Ted

Mark Kleiman noticed that opponents of gay marriage are also opposed to civil unions. He writes, “So the overwhelming majority of people who don’t want to let gays get married also don’t want to recognize their committed relationships in any other way.”

It’s hard for someone like me to keep a realistic perspective about the portion of Americans who don’t approve of gays.

[click to continue…]

I’m not going to Talk Like O’Reilly today. To attone for my sins, I am going to talk about his book, “The O’Reilly Factor- The Good, The Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life.”

[click to continue…]

My favorite spoof of movie cliches is right here, but the good people at Fametracker are having some fun with them in this discussion thread.

Highlights from the comments:

[click to continue…]

I followed a link from tbogg today over to Donald “Poor and Stupid” Luskin’s website. In big letters on the left, it says:

“THE CONSPIRACY TO KEEP YOU POOR AND STUPID BY DONALD L. LUSKIN

THE WEBLOG OF THE BOOK: How Big Government, Big Business, Big Media, and Big Academia Block Your Road to Financial Freedom– and Tell You It’s For Your Own Good”

Underneath, it has a quote, which I reproduce in full:

“…straight contrary-to-fact statements embarassing, and damaging to their own credibility…”
— Brad DeLong

This doesn’t link to anything.

[click to continue…]

Jim Henley has a good post about an excerpt from the new memoir of Mariane Pearl, widow of the murdered journalist Daniel Pearl. (The book can be purchased here.)

Jim Henley’s analysis of the kidnapper’s emails is very good, but the excerpt itself is extraordinary. Mariane Pearl writes in the present tense, giving it an immediacy that makes it hard to read.

Every little detail—the type of camera used, the make of the weapon threatening Danny, the way words are used—is analyzed, and everyone has a theory. I let everybody play out his or her line because I want to get hooked by one. But through it all, I know this is my husband.

In the chatter, I hear Randall ask, “Do you recognize the wedding ring?”

“Yes,” I say. “It’s loose on his finger. It’s always been loose.”

The room falls silent.

As Terry at Nitpicker reveals, Robert Novak and Matt Drudge are stepping up to the plate to smear Wesley Clark on factually untrue grounds. This is really awful.

Here’s Novak:

Clark was a three-star lieutenant general who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department’s wishes, and may have contributed to Clark’s failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other’s military caps was distributed throughout Europe.

Matt Drudge has this photo front and center at his page right now, with the caption “GENERAL CLARK WORE BOSNIAN WAR CRIMINAL’S MILITARY CAP”.

How could Wesley Clark smile for a photo and exchange gifts with an indicted war criminal? Well, he didn’t. Here’s the chronology:

Aug. 26, 1994: Clark and Mladic meet, and the photo (sorry, the “shocking” photo) is taken.

July 6- July 21, 1995: Bosnian Serbs under the command of Mladic begin their assault on the safe area of Srebrenica, killing or expelling 15,000 Bosnian Muslims. Many surrender, after being falsely promised prisoner of war status, and are slaughtered in mass graves.

November 14, 1995: For the Srebrenica massacre, Mladic is indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity.

Novak is seriously distorting the facts to make his claim. To say that Clark took this photo and exchanged gifts with an indicted war criminal is just not true. It’s like blasting the producers of the “Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out” Nintendo game for using a convicted rapist as their spokesperson. When they made the game, he wasn’t a convicted rapist.

Then there’s this, from Novak’s column:

Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East “think tank” in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization.

Novak is wrong. A quick Google search reveals the appearance of such organizations, such as the B’Nai Brith Canada Institute for International Affairs, the Inter-University Consortium for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies, the Canadian-Arab Federation, the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

This is a shameful column, and it’s only going to get worse. I know this is an old point, but it’s worth making again: Al Gore is not the President because no one fought hard enough against garbage like this. No one else is going to do it but us.

Robert Novak’s email is: novakevans@aol.com

Matt Drudge’s email is: drudge@drudgereport.com

The letter to the editor at the Sun-Times address is: letters@suntimes.com

Jack O’Toole catches Andrew Sullivan assuming that his readers are too lazy or dumb to click a link.

Here’s Andrew Sullivan this morning on Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark:

Reading this essay by Wesley Clark, I have to say I’m not reassured that he has what it takes to wage a war on terror. If he had been president, the war in Afghanistan would probably not have taken place, let alone the war against Saddam. [Emph. added]

And what did Gen. Clark actually say in his essay about the war in Afghanistan?

