When They Write The History of The Fall of the American Republic
They'll devote a chapter to the failure of the Senate to respond to the recess appointment of John Bolton. In a healthy democracy, the decision of the executive to make a recess appointment of a nominee who could not win a majority from the committee charged with review of the nomination, dominated by the members of the executive's party, would surely be politically challenging. But it would be impossible after the executive was forced to admit that the nominee lied (for our Republican readers, let us explain that by "lie" we mean, "fail to tell the truth") to that committee. It would be impossible because members of that committee, even, perhaps especially members of the executive's own party, would raise holy hades to block the recess appointment. They would see it as a defense of their constitutional role against the depredations of the executive branch.
But these chuckleheads (with the possible exception of Voinovich) won't say a word. Because, although they took to the oath to defend the Constitution, they first took an oath in blood to support Rove, they are terrified of Cheney, and they, like Bolton, knew enough to cross their fingers when they took the oath.
scheduling note: no blogging this weekend - volunteering at the Church fair.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Sez it all
People who favor enhancing the power of the presidency are not “conservatives” in any sense of the word employed in American political discourse before the rise of the reds. Indeed, one could argue, and the Federalist Papers do it far better than we, that the whole point of our constitutional scheme of different branches of government checking and balancing each other’s power was as much to prevent the tyranny of the executive as it was to check the tyranny of the mob. There’s another political tradition that enhances the power of the executive at the expense of the courts. It’s called facism.
But be careful, centrists hate it when you call a spade a spade – or in this case, when you call a red a fascist. Besides, Roberts has such a nice small, and his kids are so cute. He must be a nice man. Really.
An Advocate for the Right - He favored less government enforcement of civil rights laws rather than more. He criticized court decisions that required a thick wall between church and state. He took the side of prosecutors over criminal defendants. He maintained that the role of the courts should be limited and the president's powers enhanced.
People who favor enhancing the power of the presidency are not “conservatives” in any sense of the word employed in American political discourse before the rise of the reds. Indeed, one could argue, and the Federalist Papers do it far better than we, that the whole point of our constitutional scheme of different branches of government checking and balancing each other’s power was as much to prevent the tyranny of the executive as it was to check the tyranny of the mob. There’s another political tradition that enhances the power of the executive at the expense of the courts. It’s called facism.
But be careful, centrists hate it when you call a spade a spade – or in this case, when you call a red a fascist. Besides, Roberts has such a nice small, and his kids are so cute. He must be a nice man. Really.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Robert Novak, American Traitor
We know the moderate Democrats will tell us to stop using the word “traitor” because technically the crew of thugs behind this did not commit treason. We think the moderates are full of hooey. Novak deliberately and mendaciously blew the cover of a C.I.A. agent to further the partisan agenda of the Rove and his minions. Party above country drops you right on the other side of the treason line in our book. Stop watching CNN until they fire him. Of course, once you spend a few days not watching CNN, you’ll probably find no compelling need to start watching them again.
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net - White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail - Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
We know the moderate Democrats will tell us to stop using the word “traitor” because technically the crew of thugs behind this did not commit treason. We think the moderates are full of hooey. Novak deliberately and mendaciously blew the cover of a C.I.A. agent to further the partisan agenda of the Rove and his minions. Party above country drops you right on the other side of the treason line in our book. Stop watching CNN until they fire him. Of course, once you spend a few days not watching CNN, you’ll probably find no compelling need to start watching them again.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
What’s in a word?
Not to get too po-mo or anything, but haven’t you been concerned about the way Tony Blair and W have been throwing around the term, “ideology.” Every time they talk about the war on terror (recently re-branded as the "struggle against violent extremism”) and describe the folks who blow themselves up at Iraqi military recruiting centers, Egyptian resort towns and London subways (not to mention in airplanes headed flown into buildings in the U.S.), they say things like, “theirs is an ideology of evil [or hate].”
Now with Tony, the utterance at least doesn’t make you want to laugh out loud. One suspects he has read the word once or twice before and Karen Hughes didn’t have to make him practice pronouncing it. But really, theory geeks, can the term “ideology” have any meaning left when Bush and his poodle are blathering it on the nightly news every chance they get? Can you think of a phrase that has less intellectual content than “ideology of evil [or hate]?” Is the violent extremist jihadi ideology of evil the same ideology of evil that Pope JP2 complained had led to gay marriage? Wingnuts might say yes, but what should disturb them is that so would violent extremist suicide bomber jihadis.
We think what B&B mean is that al-q and the violent extremist suicide bomber jihadis are evil. This is not a notion we care to dispute, even if it is one that can have no possible benefit for those analyzing the phenomenon of violent extremism or why people are willing to become suicide bombers. Evil is lurking here, but how to respond to, contain and defeat the violent extremists and suicide bombers surely requires a more probing analysis than the simple label “evil” affords.
The doodle and his poodle believe not. They think their base is content with the label and will applaud them for using it. Since others in their audience might be discomforted by the notion that the best political response to a problem of “evil” that B&B can come up with is calling evil, “evil,” and since these others might start pointing out that calling evil “evil” has done nothing to reduce the incidents of violence and death wrought by those we label “evil,” and then the base might get a bit frisky, B&B have been tarting up their words a bit. Instead of saying violent extremest al-q jihadi suicide bombers are simply evil, they say that they are governed by an “ideology of evil [or hate].”
Now here in egg-head land, the term ideology gets a lot of use, and generates the shedding of vast quantities of ink. At the heart of all this discussion, however, is the shared assumption that ideology is about ideas (note the root word, class). “Evil” is not an idea it’s a normative label we give to kinds of behavior we cannot find any justification for. If we want to live in a world with less violent extremist al-q suicide bomber jihadis, we might want to examine the ideas that characterize their thinking and respond to them with some of our own.
