Category: America and the World
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Please note this brilliant Gerard Baker essay via the TimesOnline :
The US is a great place to be anti-American
"Al Gore...Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar and an Emmy...Michael Moore...[the] Dixie Chick[s]...Sean Penn...[Jimmy Carter]...Bill Clinton."
"It has always amused me that the same people who denounce America as a seething cesspit of blind obscurantist bigotry can’t see the irony that America itself produces its own best critics. When there’s a scab to be picked on the American body politic, no one does it with more loving attention, more rigorous focus on the detail, than Americans themselves."
"I can only laugh when I see the popular portrayal of George Bush’s America in much of the international media. Supposedly serious commentators will say, without evident irony, that free speech is under attack, that Bush’s wiretapping, Guantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence in the country’s proliferating crimes."
Read the entire piece here. I only wish I had written it. Thanks to Tocqueville for the heads-up.
The US is a great place to be anti-American
"Al Gore...Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar and an Emmy...Michael Moore...[the] Dixie Chick[s]...Sean Penn...[Jimmy Carter]...Bill Clinton."
"It has always amused me that the same people who denounce America as a seething cesspit of blind obscurantist bigotry can’t see the irony that America itself produces its own best critics. When there’s a scab to be picked on the American body politic, no one does it with more loving attention, more rigorous focus on the detail, than Americans themselves."
"I can only laugh when I see the popular portrayal of George Bush’s America in much of the international media. Supposedly serious commentators will say, without evident irony, that free speech is under attack, that Bush’s wiretapping, Guantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence in the country’s proliferating crimes."
Read the entire piece here. I only wish I had written it. Thanks to Tocqueville for the heads-up.
18/10: The Making of an Entitlement
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Congressional Budget Office--May 2007:
"The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to expand health insurance coverage to uninsured children in families with income that is modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid. SCHIP is financed jointly by the federal government and the states, and it is administered by the states within broad federal guidelines. Since the program’s inception, the Congress has provided nearly $40 billion for it. Approximately 6.6 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some time during 2006, as were about 670,000 adults through waivers of statutory provisions.
"Under current law, SCHIP is not authorized to continue beyond 2007, and the Congress is considering reauthorization of the program this year."
en•ti•tle•ment n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group.
According to the Heritage Foundation, SCHIP is not formally an entitlement; rather, SCHIP is a "capped spending program."
Perhaps Heritage is right in the most technical sense--but the recent debate proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SCHIP, in reality, has arrived as an "entitlement."
Congress appropriated $40 billion over the course of a decade to the joint state-federal program. Now the President wants to increase the outlay by $5 billion (perhaps "up to" $6 billion) over the next five years. The Democratic Congress has proposed and passed a bill that increases expenditures $35 billion over the same period.
Significantly, neither the President nor Republican leadership question the purpose or worthiness of the program.
From the WH website:
"President Bush believes that S-CHIP...should return to its original focus, which is helping those children in need. This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they need. President Bush calls on Congress to pass a responsible S-CHIP bill."
The question is no longer whether the government should provide health coverage for poor children; rather; how much should we expand the program? The President says 20 percent (maybe a little more). Democrats in Congress (and more than a handful of Republicans) say 140 percent.
Of course, it is worth noting that the mainstream media and the opposition have reported President Bush's plan for a modest expansion as callous indifference toward children at risk.
One caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning asserted health care as a fundamental right and observed, "this administration is always touting safety, but how can you be safe if you are not healthy."
Another caller demanded that President Bush bow to the will of the people on this issue. Polling indicates that a clear majority of Americans support the expansion as proposed by the Democratic Congress.
Others asked incredulously how this President can preside over a $600-billion war while he denies a paltry $30 billion for expanded healthcare for the children.
Kudos to President Bush for making a limited government stand--although he has not helped himself with his inability to articulate a coherent principled position. However, it is almost certain, at some point, the President and Democratic leadership will arrive at compromise. My guess is that the program will look a lot more like the Congressional plan than the White House version.
As I have said before, it is hard to argue against better healthcare for children. On the other hand, we should be clear about what has transpired during this session of Congress, another entitlement has been born.
"The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to expand health insurance coverage to uninsured children in families with income that is modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid. SCHIP is financed jointly by the federal government and the states, and it is administered by the states within broad federal guidelines. Since the program’s inception, the Congress has provided nearly $40 billion for it. Approximately 6.6 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some time during 2006, as were about 670,000 adults through waivers of statutory provisions.
