Today is the day that Supreme Court watchers have been looking forward to for a long time. With two new members, they now face a critical case. Its not abortion or the NSA wiretapping or gay marriage. The critical issue today is does Anna Nicole Smith inherit her late husband's millions. She's in court today for oral arguments. I really don't understand. Add some blond bada boom and suddenly a case about probate law and State-Federal jurisdiction and suddenly everyone is paying attention. Previous Anna/SCOTUS post here.
Justice for Anna!
UPDATE: As always the best source for a write-up of red hot Supreme Court action is Dahlia Lithwick:
Kent L. Richland, arguing on Anna's behalf, is exactly the sort of silver-haired, silver-tongued guy you'd have cast in the reality show. He doesn't appear to be flapped, even when Justice Antonin Scalia wonders, just moments into his presentation of an argument far broader than the one he needs to make: "Do you want to stand on that position or do you have a lesser position? One that might cause you to win?"
...
It seems cruel to report that Anna Nicole then stood and exited the courtroom, leaving the building by a side door and again granting no interviews. I would love to tell you that she did something, anything, to distinguish herself from the thousands of appellants who have brought their cases into these marble walls. But the court has worked its magical spell of blandness, even upon Anna, and she is just another litigant with a probate dispute today. She has stepped into the only place in America where her breasts have no power.
February 28, 2006
February 27, 2006
Doing the Numbers
Buzz is building for Olympic romance. I've a bunch of hits over the last few days from people searching for variations of "The Flying Tomato and Sasha Cohen." I'm telling you, The Cutting Edge 2 will be a license to make money.
You can get all kinds of fun info from the folks who track my traffic, like search terms or countries of origin. Hi there, repeat visitor from Belgium. Slate has a interesting piece on the monitoring of web traffic. While monitoring my web traffic is for fun and ego, for the big media web sites, big traffic means big money.
No post of mine about numbers would be complete without linking to some bad Bush poll numbers. CBS news has him at a 34% approval rating. That means for every American who approves of Bush, there are two who don't.
MORE NUMBERS: A Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll was conducted of troops actually serving in Iraq. This numbers are stark 72% of American troops think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately. Also 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”
You can get all kinds of fun info from the folks who track my traffic, like search terms or countries of origin. Hi there, repeat visitor from Belgium. Slate has a interesting piece on the monitoring of web traffic. While monitoring my web traffic is for fun and ego, for the big media web sites, big traffic means big money.
No post of mine about numbers would be complete without linking to some bad Bush poll numbers. CBS news has him at a 34% approval rating. That means for every American who approves of Bush, there are two who don't.
MORE NUMBERS: A Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll was conducted of troops actually serving in Iraq. This numbers are stark 72% of American troops think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately. Also 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”
Problem Solver
Chris, over in Craigorian Chants's computational linguistics division, points me to this Michael Kinsley article on the new Prescription Drug Benefit Plan:
The hideous complexity of President Bush's prescription-drug program has reduced elderly Americans, and their child, —to tears of bewildered frustration. The multiple options when you sign up, each with its own multiple ceilings and co-payments; the second round of red tape when you actually want to acquire some pills; the ludicrously complex and arbitrary standards of eligibility, which play a cruel and pointless game of hide-and-seek as they lurch up and down the graph paper like drunks: Suddenly a mystery is solved—so, this must be what he means by "compassionate conservatism."
This is what happens when people who don't believe that government can help solve problems try to have the government solve problems. Conservatives think the government is complex and useless, so they design a drug benefit that is complex and useless. This is a basic philosophical problem. The effort is just a cynical effort to buy off seniors and enrich drug companies at the same time. There's no effort to solve the real problem. Even worse, because deep down Conservatives don't beleive in the program they make no attempt to pay for it:
What's shocking about this, more than the numbers (hundreds of billions of dollars are hard to fathom), is that Bush's drug benefit comes without even a theory about how it will be paid for. Even after nearly three decades of Republican abracadabranomics, this may be a first. A transparently phony theory at least pays tribute to the hypothesis that money doesn't grow on trees. Not even to bother coming up with a phony theory is an arrogant insult to democracy. It raises "because I said so" to a governing philosophy.
The classic Republican phony theory is, of course, supply-side economics. Every proposed tax cut from before Reagan until Bush's own has been defended on the grounds that it will pay for itself by stimulating new economic activity. This is a theory based more on faith than on evidence, but at least it's a theory.
