April 30, 2005
WRONG AND WRONGER (David Hill, The Bronx):
Germany puts its faith in Keynesian (Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 30/04/2005, Daily Telegraph)
Germany is backing a 1970s-style Keynesian to take over the crucial job of chief economist at the European Central Bank, marking a dramatic shift in Berlin's economic thinking and horrifying the guardians of orthodoxy in Frankfurt.The post has been held for the last eight years by Dr Otmar Issing, a monetary hawk who has fought off political pressure for lower interest rates and sought to uphold the low-inflation traditions of the former Bundesbank.
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder now hopes to replace him early next year with Professor Peter Bofinger, the leading advocate of a ''New Deal'' spending blitz to cut unemployment and lift the country out of protracted slump.
Given the global deflationary cycle European rates are obviously too high while the Hoover/FDR spending blitz did nothing to end the Depression. Forget spending, just cut rates.
RED VS RED:
Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas won't run for Jeffords’ Senate seat (Shay Totten, April 30, 2005, Vermont Guardian)
Gov. Jim Douglas ended more than a week of increasing political speculation Saturday, announcing he would not run for U.S. Senate in 2006.But, his stalwart sidekick, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, quickly stepped up to fill the speculation about who in the GOP will take on U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, who has said he intends to run for the Senate.
“I am thinking about it,” Dubie told reporters in a crowded hallway outside Douglas' announcement.
Dubie said he would consider a run for U.S. Senate or U.S. House, but not without consulting his family first. “For me, it’s not what’s in the best interest of the White House, but what’s in the best interest of my house," he said. [...]
Republicans desperately want to retake the Senate seat they held while Jeffords was in office as a member of the GOP. In 2001, Jeffords made national headlines when he dropped out of the Republican party to become an independent. Jeffords made the switch in opposition to many of then newly-elected Pres. George W. Bush’s policies on education and the environment. The switch threw the control of the Senate into the hands of the Democrats.
Sanders, also an independent, has already stated he intends to run for Jeffords’ open seat, but has not made a formal announcement. Sanders received an early statement of support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, and from the liberal online advocacy group MoveOn.org.
The national GOP has made a real mistake by not targetting Vermont. Had they pumped a significant amount of money into the '94 congressional race they'd have knocked off Bernie over his gun votes. This race alone makes it worth bringing renewal of the assault weapons ban to a vote.
DISCIPLINED? THEY SHOULD GET COMMENDATIONS FOR REACTING QUICKLY:
Ex-Hostage's Italian Driver Ignored Warning, U.S. Says (RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and ROBERT F. WORTH, 5/01/05, NY Times)
The car carrying the Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena that was struck with a deadly hail of gunfire as it sped toward Baghdad International Airport on March 4 ignored warnings from American soldiers who used a spotlight, a green laser pointer and warning shots to try to stop it as it approached a checkpoint, the American military said in a report released Saturday evening.The gunfire killed Nicola Calipari, an Italian intelligence agent who was in the back seat with Ms. Sgrena. The driver and Ms. Sgrena were wounded. Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, the ground commander in Iraq, has approved a recommendation that soldiers involved in the shooting not be disciplined, the military said.
The report's exoneration of the soldiers, which was made public last week, angered Italian officials and threatened to further inflame relations between the United States and Italy, one of its staunchest allies in the war in Iraq. The findings have created a political problem for the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who faces a public upset by the incident at a time when his own fortunes are sagging.
Italy has kept 3,000 troops in Iraq, but Mr. Berlusconi has suggested that Italy might begin withdrawing them by September.
That would at least get a potential $3 billion worth of hostages out of the theater.
THE SILENT WEALTH OF NATIONS:
Rescuing environmentalism: Market forces could prove the environment's best friend—if only greens could learn to love them (The Economist, Apr 21st 2005)
The coming into force of the UN's Kyoto protocol on climate change might seem a victory for Europe's greens, but it actually masks a larger failure. The most promising aspect of the treaty—its innovative use of market-based instruments such as carbon-emissions trading—was resisted tooth and nail by Europe's greens. With courageous exceptions, American green groups also remain deeply suspicious of market forces.If environmental groups continue to reject pragmatic solutions and instead drift toward Utopian (or dystopian) visions of the future, they will lose the battle of ideas. And that would be a pity, for the world would benefit from having a thoughtful green movement. It would also be ironic, because far-reaching advances are already under way in the management of the world's natural resources—changes that add up to a different kind of green revolution. This could yet save the greens (as well as doing the planet a world of good). [...]
Rachel Carson meets Adam Smith
If this new green revolution is to succeed, however, three things must happen. The most important is that prices must be set correctly. The best way to do this is through liquid markets, as in the case of emissions trading. Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that goal is achieved is up to the traders.
A proper price, however, requires proper information. So the second goal must be to provide it. The tendency to regard the environment as a “free good” must be tempered with an understanding of what it does for humanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the World Bank's annual “Little Green Data Book” (released this week), that is happening. More work is needed, but thanks to technologies such as satellite observation, computing and the internet, green accounting is getting cheaper and easier.
Which leads naturally to the third goal, the embrace of cost-benefit analysis. At this, greens roll their eyes, complaining that it reduces nature to dollars and cents. In one sense, they are right. Some things in nature are irreplaceable—literally priceless. Even so, it is essential to consider trade-offs when analysing almost all green problems. The marginal cost of removing the last 5% of a given pollutant is often far higher than removing the first 5% or even 50%: for public policy to ignore such facts would be inexcusable.
If governments invest seriously in green data acquisition and co-ordination, they will no longer be flying blind. And by advocating data-based, analytically rigorous policies rather than pious appeals to “save the planet”, the green movement could overcome the scepticism of the ordinary voter. It might even move from the fringes of politics to the middle ground where most voters reside.
It takes a nearly superhuman efforst for the environmental movement not to turn its broad public support into workable public policy. It leaves the issue wide open for the GOP to claim.
I ONLY JOINED FOR THE CHICKS:
A Rewrite for Hollywood's Blacklist Saga (Ronald Radosh and Allis Radosh, April 25, 2005, LA Times)
For more than 50 years, the communists and former communists of Hollywood have written the script of the past, telling the story of the blacklist in memoirs and histories, movies and documentaries in which they depict themselves as noble martyrs and champions of democracy. It is time, finally, to put an end to the glorification of this unhappy period and take a cleareyed look at the Hollywood Ten, the blacklist and the movie industry Reds who wielded such influence in the 1930s and 1940s.According to the familiar but utterly romanticized script, the screenwriters, directors and actors who flirted with and joined the Communist Party are unadulterated heroes — just "liberals in a hurry." It is a simple black-and-white tale, as they tell it: The villains were the Hollywood moguls who blacklisted them, the liberals who abandoned the fight, and most of all, the "friendly" ex-communist witnesses who testified about their lives in the party and named names of old associates to the House Un-American Activities Committee.
It is a fable that has acquired an almost irresistible weight as a result of half a century of telling and retelling. Read Lillian Hellman. Or go see the Irwin Winkler film "Guilty by Suspicion."
But is it true? Certainly the blacklist harmed the careers of some of Hollywood's finest. Its damage extended not only to actual party members but, in some cases, to the well-meaning who joined party-controlled "popular front" organizations. But the accepted narrative obscures the important truth about communist influence in Hollywood. The Hollywood Ten were among the most committed of the party faithful, yet they've been wrapped and protected in a romantic haze, allowed to wear their appearance before HUAC as a badge of honor.
One of the few missteps Jim Carrey has made on the route to being this generation's Jimmy Stewart was the nearly good film, The Majestic, which is marred by a laughable anti-anti-communist plotline.
NEVER?:
If not now, when?: In a new report, six think-tanks have slashed their forecast for German economic growth in 2005, citing high oil prices and an unfavourable exchange rate. If Germany’s export-driven economy cannot recover when the world economy is racing along, how will it fare during a slowdown? (The Economist, Apr 29th 2005)
IN THEORY, Germany should be booming by now. Sizzling global economic growth in 2004, and more of the same expected for 2005, has raised demand for its exports, a boon to its large manufacturing sector. The European Central Bank (ECB) has kept interest rates in the euro area at an easy 2% for 22 months, and looks set to keep doing so well into 2005. Fiscal policy is also expansionary: the government’s budget deficit has breached the Maastricht treaty’s 3%-of-GDP limit for three years running, and by all accounts will do so again this year. Yet for all this, for the past four years Germany has struggled to produce GDP growth of even 1% a year.The future looks little better than the past. This week a consortium of German think-tanks released its semi-annual report, slashing its forecast for German growth this year from a lacklustre 1.5% to an almost pulseless 0.7%. The German government then altered its own forecast to 1.0%, down from its previous one of 1.6%, made in January. More worryingly, the think-tanks' report argues that the German economy is not stuck in a particularly vicious cyclical slowdown. Rather, its structural problems, particularly the highly regulated labour market, have reduced trend growth (the average growth rate of the economy) to a meagre 1.1%, in contrast to roughly 2% for the rest of the euro area, and about 3% for the United States. Unless these trends reverse, Europe’s largest economy could eventually wind up as its economic backwater.
