January 23, 2004 by s.z.

Gurdon Update The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez alerts us to the fact that Meghan Gurdon (K.Lo doesn't believe in encouraging women to have maiden names) has a piece in the Wall Street Journal (they must be running some kind of special today). It's a "humorous" look at Martha Stewart's REAL crimes: valuing the domestic arts, doing things the old-fashioned way, and allowing "minimum-wage workers" to buy her products at K-Mart.  (Yeah, like Meghan shops at K-Mart.  Or socializes with any minimum-wage workers.)  While I have nothing against Martha (except that she's bossy, and kind of mean to her child guests; oh, and I didn't approve of how she slept with then killed her daughter's fiance on that "Law and Order" ep), I don't appreciate Meghan adopting her as a martyr for the cause of "well-to-do stay-at-home mothers who just believe in conservative values and nice things, and hate feminism."  So, now I am forced to hate both of them.  Sorry, Martha. Anyway, Kathryn concludes her Meghan plug by advising us: And stayed tuned today to find out from Meghan what Phoebe did this week, and why Proust doesn't approve. At first I thought K.Lo was making fun of Meghan (and that's OUR job), but then I realized that this is really what Meghan's NRO column for today is about: Phoebe eating a copy of A La Recherché du Temps Perdue.  Or maybe being a guest on a "Martha Stewart's Living" segment on madelines and wetting her pants.  Or perhaps becoming a feminist.  I guess we'll have to stay tuned to find out, like Kathryn said.  UPDATE: TBOGG has the new Meghan column, and it's one of her best (well, it's actually one if HIS best takes on her stuff).  And actually, I guessed two of the plot elements right: In Search of Lost Time and Ant's loss of bladder control.  Like our friend (and the only person to notice that we now have TrackBack, whatever that is) Sadly, No! said, "Instant Classic!" 9:10:42 AM

Be There for "The Blogging of the President" Hey, Atrios is going to be on the Radio on Sunday.  Along with Andrew Sullivan.  "The purpose is to air out the internet effects that the political campaign has suddenly made obvious."  It sounds like required listening.  And may I use this opportunity to thank Atrios for linking to my blog, and to say how much I admire his work.  Thanks, Atrios!  You rock.  7:07:27 AM

A Lesson in E-Manners From The Most Polite Guy Ever Good morning, children.  Today we will be treated to A lesson in e-manners for my Bush-hating cousin.  It's a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by one Alan Bromley, a guy sadly in need of a hobby. My cousin, whom I'll call "Bob," just included me in a group e-mail that implied President Bush was anti-Semitic because he hadn't appointed a Jew to his cabinet. The e-mail, which went out to some 50 people in my cousin's address book, said that every president in the past hundred years or so had indeed selected at least one Jew to be in his cabinet. I was incensed, and my first reaction was to press "Delete" and erase the offending message. After doing so, I reflected a bit more and decided that my silence might imply that I agreed, so I went to an earlier mass e-mail from Bob and pressed "Reply to All." My trigger finger has now caused a family furor. My initial message to Bob--and everyone in his address book--stated that before we malign President Bush as an anti-Semite, we should note that FDR turned his back on Jewish refugees during World War II, just as he did on the Holocaust itself; that President Carter engineered a "peace accord" that was quite disadvantageous to Israel; that President Clinton resurrected Yasser Arafat from the politically dead (and that Hillary Clinton publicly kissed Arafat's wife after Mrs. Arafat accused Jews of poisoning Arab children), and that virtually every Jewish organization has labeled President Bush the most pro-Israeli American president in memory. Okay, class: what did Alan do wrong? He should have just emailed his cousin if he was upset: why annoy a group of strangers? If he did feel he had vital news for everybody who received that email from Bob, he should have replied to that group, not Bob's "Kitten Lovers" news list and the "Nudists for Space Travel" one. Military support of Israel is not the same thing as support for American Jews, and Hillary has never been President, despite what Rush Limbaugh says. So, what should Bob have done at this point? Yes, he should have written a piece for the Wall Street Journal about what a jerk Alan is.  But what he did do (per Alan) was send Alan a note informing him that it was not only rude to email everybody with his stupid opinions, but it was also spam, and the US Government was prosecuting spammers Clearly, Bob and Alan share genetic material.  As you might imagine, Alan is not pleased to get Bob's response. So there it was! Could he form a group, gratuitously include me, send out political messages of his own liking, and then try to shame me from replying by bringing up some newfangled Internet etiquette? And, then could he, armed with the benefit of law, threaten to prosecute me for expressing to the group into which he had thrown me a political view divergent from his? Yes, he could.  The Patriot Act allows it. But Alan, one of those old-fashioned "cranks," does research.  He consults a lawyer, who tells him he was within his First Ammendment rights, but he may be a jerk.  