The Rape Accusation. Yesterday, Sabrine al-Janabi, a 20 year old married woman from Baghdad, accused members of the Iraqi National Police on al-Jazeera television of gang-raping her. After she was taken into custody as a "terrorist suspect," Sabrine al-Janabi was raped by three officers before an American committee took her into custody and brought her before a judge. She accused a court officer of raping her again after her hearing.
The Guilty Rebuttal. It's the polite journalistic convention to say "alleged rape" in cases like this. However, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's comments today lent enormous credibility to al-Janabi's account. As a result, I'm going to ignore the convention here. Not only did al-Maliki deny that the officers had raped Sabrine al-Janabi, but claimed that there were three warrants for al-Janabi's arrest on "security" matters. In other words, he was accusing al-Janabi of being a terrorist without actually using the literal term. Al-Maliki extended the web of innuendo to Sunni politicians by claiming the accusations were instigated by "certain parties" in order to discredit the military crackdown in Baghdad. Much like abusive police in the U. S., Maliki is pulling out all the stops to smear this woman well before there's been a chance to investigate. These kinds of smears are the mark of someone who knows his side is guilty.
To top off his performance, Prime Minister al-Maliki announced that he was rewarding the officers in question. Here, it was as if al-Maliki was congratulating the police officers for raping the poor woman. It's almost as disgusting as the rape itself.
The Modern vs the Traditional. Sabrine al-Janabi's rape accusations have a profound modernity about them. In traditional Muslim societies like Iraq, a woman's virginity or fidelity is valued as a matter of the honor of the men in her family. When they are raped, women are considered as dishonoring the family and generally cover up the assault to avoid being punished by male relatives. In making her accusations, Sabrine al-Janabi represented herself as an individual woman rather than as a symbol of her family honor and was accusing the Iraqi police of harming her as a person rather than dishonoring her family. This is a bold claim. The articulation of women as persons in their own right rather than as the mothers, wives, or girlfriends, and objects of fantasy is still the subject of a broad cultural conflict in the United States let alone Iraq. If Sabrine al-Janabi's claim to personhood were accepted as a matter of course, that would be a strong sign that she was living in a modern world.
Understanding Bush and the American Right. I've seen a couple of commentaries mentioning that al-Maliki's response out of the Bush administration's playbook of accusing their opponents as aiding the terrorists, punishing critics, and rewarding failure and incompetence (sorry no time to run down the links right now). I think it's the other way around though. Instead of al-Maliki playing out of the Bush playbook, it's the Bush administration that has been reverting back to traditionalism on a variety of fronts. These include adapting the preening machismo of the traditional white South, promoting religion at the expense of science, valuing personal loyalty over competence, and engaging in delaying actions against the efforts of women, African-Americans, gay people, and immigrants to claim a routine status as persons. The Bush administration and the right may use the contemporary media apparatus to pursue their goals and may try to adapt as much of the modern language of individuality as they can, but they're still pursuing an agenda of traditionalism. They're speaking out of the playbook of Nouri al-Maliki, Moqtada al-Sadr, and the global jihadis.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Harry Potter Breakthrough at RSI?
One of the problems of Book VII in the Harry Potter series is determining the nature of the Ravenclaw/Gryffendor horcrux. According to Dumbledore, there were six horcruxes containing parts of Voldemort's soul--his diary, Marvolo's ring, Hufflepuff's cup, Slytherin's locket, the snake Nagini, and an object from either Ravenclaw or Gryfffindor. In order to kill Voldemort, Harry is going to have to destroy all of Voldemort's horcruxes first.
Finding the horcruxes probably won't be that big of a problem. Harry has already shown that he can break into Voldemort's mind. All he has to do is get into Voldemort's head again in order to locate the remaining horcruxes.
My daughter Katy announced a couple of nights ago that the "sorting hat" would be the Ravenclaw/ Gryffindor horcrux. It's a very good idea. The sorting hat has been at Hogwarts since the founding of the school. Likewise, it wouldn't take much exposition to claim that it had originally belonged to Ravenclaw or Gryffindor. The question would be how Voldemort would have gotten into postion to turn the sorting hat into a horcrux. So far, Katy hasn't had any more luck in explaining how Voldemort got to the hat than Hillary Clinton has had in explaining away her vote to authorize force in Iraq.
Finding the horcruxes probably won't be that big of a problem. Harry has already shown that he can break into Voldemort's mind. All he has to do is get into Voldemort's head again in order to locate the remaining horcruxes.
My daughter Katy announced a couple of nights ago that the "sorting hat" would be the Ravenclaw/ Gryffindor horcrux. It's a very good idea. The sorting hat has been at Hogwarts since the founding of the school. Likewise, it wouldn't take much exposition to claim that it had originally belonged to Ravenclaw or Gryffindor. The question would be how Voldemort would have gotten into postion to turn the sorting hat into a horcrux. So far, Katy hasn't had any more luck in explaining how Voldemort got to the hat than Hillary Clinton has had in explaining away her vote to authorize force in Iraq.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Bitter Pill in Hillary's Throat
William Saletan has a good Slate article criticizing Hillary Clinton's refusal to admit that her 2002 vote to authorize force in Iraq was a mistake. Hillary's problem is that she is making the refusal to admit the mistake a matter of principle and using weak arguments to justify her stand. Nobody cares about her concerns about appearing to be a flip-flopper, looking like she's strong on defense, and not looking like a female stereotype. What Americans want to know is if Hillary Clinton can learn from her mistakes in a way that George Bush and Dick Cheney have refused to learn from theirs.
One problem is in locating the nature of Hillary's mistake.
There have been several levels of mistakes on Iraq that connect to Hillary--the Bush administration's incompetence in conducting the war, faith in the Bush administration ability to carry off the war, and trust in the Bush administration's claims concerning WMD and ties with al-Qaeda. I don't have the links here, but I believe that Hillary has admitted to these mistakes without a whole lot of trouble.
Why, then, doesn't Hillary just cop to the mistake of supporting the war resolution in the first place? I believe that she is making the further error of assuming that there was a good chance that the Iraq War could have been successful if the Bush administration had not been such dunces in their management of the conflict. In saying that she made a mistake in supporting the war resolution, Hillary would be admitting that there was no way that the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein could have had a good outcome.
The Bill Clinton administration was convinced that Saddam needed to be overthrown as well and was ready to go to war in 1998 if they had seen either domestic or international support for an invasion. For Hillary to admit that her support for the Bush war resolution was a mistake means that the Clinton administration and she herself had been wrong about invading Iraq in 1998. That seems to be a place that she's willing to go to yet.
I support Hillary Clinton for President and think that she would make a good president for the hard times that lie ahead for the United States as a result of the Bush years. To be President, however, she's going to have to admit that she and her husband's administration were just as badly mistaken about overthrowing Saddam Hussein as the Bush administration. It's a bitter pill, but she won't be president unless she finds a way to swallow it.
One problem is in locating the nature of Hillary's mistake.
There have been several levels of mistakes on Iraq that connect to Hillary--the Bush administration's incompetence in conducting the war, faith in the Bush administration ability to carry off the war, and trust in the Bush administration's claims concerning WMD and ties with al-Qaeda. I don't have the links here, but I believe that Hillary has admitted to these mistakes without a whole lot of trouble.
Why, then, doesn't Hillary just cop to the mistake of supporting the war resolution in the first place? I believe that she is making the further error of assuming that there was a good chance that the Iraq War could have been successful if the Bush administration had not been such dunces in their management of the conflict. In saying that she made a mistake in supporting the war resolution, Hillary would be admitting that there was no way that the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein could have had a good outcome.
The Bill Clinton administration was convinced that Saddam needed to be overthrown as well and was ready to go to war in 1998 if they had seen either domestic or international support for an invasion. For Hillary to admit that her support for the Bush war resolution was a mistake means that the Clinton administration and she herself had been wrong about invading Iraq in 1998. That seems to be a place that she's willing to go to yet.
I support Hillary Clinton for President and think that she would make a good president for the hard times that lie ahead for the United States as a result of the Bush years. To be President, however, she's going to have to admit that she and her husband's administration were just as badly mistaken about overthrowing Saddam Hussein as the Bush administration. It's a bitter pill, but she won't be president unless she finds a way to swallow it.
Silent Cal the Right-Wing's Pal
Conservative movie critic Michael Medved has a column out on the most underestimated president in American history.
It's not James K. Polk and his war of conquest over Mexico. Not James Buchanan the Confederate sympathizer. And not James Madison the author of the Constitution.
Instead, it's Silent Cal Coolidge whose main claim to greatness according to Medved is that he would not have responded to the Depression with anything like the New Deal.
In nominating Coolidge for most underestimated leader, Medved wants to reclaim an America that was before social security, before government regulation of banks and Wall Street, before federal involvement in constructing highways, school buildings, hospitals and medical schools, before "big government" began protecting the rights of workers, African-Americans, women, and gay people. Medved wants a society that is much more poor, nasty, brutish, and ignorant, than the society that emerged from the New Deal, WWII, and the Great Society.
That's what makes Medved a conservative.
It's not James K. Polk and his war of conquest over Mexico. Not James Buchanan the Confederate sympathizer. And not James Madison the author of the Constitution.
Instead, it's Silent Cal Coolidge whose main claim to greatness according to Medved is that he would not have responded to the Depression with anything like the New Deal.
In nominating Coolidge for most underestimated leader, Medved wants to reclaim an America that was before social security, before government regulation of banks and Wall Street, before federal involvement in constructing highways, school buildings, hospitals and medical schools, before "big government" began protecting the rights of workers, African-Americans, women, and gay people. Medved wants a society that is much more poor, nasty, brutish, and ignorant, than the society that emerged from the New Deal, WWII, and the Great Society.
That's what makes Medved a conservative.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Hillary and That Bitter Remnant of the Monstrous Past
Today, Hillary Clinton triangulated the Confederate flag, arguing that the Confederate battle flag should be taken out of the South Carolina state house but not claiming that the flag was a symbol of racism and reaction. Instead, she that Americans should be fighting together under "one flag" during a time of war.
This gives something to liberals, African-Americans, and conservatives.
African-American Democrats and white liberals got half a loaf. Hillary gave them a statement opposing the Confederate flag. However, not saying that the flag was objectionable because it was racist and reactionary is a big concession. From the anti-flag perspective, the brutal racism of the slave system that the Confederates were defending is the only reason to oppose the flag.
Conservative flaggers get a slice they don't deserve when Hillary justifies the removal of the flag through the patriotic language of fighting under one flag. In giving up the Confederate battle flag, conservative South Carolinians wouldn't have to plead guilty for the monstrous behavior of their "glorious" ancestors.
That's triangulation, striking a course that speaks to both sides. In this case though, the triangulation works to the advantage of African-Americans and liberals. If Hillary gets her way, Southern conservatives would make the enormous cultural concession of giving up the Confederate flag. African-Americans and white liberals would not be exchanging anything nearly as important.
And that's why conservatives will reject Hillary's offer.
This gives something to liberals, African-Americans, and conservatives.
African-American Democrats and white liberals got half a loaf. Hillary gave them a statement opposing the Confederate flag. However, not saying that the flag was objectionable because it was racist and reactionary is a big concession. From the anti-flag perspective, the brutal racism of the slave system that the Confederates were defending is the only reason to oppose the flag.
Conservative flaggers get a slice they don't deserve when Hillary justifies the removal of the flag through the patriotic language of fighting under one flag. In giving up the Confederate battle flag, conservative South Carolinians wouldn't have to plead guilty for the monstrous behavior of their "glorious" ancestors.
That's triangulation, striking a course that speaks to both sides. In this case though, the triangulation works to the advantage of African-Americans and liberals. If Hillary gets her way, Southern conservatives would make the enormous cultural concession of giving up the Confederate flag. African-Americans and white liberals would not be exchanging anything nearly as important.
And that's why conservatives will reject Hillary's offer.
The Worst Mistake Revisited
Tony Snow responded to Sen. Harry Reid's claim that the Iraq War was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history by arguing that "it was important to remove Saddam Hussein from power" and noting "that a majority of senators voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq."
Snow would have been better off if he had claimed that starting the War of 1812 was an even bigger mistake than invading Iraq.
At least the Iraqi's haven't burned Washington the way the British did in 1813.
Snow would have been better off if he had claimed that starting the War of 1812 was an even bigger mistake than invading Iraq.
At least the Iraqi's haven't burned Washington the way the British did in 1813.
McCain Raises His Bid
Campaigning in South Carolina yesterday, John McCain announced that he believed Roe v Wade should be overturned. In other words, he's raising his bid for conservative votes. Conservatives are suspicious of McCain because of his positions on campaign finance legislation, immigration policy, and gay marriage and McCain's been attempting to overcome these problems by making nice with Jerry Falwell and becoming the chief advocate of President Bush's war policy.
However, McCain has been falling behind Giuliani in the national polls. So, he's upping his bid to conservative votes by making a push on Roe v Wade. It's obviously a calculated move to let conservatives know that he's with them on one of their most important priorities, so calculated here that it's doubtful that conservative voters will be impressed.
In the final analysis, John McCain is going to have to raise his bid a lot higher if he wants conservative votes.
What can he do?
The obvious thing would be for McCain to recant and apologize for his support for McCain/Feingold and any legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to gain citizenship.
But would that be enough?
I don't think so.
Here's a short list of things that right-wing voters would want McCain to do in order to reassure them that he is really conservative.
1. Pledge never to appear on "Meet the Press" (NBC) or Face the Nation (CBS) again. One of the things that conservatives don't like about McCain is that he is much more comfortable with the mainstream media than the conservative attack media.
2. Promise to launch a nuclear attack on Iran immediately upon inauguration. The Bush administration has been playing around with ideas of "bunker busting" nuclear weapons. That's for wimps. Real conservatives want McCain to use those nukes.
3. Promise legislation against "strident" opposition to the war. Newt Gingrich has been calling for changing the First Amendment to the Constitution; neo-con warmonger Frank Gaffney recently argued that Sen. Carl Levin should be hanged for criticizing former Bush Pentagon official Douglas Feith. Conservatives want tough action against war critics.
However, McCain has been falling behind Giuliani in the national polls. So, he's upping his bid to conservative votes by making a push on Roe v Wade. It's obviously a calculated move to let conservatives know that he's with them on one of their most important priorities, so calculated here that it's doubtful that conservative voters will be impressed.
In the final analysis, John McCain is going to have to raise his bid a lot higher if he wants conservative votes.
What can he do?
The obvious thing would be for McCain to recant and apologize for his support for McCain/Feingold and any legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to gain citizenship.
But would that be enough?
I don't think so.
Here's a short list of things that right-wing voters would want McCain to do in order to reassure them that he is really conservative.
1. Pledge never to appear on "Meet the Press" (NBC) or Face the Nation (CBS) again. One of the things that conservatives don't like about McCain is that he is much more comfortable with the mainstream media than the conservative attack media.
2. Promise to launch a nuclear attack on Iran immediately upon inauguration. The Bush administration has been playing around with ideas of "bunker busting" nuclear weapons. That's for wimps. Real conservatives want McCain to use those nukes.
3. Promise legislation against "strident" opposition to the war. Newt Gingrich has been calling for changing the First Amendment to the Constitution; neo-con warmonger Frank Gaffney recently argued that Sen. Carl Levin should be hanged for criticizing former Bush Pentagon official Douglas Feith. Conservatives want tough action against war critics.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Reid Catches Up with Left
One of the under-appreciated facts about the Iraq War is that the left has been right on the money every step of the way. Most of all, the left has been absolutely correct in its assessment of the Bush administration as delusional and incompetent. The idea that George W. Bush is the "worst president in American history" has been canvassed so much on the left that people have gotten bored with the topic.