“But haven’t B&B been talking about freedom and democracy?” you ask. “And surely freedom and democracy are ideas the modern west could offer in response to the ideas that motivate violent extremist jihadi suicide bombers.” Talk, as Pudentilla’s old man used to say, is cheap. Actions are good or evil or perhaps complex, laying frustratingly along the moral spectrum of good and evil. But, we’re comfortable with saying, as a general matter, that bad ideas can lead to bad acts and good ideas can lead to good acts.
Once you accept this old Socratic distinction between ideas and deeds, however, the doodle and poodle are in a world o’ trouble. Because, although they talk a good game about democracy and freedom, the experience of B&B’s “democracy and freedom” in the parts of the world they hope to conquer – oops, persuade, has been one, at least in part, of chaos, death, oppression and corruption. They see military tribunals not trials. They see no accountability for torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. They see W and his boys trying to fix the results of the Iraqi election. Chaos, death, oppression and corruption are surely bad things and the beneficiaries of B&B’s missionary zeal might legitimately ask. “Are democracy and freedom bad ideas, or do B&B merely pay lip service to the notions of democracy and freedom at home, while they pursue an ideology of evil – oops, colonization and imperialism abroad? Was it is these bad ideas which have led to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, torture and corruption, etc.?"
Which, we think, is why B&B, the leaders of the glorious coalition of the good and loving in our struggle with the evil and hateful, have been reduced to sounding like really bad grad students when they talk about the violent extremist suicide bomber jihadi ideology of evil. It’s preferable to talking about their own ideology – which has led to moral and political failure and a military standoff with an enemy we could easily defeat in the realm of ideas, if only our leaders actually believed in and acted on the ideas they tout about like a fig leaf.
Well, perhaps we are too idealistic. But we can tell you one thing - if W is slinging the term "ideology" around in his speeches, the term has lost much, if not all of its heuristic value. To the libraries, my friends!
Not to get too po-mo or anything, but haven’t you been concerned about the way Tony Blair and W have been throwing around the term, “ideology.” Every time they talk about the war on terror (recently re-branded as the "struggle against violent extremism”) and describe the folks who blow themselves up at Iraqi military recruiting centers, Egyptian resort towns and London subways (not to mention in airplanes headed flown into buildings in the U.S.), they say things like, “theirs is an ideology of evil [or hate].”
Now with Tony, the utterance at least doesn’t make you want to laugh out loud. One suspects he has read the word once or twice before and Karen Hughes didn’t have to make him practice pronouncing it. But really, theory geeks, can the term “ideology” have any meaning left when Bush and his poodle are blathering it on the nightly news every chance they get? Can you think of a phrase that has less intellectual content than “ideology of evil [or hate]?” Is the violent extremist jihadi ideology of evil the same ideology of evil that Pope JP2 complained had led to gay marriage? Wingnuts might say yes, but what should disturb them is that so would violent extremist suicide bomber jihadis.
We think what B&B mean is that al-q and the violent extremist suicide bomber jihadis are evil. This is not a notion we care to dispute, even if it is one that can have no possible benefit for those analyzing the phenomenon of violent extremism or why people are willing to become suicide bombers. Evil is lurking here, but how to respond to, contain and defeat the violent extremists and suicide bombers surely requires a more probing analysis than the simple label “evil” affords.
The doodle and his poodle believe not. They think their base is content with the label and will applaud them for using it. Since others in their audience might be discomforted by the notion that the best political response to a problem of “evil” that B&B can come up with is calling evil, “evil,” and since these others might start pointing out that calling evil “evil” has done nothing to reduce the incidents of violence and death wrought by those we label “evil,” and then the base might get a bit frisky, B&B have been tarting up their words a bit. Instead of saying violent extremest al-q jihadi suicide bombers are simply evil, they say that they are governed by an “ideology of evil [or hate].”
Now here in egg-head land, the term ideology gets a lot of use, and generates the shedding of vast quantities of ink. At the heart of all this discussion, however, is the shared assumption that ideology is about ideas (note the root word, class). “Evil” is not an idea it’s a normative label we give to kinds of behavior we cannot find any justification for. If we want to live in a world with less violent extremist al-q suicide bomber jihadis, we might want to examine the ideas that characterize their thinking and respond to them with some of our own.
“But haven’t B&B been talking about freedom and democracy?” you ask. “And surely freedom and democracy are ideas the modern west could offer in response to the ideas that motivate violent extremist jihadi suicide bombers.” Talk, as Pudentilla’s old man used to say, is cheap. Actions are good or evil or perhaps complex, laying frustratingly along the moral spectrum of good and evil. But, we’re comfortable with saying, as a general matter, that bad ideas can lead to bad acts and good ideas can lead to good acts.
Once you accept this old Socratic distinction between ideas and deeds, however, the doodle and poodle are in a world o’ trouble. Because, although they talk a good game about democracy and freedom, the experience of B&B’s “democracy and freedom” in the parts of the world they hope to conquer – oops, persuade, has been one, at least in part, of chaos, death, oppression and corruption. They see military tribunals not trials. They see no accountability for torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. They see W and his boys trying to fix the results of the Iraqi election. Chaos, death, oppression and corruption are surely bad things and the beneficiaries of B&B’s missionary zeal might legitimately ask. “Are democracy and freedom bad ideas, or do B&B merely pay lip service to the notions of democracy and freedom at home, while they pursue an ideology of evil – oops, colonization and imperialism abroad? Was it is these bad ideas which have led to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, torture and corruption, etc.?"
Which, we think, is why B&B, the leaders of the glorious coalition of the good and loving in our struggle with the evil and hateful, have been reduced to sounding like really bad grad students when they talk about the violent extremist suicide bomber jihadi ideology of evil. It’s preferable to talking about their own ideology – which has led to moral and political failure and a military standoff with an enemy we could easily defeat in the realm of ideas, if only our leaders actually believed in and acted on the ideas they tout about like a fig leaf.
Well, perhaps we are too idealistic. But we can tell you one thing - if W is slinging the term "ideology" around in his speeches, the term has lost much, if not all of its heuristic value. To the libraries, my friends!
