By Michael J.W. Stickings
As some of you know, I'm a regular guest on Subject2Discussion, an excellent web radio show and downloadable podcast out of Las Vegas that airs every Tuesday from 10-12 pm ET. I was on last week, and I'll be on this evening for half an hour starting at 10:30. Shaun and I will be doing a "trick or treat" in anticipation of next week's midterm elections.
You can listen to the show live at LV Rocks (click on "Listen Now"). Or, you can listen to it later by clicking on "Podcasts" or by going to a separate S2D site here (no, you don't need an iPod). The show will open in your computer's media player.
It looks like I'll also be on next week at 8 pm to discuss the election results in real time. My good friend Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice will take over at 8:30.
I'll also be live-blogging the election next Tuesday, with regular updates throughout the evening and night as the results come in.
I hope you listen in to S2D and continue to check in at The Reaction for ongoing election coverage.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Is morality undergirded by biology?
By Heraclitus
I always find attempts to find some basis for morality in evolutionary biology woefully misguided. At times I suppose I can see them as at least well-meaning, but usually I just find them annoying and risible. The pseudo-religious overtones of such attemtps are obvious enough; now that God is dead, or, to quote Nietzsche again, now that the study of the monkey has replaced the study of God, some mysterious but presumably all-powerful process called evolution must stand surety for a moral world order, must assure us that our moral intuitions have something other the accidents of history to back them up. Personally, I'm not buying it. There are some many obvious problems with this claim--why do people so rarely act as they ought to? Why are human beings so very good at ignoring injustice in their midst if it serves their interests to do so?--but one in particular I want to say a little more about.
But before I criticize the particular claim put forward below, I should also note that it's all to the good of morality that it not be the result of biological impulses. How can an action be moral or ethical, in any meaningful sense of the word, if it's not freely chosen? Again, the rump religiosity of the proponents of these theories becomes transparent in their eagerness to find some super-human authority in the cosmos who is making sure things turn out alright for them after all. If God can't be the cosmic parent tucking them in at night, maybe evolution can.
The New York Times has an article in today's paper about a new book arguing a version of this thesis. The book is called Moral Minds, and its author is Marc Hauser, a biologist at Harvard. I don't actually want to be too critical of the book, in large part because I don't trust The New York Times to give it a fair summary (aren't I obnoxious?). So, for instance, according to the article, Hauser seems to think that human beings are "hard-wired" for morality by evolution, where "morality" is understood as acting according to group norms. So, on this view, regarding oneself or others as individuals rather than members of a group (read: herd) is unnatural, and, presumably, immoral and bad. I don't want to assume that Hauser actually holds this view, but I do want to use the following paragraph from the article as an example of what I maybe find most ridiculous about attempts to ground morality in evolution.
To put the matter more succintly, the Great White Shark has not evolved in millions of years. Why? Because it cannot kill any more efficiently than it already does. That's what nature is: animals literally eating each other alive. Trying to show that this natural world somehow constrains us to act morally strikes me as not only contemptibly slavish but ludicrously wrong-headed as well.
I always find attempts to find some basis for morality in evolutionary biology woefully misguided. At times I suppose I can see them as at least well-meaning, but usually I just find them annoying and risible. The pseudo-religious overtones of such attemtps are obvious enough; now that God is dead, or, to quote Nietzsche again, now that the study of the monkey has replaced the study of God, some mysterious but presumably all-powerful process called evolution must stand surety for a moral world order, must assure us that our moral intuitions have something other the accidents of history to back them up. Personally, I'm not buying it. There are some many obvious problems with this claim--why do people so rarely act as they ought to? Why are human beings so very good at ignoring injustice in their midst if it serves their interests to do so?--but one in particular I want to say a little more about.
But before I criticize the particular claim put forward below, I should also note that it's all to the good of morality that it not be the result of biological impulses. How can an action be moral or ethical, in any meaningful sense of the word, if it's not freely chosen? Again, the rump religiosity of the proponents of these theories becomes transparent in their eagerness to find some super-human authority in the cosmos who is making sure things turn out alright for them after all. If God can't be the cosmic parent tucking them in at night, maybe evolution can.
The New York Times has an article in today's paper about a new book arguing a version of this thesis. The book is called Moral Minds, and its author is Marc Hauser, a biologist at Harvard. I don't actually want to be too critical of the book, in large part because I don't trust The New York Times to give it a fair summary (aren't I obnoxious?). So, for instance, according to the article, Hauser seems to think that human beings are "hard-wired" for morality by evolution, where "morality" is understood as acting according to group norms. So, on this view, regarding oneself or others as individuals rather than members of a group (read: herd) is unnatural, and, presumably, immoral and bad. I don't want to assume that Hauser actually holds this view, but I do want to use the following paragraph from the article as an example of what I maybe find most ridiculous about attempts to ground morality in evolution.
Dr. Hauser believes that the moral grammar may have evolved through the evolutionary mechanism known as group selection. A group bound by altruism toward its members and rigorous discouragement of cheaters would be more likely to prevail over a less cohesive society, so genes for moral grammar would become more common.So, cohesion is a social value that helps a society thrive and replicate its DNA (if we're going to take that absurdly reductionist view of human motivation, which most people arguing for an evolutionary basis for morality do). But that means that altruism stops once one goes beyond one's community. Cohesion within one's group is an evolutionary good, but altruism towards those outside it is not. The tribe that would be most successful in replicating its DNA would be the one that uses its internal cohesion to attack all the tribes they can, kill their males, and enslave and pregnate their females. Evolution would dictate empire, not democracy, and certainly not an international regime of human rights. Ancient Rome would be the most advanced society we've ever seen from a purely evolutionary point of view, and there would be no explanation for why humanity, or at least humanity in the West, moved from the morality of ancient Rome, a morality of imperial subjugation and slavery, to the morality of Christianity, which taught that every human being has absolute dignity because he or she is made in the image of God.
To put the matter more succintly, the Great White Shark has not evolved in millions of years. Why? Because it cannot kill any more efficiently than it already does. That's what nature is: animals literally eating each other alive. Trying to show that this natural world somehow constrains us to act morally strikes me as not only contemptibly slavish but ludicrously wrong-headed as well.
America: Globalization's Loser?
By Heraclitus
Der Spiegel has an interesting series of excerpts from a best-selling book in Germany, World War for Wealth: The Global Grab for Power and Prosperity," by Gabor Steingart, an editor of Der Spiegel. This particular article is especially interesting to Americans; it argues that the United States is in decline globally. Steingart focuses on the economic reality in the United States, and in particular shrinking incomes and, of course, the massage trade deficit, which includes individual trade deficits even with less developed countries like Russia and the Ukraine. Steingart identifies three key features of the US that have helped it rise to power but which have also set the stage for its disintegration, especially in the economic global market. The three traits are "a high concentration of optimism and daring," a "radically global" outlook that has defined the country from its inception, and the fact that "the United States is the only nation on earth that can do business globally in its own currency." But from these apparent strengths or virtues come the following weaknesses or vulnerabilities.
Incidentally, I'm not persuaded that China is the next global superpower. As readers probably know, for years now, if not decades, Chinese parents have been aborting female fetuses and giving birth to males--not exclusively, of course, but often enough that there is a major imbalance in the population between young males and young females. Large numbers of young men who have no chance of marrying are not good for a society. Expect crime and a generally destabilizing surge of discontent from them. And second, Chinese society is disproportionately elderly, and will only become more so over the next few decades (check out this animated pyramid tracking the population change in China between 1950 and 2050). So China will have major internal problems to deal with over the next half century, even if it can rid itself of its current class of kleptocratic overlords.
I don't know enough about economics to pronounce on the validity of his argument or arguments, but Steingart's piece is worth reading in full. Among other things, he makes a strong case that globalization, a set of trends that emerged in the 1970's, has been steadily eroding the American middle class and making the American working class poorer, even as it makes the wealthiest one-fifth of the country richer than ever, and thereby accelerates the fragmenting of American society into economic classes. You've probably heard that argument before, but Steingart makes it especially clearly and concisely.
Der Spiegel has an interesting series of excerpts from a best-selling book in Germany, World War for Wealth: The Global Grab for Power and Prosperity," by Gabor Steingart, an editor of Der Spiegel. This particular article is especially interesting to Americans; it argues that the United States is in decline globally. Steingart focuses on the economic reality in the United States, and in particular shrinking incomes and, of course, the massage trade deficit, which includes individual trade deficits even with less developed countries like Russia and the Ukraine. Steingart identifies three key features of the US that have helped it rise to power but which have also set the stage for its disintegration, especially in the economic global market. The three traits are "a high concentration of optimism and daring," a "radically global" outlook that has defined the country from its inception, and the fact that "the United States is the only nation on earth that can do business globally in its own currency." But from these apparent strengths or virtues come the following weaknesses or vulnerabilities.
But there is a flip side to the coin. First, Americans are so optimistic that they often blur the line between optimism and naivete. Public, private and corporate debt far exceeds any previously known dimensions. Forever piously trusting in a future rosier than the present, millions of households are borrowing so much money that they end up endangering the very future they're looking forward to. The lower and middle classes have practically given up on putting aside any savings. They're going into the 21st century like a poverty-stricken, Third World family, living from hand to mouth without any financial reserves whatsoever.
Second, globalization is striking back. The United States has promoted the worldwide exchange of commodities like no other nation, and the result is that their local industry has begun to be eroded. Some production sectors -- such as the furniture industry, consumer electronics, many automobile part suppliers, and now computer manufacturers -- have left the country for good. In the recent past, free trade has primarily benefited the very rival states that are now mounting an economic offensive on the United States -- and which have cut off a large slice of America's global market share for themselves.
Third, the dollar doesn't just strengthen the United States; it also makes it vulnerable. The government has pumped its currency into the world economy so vigorously that the dollar can now be brought to the point of collapse by external forces - such as those in Beijing, for example. Former US President Bill Clinton spoke of a "strategic partnership." Current President George W. Bush would later speak of a "strategic rivalry." They meant the same thing. There's a form of dependence that obliges economic actors to cooperate in normal times. But when times change, there is the temptation to engage in a show of strength.
