Jessica Simpson supposedly dissed the President, or the RNC, or the entire country for all I know.
Drudge made a big issue of it, of course, but that's because that's what he does ... sensationalize unimportant things.
Jessica's involvement or non-involvement in some fund raiser is hardly newsworthy and let's hope the progressive blogosphere limits their "analysis" of this event to nothing. We'd hardly be reading tea leaves if she had done the reverse to the DNC.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Don't despair newcomers, things really *have* changed
I consider myself a newcomer to the political scene and as a proud progressive and liberal, these are tough times :)
But, reading this article by Jeff Jacoby (whom I've never heard of until today) gives me heart.
The article is nonsense for the most part but the heartening thing about it is how circuitous "proper" homophobes these days must be in their writing. (I am not claiming that the good Mr. Jacoby is homophobic; I couldn't do that credibly since I don't know him, but his writing stands out).
Back on Feb 1, 1960, the New York Times wrote an article entitled "Negro Sitdowns Stir Fear Of Wider Unrest in South". One of the lines there is:
They also quoted a gentleman saying:
Mr. Enloe was wrong, of course. The interesting thing to me is how he put it. That was just a naked (albeit sort of cultured) way of saying, "hey Negroe, you're just not getting the same rights as us, period."
If Jacoby's article had been written in the same manner, it would have been as nakedly homophobic as this article shows the naked racism of the 60's.
These days, Jacoby if forced to use pseudo-psychological arguments about "projection" to try and intellectually villify a group of people. His argument is weak to start and diluted further with his freshman level psychological analysis. But it's sure a nice thing that that's what he's reduced to using. We don't have to suffer mainstream media tirades using hateful language and justifications. Anti-gay rights demagogues have to hide behind weak arguments like "projection" to make their points.
Times have changed for the better.
But, reading this article by Jeff Jacoby (whom I've never heard of until today) gives me heart.
The article is nonsense for the most part but the heartening thing about it is how circuitous "proper" homophobes these days must be in their writing. (I am not claiming that the good Mr. Jacoby is homophobic; I couldn't do that credibly since I don't know him, but his writing stands out).
Back on Feb 1, 1960, the New York Times wrote an article entitled "Negro Sitdowns Stir Fear Of Wider Unrest in South". One of the lines there is:
The only arrests reported involved forty-three of the demonstrators. They were seized on a sidewalk outside a Woolworth store at Raleigh shopping center. Charged with trespassing, they posted $50 bonds and were released.A mere 43 were arrested!
They also quoted a gentleman saying:
Mayor William G. Enloe of Raleigh termed it "regrettable that some of our young Negro students would risk endangering these relations by seeking to change a long-standing custom in a manner that is all but destined to fail."
Mr. Enloe was wrong, of course. The interesting thing to me is how he put it. That was just a naked (albeit sort of cultured) way of saying, "hey Negroe, you're just not getting the same rights as us, period."
If Jacoby's article had been written in the same manner, it would have been as nakedly homophobic as this article shows the naked racism of the 60's.
These days, Jacoby if forced to use pseudo-psychological arguments about "projection" to try and intellectually villify a group of people. His argument is weak to start and diluted further with his freshman level psychological analysis. But it's sure a nice thing that that's what he's reduced to using. We don't have to suffer mainstream media tirades using hateful language and justifications. Anti-gay rights demagogues have to hide behind weak arguments like "projection" to make their points.
Times have changed for the better.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Windows to the soul? Bush needs some windex...
Bush is shocked and saddened to discover that his domestic policy advisor, Claude Allen, has been charged with theft for refund fraud.
He should have looked him in the eyes before he hired him. Maybe he should have "looking in the eyes" sessions every so often, just to keep everyone on their toes. But then again, maybe he would have been as successful adjudging Allen's character as he did with Putin.
He should have looked him in the eyes before he hired him. Maybe he should have "looking in the eyes" sessions every so often, just to keep everyone on their toes. But then again, maybe he would have been as successful adjudging Allen's character as he did with Putin.
Unexploited smoking-gun Iraqi documents / Stephen Hayes and his followers all in a knot
The erudite folk at Powerline Blog have been pushing, for quite some time now, the work of the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.
Among other things, Stephen is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard and has authored The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.
Stephen is quite sure there is a well-documented strong connection between the Saddam Hussein's Iraq and terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.
