Daily Archives: August 23, 2003

Lying to the People

The Talking Dog is angry again and I don’t blame him:

This is how the fucking Soviet Union did things. It is, therefore, by definition, un-American. Forget the 16 words, ladies and gentlemen. If the New York Congressional delegation had any balls, this would be the subject of endless harpings until a full Congressional investigation of this was held. If this shit really did start in the Oval Office (i.e., Karl or Dick’s idea), then articles of impeachment aren’t good enough (though they would be a good start.)

I was nauseated this morning when I read in today’s Seattle Times that the White House directed the EPA to lie to the citizens of New York City. That this could possibly be justified by national security is ridiculous.
Update 8/24: The Mahablog
has a long piece on this today and suggests that New Yorkers may not be welcoming the liers with open armswhen they show up for their convention. (Still can’t find permalinks on this blog so look to the 8/24 entries)

Can Dean Live up to his Promises?

Howard Dean has an ambitious agenda:

I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation’s infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

For the moment let’s assume Dean wins. Barring some dramatic changes on the landscape this win will probably not be by a large margin and is unlikely to bring with it democratic majorities in the house. Perhaps Dean thinks that with the bush cabal gone he will get some moderate republicans to join with the democrats in either tossing out the tax cuts or at least dramatically changing their structure. It is just as likely, though, that the republican house majority leader will just say no.

As we move closer to the election I’d like to hear from the democratic candidates some detail on just how they expect to accomplish grand goals if the republicans controll one or both houses of congress.
Via RealClear Politics.

When Killing Isn’t

I’m with Julian Sanchez on this:

The problem is that the law has no problem with letting a patient die, that is, with removing a feeding tube and letting her starve, but it does object to euthanasia by way of, say, a relatively quick and painless lethal injection.

He makes a case that any distinction between the two does not exist.