Rick's Cafe Americain

The Last Post (sort of)

2003-12-07T03:42:00.000-05:00

After barely a month of blogging, we are moving to snazzier digs. Please join us at www.rickblaine.com.

Powerful ad, but who's this Kucinich guy?

2003-12-05T13:02:00.000-05:00

http://www.kucinich.us/dk.html

Why do the Iraqis consistently get better treatment than us?

2003-12-05T12:55:00.000-05:00

The New York Times reports that Bush said that "the future of the Iraqi people should not be mortgaged to the enormous burden of debt incurred to enrich Saddam Hussein's regime."

Bush then directed his comments at the Iraqi people themselves: "Trust me. The people of the United States will soon learn what it is like to be mortaged to the enormous burden incurred to enrich my regime. You don't want that."

Howard Dean replaced by Republican Pod Person

2003-12-05T12:50:00.000-05:00

Seriously, what the hell does he think he's doing? This is bad. Very bad.

Not so brave without his Army tracksuit and military escort, is he?

2003-12-05T12:10:00.000-05:00

According to a New York Times news analysis this morning, "President Bush had little choice on Thursday when he reversed himself and lifted the tariffs on imported steel that he imposed last year." So did he travel to a steel mill to break the news in person, look the steel workers in the eye and explain why he was forced to reverse the tariffs he had promised would last at least three years? Nope. Probably wouldn't have gotten quite the same reception he got in Iraq, though. Did he at least make a public statement to those who feel betrayed by him? Well . . . sort of:

"These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose, and as a result of changed economic circumstances, it is time to lift them," the president said in a statement on Thursday read by his spokesman.

Let me run that for you again in case you missed it. He had his spokesman read his statement for him. Here's a man who has made a point of telling us how, when he meets with foreign leaders like Putin, Sharon, and Abbas, he "look[s them] in the eye". Can't he summon the same respect or courage for his own constituents?

Henry Schwarzschild's Letter of Resignation from Sh'ma

2003-12-05T06:30:00.000-05:00

Henry Schwarzschild was a German Jew who came to the United States in 1939 and devoted his life to the protection of liberty. Reprinted here, for your consideration, is his letter of resignation from the journal Sh'ma in 1982:

This is my resignation from the Editorial Advisory Board of Sh'ma.

The contributions from me that you have published over the years have been few in number and less than earth-shaking in import, and you are therefore not deprived of a great editorial asset. In any case, my resignation has almost nothing to do with my relationship to Sh'ma as such. It is the consequence of a very much superordinated reorientation by me of my relationship to the Jewish community in the largest sense. Let me explain as best I can.

For a generation now, I have been deeply troubled by the chauvinistic assumptions and repressive effects of Israeli nationalism. I have experienced the War on Lebanon of the past few weeks as a turning point in Jewish history and consciousness exceeded in importance only by the End of the Second Commonwealth and the Holocaust. I have resisted the interference for over thirty years, but the War on Lebanon has now made clear to me that the resumption of political power by the Jewish people after two thousand years of diaspora has been a tragedy of historical dimensions. The State of Israel has demanded recognition a the modern political incarnation of the Jewish people. To grant that is to betray the Jewish tradition.

The State of Israel and its supporters have probably been right all along in arguing that political power comes at the price of the normal detritus of the nation state, such as Jewish criminals, prostitutes, and generals. They may also be right in asserting that the War on Lebanon is the sort of thing a Jewish state has to do to survive. I am not disposed to await the outcome of debates by politicians and theologians on whether the threat from the Palestine Liberation Organization was sufficiently clear and present to justify the killing of so many Lebanese and Palestinian men, women, and children, or only so many. I will not avoid an unambiguous response to the Israeli army's turning of West Beirut into another Warsaw ghetto.

I now conclude and avow that the price of a Jewish state is, to me, Jewishly unacceptable and that the existence of this (or any similar) Jewish ethnic religious nation state is a Jewish, i.e. a human and moral, disaster and violates every remaining value for which Judaism and Jews might exist in history. The lethal military triumphalism and corrosive racism that inheres in the State and in its supporters (both there and here) are profoundly abhorrent to me. So is the message that now goes forth to the nations of the world that the Jewish people claim the right to impose a holocaust on others in order to preserve its State.

For several decades, I have supported those minority forces in and for the State that wanted to salvage the values of peace and social justice that the Jewish tradition commands. The "blitzkrieg" in Lebanon, terrifying and Teutonic in its ruthlessness, shows how vain those hopes have been.

I now renounce the State of Israel, disavow any political connection or emotional obligation to it, and declare myself its enemy. I retain, of course, the same deep concern for its inhabitants, Jewish, Arab, and other, that I hold for all humankind.

I remain a member of the Jewish people -- indeed, I have no other inner identity. But the State of Israel has now also triumphed over the Jewish people and its history, for the time being at least. I deem it possible that the State, morally bankrupted and mortally endangered by its victories, will prove essential to the survival of the Jewish people and that it may likely take the Jewish people with it to eventual extinction. Yet I believe that the death of the Jewish people would not be inherently more tragic than the death of the Palestinian people that Israel and its supporters evidently seek or at least accept as the cost of the "security" of the State of Israel. The price of the millennial survival of the Jewish people has been high; I did not think the point was to make others pay it. That moral scandal intolerably assaults the accumulated values of Jewish history and tradition.

If those be the places where the State of Israel chooses to stand, I cannot stand with it. I therefore resign all connections with Jewish political and public institutions that will not radically oppose the State and its claim to Jewish legitimacy. Sh'ma is one of those.

Reprinted in "What We've Always Known: A Century's Sample of Dissenting Voices" by Marilyn Kleinberg Neimark, which is part of a collection of writings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict entitled Wrestling with Zion, Tony Kushner & Alisa Solomon, eds. (2003)

John Wayne and George W. Bush

2003-12-04T16:11:00.000-05:00

Dawn has a terrific post about John Wayne and her own father. Having read the Noonan article she refers to, I had my own reaction:

I've long been a fan of Westerns, but I never much liked old Marion (I've always preferred Eastwood's work in that genre). The reason for that is that Wayne always played cartoonish "macho" characters who lived in an absurdly (and often literally) black-and-white world. I was never able to identify with or admire Wayne's characters, and they were usually too caricatured to enjoy. One exception, however, is John Ford's film "The Searchers".

In "The Searchers", Wayne plays the same honor-bound macho guy he usually played. This incarnation is named Ethan Edwards. At the start of the film, Ethan's family is attacked by marauding "savages", and Ethan sets off on a years-long journey to hunt down the perpetrators. Along the way, he is the epitomy of Noonan's "manly man": he never wavers in his convictions, never gives up, refuses to turn back, or to depart from his "code of honor". These are apparently the characteristics valued most highly by women like Noonan and men like George W. Bush. Like Dubya, Ethan tends to see things in terms of black and white, right and wrong, human and savage.

As the search continues, however, Ford and Wayne show us the other faces of "honor": fanaticism, obsession, paranoia, racism, senseless violence, and self-destruction. When Ethan discovers that his niece has been kidnapped but is not dead, he resolves to find her -- and then kill her, as his code demands, for she has been "contaminated" by the "savages" she has been living with. The final shot is a classic, and is a poignant depiction of how "men" like those Wayne often portrayed -- "manly" men who have no truck with ambiguity, compromise or change -- have no place in the modern world.

In "The Searchers", Ford gives the lie to the myth of the American Western and deconstructs the "man of honor" -- who never really existed as such, except on the silver screen. Until intelligent, educated people like Peggy Noonan and George W. Bush can divorce themselves from obsolete and dangerous manichaeist notions of "honor" and "evil", or until the electorate can cure its dependence on mythology and hero-worship, we will be led down the same path that Ethan Edwards walked in "The Searchers".

As an aside, I am hardly a John Wayne scholar, but I think I've seen enough of his movies to say, with some confidence, that most of the men he played, the kind of man Noonan gets all trembly over, would probably have decked her long before that rambling, sycophantic, desparate paean to phantoms of lost machismo had hit its stride.

Spread the love. Make the peace.

2003-12-03T17:26:00.000-05:00

In the interests of peace in the blogosphere, I provide this link to Kashei, which links to a fantastic piece that appears to have run in The Guardian on a day that the whole editorial staff was on a sick-out.

Now I understand the nickname for Richard

2003-12-03T16:52:00.000-05:00

Thanks again to Daniel Radosh, for pointing me to this spectacular photo.

I doubt he will ever win a national election, but now I get why Dick Gephardt is popular at home.

Poll Results

2003-12-03T15:12:00.000-05:00

The results are in:

Kashei: Rich, not stupid. (unanimous)

Rick: Boring and uninteresting. (contested)

EPA's spirit of "collaboration" means at least three extra years of poisoned babies

2003-12-03T10:43:00.000-05:00

Mike Leavitt, EPA's new administrator, made his first public statement since he took the job yesterday. It was a bland speech, somewhat rambling, peppered with dull anecdotes as strained vehicles for palliative sound bites intended to appeal to both sides of the environmental debate. But one thing Leavitt said interested me. He spoke of the importance of "collaboration" in addressing environmental issues. But, he assured his audience "[c]ollaboration is not code for compromise. It is the pursuit of what's possible checked only by the realities of what is workable."

Well, that's a nice sound bite, no question. But is it true? The proof, as they say, is in the policy, and this EPA's new proposal on mercury control is a clear example of compromise.

Perhaps it is unfair to blame the new administrator, barely a month into his job, for policies that may have been in the works since before he has been at the job. Then again, he hardly distanced himself from those policies. To the contrary, he took a classically Bush-ian approach: he touted what is essentially a fundamental step backward in environmental regulation as progress. Leavitt announced that his EPA would "move forward with the first-ever regulations addressing mercury emissions from power plants". What he didn't say was that the Bush administration has radically re-written regulations that would otherwise have gone into effect in two weeks, and in a way that smacks of "collaboration" with the power plants.

Leavitt mentioned technology several times in his speech. "More. Better. Faster. Newer. That's the tune you will hear from me," he crowed. That may be the tune, but the dance is "Not too much. Not too Fast. Better for the Industry." The existing plan called for mercury reduction using "maximum achievable technology". The new plan calls instead for a more flexible, cap-and-trade system, under which power plants would be assigned "points", which they could buy and sell, allowing them to pollute more or less depending on the number of points they had. The cap-and-trade system is a viable method of environmental regulation -- it has been successful in combatting acid rain, for example. However, even environmentalists who have supported cap-and-trade for other pollutants say that it is a dangerous approach for mercury, because of its extreme toxicity.

Coal-fired power plants are the nation's largest source of unregulated airborne mercury pollution, sending an estimated 48 tons into the atmosphere annually. The airborne mercury quickly falls into our lakes, streams and rivers, thus entering the food chain and threatening public health, especially for children and pregnant women who eat tainted fish. The EPA itself has acknowledged that "mercury has been identified as the toxic of greatest concern among all the air toxics emitted from power plants," causing neurological and developmental defects, particularly in pregnant women and children.

Leavitt and others in the Bush administration will no doubt tell us that the new proposal is a grand step forward. Proponents of the plan will point out that it will reduce annual output of mercury pollution from power plants by nearly 30% by 2010. They probably won't mention that this would still leave 34 tons a year in emissions, eight tons more than the limit promised by the Bush administration as part of its "Clear Skies" initiative. Or that the plan set to go into effect on December 15 of this year, the plan Leavitt's EPA is about to replace, would have required pollution controls by 2007, not 2010.

