- Jan 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Feb 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–28
- Mar 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Apr 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- May 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Jun 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Jul 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Aug 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Sep 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Oct 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Nov 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- Dec 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Mexican Congress On Crack
Posted by on 4.29.06 @ 5:06PM
Just in time for the national walkout, back in the home country the Mexican Congress makes us all feel a whole lot better about our southerly neighbor's contribution to law and order by handing Vicente Fox a bill decriminalizing the possession of drugs. Which drugs? All drugs. In what amounts? "Small" amounts -- though the definition of smallness is as liberal as the rest of the bill.
Read it and weep:
"This law gives police and prosecutors better legal tools to combat drug crimes that do so much damage to our youth and children," said Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar.
Better tools -- like bent spoons and broken light bulbs. Fox
will sign. Junkies will multiply. Deaths will accumulate.
Mexico will rot.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Rush to Judgment
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 7:27PM
Nice try, ABC, but there'll be no takers. Despite its sensationalist headline earlier this evening -- "RUSH LIMBAUGH HAS BEEN ARRESTED ON PRESCRIPTION FRAUD CHARGES, SAYS PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE" -- the real story, as Drudge has just noted, is that all charges against Limbaugh will be dropped in 18 months if he continues to seek treatment from the doctor who's been treating him the last two and half years. It's not an arrest if the case has been settled.
UPDATE: Surprise, Surprise: Both the New York Times and Washington Post are running the same headline on their websites: "Rush Limbaugh Arrested for Prescription Drug Charges." The L.A. Times, however, gets it right: "Limbaugh Settles on Drug Charges."
On Managing Hurricane Relief
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 6:51PM
City Journal has a compelling piece on Houston's ability to manage crises with impressive efficiency and creativity. It's long, but you'll want to read it all.
NCAA's Bureaucrats Know Best
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 6:16PM
Following up on the new NCAA policy banning "hostile" or "abusive" Indian nicknames, the college athletics organization has denied appeals from three schools, including the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux. If you're wondering what's offensive about the Fighting Sioux, so are some Sioux. UND had a letter of support from a tribal leader, to no avail.
Frankly, Scarlett...
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 5:37PM
As reported by the Beeb, Iranian “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said… I hereby sentence Kofi and the Kupcakes to write, “Diplomacy that is not backed by a credible threat of force cannot succeed” one hundred times on the blackboard each day for the next week. As the threat of
Diplomacy "Just Beginning" on Iran
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 1:59PM
Just beginning? That's what President Bush says. Methinks that won't have them shaking in their boots. At this rate, by the time that trusty diplomacy gets toward the end, Iran will have a nuclear weapon.
Union Man
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 12:22PM
Best. Congressman. Ever!
John Sweeney (R-NY) hangs at a frat party….
Bush For Nagin -- Huh?!?!?
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 10:45AM
From the WSJournal today, we learn that President Bush's visit to New Orleans yesterday was designed in part to bolster Mayor Ray Nagin's chances in his runoff for re-election against Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. COME AGAIN?!?!?!?!?!?!? Every time I start to forgive this White House for all its errors and idiocies, it does something new that is so unfathomably wrongheaded that it makes me wonder if the combined brain power of the entire West Wing might be less than the intelligence of, say, James Madison alone -- on one of Madison's BAD days, when he has had insomnia and has a headache.
Let's review the bidding on this one (as they say in the game of bridge): Mayor Nagin is in general a moderate who supported GOP gubernatorial candidate Bobby Jindal over Demo candidate (and eventual victor) Kathleen Blanco last go round. Nagin first got into office with large white support and large conservative support. BUT, his good intentions even before Katrina were falling prey to his overall incompetence. The police force, which had actually been improved under liberal former mayor Marc Morial, had fallen back into utter incompetence and corruption under Nagin. The overall organizational efficiency and effectiveness of city services also declined under Nagin. And then came Katrina, and the 120 buses left to flood rather than used for evacuations, and the failure to implement existing city plans for hurricane disasters, and all the horrors we saw on TV (a combined fault of Nagin, Blanco, Michael Brown, Michael Chertoff and, yes, George Bush) -- and the mayor in cowardly flight to Dallas, and the mayor making lunatic statements on TV, and his call for a "chocolate city" and all sorts of other race-baiting, and.... you get the picture. Nagin is a disaster not just waiting to happen, but an ongoing disaster. Yet Bush wants to help Nagin win re-election! This is just flat-out obscene. And WHY does Bush want Nagin? Because, reports the WSJ, Bush doesn't like the Landrieu family. U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, Mitch's brother, once said she wanted to punch poor W. in the nose, and W. didn't like that. Oh, the poor tender feelings of our president!
But Mitch isn't Mary. Mitch is basically a political moderate. He's very smart, and he's competent. He loves New Orleans. He has the ability to bridge the city's racial divide. He is seen in most quarters as a unifying figure not just on race, but politically as well. He has few sharp edges, but he does have a sharp mind. Sure, he'll be tied in to some of the old Democratic patronage machines, which is bad.... but not all patronage is corrupt, and frankly I don't care who gets the patronage if the work gets done more efficiently and competently than Nagin's regime did. Meanwhile, not only is Nagin incompotent, but he has turned into a race-baiting demagogue. How, pray tell, does it help the beleaguered citizens of New Orleans if Nagin gets re-elected?
If this president really is trying hard, as the WSJ reports, to "bolster Mr. Nagin's political prospects with the city's white conservative establishment," then he, Mr. Bush, our president, is either a fool or a cynical manipulator or so petty and so into political grudges (against MARY Landrieu, NOT Mitch, so why punish Mitch and the people of New Orleans?) that he doesn't care if the people of New Orleans rot in Hades. Frankly, as I wondered to myself as I wrote this article, there is plenty of reason to think that the White House doesn't care how many New Orleanians suffer as long as it (the White House) can change the demographics of the area to better serve what it (mistakenly) considers to be GOP interests.
