WANKER OF THE DAY
I'll say it before Atrios does: It's Jake Tapper of ABC News, for telling us on his blog that Samuel Alito was unfairly smeared as a racist because Dinesh D'Souza says so:
...D'Souza worked for CAP [Concerned Alumni of Princeton] from 1983 to 1985, editing CAP's controversial Prospect magazine. He said a number of the Democratic attacks on Samuel Alito were based on falsehoods.
First off, D'Souza says, one of the two stories from Prospect that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, read this week at the confirmation hearings was intended as a satire.
The 1983 essay "In Defense of Elitism" by Harry Crocker III included this line, read dramatically by Kennedy: "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic..."
The essay may not have been funny, D'Souza acknowledges, but Kennedy read from it as if it had been serious instead of an attempt at humor.
"I think left-wing groups have been feeding Senator Kennedy snippets and he has been mindlessly reciting them," D'Souza said. "It was a satire."...
Yeah, because satire can't possibly be racist, can it, Dinesh?
Under D'Souza's editorship, the [right-wing campus newspaper] Dartmouth Review ... published a parody titled "Dis Sho Ain't No Jive Bro," which mocked the way African-American students supposedly speak. ("Dese boys be sayin' that we be comin' here to Dartmut an' not takin' the classics. You know, Homa, Shakesphere; but I hea' dey all be co'd in da ground, six feet unda, and whatchu be askin' us to learn from dem?") Also during his tenure as editor, according to a September 22, 1995, article in The Washington Post, the Review "published an interview with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, using a mock photograph of a black man hanging from a campus tree."
(Via Memeorandum.)
Friday, January 13, 2006
Atrios, citing this enumeration of some of Samuel Alito's more troubling opinions, asks:
Why is it that white guys who comb their hair, dress well, and mostly speak in full sentences are presumed to be "decent" no matter what the evidence to the contrary?
Good question -- but it isn't "white guys," it's Republican guys, and gals. John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Condoleezza Rice operate under a blanket presumption of decency that's challenged only out here on the wild fringes of lefty advocacy; the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, by contrast -- all but one of them white and male -- operate under no such presumption.
Some of this is a matter of style: Most Republicans have mastered the technique of using politesse to disguise relentlessness and sometimes viciousness. Then again, Charles Schumer is generally polite and soft-spoken even at his most dogged, whereas President Bush often can barely conceal his mile-wide mean streak -- yet it's Schumer whose character is frequently questioned and Bush who is seen as possessing an unmistakable decency at his core.
Why is this?
Because Republicans have mastered the art of persuading the public that Democrats, individually and collectively, are evil freaks, neurotics with malign intent. The New York Times may catalog failures in the Iraq War on its front page, but Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the Drudge Report and the New York Post make it personal, snickering and recoiling in mock-revulsion at the unhinged perfidy of twisted yet powerful Democrats (and presumed Democrats) -- compulsive liar Al Gore, power-mad Hillary Clinton, sexual predator Bill Clinton, drunk Ted Kennedy, prissy traitor John Kerry, raving old coot ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, wacko GOP-basher Dan Rather.
This is a cancer on our politics, and it would be best if it disappeared from the scene, but it won't. So Democrats won't have a fighting chance until there's a comparable effort on our side.
Sure, we on the left do a good job of spreading negative impressions of Republicans amongst ourselves. But Republicans reach the middle -- mostly, I think, because they use tools other than snark and ridicule. The right-wing specialty is a fake tone of concern -- Bill O'Reilly is the master of this, Sean Hannity is quite adept at it, and even Rush, between infantile song parodies, regularly goes solemn while sounding the alarum bells about the crimes of Democratic and liberals. This is mixed in with relentless attacks on soft targets (e.g., Ward Churchill) and campaigns based on half-truths (e.g., stories about "the war on Christmas") to paint a picture of a vast, interlinked liberal/left/Democratic conspiracy of dangerous weirdos preventing the triumph of decency and of common sense.
It all plays in Peoria.
We might have won this thing if we had built a multi-tiered, self-referential advocacy/attack media that could persuade Middle America that Samuel Alito is an evil freak and so, for that matter, is the oleaginous Lindsay Graham; until we build it, we're going to get beaten over and over again. I'm not saying I necessarily want to live in a country in which we send as much poison into the political atmosphere as the Right. I'm just saying that may be the only way to prevent Republican rule without end.
Why is it that white guys who comb their hair, dress well, and mostly speak in full sentences are presumed to be "decent" no matter what the evidence to the contrary?
Good question -- but it isn't "white guys," it's Republican guys, and gals. John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Condoleezza Rice operate under a blanket presumption of decency that's challenged only out here on the wild fringes of lefty advocacy; the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, by contrast -- all but one of them white and male -- operate under no such presumption.
Some of this is a matter of style: Most Republicans have mastered the technique of using politesse to disguise relentlessness and sometimes viciousness. Then again, Charles Schumer is generally polite and soft-spoken even at his most dogged, whereas President Bush often can barely conceal his mile-wide mean streak -- yet it's Schumer whose character is frequently questioned and Bush who is seen as possessing an unmistakable decency at his core.
Why is this?
Because Republicans have mastered the art of persuading the public that Democrats, individually and collectively, are evil freaks, neurotics with malign intent. The New York Times may catalog failures in the Iraq War on its front page, but Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the Drudge Report and the New York Post make it personal, snickering and recoiling in mock-revulsion at the unhinged perfidy of twisted yet powerful Democrats (and presumed Democrats) -- compulsive liar Al Gore, power-mad Hillary Clinton, sexual predator Bill Clinton, drunk Ted Kennedy, prissy traitor John Kerry, raving old coot ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, wacko GOP-basher Dan Rather.
This is a cancer on our politics, and it would be best if it disappeared from the scene, but it won't. So Democrats won't have a fighting chance until there's a comparable effort on our side.
Sure, we on the left do a good job of spreading negative impressions of Republicans amongst ourselves. But Republicans reach the middle -- mostly, I think, because they use tools other than snark and ridicule. The right-wing specialty is a fake tone of concern -- Bill O'Reilly is the master of this, Sean Hannity is quite adept at it, and even Rush, between infantile song parodies, regularly goes solemn while sounding the alarum bells about the crimes of Democratic and liberals. This is mixed in with relentless attacks on soft targets (e.g., Ward Churchill) and campaigns based on half-truths (e.g., stories about "the war on Christmas") to paint a picture of a vast, interlinked liberal/left/Democratic conspiracy of dangerous weirdos preventing the triumph of decency and of common sense.
It all plays in Peoria.
We might have won this thing if we had built a multi-tiered, self-referential advocacy/attack media that could persuade Middle America that Samuel Alito is an evil freak and so, for that matter, is the oleaginous Lindsay Graham; until we build it, we're going to get beaten over and over again. I'm not saying I necessarily want to live in a country in which we send as much poison into the political atmosphere as the Right. I'm just saying that may be the only way to prevent Republican rule without end.
So, when is the media going to start cordoning this off as "the Senate Democrats' bad week" and arguing that they're "poised for a comeback"?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
The New York Times tells us today that Iraq-born Sunni insurgents are beginning to get tired of the tactics of foreign-born Islamists. Exultant voices from the right say this is a very, very good thing. Well, maybe. I'm skeptical:
...American and Iraqi officials believe that the conflicts present them with one of the biggest opportunities since the insurgency burst upon Iraq nearly three years ago. They have begun talking with local insurgents, hoping to enlist them to cooperate against Al Qaeda, said Western diplomats, Iraqi officials and an insurgent leader.
One problem is that there's no evidence whatsoever that this means Iraqi insurgents will actually work with Americans:
...the Americans face significant challenges in trying to exploit the split. "It is against my beliefs to put my hand with the Americans," said an Iraqi member of the Islamic Army who uses the nom de guerre Abu Omar.
Still, he said in an interview in a house in Baghdad, he allowed himself a small celebration whenever a member of Al Qaeda fell to an American bullet. "I feel happy when the Americans kill them," he said.
And if that attitude changes, do we really want these insurgents as our allies?
Whatever the answer, what we seem to have right now is something like a gang war:
Samarra, north of Baghdad, had been infiltrated by Al Qaeda's fighters. In desperation, a local sheik, Hekmat Mumtaz al-Baz, traveled to Baghdad in September to meet with Iraq's defense minister and ask for help, said one of the sheik's aides, Waleed al-Samarrai. A few weeks after the visit, the sheik was shot dead by Qaeda gunmen in his yard....
The tribe was furious, and its members tracked down the three men who carried out the killing. Elders from the tribe held a trial in a local farmhouse and interrogated the men for days....
Members of the tribe swept the town and arrested 17 people they suspected were associated with the sheik's killing. In one house raid, the tribe found men from Sudan, Morocco, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, a member of the tribe said.
Al Qaeda's fighters struck back during the tribe's offensive. A foreign Arab believed to be a Saudi wearing in a suicide belt blew himself up at the sheik's funeral, killing one guest and wounding two....
As a lesson to all those associated with the sheik's death, the tribe staged a public killing. While the sheik's father watched, men with machine guns shot the three men who carried out the assassination....
****
Two and a half years into the American occupation, the towns and villages south of Baghdad are divided among the insurgent groups like gang territory in big American cities. The arrangement is largely invisible to American troops who patrol the towns, the insurgents said in interviews. But guerrillas themselves say they must seek permission to travel through towns their groups do not control....
This is progress?
If this were, say, Los Angeles circa 1990, would we consider it a hopeful sign that tensions between the Crips and Bloods had escalated to all-out combat? Would we say a gang war should make the residents of South Central or Compton feel safer? Would we argue that our best hope for peace would be the possibility that one gang might brutally eliminate the other in a series of drive-by shootings? Would we look forward hopefully to the day when the Crips or the Bloods will show up at police headquarers and offer to work with the cops?
Maybe these tensions really will lead to the insurgency's demise. Or maybe we're getting this story now because otherwise we're fresh out of potential sources of light at the end of the tunnel.
...American and Iraqi officials believe that the conflicts present them with one of the biggest opportunities since the insurgency burst upon Iraq nearly three years ago. They have begun talking with local insurgents, hoping to enlist them to cooperate against Al Qaeda, said Western diplomats, Iraqi officials and an insurgent leader.
One problem is that there's no evidence whatsoever that this means Iraqi insurgents will actually work with Americans:
...the Americans face significant challenges in trying to exploit the split. "It is against my beliefs to put my hand with the Americans," said an Iraqi member of the Islamic Army who uses the nom de guerre Abu Omar.
Still, he said in an interview in a house in Baghdad, he allowed himself a small celebration whenever a member of Al Qaeda fell to an American bullet. "I feel happy when the Americans kill them," he said.
And if that attitude changes, do we really want these insurgents as our allies?
Whatever the answer, what we seem to have right now is something like a gang war:
Samarra, north of Baghdad, had been infiltrated by Al Qaeda's fighters. In desperation, a local sheik, Hekmat Mumtaz al-Baz, traveled to Baghdad in September to meet with Iraq's defense minister and ask for help, said one of the sheik's aides, Waleed al-Samarrai. A few weeks after the visit, the sheik was shot dead by Qaeda gunmen in his yard....
The tribe was furious, and its members tracked down the three men who carried out the killing. Elders from the tribe held a trial in a local farmhouse and interrogated the men for days....
Members of the tribe swept the town and arrested 17 people they suspected were associated with the sheik's killing. In one house raid, the tribe found men from Sudan, Morocco, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, a member of the tribe said.
Al Qaeda's fighters struck back during the tribe's offensive. A foreign Arab believed to be a Saudi wearing in a suicide belt blew himself up at the sheik's funeral, killing one guest and wounding two....
As a lesson to all those associated with the sheik's death, the tribe staged a public killing. While the sheik's father watched, men with machine guns shot the three men who carried out the assassination....
****
Two and a half years into the American occupation, the towns and villages south of Baghdad are divided among the insurgent groups like gang territory in big American cities. The arrangement is largely invisible to American troops who patrol the towns, the insurgents said in interviews. But guerrillas themselves say they must seek permission to travel through towns their groups do not control....
This is progress?
If this were, say, Los Angeles circa 1990, would we consider it a hopeful sign that tensions between the Crips and Bloods had escalated to all-out combat? Would we say a gang war should make the residents of South Central or Compton feel safer? Would we argue that our best hope for peace would be the possibility that one gang might brutally eliminate the other in a series of drive-by shootings? Would we look forward hopefully to the day when the Crips or the Bloods will show up at police headquarers and offer to work with the cops?
Maybe these tensions really will lead to the insurgency's demise. Or maybe we're getting this story now because otherwise we're fresh out of potential sources of light at the end of the tunnel.
THE BLOWHARD WITH A THOUSAND FACES
It's Rush Limbaugh's birthday today.
In honor of the solemn occasion, this thread at Free Republic links to a two-year-old essay of sorts entitled "Rush Limbaugh Is 'The Passion.'" Here are some excerpts:
Make no mistake. Rush Limbaugh is "The Passion." He is the passion of conservatism, the very pulse, bounding through the veins of the nation. He produces life with every heartbeat of his show as he scoffs at liberals and gives us his interpretation of conservative truth. His brand of ideology shakes the very foundations of liberalism.
He follows in the footsteps of giants, such as George Washington, Thomas Paine, and Ronald Reagan, promoting the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He broadcasts affectionately trying to steer growing government towards the ideals of the Constitution....
Mildly he sits and passes on his message, his passion, his views, his legacy. A legacy of truth, justice, and the conservative American way.... There are few men in history that has received the same award as President Ronald Reagan. There are fewer men that could go on day after day under the scrutiny he faces. And there are only a handful of men that could keep themselves reserved while suffering the onslaught of the visceral hatred of "compassionate liberals."
Quite frankly, I don't know how he does it. How does he stand so strong against so much? How does he execute his duties so faithfully with the onslaught of these lies? How does he continue to go on the air? Especially when the people that presume to blackmail him walk free! "The Passion." That’s how....
Liberalism was planted deep within me, as if it were a parasite feeding on me. Rush cut it out like a surgeon excising a cancerous tumor, giving me the opportunity to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He gave me the chance of a lifetime....
The author of this essay, Chris Davis, also posts it here, along with two follow-ups. The first is a mock-eulogy for Limbaugh that presents a sort of origin myth:
In an excerpt of a speech given many times, Rush's father, Rush Limbaugh, Jr. talked about the Founding Fathers. "Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war," he said. "Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another, the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create, is still intact."
The speech, The Americans who Risked Everything, was included as an article supplement to the September 1997 issue of The Limbaugh Letter....
Those fundamentals were passed from the patriarch, Rush H. Limbaugh, Sr. to Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. -- in turn -- passing them to Rush Limbaugh III.
The second is a note on the passing of the author's father:
... there are only two men that could've changed my life for the better. One was my father, the other Rush Limbaugh.
This is nuts. Isn't it?
Well, yes and no. On one level, obviously, it's nutty in a love-letters-to-Hitler way. But it also reminds us that right-wingers believe in themselves as figures in a great saga of good and evil. I think this really helps them gird their loins and fight in a way we can never seem to manage.
So many of the elements of legend are here: the noble descent (from sage ancestors and the Founding Fathers), the vicious enemy (us) whose "onslaught" only a rare hero can withstand, the serene demeanor of the hero ("Mildly he sits..."). "The Passion" might as well be "the Force," although it seems, in this legend, to have no Dark Side.
