greenideas

September 29, 2005

Wow. No, really. Wow.

I certainly don't mean to get all Cold War crazy on you, but you've got to be at least a little creeped out by the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has named a patron saint of nuclear-armed long-range bombers.

Also, speaking of weird things in Russia, monthly polls there by the Levada Center show approval ratings of the current government at 29%, but Putin's own approval number is 70%. That is in-sane.

Posted by matt at 04:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The beginning of the end

I'm giddy. I could do a little dance. I really couldn't be happier about this Delay thing. Between Delay, Frist, Safavian, and Abramoff, to say nothing of Bush getting it from both sides over the guy who's going to become who is now Chief Justice of the United States, and the compounding of failures in Iraq and the US Gulf coast, I'd say the conservative revolution of 1994 is over. I'd be a little more confident in saying that if this were all happening six months from now when we'd be in the thick of midterm election campaigns, but these are pains that will linger until then. Also, remember how Mr. Bush was going to reform Social Security? That an administration that used to have a preternatural ability to weather lackluster approval numbers has tanked so quickly is a surprise, but certainly a welcome one. At any rate, however unlikely it may be, I'll not look a gift lame duck in the... bill...? Sorry.

Then again, when I think of the people who are going to benefit from the Republican leadership crisis, it tempers my enthusiasm considerably. Despite my best attempts to lay back and think of England, I can't help but imagine the empty partisan caterwauling of Reid, Pelosi, Biden, and Schumer that's going to start, oh, in the next couple of hours, and continue until some time in 2008. How I wish the tone for the next decade of public debate could be set by Edwards, Specter, Leahy, and McCain. And let's not forget Bill Bradley. Oh Bradley, where art thou? Let's also not forget Best Ever.

Actually, now that I think more about it, I think this opinion piece about Germany's electoral deadlock from yesterday's FT isn't irrelevant to America's political future. Maybe the answer isn't to try to replace the conservative revolution with a liberal one. I dont know if the idea of a "technical caretaker government" espoused by the authors of that piece would qualify as a centrist "revolution" in the context of US democracy, but whatever label should be applied, the moral of drastic, lasting reforms ought to appeal to many. It certainly appeals to me.

At the very least, it's certainly a nice shot in the arm for me as I gear up for round two against the LSAT on Saturday.

Anyway, much love to David Brooks who really turned a corner somewhere (I'd link to his column today, which was an insightful contrast between Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay, but he's part of the new TimesSelect pay thingy at the NYT. The paper costs a dollar. Divest some HCA from your blind trust and pick up a hard copy).

Posted by matt at 09:10 AM | TrackBack

September 19, 2005

Things happening all over the place!

A few quick thoughts on stuff happening near, and stuff happening far.

First, let's do far: So, there was an election in Germany yesterday, and it pretty much completely contradicted everything that everyone said would happen about two months ago. Back then, Angela Merkel and the Christian Democrats had what should've been an insurmountable lead in the polls (they led by 20% over the SPD). Instead, the CDU and the SPD ended up in an almost perfect stalemate.

Let's be clear: that sucks. It sucks mostly because the most likely result of the deadlock will be that the CDU and the SPD will form a "grand coalition" government which will be completely unable to move on sorely needed reforms. I was definitely hoping for a strong CDU win, but I would've settled for anything decisive considering how Germany is at 11.4% unemployment and around 1% growth rate. So, absent any reforms, they'll continue to tank, and drag the rest of the eurozone down with them (but that'll be okay since the EU is imposing new textile quotas on China, right? Right?). So yeah, bummer.

Now let's do near: I've got to say that, so far, pretty much all of the decisions related to oil or gas that have been made in the wake of Katrina have been spectacularly bad. Most recently, refineries have said that they plan to put off regular maintainence in order to keep output at its peak. Here's whay that's dumb: Even without catastrophic storms in the Gulf, US refining capacity is hopelessly tight due to our not having built any refineries in decades. Now take an extra 10% out of the total, as a result of Katrina. The idea now is to put all of our other refineries at risk (to say nothing of the lives of the workers who operate them) by foregoing routine maintainence. I mean, wow. That idea is so bad it's practically epic.

The other dumb thing people want to do is to temporarily repeal state gas taxes. Yes, gas is really expensive. You know why? Because there isn't enough of it. We can argue all day about what markets can and can't do, but the one thing markets do better than pretty much anything else is keeping people from using too much of scarce resources. Gas is usually pretty scarce to begin with, and it's even moreso now, with the havoc in the supply chain. There is less of it around, and so it should be harder to get (i.e. more expensive). When you muck with that, say by lowering taxes, you're interfering with the best mechanism we've got for keeping people from using too much of something we don't have enough of. Who needs carpools when you have short-sighted politicians?

Also, one lesson that we should take away from all of this is that having a strategic petroleum reserve doesn't do anyone a damn bit of good. A strategic gasoline reserve would be infinitely more useful. I'm just saying.

Posted by matt at 09:14 AM | TrackBack

September 16, 2005

Unborkable!

Posted by matt at 09:50 AM | TrackBack

September 12, 2005

The dumbest thing I've ever heard? Maybe.

This is something I just learned, and it's pretty much the worst. Go ahead and get mad:

Unfortunately, one of the populations that has been hit especially hard in Katrina's aftermath has been hospice patients. Making things far worse, however, is that federal law requires that a hospice patients' remaining medication be destroyed when they die.

So far, it's hard to think of anything about the response to Katrina that has gone in any way right. The destruction of perfectly good (and sorely needed) medications might be one of the surest indications of this.

Posted by matt at 11:46 AM | TrackBack

September 09, 2005

Stop the presses?

If this turns out to be true, then the Wonkette has a helluva scoop.

Posted by matt at 12:54 PM | TrackBack

September 08, 2005

Paying back with Interest

You know what I love? Policy journals. I really can't get enough of 'em. So it's great news for me that Adam Garfinkle, onetime editor of The National Interest and current State Department speechwriter, has a new one called The American Interest.

You really can't beat the mag's editorial board, which is chaired by Francis Fukuyama and includes Zbigniew Brzezinski*, Walter Russell Mead, and James Q. Wilson (who totally wrote my AP Government textbook from back in the day!), to name just a few. They've also got a "global advisory council," which i guess means the editors who aren't themselves American, and this has Niall Ferguson and Bernard Henri-Levy among many others.

A quick perusal of the masthead shows an impressively diverse collection of thinkers, but it's difficult to shake the feeling that the publication will have a conservative slant. There's certainly no question where Garfinkle is coming from, and Fukuyama is pretty far to the right, despite his criticisms of neoconservatism and of the Iraq war. Also, it can't be coincidence that the new journal pops up within a couple months of The Public Interest closing up shop.

If the first issue is any indication, AI will suffer at least a little from being unsure about whether it's supposed to be a magazine or a policy journal. Nonetheless, with a surprisingly comprehensive spectrum of opinions represented, and features like the Toolbox (this time around it was a memo to the president on seven things he can do today to improve port security), I know I'll be looking forward to the next issue.

*Full disclosure: I can't spell Zbigniew Brzezinski off the top of my head.

Posted by matt at 09:32 AM | TrackBack

September 01, 2005

No one who speaks German could be evil

From the Wonkette:

Bush invoked the memory of his father as a young Navy pilot shot down over the Pacific and of an optimistic Roosevelt calling on Americans to defend liberty. He portrayed Roosevelt's vision as similar to his own -- a commitment to spreading freedom even when U.S. allies were not convinced it was the best course.

"Franklin Roosevelt refused to accept that democracy was finished," Bush said. "His optimism reflected his belief that the enemy's will to power could not withstand our will to live in freedom."

Wonkette quoted this news item in a post called "Now What Poor Aide's Going to Have to Break the News that FDR Founded Social Security?" What might be a better question is: what poor aide is going to have to tell the president that Dan Bartlett has him quoting Nietzsche? You just know that some speechwriter totally wanted to be cute by obliquely referring to the Nazis by using the phrase "will to power."

Still, as long as the president's favorite "philosopher" is Jesus Christ, I wouldn't expect to hear anymore quotes from the guy who called Christianity "the one immortal blemish upon the human race."

Posted by matt at 12:40 PM | TrackBack

August 29, 2005

Every cloud of stormy death has a silver lining

As terrified as I am that New Orleans literally might not exist anymore, I still couldn't help but find this FOX News segment (quoted by the Wonkette) hi-larious:

SHEPARD SMITH: You're live on FOX News Channel, what are you doing?

MAN: Walking my dogs.

SMITH: Why are you still here? I'm just curious.

MAN: None of your fucking business.

SMITH: Oh that was a good answer, wasn't it? That was live on international television. Thanks so much for that. You know we apologize.

[snip]

SMITH: "I'm watching two dogs drink out of a glass of ice water, and it's none of my business why they are still here."

Posted by matt at 03:42 PM | TrackBack

August 25, 2005

Yes, I care about base closings, and so should you.

I know that the percentage of this weblog's readership that's concerned with the BRAC committee recommendations hovers somewhere around zero, but I wanted to say a couple of things about them nonetheless. Believe it or not, there's stuff in here that everyone should find illuminating.

For one thing, I can't for the life of me imagine why the NYT's reportage of this is so disastrously selective. This morning's article mentions that one of the commission's proposals involved sending 200 F-18s from Virginia Beach to Jacksonville, FL. It implies that this move is why Jeb Bush "came out of the room smiling broadly." What's puzzling is why the article references this situation so obliquely. The meeting was about base closings. They weren't talking about moving fighter jets from one state to another, they were talking about closing the Oceana Naval Air Station, thus sending about 12,000 jobs out of state. I really don't get why that number wasn't in there, or why Oceana wasn't once mentioned by name.

What's worse, is that this loss won't be mitigated in any way by Hampton Roads getting any of the 6,000 jobs that should be heading south from Connecticut and Maine but aren't.

Don't get me wrong. It's not so much that I'm bothered by Oceana closing, or at least not for any reasons other than sentimentality (For those of you just joining us, I grew up in Va Beach. Somewhere at my parents' house, there's a flight jacket patch I got when I was a kid and got to sit in the cockpit of an A-6 Intruder sitting in a hangar at NAS Oceana. There's no denying how cool that was). The Sword of Damocles has been hanging over NAS Oceana for pretty much as long as I can remember, so this doesn't come as a tremendous shock. What does bother me, is how shamelessly political the closing is. Let's see here: we're going to send 12,000 jobs to Florida. Wait, who's the governor there? Oh right. It's the president's brother. Well, I'm sure that's just an isolated coincidence. I mean, it's not like keeping the base in Groton, CT open was in any way a gift to a Democrat in name only who's been one of the president's biggest cheerleaders on pretty much every issue, right?

(While we're talking about the politics of this, how about how Bill Frist totally sold out the people of South Dakota by letting the hammer fall on Ellsworth AFB, despite promising to use his power to save it if voters rejected Senate Dem Tom Daschle in favor of Republican John Thune.)

Anyway, if you want to read something about the BRAC recommendations that goes into a lot more detail about the fate of Oceana, there's this Virginian Pilot article.

Posted by matt at 11:38 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 24, 2005

Old Man Week: Confound these so-called liberals

You know, I was starting to despair of ever being able to come up with a good set of topics about which to rant in a curmudgeonly fashion. I just haven't really been that cranky this week. It turns out, however, that I needn't have worried. Sure enough, there's a surefire blood-boiler that shows up right on my doorstep a couple of times every week, and I'm going to go ahead and grouse about it.

I'm speaking of course about Maureen Dowd's column in the NYT. It's something I've mentioned repeatedly, and will continue to mention as long as her marginally informed tirades against "W." continue to besmirch the Op-Ed page, and further drag down the level of public debate in this country.

(NOTE: At some point in writing this, my blood pressure elevated to the point where, perhaps as the result of a small stroke, I started writing in the second person. I'm not sure what that's about.)

First of all, whatever you call the president of the United States at your botox & self-congratulation parties, when you speak of him publicly or mention him in print, he is "President Bush" or "Mr. Bush." Look, I don't like him either. I think he's failed this country in just about every way he possibly could.

When you call him "W." or, for some reason, "Bikey W." (as in this weekend's column), it's obvious that you're just speaking to people who already agree with you, and hoping to give your readership something to snicker about at the MoveOn.org watercooler. Bully for you. Don't you think your time & energy (to say nothing of your column inches) might be better used in contributing something to the debate? Maybe new information, or a new argument?

I mean, I get that there are plenty of hateful, cynical people out there complaining about how "stupid" Mr. Bush is, or how Secs. Rice or Rumsfeld are "evil." These folks would clearly rather pat themselves on the back for having the keen eye to spot the iniquity than actually put any effort into thinking specifically about what's wrong with the country or planning better courses of action and ways to get people elected who can put those plans into effect.

So, say you were an opinion columnist in what is, for better or worse, the Paper of Record. Would you think the best way to use that bully pulpit would be to get people to laugh cruelly at the foibles of their elected official and the "ignorant" people who elected them? Would you encourage your readers to feel more disenfranchised, and that they just don't have anything in common with those "Red State" folks who got us into this mess? Hey if it moves books for Ms. Dowd, and papers for the NYT corporation, why not, right?

For a moment, let's consider an alternative. Maybe you tone down your rhetoric a little bit. Maybe you learn to refer to the man in the Oval Office respectfully, so someone outside of your coterie might acutally take your words as something other than fanatical hate-speech. Then you can do some research. Maybe come up with a new fact or figure to show that, hey, the president really is doing bad things to his country. There really are reasons to criticize him other than that you just don't like the guy or the people who voted for him.

When the Democrats take back at least one house of the legistature next year, it'll be because the Republican leadership has used their overwhelming power to overreach time and time again, and that the results have rarely been positive, and have at times been legitimately disastrous. I say this to preempt any celebrating by the left that any victories in the midterms, or subsequently in 2008, will be anything other than a vote of no confidence on those already in power.

The fact is, the way that Mr. Bush took the White House and his GOP colleagues took the legislature, was by appealing to our base nature. "You're scared? Vote for me." "I'm just like you. Vote for me." That's exactly the level that Ms. Dowd and those like her on the left seem to be working at. I'm saying that's wrong. It might work to get a democratic senate next year, or even a democrat president in '08, but the same pendulum effect will swing power quickly back to the right unless those gains are built on a solid intellectual, political, and rhetorical foundation.

I firmly believe that we have the facts on our side. We have nothing less than the full force of reason in our corner. The only way that we can possibly lose in the long run is to follow Maureen Dowd and those like her into pettiness and partisan intolerance.

Posted by matt at 09:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 08, 2005

There can be only one?

This guy's DVD copy of Highlander has nickel-sized holes worn through it from overviewing.

Posted by matt at 02:23 PM | TrackBack

Look on the sunny side

Those of you who didn't read the Times Magazine's cover story on end-of-life and palliative care yesterday, please do so. Not only is it informative and thought-provoking (even if the voice it's written in is a little inconsistent throughout), but my office is in it!

(ed. note: For those of you who weren't around this blog during the Schiavo controversy, I don't mention my employer or office by name so there's no search engine link.)

That's all I've got time to talk about right now. I'm taking a week off starting tomorrow, so I'll finally be able write a bunch of things that I've had on the back burner for a while, so expect big things in the near future. Today, just expect me to look tired and concerned.

Posted by matt at 09:07 AM | TrackBack

August 04, 2005

Kudos to the NYT

Today is a great day for the NYT. I want very much to congratulate them on running an obituary for Dame Cicely Saunders, who started the modern hospice movement, and really pioneered the field of palliative care.

Also, the Op-Ed by the always insightful Jim Wallis is well worth reading.

More big-time anti-kudos go to the president for his decision to reassert that we're fighting a "war on terror" instead of a "global struggle against violent extremism." A handy tip: when you find yourself out-hawking Donald Rumsfeld (who has been very careful lately to say GSAVE instead of using the war rubric), it's time to come back from the precipice. Truth be told, I'm glad Bush is falling back on all of his greatest hits ('war on terror,' 'no timetable for withdrawl,' etc.). I was starting to worry that his recent even-temper would let people forget what a disaster his presidency has been by the time the midterms roll around next year. It's very considerate of him to step back up and poison the well for the Republicans who actually still have to get elected.

Posted by matt at 09:33 AM | TrackBack

August 03, 2005

Yes, I will be a monkey's uncle, thank you.

Since last November, as a good political moderate, I've tried to extend numerous rhetorical olive branches to the Bush administration. I'm done with that now.

Up to this point in his second term, the president has made great and admirable progress, not just in rebuilding the diplomatic relationships that were destroyed by the unilateralism of his first term, but even in making concessions to quell the rancor of his democratic opponents in Congress. Now with the simple act of appointing John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN during the Senate recess, he's managed to undo all of that. It's hard to imagine one action that could so thoroughly undermine Bush's stature both at home and abroad. If any good will come of this, it'll only be that Bolton won't be able to cause any more damage in the State Department. Indeed, since he was plucked from his position there, we've seen the beginning of the end of the diplomatic freeze-out by North Korea (not that it'll do much good, but that's a whole other thing).

I mean, that really sucks, but that's not even the most infuriating thing the president has done this week. That dubious honor goes to his coming out in support of teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Kudos to whoever thought of the ID rubric as a way to make creationism not sound like creationism so people could get on board without sounding like dogmatic zealots, but rest assured that a zealot is a zealot is a zealot, no matter how soft spoken. The president should be ashamed to count himself in their number.

It's hard to imagine what's the worst thing about ID "theory." Is it the fact that it's unscientific? Could be. Is it that it's false? Maybe.

How about the fact that it's a total intellectual cop-out? People have been trying to pass off this kind of lazy thinking as a legitimate objection to evolution by selection since Darwin's time. Back then they said it was the eye that was supposed to be so complex ("irreducibly complex" in the contemporary parlance) that it must have been designed by God. Now the examples they give are of things that you can only see through microscopes. The technology may've been updated, but the argument hasn't, and it's as bogus as it ever was. Just because you can't figure out how something evolved the way it did, doesn't mean that nobody can or will, and it certainly doesn't mean that God had a hand in it--even if nobody ever figures out how it's supposed to work.

Take for instance the mechanisms of protein synthesis. I think it's incredible that such a perfect machine was able to arise from base chemicals a few trillion years ago. When I say it's "incredible" I mean that I think it's awe-inspiring--not that it's literally in-credible!

Say nobody ever proves Goldbach's Conjecture. Does that mean that every time a number greater than 2 turns out to be the sum of three primes, that God intervened to make it so? I'll bet you a coke that it doesn't.

Obviously that's a slight disanalogy since the standard of proof in math is different than in other sciences, particularly biological sciences. A scientific theory is confirmed by its instances, and disconfirmed by recalicitrant phenomena. Given that, even if nobody ever figures out how a particular biochemical process or structure was selected for out of a set of possible mutations, you have to show that it's impossible for that process or structure to come about in that way if you want to use it as evidence against evolutionary theory. What you don't get to do is assume that it got to be that way because of the Finger of God, and then reason circularly that it disproves anything. I shouldn't have to tell anyone that when your premise and conclusion are the same thing, you haven't achieved much at all.

The fact is that, concerning evidentiary hurdles and standards of proof, there is a bona fide mass of evidence that supports evolution by something like natural selection, and literally no evidence that undermines it.