The CDC recently found that 8 percent of women of childbearing age have mercury in their blood exceeding levels deemed safe by the EPA. Do you know more than 12 women who might become pregnant between 2007 and 2010? If so, you might ask if any of them is pleased with the "cooperation" between the EPA and the energy industry that has resulted in a giant step back from the rules that would have gone into effect two weeks from now. That new spirit of "cooperation" makes it far more likely that at least one of them will have a baby damaged by mercury poisoning.

Blog King

2003-12-02T18:24:00.000-05:00

And the Final Round begins...

The three Blogs left standing are:

Adrian Warnock

eTALKINGHEAD

and

Evangelical Outpost

Here is the Challenge Question this week from King of Fools:

You are given the opportunity to secretly interview Saddam Hussein. Compose 5 questions that you would ask the recently deposed Iraqi dictator.

Also speaking of awards Wizbang, one of our permanant judges, has started the 2003 Weblog Awards at his site! Check it out!

New Poll

2003-12-02T15:50:00.000-05:00

In light of Kashei's refusal to answer my questions because I have not earned her respect (see post below), I'm asking visitors to Rick's Cafe to answer at least one: Is Kashei rich, stupid, or both? You may wish to visit her weblog, ~~Alarming News~~ Spot On, to inform your response before voting.

Editor's Note: I (Rick) got the name of Kashei's site wrong. it has been corrected.

Bush supporters continue to elevate the discourse

2003-12-02T15:23:00.000-05:00

I'd like to share with you, loyal readers, a little exchange that occured in the comments section over at Clareified.

The always delightful Dawn posted an impassioned plea for a return to objective journalism in the wake of the President's recent "secret" visit to the Baghdad airport (by "objective", she apparently means "doesn't intentionally lie to the at the request of the government" -- ridiculously high standards, if you ask me). In response to a comment suggesting that the American people had paid an awful lot of money for the President to have a photo-op, one of Dawn's frequent readers suggested that most people in this country don't think about "politics" (i.e., the cost of the president's actions), but rather focus on "real stuff" like "car payments and kids and school". She further opined, however, that the Baghdad photo-op "changed some opinions . . . from not caring to admiring."

I took issue with that, as it seemed that Kashei (an ardent Bush-lover) was implicitly conceding that the visit was a bit of costly fluff that had the intended effect of duping the ignorant masses into admiring Bush (a cowardly draft-dodger) for no good reason. So I responded (you can read the whole thing here):

Kashei: Do you count yourself among the ignorant unwashed who ignore Shrub's damaging policies and actions and just think he's "cool" because he likes to dress up in military costumes and pretend to be a part of an institution and a country he turned his back on years ago? Because every once in a while it sounds like you might be aware of how pernicious this administration is, and I can only conclude that you just don't give a shit. Which leads me to conclude that you are either rich or stupid (or some combination thereof). If you're going to give yourself over to hero-worship, there are certainly better candidates.

Apparently, I struck a nerve, because Kashei, always eloquent, outdid herself. Without actually making any arguments or addressing my concerns (I raised more issues and asked more questions in a subsequent comment (actually 3 due to character limitations)), she called me a "retard", "crazy", "uninteresting", and "a stereotype", called my arguments "intellectually lazy" and "boring", and suggested that I "have no idea what real people are like", and "should really get out more". When I pointed out that she hadn't actually responded to any of the issues I'd raised she played her trump card: "I'm just not so into arguing with people I can't respect," she wrote.

Can't argue with that.

Bush Responds to McCain Attack

2003-12-02T11:53:00.000-05:00

CNN reported this weekend that "Leading Republican Sen. John McCain Sunday berated fellow lawmakers for 'spending money like a drunken sailor' and said President Bush was also to blame for pushing the nation toward higher interest rates and inflation."

Bush responded to that criticism at a photo op at Dynamic Metal Treating in Canton, Michigan yesterday. "Now, people like Johnny McCain are saying that my administration is spending money 'like a drunken sailor'. Well, to people who would attack the compassion of a government willing to drug this nation's old folks, I say this: I don't know what a drunken sailor spends like, but I do know what a drunk, coked-up draft-dodger spends like, and let me tell you, Mr. McCain, drugs are expensive. More expensive than most of our parents and grandparents can afford. And you often have to go into some sketchy neighborhoods, where you wouldn't want your Momma going. So to those who would criticize our spending, I say, 'hey, it's not my money'. And I've got plenty of my own. And so does my Momma. Love ya, Momma."

Remembrance Forgotten

2003-12-01T13:16:00.000-05:00

In today's NY Times Maureen Dowd wrote a critique of the 8 designs for the World Trade Center Memorial that gave words to a sentiment I have been feeling since the first drafts of such designs were released, and far more eloquently than I could express. These "memorials" seem more interested in helping us forget than in aiding us to remember. The ephemeral lights, reflecting ponds, and expansive gardens that inhabit the dynamic artist renderings of the proposals reflect better the attitude of a day spa, Japanese garden or modern art exhibit, not the painful reality of the almost 3,000 dead in the most costly attack to ever touch American soil.

I would prefer a memorial in which I was forced to face the reality of 9/11 undiluted by smokes and mirrors. I would weep as I confronted the reality of 2,819 deaths and I would want to be forced to consider the geo-political situation that led to a group of people sinking to the lowest depths possible in order to conduct an attack against America’s innocent population. Then I would step outside the memorial, into a world where our government was learning from the attacks and taking a more vested interest in world politics, and the colossal importance of a growing population of poor, disenfranchised, and angry world citizens. A growing population of ill-contents, with nothing to lose, who are easily manipulated to enter the ranks of an army of evil. A country that was exerting its overwhelming power to build alliances and coalitions. A country committed to spreading wealth, prosperity and freedom throughout the world, not just making the rich richer at other's expense. I would exit the memorial into such a world and then I would wipe my tears away, and I would smile, because I would know that despite the tragic events of 9/11, I am living in a country where from the ashes of tragedy comes a vision of new hope and a better world.

Instead these eight proposals seem resigned to providing exactly the opposite. Instead of a weighty reminder of tragic time, these memorials offer an airy refuge, a fantasy of light and color. Gardens and reflecting pools where we can clear our minds and forget our worries, if only for a moment, before we must return to the reality of crumbling alliances, unilateral pre-emption and Republican "compassion".

Perhaps then, I am saddened to say, these designs are exactly right for the world in which we live. Still, I hope for the future.

Congratulations!

2003-12-01T11:32:00.000-05:00

I would like to congratulate Donald Rumsfeld on his "Foot in Mouth" award and also Arnold Schwarzenegger on receiving the runner up nominee. Maybe next year George.

And I didn't do so good in High School

2003-12-01T10:15:00.000-05:00

I caught a great show last night. One that I suggest everyone out there go catch while it can still be caught. "We're All Dead" is a series of brilliant parodies of some of the classics. Oedipus Rex, Kafka's Metamorphoses and Hamlet are performed as hysterical musicals. The plays would be worth seeing even by people unfamiliar with the underlying works, but the more familiar you are with the originals, the better. (Ask Rick. He'll tell you the same.)

So here is the challenge: Do you have a sense of humor? A single literary bone in your body? An evening to kill? A residence in the New York City area? Get tickets to We're All Dead here.

The playwright's blog is worth a read also.

New Weblog Showcase

2003-11-30T22:35:00.000-05:00

From The Truth Laid Bear's New Webblog Showcase, a particularly fine crop this week. Here are my votes:

Damage: Global Warming Catastrophe - New Evidence -- great site, scary news.

BaySense: About BaySense (first post) -- It's always a pleasure to see a blogger willing to be objective about a highly political issue.

Venturpreneur: The Fiduciary Duty of Good Faith -- what can I say, I'm a lawyer, so I found this interesting.

Psyche's Knot: Black & Decker® - You're Scaring Me! -- very funny.

Counterfactually Speaking: An open letter to Michael Parenti -- thoughtful, well-written.

Joe's Thoughts: Politics Trumps Morals -- damn straight!

Because Miracle Whip was already "the next mayo"

2003-11-30T12:47:00.000-05:00

As I recently emailed to Bill Simmons, ESPN.com's The Sports Guy, (don't want to be accused of ripping off my own stuff), this week's ESPNMag may have the best/worst quote in the history of sports journalism.

Cincinnati high school phenom-in-the-making OJ Mayo says: "Am I the next LeBron? I hope so, but I also want to be the next OJ. I'll do whatever it takes."

The article also says that "girls camp out at his locker". I suggest that they watch their back.

I apologize that there is no link to the article, but ESPNMag appears to have a two week lag for putting issues online. It would be disappointing anyway. Despite that quote, Mayo seems to be a very hard-working and personable kid. Alas, despite his "Juice Monster" tattoo, he doesn't have the juice to review his own press pre-publication like Arnold. (A must-read about Ahnuld, if you didn't read it during the recall campaign. This copy of the article isn't the easiest read, but the best that I could find. Thanks to radosh.net for the link. You get a bonus for clicking through to the permanent source of the borrowed link.)

Don't say I didn't warn you

2003-11-29T23:47:00.000-05:00

*WARNING* Tedious discussion of Ivy League sports. *WARNING*

Cornell hockey is one of those things that is either your whole life or a pair of words that you didn't even know form an important phrase. It is my life. And last year, when Cornell had its best season since the early 70's, life was good.

Big Red hockey is the single greatest sporting experience in the world, and I say that without reservation or fear of contradiction. Lynah Rink is to hockey what Cameron Indoor Stadium is to basketball: smart, passionate, obnoxious fans. But better, because we aren't mugging for the ESPN cameras. We are devoted in relative obscurity. Lynah is consistently praised as among the toughest places to play, and visiting teams always give props to the Lynah Faithful on their way out of town. Even better, the Faithful travel. All Cornell road games are an occassion to try and shout down the home crowd, and we often do. Harvard changed its ticket sales policy to prevent their home game against Cornell this season from becoming "Lynah East" again. And now Cornell is having all of their home games broadcast over the internet by i2sports, so I will be able to see them more this year than any since I finished grad school in '93.

The streaming broadcast is a huge improvement over just a few years ago when I had a dial-up connection and couldn't even listen to the audio broadcasts without constant rebuffering. . On the other hand, those old audio broadcasts were free. And there was briefly a free video webcast of the home games. Now there is no free anything through Cornell. The radio broadcasts are part of an omnibus college sports service that just isn't worth the price (most opponents stream their own audio feeds for free). But at only $60/season or (what I do) $5/game, the webcasts are really a bargain. In theory.

Last year was so transcendent, this year was bound to be a letdown. Still... we played Mercyhurst tonight, and didn't win. After last season, that is just inconceivable. The final score was 3-3. After Cornell gave up the game-tying goal with 5 seconds left. That kind of thing hurts. Especially because in the vaunted Lynah Rink, Cornell is now 0-2-3 for the year, and we haven't played a particularly difficult schedule. Cornell's freshman goalie is (to my eyes) struggling and the Cornell O gets plenty of chances, but isn't able to bury the puck. *Sigh*

I am confident this will change. And it better change soon, because next weekend Brown (having a surprisingly great start) and the hated Harvard (playing well below their ability) come to Ithaca. I really wish I could be there. At least this year I get to watch from home.

I didn't put up anything for Thanksgiving, so here it is: Thanks, i2sports.

Seamless communication

2003-11-28T19:59:00.000-05:00

Jacob Weisberg and William Saletan discuss the latest campaign ad from the Bush campaign over at Slate. They hit on everything that is disgusting about the ad, but miss something that really seems obvious: There is no way that the tape of Bush speaking is the original unedited footage.

