NSA Stephen Hadley is looking for a new war czar.
Sorry: "implementation and execution manager."
Otherwise known as: "suicidal career move."
Or: "doing what Hadley should be doing."
Or: "Hail Mary."
Monday, April 30, 2007
"Of course, you are aware, your chances of success are, oh, this big... hehehe"
By Michael J.W. Stickings
NSA Stephen Hadley is looking for a new war czar.
Sorry: "implementation and execution manager."
Otherwise known as: "suicidal career move."
Or: "doing what Hadley should be doing."
Or: "Hail Mary."
NSA Stephen Hadley is looking for a new war czar.
Sorry: "implementation and execution manager."
Otherwise known as: "suicidal career move."
Or: "doing what Hadley should be doing."
Or: "Hail Mary."
ASTRONAUT TRAINING - THE VOMIT COMET ! ! !
SO, YOU THINK YOU WANT TO BE AN ASTRONAUT !!!
WARNING FLYING PUKE ALERT!!!
Bad Olmert
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Readers of this blog may remember that last year I defended Israel for defending itself against Hezbollah and others -- such as Iran, which supports Hezbollah -- who wish its annihilation. They may also remember that I found Israel's heavy-handed military operation in Lebanon not only wanting but deeply troubling.
I am a friend of Israel, but my support was conditional. I opposed the escalation of its ground offensive following initial air strikes, for example, and generally objected to what I found to be excessive use of force. I supported diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict and welcomed the U.N.-sponsored cease-fire.
Well, it seems now that Israel itself has a problem with Israel's actions. Here's Haaretz:
And there's more:
In addition to Olmert's myriad self-defeating failings, Defense Secretary Amir Peretz "did not have knowledge or experience in military, political or governmental matters. He also did not have good knowledge of the basic principles of using military force to achieve political goals". And "he made his decisions during this period without systemic consultations with experienced political and professional experts, including outside the security establishment".
Ouch. Harsh criticism, but fully deserved. For both of them.
Israel has a right to defend itself -- I stand by that -- but it hardly does any good to defend itself so incompetently.
Readers of this blog may remember that last year I defended Israel for defending itself against Hezbollah and others -- such as Iran, which supports Hezbollah -- who wish its annihilation. They may also remember that I found Israel's heavy-handed military operation in Lebanon not only wanting but deeply troubling.
I am a friend of Israel, but my support was conditional. I opposed the escalation of its ground offensive following initial air strikes, for example, and generally objected to what I found to be excessive use of force. I supported diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict and welcomed the U.N.-sponsored cease-fire.
Well, it seems now that Israel itself has a problem with Israel's actions. Here's Haaretz:
The partial report by a government-appointed committee probing the Second Lebanon War on Monday accused Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of "severe failure" in exercising judgment, responsibility and caution during the outset of the war.
The report, [released today], says Olmert acted hastily in leading the country to war last July 12, without having a comprehensive plan.
The prime minister, the report said, "bears supreme and comprehensive responsibility for the decisions of 'his' government and the operations of the army."
And there's more:
"The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one," the report said. "He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs."
Olmert was also censured for failing to "adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing."
"All of these," the report said, "add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence."
In addition to Olmert's myriad self-defeating failings, Defense Secretary Amir Peretz "did not have knowledge or experience in military, political or governmental matters. He also did not have good knowledge of the basic principles of using military force to achieve political goals". And "he made his decisions during this period without systemic consultations with experienced political and professional experts, including outside the security establishment".
Ouch. Harsh criticism, but fully deserved. For both of them.
Israel has a right to defend itself -- I stand by that -- but it hardly does any good to defend itself so incompetently.
It's funny because it's true
By Heraclitus
Well, it's that time of year again. As some of us drain the academic year to its bitterest dregs (or something), I feel the noose of impending unemployment drawing ever tighter around my neck. Like Tuco at the beginning of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I sit here on an indifferent ass that has seen better days, waiting -- or, more accurately, hoping -- for some obliging department to come along and shoot through the rope before I'm left hanging. At this point I'd gladly take a 6-6 at Cal State Fullerton teaching political theory, American government, criminology, Japanese politics, environmental theory and policy, computer programming and an evening class in calligraphy. Hell, I'd just teach Kafka in all of them. "Professor, this is Constitutional Law. Shouldn't we be learning about habeas corpus or The Bill of Rights or something rather than reading The Trial?" "Look, kids, your naivete is touching, but those things aren't going to be around by the time you graduate. Trust me, this'll be much more useful in the world you're going to be living in."
So, do I have a point here? Not especially, though I do want to warn any of our readers who may be considering the folly of graduate school (*cough* Lily *cough*) just how dark their future is. (While you're fearing for your sanity a few years down the road, definitely read this as well.) Actually, that's not even true. By the time those just beginning graduate school leave, that whole generation of baby boomers should be retiring, or at least dying off. So, really, I just wanted an excuse to post this cartoon, which is quite droll.
Well, it's that time of year again. As some of us drain the academic year to its bitterest dregs (or something), I feel the noose of impending unemployment drawing ever tighter around my neck. Like Tuco at the beginning of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I sit here on an indifferent ass that has seen better days, waiting -- or, more accurately, hoping -- for some obliging department to come along and shoot through the rope before I'm left hanging. At this point I'd gladly take a 6-6 at Cal State Fullerton teaching political theory, American government, criminology, Japanese politics, environmental theory and policy, computer programming and an evening class in calligraphy. Hell, I'd just teach Kafka in all of them. "Professor, this is Constitutional Law. Shouldn't we be learning about habeas corpus or The Bill of Rights or something rather than reading The Trial?" "Look, kids, your naivete is touching, but those things aren't going to be around by the time you graduate. Trust me, this'll be much more useful in the world you're going to be living in."
So, do I have a point here? Not especially, though I do want to warn any of our readers who may be considering the folly of graduate school (*cough* Lily *cough*) just how dark their future is. (While you're fearing for your sanity a few years down the road, definitely read this as well.) Actually, that's not even true. By the time those just beginning graduate school leave, that whole generation of baby boomers should be retiring, or at least dying off. So, really, I just wanted an excuse to post this cartoon, which is quite droll.
Puff the Magic Dragon
By Capt. Fogg
Is it a coating of non-stick Teflon that keeps things from sticking to Rollicking Rush Limbaugh, or is it just ordinary slime he's covered with? Perhaps, if he bothers to explain himself at all, he will tell us that public figures like Barack Obama are fair game for race baiting while college girls are not, but I'm waiting to see the kind of reaction we got to Imus's comment. I'm waiting in fact to hear any update on the story that appeared in Crooks and Liars last Friday much less the racist barb he tossed at the Illinois Senator last January. It may be a long wait.
Rush playing "Barack the Magic Negro" to the tune of the silly Peter, Paul & Mary song from the '60s on his radio show is only the latest in a career of ugliness, pettyness, maliciousness, and malignant bullying that should have ended years ago. Whether it's blatant racism or whether it's calling an adolescent girl a dog on nationwide TV, there have been too many incidents egregious enough to have him fired and blacklisted -- and yet here he is, smelly phallic cigar in his fat mouth, stinking up the pristine Florida air and the public airwaves.
It's time the media stop hiding behind a disclaimer and fire the bastard.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Is it a coating of non-stick Teflon that keeps things from sticking to Rollicking Rush Limbaugh, or is it just ordinary slime he's covered with? Perhaps, if he bothers to explain himself at all, he will tell us that public figures like Barack Obama are fair game for race baiting while college girls are not, but I'm waiting to see the kind of reaction we got to Imus's comment. I'm waiting in fact to hear any update on the story that appeared in Crooks and Liars last Friday much less the racist barb he tossed at the Illinois Senator last January. It may be a long wait.Rush playing "Barack the Magic Negro" to the tune of the silly Peter, Paul & Mary song from the '60s on his radio show is only the latest in a career of ugliness, pettyness, maliciousness, and malignant bullying that should have ended years ago. Whether it's blatant racism or whether it's calling an adolescent girl a dog on nationwide TV, there have been too many incidents egregious enough to have him fired and blacklisted -- and yet here he is, smelly phallic cigar in his fat mouth, stinking up the pristine Florida air and the public airwaves.
It's time the media stop hiding behind a disclaimer and fire the bastard.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Georges Seurat -- Un dimanche après-midi à l'Ile de la Grande Jatte (1886)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
In anticipation of summer, here's a lovely (and justifiably famous) painting by the French neo-impressionist/pointillist Georges Seurat. (There are different English versions of the title, which is why I'm going with the original French here.)