He goes on and on about this. One of the cornerstones of his argument is that there are millions of unexploited documents captured during the recent war. They've not been translated and there is so much, it's taking a very very long time to work through it all.
Stephen argues that buried in those millions of pages of stuff is documented proof of Saddam's connection with Terror.
The value of such proof is very high. It would go a long way to silencing critics (like me) that the Iraq adventure was / is a disaster based on an invalid set of arguments, rotten to their core.
I'm all in favor of exploiting whatever intelligence is there to exploit. If it shows these kinds of deep connections between Saddam and Terror that Stephen is so sure exists, great.
Stephen and I part companies though over the reason why the U.S. is not exploiting it. It would seem to me that Bush would just love to get his hands on real clear evidence. It would provide the attack dogs real actual ammunition to use.
Stephen seems to think that there is some kind of strange conspiracy about it. Which makes no sense. The people who are most interested in demonstrating those connections are the very same people suppressing the effort to find them?
Stephen and the powerline people are putting together some very tortured logic to explain away this contradicton. From this powerline post, Stephen describes a recent Bush meeting where this topic is discussed:
Now, it does seem very strange that Bush is represented here as having a vague understanding of some "tapes thing", but it's only weird if you want to credit him with more competence than he deserves. But, if he's competent at anything, you'd think it would be competent at organizing a data mining project that would provide the justification he lacks to date for the war.
Powerline's analysis of the above is where the real torturing comes into play:
Powerline, I completely agree with you. But here you get all crazy:
Why would John N. turn rogue?
One of Powerline's answers:
We are supposed to take this seriously? Negroponte is a rogue agent who, against the orders of his Commander in Chief and against the political interests of this entire administration, prefers to shield Russia or other countries from embarrasment in favor of informing the American public?
Powerline seems to revel in this farce:
There is a much more reasonable interpretation: There is no rush to turn the documents loose because the documents don't provide evidence that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. They don't show where the WMD went because there were no WMD. The documents don't show a close relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda because there is no connection. The U.S. spent upwards of $700 million and 10's of thousands of man hours seeking out this information by travelling all around the country, interviewing people and looking at physical locations for this evidence.
In all likelihood, there is no smoking gun evidence in the documents. Powerline, Stephen and the pro-war crowd are clutching at straws.
If we want veer off the common sense track and go into conspiracy mode, I can think of one that holds a bit more water ... Negroponte is dragging his feet because the documents will embarrass the administration or those that it loves.
Among other things, Stephen is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard and has authored The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.
Stephen is quite sure there is a well-documented strong connection between the Saddam Hussein's Iraq and terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.
He goes on and on about this. One of the cornerstones of his argument is that there are millions of unexploited documents captured during the recent war. They've not been translated and there is so much, it's taking a very very long time to work through it all.
Stephen argues that buried in those millions of pages of stuff is documented proof of Saddam's connection with Terror.
The value of such proof is very high. It would go a long way to silencing critics (like me) that the Iraq adventure was / is a disaster based on an invalid set of arguments, rotten to their core.
I'm all in favor of exploiting whatever intelligence is there to exploit. If it shows these kinds of deep connections between Saddam and Terror that Stephen is so sure exists, great.
Stephen and I part companies though over the reason why the U.S. is not exploiting it. It would seem to me that Bush would just love to get his hands on real clear evidence. It would provide the attack dogs real actual ammunition to use.
Stephen seems to think that there is some kind of strange conspiracy about it. Which makes no sense. The people who are most interested in demonstrating those connections are the very same people suppressing the effort to find them?
Stephen and the powerline people are putting together some very tortured logic to explain away this contradicton. From this powerline post, Stephen describes a recent Bush meeting where this topic is discussed:
"Is this the tapes thing?" Bush asked, referring to two ABC News reports that included excerpts of recordings Saddam Hussein made of meetings with his war cabinet in the years before the U.S. invasion. Bush had not seen the newscasts but had been briefed on them.
Pence framed his response as a question, quoting Abraham Lincoln: "One of your Republican predecessors said, 'Give the people the facts and the Republic will be saved.' There are 3,000 hours of Saddam tapes and millions of pages of other documents that we captured after the war. When will the American public get to see this information?"
Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.
Bush extended his arms in exasperation and worried aloud that people who see the documents in 10 years will wonder why they weren't released sooner. "If I knew then what I know now," Bush said in the voice of a war skeptic, "I would have been more supportive of the war."
Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out."
Now, it does seem very strange that Bush is represented here as having a vague understanding of some "tapes thing", but it's only weird if you want to credit him with more competence than he deserves. But, if he's competent at anything, you'd think it would be competent at organizing a data mining project that would provide the justification he lacks to date for the war.
Powerline's analysis of the above is where the real torturing comes into play:
You'd think that would be the end of the story. If I gave a similar order to my staff, it would be obeyed. Promptly. And you'd probably assume that an order from the President of the United States would be obeyed with even more alacrity.
Powerline, I completely agree with you. But here you get all crazy:
Not so. John Negroponte "owns" the millions of pages of documents and countless hours of tapes that have been captured, but not yet exploited. And Negroponte doesn't want their contents made public. So it isn't happening, no matter what President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld say.
Why would John N. turn rogue?
One of Powerline's answers:
Negroponte is concerned that making the Iraq regime's documents public will embarrass our "allies," like, for example, Russia. As Hayes points out, Iraqi documents that have recently been translated indicate that Russia was training Iraqi intelligence agents virtually up to the outbreak of the war in 2003.
We are supposed to take this seriously? Negroponte is a rogue agent who, against the orders of his Commander in Chief and against the political interests of this entire administration, prefers to shield Russia or other countries from embarrasment in favor of informing the American public?
Powerline seems to revel in this farce:
These Iraqi documents and other materials are critically important. Everyone hopes that they will reveal what happened to Saddam's WMDs, and expects them to document close relationships between Saddam and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. That is precisely why they are controversial. Burying the documents seized from Iraqi intelligence comports well with the Democrats' effort to undercut the rationales for the Iraq war. That's easy to understand; what is not so easy to understand is why President Bush can't get his own administration to make these facts public.(emphasis added mine)
There is a much more reasonable interpretation: There is no rush to turn the documents loose because the documents don't provide evidence that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. They don't show where the WMD went because there were no WMD. The documents don't show a close relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda because there is no connection. The U.S. spent upwards of $700 million and 10's of thousands of man hours seeking out this information by travelling all around the country, interviewing people and looking at physical locations for this evidence.
In all likelihood, there is no smoking gun evidence in the documents. Powerline, Stephen and the pro-war crowd are clutching at straws.
If we want veer off the common sense track and go into conspiracy mode, I can think of one that holds a bit more water ... Negroponte is dragging his feet because the documents will embarrass the administration or those that it loves.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Born-again Bush Bashers -- or -- Woo hoo! I aniticipated a Paul Krugman article
Paul Krugman's 03/10 NYT opinion piece is brilliant and states better what I wrote about on 02/26.
The article is entitled "The Conservative Epiphany" . He describes yet two more prominent conservatives, Bruce Barlett and Andrew Sullivan, turning their backs on Republican leadership.
A couple key sentences points:
It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."
Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now.
So very very true. This is all part of the terrible dishonesty of so many very smart conservative scholars. He also specifically mentions Andrew Sullivan: "Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized"
And as I wrote about Katrina and Brown's recent "rehabilitation":
... we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning.
Again, so very very true.
And finally, he also writes: "The point is that pundits who failed to notice the administration's mendacity a long time ago either weren't doing their homework, or deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence."
Paul K. is still willing to give these new Born-again Bush Bashers a bit of a fig leaf -- they were just lazy, got "taken in", saw all the beautiful shiny bits and pieces thrown in front of them by the administration.... Even the phrase, "deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence" is a nice way to say, "LIARS, LIARS, LIARS!!!".
And his article is the first time I'm hearing the phrase, "Born Again Bush Bashers" ... I love it.
The article is entitled "The Conservative Epiphany" . He describes yet two more prominent conservatives, Bruce Barlett and Andrew Sullivan, turning their backs on Republican leadership.
A couple key sentences points:
It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."
Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now.
So very very true. This is all part of the terrible dishonesty of so many very smart conservative scholars. He also specifically mentions Andrew Sullivan: "Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized"
And as I wrote about Katrina and Brown's recent "rehabilitation":
... we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning.
Again, so very very true.
And finally, he also writes: "The point is that pundits who failed to notice the administration's mendacity a long time ago either weren't doing their homework, or deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence."