Message to President Bush: You've done enough damage to my home city already. Please just get the bleep out of the way.
Wrong on Rove
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 10:25AM
NBC and other news outlets have it terribly, terribly wrong on the Rove grand jury testimony earlier this week, and they keep getting it wrong in the face of the facts they know to be accurate. Today rumors were being circulated by NBC reporters that Rove was being called back for yet another round of questioning.
We've been informed by reliable sources that Rove was not distressed or worried about his testimony earlier this week. That things went well, that he answered the questions readily and that there were no surprises.
The grand jury that Patrick Fitzgerald is using is a sitting grand jury, which meets regularly on Wednesdays and Fridays. That it is hearing a case today -- this grand jury is not exclusive to the Joe Wilson scandal -- is no news. It hears cases all the time.
Remember, Rove is answering questions about events that he actually assisted Fitzgerald with. When Rove and his legal team discovered information that added to Rove's recollection, it was handed over to Fitzgerald immediately. And that evidence actually helped Rove's position.
Re: Dates of Copywrong
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 9:24AM
Update to yesterday/below: The sound of inevitability chimes. A day after saying they won't, Little, Brown will pull the latest work of hype-'n'-plagiarism from bookshelves. Message received. What a halflife have our "truths."
Re: Economic Numbers
Posted by on 4.28.06 @ 7:04AM
I'd say it's less than 50/50 that good GDP numbers cause a market selloff today, Prowler. Fed Chief Bernanke said before Congress yesterday that the OMC was unlikely to raise interest rates at their next meeting, and might even be done with that for a while. I don't think Bernanke will be surprised by today's GDP numbers. According to this morning's IBD, "Futures markets adjusted their rate-hike projections on his comments. The chances of a quarter-point June hike fell to 34% from 66% on Wednesday. The market already has priced in a 16th straight hike, to 5%, for the Fed's May meeting."
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Worst Idea of the Century?
Posted by on 4.27.06 @ 9:39PM
Ok, ok, I'll grant you that the century is yet young. And that there is fierce competition for that title. But we may already have a winner.
Ari Richter writes in the Weekly Standard that the president should consider replacing Donald Rumsfeld with John McCain. John McCain?
Not only must Rumsfeld stay, for all the reasons I've written again and again. But were he to go, McCain would be precisely the wrong person for the job because his track record (the phony anti-torture amendment, for example) would leave too many in the military distrustful of him to ever function well as SecDef.
Among the interestingly incorrect assumptions in Richter's piece is his assertion that McCain would be easily confirmed by his Senate pals. Doesn't anyone remember John Tower? Guess not. And Tower was toppled in a time when the Senate was less fiercely divided on partisan lines.
But pursuit of the SecDef job would serve one good purpose. It would sink McCain's presidential ambitions. Which is why, even if the president were sufficiently unwise to show Big Dog the door, McCain would never do it.
Dates of Copywrong
Posted by on 4.27.06 @ 7:00PM
Blundering bookwriters are having a good -- that is, terrible -- year. Joining the list of the sorrowful that includes failed autobiographer James Frey and the men who would sue Dan Brown, for writing about something they did too, is young Harvardian Kaavya Viswanathan. She takes a nice picture, and pictures never lie. But how many pictures worth of words did she lift unconsciously from two of her favorite books? Enough for a battle to loom; enough to establish a sad pattern of laziness and mindless reprocessing in the ding-dong world of big publishers. Line 'em up and whack away -- they won't get the message without taking their lumps.
Economic Numbers
Posted by on 4.27.06 @ 5:12PM
Not a lot of tea-leaf reading to do here. The WSJ Online, based on comments from the Fed, is saying the the U.S. economy is churning into the second quarter with a full head of steam.
GDP numbers will be released tomorrow, and the rumors are that they will be impressive, perhaps more than impressive. This will again fuel inflation fears and the notion that the Fed is going to have to hang another quarter point of interest during its next meeting.
But with such good economic numbers - and don't forget, lost in this week's gas price hysteria were impressive consumer confidence numbers - one has to wonder: why isn't the White House doing a better job of getting its economic message out? And why aren't Republicans on Capitol Hill doing everything in their power to help get that message out?
Fore
Posted by on 4.27.06 @ 4:26PM
Tiger Woods is as branded as a Texas steer. He has no business on the links wearing that filthy baseball hat with the Swoosh stitched across it. In the words of Hunter Thompson, may it become a flaming shroud. How long until Air Tiger golf shoes? Spare me.
On the other hand, we have golf to thank for permitting powerful people to conduct private conversations in what appear to be public places.
More on Golfer Gibson
Posted by on 4.27.06 @ 2:51PM
After I posted the note below about Mickelson and other golfers, I ran across this wonderful story that makes my point about my high school competitor Kelly Gibson. By the way, this is a GREAT story about how Kelly personally made Tiger Woods what he is today! :)
Hail to Mickelson et al
Posted by on 4.27.06 @ 1:55PM
Earlier this week I complained that not enough of the top tour pros are playing at this week's stop on the PGA Tour, in New Orleans -- while praising Phil Mickelson and David Toms for coming. But this story gives me the warm fuzzies all over -- in a very good way. Mickelson, Toms, and New Orleans-native tour pro Kelly Gibson are doing great things for post-Katrina charity, and I salute them. Mickelson's quotes are just fantastic. He just went way up in my estimation. Meanwhile, a nod to Kelly, whom I know (only slightly, but enough so that he recognizes me, unprompted -- this has happened more than once -- in a small, random crowd of fans if I attend a tourney he's playing in) and whom I played against (sort of: I was the fifth seed on my school's team; he was the top seed on his school's team, and one of the best golfers in the state, so we only actually played one round in the same group, and that was by mistake) in high school. Kelly Gibson always has been one of the world's "good guys," and he is quite popular on tour, I hear. His good friend Tommy Moore, a fellow New Orleanian and onetime tour pro and also onetime teenage golf wunderkind, died several years ago of one of those heinous blood cancers whose names I can never pronounce -- and word was, from several people who were at Moore's funeral, that Kelly's euology (I hope I'm remembering this right) was one of the most eloquent, moving, and appropriate that the folks who relayed this to me had ever heard. Anyway, Gibson, Toms and Mickelson in this article show again why pro golfers, to a greater degree than pro athletes in any other sport, are so often seen as class acts. The truth is that while their efforts for Katrina relief, as told in this story, are extraordinary, the high level of personal involvement of most tour pros with charitable endeavors year-round is, well, par for the course. A tip of the hat to all of them.
