Thursday, May 31, 2007
Douchebags
Please click on this link, it's a very smart essay on the usage of the word douchebag. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The author even coins a new term: doucheoisie.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Frogs Galore
For those of you who follow French politics, and who wouldn't want to with such great pols as Sego and Sarko and Zizou (fooled you, Zizou, aka Zenidine Zidane is a soccer player), go to this blog maintained by Art Goldhammer, Tocqueville scholar and translator of French non-fiction. hat tip- TNR's Open University (as if they care).
Random Notes
I have a couple of items to bitch about so let me proceed:
1. Along the lines of my complaint that we settle for dumb debates in the public I think we settle for a mighty stupid discourse when it comes to immigration. I have two basic pet-peeves.
First, the media have told us there are two camps, pro and anti-immigration. In a certain sense this is true, but the bills that are being considered in the house and senate all revolve around what to do with a different class of immigrants, namely, illegal immigrants. One could reasonably be anti-illegal immigrant or more properly anti-illegal immigration (as one needn't dislike those who have crossed the border illegally but the whole phenomenon) but still be supportive of immigration or even increasing immigration, legal that is. More often the two are related, anti-illegal immigration folks tend not to base their arguments on sovereignity or rule of law or even fairness of procedure but rather on a nativist impulse and thus often oppose all immigration. I find them stupid. But the media nonetheless should strive for more specificity on the issue. Their use of language is lazy.
Second, the media has embraced this whole nonsense about illegal immigrants "doing jobs Americans (or my addition legal immigrants) won't do". This is an uneconomic argument. It is babble. I don't think there is a job in the world any person won't do. There are exceptions, maybe a rabbi would be reluctant to punch out pigs cavities at the Hormel factory but largely we are talking about levels of compensation. Think about prostitutes, they let nasty nasty ugly fat repugnant men do all types of unsavory things to their bodies, for a price. Americans won't do these jobs, such as construction or agriculture, for the amount businesses are paying them. Once upon a time Americans did do these jobs, but at higher wages than those paid to illegal immigrants. There is an economic benefit to illegal immigration, don't get me wrong. You get to eat out more, get your lawn nice and tidy for a whole lot cheaper, all types of goodies on the cheap. Fine and well. Illegal immigration affords cheaper and greater consumption. I love consumption. But this is a reflection of lower prices afforded by lower wages. If tomorrow, all of the illegal immigrants were deported, something I vehemently oppose, lawns would mowed, floors would be put in, buildings would be erected, albeit fewer, more slowly and at more cost.
2. It is the presidential campaign season and there are three items that make me want to impale the media and the actual candidates. I speak mostly of the Republican presidential candidates here. Picture the federal budget as a pie chart, the vast majority of the outlays are for 5 things: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, and Debt Service. With the exception of Defense, these are all non-discretionary items. Social Security will continue to pay out unless changed by statute, same for the others. So I get really annoyed when the candidates (this means you Mitt Romney) say assanine things about bringing the budget into balance by:
a. Cutting back on discretionary funds.
b. Rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government
c. Eliminating pork from the budget.
All of these things are nice and salutory and could save billions of dollars. However, in the near term in order to bring the unified budget into balance we need to save hundereds of billions of dollars. In the long term we need to save tens of trillions of dollars. The only way to do that is to attack the big ticket items. Pork, Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Non-Discretionary growth don't do this. The media should stop peddling these stupid slogans. They should laugh through their stories like hyenas everytime a Mitt Romney says something assanine like how he is going to bring the federal budget into balance by limiting growth of discretionary funding.
1. Along the lines of my complaint that we settle for dumb debates in the public I think we settle for a mighty stupid discourse when it comes to immigration. I have two basic pet-peeves.