Incidentally, I'm not persuaded that China is the next global superpower. As readers probably know, for years now, if not decades, Chinese parents have been aborting female fetuses and giving birth to males--not exclusively, of course, but often enough that there is a major imbalance in the population between young males and young females. Large numbers of young men who have no chance of marrying are not good for a society. Expect crime and a generally destabilizing surge of discontent from them. And second, Chinese society is disproportionately elderly, and will only become more so over the next few decades (check out this animated pyramid tracking the population change in China between 1950 and 2050). So China will have major internal problems to deal with over the next half century, even if it can rid itself of its current class of kleptocratic overlords.
I don't know enough about economics to pronounce on the validity of his argument or arguments, but Steingart's piece is worth reading in full. Among other things, he makes a strong case that globalization, a set of trends that emerged in the 1970's, has been steadily eroding the American middle class and making the American working class poorer, even as it makes the wealthiest one-fifth of the country richer than ever, and thereby accelerates the fragmenting of American society into economic classes. You've probably heard that argument before, but Steingart makes it especially clearly and concisely.
The cost of climate change
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I've written about it many times here, over and over and over again. But here's a new perspective:
But don't look for the U.S. to take the lead, or indeed to do much of anything: "[T]o shift U.S. climate policy would entail policies that exact a price from politically influential and economically powerful industries." And that isn't about to happen anytime soon.
The BBC has an excellent article on the report here. And both the BBC and The Washington Post have good "in depth" features on climate change -- I recommend them both.
**********
Some of my more recent posts on climate change:
I've written about it many times here, over and over and over again. But here's a new perspective:
Failing to curb the impact of climate change could damage the global economy on the scale of the Great Depression or the world wars by spawning environmental devastation that could cost 5 to 20 percent of the world's annual gross domestic product, according to a report issued yesterday by the British government.
But don't look for the U.S. to take the lead, or indeed to do much of anything: "[T]o shift U.S. climate policy would entail policies that exact a price from politically influential and economically powerful industries." And that isn't about to happen anytime soon.
The BBC has an excellent article on the report here. And both the BBC and The Washington Post have good "in depth" features on climate change -- I recommend them both.
**********
Some of my more recent posts on climate change:
Monday, October 30, 2006
Target: Zawahiri
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It is being reported -- by ABC's The Blotter, for example -- that Ayman al-Zawahiri (perhaps al Qaeda's #1) was the target of a missile attack on a madrassa in Pakistan yesterday morning, missiles likely fired by a U.S. predator drone. "Between two and five senior al Qaeda militants were killed in the attack, including the mastermind of the airliners plot in the U.K., according to Pakistani intelligence sources," but it seems doubtful that al-Zawahiri was there.
However: "Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News they believe they have 'boxed' Zawahiri in a 40-square-mile area between the Khalozai Valley in Bajaur and the village of Pashat in Kunar, Afghanistan. They hope to capture or kill him in the next few months."
You don't think they'd manage to capture or kill him by next Tuesday, do you?
November surprise, anyone?
(I do not apologize for the preceding snark. You all know how the game is played. You all know how the Bushies operate.)
It is being reported -- by ABC's The Blotter, for example -- that Ayman al-Zawahiri (perhaps al Qaeda's #1) was the target of a missile attack on a madrassa in Pakistan yesterday morning, missiles likely fired by a U.S. predator drone. "Between two and five senior al Qaeda militants were killed in the attack, including the mastermind of the airliners plot in the U.K., according to Pakistani intelligence sources," but it seems doubtful that al-Zawahiri was there.
However: "Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News they believe they have 'boxed' Zawahiri in a 40-square-mile area between the Khalozai Valley in Bajaur and the village of Pashat in Kunar, Afghanistan. They hope to capture or kill him in the next few months."
You don't think they'd manage to capture or kill him by next Tuesday, do you?
November surprise, anyone?
(I do not apologize for the preceding snark. You all know how the game is played. You all know how the Bushies operate.)
Civilian deaths in Afghanistan
By Michael J.W. Stickings
And, lest we forget, we must also be ever mindful of the human cost of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, forgotten Afghanistan. From Reuters:
I'm not against NATO operations in Afghanistan -- indeed, I (and many others) have long argued that the war there should have taken priority over the misadventure in Iraq, if only Iraq hadn't become the obsessive focus of Bush's attention -- but, clearly, this latest development isn't good. With Afghanistan teetering on the brink of anarchy, with a national government under Karzai that is little more than a municipal government in Kabul, and with the Taliban and al Qaeda still very much a dangerous and influential presence in the region, it is imperative not only that the war go well for the allies but that Afghani hearts and minds be won over.
Killing civilians, however unintentional, isn't exactly the way to do that.
And, lest we forget, we must also be ever mindful of the human cost of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, forgotten Afghanistan. From Reuters:
A leading human rights group on Monday urged NATO to do more to avoid civilian casualties in Afghanistan, saying reports of increasing civilian deaths were "turning the local population against" the Western alliance...
Afghan authorities are investigating allegations that about 60 civilians were killed last week as a result of NATO operations in Kandahar province, where the Taliban was born. Local leaders and villagers said dozens more were wounded and 25 houses were razed during several hours of NATO bombing.
I'm not against NATO operations in Afghanistan -- indeed, I (and many others) have long argued that the war there should have taken priority over the misadventure in Iraq, if only Iraq hadn't become the obsessive focus of Bush's attention -- but, clearly, this latest development isn't good. With Afghanistan teetering on the brink of anarchy, with a national government under Karzai that is little more than a municipal government in Kabul, and with the Taliban and al Qaeda still very much a dangerous and influential presence in the region, it is imperative not only that the war go well for the allies but that Afghani hearts and minds be won over.
Killing civilians, however unintentional, isn't exactly the way to do that.
Just another month in the life and death of Iraq IV
By Michael J.W. Stickings
MSNBC: "The American death toll for October climbed past 100..."
And it wasn't a very good day, either: "At least 80 people were killed across Iraq, 33 in a Sadr City bombing targeting workers." And those, of course, are reported deaths.
Overall, the Iraq War has cost at least 2,814 American lives. (Back in June, J. Kingston Pierce posted on the 2,500 milestone... and counting.) Not to mention countless Iraqi lives.
As I put it earlier today: "There is already growing opposition, and outrage, to the Iraq War. Imagine the scale of that opposition, and outrage, if more Americans actually knew what was going on."
We need to be ever mindful of the human cost of this disastrous war.
MSNBC: "The American death toll for October climbed past 100..."
And it wasn't a very good day, either: "At least 80 people were killed across Iraq, 33 in a Sadr City bombing targeting workers." And those, of course, are reported deaths.
Overall, the Iraq War has cost at least 2,814 American lives. (Back in June, J. Kingston Pierce posted on the 2,500 milestone... and counting.) Not to mention countless Iraqi lives.
As I put it earlier today: "There is already growing opposition, and outrage, to the Iraq War. Imagine the scale of that opposition, and outrage, if more Americans actually knew what was going on."
We need to be ever mindful of the human cost of this disastrous war.
Lileks on Wolverine
By Heraclitus
From a post by James Lileks, part of his description of why he doesn't care for the X-Men movies.
From a post by James Lileks, part of his description of why he doesn't care for the X-Men movies.
And then there’s Wolverine -- he’s Troubled and Frowny and Haunted, even though he appears to be a 35 year old man living in a high school with no job, surrounded by good-looking women, and able to kill whoever he wants without any sort of legal repercussions. You almost want some mutant to confront him in the kitchen some night: what you so mad about, anyway? You can heal from a gunshot to the head in six seconds and you got spikes coming out of your hands. Yeah, well, it hurts when the spikes come out. Oh really? I shoot liquid nitrogen everytime I pee. That’s my mutation. I go by the name of Holdit. Wanna switch?
Pelosi and the lobbyists
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The title of Jeffrey Birnbaum's column in today's Washington Post drew me in: "Lobbyists Won't Like What Pelosi Has in Mind."
Very good, I thought. I don't care what lobbyists think, and nor should anyone who cares about the quality of American self-government. And if Pelosi has it in for them, fine with me.
Here are the details: "In a little-publicized statement, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Democratic leader, has promised to change the chamber's rules to reflect the provisions of her not-so-modestly-named Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. The months-old measure would, among other things, prohibit House members from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists or from organizations that employ lobbyists."
In other words, Pelosi has committed to curtailing the outrageous and corrupting influence of Tom DeLay's K Street, the GOP-oriented machine that has come to promote Republican interests, and the financial interests of individual Republicans, at the expense of democratic rule and the well-being of the country.
It's long past time to put an end to the bribing of Congress, to the co-opting of Congress with cash. But better late than, as under Republican control, never.
All the more reason why we need Pelosi in the Speaker's chair.
The title of Jeffrey Birnbaum's column in today's Washington Post drew me in: "Lobbyists Won't Like What Pelosi Has in Mind."
Very good, I thought. I don't care what lobbyists think, and nor should anyone who cares about the quality of American self-government. And if Pelosi has it in for them, fine with me.
Here are the details: "In a little-publicized statement, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Democratic leader, has promised to change the chamber's rules to reflect the provisions of her not-so-modestly-named Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. The months-old measure would, among other things, prohibit House members from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists or from organizations that employ lobbyists."
In other words, Pelosi has committed to curtailing the outrageous and corrupting influence of Tom DeLay's K Street, the GOP-oriented machine that has come to promote Republican interests, and the financial interests of individual Republicans, at the expense of democratic rule and the well-being of the country.
It's long past time to put an end to the bribing of Congress, to the co-opting of Congress with cash. But better late than, as under Republican control, never.
All the more reason why we need Pelosi in the Speaker's chair.
Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XX
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From the BBC: "Gunmen have kidnapped and killed 17 policemen near the southern Iraqi city of Basra, police sources have said... Correspondents say the killings will be a major setback to British plans for reducing the power of various militias in the area."
Oh, really?
**********
This may be part of the problem: "The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded."
