I'd like to congratulate Emmett over at Dartlog for his employment with Kirkland and Ellis, a firm that counted (counts?) Kenneth Starr amongst its members.
I always said the House was a zoo. I was sharing this with Waligore and he's asked me to post it. I don't feel like rehashing the news, so the summary is House Repubs called CapPo on some Dems. House Repubs seemingly have run roughshod over procedure. Anyway, read about it in my new hometown paper, The Washington Post
Posted by Jonathan,
6:46 PM
-
Dartmouth Civil Liberties Union Blog Give a warm welcome to the Dartmouth Civil Liberties Union blog. I wonder how many of the members are committed to the ACLU's opposition to regulating soft money and other types of campaign finance reform. I wonder if all of them that sexual harassment can never be unintentional? (for that matter, can a man ever think he's not raping a women, even though she thinks she hasn't consented?) And if they are concerned about speech regulated by private universities, do they care if employers (like Walmart) suppress the speech of their employees and make them sign loyalty pledges?
But I'd thought I'd comment on a an article posted by a DCLU blogger on whether a same-sex form room policy is unfair to homosexuals (the blogger, Jed Sorokin-Altmann, seems agnostic on the issue). I really have a hard time buying the argument that single-sex dorm rooms discriminates against homosexuals. If anything, homosexuals benefit from being able to live together as couples where as heterosexuals cannot. As for the message it sends... well, I understand the logic, but most people don't even think about it in that way. Maybe you could say that is part of the problem, I don't know, but it isn't what is causing the stigmatization of homosexuals, and there are many other things that make heterosexuality seem like the norm here. I'm skeptical this is This is the way to liberation. On the other hand, I can understand the idea that homosexuals might not feel comfortable with living people of the same sex; that made some sense to me in a way I did not understand at first. But if you randomly assign men to live with women, then A LOT of women are going to feel uncomfortable. You could still assign first years to only have same-sex roommates, and then allow them to choose any sex to live with. But then doesn't that still put the university's stamp of approval on single-sex rooms being the norm? And it still leaves in place the stigma problem it was meant to solve...
Now, I don't necessarily think it is a horrible idea to allow opposite sex dorm rooms. But the solution a) mainly benefits hetereosexual couples who want to live together, b) doesn't end the 'stigmazation' unless it randomly assigns rooms at the beginning, making even more women uncomfortable, and c) benefits the small (?) amount of homosexuals who want to live with the opposite sex (and I suppose those that want to live with them). The last might stand on its own, but is it outweighed by other factors or is it discrimination no matter what?
By the way, this seems similiar to allowing transgendered people to use the bathroom opposite of their biological sex. I understand that someone who identifies their gender as female, but who is biologically male, might feel uncomfortable using a men's bathroom. (sorry if I'm not using the appropriate terminology) It does not fit with their identity, to say the least. But what about women who feel uncomfortable knowing that someone with a penis could be in the women's room?
I say this having lived in two co-ed houses at Dartmouth where sharing a co-ed bathroom presented no major problems that I am aware of. I'm open to hearing arguments and being educated, as I'm seen some plausibility where I didn't used to, but right now I'm pretty skeptical...
Posted by Timothy,
4:12 AM
-
How the CIA and the White House negotiated over the State of the Union... I had said in the post below: "I'm betting that the negotiations resulted in a compromise where Bush would credit the British report." Reports are saying that a White House staffer got the CIA to give a pass to the nuclear line; after initial objections, the White House Staffer got the CIA to stop his objections by noting it was technically correct if it was credited to British. From MSNBC.com:
NBC has previously reported that Joseph, the NSC official, and the CIA’s weapons proliferation director, Alan Foley, argued back and forth about whether the reference should have been in the speech. Sources have told the network that, after Foley objected to the first draft of the passage, Joseph came up with the suggestion of attributing it to the British, asking Foley if that would make it technically correct. Since the British were reporting it, Foley had to acknowledge that the passage was factually accurate, even though the CIA did not think the assertion was true, according to the sources. Foley never consulted his superiors on the dispute, so Tenet never read or approved it, the sources said.
