I cannot even begin to tell you how angry Bush's SOTU speech made me. It was a blatant attempt at moral grandeur, and no doubt his own kind bought it all, but it was really nothing more than hollow, manipulative rhetoric dressed up to look and sound impressive. (The full transcript of the speech is here.)
He once again linked 9/11 to Iraq, closed off debate where debate could challenge his facile worldview and failed policies, vilified his opponents as somehow unpatriotic, justified unethical and perhaps illegal conduct, reduced complex issues down to a state of black-and-white polarization, glossed over his own and his administration's mismanagement of affairs domestic and foreign, and, as usual, offered nothing in the way of concrete solutions to America's, and the world's, problems.
Once again he divided America, played to that division, and proved to be nothing but a partisan idealist masquerading as the bringer of democracy and freedom, the harbinger of some utopian future.
Some will say -- to borrow one of Bush's own straw-man tactics -- some will say that he was bold, resolute, presidential. Some will say that he said all the right things, pointing America in the right direction, the right leadership in troubled times.
But some, them, are wrong. Look past the superficial. Look at what was really there, what he really said, and what he didn't.
Is America a great country? Yes. My criticism of Bush should never be taken for criticism of America. But what of the state of Bush's America? Is it strong? Where it is strong, it is strong in spite of Bush. But, overall, the State of the Union would be a lot stronger without the leadership, or lack thereof, of this president.
Simply, it is time to move on, past the divisiveness and political mismanagement of the past five years. President Bush may have three years left in office, but America needs new leadership if she is to be truly strong again.
**********
There will be a lot of reaction in the blogosphere to tonight's SOTU. I encourage you to check out the many great blogs in my blogroll over on the right sidebar. I'll have more reaction of my own tomorrow, once the speech sinks in and I've given it more thought, with a round-up of reaction from around the blogosphere.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The sudden demise of Quebecois separatism
According to a new poll, support for independence in Quebec has plummeted to 34 percent since last week's federal election. Support stood at 43 percent before the election.
What's the truth? Somewhere in between.
If I may put it simply, there are (and have been for some time) two dominant visions of Canadian federalism, one Liberal and one Conservative. The Liberal vision is the vision of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, a vision of Canada as a centralized social democracy with official bilingualism and multiculturalism, with a strong sense of unitary Canadian nationalism. The Conservative vision is the vision of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a vision of Canada as a decentralized federation with expansive provincial powers and strong regional identification. The Liberal vision incorporates Quebec into an overarching definition of Canadian nationhood. The Conservative vision holds that Quebec has a distinct identity and deserves a distinct Constitutional status within the structure of Canadian federalism.
Both visions have their admirers and proponents both in Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada. The Liberal vision, after all, was expounded by Trudeau and former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, both from Quebec. However, federalism in Quebec is different than federalism in the rest of Canada. Although there are hardcore federalists in the Liberal tradition, perhaps most of Quebec's federalists are, in a way, soft nationalists. That is, federalists who want Quebec to remain in Canada but who promote the idea of Quebecois distinctness. Even Quebec's ruling Liberal Party is more like the federal Conservative Party than the federal Liberal Party -- Premier Jean Charest is a former leader of the federal Conservative Party.
What this means is that many Quebecois federalists are attracted more to the Conservative vision than to the Liberal vision. And, with the resurgence of the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper, these federalists finally had an alternative to the Liberal Party other than the separatist Bloc Quebecois. They may have voted for the Bloc in protest to Liberal hegemony, but now they see the viability of the alternative federalist vision of the Conservatives.
And, last week, the Conservative Party broke through in Quebec and won 10 of its 75 seats, up from no seats in 2004. Paul Martin's Liberal Party was reduced to 13 seats from 21 in 2004.
So why has support for separatism fallen? Many in Quebec were frustrated both with Charest's provincial government and the scandal-ridden Chretien-Martin regime in Ottawa. In frustration, they turned to the Bloc and began to ponder independence from a Canada that didn't seem, to them, to respect Quebec's distinctness (even though both Chretien and Martin are from Quebec, even though their governments were disproportionately Quebecois).
Now, ironically enough, the alternative has been re-presented to them by a new prime minister from, of all places, Calgary. With Harper's victory and the Conservative breakthrough in Quebec, Western alienation meets Quebecois nationalism -- and, for now, many in Quebec seem to be willing to give those two oddly similar movements a chance to co-exist.
I am generally a Liberal and my vision for Canada is generally the Liberal one (although I was born and raised in Montreal and do not reject outright the Conservative vision). But if one good can come of Harper's victory and his new Conservative government, let it be the demise of Quebecois separatism and the rise of federalism, any federalism, in Quebec.
More than anything else, I am, after all, a Canadian.
What's the truth? Somewhere in between.
If I may put it simply, there are (and have been for some time) two dominant visions of Canadian federalism, one Liberal and one Conservative. The Liberal vision is the vision of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, a vision of Canada as a centralized social democracy with official bilingualism and multiculturalism, with a strong sense of unitary Canadian nationalism. The Conservative vision is the vision of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a vision of Canada as a decentralized federation with expansive provincial powers and strong regional identification. The Liberal vision incorporates Quebec into an overarching definition of Canadian nationhood. The Conservative vision holds that Quebec has a distinct identity and deserves a distinct Constitutional status within the structure of Canadian federalism.
Both visions have their admirers and proponents both in Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada. The Liberal vision, after all, was expounded by Trudeau and former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, both from Quebec. However, federalism in Quebec is different than federalism in the rest of Canada. Although there are hardcore federalists in the Liberal tradition, perhaps most of Quebec's federalists are, in a way, soft nationalists. That is, federalists who want Quebec to remain in Canada but who promote the idea of Quebecois distinctness. Even Quebec's ruling Liberal Party is more like the federal Conservative Party than the federal Liberal Party -- Premier Jean Charest is a former leader of the federal Conservative Party.
What this means is that many Quebecois federalists are attracted more to the Conservative vision than to the Liberal vision. And, with the resurgence of the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper, these federalists finally had an alternative to the Liberal Party other than the separatist Bloc Quebecois. They may have voted for the Bloc in protest to Liberal hegemony, but now they see the viability of the alternative federalist vision of the Conservatives.
And, last week, the Conservative Party broke through in Quebec and won 10 of its 75 seats, up from no seats in 2004. Paul Martin's Liberal Party was reduced to 13 seats from 21 in 2004.
So why has support for separatism fallen? Many in Quebec were frustrated both with Charest's provincial government and the scandal-ridden Chretien-Martin regime in Ottawa. In frustration, they turned to the Bloc and began to ponder independence from a Canada that didn't seem, to them, to respect Quebec's distinctness (even though both Chretien and Martin are from Quebec, even though their governments were disproportionately Quebecois).
Now, ironically enough, the alternative has been re-presented to them by a new prime minister from, of all places, Calgary. With Harper's victory and the Conservative breakthrough in Quebec, Western alienation meets Quebecois nationalism -- and, for now, many in Quebec seem to be willing to give those two oddly similar movements a chance to co-exist.
I am generally a Liberal and my vision for Canada is generally the Liberal one (although I was born and raised in Montreal and do not reject outright the Conservative vision). But if one good can come of Harper's victory and his new Conservative government, let it be the demise of Quebecois separatism and the rise of federalism, any federalism, in Quebec.
More than anything else, I am, after all, a Canadian.
Monday, January 30, 2006
French philosophers have no chest hair
So this man -- the French "philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy, a self-styled Tocqueville cluelessly and hyperbolically revelling in stereotype and superficiality -- thinks he knows America?
Well, see Garrison Keillor's review of Levy's American Vertigo here. See also the interesting exchange at Slate between Alan Wolfe and Franklin Foer here.
At least Levy doesn't hate America. And at least some of what he writes about America is on the mark -- provocative, if not entirely satisfying.
If interested, you can find his book here (and other Amazons around the world).
But, as they say, caveat lector.
Scalitovision 2006: No filibuster for Sammy A.
Alas, the filibuster has gone down:
As some of you know, I supported the effort to filibuster the Alito nomination -- see here and here. After supporting Roberts last year, I simply could not look past Alito's overt extremism on executive power and his covert (and sometimes not-so-covert) extremism on key social issues like abortion. Alito has been brilliantly packaged to look like a modest, kind-hearted (dare I say compassionate?) conservative who will simply examine the law and interpret the Constitution with care and an open mind, but he is in reality a blank check for the imperial aspirations of Bush and Cheney. And his nomination is the latest blatant example of conservative court-packing.
And where were the Democrats? Or, rather, who were the Democrats who stood idly by (or perhaps cowering in a corner somewhere) while Alito was rammed through the Senate? Well, see Digby at Hullabaloo. Atrios lists the 25 here (cheers). Booman Tribune lists the others here (jeers).
And, for more, see Political Animal, The Heretik, The Left Coaster, Seeing the Forest, The Agonist, and Firedoglake. And go through my blogroll of liberal blogs -- all highly recommended -- to survey what others in the liberal blogosphere are saying. I don't think anyone's particularly happy tonight.
In the end, like Jane at Firedoglake, I give out a big thank you to John Kerry.
Republican senators, aided by 19 Democrats, cleared the path yesterday for Samuel A. Alito Jr. to join the Supreme Court and for President Bush to put his stamp firmly on the nine-member bench.
The Senate voted 72 to 25 to end debate on Alito's nomination and to allow a roll call on his confirmation today, shortly before noon. Alito's supporters garnered a dozen more votes than the 60 they needed to choke off a Democratic filibuster effort, which would have allowed debate to continue indefinitely.
As some of you know, I supported the effort to filibuster the Alito nomination -- see here and here. After supporting Roberts last year, I simply could not look past Alito's overt extremism on executive power and his covert (and sometimes not-so-covert) extremism on key social issues like abortion. Alito has been brilliantly packaged to look like a modest, kind-hearted (dare I say compassionate?) conservative who will simply examine the law and interpret the Constitution with care and an open mind, but he is in reality a blank check for the imperial aspirations of Bush and Cheney. And his nomination is the latest blatant example of conservative court-packing.
And where were the Democrats? Or, rather, who were the Democrats who stood idly by (or perhaps cowering in a corner somewhere) while Alito was rammed through the Senate? Well, see Digby at Hullabaloo. Atrios lists the 25 here (cheers). Booman Tribune lists the others here (jeers).
And, for more, see Political Animal, The Heretik, The Left Coaster, Seeing the Forest, The Agonist, and Firedoglake. And go through my blogroll of liberal blogs -- all highly recommended -- to survey what others in the liberal blogosphere are saying. I don't think anyone's particularly happy tonight.
In the end, like Jane at Firedoglake, I give out a big thank you to John Kerry.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Who will be leader of the Grits? The race begins...
