Copyright © 2010 Frank Lynch.
Copyright © 2010 Frank Lynch.
Me: Frank Lynch Home These are my mundane daily ramblings.
Email:
|
This just in from Glenn Beck. Vanishing Caucasian Americans? Don't know if you saw this yesterday, but the latest anti-Census rant from the wing nuts is that it asks people their race. (It's been asking this for several go rounds, of course...) The first to be mortified seems to have been the Corner's Mark Krikorian, who suggests checking "other" and writing in 'American.' It was picked up here and here. Anyone with a brain of course knows that "American" is not a "race," and therefore answering the Census this way is not answering the Census truthfully. But at the same time, anyone who does so is short changing themselves; ethinicity answers have a lot to do with Title IX funding, assessing workforce diversity, and so on. You're hurting yourself by answering "American." And the next time someone complains about how much the Census costs, remind them about all the stupidity that has to be countered. 
What it's like to be on Japanese radio, when you don't speak Japanese. The Trashcan Sinatras were just there. And of course, me of the the mass transit researcher, was just gaga over the diversity of the landscapes the bullet train went through. Their new album, In The Music, is available in the US at the end of April. Massa on Beck. Did you see it? I only caught the last ten minutes or so, as I had to find Fox News on my system. But it looked like Massa was doing some back pedaling, and resorting to nonsubstantive lines (people should get involved and vote, for instance). Said he wasn't forced out by the party, he chose to leave the House on his own. When Beck asked him, point blank, if Rahm Emmanuel threatened, intimidated, or harassed him, Massa didn't confirm, instead opting for a line like "do I look like the kind of guy who could be intimidated?" Right about then Glenn Beck looked at the camera and apologized to the audience for having wasted their time. A health care reform reference for the skeptics. Over in the Wall Street Journal, economist David Cutler argues that the Obama plan does limit health care costs. He acknowledges that he's not the CBO, though, and gives the plan more credit than they do. (Perhaps the WSJ should have given him more space for that part.)
One more time, into the breach! Obama gave a rousing speech today on health care reform to a bunch of Pennsylvania college students, and as Arlen Specter said, the fire could have helped at the SOTU speech. And as much as Obama looks like Henry V in this pic, it does seem a little comical that his sleeves are rolled up to invigorate such an audience. I welcome the fire, and I hope it continues, and I hope it continues in other venues. And I hope that the entire job of rallying the cause isn't left to Obama alone: Congress is teeming with persuasive speakers (Harkin, Franken, Frank, etc.) who can all lend a hand: the point is to make Congressional Democrats start acting more like statesman and less like job applicants. The premises behind health care reform aren't so many or so complex that they're difficult to explain. And polling shows that support for reform increases when people hear more about what's in the plans, and get past the ghost stories they've been fed by the GOP. Oh, and by the way, the message that the GOP is full of hypocrites needs to become a never-ending drum beat.