Liberalism, here, is an enemy worthy of legend -- a "parasite," a "cancerous tumor," spread by shape-shifting tricksters who appear "compassionate." Its foul nature even helps explain away Limbaugh's painkiller addiction, according to Davis (perhaps this is the Dark Side of the Force):
I can’t help but applaud a man with this many medical conditions going on day after day after day after day, executing liberal lies with impunity. I have too much respect and admiration for the man that put his own show ahead of pain, pushing himself into addiction and blackmail. Too much admiration for the man that removed the disease, the man that removed liberalism.
Right-wingers tell stories like this -- about Rush and about other conservatives, most notably Bush, Chosen of God.
Ultimately, these are stories about themselves. They don't grumble about their side very much because they believe in their side; they believe in their side because they think God believes in their side, and the Founders would believe in it. They believe God and the Founders would want them to smite the enemy -- us -- without mercy. So when the battle is joined, they don't hold back, and they throw everything at us they think they can get away with. After all, they're fighting for something bigger than themselves, something bigger than the day-to-day -- something mythical.
I'd like to laugh at Chris Davis -- and I would, if I didn't fear what he represents.
It's Rush Limbaugh's birthday today.
In honor of the solemn occasion, this thread at Free Republic links to a two-year-old essay of sorts entitled "Rush Limbaugh Is 'The Passion.'" Here are some excerpts:
Make no mistake. Rush Limbaugh is "The Passion." He is the passion of conservatism, the very pulse, bounding through the veins of the nation. He produces life with every heartbeat of his show as he scoffs at liberals and gives us his interpretation of conservative truth. His brand of ideology shakes the very foundations of liberalism.
He follows in the footsteps of giants, such as George Washington, Thomas Paine, and Ronald Reagan, promoting the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He broadcasts affectionately trying to steer growing government towards the ideals of the Constitution....
Mildly he sits and passes on his message, his passion, his views, his legacy. A legacy of truth, justice, and the conservative American way.... There are few men in history that has received the same award as President Ronald Reagan. There are fewer men that could go on day after day under the scrutiny he faces. And there are only a handful of men that could keep themselves reserved while suffering the onslaught of the visceral hatred of "compassionate liberals."
Quite frankly, I don't know how he does it. How does he stand so strong against so much? How does he execute his duties so faithfully with the onslaught of these lies? How does he continue to go on the air? Especially when the people that presume to blackmail him walk free! "The Passion." That’s how....
Liberalism was planted deep within me, as if it were a parasite feeding on me. Rush cut it out like a surgeon excising a cancerous tumor, giving me the opportunity to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He gave me the chance of a lifetime....
The author of this essay, Chris Davis, also posts it here, along with two follow-ups. The first is a mock-eulogy for Limbaugh that presents a sort of origin myth:
In an excerpt of a speech given many times, Rush's father, Rush Limbaugh, Jr. talked about the Founding Fathers. "Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war," he said. "Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another, the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create, is still intact."
The speech, The Americans who Risked Everything, was included as an article supplement to the September 1997 issue of The Limbaugh Letter....
Those fundamentals were passed from the patriarch, Rush H. Limbaugh, Sr. to Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. -- in turn -- passing them to Rush Limbaugh III.
The second is a note on the passing of the author's father:
... there are only two men that could've changed my life for the better. One was my father, the other Rush Limbaugh.
This is nuts. Isn't it?
Well, yes and no. On one level, obviously, it's nutty in a love-letters-to-Hitler way. But it also reminds us that right-wingers believe in themselves as figures in a great saga of good and evil. I think this really helps them gird their loins and fight in a way we can never seem to manage.
So many of the elements of legend are here: the noble descent (from sage ancestors and the Founding Fathers), the vicious enemy (us) whose "onslaught" only a rare hero can withstand, the serene demeanor of the hero ("Mildly he sits..."). "The Passion" might as well be "the Force," although it seems, in this legend, to have no Dark Side.
Liberalism, here, is an enemy worthy of legend -- a "parasite," a "cancerous tumor," spread by shape-shifting tricksters who appear "compassionate." Its foul nature even helps explain away Limbaugh's painkiller addiction, according to Davis (perhaps this is the Dark Side of the Force):
I can’t help but applaud a man with this many medical conditions going on day after day after day after day, executing liberal lies with impunity. I have too much respect and admiration for the man that put his own show ahead of pain, pushing himself into addiction and blackmail. Too much admiration for the man that removed the disease, the man that removed liberalism.
Right-wingers tell stories like this -- about Rush and about other conservatives, most notably Bush, Chosen of God.
Ultimately, these are stories about themselves. They don't grumble about their side very much because they believe in their side; they believe in their side because they think God believes in their side, and the Founders would believe in it. They believe God and the Founders would want them to smite the enemy -- us -- without mercy. So when the battle is joined, they don't hold back, and they throw everything at us they think they can get away with. After all, they're fighting for something bigger than themselves, something bigger than the day-to-day -- something mythical.
I'd like to laugh at Chris Davis -- and I would, if I didn't fear what he represents.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
After telling us for months and months that al-Qaeda captives regularly claim torture when it hasn't taken place, right-wingers have apparently decided to try this technique themselves:
ALITO WIFE LEAVES HEARING IN TEARS AFTER DEM ATTACK
Judge Samuel A. Alito’s wife Martha left the confirmation hearing room in tears this evening, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apologized to the Judge's family for the behavior of his fellow committee members during the course of the last three days.
Sen. Graham said: "Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this."
...One senior Republican in the hearing room said of the situation: "After three full days of attacks against her husband's character, Mrs. Alito had enough. Democrat behavior during this hearing has not only been wrong, it's been embarrassing. Ted Kennedy is nothing but a bully."
(Actually, as I explained last June, the manual for al-Qaeda operatives tells them to expect real torture if they're captured -- it doesn't tell them to fake it. Apparently this is not true of the manual for Republican Party operatives.)
****
UPDATE, THURSDAY MORNING: John Cole at Balloon Juice, no fan of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, says Drudge is completely distorting the incident. Yes, John -- Drudge and the operatives who spoon-fed the "meanie Democrats" narrative to him.
****
UPDATE: Karl Rove must have wet himself with glee when he saw the front page of this morning's USA Today. Ditto Newsday.
ALITO WIFE LEAVES HEARING IN TEARS AFTER DEM ATTACK
Judge Samuel A. Alito’s wife Martha left the confirmation hearing room in tears this evening, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apologized to the Judge's family for the behavior of his fellow committee members during the course of the last three days.
Sen. Graham said: "Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this."
...One senior Republican in the hearing room said of the situation: "After three full days of attacks against her husband's character, Mrs. Alito had enough. Democrat behavior during this hearing has not only been wrong, it's been embarrassing. Ted Kennedy is nothing but a bully."
(Actually, as I explained last June, the manual for al-Qaeda operatives tells them to expect real torture if they're captured -- it doesn't tell them to fake it. Apparently this is not true of the manual for Republican Party operatives.)
****
UPDATE, THURSDAY MORNING: John Cole at Balloon Juice, no fan of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, says Drudge is completely distorting the incident. Yes, John -- Drudge and the operatives who spoon-fed the "meanie Democrats" narrative to him.
****
UPDATE: Karl Rove must have wet himself with glee when he saw the front page of this morning's USA Today. Ditto Newsday.
A lot of people (at least here in New York) have been talking this week about the Smoking Gun's story on James Frey, author of the mega-selling Oprah-endorsed substance-abuse-recovery memoir A Million Little Pieces. The Smoking Gun conducted interviews, consulted documents, and now presents large amounts of evidence leading to the conclusion that Frey
wholly fabricated or wildly embellished details of his purported criminal career, jail terms, and status as an outlaw "wanted in three states."
Now, you'd think this might hurt his literary career. You'd think that this, combined with earlier skepticism about some of Frey's tales (such as his claim that he had a root canal without painkillers after he got clean), might lead readers to shun his work.
But I just received the weekly e-mail containing the new New York Times bestseller lists (the new lists will appear here next Sunday) -- and I see that
* Frey's newest hardcover, My Friend Leonard, has shot from #9 on the list to #1
* the hardcover edition of A Million Little Pieces has returned to the list
* the softcover edition of A Million Little Pieces has remained at #1 on the paperback nonfiction list
The moral of this story?
In this country, we apparently like self-dramatizing macho braggart ex-drunks, even when -- perhaps especially when -- we think they're lying.
Draw your own conclusions as to how this relates to the usual subject area of this blog.
wholly fabricated or wildly embellished details of his purported criminal career, jail terms, and status as an outlaw "wanted in three states."
Now, you'd think this might hurt his literary career. You'd think that this, combined with earlier skepticism about some of Frey's tales (such as his claim that he had a root canal without painkillers after he got clean), might lead readers to shun his work.
But I just received the weekly e-mail containing the new New York Times bestseller lists (the new lists will appear here next Sunday) -- and I see that
* Frey's newest hardcover, My Friend Leonard, has shot from #9 on the list to #1
* the hardcover edition of A Million Little Pieces has returned to the list
* the softcover edition of A Million Little Pieces has remained at #1 on the paperback nonfiction list
The moral of this story?
In this country, we apparently like self-dramatizing macho braggart ex-drunks, even when -- perhaps especially when -- we think they're lying.
Draw your own conclusions as to how this relates to the usual subject area of this blog.
HAKIM TO BUSH: WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK?
When the new Iraqi government assumes office, ... Iraqi leaders will also have to review and possibly amend the constitution to ensure that this historic document earns the broad support of all Iraqi communities....
--Bush speech, 1/10/06
The leader of Iraq's most powerful party indicated today that his group would block substantive changes to the country's new constitution, despite a promise to Sunnis to consider amendments.
... Abdul Azziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, the most influential group in the ruling Shiite coalition, today said that "the first principle is not to change the essence of the constitution," according to The Associated Press.
...Mr. Hakim appeared to rule out in particular any change in the constitution's provisions allowing the creation of strong regional provinces, a point that had angered many Sunnis....
--New York Times today
The Interior Ministry's Special Police are the most capable of the Iraqi police forces.... Many of these Special Police forces are professional, they represent all aspects of society. But recently some have been accused of committing abuses against Iraqi civilians. That's unacceptable. That's unacceptable to the United States government; it's unacceptable to the Iraqi government, as well. And Iraqi leaders are committed to stopping these abuses.
--same Bush speech
Mr. Hakim's speech today followed tough statements he made last week in the wake of suicide bombs that killed more than 200 people over two days.
Mr. Hakim criticized the United States and Sunni parties that encouraged the insurgency....
Mr. Hakim's criticism of the United States referred to recent pressure from the American forces to rein in the Iraqi security forces, which are under Shiite control.
--same New York Times article
When the new Iraqi government assumes office, ... Iraqi leaders will also have to review and possibly amend the constitution to ensure that this historic document earns the broad support of all Iraqi communities....
--Bush speech, 1/10/06
The leader of Iraq's most powerful party indicated today that his group would block substantive changes to the country's new constitution, despite a promise to Sunnis to consider amendments.
... Abdul Azziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, the most influential group in the ruling Shiite coalition, today said that "the first principle is not to change the essence of the constitution," according to The Associated Press.
...Mr. Hakim appeared to rule out in particular any change in the constitution's provisions allowing the creation of strong regional provinces, a point that had angered many Sunnis....
--New York Times today
The Interior Ministry's Special Police are the most capable of the Iraqi police forces.... Many of these Special Police forces are professional, they represent all aspects of society. But recently some have been accused of committing abuses against Iraqi civilians. That's unacceptable. That's unacceptable to the United States government; it's unacceptable to the Iraqi government, as well. And Iraqi leaders are committed to stopping these abuses.
--same Bush speech
Mr. Hakim's speech today followed tough statements he made last week in the wake of suicide bombs that killed more than 200 people over two days.
Mr. Hakim criticized the United States and Sunni parties that encouraged the insurgency....
Mr. Hakim's criticism of the United States referred to recent pressure from the American forces to rein in the Iraqi security forces, which are under Shiite control.
--same New York Times article
TIPS
And as Iraqis see their own countrymen defending them against the terrorists and Saddamists, they're beginning to step forward with needed intelligence. General Casey reports that the number of tips from Iraqis has grown from 400 in the month of March of 2005 to over 4,700 last month....
--Bush speech, 1/10/06
In the week since national elections, police officers and Iraqi National Guardsmen said they have received more tips from the public, resulting in more arrests and greater effectiveness in their efforts to weaken the violent insurgency rocking the country.
--Washington Post, 2/7/05
U.S. and Iraqi officials insist they are getting more tips from Iraqis about insurgent activity since the Americans transferred sovereignty to an interim government last June.
--AP, 1/21/05
The U.S. military is reaping more high-quality intelligence tips from Iraqi prisoners than ever since it stopped using several coercive interrogation techniques after the Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal in May, the American general in charge of Iraqi prisons said Monday.
--USA Today, 9/6/04
Saddam arrest leads to more tips, U.S. says
BAGHDAD -- The capture of Saddam Hussein has prompted many more Iraqis to come forward with intelligence about the armed insurgency...
--The Olympian, Olympia, Washington, 1/5/04
Our greatest advantage has been the one the media ignore: Few Iraqis wanted the Ba'athists back. As they began to feel more confident of American resolve, they offered ever more tips about hide-outs and arms caches....
--Ralph Peters in the New York Post, 12/15/03
Intelligence has begun flowing in at a faster rate, according to Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division in Iraq.
More and more tips are coming in every day, said General Odierno in a videoconference with Washington-based reporters.
"It is probably 10- or 20-fold more than when we first started here ... the number of people we have coming in to provide us human information," he said.
--Christian Science Monitor, 10/29/03
****
(Yes, this is an update of an earlier post.)
And as Iraqis see their own countrymen defending them against the terrorists and Saddamists, they're beginning to step forward with needed intelligence. General Casey reports that the number of tips from Iraqis has grown from 400 in the month of March of 2005 to over 4,700 last month....
--Bush speech, 1/10/06
In the week since national elections, police officers and Iraqi National Guardsmen said they have received more tips from the public, resulting in more arrests and greater effectiveness in their efforts to weaken the violent insurgency rocking the country.
--Washington Post, 2/7/05
U.S. and Iraqi officials insist they are getting more tips from Iraqis about insurgent activity since the Americans transferred sovereignty to an interim government last June.
--AP, 1/21/05
The U.S. military is reaping more high-quality intelligence tips from Iraqi prisoners than ever since it stopped using several coercive interrogation techniques after the Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal in May, the American general in charge of Iraqi prisons said Monday.
--USA Today, 9/6/04
Saddam arrest leads to more tips, U.S. says
BAGHDAD -- The capture of Saddam Hussein has prompted many more Iraqis to come forward with intelligence about the armed insurgency...
--The Olympian, Olympia, Washington, 1/5/04
Our greatest advantage has been the one the media ignore: Few Iraqis wanted the Ba'athists back. As they began to feel more confident of American resolve, they offered ever more tips about hide-outs and arms caches....
--Ralph Peters in the New York Post, 12/15/03
Intelligence has begun flowing in at a faster rate, according to Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division in Iraq.
More and more tips are coming in every day, said General Odierno in a videoconference with Washington-based reporters.
"It is probably 10- or 20-fold more than when we first started here ... the number of people we have coming in to provide us human information," he said.
--Christian Science Monitor, 10/29/03
****
(Yes, this is an update of an earlier post.)
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
John Tierney, raving about the privatized Chilean social security system in The New York Times, April 26, 2005:
... if you contribute for at least 20 years, Chile guarantees you a minimum pension that, relative to the median salary, is actually more generous than the median Social Security check.
..."I'm very happy with my account," [my Chilean friend Pablo] said to me after comparing our pensions. He was kind enough not to gloat....