Unanswered questions don't disprove a damn thing. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are both doing fine despite the fact that we have no idea how they fit together.

It occurs to me that I haven't even mentioned the argument that teaching ID in public schools would violate the establishment clause. I guess that's mostly because it bothers me considerably more that the president wants kids to learn something so egregiously unscientific than it does that teaching it to them would be unconstitutional (which it would be).

Obviously this discussion has been going on in some form or another since Darwin's time, but with the occasional exception (i.e. the Scopes trial), it's always on the fringe. By throwing his hat in the ring, Mr. Bush has pulled this subject right into the political mainstream. If it were at all possible to use this opportunity to kill the subject once and for all, I'd welcome the president's intervention. However, I don't see that happening. As such, I can't help but express my deepest disappointment that in addition to making it impossible for chlidren to achieve the already depressingly low educational goals we've set for them, the president now wants to eliminate those goals altogether by claiming that the high watermark of human inquiry was, in fact, created by the Noachian flood.

Posted by matt at 09:29 AM | TrackBack

July 22, 2005

I love the smell of newsprint in the morning

Man oh man. It's a great time to be a newshound. Here are some brief thoughts on a few of the huge things going on right now:

On John Roberts: I'd totally love to have him and his wife over for dinner, but I'm still not sure I want him on the Supreme Court (possibly) for the next 40 years. Even if it was someone I was sure I liked, I still wouldn't want to have a Bush appointee with that kind of longevity. He doesn't deserve a legacy like that.

On China's revaluation of the renminbi: It's a good first step, and hopefully it will shut Chuck Schumer and his protectionist colleagues up for a while. Still, since China has opened the monetary door a crack, they need to throw it way the eff open so as to avoid a bubble from an inflow of speculative foreign currency. Basically, China is at a precipice where they can choose to either fall into a debt crisis or to assume the responsibilities of a world economic leader.

What this is going to mean for the US is further monetary tightening. Markets had thought that the overnight rate would top off at 4.25% in November, but since China no longer needs to prop up the dollar, a sell-off of their US debt holdings and currency reserves is likely (which I said a while ago), and as China goes, so does the rest of Asia, as Malaysia showed when they abandoned their peg yesterday.

Whatever happens, the bottom is going to fall out from underneath the US bond market, and is unlikely to gain any ground in the forseeable future. Expect equity to soundly outpace debt in the US until something really cataclysmic happens.

Personally, I think a better reform move for Chinese currency would've been to take Mao's picture off of it.

On Corporate Tax: John Kerry (you remember him) has an opinion piece in today's FT (paid subscription required) in which he argues that the answer to America's gloablization blues is to remove tax incentives for companies to send jobs abroad, and to extend incentives and remove disincentives for them to repatriate their earnings. He's right as far as he goes (and should go farther in the latter case), but he misses the point on what the problem will be for the US in the global economy of tomorrow. The main problem isn't corporate tax structure (although that could be a huge part of a necessary short-term band-aid that would also dramatically increase tax revenue), the problem is education. Until we get serious about closing the massive education gaps in this country, then we're hurling ourselves towards global serfhood. We can keep teaching our kids just enough to be able to drive a forklift or assemble a chassis, but those jobs are going, going, gone, and they're never coming back (no matter how many tariffs we want to impose on China, or India, or Venezuela...). Unless we can get our kids to start performing in math, science, and technology, it's going to be a long, miserable century.

On The Sox!: Despite the emotional rollercoaster that is Curt Schilling's comeback so far, Boston is 1/3 of the way to showing the undisputed AL Central leaders who the real Sox are.

Okay, that was a mouthful. I promise I have fun things to talk about, too, but there's a lot going on right now, and it needed to be mentioned.

Posted by matt at 09:42 AM | TrackBack

July 21, 2005

I leave you alone for an hour, and what do you do?

Wow. A lot happened while I was underground from my commute this morning: There were three more bombing 'incidents' on London's tube, and news broke that China announced a 2.1% revaluation of the renminbi. That's an action-packed 45 minutes.

Posted by matt at 09:15 AM | TrackBack

July 19, 2005

Why yes, I am surprised. What's it to you?

Well, I'm sorry to say that all of the credit that I had been giving the president regarding his likely SCOTUS nomination(s) was misplaced. Maybe John Roberts is a gift from the president to his base, or maybe the idea is to create a nomination fight to take the heat off of the White House staff.

I guess I'd be able to summon more indignation over this if I wasn't so blissfully engrossed in Shark Week.

Posted by matt at 09:05 PM | TrackBack

July 18, 2005

Schadenfreude, Inc.

The hits just keep on coming for the Bush administration with Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, now being implicated in the leak scandal.

As much as I'd like to kick up my heels in celebration over this, there's reason to be a little more guarded. Now that someone lower on the administration's totem pole has been thrown into the mix, it's possible that he'll be served up to prosecutors as a scapegoat in an attempt to take the heat off of Karl Rove.

On the one hand, I'd be happy to see Libby go, since he's one of the only actual avowed neoconservatives in the White House (contrary to popular belief, most of Bush's staff are more foreign policy realist than neocon--although Charles Krauthammer says they're a little of both).

On the other hand, sacrificing him to save Rove would be a cheap way out of this for the administration, since despite the mealy-mouthed defense that Ken Mehlman (the RNC chair) and other Republicans are offering, Rove's actions seem now to have violated the conditions for his security clearance. On Meet the Press yesterday, Mehlman maintained that the fact that Rove allegedly learned of Valerie Wilson's identity from a reporter is sufficient to exhonorate him. Unfortunately for the administration, it doesn't matter how Rove got the information. If he subsequently gave that information to another reporter without its having been declassifed, then it was illegal. He could've read it in his tea leaves, but it still would've been illegal to tell Matt Cooper about it.

Independently of whether or not anybody broke the law, the fact that Rove might not have been the only source could lend support to the theory that the leak was designed by the White House to discredit Joseph Wilson. So while we're a long way from closure in the investigation, the view from here doesn't look great for the Bush administration. I guess I don't care that much whether the fallout is legal or political, as long as Rove, Libby, and everyone else involved is held accountable.

Posted by matt at 11:13 AM | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

Pick up the phone!

Hey, real quick: Harry Reid is leading a "conference call" today at 4:30 to talk about this morning's breakfast discussion with the president concerning Supreme Court nominees. Sign up here if you want to be on it.

Posted by matt at 01:34 PM | TrackBack

Stuck in the middle

I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned before how much I like Matt Miller, he of The 2% Solution, the clarion call of the dynamic, sensible political center. What I may not have mentioned is how awesome his radio show, Left, Right, and Center is. The show features commentary on the issues of the day by Bob Scheer (Left) and Tony Blankley (Right), moderated by Miller (who holds down the center). Arianna Huffington is also on the panel, and she represents what Miller calls "the fourth dimension of political time and space," which I think is a nice way of saying that she's an obnoxious dilettante who's never managed to justify to anyone why they should pay attention to a single goddam thing she says (Vot iz zee Huffington Post? Hell if I know, but anything involving Deepak Chopra is suspect at best).

At any rate, it's worth checking out if only to hear Tony Blankley not be a dick--or at least just be dick who knows how to use his indoor voice.

The best news is that the show is available as a podcast, which will go nicely with the new update of iTunes you just downloaded.

Posted by matt at 11:12 AM | TrackBack

July 11, 2005

Karl Rove is going down

Good morning, everyone. It's time for a healthy breakfast: what was the worst kept secret in Washington as of Friday afternoon, thanks to Larry O'Donnell, is now headline effing news. KR actually outed Valerie Plame, presumably to punish her husband for criticizing US policy in Iraq.

If I were him, I'd get Michael Jackson's lawyers on the phone tout de suite.

Posted by matt at 09:20 AM | TrackBack

July 07, 2005

Out of respect, I will not make a pun based on things her name rhymes with

Note: I actually wrote this yesterday, but kind of forgot to publish it. Hrm.

So Sarah Vowell is the newest addition to the parade of guest contributors who have temporarily taken Maureen "Why be informed when you can be catty?" Dowd's space on NYT's op-ed page. This shouldn't come as a shock to anybody, but I think that a pretty stupid idea. Now, don't get me wrong here, I like Sarah Vowell a whole lot. In fact, I've liked most of the people who've been in that spot since Dowd left to work on her next worthless book (I especially liked that one guy). And it's certainly the case that all of the op-ed temps are infinitely preferable to the full-time owner of that column. My beef is just that the NYT has this chance to turn their op-ed page into a forum for new and challenging ideas instead of the usual lefty cheerleading offset by David Brooks's pseudo-provocatuer sniggering. Do I think they should get another legitimately right-leaning voice over there? Maybe, but that's not the only answer, as Matt Miller so expertly proved.

No, when you get right down to it, the main problem with the NYT's op-ed page is exactly the problem with the American left: namely, a complete lack of actionable ideas. All we ever get from Tom Friedman or Paul Krugman (both of whom I respect, and whose columns I enjoy) is a statement of what's wrong with whatever it is they're talking about. While it's important to know what the problems are with, say, our policy in Iraq or healthcare funding, what's missing from these columns, and from the debate in general, are progressive solutions. If Sarah Vowell is going to offer some, then bully. But I somehow doubt that that's why she's there.

By the by, if you're so inclined, you should pick up today's FT. It has a fantastic piece by Martin Wolf wherein he asseses the merits of both sides of the African aid debate. He is much smarter than me.

Posted by matt at 10:07 AM | TrackBack

July 01, 2005

Why Bob Geldof is an idiot
--or--
If everyone is going to talk about this, let's talk about it.

Eight of the most powerful men in the world are about to get together for a couple days of missing the point. At the same time, Bob Geldof has set up 9 massive concerts all over the world where people will get together in solidarity to also collectively miss the point.

Look, I appreciate the impulse to say "hey you G8 guys, the eyes of the world are on you, so you'd better do what we want," but if you're going to do that, you need to have a better idea of what you're asking for. The fact is that throwing more aid money at developing African countries is only going to make things worse.

For one thing, economists have known for a long time of an effect known as "Dutch disease" where aid flowing into a country causes wages to rise, which begets inflation, which hurts exports, thus curbing growth and further depressing the local economy.

Further, recent studies (some as recent as this week) by IMF economists suggest that increasing aid does not necessarily increase growth. There's more work that needs to be done in this area in order to disentangle the effects of humanitarian aid (such as disaster relief, which isn't supposed to help economic growth) and development aid (which is supposed to foster growth), so we can be clear on what exactly the studies are saying. Nonetheless, the discussion around the recent work raises two important points.

First of all, it doesn't matter how much money you throw into a economic/political vacuum. Most of the countries at the forefront of the development agenda simply don't have the economic infrastracture to make effective use of the money that's pouring in now, so why should anybody think that more money is the answer? At the same time, since many of these countries lack stable governments, we shouldn't be thinking that such infrastructure is forthcoming. This is what the G8 leaders need to address. Their development aid is going to be useless without economic infrastructure that can effectively mobilize cash and captial, and there's no way to get those mechanisms in place unless there is some assurance of political stability. Stable governments also have the benefit of being able to attract direct foreign investment which takes the development burden off of governments to deliver aid (but we're a long way off from that).

If the Gleneagles gang wants to get serious about development, the answer simply isn't more aid. The best thing that large economies can do to help smaller ones is to stop the shameless subsidizing of their own local producers. It'll be impossible for anybody who we're ostensibly trying to help with aid money to actually develop their own economies if our markets are de facto closed to them due to subsidies that keep prices on domestically produced goods artificially low. We thereby price out foreign competitors, including some of the resource-rich but economically devastated nations we're supposed to be helping with our aid money.

Of course, doing anything remotely like that is political suicide, since Angolans don't vote in US or UK general elections, but these are the kinds of changes that must be made in order to stop throwing good money after bad (well-intentioned) in Africa and elsewhere.

If you want to put political pressure on these guys to do the right thing, you'd better know what the right thing is before you ask for Beyonce to help. Push hard, but push in the right place.

Slight clarification: In addition to the things that Geldof has campaigned for that are stupid and pointless, he has also pushed for debt forgiveness for African countries. That's not stupid or pointless.

Posted by matt at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 23, 2005

Unconventional Wisdom (Updated)

I swear to god, I'm not making this up. In an interview on CNN just now, Richard Branson unveiled his plan to end malaria throughout Africa: we need to wrap each and every person in their own mosquito net. Naturally, that net must be "impregnated" with some sort of mosquito-killing chemical.

Also on CNN this morning, I learned that one of the lessons of the whole ordeal with that missing Cub Scout in Utah is that children should be encouraged to talk to strangers. When I think of all of the awesome candy I missed out on when I was a kid... aww dammit.

Lastly, since Bill Hemmer seems to be on vacation, Miles O'Brien is co-anchoring American Morning with Soledad O'Brien. Heh, they're both named 'O'Brien.' Cute, right? Somebody thought so, and they decided that it would be a good idea to put the anchors' names on the screen underneath them like this:

      Miles O'Brien Soledad

The thing I like about that is that it's not at all creepy. It reminds me of those three-faced guys from the Planet of the Sharktacons in Transformers: The Movie. "We are Miles O'Brien Soledad. Stand before us and be judged." "Guilty. Guilty. In-no-cent."

Update: In this entry's comments, "Young" Jon Dixon tells us the terrifying truth behind Bill Hemmer's absence.

Posted by matt at 08:27 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 20, 2005

Why the Times Kind of Blows

Busy as I've been all effing day, I've been stewing on this since the paper came this morning:

In an editorial entitled "Missing the Big Picture in Brussels," the Times demonstrates just how poor their own coverage of the current crises (those concerning the constitution and the budget) in Europe has been. The writer of this piece claims that, by using the current summit to debate the British refund, EU leaders are neglecting to address the more pressing problems facing the Union.

What problems does the Times have in mind?

Instead of squabbling about the budget, the leaders should have been talking about, for one thing, the huge amount the E.U. spends on agricultural subsidies.

Not a bad idea, actually. If only some European leader, say Tony Blair, were to take Jacques Chirac to task over the CAP subsidies to France. Why, one supposes that Blair might even do this by demanding either that the UK, which receives virtually no agricultural subsidies, get a bigger refund from the EU, or that France should take a cut in the outrageous subsidies that it receives. Can you even imagine?

The writer also takes the EU leaders to task for not endeavoring to settle the larger crisis of identity that has rocked the EU since the French and Dutch rejections of the constitutional treaty. Specifically, s/he mentions the split between those countries that favor the "social" model and those that view the EU's future as an integrated and expanding free-trade zone.

Perhaps on this score too, the Times' writer should look at what's actually going on in Brussels. If one looks at where the battle lines are in the refund debate, with the UK on one side, and France & Germany on the other, it seems less obvious that the refund is all that's at stake in the this debate.

Of course, if the writer of this piece only got her/his news from the paper by which s/he is employed, then s/he may be forgiven for her total ignorance of anything that's gone on in Europe so far this year (save for anything involving a visit by a US governmental offical, or Bono).

The way I see it, there is going to be no progress on the budget or on a constitution while Chirac and Schroeder are helming their ships of state. Let's talk again when they've been replaced by Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel (respectively).

Seriously though, the Times really needs to get their act together on Europe.

On the bright side, they had an article about a possible new Billy Jack movie. I really hope everyone knows how cool that would be.

Posted by matt at 03:51 PM | TrackBack

June 15, 2005

I Am Officially Creeped Out

It's not like I spend a lot of time imagining what it would be like to have a subarachnoid hemmorhage, but if I did, I'd be willing to bet that it feels a lot like I felt when I went on the Mission Space ride at Disney's Epcot center (I was in Orlando recently for work. Remember?).

As it happens, such thinking might not be too great a flight of fancy, as a four year-old boy died on the ride on Monday.

That officially gives me the jibblies. Still, one has to wonder why the boy's mother let him go on the ride without testing it out first. Presumably he had some sort of congenital defect which rendered him especially vulnerable to the 2Gs to which riders are subjected.

Still, before I went on the thing, I'd never seen so many warnings outside of an amusement ride. I totally thought it was hokum, but it turns out it's the real deal. Spooky.

Posted by matt at 09:19 AM | TrackBack

June 14, 2005

...And That's Why I Turned to a Life of High Finance

I meant to share this with you guys yesterday, and then I didn't. Anyway, this is from the letters page of yesterday's Financial Times:

From Mr. Simon Walker
  When I was growing up, my father insisted on wrapping our tortoise, Alexander, in the Financial Times for his five-month hibernation.
  He insisted that the pink paper provided a warmer environment over the winter months.
  I do not know if this is true.
  One year, however, we could not find an FT and wrapped Alexander in The Times.
  Although he eventually woke up, he disappeared shortly afterwards and was never seen again.
    Simon Walker
    London W6 7BD, UK

Posted by matt at 04:15 PM | TrackBack

June 06, 2005

Radio Free Bradley

Great news for those of you with a Sirius satellite radio and a political conscience: Bill Bradley's radio program, American Voices, premiered yesterday. The bad news, however, is that it doesn't look like he's planning on talking about politics (or really anything else that matters very much). The show's subtitle, "Bill Bradley speaks with extraordinary Americans," and the description of yesterday's guest line-up don't exactly fill me with hope that this show will be a launching pad for another presidental bid.

Speaking of which, Al Gore can bite me so hard. He's not half the man, the politician, or the power forward that Bill Bradley is.

The other bad news is that Sirius doesn't seem to be archiving Bradley's past shows for downloading or podcasting. It's almost like they're running some sort of paid subscription service...

Anyway, I know a certain someone about whom I've been (intellectually) swooning lately who does archive his broadcasts.

Posted by matt at 01:00 PM | TrackBack

May 24, 2005

The Slow Descent into Crackpot-ism

What's the surest sign that you're losing your grip on reason? When you start writing letters to the editor, of course! From the inside, it looks to you like you can't keep silent on your personal crusade anymore, and just have to say something for the good of the people/country/universe. Make no mistake, however, you're just nuts.

It's with that in mind, and great regret in my heart, that I admit that I have indeed heeded the siren's song of addle-brained letter writing:

To: letters@nytimes.com
CC: liberties@nytimes.com, mattmiller@nytimes.com

Subject: Miller v. Dowd

To the Editor:

Matt Miller's columns are a welcome addition to your publication's
Op-Ed page. His insights into the manifold complexities of cross-party
debate have been sorely needed in the Times and by the nation as a
whole.

Mr. Miller's contributions are made all the more praiseworthy given
the fact that they appear in the same space that Maureen Dowd has
consistently turned into little more than a gossip column--Page Six's
home on the Times's Opinion page. To be sure, a liberal peppering of
her column with "W"s does not a political opinion make.

Whereas Ms. Dowd consistently keeps debate at the level of sandbox
name-calling, Mr. Miller engages difficult ideas with clarity and wit,
and challenges readers of all partisan stripes to critically examine
their political prejudices.

For a publication with a responsibility to raise the level of public
debate, there is but one way to proceed: give Matt Miller a permanent
home on the Op-Ed page, and send Maureen Dowd to the Style section.

Sincerely,
Matthew W. Henry

So yeah. I'm officially nuts now. If anybody could spare some change, I need to build an aluminum foil hat to keep the government from stealing my alpha waves.

Speaking of the Op-Ed page, though, go look at Niall Ferguson's piece today. Love him, hate him, or something intermediate, he's a Very Smart Man.