Just two days following the election, and the fall of the Liberal government, the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, resigned from his post in Washington.
What does this mean?
First of all, such a move is not unexpected. As he stated in his letter, "this position is based on the ability to work intimately with the Canadian Government" and requires strong ties with the Prime Minister. He was appointed by Paul Martin approximately a year ago, and so it's likely that Stephen Harper would have eventually removed McKenna and replaced him with someone whose views are closer to his own.
But that's not all. Even before the announcement of Paul Martin's resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, McKenna's name was being floated around as a potential candidate, and he is considered now one of the frontrunners in the race for leadership.
However, the debate has turned from who will be running to when the leadership convention will be. Ever since McKenna resigned from his post, the rumours and whispers about the leadership race have been flying fast and furious. The dam has burst, so to speak, and now an argument is raging as to when the convention should be held.
According to the CNews article, dark horse contenders want more time to build their support base (a comparative advantage that the frontrunners already have). The convention is expected to occur anytime between November of this year and March 2007.
Surprisingly, also announced recently, John Manley has dropped himself from the race, stating, "While I hope to play a role in the renewal, healing and unification of the Liberal party, I have decided for personal reasons that I will not be a leadership candidate".
Manley was once the Finance Minister, and later Deputy Prime Minister, under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and he was considered a formidable opponent in the race against Paul Martin for the leadership of the Liberal Party (he later conceded, knowing that he didn't have the numbers to overtake Martin). He was also deemed to be McKenna's toughest competition until he dropped out.
Following him, it seems that Brian Tobin, an ex-Member of Parliament and previous Premier of Newfoundland, would be the next viable competitor (interestingly enough, both he and McKenna were premiers in the Atlantic provinces -- the ex-ambassador was the Premier of New Brunswick from 1987 to 1997).
However, don't discount the others in the leadership race: "Dark horse candidates include former ministers Martin Cauchon, Stephane Dion, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, Ken Dryden, Anne McLellan and Joe Volpe and newcomer Michael Ignatieff, the acclaimed Harvard academic who won his first election Monday."
What some of them lack in profile, they make up for with tenacity and ambition.
However, it's all mere speculation at this point. When asked, all potential candidates have coyly answered that they're currently considering whether or not to run.
Just for interest's sake, check out CBC's "Waiting in the Wings" article on who the major players may be (including profile, advantages, disadvantages, among other things).
What does this mean?
First of all, such a move is not unexpected. As he stated in his letter, "this position is based on the ability to work intimately with the Canadian Government" and requires strong ties with the Prime Minister. He was appointed by Paul Martin approximately a year ago, and so it's likely that Stephen Harper would have eventually removed McKenna and replaced him with someone whose views are closer to his own.
But that's not all. Even before the announcement of Paul Martin's resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, McKenna's name was being floated around as a potential candidate, and he is considered now one of the frontrunners in the race for leadership.
However, the debate has turned from who will be running to when the leadership convention will be. Ever since McKenna resigned from his post, the rumours and whispers about the leadership race have been flying fast and furious. The dam has burst, so to speak, and now an argument is raging as to when the convention should be held.
According to the CNews article, dark horse contenders want more time to build their support base (a comparative advantage that the frontrunners already have). The convention is expected to occur anytime between November of this year and March 2007.
Surprisingly, also announced recently, John Manley has dropped himself from the race, stating, "While I hope to play a role in the renewal, healing and unification of the Liberal party, I have decided for personal reasons that I will not be a leadership candidate".
Manley was once the Finance Minister, and later Deputy Prime Minister, under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and he was considered a formidable opponent in the race against Paul Martin for the leadership of the Liberal Party (he later conceded, knowing that he didn't have the numbers to overtake Martin). He was also deemed to be McKenna's toughest competition until he dropped out.
Following him, it seems that Brian Tobin, an ex-Member of Parliament and previous Premier of Newfoundland, would be the next viable competitor (interestingly enough, both he and McKenna were premiers in the Atlantic provinces -- the ex-ambassador was the Premier of New Brunswick from 1987 to 1997).
However, don't discount the others in the leadership race: "Dark horse candidates include former ministers Martin Cauchon, Stephane Dion, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, Ken Dryden, Anne McLellan and Joe Volpe and newcomer Michael Ignatieff, the acclaimed Harvard academic who won his first election Monday."
What some of them lack in profile, they make up for with tenacity and ambition.
However, it's all mere speculation at this point. When asked, all potential candidates have coyly answered that they're currently considering whether or not to run.
Just for interest's sake, check out CBC's "Waiting in the Wings" article on who the major players may be (including profile, advantages, disadvantages, among other things).
On a personal note: I'm very sad to see Paul Martin go. I truly believe that he was dealt a poor hand when he took over as Prime Minister and that he is a genuine and warm person. When we look back at it all, perhaps we'll see that we ousted a leader who was actually more understanding than most Canadians gave him credit for. I might be extremely divisive in saying this, but I think we've truly let someone who was great and could have achieved great things go over overblown media reports and an unfounded desire for change.
Update (30/01/06) - Frank McKenna announced, today, that he is dropping out of the leadership race, and rumour has it that Brian Tobin may soon follow. It comes as a bit of a shock, since both were considered frontrunners, and according to the Canadian Press, this could be the first time in 40 years that the Liberal Party will be without an heir apparent.
This race is about to heat up.
Putting 9/11 in perspective
My friend Marc ("Creature") over at State of the Day has written an extremely good post putting the horrible events of 9/11 into historical perspective (alongside Joseph Ellis in the Times). You can find his post here. I recommend that you read it in full, but here's a key passage:
They should be, but they aren't. And their "disgusting" response to 9/11 is one of main reasons why Bush has been such an abject failure (and a dangerous, divisive one at that) as president.
Personally I believe the reaction to September 11th by the Bushes has more to do with politics and greed, than it does national security. And this belief is coming from a person who lives in downtown Manhattan, who saw the first plane flying ominously low in the sky, who watched as the throngs of ashen people streamed uptown as I returned downtown after an abbreviated morning at work, who watched from his living room window as the smoke drifted from the site for days, and who had to smell the acerbic stench of the day for weeks afterwards.
I live in Osama's bulls-eye and I have enough perspective to know that, while September 11th was a horrible day, the overreaction and disgusting politicalization of that day just adds insult to injury. George Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney should be embarrassed by their actions.
They should be, but they aren't. And their "disgusting" response to 9/11 is one of main reasons why Bush has been such an abject failure (and a dangerous, divisive one at that) as president.
In praise of Canadian hedonism
A reader sent me this link today, reminding me of an election-related tidbit from earlier this week.
A prominent American conservative, Paul Weyrich, head of the far-right (wingnut) Free Congress Foundation, has written an article claiming that Canadians are "liberal and hedonistic," indeed, that we are cultural Marxists. The CBC has the story here. It's just more anti-Canadianism from the American right (see here).
Now, taking Weyrich seriously is akin to taking, say, Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson seriously. Unfortunately, these extremists are taken seriously by many in the U.S., even by many in the U.S. media, such is the state of things in today's America. Clearly, Weyrich is yet another dangerous idiot, which is what I've come to call the wingnuts of the right.
As far as I'm concerned, Weyrich can go to hell. I know that isn't the intelligent commentary that I try to bring to The Reaction, but Weyrich and his ilk don't deserve intelligent commentary.
Whether it's possible to be liberal, hedonistic, and Marxist simultaneously is another matter. Conservatives throw such labels around without really understanding them. Anyone who understands Marxism knows that it's neither liberal nor hedonistic. If anything is hedonistic, it's the anti-government, capitalist reductionism of the American right (even the religious right, much of which has blended comfortably into the right's illiberal neo-liberalism.
As for Canada, we are liberal, as I've argued here and here. Is it hedonistic to value each and every human being, to respect gays and lesbians, to welcome immigrants from around the world, to encourage self-fulfillment and a healthy society through an appreciation of diversity, and to provide health care, education, and the basic necessities of life to all?
If so, then I'm a hedonist and proud of it. But it's not. It's liberalism. It's what we in Canada are all about. Even most of our conservatives respect and promote these fundamental liberal values. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party were not my choice to govern this country, but they represent a conservatism that isn't Weyrich's conservatism. It's a decidedly Canadian conservatism that can be traced back to a long-standing Tory tradition imported from Britain. I don't support it, but I'm not unconditionally hostile towards it.
But you know what? I love my country. I love everything about it. And I know that many of you do, too.
And if the American right would criticize us for not being conservative enough, "conservative" according to the wingnut definition, then so be it. That just makes me love Canada all the more.
It proves to me that we're doing something right.
A prominent American conservative, Paul Weyrich, head of the far-right (wingnut) Free Congress Foundation, has written an article claiming that Canadians are "liberal and hedonistic," indeed, that we are cultural Marxists. The CBC has the story here. It's just more anti-Canadianism from the American right (see here).
Now, taking Weyrich seriously is akin to taking, say, Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson seriously. Unfortunately, these extremists are taken seriously by many in the U.S., even by many in the U.S. media, such is the state of things in today's America. Clearly, Weyrich is yet another dangerous idiot, which is what I've come to call the wingnuts of the right.
As far as I'm concerned, Weyrich can go to hell. I know that isn't the intelligent commentary that I try to bring to The Reaction, but Weyrich and his ilk don't deserve intelligent commentary.
Whether it's possible to be liberal, hedonistic, and Marxist simultaneously is another matter. Conservatives throw such labels around without really understanding them. Anyone who understands Marxism knows that it's neither liberal nor hedonistic. If anything is hedonistic, it's the anti-government, capitalist reductionism of the American right (even the religious right, much of which has blended comfortably into the right's illiberal neo-liberalism.
As for Canada, we are liberal, as I've argued here and here. Is it hedonistic to value each and every human being, to respect gays and lesbians, to welcome immigrants from around the world, to encourage self-fulfillment and a healthy society through an appreciation of diversity, and to provide health care, education, and the basic necessities of life to all?
If so, then I'm a hedonist and proud of it. But it's not. It's liberalism. It's what we in Canada are all about. Even most of our conservatives respect and promote these fundamental liberal values. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party were not my choice to govern this country, but they represent a conservatism that isn't Weyrich's conservatism. It's a decidedly Canadian conservatism that can be traced back to a long-standing Tory tradition imported from Britain. I don't support it, but I'm not unconditionally hostile towards it.
But you know what? I love my country. I love everything about it. And I know that many of you do, too.
And if the American right would criticize us for not being conservative enough, "conservative" according to the wingnut definition, then so be it. That just makes me love Canada all the more.
It proves to me that we're doing something right.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Ann Coulter is a dangerous idiot
If you need yet more proof of this seemingly undeniable fact, click here.
There's simply no excuse for this.
There's simply no excuse for this.
