The Bush administration really went to school on the whole Orwellian language, didn't they? When I saw they wanted "time horizons" but not timetables, I nearly gagged. I think we can all imagine the group huddle in the WH, "ok, we need a term to describe a timetable, but we cannot call it that or the Democrats and terrorists win."
Then al-Maliki endorsed Obama's 16 month timetable and the Republican heads started to asplode. This morning, I see from Petraeus that al-Maliki doesn't want what he said he wanted. And earlier, from Centcom, came a statement that al-Maliki had been misquoted.
To be fair, I have no clue what the best course of action is in Iraq. As far as I am concerned, the Bush people have left us with no good options. Likewise with Afghanistan, where I am unsure that Obama's stance is the right one there either.
But it seems clear that the Bush/McCain people are not as good at the foreign policy as they pretend. Not only is Bush now talking time-whatevers, but he is actually talking to Iran--the very same thing he accused Obama wanted to do when he called it "appeasement."
July 20, 2008
The Hold Steady Stays Positive
Halfway through this year, and my fears of a weak music year have proved wrong. So far. The Kathleen Edwards "Asking for Flowers" is as good as music gets, and other albums from Tift Merritt and the new Frightened Rabbit are very solid.
This last week, I was pleased to find the new Hold Steady album available on Emusic, so I downloaded it immediately. I have mixed emotions about this band. As one of the reviewers noted,
But they also have songs that build beautifully. I said to SOF the other day, as we were listening to my favorite off this new album "Slapped Actress" that this is the kind of music that Beethoven would have found intriguing. He would have loved the chord progressions and musical hooks. Not just your basic 1,4,5 progression, the song just keeps running through my head. Still not sure about the lyrics, though as I read them, it is not an endorsement of slapping, but the song is a great one, and the album a cinch for top 10 albums of the year.
This last week, I was pleased to find the new Hold Steady album available on Emusic, so I downloaded it immediately. I have mixed emotions about this band. As one of the reviewers noted,
Like all The Hold Steady's albums, this one is basically about young folks behaving badly (booze, sex, fights).That is about right. But when you hear their guitar licks, the bizarre lyrics work. And this new album (Stay Positive) is no different. Stirring guitar licks with some great rock anthems. This album, more than the previous couple, reminds me of early Sprinsteen--when the Boss's songs were long and rambling stories. With the Hold Steady, those stories are usually about bad behavior or very odd people. Like "Your little Hoodrat Friend," or the "Chillout tent."
But they also have songs that build beautifully. I said to SOF the other day, as we were listening to my favorite off this new album "Slapped Actress" that this is the kind of music that Beethoven would have found intriguing. He would have loved the chord progressions and musical hooks. Not just your basic 1,4,5 progression, the song just keeps running through my head. Still not sure about the lyrics, though as I read them, it is not an endorsement of slapping, but the song is a great one, and the album a cinch for top 10 albums of the year.
A "giving kiosk"
Courtesy of my friend Mary, this from a mainline Methodist church. One of my Baptist friends pointed out that there is very little difference between paying a tithe with check or credit card. I think in isolation, that is exactly right and this just reflects the changing ways we move money in our society.
But in the broader contexts of churches relying on business models, focus groups, and preachers trained in communication rather than theology, it concerns me.
But in the broader contexts of churches relying on business models, focus groups, and preachers trained in communication rather than theology, it concerns me.
July 19, 2008
Why McCain's "socialist" comment offends me
The other day, a reporter asked John McCain if he thinks Obama is a socialist:
A commenter at Tony's blog took offense at my characterization of this exchange, and I think I was unclear. I said that either McCain doesn't know what socialism is or he is lying.
Let me explain.
While there are actual definitions of socialism, I believe that Americans hear "socialism" as the same as "communism" and equate both to being "unamerican." And I believe that John McCain understands that very well. He knows that he can very subtly imply that Obama is not a loyal American. He knows that for two reasons--one that the American people respond to that assertion, and two, that liberals would be unable to suggest the same thing about McCain.
Conservatives can casually question the patriotism or loyalty of liberals, but no matter how duplicitous, or corrupt, or even destructive, no one questions the loyalty of conservatives. They can do business with the enemy, or out a CIA agent working for us, and while they might be chastised and criticized, they will not be accused of being unAmerican.
There are definitions of socialism. Most of them include the government control of the modes of production and a controlling the distribution of wealth. We really don't have much of a socialist movement in this country, and while McCain tried to link Obama to " the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont," even that was a distortion. Sanders is a political liberal, calls himself a "Democratic socialist" and is hardly some Marxist.
So when McCain says, "I don't know," what he means is that he doesn't really care about Socialism. Hell, if Obama is a socialist, then so is McCain (or so he was when he was the self-appointed "maverick"). McCain means to undermine Obama's legitimacy. It is the very same tactic that Hillary used when asked if Obama was a muslim. She knows the answer, just as McCain did--in both cases, "no, of course not"--she left doubt because she wanted to question Obama's American identity.
The closest comparison would be if Obama had been asked if McCain was a "fascist" and said he didn't know. But even that doesn't work as well in our culture. I remember a friend of mine saying he voted for Bush in 04 because he was afraid of what a radical liberal like Kerry might do. Of course, as I pointed out then, he seemed completely oblivious that we were living with the disaster of a radical conservative agenda, but the "theoretical" liberal was more scary than the actual conservative agenda of war, torture, and reduced civil liberties.
Sigh.
McCain responds with a with a shrug, 'I don't know.'"
A commenter at Tony's blog took offense at my characterization of this exchange, and I think I was unclear. I said that either McCain doesn't know what socialism is or he is lying.
Let me explain.
While there are actual definitions of socialism, I believe that Americans hear "socialism" as the same as "communism" and equate both to being "unamerican." And I believe that John McCain understands that very well. He knows that he can very subtly imply that Obama is not a loyal American. He knows that for two reasons--one that the American people respond to that assertion, and two, that liberals would be unable to suggest the same thing about McCain.
Conservatives can casually question the patriotism or loyalty of liberals, but no matter how duplicitous, or corrupt, or even destructive, no one questions the loyalty of conservatives. They can do business with the enemy, or out a CIA agent working for us, and while they might be chastised and criticized, they will not be accused of being unAmerican.
There are definitions of socialism. Most of them include the government control of the modes of production and a controlling the distribution of wealth. We really don't have much of a socialist movement in this country, and while McCain tried to link Obama to " the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont," even that was a distortion. Sanders is a political liberal, calls himself a "Democratic socialist" and is hardly some Marxist.
So when McCain says, "I don't know," what he means is that he doesn't really care about Socialism. Hell, if Obama is a socialist, then so is McCain (or so he was when he was the self-appointed "maverick"). McCain means to undermine Obama's legitimacy. It is the very same tactic that Hillary used when asked if Obama was a muslim. She knows the answer, just as McCain did--in both cases, "no, of course not"--she left doubt because she wanted to question Obama's American identity.
The closest comparison would be if Obama had been asked if McCain was a "fascist" and said he didn't know. But even that doesn't work as well in our culture. I remember a friend of mine saying he voted for Bush in 04 because he was afraid of what a radical liberal like Kerry might do. Of course, as I pointed out then, he seemed completely oblivious that we were living with the disaster of a radical conservative agenda, but the "theoretical" liberal was more scary than the actual conservative agenda of war, torture, and reduced civil liberties.
Sigh.
July 18, 2008
Because I love the top ten lists
And saw this at Sarah's blog asking for your top-ten albums of the last ten years. Decided to post my response and open it here for others.
I said:
Anyone?
I said:
"Any of the Wilco albums
Anything from Kasey Chambers
Same from Kathleen Edwards
The Jayhawks, Sound of Lies or Smile
Springsteen’s Rising
Ryan Adams, Cold Roses
Uncle Tupelo, Anodyne
Son Volt, Trace
the Hold Steady (not sure which one)
Alejandro Escovedo, (several)"
Anyone?
July 17, 2008
Rape jokes
Just curious, but has any of you ever told a rape joke told a rape joke?
I am a big joke teller. Can't think of a time that I told one that made light of rape.
Just saying.
I am a big joke teller. Can't think of a time that I told one that made light of rape.
Just saying.
This makes me angry
Republicans really do seem to assume they are the only ones who care about national defense. Here in Oklahoma, we have a pretty liberal state senator challenging the corrupt Jim Inhofe for Senate and he has responded to a billboard ad by some asshat Floridian that connects voting Democrat with the WTC. Rice (our candidate) lost a brother in the World Trade Center.
The Conservative Nanny State
Thanks to a friend for pointing me to this book, on conservative economics.
In this book (which I have only read part), Baker suggests that our current dialogue is misleading. It isn't that conservatives don't want big government, it is that they want government to protect their interests. While rather harsh in phrasing, he has some very interesting points. For example, on the issue of free trade, he suggests that what we have now is not free trade, but selective free trade. Dishwashers, for example, compete for jobs in the US based on wages and ability (as such). If a restaurant can hire a Mexican (let's assume legally here) for cheaper wages, then he is free to do so. Let's remember that many conservatives oppose the minimum wage, so if they had their way, that Mexican immigrant could work for next to nothing if he/she were willing, and Americans would find their wages decrease. A good example of this, of course, is the migrant labor that picks our fruit and vegetables.
This "free market" serves a lot of good for our society, or at least most of us in this society, because it makes most of our goods and services less expensive. But, as Baker suggests, white collar professionals do not participate in such an economy. Yes, absolutely, a Mexican trained professor could be hired into a university program--competing on ability--but that University would not be allowed to pay that professor what might pass for a wage in Mexico city.
As a result, those wealthiest professionals prosper in a protected economy. Not only that, but often they participate with government in ventures that are exceedingly unfree and not governed strictly by the market. CEOs and executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will not suffer the market's consequence for screwing up. Individual homeowners saddled with poorly vetted mortgages will. Something about "socializing the risk and privatizing the profit," I think.
Anyway.
In this book (which I have only read part), Baker suggests that our current dialogue is misleading. It isn't that conservatives don't want big government, it is that they want government to protect their interests. While rather harsh in phrasing, he has some very interesting points. For example, on the issue of free trade, he suggests that what we have now is not free trade, but selective free trade. Dishwashers, for example, compete for jobs in the US based on wages and ability (as such). If a restaurant can hire a Mexican (let's assume legally here) for cheaper wages, then he is free to do so. Let's remember that many conservatives oppose the minimum wage, so if they had their way, that Mexican immigrant could work for next to nothing if he/she were willing, and Americans would find their wages decrease. A good example of this, of course, is the migrant labor that picks our fruit and vegetables.
This "free market" serves a lot of good for our society, or at least most of us in this society, because it makes most of our goods and services less expensive. But, as Baker suggests, white collar professionals do not participate in such an economy. Yes, absolutely, a Mexican trained professor could be hired into a university program--competing on ability--but that University would not be allowed to pay that professor what might pass for a wage in Mexico city.