Monday, July 25, 2005
May We Recommend
Whilst in Boston for the weekend we went to the MFA and saw the exhibition of quilts from Gee's Bend. We confess that we love quilt shows and regularly attend them in Maine. The exhibition at the MFA, however, is extraordinary and we think, something that everyone, even those who would never go to a quilt show, should see.
The exhibit contains 3 or 4 rooms of quilts made since 1920 by a community of women from a town in Alabama populated by the descendents of slaves. The artistry of the quilts is amazing - the community has always valued inventiveness in design and use of color, so the patterns look like modern art - not traditional quilting bee productions. As striking as the artistry is, however, is the fact that this art was created out of nothing. The materials used are fabric from clothes too worn to pass on to another to wear and sacking from bags of grain and meal. The women made the quilts because their homes (first log cabins and then wpa construction) were insulated with nothing sturdier than sheets of newspapers, which did cut down on the drafts - but didn't allow the houses to retain much heat.
We are used to studying art created from and in a society's excess capacities and resources - we've never had the chance to see such beauty created from mind-numbing poverty and want. The exhibit includes a short movie in which some of the women are interviewed. The audio guide to the exhibit includes additional interviews with the women about the quilts they made.
We spent several hours in that room and by the end we were near tears - part joy at the sheer beauty they had made, part rage at the social conditions under which this art managed to flourish. We simply have never been so moved by a museum exhibit before. If you're in the Boston area, Gentle Reader, we urge you to attend it.
Whilst in Boston for the weekend we went to the MFA and saw the exhibition of quilts from Gee's Bend. We confess that we love quilt shows and regularly attend them in Maine. The exhibition at the MFA, however, is extraordinary and we think, something that everyone, even those who would never go to a quilt show, should see.
The exhibit contains 3 or 4 rooms of quilts made since 1920 by a community of women from a town in Alabama populated by the descendents of slaves. The artistry of the quilts is amazing - the community has always valued inventiveness in design and use of color, so the patterns look like modern art - not traditional quilting bee productions. As striking as the artistry is, however, is the fact that this art was created out of nothing. The materials used are fabric from clothes too worn to pass on to another to wear and sacking from bags of grain and meal. The women made the quilts because their homes (first log cabins and then wpa construction) were insulated with nothing sturdier than sheets of newspapers, which did cut down on the drafts - but didn't allow the houses to retain much heat.
We are used to studying art created from and in a society's excess capacities and resources - we've never had the chance to see such beauty created from mind-numbing poverty and want. The exhibit includes a short movie in which some of the women are interviewed. The audio guide to the exhibit includes additional interviews with the women about the quilts they made.
We spent several hours in that room and by the end we were near tears - part joy at the sheer beauty they had made, part rage at the social conditions under which this art managed to flourish. We simply have never been so moved by a museum exhibit before. If you're in the Boston area, Gentle Reader, we urge you to attend it.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
A Technical Question
We have noticed that we cannot read Wampum or Brad DeLong's blog using Netscape. If we open up Safari, we can. The left/right columns with links appear. But where one would hope to find posts, we find nothing. Sometimes, if we scroll down, we'll discover a post (half of it missing) on Wampum. We occasionally have this problem with Yglesias' blog as well. Has anyone else had this experience. Is there some setting in Netscape I need to change?
We're going away for the weekend, so no posts till Monday.
We have noticed that we cannot read Wampum or Brad DeLong's blog using Netscape. If we open up Safari, we can. The left/right columns with links appear. But where one would hope to find posts, we find nothing. Sometimes, if we scroll down, we'll discover a post (half of it missing) on Wampum. We occasionally have this problem with Yglesias' blog as well. Has anyone else had this experience. Is there some setting in Netscape I need to change?
We're going away for the weekend, so no posts till Monday.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
To all our friends who voted for Nader in 2000
A Move To the Right, An Eye to Confirmation - President Bush moved boldly to shift the Supreme Court to the right last night by selecting federal appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr. to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But in choosing a jurist with establishment credentials and bipartisan allies, Bush also picked a nominee he believes can win confirmation with some Democratic votes.
You were wrong. There was a difference.
A Move To the Right, An Eye to Confirmation - President Bush moved boldly to shift the Supreme Court to the right last night by selecting federal appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr. to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But in choosing a jurist with establishment credentials and bipartisan allies, Bush also picked a nominee he believes can win confirmation with some Democratic votes.
You were wrong. There was a difference.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Snowe's Gotta Go
In theory a reprieve is still possible, but it's pretty clear that Collins and Snowe were punked. We thought the whole point of these "moderate" Republicans was that they could talk to the lingo to the reds and bring home the bacon. Well, they haven't. The reds don't need no stinking moderates no more. Assuming you're not a "hateful Christian" or a wealthy summer person who'd drive over anyone's grandmother for a tax cut, why the heck would any Mainer ever vote for a Republican for national office again?Calif., Maine Bases Added to Closure List - WASHINGTON - The base-closing commission voted Tuesday to add two military facilities, in California and Maine, to the list of hundreds of domestic bases that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has proposed closing and shrinking.
The Navy Broadway Complex in San Diego and the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine, were added to the list of facilities to be closed. The commission also was voting on whether to add bases in nine other states and Washington, D.C.
The San Diego facility has headquarters for Navy operations in the Southwest, while the Brunswick air base is the last active-duty Defense Department airfield in New England and one of Maine's largest employers, with nearly 4,900 military and civilian workers.
Calling the so-called "Christian" Coalition
Don't you think outhouse peeping toms are more of threat to traditional marriage than, say, gay people?
Outhouse Peeping Tom Pleads Innocent - CONWAY, N.H. (AP) -- Forty-five-year-old Gary Moody pleaded innocent Monday to trespassing and disorderly conduct from an incident at a New Hampshire rest stop.
View original story.
Moody was arrested after a girl entered the restroom and saw him in the raw sewage tank.