Bush can speak a few words in a row without trouble on occassion, but he doesn't do well with full thoughts. Even scripted full thoughts. The footage was almost certainly cut together to give the speech a continuity that it didn't have live. I am not referring to the snippets in the commercial that were from different parts of the speech, but to other parts which were made to seem like whole spoken sentences by putting up a graphics card to cover the audio splice. Please watch the ad and let me know if I am the crazy one. (Brother of Ugarte pointed me to the ad, so thanks to him.)

Let the Eagle Soar

2003-11-28T01:44:00.000-05:00

Just a little holiday reminder of who's running the Justice Department.

Ashcroft Sings.

As horrifying as that is, I still want him to quit his day job.

Blog King Update

2003-11-27T12:46:00.000-05:00

Apparently, I had an outdated link to Random Fate, which led me to deduct points for site design. Having been provided with the correct link, which leads to a much snazzier weblog, I hereby adjust Random Fate's Site Design score to 6.

I am a Geek Liaison

2003-11-26T16:28:00.000-05:00

You are 44% geek

You are a geek liaison, which means you go both ways. You can hang out with normal people or you can hang out with geeks which means you often have geeks as friends and/or have a job where you have to mediate between geeks and normal people. This is an important role and one of which you should be proud. In fact, you can make a good deal of money as a translator.

Normal: Tell our geek we need him to work this weekend.

You [to Geek]: We need more than that, Scotty. You'll have to stay until you can squeeze more outta them engines!

Geek [to You]: I'm givin' her all she's got, Captain, but we need more dilithium crystals!

You [to Normal]: He wants to know if he gets overtime.

Take the Polygeek Quiz at Thudfactor.com

Thanks to Random Fate for the link.

Rick's Ruling

2003-11-26T15:50:00.000-05:00

One of my newer and more enjoyable roles is as a Permanent Judge for Patriot Paradox's King of Blogs Tournament. Below are my ratings for each of the six entries in the three prescribed categories. After all judges' votes are tallied, three of the six will move on to next week's final round. The winner of that round will be the defending champion until he or she is de-throned. Here's how I scored them:

Site Design (15%): Most of the entries were pretty standard. I awarded 5 points for a basic template, and you could win or lose points for departures from the template, depending on whether I thought it added or detracted from your site.

Host's Challenge (25%): This week's Challenge was: "Why should you be the first King of the Blog?". The answers were pretty similar here, with most people opting to make humorous appeals to bribery (in terms of hits or dollars) or patriotism. None of the entries here really stood out, but all were well-written and at least somewhat clever. Anger Management did not submit an entry in this category.

Main Entry (60%): I thought all of the entries were above average for the blogosphere. Because each entry was completely different, it was much harder to compare in this category, and this is obviously the most subjective area. I try to explain what I liked (or didn't) about each piece below.

Adrian Warnock: Stuck in the Middle

Site Design: 4 (lots of blank space at the top, and generally too text heavy)
Host's Challenge: 6
Main Entry: 7 (Thoughtful, heavily linked -- in a good way -- and provides an interesting perspective)

Anger Management: Finally, I'm Funny

Site Design: 6 (great title graphic)
Host's Challenge: None
Main Entry: 6 (Not as funny as it was long and rambling, but some moments of levity)

Clarified: Express Delivery

Site Design: 5
Host's Challenge: 6
Main Entry: 8 (clever premise well executed)

eTALKINGHEAD: Conservatives Debate Medicare

Site Design: 7 (the most sophisticated-looking site; bit too much blank space on the right, at least in IE6)
Host's Challenge: 6
Main Entry: 7 (measured tone and solid writing on a complex and important issue had me looking for a concrete proposal/position, which I did not find)

Evangelical Outpost: How to Handle a Divorce

Site Design: 5
Host's Challenge: 7 (extra points for being the only entry to refer to content as a reason for deserving the Crown)
Main Entry: 10 (Deals with a serious topic in a hilarious yet helpful way. Brilliant.)

Random Fate: It's Our Government, Let's Take it Back

Site Design: 4 (some broken links and clutter on the right hand side, color-changing scheme is cute, but some schemes make the page hard to read)
Host's Challenge: 7 (points for honesty, and for amusing use of testimonials)
Main Entry: 7 (A good, thoughtful piece, well-written)

Special recognition (but no extra points) goes to Adrian Warnock, whose campaign of self-promotion bordered on spamming.

Weak!

2003-11-26T11:37:00.000-05:00

Is it just me, or is The Onion recycling old stories? I distinctly remember seeing this one a while back, although I couldn't find it in the archives today.

I'm sure there are plenty of bloggers (including some on the staff at Rick's) who would be happy to contribute if The Onion finds itself short on quality pieces.

She's Back -- Across the River

2003-11-26T10:34:00.000-05:00

A Marine's Girl is back online, and she's not alone! Rejoin her, along with some friends, at Across the River -- now with comments!

Welcome back, Girl!

After years of practicing his craft, he has become a Master

2003-11-26T00:39:00.000-05:00

They were giving out free packets of Chock full o'Nuts [capitalization scheme in original] coffee grounds outside of my brother's office today, so he took a packet and brought it home. I thank him for pointing out to me the self-promotion on the back of the packet. The message from "Your friends at Chock full o'Nuts" says:

"Our blendmaster has selected 100% Arabica coffee beans and roasted them to perfection to give you the full-flavored taste you want without the bitterness you don't."

If he really does deliver full-flavored taste without the awful bitterness that he rightfully guesses that I don't want, I salute him. And because he does it by roasting the beans, I raise my glass to the roastmaster. But he is using only one kind of bean. It may be the greatest bean ever grown. It is, as you now know, full-flavored without being bitter. (Incidentally, it is also the bean of choice at coffee mecca McDonald's.)

But if the man is only using one bean, isn't "blendmaster" a touch exaggerated?

Sometimes getting a reminder is worthwhile

2003-11-25T16:52:00.000-05:00

I have always run in rather liberal circles, but as the circles I run in get more liberal I feel more conservative. While some of this is because on some issues I am more conservative (most environmental policy, notably) mostly it is because (I like to think) that I am uncomfortable with many of the shibboleths of the 2003 liberal.

Racism, for example, is something that I abhor, but something that I see a lot less of around me than many of me peers. For instance, if we gloss over everything Rush Limbaugh said before he got a job at ESPN, I don't think that there was anything particularly racist about what he said. I know that I, for one, root for black quarterbacks - both consciously and subconsciously - because I know, with every fiber of my being, that there is no reason that African-Americans are any less able to play quarterback than white folks. (I don't know that I can say the same for my fellow lansmen with much confidence, but it is nice to have some examples.) And while Gregg Easterbrook said something quite stupid, I think his apology was honest and sincere, and I am glad he is back to writing about football.

That said, it is more than a little annoying to begin telling a story about a crime, or anything bad really, to be interrupted with "Black?" Now this might appear to undermine my claim to run in liberal circles, but I make no claims about the politics of acquaintances or distant relations or the friends of relations, all of whom also end up crossing my path. Which brings me to what happened today at work. (That was certainly a lot of throat-clearing.)

I was riding the elevator when someone expressed shock and disappointment over what happened to Alonzo Mourning, without being specific. After a woman on the elevator asked who Mourning was, and I told her, her face got all scrunched up and she asked "What now?" It is certainly possible that she was reacting to the generic athlete-as-criminal, and perhaps I am just projecting racist thoughts. And perhaps it is because I subconsciously also believe that basketball player = black = likely criminal, but I don't think so. There is still work to be done.

Anyway, the next part doesn't revolve around racism, just callousness.

When she found out that he needs a kidney transplant, rather than revising her revulsion to sympathy or pity or any of a range of emotions, she chose dismissal. "Oh, that's not such a big deal." Amazing. I guess now that those kidney farmers are pumping out kidneys for all blood types and all body types (I suspect that 6' 9" is a complicating factor in finding a match) he shouldn't worry at all.

In any event, the whole elevator ride ended rather strangely. She then said "What about Kobe Bryant?" This led to an exchange in which a man on the elevator kept saying "stupid" and she kept replying "set up". And then the man explained why it was stupid. As the elevator doors closed behind me, he was telling her that with all of Kobe's money, he should have flown in a hooker.

Smoke Weed. Make Babies.

2003-11-25T16:34:00.000-05:00

From NPR News:

"Researchers discover that marijuana-like compounds produced by the body can help regulate the growth of mouse embryos. Scientists believe the findings could have implications for fertility research in humans."

Dr. Sudhansu K. Dey discovered this phenomenon this week after a period of "off and on" research even after friends of the scientist dismissed it as "another one of Sudy's crazy ideas". Excited by his success Dr. Dey has announced he also plans on researching the effects of Pink Floyd, and ordering from Dominoes, on mouse fertility. Mr. Dey is particularly excited about a new avenue of mouse research he plans on pursuing, but so far has been fairly quiet about the details. Dr. Dey has told the press, however, that this new project will not be ready for research until at least December 17 to coincide with the "9 hour triple screening of Lord of the Rings".

Dr. Dey's previous research projects have included:

"Why we sound better in the shower" and "The effects of expensive meals on my stomach"

A Marine's Girl Update

2003-11-25T15:32:00.000-05:00

After her blog mysteriously "disappeared" this weekend (blogspot denies having taken it down, but the Girl herself didn't do it either), the Girl is taking a short hiatus from blogging before coming back with whole new site. Details and links to follow.

Why Dubya wasn't lying

2003-11-25T12:59:00.000-05:00

Before you get all upset by the latest news showing that Bush continues to lie to the American people and to the world, please consider why some of his recent statements were not, as they now appear to be, lies:

What he said: "I've noticed that the tradition of free speech -- exercised with enthusiasm -- (laughter) -- is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well." (Bush, at Whitehall Palace in London on November 19, 2003).

Why it isn't a lie: The television network the Iraqi Governing Council just shut down in Iraq is headquartered in the city of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.

*****

What he said: "I think we have over 130,000 now, Iraqis, in one kind of uniform or another" (Bush, in an interview with Al-Sharq al-Awsat on November 21, 2003)

Why it isn't a lie: Well, there's enough equivocation in that one that it almost has to be true in one form or another. And, although "the Iraqi police and guards who make up most of the nation's forces have little to no training, only light weapons, virtually no communications or heavy military equipment, and no demonstrated expertise or will to take on the insurgents", and many "sympathize with the insurgents fighting to rid Iraq of U.S. troops", they are, in fact, wearing uniforms. Of one kind or another.

*****

What he said: "As part of our coalition's efforts to build a stable and secure Iraq, we are working to rebuild Iraq's schools, to get the teachers back to work and to make sure Iraqi children have the supplies they need." (Bush, during a radio address on October 13, 2003)

Why it isn't a lie: The 28,000 Iraqi teachers Paul Bremer just fired were . . . um . . . evil.

King of Blogs tournament: First Round Entries

2003-11-25T12:24:00.000-05:00

The following noble and worthy warriors have entered the first-ever round of the King of Blogs Tournament. Only three will advance to the next round in one week's time. Only one will be named King of Blogs.

Adrian Warnock: Stuck in the Middle

Anger Management: Finally, I'm Funny

Clarified: Express Delivery

eTALKINGHEAD: Conservatives Debate Medicare

Evangelical Outpost: How to Handle a Divorce

Random Fate: It's Our Government, Let's Take it Back

"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"

2003-11-25T11:24:00.000-05:00

David Brooks has a new column today entitled "Refuting the Cynics", in which he throws a lot of unsupported "facts" and "statistics" at his readers in an apparent attempt to support his call for "optimism" and "gratitude". I'm all for optimism and gratitude, but Brooks hardly makes the case for either. A large part of his argument seems to be our country's "vitality" (whatever that means), which he "proves" by comparing the U.S. and Europe, without citing his sources for the numbers he uses:

Economically, the comparisons [between the U.S. and Europe] are trickier, but here too there is divergence. The gap between American and European G.D.P. per capita has widened over the past two decades, and at the moment American productivity rates are surging roughly 5 percent a year.
The biggest difference is that over the past two decades the United States has absorbed roughly 20 million immigrants. This influx of people has led, in the short term, to widening inequality and higher welfare costs as the immigrants are absorbed, but it also means that the U.S. will be, through our lifetimes, young, ambitious and energetic.