As a result, those wealthiest professionals prosper in a protected economy. Not only that, but often they participate with government in ventures that are exceedingly unfree and not governed strictly by the market. CEOs and executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will not suffer the market's consequence for screwing up. Individual homeowners saddled with poorly vetted mortgages will. Something about "socializing the risk and privatizing the profit," I think.
Anyway.
Another Conservative for Obama
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan: "I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America. This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.
When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins. Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance,' - Larry Hunter, New York Daily News."
July 16, 2008
Cannot make this stuff up
And that has been true for the last 8 years, especially, but today had a few like this.
First, of course, is the unbelievable gall of Elizabeth Dole wanting to name an AIDS Bill after Jesse Helms. Kind of like naming an evolution lab after Jerry Falwell. Or a library after GW Bush.
****
After all the years of Republicans complaining about Clinton auctioning access to the Lincoln bedroom, this HS advisor selling access to the Bush people for $600,00+ is kind of funny. I really don't want to hear a lecture from any Republicans in the future. Not about anything moral or ethical.
***
Speaking of our Republican friends, Yglesias has an interesting post on the right's love affair with Teddy Roosevelt. An interesting figure in American history, but far too concerned with his masculinity for me.
****
I love how Cindy McCain thinks that private plane travel is the only way to get around Arizona. And it is Obama who is the elitist.
Sigh.
****
Jane Mayer's new book is getting a lot of press. Seems she thinks that Cheney is responsible for a lot of our torture. Turns out he simply ignored or over-rode any objections by moral or legal critics who said this was not the way to go. And despite our commenter's critique, there is ample evidence that the torture was not only immoral, but also simply unhelpful:
I think Cheney is going to have a lot to answer for as his "legacy" is written. At this point, I suspect that Bush will come across as a man in over his head, who delegated the wrong tasks to the wrong people.
****
I think some will find Obama disappointing as a Presidential candidate because he is so damn pragmatic, but I, for one, find that option quite compelling. After 8 years of idiot ideologues, I would welcome someone pursuing foreign policy more on the model of the first President Bush.
And I remember when we thought HW Bush was dumb. Turns out, he was quite smart and capable.
First, of course, is the unbelievable gall of Elizabeth Dole wanting to name an AIDS Bill after Jesse Helms. Kind of like naming an evolution lab after Jerry Falwell. Or a library after GW Bush.
****
After all the years of Republicans complaining about Clinton auctioning access to the Lincoln bedroom, this HS advisor selling access to the Bush people for $600,00+ is kind of funny. I really don't want to hear a lecture from any Republicans in the future. Not about anything moral or ethical.
***
Speaking of our Republican friends, Yglesias has an interesting post on the right's love affair with Teddy Roosevelt. An interesting figure in American history, but far too concerned with his masculinity for me.
****
I love how Cindy McCain thinks that private plane travel is the only way to get around Arizona. And it is Obama who is the elitist.
Sigh.
****
Jane Mayer's new book is getting a lot of press. Seems she thinks that Cheney is responsible for a lot of our torture. Turns out he simply ignored or over-rode any objections by moral or legal critics who said this was not the way to go. And despite our commenter's critique, there is ample evidence that the torture was not only immoral, but also simply unhelpful:
Meanwhile, although President Bush has argued that “enhanced” interrogation had led to numerous breakthroughs he has never publicly acknowledged the false and fabricated intelligence it has yielded, too. One former top CIA official told me, “Ninety percent of what we got was crap.”
I think Cheney is going to have a lot to answer for as his "legacy" is written. At this point, I suspect that Bush will come across as a man in over his head, who delegated the wrong tasks to the wrong people.
****
I think some will find Obama disappointing as a Presidential candidate because he is so damn pragmatic, but I, for one, find that option quite compelling. After 8 years of idiot ideologues, I would welcome someone pursuing foreign policy more on the model of the first President Bush.
And I remember when we thought HW Bush was dumb. Turns out, he was quite smart and capable.
July 15, 2008
Sigh
Tony noted this the other day and I just saw it again on the DMN Religion blog. Evidently, a Baptist church right here in Oklahoma was planning on giving away a semiautomatic rifle to a lucky youth attending their conference. Really hard to figure out what is going on here. I guess I just don't see the connection.
But for a happier topic, here is another picture from our trip. Our Nikon Coolpix has a cool panoramic assist that really works! I took several pictures and then used their software to stitch them into one nice picture. See what you think. This one is a view of the Na Pali Coast on Kauai.
If you click on it, I think you can see a bigger version. I have a few more panoramic views to post. Maybe later this week.
But for a happier topic, here is another picture from our trip. Our Nikon Coolpix has a cool panoramic assist that really works! I took several pictures and then used their software to stitch them into one nice picture. See what you think. This one is a view of the Na Pali Coast on Kauai.
If you click on it, I think you can see a bigger version. I have a few more panoramic views to post. Maybe later this week.
July 14, 2008
Pearl Harbor
As I mentioned the other day, our trip struck me as a mix of authentic and contrived experiences, and this describes our trip to Pearl Harbor as well. Perhaps my expectations were a little on the high side. After all, I felt as if I had been there before. It was also one of the longer days on the trip, so my fatigue grew through the tour.
We started early and ended up in line waiting to get into the memorial and museum. I had been reading about the attack and how America experienced it almost as an archetypal American event similar to Indians attacking the generic homestead, or the shocking losses to the "other" at the Alamo or Little Big Horn. Pearl Harbor fell into that for many--a treacherous attack by the non-white other. The racial aspect was something that concerned the OWI (Office of War Information). They did not want our films and portrayals to emphasize the racial difference of the Japanese, but wanted to emphasize a conflict of systems and ideas.
So when I watched the movie introduction and went through the Arizona memorial, I had some of that in the back of my mind. When I referenced the propaganda movie, that was rather harsh, perhaps, but there is an element there. The film shows original footage (including obviously some gleaned from Japanese archives) and then some footage from early documentaries showing the American spirit responding to the attack--emphasizing the melting pot of American citizens (except, of course, Japanese Americans). Heartwarming stuff.
In retrospect, there was much I admired about the memorial. Seeing the outline of the Arizona and the seeping oil made it very real, and very authentic. But there were other issues (fair or not) that caused me some discomfort.
1) The idea that everyone who perished that day were heroes. This is not a criticism of their service or sacrifice, mind you, but I would imagine that many of those who died that day would have scoffed at the idea that they were heroic. They were just doing their jobs. Some, I am sure, acted heroically and tried to save others. But just being there didn't make them heroes.
2) Likewise, the arbitrary nature of the adoration. Is there a wall or memorial for those who died a few weeks after Pearl? In a battle that didn't conform to the idea of treachery and deceit?
3) (And this one was more unspoken, and not fair to attack to the memorial or the Park Service presentation) the specter of 9-11 and the "Greatest Generation." I recently received an email saying that Bush's error on Iraq was not the war, but the assumption that he led the same country that fought WWII. Yet, in the footage of the response to the tragedy of Pearl and the attempts to rescue the wounded and dying, I saw the previous versions of those rescue efforts here in Oklahoma City and following the World Trade center attacks. World War II was different because our President then called us to sacrifice and to rally behind the war effort against a known and definable enemy. Roosevelt didn't tell the American people to trust him and then go shopping. Likewise, black and white film doesn't mean that people in the past were more patriotic or "Greatest."
4) The assumption of victory and the "rightness" of our cause. In this case, I sincerely believe that we were on the right side of that war--don't get me wrong. Fascism had to be stopped. But out of that "victory culture" has come a sense that all of our wars or military actions are the same way. It almost becomes a circular logic--we are right because we fight, and we fight because we are right.
The tour of the Missouri was less emotional and more almost just factual in nature. It was cool to see a ship that size and to see how it operated. I had forgotten that it was still in use during the Persian Gulf War. But during our tour, we heard a couple of stories that were rather interesting. The first was about President Truman's visit to the Missouri. The ship's captain planned for the President to eat in the Officer's mess, but Truman insisted on eating with the men--and also standing in line for his food like everyone else.
The second story was actually the most positive and uplifting one for me. During the battle for Okinawa, a Kamikaze bomber hit the Missouri--you can still see the dent in the ship side. It caused very little damage and no casualties for the ship, but ended, of course, the life of the pilot. The men on deck wanted to throw the rest of the man's body overseas in disgust. But the ship captain insisted on waiting until the next day, folding the remains in a makeshift Japanese flag and giving the Japanese soldier a proper burial. The men questioned this, noting that he had been trying to kill them. The Captain said that the Japanese soldier was just doing his job, just like all of them. He was fighting for his country, and deserved this small bit of respect.
We started early and ended up in line waiting to get into the memorial and museum. I had been reading about the attack and how America experienced it almost as an archetypal American event similar to Indians attacking the generic homestead, or the shocking losses to the "other" at the Alamo or Little Big Horn. Pearl Harbor fell into that for many--a treacherous attack by the non-white other. The racial aspect was something that concerned the OWI (Office of War Information). They did not want our films and portrayals to emphasize the racial difference of the Japanese, but wanted to emphasize a conflict of systems and ideas.
So when I watched the movie introduction and went through the Arizona memorial, I had some of that in the back of my mind. When I referenced the propaganda movie, that was rather harsh, perhaps, but there is an element there. The film shows original footage (including obviously some gleaned from Japanese archives) and then some footage from early documentaries showing the American spirit responding to the attack--emphasizing the melting pot of American citizens (except, of course, Japanese Americans). Heartwarming stuff.
In retrospect, there was much I admired about the memorial. Seeing the outline of the Arizona and the seeping oil made it very real, and very authentic. But there were other issues (fair or not) that caused me some discomfort.
1) The idea that everyone who perished that day were heroes. This is not a criticism of their service or sacrifice, mind you, but I would imagine that many of those who died that day would have scoffed at the idea that they were heroic. They were just doing their jobs. Some, I am sure, acted heroically and tried to save others. But just being there didn't make them heroes.
2) Likewise, the arbitrary nature of the adoration. Is there a wall or memorial for those who died a few weeks after Pearl? In a battle that didn't conform to the idea of treachery and deceit?
3) (And this one was more unspoken, and not fair to attack to the memorial or the Park Service presentation) the specter of 9-11 and the "Greatest Generation." I recently received an email saying that Bush's error on Iraq was not the war, but the assumption that he led the same country that fought WWII. Yet, in the footage of the response to the tragedy of Pearl and the attempts to rescue the wounded and dying, I saw the previous versions of those rescue efforts here in Oklahoma City and following the World Trade center attacks. World War II was different because our President then called us to sacrifice and to rally behind the war effort against a known and definable enemy. Roosevelt didn't tell the American people to trust him and then go shopping. Likewise, black and white film doesn't mean that people in the past were more patriotic or "Greatest."
4) The assumption of victory and the "rightness" of our cause. In this case, I sincerely believe that we were on the right side of that war--don't get me wrong. Fascism had to be stopped. But out of that "victory culture" has come a sense that all of our wars or military actions are the same way. It almost becomes a circular logic--we are right because we fight, and we fight because we are right.