Kerry and Iran
I recently asked two questions:
Tough questions, indeed, but it seems we all should have listened to... John Kerry.
(No, The Reaction has not become an all-Kerry blog. I like him, but not that much. I'm just giving him the credit he deserves. He's right about Alito and he seems to be right about how best to deal with Iran.)
Scalitovision 2006: Kerry's courageous stand
John Kerry may have called for a filibuster, but, according to The New York Times, "Democrats cringed and Republicans jeered at the awkwardness of his gesture, which almost no one in the Senate expects to succeed."
But does that mean he should have kept quiet? Absolutely not. Kerry is to be applauded for standing up for Democratic values and principles, not to mention for the Constitution and the appropriate balance among the three branches of government, while so many of his fellow Democrats, both Congressional and otherwise, turned away or were too weak or afraid to do anything in the first place.
Regardless, Republicans will have their way and the vote will likely be held on Tuesday.
As for the Democrats, one day -- perhaps one day soon -- Kerry will be able to say that he told them so.
**********
More on the filibuster:
The Carpetbagger Report: "At the risk of sounding overly-utilitarian about it, Kerry's principled stand should make all Dems happy — the filibuster can help bring Alito's ideology and beliefs into view, while a filibuster that doesn't work isn't likely to anger many voters or prompt Republicans to end all judicial filibusters forever."
See also TalkLeft.
The Democratic Daily has lists (with phone numbers) of Democratic senators committed to a filibuster, undecided, against a filibuster, and for Alito. Don't hesitate to call or write your own senator.
Ezra Klein is, shall we say, less enthusiastic.
But does that mean he should have kept quiet? Absolutely not. Kerry is to be applauded for standing up for Democratic values and principles, not to mention for the Constitution and the appropriate balance among the three branches of government, while so many of his fellow Democrats, both Congressional and otherwise, turned away or were too weak or afraid to do anything in the first place.
Regardless, Republicans will have their way and the vote will likely be held on Tuesday.
As for the Democrats, one day -- perhaps one day soon -- Kerry will be able to say that he told them so.
**********
More on the filibuster:
The Carpetbagger Report: "At the risk of sounding overly-utilitarian about it, Kerry's principled stand should make all Dems happy — the filibuster can help bring Alito's ideology and beliefs into view, while a filibuster that doesn't work isn't likely to anger many voters or prompt Republicans to end all judicial filibusters forever."
See also TalkLeft.
The Democratic Daily has lists (with phone numbers) of Democratic senators committed to a filibuster, undecided, against a filibuster, and for Alito. Don't hesitate to call or write your own senator.
Ezra Klein is, shall we say, less enthusiastic.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Scalitovision 2006: Kerry calls for filibuster
I liked him in 2004 and I like him now. Senator John Kerry is pushing for the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court to be filibustered. From CNN:
Democrats.com has much more on this developing story, including regular updates.
**********
I supported John Roberts (see here, for example), but I simply cannot support Alito. I suspect that Alito will ultimately be confirmed, but his elevation to America's highest court would be, in my view, a detriment to American constitutionalism, not least because his extreme views on executive power, more relevant than ever in the age of the neverending war on terror, would upset the delicate checks and balances that sustain American politics.
Simply put, the president wants to get away with everything, including pre-emptive military action, the unlimited detention of terror suspects, the torture of detainees, and warrantless domestic wiretapping, and Alito would let him. Whatever Alito's right-wing views on other hot-button issues like abortion and the separation of church and state, his views on executive power alone are simply unacceptable.
They are grounds for opposition and they are grounds, more pointedly, for a filibuster. (No, the Democrats don't have the numbers to block Alito outright, but a filibuster would at least force Republicans to deploy the so-called "nuclear option". They shouldn't be able to put someone like Alito on the Court without a fight.)
Yesterday, The New York Times wrote that Alito's "entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress". And this: "A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court."
I salute you, Senator Kerry, and I hope that your fellow Democratic senators join you. For what it's worth, there are certainly many of us in the blogosphere who stand with you.
**********
Others who agree:
Political Animal: "Senate Dems blew the Judiciary Committee hearings as a chance to educate the country about Alito's radical views on presidential power, and a filibuster fight would give them a second chance. They should take it."
Hullabaloo: "Kerry and Kennedy stepped up today. They aren't going down without a fight. This is worth doing and if we lose it, we should reward them and those who stood with them with our gratitude and support not another round of complaints about how they are a bunch of losers."
See also AMERICAblog, The Left Coaster, The Brad Blog, and The Mahablog. As always, The Moderate Voice offers a solid, detached perspective.
**********
MUST-READ: John Kerry posts at Daily Kos. Key passage: "I voted against Justice Roberts, I feel even more strongly about Judge Alito. Why? Rather than live up to the promise of 'equal justice under the law,' he's consistently made it harder for the most disadvantaged Americans to have their day in court. He routinely defers to excessive government power regardless of how extreme or egregious the government's actions are. And, to this date, his only statement on record regarding a woman's right to privacy is that she doesn't have one."
See also Senator Kennedy's statement here.
The Senate's top Republican decided Thursday to force a showdown on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito early next week, with the two Democratic senators from Massachusetts pushing to block a vote.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist filed a motion to cut off debate on the Alito nomination after his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Harry Reid, objected to a move by GOP leaders to schedule a final vote on his confirmation Monday afternoon.
Frist's motion, which requires 60 votes under Senate rules, will come up for a vote at 4:30 p.m. Monday. If successful, senators will then vote on Alito's nomination at 11 a.m. Tuesday, with a simple majority of 51 votes needed for approval.
Frist's move came as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was lobbying his Democratic colleagues to filibuster the Alito nomination -- an uphill fight, given that none of the chamber's 55 Republicans have opposed his confirmation and three Democrats are on the record supporting it.
"Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court," Kerry said in a written statement.
"We can't afford to see the court's swing vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, replaced with a far-right ideologue like Samuel Alito."
Democrats.com has much more on this developing story, including regular updates.
**********
I supported John Roberts (see here, for example), but I simply cannot support Alito. I suspect that Alito will ultimately be confirmed, but his elevation to America's highest court would be, in my view, a detriment to American constitutionalism, not least because his extreme views on executive power, more relevant than ever in the age of the neverending war on terror, would upset the delicate checks and balances that sustain American politics.
Simply put, the president wants to get away with everything, including pre-emptive military action, the unlimited detention of terror suspects, the torture of detainees, and warrantless domestic wiretapping, and Alito would let him. Whatever Alito's right-wing views on other hot-button issues like abortion and the separation of church and state, his views on executive power alone are simply unacceptable.
They are grounds for opposition and they are grounds, more pointedly, for a filibuster. (No, the Democrats don't have the numbers to block Alito outright, but a filibuster would at least force Republicans to deploy the so-called "nuclear option". They shouldn't be able to put someone like Alito on the Court without a fight.)
Yesterday, The New York Times wrote that Alito's "entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress". And this: "A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court."
I salute you, Senator Kerry, and I hope that your fellow Democratic senators join you. For what it's worth, there are certainly many of us in the blogosphere who stand with you.
**********
Others who agree:
Political Animal: "Senate Dems blew the Judiciary Committee hearings as a chance to educate the country about Alito's radical views on presidential power, and a filibuster fight would give them a second chance. They should take it."
Hullabaloo: "Kerry and Kennedy stepped up today. They aren't going down without a fight. This is worth doing and if we lose it, we should reward them and those who stood with them with our gratitude and support not another round of complaints about how they are a bunch of losers."
See also AMERICAblog, The Left Coaster, The Brad Blog, and The Mahablog. As always, The Moderate Voice offers a solid, detached perspective.
**********
MUST-READ: John Kerry posts at Daily Kos. Key passage: "I voted against Justice Roberts, I feel even more strongly about Judge Alito. Why? Rather than live up to the promise of 'equal justice under the law,' he's consistently made it harder for the most disadvantaged Americans to have their day in court. He routinely defers to excessive government power regardless of how extreme or egregious the government's actions are. And, to this date, his only statement on record regarding a woman's right to privacy is that she doesn't have one."
See also Senator Kennedy's statement here.
Pat Robertson is a dangerous idiot -- Part Trois
Over at Demagogue, one of our favourites, Zoe Kentucky, also one of our favourites, looks at why Pat Robertson still matters. Is he really a dangerous idiot? Oh, where to begin...
Read Zoe's post. You'll surely be as enraged as I am.
(By the way, the first two parts of this ongoing series are here and here.)
Read Zoe's post. You'll surely be as enraged as I am.
(By the way, the first two parts of this ongoing series are here and here.)
Googling China -- censorship or liberation?
As the AP is reporting, Google "has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market".
Needless to say (if you know anything about me), I generally object to such censorship. But there's another way to look at this: In the long run, this trade-off could prove to be a boon to political reform in China. The internet is a liberating medium, after all. Is it not better for Google to penetrate the Chinese market with restrictions than not at all?
Even censored, Google could be the thin end of yet another wedge, a wedge that ultimately leads (or at least contributes) to political reform -- and that ultimately benefits the Chinese people at the expense of its brutally oppressive regime.
For more, see The Peking Duck, Battlepanda, and The Heretik.
Needless to say (if you know anything about me), I generally object to such censorship. But there's another way to look at this: In the long run, this trade-off could prove to be a boon to political reform in China. The internet is a liberating medium, after all. Is it not better for Google to penetrate the Chinese market with restrictions than not at all?
Even censored, Google could be the thin end of yet another wedge, a wedge that ultimately leads (or at least contributes) to political reform -- and that ultimately benefits the Chinese people at the expense of its brutally oppressive regime.
For more, see The Peking Duck, Battlepanda, and The Heretik.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
The year of living Democratically
At Political Wire, guest contributor Stuart Rothenberg predicts a good year ahead for Democrats, who may be poised to make significant gains in the House.
Winning back the House is unlikely, and Rothenberg doesn't go that far, but it could be close.
Winning back the House is unlikely, and Rothenberg doesn't go that far, but it could be close.
I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T
Shhhhh. Dare I even utter that word? Tell me, friends, dare I?
Perhaps -- given a recent poll that found that a majority of Americans think that Bush should be impeached, or at least that Congress should consider impeaching him, if he illegally spied on Americans. See here. And here. (And see here for Bush's plunging poll numbers.)
After Downing Street, which commissioned the poll, responds here. See also Democrats.com here.
For all the latest impeachment-related news, see the Impeach Bush Coalition here.
As I've said before (see here and here), I'm not yet an advocate of impeachment, but it's worth listening to the case that is already being made.
And, of course, it's also worth demanding accountability from the president. Americans must demand that Bush be held accountable for his actions.
Did he illegally spy on Americans? Did he break the law? Did he violate the trust of the American people?
If so, is impeachment not the proper response from Congress?
