A new Bush commercial has a crowd shot of soldiers, and in that shot, some of those soldiers appear several times. As the Bush campaign admits, the shot was doctored for effect.
The head of Bush's ad team took the blame "technically" but then tried to shove the blame off to an overzealous, unnamed underling with too much initiative.
Now that they've been caught, they're going to recut the ad.
Via TalkLeft.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
Our government thinks Iraqi dead don't count. The Iraqi government counts them, but won't release the figures. Thankfully, somebody cares about finding the true cost of our invasion of Iraq.
A new study, published in the international medical journal, the Lancet, reports that, Iraqi "[m]aking conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq." The study is available online after free registration. Or you can check the Independent's writeup on it.
Interestingly, two-thirds of the deaths are clustered in Falluja, which shows how mishandling the Falluja situation has been perhaps the biggest mistake of the invasion.
How many Iraqis can we kill to protect a few thousand Americans from the threat of terror? Apparently, we value Iraqi lives at about 1% the value of American lives. Gotta love American nationalism.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
India observations from Marginal Revolution's Tyler Cowen:
Biggest surprise about food in India: How much it draws on Chinese influences, even at the regional level. There is even a uniquely Indian version of Chinese food, which is derived from adding Indian spices and peppers to basically Cantonese dishes.
I can't wait for somebody to bring that taste to NY. The global economy can save New York from the bland fusion food that currently reigns here. Why must every restaurant re-invent food in the exact same way? Blech.
Oh, and file this observation under "Funny 'cause it's true":
Favorite Indian joke about the Chinese: How do we know that Adam and Eve were not Chinese? Because they ate the apple, not the snake.
Rudy Giuliani, so famous for standing shoulder to shoulder with cops when they gun down innocent, unarmed men, blames our troops for the missing explosives:
The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Via Dean Esmay, comes news of a Club For Growth ad that blames the flu vaccine shortage on trial lawyers. They say that costly law suits "helped" close six of the seven domestic vaccine manufacturers, forcing America to depend on undependable foreign vaccine suppliers.
For another, less simplistic, explanation of the vaccine shortage, see Marginal Revolution's post on the governmental forces that squeezed out vaccine suppliers. And if this stuff interests you, read their post on the long view of vaccine supply.
Update: yet another take on the shortage.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
President Bush is talking out both sides of his mouth. Or maybe from another orifice entirely.
Here's how Bush spent Tuesday morning: He appeared on Good Morning America and told Charles Gibson that he's ok with civil unions and that the federal government should let states make up their own minds on the marriage discrimination issue. He now claims he's against marriage, but he's ok with civil unions and equal rights.
And here's how he spent Monday afternoon: He stood on a stage with Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, praising her and promising to "protect marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society". Musgrave is best known as the author of the Musgrave amendment, which both she and Bush want to insert into the Constitution. Her current campaign is dominated by discussion of the amendment. Here's what the Musgrave amendment says:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
This amendment would prevent states from making their own decisions on marriage discrimination. This amendment would ban civil unions. This amendment would ban equal rights of any kind.
Bush flip flops like a dying fish on this issue, trying to have it both ways. He wants to appeal to the bigots in his party, but he knows discrimination is not a value that most of America can stomach. It's shameful pandering, and I'll be happy to see it end next week.
Polis | 12 Writebacks | #
The New Yorker has endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time in 80 years, and their choice is Kerry.
This is laughable. For anybody that reads the New Yorker even semi-regularly, their unabashed hatred of Bush has been obvious in every political column they print. They call out the president on every manipulatoin and distortion and lie. They run fawning pieces on Democratic do-gooders and nightmare scenarios of doomsday in Iraq. They openly mock the president at every chance and turn.
The explicit endorsement is remarkable for its honesty and not much else.
Via TalkLeft.
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
The latest Get Your War On reacts to America gifting explosives to the enemy. It is teh funny.
Meanwhile, Americablog tells us that 380 tons of explosives is 760,000 pounds of explosives. Americablog also tells us that this is the same stuff that was used to blow up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, so we definitely know terrorists might find the explosives useful. How useful? Well, blowing up flight 103 took just one pound.
Is Bush's criminal incompetence in Iraq a war crime?