John Tierney, still raving about the privatized Chilean social security system in The New York Times, May 7, 2005:
I can't protect my pension against political risk, but Pablo can help protect his against the risks of the stock market. As he approaches retirement, he can gradually shift his money out of stocks and into bonds, like the ones that financed the private road between Santiago and the port city of Valparaiso, which will be paid off by tolls.
... My pension depends on 535 politicians who will be asked to vote for steep tax increases or budget cuts that they fear could cost them their jobs. Pablo's pension depends on people driving between Chile's two largest cities.
John Tierney, still raving about the privatized Chilean social security system in The New York Times, June 14, 2005:
[Chile's] pension system has a stronger safety net for the older poor than America's (relative to each country's wages) and more incentives for people to work, because Chileans' contributions go directly into their own private accounts instead of a common pool like Social Security....
****
The New York Times today:
... "Many of those who started work when the system was first adopted are realizing that they have not been able to contribute enough to get a significant pension," [Chilean political science professor Patricio] Navia said, adding that they resent "overhead costs that are so high" and that have led to record profits for the pension funds that manage contributions automatically deducted from workers' paychecks.
...According to a recent study here, Chile's pension funds, whose number has shrunk to 6 from more than 20 as competition has diminished, recorded an average annual profitability of more than 50 percent during a recent five-year period. Other studies, including one conducted by the World Bank, indicate that pension funds retain between a quarter and a third of workers' contributions in the form of commissions, insurance and other administrative fees.
... many young people, who should be enrolling in the system early to accrue maximum benefit, are staying out or paying in very little. Some cannot afford to contribute beyond the obligatory minimum payment, which is 10 percent of wages, while others are either self-employed or have been hired by companies as low-paid independent contract workers and therefore do not have to contribute at all....
As a result of such doubts, attacking the pension system and especially the perceived excesses of the funds has become a surefire source of votes. One of the big winners in the first round of the election last month, for example, was Guido Girardi, a senator-elect ... who has taken upon himself the role of scourge of the private management funds.
"I am going to do away with these thieves in jackets and ties," Mr. Girardi vowed. "We are going to defend the citizenry from these funds that rob people of their pensions."...
... if you contribute for at least 20 years, Chile guarantees you a minimum pension that, relative to the median salary, is actually more generous than the median Social Security check.
..."I'm very happy with my account," [my Chilean friend Pablo] said to me after comparing our pensions. He was kind enough not to gloat....
John Tierney, still raving about the privatized Chilean social security system in The New York Times, May 7, 2005:
I can't protect my pension against political risk, but Pablo can help protect his against the risks of the stock market. As he approaches retirement, he can gradually shift his money out of stocks and into bonds, like the ones that financed the private road between Santiago and the port city of Valparaiso, which will be paid off by tolls.
... My pension depends on 535 politicians who will be asked to vote for steep tax increases or budget cuts that they fear could cost them their jobs. Pablo's pension depends on people driving between Chile's two largest cities.
John Tierney, still raving about the privatized Chilean social security system in The New York Times, June 14, 2005:
[Chile's] pension system has a stronger safety net for the older poor than America's (relative to each country's wages) and more incentives for people to work, because Chileans' contributions go directly into their own private accounts instead of a common pool like Social Security....
****
The New York Times today:
... "Many of those who started work when the system was first adopted are realizing that they have not been able to contribute enough to get a significant pension," [Chilean political science professor Patricio] Navia said, adding that they resent "overhead costs that are so high" and that have led to record profits for the pension funds that manage contributions automatically deducted from workers' paychecks.
...According to a recent study here, Chile's pension funds, whose number has shrunk to 6 from more than 20 as competition has diminished, recorded an average annual profitability of more than 50 percent during a recent five-year period. Other studies, including one conducted by the World Bank, indicate that pension funds retain between a quarter and a third of workers' contributions in the form of commissions, insurance and other administrative fees.
... many young people, who should be enrolling in the system early to accrue maximum benefit, are staying out or paying in very little. Some cannot afford to contribute beyond the obligatory minimum payment, which is 10 percent of wages, while others are either self-employed or have been hired by companies as low-paid independent contract workers and therefore do not have to contribute at all....
As a result of such doubts, attacking the pension system and especially the perceived excesses of the funds has become a surefire source of votes. One of the big winners in the first round of the election last month, for example, was Guido Girardi, a senator-elect ... who has taken upon himself the role of scourge of the private management funds.
"I am going to do away with these thieves in jackets and ties," Mr. Girardi vowed. "We are going to defend the citizenry from these funds that rob people of their pensions."...
Show trial fizzles out:
Yesterday's hearing on academic freedom at Pennsylvania's public universities was hyped by conservative activists as a "historic moment," in which school administrators would finally be "called to account" in front of state legislators for allowing student "indoctrination and abuse" by leftist professors.
But the hearing at Temple University did not live up to that billing.
A professor scheduled to testify about alleged rampant liberal bias at Temple canceled. The sole student to appear before the legislative committee acknowledged he had never filed a formal grievance.
And Temple president David Adamany testified that in fact no student had made an official classroom bias complaint in at least five years, despite well-developed policies and procedures for doing so....
Rep. Dan Surra (D., Elk) called the hearings a "colossal waste of time and taxpayer money."...
So much for the big victory Davey Horowitz declared last summer when the Pennsylvania House passed the resolution calling for the hearings. Incidentally, maybe I'm missing something here, but it appears that the Horowitz/Front Page Magazine crowd's entire case with regard to Temple is based on one course. If the Liberal International is really hell-bent on brainwashing the next generation of America's youth, shouldn't we be working harder than that?
(First link via DU.)
****
UPDATE: More on this from Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged, The All Spin Zone, Michael Berube, and Inside Higher Ed.
Yesterday's hearing on academic freedom at Pennsylvania's public universities was hyped by conservative activists as a "historic moment," in which school administrators would finally be "called to account" in front of state legislators for allowing student "indoctrination and abuse" by leftist professors.
But the hearing at Temple University did not live up to that billing.
A professor scheduled to testify about alleged rampant liberal bias at Temple canceled. The sole student to appear before the legislative committee acknowledged he had never filed a formal grievance.
And Temple president David Adamany testified that in fact no student had made an official classroom bias complaint in at least five years, despite well-developed policies and procedures for doing so....
Rep. Dan Surra (D., Elk) called the hearings a "colossal waste of time and taxpayer money."...
So much for the big victory Davey Horowitz declared last summer when the Pennsylvania House passed the resolution calling for the hearings. Incidentally, maybe I'm missing something here, but it appears that the Horowitz/Front Page Magazine crowd's entire case with regard to Temple is based on one course. If the Liberal International is really hell-bent on brainwashing the next generation of America's youth, shouldn't we be working harder than that?
(First link via DU.)
****
UPDATE: More on this from Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged, The All Spin Zone, Michael Berube, and Inside Higher Ed.
I know I should be posting about Abramoff, or going all Alito all the time, but I'm trying to suppress laughter as I read about a competition some people from my old home state are planning to stage next month:
Feb 4th, 2006
Location to be determined.
Mr Heterosexual Contest 2006
A Celebration of God's Creation
A real competition that will bring fun and laughter as we celebrate God's design.
I learn from this article that the contest will be actually held on February 18, not February 4 -- a facility in Sturbridge, Massachusetts, backed out of hosting the competition on the earlier date, and now it's being held two weeks later in Worcester. Gay activists hope Worcester's Mechanics Hall will also back out, but I don't think it's a big deal -- this thing is too ridiculous to take seriously:
Mr Heterosexual is the creation of Tom Crouse. On his radio show- "Engaging Your World", Tom mentioned the Mr Gay international contest that was held in San Diego and stated that "you never hear of anything for heterosexuals- someone should have a Mr Heterosexual Contest." One thing led to another and Tom decides to put the event together.
The local and national media picked up on the event as well as the homosexual activists, who were outraged that someone could have such an event. Tom has been called by the homosexual activists everything from Osama Bin Laden- to Hitler. Why? Because he has the nerve to have an event celebrating Gods design of Heterosexuality, and also has the nerve to have at the event someone who will give testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ freed them from all their sins....
Yes, that last point is important -- according to this article,
the contest's highlight ... [will be] the appearance of a young man who has decried his homosexuality and has, through the teachings of Jesus Christ, discovered the pleasure and benefits of living a heterosexual life.
So this may be less about straightness than about ex-gayness -- the insistence, through gritted teeth, that whomever one might stare at or fantasize about or flirt with or, in moments of weakness, even have sex with, one has really, really beaten the gay thing. No, seriously.
This isn't going to be a mere beauty contest -- there will be tests of manliness:
Strength - how many oprah magazines can you tear?
Talent - your choice
Intellectual - answering random questions such as your favorite heterosexual role model
Competition - name that food
..........more events to be announced.
Er, I dunno -- doesn't sound all that Y-chromosome to me. If this were a true celebration of the manly, it seems to me the competition would involve, say, chainsaws. (Competitive chainsawing on ESPN: My idea of great TV.) I also think the images on the main page of the Mr. Hetero Web site would be a bit less J. Crew catalog and a bit more like, well, maybe The Onion's Area Man.
On the other hand, the stuff on the Mr. Hetero merchandise page does seem to lack a certain design flair.
On his blog, Crouse promises that the event will stick it to the politically correct Man:
We might say the Pledge of Allegiance and even use the term, "One nation under God", who knows, we might do that a few times. There could also be random outbreaks of "Merry Christmas" during the evening.
In mid-February? Knock yourself out.
Feb 4th, 2006
Location to be determined.
Mr Heterosexual Contest 2006
A Celebration of God's Creation
A real competition that will bring fun and laughter as we celebrate God's design.
I learn from this article that the contest will be actually held on February 18, not February 4 -- a facility in Sturbridge, Massachusetts, backed out of hosting the competition on the earlier date, and now it's being held two weeks later in Worcester. Gay activists hope Worcester's Mechanics Hall will also back out, but I don't think it's a big deal -- this thing is too ridiculous to take seriously:
Mr Heterosexual is the creation of Tom Crouse. On his radio show- "Engaging Your World", Tom mentioned the Mr Gay international contest that was held in San Diego and stated that "you never hear of anything for heterosexuals- someone should have a Mr Heterosexual Contest." One thing led to another and Tom decides to put the event together.
The local and national media picked up on the event as well as the homosexual activists, who were outraged that someone could have such an event. Tom has been called by the homosexual activists everything from Osama Bin Laden- to Hitler. Why? Because he has the nerve to have an event celebrating Gods design of Heterosexuality, and also has the nerve to have at the event someone who will give testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ freed them from all their sins....
Yes, that last point is important -- according to this article,
the contest's highlight ... [will be] the appearance of a young man who has decried his homosexuality and has, through the teachings of Jesus Christ, discovered the pleasure and benefits of living a heterosexual life.
So this may be less about straightness than about ex-gayness -- the insistence, through gritted teeth, that whomever one might stare at or fantasize about or flirt with or, in moments of weakness, even have sex with, one has really, really beaten the gay thing. No, seriously.
This isn't going to be a mere beauty contest -- there will be tests of manliness:
Strength - how many oprah magazines can you tear?
Talent - your choice
Intellectual - answering random questions such as your favorite heterosexual role model
Competition - name that food
..........more events to be announced.
Er, I dunno -- doesn't sound all that Y-chromosome to me. If this were a true celebration of the manly, it seems to me the competition would involve, say, chainsaws. (Competitive chainsawing on ESPN: My idea of great TV.) I also think the images on the main page of the Mr. Hetero Web site would be a bit less J. Crew catalog and a bit more like, well, maybe The Onion's Area Man.
On the other hand, the stuff on the Mr. Hetero merchandise page does seem to lack a certain design flair.
On his blog, Crouse promises that the event will stick it to the politically correct Man:
We might say the Pledge of Allegiance and even use the term, "One nation under God", who knows, we might do that a few times. There could also be random outbreaks of "Merry Christmas" during the evening.
In mid-February? Knock yourself out.
I share Sam Rosenfeld's Alito fatalism -- especially after seeing the results of yesterday's Washington Post poll, which said that a majority of Americans favor the nomination and an even bigger majority believe Alito won't vote to overturn Roe.
This is when I ask: What would Republicans have done in this situation if they were Democrats? Here's what I think they would have done: Particularly after the release of Alito's 1985 letter denying that the Constitution protects abortion, they'd have deployed several members of the party to go out and say, point blank, "Alito, if he's confirmed, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade" -- "will vote to overturn," with no ambiguity. It would have simple, it would have been easily digested by the TV-viewing public -- and it would have been denounced as over the line by Alito's defenders. Thus, it would have been news, and it could have framed the debate, because the public doesn't want Roe overturned.
This would have worked only if the party refused to back down. Alito's supporters would have tried to make the bluntness of the statement into the issue. This is where discipline would have come in: The statement shouldn't have been made by top leaders of the party, but those leaders should have refused to distance themselves from it; they should have defended the honor and integrity of whoever had made the remarks. And, after the first wave of criticism, yet more Democrats should have said the same thing. Alito's own words, plus a list of the groups and individuals praising him, would be enough to make the statement highly plausible.
Do something bold so what you're doing leaps to the top of the nightly newscast; strike first; keep it simple; stand your ground after taking your shot; declare that the opposition is not just wrong, but the enemy of reasonable Americans -- that's what Republicans do. And it works.
This is when I ask: What would Republicans have done in this situation if they were Democrats? Here's what I think they would have done: Particularly after the release of Alito's 1985 letter denying that the Constitution protects abortion, they'd have deployed several members of the party to go out and say, point blank, "Alito, if he's confirmed, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade" -- "will vote to overturn," with no ambiguity. It would have simple, it would have been easily digested by the TV-viewing public -- and it would have been denounced as over the line by Alito's defenders. Thus, it would have been news, and it could have framed the debate, because the public doesn't want Roe overturned.
This would have worked only if the party refused to back down. Alito's supporters would have tried to make the bluntness of the statement into the issue. This is where discipline would have come in: The statement shouldn't have been made by top leaders of the party, but those leaders should have refused to distance themselves from it; they should have defended the honor and integrity of whoever had made the remarks. And, after the first wave of criticism, yet more Democrats should have said the same thing. Alito's own words, plus a list of the groups and individuals praising him, would be enough to make the statement highly plausible.
Do something bold so what you're doing leaps to the top of the nightly newscast; strike first; keep it simple; stand your ground after taking your shot; declare that the opposition is not just wrong, but the enemy of reasonable Americans -- that's what Republicans do. And it works.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Freedom on the march!
...Last week a journalist in the Kurdish city of Arbil was sentenced to 30 years in prison for articles he wrote critical of Kurdish regional president Masoud Barzani.
In the southern city of Kut, two other journalists have been charged with defaming police and the judiciary after criticizing provincial officials in a local paper. If convicted, they face 10 years in prison and heavy fines....
Funny, I haven't seen a whole lot of press about this.
I know American right-wingers aren't very fond of journalists who criticize governments, so I wonder if the U.S. right would consider this some of the "good news from Iraq" that the U.S. media won't report....
****
(More information on those two cases here and here.)
...Last week a journalist in the Kurdish city of Arbil was sentenced to 30 years in prison for articles he wrote critical of Kurdish regional president Masoud Barzani.
In the southern city of Kut, two other journalists have been charged with defaming police and the judiciary after criticizing provincial officials in a local paper. If convicted, they face 10 years in prison and heavy fines....
Funny, I haven't seen a whole lot of press about this.