Perhaps -- given a recent poll that found that a majority of Americans think that Bush should be impeached, or at least that Congress should consider impeaching him, if he illegally spied on Americans. See here. And here. (And see here for Bush's plunging poll numbers.)
After Downing Street, which commissioned the poll, responds here. See also Democrats.com here.
For all the latest impeachment-related news, see the Impeach Bush Coalition here.
As I've said before (see here and here), I'm not yet an advocate of impeachment, but it's worth listening to the case that is already being made.
And, of course, it's also worth demanding accountability from the president. Americans must demand that Bush be held accountable for his actions.
Did he illegally spy on Americans? Did he break the law? Did he violate the trust of the American people?
If so, is impeachment not the proper response from Congress?
Are Democrats weak on national security?
Senator Clinton has come out swinging against President Bush's (illegal) domestic spying program, the AP reports, calling his explanations (i.e., his self-defence) "strange" and "far-fetched": "Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists. I think that's our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way."
Exactly.
The Republican spin is (and will continue to be) that opponents of the president's spying program are soft on terrorism and weak on national security, if not downright unpatriotic. In yesterday's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne examined what he called "Rove's early warning" -- that is, Karl Rove's personal preview of what Republicans have in store for Democrats going into this fall's mid-term elections. America needs presidential and Congressional leadership that understands "the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment". In Rove's view, "many Democrats" simply don't understand.
The problem, Dionne suggests, is that "the same approach keeps working" even though Democrats know what awaits them and therefore should be prepared to respond effectively. And I agree: Democrats need to engage Republican on the issue of national security, not cede the issue to the Republicans while attempting to win on seemingly more palatable domestic issues like health care and education.
And Dionne asks the right questions, the questions Democrats ought to ask of the president and his Congressional allies: "Are we really safer now than we were five years ago? Has the Iraq war, as organized and prosecuted by the administration, made us stronger or weaker? Do we feel more secure knowing the heck of a job our government did during Hurricane Katrina? Do we have any confidence that the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies will clean up their act if Washington remains under the sway of one-party government?"
Rove's Republicans will claim that Democrats don't have what it takes to safeguard America in a post-9/11 world. Democrats should welcome this challenge, stand firm, and articulate their own strengths, their own national security policies for a post-9/11 world. They should point to the president's dismal record on national security (including the debacle in Iraq and the ongoing homeland security weaknesses outlined by the 9/11 Commission). And they should point to his reprehensible violations of human and civil rights (including torture and domestic spying).
If Republicans want to run on Bush's (and their own) record, so be it.
Democrats aren't weak on national security and they needn't appear to be. They can fight spin with truth. Like Senator Clinton, they can reaffirm their commitment to tracking down terrorists... in a lawful way.
Exactly.
The Republican spin is (and will continue to be) that opponents of the president's spying program are soft on terrorism and weak on national security, if not downright unpatriotic. In yesterday's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne examined what he called "Rove's early warning" -- that is, Karl Rove's personal preview of what Republicans have in store for Democrats going into this fall's mid-term elections. America needs presidential and Congressional leadership that understands "the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment". In Rove's view, "many Democrats" simply don't understand.
The problem, Dionne suggests, is that "the same approach keeps working" even though Democrats know what awaits them and therefore should be prepared to respond effectively. And I agree: Democrats need to engage Republican on the issue of national security, not cede the issue to the Republicans while attempting to win on seemingly more palatable domestic issues like health care and education.
And Dionne asks the right questions, the questions Democrats ought to ask of the president and his Congressional allies: "Are we really safer now than we were five years ago? Has the Iraq war, as organized and prosecuted by the administration, made us stronger or weaker? Do we feel more secure knowing the heck of a job our government did during Hurricane Katrina? Do we have any confidence that the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies will clean up their act if Washington remains under the sway of one-party government?"
Rove's Republicans will claim that Democrats don't have what it takes to safeguard America in a post-9/11 world. Democrats should welcome this challenge, stand firm, and articulate their own strengths, their own national security policies for a post-9/11 world. They should point to the president's dismal record on national security (including the debacle in Iraq and the ongoing homeland security weaknesses outlined by the 9/11 Commission). And they should point to his reprehensible violations of human and civil rights (including torture and domestic spying).
If Republicans want to run on Bush's (and their own) record, so be it.
Democrats aren't weak on national security and they needn't appear to be. They can fight spin with truth. Like Senator Clinton, they can reaffirm their commitment to tracking down terrorists... in a lawful way.
Hell in Haiti
Beautiful Horizons, a new addition to the blogroll, focuses on Latin America and has a good (and disturbing) post on Haiti here. Check it out.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Harper's Canada: The day after the election
You can find more on the new Conservative government here. See here for the Conservative Party's 2006 election platform.
And see here for what Harper's victory will mean for Canada-U.S. relations. Specifically: "Republicans have been quietly hoping for a Conservative win after years of increasingly tense ties under the Liberals that reached new lows with their anti-American election campaign." Harper may seek closer ties with Bush's America, but with a minority government he'll only be able to do so much.
And what will the Liberals do now that Martin has stepped down? See here.
Final election results are here.
And see here for what Harper's victory will mean for Canada-U.S. relations. Specifically: "Republicans have been quietly hoping for a Conservative win after years of increasingly tense ties under the Liberals that reached new lows with their anti-American election campaign." Harper may seek closer ties with Bush's America, but with a minority government he'll only be able to do so much.
And what will the Liberals do now that Martin has stepped down? See here.
Final election results are here.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Conservatives win minority government
A brutal cold has put my flat on my back today, but here's a quick post on the results of today's federal election in Canada.
**********
I expected the race to tighten and for the results to be closer than the polls and the predictions, and, well, tighten it did and closer they are.
The Conservative Party has won a plurality of the seats in the House of Commons, 125 of 308, but it sits well short of a majority. There had been talk of as many as 145 or 150 seats.
This was a thoroughly anti-Liberal campaign, with the three opposition parties targeting Liberal corruption (the sponsorship scandal) and the desire for change (any change). Plus, I think that voter and media fatigue was a major factor. Simply, voters and the media had grown tired of Liberal rule (in place since 1993). Even the Toronto-based, Liberal-friendly national media warmed up to the Conservatives and their leader, Stephen Harper, now the next prime minister.
The Conservatives did well across the country (with the exception of British Columbia), including Quebec, but the Liberals withstood the Conservative surge in Ontario and remain the largest party in the country's largest province.
The New Democrats did well in British Columbia and Ontario.
The separatist Bloc Quebecois saw some of its support defect to the Conservatives, which is a good sign for federalism and national unity, but it remains a fairly strong third party.
And the Liberals? There was some concern that they would be reduced to 70 or 80 seats. In fact, they have won or are currently leading in over 100 ridings. The future of Prime Minister Paul Martin is uncertain -- and I do think the Liberal Party needs to use this defeat to reevaluate its platform, its strategy, and its leadership -- but they will be, as Martin just said in his concession speech, "a strong opposition". Let's hope so.
(Update: Martin has stepped down as Liberal leader.)
And so it stands. Canadians have voted to give the Conservative Party a chance to govern, to give Harper the opportunity to prove himself as prime minister. But Canada has given the new governing party and the new prime minister a small minority with which to work. It will need to reach out to the three opposition parties. It will not to able to push through a conservative agenda. There likely will not be another election anytime soon, but keep this in mind:
The Conservative Party, to repeat, won a plurality, not a majority, of seats in the House of Commons. In terms of the overall popular vote, only a minority of Canadians voted for the Conservative Party -- only 36.5 percent at present count. It deserves to have this chance to govern, but a majority of Canadians, a solid majority, voted for parties that are on the left or in the center of Canadian politics. Despite this Conservative victory, that is, the balance in Canadian politics remains just to the left of center and solidly liberal.
Canadians have elected a Conservative government, but Canada remains a liberal country.
**********
For all the latest results, head over to the CBC. As for me, I'm going back to bed.
**********
I expected the race to tighten and for the results to be closer than the polls and the predictions, and, well, tighten it did and closer they are.
The Conservative Party has won a plurality of the seats in the House of Commons, 125 of 308, but it sits well short of a majority. There had been talk of as many as 145 or 150 seats.
This was a thoroughly anti-Liberal campaign, with the three opposition parties targeting Liberal corruption (the sponsorship scandal) and the desire for change (any change). Plus, I think that voter and media fatigue was a major factor. Simply, voters and the media had grown tired of Liberal rule (in place since 1993). Even the Toronto-based, Liberal-friendly national media warmed up to the Conservatives and their leader, Stephen Harper, now the next prime minister.
The Conservatives did well across the country (with the exception of British Columbia), including Quebec, but the Liberals withstood the Conservative surge in Ontario and remain the largest party in the country's largest province.
The New Democrats did well in British Columbia and Ontario.
The separatist Bloc Quebecois saw some of its support defect to the Conservatives, which is a good sign for federalism and national unity, but it remains a fairly strong third party.
And the Liberals? There was some concern that they would be reduced to 70 or 80 seats. In fact, they have won or are currently leading in over 100 ridings. The future of Prime Minister Paul Martin is uncertain -- and I do think the Liberal Party needs to use this defeat to reevaluate its platform, its strategy, and its leadership -- but they will be, as Martin just said in his concession speech, "a strong opposition". Let's hope so.
(Update: Martin has stepped down as Liberal leader.)
And so it stands. Canadians have voted to give the Conservative Party a chance to govern, to give Harper the opportunity to prove himself as prime minister. But Canada has given the new governing party and the new prime minister a small minority with which to work. It will need to reach out to the three opposition parties. It will not to able to push through a conservative agenda. There likely will not be another election anytime soon, but keep this in mind:
The Conservative Party, to repeat, won a plurality, not a majority, of seats in the House of Commons. In terms of the overall popular vote, only a minority of Canadians voted for the Conservative Party -- only 36.5 percent at present count. It deserves to have this chance to govern, but a majority of Canadians, a solid majority, voted for parties that are on the left or in the center of Canadian politics. Despite this Conservative victory, that is, the balance in Canadian politics remains just to the left of center and solidly liberal.
Canadians have elected a Conservative government, but Canada remains a liberal country.
**********
For all the latest results, head over to the CBC. As for me, I'm going back to bed.
CANADA HEADS TO THE POLLS
Yes, the Canadian federal election is today. And the last pre-election poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail predicts that the Conservatives, out of power since 1993, will be able to form a minority government with almost twice as many seats in the House of Commons as the Liberals.
(Blah.)
More throughout the day and, of course, once the results come in later on tonight.
(Blah.)
More throughout the day and, of course, once the results come in later on tonight.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Partisans, a love story: The financial relationship of George Bush and Jack Abramoff
As we have seen, the relationship between President Bush and disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was much closer than the White House would like us to believe it was -- see here.
