White students have their own way of celebrating Martin Luther King's Birthday. Last week there were parties at Tarleton University in Texas and the University of Connecticut where students dressed up as black stereotypes. According to racialicious, Tarleton undergraduates "mocked black stereotypes by featuring fried chicken, malt liquor and faux gang apparel" while UConn LAW students went all out with "do-rags, gang signs, gold teeth, malt liquor, and a fake machine gun."
There have been scattered incidents of black-face frat parties for years. However, it still might be the case that the current versions of these black-face parties might be connected to the victory of the Democrats in 2006, the Barack Obama presidential candidacy, and the prospect of a big Republican defeat in 2008. Surrendering their hopes for victory (here and in Iraq), people on the right might be deciding to give up color-blind rhetoric and begin enjoying more direct forms of white supremacy again. In this connection, a student of mine reported that an ape doll with a noose around its neck was displayed in her home town of Waverly, Ohio last December. There were similar reports of a manager putting a noose on display for his black employees outside NYC in December.
One thing I would be interested in seeing is whether right-wing news outlets like Fox and the conservative talk shows begin to switch from their liberal bashing, Muslim bashing and pedophilia themes to race-baiting over the next couple of years. Will Bill O'Reilly turn from his almost daily scrutiny of pedophilia cases to unending discussions of black crime? Will Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter begin tearing apart blacks the same way they go after white liberals? It will be interesting to see.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Hey Fox, Hire Some Liberals!
The media embargo against war opponents continues. As Matthew Yglesias says, "no jobs for the left, no accountability for the right." But I can see help coming from an unexpected direction--FOX.
Fox has been running through a series of awful right-wing commentary segments since the elections in 2006. First, there was Greg Gutfeld and his semi-snarky friends. Gutfeld is a former Maxim editor who just oozes slime (no surprise there!) and his New York friends were condescendingly conscious of their own superiority. I bet that didn't play too well with all my Fox-watching relatives because Gutfeld was off after three or four segments. Dennis Miller is giving comic commentary now, but his schtick is dragging too.
Now, Fox has a new segment (or one I've just caught for the first time) called the Beltway Boys with Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke, guys who were so fossilized from their decades as talking heads that their jaws seemed to creak as they talked. Talk about deathly dull. Even worse, they were using their segment to plug Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
If Fox wants to introduce something new and controversial, they should put one of the big liberal bloggers like Greenwald, Yglesias, Jane Hamsher, or even Arianna Huffington on one of their segments. That kind of move would infuse badly needed energy, boost their ratings, and upgrade their advertisers. They should try it.
Fox has been running through a series of awful right-wing commentary segments since the elections in 2006. First, there was Greg Gutfeld and his semi-snarky friends. Gutfeld is a former Maxim editor who just oozes slime (no surprise there!) and his New York friends were condescendingly conscious of their own superiority. I bet that didn't play too well with all my Fox-watching relatives because Gutfeld was off after three or four segments. Dennis Miller is giving comic commentary now, but his schtick is dragging too.
Now, Fox has a new segment (or one I've just caught for the first time) called the Beltway Boys with Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke, guys who were so fossilized from their decades as talking heads that their jaws seemed to creak as they talked. Talk about deathly dull. Even worse, they were using their segment to plug Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
If Fox wants to introduce something new and controversial, they should put one of the big liberal bloggers like Greenwald, Yglesias, Jane Hamsher, or even Arianna Huffington on one of their segments. That kind of move would infuse badly needed energy, boost their ratings, and upgrade their advertisers. They should try it.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Bush Against the Wall
George and His Constitution. Yesterday, President Bush emphasized that he is the decision-maker on troop levels in Iraq. At this point in his failing Presidency, the only real authority held by President Bush holds is that granted specifically to him by the Constitution--his role as commander-in-chief of the military, his appointment powers, and his veto power. No longer the central media figure, party leader, agenda setter, or the symbolic embodiment of the nation, Bush's presidency hangs by the thread of Constitutional protections for the institution of the President and he is fortunate that the rest of the nation has much more respect for the Constitution than his government. He is also fortunate that the nation is optimistically shifting its focus toward the next administration.
To Be or Not to Be a Public Servant. At Unclaimed Territory, Glenn Greenwald slugs away at the rhetoric of the Bush administration, the conservative media machine, and right-wing bloggers with a lot of passion and effectiveness. In today's post, Greenwald addresses the Bush administration's fetishizing the term "commander-in-chief," stressing that a President is only "commander-in-chief" of the military and that he or she is a public servant in relation to the rest of government and society. In fact, the mirror image of the Bush administration's emphasis on being "commander-in-chief" is their contempt for being "public service." The Bush administration and the right-wing in general have never had any respect for the idea of "serving the public." For the right, public service is an exercise in unmanliness, weakness, and effeminacy. From their point of view, the only reason to occupy government office is to hold power and dominate their opponents. Just as it was for slaveholders and segregationists, domination is core of morality for the right. That's why the Bush administration has sought out opportunities to transgress the law and the Constitution, revels in the sadism of the rendition system, kidnapping and torture, and loves the destructiveness of negative campaigning, smearing their opponents, and lying at every chance. Doing these things shows how tough they are.
It's also why the Bush administration is so cavalier about the details of administration and why almost everything they've done has turned out so poorly. The core of Bush ineptitude is the belief that only "pussies" pay attention.
Bush Should Resign. Several polls show that opposition to the surge is in the 60-70% range. The reason is that the broader population has lost faith in George Bush and his administration. Given that the U. S. is in a state of war and that a large chunk of the American military is fighting in Iraq, both George Bush and Dick Cheney should resign in order to give Americans a more credible government in a dangerous time. I saw this idea in posts on Slate's Fray by Ducadmo and Ellen and believe that it deserves serious discussion. With the Bush administration in office, American government no longer has the public support needed to address the current difficulties. If the Bush administration has any concern for the public welfare, they should simply resign and give another team a chance. Ducadmo argues that a Republican should be put in charge of a caretaker government. Perhaps Ducadmo has somebody like James Baker or Tom Kean of New Jersey in mind. However, I believe that any resignation by Bush and Cheney should allow Nancy Pelosi to take office. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi is third in line for the presidency and she's now actively involved in Iraq policy. Moreover, it is evident from the 2006 election and recent polling that the public has more respect for the ability of the Democrats to govern. For the good of the country, Bush should fall on his political sword and resign.
To Be or Not to Be a Public Servant. At Unclaimed Territory, Glenn Greenwald slugs away at the rhetoric of the Bush administration, the conservative media machine, and right-wing bloggers with a lot of passion and effectiveness. In today's post, Greenwald addresses the Bush administration's fetishizing the term "commander-in-chief," stressing that a President is only "commander-in-chief" of the military and that he or she is a public servant in relation to the rest of government and society. In fact, the mirror image of the Bush administration's emphasis on being "commander-in-chief" is their contempt for being "public service." The Bush administration and the right-wing in general have never had any respect for the idea of "serving the public." For the right, public service is an exercise in unmanliness, weakness, and effeminacy. From their point of view, the only reason to occupy government office is to hold power and dominate their opponents. Just as it was for slaveholders and segregationists, domination is core of morality for the right. That's why the Bush administration has sought out opportunities to transgress the law and the Constitution, revels in the sadism of the rendition system, kidnapping and torture, and loves the destructiveness of negative campaigning, smearing their opponents, and lying at every chance. Doing these things shows how tough they are.
It's also why the Bush administration is so cavalier about the details of administration and why almost everything they've done has turned out so poorly. The core of Bush ineptitude is the belief that only "pussies" pay attention.
Bush Should Resign. Several polls show that opposition to the surge is in the 60-70% range. The reason is that the broader population has lost faith in George Bush and his administration. Given that the U. S. is in a state of war and that a large chunk of the American military is fighting in Iraq, both George Bush and Dick Cheney should resign in order to give Americans a more credible government in a dangerous time. I saw this idea in posts on Slate's Fray by Ducadmo and Ellen and believe that it deserves serious discussion. With the Bush administration in office, American government no longer has the public support needed to address the current difficulties. If the Bush administration has any concern for the public welfare, they should simply resign and give another team a chance. Ducadmo argues that a Republican should be put in charge of a caretaker government. Perhaps Ducadmo has somebody like James Baker or Tom Kean of New Jersey in mind. However, I believe that any resignation by Bush and Cheney should allow Nancy Pelosi to take office. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi is third in line for the presidency and she's now actively involved in Iraq policy. Moreover, it is evident from the 2006 election and recent polling that the public has more respect for the ability of the Democrats to govern. For the good of the country, Bush should fall on his political sword and resign.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Chuck Schumer Doesn't Get It
Sometimes I wonder if the Democratic leadership is ever going to get it. Today, there's a report via Matthew Yglesias that Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York thinks that the Iraq War won't be as important in 2008 as it was in 2006. Pushing his new book, Schumer says "I think the surge will fail and the president will have no choice but to begin removing troops" which will then open the way for bread and butter issues like "cereal prices, discount air fares and tuition tax credits."
I wonder what kind of mushrooms Schumer is eating. The Bush administration has responded to all its failures in Iraq by either "staying the course" or "escalating." Why would Schumer think that Bush would ever withdraw from Iraq? That would be admitting that the war is a failure and that his presidency has been a failure.
Shumer shows a lack of understanding about the war on terror. The war on terror is going to remain central as long as there is organized global terrorism. Every administration after this is going to be measured first by it's ability to prevent another 9-11 and is going to have to make fighting terrorism its top priority. The Democrats won't be able to make the bread and butter issues their top priority for the forseeable future.
Finally, Sen. Schumer does not understand the historical opportunity which the failure of the Bush administration presents to the Democrats. Bush has shown that the right-wing can neither conduct a war nor manage American society in the case of Catrina and New Orleans. In 2008, dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, the war, and the surge is going to be particularly intense, giving the Democrats a shot at both a big landslide victory and a governing mandate.
Instead of talking about discount air fares, the Democrats need to pounce on this opportunity and work out their approach to governing. That's because they may actually be governing for the next 10-15 years.
I wonder what kind of mushrooms Schumer is eating. The Bush administration has responded to all its failures in Iraq by either "staying the course" or "escalating." Why would Schumer think that Bush would ever withdraw from Iraq? That would be admitting that the war is a failure and that his presidency has been a failure.
Shumer shows a lack of understanding about the war on terror. The war on terror is going to remain central as long as there is organized global terrorism. Every administration after this is going to be measured first by it's ability to prevent another 9-11 and is going to have to make fighting terrorism its top priority. The Democrats won't be able to make the bread and butter issues their top priority for the forseeable future.
Finally, Sen. Schumer does not understand the historical opportunity which the failure of the Bush administration presents to the Democrats. Bush has shown that the right-wing can neither conduct a war nor manage American society in the case of Catrina and New Orleans. In 2008, dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, the war, and the surge is going to be particularly intense, giving the Democrats a shot at both a big landslide victory and a governing mandate.
Instead of talking about discount air fares, the Democrats need to pounce on this opportunity and work out their approach to governing. That's because they may actually be governing for the next 10-15 years.
The First Woman Shadow President
It looks like a Democratic shadow government is forming in the House in an attempt to fill some of the vacuum created by the failure of the Bush administration. Today, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic foreign policy leadership in the House are on a fact-finding trip to Iraq.
What's significant is that it's a House Democratic trip not a House of Representatives trip. No Republicans were invited. That makes Nancy Pelosi into a kind of shadow president.
Of course, Pelosi is not the first shadow president. Thomas Jefferson was the president in waiting during the Adams administration while Newt Gingrich functioned as a shadow president from the 1994 election to the government shut-down in 1995.
But Pelosi is the first woman shadow president.
What's significant is that it's a House Democratic trip not a House of Representatives trip. No Republicans were invited. That makes Nancy Pelosi into a kind of shadow president.
Of course, Pelosi is not the first shadow president. Thomas Jefferson was the president in waiting during the Adams administration while Newt Gingrich functioned as a shadow president from the 1994 election to the government shut-down in 1995.
But Pelosi is the first woman shadow president.
Color-blind Race Baiting
Last semester, I had a couple of virulently racist white guys in one of my classes. But their racism was never expressed directly. Saying things like "why do we have to study blacks instead of the working class" or "criticizing racism is what causes racism," these guys stayed within the bounds of color-blind language as they were engaged in race-baiting. In fact, color-blind language is used to justify police shootings of blacks, the kind of mob violence against blacks that occurred on Long Island in the eighties, the exclusion of blacks from stores, and racial profiling. In The Alchemy of Race and Rights, Patricia Williams, an African-American law professor, provides a detailed personal account of the wrenching humiliation that color-blind racism created for her as an African-American.
I'm beginning to wonder if the Democratic victory in 2006 isn't sparking another wave of race-baiting from the right. The right-wing race baiting campaign against Obama has already begun. When the right baits Barack Obama over his name or circulates lies about Obama's schooling, what they're trying to do is create suspicion over Obama's race--whether he's really like "us" or whether he can really be "trusted." The fact that Obama's black and a liberal makes him even more of an enemy to the right than Osama bin Laden. While the Republicans were on top, the right-wing seemed to take a break from race-baiting in the name of cementing a Republican majority. Now that the Republicans are in the minority again, the right seems to be returning to its racist roots.
Anti-immigrant zealot Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado is joining the race-baiting fun. According to today's Denver Post, Tancredo is calling for the disbanding of African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-Pacific minority caucuses to be disbanded in the name of color-blindness, claiming that the minority caucuses equal "racial segregation." What Tancredo is trying to do is to use the pseudo-liberal language of color-blindness (pseudo-liberal because it "sounds" liberal even though it was invented by conservatives for conservative political purposes) to forbid blacks and other racial minorities from associating together to further their interests. For Tancredo, business is a legitimate interest, abortion is a legitimate interest, and opposition to immigration is a legitimate interest, but blacks, hispanics, and Asian-Americans can have no legitimate group interests. It's just a subtle way to exclude racial minorities from political life.
I'm beginning to wonder if the Democratic victory in 2006 isn't sparking another wave of race-baiting from the right. The right-wing race baiting campaign against Obama has already begun. When the right baits Barack Obama over his name or circulates lies about Obama's schooling, what they're trying to do is create suspicion over Obama's race--whether he's really like "us" or whether he can really be "trusted." The fact that Obama's black and a liberal makes him even more of an enemy to the right than Osama bin Laden. While the Republicans were on top, the right-wing seemed to take a break from race-baiting in the name of cementing a Republican majority. Now that the Republicans are in the minority again, the right seems to be returning to its racist roots.
Anti-immigrant zealot Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado is joining the race-baiting fun. According to today's Denver Post, Tancredo is calling for the disbanding of African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-Pacific minority caucuses to be disbanded in the name of color-blindness, claiming that the minority caucuses equal "racial segregation." What Tancredo is trying to do is to use the pseudo-liberal language of color-blindness (pseudo-liberal because it "sounds" liberal even though it was invented by conservatives for conservative political purposes) to forbid blacks and other racial minorities from associating together to further their interests. For Tancredo, business is a legitimate interest, abortion is a legitimate interest, and opposition to immigration is a legitimate interest, but blacks, hispanics, and Asian-Americans can have no legitimate group interests. It's just a subtle way to exclude racial minorities from political life.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Locating the State of the Union
George Driving Around the Washington Baghdad. The problem with the last build-up in Baghdad was that American troops were not only not able to suppress the sectarian strife, they were not even relevant to the conflict. They ended up DAB, driving around Baghdad, with no particular place to go. With the State of the Union address, George Bush shows a similar problem. Sandwiched between Hillary Clinton's announcement of her presidential candidacy and the Senate resolution against the surge, President Bush only commanded the headlines for twenty-four hours.
