Monday, May 12, 2003
Believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!
(you know, Morpheus' TCP/IP stack)
Since trying to undermine these Protocols is tantamount to wanting the Last Human City to be destroyed, I hereby issue a fatwa that all Muslims must support Matrix Reloaded. Do we really believe the Machine Masters will care about halal meat requirements? And I can't well face towards Mecca while immersed, immobile, in a tub of goo.
Sunday, May 11, 2003
the party of fiscal sanity
Brian has made up his mind:
Well, let's see. For Republicans, tax cuts are a religion. Dwight Meredith follows up with a direct comparison, pulled straight from the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data:
It's not clear why having the IRS being acountable to the President has any relevance to government spending - the IRS just collects the money, it doesn't decide how to spend it. That's the President's job. And he's accountable to us.
Dwight's "Politics, Law, and Autism" blog is essential reading if you care about how the government spends your money. His "Just for the Record" series - again drawn entirely from government budget data - is the most comprehensive analysis I've seen, looking at various performance markers like inflation, GDP, etc. over the course of GOP and Democrat administrations. The coda to that series is supplied by Brad DeLong, who addresses the impact of Congressional actions on budgets and spending.
UPDATE: Tacitus, with the help of WaPo, identifies the Master Plan.
The Presidency is also the only office to which the IRS is accountable. I don't know about you, but I rather like the idea of taxation being under the control of a Republican instead of a Democrat.
Well, let's see. For Republicans, tax cuts are a religion. Dwight Meredith follows up with a direct comparison, pulled straight from the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data:
Under the last Clinton Budget (FY 2001), the Federal Government spent (see table 1.1) $1.863 trillion. In the first year of a budget prepared by Mr. Bush (and passed by Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress) spending was $2.010 trillion, in increase of almost 8%.
In the 2003 Budget (again prepared by Mr. Bush) spending is estimated to increase again to $2.140 trillion (plus the cost of the war in Iraq). That is an increase of about 6.5%. If $80 billion is added for the war, the increase is in excess of ten percent.
For 2004, Mr. Bush proposes (see table S-1) to increase spending yet again to $2.229 trillion, an increase of 4.2% (not including any supplemental spending required by the rebuilding of Iraq). Indeed, the budget projections provided by Mr. Bush propose to increase spending each and every year through FY 2008. If Mr. Bush has his way, by FY 2008, the federal government will have increased spending by about 46% over the last Clinton budget.
Even if we eliminate defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the national debt from the calculations, Mr. Bush proposes to increase total non-military discretionary spending (See table S-2) each year through FY 2008.
In the FY 2001 budget submitted by President Clinton about $349 billion was allocated to non-defense discretionary spending. By FY 2008, under Mr. Bush�s proposals, $466 billion will be spent on non-defense discretionary spending. That represents an increase of about 34%.
It's not clear why having the IRS being acountable to the President has any relevance to government spending - the IRS just collects the money, it doesn't decide how to spend it. That's the President's job. And he's accountable to us.
Dwight's "Politics, Law, and Autism" blog is essential reading if you care about how the government spends your money. His "Just for the Record" series - again drawn entirely from government budget data - is the most comprehensive analysis I've seen, looking at various performance markers like inflation, GDP, etc. over the course of GOP and Democrat administrations. The coda to that series is supplied by Brad DeLong, who addresses the impact of Congressional actions on budgets and spending.
UPDATE: Tacitus, with the help of WaPo, identifies the Master Plan.
aWol media
The facts about Bush's service record are not slander by a so-called liberal media. They are documented from FOIA requests, which were the basis for these stories in the mainstream press:
The Boston Globe - 5/23/00
The Washington Post - 6/26/00
The Boston Globe - 7/28/00
The Washington Post - 11/3/00
The bottom line is that between May 1972 and October 1974 he was absent from duty with the Air National Guard. Here are actual scans of relevant documents, obtained from FOIA: Suspended from flying August 1972, "Not Observed" from May 1st, 1972 to April 30th, 1973, and many more.