The tour of the Missouri was less emotional and more almost just factual in nature. It was cool to see a ship that size and to see how it operated. I had forgotten that it was still in use during the Persian Gulf War. But during our tour, we heard a couple of stories that were rather interesting. The first was about President Truman's visit to the Missouri. The ship's captain planned for the President to eat in the Officer's mess, but Truman insisted on eating with the men--and also standing in line for his food like everyone else.
The second story was actually the most positive and uplifting one for me. During the battle for Okinawa, a Kamikaze bomber hit the Missouri--you can still see the dent in the ship side. It caused very little damage and no casualties for the ship, but ended, of course, the life of the pilot. The men on deck wanted to throw the rest of the man's body overseas in disgust. But the ship captain insisted on waiting until the next day, folding the remains in a makeshift Japanese flag and giving the Japanese soldier a proper burial. The men questioned this, noting that he had been trying to kill them. The Captain said that the Japanese soldier was just doing his job, just like all of them. He was fighting for his country, and deserved this small bit of respect.
July 13, 2008
Back. Bleary-eyed, jet-lagged, and exhausted. But back.
So we went to Hawaii on a cruise with SOF's family. A once-in-a-lifetime vacation, and a very good family get-together. But I am exhausted and trying to avoid crashing too early. If that results in some typos or bizarre prose, you now the excuse. This time.
But also a trip that had us thinking a lot about a wide variety of things--from affluence, to colonialism, to historical memory. For once, I chose very wisely for my travel text. I am a fan of Tony Horwitz (Confederates in the Attic is still one of my favorite books) and realized I purchased a copy of Blue Latitudes some time ago, but never read it. So I pulled it out for the plane trip and cruise, and it served me well. Reading about Cook's voyages to the Pacific was a perfect way to approach and view the islands. Though it did present the experience through a particular lens. I was ever mindful of the European view of Polynesia and their cultural differences--the impact of Christian missionaries (both positive and the many negative impacts)--and the continual residue of colonialism.
This reading informed so much of my experience--from our brief experience in ocean kayaks to the most bizarre and awful Luau at a ritzy resort. Watching the "Polynesian" dancers (Maori, Hawaiian, Samoan, etc. all performed by the same dancers) made me feel more like a colonizing invader than ever before. Likewise, watching three drunk frat boys (or older) splash around in a hot-tub to a cover band doing the Beach Boys--WHILE reading a discussion of Cook's own rather reserved upbringing--simply made me feel queasy.
I finally decided that I was torn between the "authentic" and "in-authentic" experiences on this trip. That paradigm is not completely satisfactory, because many of the experiences included both "real" and "contrived" elements. The tour began with a trip to the USS Arizona Memorial and Pearl Harbor. One would think that would be an intensely authentic experience, but I found it oddly ambiguous. Real war experiences combined with a propaganda-style movie introduction--followed by a gift shop filled with all manner of consumer goods to commemorate.... something about "infamy."
But I return to that metric--flawed as it is--and will try to unpack some of those observations this week. But first, a few of our many photos:
Waikiki Beach
Arizona Memorial at dawn
And one of me on horseback on a beach in Kauai. For the doubters.... This horse doubled as a team-roping heeler when he wasn't ferrying around some tourists. His name was "7-11." I feared a broken down nag, but 7-11 was a cool horse.
Glad to be home...
But also a trip that had us thinking a lot about a wide variety of things--from affluence, to colonialism, to historical memory. For once, I chose very wisely for my travel text. I am a fan of Tony Horwitz (Confederates in the Attic is still one of my favorite books) and realized I purchased a copy of Blue Latitudes some time ago, but never read it. So I pulled it out for the plane trip and cruise, and it served me well. Reading about Cook's voyages to the Pacific was a perfect way to approach and view the islands. Though it did present the experience through a particular lens. I was ever mindful of the European view of Polynesia and their cultural differences--the impact of Christian missionaries (both positive and the many negative impacts)--and the continual residue of colonialism.
This reading informed so much of my experience--from our brief experience in ocean kayaks to the most bizarre and awful Luau at a ritzy resort. Watching the "Polynesian" dancers (Maori, Hawaiian, Samoan, etc. all performed by the same dancers) made me feel more like a colonizing invader than ever before. Likewise, watching three drunk frat boys (or older) splash around in a hot-tub to a cover band doing the Beach Boys--WHILE reading a discussion of Cook's own rather reserved upbringing--simply made me feel queasy.
I finally decided that I was torn between the "authentic" and "in-authentic" experiences on this trip. That paradigm is not completely satisfactory, because many of the experiences included both "real" and "contrived" elements. The tour began with a trip to the USS Arizona Memorial and Pearl Harbor. One would think that would be an intensely authentic experience, but I found it oddly ambiguous. Real war experiences combined with a propaganda-style movie introduction--followed by a gift shop filled with all manner of consumer goods to commemorate.... something about "infamy."
But I return to that metric--flawed as it is--and will try to unpack some of those observations this week. But first, a few of our many photos:
Waikiki Beach
Arizona Memorial at dawn
And one of me on horseback on a beach in Kauai. For the doubters.... This horse doubled as a team-roping heeler when he wasn't ferrying around some tourists. His name was "7-11." I feared a broken down nag, but 7-11 was a cool horse.
Glad to be home...
July 3, 2008
Light blogging for a while
SOF and I are going to be taking a little time.
So, in the meantime, some discussion? The Holy Roman Empire was neither. Discuss.
So, in the meantime, some discussion? The Holy Roman Empire was neither. Discuss.
July 2, 2008
More on torture's consequences
Not only does it create more terrorists, but it is endangering our own operatives
Key quote:
Add this to the list of things that Bush allowed under his watch. He delegated the hell out of this, and turned our military and intelligence agencies over to sadists and thugs. And not the good kind.
Key quote:
"Operationally, the torture story has already had a chilling effect in keeping CIA officers off the streets and out of the back alleys of a dangerous world. There is a deep and realistic concern that they could be captured and tortured themselves.The author suggests that the CIA is damaged goods right now, and made less effective by these people. Let's remember, they took their operational manual from the Communists--even those operational manuals dedicated to getting false confessions. Are we now surprised that the very agency dedicated to keeping us safe through intelligence is now the hunted.
Old hands will recall the case of the CIA Beirut station chief, William Buckley, taken hostage in Beirut in 1984 by Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, and held until his death there in 1985. An operational assignment to Beirut after the Buckley affair was a personal security nightmare -- but the heightened concerns were limited to that rough neighborhood. CIA officers could still do abroad what they did best -- move around and understand, perhaps as well as any, the lay of the land.
Today, for CIA officers, and literally all U.S. officials abroad, much of the world resembles Beirut in the mid-1980s. A look at any U.S. embassy must be through crash barriers and razor wire. These serve not only to keep America’s adversaries out, but to keep American officers in, crippling the intelligence and any foreign-policy missions at the worst possible time."
Add this to the list of things that Bush allowed under his watch. He delegated the hell out of this, and turned our military and intelligence agencies over to sadists and thugs. And not the good kind.
"Believe Me, It's Torture"
Hitchens chooses to be waterboarded and he still has nightmares about it.
One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true? I had only a very slight encounter on that frontier, but I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words “waterboard” and “American” could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath.
Americans and Communists
Turns out that that trainers at Gitmo were pulling verbatim techniques from the Chinese communists--techniques, it turns out, that were intended to produce false confessions. Earlier reports had some of the techniques taken from KGB manuals, and then there is, of course, the use of former gulags as "black sites" to hold terrorist suspects.
Some of you know this, but I grew up in a Republican world with the Cold War ringing in my ears. I remember, very distinctly, worrying about nuclear attack, and hearing phrases like "better dead than red." I remember every mention of how the communists in the Soviet Union and China had no respect for human rights--every example of "kangaroo courts" and other forms of fake justice. As a young man, the idea of who we were as a people was firmly rooted in the oppositional force of this kind of totalitarianism.
When I read about my country converting old gulags, and recycling old communist torture techniques, it makes me sick to my stomach. More than that, I see how little people (not readers of this blog, obviously) care about this. I remember when the first allegations of torture appeared. I said to SOF (incredibly naively, as it turns out) that torture would force a divide between Christian conservatives and the Bush people. To say I was wrong is to understate it. Amazingly, most of the conservative Christians who led the charge for Bush in 2000 not only signed on again in 04, but again for the party in 06. And even more, they said nothing critical about torture.
It makes me sad for who we have become.
Some of you know this, but I grew up in a Republican world with the Cold War ringing in my ears. I remember, very distinctly, worrying about nuclear attack, and hearing phrases like "better dead than red." I remember every mention of how the communists in the Soviet Union and China had no respect for human rights--every example of "kangaroo courts" and other forms of fake justice. As a young man, the idea of who we were as a people was firmly rooted in the oppositional force of this kind of totalitarianism.
When I read about my country converting old gulags, and recycling old communist torture techniques, it makes me sick to my stomach. More than that, I see how little people (not readers of this blog, obviously) care about this. I remember when the first allegations of torture appeared. I said to SOF (incredibly naively, as it turns out) that torture would force a divide between Christian conservatives and the Bush people. To say I was wrong is to understate it. Amazingly, most of the conservative Christians who led the charge for Bush in 2000 not only signed on again in 04, but again for the party in 06. And even more, they said nothing critical about torture.
It makes me sad for who we have become.
June 30, 2008
This doesn't help my mood
Dana Perino took to the podium to back up Joe Lieberman's "vote Republican or die" prediction. On a side note, the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote with this guy on his ticket is pretty amazing.
But the part that caught my eye was this little statement from the lovely Ms. Perino:
But the part that caught my eye was this little statement from the lovely Ms. Perino:
"The President has been looking for Osama bin Laden since September 12th. That effort has never let up."Really? I wonder if that is the same amount of effort he made looking for WMD?
June 28, 2008
New Blogger setting
As you see, Blogger now allows the comment box to be embedded right below the post. I think I like this better.
June 27, 2008
Foreign accents
An odd thought crossed my mind as I was prepping dinner tonight (and watching TV). Why is it that commercials featuring speaking animals have those animals speaking in foreign accents?
Discuss.
Discuss.
Friday stuff
I have been slow to blog this week. Not sure why.
Anyway, this afternoon, SOF and I took a run around town to do some errands. While listening to NPR, we heard this story about Obama and Clinton campaigning together in New Hampshire. I have been impressed with Hillary here and think that she absolutely has something to contribute. And I hope that she ends up in the Cabinet, btw. I don't want her as VP, but think she would be a great Secretary of, well, just about anything.
But during the story, we heard about the numbers (at least in NH) of former Clinton supporters considering voting for McCain instead. Hillary spoke on this:
But to vote for McCain out of spite? That is just stupid. It is one thing to resent Obama for the primary, but to foist more Republican rule on us out of spite is not responsible politics.
*****
Speaking of responsible politics, seems like just about every day we learn more about how irresponsible this administration has been. Yesterday, after my guitar lesson, I heard this Daniel Schorr editorial on the politicization of the Justice department under this administration. After hearing numerous conservatives tell me nothing happened of import during the US Attorney scandal, I was reminded of just how bad these people have been on our system.