Not Moving the Kool-Aid. President Bush was probably hoping that no one would watch the State of the Union. Support for the surge actually dropped after President Bush's address a couple of weeks ago and it dropped the most among people who watched Bush's speech. Public hostility to the President has risen to the extent that President Bush is no longer an effective spokesman for his own policies. It's not like Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, Joe Lieberman or any of the other war advocates have any credibility either. Today, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin referred to Dick Cheney as "delusional." The Bush administration can no longer sell its Kool-Aid to the public.
Where the Action is. Surprisingly enough, the immediate fate of the Bush administration is being decided in the Republican Senate caucus as John McCain and John Warner engage in a duel to determine whether a Senate resolution against the surge will be a partisan Democratic effort or a bi-partisan expression of the will of the people. If McCain succeeds in limiting Republican support for the resolution to 2 or 3 Senators, President Bush may have a little breathing room to determine if the surge is workable. If Warner wins and the anti-surge resolution gets more than 60 votes, it will be the equivalent of a no confidence vote on the Bush administration. The surge will become a renegade military operation.
Will the Right-wing Survive. Back in 2002 and 2003, I used to wonder if the Bush administration would end up destroying conservative government all over the world. After all, John Poindexter and William Bennett were talking openly about overthrowing traditional governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Now it looks like the Bush administration is destroying American conservatism. The right-wing has been the driving organizational, ideological, and financial force in the Republican Party since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992. However, the Iraq War is the right-wing's war and the elections of 2006 were not only a repudiation of George Bush, they were a repudiation of the Republican Right. Given that the surge is another idea emerging from the right, will the failure of the surge condemn the right-wing even further in the eyes of the public? That's one of the reasons why ultra-conservatives like Sam Brownback are cool towards the war. They don't want to see the entire right-wing agenda sink with the Bush administration.
Not Moving the Kool-Aid. President Bush was probably hoping that no one would watch the State of the Union. Support for the surge actually dropped after President Bush's address a couple of weeks ago and it dropped the most among people who watched Bush's speech. Public hostility to the President has risen to the extent that President Bush is no longer an effective spokesman for his own policies. It's not like Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, Joe Lieberman or any of the other war advocates have any credibility either. Today, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin referred to Dick Cheney as "delusional." The Bush administration can no longer sell its Kool-Aid to the public.
Where the Action is. Surprisingly enough, the immediate fate of the Bush administration is being decided in the Republican Senate caucus as John McCain and John Warner engage in a duel to determine whether a Senate resolution against the surge will be a partisan Democratic effort or a bi-partisan expression of the will of the people. If McCain succeeds in limiting Republican support for the resolution to 2 or 3 Senators, President Bush may have a little breathing room to determine if the surge is workable. If Warner wins and the anti-surge resolution gets more than 60 votes, it will be the equivalent of a no confidence vote on the Bush administration. The surge will become a renegade military operation.
Will the Right-wing Survive. Back in 2002 and 2003, I used to wonder if the Bush administration would end up destroying conservative government all over the world. After all, John Poindexter and William Bennett were talking openly about overthrowing traditional governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Now it looks like the Bush administration is destroying American conservatism. The right-wing has been the driving organizational, ideological, and financial force in the Republican Party since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992. However, the Iraq War is the right-wing's war and the elections of 2006 were not only a repudiation of George Bush, they were a repudiation of the Republican Right. Given that the surge is another idea emerging from the right, will the failure of the surge condemn the right-wing even further in the eyes of the public? That's one of the reasons why ultra-conservatives like Sam Brownback are cool towards the war. They don't want to see the entire right-wing agenda sink with the Bush administration.
School's Out (It Seems Like) Forever
My two kids are off from school again today. Yesterday's half inch of snow iced up last night, making things dangerous for school buses in my part of Kentucky. Originally coming from upstate New York, part of me laughs when I think of the local schools cancelling on half an inch of snow. But country roads are narrow and windy, nobody knows how to drive in icy conditions (including me anymore) and I'd just as soon everybody lived through the experience.
I have to admire the kids. The snow didn't even cover the ground completely, but they had all the winter paraphernalia out just like they lived in Montana. After a winter without snow last year, the kids were determined to take advantage of every snowflake for this year's first snow. It looked like the snow perked up some of my classes as well.
I have to admire the kids. The snow didn't even cover the ground completely, but they had all the winter paraphernalia out just like they lived in Montana. After a winter without snow last year, the kids were determined to take advantage of every snowflake for this year's first snow. It looked like the snow perked up some of my classes as well.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Dick Cheney Warm-Ups for Blitzer Interview
Vice-President Dick Cheney was on CNN's "The Situation Room Today" responding to Wolf Blitzer's questions about Iraq, Hillary Clinton, and Mary Cheney's babies. Cheney told a couple of huge, whopping lies during the interview. The biggest whopper was that Saddam Hussein and the Iranians would be in a nuclear arms race now if we hadn't invaded Iraq. But he almost topped that when he implied that U. S. failure to stay in Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviet Union led to 9-11.
How does Cheney do it? How does he lie with such gusto? Such brio? Is this kind of lying a talent or is it a skill that has to be cultivated? What about when Cheney leaves the studio? Does he go cold turkey and start telling the truth or does he habitually lie to his wife, his staff, his secret service protection and everybody else in his life? Personally, I imagine that Cheney doesn't spend all his time telling lies to the people and that he limits his lying to his speeches, his contacts with the media, and his personal conversations with the president.
But how does he make the transition from truth-telling to lying? I'm sure he knows that wrenching emotional transitions like his transitions from truth-telling to lying and back again could cause heart attacks in people his age. So, Cheney must have some sort of warm-up for his exercises in lying or some sort of mantra that he says as he prepares for important "truth-distorting occasions" like interviews with Blitzer. Given that Cheney's not a Buddhist (if he's telling the truth about his religious views), I suspect that he must have some sort of warm-up exercises. Perhaps he starts with some easy lies about his personal appearance. I think "Yes, Wolf, I've always had blonde hair" would be a good start. Then he could rattle off some quick lies about himself as he worked himself up to lying about politics--for example: "Yes, Wolf I have lost thirty pounds recently;" "No, I've never had a heart attack;" "I really wanted to serve in Vietnam;" "I marched with Martin Luther King in Birmingham and Selma;" "Did you know that I was faster than O.J. Simpson."
Once Dick started to get his groove on, he could punch the air of the CNN Green Room with some real whoppers. How about "Did you know Wolf that that was me on the moon, not Neil Armstrong, that George Bush invented hip-hop, that Mary Cheney gave up her career in opera to work on his campaigns, or that the finest wines were made outside Caspar, Wyoming rather than California or France?" After riffing off about ten more lines like this, Cheney would know that he was master of his domain and that he's just about there.
One final lie: "America is lucky to have me as its Vice-President"--and he 's ready to go on.
How does Cheney do it? How does he lie with such gusto? Such brio? Is this kind of lying a talent or is it a skill that has to be cultivated? What about when Cheney leaves the studio? Does he go cold turkey and start telling the truth or does he habitually lie to his wife, his staff, his secret service protection and everybody else in his life? Personally, I imagine that Cheney doesn't spend all his time telling lies to the people and that he limits his lying to his speeches, his contacts with the media, and his personal conversations with the president.
But how does he make the transition from truth-telling to lying? I'm sure he knows that wrenching emotional transitions like his transitions from truth-telling to lying and back again could cause heart attacks in people his age. So, Cheney must have some sort of warm-up for his exercises in lying or some sort of mantra that he says as he prepares for important "truth-distorting occasions" like interviews with Blitzer. Given that Cheney's not a Buddhist (if he's telling the truth about his religious views), I suspect that he must have some sort of warm-up exercises. Perhaps he starts with some easy lies about his personal appearance. I think "Yes, Wolf, I've always had blonde hair" would be a good start. Then he could rattle off some quick lies about himself as he worked himself up to lying about politics--for example: "Yes, Wolf I have lost thirty pounds recently;" "No, I've never had a heart attack;" "I really wanted to serve in Vietnam;" "I marched with Martin Luther King in Birmingham and Selma;" "Did you know that I was faster than O.J. Simpson."
Once Dick started to get his groove on, he could punch the air of the CNN Green Room with some real whoppers. How about "Did you know Wolf that that was me on the moon, not Neil Armstrong, that George Bush invented hip-hop, that Mary Cheney gave up her career in opera to work on his campaigns, or that the finest wines were made outside Caspar, Wyoming rather than California or France?" After riffing off about ten more lines like this, Cheney would know that he was master of his domain and that he's just about there.
One final lie: "America is lucky to have me as its Vice-President"--and he 's ready to go on.
Back to Blogging
RSI has been down for the last day and a half as my computer lost its internet connection. The back-up systems at my University weren't very helpful either. My technical staff will do better in the future.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
"Hillary:" The Big Dog In More Ways Than One
There's been some objection over the internet that addressing Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" is sexist. Given that everybody political is going to be talking and writing endlessly about Hillary, I'm somewhat glad that she can be called by several names--Hillary,Sen. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton, the junior senator from New York, and HRC among others.
But "Hillary is the big dog among Hillary names.
Mostly it's because that's how Hillary Clinton's campaign wants you to think of her. There are many reasons why this is the case.
1. "Hillary" has a connotation of familiarity and ease that HRC wants to promote as a substitute for Bill Clinton's or Barack Obama's charisma.
2. "Hillary" allows Hillary Clinton to pose herself as a political figure independent of her husband and former president Bill Clinton. Given that Hillary Clinton has achieved this independence the hard way by going through the Lewinsky scandal, running for the New York Senate seat, and slogging through eight hard years of Republican domination, I think she deserves to have that independence recognized throught the Hillary brand (as Dick Morris calls it).
3. Hillary has always been somewhat suspicious of adapting her husband's last name and only gave in after Bill lost a run for re-election in Arkansas. "Hillary" allows her to escape this indignity to her womanhood.
4. Like "Arnold" Schwarzenegger, "Hillary" reflects Hillary Clinton's status as a celebrity as well as a politician. Given that her celebrity status is one of her political assets, using "Hillary" as her name is a way to acknowledge her strength as a politician.
5. "Hillary" also fits the natural informality of internet writing.
"Hillary" would be sexist if it demeaned her accomplishments and dignity or reduced her to her attractiveness. But most of what Hillary does is convey a sense of comfortable leadership. Given that Hillary is the favorite, the name is doing its job.
But "Hillary is the big dog among Hillary names.
Mostly it's because that's how Hillary Clinton's campaign wants you to think of her. There are many reasons why this is the case.
1. "Hillary" has a connotation of familiarity and ease that HRC wants to promote as a substitute for Bill Clinton's or Barack Obama's charisma.
2. "Hillary" allows Hillary Clinton to pose herself as a political figure independent of her husband and former president Bill Clinton. Given that Hillary Clinton has achieved this independence the hard way by going through the Lewinsky scandal, running for the New York Senate seat, and slogging through eight hard years of Republican domination, I think she deserves to have that independence recognized throught the Hillary brand (as Dick Morris calls it).
3. Hillary has always been somewhat suspicious of adapting her husband's last name and only gave in after Bill lost a run for re-election in Arkansas. "Hillary" allows her to escape this indignity to her womanhood.
4. Like "Arnold" Schwarzenegger, "Hillary" reflects Hillary Clinton's status as a celebrity as well as a politician. Given that her celebrity status is one of her political assets, using "Hillary" as her name is a way to acknowledge her strength as a politician.
5. "Hillary" also fits the natural informality of internet writing.
"Hillary" would be sexist if it demeaned her accomplishments and dignity or reduced her to her attractiveness. But most of what Hillary does is convey a sense of comfortable leadership. Given that Hillary is the favorite, the name is doing its job.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Hooray for Roe v Wade
Today is the 34th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision overturning state laws against abortion.
Roe v Wade is one of the great turning points in the efforts of women to achieve full equality in human civilization. The right to legal abortion meant that women became like men in having full possession over their own bodies, their own lives, and their own being. Laws against abortion meant that state governments had legal possession over women's bodies to the extent that they could dictate how women dispossed of their bodies in relation to sex, pregnancy, and parenthood. As long as state governments mandated that the threat of pregnancy hang over every act of heterosexual sexual intercourse, women could not live as free beings and could not live their bodies in any kind of mature way.
The impact of Roe on women is incalculable. Because women have a right to abortions, they have much more freedom in their sexual lives and their bodies more generally. Because women have much more freedom, they are able to complete educations, get physical training, carry on careers, and plan their children.
Given the pervasive violence and discrimination they face, women are far from being completely free. Likewise, the religious right's campaigns against abortion rights, contraception, and sex outside marriage continually threaten the freedoms made possible by Roe v Wade.
Still, Roe v Wade was a huge step forward.
Roe v Wade is one of the great turning points in the efforts of women to achieve full equality in human civilization. The right to legal abortion meant that women became like men in having full possession over their own bodies, their own lives, and their own being. Laws against abortion meant that state governments had legal possession over women's bodies to the extent that they could dictate how women dispossed of their bodies in relation to sex, pregnancy, and parenthood. As long as state governments mandated that the threat of pregnancy hang over every act of heterosexual sexual intercourse, women could not live as free beings and could not live their bodies in any kind of mature way.
The impact of Roe on women is incalculable. Because women have a right to abortions, they have much more freedom in their sexual lives and their bodies more generally. Because women have much more freedom, they are able to complete educations, get physical training, carry on careers, and plan their children.
Given the pervasive violence and discrimination they face, women are far from being completely free. Likewise, the religious right's campaigns against abortion rights, contraception, and sex outside marriage continually threaten the freedoms made possible by Roe v Wade.
Still, Roe v Wade was a huge step forward.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
There is Some Justice
Manning Beats the Forces of Evil. I was super-glad to see the Colts beat the Patriots. Peyton Manning finally got the "can't win the big one" monkey off his back while New England's evil "we don't give a crap about the players" management got what was coming to them.
Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy Beat the Stereotypes. The NFL is definitely not "High School Musical." Nasty racial stereotyping has dogged the heels of black athletes and coaches every step of the process of integration. First, blacks weren't supposed to be smart enough to play guard, then center, and finally quarterback with the stereotypes only retreating after great black players like Gene Upshaw and Warren Moon thoroughly disproved them. When black guys finally got the opportunity to work as head coaches, the idea that black coaches were great "disciplinarians" (as opposed to football geniuses) quickly took hold. What was good about Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith winning is that they're both known as smart guys who proved themselves today against two of the reigning "geniuses" of the coaching world--Bill Belichick of New England and Sean Payton of the Saints. Perhaps the NFL will look a little more like "High School Musical" when Dungy and Smith are acknowledge are also acknowledged as geniuses.
Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy Beat the Stereotypes. The NFL is definitely not "High School Musical." Nasty racial stereotyping has dogged the heels of black athletes and coaches every step of the process of integration. First, blacks weren't supposed to be smart enough to play guard, then center, and finally quarterback with the stereotypes only retreating after great black players like Gene Upshaw and Warren Moon thoroughly disproved them. When black guys finally got the opportunity to work as head coaches, the idea that black coaches were great "disciplinarians" (as opposed to football geniuses) quickly took hold. What was good about Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith winning is that they're both known as smart guys who proved themselves today against two of the reigning "geniuses" of the coaching world--Bill Belichick of New England and Sean Payton of the Saints. Perhaps the NFL will look a little more like "High School Musical" when Dungy and Smith are acknowledge are also acknowledged as geniuses.
A Couple of New Race Cards
The Disney Template. An item that "Hannah Montana" had sold out the Houston Rodeo Show within half an hour reminded me about the special power of the Disney Race Template. Building on their television shows, movies like "High School Musical" represent schools as integrated places where the star white basketball player dates a hispanic "genius girl," the head of the "brainiacs" was black and female, and the ending was a black guy finally getting the white drama queen to go out with him. "High School Musical" starts with an integrated premise and become more integrated as the various story lines are worked out. It's a sweet model of fictional reality that a lot of kids take as being the real world. As a result, college students at my almost all-white university can be surprised both at the extent of white racism and surprised that blacks are highly aware and resentful of racism.
