Category Archives: conservatism

When You Ride Alone …

Posted on by

Speaking of the Highway Trust Fund — talk of federal gasoline taxes reminded me that very early in the Bush Administration there was a big push to keep HTF money from being spent on mass transit.

Very basically, the gas taxes are collected by the federal government, which takes its cut and then allocates the remainder as the federal government sees fit. According to the Department of Transportation, “Of the 18.3 cents collected per gallon of gas, 12 cents goes into the highway account, 2 cents goes into the mass transit account, and 4.3 cents is credited to the general fund of the Treasury.”

So back in July 2001 some guy from the Heritage Foundation, naturally, complained that “our roads” were suffering because of the 2 cents that went to mass transit. “Our roads” need that 2 cents. And most of the mass transit money went to a handful of “rich” (read “blue”) states, anyway!

In the case of Virginia, as well as 24 other mostly Southern states, the amount of money returned is less than the taxes paid, while the other 26 states, mostly in the North, get more back than they pay. … today as much as 18 percent of trust-fund revenues paid by motorists are reserved for transit programs that benefit only a tiny fraction of commuters–currently about 5 percent.

Moreover, federal transit spending suffers from regional imbalances that are worse than those for highway spending. In 1999, more than 50 percent of federal transit spending went to just five states–California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas.

I never realized that California and Texas were in the north, but never mind. I remember that some Republican politicians proposed sending all the money collected in federal gas taxes within a state back to that state, minus the federal share. That way, poor and hard-driving red states wouldn’t end up subsidizing rich mass transit-riding blue states. I recall some guy — I think it was a Texas congressman, but I can’t find a link — making speeches about the evils of subsidized (read “socialist”) urban mass transit versus good ol’ all American payin’-for-themselves highways stretching across the heartland.

One problem with that idea is that overall the federal taxes collected in blue states subsidize more programs in red states than the other way around. Paul Krugman wrote in May 2002,

As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.

And within the red states, it’s the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes. The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite. Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America’s rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.

I dimly remember Senator Schumer suggesting that maybe the “blue” states should get back all their taxes, too, and how would you like them apples?

And it’s not like mass transit consumers are getting a free ride. If you commute into Manhattan on the Metro North Railroad, for example, you pay between $123 and $357 a month, depending on where you live along the line. Long Island Railroad riders pay between $130 and $342 a month. But unless you get a subsidized parking place as a job perk (rare), it’s cheaper than driving. If you live in the city and take a subway to work, a 30-day unlimited ride Metrocard will cost you $78. For people in low-wage jobs that’s a lot. Yet the expense of operating these transit systems is higher than revenue. Subsidy is required.

Most of the nation’s wealth is generated in our cities, and most big cities couldn’t exist without some kind of mass transit system. It may be hard for a taxpayer in rural Nebraska to grasp that his life is better because of the Long Island Railroad, but it is. And now that the Age of Cheap Gasoline seems to be coming to an end, seems to me a lot of people who turned up their noses at mass transit in the past might want to change their attitudes.

Back where I grew up in the Ozarks, every weekday morning a great many cars carrying one passenger each head northeast highway 67 and then take highway 55 north into St. Louis, where the one passenger has a job. The drive takes an hour, give or take, assuming no bottlenecks form. And then, of course, in the evening they come back. This happens around every city in America. Now, I grew up in the Midwest and I realize everything is spread out there, and you need to drive to get anywhere you want to go. Manhattan may be the only place in America where people can function very happily without ever driving a car.

However, seems to me the day will come when fewer and fewer people will be able to afford to drive two hours a day between work and home. But how long will it take for conservatives to figure out that putting all of our tax dollars into highways while starving mass transit is, um, shortsighted?

Demons

Posted on by

A student is arrested for threatening to kill the President. Some meathead rightie responds:

Just the sort of everyday stuff that the Left puts out. Like detailed threats to kill President Bush, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Oh, and a plea for anyone reading the messages to bomb the United States, rape and mutilate British and American women, and kill all Republicans.

I’ve never seen any such thing on any of the leftie blogs I read or blogroll, but never mind. People who list Michelle Malkin on their blogrolls are hardly in a position to point fingers.