You may remember that Cameron admires this painting (fixating on the child in white in the center) during Ferris Bueller's day off in 1986 -- one hundred years after its completion. It's at The Art Institute of Chicago.
In anticipation of summer, here's a lovely (and justifiably famous) painting by the French neo-impressionist/pointillist Georges Seurat. (There are different English versions of the title, which is why I'm going with the original French here.)
You may remember that Cameron admires this painting (fixating on the child in white in the center) during Ferris Bueller's day off in 1986 -- one hundred years after its completion. It's at The Art Institute of Chicago.
Sarkozy's cynical appeal to the center
By Michael J.W. Stickings
With Royal and Bayrou seeking common ground, and with Bayrou seeming to give his supporters a subtle cue to support Royal in next Sunday's second round of the French presidential election, Sarkozy is now himself trying to woo the center. At a rally in Paris yesterday, Sarkozy explicitly reached out to Bayrou's supporters. He reiterated the rightist views that form the core of his platform, but "[h]e said the views of Mr Bayrou's supporters would be taken into account and he offered to introduce some proportional representation in parliament".
Aw, how generous. Politicians will say anything in a pinch, won't they? -- and Sarkozy is certainly in one. He's the favourite to win the presidency, given how well he did in the first round, but enough support from Bayrou's center could put Royal over the top.
And here's the problem for Sarkozy: I don't think he's on the hard right, but his platform seems to be a mixture of neo-liberalism, xenophobia, authoritarianism. And during the campaign leading up to the first round he made a concerted effort to reach out to Le Pen's rightist National Front, a movement that is truly hard right. And that effort seems to have worked -- Sarkozy won and Le Pen ended up a distant fourth. And now, after all that, he's making an appeal to the center?
Surely French voters do not have such short memories.
With Royal and Bayrou seeking common ground, and with Bayrou seeming to give his supporters a subtle cue to support Royal in next Sunday's second round of the French presidential election, Sarkozy is now himself trying to woo the center. At a rally in Paris yesterday, Sarkozy explicitly reached out to Bayrou's supporters. He reiterated the rightist views that form the core of his platform, but "[h]e said the views of Mr Bayrou's supporters would be taken into account and he offered to introduce some proportional representation in parliament".
Aw, how generous. Politicians will say anything in a pinch, won't they? -- and Sarkozy is certainly in one. He's the favourite to win the presidency, given how well he did in the first round, but enough support from Bayrou's center could put Royal over the top.
And here's the problem for Sarkozy: I don't think he's on the hard right, but his platform seems to be a mixture of neo-liberalism, xenophobia, authoritarianism. And during the campaign leading up to the first round he made a concerted effort to reach out to Le Pen's rightist National Front, a movement that is truly hard right. And that effort seems to have worked -- Sarkozy won and Le Pen ended up a distant fourth. And now, after all that, he's making an appeal to the center?
Surely French voters do not have such short memories.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Fucking the victims of Katrina
By Michael J.W. Stickings
This is completely and utterly appalling:
And here's a revealing statistic: "Overall, the United States declined 54 of 77 recorded aid offers from three of its staunchest allies: Canada, Britain and Israel, according to a 40-page State Department table of the offers that had been received as of January 2006."
I don't know what to say. Essentially, the U.S. government -- with the knowledge and inaction of the Bush Administration, which covered it up -- denied Katrina victims massive amounts of foreign aid and support, even aid and support from America's closest friends.
How fucked up is that? And how reprehensible?
The normal and ineffectual processes and operations of government may be partly to blame, but so too is the Bush Administration. And Bush himself, who must be held responsible for the government's response to Katrina.
For what we know now is that it wasn't just FEMA's slow response to the hurricane that was the problem. It was also failure on a massive scale to provide aid and support to the victims.
That is what is truly appalling.
This is completely and utterly appalling:
As the winds and water of Hurricane Katrina were receding, presidential confidante Karen Hughes sent a cable from her State Department office to U.S. ambassadors worldwide.
Titled "Echo-Chamber Message" -- a public relations term for talking points designed to be repeated again and again -- the Sept. 7, 2005, directive was unmistakable: Assure the scores of countries that had pledged or donated aid at the height of the disaster that their largesse had provided Americans "practical help and moral support" and "highlight the concrete benefits hurricane victims are receiving."
Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies' offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina's victims.
Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent.
And here's a revealing statistic: "Overall, the United States declined 54 of 77 recorded aid offers from three of its staunchest allies: Canada, Britain and Israel, according to a 40-page State Department table of the offers that had been received as of January 2006."
I don't know what to say. Essentially, the U.S. government -- with the knowledge and inaction of the Bush Administration, which covered it up -- denied Katrina victims massive amounts of foreign aid and support, even aid and support from America's closest friends.
How fucked up is that? And how reprehensible?
The normal and ineffectual processes and operations of government may be partly to blame, but so too is the Bush Administration. And Bush himself, who must be held responsible for the government's response to Katrina.
For what we know now is that it wasn't just FEMA's slow response to the hurricane that was the problem. It was also failure on a massive scale to provide aid and support to the victims.
That is what is truly appalling.
Bloody Basra
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It's not what it used to be: "Once an island of relative tranquillity, Basra has suffered a dramatic turnaround in the last two years":
The war's proponents will say that this is why withdrawal is a bad idea. If this is what is happening in Basra, consider what will happen in Baghdad when the U.S. leaves. But the upsurge of violence in Basra predates the phased British withdrawal, and the situation there -- intra-sectarian violence -- may be one that needs to play out without the presence of an occupying force (the presence of which provides a target for its opponents and may actually be making the situation worse).
Regardless, what the situation in Basra indicates is that the violence in Iraq isn't limited to Baghdad and largely Sunni areas like Anbar but is in fact ubiquitous. Which means that the U.S.-led surge in Baghdad and Anbar, even if successful, would only do so much to pacify the country and provide the stability necessary for the Iraqi government to succeed.
The Iraq of today is closer to chaos than to stability -- or, at least, stability is a long way off. And it is what it is today not just because of the explosion of long-dormant (because long-suppressed) sectarianism but because the war/occupation -- which I refer to jointly as the Iraq War -- has been so grossly mismanaged.
It's not what it used to be: "Once an island of relative tranquillity, Basra has suffered a dramatic turnaround in the last two years":
Although the violence pales in comparison to Baghdad's, seven British soldiers have been killed in Basra in April, three in gunfire and four when a roadside bomb tore through their Warrior fighting vehicle. The deaths pushed Britain's monthly toll in Iraq to 11, the highest since 27 of its troops were killed during the invasion of March 2003, according to the Web site icasualties.org.
The spike in violence comes as Britain begins to disengage from southern Iraq, leaving Shiite political parties and their associated militias to duke it out over the spoils. At stake is control of political patronage in Iraq's second-largest city and of the billions of dollars in oil that flow through the country's only seaport.
The war's proponents will say that this is why withdrawal is a bad idea. If this is what is happening in Basra, consider what will happen in Baghdad when the U.S. leaves. But the upsurge of violence in Basra predates the phased British withdrawal, and the situation there -- intra-sectarian violence -- may be one that needs to play out without the presence of an occupying force (the presence of which provides a target for its opponents and may actually be making the situation worse).
Regardless, what the situation in Basra indicates is that the violence in Iraq isn't limited to Baghdad and largely Sunni areas like Anbar but is in fact ubiquitous. Which means that the U.S.-led surge in Baghdad and Anbar, even if successful, would only do so much to pacify the country and provide the stability necessary for the Iraqi government to succeed.
The Iraq of today is closer to chaos than to stability -- or, at least, stability is a long way off. And it is what it is today not just because of the explosion of long-dormant (because long-suppressed) sectarianism but because the war/occupation -- which I refer to jointly as the Iraq War -- has been so grossly mismanaged.
NFL Draft 2007
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I haven't been at my most prolific today -- blogging-wise, that is -- but that's because I spent much of the day paying attention to the NFL draft.
Notre Dame QB Brady Quinn's high-profile fall from the top of the draft to #22 was the big drama of the day, though he ended up on a good team for him (if not a good team yet), his close-to-hometown Cleveland Browns, who were awfully lucky that he fell so far -- and that Miami didn't grab him at #9, instead reaching for Ohio State's Ted Ginn Jr. and finding their QB of the future in BYU's John Beck in the early second round.