Paul K. is still willing to give these new Born-again Bush Bashers a bit of a fig leaf -- they were just lazy, got "taken in", saw all the beautiful shiny bits and pieces thrown in front of them by the administration.... Even the phrase, "deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence" is a nice way to say, "LIARS, LIARS, LIARS!!!".
And his article is the first time I'm hearing the phrase, "Born Again Bush Bashers" ... I love it.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Thank GOD for iTunes // Lost Season One CD from Netflix
I've finished watching the entire first season of Lost and my theory is that the monster is ... some kind of mechanical device. We shall see.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Liberals apologizing ... my OH my!
Jane Hamsher, who runs my personal favorite liberal blog (firedoglake.blogspot.com), writes:
I'll pick up that baton from Joe -- Michael Brown was in over his head but contrary to what I snarked about at the time, the tapes show that he did appreciate the threat and he was trying to get the government to respond. They wouldn't, and they deserve to absorb every bit of scorn that was heaped on Brown at the time for their failure to do so, so I would officially like to transfer my snark. It is to Brown's credit that he's being honest about it now and refusing to be the BushCo. goat. I offer my apologies and hope that others are encouraged to follow in his footsteps
She writing in reference to former FEMA director and his recent / current "rehabilitation".
I still think that he was probably unqualified for the job and that he should not have taken the job. One of my favorite walking money theories is that the republican leadership is deliberately trying to destroy America's confidence in the federal government. Placing unqualified political hacks into high-profile positions of authority and then letting them fail is all part of that plan.
I agree that it's to his credit that he's "being honest" and I also hope that others are encouraged. However, it's no surprise that he's coming out these days, given his scapegoat status. It would have been cleaner if he would have been honest and up-front straight from the beginning instead of lying about things.
The real point here is that Jane is admiting, very publicly, that she thinks she was wrong. I do my best to hear whatever Hannity/Limbaugh and their clones are talking about and one of their favorite techniques when they are on a rant is to "call out" various liberals to apologize for this or that public speaking crime. Jane actually did it and kudo's to her! (I'm still very skeptical of heckofjob though :))
I'll pick up that baton from Joe -- Michael Brown was in over his head but contrary to what I snarked about at the time, the tapes show that he did appreciate the threat and he was trying to get the government to respond. They wouldn't, and they deserve to absorb every bit of scorn that was heaped on Brown at the time for their failure to do so, so I would officially like to transfer my snark. It is to Brown's credit that he's being honest about it now and refusing to be the BushCo. goat. I offer my apologies and hope that others are encouraged to follow in his footsteps
She writing in reference to former FEMA director and his recent / current "rehabilitation".
I still think that he was probably unqualified for the job and that he should not have taken the job. One of my favorite walking money theories is that the republican leadership is deliberately trying to destroy America's confidence in the federal government. Placing unqualified political hacks into high-profile positions of authority and then letting them fail is all part of that plan.
I agree that it's to his credit that he's "being honest" and I also hope that others are encouraged. However, it's no surprise that he's coming out these days, given his scapegoat status. It would have been cleaner if he would have been honest and up-front straight from the beginning instead of lying about things.
The real point here is that Jane is admiting, very publicly, that she thinks she was wrong. I do my best to hear whatever Hannity/Limbaugh and their clones are talking about and one of their favorite techniques when they are on a rant is to "call out" various liberals to apologize for this or that public speaking crime. Jane actually did it and kudo's to her! (I'm still very skeptical of heckofjob though :))
Make a note of it ... the Moonie Times sets a black and white standard for their Leader
Via the good folks at www.newmax.com, we get this Moonie Times quote:
The Washington Times, commenting on what it called a "hit job” on the president, opined: "If it were true that Mr. Bush heard predictions of levee breaches before the storm hit, then that makes a despicable and costly lie of his statement four days after the hurricane.
The above-referenced storm is Katrina.
They don't agree, as of today and based on the available evidence (including newly released internal video conferences with Fema, Homeland Security, the Prez & others), that Bush was ever warned that the levees would fail in New Orleans.
The exciting thing to me is not that they don't agree that he was warned of the possibility, but that they actually drew a line in the sand.
Common sense (and public opinion as of now) all indicate that he full well knew about all the potential problems. If some evidence does turn up demonstrating in black and white terms that the Prez did, in fact, know about it, will the Times run an article: "Dispicable Lie From President Bush Gets Him Impeached" ?
