk.

And now for something completely different

2005-07-15T15:11:00.000-04:00

It seems that Senator Rick Santorum's spokesman has confirmed that he is gay. Fucking bizarre. I've never been one to stoop to that tired old canard about gay Republicans being equal to Jewish Nazis, but this is just goofy. Gay Republicans should be working for John McCain or Olympia Snowe, not Senator Fussy Britches and his extremist ilk.

I don't see how a gay man can have any self-respect and serve a Senator who has compared his sexual orientation to people who have incestuous relationships or fuck goats. Maybe he's one of those exteme self-loathing gay men. Or maybe he's into intense masochistic humiliation. It's just...bizarre.

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!

2005-07-14T20:05:00.000-04:00

Rove probably did not even break the law. According to USA Today, the book that gasbag Wilson wrote gives no indication that his wife was ever a covert operative AFTER they were married.

“Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage,” she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

I'm sure this means squat to the groups like MoveOn.org and others that are turning this into a HUGE deal. But it's starting to annoy me how the law is just overlooked for the sake of the sort of personal satisfaction that would come with nailing Rove. It's as if the Democrats are having one massive circle-jerk to their collective fantasy. Further it's taking attention away from arguably more important issues, such as the Supreme Court nomination, the war in Iraq, and the economy.

If it feels good, demand it--consequences be damned

2005-07-13T16:10:00.000-04:00

You know, I'm no fan of Karl Rove--I think he's a cynical opportunist who sold the Republican party's principles, as well as the nation's future, down the river for a handful of Red State votes--but I'm so sick of this constant litany of "fire Karl Rove" crap that's coming from the left.

Liberals are incredibly short-sighted. They should hope and pray that Rove stays in the White House until the last day of Bush's term. That's because a Rove outside of government service is a Rove free to attach himself to a candidate in 2008. If Bush fires Karl Rove right now, he'll immediately sign a contract with some conservative stalwart--George Allen, maybe--and start crafting the sort of sleazy campaign that got Bush elected in 2000. Then when the Democrats nominate another empty-headed senator, Rove will already be deeply entrenched into the Republican campaign and will likely pull off his magic again to elect another vapid tool of the party, and ride right back into the White House.

When the Left gets self-righteous, however, they rarely think about the long-term consequences of their actions. As a McCain backer, and someone who thinks Karl Rove is a sleazbag extraordinaire, I'm hoping against hope that Rove stays in the White House. It's not like a chorus of voices is going to convince the president to fire him, anyway--the surest way to get Bush to dig in his heels is to try to change his mind. If we've learned ANYTHING about Bush's psyche, it's that. But I will be very surprised--and angry--if Rove is forced to step down over something as trifling as this (he did not, after all, technically committ a crime--the calls for his resignation are based on previous hyperbole from the administrationi that "anyone involved" would be fired.)

There is no one in Washington with any long-term vision anymore. It's all about short-term gratification. If Rove ends up advising some tool of the Christian right, I am going to remind my liberal friends EVERY DAY that he could have finished his career in a White House office, helping shape Bush's legacy, instead of out on the trail.

Doing the Rehnquist Waltz

2005-07-08T20:47:00.000-04:00

Washington's latest parlor game is the Rehnquist Waltz. It goes something like this:

1.) Someone "in the know" (Novak, Drudge, etc.) predicts that Rehnquist is about to retire by X (X being a particular day or time.)

2.) Much hand-wringing ensues. Blogs all jump onto the "Rehnquist to announce retirement at/on/by X" line, so as to avoid being left in the dust.

3.) As X approaches, the nation waits breathlessly. All media organizations are on standby.

4.) X passes, Rehnquist does not retire. "In the know" person has egg on their face (or, in Drudge's case, his pants.)

5.) Bloggers and pundits all speculate as to why Rehnquist did not step down on/by X. Excuses may include "The president was abroad," "Terrorists attacked London," "Magic 8-ball broken." No one ever says "Maybe the old man is just staying to spite all of you damn vultures and your death-watch."