But the good news is that seniors, who this program was aimed to make happy in the first place, are pissed. The drug benifit will hurt the GOP come November. For running commentary on the subject, check out Drug Bill Debacle.
The hideous complexity of President Bush's prescription-drug program has reduced elderly Americans, and their child, —to tears of bewildered frustration. The multiple options when you sign up, each with its own multiple ceilings and co-payments; the second round of red tape when you actually want to acquire some pills; the ludicrously complex and arbitrary standards of eligibility, which play a cruel and pointless game of hide-and-seek as they lurch up and down the graph paper like drunks: Suddenly a mystery is solved—so, this must be what he means by "compassionate conservatism."
This is what happens when people who don't believe that government can help solve problems try to have the government solve problems. Conservatives think the government is complex and useless, so they design a drug benefit that is complex and useless. This is a basic philosophical problem. The effort is just a cynical effort to buy off seniors and enrich drug companies at the same time. There's no effort to solve the real problem. Even worse, because deep down Conservatives don't beleive in the program they make no attempt to pay for it:
What's shocking about this, more than the numbers (hundreds of billions of dollars are hard to fathom), is that Bush's drug benefit comes without even a theory about how it will be paid for. Even after nearly three decades of Republican abracadabranomics, this may be a first. A transparently phony theory at least pays tribute to the hypothesis that money doesn't grow on trees. Not even to bother coming up with a phony theory is an arrogant insult to democracy. It raises "because I said so" to a governing philosophy.
The classic Republican phony theory is, of course, supply-side economics. Every proposed tax cut from before Reagan until Bush's own has been defended on the grounds that it will pay for itself by stimulating new economic activity. This is a theory based more on faith than on evidence, but at least it's a theory.
But the good news is that seniors, who this program was aimed to make happy in the first place, are pissed. The drug benifit will hurt the GOP come November. For running commentary on the subject, check out Drug Bill Debacle.
February 26, 2006
Ohno! Ohno!
Short Track Speed skating is fun. Its the closest that roller derby will ever come to being an Olympic sport. The relay was crazy fun. Just a small note for all you future gold medal winners out there: Do not attempt to sing along with the national anthem when you're up on the podium getting your medal. It makes you look silly. Just watch the flags go up with a suitable mixture of awe and happiness on your face. You may, if you're feeling dramatic, allow a single solitary tear run down one cheek. But do not try and sing along.
I propose a new verb. "To Bode" shall now mean to fail in a dramatic yet pathetic manner after being wildly overhyped.
Next Olympics, just put the curling team on the cover of Time and Newsweek. They deserve the attention.
I propose a new verb. "To Bode" shall now mean to fail in a dramatic yet pathetic manner after being wildly overhyped.
Next Olympics, just put the curling team on the cover of Time and Newsweek. They deserve the attention.
February 24, 2006
Yeah Friday
Once again, I did late night fake cross country skiing while watching figure skating. Is it odd that the fact that Sasha Cohen is clearly a basket case makes her no less appealing to me? Still, good job picking up the silver despite being completely in your head, you Saucy Little Minx.
I just started working on a movie script about a budding love affair between a uptight figure skater and a layed back snowboarder, set against the backdrop of the Olympics. I'm calling it The Cutting Edge 2.
Ashutosh, official former roommate of Craigorian Chant, wishes to education everyone on US-India relations. Bush is going to India in March. You can read about policy here and the security of the trip here.
Something I noticed about the new wave of Iraq violence: US troops are staying out of it.
Thousands of untested, U.S.-trained Iraqi police and troops blocked roads across Baghdad and surrounding regions as U.S. patrols, widely resented by both sides, kept a low profile.
Wouldn't leaving lower our troops profile even more? Why are they even there if they are "widely resented by both sides" and can't do any good?
Here come the weekend!
I just started working on a movie script about a budding love affair between a uptight figure skater and a layed back snowboarder, set against the backdrop of the Olympics. I'm calling it The Cutting Edge 2.
Ashutosh, official former roommate of Craigorian Chant, wishes to education everyone on US-India relations. Bush is going to India in March. You can read about policy here and the security of the trip here.
Something I noticed about the new wave of Iraq violence: US troops are staying out of it.
