Oh crap, Instapundit is back for another 18 rounds of "everything I don't like can be traced back to Leftists."
ESCHATON QUIZ!
Who said this:
"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.... The leftist is antagonistic to the to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser."
Was it:
a) Ann Coulter
b) Rush Limbaugh
c) Instapundit
d) Ted Kaczynski
e) Bill Bennett
f) Andrew Sullivan
No fair Googling for the answer!
Saturday, July 06, 2002
Presidential Oath of Office, as mandated by the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Missouri Republican Kit Bond on the Presidential Oath of Office:
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok. What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken from new presidents?"
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Missouri Republican Kit Bond on the Presidential Oath of Office:
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok. What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken from new presidents?"
Reader F.H. writes in with this:
Bush has made his desire to invade Iraq well known. What he has not made well known is how the heck he intends to go about such a task.
On July 5, a Reuters report gives some insight into the current thinking in the Pentagon. It mentions a three pronged attack on Iraq from the north, south, and west. A glance at a map would indicate the Pentagon is counting on launching attacks from Turkey, Syria or Jordan, and Kuwait.
The most politically interesting scenario is that the Pentagon has formulated a plan that has certain prerequisites that the administration is unable to fulfill at this time. I think it unlikely that the President’s advisors who have pushed for an invasion of Iraq have actually done the math, so to speak, and figured out what the operation would entail. As long as the generals support the 250,000 troops option, it is likely that sufficient in theatre bases will be scarce or inadequate. If bases could be found, deployment could take a couple of months, during which time every Middle Eastern potentate who opposes the invasion and has the number of a Hamas splinter group in his rolodex could ratchet up the turmoil between Israel and Palestine.
It seems to me that the key issue for the administration is to get the generals to back off the 250,000 number. So far, the administration has one victory over the Pentagon, and that is canceling the Army’s pet project, the Crusader artillery system. General Tommy Franks would command the invasion of Iraq. General Tommy Franks was an artillery officer for most of his career. Devoted, loyal, capable, and talented men may disagree over strategy and policy. I am sure that Gen. Franks is all of those things. He may feel that the administration was wrong to cancel the Crusader. He may feel that the administration would be wrong to invade with less than 250,000 troops. How successful can the administration be in persuading a man who was awarded the Purple Heart three times to pursue a strategy that he believes in risky in terms of American lives?
In my opinion, this is the issue upon which rests the fate of Iraq. It pits the armchair warriors against the warriors who have actually shed blood for their country in a bureaucratic backroom struggle in which both agree on the goal, and only differ on the means. Among the three most likely outcomes is that there will be no invasion of Iraq at all, and no regime change.
Bush has made his desire to invade Iraq well known. What he has not made well known is how the heck he intends to go about such a task.
On July 5, a Reuters report gives some insight into the current thinking in the Pentagon. It mentions a three pronged attack on Iraq from the north, south, and west. A glance at a map would indicate the Pentagon is counting on launching attacks from Turkey, Syria or Jordan, and Kuwait.
The most politically interesting scenario is that the Pentagon has formulated a plan that has certain prerequisites that the administration is unable to fulfill at this time. I think it unlikely that the President’s advisors who have pushed for an invasion of Iraq have actually done the math, so to speak, and figured out what the operation would entail. As long as the generals support the 250,000 troops option, it is likely that sufficient in theatre bases will be scarce or inadequate. If bases could be found, deployment could take a couple of months, during which time every Middle Eastern potentate who opposes the invasion and has the number of a Hamas splinter group in his rolodex could ratchet up the turmoil between Israel and Palestine.
It seems to me that the key issue for the administration is to get the generals to back off the 250,000 number. So far, the administration has one victory over the Pentagon, and that is canceling the Army’s pet project, the Crusader artillery system. General Tommy Franks would command the invasion of Iraq. General Tommy Franks was an artillery officer for most of his career. Devoted, loyal, capable, and talented men may disagree over strategy and policy. I am sure that Gen. Franks is all of those things. He may feel that the administration was wrong to cancel the Crusader. He may feel that the administration would be wrong to invade with less than 250,000 troops. How successful can the administration be in persuading a man who was awarded the Purple Heart three times to pursue a strategy that he believes in risky in terms of American lives?
In my opinion, this is the issue upon which rests the fate of Iraq. It pits the armchair warriors against the warriors who have actually shed blood for their country in a bureaucratic backroom struggle in which both agree on the goal, and only differ on the means. Among the three most likely outcomes is that there will be no invasion of Iraq at all, and no regime change.
Ann Salisbury directs me to a quote I really do love.
Justice William Bedsworth: "I live, after all, in the epicenter of American Libertarianism. I'm in the process of formulating a theory that for every law enacted in California, there is an Orange County Register reader who is violating it -- purely as a matter of principle."
Of course, the truth is that it is usually theft and fraud masquerading as libertarian principle.
Yet another reason it's time for me to be on my way..
Justice William Bedsworth: "I live, after all, in the epicenter of American Libertarianism. I'm in the process of formulating a theory that for every law enacted in California, there is an Orange County Register reader who is violating it -- purely as a matter of principle."
Of course, the truth is that it is usually theft and fraud masquerading as libertarian principle.
Yet another reason it's time for me to be on my way..