Posted by matt at 10:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 23, 2005

So Um, Yeah

Make no mistake, this was the worst case scenario.

Posted by matt at 11:58 PM | TrackBack

What to Care About This Week.

Heya, gang. I know you're all busy people, and don't necessarily have a lot of time to follow every little news item you see, so here are a couple of things that are worth speding a minute or two thinking about this week.

The Senate Filibuster
Yes, this is (or should be) obvious. I mention it only because the story has been somewhat protracted, and some people might be losing interest. Now's definitely the time to tune back in. We're probably going to see a vote on the rule change tomorrow.

Why is it important? God, where to begin? There are plenty of things at stake here:

One of the most important is that this whole saga, meaning the tenor of the debate thus far, as well as the result of tomorrow's likely vote, will set the stage for the battle over the next Supreme Court nominee (expected to happen this summer/early fall).

The most important reason is that the outcome of the vote could fundamentally change the character of American democracy. If the filibuster is disallowed, minority parties in this country will be pushed squarely into the margin. It's important to realize that, barring a re-establishment of the procedure, this marginalization will ever be thus. The Senate will be a simple extension of the House, and ours will be a purely winner-take-all democracy. Regardless of how one feels about Priscilla Owen, it behooves everyone to be mindful of the real potential causalty of this vote.

The French Referendum on the EU Constituition
On Saturday, the people of France are going to go to the polls to vote on whether or not they want to ratify the EU's constitutional treaty. If the vote goes the way opinion polls are showing that it will, France will reject the treaty.

Why is it important? France is one of the founding memebers of the EU, so its rejection of the treaty would mean a severe crisis for the Union, if not its imminent collapse (as would a Dutch 'No' when they vote on June 3). The trick in this vote, however, is that the anti-constitution campaign has made what should be a vote on the political unity of Europe into a vote of no confidence for President Chirac and Prime Minister Raffarin. So, if the French vote 'Non' this weekend, they'll be doing so for the wrong reasons.

What are the 'right' reasons to reject the treaty? Well, French Europhobes (rightly or wrongly) fear the following things:

• 'Ultra-liberal' 'Anglo-Saxon' free-market principles will cripple the French economy.


• EU labor laws will lead to 'Social Dumping.' That is, workers from countries with less stringent labor laws will take French jobs.


• The EU is becoming too non-European. Adding Turkey as a member (Turkey's formal accession talks are set to begin in October) is emblematic of the dissoultion of a Europe whose borders are based on culture and history.


• Voting 'Non' will provoke a 'salutary crisis' in the EU, which will allow France to negotiate a better deal in a future version of the treaty.

Those aren't great reasons (all but the third are baseless), but they're considerably better than the "'No' of the people" malarkey that's being peddled by some anti-treaty folks.

At any rate, the outcome of the vote will have huge implications well beyond France. For instance, much of the dollar's massive gains on the euro recently have to do with the collapse of the latter currency that will likely ensue should the EU disband. Also (and this entry has gone on long enough, so I'll not explain this), the Czech Republic needs a strong, unified Europe even though they're likely to reject the treaty, too.

That should keep you busy. Speaking of busy, though...

Posted by matt at 09:46 AM | TrackBack

May 09, 2005

A Question for the Ages

A California couple were ticketed last month when one of their chickens escaped from its coop and impeded traffic by, yes, crossing the road.

As of yet, the chicken hasn't commented on its motives.

Posted by matt at 10:04 AM | TrackBack

May 04, 2005

Getting Hit from All Sides

If you didn't already know this, Trent Lott is the very worst kind of Republican. That is to say, he genuinely and actively dislikes the economically disadvantaged. For once, however, that's actually working in favor of the Good Guys.

The president, who's still stumping for his plan to privatize (read: "dismantle") Social Security, was on Senator Lott's turf in Mississippi yesterday. The Senator used the opportunity to express his displeasure with the president's newest formulation of the plan, which would index benefits to wages for low-income workers and to prices, which generally rise more slowly than wages, for high-income workers, and would pretty much just fuck the middle class (but that's another topic for another day).

Lott said that he's "not overjoyed" with the new plan, since because it gives more money to the people who actually need it most, "it does begin to move it toward a welfare system." You can see his problem since it was during Senator Lott's tenure as majority leader that the Democratic Party laid down and died in order to let Republicans finally end the welfare system.

So the bad part of all this is that Trent Lott is really bad guy, but we knew that already so it's no real problem for us today. The good news is that the president's plan is being attacked from the left and now from the right as well. The upshot of this is that the centerpiece of the president's second term agenda, and a huge part of his party's credibility is about to get "Harry and Louise"d.

So, thank you Senator Lott for hating poor people so much.

Posted by matt at 01:36 PM | TrackBack

May 03, 2005

Laura Bush > Elayne Boosler?

Yes. Laura Bush's routine at the White House Correspondents' dinner was funny. That was on Saturday night, and here it is Tuesday morning and it's still on the news. I don't want to seem like a news snob (even though I really am an insufferable snob about news and many, many other things), but aren't there better things for us to be thinking about this week? There's a general election in England in two days. I know Tony Blair has it locked up, but does everybody know what issues are at stake over there? How about the French referendum about the EU constitution? The EU is on the verge of collapse (as is the euro, for that matter). But forget all of that, because the president just got zinged!

More than anything else, I wonder why the First Lady got all the attention when Dick Cheney did a brilliantly bittersweet mime/clown performance that totally eclipsed Marcel Marceau (take that, frenchie) and Emmet Kelly.

Also, I really hate Maureen Dowd. She should have a botox accident.

Posted by matt at 10:02 AM | TrackBack

April 19, 2005

Habemus Papum

So we have a Pope. The College of Cardinals elected John Ratzenberger, who is most famous for his role as Cliff Clavin on the popular sitcom, Cheers.  This is surprising, since Ratzenberger is not widely known to have been a Catholic Cardinal, or even an ordained priest. As they say, The Lord works in Mysterious Ways. In any event, we can only have faith in the church and trust that the newly minted Ponitff will grow into his role as the Vicar of Christ and lead us into a new era of spritual enlightenment.

Also, please let us use condoms.

Posted by matt at 01:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 05, 2005

Dawn of the Dork

The other day, I was walking through the West 4th St train station when something struck me. It was some guy in a big hurry to get to his train. But once I'd recovered, I noticed something weird about all of the ads I saw in the hallway to get to the stairs. There were ads for the new PSP handheld, tons of posters for the new horror films coming out, and also a poster for Sin City. Could it finally have come to pass, as Huey Lewis did prophesy 20 years ago, that it's hip to be square?

Look at the facts: Media types are talking about how the PSP is the new iPod. This year, there's a new Star Wars coming out, along with at least five (!) comic book adaptations, and more horror films than would be worth counting. Vin Diesel openly admits to playing Dungeons & Dragons. He and Bono both own video game companies. My parents know what 'blogging' is, and that Chris Matthews does it.

This isn't like the bullshit emo fetishization of nerdy trappings that percolated through hipster culture. Nobody is insisting on horn-rimmed glasses and cardigans this time around. This is something completely different. Instead of glorifying 'The Nerd' as an archetype (with the requisite ironic detachment), we're celebrating the very things the nerd holds sacred. Somehow, it's cool to play video games, read comic books, and recite Simpsons and Family Guy references at will. Nobody's trying to be a nerd anymore, we are nerds.

Posted by matt at 11:24 AM | TrackBack

April 04, 2005

A Trend Devlops

Just one day after Bill Kristol got pied in Indiana, there was another food-attack on a conservative media figure when Pat Buchanan was assaulted with a heaping helping of salad dressing while giving a talk at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo. Although there is no word yet on whether the dressing was Thousand Island or Creamy Italian, one thing is for certain: Pat Buchanan has never looked so delicious.

Now if only someone would launch a lasagna at Tony Blankley. Man, I hate that fucker.

Posted by matt at 11:33 AM | TrackBack

March 31, 2005

Pie Meets Face. Let's Watch What Happens.

This is entirely too funny to let pass without comment. While giving a speech at Earlham College in Indiana, William Kristol, arch-conservative editor of the arch-conservative Weekly Standard, was hit in the face with a pie. To his credit, Kristol had a sense of humor about it, wiping the pie off and saying, "Just let me finish this point." No, pieface. Sit down.

Now that's what I call getting your just desserts... Yeah, that sucks. I am somebody's dad.

Posted by matt at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 25, 2005

Editorial: Terri Schiavo, The Media, and Palliative Care

I should warn you right now: this post is going to be exactly no fun at all.

Like I said the other day, I want to stay out of this whole Terri Schiavo thing. Still I feel like somebody needs to point something out about how this stuff is being covered, specifically about who the media have picked to be their medical experts on this right-to-die stuff [Disclaimer: I'm not going to mention the experts being interviewed, or the institution with which they're affiliated, mostly so this doesn't show up in that institution's media tracking (some of which I'm currently doing)].

For some reason, media outlets are pursuing experts in the field of palliative medicine to speak on Terri Schiavo's condition. Whoever's idea that was (maybe David B. Caruso at the AP, who did the first such interview) made the wrong call. Palliative care has little if nothing to do with the issues in this case. In fact, if Terri had been in a good palliative care program from the beginning, it's entirely likely that the present issues would not have arisen. True, palliative care involves medical treatment at the end of a patient's life, but it also incorporates the counsel of social workers, clergy, and others to make sure that all parties involved in end-of-life care decisions can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to the difficult problems such situations pose.

The emerging field of palliative care is poorly understood as it is. Even some doctors still feel that PC physicians are some kind of death dealers, and that transferring a patient to a PC program is effectively signing their death warrant. The present media situtation will only serve to make that worse. As a result, many more people than is necessary or morally justifiable will continue to live their last moments in needless pain and discomfort. I promise you that that isn't hyperbole. It's true, and it's deeply disturbing.

I admit that I'd love to point a partisan finger at conservatives and conservative media for the subtle but potentially devastating tarring and feathering that palliative care is getting. But the fact is, that's just not how it breaks down. In fact, while the New York TImes, CNN, and MSNBC always refer to the experts as professors of palliative medicine, only Fox News and New York Daily News refer to them only as professors of geriatrics and internal medicine. Also, one of the healthcare lobbying groups with which Bill Frist is associated has done a good deal of work in promoting the field of palliative care. Whether, in the case of Fox News, the omission is due to the network's estimation of their viewership's ability to understand the word "palliative," I'll suspend judgment.

All of this is just to say that I sincerely hope that nobody out there is influenced by the way in which palliative care is being portrayed in the media. To be sure, Terri Schiavo's condition has heated the blood of many of us on both sides of the issue. That said, we can't forget about the many other patients and families who benefit from having access to the right kinds of treatment and support in their final moments.
 

Posted by matt at 11:38 AM | TrackBack

Politics are bad, m'kay?

If you ever wanted to know why Paul O'Neill (the ousted Treasury Secretary--not to be confused with the former Yankees outfielder) is a fucking badass, you must read The Price of Loyalty. From said work, Ron Suskind describes a meeting between O'Neill and Alan Greenspan, early into the former's cabinet tenure. The two are concoting a plan to ease President Bush away from his fiscally profligate tax cuts:

And so it was hatched: a secret pact. What they were doing felt perfectly natural. Two men with nearly ninety years of experience in and around Washington, colluding to prevent an elected president--with virtually no experience in setting national economic policy--from acting in a way that they were convinced was ill-conceived. He'd thank them later.

Seriously. Badass.

Posted by matt at 10:48 AM | TrackBack

March 23, 2005

What a Revolting Development

Well, I wasn't really going to use this space to weigh in on the whole Terri Schiavo thing, but now I think maybe I can't use this space for that. My boss (or maybe my boss's boss) is all over the news advocating Terri's right to die with dignity, and I'm going to be fielding calls all afternoon from panicky media-types.

So, it'd probably be wholly inappropriate for me to say that the actions by conservatives in the White House and on the Hill over the weekend are some of the most egregious attacks on the rule of law and basic prinicples of federalism in the history of our union. It'd also be out of line for me to point out that said actions defy all sense and logic by being both shameless and shameful at the very same time. As such, I won't say those things.

Posted by matt at 10:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A Major Milestone

My how the time flies. Today is Richard Grieco's 40th birthday, and he doesn't look a day over 60. If you'd like, you can sign the virtual birthday card at one of the master thespian's surprisingly many fansites. In fact, I suggest you do. If you'll recall the passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls that described this event, it's on his 40th birthday that Grieco will reveal his true form, with leathery bat-like wings sprouting from his back and a halo of black flame surrounding him that will burn the flesh off of the unclean. Best to keep him happy on his special day.

Posted by matt at 09:43 AM | TrackBack

March 09, 2005

Take That, Diplomacy!

Admittedly, this is well covered ground since it's the lead editorial in today's NYT and Financial Times (and probably several other papers), but I'd be remiss if I didn't say something about what a spectacularly bad idea it was to nominate John Bolton to replace John Danforth as US Ambassador to the UN.

So far, President Bush's second term has been full of a surprising number of good foreign policy moves: The seeds have been planted for an effective diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's nuclear program (a multilateral one, no less!); The administration has rightly made efforts to stem the backslide into Soviet-style authoritarianism in Putin's Russia and a handful of former Soviet republics (Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, etc.); Pressure is being brought to bear on Beijing to soften the so-called 'One China' policy towards Taiwan; The diplomatic situation with North Korea is not nearly as bad as it could be, and the US is right to be using China as an intermediary.

Granted, many of these nascent successes are the result of the administration having painted itself into a corner on many of these fronts during Bush 43.1, but even recognizing that fact is a huge step away from the neoconservative heyday of the first term.

Given all of that, I can't for the life of me imagine what would make the president choose one of the most vocal exponents of US unipolarity to be the nation's envoy to the primary forum for global diplomacy. John Bolton has made it abundantly clear that the only factors that should weigh on foreign policy decisions are US interests. For instance, what should be done about the Taiwan Strait? Tell China to back off! Sure, they'll invade Taiwan, but they won't really attack us despite their avowal that support for a sovereign government in Taipei would be seen as an act of war. Honestly, if there were one decision that could, in one stroke, undermine all forward diplomatic movement since January, it would be giving Bolton this job.

The explicit reasoning for the decision is that putting such an outspoken critic of the UN straight, as it were, into the belly of the beast, will spur broad reforms in an agency the US sees as thoroughly corrupt. Maybe it will. Even so, the current administration, at its most conciliatory, has still made it quite clear that it has no use for the UN. So, isn't it in the president's interests to see the organization fall apart under the weight of scandal after scandal? For just this reason, I'm left a little cold by the suggestion that the US is suddenly interested in reform.

Just so nobody can say I'm just criticizing without offering an alternative, here are two individuals I'd be happy to see fill Danforth's empty chair (at least one of whom would enjoy strong bipartisan support): Brent Scowcroft and Bill Clinton. The latter, while he might be a tough sell for confirmation, has a long track record of fostering diplomacy. He would be wildly popular within the UN, and would thus be the perfect "catch more flies with honey" weapon for advancing US interests. Scowcroft clearly has the policy chops, as well as the conservative cred, having been National Security Adviser to Bush 41. In addition, he is committed, not just to multilateral diplomacy, but to the UN as the main venue for such diplomacy. Also, I guarantee that he'd sail through the confirmation process.

The worst kind of disaster is the kind that could be completely avoided. The fallout from appointing John Bolton as our ambassador to the United Nations is exactly that kind of disaster. When there are clearly much better candidates, moving forward on this would be, at best, an indication of blatant disregard for diplomacy. At worst, it's reckless endagerment of America's national security.

Posted by matt at 10:06 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 09, 2005

The #1 Star in the World

From today's Washington Post corrections page:

The TV Column in the Feb. 8 Style section incorrectly described one of the Super Bowl commercials that were scrapped. The ad featured the bare bottom of Mickey Rooney, not Andy Rooney.

Thank god, 'cos it would've been really gross the other way.

Posted by matt at 06:21 PM | TrackBack

Heavy is the Head...

Since it's apparent that we're now in the era of Seymour Hersh, the cool new thing seems to be to break medium-to-big stories in odd places like, say, The New Yorker. So maybe we shouldn't so surprised to see that, in the piece about Vladimir Putin in the new Atlantic, the author quotes several experts who speculate that the Russian president may have some kind of neurological defect. Based on an analysis of his movements, a movement expert at the Navy War College (She's trained in modern dance--a bona fide Navy dancer), in consultation with several physicians, determined that Putin may've had a small stroke, or possibly Erb's palsy, or could maybe have even had a bout of Polio as a child.

Now this strikes us as a Fairly Big Deal. Granted, the evidence for these conclusions is just an analysis of footage of Putin walking and participating in Judo tournaments (no, really). But we can't help but wonder why this story hasn't gotten more attention.

As an aside, has anybody else looked at The Atlantic this month? If so, have you noticed that the publication's post-Michael Kelly leftward swing seems to have peaked? Not that that's necessarily a bad thing--we're all about equal time--but it seems oddly abrupt. When we picked up this month's issue, we definitely weren't expecting a favorable comparison of Bush's foreign policy with Woodrow Wilson's.

Posted by matt at 10:59 AM | TrackBack

February 08, 2005

Twist off your own cap (it's a juice _____)

It may still be too early to say, but I think I had the best juice I've ever drank in my life today, during the drive into work. It was a bottle of the Apricot Peach flavor of the Switch (pictured at left), which has its corporate headquarters in Richmond, VA. It's 100% juice, and powerfully carbonated, and insanely delicious. Much better than, say, Fruitopia (which tastes like Skittles dissolved in flat Sprite), or Snapple, or most other commercially available 'juice' drinks.

A few months ago, some old guy was passing out shot-sized samples of this stuff, and I figured I'd give it a whirl (I'm spontaneous and risk-taking like that), and I was pleasantly surprised. When I asked the old guy why it was called the Switch, he went into an extremely convoluted explanation that I'm sure was forcefed into his brain by whole legions of marketing folks, but basically it boiled down to the fact that they want people to 'switch' from soda to carbonated juice. Which is noble enough.

If you're anything like me and wish that you could buy sparkling apple cider all year long (not just when it's seasonally appropriate) without having to suffer the quizzical and disapproving looks of grocery store cashiers, then this is the socially acceptable alternative you've been waiting for. Good juice drinks like this are hard to find, so it's a good thing that this is (apparently) distributed nationally.

Posted by Kevin at 10:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 03, 2005

Political Blotter

The Beginning of The End (Seriously):

Here's what was good about last night's State of the Union:

The President did actually mention some specifics about his plan to dismantle Social Security (specifics that were augmented by some more seemingly official details from a "senior administration official" in today's NYT). That's good. He put his face on it, which, while unfortunately taking some heat off of Republican leadership in Congress, also means that it'll be a personal failure for him and his administration when the plan gets crushed in the legislature.

People are making a lot of hay out of comparing Bush's plan to the Clinton health plan. They're right to, since the former is going to suffer the same embarrassing fate as the latter. Better still is that, unlike the Clinton plan, which was championed more by Mrs. Clinton than by her Husband, Bush's onslaught on the elderly is all him. Laura's not going to take the fall for this.

The bad news is that the speech will push Social Security way up on the American people's list of priorities. Whereas it was previously way down below Iraq and National Security, Bush has managed to force the issue to center stage--right where he wanted it. Of course, that just means its failure will be all the more spectacular, and so all the more destructive to his image and that of the Republican Party. Bully.