The most stagnant pool is undoubtedly the labour market. Germany’s unemployment rate fell to 11.8% in April from the record 12% it hit in March, pushing the number of jobless back below 5m for the first time in months. However, this may have more to do with changes in benefits for the unemployed, and a cold spell in March that made that month's figures unusually low, than any improvement in hiring conditions. On Tuesday April 26th Bert Rürup, head of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s panel of economic advisers, said that the country will not begin adding significant numbers of jobs until annual economic growth hits 1.5-2%. High unemployment has helped keep consumer spending depressed, leaving the economy dependent on exports to drive recovery. But global economic growth, which the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook puts at 5.1% in 2004, is forecast to slow a bit, to 4.3%, in 2005. If 5.1% wasn’t enough to pull Germany out of its doldrums, what will?
To be fair, Germany knows that it has a problem.
What theory is it that holds that a secular social welfare state whose people aren't having children should ever be booming?
DOESN'T THE PREGNANCY DEMONSTRATE HER IMMATURITY?:
Florida girl has abortion blocked (Jeremy Cooke, 4/30/05, BBC News)
A pregnant 13-year-old girl in Florida has been told she cannot have an abortion because she lacks the maturity to make such a decision.A state court granted an injunction which prevents the girl from terminating her pregnancy.
She is three months pregnant and had planned to have an abortion on Tuesday of this week.
The American Civil Liberties Union says it will launch an urgent appeal against the ruling.
She can't buy cigarettes or alcohol, can't drive, can't go to many movies, can't legally have sex in most states, but she should be allowed to kill?
HIS RIVERBOAT--DEMOCRATS ARE JUST ALONG FOR THE RIDE:
President's Radio Address (George W. Bush, 4/30/05)
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This past week I addressed the nation to talk about the challenges facing Social Security. The Social Security system that Franklin Roosevelt created was a great moral success of the 20th century. It provided a safety net that ensured dignity and peace of mind to millions of Americans in retirement.Yet today there is a hole in the safety net for younger workers, because Congress has made promises it cannot keep. We have a duty to save and strengthen Social Security for our children and grandchildren.
In the coming week, I will travel to Mississippi to continue to discuss ways to put Social Security on the path to permanent solvency. I will continue to assure Americans that some parts of Social Security will not change. Seniors and people with disabilities will continue to get their checks, and all Americans born before 1950 will also receive their full benefits. And I will make it clear that as we fix Social Security we have a duty to direct extra help to those most in need, and make Social Security a better deal for younger workers.
We have entered a new phase in this discussion. As members of Congress begin work on Social Security legislation, they should pursue three important goals. First, I understand that millions of Americans depend on Social Security checks as a primary source of retirement income, so we must keep this promise to future retirees, as well. As a matter of fairness, future generations should receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get.
Second, I believe a reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So in the future, benefits for low-income workers should grow faster than benefits for people who are better off. By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make good on this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty.
This reform would solve most of the funding challenges facing Social Security. A variety of options are available to solve the rest of the problem. And I will work with Congress on any good-faith proposal that does not raise the payroll tax rate or harm our economy.
Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises being made to younger workers with real assets, real money. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.
Some Americans have reservations about investing in the markets because they want a guaranteed return on their money. So one investment option should consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow you to build a nest egg that you can pass on to your loved ones.
In the days and weeks ahead, I will work to build on the progress we have made in the Social Security discussion. Americans of all ages are beginning to look at Social Security in a new way. Instead of asking whether the system has a problem, they're asking when their leaders are going to fix it. Fixing Social Security must be a bipartisan effort, and I'm willing to listen to a good idea from either party. I'm confident that by working together, we will find a solution that will renew the promise of Social Security for the 21st century.
Thank you for listening.
President's Big Social Security Gamble (RICHARD W. STEVENSON, 4/30/05, NY Times)
In proposing on Thursday night to cut Social Security benefits for future generations of retirees, President Bush made two big bets, one political, one on the substance of his policy, and if he is to succeed in remaking the retirement system, both of them will probably have to break his way.The political gamble is straightforward. Will putting benefit cuts on the table eventually break the legislative logjam by providing political cover to members of both parties who accept that something painful must be done to set Social Security right? Or, by imposing substantial cuts on middle-income workers relative to what the system currently promises, will the approach endorsed by Mr. Bush so permanently harden the wall of opposition from Democrats, as it seemed initially to have done, that no compromise becomes possible?
Regardless of how it all ends up, it's immensely entertaining to watch him dramatically raise the stakes every time the Democrats think they've backed him into a corner.
MAYBE 60 MPH IS 30 KPH?:
US satellite recorded checkpoint shooting, shows speed of Italian car: CBS (AFP, 4/29/05)
A US satellite reportedly recorded a checkpoint shooting in
Iraq last month, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast a car carrying a top Italian intelligence official and a freed hostage was traveling when US troops opened fire.The report, which aired Thursday on CBS News, said US investigators concluded from the recording that the car was traveling at a speed of more than 60 miles (96 km) per hour.
Giuliana Sgrena has said the car was traveling at a normal speed of about 30 miles an hour when the soldiers opened fired, wounding her and killing Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who had just secured her release from a month's captivity.
Darn, the communist who got the insurgents a large cash payoff seemed so credible....
ARE THE PYGMIES PEPPERED? (via Bruce Cleaver):
Pygmy found near home of hobbits (Sydney Herald Sun, 30apr05)
INDONESIAN scientists have found a community of pygmy people in the eastern island of Flores.
The community is near a village where Australian scientists discovered a dwarf-sized skeleton last year and declared it a new human species.The latest discovery will likely raise more controversy over the finding of Homo floresiensis, claimed by Australian scientists Mike Morwood and Peter Brown in September. They nick-nam
Only the most credulous Darwinists can have failed to figure out the hobbit was a hoax when the bones were conveniently destroyed. Nothing in life is more certain than that a much heralded evolutionary find will turn out to be man-made.
JUST RAISE THEM HIGH ENOUGH:
Oil-rich Norway is taxing on cars (Simon Romero, APRIL 30, 2005, The New York Times)
Norway, the world's third-largest oil exporter, is home to perhaps the world's most expensive gasoline.
But drivers here greet high pump prices of almost 11 kroner a liter, or $6.60 a gallon, with little more than a shrug.
Yes, there was a protest from the Norwegian Automobile Association, which said, "Enough is enough," And a rightist party in Parliament, the Progress Party, once again called for a cut in gasoline taxes, which account for about two-thirds of the price. But "those critics are but voices in the wilderness," said Torgald Sorli, a radio announcer with the Norwegian Broadcasting Corp. who often discusses transportation issues. "We Norwegians are resigned to expensive gasoline. There is no political will to change the system."
Norway, has been made wealthy by oil, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Russia in exports. Last year alone, oil exports jumped 19 percent to $38.4 billion. But no other major oil exporter has attempted to reel in its own fuel consumption with as much zeal as Norway. These policies have resulted in one of the lowest car-ownership rates in Europe and fuel-efficient Volkswagens and Peugeots far outnumber big sport utility vehicles on its roads.
Always strange to hear normally sensible conservatives who rage against the effects of taxation claim that higher gas taxes wouldn't have any effect on driving habits. But then cars, like guns, are an emotional issue, not a logical one.
MORE:
Taxing America Clean?: The gas tax is still a terrible idea. (Chris Pope, 04/28/2005, Weekly Standard)
AMERICA IS THE LAND OF THE AUTOMOBILE. Cars are the keys to adulthood, the grail of status, the lifeblood of the economy, and the passport to a vast land. They are also Public Enemy Number One.The automobile has long been blamed for global warming, respiratory diseases, and the destruction of the countryside, but it has also recently been indicted for treason in the war on terror. Though it made possible the most extraordinary social progress, opened up a world outside cramped cities to the millions, and almost every sector of the economy would grind to a halt without it, the internal combustion engine is now almost universally condemned as A Bad Thing.
One need not believe that fear of global warming should motivate an end to car use (or that an end to car use would end global warming) to believe that the "external cost" to society of car use is a potential reason for taxing gas. Conservative economists Martin Feldstein, Gary Becker, and Greg Mankiw have all joined the chorus for a gas tax, though their arguments are admittedly based as much on the income tax being bad for the economy, as they are on the gas tax being good.
Since Thomas Friedman warns us that there is also an imminent groundswell from "an alliance of neocons, evangelicals and greens," surely it is only a matter of time before congressmen swarm to the call of the gas tax?
Like most disastrous liberal schemes, astronomic gas taxes have already been tested on the British, where taxes account for 76 percent of the pump price, and regulation has further forced prices up to £3.73 ($7.13) per gallon. Even though the whole of Britain is essentially urban, and people are never far from a variety of kind of public transportation, roads are just as full in the United Kingdom as they are in the United States. For all the promises of environmental salvation through gas taxation, car use has been limited more by the fact that roads are so jammed that people now get to places quicker by train. Yet despite the enormous popularity of cars in the face of a high gas tax, Britons still hear claims that an even higher tax is what is needed to save the environment. The fig-leaf of economic rationale has, however, fallen.
GIVE US A KING:
Israel Asks for a King (1 Samuel 8)
1 Samuel 8:1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.1 Samuel 8:2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: [they were] judges in Beersheba.
1 Samuel 8:3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
1 Samuel 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
1 Samuel 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1 Samuel 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1 Samuel 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
1 Samuel 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
1 Samuel 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
1 Samuel 8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
1 Samuel 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint [them] for himself, for his chariots, and [to be] his horsemen; and [some] shall run before his chariots.
1 Samuel 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and [will set them] to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
1 Samuel 8:13 And he will take your daughters [to be] confectionaries, and [to be] cooks, and [to be] bakers.
1 Samuel 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, [even] the best [of them], and give [them] to his servants.
