Nasty Riffraff

2002-10-12T16:12:00.000-04:00

This is a surprise...not

Administration officials blocked Congress's bipartisan 9/11 panel with new, unnamed objections, according to The New York Times The panel's sponsors, including Joe Lieberman, expressed "surprise" at the last-minute objection.

I'm not surprised. No matter what Ari Fleishman says in the name of The Pretender, the last thing this administration wants is an objective inquiry into what may have been known before 9/11, and what was ignored.

Here's a good one, considering the relative oratory skills of the 84 year old Robert Byrd and the 56 year old Pretender to the Oval Office:

An intern in the White House "mistakenly" forwarded an email to Hispanic leaders that called Sen. Robert Byrd, who led the opposition to the Iraq resolution on Thursday, "doddering" and "senile," according to The Charleston Daily Mail

My, my, those pesky White House interns! Of course, a White House spokeswoman hastily said that the email "does not represent" the views of the president, and was written by an unnamed "activist."

God help us...
Bush Turns Sights on Economy

2002-10-11T00:41:00.000-04:00

Stumbled on another good blog: Naked Emperor. I had thought about the Salon blogs when I started this thing, but I don't like the fact that you're tied to one computer to use the service. Still, a good blog. Check it out.

Site Meter is a service that allows you to check your site's stats with several criteria, one of which is search words. I found it amusing that the top search words used for this humble blog are "nasty whore." Thanks, Media Whores Online!

Hot tip: Having the flu is the pits.

2002-10-11T00:09:00.000-04:00

[badword] Looks like The Pretender will get his war. [/badword] I hope he doesn't think this is a video game. Already the administration is planning on occupying Iraq, if we win, that is.

Frankly, I'm too disgusted and angry to say much about this mess right now. What I would say at this point may bring Ashcroft's goons down on my head, and I want to hold on to what little freedom I still have.

Quote of the week:
"So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dugout and Kashmir is a sweater."
--Rep Pete Stark, D California, speaking of Bush's lack of knowledge of war.
more here

Slimebag Chutzpah quote of the week:
''They keep trying to find some way to change the subject because they don't want to talk about national security, homeland security or the job that they've done on the economy'' (!!)
--Trent Lot [Unbelieving emphasis mine]

More later. I'm off to have a beer or three.

2002-10-09T23:56:00.000-04:00

Harken Coverup...Uncovered!
Media Whores Online reports that according to the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal the Harvard Management Company, in an Enron-like arrangement, invested millions in Harken, in an off-the-books deal. Dubya personally signed off on the deal when he was a member of Harken's audit committee. Read more at Media Whores Online

Media Whores wonders if the media will follow up. I do, too.

2002-10-09T23:32:00.000-04:00

Is it just me, or was The Pretender's Monday night speech...well....weird?

The speech itself offered no new information, but instead prattled on about how great a threat Saddam Hussein is to the world, particularly to the U.S. Okay. Yep, he's a bad man all right. But Bush, always confusing at best, has been baffling on the subject lately. So far he's demanded an immediate pre-emptive strike (aka: war) even if Saddam agreed to U.N. inspections; then implied he'd wait for said inspections. Now he claims he hopes there will be no war. In the face of what he loudly proclaimed a short month ago, this strains belief.

Everything surrounding the Monday night speech is fogged with confusion, and Bush's delivery seemed to echo that confusion. Ordinarily, he can be almost eloquent (for him) when he's pounding the table and being aggressive. But Monday night, he looked like he was being forced to talk about corporate responsibility again. His eyes wandered, he seemed to lose track in a couple of places, and he didn't have that patented "steely-eyed glare" that he gets when he contemplates using all the cool new toys at his disposal.

The lead-up to this thing was bizarre, too. Last week, the administration announced that there would be a major address to the nation on Monday night. Normally, the networks would be put on alert to carry the speech, but ABC, CBS and NBC carried on with their regular programming...get this: because they weren't asked to carry it.

It gets stranger. The reasons given: "it isn't a policy speech." It isn't? What the hell was Bush talking about, then? Somehow, I tend to think that when he speaks about something as serious as possible war, he's not just musing to himself or being theoretical. But hey, I guess it's possible. Oh, and they didn't want to frighten the American people (except those in Cincinnati, I guess). And then there's this howler:

On a more practical note, the administration official added, the networks would have been reluctant to interrupt prime-time programming so early in the new TV season, unless developments were really big.
From The Washington Post

I can picture it now:

KARL ROVE: Okay, we gotta say something. People are getting mad. You'll have to give a speech to the nation.