Actually, the most significant indicator of why many like myself are neither terribly optimistic nor grateful to our leaders of the past two decades is the ever-increasing disparity of wealth within our own country:

In 1998, the bottom 40% of the U.S. population had only 0.2% of the wealth, while the top 1% had 38.1% of the wealth and over 70% of our nation's wealth was concentrated in the top 20% of the population.

The change in average household net worth between 1983 and 1998 shows that the bottom 40% saw a 76.3% decrease in net worth, while the top 1% saw a 42.2% increase.

Between 1979 and 2001, family income increased an average of 7% for the bottom 40%, and 81% for the top 5%. Do those numbers after taxes, and you see an 11% increase in the bottom 40%, and a 201% increase in the top 1%.

In 1999, the average CEO in the U.S. made 475 times what the average worker made. Compare that with 42 times as much in 1980.

As these data show, the rich have gotten progressively richer at the expense of the poor since the early 1980's. Brooks calls this period the "Great Rejuvenation", and claims that the "evidence" (whatever it may be -- Brooks certainly doesn't offer any) "rebukes those gloomy liberals who for two decades have been predicting that the center-right governance of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush would lead to disaster." I suppose it depends on your definition of disaster -- and your income bracket.

Then, Brooks cites a projection that " in the year 2050 the median age in the United States will be 35. The median age in Europe will be 52. The implications of that are enormous." They sure are. Given that over 70% of householders under 35 and over 30% of householders between 35 and 44 have a net worth of less than $10,000, this means a hell of a lot of poor young folk. Poor but, perhaps, "vital".

I don't have time right now to do Brooks' work for him by trying to find the other "statistics" he uses (without references) and figure out whether they, too, are misleading, but I want to take issue with one more thing. Without any explanation or support whatsoever, Brooks claims that "The air is cleaner. The water is cleaner and we are using less of it." Really? I don't know if that is true or not (I highly doubt it, and Brooks's statement is too vague to analyze or refute), but if it is true, the current administration is doing it's damndest to change that (see, e.g., here and here).

Brooks doesn't identify the "cynics" he is refuting, nor does he offer a single source for any of his conveniently vague assertions. If others are comforted by his unsupported claims and insistence that we should all feel grateful to the Great Right Fathers, well, good for you. I guess I'm just one of those "gloomy liberals" who "have a horribly distorted view of the state of this nation", but I prefer to base my cynicism, my horribly distorted views, and my refutations, on facts.

Theft of Cobalt in Iraq Prompts Security Inquiry

2003-11-25T10:10:00.000-05:00

The New York Times reports that "American experts say cobalt could be used in the making of "dirty bombs" — cheap, improvised nuclear devices."

Thank goodness we got rid of that regime under which deadly weapons could fall into the wrong hands!

U.S. Acquiesces to Allies on New Iran Nuclear Resolution

2003-11-25T09:09:00.000-05:00

I'm glad to see that -- for now -- cooler heads seem to be prevailing at the White House with respect to Iran. In many ways, the Iran situation closely parallels the Iraq situation pre-invasion. This time, however, America seems more willing to explore options short of full-scale war. Whether this is because the administration has learned from its failures in Iraq, because we haven't got the military resources to do this in three countries at once, or because the administration is waiting to play the cowboy card until closer to the election, I cannot say. But I am hopeful that Iran may serve as an example of a better way to deal with "rogue nations", and a sign that the administration is learning from past mistakes.

I think he's tapped into something here

2003-11-25T00:10:00.000-05:00

Found a new blog today while reminiscing in the "Insignificant Microbes" section of the Ecosystem: Big Boobs and Fire, a blog apparently dedicated to road-rage haiku. It's a niche market, for sure, but I rather liked this one:

Freeway Haiku
Learn to alternate
You don't have to fucking stop
It's just an on-ramp

I'm still not sure what all this has to do with big boobs and fire, but I'm willing to be patient.

NEW FEATURE: POLL

2003-11-25T00:01:00.000-05:00

Look over there. To the right. The other right. Yeah. Cool, huh? Go ahead, vote. Just once. Thanks.

Wankel me, baby.

2003-11-24T23:40:00.000-05:00

With the holidays just around the corner, here's what Rick wants:

Whew. If their throats had been cut, it might have indicated that we weren't being welcomed with open arms.

2003-11-24T23:34:00.000-05:00

Casualties: Revising Report, Army Denies Throats of 2 G.I.’s Were Cut

Am I allowed to laugh at this? I did, you know.

2003-11-24T21:30:00.000-05:00

How do you assess the brain damage in a case like this one?

It is tempting to think that the rest of the participants are going to miss the court hearing to attend the funeral following this tragic death.

Now more than ever

2003-11-24T14:03:00.000-05:00

If you question the administration, you are with Saddam.

Credit to Kausfiles, who gave credit to Taranto.

Gun Fun for Everyone

2003-11-24T13:51:00.000-05:00

In a desperate offensive from a failing organization, the NRA has switched tactics and are now test-piloting a new, more aggressive distortion of the second amendment. As of today, by a city ordinance passed 3-2 by the city council of Geuda Springs, Kansas, residents are required to keep at least one gun in the house-hold. Noncomplying residents would be fined 10 dollars.

Currently being reviewed by the council is a requirement to paint the gun "friendly green", always store it at knee level, and cover the stock in delicious chocolate.

Good Morning, Say Goodbye to your Freedom.

2003-11-24T12:02:00.000-05:00

Having failed to strip us of any remaining vestiges of freedom, when the proposed Patriot II act met with a public uproar earlier this year, Ashcroft is at it again, but this time he's learned his lesson, and plans to pass the bill without telling us. Ashcroft has insidiously placed the most controversial items in the proposed Patriot II act into an Intelligence Spending Bill. Incidentally "Intelligence spending bills are considered sensitive, so they are usually drafted in secret and approved without debate or public comment."

Time for you to choose your own adventure:

For those of you who want to face the reality of diminished freedoms go to page 39.

If instead you want to live in imagined safety behind the warm cloak of Bush propaganda go to page 54.

General Douchebaggery is in the House.

2003-11-24T11:53:00.000-05:00

See where the Alliance get their marching orders.

Dubya Rides Lies Again

2003-11-24T00:27:00.000-05:00

Shock and Awe comments on the return of Shock and Awe.

A Marine's Girl

2003-11-23T16:32:00.000-05:00

In the meantime, here are links to her archives, which are still accessible:

10/12/2003 - 10/18/2003

10/19/2003 - 10/25/2003

10/26/2003 - 11/01/2003

11/02/2003 - 11/08/2003

11/09/2003 - 11/15/2003

11/16/2003 - 11/22/2003

Where did she go?

2003-11-23T16:29:00.000-05:00

I was checking the links in my posts today when I discovered that A Marine's Girl seems to have disappeared from BlogSpot. Those of you familiar with her wonderful site know that A Marine's Girl (whose blog is/was subtitled "Insight on being the girl friend of a Marine in Iraq. Opinions of news items of the day, politics, and relationships") happened not to share the exact same view as our current administration. This recently got her into trouble with someone claiming to be a Marine Gunnery Sergeant, and it looked for a while like she might be forced to take down her site. Then, the mysterious and noble "Captain Frank" came to the rescue, saying that he would engage in an investigation of "Gunney"'s threats, and that the Corps was not out to get A Marine's Girl.

Well, I don't know what the story is at this moment, but it does look like A Marine's Girl has taken down (or been forced to take down) her site -- a site which provided a valuable glimpse into the life of a Marine in Iraq and his girlfriend here at home. Her site frequently informed and inspired me, and I imagine it was downright therapeutic for others who find themselves in similar situations. I hope that this is just a temporary setback, and that A Marine's Girl has not been shut down by overzealous nuts bent on silencing dissenting voices. Hers was one of the more intelligent, sensitive, helpful voices in my blogosphere, and if that voice has been silenced . . . well, I'll keep you posted on that. Let's hope those links are working soon.

Marketplace of Ideas, Indeed

2003-11-23T16:17:00.000-05:00

I discovered today that Rick's Cafe Americain is being traded on BlogShares, a fantasy stock market for weblogs. Good luck and thanks to venture blogger A Marine's Girl, Rick's largest (and, currently, only) shareholder.

Clarification

2003-11-23T14:49:00.000-05:00

I realize the title of my last post may have been unclear. What I meant to ask was "When is the War on Terror Going to focus on fighting terror." There is no question in my mind that the single most evident focus of the War on Terror so far has been to induce terror.

When is the War on Terror going to focus on Terror?

2003-11-23T12:34:00.000-05:00

OK, so a little recap on the War on Terror, on which Bush is apparently basing his re-election campaign:

Immediately after 9/11, the Bush Administration decided that maybe all that anti-terrorism, anti-bin Laden stuff the Clinton administration tried to get them to focus on was something they should start focusing on. So, in a remarkably short period of time, the Bush Administration put together and executed an efficient and effective plan -- to get bin Laden's family and other influential Saudis out of the country. Good move. It's not like it might have been helpful to have them around to ask questions about Osama, right?

Then, while ordinary citizens rallied in the face of what may have been the most devastating attack ever on U.S. soil, pulling together to help each other in any way they could, trying to follow the Administration's advice to try to get back to normal, some cynical opportunists took advantage of the cowardice and confusion that apparently had clouded the minds of most of our congresspersons, and pushed through a hastily put-together piece of legislature known as the USA PATRIOT Act, which carved away at the very freedoms that set us apart from regimes like those of Saddam or the Taliban.

Lest you think all our rights were trampled, however, fear not. John Ashcroft (who bullied Congress into passing the USA PATRIOT Act), took a firm stance on the Second Amendment rights of suspected 9/11 terrorists. In early December, 2001, Ashcroft's Justice Department blocked efforts by the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to check Justice's database to determine if any of the 1,200 individuals detained after the September 11 attacks had bought guns or had sought to do so.

The administration worked equally hard to hinder investigations of 9/11: The White House tried to stop the formation of the 9/11 commission; once the commission did get under way, the Bush administration took additional steps to hinder its progress, including limiting the amount of funds available to it; Cheney refused to disclose the records of his secret Energy Task Force; Bush redacted references to the Saudis in the comission's report.

But maybe the Bush administration was so unwilling to allow, fund, or cooperate with the 9/11 commission because they felt they should be devoting resources to fighting terrorists -- forward-looking stuff. Right? Real effective anti-terror stuff, like invading and occupying Iraq (please don't stick your neck out to ask if I'm pro-Saddam. The answer can be found here), prosecuting arson victims, high-school debaters and grade-school children, as well as employing the same tactics we used years ago against other evildoers.

Yes, that's right folks. Read the New York Times article and learn how the FBI has, no doubt using the wondrous tools provided by the USA PATRIOT Act, learned "how protesters have sometimes used 'training camps' to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas." My God, this has been going on right under our noses? But wait, there's more:

"Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues," the memorandum continued. It also noted that protesters may raise money to help pay for lawyers for those arrested.

Well, there you have it. It is now only a matter of time before we have al-Qaeda -- an anti-war group known for its effective use of civil disobedience (remember how they brought down the Twin Towers with that human chain?) -- right where we want them.

You despise me, don't you? Well, you will once you give it some thought.