1 Samuel 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
1 Samuel 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put [them] to his work.
1 Samuel 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
1 Samuel 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
1 Samuel 8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
1 Samuel 8:20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
1 Samuel 8:21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
1 Samuel 8:22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.
CAN LIBERALISM SURVIVE DEPTH?:
CNN shifts news focus: New boss stresses a more in-depth approach, akin to archrival Fox News. (MIKE TIERNEY, 04/30/05, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
[I]'s not programs or on-air personnel that [Jon] Klein fixated on throughout an interview Friday. [...]It's how CNN presents the news.
"Dramatically different, certainly in our prime-time approach," contends Klein, 47, who has done the New York-Atlanta shuttle — here one day, gone the next — most weeks since stepping into the revolving-door job in December.
"When I got here, we were doing just straight newscasts with two-minute-long pieces. The problem with that approach is by [midevening], the public already knows what happened. You've got to go beyond the headlines.
"That's what Fox [News] has been doing — discussing stories that you're already familiar with. Now we've started doing stories in our way, not just by talking about them but reporting them in greater depth."
And, with un-CNN-like techniques. One reporter, in a story on a device that shocks the body with an electrical charge, strapped on the belt and absorbed a few thousand volts.
Another, following up on the drowning of a prop plane pilot, donned a survival suit and, accompanied by the Coast Guard, flopped into the lake — where he delivered his report.
"There is a big difference between that and a clown," Klein says. "Reporters must be less stiff, less imperious, less above-it-all, less condescending. More involved and passionate in the stories they do."
Klein's gospel: Pounce on a story and explore it from every angle.
In-depth like Fox? And here we thought Fox was dumbing down the news for its Neanderthal viewers...
THE NEARLY SENSUOUS NUT:
Under the Spreading Chestnut Tree (SUSAN FREINKEL, 4/30/05, NY Times)
TO celebrate Arbor Day yesterday, President Bush added a new tree to the White House grounds - an American chestnut. At first glance it may seem an odd choice, since chestnuts have been largely absent from the American landscape for more than half a century. Yet if any species can help us see the importance of trees to humanity, it is the American chestnut, and its story makes it the perfect emblem for Arbor Day.Chestnuts were once so plentiful along the East Coast that according to legend a squirrel could travel the chestnut canopy from Georgia to Maine without ever touching the ground. The trees grew tall, fast and straight. Many considered it the perfect tree: it produced nourishing food and a rot-resistant wood that was used for everything from furniture to fence posts. Chestnut ties were the sturdy foundation of the ever-expanding railroad lines; chestnut poles held up the lengthening miles of electrical and telephone wire.
Then in the early 20th century a deadly fungus imported from Japan hit American forests. Within 40 years this fast and merciless fungus spread over some 200 million acres and killed nearly four billion trees. The blight brought the chestnut to the brink of extinction. Even today new sprouts continue to shoot up from the roots of seemingly dead trees only to be attacked again by the fungus before they can flower and reproduce.
But, in memory at least, the tree endures. That's particularly true in Appalachia, where the chestnuts were vital to the local culture and economy. The sweet nuts that appeared every fall sustained people and their livestock. Families built their homes from chestnut logs, marked their property with chestnut fences and brewed home remedies for burns from chestnut leaves.
And God designed no better weapon for whipping at your brother than the chestnut.
SUPREMELY AWKWARD:
Bush as Robin Hood (JOHN TIERNEY, 4/30/05, NY Times)
Democrats have good reason to be aghast at President Bush's new proposal for Social Security. Someone has finally called their bluff.They tried yesterday to portray him as just another cruel, rich Republican for suggesting any cuts in future benefits, but that's not what the prime-time audience saw on Thursday night. By proposing to shore up the system while protecting low-income workers, Mr. Bush raised a supremely awkward question for Democrats: which party really cares about the poor? [...]
As a poverty-fighting program, Social Security is woefully inefficient because most of the money goes to people who aren't poor. It would take just 20 percent of what Social Security dispenses to move every elderly American out of poverty, according to June O'Neill, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
C'mon, Democrats can hardly be expected to acknowledge that their very existence requires that the maximum number of people possible be dependent on government.
CONVERGENCE (via Kevin Whited):
Women's rights (Houston Chronicle, 4/29/05)
Who would have thought Iran, for decades synonymous with repression and religious fanaticism, could offer a beacon of sensible discourse for the United States? According to the government news service in Tehran, Iran's Parliament passed a law permitting abortions in cases of danger to the mother or severe disability in the fetus. [...]Abortion is a serious matter, worthy of mature debate and responsibly crafted law. How ironic that Iran is moving forward toward this goal, while the United States is sliding backward.
Actually we appear to be moving towards identical goals.
IT WAS NEVER ABOUT WMD:
Puncturing Another Weapons Myth (NY Times, 4/30/05)
The last refuge of those who continue to insist that Saddam Hussein must have had weapons of mass destruction was virtually eliminated by the chief weapons inspector this week. Not willing to accept the unpalatable truth that the search for W.M.D. in Iraq had come up empty, die-hard supporters of the war had clung to the possibility that Mr. Hussein might have shipped his weapons off to Syria to avoid their capture. Never mind that American military leaders said that he could not have pulled that off during the war, when his regime was collapsing too fast to salvage much of anything, and that reconnaissance craft had seen no major arms shipments at the borders. Perhaps the wily dictator had spirited off the weapons before the war began.The final report of the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, has now declared any mass transfer of illicit weapons improbable.
The World (NPR) did a very fine interview yesterday with Mr. Duelfer in which he stated truths that would be too uncomfortable for the Times to hear. He said that it was indeed true that the sanctions regime and the threat presented by the U.S. and British forces arrayed against him for twelve years had led Saddam to dispose of nearly all of his existing WMD. However, he retained the desire and intent to reconstitute the weapons programs at the first opportunity and the sanctions were so close to fallin g apart that his opportunity was going to be sooner rather than later. As Mr. Duelfer said (or, more accurately, as I recall he said): Saddam was capable of the strategic long-term planning that democracies are incapable of engaging in, so time was on his side.
It isn't anymore.
THE LEFT WILL HAVE A PARTY TOO (via Tom Morin):
U.S. Politics Since September 11: Perspectives for Rebuilding the Left (SHARON SMITH, March–April 2005, nternational Socialist Review)
MORE THAN three years after September 11, it is now possible—and necessary—to define the political character of U.S. politics since this turning point. This article aims to draw some general conclusions about the political period since 9/11 and to suggest some key strategies for rebuilding the Left.Social polarization and squandered opportunities
The 2004 election took place in the context of sharp social polarization. Roughly equal proportions of the U.S. population stood on opposite sides over the Iraq War, tax cuts, and the Bush administration itself. But the Democrats squandered the opportunity to define themselves as an opposition party—even though opinion polls showed a majority of the U.S. population thought the country was headed “in the wrong direction” and Bush was shown to have lied about the justification for the Iraq War.
This sharp polarization offered an opportunity to strengthen and rebuild the Left among the millions opposed to Bush. Nevertheless, virtually the entire U.S. Left collapsed into supporting the Democratic Party candidate—leaving those against the war and Bush’s domestic policies with no organized expression to the left of the Bush Lite program of John Kerry. Indeed, the Anybody But Bush (ABB) Left assisted the Democrats by policing the movement against the only genuine electoral alternative, accusing the Nader/Camejo campaign of “helping” Bush to get reelected.
The Democrats spent months of effort and millions of dollars to keep Nader’s name off ballots in states across the country. As a result, Nader’s half-million votes had no influence on the outcome of the 2004 election. The reasons for Kerry’s defeat lay elsewhere.
In reality, Kerry’s defeat exposed the reverse logic employed by the ABB Left—when Kerry’s “electability” (that is, his similarity to Bush) failed to get him elected. That is how, in a country where a majority of the population views the Iraq War as a mistake, the man who led the country into that war on false pretenses managed to eke out a victory.
The resulting Bush victory predictably emboldened the Right, while demoralizing the Democratic Party’s most prominent left-wing supporters—who interpreted Bush’s victory as a major breakthrough for the Christian Right. Although the Christian Right has grown modestly in size, its influence in mainstream politics is magnified by the absence of a genuine Left opposition, due to the collapse of the Left into the Democratic Party.
The dynamics of the 2004 election were merely an acceleration of those already in place since 9/11. The terrorist attacks in 2001 provided the excuse for the U.S. ruling class to pursue its imperialist aims more aggressively abroad while escalating its war on the working class at home. In both cases, the U.S. Left has proven both unable and unwilling to build a viable political opposition. [...]
Bill Clinton represented a new breed of Democrat. As a founder of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), he aimed to shift the party away from the Democrats’ -traditional voting base (liberals, Blacks, and labor) to appeal to “swing” voters (white middle-class voters torn between Democrats and Republicans). This strategy required the party to lurch to the right, adopting positions that were unique to the Republican Party during the era of Reaganism.
Clinton’s “I feel your pain” campaign slogan soon proved to be smoke and mirrors as he stole the Republican’s thunder in dismantling welfare, and passing both the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (which paved the way for Bush’s more draconian federal ban on gay marriage proposal) and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (which preceded the yet more repressive Patriot Act).