My close-to-hometown Buffalo Bills did extremely well, I thought, picking up California's Marshawn Lynch, likely the second-best RB in the draft, at #12 to replace the departed (and overrated) Willis McGahee; Penn State's celebrated LB Paul Posluszny in the second round to replace the departed London Fletcher, a steal given that prior to being injured last year he was projected to go much higher; and Stanford QB Trent Edwards in the third round, a QB of the future if the J.P. Losman experiment doesn't work out.
But of course my attention was focused on my beloved Pittsburgh Steelers, who going into the draft needed to bolster their secondary, find a replacement for departed LB Joey Porter, consider a possible replacement for Pro-Bowler Alan Faneca at G, and maybe even locate a #3 WR to support Hines Ward and Santonio Holmes. And they did well, I think, to pick the raw but extremely athletic Florida State LB Lawrence Timmons at #15 and Michigan DE LaMarr Woodley in the second round, both of whom could turn out to be next-generation stars for the Steel Curtain, whether they end up switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 or not. New coach Mike Tomlin evidently knows what he's doing. My concern is that they haven't yet -- and there is obviously much more of the draft to go -- found a possible upgrade for the secondary, which was why, before the Timmons pick, I was hoping they'd be able to get Pittsburgh CB Darrelle Revis (the Jets traded up to take him at #14). And I also wonder about their third-round pick, Minnesota TE Matt Spaeth. Why a TE? And why someone projected to go much lower? Anyway, holes remain to be filled, but that's what the second day of the draft is for.
As for the rest, check out SI's draft analysis for the first two rounds. Most teams seemed to do well with their first-round picks, but there were notable exceptions, like Green Bay and possibly San Diego, as well as Miami (for passing on Quinn, but still getting a solid QB). For the winners and losers of Day One, see here.
I haven't been at my most prolific today -- blogging-wise, that is -- but that's because I spent much of the day paying attention to the NFL draft.
Notre Dame QB Brady Quinn's high-profile fall from the top of the draft to #22 was the big drama of the day, though he ended up on a good team for him (if not a good team yet), his close-to-hometown Cleveland Browns, who were awfully lucky that he fell so far -- and that Miami didn't grab him at #9, instead reaching for Ohio State's Ted Ginn Jr. and finding their QB of the future in BYU's John Beck in the early second round.
My close-to-hometown Buffalo Bills did extremely well, I thought, picking up California's Marshawn Lynch, likely the second-best RB in the draft, at #12 to replace the departed (and overrated) Willis McGahee; Penn State's celebrated LB Paul Posluszny in the second round to replace the departed London Fletcher, a steal given that prior to being injured last year he was projected to go much higher; and Stanford QB Trent Edwards in the third round, a QB of the future if the J.P. Losman experiment doesn't work out.
But of course my attention was focused on my beloved Pittsburgh Steelers, who going into the draft needed to bolster their secondary, find a replacement for departed LB Joey Porter, consider a possible replacement for Pro-Bowler Alan Faneca at G, and maybe even locate a #3 WR to support Hines Ward and Santonio Holmes. And they did well, I think, to pick the raw but extremely athletic Florida State LB Lawrence Timmons at #15 and Michigan DE LaMarr Woodley in the second round, both of whom could turn out to be next-generation stars for the Steel Curtain, whether they end up switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 or not. New coach Mike Tomlin evidently knows what he's doing. My concern is that they haven't yet -- and there is obviously much more of the draft to go -- found a possible upgrade for the secondary, which was why, before the Timmons pick, I was hoping they'd be able to get Pittsburgh CB Darrelle Revis (the Jets traded up to take him at #14). And I also wonder about their third-round pick, Minnesota TE Matt Spaeth. Why a TE? And why someone projected to go much lower? Anyway, holes remain to be filled, but that's what the second day of the draft is for.
As for the rest, check out SI's draft analysis for the first two rounds. Most teams seemed to do well with their first-round picks, but there were notable exceptions, like Green Bay and possibly San Diego, as well as Miami (for passing on Quinn, but still getting a solid QB). For the winners and losers of Day One, see here.
Peggy reflects on fear
By Libby Spencer
I tried to avoid reading Peggy Noonan all day, but I finally broke down and looked at her incomprehensible column. She's worried about the kids this week. We're creating a culture of fear she says and casts about for who to blame. She has no trouble pinpointing the problem.
It's the artists who depict history too literally. It's the media. It's the rappers. It's Rosie, and Imus and anti-smoking campaigns. It's the focus on global warming. She pines for the good old days of the 60s when all we had to worry about was communists. Duck and cover drills weren't as scary as this. According to Peg, we don't care enough about our children to stop warning them of the dangers they face in life. We need to shut up about politics to save them from their fears.
Oddly she doesn't mention the war on terror. Somehow she forgets that the administration she loyally supported for the last six years created the culture of fear for their own political gain and continue to play the politics of fear daily. The president she so loved until recently, speaks of nothing but 9/11 and the evil boogeymen that are out to get us. The same president whose lies and self-serving political machinations are only now being exposed.
To paraphrase Ms. Noonan: This is what paid punditry will be like in Purgatory.
The world has always been a dangerous place and kids have always suffered from their fears. The difference between now and the 60s is that now their parents are scared too. Ours weren't and we found our strength in them.
Our parents had reason to trust their government and to believe in the American dream. Our parents were proud of our country and believed in our might. Today's parents are proud of their SUVs and believe in the almighty dollar and little else. It's every man for himself. There's no communal concern in wedge politics and this mindset has been fostered and flourished in the last six years by the materialistic conservatives Noonan very much helped put into power.
If Peggy wants to know why our children are scared, I'd suggest she look in the mirror.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
I tried to avoid reading Peggy Noonan all day, but I finally broke down and looked at her incomprehensible column. She's worried about the kids this week. We're creating a culture of fear she says and casts about for who to blame. She has no trouble pinpointing the problem.
It's the artists who depict history too literally. It's the media. It's the rappers. It's Rosie, and Imus and anti-smoking campaigns. It's the focus on global warming. She pines for the good old days of the 60s when all we had to worry about was communists. Duck and cover drills weren't as scary as this. According to Peg, we don't care enough about our children to stop warning them of the dangers they face in life. We need to shut up about politics to save them from their fears.
Oddly she doesn't mention the war on terror. Somehow she forgets that the administration she loyally supported for the last six years created the culture of fear for their own political gain and continue to play the politics of fear daily. The president she so loved until recently, speaks of nothing but 9/11 and the evil boogeymen that are out to get us. The same president whose lies and self-serving political machinations are only now being exposed.
To paraphrase Ms. Noonan: This is what paid punditry will be like in Purgatory.
The world has always been a dangerous place and kids have always suffered from their fears. The difference between now and the 60s is that now their parents are scared too. Ours weren't and we found our strength in them.
Our parents had reason to trust their government and to believe in the American dream. Our parents were proud of our country and believed in our might. Today's parents are proud of their SUVs and believe in the almighty dollar and little else. It's every man for himself. There's no communal concern in wedge politics and this mindset has been fostered and flourished in the last six years by the materialistic conservatives Noonan very much helped put into power.
If Peggy wants to know why our children are scared, I'd suggest she look in the mirror.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Royal + Bayrou = ?????
By Michael J.W. Stickings
As I mentioned in a few days ago, François Bayrou, the centrist who finished a strong third in last weekend's first round of France's presidential election, has declined to endorse either neo-liberal Nicolas Sarkozy or neo-socialist Ségolène Royal. I suggested, however, that he seemed to be leaning to Royal. Well, he and Royal may be closer than previously thought:
This is very good news -- for those of us who support Royal. Although Sarkozy continues to lead in the polls, and will almost certainly be the favourite going into next Sunday's run-off, the race is close enough that it could end up being decided by how Bayrou's 6.8 million voters cast their second-round votes -- even without a formal endorsement from Bayrou.
Royal, it seems, had been looking for "a possible centre-left alliance," which is what led to the debate. Bayrou has clearly ruled out a formal alliance, but informal support, of the kind expressed here (seeking "common ground"), looks like more and more of a possibility.
In other words, though he may not wish to align himself or even work closely with Royal, Bayrou seems to have given his voters a cue, an indication of his preference in the second round. Hopefully his voters will pick up on it and push Royal over the top.
