Various tidbits on news items.
It's true that the federal government as a whole faces a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall, however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security.
- Paul Krugman, taking a bit of time from his vacation
9/11 Commission / Intel Reform Bill: Two members of the US Senate rejected the conference version, including Sen. Byrd who felt it was "stampeded" to the floor. Though I think he very well might oppose it for other reasons, he has a point. Just what is being enacted in this mega-legislation that again is agreed upon beyond closed doors and then voted upon before legislators surely get a chance to read the thing?
Talk Left supported Sen. Byrd, especially more because of various civil liberties issues that the House mostly tossed in. Fred Kaplan over at Slate feels it doesn't do much. And, Secrecy News notes, that unlike the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, its rejection of intelligence budget disclosure.
Me? Not too enthused: it does less than the 9/11 Commission wanted, has various civil liberty concerns including the secrecy issue, and Porter Goss et. al. will still be in control either way. And, the whole process was so skewered, down to the rush to compromise that will bound to lead to some asshole (maybe even from the Northeast) saying that s/he was upset to find out that "x" provision was in the bill, and s/he is trying to change the darn thing. But, you know, time was short, etc. Xmas shopping, etc.
Iraq etc.: It is nice that President Bush finally is addressing some of the bad things going on, though his comparison to WWII is ridiculous. Iraq did not attack us ... Japan did. If we were just "fighting to extend freedom," we were have begun a lot soon than 12/41. Also, Donald "we all make mistakes, though most of us would be fired long before now for making this many" Rumsfeld's "suck it up" reply to the troops was so endearing. Fuck you too, Rummy.
As to the TNR piece on libs and the war on terror, here is one reply that seems to me chock full of good points. I'd add that it also seems to me that both "war" and "on terror" seems to be part of the problem. We are fighting a cause, not just terror, and "war" is an incomplete and in some ways self-defeating way to win the fight. This includes reduction of civil liberties and safeguards because "damn we are fighting a war" ... the cost/benefit analysis at the end of the day however isn't so clear.
And Also: The reforms to the criminally harsh NY Rockefeller Drug laws were far from enough, but better than nothing. And, now justices are dissenting from footnotes (Justice Scalia from two, Justice Breyer from one in a trademark case involving make-up). Is this why the Senate Democratic Minority leader saying he would probably could support Justice Scalia (but not Justice Thomas) for Chief Justice?
These guys must be GREAT bargainers.