John Edwards: The Last Viable White Man in America. There's an interesting anomoly in the latest Newsweek polling about the presidential race. Even though John Edwards is polling at 12-14% among Democrats, Newsweek has him doing better in head to head matchups with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. That John Edwards does well against McCain and Giuliani is evidence for RSI's idea that the Dems could win with a potted plant in 2008. That Edwards does better than Hillary and Obama in the head-to-heads with Republicans even though he trails well behind them among Democrats is interesting because it raises the spectre of gender and race in the presidential race. Where Edwards scores better than the two more popular candidates is among Democrats and Independents. The 5% boost that Edwards has over Obama among Democrats and 4% margin over Obama among independents might be a measure of who is not going to be willing to vote for a black candidate in 2008. The same to a lesser extent with gender in relation to Edwards' 4% margin over Hillary against McCain and 3% against Giuliani. I think that their association with President Bush and the Iraq War is going to eat away at support for McCain and that Giuliani is not a serious candidate. John Edwards might be the last viable white candidate in America.
John Edwards: The Last Viable White Man in America. There's an interesting anomoly in the latest Newsweek polling about the presidential race. Even though John Edwards is polling at 12-14% among Democrats, Newsweek has him doing better in head to head matchups with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. That John Edwards does well against McCain and Giuliani is evidence for RSI's idea that the Dems could win with a potted plant in 2008. That Edwards does better than Hillary and Obama in the head-to-heads with Republicans even though he trails well behind them among Democrats is interesting because it raises the spectre of gender and race in the presidential race. Where Edwards scores better than the two more popular candidates is among Democrats and Independents. The 5% boost that Edwards has over Obama among Democrats and 4% margin over Obama among independents might be a measure of who is not going to be willing to vote for a black candidate in 2008. The same to a lesser extent with gender in relation to Edwards' 4% margin over Hillary against McCain and 3% against Giuliani. I think that their association with President Bush and the Iraq War is going to eat away at support for McCain and that Giuliani is not a serious candidate. John Edwards might be the last viable white candidate in America.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
The Players are on the Field
The players are now on the field for an unusual Democratic presidential nomination race.
Sen. Hillary Clinton announced today that she is forming a presidential exploratory committee. Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is not exploring anthing. She's running and forming an exploratory committee is the first step in her campaign. Unusually for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton is the heir apparent and a clear front runner with high expectations of winning the presidency. Although her popularity is generally ignored by the mainstream media, Hillary Clinton is a genuinely popular politician who can speak with authority on any issue. She is also the first woman candidate who starts her campaign for the presidential nomination as the favorite.
I know this is just one more reason for people to think I'm totally uncool, but I favor Hillary in the election. Because the Bush administration has screwed things up so royally, being president between 2008 and 2016 is going to be unbelievably tough. Hillary can succeed as president because she's been through tough times in the White House, knows public policy inside and out, and has credibility on both domestic and foreign policy issues. I also like that Hillary is willing to call out the right-wing every once in a while. Hillary still has to prove that she has what it takes to get the country behind her in a crisis, but she'll have plenty of chances to prove that during the primary season. Of all the candidates in the Democratic and Republican Parties, Hillary is the most qualified by temperament, policy preferences, and experience to be president.
Although Hillary Clinton is the favorite, Barack Obama is going to be a strong challenger. Although inexperienced, Obama has a lot of positive buzz for his inspirational abilities. People like him a lot and he's the favorite of both Mrs. RSI and our daughter Katy. Like Hillary Clinton, Obama is a genuine political heavyweight and whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to have to run a strong campaign. Certainly, there will be moments of negative campaigning, but I believe that the competition will benefit both candidates.
If either of the two leading candidates falters or proves to be a poor campaigner, John Edwards will take on the role of challenger. Edwards is nationally known, has some experience with Presidential political campaigns, and has positioned himself well for the Iowa caucuses. If he wants to have a real chance however, he has to hope that Hillary or Obama is a disappointment.
The other candidates all hope they can catch fire, but have little chance. Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and John Kerry all have their virtues, but none of them has much hope of breaking into the first tier.
Let the games begin.
Sen. Hillary Clinton announced today that she is forming a presidential exploratory committee. Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is not exploring anthing. She's running and forming an exploratory committee is the first step in her campaign. Unusually for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton is the heir apparent and a clear front runner with high expectations of winning the presidency. Although her popularity is generally ignored by the mainstream media, Hillary Clinton is a genuinely popular politician who can speak with authority on any issue. She is also the first woman candidate who starts her campaign for the presidential nomination as the favorite.
I know this is just one more reason for people to think I'm totally uncool, but I favor Hillary in the election. Because the Bush administration has screwed things up so royally, being president between 2008 and 2016 is going to be unbelievably tough. Hillary can succeed as president because she's been through tough times in the White House, knows public policy inside and out, and has credibility on both domestic and foreign policy issues. I also like that Hillary is willing to call out the right-wing every once in a while. Hillary still has to prove that she has what it takes to get the country behind her in a crisis, but she'll have plenty of chances to prove that during the primary season. Of all the candidates in the Democratic and Republican Parties, Hillary is the most qualified by temperament, policy preferences, and experience to be president.
Although Hillary Clinton is the favorite, Barack Obama is going to be a strong challenger. Although inexperienced, Obama has a lot of positive buzz for his inspirational abilities. People like him a lot and he's the favorite of both Mrs. RSI and our daughter Katy. Like Hillary Clinton, Obama is a genuine political heavyweight and whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to have to run a strong campaign. Certainly, there will be moments of negative campaigning, but I believe that the competition will benefit both candidates.
If either of the two leading candidates falters or proves to be a poor campaigner, John Edwards will take on the role of challenger. Edwards is nationally known, has some experience with Presidential political campaigns, and has positioned himself well for the Iowa caucuses. If he wants to have a real chance however, he has to hope that Hillary or Obama is a disappointment.
The other candidates all hope they can catch fire, but have little chance. Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and John Kerry all have their virtues, but none of them has much hope of breaking into the first tier.
Let the games begin.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Far From Toothless
My own little chunk of Red State Kentucky is buzzing today.
1. Growing Into My Stereotype. Today, I took a big step toward growing into an Eastern Kentucky stereotype. That's because one of my teeth was extracted at a dental office in a very prosperous little medical office complex in Lexington, Kentucky. No teeth is just as big a stereotype for Appalachian whites as gold teeth are for urban blacks. Perhaps I should write to a Lexington television station to offer myself for interviews. Not having teeth seems to be a prerequisite for being interviewed on camera by the Lexington stations or appearing in documentaries.
2. Win a Couple of Games And . . . One of the banes of the Kentucky public school system is coaches--especially football coaches and basketball coaches. There are 6th, 7th, and 8th grade basketball teams as well as junior varsity and varsity teams and a lot of those coaches end up working as highly distracted, and often very poor, social studies teachers. In a university town, college coaches impose a burden on the public schools as well. The current corruption rumor in my town is that the wife of the University's basketball coach got an assistant principal's job that she wasn't qualified for. Maybe that's because her husband the coach is a surprising 6-2 in the Ohio Valley Conference in his first year. Even in the very low mid-majors, winning a couple of games can land your wife a plum job.
3. Racism Central High Revisited. Allen Central High School in Prestonsburg, KY is still flying its rebel flags at most football and basketball games. However, they decided to put the battle flags away tonight because they were playing a team with a black player. What Allen Central should do is change their name to Martin Luther King, jr. High School. I'm serious. Confederate flaggers like the people at Allen Central claim that they wave the battle flags to show "Southern pride." Martin Luther King is the most eminent Southerner since Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and is much more highly thought of than contemporary Southern presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George Bush. One would think that any Southern high school would be proud to name themselves after King. Likewise, the people at Allen Central claim that the Confederate flag represents "rebel spirit." Who was more of a rebel than Martin Luther King who took on the whole social and political establishment of the White South in his campaigns against segregation. And unlike the Confederates, Martin Luther King was a victorious rebel who won victory after victory in Southern cities, spurred the adaption of revolutionary civil rights legislation, and changed the hearts of millions. To the contrary, the Confederacy was particularly undignified in Kentucky where Confederate raider John Hunt Morgan blazed a crime wave of bank robberies as he moved through his home state of Kentucky and local Confederate generals like John Bell Hood proved to be particularly inept. Martin Luther King is a far better representative of rebel spirit than the Confederacy. Perhaps Allen Central could become the Martin Luther King High Mountain Mavericks.
1. Growing Into My Stereotype. Today, I took a big step toward growing into an Eastern Kentucky stereotype. That's because one of my teeth was extracted at a dental office in a very prosperous little medical office complex in Lexington, Kentucky. No teeth is just as big a stereotype for Appalachian whites as gold teeth are for urban blacks. Perhaps I should write to a Lexington television station to offer myself for interviews. Not having teeth seems to be a prerequisite for being interviewed on camera by the Lexington stations or appearing in documentaries.
2. Win a Couple of Games And . . . One of the banes of the Kentucky public school system is coaches--especially football coaches and basketball coaches. There are 6th, 7th, and 8th grade basketball teams as well as junior varsity and varsity teams and a lot of those coaches end up working as highly distracted, and often very poor, social studies teachers. In a university town, college coaches impose a burden on the public schools as well. The current corruption rumor in my town is that the wife of the University's basketball coach got an assistant principal's job that she wasn't qualified for. Maybe that's because her husband the coach is a surprising 6-2 in the Ohio Valley Conference in his first year. Even in the very low mid-majors, winning a couple of games can land your wife a plum job.
3. Racism Central High Revisited. Allen Central High School in Prestonsburg, KY is still flying its rebel flags at most football and basketball games. However, they decided to put the battle flags away tonight because they were playing a team with a black player. What Allen Central should do is change their name to Martin Luther King, jr. High School. I'm serious. Confederate flaggers like the people at Allen Central claim that they wave the battle flags to show "Southern pride." Martin Luther King is the most eminent Southerner since Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and is much more highly thought of than contemporary Southern presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George Bush. One would think that any Southern high school would be proud to name themselves after King. Likewise, the people at Allen Central claim that the Confederate flag represents "rebel spirit." Who was more of a rebel than Martin Luther King who took on the whole social and political establishment of the White South in his campaigns against segregation. And unlike the Confederates, Martin Luther King was a victorious rebel who won victory after victory in Southern cities, spurred the adaption of revolutionary civil rights legislation, and changed the hearts of millions. To the contrary, the Confederacy was particularly undignified in Kentucky where Confederate raider John Hunt Morgan blazed a crime wave of bank robberies as he moved through his home state of Kentucky and local Confederate generals like John Bell Hood proved to be particularly inept. Martin Luther King is a far better representative of rebel spirit than the Confederacy. Perhaps Allen Central could become the Martin Luther King High Mountain Mavericks.
Turned Upside Down
"Smiling Faces, sometimes, they don't tell the truth."
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been the most smoothly smiling face of the Bush administration. Not given to Dick Cheney's lop-sided sneers or the President's bouts of petulance, Gonzales maintains a placidly smug, smiling countenance as he parries questions about torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and the other criminal activities of the Bush administration.
Gonzales is also the most sovereign liar, a guy who is absolutely convinced of the Bush administration right to refuse to share power, seek approval, consult, or cooperate in any way with Congress, the courts, the media or public opinion.
The current controversy over the Bush administration's refusal to consult with the FISA court over warrantless wiretapping is a great example of the way that the Bush administration looks for opportunities to refuse cooperation. It also represents a rare at least temporary victory for the Bush administration.
A 1978 law set up a system where the executive branch would seek the approval of a secret court, the FISA court, for national security wiretaps outside the normal process. That approval was either always or almost always given.
After 9-11, the Bush administration stopped seeking FISA court approval for the wiretaps with Gonzales citing the need for "speed and agility." It turned out, however, that the FISA law allows the executive branch to initiate the wiretaps and then seek approval later. It would be more accurate to say that the Bush administration refused to cooperate with the FISA courts just because the law said they had to. This way, the Bush administration was not obliged to seek the approval it would have gotten anyway.
This week, the Bush administration announced an agreement with a FISA judge that they could proceed with wiretaps without seeking FISA court approval. In other words, the Bush administration now has FISA court approval for avoiding the FISA court. When Gonzales testified before Congress, he looked like the cat who had swallowed a canary.
The victory may be temporary though. Unlike Congress, the courts don't have to generate a broad political consensus in order to override administrative abuses. In the final analysis, the courts have proven to be the only immediately effective check on the Bush administration.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been the most smoothly smiling face of the Bush administration. Not given to Dick Cheney's lop-sided sneers or the President's bouts of petulance, Gonzales maintains a placidly smug, smiling countenance as he parries questions about torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and the other criminal activities of the Bush administration.
Gonzales is also the most sovereign liar, a guy who is absolutely convinced of the Bush administration right to refuse to share power, seek approval, consult, or cooperate in any way with Congress, the courts, the media or public opinion.
The current controversy over the Bush administration's refusal to consult with the FISA court over warrantless wiretapping is a great example of the way that the Bush administration looks for opportunities to refuse cooperation. It also represents a rare at least temporary victory for the Bush administration.
A 1978 law set up a system where the executive branch would seek the approval of a secret court, the FISA court, for national security wiretaps outside the normal process. That approval was either always or almost always given.
After 9-11, the Bush administration stopped seeking FISA court approval for the wiretaps with Gonzales citing the need for "speed and agility." It turned out, however, that the FISA law allows the executive branch to initiate the wiretaps and then seek approval later. It would be more accurate to say that the Bush administration refused to cooperate with the FISA courts just because the law said they had to. This way, the Bush administration was not obliged to seek the approval it would have gotten anyway.
This week, the Bush administration announced an agreement with a FISA judge that they could proceed with wiretaps without seeking FISA court approval. In other words, the Bush administration now has FISA court approval for avoiding the FISA court. When Gonzales testified before Congress, he looked like the cat who had swallowed a canary.
The victory may be temporary though. Unlike Congress, the courts don't have to generate a broad political consensus in order to override administrative abuses. In the final analysis, the courts have proven to be the only immediately effective check on the Bush administration.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
RSI scoops Novak
Today, Robert Novak reports on the "gloom and doom" among Republican politicos who worry that the unpopularity of Bush's surge will make 2008 even worse than 2006 from their perspective.
But RSI arrived at the landslide first. Over the last month, I've posted on the landslide theme here, here, and most recently here. According to Evans, Republican pessimism stems from the realization that the Maliki government is never going to clamp down on the Shiite militias and death squads. In the real world that Republicans don't recognize, the surge would be even more destabilizing if Maliki or the U. S. military were to confront the Shiite militias and death squads. Still, the likely failure of the surge will turn the Republican presidential nominee into the 21st century version of Walter Mondale and drag down the rest of the ticket with him.
Interesting enough, liberal bloggers like Matthew Yglesias and Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly are relatively suspicious of the landshide possibilities. As is the case with most liberal observers, years of weak Democratic leadership have conditioned Yglesias and Drum to doubt that the Democrats could take full advantage of Republican weakness. To the contrary, I suspect that the Democrats will have an embarrassment of riches in 2008. They'll be able to choose between two very capable candidates in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama even though they could run a potted plant and still win.
But RSI arrived at the landslide first. Over the last month, I've posted on the landslide theme here, here, and most recently here. According to Evans, Republican pessimism stems from the realization that the Maliki government is never going to clamp down on the Shiite militias and death squads. In the real world that Republicans don't recognize, the surge would be even more destabilizing if Maliki or the U. S. military were to confront the Shiite militias and death squads. Still, the likely failure of the surge will turn the Republican presidential nominee into the 21st century version of Walter Mondale and drag down the rest of the ticket with him.