The Washington Times, commenting on what it called a "hit job” on the president, opined: "If it were true that Mr. Bush heard predictions of levee breaches before the storm hit, then that makes a despicable and costly lie of his statement four days after the hurricane.
The above-referenced storm is Katrina.
They don't agree, as of today and based on the available evidence (including newly released internal video conferences with Fema, Homeland Security, the Prez & others), that Bush was ever warned that the levees would fail in New Orleans.
The exciting thing to me is not that they don't agree that he was warned of the possibility, but that they actually drew a line in the sand.
Common sense (and public opinion as of now) all indicate that he full well knew about all the potential problems. If some evidence does turn up demonstrating in black and white terms that the Prez did, in fact, know about it, will the Times run an article: "Dispicable Lie From President Bush Gets Him Impeached" ?
The seductive appeal of the guest worker program
Various iterations of this program come and go, but the gist seems to be this:
- Come here for 3 years.
- If we like you, stay another 3.
- Go home.
- Wait a while.
- Try again for another 3 years.
It seems like a reasonable plan from a pure chess-pieces-on-the-table perspective.
What a program like this will really do is bring back the bad old days against which the likes of Upton Sinclair railed against in The Jungle.
Some people may think that's an extreme comparison and though I don't want to concede the point, I think that if I soften it and say that on the labor spectrum, where the far left is U.S.A. 2006 and the far right is The Jungle, most will agree that a guest worker program clearly pushes the arrow to the right.
Capitalism is a pervasive system. Without checks, it's really quite horrible. That's why there are all kinds of checks on its unrestricted implementation in this country and elsewhere. But you can't really check it too well. It's like a pouring gallon and gallons of water into a leaky wooden barrel. The barrel has small leaks here and there, but the water always tries to find its way out of the largest leak. Plug one leak and you just made it so that the water goes out a different hole. Or, the pressure will build up that the water creates its own hole somewhere else.
This guest worker program is a new hole. "Pure" capitalism will take over the guest worker program. Pure, unrestricted capitalism extracts terrible costs from most of its participants.
I'm no economics expert, but common sense tells me that one of the best checks against capitalism (aside from government regulation) is the worker. A worker can always get up and walk away from Job A to get a better Job B. If I'm not getting paid enough today at my company (or I don't like something else like benefits, hours, management), I can walk away and get another job. Guest workers won't have this option. One of the most powerful weapons in their aresenal is taken away from them.
Employers surely know this. And as good capitalists, they will take advantage. These guest workers will be paid little, receive little benefits and generally be in big trouble.
Can a guest worker program succeed? I don't know, but I surely have no faith in this government today coming up with a good program.
- Come here for 3 years.
- If we like you, stay another 3.
- Go home.
- Wait a while.
- Try again for another 3 years.
It seems like a reasonable plan from a pure chess-pieces-on-the-table perspective.
What a program like this will really do is bring back the bad old days against which the likes of Upton Sinclair railed against in The Jungle.
Some people may think that's an extreme comparison and though I don't want to concede the point, I think that if I soften it and say that on the labor spectrum, where the far left is U.S.A. 2006 and the far right is The Jungle, most will agree that a guest worker program clearly pushes the arrow to the right.
Capitalism is a pervasive system. Without checks, it's really quite horrible. That's why there are all kinds of checks on its unrestricted implementation in this country and elsewhere. But you can't really check it too well. It's like a pouring gallon and gallons of water into a leaky wooden barrel. The barrel has small leaks here and there, but the water always tries to find its way out of the largest leak. Plug one leak and you just made it so that the water goes out a different hole. Or, the pressure will build up that the water creates its own hole somewhere else.
This guest worker program is a new hole. "Pure" capitalism will take over the guest worker program. Pure, unrestricted capitalism extracts terrible costs from most of its participants.
I'm no economics expert, but common sense tells me that one of the best checks against capitalism (aside from government regulation) is the worker. A worker can always get up and walk away from Job A to get a better Job B. If I'm not getting paid enough today at my company (or I don't like something else like benefits, hours, management), I can walk away and get another job. Guest workers won't have this option. One of the most powerful weapons in their aresenal is taken away from them.
Employers surely know this. And as good capitalists, they will take advantage. These guest workers will be paid little, receive little benefits and generally be in big trouble.