6.) As another day goes by, another "in the know" blogger/pundit once again predicts that Rehnquist will retire on X. Repeat the whole process.

I asked MY Magic 8-ball if the Chief Justice is about to resign. It said "Take off your pants." Then I remembered that mine is a novelty adult Magic 8-ball. I can't find a regular one so I have no official prediction as to when Rehnquist will step down. I do predict, however, he will take off his pants tonight.

Terror in London

2005-07-07T16:30:00.000-04:00

Long time, no post.

I guess I just haven't felt like writing about politics as much lately, what with the excitement of finishing school and the like.

But today's terror attacks in London jolted me. They reminded me that there is more to life than deficit spending and Supreme Court nominees. And made me think a bit about what terror means to our way of life, to any civilized country's way of life.

John Podhertz of NRO makes an excellent point on the question of "Does terror work?" "Yes, it works until it doesn't work." That is, it works as long as leaders cave in to the demands of terrorists.

There is evidence of this. It can be argued that in Spain, terror worked. A well-timed train bombing in Madrid threw that country's election to the Socialists, who wasted no time in announcing that Spain was pulling out of Iraq. Check and mate: the terrorists accomplished exactly what they wanted with one fell swoop, and emboldened sleeper cells around Europe to act in a similiar manner. To me, the real surprise of today's attack in London is not that it happened, but that it did not happen prior to the elections earlier this year. I do not have an idea of why that is, but bringing terror to the UK during a G8 summit is certainly an effective tool of making a statement, and right now the British response will be absolutely critical.

To that end, here is George Galloway urging the total capitulation to the terrorist agenda in the aftermath of today's attacks:

We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

Galloway's message is pretty clear. "Pull out of Iraq, abandon Israel, and they'll stop killing us." It's reminiscient of those who urged appeasing the Nazis.

Regardless of your opinion of the war in Iraq, the necessity of not capitulating to terrorists should be clear. It is to me. Terrorism will continue to work as long as it has the effect of winning a political goal.

Thowing Away the Future

2005-01-25T23:08:00.000-05:00

Jesus H. Christ, this pisses me off...

From the LA Times:

The budget deficit is becoming a knottier problem in the short term and will be a potentially catastrophic one in the future, the Congressional Budget Office reported today.

The report suggests that President Bush, in the budget he will deliver to Congress in two weeks, will have a harder time keeping his promise to cut the deficit in half during his presidency.

The CBO's annual report on the budget outlook foresees a deficit of $400 billion this year. It also forecast a cumulative deficit of $1.3 trillion from 2005 to 2014, an increase of nearly 60% from the CBO's $861-billion estimate of just four months ago.

And what are the biggest causes for this increase? Why, tax cuts! The continued orgy of tax cuts that Bush has passed. Gravy trains for corporate donors and all.

I know tax cuts will stimulate the economy in the long term, but I have no faith that the Bush tax cuts are targeted at those groups that count--specifically, the middle class. Corporate tax cuts do far less for the economy. Reagan knew this. Bush has ignored it.

Oh, and let's not forget all the spending on our wars. Good thing we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to keep Iraq's weapons of mass destruction out of terrorist hands. Oh wait. The WMD's are all in Iran.

Shit.

Spiralling dollar, ballooning deficits...it's got to get better than this.

$1.3 Trillion in Deficits Forecast Over Decade

The Bush track record: I wouldn't trust him to make lunch

2005-01-16T16:19:00.000-05:00

Social security reform has the potential to shore up the system far beyond its current life expectancy. I've long been a proponent of partial privatization.

But I don't trust Bush to handle this. Look at every major initiative he tried to pull off in his first term. Tax cuts? A mess of corporate handouts. No Child Left Behind? Underfunded and unloved. Iraq? We can only pray that social security reform doesn't go that badly.

