Friday, July 08, 2005



The attacks are also deeply disturbing because when jihadist bombers take their madness into the heart of our open societies, our societies are never again quite as open. Indeed, we all just lost a little freedom yesterday.

Why so defeatist, Mr. Friedman? We only give up those freedoms that we choose to give up.

Can you not imagine a day when we tell our elected representatives to grow a spine, look us in the eye, and then tell us that we can never be truly safe? And when we can look him back in the eye, tell him that we understand that, and then demand concrete steps about increasing security by whatever marginal steps are available?

Throwing up your hands and standing aside for Patriot Act II: The Internments is not the answer.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Bubble Boy is miffed


But then David S. Broder writes in his Washington Post column that his "strong impression is that the constituency that is most important is the one inside the White House -- the people who share and, I believe, reflect the president's own deep sense of grievance about the Democrats' past treatment of his judicial nominees. . . .


"[M]y gut tells me the president is not looking to duck a fight."

Great. A justice on the Supreme Court can affect the lives of millions, if not the entire population of the country. And Bush's choice is going to be based on...payback?

What an unserious jackass.



Bill Adair , writing in the St. Petersburg Times, also sees a squeeze, but a different one. Yes, it's conservative Christian groups on the one side. But on the other, he writes: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants Bush to nominate someone who is pro-business. Democrats want him to pick a middle-of-the-road justice like Sandra Day O'Connor, the Reagan nominee who announced her resignation Friday."

This rant is not about the Supreme Court, but instead:

I'm tired of the phrase "pro-business." I'm tired of it because it is vague to the point of having little meaning.

If you are pro-business, are you also pro-Enron? How about pro-Adelphia, pro-HealthSouth? Does being pro-business mean that all actions by all businesses are to be supported and excused?

If you are pro-business, are you also for predatory actions by behemoth chains, the Hollywoods and Blockbusters putting independent video rental stores out of business, the WalMarts driving the Mom-and-Pops into the dirt? Shouldn't you have to make a distinction between being pro-world-corporation-sized-business and pro-hey-I-know-the-guy-who-runs-this-place-business? Surely, there should be some distinction there, and just pro-business doesn't cut it.

If you are pro-business, are you also pro-polluting-energy-companies, the kind that shows concern only for their expenses and nothing for the air that I breathe? How about unions and labor? If you are pro-business, does that mean you are for anti-union actions?

This phrase gets spewed out a lot, and frequently by politicians who want to keep the gravy train a-rollin'. I want some goddamned specificity here. Which businesses are you for, and how much is worth to you to be for that business? Is that business an actual constituent, meaning actually located in your area of representation, or did that business simply write you a check?

Also, fuck the Chamber of Commerce and their anti-Social Security plank.


Thank you, Froomkin, for giving me stuff to rant about today!

Shameless self-link 1

Shameless self-link 2

Judith Miller, journalism practices and ethics

I agree with most of this article, and especially the emphasis on the ethics of protecting sources.


Sunday, July 03, 2005


Karl Rove may be the big bad wolf, or Lucifer incarnate, or just a mortal, soulless conniver and liar. And it may be pleasing to see him go into the soup because of bad actions and arrogance.

But let's not forget. Rove was the guy to slime Kerry and his war record, to minimize the impact of his record compared to President Bubble Boy's party daze. Rove may have acted badly in smearing Kerry, and in trying to convice the voters that Bush was actually a tough leader in the face of terrorism.

But those 51% (or whatever) of voters were the ones who bought it. They believed in Bush, or were given enough doubts about Kerry.

So, take away Rove and the College Republicans will produce another one like him or worse. It's more important to answer the bullshit and the lies.