I know American right-wingers aren't very fond of journalists who criticize governments, so I wonder if the U.S. right would consider this some of the "good news from Iraq" that the U.S. media won't report....
****
(More information on those two cases here and here.)
BUSH BOOM
If, as Bush has been boasting lately, we're doing so well in the area of money, how come the average American doesn't actually seem to be accruing any?
When the Commerce Department recently tallied up consumer finances for November, it found that Americans shelled out more money than they took in. It was the seventh such month of red ink during 2005....
Given how much red ink households racked up in the first 11 months of last year, [Kevin] Lansing [a Federal Reserve Bank economist] said the nation's personal savings rate could well be negative for all of 2005.
That, he added, would be "the first such occurrence since the Great Depression."
... "You're seeing a situation where the consumers are spending every penny they possibly can and borrowing on top of that,'' said Joel Naroff, a Pennsylvania economic consultant....
A member of the Federal Reserve Board -- not a mere economist -- says in the same article that we shouldn't worry: people are just tapping into all that lovely home equity from the housing boom. But if we've all got such a big windfall, shouldn't we be a bit ahead? Shouldn't we be able to pay the bills and put something away for a rainy day? And what happens when the boom goes bust, or even just flattens out? What do we do then? Cut rich people's taxes even more?
If, as Bush has been boasting lately, we're doing so well in the area of money, how come the average American doesn't actually seem to be accruing any?
When the Commerce Department recently tallied up consumer finances for November, it found that Americans shelled out more money than they took in. It was the seventh such month of red ink during 2005....
Given how much red ink households racked up in the first 11 months of last year, [Kevin] Lansing [a Federal Reserve Bank economist] said the nation's personal savings rate could well be negative for all of 2005.
That, he added, would be "the first such occurrence since the Great Depression."
... "You're seeing a situation where the consumers are spending every penny they possibly can and borrowing on top of that,'' said Joel Naroff, a Pennsylvania economic consultant....
A member of the Federal Reserve Board -- not a mere economist -- says in the same article that we shouldn't worry: people are just tapping into all that lovely home equity from the housing boom. But if we've all got such a big windfall, shouldn't we be a bit ahead? Shouldn't we be able to pay the bills and put something away for a rainy day? And what happens when the boom goes bust, or even just flattens out? What do we do then? Cut rich people's taxes even more?
New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum was killed in a mugging in D.C. on Friday evening. He was 63.
The folks at Lucianne.com are deeply moved:
Sometimes justice reveals itself in harsh ways.
Biting lip.
*****
It's sad to see anyone die, especially in such a manner. But the man was hateful and mean spirited.
*****
Look, I agree that someone being murdered should not be cause for joy. But I really can't work up too much grief for him. We reap what we sow. I'm sure he was a big advocate of denying New Yorkers (or all Americans, for that matter) the means to protect themselves. So to some extent he was instrumental in his own demise. And he probably supported policies that could very well relegate you or you loved ones to a similar fate. So don't blame the chickens for coming home to roost; that's what they do -- it's just the natural order of things.
*****
This is protected "speech".
Its just another way that a culture expresses itself - sort of like ebonics or having a brood of multi-hued babies sired and abandoned by anonymous sperm doners.
We must view this conduct as just another manifestation of cultural diversity.
After all, who are we to be judgemental about other cultures?
/sarcasm off/
*****
... I condemn Rosenbaum's murder, but I do not grive his death. Rosenbaum was enemy of freedom, working for the anti baby, anti freedom, pro terror, vanity blog the New York Times. Rosenbaum's death is a case of enemy fraticide. Oh the allies Pinch Shultzberger chooses.
*****
I am not sure that felling sorry for a person who actively contributed to an organization that has propagandized for those who would kill us on the streets, in building or just because we exist deserves much in the way of respect.
One would have to ask the question as to whether anyone who works for the NYTimes or any MSM outlet has shown any respect for those who disagree with them at all. How many stories have we read about the desire for the assassination of anyone who disagrees with them?
There is not a dime's worth of difference between the terrorists propaganda outlets and what this person and the organization that he worked for do every day. Sad to think like this, but that is what the MSM and democratic party have wrought.
*****
Good news is that his social security contributions will be available for redistribution.
There's more of the same at Free Republic:
Must resist urge to yawn...
*****
"Tell me the frequency Kenneth!"
*****
Did they beat him with the Sunday edition?
*****
A lot of the suicide bombers in Iraq are hasbands and fathers too. But the thing is, any one of them probably does less damage to America than the typical New York Times editor does....
*****
I am ... sure this guy was a lefty..and he believed it was "our" fault that these people are the way they are...so I don't feel so much pain...just like when a nuke will go off in San Francisco or NYC....the libs don't want us to look for them or to protect them...so I won't be sending money to help the survivors....they wanted it....the old saying..." don't bring a knife to a gunfight"...the liberals don't even bring a knife......
*****
... If you are a liberal, you are doing Satan's work.
...There may be some liberals who act like "good people" when they are around other liberals, but the way they act when in the presence of conservatism leads me to think them -- not pure evil, but contaminated by evil to a greater or lesser extent.
...Conservatives as a general rule have a policy of trying to correct whatever evil they find in themselves. Liberals, on the other hand, celebrate evil and seek to increase it, because they have gotten turned around and think good is in the other direction.
Liberalism, the demonrat party, socialism, progressivism, whatever name it hides behind, is where Satan does some of his most effective work. Their ideas are of and from Satan, and no one who embraces more than a certain small number of those ideas can by any stretch be thought a good person.
*****
The Slimes are the enemy and anyone who associates with them becomes the enemy. They started this war against good American Elected Officials and if they want to stop it they have the ability to do so. If Bin Laden got robbed and killed will there be any tears for him? The Slimes want to promote the enemy agenda they can go down like the enemy. I hope someone that works for them reads this and passes it on.
*****
...It makes me so mad when people say against the president. How is that not treason? Dump-o-craps are all going to burn in hell for this. They are as bad as murderers and molesters and pedofiles.
*****
Just a misunderstood victim of society in an outreach program, acting out his anger against the white man. Either that or else a gay hooker got violent.
Oh, and a few other people think his death had something to do with Bill Clinton. No, I'm serious.
The folks at Lucianne.com are deeply moved:
Sometimes justice reveals itself in harsh ways.
Biting lip.
*****
It's sad to see anyone die, especially in such a manner. But the man was hateful and mean spirited.
*****
Look, I agree that someone being murdered should not be cause for joy. But I really can't work up too much grief for him. We reap what we sow. I'm sure he was a big advocate of denying New Yorkers (or all Americans, for that matter) the means to protect themselves. So to some extent he was instrumental in his own demise. And he probably supported policies that could very well relegate you or you loved ones to a similar fate. So don't blame the chickens for coming home to roost; that's what they do -- it's just the natural order of things.
*****
This is protected "speech".
Its just another way that a culture expresses itself - sort of like ebonics or having a brood of multi-hued babies sired and abandoned by anonymous sperm doners.
We must view this conduct as just another manifestation of cultural diversity.
After all, who are we to be judgemental about other cultures?
/sarcasm off/
*****
... I condemn Rosenbaum's murder, but I do not grive his death. Rosenbaum was enemy of freedom, working for the anti baby, anti freedom, pro terror, vanity blog the New York Times. Rosenbaum's death is a case of enemy fraticide. Oh the allies Pinch Shultzberger chooses.
*****
I am not sure that felling sorry for a person who actively contributed to an organization that has propagandized for those who would kill us on the streets, in building or just because we exist deserves much in the way of respect.
One would have to ask the question as to whether anyone who works for the NYTimes or any MSM outlet has shown any respect for those who disagree with them at all. How many stories have we read about the desire for the assassination of anyone who disagrees with them?
There is not a dime's worth of difference between the terrorists propaganda outlets and what this person and the organization that he worked for do every day. Sad to think like this, but that is what the MSM and democratic party have wrought.
*****
Good news is that his social security contributions will be available for redistribution.
There's more of the same at Free Republic:
Must resist urge to yawn...
*****
"Tell me the frequency Kenneth!"
*****
Did they beat him with the Sunday edition?
*****
A lot of the suicide bombers in Iraq are hasbands and fathers too. But the thing is, any one of them probably does less damage to America than the typical New York Times editor does....
*****
I am ... sure this guy was a lefty..and he believed it was "our" fault that these people are the way they are...so I don't feel so much pain...just like when a nuke will go off in San Francisco or NYC....the libs don't want us to look for them or to protect them...so I won't be sending money to help the survivors....they wanted it....the old saying..." don't bring a knife to a gunfight"...the liberals don't even bring a knife......
*****
... If you are a liberal, you are doing Satan's work.
...There may be some liberals who act like "good people" when they are around other liberals, but the way they act when in the presence of conservatism leads me to think them -- not pure evil, but contaminated by evil to a greater or lesser extent.
...Conservatives as a general rule have a policy of trying to correct whatever evil they find in themselves. Liberals, on the other hand, celebrate evil and seek to increase it, because they have gotten turned around and think good is in the other direction.
Liberalism, the demonrat party, socialism, progressivism, whatever name it hides behind, is where Satan does some of his most effective work. Their ideas are of and from Satan, and no one who embraces more than a certain small number of those ideas can by any stretch be thought a good person.
*****
The Slimes are the enemy and anyone who associates with them becomes the enemy. They started this war against good American Elected Officials and if they want to stop it they have the ability to do so. If Bin Laden got robbed and killed will there be any tears for him? The Slimes want to promote the enemy agenda they can go down like the enemy. I hope someone that works for them reads this and passes it on.
*****
...It makes me so mad when people say against the president. How is that not treason? Dump-o-craps are all going to burn in hell for this. They are as bad as murderers and molesters and pedofiles.
*****
Just a misunderstood victim of society in an outreach program, acting out his anger against the white man. Either that or else a gay hooker got violent.
Oh, and a few other people think his death had something to do with Bill Clinton. No, I'm serious.
So, have we "turned a corner" yet in Iraq? Is there a "light at the end of the tunnel"?
Here's your answer:
Two suicide bombers dressed as senior police officers blew themselves up inside the Interior Ministry compound in Baghdad on Monday, killing 14 people and wounding 22 as Iraq marked National Police Day....
A ceremony ... was taking place at the police academy next door to the ministry at the time of the blasts about 500 meters (yards) away....
An attack on a celebration of National Police Day? Wow, there's something no one could have possibly seen coming! Oh, sure, maybe you could have guessed if you had any firsthand knowledge whatsoever of the situation in Iraq, or if you'd opened a newspaper anywhere in the world at any time in the past year, but other than that...
Ah, but it's nice to know some things never change -- there's always an American around to remind us that the glass is half full:
Among dignitaries attending [the ceremony] were the U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, and the Iraqi defense and interior ministers.
U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson, who was at the ceremony, said the attack on the ministry did not interrupt the parade.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to the victims and their families.
****
UPDATE: Death toll now being reported as 29.
Here's your answer:
Two suicide bombers dressed as senior police officers blew themselves up inside the Interior Ministry compound in Baghdad on Monday, killing 14 people and wounding 22 as Iraq marked National Police Day....
A ceremony ... was taking place at the police academy next door to the ministry at the time of the blasts about 500 meters (yards) away....
An attack on a celebration of National Police Day? Wow, there's something no one could have possibly seen coming! Oh, sure, maybe you could have guessed if you had any firsthand knowledge whatsoever of the situation in Iraq, or if you'd opened a newspaper anywhere in the world at any time in the past year, but other than that...
Ah, but it's nice to know some things never change -- there's always an American around to remind us that the glass is half full:
Among dignitaries attending [the ceremony] were the U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, and the Iraqi defense and interior ministers.
U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson, who was at the ceremony, said the attack on the ministry did not interrupt the parade.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to the victims and their families.
****
UPDATE: Death toll now being reported as 29.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
So I see that after daring to express skepticism about the Iraq War and Bill O'Reilly's claims of a "war on Christmas," David Letterman is being lectured -- by Pat Boone:
...But host Dave's mistreatment of guest Bill still provokes me, especially in view of his audience's warmth to Dave's echoing question "Why are we in Iraq anyway?" It's become an acceptable social choice by now to forget the answer to that question. It's sad there's any need, but it seems there can't be too much reminding.
Okay: 9-11. Airliners taken over by terrorists who destroy them and hundreds of innocent passengers. World Trade Center destroyed. Over 3,000 Americans killed. Evidence being reported of many plots to do more of the same....
I see a picture of a neighborhood, on a nice cul de sac, happy and contented. One day a nest of rattlesnakes is discovered in one neighbor's backyard. Several neighbors insist on going in together and wiping out the nest, before the snakes inevitably slither into the other yards. In this instance, which is most important? Is it privacy or wiping out the snakes, before every home is afflicted and people unnecessarily die?
Why are we in Iraq, Dave?
BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICANS – AND AMERICANS KILL SNAKES BEFORE THEY KILL US!
You're a daddy now, Dave, with a backyard. Think about it.
Mr. Pat Boone, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Pat Boone of Beverly Hills, California.
You know, we don't have rattlesnakes here in the East, Mr. Boone. We did, however, have a nasty terrorist attack back here. I know where David Letterman was in September 2001 -- right back at work in Manhattan, less than a week after the attack.
Where were you, Mr. Beverly Hills?
...But host Dave's mistreatment of guest Bill still provokes me, especially in view of his audience's warmth to Dave's echoing question "Why are we in Iraq anyway?" It's become an acceptable social choice by now to forget the answer to that question. It's sad there's any need, but it seems there can't be too much reminding.
Okay: 9-11. Airliners taken over by terrorists who destroy them and hundreds of innocent passengers. World Trade Center destroyed. Over 3,000 Americans killed. Evidence being reported of many plots to do more of the same....
I see a picture of a neighborhood, on a nice cul de sac, happy and contented. One day a nest of rattlesnakes is discovered in one neighbor's backyard. Several neighbors insist on going in together and wiping out the nest, before the snakes inevitably slither into the other yards. In this instance, which is most important? Is it privacy or wiping out the snakes, before every home is afflicted and people unnecessarily die?
Why are we in Iraq, Dave?
BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICANS – AND AMERICANS KILL SNAKES BEFORE THEY KILL US!
You're a daddy now, Dave, with a backyard. Think about it.
Mr. Pat Boone, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Pat Boone of Beverly Hills, California.
You know, we don't have rattlesnakes here in the East, Mr. Boone. We did, however, have a nasty terrorist attack back here. I know where David Letterman was in September 2001 -- right back at work in Manhattan, less than a week after the attack.
Where were you, Mr. Beverly Hills?
A law unto themselves:
The Bush administration has illegally stopped making public detailed tax enforcement data, which has been used to show which kinds of taxpayers get the most and toughest audits, a noted tax researcher says.
Syracuse University Professor Susan B. Long said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle late last week that since Nov. 1, 2004, the Internal Revenue Service has violated a 1976 court order requiring the release of the data....
Long, who has researched and written about federal tax administration for more than 30 years, used the Freedom of Information Act to win the court order in 1976....
The 1976 court order listed 38 types of IRS reports ... that Long was entitled to receive "promptly" and regularly under the Freedom of Information Act. The court said IRS must continue to make the same statistical data contained in the listed reports available without charge in future years "regardless of the format ... hereafter compiled."
Despite filing regular FOIA requests for the material, the last data Long received arrived Nov. 1, 2004 and covered only the first six months of fiscal year 2004, through March, 2004, she said in an interview.
"They really shut down access," she said....
Yeah -- days before the '04 election. I guess the Bushies assumed that after that they'd either be out of a job or utterly above the law.