I’m not going to defend the guy who was arrested without seeing what it was he wrote, because the last thing any of us needs is a presidential assassination. I want Bush to live a long and healthy life. Preferably in a maximum-security facility, but long and healthy, nonetheless.

This idiot conflates what the student’s lawyer said with what “liberals everywhere” must think. (It’s called a defense, dummy. They’re payin’ the lawyer to come up with an excuse. For all we know the lawyer is a Republican.)

And just this morning this troll complained to me that I was being too nasty to Michelle Malkin just because she’s dangerously close to inciting manslaughter — “I dont think that disliking someones politics means you have to demonise everything they say or do.” Hell, if the righties weren’t demonizing us, they wouldn’t have anything to blog about.

Who says righties aren’t as hateful as we are? They beat us in the hate department, hands down, every time they breathe.

Update: Please do not post Michelle Malkin’s home address or phone number in the comments. It will be deleted.

Update update: Another gentle soul heard from.

Is this what it means to be a liberal? Threatening violence and/or death to those who disagree with you?

    A Purdue University graduate student was arrested and charged with threatening to kill President George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

    Vikram Buddhi allegedly posted the detailed and threatening messages on an online message board.

What happen to tolerance, diversity, and anti-violence? And, no, I’m not using this story to generalize liberals.

Um, yes you are.

The news story doesn’t say squat about what Buddhi’s politics are; the blogger just assumes he’s a “liberal” and then proceeds to make vicious and unfounded generalizations about all “liberals.”

After Malkin’s recent “let’s send death threats to those who disagree with us” episode you’d think any rightie with a conscience (or a brain) would be a little more humble about who’s more tolerant of whom.

The blogger goes on to say he’s received threats because of his views. Hey, buddy, welcome to my world! Do you really think “your” side doesn’t send threats and obscenities to us?

Clue: They do.

Update: I did another technorati search this morning and still haven’t found any liberals rushing to the defense of Vikram Buddhi. Will Randy correct his error? Will pigs fly?

Malkin Watch

Posted on by

The rightie excuse for Malkin’s publishing of names and phone numbers (see previous post for background) is that the names and phone numbers were on a press release (see Joe Gandelman, who is a nice guy, for an explanation). If they hadn’t wanted their names and phone numbers made public, why were they on a press release?

And the answer is, press releases always come with the name and contact information of someone responsible for the press release, either above or below the text of the news release. This is so journalists can call that individual for more information or to confirm the relase is legitimate. Without such contact information most news desk editors would pitch the release into the famous round file. But anyone who has worked in a newsroom for more than ten minutes understands that the contact information itself is not “released” unless it appears in the text of the release.

The other excuse: “Lefties do it too.” As I’ve said many times, the foundation of all rightie moral standards is Billy hit me first and variations thereof. I regret that there are some people who lack the common sense and impulse control to not stoop to the level of sending Malkin obscene email. However, that doesn’t excuse what Malkin did.

The outrage over Michelle Malkin’s unethical and un-American behavior is growing. From around the blogosphere:

The Peking Duck: “The Badness of Michelle Malkin”

Not that there was ever any doubt, but the fire-breathing Ms. Maglalang once again proves that she’s purely bad news, a reckless bullying demagogue who has abandoned even the pretense of human decency. And I mean it. She represents the worst of the worst of the right-wing Wurlitzer.

Roxanne: “Send her a pair of toenail clippers.” OK.

TBogg: “Mickey & Mallory Malkin Go To College”

Really now. Did anyone expect any less of Michelle and Jesse Malkin than to use her C-level fame to launch her chromosomally damaged readers after some college students at UC Santa Cruz? C’mon, it’s not like she wants to limit her career options to three minute appearances on Fox with O’Reilly (did you know Bill never wears pants when she’s on? You can look it up) and book signings at Young Fleshy Slightly Damp College Republican conventions. Not when a horse-faced Ann Coulter is pulling down $30K an appearance to blurt out post-9/11 Andrew Dice Clay-isms in a voice that is about two octaves lower than Clays. Michelle is cute (and crazy)! And perky (and crazy)! And her soul is deader than Bob Dole’s dick (…and she’s crazy!). She deserves the big bucks and if she has to write like a tweaker with a raging yeast infection to get some attention, well, deal with it. She’s not going to be ignored! No slight to America is too small for Michelle not to fake a back-arching ragegasm guaranteed to engorge her loyal one-handed readers as they alt-tab back and forth between her site and bukakebitches.com.