I'm seriously hoping that Congress just doesn't act. Let this die, like Clinton's awful health care proposal in his first term. Let a president take this up who actually listens to dissent and can tolerate opposing viewpoints. Then we're less likely to get a mess, and more likely to have stable compromise that will lead to real reform.

2005-01-14T18:31:00.000-05:00

"And when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back at you . . . He who hunts monsters must take care that he does not himself become a monster." -- Nietschze

I'm sure this quote has been brought up before with regards to the Iraqi prisoner abuse, but bears repeating, if only because nihilism is becoming trendy again.

Graner Convicted in Court Martial

Ham-Handed Leadership Update

2005-01-03T21:33:00.000-05:00

Further proof that Congress is out of touch: after spending the last few weeks of 2004 rolling back House Ethics rules to protect resident Republican bad boy Tom DeLay, Republicans were apparently taken aback when constituents, pundits and watchdog groups took issue with the rule changes that seemed to benefit just one person. Now they've not just abandoned their latest attempt to water down the rules, they've also repealed the "DeLay Rule" from last November, which rewrote party rules that had made it automatic for a member to lose his leadership position if indicted. This makes sense now, with the threat of a DeLay indictment having largely vanished, but I can't help but wonder if the rule change would remain in effect if pressure were still on DeLay.

What's most amazing to me is that House Republicans didn't anticipate the outrage over these moves. Are they that out of touch? Even though the party has mostly shredded the Contract With America in recent years, they must surely recall that a large part of the Republican revolution in '94 was the perception by the American people that Democratic congressional leadership was worthless and corrupt, after years and years of ethics scandals and exempting Congress from its own laws. It's a shame that the attempt to water down ethics rules ever happened, but it's for the best that the party has abandoned the notion.

DeLay himself was the one who proposed doing away with the DeLay Rule, and I'd bet he also nixed the most recent proposal by Hastert to change the rules in his favor. I base this on my perception that DeLay, although unethical, is extremely shrewd; Hastert is just an ignoramus who couldn't be more out of touch if he were representing Pluto.

House GOP Reverses Course on Ethics Rules

The critical response to Bush's woefully inept public response

2004-12-31T04:27:00.000-05:00

There seem to be two schools of thought related to the tsunami relief that the Bush Administration has pledged. The first school is that the aid is miserly--an opinion first shared by a UN bureaucrat which was picked up by the New York Times--and the second is that we provide vast amounts of foreign aid, and the final aid package will be much higher than $35 million, and that should be obvious, dammit.

I'm of the latter opinion, but I still fault Bush for mishandling the entire thing. It's rather shocking how badly he bungled his major opportunity to appear as a compassionate conservative before his second term begins, and to make a very indelible positive mark on his legacy as well as improve America's image worldwide. But then, this is a president who doesn't seem interested in a responsible foreign policy. His relations with other world leaders have been based upon "What can you do for us?" thus far. Is it really surprising his first public statement came on Wednseday, and even then it was only to criticize the UN?

Don't get me wrong. The UN was quite obviously wrong, and it was just the latest blunder to come out of Turtle Bay as relations with Washington continue to deteriorate. And I don't agree with the Times, either. But the fact that there's any basis at all for this skewed criticism goes squarely to the heart of Bush's folly in the matter. Had the president taken the disaster seriously from the start, this wouldn't be an issue. Is there any doubt that Clinton would have appeared on TV immediately, pledging much more $15 (later upped to $35) million? Or Reagan, for that matter? Of course not. They would have known how to show the world America's compassionate side. The fact that the final aid tally we send to tsunami victims will likely total over a billion dollars should have been mentioned from the very start, forcefully, by the president.

Bush takes it for granted that unless America's gift comes accompanied by much fanfare, people aren't going to take note. He may believe, as his aides were quoted as saying, that "actions speak louder than words"--but as nearly anyone with a modicum of media savvy will tell you, actions are often overlooked in a news cycle dominated by talking heads. Words would have been far better in this case, to underscore the inevitable actions. Bush blew it, unfortunately. Should we be that surprised?

