Scott Rosenberg comments on the State of the Union address.#

What did they do? They cheered his next line: "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule."

Unfortunately, every single senator, congressmen and dignitary who clapped at that moment was applauding the continued existence of the terrorist threat. "Hurray! The terrorists are here to stay!" Not too bright.

Then again, since so many of our leaders, right up to the president, found their political lives salvaged by 9/11, maybe they understood exactly what they were doing.

Kevin Drum on the evolution of Iraq's WMD program as reported by Jorge Arbusto.#

I missed this when I was listening to the SOTU last night, so it's a good thing it's become a widespread target of mockery in the blogosphere today. Here, apparently, is the evolution of Iraq's WMD program:

• March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
• June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
• October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
• January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

Isn't that great? "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Industrie Toulouse replies to the State of the Union.#

Will this amendment stop bullshit weddings like the recent Britney Spears one? There's nothing sanctimonious about that marriage. Will it suddenly stop the mammoth divorce rate? Will it protect those wonderful wholesome straight families where parents beat their children? Where spouses cheat - many times over?

I'm straight, and am personally of the opinion of Hamlet - "I say there shall be no more marriages!" - but I can't believe that same sex marriages will destroy all that is holy about marriage as spelt out in the above paragraph.

Dylan Greene writes about President Bush's new marriage amendment.#

Bush's State of the Union address just ended. No mention of a Moon Base. No mention of a Mission to Mars. No mention of missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. No mention of not finding Osama Bin Laden. No mention of fixing the worst deficit in American history.

So... what did Bush talk about for an hour?

[...]

So, check this out: under Bush's proposed amendments, you can be an illegal immigrant, suspected of terrorism, and on death row - and still get married. But you if you happen to be gay you're screwed.

Erin Judge writes about evil Gay people who want to get married. Shame on them.#

Screw this guy, man. The gay rights movement is a civil rights movement. In another 30 years, documentaries will be made with clips of that speech in them. It'll be like watching "Eyes on the Prize," with Bull Connor calling Dr. King "Martin Luther Coon" or hearing George Wallace chant "Segregation Forever!" in his campaign speeches all over the coutry. George W. Bush slides nicely in line with those old-school bigots.

History will shudder.

Strange Women Lying In Ponds writes about this peculiar use of the amendment process.#

The side of me that I can call "conservative" is definitely fiscally so more than socially so. It is therefore axiomatic that I not only oppose Bush's wreckless spending, but that I also oppose the occasional bones he likes to throw to the Religious Right, such as floating his possible support for a federal marriage amendment.

The Constitutional Amendment process has historically been used to expand the circle of privileges and immunities to persons who were previously deprived of the benefits of equal participation in American life. Amending the Constitution to now exclude a class of people from the pursuit of happiness would be a catastrophe indeed; one whose fruition I could not possibly countenance. I thus find Bush's allusions to the possibility of such an amendment to be deeply troubling.

The Left Coaster writes about how the sky is falling.#

Remember those various reports we have been seeing over the last several months that indicate Bush is not too popular with the troops? Many of us have speculated that such dissatisfaction with the commander in chief may lead many soldiers and their families to vote for the Democrats in November. Well, what is one sure way for Bush and the GOP to capture a large number of the votes of soldiers overseas next November without anyone knowing for sure whether or not the troops actually voted for Skippy?

Contract out with a large offshore tax-dodging GOP campaign contributor for a computerized voting system for overseas troops, [...]

Ryan Overbey posts on a transcript of Bush.#

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?

Q Ribs.

THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.

Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?

Ryan says, "This is the President of the United States. This is not a joke."

Richard of the House of Gwailo comments,

Fine, I'll blog this too. Apparently bloggers, especially those who oppose President Bush's policies, and falling over themselves in horror that the President, instead of answering pool reporters' questions, insisted on having a meal. (Strikes me as consistent if nothing else: Bush thinks lowly of the press, and so, bloggers seem to be forgetting, do bloggers. And just because someone asks a question, that doesn't mean you have to answer it. Especially if you have disdain for the people asking the questions.)

Ryan Overbey responds and incites a holy war.

There are three reasons why I love the release. Number one, it shows why lots of people love this president. He can fuck up on policy all he wants, but when he's in his element he can turn on the Texan charm. And he, really, really likes ribs. Number two: someone at the White House had to draw up this press release. They had to type a transcript of this event, and put it on the whitehouse.gov website. I think that's pretty funny. Number three: everyone I know who has read this thing has expressed a desire to eat ribs. I mean, at the end of this release all I could think was "I really need to go to Redbones in Davis Square and get some pulled pork and some ribs." It's uncanny how hungry I get after reading this.