More on what the White House knew- Rice has got some explaining to do... TPM quotes the Nelson Report:
As Tenet obviously intended, even Republicans are now asking tough questions about the role of National Security advisor Condi Rice, and, in particular, her deputy, Steve Hadley…the two senior political appointees who's approval of Joseph's actions were essential, observers agree. -- Hadley, especially, has some explaining to do, given that Tenet called him in early October, 2002, to warn that the Niger information was doubtful, and should be deleted from the prepared text of an Oct. 9 Bush speech. 5. And this incident alone puts Rice in the difficult position of having to explain why she said just last week (July 11) that no one at her level knew of the CIA's doubts about the Niger information at the time of the State of the Union, several months after the Tenet/Hadley chat.
Posted by Timothy,
2:37 AM
-
Thursday, July 17, 2003 Time for a real investigation
July 17, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- CIA Director George Tenet told members of Congress a White House official insisted that President Bush's State of the Union address include an assertion about Saddam Hussein's nuclear intentions that had not been verified, a Senate Intelligence Committee member said Thursday. Sen. Dick Durbin, who was present for a 4 1/2-hour appearance by Tenet behind closed doors with Intelligence Committee members Wednesday, said Tenet named the official. But the Illinois Democrat said that person's identity could not be revealed because of the confidentiality of the proceedings. "He (Tenet) certainly told us who the person was who was insistent on putting this language in which the CIA knew to be incredible, this language about the uranium shipment from Africa," Durbin said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "And there was this negotiation between the White House and the CIA about just how far you could go and be close to the truth and unfortunately those sixteen words were included in the most important speech the president delivers in any given year," Durbin added.
Emmett Hogan commented: "come on now, Tim. Bush didn't give credit to the Brits in the speech so they could have a coy little defense further down the road. They gave credit to the Brits because the Brits came up with the intelligence." Uh-huh. I'm betting that the negotiations resulted in a compromise where Bush would credit the British report. At least, crediting the report seems to be the Administration's only real defense to their claim that the Bush statement was 'technically accurate.'
UPDATE: The name of the staffer has been leaked to NBC:
"...sources, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity, said that Tenet “reluctantly” identified the official as National Security Council member Robert Joseph. One source said that the revelation led to a series of questions about Joseph’s role.
Also from MSNBC.com:
Bush administration officials have also said other information pointed to possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But Tenet has called these reports “fragmentary” — a term in intelligence circles for unconfirmed information of suspect accuracy.
P.S. Look at how the President's new spokesman tries to Fleicherize this (and not very skillfully) with his non-denial denial
Posted by Timothy,
8:10 PM
-
I learned from reading Emmett that Bush lied! Emmett defines a lie: Lie n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Then Emmett continues to says: Now that that's out of the way, we have to ask ourselves if the uranium statement was a false statement deliberately presented as being true, or if Bush meant to deceive or give a wrong impression by uttering that statement. It bears repeating: we don't actually know if the intelligence was false.
Ask yourself: why did the Bushies credit it to the British in the speech? Because they meant to deceive and give the wrong impression (which Emmett defines a lie). The CIA expressed doubts and that was apparently the 'compromise' language. Bush presented it as the truth and expected us to believe they believed it, even though the CIA warned them. They had reason to believe at the time it was not true. They wanted to create an impression that Saddam was an imminent threat and the U.S. needed to act soon. And they not only presented it to give the impression it was true, but deceived us that they had good evidence for it. Call that what you will. By Emmett's definition, it sounds like a lie.
Emmett also says: All accounts agree, furthermore, that Bush (and the Brits) still believe the intelligence to be good, so presumably Bush believed it at the time he made the speech.
What the world is Emmett talking about??? "All accounts"?? The Bush administration has now said that the statement should not have been included in the speech. So the administration's OWN account doesn't support the idea that the intelligence is still good, much less the accounts of many of other analysts and reports that the intelligence was not even good at the time (remember, one could easily tell the documents were forged). They have already ruled out Niger- perhaps it came from Somolia? Maybe we'll have to verify every African country before we can call it a lie. Plus, it is still deception to imply we know this ("learned") for a fact, when you have good reasons for not thinking it is a true, or have your intelligence sources telling you it is not solid enough. By the second of Emmett's definitions, it seems Emmett should call the President is liar.