Instead of cutting NATO out, we should have prosecuted the Afghan campaign with NATO, as we did in Kosovo. Of course, it would have been difficult to involve our allies early on, when we ourselves didn’t know what we wanted to do, or how to achieve it. The dialogue and discussions would have been vexing. But in the end, we could have kept NATO involved without surrendering to others the design of the campaign. We could have simply phased the operation and turned over what had begun as a U.S.-only effort to a NATO mission, under U.S. leadership. [Emph. added]

Winston Churchill famously said that the truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.

It seems that much of the right, from George Will (here and here) to Andrew Sullivan to Rush Limbaugh, feels the same way about the Bush presidency.

UPDATE: Ogged points out:

But he’s not lying this time. His point, which he spends the bulk of his post arguing, is that “with NATO” is “probably” the same as “not at all.” That’s likely wrong: Clark doesn’t rule out going alone, he merely expresses his preference—but it’s not a lie.

Ehhhh… I see his point, but I dunno. Andrew is arguing that Clark wanted to hand over operational control, and sacrifice our ability to choose targets and tactics. Here’s Andrew:

Can you imagine having to get every special ops target in Afghanistan approved by 19 different countries, including those who opposed any action against the Taliban? Can you even begin to imagine constructing a case for any action in Iraq under similar auspices? It simply wouldn’t have happened.

Yes, that certainly sounds bad, but it bears no relation to the essay he’s talking about:

In the end, we could have kept NATO involved without surrendering to others the design of the campaign. We could have simply phased the operation and turned over what had begun as a U.S.-only effort to a NATO mission, under U.S. leadership.

Both Andrew and Clark are speaking in hypotheticals, so the word “lie” is maybe a little harsh. Nonetheless, Clark has the facts on his side, and Andrew doesn’t. NATO was distinctly on our side in Afghanistan- they had called upon the common defense clause for the first time in history. (NATO is, of course, heavily involved in the current effort of policing Afganistan.) And who was it, again, that “opposed any action against the Taliban”?

European reaction to the US and British attacks on Afghanistan has so far been positive. France, Germany, Italy and Russia have all stated their support for the alliance…

In France, President Jacques Chirac has said that he will make French troops available to the alliance. Speaking in a televised address, President Chirac said that France had opened its airspace to the US military aircraft and French ships are providing logistical support to US naval forces in the Indian Ocean. However, the French President was adamant that this was as far as French participation would go.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi put his country on a state of alert following the strikes. However, he said that he supported the attack. “Italy is on the side of the United States and of all those who are committed to the fight against terrorism,” he said. He also pledged material help and troops if needed.

The German government has said that it supports “without reservation” the US-led attacks on “terrorist targets in Afghanistan”. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that Germany will contribute to the action if they are asked and in line with their abilities.

Russia has also pledged its support for the attacks saying that international terrorism should face justice. A foreign ministry statement read on television said that the Taliban regime had become an “international centre of terrorism and extremism”. The statement concluded, “It is time for decisive action with this evil”.

Sullivan’s take seems ludicrous if you read the link or just remember the events of two years ago.

I just got spam for generic Viagra that began with this salutation:

ego jackknife blest lachesis piotr catholicism cavemen calcify bedfast bile creedal introduction

I’d imagine that it’s a device to get through the fearsome AOL spam guards, but it’s almost beautiful in its way.

Donkey Rising has some amazing results from a recent poll:

It’s been remarked that Bush’s poll ratings in most respects seem to be returning to about what they were prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That’s true and in some cases they’re actually worse. The public is now 10 points less likely to think Bush is honest and trustworthy; 7 points less likely to think he is moderate, not extreme, 6 points less likely to think he is for working and middle class families and 5 points less likely to think he “cares about people like you”. In addition, the public is 12 points more likely to think he has a go-it-alone policy that hurts our relations with our allies.

Similarly, when comparing the ratings on which parties are trusted to do a better job on the issues, Democrats now have the same leads or better that they had prior to 9/11 and Republicans are not doing much better today than they did then. Democrats are favored by 35 points on the environment today (33 points before 9/11), by 26 points on Medicare (26 points previously), by 24 points on health care (21 previously), by 20 points on retirement and social security (16 previously), by 20 points on prescription drugs (22 previously), by 20 points on the federal budget and deficits (just 3 previously), by 12 points on the economy (3 previously) and by 11 points on education (7 previously). For the Republicans, they are favored by 6 points today on taxes (but were favored by 12 points before 9/11) and by 22 points on keeping America strong (but they were running a 16 point lead even before 9/11).

