Me: Frank Lynch. Bio These are my daily rants, mostly political. For something less spontaneous, I maintain The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page (over 1,800 Johnson quotes), perhaps your best online resource for insight into his thinking.
KEY IRAQ SPEECHES/REMARKS: Bush: 9/19/02, on the vote to authorize force 10/7/02, Cincinnati 1/28/03 State of the Union 3/16/03 Bush, Blair, and Salazar 3/21/03 statement of goals 5/1/03 Ship speech, "Mission Accomplished" 7/2/03, Bring 'em on 10/21/03, WH veto threat on troop support 10/27/03, Bush on threat to veto troop support Cheney: 8/26/02, "Simply stated, there is no doubt..." Kerry: 9/6/02,New York Times' op-ed piece. 10/9/02, on the authorization of force 7/29/04, DNC convention speech 9/20/04, at NYU Powell: 2/5/03, U.N. speech Rumsfeld: 3/30/03, "We know where they are... Tikrit..." Wolfowitz: 1/23/03, on disarmament Debates: 9/30/04,
Bush-Kerry 10/5/04,
Cheney-Edwards 10/8/04,
Bush-Kerry 10/13/04, Bush-Kerry
Are you better off than you were eight years ago? I'm no the type to blame every little flutter in the economy on the President of the United States, so when the LA Times and Bloomberg release a poll indicating growing money worries among Americans, I'm not the type to blame it all on the Preznit.
But I think there is a lot that's gone on in his tenure which, while it may not have been caused by him, created artificially high feelings of prosperity (and helped get him reelected in '04). First among them would have to be Alan Greenspan's loose credit policies, the ones which enabled people to cash out equity and live beyond their means. Any downturn after that is going to feel like one hell of a hangover, so context and developed spending patterns are a big factor when you try to understand Americans' current feelings.
At the same time, I don't think you can blame our involvement in Iraq for the current economic situation. But I'll tell you what you can blame on it: constraints on our ability to invest in America's future. And the "no end in sight" status quo — thanks to the Republicans in the Senate who have steadfastly blocked votes on the Iraq war — can't help Americans' feelings of malaise.
There, I wrote it. The "m" word which Republicans like to use to paint the Carter years. We are clearly stuck in a Bush malaise. There's really no other way to describe it: America is sitting on its hands waiting for January 20, knowing that nothing will happen in American government until then. Seeing as how government has already ground to a standstill, seems to me we may as well impeach the guy: government can't get any slower.
Link | | |
10:14 PM
Monday, May 12, 2008:
Bob Barr has thrown his hat into the ring. A potential rival for conservative votes, Barr could be a threat to McCain. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see if the Wingnuts who were so in favor of Ralph Nader running will feel similarly about Barr.
Of course, given how they've used Ross Perot's popularity to make them feel better about Clinton beating Bush, maybe they want an excuse for losing the White House again.
Link | | |
10:27 PM
Saturday, May 10, 2008:
No time to let up on the gas tax. I've never been a big fan of the concept of consumption taxes because they're generally not progressive enough for me — progressive in the sense that their burden is felt more by those with lower incomes than those with higher incomes — and so I'm glad that there's no sales tax on food. When it comes to gasoline, yes, it's kind of the same thing, but I really think that it's good social policy to make people think more about alternatives to driving their cars. Or to give greater consideration to car pooling, or more efficient second cars like the Smart.
There are lots of reasons to argue against gas tax holidays, and the primary reason is of course that measures to provide relief are inefficient: a good chunk of the reductions get pocketed in the supply chain before they hit the consumers' wallets, and government revenue is merely lost.
But beyond that, there's the social policy point I alluded to earlier. (Disclaimer repeated: I work in marketing research, and my clients are in mass transit. I think it's because I value mass transit that I chose this job more than my clients influencing my opinions, but that's beside the point of a disclosure statement.)