American Patriots boycott New York City because of them evil homersexuals.
New York heaves big sigh of relief and throws a fabulous party.
(via Nathan Newman)
New York heaves big sigh of relief and throws a fabulous party.
(via Nathan Newman)
Quick question which I'll follow up on more later when I'm feeling less lazy:
While I understand people's objections to such things as the ICC, I find that many of the arguments against this type of agreement equally apply to certain provisions in trade agreements like NAFTA. So, why no outrage there?
While I understand people's objections to such things as the ICC, I find that many of the arguments against this type of agreement equally apply to certain provisions in trade agreements like NAFTA. So, why no outrage there?
Friday, July 05, 2002
Atrios to J.C. Watts:
"WELL DUHHHHH."
WATTS, A FORMER Oklahoma football star who never runs from a fight, is blunt about the shortcomings of the GOP. The “party of Lincoln,” he says, has adopted a “robot-like allegiance to conservative views” that blinds it to the historic suffering of African Americans, and causes it to be “often absent on issues of civil rights, equal opportunity and poverty.”
"WELL DUHHHHH."
WATTS, A FORMER Oklahoma football star who never runs from a fight, is blunt about the shortcomings of the GOP. The “party of Lincoln,” he says, has adopted a “robot-like allegiance to conservative views” that blinds it to the historic suffering of African Americans, and causes it to be “often absent on issues of civil rights, equal opportunity and poverty.”
Does anyone want to explain this one to me?
Taliban Executive Order
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 5 of the
United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c),
and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find
that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national
emergency in Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, with respect to
the Taliban, in allowing territory under its control in Afghanistan to be
used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Ladin and
the Al-Qaida organization, has been significantly altered given the
success of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and hereby revoke
that order and terminate the national emergency declared in that order
with respect to the Taliban. At the same time, and in order to take
additional steps with respect to the grave acts of terrorism and threats
of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, the continuing and
immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the
United States, and the national emergency described and declared in
Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, I hereby order:
Section 1. The Annex to Executive Order 13224 of September 23,
2001, is amended by adding thereto the following persons in
appropriate alphabetical order:
Mohammed Omar (aka, Amir al-Mumineen [Commander of the
Faithful])
The Taliban.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this order and Executive Order 13224 of
September 23, 2001, the term "the Taliban" is also known as the
"Taleban," "Islamic Movement of Taliban," "the Taliban Islamic
Movement," "Talibano Islami Tahrik," and "Tahrike Islami'a Taliban".
The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, is hereby authorized to modify the definition of the term "the
Taliban," as appropriate.
Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this order shall create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the United
States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or
any other person.
Sec. 4. Pursuant to section 202 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622),
termination of the national emergency with respect to the Taliban shall
not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded
or determined as of the date of this order, or any action or proceeding
based on any act committed prior to the date of this order, or any
rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to
the date of this order.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 2, 2002.
Taliban Executive Order
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 5 of the
United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c),
and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find
that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national
emergency in Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, with respect to
the Taliban, in allowing territory under its control in Afghanistan to be
used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Ladin and
the Al-Qaida organization, has been significantly altered given the
success of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and hereby revoke
that order and terminate the national emergency declared in that order
with respect to the Taliban. At the same time, and in order to take
additional steps with respect to the grave acts of terrorism and threats
of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, the continuing and
immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the
United States, and the national emergency described and declared in
Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, I hereby order:
Section 1. The Annex to Executive Order 13224 of September 23,
2001, is amended by adding thereto the following persons in
appropriate alphabetical order:
Mohammed Omar (aka, Amir al-Mumineen [Commander of the
Faithful])
The Taliban.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this order and Executive Order 13224 of
September 23, 2001, the term "the Taliban" is also known as the
"Taleban," "Islamic Movement of Taliban," "the Taliban Islamic
Movement," "Talibano Islami Tahrik," and "Tahrike Islami'a Taliban".
The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, is hereby authorized to modify the definition of the term "the
Taliban," as appropriate.
Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this order shall create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the United
States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or
any other person.
Sec. 4. Pursuant to section 202 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622),
termination of the national emergency with respect to the Taliban shall
not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded
or determined as of the date of this order, or any action or proceeding
based on any act committed prior to the date of this order, or any
rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to
the date of this order.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 2, 2002.
Public Nuisance gives that dishonest pile of dung, Andy Sullivan, a good 'Fisking.'
I can't believe any of you take this guy seriously anymore. What an embarassment.
Let's compare TAP's honest, forthright, and dilligent response to this silly numbers game with Crazy Andy's tantrum against Romenesko and Scalzi (and Alterman, although Alterman probably fired the first shot on this one) when they questioned his numbers (here and here).