Lobbying Reform? What Lobbying Reform?
Posted by on 4.27.06 @ 11:18AM
This front-section story from the Washington Post about the so-called lobbying "reform" bill due for a House vote today perfectly captures, in the course of straight reporting, the problem with the House GOP: ALL they seem to do is think in terms of short-term politics, not in terms of long-term principles and not in terms of whether a policy is wise or ill-conceived, right or wrong, ethical or unethical. One key passage is this: Lawmakers acknowledge that the bill is more limited in its scope and impact than the provisions promised by congressional leaders immediately after Abramoff's guilty plea to federal charges of bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud nearly four months ago. But they say they do not feel compelled to push more stringent measures partly because voters do not appear to be demanding them.
How about, instead, just for once, forgetting whether or not voters "appear to be demanding" something? How about just doing what is the wisest, most ethical, most honest thing, just for the sake of doing things right, regardless of the politics of it? (!!!!!!)
Specifically, "the measure would not restrict the gifts or meals provided by lobbyists." Well, why [insert expletive-ing if you so desire in your own mind] not? It still befuddles me how elected officials can think that it is alright for paid lobbyists to give freebies to the lawmakers who have the lobbyists' specific legislative business in front of them. Taxpayers provide pretty darn good salaries for lawmakers, so why can't the solons pay for their own darn meals?
When I was a staffer on the Hill, even BEFORE the Republicans in 1995 (back when they actually were honest reformers) passed important new ethics rules that restricted foolishness such as abundant freebies (I've written on this subject a number of times, most notably here), there was only one lobbyist whom I EVER allowed to buy me even beers or a hamburger one a one-to-one basis (i.e., this doesn't include mass receptions where staffers are basically anonymous, or group holiday dinners that were basically festive or celebratory) was somebody from my home town who was a friend even before I moved to Washington and even before I realized he was a lobbyist. In other words, there was no chance whatsoever of undue influence, because it was a pre-existing relationship.) And I certainly wasn't rolling in dough at the time. If I could avoid the entrapment, why can't these rich congressmen?
Frankly, in a perfect world (this is obviously not practical, but just used for illustrative purposes), the lawmakers would be occasionally buying beers for UNpaid lobbyists to thank the lobbyists for responsibly exercising their rights of speech and petition.
Now, for my usual disclaimer: This is in NO way to suggest that lobbying itself is a dishonorable business. Lobbying per se merely involves active participation in this sacred political process of ours, which is a good thing. The problem isn't lobbyists; the problem is with lawmakers who act as if lobbyists owe them something of financial value.
Finally, as to the politics of the thing: The solons are so short-sighted that even their political calculations are off. Back in 1991 and 1992, if pollsters had asked the public about political corruption, it wouldn't have ranked high on their list of stated concerns. Nor would the issue necessarily come up spontaneously in town meetings before the "House Bank scandal" arose. But make no mistake: Ethical concerns played a HUGE role in helping the GOP sweep to power in 1994. The public may not pay attention to the details of lobbying reform bills and ethics measures, but they DO develop, over time, impressions that can be quite hard to shake about how corrupt Congress is and whose fault it is, etc. And when the public is moderately angry, at least, anyway, those impressions can suddenly become important enough in their minds for them to vote accordingly. JUST BECAUSE CONSTITUENTS DON'T SAY THEY CARE DEEPLY about ethics doesn't mean that they give Congress a free pass on the subject.
Ethics don't matter, politically speaking...right up until the time when they suddenly matter more than anything else. GOP House members who are accustomed to be mollycoddled and waited up by lobbyists, and who think the public doesn't care, could be in for a rude awakening.
What Does Your Senator Drive?
Posted by on 4.27.06 @ 9:00AM
Dana Milbank turns in some solid reporting on Capitol Hill today -- checking to see just how serious these members of Congress are about energy problems. As they bleat about fuel economy, they're driven the one or two blocks between the Capitol and their offices in low-fuel-economy vehicles.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
More Senate Stoogery
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 4:10PM
Can't even find Moe, Larry or Curly around. Actually, they'd be doing a better job of defending the nation. As the World's Greatest Deliberative Body takes up the latest supplemental appropriations for the Iraq war -- to which, of course, the latest Katrina-labeled porkfest is attached -- Sen. Judd Gregg has apparently offered and obtained an amendment cutting about 3% -- about $1.9 billion -- from the war funds to pay for more border patrol resources.
According to this AP report, Gregg's amendment was immediately attacked by Lil' Miss Gun Control and Hillary who were screaming about how this would cut funds for body armor and anti-IED research.
Ask yourself, Sen. Gregg, whether you couldn't find any pork to cut from the Katrina nonsense? Why you had to set yourself, and the whole Republican senate majority, up for what will now be a much-deserved public thrashing? And why we should ever take you or whoever voted for your amendment seriously again?
Why shouldn't this money have been found elsewhere? Why shouldn't the Senate be taking up a really tough border-closing initiative instead of throwing money at the border? This is the kind of stoogery that makes the Senate "Republican" majority so ineffective. When they lose their butts in November, they will have only themselves to blame. And some of us may cheer.