Richard "Hip Means Me" Gwailo responds and writes about what things we think are funny:

I watched the episode of The Simpsons where they are stranded on an island (it's sometimes referred to by fans as "The Lord of the Flies Episode" even though it's properly titled "Das Bus"). It's an episode during the height of the series, so its comedic value is high. Very unscientifically, I tried to determine whether, when I laughed, it was because of something plain silly or because human suffering was involved. Human suffering in terms of making fun of a certain nation (the extended bit where the class is pretending they're ambassadors of nations in the Model U.N., especially where Martin is doing the Norwegian dance and Principal Skinner asks for "more pelvis") or the scene where Milhouse is being tried for eating the rations and—the funniest part—Nelson punches him repeatedly, and over the objections of Milhouse's attorney (Lisa), Bart (the judge) declares that he will "allow this". The only parts that weren't mocking human suffering were historical and literary allusions—and perhaps Bart's fantasy of monkey-butlers.

ARE YOU A BAD ENOUGH DUDE TO SAVE HIM?#

Richard links to Joshua Micah Marshall's interview with George Soros.#

[SOROS:] And there is another aspect that is coming into sharper focus to me, even since I wrote the book. That is that this administration has no compunction in misleading the people. It has no respect for the truth. This, I think, is a real danger. It is the danger of an Orwellian world. It's not new, because obviously, Orwell wrote about this fifty years ago. But what he wrote in 1984, you know, the Ministry of Truth being the Propaganda Ministry, the use of words meaning the opposite of what they are meant to mean. The Fox News, "Fair and Balanced," the "Clear Skies" Act for permitting pollution, the "Leave No Child Behind" [that] provides no money for the legislation. All these things I think pose a real danger to our democracy if they succeed in misleading the electorate. And there is only one remedy: an intelligent and enlightened electorate that sees through it.

Now, I find myself in a peculiar position, because having grown up or been exposed to the Nazi regime and the communist regime, I am very sensitive to this kind of propaganda. And the American people, not having been exposed to quite the same extent, seem to be more easily misguided. And that is something that I have been trying to say. And, as a result, I have been accused of calling Bush a Nazi. And that, to me, is itself a demonstration of how this propaganda machine works. That is a real danger, and I think that we really have to somehow become more sensitive to it, and reject it. So, I focused on rejecting the Bush Doctrine. But really behind it is this conviction that we must reject Orwellian Doublespeak. And that, in a sense, was why Dean had such great appeal because, he said, 'what I say is what you get.' He's losing some of that now that he's the front runner. But this is what people are really hankering after.

Beau writes in defense of the President.#

Having said that, I get really irate at a lot of people who start going into a tirade over President Bush. Many people are spewing out words about war and economy but they don't do any research. They join their friends and borrow their opinions. It has become very popular to oppose President Bush and if I had to guess, only half of the people who have a negative word against the man have really examined their opinion of him.

The war protests over the last year seemed unfocused and disorganized. More people showed up to be on Television than had a genuine heartfelt opinion of how the President was handling the war and cared to stop it.

Yes. If you have a problem with the current policies then you have a problem with The Bush Administration. And make sure that you actually have a good reason, rather than just wanting to complain like so many others. A friend and I were talking about this last night.

We'll first note I'm the first to ever use the above joke.#

Meteor Blades writes about the State of the Union.#

I'll be tempted to violate my advice above and turn on the tube. Because I'd like to see how many Democrats (and how often) give that man more than pro forma applause.

I don't mean to be too harsh. But there are times when I'd like to see them sitting on their hands. Frankly, I'd like to see them booing on occasion, but that's too much to hope for even though this will be that man's first campaign speech of 2004. Congressional Democrats should remember tonight that they are the Opposition party and that all the pomp and hoopla attending this formal affair is electioneering by that man on the taxpayers' dime.

I love it when liberals complain about taxes being spent on things that they don't care about, but don't realize that they do the same thing to Republicans.

Chai Latte on the State of the Union.#

Kinda flat. Terror, terror, terror, laundry list of domestic money spending schemes, terror, terror, terror. And steroids and athletes. S'up with that? Well, at least the camera people zoomed in on Tom Brady during that part of the speech. No more sunday stubble.

