Jan. 12th, 2003

sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
you and gene
(Anonymous)
2003-01-12 06:15 (from [address]) (link) DeleteScreen
the race-baiting by the desperate left continues.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


----

from (what are the odds) an AOL user in the south.

What this has to do with changing the recipe for Stella d'Oro cookies I'm not sure.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
When last we saw Tim McVeigh, he had achieved radical-right apotheosis by blowing up a daycare center (at least according to popular reactionary pinup Ann Coulter, whose only objection to his activities was that he didn't blow up the New York Times building while he was at it).

Well, I'm afraid he's in for a bit of a dip in his popularity with the choir.

via Orcinus (who also points out that popular hard right moral exemplar Fred Phelps of "God Hates Fags" fame is on the anti-war tip - God Hates America? - and has had two face-to-face visits with Saddam lately), by way of digby:

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign tartgets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivilent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy

When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone:
"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McVeigh
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
by way of Long Story - Short Pier.

Go.

a. hem.

Jan. 12th, 2003 10:09 am
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
On dit you can get a "Do Not Startle the Buffistas" shirt at Cafe Press.

hrmpf.

edit: Oooooh, large mug.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
When Commerce Secretary Don Evans phoned me to praise the tax plan announced by President Bush last week -- he must have drawn the short straw to have my name on his call list -- he assured me that the "bold package" would boost "the general well-being of the people."

"Nobody wins unless we all win," the president's longtime friend said -- a sentiment with which I assured him I concurred.

In his next breath, Evans derided the rival Democratic stimulus plan -- which would cost one-fifth as much as the $674 billion, 10-year Bush package -- because it relies mainly on a one-time rebate of $300 to every taxpayer. "One-shot remedies don't work," Evans said. "You have to create a feeling of certainty for at least the next 10 years, so businesses and families can plan."

It was not that long ago that the White House was telling us that the 2001 tax rebate -- $300 for individuals and $600 for families -- had been instrumental in making the recession "the shortest and shallowest in history." But now, as the president's reelection approaches and unemployment lingers at uncomfortably high levels, the "certainty" of 2001's 10-year Bush tax plan is being scrapped by the administration in hopes of pumping the economy before the voters get to the polls.

Is it needed? In his first public appearance since he was fired last month as Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill told a Sulgrave Club audience the other night that, with the economy growing at a 3 percent annual rate in the first three quarters of 2002, "it is hard to see a need for Keynesian remedies," i.e., further tax cuts and more stimulus.

Before the O'Neill talk, I asked one of my favorite Republican economics guides what he thought of the new Bush tax plan. He did not mince words. This man -- a veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations and a friend and adviser to many officials in the Reagan and two Bush administrations -- said, "It may be the least defensible policy ever." I would amend that slightly: It is probably the most ill-considered since Treasury Secretary John Connally persuaded President Nixon to freeze wages and prices in 1971.

Like that move -- designed to help Nixon's reelection in 1972, whatever the damaging long-term consequences -- this latest pack of proposals reeks of politics.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
A special Justice Department recruitment program long overseen by career employees has been moved firmly under the control of Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and his senior aides, prompting complaints that the effort is being politicized, according to current and former department officials.

Ashcroft decided last year that the Attorney General's Honors Program, which offers new law school graduates full-time positions within Justice and its component agencies, would benefit from more direct participation by him and other political appointees, officials said.

The administrative changes have alarmed some current and former Justice employees, especially those who identify themselves as Democrats, who said the previous version of the program was highly regarded and had the crucial benefit of being separated from any hint of politics. Many of these officials said they fear that the Bush administration, which has made clear its intention to place political conservatives on the federal bench, is aiming to do much the same within the career ranks at Justice...
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
< le mode fisque >

The White House and the Republican Party have decided against taking overt steps to make amends for racially charged remarks by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) because President Bush's aides said he has nothing to apologize for and should not pander, officials said.


except, of course, to anyone whose feelings might be ameliorated by the Pickering nomination.


Some conservatives are pushing Bush, who condemned remarks Lott made last month about Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign, to do more to reach out to African Americans. But officials said Bush has made no changes to his upcoming budget and plans no immediate speeches designed to appeal specifically to minorities.


because, of course, nothing the Bush administration could possibly do during the regular course of achieving their objectives would satisfy those uppity race agitators without Mr. Bush bending over backwards to do stuff he disagreed with - and let's face it, if they'd like it, he'd disagree.

You know, it's not as if the reporters at the Washington Post aren't perfectly competent stenographers. They really have to get "officials" who write shit down first and run them by someone who got more than 360 on their verbals.


Most significantly, Bush officials said he may go with his initial instinct and register his objections to race-based preferences in the University of Michigan's admissions, which are being reviewed by the Supreme Court in the biggest affirmative action case in a generation.


Race, of course, is not an element to be considered in admissions programs designed to promote diversity, because that's preferential treatment.

Preferential treatment for legacies is OK, though, although it demonstrably gives a several hundred percent boost in the chances of an applicant and is almost exclusively a program benefiting white folks and is therefor anti-diversity.


Justice Department lawyers wanted to oppose the Michigan program vigorously, but some were resigned to the possibility that politics would cause Bush to stay out of the case. Now, though, activists who have discussed the case with senior White House officials said Bush may criticize the Michigan program and the concept of preferences, while stressing the importance of diversity.


see above.


Several of Bush's senior aides said they believe the Lott controversy, which played out over the two weeks before Christmas and resulted in his resignation as Senate Republican leader, was nipped quickly enough to avoid damaging the president as he heads into his reelection campaign.