"Under current law, SCHIP is not authorized to continue beyond 2007, and the Congress is considering reauthorization of the program this year."
en•ti•tle•ment n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group.
According to the Heritage Foundation, SCHIP is not formally an entitlement; rather, SCHIP is a "capped spending program."
Perhaps Heritage is right in the most technical sense--but the recent debate proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SCHIP, in reality, has arrived as an "entitlement."
Congress appropriated $40 billion over the course of a decade to the joint state-federal program. Now the President wants to increase the outlay by $5 billion (perhaps "up to" $6 billion) over the next five years. The Democratic Congress has proposed and passed a bill that increases expenditures $35 billion over the same period.
Significantly, neither the President nor Republican leadership question the purpose or worthiness of the program.
From the WH website:
"President Bush believes that S-CHIP...should return to its original focus, which is helping those children in need. This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they need. President Bush calls on Congress to pass a responsible S-CHIP bill."
The question is no longer whether the government should provide health coverage for poor children; rather; how much should we expand the program? The President says 20 percent (maybe a little more). Democrats in Congress (and more than a handful of Republicans) say 140 percent.
Of course, it is worth noting that the mainstream media and the opposition have reported President Bush's plan for a modest expansion as callous indifference toward children at risk.
One caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning asserted health care as a fundamental right and observed, "this administration is always touting safety, but how can you be safe if you are not healthy."
Another caller demanded that President Bush bow to the will of the people on this issue. Polling indicates that a clear majority of Americans support the expansion as proposed by the Democratic Congress.
Others asked incredulously how this President can preside over a $600-billion war while he denies a paltry $30 billion for expanded healthcare for the children.
Kudos to President Bush for making a limited government stand--although he has not helped himself with his inability to articulate a coherent principled position. However, it is almost certain, at some point, the President and Democratic leadership will arrive at compromise. My guess is that the program will look a lot more like the Congressional plan than the White House version.
As I have said before, it is hard to argue against better healthcare for children. On the other hand, we should be clear about what has transpired during this session of Congress, another entitlement has been born.
18/10: A New Blog Worth Considering
Category: America and the World
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
New on the blogosphere, Politeia, comes highly recommended by Tocqueville.
From the “Manifesto,” an excerpt from a post entitled "Eternal Truths":
"We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance of those countries in which proper democracies have taken hold.
"We decline to make excuses for, and oppose those, who empathize with totalitarian regimes and movements for which democracy is the enemy, regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those voices today who offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.
"We believe that bullies, terrorists, totalitarians and political blackmailers must not be appeased, but be made known, in no uncertain terms and deeds, where the line is drawn that will not be crossed.
"We are not warmongers. Nor do we harbour any perverse admiration for the 'aesthetics' or romantic notions over the triumphs of war or revolution. But we are not pacifists either. Real evil, and forces that strive for our destruction must be fought, in the last resort also with weapons. Nor do we wish to rule the use of ultimate force for out as a tool of negotiation."
Check it out and let us know what you think. I am extremely interested in the informed opinions of our reading community.
From the “Manifesto,” an excerpt from a post entitled "Eternal Truths":
"We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance of those countries in which proper democracies have taken hold.
"We decline to make excuses for, and oppose those, who empathize with totalitarian regimes and movements for which democracy is the enemy, regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those voices today who offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.
"We believe that bullies, terrorists, totalitarians and political blackmailers must not be appeased, but be made known, in no uncertain terms and deeds, where the line is drawn that will not be crossed.
"We are not warmongers. Nor do we harbour any perverse admiration for the 'aesthetics' or romantic notions over the triumphs of war or revolution. But we are not pacifists either. Real evil, and forces that strive for our destruction must be fought, in the last resort also with weapons. Nor do we wish to rule the use of ultimate force for out as a tool of negotiation."
Check it out and let us know what you think. I am extremely interested in the informed opinions of our reading community.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A salient and concise explanation of the current economic dilemma:
"[T]he fundamental question is, what do we do to help homeowners? I don't think we ought to be providing bailouts for lenders, but I do think we ought to put policy in place that helps people stay in their home. And that's why this FHA modernization bill is really important, because it will extend the reach of the FHA, and enable more people to refinance their homes.
"Part of the issue in the housing market has been, as a result of asset bundling, it's hard sometimes for people to find somebody to talk to, to help them refinance. In other words, in the old days, you go into your local savings and loan, and sit down and negotiate a house deal, and the person with whom you negotiated would be around if you had financial difficulties, to say, can't you help me restructure? Today the originator of the note no longer owns the note, in many cases.