PZ Myers, Pharyngula: “I’ll Take Anger Over Sleaze Any Day”

I don’t quite understand this etiquette thing. So Maryscott O’Connor is angry about war and corruption and our incompetent administration, and that’s bad. Naughty leftist, she should be better mannered and respectful to our president, no matter how badly he screws up.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin sics her mouth-breathing minions on some college-aged peace activists, and they get swamped with death threats from right wingers. And she does it twice, even after learning what kind of sewage her pals are spewing.

Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. Angry denunciations of political actions vs. vicious but infantile threats. Unstinting demands that our leaders do right vs. outrageous extortion. Which side do I want to be on?

I’ll pick the door on the left, Bob. Without hesitation.

Phoenix Democrat at Kos: “Michelle Malkin Is a Nazi”

She posted the phone numbers and E-mail addresses of activists who belong to Students Against War (SAW) in response to their campaign to have military recruiters removed off the University of California – Santa Cruz campus. She did this with every intent to have her fans contact and bombard them with hate, intolerance to free speech and death threats.

Yet, the fascist hypocrite cries that she gets hateful E-mail sent to her. I’m willing to bet that all the “hate mail” she cuts and pastes on her stupid site was typed by none other than HER, so she could say “look at what the liberals sent me, waaaaahhhhhh …” [UPDATE: Let’s assume Malkin really did get the nasty email she posted. I don’t doubt she does get some nasty email from lefties. I know I get plenty of it from righties, although I usually don’t whine about it.]

This is the tactic that ALL conservatives employ in an attempt to stifle free speech and turn the United States of America into a fascist dictatorship. More recently, Democratic congressional candidate Nick Lampson, running for Tom DeLay’s congressional seat, had his press conference disrupted by DeLay’s goon squad. There was pushing and shoving, a member of Lampson’s campaign was physically assaulted by a DeLay supporter and the police just stood there and made no arrests.

Chris Bowers, MyDD: “A Modest Proposal: The ‘No Death Threat’ Litmus Test For Bloggers.” Tongue in cheek, this:

Since I know that the WaPo is hot in search of a new conservative blogger in order to balance out original commentary and / or reporting with plagiarism, I would like to propose a simple “no death threat” litmus test for them as they conduct their search. For starters, don’t hire any blogger who posts private phone numbers of college students. Perhaps more importantly, don’t hire any blogger whose readers call said phone numbers and issue death threats to said college students. I would take this a step further, and suggest that the Post doesn’t hire anyone who blogrolls the death threat issuing blog, but that would exclude around 90% of the conservative blogosphere from consideration. Malkin, is the second most blogrolled conservative blog in the country, with 4,947 conservative blogs giving her a permanent link.

I, for one, can proudly say that the MyDD community has never posted private phone numbers and then had our readers call those numbers and issue death threats via said phone numbers. I plan to continue our no death threat policy, even though I realize that we now live in an era when issuing death threats to legal protesters has become commonplace. I know that there is debate about this in some circles, but I believe that issuing death threats to private citizens is, generally speaking, opposed to the principles of democratic discourse. I know that some say death threats help create balance in our contemporary political discourse, in order to counter those commentators who do not issue death threats. After all, how else can we make certain that those people who issue death threats are properly represented in our non-death threat issuing liberal media?

Peeking Under the Rock: “Michelle Malkin v. the Central Coast” (blogging from Santa Cruz):

She’s not the first person to disparage us: Ronald Reagan called my alma mater a “cross between a hippie craash pad and a whorehouse,” while I was there (or maybe the year before I got there,I forget). And don’t forget, the Homeland Security folks, whoi can’t be bothered to investigate or prosecute the right-wing militia types who actually murder people, have called these kids a “credible threat.”

Brad R., Sadly, No: “Michelle Malkin Does Not Live by the Same Code of Ethics as Normal Human Beings”

Yep, Another Goddamned Blog:

Apparently, Malkin herself is becoming even more unhinged as last night wore on. Now she’s posting her hate mail in an update of her own, resorting to the usual name-calling, blah blah blah and posting the very few comments from Kos that don’t outright condemn her.