Clinton’s approach to Iraq, likewise, differed little from his Republican predecessor. He continued the murderous sanctions put in place after the 1991 Gulf War that claimed over a million Iraqi lives—half of them children under age five. In addition, the U.S. and Britain conducted a continuous bombing campaign over Iraq’s “no-fly zone” throughout Clinton’s two terms in office, interrupted only by the more vigorous “Operation Desert Fox” bombing campaign in 1998. Clinton signed the “Iraq Liberation Act” in 1998, calling for the “regime change” carried out by George W. Bush in 2003.
Had Clinton been a Republican, liberals would have protested many of these policies. Because Clinton was a Democrat, however, liberals continued to support Clinton as he embraced a range of conservative positions during his presidency.
The feminist movement never protested against Clinton, even as he allowed the erosion of legal abortion and dismantled welfare for poor women and children. Most gay rights organizations maintained their loyalty even after Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Many antiwar activists who had opposed the Gulf War in 1991 remained silent during Clinton’s subsequent “humanitarian” invasions.
The collapse of liberalism during the Clinton era allowed mainstream politics to shift rightward in the years before Bush took office.
The Democrats don't recognize yet that 9-11 worked to their political advantage, forcing them to resuume the national security mantle they'd worn uneasily during the Cold War as well and disguising many of the internal incoherencies of the party. Just imagine a John Kerry nominating convention where he couldn't present himself as the Deer Hunter or Rambo but had to talk about issues? He'd have had to say what he really wanted to do and alienate middle America, or try to fudge to the Middle and infuriate the Party base.
...AND CHEAPER...:
Oil Slides Below $50 Mark: Rising U.S. supplies and worries about the global economy cool the market. Many analysts expect gas prices to fall. (John O'Dell, April 30, 2005, LA Times)
Oil prices plunged below the $50-a-barrel mark Friday for the first time in more than two months, triggering hopes for cheaper gasoline and diesel prices as the summer travel season approaches.Light crude for June delivery dropped $2.05 to $49.72 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The U.S. benchmark grade, which last settled below $50 on Feb. 18, fell $5.67 a barrel, or about 10%, during the last week amid rising U.S. supplies and fears of a softening world economy that could suppress global demand in coming months.
The $50 mark is a psychological barrier that, once broken, makes its easier for traders to think in terms of lower prices, said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service in New Jersey.
"If there's no contrary news, this thundering herd may stampede to the mid-$40s in relatively short order," he said.
Mid-$40s isn't a floor.
LIKE WATCHING GALE SAYERS (*):
Bush Plan Aids Poor, Squeezes the Rest (Peter G. Gosselin, April 30, 2005, LA Times)
As the full dimensions of President Bush's Social Security plan come into view, so too does a broader vision: improving benefits for the poorest Americans while reducing the reliance of everyone else on government programs that long have seen them through economic difficulties.Although Bush devoted most of his prime-time news conference Thursday to describing how he would expand Social Security protections, virtually all of his improvements would be aimed at the bottom one-third of American wage earners. The remaining two-thirds would see their future Social Security benefits curtailed, a reduction that they'd be encouraged to make up by saving and investing of their own.
The president often portrays his effort as simply trying to accommodate reality; funds to pay full Social Security benefits are expected to run short toward the middle of the century. But his approach also corresponds to a long-held conservative goal of reducing Washington's influence in the lives of ordinary Americans and to the aim of his chief political strategist Karl Rove to realign the nation along Republican principles.
"What you're going to see is an effort to scale back middle-class entitlements that many people do not need and to become more focused on the antipoverty aspects of these programs," said Michael Tanner, an expert on Social Security at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank that advocates small government.
"We're going to tell non-poor Americans that they are going to have to save more on their own and not depend on a transfer from government," he said.
Interesting how neither the Left nor much of the Right grasps just how ambitious the President's Third Way concept of an Ownership Society is. Both hate the idea of government mandated personal responsibility, though the former because it hates government and the latter because it hates personal responsibility.
YOU MEAN YOU JUST SCAN THE GROCERIES?:
Blair forced to back down over health service targets (JAMES KIRKUP, 4/30/05, The Scotsman)
AN "OUT of touch" Tony Blair was forced into a public retreat yesterday over government health and education targets, an embarrassment that came as Labour members predicted he will quit sooner rather than later.Labour was thrown on to the defensive by Mr Blair’s appearance on BBC’s Question Time on Thursday night, when he admitted he was "absolutely astonished" by suggestions that some English NHS patients can only book a doctor’s appointment at 48 hours’ notice, so that GPs can meet central government targets.
The Prime Minister’s incredulity gave the Conservatives a perfect opportunity to produce a welter of evidence of misfiring targets and, more damagingly, proof that the government had been well aware of the problem. [...]
[B]y the afternoon, the growing row forced Mr Blair into a public apology over central targets in health and education.
"There is danger that they have been too crude," he told BBC television. "We have to have them, but [need to] make them more flexible. We need to strip the targets down."
Mr Blair’s faltering performance over health yesterday came as members of his own party publicly speculated that he will fail to see through his promise to serve a full third term if re-elected.
Bob Marshall-Andrews, a veteran Labour backbench rebel, suggested Mr Blair could even face a leadership challenge if he tries to stay on for more than a year after the election.
"I see absolutely no reason why that shouldn’t take place. Indeed, I suspect confidently that it will," he said in a Channel Four interview to be broadcast today.
Neil Kinnock, the former Labour leader, suggested that the Prime Minister will not seek to prolong his leadership "for the sake of it. "
"He’s not looking for a page in the history book; he’s got that in any case," Lord Kinnock said in a GM-TV interview to be broadcast tomorrow. "He’s not looking to extend the chapter for the sake of it."
Brown's luster rubs off on protégés (Graham Bowley, APRIL 30, 2005, International Herald Tribune)
In the vote Thursday, it seems a foregone conclusion that voters will return Tony Blair's Labour Party to government.
But since Blair's announcement, on the opening day of the campaign, that "at the election following there will be a different leader," speculation has raged about who could be his successor.
The widespread assumption is Gordon Brown.
But what should the world expect from a man who, despite establishing Britain as one of Europe's best-performing economies, has remained largely hidden by Blair's more charismatic shadow?
And what of the loyal coterie of young supporters who surround Brown - people like Ed Balls - and who are likely to rise with him?
Balls grew up in Nottingham, England, went to Oxford and Harvard, and started his career writing at The Financial Times before Brown hired him as an adviser in 1994.
When Brown took over the Treasury in 1997, Balls in effect became the deputy chancellor of the Exchequer, unelected but ruling over civil servants and British economic policy with notorious muscularity.
He drew up the memo that granted the Bank of England independence in setting interest rates. Brown and Balls set the tests that kept the British pound out of the euro. With Blair focusing on foreign policy, Brown and Balls decided how far free-market forces could invade Britain's public services.
Achieving so much, so young has made Balls "even more charming and self-deprecating" than his famously curt mentor Brown, says one former government colleague, ironically. [...]One possible date for regime change is the referendum next spring on the European Union's constitutional treaty "because," according to Kampfner, "if Blair loses that, he is finished."
And what would Brown's policies be if he were prime minister?
"There is a moral element to Brown's approach to politics that derived from his father, who was a very hard-working minister in the Church of Scotland who devoted a lot of time to the unemployed," says Robert Peston, a British journalist and author of "Brown's Britain," a book about the chancellor.
On Iraq, most analysts believe Brown would probably have taken Britain to war, just as Blair did, but only after securing wider public backing. While instinctively pro-American, he has become increasingly skeptical about the EU, devotes scant time to visits to Brussels, and rarely mentions Germany and France without a lecture about reforming their stuttering economies.
Because the Third Way is a rejection of Labourism, Mr. Blair has only been popular in his party to the extent that he could win elections. It would be a delightful irony though if they chuck him over for Gordon Brown and get someone even more devoted to the same ideas.
ANGLOSPHERE IN ACTION:
Nepal's state of emergency ended (BBC, 4/30/05)
King Gyanendra of Nepal has lifted a state of emergency he imposed after taking direct control of the country three months ago. [...]The lifting of the state of emergency has been welcomed by India which, like the US and Britain, has suspended arms supplies to Nepal.
When we three speak with one voice a lot of folks will need to listen.
DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS THEY DID:
Is Democracy in the Middle East a Pipedream?: Amidst the first signs of change, longing competes with mistrust of Western democracy (Fawaz Gerges, 25 April 2005, YaleGlobal)
From Baghdad to Beirut and from Cairo to Jerusalem, stirrings of freedom are unsettling deeply entrenched autocratic rulers, as Arab civil societies are beginning to challenge their ruling tormentors. In Egypt, for instance, one of the most populous and important Arab states, President Hosni Mubarak responded to critics of his autocratic style by agreeing to hold free elections Although it is too early to draw any definite conclusions about the nature and substance of recent developments, they point to a more assertive civil society and a real longing for political empowerment and emancipation. Careful support and nurturing by the West will be critical for their success.Most Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are fed up with their ruling autocrats, who had promised heaven but delivered dust and tyranny. These sentiments clearly show that there is nothing unique or intrinsic about Arab and Islamic culture that inhibits democratic governance. Like their counterparts elsewhere, Arabs and Muslims have struggled to free themselves from the shackles of political authoritarianism without much success, thanks partly to the support given by the West, particularly the United States, to powerful dictators. [...]