Got that? He didn't comment on it for a week, finally did comment on it while he was signing the Federal Funds for Bob Jones U bill and hasn't said word one about Lott becoming the de facto procedural ruler of the Senate. No-one's likely to remember that (hell, isn't it race-baiting to bring it up?).


Matthew Dowd, a strategist for the Republican National Committee, said legislative accomplishments, including passage of an economic growth package and providing relief from prescription drug and other health-care costs, will be more important to voters than the Lott episode. "The public's now on to the next thing," Dowd said. "The president has always been perceived as a tolerant, unprejudiced person. People see the party through the lens of the president, not a majority leader who 50 percent of them don't even know who he was."


Clearly there is no competitive exam for strategists.

Wait. That's not fair. Possibly in a laudable attempt at diversity the exam wasn't held in english.


William J. Bennett, former education secretary and co-director of the conservative Empower America, said Bush "should not be intimidated" by any Lott fallout and must pursue a race-blind agenda.


What ho! Angry negroes! Avaunt! Gated, my community is! Neener!


"They should be consistent and say that we don't celebrate separation by race, whether it's the old Dixiecrat South or the new Michigan system of higher education," Bennett said yesterday...


Damn right. It's a goddamn virtue to fight african-americans joining the professional classes every bit as hard as you fought lynching!

Well, actually, a whole lot harder, but it just means we've _learned_ something.

< /le mode fisque >
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
Observers Have Little Success Defining Ehrlich
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page A01

Sometime after noon on Wednesday, Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. will ascend the marble steps of the State House in Annapolis, enter the ornate offices of the governor of Maryland and take command of a $22 billion operation serving 5.3 million people.

Then, on Thursday, he and the boys from his transition team will check out fight night at a reception hall turned boxing ring in a seedier part of Glen Burnie.

"No chicks allowed," Ehrlich said with a grin.

Throughout his 16 years as a state legislator and congressman, Ehrlich, 45, has projected the image of a fun guy who is everybody's friend, a guy who will never be too stuffy to hang out at the fights. As governor, he says, he will charm the socks off the Democrats who control the General Assembly by inviting them to the mansion to talk policy over pizza and beer.


Allow me to demur. I can define his ass just fine.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
The man is a lawyer. He knows this stuff.

Gogogo.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
I have a neighbor. An old woman.

She was in a camp in WW2. A nazi camp. She'll tell you that, if you talk to her. Not a death camp, a work camp. She was from a partisan family. She's not jewish.

Talk to her a little longer, and she'll tell you about Them. Them The Blacks. Them The Jews. Them The Spanish People. Them The Fags. Them The Druggies (subsumes the earlier thems).

She also has theories about bird poop. (Don't ask).

She doesn't have any problem with fascism as such. She thinks the Nazis wasted their energy going after the wrong people.

I don't recognize her moral authority on racial matters or religious matters or political matters. I don't recognize her moral authority at all, because she doesn't recognize that the problem with the camps was not that they didn't check with her first and they went after the wrong people.

In much the same way, I think people who proudly trumpet their desire to rid the world of muslims or arabs or the politically correct or Jews or Christians or athiests or liberals or people who don't go to the right synagogue or people who write for the Times have activated Godwin's law all by themselves.

Never again means never again. It doesn't mean Not until we have a chance to check the guest list more carefully.

I thought we all knew that by now.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
He is the pampered and spoiled product of his country's ruling elite and the son of his country's former leader. Born to the wealth and high social standing of his family's political dynasty, he has enjoyed a life of privilege far removed from concerns of his exploited countrymen. Despite an obvious lack of merit, talent or aptitude, he received the best accommodations his country could offer. He was a notorious playboy and immoral rake until he reached an age at which most men have matured. He produced nothing and accomplished nothing unconnected to his family's name, and owes his current political position to solely his father's cronies.

Surrounded by sycophants and toadies, he adheres to a discredited ideology that most of his countrymen would reject if they were not routinely and massively propagandized. He is unconcerned with the economic devastation his party’s ideology has visited on his country, except as to avoid complete disaster and cynically manipulate each crisis to the passing advantage of his party and the ruling elite.

Paranoid and contemptuous of foreign opinion, he has alienated almost the entire world with disjointed, bellicose, but often colorful rhetoric that most other nations find frightening. His erratic foreign policy consists solely of slogans intended to further propagandize a fearful domestic audience rather than assure his neighbors. Often, he unpredictibly reverses his own national policy and acts unilaterally to further a political ideology that is incompatible with democracy.

These are the differences between Kim Jong Il and our own beloved and respected leader. Liberals are blind to those differences.


Browse the comments for a whole lot of folks who can't figure out for sure if the man is serious.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
Clonaid ordered to reveal 'clone'

The company which claims it has produced the world's first cloned human has been ordered by a US court to reveal the whereabouts of the baby girl and her mother.

An executive with the company, Clonaid, was also summoned to appear in court in Florida, after lawyers demanded that the state authorities appoint a guardian for the child.

[...] The witness subpoena and summons were approved at the request of attorney Bernard Siegel, who has filed a lawsuit demanding a guardian for baby Eve.


While it can't be argued that the whole story of the "first clone baby" is just a bit on the weird side, I have to say that I have a serious problem with Bernard Siegel, an attorney who, as a private individual and of his own accord, decided to file suit asking the court to appoint itself the child's legal guardian, because he thinks that the child may be being exploited and could have suffered genetic defects. Of course, so far he's not provided any information to indicate that these concerns have any grounding in reality and are not just pure speculative concern on his part, but that doesn't really seem to matter.


for when real life gets too complicated, there's always Florida.

via Different Strings
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 12:10 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios