Friday, August 30, 2002
ALL FOR TODAY
That’s it for today. I’m beat, and going home. I may post a bit over the weekend, but who knows? I’ll be back Tuesday with, among other things, a post on some excellent comments Dean Bartkiw of Mud on My Shoes made regarding my post on the Castro flattery.
And thanks to everyone who visits. Today is especially nice: 150 hits so far, a sure record for a Friday. Have a nice three-day weekend everyone!
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: GOOD NEWS FOR IOWA
Thanks to David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, I have data from the recent WHO-TV poll on the Iowa gubernatorial race. (I can’t seem to find a story in the Iowa media on it anywhere else. Can’t imagine why.) The good news from this poll: Doug Gross 49%, Tom Vilsack 46%. Gross now has a slight lead among independent voters.
This is partially due to Vilsack’s mismanagement of the state budget. It also has a lot to do with the fact that Gross has been hitting Vilsack over the head with it relentlessly. No doubt about it, Gross has run a very effective campaign. His commercials have dealt with Vilsack’s mudslinging, and fired back on the budget, Vilsack’s most vulnerable spot. You can view some of them here, although you’ll need Windows Media.
The one weak spot of the Gross campaign is that its agenda is still a little hazy. Aside from proposing some targeted tax cuts and some budget reforms, there isn’t a whole lot there. Hopefully that will change in the coming month.
Of course, that criticism may be a lot like “arguing with success.” As noted above, he is 3 points ahead of the incumbent governor in the poll, with a little more than 2 months to go in the campaign. But as the election nears, it is still possible that more and more Iowa voters will say, “Okay, Vilsack has problems, but what will Gross do different?”
If that happens, will Gross be ready? I’m cautiously optimistic that he will be. I’ve met Gross three times now, and I get the sense there isn’t a complacent bone in his body. It wouldn’t matter if the polls should him 12 points ahead; he’d still campaign like he was the underdog. So if Iowa voters demand an agenda, Gross will probably have one ready to go.
Yes, the news in Iowa is good. For now.
. . .
DON’T STOP BELIEVING
The dream continues….
. . .
THANK YOU GOD!
This cup has passed without my having to drink from it.
. . .
MORE ON CASTRO
Jason Steffans at Antioch Road had an email exchange with Marc Hansen over his column on Fidel Castro. Quite interesting.
. . .
PRISON POPULATION AT RECORD HIGH, DESPITE RECORD LOW CRIME RATE
Doing its best imitation of the New York Times, the Des Moines Register ran this utterly boneheaded editorial today titled “Empty More Prison Cells.” This is the key passage:
Iowa is a prime example of what's going on around the country. Early release of prison inmates on parole rose 21 percent in the past year, as the state Board of Parole seeks to relieve crowding in Iowa prisons. Still, Iowa could do more: With prisons bursting at the seams, it makes sense to release inmates who pose little or no threat of violence.
Despite the glimmer of good news, the national statistics are disturbing. In the decade between 1990 and 2001, the total corrections population - counting those housed in state and federal institutions and those under probation or parole supervision - has grown by more than 50 percent, from 4.3 million to 6.6 million. One American in 32 is under some sort of court supervision in this county.
That figure becomes more alarming when it is broken down by race: Something like one in 10 African-American males in the 25-29 age group is behind bars, compared to 1 percent for whites, according to the Sentencing Project, a sentencing-reform group. What's more, the number of female prison inmates is growing.
Growing prison populations might be justified if the U.S. crime rate were growing, but crime rates have been dropping. Or, perhaps if there were evidence that spending time in prison reformed people's lives, but there is no evidence of that.
First of all, the purpose of prison is not (or, at least should not be) to reform. It is to (1) punish, and (2) keep criminals away from the law-abiding population.
Second, and more importantly, the folks at the Register can’t figure out that there might be a relationship between a growing prison population and a falling crime rate. You can almost hear the Register editorialists saying “You mean putting more criminals in jail might lower the amount of crime??? Noooo!!!!” Of course, when your head is filled with all sorts of lefty theories about how crime is really caused by all sorts of socioeconomic factors, it’s not hard to overlook something so patently obvious.
. . .
WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?
I’m not a big fan of picking on letters to the editor. The two exceptions are when they are written by someone of prominence, or they are laughably ridiculous. This one in today’s Des Moines Register falls in to the latter category. The Reverend Robert Price writes:
Regarding Doug Gross' latest political ad, the one asking, “What happened to the surplus?”: In the mid to late '90s, the Legislature passed a tax cut. Cutting taxes reduced income.
Cutting taxes reduced income?!?!? Not only does that defy all logic, but it simply is untrue. Iowa personal income grew from over $71 billion in 1998 to over $79 billion in 2001. You can see for yourself by going to this page at the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
It is so glaringly wrong that I have to assume it is a type-o, and Reverend Price meant to say “Cutting taxes reduce income taxes.” But even if he did, that’s not true either. In fiscal year (FY) 1998 personal income tax receipts in Iowa were at $2.288. Only in the year immediately following the income tax cuts, in FY 1999, did they experience a decline (FY 1999 receipts were about $2.233 billion, for a drop of $55 million.) In FY 2000 and FY 2001, income tax receipts grew to $2.375 billion and $2.426 billion, respectively. The numbers for FY 2001 are $138 million higher than they were in FY 1998.
If Revered Price wants an answer to “Where did the money go?” he should look at the spending side of the Iowa budget.
. . .
POSTS ARE COMING
Sorry, my friends, but business has interceded. New posts will be coming shortly. The Daily Diatribe will be posted late this afternoon.
. . .
THE POLITICS OF IOWA WORKS
My article on the Iowa gubernatorial race is now posted at the American Prowler.
. . .
Thursday, August 29, 2002
CROOOOW AND COULTER
Croooow Blog takes on TAPPED over Ann Coulter. Frankly, I think Henry just wants a date with Ann. But then, who can blame him?
. . .
THANKS MATT
Thanks to Matt Welch for linking my blog on the column on Castro. Always nice to get the attention from one of the Blogosphere heavies.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: BS DAY
Well my friends, Baseball Strike Day is almost upon us.
Will BS Day be avoided? Tom Glavine is optimistic. I’m not. You see, the arrogant idiot showed up at the talks the other day. That flushing sound you hear is probably the remainder of the baseball season.
Some commentators have sworn off baseball should BS Day come to pass. I’ve been debating this one myself at considerable length. What should I do if those high-paid clowns—both players and owners—let BS Day happen.
It’s not an easy decision. I’ve loved baseball ever since my dad taught me to play as a toddler. I still remember many evenings on the front lawn, my dad, brother and I playing catch, taking turns at bat. Even though I was a terrible athlete growing up your average bowl of jello is more coordinated than me) I still loved the game. I remember the first game we went to, with the next-door neighbors the McCalls. We went to see the Oakland A’s, and I believe that the Red Sox won that night, 3-1.
Getting a bit sentimental, huh?
Here’s the dilemma. How can I swear off a game that I’ve loved for so long? On the other hand, if BS Day happens, how can I keep coming back to a game that treats its patrons so poorly? Oh sure, I could still watch minor league ball and college ball. Sorry, but it’s not the same as the pros. There is nothing like going to a major league game, or watching one on TV.
Speaking to my dad the other day about the potential BS Day, I said I debating whether to forget about Major League Baseball forever. He replied, "Well, not forever."
I don't know for certain yet. Maybe I'll get lucky and BS Day will not come. Or maybe it will come and pass quickly without jeopardizing the rest of the season. We'll see. But by tomorrow I may have a big decision to make.
. . .
AND THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING
The Register has hit the stupidity jackpot today. In this column, Marc Hansen has a little love-fest with Iowa lawyer Jerry Crawford who recently had his own little love-fest with el jefe supremo, Fidel Castro.
Crawford was with a group trying to sell food products to the little island paradise. He came away very impressed with the loveable little dictator, and Hansen has come away very impressed with Crawford’s account. This was easily my favorite part:
"I had assumed when I got to know Bill Clinton," Crawford said, "that I'd never meet anyone else that brilliant and that charismatic, but I was wrong."
Yep, Castro is a thuggish tyrant, but hey, give him points for intellect.
Also get a load of this passage:
The kid who lay in bed at night wondering whether the end was near spent an entire day with Fidel Castro.
"For anyone my age who watched those events [Cuban Missile Crisis]," Crawford said, "it was hard to believe I was really sitting with him, discussing them."
Did you tell him how he scared the hell out of you?
"No, but I wish I'd thought of that."
And why didn’t you think to ask him about all the political prisoners rotting in Cuban prisons, why Cuba’s economy is in the crapper, or why so many Cubans are willing to jump into milk crates to try to make the 90 mile trip to Florida?
Crawford doesn't want to get into the good and bad of life in Cuba. He wasn't there to make moral pronouncements on Castro or his country. He was there to help his clients make a buck.
Oh. Well that makes it okay then. Of course, no paean to the great leader would be complete without this sentence:
The meeting wasn't only about chickens and eggs, though. It was about many things, including Castro's two great passions, medicine (specifically the war against AIDS) and the importance of education.
Typical leftist claptrap. Castro’s okay because he’s concerned about health-care and education, the implication being that such concerns make him better than most American leaders.
Here’s one last passage:
Among other things, Crawford also learned that Castro:
Wears black Reeboks with his crisp green military fatigues. Stays up all night. Exercises at least once a day. Sticks mostly to a vegetarian diet.
While everyone was digging into cheesecake, Castro ate yogurt made from water buffalo milk. Almost sounds like an idea for a TV commercial. Maybe someday.
If you want to read more, just click on the link above. That’s all I’m going to print here, as I need to go throw up now. And one last thing. Here’s Marc Hansen’s email if you’re inclined to send him a little note: mahansen@dmreg.com
. . .
REGISTER QUESTIONS BUSH, BUT NOT OTHER LEADERS
This editorial in the Des Moines Register questions why "no other country" perceives a threat from Iraq. Actually, Britain does, and thus far has supported the Bush Administration. But that isn’t the only stupid thing in this editorial.
Consider the four countries that the Register uses as examples of nations opposed to a war with Iraq: China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Germany. Of those four, how many are real democracies? Germany is the only clear one. So why should the U.S. care what they think? The only reason the Register cares is because they oppose the war with Iraq.
And there are other explanations for why many of these countries oppose a war with Iraq other than they "perceive no threat." China and Germany have business interests with Iraq—as do many other European countries. The leaders of Saudi Arabia and Egypt worry that a U.S. invasion of Iraq might lead to actual democracy in Iraq. And that could give their own citizens funny ideas about regime change in their own countries.
The Register has no hesitation in questioning the Bush Administration’s desire to invade Iraq. But it takes the opposition of leaders of other nations at face value.
. . .
A GLIMMER OF HOPE? NOT !
The Des Moines Register opposes Governor Vilsack’s proposal to pay the interest on the college loans of students at Iowa’s universities. It would apply to those students willing to remain in Iowa, and would costs the state $40 million a year.
But just when I think the Register editorial writers might be getting it right, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:
Besides, the best strategy for retaining young Iowans is to offer high-paying jobs and diverse recreational opportunities. The $40 million could go a long way in pursuing those ventures.
Yep, it’s the job of government to provide good-paying jobs. Sigh….
. . .
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: CLEVELAND BLOGGER BASH, PART II
Okay, today I finish recounting my experiences at Blogger Bash by talking about some of the gents that I met. I don't have a lot of wild stories to relate since I went to lie down around 1:30am Sunday morning and promptly fell asleep. Thus, I missed many of the more rambunctious happenings. On the upside, I stayed out of trouble. Anyway:
When I awoke Saturday morning I encountered Marc Weisblott, who does Wiesblogg. He is quite funny, and also a glutton for punishment. I know this because he rode Greyhound from Toronto to Cleveland.
Then there is Doug Dever and his friends who operate the very witty "Get A Clue" blog. They brought the keg, which contained good beer. Some very good beer. Some very, very good beer. Some….okay, you get the idea. Doug appears to have the gift of gab. One thing for sure, listening to him was never boring. I should also mention his very kind friends, Dave and, I think, John. If I’ve got that last one wrong, please forgive me. Or email me and I will be happy to correct it. You can see a picture of Doug here at Moxie’s website (scroll down.) He’s the one patting Moxie’s back. Doug, you stud-muffin!!!
I also chatted briefly with Chas Rich, who writes Sardonic Views, and John Scalzi, whose website is his namesake. Sardonic Views looks to be a blog with a fcous on Pennsylvania matters. Wonder if the site stats are as lame as mine. I hope not, cause Chas is a nice guy who surely deserves lots of hits on his site. Same goes for Scalzi. Although when I first visited Scalzi’s website, I encountered this post. Too bad, John. Jeb is going to be President come 2009.
Finally, I encountered a fellow policy-wonk in Caleb Brown. Caleb is finishing up a degree in economics. I wish him well. He also told me that my site has inspired a baby-blog called "Kentucky." Oh, I am such a proud papa! (But giving birth…I mean, those labor pains! What a B-I-….)
Let me finish by reiterating what I said yesterday. I can’t remember the last time I met so many fun, nice people. Lucky for me, both Eric and Dawn have told me that I am welcome anytime at their house. That is something that makes me want to count my blessings. In fact, I’m going to go do that right now.
UPDATE: Marc Wiesblott has emailed me to say that Doug's other friend is Chuck, not John. Sorry about that. And thanks Marc.
. . .
MICHAEL KELLY, MAKING MY JOB EASIER
I was going to comment on this pompous, blowhard editorial in the Des Moines Register today that approves of a recent ruling by the 6h Circuit Court of Appeals declaring secret deportation hearings unconstitutional. But Michael Kelly has already taken down the Court's reasoning, doing a far better job than I could ever hope to do. So read the Register, read Kelly, and compare the two. I suspect you’ll come away thinking that the Register can’t see the forest for the trees, as usual.
. . .
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: CLEVELAND BLOGGER BASH, PART I
The Cleveland Blogger Bash of August 24-25 was a smashing success. A lot of fun, and a lot of nice people. Many of those I have now included in my blog roll under "Cleveland Blogger Bash."
Eric, my man, you know how to throw a party. It looks like you are taking some time off of blogging. I’m sure it is well deserved. We’ll be eagerly waiting your return.
Eric has a lovely family. His daughter Kristen is as beautiful and sweet as everyone was telling me she was. His son, Chris, has a lot going on upstairs. While I was there, his step-mom asked him to vacuum. He said okay. When I told him that, as a male of the species, he was supposed to put up resistance when a female of the species asks him to do a household chore, he said that he’d said okay because he was leaving in a little while. Very smart young lad.
And then there is Eric’s two-year-old daughter, Lilly. Angelic is a good word to describe her. Sweet face, silver-blonde hair, and a barrel of fun. There is a picture of her here (she is the small one.)
Of course, I can’t forget his lovely wife Dawn, who greeted me at the door when I arrived late Friday evening—and I do mean "late," as in 2:30 am Saturday morning. She was a gracious hostess. She is also very sassy. Don’t give her any crap, or it will come right back at you and then some.