Dan the Man
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 11:49AM
There's been a Dan Rather sighting, last night at UC Berkeley. Perhaps he was hoping for an exclusive interview with Mario Savio. The sympathetic writeup to which I've linked probably tells less than it could, but Dan clearly has the making of our next Alger Hiss ("Rather dodged Schell's questions about what exactly went down with the Bush's National Guard service story or whether he believes the story is fully accurate..."). On the other hand, only someone as screwy as Dan could hide behind corporate fear of controversy as the reason why he was clueless regarding the power of blogs. Best of all, he considers himself "independent," not liberal. "My best work is still ahead of me," he warned.
Eternally Steppin' Out
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 10:30AM
The new portrait of Bill Clinton is sans wedding ring. The ex-president's spokesman blames "artistic license."
Tony's In
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 9:37AM
Announcing the appointment of Tony Snow as press secretary -- addressing the assembled press gaggle -- the president said, "He knows most of you and agreed to take the job anyway." That about sums it up. Best of luck, Tony.
Dealing in Amnesty
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 9:26AM
In Congress, no news is usually good news. So those of you pleased when immigration reform failed before the recess will be disappointed to learn that President Bush and Senate Republicans revived amnesty yesterday.
Only in Virginia...
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 9:13AM
Is the liberal Democratic governor more conservative on gas taxes than the liberal Republican Senate. And then the Republicans have the gall to whine about it.
Crazy, But Not Nuts
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 9:10AM
After a weekend of Republican noise about "unconscionable" pay packages and suspiciously large profits (which are rising in proportion to the overall cost of fuel, oddly enough), legislators are backing down from a windfall profits tax.
BBC Reviewer Raves Over "Flight 93"
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 8:04AM
The BBC sent a reviewer to the Tribeca film festival yesterday at which "United 93" debuted in the U.S. The reviewer, to the seeming surprise of the two radio anchors who set up his story, pronounced the film one of the best he had ever seen. For a habitual (if cynical) BBC listener, this was the purest sort of turnaround. From the Beeb, one expects at least a little supercilious irony, a little arch superiority. Not a speck of that in the reviewer's comments on "United 93."
White House Snow Day
Posted by on 4.26.06 @ 7:18AM
Tony Snow, it was confirmed last night, will be the new White House press secretary. I've known him since he was a columnist for the Washington Times. He'll do a great job for the president and not just because he's a very skilled journalist with a good grip on what's happening around the world. Snow is a rarity in Washington: an A-level reporter who is also a very good person. Let's all wish him well in a terrifically hard job.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Re: Re: Shedding Patriotism
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 11:43PM
Larry, Were this the only bit I was behind the curve on!
Re: Shedding Patriotism
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 6:43PM
You're behind the curve on this one, Shawn. That's Nina Burleigh writing, she of the offer, back in the Clinton years, to give Bubba "a b.j. myself for keeping abortion legal."
Shedding Patriotism
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 6:24PM
I came across a remarkable column on AlterNet today about a mother's revulsion at her five year-old boy's patriotism and her joy at his shedding of the lies his teacher told him. It's insanely long-winded, but worth checking out for a few choice bits. An electronic sample platter:
The Harlem unit of the National Guard was putting on a Christmas clothing drive for Iraqi children. On the way into the city, I tried to explain to my son what we were doing, and -- as best I could -- why. As we crossed the George Washington Bridge and the Manhattan skyline spread out below us, I began to give him a variation on the "Africans don't have any food, finish your dinner" talk. I wanted him to understand how privileged he was to live in a place where bombs don't rain from the sky. It was a talk I'd tried to have before, but not one he'd ever paid much attention to until that day, trapped in the backseat of our car.
In simple language, I told my son that our president had started a war with a country called Iraq. I said that we were bombing cities and destroying buildings. And I explained that families just like ours now had no money or food because their parents didn't have offices to go to anymore or bosses to pay them. "America did this?" my son asked incredulously. "Yes, America," I answered. He paused, a long silent pause, then burst out: "But mommy, I love America! I want to hug America!"
Hug America! What a clueless Bush drone! Doesn't he know how big America is? Can he even pronounce "nuclear" correctly? The parents' intervention here is clearly warranted. More:
The patriotization of our son was thorough enough to survive the summer. He decorated his birthday cookies with red, white and blue sugar, and in his summer camp program, when doing arts and crafts, those were the colors of paint he favored. "I made the stars red, white and blue -- like the flag!" he exclaimed, holding a paper mobile he'd strung together.
I love America, too, but is anyone else getting the impresion this kid's mom is trying to make him out to be a sort of hybrid cross-polination of Sean Hannity and Forrest Gump?
We've since returned to the city, driven back to urban life more by adult boredom and the need to earn a living than our children's relative educational opportunities. Our son is now enrolled in a well-rated K-5 public school on Manhattan's Upper West Side; he's one of two white kids in his class. Not surprisingly, the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer part of his morning routine. Come to think of it, and I could be wrong, I've never seen a flag on the premises.
Thank Heaven's! A return to civilized living!
My husband and I realized, though, that Narrowsburg did more than mold our boy into a patriot. He can, it turns out-- despite the warnings of other city parents--read at a level twice that of his new peers.
Seriously? Those provincial yahoos can read?
Since we returned to the city, he has learned how to ride a bike, long for an X-Box, practiced a few new swear words, and, somehow, learned the meaning of "sexy." He has pretty much stopped favoring red, white and blue.
And that alone is worth the price of well-rated a K-5 public school on Manhattan's Upper West Side with only two white kids. God Bless America!
Funding Hamas
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 4:35PM
You would think that a nation such as Russia, with a very large Islamic terrorism problem of its own, wouldn't be joining with Iran to fund the terrorist government of Hamas in the Palestinian territories. And you'd be wrong.