Long uses this information to determine, for instance, whether low-income taxpayers get audited more than the rich -- something she said was taking place in 2000, when Bill Clinton was president (a sign she no Democratic partisan). I guess the public isn't entitled to know that kind of thing anymore if our leaders just don't feel like telling us.
The Bush administration has illegally stopped making public detailed tax enforcement data, which has been used to show which kinds of taxpayers get the most and toughest audits, a noted tax researcher says.
Syracuse University Professor Susan B. Long said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle late last week that since Nov. 1, 2004, the Internal Revenue Service has violated a 1976 court order requiring the release of the data....
Long, who has researched and written about federal tax administration for more than 30 years, used the Freedom of Information Act to win the court order in 1976....
The 1976 court order listed 38 types of IRS reports ... that Long was entitled to receive "promptly" and regularly under the Freedom of Information Act. The court said IRS must continue to make the same statistical data contained in the listed reports available without charge in future years "regardless of the format ... hereafter compiled."
Despite filing regular FOIA requests for the material, the last data Long received arrived Nov. 1, 2004 and covered only the first six months of fiscal year 2004, through March, 2004, she said in an interview.
"They really shut down access," she said....
Yeah -- days before the '04 election. I guess the Bushies assumed that after that they'd either be out of a job or utterly above the law.
Long uses this information to determine, for instance, whether low-income taxpayers get audited more than the rich -- something she said was taking place in 2000, when Bill Clinton was president (a sign she no Democratic partisan). I guess the public isn't entitled to know that kind of thing anymore if our leaders just don't feel like telling us.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
In the stores for barely two months and already marked down 50%.
(It's 50% here, too.)
That means the publisher and booksellers can't give it away at the usual retail price -- which means, I guess, that America's taste in food and political families is better than we thought.
By the way, I've taken this book off store shelves twice, and each time it fell open to the recipe for "Cheese Puff Delights." Perfect.
(It's 50% here, too.)
That means the publisher and booksellers can't give it away at the usual retail price -- which means, I guess, that America's taste in food and political families is better than we thought.
By the way, I've taken this book off store shelves twice, and each time it fell open to the recipe for "Cheese Puff Delights." Perfect.
Friday, January 06, 2006
From National Journal's Hotline:
BREAKING NEWS: HOUSE GOPERS CALL FOR ELECTIONS
The Hotline has learned from three House sources that at least two-dozen House GOPers spanning the ideological spectrum have agreed to sign a letter to House Conference Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH) requesting new leadership elections in an effort to block Rep. Tom DeLay from reclaiming his post as Maj Leader....
The Republicans and the conservative movement have gotten out in front of this scandal so fast it's making my head spin. They know they have to save the Party by any means necessary -- and they're getting the job done. The general public is just starting to pay attention to this, and the first impressions the public is getting are of Gingrich calling for reform and right-leaning columnists expressing disgust and the Republican rank-and-file purging its leadership. There it is -- game, set, and match. By November, outside their home states, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney will no more than answers to a trivia question. Sad to say, Abramoff will be about as big an issue in the '06 elections as Enron was in '02 and '04.
****
I should add that I do think the Republicans are vulnerable in '06 on Iraq (see: yesterday's news) and on the economy (they just don't understand the persistent, wentirely justified economic insecurity of ordinary Americans). But Abramoff? Not gonna matter a whit.
BREAKING NEWS: HOUSE GOPERS CALL FOR ELECTIONS
The Hotline has learned from three House sources that at least two-dozen House GOPers spanning the ideological spectrum have agreed to sign a letter to House Conference Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH) requesting new leadership elections in an effort to block Rep. Tom DeLay from reclaiming his post as Maj Leader....
The Republicans and the conservative movement have gotten out in front of this scandal so fast it's making my head spin. They know they have to save the Party by any means necessary -- and they're getting the job done. The general public is just starting to pay attention to this, and the first impressions the public is getting are of Gingrich calling for reform and right-leaning columnists expressing disgust and the Republican rank-and-file purging its leadership. There it is -- game, set, and match. By November, outside their home states, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney will no more than answers to a trivia question. Sad to say, Abramoff will be about as big an issue in the '06 elections as Enron was in '02 and '04.
****
I should add that I do think the Republicans are vulnerable in '06 on Iraq (see: yesterday's news) and on the economy (they just don't understand the persistent, wentirely justified economic insecurity of ordinary Americans). But Abramoff? Not gonna matter a whit.
DICK CHENEY: IN ANY HEMISPHERE, A BIG PAIN IN THE ASS
...According to well-to-do residents near their waterfront estates, Don and Joy Rumsfeld blend in, don't inconvenience their neighbors and get around town with minimum fuss since they bought their weekend house a year ago.
But Dick and Lynne Cheney, who settled into St. Michaels last fall, are being blamed by the locals for stopping traffic, keeping neighbors barricaded in their homes while the motorcade passes by, and disrupting sleepers' REM cycles with low-flying Chinook helicopters.
"I hear that Mrs. Cheney is delightful," a disgruntled neighbor, who lives within sight of Ballintober, the Cheneys' $2.7 million estate, told me yesterday. "But I've had great big helicopters fly over my house at 3 o'clock in the morning and at 1 in the morning. I can tell you I'm not happy. They're very noisy. The dogs start barking, and we can't get back to sleep."
The neighbor continued: "When they travel, the Secret Service clears Church Neck Road and prevents people from leaving their property. When they drive into town, people are actually told to stay inside their houses until the Cheneys go by. And I hear that two weeks ago, they told the DNR Police to keep their boats away from Cheney's house because it was ruining his view."...
--New York Daily News today
KABUL, Afghanistan - ...After spending 10 days discussing rules of procedure for Parliament, ... lawmakers on Sunday formally turned for the first time to pressing problems facing Afghans.
For an hour, representatives spoke with passion of the suffering of the homeless from cold weather, disease and poverty, and of government corruption and the fate of people in American military detention.
But the issue that threatens to cause an international incident is frustration about traffic problems in Kabul and the closing of whole districts when foreign or government dignitaries visit -- like when Vice President Dick Cheney attended the recent opening of Parliament.
"We have to open the roads that have been closed by foreign princes and war princes," said Ramazan Bashardost, a populist member of Parliament....
--New York Times, 1/2/06
...According to well-to-do residents near their waterfront estates, Don and Joy Rumsfeld blend in, don't inconvenience their neighbors and get around town with minimum fuss since they bought their weekend house a year ago.
But Dick and Lynne Cheney, who settled into St. Michaels last fall, are being blamed by the locals for stopping traffic, keeping neighbors barricaded in their homes while the motorcade passes by, and disrupting sleepers' REM cycles with low-flying Chinook helicopters.
"I hear that Mrs. Cheney is delightful," a disgruntled neighbor, who lives within sight of Ballintober, the Cheneys' $2.7 million estate, told me yesterday. "But I've had great big helicopters fly over my house at 3 o'clock in the morning and at 1 in the morning. I can tell you I'm not happy. They're very noisy. The dogs start barking, and we can't get back to sleep."
The neighbor continued: "When they travel, the Secret Service clears Church Neck Road and prevents people from leaving their property. When they drive into town, people are actually told to stay inside their houses until the Cheneys go by. And I hear that two weeks ago, they told the DNR Police to keep their boats away from Cheney's house because it was ruining his view."...
--New York Daily News today
KABUL, Afghanistan - ...After spending 10 days discussing rules of procedure for Parliament, ... lawmakers on Sunday formally turned for the first time to pressing problems facing Afghans.
For an hour, representatives spoke with passion of the suffering of the homeless from cold weather, disease and poverty, and of government corruption and the fate of people in American military detention.
But the issue that threatens to cause an international incident is frustration about traffic problems in Kabul and the closing of whole districts when foreign or government dignitaries visit -- like when Vice President Dick Cheney attended the recent opening of Parliament.
"We have to open the roads that have been closed by foreign princes and war princes," said Ramazan Bashardost, a populist member of Parliament....
--New York Times, 1/2/06
RUPERT MURDOCH PROFITS FROM AMERICAN GIRL BOYCOTT?
The Southern Baptist Conference's BP News reports:
A conservative-led boycott of the popular American Girl book and doll series during the Christmas season apparently led many parents to seek alternatives -- so much so that one Christian company saw its sales nearly triple in the final weeks of 2005.
The Life of Faith book and doll series -- sometimes called the Christian alternative to American Girl -- experienced a 172 percent increase in sales from the time the boycott began, says Sandi Shelton, president of Mission City Press, which owns the Life of Faith series....
Mission City Press is part of Zonderkidz, a division of religious publisher Zondervan -- which, in turn, is a division of HarperCollins, a part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
A flyspeck on Murdoch's balance sheet, to be sure, but every little bit helps.
The Southern Baptist Conference's BP News reports:
A conservative-led boycott of the popular American Girl book and doll series during the Christmas season apparently led many parents to seek alternatives -- so much so that one Christian company saw its sales nearly triple in the final weeks of 2005.
The Life of Faith book and doll series -- sometimes called the Christian alternative to American Girl -- experienced a 172 percent increase in sales from the time the boycott began, says Sandi Shelton, president of Mission City Press, which owns the Life of Faith series....
Mission City Press is part of Zonderkidz, a division of religious publisher Zondervan -- which, in turn, is a division of HarperCollins, a part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
A flyspeck on Murdoch's balance sheet, to be sure, but every little bit helps.
So I've been following the speculation about possible NSA bugging of CNN's Christiane Amanpour. (For those who don't know, this speculation arose after AMERICAblog's John Aravosis found an online transcript of Andrea's Mitchell's NBC interview with State of War author James Risen, in which, out of nowhere, Mitchell blurted out, "You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?" -- a question that was later deleted from the transcript.)
I can't help linking this to the announcement by James Moore, coauthor of the Karl Rove expose Bush's Brain, that he's on a terrorist watch list and now has to go through extra scrutiny every time he flies.
..."Mam, I'd like to know how I got on the No Fly Watch List."
"I'm not really authorized to tell you that, sir," she explained after taking down my social security and Texas driver's license numbers.
"What can you tell me?"
"All I can tell you is that there is something in your background that in some way is similar to someone they are looking for."...
"Oh, wait," I said. "One last thing: this guy they are looking for? Did he write books critical of the Bush administration, too?"
I have been on the No Fly Watch List for a year. I will never be told the official reason. No one ever is. You cannot sue to get the information. Nothing I have done has moved me any closer to getting off the list....
This is all just speculation so far, but if, among on-the-ground reporters who may have direct contact with al-Qaeda, Amanpour has been singled out for a wiretap, that could be sheer vindictiveness. Putting Moore on an airport watch list is, unquestionably, sheer vindictiveness -- it's pure, unadulterated Nixon.
Amanpour is an on-the-ground reporter who may at times have had contact with terrorists. If you want to argue that that justifies a wiretap, you also have to argue that every other reporter who does what she does is in the same category. Should they all be wiretapped?
Amanpour, as Aravosis and others have noted, is married to James Rubin, who worked in the Clinton State Department and then in the presidential campaigns of Wesley Clark and John Kerry. That's one reason some have speculated Amanpour might be targeted, if in fact she has been.
I'd point out that she's a rare reporter who's complained about press intimidation on the part of the Bush administration. She criticized the administration -- just as Moore has. She may have been punished for it; he certainly has been. There really may be nothing more to this than that.
I can't help linking this to the announcement by James Moore, coauthor of the Karl Rove expose Bush's Brain, that he's on a terrorist watch list and now has to go through extra scrutiny every time he flies.
..."Mam, I'd like to know how I got on the No Fly Watch List."
"I'm not really authorized to tell you that, sir," she explained after taking down my social security and Texas driver's license numbers.
"What can you tell me?"
"All I can tell you is that there is something in your background that in some way is similar to someone they are looking for."...
"Oh, wait," I said. "One last thing: this guy they are looking for? Did he write books critical of the Bush administration, too?"
I have been on the No Fly Watch List for a year. I will never be told the official reason. No one ever is. You cannot sue to get the information. Nothing I have done has moved me any closer to getting off the list....
This is all just speculation so far, but if, among on-the-ground reporters who may have direct contact with al-Qaeda, Amanpour has been singled out for a wiretap, that could be sheer vindictiveness. Putting Moore on an airport watch list is, unquestionably, sheer vindictiveness -- it's pure, unadulterated Nixon.
Amanpour is an on-the-ground reporter who may at times have had contact with terrorists. If you want to argue that that justifies a wiretap, you also have to argue that every other reporter who does what she does is in the same category. Should they all be wiretapped?
Amanpour, as Aravosis and others have noted, is married to James Rubin, who worked in the Clinton State Department and then in the presidential campaigns of Wesley Clark and John Kerry. That's one reason some have speculated Amanpour might be targeted, if in fact she has been.
I'd point out that she's a rare reporter who's complained about press intimidation on the part of the Bush administration. She criticized the administration -- just as Moore has. She may have been punished for it; he certainly has been. There really may be nothing more to this than that.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Mad scientists:
THE US Department of Defense has revealed plans to develop a lie detector that can be used without the subject knowing they are being assessed. The Remote Personnel Assessment (RPA) device will also be used to pinpoint fighters hiding in a combat zone, or even to spot signs of stress that might mark someone out as a terrorist or suicide bomber.
In a call for proposals on a DoD website, contractors are being given until 13 January to suggest ways to develop the RPA, which will use microwave or laser beams reflected off a subject's skin to assess various physiological parameters without the need for wires or skin contacts....
Because these parameters are the same as those assessed by a polygraph lie detector, the DoD claims the RPA will also indicate the subject's psychological state: if they are agitated or stressed because they are lying, for example. So it will be used as a "remote or concealed lie detector during prisoner interrogation"....
Never mind the fact that, as a polygraph examiner points out in the article, you can't do an effective lie-detector examination without the knowledge of the subject -- the technology just doesn't work. Not to worry -- we'll wave the DoD lie-detector machine in the general direction of someone with olive-colored skin and a beard and if the right readouts come up, presto! It's rendition time. Or not, as we see fit. Whether it works properly or not.
****
(Somewhat related: this story posted by Steve Gilliard, in which an Office of Naval Research scientist says, "I'd like to be able to pick the terrorist out. I'd like a detector 'tricorder' for intent or evil.")
THE US Department of Defense has revealed plans to develop a lie detector that can be used without the subject knowing they are being assessed. The Remote Personnel Assessment (RPA) device will also be used to pinpoint fighters hiding in a combat zone, or even to spot signs of stress that might mark someone out as a terrorist or suicide bomber.
In a call for proposals on a DoD website, contractors are being given until 13 January to suggest ways to develop the RPA, which will use microwave or laser beams reflected off a subject's skin to assess various physiological parameters without the need for wires or skin contacts....
Because these parameters are the same as those assessed by a polygraph lie detector, the DoD claims the RPA will also indicate the subject's psychological state: if they are agitated or stressed because they are lying, for example. So it will be used as a "remote or concealed lie detector during prisoner interrogation"....
Never mind the fact that, as a polygraph examiner points out in the article, you can't do an effective lie-detector examination without the knowledge of the subject -- the technology just doesn't work. Not to worry -- we'll wave the DoD lie-detector machine in the general direction of someone with olive-colored skin and a beard and if the right readouts come up, presto! It's rendition time. Or not, as we see fit. Whether it works properly or not.
****
(Somewhat related: this story posted by Steve Gilliard, in which an Office of Naval Research scientist says, "I'd like to be able to pick the terrorist out. I'd like a detector 'tricorder' for intent or evil.")