The Mouse that Roared:

Yesterday's Washington Post reported on a beautiful "fuck yeah!" moment from an unexpected source: Harry Reid, the usually mild-mannered Senate Minority Leader, took off the kid gloves in a big way on Tuesday. Responding to a suggestion by Sen. Bill Frist that Republicans may push to amend Senate procedure to get rid of the filibuster (a plan that has been called "The Nuclear Option"), Reid said, "They can threaten the nuclear option...If they feel that's great for the institution and the country, let them do it." He went on to say that he's ready "to go behind the pool hall and see who wins this one."

Badaaass!

Posted by matt at 11:38 AM | TrackBack

January 31, 2005

Bandwagonesque

Yes, it's entirely the result of a diplomatically and morally questionable unilateral invasion of a sovreign nation. And no, it's not some sort of miraculous turning point for the occupation. But we'd be lying to you if we said that it didn't make us a little misty seeing pictures like the one above. Let's just keep in mind that yesterday's elections were a victory for the Iraqi people--not for President Bush.

The text for the Reuters photo reads:

Iraqis display their national identification cards as they protest after election officials could not find their names on voting lists and refused them entry to a polling centre in Basra, January 30, 2005. Millions of Iraqis flocked to vote in a historic election Sunday, defying insurgents who killed 35 people in a bloody assault on the poll.

Misty.

Posted by matt at 09:56 AM | TrackBack

January 26, 2005

The Honor Roll

These, Ladies and Gentlemen, are the names of 13 American heroes who bravely understook to stem the tide of incompetence and misinformation that, as we speak, is gushing from The White House:

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and James M. Jeffords (Independent-VT).

A fat lot of good that did. Thanks anyway, though. Still, Condi did get more "no" votes than Kissinger's 7, so that's kind of cool. 

Posted by matt at 01:15 PM | TrackBack

Who Ya Gonna Call?

Just when you thought the Bush Administration couldn't sink any lower, they've stooped to forcing the recently deceased to shill for their plan to dismantle Social Security.

If we're to believe The White House, the voice of the late Sen. Patrick Moynihan is echoing from beyond the grave Jacob Marley-style, not just to warn us of an impending crisis in our entitlement programs, but also to sing the praises of private accounts.

Luckily, articles in Monday's Washington Post and today's NYT have set out to debunk this shameful misappropriation of the words of a person who is no longer in a position to respond on this plane of existence.   

Liberals take note: if you continue to stand in the way of the coming "ownership society," then you are going to be visited by three (3) spirits...

Posted by matt at 01:01 PM | TrackBack

January 19, 2005

No Hard Feelings? (Updated)

Poor John Kerry. Not only does he have to watch that other guy get sworn in tomorrow, but he has to acquiesce to Condi Rice's coronation in the State Department (at least he will after he gets a couple of licks in). We nonetheless couldn't help picking out this little gem from the NYT today (full text here):

"Would I rather be somewhere else on Thursday, Jan. 20 at noon?" Mr. Kerry replied. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, chimed in with a reply known to parents everywhere: "Duuuuh."

But anyway, Senator Kerry, we'll still have your back--just not in 2008.   

As a side note, since we're talking about the inauguration, there's one piece of history we'd like to call attention to for the sake of those people who defend the use of the phrase "so help me God" in the oath of office by saying that it was part of the framers intentions. As it happens, that little tag-line was added on the fly by the George Washington. It just happened to stick, as did pretty much every other facet of the first inauguration (for good or ill). Just because it's codified in tradition, doesn't enshrine it in the national character. We're just saying.

Also, speaking of tha G-dub, it wouldn't hurt you to look at his two inaugural addresses. They're still some of the best. You can find them (and every subsequent one) here.

Update: It turns out that Kerry didn't acquiesce at all. In fact, he's voted to opposed Rice's appointment. You better go, boy! Um... what?

Posted by matt at 10:00 AM | TrackBack

January 06, 2005

Justice is Blind... and Deaf.... and Maybe a Little Touched in the Head

So here we are. Alberto Gonzales is sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee, plainly lying about things that are a matter of matter of public record ("Of course I never said that thing that it looks like I said in that signed memo"). Still, considering the fact that Arlen Specter effectively agreed to lay down in confirmation hearings in order to get chairmanship of the committee, we won't be expecting him to push too hard on that or any issue.

On a side note, if you were worried that CNN was going to put any pressure on Gonzales's confirmation by illustrating the aforementioned lies, fear not. They're misquoting the documents in real time at the bottom of the screen.

Jesus. Answer a damn question--any damn question!

God, are you people watching this?!

F-ing Orrin Hatch!

We give up.

Posted by matt at 10:46 AM | TrackBack

Call in the Joes

We've got to say that it's striking us as really odd how there's this whole furor over people pointing lasers at airplanes. Stranger still is that the man who is being accused with a number of such incidents is just some guy from Jersey.

Now, we don't claim to be homeland security experts or anything, but the issue is people firing lasers at planes, so aren't we overlooking the most obvious suspect?

Sure, we can't really rule out Megatron (maybe the planes in question were carrying loads of sweet, sweet energon), but we can say with some confidence that it probably wasn't Skeletor, since he was last seen astride a giant mechanical death-spider in the Afghan desert.

Posted by matt at 09:49 AM | TrackBack

December 22, 2004

Better Late than Never?

Now that it's been about a month and a half since President Bush got that cushy mandate he always wanted, Americans finally seem to be waking up to the miserable failure that is Operation Iraqi Freedom. A recent flurry of polls show a rising tide of dissatisfaction with the progress of our military efforts as well as with the persons responisble for the execution of those efforts. Here are some of the highlights:

- 90% of Americans polled think that the situation in Iraq is "extremely important" or "very important" (up from 81%  a year ago)

- Rummy's job approval rating has plummetted from 71% at the start of the invasion to 41% as of yesterday, with 52% of poll respondents saying that he should resign.

- 56% think that the war in Iraq is "not worth fighting."

- President Bush's job approval rating has (finally) fallen below 50%.

Granted, it's just one point below, but he has the dubious distinction of being the first American President whose approval rating has dropped below 50% within a month of being re-elected. Hopefully, America's buyers remorse will linger through the midterms.

Posted by matt at 10:07 AM | TrackBack

December 10, 2004

Try Not to Think of a Heffalump

If you've been paying any attention to the Democratic Party's (entirely necessary) post-election small-"e" existential crisis, you might've noticed George Lakoff's name being bandied about, as he seems to be taking the political world by storm. The thing about Lakoff is that he's not your average politico. He's not a Madison Ave. image-monger or even a K Street message wonk. He's actually a professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley, and lots of Dems are hanging on his every word.

In Lakoff's most recent book, Don't Think of an Elephant, he applies some basic ideas from Cognitive Science to the political sphere in order to give some much needed focus to the American Left. The aim is to show them what the Republicans are doing right in the way they frame their message, and how their methods appeal, on a very basic level, to the brains of voters.

Indeed, frames are what it's all about. A "frame" In CogSci parlance is an organized domain of knowledge. Any time you invoke a concept, you simultaneously invoke of a plethora of other concepts that constitute your knowledge of whatever that concept is about. Cognitive Scientists tell us that these concepts are organized in frames, which explains why many concepts are "lit up," as it were, whenever one is. Lakoff's CogSci 101 example is that of an elephant. When you think of an elephant, say by thinking x is an elephant, you literally can't help but think of x is gray, x has big ears, x likes peanuts, and x lives in a zoo.

It's just this principle that Lakoff thinks that Republicans are so good at exploiting. His contention is that, through nothing more than the language they use, GOPers are quite literally forcing you to think like they do. By using words like "tax relief," they immediately don the white hats of the relief providers. Who could rightly oppose relief? Certainly not a Democratic candidate in a national  election. "Relief" immediately invokes concepts of all sorts of positive things, so it would be folly to say "I, [candidate], am against relief."

Keeping with the tax example, Lakoff suggests that the Left needs to find new words (and hence new frames) to talk about taxes as being "dues for memebership in America" or perhaps, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, as the price for "purchasing civilization." That way we (Okay, yes. Fine. We're part of the American Left) can start being the good guys by harnessing the power of Cognitive Science.

While all of these points are well-taken, and probably right so far as they go, there are two points at which we have to take issue with Lakoff's instant rise to political fame. The first is simply how quickly and completely this stuff seems to have been embraced by the DNC. This week, Lakoff gave a speech to top Dems on just this stuff. Don't get us wrong here. This is a worthwhile way of looking at how to shape the presentation of messages. It's just that it's almost never a good thing when somebody can come in and immediately hold such a svengali-like influence on a group like this. Dems are suffering for the lack of decisive leadership right now, but the solution to that is most definitely not fad-hopping.

The other point we'd like to mention is just that, aside from the CogSci trappings, Lakoff's substantive suggestions aren't all that different from what we've all known all along about marketing and advertising. The great triumph of Lakoff's new book is really just his own marketing success in selling the Left something we already had, but perhaps in a less oily package.

So, is Lakoff worth reading? Sure. Why not? We've been fans of his since back in the day when he was just a plain old academic Linguist. Just don't read this stuff for more than it is, which is just another way to market marketing.

Posted by matt at 10:14 AM | TrackBack

November 10, 2004

I miss him already. (Updated)

“[T]he objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.”

...not yet, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

Update: It's now entirely likely that we may, in all seriousness, come to miss the  halcyon days of Ashcroft considering the fact that  his likely sucessor is given to describing the Geneva Convention as "quaint." (see page 2, 1st bullet)

Posted by matt at 12:06 PM | TrackBack

November 05, 2004

Bush: The Bright Side

Okay. It's Friday now, and we've had a good couple of days to scream and cry and threaten expatriation. Hopefully, everybody's ready to stop all of that. If not, stop it anyway. It's time to get on with the difficult task of learning the lessons that need to be learned from Kerry's defeat and to shore up our resources to keep the second Bush Administration from doing any more damage.

However, if you're still having trouble putting things in perspective, we think that what follows should be a nice spoonfull of sugar to help the ipecac go down:

1) Whatever nefarious plans Bush II has in store are going to have to be completed in the next two years. It will be much harder to push his agenda after the midterms, when at least one house of congress will go to the Democrats. This isn't optimism, it's a fact of politics. Having the Legislative and Executive branches under the control of one party is not a sustainable state. Since FDR's first term, such circumstances have existed for less than four years cumulatively.

2) Two-term presidents almost always have a major scandal break during their second term. Four years just isn't long enough for a juicy full-blown scandal to develop. Luckily, since Bush is sticking around, it'll be he and not Kerry who gets stuck with the bill for a worsening situation in Iraq, rising unemployment, Osama bin Laden's continued existence, and the results of four years of completely reckless fiscal policy. And who knows, maybe the scandal that breaks will be something we don't even know about yet. If we get a bad enough goof-up, and everything comes to pass as predicted in (1) above, then a strong case for impeachment won't be outside of the realm of possibility.

3) There were many of us on the left thought that the Bush I was enough of a reductio ad absurdum against neoconservative theocracy. Clearly, 51% of America disagreed. Such will not be the case in four years. Along the same lines as the point just made, the next four years will give plenty of time for Bush's personal, professional, and moral failings to percolate unitl they cannot be overlooked no matter how creeped out you are by the idea of gay people getting married.

So cheer up. If we can be ready to take full advantage of the eventual disillusionment of middle America, we can usher in a new era of Democratic dominiance not seen since the New Deal. Believe it.

   
    

Posted by matt at 03:31 PM | TrackBack

November 03, 2004

Son of a fucking bitch

This shit is so depressing, it makes us want to puke blood. Say goodbye to fun.

Posted by matt at 10:42 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

October 01, 2004

The Smack Has Been Laid Down

We dearly hope that everybody out there in readerland got to see Kerry handily throttle The President last night in Coral Gables. If you didn't, let us just tell you, it was inspiring! We haven't felt this good about the election in a long time. If the swing voters were actually watching, it's hard to imagine them not being swayed.

Here's what went right: Aside from doing a better-than-average job of answering Bush's stock accusations (flip-flopping, inability to lead a coalition), Kerry introduced two new foreign policy issues into the debate: the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and nuclear proliferation. This wasn't the first time that Darfur has come up, but it's definitely the first time it's gained much prominence as an issue. If Kerry can get people excited about it (which might not be possible, tied up as we are in Iraq), he will absolutely own it.

As for the nuclear threat, Senator Kerry set out a decisive plan to quell the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran (although he conspicuously omitted India, Pakistan, and China), and to account for and secure the remaining fissile materials and delivery systems in the former Soviet Union. Personally, we would've like him to come out a little more vocally against missile defense, but he did so well, it's hard to nitpick. Also, we're not too sure about two-party talks with North Korea, but considering how the six-party talks have stalled (at least until after the election)

We should say that we were glad to hear that The President knows the difference between enriched Uranium-238 and Plutonium.

This victory was huge. Aside from the incidental fact that Kerry clobbered Bush on a historically Republican issue (namely, Foreign Policy), there is the overwhelming victory which was that he showed himself to be strong and resolute, with a clear vision of America's place in an uncertain world. That was exactly what needed to happen, and it couldn't have come at a better time.

Before we get out of here, we want to express our disappointment with the New York Times for putting both debaters on equal footing. We expect that from The Post, but the NYT should know better.

Posted by matt at 11:57 AM | TrackBack

September 23, 2004

RE: Iraq

Kerry is getting less and less visible thse days. That is, for obvious reasons, deeply troubling. Just to remind people that Kerry is, contrary to appearances, still campaining for the U.S. Presidency, here is the full text of an e-mail that we got from the Kerry campaign.

(Fun things to resume tomorrow)

This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism.

In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror.

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American. Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.

In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march."

But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people.

So do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.

42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September.

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase.

Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people.

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.

The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.

He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today?

This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq.

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.

This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.

They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.

They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.

They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?

By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."

The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.

Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.

We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.

The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."

Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.

All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief.

Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter.

And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.

Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.

In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.

The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer.

Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.

If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Posted by matt at 08:22 AM | TrackBack

Oh Baby, It's a Wild World

Maybe everybody already knew about this, but there's absolutely no way we could let this pass without comment.

On Tuesday, a plane was heading to D.C. from London. While the plane was en route, security officials on the ground discovered that the name of one of the passengers appeared on a "watch list" of potential terrorists. Following protocol, the plane was then turned around and sent back to London.

The passenger's name was Islam. Yusuf Islam. Sounds terrorist-y, right? The guy has "Islam" in his name. Except that "Yusuf Islam" is, of course, not this man's given name. He was actually born Stephen Georgiou, but you probably know him as Cat Stevens. Yeah, Cat Stevens is a potential terrorist.

Maybe we're being too harsh in saying that the feds only latched onto him because his name is "Islam." We do recall that, during the early days of the Hunt for Bin Laden (tm), soldiers reported that they could hear strains of "Moonshadow" emanating from the caves at Tora Bora.

More recently, Islam has described the situation as "ridiculous." Word that, Cat Stevens. Word that.

Posted by matt at 08:15 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 17, 2004

Fridays are fun for everyone except God

Okay, so this was one of the freakiest and most disturbing things we've ever seen on Interstate 64 outside of Richmond VA, and, whoa boy, we've seen a lot: there is a billboard, about yea (50 feet) high, and it pictures a tannish, smiling man, with this caption, "Ex-Gays prove that change is possible". Not even kidding here- when we saw it for the first time, we thought maybe all the ambient light pollution, or possibly our burgeoning cataracts were responsible for a mis-reading, but no, repeated and soul-draining commutes have confirmed that this billboard is the scribbledygook property of one PFOX.ORG, which is the interweb name of the Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays. Please go read the website, because its willful insistence that people 'choose to be gay' is almost, if it weren't so very misguided and wrong, precious. So apparently there's now a sort of Bizarro-world version of the practically venerable PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), and tensions are sure to mount between the two groups, which in turn means this conflict can only be solved one way: dance fight.

No, but seriously, PFOX is run by some patently nut-headed kooks, obvs. They should footnote the state motto, like so: Virginia is for Lovers (Disclaimer: Offer applies solely to straight, god-fearing lovers who have sex with their sub-thoracic portions only partially exposed). Oh the South, you and your crazy antics.

Posted by matt at 08:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 15, 2004

Party Like It's 2001

From today's NYT:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell expressed concern on Tuesday over President Vladimir V. Putin's recent action to consolidate his power in Russia, declaring that Mr. Putin was "pulling back" on democratic reforms in the name of fighting terrorism.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle authoritarian.

Posted by matt at 10:15 AM | TrackBack

September 02, 2004

Thursday Morning Soapbox

Look, we get that, during an election, it's everybody's job but the candidate's to vociferously attack the leader of the opposition. It's a matter of course to use the strongest possible language to offer the strongest possible condemnation. That way, the candidate, in this case the incumbent, knows that the offensive work is taken care of and is thus free to build bridges and wax, you know, moderate.

All of that said, the speeches last night at the Republican National Convention were, at best, smug innuendo from Massachusetts Governer, Mitt Romney (free subscription required), and at worst, unmistakable hate-speech from nominal Democrat, Zell Miller.

For the moment, let's leave aside the fact that Miller is, in actual fact, neither a Democrat nor a democrat (We know full well that Democrats in the southern states tend to skew towards the conservative. But make no mistake: no amount of nuance in Senator Miller's position should convince anyone that he has anything whatsoever to do with the Democratic Party, which is, by the way, a national organization). Let's also leave aside the questionable rhetorical choice of even mentioning Franklin Roosevelt at the Republican National Convention, much less doing so in such a covertly favorable manner.

Indeed, let us leave all of that aside so that we can focus instead on what was essentially Senator Miller's insistence that, in the interests of Patriotism and national security, John Kerry should concede the election. Miller cited the laudable example of Wendell Wilkie stepping across the aisle to support President Roosevelt's peace-time draft. He held Wilkie aloft as a shining beacon of bipartisanship in a time of national crisis, to be contrasted with Kerry's "manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." This, after having used the example of Wilkie in an attempt to argue that, somehow, there is an incompatibility between Kerry's being president and his "contribut[ing] to saving freedom" (those words were Wilkie's, not Miller's).

We envy Senator Miller's conviction, but we certainly don't share it. In November, the citizens of this country will be given the opportunity to either bear out Miller's faith by re-electing the President or to put their trust in John Kerry. The certainty of some members of the legislative branch notwithstanding, we would just as soon give the American people the chance to decide for themselves whose leadership will best serve this nation.

Zell Miller is just wrong; not necessarily about the courage of his convictions, but certainly in his cynical view of American democracy. John Kerry can both be president and contribute to saving freedom.

So, if we may be allowed to appropriate Governer Romney's catch-phrase from last night, by all means, let us send in John Kerry.

Posted by matt at 11:35 AM | TrackBack

September 01, 2004

Wonkette's Horn of Plenty

Holy jumping Jesus! Did Wonkette have a banner day yesterday, or what?

Not only did she link to a site which purportedly outs 2nd District Virginia Congressman, Ed Schrock, but she broke the story of Washingtonienne's Playboy spread! How is such a day even possible? How has Ana Marie Cox not erupted into a pure-energy supernova of white-hot bliss?

God damn, we love her.

