Category: The Dish

An interesting poll shows Americans are getting a teensy bit more optimistic. They may not be nuts.

The Islamists and their sympathizers have been pressuring Wikipedia to censor itself over the Danish cartoons. So far, only a few wobbles. The info page is here. The page where the discussion occurs about them can be found here. Thank God for the free speech advocates. But notice also the creepy alliance between the Islamic far right and the post-modern sensitivity police on the far left. The only extremist religious groups the far left won’t find an excuse for are the nutty Christianists. That tells you something, I think.

Why are we attacking their major source of revenue and jobs: poppies for opium and heroin? Money quote from Johann Hari, who now joins Hitch and me in being pro-democracy and anti-drug war:

"There are two possible futures for Afghanistan. In the first, Hamid Karzai responds to the clear democratic will of his people ‚Äì ‘everyone I know wants the poppies to be legal,’ Sayed says ‚Äì and legalises the supply of heroin. Only once Karzai can tax the country’s single biggest product and reclaim it from criminal gangs is there any chance of extending democratic rule beyond Kabul.
But the other, darker Afghanistan looks more likely ‚Äì one where Karzai ignores his people and follow the dictates of the ex-drug user George W Bush to create a ‘drug-free Afghanistan’. This is a recipe for endless civil war, with a heroin-fatted Taliban launching more and more raids to burn girls’ schools and trash any rebuilding, far onto the historical horizon."

The choice is: democracy or the drug war. I’m glad Johann had the guts to explain this.

The Onion reports on an unnoticed item in the president’s address last night: a new cabinet office for scandal coordination. Some pundits agree:

"We can’t afford to have the American people lose faith in the government’s ability to spearhead an effective scandal," TV commentator Sean Hannity said. "The sheer number of major scandals has gone way up in the past few years‚Äîbut the level of scandal coordination has remained at Clinton-era levels. The system is obsolete. Plain and simple. I for one applaud Bush for bringing corruption management into the 21st century."

Has the nutso, ‘outing’ gay left gone too far this time? Some interesting legal views here and here.

Mr Barnes thinks the SOTU was too conciliatory.

A French paper does the right thing- and reprints the offensive Danish cartoons. How many American papers would have the balls to do the same thing?

Of all the president’s rhetorical sleights of hand last night, I guess the one that most bothered me was his boast that he had reduced the growth of domestic discretionary spending every year. It gives the impression of fiscal discipline, and although technically true, it’s an absurd irrelevancy. It starts from a freak number and suggests that cutting discretionary spending’s growth from a starting point of an annual increase of 15 percent is a big deal. Here’s a reality check:

The president said he has reduced "the growth" of non-security discretionary spending. This only means it did not increase as much from year to year. Moreover, overall discretionary spending has exploded during his tenure, especially when military spending is included. White House budget documents show that overall discretionary spending has climbed from $644 billion in 2001 to $840 billion this year, an increase of more than 30 percent.
Looked at another way, discretionary spending as a share of the overall economy is at its highest level in 13 years, according to the CBO.

At a very basic level, this president is being dishonest. The good news, I suppose, is that he recognizes that the truth of his own record is indefensible. And I couldn’t help noticing that many of the Democrats’ replies, including those from Tim Kaine and Rahm Emanuel, focused on how the president wasn’t spending enough on their pet programs. No responsibility anywhere in sight. I’m not a fan of amending the Constitution, but a balanced budget amendment looks increasingly like our only option.

Another reader writes:

"I can’t believe you’re getting excited by mere words from the mouth of Bush. Don’t you know better by now? In his 2003 SOTU, Bush talked up hydrogen-powered cars, proposing a total of $1.7 billion over the following five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies. If he wants to lend some substance to the platitude you quoted about breaking our addiction to oil through technology, he should bring us up-to-date on just what that initiative has accomplished in the past three years.

I haven’t heard anything about it of late. I have, however, heard that Exxon is reaping the largest profits ever earned by an American company. I wonder how much of that money they’re plowing into R&D on hydrogen power."

Yeah, what did happen to the hydrogen car initiative?

A reader writes:

"I enjoy your posts. I read most of them, and I most always learn something, or a least have some of my own ideas and beliefs intelligently challenged. But, you must not get carried away with the President’s statement that our nation is addicted to oil..

One must remember, I repeat, must always remember, that President Bush does not always tell it like it is."

You don’t say.