By the way, I watched CBS News last night and the story on Abramoff featured exactly zero Democrats. Brought out to comment were two retired GOP congressmen, Vin Weber and Newt Gingrich. Both tut-tutted on cue:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told CBS News that the Abramoff scandal is the latest signal of how unhealthy and dysfunctional the lobbying process in Washington, D.C. has become....
"Things were being done that are indefensible and where members and staff were engaged in things that I think you are going to find were clear and absolute violations of House rules," Gingrich said....
Lobbyist Vin Weber, once part of the House Repubican leadership, said it's up to the Republican majority to fix things -- fast.
"Are they going to seize this issue and become the reformers of the lobbying system, or are they going to simply sit back and let it happen to them?" Weber asked. "In which case it could cost them the control of the House."
In an astonishing coincidence, the same two guys show up in David Brooks's column today, the one that impressed Atrios so much:
First, [Republicans] need to hold new leadership elections. As Newt Gingrich and Vin Weber told me yesterday, Tom DeLay needs to take care of his own legal problems and give up the dream of returning as majority leader.
Clearly the Republicans have been rehearsing this dog-and-pony show for months. They had a plan for what to say and do when this scandal exploded. The Democrats didn't. Is the GOP finally going to get its comeuppance? Don't hold your breath.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told CBS News that the Abramoff scandal is the latest signal of how unhealthy and dysfunctional the lobbying process in Washington, D.C. has become....
"Things were being done that are indefensible and where members and staff were engaged in things that I think you are going to find were clear and absolute violations of House rules," Gingrich said....
Lobbyist Vin Weber, once part of the House Repubican leadership, said it's up to the Republican majority to fix things -- fast.
"Are they going to seize this issue and become the reformers of the lobbying system, or are they going to simply sit back and let it happen to them?" Weber asked. "In which case it could cost them the control of the House."
In an astonishing coincidence, the same two guys show up in David Brooks's column today, the one that impressed Atrios so much:
First, [Republicans] need to hold new leadership elections. As Newt Gingrich and Vin Weber told me yesterday, Tom DeLay needs to take care of his own legal problems and give up the dream of returning as majority leader.
Clearly the Republicans have been rehearsing this dog-and-pony show for months. They had a plan for what to say and do when this scandal exploded. The Democrats didn't. Is the GOP finally going to get its comeuppance? Don't hold your breath.
Stories like this have been showing up for a while in the Massachusetts media:
When Karen Aveyard signed a petition last fall, she had no idea it involved the status of gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Aveyard said the person who asked her to sign said nothing about the proposed amendment.
"I think it was in front of a grocery store," the Leominster resident said. "I was asked to sign something else, I didn't know it had anything to do with marriage." ...
The signature collector asked her to sign a petition regarding an amendment to allow grocery stores to sell wine, Aveyard said.
She was surprised to learn her name turned up on the Vote on Marriage list....
Forty thousand of the 170,000 signatures were collected by out-of-state employees from Arno, a political consulting group based in California, Mineau said.
Confusion over the content of the petition could have risen because the Arno employees sometimes worked on more than one petition at a time....
Yeah -- "confusion" is one possible explanation, if you're being charitable. But read on.
The Boston Globe ran several stories on this subject late last year:
...In each case, the voters said they were asked to sign a ballot question about the sale of wine in grocery stores and were then told to sign a second sheet of paper without being told it was the initiative to ban same-sex marriage. In some cases they said they were told the second sheet was a backup sheet for the wine question.
''She said 'could you sign the backup copy?' She completely made it clear that it was for beer and wine," said Somerville resident Victoria Ellis. ''I was really disgusted by the tactic."
Angela McElroy, a Florida college student who worked as a paid signature gatherer, said her boss taught her how to deceive voters by arranging both petitions on her clipboard so she could ask voters to sign twice, but they would see only the language for the wine question.
''Mark trained me personally in bait and switch tactics . . . The fraud was looked upon as a game," she said. ''I felt horrible for lying to so many people."
Mark Jacoby is a subcontractor working for California-based Arno Political Consultants....
Ah, yes -- Arno's Mark Jacoby. This isn't the only time his name shows up in connection with funny business:
GAINESVILLE, Fla. - Alachua County's elections supervisor gave more than 500 voter registration forms to local prosecutors because some people said their party affiliation was fraudulently changed to Republican by a student working for the GOP.
Beverly Hill, Alachua's Democratic elections supervisor, last week began reviewing the forms collected at the University of Florida and other schools by Mark Jacoby, who worked for a contractor that signed up voters for the Republican Party of Florida.
"I decided it was fraud," Hill said Tuesday, a day after she gave the forms to the State Attorney's Office in Gainesville. She said her staff checked 30 of them, "And they were across the board (saying), 'No, I never intended to do that.'"...
The St. Petersburg Times reported that Jacoby's company, Young Political Majors LLC,
worked for a company called JSM Inc., which in turn worked for Arno Political Consultants....
JSM has also drawn the attention of Ohio officials:
As Summit County sheriff's deputies search for a suspected forger in a petition drive for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Ohio, the activities of a second circulator have come into question.
In addition, three of the circulators who participated in what a federal judge called substantial and widespread fraud to get presidential hopeful Ralph Nader on the ballot in Ohio also turned in several anti-gay-marriage petitions to the Summit County Board of Elections....
The three circulators who also turned in petitions for Nader's candidacy were paid by the signature by the same Florida company -- JSM Inc. -- that was hired to collect signatures for the same-sex-marriage question....
This story quotes a petition signer who thought she was signing a petition to increase financial aid for education, when in fact she was signing an anti-gay-marriage petition -- and she was told (incorrectly) that she had to re-register to vote, which she did.
Sorry if this is old news to some of you -- I'll admit I haven't paid nearly enough attention to this kind of sleaze.
When Karen Aveyard signed a petition last fall, she had no idea it involved the status of gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Aveyard said the person who asked her to sign said nothing about the proposed amendment.
"I think it was in front of a grocery store," the Leominster resident said. "I was asked to sign something else, I didn't know it had anything to do with marriage." ...
The signature collector asked her to sign a petition regarding an amendment to allow grocery stores to sell wine, Aveyard said.
She was surprised to learn her name turned up on the Vote on Marriage list....
Forty thousand of the 170,000 signatures were collected by out-of-state employees from Arno, a political consulting group based in California, Mineau said.
Confusion over the content of the petition could have risen because the Arno employees sometimes worked on more than one petition at a time....
Yeah -- "confusion" is one possible explanation, if you're being charitable. But read on.
The Boston Globe ran several stories on this subject late last year:
...In each case, the voters said they were asked to sign a ballot question about the sale of wine in grocery stores and were then told to sign a second sheet of paper without being told it was the initiative to ban same-sex marriage. In some cases they said they were told the second sheet was a backup sheet for the wine question.
''She said 'could you sign the backup copy?' She completely made it clear that it was for beer and wine," said Somerville resident Victoria Ellis. ''I was really disgusted by the tactic."
Angela McElroy, a Florida college student who worked as a paid signature gatherer, said her boss taught her how to deceive voters by arranging both petitions on her clipboard so she could ask voters to sign twice, but they would see only the language for the wine question.
''Mark trained me personally in bait and switch tactics . . . The fraud was looked upon as a game," she said. ''I felt horrible for lying to so many people."
Mark Jacoby is a subcontractor working for California-based Arno Political Consultants....
Ah, yes -- Arno's Mark Jacoby. This isn't the only time his name shows up in connection with funny business:
GAINESVILLE, Fla. - Alachua County's elections supervisor gave more than 500 voter registration forms to local prosecutors because some people said their party affiliation was fraudulently changed to Republican by a student working for the GOP.
Beverly Hill, Alachua's Democratic elections supervisor, last week began reviewing the forms collected at the University of Florida and other schools by Mark Jacoby, who worked for a contractor that signed up voters for the Republican Party of Florida.
"I decided it was fraud," Hill said Tuesday, a day after she gave the forms to the State Attorney's Office in Gainesville. She said her staff checked 30 of them, "And they were across the board (saying), 'No, I never intended to do that.'"...
The St. Petersburg Times reported that Jacoby's company, Young Political Majors LLC,
worked for a company called JSM Inc., which in turn worked for Arno Political Consultants....
JSM has also drawn the attention of Ohio officials:
As Summit County sheriff's deputies search for a suspected forger in a petition drive for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Ohio, the activities of a second circulator have come into question.
In addition, three of the circulators who participated in what a federal judge called substantial and widespread fraud to get presidential hopeful Ralph Nader on the ballot in Ohio also turned in several anti-gay-marriage petitions to the Summit County Board of Elections....
The three circulators who also turned in petitions for Nader's candidacy were paid by the signature by the same Florida company -- JSM Inc. -- that was hired to collect signatures for the same-sex-marriage question....
This story quotes a petition signer who thought she was signing a petition to increase financial aid for education, when in fact she was signing an anti-gay-marriage petition -- and she was told (incorrectly) that she had to re-register to vote, which she did.
Sorry if this is old news to some of you -- I'll admit I haven't paid nearly enough attention to this kind of sleaze.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
BUSH HATES MINERS
(Alito, Too)
Good round-ups of information on mine safety from Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged, Bulworth, and Scott Shields at MyDD.
(Alito, Too)
Good round-ups of information on mine safety from Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged, Bulworth, and Scott Shields at MyDD.
Matthew Yglesias thinks this is hilarious:
Republican leaders in the Senate have had a plan in place for the last two months to "get ahead of" the Jack Abramoff scandal by coming up with a new proposal for lobbying reform. The leadership "decided in November that lobby reform for the Senate was a priority for this session," and Majority Leader Bill Frist placed Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum in charge of it, Senate sources tell National Review Online.
And of course it is hilarious -- if you're a well-informed liberal who knows about the questionable ethics of Frist, Santorum, and so many of their GOP colleagues. Problem is, we're not a nation of liberal wonks:
About half of U.S. adults believe most members of Congress are corrupt, a poll released Tuesday suggests.
According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 49 percent of respondents said most members of Congress are corrupt....
But when asked ... how many congressional Republicans are corrupt, 19 percent of respondents said "almost all" and 28 percent said "many." The response was similar when people were asked about corruption among Democrats: 17 percent said "almost all" and 27 percent said "many."
In other words, the public sees no difference whatsoever between the parties on this.
The Republicans have been cooking up a response to Jack Abramoff's indictment for months? Bully for them. I'd love to think the Democrats have done the same thing, but I see no evidence of that. As Yglesias's Tapped colleague Sam Rosenfeld notes, back in the early '90s Newt Gingrich didn't let the involvement of a few Republicans in the House banking scandal stop him from going after the Democrats hammer and tongs -- but press reports suggest that the Democratic response is, as usual, mixed: some Democrats plan to use the scandal as a campaign issue, others are cowering in fear.
Sorry, that won't wash. Republicans don't control everything because they win battles of ideas -- they control everything because every chance they get they portray their opponents as sick, dangerous, and evil. Sorry if this offends delicate sensibilities, but Democrats won't win until they fight fire with fire.
I doubt it'll happen. We thought Enron would critically wound the GOP; it didn't. We thought Abu Ghraib would bring down the White House; it didn't. We're still waiting for more Fitzmas presents in the Plamegate scandal; they haven't arrived. In every case, Republicans sent a message that yes, some mistakes were made, but by a small, finite number of wrongdoers who aren't D.C.'s marquee names; in every case, the public has failed to take it out on the GOP at the polls. I'd love to think this will be different, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. The right-leaners in the media will foreground any and all Democrats caught in this net, and the Democrat or Democrats will be deemed equal to however many Republicans are also caught. And so it will be a D.C. corruption story, not a GOP corruption story. And life will go on as usual. That's unless the Democrats step up now and howl in partisan outrage with one voice, for as long as necessary. Anybody really think that will happen?
Republican leaders in the Senate have had a plan in place for the last two months to "get ahead of" the Jack Abramoff scandal by coming up with a new proposal for lobbying reform. The leadership "decided in November that lobby reform for the Senate was a priority for this session," and Majority Leader Bill Frist placed Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum in charge of it, Senate sources tell National Review Online.
And of course it is hilarious -- if you're a well-informed liberal who knows about the questionable ethics of Frist, Santorum, and so many of their GOP colleagues. Problem is, we're not a nation of liberal wonks:
About half of U.S. adults believe most members of Congress are corrupt, a poll released Tuesday suggests.
According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 49 percent of respondents said most members of Congress are corrupt....
But when asked ... how many congressional Republicans are corrupt, 19 percent of respondents said "almost all" and 28 percent said "many." The response was similar when people were asked about corruption among Democrats: 17 percent said "almost all" and 27 percent said "many."
In other words, the public sees no difference whatsoever between the parties on this.
The Republicans have been cooking up a response to Jack Abramoff's indictment for months? Bully for them. I'd love to think the Democrats have done the same thing, but I see no evidence of that. As Yglesias's Tapped colleague Sam Rosenfeld notes, back in the early '90s Newt Gingrich didn't let the involvement of a few Republicans in the House banking scandal stop him from going after the Democrats hammer and tongs -- but press reports suggest that the Democratic response is, as usual, mixed: some Democrats plan to use the scandal as a campaign issue, others are cowering in fear.
Sorry, that won't wash. Republicans don't control everything because they win battles of ideas -- they control everything because every chance they get they portray their opponents as sick, dangerous, and evil. Sorry if this offends delicate sensibilities, but Democrats won't win until they fight fire with fire.
I doubt it'll happen. We thought Enron would critically wound the GOP; it didn't. We thought Abu Ghraib would bring down the White House; it didn't. We're still waiting for more Fitzmas presents in the Plamegate scandal; they haven't arrived. In every case, Republicans sent a message that yes, some mistakes were made, but by a small, finite number of wrongdoers who aren't D.C.'s marquee names; in every case, the public has failed to take it out on the GOP at the polls. I'd love to think this will be different, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. The right-leaners in the media will foreground any and all Democrats caught in this net, and the Democrat or Democrats will be deemed equal to however many Republicans are also caught. And so it will be a D.C. corruption story, not a GOP corruption story. And life will go on as usual. That's unless the Democrats step up now and howl in partisan outrage with one voice, for as long as necessary. Anybody really think that will happen?
Freedom on the march:
Officials on Wednesday blamed Taliban militants for beheading a teacher in a central Afghan town, the latest in a string of attacks against educators at schools where girls study.
Armed men decapitated Malim Abdul Habib in his home in the town of Qalat late Tuesday and forced his wife and children to watch, said Ali Khail, a provincial government spokesman....
Reuters recounts a few of the other recent attacks:
Last month, guerrillas dragged a teacher from a classroom of teenagers in Helmand province and executed him at the school gate after he ignored their orders to stop teaching girls.
Two days later insurgents attacked another school in the same southern province, killing a teenage student and a guard.
Oh, sorry, I forgot: Afghanistan's already in the record books as a win. Never mind.
Officials on Wednesday blamed Taliban militants for beheading a teacher in a central Afghan town, the latest in a string of attacks against educators at schools where girls study.
Armed men decapitated Malim Abdul Habib in his home in the town of Qalat late Tuesday and forced his wife and children to watch, said Ali Khail, a provincial government spokesman....
Reuters recounts a few of the other recent attacks:
Last month, guerrillas dragged a teacher from a classroom of teenagers in Helmand province and executed him at the school gate after he ignored their orders to stop teaching girls.
Two days later insurgents attacked another school in the same southern province, killing a teenage student and a guard.
Oh, sorry, I forgot: Afghanistan's already in the record books as a win. Never mind.
