Keep Dancing

Over at Hullabaloo, Digby catches Fox News in a classic media failure two-step, doing a story on why there's been so little coverage of the Downing Street Memo (without of course ever wondering if their own lack of coverage of the issue might be at all connected). Surprisingly, she seems to treat this as an isolated incident rather than recognizing it for the organizing principle of modern media that it is.

Anyway, in case you missed it, the Downing St. Memo is written evidence - from over half a year before the invasion of Iraq actually occurred - which makes it look like the Bush administration had plans to go to war in Iraq and to say they had to because of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and that everything which happened between then and the outbreak of war was part of a pre-planned campaign in which the truth of the claims underlying going to war were irrelevant aside from providing a public basis for the invasion.

Unsurprisingly, people are wondering why the media would rather provide endless coverage of Michael Jackson and runaway brides than talk about how the President and his aides deliberately misled the American public to get them to support going to war.

On the one hand, I could be charitable to the media and say that this isn't really news because everyone who opposed the war already pretty much figured this is what happened and everybody who supported the war either figured the same or didn't really care enough to pay attention. So the fact that there is now some written evidence isn't going to affect what anyone thinks¹.

But on the other hand, I'm guessing that if there was new written evidence supporting the allegations which have been made against Michael Jackson, the media would have provided blanket, inescapably-thorough coverage so I think what we are looking at here is simply an (even more egregious than usual) failure of the media to cover what is actually a pretty big story which could be very damaging to the President. Somewhat odd behavior for a 'liberal' media which is out to get the Republicans.


-----
¹The fact that this second group is large enough that Bush was re-elected helps explain why people around the world (including in the U.S.) are getting increasingly nervous that America is looking to carve their own unique path down the well worn slope on which civilizations have slid from relative stability and peace into crisis.

Have Cake, Will Eat

According to the NY Times, Alan Greenspan "Backs Idea of Accounts for Retirement", but he "expressed unease that the change could lead to trillions of dollars in additional government borrowing in the next few decades."

In other news, Greenspan is reported to be supporting my plan to take a 3 month vacation to the South Pacific but is uneasy about the fact that I don't get that much vacation time and can't afford it.

The Times rightfully notes that,

"The comments were reminiscent of those Mr. Greenspan made just over four years ago, when he endorsed Mr. Bush's goal of cutting taxes on the theory that the government should gradually reduce its budget surpluses."

... but fails to remind readers that when Greenspan says that, "I think the existing structure is not working," he is referring to the structure that he himself set up back in 1983.

I appreciate that Greenspan has a tricky job trying to appease the 'tell-us-what-we-want-to-hear' Bush administration while reassuring the financial markets that he doesn't plan on having the U.S. default on it's debt at some point, but if anyone has the job security to call a spade a spade it's Greenspan and I think his disingenuous comments - which give support to Bush policies - are hurting the long term interest of Americans.

I Stand Corrected

After watching a few minutes of Bush's State of the Union Address and hearing of his plan to cut the deficit in half in another 5 years, I concluded that fiscal responsibility wasn't a big priority for Bush & Co.

But that was before I read this:

"The people in Congress on both sides of the aisle have said, 'Let's worry about the deficit,'" Bush said Friday in Omaha, Neb., as he barnstormed the country for his Social Security (news - web sites) plan. "I said, 'OK, we'll worry about it again.' My last budget worried about it, this budget will really worry about it."

I guess there was no need for me to worry.



-----
Also, while I'm on the topic, if you haven't read Robert's State of His Blahg Address yet, you're missing out.

So much for fiscal conservatism

I was flipping channels and came across Bush's state of the union address in progress.

I stopped to listen and the first thing I heard was that they were going to stick to their plan to cut the deficit in half by 2009 (followed by a long round of applause).

The next point was that government should spend tax dollars wisely or not at all (followed by more applause). Apparently interest payments to foreign countries are considered a wise use of tax dollars.

Also, I don't know if this is normal since I don't watch too many speeches, but it seems really odd to see/hear people clapping after every sentence.

Oh and apparently social security is heading towards bankruptcy (??) and needs to be saved ... Man what a pile of *** all this social security stuff is ... 'We have to move ahead with honesty'... man I really feel sorry for any American who actually pays attention to reality. OK, time to change the channel.

Hypothetical Question for the Day

What happens if the democratically elected Iraqi government decides it wants to evict the U.S. army and close off the country to American bases / troop movement?

A Few Good Posts

Just a quick note to mention a few worthwhile posts I've seen in the past few days:

Jonathan, over at No More Shall I Roam, has a great post on Copyright.

Timmy over at Voice in the Wilderness has an on the money take on Bush's comments on Missile Defence when he visited Canada a little while back.

Andrew over at Bound By Gravity recounts his experience at the Conservative party regional policy conference the other day.

Can a Big Spender Change His Ways?

Cross-posted to Blogs Canada e-group

With George Bush soon to arrive on Canadian shores, I thought I’d use my first post here at the e-group to follow up on Don’s earlier question about what Bush would have to do for his second term to be considered a success. There’s a lot of ground to cover here, so I chose to focus on the pragmatic point of view in this post and save the moral issues for another day.

First, it’s pretty clear that the U.S.A. is a nation with incredible resources: military resources, financial resources, natural resources as well as ‘human’ resources (e.g. a strong work ethic, respect for democracy and liberty, willingness to take risks etc.), institutional resources, diplomatic resources and ideological resources (worldwide respect for the American way of life and ‘American’ values).

Second, looking to the future, the retirement of the baby boomers, the growing ecological threats (global warming, soil erosion, water table depletion, depletion of energy resources, loss of bio-diversity), rising interest rates (sooner or later), and the inevitable spread and technological improvement of various weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons, biological weapons, digital weapons, etc., etc.) all suggest that the U.S.A., like other nations, will need ever more resources at its disposal to meet the coming challenges.

Third, by the end of Bush’s first term, the military was almost fully deployed and arguably overstretched. Financially, the capacity for taking on new debt had been greatly used up (both at a governmental and at a consumer level), the downward pressure on the currency had grown immense (and possibly dangerous), and the role of the American dollar as de facto global currency was looking less certain by the day. Internally, the population was working harder than ever, while their levels of respect for their political opposition, the political process and their own government were still dropping. Natural resources had been depleted, destabilized and destroyed much faster than they were replenished. Diplomatic relations were strained at best and hostile at worst, even with longtime allies. Finally, levels of respect for Americans, and for their role in world affairs were lower than at anytime in recent memory, despite the outpouring of sympathy after 9/11.

Not all of this can be laid at Bush’s feet and some of these trends date back to well before his time, but they all represent areas where his policies were an aggravating, rather than a compensating factor. In short, Bush has shown that he can spend America’s resources, but he has yet to show that he can build them. In order to be judged a success, his second term will have to leave America, and the rest of the world, better able to deal with the coming challenges, not less.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, that was pretty general. If you want specifics, I think Bush needs to balance the budget (as Russil said a while back), stabilize transfer programs (i.e. social security), achieve a soft landing for the currency, restore taxation of the wealthy/corporations to historical (postwar) levels, take much more drastic action on climate change (signing Kyoto would be a start), get the army out of Iraq (and not invade anyone else), reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels in general, and ones from the Middle East in particular, make an effort to reach out to other countries via diplomacy rather than through threats and intimidation (his visit here being a decent start), and perhaps most of all, stop shooting (firing) the messenger when people tell him something he doesn’t want to hear.