He went to a "group of workers in their 20s and 30s, who are frequent and fluent e-mail users."  They told him they don't reply to groups (and implied that he's a jerk). So . . . I turned to my 17-year-old daughter and a couple of her friends, and they said they respond to the entire group all the time. Alan just kept asking until he got the answer he liked.  It's a good thing the teens told him what he wanted to hear, or he would have been asking the dog next. Anyway, based on all his research, he has come up with some guidelines for us all: • Don't share your address book if you don't want group replies. • Inform the recipients if you will accept only replies with which you agree. • Inquire about other people's political views before you fill their e-mailboxes with yours. • Keep family and politics separate! I would add: Never be Alan's relative. Don't include me in mass-emailings of those heartwarming urban legends about orphans who donate their kidneys to Thomas Sowell. If you rely on teens for advise on modern communications, you will be text-messaging your crew communiques like "i h8 u bob coz u 2 lame 2 luv bush." Find out Alan's email address and forward all your spam to him (to aid him in his research). Make up a story about how the liberals are defaming Bush, attach these rules to it, and send the whole thing to the Wall Street Journal.  They'll probably pay you for it. Feel free to add to the list.  And be sure to follow Alan's rules, unless you want his next WTJ piece to be about you. 6:22:03 AM

President Discusses America’s Leadership in Global War on Terror  Before showing up at a local diner for a photo op ("President Helps Economy by Eating") and then engaging in a surreal bit of performance art with the press (see Pandagon for the full story) George Bush gave a speech.  WhiteHouse.gov calls it "Remarks on the War on Terror," but it's really just the Bush-Cheney 2004 stump speech, with some SOTU address mixed in.  You'd think that with all the money he's raising, Bush could afford more than two speeches a year.  Hey, I'll write him one for free for his next engagement. But the lucky people of New Mexico did get to to hear such popular stump speech favorites as: 1.  The lame local opening joke: ("The last time I came to Roswell, I wasn't on Air Force One. I was headed to Ruidoso from Midland. (Laughter.) Roswell was what we call a watering stop.") 2.  The thanking of  local supporters: ("I'm honored to be traveling today with your Congressman Steve Pearce. (Applause.) He's what they call a freshman. That's first year.") 3.  A call to the faith-based armies of compassion to attack. 4.  The reminder that despite what the Democrats and Paul Krugman may tell you, the economy is great.  Sure, we had a recession, but that was because of the Clenis.  And just when Bush got things going again, the terrorists attacked.  And then when he got rid of THEM, we had corporate scandals involving dishonest business execs who donated filthy lucre to Bush-Cheney 2000.  (My favorite line from this part of the speech: "And just as we're beginning to get our feet on the ground again, we had a problem with some of our fellow citizens telling the truth." I wonder if he glares at Cheney when he says it.)  But everything is great now, thanks to Bush's tax cuts. 5.    No Child Left Behind.  Because if you believe that every child can learn to read and write and add and subtract, then every child can learn to read and write and add and subtract.  So, we must teach them to read and write and add and subtract, and then test them on reading and writing and adding and subtracting.  And then we will see that they are reading and writing, and adding and subtracting.  Yup, No Child Left Behind is just that tedious in reality. So, all that came from the Bush-Cheney 2004 standard speech.  But for the fine folks of Roswell, he mixed in some leftovers from the SOTU Address (We're at war, and I am your only hope; the Coalition of the Willing is 34 flavors strong, but we won't be seeking permission slips or lunch money from France; Ask me about my "Low Paying Jobs for the 21st Century" plan; PERMANENT TAX CUTS, woo hoo!)  But there were also a few new twists that I found interesting.  Let me share some of them with you: *We've got to make sure there's -- literacy is the law of the land. If the kids don't learn to read and write as directed, we will arrest them! *We're in a different era. We need to view law differently. We'll always protect our Constitution and safeguard individual rights, but our law enforcement, those who collect information and share information and expected to act on information, must be able to talk together. Many of the tools in the Patriot Act have been used by law enforcement to chase down embezzlers and criminals. It is essential that those same tools be used in fighting against terrorists. We're in a different era. The Patriot Act is going to expire. The Congress needs to renew it, for the sake of fighting the war on terror. (Applause.) Yes, many of the "tools" were used by law enforcement to investigate embezzlers.  And also criminals.  And some of the "tools" were used to gather foreign intelligence information.  But the Patriot Act allows the foreign intelligence-gathering standards (low requirements for probable cause, lack of close judicial supervision, and no need to notify the affected person about surveillance and/or seizures of evidence) to apply to criminal matters (where people used to have Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure).  