Thousands of untested, U.S.-trained Iraqi police and troops blocked roads across Baghdad and surrounding regions as U.S. patrols, widely resented by both sides, kept a low profile.
Wouldn't leaving lower our troops profile even more? Why are they even there if they are "widely resented by both sides" and can't do any good?
Here come the weekend!
February 23, 2006
Reap it Part 2
What do you have in the basket, little girl?
Iraq.
Where are you going, little girl?
Hell.
The Al-Askariya Shiite mosque was blown up in Iraq on Tuesday. That's an extremely important Shiite holy site. That has triggered massive violence accross the nation. The phrase "could trigger a civil war" is showing up more and more. I think what we are seeing in Iraq is a creeping civil war. There will not be a declaration or a Fort Sumter moment. Just more and more violence till suddenly we are cooked.
Iraq.
Where are you going, little girl?
Hell.
The Al-Askariya Shiite mosque was blown up in Iraq on Tuesday. That's an extremely important Shiite holy site. That has triggered massive violence accross the nation. The phrase "could trigger a civil war" is showing up more and more. I think what we are seeing in Iraq is a creeping civil war. There will not be a declaration or a Fort Sumter moment. Just more and more violence till suddenly we are cooked.
Reap It
The whirlwind, that is. The interesting truth about this port is that Bush own tactics are what's biting him on this issue. As Jess points out the Dubai owned company would not be handling security. That would continue to be handled by the coast guard and other US government people. They would be handling 'operations,' i.e. loading and unloading ships in the ports. You can also make the case that we should engage, and not shut out, Middle Eastern countries. These are good but subtle points. But Bush has spent the last four year sucking all the subtle distinctions out the debate over terrorism. Up till now Bush has considered everything other than the harshest of measure to be soft on terrorism. Any call for restraint with regard to civil liberties, torture, diplomacy, or really dumb military invasions has been branded appeasement and cowards that will kill us all. So now that Bush is trying to argue for a subtle, less harsh policy, all his supporters are breaking with him. From Daily Kos:
After years of pumping their fawning admirers full of terror and working as hard as they can to blur the distinction between regimes in the Middle East that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the people who did, the Bush Administration shouldn't be surprised that their supporters are unwilling or unable to objectively whip out the analytical razor-blade and expertly split hairs between a nation with direct links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and a company owned by that nation's government.
Faced with that self created dilemma, the comically feeble Bush Administration talking point is that the everyday terrorist sympathizer will think better of us if we help further enrich a handful of obscenely wealthy oil Sheiks? Here's an idea for improving our image in the Arab World: Stop torturing Muslims. But either way, it's doubtful the zombie mob that Bush and Rove have spent the last five years shocking back to life care what the citizens of Muslim nations think about the United States.
After years of pumping their fawning admirers full of terror and working as hard as they can to blur the distinction between regimes in the Middle East that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the people who did, the Bush Administration shouldn't be surprised that their supporters are unwilling or unable to objectively whip out the analytical razor-blade and expertly split hairs between a nation with direct links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and a company owned by that nation's government.
Faced with that self created dilemma, the comically feeble Bush Administration talking point is that the everyday terrorist sympathizer will think better of us if we help further enrich a handful of obscenely wealthy oil Sheiks? Here's an idea for improving our image in the Arab World: Stop torturing Muslims. But either way, it's doubtful the zombie mob that Bush and Rove have spent the last five years shocking back to life care what the citizens of Muslim nations think about the United States.
February 22, 2006
Ways to Make a Million
You could go in with your buddies at the meat packing plant and buy some lotto tickets and get lucky. 365 million lucky But really that's the easy way.
Or if you really wanted to earn it, you and your buddies get together and devise an complex plan to impersonate some cops, take a bank manager hostage, and make off with $43.5 million. Actually, that's 25 million pounds but any way you figure it your a millionaire. Sure the cops are on your ass, but at least you don't have to depend on luck.
Or if you really wanted to earn it, you and your buddies get together and devise an complex plan to impersonate some cops, take a bank manager hostage, and make off with $43.5 million. Actually, that's 25 million pounds but any way you figure it your a millionaire. Sure the cops are on your ass, but at least you don't have to depend on luck.
Crash
It's really too bad that whenever I'm in the gym trying to use the cross-country ski thing, Olympic cross-country skiing is never on the bank of 10 TV's my gym comes with. Now that would be inspirational. Instead last night it was figure skating.
