by Ted on October 13, 2003
Jesse has made a good point:
A month or two ago, there was a widely-shared understanding on much of the right that Bustamante was a bad choice for governor of California because he refused to repudiate his membership as an undergrad in the Latino student group MEChA. Few people argued that Bustamante himself was a racist, but it was widely agreed that MEChA was a dangerous, hateful group of extremists. MEChA was commonly described as a “hate group,” the Latino equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. Glenn Reynolds famously called them a group of “fascist hatemongers.” Some accused them of wishing to seize the American Southwest for Mexico. Mechistas were often accused of hating white people, and occasionally accused of hating Jews. We spent a lot of time arguing about the translation of “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” and the correct reading of El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán.
Bustamante has lost the election, but MEChA didn’t go anywhere. There are still 300 active chapters all over the United States. All across the country, active chapters of MEChA go about their business. In general, I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong, although my reading led me to believe that some chapters were overly touchy and PC. Quite a few people strenuously disagreed with me.
If I thought that there were 300 chapters of the KKK on college campuses agitating for a violent revolt in order to claim their own Aryan nation, I’d see this as a continuing issue even after an election was over. So… if people believed what they were saying, where did the concern about MEChA go?
by Ted on October 13, 2003
by Ted on October 10, 2003
Via Randy Barnett, I see that John Lott isn’t the only disgraced gun researcher who likes playing dress-up on the internet. It looks like Michael Bellesiles has a sock puppet too. “Benny Smith” knows a lot of things that only Bellesiles would know. Bellesiles hasn’t admitted it, but having read the story, I can’t think of another explanation.
That’s really embarassing for Bellesiles. What’s more embarassing, though, is the way that Lott’s fiercest critics have continued to stick up for Bellesiles. Even after his work was debunked, Bellesiles is being promoted on a speaking tour by People for the American Way. Just this week, the editors of the American Prospect published a piece by him as if he was a trustworthy source. And of course, any respectable think tank would have fired him a long time ago, but he keeps hanging on at Brookings.
Sad, really.
UPDATE: (Irony hat off) Now that I think of it, what in the world is Bellesiles doing nowadays? I just realized that I have no idea, and googling didn’t help.
(Also, now that my hat is off, I should reiterate without irony that the story about Bellesiles does seem true, and it really is embarassing for him. Don’t want to be misinterpreted.)
by Ted on October 9, 2003
by Ted on October 8, 2003
The whole thing is worth reading, but I’m just going to quote two paragraphs from a fascinating New Yorker article about people who commit suicide off of the Golden Gate bridge.
[click to continue…]
by Ted on October 8, 2003
Daniel Drezner is getting angrier about the Plame case. This is the Bush quote that got him worked up:
I mean this town is a — is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there’s a lot of senior officials. I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth. That’s why I’ve instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators — full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is — partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we’ll find out.
Jack O’Toole writes:
Okay, let’s try to sort all this out with a thought experiment. In our scenario, it’s September of 2001, and this is what we’re hearing from our president:
“I don’t know if we’re going to find out who killed all those Americans in New York and Washington,” Bush said. “I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth.”
But, Bush said, “International terrorism is a large thing, and there’s a lot of terrorists.”
Pretty ridiculous, huh? You can’t even imagine it. The Man from Crawford just doesn’t talk like that when evil is loose in the land, when serious crimes involving our national security have been committed. So isn’t it reasonable, important even, to ask why he’s suddenly talking that way now?
Incidentally, for those poor confused souls who aren’t sure that Plame really was undercover, there’s a Washington Post profile that might help clear that up:
Her activities during her years overseas remain classified, but she became the creme de la creme of spies: a “noc,” an officer with “nonofficial cover.” Nocs have cover jobs that have nothing to do with the U.S. government. They work in business, in social clubs, as scientists or secretaries (they are prohibited from posing as journalists), and if detected or arrested by a foreign government, they do not have diplomatic protection and rights. They are on their own. Even their fellow operatives don’t know who they are, and only the strongest and smartest are picked for these assignments.
But isn’t the real story… um…
by Ted on October 7, 2003
Polls have shown public opinion toward President Bush souring over his handling of the economy and Iraq. But an item tucked away in last week’s CBS News/New York Times poll adds insult to injury. Despite three tax cuts in as many years, only 19 percent said Bush’s policies made their taxes go down. Forty-seven percent noticed no effect, while 29 percent perceived that their taxes have gone up. (my emphasis)
Wow. I would have thought that the “taxes went down” number would be at least 40%, which seems to be a floor for conservative/ Republican opinions. (The precise wording of the question is “Do you think the policies of the Bush Administration have made your taxes go up, go down, or have the policies of the Bush Administration not affected your taxes?”) Here’s a story about the poll, and here are the details.
[click to continue…]
by Ted on October 3, 2003
by Ted on October 2, 2003
Tuesday:
WHAT’S MISSING? [Jonah Goldberg]
Oh, I know: Character assasination. If something similar to this Joe Wilson flap (and I still believe it deserves only flap status) occured during the Clinton years, we’d be hearing a barrage of attacks on Wilson’s motives — not just from barking dogs like Conason, but from the White House too.
Thursday:
The White House encouraged Republicans to portray the former diplomat at the center of the case, Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a partisan Democrat with an agenda and the Democratic Party as scandalmongering. At the same time, the administration and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill worked to ensure that no Republicans in Congress break ranks and call for an independent inquiry outside the direct control of the Justice Department.