Turns out they--in direct violation of federal law, no less--filtered candidates based on their political leanings. Applicants were scrutinized for their loyalty to the Republican party. Essays with words like "Social justice" or "environmental justice" were kicked out of the search. Applicants who dared to have joined Greenpeace found themselves on the outs as well. Reminds me very much of Rajiv Chandrasekaran's reporting on the Iraqi reconstruction, where we learned that Bush people filtered applicants to work in Iraq based on who they voted for in 2000 and where they stood on Roe v. Wade.
I think McCain would be better than that. Of course, an inanimate carbon rod would be better than that. But I really don't know which McCain is running. I don't know if the one who thought Falwell was an "agent of intolerance," or the one who rushed to speak at his "university" is running. Bush has lowered the bar so much that I fear we could do better with anyone off the street, but that level of improvement might not be enough.
Anyway, this afternoon, SOF and I took a run around town to do some errands. While listening to NPR, we heard this story about Obama and Clinton campaigning together in New Hampshire. I have been impressed with Hillary here and think that she absolutely has something to contribute. And I hope that she ends up in the Cabinet, btw. I don't want her as VP, but think she would be a great Secretary of, well, just about anything.
But during the story, we heard about the numbers (at least in NH) of former Clinton supporters considering voting for McCain instead. Hillary spoke on this:
"She also addressed the Democratic Party's fractured state, saying, 'If you are considering not voting or voting for John McCain, I strongly urge you to reconsider.'"I would speak even stronger. Any Democrat who thought Hillary was a good idea, who could then switch and vote for McCain is, well, mentally challenged. I understand being stung by the primary (though much of that was your own candidate's doing), and can certainly respect how painful it is to lose.
But to vote for McCain out of spite? That is just stupid. It is one thing to resent Obama for the primary, but to foist more Republican rule on us out of spite is not responsible politics.
*****
Speaking of responsible politics, seems like just about every day we learn more about how irresponsible this administration has been. Yesterday, after my guitar lesson, I heard this Daniel Schorr editorial on the politicization of the Justice department under this administration. After hearing numerous conservatives tell me nothing happened of import during the US Attorney scandal, I was reminded of just how bad these people have been on our system.
Turns out they--in direct violation of federal law, no less--filtered candidates based on their political leanings. Applicants were scrutinized for their loyalty to the Republican party. Essays with words like "Social justice" or "environmental justice" were kicked out of the search. Applicants who dared to have joined Greenpeace found themselves on the outs as well. Reminds me very much of Rajiv Chandrasekaran's reporting on the Iraqi reconstruction, where we learned that Bush people filtered applicants to work in Iraq based on who they voted for in 2000 and where they stood on Roe v. Wade.
I think McCain would be better than that. Of course, an inanimate carbon rod would be better than that. But I really don't know which McCain is running. I don't know if the one who thought Falwell was an "agent of intolerance," or the one who rushed to speak at his "university" is running. Bush has lowered the bar so much that I fear we could do better with anyone off the street, but that level of improvement might not be enough.
June 25, 2008
20 years
I meant to blog about this all day, but simply was distracted with other tasks. But today is our 20th anniversary. We had a very nice and elegant dinner out with great conversation and great food.
I can honestly say that I don't know another person I could spend as much time with as SOF, so thanks to her for her patience, grace, and...patience.
Thanks to Anglican for the nice words, and thanks to all of our friends who add so much to our lives.
I can honestly say that I don't know another person I could spend as much time with as SOF, so thanks to her for her patience, grace, and...patience.
Thanks to Anglican for the nice words, and thanks to all of our friends who add so much to our lives.
June 24, 2008
Tuesday morning
And just a few items.
First, I was sad to see yesterday the passing of comedian George Carlin. I was not a huge fan, but appreciated his originality and intelligence.
****
This is not a dream blog, but my dreams have been interesting of late. A while ago, I dreamt I met Obama. Last night, I dreamt that I was at a film screening for John McCain and even gave him some tips on how to be funny. At the table, I was seated across from Cindy McCain, though I was facing away from her and she annoyed me.
I have no idea what that dream means. But the night before saw a recurring dream that I often have over the summer. During this dream, I am meeting my class for the first time. It is a class I have taught numerous times, and in my dream, that appears to be the problem.
I show up with no notes, no syllabus, and no plan. During this particular version of it, students kept getting up and walking out, and several of the senior tenured professors came in to observe. I also remember thinking that this event was a lot like one of my dreams.... I know that this means that I need to get some work done for the fall, but this seems a little early in the summer for this particular stress dream.
****
Just saw this morning that James Dobson accused Obama of "distorting" the Bible:
*****
I posted last week on some of the music I am listening to from 2008 and meant to note some forthcoming releases. Today, in fact, Alejandro Escovedo releases "Real Animal." I have been looking forward to this for a while and plan on picking it up later today.
July 15th will see the release of The Hold Steady's new album ("Stay Positive") of which I am hearing some good buzz. Their last two albums were pretty impressive, though I will admit to hating them at first. :)
Any other new ones I am missing right now? And this is not music, but I was elated to see that the first season of Get Smart will be released on DVD August 5! I haven't seen the new movie yet, but have always loved the original series. I still refer to the "Cone of Silence" when I am discussing something that should be kept private.
First, I was sad to see yesterday the passing of comedian George Carlin. I was not a huge fan, but appreciated his originality and intelligence.
****
This is not a dream blog, but my dreams have been interesting of late. A while ago, I dreamt I met Obama. Last night, I dreamt that I was at a film screening for John McCain and even gave him some tips on how to be funny. At the table, I was seated across from Cindy McCain, though I was facing away from her and she annoyed me.
I have no idea what that dream means. But the night before saw a recurring dream that I often have over the summer. During this dream, I am meeting my class for the first time. It is a class I have taught numerous times, and in my dream, that appears to be the problem.
I show up with no notes, no syllabus, and no plan. During this particular version of it, students kept getting up and walking out, and several of the senior tenured professors came in to observe. I also remember thinking that this event was a lot like one of my dreams.... I know that this means that I need to get some work done for the fall, but this seems a little early in the summer for this particular stress dream.
****
Just saw this morning that James Dobson accused Obama of "distorting" the Bible:
"'I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,' Dobson said."If only Boss Dobson recognized his own distortions, his criticisms of Obama might have credibility. I am reminded of his own hubris here:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Dr. Dobson, ...in the Daily Oklahoman, [you were] quoted saying, "Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater. I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people." Now, Dr. Dobson, that doesn't sound like a particularly Christian thing to say. Do you think you owe Senator Leahy an apology?
DR JAMES DOBSON: George, you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about? You know, I think -I think I'll stand by the things I have said. Patrick Leahy has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe. He is the one that took the reference to God out of the oath.
*****
I posted last week on some of the music I am listening to from 2008 and meant to note some forthcoming releases. Today, in fact, Alejandro Escovedo releases "Real Animal." I have been looking forward to this for a while and plan on picking it up later today.
July 15th will see the release of The Hold Steady's new album ("Stay Positive") of which I am hearing some good buzz. Their last two albums were pretty impressive, though I will admit to hating them at first. :)
Any other new ones I am missing right now? And this is not music, but I was elated to see that the first season of Get Smart will be released on DVD August 5! I haven't seen the new movie yet, but have always loved the original series. I still refer to the "Cone of Silence" when I am discussing something that should be kept private.
June 22, 2008
Slavery after slavery
Matthew Yglesias has a bit on a book entitled "Slavery by another Name" about the process of enslaving African Americans (up till World War 2) through quasi-legal methods. No proof of employment? Sold into slavery. No overt racial bias in the law, but only enforced on black people. Pretty shameful part of our history, and unfortunately, one that is not too hard to believe.
June 21, 2008
Sigh
Ready to Attack Obama, if Some Money Arrives - NYTimes.com: "A Bible verse taped to a whiteboard in Floyd Brown’s office that he uses to track his efforts to attack Senator Barack Obama reads, “That is why for Christ’s sake I delight in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties.”"This, from a self-proclaimed evangelical Christian who is proud of his "Willie Horton" ads
"who says it is his calling to tread where the campaign is unwilling to tread in finding malicious gossip on a Democratic nominee."And then this:
Mr. Brown, a gregarious evangelical churchgoer, said that he merely enjoyed the interchange of ideas and that there was nothing personal about his attacks.
Well, as long as there is nothing "personal" about the "malicious gossip."
June 20, 2008
The democratization of money
Or something.
I have had a rather spirited discussion with a conservative colleague about Obama's decision to bow out of public financing this fall. Many are suggesting that this represents a lie or flip-flop on Obama's part, and perhaps this is true. I wish he had never suggested this before, but think that in a few weeks, this will be old news. I also can rely on the fact that Americans have a very short attention span when it comes to financing. You start explaining stuff like this and the eyes roll back in the head. If it isn't about illicit sex or being an "unamerican Muslim" most will just gloss over.
But one thing struck in my mind. Obama's fundraising has been impressive (to say the least) and amazingly democratic--from some 1.5 million different donors. We are part of that. The biggest concern about campaign finance is the idea that donors then line up when the candidate wins and get their legislation pushed through--or get that cushy Ambassadorship to Bermuda--or get no-bid contracts in Iraq. But when most of your donors are small, that is much more in the spirit of public financing. We gave some money to Obama's campaign, but have no thought that our check will get us noticed, or get us any additional access. Of course it will not. And that wasn't why we gave it.
But thoughts of that kind of fundraising have led some of us (conversations with Anglican, SOF, and Mary--among others) to muse about how this kind of thing works outside politics. What about churches? How do most churches raise money? And more importantly, how does that funding impact the type of church you get?
I guess this is a question for our resident Pastor, but I am always curious how churches do this. As religion was democratized here in America, the power of those strong institutionalized churches like the Catholic and Anglican churches faded in favor of smaller, and more diverse denominations and bodies. Those bodies functioned (and function) in a kind of religious marketplace. If people don't want to go to this church, they can go to that one. If Church A tells me I am going to hell, might I not decide to go to Church B where I am one of the elect?
I have to believe that can impact sermons, programs, policy decisions. If that church is routinely bailed out by the wealthy and powerful in the community, how many sermons are critical of wealth? Or consumerism? How many churches can preach about the importance of environmental responsibility if their big money members drive Hummers to church?
I have had a rather spirited discussion with a conservative colleague about Obama's decision to bow out of public financing this fall. Many are suggesting that this represents a lie or flip-flop on Obama's part, and perhaps this is true. I wish he had never suggested this before, but think that in a few weeks, this will be old news. I also can rely on the fact that Americans have a very short attention span when it comes to financing. You start explaining stuff like this and the eyes roll back in the head. If it isn't about illicit sex or being an "unamerican Muslim" most will just gloss over.
But one thing struck in my mind. Obama's fundraising has been impressive (to say the least) and amazingly democratic--from some 1.5 million different donors. We are part of that. The biggest concern about campaign finance is the idea that donors then line up when the candidate wins and get their legislation pushed through--or get that cushy Ambassadorship to Bermuda--or get no-bid contracts in Iraq. But when most of your donors are small, that is much more in the spirit of public financing. We gave some money to Obama's campaign, but have no thought that our check will get us noticed, or get us any additional access. Of course it will not. And that wasn't why we gave it.