Can a guest worker program succeed? I don't know, but I surely have no faith in this government today coming up with a good program.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Alito, Bush's intelligence and secret hopes
Having just heard Bush explain (or at least string a few sentences together with englishy words) in his usual inept way why the U.S. entered into an agreement with India regarding nuclear technology, I'm once again thinking down the same old tired path -- this guy is a moron!
But, is he really? The SCOTUS is soon to provide telling evidence. They've heard arguments now on "partial birth" abortion. At some point in the next medium amount of time, it seems they may also hear arguments on abortion in general. Will they vote for the Dobson position or for stare decisis?
My secret hope is that Alito will turn into a moderate on this issue and follow precedent. If he does that, then we can we know that not only is Bush incoherent when speaking, but a lousy judge of judges too. I'm not too hopeful though.
But, is he really? The SCOTUS is soon to provide telling evidence. They've heard arguments now on "partial birth" abortion. At some point in the next medium amount of time, it seems they may also hear arguments on abortion in general. Will they vote for the Dobson position or for stare decisis?
My secret hope is that Alito will turn into a moderate on this issue and follow precedent. If he does that, then we can we know that not only is Bush incoherent when speaking, but a lousy judge of judges too. I'm not too hopeful though.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Katrina and bathtubs
Grover Nordquist, whose place in the Conservative Pantheon I'm unsure, famously said that he wanted to shrink the size of government until he could strangle it in the bath tub. (I hope I got the attribution right on that, apologies if not).
One of my recent crazy consipracy theories is that the federal response to Katrina both demonstrates success and an on-going committment to that ideal by the republican leadership in this country.
I have, of course, been long convinced that the federal response to Katrina was terrible. It started as a gut check and then as more evidence came to light, it became a reasoned conviction and more and more Americans see it that way too. Why was it so terrible? We just faced calamity a short while ago down the road in Manhattan. What's the difference between a cataclysmic man-made device going off in New Orleans vs. the hurricane, from an after-the-fact perspective? They are surely comparable.
There are plenty of specific time-and-place reasons (starting with no-cred's "heckofajob Brownie").
But I believe there is a larger reason behind it. It's a direct result of "starving the beast" over the last period of time of republican leadership and, I suspect, even more cynically a deliberate attempt to further that goal.
Some people are thinking to themselves, "hey, they botched it so badly, and there is such a strong negative reaction to how they handled it, they have to do a better job next time".
I'm thinking that they got the precise result they wanted (where "they" is an admitedly shadowy no-name group of starve-the-beast masters, whoever they are). The precise result was this: reduced confidence in the federal government. As the public loses confidence and faith in the federal government to handle these things, the public will look anywhere and everywhere for help, except the federal government. Reduced confidence and lowered expectations play right into their hands.
One of my recent crazy consipracy theories is that the federal response to Katrina both demonstrates success and an on-going committment to that ideal by the republican leadership in this country.
I have, of course, been long convinced that the federal response to Katrina was terrible. It started as a gut check and then as more evidence came to light, it became a reasoned conviction and more and more Americans see it that way too. Why was it so terrible? We just faced calamity a short while ago down the road in Manhattan. What's the difference between a cataclysmic man-made device going off in New Orleans vs. the hurricane, from an after-the-fact perspective? They are surely comparable.
There are plenty of specific time-and-place reasons (starting with no-cred's "heckofajob Brownie").
But I believe there is a larger reason behind it. It's a direct result of "starving the beast" over the last period of time of republican leadership and, I suspect, even more cynically a deliberate attempt to further that goal.
Some people are thinking to themselves, "hey, they botched it so badly, and there is such a strong negative reaction to how they handled it, they have to do a better job next time".
I'm thinking that they got the precise result they wanted (where "they" is an admitedly shadowy no-name group of starve-the-beast masters, whoever they are). The precise result was this: reduced confidence in the federal government. As the public loses confidence and faith in the federal government to handle these things, the public will look anywhere and everywhere for help, except the federal government. Reduced confidence and lowered expectations play right into their hands.
Why don't you liberals ever condemn evil?
I received an email from Randy Rhodes some time back where she offered a relatively lengthy definition of "fascism".
One of the examples it provided describes how fascist groups insist that members of the group loudly, publicy denounce "enemies". This must be done repeatedly.
One would think that by now, everyone has pretty much said everything new there is to say about how evil Husein is/was. He was a bad guy and he's on a path toward appropriate consequences.