Feel the love, Little Lulu. You earned it.

Updates —

Upper Left:

My beliefs about the assault on free speech by the UC Santa Cruz Students Against War are a matter of record. Even if you thought my crack about brown shirts and peace symbols was over the line perhaps you’ll share my observation that Ms. Malkin and her minions have added the colorful arm band and lightning bolt collar tabs to the ensemble.

Malkin’s inciting to a virtual riot, and the risk of the entire episode resulting in potentially tragic consequences in meat world is very real. Ezra is too kind, extending pity to a pundit whose only effective rhetorical tool is hatred. No, her act was informed, deliberate and viscious. As misbegotten as their behavior may have been, I don’t doubt that the students were acting from a misguided idealism. They thought suppression of speech was a reasonable trade off against stopping the war. They were wrong.

Malkin has no such idealism to claim. Her motive is calculated malice.

Carla, Preemptive Karma:

Malkin’s inability to muster up even basic scruples here is astounding–especially for a woman of her age. Anyone with even a rudimentary set of life experiences and maturity would know better than to put other people’s lives in danger this way.

Those who are threatening these students may be little more than keyboard cowards, hiding behind their pixels in an effort to compensate for a case of shriveled dick syndrome. But it only takes one whacko to do serious damage.

Steve Gilliard:

You would think Malkin wouldn’t have to stoop to encouraging the stalking of college kids to make her point.

Here’s a woman with a marriage, a child and a good job. Why would she think this was OK? I don’t know anyone who would post her personal information online. It just isn’t done. Does she think she wouldn’t bear any legal responsiblity if someone is harmed. Even if a case is tossed, that’s one ruined reputation and a large legal bill, at a minimum.

Another update: Ms. Shakes —

The heir-apparent to the heinous little niche of unhinged hatemongering which Ann Coulter has carved out for herself, Michelle Malkin, is really making moves to unseat the queen these days.


Georgia10 —

Malkin’s sustenance is hate–without it, she wouldn’t have anything to write about. She thrives on the misery and pain of others as she peddles in racism and inflammatory rhetoric. And her readers eat it up.

Dr. Atrios:

If Malkin had pulled down their phone numbers after being asked it wouldn’t be a big deal. They did put it on their press release. When I post press releases I usually try to remember to pull out the contact information, though I probably haven’t always remembered to do so. But if someone asked me to pull it down I would. The fact that a number has been made public somewhere on the internets does not mean that number should be posted on this blog as an encouragement for my readers to call it.

Taylor Marsh:

But phone numbers on the web reach a lot of people. It’s an invasion of personal privacy that could put people in further danger. For that act she received some pretty testy and profanity-laced emails, which she also shows on her blog.

Sticks and stones, baby, words are not going to hurt you. Yes, phone numbers can always be changed. One wonders how fast Malkin’s lawyer would whip into action if someone put her private number on the web.

What Us Angry Lefties Are Angry About

Posted on by

OK, now I’m really pissed.

Michelle Malkin declared herself judge and jury, found some student protesters to be guilty of sedition, and published their names and phone numbers so that they would be harassed.

And she calls them moonbats.

The students were protesting military recruiters on campus. For the record, I disagree with the students’ position. The military services are not our enemies; they are not the ones who make decisions to wage unjust wars. Blame the bleeping idiot civilians running the military for that. As long as the recruiters are not press-ganging students into boot camp, I say leave ’em be.

But as long as the protests against the recruiters are nonviolent, they’re not anyone’s business. They are especially not that bleeping blogging Nazi’s business, if she is not a student or faculty member of the college. If the students committed acts of vandalism, as some have alleged, then charge them and let the criminal justice system take care of it. But stirring up vigilante mobs is crossing a line.

Now Crooks and Liars reports the students are getting death threats nonstop. The students asked Malkin to take their contact information off her site; she refused.

Malkin’s hate-mongering is the stuff of legend. She’s even been criticized for it by Cathy Young at the Boston Globe, who is hardly a leftie. Now Lulu has put some college students in real danger. If any of them gets so much as a scratch because of Malkin, I sincerely hope somebody prosecutes her fascist ass.