Several mass transit systems are reporting significant ridership increases compared to last year — such as 10-15%, and it's occurring in areas where car culture has reigned supreme, such as the South and the West. It's even being seen here in NYC, where we have a very well developed transit system: you'd think that mass transit is already well known and there'd be no one else to take it, but ridership is up.
A lot of the rosy drawings of mass transit have focused on light rail. (For instance, Paul Weyrich, a noted conservative, wrote a piece which dealt with ten canards against mass transit, and in an awful lot of his pro-transit arguments he was talking about the benefits of light rail more than buses. Regrettably I don't have the reference here, it's in the bibliography for a report I was a co-author on for the TCRP, I'll update this on Monday if you want.)
Conceptually I see advantages for light rail over buses in terms of traffic prioritization, but I've never traveled on light-rail for commuting, and I rarely take a bus here in NYC. But even the bus systems are reporting increases in ridership.
There are also shifts in the vehicles that people are buying, downsizing from SUV's, although I don't know what the sales are for the little pods like the Mini Coopers and the Smarts. (Does anyone remember that ad which dissed small cars? It's like a car, only smaller?)
I have to level with you on my emotional ties here, because this goes beyond my current position, it ties into why I chose marketing research as a career. In high school and college in the 1970's, the era of long gas lines and diminishing market shares for Detroit, I couldn't figure out how the big US car manufacturers got blind-sided by desires for smaller cars. Back then I really saw the value of marketing research, accurately reported and rationally acted on, as a valuable tool that would strengthen any country's economy. And it was out of this opportunity for greater market efficiency that I chose marketing research as a career.
And so here I am, seeing more and more people doing the "right thing" for themselves and the world by opting for smaller cars and mass transit; and I think about the opportunities which Detroit has if it chooses to capitalize on them... And I think about calls to reduce gas taxes, when what is really increasing gas prices isn't the taxes but an evolving world... And the thought that we would go backwards on gas taxes just makes me think we're trying to ignore realities and opportunities which are staring us in the face.
I would so hate for these supposed holidays to happen. In my mind they're going to do more harm than good.
Link | | |
9:12 PM
Thursday, May 8, 2008:
Condoleezza Rice cleared too easily in 2004? Among the scope of the FBI's investigations of Scott Bloch, a federal investigator himself, is this: back in 2004, there was some concern that Rice was timing her trips to support Bush's reelection; Bloch cleared her of ethics violations accusations, and the FBI wants to know what factored into his decisions.
It really doesn't seem like we've ever suspected the Buah Admninistration of enough, rather than too much.
Link | | |
7:14 AM
Happy Birthday, Thomas Pynchon. Ya done good; you can take the day off if you like.
Link | | |
7:14 AM
Wednesday, May 7, 2008:
Mitt Romney on Obama. On CNN's "American Morning," host John Roberts asked Mitt Romney what the likely Republican line of attack might be on Obama. After saying that he couldn't speak for McCain, Romney pointed to Obama's short resume, and said that the Presidency is not an internship.
There may be something to that argument: while the current President's resume was longer than Obama's, it was still short. But on the other hand, Bush's additional experience doesn't seem to have helped him, nor did the accumulated experience of the "grown ups" in whom the anti-Clintonites put their fath.
It's a tough call: certainly McCain bears the same vulnerabilities that Kerry bore with his long Senate career. Obama may have the upper hand on this line, seeing as how he can still keep the Sunnis and Shiites straight in his head and is more realistic about what we can do with gas taxes and oil independence.
Link | | |
7:59 AM
Tuesday, May 6, 2008:
...in which we learn more about "what sticks." Well, the elitist thing certainly hurt Obama in Guam (what a squeaker that one was), and I guess tonight we'll get a better sense of whether or not Obama has effectively blown it or Clinton has out-maneuvered him.