Now, there's evidence that the Democrats are catching up. Today, Harry Reid characterized the Iraq War as the "worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country." That's important. The Democrats have been captivated by "the Vietnam Syndrome" for too long. As Reid acknowledged, Iraq is even worse than Vietnam. In fact, the only thing in American history that's gone as disastrously as the Iraq War has been the British occupation of the U. S. during the American Revolution.
Maybe I should send Reid one of our bright yellow "W:Worst President Ever" bumper stickers.
Now, there's evidence that the Democrats are catching up. Today, Harry Reid characterized the Iraq War as the "worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country." That's important. The Democrats have been captivated by "the Vietnam Syndrome" for too long. As Reid acknowledged, Iraq is even worse than Vietnam. In fact, the only thing in American history that's gone as disastrously as the Iraq War has been the British occupation of the U. S. during the American Revolution.
Maybe I should send Reid one of our bright yellow "W:Worst President Ever" bumper stickers.
Rush Should Run
A couple of days ago, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter appeared on a comedy promotion for a new Fox news program with Limbaugh as President and Coulter as Vice-President. The promo appears here on YouTube.
RSI thinks they should go for it and run.
The Republicans don't have a viable conservative candidate for 2008 and don't have much chance of winning anyway. Why not nominate Limbaugh and Coulter? They're popular conservatives who can deliver eloquent expressions of right-wing values. Even if they wouldn't have much chance of winning an election, their appearance on the ticket would bolster the morale of discouraged Republican voters. They could also fulfill the Goldwater function of keeping the flame of conservatism burning while the right waits for the next Ronald Reagan to come along.
Why not have some fun when you lose. Limbaugh/Coulter in 2008.
RSI thinks they should go for it and run.
The Republicans don't have a viable conservative candidate for 2008 and don't have much chance of winning anyway. Why not nominate Limbaugh and Coulter? They're popular conservatives who can deliver eloquent expressions of right-wing values. Even if they wouldn't have much chance of winning an election, their appearance on the ticket would bolster the morale of discouraged Republican voters. They could also fulfill the Goldwater function of keeping the flame of conservatism burning while the right waits for the next Ronald Reagan to come along.
Why not have some fun when you lose. Limbaugh/Coulter in 2008.
Early Problems for Surge
The Bush administration's surge strategy never had much chance of working and the contours of failure have already begun to emerge. Today, car bombs going off at a marketplace in a Shiite area killed 63 people and wounded more than 120.
As Matthew Yglesias notes, almost all of the recent car bombs have gone off in Shiite areas, indicating that security has decreased for Shiite residents since the Shiite militias have gone underground.
But the failure goes beyond that.
In fact, raids by American and Iraqi troops into Sunni neighborhoods have not put much of a dent into the Sunni insurgent groups which are still operating freely. Indeed, there's at least some chance that Sunni insurgent groups are operating more freely because Sunni insurgents are no longer under pressure from Shiite militia death squads.
Things aren't much better on the Shiite side of the equation. American and Iraqi troops are beginning to move closer to the Shiite slum of Sadr City but have not been able to provide security against insurgent attacks comparable to that of the militias. At the same time, the American and Iraqi troops are viewed as "outside occupiers" in an area that has been largely self-governing since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Troops are facing a hostile Shiite population with mothers beginning to slap away the candy that handed out to children. In this context, American and Iraqi operations in Sadr City have a strong likelihood of stimulating an anti-American Shiite insurgency to match the Sunni insurgency in the Sunni neighborhoods. If American troops accidentally kill innocent women and children, engage in over-zealous raiding, or bomb wedding parties, they could spark a general uprising.
This illustrates the more general weakness of the surge. We don't have enough troops to accomplish the mission. Even with 17,000 more American troops, the U. S. does not have nearly enough troops in Baghdad to suppress the Sunni insurgency. We also don't have enough troops to provide security for Shiite neighborhoods. There is a chance that we can make some kind of step-by-step progress, but it is just as likely that events will lead to big flare ups of violence. We don't have the troops needed to handle those kinds of big flare ups.
This has been the problem with the whole Iraq War. The Bush administration did not commit enough troops to stabilize Iraq when more troops could have helped. Now, the situation has become so chaotic and so inflamed that no amount of American power can get the job.
The nursery rhyme was right. "All the king's horses and all the king's men."
As Matthew Yglesias notes, almost all of the recent car bombs have gone off in Shiite areas, indicating that security has decreased for Shiite residents since the Shiite militias have gone underground.
But the failure goes beyond that.
In fact, raids by American and Iraqi troops into Sunni neighborhoods have not put much of a dent into the Sunni insurgent groups which are still operating freely. Indeed, there's at least some chance that Sunni insurgent groups are operating more freely because Sunni insurgents are no longer under pressure from Shiite militia death squads.
Things aren't much better on the Shiite side of the equation. American and Iraqi troops are beginning to move closer to the Shiite slum of Sadr City but have not been able to provide security against insurgent attacks comparable to that of the militias. At the same time, the American and Iraqi troops are viewed as "outside occupiers" in an area that has been largely self-governing since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Troops are facing a hostile Shiite population with mothers beginning to slap away the candy that handed out to children. In this context, American and Iraqi operations in Sadr City have a strong likelihood of stimulating an anti-American Shiite insurgency to match the Sunni insurgency in the Sunni neighborhoods. If American troops accidentally kill innocent women and children, engage in over-zealous raiding, or bomb wedding parties, they could spark a general uprising.
This illustrates the more general weakness of the surge. We don't have enough troops to accomplish the mission. Even with 17,000 more American troops, the U. S. does not have nearly enough troops in Baghdad to suppress the Sunni insurgency. We also don't have enough troops to provide security for Shiite neighborhoods. There is a chance that we can make some kind of step-by-step progress, but it is just as likely that events will lead to big flare ups of violence. We don't have the troops needed to handle those kinds of big flare ups.
This has been the problem with the whole Iraq War. The Bush administration did not commit enough troops to stabilize Iraq when more troops could have helped. Now, the situation has become so chaotic and so inflamed that no amount of American power can get the job.
The nursery rhyme was right. "All the king's horses and all the king's men."
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Joyous Curse of Cell Phones
I've always resisted cell phones. First of all, I don't like paying for another phone. But I also realize that I don't want my absent-minded self being responsible for not losing another valuable item. I don't like the tinny, vaguely underwater sound of people's voices over cell phones either.
Most of all, I don't like the idea of being in that much touch with people. A lot of people with cell phones are on the phone every spare second. Given that I like a fair amount of solitude myself, I hate the idea of being on the phone that much.
Unfortunately, Mrs. RSI now has a work cell phone and she and my daughter have already called me four times since she left on a one hour drive to Lexington, KY. The first call was to let me know that she was leaving town even though I had seen her car going out to the highway and waved. Then, there was a second call that was so forgettable that I forgot what it was about. I think they're just trying to annoy me.
Fortunately, Mrs. RSI didn't forget to call me a third time when she left the shopping plaza parking lot to let me know that she would be home at 6:30. I have to admit that this information was vital because I might have had a heart attack if she had returned unannounced before 8:00. Because Mrs. RSI has been on time approximately twice in our sixteen plus years together, informing me of an on-time arrival is a health necessity.
Finally, and inevitably, there was a fourth call to inform me that she and daughter would be late after all. I was worried about a heart attack for nothing.
Mrs. RSI used to be able to travel short distances without staying in phone contact throughout the day and I normally would be sort of aggravated to get a wave of phone calls over nothing.
But Mrs. RSI suffers from terminal cuteness even when she's being a typical cell phone junkie.
So, I think I'll enjoy the curse of cell phones after all.
Oops. The phone's ringing again! Gotta go!
Most of all, I don't like the idea of being in that much touch with people. A lot of people with cell phones are on the phone every spare second. Given that I like a fair amount of solitude myself, I hate the idea of being on the phone that much.
Unfortunately, Mrs. RSI now has a work cell phone and she and my daughter have already called me four times since she left on a one hour drive to Lexington, KY. The first call was to let me know that she was leaving town even though I had seen her car going out to the highway and waved. Then, there was a second call that was so forgettable that I forgot what it was about. I think they're just trying to annoy me.
Fortunately, Mrs. RSI didn't forget to call me a third time when she left the shopping plaza parking lot to let me know that she would be home at 6:30. I have to admit that this information was vital because I might have had a heart attack if she had returned unannounced before 8:00. Because Mrs. RSI has been on time approximately twice in our sixteen plus years together, informing me of an on-time arrival is a health necessity.
Finally, and inevitably, there was a fourth call to inform me that she and daughter would be late after all. I was worried about a heart attack for nothing.
Mrs. RSI used to be able to travel short distances without staying in phone contact throughout the day and I normally would be sort of aggravated to get a wave of phone calls over nothing.
But Mrs. RSI suffers from terminal cuteness even when she's being a typical cell phone junkie.
So, I think I'll enjoy the curse of cell phones after all.
Oops. The phone's ringing again! Gotta go!
Amanda Marcotte has a Friend in Jesus
Earlier this week, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog resigned her position in John Edwards' presidential campaign as a result of the controversy over her feminist criticism of Christianity. Marcotte certainly was critical. A couple of days after Edwards' initial decision not to fire her for anti-Catholic comments, Marcotte wrote in her blog that "the Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels."
There's no doubt that the language of Luke is pretty patriarchal even if it doesn't conceive of Mary or other women "as nothing but vessels."
"And now you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus . . . The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God."(New Oxford Annotated Bible, Luke 1: 31-35)
But Marcotte misses out on a big part of the Jesus story. Patriarchy gave birth to Jesus (doesn't it give birth to us all), but Jesus was also an uncompromising, relentless, and violent enemy of patriarchy among men. Even a bigger enemy of patriarchy than Amanda Marcotte.
And that's why the men of ancient Judea killed Jesus!
In fact, one of the keys to understanding the doctrine of Jesus is that he valued the most despised women more than any kind of patriarch.
This can be seen in Luke's account of Jesus' visit to the house of a Pharisee named Simon. As Jesus sat down to his meal, a woman “which was a sinner” came into the house with a box of expensive alabaster ointment, stood behind Jesus weeping, “and began to wash his feet with tears.” Then, the woman wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair before kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. Simon responded to this extraordinary scene by wondering why Jesus would let such a woman touch him. But Jesus would have none of this and he quickly let Simon know that he had more respect for the sinful woman than Simon himself.
"Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but he hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment."[i]
For Jesus, there was much more value in the woman's (sexual) sinning than Simon's piety. Because of the weight of her many sins, the woman had a corresponding need for forgiveness. Consequently, she “loved much” and showed that love through her service of washing Jesus’ feet with her tears, wiping his feet with her hair, and then kissing and anointing his feet. For Jesus, this is how love showed itself most forcefully--in a willingness to subordinate oneself to God and others. The woman's overpowering need for forgiveness recalls the first of the blessings in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew: “blessed are the poor in spirit.” Her “tainted” reputation as a sinner corresponds with the crucial dictum that the “last shall come first and the first shall come last.” Finally, washing another's feet was the model that Jesus adapted when showing his love for humanity in John’s account of the Last Supper. Of all the figures, Jesus encountered in his ministry, this sinning woman was the one that Jesus embodied most in his own conduct.[ii]
To the contrary, there was much in Simon’s conduct that was repugnant to Jesus and his doctrine. Not feeling the weight of sins like adultery and not being burdened by a need for forgiveness, Simon had little love for Jesus. “To whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” Instead, Simon was focused on the issue of reputation. Because the woman had a reputation as a sinner and therefore would have been seen as “unclean,” Simon seemed to believe that she should not have been allowed into the presence of a holy man like Jesus. From the perspective of Jesus, however, this concern for reputation revealed Simon as engaging in public display rather than a manifestation of sincere piety in his observation of the Law. The same was the case for the Pharisees in general. “But all their works they do for to be seen by men; they . . . love the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets, and to be called Rabbi, Rabbi.” For Jesus, this kind of social prestige was damnable. "Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets." (Luke 6:26)
The Pharisees were widely respected as interpreters of the Torah and pious men among the Jewish people. But Jeus damned this respectability. Referring to the Pharisees in Luke, Jesus stated that “ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” Thus, the role of the Pharisees as the authoritative interpreters of the Law among the Jewish people, their efforts to enforce religious prescriptions on the population as a whole, their influence on the management of Temple ritual, and other indications of their respectability made them “unclean” (or abominable) in a way that was worse than the sinful woman who Simon wanted removed from his house. The woman’s sins could be redeemed but Simon’s sense of self-satisfied authority made him impervious to the kind of faith that Jesus demanded and was thus beyond redemption. In fact, everything Simon and other Pharisees did to build their reputations was tainted with a sinfulness that was greater any transgressions against the Mosaic law. Seeking to justify themselves “before men,” their education in the Law, following of ritual prescriptions, carrying the Torah, and wearing of special robes all served to take them farther from any kind of sanctity or spiritual cleanliness. From the point of view of Jesus, Simon was a monster of presumption, an “abomination in the sight of God.” It was because of this presumption that Simon the Pharisee could not love Jesus in the manner of the woman with the alabaster ointment. As a result, Jesus did not forgive his lack of love like he forgave the woman. [iii]
Jesus did not forgive patriarchy.
That's why Amanda Marcotte has a friend in Jesus.
[i]Luke 7: 44-46, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with Psalms and Proverbs, Commonly known as the Authorized (King James Version), National Publishing, 1968. All subsequent New Testament citations from same edition.
[ii]Matthew 5:3; Matthew 23: 11-12; John 13: 4-5.
[iii]Matthew 23: 5-7; Luke 6: 25; Luke 7:47. In Luke 18, Jesus makes a similar comparison between a Pharisee and a tax collector. For popularity of Pharisees, see Timothy A. Friedrichsen, The Temple, a Pharisee, a Tax Collector, and the Kingdom of God,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Spring2005, Vol. 124, Issue 1, 109-110.
[iv]For efforts by the Pharisees to extent dietary prescriptions, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees.
There's no doubt that the language of Luke is pretty patriarchal even if it doesn't conceive of Mary or other women "as nothing but vessels."
"And now you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus . . . The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God."(New Oxford Annotated Bible, Luke 1: 31-35)
But Marcotte misses out on a big part of the Jesus story. Patriarchy gave birth to Jesus (doesn't it give birth to us all), but Jesus was also an uncompromising, relentless, and violent enemy of patriarchy among men. Even a bigger enemy of patriarchy than Amanda Marcotte.
And that's why the men of ancient Judea killed Jesus!
In fact, one of the keys to understanding the doctrine of Jesus is that he valued the most despised women more than any kind of patriarch.
This can be seen in Luke's account of Jesus' visit to the house of a Pharisee named Simon. As Jesus sat down to his meal, a woman “which was a sinner” came into the house with a box of expensive alabaster ointment, stood behind Jesus weeping, “and began to wash his feet with tears.” Then, the woman wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair before kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. Simon responded to this extraordinary scene by wondering why Jesus would let such a woman touch him. But Jesus would have none of this and he quickly let Simon know that he had more respect for the sinful woman than Simon himself.
"Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but he hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment."[i]
For Jesus, there was much more value in the woman's (sexual) sinning than Simon's piety. Because of the weight of her many sins, the woman had a corresponding need for forgiveness. Consequently, she “loved much” and showed that love through her service of washing Jesus’ feet with her tears, wiping his feet with her hair, and then kissing and anointing his feet. For Jesus, this is how love showed itself most forcefully--in a willingness to subordinate oneself to God and others. The woman's overpowering need for forgiveness recalls the first of the blessings in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew: “blessed are the poor in spirit.” Her “tainted” reputation as a sinner corresponds with the crucial dictum that the “last shall come first and the first shall come last.” Finally, washing another's feet was the model that Jesus adapted when showing his love for humanity in John’s account of the Last Supper. Of all the figures, Jesus encountered in his ministry, this sinning woman was the one that Jesus embodied most in his own conduct.[ii]
To the contrary, there was much in Simon’s conduct that was repugnant to Jesus and his doctrine. Not feeling the weight of sins like adultery and not being burdened by a need for forgiveness, Simon had little love for Jesus. “To whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” Instead, Simon was focused on the issue of reputation. Because the woman had a reputation as a sinner and therefore would have been seen as “unclean,” Simon seemed to believe that she should not have been allowed into the presence of a holy man like Jesus. From the perspective of Jesus, however, this concern for reputation revealed Simon as engaging in public display rather than a manifestation of sincere piety in his observation of the Law. The same was the case for the Pharisees in general. “But all their works they do for to be seen by men; they . . . love the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets, and to be called Rabbi, Rabbi.” For Jesus, this kind of social prestige was damnable. "Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets." (Luke 6:26)
The Pharisees were widely respected as interpreters of the Torah and pious men among the Jewish people. But Jeus damned this respectability. Referring to the Pharisees in Luke, Jesus stated that “ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” Thus, the role of the Pharisees as the authoritative interpreters of the Law among the Jewish people, their efforts to enforce religious prescriptions on the population as a whole, their influence on the management of Temple ritual, and other indications of their respectability made them “unclean” (or abominable) in a way that was worse than the sinful woman who Simon wanted removed from his house. The woman’s sins could be redeemed but Simon’s sense of self-satisfied authority made him impervious to the kind of faith that Jesus demanded and was thus beyond redemption. In fact, everything Simon and other Pharisees did to build their reputations was tainted with a sinfulness that was greater any transgressions against the Mosaic law. Seeking to justify themselves “before men,” their education in the Law, following of ritual prescriptions, carrying the Torah, and wearing of special robes all served to take them farther from any kind of sanctity or spiritual cleanliness. From the point of view of Jesus, Simon was a monster of presumption, an “abomination in the sight of God.” It was because of this presumption that Simon the Pharisee could not love Jesus in the manner of the woman with the alabaster ointment. As a result, Jesus did not forgive his lack of love like he forgave the woman. [iii]
Jesus did not forgive patriarchy.
That's why Amanda Marcotte has a friend in Jesus.
[i]Luke 7: 44-46, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with Psalms and Proverbs, Commonly known as the Authorized (King James Version), National Publishing, 1968. All subsequent New Testament citations from same edition.
[ii]Matthew 5:3; Matthew 23: 11-12; John 13: 4-5.
[iii]Matthew 23: 5-7; Luke 6: 25; Luke 7:47. In Luke 18, Jesus makes a similar comparison between a Pharisee and a tax collector. For popularity of Pharisees, see Timothy A. Friedrichsen, The Temple, a Pharisee, a Tax Collector, and the Kingdom of God,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Spring2005, Vol. 124, Issue 1, 109-110.
[iv]For efforts by the Pharisees to extent dietary prescriptions, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees.
Maybe George Needs a Cup of Coffee
Perhaps George Bush could learn something from the irresponsibility of Claude Van Tassel formerly of Maine, now Pennsylvania. According to Fox, Van Tassel told his wife that "he was going for coffee" while shopping with his wife in Maine, then abandoned her, and turned up five months later in Pennsylvania. Needless to say, I do not recommend abandoning a wife of 38 years by any means, especially for someone with 12 children like Mr. Van Tassel.
However, I wouldn't mind if President Bush just "stepped out" for a cup of coffee one of these days. He could take Dick Cheney with him.
However, I wouldn't mind if President Bush just "stepped out" for a cup of coffee one of these days. He could take Dick Cheney with him.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Only in Kentucky
There's a chance that the ski trip of my 12 year old daughter's church youth group is going to be cancelled because of a snow storm. Kentucky may be the only state in the nation where 1-2 inches of snow can cancel a ski trip.
Not that Katy will mind.
She's grounded anyway.
Not that Katy will mind.
She's grounded anyway.
The Worst People in the World?
Today, Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" award went to Robert Lamb of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Opposing legislation to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birthday in Virginia, Lamb said that "Lincoln sent armies into Virginia to lay waste to the state, that the state should instead celebrate the birthday of Jefferson Davis" instead.
People like Lamb never get it. Jefferson Davis and everyone who participated in the Confederacy were traitors. What's worse, the Confederates launched their rebellion to promote a vicious system of slavery and slavery was particularly disgusting in Virginia which served as a "breeding" state that shipped surplus slaves further south. Finally, the Confederates were holding the South back. Even by the time of the Civil War, the American South was a economic, educational, and cultural backwater that had fallen far behind. Because of the continuing commitment to white supremacy after the Civil War, the South remained a backwater until the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's and 1960's.
By transforming the Civil War into a war of emancipation, Abraham Lincoln wrote a promissory note for liberating the whole South from the burden of slavery, a note that Martin Luther King, SNCC, and the Freedom Riders cashed in the sixties. People like Lamb who continue to fight for "the lost cause" of the Confederacy, slavery, and white supremacy really are among the worst people in the world because they continue to fight in the name of a disgraceful past.
People like Lamb never get it. Jefferson Davis and everyone who participated in the Confederacy were traitors. What's worse, the Confederates launched their rebellion to promote a vicious system of slavery and slavery was particularly disgusting in Virginia which served as a "breeding" state that shipped surplus slaves further south. Finally, the Confederates were holding the South back. Even by the time of the Civil War, the American South was a economic, educational, and cultural backwater that had fallen far behind. Because of the continuing commitment to white supremacy after the Civil War, the South remained a backwater until the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's and 1960's.
By transforming the Civil War into a war of emancipation, Abraham Lincoln wrote a promissory note for liberating the whole South from the burden of slavery, a note that Martin Luther King, SNCC, and the Freedom Riders cashed in the sixties. People like Lamb who continue to fight for "the lost cause" of the Confederacy, slavery, and white supremacy really are among the worst people in the world because they continue to fight in the name of a disgraceful past.
Politics for Ugly People?
This morning, I went to a faculty forum for a candidate for the provost position at my state university in Kentucky. For readers unfamiliar with universities, the provost is the no. 2 position behind the university president. In general, the provost of a state university is more concerned with the nuts and bolts of administration while presidents deal more with state agencies, fund-raising, and public ceremony.
Like a university president, the provost's job is fundamentally political. Jay Leno exaggerated when he said that politics was show business for ugly people. Politicians like Mitt Romney and Kay Bailey Hutchinson may not be actor good-looking, but they are very pretty people in the vapid, blow-dried, way that Americans demand. That's not the case with academic administrators who tend to be pretty average if not a little pallid looking from spending so much time indoors. Academic administration is politics for people who aren't pretty enough to be politicians.
Today's finalist was Dr. Karla Hughes, the Dean of Human Ecology at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina. The way that academics at low level universities like Morehead State call everybody "Dr." is extremely annoying and ridiculous. I always feel like I should say "defibrillator, stat" whenever anyone calls me Dr. Caric. But Karla Hughes was not annoying at all. In fact, her responses showed a lot of press secretary (Ari Fleischer comes to mind) skills in demonstrating that she knew several sides of every question without committing herself to any particular answers in advance. University people had reason to be impressed. Hughes projected a sense of being flexible in supporting projects that looked promising without carrying a huge agenda of her own. It's nothing too exciting, but that's a good approach given that Morehead State is relatively small, underfinanced state university serving the impoverished area of Eastern Kentucky. Reasonable administrators will support projects from the most talented people they have on board.
Like a university president, the provost's job is fundamentally political. Jay Leno exaggerated when he said that politics was show business for ugly people. Politicians like Mitt Romney and Kay Bailey Hutchinson may not be actor good-looking, but they are very pretty people in the vapid, blow-dried, way that Americans demand. That's not the case with academic administrators who tend to be pretty average if not a little pallid looking from spending so much time indoors. Academic administration is politics for people who aren't pretty enough to be politicians.
Today's finalist was Dr. Karla Hughes, the Dean of Human Ecology at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina. The way that academics at low level universities like Morehead State call everybody "Dr." is extremely annoying and ridiculous. I always feel like I should say "defibrillator, stat" whenever anyone calls me Dr. Caric. But Karla Hughes was not annoying at all. In fact, her responses showed a lot of press secretary (Ari Fleischer comes to mind) skills in demonstrating that she knew several sides of every question without committing herself to any particular answers in advance. University people had reason to be impressed. Hughes projected a sense of being flexible in supporting projects that looked promising without carrying a huge agenda of her own. It's nothing too exciting, but that's a good approach given that Morehead State is relatively small, underfinanced state university serving the impoverished area of Eastern Kentucky. Reasonable administrators will support projects from the most talented people they have on board.
Suicide Pills for Republicans
Destroying Conservative Government. President Bush is quoted in today's Lexington Herald-Leader as saying that the House anti-surge resolution "won't change his plans no matter how many Republicans support it." In 2008 terms, Bush's refusal to acknowledge his own unpopularity means that "he won't change his plans" no matter how many seats Republicans lose in the next election. It may be that George Bush's biggest accomplishment as president might be setting back the Republican Party and the conservative movement for a generation. For that, he would have my undying gratitude, but I'm surprised that I haven't seen any Republicans calling for his impeachment.
The Newt Threat: RSI's Feb. 14 post on Newt Gingrich's brightening prospects for the GOP nomination scooped Dick Morris of Fox and the New York Post by a day. Morris quotes a Jan. 31 Fox Poll that has Newt at 16% nationwide with Mitt Romney at 3%. I neglected to mention that nominating Newt Gingrich would be the equivalent of taking a suicide pill. Gingrich might be the single most unpopular politician in American not named Bush or Cheney. The last time I checked his negatives, Newt was disliked by a landslide of 58% of the voters. If nominated by the presidency, Newt Gingrich would be a sure loser and his massive ego, grandiloquent gestures, and whiny immaturity would drag a lot of other GOP candidates down with him.
Flat Earth Follow-Up. Today's Talking Points Memo notes that a Georgia state senator named Ben Bridges has been circulating a letter claiming that evolutionary theory derives concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic ‘holy book’ Kabbala dating back at least two millennia.” Fortunately for the world of political humor, that's not all. Barnes' memo points to a web site called fixedearth.com which also denies that the earth revolves around the sun or that the earth rotates. Unfortunately for the right wing, the principled ignorance of the flat-earth crowd is even less popular than the endless failures of the Bush administration.
Conservatives used to talk about a "new dawn" in American history. As the right-wing lines up to take their suicide pills, it looks like we might be getting that new dawn indeed.
The Newt Threat: RSI's Feb. 14 post on Newt Gingrich's brightening prospects for the GOP nomination scooped Dick Morris of Fox and the New York Post by a day. Morris quotes a Jan. 31 Fox Poll that has Newt at 16% nationwide with Mitt Romney at 3%. I neglected to mention that nominating Newt Gingrich would be the equivalent of taking a suicide pill. Gingrich might be the single most unpopular politician in American not named Bush or Cheney. The last time I checked his negatives, Newt was disliked by a landslide of 58% of the voters. If nominated by the presidency, Newt Gingrich would be a sure loser and his massive ego, grandiloquent gestures, and whiny immaturity would drag a lot of other GOP candidates down with him.
Flat Earth Follow-Up. Today's Talking Points Memo notes that a Georgia state senator named Ben Bridges has been circulating a letter claiming that evolutionary theory derives concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic ‘holy book’ Kabbala dating back at least two millennia.” Fortunately for the world of political humor, that's not all. Barnes' memo points to a web site called fixedearth.com which also denies that the earth revolves around the sun or that the earth rotates. Unfortunately for the right wing, the principled ignorance of the flat-earth crowd is even less popular than the endless failures of the Bush administration.
Conservatives used to talk about a "new dawn" in American history. As the right-wing lines up to take their suicide pills, it looks like we might be getting that new dawn indeed.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Frank Gaffney and the New Confederacy
Yesterday, Frank Gaffney, a well-known neo-conservative writer, published an op-ed in the Washington Times that called "surge" opponents as "saboteurs" and claimed that Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan should be hanged. Referring to Levin, Gaffney states that:
If there's one thing that really should be a hanging offense, it is behavior that results in our being even less equipped to deal with such threats than we were before this phase of the War for the Free World began on September 11, 2001.
In analyzing Gaffney's article, it is possible to go right for the underlying attitudes and insist that Gaffney hates political dissent in particular and liberty in general. That's what Glenn Greenwald does in a Feb. 14 post on his Salon blog. Nevertheless, superficiality has its virtues and it's useful to linger on the surface of the issues with Gaffney before plunging deeper. On the surface, Gaffney's article is part of a broad right-wing attack on the Democrats and especially the new Democratic congress. In this sense, Gaffney's strident accusations should be considered as a companion to conservative accusations concerning Nancy Pelosi's air travel, John Edwards' bloggers, claims concerning the effect of anti-surge resolutions on troop morale, claim about Barack Obama being educated in radical madrassas, and the Bush administration's aggressive stance toward Iran. They're all experiments by the right-wing in the effort to find a rhetorical edge that would allow them to mobilize public opinion against the Democrats. The right-wing does not care about Pelosi's plane any more than they care about Edwards' bloggers. The point is to find something, anything that will damage the Democrats at a time when President Bush, the war, and the Republicans are becoming less and less popular.
It is important to emphasize that the right-wing is up against the political wall. There's a 21 month time frame before the 2008 election with no viable candidate from the right and all the political trends favoring Democrats and liberals. If the right does not reverse the trends against President Bush, against the war, and against the right-wing view of foreign policy, the right is going to find itself excluded from Presidential as well as Congressional power. As a result, they're throwing all the mud against the wall that they can in the hope that something, anything, will stick. In many ways, Gaffney's "hanging rhetoric" is just another bit of right-wing mud. One can really question the extent to which Gaffney agrees with his position any more than Levin.
However, Gaffney's rhetoric does embody a real anger and desperation that isn't part of the insinuations about Nancy Pelosi's air travel. Beginning with the defeat of impeachment in 1998, the right's patience with any kind of political interaction with the Democrats has gradually worn out. The Bush administration has maintained as much of a "no negotiation" policy with the Democratic leadership as they have with the Iran, a strategy that began when the Republican leadership refused to negotiate with the Clinton administration after the failure of impeachment in 1998. Now that the Democrats are winning elections and are a real threat to run the table in 2008 by winning the presidency and controlling both houses of Congress, the Republicans are becoming even more strident. In this sense, the pointed invoking of the language of treason by Gaffney is a follow-up to Newt Gingrich's calls to effectively revoke the First Amendment in relation to the War on Terror. The best way to view this is that the right-wing is preparing itself to adopt a scorched-earth policy toward the Democrats controlling the government after the 2008. That should be no surprise. Right-wingers in the minority won't be any prettier than right-wing government has been over the last six years.
Plunging a little deeper into values ideas, right-wingers like Gaffney don't just reject liberty. Of course they reject dissent, but what they particularly reject about liberty is the the ability of dissenters to win democratic elections and adapt their views into law. However, the right-wing rejects a great deal about American society besides political dissent. They also reject abortion rights, the broad social tolerance toward gays, the high level of comfort that most of American society has with illegal immigration, the persistence of African-American, Hispanic and other non-Anglo sub-cultures, and the relatively high rates of divorce, pre-marital sex, drug use, and other evidence of moral laxness. In other words, the right-wing rejects most of contemporary American life for the pre-1960's world as they imagine it.
In this context, the threat posed by the Gaffney article is that it represents the possibility of a broad, right-wing rejectionist movement after the potential Democratic victories of 2008. To put the issue in Dick Cheney language, Gaffney's positions could be the harbinger of a New Confederacy as it were.
