Who's the Boor?

George Will feels compelled to weigh in on the Bush-Webb kerfuffle, and decides that Webb's "calculated rudeness" makes him a "boor." Here's how Will describes the episode:

Wednesday's Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them [sic] out of Iraq." When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy."

Interestingly, while linking to the original report, Will decides that a little selective editing is in order. Here's how the conversation really went:

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

Boy, that remark by the President that Will edited out — "That's not what I asked you" — really changes the tone of the exchange, doesn't it? Webb clearly isn't winning a society prize for his skill at cocktail party smalltalk, but Bush sure does seem to go out of his way to verbally provoke the Senator-elect.

Note to Will: if you can't make your point about a conversation without misleading edits, there's probably not a real point to be made. And that snotty reading you provide of the first paragraph of Webb's op-ed piece? When you spend half of your valuable column-inches giving a school-marmish lecture about the proper use of the words "literally" and "infinitely," you're just being a bit of a boor yourself.

This Again?

According to the Washington Post's editorial board, the Democrats need to work with Bush to "reform" Social Security. Having been down this road before in 2005, the question that has to be asked is, why?

In answer, the board put forward the following: 1) Bush and his cohorts are now pragmatic and flexible, making a bipartisan deal possible. 2) While Social Security is projected to be fully solvent with no changes for the next 40 years, the system needs to be able to make guarantees for a much longer period of time to reassure younger workers. 3) Even though the Social Security problem "pales next to the budget challenge Medicare presents", we should deal with Social Security first because it's easier.

The evidence of Bush's new-found willingness to deal is a little shaky. In the end, it boils down to the claim that the Treasury Secretary isn't an ideologue, and that the openly pro-privitization member of the Social Security Administration that Bush just appointed can have civil discussions with liberal academics. But has Bush changed the tenor of his approach and become more conciliatory and bipartisan? That we're not told, although the stick-in-you-eye appointment should leave Democrats a bit cold. And let's face it, the President has an absolutely abysmal record of working constructively with the opposition. The new Treasury Secretary might well be a good guy, but we all know he's not driving this train, Bush is.

Now, about that dismal 40-year solvency thing. What longer projections actually show is a very modest shortfall that can easily be covered through very modest tax changes over the course of several decades. That's the kind of reassurance I think most people would find heartening, if only the administration were willing to finally admit that Social Security is not a fatally flawed program that will end in disaster. In terms of predictability and stability, the best course for the Democrats is not to change a thing for now.

The last claim, that we should tackle Social Security first because it's the easier task, really argues for the opposite approach. If the problem isn't all that serious now, why do anything rash? In contrast, we know that Medicare, and the health care system in general, is in way worse shape, and the crunch will come a whole lot sooner. It's true, Bush probably doesn't have a plan to fix Medicare, but he hasn't really offered up anything concrete on the Social Security front either. Meanwhile, the Democrats, contra the Post, have lots of nifty health-care plans. If those plans are DOA because of Bush, that's hardly reason to blame the Democrats.

Besides the fact that it really doesn't advance a coherent argument, there is much else wrong with this editorial. For example, blaming eventual Social Security shortfalls on "retirement of the baby boomers plus rising life expectancy," as if these somehow haven't been factored into the equation. (And let's remember that some SSA projections with better historical track records than the one most often quoted show the program fully-funded through the next 75 years at least.)

So, for those who have forgotten 2005, here's the recap: there is no Social Security crisis. In fact, there isn't a problem that requires us to make significant changes to the system now. But if the Democrats engage with a President who has been reluctant to put out a plan of his own, they implicitly acknowledge the crisis rhetoric that the Bush administration has been peddling, and thus implicitly acknowledge a need to act when there isn't one. It's the same gambit today.