In fact, rather than a deliberate campaign in the so-called liberal media to tarnish Bush, there has been quite the opposite. CNN actually censored posts from their discussion boards on the topic. George Magazine (run by JFK Jr.) concluded that Bush did accumulate the required number of days for service, but they were using an altered version of Document 99. Here is the original document, unaltered. Using the original (obtained via FOIA), the conclusion drawn by George Magazine is easily refuted. The main error is that George Magazine did not realize that Bush's no-show days were credited to his service record. This is verified by looking at the FOIA-obtained document of Bush's official record.
And the Daily Howler has done an exhaustive analysis using Lexis-Nexis to see if there was any detailed discussion of the topic when the story first broke. There wasn't. The analysis continues in parts two and three.
The Boston Globe - 5/23/00
The Washington Post - 6/26/00
The Boston Globe - 7/28/00
The Washington Post - 11/3/00
The bottom line is that between May 1972 and October 1974 he was absent from duty with the Air National Guard. Here are actual scans of relevant documents, obtained from FOIA: Suspended from flying August 1972, "Not Observed" from May 1st, 1972 to April 30th, 1973, and many more.
In fact, rather than a deliberate campaign in the so-called liberal media to tarnish Bush, there has been quite the opposite. CNN actually censored posts from their discussion boards on the topic. George Magazine (run by JFK Jr.) concluded that Bush did accumulate the required number of days for service, but they were using an altered version of Document 99. Here is the original document, unaltered. Using the original (obtained via FOIA), the conclusion drawn by George Magazine is easily refuted. The main error is that George Magazine did not realize that Bush's no-show days were credited to his service record. This is verified by looking at the FOIA-obtained document of Bush's official record.
And the Daily Howler has done an exhaustive analysis using Lexis-Nexis to see if there was any detailed discussion of the topic when the story first broke. There wasn't. The analysis continues in parts two and three.
Saturday, May 10, 2003
aWol apologists
that's the word we used to reserve for people who simply couldn't abide a critique of Clinton. Bush's carrier PR stunt is certainly teasing the same species out of the woodwork on his behalf. First we have this strawman:
What michael means by "the same thing" is to point to this obscure photo of Clinton wearing a jumpsuit on deck of a carrier, and claiming it's identical to Bush, commandeering a navy jet to fly a distance shorter than that from the White House to Camp David (solely for the drama), to an aircraft carrier full of tired servicemen that was delayed an extra day, and then strutting across the flight deck in full flight gear (not a mere jumpsuit) in front of hundreds of reporters who were invited for a major speech.
In response to this, Instapundit notes rather pointedly that "Nor do I think that it's wise for Republicans to set standards based on what Clinton did." That hasn't stopped other apologists from again pointing to the Tubesteak Messiah and claiming that a flight jacket is the same as a flight suit. This involves an amount of focused, deliberate ignorance. Or a frantic attempt to change the subject. Thankfully, Bruce Rolston offers some sanity.
There's another camp of apologists who are trying to evade the aWol issue by simply blurring the details. Bill Hobbs points to a number of sources that assert that Bush met a minimum requirement of service. But all of his sources make the same factual error, that they interpret Bush's length of service as from the time he enlisted to the time he was discharged. Most of which he was not actually physically present at either Ellington Field or in Alabama. Some of that same time period, Bush was actually working on the Senate campaign of his father's friend, Senator William Blount.
And of course Bill completely ducks the issue Bush was suspended and grounded from flying duty on verbal order of the TX 147th Group's Commanding Officer for "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination." - UggaBugga notes that "expensively trained pilots are not casually suspended" and that the "absence of a Flight Inquiry Board is of particular interest to veteran pilots. The implication is that Bush's misconduct was handled like everything else in his military service: aided and abetted by powerful family connections"
Hobbs apologises for Bush again in a later post, claiming that because Bush's unit (the 111th) was "attached" to the 147th (which did do active duty with honor in Vietnam), that there actually was a chance Bush could have been sent overseas. The 111th during Vietnam was well-known as the "Champagne Unit" here in Houston, serving as the refuge for many sons of the Texas elite, including Lloyd Bentsen III, a first lieutenant and son of the future senator and Cabinet secretary, and Capt. John Connally III, son of the former governor and Cabinet secretary. There was no chance that the 111th would have been called to active duty overseas, and the rest of Hobbs' apologia is premised on that false assertion.