If there's one thing that really should be a hanging offense, it is behavior that results in our being even less equipped to deal with such threats than we were before this phase of the War for the Free World began on September 11, 2001.
In analyzing Gaffney's article, it is possible to go right for the underlying attitudes and insist that Gaffney hates political dissent in particular and liberty in general. That's what Glenn Greenwald does in a Feb. 14 post on his Salon blog. Nevertheless, superficiality has its virtues and it's useful to linger on the surface of the issues with Gaffney before plunging deeper. On the surface, Gaffney's article is part of a broad right-wing attack on the Democrats and especially the new Democratic congress. In this sense, Gaffney's strident accusations should be considered as a companion to conservative accusations concerning Nancy Pelosi's air travel, John Edwards' bloggers, claims concerning the effect of anti-surge resolutions on troop morale, claim about Barack Obama being educated in radical madrassas, and the Bush administration's aggressive stance toward Iran. They're all experiments by the right-wing in the effort to find a rhetorical edge that would allow them to mobilize public opinion against the Democrats. The right-wing does not care about Pelosi's plane any more than they care about Edwards' bloggers. The point is to find something, anything that will damage the Democrats at a time when President Bush, the war, and the Republicans are becoming less and less popular.
It is important to emphasize that the right-wing is up against the political wall. There's a 21 month time frame before the 2008 election with no viable candidate from the right and all the political trends favoring Democrats and liberals. If the right does not reverse the trends against President Bush, against the war, and against the right-wing view of foreign policy, the right is going to find itself excluded from Presidential as well as Congressional power. As a result, they're throwing all the mud against the wall that they can in the hope that something, anything, will stick. In many ways, Gaffney's "hanging rhetoric" is just another bit of right-wing mud. One can really question the extent to which Gaffney agrees with his position any more than Levin.
However, Gaffney's rhetoric does embody a real anger and desperation that isn't part of the insinuations about Nancy Pelosi's air travel. Beginning with the defeat of impeachment in 1998, the right's patience with any kind of political interaction with the Democrats has gradually worn out. The Bush administration has maintained as much of a "no negotiation" policy with the Democratic leadership as they have with the Iran, a strategy that began when the Republican leadership refused to negotiate with the Clinton administration after the failure of impeachment in 1998. Now that the Democrats are winning elections and are a real threat to run the table in 2008 by winning the presidency and controlling both houses of Congress, the Republicans are becoming even more strident. In this sense, the pointed invoking of the language of treason by Gaffney is a follow-up to Newt Gingrich's calls to effectively revoke the First Amendment in relation to the War on Terror. The best way to view this is that the right-wing is preparing itself to adopt a scorched-earth policy toward the Democrats controlling the government after the 2008. That should be no surprise. Right-wingers in the minority won't be any prettier than right-wing government has been over the last six years.
Plunging a little deeper into values ideas, right-wingers like Gaffney don't just reject liberty. Of course they reject dissent, but what they particularly reject about liberty is the the ability of dissenters to win democratic elections and adapt their views into law. However, the right-wing rejects a great deal about American society besides political dissent. They also reject abortion rights, the broad social tolerance toward gays, the high level of comfort that most of American society has with illegal immigration, the persistence of African-American, Hispanic and other non-Anglo sub-cultures, and the relatively high rates of divorce, pre-marital sex, drug use, and other evidence of moral laxness. In other words, the right-wing rejects most of contemporary American life for the pre-1960's world as they imagine it.
In this context, the threat posed by the Gaffney article is that it represents the possibility of a broad, right-wing rejectionist movement after the potential Democratic victories of 2008. To put the issue in Dick Cheney language, Gaffney's positions could be the harbinger of a New Confederacy as it were.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Opening for Newt
Yesterday, I saw something that caught my eye in the coverage of Mitt Romney's announcement of his presidential campaign. According to Fox, Romney "is considered a serious candidate in the same tier as McCain and former two-term New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani."
That just is not the case.
The top tier of the Republican presidential race is Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, with Giuliani stretching out to a 33% to 24.5% lead. Mitt Romney is trailing at 6.2% which is about what John Kerry was polling at when he declared himself out of the race. Despite a couple months of blanket coverage, Romney is barely registering with Republican voters. To say that Romney's even a second tier candidate is more charitable than accurate.
In fact, the second tier candidate is Newt Gingrich polling at an 11% RCP average in the national surveys and at 16% in the most recent Iowa poll. That's more than twice as much as Romney, a fact undoubtedly has not escaped Newt's notice.
Ultimately, there's a better chance of Newt moving up into the first tier of candidates than Mitt Romney. Indeed Newt has a lot of advantages in a Republican primary. First, Gingrich has a national reputation and a lot of experience in national policy debates. As a result, he doesn't have to spend a lot of money introducing himself to Republicans (like Giuliani and Romney). Unlike John McCain, Newt is a much-loved figure among most factions of Republicans.
Perhaps more importantly, not entering the race at an early date means that Newt Gingrich does not have to undergo the damaging interrogation from the right-wing that's currently being administered to McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. Having to tack right has already cost McCain a great deal of support among moderates without him gaining anything among the right-wingers who won't forgive McCain/Feingold or comprehensive immigration reform. Having to explain his marriage to a cousin, the mistress in the mayor's mansion, and his support for abortion rights and gay rights will eventually bring Giuliani down as well. Given the weaknesses of the Republican contenders, Gingrich might hop into the race if he ever reaches 20% in Iowa.
Gingrich's other advantage is that he is more "well-rounded" as a conservative than the other Republican contenders. Gingrich is a long established neo-con in foreign policy, social conservative on abortion and gay rights, and pro-business guy in economics. Neither Giuliani nor Romney can match Newt's long record of social conservatism while McCain is too much on the side of government regulation to satisfy the free market zealots.
If Newt plays his cards right and either McCain or Giuliani falter, Gingrich could find himself in the first tier by Labor Day. That's a lot more than Mitt Roney can say.
That just is not the case.
The top tier of the Republican presidential race is Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, with Giuliani stretching out to a 33% to 24.5% lead. Mitt Romney is trailing at 6.2% which is about what John Kerry was polling at when he declared himself out of the race. Despite a couple months of blanket coverage, Romney is barely registering with Republican voters. To say that Romney's even a second tier candidate is more charitable than accurate.
In fact, the second tier candidate is Newt Gingrich polling at an 11% RCP average in the national surveys and at 16% in the most recent Iowa poll. That's more than twice as much as Romney, a fact undoubtedly has not escaped Newt's notice.
Ultimately, there's a better chance of Newt moving up into the first tier of candidates than Mitt Romney. Indeed Newt has a lot of advantages in a Republican primary. First, Gingrich has a national reputation and a lot of experience in national policy debates. As a result, he doesn't have to spend a lot of money introducing himself to Republicans (like Giuliani and Romney). Unlike John McCain, Newt is a much-loved figure among most factions of Republicans.
Perhaps more importantly, not entering the race at an early date means that Newt Gingrich does not have to undergo the damaging interrogation from the right-wing that's currently being administered to McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. Having to tack right has already cost McCain a great deal of support among moderates without him gaining anything among the right-wingers who won't forgive McCain/Feingold or comprehensive immigration reform. Having to explain his marriage to a cousin, the mistress in the mayor's mansion, and his support for abortion rights and gay rights will eventually bring Giuliani down as well. Given the weaknesses of the Republican contenders, Gingrich might hop into the race if he ever reaches 20% in Iowa.
Gingrich's other advantage is that he is more "well-rounded" as a conservative than the other Republican contenders. Gingrich is a long established neo-con in foreign policy, social conservative on abortion and gay rights, and pro-business guy in economics. Neither Giuliani nor Romney can match Newt's long record of social conservatism while McCain is too much on the side of government regulation to satisfy the free market zealots.
If Newt plays his cards right and either McCain or Giuliani falter, Gingrich could find himself in the first tier by Labor Day. That's a lot more than Mitt Roney can say.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Bush's Loosening Grip
Just as Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are beginning to organize little pockets of shadow government, the Bush renegades are slowly losing their grip on the rest of the government.
The best illustration of this is the continuing controversy over Iranian weapons in Iraq. Last Saturday, an anonymous "senior defense official" and two other equally anonymous experts claimed that effective roadside bombs called "explosively formed penetrators" or EFP were manufactured in Iran and handed over to Iraqi Shiite militias by the Quds units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards under the orders of Iraqi leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Given that these kinds of claims were relentlessly hyped in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there has been a lot of legitimate questioning over whether the anonymity of the presenters meant that the Bush administration wanted to distance itself from the potentially spurious claims. My sense though is that the Bush administration decided that an "anonymous" general would be more credible than senior Bush officials. Thus, the administration has decided that the President Bush himself, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice no longer have the credibility needed to convince the public that administration claims about Iran are true. So they used an "anonymous" presenter instead. In other words, the Bush administration has begun to lose its nerve.
Then today, General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directly contradicted the Bush administration's position on these same weapons, claiming that there was no basis for accusing the Iranian government of interfering in Iraq even if the "explosively-formed penetrators" were manufactured in Iran. Of course, Pace is right. If the weapons indeed are Iranian made (still a "big if"), there are lots of ways that don't involve the Iranian government to get weapons into Iraq and the Bush administration does not have good enough intelligence to determine how the weapons would be moving into Iraq. However, the larger point is that General Pace is "off the reservation" on such an important point for the Bush administration. As Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Pace is the most important political appointee in the American military. The fact that he has gone "off message" means both that he is dismissive of the Bush administration's campaign against Iran and that he does not fear retaliation from the higher levels of the administration. In other words, the Bush administration has lost control over General Pace. Normally, losing control over the military during a time of war would be a dangerous thing, but what Peter Pace's independence means is that the Bush administration is now a little less dangerous.
The Bush administration is not doing any better with Congressional Republicans. Although Sen. Mitch McConnell is fighting a rear-guard action for Bush in the Senate, House Republicans have decided not to defend the Bush administration's surge policy in this week's debate over Nancy Pelosi's anti-surge resolution. According to a letter obtained by Talking Points Memo, the Republican leadership is advising GOP representatives to talk about almost anything but the surge:
"The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
The Bush administration has always sneered at any idea that they need support from our major European allies. The Bush administration did not care if the intelligence community, retired generals, or public opinion did not support them either. The Bush administration didn't govern according to the polls and why would they care about what the "bureaucracy" thought anyway? But the Bush administration is gradually finding that no one except the Prime Minister of Australia wants to "carry their water" (to use a phrase from racist talk-show host Rush Limbaugh) anymore. The Bush administration is lucky that there is no tradition of coups in the United States. Otherwise, they would be very ripe for a coup d'etat.
The best illustration of this is the continuing controversy over Iranian weapons in Iraq. Last Saturday, an anonymous "senior defense official" and two other equally anonymous experts claimed that effective roadside bombs called "explosively formed penetrators" or EFP were manufactured in Iran and handed over to Iraqi Shiite militias by the Quds units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards under the orders of Iraqi leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Given that these kinds of claims were relentlessly hyped in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there has been a lot of legitimate questioning over whether the anonymity of the presenters meant that the Bush administration wanted to distance itself from the potentially spurious claims. My sense though is that the Bush administration decided that an "anonymous" general would be more credible than senior Bush officials. Thus, the administration has decided that the President Bush himself, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice no longer have the credibility needed to convince the public that administration claims about Iran are true. So they used an "anonymous" presenter instead. In other words, the Bush administration has begun to lose its nerve.
Then today, General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directly contradicted the Bush administration's position on these same weapons, claiming that there was no basis for accusing the Iranian government of interfering in Iraq even if the "explosively-formed penetrators" were manufactured in Iran. Of course, Pace is right. If the weapons indeed are Iranian made (still a "big if"), there are lots of ways that don't involve the Iranian government to get weapons into Iraq and the Bush administration does not have good enough intelligence to determine how the weapons would be moving into Iraq. However, the larger point is that General Pace is "off the reservation" on such an important point for the Bush administration. As Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Pace is the most important political appointee in the American military. The fact that he has gone "off message" means both that he is dismissive of the Bush administration's campaign against Iran and that he does not fear retaliation from the higher levels of the administration. In other words, the Bush administration has lost control over General Pace. Normally, losing control over the military during a time of war would be a dangerous thing, but what Peter Pace's independence means is that the Bush administration is now a little less dangerous.
The Bush administration is not doing any better with Congressional Republicans. Although Sen. Mitch McConnell is fighting a rear-guard action for Bush in the Senate, House Republicans have decided not to defend the Bush administration's surge policy in this week's debate over Nancy Pelosi's anti-surge resolution. According to a letter obtained by Talking Points Memo, the Republican leadership is advising GOP representatives to talk about almost anything but the surge:
"The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
The Bush administration has always sneered at any idea that they need support from our major European allies. The Bush administration did not care if the intelligence community, retired generals, or public opinion did not support them either. The Bush administration didn't govern according to the polls and why would they care about what the "bureaucracy" thought anyway? But the Bush administration is gradually finding that no one except the Prime Minister of Australia wants to "carry their water" (to use a phrase from racist talk-show host Rush Limbaugh) anymore. The Bush administration is lucky that there is no tradition of coups in the United States. Otherwise, they would be very ripe for a coup d'etat.
Blogging the RSI Family
Obama is Doomed! Local kids and their parents have picked up on all the Barack stereotypes that the right-wing has been circulating about Obama. The father of one of Katy's friends wouldn't vote for Obama because he believes Obama's a Muslim. Another friend believes that Obama was raised as a Muslim militant. Katy herself thinks that Obama's Irish--Barack O' Obama.
Irish Accents? My daughter Tess just said that if she had Irish blood on both sides she'd have an accent. Growing up in Eastern Kentucky, Tess is going to have an accent whether she has Irish blood on both sides or not.
Hope Springs Eternal. Even as tonight's rain is washing away the last of the snow, Tess got out the "snowball shields" in case tonight's "wintry mix" results in school cancellation.
Irish Accents? My daughter Tess just said that if she had Irish blood on both sides she'd have an accent. Growing up in Eastern Kentucky, Tess is going to have an accent whether she has Irish blood on both sides or not.
Hope Springs Eternal. Even as tonight's rain is washing away the last of the snow, Tess got out the "snowball shields" in case tonight's "wintry mix" results in school cancellation.
The Wages of Belligerence
The Ahmadinejad in the Mirror. In an interview with C-Span yesterday, President Bush claimed that "The Iranian people are good, honest, decent people and they've got a government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening--a government which is in defiance of the rest of the world and says "We want a nuclear weapon." The United States already has nuclear weapons, but the rest of the statement captures the Bush administration in a nutshell--"belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening . . . in defiance of the rest of the world." Like President Ahmadinejad, Bush is also an increasingly unpopular and isolated figure at home and responding to his isolation by increasing his belligerence . . . toward Iran.
Other People's Deaths. The advantage of being a super-power is that the United States can make other people pay the vast majority of the cost for its mistakes. In the case of the war on terror, we (and it's painful to include myself here) have made the people of Iraq pay the price for the election of our Ahmadinejad. Yesterday, car bombs in Baghdad killed 78 people to mark the anniversary of the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra. That didn't count the numbers of men and women who were assassinated by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia. Estimates vary, but it looks like more than 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that the American civil war was the price that this country paid for the sin of slavery. I wonder if there will be such an ultimate price for out invasion of Iraq.
Other People's Deaths. The advantage of being a super-power is that the United States can make other people pay the vast majority of the cost for its mistakes. In the case of the war on terror, we (and it's painful to include myself here) have made the people of Iraq pay the price for the election of our Ahmadinejad. Yesterday, car bombs in Baghdad killed 78 people to mark the anniversary of the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra. That didn't count the numbers of men and women who were assassinated by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia. Estimates vary, but it looks like more than 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that the American civil war was the price that this country paid for the sin of slavery. I wonder if there will be such an ultimate price for out invasion of Iraq.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Dancing Around RedState Religion
Dancing My Way. Last Saturday, I danced up a storm at the Valentines Gala at the Carl Perkins Center in Morehead, KY. I stomped, boogied, shimmied, and twisted the bulging discs in my back and neck all the way back to the chiropractor's table on Monday.