"The securitization of mortgages actually provides a lot of liquidity in the market, and that's a good thing. But it also creates an issue here in America, and that is, how do we get people to understand the nature of the mortgages they bought, and how do you help people refinance to stay in their home? And so that's what Secretary Paulson, Secretary Jackson have been working on, particularly with the private sector, to facilitate the ability to people to refinance."
Well stated. Clear, informed, and correct. Who said it?
A Harvard MBA. President Bush offered this exegesis in answer to a question posed by a reporter at his White House press conference on Wednesday.
Not bad. Not likely to make it onto Letterman, but it is nice when the President reminds us that he is not an ignoramus. But, of course, tomorrow is another day.
"[T]he fundamental question is, what do we do to help homeowners? I don't think we ought to be providing bailouts for lenders, but I do think we ought to put policy in place that helps people stay in their home. And that's why this FHA modernization bill is really important, because it will extend the reach of the FHA, and enable more people to refinance their homes.
"Part of the issue in the housing market has been, as a result of asset bundling, it's hard sometimes for people to find somebody to talk to, to help them refinance. In other words, in the old days, you go into your local savings and loan, and sit down and negotiate a house deal, and the person with whom you negotiated would be around if you had financial difficulties, to say, can't you help me restructure? Today the originator of the note no longer owns the note, in many cases.
"The securitization of mortgages actually provides a lot of liquidity in the market, and that's a good thing. But it also creates an issue here in America, and that is, how do we get people to understand the nature of the mortgages they bought, and how do you help people refinance to stay in their home? And so that's what Secretary Paulson, Secretary Jackson have been working on, particularly with the private sector, to facilitate the ability to people to refinance."
Well stated. Clear, informed, and correct. Who said it?
A Harvard MBA. President Bush offered this exegesis in answer to a question posed by a reporter at his White House press conference on Wednesday.
Not bad. Not likely to make it onto Letterman, but it is nice when the President reminds us that he is not an ignoramus. But, of course, tomorrow is another day.
17/10: The Problem for Republicans
When it comes to Domestic Policy, the core value of the Democratic Party is simple to state, simple to understand, and has predictible policy implications. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party core value is: The Federal Government Is Responsible for the Well-Being of American Citizens.
Some corollaries: the Federal Government is responsible for maintaining a good economy so that citizens have jobs and income; for those citizens who are not prospering economically it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide for their needs; since a college education is seen as a ticket to greater well-being, the Federal Government will provide financing to institutions and to students (student loans); good health is essential to well-being so the Federal Government will ensure that everyone has insurance, or, provide affordable health-care, and to prevent citizens from damaging their own health, will take steps to discourage smoking and obesity; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
The Democrats have had this core value for Domestic Policy since FDR's New Deal, policies to implement this value are in place (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, funding for the Interstate Highway System), and while taxpayers may complain the same taxpayers will not give up the fruits of this core value such as Federal money for large lakes, highway bridges, guaranteed student loans, or Social Security.
What of the Republican core value? (more below)
Some corollaries: the Federal Government is responsible for maintaining a good economy so that citizens have jobs and income; for those citizens who are not prospering economically it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide for their needs; since a college education is seen as a ticket to greater well-being, the Federal Government will provide financing to institutions and to students (student loans); good health is essential to well-being so the Federal Government will ensure that everyone has insurance, or, provide affordable health-care, and to prevent citizens from damaging their own health, will take steps to discourage smoking and obesity; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
The Democrats have had this core value for Domestic Policy since FDR's New Deal, policies to implement this value are in place (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, funding for the Interstate Highway System), and while taxpayers may complain the same taxpayers will not give up the fruits of this core value such as Federal money for large lakes, highway bridges, guaranteed student loans, or Social Security.
What of the Republican core value? (more below)
Herein lie buried many things which if read with patience may show the strange meaning of being black here at the dawning of the Twentieth Century. This meaning is not without interest to you, Gentle Reader; for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line.
More than a century later, the problem of race in America continues to present the most daunting, toxic, and seemingly intractable cultural dilemma of our age. I am convinced that we cannot go on as we are.
We are irreversibly pointed toward a re-evaluation of racial politics in America. In the simplest terms, our current cultural standard rests on according preferences to descendants of victims of past racial discrimination and abominations at the expense of other Americans increasingly less different from the protected class and more and more unconnected to the sins of the fathers. Such a system cannot survive the coming reconciliation with basic principles of American justice and equality.