Also greeting me on arrival was Sulizano who writes the blog "Get Your Drawers On." A very interesting blog. A mix of personal stuff laced with commentary on social phenomena like home schooling. Of course, an interesting blog comes from an interesting person, and Sulizano is that. She is a charming Southern lady—currently resides in Hunstville, Alabama—and one helluva cook! (And I’m not going to relate what happened when she tried to have us photographed together; I’ll leave that to her; I’m just too darn bashful.) She will have more pictures of the party posted tomorrow. Depending on how incriminating they are, I may link to them.
Other women folk I encountered while there included Moxie. A very sexy L.A. woman who said she go home with me if I lived anywhere but Iowa. I knew living in this state was having a dampening effect on my social life! Then there is Sassafrass. Talk about smart and well traveled! This woman knows more than one language, including German and, if memory serves me correctly, Arabic. She’s also lived in L.A., Washington, D.C., and—YeGods!—Nicaragua. She considers herself a left-wing military historian. I consider her one of the nicest people I have met in my 32 years. She even went out of her way to try to hook me up with Moxie. Guess cornfields just don’t do it for some girls. Oh well, thanks for the effort Sass. Finally, I met Dawn’s mom, Leslie. A lovely woman. Dawn has revealed on her webiste that her mom has had some troubles as of late. Thankfully, she now seems to be over them.
The consensus among the women is that I’m much more lively than my blog lets on. They suggested that I post more personal stuff, perhaps even nude pictures of myself. I’ve actually thought about that as a possible money maker. I could get people to pay me to NOT see my website. ("Here’s a check for fifty bucks! Please don’t ever send me that link again!") Thanks for the advice, but not much personal stuff is going to make it on to Cornfield. When you live in a world of abstraction, like I usually do, you just aren’t comfortable enough with your feelings to post them online.
Well, I'm only about half way through my description of Blogger Bash. Tomorrow I will talk about all the gents I met. Let me just conclude this one by saying that I can't remember that last time I met so many nice, fun people. Makes me want to move to Cleveland. If I did that, I wonder if Moxie would....oh, never mind.
. . .
BUDGET CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?
This article in the Des Moines Register lays out Vilsack’s new plans to spend more money on higher education. This is both amusing and sad. Amusing in that because of Vilsack’s mismanagement, the state is running a little short of money. Sad in that because he’s locked in a fierce reelection battle, Vilsack has to resort to that old Democrat standby: Spend, Spend, Spend.
. . .
SOME GOOD LINES
Rob Borsellino has some good lines in his most recent column in the Des Moines Register. This one I like:
The Iowa angle: Congressman Bob Barr - the right-wing fanatic thrown off the GOP ballot by Georgia voters last week - was born in Iowa City. And Congressman David Bonior - the left-wing wacko who lost the Democratic race for Michigan governor - was on the U of I football team in the mid-"60s. Come January they'll probably be facing each other on a weekly cable show.
This one annoys me, but it is still good:
One of the late-night TV lines on the president's economic policy: "Can George W. Bush turn around the U.S. economy? He already did." I hear that, and I'm wondering if Doug Gross got in Bush's face out at the State Fair and asked: "George, where did all our money go?" Maybe just for laughs.
. . .
NEA AND 9/11
Many commentators have fired away at the National Education Association’s stupid suggestions on how partens and teachers should explain September 11 to their children. The best I’ve seen is George Will, in Sunday’s Washington Post. This is easily the sharpest passage:
The NEA says the lessons to be learned from the terrorist attacks are: "Appreciating and getting along with people of diverse backgrounds and cultures, the importance of anger management and global awareness." Let's see. Some seriously angry people murder almost 3,000 people in America and Americans need to work on managing their anger? And on getting along with others? Did little Mohamed Atta's report card in third grade say he "plays well with others"?
. . .
LOUIS LOVES MOHMMAR
Croooow Blog has this truly disturbing bit from Donahue’s interview with Louis Farrakhan.
. . .