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
From casualties to cash, the Bush administration continues to hide the war costs from the world. If the war were just and necessary, we would count the costs as noble sacrifice.
Polis | 5 Writebacks | #
A contractor says the mayor of Stamford used his power to get cheap work done on his house. He claims the mayor's brother promised him $80,000 in back-tax relief in exchange for knocking $10K of the renovation bill. Whether any promises were made, no tax relief was provided, so either the mayor can't be bought or he doesn't stay bought.
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
Americablog speculates on the danger of Rhenquist's death or incapacitation. He says that a contested election would result in a 4-4 supreme court and wonders "what would the nation do in the event of a contested election with no Supreme Court able to break the deadlock?"
Happilly, this isn't a danger at all. The Court, like most, has an odd number of justices, but this isn't necessary. In the event of a tie, the lower court decision stands. So if Kerry wins at the appellate level, a 4-4 court would mean Kerry wins at the Supreme Court level. For Bush to win, he would need to take it 6-2 5-3.
I would hope, though, that if we revisit Bush v. Gore, the Court manages to collect themselves enough to deliver a unanimous opinion. Bush v. Gore was a disgrace, no matter which candidate you sided with.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
TalkLeft rags on Bush for inflating his resume. Bush claims to have developed his compassionate conservatism while he was helping to run Project P.U.L.L., an inner-city program for troubled teens. Bush claims the head of the program, John White, asked him to take the position.
Needless to say, Bush's spin is not the whole story:
But White's administrative assistant and others associated with P.U.L.L., speaking on the record for the first time, say Bush was not helping to run the program and White had not asked Bush to come aboard. Instead, the associates said, White told them he agreed to take Bush on as a favor to Bush's father, who was honorary co-chairman of the program at the time, and Bush was unpaid. They say White told them Bush had gotten into some kind of trouble but White never gave them specifics.
"We didn't know what kind of trouble he'd been in, only that he'd done something that required him to put in the time," said Althia Turner, White's administrative assistant.
"John said he was doing a favor for George's father because an arrangement had to be made for the son to be there," said Willie Frazier, also a former player for the Houston Oilers and a P.U.L.L. summer volunteer in 1973.
TalkLeft doesn't say it, but it's obvious from this account that Bush was satisfying some sort of community service requirement. It sounds like the young Bush got in some trouble and Project P.U.L.L. was his way out. Perhaps this is related to the drunk-driving conviction rumors that swirled around in 2000.
Can you believe this is the guy that calls Kerry dishonest?
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
We've noted before that life for Iraqi cops isn't easy. Apparently, it's only getting worse. Rebels dressed as cops attacked 49 off-duty cops, laid them down in the street, and shot them.
WaPo asked the common man on the street in Baghdad for reactions to the cop massacre. One guy blamed Jews. His reasoning went like this: the cops serve their country, therefore no Iraqi would harm them. Therefore they were harmed by people from other countries. Therefore... JEWS! These are the great and gentle people we have freed from tyranny, a nation seeped in casual and pervasive bigotry.
The next guy Wapo spoke to blamed the victims.
[S]ometimes I think they don't behave well with the people. A few days ago, they came and raided the nearby husseiniya. They were really impolite with the people. So maybe there are some people who lost their son, friend, brother or any relative because of them, so they ambushed and killed them.
But he must be crazy, because Bush tells us there's no such thing as blowback. He also tells us that the sceurity situation in Iraq is improving daily.
Polis | 5 Writebacks | #
We invaded to disarm Iraq, to take from its government the dangerous weapons that could some day be turned against us. All this time, we've been carping that Iraq didn't really have anything dangerous and that we didn't accomplish this goal. Well, it turns out, Iraq did have a bunch of dangerous stuff and Iraq was disarmed right after we invaded.
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
When Rumsfeld et al. said they would give Guantanamo prisoners fair trials, most sane people laughed. We are not so stupid as to believe these men will get anything even approaching a fair trial.
And the early reports rewarded our cynicism. Defense counsel assigned to Guantanamo were understaffed, couldn't meet with their own clients, and complained loud and long about how the process was designed to seek convictions rather than truth. In Guantanamo, everybody not in shackles felt the prisoners were guilty.
