Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
How did they define discretionary?

Looks to me like they define it as total discretionary budget appropriations authority, but I'm not well-versed in these things so maybe you can figure it out better than I can:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm385.cfm

(This page also details some other flimflammery that goes on with the appropriations numbers in case anyone wants to read about that as well.)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We're so caught up in the HBO stuff being big ticket on sunday, that I keep forgetting to watch the Simpson's. Curb was very very good. I love when Larry realizes he's fucked and just throws in the towel............

Good god. Not to pile on here after Burger already laid it on you, but if you are really telling us that you don't watch the Simpsons because you are too busy pregaming for Sex and the City we truly have no common ground.

I'm not a Curb fan at all but I was laughing throughout this episode. Larry berating himself in the mirror in the bathroom was fantastic.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I missed it. I've looked on the blogosphere for a fair and complete account of the show, but without success. Can anyone point me to one, or describe it more? People I read suggested that Russert was unlikely to be too hard on him for fear of retaliation.

He went through his usual schtick of reading/posting Bushes prior statements, asked him to explain inconsistencies, and asked some follow ups, but he was not as relentless as usual. I read this as deference to the president. Also, the silence spoke volumes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
See Club! --

That's precisely why you should want a Democratic President and a hostile Republican Congress.

You won't get the judges you want, but the President won't be able to spend the money the Dems. want.

S_A_M

If only there was a palatable choice.

On a separate note, I'm going to spread a totally unfounded rumor that Bush is picking Zell as Cheney's replacement.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If only there was a palatable choice.

On a separate note, I'm going to spread a totally unfounded rumor that Bush is picking Zell as Cheney's replacement.

Careful Club. A loose cannon is a loose cannon, no matter which way it points.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Careful Club. A loose cannon is a loose cannon, no matter which way it points.

Are you referring to me or Zell?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you referring to me or Zell?

I meant Zell. If you switch parties, I'll have my socks here deleted, and go back to Infirm and the comfort of Juan the Marine rants.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Get your minds out of the gutter!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb6.html

Theme -- GWB needs to shape the F up, or the R's might lose.

Quotes include:

"After the war, in May, on Polish television, President Bush said, 'We found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories.' No, we did not. 'So what's the difference?' said the president in December about the failure to find WMDs, because 'if [Saddam Hussein] were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.' Such casualness, which would be alarming in any president, is especially so in one whose vaulting foreign policy ambitions have turned his first term into Woodrow Wilson's third term, devoted to planting democracy and 'universal values' in hitherto inhospitable places."

And...

"It is surreal for a Republican president to submit a budget to a Republican-controlled Congress and have Republican legislators vow to remove the 'waste' that he has included and that they have hitherto funded. The president does indeed propose killing 65 programs and substantially curtailing 63. But even if Congress fully complies, which it won't, the savings would be just $4.9 billion -- a rounding error in a $2.4 trillion budget. That $4.9 billion would pay less than six days' interest on the national debt."

I like it that they're nervous.

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Not a sports fan so maybe I am missing something here. Why is it that the riots occur in the city that won the game and not in the city that lost the game?

By the end of gametime, fans of the losing side have drunk themselves into unconsciousness, which makes the postgame riots mellow at best. In Charlotte, they're just now waking up on the sidewalks of Tryon Street.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
By the end of gametime, fans of the losing side have drunk themselves into unconsciousness, which makes the postgame riots mellow at best. In Charlotte, they're just now waking up on the sidewalks of Tryon Street.

I'm still amazed that a loss or a victory by a bunch of young men with no historical, educational, or residential connection to a city can inspire rage, joy, rioting, or even more than a casual "oh, good" amongst the citizenry. What possible identification can they feel with a team that has the same basic geographical spread as every other team?

In other words: "We won!!"? WTF is "we"?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm still amazed that a loss or a victory by a bunch of young men with no historical, educational, or residential connection to a city can inspire rage, joy, rioting, or even more than a casual "oh, good" amongst the citizenry. What possible identification can they feel with a team that has the same basic geographical spread as every other team?

Well, you'd have to explain why anyone goes to any of the games to answer that.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
In other words: "We won!!"? WTF is "we"?

Though I do consider myself a sports fan, you've touched on one of my pet peeves. Even at colleges that I once attended and now patronize, I do not pretend to be part of the winning team.

If you're not actually on the court/field, or otherwise work for or in the organization, it ain't "we." Those who insist on this worldview typically arrive on campus on, say, Wednesday, within an enormous RV, wear no colors other than the team's own, and continuously tailgate for 72 hours until gametime on Saturday*.

For the pro game, the "we" phenomenon makes even less sense.

Gattigap

*Though admittedly, participating in the tailgate is lots of fun, so please note that in itself, there's NAWWT. (So thanks, Ms. McGillicutty! And goooooo [school mascot]!)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm still amazed that a loss or a victory by a bunch of young men with no historical, educational, or residential connection to a city can inspire rage, joy, rioting, or even more than a casual "oh, good" amongst the citizenry. What possible identification can they feel with a team that has the same basic geographical spread as every other team?

In other words: "We won!!"? WTF is "we"?

I think the rioting has very little to do with how people feel about sporting events. It's a signal, like a flash mob. These things happen now because everyone thinks they're going to happen, although alcohol is surely a big part of it, too. Young men looking to act out know there will be other young men looking to act out. That's my theory, anyway.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Get your minds out of the gutter!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb6.html

[excerpts]

I like it that they're nervous.

S_A_M

Also nice is this:

Bush, unlike Kerry, has admirably bold plans for meeting these predictable crises, which are his generation's greatest domestic challenges. But these plans involve complexities and responsibilities that the public will fathom and accept only if they are explained by a president whom the public believes speaks judiciously and knows things, including what he does not know.

But, as with all things George Will, we must have an obscure historical reference that highlights his superiority and resonates within the walls of the ivory tower:

So far, the president's difficulties have been partially obscured by the sheer silliness of the Democrats seeking to replace him, all of whom want to run William Jennings Bryan's fourth campaign.

As overly serious as Will tries to be, these "bow tie" moments make me smile. Who is he writing to in his articles -- the Harvard Historical Society?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
As overly serious as Will tries to be, these "bow tie" moments make me smile. Who is he writing to in his articles -- the Harvard Historical Society?

As always, the danger of being too "in" is that no one else laughs, because you are now a gang of one. However, Will has reached that point where people will quickly research, and then, secure in the new knowledge of being "in", will laugh along with him. It's like being the Head Mouseketeer.