Ultimately, any serious attempt at refuting the Bush AWOL story is going to have to directly address the facts, in order to be even remotely credible (in the way that apologists are not). Those facts are beautifully illustrated graphically by UggaBugga, extensively well-documented by awolbush.com, this timeline of events by Mother Jones. These posts by UggaBugga and Orcinus also make the case in sumarized form.
Apparently, people are upset with the president for flying onto an aircraft carrier. Grandstanding, they say. The White House is rightly defending the president. Why are Democrats so hypocritical? Why didn't they criticise Clinton for doing the same thing?
What michael means by "the same thing" is to point to this obscure photo of Clinton wearing a jumpsuit on deck of a carrier, and claiming it's identical to Bush, commandeering a navy jet to fly a distance shorter than that from the White House to Camp David (solely for the drama), to an aircraft carrier full of tired servicemen that was delayed an extra day, and then strutting across the flight deck in full flight gear (not a mere jumpsuit) in front of hundreds of reporters who were invited for a major speech.
In response to this, Instapundit notes rather pointedly that "Nor do I think that it's wise for Republicans to set standards based on what Clinton did." That hasn't stopped other apologists from again pointing to the Tubesteak Messiah and claiming that a flight jacket is the same as a flight suit. This involves an amount of focused, deliberate ignorance. Or a frantic attempt to change the subject. Thankfully, Bruce Rolston offers some sanity.
There's another camp of apologists who are trying to evade the aWol issue by simply blurring the details. Bill Hobbs points to a number of sources that assert that Bush met a minimum requirement of service. But all of his sources make the same factual error, that they interpret Bush's length of service as from the time he enlisted to the time he was discharged. Most of which he was not actually physically present at either Ellington Field or in Alabama. Some of that same time period, Bush was actually working on the Senate campaign of his father's friend, Senator William Blount.
And of course Bill completely ducks the issue Bush was suspended and grounded from flying duty on verbal order of the TX 147th Group's Commanding Officer for "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination." - UggaBugga notes that "expensively trained pilots are not casually suspended" and that the "absence of a Flight Inquiry Board is of particular interest to veteran pilots. The implication is that Bush's misconduct was handled like everything else in his military service: aided and abetted by powerful family connections"
Hobbs apologises for Bush again in a later post, claiming that because Bush's unit (the 111th) was "attached" to the 147th (which did do active duty with honor in Vietnam), that there actually was a chance Bush could have been sent overseas. The 111th during Vietnam was well-known as the "Champagne Unit" here in Houston, serving as the refuge for many sons of the Texas elite, including Lloyd Bentsen III, a first lieutenant and son of the future senator and Cabinet secretary, and Capt. John Connally III, son of the former governor and Cabinet secretary. There was no chance that the 111th would have been called to active duty overseas, and the rest of Hobbs' apologia is premised on that false assertion.
Ultimately, any serious attempt at refuting the Bush AWOL story is going to have to directly address the facts, in order to be even remotely credible (in the way that apologists are not). Those facts are beautifully illustrated graphically by UggaBugga, extensively well-documented by awolbush.com, this timeline of events by Mother Jones. These posts by UggaBugga and Orcinus also make the case in sumarized form.
tilting at windmills
It's like trying to explain to Minmei about Lisa and Rick. In the last blogoversy, Diana Moon said (in comments at Geoff's site, now unavailable) that the WMG issue raised "a real suspicion in my mind that the distinction between a moderate Muslim and a fundamentalist is one without a difference." This means, that she believes there are no moderate muslims, because all muslims seem to be equally willing to subscribe to ideas that she considers blatantly false. The rigor of her characterization is irrelevant, she is entitled to hold any opinion about Muslims in general that she wants. If she want sto assert that I've abandoned a "niche" as a moderate muslim, that's not my concern, because I don't blog to fill a niche. And I have plenty of posts on UNMEDIA that can, taken selectively, be interpreted as either pro-Semitic or anti-Semitic if you're inclined to lump people into these labels. I've even got a post that triggered "you are anti-muslim" death threats. The point is that if your data sample is a single post on some guy's blog, from which you extrapolate a global worldview about the adherents of an entire religion, then there are going to be certain flaws in your analysis.