But thoughts of that kind of fundraising have led some of us (conversations with Anglican, SOF, and Mary--among others) to muse about how this kind of thing works outside politics. What about churches? How do most churches raise money? And more importantly, how does that funding impact the type of church you get?
I guess this is a question for our resident Pastor, but I am always curious how churches do this. As religion was democratized here in America, the power of those strong institutionalized churches like the Catholic and Anglican churches faded in favor of smaller, and more diverse denominations and bodies. Those bodies functioned (and function) in a kind of religious marketplace. If people don't want to go to this church, they can go to that one. If Church A tells me I am going to hell, might I not decide to go to Church B where I am one of the elect?
I have to believe that can impact sermons, programs, policy decisions. If that church is routinely bailed out by the wealthy and powerful in the community, how many sermons are critical of wealth? Or consumerism? How many churches can preach about the importance of environmental responsibility if their big money members drive Hummers to church?
2008 music (so far)
And a partial list, but several of the 2008 albums have already started appearing in heavy rotation around here.
Number one for me right now, is Kathleen Edward's new "Asking for Flowers. You can listen to her music at her Myspace page. A long time favorite of ours (we saw her at ACL one year) this album did not grab me right out of the jewel case, but has taken a few listens. As strong as her previous albums were, I think this might be her best. Great songwriting and really great melodies. And she likes to swear.
Another Streak's favorite is the Denton, Texas-based Centro-matic. One of the more prolific songwriters out there, Will Johnson and his group have released a double-album of Centro-matic and South San Gabriel (his other side project). I still haven't downloaded the SSG portion because my Emusic sub is a little low right now, but the Centro-matic side is very strong.
Third, and thanks to Zalm for this suggestion, is Scotland's Frightened Rabbit. An album that is not for those with tender ears, but some really great vocals, lyrics and melodies.
Here is a video of their song "Head rolls off." The opening line is a grabber:
Number one for me right now, is Kathleen Edward's new "Asking for Flowers. You can listen to her music at her Myspace page. A long time favorite of ours (we saw her at ACL one year) this album did not grab me right out of the jewel case, but has taken a few listens. As strong as her previous albums were, I think this might be her best. Great songwriting and really great melodies. And she likes to swear.
Another Streak's favorite is the Denton, Texas-based Centro-matic. One of the more prolific songwriters out there, Will Johnson and his group have released a double-album of Centro-matic and South San Gabriel (his other side project). I still haven't downloaded the SSG portion because my Emusic sub is a little low right now, but the Centro-matic side is very strong.
Third, and thanks to Zalm for this suggestion, is Scotland's Frightened Rabbit. An album that is not for those with tender ears, but some really great vocals, lyrics and melodies.
Here is a video of their song "Head rolls off." The opening line is a grabber:
Jesus...Is only a Spanish Boy's name. How come one man got so much fame
Friday roundup
I had a longer post written this morning, but ran into some problem between Safari and Blogger and lost it all.
Perhaps that is for the best...
But here is an interesting article that suggests that Iowa Flooding Could Be An Act of Man. Combination of increased sedimentation in rivers, planting crops and building in flood-plains, and generally destroying wetlands has dramatically altered the landscape's ability to absorb flood waters.
Reminds me of how people spoke about Katrina or even the Minnesota bridge collapse as if they were just "acts of God." No, they were "acts of human neglect" made worse (in Katrina and Iowa) by weather. People too often, in my estimation, simply impose some "faith language" onto things that they don't want to understand. Not things they can't understand--that is a perfect place for faith. But onto things that have a very tangible explanation.
Anyway.
And speaking of Katrina, this hilarious bit from the Daily Show the other night mocking Kanye West.
More later. You have been warned.
Perhaps that is for the best...
But here is an interesting article that suggests that Iowa Flooding Could Be An Act of Man. Combination of increased sedimentation in rivers, planting crops and building in flood-plains, and generally destroying wetlands has dramatically altered the landscape's ability to absorb flood waters.
Reminds me of how people spoke about Katrina or even the Minnesota bridge collapse as if they were just "acts of God." No, they were "acts of human neglect" made worse (in Katrina and Iowa) by weather. People too often, in my estimation, simply impose some "faith language" onto things that they don't want to understand. Not things they can't understand--that is a perfect place for faith. But onto things that have a very tangible explanation.
Anyway.
And speaking of Katrina, this hilarious bit from the Daily Show the other night mocking Kanye West.
More later. You have been warned.
June 18, 2008
But Bush said it was just a few soldiers...
Human rights group says it has proof of detainee abuse - The Boston Globe: "General Taguba's judgment was far more severe. 'There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,' he wrote."Taguba is hardly some left leaning wackjob, but was the person put in charge of investigating Abu Ghraib--with the caveat of being disallowed from investigating any high ranking officials or civilians.
Quite a legacy this President will leave us.
Wednesday roundup
A few items on the list this morning after watching the Boston Celtics just dismantle the Lakers last night. For the record (with apologies to CIL) I have never liked the Lakers and Kobe Bryant makes that even easier. On the other hand, I have always liked Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and Doc Rivers, so I enjoyed watching them win.
But back to the news.
First, The NYT reports that KBR essentially threatened the Army that if they refused to pay their fees, the contractor would simply withhold services even if that meant the Army being unable to function. A civilian overseer was pushed out when he challenged KBR's accounting.
Meanwhile, the Houston Chronicle reports that KBR overcharged the Navy after Katrina. Nice to know that profiteering is such a popular business, and that those profiteers were sheltered by this administration and Republican leadership. Or did I miss those hearings when the supposedly fiscal conservative Republicans ran the show?
****
Meanwhile, as Newt Gingrich compared the recent Scotus ruling on habeas corpus to Dred Scott, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well, Mr. Senator, when even George Will thinks you are being duped by "some clever ignoramus" (I think he means your staff--the same ones who didn't know John Hagee was crazy and that Clayton Williams thinks that rape is funny), then perhaps you need to rethink those conservative credentials. You know, the ones that say that government power is something to be feared and controlled?
Well, as Sullivan notes, "defending suspected terrorists' human rights isn't popular--especially when those suspects are foreign, have brown skin and speak a different language. But if most Americans fully understood how many innocents have been swept into the Bush gulag, they might be more circumspect." I think Sullivan overestimates the American concern for judicial fairness for these people. And the concept of the "gulag" seems to have completely faded in American memory. I remember just how stark the difference was between our system of law and the Soviet kangaroo courts.
Evidently, most Americans either have forgotten or never knew.
Oh, and speaking of gulags, a new Senate report suggests that the Pentagon (and administration leadership) have been lying about torture. Remember when the President said this?
****
Speaking of that, I saw this first when Tony blogged about how bad this was, but it just didn't register or I was distracted.
A republican friend just emailed me to tell me that the vendor selling these has been banned from further activities with the Republican party. So there is some good news from this. But the racism angle just scares me. Unfortunately, most of the racism will be cloaked in other language.
Anyway, hope you all have a good Wednesday.
But back to the news.
First, The NYT reports that KBR essentially threatened the Army that if they refused to pay their fees, the contractor would simply withhold services even if that meant the Army being unable to function. A civilian overseer was pushed out when he challenged KBR's accounting.
Meanwhile, the Houston Chronicle reports that KBR overcharged the Navy after Katrina. Nice to know that profiteering is such a popular business, and that those profiteers were sheltered by this administration and Republican leadership. Or did I miss those hearings when the supposedly fiscal conservative Republicans ran the show?
****
Meanwhile, as Newt Gingrich compared the recent Scotus ruling on habeas corpus to Dred Scott, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well, Mr. Senator, when even George Will thinks you are being duped by "some clever ignoramus" (I think he means your staff--the same ones who didn't know John Hagee was crazy and that Clayton Williams thinks that rape is funny), then perhaps you need to rethink those conservative credentials. You know, the ones that say that government power is something to be feared and controlled?
Well, as Sullivan notes, "defending suspected terrorists' human rights isn't popular--especially when those suspects are foreign, have brown skin and speak a different language. But if most Americans fully understood how many innocents have been swept into the Bush gulag, they might be more circumspect." I think Sullivan overestimates the American concern for judicial fairness for these people. And the concept of the "gulag" seems to have completely faded in American memory. I remember just how stark the difference was between our system of law and the Soviet kangaroo courts.
Evidently, most Americans either have forgotten or never knew.
Oh, and speaking of gulags, a new Senate report suggests that the Pentagon (and administration leadership) have been lying about torture. Remember when the President said this?
My only point to you is, is that yes, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn't happened, but that should not reflect America. This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn't show the heart and soul of America.Yeah. Turns out that isn't true.
The sources said that memos and other evidence obtained during the inquiry show that officials in the office of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002, months before memos from commanders at the detention facility in Cuba requested permission to use those measures on suspected terrorists.Get that? These techniques didn't come from some "soldiers" but from the very Pentagon.
But memos and e-mails obtained by investigators reveal that in July 2002, Haynes and other Pentagon officials were soliciting ideas for harsh interrogations from military experts in survival training, according to two congressional officials familiar with the committee's investigation. By late July, a list was compiled that included many of the techniques that would later be formally approved for use at Guantanamo Bay, including stress positions, sleep deprivation and the hooding of detainees during questioning. The techniques were later used at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq.It is enough to make your heart hurt.
****
Speaking of that, I saw this first when Tony blogged about how bad this was, but it just didn't register or I was distracted.
A republican friend just emailed me to tell me that the vendor selling these has been banned from further activities with the Republican party. So there is some good news from this. But the racism angle just scares me. Unfortunately, most of the racism will be cloaked in other language.
Anyway, hope you all have a good Wednesday.
June 17, 2008
Delusion?
In a British interview, the President got a little snippy about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
BOULTON: I mean, you've talked a lot about freedom. I've heard you talk about freedom -- I think every time I've seen you.Seems to me that every bit of evidence has shown that Abu Ghraib was not just the actions of "some soldiers" but a cultural breakdown. I am not saying that this President ordered or openly sanctioned it, but his people set this in motion. Little disingenuous to then just blame it on some underlings. And it isn't "slander," Mr. President, especially when it is true.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BOULTON: And yet there are those who would say, look, let's take Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the, you know, the complete opposite of freedom.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course if you want to slander America, you can look at it one way. But you go down -- what you need to do -- I think I suggested you do this at a press conference -- if you go down to Guantanamo and take a look at how these prisoners are treated -- and they're working it through our court systems. We are a land of law.
BOULTON: But the Supreme Court have just said that -- you know, ruled against what you've been doing down there.
THE PRESIDENT: But the district court didn't. And the appellate court didn't.
BOULTON: The Supreme Court is supreme, isn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: It is, and I accept their verdict. I don't agree with their verdict. And it's not what I was doing down there. This was a law passed by our United States Congress that I worked with the Congress to get passed and sign into law.
BOULTON: But it looked like an attempt to bypass the Constitution, to a certain extent.