As I mentioned in a few days ago, François Bayrou, the centrist who finished a strong third in last weekend's first round of France's presidential election, has declined to endorse either neo-liberal Nicolas Sarkozy or neo-socialist Ségolène Royal. I suggested, however, that he seemed to be leaning to Royal. Well, he and Royal may be closer than previously thought:
French presidential hopeful Segolene Royal and defeated candidate Francois Bayrou have held a televised debate in which they vowed to seek common ground.
But both ruled out working more closely together before the final vote next month, stressing their differences.
This is very good news -- for those of us who support Royal. Although Sarkozy continues to lead in the polls, and will almost certainly be the favourite going into next Sunday's run-off, the race is close enough that it could end up being decided by how Bayrou's 6.8 million voters cast their second-round votes -- even without a formal endorsement from Bayrou.
Royal, it seems, had been looking for "a possible centre-left alliance," which is what led to the debate. Bayrou has clearly ruled out a formal alliance, but informal support, of the kind expressed here (seeking "common ground"), looks like more and more of a possibility.
In other words, though he may not wish to align himself or even work closely with Royal, Bayrou seems to have given his voters a cue, an indication of his preference in the second round. Hopefully his voters will pick up on it and push Royal over the top.
More wingnut parody
By Heraclitus
Last fall I wrote a post here pretending to be an open letter to the GOP from someone concerned about the insidious influence on our national character of children's cereal characters. Although I'm usually ambivalent (at best) about what I write, I think it was pretty droll, and others seemed to agree. Anyways, it's been reposted or cross-posted now at the WAAGNFNP blog; if you missed it before or want to revisit it, you can read it there.
Last fall I wrote a post here pretending to be an open letter to the GOP from someone concerned about the insidious influence on our national character of children's cereal characters. Although I'm usually ambivalent (at best) about what I write, I think it was pretty droll, and others seemed to agree. Anyways, it's been reposted or cross-posted now at the WAAGNFNP blog; if you missed it before or want to revisit it, you can read it there.
Friday, April 27, 2007
The plight of lesbian polygamists
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Did I get your attention? Then you'll want to know about this:
No, no, I'm not going to make a case for polygamy, but the hypocrisy here -- men are permitted to have four wives, women are kept in bondage -- suggests that this is about sexism and homophobia, not polygamy. But that's what you get in a backwards society ruled by religious extremism.
Nigeria's a lovely place, isn't it?
Did I get your attention? Then you'll want to know about this:
A Nigerian lesbian who "married" four women last weekend in Kano State has gone into hiding from the Islamic police, with her partners.
Under Sharia law, adopted in the state seven years ago, homosexuality and same-sex marriages are outlawed and considered very serious offences.
The theatre where the elaborate wedding celebration was held on Sunday has been demolished by Kano city's authorities.
Lesbianism is also illegal under Nigeria's national penal code.
Nigeria's parliament is considering tightening its laws on homosexuality.
No, no, I'm not going to make a case for polygamy, but the hypocrisy here -- men are permitted to have four wives, women are kept in bondage -- suggests that this is about sexism and homophobia, not polygamy. But that's what you get in a backwards society ruled by religious extremism.
Nigeria's a lovely place, isn't it?
Imaginary politics
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I'm not a fan of his work, on the whole, but Gerard Baker has a column up at The Times that is worth a read. It addresses the Fred Thompson phenomenon -- with unusual perception, I might add -- and what that phenomenon says about the current state of American politics. Here's a key passage:
And that's just part of it. What Baker fails to mention is that Thompson was also McCain's close ally in the Senate -- and we all know what the Republican base and conservatives generally think of McCain. Thompson was even a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, that hated piece of legislation that to the right restricts political speech but to the more sober and sensible was an effort to make politics more equitable. And there's muc more. At Slate, John Dickerson recently examined Thompson's other "problems": He was "soft on Clinton" -- Bill, that is). He's a federalist, not a nationalizing theocrat. Like John Edwards, he used to be one of those despised trial lawyers.
Thompson is no Reagan, in other words, but he nonetheless fits the mood of the electorate. Baker again:
And who can blame the American electorate for feeling this way? "President George Bush's ineptitude and increasingly bunkered immobilism makes Americans yearn for something new, even if it may not be wholly believable."
A fake, after all, is better than a failure.
I'm not a fan of his work, on the whole, but Gerard Baker has a column up at The Times that is worth a read. It addresses the Fred Thompson phenomenon -- with unusual perception, I might add -- and what that phenomenon says about the current state of American politics. Here's a key passage:
[F]or all his real-world government service and his good conservative credentials, it is hard to escape the feeling that Mr Thompson is lighting up the contest at the moment because he is the Imaginary Candidate. Republican voters, demoralised by their present political condition and unenthused by their current field of candidates, are projecting their hopes and ideals on to a man that most still know best only as an entertainer. Much in his background remains unexamined -- it is not widely known, for example, that before he commanded fictional submarines and prosecuted make-believe criminals, he was a real-life Washington lobbyist, stained, it can be safely presumed, by some of the grime you have to wade through to do that job effectively.
And that's just part of it. What Baker fails to mention is that Thompson was also McCain's close ally in the Senate -- and we all know what the Republican base and conservatives generally think of McCain. Thompson was even a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, that hated piece of legislation that to the right restricts political speech but to the more sober and sensible was an effort to make politics more equitable. And there's muc more. At Slate, John Dickerson recently examined Thompson's other "problems": He was "soft on Clinton" -- Bill, that is). He's a federalist, not a nationalizing theocrat. Like John Edwards, he used to be one of those despised trial lawyers.
Thompson is no Reagan, in other words, but he nonetheless fits the mood of the electorate. Baker again:
The excitement around Mr Thompson reveals not just a dissatisfaction with the available Republican contenders, but a much larger escapism on the part of voters, anxious to flee the present-day horrors of real-life Washington. Barack Obama, suddenly now becoming the leading Democratic contender, may not have acted in any movies but his message of hope and change offers the same idealised blank slate for Democrats disillusioned by their own tired and uninspiring leaders.
And who can blame the American electorate for feeling this way? "President George Bush's ineptitude and increasingly bunkered immobilism makes Americans yearn for something new, even if it may not be wholly believable."
A fake, after all, is better than a failure.
A Shakespearean Bush
By Michael J.W. Stickings
What is Bush's "central, tragic flaw"? asks my friend Tim F. in a thought-provoking post at Balloon Juice.
There are so many from which to choose, but: "The president is psychologically incapable of examining an issue in depth, but he is also unable to tell disagreement from betrayal. Add together the ideological reflexivity and the gilded class demand of fealty in the place of what most of us would have called loyalty, and you have somebody who is both unable to make the right decision and incapable of revisiting it."
There you have it.
What is Bush's "central, tragic flaw"? asks my friend Tim F. in a thought-provoking post at Balloon Juice.
There are so many from which to choose, but: "The president is psychologically incapable of examining an issue in depth, but he is also unable to tell disagreement from betrayal. Add together the ideological reflexivity and the gilded class demand of fealty in the place of what most of us would have called loyalty, and you have somebody who is both unable to make the right decision and incapable of revisiting it."
There you have it.
Joe Lieberman is clueless
By Michael J.W. Stickings
And delusional.
Consider the last line of his horrendous op-ed in yesterday's increasingly rightist WaPo:
Fantastic. And how exactly will this lost war be won? It's the McCain argument: We're there, give Petraeus a chance, the surge is working...
But the evidence would seem to undermine Lieberman's flimsy case, which means that all he really has is hope. But hope is not a strategy.
Ah, but it's a war against al Qaeda? Right, which wasn't in Iraq before the war but which is there now. Go figure.
But it's not all al Qaeda. This is how defenders of the war defend the war. By linking it to the larger war on terror. If we pull out of Iraq, the terrorists win -- and will bring the war to America's shores. This is their justification for endless war, an endless war that can't be won.
And if you're not with him, if you're not for the war as Bush wages it, you're with the terrorists.
This is an "increasingly anachronistic tune," says Ezra Klein. "What sets Lieberman apart from the pack is not his support of Bush administration policies," says Scott Paul, "it's his adoption of its fear-based rhetoric, his intentional simplification of a complex situation into victory versus surrender, and his demonization of those who hold alternative views." "And speaking of doing exactly what al Qaeda hopes we'll do," asks the Anonymous Liberal, "what do you think we were doing when we decided to invade Iraq in the first place? Is there any conceivable course of action we could have taken that would have done more to advance al Qaeda's cause?"