For Clinton's part, you can't say she's not giving it her all: their policies are so similar, it's as if one side had to distract the ref before throwing the clip. She's basically tried everything Bush would have tried, short of spreading rumors about Obama having fathered black children. What with the "3 AM call" advertisement, the 9/11 imagery, Michigan, Florida, and this little ploy about a gas tax holiday: I've been pretty neutral about the two (but preferring Obama), and her behavior of late really has me wondering which of the two of them we'd want on the world stage trying to garner international favor to beat the terrorists world-wide.
And Obama? I thought it was interesting to see him take the gloves off this weekend, but the way he spun her gas tax position was over the top. Misrepresent Paul Krugman? Go there not.
I also think Clinton has the superior health plan — Obama disagrees of course.
Neither of them are Dodd. Neither of them are Edwards, nor Gore. Not much is certain tonight, of course, except that Senator Clinton just hasn't been able to deliver that knock-out punch.
Link | | |
7:45 PM
Saturday, May 3, 2008:
Michaela Petri's got nothin' on her. Saw this this morning on Transatlantic Sessions on Ovation TV. Breda Smyth.
What was McCain thinking? By now you've probably read about McCain's plans for us to be independent of Mideast oil, and his gaffe
"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.
Later, on his campaign plane, McCain tried to clarify his remarks, claiming that he was talking about the "the first Gulf War." Pressed by a reporter, McCain stumbled when asked if he was actually "thinking about the first Gulf War" when he made the statement:
But then when specifically asked by an Associated Press reporter if, when he made the statement, he was "thinking about the first Gulf War," he said no.
"No, I was thinking about- it’s not hard to- we will not," McCain stumbled. "By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won’t be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That’s what my remarks were."
"No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters.
One reason was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, he said. "But also we didn’t want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it’s more important than any other part of the world," he said.
"If the word `again’ was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that’s all I mean," McCain said.
"The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction," he said.
Sure. He says he said we were invading because of WMDs, but now we have to ask what he was thinking. Yesterday's slip — if that's what it was — makes this a very legitimate question.
If Ted Rall were better known, you could say you see the fall advertising already: War for Oil was a big theme Rall played up, and many on the left said "we're not as left as he is!" (even if, now that I think about it, it was other comments made which seemed to merit his abandonment). McCain has essentially put himself with the "loony left," even if he may have been speaking the truth. I mean, there was plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't really have n active weapons program, the UN had inspectors on the ground, and there were plenty of other peoples we could have rescued.
Curiously, I still don't understand what McCain is talking about even after the clarification. Complete independence of foreign oil? Or maybe just the oil in the Mideast? If the latter, that means we'll be getting more from Venezuela. That's right, America's best friend. And if the former, well, what kind of car does McCain drive? Anyone ever seen him on anything remotely resembling mass transit? (The campaign bus does not count.)
Link | | |
3:53 PM
Thursday, May 1, 2008:
"I wish to go to the festival..." Did you ever see "Into the Woods"? Musicals aren't prominent on my radar as a form, but Stephen Sondheim's and James Lapine's "Into The Woods" has stood out in my head.
Tonight I was asking Zoë (our 14 year old) if she knew what happened 5 years ago. Of course I knew she didn't know that this was the anniversary of the great, stage-crafted speech by Bush, what with his landing with the protective hardwear under his flightsuit, the fine scrim proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and his declaration that major combat operations were done. Kaput. Happy Days are here again. Chicken in every pot, and woncha love muh tax cuts.
We know what happened with Bush's tomfoolery in Iraq — and let's be honest, Bush was not the only scoundrel, he couldn't have done it alone, there were a lot of people who weren't content with the Clinton containment policies, and signed on to the policies of the Project For A New American Century (can anyone say that, still, with a straight face? does that organization's name not sound like a "go ahead, take me down, I dare you!" kind of bullyish expression, "pardon me while I stroke myself" kind of thing?) Go ahead and do a web search on the Project For A New American Century, I won't give you the link. It would sully my html. It just would. And those bastards, and every one who smoked their banana peels can take comfort in the loss of thousands of American lives and the many more Iraqi lives.