THE PRESIDENT: This was a law passed, Adam. We passed a law. Bypassing the Constitution means that we did something outside the bounds of the Constitution. We went to the Congress and got a piece of legislation passed.
BOULTON: Which is now being struck down, I think.
THE PRESIDENT: It is, and I accept what the Supreme Court did, and I necessarily don't have to agree with it.
My only point to you is, is that yes, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn't happened, but that should not reflect America. This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn't show the heart and soul of America.
June 16, 2008
Bush Justice
McClatchy investigates those detained at Gitmo and learns a few things.
I noticed over the weekend that Newt Gingrich had loudly decried last week's SCOTUS ruling that said these detainees had constitutional rights--and he was just one of the many conservatives angry about the court. Gingrich said that such a ruling was worse than Dred Scott and would result in a terrorist attack on our cities. But Gingrich and his ilk never seem to acknowledge the huge cost that Gitmo has on our safety. Every innocent person ever detained or tortured by our government is a potential future terrorist--or at the very minimum, highly unlikely to help us fight terrorism.
"McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.
This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.
The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners."
I noticed over the weekend that Newt Gingrich had loudly decried last week's SCOTUS ruling that said these detainees had constitutional rights--and he was just one of the many conservatives angry about the court. Gingrich said that such a ruling was worse than Dred Scott and would result in a terrorist attack on our cities. But Gingrich and his ilk never seem to acknowledge the huge cost that Gitmo has on our safety. Every innocent person ever detained or tortured by our government is a potential future terrorist--or at the very minimum, highly unlikely to help us fight terrorism.
Huh?
George W. Bush the meaning of religion:
"'I think is really important for people to find common ground through religion to deal with the violence that is used by some in the name of religion, to perpetuate an ideology -- and to remind people that peace -- religion is peace.'"
Just who is working for John McCain
I will not be voting for John McCain--that comes as no surprise to anyone here. And I think, as a candidate, he has numerous problems. He has flipped on key issues, and wedded himself to the Iraq war and Bush presidency in ways that I think will hurt him down the road.
But more than that, we want a President who hires good people around him. Bush did a spectacularly poor job of that, and I must say that McCain is off to a bad start. Not only the flood of lobbyists he hired (after badmouthing lobbyists, of course) but his staff seemed completely unaware that Rod Parsely and John Hagee were batshit crazy. And that wouldn't have required much beyond a google search to figure out.
Now we hear that McCain has been forced to cancel and then un-cancel a fundraiser with Texas oilman, Clayton Williams after learning about William's famous "lie back and enjoy it" advice to rape victims. Maybe those of us who lived in Texas at the time are unique, but I find it hard to believe that no one on McCain's staff didn't remember this huge gaff.
Incompetence of this level is bad enough on the campaign trail. Much worse when it leads to hiring people to run policy.
But more than that, we want a President who hires good people around him. Bush did a spectacularly poor job of that, and I must say that McCain is off to a bad start. Not only the flood of lobbyists he hired (after badmouthing lobbyists, of course) but his staff seemed completely unaware that Rod Parsely and John Hagee were batshit crazy. And that wouldn't have required much beyond a google search to figure out.
Now we hear that McCain has been forced to cancel and then un-cancel a fundraiser with Texas oilman, Clayton Williams after learning about William's famous "lie back and enjoy it" advice to rape victims. Maybe those of us who lived in Texas at the time are unique, but I find it hard to believe that no one on McCain's staff didn't remember this huge gaff.
Incompetence of this level is bad enough on the campaign trail. Much worse when it leads to hiring people to run policy.
June 13, 2008
Tim Russert's passing and the celebrity of journalism
I am sure you have all heard the news, that Tim Russert passed away at the very young age of 58. I was shocked when I heard the news as I think everyone was. Mass media has brought us closer to a lot more people--in a one-sided way, and so we feel as if we know famous people, and grieve when they die.
Turning on the news, the cable shows were filled with tributes to his work and his person. What I have listened to, it sounds as if he was the best journalist ever. A perfectly understandable and normal response to the passing of a friend and colleague.
But that is also the part that makes me a little uncomfortable.
When you turn on NBC, you are watching what happens whenever a group or business loses someone close. As I said, it is understandable and normal. But in this context, it has also been presented as "news." In one sense, it is exactly what the cable news channels excel at. They cannot explain the economics of healthcare, or really explore the FISA debate with any nuance, but they can do emotion and shock. The fact that this is about one of them, and their emotion is real, and their pain is real, doesn't really make it any less an indictment of modern journalism.
We see the celebrity factor here and wonder how one celebrity can really cover another? Why do we wonder that someone as famous, and recognizable as most of these "analysts" and "anchors" are, how do they not see themselves as part of the famous elite? So when they interview a politician or celebrity, they are really talking amongst themselves.
None of this is intended as disrespect to Tim Russert or his family. His death is tragic and sad, and I am so sorry for those who knew him. I understand that in eulogizing him, they will elevate him to the "best ever," and he will become "scrupulously fair" and the "best interviewer ever." I don't think that was true. But that is irrelevant. His passing is tragic and sad.
But so are all deaths.
Turning on the news, the cable shows were filled with tributes to his work and his person. What I have listened to, it sounds as if he was the best journalist ever. A perfectly understandable and normal response to the passing of a friend and colleague.
But that is also the part that makes me a little uncomfortable.
When you turn on NBC, you are watching what happens whenever a group or business loses someone close. As I said, it is understandable and normal. But in this context, it has also been presented as "news." In one sense, it is exactly what the cable news channels excel at. They cannot explain the economics of healthcare, or really explore the FISA debate with any nuance, but they can do emotion and shock. The fact that this is about one of them, and their emotion is real, and their pain is real, doesn't really make it any less an indictment of modern journalism.
We see the celebrity factor here and wonder how one celebrity can really cover another? Why do we wonder that someone as famous, and recognizable as most of these "analysts" and "anchors" are, how do they not see themselves as part of the famous elite? So when they interview a politician or celebrity, they are really talking amongst themselves.
None of this is intended as disrespect to Tim Russert or his family. His death is tragic and sad, and I am so sorry for those who knew him. I understand that in eulogizing him, they will elevate him to the "best ever," and he will become "scrupulously fair" and the "best interviewer ever." I don't think that was true. But that is irrelevant. His passing is tragic and sad.
But so are all deaths.
June 11, 2008
New SBC President
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Well, Frank Page actually did question some of the Republican tendencies in the SBC. The new one will likely not, and is closely identified to the Karl Rove of SBC politics, Paul Pressler, and others.
At least Wiley Drake only received 45 votes (our old friend, Les Puryear, recieved 188--take that Wiley!). But the body is also voting on kicking out certain churches. Of course, this includes those friendly to the gays, but in this case, they are also considering booting any churches with women pastors.
Sure is a welcoming body.
Sigh.
"Johnny Hunt's election confirms that Frank Page's election in 2006 did not signal the emergence of a 'kinder, gentler;' SBC,' said Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics. 'The founding fathers of SBC fundamentalism have reasserted their political power. Their continued direction is away from the center. That makes hollow the months of chatter in the media about the emerging evangelical center. If there is no trending away from extremism in the SBC, there is no trending away from the Christian Right among conservative evangelicals."
At least Wiley Drake only received 45 votes (our old friend, Les Puryear, recieved 188--take that Wiley!). But the body is also voting on kicking out certain churches. Of course, this includes those friendly to the gays, but in this case, they are also considering booting any churches with women pastors.
Sure is a welcoming body.
Sigh.
Regrets we listened to him, I suspect
Sigh.
President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.
In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”
Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”. He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”. He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”
June 10, 2008
June 9, 2008
June 8, 2008
Historic
I heard part of yesterday's Hillary speech, and what I heard sounded really good. As frustrated as I became with her, I do have tremendous respect for her ability, and also for the historic nature of her campaign. We really did get to a point where the bulk of the discussion about her were not about gender.
And yesterday, she did what many of us thought was impossible. She endorsed Obama and pledged to fight for him.
Speaking of Hillary, I used to listen to Christian radio during the Clinton years. I carpooled with a friend who liked such fare and found myself returning to it (until, as readers here will remember, I replaced my old truck and started driving a car with a cd player. Only then did I stop listening to Dobson and others on the road).
As bizarre as it was during the Bush years to listen to these people, you should have heard them during the Clinton years. Tony found this great list of religious right conspiracy theories. My favorite from the list--besides Jack Van Impe suggesting that the UN had secret signs on the back of Interstate signs telling them the location of believers, or the more serious role that Jerry Falwell played during Civil Rights--is about Hillary. Texe Marrs (yep, that is how he spells "Tex") argued that Hillary was in a lesbian conspiracy with Janet Reno. As I recall, Marrs referred to Hillary as a "lesbian marxist."
All of these conspiracies are funny, sad and disturbing. And the fact that these paranoid ramblings became part of the evangelical political discourse is shameful for those who should know better.
But back to me.
As my good friends know, I often dream about famous people. I have met Bill Clinton, Neil Young, Emmylou Harris in dreams. In another, I chased Manuel Noriega on a motorcycle.
Well, last night, I dreamt I was in a huge ballroom and sitting at the table behind me was Barack Obama. At one point in the dream, my table mates have left me (I don't know who they were or how I drove them away) and Obama ends up at my table. He shook my hand and thanked me again for coming. :) I then asked him how he could keep up with the campaign schedule, and then asked him about this real story where he had to convince his Iowa fundraisers to not panic early in the campaign. He was amazingly gracious in my dream. So there.
Later in that same dream, I also met Tony in person. In my dream, he had written a book and I took it up to him for him to sign. He signed it to the wrong name.
Thanks a lot, Tony!
And yesterday, she did what many of us thought was impossible. She endorsed Obama and pledged to fight for him.
Speaking of Hillary, I used to listen to Christian radio during the Clinton years. I carpooled with a friend who liked such fare and found myself returning to it (until, as readers here will remember, I replaced my old truck and started driving a car with a cd player. Only then did I stop listening to Dobson and others on the road).
As bizarre as it was during the Bush years to listen to these people, you should have heard them during the Clinton years. Tony found this great list of religious right conspiracy theories. My favorite from the list--besides Jack Van Impe suggesting that the UN had secret signs on the back of Interstate signs telling them the location of believers, or the more serious role that Jerry Falwell played during Civil Rights--is about Hillary. Texe Marrs (yep, that is how he spells "Tex") argued that Hillary was in a lesbian conspiracy with Janet Reno. As I recall, Marrs referred to Hillary as a "lesbian marxist."
All of these conspiracies are funny, sad and disturbing. And the fact that these paranoid ramblings became part of the evangelical political discourse is shameful for those who should know better.
But back to me.
As my good friends know, I often dream about famous people. I have met Bill Clinton, Neil Young, Emmylou Harris in dreams. In another, I chased Manuel Noriega on a motorcycle.
Well, last night, I dreamt I was in a huge ballroom and sitting at the table behind me was Barack Obama. At one point in the dream, my table mates have left me (I don't know who they were or how I drove them away) and Obama ends up at my table. He shook my hand and thanked me again for coming. :) I then asked him how he could keep up with the campaign schedule, and then asked him about this real story where he had to convince his Iowa fundraisers to not panic early in the campaign. He was amazingly gracious in my dream. So there.
