Ambassador John Bolton?

According to the AP, next week, President Bush is going to appoint John Bolton as ambassador to the UN. That's right, appoint, without Senate approval. Apparently, it is infact legal for the President to appoint an ambassador on a temporary basis.
I hope that Bush isn't going to do this, because it's crazy. John Bolton could not even get 2/3rds Senate approval. He should not be our ambassador because he does not speak for us. Everybody at the UN knows that he doesn't speak for us, so he isn't going to be very effective.

"I don't recall"

John Roberts "has no recollection" of being a part of the Federalist Society but, according to the Washington Post, was in fact a member in the late '90s. Yes, the same disease that affected the entire Reagan administration has spread to John Roberts. It's a shame when it strikes somebody so young.

EDIT: Now that I've read over this, I can see how somebody would think that I make a tasteless Alzheimer joke. This is not true. I am actually making a tasteless Iran Contra joke.

So John Roberts was part of the Federalist Society. Big deal, it's not like he was a member of the 'Klan. I just want to know why he lied about it, and if he's lying about anything else. The White House is finally going to be turning over some of his papers (but not all).

More detail about the Subway story

When the story about the British cops who shot the Brazilian man in the subway came out, I think that everybody wondered, why didn't the guy stop for the cops? He may have been running late, but that late?
I found another write-up of it (courtesy Disgruntled Chemist) at Yahoo News. I don't know if this was in the other articles and I missed it, but here is the answer: they were plainclothes cops.

You must be this white to ride the subways

Remember that that guy that the London police shot in the subway? He was not actually a terrorist. The London police shot a guy..I know that doesn't sound like a very big deal to Americans, but cops in England don't normally carry guns and don't normally shoot at people. According to the article, the London police have opened fire only twenty times since 1997.

So it was the wrong guy, but in order for the London police to take such drastic measures, he must have been acting pretty suspiciously, right? Only if you believe that wearing a heavy coat, looking like a South Asian, and being in a hurry are suspicious.

I didn't even want to make a big deal about how the guy was actually a Brazilian national. When it came out that this guy was a Brazilian national (and a Catholic!) people started getting pissed off that the police can't even racially profile people properly. What if Jean Charles de Menezes were a Saudi Arabian? Do Saudi Arabians deserve to get shot on the subway for no reason?
It doesn't matter if you are white, if you hail from a "non terrorist" country, because everybody looks suspicious these days. Wearing a big jacket is suspicious. Carrying a backpack is suspicious. Being a twenty-something male is suspicious. Things are going to be worse for Middle Easterners--they always are--but being white doesn't mean that this isn't going to affect you.

It will at least affect New Yorkers. New York City is now going to be searching its subway passengers. They're going to have cops pulling people out for random searches. The Cunning Realist explained why this is a stupid idea, though it isn't like I need very much convincing that random searches are dumb: I don't know what it is about me, but whenever I've had to go through some kind of security checkpoint, I'm always searched. Randomization my ass.

Apologies

On the 17th, I claimed that the Bush administration had planned to covertly influence the Iraqi election. This is incorrect and I apologise.

The administration didn't plan it. They did it. The American government took steps to influence the Iraqi election (first spotted by Agitprop). This is a long article, so I quote what I thought was the most relevant paragraph:

A Pentagon consultant who deals with the senior military leadership acknowledged that the American authorities in Iraq "did an operation" to try to influence the results of the election. "They had to," he said. "They were trying to make a case that Allawi was popular, and he had no juice."

What we still don't know is the extent of the election fraud--or why the Bush administration would take such an enormous risk.

Back on the Wagon

The gambling wagon, that is. This business about the Supreme Court nominee -- it's being announced at 9:00 pm tonight -- has put me into a gambling mood. I have $20 riding on Supreme Court Justice Alberto Gonzales.

UPDATE:
1. Who is John Roberts? Who is this clown, messing up my winning streak?
2. Roxanne and her people are also in a gambling mood. Looks like I'll have to declare bankruptcy (again).

Spreading Freedom, Democracy and...Election Fraud?

According to the New York Times, President Bush had planned to secretly support certain candidates in the Iraqi election. What of the promise of "free and unfettered" elections? The President had either already signed the authorization or was about to, but Congress reportedly objected so much that the administration had to cancel the plan.
The President and his people planned to influence an election, secretly and illegally, for heaven knows what reasons.

EDIT: If you can't get to the NYTimes story, here is another version at yahoo news.

Osama Bin Who?

I don't normally post on other posts, but The Cunning Realist has, as always, given me a whole lot to think about. I excerpt:

On September 12, 2001, what would you have said if I told you that in 2005 the two main organizers of 9/11 would be living freely within the borders of one of our allies and casually releasing videotapes, Bush would mention Bin Laden's name only a handful of times over the next four years including statements like "I truly am not that concerned about him", and it was
left to Democrats like Harry Reid to keep the flame of outrage alive?