In court documents, the arresting officer said Moody told him he was changing clothes when he dropped his wedding ring into the toilet. The officer reported Moody said he dropped into the tank through the toilet opening to search for the ring, and hid, out of embarrassment, when someone came into the outhouse.
Police screened the sewage and said they found no rings.
Don't you think outhouse peeping toms are more of threat to traditional marriage than, say, gay people?
Wild About Wonka
Admittedly, we went because we have acquired the pathological aversion to heat (circ 90 and humid) shared by many Mainers, but have yet to acquire an air conditioner to cope the situation. It's only a few days each summer, but they are miserable days by the end of which we seek refuge in the movie theaters.
We recall liking the Gene Wilder version as a kid and find this one quite enjoyable as well. The homage to American pop music was inspired. We thought Depp did a splendid job - as did the rest of the cast, particularly the kids. Helena Bonham Carter is worth watching even if her performance consists of a recitation of the alphabet, and she skips the vowels. Tim Burton seems to think so too.
Burton's visuals, as one would expect, are brilliant. We think it's a splendid show even in good weather. But in bad, it's a god-send.
Admittedly, we went because we have acquired the pathological aversion to heat (circ 90 and humid) shared by many Mainers, but have yet to acquire an air conditioner to cope the situation. It's only a few days each summer, but they are miserable days by the end of which we seek refuge in the movie theaters.
We recall liking the Gene Wilder version as a kid and find this one quite enjoyable as well. The homage to American pop music was inspired. We thought Depp did a splendid job - as did the rest of the cast, particularly the kids. Helena Bonham Carter is worth watching even if her performance consists of a recitation of the alphabet, and she skips the vowels. Tim Burton seems to think so too.
Burton's visuals, as one would expect, are brilliant. We think it's a splendid show even in good weather. But in bad, it's a god-send.
Monday, July 18, 2005
“No ifs ands or buts,”our mother used to say to indicate that her immediately previous utterance was an command, not a suggestion. John Cole’s recent comments on the response he anticipated Democrats would make to news that Saddam Hussein had been indicted are voiced in a similar tone.
Good. Now watch Democrats shoot themselves politically by running around saying things like "Sure Saddam Hussein was a bad person but was it worth _____________."
Because you just know they will. They can't resist. When you have your sightings of said behavior, document them here in the comments.
And, because someone will accuse me of being unfair to Democrats, and will inevitably say something snotty in the comments like "Well, what SHOULD they say," here is what they should say:
"I am glad that Saddam Hussein will finally be made to pay for his horrible crimes."
That is it. That is all they need to say, or some variation on that. There need be no killer 'but,' as there will be plenty of time to attack Bush and Republicans about the war later on. Instead, they will overstep (AGAIN), and look like a bunch of idiots.
We should note as a preliminary matter that we are regular readers of and occasional commentors at (even if we do find the comment feature’s refusal to indicate when you have successfully posted a comment quite annoying), John Cole’s blog, Balloon Juice. His threads summon fond memories of our family's dinner debates about politics in the Nixon era when we were quite the whipper-snapper. We find ourselves quite at home and quite engaged at his blog– even if we disagree with John Cole much of the time.
But we’d like to know is what is the “line” John thinks Democrats will cross with their ifs ands and buts? Let us begin with the words John wants Democrats to dutifully mouth. We’re happy that Saddam Hussein will be made to pay for his crimes. (Happy, John?)
But how will Saddam be made to pay: through a politically and legally just process, or through the mere assertion of power by his enemies? If through the former, we’ll need a democratically elected government with a legal system whose pronouncements the Iraqi people believe are legitimate and binding. We still get to feel good that a monster like Saddam is out of power and will suffer, even if it happens just because our army is a hell of a lot stronger then his. But will we get to ground this sense of good feeling in anything more ethically compelling than the old adage about the worm turning?
For a very long time indeed, societies that have practiced democracy at home have not felt obliged to insist upon them overseas. Ancient Athens, for example, was notorious for supporting some foreign oligarchies when it suited their interests, and supporting democratic revolutions in other foreign states when the existing oligarchs wouldn’t dance to Athen’s tune. It is a tough question. Is democracy truly an ideology, or merely a convenient slogan in geopolitics? If democracy is a set of beliefs, not a tool of empire, are its adherents required to foster it abroad in such a way that they are responsible and accountable to their fellow citizens at home? Athens didn’t have close to all the answers on this one and Alexander the Great’s superior armies rather ended the debate for the them.
As far as we can tell, the neo-cons don’t have much coherence on this one either. They’d like democracy in the Middle East, apparently, and will invade an oil producing country whose leader they don’t like to impose democracy in Iraq – but not in Saudi Arabia. And apparently not in Central Asia either. And, Rummy was one of the first to shake Saddam’s hand shortly after the very crimes for which Saddam has just been indicted. Oh, and that democracy in Iraq that we’ve made possible? Apparently the U.S. bought the best democracy in Iraq we could – not trusting the results a democratic process in Iraq might achieve. And the democratically purchased regime we bought appears to think that democracy involves jailing critics.
The line John predicts the Democrats will cross (and we surely hope we have) is the boundary that separates democratic societies in which citizens hold their leaders accountable for their actions, and fascist states, where citizens dare not. We are proud that John thinks the Democrats are the party of “ifs ands or buts.” We are sorry he’d prefer a more authoritarian approach to political debate. But we are glad Saddam will pay.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
A Crisis of Confidence
We watched the Babbling Brooks last night on the News Hour with our usual combination of indignation, disbelief and interest. We think of him as the media equivalent of an italian digestive - consumed after dinner and very bitter. His rampant, unabashed and unchecked (whose job is it to prop up Mark Shields at the table every Friday night?) mendacity is the source of our indignation and disbelief. But we are also interested because he is a useful barometer of tactical thought in the White House.