ROMENESKO VERSUS BLOGS: Medianews' Romenesko does what he can to trash andrewsullivan.com again - by linking to a blog! John Scalzi's piece all but accuses this site and others of fibbing about our numbers. (Scalzi, it should be remembered is Ted Rall's good friend.) Scalzi uses Norah Vincent's equation of "hits" with "visits" to suggest that my daily visit numbers are perhaps one fifth of what I've reported. Here's what my not fantastically sophisticated server tells me: last week, this site got 220,000 visits from 76,000 unique visitors. Our best day was Wednesday when we got 40,000 visits from 23,000 unique visitors. On a monthly basis, we're now over 800,000 visits from over 200,000 unique visitors. Are we bigger than the New York Times? Of course not. But that's not the right comparison. Better to compare a news service like Drudge with a news service like the Times. Scalzi says the Times gets 2.2 million visitors a week. According to his site, Drudge gets 4 million visits a day. Let's be very conservative and say that amounts to 1 million unique visitors a day. I'd say Drudge beats the New York Times website hands down. Of course, he provides only a tiny fraction of their original reporting. But if you're looking for news stories, his web-page clearly out-performs the Times, and on the web, a page is a page is a page. It seems to me the right comparison for opinion bloggers like Instapundit or yours truly would be either visits to individual columnists online or visits to opinion magazines. I'm pretty sure National Review Online beats us all. But I'd be interested to know if the online versions of the Nation or The New Republic beat individual bloggers by a large amount. And remember that our pages are staffed by one, rather than around a dozen or so. When you look at it that way, bloggers' contribution to the debate - in a matter of months, really - is pretty astounding. But the broader point is: this is not a zero-sum game. The old media won't disappear, nor should they. The Times, for all its flaws, is an absolutely indispensable institution, and I hope to God it stays that way. What bloggers do is break up smug monopolies, disperse editorial power and give unheard voices a chance to get a megaphone. It seems to me only the truly insecure or untalented have anything to worry about. (Which may account for Eric Alterman's panic.)
[emphasis mine]
Scalzi had this to say:
[Sullivan Says:] "John Scalzi's piece all but accuses this site and others of fibbing about our numbers. (Scalzi, it should be remembered is Ted Rall's good friend.)"
This is an interesting rhetorical maneuver. Ted Rall, as you'll no doubt recall, is the cartoonist whose "Terror Widows" cartoon caused a national uproar, and indeed, I am one of the few people who did not immediately call for Ted to be shot for treason for drawing it (if you missed the fracas, the details are here). For those of conservative bent, Ted is the sort of deranged, fire-breathing liberal who is easy to hate because he's wrong about everything and almost certainly eats babies with a knife and fork and tasty dipping sauce. So by allying me with Ted, what Sullivan is saying is:
"This jerk is accusing me of lying, but he's probably off eating babies with Ted Rall, so you don't really need to believe anything he would ever have to say about anything, ever."
From a technique point of view I think this is a nice attempt by Sullivan to deflect credibility, but I think it signals that Sullivan recognized he's arguing from a position of weakness. If he had more confidence in what his numbers actually meant, he wouldn't have had to try to slam the messenger by bringing up his friends; either that or he can't help bringing up Ted's name to frighten the children at every opportunity.
(Also, to be clear, I don't suspect Sullivan was lying about his numbers, although it seems evident that prior to the columns he wasn't entirely sure what his numbers represented, or didn't represent, as the case may be. This is not especially his fault -- ultimately, it's an abstruse concept, and hopefully the end result of the last couple of days is a clearer understanding for everyone what the stats are, and what they actually report.)
Anyway, I know Andy loves to stir up controversy. But, stuff like this confirms the notion that Howell Raines canned his ass not because of his oh-so-dangerous-contrarian-conservative-views, but because he's a sloppy journalist and an immature unprofessional little baby.
Eric Alterman also notes that Andy's been lying about what he says on his website here (scroll down) and a bit about the numbers here.
I can't believe any of you take this guy seriously anymore. What an embarassment.
Let's compare TAP's honest, forthright, and dilligent response to this silly numbers game with Crazy Andy's tantrum against Romenesko and Scalzi (and Alterman, although Alterman probably fired the first shot on this one) when they questioned his numbers (here and here).
ROMENESKO VERSUS BLOGS: Medianews' Romenesko does what he can to trash andrewsullivan.com again - by linking to a blog! John Scalzi's piece all but accuses this site and others of fibbing about our numbers. (Scalzi, it should be remembered is Ted Rall's good friend.) Scalzi uses Norah Vincent's equation of "hits" with "visits" to suggest that my daily visit numbers are perhaps one fifth of what I've reported. Here's what my not fantastically sophisticated server tells me: last week, this site got 220,000 visits from 76,000 unique visitors. Our best day was Wednesday when we got 40,000 visits from 23,000 unique visitors. On a monthly basis, we're now over 800,000 visits from over 200,000 unique visitors. Are we bigger than the New York Times? Of course not. But that's not the right comparison. Better to compare a news service like Drudge with a news service like the Times. Scalzi says the Times gets 2.2 million visitors a week. According to his site, Drudge gets 4 million visits a day. Let's be very conservative and say that amounts to 1 million unique visitors a day. I'd say Drudge beats the New York Times website hands down. Of course, he provides only a tiny fraction of their original reporting. But if you're looking for news stories, his web-page clearly out-performs the Times, and on the web, a page is a page is a page. It seems to me the right comparison for opinion bloggers like Instapundit or yours truly would be either visits to individual columnists online or visits to opinion magazines. I'm pretty sure National Review Online beats us all. But I'd be interested to know if the online versions of the Nation or The New Republic beat individual bloggers by a large amount. And remember that our pages are staffed by one, rather than around a dozen or so. When you look at it that way, bloggers' contribution to the debate - in a matter of months, really - is pretty astounding. But the broader point is: this is not a zero-sum game. The old media won't disappear, nor should they. The Times, for all its flaws, is an absolutely indispensable institution, and I hope to God it stays that way. What bloggers do is break up smug monopolies, disperse editorial power and give unheard voices a chance to get a megaphone. It seems to me only the truly insecure or untalented have anything to worry about. (Which may account for Eric Alterman's panic.)