Yeah, not good. But very much in the pattern of the whole mismanagement of the war and occupation.
**********
On a related note, I recommend this piece by my new friend Ximena Ortiz at The National Interest. Ximena looks at how the war dead are presented to the American people and "how a polarized America regards media coverage of the human cost of the Iraq War".
And she asks this key question: "What do we Americans think war looks like?" I don't have much of a sense of it, and I'm sure most Americans don't either. And that largely has to do with media coverage that tends to euphemize, or even censor, the utter horror of war. Foreign media outlets are presenting the horrors of Iraq to their audience; American ones generally are not. And yet: "Reporting on war -- the entirety of it -- is not demagoguery, it is information -- vital information. Few would argue that the media not cover the fiscal cost of the war. Is the death toll not one aspect of the cost of war?"
It is, but as Ximena pessimistically concludes, "media executives will focus on what kind of news Americans want to see splayed out across the paper in the morning, as they drink their coffee, or on the evening news, after dinner".
There is already growing opposition, and outrage, to the Iraq War. Imagine the scale of that opposition, and outrage, if more Americans actually knew what was going on.
From the BBC: "Gunmen have kidnapped and killed 17 policemen near the southern Iraqi city of Basra, police sources have said... Correspondents say the killings will be a major setback to British plans for reducing the power of various militias in the area."
Oh, really?
**********
This may be part of the problem: "The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded."
Yeah, not good. But very much in the pattern of the whole mismanagement of the war and occupation.
**********
On a related note, I recommend this piece by my new friend Ximena Ortiz at The National Interest. Ximena looks at how the war dead are presented to the American people and "how a polarized America regards media coverage of the human cost of the Iraq War".
And she asks this key question: "What do we Americans think war looks like?" I don't have much of a sense of it, and I'm sure most Americans don't either. And that largely has to do with media coverage that tends to euphemize, or even censor, the utter horror of war. Foreign media outlets are presenting the horrors of Iraq to their audience; American ones generally are not. And yet: "Reporting on war -- the entirety of it -- is not demagoguery, it is information -- vital information. Few would argue that the media not cover the fiscal cost of the war. Is the death toll not one aspect of the cost of war?"
It is, but as Ximena pessimistically concludes, "media executives will focus on what kind of news Americans want to see splayed out across the paper in the morning, as they drink their coffee, or on the evening news, after dinner".
There is already growing opposition, and outrage, to the Iraq War. Imagine the scale of that opposition, and outrage, if more Americans actually knew what was going on.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Lula wins in Brazil
By Michael J.W. Stickings
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva easily won yesterday's run-off presidential election to secure a second term. He defeated Geraldo Alckmin.
The results are here.
Lula beat Alckmin 48.6% to 41.6% in the first round of voting on October 1. Since no candidate won an absolute majority of the vote (over 50%), a second round was held between the top two candidates. Lula beat Alckmin 60.8% to 39.2% in the run-off.
For more, see The Washington Post: The "vote of confidence" was "a landslide victory [for] the former union leader whose first term was marked by a significant reduction of poverty and by corruption scandals that implicated some of his closest aides". The BBC calls it "a resounding victory"?
But was it? Lula received less than 50% of the first-round vote. In the October 1 congressional elections, his party, the leftist Workers' Party, won only 15.0% of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and only 19.2% of the vote for the Senate. In terms of seats, it won only 83 of 513 in the Chamber of Deputies. And it won only two of the 27 contested Senate races (one-third of the seats were contested this year), bringing its total there to only 11 of 81. In contrast, Alckmin's center-left Social Democracy Party won 65 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and five of the 27 contested Senate races, bringing its total there to 15.
It's all quite confusing, though. Brazil uses a List-Proportional Representation electoral system that allows for many different parties to be represented in the National Congress. In fact, 21 parties won at least one seat in the Chamber of Deputies, and 13 parties have at least one seat in the Senate. (Aside from the Workers' Party and the Social Democracy Party, the other leading parties are the centrist Democratic Movement Party and the center-right Liberal Front Party.) Needless to say, coalition-building is imperative. Lula may have won the presidency by a wide margin in yesterday's vote, but the landscape in the legislature, where his own party is only one of many, is far less clear.
For more, see the Brazil page at Election Resources here. Also see here.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva easily won yesterday's run-off presidential election to secure a second term. He defeated Geraldo Alckmin.The results are here.
Lula beat Alckmin 48.6% to 41.6% in the first round of voting on October 1. Since no candidate won an absolute majority of the vote (over 50%), a second round was held between the top two candidates. Lula beat Alckmin 60.8% to 39.2% in the run-off.
For more, see The Washington Post: The "vote of confidence" was "a landslide victory [for] the former union leader whose first term was marked by a significant reduction of poverty and by corruption scandals that implicated some of his closest aides". The BBC calls it "a resounding victory"?
But was it? Lula received less than 50% of the first-round vote. In the October 1 congressional elections, his party, the leftist Workers' Party, won only 15.0% of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and only 19.2% of the vote for the Senate. In terms of seats, it won only 83 of 513 in the Chamber of Deputies. And it won only two of the 27 contested Senate races (one-third of the seats were contested this year), bringing its total there to only 11 of 81. In contrast, Alckmin's center-left Social Democracy Party won 65 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and five of the 27 contested Senate races, bringing its total there to 15.
It's all quite confusing, though. Brazil uses a List-Proportional Representation electoral system that allows for many different parties to be represented in the National Congress. In fact, 21 parties won at least one seat in the Chamber of Deputies, and 13 parties have at least one seat in the Senate. (Aside from the Workers' Party and the Social Democracy Party, the other leading parties are the centrist Democratic Movement Party and the center-right Liberal Front Party.) Needless to say, coalition-building is imperative. Lula may have won the presidency by a wide margin in yesterday's vote, but the landscape in the legislature, where his own party is only one of many, is far less clear.
For more, see the Brazil page at Election Resources here. Also see here.
Wolf defends himself
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Against Lynne Cheney and her idiocy:
Think Progress has the video and the transcript.
It's about time someone of Blitzer's stature stood up against this conservative bullshit.
For more, see Digby, Shakespeare's Sister, John Aravosis, and David Neiwert.
Against Lynne Cheney and her idiocy:
On Friday, Lynne Cheney repeatedly attacked CNN for having a liberal bias during a combative appearance on the Situation Room. At one point, she criticized CNN for “running terrorist tapes, terrorists shooting Americans” and asked Wolf Blitzer, “Do you want us to win?” She also repeatedly asked Blitzer to end his line of questioning and focus on her new children’s book.
Today on CNN’s Late Edition, Blitzer said he was “surprised” at Cheney’s “sniping at my patriotism,” and pointed out that CNN had specifically labeled the tape of a U.S. soldier under fire as terrorist “propaganda.” He also said that CNN had made clear to Cheney’s staff “only hours before the interview” that she would be asked questions about politics during her appearance, not just about her children’s book.
Think Progress has the video and the transcript.
It's about time someone of Blitzer's stature stood up against this conservative bullshit.
For more, see Digby, Shakespeare's Sister, John Aravosis, and David Neiwert.
The problem is Cheney
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Over at The Washington Note, Steve Clemons argues that "Democratic success in the coming election" will not "corner President Bush and his team into a more rational national security posture". Nor, for that matter, will the Iraq Study Group's much-anticipated report on the situation in Iraq, expected in January of next year under the co-chairmanship of James Baker and Lee Hamilton, which will likely "call for a new, expansive commitment to regional deal-making to solve many of the unresolved problems in the Middle East".
The obstacle: Dick Cheney. "[T]he allies for a better direction in foreign policy who actually do exist in hidden corners of the Bush administration are dominated by Cheney's followers throughout the national security bureaucracy." Which means that "Cheney's people, if not neutralized will derail any new opportunities or directions".
Democrats may soon have the opportunity to launch necessary and important investigations into the management of the Iraq War, from its inception in the minds of its architects to the present day. But Clemons offers a potent reminder that not much is going to change with Cheney around.
Over at The Washington Note, Steve Clemons argues that "Democratic success in the coming election" will not "corner President Bush and his team into a more rational national security posture". Nor, for that matter, will the Iraq Study Group's much-anticipated report on the situation in Iraq, expected in January of next year under the co-chairmanship of James Baker and Lee Hamilton, which will likely "call for a new, expansive commitment to regional deal-making to solve many of the unresolved problems in the Middle East".
The obstacle: Dick Cheney. "[T]he allies for a better direction in foreign policy who actually do exist in hidden corners of the Bush administration are dominated by Cheney's followers throughout the national security bureaucracy." Which means that "Cheney's people, if not neutralized will derail any new opportunities or directions".
Democrats may soon have the opportunity to launch necessary and important investigations into the management of the Iraq War, from its inception in the minds of its architects to the present day. But Clemons offers a potent reminder that not much is going to change with Cheney around.
Mending wall
Guest post by Capt. Fogg
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall
-- Robert Frost, "Mending Wall"
**********
But whatever that thing is, it is not the xenophobes who want to make hideous the wild and beautiful Rio Grande by building an iron curtain that is supposed to maintain the ethnic and racial purity of the United States. So it is that Lord Bush did sign a decree called the Secure Fence Act that authorizes congress to build one of those purportedly unlovable edifices on our southern border. Of course, the proposal falls far short of the Great Wall of China, a far more expensive and extensive creation that also didn't work to keep out the Mongols. Of course, those neighbors to the north had other things on their mind than picking fruit and mending roofs and mowing lawns, but I digress.
It doesn't actually matter that the proposed 700-mile fence can be walked around rather than climbed over or tunneled under, since it's not going to be built and since other legislation passed almost simultaneously assures that the money will go toward other Republican projects. "Let’s not and say we did" usually works well for the GOP.