The New York Times' transcript of the State of the Union address.#

Shelley Powers has a "Citizen's Response" to the State of the Union.#

But it was a life affirming moment when I realized that I didn't have to make a reasoned response. I am not a Journalist, no not even a wannabe one. I am not an elected official or member of the goverment or candidate for office. I am a regular person, nobody of any importance, and as such I can take all that massive swirling heaving, maelstorm in my brain and literally paint this page with it -- and it's okay! Because I am a Citizen.

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September the 11th, 2001...

Twenty-eight months? Why stop there? Over seven years have passed since Timothy McVeigh decided to 'teach the government a lesson' and blew up a Federal building in Oklahoma. Over forty years have gone by since the Russians tried to ship nuclear missles over to Cuba. And over sixty years have passed since the Attack on Pearl Harbor.

A note: It was my understanding that the President is to protect the Constitution. The people can protect themselves, the law and the spirit of the Nation can't.

Aaron Swartz has a "shorter State of the Union" for Citizens on the Go.#

BUSH: America is good. Soldiers and law enforcement are making America safer. Tax cuts are making America stronger. We need more!

Terrorists are bad and still here. But the PATRIOT Act is good, renew it. Afghanistan is good now. Iraq is good now. There are bad people in the shadows, but they don't scare us. Libya is destroying their WMDs, we sure scared them. Now for North Korea and Iran.

Brad DeLong points to Objectionable Content who reminds us: "Words Not Heard in the President's State of the Union Address - Osama Bin Laden."#

The Binary Circumstance writes about the State of the Union with regards to Bush's proposal of protection of marriage.#

What did the sanctity of marriage do for George W. Bush? He used to be a relatively harmless, pampered, coke-snorting, alcoholic, frat boy. He marries Laura the Librarian, gets a personal relationship with Jesus and now he's a liar and a mass murderer who has killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

The Burning Bush's death toll far exceeds the number of people that Osama Bin Laden killed in the WTC attack. That's just another inconvenient bit of evidence that we would all like to ignore so that we can feel superior.

Another choice comment related to this:

If the Burning Bush really believed that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight, then it follows that God determines their value, not the Burning Bush, the courts, or mob rule, or Constitutional Amendments. But alas, this is not a rational man we're dealing with here.

Carly comments on the Democrats during the State of the Union.#

But then we got to the portion of the evening when I, literally, had to move away from throwable objects in order to avoid tossing them at the screen of our television. Most notably the money he wants to dedicate to abstinence programs, his praise of No Child Left Behind, and (URGH) the rhetoric on the sanctity of marriage.

Then they cut to a shot of Rick Santorum and I nearly lost it.

I was pretty riled up. Yelling at the screen and all. Cleared my living room of apartmentmates -- they were frightened I think by my rebuttals.

Nancy Pelosi -- I love you, but you look a little scary giving rehearsed speeches.

I think Ted Kennedy is my hero of the night, mostly because he was the one that (at least CNN) was cutting to as a figurehead of the Democratic party when they wouldn't stand for an ovation or something. I think it's awesome that he's so entrenched in his seat that he doens't have to worry quite as much about politics anymore and can say whatever he wants. He doesn't represent me, but I loved seeing Senator Kennedy down on the floor shaking his head in disbelief at some of the things that were being said. Made my evening.

Archive.org has a video of President Bush announcing Saddam Hussein's capture. But, what is funny is that it is categorized as "Election 2004/Candidates/George Bush."#

Donald Sensing announced the Iowa Caucus Winner first.#

You saw it here first, remember. And I want credit! I am now declaring that the winner of the Iowa Caucus is George W. Bush.

That's the Republican caucus, of course, or did you forget it was meeting today as well?

Dean Esmay on crybaby Christians and the Defense of Marriage Amendment.#

I've predicted all along that Bush would want nothing to do with this thing, and would do his best to dodge it. Which is exactly what he's doing. Why? Because he's no moron. You want to fragment the country right now over such a hurtful social issue, and split one of the country's most important political institutions (the Republican party) asunder just so you can have a fit over something that by all rights should be a state issue? Cry me a freaking river. If that happens, Republicans deserve to get spanked come November, hard.

Do you people not understand that there's a war on? Do you not understand that there are bigger fish to fry, even if you're convinced somehow that your marriage is going to fall apart if the two lesbians next door want to find some way to protect their lifelong partnership? What's wrong with you folks? No one said you had to approve, just mind your own business!