Maybe Emmett is right that Bush didn't lie because he fooled himself based on faith based foreign policy. If so, let's remember that the next time the President asks us to trust his judgment. I hope he is telling a lie, because in many ways that is better than a delusion. The simple explanation is that the White House politicized intelligence.
Posted by Timothy,
7:02 PM
-
Recession's Over - Guess those tax cuts worked? But... The previous recession, which lasted from July 1990 to March 1991 in the National Bureau's chronology, was followed by six straight months of job growth a year later. This time, 20 months after the recession's finale, the nation's payrolls are still shrinking. article In case you're wondering, they didn't. Funny how giving rich people money doesn't make much sense - it's...just...so...illogical...
Posted by Jared,
6:27 PM
-
What Kind of T-Shirts Exactly? Funniest opening sentence from a D article that I've ever read:
"The Student Assembly allotted $1,000 at its Tuesday evening meeting for the production of clothing that promotes sexual awareness."
Posted by Laura,
1:36 PM
-
Wednesday, July 16, 2003 It looks like plagiarism at David Horowitz's FrontPageMagazine
Posted by Timothy,
7:17 PM
-
Suprising and Sad: A NYT article on the suprising finding that over 10 percent of AIDS patients in Europe have drug resistant strains, writes that "They said the figure suggested that many AIDS patients who are in treatment go back to engaging in high-risk sex or needle-sharing." If true, this is a sad state of affairs where even those WITH AIDS dont engage in responsible behavior. Article here.
Posted by Kumar,
11:39 AM
-
Kerry and Iraq Check out what Kerry spokeman Chris "I wish I was Ari" Lehane said back in February, before the war:
And [New Republic editor Peter] Beinart chides Kerry for making anti-war noises after voting to support action against Saddam Hussein, saying Kerry's presidential candidacy "is doomed to fail if Kerry keeps speaking so dishonestly about Iraq." Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane sees the New Republic's criticism as a "backhanded compliment" to the senator's political stature. "The country is clearly ambivalent about Iraq," Lehane says. "Kerry has been exactly where the country is. He thinks Saddam is bad but has grave questions about how the administration has handled the diplomacy." (Kurtz, Washington Post, February 24, 2003, from nexis searches sparked by kaus)
Now here's some tough talk from Kerry printed in the Washington Post on July 11, 2003:
"I'm really disturbed that the administration is not being truthful in a sense with the American people about what's really at stake here," Kerry said. He added, "Winning the peace in Iraq is critical to us because it's going to have a profound impact on the war on terrorism. We literally cannot allow ourselves to fail." Asked how Bush had been untruthful, he replied, "I don't think when you go to an aircraft carrier in a highly staged appearance and announce that the hostilities are over when they're not over, you're telling the truth."
I'm not sure that's the best example of a Bush lie. But the political strategy seems to be make the President's victory lap into a hallow charade. Like his earlier 'regime change' comments, I'm wondering if Kerry has a tin ear here. Kerry has not inspired the following like Dean's, and when Kerry does attack, he might reach too far. And Kerry continues to defend his vote to authorize the President to go to war:
And despite his criticisms, Kerry defended his vote last fall for the congressional resolution authorizing the president to go to war. "I am absolutely convinced my vote was the right vote," he said, adding that Bush's failure was in not using the resolution to build a broader international coalition before going to war.
Posted by Timothy,
12:54 AM
-
Bet she's against gay adoption, too... Maggie Gallagher says in a National Review online peice:
Polygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better. At least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children.
Posted by Timothy,
12:25 AM
-
Tuesday, July 15, 2003 It's not a lie if it's "technically accurate." And what if the lie isn't even technically accurate? Sam Rosenfeld on on the Filibuster links to a good Michael Kinsley column:
Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see-he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpickery, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business-he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some pre-existing basis for believing whatever it is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure (as Donald Rumsfeld would say). However, it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was only added as protection because doubts had been expressed internally.