But then I read this New York Times piece, which tells us that several of the biased triers of fact have been booted. And my faith was momentarily lifted. Could it be, I thought, that somebody down there is actually concerned with giving prisoners fair trials? Might there be some true Americans down there?
And I was happy. Mind you, a little late attention to process fairness is not the same as according these prisoners fair speedy trials in actual courts of laws with real rules and a process designed to minimize mistakes. No, giving these guys the same presumptions and rights we accord the common American criminal would surely be too good for them. Still, I am a soft touch, and I was happy.
Then I read this. And my faith was restored to its previous, dreary levels.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
For those that think the West Side development stuff is stalled: think again.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Lean Left's tgirsch hauls off and tells Yankee fans to cry him a river. Apparently Yank fans don't understand pain. He would love his team (the Brewers) to have such problems as a four-year ring drought. All Yankee fans are to him fair-weather fans.
It's true that everybody loves a winner. And Yank fans love to see their team win. And we're spoiled by the constant winning. But most of us have been here since way before 1996, and most of us will be here long after Torre is mismanaging games for Tampa Bay.
Remember the Yankees of the 1980s? Hell, remember the 1990 Yankees? Their best starter won 9 games and nobody had an ERA under 4. Leary posted their best and worst numbers, htting batters and tossing the ball like he was aiming for the dugout. Their best hitter (Roberto Kelley) batted .285. They won 67 games and came 5 short of losing 100. Even Mattingly, the iconic Yankee of that era was down with the back problems that would prematurely end his playing career. We stuck with the Yanks then and we'll stick with the Yanksnow, but there's nothing fair-weather about Yanks fans.
No matter how many rings and flags the Yanks have, you always want your team to play to their potential and to go all the way. Past success does not soften the blow of seeing your team fall apart and fail to execute when it counts most. The problem wasn't just that they played poorly. The problem was that they could have done better. And should have.
Yankee fans have trudged through the valleys and to pretend we're spoiled brats for bemoaning our team blowing a three-game lead in the ALCS holds us to a ridiculously high standard.
Steve Landsburg, over at Marginal Revolution, has a post about coordinating game theory in a quantum world. Imagine you and a partner are trying to coordinate your answers to some questions. You don't know what you'll be asked before hand. All you know is the potential questions and which combinations of answers will win and which will lose.
Landsburg says that in a world governed by classical physics, you can devise a strategy before hearing the questions. The strategy will let you win 75% of the time.
But if you and your buddy each had some sort of quantum widget, you could use it to instantly react to what your buddy answers. And you could be win as often as 85% of the time. Landsburg says this shows "game theory changes dramatically when players have access to quantum technology". I say it looks a lot like cheating, and if you're going to cheat, you should skip the widgets and just whisper the answers to each other. Why stop at 85% when you can get 100% and don't need to learn any physics?
Joking aside, fancy quantum widgets that instantly react to each other across distances sound awfully useful, but I don't understand how they are more useful than any other communication link.
John Kerry is piling up the endorsements:
- Big, important newspapers!
- Little Texas newspapers!
- Stoned slackers!
- Hawkish bloggers!
- Republicanish politicians!
Who cares?! Do endorsements from publications or public figures matter? I've yet to meet the person that has been swayed by the NY Times endorsing a candidate. Some endorsements come with resources (i.e. union endorsements), and those are important, but nobody is going to vote for Kerry just because Chuck Schumer told them to.
Polis | 8 Writebacks | #
The 9th Circuit has decided that confining protestors in cages ad not letting them protest outside those cages violates the 1st Amendment, even if you call those cages "free speech zones". Chalk one up for the good guys.
While the case is a victory, it's not as useful as you might think. Most of us became a little too intimate with such pens while protesting the war on Iraq, but this case was brought by animal rights activists protesting circuses and rodeos.
The small number of protestors and the small crowds attending such events gave the lie to official excuses involving traffic flow and safety. Massive war protests involving several hundred thousand people are a different situation, one that does raise legitimate safety concerns. Those concerns will be used by our government to confine us, and the courts will probably look the other way.
