The Federalist Papers on Harriet Miers

This is outstanding. A founding-father bombshell. Thisngs like this should help the voice of reason in this country regain the high ground.

Bill Bennett Reveals his Most Intimate Fantasies

We have never seriously considered abortion as an effective tool for implementing social policy, but some apparently do.

BENNETT: you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know.

Let's pause here for a moment, because this whole episode is operating on at least two levels. First, Bennett floats a theory. In mentioning that it came from someone else's crackpot mind, not his, he can avoid responsibility for all outrageous statements (hawkus chickenus typicus).

His caller is sceptical. Bennett backs off instantly. Obviously he hasn't given this much thought.

The two levels are these:

1) The abortion/crime correlation (an inverse one). The caller happens to be a Pro-lifer. His comment immediately before this exchange suggested that all the abortions since Roe v. Wade have cost us revenue in lost productivity. (It's touching how hard they try to convince - but this caller is preaching to the wrong choir altogether.)

Bennett misses this I think. The abortion issue is not his main schtick anyway. But he begins to catch on when the caller expresses reservations at what must be, to him, simple mass murder.

enter
2) The idea, in the caller's mind, that abortion is murder.

Clearly the host of the show does not want to go around picking fights with pro-life types. He sees this and reacts not by airing out the (only apparent?)foul and pestilent ethical midden of his thoughts - but by ignoring the... err... elephant in the room. He actually presses onward to reveal, on national radio, without shame (or perhaps defiantly throwing off the shame he feels, in a gratuitously destructive adolescent gesture of independence and rebellion against ethical sensitivity) his heart of hearts:

But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

This he knows. It's a fact. The original theory about abortions lowering crime was wacky, he says, but if you apply it to blacks -- well, he just knows it's true.

I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. After all "I know" is really just an expression with these people. An idiom, if you will.

Or then again, let's not. Because he doesn't leave it at that. Now it's I know that it's true. What has become of all those tricky, far-reaching, and extensive extrapolations? Oh, black babies. Well, sure - I know that's true. I mean, everyone knows that. Just ask Bar.

These are obviously intimate Republican fantasies being aired. They talk about these lofty ideas as they belch through their bourbon at the Club. You know it's true.

What is the main problem with mass abortion? The one that pops into Bennett's head before all others? Such an undertaking would be

impossible.

You can take him like a patient on the couch here, free-associating the first problem that comes to mind about his modest proposal. Obviously the immorality - of either abortion or genocide - is not his first concern -- in this case, we see clearly that it is his third priority, lining up behind his feel for the pragmatic and his sense of the laughable. Mr. Bennett is a practical man before all else.

Hell is not hot enough for some of these people.

Indeedy Doody

"There is deep concern about this storm causing more flooding in New Orleans," Bush said Monday after meeting with his homeland security council at the White House. "If it were to rain a lot, there is concern from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levees might break."

I think he means "break AGAIN." But look at it once more: it's not the POTUS who is concerned, it's the Army Corps of Engineers. He is still incapable of getting involved, which in this case would simultaneously imply that he had been wrong the first time. Oh, it's complicated.

I realize he wasn't paying attention the first time, but really what is the point in rubbing our faces in it? (Or maybe this is just a mild form of personal censorship, deleting the earlier episode as too inconvenient to the image of the Wreformer without a Wresult.)

And the word should really be "breach," not to be too much of a stickler about it. This guy is a quick study, ain't he?

Perhaps he just can't say "breach" without laughing since the pee-pee episode, cause he's never actually seen the two words in writing. Funny that he almost breached his breeches.

Paper or Plastic?

The debit-card plan has quickly soured into a cynical debacle: just a relative handful of cards were distributed before the whole project was scrapped in favor of distributing checks to the victims. We are tempted to imagine the conversations going on in decision-making circles that led to this.

Passing out debit cards that allow payment restricted to food, clothing, and travel expenses seems an excellent and surprisingly efficient idea: there are no further administrative costs or practical headaches to deal with once the cards are passed out; no bank fees, and immediate usability for the recipient.

But suddenly the debit cards were stopped. Someone must have voiced objections; one can only speculate. In any case a good idea has been hastily choked off in favor of an obviously inferior one.

Give checks to people, many obviously without bank accounts or addresses, and you force them to expend even more of their waning energy standing in more lines, dealing with more people who are too overwhelmed, to help them efficiently, just to get cash for food -- if they can get through to FEMA at all.

The whole incident is more than a trifecta for the machine of the Right; in fact, it is a quadruple win for them:

1) They get the good press from the implementation of an innovative project.

2) They "save" a lot of money by corking up the project after a day.