The White House is now trying to distance itself (and Bush himself) from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As Adam Zagorin and Mike Allen reveal in Time, however, the relationship between Bush and Abramoff was also much closer than we are being led to believe it was.
The White House is claiming that Bush doesn't know Abramoff and has never met him. Yet photos show that the two did meet on several occasions. More:
In short, Abramoff was a big-time fundraiser for Bush, just as he was a big-time lobbyist on K Street. The White House (and the campaigns that got Bush there) were quite happy to know him (and to take his money) before his recent fall from grace. It makes sense why the White House would want to have nothing to do with him anymore, and why Abramoff is now such an embarrassment in Washington, but Bush and his cronies are merely re-writing history (i.e., lying) for the sake of political expediency (i.e., to avoid charges of comingling with corruption -- corruption that has wormed its way throughout Republican Washington). Thankfully, they're up against some pretty convincing evidence.
How many words are those photos worth?
For more on Abramoff, see here, here, and here.
For more on Bush + Abramoff, see Political Animal, The Carpetbagger Report, MyDD, Shakespeare's Sister, and Middle Earth Journal.
The White House is now trying to distance itself (and Bush himself) from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As Adam Zagorin and Mike Allen reveal in Time, however, the relationship between Bush and Abramoff was also much closer than we are being led to believe it was.
The White House is claiming that Bush doesn't know Abramoff and has never met him. Yet photos show that the two did meet on several occasions. More:
Abramoff was once in better graces at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, having raised at least $100,000 for the President's re-election campaign. During 2001 and 2002, his support for Republicans and connections to the White House won him invitations to Hanukkah receptions, each attended by 400 to 500 people. McClellan has said Abramoff may have been present at "other widely attended" events. He was also admitted to the White House complex for meetings with several staff members, including one with presidential senior adviser Karl Rove, one of the most coveted invitations in Washington.
In short, Abramoff was a big-time fundraiser for Bush, just as he was a big-time lobbyist on K Street. The White House (and the campaigns that got Bush there) were quite happy to know him (and to take his money) before his recent fall from grace. It makes sense why the White House would want to have nothing to do with him anymore, and why Abramoff is now such an embarrassment in Washington, but Bush and his cronies are merely re-writing history (i.e., lying) for the sake of political expediency (i.e., to avoid charges of comingling with corruption -- corruption that has wormed its way throughout Republican Washington). Thankfully, they're up against some pretty convincing evidence.
How many words are those photos worth?
For more on Abramoff, see here, here, and here.
For more on Bush + Abramoff, see Political Animal, The Carpetbagger Report, MyDD, Shakespeare's Sister, and Middle Earth Journal.
The old left and the Canadian election
For an interesting conservative take on the Canadian election (and its historical consequences), see my friend Pieter Dorsman over at Peaktalk. Pieter focuses on the realignment of the left and believes that "the 'old left' in general... will be dealt a blow of historically significant proportions". This essentially means Canada's labour movement and the old New Democrats, Canada's mainstream socialist party, for Pieter praises the new New Democrats, Jack Layton's New Democrats, for running "a surprisingly centrist campaign," indeed, "a positive and palatable campaign".
But don't look for Jack Layton's NDP to follow in the footsteps of Tony Blair's Labour. The NDP is traditionally Canada's third party. It's true that it's running a more centrist campaign than usual, but its poll numbers still hover at around 20 percent, often down around 16-17 percent, and its "success" owes as much to Liberal unpopularity and incompetence (and voter fatigue after well over a decade of Liberal rule) as to a more appealing platform.
(Pieter also has more on Michael Ignatieff.)
My most recent analysis of the Canadian election is here.
But don't look for Jack Layton's NDP to follow in the footsteps of Tony Blair's Labour. The NDP is traditionally Canada's third party. It's true that it's running a more centrist campaign than usual, but its poll numbers still hover at around 20 percent, often down around 16-17 percent, and its "success" owes as much to Liberal unpopularity and incompetence (and voter fatigue after well over a decade of Liberal rule) as to a more appealing platform.
(Pieter also has more on Michael Ignatieff.)
My most recent analysis of the Canadian election is here.
On Iran's nuclear program
If you're interested in what's going on in Iran -- that is, the development of a nuclear program -- you should check out an excellent series by guest contributor Jeffrey Lewis at Wampum. Part two of the three-part series is here.
My last post on Iran is here.
**********
Here's more on Iran from:
Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek;
David Sanger in The New York Times; and
Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment (tip: Democracy Arsenal).
My last post on Iran is here.
**********
Here's more on Iran from:
Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek;
David Sanger in The New York Times; and
Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment (tip: Democracy Arsenal).
Friday, January 20, 2006
We all need something to look forward to...
The Carpetbagger Report reminds us that the presidency of George W. Bush will end exactly three years from today -- January 20, 2009. (Unless it ends sooner, of course.)
Sigh.
Sigh.
Michael Moore on Canada (eh?)
Michael Moore has issued a statement on the Canadian election. It begins: "Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right?"
Well, no. At least, I'm not laughing.
For my most recent analysis of the Canadian election, scroll down a few posts or click here.
Well, no. At least, I'm not laughing.
For my most recent analysis of the Canadian election, scroll down a few posts or click here.
Scalitovision 2006: To filibuster or not to filibuster?
Want a good reason to oppose Alito's nomination, even to filibuster it? Here's Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.
What to do about Iran?
Recently I asked: Whither Iran? (see here)
Now Reaction favourite Fred Kaplan of Slate is asking: How do you solve a problem like Ahmadinejad? (see here)
Not easily, he concludes. So he offers a challenge:
Needless to say, I don't know either. Diplomacy? Military action? More specifically: What will the European powers do? How will Israel respond? What is there for America to do? Kaplan: "But what if diplomacy fails? What if the Security Council approves some form of sanctions? What if the Europeans and even the Chinese brave the risk that Iran cuts back—or cuts off—their oil supplies? What if, after all this, Iran continues to enrich uranium?"
All good questions. All without good answers. Let Kaplan know what you think -- and, as always, feel free to add your comments here, too.
Now Reaction favourite Fred Kaplan of Slate is asking: How do you solve a problem like Ahmadinejad? (see here)
Not easily, he concludes. So he offers a challenge:
So, here's the big question: If diplomacy is the only rational solution to this problem yet the Iranians just want nukes—in other words, if there is no deal (or at least no deal that the United States would realistically offer) that would compel them to give up their dream—what's the next step?
At this point, I must confess: I don't know. Neither, it seems, does anybody else. So, dear Slate readers, do you have any great ideas? Send them to me. I'll print — and publicly mull over — the best of them.
Needless to say, I don't know either. Diplomacy? Military action? More specifically: What will the European powers do? How will Israel respond? What is there for America to do? Kaplan: "But what if diplomacy fails? What if the Security Council approves some form of sanctions? What if the Europeans and even the Chinese brave the risk that Iran cuts back—or cuts off—their oil supplies? What if, after all this, Iran continues to enrich uranium?"
All good questions. All without good answers. Let Kaplan know what you think -- and, as always, feel free to add your comments here, too.
Canadian election campaign enters final weekend
Some observations going into the final weekend before Monday's election:
The latest Strategic Counsel poll for CTV and The Globe and Mail (which, admittedly, is just one of a number of major polls) shows the gap between the Conservatives and Liberals narrowing after the Conservatives had built up a substantial double-digit lead. On Jan. 17, the Conservatives were up on the Liberals 42 percent to 24 percent, an 18-point spread. Since then, the Conservatives have fallen to 37 percent while the Liberals have risen to 28 percent, a 9-point spread.
The other three "major" parties, the New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Greens, have remained relatively consistent since the start of the campaign. The New Democrats, Canada's socialist party, has tried to bill itself as the only real alternative to an anticipated Conservative government, and there has been some concern among Liberals about defections of progressive supporters of the Liberals to the New Democrats, but they haven't been able to rise above a ceiling of 17 percent. They currently stand at 16 percent. The Liberals will need to pull over both New Democrats and Conservatives, as well as attract most of the independent and undecided voters (and there are many, even at this late hour), if they hope to narrow the gap any further and have any chance of pulling a last-minute comeback or even of holding the Conservatives to a minority of seats in the House of Commons.
**********
Is it possible that American conservatives are keeping quiet so as not to remind Canadian voters that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is one of them? See here.
**********
The turning point in the election campaign seemed to come on or about Jan. 4. The Liberals had been in the lead until then, but the Conservatives pulled even on Jan. 4 and started to pull away on Jan. 6. It's not yet clear to me why this happened. We'll likely have to wait for the post mortem to learn just how the Conservatives turned the tables on the Liberals. But it does seem that the Liberal campaign stalled at or around that time and has only in the last couple of days emerged from its slumber and, upon waking, frantic desperation. Prime Minister Martin is finally, it seems, on message, articulating a liberal-progressive vision of and for Canada that goes all the way back to Prime Minister Pearson's (and Martin's father's) Liberal Party of the mid-'60s. He likely won't succeed -- this is all far too little far too late -- but Martin's shift to the left places him in stark contrast to the Canada of his opponent.
Apathy will likely keep voter turnout low, a key to a Conservative victory -- Conservative support is soft, and a Conservative victory depends on a lack of enthusiasm for the Liberals even from its traditional supporters). The Liberals are using negative campaigning (Harper = Bush) to stir up fear and loathing for the Conservatives, especially among traditional Liberals (many of whom, like the author of The Reaction, were thinking of sitting on their hands and looking elsewhere on election day) and "new" Canadians (recent immigrant communities tend to be solidly Liberal).
**********
In the key Toronto riding of Etobicoke--Lakeshore, usually a fairly safe Liberal seat, celebrity-candidate Michael Ignatieff, the academic bigwig dropped in straight from Harvard, may be in trouble. The president of the local Liberal riding association has come out in support of his Conservative rival.
**********
From the Toronto Star: "Ontario is the final battle site in the federal election and it's turning into an epic Liberal-Conservative fight over sex, politics and religion."
**********
The Star also wonders if the religious right will set Harper's agenda. See here. I say no, but a Prime Minister Harper would have a hard time holding back the populist, western-based right flank of his party. It was that large element of the Conservative Party that was behind the founding of the Reform Party back in the '90s. Reform eventually merged with the old Progressive Conservatives, the traditional party of Canadian conservatism, to form today's Conservative Party, but the Reformers, long out of the mainstream of federal politics and motivated by alienation from the power centers in central Canada, are clearly itching to govern -- and to steer Canada towards economic neo-liberalism, social conservatism, decentralization, and possibly a break-up of our federal system.
And then there are the quasi-neocons in Ontario.
How long will the old Progressive Conservatives (or Red Tories, as they're often called) put up with the rule of the Reformers? Will Harper be able to hold his coalition together?