First, the media have told us there are two camps, pro and anti-immigration. In a certain sense this is true, but the bills that are being considered in the house and senate all revolve around what to do with a different class of immigrants, namely, illegal immigrants. One could reasonably be anti-illegal immigrant or more properly anti-illegal immigration (as one needn't dislike those who have crossed the border illegally but the whole phenomenon) but still be supportive of immigration or even increasing immigration, legal that is. More often the two are related, anti-illegal immigration folks tend not to base their arguments on sovereignity or rule of law or even fairness of procedure but rather on a nativist impulse and thus often oppose all immigration. I find them stupid. But the media nonetheless should strive for more specificity on the issue. Their use of language is lazy.
Second, the media has embraced this whole nonsense about illegal immigrants "doing jobs Americans (or my addition legal immigrants) won't do". This is an uneconomic argument. It is babble. I don't think there is a job in the world any person won't do. There are exceptions, maybe a rabbi would be reluctant to punch out pigs cavities at the Hormel factory but largely we are talking about levels of compensation. Think about prostitutes, they let nasty nasty ugly fat repugnant men do all types of unsavory things to their bodies, for a price. Americans won't do these jobs, such as construction or agriculture, for the amount businesses are paying them. Once upon a time Americans did do these jobs, but at higher wages than those paid to illegal immigrants. There is an economic benefit to illegal immigration, don't get me wrong. You get to eat out more, get your lawn nice and tidy for a whole lot cheaper, all types of goodies on the cheap. Fine and well. Illegal immigration affords cheaper and greater consumption. I love consumption. But this is a reflection of lower prices afforded by lower wages. If tomorrow, all of the illegal immigrants were deported, something I vehemently oppose, lawns would mowed, floors would be put in, buildings would be erected, albeit fewer, more slowly and at more cost.
2. It is the presidential campaign season and there are three items that make me want to impale the media and the actual candidates. I speak mostly of the Republican presidential candidates here. Picture the federal budget as a pie chart, the vast majority of the outlays are for 5 things: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, and Debt Service. With the exception of Defense, these are all non-discretionary items. Social Security will continue to pay out unless changed by statute, same for the others. So I get really annoyed when the candidates (this means you Mitt Romney) say assanine things about bringing the budget into balance by:
a. Cutting back on discretionary funds.
b. Rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government
c. Eliminating pork from the budget.
All of these things are nice and salutory and could save billions of dollars. However, in the near term in order to bring the unified budget into balance we need to save hundereds of billions of dollars. In the long term we need to save tens of trillions of dollars. The only way to do that is to attack the big ticket items. Pork, Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Non-Discretionary growth don't do this. The media should stop peddling these stupid slogans. They should laugh through their stories like hyenas everytime a Mitt Romney says something assanine like how he is going to bring the federal budget into balance by limiting growth of discretionary funding.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ding Dong The Assholes Dead!
So Jerry Falwell was found dead in his office yesterday and I could not be happier. Now some might say that this is a rather insensitive thing for me to say, but remember that this is the man who called AIDS God's wrath on gay people, and said the 9/11 attacks were brought on by lesbians, atheists and civil liberties activists, so sensitivity with this guy kind of goes right out the window. He was an asshole in life and he is an asshole in death.I hope he enjoys burning in hell.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Best Sentence of the Day
Courtesy of Ross Douthat at the Atlantic Monthly:
"The sex-ed classroom is one culture-war battleground where the data suggests that the battle isn't worth fighting, for either side, and the sooner we can call a truce the better."
"The sex-ed classroom is one culture-war battleground where the data suggests that the battle isn't worth fighting, for either side, and the sooner we can call a truce the better."
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
TimesSelect
I gather that you can get a free subscription to New York TimesSelect if you have a .edu email address. However, ignoramus that I am, I haven't figured this bit out and the TimesSelect doesn't really lend itself to obtaining free subscriptions. Please advise.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Mortgage Fiasco
A lot of people are making a big brouhaha about the sub-prime mortgages but I frankly can't get worked up about it. Some people who should never have been buying a home or at least as much home are losing their homes. They took on more debt than their finances could allow. Mortgage companies made some obscenely risky loans, they are going out of business. As a result home prices are falling. Bummer but big woop. Home prices were way out of whack in the first place because people were spending beyond their means, now we are seeing a correction. For some this correction will be painful but that is their own fault.