But it was worth it!
I loved dancing in high school and college and sometimes danced three times a week to the local bands. At the local high school here in Kentucky, students only get three dances or so in a year. Talk about dance deprivation! Because they are hemmed in by evangelical religious prejudices against dancing, high school students are really deprived. Dancing to high school bands is highly democratic. It's individual expression; it's training in responding to other people; and its feeling like you're part of a group. Kids in this area often have trouble both in expressing themselves individually and identifying with groups. They would do better if they had more opportunities to dance. I know I'm a better person because I danced so much as a young guy.
Steppin to It. Not that religion is all bad. The Lexington Herald-Leader has a story on a Georgetown College (north of Lexington) dance team that engages in a form of "step dancing" that originated as a mode of communication among black miners in South Africa. The choreographer, Nicole Wilson, views the dancing as a way to show "the love of God" and has the dancers recite John 3:16 as they dance. Compared to evangelical churches, African-American religion has a very appealing emphasis on love, freedom, and social justice that's expressed by the dance team. White churches would do well to follow their example.
In fact. Some extraordinary things happen in religion. Kentucky has the second highest rate of disabilities in the country after West Virginia and people here routinely face disasters for either themselves or their families. However, one of the inspiring things about living in Kentucky is the heroic lengths that people go to help each other. The Herald-Leader had a particularly inspiring story today about a couple who met while both were going through extremely hard times--chronic unemployment on his part and the deaths of several close relatives on hers. When the story of their wedding got out, local businesses donated "photographic, cake, and music services" for the wedding. The couple viewed the generosity as "God working miracles." Those kinds of miracles should be part of the dance of life.
But it was worth it!
I loved dancing in high school and college and sometimes danced three times a week to the local bands. At the local high school here in Kentucky, students only get three dances or so in a year. Talk about dance deprivation! Because they are hemmed in by evangelical religious prejudices against dancing, high school students are really deprived. Dancing to high school bands is highly democratic. It's individual expression; it's training in responding to other people; and its feeling like you're part of a group. Kids in this area often have trouble both in expressing themselves individually and identifying with groups. They would do better if they had more opportunities to dance. I know I'm a better person because I danced so much as a young guy.
Steppin to It. Not that religion is all bad. The Lexington Herald-Leader has a story on a Georgetown College (north of Lexington) dance team that engages in a form of "step dancing" that originated as a mode of communication among black miners in South Africa. The choreographer, Nicole Wilson, views the dancing as a way to show "the love of God" and has the dancers recite John 3:16 as they dance. Compared to evangelical churches, African-American religion has a very appealing emphasis on love, freedom, and social justice that's expressed by the dance team. White churches would do well to follow their example.
In fact. Some extraordinary things happen in religion. Kentucky has the second highest rate of disabilities in the country after West Virginia and people here routinely face disasters for either themselves or their families. However, one of the inspiring things about living in Kentucky is the heroic lengths that people go to help each other. The Herald-Leader had a particularly inspiring story today about a couple who met while both were going through extremely hard times--chronic unemployment on his part and the deaths of several close relatives on hers. When the story of their wedding got out, local businesses donated "photographic, cake, and music services" for the wedding. The couple viewed the generosity as "God working miracles." Those kinds of miracles should be part of the dance of life.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The Bush Ship Sinks Deeper
There's an old saying that "loose lips sink ships." Of course, the Bush ship has already sunk. But the loose-lipped comments of former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith on Fox today are going to sink the Bush ship even further. Feith argued that his office never claimed that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. Here's the key quote:
"Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's just not correct. I mean, words matter. And people are throwing around loose allegations, vague allegations, based on not reading the words carefully. "
Via Talking Points Memo, Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and Laura Rozen show that Feith had indeed leaked a document to The Weekly Standard claiming a Saddam/al-Qaida relationship. But he Feith controversy isn't just a minor "gotcha" catching Feith lying in the present. It's a big "gotcha." Thinking about this closely, Feith practically admitted that he lied about the purported Saddam/al-Qaeda link in his original leak to The Weekly Standard. Most importantly, Feith implicitly admitted that the allegation of a Saddam/al-Qaeda link was not true. If Feith had thought that the Saddam/al-Qaeda accusation were true, he would have either bragged about the leak or dishonestly expressed regret that he hadn't made the point himself.
In denying any connection to the leak, Feith effectively disowned the Saddam/ al-Qaida link. That's huge. Nobody in the Bush administration has coped to a false allegation since the "sixteen little word" confession about Nigerian yellowcake. I wonder if Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are going to start confessing to their Iraq lies by denying that they ever made the claim in the first place. It may turn out that the new lies of the Bush administration will trip up their old lies.
That's certainly the case with Feith. He also admits implicitly that anyone who put out the claim was lying. Given that Feith was the person responsible for leaking the claim to the Weekly Standard, he was the one who was lying.
"Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's just not correct. I mean, words matter. And people are throwing around loose allegations, vague allegations, based on not reading the words carefully. "
Via Talking Points Memo, Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and Laura Rozen show that Feith had indeed leaked a document to The Weekly Standard claiming a Saddam/al-Qaida relationship. But he Feith controversy isn't just a minor "gotcha" catching Feith lying in the present. It's a big "gotcha." Thinking about this closely, Feith practically admitted that he lied about the purported Saddam/al-Qaeda link in his original leak to The Weekly Standard. Most importantly, Feith implicitly admitted that the allegation of a Saddam/al-Qaeda link was not true. If Feith had thought that the Saddam/al-Qaeda accusation were true, he would have either bragged about the leak or dishonestly expressed regret that he hadn't made the point himself.
In denying any connection to the leak, Feith effectively disowned the Saddam/ al-Qaida link. That's huge. Nobody in the Bush administration has coped to a false allegation since the "sixteen little word" confession about Nigerian yellowcake. I wonder if Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are going to start confessing to their Iraq lies by denying that they ever made the claim in the first place. It may turn out that the new lies of the Bush administration will trip up their old lies.
That's certainly the case with Feith. He also admits implicitly that anyone who put out the claim was lying. Given that Feith was the person responsible for leaking the claim to the Weekly Standard, he was the one who was lying.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
"I Had a Vision of Love"
I never thought I would be quoting Maria Carey, but the lyric "I had a vision of love/ And it was all that you've given to me" has been pounding in my brain the last few days. My impulse here derives from the ever-expanding role of my family's love in my own life. But I feel myself reaching for some undefined "more" as well--a love that people can build in their public lives as well as in the walls of their homes.
This is one reason why I'm so glad that Barack Obama is running for the presidency even though I plan on voting for Hillary. My wife is only one of the people who favors Obama's candidacy because they have visions of what African-Americans call a "beloved community" and they associate those undefined but powerfully felt ideals with Obama.
In this context, I think that Obama's being African-American is somewhat of an advantage among his early white supporters. Because of the continuous little civil wars being initiated by the right-wing, an increasing number of whites (as well as African-Americans) are beginning to dissociate their political hopes from white politicians. Obama's title for his recent book--The Audacity of Hope--hits the mark. Hope is audacious and many in the white public associate that hope with Obama precisely because he is not white and therefore not the same as the politicians they despair of.
Of course, Obama can't win unless he puts together a broad coalition of Democrats, but his campaign has brought suppressed visions of love into play. Hopefully, Obama's infectious sense of hope rubs off on the other candidates.
This is one reason why I'm so glad that Barack Obama is running for the presidency even though I plan on voting for Hillary. My wife is only one of the people who favors Obama's candidacy because they have visions of what African-Americans call a "beloved community" and they associate those undefined but powerfully felt ideals with Obama.
In this context, I think that Obama's being African-American is somewhat of an advantage among his early white supporters. Because of the continuous little civil wars being initiated by the right-wing, an increasing number of whites (as well as African-Americans) are beginning to dissociate their political hopes from white politicians. Obama's title for his recent book--The Audacity of Hope--hits the mark. Hope is audacious and many in the white public associate that hope with Obama precisely because he is not white and therefore not the same as the politicians they despair of.
Of course, Obama can't win unless he puts together a broad coalition of Democrats, but his campaign has brought suppressed visions of love into play. Hopefully, Obama's infectious sense of hope rubs off on the other candidates.
Not Hopeless?
General David Petraus took over as the U. S. military commander in Iraq emphasizing at a Baghdad ceremony that the situation is "not hopeless."
But it's not exactly hopeful either.
Here's some of the extremely difficult taks that have to be accomplished for the surge to be successful.
1. The Iraqi Army. Getting the Iraqi Army to lead the effort to control Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods will be extremely difficult. Perhaps not completely hopeless, but there is no reason to be optimistic either. The Iraqi Army is riddled with militia members and militia sympathizers, corrupt, and poorly motivated for fighting anywhere but in their home provinces. Even if Petraus can transform the Iraqi Army from a glorified militia into an effective offensive force, the chances of success appear negligible. If Petraus can't do this, there's no chance whatsoever.
2. Avoiding Shiite Insurrection. The consensus seems to be that any success in stabilizing Baghdad means that Shiite militias have to be neutralized. However, there is a strong possibility that attacking the Mahdi Army, Badr Brigade, and other militias will trigger a general Shiite revolt to match the Sunni revolt in Anbar. The American military has to resist the temptation to arrest or kill Moqtada al-Sadr, avoid torturing the suspects they round up, not have any incidents where women and children are killed, not bomb innocent events like wedding celebrations or funerals, not manhandle any Shiite religious leaders, and not desecrate Shiite religious symbols. In other words, the American military has to stop doing all of the things it's been doing in Iraq. A tall order indeed.
3. Avoid Collapse of Iraqi Government. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the al-Sadr faction are the two biggest elements in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's governing coalition. If the American military is successful in attacking the militias connected to these political parties, there is a chance that the Iraqi government could collapse for lack of support among the majority Shiite population. The Bush administration has shown little understanding of the functioning significance of the Shiite militias for the government in Iraq. This might be another case of the Bush administration's commitment to ignorance coming back to bite them.
4. Creating Political Compromise. The Bush administration believes that the surge can only be successful if Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish politicians can make the compromises necessary to form a national unity government. Leaving aside the fact that the Bush administration has been extremely disdainful of negotiation, compromise, and cooperation itself, the Bush administration is expecting Shiite politicians to be willing to compromise at the same time that their communities are under enormous pressure from the American military. That seems extremely doubtful as well.
5. Jump-Starting Economic Reconstruction. The third leg of the "clear, control, build" strategy of General Petraus is economic reconstruction. However, there's little money for reconstruction on any scale, little incentive for Iraqi officials to be honest, and little patience with the inevitable corruption. There's also the problem that economic reconstruction projects are like schools, hospitals, and marketplaces in being extremely vulnerable targets to terror attacks.
Perhaps the surge is not completely hopeless, but I don't think it would be too pessimistic to say that the siege is almost completely hopeless.
But it's not exactly hopeful either.
Here's some of the extremely difficult taks that have to be accomplished for the surge to be successful.
1. The Iraqi Army. Getting the Iraqi Army to lead the effort to control Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods will be extremely difficult. Perhaps not completely hopeless, but there is no reason to be optimistic either. The Iraqi Army is riddled with militia members and militia sympathizers, corrupt, and poorly motivated for fighting anywhere but in their home provinces. Even if Petraus can transform the Iraqi Army from a glorified militia into an effective offensive force, the chances of success appear negligible. If Petraus can't do this, there's no chance whatsoever.
2. Avoiding Shiite Insurrection. The consensus seems to be that any success in stabilizing Baghdad means that Shiite militias have to be neutralized. However, there is a strong possibility that attacking the Mahdi Army, Badr Brigade, and other militias will trigger a general Shiite revolt to match the Sunni revolt in Anbar. The American military has to resist the temptation to arrest or kill Moqtada al-Sadr, avoid torturing the suspects they round up, not have any incidents where women and children are killed, not bomb innocent events like wedding celebrations or funerals, not manhandle any Shiite religious leaders, and not desecrate Shiite religious symbols. In other words, the American military has to stop doing all of the things it's been doing in Iraq. A tall order indeed.
3. Avoid Collapse of Iraqi Government. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the al-Sadr faction are the two biggest elements in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's governing coalition. If the American military is successful in attacking the militias connected to these political parties, there is a chance that the Iraqi government could collapse for lack of support among the majority Shiite population. The Bush administration has shown little understanding of the functioning significance of the Shiite militias for the government in Iraq. This might be another case of the Bush administration's commitment to ignorance coming back to bite them.
4. Creating Political Compromise. The Bush administration believes that the surge can only be successful if Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish politicians can make the compromises necessary to form a national unity government. Leaving aside the fact that the Bush administration has been extremely disdainful of negotiation, compromise, and cooperation itself, the Bush administration is expecting Shiite politicians to be willing to compromise at the same time that their communities are under enormous pressure from the American military. That seems extremely doubtful as well.
5. Jump-Starting Economic Reconstruction. The third leg of the "clear, control, build" strategy of General Petraus is economic reconstruction. However, there's little money for reconstruction on any scale, little incentive for Iraqi officials to be honest, and little patience with the inevitable corruption. There's also the problem that economic reconstruction projects are like schools, hospitals, and marketplaces in being extremely vulnerable targets to terror attacks.
Perhaps the surge is not completely hopeless, but I don't think it would be too pessimistic to say that the siege is almost completely hopeless.
Friday, February 09, 2007
RSI Visits RedState.com
One of the popular right-wing blogs, the existence of RedState has always been a problem here at RSI. If I had known that RedState existed when I set up my blog, I wouldn't have named my blog "Red State Impressions." However, I refuse to change my blog name (at least so far). The honor of the Red States is at stake. The Red States may still vote Republican and the red states of the former Confederacy are still shamed by their association with slavery, segregation, lynching, and "whites only" signs. But RedState is so adolescent, so focused on gestures, and so content-free that it may be even more of an embarrassment to the Red States than the Confederacy.
Still, there is a lot to be learned from RedState.
1. The Right is in Trouble. That's trouble with a capital "T." Today's featured blog was an extended fantasy from "Academic Elephant" (AE) on the idea of a Donald Rumsfeld/ John Bolton Republican ticket for President. Admitting that conservatives are in a state of "malaise" and that the choice between McCain, Giuliani, and Mitt Romney would leave the right "squabbling over who is the least flawed," AE takes up Rumsfeld/Bolton as a dream ticket. So what's the dream? Although AE runs down reasons why a conservative would like Rumsfeld/Bolton, the underlying thrust is that a Rumsfeld/Bolton ticket would be enormously irritating to the left. AE quotes Jed Babbin on "how much Prozac the New York Times editors would consume if that dream came true R-B in '08." Then AE seals the deal by running down all the conservative icons like Ronald Reagan who like Rumsfeld and Bolton vs all the liberals who "hate" them. Things are so bad for conservatives that people on Red State have given up on appealing to the American electorate, winning the election, or governing. Instead, they've made flipping the bird at the left into their top priority. Even then, RedState is wrong. In fact, everybody on the left would be doing front hand-springs (my daughter went to gymnastics open-house tonight) at the idea of a Rumsfeld-Bolton ticket. Of course, Hillary would be salivating at the prospect of running against Rumsfeld as the only man in American history to lose two wars (Vietnam and Iraq). But so would Joe Biden--finally someone Biden could beat.