(And should be the type of weasel who says, "yeah, but Saddam was killing people, too!", well of course he was. But Hussein was already in a downward spiral because the sanctions were working. It was a matter of time. Those who chose to invade not only have to prove the value of conflicting vectors, they also have to justify this intervention over others: and the opportunity costs we've suffered by making this intervention. OBL laid it out in 2004, just before the Presidential elections: when OBL blinks, Bush acts like the sky is falling. Seriously.)
So let's draw this back to "Into The Woods". Zoë understands the theme: the first act is all these fairy tales, concluding with the "happily ever after" part. The second act sweeps away the superficial view that happiness is so simply constituted, and lays out all the underlying problems.
It's a dark perspective of the fairy tales: and yet, the second act concludes with an isolated voice, singing "I wish..."
The learnings of the first and second acts have been cast aside.
Mission accomplished, gang. Let's march into another country. Hey, ho, let's go!
Link | | |
11:37 PM
Wednesday, April 30, 2008:
So Bush is pointing to ANWR again as a way for Congress to indicate its working to solve the problems of high gas prices. Never mind the fact that if Bush had worked for more stringent fuel standards for cars early ni his first term we'd be seven years further than we are now. Seven years: what a squandered opportunity. Instead, we know the energy policies which his Administration took. Conversation? Heck no, they were plotting the Iraqi invasion and smoking the hookah of free-flowing oil.
"Nobody could have anticipated" how that excellent adventure was going to turn out. (Good time to remind, also, that while ignoring the munitions dumps we were essentially supplying the insurgents. Nice job, George: too bad you quit your day jobs to go into politics.)
Link | | |
7:55 AM
In the land of negative equity... Must be a lot of that going on now in LA: home prices are down 19% vs. a year ago. Not everyone was buying to flip, you can be sure of that. Seat belts fastened, everyone? Did we all sock away six months' salary?
Link | | |
7:38 AM
Friday, April 25, 2008:
Eric Alterman's "Why We're Liberals." I'm almost through with it, so I now feel like I can write about it. I've always been a deliberative reader (if there was a Cliff's Notes of Johnson's Rambler essays, you could count me among those who would proudly reject). So here's where I am: I think it's a great book, it covers all its topics really well, but I think its title is a disservice to its content. The title makes it seem as if it should be a rallying call to the value of liberalism. But instead of being an offensive argument proclaiming the values of liberalism, a lot of it is defensive (in the sense of "here's why it's hypocritical of conservatives to claim this about liberals"), and then there are other portions which describe how we can redirect our liberalism in ways which are true to the tenets of liberalism while making the ideas more palatable for America.
I want to be clear: neither of these points is a complaint about the book's content, it's more an acknowledgment about the marketing difficulty of coming up with a title.
The structure of most of the book is a chapter-by-chapter discussion of each of the several charges of "what's wrong with liberals." In each of the chapters, Alterman brings together an impressive array of statistics and surveys to show just how empty all of these canards against liberals are. For instance, with respect to the concept of an "active" judiciary legislating from the bench, he cites studies that show that it's the "Republicans" on the SCOTUS which are more likely to try to overrule Congress, and that in terms of voting against the Executive branch, the Conservatives on the SCOTUS are more willing to overrule Democratic Administrations than Republican administrations, while the more liberal justices aren't any more likely to overrule Republican administrations than Democratic administrations. This factoid alone is worth the price of admission — and for those who haven't been paying attention, there are many more rewards along the way. But it is not
an explanation of why we are liberals.
Shortly after this chapter, Alterman presents a compelling case for abandoning the politically unpopular position of supporting affirmative action. There are considerable political costs to supporting affirmative action, he points out, and the benefits of affirmative action don't go deep enough into the African American community to merit the costs. It would be better, he cogently points out, to support efforts to lift up the structurally poor rather than focus on a race dimension. Focusing on the structurally poor doesn't bear the baggage of being race-based (and alienating whites who don't understand how many poor blacks there are, and how big a pay/opportunity differential exists), but works on the disadvantages of African Americans merely because such a high proportion of them are among the poor.
