Jonathan Chait in this week's TNR:

“Big-government conservatism” may sound like an oxymoron, but Bush has proved that it is not.
<..>
How, though, can a conservative preside over a larger and more intrusive government?
<..>
Conservatives haven’t explained why a moderate liberal like Clinton had an easier time than Bush in resisting popular demand to spend.
<..>
Big government conservatism consists of initiatives that benefit economic elites without using free-market mechanisms.
<..>
Just about all of Bush’s big-government conservative agenda works the same way. Whereas Clinton signed a law phasing out federal crop payments, Bush lavished $180 billion in subsidies for agribusiness. His energy plan, roundly condemned by free-market economists, would have done the same for the energy industry, which after all, wrote much of it.
<..>
By steering government largesse toward their own donors, Republicans could create a self-perpetuating money machine. Industries whose profitability relies on government largesse-and especially those that depend on favors that only Republicans support—will naturally invest some of those profits back into the political party that provides them.
<..>
The distinct contribution of big-government conservatism has been to cement an alliance between the two, to the point where the line between party and private interest has all but disappeared.
<..>
Whatever rules or laws DeLay may have broken were premised on the assumption that there is a distinction between the interests of elected officials and the interests of corporations and their lobbyists. It’s no surprise that he lost sight of that distinction. In his world, it had long ago ceased to exist.

Recall that in response to DeLay's trips paid for by lobbyists (illegal), the wingnuts in a state of panic came out in full force to smear any high-ranking Dem (as opposed to defending their man Tom). Target: Nancy Pelosi. The New Republic writes this week:

"Everybody does it." That’s the emerging line among conservatives striving to make House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s career-threatening junkets seem like no big deal.
<..>
Take the conservatives’ attempt to draw equivalence between DeLay’s overseas junkets and a 2001 trip House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi took to Puerto Rico.
<..>
Pelosi, according to a spokesperson, took a 48-hour trip to tour the U.S. Navy’s bombing range on the island of Vieques. No lobbyist paid for it.
<..>
Not that DeLay’s apologists have let this deter them. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene told NPR on Monday that “Nancy Pelosi took a trip to Puerto Rico, which was also paid by a lobbyist.” Well, no.
<..>
DeLay’s travels with Abramoff are indicative of the majority leader’s intimate friendship with one of the most corrupt corporate lobbyists Washington has seen in decades; no Democrat was so close to Abramoff.

GW vs. Ahnold

Arnold pledges to save trees;
Governor says California's roadless areas will be safe from Bush policy

Regarding the legal fallout over the Plame outing, Hendrik Hertzberg asks some good questions:

Then, there is the role of Robert Novak. It was Novak who outed the agent, but it is not Novak who is in trouble. Was he subpoenaed? If not, why not? If he was, and he refused to name his source, why isn’t he in the same jail-bound boat as they are? If he did name names, why the relentless pursuit of Cooper and Miller? No one knows—except Novak and the prosecutors.

But as Wolf Blitzer recently proclaimed, Bob's at least a good Catholic!

The New Yorker has a terrific three-part series on our changing climate (part one and two). The author, Elizabeth Kolbert, was interviewed and she had this to say among other things:

There is a very broad consensus in the scientific community that global warming is under way. To the extent that there are conflicting views, they are usually over how exactly the process will play out. This is understandable. The climate affects just about every natural system on earth, and these systems in turn affect the climate. So making predictions is very complicated. Meanwhile, we have only one planet, so it’s impossible to run a controlled experiment. To focus on the degree of disagreement, rather than on the degree of consensus, is, I think, fundamentally misguided. If ten people told you your house was on fire, you would call the fire department. You wouldn’t really care whether some of them thought that the place would be incinerated in an hour and some of them thought it would take a whole day.
<...>
I think there is a surprisingly large—you might even say frighteningly large—gap between the scientific community and the lay community’s opinions on global warming. As you point out, I spoke to many very sober-minded, coolly analytical scientists who, in essence, warned of the end of the world as we know it. I think there are a few reasons why their message hasn’t really got out. One is that scientists tend, as a group, to interact more with each other than with the general public. Another is that there has been a very well-financed disinformation campaign designed to convince people that there is still scientific disagreement about the problem, when, as I mentioned before, there really is quite broad agreement. And third, the climate operates on its own timetable. It will take several decades for the warming that is already inevitable to be felt. People tend to focus on the here and now. The problem is that, once global warming is something that most people can feel in the course of their daily lives, it will be too late to prevent much larger, potentially catastrophic changes.

Recall that the public didn't truly wake up to how badly our water was polluted until the bay in Cleveland caught fire and Boston's bay was publicly ridiculed. These are immediate and alarming TV images that the public can quickly absorb and appreciate. Not so with gradual global warming....