They really are the biggest screw-ups of all time, aren't they?
In a clumsy effort to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, the CIA in 2004 intentionally handed Tehran some top-secret bomb designs laced with a hidden flaw that U.S. officials hoped would doom any weapon made from them, according to a new book about the U.S. intelligence agency.
But the Iranians were tipped to the scheme by the Russian defector hired by the CIA to deliver the plans and may have gleaned scientific information useful for designing a bomb, writes New York Times reporter James Risen in "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration."...
David Albright, a former weapons inspector for the IAEA, [said] that the plans could have shaved many years off Iran's nuclear effort....
Letting 9/11 happen. Failing to capture bin Laden and Zawahiri. Failing to bring down Zarqawi and alowing his organization to grow and flourish. Miring the U.S. in Iraq. Straining alliances. Wreaking havoc on the U.S. military. And this.
When will the Right realize that no president in recent memory has endangered U.S. national security like Bush?
(If you can't read the story, try this Google search.)
In a clumsy effort to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, the CIA in 2004 intentionally handed Tehran some top-secret bomb designs laced with a hidden flaw that U.S. officials hoped would doom any weapon made from them, according to a new book about the U.S. intelligence agency.
But the Iranians were tipped to the scheme by the Russian defector hired by the CIA to deliver the plans and may have gleaned scientific information useful for designing a bomb, writes New York Times reporter James Risen in "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration."...
David Albright, a former weapons inspector for the IAEA, [said] that the plans could have shaved many years off Iran's nuclear effort....
Letting 9/11 happen. Failing to capture bin Laden and Zawahiri. Failing to bring down Zarqawi and alowing his organization to grow and flourish. Miring the U.S. in Iraq. Straining alliances. Wreaking havoc on the U.S. military. And this.
When will the Right realize that no president in recent memory has endangered U.S. national security like Bush?
(If you can't read the story, try this Google search.)
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Well, it's going to be an election year, and here in New York it appears that the GOP Goon Squad is already hard at work.
Now the squad is targeting Eliot Spitzer, the crusading state attorney general who's the front-runner in this year's race for governor. And the story is a bit complicated.
The first sucker punch came a few days before Christmas. John Whitehead, a sometime GOP fund-raiser who used to be the chairman of Goldman Sachs and now chairs the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and Lower Manhattan Development Fund, wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal alleging that Spitzer had threatened him because he'd written an earlier op-ed criticizing Spitzer's investigation of Hank Greenberg, head of the insurance firm AIG. Whitehead claimed Spitzer phoned him when the piece appeared; his account of what was said deserves the sort of portentous music that accompanies death threats on daytime soap operas:
...After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:
"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."
... He went on in the same vein for several more sentences and then abruptly hung up. I was astounded. No one had ever talked to me like that before. It was a little scary....
As New York Observer blogger Matthew Schuerman and others have pointed out, there's something odd about the timing of this. Whitehead's article appeared in April. Whitehead waited eight months to tell this tale, then claimed he had to tell it now because "there have been rumors in the media as to what happened next" -- even though there really haven't been any such rumors. What's going on?
Now for Part Two.
You know that terrorist trick -- I think the IRA invented it -- of setting off a bomb and waiting for the police to arrive and a crowd to gather, then setting off another bomb? Well, that appears to be what the Goon Squad is doing with stories about Spitzer. Now, according to an "exclusive" in today's New York Post, we have what seems to be a miraculous case of recovered memory on the part of a top figure on Sean Hannity's radio show. This guy says that he recalls a Spitzer threat, too! And all because of Whitehead:
...Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is being accused again of threatening to use his office to punish an opponent -- this time, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Sean Hannity....
[Eric] Stanger [of Hannity's staff] told The Post that the alleged threat reminded him of the charges now being leveled by ... John Whitehead....
"That's really brought back memories," Stanger said....
It's like an episode of Perry Mason -- the second Whitehead op-ed was so shocking it cured Stanger's amnesia!
And if you think Whitehead's prose reeks of cheap melodrama, check out the dialogue Stanger's cooked up:
...Stanger ... said Spitzer was a telephone guest on the Hannity show in 2000 and at first hung up in anger in response to comments made by the conservative-oriented host.
"A minute later, I looked down and the hot line was ringing. It was Spitzer, very angry, very agitated, very upset, and he said, 'Let me tell you something: I fully intend to use the capacity of my office to act on this,' " Stanger told The Post.
"I was really floored, and I said, 'Is that a threat, sir?' " Stanger continued. With that, Stanger said, Spitzer "quickly changed his tone," insisting, "No, no, no. It's not a threat."
But Stanger said Spitzer then threatened to organize a boycott of the Hannity show, saying, " 'I have a lot of friends in government, and I'm going to organize a boycott of the show.' And then he hung up."
Yeah, right.
Let's review: Eliot Spitzer is the attorney general of the state of New York. He wants to be the state's next governor. And Stanger and the Post want us to believe he would endanger his political career by announcing to a top aide to a highly influential radio and TV host that he's going to misuse the power of his office ("I fully intend to use the capacity of my office to act on this").
Moreover, Stanger and the Post want us believe Spitzer would announce this threat by saying, "I have a lot of friends in government."
That's beyond stupid. Think about it: If Russell Crowe were threatening a hotel clerk, what would he say? Would he say something as pathetic as "I have a lot of friends in Hollywood"?
Oh, but it gets better:
Stanger ... add[ed] that Hannity has ordered that a search be made for the audiotape of the incident and, if found, may play it on his show this week.
Oh yeah -- I'm sure that tape will really turn up.
Somebody decided to launch this campaign at the beginning of the year because now is when the governor's race starts to get serious. That's why Whitehead didn't write his op-ed until eight months after he allegedly had his "scary" conversation with Spitzer.
And the real point of all this was to make the war on Spitzer a crusade of the Fox/talk radio right. Maybe Spitzer can be made a national pariah among these yahoos. Maybe the smear campaign will open their wallets. I bet it's working like a charm.
I won't even get into the accompanying Post op-ed, which chides Spitzer for being a wealthy man's son and accuses him of being an enemy of the common man because he goes after Wall Street guys. I'm not making this up; it actually makes sense if you're a wingnut. ("His zealous prosecution/persecution of Wall Street companies, supposedly to protect investors and shareholders, has consequences that might be lost on a born-to-riches man whose political career was bankrolled by a real-estate mogul father.") It's basically GOP Attack Politics 101 -- the Democrat is always the devious, effete elitist (remember that Poppy Bush said the policies of son-of-immigrants Michael Dukakis were "born in Harvard Yard's boutique").
And we've got ten more months of this to go before Election Day.
****
Oops, almost left this out: According to the January 1 Post, a "top Democratic operative" chided Spitzer for what he allegedly said to Whitehead -- and what do you know, the "top Democratic operative" is anonymous! Oh, but I'm sure this person exists! And "other Democratic insiders" -- also anonymous -- say Spitzer's temper makes him a "walking time bomb."
These people in the GOP and right-wing attack media really are sewer rats.
Now the squad is targeting Eliot Spitzer, the crusading state attorney general who's the front-runner in this year's race for governor. And the story is a bit complicated.
The first sucker punch came a few days before Christmas. John Whitehead, a sometime GOP fund-raiser who used to be the chairman of Goldman Sachs and now chairs the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and Lower Manhattan Development Fund, wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal alleging that Spitzer had threatened him because he'd written an earlier op-ed criticizing Spitzer's investigation of Hank Greenberg, head of the insurance firm AIG. Whitehead claimed Spitzer phoned him when the piece appeared; his account of what was said deserves the sort of portentous music that accompanies death threats on daytime soap operas:
...After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:
"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."
... He went on in the same vein for several more sentences and then abruptly hung up. I was astounded. No one had ever talked to me like that before. It was a little scary....
As New York Observer blogger Matthew Schuerman and others have pointed out, there's something odd about the timing of this. Whitehead's article appeared in April. Whitehead waited eight months to tell this tale, then claimed he had to tell it now because "there have been rumors in the media as to what happened next" -- even though there really haven't been any such rumors. What's going on?
Now for Part Two.
You know that terrorist trick -- I think the IRA invented it -- of setting off a bomb and waiting for the police to arrive and a crowd to gather, then setting off another bomb? Well, that appears to be what the Goon Squad is doing with stories about Spitzer. Now, according to an "exclusive" in today's New York Post, we have what seems to be a miraculous case of recovered memory on the part of a top figure on Sean Hannity's radio show. This guy says that he recalls a Spitzer threat, too! And all because of Whitehead:
...Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is being accused again of threatening to use his office to punish an opponent -- this time, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Sean Hannity....
[Eric] Stanger [of Hannity's staff] told The Post that the alleged threat reminded him of the charges now being leveled by ... John Whitehead....
"That's really brought back memories," Stanger said....
It's like an episode of Perry Mason -- the second Whitehead op-ed was so shocking it cured Stanger's amnesia!
And if you think Whitehead's prose reeks of cheap melodrama, check out the dialogue Stanger's cooked up:
...Stanger ... said Spitzer was a telephone guest on the Hannity show in 2000 and at first hung up in anger in response to comments made by the conservative-oriented host.
"A minute later, I looked down and the hot line was ringing. It was Spitzer, very angry, very agitated, very upset, and he said, 'Let me tell you something: I fully intend to use the capacity of my office to act on this,' " Stanger told The Post.
"I was really floored, and I said, 'Is that a threat, sir?' " Stanger continued. With that, Stanger said, Spitzer "quickly changed his tone," insisting, "No, no, no. It's not a threat."
But Stanger said Spitzer then threatened to organize a boycott of the Hannity show, saying, " 'I have a lot of friends in government, and I'm going to organize a boycott of the show.' And then he hung up."
Yeah, right.
Let's review: Eliot Spitzer is the attorney general of the state of New York. He wants to be the state's next governor. And Stanger and the Post want us to believe he would endanger his political career by announcing to a top aide to a highly influential radio and TV host that he's going to misuse the power of his office ("I fully intend to use the capacity of my office to act on this").
Moreover, Stanger and the Post want us believe Spitzer would announce this threat by saying, "I have a lot of friends in government."
That's beyond stupid. Think about it: If Russell Crowe were threatening a hotel clerk, what would he say? Would he say something as pathetic as "I have a lot of friends in Hollywood"?
Oh, but it gets better:
Stanger ... add[ed] that Hannity has ordered that a search be made for the audiotape of the incident and, if found, may play it on his show this week.
Oh yeah -- I'm sure that tape will really turn up.
Somebody decided to launch this campaign at the beginning of the year because now is when the governor's race starts to get serious. That's why Whitehead didn't write his op-ed until eight months after he allegedly had his "scary" conversation with Spitzer.
And the real point of all this was to make the war on Spitzer a crusade of the Fox/talk radio right. Maybe Spitzer can be made a national pariah among these yahoos. Maybe the smear campaign will open their wallets. I bet it's working like a charm.
I won't even get into the accompanying Post op-ed, which chides Spitzer for being a wealthy man's son and accuses him of being an enemy of the common man because he goes after Wall Street guys. I'm not making this up; it actually makes sense if you're a wingnut. ("His zealous prosecution/persecution of Wall Street companies, supposedly to protect investors and shareholders, has consequences that might be lost on a born-to-riches man whose political career was bankrolled by a real-estate mogul father.") It's basically GOP Attack Politics 101 -- the Democrat is always the devious, effete elitist (remember that Poppy Bush said the policies of son-of-immigrants Michael Dukakis were "born in Harvard Yard's boutique").
And we've got ten more months of this to go before Election Day.
****
Oops, almost left this out: According to the January 1 Post, a "top Democratic operative" chided Spitzer for what he allegedly said to Whitehead -- and what do you know, the "top Democratic operative" is anonymous! Oh, but I'm sure this person exists! And "other Democratic insiders" -- also anonymous -- say Spitzer's temper makes him a "walking time bomb."
These people in the GOP and right-wing attack media really are sewer rats.
Hmmm ... I thought only America-hating liberals were saying that the Army is worn out:
U.S. airmen are increasingly on the ground in Iraq, driving in convoys and even working with detainees -- a shift in the Air Force's historic mission that military officials call necessary to bolster the strapped Army.
The main aerial hub for the war in Iraq has 1,500 airmen doing convoy operations in Iraq and 1,000 working with detainees, training Iraqis and performing other activities not usually associated with the Air Force, said Col. Tim Hale, commander of the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing.
"Every one of us has learned that we are in a nontraditional state in our armed forces," he said, standing outside an auditorium at an air base in Kuwait....
"More and more Air Force are doing Army jobs," said Senior Master Sgt. Matt Rossoni, 46, of San Francisco. "It's nothing bad about the Army. They're just tapped out."...
The Navy is seeing the same trend, using its fighter aircraft to escort convoys and protect oil infrastructure and sending sailors in boats to contact fishermen from Saudi Arabia and even Iran for tips on terror suspects.
"In the last three or four years we've done a lot more of that," Rear Adm. James A. Winnefeld, commander of Carrier Strike Group 2, said aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt....
And, in addition,
The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps flew thousands of missions in support of U.S. ground troops in Iraq this fall, including attacks by unmanned Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles, military records show.
The number of air strikes, of course, has been increasing dramatically -- just as Seymour Hersh predicted; you probably already know that a U.S. air strike just killed six members of an Iraqi family.
Onward....
U.S. airmen are increasingly on the ground in Iraq, driving in convoys and even working with detainees -- a shift in the Air Force's historic mission that military officials call necessary to bolster the strapped Army.
The main aerial hub for the war in Iraq has 1,500 airmen doing convoy operations in Iraq and 1,000 working with detainees, training Iraqis and performing other activities not usually associated with the Air Force, said Col. Tim Hale, commander of the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing.
"Every one of us has learned that we are in a nontraditional state in our armed forces," he said, standing outside an auditorium at an air base in Kuwait....
"More and more Air Force are doing Army jobs," said Senior Master Sgt. Matt Rossoni, 46, of San Francisco. "It's nothing bad about the Army. They're just tapped out."...
The Navy is seeing the same trend, using its fighter aircraft to escort convoys and protect oil infrastructure and sending sailors in boats to contact fishermen from Saudi Arabia and even Iran for tips on terror suspects.
"In the last three or four years we've done a lot more of that," Rear Adm. James A. Winnefeld, commander of Carrier Strike Group 2, said aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt....
And, in addition,
The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps flew thousands of missions in support of U.S. ground troops in Iraq this fall, including attacks by unmanned Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles, military records show.
The number of air strikes, of course, has been increasing dramatically -- just as Seymour Hersh predicted; you probably already know that a U.S. air strike just killed six members of an Iraqi family.
Onward....
I was elected to protect the American people from harm.
--President Bush, 1/1/06
Facing cuts in antiterrorism financing, the Department of Homeland Security plans to announce today that it will evaluate new requests for money from an $800 million aid program for cities based less on politics and more on assessments of where terrorists are likely to strike and potentially cause the greatest damage, department officials say.
The changes to the program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, are being driven in part by a reduction in the overall pool of money for antiterrorism efforts. For 2006, Congress has appropriated $120 million less in these urban grants than for 2005....
[Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff, in a speech last month, said the changes he was considering would require an acknowledgment that the nation could not protect itself against all risks.
"That means tough choices," he said. "And choices mean focusing on the risks which are the greatest. And that means some risks get less focus."....