Canadians may be willing to give Harper a chance, perhaps a probationary period with a slim majority (although a minority is more likely), but do they even know what this Conservative Party stands for? From the Globe: "Liberal Leader Paul Martin is accusing Conservative rival Stephen Harper of keeping his socially conservative candidates out of the public eye." Hardly a surprise, if true (which I think it is).
As they say: caveat emptor. Harper isn't Bush, but do we really want Stephen Harper's Canada?
I'm leaning more and more towards the Liberals.
The latest Strategic Counsel poll for CTV and The Globe and Mail (which, admittedly, is just one of a number of major polls) shows the gap between the Conservatives and Liberals narrowing after the Conservatives had built up a substantial double-digit lead. On Jan. 17, the Conservatives were up on the Liberals 42 percent to 24 percent, an 18-point spread. Since then, the Conservatives have fallen to 37 percent while the Liberals have risen to 28 percent, a 9-point spread.
The other three "major" parties, the New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Greens, have remained relatively consistent since the start of the campaign. The New Democrats, Canada's socialist party, has tried to bill itself as the only real alternative to an anticipated Conservative government, and there has been some concern among Liberals about defections of progressive supporters of the Liberals to the New Democrats, but they haven't been able to rise above a ceiling of 17 percent. They currently stand at 16 percent. The Liberals will need to pull over both New Democrats and Conservatives, as well as attract most of the independent and undecided voters (and there are many, even at this late hour), if they hope to narrow the gap any further and have any chance of pulling a last-minute comeback or even of holding the Conservatives to a minority of seats in the House of Commons.
**********
Is it possible that American conservatives are keeping quiet so as not to remind Canadian voters that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is one of them? See here.
**********
The turning point in the election campaign seemed to come on or about Jan. 4. The Liberals had been in the lead until then, but the Conservatives pulled even on Jan. 4 and started to pull away on Jan. 6. It's not yet clear to me why this happened. We'll likely have to wait for the post mortem to learn just how the Conservatives turned the tables on the Liberals. But it does seem that the Liberal campaign stalled at or around that time and has only in the last couple of days emerged from its slumber and, upon waking, frantic desperation. Prime Minister Martin is finally, it seems, on message, articulating a liberal-progressive vision of and for Canada that goes all the way back to Prime Minister Pearson's (and Martin's father's) Liberal Party of the mid-'60s. He likely won't succeed -- this is all far too little far too late -- but Martin's shift to the left places him in stark contrast to the Canada of his opponent.
Apathy will likely keep voter turnout low, a key to a Conservative victory -- Conservative support is soft, and a Conservative victory depends on a lack of enthusiasm for the Liberals even from its traditional supporters). The Liberals are using negative campaigning (Harper = Bush) to stir up fear and loathing for the Conservatives, especially among traditional Liberals (many of whom, like the author of The Reaction, were thinking of sitting on their hands and looking elsewhere on election day) and "new" Canadians (recent immigrant communities tend to be solidly Liberal).
**********
In the key Toronto riding of Etobicoke--Lakeshore, usually a fairly safe Liberal seat, celebrity-candidate Michael Ignatieff, the academic bigwig dropped in straight from Harvard, may be in trouble. The president of the local Liberal riding association has come out in support of his Conservative rival.
**********
From the Toronto Star: "Ontario is the final battle site in the federal election and it's turning into an epic Liberal-Conservative fight over sex, politics and religion."
**********
The Star also wonders if the religious right will set Harper's agenda. See here. I say no, but a Prime Minister Harper would have a hard time holding back the populist, western-based right flank of his party. It was that large element of the Conservative Party that was behind the founding of the Reform Party back in the '90s. Reform eventually merged with the old Progressive Conservatives, the traditional party of Canadian conservatism, to form today's Conservative Party, but the Reformers, long out of the mainstream of federal politics and motivated by alienation from the power centers in central Canada, are clearly itching to govern -- and to steer Canada towards economic neo-liberalism, social conservatism, decentralization, and possibly a break-up of our federal system.
And then there are the quasi-neocons in Ontario.
How long will the old Progressive Conservatives (or Red Tories, as they're often called) put up with the rule of the Reformers? Will Harper be able to hold his coalition together?
Canadians may be willing to give Harper a chance, perhaps a probationary period with a slim majority (although a minority is more likely), but do they even know what this Conservative Party stands for? From the Globe: "Liberal Leader Paul Martin is accusing Conservative rival Stephen Harper of keeping his socially conservative candidates out of the public eye." Hardly a surprise, if true (which I think it is).
As they say: caveat emptor. Harper isn't Bush, but do we really want Stephen Harper's Canada?
I'm leaning more and more towards the Liberals.
The blogging of Greg Prince
I first encountered Greg as one of the two contributors to Uncorrelated. He's still there, but he's also set up his own eponymous blog, and I encourage you to check it out here.
Greg is moderate in both political and temperamental terms, perhaps slightly to the left of center but certainly no ideologue, and he provides solid, sober commentary on a variety of topics. Both of his blogs are highly recommended.
Greg is moderate in both political and temperamental terms, perhaps slightly to the left of center but certainly no ideologue, and he provides solid, sober commentary on a variety of topics. Both of his blogs are highly recommended.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Osama speaks
In case you missed it, Osama bin Laden (or at least a voice attributed to him) has warned of further attacks on the U.S. and offered the U.S. a long-term truce.
Aljazeera has the story here. The BBC has the full transcript here.
How odd. A threat and an offer of peace? Although, peace in return for Iraq and Afghanistan (which isn't much of an offer, given that there's no way the U.S. would ever agree -- surely Osama knows that).
Fore more, see Crooks and Liars, The Moderate Voice, The Carpetbagger Report, The Mahablog, Ezra Klein, The Next Hurrah, The Heretik, and The Counterterrorism Blog.
Aljazeera has the story here. The BBC has the full transcript here.
How odd. A threat and an offer of peace? Although, peace in return for Iraq and Afghanistan (which isn't much of an offer, given that there's no way the U.S. would ever agree -- surely Osama knows that).
Fore more, see Crooks and Liars, The Moderate Voice, The Carpetbagger Report, The Mahablog, Ezra Klein, The Next Hurrah, The Heretik, and The Counterterrorism Blog.
More on the Pakistan bombing
Click here or scroll down to the next post for my take on whether or not the bombing of that Pakistani village was justified -- and on the key question of what an appropriate threshold for justification would be.
There is no easy answer. I still tend to agree with Kevin Drum that in this case the attack was justified. However, there are obviously compelling arguments on the other side, and one response I recommend highly is by Bob Geiger, who "can't get around the feeling that Americans somehow believe we have the right to commit actions against other countries that we would consider acts of war if done to us". On this we agree.
See also Shakespeare's Sister, who links to me (and to my friend Carla at Preemptive Karma) and makes some excellent points.
Needless to say, this is a tough one.
There is no easy answer. I still tend to agree with Kevin Drum that in this case the attack was justified. However, there are obviously compelling arguments on the other side, and one response I recommend highly is by Bob Geiger, who "can't get around the feeling that Americans somehow believe we have the right to commit actions against other countries that we would consider acts of war if done to us". On this we agree.
See also Shakespeare's Sister, who links to me (and to my friend Carla at Preemptive Karma) and makes some excellent points.
Needless to say, this is a tough one.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Bombing Pakistan: Was the attack justified?
Remember that CIA bombing of a remote Pakistani village last week? The one that killed 18 Pakistanis, but not Ayman al-Zawahiri? Well, it looks like at least one really bad guy was among the dead:
Before I learned of this news I was critical of the bombing. Well, not so much critical of as saddened by. Al-Zawahiri is a huge target, and I wholeheartedly support efforts to capture or kill him, but he wasn't there and 18 Pakistanis were killed. 18 innocent Pakistanis, I thought. At least most of them.
Look at it this way: We are saddened by the deaths of 12 coal miners in West Virginia, and rightly so. In most cases, we are saddened by the loss of a single human life, so highly do we as a society value human life. Yet our sadness seems to be proportional to our proximity to the death. The deaths in Louisiana as a result of Hurricane Katrina were nearer to us, and hence sadder, than the deaths of many more thousands in Asia following the tsunami at the end of 2004. And the death of, say, a friend or a close family member is much more immediate to us than, say, the deaths of 18 faceless, nameless Pakistanis in some village on the other side of the planet.
We may value human life, and we may consider ourselves to be humanitarians, but the love of one's own is much stronger than the love of humanity generally. Which is why the death of someone close to us is sadder than the death of someone far from us. Sadder in relative terms, sadder in terms of our particular perspective. Each human life may be equally valuable, but we do place more value on those lives that our closer to us, that are our own. That is, my life, my family, my friends, my neighbours, even my countrymen.
This seems to be a truth about the human condition, rooted deeply in human nature. If you doubt it, think of a child's connection to its mother, or a mother's to her child, or a brother's to his sister, and so on. This is why, to an American, an American life is more valuable, and the loss of it sadder, than a Pakistani life. And this is why the deaths of 18 Pakistanis in some remote village seem almost unreal. They happened on TV, if at all, and we don't witness the suffering of their loved ones, the mourning at their graves.
Which leads me to an interesting post by Kevin Drum:
An important question, to be sure. And what is the answer? I encourage you to come up with your own. For whatever the realities of the war on terror and the inevitable loss of civilian life, this is a profoundly personal issue that comes down to this: What means are justified by the end (the end of the war on terror, the end according to your own personal perspective of the war on terror)? How many deaths are worth it?
If you don't support the war on terror, or if you think that the U.S. is some unjust imperial power, then obviously the answer must be that no deaths are worth it, that all such killing is a crime, that the attack was not justified.
But most of us support the war on terror, at least in part. Most of us understand that terrorism, the terrorism of al Qaeda and its ilk, is a serious threat to our security, that is, to ourselves and our loved ones, our friends and our neighbours, our countries and our ways of life. But how far are we willing to go in waging that war? Are we willing to accept the torture of prisoners? Are we willing to invade sovereign countries? Are we willing to risk the lives of our men and women in the armed forces? Are we willing to bomb remote Pakistani villages?
I've repeatedly said no to torture. And on this: I suppose I must agree with Kevin. Yes, the attack was justified. But I come only sadly and reluctantly to that conclusion. If -- and the ifs here are very important -- if "major al Qaeda leaders" were killed, and if the military did everything it could to minimize civilian casualties, then, yes, the attack was justified.
But allow me to posit that as my preliminary answer to the question. Blogging may seem a bit like pontificating, but I need to think about this a good deal more before I come to any definite conclusion (which there may not be). And I would certainly like to hear what all of you have to say.
Was the attack justified? If not, what is your threshold for justification?