Interesting enough, liberal bloggers like Matthew Yglesias and Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly are relatively suspicious of the landshide possibilities. As is the case with most liberal observers, years of weak Democratic leadership have conditioned Yglesias and Drum to doubt that the Democrats could take full advantage of Republican weakness. To the contrary, I suspect that the Democrats will have an embarrassment of riches in 2008. They'll be able to choose between two very capable candidates in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama even though they could run a potted plant and still win.
No Confidence
Last night, Jacob Weisberg of Slate characterized the upcoming Senate resolutions on the surge as a "vote of no confidence" in the Bush administration. That's about right. The Senate resolution won't stop the Bush administration from increasing the number of troops, but it serves as official confirmation of what everybody knows--that President Bush has lost the support of Congress and the American public.
More Shots for Schottenheimer
Last week, sportswriters had Marty Schottenheimer of the San Diego Chargers dead, buried, and fired after the Chargers' playoff loss to the Patriots. However, expectations were confounded when the Chargers decided to bring back Schottenheimer for another year. Under Schottenheimer, the Chargers have gone from doormat to regular season dominance, but sportswriters think that "it don't mean a thing if you can't get a Super Bowl ring."
But that's more a matter of sportswriter bias than anything else. Sportswriters don't understand the technical aspects of football very well, but they can count how many times a coach or player has been to the Super Bowl. So they keep things simple by focusing on the ring. However, winning the Super Bowl is usually a matter of things that neither coaches or players can control at playoff time--getting hot at the right time (last year's Steelers), getting the right supporting cast for a dominant player (Green Bay with Brett Favre and Denver with John Elway), or organizational dominance (New England, San Francisco). Coaches like Marty Schottenheimer and Tony Dungy who have achieved consistent excellence in the intensely competetive NFL deserve enormous credit whether they win Super Bowls or not.
The same is the case with players. Even if Peyton Manning of the Colts never gets to a Super Bowl, he'll still be right up there with Joe Montana and John Elway as one of the best players ever to play a game.
Marty Schottenheimer had a great year as a coach. There shouldn't have been any doubt about whether he should be brought back again.
But that's more a matter of sportswriter bias than anything else. Sportswriters don't understand the technical aspects of football very well, but they can count how many times a coach or player has been to the Super Bowl. So they keep things simple by focusing on the ring. However, winning the Super Bowl is usually a matter of things that neither coaches or players can control at playoff time--getting hot at the right time (last year's Steelers), getting the right supporting cast for a dominant player (Green Bay with Brett Favre and Denver with John Elway), or organizational dominance (New England, San Francisco). Coaches like Marty Schottenheimer and Tony Dungy who have achieved consistent excellence in the intensely competetive NFL deserve enormous credit whether they win Super Bowls or not.
The same is the case with players. Even if Peyton Manning of the Colts never gets to a Super Bowl, he'll still be right up there with Joe Montana and John Elway as one of the best players ever to play a game.
Marty Schottenheimer had a great year as a coach. There shouldn't have been any doubt about whether he should be brought back again.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
In Search of Credible Government
Near the beginning of the Bush administration's seventh year, the United States does not have credible government. The Bush administration is no longer credible to either the rest of the American elite or the broad American public. However, the public is not sure yet whether it wants primary responsibility for the country's welfare to be taken up by other institutions. The Bush administration has been furiously pumping air into the balloon of presidential power, but they may find power shifting away from them in the most dramatic fashion possible.
Vice-President Dick Cheney's comment about not running a war "by committee" illustrate the problem. In fact, the Bush administration has proven to the public that it cannot manage either the war in Iraq or domestic policy effectively. That's why Bush's job approval numbers in the U. S. aren't much better than his job approval numbers in France. A landslide majority of the public does not think the Bush administration is capable of effective government.
The Bush administration does not care what the public thinks any more than it cares what Congress, the Democrats, the media, or the UN thinks. Even though the President knew that the 2006 election was a repudiation of the war, he was happy to stick it to the public by escalating the war effort. But, the administration does not want Congress to cut off war funding, close Guantanamo, shut down warrantless wiretapping, or stop the rendition program. That is why they are now showing a willingness to compromise on small things like the deal on warrantless wiretapping announced today by Attorney General Gonzales. This is the Bush administration's end game, to largely defy the rest of American society but not defy the social consensus enough to trigger a Congressional effort to shut down their signature policies.
The Democratic Congressional leadership is in a very different boat. On the day after their election, the Democrats wanted to play it safe. In other words, they were willing to let the Bush administration continue to fail in Iraq and bumble at home while passing a safe and popular legislative program. However, the Bush administration's escalation of the war is proving to be so unpopular that the Democratic Congress may inherit the mantle of legitimate leadership. In that case, the Democrats will have the extremely difficult task of both rendering the Bush administration harmless and leading the country themselves in a time of war. In this context, the job of the Democrats is to keep pushing the administration on the war, keep investigating all their abusive practices, and keep their fingers in the breeze to see how far public opinion wants them to go in challenging the authority of the President.
Reponsibility for the public welfare has fallen almost entirely on the Democrats. Figuring out how to effectively carry out that responsibility while being burdened by the immature provocations of the Bush administration is going to be a tricky business.
Vice-President Dick Cheney's comment about not running a war "by committee" illustrate the problem. In fact, the Bush administration has proven to the public that it cannot manage either the war in Iraq or domestic policy effectively. That's why Bush's job approval numbers in the U. S. aren't much better than his job approval numbers in France. A landslide majority of the public does not think the Bush administration is capable of effective government.
The Bush administration does not care what the public thinks any more than it cares what Congress, the Democrats, the media, or the UN thinks. Even though the President knew that the 2006 election was a repudiation of the war, he was happy to stick it to the public by escalating the war effort. But, the administration does not want Congress to cut off war funding, close Guantanamo, shut down warrantless wiretapping, or stop the rendition program. That is why they are now showing a willingness to compromise on small things like the deal on warrantless wiretapping announced today by Attorney General Gonzales. This is the Bush administration's end game, to largely defy the rest of American society but not defy the social consensus enough to trigger a Congressional effort to shut down their signature policies.
The Democratic Congressional leadership is in a very different boat. On the day after their election, the Democrats wanted to play it safe. In other words, they were willing to let the Bush administration continue to fail in Iraq and bumble at home while passing a safe and popular legislative program. However, the Bush administration's escalation of the war is proving to be so unpopular that the Democratic Congress may inherit the mantle of legitimate leadership. In that case, the Democrats will have the extremely difficult task of both rendering the Bush administration harmless and leading the country themselves in a time of war. In this context, the job of the Democrats is to keep pushing the administration on the war, keep investigating all their abusive practices, and keep their fingers in the breeze to see how far public opinion wants them to go in challenging the authority of the President.
Reponsibility for the public welfare has fallen almost entirely on the Democrats. Figuring out how to effectively carry out that responsibility while being burdened by the immature provocations of the Bush administration is going to be a tricky business.
Equality Ironies
Life as a College Prof. I've just had my first two days of classes this semester and one of the things that's always impressed me is the abilities of students at Morehead State University in Eastern Kentucky. Even though Eastern Kentucky is one of the poorest regions in the country and even though most students come in from terrible high schools, the talent can be spotted almost as soon as students begin writing. The fact that most students show that they have abilities despite the disadvantages in this region is a sign that students everywhere, people everywhere, have talent. There is equality in the world.
The problem is that the vast majority of students don't believe in equality. Instead, they believe in the domination of those who make the right "choices" over those who don't. Students believe that the number of people who have what it takes is small while most people are dumb-asses, losers, or any other of the hundreds of words we use to characterize failure. Not realizing the extent to which everybody has talent, the most ambitious students find themselves constantly bothered by questions of whether they have real ability.
The problem is that the vast majority of students don't believe in equality. Instead, they believe in the domination of those who make the right "choices" over those who don't. Students believe that the number of people who have what it takes is small while most people are dumb-asses, losers, or any other of the hundreds of words we use to characterize failure. Not realizing the extent to which everybody has talent, the most ambitious students find themselves constantly bothered by questions of whether they have real ability.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Iran Boogie Man
Today's mini-scandal is that Iran has been able to acquire some spare parts for its military aircraft through Pentagon surplus sales. Supposedly, the Defense Department is aiding and abetting the Iranian "threat" through its shoddy sales and accounting practices.
But the surplus sales demonstrate how little Iranian threat there actually is.
In fact, Iran is scrounging spare parts for its 1970's vintage F-14 Tomcat fighters. These were the fighters that the Shah had purchased before he was overthrown. The Iranians are "suspected" of purchasing Russian-made planes of more recent vintage, but F-14's and F-4's are still the backbone of the Iranian Air Force. Currently, Iran is supposed to have 78 F-14's, but only 10 are "suspected to be functional" in the portentous words used by the MSNBC article. Having been built in the 1950's, Iran's F-4's are even older and more out of date than the F-14's. In fact, the F-4's were well out of date before George Bush started training as a pilot in the reserves.
Not exactly intimidating stuff.
Although Iran does have missiles, it does not have enough of a military to defend itself against American attacks, let alone threaten anyone.
But the surplus sales demonstrate how little Iranian threat there actually is.
In fact, Iran is scrounging spare parts for its 1970's vintage F-14 Tomcat fighters. These were the fighters that the Shah had purchased before he was overthrown. The Iranians are "suspected" of purchasing Russian-made planes of more recent vintage, but F-14's and F-4's are still the backbone of the Iranian Air Force. Currently, Iran is supposed to have 78 F-14's, but only 10 are "suspected to be functional" in the portentous words used by the MSNBC article. Having been built in the 1950's, Iran's F-4's are even older and more out of date than the F-14's. In fact, the F-4's were well out of date before George Bush started training as a pilot in the reserves.
Not exactly intimidating stuff.
Although Iran does have missiles, it does not have enough of a military to defend itself against American attacks, let alone threaten anyone.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Drawing Up the Indictment
The Democratic leadership is approaching a crossroads. During the 2006 campaign, the bulk of public opinion was extremely anxious for the Democrats not to be confrontational. People had all the confrontationalism from the Bush administration and the right-wing they could stomach and they did not want the Democrats adding to the burden.
However, the Bush administration's insistence on pursuing the surge in defiance of the outcome of the 2006 elections and the consensus findings of the Iraq Study Group seems to have changed the public mood. A full 70% of the population disapproves of the surge and it looks like more people are beginning to think that the Bush administration needs to be confronted over the lies they told to get into Iraq, the many crimes against humanity they've committed on terrorism suspects, the incompetence with which they have managed the war and more. As a result, the Democratic leadership is feeling pressure to bring the Bush administration to heal. This goes against the instincts of Democratic leaders to lay low and let the Bush administration destroy themselves.
One thing the Democrats can do is draw up an indictment of the full range of abuses involved in the Bush administration's conduct of the war and a good place to start is the enormous volume of lies that the Bush administration told to justify the invasion of Iraq. Here's a partial list of the lies drawn up by whatreallyhappened.com.
"There was the claim about the "Mobile biological weapons laboratories". Proffered in the absence of any real laboratories in the wake of the invasion, photos of these trailers were shown on all the US Mainstream Media, with the claim they while seeming to lack anything suggesting biological processing, these were part of a much larger assembly of multiple trailers that churned out biological weapons of mass destruction. The chief proponent of this hoax was Colin Powell, who presented illustrations such as this one to the United Nations on February 5th, 2003. This claim fell apart when it was revealed that these trailers were nothing more than hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons. This fact was already known to both the US and UK, as a British company manufactured the units and sold them to Iraq.
Colin Powell's speech to the UN was itself one misstatement after another. Powell claimed that Iraq had purchased special aluminum tubes whose only possible use was in uranium enrichment centrifuges. . . Following the invasion, no centrifuges, aluminum or otherwise were found.
Powell also claimed to the United Nations that the photo on the left showed "Decontamination Vehicles". But when United Nations inspectors visited the site after the invasion, they located the vehicles and discovered they were just firefighting equipment.
Powell claimed the Iraqis had illegal rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq. None were ever found.
Powell claimed that the Iraqis had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax. None was ever found.
Powell claimed that Iraq had four tons of VX nerve gas. The UN had already confirmed that it was destroyed.
Powell claimed that Iraq had an aggregate of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical and biological warfare agents. Powell gave no basis for that claim at all, and a DIA report issued the same time directly contradicted the claim. No biological or chemical weapons were found in Iraq following the invasion.
Powell claimed that 122mm warheads found by the UN inspectors were chemical weapons. The warheads were empty, and showed no signs of ever having contained chemical weapons.
Powell claimed that Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles. None were ever found.
Powell claimed to have an audio tape proving that Saddam was supporting Osama Bin Laden. But independent translation of the tape revealed Osama's wish for Saddam's death.
Colin Powell's UN debacle also included spy photos taken from high flying aircraft and spacecraft. On the photos were circles and arrows and labels pointing to various fuzzy white blobs and identifying them as laboratories and storage areas for Saddam's massive weapons of mass destruction program. Nothing in the photos actually suggested what the blobby shapes were and during inspections which followed the invasion, all of them turned out to be rather benign. "
The list of lies in whatreallyhappened.com was actually quite a bit longer, and that was just Colin Powell's lies. They didn't get into Dick Cheney's technique of splattering out lies until one of them stuck.
However, the Bush administration's insistence on pursuing the surge in defiance of the outcome of the 2006 elections and the consensus findings of the Iraq Study Group seems to have changed the public mood. A full 70% of the population disapproves of the surge and it looks like more people are beginning to think that the Bush administration needs to be confronted over the lies they told to get into Iraq, the many crimes against humanity they've committed on terrorism suspects, the incompetence with which they have managed the war and more. As a result, the Democratic leadership is feeling pressure to bring the Bush administration to heal. This goes against the instincts of Democratic leaders to lay low and let the Bush administration destroy themselves.
One thing the Democrats can do is draw up an indictment of the full range of abuses involved in the Bush administration's conduct of the war and a good place to start is the enormous volume of lies that the Bush administration told to justify the invasion of Iraq. Here's a partial list of the lies drawn up by whatreallyhappened.com.
"There was the claim about the "Mobile biological weapons laboratories". Proffered in the absence of any real laboratories in the wake of the invasion, photos of these trailers were shown on all the US Mainstream Media, with the claim they while seeming to lack anything suggesting biological processing, these were part of a much larger assembly of multiple trailers that churned out biological weapons of mass destruction. The chief proponent of this hoax was Colin Powell, who presented illustrations such as this one to the United Nations on February 5th, 2003. This claim fell apart when it was revealed that these trailers were nothing more than hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons. This fact was already known to both the US and UK, as a British company manufactured the units and sold them to Iraq.
Colin Powell's speech to the UN was itself one misstatement after another. Powell claimed that Iraq had purchased special aluminum tubes whose only possible use was in uranium enrichment centrifuges. . . Following the invasion, no centrifuges, aluminum or otherwise were found.
Powell also claimed to the United Nations that the photo on the left showed "Decontamination Vehicles". But when United Nations inspectors visited the site after the invasion, they located the vehicles and discovered they were just firefighting equipment.
Powell claimed the Iraqis had illegal rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq. None were ever found.
Powell claimed that the Iraqis had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax. None was ever found.
Powell claimed that Iraq had four tons of VX nerve gas. The UN had already confirmed that it was destroyed.
Powell claimed that Iraq had an aggregate of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical and biological warfare agents. Powell gave no basis for that claim at all, and a DIA report issued the same time directly contradicted the claim. No biological or chemical weapons were found in Iraq following the invasion.
Powell claimed that 122mm warheads found by the UN inspectors were chemical weapons. The warheads were empty, and showed no signs of ever having contained chemical weapons.
Powell claimed that Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles. None were ever found.
Powell claimed to have an audio tape proving that Saddam was supporting Osama Bin Laden. But independent translation of the tape revealed Osama's wish for Saddam's death.
