Man, oh, man. I just got back from taking the LSAT and then buying a bottle of Scotch. The former was much harder than the latter. In fact, I can't remember ever being so mentally exhausted. I was tired after the GRE, sure, but I still had energy enough to be angry about how much it had sucked. Right now I'm trying to summon the spirit to curse the scoundrels of the Law School Admissions Council, and I'm failing miserably. I don't even think I have it in me right now to hate the French. Zut!
So, I'm just going to try to relax now and watch some baseball. Posting will resume tomorrow, with perhaps a new vigor, as it will be the first time since I started this thing that there wasn't some more important thing on which I really should have been working.
Skol,
Shiloh
Reports of my being Janeane Garofolo are greatly exaggerated! She does, however, bear a striking resemblance to me.
UPDATE: OK, one more thing and then I really have to get back to studying for the LSAT, which I am taking Saturday. This whole business got a little out of hand today when someone posted Fritz's joke to FreeRepublic and everyone was astounded that Janeane Garofolo A. has been blogging for a year under a "secret identity" and B. is now declaring herself to be a Republican. Anyway, here's my favorite post of the debate over whether I'm really me or Janeane Garofolo in disguise. My mother got a big kick out of this one:
To: mhkingI can't imagine Garofalo (or anyone else) would 1) send away for a transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and 2) read thirty or so weblogs every day or every week. As a celebrity -- or ex-celebrity -- Janeane lives in a rarified celebrity universe, and I can't imagine anyone in that world doing such things.
"Shiloh Bucher" certainly sounds like a pseudonym, but a lot of people -- children of hippie parents -- have such names. Maybe they are pseudopeople or just plain pseuds. Anyway, Shiloh deserves some credit for registering Republican, something Janeane probably wouldn't do.
Sneaking Suspicions has discovered my secret identity (which I jokingly referred to here). And now that I've outed myself as a Republican, I'll probably never work again! Thanks a lot, Schranck!
Why aren't we hearing any protests against French unilateralism? Where are the burning wheels of brie? Why haven't I seen any street theatre
in front of a French Embassy featuring a giant and hideous paper mache simulacrum of Asterix® beating a small and hideous representation of a poor African rebel? Shouldn't the Bordeaux be sloshing into the sewers? Only Captain Mandrake has the courage to speak out as the French attempt to recolonize Africa.
Catherine Seipp zeros in on how organized feminism has made itself irrelevant. And she has some advice:
One of the minor casualties of 9/11 was patience for listening to privileged Americans complain, in distinctly anti-American terms, about their privileged American lives. If feminism doesn’t want to completely wear out women’s patience -- and men’s, too -- it had better find a new agenda. Perhaps one that is, to start with, less blatantly foolish, and more engaged with the issues that women regularly tell pollsters they care most about: crime, the economy, child care, balancing work and motherhood, their children’s schools. It might help if organized feminism recognized that, among other things, legal equality already exists. If feminism wants to become vital again, it must first acknowledge the successes that it helped to achieve.
But unfortunately, acknowledging NOW's past successes will do nothing to promote the most immediate strategic goals of the Democratic Party. And that's all they care about now.
Over the past few years I have realized that, while the rule of law means a lot to me, it means very little to the Democratic Party. Three years ago, I was so disgusted with how they had protected Clinton that I left the Party. Then, late in 2000, I was so horrifed with their attempts to use the courts to change inconvenient state election laws that I decided to do whatever I could to keep them out of power. And to me, that meant doing the unthinkable-- I became a Republican. So in a way, it's nice to see the New Jersey Democrats confirm that, while my decision might have been hasty and rash, it wasn't wrong. This time control of the Senate is at stake and the "Party of the People" is yet again attempting to use a state supreme court loaded with Democrats to shamelessly keep themselves in power.
What kills me is that being a Democrat means never having to pay for a mistake. The New Jersey Democratic Party knew all about the allegations against Torricelli when they nominated him. On the last legal day to change the ballot, they gambled that they had a better chance with Torricelli than with anyone else. Now they suspect they were wrong and want the Court to rule that the Law is not what the legislature votes on and the governor signs. Apparently the Law is whatever suits the Democrats the best at any given moment. But this time, I doubt the US Supreme Court will stop it. Only the good people of New Jersey will be able to do that. They now seem to know a crook when they see one, so maybe there's hope.
For anyone who missed it, here is the transcript of Representatives Bonior and McDermott being interviewed by an incredulous George Stephanopolous last Sunday.