Now, however, we are witnessing the emergence of rudimentary social movements that could dramatically revolutionize Arab and Muslim politics. These movements – be they professional associations, workers organizations, students, or women's groups – are much more assertive, mobilized, and challenging of governments' autocratic methods, thanks to the power of the new media, which has broken official monopoly on the flow of information. As a result, consensus is emerging in the Muslim world regarding respect for human rights, legal transparency, and the peaceful transfer of power.
Even mainstream Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, the most powerful transnational organization, have now come to this very same conclusion: Democracy is the most effective mechanism to guard against political authoritarianism and protect the human rights of the Muslim Ummah (the Muslim community worldwide).
Still, in the minds of many Arabs and Muslims, liberal democracy remains synonymous with Western political hegemony and domination. Democracy tends to be seen as a manipulative tool wielded by Western powers to intervene in Arab/Muslim internal affairs and to divide and conquer. Within the past 10 years, mainstream Islamic voices have worked arduously to redefine liberal democracy in Islamic terms and make it comprehensible and acceptable to Arab and Muslim masses. Simply put, Muslim and Islamic democrats have been trying to Islamize democracy and modernity and strip them of their Western clothing.
All they need do is look at Europe to see that liberal democracy is no panacea. Building on Islamic foundations and towards Islamic ends will give them a far better long term prognosis than that of the already failing secular states.
MUCH TO BE PESSIMISTIC ABOUT:
In Europe, economic pessimism takes hold (James Kanter, APRIL 30, 2005, International Herald Tribune)
The sick man of Europe, Germany, cut its already meager growth forecast for this year and next on Friday, while a slew of equally dire economic news from elsewhere illustrated that pain is being felt across Europe, even in the relatively dynamic services sector and in the better-performing economies, like Britain.
"Pessimism really is the order of the day," said Ken Wattret, an economist at BNP Paribas in London.
In Germany, the economy minister, Wolfgang Clement, cut 2005 growth forecasts to 1 percent from 1.6 percent, while in Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi cut his country's growth expectations nearly in half, to 1.2 percent.
Meanwhile in France, the unemployment rate rose to 10.2 percent in March - the highest since December 1999 - from 10.1 percent in February.
If they understood demographics they'd not be this sunny.
TAKE YOUR ALLIES WHERE YOU FIND THEM:
Bush finds ally in Hub executive (Michael Kranish and Nina J. Easton, April 30, 2005, Boston Globe)
[Robert C.] Pozen and Bush might seem at first blush to be an odd couple. In 2004, Pozen gave $40,250 to Democrats, including $2,500 to Kerry's presidential bid. His national GOP contributions were $1,000, all of it going to Representative Rob Portman of Ohio, according to campaign finance records. Pozen said he voted for Kerry because ''I'm a Democrat."But Pozen has a history of working with Republicans, too.
He spent about a year as Governor Romney's director of economic development in 2003. In an interview yesterday, Romney said Pozen spent much of his time working to help close a budget gap, but also played key roles on health and auto insurance overhaul. ''When he came into my administration, the economy was sour, we were trying to get our economic ship right," Romney said. ''He helped lead the economic stimulus plan."
Like others, Romney said Pozen approaches issues analytically, rather than politically. [...]
Pozen, who left Romney's administration to become chairman of MFS Investment Management, first worked with Bush when Pozen served in 2001 on Bush's bipartisan Social Security commission. Blahous, then executive director of the panel, also got to know Pozen at the time.
The panel produced three proposals, including creating private accounts and cutting future benefits, none of which Bush endorsed. But an aide said the president remembered Pozen's service on the commission and was intrigued earlier this year when he heard Pozen was working on a new plan that would ensure that lower-income workers received all currently promised benefits.
For months, Bush aides had said they were studying a change in the way benefits are calculated. Under the current system, annual increases in benefits are based on calculations that show the average yearly increase in wages. Bush aides figured if that calculation, known as a wage index, could be changed to a price index -- a calculation of the average rise in consumer prices, which typically rise more slowly than wages -- then most of the solvency issue might be solved.
Bush has said the government made promises on Social Security that can't be kept under the current system. But many Republicans feared that switching from wage indexing to price indexing would be seen as a huge benefit cut, even though the White House insisted that it simply reduces how fast future benefits will grow and doesn't affect current benefits.
Pozen's plan represents a compromise: It wouldn't change benefits for people who earn an average of $25,000 or less annually, but those earning between $25,000 and $113,000 would get benefits calculated on a sliding scale that blends wage and price indexes. Those who earned more than $113,000 would receive benefits based only on the price index, meaning they would have the biggest cut in future benefits.
Pozen outlined his ideas in various newspapers, including The Globe, earlier this year. His opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal about indexing may have caught the White House's attention.
On March 15, the same day the article appeared, Pozen attended a meeting at the White House with Blahous and other advisers. He spent about an hour explaining his indexing plan in detail. The advisers liked his presentation, setting in motion the events that led to Bush's public embrace of it in the Thursday press conference.
After Pozen described his idea at the White House, other Washington policy analysts quickly took notice.
''People have been talking about wage-price indexing for a while," said Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. But Pozen's idea to make the system progressive was a new and important wrinkle. ''A lot of us said, 'Oh, now that's interesting,' " Tanner added.
Listening to Democrats argue against a more progressive retirement security system is more fun than a bag of cats.
IN THEIR BACKYARD:
Big boost to Darfur peace force (BBC, 4/29/05)
The African Union has agreed to more than double the number of its peace monitors in the war-torn Sudanese region of Darfur.By September, the force should be 7,700-strong, which could be further increased to 12,000, an official said.
There are currently just 2,200 troops, with another 1,000 expected next month, to monitor an area the size of France.
Nice to see Africa growing up, finally.
April 29, 2005
FADE TO RED:
Doyle vetoes voter ID, school voucher bills (Associated Press, 4/29/05)
Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed a plan to require voters to show government-issued photo identification, saying Friday the requirement would disenfranchise poor and elderly voters who lack IDs.The governor's veto came three days after Republicans hand-delivered the bill to Doyle's office as they urged him to sign a law they said would improve the integrity of Wisconsin elections. [...]
Doyle also vetoed a bill Friday to expand a state program that pays for poor Milwaukee students to attend private schools. The bill would have allowed 1,500 more students in Milwaukee to enroll in the school voucher program.
Republicans who control both the Assembly and the Senate said they would immediately schedule votes to try to override Doyle's veto of the voter ID bill, but they did not appear to have enough votes to succeed. The bill passed 21-12 in the Senate and 64-33 in the Assembly, just short in each chamber for the two-thirds necessary.
WI is a state to keep an eye on for a GOP gubernatorial pick-up in '06.
UP OR DOWN AND MOVE ON:
Break the Filibuster: Democrats are looking to the Constitution to preserve the judicial filibuster; the Constitution isn't on their side. (William Kristol, 05/09/2005, Weekly Standard)
As David A. Crockett of Trinity University in San Antonio has explained, the legislative filibuster makes perfect sense. Article 1 of the Constitution gives each house of Congress the power to determine its own rules. Senate Rule XXII establishes the necessity of 60 votes to close off debate. With this rule, the Senate has chosen to allow 40-plus percent of its members to block legislative action, out of respect for the view that delaying, even preventing, hasty action, or action that has only the support of a narrow majority, can be a good thing. As Crockett puts it, "Congress is the active agent in lawmaking, and if it wants to make that process more difficult, it can." One might add that legislative filibusters can often be overcome by offering the minority compromises--revising the underlying legislation with amendments and the like.There is no rationale for a filibuster, however, when the Senate is acting under Article 2 in advising and consenting to presidential nominations. As Crockett points out, here the president is "the originator and prime mover. If he wants to make the process more burdensome, perhaps through lengthy interviews or extraordinary background checks, he can." The Senate's role is to accept or reject the president's nominees, just as the president has a responsibility to accept or reject a bill approved by both houses of Congress. There he does not have the option of delay. Nor should Congress have the option of delay in what is fundamentally an executive function of filling the nonelected positions in the federal government. In other words--to quote Crockett once more--"it is inappropriate for the Senate to employ a delaying tactic normally used in internal business--the construction of legislation--in a nonlegislative procedure that originates in a coequal branch of government."
This is why the filibuster has historically not been used on nominations. This is the constitutional logic underlying 200-plus years of American political practice. This is why as recently as 14 years ago the possibility of filibustering Clarence Thomas, for example, was not entertained even by a hostile Democratic Senate that was able to muster 48 votes against him. The American people seem to grasp this logic. In one recent poll, 82 percent said the president's nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor.
They are right. History and the Constitution are on their side, and on majority leader Bill Frist's side.
ALL IN THE QUESTION:
Poll: 57% of Americans want Senate rules changed (WorldNetDaily.com, April 29, 2005)
As the battle continues in Washington over President Bush's selections for federal judges, a new poll indicates 57 percent of Americans want Senate rules to be changed so a vote must be taken on every person the president nominates to become a judge.
One nice thing about the rise of a conservative counter-media is we can cook our own polls now too.
FREENESS TRUMPS FAIRNESS:
Rush to Victory: Why is Harry Reid acting like David Koresh? Because conservatives are winning. (DANIEL HENNINGER, April 29, 2005, Opinion Journal)
In 1987, Rush Limbaugh sat down at a microphone at radio station KFBK-AM in Sacramento and began broadcasting something called "The Rush Limbaugh Show."The rest is history.