Colin Powell's UN debacle also included spy photos taken from high flying aircraft and spacecraft. On the photos were circles and arrows and labels pointing to various fuzzy white blobs and identifying them as laboratories and storage areas for Saddam's massive weapons of mass destruction program. Nothing in the photos actually suggested what the blobby shapes were and during inspections which followed the invasion, all of them turned out to be rather benign. "
The list of lies in whatreallyhappened.com was actually quite a bit longer, and that was just Colin Powell's lies. They didn't get into Dick Cheney's technique of splattering out lies until one of them stuck.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
MLK and Color-blindness: A Speech
Martin Luther King and Color-Blindness
Good Evening. I'm very honored to be here tonight. The topic of my talk is what Martin Luther King would say about color-blindness.
Color-blindness is the idea that persons should be seen without regard to race. Advocates of color-blindness argue that racism in the United States is mostly a thing of the past and that America should act “as if” it were already a color-blind society in which everyone thought of themselves as an individual competing for status, income, and security. Over the last twenty years, color-blindness has become the most prominent rationalization for racial inequality and discrimination in American society. Advocates of color-blindness like William Bennett and Shelby Steele oppose affirmative action, oppose remedies for school segregation, oppose attempts to address economic inequalities among whites and blacks, and oppose efforts to reduce black unemployment. In addition, color-blind ideas are used to justify residential segregation, justify employment discrimination, justify police brutality against black citizens, justify mob violence against blacks, and justify racial stereotyping. For sociologist Eduardo de Silva, color-blindness is color-blind racism, and he argues that “color-blind racism serves today as the ideological armor for a covert and institutionalized system” of white supremacy.
What would Dr. King say about the idea of color-blindness? That’s an interesting question. Advocates of color-blindness like to quote the passage from Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” where he says that he dreams of a day his children “will be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin.” But color-blind advocates are disingenuous when they claim that King envisioned a society of competitive individualism. Dr. King usually spoke about black people, he always spoke as a black person, and once again, always spoke with an intense awareness of the racial character of the oppression of black people in American society. When Dr. King talked about 245 years of slavery, he talked about black people as a race; when Dr. King talked about the crippling effect of “the narrow pigeonhole of segregated schools” on black children, he talked about black people as a race (57); when Dr. King talked about the brutality of Sheriffs Bull Connor in Birmingham and Jim Clarke in Selma (184) toward blacks, he talked about black people as a race; when he talked about how “vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will,” (292) he also talked about black people as a race.
The examples of Dr. King talking about African-Americans as a race or as “a people” pile high in his writings. as King sought the most effective way to convey the monstrosity of white oppression and the urgency of resistance among black people as a whole. When King discussed resistance to the civil rights movement, he talked about it in terms of white mobs, white sheriffs, white moderates, white ministers, white businesses, and the white power structure. Likewise, when Dr. King talked about the courage of the students in Little Rock, the Freedom Riders in Mississippi, the civil rights marchers in Birmingham, and the Voting Rights demonstrators in Selma, he saw the bravery of those individuals as examples of the courage and tenacity of all black people.
Finally, Dr. King was speaking of race in 1967 and 1968 when he wrote of the frustration that he shared with black power advocates about black unemployment was still twice that of white unemployment (and black unemployment is still twice as high as white unemployment even today), the fact that most blacks still received second rate educations in segregated schools, the fact that blacks were subject to pervasive housing discrimination, and that blacks were blocked off from the best forms of employment. In response to the persistent discrimination and inequity, Dr. King expanded his agenda to encompass economic justice as well as civil rights laws. King urged African-Americans to patronize black-owned banks, insurance companies, and construction companies. He also organized an affirmative action program called Operation Breadbasket that employed boycotts to force companies into to hire specific quotas of African-Americans in the future (306). Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King believed in affirmative action. Dr. King also supported the establishment by the federal government of a guaranteed annual income (247), advocated a massive economic program along the lines of the Marshall Plan or the GI Bill (366-368) to give job training and better housing conditions to all poor people, and questioned the relation between capitalism and economic exploitation. For Dr. King, the corporate world, the educational establishment, and the federal government were all like the segregated South in that they needed to be radically changed before justice could be achieved.
What would Dr. King say about the advocates of color-blindness. I believe that Dr. King would classify “color-blindness” as a tactic for delaying and denying racial justice. Dr. King had two categories for resistance to the Civil Rights movement. The first was the open rejection of the KKK, White Citizens Councils, and governors like George Wallace of Alabama and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The second form of resistance was the various kinds of temporizing arguments used to criticize the civil rights movement on non-racial grounds such as the claim that blacks were not yet ready for integration, or the notion that desegregation laws should be obeyed because they were “the law” rather than because blacks were human beings and brothers. In many ways, Dr. King thought that the clever rationalizations for resisting integration among white moderates were more of a barrier than open defiance. According to the “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King thought that “lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” I believe the same would be the case if Dr. King were alive today—that Dr. King would view “color-blindness” as an important barrier, perhaps the most important of the ideological barriers, to the achievement of justice and brotherhood for African-Americans; that Dr. King would view the advocates of color-blindness as more of a threat to progress for blacks than all the Klan members and confederate flaggers combined, and that Dr. King would be just as emphatic in his rejection of color-blindness as he was in his rejection of waiting, his rejection of tokenism, his rejection of any claim that African-Americans did not deserve full equality in American society, and his rejection of the on-going discrimination and structural equality that persisted after the passage of Civil Rights legislation in 1964 and 1965.
I also think King would have gone farther. Noting that the advocates of color-blindness are so anxious to quote from his works, Dr. King would ask them to embrace the spirit of his work as well as the letter of the "I have a Dream" speech. King would ask the advocates of color-blindness to acknowledge that a color-blind society cannot be achieved until racial oppression is as played out as the three-cornered hats that George Washington used to wear—in other words, until whites stop practicing racial oppression and blacks stop having to fight oppression. Dr. King would ask advocates of color-blindness to stop attacking affirmative action, defending employment discrimination, and stop defending racial profiling and police violence; Dr. King would ask advocates of color-blindness to fully acknowledge the crucial contribution of the black struggle against white supremacy to American democracy; and Dr. King would ask advocates of color-blindness to accept that a just America is one in which every person shares in the tremendous economic prosperity of this country not just those in the top ½ of 1% wealth bracket. Finally, Dr. King would ask the advocates of color-blindness to redirect their talents and energies to the creation of the racial and economic justice that would make it possible for every person indeed to be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. He would ask that of all of us.
Thank you.
(all number citations from Martin Luther King jr., (ed. by James W. Washington) A Testament of Hope: the Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, jr.)
Good Evening. I'm very honored to be here tonight. The topic of my talk is what Martin Luther King would say about color-blindness.
Color-blindness is the idea that persons should be seen without regard to race. Advocates of color-blindness argue that racism in the United States is mostly a thing of the past and that America should act “as if” it were already a color-blind society in which everyone thought of themselves as an individual competing for status, income, and security. Over the last twenty years, color-blindness has become the most prominent rationalization for racial inequality and discrimination in American society. Advocates of color-blindness like William Bennett and Shelby Steele oppose affirmative action, oppose remedies for school segregation, oppose attempts to address economic inequalities among whites and blacks, and oppose efforts to reduce black unemployment. In addition, color-blind ideas are used to justify residential segregation, justify employment discrimination, justify police brutality against black citizens, justify mob violence against blacks, and justify racial stereotyping. For sociologist Eduardo de Silva, color-blindness is color-blind racism, and he argues that “color-blind racism serves today as the ideological armor for a covert and institutionalized system” of white supremacy.
What would Dr. King say about the idea of color-blindness? That’s an interesting question. Advocates of color-blindness like to quote the passage from Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” where he says that he dreams of a day his children “will be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin.” But color-blind advocates are disingenuous when they claim that King envisioned a society of competitive individualism. Dr. King usually spoke about black people, he always spoke as a black person, and once again, always spoke with an intense awareness of the racial character of the oppression of black people in American society. When Dr. King talked about 245 years of slavery, he talked about black people as a race; when Dr. King talked about the crippling effect of “the narrow pigeonhole of segregated schools” on black children, he talked about black people as a race (57); when Dr. King talked about the brutality of Sheriffs Bull Connor in Birmingham and Jim Clarke in Selma (184) toward blacks, he talked about black people as a race; when he talked about how “vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will,” (292) he also talked about black people as a race.
The examples of Dr. King talking about African-Americans as a race or as “a people” pile high in his writings. as King sought the most effective way to convey the monstrosity of white oppression and the urgency of resistance among black people as a whole. When King discussed resistance to the civil rights movement, he talked about it in terms of white mobs, white sheriffs, white moderates, white ministers, white businesses, and the white power structure. Likewise, when Dr. King talked about the courage of the students in Little Rock, the Freedom Riders in Mississippi, the civil rights marchers in Birmingham, and the Voting Rights demonstrators in Selma, he saw the bravery of those individuals as examples of the courage and tenacity of all black people.
Finally, Dr. King was speaking of race in 1967 and 1968 when he wrote of the frustration that he shared with black power advocates about black unemployment was still twice that of white unemployment (and black unemployment is still twice as high as white unemployment even today), the fact that most blacks still received second rate educations in segregated schools, the fact that blacks were subject to pervasive housing discrimination, and that blacks were blocked off from the best forms of employment. In response to the persistent discrimination and inequity, Dr. King expanded his agenda to encompass economic justice as well as civil rights laws. King urged African-Americans to patronize black-owned banks, insurance companies, and construction companies. He also organized an affirmative action program called Operation Breadbasket that employed boycotts to force companies into to hire specific quotas of African-Americans in the future (306). Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King believed in affirmative action. Dr. King also supported the establishment by the federal government of a guaranteed annual income (247), advocated a massive economic program along the lines of the Marshall Plan or the GI Bill (366-368) to give job training and better housing conditions to all poor people, and questioned the relation between capitalism and economic exploitation. For Dr. King, the corporate world, the educational establishment, and the federal government were all like the segregated South in that they needed to be radically changed before justice could be achieved.
What would Dr. King say about the advocates of color-blindness. I believe that Dr. King would classify “color-blindness” as a tactic for delaying and denying racial justice. Dr. King had two categories for resistance to the Civil Rights movement. The first was the open rejection of the KKK, White Citizens Councils, and governors like George Wallace of Alabama and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The second form of resistance was the various kinds of temporizing arguments used to criticize the civil rights movement on non-racial grounds such as the claim that blacks were not yet ready for integration, or the notion that desegregation laws should be obeyed because they were “the law” rather than because blacks were human beings and brothers. In many ways, Dr. King thought that the clever rationalizations for resisting integration among white moderates were more of a barrier than open defiance. According to the “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King thought that “lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” I believe the same would be the case if Dr. King were alive today—that Dr. King would view “color-blindness” as an important barrier, perhaps the most important of the ideological barriers, to the achievement of justice and brotherhood for African-Americans; that Dr. King would view the advocates of color-blindness as more of a threat to progress for blacks than all the Klan members and confederate flaggers combined, and that Dr. King would be just as emphatic in his rejection of color-blindness as he was in his rejection of waiting, his rejection of tokenism, his rejection of any claim that African-Americans did not deserve full equality in American society, and his rejection of the on-going discrimination and structural equality that persisted after the passage of Civil Rights legislation in 1964 and 1965.
I also think King would have gone farther. Noting that the advocates of color-blindness are so anxious to quote from his works, Dr. King would ask them to embrace the spirit of his work as well as the letter of the "I have a Dream" speech. King would ask the advocates of color-blindness to acknowledge that a color-blind society cannot be achieved until racial oppression is as played out as the three-cornered hats that George Washington used to wear—in other words, until whites stop practicing racial oppression and blacks stop having to fight oppression. Dr. King would ask advocates of color-blindness to stop attacking affirmative action, defending employment discrimination, and stop defending racial profiling and police violence; Dr. King would ask advocates of color-blindness to fully acknowledge the crucial contribution of the black struggle against white supremacy to American democracy; and Dr. King would ask advocates of color-blindness to accept that a just America is one in which every person shares in the tremendous economic prosperity of this country not just those in the top ½ of 1% wealth bracket. Finally, Dr. King would ask the advocates of color-blindness to redirect their talents and energies to the creation of the racial and economic justice that would make it possible for every person indeed to be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. He would ask that of all of us.
Thank you.
(all number citations from Martin Luther King jr., (ed. by James W. Washington) A Testament of Hope: the Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, jr.)
Bush and the Whimpering Renegades
L'Etat c'est George. Dick Cheney's interview on Fox today was the logical outcome of everything he's done as Vice-President since the Bush inaugural. During the interview, Cheney argued that Congressional resolutions against the surge would have no impact on President Bush's conduct of the war. That may be the whole point of the surge. Dahlia Lithwick argues in Slate that the Bush administration has kept Guantanamo open, defied the FISA procedures for getting wiretaps, and tortured prisoners mostly so that they could assert a claim that the President did not have to obey either American or international law. L'Etat c'est George. Perhaps the Bush administration is now trying to demonstrate that a president can conduct a war in defiance of Congress, defiance of the courts, and defiance of public opinion.
The Point of Crisis. Glen Greenwald warns in a compelling blog post that the now-weakened Bush administration may lash out on a major scale as a way to prove their strength to themselves. My own thinking runs in the opposite direction. With the Bush administration committing itself to increasing the number of troops in Iraq, the political initiative is now slipping from Bush's hands to those of the Democratic majority in Congress. Next week, the Democrats are going to pass resolutions rejecting any surge in American troop levels and they're going to get up to 12 Republican votes in support of those resolutions. The next decision that the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate has to make is whether they're going to force a showdown over funding for the Iraq War. The leadership would rather be cautious, but it looks like public opinion might force their hand. The Democratic Congress is now the only credible part of government on the federal level and the the Democrats will be forced to push for a cut-off if public opinion hardens in that direction.
The Clock is Ticking Down: At this point, it's difficult to predict how the Bush administration would respond if Congress did cut off funds for the war. Conceivably, Bush and Cheney could defy the cut-off by unilaterally transferring funds for other accounts. They could also use the occasion to wash their hands of the failed war in Iraq and hope that future events like another 9-11 ultimately justify their position. Perhaps the chances for the former are better. The clock is ticking down on the Bush administration--there are 2 years and 6 days to go. Right now, I think the renegade administration of George Bush and Dick Cheney will go out with a whimper rather than a bang.
The Point of Crisis. Glen Greenwald warns in a compelling blog post that the now-weakened Bush administration may lash out on a major scale as a way to prove their strength to themselves. My own thinking runs in the opposite direction. With the Bush administration committing itself to increasing the number of troops in Iraq, the political initiative is now slipping from Bush's hands to those of the Democratic majority in Congress. Next week, the Democrats are going to pass resolutions rejecting any surge in American troop levels and they're going to get up to 12 Republican votes in support of those resolutions. The next decision that the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate has to make is whether they're going to force a showdown over funding for the Iraq War. The leadership would rather be cautious, but it looks like public opinion might force their hand. The Democratic Congress is now the only credible part of government on the federal level and the the Democrats will be forced to push for a cut-off if public opinion hardens in that direction.
The Clock is Ticking Down: At this point, it's difficult to predict how the Bush administration would respond if Congress did cut off funds for the war. Conceivably, Bush and Cheney could defy the cut-off by unilaterally transferring funds for other accounts. They could also use the occasion to wash their hands of the failed war in Iraq and hope that future events like another 9-11 ultimately justify their position. Perhaps the chances for the former are better. The clock is ticking down on the Bush administration--there are 2 years and 6 days to go. Right now, I think the renegade administration of George Bush and Dick Cheney will go out with a whimper rather than a bang.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Martin Luther King on War
Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution quoted the passage below from a King speech in 1967 as part of an essay on the response of Christians to the war in Iraq.
"I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."
However, King's comment resonates far more broadly in American society than that. The U. S. is the most violent of the advanced industrial nations by far. There's more murder, more rape, more police, more prisoners, more prisons, and more executions than any of the countries of Western Europe or Japan. Almost as heartbreaking as the violence itself is the way that violence is romanticized in the American media. It is hard to say which American television, movies, and popular music romanticize more: theft, fraud, murder, and serial murder or the almost equally violent investigation and punishment of crimes by the police apparatus. In fact, the glamorization of violence by the media is so pervasive that it is almost impossible to escape or avoid.