2003-11-22T11:13:00.000-05:00

I thank Rick for the invitation to join the Cafe, and especially for the opportunity to be self-referential and self-indulgent to an audience of tens. And growing.

My postings are actually likely to be extremely self-indulgent, as I don't think I would make much of a warblogger. It isn't that I don't have opinions on the war. I do. They are very good opinions, in fact. I know they are good opinions because they are mine, and even though I hate myself, I fancy myself a pretty smart fellow. (By the way, the general contours of my opinion are: I was for the war at the beginning for all of the reasons Bush is pretending to be for the war now. This puts me in a curious intellectual position. But I am not asking you to reconcile my position for me. Read on.) I don't intend to blog about the war much because I just don't have the drive or the energy to do the research to back up my opinions. And if reading the blogs of others has taught me anything, it is that other bloggers and readers of blogs use a lot of links to support their opinions and I just don't care enough to do that. So I will keep most opinions that require sourcing and corroboration and in-depth analysis to myself.

Instead, I will probably be blogging about stuff that is of special concern to me. Some of it will be unadulterated hackery. Like when I spend way too much time dissecting that insipid "raised by wolves" Quizno's commercial. I hope to provide comedy genius, but will usually settle for comedy not-too-stupid.

But the really self-indulgent stuff will be about Cornell hockey and my burgeoning poker "career" and assorted crap like that. I'll try to keep it interesting.

More interesting than this, anyway.

Hackery? You want hackery?

2003-11-21T18:55:00.000-05:00

I am not all that versed in the world of blogdom, so I can only assume this was already typed by thousands of other monkeys on their own typewriters, but...

The Blogger spellcheck flags "blog" and "blogger." What's up with that!

Note the effective use of HTML. Comedy gold, man. Comedy gold.

Please Welcome Sam and Ugarte to Rick's

2003-11-21T16:55:00.000-05:00

You may have noticed that the post below was made by "Sam", and not by "Rick". Rick's Cafe Americain is pleased to welcome two new bloggers to the Cafe: Sam and Ugarte. Hopefully, you'll be reading a lot of their posts in the weeks and months to come, and each will bring his own distinctive voice to Rick's.

Drink up!

BUSH FIGHTS HARMFUL ANTI-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC NEGATIVISM WITH PRO-AMERICAN REPUBLICAN NEGATIVISM

2003-11-21T16:46:00.000-05:00

Bush's first television campaign ad is scheduled to appear on television this week and the New York Times reports it will "portray Mr. Bush as fighting terrorism while his potential challengers try to undermine him with their sniping." In Mr. Bush's defense it is only fair to note that this potentially negative-minded ad is being run not by the president's campaign committee, but instead is sponsored by the fiercely independent Republican National Committee, thereby keeping Mr. Bush hands as clean as his Energy Policy Act .

Bush and his media team have turned the fight against terrorism into one of the cornerstones of his re-election campaign. This is ideal for a president who loathes the color gray, as the fight against terrorism is easily (if incorrectly) portrayed as a Black and White issue. It seems, according to Bush's party, that Republicans hate terrorism, whereas Democrats love it, or at the very least want to walk away from the battle against terrorism because of their "short memory and even shorter attention span".

Accusing Democratic members of our Congress of being unmindful of the importance of the war on terror and of supporting the terrorists by undermining the political process to me seems a ridiculous affair. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has taken our Democratic system seriously enough to have devoted their careers to its workings would not, at the very least, hold the ideals of Democracy and the lives of its citizens at a premium. Alas though, I may be too naive. Fine then, lets cut through the idealistic claptrap and get to the brass tacks: policy. (Credit for information and quotes in the following two paragraphs go to Al Franken and Team Franken and are taken from his incredible book Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them: A fair and balanced look at the right. Please do yourself, and your country a favor and buy this book, now with ten times more blotchiness. Anything short of purchasing this book would be un-American)

During his eight-year reign as our last legitimately elected president, Bill Clinton "tripled the counterterrorism budged for the FBI and doubled counterterrorism overall. His first crime bill contained stringent antiterrorism legislation. His administration sponsored a series of simulations to see how local, state and federal officials should coordinate their responses to a terrorist strike. He created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines. He coaxed, cajoled, and badgered foreign leaders to join in the fight internationally..."

Clinton also appointed Richard Clark as the first national antiterrorism coordinator and assigned him to come up with a comprehensive plan to take out...guess who....that's right....Al Queda. This plan was completed right before the inauguration of GDubya and handed over to that administration. This plan and Clark's entreaties were summarily ignored (for more on how Clark begged the administration to crack down on Al Queda, warned them that this type of terrorism should be considered the "greatest threat to American National Security", and how his concern that Al Queda might be trying to break into the American AVIATION industry were all ignored please read Al's book).

Well, considering Democrats' clear history of having a "short attention span" for terrorists I can fully understand that Republicans would be on guard for Democratic tomfoolery after the events of 9/11. Lets take a look at the ways in which the Democrats undermined the fight against terrorism post 9/11.

Democrats voted unanimously (with one exception) to authorize Bush to (among other things) invade Afghanistan and overwhelmingly approved the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as supported the invasion of Iraq, which, as an aside I will not get into here, the American public was fooled by the Bush administration into believing had ties to Al-Queda.

Well, fine you might be saying, but what about all that Democratic brouhaha over passing Bush's Pro-America, anti-terror 87 billion dollar bill? Democrats did not disagree with sending money to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, instead they disagreed with the particulars of the inefficient, special interest ridden document that Bush proposed. Is it any surprise, after the Bush administration's costly misestimating of Post-war Iraq that Democrats are a bit concerned with doing things RIGHT? Unfortunately the Bush administration seems to equate doing things right with not doing things at all. It's the wrong way or no way!

But what about the Democrats' anti-American, pro-old Europe stance of wanting a coalition? Well its seems that old Bushy is finally accepting defeat there and has begun to accept that America cant go this alone and in an administrative about face, has admitted that perhaps American aren't being welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people. So the administration now is agreeing to push for Iraqi self rule as soon as possible, something Democrats had been pushing long ago.

Well I have gone on for a lot longer than I intended, and to those still reading this, thanks for listening. I guess I just hope that while watching Bush's propaganda drivel about Democratic anti-Americanism, you can see through his roguish cowboy good looks and gigantic "mission accomplished" flags to the truth that lies somewhere behind.

What is CVS Trying To Hide (other than the condoms and pregnancy tests)?

2003-11-21T15:23:00.000-05:00

The other day, my wife e-mailed me after visiting our local CVS:

. . . they have now locked up condoms and pregnancy tests behind glass and you have to ask a clerk for permission -- this strikes me as REALLY bad policy -- teenagers are already scared enough of buying contraception.

I thought this was an odd move, and agreed that it seemed like a bad policy, so I did a little Google search to see if CVS had announced this new policy, but found only this very angry young woman. So I called the store (158 Blee[c]ker Street, 212.982.3111), where they told me that I would have to get authorization from CVS Corporate before they would answer any of my questions. So I called CVS Corporate (1.800.SHOP.CVS) and asked to whom I needed to speak in order to get authorization to ask the Blee[c]ker Street Store Manager some questions about this new policy. I was told to speak with Mike Deangelis in Corporate Community Relations (401.765.1500, or call 1-800-SHOP-CVS and ask to be connected). I left Mike several messages this week, explaining that I wanted to do a piece for this website on what appeared to be a new policy of putting certain items in locked cabinets. He returned my call today, asked me to repeat the name of the blog, and then, when I did, hung up. In case anyone from CVS is reading, here are some of the questions I was going to ask him:

1) Was the decision to put condoms and pregnancy tests in locked cabinets a national, regional, or store-based decision?
2) What is the reason for the new policy?
3) What are the most commonly stolen items in CVS stores, and which account for the greatest lost revenue? (and where do condoms and pregnancy tests fall on that list?)
4) Which is a bigger problem for CVS: employee theft or shoplifting?
5) Who has access to the key to the condom cabinet?

And, of course, I was going to ask for authorization to speak to the Blee[c]ker Street Store Manager. But that never happened, because CVS' Community Relations guy apparently has no problem being totally rude to a customer who also happens to write for a pissant little website. So, without benefit of CVS' input (but not without trying to get it), here's my theory: CVS, or at least the management of the CVS at Blee[c]ker Street, is attempting to impose restrictions on its customers' ability to purchase certain products in an attempt to regulate their behavior based on a particular view of morality. Stupid, ineffective, and offensive. Feel free to call them and tell them how you feel. Just don't expect them to be courteous.

Thanks to Ugarte and Pen-Elayne for the spelling correction.

What's so special about marriage, anyway?

2003-11-21T14:30:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, I keep hearing about the "sanctity" of marriage, and how fundamental that institution is to a working society, yadda yadda yadda. Last month, George W. Bush declared "Marriage Protection Week," stating that "Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society." (He also gratuitously defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman".)

As a happily married man who supports the rights of same-sex couples to be married, I have to ask: What's so special about marriage, anyway?

Sure, I believe that kids who grow up with two loving parents have a better shot at not being totally fucked up, but does the institution of marriage really have anything to do with that? Aren't two unmarried, loving parents of the same sex better than a pair of dilettante, absentee parents who are legally married? And does marriage change the way you feel about a person? I know couples who have been together for years, and have no intention of ever wavering in their commitment to each other, who are not married and don't plan on getting married. And I know people who are married and hate each other, and would be terrible parents, and I know people who were married for a relatively short period of time before it blew up, and being married made it that much harder for them to extricate themselves from each other without unnecessary additional pain.

In short, the heart wants what it wants, and people are what they are. How does marriage change that, and why do we care whether it exists at all, much less whether gays want to do it, too?

Seems to me, despite all those krazy konservatives harping about its sanctity, Marriage is just another way for the Nanny State to bleed us of our hard-earned capital.

Sweet Freedom

2003-11-21T14:07:00.000-05:00

Read about the Canadian the U.S. sent to be tortured in Syria for 16 months here.

This Week's New Weblog Showcase Votes

2003-11-21T12:34:00.000-05:00

The following blogs get drinks on the house this week:

Anarchy Xero: Winding the Iraq Deathwatch

This Lousy T-Shirt: The Stupidest Slumber Party Ever

And don't forget to enter (or follow) the first-ever King of the Blogs Tournament!

Just like Japan!

2003-11-21T10:44:00.000-05:00

Dobbs at Screaming Points reports on an interview with Gen. Tommy Franks in this month's Cigar Afficionado magazine. Apparently, Franks believes that "if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government."

Well, thanks, fearless military leader. That is certainly food for thought. Here I was thinking that every time we tear away at our Constitutional freedoms in response to terrorist threats, we are giving the terrorists what they want. But Franks makes sense. Clearly, the only way to stop the terrorists (who, Bush never tires of telling us, hate us because of our freedoms) is to get rid of those freedoms. Then they won't have anything to hate! It's crystal clear, now that Tommy has spelled it out:

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Like when you have termites -- the thing to do is to destroy any part of your house that is made of wood. Or when your house is burglarized -- sell all your posessions and live on the street. If you lose one arm to infection, have the other one removed. In fact, to be safe, you should probably have both legs amputated too.

Y'know, it really burns me when I get called "anti-American" for questioning or criticizing my [non-]elected representatives, but Tommy Franks will probably be called an American hero by the same people for suggesting that it is our Constitution that is responsible for terrorist attacks.

Don't send an Oberwetter to do a diplomat's job

2003-11-20T18:25:00.000-05:00

Here's something that hasn't gotten a lot of press: President Bush's nomination of a new ambassador to Saudi Arabia (see if you can find it here). The Nominee is James Curtis Oberwetter, an oil industry lobbyist and good friend of Dubya's. What foreign relations experience does Oberwetter have? None. But he is a member of the executive committee of the board of directors of the Dallas Metropolitan YMCA. And did I mention he's an oil lobbyist?