The "rest"--the inexorable 15-year rise of conservative ideas and clout across what Howard Stern calls "all media"--is described in a provocative new book by Brian C. Anderson, "South Park Conservatives." What was once a mostly exclusive liberal country club--television, the press, book publishing, even the campuses--has become heavily integrated with aggressive, even crude, conservatives.
As described by Mr. Anderson, a writer with the Manhattan Institute, conservatives established their first beachhead in the early 1990s with talk radio. Then Fox conquered cable news and finally a virtual Mongol horde of conservative-to-libertarian bloggers swept across the Internet. In the 2004 election, these electric horsemen (apologies to Jane Fonda) pulled down Dan Rather and haunted John Kerry's war hero with Swift-boat ghosts. [...]
Contrary to myth, Roger Ailes didn't do this. Ronald Reagan did. Ronald Reagan may not make it to Mount Rushmore for winning the Cold War. But he secured his place in the conservative pantheon for tearing down another wall: the Fairness Doctrine.
The whole book is excellent, but this portion revelatory.
WHERE THE WAR WAS LOST:
Opting for Truth Over 'Triumph' (Anne Applebaum, April 27, 2005, Washington Post)
Try, if you can, to picture the scene. A vast crowd in Red Square: Lenin's tomb and Stalin's memorial in the background. Soldiers march in goose step behind rolling tanks, and the air echoes with martial music, occasionally drowned out by the whine of fighter jets. On the reviewing stand, statesmen are gathered: Kim Jong Il, the dictator of North Korea, Alexander Lukashenko, the dictator of Belarus, Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, the former dictator of Poland -- and President George W. Bush.That description may sound fanciful or improbable. It is neither. On the contrary, that is more or less what will appear on your television screen May 9, when the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II is celebrated in Moscow. I have exaggerated only one detail: Although Kim Jong Il has been invited, his attendance has not yet been confirmed. But Jaruzelski is definitely coming, as are Lukashenko, Bush and several dozen other heads of state. President Vladimir Putin of Russia will preside.
Not every European country will be represented, however, because not everybody feels quite the same way about this particular date. In the Baltic states, for example, May 1945 marked the end of the war but also the beginning of nearly a half-century of Soviet occupation, during which one in 10 Balts were murdered or deported to concentration camps and exile villages. The thought of applauding the same Red Army veterans who helped "pacify" their countries after 1945 was too much for the Estonian and Lithuanian presidents, who have refused to attend. Although the Latvian president will attend the Moscow festivities, she's had to declare that she will use her trip to talk about the Soviet occupation. The president of Poland also has spent much of the past month justifying his decision to celebrate this particular anniversary in Moscow. By May 1945, after all, the leaders of what had been the Polish anti-Nazi resistance were already imprisoned in the Lubyanka, the KGB's most notorious Moscow prison.
Part of the Left's pathological hatred of the Poles derives from the prick they represent to conscience and the reminder that WWII was lost.
HANG-GLIDING AIN'T FOR FOR GRANNIES
Ottawa prof dies during Everest ascent (Toronto Star, April 29th, 2005)
An Ottawa university professor who studied mental and physical training for mountain climbers died today after an apparent heart attack on the slopes of Mount Everest, a member of the Canadian expedition team said.Dr. Sean Egan, 63, was leading his third expedition to the world's highest mountain in Nepal, which would have made him the oldest Canadian to accomplish the feat had he succeeded. [...]
Egan, a professor of human kinetics at the University of Ottawa since 1977, had been preparing for his first actual summit attack. He held a doctorate in sports psychology and his research interests included mental and physical training for mountain climbers, according to the University of Ottawa website.
"Reaching the summit for me is a personal goal," Egan said in an interview with the CBC before the expedition.
"I've been into fitness, health and wellness for many years ...I believe teaching is one thing, but practice is the main thing. And I feel like I'm a model for the general population and the old folks anyway."
What a waste, and what a tragedy that so few both modern young and elderly can recognize it. Even if he had no family, did he ever pause to think of how many kids in the throes of reckless, confused youth he might have guided and mentored if only he had acted his age?
BUBBLICIOUS (via AWW):
Dow Ends Up 122 Points As Oil Prices Skid (Michael J. Martinez, 4/29/05, AP)
Wall Street ended a volatile week with a big advance Friday as oil prices tumbled below $50 per barrel and jittery investors took solace in a pair of economic reports that eased their inflation concerns. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 122 points for the session, but the major indexes finished the week mixed.A late selloff in crude futures helped Wall Street solidify its gains in an otherwise uncertain session. A barrel of light crude settled at $49.72, down $2.05, on the New York Mercantile Exchange, its lowest level since Feb. 18. Oil prices began the week above $55 per barrel.
The buying was further buoyed by economic data that showed prices and labor costs remained in check. The Commerce Department reported a 0.5 percent increase in income and a 0.6 percent hike in spending for March, and the Labor Department said labor costs for businesses were falling. Both are key inflation readings which bode well for interest rates and the economy.
Well, those folks watched long enough for a woodpecker and finally found one. Keep an eye out for a few decades and you'll see inflation again.
THE STUBBORN PERSISTENCE OF SPECIES:
Call it zonkey or a deebra? (The Associated Press, April 29, 2005)
It's male. But what is it? A zonkey? A deebra? That's the debate in Barbados since a zebra gave birth to a foal sired by a donkey.Alex was born April 21, a milk-chocolate brown creature with the black stripes of a zebra on his ears and legs. His face looks more like a horse, with a distinctive black "V" patch on the forehead.
"It's really funny and a little bit freaky," said Natalie Harvey, a 29-year-old waitress. "I was stunned to hear about such a weird thing happening here."
While zebra hybrids are not uncommon, most Barbadians have never seen anything like Alex.
Call it further disproof.
MIRACLE? IT'D TAKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION:
'Miracle' needed to win back Senate (Charles Hurt, 4/29/05, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid raised a few eyebrows yesterday on the Senate floor when he said it would take a "miracle" for Democrats to win enough races next year to take back the Senate.
"I would like to think a miracle would happen and we would pick up five seats this time," he said during a floor debate over the filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. "I guess miracles never cease."
Republicans were delighted by what they called an "admission" from the highest-ranking elected Democrat in the country.
If only the country were a mess they'd have a shot.
CAN ANYONE LOAN US A BIBLE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS?
Same-sex blessings halted (Toronto Star, April 29th, 2005)
Canada's Anglican bishops have passed unanimously a resolution to put a two-year moratorium on future church blessings of same-sex relationships.The decision, reached after three days of debate at a closed-door conference session, will halt the ritual for two years to give church leaders time to study how it relates to the official doctrine of the faith, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison said.
THE STEADY MARCH FROM IGNORANCE TO ENLIGHTENMENT
How ice cream tickles your brain (David Adam, The Guardian, April 29th, 2005)
Eating ice cream really does make you happy. Scientists have found that a spoonful of the cold stuff lights up the same pleasure centre in the brain as winning money or listening to your favourite music.Neuroscientists at the Institute of Psychiatry in London scanned the brains of people eating vanilla ice cream. They found an immediate effect on parts of the brain known to activate when people enjoy themselves; these include the orbitofrontal cortex, the "processing" area at the front of the brain.
The research was carried out by Unilever, using ice cream made by Walls, which it owns. Don Darling of Unilever said: "This is the first time that we've been able to show that ice cream makes you happy. Just one spoonful lights up the happy zones of the brain in clinical trials."
We assume this means liver and broccoli light up the same brain centers as an IRS audit.
ONLY YOGI CAN HANDLE THIS ONE...:
Study: Housing price-salary gap widens (SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, 4/29/05, Associated Press)
The American dream of having a job and owning a tidy home is becoming a fantasy for more people.Housing prices are outstripping wage increases in many areas, meaning more people are either spending above their means or living in dilapidated conditions, according to a pair of studies being released today by the Center for Housing Policy, a coalition pushing for more affordable housing.
Minority homeownership hits new high (Andrea Coombes, April 26, 2005, MarketWatch)
A greater portion of minority Americans own homes now than ever before, but their homeownership rate still lags far behind whites, according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau this week.
No one buys a home anymore, they're all taken.
GIVE US THE CHILD... (via AWW):
Lexington school calls cops on dad irate over gay book (Laura Crimaldi, April 28, 2005, Boston Herald)
Police arrested a Lexington father who refused to leave the Joseph Estabrook School yesterday after school officials rejected his demands that his 6-year-old son be shielded from any discussions about gay households.David Parker, 42, confronted officials after his son brought home ``Who's in a Family,'' a storybook that includes characters who are gay parents.
Yesterday, Parker refused to leave a meeting after Lexington Superintendent Bill Hurley rejected his demand that he be notified when his son is exposed to any discussion about same-sex households as part of classroom instruction.
``Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied,'' Parker said in a statement.
It's not a culture war though.
FASTER & LONGER:
Rare treat: Duel of 300-game winners (Paul Sullivan, April 29, 2005, Chicago Tribune)
Of the thousands of pitchers who have appeared in a major-league game, only 22 have achieved the grand milestone of 300 victories.Two of those immortals will go head to head Friday night in Houston when Greg Maddux is to face Houston's Roger Clemens in the first meeting of 300-game winners in the National League in 113 years.
They seem to be the yin and yang of pitchers, with Clemens (329 victories) relying on his power arm and Maddux (305) on his control and guile. But, as Maddux insists, they are cut from the same cloth.