I've decided that watching skiers and snowboarders crash is a lot more fun than watching figure skaters crash. I think it's because the former get helmets. Also, the latter seem just so damn fragile, both physically and emotionally. But the flying tomato was right - Sasha Cohen, worth crushing on.
I'm fascinated with the different names that snowboarders and skaters call their spins. The flying tomato does a "1080" or a "720". Cohen does a "triple" or a "double." Why is it that the "hey man" world of 'boarders use geometry and the ice diva's jumps sound like special hamburger orders? I'll have a Triple Lutz, extra cheese. Why do I get the feeling that Cohen is the one who pays attention in math class, while the tomato is more of the hamburger expert.
This is the last Cheney shoots a guy in a face link I'm putting up (today) Al Franken jokes.
I've decided that watching skiers and snowboarders crash is a lot more fun than watching figure skaters crash. I think it's because the former get helmets. Also, the latter seem just so damn fragile, both physically and emotionally. But the flying tomato was right - Sasha Cohen, worth crushing on.
I'm fascinated with the different names that snowboarders and skaters call their spins. The flying tomato does a "1080" or a "720". Cohen does a "triple" or a "double." Why is it that the "hey man" world of 'boarders use geometry and the ice diva's jumps sound like special hamburger orders? I'll have a Triple Lutz, extra cheese. Why do I get the feeling that Cohen is the one who pays attention in math class, while the tomato is more of the hamburger expert.
This is the last Cheney shoots a guy in a face link I'm putting up (today) Al Franken jokes.
February 21, 2006
A real Thing
At first I though that is controversy over port security was those things. You know, something that could be ignored. But now it become one of those things. Things that start to matter. Basic facts of the case: The US government approved last week a UAE government-controlled maritime management firm Dubai Ports World to run ports in New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. After 9/11, US shipping ports have gotten lots of attention for their lax security. Controversy is now breaking out all over the place.
Now the UAE (United Arab Emerites) is one of those countries, like Saudi Arabia, that's officially an ally but seems to produce a lot of terrorist recruits and terrorist money. At first I though this controversy was kind of a xenophobic thing. (A thing I could ignore) The dirty Arabs are coming. But I'm now thinking this might me something there. Here are some fun UAE facts. My favorite is The UAE government was one of three in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. That same government now owns port security at 6 major US port. Not a good idea, policy-wise.
It's a absolutely terrible idea politics-wise. The Bush administration is getting attacked from both the left and the right on this. Normal allies, like right-wing radio guys and GOP Congressmen are breaking with the administration on this.
Bush is sticking to his guns on this. He said he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement. Now Bush has yet to veto a single bill in five years. His Dad vetoed 44 in just four. Now Bush is going finally bring out the big gun of political maneuvers in order to make sure that the United Arab Emerites is put in charge of port security. My guess is that Bush is going to cave. Too much heat and too low a poll number. Bush is going to need every political marker he has on keeping the NSA and Abramoff affairs from blowing up. He's going to change course. Just you wait.
Now the UAE (United Arab Emerites) is one of those countries, like Saudi Arabia, that's officially an ally but seems to produce a lot of terrorist recruits and terrorist money. At first I though this controversy was kind of a xenophobic thing. (A thing I could ignore) The dirty Arabs are coming. But I'm now thinking this might me something there. Here are some fun UAE facts. My favorite is The UAE government was one of three in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. That same government now owns port security at 6 major US port. Not a good idea, policy-wise.
It's a absolutely terrible idea politics-wise. The Bush administration is getting attacked from both the left and the right on this. Normal allies, like right-wing radio guys and GOP Congressmen are breaking with the administration on this.
Bush is sticking to his guns on this. He said he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement. Now Bush has yet to veto a single bill in five years. His Dad vetoed 44 in just four. Now Bush is going finally bring out the big gun of political maneuvers in order to make sure that the United Arab Emerites is put in charge of port security. My guess is that Bush is going to cave. Too much heat and too low a poll number. Bush is going to need every political marker he has on keeping the NSA and Abramoff affairs from blowing up. He's going to change course. Just you wait.
Asked and Answered
Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari angrily dismissed on Tuesday U.S. warnings to shun sectarianism in the country's new government, saying Iraqis would not accept interference in their affairs.