Sam Rosenfeld says "These guys can't even be bothered to dissemble competently. Infuriating!" I'm not as confident as Kinsley that Ari couldn't do a quadruple cartwheel on this somehow, but if the President did not lie, we cannot trust what he says. Sam also notes: "Any conservative who ever -- ever -- again indulges in a 'what the definition of is is' Clinton-bashing crack should be made to read this exchange in its entirety, so perfectly does it typify the uber-Clintonian dissembling that the Bush battalion engaged in across the airwaves this weekend, from Condi to Rummy to Powell on down." (Also: Adam Kushner berates the WSJ on yellowcake, and calpundit on why those 16 words matter )
UPDATE: Lieberman went to an O'Reilly Factor taping the same day Drudge links to this article: "Meanwhile, NAACP officials still smarting from Lieberman’s no-show at an NAACP candidates’ forum Monday were angered further to learn that his schedule that day included an interview taping with conservative television talk show host Bill O’Reilly."
Posted by Timothy,
11:23 PM
-
It's not a lie if you've disassociated yourself from reality Bush said:
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.
In case you don't read Josh Marshall, here is how he comments on this:
As the well-worn line goes, I think it's too soon to say we know Saddam didn't have a WMD program. I thought he did. ..But I think our inability thus far to find any clear evidence of a on-going chemical, biological or nuclear weapons program would seem to leave us at least a bit short of being "absolutely" certain that he had one. Am I nitpicking here? Like the philandering husband, he seems to be asking us, "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?" And remember when Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? I totally missed that one. Look, you can certainly say that Saddam wasn't cooperating fully with the inspectors, that his people hadn't fully accounted for various chemical and biological munitions which the UN thought he had back in 1990s. Hans Blix said as much. It's true. But, c'mon, he let them in. You hear this stuff and you say to yourself: "Well, you can kinda know what he meant, I guess." I find myself thinking that. But even that doesn't cut it. The disquieting fact is that these whoppers aren't even getting reported any more because it's become a given among reporters and editors that most of what the president is saying on this subject has little connection to anything that's actually going on. And the two keep diverging more and more. It's almost as if the shakier the evidence gets the more certain he becomes about what the evidence was supposed to prove.
Posted by Timothy,
11:12 PM
-
Nader backs Kucinich
In an e-mail to supporters, the Kucinich campaign highlighted a story that ran Friday in an Ohio newspaper where it was reported that Ralph Nader, the former Green Party presidential candidate, is urging Democrats to support Kucinich in the primaries. Nader has yet to announce whether he will run again in 2004 himself. Nader has been critical of the Democrat field of candidates with the exception of Kucinich and, to a lesser extent, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Nader said, "At this point, I am urging Democrats to vote for [Kucinich] in the primary." (link via dailykos)
Posted by Timothy,
6:29 PM
-
Bernie sticks it to Greenspan This from Greenspan's appearance before congress earlier today:
"I think you just don't know what's going on in the real world," Mr. Sanders said. "And I would urge you, come with me to Vermont; meet real people. The country clubs and the cocktail parties are not real America. The millionaires and billionaires are the exception to the rule."
Posted by scott anderson,
3:58 PM
-
Is Telemarketing Really that Evil? A really good Salon article that interestingly takes the side of the telemarketers. The Do Not Call registry might cause millions to lose their jobs (and even worse, these are frequently single mothers) and kill a rather large industry. Very thought-provoking. Read it here.
Posted by Kumar,
3:37 PM
-
Monday, July 14, 2003 Greetings from the Left Coast I just thought I'd send my first alum hello from Berkeley, California, the second leftiest place on earth, after San Francisco, of course, the leftiest place on earth. Life out here is peachy. I saw a progressive play in a local park yesterday, see hippies all over the place, and I work for a non-profit policy group in San Francisco, currently helping to organize a voter registration drive and a mayoral candidates forum. The forum features NO republican candidates...because no republicans ever run for mayor of San Francisco. It's almost creepy.
Ah, good news for those of us who are sick of the absurdity of Ari.
Posted by Jonathan,
11:03 PM
-
Too Much of a Good Thing? It's interesting that when I look at politics in India, some of very things I oppose here in the states I would welcome there. Take for example, the idea of affirmative action. Here, I support it as a valuable tool to compensate for non-meritocratic policies such as legacies and to build greater opportunity for the less fortunate. But in India, where sometimes up to 80 percent of spots in Indian universties and government jobs are reserved for the very poor, I call for a greater emphasis on meritocracy. It just seems too much, when those with almost no education dominate government positions leading to a very inept bureacracy. I started thinking about this because of NYT (big surprise) article on a Norwegian push to mandate that the current board room numbers of women increase from 8 percent to 40. Seems like too big of a jump for me....Thoughts? Am I being too pessimistic for my own good? Article here.