These are profoundly important questions. And we must try to answer them.
ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.
Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of four known major al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit in the village of Damadola early last Friday morning.
The United States had posted a $5 million reward for Mursi's capture. He is described by authorities as the man who ran al Qaeda's infamous Derunta training camp in Afghanistan, where he used dogs and other animals as subjects for experiments with poison and chemicals. His explosives training manual is still regarded as the bible for al Qaeda terrorists around the world.
Before I learned of this news I was critical of the bombing. Well, not so much critical of as saddened by. Al-Zawahiri is a huge target, and I wholeheartedly support efforts to capture or kill him, but he wasn't there and 18 Pakistanis were killed. 18 innocent Pakistanis, I thought. At least most of them.
Look at it this way: We are saddened by the deaths of 12 coal miners in West Virginia, and rightly so. In most cases, we are saddened by the loss of a single human life, so highly do we as a society value human life. Yet our sadness seems to be proportional to our proximity to the death. The deaths in Louisiana as a result of Hurricane Katrina were nearer to us, and hence sadder, than the deaths of many more thousands in Asia following the tsunami at the end of 2004. And the death of, say, a friend or a close family member is much more immediate to us than, say, the deaths of 18 faceless, nameless Pakistanis in some village on the other side of the planet.
We may value human life, and we may consider ourselves to be humanitarians, but the love of one's own is much stronger than the love of humanity generally. Which is why the death of someone close to us is sadder than the death of someone far from us. Sadder in relative terms, sadder in terms of our particular perspective. Each human life may be equally valuable, but we do place more value on those lives that our closer to us, that are our own. That is, my life, my family, my friends, my neighbours, even my countrymen.
This seems to be a truth about the human condition, rooted deeply in human nature. If you doubt it, think of a child's connection to its mother, or a mother's to her child, or a brother's to his sister, and so on. This is why, to an American, an American life is more valuable, and the loss of it sadder, than a Pakistani life. And this is why the deaths of 18 Pakistanis in some remote village seem almost unreal. They happened on TV, if at all, and we don't witness the suffering of their loved ones, the mourning at their graves.
Which leads me to an interesting post by Kevin Drum:
For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists.
Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?
An important question, to be sure. And what is the answer? I encourage you to come up with your own. For whatever the realities of the war on terror and the inevitable loss of civilian life, this is a profoundly personal issue that comes down to this: What means are justified by the end (the end of the war on terror, the end according to your own personal perspective of the war on terror)? How many deaths are worth it?
If you don't support the war on terror, or if you think that the U.S. is some unjust imperial power, then obviously the answer must be that no deaths are worth it, that all such killing is a crime, that the attack was not justified.
But most of us support the war on terror, at least in part. Most of us understand that terrorism, the terrorism of al Qaeda and its ilk, is a serious threat to our security, that is, to ourselves and our loved ones, our friends and our neighbours, our countries and our ways of life. But how far are we willing to go in waging that war? Are we willing to accept the torture of prisoners? Are we willing to invade sovereign countries? Are we willing to risk the lives of our men and women in the armed forces? Are we willing to bomb remote Pakistani villages?
I've repeatedly said no to torture. And on this: I suppose I must agree with Kevin. Yes, the attack was justified. But I come only sadly and reluctantly to that conclusion. If -- and the ifs here are very important -- if "major al Qaeda leaders" were killed, and if the military did everything it could to minimize civilian casualties, then, yes, the attack was justified.
But allow me to posit that as my preliminary answer to the question. Blogging may seem a bit like pontificating, but I need to think about this a good deal more before I come to any definite conclusion (which there may not be). And I would certainly like to hear what all of you have to say.
Was the attack justified? If not, what is your threshold for justification?
These are profoundly important questions. And we must try to answer them.
Hamas enters the TV business
Here's an interesting (and rather troubling) story from the BBC (from last week):
Hamas is already a major political force among the Palestinians. So why not try to become a major media player? After all, look what FOX News has done for the Republicans.
(Cue laughter.)
The Palestinian militant group Hamas has launched a new TV station to spread the organisation's message.
Named al-Aqsa after the mosque in Jerusalem, the Gaza-based channel plans to air programmes on political and social ideas drawn from the Koran.
The group aims to expand the TV operation significantly and hopes to enter satellite broadcasting.
Hamas is already a major political force among the Palestinians. So why not try to become a major media player? After all, look what FOX News has done for the Republicans.
(Cue laughter.)
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Democrats and the independent voter
Are Democrats losing independent voters? Joe Gandelman responds to an e-mail from a reader calling him "a ventriloquest for George Bush" here. As one of Joe's co-bloggers at The Moderate Voice, I've been attacked for being too liberal (well, for being a liberal). Of course, being attacked by one's opponents comes with the territory -- with political blogging, that is. And it's all too easy to think that one irate reader represents more than just a sliver of a vocal minority.
But it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? I've been attacked from all across the spectrum, from the far left to the far right. I take that to mean I'm doing something positive out here.
One other point: I agree with Joe that there is extremism on both sides. Obviously, though, Republicans, including the current occupant of the Oval Office, have done a good deal to lose not just independent voters but voters of all political persuasions. And things aren't going to get any better in '06, not with the GOP gearing up for the midterm elections in November by getting ready to pounce on the Democrats with a profoundly negative campaign.
Democrats need to be ready themselves. Hopefully without alienating the independent voter.
But it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? I've been attacked from all across the spectrum, from the far left to the far right. I take that to mean I'm doing something positive out here.
One other point: I agree with Joe that there is extremism on both sides. Obviously, though, Republicans, including the current occupant of the Oval Office, have done a good deal to lose not just independent voters but voters of all political persuasions. And things aren't going to get any better in '06, not with the GOP gearing up for the midterm elections in November by getting ready to pounce on the Democrats with a profoundly negative campaign.
Democrats need to be ready themselves. Hopefully without alienating the independent voter.
Mayhem in Mongolia
By the way, as we at The Reaction seek to bring you the news from all around the world, here's the latest from Mongolia -- which, if you hadn't heard, is currently experiencing a fairly serious political crisis:
As the organizers of a recent rally put it: "Dawn has broken in Mongolia. We are getting poorer every day and corrupt officials are getting richer. Now is the time to take action."
May the force be with them. (Seriously.)
Hundreds of Mongolians have held fresh protests in the capital Ulan Bator as the country's largest party, the MPRP, began work on forming a new government.
The political crisis has triggered demonstrations against corruption and growing inequality. Crowds on Monday demanded the president resign.
The crisis began last week when the MPRP pulled out of a coalition that had governed since 2004.
As the organizers of a recent rally put it: "Dawn has broken in Mongolia. We are getting poorer every day and corrupt officials are getting richer. Now is the time to take action."
May the force be with them. (Seriously.)
Monday, January 16, 2006
Women on the rise in Chile and Liberia
All around the world...
As I mentioned just over a month ago, the Chilean presidential election went to a run-off between Michelle Bachelet, a former political prisoner under Pinochet and the candidate for the center-left Concertacion bloc, and Sebastian Pinera, a billionaire running for the center-right opposition.
In case you missed it, Bachelet won the run-off election with almost 54 percent of the vote.
The Washington Post ran a highly misleading article calling Bachelet a socialist (and indicating that the White House had called to offer its congratulations). Is she? Here's the more balanced L.A. Times again: "The election of Bachelet and the defeat of her conservative opponent is the latest in a series of votes that have shifted the region's politics. But Bachelet's coalition differs markedly from leftist administrations in the rest of South America. Chile staunchly supports market-based trade policies, and its status as a major U.S. ally is not expected to change, analysts say."
In short, Bachelet is no Morales and Chile is no Bolivia (and certainly no Chavez/Venezuela)-- see here for more on Bolivia. Indeed, what has Bachelet said so far? That, according to the BBC, she'll name a cabinet with an equal number of men and women, improve relations with Peru and Bolivia, and continue to support the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
Hardly the stuff of leftist fanaticism.
**********
Meanwhile, in Liberia, according to CNN: "Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has been sworn in as Liberia's new president, becoming Africa's first elected female head of state and vowing to lead the country away from its turbulent past."
**********
Progress indeed in a former Latin American dictatorship and an African country recently mired in chaos and civil war.
As I mentioned just over a month ago, the Chilean presidential election went to a run-off between Michelle Bachelet, a former political prisoner under Pinochet and the candidate for the center-left Concertacion bloc, and Sebastian Pinera, a billionaire running for the center-right opposition.
In case you missed it, Bachelet won the run-off election with almost 54 percent of the vote.
The Washington Post ran a highly misleading article calling Bachelet a socialist (and indicating that the White House had called to offer its congratulations). Is she? Here's the more balanced L.A. Times again: "The election of Bachelet and the defeat of her conservative opponent is the latest in a series of votes that have shifted the region's politics. But Bachelet's coalition differs markedly from leftist administrations in the rest of South America. Chile staunchly supports market-based trade policies, and its status as a major U.S. ally is not expected to change, analysts say."
In short, Bachelet is no Morales and Chile is no Bolivia (and certainly no Chavez/Venezuela)-- see here for more on Bolivia. Indeed, what has Bachelet said so far? That, according to the BBC, she'll name a cabinet with an equal number of men and women, improve relations with Peru and Bolivia, and continue to support the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
Hardly the stuff of leftist fanaticism.
**********
Meanwhile, in Liberia, according to CNN: "Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has been sworn in as Liberia's new president, becoming Africa's first elected female head of state and vowing to lead the country away from its turbulent past."
**********
Progress indeed in a former Latin American dictatorship and an African country recently mired in chaos and civil war.
Ray Nagin is insane
Remember Ray Nagin? New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin? For a picture of him with President Bush, see here. For more on his response to Hurricane Katrina, see here and here.
Well, he may or may not have deserved blame for what went wrong in his city after Katrina -- and I think he deserved some of the blame -- but now... well, he seems to have lost his mind:
Okay, he makes a couple of acceptable points ("being in Iraq under false pretenses," "time for us to rebuild New Orleans"), and maybe, just maybe, black America isn't taking care of itself properly, but: "God is mad at America"? God punished America? New Orleans should be "chocolate"?
Ray Nagin... meet Pat Robertson, who is also insane. The two of you have a lot in common. (And that's not a compliment.)
**********
For a view from the right, see my friend Sister Toldjah.
Well, he may or may not have deserved blame for what went wrong in his city after Katrina -- and I think he deserved some of the blame -- but now... well, he seems to have lost his mind:
Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.
"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day.
"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."
Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina.
"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans -- the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."
Okay, he makes a couple of acceptable points ("being in Iraq under false pretenses," "time for us to rebuild New Orleans"), and maybe, just maybe, black America isn't taking care of itself properly, but: "God is mad at America"? God punished America? New Orleans should be "chocolate"?