Putin's support for Hamas is gratuitous, but for one aspect. By joining with Iran, he's making it as clear as can humanly be that there will be no UN action against Iran. It would be nice to hear something from Foggy Bottom on this. Or even the White House. Don't hold your breath.
Snow
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 2:49PM
We're hearing a Snow announcement could be coming in the next day or so. The names aren't radically different from what other people have been saying, though there is talk that perhaps the President is going to look inside his current Cabinet for the new Treasury Secretary. Nothing like the famous switcheroo President Reagan pulled with his team, but still, a bit of a curve.
As for Tony Snow, you read between the lines and it is clear that a number of people appear to be setting up senior White House counselor Dan Bartlett as the fall guy. For example, stories this morning are reporting that Snow wants "access" to the President and a chunk of responsibility currently under Bartlett's control. If Snow for some reason chooses not to take the job (and very people have ever said "No" to the President), it will almost assuredly be spun as Bartlett's fault or the President's fault for supporting a long-time adviser over a smart hire.
Mac vs. O'Reilly
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 1:25PM
It's news to me, but apparently Bill O'Reilly is among the raving "price gouging" crowd. Mac Johnson takes him to task.
Re: The Closing of a Presidency
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 12:56PM
I neglected to mention two other excellent voices for the old fashioned Catholic university at Notre Dame: Fr. John Coughlin, professor of law and canon law, and Professor John Cavadini, chairman of the theology department.
Both are quite critical of Jenkins -- especially his strange notion of a "conversation" with the outside world. It's a strange notion because, as the men point out, it's largely the pop culture talking and the Catholic community listening, as with the Vagina Monologues capitulation. Jenkins hardly mentioned Church teaching in his closing statement, a poor start to a conversation for the president of the university, and a Catholic priest at that. Fr. Coughlin writes, "The statement creates the impression that Catholicism is just another 'good idea' sometimes at issues and to be batted about in the on-going intellectual debate at the University." Is Fr. Jenkins a mere referee between Catholicism and pop culture? It would appear so.
Wealth and Greed
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 12:38PM
Two more careful thinkers have corrected me on my post on the morality of incredibly large paychecks. John Tabin had me rethinking that point, and a college buddy clinched it in this email just now:
from a moral point of view, selfishness is sinful, as is the accumulation of wealth for its own sake, as an end in itself. However, dollar amounts are meaningless in a moral context. prices and wages represent information, and the shareholders of exxon mobil (who spent years and hundreds of millions of their own money, without any guarantees of making it back) are letting it be known, in concrete terms, that they value the CEO's particular work in making them a profit.this pandering to the consumer is pretty absurd. the market is providing consumers with information, which is that oil is increasingly scare, and they should adjust their decision-making accordingly. I can't believe Dems reaction to this in particular - they should be thrilled that oil is more expensive, it will force consumers and firms to look at alternative sources of energy...
They're right. The practical problem with calling a $400 million retirement package greedy is, where do you pin down the greediness? At $1 million? $10 million? $100 million? This isn't just sophistry. The theoretical problem is that if someone made $400 million and donated 50% (after taxes... the federal government must take its cut), or even 90%, would it still be greedy? Absolutely not. Take the Cheneys: out of an adjusted gross income of $8.82 million, they donated $6.87 million to charity.
Raking in that paycheck has no moral value. Money isn't the root of all evil, but rather the love of it.
Churches vs. The Rule of Law
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 12:38PM
Hot on the dug-in heels of certain Cardinals opposed to the enforcement of immigration law comes this little DC church parking/double parking imbroglio -- and once again certain religious folk are up in arms about the enforcement of the laws. The DC double-parking laws, along church-heavy streets, have not recently been enforced, although they've duly been kept on the books. They certainly cannot be said to have lapsed -- particularly now that Logan Circle area residents really need them. The habitual violation of the double-parking law, however, is inaccurately advertised by disgruntled churchgoers as "a minor inconvenience." Convenience isn't the point.
Surely it's the city's responsibility to ensure adequate parking for those driving to houses of worship. But until then, folks, the rule of law wins out every time. This is another reason why laxity on enforcement undermines the legitimacy of the law in the first place, and another reminder of how the rolling amnesty of swiss-cheese borders is a problem antecedent to the whole question of post hoc "earned citizenship" programs.
The Closing of a Presidency
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 12:26PM
Fr. Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, didn't end the controversy over the Vagina Monologues with his flaccid "closing statement." (Read more from AmSpecBlog on it here.) He has succeeded in emboldening those who wish to water down ND's Catholic identity, and in alienating those who wish to preserve the traditional understanding of a Catholic university.
One of the voices in the latter crowd includes philosopher Professor Charles Rice. Rice concludes that Jenkins' surrendering closing statement also marks the closing of his presidency, and calls on him to resign in today's Observer.
At the very least, this doesn't bode well for Notre Dame. Jenkins is a young man, and Notre Dame presidents typically enjoy long tenures. He challenged the worldly liberalism of the most vocal parts of the faculty and student body, and backed down when they reacted. Thankfully, those who (too quietly) oppose Jenkins's decision have a voice in folks like Professor Rice.
House doesn't get it
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 12:16PM
A short blurb in the Wash Post this morning reports that a House "lobbying reform" bill is finally headed to a floor vote this week. Gee, whiz. Whatever. It turns out that this version of "reform" does NOT require lobbyists "to keep track of their contacts with lawmakers and report fundraising activities." In other words, less and less actual reform. Now I'm not one who says that lobbyists are evil; far from it. But the public does have a right to transparency when lobbyists and money (either for lunches/trips/favors or for campaigns) are tied together with lawmakers. Saying that lobbyists can't have access would of course be unconstitutional. But for PAID lobbyists who ALSO donate money to lawmakers to do so without disclosure is to invite corruption. Even in the wake of the Abramoff scandals, it amazes me that the House doesn't seem to understand this.