An interesting sidenote: if you go to the old Washingtonienne site, it redirects you to MoveOn.org. Somebody probably wants to... put the MoveOn... her? Or something. Whatever.

Posted by matt at 10:33 AM | TrackBack

August 31, 2004

Political Miscellany

We dearly hope that everyone out there is having as much fun as we are watching everyone from the GOP brass to Bush's Missus frantically backpeddle away from the President's unfortunate remarks on yesterday's Today Show.

On an only somewhat related note, we want to revisit our earlier query about a neocon reading list, just in case anybody is still (or ever was) interested. Charles Krauthammer's remarks at an American Enterprise Institute dinner this past February essentially encapsulate at least the foreign policy aspects of the neocon agenda (e.g. unipolarity, preemption).

Interestingly, Francis Fukuyama sensibly critiques that very speech (excerpt only) in the most recent issue of The National Interest. As a rule, we're not the biggest fans of Fukuyama. There's just no excuse for recycling Marxian/Hegelian historicism (although, he's come around somewhat on that). Furthermore, he's only arguing against Krauthammer's neoconservatism in order to replace it with his own (kinder? gentler?) version. Nonetheless, his criticisms are essentially sound, so you might look for the print version of the article if you're interested.

In the meantime, we promise to never ever say "Marxian/Hegelian historicism" again.

Posted by matt at 10:08 AM | TrackBack

August 25, 2004

Improbable Cause

A word of caution to anybody in NYC who's planning on moving in the next week or so: give yourself plenty of time to have your U-Haul randomly searched by the police. The convention doesn't even start until Monday, and they're already checking a lot of the personal trucks going through Manhattan.

While we're tempted to crow a little bit about civil liberties, we have to admit that we love seeing the looks on the faces of Columbia freshmen standing dumbstruck while the police sort through their area rugs and lava lamps.

Posted by matt at 05:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A Detour from the High Road

Republicans resort to negative campaigning and muckraking in order to win elections as a matter of course. Furthermore, it's a time-tested tactic of the GOP to use emotionally potent images in order to steal the hearts of voters while stealthfully avoiding the brains. We've always considered it a virtue of the Democratic Party that they generally retain the moral high ground, adverting primarily to the force of argument and eschewing the more underhanded ploys of their red-state adversaries.

In light of this (not as naive as you might think) view of the two parties' media strategies, you can imagine our disappointment that Kerry has dispatched former Senator Max Cleland to President Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX (via Wonkette), to protest the recent spate of ads from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Of course Kerry should be fighting the slander that's being piled onto him. On this stage, no accusation, no matter how slanderous, can go unanswered. However, using a wheelchair-bound triple-amputee as your mouthpiece is sensationalistic, it is exploitative, and it is reprehensible.

While the GOP should be ashamed for trying to co-opt the images of 9/11 by holding their convention here in New York, such transparently manipulative gestures are regrettably to be expected. In contrast, not only must Kerry answer for this heavy-handed smear tactic, he must be held accountable for trading in the credibility and gravitas that have sustained the Democratic Party through these painfully lean years.

Posted by matt at 11:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 23, 2004

Politics is Weird

Can anybody out there recommend a good book on neoconservativism? We're trying to get over our initial hatred of the ideology and its exponents just enough to maybe learn a little bit about it. Contrary to what we're inclined to think, it's probably not the case that Donald Rumsfeld wakes up every morning thinking "What can I do to destroy the world today?"

If somewhere there were some sort of scholarly work which explained the actual ideological base of neo-con policy, that'd be swell. As it is, all that seems to be out there are a bunch of Dinesh D'Souzas setting out bullshit "visions" for the new millenium. So, if someone could point us towards some kind of essay or something which could tie pre-emptive war and open borders into a coherent policy agenda, we'd really appreciate it.

Posted by matt at 11:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 03, 2004

A Good Start

One down...

Posted by matt at 12:10 PM | TrackBack

June 02, 2004

The Homecoming of Crappy Beer

As a Brooklyn-based blog, if we may speak for our borough, greenideas would like to welcome Rheingold Beer back to the county of kings. After going bankrupt 25 years ago, the brewery reopened its doors in 1999, but did so upstate in Utica. This year, Rheingold will be coming home to Brooklyn when it begins brewing at the Greenpoint Beer Works in Fort Greene.

In case anybody has never had the distinct pleasure of tasting a Rheingold, it's kind of like a less flavorful version of PBR. Imagine diluting 4 parts Pabst with 3 parts water and one part nail polish remover. You get the idea.

Posted by matt at 12:44 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

May 24, 2004

Columbia's Starving Artists

Apparently it's not just grad students in the humanities that are getting fleeced, it's art students, too. Okay, maybe that doesn't come as much of a shock, but the NYT has some pretty staggering figures about what students in Columbia's School of Arts will pay next fall and for every successive fall for the forseeable future. Next year, the tuition will jump from $31,240 to $33.052 and will continue to rise by 5.8% each year.

It kind of makes us feel a little guilty for whining about the roughly 12K a year for the CUNY Grad Center, except not really--especially since greenideas new official policy regarding grad school is: eff that.

Not for nothing did your mother try to push you into med school.

Posted by matt at 11:29 AM | TrackBack

May 21, 2004

Here He Comes to Save the Day?

Well, it's finally happened. Andy Kaufman has returned from the grave to tell us we've been snowed again... or have we?

The press release (linked above) and this blog, supposedly written by Kaufman himself, would have us believe that he faked his own death in order to amplify his fame and take a break from the limelight, but had always planned to come back 20 years later. Granted, Kaufman's reputation as a world-class trickster is the stuff of legend, but this perhaps stretches the bounds of credulity a tad too far.

Indeed, trusty old Snopes is there to debunk the whole thing. After pointing to the rapidly mounting heap of literally incredble facets of this yarn, they quote a 1999 interview with Kaufman's longtime friend and writing partner, Bob Zmuda:

"The hoax and the practical joke are lost art forms." But did Andy Kaufman pull one last stunt on his deathbed at age 35? No, says Zmuda. "Andy Kaufman is dead. He’s not in some truck stop with Elvis." While Kaufman tinkered with the idea, tells Zmuda, he never brought it up again.

To be perfectly honest, this comes as kind of a disappointment. When we first heard "Hey, Andy Kaufman's back," we had a few brief moments of pure joy as we revelled in the thoughts of how he made his return and what he was going to do next. But alas, like so many great artists cut down in their prime, we'll just have to settle for what we already have. It would've been great, though...

Posted by matt at 12:07 PM | TrackBack

May 17, 2004

Getting Married in MA: So Gay!

Today is a very big day for some couples in Massachusetts. In fact, it's the start of lots of big days for very many couples there, since gay couples can be married there starting today.

Don't worry though, it's not all good news. The Massachusetts state legislature has approved an amendment to the state's constitution that would ban gay marriages there. However, the amendment has to pass at another session of the legislature, as well as a public vote before it can be enacted. The earliest that could happen is in 2006. The problem is that some polls show that 70% of Massachusetts residents oppose gay marriage, and obviously, so does the state legislature.

Some gay and lesbian advocates remain optimistic that sweeping changes in public opinion can take root by the time the amendment is put to a vote. They're hoping that images of gay and lesbian newlyweds who look really happy to be married will convince straight people that there's no difference between gay marriages and their own.

As it is, everybody loves a little hot girl-on-girl action, so we think it's really just a matter of time (heh, there'll be some very disappointed googlers brought here by that sentence).

Whatever happens in 2006, though, we want to extend our warmest congratulations to all of the people who finally get to start living the lives they've been waiting for. We couldn't be happier for you. Mazel Tov!

Posted by matt at 11:43 AM | TrackBack

May 14, 2004

Graydon Carter: Entrepreneur or Hollywood Whore?

According to the NYT, some folks are upset that Vanity Fair editor in chief, Graydon Carter, received $100,000 for suggesting that the book A Beautiful Mind be made into a movie. Apparently, they're crying foul about Hollyowood putting money in the pocket of what is ostensibly supposed to be a journalistic outlet.

How is anybody surprised at that, and why do they care? It's great that Vanity Fair can have some genuine reportage and a Christopher Hitchens feature evey month, but they also have an Oscar party every year, and Brad Pitt is on the cover of the last issue. What did you expect?

As it is, we've got no problem with infotainment per se (maybe you haven't noticed, but we write a blog), as long as it's taken for what it is, and Vanity Fair seems to be on the up and up about what kind of product they're peddling. If you're looking for something that says "This magazine is for entertainment purposes," you can't do better than Brad Pitt's mug on the cover.

Jesus, lighten up, people.

Posted by matt at 11:09 AM | TrackBack

May 13, 2004

"Shock", "Horror" At New Abu Ghraib Photos

In case you were wondering, the above picture illustrates what passes for shock on the face of a member of the US Senate. That's Bill Frist saying that new photos of torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib ought not to be released.

It's not like we're in any terrific hurry to see Iraqi men being forced into degrading sexual positions or otherwise abused and humiliated, but it shouldn't be the case that America can save what little face it might still have by suppressing evidence of the full extent of the atrocities comitted in its name.

In a statement that nicely encapsulates the Republican attitude towards this scandal, James Inhofe (R-OK) said yesterday that, for each photo of abuses in Abu Ghraib, we should release a picture of the horrors of Saddam's regime. It's like nobody ever warned these people about the dangers (moral or P.R.) of 'stooping to their level.' If at all possible, Inhofe's kindergarten teachers should be brought up on some sort of charges.

Posted by matt at 11:06 AM | TrackBack

May 10, 2004

In Memoriam: Alan King

It was awfully sad to hear first thing this morning that Alan King had passed. King was one of the last surviving comedians to have started his career in that crucible of mid-century entertainment, the Catskills. His comedy always reflected that training, as he was unquestionably a master of the one-liner.

You might know him from 'Rush Hour 2', but we hope you know him from his pioneering stand-up, or maybe from his show, Inside the Comedy Mind, from the early days of Comedy Central. Whether or not you know his work, you know his legacy, as every comedian working today owes an incalculable debt to him.

Posted by matt at 11:43 AM | TrackBack

April 29, 2004

Completely Reprehensible

On tomorrow night's episode of Nightline, Ted Koppel will read the names of every American soldier who has died in Iraq, while the soldiers' pictures are displayed. It's a small but wholly commendable tribute by a major media outlet to the over 500 men and women who have given their lives for our country. Unfortunately, if your local ABC affiliate is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., you're not going to see it. The media corporation has ordered all of its ABC stations to preempt tomorrow's Nightline, claiming that ABC is attempting to undermine the war effort.

Posted by matt at 02:38 PM | TrackBack

Hard-Hitting Reportage of Bush's 9/11 Remarks

The first wire report about Bush and Cheney's non-testimony before the 9/11 commission has come out. We finally get to see what the heads of the present administration had to say about their role in the counterterror measures which failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Since we know that you're anxious to see what was said, we've gotten to the guts of it, and excerpted the really juicy stuff:

The setting of President Bush's meeting with the Sept. 11 commission resembled countless previous sessions in the Oval Office: The president in a high-backed chair, fireplace behind him, guests arrayed before him on light-colored couches.

A bust of Winston Churchill over the fireplace and a portrait of Abraham Lincoln kept watch over the proceedings.

Just outside, Secret Service agents chatted, and the Rose Garden was bursting with tulips.

Truly, this is damning testimony indeed. How is it that such in-your-face reporting has pushed it's way into the mainstream media?

[The White House] refused to allow reporters or photographers in for any of the session, and would not agree to release pictures taken by official White House photographers. It also refused to allow an audio recording or transcript to be made of the unprecedented meeting.

Oh, right.

Posted by matt at 12:59 PM | TrackBack

April 28, 2004

Bush, Cheney to Chat With 9/11 Commission

Just to make sure that George Bush and Dick Cheney don't have to take any actual accountability, their "conversation" tomorrow with the 9/11 commission will not be officially recorded. As such, there won't be any recording devices or official transcription. To make matters oh so much worse, The President will not be sworn in.

For those of you keeping score at home, this means that Bush has been effectively given a license to lie, and the assurance that at most a few people will ever know about it if he does.

There may indeed be some justification for the lack of a transcription. If the commission is to effectively assess Bush's role in the administration's counterterror efforts, The President should be able to speak with complete candor. If you've listened to everyone else's testimony so far, you'll no doubt have noticed how many times classified information and national security concerns have halted the dialogue. Fine, let's give him the privacy he needs, so he can detail every "eyes only" memo which implicates his administration's gross irresponsibility. As long as somebody hears it, and can hold him accountable, that's great. But how on earth do you justify not swearing him in?

Of late, Bush has demonstrated a preternatural facility for evading tough questions. All this does, is saves him from having to do that. How very thoughtful.

One consequence of these decisions is that whatever Bush says tomorrow will not count as testimony. Rather, he and the commission will simply be having a "conversation." There is no word yet on whether a slumber party will follow.

Posted by matt at 12:26 PM | TrackBack

April 23, 2004

Larry Flynt Raises the Bar For Op-Ed Writing

The porn industry is having a crisis moment, with two of its workers testing positive for HIV. Some are calling for the implementation of industry-wide regulations requiring that adult film actors wear condoms. Industry insiders claim that, in addition to being unnecessary, such a rule would ruin the business.

The issues here are terribly complex, and it would be really helpful if someone could sort them all out for us. Fortunately, Larry Flynt has written an op-ed all about what's at stake.

Seriously, it's actually pretty good. Even if you're not interested in the issue (although we don't know who wouldn't be interested in porn), it's not a bad workout for your ethics muscles.

What? What did you think I was going to say it was a workout for? Oh, that's sick.

Posted by matt at 12:43 PM | TrackBack

April 22, 2004

PETA Secretly Sticks it to PETCO

PETA found a moderately clever way to sneak a subversive message inside PETCO Park, the brand new home of the San Diego Padres. PETA opposes the name of the ballpark, since they allege that the eponymous pet-supply retail chain mistreats the animals in their stores. The animal rights group tried to purchase a brick in the new stadium, which would display the message: "Boycott PETCO." Naturally, this request was denied, so PETA fired back with the seemingly less offensive:

Break Open Your Cold Ones! Toast The Padres! Enjoy This Championship Organization!

Not bad, if we may say so. It's a damn fine acrostic.

"Brick trick: PETA protest makes it to Petco park" (ESPN)

Boycott PETCO

Posted by matt at 12:32 PM | TrackBack

Slate's Shorter Woodward

If you're like us, you've heard Bob Woodward make the rounds on every single show on public radio and Air America, talking about his new book Plan of Attack. Sure, it sounds interesting, but who has the time to read these days? That's where Slate comes in. Their Condensed Bob Woodward digests the dishy dregs, and leaves you with the tasty morsels of substantive reporting.

Here are a few gems:

Page 250: Karl Rove, a Norwegian-American, is obsessed with the "historical duplicity" of the Swedes, who seized Norway back in 1814. This nationalism manifests itself as hatred for Swedish weapons inspector Hans Blix.

Page 127: When Karl Rove worries about the perception in the media that he's meddling in foreign affairs, Bush says: "Don't worry about it. Condi's territorial. She's a woman."

From the section, "Tommy Franks Inspirational Profanities":

Page 281: On Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's undersecretary for policy: "I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day."

And lastly, the President establishes himself as a man of letters:

Page 186: Bush aide Nick Calio declares his intention to vitiate a congressional filibuster. Bush says, "Nicky, what the fuck are you talking about, vitiate?"

Posted by matt at 11:53 AM | TrackBack

Thank God They Wear Shorts

A pair of total nutters in Reading, England are prancing around dressed as Batman & Robin. The good news is, they're actually fighting crime in their own little way. Actually, they pretty much just chase potential muggers or mischief-makers around, and perform generally helpful tasks for the citizenry. Still, their hearts seem to be in the right place, even if their minds are nowhere to be found.

Posted by matt at 11:24 AM | TrackBack

April 21, 2004

NYT: "See? It's not just us!"

Karen Jurgensen, USA Today's top editor, resigned last night as the paper was scrambling to meet its Wednesday deadline. The announcement came in the wake of a flurry of accusations that reporter Jack Kelley, who was forced to leave the paper in January, had fabricated large parts of several stories.

See how fast the Times picked up on that? Like quicksilver, baby!

We just wonder how long it'll be until we see Katie Couric interviewing Kelley when he embarks on his book tour.

Seriously though, the impression we get from the NYT article is that Jurgensen's resignation was probably even less warranted than was that of Howell Raines, and that really is unfortunate.

"USA TODAY editor resigns after reporter's misdeeds" (USA Today)

Posted by matt at 10:45 AM | TrackBack

April 16, 2004

Spain to Legalize Gay Marriage? Where'd You Hear That?

Recently elected Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged to enact legislation to legalize gay marriage in his home country. But you wouldn't know that if you were only following mainstream American media.

At the time of this posting, running a quick Google News search for "spain gay marriage" only gave us two hits for US media outlets: 365Gay, and Newsday. The NYT article about the election has one line about gay marriage, saying that "[Zapatero] has set out a liberal social agenda, including support for gay marriage."

Considering how much attention this issue has gotten stateside, doesn't it seem suspiciously incongruous that there should be so little chatter about the fact that a country is actually going to go ahead with just the kind of legislation we're debating so hotly over here? When you add the fact that this issue will be at the forefront come November, the omission starts to seem positively devious. For the record, the oversight isn't due to a lack of coverage by the wire services.

Lest anyone think we're selectively mentioning the case of the US media, while ignoring our their international counterparts, feel free to look at the many foreign media who are reporting this story (all stories listed include "gay marriage" in their headlines): BBC, New Zealand Herald, Al Jazeera, ABS CBN (Philippines), and there are plenty more.

Posted by matt at 11:54 AM | TrackBack

April 09, 2004

The Hardest Hitting Softball

Al Franken to Sen. John Kerry, on today's O'Franken Factor:

Senator Kerry, how do you respond to the charges that you are more trustworthy than President Bush?

We picked the right day to finally turn on Air America.

Still, since we would like to echo Franken's "Zero Spin Zone" policy, we do have one tough question for the folks at Air America: who let Janeane Garofalo bleach her hair? And why weren't we told? Okay, two--two tough questions for Air America...

Posted by matt at 01:57 PM | TrackBack

April 08, 2004

The Car Thief with a Heart of Gold

In Sydney, Australia, a woman whose car was stolen was able to persuade the thief to return the vehicle. She did this by sending him a series of text messages on her son's phone, which had been left in the car. The car, she told the thief, was her late father's last gift to her, and had birthday gifts for her son in the trunk. The thief eventually apologized, and told the woman where she could pick up the car--but not before taking the presents and the phone.

For a continent that was originally populated (pardon us, originally colonized) entirely by criminals and debtors, Australia really has come a long way. Could you imagine that kind of thing happening in New York? Someone would tell you where to find your car and then mug you when you got there.

"Thief Returns Car After 'Texting' Apology" (AP)

Posted by matt at 02:41 PM | TrackBack

Raines's Atlantic Piece Again

Here are a couple of choice quotations from the Raines article we talked about yesterday.

After saying that movie studio execs almost never complain about negative reviews:

I can't resist mentioning that an exception to the no-complaint rule was Harvey Weinstein, of Miramax, whose histrionic cries of pain were endlessly amusing. He once accused me of breaking the heart of his brother Bob--not generally believed in the business to be posessed of that organ--by refusing to run a maudlin piece on their father, a failed salesman of ersatz diamonds. I directed Harvey to Vanity Fair, which turned the piece into an entertaining--and possibly true--shades-of-Willy Loman story.