Posted by Kumar,
2:43 PM
-
Way more bad-ass than any action movie The San Francisco Chronicle has a good article summing up possibe California Governor candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger's dealings with Nazis (his father, Gustav, became a party member following the Anschlus). Schwarzenegger is a major donor to the Wiesenthal Center, an organizatoin that combats racism and anti-semitism. A very good anecdote from the article:
...[Far Right] Austrian President Joerg Haider [visited] the Wiesenthal Center and [saw] his picture on a "wall of shame" next to Uganda dictator Idi Amin and racist David Duke. Haider was outraged.
"He said he was going to complain to Arnold," [The Wiesenthal Center Director] said.
According to press accounts, Arnold then checked out Haider's record -- including his statement that the Nazis had "sensible policies" -- and called Haider to say he belonged on the wall.
Posted by Clint,
1:33 PM
-
McGovern Strikes back He's tired of having his name be used as a slander. From his op-ed in The LA Times:
In 1972, my campaign for president was buried in a landslide... These days, my name is back in the news. I'm being held up as some kind of sober warning to Democratic candidates. Don't be another George McGovern, the warning goes. Don't be too liberal. Don't be too outspoken. Watch what you say and play to the middle, so that you don't end up losing 49 states, too. It may not surprise you that I regard this as political baloney... Of course, we all like to win — especially against great odds. And I think it's extremely important for the Democrats to win in 2004. But not at the price of their souls.
Posted by Clint,
1:26 PM
-
A bit from New York While I have a lot to say about Bush's No Child Left Behind policies, the effect of them is somewhat abstract and distant. What's going on now with Head Start is much more tangible.
Bush is pushing a plan to move, in simple terms, most of the money and control of Head Start into the hands of the states, [article, with a new emphasis on education. In fact, this is a worthwhile idea at face value. Children that age - 3 and 4 - are quite capable of developing major language and some numeracy [not math, numeracy - it's deeper, I guess]. Of course, there's a reason why we never tried too hard to teach them this stuff before at this age - trust me, people who tried failed. The reason lies in the simple fact that basic numeracy to an extent and language almost entirely are not and should not be taught. These are things that you learn just by existing in a world with numbers and words. Graphic phonemic representation, letters, according to the same research, doesn't come for years. So, the focus on education at Head Start is funny.
But what's actually endangering the students is the idea of giving the states discretion over what happens to the Head Start money. Bush says it won't go to "prison project" or some totally unrelated other goal. He's right - that would be politically impossible. But in these times of budget cuts, the money is likely to go to more general education programs that start at higher grades and encompass a broader - read: including the better-off kids who are getting tax breaks because of it - range of students. And, the money that had been there for those is likely to go to the prison project.
At least the money is going to education, right? Well, no. Every child should have a decent education, and towns and states and the Federal Government all need to take responsibility for that. But this program said, well, what about those kids who won't eat anything for breakfast and lunch? Whose parents won't read them bed-time stories and who have no place to feel safe and comfortable? It's one thing to just support the standard system of education, a system that is, of course, by no means standard. But some kids live lives that go beyond the reach of these systems, lives that render that kindergarten, or in states with repugnant educational records like Texas or New Hampshire, not even kindergarten but first grade, useless. If head-start becomes a new textbook for kids from White River and Hanover, the value of which is comparative considering how little money is actually dedicated to the program, and if those children lose even that, they are doomed even more than they already are, to failure. This is one of those issues that no one seems to notice. And while we've already fought a war based on chimerical weapons and threats, and while the rich are already starting to wet themselves [ourselves] over how much more extra money they'll end up with over the next few years because of tax cuts, the dismantling of Head Start is getting no attention but could prove to be one of the most destructive things George has done in office.
Posted by Jared,
12:20 AM
-
Sunday, July 13, 2003 Law School Rankings: I was browsing the Internet for the gossip on how good a number of law schools actually are and I came across a scathing critique of the US News and Report rankings. I figured I had heard the usual stuff: "this stuff is so hard to measure," and that "it is more important what a paticular individual is looking for." But this critique pointed out really suprising flaws in the way US News collects its data, creating a sizable bias for small schools and northeast schools. Read it here.
