Updated: 5/31/02; 8:39:48 AM.
there is no spoon
there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path
        

Tuesday, May 14, 2002


Linkbacks II: Langreiter.com has a really nice implementation of linkbacks in effect. How are they doing it, I wonder?  9:32:36 AM      comment

bloggers who also write for money

Bloggers who also write for money: Doc leads us to a rundown of the Top Journalist Weblogs on epn worldreporter.com. What do we call these people? They're "professionals," so it seems like Dave Winer is calling them "Pros." But Dave is also a "pro" -- he's a professional developer. Many bloggers are "pros" in their respective fields, so "Pro Bloggers" doesn't work. Neither does "Professional Journalists with Blogs" is kind of clumsy, though...  9:17:15 AM      comment

Bush's Budget Bull

Bush's Budget Bull: In summarizing Bush's recent budget machinations, Jonathon Chiat offers an incisive little example of how history might teach us something, if we're willing to listen and learn. Bush has recently claimed that his position has always been that deficit spending was ok if the U.S. experienced a war, a recession, or a national emergency. But as Chait notes,

It was only last summer--as it became obvious that the administration would have to dip into the Social Security surplus to pay its bills--that Bush invented his escape clause. As TNR's Ryan Lizza reported at the time (See "Raising Keynes," September 10, 2001), in an August 20 speech Bush hinted that he could tap the Social Security surplus in case of recession or war. His economic adviser, Larry Lindsay, said so explicitly the same week, and then Bush again reiterated the "war or recession" exceptions days later. Soon enough, Bush's aides were claiming he had "always" made these exceptions--though there is no evidence he had ever made them before, and the White House has been unable to cite an instance when he did. Over subsequent weeks the imaginary escape clause continued to mutate, with Bush throwing in the specific (false) detail that he had made the exception during the campaign and adding "national emergency" to the list of exceptions he'd supposedly made. (Apparently, the "trifecta" plays better comedically.)

Hmmm. Chiat later asks why it seems so acceptable for Bush and Co. to lie so blatantly -- especially when conservatives made so much noise about "integrity" and whatnot during the Clinton years. Good question.

On a paranoid note: This is the kind of thing Rep. Cynthia McKinney was talking about when she called for an investigation into what the U.S. government knew in advance of the Sept. 11th attacks. On August 20 Bush starts making contingencies for war and national emergencies. Twenty-two days later, the "national emergency" arrives in the form of two jets crashing into two big buildings. Shortly thereafter, Bush declares war (w/out, of course, proper authorization from Congress). Whatever you think about that string of events, it seems hard to argue that anyone gained more from Sept. 11 and its aftermath than did Bush and Co. and their big-business, pro-military, oil-centered agenda. I'm just sayin'...   9:00:11 AM      comment


 
May 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Apr   Jun


Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.




© Copyright 2002 mowabb.
Last update: 5/31/02; 8:39:48 AM.