Thursday, May 26, 2005
Why might Krugman consider the administration liars on matters economic? Let us refresh someone’s memory (see blogroll for link to Spinsanity).The fact that Bush has to obfuscate his real goals of reducing spending with the smoke screen of “compassionate conservatism” shows how uphill the struggle is ... Yes, some of the time he is full of it on his economic policies. But a certain amount of B.S. is necessary for any vaguely successful retrenchment of government power in an insatiable entitlement state ... Bush and Karl Rove are no dummies. They have rightly judged that, in a culture of ineluctable government expansion, where every new plateau of public spending is simply the baseline for the next expansion, a rhetorical smoke screen is sometimes necessary.To continue to believe anything this administration says after making that exhortation is unwise. To be outraged when it lies about fiscal policy in the future is absurd. To be outraged when it lies about torturing prisoners of war is intellectually indefensible. To be outraged when someone else calls that administration liars is beyond outrageous.
posted by Sully 5/26/2005 03:11:00 PM
WELL, UH, REALLY:
When people vote against something, or appear to be about to, that isn’t “a kind of democratic protest,” it is democracy in action.
We could say something about what that suggests about what the right wing really thinks democracy is about, but we’ll be fair to Sullivan since he’s not really right-wing anymore.
posted by Sully 5/26/2005 03:08:00 PM
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
EYEPOPPER OF THE DAY:
Some may have become?
Why do you think people started watch blogs on other blogs, Blog Queen?
posted by Sully 5/25/2005 01:41:00 PM
DIS INGENUOUSNESS WATCH:
For those of you who don’t remember, way back when in early 2002 Sullivan had a feud going with Dreher, then a regular contributor to National Review and naturally The Corner.
Dreher hates homosexuals, and naturally this upsets Andrew a great deal.
Dreher left for the Dallas Morning News, and then the fighting stopped. His name was no longer mentioned on Sullivan’s blog, and he might as well have dropped off the face of the earth.
But The Blog Queen remembers. Never forgives. Never forgets.
So today he springs his revenge.
Notice, however, that he seems to be banking on the fact that he included enough of the quote to assume that readers won’t click on the link, and thus will assume that Dreher said it in the News, not, as it actually is, buried deep in the comments section of Amy Welborn’s blog.
The involvement of Welborn might be some manner of payback as well ... as longtime readers will recall, Sullivan laced her with a driveby smear in fall 2003 which he never retracted despite numerous calls on her part to do so.
posted by Sully 5/25/2005 01:30:00 PM
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT?:IN CASE YOU’RE WONDERING: Bo.We cannot for the life of us find what this relates to in any of the other posts. Is it possible he just had some sort of narcoleptic fit at the keyboard?
posted by Sully 5/25/2005 01:27:00 PM
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
WE DIDN’T KNOW THERE WERE ANY INCENTIVES:
Does anyone else find this, from Sullivan’s writing about his pet viri, as disturbing as we do?The broader point: Yet another disincentive to getting HIV has evaporated. How are you supposed to scare people when the treatment is this simple, this effective and this easy?We’ve always suspected that Sullivan regarded his infection as some mere mellow-harshing inconvenience. Now there’s proof.
Yes, we know, he ultimately uses it to call for better ways of encouraging safer sex. But we also know that Sullivan regards a responsibility to engage in safe sex as itself an inconvenience.
Do you, Captain Bareback, realize just how fucking lucky you are to live in a country where you have been fortunate to find an employer willing to let you keep your health benefits for a mere few articles a year?
Go to southern Africa sometime. You forgot what it was like to get scared? There are plenty of “pozzies” there who’d love for it to come down to two pills a day.
UPDATE 5/25: We knew someone else would pick up on this, and R Morgernstern at Best of Both Worlds gives Sullivan a slapping for trivializing Type 2 diabetes in comparison to AIDS.
posted by Sully 5/24/2005 01:09:00 PM
STILL NOT QUITE GETTING IT:
Despite his acceptance of the Compromise of 2005, Sullivan is still slightly infected by some of the thinking that forced it:The Dems have to get used to the fact that this administration won the election ...This is an echo of the underlying sentiment behind getting rid of the filibuster, that “we won the election so we should be able to do whatever we want.” This is what happens when you trot around after the election calling a two-percent (and maybe not even that) margin of victory a mandate. Your side actually believes it.