Aye, there's the rub. We are supporting the new Iraqi government with a massive amount of blood and money. But if we really are supporting "democracy" does that mean we have to support this new government when it embraces sectarianism and civil war? Are we obligated to pay for the stupidity of a government that we helped create? Can we really just wash our hands of this whole mess?
Aye, there's the rub. We are supporting the new Iraqi government with a massive amount of blood and money. But if we really are supporting "democracy" does that mean we have to support this new government when it embraces sectarianism and civil war? Are we obligated to pay for the stupidity of a government that we helped create? Can we really just wash our hands of this whole mess?
February 20, 2006
Getting Out
This is interesting:
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned Iraqi politicians Monday they risk a loss of American support if they do not establish a genuine national unity government, saying the United States will not invest its resources in institutions run by sectarians.
...
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad delivered his blunt warning during a rare press conference after signs that talks on a new government following the December elections were not going well because of sharp differences among the country's Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political parties.
Failure to establish a unity government that includes a strong role for Sunni Arabs would fail to undermine the Sunni-dominated insurgency and throw into question U.S. plans for a phased withdrawal of the 138,000 American troops here.
The Shiite and Kurds have felt empowered to freeze out the Sunni, knowing that US troops will protect them when the Sunni turn to violence. This is a move to take away that safety blanket and force a hard political choice on the Shiite and Kurds. Now it could turn out they can't unify with the Sunni (or each other) Which means some form of civil war. Which is a war the US Ambassador just said we won't fight.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned Iraqi politicians Monday they risk a loss of American support if they do not establish a genuine national unity government, saying the United States will not invest its resources in institutions run by sectarians.
...
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad delivered his blunt warning during a rare press conference after signs that talks on a new government following the December elections were not going well because of sharp differences among the country's Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political parties.
Failure to establish a unity government that includes a strong role for Sunni Arabs would fail to undermine the Sunni-dominated insurgency and throw into question U.S. plans for a phased withdrawal of the 138,000 American troops here.
The Shiite and Kurds have felt empowered to freeze out the Sunni, knowing that US troops will protect them when the Sunni turn to violence. This is a move to take away that safety blanket and force a hard political choice on the Shiite and Kurds. Now it could turn out they can't unify with the Sunni (or each other) Which means some form of civil war. Which is a war the US Ambassador just said we won't fight.
Presidents' Day
It is always a comfort to me that despite the spin of the moment George W Bush is going to get judged in the history books. Today's talk of Mount Rushmore and Presidential Greatness reminds me that Bush will never get on Mount Rushmore, nor will he ever appear in the same sentence as "Presidential Greatness" in the history books. Same paragraph. Same book.
February 19, 2006
Mere urd Danmark
Erin of Denmark (Not to be confussed with Erin of Oahu or the other Erins who read/comment here) has some more to add:
The Jyllandsposten has done some investigating and uncovered four companies which have agreements with countries in the middle east to boycott Israel in exchange for contracts allowing them to import Danish goods. One of these is Arla, the milk-product giant who took the biggest beating in the arab boycott due to the cartoon issue. In Arla's defense, the company only agreed not to produce any goods in Israel and any goods that would be delivered to these arab countries would be on ships that would not dock in Israel. Arla still imports its goods to Israel, just on separate boats, I guess. This type of boycotting business is apparently illegal in the US, so no US company can sign any of these type of agreements. Anyway, that story just broke this morning (front page of the sunday edition) so I haven't found any reports in english on it from any other news source.
And as for corrections: apparently the Danish government hasn't *denied* muslims the right to build a mosque, they just haven't been allowed to build one *yet*. I guess this means that when Denmark now will be pressured into allowing the building of the mosque, they can claim that they weren't forced into it, it's just that the correct forms were finally correctly filled in or something. And my guess that the JP was read by only 300,000 people was a little low, according to statistics 600,000 people read it. But it *is* the most widely read paper (that isn't free), they send out 150,000 copies a day. Sounds like only a few people, but the total population of Denmark is only 5.2 million. So it's a big paper.
The Jyllandsposten has done some investigating and uncovered four companies which have agreements with countries in the middle east to boycott Israel in exchange for contracts allowing them to import Danish goods. One of these is Arla, the milk-product giant who took the biggest beating in the arab boycott due to the cartoon issue. In Arla's defense, the company only agreed not to produce any goods in Israel and any goods that would be delivered to these arab countries would be on ships that would not dock in Israel. Arla still imports its goods to Israel, just on separate boats, I guess. This type of boycotting business is apparently illegal in the US, so no US company can sign any of these type of agreements. Anyway, that story just broke this morning (front page of the sunday edition) so I haven't found any reports in english on it from any other news source.