Nevertheless, it is important to remember King's observation that "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" is our own government. We normally associate the evil of violence with "bad guys" like Osama bin Laden, but the destruction that the Bush administration has caused in Iraq--perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead-- outstrips anything that bin Laden has either done or projected. Going even beyond that, the right-wing routinely rhapsodizes over the possibility of upping the level of violence in the Middle East to WWII levels where we nuked Hiroshima and firebombed Hamburg and Dresden.
Obviously, America can't just give up the path of violence cold turkey. If we did we would have the cultural version of delirium tremens, the hallucinatory disorder that alcoholics and drug addicts fall into when they stop consuming their substance of choice too quickly. But we can resume the work of developing alternative skills and strategies for dealing with problems both here and abroad.
"I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."
However, King's comment resonates far more broadly in American society than that. The U. S. is the most violent of the advanced industrial nations by far. There's more murder, more rape, more police, more prisoners, more prisons, and more executions than any of the countries of Western Europe or Japan. Almost as heartbreaking as the violence itself is the way that violence is romanticized in the American media. It is hard to say which American television, movies, and popular music romanticize more: theft, fraud, murder, and serial murder or the almost equally violent investigation and punishment of crimes by the police apparatus. In fact, the glamorization of violence by the media is so pervasive that it is almost impossible to escape or avoid.
Nevertheless, it is important to remember King's observation that "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" is our own government. We normally associate the evil of violence with "bad guys" like Osama bin Laden, but the destruction that the Bush administration has caused in Iraq--perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead-- outstrips anything that bin Laden has either done or projected. Going even beyond that, the right-wing routinely rhapsodizes over the possibility of upping the level of violence in the Middle East to WWII levels where we nuked Hiroshima and firebombed Hamburg and Dresden.
Obviously, America can't just give up the path of violence cold turkey. If we did we would have the cultural version of delirium tremens, the hallucinatory disorder that alcoholics and drug addicts fall into when they stop consuming their substance of choice too quickly. But we can resume the work of developing alternative skills and strategies for dealing with problems both here and abroad.
Friday, January 12, 2007
The Dance of Bigotry
Creative Bigotry. Another semester is about ready to start at Morehead State University in Kentucky next week. Because I teach African-American thought early in my Intro to Political Theory class, one of the first things I encounter is the newest rationales for racism. When ideas like "blacks are just as racist as whites" peter out, new or recycled ideas like "stereotypes are real" pop up to take their place. Last fall, a student told me to the approval of other white students that racism was causeded by "blacks complaining about racism." Like other dimensions of American culture, white racism has a creative vitality.
Dancing around Anti-immigrant bigotry. In Texas, the town of Farmers Branch near Dallas has adaopted legislation that bans illegal immigrants from renting apartments. According to businessman Andrew Mungeon, the whites in town "don't like Mexicans" and passed anti-immigrant legislation as a result of their bigotry. Illegals, legal immigrants, and Hispanics in general responded by moving out of Farmers Branch and even avoiding the town.
For Tom Bohmier, the leader of a group backing "the city's push against illegal immigration," the charge of ethnic bias is "hogwash. We're going after illegal immigrants." But then he added the kicker: "the message is we are trying to slow down the degradation of our city." "The degradation of our city" is a code phrase for the sentiment that hearing Spanish spoken in the streets and stores, seeing commercial advertisements in Spanish, and the presence of brown-skinned people is a "degradation" of traditional culture, i. e., white culture. Of course, the sentiment that any Hispanic presence beyond tokenism is a "degradation" is a very powerful ethnic bias. Like "color-blind" rhetoric in relation to blacks, opposition to illegal immigration is a mask for a desire to cleanse American society of hispanic culture.
Entangling White Liberals. White liberals generally don't recognize the extent to which the traditional bigotries have begun to entangle them as well. Today's Houston Chronicle has a comment on the efforts of conservative Southern Republicans to use "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" as an adjective --as in Democrat Party, Democrat proposals, and "Democrat" members of Congress. The official rationale for this effort is the idea that "Democratic" has a favorable association with "democracy" that Republicans want to deny to the Democrats. But the real reason is the underlying sense of power over the Democrats that conservatives can claim by "naming" them something they don't want to be called. The ungrammatical sound of "Democrat" Party is also appealing to the anti-intellectualism of conservatives. By imposing "Democrat" as an adjective, conservatives can impose their own sense of moral superiority on the liberal artsy-ness they associate with the Democrats. From the right-wing point of view, liberals are associated with fields like law, science, and the arts, and these fields are characterized in terms of deficiencies in manhood and power--in other words as gay or feminine. In giving the Democrats an ungrammatical name, conservatives experience themselves as imposing their values over wimpy, limp-wristed liberals thus ensnaring white liberals in their homophobia and misogyny.
Dancing around Anti-immigrant bigotry. In Texas, the town of Farmers Branch near Dallas has adaopted legislation that bans illegal immigrants from renting apartments. According to businessman Andrew Mungeon, the whites in town "don't like Mexicans" and passed anti-immigrant legislation as a result of their bigotry. Illegals, legal immigrants, and Hispanics in general responded by moving out of Farmers Branch and even avoiding the town.
For Tom Bohmier, the leader of a group backing "the city's push against illegal immigration," the charge of ethnic bias is "hogwash. We're going after illegal immigrants." But then he added the kicker: "the message is we are trying to slow down the degradation of our city." "The degradation of our city" is a code phrase for the sentiment that hearing Spanish spoken in the streets and stores, seeing commercial advertisements in Spanish, and the presence of brown-skinned people is a "degradation" of traditional culture, i. e., white culture. Of course, the sentiment that any Hispanic presence beyond tokenism is a "degradation" is a very powerful ethnic bias. Like "color-blind" rhetoric in relation to blacks, opposition to illegal immigration is a mask for a desire to cleanse American society of hispanic culture.
Entangling White Liberals. White liberals generally don't recognize the extent to which the traditional bigotries have begun to entangle them as well. Today's Houston Chronicle has a comment on the efforts of conservative Southern Republicans to use "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" as an adjective --as in Democrat Party, Democrat proposals, and "Democrat" members of Congress. The official rationale for this effort is the idea that "Democratic" has a favorable association with "democracy" that Republicans want to deny to the Democrats. But the real reason is the underlying sense of power over the Democrats that conservatives can claim by "naming" them something they don't want to be called. The ungrammatical sound of "Democrat" Party is also appealing to the anti-intellectualism of conservatives. By imposing "Democrat" as an adjective, conservatives can impose their own sense of moral superiority on the liberal artsy-ness they associate with the Democrats. From the right-wing point of view, liberals are associated with fields like law, science, and the arts, and these fields are characterized in terms of deficiencies in manhood and power--in other words as gay or feminine. In giving the Democrats an ungrammatical name, conservatives experience themselves as imposing their values over wimpy, limp-wristed liberals thus ensnaring white liberals in their homophobia and misogyny.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Killer Rabbits Whose Time Has Come
The Troops are Cold. The lead is hot, but the troops are cold. President Bush got a stiff reception among American troops at Fort Benning, Georgia today. Bush used to get wave after wave of enthusiastic ovations from soldiers and Marines. Now, he gets the same stare from the soldiers that he would get from Cindy Sheehan.
Ideas Whose Time Has Come. And Gone. In "The Case Against Tokenism," Martin Luther King cites Victor Hugo as saying "that there is nothing more powerful in all the world than an idea whose time has come." That applies for bad ideas as well as good ones. In late 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was a bad idea whose time had come and anybody who resisted was castigated as a feckless wimp. Almost four years of failed occupation later, the original power of the idea of invasion only enhances the disgust over its failure.
The Rabbit and the L. Like his father, President Bush's popularity was never very stable even when his job approval ratings were 90%. In my posting for the Slate's Fray, I portrayed this instability through images of killer rabbits coming into Bush's boat just like one came into Jimmy Carter's and an "L for loser" appearing on his forehead. Now that 70% of the population disapproves of the surge, it's safe to say that the killer rabbits of helpless incompetence began to fill Bush's boat during the Katrina debacle and that the failure of the Iraq occupation has stuck the "L" permanently on Bush's forehead.
The Countdown. There are 740 days until the inauguration of the next President. After that Bush with his killer rabbits and his" L for loser" on his forehead head back to Texas. Now, that's an idea whose time has already come.
Ideas Whose Time Has Come. And Gone. In "The Case Against Tokenism," Martin Luther King cites Victor Hugo as saying "that there is nothing more powerful in all the world than an idea whose time has come." That applies for bad ideas as well as good ones. In late 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was a bad idea whose time had come and anybody who resisted was castigated as a feckless wimp. Almost four years of failed occupation later, the original power of the idea of invasion only enhances the disgust over its failure.
The Rabbit and the L. Like his father, President Bush's popularity was never very stable even when his job approval ratings were 90%. In my posting for the Slate's Fray, I portrayed this instability through images of killer rabbits coming into Bush's boat just like one came into Jimmy Carter's and an "L for loser" appearing on his forehead. Now that 70% of the population disapproves of the surge, it's safe to say that the killer rabbits of helpless incompetence began to fill Bush's boat during the Katrina debacle and that the failure of the Iraq occupation has stuck the "L" permanently on Bush's forehead.
The Countdown. There are 740 days until the inauguration of the next President. After that Bush with his killer rabbits and his" L for loser" on his forehead head back to Texas. Now, that's an idea whose time has already come.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Bush Talking into a Familiar Void
President Bush was stripped down to essentials in his speech tonight. There was no smirk, no swagger, no inspiring anecdotes, no Michael Gerson poetics, no vibe with his audience, and no real effort to convince. All George Bush offered was an "I'm going to keep doing this" to a public that was not interested in listening. In fact, you could almost feel the contempt of the American public on President Bush as he spoke, feel the depth of our desire not to see or hear him anymore. Peering into this particular void is something that President Bush has done many times, as a drunken son confronting his father, a thoughtless student seeing his teachers, a failed businessman meeting creditors, and losing Congressional candidate seeing the rejection in the eyes of his voters. Perhaps President Bush is as familiar with this experience as he is with anything else in the world. Perhaps he has had the tragic sense that he would face the depths of contempt again as President.
Many people learn from failure and rejection and become more thoughtful, mature, and wiser men and women as a result. To the contrary, much of what has defined George Bush as a person has been his refusal to learn from his failures or grow as a human being.
That refusal to mature was on painful display again in tonight's speech. Although President Bush has switched some of the tools in his Iraq policy kit, he is not changing his thinking in any substantial way. As was the case at the time of the invasion, President Bush's speech tonight employed a set of magical assumptions to make the transition from American occupation to democratic self-government seem plausible in Iraq.
Before last November's Congressional elections in the United States, Bush and his advisers assumed that elections would have the magical effect of reconciling Shiite and Sunni, drying up support for insurgents and militias, and creating effective Iraqi government. The opposite has been the case. Elected Iraqi politicians have been so lackadaisical that it took them six months to even form a government while the government itself has been monumentally corrupt and ineffective. It was also riddled with militia loyalists. Thus, when the Samarra mosque was destroyed Shiite militias were armed to the teeth, committed to militancy, and ready to engage in the death squad campaigns that have since engulfed Baghdad and the surrounding area.
In tonight's speech, President Bush claimed that there were no magic bullets for the situation in Iraq, then made several magical assumptions anyway. The first was that embedding the extra five brigades of American troops in Iraqi units would make it possible for the Iraqi Army to take the lead in secure Baghdad. Embedding American troops in Iraqi units was a suggestion of the Iraq Study Group and Iraqi troops certainly have fought better alongside Americans. However, the assumption that the Iraqi Army can take the leading role in reconquering Baghdad is pie in the sky thinking on a large scale. Shiite militias like the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army are already embedded in the Iraqi Army and it is unlikely that the Iraqi Army is going to be either motivated to fight or perhaps even fight at all when they are called upon to invade Shiite neighborhoods and confront the Shiite militias. Moreover, an American/Iraqi invasion of Shiite neighborhoods could spark the same kind of mass revolt among Shiites as the American presence in Anbar has sparked among Sunnis. Ultimately, the new American policies for Baghdad have a better chance of making things worse than better.
After President Bush assumed that Baghdad would become secure, he further assumed that security would bring about reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites around the elected government. This is not a plausible way of thinking. It is the fathers and sons of those Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods that the American/Iraqi forces are going to be attacking this spring. If neighborhood men of military are either killed or (more likely) forced to move out, there is going to be a small likelihood of any kind of reconciliation with the Iraqi/American military let alone their traditional sectarian enemies. As the philosopher John Locke noted, military conquest usually results in a continued state of war between the conqueror and the subject population. That has been the case between American troops and the population of Anbar. Even if American forces and our allies reconquer Baghdad, it is likely that the population will remain hostile to both us and their usual enemies.
President Bush has always thought that if he showed enough "will," these kinds of problems would just go away. Like magic! Of course, that hasn't been the case and that's why all the previous Bush administration plans for "Victory in Iraq" have failed so completely. As he enteres the last two years of his administration, President Bush is letting the American public know that he is about to change his thinking now. He's listening to us as little as we're listening to him.
Many people learn from failure and rejection and become more thoughtful, mature, and wiser men and women as a result. To the contrary, much of what has defined George Bush as a person has been his refusal to learn from his failures or grow as a human being.
That refusal to mature was on painful display again in tonight's speech. Although President Bush has switched some of the tools in his Iraq policy kit, he is not changing his thinking in any substantial way. As was the case at the time of the invasion, President Bush's speech tonight employed a set of magical assumptions to make the transition from American occupation to democratic self-government seem plausible in Iraq.
Before last November's Congressional elections in the United States, Bush and his advisers assumed that elections would have the magical effect of reconciling Shiite and Sunni, drying up support for insurgents and militias, and creating effective Iraqi government. The opposite has been the case. Elected Iraqi politicians have been so lackadaisical that it took them six months to even form a government while the government itself has been monumentally corrupt and ineffective. It was also riddled with militia loyalists. Thus, when the Samarra mosque was destroyed Shiite militias were armed to the teeth, committed to militancy, and ready to engage in the death squad campaigns that have since engulfed Baghdad and the surrounding area.
In tonight's speech, President Bush claimed that there were no magic bullets for the situation in Iraq, then made several magical assumptions anyway. The first was that embedding the extra five brigades of American troops in Iraqi units would make it possible for the Iraqi Army to take the lead in secure Baghdad. Embedding American troops in Iraqi units was a suggestion of the Iraq Study Group and Iraqi troops certainly have fought better alongside Americans. However, the assumption that the Iraqi Army can take the leading role in reconquering Baghdad is pie in the sky thinking on a large scale. Shiite militias like the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army are already embedded in the Iraqi Army and it is unlikely that the Iraqi Army is going to be either motivated to fight or perhaps even fight at all when they are called upon to invade Shiite neighborhoods and confront the Shiite militias. Moreover, an American/Iraqi invasion of Shiite neighborhoods could spark the same kind of mass revolt among Shiites as the American presence in Anbar has sparked among Sunnis. Ultimately, the new American policies for Baghdad have a better chance of making things worse than better.
After President Bush assumed that Baghdad would become secure, he further assumed that security would bring about reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites around the elected government. This is not a plausible way of thinking. It is the fathers and sons of those Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods that the American/Iraqi forces are going to be attacking this spring. If neighborhood men of military are either killed or (more likely) forced to move out, there is going to be a small likelihood of any kind of reconciliation with the Iraqi/American military let alone their traditional sectarian enemies. As the philosopher John Locke noted, military conquest usually results in a continued state of war between the conqueror and the subject population. That has been the case between American troops and the population of Anbar. Even if American forces and our allies reconquer Baghdad, it is likely that the population will remain hostile to both us and their usual enemies.