Snow in, Snow out
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 11:02AM
If this story is to be believed -- and I hear it is indeed accurate -- then Tony Snow will be the new White House press secretary, and a particularly powerful one at that...while the unrelated Treasury Secretary John Snow will be out the door. Let's take the latter first. John Snow isn't exciting, but he actually has done a good job with the nuts and bolts at Treasury, and he has worked his heart out. The knock on him is that, despite his best efforts, he hasn't been an effective salesman. That may be true -- but, on the other hand, it is tough to be a good messenger when the overall communications apparatus for the whole administration hasn't been effective. If the president can get somebody with a superb combination of policy skills, management skills, AND political/communication skills, then by all means replace John Snow. But don't replace him with somebody else who isn't already well known and who doesn't within two minutes create a "Wow" factor.
If the only problem with Treasury's Snow is indeed communications, then the White House is doing a wonderful, wonderful thing by bringing in Tony Snow to be its messenger. Indeed, with Tony as White House press secretary, JOHN Snow's communications effectiveness might all of a sudden improve, because he'll have a strong and positive voice coming from the White House, which is where the real responsibility lies, anyway.
Why am I so high on Tony Snow? Tony is, of course, the Fox News host and analyst and radio talk show host who has a tremendous background in print journalism. He's very, very smart; very very principled; very very very likable; very very able at communicating. He's telegenic and he's clear and concise. And he has stature AND credibility independent of this administration; he's already known to millions and millions of Americans as a credible, fair, and honest man. He's also a true conservative who understands politics in the best sense, and a a guy who knows how to persuade rather than merely lecture (or, even worse, stonewall). Rather than playing defense AGAINST the liberal mainstream media, he'll play offense, on behalf of conservative ideals, THROUGH the media, using them to his advantage despite their determination otherwise. Ronald Reagan knew how to do this; and while NObody quite has Reagan's skills, I think Tony understands, more than most people, how Reagan did it and what made him successful -- and how best to do a pretty fair approximation of what Reagan did.
Finally, Tony will succeed because he has so many friends in Washington, including in the mainstream media. The reality is that Tony Snow is a prince of a guy, genuinely kind and thoughtful. I don't want to make it sound like I know Tony better than I do, but for years he has been very free with good advice (and with the time it takes to give good advice) for me when I've asked for it. His genuine decency shows through when he's on TV, and I think the American public will, as they say, "give him a listen" and decide that he's both sensible and eminently believable.
More power to him if he does indeed take the White House job, and more power to Josh Bolten and President Bush for reaching out to bring Tony on board.
Re: "Price Gouging"
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 6:51AM
It's more than just talk at this point. I have heard half a dozen playings of a new PSA on radio from (I believe) the DOE, offering a toll free number and soliciting complaints of price gouging for (so says the PSA) government action. So something has been budgeted to the issue -- on the wrong side --, and something has been done. Runaway bureaucracy?
The Morality of Compensation
Posted by on 4.25.06 @ 2:39AM
Dave, Quin: A $400 million retirement packages is "obscene" and "wrong" and "greedy?" Nonsense.
There is no moral content to an individual's income or networth. All you can do with money is spend it, lend it, or invest it. We do not live in a zero-sum economy, where accumulation of wealth amounts to deprivation of others.
As Milton Friedman has argued, the social responsibility of a corporation -- that is, its moral obligation -- is to provide the best possible return for its stockholders. If you think a company is spending more on its executives than their services are worth, don't buy stock in that company. It's as simple as that. As to the argument that corporations have an obligation to limit executive compensation because it "gives the libs a perfect target to get government involved in all kinds of mischief": Isn't that like saying that permitting religious pluralism incites Islamist rage? I'm not equating economic leftism to terrorism, but you'd better think hard before accepting a line of logic that you'd surely reject in a different context.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Moral Paychecks
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 7:06PM
Quin, as a matter of morals, a $400 million paycheck is awfully greedy, and greed is wrong.
But a matter of public policy, it's not. And when Hastert deems that compensation "unconscionable" to the press, he's saying so in his office as a Congressman and Speaker of the House. If he's saying that to preface remarks along the lines of "while this is unconscionable, it's none of our business," fine. But alone, it appears that he wants to do something about it, namely a price gouging investigation. Or worse.
Exorbitant Salaries
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 6:03PM
Dave -- As a matter of government interest, exhorbitant salaries should be off limits. But I see nothing wrong with jawboning these execs. A $400 million golden parachute, as with the Exxon exec, is obscene. In fact, there is plenty of merit in the complaint that American corporate execs get paid so much more than do, say, Japanese ones. The compensation structure is all screwed up. In fact, the DESIRE for wealth over and above a certain point, except to do good with it (charity, etc), is a character flaw and deserving of ostracism. There's a difference between ambition and greed, and when execs get too greedy they open up a can of worms because it gives the libs a perfect target to get government involved in all kinds of mischief to correct the "imbalances" in compensation. OF course, government should NOT step in, but that doesn't mean the greed is morally defensible.
That point aside, though, I agree with everything else in your post, except that the anti-price gouging thing may only merit point nine or ten on a ten-point list. :) Meanwhile, your last question is appropriate: What DOES Hastert have to show for himself?
Re: Boehner
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 5:47PM
Quin, I agree that bowing to politics is wise in these cases. If this were a clever, "we're-all-for-enforcing-the-law-even-though-it's-probably-being-followed" action, I'd be all for it. It would make a great point eight on a ten-point list of legislation that would roll back all the faulty energy regulation of the last 30 years and begin ANWR and off-shore drilling, as you suggested.
But the fact that we enforce the law is a no-brainer -- and undeserving of a major media push. Instead, these guys assume the Democratic position: that of course the oil companies are price gouging.