In brief, here is what I believe:
W.E.B. DuBois, 1903
More than a century later, the problem of race in America continues to present the most daunting, toxic, and seemingly intractable cultural dilemma of our age. I am convinced that we cannot go on as we are.
We are irreversibly pointed toward a re-evaluation of racial politics in America. In the simplest terms, our current cultural standard rests on according preferences to descendants of victims of past racial discrimination and abominations at the expense of other Americans increasingly less different from the protected class and more and more unconnected to the sins of the fathers. Such a system cannot survive the coming reconciliation with basic principles of American justice and equality.
In brief, here is what I believe:
16/10: No KowTow for President Bush
From the AP via Drudge:
"We solemnly demand that the U.S. cancel the extremely wrong arrangements," said [Chinese] Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. "It seriously violates the norm of international relations and seriously wounded the feelings of the Chinese people and interfered with China's internal affairs."
Full story here.
The "extremely wrong arrangements"?
Over the objections of the Chinese, President Bush met with the Dalai Lama today (Tuesday), entertaining the Tibetan holy man and celebrated dissenter in the private residence section of the White House. Beijing believed that the President ought to have avoided the meeting altogether--but, at the very least, they demanded that he wait for the conclusion of the Chinese Communist Party conference.
The President disregarded the request. As TR might say, "Bully!"
kow•tow –verb
1. to act in an obsequious manner; show servile deference.
2. to touch the forehead to the ground while kneeling, as an act of worship, reverence, apology, etc., esp. in former Chinese custom.
[Origin: Chinese, kòutóu; lit., knock (one's) head]
The Okie Gardener is the closest thing we have to a resident Sinologist (or, perhaps more precisely, a China-watcher), but it has been my intention for some time to comment on the ancient Chinese custom of the kòutóu (pronounced with the hard "o" sound), from which we derive kowtow.
The Emperor of the Middle Kingdom (China), when receiving "barbarians" (foreigners), required the kòutóu, a ritualized procedure in which the visitor bowed before the potentate, sweeping low enough for his forehead to scrape the ground. This act could be performed several times, and it was designed, rather obviously, to bring home the point of abject inferiority on the part of the supplicant.
I could not help but be reminded of the kòutóu recently when Matel Corporation went out of its way to apologize profusely for mistakes the corporation made that led to the Chinese manufacture of lead-contaminated toys--taking great pains to explain that the Chinese partners played absolutely no role in the debacle.
Excellent kòutóu.
Although the Bush administration has not always had a stellar record in standing up to Chinese intimidation (to say the least), I am happy that the “barbarian” from Texas refused to kòutóu today.
Food For Thought: Am I a hypocrite for applauding Bush's bravado and, out of the other side of my mouth, castigating Nancy Pelosi for her disastrously destructive Turkish intervention? I say apples and oranges. Feel free to share your comments.
"We solemnly demand that the U.S. cancel the extremely wrong arrangements," said [Chinese] Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. "It seriously violates the norm of international relations and seriously wounded the feelings of the Chinese people and interfered with China's internal affairs."
Full story here.
The "extremely wrong arrangements"?
Over the objections of the Chinese, President Bush met with the Dalai Lama today (Tuesday), entertaining the Tibetan holy man and celebrated dissenter in the private residence section of the White House. Beijing believed that the President ought to have avoided the meeting altogether--but, at the very least, they demanded that he wait for the conclusion of the Chinese Communist Party conference.
The President disregarded the request. As TR might say, "Bully!"
kow•tow –verb
1. to act in an obsequious manner; show servile deference.
2. to touch the forehead to the ground while kneeling, as an act of worship, reverence, apology, etc., esp. in former Chinese custom.
[Origin: Chinese, kòutóu; lit., knock (one's) head]
The Okie Gardener is the closest thing we have to a resident Sinologist (or, perhaps more precisely, a China-watcher), but it has been my intention for some time to comment on the ancient Chinese custom of the kòutóu (pronounced with the hard "o" sound), from which we derive kowtow.
The Emperor of the Middle Kingdom (China), when receiving "barbarians" (foreigners), required the kòutóu, a ritualized procedure in which the visitor bowed before the potentate, sweeping low enough for his forehead to scrape the ground. This act could be performed several times, and it was designed, rather obviously, to bring home the point of abject inferiority on the part of the supplicant.