And as for corrections: apparently the Danish government hasn't *denied* muslims the right to build a mosque, they just haven't been allowed to build one *yet*. I guess this means that when Denmark now will be pressured into allowing the building of the mosque, they can claim that they weren't forced into it, it's just that the correct forms were finally correctly filled in or something. And my guess that the JP was read by only 300,000 people was a little low, according to statistics 600,000 people read it. But it *is* the most widely read paper (that isn't free), they send out 150,000 copies a day. Sounds like only a few people, but the total population of Denmark is only 5.2 million. So it's a big paper.
February 18, 2006
Etiquette
A couple of questions of Etiquette. If you are shot by someone is it really necessary to apologies to the person who shot you?
Also when two girls are making out in a bar, how much are you allowed to stare? I maintain that certain amount of staring is called for, particularly if some feeling up is involved. However, I do believe that whipping out your cell phone-camera should be considered rude.
Also when two girls are making out in a bar, how much are you allowed to stare? I maintain that certain amount of staring is called for, particularly if some feeling up is involved. However, I do believe that whipping out your cell phone-camera should be considered rude.
February 17, 2006
Kidding on the Square
"America remaining obsessed, fascinated, appalled, by what is being called 'Dick Cheney Shot A Guy In The Face-Gate.'" --Jon Stewart
"If this story gets any bigger, pretty soon they're going to have to tell the president." --David Letterman
"After Whittington had a heart attack, Cheney said, "You big baby. I get those all the time. Walk it off." --Jay Leno
"But here is the sad part -- before the trip Donald Rumsfeld had denied the guy's request for body armor." --David Letterman
"You can understand why this lawyer fellow let his guard down, because if you're out hunting with a politician, you think, 'If I'm going to get it, it's going to be in the back.'" --Craig Ferguson
More jokes here.
Everything must be done to drive this event into the popular imagination. Dick Cheney is reckless. Dick Cheney has poor judgement. Dick Cheney can't be trusted with deadly stuff. For some reason birdshot seems to make the case better than WMD. At this point I don't care. I will take what I can get. Think I'm overreacting? Michelle Cottle makes a great case for overkill:
In an even more poetic vein, the events in question fit perfectly into the grand literary tradition of the hero's tragic flaw. For Cheney, as with so many kings through the ages, this is obviously arrogance. The man cannot stand the idea that he should in any way be accountable for anything to anyone--much less the weak, sniveling, unwashed mass of voters he ostensibly serves. (As if the notion of Cheney serving anyone isn't laugh-out-loud funny.) Seriously. The man could be caught on film slow roasting babies over a burning, swastika-adorned crucifix and he would simply shrug, sneer, and growl something about national security and the unitary executive theory.
With W. the fatal flaw is harder to pinpoint, if only because there are so many options to choose from. But the inestimable Ryan Lizza makes a compelling case that W.'s incuriosity and cluelessness are the defining characteristics highlighted by this little episode, and I'm inclined to agree. One can only assume that W. was too busy on the Stairmaster or out looking for some brush to clear in Rock Creek Park to be bothered with whatever trouble Cheney might be getting into out on the ranch.
...
But just because a scandal doesn't bring down an administration doesn't mean it isn't instructive or illuminating--not to mention absolutely worthy of media overkill. Some times a hunting accident is just a hunting accident. Other times, it is the perfect metaphor for why the nation's leadership is such a disaster.
"If this story gets any bigger, pretty soon they're going to have to tell the president." --David Letterman
"After Whittington had a heart attack, Cheney said, "You big baby. I get those all the time. Walk it off." --Jay Leno
"But here is the sad part -- before the trip Donald Rumsfeld had denied the guy's request for body armor." --David Letterman
"You can understand why this lawyer fellow let his guard down, because if you're out hunting with a politician, you think, 'If I'm going to get it, it's going to be in the back.'" --Craig Ferguson
More jokes here.