Monday, August 26, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: A DEFENSE OF PSEUDONYMOUS BLOGGING
I’ve read with interest some the exchanges over the phenomenon of pseudonymous blogging—the act of making one’s opinions public while keeping the name private—between the likes of Steven Den Beste, Glenn Reynolds, and others. I didn’t think I’d write on this until Den Beste’s post inspired Zonitics (done by the pseudonym Ed Boyd) to discontinue blogging. Boyd’s decision bothered me because he was the reason I got into blogging. I stumbled across his site through Andrew Sullivan, and seeing that there was a blog dedicated to Arizona politics, I decided to create my own little blogging niche dedicated to Iowa politics. (And by the looks of my site stats, it is indeed little.)
The criticism of pseudonymous blogging as I understand it is that such bloggers are willing to state their opinions in a public forum but lack the courage to reveal their names to the public. As Den Beste said of pseudonymous blogger Demosthenes:
That's his choice, of course. but there's a price to be paid for it. It also affects how his readers view him. Consider the practical effect of this decision. What he's saying amounts to this:
I, Demosthenes, have certain strongly-held opinions about the current crisis which I think are important, and I advocate certain political positions. I write about them here in hopes that American citizens will read what I write, be persuaded by what I say, publicly embrace those opinions, and in turn attempt to influence the government of the United States to carry out those policies.
I, myself, do not admit to holding those opinions to those around me because I'm afraid of the consequences. But I believe that American voters should do what I say, not what I do, and they should publicly embrace the opinions that I myself fear to admit to in my own name.
They should be courageous and take chances based on my writings, even though I'm not willing to. They should risk social censure, even though I do not.
Reynolds also makes note of Jeff Goldstein (Protein Wisdom), a conservative professor in a Humanities Department:
Jeff Goldstein, an untenured professor of the humanities, is a right-blogger who probably ought to be pseudonymous, but isn't. So what gives?
Perhaps there is no problem for Goldstein. He may be one of those fortunate conservative academics who is in a department of left-wingers who put professionalism ahead of politics. They may be willing to judge Goldstein on his academic abilities, rather than his ideology. (Such departments do exist in academia, believe it or not.)
But even if Goldstein is putting his job at risk by using his real name, it’s not clear to me that others necessarily have to do the same. It is true that pseudonymous bloggers are not as gutsy as Goldstein, but a lack of courage equal to that of Goldstein’s does not morally disqualify one from expressing his or her opinions publicly.
I don’t think we can expect everyone who feels the need to share an opinion publicly to be willing to risk professional or personal difficulties. Not everyone has the moxy to tell those who would censure someone professionally or personally where to put it. Perhaps they can’t afford the financial hardships; perhaps their friends and family are too important.
A critic might reasonably respond that a writer should have to make a choice. If job, family or friends are that important, then they should not express their opinions publicly. But to demand that everyone adhere to that would deprive our society of the benefits that come from pseudonymous writing.
Consider "X." Who? You know, the author of the Foreign Affairs article in 1947 who influenced foreign policy by saying that the United States should follow a policy of containment against the Soviet Union. We now know him as George Kennan. At the time however, his job at the State Department made pseudonymous authorship a near necessity. If the world had held the above-mentioned rule to pseudonymous writing, Kennan’s article might never have been published. Is the world a better or worse place because the U.S. contained the Soviet Union? If you answer worse, I’ll assume that your recent electoral habits include voting for Gus Savage.
Most pseudonymous writers, of course, will never have the impact of a Kennan. But they still offer a lot of small positive benefits. Take Ed Boyd. I stumbled across him because Andrew Sullivan cited some research on media bias he had done in response to Geoffrey Nunberg. Are we better or worse off without such a give and take? The research that Boyd provided, in my opinion, better enables us to evaluate charges of media bias, a much discussed topic on the blogospehere.