[emphasis mine]
Scalzi had this to say:
[Sullivan Says:] "John Scalzi's piece all but accuses this site and others of fibbing about our numbers. (Scalzi, it should be remembered is Ted Rall's good friend.)"
This is an interesting rhetorical maneuver. Ted Rall, as you'll no doubt recall, is the cartoonist whose "Terror Widows" cartoon caused a national uproar, and indeed, I am one of the few people who did not immediately call for Ted to be shot for treason for drawing it (if you missed the fracas, the details are here). For those of conservative bent, Ted is the sort of deranged, fire-breathing liberal who is easy to hate because he's wrong about everything and almost certainly eats babies with a knife and fork and tasty dipping sauce. So by allying me with Ted, what Sullivan is saying is:
From a technique point of view I think this is a nice attempt by Sullivan to deflect credibility, but I think it signals that Sullivan recognized he's arguing from a position of weakness. If he had more confidence in what his numbers actually meant, he wouldn't have had to try to slam the messenger by bringing up his friends; either that or he can't help bringing up Ted's name to frighten the children at every opportunity.
(Also, to be clear, I don't suspect Sullivan was lying about his numbers, although it seems evident that prior to the columns he wasn't entirely sure what his numbers represented, or didn't represent, as the case may be. This is not especially his fault -- ultimately, it's an abstruse concept, and hopefully the end result of the last couple of days is a clearer understanding for everyone what the stats are, and what they actually report.)
Anyway, I know Andy loves to stir up controversy. But, stuff like this confirms the notion that Howell Raines canned his ass not because of his oh-so-dangerous-contrarian-conservative-views, but because he's a sloppy journalist and an immature unprofessional little baby.
Eric Alterman also notes that Andy's been lying about what he says on his website here (scroll down) and a bit about the numbers here.
And this is how we celebrate the 4th of July? Lovely. Really. Fucking. Lovely.
The most striking characteristic of the ceremony, an expanded version of tiny Ripley's annual Fourth of July celebrations that began in the mid-19th century, was the steady profession of faith. The event began before Bush's arrival with a fiery invocation by the Rev. Jack Miller of West Ripley Baptist Church.
"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word in the name of multiculturalism," Miller prayed. "We have been forced to honor sexual deviance in the name of freedom of expression. We have exploited the system of education in the name of the lottery. We have toyed with the idea of helping human life in the name of medical research. We have killed our unborn children in the name of choice."
After Bush entered, the crowd recited the Pledge of Allegiance, shouting out the words "under God" in defiance of the unpopular ruling by an appellate court panel last week that such words in the pledge are unconstitutional.
Bush alluded to the decision, which was suspended pending a full court ruling. "No authority of government can ever prevent an American from pledging allegiance to this one nation under God," the president said beneath the clock tower of the 86-year-old Jackson County courthouse, prompting a sustained standing ovation from the crowd.
Bush, who removed his tie, unbuttoned his collar and rolled up his sleeves before giving his 20-minute speech beneath a perfect sky, also drew cheers when he spoke of the freedoms "granted to each one of us by Almighty God," and he expressed confidence that the founders "would join us all in giving thanks for all that we have."
"Today, as much as ever before, America bears the hope of the world, yet from the day of our founding, America's own great hope has never been in ourselves alone," Bush said. "The founders humbly sought the wisdom and the blessing of Divine Providence. May we always live by that same trust, and may God continue to watch over the United States of America."
The most striking characteristic of the ceremony, an expanded version of tiny Ripley's annual Fourth of July celebrations that began in the mid-19th century, was the steady profession of faith. The event began before Bush's arrival with a fiery invocation by the Rev. Jack Miller of West Ripley Baptist Church.
"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word in the name of multiculturalism," Miller prayed. "We have been forced to honor sexual deviance in the name of freedom of expression. We have exploited the system of education in the name of the lottery. We have toyed with the idea of helping human life in the name of medical research. We have killed our unborn children in the name of choice."
After Bush entered, the crowd recited the Pledge of Allegiance, shouting out the words "under God" in defiance of the unpopular ruling by an appellate court panel last week that such words in the pledge are unconstitutional.
Bush alluded to the decision, which was suspended pending a full court ruling. "No authority of government can ever prevent an American from pledging allegiance to this one nation under God," the president said beneath the clock tower of the 86-year-old Jackson County courthouse, prompting a sustained standing ovation from the crowd.
Bush, who removed his tie, unbuttoned his collar and rolled up his sleeves before giving his 20-minute speech beneath a perfect sky, also drew cheers when he spoke of the freedoms "granted to each one of us by Almighty God," and he expressed confidence that the founders "would join us all in giving thanks for all that we have."
"Today, as much as ever before, America bears the hope of the world, yet from the day of our founding, America's own great hope has never been in ourselves alone," Bush said. "The founders humbly sought the wisdom and the blessing of Divine Providence. May we always live by that same trust, and may God continue to watch over the United States of America."