Everything must be done to drive this event into the popular imagination. Dick Cheney is reckless. Dick Cheney has poor judgement. Dick Cheney can't be trusted with deadly stuff. For some reason birdshot seems to make the case better than WMD. At this point I don't care. I will take what I can get. Think I'm overreacting? Michelle Cottle makes a great case for overkill:
In an even more poetic vein, the events in question fit perfectly into the grand literary tradition of the hero's tragic flaw. For Cheney, as with so many kings through the ages, this is obviously arrogance. The man cannot stand the idea that he should in any way be accountable for anything to anyone--much less the weak, sniveling, unwashed mass of voters he ostensibly serves. (As if the notion of Cheney serving anyone isn't laugh-out-loud funny.) Seriously. The man could be caught on film slow roasting babies over a burning, swastika-adorned crucifix and he would simply shrug, sneer, and growl something about national security and the unitary executive theory.
With W. the fatal flaw is harder to pinpoint, if only because there are so many options to choose from. But the inestimable Ryan Lizza makes a compelling case that W.'s incuriosity and cluelessness are the defining characteristics highlighted by this little episode, and I'm inclined to agree. One can only assume that W. was too busy on the Stairmaster or out looking for some brush to clear in Rock Creek Park to be bothered with whatever trouble Cheney might be getting into out on the ranch.
...
But just because a scandal doesn't bring down an administration doesn't mean it isn't instructive or illuminating--not to mention absolutely worthy of media overkill. Some times a hunting accident is just a hunting accident. Other times, it is the perfect metaphor for why the nation's leadership is such a disaster.
February 16, 2006
Overheard
Have you been ever walking down the street or been in some other public place and hear a conversation? Something funny or wierd or profound and not intended for you, but soooo worth hearing? I had one of those a couple of weeks ago. It went like this:
Guy: Your boyfriend can be a real jerk.
Girl: Ya, but I'm 22 and he's 42, so he must be doing something right.
There is a great web page called Overheard in New York which is a collection of these little snippets of conversation. There's some really great stuff in there.
So what have you overheard? Post it in comments.
Guy: Your boyfriend can be a real jerk.
Girl: Ya, but I'm 22 and he's 42, so he must be doing something right.
There is a great web page called Overheard in New York which is a collection of these little snippets of conversation. There's some really great stuff in there.
So what have you overheard? Post it in comments.
Fortune and Glory
There's a good story in New York magazine on the hierarchy of blogs. Basically there are a few super-popular blogs, the A-list, who get all the hits and money, some smaller blogs, the B-list which get a share of popularity and $. Then there is the great big mass of C-list blogs, toiling away, waiting for there big break. (That would be this blog, but we do have occational dilutions of being on the B-list) The best way to break into the top ranks seem to be either 1. Get there first or 2. Blog about who Paris Hilton is sleeping with. Gawker which does gossip, pulls in somewhere between one and two million a year in ad money. Despite the temptation, I will remain a high-minded place for discussing the issues of the day. And West Wing cast members in bikinis. And the Vice President shooting someone in the face.
February 15, 2006
The Quest for Beans
Does anybody know where you can get beans for a beanbag? My beanbag, a family heirloom passed down over the generations, is looking a little tired these days. Needs a few more beans so it can once again provide the slothfull comfort it once did. But I can't find a store that sells beanbag beans. I've been in Michael's and a fabric store, but no joy. Any Ideas?
Can't Argue
I guess there are some advantages to being a loose cannon:
Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday.
....
They attributed the shift to last week's closed briefings given by top administration officials to the full House and Senate intelligence committees, and to private appeals to wavering GOP senators by officials, including Vice President Cheney. "It's been a full-court press," said a top Senate Republican aide who asked to speak only on background -- as did several others for this story -- because of the classified nature of the intelligence committees' work.
I guess members of Congress can no longer say no to Cheney because he will shoot them if they do. Seriously, are GOP Senators going to just lay down and take it? Don't they realise this administration is weak? That they need some distance from them?
Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday.
....
They attributed the shift to last week's closed briefings given by top administration officials to the full House and Senate intelligence committees, and to private appeals to wavering GOP senators by officials, including Vice President Cheney. "It's been a full-court press," said a top Senate Republican aide who asked to speak only on background -- as did several others for this story -- because of the classified nature of the intelligence committees' work.
I guess members of Congress can no longer say no to Cheney because he will shoot them if they do. Seriously, are GOP Senators going to just lay down and take it? Don't they realise this administration is weak? That they need some distance from them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)