The theme of Robert Frost's "Mending Wall" is that good fences don't really make good neighbors: the forces of nature bring down walls and nature intends for people not to be fenced in against each other. Whether it's true or partially true or not true at all, the Republicans aren't poets and the Republicans don't actually care about walls or immigration or neighborly relations or the plight of the common man. What they wanted and what they got is short-term credibility with the far right and another long-term source of funds to be diverted for their benefit.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall
-- Robert Frost, "Mending Wall"
**********
But whatever that thing is, it is not the xenophobes who want to make hideous the wild and beautiful Rio Grande by building an iron curtain that is supposed to maintain the ethnic and racial purity of the United States. So it is that Lord Bush did sign a decree called the Secure Fence Act that authorizes congress to build one of those purportedly unlovable edifices on our southern border. Of course, the proposal falls far short of the Great Wall of China, a far more expensive and extensive creation that also didn't work to keep out the Mongols. Of course, those neighbors to the north had other things on their mind than picking fruit and mending roofs and mowing lawns, but I digress.
It doesn't actually matter that the proposed 700-mile fence can be walked around rather than climbed over or tunneled under, since it's not going to be built and since other legislation passed almost simultaneously assures that the money will go toward other Republican projects. "Let’s not and say we did" usually works well for the GOP.
The theme of Robert Frost's "Mending Wall" is that good fences don't really make good neighbors: the forces of nature bring down walls and nature intends for people not to be fenced in against each other. Whether it's true or partially true or not true at all, the Republicans aren't poets and the Republicans don't actually care about walls or immigration or neighborly relations or the plight of the common man. What they wanted and what they got is short-term credibility with the far right and another long-term source of funds to be diverted for their benefit.
Oliver Kamm on the Iraq War
By Heraclitus
Oliver Kamm has a very thoughtful post up on the Iraq War. Although by now pretty much everyone agrees that the execution of the war has been a complete disaster, Kamm still wants to defend the original decision to go to war. He thinks the war was still right, and could and should have been waged successfully. The Bush administration, however, failed the Iraqis and their own ostensible goals and principles from the very beginning. Kamm gives a good summary of their most damning blunders in a passage from his book:
Oliver Kamm has a very thoughtful post up on the Iraq War. Although by now pretty much everyone agrees that the execution of the war has been a complete disaster, Kamm still wants to defend the original decision to go to war. He thinks the war was still right, and could and should have been waged successfully. The Bush administration, however, failed the Iraqis and their own ostensible goals and principles from the very beginning. Kamm gives a good summary of their most damning blunders in a passage from his book:
To say the Bush Administration has made innumerable errors in its conduct of war and occupation is commonplace but not trivial: it is true and important. But the first error, from which much else has flowed, was to plan for occupation after Saddam’s fall in a fundamentally non-serious manner. Elections were delayed; security was inadequate; the failure to secure Baghdad was a disaster; infrastructure was ignored; abominable tortures were practised at the Abu Ghraib prison, to which there was a shamefully complacent response; and the civilian death toll appears to have been substantially higher than the war’s supporters generally expected.Part of Kamm's argument rests on an interesting claim he takes from Noah Feldman, a lawyer who worked for the Coalition Authority in Iraq in the early days of the occupation. According to Feldman, the sectarian splintering in Iraq stemmed largely from the fecklessness of the Coalition Authority.
It would be perfectly correct … to blame the invasion for creating a situation in which a pervasive sense of insecurity quickly descended upon Iraqi life, necessitating in short order the formation of protection associations other than the state. In that indirect but nonetheless decisive sense, the Coalition, specifically the United States, played a major role in the rapid emergence of denominational identities in the immediate postwar period. The United States did not invent those identities, nor did it intentionally reify them; but it produced an environment in which it was necessary for Iraqis to invent them. Had there been half a million US troops on the ground, it is highly likely that there would have been little looting, no comparable sense of insecurity, and therefore a reduced need for denominational identities to become as dominant as they quickly did.This quotation is from Feldman's book What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation-Building. Kamm's post is somewhat long, but highly intelligent, well-informed, and thoughtful, and worth reading in full.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Liberals and ballot initiatives
By Michael J.W. Stickings
In 2004, it was same-sex marriage. And the Republican base turned out in huge numbers to push Bush over the top. In 2006, it's the minimum wage, stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage again. But now the Democratic base may just turn out in large enough numbers to help Democrats regain control of Congress.
Liberals are mobilized.
WaPo has the story here.
In 2004, it was same-sex marriage. And the Republican base turned out in huge numbers to push Bush over the top. In 2006, it's the minimum wage, stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage again. But now the Democratic base may just turn out in large enough numbers to help Democrats regain control of Congress.
Liberals are mobilized.
WaPo has the story here.
King’s stand
By J. Kingston PierceBy now, most folks have heard about the criticism actor Michael J. Fox received from right-wing radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh for appearing in TV campaign commercials that back Democratic U.S. Senate candidates who support stem-cell research. “He is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” the talk-show host told his listeners earlier this week. “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.” Of course, Limbaugh knows all about taking meds, doesn’t he? And he doesn’t seem to care that he’s been condemned, both in the traditional media and the blogosphere, for attacking one of Middle America’s most admired entertainers, whose Parkinson’s disease is certainly no laughing matter. (Slate’s Timothy Noah contends that Limbaugh’s dumb-as-a-fence-post behavior is deliberate, “a con job.”)
Interestingly, Stephen King’s own unexpected entry into America’s November 7 midterm election fray hasn’t generated nearly the same level of attention. Yet the novelist’s message, e-mailed last Monday by the liberal group MoveOn.org, was more overtly political than Fox’s. It began (emphasis King’s):
If I know anything, I know scary. And giving this president and this out-of-control Congress two more years to screw up our future is downright terrifying. Thankfully, this national nightmare is one we can end with--literally--a wake up call.
My friends at MoveOn.org Political Action are organizing pre-Halloween phone parties this weekend, Oct. 28th & 29th. We’ll be calling progressive voters in key districts who may not turn out unless they get a friendly reminder or two.
And since it’s almost Halloween, we’ll celebrate with an optional costume contest, some pumpkin carving (I’ll be making a Jack-Abramoff-O’-Lantern) and--of course--plenty of candy. ...
If you’re concerned about the future of this country, this is the time to get involved. The polls are telling us that this November is our best shot in over a decade to turn things around, and we’ve got to make the most of it.
The note included a link to a Web site where interested people can find out about phone parties within easy driving distance.
Thus far, Limbaugh hasn’t taken the long knives to King. But then, we’re still almost two weeks out from a national election that seems destined to turn on George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq war and Republican sex and corruption scandals, rather than on GOP-preferred issues such as national defense or “family values.” That’s plenty of time yet for Limbaugh to help turn the increasingly desperate Republican smear machine on the author of the new Lisey’s Story.(Cross-posted at Limbo.)
Webb's wise words
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Jim Webb: "Since 2003, President Bush has laid out nine different plans for victory in Iraq, none of them serious and none of them workable. And most seriously, this incompetence has hindered our ability to fight international terror."
-- "It gives me no great pleasure today to be saying `I told you so.' It pains me as an American that our casualties are again escalating while this president and his followers are still incapable of bringing forward an intelligent, commonsense approach to ending our involvement there."
-- "Over the past several weeks a few realists in the Republican Party, such as Sen. John Warner and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, have begun to make their voices heard. They are moving away from the fantasy world of this administration, toward real solutions."
-- "A Democratic Congress will demand from day one that the president find a real way forward in Iraq. We'll work with the administration and other Republicans to develop a concrete plan, but none of us are ready to settle for empty rhetoric, or the same old unacceptable results."
All of which is right on the mark. Which is why Democrats deserve to take control of Congress. And why Webb deserves to be elected senator from the state of Virginia.
Jim Webb: "Since 2003, President Bush has laid out nine different plans for victory in Iraq, none of them serious and none of them workable. And most seriously, this incompetence has hindered our ability to fight international terror."
-- "It gives me no great pleasure today to be saying `I told you so.' It pains me as an American that our casualties are again escalating while this president and his followers are still incapable of bringing forward an intelligent, commonsense approach to ending our involvement there."
-- "Over the past several weeks a few realists in the Republican Party, such as Sen. John Warner and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, have begun to make their voices heard. They are moving away from the fantasy world of this administration, toward real solutions."
-- "A Democratic Congress will demand from day one that the president find a real way forward in Iraq. We'll work with the administration and other Republicans to develop a concrete plan, but none of us are ready to settle for empty rhetoric, or the same old unacceptable results."
All of which is right on the mark. Which is why Democrats deserve to take control of Congress. And why Webb deserves to be elected senator from the state of Virginia.
Is al-Zawahiri now al Qaeda's #1?
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Perhaps, according to this interesting piece in today's Globe and Mail: "Some speculate the world's second-most wanted man, a pioneer in the use of suicide bombings and martyr videos, has become the group's new No. 1.":
The piece includes a good bio of al-Zawahiri. Check it out.
Perhaps, according to this interesting piece in today's Globe and Mail: "Some speculate the world's second-most wanted man, a pioneer in the use of suicide bombings and martyr videos, has become the group's new No. 1.":
"Ayman al-Zawahiri prefers to be the second man; he feels it's the most effective position," said Mohammed Saleh, editor-in-chief of Egypt's al-Hayat newspaper and an expert on political Islam. "He put Osama bin Laden in front, until now. Osama might be sick, dead or look different. The circumstances obviously require [Mr. al-Zawahiri] to be in the spotlight."
The piece includes a good bio of al-Zawahiri. Check it out.
The identity politics of the GOP
By Heraclitus
Amanda Marcotte has an extremely interesting post up on the current state of ideology in the US. She argues that there is no dominant ideology in the US at present, because although liberals have one (though I think it's definitely debatable whether the Democratic Party has one), they're not dominant, and the conservatives are in fact an incoherent mish-mash of libertarianism and social conservatism. But the "conservatives" are held together by a certain form of identity politics, which enables GOP voters to ignore their differences and come together and vote for the particular brand of identity politics the Republicans have been successfully shopping to voters for at least ten years. It's the most interesting thing I've read on American politics this election cycle, and I highly recommend it.