Why Pseudo-scandals Are In. Part of the problem for the right these days is that their positions on the Iraq War, health care, the environment, social security, and budget deficits are extremely unpopular. Worst of all, a conservative effort to ban abortion was defeated in a popular referendum in the extremely conservative state of South Dakota. As a result, the right is focusing its energies on promoting pseudo-scandals like the dispute over Nancy Pelosi's plane rides to California and whether or not John Edwards' bloggers are "anti-Catholic." This way, they can try to ensnare the Democrats in "controversy" while distracting attention from their own views. On RedState, three feature blogs focus on Pelosi while a fourth dishes on "blogger-gate." Unlike liberal bloggers like Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, I don't think this strategy has much chance of working, mostly because the right played and lost all their pseudo-scandal chips during the Lewinsky scandal.
The Politics of Truth. Relating to "bloggergate," RedState links through to a particular nasty web site called "The Secret Diary of Hillary Clinton" where a fictional Hillary disses the manhood of Edwards. From the right-wing perspective, this brutal, vindictive image of Hillary is the "truth" of Hillary Clinton and the right is determined to promote this image even if they have no evidence to support it. The same was true with the idea that Saddam Hussein was allied with al-Qaeda, that the Iraqis had mobile bio-weapons labs, that the Iraqis were seeking yellow-cake uranium from Niger, and now that the Iranians are seeking to "dominate" the Middle East. Where the American right gets themselves and the rest of our country into trouble is when they feel compelled to act on uncorrobarated accusations or fabricate evidence to give their fantasies an aura of realism. This is one of the reasons why the Bush administration has been continually at war with science and why Newt Gingrich has launched his own war against the First Amendment. The right wants to create it's own truth without reference to evidence.
Still, there is a lot to be learned from RedState.
1. The Right is in Trouble. That's trouble with a capital "T." Today's featured blog was an extended fantasy from "Academic Elephant" (AE) on the idea of a Donald Rumsfeld/ John Bolton Republican ticket for President. Admitting that conservatives are in a state of "malaise" and that the choice between McCain, Giuliani, and Mitt Romney would leave the right "squabbling over who is the least flawed," AE takes up Rumsfeld/Bolton as a dream ticket. So what's the dream? Although AE runs down reasons why a conservative would like Rumsfeld/Bolton, the underlying thrust is that a Rumsfeld/Bolton ticket would be enormously irritating to the left. AE quotes Jed Babbin on "how much Prozac the New York Times editors would consume if that dream came true R-B in '08." Then AE seals the deal by running down all the conservative icons like Ronald Reagan who like Rumsfeld and Bolton vs all the liberals who "hate" them. Things are so bad for conservatives that people on Red State have given up on appealing to the American electorate, winning the election, or governing. Instead, they've made flipping the bird at the left into their top priority. Even then, RedState is wrong. In fact, everybody on the left would be doing front hand-springs (my daughter went to gymnastics open-house tonight) at the idea of a Rumsfeld-Bolton ticket. Of course, Hillary would be salivating at the prospect of running against Rumsfeld as the only man in American history to lose two wars (Vietnam and Iraq). But so would Joe Biden--finally someone Biden could beat.
Why Pseudo-scandals Are In. Part of the problem for the right these days is that their positions on the Iraq War, health care, the environment, social security, and budget deficits are extremely unpopular. Worst of all, a conservative effort to ban abortion was defeated in a popular referendum in the extremely conservative state of South Dakota. As a result, the right is focusing its energies on promoting pseudo-scandals like the dispute over Nancy Pelosi's plane rides to California and whether or not John Edwards' bloggers are "anti-Catholic." This way, they can try to ensnare the Democrats in "controversy" while distracting attention from their own views. On RedState, three feature blogs focus on Pelosi while a fourth dishes on "blogger-gate." Unlike liberal bloggers like Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, I don't think this strategy has much chance of working, mostly because the right played and lost all their pseudo-scandal chips during the Lewinsky scandal.
The Politics of Truth. Relating to "bloggergate," RedState links through to a particular nasty web site called "The Secret Diary of Hillary Clinton" where a fictional Hillary disses the manhood of Edwards. From the right-wing perspective, this brutal, vindictive image of Hillary is the "truth" of Hillary Clinton and the right is determined to promote this image even if they have no evidence to support it. The same was true with the idea that Saddam Hussein was allied with al-Qaeda, that the Iraqis had mobile bio-weapons labs, that the Iraqis were seeking yellow-cake uranium from Niger, and now that the Iranians are seeking to "dominate" the Middle East. Where the American right gets themselves and the rest of our country into trouble is when they feel compelled to act on uncorrobarated accusations or fabricate evidence to give their fantasies an aura of realism. This is one of the reasons why the Bush administration has been continually at war with science and why Newt Gingrich has launched his own war against the First Amendment. The right wants to create it's own truth without reference to evidence.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Grief of a Parent
I've never followed the career of Anna Nicole Smith very closely and I won't pretend to have done so now that she's died.
It's worth noting however that a 20 year old son of hers recently died of a drug overdose. In my experience, there is nothing that kills the spirit of a man or woman more than the death of one of their children. This is true for the 17th century when witchcraft judge Samuel Sewell recanted his role in the Salem trials after the death of an infant child. It's also true for 18th and 19th century diarist who often recorded the death of adult friends from grief soon after the deaths of their children. I suspect the same will eventually prove to be the case with Anna Nicole Smith.
Most of the commentaries I've seen on love focus on the power of romantic love between men and women. Since I've become a parent myself, I've often wondered if love for children might be an even greater force in a person's life.
It's worth noting however that a 20 year old son of hers recently died of a drug overdose. In my experience, there is nothing that kills the spirit of a man or woman more than the death of one of their children. This is true for the 17th century when witchcraft judge Samuel Sewell recanted his role in the Salem trials after the death of an infant child. It's also true for 18th and 19th century diarist who often recorded the death of adult friends from grief soon after the deaths of their children. I suspect the same will eventually prove to be the case with Anna Nicole Smith.
Most of the commentaries I've seen on love focus on the power of romantic love between men and women. Since I've become a parent myself, I've often wondered if love for children might be an even greater force in a person's life.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
A Brief Reflection on Homoeroticism
In my post on Ted Haggard last night, I argued that contemporary heterosexual college guys often associate any connection with femininity with being "gay." For these kinds of guys, being "straight" or a "real man" means limiting oneself to contacts with other guys as much as possible. In other words, heterosexuality is highly homoerotic for college guys these days.
How does that compare with homosexual males? I spent two years working in a gay bar during the 1980's and part of being gay for the guys at my bar was experimenting with stereotypically female gestures, attitudes, and identifications. Experimenting both with being distinctly feminine in relation to conventional masculinity and being attracted to other guys who experimented with feminine guises, the gay guys at Mont Serrat often engaged in a male-only version of heteroeroticism. This made this group of gay men seem less homogeneous in their male homoeroticism than the straight guys at my college in Kentucky.
How does that compare with homosexual males? I spent two years working in a gay bar during the 1980's and part of being gay for the guys at my bar was experimenting with stereotypically female gestures, attitudes, and identifications. Experimenting both with being distinctly feminine in relation to conventional masculinity and being attracted to other guys who experimented with feminine guises, the gay guys at Mont Serrat often engaged in a male-only version of heteroeroticism. This made this group of gay men seem less homogeneous in their male homoeroticism than the straight guys at my college in Kentucky.
The End of the Ride
Ride em in,
Head em out
Ride em in
Head 'em out
Rawhide"
Rawhide's calculatin'
Your true love will be waitin'
Be waiting at the end of the ride.
That is the theme song from the Clint Eastwood cowboy show "Rawhide" and it is the music of my first ten years as the dad of two daughters. No Mozart for me, I used to sing "Rawhide" all the time as I was herding my young daughters around the house getting them up, getting them out to the dining room to eat, and escorting them off to bed. It was a big part of the fun of being a dad. "Ride 'em in, Head 'em out."
Of course, we all know what's really waiting at the end of our ride. Yesterday, Frankie Laine, the guy who sang the Rawhide theme song died. Laine was 93 years old when he died and must have been a really game kind of guy because he sang in gin joints and little dives around Chicago and LA for 17 years before finally getting his big break.
Maybe my ride will last that long.
Ride 'em in
Head 'em out . . .
Head em out
Ride em in
Head 'em out
Rawhide"
Rawhide's calculatin'
Your true love will be waitin'
Be waiting at the end of the ride.
That is the theme song from the Clint Eastwood cowboy show "Rawhide" and it is the music of my first ten years as the dad of two daughters. No Mozart for me, I used to sing "Rawhide" all the time as I was herding my young daughters around the house getting them up, getting them out to the dining room to eat, and escorting them off to bed. It was a big part of the fun of being a dad. "Ride 'em in, Head 'em out."
Of course, we all know what's really waiting at the end of our ride. Yesterday, Frankie Laine, the guy who sang the Rawhide theme song died. Laine was 93 years old when he died and must have been a really game kind of guy because he sang in gin joints and little dives around Chicago and LA for 17 years before finally getting his big break.
Maybe my ride will last that long.
Ride 'em in
Head 'em out . . .
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Is Ted Haggard Still Gay?
Fallen evangelical mega-minister Ted Haggard re-emerged from "intensive therapy" to assure the world that he is "completely heterosexual" and is planning to join his wife in getting an on-line master's degree in psychology.
Personally, I'm relieved to know that you can have sex with a gay prostitute and be "completely heterosexual." That creates all kinds of possibilities in life. Couldn't Barry Bonds have been "drug free" while he was taking steroids and isn't Rush Limbaugh still married to all three of the wives he's divorced. I think I'll say that I'm a Hell's Angel even though I haven't been on a motorcycle in 45 years.
Of course, I imagine that Haggard and his wife feel relieved by this "discovery." But I don't think he understands that being a heterosexual or gay involves a lot more than it used to.
Perhaps there was a time when being heterosexual meant identifying oneself has heterosexual, having sex with the other sex, being in heterosexual relationships, and living in a heterosexual life-world. Likewise, there may have been a time when being gay meant things like identifying oneself as gay or being in gay relationships.
But that's all so old school.
Anyone who listens to college guys, and I mean straight college guys, talk these days comes to the quick realization that it's extremely difficult to avoid being gay. I began to realize this several years when a student got up in front of a class and claimed that any guy who did not go to strip clubs was "gay." In fact, college guys accuse their friends of being gay over anything that deviates from a strict macho image--clothes can be gay, accents can be gay, casual conversation can be gay. Any association with women at all can be associated with accusations of gayness. And yes, that means that guys who date women can be called gay. Strictly considered, heterosexuality is something between men while guys who associate with women are called "gay."
From the contemporary perspective, it isn't just Ted Haggard's sex with a gay prostitute that would make him gay. It would also be his pearly white teeth, that big ministerial grin, and perhaps his exaggerated evangelical clean-cutness. In this sense, Haggard would have been "gay" long before he called on gay prostitutes.
And being married to his wife wouldn't help either.
If Haggard wants to prove that he's "completely heterosexual" by current standards, he might think about spending a lot of time at sports bars. Better yet, he could join an "on-line" frat when he signs up for his classes. But I'm not sure that either Haggard or anyone else can reach the nirvana of "complete heterosexuality."
Personally, I'm relieved to know that you can have sex with a gay prostitute and be "completely heterosexual." That creates all kinds of possibilities in life. Couldn't Barry Bonds have been "drug free" while he was taking steroids and isn't Rush Limbaugh still married to all three of the wives he's divorced. I think I'll say that I'm a Hell's Angel even though I haven't been on a motorcycle in 45 years.
Of course, I imagine that Haggard and his wife feel relieved by this "discovery." But I don't think he understands that being a heterosexual or gay involves a lot more than it used to.
Perhaps there was a time when being heterosexual meant identifying oneself has heterosexual, having sex with the other sex, being in heterosexual relationships, and living in a heterosexual life-world. Likewise, there may have been a time when being gay meant things like identifying oneself as gay or being in gay relationships.
But that's all so old school.
Anyone who listens to college guys, and I mean straight college guys, talk these days comes to the quick realization that it's extremely difficult to avoid being gay. I began to realize this several years when a student got up in front of a class and claimed that any guy who did not go to strip clubs was "gay." In fact, college guys accuse their friends of being gay over anything that deviates from a strict macho image--clothes can be gay, accents can be gay, casual conversation can be gay. Any association with women at all can be associated with accusations of gayness. And yes, that means that guys who date women can be called gay. Strictly considered, heterosexuality is something between men while guys who associate with women are called "gay."
From the contemporary perspective, it isn't just Ted Haggard's sex with a gay prostitute that would make him gay. It would also be his pearly white teeth, that big ministerial grin, and perhaps his exaggerated evangelical clean-cutness. In this sense, Haggard would have been "gay" long before he called on gay prostitutes.
And being married to his wife wouldn't help either.
If Haggard wants to prove that he's "completely heterosexual" by current standards, he might think about spending a lot of time at sports bars. Better yet, he could join an "on-line" frat when he signs up for his classes. But I'm not sure that either Haggard or anyone else can reach the nirvana of "complete heterosexuality."
Senate Republicans Get Less of a Defeat
Senate Republicans have already shown that they're smarter than the Bush administration. Where the Bush administration often turns defeat into catastrophe, Senate Republicans have so far turned the potential catastrophe of the anti-surge resolution into a mere defeat. Passage of the Senate resolution against the surge would be a catastrophe for the Bush administration even though it's "non-binding. " The catastrophe would be on two levels. First, the anti-surge resolution would represent a no confidence vote that would serve as an official acknowledgement of popular opposition to the surge and would further isolate the Bush administration and their neo-con constituency. The public has already declared "no confidence" in the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq War and the Senate resolution would turn that public opinion into an official government act. "Non-binding" or not, the Senate resolution would confirm the Bush administration's position as a renegade government working against the public consensus on matters of war and peace.
Second, passing the anti-surge resolution would confirm Congressional Democrats as the most important vehicle for broadly legitimate government on the federal level. In many ways, the Bush administration has abandoned the effort to represent the larger American population and is focusing instead on being the "representative" of a "little America" comprised of neo-con think tank operatives, talk radio, and right-wing voters. Like Nancy Pelosi's trip to Iraq, the surge resolution is a cautious effort by the Democrats to provide some representation for the whole population. Passing the surge resolution would have put the Bush administration's abandonment of the broader public into much bolder relief.
By delaying the debate on the surge, the Senate Republicans have dampened the damage being done to Republicans by the "surge." Though the public still overwhelmingly opposes the surge, the Republicans have kept the Senate from enacting that popular opposition into legislation however unbinding. Likewise, Republican delaying tactics have at least delayed the time when Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Shumer become the credible voices of American consensus. Although "the debate about the debate" is a defeat for the Republicans because it keeps the unpopularity of the surge before the American public, Republican success in delaying the debate keeps the defeat from becoming a disaster.
The skill of the Republicans in limiting the damage is no surprise. The new Senate minority leader is Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, widely known as one of the smartest people in American politics even though he doesn't have a high profile media presence. Here in Kentucky, McConnell has run rings around the Democrats for more than two decades and built the Kentucky Republican Party from almost nothing to a position of near-dominance. McConnell has lost some of his magic in the wake of the fumbling of his hand-picked governor Ernie Fletcher, but Kentucky Democrats still fear him about as much as Civil War union general George McClellan feared Robert E. Lee.
It is important to remember, however, that Lee eventually lost. The tremendous strategic advantages of the American side outweighed Lee's defensive brilliance. It appears that the same is the case with the Republican Party over the next two years. By pushing the surge in defiance of most of American society, the Bush administration has put Congressional Republicans in an extremely disadvantageous position. The best they'll be able to do is to continue the manuevering needed to make their defeats smaller.