“It’s slime and defend,” said one Republican aide on Capitol Hill, describing the White House’s effort to raise questions about Mr. Wilson’s motivations and its simultaneous effort to shore up support in the Republican ranks.
“Slime and defend.” Boy, it sets your patriotic heartstrings a-quivering to hear that, doesn’t it? I guess this guy kind of looks like an elephant if you squint hard enough.
Andrew Northrup weighs in:
For all other Americans out there, please take a picture of this, because this is how your government, executive and legislative, responds when confronted with information that top officials have acted criminally against the interests of the country: they do nothing. And then, months later, when a shitstorm erupts, they try to shoot the messenger. Party uber alles. This is who is running the War on Whatever. Again, pay really close attention here, voting public, because there’s going to be a test on this in 13 months.
[click to continue…]
by Ted on October 2, 2003
* Liberal Oasis has a series of quotations from John Ashcroft, who turns out to be a huge fan of special prosecutors.
* A story about the ties between Ashcroft and the administration:
“On Wednesday, Justice Department officials would not rule out the possibility of Mr. Ashcroft appointing a special counsel, or recusing himself from the case.
“We’re leaving all legal options open,” said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman.
And the associate of Mr. Rove said of the attorney general, “He’s going to have to recuse himself, don’t you think?””
* And, via Unfogged, this story would appear to assuage remaining good-faith doubt about whether Plame was undercover or not. (Bad-faith doubt, of course, is more tenacious than Jason Voorhees.)
“Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.
That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.
But that changed over the summer, when her identity as a C.I.A. officer was reported in a syndicated column by Robert Novak.”
Note: this story also does a number on the “everyone knew she was C.I.A.” defense.
by Ted on October 2, 2003
My conscience has been telling me that I should write about something in addition to Ambassador Wilson’s wife. So here are a few thoughts:
* Ross from Bloviator has two posts (here and here) about the growing population of Americans without health insurance. 2.4 million more people were uninsured in 2002 than in 2001.
“The CBO believes that in looking at 1998 data from two different studies (the last best data sets available) between 21-31 million people (~9%-13% of the nonelderly) were uninsured for the whole year, 40 million or so (~18% of the nonelderly) were uninsured at the time of the 1998 Census “snapshot,” and about 60 million people a year (~25%) went uninsured for at least part of the year.”
* I’m not a huge fan of the Chemical Brothers, but I think that their video for “Let Forever Be” is one of the five best I’ve ever seen. Maybe even three best.
* I think that Arthur Silber has a good take on Rush Limbaugh’s alleged drug abuse. I wouldn’t cheer a sting operation to catch an ordinary citizen who was abusing pain pills. And if the sting was conducted by the National Enquirer (I can’t tell from the Drudge headline), that’s really, really low.
by Ted on September 30, 2003
Two quick hits:
1. Greg Greene makes a strong argument that the independent counsel statute was a bad law, and we shouldn’t be pining for it. I’m pretty sure that I agree; the general de-armament of US politics is good for all sides in the long term, and the independent counsel sure looked like bad government a few short years ago.
2. Tim Dunlop helps clear up the confusing question, “who thought (Wilson) could be trusted with the Niger mission to begin with.” (Answer: the office of the Vice President).
I’m starting to get very angry about attacks on Joseph Wilson. Even if he’s wrong about everything, it doesn’t justify going after his wife, and it certainly isn’t relevant to the criminal inquiry about the release of classified information.
[click to continue…]
by Ted on September 30, 2003
If I were to say:
Nobody at Domino’s called me to sell me Cinnamon Sticks. In July I was speaking to a Domino’s employee about a large pizza when he told me that I could get free Cinnamon Sticks with my order. Another Domino’s employee told me the same thing.
then no one in their right minds would try to summarize me by saying:
Ted Barlow says the Cinnamon Sticks didn’t come from Domino’s.
Right?
by Ted on September 30, 2003
1. Andrew Northrup is a phat, phat young man. (That’s what you kids say, right? Phat?)
2. Every day, Jim Henley wins my heart anew.
Come to think of it, a fun Washington fact I learned years ago from my buddy Toiler, who really is an analyst for the CIA. If someone asks him where he works, he has to tell them he works for the CIA. He is not to lie or dodge the question. Why? So he won’t ruin it for the people that do have to lie or dodge the question.
This is about the millionth reason to believe that Valerie Plame really was employed in the Agency’s clandestine services division: in all the times that Wilson, who surely knows the rules, and spokesmen for the White House and CIA have been asked about Plame’s employment, they have not said, “She’s an analyst.” But if she were indeed an analyst, that’s what they would say. So, can we please retire the Administration apologist defense “we don’t know whether Plame was really a ‘covert’ employee or not”?
He’s got a bunch of good posts; just keep scrolling. I’m especially partial to this one.
If I ever turn libertarian, I’m buying him a pizza. Arthur Silbur, too.
by Ted on September 29, 2003
I’ve read the transcripts of today’s press conferences (this one and this one), and it seems clear to me that Scott McClellan chose his words very carefully to avoid saying that Rove told him that he’s not the source of the leak. This certainly doesn’t prove that Rove is one of the leakers, but it’s pretty conspicuously not a denial.
Some people would consider this a long, nitpicking post. (Heck, I consider it a long, nitpicking post, but I don’t know another way to write it.) If you’re one of those people, and you know who you are, don’t continue reading.
[click to continue…]