And you want to know what else I’m pissed off about? This weekend, the Right Blogosphere whooped over the WaPo “angry left” and smugly boasted of their moral superiority because they are not as “angry” as we are. Which is bullshit, as Glenn Greenwald documented — see also The Wege at Norwegianity — but never mind. People bullshit themselves about themselves all the time; we all do it. If they want to point to the anger in us and ignore the bile and hate in themselves, fine. Sticks and stones, etc.

But right this minute I’m very angry. Most of the time I’m not, but now I am. I admit it. Malkin has crossed a line. Now let’s all step back and watch the Right Blogosphere’s knee-jerk defense of Malkin. Righties don’t threaten the lives of students out of anger; it’s just concern. Hate the sin, love the sinner. If somebody gets hurt that would be so unfortunate, but you know — stuff happens. If those young people don’t want death threats they should keep their mouths shut, right?

Nazis, I say.

Ezra Klein writes,

I know I’m not supposed to, but I pity Michelle Malkin. Really, I do. Punditry is a game of incentives, encouragement, luck. You write a hundred articles before striking paydirt with one. That zeitgeisty dispatch activates an eruption of applause and adulation, so you try to repeat it. Soon enough, you’ve got a niche, a style, a persona. The lucky ones, among whom I include myself, find their path opening towards responsible, serious commentary. The sort of articles that allow us to wake up, yawn, look in the mirror, and feel good about what we see. And then there are the unlucky ones, the Michelle Malkins, who achieve acceptance through hatred and venom, and find themselves groping down the darkest path to political success. …

…Malkin has created an identity of outrage, she trades in hate because she proved unable to achieve recognition for anything more elevated.

Sorta related — see also Digby, David Neiwert and James Wolcott.

Update: Malkin is today’s Countdown Worst Person in the World.

Pink Is the New Red, and George Is the New Jimmy

Posted on by

With the caveat that I admire Jimmy Carter and generally have a low opinion of Dick Morris, I give you Dick Morris in today’s New York Post:

GEORGE W. Bush is a one- term president now serving deep into his second term. Like his father, he shot his bolt during his first four years. Unlike his dad, he was able to persuade America to keep him around for another term. But he seems destined to spend the remainder of his tenure, à la Nixon, “twisting slowly in the wind.”

Bush has truly become the Republican equivalent of President Jimmy Carter, out of control, dropping in popularity, unable to resume command. He barely skated through 2004 using the issue of terrorism. But his very success in preventing further attacks has eroded the strength of the issue and has undermined its political importance. Tax cuts, the cause celebre of his 2000 campaign, have long since been passed and yielded their economic growth. But they’re long gone as a key issue.

Yet Bush, like his father, fails to invent issues to give his presidency a new lease on life. Is he too tired or lazy to do so? Does he not believe in government doing very much in the first place? Or is he so preoccupied with Iraq – as Carter was with the hostage crisis – that he can’t divert his attention to new issues?

Even when he seeks to develop an issue, his approach is half-hearted and ineffective. It seems that on any issue other than taxes and terrorism, he has attention-deficit disorder. He squandered his re-election “political capital” on a Social Security reform he spent six months pushing and a year and a half running away from.

His energetic denunciation of America’s “oil addiction” animated his State of the Union speech but, by March, it was missing from his rhetoric. It never even got to the stage of a program before he abandoned it. Now he flirts with the immigration issue – seeking a middle course that satisfies nobody.

And so, with no political immune system, he is subject to the infection du jour, be it the Dubai ports deal or the Iraq leaking scandal. In the meantime, his party is wallowing in a massive public perception of congressional corruption.

OK, one more quibble — second paragraph, “But his very success in preventing further attacks has eroded the strength of the issue and has undermined its political importance.” Nonsense. His “accomplishments” in the national security arena are now understood to be more from luck than skill. After Katrina, after the 9/11 Commission flunked his administration on security, it’s too painfully obvious that we remain woefully unprepared for a terrorist attack, which could happen any minute.

So it’s going on six years since 9/11. Big deal. Eight years went by between the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 9/11 attacks. (I distinctly remember, sometime in the late 1990s, arguing with some rightie in an online forum that we need to remain concerned about terrorist attacks. I was pooh-poohed.)

Morris goes on to suggest what Bush might do to salvage his second term. Not only are most of these suggestions inane, Bush wouldn’t do them, anyway, so we don’t need to bother about them.