"I think we do everything exactly the same," Maddux said. "He just does it at faster speeds. You look at me like I'm crazy, but I'm telling you the truth.
"He does it just a little bit better and a little bit longer."
There were four matchups of 300-game winners in the American League from June 28, 1986, to Aug. 4, 1987, all involving California's Don Sutton, who had two starts against Phil Niekro and one apiece against Tom Seaver and Steve Carlton.
The last time two NL pitchers with 300 or more victories faced each other was Philadelphia's Tim O'Keefe against St. Louis' Jim "Pud" Galvin on July 21, 1892.
NO NEW VISION REQUIRED:
Why does New Labour stand for nothing?: Blair-bashers ignore New Labour's roots in both its party, and its times. (Josie Appleton, 4/29/05, Spiked)
The features of New Labour so harped upon by critics - its arrogance, superficiality, and managerialism - can all be derived from the fact that it grew in a political vacuum. These weren't traits that the party intentionally sought; indeed, the founders of New Labour went to great lengths to find a substantial, defining concept to keep it together and command people's allegiance.In search of the 'vision thing'
New Labour looked long and hard for a defining vision. But its problem was that it was little more than a collection of talented and motivated individuals, not a movement with deep roots in society. As such, it drifted from one idea to another, lacking an anchor or an established course.
Blair's regime came in the wake of the collapse of left and right. As a result, it was principally defined by what it was not - not old left, not Thatcherite right, not the past - rather than what it was. It could say what had failed, but found it more difficult to say what would work instead. The result was a pick-and-mix of policies: when he took over as leader, Blair talked about 'breaking through old left-right barriers', saying in 1995 that 'New Labour is neither old left nor new right. We understand and welcome the new global market. We reject go-it-alone policies on inflation and the macro-economy. We stand for a new partnership between government and industry'.
New Labour ideologue Anthony Giddens argued that the Third Way was about 'reconciling opposites', bringing together concepts such as state and market, equality and diversity, rights and responsibility, which had previously been heralded by different political camps. But the primary reason that New Labour could unite these ideas is that they no longer meant anything in society. Because there was no left proposing state socialism, and no right defending the free market, it was easy to say: okay, let's have both. When political movements aren't demanding their right to protest, there appears to be no contradiction between rights and responsibilities. But the fact is that, once these words are no longer political battle cries, they lack broader resonance.
The ties that bound 'the Project' were personal rather than political. Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and Philip Gould went on holiday with one another, and thought up policies in each other's houses and French villas. Because they were working in a vacuum, they saw the development of new political ideas as a question of brainstorming. In his account of the period, The Unfinished Revolution, Gould is constantly moaning that 'we still lacked a defining concept'; 'we needed a central compelling argument'. He and fellow New Labourite David Miliband sat up late at night wondering: what could this defining concept be? Where could they find it?
If they clicked their fingers and got into the right mood, perhaps they could just dream up a new politics. The New Labour phrase was Gould's in 1989: 'I suggested a concept to get Labour on its feet again. I called it New Labour.' The phrase 'A new life for Britain' was invented by Campbell, sitting with Gould on a beach in Majorca - Campbell can also take the credit for the 1997 election slogan 'New Labour, New Britain'. It was Tony Blair's idea to make a show out of abolishing Clause Four, to show definitively that the party had changed.
But while the old Clause Four reflected the ambitions of mass movements in society, the new one was entirely the product of Blair's imagination. Gould describes the debates about the form of the new Clause Four: 'Matters came to a head one Sunday afternoon with Tony Blair sitting on his bed, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell and David Miliband perched around the room, while Blair's daughter Kathryn's party going on downstairs.' In the end, they couldn't agree on the answer, except that they didn't like the draft that had been drawn up by the Labour policy team. In the end, Blair wrote it himself.
Brainstorming can't provide a new politics; if words don't represent movements in society, they are only words. New Labour may have made an effort to be serious and inspiring, but it could only come up with fluff. Compare the old and the new versions of Clause Four. The old was: 'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.' While it leaves open the form and means of achieving this 'best obtainable' system, the clause is concrete and concise, and would spark disagreement among political rivals.
By contrast, the new Clause Four is vague and inoffensive, as if you had asked the manager of the local charity shop to list their beliefs. It goes: 'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.' Most Labour Party members, even MPs, would struggle to remember this.
To mark the tenth anniversary of Blair's first conference speech as leader, when he called for Clause Four to be scrapped, the Fabian Society solicited suggestions for a Clause Four mark three. No doubt partly miffed because the original clause was the work of its old leader, the Fabian Society nonetheless touched a truth in its statement that: 'There is little in the Labour party's statement of values that is seriously objectionable to anyone from the mainstream of British politics. Labour Party members cannot identify enthusiastically with the new Clause because it misses out key elements of what makes politics important to them.'
New Labour's lack of roots led to its strange new language, which tends to resist direct translation. When terms are concocted by an isolated political elite, rather than drawn from common currency, it's no surprise that they are elusive and jargonised. Take the 'progressive consensus', for example, Tony Blair and chancellor Gordon Brown's current description of their project, which seems to be something to do with everybody going forward together.
A number of commentators have noted that Blair's habit of leaving verbs out of sentences makes it unclear exactly who is going to do what to whom. 'Your family better off', 'your child achieving more', 'your community safer', read Labour's 2005 election pledges, as if these things could somehow just occur of their own accord. Vague, feel-good adjectives have multiplied, as have terms for efficient-sounding procedures. In the current Labour manifesto there is a promise to 'make the contract of rights and responsibilities an enduring foundation of community life', to 'strengthen clinical governance in the NHS', and to 'build new ladders of social mobility and advancement on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth'.
When New Labour tries to put the rhetoric into practice, it crashes against the hard rocks of reality. The Millennium Dome was supposed to be a 'spiritual beacon', an 'opportunity for renewal' - in Blair's words, 'Britain's opportunity to greet the world with a celebration so bold, so beautiful, so inspiring…'. But it's one thing to say you want to give Britain a new sense of purpose, another thing entirely to display that purpose before the nation. Mandelson trotted off around the world looking for ideas, even meeting Mickey Mouse in Disneyland. But somehow that elusive vision just couldn't be found.
Mangerialism
The only New Labour ideas with solid content weren't political at all. Instead, they were about managerialism, and the reduction of politics to the day-to-day grind of administering society. 'Modernisation', 'social inclusion', 'community' - all of these key New Labour ideas are basically about keeping society ticking over and holding alienated individuals together. New Labour thinkers defined the point of politics in prosaic terms. In his 1996 book The Blair Revolution, Peter Mandelson said that Blair was 'working through a credible strategy for successful government'. In 1997, New Labour adviser Geoff Mulgan said in Life After Politics that politics was 'a way to solve problems and…a means of providing security and a stable sense of belonging'. The pledge cards with which Labour fought the 1997 election promised small, tangible improvements to the running of things.
Anthony Giddens' The Third Way is perhaps one of the most dispiriting documents in existence: it's basically an instruction manual, a series of sociological recommendations for how it would be possible to run society. Giddens weighs up every issue not on its principles but on its contribution to social order. Meritocracy might seem like a good idea, he says, but it 'would create deep inequalities of income, which would threaten social cohesion'. In another section he ponders which type of family structure would be best: the traditional family is long gone, but you wouldn't want too many unconventional families because of the evidence suggesting that these aren't good for children. Better go for the middle ground, a 'democratised family' that is open and negotiable but where both sides have a sense of responsibility.
As Alan Finlayson argues in his perceptive study, Making Sense of New Labour, the Third Way was a 'description of the present society that could also provide an ethic'; 'political thought is subordinated to sociology'. The Third Way reflects the end of the 'politics of redemption' - rather than aiming towards a transformation in society, it merely seeks to 'update' politics to 'a changed world'.
But the point isn't that New Labour suffered from a pathological lack of imagination, or that its leaders had managerial personalities. Instead, the Third Way reflected the general state of political exhaustion at the turn of end of the twentieth century. With the cessation of the battle between left and right, there was no longer any fundamental choice about how society should be organised. Margaret Thatcher's TINA - there is no alternative - became the order of the day. But while for Thatcher TINA embodied the confidence of free-market fundamentalism, TINA quickly came to represent a shoulder-shrugging acceptance that market economy is here to stay - though nobody was very enthusiastic about it.
Political horizons were lowered to tinkering with what exists. Hence this gloomy prediction from Francis Fukuyama's 1992 End of History: 'The end of history will be a very sad time…. [T]he worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history.' This wasn't just about Blair; it was about the zeitgeist. What New Labour did was turn the temper of the time into a how-to manual for government.
What's most striking here is how similar it all is to the rise and fall of Clintonism and how the same thing could happen to the GOP were a mere technocrat--someone like Rudy Giuliani--to take over the party. What George Bush was able to do--and his successors can easily follow his lead--is to ground the conservative version of the Third Way in the Judeo-Christianity of the culture and the Founding, tapping into the vision that runs deep in the culture--the Biblical vision of a people who have liberty but are obligated to use that liberty to improve society and the lives of their neighbors and to live morally.
THE SENSIBLE DESIRE NOT TO BE NEXT:
Official Pariah Sudan Valuable to America's War on Terrorism: Despite once harboring Bin Laden, Khartoum regime has supplied key intelligence, officials say. (Ken Silverstein, April 29, 2005, LA Times)
The Bush administration has forged a close intelligence partnership with the Islamic regime that once welcomed Osama bin Laden here, even though Sudan continues to come under harsh U.S. and international criticism for human rights violations.The Sudanese government, an unlikely ally in the U.S. fight against terror, remains on the most recent U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. At the same time, however, it has been providing access to terrorism suspects and sharing intelligence data with the United States.