Or take lefty blogger Hesiod Theogony. Although I could do without some of his more ad hominem remarks, he still makes cogent points about the war with Iraq. He forces me think even harder and more carefully about my position on a potential war with Iraq. I’ll bet he has a similar effect on other right-wing bloggers.
One might respond that all of the above benefits could just have easily come from writers using their own names. But they didn’t. It is quite possible that we would miss out on some important opinions, research and intellectual challenges without some people writing under pseudonyms. Given those benefits, it would be unwise to demand that bloggers use their real names or stop blogging.
Next, let’s consider one of Den Beste’s criticisms of Demosthenes. Is Demosthenes really asking "us all to publicly embrace his opinions"? Or is he perhaps attempting to influence the way people in America vote? This is a crucial difference, because if it is the latter, then he’s not really asking anyone to do anything that he is unwilling to do. Voting in America is, at its root, a private act. That is, once you are in the voting booth, no one has to know who you are pulling the lever for. It is forbidden by law for anyone to look over your shoulder. In some quarters it is even considered rude to ask someone whom he voted for. In other words, if Demosthenes simply wants people to consider his opinion and then vote based on it, the he’s not asking a moral hypocrite.
This leads me to my last point. Healthy societies are by and large open societies, but they must be balanced with some privacy. Voting is a case in point: Democratic governance requires mostly public acts, like debates, campaigns, freedom of information, open hearings, etc. But to function properly, some parts, like voting, must be done privately. If voting was not private, it would be ripe for intimidation and all sorts of abuse, and the free choice that is crucial to voting would not exist.
Thus, if an open society needs some privacy to function properly, does that mean pseudonymous writing is morally justified? To be honest, I haven’t fully wrapped my mind around that question, but the fact that pseudonymous writing does have its benefits suggests that a good case can be made. I’ll end this post with that question, in the hopes that it will provide fodder for debate in the blogospehere.
UPDATE: Bill Quick has linked with a few comments of his own. Well worth a read, so go take a look.
. . .
DES MOINES REGISTER OPPOSES WAR WITH IRAQ
A while back I suggested that the Register editorial page was getting ready to oppose the war with Iraq. Now it’s official. This editorial states:
In the absence of credible evidence that Iraq is about to unleash weapons of mass destruction, a policy of containment might eventually bring [Saddam] down without resort to war.
Well, that pretty much sinks it. Since Hussein isn’t about to unleash weapons of destruction there is no good reason to go to war, according to the Register.
I’m going to address some of the concerns in the editorial later in the week when I respond to some of Hesiod Theogony’s arguments. For now it will suffice to say that I was dead right on where the Register was going.
. . .
AND WHILE I’M ON THE SUBJECT OF THE REGISTER….
There is a general atmosphere of cluelessness on the Register editorial page, but every so often the folks there really outdo themselves. This editorial criticizes Bush’s new plan to let loggers thin forests to reduce the danger of fires. It states:
…. environmentalists argue Bush's plan is just a gift to the logging industry. Protesters in Oregon held up signs that said "Bush is a timber puppet." One forest-policy specialist called the proposal a"smokescreen" that "exploits the fear of fires in order to gut environmental protections and boost commercial logging." A spokesman for the Sierra Club called Bush's plan a "charade" that would "open the door to runaway logging." Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington said the Bush administration is "interested not so much in streamlining the process, but in streamlining the ability of their special-interest friends to take a national asset and turn it into private profit."
Environmentalists agree on the need to clear flammable debris and small trees, but they fear opening the forests to logging will go far beyond that. Logging companies would probably only agree to clear brush and small trees if they could also take older, large trees as well. That's where the profit is.
Then the Register follows that up with these lines:
That is a reasonable fear. The loggers whom Bush consulted are not a source of objective advice in preventing forest fires.
And the folks that the Register just quoted are Objectivity Incorporated, aren’t they? I can only hope that some day the folks who write this stuff get a whiff of what they are shoveling.
. . .
|
. . .
|