Instead, see “Pink Is the New Red” by Richard Morin at WaPo.

States that were once reliably red are turning pink. Some are no longer red but a sort of powder blue. In fact, a solid majority of residents in states that President Bush carried in 2004 now disapprove of the job he is doing as president. Views of the GOP have also soured in those Republican red states. …

… Of course some states are still dependably Republican. But even these are not quite as red as they were a few years ago. For example, Utah residents showered Bush with 72 percent of their votes in 2004, his biggest win that year. But the latest statewide poll by the Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV suggests that 61 percent approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a double-digit drop in approval since June. “Bush is dragging down every Republican officeholder in the nation, even here,” pollster Dan Jones, a political science professor at the University of Utah, told the Morning News.

On the other hand, states that were blue are now a deeper blue.

Speaking of anger (see previous post), James Carroll writes in today’s Boston Globe,

An Iranian official dismissed the talk of imminent US military action as mere psychological warfare, but then he made a telling observation. Instead of attributing the escalations of threat to strategic impulses, the official labeled them a manifestation of ”Americans’ anger and despair.”

The phrase leapt out of the news report, demanding to be taken seriously. I hadn’t considered it before, but anger and despair so precisely define the broad American mood that those emotions may be the only things that President Bush and his circle have in common with the surrounding legions of his antagonists. We are in anger and despair because every nightmare of which we were warned has come to pass. Bush’s team is in anger and despair because their grand and — to them — selfless ambitions have been thwarted at every turn. Indeed, anger and despair can seem universally inevitable responses to what America has done and what it faces now.

I guess it’s not just us leftie bloggers, huh?

Tom Engelhardt writes,

You can count on one thing. All over Washington, Republicans are at least as capable as I am of watching and interpreting the polling version of the smash-up of the Bush administration. …

… Despite various bumps and plateaus — including a conveniently engineered, Karl Rovian bump just before election 2004 — it’s been a slow, ever-downward path that, in early 2005, dipped decisively under 50%; by the end of 2004 had crossed the 40% threshold; and is, at present, in the mid-30% range.

There’s no reason to believe that the bottom has been reached.

Here’s the juicy part (boldface added):

This is the situation before some future round of hideous polling figures sets off a full-scale panic in the Republican Party, leading possibly to a spreading revolt of the pols that could put the present revolt of the generals in the shade. Given the last couple of years, and what we now know about the Bush administration’s inability to operate within the “reality-based community” (as opposed to spinning it to death), there is no reason to believe that a polling bottom exists for this President, not even perhaps the Nixonian Age of Watergate nadir in the lower 20% range.

If current trends continue, I can foresee a point at which the Republican Party abandons Bush to save itself. We may even see the political marginalization of the neocon-fundie axis that remains what is left of his base. It is possible — not in the cards yet, but possible — that by 2007 the GOP will be frantic to get Bush out of the public eye so that he doesn’t drag down the 2008 elections.

Then Republican leaders will march to the White House and demand that he resign, which I guess would make Bush the new Dick Nixon.

The Not-So-Grand Tour

Posted on by

Is it just me, or do you ever wonder whether righties ever leave home?

Americans tourists have pretty much always been regarded as “ugly” in the sense that we have the temerity to be wealthy enough to afford vacations to foreign countries, then show up over there and instead of just handing over our traveler’s checks, we actually talk, dress and act in an American fashion.

Does this guy think all foreigners live in dirt hovels and dress in lederhosen? Good grief. In Europe these days, about the only way you can pick an American tourist out of the crowd is by the big red maple leaf on his T-shirt.

And given the currency exchange rates, I ‘spect your average foreign tourist finds it more affordable to come here than average Americans can afford to go there.

The rightie had linked to an article in the Telegraph (UK) that says the US State Department is issuing guides on how to behave abroad. The advice may be more aimed at businessmen than tourists.

Under a programme starting next month, several leading US companies will give employees heading abroad a “World Citizens Guide” featuring 16 etiquette tips on how they can help improve America’s battered international image.

Get this:

Business for Diplomatic Action (BDA), a non-profit group funded by big American companies, has also met Karen Hughes, the head of public diplomacy at the State Department, to discuss issuing the guide with every new US passport. The goal is to create an army of civilian ambassadors.