Assuming the motive for the airport shooting comes out as people expect, it's going to raise some questions. Assuming this guy has no connections with some broader terrorist network, then what do we call this crime?
I would like to suggest that it sounds like...
(drum roll please)...
a hate crime.
And the FBI agrees with me.
Now do some of you understand what a hate crime is?
I would like to suggest that it sounds like...
(drum roll please)...
a hate crime.
And the FBI agrees with me.
Now do some of you understand what a hate crime is?
Thursday, July 04, 2002
I don't know what the motive for the shooting at LAX was, but just because there is a shooting at an airport does not make it terrorism. There could be a personal motive for this. Or not. Who knows. But, the media is, as usual, being rather irresponsible for talking about it as if it is a terrorist act.
Hey, King George does something right for a change. (Thank God I can get credit for saying at least ONE THING nice about him).
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is offering a Fourth of July gift to 15,000 immigrants serving active duty in the U.S. military: immediate eligibility for citizenship.
The president was to announce his executive order, which he signed on Wednesday, during an Independence Day celebration honoring veterans in Ripley, W.Va.
"Our fine service men and women are fighting and winning the war on terror. They deserve the gratitude of all people who cherish freedom," Bush said in a formal holiday statement.
A White House paper outlining the change to immigration policy described it as a way to reward noncitizen personnel serving in active duty during the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism. Citizenship, in turn, will improve the retention of military personnel by allowing them to advance their Armed Forces careers, the White House said.
(via Vaara).
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is offering a Fourth of July gift to 15,000 immigrants serving active duty in the U.S. military: immediate eligibility for citizenship.
The president was to announce his executive order, which he signed on Wednesday, during an Independence Day celebration honoring veterans in Ripley, W.Va.
"Our fine service men and women are fighting and winning the war on terror. They deserve the gratitude of all people who cherish freedom," Bush said in a formal holiday statement.
A White House paper outlining the change to immigration policy described it as a way to reward noncitizen personnel serving in active duty during the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism. Citizenship, in turn, will improve the retention of military personnel by allowing them to advance their Armed Forces careers, the White House said.
(via Vaara).
Happy Independence Day. I won't bother writing some long tribute to our country's greatness. Us liberals don't do that kind of thing. Let me just say that I hope everyone remembers that our constitution was established in 1789 which is the "real" start of our country. Let's hope people remember some of the things that are in it. Let's hope people remember some horrible Supreme Court decisions which seemed appropriate and justifed at the time but were later regretted (by some, at least). And, let's hope that those who wrap themselves in the flag and pay tribute to all things patriotic have read the thing once or twice and that enough of them aren't for goosestepping it into the bonfire.
Matthew Yglesias mocks conservatives for their nostalgia for them Good Old Days of Ancient Greece.
Reminds me of the Cambridge dons in Stoppard's Invention of Love . What was the line? Something along the lines of "a shame about all that buggery."
Reminds me of the Cambridge dons in Stoppard's Invention of Love . What was the line? Something along the lines of "a shame about all that buggery."
Wednesday, July 03, 2002
Well, I was in the mood to swat some flies today, and since 'ole Instapundit is on vacation, that left only one target.... AndyLand!
Check out this post:
Wednesday, July 03, 2002
HOW IS THE AMERICAN PROSPECT LIKE WORLDCOM? You've probably read lots of articles in the American Prospect, bemoaning big CEOs fiddling numbers, inflating profits, engaging in all sorts of creative accounting. Well, Bob Kuttner's online magazine should know. In the Columbia Journalism Review, they claimed 450,000 unique visitors a month. Amazing traffic. Eric Alterman, always alert to factual accuracy, pointed out that this showed the hegemony of the Left on the web. Well, after the equivalent of a blogger SEC investigation, they've finally released their amended report. Their actual unique visitors for June was 161,025 - a little over a third of their previous claim. In classic fashion, they don't admit their error; they don't apologize; they barely explain; they release the news the day before July 4. More spin. And I thought Chris Mooney was a straight-up kind of guy. These guys fibbed about something as basic as their web stats. And you're going to trust them on the economy?
- 11:09:11 AM
As Biggie the Neck well knows, or should, Tapped first reported some web statistics that their monitoring software gave them. People said they were probably incorrect. Tapped went back and got some more statistics. And reported them. They've had at least 5 posts on the subject, being very honest and forthcoming.
Check out this post:
Wednesday, July 03, 2002
HOW IS THE AMERICAN PROSPECT LIKE WORLDCOM? You've probably read lots of articles in the American Prospect, bemoaning big CEOs fiddling numbers, inflating profits, engaging in all sorts of creative accounting. Well, Bob Kuttner's online magazine should know. In the Columbia Journalism Review, they claimed 450,000 unique visitors a month. Amazing traffic. Eric Alterman, always alert to factual accuracy, pointed out that this showed the hegemony of the Left on the web. Well, after the equivalent of a blogger SEC investigation, they've finally released their amended report. Their actual unique visitors for June was 161,025 - a little over a third of their previous claim. In classic fashion, they don't admit their error; they don't apologize; they barely explain; they release the news the day before July 4. More spin. And I thought Chris Mooney was a straight-up kind of guy. These guys fibbed about something as basic as their web stats. And you're going to trust them on the economy?