I do fear "corrective" policy actions that are likely to ensue. There has been some talk already about bailing those who have defaulted on their mortgages with a government subsidized loan. That's a brilliant signal Washington can send to the public. Make boneheaded financial decisions without fear, the government will rape sensible taxpayers on your behalf.
I do fear "corrective" policy actions that are likely to ensue. There has been some talk already about bailing those who have defaulted on their mortgages with a government subsidized loan. That's a brilliant signal Washington can send to the public. Make boneheaded financial decisions without fear, the government will rape sensible taxpayers on your behalf.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Best Monologue Ever...
Danny Devito in Other People's Money (ht: Newmark's Door):
This company is dead.
I didn't kill it. Don't blame me.
It was dead when I got here. It's too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered and a miracle occurred . . . and the yen did this and the dollar did that . . . and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead.
You know why?
Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence.
We're dead, all right. We're just not broke.
And do you know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. Slow but sure.
You know, at one time there must have been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw.
Now, how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company?
You invested in a business, and this business is dead. Let's have the intelligence--let's have the decency--to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future. "
But we can't," goes the prayer. "We can't, because we have a responsibility, a responsibility to our employees, to our community. What will happen to them?"
I got two words for that: who cares?
Care about them? Why? They didn't care about you. They sucked you dry. You have no responsibility to them. For the last ten years, this company bled your money.
Did this community ever say, "We know times are tough. We'll lower taxes, reduce water and sewer"? Check it out. You're paying twice what you did ten years ago.
And our devoted employees who have taken no increases for the past three years . . . are still making twice what they made ten years ago.
And our stock, one-sixth what it was ten years ago.
Who cares?
I'll tell you.
Me.
I'm not your best friend. I'm your only friend.
I don't make anything? I'm making you money. And lest we forget, that's the only reason any of you became stockholders in the first place. You want to make money. You don't care if they manufacture wire and cable, fried chicken, or grow tangerines! You wanna make money!
I'm the only friend you've got. I'm making you money. Take the money. Invest it somewhere else. Maybe . . . maybe you'll get lucky, and it'll be used productively. And if it is, you'll create new jobs and provide a service for the economy and, God forbid, even make a few bucks for yourselves.
This company is dead.
I didn't kill it. Don't blame me.
It was dead when I got here. It's too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered and a miracle occurred . . . and the yen did this and the dollar did that . . . and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead.
You know why?
Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence.
We're dead, all right. We're just not broke.
And do you know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. Slow but sure.
You know, at one time there must have been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw.
Now, how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company?
You invested in a business, and this business is dead. Let's have the intelligence--let's have the decency--to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future. "
But we can't," goes the prayer. "We can't, because we have a responsibility, a responsibility to our employees, to our community. What will happen to them?"
I got two words for that: who cares?
Care about them? Why? They didn't care about you. They sucked you dry. You have no responsibility to them. For the last ten years, this company bled your money.
Did this community ever say, "We know times are tough. We'll lower taxes, reduce water and sewer"? Check it out. You're paying twice what you did ten years ago.
And our devoted employees who have taken no increases for the past three years . . . are still making twice what they made ten years ago.
And our stock, one-sixth what it was ten years ago.
Who cares?
I'll tell you.
Me.
I'm not your best friend. I'm your only friend.
I don't make anything? I'm making you money. And lest we forget, that's the only reason any of you became stockholders in the first place. You want to make money. You don't care if they manufacture wire and cable, fried chicken, or grow tangerines! You wanna make money!