President Bush has always thought that if he showed enough "will," these kinds of problems would just go away. Like magic! Of course, that hasn't been the case and that's why all the previous Bush administration plans for "Victory in Iraq" have failed so completely. As he enteres the last two years of his administration, President Bush is letting the American public know that he is about to change his thinking now. He's listening to us as little as we're listening to him.
Down to George W., Laura, and the dog?
Last fall, President Bush said he wouldn't withdraw from Iraq even if Laura and his dog Barney were the only ones supporting him.
Well, it's almost gotten to that.
According to a Washington Post report today, the support for President Bush's plan to increase the American troop presence in Baghdad is limited to White House aides, hawks like John McCain, and think tank neo-conservatives like Frederick Kagan. Everybody else--most of the military brass, the Democratic majority in Congress, and public opinion are opposed to the President. The split in public opinion is interesting. A majority of the American public opposes the surge by a small 48%-45% margin. But disapproval of the surge is somewhat of a velvet glove over the iron fist of 72% disapproval of Bush's handling of the war.
Republicans in Congress "ask not" for whom the bell of 72% disapproval tolls--they know it tolls for them in the 2008 election. As a result, Republican leaders like Trent Lott are withholding their approval as well.
The President's speech is tonight. Perhaps Laura should bring his dog as a show of support.
Well, it's almost gotten to that.
According to a Washington Post report today, the support for President Bush's plan to increase the American troop presence in Baghdad is limited to White House aides, hawks like John McCain, and think tank neo-conservatives like Frederick Kagan. Everybody else--most of the military brass, the Democratic majority in Congress, and public opinion are opposed to the President. The split in public opinion is interesting. A majority of the American public opposes the surge by a small 48%-45% margin. But disapproval of the surge is somewhat of a velvet glove over the iron fist of 72% disapproval of Bush's handling of the war.
Republicans in Congress "ask not" for whom the bell of 72% disapproval tolls--they know it tolls for them in the 2008 election. As a result, Republican leaders like Trent Lott are withholding their approval as well.
The President's speech is tonight. Perhaps Laura should bring his dog as a show of support.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Maybe The Right Should Be Concerned
Conservative authors like Peter Wood seem to be awfully worried about civility these days. Perhaps they fear that the failure of the Bush administration is going to expose them to widespread public scorn and are seeking to head it off in advance.
Sources of Counter-Surge
The Basic Surge Idea: According to Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the new ground commander in Iraq, the plan for the upcoming operations of American and Iraqi forces in Bagdad will be to target the Shiite militias as well as the neighborhoods that host Sunni insurgents. By July or August, he expects to have established military control over Baghdad at which point it would seem that civilian economic and political reconstruction would take higher priority.
The idea would be to clear extremist Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents out of Baghdad, then hold them through civilian reconstruction. Odierno think the overall project would take two to three years.
Sounds relatively simple doesn't it?
Unfortunately, Odierno and the American command make the mistaken assumption that American military power is stronger than the Iraqi resistance. Ultimately, this is not the case. Gen. Odierno is confident American troops can defeat both the Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias in battle and force them far enough underground than they are no longer able to operate in the open. However, there are many reasons to think that the Iraqi resistance can either pick the American occupiers to death or engage in their own kind of counter-surge. Either way, the Iraqis may turn out to be the stronger force. Drawing from a June 19 post to my "Caric Comment" blog, I ouline some reasons for thinking this below.
1. Religious/Ethnic Fervor. The first and most important reason is the escalating religious sectarianism of both the Shiite and Sunni populations. Outside Kurdish controlled areas, Iraq is a much more religiously motivated society than it was before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the intensity of sectarian passion on both the Sunni and Shiite sides has made much of the country into an ethnic and religious tinderbox. The power of Muslim sectarianism in Iraqi society can be seen in the explosion of violence after the Samarra bombing in March. When new American troops come into Baghdad, they will only be seeking to control the outcomes of heightened sectarianism in death squad killings and other violence. They won't have any impact on the intensified religiosity and sectarian communal solidarity itself.
The first potential challenge would most likely come from the Shiite community. If the U. S. seeks to destroy the Mahdi Army and it's political, military, and social service apparatus, they could be faced with a general revolt by the Shiite population, especially the people in the Sadr City slum. If that's the case, then the first result of the American surge will have been a major escalation of the popular insurgency and American troops would have to put down the revolt before they sought to establish order.
If the Shiite population does not revolt, there is the likelihood that the Mahdi Army apparatus would fragment (in the same way that the Sunni insurgency fragmented) with small groups of Shiites making it their business to pick off American troops through bomb attacks, small arms fire, and a mortar here and there. While seeking to suppress the low level attacks, the American military command would have to be very wary of not doing anything to spark a large-scale Shiite uprising through indiscriminate killings, targeting the wrong people, and the like. They would also have to worry about not sparking widespread civil disobedience campaigns.
2. Hostility to Occupation. A second source for mutating crises is the hostility of the Iraqi Arab population to the occupation. From the grieving relatives of those killed by the occupation armies, to teen-agers cheering the destruction of American vehicles, to Prime Minister Maliki complaining about the frequent murders of Iraqi civilians, the occupation long ago wore out its welcome with the host Iraqi population. Another 7,500 to 20,000 busy American troops is going to frustrate the Iraqi population much further. Given that Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias are thoroughly embedded in Baghdad neighborhoods, clearing out the militias might mean having to conquer and occupy the whole populations of the neighborhoods in question. That would only make local residents even more disposed to house the insurgents, volunteer for suicide attacks, provide warnings for American troops, and the like.
3. Ineffective Government. The third reason for the relative strength of the insurgency is the relative weakness of the Iraqi government. The inexperience of Iraqi politicians with governing makes the infiltration of the government by insurgents and sectarian militias easy, corruption an appealing first choice, compromise extremely difficult, and concerted action apparently impossible. Needless to say, the Iraqi government has not been able to exercise control over the hostile Sunni population. However, it doesn't seem to exercise any kind of legitimate authority over its Shiite constituents or its own personnel either. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is speaking a lot of brave words about punishing military units that don't report to Bagdad for surge operations, but it seems doubtful that Maliki and Iraqi generals can count on Shiite soldiers to suppress (rather than join) the Shiite militias. The Iraqi government is an especially flimsy paper tiger.
4. The Bush administration. Finally, there is the lack of effort by the Bush administration. It would be a lot easier for the Americans to deal with the problems of Baghdad if people in Baghdad had 24 hours of electricity, readily available gas, and stable employment. There is talk of doubling the money for economic reconstruction, but that will probably be a drop in the bucket. Ultimately, the Bush administration is not strong enough to change any of the economic conditions that contribute to continually escalating violence in Iraq.
As a result, the likely outcome of the surge is the same as the drug war in the United States. Like the DEA and the police in the United States, the American military will be very active, exercise a lot of ingenuity, and round up a lot of bad guys. However, because the American military does not have the power to dampen religious sectarianism, overcome hostility to the occupation, or strengthen the Iraqi government, American generals will find themselves in a situation where small incidents can morph into large-scale surges in violence that render the whole operation futile. It's very difficult to see the surge as being anything but another failure.
The idea would be to clear extremist Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents out of Baghdad, then hold them through civilian reconstruction. Odierno think the overall project would take two to three years.
Sounds relatively simple doesn't it?
Unfortunately, Odierno and the American command make the mistaken assumption that American military power is stronger than the Iraqi resistance. Ultimately, this is not the case. Gen. Odierno is confident American troops can defeat both the Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias in battle and force them far enough underground than they are no longer able to operate in the open. However, there are many reasons to think that the Iraqi resistance can either pick the American occupiers to death or engage in their own kind of counter-surge. Either way, the Iraqis may turn out to be the stronger force. Drawing from a June 19 post to my "Caric Comment" blog, I ouline some reasons for thinking this below.
1. Religious/Ethnic Fervor. The first and most important reason is the escalating religious sectarianism of both the Shiite and Sunni populations. Outside Kurdish controlled areas, Iraq is a much more religiously motivated society than it was before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the intensity of sectarian passion on both the Sunni and Shiite sides has made much of the country into an ethnic and religious tinderbox. The power of Muslim sectarianism in Iraqi society can be seen in the explosion of violence after the Samarra bombing in March. When new American troops come into Baghdad, they will only be seeking to control the outcomes of heightened sectarianism in death squad killings and other violence. They won't have any impact on the intensified religiosity and sectarian communal solidarity itself.
The first potential challenge would most likely come from the Shiite community. If the U. S. seeks to destroy the Mahdi Army and it's political, military, and social service apparatus, they could be faced with a general revolt by the Shiite population, especially the people in the Sadr City slum. If that's the case, then the first result of the American surge will have been a major escalation of the popular insurgency and American troops would have to put down the revolt before they sought to establish order.
If the Shiite population does not revolt, there is the likelihood that the Mahdi Army apparatus would fragment (in the same way that the Sunni insurgency fragmented) with small groups of Shiites making it their business to pick off American troops through bomb attacks, small arms fire, and a mortar here and there. While seeking to suppress the low level attacks, the American military command would have to be very wary of not doing anything to spark a large-scale Shiite uprising through indiscriminate killings, targeting the wrong people, and the like. They would also have to worry about not sparking widespread civil disobedience campaigns.
2. Hostility to Occupation. A second source for mutating crises is the hostility of the Iraqi Arab population to the occupation. From the grieving relatives of those killed by the occupation armies, to teen-agers cheering the destruction of American vehicles, to Prime Minister Maliki complaining about the frequent murders of Iraqi civilians, the occupation long ago wore out its welcome with the host Iraqi population. Another 7,500 to 20,000 busy American troops is going to frustrate the Iraqi population much further. Given that Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias are thoroughly embedded in Baghdad neighborhoods, clearing out the militias might mean having to conquer and occupy the whole populations of the neighborhoods in question. That would only make local residents even more disposed to house the insurgents, volunteer for suicide attacks, provide warnings for American troops, and the like.
3. Ineffective Government. The third reason for the relative strength of the insurgency is the relative weakness of the Iraqi government. The inexperience of Iraqi politicians with governing makes the infiltration of the government by insurgents and sectarian militias easy, corruption an appealing first choice, compromise extremely difficult, and concerted action apparently impossible. Needless to say, the Iraqi government has not been able to exercise control over the hostile Sunni population. However, it doesn't seem to exercise any kind of legitimate authority over its Shiite constituents or its own personnel either. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is speaking a lot of brave words about punishing military units that don't report to Bagdad for surge operations, but it seems doubtful that Maliki and Iraqi generals can count on Shiite soldiers to suppress (rather than join) the Shiite militias. The Iraqi government is an especially flimsy paper tiger.
4. The Bush administration. Finally, there is the lack of effort by the Bush administration. It would be a lot easier for the Americans to deal with the problems of Baghdad if people in Baghdad had 24 hours of electricity, readily available gas, and stable employment. There is talk of doubling the money for economic reconstruction, but that will probably be a drop in the bucket. Ultimately, the Bush administration is not strong enough to change any of the economic conditions that contribute to continually escalating violence in Iraq.
As a result, the likely outcome of the surge is the same as the drug war in the United States. Like the DEA and the police in the United States, the American military will be very active, exercise a lot of ingenuity, and round up a lot of bad guys. However, because the American military does not have the power to dampen religious sectarianism, overcome hostility to the occupation, or strengthen the Iraqi government, American generals will find themselves in a situation where small incidents can morph into large-scale surges in violence that render the whole operation futile. It's very difficult to see the surge as being anything but another failure.
Bush's Mormon Rock?
In Utah, support for the Iraq War has fallen to 44%, but President Bush's job approval remains extraordinarily high at 56% in Utah compared to 30% nationwide. It would be interesting to see numbers on President Bush's support among Mormons vs Protestants and Catholics. Perhaps Mormonism serves as a bedrock of President Bush's support much like the Jewish vote for Democrats.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Six Months of RSI
Today is the sixth month anniversary of Red State Impressions. This is the 201st post and I'm pretty happy that I've been able to keep up a six days of posting per week rate. RSI seems to have about 30 readers, mostly from a collection of my Morehead State and Slate Fray friends. Thanks to everybody, especially the Morehead State College Republicans. There's nothing like a diverse audience.
I'm currently trying to link up to other left-wing blogs in an effort to expand my audience. Of course, there are millions and millions of other bloggers doing the same thing.
We'll have to see.
I'm currently trying to link up to other left-wing blogs in an effort to expand my audience. Of course, there are millions and millions of other bloggers doing the same thing.
We'll have to see.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
From Bush to Romo to the Future
Bush's Gamble. The surge is essentially the gamble that George Bush is taking to not be a failure. If the surge and ultimtely the whole mission fail, everything about George W. Bush was wrong, things that George Bush believes in just as much as Karl Marx believed in the downfall of capitalism. The strutting, the smirk, the bombast, the big gestures, the cockiness, the confrontationalism--if the surge fails, these were all impotent hot air . . . talking the talk but not being able to either get the job done or understand what the job is. From George W's point of view, the invasion of Iraq was supposed to be the ultimate testimony to the validity of his worldview and worth as a man. If the surge fails, the war will mock his worldview and trumpet his failure as a man right through the last phony tribute at his state funeral.
But Bush would be wrong to heap all his failures onto himself. Bush's bombastic cockiness is the style among both and white and black males and Southern white guys in particular. Bush's style is practically the only style that right-wingers allow themselves to adopt. Bush and Cheney represent a particularly narrow, contemporary American style of masculinity that's pitched in opposition to the liberal acceptance of feminism. The failure of the war in Iraq represents not only a personal failure for Bush, but a collective failure for the right-wing and faux macho manliness. Bush can take comfort in that he hasn't failed alone. It "takes a village," actually a very big village, to create a failure as monumental as the failed war in Iraq.
Tony Romo. Tony Romo mishandled a snap and cost the Dallas Cowboys their playoff game with the Seattle Seahawks. But Tony Romo isn't George Bush. Romo showed in his first year as a starter that he is a championship caliber quarterback. Where George Bush's way of living his life has brought himself and the United States as a country to the brink of disaster, Romo's performance this year shows that he has been living the right way as he prepared to become an NFL quarterback. He may have blown the Seattle game, but Romo showed that he can compete at the top of an extremely demanding profession and fans should have patience with him.
Post-2008--In January, 2009, George Bush will be gone, but his shadow will still hang over Washington and the country. The "Ricky Bobby" style of macho bluster that George Bush adopted (or did the movie copy Bush) will still be a force in American culture. If American society is going to pull itself out of the muck of the Bush administration, we're going to have to adopt a new political ethic. As an alternative to macho bluster, we should look at the energetic problem-solving ethic in American offices, factory-floors, military units, housebuilding sites, locker rooms, and NASCAR garages. In a problem solving ethic, the first virtue is having the maturity and self-confidence needed to recognize problems and opportunities and take responsibility for the reality of the situation. This is the virtue that we need to extend from workplaces all over the country to the political arena as we shovel our way out from under the legacy of the Bush era.
But Bush would be wrong to heap all his failures onto himself. Bush's bombastic cockiness is the style among both and white and black males and Southern white guys in particular. Bush's style is practically the only style that right-wingers allow themselves to adopt. Bush and Cheney represent a particularly narrow, contemporary American style of masculinity that's pitched in opposition to the liberal acceptance of feminism. The failure of the war in Iraq represents not only a personal failure for Bush, but a collective failure for the right-wing and faux macho manliness. Bush can take comfort in that he hasn't failed alone. It "takes a village," actually a very big village, to create a failure as monumental as the failed war in Iraq.