© 2002 American Broadcasting Companies, Inc
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS
(Off Camera) Our first guest this morning from Baghdad, Congressman Jim McDermott and Congressman David Bonior. Gentlemen, welcome. And, Congressman McDermott, let me begin with you. You've gone to Iraq in order to convince the Iraqis to accept inspectors, but yesterday, Iraqi officials seemed to reject the US plan. Are they resigned to war?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT,
DEMOCRAT, WASHINGTON
No, I think they are simply feeling that the things that have been suggested to be changed in the way the inspections will be done is unacceptable. I think there's going to be discussions tomorrow morning between Mr. Blix from the UN and the Iraqis, and I think they will come up with a regime that, that will not require coercive inspections, which is what the Iraqis apparently reacted to.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) But, Congressman Bonior, all of the inspectors, or nearly all of the inspectors, who have been to Iraq in the past say that the Iraqis will cheat when they can, so that a new regime has to be airtight. What's wrong with the US plan?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR,
DEMOCRAT, MICHIGAN
Well, there is a regime right now for inspections. The Iraqis have said that they will welcome in the inspectors and Hans Blix and his team. What we need is unrestricted inspections. They, they had seven years of it. They had thousands of inspections with thousands of inspectors. We need to go back to an unrestricted regime, and we also need to do that, George, without the pressure of Iraq or the United States. Let the UN inspectors do their job.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) But it's only the pressure from the United States that seems to have gotten the Iraqis to accept inspectors at all right now, and President Bush and the White House say that unless the inspectors can go anywhere they want any time, without advance warning and to all sites, the inspections are simply meaningless.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR
Well, the, the Iraqis that we have talked to have said, basically, that they will have that unrestricted ability to go where they want to, to inspect, and they are, they will open up their inspections, I suspect, to even you, even to the media, to see. So we'll, we'll wait and see what happens. As Jim McDermott said, tomorrow there will be meetings in which these rules and regulations and regimes will be laid out once again, and let's give them a chance to work.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) But, Congressman McDermott.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
The President is really pushing, he's raising the bar.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) But let me be clear on that. What he said, for example, is that the inspectors have to be able to go to all of the different Presidential sites, all of the sensitive sites where they believe weapons might be made. Did the Iraqis tell you that they will now allow inspectors in those sites?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
They said they would allow us to go and look anywhere we wanted, and until they don't do that, there is no need to do this coercive stuff where you bring in helicopters and armed people and storm buildings. I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value. They did not take the, they did not drive the inspectors out. We took them out.
The Representative is technically correct here, but misleading. In December of 1998, weapons inspectors were not kicked out, they were evacuated in anticipation of a US-led military strike, Desert Fox. This strike occurred because Iraq refused to allow free and unfettered inspections. Representative Bonior might remember this strike, considering he voted on December 17, 1998 in support of a resolution in which
the Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.Of course, that was in the middle of Impeachment. Here in 2002, Bonior's singing a different song:
So they should be given a chance. Otherwise, you're just trying to provoke them into war.
(break)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) But, sir, even the UN weapons inspectors say that the Iraqis at that time were not allowing the weapons inspectors to do their job. Why should we take the Iraqis at their word? As the White House points out, they have a decade-long record of denying inspectors access and deceiving the UN inspectors.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR
Well, you know, we could go back and play the blame game here until, you know, the, the moon comes out, but that's not going to do us any good.
Bonior actually does want to "play the blame game," but it's the US he wants to blame. This becomes patently clear as he continues:
We are in a very dangerous situation. We are on the brink of potential war that will be devastating, not only to Iraq, it's been devastating to them already, and I wish you would focus a little bit on what's happened to the people of Iraq, not Saddam Hussein, but the children and the economy and 50,000 children in this country dying prematurely every year, half a million. We can do all that blame game we want, but we're gonna repeat all of that unless we clearly understand that we've got to move forward in a way that's fair and impartial. That means not having the United States or the Iraqis dictate the rules to these inspections, and that's why there is very little support for the United States, our position in the international community right now, because we're trying to push and dictate. Let Hans Blix do his job.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
Let's, let's have that change come when Hans Blix announces to the Security Council they have stopped me from doing my job. Until that happens, I think the United States is simply trying to provoke.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) Now, if, if Hans Blix said that, as you pointed out, he is meeting with the Iraqis in Vienna tomorrow, if Hans Blix said the Iraqis are blocking him from doing the job he needs to do, would you support military action?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR
Military options will only take us away from the real task at hand, which is to pursue Al Qaeda. And it will divide our coalition. It will create a more fragile and, and delicate problem around the world, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but potentially in Indonesia and other places around the world. We don't need another war in the Middle East. We need to pursue as hard as we can all avenues to solve this diplomatically, and the first step, of course, is to continue to pursue the whole question that we've just been discussing and that's unrestricted, unfettered inspections.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) So, so let me be clear. Even if Hans Blix says that the, that the Iraqis are not allowing him to do his job, you are against military action?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
Well, when that happens then we'll have to discuss what it is and why and what we ought to do next.