But then again, given the important (though still somewhat unclear) role Saudi Arabia played in 9/11, our dependence on them for oil and investment dollars, and the rising instability within and near their borders, how important is it to have an ambassador there who knows a damn thing about foreign relations or diplomacy? Much better, certainly, given the shape of things in the Middle East, to have an ambassador to Saudi Arabia who has devoted his life to furthering the interests of American oil companies. It's also a great way to dispel that vicious rumor that all we care about in the Middle East is their oil.

But who knows. He'll probably do just as well as the last guy, a Texas oil lawyer with no prior diplomatic experience who defended George W. Bush against allegations of insider trading in 1990, and who, in 2000, received the Mentor and Allies Award by the Dallas YWCA for his role in assisting women's career advancement.

As you can see, Oberwetter may not be the right choice, but he is certainly a consistent replacement. And, really, when you think about it, what better place to send oil industry shills with a strong commitment to Christian youth and absolutely no diplomatic experience than post-9/11 Saudi Arabia? If only we had some sort of agency or department that recruited and trained skilled diplomats for careers in international public service, from where our presidents might pick qualified candidates for critical ambassadorial positions . . . we could call it the "Department of State". Think on it.

Separated at birth?

2003-11-20T16:39:00.000-05:00

Can you guess which one is Laura Bush and which one is Minnie Mouse?

But don't take my word for it . . .

2003-11-20T16:09:00.000-05:00

Democratic Veteran reports on Richard Perle's admission that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone". Perle is a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board.

Dork Logic

2003-11-20T15:48:00.000-05:00

Dobbs at Screaming Points points out Bush's latest bit of anti-logic: "In some cases the massive use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force." GW Bush, in London, November 17. 2003

The weird thing is, I agree with that statement. There is no doubt in my mind that sometimes, to avoid oppression and rule by force, force is a necessary and appropriate reaction. I just wonder which side of that equation the U.S. is on most of the time?

Outgrown the New Weblog Showcase? Maybe you're ready to be King of the Blogs

2003-11-20T09:45:00.000-05:00

How good is your blog? Good enough to go head-to-head withe five other blogs in a two-week competition for the title "King of the Blogs"? Good enough to defend that challenge every two weeks? How long will you wear the crown? Test your blogtitude at Patriot Paradox by entering the King of the Blogs Tournament. The first-ever competition begins today.

When the Turkey does the Pardoning

2003-11-19T19:23:00.000-05:00

This Thanksgiving, President George W. Bush will pardon a Turkey. It's a yearly tradition the point of which escapes me, but I bring it up because I noticed that the White House is sponsoring a "name the turkeys" contest, in which visitors to the White House website can pick from six pairs of preselected names for the two turkeys that will be presented to the President (don't fret, I'm pretty sure they both get to live). The choices include:

Lewis and Clark

Plymouth and Mayflower

Harvest and Bounty

Hope and Glory

Pumpkin and Cranberry

Stars and Stripes

My first thought, of course, was that this year will be the first year that the Turkey is not pardoned. Instead, our President will ceremoniously deny the turkey a pardon, limit its right to appeal, and preside over its "execution". But of course, that won't happen. Compassionate conservatives only kill people, not animals (what does it say about us as a society that many of us would probably get more upset at the thought of the "pardon turkey" getting slaughtered and eaten for Thanksgiving dinner than we do at the thought of human beings being electrocuted or finalinjectioned or hanged by the State?). Anyway, as I said, that was my first thought.

My second thought was that we should all cast our votes for a 7th option: "Pilgrim and Pioneer". It's alliterative, it fits with the Thanksgiving spirit, it's as cute as the others, and -- most importantly -- it contains an ironic reference to Bush's more nefarious turkey connections.

Here's something you may not know: "ready-to-eat" turkey ain't.

Last year, poultry processor Pilgrim's Pride recalled 27.4 million pounds of food products (mostly turkey) as potentially infected with listeria, a potentially fatal food-borne bacteria. The recall, which was prompted by an outbreak (linked to Pilgrim's Wampler plant by the CDC) that caused, by one account, at least 120 illnesses and 20 deaths, went back five months. That's right, the second-largest poultry company in the country had likely been putting listeria-contaminated turkey into the market (including our children's schools) for at least five months by the time the body count led to an investigation, which led to a recall. This despite the fact that the top USDA official at the Wampler plant has stated that the company was aware of heightened levels of listeria in the plant at least four months before the recall, but did nothing. USDA inspectors also have revealed that the USDA aided and abbetted Wampler in its reckless endangerment of its customers by refusing to sufficiently inspect the plant or enforce the regulations. One inspector "accused his supervisors of giving Wampler managers advance notice of USDA's 'random' listeria tests, which allowed the company to conduct 'special cleanups' that ensured negative listeria findings. He said USDA managers downgraded the severity of his reports for sanitary violations, refused to let him file other reports altogether, and quashed his efforts to summon compliance officers to the plant for a compulsory cleanup."

The CDC recommends that "persons at high risk, such as pregnant women and persons with weakened immune systems . . . not eat hot dogs, luncheon meats, or deli meats, unless they are reheated until steaming hot." So why does the USDA allow companies to label these items "ready-to-eat" or "fully-cooked"? Why? Because the USDA, the agency charged with regulating the meatpackers, is in bed with those meatpackers. Because what drives policy in the USDA is not always public health, but often dollars from the meat industry. Lonnie Pilgrim, owner of Pilgrim's Pride, is a "Pioneer" contributor to the Bush campaign. How much do you think the hundreds who die every year from listeriosis contributed?

So join me, won't you, in honor of this Thanksgiving's two biggest turkeys, George and Lonnie, in asking the White House to include "Pilgrim and Pioneer" on the ballot. How fitting it would be to see Dubya pardoning two turkeys whose names represent the administration's perpetual pardoning of poultry purveyors whose poorly-labeled products and putrid plants make us puke (and sometimes die).

Well Who the Hell Let THAT Happen?

2003-11-19T17:20:00.000-05:00

I just ran accross the October 2, 2003 Interim Progress Report of the Iraqi Survey Group (the group investigating WMD's in Iraq), and noticed that one of the "principal factors" hindering their investigation was:

Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime.

Before you get all indignant, though, keep in mind that this is not the only factor. The tiny size of potential WMD's is also making the search quite difficult. According to the report, "Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures." Wow. Sounds like a needle in a haystack! So the key evidence supporting our (former) primary justification for the invasion could be anywhere? In a glove compartment, under someone's mattress, or in a safe? Perhaps even concealed as common household products? Well, not quite:

It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage.

Oh.

First Plame, Now This?

2003-11-18T14:07:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon said Tuesday it has uncovered remains from the site in Laos where Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's younger brother was believed to have been killed nearly 30 years ago.

Well, how convenient that the Democratic front-runner's brother's dead body is found by the very Pentagon whose war in Iraq Dean has gone on record as opposing, just as Dean's campaign is picking up steam. Anyone familiar with this Administration's shameless tactics of lying and intimidation knows what this really means: Oppose Bush or his policies, and your family members' bodies could be "found" in some third-world hellhole. "Outing" Valerie Plame was one thing, but killing Dean's brother and making it look like the Laotians did it over 30 years ago? Sorry, Karl, we ain't buying what you're selling.

What's next, a severed horse head in Wes Clark's bedsheets?

New England Gays Can Marry, Have Extramarital Sex

2003-11-18T11:46:00.000-05:00

This morning, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry under that state's constitution. On Friday, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that gay sex is not adultery (because it is not "intercourse").

The Massachusetts Court based its decision on the state constitution, and fundamental human rights and public policy concerns. The New Hampshire Court based its decision on Webster's dictionary.

One small step for gay rights. One giant leap into Wonderland for New Hampshire.

*N.B.: If the new Hampshire Court is right, the Clenis did not commit adultery with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

Somebody get "Richard" a dictionary!

2003-11-15T15:30:00.000-05:00

I was watching TV earlier today when a Road Runner (Cable Modem Service) ad came on. It is one of those "candid" talking head ads, where a supposed customer speaks frankly and sincerely about how great whatever product s/he is being paid to shill is. So what does "Richard" have to say about Road Runner? "I would say to people, without equivocation, that it sort of changed my life . . ." Um, yeah. Sounds unquestionably terrific. Maybe.

New Weblog Showcase

2003-11-15T11:34:00.000-05:00

And the votes go to . . .

Late Night With Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for Best Political Entry of the Week

Let's See Some OUTRAGE!!!for Best Punchline in a Political Entry this Week

A Blessing and a Curse for Best Non-Political Entry of the Week

And an honorable mention (but no vote) goes to The Shekel, who apparently thinks coin-collecting is a political thing.

Ugarte's Reading Circle

2003-11-15T00:10:00.000-05:00

Heaven of Freedom
by Rabindranath Tagore

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by Thee to ever-widening thought and action –
Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake.

The Cost of War

2003-11-15T00:05:00.000-05:00

Due to what I trust is a fairly obvious change in the site's layout, I have removed the Cost of War counter. The counter, scripts for adding one to your own site, and data concerning what else that money might have been used for can all be found at www.costofwar.com.

What Would Make Me Vote For Dubya?

2003-11-14T12:14:00.000-05:00

The "recall" of Paul Bremer and other recent moves by the Bush administration seem to suggest a new willingness to sit down and figure out just how to not make a further mess of Iraq. However, many (including many congressmen) have suggested that Bush's policy is now being dictated, at least in part, by what will yield the most positive spin by next November. Such short-sightedness spells disaster with this administration, which took us to war with suspect (or, more charitably, "dynamic") justification(s), a controversial and poorly-thought-out entry strategy, and no exit strategy. The goal now must be to avoid the mistakes of the past (hasty, misinformed decisions made in the interest of short-term political gains) and find the best way to bring about a stable, self-governed Iraq while minimizing casualties and other costs. I think this can be done, but it requires bringing in and listening to the right people -- and this is where the President must take immediate and decisive action.

Many of the mistakes this administration has made in the Iraqi campaign are the result of placing undue reliance on the wrong people or information, often to the exclusion of potentially invaluable information. Bush relied (or purported to rely) heavily on highly suspect intelligence reports in assessing Saddam's nuclear capabilities and the need to go toward. He let Donald Rumsfeld orchestrate the invasion, even though the uniformed military (whose objections he overrode) thought he was wrong (he was). Rice and Rumsfeld ignored State Department and CIA experts on post-war planning, including State’s “Future of Iraq” report (why plan for the post-war at all, when the Iraqis are going to welcome us with open arms?). Jay Garner’s appointment of Tom Warrick was blocked for political reasons. The future of Iraq was put in the hands of Dick Cheney’s fair-haired boy, Ahmed Chalabi. Oops!

This is perhaps George W. Bush's greatest weakness as a president, and it is not limited to Iraq: he consistently, intentionally and unnecessarily limits himself to the input of a few chosen trustees. More’s the pity, many of these trustees (who by virtue of their privileged access to and influence on the president have tremendous power) are either lunatic ideologues (Ashcroft), cripplingly beholden to powerful corporate interests (Cheney), or both (Rumsfeld). Possibly the most egregious example of the president's dangerous preference for blinders is his recent proclamation that he would no longer be taking questions from democrats.