Later in that same dream, I also met Tony in person. In my dream, he had written a book and I took it up to him for him to sign. He signed it to the wrong name.
Thanks a lot, Tony!
June 7, 2008
A good church sign?
Maybe?:
"LOUISVILLE -- Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, AZ, has erected a new sign in front of its rustic, southwestern-style, adobe building just like the one Nauraushaun Presbyterian Church has placed in front of its modern, red-brick edifice in Pearl River, NY. The new additions are 3-foot by 9-foot black vinyl banners that declare in white letters that 'Torture is wrong.'"
Obama more substantive than McCain?
At least one writer for the American Conservative thinks so:
"What Halperin also misses here is that in any contest between Obama and McCain, Obama is the substantive, policy-oriented candidate, while McCain is the one offering mostly pious bromides about victory, service and being American. If style often beats substance, Obama is in trouble because, as his supporters tirelessly remind us, Obama does have a substantive policy agenda (even if he doesn’t spend as much time talking about it and a lot of his boosters don’t care what it is) and McCain’s entire campaign has been even more driven by biography and character than Obama’s."
The Costanza Energy Policy
Very interesting list of reasons why oil is so expensive and here are just the first 8:
Read the whole list and you get a picture of one hell of a lot of blame to spread around. The Bush admin has done very little to help us here, but their policies (or lack of) are only part of the mess.
1. Limited areas available for offshore drilling;
2. Stopped the rise of CAFE standards for automobiles;
3. Restricted nuclear power generation of Electrical;
4. Federal Reserve policies since 2001 led to a very weak US dollar (raising Oil prices);
5. Energy conservation policies? None
6. Iraq and Afghanistan wars contributing to Middle East tensions
7. No major United States funding for R&D on energy;
8. Kept CAFE standards for light trucks/SUVs much lower than autos
Read the whole list and you get a picture of one hell of a lot of blame to spread around. The Bush admin has done very little to help us here, but their policies (or lack of) are only part of the mess.
June 6, 2008
A necessary correction
To commonly misused terms. Just like the improper use of the word "appeasement" few other words are so misused as the red-baiting smear (that I honestly thought had been relegated to the history trash bin--after all, who really worries about Communism now?) From Andrew Sullivan:
***
Kos diarist Hunter adds this for the Hammer:
A reader writes:
As a specialist on Soviet history and more particularly on the Soviet Gulag, I am just so annoyed by the ignorance of statements like this:
"I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist," - Tom DeLay.
"And did the Obama rally begin with the Soviet National Anthem?" - Hugh Hewitt
Put these guys and their ilk in my class for a semester and let them understand what Marxism and Communism were really about. Progressive taxation, no matter how much one might be opposed to it, is simply qualitatively different than the elimination of private ownership of the means of production. Government regulation, even if it interferes with the economy, is not the equivalent of total nationalization of the economy. These are not minor distinctions, but fundamental to the very definition of what Soviet Communism was, and why it had the outcomes it did. The attempt to tie Democrats and liberals (the latter of which was a term of abuse within the Soviet political structure) is incredibly ignorant of the actual history and structure of Soviet Communism.
***
Kos diarist Hunter adds this for the Hammer:
"Tom Delay, Indicted Republican: Unless he proves me wrong, [Obama] is a Marxist.
Hunter, Blogger: Unless he proves me wrong, Tom Delay lures children into his van with candy, gasses them to death with bug spray, and uses their powdered bones as an aphrodisiac when making love to all the animals at the San Antonio Sea World.
Prove me wrong, pal, prove me wrong."
Our political tug-of-war
I have been trying to argue (offline) that our political dialogue has a false sense of left v. right, in that people lose track of just how far to the right we have gone. In that context, when a conservative Democrat speaks, it isn't representative of the far left, where as most Republican Senators are much closer to the far right--and there are practically no moderate Republicans (in office, I mean) left.
Anyway, I wrote this very flawed analogy and thought I would post it to see what others thought. (My offline recipients have yet to respond, and I am impatient.)
Anyway, I wrote this very flawed analogy and thought I would post it to see what others thought. (My offline recipients have yet to respond, and I am impatient.)
Imagine the political landscape as a tug of war played out on a football field. (This is a very limited analogy with numerous holes (first and foremost a tendency toward the two dimensional left v. right, for example) but (in my head at least) offers some possible uses.) In this analogy, the political landscape (tug of war) is a limited set of people or ideological stances. In other words, not everyone on the field gets to grab the rope. The bulk of the participants are within 20 yards of the 50 yard line, with smaller and smaller numbers as you near the goal lines. Obviously, those in the middle of the field represent moderate beliefs on the role of government, taxation, etc. (just one of the reasons this is flawed in that some people could occupy multiple places on the field simultaneously--but bear with me!). Those near the goal posts are the more radical of the left/right spectrum.
I would suggest that, within this limited analogy, the political landscape has migrated from the left to the right in an almost rugby "scrum" style (or little kid soccer where the mob follows the ball around the field). During the 20s, the center of that rope was probably right of center, but during the New Deal, moved back over the line to the left. I would further suggest that the center of that rope remained left of center (perhaps just barely) through the end of the 60s, and even during the Nixon administration had moved only slightly to the right of the center line. Carter may have tried to move the scrum back to the New Deal, but by this time, the majority of the participants pulling on the rope were right of center. That rope continued to move to the right through Reagan, GHWB, and only slightly moved back toward the center under Clinton, and never crossed the mid point during his administration. In many ways, Clinton's economic and foreign policy are very similar to GHWB in most ways.
But under Bush, the entire scrum moved far right, to the point that those radicals on the far right--hard core libertarians, neo-cons, and anti-government types actually got to grab the rope. They had always been there, writing their screeds and ranting their rants. But under the previous administrations, they didn't actually get to touch the rope. Sure, a finger or two under Reagan and HWB, but the bulk of those on the rope were of the moderate or pragmatic wing of the party. But under Bush, for the first time in American history (or at least the modern Presidency) the people with the best grasp on the rope on the right side of the tug-of-war, were those people on the 10 or 15 yard line to the right. Grover Norquist, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Ashcroft, etc., all represent the more conservative and radical elements of conservatism.
By comparison, I don't see the truly radical left ever getting really much more than a finger on that rope, and none of them since the 1960s. Even those who got to play then were not advocating government run industries, or even a radical challenge to market capitalism. I would include in that, by the way, the Roosevelt administration who I believe saved capitalism from those fringe elements who had their best chance during the depression years. But FDR and the bulk of his advisors believed in market capitalism.
So, again, in this limited little analogy, I think you can see how I approach this current situation. When Republicans gave part of the rope pulling to those on the far right, they have skewed the game. The task, I think, for the Democrats is to get that scrum moved off the right wing goal line and closer to the middle.
Report argues that Bush/Cheney cherry-picked intelligence to push for war
As many of us believed, of course. The report evidently exonerates the admin on those areas where the intelligence really did support their claims--like the belief that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, but says on key issues, they simply ignored their own intelligence:
But the report says the Bush administration veered away from its own intelligence community's conclusions in two key areas: Iraq's relationship with Al Qaeda and the difficulty of pacifying Iraq after a U.S. invasion.
Statements in dozens of prewar speeches and interviews created the impression that Baghdad and Al Qaeda had forged a partnership. But the report concludes that such assertions "were not substantiated by the intelligence" being shown to senior officials at the time.
Claims that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, for example, were dubious from the beginning and subsequently discounted. The idea that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had provided chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda hinged on intelligence from a source who soon was discredited.
Bush officials strayed even further from the evidence in suggesting that Hussein was prepared to provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda terrorist groups -- a linchpin in the case for war.
In October 2002, for example, Bush warned in a key speech in Cincinnati that "secretly, and without fingerprints, [Hussein] could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The threat was repeated frequently in the run-up to war but was "contradicted by available intelligence information," the committee says.
On post-war prospects, the report contrasts the rosy scenarios conjured by Cheney and others with more sober intelligence warnings that were being presented to senior officials.
Cheney's prediction that U.S. forces would "be greeted as liberators" was at odds with reports from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which warned nearly a year earlier that invading U.S. forces would face serious resistance from "the Baathists, the jihadists and Arab nationalists who oppose any U.S. occupation of Iraq."
June 4, 2008
Open letter to Hillary Clinton
(Because, of course, she reads this blog).
Dear Senator Clinton,
You have no idea how often I have defended you and your husband in the past. I stood and argued with those who advocated impeachment for what I still believe was a private failing. I defended you when you identified that "vast right wing conspiracy" against you and your husband. I winced when your husband's personal problem came to light, and when he parsed the meaning of "is." I threw up a little in my mouth when he pardoned Marc Rich and others.
But I defended you both against the right wing echo machine. I said you weren't that bad. Watching the current president mumble and drawl, I often said (along with millions), "I miss Bill." When you first started your run, I argued with those who said you were scary from the right, and unelectable from the left. I suggested that there was a measure of misogyny involved in criticisms of you. When Andrew Sullivan referred to you both as power hungry sociopaths, I argued back.
But like this reader email to Sully, I have to now backtrack. Watching you refuse to concede when Obama locked up the delegates needed was painful. Almost as painful as watching you encourage white racism in our own party. Almost as painful as watching Bill go from statesman to race-baiting political thug in a matter of months. Almost as painful as your spinning the popular vote and changing rules in midstream. Almost.
I am done defending you. And you need to go back to the Senate and figure out some plan of atoning for what you have done to our party and our nation. Unfortunately, I have no good faith belief that you have any concern for anything beyond your own power and you will pursue that regardless of the damage to the Democratic party or the potential of giving us four more years of disastrous policy.
Sigh
Dear Senator Clinton,
You have no idea how often I have defended you and your husband in the past. I stood and argued with those who advocated impeachment for what I still believe was a private failing. I defended you when you identified that "vast right wing conspiracy" against you and your husband. I winced when your husband's personal problem came to light, and when he parsed the meaning of "is." I threw up a little in my mouth when he pardoned Marc Rich and others.
But I defended you both against the right wing echo machine. I said you weren't that bad. Watching the current president mumble and drawl, I often said (along with millions), "I miss Bill." When you first started your run, I argued with those who said you were scary from the right, and unelectable from the left. I suggested that there was a measure of misogyny involved in criticisms of you. When Andrew Sullivan referred to you both as power hungry sociopaths, I argued back.
But like this reader email to Sully, I have to now backtrack. Watching you refuse to concede when Obama locked up the delegates needed was painful. Almost as painful as watching you encourage white racism in our own party. Almost as painful as watching Bill go from statesman to race-baiting political thug in a matter of months. Almost as painful as your spinning the popular vote and changing rules in midstream. Almost.
I am done defending you. And you need to go back to the Senate and figure out some plan of atoning for what you have done to our party and our nation. Unfortunately, I have no good faith belief that you have any concern for anything beyond your own power and you will pursue that regardless of the damage to the Democratic party or the potential of giving us four more years of disastrous policy.
