President Bush has nominated Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to be the next CIA director, and the pick is already drawing fire from some top Republicans as well as Democrats, who argue that a military man isn’t the right person to head the troubled civilian agency at a time when the Pentagon is extending its control over the nation’s intelligence budget and agencies (if Hayden is confirmed, all major intelligence agencies would be headed by military people). Hayden also is controversial for his strong support of the domestic anti-terror wiretapping program.
Hayden seems qualified in most respects, and the simple fact that he is a military man shouldn’t be a deal-breaker — several other CIA heads have been in uniform.
Still, a controversial appointment isn’t helpful at a time when the CIA is demoralized and in decline, and our nation needs effective intelligence-gathering more than ever.
What do you think? Is Hayden the right person? Has the intelligence reshuffling improved our capabilities or merely added another layer of bureaucracy?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
If President Bush is really as concerned about the budget as he claims in protesting the Senate’s $109 billion supplemental bill funding Iraq, hurricane relief and a variety of pet projects, he should finance most of the war costs through the normal budget process, and not through off-budget, supplemental bills, The New York Times argues in an editorial today. It’s a good point.
Though some costs can’t be predicted and, therefore, require supplemental funding, the bulk of the spending on Iraq is predictable — about $100 billion a year.
By using supplementals, the administration doesn’t have to count the spending when it outlines its budget plans. The Times also argues that moving the war’s financing off budget means less scrutiny of the spending and makes it “much easier for the Pentagon to duck the hard choices it desperately needs to be making between optional and costly futuristic weapons and pressing real-world needs.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
There were enough entries submitted to this week’s cartoon contest to fill an arena. Well, maybe not a huge arena. Okay. Would you believe there were enough to fill the Cotillion? Anyway, the turnout was pretty good — around a hundred or so. The winner, Larry England, is a first-time winner and not even a Wichitan. Guess they’ve heard about our arena angst out there in Medicine Lodge. Click on the cartoon at left to enlarge Larry’s version. Bruce Cole of Wichita nearly won again with his entry: "Probably not the Downtown Lions Club they imagined." Stan Putman, also of Wichita, got a little punny with his caption: "I know the crowd expects us to eat ‘em but I’m afraid they’d give me too much glass." From Wichita’s Shawn Smith came "It doesn’t really matter which design they pick. After it’s built the taxpayers will still get eaten alive!" Amy Godsey of Wichita said, "They’re giving me an edifice complex!" She also had a good one with "Don’t pick C — no meat on that wing!" Wichita’s Kim Diane Gibson submitted "Thank goodness there’s 23 letters left. Options D to Z could produce a real winner!" From R. E. Brown: "How utterly tasteless! Let’s just buy a 50" HDTV and stay home." Jeane Cardenas of Wichita had this to say: "Hardly enough flavor to get all taxed up about, is there?" Tom Nickel of Haysville said, "Looks like the new diet is a little fiber and a lot of bull." Tom also sent in "Maybe if they threw in a commissioner or two this would be easier to swallow."
The Republican field of presidential candidates has been narrowed to three serious contenders, Chris Cillizza says on his Washington Post blog, The Fix. He writes:
“Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and George Allen (Va.), along with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (in photo), are the three Republicans who are constructing the organization, raising the money and attracting the early buzz necessary to win the Republican nod. While it’s impossible to predict what the field will look like a year or two from now, we are extremely surprised that there aren’t more top-tier Republicans in the running — especially since the nomination is wide open.”
He also noted that there is room for a socially conservative candidate such as Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., to move into the mix.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
The next national disaster might be brought to you not by terrorists or Mother Nature but by Democrats, warned Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., in a fundraising letter as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Send money now, she advised, or the “most left-wing Democrat Party in history” might seize control of the Senate and “increase your taxes, call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush, put the war on terrorism on the back-burner” and “take over the White House in 2008!” Suppose the “be afraid” message will work? Tune in next November.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Here’s William Saletan of Slate on why he expected soda companies to eventually succumb to pressure to get sugary sodas out of schools:
“The reason I expected the companies to lose this round is that it’s easy to wage moral crusades when the only freedoms in the way are those of children. Americans have long been driven by two deep longings. The first is to be left alone. The second is to tell other people what to do. On most moral issues — abortion, porn, video games, alcohol, tobacco, guns — the easiest way out is to inflict our piety on minors. All the righteous satisfaction, none of the libertarian backlash. Great taste, less filling.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
The No Child Left Behind law has been full of unintended consequences. The New York Times brought another one to light with this article, which looks at the growing U.S. shortage of psychometricians, or testing experts.
“Government and industry officials warn that the shortage of experts could undermine the testing process and lead to errors, with consequences like children’s being wrongly denied promotion and schools being mistakenly labeled as failing,” the Times reported.
But this problem isn’t bad for everyone; psychometricians are now pulling in as much as $200,000 a year.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