Thanks to the Patriot Act, the FBI can seize YOUR bank account information, credit card reports and other financial records if an FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge (the number two guy in a local FBI office) authorizes it -- and you might not find out about it until you're on trial.  And you don't even have to be suspected of terrorism for them to do it!  So, learn to view law differently -- we're at war. *[T]he message, march to war, is not conducive for optimistic investment. Marching to war is negative, not positive.  It's hard to be optimistic about the future when you look on your TV screen and it says, America is marching to war.  Now we're marching to peace and freedom. (Applause.)    Wow, that's ever so much better than marching to war!  I bet all the soldiers in Iraq will invest now! *And we passed economic stimulus packages, which is a fancy word for giving people their money back. (Applause.) We acted on this principle. It was a principled decision. Hey, this proves Paul O'Neill WAS telling the truth!  When advisers presented the President with the tax cut (a plan that disproportionately benefits the wealthy), Bush said, "Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again." The President added, "shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" But, according to O'Neill, Karl Rove just kept repeating "Stick to principle. Stick to principle," and the mantra eventually won Bush over. So, I guess a bunch of White House apparatchiks owe Mr. O'Neill an apology, don't they? *We decreased the -- well, we got rid of the death tax, or put it on its way to extinction. We listened to New Mexico's farmers and ranchers and small business owners, that understand if you work all your life to build up an asset, you shouldn't be taxed twice, you shouldn't be taxed once as you're building up your asset and twice after you go on. (Applause.)   But why the hell would you care?  You're dead!  And if you've worked all your life to build up an asset, why should somebody else get it tax free?  Bunch of lousy freeloaders!  In fact, they're probably the ones who killed you -- to inheirit that small business or ranch you worked so hard to build.  Paying some taxes is the LEAST that should happen to them. *And then, in order to stimulate our economy, everybody got tax relief. You see, we didn't try to pick and choose who won and who lost. We said if there's going to be tax relief, let's be fair about it. If you pay taxes, you ought to get relief. And then, in an effort to be super fair, they said, "Let's give more relief to the rich, because we like them the best." *We've got people doing jobs in America that Americans won't do. And that's helpful to our economy. It's helpful that there are some people that are willing to the do the work that others won't do. I.e., it's helpful to our economy to allow some work to be so dangerous, dirty, and poorly paid that no Americans will want to do it, because that keeps labor costs down. *People are working and trying to put food on the table for a family in Mexico. You've got to understand why they're here. They're motivated out of the deep love of their children and their wife. They're working just as hard as any other mom or dad do for the same reason -- they have an obligation and a responsibility. Those people need to be treated with respect. They need to be honored for their commitment to their families. I actually liked this part.  I wonder if he'll continue to say it when he's not speaking in a state so close to the Mexican border. *The Oval Office is an interesting place to meet, particularly, people who are beginning to struggle with democracy and freedom because it's a reminder that the institutions, at least in this country, are always bigger than the people. Sometime we've got an all-right President, sometimes not all right. But the presidency, itself, exists. Code for: "I am one of the all-right Presidents because I use the Oval Office to meet foreign vassals and to teach them about democracy.  Clinton was not all right.  He used that Oval Office for naughty purposes.  But he was still President, because the impeachment didn't work.  We all hate him, don't we?" *People say, what are you doing in the long-term? We know what you're doing in the short-term, we can hear you and see you -- you're sending troops after the killers.  What about the long-term plan against terrorists? Free societies do not breed terrorism. Free societies are peaceful nations. What we're doing for the long-term, we're promoting freedom. (Applause.) Promoting freedom by creating an Iraq that may be on the path to civil war.  That's our long-term plan.  Okay, we never came up with a long-term plan.  But wasn't it great when Bush sent the troops after those killers? *It's an unbelievably great country we have, because the people are so strong, so resilient, so compassionate, and so decent. We believe values in our heart that we just won't change. Yup.  We do.  That's one of our best qualities.  Anyway, that was basically it.  No word on whether he hit up the military academy cadets (there to serve as a backdrop) for campaign donations.   And then he went to that diner and berated the press for asking him questions instead of stimulating the economy by buying ribs, and thereby reminded all the voters watching the Democratic primary in New Hamphire that he still existed.  Which was the point all along, of course. 1:59:32 AM