Perhaps not, but Joe Lieberman doesn't get that, just like he doesn't get so much else. The war is not and never has been what he thinks it is, the world has passed him by, and yet he still has some prominent media soapboxes from which to spew the latest warmongering talking points from the GOP.
Fantastic indeed.
And delusional.
Consider the last line of his horrendous op-ed in yesterday's increasingly rightist WaPo:
To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.
Fantastic. And how exactly will this lost war be won? It's the McCain argument: We're there, give Petraeus a chance, the surge is working...
But the evidence would seem to undermine Lieberman's flimsy case, which means that all he really has is hope. But hope is not a strategy.
Ah, but it's a war against al Qaeda? Right, which wasn't in Iraq before the war but which is there now. Go figure.
But it's not all al Qaeda. This is how defenders of the war defend the war. By linking it to the larger war on terror. If we pull out of Iraq, the terrorists win -- and will bring the war to America's shores. This is their justification for endless war, an endless war that can't be won.
And if you're not with him, if you're not for the war as Bush wages it, you're with the terrorists.
This is an "increasingly anachronistic tune," says Ezra Klein. "What sets Lieberman apart from the pack is not his support of Bush administration policies," says Scott Paul, "it's his adoption of its fear-based rhetoric, his intentional simplification of a complex situation into victory versus surrender, and his demonization of those who hold alternative views." "And speaking of doing exactly what al Qaeda hopes we'll do," asks the Anonymous Liberal, "what do you think we were doing when we decided to invade Iraq in the first place? Is there any conceivable course of action we could have taken that would have done more to advance al Qaeda's cause?"
Perhaps not, but Joe Lieberman doesn't get that, just like he doesn't get so much else. The war is not and never has been what he thinks it is, the world has passed him by, and yet he still has some prominent media soapboxes from which to spew the latest warmongering talking points from the GOP.
Fantastic indeed.
The will of the people
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Rasmussen: "Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%)":
Heckuva job, Dubya.
Rasmussen: "Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%)":
Underlying these attitudes is pessimism about the War itself. Just 29% of American voters believe the troop surge launched earlier this year has made things better in Iraq. Twice as many, 61%, believe the surge has either made things worse (43%) or had no impact (18%). A separate survey found that just 33% believe history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a success. Fifty percent (50%) believe it will be viewed as a failure.
Heckuva job, Dubya.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The liberal interventionist
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Tony Blair, that is.
See this revealing piece on the soon-to-be ex-PM in The Guardian by Timothy Garton Ash.
Being something of a liberal interventionist myself, I've always been sympathetic to Blair -- I've even considered him one of the world's leading and most credible statesmen -- even if he'll largely be remembered for his unflinching support for the Iraq War. Which is what he deserves, perhaps, but which is also rather unfair. Consider his -- and Britain's -- leadership on such issues as Kosovo, Darfur, global warming, and poverty.
There has certainly been much more to him and his premiership than "froth and miasma".
Tony Blair, that is.
See this revealing piece on the soon-to-be ex-PM in The Guardian by Timothy Garton Ash.
Being something of a liberal interventionist myself, I've always been sympathetic to Blair -- I've even considered him one of the world's leading and most credible statesmen -- even if he'll largely be remembered for his unflinching support for the Iraq War. Which is what he deserves, perhaps, but which is also rather unfair. Consider his -- and Britain's -- leadership on such issues as Kosovo, Darfur, global warming, and poverty.
There has certainly been much more to him and his premiership than "froth and miasma".
I rarely agree with Christopher Hitchens, but...
By Michael J.W. Stickings
...he's right about "the national orgy of mawkishness that followed the Virginia Tech shootings" -- see here.
...he's right about "the national orgy of mawkishness that followed the Virginia Tech shootings" -- see here.
War and political theater
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I won't comment much on this tonight -- I'll have much more to say in the coming days -- but here's what happened:
That's right. A veto is inevitable -- Bush will not allow himself to be constrained by an enemy Congress, as he sees it -- but the Democrats' firm stand also means that compromise is likely. Just so long as it's the right compromise. I don't think that meeting Republicans in the middle on Iraq is the way to go. (What would that even mean?) But if the compromise includes benchmarks, for example, rather than a firm timetable for withdrawal, then it might just be acceptable. Besides, I'm not so sure that a timetable is a great idea. Given that Iraq could descend into chaos and genocide post-withdrawal, even with some U.S. forces still there, a timetable would likely ensure that Democrats would end up taking much of the blame for making Iraq even worse than it is now, even if they don't deserve it. In other words, this is one battle the Democrats may not want to win.
It seems to me that a better approach would be to press for phased withdrawal alongside firm benchmarks -- and to wait for the next president, hopefully a Democrat. This would force both the White House and the war's Republican supporters to defend a status quo strategy that isn't likely to make much of a difference and that almost certainly won't succeed -- and this is precisely what Bush, McCain, Giuliani, and others are doing. Indeed, while Democrats in Congress, along with some of their Republican sympathizers, are looking for an alternative to Bush's failed policies, the White House continues to look as if it doesn't have a clue either about the situation in Iraq or the clear preferences of the American people. And, in desperation, and with nothing else to fall back on, the rhetoric coming from the warmongers is increasingly extremist. For example, White House mouthpiece Dana Perino today called the bill "defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender". This is the key Republican talking point -- we've already heard it from DeLay and Giuliani, among others -- but it won't have much traction, not if the Democrats play this properly. And that means providing both leadership and an alternative course of action without demanding so much that they themselves could end up being sucked into the vortex of blame in response to this lost war.
I won't comment much on this tonight -- I'll have much more to say in the coming days -- but here's what happened:
The Senate today approved an Iraq spending bill that would force troop withdrawals to begin as early as July 1, dismissing President Bush's veto threat even as party leaders and the White House launch talks on the next phase of the increasingly high-stakes war debate.
The 51-46 vote was a triumph for Democrats, who just weeks ago had questioned the political wisdom of a veto showdown over Iraq with the commander-in-chief. But Democrats are hesitant no more. And now that withdrawal language has passed both houses of Congress, even Republicans concede that Bush won't get the spending bill with no strings attached as he has demanded.
Bush is expected to veto the bill early next week, but in the meantime, bipartisan negotiations have already started on phase two.
That's right. A veto is inevitable -- Bush will not allow himself to be constrained by an enemy Congress, as he sees it -- but the Democrats' firm stand also means that compromise is likely. Just so long as it's the right compromise. I don't think that meeting Republicans in the middle on Iraq is the way to go. (What would that even mean?) But if the compromise includes benchmarks, for example, rather than a firm timetable for withdrawal, then it might just be acceptable. Besides, I'm not so sure that a timetable is a great idea. Given that Iraq could descend into chaos and genocide post-withdrawal, even with some U.S. forces still there, a timetable would likely ensure that Democrats would end up taking much of the blame for making Iraq even worse than it is now, even if they don't deserve it. In other words, this is one battle the Democrats may not want to win.
It seems to me that a better approach would be to press for phased withdrawal alongside firm benchmarks -- and to wait for the next president, hopefully a Democrat. This would force both the White House and the war's Republican supporters to defend a status quo strategy that isn't likely to make much of a difference and that almost certainly won't succeed -- and this is precisely what Bush, McCain, Giuliani, and others are doing. Indeed, while Democrats in Congress, along with some of their Republican sympathizers, are looking for an alternative to Bush's failed policies, the White House continues to look as if it doesn't have a clue either about the situation in Iraq or the clear preferences of the American people. And, in desperation, and with nothing else to fall back on, the rhetoric coming from the warmongers is increasingly extremist. For example, White House mouthpiece Dana Perino today called the bill "defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender". This is the key Republican talking point -- we've already heard it from DeLay and Giuliani, among others -- but it won't have much traction, not if the Democrats play this properly. And that means providing both leadership and an alternative course of action without demanding so much that they themselves could end up being sucked into the vortex of blame in response to this lost war.
They hate gays in Poland
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From the BBC:
Some parts of Europe, it seems, still have a long, long way to go.
From the BBC:
The European Parliament has called on Poland to stop public leaders inciting discrimination against homosexuals.
The resolution follows a statement by a deputy education minister that Poland was drafting a law to punish teachers who "promoted" homosexuality.
Poland's PM later said there would be no discrimination against gay teachers.
But MEPs repeated an appeal to EU anti-racism experts to look into "the emerging climate of racist, xenophobic and homophobic intolerance in Poland".