BUSH: Goodie! I get to sit in front of that big seal and be on TV??

ROVE: Well, not in front of the Presidential seal. We were thinking of a museum in Cincinnati.

BUSH: [more puzzled than usual look]

ROVE: And as for TV, I think Fox will carry it, since it's you.

BUSH: Can't we make the networks carry it???

ROVE: Yeah, we usually dema...er...ask them to, but not this time. We have to think of all the people who'll be angry about missing Drew Carey. Plus it's not a policy speech.

BUSH: [stupidly blinking] It's not? What do I talk about, then?

ROVE: Iraq

BUSH: [scrunching up his face] I can't talk about policy? I can't talk about bombing the hell outta Iraq? I can't talk about...

ROVE: Of course you can (soothingly). But we're not marketing it as a policy speech, or a speech to the nation.

BUSH: But you said....

ROVE: Please, George, don't start asking questions again. You know how confused you get.

BUSH: Hey! If I'm making a speech, I'll miss Drew Carey!

2002-10-01T22:32:00.000-04:00

Power to the people....finally

Yeah, I know it's trite. I know that sometimes we all feel that we're bashing our heads against a brick wall, for nothing. The moneyed politicians have the real power, not us.

But today, something very special happened. And it makes me proud.

You may read Joe Conason's excellent columns in Salon You may, tomorrow, read something about the fact that Jeb Bush may well have been fed questions beforehand in his debate with McBride. If you do, let me tell you where it came from.

The person who broke this story was not one of the heavy hitters in the media. Most have never heard of him. It wasn't even a local Florida reporter. It was someone whose handle is dedulus, a poster on Bartcop, who originally got this story. And it was made public by Atrios, a blogger, someone who publishes a wonderful daily blog, unbeholden to any corporate media.

The story in brief, which none of the major media even bothered to look at, let alone publish, until it was all over the grassroots net. Until many many people made phone calls, wrote emails...From the looks of things, Jeb Bush may very well have been had questions fed to him, in clear violation of the rules of the debate. The major media, of course, almost to a man (or woman), praised Jeb for having "facts at his fingertips." Well, yeah, you and I would too, if we had the advantage that Jeb apparently had.

The basis for the story, and the reason major media should (and some of them are, thanks to being embarrassed by a poster and a blogger) look into this, at the very least, is that Jeb seemed to know the name of the next questioner, calling the one who he was speaking to at the time (Fran) by Sylvia's name....Sylvia being in the queue.

As neither Bush nor McBride was supposed to have pre-knowledge of any of the questions, or questioners, Jeb's "slip" seems pretty damning.

Whether this story means something, or nothing remains to be seen. It's certainly something that should be at least investigated. And guess what, folks. It never would have come to light had it not been for Atrios and Dedalus. Two people who write for their own reasons...whether it's for the joy of it, or because they're disturbed at what's going on in our country, or like most of us bloggers on the political scene, both.

Atrios patted himself on the back today for 200,000 hits. No. I pat him on the back, heartily, for having the guts to publish this story.

I'm humbly glad to be in such company.

2002-09-30T23:31:00.000-04:00

Bits and pieces

God, having a full time job is the pits. Too tired to write much tonight, but I wanted you to know about some good stuff out there.

Arianna skewers The Pretender, but good. In an article called "Osama who?" in Salon, she begins:

We all know who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001, don't we? No, not Osama bin Laden. God, that is so last year. It never turns out to be the person you first suspect. It was Saddam Hussein. For some reason we couldn't find him when we went after him in Afghanistan, bringing that magic elixir of regime change along with us. But now we've got a better idea: Track him down where he actually lives, in Baghdad, and punish him right in his own backyard. It's the only way to obtain justice for the thousands he killed on 9/11.

You have to read the whole thing.
--------
A new, promising blog: Liberty In Mourning. Welcome to blogdom, Sue.
---------
Must read: "Unanswered Questions"
William Raspberry of The Washington Post writes of one Larry Williams, who has written an open letter to The Pretender, asking some pointed, and germain questions about the saber-rattling. Colonel.Williams is no flaming radical; he's a retired Marine colonel with experience in Beirut and South Vietnam. See his questions to Bush here. Don’t hold your breath waiting for The Pretender to answer them; I’d hate to lose both my readers :)

2002-09-29T18:50:00.000-04:00

Lies, Lies and Damn Lies

The pretend-president of the U.S. has repeatedly told us that attacking Iraq is necessary for the safety and security of the “Homeland.” He’s beaten the drum calling forth horrors of Saddam unleashing nuclear weapons and/or biological or chemical weapons on the world.