Last night the Babbler took two quite contradictory positions. On the one hand, he assured us that there is no there there. Everything Karl did was fine. [Shields ignores the cue to suggest that whatever the legal conclusion, surely it is not "fine" for White House political personnel to chat about C.I.A. agents with the media.] We conclude, that the current tactical thinking (especially in light of the pro-Rove leaks - this White House is now leaking Rove's emails - think about it) is a very aggressive, "nothing happened here, move on" defense of Rove.
The Babbler as Rove's media minion dutifully dumps the talking point all over the News Hour. But then, the Babbler concludes, "of course I don't know what actually happened; I don't want to get to far ahead of the story." We suspect he believes by laying down this marker of ignorance (which we suspect is itself a lie) he hopes to preserve his reputation for integrity.
In otherwords, the Babbler's still taking marching orders from the Dark Lord, but he can imagine a day when Rove will be toppled. And he wants a job the morning after the damnatio memoriae (and he, no doubt, will lead the mob in tearing down the statues of Rove that decorate the grottos and gardens of our nation's capital). So the Babbler's preserving the thinnest of lines between himself and the captain of his soul.
We suspect all over Washington, D.C., the various cogs in the red media machine are thinking the same thing. Indeed there will be a great reward to the first red pundit who rails against Rove. The risk is great, if he moves too quickly, and is wrong, no more kool-kid parties for the Babbler. If he moves to slowly, when the Dark Lord's fall seems inevitable, the Babbler will seem merely to be piling on. But if he is the first to turn on his master, after the fall is itself inevitable, he will be hailed as the voice of conscience within the Republican party.
Now the Babbler is many things, but he's never been the sharpest tool in the red shed. If he's imagining the day after Rove, every Republican Senator and Congressional Representative is thinking exactly the same thing today.
We watched the Babbling Brooks last night on the News Hour with our usual combination of indignation, disbelief and interest. We think of him as the media equivalent of an italian digestive - consumed after dinner and very bitter. His rampant, unabashed and unchecked (whose job is it to prop up Mark Shields at the table every Friday night?) mendacity is the source of our indignation and disbelief. But we are also interested because he is a useful barometer of tactical thought in the White House.
Last night the Babbler took two quite contradictory positions. On the one hand, he assured us that there is no there there. Everything Karl did was fine. [Shields ignores the cue to suggest that whatever the legal conclusion, surely it is not "fine" for White House political personnel to chat about C.I.A. agents with the media.] We conclude, that the current tactical thinking (especially in light of the pro-Rove leaks - this White House is now leaking Rove's emails - think about it) is a very aggressive, "nothing happened here, move on" defense of Rove.
The Babbler as Rove's media minion dutifully dumps the talking point all over the News Hour. But then, the Babbler concludes, "of course I don't know what actually happened; I don't want to get to far ahead of the story." We suspect he believes by laying down this marker of ignorance (which we suspect is itself a lie) he hopes to preserve his reputation for integrity.
In otherwords, the Babbler's still taking marching orders from the Dark Lord, but he can imagine a day when Rove will be toppled. And he wants a job the morning after the damnatio memoriae (and he, no doubt, will lead the mob in tearing down the statues of Rove that decorate the grottos and gardens of our nation's capital). So the Babbler's preserving the thinnest of lines between himself and the captain of his soul.
We suspect all over Washington, D.C., the various cogs in the red media machine are thinking the same thing. Indeed there will be a great reward to the first red pundit who rails against Rove. The risk is great, if he moves too quickly, and is wrong, no more kool-kid parties for the Babbler. If he moves to slowly, when the Dark Lord's fall seems inevitable, the Babbler will seem merely to be piling on. But if he is the first to turn on his master, after the fall is itself inevitable, he will be hailed as the voice of conscience within the Republican party.
Now the Babbler is many things, but he's never been the sharpest tool in the red shed. If he's imagining the day after Rove, every Republican Senator and Congressional Representative is thinking exactly the same thing today.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Karl Rove, Mendacious Bag of Excrement
Over at Balloon-Juice last night we participated in a discussion of John Cole’s observation that Joe Wilson, husband of the C.I.A. operative whom Karl Rove outed for partisan political purposes, risked his credibility by appearing at a press conference with Chuck Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York, whom John described with barely concealed contempt as a “political operative.”
Since we are perfectly willing to sling hash at Republican Senators, we don’t cavil at, even though we don't share, John’s contempt for Senator Schumer. What we find odd is that John doesn’t seem to address the question of why there are no Republicans with whom Mr. Wilson might appear and thereby safeguard his credibility from the probing scrutiny of Republicans and conservatives who claim not to possess a slavish devotion to the Bush cult. Just who would satisfy John’s desire that Mr. Wilson conduct himself in a credible, non-partisan way? The answer appears to be the Republican version of Banquo’s ghost. Rove has destoyed all the Republican members of Congress who might have had the courage and integrity to observe that the conversations Mr. Rove now admits he has had with members of the media (despite several years of public lies denying the fact) about the identity of a C.I.A. agent do not serve the national interest. We don’t have to reach the question of indictment or defense – there are no longer any Republicans of national reputation who believe as a matter of common sense that political operatives shouldn’t discuss the identity of C.I.A. agents with the media.
We also think it odd that John thinks that Mr. Wilson’s credibility is relevant to the question of Mr. Rove’s mendacity. Actually, no questions remain as to the fact of Rove’s mendacity. Rove denied having knowledge about or leaking Mrs. Wilson’s name. Scott McClellan publicly denied Rove’s involvement in the outing of a C.I.A. agent as well. Now, Matt Cooper’s notes and Rove’s lawyer reveal that Rove lied, and that McClellan either lied or simply repeated Rove’s lies publicly. Since we now all know that Rove lied, why should anyone care about Mr. Wilson’s credibility – which seems to be doing just fine based on the facts - and which is not an issue except in the mind of red cult members who wish to divert attention from the fact that Rove discussed the identity of a C.I.A. agent with members of the media and then lied about it.