Via TalkLeft.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Squidgy beats! Waterfall rhythms! Loungephonical delight! I <3 Q-Burns Abstarct Message and I'm all a-flutter because you can flash stream his new album for free. The album is great and the physical media is only $13. Go listen.
Even better, this guy is a musical slut. Punch his name into your fave P2P music theft device and you'll get tons of compilations with just one QBAM song. Usually the other artists are worth downloading too. And they're albums are worth peeping. Pull the QBAM thread and you just might snag a new tapestry of chill electronic happiness.
I usually don't like Boing Boing's music recommendations, but I have to thank them for the tip. My ears are happy.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Iraq has barred it's Health Ministry from releasing Iraqi casualty figures and is instead only giving partial (i.e. spun) figures through a different (i.e. more political) office. The NYTimes says they are doing this to "streamline the relase of figures", which is a fancy way of saying they're releasing less information. The other reason for the switch: "It's a political issue,"
Don't let it be said that America has nothing to teach Iraq. Our government is media savvy enough to refuse to collect or release casualty data when that data reflects poorly on the administration. The new Iraqi government was naive enough to think that data was meaningful and worth disseminating. Now that they've wisened up, it's good to see how much Iraq is learning about Democracy from the country that invented it.
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
In an article entitled, "Help I'm Stoned, Who Should I Vote For?", High Times gives the short answer (Kerry) and then the long rant on why he won't be such an asshole.
The magazine's reasons for endorsing Kerry are a little wierd. First, it's obvious they just don't like Bush (Iraq, etc.), but their best evidence that Kerry will be more honest on the drug war is that he headed an Iran Contra investigation to expose CIA involvement in narcoterrorism. Apparently this shows that Kerry "wasn't afraid to take on the dirty dealers who run our nation's corrupt Drug War."
It's hilarious that the editors at High Times can't find a single more recent Kerry accomplishment on fighting the drug war. And really, how much courage did it take to expose Reagan's illegal arms-for-hostages scheme? Kerry did the right thing, but it's not like other Democrats were scrambling to cover up the scandal.
High Times concludes by telling us that "Kerry has promised to end the raids on medical marijuana gardens" (which is true) and that he "will have a policy towards marijuana and other drugs that makes sense" (which is false).
I don't think I've ever read High Times before. It makes me really happy that my first exposure confirms the impression I've always had of them as a bunch of stoned slackers eating chips and watching the John Stewart Show.
If you hate the drug war and want some better reasons to vote for Kerry, check out Drug War Rant's endorsement.
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
When the Yankees went up 3-0 on the Sox, I figured this year they wouldn't cause me so much anxiety. They just have to take 1 of the next four. No team has ever failed to do that in the playoffs.
Then the Sox won the next two and now it's anybody's game. I don't care that nobody has ever come back to win four straight after dropping the first three. The Sox are no longer faced with that challenge. They've already won two and now they merely have to win two in a row in the Bronx. Sure that's a daunting task, but they're capable of it. In fact, they've done it as recently as last month.
So now I'm all anxious, worried about this series going extra innings in game seven with Ortiz at the plate.'
My original prediction was Yanks in 6. I stick by it and look forward to seeing them win tonight. I hope.
Polis | 5 Writebacks | #
Tonight is MTV's Choose or Lose special on the drug war. They'll compare Bush to Kerry and hopefully provide some ducmentation to their claim that "drugs kill about 17,000 Americans per year". I didn't know MTV was still rocking the vote. I wonder what Tabitha Soren is up to these days. I also wonder what percentage of MTV's viewership is old enough to vote.
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
Anybody surprised that America has applied harsh and inhumane tactics in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay?
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Drug War Rant compares Bush to Kerry on the drug war. It's Kerry all the way. Struggling to find something nice to say about Bush, the best the Rant can come up with is that Bush is so ridiculously over the line that he helps recruit people to fight the drug war.
Then the Rant compares Kerry to the libertarian candidate, what's-his-name, and finds Kerry lacking. It's a really long post. Here's the version fo people on Ritalin: Bush is bad, Kerry worse, so vote libertarian in safe states and Kerry everywhere else.