Amanda Marcotte has an extremely interesting post up on the current state of ideology in the US. She argues that there is no dominant ideology in the US at present, because although liberals have one (though I think it's definitely debatable whether the Democratic Party has one), they're not dominant, and the conservatives are in fact an incoherent mish-mash of libertarianism and social conservatism. But the "conservatives" are held together by a certain form of identity politics, which enables GOP voters to ignore their differences and come together and vote for the particular brand of identity politics the Republicans have been successfully shopping to voters for at least ten years. It's the most interesting thing I've read on American politics this election cycle, and I highly recommend it.
Only in Italy: The transgendered tale of Vladimir Luxuria
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(Or maybe in Thailand.)
I'm fully supportive of the rights of transgendered individuals, but I can't help but find this incident from the zany world of Italian politics amusing:
I suppose I'm with Luxuria on this (what else is she to do?). The opposition MP and "former showgirl" (a member of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's party), Elisabetta Gardini, referred to Luxuria as "him" and said that encountering her in the washroom was "like sexual violence".
Which is both insensitive and stupid.
**********
Vladimir Luxuria is, needless to say, a controversial figure in Italian politics (and that's saying something). A Communist from Rome and a member of Prime Minister Romano Prodi's governing coalition, l'Unione, she is Europe's first transgendered MP and the world's second (after New Zealand's Georgina Beyer).
And the right hates her -- "better to be a fascist than a faggot," said Fascist Alessandra Mussolini (whom I once wrote about here) -- which is a good reason to like her.
Her website is here (in Italian).
For more on her feud with Mussolini, see here (also in Italian -- but really worth watching even if you can't understand what they're shouting at each other -- imagine a transgendered Congressman and a Fascist Congressman shouting at each other on, say, Meet the Press -- if only American politics were that much fun -- oh, Mussolini's the outraged blonde).
(Or maybe in Thailand.)I'm fully supportive of the rights of transgendered individuals, but I can't help but find this incident from the zany world of Italian politics amusing:
An Italian opposition MP and former showgirl has expressed outrage after meeting a transgender colleague in the parliament's ladies' toilets...
The incident led to heated debate about which toilet the transgender MP, known as Vladimir Luxuria, could use.
Ms Luxuria says she has been using ladies' toilets for years.
Using the men's would have created even bigger problems, she said.
The matter has now been passed to parliamentary procedural officials to resolve.
I suppose I'm with Luxuria on this (what else is she to do?). The opposition MP and "former showgirl" (a member of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's party), Elisabetta Gardini, referred to Luxuria as "him" and said that encountering her in the washroom was "like sexual violence".
Which is both insensitive and stupid.
**********
Vladimir Luxuria is, needless to say, a controversial figure in Italian politics (and that's saying something). A Communist from Rome and a member of Prime Minister Romano Prodi's governing coalition, l'Unione, she is Europe's first transgendered MP and the world's second (after New Zealand's Georgina Beyer).
And the right hates her -- "better to be a fascist than a faggot," said Fascist Alessandra Mussolini (whom I once wrote about here) -- which is a good reason to like her.
Her website is here (in Italian).
For more on her feud with Mussolini, see here (also in Italian -- but really worth watching even if you can't understand what they're shouting at each other -- imagine a transgendered Congressman and a Fascist Congressman shouting at each other on, say, Meet the Press -- if only American politics were that much fun -- oh, Mussolini's the outraged blonde).
Letterman exposes O'Reilly
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Letterman to O'Reilly last night: "You're trying to put words in my mouth just the way you put artificial facts in your head."
Great line.
Great put-down of O'Reilly and the talking-head sham that he is. Colbert does it every week from Monday to Thursday, but it's awfully nice to see someone with Letterman's stature and audience do it.
At Crooks and Liars, SilentPatriot provides the video, some of the transcript, and a response to yet another of O'Reilly's lies (namely, that there was a connection between Saddam and the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, when there wasn't).
We need O'Reilly to be exposed like this more often.
Letterman to O'Reilly last night: "You're trying to put words in my mouth just the way you put artificial facts in your head."
Great line.
Great put-down of O'Reilly and the talking-head sham that he is. Colbert does it every week from Monday to Thursday, but it's awfully nice to see someone with Letterman's stature and audience do it.
At Crooks and Liars, SilentPatriot provides the video, some of the transcript, and a response to yet another of O'Reilly's lies (namely, that there was a connection between Saddam and the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, when there wasn't).
We need O'Reilly to be exposed like this more often.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Show your support for the Dixie Chicks
By Michael J.W. Stickings
According to Variety, NBC is refusing to air national ads for the new Barbara Kopple documentary Shut Up & Sing, which examines the aftermath of the Dixie Chicks' lead singer Natalie Maines's now notorious remark during a concert in 2003 that the Chicks are ashamed that President Bush is from their home state of Texas. (The ad has run in New York and L.A., but not nationally.)
Harvey Weinstein of The Weinstein Co., which is releasing the film, put it well: "It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America. The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is profoundly un-American."
It seems that "NBC's commercial clearance department said in writing that it 'cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.'"
How ridiculous. This is about free speech. This is about not having one's political views censored -- in this case by a private broadcaster that is acting as a political censor.
This is about everything America is supposed to stand for.
Think Progress has the ad here. Go watch it.
Gleen Greenwald, as usual, has some excellent commentary here. And see also The Carpetbagger Report, Crooks and Liars, AMERICAblog, and Balloon Juice.
Greenwald: "Leave to the side for the moment the fact that this controversy is far more likely to help the film than hurt it. Far more important than that issue is the emergence of a very disturbing trend whereby television networks are refusing to broadcast political advocacy material that will offend the Republican power structure in Washington."
Exactly right. As Steve Benen of TCR puts it, "this is part of a trend". One that threatens the very foundations of American democracy.
That trend must be stopped. Show your support for the Dixie Chicks, free speech, and unpoliticized airwaves. Go see Shut Up & Sing. Buy a Dixie Chicks album. Or more than one. Or just a song. Check out the Shut Up & Sing blog at MySpace. Check out the Dixie Chicks' website. And their Columbia/Sony website. And their MSN website. And support Conservation International.
And watch these two clips. The first is the theatrical trailer for Shut Up & Sing. The second is the Dixie Chicks on Letterman this past May performing "Not Ready to Make Nice," their bold and courageous response to the controversy.
According to Variety, NBC is refusing to air national ads for the new Barbara Kopple documentary Shut Up & Sing, which examines the aftermath of the Dixie Chicks' lead singer Natalie Maines's now notorious remark during a concert in 2003 that the Chicks are ashamed that President Bush is from their home state of Texas. (The ad has run in New York and L.A., but not nationally.)Harvey Weinstein of The Weinstein Co., which is releasing the film, put it well: "It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America. The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is profoundly un-American."
It seems that "NBC's commercial clearance department said in writing that it 'cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.'"
How ridiculous. This is about free speech. This is about not having one's political views censored -- in this case by a private broadcaster that is acting as a political censor.
This is about everything America is supposed to stand for.
Think Progress has the ad here. Go watch it.
Gleen Greenwald, as usual, has some excellent commentary here. And see also The Carpetbagger Report, Crooks and Liars, AMERICAblog, and Balloon Juice.
Greenwald: "Leave to the side for the moment the fact that this controversy is far more likely to help the film than hurt it. Far more important than that issue is the emergence of a very disturbing trend whereby television networks are refusing to broadcast political advocacy material that will offend the Republican power structure in Washington."
Exactly right. As Steve Benen of TCR puts it, "this is part of a trend". One that threatens the very foundations of American democracy.
That trend must be stopped. Show your support for the Dixie Chicks, free speech, and unpoliticized airwaves. Go see Shut Up & Sing. Buy a Dixie Chicks album. Or more than one. Or just a song. Check out the Shut Up & Sing blog at MySpace. Check out the Dixie Chicks' website. And their Columbia/Sony website. And their MSN website. And support Conservation International.
And watch these two clips. The first is the theatrical trailer for Shut Up & Sing. The second is the Dixie Chicks on Letterman this past May performing "Not Ready to Make Nice," their bold and courageous response to the controversy.
American pollocracy
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Craving more poll numbers? (I admit, I'm following the key midterm races pretty closely.) Kos as a pile of new ones here. To say that some of key races are tight -- New Jersey, Virginia, and Tennessee, for example -- is an understatement. Some look good for Democrats (Iowa), but some are quite disappointing (PA-08). We shall all know for sure soon enough.
Craving more poll numbers? (I admit, I'm following the key midterm races pretty closely.) Kos as a pile of new ones here. To say that some of key races are tight -- New Jersey, Virginia, and Tennessee, for example -- is an understatement. Some look good for Democrats (Iowa), but some are quite disappointing (PA-08). We shall all know for sure soon enough.
Republicans on the attack: Race, sex, and desperation
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Latino immigrants are being targeted by Republicans in their attack ads, but this GOP strategy isn't limited to Latinos. As WaPo puts it today:
And so Republicans are attempting to portray Democrats as "fatally flawed characters". Consider these examples:
-- "In New York, the NRCC ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. 'Hi, sexy,' a dancing woman purrs. 'You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line.' It turns out that one of Arcuri's aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to that of a porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25."
-- "In Ohio, GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell, trailing by more than 20 points in polls, has accused front-running Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland of protecting a former aide who was convicted in 1994 on a misdemeanor indecency charge. Blackwell's campaign is also warning voters through suggestive 'push polls' that Strickland failed to support a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Strickland, a psychiatrist, objected to a line suggesting that sexually abused children cannot have healthy relationships when they grow up." (They've also played the gay card.)
-- "In two dozen congressional districts, a political action committee supported by a white Indianapolis businessman, J. Patrick Rooney, is running ads saying Democrats want to abort black babies. A voice says, 'If you make a little mistake with one of your hos, you'll want to dispose of that problem tout de suite, no questions asked.'" (Ah, the reverse race card!)
You all know they can't win on the issues. You all know they're desperate. You all know the writing is on the wall. And you all know they'll stop at nothing.
And, here, you'll notice that their obsession with sex is driving their negative ads.
Welcome to the Republican Party of 2006.