I'm the only friend you've got. I'm making you money. Take the money. Invest it somewhere else. Maybe . . . maybe you'll get lucky, and it'll be used productively. And if it is, you'll create new jobs and provide a service for the economy and, God forbid, even make a few bucks for yourselves.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
This Is Pretty Twisted
So I stumbled on this article in the Star Trib today, this is rather sick and twisted.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
NCAA Tournament For Pedigrees Only
With tournament time approaching, and basically an entire month of always having a basketball game to watch, here is a good editorial about the sad state of the NCAA basketball tournament.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Reading for Anti
There's a good op-ed over at the New York Times weighing the merits of minimum wage against the earned income tax credit.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
DonorsChoose.org
Check out this website. This is a great idea, the website is essentially a marketplace for donors and teachers looking to improve their classroom and students' learning experience to match up. Also, there is a good article over at slate about it.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Beer Test
With the primary season right around the corner (or a year away) beer test discussions are beginning. For those of you unfamiliar with the beer test let me provide a brief description:
Policy and party aside, a good many voters vote at a gut level manner, and in many ways this gut level reaction stems from the likeability of the candidate; i.e., which candidate would you most like to drink a beer with?
I will list the folks who have tossed their hat into the ring according to electability:
The Frontrunners:
Dems- John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (still waiting for Oscar night to bear out my prediction on Al Gore)
Winner: Barack Obama, hands down. I will not even dare explain why Hillary loses this competition as it will lead me down a road that ends with getting kneed in the groin by an unidentified party.
GOP- Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain
Winner: Three-way tie for last.
If the Frontrunners Implode:
Dems: Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack
Winner: Joe Biden (see New York Observer interview, comments about 7-11 workers and Delaware's slave state status)
GOP: Newt Gingrich
Winner: Newt Gingrich first and last (emphasis on the latter)
Snowflakes Chance in Hell:
Dems: Dennis Kucinich, the bloke from Alaska whose name I am too lazy to look up (in and of itself not a good sign for his candidacy), and Rev. Al Sharpton (you know he is running- he gets brand new outfits and gets to expense all of his meals)
Winner: Al Sharpton
GOP: Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo
Winner: Neither. Both ask all servers and busboys about immigrations status, definite fun killer
Overall Beer Contest Winner:
Joe Biden with Al Sharpton in a distant second.
Policy and party aside, a good many voters vote at a gut level manner, and in many ways this gut level reaction stems from the likeability of the candidate; i.e., which candidate would you most like to drink a beer with?
I will list the folks who have tossed their hat into the ring according to electability:
The Frontrunners:
Dems- John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (still waiting for Oscar night to bear out my prediction on Al Gore)
Winner: Barack Obama, hands down. I will not even dare explain why Hillary loses this competition as it will lead me down a road that ends with getting kneed in the groin by an unidentified party.
GOP- Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain
Winner: Three-way tie for last.
If the Frontrunners Implode:
Dems: Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack
Winner: Joe Biden (see New York Observer interview, comments about 7-11 workers and Delaware's slave state status)
GOP: Newt Gingrich
Winner: Newt Gingrich first and last (emphasis on the latter)
Snowflakes Chance in Hell:
Dems: Dennis Kucinich, the bloke from Alaska whose name I am too lazy to look up (in and of itself not a good sign for his candidacy), and Rev. Al Sharpton (you know he is running- he gets brand new outfits and gets to expense all of his meals)
Winner: Al Sharpton
GOP: Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo
Winner: Neither. Both ask all servers and busboys about immigrations status, definite fun killer
Overall Beer Contest Winner:
Joe Biden with Al Sharpton in a distant second.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Pie-Eyed Crystal Jar Gazing (or something like that)
Its been a while since I last posted something assanine (probably my last post) but I thought I would have another go. With the primary season at our feet (or a year away but that hasn't stopped the politicians) its time to hazard an 08 prediction. I think Al Gore will announce he is running for President as he accepts his Oscar for the best documentary. Further contributing to the enormous buzz surrounding Al Gore, I think he will win the Nobel Peace prize (opposing the Iraq War, Global Warming stuff, though, I don't know if he has suffieciently sympathized with murderous tyrants to qualify)... and ultimately, he will secure the Democratic nomination.