If we wanted to play that game, we could (and did) just as easily point out that the combined votes for Democratic senators exceed those for their Republican counterparts. But, to what pass for conservatives these days, winning the presidential election is all that matters.
As said elsewhere, if Republicans don’t like the fact that they don’t have enough Senators to win a party-line cloture vote, they can devote their considerable campaign and fundraising skills to winning five Senate seats in fall 2006. That they didn’t, that they tried to change the rules so they could win without trying, is in our opinion yet more evidence that they know they’ve tapped out their base and can’t reliably expect to do it at the polls anymore (Meanwhile, Steve Mussina looks over some other news events of yesterday and divines another indicator of what this is really all about).
As for Dems having to face the fact that “hard right fundamentalists are going to become judges,” well, OK, no one expected a second William O. Douglas from this administration, but one expects that judges, whether fundamentalists or not, will follow the same precedents judges always have, and won’t, like Janice Brown, subscribe to theories that say it’s OK to use “higher law” to decide clear-cut constitutional questions, won’t (Priscilla Owen) unreasonably drag out a case until the plaintiff dies after having received campaign contributions from a law firm representing the defendant, or (William Pryor) take campaign contributions from companies they refuse to prosecute.
The fundamentalists are not just satisfied to have appointees who share their views of life, the universe and everything on the bench. No, long before a Christian fundamentalist judge repeatedly ruled in Michael Schiavo’s favor, they were unpleasantly surprised when two Reagan appointees liberals claimed to be terrified of ruled in favor of flag desecration, Clarence Thomas cast the deciding vote to spring a kiddie-porn collector and then finally Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion overturning sodomy laws, they realized they had to get the results they wanted, and the Bush Three come with a 100 percent guarantee of results, with the added benefit of their sordid pasts expressing the religious right’s contempt for the judiciary in the process.
Complaints about the independence of the judiciary go back a long way on both sides of the aisle. FDR’s court-packing plan failed; so to, shall this. Could any principled legislative minority let this stand?
posted by Sully 5/24/2005 12:34:00 PM
Monday, May 23, 2005
THUS IS THE CAPITAL LETTER DEFICIT MADE UP:
Friday:The Catholic hierarchy will also, i think, be far tougher on Catholic candidates than in the pastToday:It is a victory for Jihadism to turn this battle into a fight between Islam and Christianity
posted by Sully 5/23/2005 12:42:00 PM
WHERE A STAR WARS QUOTE WOULD REALLY BE RELEVANT:It is so sad to watch decent people like Glenn Reynolds or Wretchard descend into this moral abyss, even though their motives are doubtless good ones.In the sci-fi psychodrama we all went out and saw over the past few days (come on, admit it!), all Anakin wanted to do was keep yet another woman close to him from dying in his arms, and restore a sense of moral certainty to his life and society in the process. Doubtless good motives.
(Star Wars Episode III spoilers ahead. Yes, we couldn’t resist working this into a post)
That process turned out to include his leading the wholesale slaughter of the Jedi á la the Night of the Long Knives and the sack of their Temple (when Lucas included those long shots of the smoke from the burning temple dominating the Coruscant skyline, were you as reminded of something as we were? Do you think that was intentional?), and Anakin himself taking a lightsaber to defenseless children, then proceeding to the Outer Rim Territories for yet another bloody purge, all to bolster the power of Chancellor Palpatine (sorry, couldn’t resist that; the resemblance throughout the early half of the movie is uncanny). And the kicker is, his murderous embrace of the Dark Side didn’t even get him what he wanted all along — Padmé’s life!
No wonder conservatives are hating this movie so much ... they have become on the whole a movement of Anakin Skywalkers.
Perhaps some future Luke will come to redeem them, but Sullivan, you are not him. For now you should consider them as dead as Obi-Wan told Luke Anakin was, bearing as much resemblance to what you once perceived them to be as the end-days Terri Schiavo did to the woman in the early 1980s pictures.
Lost to the Dark Side they are. Reassess your alliances must you.
posted by Sully 5/23/2005 12:42:00 PM
Maybe, to be fair, Podhoretz was on to something. Last week he paraphrases Revenge of the Sith; this week he’s quoting Spiderman (entirely without attribution or irony, of course). Is he, like, turning 16 again or something?
posted by Sully 5/23/2005 12:36:00 PM