Latino immigrants are being targeted by Republicans in their attack ads, but this GOP strategy isn't limited to Latinos. As WaPo puts it today:
On the brink of what could be a power-shifting election, it is kitchen-sink time: Desperate candidates are throwing everything. While negative campaigning is a tradition in American politics, this year's version in many races has an eccentric shade, filled with allegations of moral bankruptcy and sexual perversion.
And so Republicans are attempting to portray Democrats as "fatally flawed characters". Consider these examples:
-- "In New York, the NRCC ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. 'Hi, sexy,' a dancing woman purrs. 'You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line.' It turns out that one of Arcuri's aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to that of a porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25."
-- "In Ohio, GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell, trailing by more than 20 points in polls, has accused front-running Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland of protecting a former aide who was convicted in 1994 on a misdemeanor indecency charge. Blackwell's campaign is also warning voters through suggestive 'push polls' that Strickland failed to support a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Strickland, a psychiatrist, objected to a line suggesting that sexually abused children cannot have healthy relationships when they grow up." (They've also played the gay card.)
-- "In two dozen congressional districts, a political action committee supported by a white Indianapolis businessman, J. Patrick Rooney, is running ads saying Democrats want to abort black babies. A voice says, 'If you make a little mistake with one of your hos, you'll want to dispose of that problem tout de suite, no questions asked.'" (Ah, the reverse race card!)
You all know they can't win on the issues. You all know they're desperate. You all know the writing is on the wall. And you all know they'll stop at nothing.
And, here, you'll notice that their obsession with sex is driving their negative ads.
Welcome to the Republican Party of 2006.
Cheney: Torture is a "no-brainer"
By Heraclitus
Not to suggest that there's anything more important than kinky passages in Jim Webb's fiction (passages that even Michelle Malkin doesn't want to talk about, for crying out loud), but you may have heard that beloved VP Dick Cheney has declared the practice of waterboarding suspected terrorists a "no-brainer." Cheney then, however, in the next breath goes on to assert that "we don't torture." Of course, this is the same game the Bushies have been playing for a while now, claiming that they aren't using torture, while at the same time refusing to say what exactly they are doing. "We don't discuss techniques," as Bush told Bill O'Reilly, who actually did a first-rate job of exposing Bush on this question.
The White House, of course, is strenuously denying that Cheney's comment can be construed as support for torture, since the US government isn't torturing anyone (but why not, if it's a "no-brainer"?). Tony Snow's denials promted the following remark from Andrew Sullivan:
Not to suggest that there's anything more important than kinky passages in Jim Webb's fiction (passages that even Michelle Malkin doesn't want to talk about, for crying out loud), but you may have heard that beloved VP Dick Cheney has declared the practice of waterboarding suspected terrorists a "no-brainer." Cheney then, however, in the next breath goes on to assert that "we don't torture." Of course, this is the same game the Bushies have been playing for a while now, claiming that they aren't using torture, while at the same time refusing to say what exactly they are doing. "We don't discuss techniques," as Bush told Bill O'Reilly, who actually did a first-rate job of exposing Bush on this question.
The White House, of course, is strenuously denying that Cheney's comment can be construed as support for torture, since the US government isn't torturing anyone (but why not, if it's a "no-brainer"?). Tony Snow's denials promted the following remark from Andrew Sullivan:
Lies; lies, and more lies. At the heart of this election is whether the American people should support people who have contempt for the most basic of American liberties, who have suspended habeas corpus for the indefinite future and who think it is a "no-brainer", in this respect, to adopt the moral interrogation standards of the Khmer Rouge.
This should not be a partisan issue or even a political issue. It is a civic responsibility. Vote Democrat or abstain.
It wasn't that long ago that Sullivan was about as militant a presence as you would find on the right-wing blogosphere, sort of a more nuanced, well-informed and literate Glenn Reynolds. How far he's come in, what, three years? It's too bad his case is so rare, but it also says a lot about what's really motivating the various GOP cheerleaders and pundits.
Friday afternoon poem
By Heraclitus
Well, I was going to try to do some light-hearted Friday afternoon blogging with images, but--surprise, surprise--Blogger isn't letting me upload images. Oh, Blogger, will you ever be adequate?
Anyways, instead, a Friday afternoon poem. Sorry if it's a little glum or acerbic, but, well, it's raining here. And the poem is still good clean fun. Who better to kick off your weekend than Philip Larkin?
This Be The Verse
Well, I was going to try to do some light-hearted Friday afternoon blogging with images, but--surprise, surprise--Blogger isn't letting me upload images. Oh, Blogger, will you ever be adequate?
Anyways, instead, a Friday afternoon poem. Sorry if it's a little glum or acerbic, but, well, it's raining here. And the poem is still good clean fun. Who better to kick off your weekend than Philip Larkin?
This Be The Verse
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.
Read the Signs
By Creature
Jeff, Dave, whatever, so long as he hates the gays too. The Anonymous Liberal explains:
And here is the transcript:
Another example of the president with his blinders on.
The NYT has more on the GOP's rush to "reignite" the issue of gay marriage.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Jeff, Dave, whatever, so long as he hates the gays too. The Anonymous Liberal explains:
Jeff Lamberti is one of the few Republican candidates willing to be seen in public with the President, and the President can't even bother to get his name right. He called him Dave, repeatedly. Hilarious.
And here is the transcript:
This campaign only ends after the voters have had a chance to speak. No doubt in my mind, with your help, Dave [sic] Lamberti will be the next United States congressman. (Applause.)
Dave [sic] and I believe a lot of things. We believe that you ought to keep more of your own money. We believe in family values. We believe values are important. And we believe marriage is a fundamental institution of civilization.
Another example of the president with his blinders on.
The NYT has more on the GOP's rush to "reignite" the issue of gay marriage.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Thursday, October 26, 2006
As dirty as it gets
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Who's the new bogeyman for an increasingly desperate Republican Party? You know, the new scapegoat, the new incarnation of the Other? Why, it's the Latino immigrant, of course, as the editors of The New Republic point out in a new editorial.
Latinos only recently were "destined to form the bedrock of Rove's implacable Republican majority" -- "socially conservative and entrepreneurial," and hence Republican, in Rove's myopic view. And now? They're the targets of shocking GOP ads. The editorial is available online by subscription only, but here are a couple of examples:
-- "In North Carolina, House candidate Vernon Robinson is airing a spot depicting a white man who gazes at a sign that reads, help wanted: bi-lingual only! A narrator helpfully adds: 'These illegal aliens pay no taxes but take our jobs and our government handouts, then spit in our face and burn our flags.' Then, one Latino man grabs his crotch and another flips the camera a middle finger."
-- "Down in Georgia, Republican incumbent Mac Collins has used similar material to bludgeon his opponent, Jim Marshall. More in sorrow than in anger, the ad intones, 'Jim Marshall joined his liberal leader Nancy Pelosi and voted to waste our tax dollars printing election ballots in Spanish.' It's a complaint interrupted by the villainous voice of a Mexican bandido sneering, 'Muchas gracias, Señor Jim Marshall.'"
Um. Wow. Looks like the old "race-baiting" is back.
So much for the mirage of Bush's compassionate conservatism. So much for "the Bush ethos of tolerance" and "its political embrace of Latinos". Of course, this is the House GOP, not the White House, but, as the TNR editors argue, "the current moment raises serious doubts about his initial sincerity". After all, "Bush has shown hardly any willingness to stop the party he leads from spewing vile racism".
And vile racism it is. The GOP is back to its dirty old strategy of vilifying the racial Other and playing on detestable White fears and prejudices. It was Blacks not so long ago. Think Bush's father. Think Willie Horton. The recent Other is cultural and sexual, homosexuals, a persistent target of Republicans from the president on down. And now Latinos have joined gays and lesbians. They are the enemies of choice for a party that is exposing its inner self once again to the American people as it faces defeat at the hands of a resurgent Democratic Party. At least it's being honest about itself. At least it's stripped away the pretense of tolerance to reveal its true colours -- it's true colour.
Republicans had convinced a lot of people that they had changed. Apparently they haven't.
The unabashed bigotry is back.
Who's the new bogeyman for an increasingly desperate Republican Party? You know, the new scapegoat, the new incarnation of the Other? Why, it's the Latino immigrant, of course, as the editors of The New Republic point out in a new editorial.
Latinos only recently were "destined to form the bedrock of Rove's implacable Republican majority" -- "socially conservative and entrepreneurial," and hence Republican, in Rove's myopic view. And now? They're the targets of shocking GOP ads. The editorial is available online by subscription only, but here are a couple of examples:
-- "In North Carolina, House candidate Vernon Robinson is airing a spot depicting a white man who gazes at a sign that reads, help wanted: bi-lingual only! A narrator helpfully adds: 'These illegal aliens pay no taxes but take our jobs and our government handouts, then spit in our face and burn our flags.' Then, one Latino man grabs his crotch and another flips the camera a middle finger."
-- "Down in Georgia, Republican incumbent Mac Collins has used similar material to bludgeon his opponent, Jim Marshall. More in sorrow than in anger, the ad intones, 'Jim Marshall joined his liberal leader Nancy Pelosi and voted to waste our tax dollars printing election ballots in Spanish.' It's a complaint interrupted by the villainous voice of a Mexican bandido sneering, 'Muchas gracias, Señor Jim Marshall.'"
Um. Wow. Looks like the old "race-baiting" is back.
So much for the mirage of Bush's compassionate conservatism. So much for "the Bush ethos of tolerance" and "its political embrace of Latinos". Of course, this is the House GOP, not the White House, but, as the TNR editors argue, "the current moment raises serious doubts about his initial sincerity". After all, "Bush has shown hardly any willingness to stop the party he leads from spewing vile racism".
And vile racism it is. The GOP is back to its dirty old strategy of vilifying the racial Other and playing on detestable White fears and prejudices. It was Blacks not so long ago. Think Bush's father. Think Willie Horton. The recent Other is cultural and sexual, homosexuals, a persistent target of Republicans from the president on down. And now Latinos have joined gays and lesbians. They are the enemies of choice for a party that is exposing its inner self once again to the American people as it faces defeat at the hands of a resurgent Democratic Party. At least it's being honest about itself. At least it's stripped away the pretense of tolerance to reveal its true colours -- it's true colour.