Inconvenient Truth- He has just closed down his political action committee.
Inconvenient Truth- He has just closed down his political action committee.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
D.C. Metro Rant Courtesy of Craigslist
For those PeP readers contemplating a visit to D.C. please pay special attention to item 6:
Metro - The Underground Hell of DC
How much do I hate riding the Metro? It ranks up there with ripping out hangnails and trying to find a parking spot downtown. After awhile, you get used to it, but you do find new things everyday that bug you. Here is my little rant - just listing my top 10 pet peeves of the daily Metro grind:
10. Slow walkers - People are going places. Take a Sunday stroll on weekends. At 7am on Monday, get your ass moving. If old people with canes are passing you, perhaps you should walk a little faster.
9. Examiner pushers - There are 2 free newspapers being handed out in the morning - The Express and The Examiner. Over 90% people read The Express. I think that the guy who tries to hand you The Examiner has some type of inferiority complex. He's gotten to the point where he's about to shove it in your coat pocket. Get over it, dude. Nobody wants to read your paper.
8. Conversationalist - STFU!!! I don't want to talk to you. We're on the Metro. Just look around once in awhile and don't talk to anybody. My iPod usually saves me the trouble of running into any of these people, but sometimes I forget it at home. I hate doing the "no-speaka-englishey" thing. No, that's not true. It's actually pretty fun.
7. Cell phone talker - I don't mind cell phone conversations. As long they're kept quiet and are over quickly. I don't care how trashed you got last night or what you have to pick up on the way home. If I'm not right next to you, I shouldn't have to listen to it. Oh, and I'm gonna get real jurassic on the next guy who thinks push-to-talk speaker feature is appropriate on the Metro.
6. Escalator Rule Ignorants - Repeat after me.....Left, Walkie, Rightie, Standie. Very simple. Stay on the side you want, but follow the rules.
5. Door Lurkers - Everyone wants to get off the Metro quickly. But if you're gonna be parking your ass by the door, don't bitch about it when I purposely bump into you as I exit or enter. And if you're outside waiting for me to get off, you better have left me some room to get by you. Cuz my laptop is pretty sturdy, and I don't mind using it to leave some bruises.
4. Turnstile Campers - Everyone should have to get a Metropass. These paper tickets are killing me. Apparently it's very hard to slide it in and take it out. If you actually turn around and comment "these things are really tough to work," don't expect me to nod in agreement. I might roll my eyes and mumble "Dumbass" as I look for a turnstile that hasn't been taken over by idiots.
3. Reekers - BO, perfume, whatever. If people are dropping around you, maybe it's time to buy some soap. If you go through a bottle of perfume a week, perhaps you should consider using less. If you can smell your own BO, you should be charged with a felony when you get on the Metro.
2. iPod Sharers - I listen to an iPod. I can crank it pretty high without anyone around me hearing anything. If I can hear your music, you're gonna go deaf pretty soon. When I'm trying to sleep, I don't need Ludacris cranking next to me. And why is it that only white, suburban guys in shirts and ties listen to Ludacris? Holla.....
1. Ass Spreaders - My favorite. I have literally had only one ass cheek on a seat before because the dude next to me had half his ass cheek on my side. Some spillage is fine, but DAYUM!!! If you're that big, maybe you should be standing. You lose more calories that way anyway. And I don't have to have the armrest digging into my spine and the ridge of the plastic seat pushing my boxer briefs half way up my ass. That's my rant. Thanks for listening. It's about time for me to go down to Metro hell and hang out with these people.