--New York Times, 1/3/06
Yeah, I know: The government really can't protect everyone from every threat (and obviously it's good that the priorities have shifted to higher-risk areas). But it still infuriates me that top officials of President Macho's administration and party are subject to, as far as I can tell, absolutely no criticism for saying flat out that we have to watch our pennies when it comes to homeland security. I seem to recall that a big reason Bush et al. are still in office is the fact that they and their coat-holders in the media howled in outrage when a certain Democrat talked about reducing terrorism to the level of a "nuisance." It was utterly unacceptable then to suggest anything less than a maximalist, zero-tolerance assault on The Enemy. Now? Whoops -- sorry: We have more will than wallet.
Which, of course, was an absolutely unavoidable set of circumstances -- right?
They call them the PEP and Pease provisions of tax law and they are on their way out. If you are wealthy, this should make you smile. You could be a little richer.
PEP and Pease refer to two tax increases adopted in 1990 when President George H.W. Bush broke his "read my lips" promise against boosting taxes in order to cut the deficit, angering many in the Republican Party. But on Sunday, thanks to a law quietly passed in 2001 when his son, George W. Bush, was in the White House, the PEP and Pease provisions --- essentially limitations on tax exemptions --- began a five-year phaseout at a cost of $27 billion.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank here, some 53.5 percent of this money will go to households earning more than $1 million. Another 43.2 percent will go to those with incomes between $200,000 and $1 million. The rest will go to those earning between $100,000 and $200,000....
Millionaires will receive an average tax cut of $19,000 a year when the two provisions are wiped out, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. The center added that this comes on top of an average tax cut of $103,000 millionaires received in 2005 because of other tax cuts adopted since 2001....
Yeah yeah yeah -- the rich get tax cuts, government programs get squeezed. I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
Do you know who should regularly be shouting from the rooftops about this sort of thing? Joe Lieberman. What is the point of constantly reminding the world that (a) you are still a Democrat but (b) no one can gainsay your patriotism and hawkishness if you never take advantage of the political capital you accrue by means of your support of the war to mount a serious challenge to any Bush/GOP policies -- especially on matters of security? This really would be a perfect fit for Lieberman if he were what he claims to be, a sincere Democrat who's also a sincere hawk. But he's not -- Washington is like a classroom in which the White House, the GOP, and right-leaners in the media like to whack Democrats' hands with a steel ruler when they act like Democrats, and all Joe cares about is being the teacher's pet, the class snitch.
--President Bush, 1/1/06
Facing cuts in antiterrorism financing, the Department of Homeland Security plans to announce today that it will evaluate new requests for money from an $800 million aid program for cities based less on politics and more on assessments of where terrorists are likely to strike and potentially cause the greatest damage, department officials say.
The changes to the program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, are being driven in part by a reduction in the overall pool of money for antiterrorism efforts. For 2006, Congress has appropriated $120 million less in these urban grants than for 2005....
[Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff, in a speech last month, said the changes he was considering would require an acknowledgment that the nation could not protect itself against all risks.
"That means tough choices," he said. "And choices mean focusing on the risks which are the greatest. And that means some risks get less focus."....
--New York Times, 1/3/06
Yeah, I know: The government really can't protect everyone from every threat (and obviously it's good that the priorities have shifted to higher-risk areas). But it still infuriates me that top officials of President Macho's administration and party are subject to, as far as I can tell, absolutely no criticism for saying flat out that we have to watch our pennies when it comes to homeland security. I seem to recall that a big reason Bush et al. are still in office is the fact that they and their coat-holders in the media howled in outrage when a certain Democrat talked about reducing terrorism to the level of a "nuisance." It was utterly unacceptable then to suggest anything less than a maximalist, zero-tolerance assault on The Enemy. Now? Whoops -- sorry: We have more will than wallet.
Which, of course, was an absolutely unavoidable set of circumstances -- right?
They call them the PEP and Pease provisions of tax law and they are on their way out. If you are wealthy, this should make you smile. You could be a little richer.
PEP and Pease refer to two tax increases adopted in 1990 when President George H.W. Bush broke his "read my lips" promise against boosting taxes in order to cut the deficit, angering many in the Republican Party. But on Sunday, thanks to a law quietly passed in 2001 when his son, George W. Bush, was in the White House, the PEP and Pease provisions --- essentially limitations on tax exemptions --- began a five-year phaseout at a cost of $27 billion.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank here, some 53.5 percent of this money will go to households earning more than $1 million. Another 43.2 percent will go to those with incomes between $200,000 and $1 million. The rest will go to those earning between $100,000 and $200,000....
Millionaires will receive an average tax cut of $19,000 a year when the two provisions are wiped out, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. The center added that this comes on top of an average tax cut of $103,000 millionaires received in 2005 because of other tax cuts adopted since 2001....
Yeah yeah yeah -- the rich get tax cuts, government programs get squeezed. I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
Do you know who should regularly be shouting from the rooftops about this sort of thing? Joe Lieberman. What is the point of constantly reminding the world that (a) you are still a Democrat but (b) no one can gainsay your patriotism and hawkishness if you never take advantage of the political capital you accrue by means of your support of the war to mount a serious challenge to any Bush/GOP policies -- especially on matters of security? This really would be a perfect fit for Lieberman if he were what he claims to be, a sincere Democrat who's also a sincere hawk. But he's not -- Washington is like a classroom in which the White House, the GOP, and right-leaners in the media like to whack Democrats' hands with a steel ruler when they act like Democrats, and all Joe cares about is being the teacher's pet, the class snitch.
Monday, January 02, 2006
How long is it likely to take before Iraqi troops are really able to stand up and allow U.S. troops to stand down? Let's ask the U.S. troops themselves:
How soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops?
Less than a year 2%
1-2 years 27%
3-5 years 40%
5-10 years 17%
More than 10 years 7%
No opinion/no answer 6%
How long do you think the U.S. will need to stay in Iraq to reach its goals?
Less than a year 2%
1-2 years 11%
3-5 years 35%
5-10 years 30%
More than 10 years 15%
No opinion/no answer 6%
Yup -- nearly two thirds think it will take at least three years for the Iraqis to replace a lot of American troops, and 80% think the U.S. will have to be in Iraq for at least three more years.
These results come from a poll of readers of the Military Times newspapers -- Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times -- a majority of whom have deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. (Main story and links to results and related stories here.)
In this poll, right-wingers will seize on the fact that the troops say their morale is high and think the press doesn't report enough good news from Iraq; Bush critics will seize on this:
Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly...
Approval of the president's Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers of the Military Times newspapers....
The poll also found diminished optimism that U.S. goals in Iraq can be accomplished, and a somewhat smaller drop in support for the decision to go to war in 2003....
And this is interesting:
As in the previous two years, Military Times Poll respondents were reluctant to express opinions, even anonymously, about the commander in chief or his policies. About one in five refused to say whether they approved of the president's performance on Iraq or overall.
"That's my boss," Army Lt. Col. Earnestine Beatty said in a follow-up interview. "I can't comment."
So the troops are still upbeat, but less so -- and when you hear that big numbers of troops can probably come home this year, remember that the troops don't believe that.
How soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops?
Less than a year 2%
1-2 years 27%
3-5 years 40%
5-10 years 17%
More than 10 years 7%
No opinion/no answer 6%
How long do you think the U.S. will need to stay in Iraq to reach its goals?
Less than a year 2%
1-2 years 11%
3-5 years 35%
5-10 years 30%
More than 10 years 15%
No opinion/no answer 6%
Yup -- nearly two thirds think it will take at least three years for the Iraqis to replace a lot of American troops, and 80% think the U.S. will have to be in Iraq for at least three more years.
These results come from a poll of readers of the Military Times newspapers -- Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times -- a majority of whom have deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. (Main story and links to results and related stories here.)
In this poll, right-wingers will seize on the fact that the troops say their morale is high and think the press doesn't report enough good news from Iraq; Bush critics will seize on this:
Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly...
Approval of the president's Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers of the Military Times newspapers....
The poll also found diminished optimism that U.S. goals in Iraq can be accomplished, and a somewhat smaller drop in support for the decision to go to war in 2003....
And this is interesting:
As in the previous two years, Military Times Poll respondents were reluctant to express opinions, even anonymously, about the commander in chief or his policies. About one in five refused to say whether they approved of the president's performance on Iraq or overall.
"That's my boss," Army Lt. Col. Earnestine Beatty said in a follow-up interview. "I can't comment."
So the troops are still upbeat, but less so -- and when you hear that big numbers of troops can probably come home this year, remember that the troops don't believe that.
I saw this on Friday and thought it was a bit disturbing:
...In a Bush administration revision of plans for Pentagon succession in a doomsday scenario, three of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's most loyal advisers moved ahead of the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
A little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld.... The Army secretary, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.
... in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary.
...Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot. Former Ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary, and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions....
At least one big-cheese lefty blogger, Matthew Yglesias, thinks this is actually a positive development. Really, Matt? Why?
Let's see. Cambone, as you may well know, is a dreadful human being: he was an advocate of missile defense and space-based weapons, he worked with the PNAC, then he was a top aide to Rumsfeld working on military "transformation" -- and then, most notoriously, he sent General Geoffrey Miller to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" the prison. Yeah, there's a guy you want to reward.
Eric Edelman used to work for Scooter Libby and became an undersecretary of defense after receiving a recess appointment; Edelman, in a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, had denied that he had any involvement in any government investigation despite the fact that Libby had discussed Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger with Edelman before Wilson's name became public, and thus is named by title in Libby's indictment.
I don't know much about Krieg. He used to be a VP at International Paper. (The guy who'll be #2, ahead of Cambone, is Gordon England, and he's also a suit: he used to be an executive at Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, two major defense contractors, but he's never served in the military. He's expected to receive a recess appointment as deputy secretary of defense.)
Apart from the dubiousness of the lineup itself, and the scary Cheney connections, what I find upsetting is that Rumsfeld is so obsessed with his own turf battle with the career military that even if a nuclear bomb wipes out much of our government, he wants to prevail. Not prevail against the people who bombed us -- he wants to prevail against the Pentagon careerists. That's sick. But that really is Rumsfeld.
...In a Bush administration revision of plans for Pentagon succession in a doomsday scenario, three of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's most loyal advisers moved ahead of the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
A little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld.... The Army secretary, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.
... in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary.
...Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot. Former Ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary, and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions....
At least one big-cheese lefty blogger, Matthew Yglesias, thinks this is actually a positive development. Really, Matt? Why?
Let's see. Cambone, as you may well know, is a dreadful human being: he was an advocate of missile defense and space-based weapons, he worked with the PNAC, then he was a top aide to Rumsfeld working on military "transformation" -- and then, most notoriously, he sent General Geoffrey Miller to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" the prison. Yeah, there's a guy you want to reward.
Eric Edelman used to work for Scooter Libby and became an undersecretary of defense after receiving a recess appointment; Edelman, in a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, had denied that he had any involvement in any government investigation despite the fact that Libby had discussed Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger with Edelman before Wilson's name became public, and thus is named by title in Libby's indictment.
I don't know much about Krieg. He used to be a VP at International Paper. (The guy who'll be #2, ahead of Cambone, is Gordon England, and he's also a suit: he used to be an executive at Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, two major defense contractors, but he's never served in the military. He's expected to receive a recess appointment as deputy secretary of defense.)
Apart from the dubiousness of the lineup itself, and the scary Cheney connections, what I find upsetting is that Rumsfeld is so obsessed with his own turf battle with the career military that even if a nuclear bomb wipes out much of our government, he wants to prevail. Not prevail against the people who bombed us -- he wants to prevail against the Pentagon careerists. That's sick. But that really is Rumsfeld.
Newsflash! Democracy doesn't instantly turn every nation it touches into Shangri-La! Democracies -- especially brand-new ones -- don't abandon bellicosity, and even established democracies only refrain from fighting other established democracies.
All of this is revealed in two remarkable caches of documents, apparently heretofore untapped by anyone in the Bush administration or sympathetic to it; the document caches are known as "world history" and "the last couple of decades' worth of newspapers."
...In a series of studies culminating in their new book, "Electing to Fight," the political scientists Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder argue that new democracies are often unstable and thus particularly warlike. Mansfield and Snyder note that democratizing countries often lack the rule of law, organized political parties and professional news media. Without those restraining institutions firmly in place, empowering the public can mean empowering bellicose nationalists. As communism crumbled in Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Franjo Tudjman in Croatia used populist nationalism to fuel their rise to power -- and to start a blood bath.
Mansfield and Snyder try to prove that young democracies without fully formed domestic institutions are especially aggressive; their examples range from France's disastrous 1870 attack on Prussia to Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus to Vladimir Putin's continuing brutal clampdown in Chechnya. At best, scholars agree, the democratic peace exists only when established liberal democracies face one another. Confronting nondemocracies, established democracies are about as warlike as normal dictatorships. Think of Britain, France and Israel's attacking Egypt in 1956, or Bush's invasion of Iraq. When a democratic government squabbles with a dictator, it often doesn't trust the dictator enough for serious negotiations, and war is a likely result. Elihu Root, who'd been Theodore Roosevelt's secretary of state, said in 1917: "To be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can. The world ... must be all democratic or all Prussian."
...Mansfield and Snyder cite writers like Samuel P. Huntington, who gingerly emphasizes that democratization works best in proper sequence: first establishing functioning institutions -- political parties, courts -- and then allowing widespread elections. Poland and Chile democratized successfully, Mansfield and Snyder say, but Iraq, it seems, has not. They warn that "unleashing Islamic mass opinion through a sudden democratization could only raise the likelihood of war." ....
But -- but -- but freedom is good! And people want good things! And when they have good things, they'll shun bad things! Purple fingers! Purple fingers! Purple fingers! Pay no attention to that commando unit throwing dead Iraqis into a ditch!
All of this is revealed in two remarkable caches of documents, apparently heretofore untapped by anyone in the Bush administration or sympathetic to it; the document caches are known as "world history" and "the last couple of decades' worth of newspapers."
...In a series of studies culminating in their new book, "Electing to Fight," the political scientists Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder argue that new democracies are often unstable and thus particularly warlike. Mansfield and Snyder note that democratizing countries often lack the rule of law, organized political parties and professional news media. Without those restraining institutions firmly in place, empowering the public can mean empowering bellicose nationalists. As communism crumbled in Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Franjo Tudjman in Croatia used populist nationalism to fuel their rise to power -- and to start a blood bath.
Mansfield and Snyder try to prove that young democracies without fully formed domestic institutions are especially aggressive; their examples range from France's disastrous 1870 attack on Prussia to Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus to Vladimir Putin's continuing brutal clampdown in Chechnya. At best, scholars agree, the democratic peace exists only when established liberal democracies face one another. Confronting nondemocracies, established democracies are about as warlike as normal dictatorships. Think of Britain, France and Israel's attacking Egypt in 1956, or Bush's invasion of Iraq. When a democratic government squabbles with a dictator, it often doesn't trust the dictator enough for serious negotiations, and war is a likely result. Elihu Root, who'd been Theodore Roosevelt's secretary of state, said in 1917: "To be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can. The world ... must be all democratic or all Prussian."
...Mansfield and Snyder cite writers like Samuel P. Huntington, who gingerly emphasizes that democratization works best in proper sequence: first establishing functioning institutions -- political parties, courts -- and then allowing widespread elections. Poland and Chile democratized successfully, Mansfield and Snyder say, but Iraq, it seems, has not. They warn that "unleashing Islamic mass opinion through a sudden democratization could only raise the likelihood of war." ....
But -- but -- but freedom is good! And people want good things! And when they have good things, they'll shun bad things! Purple fingers! Purple fingers! Purple fingers! Pay no attention to that commando unit throwing dead Iraqis into a ditch!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)