Let’s be sure Karen Hughes gets some copies before she takes another Middle East goodwill tour and embarrasses us all again.

The guidelines boil down to don’t brag, don’t lecture, don’t proselytize, and don’t argue about politics. Especially US politics.

Hmm, maybe it’s better if the righties continue to stay home.

Other than “whenever possible, let them think you’re Canadian,” what other guidelines might we suggest for American innocents abroad?

Rightie Watch

Posted on by

A rightie blogger is outraged that Eleanor Clift, best known as the token liberal on “The McLaughlin Group,” is biased in favor of liberalism.

Any faithful watcher of “The McLaughlin Group” knows that one of the most transparently biased members of the antique media over the past two decades has been Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift. Week in and week out, Eleanor rips apart every Republican on the political landscape while oozing nothing but adoration for those on the opposite side of the aisle even when they are found guilty of serious transgressions.

The other regulars, including Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan, and McLaughlin himself are, of course, the very measure of objectivity. Snort.

Clift’s op-ed posted at Newsweek’s website on Friday is a fine example. After somewhat misrepresenting the seriousness of the recent allegations that have emerged from Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff I. Lewis Libby concerning unclassified information from a National Intelligence Estimate by President Bush, Clift went right into a stump speech: “The only way the American people can stop Bush’s imperial expansion of power short is to turn out in massive numbers to take back one or the other body of Congress from Republican control.”

My goodness, Eleanor: You’re supposed to be a journalist. This isn’t reporting.

Of course it’s not reporting, you stupid twit. Newsweek clearly labels the op-editorial as “commentary” in big red letters. That means it’s the columnist’s personal opinion and analysis.

It won’t surprise you that the blogger who can’t tell the difference between commentary and reporting has dedicated his blog to “exposing and combating liberal media bias.” If you define liberal media bias as “everything I don’t want to hear because it contradicts MY biases,” and you’re an idiot to boot, there’s no question that liberal bias in media is as common as onions. People with functioning frontal lobes might not agree, of course.

The Clift op ed, btw, is pretty good. The first page, anyway. On the second page she devolves into Joe Biden apologia.

Yesterday I commented on this E.J. Dionne column about the ongoing crisis in American conservatism. Well, the same rightie genius linked above came up with this excuse:

I guess E.J. must have written this piece before this morning’s announcement by the Labor Department that the economy added more jobs in the past three months than in any first quarter since before the stock market bubble collapsed, and that over five million jobs have been added since Conservatives fought for tax cuts in 2003.

Conservatism’s dead, E.J.? Hardly.

About that announcement, see Hale Stewart, “Bush’s Job Creation Record Worst of Last 40 Years (Still).”

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the last recession ended in November 2001. That means we have had 54 months of an economic recovery. First, notice how Bush uses May 2003 as the starting point of his comparison? Why is he doing this? Because May 2003 is the lowest point of establishment job creation in his administration. Since the actual trough in November 2001 Bush’s economy has created 4,083,000 jobs. At the same point (54 months) all other expansions of the last 40 years had created more jobs.

At 54 months,

The expansion starting in February 1961 created 6,550,000 jobs

The expansion starting in November 1970 created 6,240,000 jobs

The expansion starting in March 1975 created 13,565,000 jobs

The expansion starting in November 1982 created 12,366,000 jobs

The expansion starting in March 1991 created 8,718,000 jobs.

Therefore, Bush’s economy would have to create 2,157,000 jobs to be second to last on this list.

There is no way that Bush can create enough jobs to increase his rank to 4th on the list. At this point, he will go down as presiding over the weakest records of job creation of the second half to the 20th century.

The excitement when Bush’s economy squeezes out some jobs is akin to watching, say, a trained pig push a ball with his nose. The wonder is not that the pig is so skilled, but that it can do the trick at all.

Still Irrelevant

Posted on by

E.J. Dionne on the GOP meltdown:

President Bush inadvertently underscored the weakness of the Republican agenda when he flew to Bridgeport, Conn., on Wednesday to campaign for his health savings accounts, known as HSAs. Virtually no one other than the president — oh, and perhaps a few ideologues and insurance companies — sees HSAs as anything approaching a comprehensive solution to the nation’s growing health-care problem.