However, the more important point was made by Tacitus, addressing the substance of Diana's basic assertion that words aimed at Jews create an atmosphere that facilitates anti-Semitism, even if the actual words are not anti-Semitic themselves[1]. Tacitus writes:
Diana mischaracterizes this as, "It appears that I subscribe to a dialectic wherein Muslims must be exterminated." And then proceeds to explain at great length that she does not believe that Muslims must be exterminated. Well, duh. The point of Tacitus' comment is that her words, aimed at Muslims, create an atmosphere (see LGF) that facilitates anti-muslimism. Even if the words themselves are not anti-muslim themselves. Sauce for the goose and gander, etc. Diana (and Bryan's) unwillingness to see Tacitus' larger point is perhaps irreconcilable.
I believe the reason that Diana (for whom I have unrequited respect) continues to be blind to this parallel, and remains committed to battling the dialectic in one direction and promoting it in the other, is not because she is Jewish2, but because she is an Israeli partisan, and thus sees all Muslims through lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which she equates to "The Jewish-Muslim Conflict". I don't subscribe to that equivalence, but of course there are many Palestinian-partisans who are ready and willing to meet her on that ideological field of battle. Still, the fact that I don't and won't make that distinction means that as far as my attitude towards Jews is concerned, I really am a moderate, and its Diana who's the fundamentalist.
Another aspect of Diana's screed that puzzled me is this assertion3:
This is a subsconcious attempt by Diana to rationalize the dialectic that Tacitus identifies above. It's easier to see my opinions as representing an "Islamic perspective", because she can then put the source of our disagreements on issues as a matter of doctrine. It gives her a more clearly defined Other to define herself against.
However, my blog is a reflection of my entire personality. Do Movie Night posts have anything to do with Islam? How about my critiques of Bush? Or how Apple sucks? Or my ode to the Old Man? Or my fervent hope for a pressure-washing system?
Obviously, what she really refers to when she says "most everything he writes about" is "when he writes about Israel" (and thus by extension in her own mind but not mine, the Jewish People.) But if you look honestly at every single post I have ever written about Israel, you will see that religion and Islam play absolutely zero role in my analysis. This is because criticism of Israel is a political and social act, not a religious one, unless you've already subscribed to Biblical prophecy and dream of Eretz Israel. Speaking as a Muslim, from an Islamic perspective, about Israel means that I would have nothing to say. Apart from the broad moral lessons that are shared by all religions - such as "without justice, there can be no peace."
UPDATE: Miranda has the last word.
[1] Diana made this point in many places, but I chose to link to her guest post on Junk Yard Blog because that's where she made the case most fully. Keep in mind that in the chronology of posts, her post on Bryan's site actually post-dates Tacitus' comment.
[2] I am always uncomfortable writing "jewish", I'd prefer to say "is a Jew" because its more accurate. But muslim wackos have so tainted the phrase "is a Jew" that I just shy away from it whenevr possible (example: I argue that hey, Israel is a nice place. response: "Vot! arrre yuu a Jew?!". me: sigh.) But the problem with "jewish" is nicely illustrated by the old joke (someone help me source it):
Perhaps he meant, "I am a Heeb." ? BTW, that's a fascinating and really engaging discussion over at Jonathan's site that I really recomend reading. The sequel is here.
3note that the issue of whether Diana's reaction was contingent on my being muslim, or not, is irrelevant to me. Reaction to what I write is because I wrote it, and part of that I is indeed being muslim. I'm just refuting the assertion that I "nblog from teh perspective of Islam" because this is dangerously close to assuming that all my opinions stem from Islam alone.