I can posit two reasons for this tendency. First, it is the way he was raised. Bush himself advanced not necessarily by merit, but as a result of connections, favors, and concessions. And as the son of George and Barbara Bush, a born-again Christian, and a Texas governor, Bush is quite used to being led by the nosering. He seems most comfortable when he’s “running on faith”, and understands that, as Molly Ivins is fond of saying, “you got to dance with them what brung you.” Second, while he is neither stupid nor lazy, Bush has made no secret of the fact that he does not like either reading or policy, and he sure as hell doesn’t like reading about policy. This distaste for what should be a large part of his job makes him even more beholden to the advisors who spoon-feed him his policy decisions.

So, what’s my point? My point is, for the good of Iraq, and for the good of the nation, it is time for George W. Bush to take off the blinders and the nosering. He has shown he can talk the talk of leadership, and people do respond to this guy. He’s not dumb and he’s a consummate politician. Remember, he convinced almost enough people to vote for him by calling himself a “compassionate conservative” and a “uniter, not a divider”. It is time to make good on those promises. Here is my proposal: George W. Bush must stand up and take charge. He must trust himself to read, hear and understand policy discussions with more than one view. After all, if our leader can’t trust himself to make tough decisions, how can we? In order to prove to his constituents and to the world that he is not a lazy(he’s not), stupid (he’s not) whore to big business (he is), I suggest two major steps:

First, campaign finance reform. Bush himself must take the lead in ending the stranglehold moneyed interests have on our democracy. His policy decisions, including those in Iraq, are primarily and consistently determined by the interests of big business. Second, clean house. Get rid of the dangerously one-sided advisors and administrators who currently occupy the highest positions in the Executive Branch. It is impossible for our president to see the full picture and make informed decisions when the information he is getting is so heavily filtered and influenced (particularly by people with a track record of making bad decisions). Bush must make every effort to get the whole picture, and to surround himself with advisors who will give it to him.

He must also get rid of the captive heads of the major agencies. Imagine a government in which the head of the Environmental Protection Agency actually cares about Protecting the Environment! What if the USDA cared more about saving human life than saving meat packers money? Rewarding loyal supporters and party members is one thing. Stacking the governmental deck against the people by subverting the purpose and independence of federal agencies is quite another.

It is a tall order, I know, and I have little hope that it will happen, but here’s the payoff: If the president were to do this – if he were to show me and others who have criticized him in the past that he is willing to stand up and lead this country in a fair and intelligent way, I would vote for him in 2004. I really would, and I think enough others might that he wouldn’t have to worry about re-election.

So that’s my request, as one citizen to his president: Mr. Bush, don’t compound the policy mistakes that have already been made by making life-and-death decisions based on what your advisors think will get you re-elected (and help them keep their jobs), or what big business says is best. Fire your advisors, replace your appointees with honest, principled people, start listening to all your constituents, and take charge. After all, we elected you, not them. OK, we didn’t elect you, either, but you could still be the leader of the finest democracy in the world, if you wanted to.

Bush Honors Veterinarians at Arlington

2003-11-12T10:49:00.000-05:00

FOX NEWS SERVICE
ARLINGTON, VA

Under overcast skies, brimming with gravitas, President George W. Bush addressed the crowd of people who had come out to see him at Arlington National Cemetery. "Members of the Cabinet, members of the Congress, members of our military, veterinarians, Commander Berger, representatives of veterinarians organizations, and fellow Americans: Laura and I are proud to join all of you and citizens across our country as we honor the service of America's veterinarians."

The crowd was silent, even somber, as Bush continued. His eyes narrowed with concentration as he summoned as much empathy as he could manufacture. "Our veterinarians have borne the costs of America's wars and have stood watch over America's peace. And, today, every veterinarian can be certain: The nation you served and the people you defended are grateful." This last was met with scattered applause. Some in the crowd had begun to look uncomfortable, as if stunned by the compassion this conservative President was capable of. A staffer, looking concerned, tried to catch Bush's attention from behind the podium, but Bush -- clearly just reaching his oratorical stride, shook him off.

Then, in a classic display of the down-home, talk-to-the-people style we have come to expect from this ridiculously wealthy and privileged graduate of Andover, Harvard and Yale, Bush leaned forward, rested his forearms on the podium, and spoke, clearly ignoring the teleprompters, and the several staffers trying desperately to catch his attention. "My people, they wrote me a nice little speech for today. Smart people. Good speech. Sure it is. Betcha even Condi wrote a piece of it. She's a smart girl. Anyway, y'all didn't come here to hear me speechify, did you? Of course not. You go to ask yourself, what's he saying? What does the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the will of God made flesh, have to say to me?"

By now, one clearly deranged staffer was trying to physically pull President Bush away from the microphone, and had to be restrained by the Secret Service. Bush only smirked. "Thinks I can't do it. They always get antsy when I stray from the script. But I've been misunderestimated before. Osama bin misunderestimated me. Saddam misunderestimated me. And where are they now?" A murmur rushed through the crowd as Bush's question was repeated by many present. "Where are they now?" The President continued, "Let me tell you a story.

"As some of you may know, Laura and I have many animals we dearly love. Spotty, India, Barney, and maybe another one. I've got cattle on my ranch, and other animals, but lots of those are the ones we kill for sport or profit, not the cute cuddly ones. You know. Well, a few weeks ago -- and it pains me even to think about it -- Barney was injured.

"Yes, it was a Saturday afternoon, and I had just given him a bowl of beer -- just to see if he liked it, you know -- and I was laughing so hard at the way he was stumbling around that I didn't notice when he left the room. Well, pretty soon I got woked up from my nap by Jerry-boy (one of the Marines I keep around the place -- I call him Jerry-boy, but his real name is Kraus or Kraut or something), who told me that the State Department had some advice they wanted to share with me about the war on Iraq. It was then that I noticed that Barney was missing.

"'Tell State I'm not taking advice from them today', I told Jerry-boy (Dick and Rummy tell me State don't know what they're talking about, so I never read anything they send me). Where's Barney? Well, I soon found out that Barney had fallen down a flight of stairs and hurt his little paw. Well, you can probably guess what we did. We called the White House veterinarian, and he came right away -- even though it was nap time! -- and fixed Barney up as good as new!" Here the President's eyes tightened almost to slits, and his lips were pressed together in a paper-thin line. "So," he said meaningfully, nodding his head slowly, "I know first-hand just how important the services are that you provide, and the sacrifices you make for your country every day. And we must recognize, as a country, that it is not just the White House who needs veterinarians, but each and every one of us who owns a animal. This great nation owes you all a debt of gratitude, and to show our appreciation for your higher calling, I am announcing that I will sign an executive decree today granting veterniarians a complete tax exemption for the next six years."

Here, taking advantage of the stunned silence of the crowd, Bush turned to a nearby advisor and said "We can do that, right? Let's just take the money from the veterans. They're just a drain on the economy, and we're going to have a lot more before we're through." As if a spell had been broken, the crowd -- no doubt stirred by the President's generosity -- erupted.

President Bush had to be quickly ushered away by the Secret Service for his own safety.

A Fresh Perspective

2003-11-11T20:15:00.000-05:00

"[O]ne of the problems with the . . . administration's stewardship of the military is that it has overextended the armed forces, sending American troops all over the world 'with no clear mission.'"

“The mission of the U.S. military is to be ready to win and fight wars, and, in that way, prevent war from happening in the first place. . . . The job of the military is not to solve all the difficult diplomatic problems in the world.”

Visit A Marine's Girl to find out who said these things. It just might surprise you!

My response to NZ Bear (and about a hundred others)

2003-11-11T18:16:00.000-05:00

I am glad Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq, and I hope that, in the long term, this turns out to be a positive development for the people of Iraq. This is by no means a sure thing.

History shows us that a power vacuum is often filled by someone equally bad for the people. In Latin America, for example, the United States worked hard to replace repressive communist dictators with oppressive fascists who were better for (American) business. Good for us (for a time), bad for the people in those countries. I could go on an on about the mistakes this country has made in its foreign policy, both on a moral level and on a purely pragmatic, U.S.A.-centric, results-driven one. However, the pragmatist in me recognizes that the only relevance past mistakes have is for us to learn from them. So, if I bring up other regimes we have supported or toppled from time to time, it is not so much to indict those who made that decision, or to smear our country (which I love), but to point out that it didn't work then, so why do we think it will work now?

Toppling Saddam was a good thing, but it will take unknowable resources (political, financial, temporal, physical . . .) to make sure that the power vacuum in that country is filled with a representative government that can effectively and humanely govern. This took years to accomplish in Panama, which is NOTHING like Iraq (for starters, Panama had a more or less stable infrastructure and a stable economy pegged to the Dollar, not to mention the presence of U.S. Southern Command) and there wasn't nearly the resentment toward the U.S. that we find in Iraq. All this by way of saying that I think we bit off far more than we could chew, and we did it at a time when we should have been focusing on national security, specifically the holes in our visa and intelligence systems.

A word on perspective: Terrorism is not nearly as big a threat to the lives of U.S. citizens as automobile accidents, pollution, or suicide. I believe our outrage and resources would be better devoted to tackling these problems. If you accept that counter-terrorism should be our number one priority, Saddam was less of a threat to the U.S. than Osama, and less of a threat than homicidal traitors like Timothy McVeigh, and less of a threat than Pakistan or North Korea. The risk of Saddam getting WMDs and passing them on to terrorists who would use them against US citizens was less than that of terrorists getting their hands on weapons-grade uranium from former Soviet republics. So I don’t think it was worth it there. And if you believe that our first priority should be liberating oppressed people, well, I’d like to agree with you but I can’t.

But what is done is done. We have just put our foot through a very expensive door that opens up on a very, very long hallway, and I think the chances of true success are slim. We're in, though, and probably have no better choice than to keep moving forward -- but let's do it with serious reflection and concern for the short and long-term effects. The short-term effects of the tax cut and the war may have been to topple a despicable regime and boost a staggering economy -- but what will the long-term effects be? Will they be increased hatred of (and therefore terrorism against) the US? Years of guerrilla warfare and instability in Iraq? A devastating national debt? A draft? Inadequate military resources for our own defense? Or will it be increased stability in a notoriously unstable region? The foundation for a new world order in which American intervention is welcomed by suffering people?

I believe that the answers are still being written, and much depends on the actions of our government in the coming months and years. What troubles me – and the reason that I am no supporter of the current administration – is that I have little confidence that the team in charge will move forward with the sort of perspective and thoughtfulness that I would hope for.

I am concerned that the ‘needs’ of big business will outweigh the needs of the Iraqi people just as they currently outweigh the needs of the American people (I do not reserve this indictment for the Bush administration alone, although I think that where for others it was a cynical self-interest, for George W. it is almost a matter of religious faith in the corporate hegemony). I fear that this administration’s leadership will continue to act without consideration of long-term consequences – even in the face of advice, intelligence or research provided by other segments our own government. I fear that our President will continue to rely too heavily on a heavily filtered and slanted view of the world. And I fear that we will expend too much political and actual capital, leaving us unable not only to defend against outside forces, but to avoid internal collapse under the corpulence of our very few most wealthy. I fear that we do not understand the people we are purporting to help, and will continue to make that a low priority.

But I still trust the system – barely. I trust that if things get too much worse at home, there will be a regime change here at home. I trust that, thanks in large part to the internet and people like N.Z. Bear and the various “alliances” (insert gratuitous plug here), the truth will out – much more quickly than it used to. I trust that, if we can rise above the current campaign finance structure, we can truly make great strides, and lead the rest of the world into an era of new stability. We have great power, we have great resources, and we have the greatest system of government in the world, but we are not invincible (and we are not the chosen people).

