bustardblog

Free Frank Rich

On Eschaton this morning, Atrios argued  that "Times Select", the new program by the NY Times to charge web users who want to read Times Columnists on the net, would probably fail. Atrios very might well be the smartest and fairest blogger out there.  He makes a good argument that in large part the importance of the editorials and columnists at the Times is enhanced by the fact that so many people read them. By limiting access, his thesis is that the Times will only render the opinion pieces less influential.

I think that he very well might be correct.  Following that analysis, he posted Paul Krugman's op-ed piece from today's paper.  One of the commenters in the thread asked if there is some way to get Frank Rich's work for free as well.  I am mentioning this because  I fear that we Bloggers may be harming the very institutions that need strengthening.

A lot of posters on left wing blogs quite correctly complain about failures in the MSM. Often this is directed squarely at the WaPo and the NYT.  Yet these are arguably the best of the big guys.  We need them to hire, and pay, the next Paul Krugman or Frank Rich. But we don't think we should buy the papers.

It doesn't sound like a great plan to me.

Jon Stewart's Demise?

I  hope that I didn't just do something really stupid. I actually like Jon Stewart.

But this morning, I called one of my Italian friends who lives in the Todt Hill section of Staten Island.  (Think Tony Soprano's New Jersey neighborhood, only with bigger houses. And more class.)

He owes me one. I asked him to locate and eliminate whoever  it is that's the  host of the tv or radio show and who was the first to pompously promote his show by using the words "The Program" repeatedly.  To the audience: "Welcome to The Program." To the guest: "Thanks for agreeing to appear on The Program." Or: "Thanks for being on The Program, and I hope you'll come back to The Program again soon." Before an ad, "After these short messages, we'll return to The Program." Tomorrow, the guests on The Program will be....  "Thank you for viewing The Program tonight, and please have a good night."

I really hope that it isn't Jon Stewart that started this one.  Because if so, he'll start nothing else. Ever.

A Disaster - but for which Party?

As readers of this blog's previous posts know, I have been afraid for some time that Katrina would morph into the angel that saves the Bush Presidency. Little did I know that people whom  I thought were good liberals would volunteer to help perform the miracle.

In her understandable dismay at what has occurred in her home town, Donna Brazile seems to have lost her capacity for critical thought. Following W's speech on Thursday, she wrote to the Washington Post. In that piece, she concludes that we are all one big family. Yes, she is a part of the Bush family.  ( If she were to visit 'Bar's' Kennebunkeport estate, in what quarter does she think she'd be housed?) The normally reliable Joe Conason seems to think that Bush has become a liberal.  In Salon on the 16th, he does say that Bush will continue to be incompetent and corrupt, but he also found Bush's comments on racism "refreshing." He likened Bush's call for "bold action" to somthing that might have been said by "FDR, JFK or LBJ." On the 15th in Slate, John Dickerson mentions that while "Katrina is his disaster", it is "also his chance."

The fact that Republicans are willing to spend money (see previous post) and that they are capable of fine rhetoric should not be a surprise. But somehow, someway, it still is. The right will always spend whatever it costs to get re-elected. In a time of war and looming deficts please think of the Highway Bill, of the Energy Bill. The right will always say whatever is required to get elected. The same guy who called for "bold action" promised "no child would be left behind."  After overseeing a shockingly corrupt and incompetent occupation of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer was awarded the nation's highest medal.  You can be sure they are polishing Karl Rove's as you read this.

Because this massive spending is going to take place in our back yard, we should expect a smoother job.  After all the Bushies must have learned something in Iraq - at least about controlling the narrative.  We are about to witness the triumph of neo-con ideas.  The recovery of NOLA will be due to entrepreneurs working with less regulation.  (minimum wage laws, EPA rules, OSHA rules are already being changed along the gulf) New Orleans will "rise again" because Bush's theories of unfettered capitalism will have been allowed to take root. 

The left cannot be fooled again.  We must expect months in which fawning over the great accomplishments of Bush's "compassionate, caring restoration"  dominates the news cycle. Bush appointed the cynical, political Rove; not a disaster relief professional to  handle this cataclysm.  The left must find ways to stop the spin now if we are to have any chance in 2006.  When even savvy insiders like Brazile "sign up" to work with Bush, we're in trouble.

The RichBush

President's Bush last night did contain a few surprises.  His proposal that he pour money into NOLA is not one of them.  As readers of this blog know, we've been predicting this since September 3.  We've outlined some of the reasons that led us to expect this in previous posts, but we failed to mention one of the basics.

