Sunday, February 23, 2003

Satan for breakfast?

Crap I can’t make up: the “What Would Jesus Eat Cookbook.”

Bush: “if we are incapable of guaranteeing this peace, international peace would become senseless rhetoric.”

Choosing the next leader of Iraq, the American way.

Coffins are exploding

Crematorium workers in Sweden are complaining about a rise in exploding coffins caused by pacemakers and breast implants, and relatives placing liquor, bullets and fireworks in caskets.
Evidently Tom Ridge is recommending "Have a good communications plan for your family." Or, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer, if you don’t have a good communications plan for your family, the very least you can do is to shut up.

His Fraudulency GeeDubya’s radio address today was on the subject of stealth judicial candidate Miguel Estrada, who neither Chris nor I can hear about without thinking of the actor in the 1970s gay cop show Chips (which is especially odd because I’ve only seen the show once). Anyway, Bush says the D’s “are stalling Miguel Estrada's nomination, while they search in vain for a reason to reject him.” I just want to point out that UN weapons inspectors have also been looking, mostly in vain, for reasons to reject Saddam Hussein. However, in that case, Bush cites that as reason to assume the worst, whereas after stonewalling the Judiciary Committee for 21 months, he expects the Senate to assume the best about Estrada. The point in common is that he wants his way, and he wants it NOW, dammit! Also, he referred to the Bar Association’s rating of Estrada; although he has refused to cooperate with the ABA in assessing his nominees, he is willing to cite them when they agree with him. As with his attitude towards going to the UN for resolutions on Iraq, it’s heads he wins, tails he loses.

WashPost headline: “Columbia Panel Focuses on Foam.” That’s what every committee needs: a latte machine.

The Post has an editorial on something I’ve been meaning to talk about. On the 15th I sent a link from the NY Times about Bush’s AIDS in Africa policy. I said, and I quote myself, “So Bush’s AIDS-in-Africa policy is also an attempt to stop abortion. What a surprise.” Imagine my surprise when the same story was run (even elsewhere in the Times) under headlines which suggested that Bush was in fact liberalizing his policy by working on AIDS with groups that also do abortions, when in fact it was clear that he was trying to hamstring them and extend the gag rule. The Post has it right, although they give Bush too much credit for his Potemkin policy. They do note that while he promised $10 billion, he’s only increased the budget this year by 1/20 of that. And guess what, it’s stolen from child poverty programs (and run through religious groups and US pharmaceutical businesses, as I’ve already said, while the UN AIDS program goes bankrupt).

No comments:

Post a Comment