If Bush has a plan, let's hear it — everyone is willing to listen. And as for the Post, the modest proposal they float at the end of this piece seems to revolve around some kind of private account that doesn't involve touching the payroll tax, a "plan" without details, and no evidence that it would solve the completely non-pressing problem they point to with such alarm. Meanwhile, Democrats already have plenty of ideas about how to improve the 401(k) program, but that's not even acknowledged by the Post, I presume, because those plans don't start from the premise that Social Security is broken. The Post could get on board and promote some real retirement security solutions, but instead they just want to beat up the Democrats a little bit. No wonder the Democrats don't trust the "reform-minded" crowd.

The Devil You Say

For those who actually follow the NHL, this is probably an old joke, but I just cracked up when I saw this headline today: "Big Crowd, Satan Boost Isles Past Penguins." It turns out that Satan is actually Miroslav Satan, but without more information I can't really rule out all ties to the Dark Lord. Regardless, though, as sports names go, his is pretty damn cool. And I'm sure the godless hordes in New York love shouting out things like "Go Satan!" or "Satan Rulez!" Ah, New York — where else would Satan play? ;)

The Meaning of Thanksgiving

I don't always agree with everything that Daniel Dennett says, but his recent ruminations about Thanksgiving strike me as just about right. Others, of course, are free to insert extra layers in their cosmological model, but like Dennett, I'm content with the simpler version, and find that it gives me just as much "spiritual" satisfaction and reason for joy, if not more. And besides, regardless of your theological beliefs, what could be a better way to say "thank you" for the fortunes in your life than by doing good in turn?

PS: Happy belated Thanksgiving, everyone!

The Sporting Life

Watching American TV, it's easy to fall into the notion that the only sports that matter to the world are football, baseball, basketball, and NASCAR. How interesting, then, to spend the last couple of weeks watching CNN International's half-hour "World Sport" broadcast, where references to the "Big Four" are few and far between. Football? No mention that I saw of the "historic" Ohio State/Michigan game, and about 15 seconds on the Monday night pro game. Basketball? Another 15 seconds, covering one game, with the emphasis on artistic dunks. NASCAR? Nada. I'll reserve comment on baseball until I travel abroad in-season, but I doubt it fares much better. What you do see is lots and lots of soccer. And then some more soccer. And then lots of cricket.

As a kid I played soccer, so I at least know the fundamentals and can appreciate a good corner kick. But cricket is just obtuse, as evidenced to me by this passage from the print edition:

Farhat (70 not out) shared substantial partnerships with Younis (56) and Yousuf (56 not out) to steer Pakistan to a comfortable 213 for two at the close on the fourth day, just 21 runs short of making West Indies bat again.

Now, obviously, somebody knows what this means, but for me, reading this is like reading a foreign language. And like most Americans, I barely speak our national dialect of English — anything else is just Greek to me.

Back

Well, that was unfortunate. According to the logs, it looks like my server rebooted on Nov. 10, and because I'm an idiot, I don't have my webserver and database configured to restart automatically. That, and the fact that on Nov. 9 I left the country for 12 days sans computer, accounts for this site's dowtime.

The good news is that Mary and I are happy to confirm that Italy is a wonderful, beautiful place to visit. Pictures and words on that note to follow shortly.

So, anything happen since the election?

Vacation Cat Blogging

Eric and Mary are going on vacation and abandoning me, but at least I get to nap on some clean clothes. I love laundry day.

Buh-Bye

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Don.

Fat Chance

According to the Washington Post, the President is prepared now to play nice with Democrats:

The White House sent the strong signal this morning that Bush intends to offer a conciliatory message, indicating he will express the desire to work closely with Democrats during the next two years on Iraq and domestic issues such as education and energy.

What a load of crap. Bush has no intention of working constructively with Democrats at all. His hints to the contrary are just political positioning, so he can beat up the Dems the first time they disagree with him. For Bush, it's always been his way or the highway, and that's not going to change.

If you need further proof, just look at the list of issues. Iraq? Bush is on record saying that the Democrats are siding with the terrorists — not a lot of room for "compromise". Education? He hasn't been engaged since he passed NCLB, and I don't expect him to scrap his signature domestic initiative. Energy? Now we're just getting silly.