The Republican rich like to throw money at a problem.  They make fun of this concept.  But it is what they always do. 

Everybody  wants to have a clean house.  The poor clean house. The rich hire a maid.

People also  want their children to have a good education. The poor study hard.  The rich send their kids to private schools. If the child is not doing well, they hire tutors. In order to boost their chances of getting into the best college possible, they take special courses to pump them up for the SAT's .  They hire advisers to help write their college entrance applications.  Today, the schools that W attended would cost: Andover $31,000/year.  Yale is about $41,500/year, and Harvard Business Schools is around 35,000. So if W was getting that education this year - his parents would have to shell out about $300,000.

I could go on, but please understand that when a Republican complains about people always throwing money at problems, he has his fingers crossed behind his back.

What the Republicans don't like is spending any of their money on other people's problems.  This is why all bills for Katrina and Iraq come due at some vague time in the future. Please remember that  Tom DeLay has declared that because of Republican stewardship there is no fat in the budget. This in spite of Alaskan Rep Don Young's boast: "I stuffed (the highway bill)like a turkey." In part he was referring to a bridge that will connect an island with 50 people to the mainland, at a cost of $223,000,000. (U.S New & World Report, August 8)

They couldn't kill social security by "Privatizing It." So they'll just spend so much that the next generation won't be able to afford to pay into it.

No, the only surprises in Bush's speech were his admitting that poverty exists, and that there are some racial problems here.  That is news for Mr. Bush.

Roe v. Wade

New Flash From Early September:

Q.  What is George Bush's position on Roe vs. Wade?

A.  He really doesn't care how people get out of New Orleans.

True, Truly sad, yet still true

Progress: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti.

It's important that we not ignore America's accomplishments in recent months.  In Iraq, over 160 people were killed in 12 coordinated attacks just today.  It seems that the number of wounded is in the neighborhood of 450. Today.

On the other hand, Afghanistan expects to have a record opium harvest this season.  That part of the capital still controlled by the government suggests that there will be significant economic growth this year, largely due to opium. 

But the first Bush experiment: Haiti, whose elected government we toppled in February of 2004 - experienced the greatest shrinkage of their economy in 2004 on record. (-2.5%) All evidence suggests that their economy will continue to shrink at a similar, if not greater, rate this year. These facts come from the CIA's "World Fact Handbook" of August, 2005.  The U.S government goes on to say that Haiti is now "a major transshipment point for cocaine en route to the U.S. and Europe" and they also note "substantial money-laundering activity. Colombian narcotics trafficers favor Haiti for illicit financial transactions."

In case you have difficulty believing the U.S government's statements about Haiti, some observations from Amnesty International might be instructive: after the U.S. spirited Aristide away to Africa, "law enforcement officials fled; police stations, prisons and courts were looted, burned and destroyed; local delegates at different administrative levels went on the run or were removed from office."

The result of this governmental collapse? "In the small winding alleys that stretch through the Cite Soleil, the civilian population continues to suffer grave abuses as the armed gangs kill, rape, burn and loot with impunity."

I just wish that Bush would keep to his promise not to be a nation-builder. It seems to really hurt those people who live in the  nation that is "being built."

Ask the Judge

The Democrats on the Judiciary  committee are giving Judge Roberts the kid glove treatment. Possibly they believe that he is unstoppable, so why should they appear difficult?  Possibly this is even a reasonable plan.  I am not a lawyer, but there are a couple of questions that I would like to have answered.

Why is no one probing him on Gore v. Bush? It is unlikely to come before the Supreme Court again, so I don't see how he could dodge it.  If I remember correctly, the decision itself stated that the decision was not precedent setting.  This should make is still easier for him to respond to questions about it.

Roberts is doing his best to ooze purity during these hearings. So I think a good line of questioning would regard recusing himself.  If a judge was appointed by a Govenor,should he recuse himself when the Govenor is brought to trial on drunk driving charges? Should the judge recuse himself if it is the Govenor's son who is brought to trial on DWI charges? Should a Supreme Court Justice recuse himself when the son of the President who appointed him has a case before the court?

I would also like to hear him discuss the logic of the court issuing a decision that it declares should not be precedent setting?  By what constitutional right did the Supreme Court overule the decision of the Florida court to begin with?  I think that questions about this decision could provide hours of fun.

Another question I'd like to have asked seems petty at first glance. But I think that it might raise some doubts about the purity of Mr. Clean.