Polis | 10 Writebacks | #
Everybody knows that the Government Accounting Office made a list of 1049 laws that discriminate against unmarried people. Here's one woman's account of how some of those instances of legal discrimination impact her life:
After being in a romantic partnership for almost eight years, after living together for four years, after jointly purchasing property, sharing bills and income, after having a ceremony during which we publicly declared our commitment to one another in front of all our friends and family, Terra and I are still denied 1,049 federal rights automatically granted to heterosexual, married couples.
Polis | 1 Writebacks | #
Ralph Nader is a stealth spoiler. In 2000, he attracted people to his campaign by giving them a voice. It was all about getting enough votes to make the Green party legit nationwide, to qualify for federal matching funds. He wasn't campaigning in swing states. He wasn't trying to derail the election.
And then, towards the end of the season, he changed his mind. He began to hit the swing states hard. In fact, he campaigned almost exclusively in swing states. Michael Moore, an early supporter, jumped ship and has since denounced Nader's misleading tactics. Michael Moore calling you a liar is like Keith Richards thinking you have a drinking problem.
Nader reached his goal. He got to play spoiler, which is almost as good as king maker. Maybe better if you're as bitter as he is. He thought swinging an election would force the Democrats to take him seriously, to listen to his ideas, to move leftward an co-opt him. But instead it just pissed them off.
Today, Nader is doing it again. He's angling to spoil Kerry's chances, and he's lying about it. Nader claims that Zogby polling shows he draws his support equally from both parties. But this is a lie. As Nader has been told by innumerable people, Zogby disagrees:
A spokeswoman for Zogby International, Shawnta Walcott, said that Zogby polls showed Mr. Nader drawing far more from Mr. Kerry. She said the polls, aggregated from March through last month, showed that if Mr. Nader was not an option, 41 percent of his supporters went to Mr. Kerry and 15 percent went to Mr. Bush. Thirty percent went elsewhere and 13 percent were undecided.
Nader draws support from Kerry supporters 2.5 to 1 over Bush supporters. When he says otherwise, he's lying so that people won't hate him if he swings another election.
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
Everybody is all hot and bothered over the O'Reilly sex suit. The Smoking Gun has the complaint and they opine:
Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies.
I have a friend that knows Mackris who says she does indeed have tape. Video tape. Can't wait to see it.
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
Maybe Curt Schilling hurt his ankle inserting his foot into his mouth. This is what he said before the game: "I'm not sure I can think of any scenario more enjoyable than making 55,000 people from New York shut up."
You gotta love it when a the Red Sox ace goes from champ to chump in just 3 innings. Oh, wait a second. The Sox haven't been champs since 1918. Make that "chimp to chump".
That said, any team that almost comes back from an 8-run deficit has some chops. Sox fans are rightly touting last night as a moral victory. For me, as long as the Yanks keep winning the pennant race, I'll gladly concede victories in the morals race.
It's gonna be a long series if these teams keep swapping momentum every few innings. I stand by my prediction: Yanks in 6.
Bush's tailor says it's just some bunched up fabric.
Is anybody else reminded of Larry David's Pants Tent?
Polis | 6 Writebacks | #
The AP ran a story about John Edwards talking tough on Meth. Edwards called for tougher restrictions and tracking on the consumer products that can be used to produce meth. He pledged to throw more money down the law enforcement hole.
You gotta love a politican with the balls to take a firm stand on meth, a menace so ferocious we need federal action to defeat it. Asshole.
You know what would take real courage? Standing up and defending meth. It's a good drug. It has its uses and benefits, along with its dangers and drawbacks. I will vote for any candidate that even tries to open a discussion of a proper place for drug use in normal life. I'll vote for any politician that doesn't frame drug use as a crime problem.
Via TalkLeft.
Polis | 5 Writebacks | #
TalkLeft blogs an AP story saying 66% of Brits, Aussies and Italians think the Iraq war has left them more vulnerable to terrorism. Those people agree with the 50% of Americans that see us as less safe since invading Iraq.
I don't think Iraq made me less safe. It maybe even made the world a little safer. In our post-invasion world, state sponsors of terror have to make extra sure they get the wink and nod from Washington before protecting terror groups.