- 11:09:11 AM
As Biggie the Neck well knows, or should, Tapped first reported some web statistics that their monitoring software gave them. People said they were probably incorrect. Tapped went back and got some more statistics. And reported them. They've had at least 5 posts on the subject, being very honest and forthcoming.
Eric Alterman says that this picture crosses the line, arguing that suicide bombers are just something you can't joke about, even when the joke isn't actually about suicide bombers really.
Hasn't he seen The Producers ?
Heil myself
Watch my show
I'm the German Ethel Merman
Dontcha know !
Not that every joke on every topic is funny, but every topic can be funny.
And, some Israelis agree:
TEL AVIV
AFTER a week in March when 25 Israelis had been killed in terrorist attacks, nearly half in the suicide bombing of a Jerusalem café, the television show
"Only In Israel" presented a skit in which its two stars went out on a date. They sat at a table guarded by a rifle-toting sentry and ordered a full meal with
champagne. When the waiter popped the cork, they flung themselves to the ground for safety. "Are you mad?" screamed the woman. "What do you think
you're doing, going around opening bottles?"
The couple climbed back into their chairs and tried to calm themselves by singing a folk song about the beautiful night. The man accidentally knocked a glass
off the table, and as it shattered, they dived again. Seated anew, they launched into a famous anthem of the Israeli peace movement, waving a balloon all the
while. It popped. Once more they crumpled and shrieked. "Don't leave me alone!" the woman called as her boyfriend fled. "I can't move, my knees are
shaking."
Hasn't he seen The Producers ?
Heil myself
Watch my show
I'm the German Ethel Merman
Dontcha know !
Not that every joke on every topic is funny, but every topic can be funny.
And, some Israelis agree:
TEL AVIV
AFTER a week in March when 25 Israelis had been killed in terrorist attacks, nearly half in the suicide bombing of a Jerusalem café, the television show
"Only In Israel" presented a skit in which its two stars went out on a date. They sat at a table guarded by a rifle-toting sentry and ordered a full meal with
champagne. When the waiter popped the cork, they flung themselves to the ground for safety. "Are you mad?" screamed the woman. "What do you think
you're doing, going around opening bottles?"
The couple climbed back into their chairs and tried to calm themselves by singing a folk song about the beautiful night. The man accidentally knocked a glass
off the table, and as it shattered, they dived again. Seated anew, they launched into a famous anthem of the Israeli peace movement, waving a balloon all the
while. It popped. Once more they crumpled and shrieked. "Don't leave me alone!" the woman called as her boyfriend fled. "I can't move, my knees are
shaking."
Ah, now we know how White kept his job.
When President Bush was at the West Point commencement on June 1st he pulled aside Army Secretary Tom White and told him: "As long as they're hitting you on Enron, they're not hitting me. That's your job. You're the lightning rod for this administration."
So says a dynamite new article in the soon-to-be-released new issue of the Washington Monthly.
but it's a BUSINESS scandal, not a POLITICAL scandal...
god our press are pathetic.
When President Bush was at the West Point commencement on June 1st he pulled aside Army Secretary Tom White and told him: "As long as they're hitting you on Enron, they're not hitting me. That's your job. You're the lightning rod for this administration."
So says a dynamite new article in the soon-to-be-released new issue of the Washington Monthly.
but it's a BUSINESS scandal, not a POLITICAL scandal...
god our press are pathetic.
Get a late start and already there are so many exciting things going on. Us West Coasters are always a bit behind.
First we have this ruling, which is actually a few days old, but which I hadn't actually noticed. (Via Dan Kohn). Apparently the 4th circuit ruled that a public defender had no standing in representing Yaser Hamdi because he didn't know him well enough. Of course, because he didn't know him well enough he was barred from interracting with him...
Anyone know if Ashcroft ever had any dealings in Egyptian Cotton?
And, then we have this case of a Planned Parenthood receiving a subpoena for all records of recent pregnancy tests.
First we have this ruling, which is actually a few days old, but which I hadn't actually noticed. (Via Dan Kohn). Apparently the 4th circuit ruled that a public defender had no standing in representing Yaser Hamdi because he didn't know him well enough. Of course, because he didn't know him well enough he was barred from interracting with him...
Anyone know if Ashcroft ever had any dealings in Egyptian Cotton?
And, then we have this case of a Planned Parenthood receiving a subpoena for all records of recent pregnancy tests.
Americans consider Hillary "closest to their idea of what a first lady should be."
But I thought the media spent 8 years calling her the un-First Lady.
What a bunch of morons.
But I thought the media spent 8 years calling her the un-First Lady.
What a bunch of morons.
Tuesday, July 02, 2002
Matthew Yglesias notes that vouchers might be bad for private schools.
Lost in all of this debate has been the fact that the federal commitment to public education is a commitment to the children, not the parents. It varies from state to state, but there is at least some oversight of private schools by state accreditation agencies. Children are legally required to go to school and legally required to have some minimum state-defined level of education.
With increased state/local money will come increased oversight, at least in some states. Religious institutions in particular should be concerned about the government looking over their shoulder.
Lost in all of this debate has been the fact that the federal commitment to public education is a commitment to the children, not the parents. It varies from state to state, but there is at least some oversight of private schools by state accreditation agencies. Children are legally required to go to school and legally required to have some minimum state-defined level of education.