He has presented no creditable evidence of this, and has largely ignored options other than a unilatral attack.

And he has lied. Deliberately and repeatedly.

The truth is that long before 9/11 conservatives have been planning for war that goes far beyond the “axis of evil:” Iraq, North Korea and Iran. In fact, a strategy for American intervention in many areas of the world was suggested in a report issued in September, 2000 by a group of conservatives from Project for the New American Century. Key points in that report:

Identifies the challenge for the 21st century: to “preserve and enhance” American peace and security. [Emphasis mine]

Repudiates the anti-ballistic missile system

Identifies Iraq, Iran and North Korea as primary, immediate targets, long before Bush identified those countries as the “axis of evil” after 9/11.

Urges that the U.S. perform “constabulary duties” throughout the world. Note that the report identified no limits on police actions by U.S. forces. (My, doesn’t that sound familiar? Anyone remember Vietnam?)

Strongly recommends a much larger U.S. military presence throughout the world, specifically in the Middle East, Latin America Southeast Asia and Southeast Europe.

In addition to this report, another conservative group at the American Enterprise Institute has argued for “democratization” through pre-emptive attacks. This is supposed to create a “domino effect” where other surrounding nations will collapse before U.S. pressure and embrace democracy. (Again. Remember Vietnam?)

Will the Republicans never learn from history? Do they even read history? In fact, we’ve learned the hard way that “democratization” simply doesn’t work. Reform comes from within, not without.

Want examples? How about Israel, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, India, South Africa, The Phillipines. Going further back: France, and yes, the United States.

How about the well-known failures from the last century: Korea and Vietnam. Does any sane person claim successful democratization in those two areas?

But Bush wants war, and God help us, he’s likely to get it. He has on his cowboy hat and his gun in the back of his pickup truck, ready to hunt. And he’ll tell any lie to achieve it.

2002-09-26T00:19:00.000-04:00

Will the Dems grow some spine?

Al Gore's speech should have shaken up the Democratic side of the U.S. Senate. We'll see if it does. But as usual, Bush is shooting himself in the foot with remarks about the "Senate" (read: "Democrats")
don't care about the security of the American people.

Finally...finally Tom Daschle has woken up to the fact that The Pretender will not listen to anyone. Daschle ripped Bush a new oriface in the Senate yesterday, accusing Dubya of "politicizing" the national security debate. (Well, duh

Transcript of Daschle's speech

Daschle acted shocked...shocked but in fact this sort of thing is nothing new to The Pretender. It's always been "My way or you're not a patriot," especially so when the subject is national security or war. From his consistent remarks about "the Senate" to his bratty refusal to call Gerhard Schroeder on his election in Germany, the man sulks like a thwarted three-year-old when anyone suggests he may be, well, wrong.

It's a chilling theme that many writers on the right are picking up, with little or no examination.

There is no room for dissent in our society, particularly not from a one-time loser like Al Gore. (Yeah, I know....Neil Pollack)
--Neil Pollack, on Gore's speech

You lost the election. Now leave the rest of the nation alone to win this new war.
--Vodkapundit

Eschaton has an excellent summary of reactions to Gore's speech.

2002-09-24T16:40:00.000-04:00

Republicans react (predictably) to Gore's speech

"It seems to be a speech that was more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate, by someone who clearly failed to recognize leadership."
--Jim Dyke, Republican National Committee.
This is known in logic as an Ad Hominum fallacy: attacking the speaker rather than the issue.

"There are a lot of democrats in Washington D.C. who understand that Saddam Hussein is a true threat and we must hold him to account. And I believe you will see as we work to get a strong resolution out of the congress, that a lot of democrats are willing to take the lead when it comes to keeping the peace"
--George W. Bush
Fallacy: Bandwagon: the notion that because an argument isn't following a perceived common cause, it's wrong. This "argument" might also begging the question, since it doesn't address anything Gore had said.