But the question is not whether we've derived any benefits from invading Iraq. The question is whether those benefits are worth $200 billion and thousands of lives. The question is whether we could have gotten a lot more benefit from that money and those lives. Was invading Iraq the best way to make us safer from terrorism?
Update: Come to think of it, maybe the world is less safe now that we invaded Iraq.
Polis | 8 Writebacks | #
In a blatant attempt to pander to the lucrative but vision-challenged 50-75 age group, I've increased the font and narrowed the columns. You like? Anything else I should change?
If there are any other groups out there that think I'm not pandering to them enough, let me know. These things keep me up at night.
Update: Thanks for the feedback. Now the content is on the left, where it belongs. Dictatorship Democracy in action!
Drug War Rant reels off a list of reasons drug laws are bad:
- Drug laws Don't Work. In the 30 or so years of the intensified drug war, drug wars have failed to achieve any of their so-called goals.
- Drug laws have a Negative Cost-Benefit Analysis. There's simply no way to show that any benefits of the drug war could possibly outweigh the costs (both financial and societal).
- Drug laws are Scientifically Unsound. Drug laws assume that basic principles such as the economic laws of supply and demand will politely step out of the way.
- Drug laws use Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The laws' disproportionate penalties do far more harm than the drugs they attempt to prevent. It would be like forfeiting your car because the parking meter ran out five minutes ago.
- Drug laws are Contrary to our Nation's Principles. As Abraham Lincoln said, "A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded... Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."
- Drug laws Promote Lawlessness. Since almost half of the population has used an illegal drug, there is a tendency to hesitate in actively cooperating with enforcement personnel. Additionally, enforcement efforts aimed at drug laws take away from the focus on other crime.
- Drug laws Promote Dangerous Crime. The demand for drugs under prohibition creates a very profitable black market in the criminal realm. Increased prohibition efforts escalate related violence and other criminal activities.
- Drug laws Endanger the Public Health. The drug laws prevent safety, age and purity regulations, actually making drugs more dangerous.
Drug policy really is this simple. Anybody who tells you it's complex is obscuring the fact that drug policy is ineffective at its best and deadly at its worst..
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
We've waited all year for this showdown. It's the culmination of the greatest rivalry in baseball, if not in sports. Whoever wins, the World Series will be a letdown after watching the two best teams in baseball battle in the Bronx.
I'm a big Yankee fan, but let's not pretend the Red Sox aren't a threat this year. Schilling and Pedro are the best starting pair in baseball. ManRam and Ortiz are the best 3-4 hitters in baseball and rest of the linup can swing for the Green Monster every at-bat.
The Yankees, meanwhile, have question marks in their middle relef and their starting rotation. Kevin Brown's back is healthy, but only when compared to his hand. Lieber's back is fine, but only when compared to Brown's. Somebody let the lightning out of El Duque's bottle. And while Javy wasn't quite terrible in game 4 of the ALDS, he serves too many 0-2 meatballs when you consider he's not the Yankee nicknamed 'Chef'.
From the other side of the plate, the Yankees have a better 1-9, but the Manny-Ortiz one-two punch leaves you hoping for a double off the Green Monster rather than a homer over it. The Yankees's best hitter is Jason Giambi (whose two solo homers kept them in Game 7 of the ALCS last year), and not only is he no Manny, he's never going to leave the bench.
That said, the Yankees have six guys with more than 20 homers. Lieber in the Bronx is like Ali in Zaire. Brown is on the mend and looking to redeem himself. Gordon and Mo are the best setup and closer baseball has ever seen. And if Mystique and Aura don't win it for them, we can always count on Pedro running out of gas in the 8th inning of Game 7. Yanks in 7.
Some of the most outrageous documentaries on Bush fecklessness will never make it to the big screen. They won't even go directly to video. The only place you can see them is over at Information Clearinghouse. Here's some of the more interesting ones:
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
Recently, the Sixth Circuit ruled that NWA violated Funkadelic's copyright when they sampled a three-note guitar riff from "Get off Your Ass and Jam" for their song "100 Miles and Runnin'". The ruling eliminates fair use protections for de minimus musical copying and handcuffs the entire genre of non-commercial remix mashups.