In my view, the current administration is not doing right by its constituents. I have repeatedly invited those who disagree to tell me why and try to convince me otherwise. In the meantime, I will do my best to figure out how to make our government as good as it can be, and to do what I can to bring that about. Right now, the way I see it, a big part of that is regime change here at home. A bigger part is real campaign finance reform, and I believe the internet represents the best way for candidates to compete on a level playing field, with little expense, and reach the largest number of people, without selling our government to the highest bidder. But that’s another post.

Congratulations (Again)

2003-11-11T15:23:00.000-05:00

Hooray for Clarefied, winner of the New Weblog Showcase Political category by a landslide!!!

My Jerry Springer Moment

2003-11-11T14:48:00.000-05:00

My wife and I were in London this weekend, so we took the opportunity to take in some theater in the West End. So, being at the centre of British theater, what did we see? Romeo and Juliet? Betrayal? Nope. We went for full-on cultcha: Jerry Springer, the Opera.

The first act is essentially a Jerry Springer show set to music (everybody sings their lines except Jerry -- it's an opera, duh.). I would call it a hilarious send-up, except it was often hard to distinguish from an actual Jerry episode (except for the singing). Still, it's hard to top Jerry for sheer absurdity. The singing was good all around, the music was often catchy (I still have "What the fuck? What the fuck? What the fucking fucking fuck?" stuck in my head), and there is something truly sublime about seeing two dozen British opera singers dressed like trailer trash belting out, with Wagnerian fury, American (and specifically day-time-talk-show-American) phrases like "talk to the hand" (or, in the case of the housewife who dreams of being a poledancer, "talk to the ass") or "whatever". The high point of the first act (other than the fake commercials, which are brilliant, dead-on zingers like: "Give in to Jesus. Or, alternatively, die.") is the big dance number at the end. I don't want to give too much away, but I will say that it involves the Ku Klux Klan in tap shoes and a black man in a diaper. For the more sentimental, worry not: "Chick With a Dick With A Heart" is a real tear-jerker.

I won't be giving anything away by telling you that Jerry gets shot at the end of the first act, which leads to the second, even more absurd act, in which Jerry goes to Hell, where he is forced by the Devil to host a show featuring Jesus, Mary, Adam & Eve. Satan, you see, is looking for an apology, and figures Jerry can facilitate it (or spend eternity being "Fucked. Up the ass. With barbed wire." -- imagine that sung in high operatic style, and you start to get the flavor of this naughty little show). When Jesus brings up the crucifixion, Satan tells him to "get over it".

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the show was seeing a British take on a quintessentially American phenomenon. Jerry is compared to God, and the parallels, while neither deeply explored nor terribly clear, expose an unwillingness on the part of Americans (at least those who watch and appear on daytime TV) to take responsibility for their lives or their failures. While it works overtime to offend (don't even bother trying to count the number of times the word "fuck" is used, to say nothing of bizarre sexual practices, graphic violence, and a burning cross; oddly, there was no nudity), and -- particularly toward the end -- it often seems to be on the verge of having a point, the show is just good, irreverent fun provided by a very talented cast. Particular kudos go to Alison Jiear (Shawntel/Eve), whose voice and beauty are a powerful combination, and David Bedella (Warmup Guy/Satan) who absolutely stole the show.

In case you are wondering . . .

2003-11-11T12:13:00.000-05:00

. . . where the numbers come from in the counter up there, click on the counter to find out. The site will also tell you what else that money could have been spent on.

Wow.

2003-11-10T22:35:00.000-05:00

Three days is a long time to be away from this blog thing. Jetlagged and overwhelmed, I can barely see these words as I type them, but I felt I needed to put in something, even just a placeholder. So, COMING SOON:

My Jerry Springer Moment (or, How I Became a Crack Whore)

McCain for president?

Is the Internet the Key To Fixing What's Wrong With our Political Process?

Oh, and -- yes, I know about the flickery thing, and it may be the counter. I'll move it and see what happens. Also, sincere apologies to Grateful Dread who is NOT A GUY. Sorry!

What's so great about Dubya, anyway? An Invitation/Challenge

2003-11-07T10:27:00.000-05:00

Alright, so I've been doing this blog thing for about a week now, and it is very cool. Perhaps the most impressive thing to me is the level of discourse (sure, there are a bunch of kooks out there who must employ bots to generate the amount of stupid shit they regularly post). There are some insanely smart, perceptive, thoughtful, passionate people out here in the blogosophere, and I don't think there has ever, in the history of [wo]mankind, been such an opportunity for the free exchange of ideas. The possibilities are truly astonishing.

Of course here, as in the "real world", there is a lot of partisanship -- maybe more. And that's part of the fun, too. But I don't want to get too caught up in the "left vs. right" dynamic that seems to define most of the political blogosphere (at least, what I've seen so far of my corner of it). I am, of course, a leftie. A proud member of the League of Liberals. But to me, a hallmark of that liberalism is open-mindedness, and the ability and willingness to look critically at any situation.

What's the point, you ask? The point is this: I don't like George W. Bush. I don't like Rummy or Cheney or Ashcroft or Wolfowitz either. And I have good reasons. Some of those reasons are here on this blog, and in the comments I've left like shiny turds throughout the blogosphere. But maybe, just maybe, there are reasons why I should like Bush or those other guys. Maybe there is a liberal bias (in me or in my choice of media) that prevents me from seeing all the good that this administration has done/is doing.

So, here it is: Be you liberal, conservative, independent, or anarchist, I invite you to share with me your sincere views concerning good things -- for you or for your community or for this country or for the world -- that the Bush administration has done. The only thing I ask is that you try to be detailed and provide facts to support your assertions. Comments like "George W. Bush is the best thing for this country. God Bless George W. Bush, and God Bless America," while perhaps sincere, do not convey information about the administration, but simply about your faith in it, and therefore add little to the discourse and are not persuasive.

I prefer to think of this as an objective search for truth, but if you are of the type that is more motivated by competition, I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Here's your chance, Bushies, to show us disloyal, anti-American asshats, just how great Dubya really is. How can you pass that up?

Farting Fish Redux

2003-11-06T18:02:00.000-05:00

Please welcome to Rick's, and to the League of Liberals, Officially Unofficial -- who shares my interest in marine biology.

Bush Hates Our Troops

2003-11-06T13:23:00.000-05:00

Take a moment to watch this short flash movie about the Bush administration's callous disregard (and trust me that is putting it mildly) for the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect us. Then go to A Marine's Girl to learn more.

This is getting repetitive

2003-11-06T13:10:00.000-05:00

Congratulations -- AGAIN -- to Dawn, whose "Death By Invitation" is KICKING ASS on the New Weblog Showcase. Oh, yeah, and she is now a Large Mammal!

And the Hypocritical Coward Award goes to . . .

2003-11-06T12:29:00.000-05:00

. . . it's a TIE! According to this column by Lawrence Korb (via Tom Tomorrow), Fred "Iraq is reasonably secure and stable" Barnes and William "The failuremongers ignore Iraq's progress" Safire, declined an invitation from the DoD to join a delegation to Iraq "to enhance their knowledge of the coalition’s progress toward reconstruction and self-governance in Iraq". Among the other chickenhawks apparently too scared to step into the mess their masters have made in Iraq was George "student deferment" Will.

Shame on you all.

It's the FUCKING AIR, stupid.

2003-11-06T11:12:00.000-05:00

E.P.A. now officially stands for Ensuring Profits for Assholes: Lawyers at E.P.A. Say It Will Drop Pollution Cases. What's next?

I can see it now . . .

Federal Government Permits Hospitals to Re-Use Needles, Buy Drugs Off Street.
Head of Federal Agency*: "We've found its a more cost effective way to provide quality medical care"

*also head of the American Hospital Association and George Bush's fraternity brother and dealer.

Saudis Fear Sand Shortage

2003-11-06T10:58:00.000-05:00

No, really.

20 Questions

2003-11-05T17:55:00.000-05:00

Where is Osama?

Where is Saddam?

Where are the WMD's?

Where is our economic surplus?

Where are our jobs?

Where are our pensions?

Where are our civil liberties?

Where are our equal rights?

Who leaked Plame's identity?

Who stands to profit from the war in Iraq?

Why doesn't the Bush Administration want to punish war profiteers?

Why won't Bush cooperate with the Congressional investigation on 9/11?

Why is the Selective Service being ramped up?

Why are our children and siblings and spouses and parents dying in Iraq?

How were the Saudis involved in 9/11?

What fucking right do they have . . . ?

What fucking right do we have . . . ?

What will we do when the oil runs out?

Why does everyone hate us?

Why are we so afraid?

*Bonus 21st question: Why can't we all just get along?

Blogging for a Cure

2003-11-05T17:34:00.000-05:00

Kudos to Grateful Dread for doing ~~his~~ her part to raise awareness about diabetes.

Fish Farts

2003-11-05T17:29:00.000-05:00

This post on The 18 1/2 Minute Gap reminded me of this article from a few months ago. Is this the new . . . er . . . face of marine biology?

My head hurts

2003-11-05T14:42:00.000-05:00

Making the rounds in the blogosphere (my intro was through Estimated Prophet) is a theory (theories?) that the Israeli Mossad knew about 9/11 before it happened and (alternately? simultaneously?) tried to warn us and/or was responsible for it.

I haven't had time to sift through all of it yet and, for the moment, just don't know what to make of it. Take a look for yourself and let me know what you think.

New Weblog Showcase

2003-11-05T13:40:00.000-05:00

Political: Clareified, with Death By Invitation.

Non-Political: Rocket Penguin with Who Da Pope?

What the hell is snogging?

2003-11-05T13:11:00.000-05:00

Indigo Ocean links to a story about six guys who did this, whatever it is, on camera with a pre-operative transsexual.

White House does not want to punish war profiteers

2003-11-05T12:34:00.000-05:00

That's right. The Bush Administration successfully blocked an anti-profiteering amendment from being included in a bill to fund the Iraqi reconstruction. The amendment would have subjected those who Intentionally defrauded the United States or iraq to costly fines and jail terms of up to 20 year.

Harry Truman considered war profiteering treason. This administration, which is led by and propped up by profiteers, considers opposition to its policies (including -- hell, especially pro-profiteering policies) treason. Curiouser and Curiouser.

Semper Fi

2003-11-05T11:58:00.000-05:00

By way of Democratic Veteran, I had the opportunity to meet A Marine's Girl this morning. Her most recent post, "Interrupted by Fireworks", which recounts a phone conversation between Marine's Girl and her Marine (who is in Iraq), literally brought tears to my eyes.

The courage, loyalty, tenderness and strength demonstrated by the Marine is truly inspirational. I am so proud of our troops, and so heartbroken and ashamed that our irresponsible civilian leaders have put them at risk for unworthy political and personal reasons, and are now forcing them to stay long after their tours ended.

Stay strong, Marine's Girl. Your blog is beautiful, and so is your Marine.

Hug a Redneck

2003-11-05T10:50:00.000-05:00

Mahablog explains why Howard Dean is right about the pickup truck guys, and I agree.

She's so adorable!

2003-11-05T10:47:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to Dawn, who has finally been recognized by the Ecosystem for what she really is: an Adorable Little Rodent!

Also, a hearty welcome to new League of Liberals members:

The 18 1/2 Minute Gap

Trickle-up economics, or How Shopaholics got Bush Re-Elected

2003-11-04T23:19:00.000-05:00

Could the celebrated new rise in GDP have anything to do with the recent rise in overconsumption? And if we don't start seeing new jobs, how are these people going to pay their credit card bills? And if they don't pay their credit card bills . . . well, you can probably see where I'm going with this.

BUT, economics was never my forte. So, if you are an economist (or play one on TV), I invite you to post an explanation that will help me to understand the current state and future of the economy (i.e., how can the economy be getting better when everyone around me seems to be doing worse?)