It's in French, so it must have something to do with the stupidity of invading Iraq. Just joking on the headline, of course, since this is 15 years old. By the way, I really like Cabrel. One of our au pairs introduced me to him, back in 1993. And though I don't understand anything more than "menu" French, I've liked everything I've heard by him. Who put the vinegar in Vinegar Hill? Vinegar Hill is a section of Brooklyn that may be too small to merit being classified as a "neighborhood" - - it's sandwiched in between DUMBO and Wallabout Bay. Perhaps "enclave" is a better description? But it's got such a unique feel thanks to its architecture, its streets of Belgian paving stones, and so on, that I've gone through it several times. I wouldn't dream of going through Dumbo without venturing into Vinegar Hill - - even if I won't get any more new shots at this point. Anyway, the Times has a report. Who ever said the right wing was monolithic? When a party pitches a big tent, it's bound to be diverse. The right wing's tent has hawks, and it has doves; it has people who like a government that exercises authority, and it has people who don't. It has people who think we should have invaded Iraq in order to exert our position and others who prefer isolationism. John Patrick Bedell's belief that we should be free to grow pot doesn't disqualify him from being in the Right Wing, nor does his strong anti-Bush feelings, or being a "truther," contrary to some of the posts one could find, if they chose to, at Free Republic. Consequently I'm not overly surprised to read the Christian Science Monitor headline that he was a "right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings." On the other hand, there are some reports that Bedell was a registered Democrat. Personally? I'd like to know more: Democrats are also diverse, and I don't know how long Bedell was a registered Democrat. Bush angered a lot of people, and trutherism may have caused Bedell to resort to being a Democrat without
Surprisingly, Gordon Brown doesn't suggest he was stupid. It was all the faulty intel, he says, that led us into Iraq. "Right up to the last minute, right up to the last weekend, I think many of us were hopeful that the diplomatic route would succeed." Fine, but why not give the inspectors the little extra time they wanted? Then there wouldn't have been any need for diplomacy, because they wouldn't have found any weapons. I know, I know: "But they've got to be there!" There comes a time when you have to confront the intel, and they didn't. Oddly, it seems like the closest we got to that point was from Colin Powell, as he built his speech and collated what was there; yet even as he characterized the case as weak, he still went ahead. This, to me, is the essence of stupidity: refusing to believe, and failing to integrate, what's before your eyes. And the Rove excerpts that argue that Bush didn't lie us into war: let's say we ignore the Ron Suskind-Paul O'Neill book that reported getting rid of Saddam Husseing was on the agenda of Bush's very first cabinet meeting. Let's say, instead, we cite Woodward's book on Iraq war planning (Bush At War); this book was on the Bush-Cheney 04 campaign web site as recommended reading. Woodward has a skeptical Bush responding to a weak presentation from John McLaughlin, Tenet's number two, with a 'this is all you've got?' response. Woodward famously quotes Tenet as saying the case was a "slam dunk." And the chapter ends. There is nothing to indicate that Bush pushed, or asked: "Why is it a 'slam dunk'?" Nothing, no courage of convictions, over something so important as war. Bush may not have lied us into war, but if not, he sure took advantage of a flimsy argument to get us in. And he felt it was a flimsy argument, too. And we know from the Suskind-O'Neill book, and Richard Clarke's, that he was eager to find a reason to go in. But we can't afford health care reform, it costs too much.
What's all this fuss about the Census being intrusive and unconstitutional? Someone very close to me sent me a link to this YouTube video: Many of you won't need to watch much of it to start scratching your head over his use of the verb "allows" instead of "requires." The Constitution requires a Census every ten years at a minimum, and allows it more often as much as Congress wants:
"Shall" means it has to happen at least every ten years; and "within" means it can be more often if Congress chooses. And further, the "Manner" is determined by Congress; "manner" can of course include whether or not the information is collected door-to-door by people with clip boards (as fearsomely mentioned in the video), but also the content of the questions. The Census web site discusses the previous court cases where the Congress's authority to determine the content has been upheld as constitutional (meaning the authority which Jerry Day questions comes from the Constitution itself):
Look, here's the deal: if you don't fill out the Census, you're helping make government inefficient. If you want to cut out government waste, fill it out. All sorts of government and municipal planning relies on census data, and the quality and accuracy of the planning depends on accurate, representative data. And it's not just the government. Any corporation worth its salt relies on census data to help in its estimates of markets and so on. That all depends on both the short form which most people receive as well as the longer forms which a smaller portion receives. And a corporation's ability to make money and run efficiently impacts you both in the prices they charge for their goods and services as well as their stock price, reflected in your 401K and portfolios. Wanna be a schmuck? Don't fill out the Census. UPDATE: This post has been considerably rewritten. In an earlier version it said the Constitution required an annual census, and in the comments Joel questioned my writing and intent. I've since rewritten it for accuracy, but my basic point was (and remains) that the Census and all it gathers, is Constitutional.
|
|