Republicans had convinced a lot of people that they had changed. Apparently they haven't.
The unabashed bigotry is back.
Rush Limbaugh is an asshole (revisited)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I want to direct you to two of the best posts I've ever read about Rush Limbaugh and everything he's about. And, really, about everything everyone like him is about, which is to say much of the Republican Party and the conservative movement today. The authors of the posts are Lance Mannion and Shakespeare's Sister.
Many of you, I'm sure, have already formed strong judgments about Rush. You either love him or hate him. (I'm assuming that most of you hate him. I like to think highly of my readers.) Nothing much comes as a surprise. Even attacking Michael J. Fox, claiming that he's faking the symptoms of Parkinson's (or that he didn't take his medication), isn't much of a surprise. That's just Rush for you. He's an asshole.
But I still recommend these two posts. A quote or two won't do them justice, but here's a preview:
Lance: "Although I'm sure he got a sadistic thrill out of mocking Fox, Fox doesn't matter to him as a person. Fox is just another obstacle to the one thing Limbaugh feels strongly about, which is as I said, that rich white guys like him should run the country and be allowed to do whatever they want."
Shakes: "Limbaugh is just one of many loathsome characters who have made names for themselves by treating politics as a game, a fun and profitable little pastime that has no real-world consequences—and the richer he gets, the more real a lack of consequences becomes for him."
Click on the links and read on.
I want to direct you to two of the best posts I've ever read about Rush Limbaugh and everything he's about. And, really, about everything everyone like him is about, which is to say much of the Republican Party and the conservative movement today. The authors of the posts are Lance Mannion and Shakespeare's Sister.
Many of you, I'm sure, have already formed strong judgments about Rush. You either love him or hate him. (I'm assuming that most of you hate him. I like to think highly of my readers.) Nothing much comes as a surprise. Even attacking Michael J. Fox, claiming that he's faking the symptoms of Parkinson's (or that he didn't take his medication), isn't much of a surprise. That's just Rush for you. He's an asshole.
But I still recommend these two posts. A quote or two won't do them justice, but here's a preview:
Lance: "Although I'm sure he got a sadistic thrill out of mocking Fox, Fox doesn't matter to him as a person. Fox is just another obstacle to the one thing Limbaugh feels strongly about, which is as I said, that rich white guys like him should run the country and be allowed to do whatever they want."
Shakes: "Limbaugh is just one of many loathsome characters who have made names for themselves by treating politics as a game, a fun and profitable little pastime that has no real-world consequences—and the richer he gets, the more real a lack of consequences becomes for him."
Click on the links and read on.
Somber and Subdued
By Creature
Yesterday the president gave anotherstump speech news conference. Flexibility aside, stay-the-course, of course, was the general message. However, the news out of the conference was not the president's message, but the president's tone. See, finally the president has learned, just in time for the elections, that petulance does not play well in Peoria.
Somber and subdued is the new swagger. Somber and subdued is the new spin.
The NYT has more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Yesterday the president gave another
Facing public dismay over the war in Iraq, President Bush on Wednesday somberly acknowledged the broad scope of American setbacks and missteps there. But he urged Americans to look beyond the violence on their TV screens and avoid disillusionment over a war he said was being won. [...]
While most Republican candidates have sought to turn voters’ attention away from the war, Mr. Bush chose to address it head-on, adopting a subdued tone, a new emphasis on tactical flexibility, and directly acknowledging the public’s reservations. [emphasis me]
Somber and subdued is the new swagger. Somber and subdued is the new spin.
The NYT has more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
"Control of the Senate still a longshot"
By Michael J.W. Stickings
So says Chris Bowers at MyDD: "Before our euphoria gets too crazy, keep in mind that Republicans still have the inside track to maintain control of the Senate." (See also my post on Democrats getting "closer" -- click here.)
Why is this? Webb is making up ground in Virginia but still trails Allen. And Ford and McCaskill are slipping in Tennessee and Missouri, respectively. (And then there's Lieberman in Connecticut.)
Indeed, Chris says he'll be "stunned" if Democrats manage to take the Senate. And yet he reminds us of this: "As we sprint to the finish line this year, it needs to be remembered that taking back our country is a long-term project."
Indeed it is. Win or lose the Senate, hopefully 2006 will be the year that a major step was taken to advance that project.
**********
As some of you may have noticed, we have a couple of new ads running (via Blogads). They're over at the top of the right sidebar. One of them is from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. I support the DSCC's efforts and I encourage you to click on the ad to learn more about the key Senate races around the country and what the DSCC is doing to help Democrats win them.
The other ad is from The Blue Fund, the manager of two new no-load diversified mutual funds that "invests in companies that both 'act blue' and 'give blue'". It builds its portfolios "on core Democratic values like environmental sustainability, community participation and respect for human rights". Having had a chance to look into it, and being quite impressed, I encourage you to click on the ad and learn more. There are risks to investing, of course, but I think it's important to invest responsibly.
So says Chris Bowers at MyDD: "Before our euphoria gets too crazy, keep in mind that Republicans still have the inside track to maintain control of the Senate." (See also my post on Democrats getting "closer" -- click here.)
Why is this? Webb is making up ground in Virginia but still trails Allen. And Ford and McCaskill are slipping in Tennessee and Missouri, respectively. (And then there's Lieberman in Connecticut.)
Indeed, Chris says he'll be "stunned" if Democrats manage to take the Senate. And yet he reminds us of this: "As we sprint to the finish line this year, it needs to be remembered that taking back our country is a long-term project."
Indeed it is. Win or lose the Senate, hopefully 2006 will be the year that a major step was taken to advance that project.
**********
As some of you may have noticed, we have a couple of new ads running (via Blogads). They're over at the top of the right sidebar. One of them is from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. I support the DSCC's efforts and I encourage you to click on the ad to learn more about the key Senate races around the country and what the DSCC is doing to help Democrats win them.
The other ad is from The Blue Fund, the manager of two new no-load diversified mutual funds that "invests in companies that both 'act blue' and 'give blue'". It builds its portfolios "on core Democratic values like environmental sustainability, community participation and respect for human rights". Having had a chance to look into it, and being quite impressed, I encourage you to click on the ad and learn more. There are risks to investing, of course, but I think it's important to invest responsibly.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Why Bush is responsible for North Korea's plutonium bomb
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(This is an update to my recent post on Bush Administration officials "rooting" for a North Korean nuclear test.)
We now know that the bomb North Korea tested was a plutonium one, not a uranium one. For the significance of this, see this excellent piece by eminent nuclear physicist James Gordon Prather at The National Interest.
Prather argues that the Agreed Framework developed under Clinton successfully contained North Korea's nuclear program. Once in office, and then with North Korea a member of the so-called "Axis of Evil," Bush "saw the Agreed Framework as constricting and welcomed a North Korean (and Iraqi and Iranian) withdrawal from the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]". North Korea withdrew and "restarted [its] Plutonium-239 producing reactor".
What this means is not only that North Korea's development of a plutonium bomb occurred on Bush's watch but that Bush is himself responsible for North Korea's development of a plutonium bomb. Indeed, according to Prather: "Bush can put a nuke-armed North Korea on his list of foreign-policy achievements."
And what a list of achievements that is: Iraq is descending into chaos, genocide continues in Darfur, and Iran and North Korea are developing or have developed nuclear weapons. And then there's the rift over Iraq between the U.S. and Europe, as well as the loss of American credibility worldwide as a result of the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and the rendition of prisoners to secret prisons and foreign jurisdictions that sanction torture. And then there's Afghanistan, which has largely been ignored. And... well, it's all bad.
Quite the presidency this has been, eh?
(This is an update to my recent post on Bush Administration officials "rooting" for a North Korean nuclear test.)
We now know that the bomb North Korea tested was a plutonium one, not a uranium one. For the significance of this, see this excellent piece by eminent nuclear physicist James Gordon Prather at The National Interest.
Prather argues that the Agreed Framework developed under Clinton successfully contained North Korea's nuclear program. Once in office, and then with North Korea a member of the so-called "Axis of Evil," Bush "saw the Agreed Framework as constricting and welcomed a North Korean (and Iraqi and Iranian) withdrawal from the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]". North Korea withdrew and "restarted [its] Plutonium-239 producing reactor".
What this means is not only that North Korea's development of a plutonium bomb occurred on Bush's watch but that Bush is himself responsible for North Korea's development of a plutonium bomb. Indeed, according to Prather: "Bush can put a nuke-armed North Korea on his list of foreign-policy achievements."
And what a list of achievements that is: Iraq is descending into chaos, genocide continues in Darfur, and Iran and North Korea are developing or have developed nuclear weapons. And then there's the rift over Iraq between the U.S. and Europe, as well as the loss of American credibility worldwide as a result of the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and the rendition of prisoners to secret prisons and foreign jurisdictions that sanction torture. And then there's Afghanistan, which has largely been ignored. And... well, it's all bad.
Quite the presidency this has been, eh?
There has to be a clever Madonna song title reference here...
By Heraclitus
...but I just can't think of it. I recently wrote a post suggesting that white celebrities just forego mentioning Africa altogether (I'd even be in favor of passing a law requiring it, since I hate free speech). Madonna figured prominently in that post, for her attempts to adopt a baby boy from Malawi. Well, now Madonna is back from Africa, and going on the offensive (and on Oprah, no less). She is not only trumpeting her aristocratic virtue in being moved by the suffering of children, but...well, what do you think is the most offensive thing she could do? What bit of rhetorical over-reaching would you find most absurdly distasteful? If you said "casting herself as a victim," you win. If you said "casting the criticisms of her as morally wrong," you also win. Madonna is not only the victim here, but criticism of her consumerist approach to alleviating poverty in Africa will also discourage others from adopting children as she did. Apparently, she still doesn't understand why people are less than admiring of her ploy of going to Africa and carrying off someone else's child as a symbol of her moral goodness, a pendant to pin to her chest to remind the world of how noble she is.