Notice he slips and says "when" not "if."
But you don't start out by putting the gun to their head and saying we're going to shoot you if you blink. And that's really what we're, what we're doing here. I, I think the question that really has to be decided by our government is do you want to disarm Saddam Hussein, or do you want regime change?
First, see above concerning how Bonior is willing to support regime change when Clinton is president. Second, how do you get disarmament without regime change? Will Saddam disarm if we just ask nicely this time? What if we hold a gun to our own head and threaten to shoot if he doesn't disarm? Maybe Bonier could try that for us. Our we could just wait for another UN report:
Because if you want disarmament, let Hans Blix go in and we'll wait for his report. He said it'll take him 60 days to lay out a work plan, he'll give a report to the Security Council as to what he thinks ought to happen after that. We don't have to pass a resolution in the Congress or in the Security Council right now. Things are moving forward.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) But, but, sir, aren't they moving forwardly precisely because the United States and Britain have threatened the use of force?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR
Well, I think perhaps that's, that has actually been moving things forward somewhat. I don't want to deny that that's maybe not the case...
He doesn't 'want to deny that that's maybe not the case?' What the hell does that mean? In preparation for the LSAT this weekend, I'll attempt to decode:
Let's see. It may be that it is not the case that it is Bush and Blair's leadership that has re-opened the possibility of weapons inspections. Or maybe it is the case. Bonier doesn't want to deny that maybe it isn't the case. Denying that it maybe isn't the case would open the possibility it was the case! He doesn't want to do that, because that would force him to admit that Bush did something right and his head might explode. Therefore, it must be such a fortunate coincidence that Iraq agrees to talk to the weapons inspectors just weeks after Bush issues them an ultimatum!
But the reality is is that while they're moving forward, we don't need to interrupt the process. Let's see what happens.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) Who specifically in the Iraqi government have you met with and what exactly did they say about the inspections?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR
We met with the foreign minister, Mr. Sabri. We met with Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister, and we met with some other ministers and they say to the person that they will allow unrestricted, unfettered, you can come any time you want, anywhere you want. They want their sovereignty respected. They don't want to be having knocks on the door during prayer and say, open up this building in five minutes. They want to be treated with some dignity and respect. But basically, they're suggesting that everything will be open and, for the inspections.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) One of your colleagues, who was recently in Iraq, Congressman Nick Rahall, complained that when he went there, his cell phone was confiscated, his meetings were canceled. Has there been any interference by Iraqi officials with your mission?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
Absolutely none. We've had absolutely good access to anybody we asked to see. We've talked to the oil-for-peace people. We've talked to the UN, we've gone and looked at diarrhea clinics, we've looked at hospitals taking care of kids who have cancer and so forth, and we've looked at water filtration plants. We have had complete access to anything we want here, and they have not kept us from anything we asked to do.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR
You know, the only nuclear piece that we've been able to detect here, and we're not looking as inspectors, because we don't know how to do that, that's not our job, but what we have seen is an incredible, unconscionable increase in leukemias and lymphomas for children that have been affected by this, the uranium that has been part of our weapons system that was dropped here during the last war, and that is a real tragedy. It needs to be addressed, and we ought to take that issue up on its own, because we've used it not only here in Iraq, these weapons coated with uranium that atomize and cause these serious health problems, but we've also seen this happen in Kosovo and in Serbia, and need to look at that as a country, to see if we want to be using these type of weapons that cause these kinds of serious cancers. When, in Basra, when women have children, they used to ask, "is it a boy or girl" after the birth. Now they ask, "is it normal or is it abnormal?" This is horrendous, a barbaric, horrific thing that's happened, and the country needs to know about that. The world community needs to know about it.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) Finally, Mr. McDermott, before you left for Baghdad, you said the President of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war. Do you really believe that?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation. Lyndon Johnson did it in the Vietnam War. Both David and I were in that war, and there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident. The President lied to the Congress about how many people he was going to put into Vietnam, or whether he was in Laos, or whether he was in Cambodia. It would not surprise me if they came with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it, first they said it was Al Qaeda. Then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back and saying it's Al Qaeda again. When will that stop? Why don't they let the inspectors come, so that we can disarm Saddam Hussein? Both David and I want to disarm them. That's got to be very clear. He's not a good guy
.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) But do you have any evidence that the President has lied?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
I think the President would mislead the American people.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) Gentlemen, thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BONIOR
Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MCDERMOTT
Thank you.
No, thank you, Congressmen. Thanks for letting us know whose side you're on.