Senate Republicans have already dropped HSAs from their budget, and Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the Finance Committee chairman, has been openly skeptical about doing anything on HSAs this year. The president was thus campaigning for a doomed idea in Connecticut when, just over the border in Massachusetts, a bipartisan majority in the legislature was passing a visionary plan requiring all residents to buy health insurance and providing subsidies for those who can’t afford the full freight. The contrast between the policy energy that exists in many states and the intellectual torpor in Washington could not have been more stark.

Remember what I said about Bush becoming irrelevant?

Dionne’s point is that conservatism is becoming irrelevant. It may be a little early to make that pronouncement, but we’re certainly stumbling in that direction. Just start counting the many ways in which this nation is bleeped up, and then trace the problem back to its source — policies based on conservative ideology. And this is exactly why the Republican-controlled federal government can’t solve those problems. “Republicans are paralyzed because they can’t deal with the core problems without walking away from their earlier policy choices,” says Dionne.

Why is the federal government so impotent to reform the nation’s health care mess? Because of conservatives. For years we haven’t even been able to have a coherent national discussion on health care, because righties shout it down. So the President goes on the road to sell meaningless tweaks as some kind of solution, and he’s so irrelevant even his own party is ignoring him.

Why are we in Iraq? You know the answer to that one.

Why do we have a bleeping out-of-control deficit? “It took no great genius to see that cutting taxes in a time of war and other security threats would create large problems,” says Dionne. “The contradiction between the current majority’s small-government rhetoric and heavy federal spending has been visible for years.” Visible to anyone but righties. As long as Democrats were in control of at least part of the federal government and were the ones mostly responsible for writing the budget, righties could jeer about “tax and spend liberals.” But given the responsibility of making the hard choices themselves, righties proved they can’t do it.

“Big spending on war, defense and prescription drugs for the elderly, combined with big tax cuts, produces a fiscal squeeze,” says Dionne. Not to mention the uncontrolled pork. At this point the only solution is to either raise taxes or declare bankruptcy and turn the country over to the foreign banks who hold most of our IOUs. But you know the Republicans’ heads would explode before they’d raise taxes. They’ll put the nation in hock to China first.

Bottom line, hard-right ideology doesn’t work in the real world. In that way it’s like Marxism — sounds good when you talk about it, turns out bad when you try to do it.

This is not to say that we should run all conservatives out of town. We’ll always need people at the government table making an argument against excess spending, social engineering, and foreign entanglements — what conservatives used to argue about. It’s a necessary counterweight to some of the flightier impulses of liberals.

But I tend to be skeptical of ideology, period. (See Jonathan Chait, “The Anti-Dogma Dogma“). Ideologies are, IMO, just interfaces to reality. They make the world easier to understand by limiting one’s choices and narrowing one’s focus. But it’s the stuff ideologues refuse to acknowledge — because it’s not written into the interface — that always trips ’em up. And this is just as true of leftie ideology as it is of rightie ideology.

But liberalism is, IMO, less an ideology than a value. John F. Kennedy said,

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

Conservatism, on the other hand, seems to be rooted in the idea that people must be controlled by authority. And if they can’t be controlled by law, then they will be controlled by lies, manipulation, deceit, and propaganda. And right now the same deluded rightie Kool-Aiders who yap about Bush promoting “freedom” are sowing the seeds of totalitarianism as fast as they can.

Yet we can hope they are also sowing the seeds of their own self-destruction. The results of their own actions have boxed them in. They can’t even address our nation’s problems because, more often than not, it was their lamebrain policies that caused the problems, or else made an existing problem worse. And “stay the course” is not a policy, especially when most Americans can see we’re going the wrong way.

The extent to which Democrats signed on to rightie policies in the past — out of fear or political expedience or because they were righties themselves all along — compromises them, of course. Just when we need a pride of lions, we get a pond full of toads. But that’s another rant.

Let’s end on a positive note. If you want another clue to Bush’s irrelevancy, check out yesterday’s Froomkin column.

President Bush is throwing Vice President Cheney to the wolves — or, more specifically, to the Nationals fans.

According to longstanding precedent, one of the two of them had to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at the home opener of Washington’s home team on Tuesday — and face the inevitable boos and catcalls.

Bush is sending Cheney.

Heh.