To commemorate and protest the ruling, Michael Bell-Smith and Downhill Battle have created a website, 3 Notes and Runnin'. They've posted the sampled riff and have invited people to cut it up and put it back together. They're posting the best submissions on the site.
The submissions are all around thirty seconds and contain nothing but the riff. They vary in tone, tempo, style and flavor. Some are interesting and some less so, but together, they are quite a testament to the power of the remix in musical creation.
Downhill Battle also has a decent page on why sample rights matter.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
One thing Cheney and Edwards agreed on in their debate is that Iraqis should take over the policing of Iraq. There's a great piece in Slate that outlines how difficult and dangerous life can be for Iraqi cops.
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
Matthew Yglesias makes a good point about marriage. He says that no matter who wins in November, we will continue to slowly march toward greater equality.:
Substantive equality for gays and lesbians has advanced under four years of rigid Republican control (despite the intentions of our elected officials) because of . . . long term factors, and will continue to do so no matter who wins.
Matthew is right, of course. And the New Yorker backs him up:
One particularly striking CBS News/New York Times poll, taken last year, asked respondents if they would favor or oppose "a law that would allow homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples." Among adults under age thirty, 61 per cent said they would favor such a law and 35 per cent said they would oppose it; among sixty-five-year-olds and up, 18 per cent were in favor and 73 per cent opposed. The numbers vary from poll to poll, but the huge age gap is always there.
Old, homophobic voters slowly get replaced by young, liberal, and tolerant voters. Ideas modernize. Eventually it will be rather common wisdom that marriage discrimination is morally wrong.
This is why all the marriage haters are on the wrong side of history. This is why they're all going to look quite foolish down the line. The religious righters can have their Bull Connor moments. Their children's children will wince at their memory.
Polis | 9 Writebacks | #
Uncle took the bait and we landed a whale of a post. He starts with civil asset forfeiture and goes full tilt into a libertarian rant that includes a long list of the many injustices "our" government visits upon us every day. It's a rant worth reading, whether you love freedom or hate it. Maybe especially if you hate it.
Uncle condemns the pols for scaring us into distraction with terrorism and gay marriage while they nibble our rights into crumbs. But I get the feeling he would put most of the blame on us, not the pols. We elect them, we let them run us around in circles over nonsense. When Uncle writes, "They need you stupid. They need you compliant", the accussation is levelled at you, not them.
Polis | 9 Writebacks | #
The other night, Cheney got all post hoc ergo propter hoc when he said
One of the great by-products, for example, of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States, which he has done.
The notion that America flexing its muscle in Iraq convinced Qadafi to give up his weapons is simply untrue. Libya's nuclear disasmament was the end of a chain of diplomatic efforts begun in the late 90's by the Clinton administration.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
Come November, I'll be voting for Kerry (assuming I'm not busy and I can find a clothespin). Yeah, he kinda sucks. Yeah, he's got no spine. Yeah, I wish I could vote for Howard Dean. But Bush is the devil, so I'm a Kerry hater for Kerry and I'm not alone.
Polis | 10 Writebacks | #
All my friends talk about how John Kerry is going to be better than Bush on a range of issues. Kerry is no authoritarian meanie willing to trade our liberty for security. Well, there's one issue where that's exactly what he wants to do: civil asset forfeiture.
Asset forfeiture is a way for the government to take your property. Regardless of whether you've committed a crime, they can (and have!) seize cash, cars, houses, computers, and anything else whether they can carry it away or sell it on the spot. They can do this without convicting you of any crime. They can do this without even charging you with a crime!
If you want your property back, you have to sue the government to get it. And you'll lose. It's extremely difficult to win because you have the impossible burden of proving a negative-- i.e. that your property hasn't been even remotely involved in any criminal activity.
While you're hopelessly suing the government to get your stuff back, your local police will be auctioning it off and pocketing the money. Law enforcement agencies make money from seizing your property. Talk about perverse incentives! It's a recipe for corruption and just another way the drug war pits common citizens against the authoritarian police state.
What does Kerry think about such unconstitutional injustice? Well, in the mid-90's, the legislature debated asset forfeiture. Here's what the Media Awareness Project says about his position:
[Kerry] thought U.S. asset forfeiture laws were working so well that he wanted to export them. "We absolutely must push for asset forfeiture laws all over the planet," Kerry wrote in The New War. "In the words of one plain spoken lawman, 'Get their ass and get their assets.' "There was, tellingly, no discussion at all of civil liberties issues.