We are beyond questions of credibility. Rove has none and McClellan has none. And however reds try to spin it, all the public will remember from headlines is the fact that Rove lied and the White House lied. The White House's decision to refuse to talk anymore about the matter simply confirms the impression that they have been caught in a lie. What reds should really worry about is the moment when the media finally starts asking, why and for what purpose, Karl Rove, that mendacious bag of excrement, lied.
National Security - it's no blue dress, but it is something about which citizens, regardless of partisan identity or political ideology, actually care about
Over at Balloon-Juice last night we participated in a discussion of John Cole’s observation that Joe Wilson, husband of the C.I.A. operative whom Karl Rove outed for partisan political purposes, risked his credibility by appearing at a press conference with Chuck Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York, whom John described with barely concealed contempt as a “political operative.”
Since we are perfectly willing to sling hash at Republican Senators, we don’t cavil at, even though we don't share, John’s contempt for Senator Schumer. What we find odd is that John doesn’t seem to address the question of why there are no Republicans with whom Mr. Wilson might appear and thereby safeguard his credibility from the probing scrutiny of Republicans and conservatives who claim not to possess a slavish devotion to the Bush cult. Just who would satisfy John’s desire that Mr. Wilson conduct himself in a credible, non-partisan way? The answer appears to be the Republican version of Banquo’s ghost. Rove has destoyed all the Republican members of Congress who might have had the courage and integrity to observe that the conversations Mr. Rove now admits he has had with members of the media (despite several years of public lies denying the fact) about the identity of a C.I.A. agent do not serve the national interest. We don’t have to reach the question of indictment or defense – there are no longer any Republicans of national reputation who believe as a matter of common sense that political operatives shouldn’t discuss the identity of C.I.A. agents with the media.
We also think it odd that John thinks that Mr. Wilson’s credibility is relevant to the question of Mr. Rove’s mendacity. Actually, no questions remain as to the fact of Rove’s mendacity. Rove denied having knowledge about or leaking Mrs. Wilson’s name. Scott McClellan publicly denied Rove’s involvement in the outing of a C.I.A. agent as well. Now, Matt Cooper’s notes and Rove’s lawyer reveal that Rove lied, and that McClellan either lied or simply repeated Rove’s lies publicly. Since we now all know that Rove lied, why should anyone care about Mr. Wilson’s credibility – which seems to be doing just fine based on the facts - and which is not an issue except in the mind of red cult members who wish to divert attention from the fact that Rove discussed the identity of a C.I.A. agent with members of the media and then lied about it.
We are beyond questions of credibility. Rove has none and McClellan has none. And however reds try to spin it, all the public will remember from headlines is the fact that Rove lied and the White House lied. The White House's decision to refuse to talk anymore about the matter simply confirms the impression that they have been caught in a lie. What reds should really worry about is the moment when the media finally starts asking, why and for what purpose, Karl Rove, that mendacious bag of excrement, lied.
National Security - it's no blue dress, but it is something about which citizens, regardless of partisan identity or political ideology, actually care about
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Do You Laugh, or Do You Cry?
We suspect many straight people will wonder how an "out gay man" could possibly be an employee, much less the chief spokesman, for such a notorious homophobe as Sen. Santorum. The question reflects a touching naivete. Republican queers are as least as morally bankrupt as Republican straights.
The RawStory reports: In a phone call recorded by PageOneQ and blogACTIVE.com, Robert Traynham, Director of Communications for United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) has said he is an out gay man who completely supports the Senator.
We suspect many straight people will wonder how an "out gay man" could possibly be an employee, much less the chief spokesman, for such a notorious homophobe as Sen. Santorum. The question reflects a touching naivete. Republican queers are as least as morally bankrupt as Republican straights.
Jeff Greenfield's A Schmuck
Last night on NewsNight, Mr. G gave a little commentary equating monica-gate with the controversy surrounding Rove's decision to identify a C.I.A. operative to the media for the purposes of partisan politics - which is not what annoys us. Then he suggested that the Democrats won't get any traction out of the controversy if the Republicans are successful in portraying it as partisan politics - which, as he demonstrated in a series of clips, Mehlman, the Republicans' most eligible bachelor, is earnestly endeavoring to do. Democrats shouldn't, Mr. G earnestly advised, try to play politics with this one. And while we wonder why Mr. G thinks the Democrats should give the anal oriface of a single rodent for his political advice, we did wonder why his observations should be directed against the Democrats rather than the Republicans. Still even this wee msm moment did not trouble us so much.
When Mr. G then asked why couldn't the politicians just forget politics and spin and simply ask, "just what happened here?" And we thought, ask a stupid rhetorical question, Jeff, and you deserved to be nibbled to death by ducks. It is, in theory, Mr. G, your job to ask "just what happened here." Of course, doing it might risk your spot on all those A-list kool-kid parties.
We would have ended the evening in high dungeon indeed, had not Aaron risen from the stew of sentimentiality in which he is so regularly swamped, to read the headline from an Ohio paper about a clergy sexual abuse scandal. He then paused and said words to the effect of, "will Rick Santorum blame all the conservatives in Ohio for this? What a weird thing he said."
Since we regularly diss Mr. Brown, we feel obliged to thank him for the observation.
Last night on NewsNight, Mr. G gave a little commentary equating monica-gate with the controversy surrounding Rove's decision to identify a C.I.A. operative to the media for the purposes of partisan politics - which is not what annoys us. Then he suggested that the Democrats won't get any traction out of the controversy if the Republicans are successful in portraying it as partisan politics - which, as he demonstrated in a series of clips, Mehlman, the Republicans' most eligible bachelor, is earnestly endeavoring to do. Democrats shouldn't, Mr. G earnestly advised, try to play politics with this one. And while we wonder why Mr. G thinks the Democrats should give the anal oriface of a single rodent for his political advice, we did wonder why his observations should be directed against the Democrats rather than the Republicans. Still even this wee msm moment did not trouble us so much.