Last week, the CIA sent an executive jet here to ferry the chief of Sudan's intelligence agency to Washington for secret meetings sealing Khartoum's sensitive and previously veiled partnership with the administration, U.S. government officials confirmed.
A decade ago Bin Laden and his fledgling Al Qaeda network were based in Khartoum. After they left for Afghanistan, the regime of Sudanese strongman Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir retained ties with other groups the U.S. accuses of terrorism.
As recently as September, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell accused Sudan of committing genocide in putting down an armed rebellion in the western province of Darfur. And the administration warned that the African country's conduct posed "an extraordinary threat to the national security" of the United States.
Behind the scenes, however, Sudan was emerging as a surprisingly valuable ally of the CIA.
The warming relationship has produced significant results, according to interviews with American and Sudanese intelligence and government officials. They disclosed, for example, that:
• Sudan's Mukhabarat, its version of the CIA, has detained Al Qaeda suspects for interrogation by U.S. agents.
• The Sudanese intelligence agency has seized and turned over to the FBI evidence recovered in raids on suspected terrorists' homes, including fake passports.
• Sudan has expelled extremists, putting them into the hands of Arab intelligence agencies working closely with the CIA.
• The regime is credited with foiling attacks against American targets by, among other things, detaining foreign militants moving through Sudan on their way to join forces with Iraqi insurgents.
Sudan has "given us specific information that is … important, functional and current," said a senior State Department official who agreed to discuss intelligence matters on condition of anonymity. The official acknowledged that the Mukhabarat could become a "top tier" partner of the CIA.
The regime also cut the deal we demanded for the Christian/animist South. The only remaining stumbling block is protecting the black Muslims in Darfur, not a group with much of a constituency in the West.
ALL COMEDY IS CONSERVATIVE:
John Kerry: The first 100 days (David Martin, April 29, 2005, Boston Globe)
Jan. 20 Watch TV as Bush sworn in again. Throw J. Crew socks and Godiva chocolate wrappers at set every time he says ''freedom" or ''democracy." Phone rings, but I don't answer. Call display shows it's Al Gore probably wanting to commiserate again. No way I'm joining that loser in Loserville.Jan. 26 Channel all energies into tracking down members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Phone remaining loyal crew members to engage their services in search and destroy mission. Despite generous offer, none is ''reporting for duty." Regrettably, mission is terminated with extreme prejudice.
Jan. 31 Teresa issues ultimatum: Either I stop moping around the house in bathrobe all day or she'll cut off my weekly allowance. Her words hit me like a cold splash of water. Stop watching C-Span in hopes of finding ongoing election recounts. Briefly leave house to avoid Teresa's incessant swearing in Portuguese.
Feb. 2 Groundhog Day. If I see my own shadow, there'll be six more years of Republican rule. If I don't, there'll be eight. Back to bed. What's the point?
Feb. 9 Concerned about Bush's reform proposal, visit local Social Security office and inquire about filing early application for benefits. Informed that qualifying age is 67 and reminded that I am still employed by US Senate. Vow to attend at least one sitting in current session.
The schadenfreudic element of comedy makes it antithetical to modern PC liberalism.
BUSY DYING OFF:
To French workers, minutes add up (Thomas Fuller, APRIL 29, 2005, International Herald Tribune)
One minute and 52 seconds is the time it might take an employee to remove his coat and begin booting up his computer, or maybe to dart off for a trip to the water cooler. In France this year, it is the additional time that staff at the national railroad company were asked to work each day as their contribution to a "solidarity fund" for the handicapped and elderly.
The rail workers' response: not unless we get paid for it.
"One minute and 52 seconds doesn't seem like much but it still adds up to 7 or 8 hours a year that would not be paid," said Grégory Roux, secretary of the railroad workers division of the CGT, one of France's largest unions.
The rail workers are not alone. Many are protesting the government's decision to turn a national holiday into a working day, worsening the atmosphere here at a time when President Jacques Chirac is desperately seeking a way to turn around public opinion before the French referendum on the European Union constitution.
The dispute over the solidarity fund is perhaps the best illustration today of the sour mood gripping the country. There is mistrust between bosses and workers, disenchantment with the government and overwhelming hostility toward reform.
No one wants to budge from his position, and everyone, it seems, is complaining.
French jobless rate on the rise (BBC, 4/29/05)
French unemployment has risen to its highest level in five years, increasing concerns about the strength of France's economic growth.The jobless rate in March, as measured according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) method, rose by 0.1% from February to 10.2%.
It does all add up, huh?
THE GERMANS HAVE OUTLAWED MIRACLES
'Miracle' needed to win back Senate (Charles Hurt, The Washington Times, 4/29/05)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid raised a few eyebrows yesterday on the Senate floor when he said it would take a "miracle" for Democrats to win enough races next year to take back the Senate.Here we have the Washington gaffe in its purest form. Senator Reid said what everyone knows to be true but no one would admit."I would like to think a miracle would happen and we would pick up five seats this time," he said during a floor debate over the filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. "I guess miracles never cease."
JUST ANOTHER AMERICAN FAMILY:
YABU FITS LIKE A GLOVE: A's reliever blends in with crowd in Bay Area, clubhouse (Susan Slusser, April 29, 2005, SF Chronicle)
In Japan, Keiichi Yabu cannot make a simple trip to the supermarket. He's swamped."People follow you to see what you're buying,'' the A's reliever said. "There's very little privacy.''
So he loves his new home in San Mateo, where, Yabu said, he can walk to the park with his wife and three children, "and we're just another Asian family. It's nice. I can relax.''
The first native of Japan to play for the A's, Yabu, 36, has done a terrific job of blending in with his teammates after 11 years of playing with Hanshin of Japan's Central League. After a difficult spring, he's performed pretty well this April, with a 0.96 ERA, and he gained immediate acceptance with his enthusiasm and his wicked sense of humor.
"Yabu's the funniest guy here, which is amazing considering he doesn't speak that much English,'' A's bullpen coach Bob Geren said. "He makes me laugh every day, he's hilarious, but I don't think it's stuff I can repeat.''
Yabu's English is coming along so well that he often bypasses translator Andy Painter when he answers questions from American reporters.
"Pretty soon, I'll be totally unnecessary,'' Painter said with a laugh.
Painter, who is from San Mateo and now lives in Burlingame, is as much a fixture in the clubhouse as Yabu, and just as popular. He has jumped into the job with so much gusto that he warms up coaches before they throw batting practice and he shags flyballs, even diving on occasion. It's quite a sight, the graying 43-year-old anthropology professor (undergraduate degree from UC Santa Cruz; Ph.D. from Michigan) grinning from ear-to-ear as he bounces around the field.
FLICKING THE RAIL:
Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security Benefits (RICHARD W. STEVENSON and ELISABETH BUMILLER, 4/29/05, NY Times)
President Bush called Thursday night for cutting Social Security benefits for future retirees to put the system on sound financial footing, and he proposed doing so in a way that would demand the most sacrifice from higher-income people while insulating low-income workers.
So much for no one being willing to confront the fact that cuts will be part of any deal.
COME, LET US REASON TOGETHER:
Bush would trim benefits of well-to-do: Stands by his Social Security plan with talk in prime time (Michael Kranish and Susan Milligan, April 29, 2005, Boston Globe)
President Bush, in a prime-time effort to reverse the perception that his Social Security plan is faltering, last night proposed cutting currently promised future Social Security benefits for higher-earning workers, modeling the idea on a plan put forward by a Boston investment company executive.But Bush did not back away from his proposal for private accounts, saying it must be part of any deal. Trying to reassure people concerned about a stock market slide, he said he would allow investment in government bonds as well as stock mutual funds. Democrats have said requiring private accounts would kill chances of their support for a Social Security deal.
''I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off," Bush said in a nationally televised press conference. ''By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty. This reform would solve most of the funding challenges facing Social Security."
Bush did not provide details of his proposal for changing the benefit formula, but the White House released a statement last night saying the idea would be ''similar" to a plan put forward by Robert Pozen, chairman of MFS Investment Management of Massachusetts. Pozen said his plan calls for leaving now-promised benefits intact for those who earned an average of $25,000 annually during their working career, with the increase in benefits ''slowed down" on a sliding scale for those who earned more. Under the Pozen plan, the deepest cuts in future benefits would affect those who earned an average of more than $113,000.
In a telephone interview last night, Pozen said, ''it's ''very satisfying to have the president of the United States say that he is endorsing the plan." But Pozen said he was concerned that Bush's insistence on including his concept of private accounts in the plan might prevent Democrats -- and some Republicans -- from endorsing it.
The President needed to seem flexible, but he can't give in on private accounts until Democrats come to the table, at which point he accepts add-ons in exchange for means-testing and achieves his ends.
MORE:
Press Conference of the President (George W. Bush, 4/28/05, The East Room)
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight I will discuss two vital priorities for the American people, and then I'd be glad to answer some of your questions.Millions of American families and small businesses are hurting because of higher gasoline prices. My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable. In the near-term, we will continue to encourage oil producing nations to maximize their production. Here at home, we'll protect consumers. There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in America.
We must address the root causes that are driving up gas prices. Over the