Kerry added that we can't reasonably expect another country "to assist us in our struggle with crime if it does not see direct benefit for itself, especially if it is among the countries with highly limited funds for law enforcement." It didn't seem to occur to Kerry that, without safeguards, countries "with highly limited funds" might go after the assets of innocent people or third parties with only a tangential relationship to the criminal.
Indeed, the only "dark and dangerous underside" of international forfeiture he identified was the possibility that criminals would give up assets in exchange for avoiding jail sentences. "We must ensure that asset forfeitures do not become a substitute for serving time," he wrote.
So there you have it. John Kerry hates freedom. Of course, as with most drug war issues, it doesn't matter which candidate you vote for. They're equally bad.
Polis | 13 Writebacks | #
Six reasons why Dick Cheney lost the debate:
- He voted against Meals on Wheels. What kind of asshole is against Meals on Wheels? Dick Cheney hates your grandma! And he voted against Head Start. Dick Cheney hates your children!
- He was asked what he would do about ultra-high rates of AIDS infection among black American woman. In his response, he babbled for a few minutes about how AIDS is bad, mmm'kay? Then he said he didn't know black women suffered disproportinately high AIDS infection rates. Anybody that gives two figs about AIDS is aware of this problem. You could see the moderator, a black woman, seething. Ah, but what the heck. The Bushies aren't courting the black vote. They're suppressing the black vote.
- He came off surly, angry, and unpleasant. He did seem well-informed and competent, but nobody likes to vote for an asshole whose heart is two sizes too small.
- Cheney rebutted all the Halliburton accusations by directing viewers to FactCheck.com, which he billed as an independant website that debunks all the sordid rumors. In doing so, he came off assured and hip to the new technology. Unfortunately, the independant website that tells people Halliburton is a red herring is FactCheck.ORG. The .com website redirects you to GeorgeSoros.com, where George Soros tells you all the reasons why Bush is a scumbag.
- Cheney never countered the attack that Bush is a flip-flopper.
- He lied about never having met Edwards before.
Five reasons why John Edwards lost the debate:
- Whenever he had to explain Kerry's confusing position on the Iraq war, he babbled. By now, you'd think he would have a coherent three-sentence paragraph that explains it all. But he doesn't, and that's telling.
- Edwards never really made the case for Kerry's Iraq plan. Training more Iraqis is cool, but that doesn't really explain how we're going to defeat the Iraqi rebels. Faster reconstruction is also cool, but Edwards doesn't tell us how Kerry is going to pull that off.
- He was asked what he would do about ultra-high rates of AIDS infection among black American woman. In his response, he babbled for a few minutes about how AIDS is bad, mmm'kay? He never once mentioned black women or what he would do to help them. After Cheney and Edwards gave their nonresponses, the moderator, a black woman, snapped, "We'll move on."
- Edwards never defended Kerry against charges that he's a flip-flopper.
- Edwards pretended to say a bunch of nice things about Mary Cheney, Dick's gay daughter. But really he said all those things to tell America that Cheney's daughter is a dyke and that Cheney is an asshole for relegating her to second-class citizenship. Edwards also babbled incomprehenisbly on the marriage issue. He is speaks with such clear, forthright and moral language on other issues, but when it comes to marriage, he can't make simple declarative sentences. This is because his position is morally reprehensible and he knows it.
Overall, I think Edwards ran away with this one. Edwards needed to make John Kerry look good. He knows nobody cares about him. And he did his job. He ignored all the attacks on him, his record, his experience and his honor. He responded to every one of them by attacking Bush/Cheney and bigging up John Kerry.
Cheney couldn't take Edwards's approach. He has too big a hand in the White House's dealings, and if people lose confidence in him, they lose confidence in the ticket. So Cheney had to defend both himself and Bush, which is twice as much lifting. On top of that, he didn't seem to realize that nobody cares about Edwards. He kept attacking Edwards and forgetting that the real target is Kerry.
Polis | 6 Writebacks | #