When Mr. G then asked why couldn't the politicians just forget politics and spin and simply ask, "just what happened here?" And we thought, ask a stupid rhetorical question, Jeff, and you deserved to be nibbled to death by ducks. It is, in theory, Mr. G, your job to ask "just what happened here." Of course, doing it might risk your spot on all those A-list kool-kid parties.
We would have ended the evening in high dungeon indeed, had not Aaron risen from the stew of sentimentiality in which he is so regularly swamped, to read the headline from an Ohio paper about a clergy sexual abuse scandal. He then paused and said words to the effect of, "will Rick Santorum blame all the conservatives in Ohio for this? What a weird thing he said."
Since we regularly diss Mr. Brown, we feel obliged to thank him for the observation.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Make the Marsupial Happy
Click here. He's only 20,000 hits from a million and it would make him so happy he could hop!
Click here. He's only 20,000 hits from a million and it would make him so happy he could hop!
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Compare and Contrast
Does anyone else find it interesting that the Brits have identified the four maniacs in the London bombings already, while the current administration has yet to find the anthrax killer, or Osama or Mullah Omar? Looks like that faggy, liberal law enforcement response to terror has at least this going for it - it works. Perhaps the Dark Lord, Karl Rove, will have the opportunity to consider this irony from a prison cell.
Does anyone else find it interesting that the Brits have identified the four maniacs in the London bombings already, while the current administration has yet to find the anthrax killer, or Osama or Mullah Omar? Looks like that faggy, liberal law enforcement response to terror has at least this going for it - it works. Perhaps the Dark Lord, Karl Rove, will have the opportunity to consider this irony from a prison cell.
It's Like A Pledge Drive, Only Better
Go see the roo. He's only got 28,000 hits to go. Go on, be nice. Just click it.
Go see the roo. He's only got 28,000 hits to go. Go on, be nice. Just click it.
Monday, July 11, 2005
We'll blame Bush
First, we'll blame George the first and Barbara for raising a son so clueless. Before all the bodies are recovered in London, he says "fighting terrorists abroad." Tacky, tacky, tacky. Why that's like saying, "I'll send your children to fight terrorists, so mine don't have to." It's not that we're shocked that he thinks it, but what's the point of money, prep school and Yale if he still doesn't know that one doesn't say such things. Perhaps Karen Hughes and the Dark Lord have figured out that "the base" (does anyone find it ironic that this translates to "al-quaeda" in Arabic?) secretly thrills to hear such uncouth trash talk in the midst of Britain's travails ("the Brits are fine as allies, but we'll toss them to the sharks if it means we can be safe on our fat keesters at home"). Maybe playing the "trash card" (remember the twins at the convention?) actually motivates their core, if cowardly, supporters.
But when the terrorist strike at home - and history and the utter failure of the administration to protect urban transportation, ports and chemical plants suggests that it is a question of "when not if" - we'll blame Bush. Who knows why they won't take the most basic steps necessary? Perhaps they don't care about these obvious targets because they all are located in "blue" zip codes - and hey, red "victories" would require a lot less manipulation if there were fewer blue voters. Perhaps they view "Homeland Security" as the vehicle by which they transfer taxpayer funds to their red state supporters, not the rubric under which they use taxpayer funds to increase the security of the homeland. Perhaps they are simply as wildly incompetent on the domestic front as they are in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But we know when it happens, we'll blame Bush. And when all the reds start shrieking into the microphones that "we have to stay united," and when all the reds start questioning the patriotism of those who observe the dismal record of failure this administration has compiled in Iraq and at home," we'll still blame Bush. Because he'll have had since 9/11/01 to do something about terrorism. And all he's done is make it worse.
If this be treason, make the most of it.
"We will stay on the offense, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home," Bush said. [Bush: London attacks show need to stay on offense - via Atrios]
First, we'll blame George the first and Barbara for raising a son so clueless. Before all the bodies are recovered in London, he says "fighting terrorists abroad." Tacky, tacky, tacky. Why that's like saying, "I'll send your children to fight terrorists, so mine don't have to." It's not that we're shocked that he thinks it, but what's the point of money, prep school and Yale if he still doesn't know that one doesn't say such things. Perhaps Karen Hughes and the Dark Lord have figured out that "the base" (does anyone find it ironic that this translates to "al-quaeda" in Arabic?) secretly thrills to hear such uncouth trash talk in the midst of Britain's travails ("the Brits are fine as allies, but we'll toss them to the sharks if it means we can be safe on our fat keesters at home"). Maybe playing the "trash card" (remember the twins at the convention?) actually motivates their core, if cowardly, supporters.
But when the terrorist strike at home - and history and the utter failure of the administration to protect urban transportation, ports and chemical plants suggests that it is a question of "when not if" - we'll blame Bush. Who knows why they won't take the most basic steps necessary? Perhaps they don't care about these obvious targets because they all are located in "blue" zip codes - and hey, red "victories" would require a lot less manipulation if there were fewer blue voters. Perhaps they view "Homeland Security" as the vehicle by which they transfer taxpayer funds to their red state supporters, not the rubric under which they use taxpayer funds to increase the security of the homeland. Perhaps they are simply as wildly incompetent on the domestic front as they are in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But we know when it happens, we'll blame Bush. And when all the reds start shrieking into the microphones that "we have to stay united," and when all the reds start questioning the patriotism of those who observe the dismal record of failure this administration has compiled in Iraq and at home," we'll still blame Bush. Because he'll have had since 9/11/01 to do something about terrorism. And all he's done is make it worse.