"The President's reaction was that, one, the President, regardless of any things that are said in the political arena, is going to continue to unify our country and to provide leadership to take action against Saddam Hussein's threat. And the President is very pleased with the fact that the country has rallied behind his message and his call for action. And the President is going to continue to work with the great many Democrats in the Congress who see it differently from the former Vice President and who will work with this White House"
--Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary
This from Mr. "No new product line before Labor Day"

2002-09-23T23:50:00.000-04:00

In the midst of lunacy, a bit of sanity

Although I voted for Al Gore, I was never completely enamoured of him. But today, he gave a speech on The Pretender's warmongering that is a shining light. It absolutely nails Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al, exposing, in measured but forceful language, just how wrong the drumbeaters are. I'll quote extensively from it, but please read it in its entirety here .[All emphasis mine]

To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.

We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.

What the devil happened to Bin Laden? Remember him? The guy America was going to root out no matter where he hid? Is he no longer relevant? The Pretender insists that Hussein has "links" to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, but has shown zero proof. That's not saying that Hussein isn't dangerous, but since when has this country unilaterally attacked for that reason alone?

Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment – right now – is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

Stabilization is one of the things The Pretender seems not to think about, in his zeal to bomb the hell out of the enemy. Bush has presented all kinds of arguments (but little proof) of why America should attack Iraq. But to my knowledge, not one word has come out of the White House about what happens after the bombing. Do we just say "bye bye"? "Clean it up, folks, we're outta here?"

Gore goes on to compare George H.W. Bush's war strategy with The Pretender's:

...President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a “no” vote – even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme -- in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide’s misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to “focus on the war.” Vice President Cheney, meanwhile indignantly described suggestions of political motivation “reprehensible.” The following week he took his discussion of war strategy to the Rush Limbaugh show.

Ah, yes, the politics. The tactics are chilling, with anyone who protests this insanity being called unpatriotic, or worse."New product line" indeed.

The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it. Such consideration is all the more important because of the Administration’s failure thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run – even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest that this will be an easy conquest. Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.

From The Pretender's point of view, that's the point. He isn't interested in "careful analysis;" or analysis of any kind except by those who agree with him.

But here's the crux of the argument:

Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan – with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

That, folks, is exactly where the danger is. We could actually be unleashing those weapons on the world; we don't have a great track record of winning against guerilla warfare (remember Vietnam?). And there's no indication that Bush is taking the responsibility to rebuild after attack. That wouldn't fit his cowboy swagger.

2002-09-22T22:19:00.000-04:00

Very interesting read: "Why War, Why Now?" by Joe Conason. (Thanks to Media Whores Online for this link.)

Also on MWO: A quote by Chris Matthews, of all people:

"Where in the constitution is crap like this?"

Daily Howler points out how the much of the media rushed to judgment over the medical students at a Shoney's. Turns out that there was a big problem with the reports that the students ran through a toll booth: it didn't happen. What's alarming here is that the toll booth story wasn't checked, either by law enforcement or by the media reporting it. And instead of being red-faced, many of the major newspapers have buried the "correction."

It's no wonder that alternative journalism, including blogs, is sweeping the 'net. Of course people like Norah Vincent sneer at blogs not written by professional journalists, but that's just her. Whether the traditional media likes it or not, many people are turning to the alternatives because they no longer trust the major media. As newspapers are losing readership and circulation, people are doing Google searches to find what the "real" story is. True, there's lots of garbage out there, too. But I like the fact that people have choices.

Quote of the week:
"It's Florida. It's always close."
--Jeb Bush, on the upcoming governor's race in Florida.

2002-09-21T11:05:00.000-04:00

Added two "must visits" to Favorite Links: Cursor.org and Daily Howler

Are you a Florida resident? Please, please, join the good fight to get Jeb out of the governor's mansion and The Pretender out of the White House.

An excellent, and pointed, article in The Nation's Capital Games: Bush Stonewalls on Pre-9/11 Knowledge . Read it in its entirety and weep. From the article:

"The Director of Central Intelligence," the relevant passage says, "has declined to declassify two issues of particular importance to this Inquiry." One was the identity of a key al Qaeda leader (since identified by the news media as Khalid Sheik Mohammed). The other was "any references to the Intelligence Community providing information to the President or White House." The report went on, "According to the DCI, the President's knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this Inquiry remains classified even when the substance of that intelligence information has been declassified."

That is, the administration will declassify intelligence information, but it will keep classified the fact that this material was (or was not) shared with the President or anyone else at the White House. The administration's position is that it can tell the public about intelligence reports the government gathered regarding potential acts of terrorism before September 11 without harming national security, but if it must reveal whether these reports were brought to the attention of George W. Bush or his aides, that would endanger the United States. (This is different from the customary Bush White House arguments about executive privilege and preserving Bush's and Dick Cheney's ability to hear frank talk from such crucial advisers as energy industry lobbyists.)