Metro - The Underground Hell of DC
How much do I hate riding the Metro? It ranks up there with ripping out hangnails and trying to find a parking spot downtown. After awhile, you get used to it, but you do find new things everyday that bug you. Here is my little rant - just listing my top 10 pet peeves of the daily Metro grind:
10. Slow walkers - People are going places. Take a Sunday stroll on weekends. At 7am on Monday, get your ass moving. If old people with canes are passing you, perhaps you should walk a little faster.
9. Examiner pushers - There are 2 free newspapers being handed out in the morning - The Express and The Examiner. Over 90% people read The Express. I think that the guy who tries to hand you The Examiner has some type of inferiority complex. He's gotten to the point where he's about to shove it in your coat pocket. Get over it, dude. Nobody wants to read your paper.
8. Conversationalist - STFU!!! I don't want to talk to you. We're on the Metro. Just look around once in awhile and don't talk to anybody. My iPod usually saves me the trouble of running into any of these people, but sometimes I forget it at home. I hate doing the "no-speaka-englishey" thing. No, that's not true. It's actually pretty fun.
7. Cell phone talker - I don't mind cell phone conversations. As long they're kept quiet and are over quickly. I don't care how trashed you got last night or what you have to pick up on the way home. If I'm not right next to you, I shouldn't have to listen to it. Oh, and I'm gonna get real jurassic on the next guy who thinks push-to-talk speaker feature is appropriate on the Metro.
6. Escalator Rule Ignorants - Repeat after me.....Left, Walkie, Rightie, Standie. Very simple. Stay on the side you want, but follow the rules.
5. Door Lurkers - Everyone wants to get off the Metro quickly. But if you're gonna be parking your ass by the door, don't bitch about it when I purposely bump into you as I exit or enter. And if you're outside waiting for me to get off, you better have left me some room to get by you. Cuz my laptop is pretty sturdy, and I don't mind using it to leave some bruises.
4. Turnstile Campers - Everyone should have to get a Metropass. These paper tickets are killing me. Apparently it's very hard to slide it in and take it out. If you actually turn around and comment "these things are really tough to work," don't expect me to nod in agreement. I might roll my eyes and mumble "Dumbass" as I look for a turnstile that hasn't been taken over by idiots.
3. Reekers - BO, perfume, whatever. If people are dropping around you, maybe it's time to buy some soap. If you go through a bottle of perfume a week, perhaps you should consider using less. If you can smell your own BO, you should be charged with a felony when you get on the Metro.
2. iPod Sharers - I listen to an iPod. I can crank it pretty high without anyone around me hearing anything. If I can hear your music, you're gonna go deaf pretty soon. When I'm trying to sleep, I don't need Ludacris cranking next to me. And why is it that only white, suburban guys in shirts and ties listen to Ludacris? Holla.....
1. Ass Spreaders - My favorite. I have literally had only one ass cheek on a seat before because the dude next to me had half his ass cheek on my side. Some spillage is fine, but DAYUM!!! If you're that big, maybe you should be standing. You lose more calories that way anyway. And I don't have to have the armrest digging into my spine and the ridge of the plastic seat pushing my boxer briefs half way up my ass. That's my rant. Thanks for listening. It's about time for me to go down to Metro hell and hang out with these people.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The Undercover Economist
Dear Economist letters from Tim Harford. They're quite entertaining.http://www.timharford.com/favourites/DearEconomist.htm
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
A Link for Anti
Follow the link and see Rep. Michele Bachman (Anti's favorite politician) pawing over Bush.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Bush Has Got Balls
I figured that since tonight is President Bush’s state of the union address I should take this time to comment on his proposed escalation of the Iraq war by sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, I actually feel kind of bad that it has taken me this long to write anything about this. So here is my take on Bush’s plan.Basically love ‘em or hate ‘em one can’t deny the fact that President Bush has got a large set of balls on him, and I am talking about big balls, balls the size of grapefruits. Despite the fact that his party was basically thrown out of Congress due almost entirely to opposition to the current handling of the Iraq war here is how President Bush has responded:
- General Casey, who opposed an escalation and more troops in Iraq, was fired and replaced with a General who will do what the president wants him to do.