Tony Romo. Tony Romo mishandled a snap and cost the Dallas Cowboys their playoff game with the Seattle Seahawks. But Tony Romo isn't George Bush. Romo showed in his first year as a starter that he is a championship caliber quarterback. Where George Bush's way of living his life has brought himself and the United States as a country to the brink of disaster, Romo's performance this year shows that he has been living the right way as he prepared to become an NFL quarterback. He may have blown the Seattle game, but Romo showed that he can compete at the top of an extremely demanding profession and fans should have patience with him.
Post-2008--In January, 2009, George Bush will be gone, but his shadow will still hang over Washington and the country. The "Ricky Bobby" style of macho bluster that George Bush adopted (or did the movie copy Bush) will still be a force in American culture. If American society is going to pull itself out of the muck of the Bush administration, we're going to have to adopt a new political ethic. As an alternative to macho bluster, we should look at the energetic problem-solving ethic in American offices, factory-floors, military units, housebuilding sites, locker rooms, and NASCAR garages. In a problem solving ethic, the first virtue is having the maturity and self-confidence needed to recognize problems and opportunities and take responsibility for the reality of the situation. This is the virtue that we need to extend from workplaces all over the country to the political arena as we shovel our way out from under the legacy of the Bush era.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Capping Off a Bad War
It just gets dumber and dumber. Matthew Yglesias links to a Jim Miklaszewski NBC report on the thinking going into the surge. Miklaszewski claims an administration source “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” Miklaszewski goes to say that the administration is seeking to salvage some kind of success out of Iraq.
If this is the case, the administration is paring what Al Gore calls the "biggest strategic mistake" in American history with the "biggest political mistake" in American history.
So far, reports on plans for a surge indicate that 20,000 more troops will be stationed in Iraq for eighteen months. Miklaszewski indicates that the additional troops will be sent to stabilize Baghdad (although he doesn't say whether the troops will be leaning on the Sunnis or the Sadr City Shiites) while the training of Iraqi troops is accellerated under the command of new general Petraeus. The new slogan will be "Surge and Accelerate."
If the increase in troops begins in February, 2007, an eighteen month commitment would put the end of the surge in July or August 2008. Though more than zero, the chances of success for the surge are very low. If the American command focuses on clearing the Sunni neighborhoods of insurgents, that will mostly free the Shiite militias for more death squad activities. If they focus on the Shiite militias, they run a serious risk of igniting a general Shiite rebellion to go along with the Sunni insurgency. If the military command tries to do both, they'll just dissipate their energies to little effect in Baghdad.
But the consequences in the United States will be enormous. An eighteen month commitment means that the U. S. will have 170,000 troops in Iraq through the entire presidential primary season. If the mission is not clearly successful, Republican candidates for the presidency will be in a difficult bind. They will be under intense pressure from the conservative media and Republican primary voters to support President Bush at the same time that the war grows less and less popular with the general electorate. This won't be a problem for Sen. John McCain. As John Dickerson of Slate points out, the surge is McCain's big policy initiative and he'll either sink or swim with it. However, all of the other presidential and Congressional Republican candidates will be tied just as tightly to the surge as McCain and a lot of them will sink in the 2008 election if the surge doesn't succeed.
Unless the surge in Iraq is surprisingly successful, President Bush is practically guaranteeing a big Democratic win in 2008 and a couple of elections beyond that. That would make the Bush surge the biggest political miscalculation in American history.
If this is the case, the administration is paring what Al Gore calls the "biggest strategic mistake" in American history with the "biggest political mistake" in American history.
So far, reports on plans for a surge indicate that 20,000 more troops will be stationed in Iraq for eighteen months. Miklaszewski indicates that the additional troops will be sent to stabilize Baghdad (although he doesn't say whether the troops will be leaning on the Sunnis or the Sadr City Shiites) while the training of Iraqi troops is accellerated under the command of new general Petraeus. The new slogan will be "Surge and Accelerate."
If the increase in troops begins in February, 2007, an eighteen month commitment would put the end of the surge in July or August 2008. Though more than zero, the chances of success for the surge are very low. If the American command focuses on clearing the Sunni neighborhoods of insurgents, that will mostly free the Shiite militias for more death squad activities. If they focus on the Shiite militias, they run a serious risk of igniting a general Shiite rebellion to go along with the Sunni insurgency. If the military command tries to do both, they'll just dissipate their energies to little effect in Baghdad.
But the consequences in the United States will be enormous. An eighteen month commitment means that the U. S. will have 170,000 troops in Iraq through the entire presidential primary season. If the mission is not clearly successful, Republican candidates for the presidency will be in a difficult bind. They will be under intense pressure from the conservative media and Republican primary voters to support President Bush at the same time that the war grows less and less popular with the general electorate. This won't be a problem for Sen. John McCain. As John Dickerson of Slate points out, the surge is McCain's big policy initiative and he'll either sink or swim with it. However, all of the other presidential and Congressional Republican candidates will be tied just as tightly to the surge as McCain and a lot of them will sink in the 2008 election if the surge doesn't succeed.
Unless the surge in Iraq is surprisingly successful, President Bush is practically guaranteeing a big Democratic win in 2008 and a couple of elections beyond that. That would make the Bush surge the biggest political miscalculation in American history.
William Rehnquist's DT's
The great thing about the William Rehnquist psychosis story was that I have inside knowledge of Rehnquist's condition as a result of my historical research.
In fact, Rehnquist did not suffer from psychosis; it was delirium tremens, a topic on which I have two forthcoming articles.
With psychosis, a mental condition often connected to "a history of traumatic incidents" predisposes a person to hallucinations, paranoia, and the like.
Delirium tremens is a short-term outcome of withdrawal from a substance on which a person's brain had developed severe dependence. Delirium tremens, known as "the dt's," is generally associated with sudden withdrawal from heavy-duty alcohol consumption. A local doctor told me of a case where a severe alcoholic suddenly got religion, stopped drinking cold turkey, and ended up in the hospital with the dt's. But delirium tremens can be linked to opium and other substances as well.
For William Rehnquist to have hallucinations of CIA plots and wander into a hospital lobby, he must have been heavy into placidyl, even heavier than the triple the normal dose he was supposed to be taking. Because his brain was so dependent for its functioning on the placidyl, it went haywire when he stopped taking it.
The really odd thing about delirium tremens (and another thing that differentiates delirium tremens from psychosis) is that a person can fall asleep after several days of hallucinations stemming from the dt's and wake up perfectly rational.
Except in Rehnquist's case that is. Rehnquist was probably closer to the real world when he was hallucinating CIA plots than he was in his normal right-wing thinking. After all, there have been a lot of CIA plots, but the only "Warren Court excesses" are in the delusions of the right.
In fact, Rehnquist did not suffer from psychosis; it was delirium tremens, a topic on which I have two forthcoming articles.
With psychosis, a mental condition often connected to "a history of traumatic incidents" predisposes a person to hallucinations, paranoia, and the like.
Delirium tremens is a short-term outcome of withdrawal from a substance on which a person's brain had developed severe dependence. Delirium tremens, known as "the dt's," is generally associated with sudden withdrawal from heavy-duty alcohol consumption. A local doctor told me of a case where a severe alcoholic suddenly got religion, stopped drinking cold turkey, and ended up in the hospital with the dt's. But delirium tremens can be linked to opium and other substances as well.
For William Rehnquist to have hallucinations of CIA plots and wander into a hospital lobby, he must have been heavy into placidyl, even heavier than the triple the normal dose he was supposed to be taking. Because his brain was so dependent for its functioning on the placidyl, it went haywire when he stopped taking it.
The really odd thing about delirium tremens (and another thing that differentiates delirium tremens from psychosis) is that a person can fall asleep after several days of hallucinations stemming from the dt's and wake up perfectly rational.
Except in Rehnquist's case that is. Rehnquist was probably closer to the real world when he was hallucinating CIA plots than he was in his normal right-wing thinking. After all, there have been a lot of CIA plots, but the only "Warren Court excesses" are in the delusions of the right.
The New Jerry Ford Pooper-Scooper Era
I thought all the pageantry over Jerry Ford's funeral was creepy. However, Jerry Ford did blaze a trail that the next two or three administrations are going to have to walk over the next years. Just as Jerry Ford had to clean up from Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War, succeeding administrations stretching out who knows how long are going to have to clean up the mess created by George Bush and his Iraq War. Getting the troops out of Iraq, closing Guantanamo, shutting down the rendition system, dismantling the data mining operation, and dealing with all the legal recriminations from the Iraq War--the next administration is going to have to pick its way through all these minefields with the expectation that it will be handing off some of the problems to the next administration after that. Succeeding administrations are also going to have work out the health care mess, straighten out the budget, and handle what's likely to be a long list of scandals left over from the era of right-wing government. That's not to mention dealing with the next economic downturn.
American government will be an exercise in political pooper-scooping for some time to come--the New Jerry Ford era.
American government will be an exercise in political pooper-scooping for some time to come--the New Jerry Ford era.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
The Pelosi Prelude?
By being elected Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has become another symbol of the freedom and equality that women have achieved over the last forty years. That's great! But there's a serious wrinkle in her story. Pelosi won because she's a political work horse--a top fund-raiser, demanding task-master, and tough arm-twister when it comes to keeping the Democrats in line. Pelosi has lots of friends, but she also brags about getting even with her enemies. The last six years has seen the most poisonous partisanship since the Civil War and Nancy Pelosi has thrived amidst all the bitterness and contention. In other words, Pelosi got to be an important symbol because she's so good at being a hack.
The next big question is the nature of the next big breakthrough. Hillary Clinton is going to be running for President in the same manner that Pelosi ran for Speaker. Like Pelosi, Hillary is Obviously, Hillary is more comfortable as an inside worker than a charismatic or visionary. But does Hillary get to be the ultimate symbol of progress for women by being a policy, fundraising, and campaign grinder? In fact, the unpopularity of the war is likely to make either Hillary or Barack Obama the next President and much of the question between them will be whether the American people want an insider "work horse" like Hillary or a visionary "show horse" like Obama. Will the next symbolic breakthrough be the woman who has been tested in the white heat of Whitewater, Monica, and right-wing hate campaigns or the black man who promises an alternative to the current viciousness?
My money's on Hillary. It's not like the right-wing is going to go away after 2008 and I believe that we're still going to need the kind of bare-knuckled fighter that Hillary can be.
Either way, Nancy Pelosi is a prelude to the next big thing.
The next big question is the nature of the next big breakthrough. Hillary Clinton is going to be running for President in the same manner that Pelosi ran for Speaker. Like Pelosi, Hillary is Obviously, Hillary is more comfortable as an inside worker than a charismatic or visionary. But does Hillary get to be the ultimate symbol of progress for women by being a policy, fundraising, and campaign grinder? In fact, the unpopularity of the war is likely to make either Hillary or Barack Obama the next President and much of the question between them will be whether the American people want an insider "work horse" like Hillary or a visionary "show horse" like Obama. Will the next symbolic breakthrough be the woman who has been tested in the white heat of Whitewater, Monica, and right-wing hate campaigns or the black man who promises an alternative to the current viciousness?
My money's on Hillary. It's not like the right-wing is going to go away after 2008 and I believe that we're still going to need the kind of bare-knuckled fighter that Hillary can be.
Either way, Nancy Pelosi is a prelude to the next big thing.
The Tiny Tim Approach to War
The Plan. According to McClatchey, President Bush's plan is to send 15,000 to 20,000 troops to Baghdad for 3 months. The upside is that a short-term effort avoids political fallout for the Republicans. The problem is that such a small bump in the military presence has little chance to succeed. This idea also has no support in the United States. By compromising between a larger surge and withdrawal, President Bush is doing what he's been doing for the last two years--sitting tight and hoping for more miracles like the capture of Saddam Hussein and the death of Zarqawi.
Could We Have Ever Won? In a feeble attempt at contrarian thinking, Slate editor Jacob Weisberg seeks to undercut assumptions that the U. S. could never have won in Iraq. But the chances for a successful occupation were always very small. The Bush administration made sure there was no chance with their wishful thinking about not needing to plan for the occupation, their "see no evil" approach to the first evidence of an insurgency, and their failure to do basic things like clean up the weapons dumps and secure the borders. It was all Tiny Tim "tip-toe through the tulips stuff." The Bush administration acted as though miracles were going to happen if only they thought happy thoughts about Iraq.
But that doesn't mean that we would have been more successful if the Bush administration had been more reality-centered. In fact, the whole American political and military establishment was completely unprepared to manage a successful occupation. American policy-makers had little practical knowledge of Iraqi society, there were relatively few Arabic speakers working for the American military and intelligence services, and neither the Army brass nor the troops on the ground had any training in occupying hostile foreign countries. Likewise, the American public was completely unprepared for the huge commitment of money (i. e., tax increases) and troops (the draft) needed for a full commitment to Iraq.
The U. S. had just as much chance to win in Iraq as the Confederates had to win the American Civil War. Unfortunately, the Bush administration and the American right is packed with spiritual descendants of the Confederate fire-eaters.
Could We Have Ever Won? In a feeble attempt at contrarian thinking, Slate editor Jacob Weisberg seeks to undercut assumptions that the U. S. could never have won in Iraq. But the chances for a successful occupation were always very small. The Bush administration made sure there was no chance with their wishful thinking about not needing to plan for the occupation, their "see no evil" approach to the first evidence of an insurgency, and their failure to do basic things like clean up the weapons dumps and secure the borders. It was all Tiny Tim "tip-toe through the tulips stuff." The Bush administration acted as though miracles were going to happen if only they thought happy thoughts about Iraq.
But that doesn't mean that we would have been more successful if the Bush administration had been more reality-centered. In fact, the whole American political and military establishment was completely unprepared to manage a successful occupation. American policy-makers had little practical knowledge of Iraqi society, there were relatively few Arabic speakers working for the American military and intelligence services, and neither the Army brass nor the troops on the ground had any training in occupying hostile foreign countries. Likewise, the American public was completely unprepared for the huge commitment of money (i. e., tax increases) and troops (the draft) needed for a full commitment to Iraq.
The U. S. had just as much chance to win in Iraq as the Confederates had to win the American Civil War. Unfortunately, the Bush administration and the American right is packed with spiritual descendants of the Confederate fire-eaters.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
It's Good to Be a Good Old Boy!
Mrs. RSI is an award-winning nurse in the Rowan County School System in Eastern Kentucky. Last fall, she switched from the Middle School with about 1,200 students to an elementary school with 150 students.
A very reasonable thing to do that should do wonderful things for her well-being.
What happened to Mrs. RSI's former clerk was not so wonderul though. In December, the clerk was punched by her boyfriend, a boyfriend who was also the father of her child. But it was the clerk who was arrested instead of the boyfriend because she retaliated by scratching him in the face and pushing him.
The son of a prominent local doctor, the boyfriend apparently has a teflon "good old boy" coating that even Ronald Reagan would envy.
When the local county attorney recommended that the clerk get an emergency protection order, or EPO, against her boyfriend, the local judge refused to sign it.
Feeling endangered, the clerk moved to another county 50 miles away and got a judge in that county to sign the EPO.
But the state police in this county mysteriously "lost" the EPO before it could be served.
Being a well-positioned "good old boy" means you don't have to pay a price for assaulting women, don't have to say you're sorry, and don't even have to stop.
A very reasonable thing to do that should do wonderful things for her well-being.
What happened to Mrs. RSI's former clerk was not so wonderul though. In December, the clerk was punched by her boyfriend, a boyfriend who was also the father of her child. But it was the clerk who was arrested instead of the boyfriend because she retaliated by scratching him in the face and pushing him.
The son of a prominent local doctor, the boyfriend apparently has a teflon "good old boy" coating that even Ronald Reagan would envy.
When the local county attorney recommended that the clerk get an emergency protection order, or EPO, against her boyfriend, the local judge refused to sign it.
Feeling endangered, the clerk moved to another county 50 miles away and got a judge in that county to sign the EPO.
But the state police in this county mysteriously "lost" the EPO before it could be served.
Being a well-positioned "good old boy" means you don't have to pay a price for assaulting women, don't have to say you're sorry, and don't even have to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