Second, passing the anti-surge resolution would confirm Congressional Democrats as the most important vehicle for broadly legitimate government on the federal level. In many ways, the Bush administration has abandoned the effort to represent the larger American population and is focusing instead on being the "representative" of a "little America" comprised of neo-con think tank operatives, talk radio, and right-wing voters. Like Nancy Pelosi's trip to Iraq, the surge resolution is a cautious effort by the Democrats to provide some representation for the whole population. Passing the surge resolution would have put the Bush administration's abandonment of the broader public into much bolder relief.
By delaying the debate on the surge, the Senate Republicans have dampened the damage being done to Republicans by the "surge." Though the public still overwhelmingly opposes the surge, the Republicans have kept the Senate from enacting that popular opposition into legislation however unbinding. Likewise, Republican delaying tactics have at least delayed the time when Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Shumer become the credible voices of American consensus. Although "the debate about the debate" is a defeat for the Republicans because it keeps the unpopularity of the surge before the American public, Republican success in delaying the debate keeps the defeat from becoming a disaster.
The skill of the Republicans in limiting the damage is no surprise. The new Senate minority leader is Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, widely known as one of the smartest people in American politics even though he doesn't have a high profile media presence. Here in Kentucky, McConnell has run rings around the Democrats for more than two decades and built the Kentucky Republican Party from almost nothing to a position of near-dominance. McConnell has lost some of his magic in the wake of the fumbling of his hand-picked governor Ernie Fletcher, but Kentucky Democrats still fear him about as much as Civil War union general George McClellan feared Robert E. Lee.
It is important to remember, however, that Lee eventually lost. The tremendous strategic advantages of the American side outweighed Lee's defensive brilliance. It appears that the same is the case with the Republican Party over the next two years. By pushing the surge in defiance of most of American society, the Bush administration has put Congressional Republicans in an extremely disadvantageous position. The best they'll be able to do is to continue the manuevering needed to make their defeats smaller.
Monday, February 05, 2007
The War Between Liberals and Neo-Liberals
My two favorite bloggers are Glenn Greenwald and Matthew Yglesias. Over the last couple of weeks, both of them have been engaged in a long-running critique of the Mainstream Media's proclivity for treating support for the Iraq War or willingness to consider support for the war as "serious" and opposition to the war as "immature," "irrational," and "emotional." Today's post by Greenwald takes special aim at The New Republic (TNR) for publishing a justification for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping as "too complex" for war opponents to understand and criticize justifiably. Greenwald takes the argument apart by simply pointing out that the warrantless wiretapping violates the FISA law of 1978 and is therefore a crime punishable by a misdemeanor. But the deeper point for Greenwald isn't the support for the Bush administration, it's posing that support as "dispassionate," "non-partisan," and "above the fray." Like Yglesias, Glenn Greenwald is trying to reveal the partisan bias of excluding war opponents behind the non-partisan pose of the New Republic.
However, the New Republic's rhetorical strategy is the same as that of Joe Klein at Time Magazine, Mickey Kaus at Kausfiles, Jacob Weisburg (editor of Slate), Michael Kinsley, and a variety of other "neo-liberals" in the media.
But why do the neo-libs do it? Why do they so persistently pose justifications for the War or conservative positions more generally while treating liberals as too far left to be taken seriously.
Much of the reason is historical. Beginning as Democratic critics of liberalism, the neo-libs staked out positions to the right of liberals on taxes, deregulation, the welfare state, civil rights movement, and foreign affairs without being as programmatically right-wing as the Reagan Republicans. That allowed them to pose themselves as rational in comparison to the "partisan zealots" in both sides. But the chief rivals of the neo-libs have always been liberals within the Democratic Party and the neo-libs have always focused on criticizing liberals while finding "interesting," "counter-intuitive," and "intellectually compelling" reasons to agree with conservative views. This is the long-time formula for both TNR and Slate and is the context within which both magazines supported the Iraq invasion.
As the MSM began pandering more to the right, neo-liberals began (with few exceptions) to monopolize the "liberal" position in the media shoutfests. Thus, the MSM, neo-liberal journalists, and the right-wing attack media have combined to define all but the most mild liberalism as "outside" the realm of normal political discussion. As is the case with most blacks, gays, feminists, and union activists, the media has constructed a taboo on white liberals. This is why a struggle has developed between the left blogosphere and neo-liberals over foreign policy. Liberals and leftists rightfully want to leverage the fact that they've been right about Iraq into renewed media legitimacy. For TNR, Slate, Joe Klein, Thomas Friedman, et. al, continuing to exclude white liberals and the left is a matter of maintaining their own leverage within the Democratic Party and the media. In other words, it's a matter of survival.
That's the main reason why neo-liberals have been so nasty with their recent accusations of anti-Semitism. They sense that their position in American political life is being fundamentally challenged.
However, the New Republic's rhetorical strategy is the same as that of Joe Klein at Time Magazine, Mickey Kaus at Kausfiles, Jacob Weisburg (editor of Slate), Michael Kinsley, and a variety of other "neo-liberals" in the media.
But why do the neo-libs do it? Why do they so persistently pose justifications for the War or conservative positions more generally while treating liberals as too far left to be taken seriously.
Much of the reason is historical. Beginning as Democratic critics of liberalism, the neo-libs staked out positions to the right of liberals on taxes, deregulation, the welfare state, civil rights movement, and foreign affairs without being as programmatically right-wing as the Reagan Republicans. That allowed them to pose themselves as rational in comparison to the "partisan zealots" in both sides. But the chief rivals of the neo-libs have always been liberals within the Democratic Party and the neo-libs have always focused on criticizing liberals while finding "interesting," "counter-intuitive," and "intellectually compelling" reasons to agree with conservative views. This is the long-time formula for both TNR and Slate and is the context within which both magazines supported the Iraq invasion.
As the MSM began pandering more to the right, neo-liberals began (with few exceptions) to monopolize the "liberal" position in the media shoutfests. Thus, the MSM, neo-liberal journalists, and the right-wing attack media have combined to define all but the most mild liberalism as "outside" the realm of normal political discussion. As is the case with most blacks, gays, feminists, and union activists, the media has constructed a taboo on white liberals. This is why a struggle has developed between the left blogosphere and neo-liberals over foreign policy. Liberals and leftists rightfully want to leverage the fact that they've been right about Iraq into renewed media legitimacy. For TNR, Slate, Joe Klein, Thomas Friedman, et. al, continuing to exclude white liberals and the left is a matter of maintaining their own leverage within the Democratic Party and the media. In other words, it's a matter of survival.
That's the main reason why neo-liberals have been so nasty with their recent accusations of anti-Semitism. They sense that their position in American political life is being fundamentally challenged.
My Chiropractor's Car, or More on Athletic Injuries
Taking up the theme of the Super Bowl and football injuries again, my own bad back came back to haunt me this morning. I injured a disc in my lower back playing football during my senior year of high school. It wasn't one particular play. My back just started hurting.
One trip to the chiropractor fixed it and the only time my back bothered me for the next fifteen years was my freshman year of college.
But, the combination of my dissertation, a year in London, and the collapse of my first marriage resulted in my getting less exercise and the disc that had been injured in high school started bulging again. The day after I finished my dissertation (and foolishly tried to start exercising again), I was in agony and could barely move.
That's the way it is with these kinds of high school sports injuries. Like some kinds of viruses, they lay dormant for years before they start having their real impact.
That was more than twenty years ago and the sins of high school football have been haunting me ever since.
Not that my chiropractor minds.
He has a really nice car.
For professional football players, the long-term injury situation is tens of times worse. They play four years of high impact football before going on to careers in the NFL. I used to see reports of offensive linemen and running backs who could barely get out of bed for two days after a game when they were playing. Unfortunately, the injuries that they play through during their careers never go away. The old injuries just get more painful as the cartilege, ligaments, and tendons continue to deteriorate, arthritis sets in, and joint replacements are needed.
At my university, the football players occasionally wear morale-boosting shirts that say "the pain is temporary, the pride lasts forever."
But the truth is exactly the opposite. The pride is temporary. It's the pain that lasts forever. And it increases over time. As I noted yesterday, my old hero Conrad Dobler now needs 150 Vicodin per month, about five per day to deal with the pain from his leg injuries. It's not going to get any better for him.
Time to stretch my back out again.
Oh yeah! The Colts won the Super Bowl.
One trip to the chiropractor fixed it and the only time my back bothered me for the next fifteen years was my freshman year of college.
But, the combination of my dissertation, a year in London, and the collapse of my first marriage resulted in my getting less exercise and the disc that had been injured in high school started bulging again. The day after I finished my dissertation (and foolishly tried to start exercising again), I was in agony and could barely move.
That's the way it is with these kinds of high school sports injuries. Like some kinds of viruses, they lay dormant for years before they start having their real impact.
That was more than twenty years ago and the sins of high school football have been haunting me ever since.
Not that my chiropractor minds.
He has a really nice car.
For professional football players, the long-term injury situation is tens of times worse. They play four years of high impact football before going on to careers in the NFL. I used to see reports of offensive linemen and running backs who could barely get out of bed for two days after a game when they were playing. Unfortunately, the injuries that they play through during their careers never go away. The old injuries just get more painful as the cartilege, ligaments, and tendons continue to deteriorate, arthritis sets in, and joint replacements are needed.
At my university, the football players occasionally wear morale-boosting shirts that say "the pain is temporary, the pride lasts forever."
But the truth is exactly the opposite. The pride is temporary. It's the pain that lasts forever. And it increases over time. As I noted yesterday, my old hero Conrad Dobler now needs 150 Vicodin per month, about five per day to deal with the pain from his leg injuries. It's not going to get any better for him.
Time to stretch my back out again.
Oh yeah! The Colts won the Super Bowl.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Heroes: Fallen and Otherwise
The Heroes of Winter. I'm sitting next to my oldest daughter who's got a 100.3 degree fever. Friday night she was sleigh-riding in half an inch of snow at 11:00pm. Now she's just another victim of random viruses, with only a CD of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and an unwilling cat for consolation. How the mighty have fallen.
Speaking of Harry Potter. I don't think that J. K. Rowling gets enough credit for continuing to write, and with increasing intensity, after she became a huge success, a big celebrity, and the wealthiest woman in the UK. It says a lot for her maturity as a person and her commitment as a writer. Everybody in the RSI household will be eager to see the next book and movie.
Using Them Up. Yesterday, there were a couple of Super Bowl-Eve stories about the horrific health problems of retired NFL players. Conrad Dobler, a former offensive guard for the St. Louis Cardinals who was known as the dirtiest player in the league during the 1970's, has had 7 knee surgeries in the last year and takes 150 Vicodin a month to cope with the pain. Being a dirty player who got ejected from two high school games myself, I always got a kick out of Dobler's leg whipping and eye gouging. But Dobler was either ripping up or wearing down the basic ligament, cartilege, muscle and bone structures of his legs as he played. Other retired players have to get multiple knee, hip, and shoulder surgeries. Mike Webster, the Hall of Fame center for the Steelers, had so many concussions that he became completely dysfunctional and homeless. The effects of his concussions led Andre Waters formerly of the Eagles to commit suicide.
The retired players talk about the need to improve pension and disability programs. But I wonder if the game's not the problem. That's because it's going to get worse. Today's players are much bigger, stronger, and faster than the players of the seventies and they hit harder. When today's offensive linemen, linebackers, and defensive backs retire, they're going to have it worse than Conrad Dobler. Perhaps they would think about changing the game if the NFL became fully financially responsible for the cost of the life-long injuries to their players.
Speaking of Harry Potter. I don't think that J. K. Rowling gets enough credit for continuing to write, and with increasing intensity, after she became a huge success, a big celebrity, and the wealthiest woman in the UK. It says a lot for her maturity as a person and her commitment as a writer. Everybody in the RSI household will be eager to see the next book and movie.
Using Them Up. Yesterday, there were a couple of Super Bowl-Eve stories about the horrific health problems of retired NFL players. Conrad Dobler, a former offensive guard for the St. Louis Cardinals who was known as the dirtiest player in the league during the 1970's, has had 7 knee surgeries in the last year and takes 150 Vicodin a month to cope with the pain. Being a dirty player who got ejected from two high school games myself, I always got a kick out of Dobler's leg whipping and eye gouging. But Dobler was either ripping up or wearing down the basic ligament, cartilege, muscle and bone structures of his legs as he played. Other retired players have to get multiple knee, hip, and shoulder surgeries. Mike Webster, the Hall of Fame center for the Steelers, had so many concussions that he became completely dysfunctional and homeless. The effects of his concussions led Andre Waters formerly of the Eagles to commit suicide.
The retired players talk about the need to improve pension and disability programs. But I wonder if the game's not the problem. That's because it's going to get worse. Today's players are much bigger, stronger, and faster than the players of the seventies and they hit harder. When today's offensive linemen, linebackers, and defensive backs retire, they're going to have it worse than Conrad Dobler. Perhaps they would think about changing the game if the NFL became fully financially responsible for the cost of the life-long injuries to their players.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Elephant and the Needle
According to the Gospel of St. Matthew, Jesus said that it was easier for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God." Reflecting on today's National Intelligence Estimate, I'd have to say that the chances of U. S. policy succeeding in Iraq are more like getting a herd of elephants through the eye of a needle.
The Bush administration's plan is to have Iraqi army units lead a military effort to clear Baghdad of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. Once areas are cleared, the Iraqi army will set up forward posts with American support in order to continue holding the neighborhoods, prevent insurgents and militias from returning, and attract the loyalty of residents. With such minimal security, economic reconstruction will begin.
The Bush administration believes that re-establishing basic security in this way is a prerequisite for the compromises needed to achieve overall political stability in Iraq.
The problem is getting all the Bush elephant-sized assumptions to get through the miniature openings provided by conditions on the ground. Here's one of those assumptions.
The Bush administration expects the Iraqi army to take the lead in clearing insurgents and militias out of Baghdad. However, the Iraqi army is riddled with Shiite militias. According to McClatchey reports, the Mahdi Army has been especially effective at infiltrating Iraqi army and police units, benefitting from American training, and using American weapons. For 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, the Mahdi army exercises practical control in Baghdad. "People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."
The Bush administration imagines that the Iraqi Army as a national institution. However, American efforts to strengthen the Iraqi Army have also strengthened the Shiite militias. In fact, the presence of 140,000 American troops might be the only thing that is keeping the Iraqi Army from devolving into a sectarian militia. According to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) the transition of the Iraqi Army from national army to sectarian force is a possible outcome of an immediate withdrawal. If we leave, the Iraqi Army will become an extension of the Mahdi Army.
The Bush administration's plan is to have Iraqi army units lead a military effort to clear Baghdad of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. Once areas are cleared, the Iraqi army will set up forward posts with American support in order to continue holding the neighborhoods, prevent insurgents and militias from returning, and attract the loyalty of residents. With such minimal security, economic reconstruction will begin.
The Bush administration believes that re-establishing basic security in this way is a prerequisite for the compromises needed to achieve overall political stability in Iraq.
The problem is getting all the Bush elephant-sized assumptions to get through the miniature openings provided by conditions on the ground. Here's one of those assumptions.
The Bush administration expects the Iraqi army to take the lead in clearing insurgents and militias out of Baghdad. However, the Iraqi army is riddled with Shiite militias. According to McClatchey reports, the Mahdi Army has been especially effective at infiltrating Iraqi army and police units, benefitting from American training, and using American weapons. For 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, the Mahdi army exercises practical control in Baghdad. "People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."
The Bush administration imagines that the Iraqi Army as a national institution. However, American efforts to strengthen the Iraqi Army have also strengthened the Shiite militias. In fact, the presence of 140,000 American troops might be the only thing that is keeping the Iraqi Army from devolving into a sectarian militia. According to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) the transition of the Iraqi Army from national army to sectarian force is a possible outcome of an immediate withdrawal. If we leave, the Iraqi Army will become an extension of the Mahdi Army.
