The glorious DFP, undermining lame and ignorant stereotypes since 2000, has the on-line version of issue 4.9 now on the web.
Watch and wonder as Welton Chang crusades against the brutal image of ROTC, Prince Hassan elaborates on how peace CAN happen in the Middle East, Clint and Cayelan describe first-hand how Kerry can be more upbeat than those sagging cheek-bones would make you think, Suhail Ahmad explains that Bush is more like an emperor than a president, Austin Larson photoshops how Bush is more like an emperor than a president, and Clinton Hedges points out that Biz Markie's career should be as nosediving as Joe Lieberman's.
Posted by Nick,
11:39 PM
-
And I though the worst was over
After anti-war activists were arrested in malls for wearing anti-war clothing, I was ashamed. After 8 peaceful anti-war activists were arrested and held over night with out food and given 1 glass of water between them, I was shocked. But I thought all that would end.
Before someone points out that perhaps they are being subpoenaed as witnesses to an arrest, I would like to point out that the federal prosecutors are refusing to comment. It seems that they could assuage most fears of abuse by saying that they are being subpoenaed solely as witnesses.(not to mention that the subpoena would plainly state witness on it)
Posted by alex,
4:50 PM
-
Friday, February 06, 2004 A Bush Brainteaser
Everyone brace yourselves for a little Bush brainteaser. The goal is to decipher the logic behind one of Bush's latest statements on Iraqi WMD:
"We know Saddam Hussein had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction, because he hid all those activities from the world until the last day of his regime," Mr. Bush said.
Maybe it's a pointless pursuit to go looking for the tail of a circular argument, but I haven't blogged in a while, and thought it might be a good way to get the mental juices flowing again. So here goes:
Doesn't the statement that he "hid all those activities" that would reveal his "intent" assume his conclusion that activities revealing intent had existed in the first place? Furthermore, why is the word "hid" even mentioned? If activities revealing intent did exist, how does his having "hid" them increase our certainty of their existence, as the Bush statement seems to suggest?
As far as I can tell, the only conceivable function of the "hid" part of this argument is to provide explanation as to why said "activities" have not yet materialized. According to this line of logic, the apparent non-existence forms the bedrock of proof behind the actual existence. (Could there be a parallel to religious faith here?)
It's bad enough to argue that something's been intentionally hidden before you've proven it exists. But to go the extra mile and conclude that something exists based on the assumption that it has been hidden is the sort of genius of which only a 43rd president could be capable.
Posted by Justin Sarma,
3:13 AM
-
Wednesday, February 04, 2004 And For the History Buffs in the Crowd...
Of course, just because it's a historical trend doesn't mean, by any measure, that Bush is off the hook. I for one am rather trigger-happy pissed that Bush has, yet again, passed the buck. "Oh, it's not my fault! It's bad intelligence! I'm with you guys, I wanted peace! It's not like I had Dick Cheney pressuring the CIA daily, or was willing to accept any half-assed justification I tripped over in my own pretzel-choking incompetence. Really!"
And while we're blogging about historical trends, the WWI entry in this article reminded me of something. If I remember my nutty history lessons correctly, the Lusitania was transporting arms for the British war effort (hence the big explosions), but no one bothered to tell the public. So maybe lying administrations are a trend too?
Posted by Nick,
1:02 AM
-
Monday, February 02, 2004 Bush's Liberal Spending Plan Under Attack from the Right
This is only going to get worse for Bush. Congress is going to be loathe to cut spending programs in an election year and Bush has to run to the center to get re-elected.
"On Thursday, I took two calls on the Bush proposal to increase the National Endowment for the Arts' budget. As part of his continuing strategy to peel off Democrat voters by growing government, Bush wants to force all of us to give the NEA $15 to $20 million in 2004. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government will fund art? If we like it, we can fund it on our own.
"I can only explain what I think is happening. I can't explain why the White House thinks their strategy is working when it's clearly not. Bush 41 didn't have a strategy, as one caller mentioned when comparing the two presidents. Bush 43 does - and I'm sad to say it's taken the shape of outspending Bill Clinton on the domestic side. This immigration bill and the $400 billion (Now $540b) Medicare entitlement makes conservative voters feel taken for granted. The Big Theory, softening people's view of conservatism by making Americans work more for government and less for themselves, isn't working. How can it? If you act like a liberal to get Democrat votes, you can't do something conservative when you win without losing those new voters."