Finally, this excellent answer to an oft-heard question:

Some opponents of the Kyoto accord argue that it is unfair to America, because it asks us to limit emissions but does not ask the same of the developing world—China, for instance, which is poised to become a major producer of greenhouse gases. There’s a certain logic to this argument, isn’t there?

There definitely is a logic to this argument. However, there is also a very strong argument to be made that the U.S., which is by far the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has an obligation to lead the world on this issue. If we curb our emissions, perhaps we can persuade the Chinese, who are in the process of ramping up their CO2 production, to take similar steps. If we continue to increase our emissions, then why should the Chinese, who still have a much lower standard of living than we do, bother to curb theirs? When Kyoto was drafted, it was always understood to be just a first step. We have been unwilling to take that first step, and until we do so it’s hard to see how progress can be made.

Exactly. It's bad enough that Bush flip-flopped on his 2000 compaign pledge and withdrew from Kyoto; what's worse is he's never come back to the issue to try to make things better. It's been a complete termination, with no delegates sent to negotiate, no reach out to other nations to discuss the issue, etc. Nothing. Just head in the sand crap that we've come to expect from Bush/Cheney. Meanwhile, our planet slowly burns. What a leader!

The beat goes on:

The Bush administration, in one of its biggest decisions on environmental issues, moved Thursday to open up nearly a third of all remote national forest lands to road building, logging and other commercial ventures.

As promised below, global warming links: here and here and here and here.

Taranto is at it again. Read today's WSJ editorial. Wow, what tripe. On the surface, his stuff sounds so assertive and damning, but when you really read what he's saying, a good deal of it falls apart or is not supported by anything in reality.

In the first paragraph, he attempts to describe himself as MOR -- huh? I've read many of his long pieces on "Best of the Web" and for him to believe that he's moderate about any issue is simply a farce, and delusional.

In the next paragraph, he feels sorry for the religious right due to "a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land." Where's the evidence? Offer examples. Oh, I'll give one: his man GW was installed by a court (Supreme) based on what has been considered by many legal scholars to be the most baseless and "ludicrous" of constitutional reasoning.

Next paragraph, he states, "'conservative' judges are not about to impose conservative policies." I see. So "liberal" (or "activist") judges impose liberal policies, but conservative ones won't. So says Jim.

In the next paragraph, he implies that because Congress is GOP-dominated, that the Dems should heed to this majority. In other words, make the majority 100% -- now that's democracy! Forget that each senator and representative is supposed to represent his/her constituency. He next asserts that the filibuster itself is "subverting the democratic process." Um, I thought it was the opposite, that the filibuster was a safeguard to insure that minority party could be heard (checks and balances)?

A few paragraphs down, he finger-wags at a columnist who used the terms "right-wing crackpots" and "knuckle-dragging judges." What hypocrisy. For those familiar with Taranto's column, he frequently name-calls or uses disparaging language to describe individuals.

Next paragraph, he criticizes Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) for an editorial where Taranto mischaracterizes what Feingold wrote (Taranto does this frequently in his column). Here is a large segment of what Feingold actually wrote:

And in this Greenville, the one in Alabama, I connected again to an American experience that isnt dictated by whether you live in a red state or a blue state. The people of Alabama appear to be among the most generous and most unsung philanthropists in this country. What they give is unimaginable to many others and they give it time and again. They regularly give their turn at the American dream to someone else. And they give it simply because theyre asked. So many people in Greenville dont seem to have basic health care coverage or promising job opportunities. Meanwhile, their children volunteer to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can only be humbled by their sacrifice. But because I am a lawmaker and a student of history, I also know who has been asking them to give so much. And I can only wonder how many more generations of central Alabamians will say yes when the increasingly powerful Republican Party asks them to be concerned about homosexuality but not about the security of their own health, about abortion but not about the economic futures of their own children. As my wife and I drove through Greenville that night, I thought how fundamentally unfair this all is in order to support an increasingly radical conservative movement. Now some may think that Alabama and Wisconsin are the polar opposites of American politics. But in both states I've found that (along with sharing a sincere appreciation of a good turkey dinner) too many hardworking people are losing their battles for decent paying jobs and adequate health care. I'm tired of seeing the power-hungry persuade the hard-working people of this country that the only way to preserve important values is to vote against their own families basic interests. I believe that the working people of both states have sacrificed for other peoples agendas for too long. And I believe that any political party or political movement or political candidate who would consistently say this would be heard throughout America. We need to go to the Greenvilles of every state, red and blue, and say, Thank you. Youve sacrificed long enough. Now its your turn at the American dream.

Yeah, just awful. Shame on you Russ.

You can read the rest of what Jim wrote, but let me give another example of what this guy is all about. Here's something Taranto wrote not too long ago:

Here's a Reuters dispatch that exemplifies why "global warming" is impossible to take seriously:

Even if people stopped pumping out carbon dioxide and other pollutants tomorrow, global warming would still get worse, two teams of researchers reported on Thursday. . . .