The conclusion is inescapable. Much of the Bush’s political capital from 9/11 has been dissipated. More than anyone would have thought a year ago, the 2004 election seems likely to be fought on the actual merits and demerits of the entire Bush presidency, not just the two months after 9/11. And, in DR’s opinion, that’s pretty bad–extremely bad–news for Bush.

I spent some time looking at the results, and there’s a lot here to make someone like me smile. (Detailed results here, slideshow here.) It was commissioned by Democrats, but it still seems like a useful survey. I don’t see a leftward bias in the sample: 19% of them describe themselves as liberal, 41% as moderates, and 38% as conservatives.

A few things got my attention:

– Between July 2002 and September 2003, the percentage of people who said that they would vote Bush or lean Bush in the next Presidential election never topped 52%. I thought that it would have been higher right after “Mission Accomplished”.

Democrats couldn’t exactly crow- it wasn’t until August 2003 that “the Democratic nominee” got within striking range. (In September, it’s 47% Bush, 45% Democratic nominee.) Still, the landslide talk was probably always misplaced.

– Respondents were asked which of these statements came closer to their views:

“America’s security depends on building strong ties with other nations.”

or

“Bottom line, America’s security depends on its own military strength.”

50% agreed with the first statement, while 39% agreed with the second.

– On the other hand, the argument that Bush is too conservative in his appointments to the federal courts is an apparent loser. Only 37% agree, while 46% disagree.

– In the most recent poll, for the first time, about as many people said they opposed Bush’s tax cut plan (45%) as favored it (44%).

– From November 2001 until the end of 2002, more respondents said that Republicans were better on the economy than Democrats. That has reversed in a big way- in the most recent poll, 48% of respondents said Democrats were better on the economy. Only 35% said Republicans.

– On the federal budget and deficit, in the most recent poll 47% said that Democrats were better. Only 27% said Republicans.

(I think that this discrepancy is worth highlighting. I’ve been told so many times that Democrats have no credibility on budgetary issues that I had started to believe it. It’s also worth highlighting because 80% of respondents say the federal deficit is a serious problem, compared to 69% who say high taxes are a serious problem.)

– As previously noted, the biggest weakness is the discrepancy between Republicans and Democrats on who does a better job on keeping America strong. 50% say Republicans, 29% say Democrats.

If only there were a Democratic candidate who could overcome that weakness…

You’ve probably seen the quote from Dick Cheney that Sept. 11 is “over with now, it’s done, it’s history and we can put it behind us.” In context, it’s obvious that he doesn’t mean that we should forget 9/11. Obviously, the White House observed a memorial, as is appropriate.

No, it’s much worse than that. In context, what he’s doing is arguing that any public investigation of September 11th will hurt the war on terror. Specifically, he’s responding to a question about the abundant evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11. If we let that evidence influence our approach to terrorism, it would be bad, for some reason.

Except for that misleading quotation, I’ve got to give credit to Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus for this report. They do what Tim Russert repeatedly failed to do during his interview of the Vice-President: when Cheney said something false or misleading, they provide the correct information. It’s astounding. I hope that Milbank is writing a book.

UPDATE: For the record, here are some of the misleading statements that Cheney used to defend the Bush administration’s conduct re: Iraq. These are all from Sunday’s interview:

– We still have reason to believe that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11th hijackers, met with Iraqi intelligence agencies in Prague months before the attack. (The FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting. The meeting is not supported by the CIA, Czech intelligence, or the actual Iraqi intelligence officer in question.)

– Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government had an ongoing relationship throughout the 90s. (They had eight meetings, primarily in the early 90s.)

– Cheney was correct to dismiss the views of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who said we will need, quote, ‘several hundred thousand for several years.’ (Shinseki did not mention “several years” in his testimony.)

– David Kay used to run UNSCOM. (David Kay did not run UNSCOM; he spent one year the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency.)

– Before the war, Saddam posessed “500 tons of uranium.” (Highly misleading; it was the waste product of a nuclear reaction that Saddam wouldn’t have been able to refine.)

– “A gentleman” had come forward “with full designs for a process centrifuge system to enrich uranium and the key parts that you need to build such a system.” (Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi, had denied that the nuclear program had been reconstituted after 1991. I’m pretty sure that Cheney is overstating when he talks about “full designs” and “key parts”, but I don’t know enough to swear to it.)