Dean Esmay writes about defending and attacking President Bush.#

Furthermore, while you may or may not believe this, I'm telling you it's true: if this were President Gore I would be saying the same thing. Because this issue is just too goddamned important. And I'd also be saying the same thing I constantly say to Bush's war critics: if you think he's not doing enough, then say what he should be doing that he isn't, or what he should do differently. Because any fool can criticize any plan to do anything. I can criticize your plans on grocery shopping next week if you want me to. In fact I can tear you apart on how ill thought-out and foolish your last shopping trip was--just show me a random receipt and watch me do it. Any fool can do it.

Richard Tallent on "Sour Grapes."#

I've disagreed with President Bush on occasion. I've been disappointed by the big-government compromises within the Republican Party. I'm even frustrated with the whole unofficial-official two-party political system that neatly locks out other voices (heard any Libertarian candidate debates yet?). But it still gets my goad when people with obvious malevolent intentions attack our sitting President with outright lies, comparisons with Hitler, etc. I was not a fan of the takeover of Iraq, but at the same time I think any pre-conceived notions Bush had on entering office were quickly overwhelmed by the responsibilities of the office, and certainly after 9/11. Iraq may not be a "justified war" in my eyes, but I don't think anyone can make a serious case that it is just about grabbing foreign oil or settling some family grudge either."

Bob on Unfogged writes about the delicate politics around Katherine Harris.#

My question: what did Harris actually do to deserve the Republicans' passionate devotion? If the election wasn't actually stolen for Bush, then Harris's role was just that of any other passive bureaucrat. If Harris is getting all this GOP lovin', it must be beacuse they feel like she handed them something they oughtn't have gotten. So isn't Harris's good name among Republican voters and donors also her indictment?

Ah, but silly me -- here I am again surprised at other people's lack of shame.

Kevin Lawver cries out that you must resist voting for Bush in 2004.#

There are so many themes to run against him on, from the economy, to the hundreds of lies he told during the lead-up to the war with Iraq (come on, don't even try to argue this one - the U.S. Army War College, the Carnegie institute, The Washington Post and others have done a fine job of ripping this one to shreds I won't even bother), to his complete incompetance in pretty much everything his administration has tried to do. I don't care if "his heart's in the right place" or he's a Christian. He's incompetant. There really isn't much else to say. The evidence is out there. George W. Bush is not fit to be President. He never was, and never will be. He, and his advisors, have done more harm than good, created a deficit we will spend the next three generations getting out of, has damaged our relations with the rest of the world to the point that it may take the better part of a decade to repair them after he leaves office, has appointed lobbyists to enforcement positions from the very industries they're supposed to enforce, and done more to damage the middle class than any administration I can think of.

Jim Gilliam points to The Drudge Report transcript of the MoveOn.org ad contest announcement.#

JULIA STILES (Actress)

* "I was worried that some soldiers over in Iraq who are actually younger than I am would see some salacious report on MSNBC and think that I was attacking them and not the government that put them there. And I was afraid that Bill O'Reilly would come and, with a shotgun at my front door and shoot me for being unpatriotic. But I decided that that's actually, that fear that was silencing me is actually why it's so important that MoveOn exist and do this ad contest..."

Grant Henniger responds to a comment about Governor Dean and President Bush's various stances on terrorism.#

President Bush has not done a thing to make us safer while doing quite a bit that has made us less safe. The current war in Iraq is likely to destabilize the entire Middle East which will bring in regimes hostile to the US, which is not safe for us. President Bush has completely been ignoring Al Qaeda, letting it rebuild in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, which is not safe for us. President Bush has cut the pay and benefits of our reservists, which will weaken our military in the long run, which is not safe for us. President Bush has begun to pursue a national missile defense and space militarization which, in turn, will lead to an escalation in arms among our allies, which is not safe for us. President Bush has weakened our ties to our allies, making them realize that us and them will not always agree on the best course of action, and that they need to develop their militaries so they do not have to rely upon us, which is not safe for us. President Bush has not made the US a safer place to live.

Dean Esmay on people caring more about being write that being good for the country.#

If the Bush administration finally finds 10 million pounds of anthrax, nerve gas, and 3/4ths of a working nuclear bomb, the only response from the critics will be that the Bushies are incompetent because they took so long to find it. And probably still lied about something anyway.

Bashing the Commander in Chief in a time of war is simply more important to them. Period. Truth doesn't matter. Scoring cheap points in a political debate is all that matters.

[...]

What these people deserve is the biggest ass-whupping in American electoral history. But they're probably not going to get it, so why waste our time? I'm increasingly convinced that politics for some people is always and forever about being vicious and mean-spirited and cynical and unfair to your political opponents.

