Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
'Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you,' Sen. Clinton said. 'We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.' (Emphasis mine.)
If this is the agenda Hillary will admit to in front of a presumably left-friendly SF group, what is she saying in the strategy room? This woman is extremely bad news. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Does this perhaps prove to the left that we really weren't in it for the oil?
I was expecting to be outraged, offended, maddened, etc etc. No one told me I'd be bored. The devices were so tired, the analysis worthy of something by an intern in the Nation online, the sad attempts to blame everything on Bush so strained and over-wrought even the most credulous of conspiracists would have a hard time giving them the time of day. This won the top Cannes prize? Only hatred of America can explain that.
Could the president of the United States have simply left Saddam in power, with sanctions coming off, reconstituting his weapons programs, confident that Saddam and al Qaeda would not work together again in the future? Would this have been a reasonable course of action?
The answer, of course, is no. And had we taken this course, the criticism over the long haul might have been worse than for what we did, which was to free a country and take down a dangerous dictator. Bush was going to be a target of the left whichever action he'd taken.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] 'As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.'
Although I hate to support Moore's politics, I'm quite interested in seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 from the standpoint of technique. Leni Reifenstahl was a master filmmaker who, at least artistically, got behind a really bad political point of view, but her films are still valuable as examples of propaganda. (Please -- I'm not comparing anybody to a Nazi, least of all Michael Moore.) Moore's film may be less documentary than political diatribe, but I'm still interested in seeing how he does it. Roger and Me was actually pretty good, although it foreshadowed a pretty strong anti-capitalism/anti-business streak in Moore's psyche. But I liked it.
The Hill, among other sources, is reporting on a move to prevent Moore from advertising his film after July 30, on the grounds that since the GOP convention starts August 30, it essentially counts as a kind of "primary election," and so no ads mentioning the candidates can appear less than 30 days prior. This will be a problem promoting Moore's film as well as other politically-oriented documentaries coming up. One blog indicated political documentaries may constitute a kind of "end-run" around McCain-Feingold.
Well, guess what? McCain-Feingold is a piece of bad -- no STUPID -- legislation that BEGS for end-runs. (Why else would Kerry float the idea of not actually accepting the nomination at his party's convention?) Campaign finance reform has a long tradition of unintended consequences, and this is why it shouldn't have been passed at all. It is a direct attack on free-speech, and when free-speech is challenged, it's going to figure out a way to be heard anyway. (Think of this: McCain Feingold COULD be interpreted to prevent any and all bloggers from mentioning politics in their online publications.)
"But wait a minute, Dave" I hear some of you saying, "But don't you WANT Fahrenheit 9/11 ads off the airwaves, since they'll be critical of Bush?"
Nope. I don't want ANY ads legislated off the airwaves. I want politicians and whiney crybabies to stop talking pompously about how there's "too much money" in politics. Well, no kidding. Money makes the engine run. Anyone should be allowed to give money, run ads, make speeches in whatever quantity, volume and gross rating point increment they choose. Unencumbered. Without some political-hack second-guessers trying to determine how much is "too much." It's all this silly legal leak-plugging that's wasteful of our time and constricts freedom. Did ANYone really think this version of "reform" would do the job? No matter what, people will find a way around it. And here's the kicker: they SHOULD.
Michael Moore, in my opinion, is a wrong-headed guy. I completely disagree with his politics, opinions and attitude about our country. But dammit, he should have the right to put out his film and try to convince people of his point of view. If we tolerate quashing any expression of Michael Moore's, then when Rush Limbaugh or some other person on the right wants to make a film, we have to expect the same kind of treatment. No intelligent person should support or applaud any ruling against freedom of expression.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Monday, June 7, 2004
Saturday, June 5, 2004
"Any step forward in the job market is good news for workers but America is still in the worst job recovery since the Great Depression," said Allison Dobson, spokesperson for Kerry, in a statement issued Friday.Don't they realize there are people alive today who remember the Great Depression and know better? This is the same goofy story Clinton got away with in 1992 ("Worst economy since Herbert Hoover"). I guess if your education system keeps people in the dark about history, you can count on people swallowing anything you tell them. Especially if you tell them about anything that happened more than, say, five minutes ago.
Friday, June 4, 2004
On the shores of the Tigris River sits 40 acres of prime real estate which recently was home to a compound used by Saddam Hussein's secret police. Now, a retired U.S. Navy commander is leading the charge to turn the remnants of the police camp into a first-class camp and training facility for Boy Scouts in Iraq, and have Scouting flourish once again in the region.
If the Boy Scouts can get a foothold in this country, can things be quite as bad as the left/anti-war crowd keeps trying to convince us?
Omar's blog, Iraq The Model, is one of the better ones coming from Iraq giving us a view from the Iraqi perspective, as opposed to that presented by most media and editorializers in this country.