On the demise of journalistic values in the media culture:

The Times's image as a bastion of quality had become even more important as tabloid television, Britain's declining newspaper values, and the unsourced ranting of Internet bloggers polluted the journalistic mainstream of the United States.

We pointed out that last quote since we're planning on changing our site motto to either,

greenideas, unsourced ranting since 2004

or

greenideas, polluting the journalistic mainstream

What do you guys think?

Posted by matt at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 07, 2004

Raising a Glass to Alabama

We just a wanted to leave a quick note to congratulate Conecuh Ridge on its being named the official whiskey of the state of Alabama.

If you're curious as to whether any other states have official alcoholic beverages, join the club. We looked for a while, but we got bored.

Longtime readers will know that whiskey is the official drink of greenideas, so we do like to keep abreast of whiskey-related developments in the news.

"Alabama names official state whiskey" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 01:51 PM | TrackBack

The Sickly Pallor of the Gray Lady

The issue of The Atlantic that hits news stands on the 13th has a cover story by Howell Raines, the deposed executive editor of The New York Times. Raines, who was forced out in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal, gives a detailed analysis of the paper's shortcomings, and tells what must be done if the Times is to keep its function as The Paper of Historical Record. In so doing, he shatters a lot of myths about the culture within the paper.

While it would be natural to think that everyone at the NYT is sharp, agressive, and motivated, Raines claims that most people in the organization do just enough to get by, which is surprisingly little. Indeed, after going through a 14-week probationary period, new employees are essentially given tenure which can never (or at least will never) be revoked, regardless of how much or how little they actually do. This culture of laziness is perpetually reinforced by desk editors who console their reporters with the maxim (which grows less true every day), "It's not news until we say it's news."

Overall, Raines's piece was written completely without malice. Indeed, the point of the article is to point out exactly from where the NYT is hemmorhaging relevance and credibility from the perspective of a knowing, concerned outsider--one whose candor couldn't be matched by anyone within the organization.

We'll link to the excerpt on The Atlantic's site, but if you're interested, you should just pick up the mag. If nothing else, there's some choice gossip.

"My Times" (The Atlantic)

Posted by matt at 12:42 PM | TrackBack

April 06, 2004

Father Knows Best? Really?

The authors of the forthcoming book, The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty, make some startling (if they're true) claims about Bush 41's opinions concerning his son's invasion of Iraq. In the book, the elder Bush is portrayed as having serious doubts about the manner in which W carried out the exercise, despite being completely sympathetic to the policy goals. What is perhaps most shocking is that one of Bush 41's main concerns was the damage that would be done to the international coalition if the US were to act unilaterally. This line of argument was often heard emanating softly from the frail voice of liberal opposition in the months leading up to the invasion.

We hope that some of the claims of this book are true. But mostly we hope that whatever rationality genes Father Bush is finally expressing turn out not to be recessive.

Nonetheless, we have to remember to take these things with a softball-sized grain of salt--especially in an election year.

On a side note, when did the Daily News start getting exclusive stories that actually might have some political importance?

"Book: Poppy opposed Dubya's war" (NYDN)

Posted by matt at 02:29 PM | TrackBack

April 02, 2004

The Yawn Seen 'Round the World

Now, ya see, this is the kind of stuff we miss when we spend all week doing work and not really keeping up with the news.

If anybody's delicate conservative sensibilities were offended by this photo, take heart: the boy "strongly supports the President."

Posted by matt at 11:48 AM | TrackBack

Start Filling Your Roe v. Wade Commemorative Time Capsule

It's done. Bush signed the Unborn Victims Act into law yesterday.

We don't have anything more to say about this. If you're curious, look here and here.

"One Murder or Two?" (Washington Post)

Posted by matt at 11:25 AM | TrackBack

April 01, 2004

An Open Letter to our Liberal Readers (April Fools)

For a long time now, greenideas has been harping on the Bush administration for all kinds of perceived wrongdoing: lying, attacking civil liberties, gross anti-intellectualism, etc. We just want to say that that ends now. George Bush is our president, and he is doing his best to save this country from everything that is tearing it to pieces. He is fighting valiantly against the rising tide of pernicious liberalism that threatens the very fabric of our nation.

Were it not for George W. Bush, Iraq would have fired one of those nuclear or chemical weapons we found while we were over there right at the US! People would be allowed to indiscriminantly kill babies! Gays and lesbians would be, at this very moment, eroding the very foundation of the sacred institution of marriage. Scientists would be allowed to say anything their "research" "demonstrated" without thinking of the consequences for our nation's interests.

Come on, people, it's April first! That means there's only seven months until the election! We need to get on the bandwagon now. We know that a lot of you might be fairly liberal out there, and we understand that--we used to be just like you. But we can tell you that you're not helping anybody with your cowardice and moral bankruptcy! So please, support George Bush. Watch Fox News. Read Ann Coulter. And for God's sake (that's Jesus Christ, in case you didn't know) please, please listen to Maroon 5.

God bless America.

Posted by matt at 11:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 26, 2004

So Hard to Find a Snappy Headline

The Senate passed the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" yesterday. We hope someone will wipe the drool from Dubya's chin as he waits for this one to come across his desk. Expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned by dinner time.

It's interesting to see how the debate went on this one. Dems are (rightly) accusing the proponents of this law of a not-too-subtle attack on a woman's right to choose, since the legislation has life beginning at conception. Meanwhile, Republicans are playing dumb, maintaining that "It's not about abortion, It's about justice."

Putting aside the issue of the Right using emotionally potent, but semantically vacuous, language to respond to the allegations, there's the bigger question of just why they want to skirt around the real motivation for this law. There can't be anybody left out there who doesn't see what's going on, and anti-abortion legislators aren't known for shying away from calling a sinner a sinner. What's going to happen when this bill ulitmately serves its purpose, and is used as a back-door into making abortion illegal? Are the Republicans just going to hope nobody remembers that that "wasn't" what the bill was supposed to be for in the first place?

In case anyone is still keeping score, Kerry voted for an alternative bit of legislation, proposed by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and favored by abortion rights activists, that would charge the assailant twice, without taking a position as to the status of the child.

Is it November yet?

"Senate Passes Bill on Unborn" (LA Times)

See what we had to say when this one cleared the House last month.

At least the anti-abortion folks won't be able to use that old yarn about abortion causing breast cancer anymore.

Posted by matt at 12:29 PM | TrackBack

March 25, 2004

The Plight of the Bavarian Yodeller

You think you have it bad in this economy? Shame on you. In all your kvetching about how you can't get a job, or you don't make enough money, or you burned your mouth eating cheap microwave pizza, did you even once stop and think how the global economic downturn has affected the yodellers in Bavaria? No, we didn't think so. Well guess what, the German government announced Tuesday that it can no longer afford to subsidize the yodellers' lederhosen. What will become of Germany if plump, pasty-faced Bavarian boys can't dream of one day growing up and receiving state-sponsored lederhosen? The mind reels.

"Yodellers lose clothing subsidies" (CNN)

Visit The Lederhosen Museum

Purchase lederhosen at the Bavarian Superstore

Posted by matt at 01:37 PM | TrackBack

The Lighter Side to Defrauding Your Citizenry (Updated)

We're sure you all remember thinking, as all of the evidence that we had been systematically lied to about Iraq's weapons program was surfacing, that someday we'd look back on all of this and laaaugh. Well, President Bush is just tickled to announce that that day is today! Well, last night, anyway.

At a black-tie dinner last night, Bush presented a sort of "White House's Funniest home Videos" slide show. Among the slides was a picture of the President looking intently under some furniture. When this slide came up, Bush drolly remarked "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere." What a cut-up!

Seriously, it's really great that, as a nation, we've gotten past demanding accountability from our leaders. It's inspiring that President Bush can say, "Hey, America, lighten up! So what if we invaded a sovreign nation under false pretenses? Let's par-tay!"

"Bush pokes fun at himself at dinner" (CNN)

Update: It seems some top-level Dems thought this was about as funny as we did.

"Bush's WMD jokes draw criticism" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 12:52 PM | TrackBack

March 24, 2004

Harsh Words from The Donald

The Donald is getting snippy! In his new book, Trump: How to Get Rich, the oddly coiffed business magnate has nothing nice to say about former Governer, Mario Cuomo. Trump says the falling out was due to Cuomo's refusal to do him an undisclosed favor. Whatever the favor was, we wonder if it was enough to warrant calling Cuomo "a total stiff, a lousy governor and a disloyal former friend."

In the book, Trump also says that the women of "The Apprentice" flirted with him. "That's to be expected," he said. Who can blame them? The Donald's luxurious locks and warm demeanor would be enough to melt the heart of any "motivated" young lady. Hell, sometimes we can't get him out of our heads.

If anybody has any thoughts on how this feud stacks up against the Avril/Hilary Duff imbroglio, please don't hesitate to share.

"Donald to Cuomo: Mario, you're fired" (NYDN)

Posted by matt at 01:31 PM | TrackBack

March 17, 2004

Plague of Locusts? Really?

Sometimes, we bloggers face some awfully difficult blog-related decisions. Now there's a story which presents us with just such a tough choice. See, there's this plague of ravenous locusts devouring their way through Australia. What angle ought we to take with this one? It's been a while since we've had a post about how gross bugs are, and this could easily fall into that category. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to resist the (admittedly obvious) 10th plague of Egypt/endtime prophecy line, especially with all the furor surrounding Mel Gibson and his Jeebus flick. We're sure you'll agree that it's quite a quandry. And when you add that the BBC article about this problem actually uses the word "hectares," there's the whole added dimension of cool-sounding British people using antiquated phraseology to talk about the always newsworthy metric system, then the whole thing spins wildly out of control. Come to think of it, maybe the story's not nearly as interesting as all of the ways we could talk about it.

Wait. What were we talking about?

"Australia combats locust plague" (BBC)

Posted by matt at 04:44 PM | TrackBack

March 15, 2004

CA City Lawmakers 'All Wet'

Officials in the city of Aliso Viejo, CA managed to get suckered by the howler about the dangers of 'dihydrogen monoxide' (DHMO) that's been circulating at least as long as there's been an internet. Upon learning that DHMO (alternatively, "hyrodgen hydroxide," "H20," or, you know, "water"), which has led to countless deaths throughout human history, was used in the production of styrofoam cups, the Aliso Viejo City Council introduced legislation to ban the perilous drinkware.

Upon learning of the gaffe, embarrassed officials withdrew the legislation, although they plan to reintroduce a similar law at a later date.

"Calif. Officials Nearly Fall for H20 Hoax" (Yahoo! News)
Snopes on Dihydrogen Monoxide

Posted by matt at 03:20 PM | TrackBack

Wow, We Didn't See That Coming

Martha actually stepped down! After a ruling allowed her to continue at Martha Stewart Omnimedia as an executive, she up and left! Well, she's staying on in a "creative" capacity as the founding editorial director, but will not handle the affairs of the company.

Sharon Patrick, CEO of MSO, was quoted in Newsday as saying "Everyone at MSO recognizes the seriousness of Martha’s situation and is deeply saddened." That's rich. Everybody in New York knows somebody who works at Martha, so we could probably disprove that "deeply saddened" business by a simple show of hands.

The funniest thing about Martha's impending incarceration is that she'll have to work prison jobs while she's in there. Man, the ladies in that particular federal penitentiary are in for a real treat when Martha rolls into the prison laundry. Of course, things will almost certainly get ugly in the kitchen when she brandishes a shiv (made of a pinecone and silk ribbon) at the guards who try to take away her contraband cumin.

"Stewart resigns from company board" (Newsday)
greenideas on Martha.

Posted by matt at 02:45 PM | TrackBack

March 07, 2004

Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead

By now all of you out there in blog-land know all about Martha, so we'll spare you yet another recounting of the facts surrounding her conviction. However, we were kind of incensed at this article in today's Week in Review, which attempted to identify the cause of her prosecutors' tenacity by way of some pretty spurious claims. The artlcle detailed the claims of those who insist that Stewart's celebrity and her gender were responsible for her being so doggedly pursued by the government.

Okay, concerning the latter point, the fact that Stewart is just the latest in a long list of high-profile white-collar defendants who, until now, have all been male, seems to make that argument a nonstarter.

As to the former point, we're having a really hard time seeing what's so bad about that. The fact is, the government and, more importantly, the American people, have maintained a long tradition of ignoring corporate crime. On the one hand, why shouldn't we? Securities fraud is a total yawn-fest, right? Of course, on the other hand, white-collar crime is just as destructive (and just as illegal, and hence legally actionable) as what is happening in the streets right now. We should be thankful that Enron made such a splash, but we can be sure that they wouldn't have had they not committed the very tangible offense of grossly mismanaging people's retirement funds. That was a case where a corporate entity was plainly stealing money from real people, and it forced a huge shift in the way Americans think about crime. The awful truth is that, even when corporate crimes aren't so obviously directed against actual human beings, the effects are just as harmful to each and every citizen of this country.

The point of this tirade is just to say that the criticism that the government went after Martha because of her celebrity reflects the old sorts of values that we should be trying hard to get rid of. In particular, that kind of kvetching echoes the same myopic (and not-too-subtly racist) popular definition of crime as something that only happens on the streets and in our homes, but not in boardrooms and on trading floors. If it takes the government going after some big media types in order to shake us out of that kind of thinking, then we think that's a Good Thing.

Posted by matt at 11:11 PM | TrackBack

March 05, 2004

That's Quite a Resemblance, I Must Say

So, we came across this picture

of the new head of Royal Dutch/Shell Oil, and we thought it totally looked like that sweaty lawyer character that Martin Short did on SNL back in, what, 85? So we did a Google Image Search on "Martin Short" to see if we could find a pic of that character to post as a basis for comparison. We struck out there, but we did find something even better:

It does our hearts good to see that the best American movies really do make it to other shores.

Posted by matt at 10:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Try to Understand, He's a Magic Man

Yay! J.K. Rowling, author of the ridiculously successful (and ridiculolusly awesome) Harry Potter books, has said that Harry might come back for an eighth book. She had originally planned to end the series after book seven, when Harry will graduate from Hogwarts, but now she's considering a book detailing his post-graduation exploits.

We'll admit it: the thought of the series ending makes us sad, so this is really good news. Still, we kind of wish she'd get busy finishing the sixth book before she thinks about a possible eighth. And Jimminy Christmas, is the third movie ever coming out?

"Rowling: Could be eighth 'Potter' book" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 10:02 AM | TrackBack

March 01, 2004

Weekly Bush Administration Science Rant

A handful of science journals are now refusing to publish papers by scientists from Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. The decision is due to a Treasury Department ruling which says that to do so would violate US embargos against those countries.

The thing is, there's probably no legal reason to do so. Some journals are planning to cite the first amendment in defense of their right to publish whatever findings they deem appropriate, regardless of the researchers' country of origin. Besides the constitutional issue, there is the fact that the embargos are trade embargos. Under the letter of the law, certain intellectual property ("information and informational materials") is exempt from the restrictions.

Furthermore, there's really no practical reason to do so. If Iraninan scientists want to publish their state-funded research in American journals, why not let them? It's not like American scientists are clamoring to publish their nuclear science research in Iranian journals ('cause that would be illegal).

So really, this is just one more way in which the Bush administration is artificially limiting scientific progress. Someone really ought to tell John Snow that Cuba really doesn't have the money to do stem cell research that could infect US scientific publications. Fortunately (for everyone who's not a theocrat), South Korea does. Maybe we should have an embargo against them, too.

"Publishers split over response to US trade embargo ruling" (Nature)

Posted by matt at 01:19 PM | TrackBack

The Truth About "The Passion"

We knew it!

Some of the tickets to Mel Gibson's "The Passion" that were issued at a Georgia theater have the number "666" printed on them. The owner of the theater claims that it is merely a coincidence that the tickets bear the mark of the beast, but we know better, don't we?

Seriously though, between the 666 tix, and Nader announcing his candidacy, expect teeth to gnash and genitals to start bleeding of their own accord any day now. Verily, these are the endtimes.

"Passion tickets bear 'mark of the beast'" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 12:49 PM | TrackBack

Even Cooler than Lions and Tigers and Bears!

Man are we glad that this story from yesterday's Times made it online!

As if there weren't enough reasons to dislike exotic pet owners, it seems that many of same are abandoning those pets in the Florida Everglades when the animals get too big to keep around the house. Presumably, this is about the time when the monitor lizard is big enough to eat the pot-belly pig.

Among the introduced species are such decidedly non-native beasties as burmese pythons, vervet monkeys, cuban tree frogs, and tarantulas.

Okay, so we realize that introducing species into an ecosystem is almost always disastrous, but we don't think that there are enough places in the continental U.S. where a person needs to fear being killed by a poisonous spider and then devoured by a giant snake, so these developments are pretty cool in that regard.

Also, ecologists are taking some comfort in the fact that the native alligators seem to be making sport of the pythons (as in the picture above). Aside from how unbelievably cool it would be to watch a python fight an alligator, this means that the alligators may be able to keep the python population in check.

"Forget the Gators: Exotic Pets Run Wild in Florida" (NYT)

Posted by matt at 12:31 PM | TrackBack

February 26, 2004

Well, There Goes That Freedom

In a transparently back-handed assault on a woman's right to choose, the House just passed the "Unborn Victims Bill" (H.R. 1997). The bill states that perpetrators of violent crimes against pregnant women that injure or kill both the woman and her unborn child should be charged on two separate counts. Prima facie, that doesn't seem like the worst idea, as long as the bill respects current standards for what counts as a 'child,' but we all know better than to think that the House would do that. No, in fact, for the purposes of this bill, an "unborn child" is "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

For what it's worth, John Kerry expressed his opposition to this bill when it was introduced last year.

"House Passes Unborn Victims Bill" (LA Times)"

Posted by matt at 03:33 PM | TrackBack

February 23, 2004

He's Actually Doing It

Ralph Nader announced yesterday that he will run in this year's presidential election as an independent candidate.

(You're about to witness a first in greenideas' short life. It's not something we plan on doing often, but under the circumstances, it seems justified.)

Motherfucker.

We should say that we voted for Nader in the 2000 election. Of course, it should also be said that we did so in Virginia, which is hardly a swing state. We stand by that decision, even with the benefit of hindsight into the last four miserable years.

That said, we can hardly imagine a more reckless, irresponsible decision than to do anything that might take even a single vote from the Democratic nominee. This country cannot withstand another four years of Bush. We can't afford to go another $4 trillion into debt. We can't sacrifice a woman's right to choose. We can't support whatever he decides will be his next exericise in nation-building.

Frankly, the circumstances under which Nader has chosen to enter the race strike us as entirely suspect. If his aim is, as he says, to strike a blow for third-party candidates, and to widen the spectrum of debate, why didn't he announce his candidacy sooner? We realize that, not having to go through any nomination process, he didn't need to begin campaigning with all of the Democratic hopefuls. Still we can't fathom why he would choose to enter the race at a time when public opinion seems to be leaning slightly against Bush (if not actually for Kerry). Considering the (woefully underpublicized) links between the GOP and Al Sharpton, we think someone ought to do some in-depth research into just who is behind Nader's latest bid for infamy.