This shines through in Hastert's comment that large compensation packages for energy execs are "unconscionable." I'm sorry, what? Unconscionable is starving children or Terri Schiavo's death. It is not gas prices responding to market pressures, and a man who does his job well getting rewarded for it. Oil companies have no moral responsibility to redistribute their profits to their customers, or even operate at a loss when gas prices get too high. Their duty is to deliver goods to market and return a profit to their shareholders.
Oil companies are doing their jobs well. Denny Hastert is serving his fourth term as Speaker of the House. What does he have to show for himself?
Boehner's bo... uh, his mistake
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 5:12PM
Dave -- You know, I actually don't mind a little bit of showboating; if there are indeed people breaking the law via price gouging, I'm all for prosecuting them. A LITTLE bow to politics is okay... but only if such a misleading bow isn't the sum total of one's efforts. The problem, as you so well noted earlier, is that there are a lot more and a lot more substantive reasons for the high prices than "gouging," but the House GOP seems unable to make a case for correcting those real problems. It is that combination of an inability or unwillingness to do REAL solutions along with the mostly empty (and wholly ineffective) rhetoric on price-gouging that is so, well, let's call it flat-out offensive. In contrast, my old boss Bob Livingston of Louisiana was on Fox News last Friday at the same time as Eleanor Clift, and HE actually took the fight to her. She started in with all the tommyrot about how the high prices are Bush's fault, but he blew her out of the park with a concise list of policy mistakes for the last 30 years that led us to this point. E.g., Regs that keep refineries from being built. Regs that pretty much killed (until last year's energy bill, in one of that bill's few good provisions) the development of nuke energy here for 30 years. Prohibition of drilling within about a zillion miles of the oh-so-precious Florida coast, and in ANWR, AND off the coast even of states that want drilling (or appear to) such as Virginia. And so on. Note that all these policies go back to the Jimmy Carter days. Livingston made the case; he made it strongly and effectively. And there's no reason why these nimrods now in Congress can't do the same, if they only find some vertebra and some principle.
Sick House GOP
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 4:38PM
Quin, believe it or not, it gets worse. Majority Leader John Boehner's office just sent out an email (as a "Majority Matters" alert) reporting that by Frist and Hastert requesting gas price investigations, "Republicans are sending a strong signal to would-be gasoline price gougers tat they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." This comes under the headline, "GOP Leaders Take Action on Energy Prices to Safeguard Growing Economy."
I have little to add to my comments below on this silly showboating, but then the email claims Democrats have only "More empty rhetoric" to address the issue, and cites the Detroit News editorial as evidence. They selectively quote the parts of the editorial most hostile to Democrats and their obstruction, but leave out the bulk which depicts the noise about price gouging as demagoguery. Is the majority leader's office really so blind as to attack the very Democratic talking points on which his allies are basing their stunt?
Republicans aping Democrats, and the majority leader celebrates. Aren't you glad the boys are back in town?
Kristol on Manifesto
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 3:37PM
I've been writing in the past week about a sensible-Left document called the Euston Manifesto, here, and also at the end of this column. (My column itself was mentioned by another Guardian columnist, but most of the Guardian blog respondents slammed me and the Manifesto. Oh, well.) Now, kudos to Bill Kristol at The Weekly Standard for advancing the cause in a very good column. I can only hope that there are enough voices on the Left to see that dialogue and making common cause for freedom are goals worth pursuing.
Iraq's Government
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 3:09PM
I've been travelling, so maybe I've missed something, but it seems like the news that the Iraqis broke their deadlock and formed a government this weekend has been wildly underplayed. Thank goodness for Iraq the Model: Omar reports on Saturday's session of parliament here. And Mohammed looks at the next steps in the political process here.
Today on the Hugh Hewitt Show
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 3:06PM
There's a whole lotta SGO today, and we'll be covering the top stories on the Hugh Hewitt Show while Hugh appears on Comedy Central's Colbert Report.
We'll be talking about the CIA martyrdom operation by Mary McCarthy, the president's speech today on immigration and the war, UBL's latest video love note and a whole lot more. Listen in and call in on 800-520-1234. See ya on the radio.
Re: New Orleans Golf
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 2:53PM
Quin:
That's a puzzle, and I share your concern that more top players haven't signed up for English Turn. Of course, it's scheduling isn't as attractive as it used to be. That notable 1995 tourney that Love won to get into the Masters (Crenshaw's miracle) took place the week before the Masters. And New Orleans, if I'm not mistaken, has been moved around several times. That tends to dampen commitments.
On the positive side, the PGA TV promos for New Orleans are some of the best I've ever seen.
One of these days when I'm healthy, let's play.
Energy idiocy
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 2:42PM
Here's a note to add to Dave's excellent post earlier today. It's a paragraph from yesterday's Wash Post "Sunday Briefing" section: "The White House had hoped to win permission this year for oil and gas drilling off the coast and in the Alaskan wilderness. But $3 per gallon gasoline and record oil company profits have now generated such a backlash that any bill favoring the energy industry is unlikely to pass."
COME AGAIN???!?!?!??!?! If lawmakers had any ability to combine principle with common sense, $3-per-gallon gasoline would give them MORE reason, not less, to promote drilling offshore and in ANWR. Greater domestic production, of course, would allow supply to at least partly catch up with demand, thus reducing prices long-term. It should be a VERY easy argument to make. (Greater energy independence also is important for national security reasons, too, of course.) Allowing more drilling isn't a sop to the energy industry, it's a boon to consumers. If this GOP Congress can't even figure that out or explain that, and if its members are so scared of demogoguery that they run screaming away like scared two-year-olds, then that is yet another reason to believe (IF this Post paragraph accurately describes the state of play on Capitol Hill) that this is the worst collection of unprincipled (and stupid) political hacks that I've ever seen.