However, the more important point was made by Tacitus, addressing the substance of Diana's basic assertion that words aimed at Jews create an atmosphere that facilitates anti-Semitism, even if the actual words are not anti-Semitic themselves[1]. Tacitus writes:
She speaks for many (see LGF), and the absurdity of their mindset appears to escape them: they cry anti-Semitism because they see a dialectic being set up (however they must strain to see it) wherein Jews must be exterminated; yet they already mentally subscribe to a dialectic wherein Muslims must be exterminated.
Diana mischaracterizes this as, "It appears that I subscribe to a dialectic wherein Muslims must be exterminated." And then proceeds to explain at great length that she does not believe that Muslims must be exterminated. Well, duh. The point of Tacitus' comment is that her words, aimed at Muslims, create an atmosphere (see LGF) that facilitates anti-muslimism. Even if the words themselves are not anti-muslim themselves. Sauce for the goose and gander, etc. Diana (and Bryan's) unwillingness to see Tacitus' larger point is perhaps irreconcilable.
I believe the reason that Diana (for whom I have unrequited respect) continues to be blind to this parallel, and remains committed to battling the dialectic in one direction and promoting it in the other, is not because she is Jewish2, but because she is an Israeli partisan, and thus sees all Muslims through lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which she equates to "The Jewish-Muslim Conflict". I don't subscribe to that equivalence, but of course there are many Palestinian-partisans who are ready and willing to meet her on that ideological field of battle. Still, the fact that I don't and won't make that distinction means that as far as my attitude towards Jews is concerned, I really am a moderate, and its Diana who's the fundamentalist.
Another aspect of Diana's screed that puzzled me is this assertion3:
Aziz has created a niche in the blogosphere as a moderate and reasonable Muslim. But more than that, he's not a Muslim who just happens to blog. He blogs as a Muslim. From the little that I have read of his blog, it appears that most everything he writes about is specifically from an Islamic perspective.
This is a subsconcious attempt by Diana to rationalize the dialectic that Tacitus identifies above. It's easier to see my opinions as representing an "Islamic perspective", because she can then put the source of our disagreements on issues as a matter of doctrine. It gives her a more clearly defined Other to define herself against.
However, my blog is a reflection of my entire personality. Do Movie Night posts have anything to do with Islam? How about my critiques of Bush? Or how Apple sucks? Or my ode to the Old Man? Or my fervent hope for a pressure-washing system?
Obviously, what she really refers to when she says "most everything he writes about" is "when he writes about Israel" (and thus by extension in her own mind but not mine, the Jewish People.) But if you look honestly at every single post I have ever written about Israel, you will see that religion and Islam play absolutely zero role in my analysis. This is because criticism of Israel is a political and social act, not a religious one, unless you've already subscribed to Biblical prophecy and dream of Eretz Israel. Speaking as a Muslim, from an Islamic perspective, about Israel means that I would have nothing to say. Apart from the broad moral lessons that are shared by all religions - such as "without justice, there can be no peace."
UPDATE: Miranda has the last word.
[1] Diana made this point in many places, but I chose to link to her guest post on Junk Yard Blog because that's where she made the case most fully. Keep in mind that in the chronology of posts, her post on Bryan's site actually post-dates Tacitus' comment.
[2] I am always uncomfortable writing "jewish", I'd prefer to say "is a Jew" because its more accurate. But muslim wackos have so tainted the phrase "is a Jew" that I just shy away from it whenevr possible (example: I argue that hey, Israel is a nice place. response: "Vot! arrre yuu a Jew?!". me: sigh.) But the problem with "jewish" is nicely illustrated by the old joke (someone help me source it):
Rabbi: Why don't you come to the synagouge more often? It's your responsibility as a Jew!
Man: well, Rabbi, I'm not really a Jew, I'm Jew-ish.
Perhaps he meant, "I am a Heeb." ? BTW, that's a fascinating and really engaging discussion over at Jonathan's site that I really recomend reading. The sequel is here.
3note that the issue of whether Diana's reaction was contingent on my being muslim, or not, is irrelevant to me. Reaction to what I write is because I wrote it, and part of that I is indeed being muslim. I'm just refuting the assertion that I "nblog from teh perspective of Islam" because this is dangerously close to assuming that all my opinions stem from Islam alone.
Thursday, May 8, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)