Why do the right wing attack dogs keep insisting that we take a momentary break on a frequent basis to denounce him? Or to denounce one of our friends who didn't denounce Hussein enough in the last week or so?
I hear now and then a talking head argue that this is needful because otherwise, somehow, Hussein's evil (murderer of upwards of 300,000 of his countrymen), might be forgotten. Or other evils in the world may be forgotten.
That's hogwash. No one walks around "unhappy that Hussein is on trial". Everyone agrees that when considered in isolation of all extra context, Hussein deserved what he got and will get.
These public demands to denounce this or that patently obvious evil are pure trickery. I'm not a sholar of Stalin, but this sounds a hell of a lot like a Stalin-like technique. Or Fascism.
I bring this up today on account of Lowry once again making that claim, this time directed at David Corn. And David for some reason responding.. It's such a clever trick, they have, the right wing attack dogs. How do you respond? By responding, you give a kind of weird legitimacy to the question... If you don't, it can seem as if you really don't denouce it. A clever little catch-22.
We probably need to come up with some code word for this technique. Maybe just called it "RwT1" for "Right wing technique #1". We can make charts and publish it on the web. Create refridgerator magnet thingies for easy reference... Sounds like a business opportunity.
One of the examples it provided describes how fascist groups insist that members of the group loudly, publicy denounce "enemies". This must be done repeatedly.
One would think that by now, everyone has pretty much said everything new there is to say about how evil Husein is/was. He was a bad guy and he's on a path toward appropriate consequences.
Why do the right wing attack dogs keep insisting that we take a momentary break on a frequent basis to denounce him? Or to denounce one of our friends who didn't denounce Hussein enough in the last week or so?
I hear now and then a talking head argue that this is needful because otherwise, somehow, Hussein's evil (murderer of upwards of 300,000 of his countrymen), might be forgotten. Or other evils in the world may be forgotten.
That's hogwash. No one walks around "unhappy that Hussein is on trial". Everyone agrees that when considered in isolation of all extra context, Hussein deserved what he got and will get.
These public demands to denounce this or that patently obvious evil are pure trickery. I'm not a sholar of Stalin, but this sounds a hell of a lot like a Stalin-like technique. Or Fascism.
I bring this up today on account of Lowry once again making that claim, this time directed at David Corn. And David for some reason responding.. It's such a clever trick, they have, the right wing attack dogs. How do you respond? By responding, you give a kind of weird legitimacy to the question... If you don't, it can seem as if you really don't denouce it. A clever little catch-22.
We probably need to come up with some code word for this technique. Maybe just called it "RwT1" for "Right wing technique #1". We can make charts and publish it on the web. Create refridgerator magnet thingies for easy reference... Sounds like a business opportunity.
Conservative excuses, Buckly et. al
At least one way that the conservative attack dog types are handling Buckley's "defection" is to say that basically, Bill was never on board from the start. His current discussion about "failure" is just a position which has evolved over time.
They do manage (so far) to hold back their vitriol. Unlike Dean, Buckley isn't quite "aiding and abetting".
They do manage (so far) to hold back their vitriol. Unlike Dean, Buckley isn't quite "aiding and abetting".
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Principled / intellectually-driven conservatism, pragmatism & Bush
I'm a bit late to the scene, so I don't have the full back story. The names I've come to learn are George Will, William Saffire, Buckley. Someone named Fukayama.
There are others of course. Krauthammer (who I *think* is more of an attack dog than a pillar of conservative thought), Barnes, others. These guys are the middle management of conservative thought, so to speak.
The door-to-door salesmen are the O'Reilly's, Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world. They are particulary dispicable.
My theory of today is this: It's not just the democrats like myself who, when we first saw George B. on stage during the primaries and 2000 election think to ourselves, "this man is a moron." The republicans did as well. I think that we are seeing the intellectual leaders of the conservative movement walk away from Bush. I'm not talking about wholesale retreat, but they are certainly casting stones.
Buckley is calling the Iraq war a failure.
George Will believes that wiretapping shows an out-of-balance executive. (Read the whole thing, because warrantless wire tapping is just an example of a bigger issue).
Francis Fukuyama argues that the Bush doctrine is in shambles. This article is a pay-for link, so here is what I personally found very intersting:
''The End of History,'' in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.
