Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/18/2003 12:11:00 AM (Archive Link)
Slaying Hydra, Diverting Rivers, Punching Holes in Paper and Other Feats of Hercules

So the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out in beautiful San Francisco has decided that the recall should be postponed because up to 40,000 voters could be disenfranchised. More specifically, 40,000 minority voters may not be properly counted because of the whole punch card ballot issue. This has got to be one of the most patronizing things ever. Right now, pick up a pen, pencil, or some other similarly shaped item. Now hold said item in your hand with the pointy end away from you and slowly yet purposely thrust it away from you as if you were gently poking somebody with it. The ACLU is essentially saying minority voters are unable to sufficiently carry out this motion when it comes to punch card ballots. If I were a California minority, I’d be fairly insulted.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/18/2003 12:10:00 AM (Archive Link)
Clinton Speaks!

We haven’t had a Clinton item in a while (or any other item), so let’s lead off with that. He was speaking at Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry in Iowa this past weekend (whaddya wanna bet they also had veggie burgers?). The article doesn’t give his entire speech but it does provide some juicy quotes.

Among them: “Don't tell me about class warfare. I'm all for wealth and business. I just think we all ought to go up together.” Funny… the median income has been on the rise for a long time. Doesn’t that mean we are going up together? Likely what he means is that we’re not all going up at the same rate. There’s that whole meaningless rich-poor gap… the rich are getting richer at a faster pace than the poor are getting richer. Who cares? The poor’s standard of living is still going up all the time. That reminds me of a story that Dinesh D’Souza relates in his book, What’s So Great About America (it’s a statement, not a question). Back in the 80’s, CBS aired a program that was meant as a smear on President Reagan and his economic policies. It visited all these lower class folks and showed the tough times they were having. The Soviets picked up on this and decided to broadcast the program in Russia as their own smear on Reagan and America. Problem is, it backfired. All these people who were destitute under the Soviet regime watched the show and were amazed by it… even some of America’s poorest people had refrigerators, microwaves, color TV’s, their own cars! If the smear program were to be redone today (and it just might be), you could probably include computers and mobile phones on that list. How truly awful. Sure, there are less fortunate people in the U.S. Always will be. The point is that they’re a helluva lot more fortunate than people elsewhere and are becoming more fortunate all the time. Just because they don’t have wide-screen plasma TV’s doesn’t mean we need drastic government intervention.

“I never had a nickel until I left the White House.” Poor Bill. It must have been rough living off of taxpayers for 20 years. What with the chauffeurs, and the helicopters, and the mansions, and the staff that takes care of all your wants and needs… some staff members providing for different needs and wants, of course. The true heart bleeds for him.

“What's the sacrifice that's being asked of people who make more than $1 million a year? It's the energy they have to expend opening the envelopes containing their tax cuts.” That and that they’re still in the highest tax bracket and are providing for the bulk of the federal budget every year. This quote also makes it seems like millionaires are the only people who benefited from the tax cuts. Here are some figures for you. The top 10% of America’s earners pay 62.4% of the taxes. In order to qualify for the top 10%, you need to have a yearly income of just $75,000 to $80,000. A nice income, yes, but most wouldn’t call such people “rich.” If you do want to talk about just the “rich,” though, how’s this: the top 1% pay 32% of the taxes. 32%! That’s an incredibly disproportionate figure. Seems to me they’re still being asked to sacrifice a lot more than envelope-opening energy. [source: Paul Craig Roberts, “Declining Power of Truth,” Investor’s Business Daily (March 15, 1999)]

“Instead of uniting the world, we alienated it. Instead of uniting the country, he [Bush] alienated it.” To a degree, yes. However, that doesn’t mean we were wrong in alienating some Europeans. Perhaps, the Frenchies were wrong for being put out by our desire to not get unexpectedly bombed. As for the country, the folks who are alienated would have been alienated if Bush had become Clinton II. Just the fact that he’s a Republican is off-putting to them.