Ray Nagin... meet Pat Robertson, who is also insane. The two of you have a lot in common. (And that's not a compliment.)
**********
For a view from the right, see my friend Sister Toldjah.
Martin Luther King on Vietnam (and Iraq)
The incomparable Juan Cole has a fascinating post -- "10 Things Martin Luther King Would have Done about Iraq" -- over at Informed Comment.
Check it out.
Check it out.
The brawl on Ipanema
Fun in the sun on Rio's most famous beach:
Viva Brasil!
Police arrested three men on Monday following a massive brawl that terrified beachgoers on Rio's famous Ipanema beach.
The brawl, involving some 50 people armed with sticks or swinging tables and chairs, lasted about 15 minutes and caused panic among sunbathers on the crowded beach late Sunday afternoon, police said.
Police said the fighting apparently broke out between rival groups from two different shantytowns.
Viva Brasil!
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Whither Iran?
At The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman looks at "[t]he growing, simmering crisis swirling around Iran's decision to ignore European and American calls for it to halt its nuclear program".
Here's more from the Times and the Post.
In Britain's Telegraph, Anton La Guardia addresses President Ahmadinejad's "divine mission": "The main rift is no longer between 'reformists' and 'hardliners', but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition."
On the right, Michelle Malkin is "preparing for the worst". I'm not sure we're "on the brink," and I worry about the prospect of a reckless military excursion into Iran, not least one that diverts attention away from what's going on in Iraq, but Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy, and perhaps nuclear weaponry, is obviously a concern that demands our attention (and perhaps, eventually, military action).
As Steve Soto puts it at The Left Coaster, however, "we can’t do anything about [Iran] at this time" -- at least not what we should do, at least not what we could have done back in 2001.
See also All Things Beautiful, The Glittering Eye, and Publius Pundit.
My last post on Iran is here.
Here's more from the Times and the Post.
In Britain's Telegraph, Anton La Guardia addresses President Ahmadinejad's "divine mission": "The main rift is no longer between 'reformists' and 'hardliners', but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition."
On the right, Michelle Malkin is "preparing for the worst". I'm not sure we're "on the brink," and I worry about the prospect of a reckless military excursion into Iran, not least one that diverts attention away from what's going on in Iraq, but Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy, and perhaps nuclear weaponry, is obviously a concern that demands our attention (and perhaps, eventually, military action).
As Steve Soto puts it at The Left Coaster, however, "we can’t do anything about [Iran] at this time" -- at least not what we should do, at least not what we could have done back in 2001.
See also All Things Beautiful, The Glittering Eye, and Publius Pundit.
My last post on Iran is here.
No, al-Zawahiri was not among the dead
CNN: "Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in the al Qaeda terrorist network -- was not killed in a CIA airstrike on a remote Pakistani village, according to a Pakistani intelligence official."
Still, 18 people were killed. But I suppose that doesn't matter, does it? I mean, what value do 18 anonymous Pakistanis have? It's not like they have mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, right? I mean, this is war, right? The so-called war on terror. And Zawahiri's a key target. So let's just keep on bombing the crap out of faraway villages, shall we? I mean, what are a few innocent victims? Okay, what are thousands of innocent victims?
That's me being sarcastic, by the way. Is it any wonder Pakistanis are a bit miffed?
Well done, CIA. You're doing wonders for America's reputation in the world. Not to mention for America's alleged commitment to the sanctity of human life.
Still, 18 people were killed. But I suppose that doesn't matter, does it? I mean, what value do 18 anonymous Pakistanis have? It's not like they have mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, right? I mean, this is war, right? The so-called war on terror. And Zawahiri's a key target. So let's just keep on bombing the crap out of faraway villages, shall we? I mean, what are a few innocent victims? Okay, what are thousands of innocent victims?
That's me being sarcastic, by the way. Is it any wonder Pakistanis are a bit miffed?
Well done, CIA. You're doing wonders for America's reputation in the world. Not to mention for America's alleged commitment to the sanctity of human life.
Friday, January 13, 2006
The imaginary leadership of George W. Bush
At Slate, John Dickerson explains why Bush is open to the idea of Congressional hearings on his (illegal) domestic spying program. No, it has nothing to do with uncovering the truth. And no, such hearings wouldn't, as Bush claims, be "good for democracy". Rather, Bush wants to sidestep the unpopularity of his disastrous war in Iraq and attempt to boost his sagging presidency by turning the discussion, and national attention, back to 9/11 and terrorism -- where Americans have yet fully to grasp his utter incompetence and lack of real (as opposed to imagined, rhetoric-driven, lie-based) leadership.
If Bush can effectively tap the mood of those fearful days after 9/11, he'll once again try to use America's darkest day for a purely partisan purpose, that is, for mythologizing himself as a tough, courageous war president even as he vilifies his opponents as somehow weak and soft and not at all patriotic enough.
Hence the hearings: "He's inviting Democrats to another round of self-immolation." More: "While Democrats are often confusing, with too many leaders and no clear message to push back against the commander in chief, the president is passionate when he talks about fighting terrorists, and a majority of voters still approve of his handling of the issue. And because the spying program was initiated soon after 9/11, it offers Bush an opportunity to discuss his more popular days as a take-charge executive after the 2001 attacks."
But Dickerson is right: This isn't 2001 anymore. Democrats were defeated soundly on terrorism in 2002 because the country trusted Bush in the shadow of 9/11 and rewarded his party in the midterm elections. But 2006 isn't 2002. Bush may try to turn the country's attention back to 9/11, but he has lost the confidence of many Americans who were willing to support him in a time of uncertainty by pursuing his diversionary war in Iraq and more generally by proving himself to be a truly incompetent president. Americans won't look the other way this time.
**********
For more, see:
Political Animal: "All this is by way of saying that although Democrats would like the 2006 election to be about Jack Abramoff and Republican corruption, the White House still has something to say about that. George Bush is going to do his best to keep national security front and center, and Democrats had better have a more crowd-pleasing answer on this subject than they did in 2002 and 2004."
Hullabaloo: "The politics are very different now than they were in 2002. This country is no longer in thrall to a president with an 80% approval rating. Iraq is a huge drag, the Republicans' credibility is in shreds because of it --- and the Abramoff scandal just reinforces the whole ugly mess. The man with the bullhorn is now seen as the man with the bullshit to around 60% of voters."
Pandagon: "I have no desire to live in denial about political prospects and ramifications, but I do think it is important to note, that the metrics have changed, both in terms of the presidents popularity, and I suspect, the urgency with which Americans feel toward terrorism. Also the Democrats do have a stronger political argument, provided they make it in a unified and coherent fashion. If Democrats had to have a plan for Iraq, like Kerry had to in 2004, there would be cause for concern. But I don’t think they do. Certainly not one single unified plan. And otherwise there are, indeed, a lot of differences between congressional investigations of domestic wiretaps and the possible fallout therefrom, and the muddled debate on arcane policy matters concerning the Department of Homeland Security. The Democrats will be on the offensive against a weakened president, as opposed to whatever it was they were doing when Bush was at the summit of his powers.
See also The Carpetbagger Report, The Mahablog, and TAPPED.
If you check out these posts, you'll find a friendly debate among some of the best of my fellow liberal bloggers. But I would say that they're all right -- in part. Times have changed, as Digby stresses, and the Democrats are now in a much better position to challenge the president's handling of national security and foreign policy. But, as Kevin suggests, Bush will do everything he can to spin national security and foreign policy in his favour and to force Democrats into a defensive posture. Times have changed, and Republicans deserve to lose, but it's still up to Democrats to stand firm and to provide Americans with good reasons to vote for them, that is, with a compelling alternative to Republican leadership.
This is no time for complacency.
If Bush can effectively tap the mood of those fearful days after 9/11, he'll once again try to use America's darkest day for a purely partisan purpose, that is, for mythologizing himself as a tough, courageous war president even as he vilifies his opponents as somehow weak and soft and not at all patriotic enough.
Hence the hearings: "He's inviting Democrats to another round of self-immolation." More: "While Democrats are often confusing, with too many leaders and no clear message to push back against the commander in chief, the president is passionate when he talks about fighting terrorists, and a majority of voters still approve of his handling of the issue. And because the spying program was initiated soon after 9/11, it offers Bush an opportunity to discuss his more popular days as a take-charge executive after the 2001 attacks."
But Dickerson is right: This isn't 2001 anymore. Democrats were defeated soundly on terrorism in 2002 because the country trusted Bush in the shadow of 9/11 and rewarded his party in the midterm elections. But 2006 isn't 2002. Bush may try to turn the country's attention back to 9/11, but he has lost the confidence of many Americans who were willing to support him in a time of uncertainty by pursuing his diversionary war in Iraq and more generally by proving himself to be a truly incompetent president. Americans won't look the other way this time.
**********
For more, see:
Political Animal: "All this is by way of saying that although Democrats would like the 2006 election to be about Jack Abramoff and Republican corruption, the White House still has something to say about that. George Bush is going to do his best to keep national security front and center, and Democrats had better have a more crowd-pleasing answer on this subject than they did in 2002 and 2004."
Hullabaloo: "The politics are very different now than they were in 2002. This country is no longer in thrall to a president with an 80% approval rating. Iraq is a huge drag, the Republicans' credibility is in shreds because of it --- and the Abramoff scandal just reinforces the whole ugly mess. The man with the bullhorn is now seen as the man with the bullshit to around 60% of voters."
Pandagon: "I have no desire to live in denial about political prospects and ramifications, but I do think it is important to note, that the metrics have changed, both in terms of the presidents popularity, and I suspect, the urgency with which Americans feel toward terrorism. Also the Democrats do have a stronger political argument, provided they make it in a unified and coherent fashion. If Democrats had to have a plan for Iraq, like Kerry had to in 2004, there would be cause for concern. But I don’t think they do. Certainly not one single unified plan. And otherwise there are, indeed, a lot of differences between congressional investigations of domestic wiretaps and the possible fallout therefrom, and the muddled debate on arcane policy matters concerning the Department of Homeland Security. The Democrats will be on the offensive against a weakened president, as opposed to whatever it was they were doing when Bush was at the summit of his powers.
See also The Carpetbagger Report, The Mahablog, and TAPPED.
If you check out these posts, you'll find a friendly debate among some of the best of my fellow liberal bloggers. But I would say that they're all right -- in part. Times have changed, as Digby stresses, and the Democrats are now in a much better position to challenge the president's handling of national security and foreign policy. But, as Kevin suggests, Bush will do everything he can to spin national security and foreign policy in his favour and to force Democrats into a defensive posture. Times have changed, and Republicans deserve to lose, but it's still up to Democrats to stand firm and to provide Americans with good reasons to vote for them, that is, with a compelling alternative to Republican leadership.
This is no time for complacency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