The politics of natural disasters

2004-12-29T02:51:00.000-05:00

It's interesting that in the wake of one of the greatest human tragedies in recent history, George W. Bush refuses to interrupt his vacation, or even to to make a public statement. I mean, this borders on utter arrogance. Does he think the rest of the country doesn't give a damn? Is he at all concerned with how it looks that the head of state of the most powerful nation in the world won't even make a public statement?

It's sad that the people speaking for our nation right now are Bill Clinton and Colin Powell--one's a former Democratic president, the other a lame-duck Cabinet member. It's apparent that the President doesn't really have any leadership to offer in a moment like this. The lesson is, apparently, that acts of God aren't enough to interrupt time at the ranch.

Bush's aides, for their part, are irked that Clinton was immediately speaking out about the disaster. Tough cookies, I say. Did they just expect that no one was going to make a public statement until George was done clearing brush?

Aid Grows Amid Remarks About President's Absence

Greenback Blues

2004-12-28T19:31:00.000-05:00

Ah, Christmas! That favorite family holiday of carols, Bible stories, trees, fruitcakes, and eggnog. Especially eggnog. How I love it. I hope yours was good.

What's new in the world? Well, obviously, tsunamis. But I'm less interested in natural disasters than I am in man-made crises. Like the dollar's dramatic slide.

Today in Slate, Daniel Gross pretty much declares that the dollar's slide is representative of a long-term trend. Apparently even drug dealers are giving up on the dollar as the currency of choice for the international "cash and carry" markets. But Gross's article, which is on the surface unsettling, seems to make the argument that the Euro is simply more convenient as a currency for black market trade, because it comes in higher denominations (specifically, €200 and €500 notes).

Should we be worried about the dollar's decline? Oh yes. The point I made through most of 2004 was that the insane deficits that the Bush administration ran up were harming us in the long-term. Bush adopted a Nixonian fiscal policy, which is to say, he was a Keynesian. But we all remember what happened when Nixon tried to buy his reelection with federal pork--specifically, the dollar's value declined to the point where the gold standard had to be abandoned, wrecking the entire system of international exchange rates that had been in place sicne 1946.

Bush, thankfully, is showing some signs of slowing his spending spree in his second term, since he no longer has to face an electorate. Let's hope he gets serious about deficit reduction. Maybe then the dollar can recover some of its value by 2008. But the Euro's strength isn't just a flash in the pan--it's a long-term phenomenon. The Euro is going to triumph over the dollar for as long as currency traders lack faith in America's fiscal policies, and I'd venture to guess that will be for as long George "Hey Big Spender" Bush is in control of the pursestrings (with a tax-cut obsessed Republican Congress rubber-stamping all the deficits in the background).

Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Prom Dress

2004-12-23T03:42:00.000-05:00

LEXINGTON, Kentucky (AP) -- A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag.

In all fairness, it's a hideous dress. Look at it. I'm offended by it--not because it's a Confederate flag, but because it's so damn tacky.

But come on. She should have been able to wear it. I mean, please. It's a First Amendment issue. It's not like she showed up in a white sheet and pointy cap (although that would probably have been more tasteful--at least she wouldn't look like an Alabama game show hostess).

I get so sick of people who are hyper-sensitive over things like this. It's a CONFEDERATE FLAG. It's not a swastika! It's not a symbol of hate--just rebellion.

Side note--I wonder if the school officials in Kentucky who were so sensitive about the display of the flag allow same-sex couple to attend prom. Now THERE'S a test of a school district's mettle. Especially in the South.

2004-12-22T01:44:00.000-05:00

I finally followed through on my threats to do this. Bwa ha ha ha ha! But I figured, the holidays are the pefect time.

More upcoming.