With increased state/local money will come increased oversight, at least in some states. Religious institutions in particular should be concerned about the government looking over their shoulder.
Josh Marshall on Buddy Cianci. I agree.
And, let me add that the guy is hilarious! I saw him give a talk after he was jilted by his girlfriend (and quite a few other times). Better than any comedy show.
And, let me add that the guy is hilarious! I saw him give a talk after he was jilted by his girlfriend (and quite a few other times). Better than any comedy show.
Polygon has a persuasive piece about John Dingell, and why he should and will lose his primary challenge.
I read through the entire new article over at MWO and I can't find a single thing about a blowjob. I wonder what they're so excited about?
Apparently some chemicals in beer make sperm a bit wimpy. That'll teach you macho beer drinkers to pick on us pansy wine-drinkers.*
*for the record, I drink beer too. And gin. And whatever else is available.
*for the record, I drink beer too. And gin. And whatever else is available.
(via Max):
When economists attack!
I haven't read Stiglitz's book, but to even try and refute one of the apparent central claims - that the IMF has conflicts of interest which might influence its policies in favor of creditors instead of debtors is ridiculous.. This doesn't imply corruption (necessarily), it is actually just a big "duh."
When economists attack!
I haven't read Stiglitz's book, but to even try and refute one of the apparent central claims - that the IMF has conflicts of interest which might influence its policies in favor of creditors instead of debtors is ridiculous.. This doesn't imply corruption (necessarily), it is actually just a big "duh."
Scoobie Davis fleshes out a point that I fully believe - that the Republican Party is essentially run by the Religious Right. I don't think every member is a true believer, but actively or passively they support the agenda.
Kristof violates the Anthrax Omerta.
Robert Plant Voice:... does anyone remember Anthrax?
The name of Mr. Z has been printed elsewhere, in case anyone is curious.
Robert Plant Voice:... does anyone remember Anthrax?
The name of Mr. Z has been printed elsewhere, in case anyone is curious.
Paul Krugman violates Omerta.
Silly Paul. It isn't as if this is a $30K land deal gone bad, or a blowjob, or something really serious.
Silly Paul. It isn't as if this is a $30K land deal gone bad, or a blowjob, or something really serious.
Monday, July 01, 2002
Tom Tomorrow says this:
Rorschach test
When you read this, is your first thought, my god, those poor people--or is your first thought, the lefties are sure going to whine about this!
If the latter--well, you presumably have mirrors in your house. No need for me to editorialize.
I think this speaks also to that other issue - I v. P. One can believe that Israel has a right to take appropriate security measures, that all measures taken thus far have been necessary and just, that mistakes of course sometimes happen and civilians are killed, and still shed a tear or two when innocent people are killed. Or at least not condemn those who do.
Rorschach test
When you read this, is your first thought, my god, those poor people--or is your first thought, the lefties are sure going to whine about this!
If the latter--well, you presumably have mirrors in your house. No need for me to editorialize.
I think this speaks also to that other issue - I v. P. One can believe that Israel has a right to take appropriate security measures, that all measures taken thus far have been necessary and just, that mistakes of course sometimes happen and civilians are killed, and still shed a tear or two when innocent people are killed. Or at least not condemn those who do.
Sunday, June 30, 2002
Vaara discovers that Jews are hated here almost as much as they are in Europe! Well, I guess we still win! . Mostly.
Harbor traditional anti-Semitic views
Europe - 30%
U.S. - 17%
Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country
Europe - 45%
U.S. - 33%
Jews have too much power in the business world
Europe - 30%
U.S. - 24%
Jews don't care about anyone but their own kind
Europe - 19%
U.S. - 16%
Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.
Europe - 16%
U.S. - 19%
Harbor traditional anti-Semitic views
Europe - 30%
U.S. - 17%
Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country
Europe - 45%
U.S. - 33%
Jews have too much power in the business world
Europe - 30%
U.S. - 24%
Jews don't care about anyone but their own kind
Europe - 19%
U.S. - 16%
Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.
Europe - 16%
U.S. - 19%
Kudos to Privateer for taking 5 seconds to criticize both Cal Thomas and George Jr.
Anyway, I don't expect you Righties to disavow yourselves from your whackjob brethren every time they say something loonie. Just stop associating me with a bunch of people I would probably never read if you didn't keep bringing them to my attention.
Anyway, I don't expect you Righties to disavow yourselves from your whackjob brethren every time they say something loonie. Just stop associating me with a bunch of people I would probably never read if you didn't keep bringing them to my attention.
A.M. writes in to inform me of this story about the U.S. vetoing an extension of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia.. The sticking point is that we want our peacekeepers exempt from prosecution by the ICC.
I'll acknowledge fully that all of the issues involved are not ones about which I claim much expertise. However, at some point we're going to have to back out of international agreements altogether or give up our tendency to expect special status.
I'll acknowledge fully that all of the issues involved are not ones about which I claim much expertise. However, at some point we're going to have to back out of international agreements altogether or give up our tendency to expect special status.
I haven't gotten much monkey mail lately, so except for my amusing little pals Oliver, Andrew, Fulton, the fake "Alan D.", and some SullyFlappers with their occasional rudeness in my comments, I haven't been on the receiving end of much bile. I guess I'm not such a threat after all (joke). I have, however, seen it in many other places in many contexts around the internet. And, I have to say that Tom Tomorrow's post on this here is dead on.