Some parts of Europe, it seems, still have a long, long way to go.
Life after Imus
Guest post by Edward Copeland
As I feared with the departure of Don Imus from my morning wakeup routine, there is even less worth watching than there was before. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't in it for the nonsense, I was in it for the interviews. There are few places, if any, that offer 15 or 20 minute interviews with a single person anymore that actually allow for more than superficial discussions. The exit of Imus happened to coincide with CNN's new team for American Morning. Not that Soledad O'Brien and Miles O'Brien were anything to write home about, but the new pairing of the once-respectable John Roberts and Fox exile Kiran Chetry seems to have slipped even further down the notch toward the nonsensical blather that makes me unable to turn on the network morning shows.
MSNBC seems to be searching for some way to preserve the Imus format, which would be welcome if they found someone who could pull it off. The first week, they had David Gregory pinch-hit, and while the interviews were fine, they also saddled him and anchor Amy Robach with painful would-be comic banter. Not only did it fall flat, but it really did a bit of a disservice for Gregory. It was fine if he was being silly with Imus on a comedy program, but now he's back to being a "respectable journalist" as White House correspondent and it seemed really forced. This week, for the first three days, they moved in Philadelphia talk radio host Michael Smerconish to fill the seat, but his interviews are all really short and don't seem to get very deep.
Meanwhile, CNN has apparently decided to abandon thorough news coverage in exchange for becoming a YouTube shill. For two days in a row (and this was only by random flipping, not leaving the network on), it featured stories and interviews with some guy who posted his cell phone number on YouTube and was getting a lot of phone calls (Again, purely by accident, I caught that CNN was talking to this guy again, this time on Paula Zahn in prime time). How did The New York Times miss the story?! Of course, that was thoughtful and provocative compared to what they did Wednesday morning, endlessly hyping that they had new, exclusive footage of a piano-playing cat. (I shit you not.)
Granted, maybe some folks prefer it light in the morning, but not everyone does. Many of us would like to know what's going on in the news. It seems that someone should try to grab that niche instead of trying to imitate what everyone else does. It's depressing. Of course, it's not just television that's abandoning principles (if it ever had any). Some newspapers are fast becoming just as bad, as the death of Boris Yeltsin got less play than Anna Nicole Smith's death did. Who knew that Anna Nicole had a bigger impact on world history than Yeltsin? Have they added her to high school history textbooks yet?
As I feared with the departure of Don Imus from my morning wakeup routine, there is even less worth watching than there was before. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't in it for the nonsense, I was in it for the interviews. There are few places, if any, that offer 15 or 20 minute interviews with a single person anymore that actually allow for more than superficial discussions. The exit of Imus happened to coincide with CNN's new team for American Morning. Not that Soledad O'Brien and Miles O'Brien were anything to write home about, but the new pairing of the once-respectable John Roberts and Fox exile Kiran Chetry seems to have slipped even further down the notch toward the nonsensical blather that makes me unable to turn on the network morning shows.
MSNBC seems to be searching for some way to preserve the Imus format, which would be welcome if they found someone who could pull it off. The first week, they had David Gregory pinch-hit, and while the interviews were fine, they also saddled him and anchor Amy Robach with painful would-be comic banter. Not only did it fall flat, but it really did a bit of a disservice for Gregory. It was fine if he was being silly with Imus on a comedy program, but now he's back to being a "respectable journalist" as White House correspondent and it seemed really forced. This week, for the first three days, they moved in Philadelphia talk radio host Michael Smerconish to fill the seat, but his interviews are all really short and don't seem to get very deep.
Meanwhile, CNN has apparently decided to abandon thorough news coverage in exchange for becoming a YouTube shill. For two days in a row (and this was only by random flipping, not leaving the network on), it featured stories and interviews with some guy who posted his cell phone number on YouTube and was getting a lot of phone calls (Again, purely by accident, I caught that CNN was talking to this guy again, this time on Paula Zahn in prime time). How did The New York Times miss the story?! Of course, that was thoughtful and provocative compared to what they did Wednesday morning, endlessly hyping that they had new, exclusive footage of a piano-playing cat. (I shit you not.)
Granted, maybe some folks prefer it light in the morning, but not everyone does. Many of us would like to know what's going on in the news. It seems that someone should try to grab that niche instead of trying to imitate what everyone else does. It's depressing. Of course, it's not just television that's abandoning principles (if it ever had any). Some newspapers are fast becoming just as bad, as the death of Boris Yeltsin got less play than Anna Nicole Smith's death did. Who knew that Anna Nicole had a bigger impact on world history than Yeltsin? Have they added her to high school history textbooks yet?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Testicular Democrats
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Rudy Giuliani -- playing the partisan, as top-tier presidential candidates reaching out to the base tend to do -- said this week in Hampshire that "[t]he Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us" and hence that the country would be better off with a Republican in the White House after '08, preferably the mayor himself.
The message was clear: Democrats are not to be trusted with protecting the homeland: "I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense." (Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush was in office before 9/11, was he not? No matter. Giuliani here is at his most viciously authoritarian. For him, the so-called war on terror, hyped up to turn each and every day into a possible 9/11, requires aggressive executive power, domestic spying (perhaps without warrants but certainly without much oversight), avoidance of the Geneva Conventions (interrogation equals torture), and endless war in Iraq. In other words, the use of fear to justify just the sort of police state where Giuliani would feel right at home.)
But have the Republicans -- Bush and his pre-midterm rubber stampers in Congress -- made America safer? And would they make America safer than the Democrats would? Would a Democratic victory in '08 open America's doors to terrorism, to more 9/11s? For this is what Giuliani is saying.
Like Kevin Drum, I find Giuliani's remarks all too predictable. Still, the debate is worth having. If Republicans want to make the case that they have made America safer and are best entrusted with the task of protecting the homeland, I'm more than happy, like many others, to make the opposite case, that they have waged the war on terror recklessly and without due regard for the Constitution, weakened America both at home and abroad, and put the homeland at great danger.
But how have the leading Democratic contenders responded to Giuliani? As Kevin suggests, like "wimps" -- "[w]ith the usual whining". (He's referring to Obama and Clinton.)
And that's just not good enough.
Now is the time for partisanship, for explaining why us and not them, which is just what Giuliani was doing. (Although his attack may also be a sign of desperation, as Steve Benen argues, a reflection of profound ignorance and incompetence on his part.) Democrats need to stand up for themselves and fight back. "Until they do, Rudy and the Republicans are going to win every round of this fight."
**********
I acknowledge that much of the above gives Giuliani far too much credit. I just don't think that he or his campaign attacks can be ignored. Whatever his own personal popularity, his attack here is very much in line with what Republicans often say about Democrats. For an excellent critique of Giuliani's "2008 electoral identity," displayed in this attack, see Andrew Sullivan: "We have to ask ourselves: after the next terror attack, what powers would a president Giuliani assume? And what would be left of the constitution after four years of the same? Give Rudy the office that Cheney has created -- and America, already deeply altered, will become a new political entity altogether." And much for the worse.)
Rudy Giuliani -- playing the partisan, as top-tier presidential candidates reaching out to the base tend to do -- said this week in Hampshire that "[t]he Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us" and hence that the country would be better off with a Republican in the White House after '08, preferably the mayor himself.
The message was clear: Democrats are not to be trusted with protecting the homeland: "I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense." (Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush was in office before 9/11, was he not? No matter. Giuliani here is at his most viciously authoritarian. For him, the so-called war on terror, hyped up to turn each and every day into a possible 9/11, requires aggressive executive power, domestic spying (perhaps without warrants but certainly without much oversight), avoidance of the Geneva Conventions (interrogation equals torture), and endless war in Iraq. In other words, the use of fear to justify just the sort of police state where Giuliani would feel right at home.)
But have the Republicans -- Bush and his pre-midterm rubber stampers in Congress -- made America safer? And would they make America safer than the Democrats would? Would a Democratic victory in '08 open America's doors to terrorism, to more 9/11s? For this is what Giuliani is saying.
Like Kevin Drum, I find Giuliani's remarks all too predictable. Still, the debate is worth having. If Republicans want to make the case that they have made America safer and are best entrusted with the task of protecting the homeland, I'm more than happy, like many others, to make the opposite case, that they have waged the war on terror recklessly and without due regard for the Constitution, weakened America both at home and abroad, and put the homeland at great danger.
