Via this morning’s Le Monde, there’s this story on the ACLU’s count that the “Terrorist watch list” has grown to 1,000,000 names. As they note, “it’s unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, treats the rights of the innocent as an afterthought, and is a very real impediment in the lives of millions of travelers in this country.” While I don’t imagine that the administration really gives a hoot if the system is ‘unfair, out-of-control, [or] a waste of resources’, we (the U.S. gov’t) do have a number [art. 13] of treaty [most of these] obligations [art. 12] that would seem to militate against such a system of interferences. (If I still had my HeinOnline subscription, I’d have more snarky little links, but as it stands…)
From Politico (on p.2):
Democrats continued to push for a tax increase to offset the $62 billion that the college aid is expected to cost over the next 10 years. But Boehner immediately rejected the idea and it was quickly taken off the table.
Obviously, you’re not going to get everything you want in a negotiation, but seriously:
- $62,000,000,000 / 10 years = $6,200,000,000 / year
- $6,200,000,000 / $2,931,000,000,000 (FY ‘09 Budget) = .0021153
- .0021153 * 100 = 0.21153% of the budget.
I think as a tax payer (and a former student w/ crushing loans) I feel like we can deal with a .21153% increase in the federal budget for a worthy program such as this. I only wish Politico had characterized this Democratic move as ‘caving’ as they do two paragraphs later when discussing the Republican side of things:
Boehner and his team also didn’t have enough support to block the health care changes, so they caved on all but one.
If you want a good program to go through, you should figure out a way to fund it. Why shouldn’t the tax base have to pay for things they deem valuable?
P.s., stories should run with the percentages of the budget, not ridiculous, scary-sounding numbers like $62 billion over ten years. That’s about as informative as saying, “You know, ceteris paribus, this program will require $6.2 trillion dollars over the next 1,000 years. Oh and you have spinach between your teeth.” Honestly…
The RAND Corp.
The N.Y. Times Should Really Start Calling People on This
The NYTimes should really bother to correct this guy:
At another news conference, Senate Republicans blamed Congressional Democrats for blocking efforts to increase oil production in the United States, both off the shores of states like Virginia and in Alaska. The minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, noted that gasoline prices were $1.20 a gallon higher than when Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.
Not one of those things could have even begun had anyone passed a bill in January 2007, 2006, or 2001 for that matter. New fields take a long time to come online and a year isn’t going to cut it. From this AP article, “‘We won’t see this [ANWR] oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact,’ said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.” What is the problem with pointing this out? Or that oil is more expensive for us over here because it’s priced in dollars and that if the dollar falls, the price increases? As Dean Baker wrote,
If oil were priced in potatoes, the number of bushels of potatoes it took to buy a barrel of oil would be increasing. The cost of a bushel of potatoes would in turn be rising measured in dollar terms, because the value of the dollar is falling. However, for people in East Asia, it doesn’t matter whether oil is priced in potatoes or dollars.
And to suggest that nuclear power (”he called on Congress to address the cost of energy by [...] expanding nuclear power”) would make one shit’s worth of a difference for my energy costs come July is just fatuous. I mean, come on - this kind of crap should be ridiculed, not left uncorrected (and that goes for the Dems too and their silly gas-tax holiday).
“Obama vows to boost Puerto Rico’s economy”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004364245_apobamapuertorico.html
I think you mean “Progress Island,” Mr. Obama:
p.s., Holy shit. Two posts in as many days.
Clinton and Syria (Not Related)
From Clive Crook:
She may increase the intensity of her attacks on Obama–which puts her party as well as her own reputation at risk. Or perhaps she will strike a more positive note, calculating that a negative assault does not meaningfully improve her chances.
I just don’t see the former abating or the latter happening. If you think her calculus goes beyond 2008, then there’s no reason to believe that hurting Obama’s chances for the general 2008 election doesn’t help hers for 2012. (I.e., if she damages him enough for 2008, McCain wins, she tries again in 2012.)
Also, unrelatedly, ISIS has a new brief (pdf) out about the Syria site that Israel bombed on September 6, 2007. This was the subject of Seymour Hersh’s “A Shot in the Dark” & they conclude based on evidence the US will release today, that the site was in fact a nuclear reactor.
Today, the United States is releasing new information, which provides dramatic confirmation that the Syrian site attacked by Israel on September 6, 2007 was a nuclear reactor. The information, including images taken inside the reactor building before it was attacked, also indicates that North Korea helped to build the reactor, which resembles closely the one at the Yongbyon nuclear center in North Korea.
Since they can do it better than I, I’m just going to quote a bit from the report:
This new information confirms the need to be concerned about Syrian and North Korean actions, including their nuclear cooperation which dates back many years. However, it should not be seen as a casus belli against Syria or a reason to scuttle the progress being made at the Six Party Talks in disabling and dismantling North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.
[...]
Second, the United States and Israel have not identified any Syrian plutonium separation or nuclear weaponization facilities. The absence of such facilities gives little confidence that the reactor was part of an active nuclear weapons program.
[...]
An important argument for holding the Six Party deal together is that it brings North Korea into the fold, bit by bit, making it harder for it to slip back into the arena of illicit nuclear deals and keeping a bright light on its activities.
I think that last sentence is probably the best in the report.
I Think We Can All Agree
This is some frightening stuff:
Iran enriching uranium twice as fast - International Herald Tribune
Iran enriching uranium twice as fast - International Herald Tribune
This came up this morning and as much as I purport to enjoy the ridiculous statements that the Iranian regime makes on an hourly basis, the IHT should probably be a little more careful in their stories. Or at least note that this claim is pretty suspect. Being that they’ve continually underperformed with the P-1 centrifuges and their technical hurdles are far from leapt, they should have at least indicated that the information puts out by gov’t mouthpieces is generally, um, wrong.
ISIS has a report (pdf) on the issues they sent out on 22 Feb 2008. Their website has more. ISIS.
Best Use of Sarcasm in a Blog Post
What an
asshole: Nader to Run for President.