2002-09-20T14:50:00.000-04:00

Marketing the War Part 2

Andrew Sullivan is losing his grip. He actually refers to This Washington Post article as "proof" of The Pretender's "under-rated political skills." From the article:

The pattern goes something like this: Bush finds himself in a jam, with heavy opposition to the position he advocates. After a sometimes painful period of stumbling, he casts aside all other issues so that he can focus his administration's attention -- and the public's -- on just one topic. Then, he hammers away at the issue, using the bully pulpit with numbing repetition and marshaling all arguments to make his case. When one rationale doesn't sell, he drops it and adopts a new one.
[Emphasis mine]

I guess Sully admires warmongering as marketing and PR. I still say we deserve better, even given The Pretender's limitations.

2002-09-20T13:36:00.000-04:00

Better, more knowledgable people than I have written reams about the war the Pretender so badly wants. And, y'know, I'd be more likely to support bombing the hell out of Iraq to get rid of Saddam, who is clearly a cancer in the liver of life if I could trust the Pretender and his advisors. It's very easy for people like Dubya ("I hit the trifecta!"), Cheney ("I know nothing. I was just the CEO when Halliburton ignored the embargo on Iraq"), and all the other Chickenhawks to bang the drums from behind their desks. But what makes me really nervous is Donald Rumsfield's, and by inference the Pretender's, view of war after 9/11:

"Now what is victory? I say victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that's going to be over in a month or a year or even five years."
--September 12, 2001
[Emphasis mine]

In other words, victory is not about fighting an enemy and actually having a chance to win. It's about "persuading" the American public and the world that war will be never-ending. It's a public relations victory that allows the persuaders to use almost any means including exaggerations if not outright lies. To achieve that, the Pretender and his minions must portray anyone who challenges the chest-pounding, the flag-waving, the "axis of evil" mentality as traitors. And that, folks, is exactly what they're doing.

I take a dim view of public relations, as I do of most advertising. The Pretender has been persuasive to some, using as he does traditional PR methods. He's marketing this war. But like most marketing, it's not persuasive in facts. If he wants the support of the American people, we deserve better.

Amusing and enlightening: Chickenhawks Database

Atrios has a great take on this, quoting from Josh Marshall.

2002-09-19T11:37:00.000-04:00

Florida to Ashcroft: Stop us before we screw up another election!

Florida Secretary of State Jim Smith has gone a-begging to Ashcroft's office after the state blew two elections in a row. In a letter he pled with Ashcroft to "take whatever steps necessary" to be sure Florida doesn't provide late-night comics with a steady stream of jokes in the November elections.

Of course, Smith blamed the fiasco on Broward and Miami-Dade election supervisors, as did his boss Jeb Bush. But now the state seems to be saying, "hey, what can we do?"

What, indeed? They've already "scrubbed" the voting lists thanks to Smith's predecessor, the appalling Katherine Harris, effectively defranchising Floridians, mostly Black, by incorrectly identifying them as felons ineligible to vote. Since Jeb claims Democrats "don't know how to vote" maybe they should just "scrub" registered Democrats off the voting lists and solve two problems with one stroke.

Um, Jeb et al, I'm kidding.

Thanks to SullyWatch for the mention today. I'm happy to acknowledge SW as daddy, but as for Norah Vincent being mommy to this fledgling blog, I'd have to say she's more like the crazy aunt in the basement.

2002-09-17T12:57:00.000-04:00

Blowing Smoke

Wow. I agree with Andrew Sullivan about something. The last time that happened was when he switched to a Mac. He's mostly spot-on with his scathing condemnation of the anti-smoking lobby in general and New York City's likely banning of smoking in public places. A good read, until he tries to squeeze this round peg into the square hole of politics:

"You'd think that some liberal New Yorkers might come to the defense of the down-trodden smoker, especially since he or she is often poorer than the non-smoker, has fewer opportunities for quick and easy pleasure, and already has to pay a hugely regressive tax just to light up. But no."

Um, who says smokers are "often poorer" than non-smokers? The cigarette tax, all by itself, doesn't push people into poverty. Or is it that the poor smoke more, or that they are more likely to smoke at all? I've never seen statistics backing either one up, but surely Sullivan has done some research and can point to it?

Andy, Andy, Andy. I know you're pushing the conservative agenda, but really, me lad, not everything can be narrowed down to conservative or liberal. The funniest part of it, though, is the subtle inference that Puritans are, in this case, somehow "liberals." Or am I misreading that? Certainly even Sullivan didn't dare make that stretch right out loud.