- He is going through with an escalation despite the fact that even Republican Senators are opposed to the plan.
- He is going through with an escalation despite the fact that 70% of Iraqis want American troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
- According to the latest polls 66% of Americans are opposed to the plan and yet that won’t stop him.
- The Iraq Study Group offered the president numerous options including increased diplomacy with Iran and Syria, and yet he decided to ignore almost all of their suggestions and decided to threaten Iran and Syria in his January 10th speech.
- In one of Donald Rumfeld’s final memos he even opposed more troops and described it as a “less attractive option” yet Bush is going ahead anyways.
- Even though a large majority of congress is opposed to this escalation Bush has stated that, "I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward." (see the picture above for my visual interpretation of his remarks)
So there you have it, no matter what you think about the president you have to admit that he’s got balls. The American public opposes his plan, his military commanders oppose his plan, Iraqis oppose his plan, Congress opposes his plan and yet nothing will stop him from escalating this war…and that my friends takes balls.
So what in all of this is the response from the Democratic controlled Congress? Thus far all I have heard is that short of cutting funding for the Iraq war there really isn’t much that Congress can do to stop the president…which is complete bollocks according to constitutional scholars. In fact here is a short list of how Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to limit the President’s ability to escalate existing military engagements by capping the number of American military personnel available for deployment and by refusing to release appropriated funds:
- In the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, P.L. 93-559, enacted during the Vietnam War, Congress limited the number of American military personnel in South Vietnam to 4,000 within six months and 3,000 within a year of the Act’s enactment.
- The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983, P.L. 98-43, required the President to “obtain statutory authorization from the Congress with respect to any substantial expansion in the number or role in Lebanon of the United States Armed Forces, including any introduction of United States Armed Forces into Lebanon in conjunction with agreements providing for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon and for the creation of a new multinational peace-keeping force in Lebanon.”
- Through the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1985, P.L. 98-525, Congress prohibited the use of funds appropriated in the Act or in subsequent Acts from being used to increase the number of U.S. military personnel deployed in European nations of NATO. The Act provided that Congress might authorize increased troop levels above the prescribed ceiling upon the Secretary of Defense’s certification to Congress that the European nations had taken significant measures to improve their defense capacity.
- In the Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2001, P.L. 106-246, Congress limited the involvement of U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors in counter-narcotics activities in Colombia by prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to expand their presence above specified levels.
- The Second Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1973, P.L. 93-50, specified that none of the funds appropriated by the Act were to be used “to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam or off the shores of Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam and South Vietnam by United States Forces and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other Act may be expended for such purpose.”
- Congress authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1994, P.L. 103-139, but set a deadline after which appropriated funds could no longer be used to pay for their involvement. The Act specified that the deadline could only be extended if requested by the President and authorized by the Congress.
- In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1995, P.L. 103-335, Congress required congressional approval of “any change in the United States mission in Rwanda from one of strict refugee relief to security, peace-enforcing, or nation-building or any other substantive role” and blocked funding for continued participation of the U.S. military in Operation Support Hope beyond a specified date.
- The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, P.L. 105-85, provided that no funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998 or any subsequent year could be used for the deployment of any U.S. ground combat forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina after a specified cutoff date unless the President first consulted with Congress and then certified to Congress that certain conditions existed in the field.
But fortunately for the president Democrats in Congress are not willing to actually do anything to stop him except for offering a non-binding resolution opposing further escalation of the war, or in other words they will be symbolically sticking their thumb up their ass (it might feel nice, but it really doesn’t accomplish anything).
I find it pathetic that even though Democrats won control of both houses due to the American publics opposition to the war in Iraq and even though 66% of the country is opposed to escalating the war Democrats are still too scared to do anything. I guess it would be nice if the Democrats decided to grow a pair sometime in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)