To be fair to Madonna, I haven't read all of her comments, nor do I plan to. Nor do I plan to elaborate any criticisms of her beyond the snarky and skeletal jibes deployed above. To be fair, she apparently does fund several orphanages in Malawi, and is currently setting up an orphanage for 4,000 children outside the capital. Still, when you read her statement that she first saw the boy in a documentary about Malawian orphans she is financing, and that she became "transfixed" by him, you can't help but hear echos of the way others may describe a handbag, or perhaps the way Alan Alda's character describes his attraction to Mia Farrow in Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And if I wanted to engage in some bashing of liberalism here (for which I'm simply too exhausted), I'm sure there are many interesting and enlightening comparisons to be made between Madonna's words and actions here and Ivan Karamazov's comments on the suffering of children.
...but I just can't think of it. I recently wrote a post suggesting that white celebrities just forego mentioning Africa altogether (I'd even be in favor of passing a law requiring it, since I hate free speech). Madonna figured prominently in that post, for her attempts to adopt a baby boy from Malawi. Well, now Madonna is back from Africa, and going on the offensive (and on Oprah, no less). She is not only trumpeting her aristocratic virtue in being moved by the suffering of children, but...well, what do you think is the most offensive thing she could do? What bit of rhetorical over-reaching would you find most absurdly distasteful? If you said "casting herself as a victim," you win. If you said "casting the criticisms of her as morally wrong," you also win. Madonna is not only the victim here, but criticism of her consumerist approach to alleviating poverty in Africa will also discourage others from adopting children as she did. Apparently, she still doesn't understand why people are less than admiring of her ploy of going to Africa and carrying off someone else's child as a symbol of her moral goodness, a pendant to pin to her chest to remind the world of how noble she is.
To be fair to Madonna, I haven't read all of her comments, nor do I plan to. Nor do I plan to elaborate any criticisms of her beyond the snarky and skeletal jibes deployed above. To be fair, she apparently does fund several orphanages in Malawi, and is currently setting up an orphanage for 4,000 children outside the capital. Still, when you read her statement that she first saw the boy in a documentary about Malawian orphans she is financing, and that she became "transfixed" by him, you can't help but hear echos of the way others may describe a handbag, or perhaps the way Alan Alda's character describes his attraction to Mia Farrow in Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And if I wanted to engage in some bashing of liberalism here (for which I'm simply too exhausted), I'm sure there are many interesting and enlightening comparisons to be made between Madonna's words and actions here and Ivan Karamazov's comments on the suffering of children.
Preparing for withdrawal
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has announced that "he may call for more troops to be sent to Baghdad, possibly by increasing the overall U.S. presence in Iraq".
But don't misunderstand what's going on here. John McCain and the neocon hawks may want troop levels to be substantially increased, but there is neither the military might nor the political will for that to happen. Instead, the U.S. is preparing to pull out of Iraq or at the very least to decrease its troop levels substantially. Indeed, Casey "said he now believed Iraqi forces would be ready to take over security responsibility from the Americans no sooner than late 2007 or early 2008". This paln, such as it is one yet, "pushes back the withdrawal," but, with winning the war in its current form no longer a possibility, withdrawal is inevitable.
This is the groundwork: tough talk on doing more to establish order, encouraging words about how well the Iraqi forces are doing and how close they are to being ready to take over security responsibility, denials that Iraq is descending ever further into uncontrollable chaos, and, looking ahead to the end, a loose timetable for withdrawal. This will be, if it is not already, the new "stay-the-course" strategy, the new spin in defence of the management of the war, as well as of the war itself.
Bush will never say the war was lost, nor that it didn't work out quite as planned. Rather, he and the war's supporters will say that they did what they could to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, that the Iraqis are ready to take over, perhaps even that the Iraqis have asked the U.S. to leave, and that all is as well as could be expected (and if it isn't, it's the Iraqis' fault).
And that will be that. Hands will be washed, responsibility will not be taken, and Iraq will be left with the mess Bush made.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has announced that "he may call for more troops to be sent to Baghdad, possibly by increasing the overall U.S. presence in Iraq".
But don't misunderstand what's going on here. John McCain and the neocon hawks may want troop levels to be substantially increased, but there is neither the military might nor the political will for that to happen. Instead, the U.S. is preparing to pull out of Iraq or at the very least to decrease its troop levels substantially. Indeed, Casey "said he now believed Iraqi forces would be ready to take over security responsibility from the Americans no sooner than late 2007 or early 2008". This paln, such as it is one yet, "pushes back the withdrawal," but, with winning the war in its current form no longer a possibility, withdrawal is inevitable.
This is the groundwork: tough talk on doing more to establish order, encouraging words about how well the Iraqi forces are doing and how close they are to being ready to take over security responsibility, denials that Iraq is descending ever further into uncontrollable chaos, and, looking ahead to the end, a loose timetable for withdrawal. This will be, if it is not already, the new "stay-the-course" strategy, the new spin in defence of the management of the war, as well as of the war itself.
Bush will never say the war was lost, nor that it didn't work out quite as planned. Rather, he and the war's supporters will say that they did what they could to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, that the Iraqis are ready to take over, perhaps even that the Iraqis have asked the U.S. to leave, and that all is as well as could be expected (and if it isn't, it's the Iraqis' fault).
And that will be that. Hands will be washed, responsibility will not be taken, and Iraq will be left with the mess Bush made.
A rhetorical timetable
By Creature
When is a timetable not a timetable? When it has nothing to do with time.
We have measures, we have benchmarks, but we have no dates. Thankfully we did have a rare joint news conference to announce the news that something may have changed in Iraq, though I'm not so sure what. It's big spin-cycle news. The administration has embraced the timetable rhetoric, hollow as it may be, to show that they are flexible. To show that in the face of a huge electoral defeat they are flexible and brave enough to change the message in hopes the American people will fall for their charade once again.
Flex more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
When is a timetable not a timetable? When it has nothing to do with time.
Iraqi leaders have assured the United States they will stick to a timetable of measures over the next year to curb violence and allow U.S. troops to go home, Washington's top officials in Iraq said on Tuesday. [emphasis me]
We have measures, we have benchmarks, but we have no dates. Thankfully we did have a rare joint news conference to announce the news that something may have changed in Iraq, though I'm not so sure what. It's big spin-cycle news. The administration has embraced the timetable rhetoric, hollow as it may be, to show that they are flexible. To show that in the face of a huge electoral defeat they are flexible and brave enough to change the message in hopes the American people will fall for their charade once again.
Flex more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
What do you expect from a guy named Corker?
By Heraclitus
Speaking of Andrew Sullivan, his feud with Glenn Reynolds has been one of the odder developments of the right-wing blogosphere in the past few years. There's a definite sort of post-break-up bitterness to it; it's like watching two people both trying to convince their mutual friends that the other person is totally at fault and is completely horrible. Only it's all taking place on the very public internets. Also something distinctly odd about how each attacks the other on his own blog without ever addressing him directly, choosing instead to discourse on the other's moral and intellectual failings in his absence and, of course, quote the supportive email. Very weird, but also fairly amusing.
I personally, of course, "side" with Sullivan, because, well, Glenn Reynolds. (Okay, that's not really fair. I actually like and respect Sullivan, as regular readers will know, since I frequently cite him. But Reynolds is about three beers away from being Hugh Hewitt or Michelle Malkin.) Anyways, in the course of bashing Reynolds, Sullivan provides a You Tube clip of a very cheesy GOP Senate ad in Tennessee. It's pretty dumb even for a Republican attack ad. When I think of Tennessee, I prefer to think of Lamar Alexander, or, better yet, Bob Dylan looking for Alicia Keys "even clear through Tennessee."
Speaking of Andrew Sullivan, his feud with Glenn Reynolds has been one of the odder developments of the right-wing blogosphere in the past few years. There's a definite sort of post-break-up bitterness to it; it's like watching two people both trying to convince their mutual friends that the other person is totally at fault and is completely horrible. Only it's all taking place on the very public internets. Also something distinctly odd about how each attacks the other on his own blog without ever addressing him directly, choosing instead to discourse on the other's moral and intellectual failings in his absence and, of course, quote the supportive email. Very weird, but also fairly amusing.
I personally, of course, "side" with Sullivan, because, well, Glenn Reynolds. (Okay, that's not really fair. I actually like and respect Sullivan, as regular readers will know, since I frequently cite him. But Reynolds is about three beers away from being Hugh Hewitt or Michelle Malkin.) Anyways, in the course of bashing Reynolds, Sullivan provides a You Tube clip of a very cheesy GOP Senate ad in Tennessee. It's pretty dumb even for a Republican attack ad. When I think of Tennessee, I prefer to think of Lamar Alexander, or, better yet, Bob Dylan looking for Alicia Keys "even clear through Tennessee."
Iraq continues to hurt Bush
By Heraclitus
A new poll from ABC shows that the Iraq War is increasingly unpopular not only among Democrats and Independents but among Bush's own base.
Further evidence that Bush and the GOP may finally have reached the point where their ideological arrogance and incompetence shine through everything that they do, and no amount of dirty campaigning can kick up enough dust to hide that. But, of course, it ain't over till it's over.
H/T: Andrew Sullivan.
A new poll from ABC shows that the Iraq War is increasingly unpopular not only among Democrats and Independents but among Bush's own base.
An improving economy notwithstanding, opposition to the war remains the prime issue driving congressional voter preference. And the war's critics include not just eight in 10 Democrats but 64 percent of independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and a quarter of Republicans.
It matters: Among the four in 10 registered voters who favor the war in Iraq, 73 percent support the Republicans in their congressional districts. But many more, nearly six in 10, oppose the war, and 78 percent favor Democrats for the House.
Further evidence that Bush and the GOP may finally have reached the point where their ideological arrogance and incompetence shine through everything that they do, and no amount of dirty campaigning can kick up enough dust to hide that. But, of course, it ain't over till it's over.
H/T: Andrew Sullivan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