I hope we're wrong. Happy to be.
I hope we're wrong. Happy to be.
Nathan Newman gives us Bill Clinton's speech after he vetoed (overridden) the 1995 law discussed here in Businessweek:
while IPWatch begs the question of whether loaning your company's founder $430 million is just standard operating procedure designed to keep your company afloat to avoid having to lay off your poor workers and not (horrors!) motivated by any desire for personal gain.
I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that will have the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have legitimate claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have recourse in our courts. Unfortunately, changes made in this bill during conference could well prevent that.
This country is blessed by strong and vibrant markets and I believe that they function best when corporations can raise capital by providing investors with their best good-faith assessment of future prospects, without fear of costly, unwarranted litigation. But I also know that our markets are as strong and effective as they are because they operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I believe that this bill, as modified in conference, could erode this crucial basis of our markets' strength...
While it is true that innocent companies are hurt by frivolous lawsuits and that valuable information may be withheld from investors when companies fear the risk of such suits, it is also true that there are innocent investors who are defrauded and who are able to recover their losses only because they can go to court. It is appropriate to change the law to ensure that companies can make reasonable statements and future projections without getting sued every time earnings turn out to be lower than expected or stock prices drop. But it is not appropriate to erect procedural barriers that will keep wrongly injured persons from having their day in court.
while IPWatch begs the question of whether loaning your company's founder $430 million is just standard operating procedure designed to keep your company afloat to avoid having to lay off your poor workers and not (horrors!) motivated by any desire for personal gain.
The always funny T.Bogg reviews Ann Coulter's Slander :
Ms. Coulter has achieved quite a feat with her latest book; she has made it review-proof. Let's forget for the moment that facts are Kryptonite to Ms. Coulter. By framing “Slander” as a critique of the putative "liberal media" she can sit back and dismiss any and all critiques of her book as...voila!...proof that the media is indeed liberal, without the muss and fuss of having to back-up any wild assertions that she has made. True, she offers up 35 pages of footnotes, yet she forgets that however copious the footnotes, quantity does not equate to accuracy or relevancy. To put it another way, swinging a golf club a thousand times a day doesn't make you Tiger Woods.
Ms. Coulter has taken to defending some of her more outré assertions as…a joke!…hyperbole!…irony!…sarcasm!…in much the same manner in which a person who has made a horribly out-of-place comment, immediately insists, “I was only kidding!”. This being one of the finer defenses used by fourteen year old girls and people who “don’t get out much”, if you know what I mean. To her credit there is much in her slim book that cannot be dismissed, simply because it’s her opinion, and who is to say that she isn’t so deluded that her opinions shouldn’t make perfect sense according to her own mis-firing synapses? Other assertions cannot be dismissed lightly, or easily for that matter, since they lack any internal logic, point, or relationship to a conscious human thought process. For example, if someone said “Blue dog, banana banana go fish” you couldn’t dispute either their assertion nor could you malign their intentions. (Disclaimer: Not that Ms. Coulter’s writing is of this quality).
In the interest of fairness, and in her defense, I think it is only proper to submit Ms. Coulter’s own words from a recent television interview as the last word on the importance of this lively, yet horribly disfigured and flawed piece of work:
COULTER: “No, I'm saying - I'm merely - I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say - you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...”—Crossfire 6/26
Who can argue with such conviction and clarity? I know I can’t.
Ms. Coulter has achieved quite a feat with her latest book; she has made it review-proof. Let's forget for the moment that facts are Kryptonite to Ms. Coulter. By framing “Slander” as a critique of the putative "liberal media" she can sit back and dismiss any and all critiques of her book as...voila!...proof that the media is indeed liberal, without the muss and fuss of having to back-up any wild assertions that she has made. True, she offers up 35 pages of footnotes, yet she forgets that however copious the footnotes, quantity does not equate to accuracy or relevancy. To put it another way, swinging a golf club a thousand times a day doesn't make you Tiger Woods.
Ms. Coulter has taken to defending some of her more outré assertions as…a joke!…hyperbole!…irony!…sarcasm!…in much the same manner in which a person who has made a horribly out-of-place comment, immediately insists, “I was only kidding!”. This being one of the finer defenses used by fourteen year old girls and people who “don’t get out much”, if you know what I mean. To her credit there is much in her slim book that cannot be dismissed, simply because it’s her opinion, and who is to say that she isn’t so deluded that her opinions shouldn’t make perfect sense according to her own mis-firing synapses? Other assertions cannot be dismissed lightly, or easily for that matter, since they lack any internal logic, point, or relationship to a conscious human thought process. For example, if someone said “Blue dog, banana banana go fish” you couldn’t dispute either their assertion nor could you malign their intentions. (Disclaimer: Not that Ms. Coulter’s writing is of this quality).
In the interest of fairness, and in her defense, I think it is only proper to submit Ms. Coulter’s own words from a recent television interview as the last word on the importance of this lively, yet horribly disfigured and flawed piece of work:
COULTER: “No, I'm saying - I'm merely - I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say - you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...”—Crossfire 6/26
Who can argue with such conviction and clarity? I know I can’t.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)