“The American people, not 5 percent of them know they gave me a tax cut and then kicked children out of after-school programs. They are not putting those things together. All we have to do is make it clear what our differences are.” Nobody got kicked out of anything because of the tax cuts. Unfortunately, spending drastically needs to be cut in Washington. The problem with creating any new agency, or program, or any new line of funding within a government or bureaucracy is that once it’s created, it’s almost impossible to reduce or especially eliminate. The big reason for that is once it’s created, the main mission of its supporters or directors is not to carry out the mission for which it’s intended. Instead, the main mission is self-perpetuation despite problems with effectiveness or efficiency. The other issue with this Clinton-quote is that he says most Americans just don’t understand the seriousness of the cuts, therefore it’s up to Democrats “to make it clear what our differences are.” This is surely selling Americans short. We’re too stupid to get it so we need the Dems to ‘splain it to us. Gosh, thanks Bill. Could it be that we, the majority, simply don’t agree with the Democrat line of thinking? That we agree with tax cuts and think they’re a good thing? That we think government should cut useless spending to bring down deficits as opposed to raising taxes to pay for said useless spending? Nah, that couldn’t be it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/18/2003 12:10:00 AM (Archive Link)
10 Questions for Madeline Albright

Time magazine often has a piece in which they ask a notable ten questions… not nine, not eleven, but ten. Ten often silly questions with no follow-up. Maddy was no different. First read the actual article and then come back here and let me you give you the real meat of what her answers were.

Question 1: About the score settling.
Answer: I’d rather settle scores with the Bush administration.

Question 2: Did Clinton neglect the Al Qaeda threat?
Answer: No. Ok, kinda. Alright, yes. I mean, we just threw a few missiles around. Bush hasn’t found bin Laden with 8,000 troops, so we sure as heckfire didn’t come close.

Question 3: Should we have invaded Iraq?
Answer: Yes, we really should have. Did I say that? Uhhh… maybe we shouldn’t have. Hold on a second.
C:\>defaultanswer.exe
I’d have to give the default answer that the whole thing has been mishandled.
C:\>

Question 4: Has the war made terrorism better or worse?
Answer: I’m going to lie and say the administration immediately tied Saddam to 9/11 even though every single official has taken great pains never to make such a claim. Ties to terrorism and Al Qaeda, yes, but not to 9/11 specifically. Aside from that, they said Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism. That’s not the way I saw it but I don’t feel compelled to tell you why. Now it really is a breeding ground for terrorists since that swell Saddam is gone. [Breeding ground, no. Bug zapper, yes]

Question 5: What should the U.S. do next?
Answer: Frankly, if there were a President Gore, we wouldn’t be in this particular mess. We’d be in a wholly different and far worse mess bordering on being screwed. But now that we’re here, we can’t fail. Let’s stay in control in Iraq but let the UN mess things up through leeching the country and through bureaucratic mismanagement.

Question 6: Bush started out as “Anything But Clinton” but now is closer to your approach because he wants the UN’s help administering aid in Iraq. That’s it. So everything is so Clinton. Do you ever gloat?
Answer: No, I’m much too kind and generous a person. Tee-hee. Wink, wink.

Question 7: Has Bush been right to sideline Arafat?
Answer: Arafat’s a bad man. He’s not a force for good which means that he must be a force for evil. So Bush was obviously wrong to sideline a bad man who’s a force for evil when it comes to peace settlements.

Question 8: Is Sharon a big obstacle to peace?
Answer: Yes. Really, though, it’s all up to the U.S. to make sure everything happens properly in Israel. It’s all our responsibility. Since things aren’t happening properly, that means it’s our fault. No, it’s the administration’s fault. Hey, look at me! I was able to get in another dig on Bush.

Question 9: What was it like being a female Sec. of State?
Answer: I made a lot of friends. Summer camp at the UN was great. Oh, and I brought up women’s issues. Didn’t really accomplish anything, though.

Question 10: What about those pins, Maddy?!
Answer: Thanks for a question for a question that has even more fluff than the last one! I gots lots. We traded them at the UN summer camp.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/08/2003 12:27:00 PM (Archive Link)
This is a complete and utter aside from the usual, but I found it extremely funny. My cat is having digestive troubles so I put a search into Google. This was one of the results. Note item number 1. I guess you really can find anything on eBay.