This struck a chord for me. I had, for many years, felt that individuals, groups, organizations, coutries, whatever -- those that would argue so strongly against the United States and that for which it stands -- they simply don't realize that we are, in fact, the best place on earth. Come 9/11 and the months and years that have followed and we learn that many of the hijackers had been here in the country for quite some time before they acted. And my thinking had been -- anyone that plans to do such a thing could only act if they didn't know who they would be hurting. But these people did and I had to re-evaluate. Because my thinking along these lines was "Leninist" in the sense that I too felt that 1) liberal democracy is the End State and 2) that there are steps we can take to get us all down that path more quickly and with less pain. I'm not sure sure any more.
Does Bush need a solid intellectual basis to govern? I think so. I hope more than I believe :)
It seems that these people, though late to the game from my perspective, are finally coming to their senses and see truth for what it is. Their ideas, which are at the least interesting and worth debating, are not being carried forth into the world by the current leadership in our country. I think they probably knew it all along, but had no choice but to carry water for these people and hoped they could influence the likes of Bush, Rove, Cheney, Hastert, Frist, Delay, etc. to govern in accordance with their conservative principles. Now that it's more and more obvious that this is not the case, they find that their original instinct, that Bush is a moron, was correct.
There are others of course. Krauthammer (who I *think* is more of an attack dog than a pillar of conservative thought), Barnes, others. These guys are the middle management of conservative thought, so to speak.
The door-to-door salesmen are the O'Reilly's, Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world. They are particulary dispicable.
My theory of today is this: It's not just the democrats like myself who, when we first saw George B. on stage during the primaries and 2000 election think to ourselves, "this man is a moron." The republicans did as well. I think that we are seeing the intellectual leaders of the conservative movement walk away from Bush. I'm not talking about wholesale retreat, but they are certainly casting stones.
Buckley is calling the Iraq war a failure.
George Will believes that wiretapping shows an out-of-balance executive. (Read the whole thing, because warrantless wire tapping is just an example of a bigger issue).
Francis Fukuyama argues that the Bush doctrine is in shambles. This article is a pay-for link, so here is what I personally found very intersting:
''The End of History,'' in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.
This struck a chord for me. I had, for many years, felt that individuals, groups, organizations, coutries, whatever -- those that would argue so strongly against the United States and that for which it stands -- they simply don't realize that we are, in fact, the best place on earth. Come 9/11 and the months and years that have followed and we learn that many of the hijackers had been here in the country for quite some time before they acted. And my thinking had been -- anyone that plans to do such a thing could only act if they didn't know who they would be hurting. But these people did and I had to re-evaluate. Because my thinking along these lines was "Leninist" in the sense that I too felt that 1) liberal democracy is the End State and 2) that there are steps we can take to get us all down that path more quickly and with less pain. I'm not sure sure any more.
Does Bush need a solid intellectual basis to govern? I think so. I hope more than I believe :)
It seems that these people, though late to the game from my perspective, are finally coming to their senses and see truth for what it is. Their ideas, which are at the least interesting and worth debating, are not being carried forth into the world by the current leadership in our country. I think they probably knew it all along, but had no choice but to carry water for these people and hoped they could influence the likes of Bush, Rove, Cheney, Hastert, Frist, Delay, etc. to govern in accordance with their conservative principles. Now that it's more and more obvious that this is not the case, they find that their original instinct, that Bush is a moron, was correct.
Conservative dishonesty, Fred Barnes, social security
Witness his Weekly Standard (of 03/06/2006) article on the weekystandard.com website.
His opening paragraph:
Like few presidents before him, President Bush was poised for a consequential and potentially quite successful second term. It hasn't worked out that way (so far). Bush made one strategic error in 2005, guessing wrongly that the country was adult and serious enough to reform Social Security. Now he faces at least two immediate challenges: immigration and the Dubai ports flap.
Social security reform Bush-style failed because as a nation, we're not "adult and serious enough".
It's not because the serious adults in the nation considered the plan and rejected it.
His opening paragraph:
Like few presidents before him, President Bush was poised for a consequential and potentially quite successful second term. It hasn't worked out that way (so far). Bush made one strategic error in 2005, guessing wrongly that the country was adult and serious enough to reform Social Security. Now he faces at least two immediate challenges: immigration and the Dubai ports flap.
Social security reform Bush-style failed because as a nation, we're not "adult and serious enough".
It's not because the serious adults in the nation considered the plan and rejected it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)