Would you have believed me?

I have never believed in President Bush. I never liked him and I never believed that he would do a good job. But I didn't think he would foul this up, because even I am not that cynical. I knew that before September 11th, 2002, we'd have caught Bin Laden, tried him, and executed him on national television--the American way. Perhaps even in time for Superbowl XXXVI; what a halftime show! When the days and weeks and months went by and still no Osama Bin Laden, I started thinking that maybe he'd died in his cave, or maybe he was already captured and Bush and Company were just waiting for the right time to unveil him. All of these seemed more likely than our total failure to catch him. Gawd. Osama Bin Laden murdered 3000 people and he is probably going to die of natural causes.

EDIT: (07-17) It appears that I was totally wrong. Osama Bin Laden's driver is in US Custody and faces trial. Shame on me for being such a pessimist.

Going down with the ship

George W. Bush is a captain willing to go down with his ship. Good for him. He is very brave, considering that Karl Rove is accused of leaking a CIA agent's identity for political payback. Arguably worse than the Watergate break-in. But the President is standing by his man. How sweet. Perhaps he will take him for a ride in Air Force One like he did with Tom Delay days after that whole ethics committee fiasco.
Do you know who else stands by their man? The military. You know that guy who was supposed to get punished for Guantanamo bay? He's not getting punished either.

How many seats do you think there are on Air Force One?

As long as it takes

When asked how much longer we are going to be in Iraq, President Bush invariably replies something along the lines of As long as it takes.

Or, until 2006. Whichever is closer.

According to a new leaked memo, the US and Britain are planning on reducing troop numbers by more than half by mid-2006. (A really cynical person would add that this is just in time for the upcoming congressional races.) The people involved add many caveats but guys, we have our timetable.

Addeneum: By the way, who is it that keeps leaking all of these memos?

Weird

I don't know a damn thing about economics. I was 'vetching about it in the last post, but don't even listen to me because I don't know what I'm talking about. I do not understand how it is possible for both high job cuts and low unemployment to be true. I checked. Both articles are from the same news source, talking about the same country--America--at the same time--June.

Nobody gives a shit about global warming

I have learned two things in the past week:

1. Passports are more expensive than you think
2. Nobody gives a shit about global warming.

The people at the G8 convention agree that global warming requires "urgent action" but could not agree on what that action is, besides a generalized 'we should reduce fossil fuel emissions' type of statement. No actual real measurable goals though.
(Some would argue that headway has infact been made, because at least George W. Bush now admits that there is such a thing as global warming. )
This is a shame. Economy 101. Clean air is a "public good". Changing over a factory so that it pollutes less does infact cost money. No factory owner in their right mind is going to do it on his own. No one country is going to make the change all on its own. However, if everybody were *required* to do it, then things would even out and no country would have an advantage over another. Global warming won't be solved by voluntary emissions reductions and shit like that. It is going to take a whole bunch of countries getting together and agreeing on mandatory reductions, agreeing to set goals and enforce compliance.

How to tell that things aren't going well in Iraq:

171. The Iraqi insurgency, once thought to be in its "last throes," has nominated a spokesman. The Iraqi insurgency has extra time on its hands. I heard this from a standup comic--this is how we know that we aren't anywhere close to catching Osama Bin Laden: the guy has time to send out videotapes.
172. The top general in Iraq has noted that the insurgency does not appear to be going away any time soon.
173. Contrary to popular belief, the problem isn't that we don't have enough money to fight this war. The problem is that instead of sending the money to the troops for say, body armor, we're sending it to secret torture centers for lord knows what.
173b. And instead of say, rebuilding Iraq, Halliburton's bosses have been using 1.4 billion dollars of taxpayer money to say, line their own pockets. They have "cut costs" by doing things like providing expired food to people.
174. The State Department warns us not to go to Iraq. Hell, don't even fly over it.

Jailbait

When I heard about Karl Rove and the Time Magazine story, I got to thinking about how fun it would be to see Karl Rove get arrested--I mean arrested in a Scott Peterson-style media blitz. (Hey, with this administration, you take your laughs where you can get them.) Who would you like to see get hauled off to jail on the five o'clock news?

Addeneum: It doesn't have to be political. You can be unoriginal and choose Michael Jackson, or get personal and pick the guy who stole your sister's social security card.

The swinger has retired

What a week for the Supreme Court! To recap: Americans now have less property rights than corporations, the very important issue of the display of the ten commandments has been resolved (insum: small plaques=bad, big statues=good) and now everybody's favorite swing justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, has announced that she is retiring.
The loss of a centrist is always bad, but I'm more concerned that President Bush gets to choose the new one. Uniter Schumiter. This administration is on a hell of a power trip. Justice O'Connor is not going to be replaced by another centrist. We don't know who the president is considering yet, only that he is worried that the Senate will delay him--meaning that it is probably going to be somebody controversial.