Jim Moore on the difference between Dean and Bush, with particular focus on Bush's problems.#

For the citizen and taxpayer in you: States are cutting services everywhere--in education, especially. E.g. in Oregon most schools are on a shortened year, after already cutting teachers and courses. Education and other state services are important in the medium and long term if we are to sustain our knowledge economy and provide good livelihoods for our people. The total of state budget shortfalls, as estimated by the Economist magazine last June, is between $15B and $25B. By contrast, the cost of the Iraq war was over $100B just for the initial fighting. And of course the congress has appropriated $87B more for reconstruction (including the notorious Haliburton contracts). Hmmm. The best tradeoffs?

Lawrence Lessig links to the Bush in 30 Seconds winners. They are all awesome.#

MoveOn's Bush-in-30-Second campaign has announced its winners. They are in four categories, and each is brilliantly done. I hope the same is done by the other side, when the Democrats finally find a candidate. Because what's great about this is that it marks the real beginning of iPolitics — bottom-up media made real.Citizen-bloggers and digital media — when Madison finally returns to "Madison Avenue."

This just in! David Weinberger compares George W. Bush to Hitler!#

Here's one thing I think should be remembered: Nazi Germany's unfathomable evils were perpetrated by one of the most civilized of cultures. Yes, "civilized" is a loaded term. Deconstruct it as you will, Germany — a country that gave us many of the West's most revered artists and philosophers — seemed to be operating well within the norms of Western politics and culture. Yet it democratically voted in Hitler and watched (or worse) as it murdered its children and rolled tanks into its neighbors' cities.

[...]

We should learn from the horrors of Nazi Germany that it can happen anywhere, even here.

[...]

Do these acts make us into Nazi Germany? Of course not! Is any of these acts on a scale with death camps or the invasion of Poland? Not in the least! Each may be entirely justifiable: It may be the responsibility of a courageous country to ignore world opinion in some instances. Some dissenters may actually be unpatriotic. It's possible that our enemies are demonic; I have nothing good to say about Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. Even so, we should take such steps with open debate and genuine trepidation. Shutting off the conversation does not help us preserve our genuine American values. We should remember that it can happen here because it did happenthere...and also that if were to happen, the it would certainly be different. Is it happening here? That's exactly what we should be talking about, even if our answer is a resounding No.

Richard Stevenson in the New York Times on how Bush sought to oust Saddam early.#

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," Mr. O'Neill said in an interview with the CBS program "60 Minutes."

Mr. O'Neill, who was dismissed by Mr. Bush more than a year ago over differences on economic policy, said Iraq was discussed at the first National Security Council meeting after Mr. Bush's inauguration. The tone at that meeting and others, Mr. O'Neill said, was "all about finding a way to do it," with no real questioning of why Mr. Hussein had to go or why it had to be done then. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap," Mr. O'Neill said.

Aaron Swartz writes on this:

While Bush had campaigned on not doing any interventionist nation-building, at the first National Security Meeting (just after they got into office) they discussed invading Iraq and two days later they discussed the post-Saddam regime, including who wants oil contracts and where oil might be. (They showed pictures of documents establishing this.)

Bush is routinely unengaged and bored in meetings and doesn't ask questions.

Ted Barlow fact checks some asses.#

I paid pretty close attention to the debates, and I really didn't remember Bush proposing an invasion of Iraq. Is that the way it happened? Let's go to the transcript for the full quote:

GOV. BUSH: I'd like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. But we don't know — there's no inspectors now in Iraq. The coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger; we don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard to — it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

Was Bush revealing that he intended to attack and depose Saddam Hussein? In a word, no. In this debate, candidate Bush was proposing that we use the existing coalition to contain Saddam and keep the pressure on.

[...]

In January 2003, Bush was asked if his administration had been planning a war against Iraq before September 11th. Did Bush take advantage of the opportunity to mention his forethought?

[... Nope ...]

(I should make a pre-emptive note: no sensible person would object to the fact that the Administration had a plan to fight a war with Iraq in early 2001. To do so would only be prudent. The Pentagon makes plans to attack just about every country on Earth.

However, there is a significant difference between plans to attack and intention to attack. We almost certainly have a plan to attack Great Britain, which is unobjectionable. However, if we had the intention to attack Great Britain, this would be a very significant problem. It is easy 'n' fun to pretend that these are one and the same, but a moment's thought reveals that they are not.