I could not help but be reminded of the kòutóu recently when Matel Corporation went out of its way to apologize profusely for mistakes the corporation made that led to the Chinese manufacture of lead-contaminated toys--taking great pains to explain that the Chinese partners played absolutely no role in the debacle.
Excellent kòutóu.
Although the Bush administration has not always had a stellar record in standing up to Chinese intimidation (to say the least), I am happy that the “barbarian” from Texas refused to kòutóu today.
Food For Thought: Am I a hypocrite for applauding Bush's bravado and, out of the other side of my mouth, castigating Nancy Pelosi for her disastrously destructive Turkish intervention? I say apples and oranges. Feel free to share your comments.
16/10: Texas Football: Random Notes
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Congratulations to Wade Phillips and the Dallas Cowboys, who, despite losing to the overwhelming New England Patriots at home on Sunday, are off to an impressive start.
As many of you know, I am not currently a loyal fan--but Phillips, son of Texas coaching legend, Bum Phillips, is a guy I can get behind. Best of luck, Coach.
Thinking about Bum Phillips, I remember fondly his homespun sincerity and his magical interlude with the Houston Oilers during the 1970s.
For a brief moment, sporting his trademark cowboy hat, and leading Houston to victory on the strength of another legendary Texan, Earl Campbell, Phillips was probably right when he asserted that the Oilers were actually "Texas's Team."
But the spell faded. After a heart-breaking loss to the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC championship game (for the second year in a row), Bum promised:
"One year ago, we knocked on the door. This year, we beat on the door. Next year, we're gonna kick the son-of-a-bitch in."
But, after a disappointing loss to the Oakland Raiders the following year in the first round of the playoffs, the Oilers fired Phillips.
The wise guys joked after the Oakland loss that Bum had meekly urinated on the door.
Which brings me to other football story making news in Waco, Texas:
From the Waco Tribune-Herald :
"[The] Baylor University assistant football coach who was cited early Sunday for urinating on a local bar, has been suspended indefinitely."
Full story here.
The head coach, Guy Morriss: “We’ve suspended him indefinitely until this situation is resolved and that’s about all I have to say at this point in time.”
Waco police cited the 30-year-old offensive line coach for disorderly conduct and/or reckless exposure after he allegedly urinated on the bar at Scruffy Murphy’s in Waco about 2 a.m. Sunday.
An aside: It has been a long time--but I have been in Scruffy's at 2 AM. Even when you are not urinating on the furniture, it is an inappropriate venue for an adult employee of Baylor University at that hour of the morning.
I suppose there are some things an institution will endure to field a competitive team--and some that they will not.
According to the Trib story, the coach in question "played collegiate football at the University of Miami from 1995-2000." It occurs to me that the threshold for the Hurricanes is relatively high.
But, for Baylor, 3-4, 0-3 in conference, and coming off a 58-10 defeat against the Kansas Jayhawks, urinating on the bar at a local beer joint probably represents something the university is unwilling to abide. Although managing personnel always presents a tension between forgiveness, accountability, and consequences, my speculation is that this decision is a no-brainer; this particular offender is toast.
The greater question: what about the already teetering head coach?
My guess is that this unfortunate episode spells the end of the Moriss era at the jewel on the Brazos. These incidents are often indicative of systemic problems within a program--even if this one is not--why take the chance?
As for the bigger picture: none of this makes me anxious to re-embrace my former pastime.
As many of you know, I am not currently a loyal fan--but Phillips, son of Texas coaching legend, Bum Phillips, is a guy I can get behind. Best of luck, Coach.
Thinking about Bum Phillips, I remember fondly his homespun sincerity and his magical interlude with the Houston Oilers during the 1970s.
For a brief moment, sporting his trademark cowboy hat, and leading Houston to victory on the strength of another legendary Texan, Earl Campbell, Phillips was probably right when he asserted that the Oilers were actually "Texas's Team."
But the spell faded. After a heart-breaking loss to the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC championship game (for the second year in a row), Bum promised:
"One year ago, we knocked on the door. This year, we beat on the door. Next year, we're gonna kick the son-of-a-bitch in."
But, after a disappointing loss to the Oakland Raiders the following year in the first round of the playoffs, the Oilers fired Phillips.
The wise guys joked after the Oakland loss that Bum had meekly urinated on the door.
Which brings me to other football story making news in Waco, Texas:
From the Waco Tribune-Herald :
"[The] Baylor University assistant football coach who was cited early Sunday for urinating on a local bar, has been suspended indefinitely."
Full story here.
The head coach, Guy Morriss: “We’ve suspended him indefinitely until this situation is resolved and that’s about all I have to say at this point in time.”