The one good thing that may come out of this is that it may mobilize the Dems to throw all of their support behind Kerry. If Dean was actually planning a coup by backing Edwards, as some pundits have suspected, now is the time to abandon that idea. It's time for Kerry to offer Edwards the #2 spot, and it's time for Edwards to take it. Hopefully, the Nader's announcement will catalyze this process.

"Nader Urges Democrats to 'Relax' as Run for President Begins" (NYT)
Ralph Don't Run

Posted by matt at 01:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 20, 2004

Today is Boring

Seriously, what's up with the news today? Nothing that's happened in the last 24 hours is either funny or thought-provoking. Sure, there's the whole gay marriage thing that everyone's talking about, but we probably can't write about that without getting really, really mad.

Although, if you're curious about who's saying what, there are the stupid, evil bigots, Bushie and Ahnuld, and people who are neither stupid, nor evil, nor bigoted, like Chicago mayor Dick Daley (free registration required). So far, the most intelligent comments we've heard have been from Barney Frank, who thinks that the people getting hitched in SF should settle down before they mess it up for everyone else.

At any rate, we're resolved to not write about anything related to either science or the Red Sox, so we feel a little like our hands are tied. Still, if we were going to write about science, we'd probably write about how the journal that originally suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism now regrets having done so. Or maybe we'd write about the discovery of dark energy, which goes a long way towards vindicating some of Einstein's work that scientists have been questioning for a while. But really, who's to say, since we're not writing about those things.

Well, for a laugh, you might check out the Atlantic piece where they applied the grading standards of the new SAT writing section to famous authors to see how they'd stack up.

Anyway, we'll keep looking for something, but since our first shipment from Netflix arrives today, we can't promise anything.

Posted by matt at 03:33 PM | TrackBack

February 19, 2004

A Fool and His Money

Jesse Bogdonoff, former official Court Jester to the pacific state of Tonga, has agreed to pay his former employer $1M in an out of court settlement. The dispute concerned Bogdonoff alleged mismanagement of a $26M trust fund which he was supposed to invest through his own company.

The settlement does not establish liability for either party in the case. However, regardless of whether or not there was any demonstrable wrongdoing on the part of the jester, oughn't some liability be assessed against the King of Tonga for giving a $26M trust fund to his court jester for the purpose of investing it? "Yes, let the jester handle the books. And send for the pool boy, so that he may remove my kidney stones."

Well, now that the last remaining court jester is out of a job, we can at least offer the consolation that he gave us a pretty good laugh.

"Tonga court jester 'to pay $1m'" (BBC)

Posted by matt at 03:30 PM | TrackBack

Georgia OKs "Evolution"

In a move which puts Georgia schools at the cutting edge of 19th century science, the Georgia Board of Education voted unanimously in favor of keeping the word "evolution" in its state curriculum. The ruling comes after State Superintendent, Kathy Cox, said that all occurances of "evolution" in state curricula should be replaced with "biological changes over time."

To be fair, that is one crazy woman (and the crazy people she represents) in a state which clearly values education, as the BoE decision clearly shows. Nonetheless, we can't fathom how this is still an issue today. Not that we're all that into the Jeebus thing, but we think the idea that faith and rational belief in science can peacefully coexist has been borne out in 50 or so years of, well, peaceful coexistence. What's next? Is the President going to come right out and say that marriage is something that can only exist between between a man and a woman? What? Oh, man... we need a nap.

"Education board approves use of 'evolution'" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 03:11 PM | TrackBack

See? Bush Hates Science

In a report issued yesterday, the Union of Concerned Scientists accused the Bush Administration of having "suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels."

Among the specific charges, was the claim that the administration supressed an EPA report that showed that the bipartisan Senate Clean Air bill would more effectively reduce mercury contamination in fish, and simply prevent more human deaths, than would the administration's own Clean Skies Act. Other alleged infractions include misrepresenting scientific consensus concerning global warming, and supressing studies on condom use.

The signitories of the report include several Nobel laureates, including physicists, Leon Lederman and Steven Weinberg, and National Science Medalists, such as pioneering Sociobiologist, Edward O. Wilson.

Long-time readers of greenideas will know that we have a preternatural hatred of the Bush adminitstration's cavalier attitude towards scientific inquiry. For instance, look here and here.

"Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts" (NYT)
"Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science" (Union of Concerned Scientists)

Posted by matt at 12:07 PM | TrackBack

February 18, 2004

So Disastrously Inappropriate!

Roseanne Cash, daughter of Johnny Cash and June Carter, has denied permission to use Cash's song 'Ring of Fire' in an ad for hemmorhoid cream. The idea had been supported by Merle Kilgore, who co-wrote the song with June Carter. The Florida-based ad agency, Big Grin Productions, has said that they didn't intend to insult the family.

We admit that there have actually been some great songs put to effective use in TV commercials. There was that Papas Fritas song in that gum commercial, The Walkmen in a VW commercial, and probably lots more ("Lust for Life" in every third commerical is not eligible). We're not always averse to good product tie-ins, but oughtn't there to be some measure of self-censorship in the ad industry? Maybe some of the ideas people have when they're sitting around getting stoned at four in the morning ought to remain private, even if they're funny (and even we have to admit that this was pretty funny).

"Cash family blocks haemmorhoid ad" (BBC)

Posted by matt at 04:34 PM | TrackBack

February 16, 2004

Even Science Hates Microsoft

Experts in the field of computer security are taking a fresh look at an old theory of evolutionary biology, namely that genetic diversity within a species is essential to its survival. The application to the computer world being that the Microsoft monoculture is uniquely susceptible to security breaches, since each Wintel machine has essentially the same security holes. The point is being driven forcefully home by the havoc wrought by viruses like Sobig and MyDoom. These viruses exclusively affect machines running Windows, leaving Linux and Mac users smirking on the sidelines.

Dan Geer, a computer security expert with a doctorate in biostatistics, was fired from his position at @stake, a Cambridge, MA tech firm, for publishing a paper which advanced just this idea. Microsoft has denied putting any pressure on @stake to fire Geer.

When Bill Gates was approached for comment, the odor of brimstone and goat's blood emanating from under his door frightened away any potential interrogators.

On behalf of Mac users everywhere, we told you so.

"Microsoft dominance poses security threat" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 04:46 PM | TrackBack

"To the burgermobile, massa!"

Oops! Greeting-card monolith, American Greetings, goofed up pretty severely this Valentine's Day. In an undisclosed number of their Wal-Mart exclusive Nickelodeon-themed Valentine's cards, a production glitch created a decidedly Al Jolson-looking image of Spongebob Squarepants. The company's director of global marketing blames the Chinese printing facility for the flub, saying that the printers, not knowing anything about Spongebob, had no way of catching the error.

Oh sure, when your company commits such a huge, racially insensitive blunder, what's your first line of defense? Blame the Chinese! Of course, it probably wouldn't have been such a PR nightmare if the Jew-run media hadn't picked up on the story, right guys?

(Come on, libel. Big bucks, no whammies)

"Greeting card picture evokes race stereotype" (Detroit Free Press)

Posted by matt at 04:18 PM | TrackBack

February 13, 2004

"Rakes? Check. Muck? Check. Okay, let's go!"

So it begins.

In a move that corporate-speakers might call "proactive," Bush's re-election campaign has hit the ground running with a negative ad attacking John Kerry for his relationship with special interests, desipte his not actually having officially received the Democratic nomination yet. Don't worry though, Kerry's website has already returned the favor by pointing out that "Bush has raised more money in one night from special interests than John Kerry has raised in his career."

Okay, for the moment, let's put aside the relative merits of Kerry's and Bush's respective platforms, and just look at the ammo for each's PR campaigns. Kerry has the fact that Bush flat out lied to the country in order to start a war in which Americans are still dying every day (despite our having "won"), Bush's dismal record with the economy, and the whole National Guard thing (which we don't really care that much about, except that it seems to be bringing out W's inner weasel). On the other end of things Bush has this special interests thing (which he doesn't really have, if Kerry's people are to be believed), and he has (perhaps we should say some of his supporters have, lest we tempt the libel fates) the mocked-up photo of Kerry, alongside "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, at an anti-war rally. Which, apart from its being fake, doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, since Kerry has been open about his opposition to our involvement in Vietnam after he left. The point, we suppose, is just to slander him by putting him alongside the notorious Ms. Fonda.

We're going to bite our tongues a bit, so we don't get all worked up about the death of issue-based campaigns, but we think it's a little funny that the Bush campaign was the first to fire its opening salvo in the mudslinging war when it clearly has so little ammunition. As it is, we suppose it's just as well that Bush is choosing to fight on the PR battlefield, since he doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as substantive issues go.

Also, adding further to that integrity we were mentioning the other day, Gen. Wesley Clark has put his support behind Kerry, signaling that it really is time for the Dems to start putting together a unified front.

"Bush Campaign Releases Video Attacking Kerry" (Washington Post, Free Registration Required)

Posted by matt at 02:49 PM | TrackBack

February 12, 2004

The Breakup of Two People Even More Artificial than Ben and J-Lo

Just in time for Valentine's day, international toy megacorp Mattel has announced the breakup of Barbie and Ken.

Mattel speculates that the breakup is due to Ken's unwillingness to finally get married, but we suspect that it has more to do with the fact that he doesn't really have any genitals to speak of. We seem to recall reading on Page Six that the same was true of Ben Affleck.

The breakup is probably good for Barbie, as it will allow her to focus more of her energy on her many careers as a doctor, teacher, princess, astronaut, President of the United States, and Scarlet O'Hara. As full as her plate was, it was a wonder she ever found time to take her niece, Skipper, to the mall in her convertible, much less spend quality time with her toy boy.

At the time of this posting, there is no word on who will retain posession of the dream house.

For the record, doing a Google image search on "Barbie" is not safe for work.

"It's splitsville for Barbie and Ken" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 02:38 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Hell Is Being Married to Mel Gibson

Mel Gibson's wife is going to Hell. At least, that's what Mel says. His contention is that, even though she's all about the Jeebus and everything, she's still hellbound due to her unfortunate membership in that shady clique known as the Episcopal church. So, at death, when they part, he'll get to kick around in eternal bliss, while she's being poked with hot pointy things. To his credit, he still thinks that it's "not fair" that she'll suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire for her heretical beliefs that the bread doesn't actually turn into the body of Christ and that Henry VIII should've been able to divorce the wives he didn't have the heart to murder. We feel especially sorry for her since she'll have to spend eternity down there with all those shifty Jews who put her Jeebus up on the cross in the first place.

Maybe she'll get lucky and "The Passion" will do so well during its opening weekend the God will award Gibson a "+1" on his invite into His Kingdom.

We respect Gibson's right to his (insane) beliefs, but wouldn't you think that he'd be a little more tight-lipped on the record? There's no such thing as bad press, we suppose.

"Mel on hell: Even the missus may miss out on salvation" (Arizona Republic)

Posted by matt at 01:24 AM | TrackBack

February 11, 2004

Kerry Triumphs in the South

Kerry has done remarkably well in the South, beating Edwards in Virginia and Tennessee. For the first time in this primary season, we're actually starting to be optimistic that a Kerry/Edwards ticket might not get crushed in November. At the very least, Super Tuesday is shaping up to be a foregone conclusion.

The people in the Clark camp have said that the General will probably officially take himself out of the running this afternoon. We'd like to congratulate Gen. Clark on a race well run. He's a little weird, and he never had a chance, but he had integrity, and there's quite a lot to be said for that.

We think it would be really cool if Clark announces his withdrawl by sitting in a recliner that scoots through a wall that opens up behind him, like on Remote Control. Ken Ober could sing "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye." It's not like he's busy. That might not be the most dignified way to exit the race, but we really liked that show, and that might be enough to earn Gen. Clark a write-in from us.

God, that poor bastard Kucinich has fewer delegates than Al Sharpton. That hardly seems fair. If anybody wants to kick in for a you're-trailing-behind-a-walking-punchline muffin basket, please get in touch.

"Kerry puts his stamp on the south" (BBC)

Posted by matt at 02:51 PM | TrackBack

February 10, 2004

How Do The Spins Feel When the World Already Revolves Around You?

Diana Ross was stopped recently, but not in the name of love. Rather, she was stopped by the LAPD who wanted to, you know, get some autographs for their kids, as well as arrest Ms. Ross for driving drunk.

The aging Diva certainly had more than a love hangover when she awoke the next morning in a jail cell. We suspect that she be similarly unhappy when the LA County Department of Corrections keeps her hangin' on while she serves her two-day jail sentence.

Between this and Art Garfunkel's pot bust, this is turning out to be a banner year for washed up pop stars and controlled substances. We're just keeping our fingers crossed until Tenille gets pinched for her involvement in the Captain's offshore meth-lab.

Until then, we should probably sign off before we figure out a way to make a pun out of "Aint No Mountain High Enough." We're sorry about this post. We don't know what got into us.

On a side note, it's fun to see how many pictures of drag queens come up when you put 'Diana Ross' into Google Image Search.

"Diana Ross gets two days in jail" (BBC)

Posted by matt at 03:48 PM | TrackBack

Hot Rove-on-Rice Action

Daniel Parisi has announced that he has decided to sell the domain name for his website. Why is this newsworthy and/or funny? Well, because the domain name in question is Whitehouse.com, and it's a porn site. Parisi said that he's giving up the domain name so his son, who will be starting kindergarten next year, will be spared from being teased by his classmates.

What we can't help but wonder is: if you're old enough to know what porn is, aren't you old enough to think that it's cool?

Web watchdogs have been kvetching about whitehouse.com for a while now, since a child trying do a report on the White House could easily append a 'dot-com' instead of the correct 'dot-gov' and get a whole different kind of education. Although, this does provide David Denby with the option of saying that he was just doing a report for school.

At any rate, applesauce and apple juice manufacturer, White House foods, has expressed a desire to purchase the domain name. Why they want their juices associated with a porn site remains unknown at the time of this posting.

"Pornographer to sell Whitehouse.com" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 03:15 PM | TrackBack

February 06, 2004

Trippi's Long and Winding Road

If, for some reason, there's still someone out there who thinks it was anything but a disaster for Dean to have alienated Joe Trippi, we strongly encourage you to read GQ's paean to the erstwhile campaign manager.

Aaron Swartz has put together a nice list detailing all of the similarities between Trippi's career and the lives and careers of many of the characters on The West Wing.

This doesn't actually have anything to do with Trippi, but we think it might be worth your time to also check out the Voice piece about Al Sharpton's skeevy dealings with the GOP. Upon reading this story, we were shocked and saddened to learn that Sharpton is not a man of high moral character.

Posted by matt at 12:34 PM | TrackBack

February 05, 2004

The Last Straw

Until now, we've been enjoying the whole Janet/JT boob fiasco as much as the next blog. But now it's starting to hit a little too close to home.

In light of the controversy surrounding Sunday's halftime show, NBC has decided to cut a scene from tonight's ER in which the breast of an elderly woman is exposed.

Look, it's hardly as if we were clamoring for more elderly boobs on television, but we're having a hard time seeing how the two events are even remotely related. ER producer, John Wells, has expressed similar misgivings about the network's decision, saying that it is this kind of timidity that's sending viewers to HBO and Showtime in droves.

We just thought that it was because (ER, (Sorkin-era) West Wing, and Law and Order notwithstanding) HBO dramas are just several orders of magnitude better than anything on the big four.

"ER drops scene over Janet furore" (BBC)

Posted by matt at 03:54 PM | TrackBack

February 04, 2004

Stupid! Stupid! (Evil) Stupid!

In a decision that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that, at this point, the Bush administration is pretty much just making policy with the express intent to offend decent rational people everywhere, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has initiated a plan to appoint a panel of scientists to second-guess each and every scientific study that crosses the President's desk. Apparently, the time-honored tradition of peer review within the scientific community does not sufficiently reflect the interests of this administration and its cronies.

Unless a Kerry/Edwards miracle happens in November, expect America's Official Science to say that life begins at conception, that we can afford to take as much oil from Alaska as Schwarzenegger needs to fuel his fleet of Hummers, and that fire is, as this administration has long suspected, bad.

Believe it or not, we really do hate the sort of knee-jerk liberalism which holds that anything Bush has a hand in is, by definition, stupid and/or evil, but this might just be the last straw on the back of a camel with very severe osteoporosis.

Seriously, this is just grotesque. We'll just say it: we hate him! We hate him so bad!

Damn, we really shouldn't post in this kind of mood. The only thing that could cheer us up now is the exclusive Freezepop track we got off of Achewood. That can't help but make us very happy. Yes, that's much better.

"Stacking The Deck Against Science" (Wired News)

Posted by matt at 12:33 AM | TrackBack

February 03, 2004

Kerry's Rock n' Roll Lifestyle

Since Iowa, we've been trying very hard to find reasons to tolerate the idea of a Kerry presidency. We think we've finally found a compelling one. He played bass in a garage-rock band in high school. The Electras, who mostly played covers of old surf and garage tunes, were formed primarily as a way to get chicks. Young Kerry, all fresh-faced and innocent before the war, was just out there rockin' and chasin' tail. You'd never catch him saying "It's all about the music."

Since JFK became the first Catholic president, it was really only a matter of time before it became possible that America could have its first bass-player in the Oval Office. Seriously though, if we are going to have a rocker for a chief executive, isn't it kind of the best that he plays bass? He won't have the ego of a guitarist or singer, and we all know that drummers are flakes, so he'll just be there to do his job and hold down the low end. It's kind of perfect.

Rock on, Kerry, rock on.

(Thanks to Lee for sending the link)

"John Kerry's Record: One You Can Dance To" (Washington Post)

Posted by matt at 02:24 PM | TrackBack

February 02, 2004

Wanna Buy a Baby?

A British doctor is currently under investigation for offering to buy a baby from some of his patients. While it would be hard to imagine the sort of circumstances under which such an offer could be made, we went ahead and gave it a shot. We think it might've gone a little something like this:

[Scene: English Doctor's Office]
[Characters: Doctor, Husband, Wife]

Doctor: Right-o. This is one rather healthy baby you've got here. Look at the colour of those cheeks!

Wife: 'Es just the centre of our lives, 'e is.

Husband: I just don't know what we're going to do. We can barely scrape together a few pence for Bangers and Mash, or Shepherd's Pie, or fried Mars bars, or other traditional English flavours.

W: Aw luv, we'll manage. See, doc, me husband's just been sacked from his job at the bowler hat and moustache factory, and we're having a little trouble feeding little Dodi 'ere.

D: I'll take 'im off your hands, if you'd like.

H & W: Oi, what'd you say?

D: I'll give you 20 quid for 'im.

H: You're a right bastard, I'll box your ears.

D: Cor, er, I was just testing you. See... the Ministry of Babies 'as us test some new parents to see if they're the type wot would sell their babies. You passed! I'm dead chuffed, me. Quite routine, you see.

H: Quite.

W: Quite.

D: Quite.

[Exeunt, Flourish]

"GP 'offered to buy baby'" (BBC)

Posted by matt at 12:59 PM | TrackBack

January 28, 2004

Iraq: Odds & Ends, and Some Thoughts

It's becoming increasingly difficult to find funny things to say about Iraq. For one thing, there are really only so many jokes to be made about the situation. Mostly, however, it is becoming increasingly clear to us that neither the circumstances surrounding the U.S. decision to intervene nor the situation in Iraq prior to its "liberation" are even the least bit funny (just let us get through this, and we promise to get back to saying snarky [sorry, Mr. Carter. We'll put a nickel in the 'banned words' jar.] things about people who do stupid things that are funny).

