Among other things, many of them worse, your local bar might run out of beer. And this is telling:
Meanwhile, budget negotiations on Tuesday remained at a standstill. No meetings transpired, and no offers were traded. Dayton left St. Paul to press his case for more revenue in St. Cloud, while Republican lawmakers dodged questions about whether they were going to present their first budget offer since the shutdown began.
Of course, in even pointing this out, I’m violating the etiquette rules laid down by James Taranto, who sees actually pointing out the consequences of government shutdowns as uncivil, almost as uncivil as accurately describing Republican Medicare plans.
Col. Mustard — in a post entitled “How do you say “Duke Lacrosse” in French? “Dominique Strauss-Kahn”” — claims vindication for views he previously expressed with silence:
If you noticed, when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested for the alleged sexual assault on a maid at a hotel in New York, I didn’t join in, almost alone in the blogosphere.
Something didn’t seem right. The story was too neat, and too couched in political correctness. It was the same feeling I got when the accusation was made against the Duke Lacrosse players. White privilege, an immigrant victim, a not very sympathetic rich guy … it fit a made-for-media narrative.
Was there a sexual assault? That’s an open question now, but we shut our minds to the possibility of innocence before.
Since we’re likely to see more of this kind of thing, a few points:
- “Too couched in political correctness”? This argument-by-empty-buzzword just seems to be the same droit du seigneurthat BHL was invoking after DSK was arrested. Even if this specific rich and powerful white man is proven to be innocent, it doesn’t flow from this that all powerless people who accuse powerful people of crimes are lying. (I also can’t make sense of “too neat” — what, her story would have been more credible if it was full of logical holes and obvious factual errors?) Similarly, the fact that the Duke Lacrosse players were innocent doesn’t mean that all accusations of sexual assault by people of lesser social status on campus are false. The BHLs and Ben Steins of the world — who smeared the victim and defended DSK based on absolutely nothing — have not been vindicated; at best, their bottom line might have been right by accident.
- As of now, comparing the DSK case with the Duke case is utterly specious. First of all, with the Duke case it wasn’t just that the accuser had credibility problems; there were serious problems with the accuser’s account of the alleged “rape” itself and substantial independent evidence making it clear that the accused players were not in the house at the time that the alleged “rape” occurred. None of this is true, at this point, of DSK. The evidence leaked to the NYT will probably make it impossible to pursue a prosecution and makes it more likely that the accuser isn’t telling the truth, but it does not establish DSK’s factual innocence. Secondly, Nifong pursued the case against the lacrosse players after the evidence of their innocence was overwhelming, in part by suppressing exculpatory evidence. The prosecutors in the New York case appear to be acting conscientiously and professionally.*
- When you say “we shut our minds to the possibility of innocence,” I’m afraid I’m going to need specific cites. Criticizing people who assumed DSK’s innocence based on his social status doesn’t mean rejecting any possibility that he was innocent, and as far as I can tell nobody claimed otherwise.
…this shouldn’t need to be said, but apparently it does.
*As a couple commenters have noted, this is too charitable. Let’s say that, if the prosecutors are erring, it’s certainly not in the direction of assuming the guilt of the accused.
I will say this for Hitch; when he gets something in his wheelhouse, he can still nail it. The most salient thing about profiles of Mamet’s “courageous” conversion to wingnuttery is that combined they have yet to identify a single interesting thing this (very great) playwright has ever said about politics from any ideological orientation. What’s offensive about Mamet’s turn to political writing isn’t its conservatism but its utter banality. Fundamentally, you should never open your mouth unless you know what the shot is…
As I’ve said before, I actually have a little more respect for anti-choicers who reject rape/incest exceptions, because that position is actually more internally consistent. That’s not to say that using state coercion to force a woman to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape to term isn’t barbaric — it is! But that’s because forcing women to carry pre-viability pregnancies to term is barbaric.
Of course, any points that Santorum gets for principle vanish because he believes that women who commit what he claims to be a serious violent offense should be exempt from legal sanction. This position — which is also official GOP policy — indicates 1)gross sexism, 2)a tacit admission that most anti-choicers don’t believe their own rhetoric, or 3)a healthy helping of both.
Right. His wife. His political instincts are absolutely surefire otherwise.
…I mean, he has Zell Miller on board! If it wasn’t for that meddling Calista Newt could be rehearsing his inaugural speech right now.
So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.
By Bush’s own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure. But perhaps that is because Bush chose such absurd metrics and made such silly promises about tax cuts’ economic omnipotence in the first place.
But don’t kid yourself — even more of the same will be great!
(Update by Erik): I really wonder whether, when all is said and done, the Bush Tax Cuts won’t be what the Bush Administration is most known for instead of 9/11 and Iraq. They may prove among the most disastrous policies in American history, along with Jefferson’s Embargo, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
Just for the record, Pawlenty’s economic plan is absolutely nuts, and I still say he’s the most likely nominee. And what’s even scarier is that the plans of subsequent nominees are going to have to accomplish the difficult feat of being even more crazy.
It’s a point that’s been made before, but hasn’t been made enough:
Stop calling [Paul] Ryan a “deficit hawk.” He voted for all of Bush’s tax cuts. He voted for all the wars. He voted for Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill. He voted against the deficit-reducing Affordable Care Act. He voted against the Bowles-Simpson plan. He opposes any deficit reduction plan that increases revenue. Ryan is anti-government but he is clearly not a deficit hawk.
There have been a lot of recent triumphs in Republican media manipulation, but getting the people primarily responsible for the deficit defined as “deficit hawks” ranks near the top.
Andrew Klavan. Or maybe Chris Mathews. I have no idea what’s wrong with these people.
I strongly encourage Republicans to base their 2012 campaign around the assertion that Medicare is a Ponzi scheme and attacking Paul Ryan from the right.