Waco police cited the 30-year-old offensive line coach for disorderly conduct and/or reckless exposure after he allegedly urinated on the bar at Scruffy Murphy’s in Waco about 2 a.m. Sunday.
An aside: It has been a long time--but I have been in Scruffy's at 2 AM. Even when you are not urinating on the furniture, it is an inappropriate venue for an adult employee of Baylor University at that hour of the morning.
I suppose there are some things an institution will endure to field a competitive team--and some that they will not.
According to the Trib story, the coach in question "played collegiate football at the University of Miami from 1995-2000." It occurs to me that the threshold for the Hurricanes is relatively high.
But, for Baylor, 3-4, 0-3 in conference, and coming off a 58-10 defeat against the Kansas Jayhawks, urinating on the bar at a local beer joint probably represents something the university is unwilling to abide. Although managing personnel always presents a tension between forgiveness, accountability, and consequences, my speculation is that this decision is a no-brainer; this particular offender is toast.
The greater question: what about the already teetering head coach?
My guess is that this unfortunate episode spells the end of the Moriss era at the jewel on the Brazos. These incidents are often indicative of systemic problems within a program--even if this one is not--why take the chance?
As for the bigger picture: none of this makes me anxious to re-embrace my former pastime.
16/10: Hillary Milhous Clinton
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Post here from Powerline.
Who is today's most ruthless politician who acts as though the ends always justify the means and seeks to destroy political opponents? Hillary Clinton. A vote for Hillary is a vote for another Nixon.
Remember the use of FBI files? The smear attacks on women who accused Bill of misconduct? The assertion that a conspiracy existed to destroy the Clintons?
Where have we seen ruthlessness, paranoia, and identification of personal ambition with national good? Oh yes, Richard Nixon. Perhaps I should start calling Hillary Tricky Dick.
Who is today's most ruthless politician who acts as though the ends always justify the means and seeks to destroy political opponents? Hillary Clinton. A vote for Hillary is a vote for another Nixon.
Remember the use of FBI files? The smear attacks on women who accused Bill of misconduct? The assertion that a conspiracy existed to destroy the Clintons?
Where have we seen ruthlessness, paranoia, and identification of personal ambition with national good? Oh yes, Richard Nixon. Perhaps I should start calling Hillary Tricky Dick.
16/10: C-SPAN Alert: Must-See TV
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This morning on C-SPAN3 (quoting their blurb):
FROM THE HOUSE
"Jena Six" & Hate Crimes
"Donald Washington, U.S. Atty. for the Western District of Louisiana, testifies at a House Judiciary Cmte. hearing on the "Jena Six." The Cmte. is investigating why the Justice Dept. did not pursue hate crime prosecutions following the noose incident at Jena High School. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) chairs the hearing."
End quote.
You may watch live online here (9:30 Eastern).
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and his posse will take on a Bush-appointed African American U.S. Attorney. In general, U.S. attorneys are incredibly talented, amazingly logical and articulate, and absolutely persuasive advocates.
Over the past few months, myriad politicians and pundits (many of whom will be on display today) have accused the Bush administration of passing over the best and the brightest for politically subservient hacks to fill these vital positions. We will only ascertain that truth of that accusation over time and our analysis will be the product of events that transpire in hundreds of venues across the nation.
Having said that, ironically, by inference, today's showdown will most likely offer a unique and telling window into the inside of the current DOJ and the Bush White House personnel record.
FROM THE HOUSE
"Jena Six" & Hate Crimes
"Donald Washington, U.S. Atty. for the Western District of Louisiana, testifies at a House Judiciary Cmte. hearing on the "Jena Six." The Cmte. is investigating why the Justice Dept. did not pursue hate crime prosecutions following the noose incident at Jena High School. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) chairs the hearing."
End quote.
You may watch live online here (9:30 Eastern).
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and his posse will take on a Bush-appointed African American U.S. Attorney. In general, U.S. attorneys are incredibly talented, amazingly logical and articulate, and absolutely persuasive advocates.
Over the past few months, myriad politicians and pundits (many of whom will be on display today) have accused the Bush administration of passing over the best and the brightest for politically subservient hacks to fill these vital positions. We will only ascertain that truth of that accusation over time and our analysis will be the product of events that transpire in hundreds of venues across the nation.
Having said that, ironically, by inference, today's showdown will most likely offer a unique and telling window into the inside of the current DOJ and the Bush White House personnel record.