Virtually no one disagrees human activity is fueling global warming, and a global treaty signed in Kyoto, Japan, aims to reduce polluting emissions. But the world's biggest polluter, the United States, has withdrawn from the 1997 treaty, saying its provisions would hurt the U.S. economy.

Actually, lots of people disagree that "human activity is fueling global warming," but Reuters seems to view them as nonpersons. (By contrast, if you think Osama bin Laden is a "freedom fighter," you can count on Reuters' respect.)

In any case, the first paragraph quoted above refutes the second one. If there's nothing we can do to stop "global warming," how can we be causing it to begin with?

I will soon post an entry that includes several links showing that what Taranto calls "lots of people" are actually folks on corporate payrolls (the big one being Exxon). The unanimous consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific community concurs that human activity is contributing to global warming.

Note Taranto then takes a snide swipe at Reuters, saying that the news outfit would condone a complimentary Osama comment. Oh, how nice. And yet today he wrote it's the liberal side that attacks and rudely slams the right.

But my favorite is his final bit of reasoning. Can someone explain to me his logic? So for proof that we are causing something, we must first be able to stop whatever that is? What? Reuters' first paragraph simply points out that with the amount of pollutants and CO2 that has already been released into the air by humans, that the resulting effects will be felt for decades even if we stopped releasing anything today. The next paragraph addresses the U.S. flip-flop on Kyoto thanks to Bush. How does the latter refute the former?

Alas Jim, it's you who can't be taken seriously.

The crazy and partisan Pat Robertson has blessed us with more of his Bible-based, oh-so-Christian wisdom.

A big difference between Dems and Republicans is this characteristic of toughness or SOB-like demeanor. Just look at the two sides: Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Pelosi, Reid, Sandy Berger, Robert Rubin, Robert Reich, Schumer, Al Franken, Ruth Ginsberg, etc. And then look at the GOP: Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Bolton, Rice, Rumsfeld, Santorum, Wolfowitz, Frist, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Scalia, Ann Coulter, etc. You get the point.

Where is it written that toughness or a strident, brash, SOB-like demeanor = competence? The fact is it's more about appearances over reality. Rather than substance, they go with what comes off as effective. It's small-minded and shallow, and the country deserves better.

Follow up to this post:

N. Korea may be preparing nuke test; Iran steps up pressure

And a reminder that our top person in charge of nuclear proliferation matters under GW was Mr. Bolton. In this regard, he was as competent as Condi Rice (i.e. not very). Many pieces have been written documenting his failings, yet notice the wingnuts don't defend him with examples of where he was effective, but rather simply voice support because he's GW's choice, period (strictly partisan).

Iraq, Afghan conflicts strain U.S. fighting power.

Note the number of troops in Iraq are nearly 8 times the number in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the nonpartisan GAO has concluded "that bureaucratic delays within the Army had delayed release of funds to buy several items, including vehicle armor." Recall that $9 billion remains unaccounted for in Iraq; just imagine how much vehicle armor $9 bil. could've purchased.

Here's at least someone who finally woke up:

Tweeti Blancett, a rancher from Aztec, New Mexico, spoke about how current policies promote reckless energy development that threatens livelihoods and the quality of life in the American West.

"Northwest New Mexico has been sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed and political buy-offs, and what has happened to us is happening across the West," said Blancett, a sixth-generation rancher who ran the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign in her part of New Mexico.

What's the matter with Kansas? How about this:

TOPEKA, Kansas (Reuters) -- Evolution is going on trial in Kansas.

You say "confused," I say "hypocritical."

Conservatism isn’t over. But it has rarely been as confused. Today’s conservatives support limited government. But they believe the federal government can intervene in a state court’s decisions in a single family’s struggle over life and death. They believe in restraining government spending. But they have increased such spending by a mind-boggling 33 percent in a mere four years. They believe in self-reliance. But they have just passed the most expensive new entitlement since the heyday of Great Society liberalism: the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. They believe that foreign policy is about the pursuit of national interest and that the military should be used only to fight and win wars. Yet they have embarked on an extraordinarily ambitious program of military-led nation-building in the Middle East. They believe in states’ rights, but they want to amend the Constitution to forbid any state from allowing civil marriage or equivalent civil unions for gay couples. They believe in free trade. But they have imposed tariffs on a number of industries, most famously steel.They believe in balanced budgets. But they have abandoned fiscal discipline and added a cool trillion dollars to the national debt in one presidential term. -- Andrew Sullivan

Sullivan appears to agree with my implosion expectation:

The more closely you look, however, the deeper the division has become in the last few years, intensifying dramatically since last fall’s election.Which is why, this time, the balancing act may finally be coming undone.