Lord Hutton has released the text of his inquiry into the death of UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly. He found that neither Prime Minister Tony Blair, nor the MoD are responsible for Dr. Kelly's suicide, and neither should anyone be held accountable for failing to recognize Dr. Kelly's worsening emotional state. Having looked over Lord Hutton's evidence for these conclusions, we can't see any reason to disagree with him on those points. It is certainly a tragedy, but no further accusations ought to be leveled at Blair or his administration on those grounds.

However, as part of the inquiry, Lord Hutton looked in considerable detail into the circumstances leading up to Dr. Kelly's decision to take his own life. A substatntial part of the investigation centered on the discrepencies between the various drafts of the British Government's dossier on Iraq's WMD program as well as the inconsistencies between the summary of that document and the full text. This is relevant because these were the subject of Dr. Kelly's (originally anonymous) statement to the BBC that the report had been "sexed up." After a series of lengthy interviews with everyone who had a hand in the document's preparation as well as careful scrutiny of the internally circulated drafts, Lord Hutton came to believe that Dr. Kelly's accusations were unfounded.

We should say, before going on, that we haven't had access to any of those original documents, save for the final dossier itself, and the quotations of various drafts included in Lord Hutton's report, to say nothing of Lord Hutton's obvious intelligence, expertise and vast background knowledge of the political climate of Downing street. Furthermore, we just read these findings today. Lord Hutton has obviously spent rather a great deal longer with the materials. All of that said, we can't help but be suspicious of his conclusions about the veracity of Dr. Kelly's allegations.

In early drafts of the dossier, the summary (upon which many MPs would presumably come to base their initial assesments of the status of Iraq's weapons program) contained language that was much stronger than what was said in the full text of the document. The decision to strengthen the full version instead of weakening the summary was, in our opinion, a deliberate overstatement of the findings of the British Joint Intelligence Commission (JIC). This overstatement was compounded by the existence of memoranda directing the authors of the dossier to remove references to the JIC's opinion that Hussein primarily posed only a defensive threat. Further, specific claims about the ability of the Iraqi military to launch WMD's "within 45 minutes of a decision to use them" are, at best, misleading overstatements or, at worst, complete fabrications.

Considering the sizeable waves that this dossier made, not just in Parliament and the Bristish public, but also in the American Government, these overstatements cannot be overlooked, and must be given close scrutiny.

In addition to the issue whether or not the British government intended to deliberately mislead policymakers worldwide, there are the actual facts concerning the state of Iraq's weapons program. We now have strongly compelling evidence that Iraq has been a threat in the past, and would have again become a threat in several years, but could not have posed a threat (at least not a threat from WMDs) in the near future. For more on that, please read the Carnegie Endowment's review of the available evidence.

Certain other features of the dossier, not relating to WMDs, but rather to Iraq's atrocious disregard for human life, make a much more compelling case for the intervention of coalition (read: not just American) forces. While we still strongly disagree with the Bush administration's decision to intervene (read: invade) in the way that it did, the issue is clearly a difficult one. Bush's/Rumsfeld's/Wolfowitz's decision to get involved under the flimsy pretense of Iraq's chemical & biological weapons program suggests (to us) a plan to invade Iraq that just needed the right wrapping paper in which to present it to the American people. However, certain so-called "liberal hawks" recently participated in an enlightening forum on Slate.com in which they described their reasons for thinking that the war was still either a good idea or the right thing to do. We highly recommend checking out the above link (unless of course you are easily angered by Christopher Hitchens and have a heart condition).

Posted by matt at 06:38 PM | TrackBack

January 27, 2004

Who's Dumber: Bush or Fox News?

Giving new meaning to the term "faith-based intitiative," President Bush has said that he remains confident that inspectors will find Hussein's cache of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) despite having had no success in the last, what, year and a half?

We suppose that the rationale behind Bush's faith is simpy the following: "Of course Hussein had the WMDs. We went to war there, right? Well, we wouldn't have started a war if Iraq didn't have WMDs."

At the time of this posting, Bush has not yet expressed an opinion about the purported existence of a "tooth fairy" in Tehran.

What might be even more alarming than Bush's refusal to give up his flimsy pretense for the U.S.'s latest exercise in nation-building is the fact that, by and large, the American public (who presumably doesn't have access to thousands of pages of intelligence reports) has swallowed that flimsy pretense whole. A study performed by researchers at the University of Maryland (and reported in the Jan./Feb. issue of The Atlantic) shows that 60% percent of Americans believe that we found WMDs before the start of the war, and that we have proof that Hussein provided direct financial support to Al Qaeda prior to the September 11th terrorist attacks on the U.S. We assume that we need not remind our readers that neither of these things is true. What's more, the researchers found that, among the study's participants, 80% of the misinformed respondants get their news primarily from Fox News, whereas only 23% of NPR listeners/PBS viewers held the same false beliefs.

It might be impossible to wrap up this altogether depressing story with a snappy tagline, so we'll just sign off here.

"Bush Says He Remains Convinced of Hussein's Threat" (NYT)

Posted by matt at 06:19 PM | TrackBack

January 23, 2004

"Okay, but has His Holiness seen 'Torque'?"

On the official website for "The Passion," Mel Gibson's epic depiction of the last hours of Jesus's life, Pope John Paul II is quoted as having said of the film, "It is as it was." However, it turns out that the quote really isn't kosher (er, beatified?). A spokesman for the Holy See has categorically denied that the Pope has said anything to anybody about the film, adding that the quote was fabricated by the film's producer, Steve McEveety. Seriously, McEveety must have some pretty huge Rocks of Ages to falsely attribute a quote to the Vicar of Christ (somewhere, Jayson Blair is cursing himself for not thinking of it first).

We could hardly blame the Pope if he couldn't really get behind Gibson's magnum opus (for one thing, because the Guy is, you know, infallible). The elderly pontiff would have been understandably cranky after having paid, like, $12 for the "Goliath Combo" of jumbo-sized body and blood of Christ at the Vatican snack bar. He probably didn't even have enough scratch left for a box of Gummi-lamb. However, we at greenideas feel especially sorry for whoever had to sit behind the Pope at the screening, what with that huge hat and everything.

Props to Tim Rutten (who wrote the story linked below) for including the word "chutzpah" in this write-up about the Catholic Church's reaction to what is widely believed to be a strongly anti-semitic film.

"Vatican Says It's Not as It's Being Told" (Metromix [Chicago Tribune])

Posted by matt at 11:21 AM | TrackBack

Finally, Late Night TV Weighs in on Dean's Temper

Look, we realize that it's our civic duty to rag on Dean for blowing his top, but we're just one ambiguously-pronouned weblog, we can't be expected to come up with that many quips about the whole Iowa fiasco. With that in mind, it's time to sit back and let the professionals handle the dirty work:

Letterman: "Howard Dean has been the front-runner, and last night he finishes a distant third. Here's what happened: The people of Iowa realized they didn't want a president with the personality of a hockey dad."

Conan: "Howard Dean came in a disappointing third place. Afterward, Dean said, `Iowa is behind me, and now I look forward to screaming at voters in New Hampshire.'"

Seriously, these men are professional comedians. Don't attempt to achieve that level of political satire or you just might lose a finger.

Posted by matt at 01:22 AM | TrackBack

Microsoft: "Okay, this one's our bad"

After experiencing a moment of moral clarity (or just anticipating the impending PR firestorm), Microsoft has decided to be a little decent to 17 year old Canadian, Mike Rowe. The software giant had initially threatened to take legal action against Rowe if he did not surrender his domain name, the cheeky MikeRoweSoft.com. However, Messers Gates and Ballmer are dialing down the agression and offering to settle the matter quietly and out of court.

Between the RIAA's lawsuits against 12 year old girls, and Microsoft's attack on an adolescent boy with a knack for word-play, this has been a great few months for massive corporations that like bullying children. It won't be long now until Ted Turner gets called out for delivering wedgies to Atlanta schoolchildren (but he'll do it five minutes later than all the other bullies).

Seriously, though. We're a little rusty on our copyright law, but does Microsoft really think they own all of "Microsoft"s homophones? That seems more than a little loopy to us, but we have to admit that we don't know much about the law beyond what we learn from Jack McCoy.

On a side note, with stories on Starbucks and Microsoft appearing back to back, the face of greenideas seems to be really racking up the registered trademarks. We can only count the moments until the copyright police come beating on our door with a fistful of 'cease and desist' orders and a slew of brickbats (Okay, so maybe the copyright police aren't actually New York gang members from the mid-19th century. Still, we're sure there'll be some sort of bludgeons).

"MS 'Softening' on MikeRoweSoft Case" (Macworld UK)

Posted by matt at 01:04 AM | TrackBack

January 22, 2004

Expect The Plague of Frogs Any Day Now

In a development which unequviocally signals an impending apocalypse, Starbucks is boasting a whopping 41% increase in first quarter earnings. The monolithic McCoffee chain attributes the gains to record holiday sales. In addition, having recently opened a store in West Virginia, the Delilah of the coffee world has now planted its unholy flag in all fifty states.

Look, we realize that there is at least one Starbucks on every block in the urban areas of these United States, and that's just terribly convenient. But we would really appreciate it if someone out there in blog-land could give us a compelling reason for continuing to reward the anti-competitive behavior of this cloven-hoofed behemoth when, and we're being perfectly objective here, the coffee isn't even all that good.

Also, we know that not everyone is lucky enough to live near a great independently-owned coffee shop (like, say, the Diesel Cafe in picturesque Somerville, MA), but can't we agree that, to a considerable extent, this is largely due to Starbucks's own strongarm tactics and generally poor business ethics? We thought so.

Apparently we've had some things that we've needed to get off of our collective chest for a while. We'll get back to making snide comments about Howard Dean and Art Garfunkel very soon.

"Starbucks 1Q Earnings Rise 41 Percent" (Salon.com)

Posted by matt at 04:47 PM | TrackBack

Worst Idea Ever (Updated)

In a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Defense, four computer security experts have given a resounding "no way!" to the idea of internet voting. The DOD is hoping to automate absentee voting for our soldiers who will be abroad during the November elections. The panel of experts has determined that there are too many security gaps in the proposed system which could not conceivably be fixed.

Considering how poor America's track record is with even simple paper balloting, the idea that voting, even for such a small segment of the population, should be conducted on the internet has "giant flaming wreck" written all over it.

"Security Experts Give E-Voting 'thumbs-down'" (C-Net)

Update: The Pentagon has decided to ignore the voices of reason for whose opinions they paid all that money. They have announced that they will go ahead with their plan to let overseas military personnel vote online. We can only hope that the civic-minded folks who will hack into this system will do the right thing and launch a PERL script to cast hundreds of thousands of write-in votes for TV's Rerun. Oh wait, he just died. Um... we're screwed.

"Pentagon Defends Plan For Internet Voting" (Voice of America)

Posted by matt at 12:23 AM | TrackBack

Howard Dean: Big Meanie

The Dean camp is reeling from their candidate's fiery outburst following last night's caucus in Iowa. Dean emitted an animal grunt after delivering a hoarse-throated, fire and brimstone vow to "take back the White House." Many are feeling disillusioned by the Democratic hopeful's recent repeated lapses in self-control, but most have rationalized the display as simply a manifestation of Gov. Dean's "passion."

However, the problem facing Dean is that it's not his self-proclaimed "Deaniacs" who need to be convinced of his character, but the rest of the voting public. Outbursts such as those in Iowa simply aren't presidential, and Gov. Dean has a lot of damage control to do to make up for the ground already lost to Iowa winner, John Kerry.

Much as we hate to admit it, Kerry is easily the most presidential of the Democratic hopefuls, and probably the only one who might not lose to Bush in a landslide come November.

"Yell in Iowa May Haunt Dean Camp" (Boston.com)

Posted by matt at 12:09 AM | TrackBack

January 21, 2004

Take That, Fairly Priced Recordings!

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), and UK-based online music retailer, CD-Wow! have settled out of court in the matter of CD-Wow!'s illegal importing of CDs from outside of the UK and selling them to UK customers. CD-Wow! has agreed to only sell European-manufactured records and to add a surcharge of two pounds to all imports.

Not that we were going to be ordering anything from CD-Wow!, much less doing so from within the UK, but it's almost never a good thing when the recording industries on either side of the Atlantic squash attempts at mitigating the exorbitant costs of records these days.

"CD Settlement Forces Prices Up" (BBC)

Posted by matt at 12:41 PM | TrackBack

January 20, 2004

Quadraplegic Astrophysicists, Beware!

We here at greenideas are extremely dismayed to learn that nerd-bullying respects neither age nor renown. Police in Cambridge are launching an inquiry into some suspicious bruises on Stephen Hawking, possibly the world's most famous living physicist, and holder of the Lucasian Chair in Physics at Cambridge University. Police, as well as Hawking's children, suspect that one of the physicist's caregivers may be harming him in order to bring attention on him/herself. The phenomenon is known to Psychologists (and rabid "ER" fans) as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

Having some nerdish proclivities ourselves, we now realize that we are living on borrowed time. We will certainly be on the lookout for crazed nerd-hating nurse-practicioners the next time we are walking home late at night.

"Hawking Ex Tells of Fear" (Daily Mirror UK)

Posted by matt at 11:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Has It Really Come to This?

So Kerry took Iowa. Greenideas supposes that it's really for the best, considering how pathetic all of the other Democratic hopefuls are. What, like Dean was really going to be able to swing the election? We think not. Kerry is far and away the strongest of the Dems on offer, in terms of ability to contend with little Bushie, but we here at greenideas despair of seeing a non-Republican president at any point in, at the very least, the next 12 years. We apologize ('cept not really) if our tone is particularly acerbic, but we suppose that there is really no way that this caucus could have ended that would have made us happy. Oh well, here's hoping for a dark horse in New Hampshire (sit down, Governer Dean, no one was talking to you).

As a side note, we want to congratulate Rep. Gephardt for sticking it out this long.

"Kerry Wins Iowa; Gephardt Exit Expected" (CNN)

Posted by matt at 01:09 AM | TrackBack

January 19, 2004

Item: Bloomberg is Boring

The Bloomberg administration, having seen virtually no shake-ups, has so far had remarkably little turnover. Apparently he's a really good boss, never micromanaging, and unfalteringly supports staffers who come under fire in the press. Man, that is so lame (yawn).

We at greenideas can only supress our boredom by holding on to the hope that all sorts of crazy stuff is going on at City Hall as we speak, and that the whole thing will blow wide open very soon. We'll be reloading the "New York Region" page on the NYT site every 15 seconds or so until that happens.

"A New Chapter for City Hall: No Shake-Ups for Bloomberg" (NYT)

Posted by matt at 12:13 PM

Overzealous Spam-Killers?

Since the CAN-SPAM act went into effect on January 1st, there has actually been a 7% increase in spamming. E-mail services and corporate internet security officers have responded by tightening the filters on their spam-blocking software. As a result, a lot of perfectly innocuous personal e-mails are being bounced to junk mail folders or returned to their senders becuase their subject lines contain red-flag words like "profit" even "hell" (damn spammers, with their greetings).

Should an e-mail from greenideas show up in your inbox, we can assure you that we really are Nigerian royalty, and our HGH will give you power over women and MASSIVE ALL-NATURAL GIRTH!!!!

"Spam Filters Grab Good With Bad" (Wired News)

Posted by matt at 11:33 AM

January 18, 2004

Sweatergate: Endgame

Presdiential hopeful, Gen. Wesley Clark, after catching some serious flack for the infamous argyle sweater that launched sweatergate, has decided to sell the much-derided sweater on e-Bay. America, now's your chance to own a piece of the funniest political scandal since the XYZ affair.

For what it's worth, greenideas thinks that the sweater suits Gen. Clark, but we have to admit that solid colors look much more presidential.

"Fans of Clark's Argyle Can Bid Online" (NYT)

General Wesley Clark's Argyle Sweater (e-Bay)

Posted by matt at 12:47 PM | Comments (1)

"Suh, ah demand satisfaction."

So it seems that there's a three-mile wide stretch of land in Texas, right next to New Mexico, that is currently a disputed territory. Annexed to Texas in 1859 due to a botched survey, the parcel of land is three miles wide, 320 miles long, and positively thick with oil. Well, every few years since 1910, New Mexico makes a fuss about getting their land back. What makes it so funny this time around, is that the whole situation culminated in an old-fashioned duel between the states' land commissioners--pistols at dawn and everything. Apparently it was just a publicity stunt, though, which we have to admit is pretty disappointing.

Is it just us, or is the guy on the left's hat kind of sissy?

"Land Officials Stage Latter-Day Shoot 'Em Up" (Washington Post)

Posted by matt at 11:46 AM

January 17, 2004

The End of the Affair

Long-time sweethearts, Howard Dean and the American news media, are having a falling-out. Dean has previously enjoyed virtually no scrutiny from the press, while his competitors for the Democratic Party's nod have been under the proverbial microscope since day one. But now, it seems the kid gloves are off. ABC has announced that a Vermont policeman who called Dean "A wonderful parent," in fact, abuses his wife. Let the muckraking begin.

Media analysts have attributed the cooling off to fact that the Dean camp has been increasingly standoffish with the press lately, going so far as to leave reporters off of the campaign bus, and threatening to take away ABC's seat on Dean's plane.

The breakup is really unfortunate, since, like, half of Dean's records are still at the press's house, along with his "Face the Nation" coffee mug, and his Modest Mouse t-shirt.

"The News Media: Once-Warm Relationship Between Dean and the New Media Sours" (NYT)

Posted by matt at 03:14 PM

"Take my Illegally Obtained Depleted Uranium... Please"

In his first address to Parliament, the Pakistani President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf mounted the podium to shouts of "Go Musharraf, go Musharraf" and "friends of dictators are traitors!" Greenideas wonders whatever happened to such time-honored taunts as, "get off the stage" or "Your proposed concessions to the Indian government will make us an international laughing stock!" or "You ugly!" It probably wouldn't be as funny if the NYT hadn't chosen the word "Heckle" to describe the breach in decorum, but we can be thankful that the Paper of Historical Record always goes for the laugh. Bonus points for the alliteration in the story's title.

For purposes of comparison, BBCNews said that the Pakistani President was "barracked by MPs." Silly silly British people. Although we're sure that the accent made it sound hot when they said it.

"Pakistani President Heckled in Speech to Parliament" (NYT)

Posted by matt at 02:43 PM

Hubble Hubbub

We at greenideas are shocked and saddened (well, saddened) about the consequences of Bush's newfangled election-year resolution to put people back on the moon by 2015, and to make it to Mars by, well, sometime after that. As a result of this shift in priorities, all maintainence operations on the Hubble telescope will be discontinued, which will allow the telescope to become completely non-functional by 2010. Thanks to the Hubble, we know the age of the universe, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and lots of other very important things. NASA had hoped to replace the Hubble with a fancier telescope, but that project will be tabled indefinitely due to Bush's New Plan for Space Stuff.

For the full story, click

here

.

Posted by matt at 12:19 PM