3) They score some points in their anti-bureaucracy campaign now underway. ("Look what a mess the career bureaucrats have brought us with their failed plan. Better just to let the private sector handle it.") (see paragraph below)

4) The racists get another opportunity to blame "unruly crowds" of African-Americans, in this case people reacting perfectly naturally, with frustration, to a cock-up for which there is no excuse. (The quoted phrase was used by Fox News in a headline; we do not provide links to propaganda sites, but see the Googled implications of "underprivileged" in the Ba-Bar post below, which are similar to this.)

These gains for the Right's hitmen (and women) constitute an exasperating loss for the weary victims.

Worth considering: this episode might have been deliberately botched. The point? So that the anti-govmint types can point out, after the fact, how miserably "bureaucracy" failed here (they pulled that one out this week as a code word for "Democratic and black-controlled local government in Louisiana"). This is part of a frenetic attempt to push their privatization arguments amid the rubble and human tragedy of Katrina and their own murderous negligence.

It is a cheap and easy gambit on their part.

Perhaps the whole thing was just another incompetent episode from a bunch of boneheads with fake résumés. But at this point in the crisis, when all involved know they are being watched, you can assume that very, very little happens by accident.

For this administration, damage control just calls for the infliction of further damage. Disaster is their closest ally.

The Hand of God

If you believe, as many "Christians" in America do (you know - the ones who don't believe in giving money to the poor, and who aren't about to let the meek inherit the earth), that a natural disaster such as Katrina is an expression of God's will, wouldn't it then be sacrilege to go in and save the victims? Particularly with the Endtime approaching 'n all.

Shipments of food and water were blocked by the neo-FEMA people from entering New Orleans.

Turns out they were just doing God's work.

Should this not be eminently clear, the Lord has found a voice in his servant, Representative Richard Baker (R) of Louisiana's Fifth District:

"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

'S ok, Dick. Don't be so humble. You can take credit for it.

Chuckles from Ba-Bar

Barbara Bush -- "Bar" to H.W. -- was down in Texas yesterday to bask in the glow of that famous local hospitality, and we know all Americans are thankful to the people of that state for taking in our fellow citizens in their hour of need, in the terrible wake of Katrina.

Thing is, Bar also did some talkin'.

Of course, she's been out of the spotlight for a while, so I guess she must be out of practice at watching her words. It's like listening to someone who's a little tipsy: the thoughts are more honest and undisguised, the levees of self-censorship temporarily breached. This, my friends, is a virtual invitation to close philological analysis.


Exhibit A:

And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

You know.

Dontcha? Cmon, you know. Underprivileged anyway. Ya know? So many of them - not all of them, mind you, but so many of them were, well, you know, pigmentally challenged ... I mean... to begin with. So the hurricane was their meal ticket! Surely you don't mean to tell me you didn't know that?

By the way, what's up with "poor?" Is that a dirty word now? I'm so out of touch. What might the overtones of "underprivileged" be?

(Google check:
"Underprivileged children" : 401,000 hits; "Underprivileged adults" : 207 hits

Ahh.)

Chuckle. You expected maybe a belly laugh? That would have been so ungracious, and oh so much less communicative. I mean, you know who I'm talking about and they (these virtual children) are doing very well for themselves. Just think where they were before Katrina.

So (chuckle) they're making out pretty well, aren't they?

But surprisingly, to hear Bar tell it, all this high living is almost frightening:

Almost everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston. What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

And you thought Katrina was scary.

"Overwhelmed" is telling. Who is overwhelmed? By hospitality? We are too much for them? Tush, tush, Bar. Overwhelmed was last week. You guys should check non-Fox media once in a while to recalibrate.

There is anxiety in her words, and the kind of confusion that comes from wondering why this is all necessary. This is why she uses a confused image: overwhelmed by ... kindness.

Indeed, someone is overwhelmed here, but I don't think it's the refugees. Somehow the shoe has slipped to the other foot, but the tracks it leaves are deep and unmistakable.

Well Texas is under siege now: They all want to stay.

All of them.

That's what she's hearing. Such a revealing turn of phrase.

What if they all just up and decided to stay here? Spinal frisson. Think of the property values. They'd be taking hard-earned money from our pockets just by breathing our air.

Does the paradox of "overwhelming hospitality" sound familiar? Listen to W.:

"The world saw this tidal wave of disaster,
now they're going to see a tidal wave of compassion,"

he announced yesterday, independently of his mother but still bearing her imprint in his words, with their Bar-esque image of raging kindness. What the world sees -- that's what really counts. W. has absorbed the message of his consultations with his handler Karl Rove: even aid need not be reality-based. In fact, you don't even have to mention the victims!

We know how destructive tidal waves can be. If things go sour, we could all end up mired in a foul and pestilent cesspool of compassion and goodwill. Let's hope it doesn't get out of hand.

The subtext for "hospitality": We have no need for government here in America when we've got such good people, is all. Oh, and a pithy aside to our friends from Louisiana: hospitality is for guests. Who are going home when dinner is over. You mean you didn't know?

Bar is right. That is scary.