Wilson Hellie links to Nobel laureate George Akerlof on the current Administration.#

Akerlof: I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of what kind?

Akerlof: I don't know yet. But I think it's time to protest - as much as possible.

[...]

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You've mentioned the term civil disobedience a minute ago. That term was made popular by the author Henry D. Thoreau, who actually advised people not to pay taxes as a means of resistance. You wouldn't call for that, would you?

Akerlof: No. I think the one thing we should do is pay our taxes. Otherwise, it'll only make matters worse.

Felix Rayman at Kuro5hin.org compares the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States with the Bush Administration's recent actions.#

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

Halley Suitt writes about what kind of person Karl Rove thinks we are.#

The idea that Rove could make false allegations about McCain -- crazy stuff like he fathered a black daughter out of wedlock -- points to one thing that really pisses me off. His complete lack of respect for the intelligence of his fellow citizens.

He must think voters are really really stupid. Taking back our rights as citizens -- being informed, making informed voting decisions -- is all about how smart and thoughtful your common American voter is -- and I believe in that. I don't think of voters as stupid and I would never listen to someone who had such a condescending attitude towards voters. And his efforts to ruin McCain were all about treating REPUBLICAN voters like morons. Thank, s man. He was busy teach Bush to court and sweet talk Republican voters telling them how great they were, but behind the scenes treating them with disdain and ridicule.

Strange Women Lying in Ponds writes about the new Immigration policy.#

Immigration policy is one of the most important aspects of our political structure, but it is probably one that is the least understood by most American citizens. This is only natural, because most Americans never have to deal with the consequences of our immigration laws (at least not in a directsense).

As a libertarian, I favor in principle a relatively open immigration policy, one which encourages those who are able to find a niche for themselves in the "American Dream," but also one that would discourage people from coming here and becoming dependent on public assistance and becoming a burden on public services. I am by the same token troubled by policies that seem to reward those who don't play by the rules while penalizing those who do play by the rules. The latter is essentially what we have, today.

Note: I think the comparison is supposed to be, Bush : USA :: Hitler : Germany.#

Frank J. writes about why Bush "probably isn't" Hitler.#

While it is very hard if not impossible to prove a negative, i.e. Bush not being Hitler, I will do my best because I believe that he is in fact not Hitler. After doing some research, I found out that Hitler was born in Austria in 1889 and died in Germany in 1945 (coincidentally, the same year WWII ended). George W. Bush, on the other hand, was born in America in 1946 and, to my knowledge, is still alive. That by itself seems to be ample evidence that Bush could in no way be Hitler. But there is even more evidence against Bush being Hitler. Hitler was known for having a mustache and being hatless, while Bush is clean-shaven and wears a cowboy hat. That's quite a stark contrast.

E. S. Raymond writes about this.

"Oh, look at me!" it says. "I'm a brave speaker of truth to power, so brave that I'm going to say bad things about Republicans despite the fact that they will certainly throw me in the gulags as soon as they think they can get away with it." I've been around long enough to know that this is a line lefties of Barlow's and my age originally learned in order to pick up women back in those halcyon radical-chic days of forty years ago. It gets a bit old after your third decade of waiting for the Man to bust your door down.

Let's get real. Even supposing Bush were really the concretization of all those 1960s nightmares, an evil bastard backed by a cabal of goose-stepping minions, from their point of view throwing John Perry Barlow in the Lubyanka would be a ridiculous thing to do. Remember how conservatives think: from their point of view, Barlow is just another aging hippie burnout given to occasional quasi-coherent rants about that Internet thing. In their model of reality, all they'd be doing by giving him the Solzhenitzyn treatment is conferring an importance on him that he doesn't possess.

Kimbly links to two great anti-Bush ads, that are not like the Hitler one.#

Ryan Overbey covers Pat Robertson's recent comment about Bush being divinely chosen.#

Ready for more? Robertson is a media mogul. His words have influence. He's not an isolated raving lunatic- his views line up pretty well with fundies across America. There are plenty of churches I've seen in Texas and Oklahoma who screen episodes of the 700 Club to their entire flock, who take his ideas seriously and think they're pretty reasonable.

This is why fundie Christians scare the living daylights out of me. They can vote. They form political coalitions. They influence policymakers on issues like abortion and civil rights. And they elect candidates based on whether they are "men of prayer". Our country may well elect a black female Democrat in the next 20 years, but I can guarantee you that we won't be electing an out-of-the-closet atheist anytime soon. We have a long way to