Let's revisit the GOP's obsessive use of selective fear-mongering to achieve their goals. They currently are instilling fear concerning "activist judges." Add this to the growing list: terror alerts and threats = you must vote for Bush; Social Security = crisis; we're running out of oil = ANWR drilling; Iraq has WMD = invade the country; gay marriage = jeopardizes the institution and violates Bible; environmental regulations and protection = economy will tank, etc.

Notice what's absent, what's apparently not to be feared: the federal deficit, North Korea, global warming, perc and MTBE in drinking water, our infrastructure, unethical politicians, corporate fraud, etc.

Many are being played. As they say in poker, if you don't know who the sucker is at the table, it's you. A good portion of the general public is being manipulated and taken -- unbeknownst to them. In a way, it's ironic that poker has become so popular in this country.

And still more evidence of that liberal media bias:

Wolf Blitzer, introduced the two men [Robert Novak and Paul Begala] as “both good Catholics,” before adding, “I’m sure Bob is a good Catholic, I’m not sure about Paul Begala.” That didn’t sit well with Begala.... -- TNR, 4/25/05

Bob Novak, a good Catholic? A good person??

The Democrats are leaderless and reeling, seemingly bereft of inspiring ideas. -- Howard Fineman, Newsweek

Oh, and supposedly Laura Bush killed'em at the Correspondents' dinner. Her best (and most revealing) quip, "George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chainsaw — which I think is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well." Squirm, shift, wince.

Some house cleaning, I came across Gregg Easterbrook's op-ed in the NY Times ("Clear Skies, No Lies"). I had clipped it and was going to comment at length, but something came up and.... Anyway, it's important to "clear the air" of his distortions. For that, go here and here and here and here and here and here and here.

Natasha Hunter nails Easterbrook with, "he admits that the Clear Skies initiative would slow pollution reduction under the Clean Air Act. But, he says, because the Clean Air Act has never been enforced on schedule we should instead enact a law that's easier for industry to obey. One might similarly claim that because hard-to-catch criminals still evade the police we should legalize more of what they do." Exactly, he endorses doing as Bush Inc. desire: give in or cave to their demands. And yet these same folks always cry we don't need new gun laws, but rather just enforce the existing laws. Apparently, for the environment, it's different.

Hunter also summarizes a key point, one I often hear from wingnuts almost gloating about how things have improved over the last few decades, "Most environmental indicators that have improved over the past 30 years have done so as a result of prolonged battles between environmentalists and polluters, in which the government was reluctantly strong-armed into doing the right thing." The wingnuts behave as if all of the good things that have occurred have done so without a fight -- a joke.

It's been a fight all along the way, and yet over the past 4+ years much has been reversed and it appears as if the public simply has no idea what's going on. By the time the public wakes up and smells the noxious fumes, it will be too late. It's embarassing as much of the rest of the world gets it and there's many reports of even China investing lots of $$$ in pro-environment solutions, and many multi-national corporations are reforming to comply with non-USA Kyoto provisions. We're the world leader on so many fronts, yet thanks to dunder-head GW, we're fast becoming the singular global laggard on this enormously-important topic.

Great article in today's Boston Globe. It points out how GW and the GOP speak out of both sides of their mouths, depending upon the issue at hand. We're so accustomed to associating the GOP with shrinking the influence of the federal government, and yet the reality is that notion only holds true when it serves their interests. A must-read.

Has anyone noticed how Frist's Justice Sunday (JS) appearance -- reminder, not too long ago -- just came and went, with not much hoopla carry-over. Yes, there was lots of noise and buzz before the event, but notice how it's all just faded away.

Some will say this is due to many Republicans, including Bush, have distanced and even criticized JS. I disagree because as I've been writing, the GOP has been working this nonsense for some time now, conducting something truly extreme to appease a far-right voting bloc, and then later attempt to apologize it away, with wishy-washy statements.

No, I believe much more of this resulting silence has to do with Frist's clear lack of presence and charisma. If you ever have insomnia, watch his appearance, it will do the trick. To think he actually has designs on the highest office in 2008 is near laughable. He makes Kerry look like the comedian Gallagher. Completely humorless, stolid, and frankly, scary in his willingness to pander to the most extreme fringes of his party. And speaking of laughable, need I remind that the Dems will have ready and loaded Frist's video tape diagnosis shenanigans he performed on Schiavo -- something no politician, much less M.D., should live down.

By the way, get a load of this complete flip-flop by the Family Research Council, a sponsor of JS. This group strongly supported the filibuster when it came to holding up a gay Clinton nominee.

Always have been, always will be, a bunch of blatant hypocrites. Worse yet, it's the morons in the general public who back and support this group that are truly to blame. If memory serves, Jesus spoke out MUCH against hypocrisy....