Remember, Bush isn't exactly famous for admitting his mistakes, legion though they may be. Don't expect him to start now. I predict he'll spend a lot more time working around the Democrats with executive orders and such, rather than talking with them. And Democrats should avoid being seduced by phantom bipartisanship and stand their ground. Bush is a failure, and no one wins by following his lead.

Update: It goes without saying, but if Bush really was serious about bipartisanship, he wouldn't keep talking about the "Democrat Party" during his press conference today. It's the "Democratic Party", George. If Bush can't even bring himself to call their party by its real name, how can we believe that he will honestly try to work with Democrats?

Update 11/22/06: Ruth Marcus has the last word today about the "ic" syllable that Bush refuses to speak.

Give Me an "N"…

A local high school soccer team decided to look to Nazi Germany for some motivation before a big game. What were they thinking?

A segment of a Nazi propaganda speech was played an hour before Forestview's playoff game against Charlotte Catholic on Saturday night. School officials said Tuesday that they had determined the speech was by Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, not Adolf Hitler, as was first thought. They said two soccer players had downloaded the speech off the Internet and no adult heard the speech before it aired.

In a letter of apology to Charlotte Catholic written Monday, Forestview Principal Robert Carpenter said the students were copying the team slogan, "On to victory."

Carpenter wrote that a German exchange student had taught other students to say the phrase in German. A Charlotte Catholic player who speaks German said he heard Forestview players repeating the chant before the game, which Forestview won 1-0.

So the team broadcasts Nazi propaganda over the PA system, and no one involved has been punished yet. Even more, the coach seems rather unapologetic about the whole thing. What the hell?

Democrats Win Big

Finally. It's been too long since I was able to enjoy an election night. 1996, I think, was the last unambiguously good one. But I have to say, last night was fantastic.

Santorum, gone. Talent, gone. DeWine, gone. Add that to a Democratic House, and it's already a big win. Throw in Webb and Tester, if they hold on to their leads, and we get a Democratic Senate as well. Sweet.

My hope? Legislatively, Bush's veto will prevent much of the Democratic agenda from being passed, with the possible exception of a minimum wage increase. But politically, this is huge. For the last six years, Bush has run roughshod over the Congress and the Constitution, but no more. Do me a favor, however, and skip the impeachment crap and just focus on oversight. Can you say subpoena? I thought you could.

It's going to take some time for all of this to sink in, but for the moment I'm just going to sit back and relish the moment. And have another glass of wine.

Election Day

Finally. Now we just wait and see what happens. Either way, there'll be a glass of wine waiting for me at the end of the night. And for the first time since 1992, I have election night off. It's nice not having to deal with the pressure, but it also leaves me with more time to worry about the results. So come on, Democrats, don't let me down — I need something to celebrate.

And please, if you haven't voted yet, go do it now. Don't procrastinate until there's no time left. I could give you a long lecture about the importance of voting, but you already know what's at stake. Just do it.

"Full Speed Ahead"

From today's Washington Post:

The Bush administration is determined to continue "full speed ahead" with its policy in Iraq, regardless of Tuesday's midterm elections, Vice President Cheney said Friday.

Cheney said in an interview with ABC News that the administration is convinced that it is pursuing the right path in Iraq.

"It may not be popular with the public. It doesn't matter, in the sense that we have to continue what we think is right," Cheney said. "That's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."

Well, it's good to know that the Administration has finally admitted that what it is doing in Iraq isn't the popular thing. And there's something refreshingly honest about the Administration also admitting that it really doesn't care what the majority of citizens think. "That doesn't matter" — Cheney and rest will just do whatever they want to do.

We could argue about how the folks in the White House could possibly think that what they are doing in Iraq is right, unless the principle they are supporting involves killing soldiers while undermining our national security (on that, they're doing a heck of a job). But despite their convictions, I would imagine that some of the more politically pragmatic people there wish the Vice President would just shut the hell up about a subject that's about to bury the GOP at the polls in four days. As for me, I say keep talking about it, Dick — full speed ahead.