Unsafe in Any Country
On Wednesday, a German court issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA operatives who kidnapped an innocent German citizen of Lebanese descent and took him to Syria to be interrogated and probably tortured.
That's on top of the 25 indictments that prosecutors are seeking against CIA agents in Italy.
The idea of the kidnapping or "extraordinary rendition" program was to make it so terrorists could never feel safe from American power.
But the result has been far different.
Now it's CIA agents who can't feel safe anywhere in the world.
That's on top of the 25 indictments that prosecutors are seeking against CIA agents in Italy.
The idea of the kidnapping or "extraordinary rendition" program was to make it so terrorists could never feel safe from American power.
But the result has been far different.
Now it's CIA agents who can't feel safe anywhere in the world.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
How to Annoy Your Right-Wing Relatives
One of the problems that Blue Staters don't have nearly as much as us in the Red States is the curse of right-wing relatives--all of the parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins who give money to the evangelical weirdos, support the failed occupation in Iraq, think that Bill O'Reilly is a great guy, and make denigrating comments about minorities whenever they get a chance.
I have it particularly bad. I have seven brothers and sisters and two of them are racists, one's a follow Bush all the way war-monger, another can't understand why the Democrats don't like tax cuts for the wealthy, and yet another is a one-issue voter for tax cuts. As far as I know, they were all gung-ho for invading Iraq.
So, how do I get under their exquisitely thin skins? It's important to understand that right-wingers are the thinnest-skinned people alive. So, you don't really have to do much to bring them to the edge of spittle-flying insanity. Here are some of my ideas:
1. Remind them that the French were right. Right-wingers hate the French more than they hated Saddam or even American liberals. Reminding them that America would be much better off today if we had listened to the French induces spasms of outrage. I've also had some luck with pointing out that George Bush is now almost as unpopular in the U. S. as he is in France.
2. Quote Jesus on Wealth. In Luke 6, Jesus condemned the wealthy--"Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation." The only thing that right-wingers love more than Jesus is money. Pointing out to them that they can't have it both ways is good for their souls. And yours.
3. Send Donations In Their Name to MoveOn.org. They'll appreciate the thank-you notes they get from the leftists at MoveOn.
4. Gay Friends Having Babies? Make sure you figure out a way to drop that into conversations.
5. Who would have been the Better President? In their hearts, right-wingers know that George Bush has blown his presidency sky-high. Yet, they've constructed phony images of Al Gore and John Kerry as hopelessly ridiculous people who could never have been plausible chief executives. Pointing out that both Gore and Kerry would have been better presidents than Bush helps them adjust to the reality of the present disaster.
6. Learn Spanish. Hostility toward immigrants is the right-wing bigotry de jeur. Learn Spanish and practice addressing your relatives as your madre, padre, hermanos, y hermanas. For extra-credit, learn French.
7. The Future is Bright. Whether you support Hillary, Obama, or one of the wannabe's for the Democratic nomination, make sure you emphasize the likelihood of a Hillary presidency to your right-wing relatives. It's even more satisfying than praising the French.
I have it particularly bad. I have seven brothers and sisters and two of them are racists, one's a follow Bush all the way war-monger, another can't understand why the Democrats don't like tax cuts for the wealthy, and yet another is a one-issue voter for tax cuts. As far as I know, they were all gung-ho for invading Iraq.
So, how do I get under their exquisitely thin skins? It's important to understand that right-wingers are the thinnest-skinned people alive. So, you don't really have to do much to bring them to the edge of spittle-flying insanity. Here are some of my ideas:
1. Remind them that the French were right. Right-wingers hate the French more than they hated Saddam or even American liberals. Reminding them that America would be much better off today if we had listened to the French induces spasms of outrage. I've also had some luck with pointing out that George Bush is now almost as unpopular in the U. S. as he is in France.
2. Quote Jesus on Wealth. In Luke 6, Jesus condemned the wealthy--"Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation." The only thing that right-wingers love more than Jesus is money. Pointing out to them that they can't have it both ways is good for their souls. And yours.
3. Send Donations In Their Name to MoveOn.org. They'll appreciate the thank-you notes they get from the leftists at MoveOn.
4. Gay Friends Having Babies? Make sure you figure out a way to drop that into conversations.
5. Who would have been the Better President? In their hearts, right-wingers know that George Bush has blown his presidency sky-high. Yet, they've constructed phony images of Al Gore and John Kerry as hopelessly ridiculous people who could never have been plausible chief executives. Pointing out that both Gore and Kerry would have been better presidents than Bush helps them adjust to the reality of the present disaster.
6. Learn Spanish. Hostility toward immigrants is the right-wing bigotry de jeur. Learn Spanish and practice addressing your relatives as your madre, padre, hermanos, y hermanas. For extra-credit, learn French.
7. The Future is Bright. Whether you support Hillary, Obama, or one of the wannabe's for the Democratic nomination, make sure you emphasize the likelihood of a Hillary presidency to your right-wing relatives. It's even more satisfying than praising the French.
Bush Renegades vs the People
Last night the Senate Democrats and John Warner came up with compromise language for a resolution to express the Senate's opposition to the troop build-up in Iraq. Contrary to the views in the mainstream media, the conflict over the Senate resolution is not mainly over whether the President or the Democrats are going to win. Instead, the conflict is over whether the United States is going to have any government that represents the public. Now that the public opposes the Iraq War by overwhelming majorities, the Bush administration has abandoned the broader idea of representative government and has retreated to the President's narrower constitutional mandate as commander-in-chief of the military. The question before the Senate if whether Congress is going to take up the burden of representing the American public in opposition to the renegade presidency of George W. Bush. It appears that the Senate is hesitatingly moving to fulfill that task.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tiger Woods: King of Triple A?
Tiger Woods has now won 7 straight PGA tournaments going back to 2006. That's only four short of the late Byron Nelson's record of 11 straight wins dating back to WWII.
However, given the biennial pulverizing of American golf by the Europeans in the Ryder Cup, wouldn't Tiger's streak be more impressie if it were on the European tour? Tiger Woods is a great golfer, but right now he might just be the King of Triple A golf.
However, given the biennial pulverizing of American golf by the Europeans in the Ryder Cup, wouldn't Tiger's streak be more impressie if it were on the European tour? Tiger Woods is a great golfer, but right now he might just be the King of Triple A golf.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Shifting Ground
The Emergence of Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is emerging as a central figure in the re-emergence of the Democratic congressional leadership as a force in public debate. The shift has been dramatic. Before she was sworn in as Speaker of the House, Pelosi was known primarily through the caricatures of the right-wing attack media. Her views on the war were not even known as well as those of John Murtha in the House of Representatives. However, Pelosi has managed her 100 hours legislative agenda, the State of the Union speech, and her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan so well that the Washington Post now credits her as "a leading critic of the adminstration's approach in Iraq."
Joe Lieberman Finds a Home. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate is having trouble finding their public footing. Desperately engaged in backroom efforts to prevent large numbers of Republicans from supporting any resolutions opposing the surge, the new Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell has largely been absent from public debate. With the vacuum in any Republican leadership in support of President Bush's war policies, Joe Lieberman has emerged as the most important advocate for supporting President Bush other than John McCain. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration isn't asking Lieberman to advocate its policies in media outlets like NPR. If McCain gets nominated, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lieberman as his vice-presidential candidate.
The Collapse of the GOP Political System. The Republicans used to have a system that worked pretty smoothly. Right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and leading conservative groups like Focus on the Family would provide the Bush administration ideas for policy proposals. When the Bush administration announced these proposals, they then became red meat for the whole chorus of Republican voices including the think tank gurus, conservative pundits, and the talk show hosts. In that way, the Republican apparatus could dominate mainstream political discussion, keep the money coming into conservative groups, and motivate right-wing activists to continue the attacks on Democrats and liberals. That's all fallen apart now. President Bush's domestic proposals on energy conservative, health care, and immigration aren't very conservative anymore. Consequently, the conservative attack media has to devote a large amount of energy to questioning the President as well as attacking the Democrats. The right-wing still supports the President on the War, but that's not exactly motivating the troops or keeping the money coming in. All the parts of the Republican apparatus survive, but they're no longer working in coordination. The system has collapsed.
Joe Lieberman Finds a Home. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate is having trouble finding their public footing. Desperately engaged in backroom efforts to prevent large numbers of Republicans from supporting any resolutions opposing the surge, the new Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell has largely been absent from public debate. With the vacuum in any Republican leadership in support of President Bush's war policies, Joe Lieberman has emerged as the most important advocate for supporting President Bush other than John McCain. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration isn't asking Lieberman to advocate its policies in media outlets like NPR. If McCain gets nominated, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lieberman as his vice-presidential candidate.
The Collapse of the GOP Political System. The Republicans used to have a system that worked pretty smoothly. Right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and leading conservative groups like Focus on the Family would provide the Bush administration ideas for policy proposals. When the Bush administration announced these proposals, they then became red meat for the whole chorus of Republican voices including the think tank gurus, conservative pundits, and the talk show hosts. In that way, the Republican apparatus could dominate mainstream political discussion, keep the money coming into conservative groups, and motivate right-wing activists to continue the attacks on Democrats and liberals. That's all fallen apart now. President Bush's domestic proposals on energy conservative, health care, and immigration aren't very conservative anymore. Consequently, the conservative attack media has to devote a large amount of energy to questioning the President as well as attacking the Democrats. The right-wing still supports the President on the War, but that's not exactly motivating the troops or keeping the money coming in. All the parts of the Republican apparatus survive, but they're no longer working in coordination. The system has collapsed.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Love-Bombing the Opposition to the War
Mickey Kaus of Slate magazine is the Joe Lieberman of journalism, a guy who claims to still be a liberal although he devotes all of his energy to attacking liberals and war opponents. Outside Lieberman himself, Kaus is probably the only neo-conservative in the country who tries to pass as a liberal. Tonight, Kaus put out a particularly mean-spirited attack on Chuck Hagel and the "love-bombing" that Hagel is getting from the mainstream media.
Funny, I don't remember Kaus giving any resistance to the MSM when it was love-bombing President Bush after 9-11, uncritically repeating ever lie in Colin Powell's fraudulent UN presentation, or romanticizing the initial invasion of Iraq.
And look how well that all turned out!
Chuck Hagel is no hero of anti-war activism, but he does deserve credit for his scepticism concerning the war. He started pounding away at the Bush administration's incompetence almost as soon as it emerged and has ramped up his war opposition in response to the surge. And Hagel is right! The surge isn't about "victory," it's about President Bush avoiding "defeat" until after he leaves office. It's about ensuring that the next President gets stuck cleaning up the mess in Iraq, paying the bills, and tending to the maimed and wounded.
And Hagel is also right to emphasize his war experience. Just like Kerry was. For the Bush administration, the war is about a series of word fetishes--a "free and stable Iraq", an "ally in the war on terror," a "generational struggle," a "test of will," and so on. None of these slogans were anything more than public relations ploys for advertising the Bush administration's belief in their own toughness. Hagel's emphasis on his war experience frees discussion from Bush administration language games and gets down to the actual reality of the lives wasted in this pointless war. The war does have heroes other than the soldiers who have been fighting. That is the war opponents who've kept up their opposition from the time Bush and Cheney began pushing the invasion scam through the initial occupation to the current surge debate. Some journalists (especially at McLatchey), some politicians (Russ Feingold and some House Democrats), and some celebrities have served as the face of war opposition, but the guts of the anti-war effort has been the tens of thousands of bloggers, internet posters, and other people who kept up the anti-war meme through thick and thin. A few liberal bloggers have broken through to some notoriety. However, most war opponents have had no reward and feel little if any satisfaction that the war has failed so dismally. But they've kept on anyway and deserve a lot of credit for doing so.
Funny, I don't remember Kaus giving any resistance to the MSM when it was love-bombing President Bush after 9-11, uncritically repeating ever lie in Colin Powell's fraudulent UN presentation, or romanticizing the initial invasion of Iraq.
And look how well that all turned out!
Chuck Hagel is no hero of anti-war activism, but he does deserve credit for his scepticism concerning the war. He started pounding away at the Bush administration's incompetence almost as soon as it emerged and has ramped up his war opposition in response to the surge. And Hagel is right! The surge isn't about "victory," it's about President Bush avoiding "defeat" until after he leaves office. It's about ensuring that the next President gets stuck cleaning up the mess in Iraq, paying the bills, and tending to the maimed and wounded.
And Hagel is also right to emphasize his war experience. Just like Kerry was. For the Bush administration, the war is about a series of word fetishes--a "free and stable Iraq", an "ally in the war on terror," a "generational struggle," a "test of will," and so on. None of these slogans were anything more than public relations ploys for advertising the Bush administration's belief in their own toughness. Hagel's emphasis on his war experience frees discussion from Bush administration language games and gets down to the actual reality of the lives wasted in this pointless war. The war does have heroes other than the soldiers who have been fighting. That is the war opponents who've kept up their opposition from the time Bush and Cheney began pushing the invasion scam through the initial occupation to the current surge debate. Some journalists (especially at McLatchey), some politicians (Russ Feingold and some House Democrats), and some celebrities have served as the face of war opposition, but the guts of the anti-war effort has been the tens of thousands of bloggers, internet posters, and other people who kept up the anti-war meme through thick and thin. A few liberal bloggers have broken through to some notoriety. However, most war opponents have had no reward and feel little if any satisfaction that the war has failed so dismally. But they've kept on anyway and deserve a lot of credit for doing so.
The Sounds of 2008
That Giant Sucking Sound. The giant sucking sound you heard out of Iowa yesterday was the oxygen being taken away from the campaigns of any Democrat not named Hillary or Barack. There were 1500 people at a high school gym to see Hillary on a very cold day and every word she said was parsed and psychoanalyzed for what it says about Bill and Hillary, her position on the war, and her attitude toward President Bush. To effectively challenge as big a front-runner as Hillary, either the front-runner has to blow up or the new faces or marginal candidates have to be more interesting. Obama might still prove to be interesting enough to overtake her, but the media and the voters are much more interested in Hillary than they are in John Edwards, Chris Dodds, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, and the rest. That's one of the big reasons why all of those guys are doomed.
Early Blow-Ups. John McCain lost his patience last Saturday with progressive columnist and uber-blogger Arianna Huffington over her Iraq questions. McCain has a long-standing reputation for having a "short fuse." If he's going to start losing his temper a year before the first primary, it's going to be a long, long campaign.
The Tree Unheard. With so much attention so early on the 2008 campaign, the Bush administration might find it hard to get heard. That's why we can expect a lot of snarling from the President, Dick Cheney, and Joe Lieberman as the War Party struggles to be heard over the twin drumming of the celebrity candidates and the daily disasters in Iraq.
Early Blow-Ups. John McCain lost his patience last Saturday with progressive columnist and uber-blogger Arianna Huffington over her Iraq questions. McCain has a long-standing reputation for having a "short fuse." If he's going to start losing his temper a year before the first primary, it's going to be a long, long campaign.
The Tree Unheard. With so much attention so early on the 2008 campaign, the Bush administration might find it hard to get heard. That's why we can expect a lot of snarling from the President, Dick Cheney, and Joe Lieberman as the War Party struggles to be heard over the twin drumming of the celebrity candidates and the daily disasters in Iraq.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
More on the Heroes of Winter
It's snowing in Kentucky again and my kids are out sleigh-riding with a friend in our yard. Talk about working with scarce resources--the snow still hasn't completely covered the ground and their "hill" is about a forty foot incline. Unbelievable.
Now, they're going to transfer snow from the yard to the driveway to create mini-luge course. More on this story as it develops.
Now, they're going to transfer snow from the yard to the driveway to create mini-luge course. More on this story as it develops.
More on Race-Baiting
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