– Two trucks found in northern Iraq were mobile biological weapons labs. (The government had previously backed down on this claim after Pentagon investigators couldn’t back it up.)

– British intelligence has revalidated the statement in Bush’s SOTU address that Saddam was trying to acquire uranium in Africa. (British intelligence is re-investigating that claim. They haven’t revalidated it, although they say that the judgement that it had occurred was “reasonable”.)

– Iraq was the “geographic base” for the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. (The report doesn’t say it, but I’m pretty sure that we attacked Afghanistan because it was the geographic base of the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks. (NOTE: Cleaned up because of sloppy proofreading.))

Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings has the best post I’ve seen in the highly competitive field of flypaper-theory-debunking.

I can’t improve on it. But I’m going to make a prediction that I feel pretty good about: a year from now, no one will be very proud of the flypaper theory.

Over the weekend, the New York Times is publishing two longer pieces about the coming fiscal crisis in Washington. There’s the Paul Krugman piece previously noted by Henry, and “Dizzying Dive to Red Ink Poses Stark Choices for Washington” by David Firestone.

Both are detailed and well worth reading. My favorite succinct take on it, however, is a editorial by Matt Miller from August. Andrew Tobias has the whole thing, but I can’t help but quote:

Start with basic but poorly understood facts. Seven programs make up 75 percent of all federal spending: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military pensions, civil service pensions, defense and interest on the debt. That’s “big government.”

Republicans aren’t trying to cut a dime of it but are calling for big increases in every one of these programs. According to the White House, interest on the national debt alone will soar by 66 percent over the next five years, thanks to the red ink oozing from President Bush’s budget ….

Over the next five years, President Bush figures the “big 7” programs will cost, on average, about $1.8 trillion a year.

Over the same period, he says, the revenue the government will collect, not counting Social Security taxes (which both parties say shouldn’t be used for current spending, though it is), will average $1.35 trillion a year — $450 billion a year less than just the “big 7” on which Republicans want to spend more…

This, then, is today’s spectacle: “Family values” Republicans are sticking the kids with the bill for current spending while railing fraudulently against the “big government” they support.

Then they attack Democrats for offering the radical idea that we ought to pay for the spending we all agree we want (before we even begin fighting about other things — like covering uninsured, or helping poor children get better teachers).

[click to continue…]

One of the most common complaints about blogs is that we’re essentially parasites; without the mainstream media, we’d be talking about our pets. I generally agree.

But every once in a while, bloggers get to a story first. Just yesterday, for example, Andrew Sullivan revealed the surprising news that Howard Dean, presidential candidate and governor of Vermont, is fluent in Haitian creole.

To be fair, I’m reading between the lines a little. I have to assume that Howard Dean speaks Haitian creole. Because if he doesn’t, Andrew’s criticism of a song in Creole doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. (I notice that respected economics professor Tyler Cowen loves Don Giovanni. To the Babelfish! Get ‘im!)

Jeez. Sullivan is not a stupid man, and I feel certain that he didn’t go to the Kennedy School of Government with the dream of dumbing down political discourse. And yet, here we are. As a wise man once said, “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind.”

Jack O’Toole has more.

UPDATE: Another scoop! The Bush administration and congressional investigators say that they don’t have sufficient evidence to connect Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, but Andrew has found the proof.

(That’s enough Andrew – Ed)

It’s long been one of my theories that the user ratings on Amazon are useless as guides to my reading habits. It seems like virtually every non-political book that I look up has a rating between 4 and 5 (out of 5). It’s not hard to understand how this would happen; I expect that most people don’t take the time to read and review a book unless they enjoy it. Self-selection would weed out the most negative reviewers before they pick up a book. (I probably wouldn’t enjoy Those Who Trespass, but I’ll never know because I’m not going to read it.) Furthermore, people who love a book are probably more likely to choose to review it than people who were indifferent.

I’ve taken a completely unscientific look at Amazon ratings. I looked at six categories: General nonfiction, general fiction, history, politics, classics, and “bad” books (evil, discredited, or worthless books, not trashy fiction). Most of the books in general nonfiction, general fiction, history and classics are books that I’ve read. (I’m interested in whether Amazon ratings are useful for me, you see.) I’ve read a few of the politics books, and none of the “bad” books. (A list of books and their ratings are here.) I know that this isn’t a randomized sample and that it’s biased around my tastes. I have no intention of defending this study’s methodology, except to say that I didn’t pick books in an effort to get results I wanted. It’s just for fun.

Here’s what I found:

[click to continue…]