But how have the leading Democratic contenders responded to Giuliani? As Kevin suggests, like "wimps" -- "[w]ith the usual whining". (He's referring to Obama and Clinton.)
And that's just not good enough.
Now is the time for partisanship, for explaining why us and not them, which is just what Giuliani was doing. (Although his attack may also be a sign of desperation, as Steve Benen argues, a reflection of profound ignorance and incompetence on his part.) Democrats need to stand up for themselves and fight back. "Until they do, Rudy and the Republicans are going to win every round of this fight."
**********
I acknowledge that much of the above gives Giuliani far too much credit. I just don't think that he or his campaign attacks can be ignored. Whatever his own personal popularity, his attack here is very much in line with what Republicans often say about Democrats. For an excellent critique of Giuliani's "2008 electoral identity," displayed in this attack, see Andrew Sullivan: "We have to ask ourselves: after the next terror attack, what powers would a president Giuliani assume? And what would be left of the constitution after four years of the same? Give Rudy the office that Cheney has created -- and America, already deeply altered, will become a new political entity altogether." And much for the worse.)
The return of the asshole extraordinaire
By Michael J.W. Stickings
That's Fox's John Gibson, of course -- although I realize that fine network offers many qualified candidates for the title.
On his radio show on Monday, the A.E. called Iraqis "knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century" and blamed them for what's going on in their country -- yes, as if a grossly mismanaged war had nothing to do with it, so blatant is his bigotry.
See Media Matters. And fore more of Gibson's assholery, see here and here.)
That's Fox's John Gibson, of course -- although I realize that fine network offers many qualified candidates for the title.
On his radio show on Monday, the A.E. called Iraqis "knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century" and blamed them for what's going on in their country -- yes, as if a grossly mismanaged war had nothing to do with it, so blatant is his bigotry.
See Media Matters. And fore more of Gibson's assholery, see here and here.)
Go Bayrou -- but Go Royal for now
By Michael J.W. Stickings
François Bayrou -- my preference in Sunday's first round of the 2007 French presidential election -- is refusing to play kingmaker. After finishing a solid third behind Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal, he spoke of "a centre in France, a large centre, a strong centre, an independent centre capable of speaking and acting beyond previous borders," an alternative of change and hope. And the key question in defeat was whether he would support Royal on his left or Sarkozy on his right.
The answer: neither: "I will not give any advice on how to vote."
Indeed, according to Bayrou, neither candidate would be good for France: "Nicolas Sarkozy, I believe, will aggravate the problems with democracy and the fractured society. Ségolène Royal, through her programme, is going to aggravate the economic problems, and one as much as the other is going to unbalance the deficit and the debt." And so his plan is to establish a new centrist party, the Democratic Party, to compete with the major parties of the left and right, Royal's Socialist Party and Sarkozy's Union for a Popular Movement. It will run candidates in June's parliamentary elections.
For more on Bayrou's present and possible future, see here. Although he has expressed opposition to Royal's economic policies, which tend to be mildly socialist but hardly out of the social democratic mainstream, his criticisms of Sarkozy have been blunt, harsh, and ominous. Consider: "Because of his close links to big business and with France's media barons, and thanks to his taste for intimidation and threat, Mr Sarkozy will concentrate power like never before. And because of his temperament, he risks aggravating already deep social divides in France." Tough words -- in my view, entirely justified.
So what now? It seems that Bayrou is leaning to Royal and that, on the whole, his supporters are, too. But to what extent? Enough to put Royal over the top, given Sarkozy's margin of victory in the first round and his popularity and prominence in French politics?
Either way, I'm with Royal -- but mostly because I dislike Sarkozy and his atrocious combination of neoliberalism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. It's not that Royal is too much of a socialist -- in fact, she's quite moderate -- it's that Bayrou is probably right about her economic policies and that she lacks experience in foreign and security policy and often doesn't seem to have much of a clue (plus, she has expressed support for Québécois separatism, not exactly a position that endears one to a proud Canadian federalist such as myself).
But she's not that bad, on the whole, and, well, she's not Sarkozy. That's good enough for me.
(Photo from The Globe and Mail.)
François Bayrou -- my preference in Sunday's first round of the 2007 French presidential election -- is refusing to play kingmaker. After finishing a solid third behind Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal, he spoke of "a centre in France, a large centre, a strong centre, an independent centre capable of speaking and acting beyond previous borders," an alternative of change and hope. And the key question in defeat was whether he would support Royal on his left or Sarkozy on his right.
The answer: neither: "I will not give any advice on how to vote."
Indeed, according to Bayrou, neither candidate would be good for France: "Nicolas Sarkozy, I believe, will aggravate the problems with democracy and the fractured society. Ségolène Royal, through her programme, is going to aggravate the economic problems, and one as much as the other is going to unbalance the deficit and the debt." And so his plan is to establish a new centrist party, the Democratic Party, to compete with the major parties of the left and right, Royal's Socialist Party and Sarkozy's Union for a Popular Movement. It will run candidates in June's parliamentary elections.
For more on Bayrou's present and possible future, see here. Although he has expressed opposition to Royal's economic policies, which tend to be mildly socialist but hardly out of the social democratic mainstream, his criticisms of Sarkozy have been blunt, harsh, and ominous. Consider: "Because of his close links to big business and with France's media barons, and thanks to his taste for intimidation and threat, Mr Sarkozy will concentrate power like never before. And because of his temperament, he risks aggravating already deep social divides in France." Tough words -- in my view, entirely justified.
So what now? It seems that Bayrou is leaning to Royal and that, on the whole, his supporters are, too. But to what extent? Enough to put Royal over the top, given Sarkozy's margin of victory in the first round and his popularity and prominence in French politics?
Either way, I'm with Royal -- but mostly because I dislike Sarkozy and his atrocious combination of neoliberalism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. It's not that Royal is too much of a socialist -- in fact, she's quite moderate -- it's that Bayrou is probably right about her economic policies and that she lacks experience in foreign and security policy and often doesn't seem to have much of a clue (plus, she has expressed support for Québécois separatism, not exactly a position that endears one to a proud Canadian federalist such as myself).
But she's not that bad, on the whole, and, well, she's not Sarkozy. That's good enough for me.
(Photo from The Globe and Mail.)
Exploiting heroism
By Michael J.W. Stickings
So it seems the U.S. military -- and its warmongering political overlords -- lied about Pat Tillman (Afghanistan) and Jessica Lynch (Iraq). This according to Tillman's brother and Lynch herself in testimony before Congress.
The American people deserve the truth, however hard it may be to handle.
And they deserve not to have heroism invented for them for political purposes:
So it seems the U.S. military -- and its warmongering political overlords -- lied about Pat Tillman (Afghanistan) and Jessica Lynch (Iraq). This according to Tillman's brother and Lynch herself in testimony before Congress.
- Kevin Tillman: "We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public."
- Jessica Lynch: "The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales."
The American people deserve the truth, however hard it may be to handle.
And they deserve not to have heroism invented for them for political purposes:
- Jessica Lynch: "I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary."
- Kevin Tillman: "The facts needed to be suppressed. An alternative narrative had to be constructed, crucial evidence destroyed... These are deliberate and calculated lies."
The stink of desperation
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Ah, yes, the treason card. Played not by Dick Cheney, a common culprit, but by Tom DeLay, who told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are "getting very, very close to treason".
Such dastardly bullshit.
At The Carpetbagger Report, Steve Benen smashes DeLay's accusation to smithereens.
And at The Horse's Mouth, Greg Sargent puts it in context: "Has anybody else noticed that every day brings palpably more wild-eyed and unhinged attacks from the folks who either are in favor of the war or the folks who are for some reason instinctually opposed to the Dems' aggressive antiwar stance? You can see the attacks growing significantly more deranged by the day -- and sometimes by the hour."
A sure sign of desperation.
Ah, yes, the treason card. Played not by Dick Cheney, a common culprit, but by Tom DeLay, who told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are "getting very, very close to treason".
Such dastardly bullshit.
At The Carpetbagger Report, Steve Benen smashes DeLay's accusation to smithereens.
And at The Horse's Mouth, Greg Sargent puts it in context: "Has anybody else noticed that every day brings palpably more wild-eyed and unhinged attacks from the folks who either are in favor of the war or the folks who are for some reason instinctually opposed to the Dems' aggressive antiwar stance? You can see the attacks growing significantly more deranged by the day -- and sometimes by the hour."