I agree with most of this particular article, until Andy managed to ruin it by trying to introduce a conservative agenda. I've always thought that if the government doesn't want people to smoke for whatever reason, they should simply outlaw tobacco. But...oops! Can't do that; lots of people would be ruined (tobacco farmers, Big Tobacco, and quite a few members of Congress). Not to mention the wads o' cash lost from tobacco taxes. That's the basic hypocrisy of government officials telling us how bad, bad, bad smoking is and we should all just cut it out.

2002-09-17T10:32:00.000-04:00

Perception matters.

Finally, some good news in the business pages. It's odd that it should come from a retired CEO whose annual salary was in the $16 million range.

Jack Welch was and is someone whom the Pretender's administration should hold up as a model business leader. Unlike the grasping mobs at Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc. etc. he actually created wealth for others. GE's shareholders should love him.

Welch certainly didn't make a huge sacrifice when he "renegotiated" his compensation package with GE's board. He's a rich man; he in no danger of living in penury because of his decision. But as he said, perception does matter. The perception Welch cited was publicity that brings "unwelcome and inaccurate attention to the company."

My god. A former CEO who actually cares about his company at least as much as himself? Compare this to some Enron execs who are demanding additional money from the bankruptcy court even as the ex-employees have lost their life savings thanks to their former "leaders."

The Pretender claimed that "most" business leaders are honest. I have no way of knowing if that's true of course, and I'm not sure how The Pretender defines "honesty." My gut tells me he's wrong. Still, in the midst of the murky smog it's nice to see an occasional shining light. Thank you, Jack Welch.

2002-09-16T11:54:00.000-04:00

More on Florida
"What is it with Democrats having a hard time voting -- I don't know,"
--Jeb Bush

Is there no limit to this man's utter contempt for his own constituents? (Yes, Jeb, even Florida Democrats are your constituents.) Jeb seems to think the election mess in Florida (where have we heard that phrase before?) is amusing. His "quip" recalls the Presidential eleciton 2000, when his various mouthpieces sneered at elderly voters in Palm Beach County.

Meanwhile, in other Florida election news, election workers have found uncounted votes in Broward County. It's nice that they looked, since the votes were discovered in one of the precincts that initially registered no votes. Election officials haven't said yet just how many votes they uncovered; I guess they need to learn the voting software first. The precinct involved has 832 registered voters.

2002-09-15T19:41:00.000-04:00

How's this for chutzpah?

Can you believe that Republicans are actually blaming Democrats for the ludicrous mess in Florida? That's right; according to CNN Mark Foley (R-Florida) questions the legitimacy of Bill McBride's apparent victory!

Yep, according to Foley none of this is Jeb's fault; somehow the Democrats are responsible for Florida's malfunctioning voting machines, incompetence at high levels, and screwups in general that would be funny if they weren't so sad.

Apparently, what gets Foley's shorts in a knot (besides the fact that the GOP sees McBride as more threatening than Reno to ol' Jeb) is that the Dems didn't protest the voting mess enough.

"I watched the Democrats scream that 'every vote counts'. Now, where's the outrage?" Foley asked. "Doesn't every vote count now? Or is voter suppression acceptable only when it helps a favored Democrat?"
from CNN.com

Never mind that Reno asked for, and was refused, a recount. The refuser, of course, was the Great State of Florida. Never mind that Jeb's own reaction to the latest voting fiasco was "Let's be clear about this: 65 counties got it right. Wasn't perfect, but they got it right"

But yeah, blame the Dems. God forbid that the blame falls where it belongs: on Jeb Bush.

2002-09-15T14:16:00.000-04:00

First a word about the name of this blog. It's ~~stolen~~ taken from the following rant on Norah Vincent's blog:

But, I must say that the so-called blogosphere, liberating as it can be, is—as I have had the misfortune of discovering in recent days—also full of nasty riffraff and wannabe pundits who because they haven’t an earnest, original idea in their heads, fill their empty existences sniping impotently at legitimate targets. By legitimate targets I mean people who have actually had some measure of success in their professional lives, people who get published regularly in the mainstream press because, yes, they have a certain degree of talent, but moreso because they have something more to say on a weekly basis than “boo hoo” or “look ma, no hands.”

Norah later retracted, er...clarified that nonsense, but I still think "Nasty Riffraff" is funny :) So thanks, Norah, for the blog title idea, and I'm giving you full credit.