Sigh
June 3, 2008
10 away from magic number
Marc Ambinder on Obama's delegate count:
Rumors are flying that Clinton herself will suggest she is ready to be Veep. If that brings in all her supporters, does that deal with all of the right wingers who will mobilize out of hatred for her?
"Before the delegates from South Dakota and Montana have been allocated, Sen. Barack Obama needs just 10 to clinch.
So tonight, he will clinch."
Rumors are flying that Clinton herself will suggest she is ready to be Veep. If that brings in all her supporters, does that deal with all of the right wingers who will mobilize out of hatred for her?
Couple of political notes
First, the blogosphere is abuzz about the potential end to Hillary's campaign. Will she end it? I don't know. I do know that watching some of the Hillary supporters fall into open racism toward Obama makes me more than a little ill. But I also hold out hope that most of the Clinton supporters are like most of the Obama supporters--united in their desire to see a Democratic president. I certainly hope that we don't see a repeat of 1968 when hard line liberals refused to vote for Humphrey and essentially allowed a moral reprobate like Nixon to become president.
This Kos diarist gives me hope, writing about a Florida town hall meeting where Congressman Wexler spoke to his constituents, most of whom voted for Clinton.
****
We talked about Ricardo Sanchez' new book a last month and it is now out and not very positive about our civilian leadership
This Kos diarist gives me hope, writing about a Florida town hall meeting where Congressman Wexler spoke to his constituents, most of whom voted for Clinton.
"I support Barack Obama because he showed better judgment on the Iraq War, because he has remained more forcefully against it. I support him because of his stand on ethics reform, and commitment to engaging our enemies. I support him because he speaks truth to power. He spoke in front of a largely Cuban-American organization in Miami. Everyone has told this organization the same thing for 40 years. 'We're going to continue the embargo against Cuba, no monetary remittances there, no anything.' Whether or not it works, that's all any politician dares to say. Obama suggested to them we engage with Raul Castro, and take steps towards ending the embargo. Obama told a crowd in Detroit that we should increase fuel efficiency standards, and he told members of Martin Luther King's church in Atlanta that we all share some of the blame for some of the race problems in America today."As good of a defense of Obama as I have read anywhere, and hopeful that most in the crowd appeared to be annoyed with the primary, but not so much that they were going to vote McCain.
****
We talked about Ricardo Sanchez' new book a last month and it is now out and not very positive about our civilian leadership
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service.
June 2, 2008
Kasey Chambers
And her husband Shane Nicholson performing a track off their new album, which has not yet been released in the states (their web site says that is in the works).
Conservativism
John Kenneth Galbraith:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."I know a lot of conservatives and know they don't see it this way, but it sure looks like self-serving policy to me.
Bush on responsibility
Bush spoke to the graduating class at Furman University and had this to say about being responsible and understanding your weaknesses:
"There is no shame in recognizing your failings or getting help if you need it. The tragedy comes when we fail to take responsibility for our weaknesses and surrender to them.'"Turns out he was talking about his own battle with alcoholism. Turns out for him, whatever humility and introspection he ever had, he used up when he stopped drinking.
May 31, 2008
Sigh. The Frat Boy President thing is really, really, really tired
As Jon Stewart noted the other day, had Bush not screwed everything up, images like this would seem rather charming.
As it is, it seems incredibly in poor taste and juvenile. After all, he has sent some 4,000 of these young service men and women to die for what his own former press secretary admits was a mistake. I have never asked that he spend his time in sackcloth and ashes (though spending a little time acting competently would be nice), but at least a little gravitas would be appreciated. Oh, I forgot, he did give up golf.
More pictures here.
As it is, it seems incredibly in poor taste and juvenile. After all, he has sent some 4,000 of these young service men and women to die for what his own former press secretary admits was a mistake. I have never asked that he spend his time in sackcloth and ashes (though spending a little time acting competently would be nice), but at least a little gravitas would be appreciated. Oh, I forgot, he did give up golf.
More pictures here.
America the Stupid
Well, not everyone, but those like Michelle Malkin who think a scarf=support for terrorism. Just when you think the right wingers could not get more ridiculous, this successful campaign by an unbelievably stupid person actually forces Dunkin Donuts to pull the ad.
Over at Kos, Hunter suggests that the terrorists should take this lesson to heart:
Over at Kos, Hunter suggests that the terrorists should take this lesson to heart:
Why stop at scarves, after all? If Islamic militants wished to truly damage America, they should make pants a symbol of their jihad. All of conservative America would immediately go patriotically pantsless, and the collective loss of American appetites would render the entire nation weak and anemic and ripe for takeover.Given stupid people like Malkin and others, this might just work.
May 30, 2008
May 29, 2008
We are a Christian nation, so sit down and shut up
Two-Headed Blog notices this story about a California car dealership running this ad:
The dealership apologized for the ad written by an Oklahoma firm (yay us), but the fact that this is out there is just disturbing.
"“Did you know that there are people in this country who want prayer out of schools, “Under God” out of the Pledge, and “In God We Trust” to be taken off our money?
“But did you know that 86 percent of Americans say they believe in God? Now, since we all know that 86 out of every 100 of us are Christians who believe in God, we at Kieffe and Sons Ford wonder why we don’t just tell the other 14 percent to sit down and shut up."
The dealership apologized for the ad written by an Oklahoma firm (yay us), but the fact that this is out there is just disturbing.
Corporate media
A rather shocking admission about how our corporate media works:
"JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I wouldn't go that far.This is what many have suggested is the problem with the so-called "liberal media." Instead of being biased ideologically, they are biased toward what they think will sell.
I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.
And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.
I think, over time...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?
YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience."
McClellan--the problem is the system?
Listened to McClellan on NPR this morning and that seems to be his explanation. Or perhaps he is trying to pull his punch on the President, but he seems to want it both ways.
I am sure the system is broken, but this administration made it worse, and clearly lied to all of us.
I am sure the system is broken, but this administration made it worse, and clearly lied to all of us.
"I don't think it was intentional or deliberate," McClellan says. "What happened here was we got caught up in the very thing the president campaigned against when he was first running for president back in 2000 – the destructive, partisan tone in Washington."Of course it was deliberate. Even according to McClellan, Bush and his people knew that the American people would not buy a war based on some vague notion of transforming the Middle East, so they emphasized WMD and just ignored any intelligence that didn't fit their argument. Of course it was deliberate.
May 28, 2008
McClellan admits "liberal media" was right
And the war was a mistake.
Sully's take:
“If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.
“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”
Sully's take:
We're not talking mistakes here; we're talking about a deliberate shading of the truth to hide the real motivation for risking the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians
If this is true, if the president intentionally ignored data refuting the existence of Saddam's WMDs, he should be impeached.
May 27, 2008
Political trends
Via Sully, news that Mitch McConnell is in a tight race. Lot of Republicans say they will vote for McCain, but not McConnell. Also, and I don't remember where I saw this, but looked like Al Franken was very close to Coleman in Minnesota--and that is surprising.
****
Also from Sully, this quote on the problem facing McCain.
****
Also from Sully, this quote on the problem facing McCain.
"One of the main reasons John McCain is facing such an tough job today is that we are now in the sixth year of a war that the president of his own party started by mistake. That's a major headwind when you're running for president; an error of that magnitude will exact a political price. Would anyone be surprised if voters say that they've had enough?" - Byron York, NRO.More and more Republicans are willing to call this war what it is--a mistake?
May 26, 2008
Memorial day
Some 4,081 gone in Iraq, plus those from Afghanistan, and those servicemen and women who will suffer from this war for the rest of their lives.
****
Politico.com has an interesting take on the Hillary RFK comments (echoing what Steve said in our comments) about her thoughtless words being taken out of context.
I see their point, but really felt horrible when I heard what she said. All of the "timeline" defense from Clinton misses the point that she still raised (several times) the specter of assassination when people are scared of that in this race to begin with.
Clinton's defenders have much to be angry for in this race, or at least some. They can bitch legitimately about the sexist coverage, and the often biased coverage that Clinton received (though the bias obviously also went her way at times, and there was also substantial racism in this race). But this was her fault. She has handled this race pretty badly for the last few months, and an aside (no matter the emphasis on timeline) about political assassination in this race was over the line.
*****
And all you need to know about how insensitive her remarks were is this unbelievable clip from Fox where two people joke about assassinating Obama
****
Have a good Memorial Day.
****
Politico.com has an interesting take on the Hillary RFK comments (echoing what Steve said in our comments) about her thoughtless words being taken out of context.
I see their point, but really felt horrible when I heard what she said. All of the "timeline" defense from Clinton misses the point that she still raised (several times) the specter of assassination when people are scared of that in this race to begin with.
Clinton's defenders have much to be angry for in this race, or at least some. They can bitch legitimately about the sexist coverage, and the often biased coverage that Clinton received (though the bias obviously also went her way at times, and there was also substantial racism in this race). But this was her fault. She has handled this race pretty badly for the last few months, and an aside (no matter the emphasis on timeline) about political assassination in this race was over the line.
*****
And all you need to know about how insensitive her remarks were is this unbelievable clip from Fox where two people joke about assassinating Obama
"and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]....well both if we could [laughing]"Truly unbelievable.
****
Have a good Memorial Day.
May 24, 2008
Hillary and her mouth
God knows we all say things we regret later. And I feel for those in the public eye, because they are so vulnerable to the sound-bite and the error. But when Hillary evoked the assassination of RFK in 1968 to justify staying in the race, she may have just pushed herself out of the race. It is just so damn thoughtless. From what I have read, she has mentioned this previously, so it isn't just an innocent slip. I know she is not wishing for something bad to happen to Obama, but this was over the line. And her non-apology apology, anytime someone says, "if someone was offended, I am sorry" you know they are not really very sorry.
Sullivan had this to say:
Sullivan had this to say:
She's been waiting for Obama to implode. Instead, she just has.Time for the super delegates to stand up and finish this.
May 23, 2008
Damn cell phone users
Yesterday, my friend Mary and I were forced to listen to an amazingly loud woman talk on her cell phone. Loud enough that it drove us outside. Loud enough that I wanted very much to say something to her. Unbelievably loud and unbelievably inconsiderate.
Perhaps I need to go here and print out some of these:
Perhaps I need to go here and print out some of these:
John McCain repudiates Parsley too
Los Angeles Times:
Waiting to reject them suggests that he was torn politically. He fears losing too many on the right--not that they will vote for Obama, but they might stay home--and yet also had to know he would lose people in the middle by recruiting Islamophobic crazies.
"Later in the day, McCain told the Associated Press that he also repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent. 'I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America,' McCain said."McCain must have been sitting in an awkward place for sometime. He had to know something about these wackjobs when he recruited their endorsement.
I didn't attend their church for 20 years, and I'm not a member of their church. I received their endorsement, which did not mean that I endorsed their views."But that sounds like they just endorsed him out of the blue, and that isn't accurate. He had to know and he went after their support.
Waiting to reject them suggests that he was torn politically. He fears losing too many on the right--not that they will vote for Obama, but they might stay home--and yet also had to know he would lose people in the middle by recruiting Islamophobic crazies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)