A sure sign of desperation.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A new planet, a new earth
By Michael J.W. Stickings
This could be a huge discovery:
Here's the comparison:
This could be a huge discovery:
A rocky planet not much larger than Earth has been detected orbiting a star close to our own neighborhood in the Milky Way, and the European astronomers who found it say it lies within the star's "habitable zone," where life could exist -- possibly in oceans of water.
The object is the smallest of all the 200 or more so-called "exoplanets" whose discovery around far-off stars in the past dozen years has sparked a burst of excitement worldwide among astronomers and astrobiologists...
The lead author of the discovery report, Stephane Udry of the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland, said the planet's sun is named Gliese 581, one of the galaxy's extremely common "red dwarfs." It lies in the constellation Libra, the Scales, about 20.5 light years away from Earth -- a relatively close neighbor compared to other "exoplanets" that have been detected thousands of light years away.
Udry's group estimated the planet's average temperature at between 32 and 104 degrees Fahrenheit. It orbits Gliese 581 every 13 days only about 6.5 million miles out, which is 14 times closer to its sun than Earth is from ours. But the planet is well within the star's "habitable zone" because Gliese 581 is much smaller and colder than our sun.
Here's the comparison:
In praise of Roger Ebert
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The ninth annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival -- Ebertfest '07 -- opens tomorrow at the University of Illinois in Urbana. Despite going through a prolonged battle with his health -- cancer of the salivary gland, a tracheostomy, multiple surgeries, more procedures planned -- Ebert will be there in person. And you know what? Through it all, he is still Roger Ebert, one of the world's great cinephiles, a fine critic, and a courageous man: "I have been very sick, am getting better and this is how it looks. I still have my brain and my typing fingers... I'm not going to miss my festival."
And that's how it should be. It's easy to dismiss Ebert as a celebrity critic who has reduced criticism down to multiplex-friendly pandering to the masses -- what with his thumb up or down for every movie -- but those who know Ebert's work know that he is so much more than that, that in fact his famous thumb is but a popular gimmick, that in fact a profound film critic capable of genuinely brilliant analysis, an enthusiastic student of the cinema who genuinely loves movies, and a teacher of the cinema in possession of a wealth of learning.
I encourage you to visit his website regularly for all the latest news, and hopefully soon for more reviews, as well as for all his old reviews in the archives, his incomparable movie glossary, commentary on film and the arts, his reports from the world's top film festivals (including the Toronto International Film Festival, which he loves, and which I, a Toronto resident, have had the good fortune to attend over many years), his Oscar-related articles, and -- and this is my favourite feature -- his Great Movies.
I may not agree with his review of this or that movie, but I always respect his opinion and I always learn a lot from what he has to say about any movie. Indeed, he is as much teacher as critic. (Consider his incredibly insightful commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD.) And this is especially true of the Great Movies, his compendium of reviews and analyses of many of the greatest films of all time. Many of my own favourites are in there -- there are simply too many to mention -- but collectively these pieces amount to a history of film, by film, that is truly astonishing in scope.
If there is one thing for which I must thank Ebert above all else, however, it is his promotion of in my view two of the very best directors of all time, Krzysztof Kieślowski and Yasujiro Ozu. Both would be known and celebrated without Ebert, of course, but neither would be known and celebrated as well without Ebert's efforts to introduce their films to American audiences, as well as to all of us who have been touched by Ebert's criticism. Whether it's The Decalogue or the Three Colours trilogy, Tokyo Story or Floating Weeds (for which he also provides commentary on the amazing Criterion DVD), we are all richer for what you have done.
Mr. Ebert, I wish you well.
It's great news that you're going to be at the opening of Ebertfest, and I know I speak for many of us cinephiles when I say I look forward to your return to what you do so well.
(See also Melissa's wonderful post at Shakesville.)
The ninth annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival -- Ebertfest '07 -- opens tomorrow at the University of Illinois in Urbana. Despite going through a prolonged battle with his health -- cancer of the salivary gland, a tracheostomy, multiple surgeries, more procedures planned -- Ebert will be there in person. And you know what? Through it all, he is still Roger Ebert, one of the world's great cinephiles, a fine critic, and a courageous man: "I have been very sick, am getting better and this is how it looks. I still have my brain and my typing fingers... I'm not going to miss my festival."
And that's how it should be. It's easy to dismiss Ebert as a celebrity critic who has reduced criticism down to multiplex-friendly pandering to the masses -- what with his thumb up or down for every movie -- but those who know Ebert's work know that he is so much more than that, that in fact his famous thumb is but a popular gimmick, that in fact a profound film critic capable of genuinely brilliant analysis, an enthusiastic student of the cinema who genuinely loves movies, and a teacher of the cinema in possession of a wealth of learning.
I encourage you to visit his website regularly for all the latest news, and hopefully soon for more reviews, as well as for all his old reviews in the archives, his incomparable movie glossary, commentary on film and the arts, his reports from the world's top film festivals (including the Toronto International Film Festival, which he loves, and which I, a Toronto resident, have had the good fortune to attend over many years), his Oscar-related articles, and -- and this is my favourite feature -- his Great Movies.
I may not agree with his review of this or that movie, but I always respect his opinion and I always learn a lot from what he has to say about any movie. Indeed, he is as much teacher as critic. (Consider his incredibly insightful commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD.) And this is especially true of the Great Movies, his compendium of reviews and analyses of many of the greatest films of all time. Many of my own favourites are in there -- there are simply too many to mention -- but collectively these pieces amount to a history of film, by film, that is truly astonishing in scope.
If there is one thing for which I must thank Ebert above all else, however, it is his promotion of in my view two of the very best directors of all time, Krzysztof Kieślowski and Yasujiro Ozu. Both would be known and celebrated without Ebert, of course, but neither would be known and celebrated as well without Ebert's efforts to introduce their films to American audiences, as well as to all of us who have been touched by Ebert's criticism. Whether it's The Decalogue or the Three Colours trilogy, Tokyo Story or Floating Weeds (for which he also provides commentary on the amazing Criterion DVD), we are all richer for what you have done.
Mr. Ebert, I wish you well.
It's great news that you're going to be at the opening of Ebertfest, and I know I speak for many of us cinephiles when I say I look forward to your return to what you do so well.
(See also Melissa's wonderful post at Shakesville.)
Rove under investigation
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The "obscure" Office of Special Counsel is set -- as the L.A. Times is reporting -- to launch "a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove".
"The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House." (Note: could. See below.)
Well, it's about time. Steve Benen explains.
Unfortunately, and predictably, the head of the OSC is yet another Bush hack, so the whole thing could be nothing more than a pre-emptive whitewash -- or, as David Corn puts it (via Sullivan), "a basement flooded with backed-up sewage -- with the water rising".
A lovely image, but that's the Bush Administration for you.
The "obscure" Office of Special Counsel is set -- as the L.A. Times is reporting -- to launch "a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove".
"The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House." (Note: could. See below.)
Well, it's about time. Steve Benen explains.
Unfortunately, and predictably, the head of the OSC is yet another Bush hack, so the whole thing could be nothing more than a pre-emptive whitewash -- or, as David Corn puts it (via Sullivan), "a basement flooded with backed-up sewage -- with the water rising".
A lovely image, but that's the Bush Administration for you.
PAPARAZZI - JUST SO DARN " UNLIKABLE" ! ! !
LIVING VICARIOUSLY THROUGH OTHERS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS IS DIFFERENT!THIS IS A BLOG ERR VLOG ERR PLOG OHH WHATEVER
Mexico City votes to legalize abortion
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Against predictable opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, Mexico City's assembly has voted -- 46-19, a clear majority -- to legalize abortion in the city. Up to now, abortion has only been allowed in certain extreme cases. This "legislation will permit abortions of pregnancies in the first trimester, or 12 weeks." However, it applies only to Mexico City itself, which has become a bastion of progressive politics in an otherwise traditionalist country: The Assembly "recently voted to allow same-sex civil unions and is currently considering legalising euthanasia".
**********
Update: See also WaPo.
Against predictable opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, Mexico City's assembly has voted -- 46-19, a clear majority -- to legalize abortion in the city. Up to now, abortion has only been allowed in certain extreme cases. This "legislation will permit abortions of pregnancies in the first trimester, or 12 weeks." However, it applies only to Mexico City itself, which has become a bastion of progressive politics in an otherwise traditionalist country: The Assembly "recently voted to allow same-sex civil unions and is currently considering legalising euthanasia".
**********
Update: See also WaPo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