New Orleans golf
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 1:50PM
Okay, I know that I may over-write about two of my favorite cultural obsessions, golf and New Orleans, but I just have to get this off my chest: Too many stars of the PGA Tour are skipping this weekend's Zurich Classic, the New Orleans Tour stop being played at the Nicklaus-designed English Turn club (where I was a member for 12 years). As everybody knows, New Orleans really needs a boost, and the Tour was terrific in committing to return to the city soon after the hurricane. But too many of its stars haven't come through. Tiger Woods has NEVER played in New Orleans, and apparently couldn't even be bothered this time despite the good he could do for the suffering city. (Note: Tiger's father is quite ill, so he now may not play ANY tourneys between now and the US Open, and my wishes go out to him and his family. But even before his father's condition became a serious issue, Tiger wasn't planning to play New Orleans. Hence the rasberry for him.) Vijay Singh won there just two years ago, but he's skipping it. Ernie Els is skipping it. Ditto for Sergio Garcia. The same for Jim Furyk, Adam Scott, and Luke Donald, meaning that seven of the world's ten top-ranked players will be no-shows. Also the same for 12th-ranked Jose Maria Olazabal, who was runner-up at English Turn in 1994, and... the list goes on. Davis Love III, who won at English Turn in 1995 in his very last chance to qualify for that year's Masters: Not there. Justin Leonard, Tom Lehman, Fred Couples, Mike Weir, Stuart Cink, former New Orleans winner Lee Westwood, John Daly, all also are no-shows. New Orleans, which has loyally supported the tour for nearly 70 years, deserves better from the Tour's top performers. A special thanks, therefore, to Phil Mickelson, Retief Goosen, and David Toms, who are the world-ranked top-10 players who WILL tee it up this week.
How Cholo Can You Go, Ford?
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 1:28PM
We're so accustomed to watching commercials produced by a professional guild of arch pop craftsmen that the truly amateurish sticks out like a nail, even among the usual inanities and indignities.
Such is the case with the new mindboggling "Ride it like a Ford" campaign. Ford's great lowbrow hope is cheesed out and absurd -- even by its own standards. Full breakdown (no pun intended) here, plus priceless quotes from Americans who just aren't buying it (again, no pun, please).
Best of New Orleans
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 10:14AM
For months, now, the most consistently insightful journalism about post-Katrina New Orleans (and its evacuees elsewhere) has come from New York, from the magazine City Journal and its ace reporter (actually, Contributing Editor) Nicole Gelinas, who deserves a Pulitzer and other big prizes far more than do certain NYTimes revealers of national secrets and Wash Post wardrobe critics. Here, here and here, are three of the many excellent pieces Ms. Gelinas has done on the subject. Her conclusions, boiled down, are that the solutions to the problems all involve creative, small-government approaches. In most cases, the best solutions are exactly the opposite, or at least the converse, of what FEMA and the Bush administration have done. (Donald Powell is a disaster as reconstruction coordinator, by the way.) Of course, LA and N.O. state and local governments have been disastrous as well; there is plenty of blame to go around. Most importantly, Gelinas says, New Orleans needs federal help (and better local initiative as well) to get its crime problem under control. The good news is, she's full of good advice for how to do so.
Re: Mine Enemy's Friend
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 9:59AM
Whalid Phares has a great translation of the bin Laden statement here. Everyone should read this carefully. He's even demanding a permanent seat for Islam on the UN Security Council. (Why bother? They have their protectors already in place.)
Re: Mine Enemy's Friend
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 9:45AM
Jed:
Wish I could attribute this better, but I heard it in the middle of the night on BBC. They interviewed a fellow from something like Council for Free Islam, who said Hamas was seething over UBL's latest "interference." "Hamas doesn't want anything to do with Osama bin Laden," he said. "They want their relationship with the west." Because they need their money.
Mine Enemy's Friend...
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 9:38AM
UBL's latest videotaped hate mail may be bad news for Hamas, the terrorists elected to government in the Palestinian territories. In it, bin Laden spews the usual threats and feeds the ideology that America's war on terrorists and the states that support them is a "Zionist-crusader war against Islam." But there's more.
Part of bin Laden's statement says, "the blockade which the West is imposing on the government of Hamas proves that there is a Zionist-crusader war on Islam." Two points fairly leap out from that one sentance:
ONE: bin Laden is equating Hamas -- a terrorist organization with the blood of thousands on its hands -- with Islam. Where are the moderate Islamic voices to condemn this? Or are they content to let his statement stand?
TWO: There have been many reliable reports that al-Qaeda is building operating bases in the Gaza Strip and possibly the West Bank as well. What will the Israelis do to root them out?
Last, and not least, how long will it be before the governments of Europe cave in and resume aid to the Palestinian government: the terrorists of Hamas?
The Boys Are Back
Posted by on 4.24.06 @ 9:27AM
Congress returns to town this week, so you can count on an assault on taxpayers' money and common sense.
And nothing captures Congressional nonsense better than Republican attempts to out-Democrat Democrats on gas prices. There's a populist demand to "do something," in spite of a spate of articles calmly explaining why the gas prices reflect lower supply and higher demand -- basic economics. Instead of explaining the facts and sticking to market principles, Bill Frist and Denny Hastert will reportedly request an investigation into higher gas prices.
The fact that Republicans won't even battle the government interference mentality is a disturbing sign of how bad things really are in Congress. Without any evidence of market manipulation, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are threatening windfall profits taxes (by this precedent, will Congress bail out oil companies when they're in the red?) and and sabre-rattling over large compensation packages. Typically, that means someone is doing their job, and shareholders are pleased with their performance. To Congress, that means a fine target for demonization.
Of course, Congress won't consider how the federal government drives up fuel prices: taxes and the ethanol mandate (as the Detroit News points out). Also, as George Allen argues in his stump speech, the various state regulations requiring different fuel formulas drive up the cost of production. Congressional action won't lower gas prices -- it'll just make sure the federal government gets a larger cut and passes the cost onto taxpayers through the pump.
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Facing Up to Darwin
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