A lot of what's in the book (and a fine book it is) will be familiar to the six or seven of you who read this page, and I've consciously avoided commentary on chapters which talk about Terri Shiavo, and so on. What I'm trying to say, here, is that in addition to the value of Alterman having aggregated compelling research results and delivering them in a cohesive narrative thread, he's gone further than the better informed among us would expect. And he's done it because he's gone beyond the title. A book which is merely about why we're liberals would be compelling, true, but it would be much shorter than this book. And it wouldn't offer as much to you. You already know about FDR and the New Deal and poverty.
I think it's a bravura performance, well worth your attention. You can order it here.
Link | | |
9:45 PM
Wednesday, April 23, 2008:
Pennsylvania expectations. Tonight at the beginning of NBC Nightly News, Andrea Mitchell gave voice to an opinion — unsourced — that yesterday Obama failed to show that he can deliver a "knock-out punch" and put Hillary Clinton away. Are pundits, spin-meisters, and so on really saying this?
The reason I ask is because if my livelihood depended on people believing me, I wouldn't get in the habit of voicing opinions which are so easily dispensed with.
Why, I have to ask, is it a sign of failure if Obama can't trounce Clinton? Or, the reverse for that matter? Don't they remember back to December when everyone was talking about how talented the Democratic field was? After the winnowing (thanks, of course, to a media which couldn't entertain the idea that there were more than two contenders and sought not just a historic election but a simpler campaign season at the same time), we are left with two very fine candidates for the Democratic nomination.
Claiming that it's a sign of weakness on either candidate's part to leave the other in the dust is just patently ridiculous.
Anyone here remember the 1991 World Series between the Braves and the Twins? Remember how it went seven games? Remember how many of them were extra inning games? One run games? Decided during the final at-bat of the winning team?
Remember how, in Game 7, Jack Morris pitched a ten-inning shut out to lead the Twins to the championship?
Yeah, the Twins were weak because it took them all seven games to win, and never really did dominate the Braves.
Link | | |
8:53 PM
Tuesday, April 22, 2008:
Borrowing our way to oblivion. It's a good thing that Republicans are so good at fiscal responsibility and know how to pay for huge tax breaks and wars at the same time. Or rather, maybe it's just a good thing that America hasn't woken up yet to the latest deficit figures: $311 billion for the first half of 2008, almost twice that for 2007.
Remember that Paul O'Neill book, where he quoted Cheney as claiming that the lesson of Reagan was that deficits don't matter? Sure they don't, completely disregard how much of your taxes go to debt servicing.
Thank you very much, Mr. President: tax cuts and war at the same time. Brilliant.
Link | | |
9:44 PM
Monday, April 21, 2008:
A new form of foreclosure blight. Long-vacant homes often present problems to their neighborhoods, but in Lee County (FL) the issue is bees moving in. (Of course you know that it's tough enough to sell a house these days as it is, but a home that's infested with bees won't even get an agent near it.)
Of course they bring the value down — and whatever bank holds the deed has an even more difficult-to-unload property on its hands. Ah, I just love that show "Flip This House."
Link | | |
7:17 AM
Saturday, April 19, 2008:
Reacquainting Bush with States' Rights. Not that the Bush Administration will pay it any mind, but the GAO has ruled that Bush's stopping individual states' efforts to provide food for children needed Congressional approval.
Seeing as how the Pharaoh thinks he is the entire government, I doubt it will have any imeediate impact unless it's pursued further. Not that I'm interested in tying down government for the mere sake of tying it down — I'm not — but there's far more grounds for action against this Administration than there ever was against the Clinton Administration. Let's not be fearful of pulling the trigger.
Link | | |
12:35 PM