Yesterday, Sen. Feingold asked Roberts a question that he had already tried to ask in written form.  To his written question, he  received a reponse on behalf of Roberts that essentially said that Feingold should wait; that Roberts would be soon be "available to respond to questions" at this hearing.  At the hearing, Roberts went into his "I can't answer because this might be a case the comes before the court" response. So why didn't he give this answer the first time it was asked? Was he trying to deceive with the first answer?

It would be great to hear other questions that you think should be asked.

Is the Left Prepared?

It is perfectly appropriate to express a mixture of shock and awe at the Bush administration's callous lack  of preparedness in dealing with Katrina.  But are we preparing for what could be another tragic result  of the disaster?    The fact is that Katrina just might save Bush's Presidency.

I first brought this up to Paul Krugman at Eschacon.  He thought it very unlikely.  I then wrote a post about it on September 5.  My concern is that the vast public works project that will follow Katrina will turn  Bush and his Republican friends into heroes.

It is starting even sooner than I feared. The front page of today's New York Times notes that "A building boom is underway..." Later in the article the writer quotes Professor Steiner as saying  that "the rebuilding of Chicago after the great fire of 1871 or San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake do not compare."  It is clear that this is the third largest displacement of citizens in U.S. history.  Only the Civil War and the Great Depression forced more people to move in this country. (In the first case Lincoln was President, in the second, Roosevelt, in the third, Shrub!!)

I hope that I am wrong, but this kind of enormous activity will temporarily do  great things for the economy.  This is the kind of spending the liberals wanted Bush to do in order to get us out of the recession.  Instead he chose to give money to the richest amongst us with his tax cuts. There will come a day of reckoning. We absolutely cannot afford tax cuts and increased spending. But Bush is betting on that day coming after he is safely  back on the Ranch.

He will spend whatever it takes.  He will seem enormously competent. Some of the evidence of Bush's gutted FEMA has receded as  Michael Brown has  resigned. In its stead, we will see signs of accomplishments laced with pride.  Again, in today's Times: "At four giant staging areas across the region, FEMA is assembling tens of thousands of mobile homes and trailers."

Please tell me what is wrong with this argument.  More importantly, tell me what our side has done to prepare in case it is right.

Water Safety

As you may have read at Eschaton, Pres. Bush has asked Christie Todd Whitman to step in during what the press has called an "emergency." Scott McClellan announced that she will be returning to the EPA as a special adviser to examine purported  health risks in NOLA. Having tasted a sip of the flood waters, Whitman said "The taste is more like that of a bull-shot on an early fall day. It is no more a 'toxic soup' than the air around the Twin Towers was anything but bracing."

The Pres and his Dad, demonstrate their faith in the cleanliness of the water in the photo above. 

Katrina Saves the Bush Presidency

Eschacon was great, and I was really disappointed that I had to leave earlier than expected. During the morning  session, a question came to mind.  I really wanted to ask it in a room filled with such great minds - especially great economists such as Mr. Black and Mr. Krugman. Unfortunately, there were a lot of great posters ahead of me.

Am I the only one who is concerned that Katrina will save the legacy of the Bush Presidency?

His first term, and his re-election, were saved by 9/11.  His handling of that disaster was also completely inept. Yet our nation's short memory, plus Rovian manipulation, altered that fact. In N.Y. Giuliani was overwhelmingly held in contempt shortly before 9/11. Now he's "The Nation's Mayor." And of course, a prior flooding of the Mississippi brought Herbert Hoover to national prominence.

Within the next several months, Bush, and insurance companies, will spend tens of billions of dollars along the coast.  Public opinion, again manipulated by the Rove team, will have forgotten the first six days after this flood. Those days, where we learned the true depths of Bush's hatred of the poor and the black, will fade in the public consciousness. From today forward, we will be getting daily demonstrations of the great accomplishments of the restoration.

In a few weeks, New Orleans will be a boom town. The government will rush to open the port.  Tent cities will pop up in the West Bank in New Orleans.  Next, the demand for plywood will be huge. (Think of Atlanta, and Scarlett's lumber business in GWTW.) Even today, shuttered shops in Baton Rouge are being reopened - rented to banks.  All of those forced out of New Orleans,  will need new housing, new furniture, new clothes, and the government will pay for them.  There will be huge fortunes made in the wake of the storm.

Finally, the day of reckoning that was coming because of Bush's reckless economic policies will be delayed. 

Please tell me I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that Katrina will turn out to be the angel that saves George W. Bush.