If this be treason, make the most of it.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
We Write Letters
(thanks to Media Matters for the address)
Susan Peterson Kennedy
President
Penguin Group
375 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10014
Dear Ms. Peterson Kennedy,
I just ordered my textbooks for courses that I will teach in the fall, and for the first time in many a year I chose not to order Penguin Classics translations for my courses on the ancient world. Simply put, I don't want to reward or encourge or suggest in any way that Penguin Sentinel's decision to publish Edward Klein's book, "The Truth About Hillary" is anything less than unacceptable. That you publish books about politics or which seek to profit from partisan divisions in the United States is not my concern. That you publish a book with an anonymously sourced rape allegation, which the author no longer stands by, however, is profoundly disturbing. Mr. Klein's numerous factual errors and the unapologetic gay-baiting is pretty offensive, but anonymously sourced rape allegations happen to be where I stop blaming the author and start looking at the editor and publisher. Since I insist upon significantly higher evidentiary standards from my students' arguments, I can hardly suggest to them that your own firm's gross negligence should be tolerated.
I am fortunate in the range of excellent choices I have when selecting translations of ancient texts. I can afford to exclude Penguin Classics from that range of choices and still find great editions from which my students will learn and that they will enjoy. I remind my colleagues at my institution and others of this fact when I explain why I feel that I can no longer justify, on pedagogical (and to be honest, ethical) grounds, ordering books from your press for my students. To what a horrible pass you have led a once great publishing house.
Sincerely,
(thanks to Media Matters for the address)
Susan Peterson Kennedy
President
Penguin Group
375 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10014
Dear Ms. Peterson Kennedy,
I just ordered my textbooks for courses that I will teach in the fall, and for the first time in many a year I chose not to order Penguin Classics translations for my courses on the ancient world. Simply put, I don't want to reward or encourge or suggest in any way that Penguin Sentinel's decision to publish Edward Klein's book, "The Truth About Hillary" is anything less than unacceptable. That you publish books about politics or which seek to profit from partisan divisions in the United States is not my concern. That you publish a book with an anonymously sourced rape allegation, which the author no longer stands by, however, is profoundly disturbing. Mr. Klein's numerous factual errors and the unapologetic gay-baiting is pretty offensive, but anonymously sourced rape allegations happen to be where I stop blaming the author and start looking at the editor and publisher. Since I insist upon significantly higher evidentiary standards from my students' arguments, I can hardly suggest to them that your own firm's gross negligence should be tolerated.
I am fortunate in the range of excellent choices I have when selecting translations of ancient texts. I can afford to exclude Penguin Classics from that range of choices and still find great editions from which my students will learn and that they will enjoy. I remind my colleagues at my institution and others of this fact when I explain why I feel that I can no longer justify, on pedagogical (and to be honest, ethical) grounds, ordering books from your press for my students. To what a horrible pass you have led a once great publishing house.
Sincerely,
Friday, July 08, 2005
Metrics
"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror.” Donald Rumsfeld, October 16, 2003.
We have the metrics, now. And we know the answer. [cross-posted at Skippy's]
"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror.” Donald Rumsfeld, October 16, 2003.
- Terrorists Strike in London - At Least 38 Killed, 700 Wounded in Subway, Bus Blasts - LONDON — Bombs ripped through three Underground trains and a red double-decker bus in central London during the Thursday morning rush hour, killing at least 38 people and wounding more than 700 in the deadliest terrorist attack on British soil.
- Kidnappers in Iraq Kill Egyptian Envoy - Ihab Sherif is the highest-ranking hostage slain since the war began. The Al Qaeda wing in the country claims responsibility. BAGHDAD — Al Qaeda's Iraq wing said Thursday that it had carried out "the verdict of God" and executed Egypt's top envoy to Baghdad, who was kidnapped from a street in the capital five days earlier.
- U.S. reports major increase in worldwide terrorism (via Atrios)
- To date the war in Iraq has cost $179,200,000, 000.
- U.S. Casualties in Iraq: American soldiers killed in Iraq. 1750. American soldiers wounded in Iraq. 13190
- The exact number of Iraqi civilian casualties is disputed. Estimates range from 22,000 to 100,000.
We have the metrics, now. And we know the answer. [cross-posted at Skippy's]
Thursday, July 07, 2005
indictment
We are awash in conflicting emotions listening to the coverage of the bombings in London. A deep sadness at the thought that innocents everywhere are victims in this "war." Admiration for the cool and calm of Londoners. Profound anger at the failure of the "war as anti-terrorism policy" of the Bush and Blair regimes. Great fear that these regimes will exploit this tragedy to justify more war in the Middle East, just as they exploited 9/11 to begin a war in the Middle East. And a shudder as we anticipate the rage that will course through our heart when we hear the horrible glee in the voices of rush, et al., as they claim the blood of the martyrs they helped to make as justification for their insanity.
We forget how much history turns on the contingent. Our parents generation were blessed with churchill and roosevelt when they confronted Hitler's evil. We are cursed with Bush and Blair when we confront Osama's.
We are awash in conflicting emotions listening to the coverage of the bombings in London. A deep sadness at the thought that innocents everywhere are victims in this "war." Admiration for the cool and calm of Londoners. Profound anger at the failure of the "war as anti-terrorism policy" of the Bush and Blair regimes. Great fear that these regimes will exploit this tragedy to justify more war in the Middle East, just as they exploited 9/11 to begin a war in the Middle East. And a shudder as we anticipate the rage that will course through our heart when we hear the horrible glee in the voices of rush, et al., as they claim the blood of the martyrs they helped to make as justification for their insanity.
We forget how much history turns on the contingent. Our parents generation were blessed with churchill and roosevelt when they confronted Hitler's evil. We are cursed with Bush and Blair when we confront Osama's.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Lawrence O'Donnell's An Omadhaun
We say this not about the Democratic party operative (journalese for hack)'s contributions to the television series, "The West Wing," which we laud, but about his role in the Rove/Plame story. Last Friday, O'Donnell acquired no little notoriety when he announced on the McLaughlin Group that Rove was the source for Time Magazine in Plame-gate. In a column the next day at the Huffington Post, O'Donnell averred that he had a second source for the scoop and had known about it for months - but "didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury."
Last night on Aaron Brown (and can we just pause to observe that watching Mr. Brown decline from a pompous ass to a simpering, sentimental stooge has been an ugly experience), Mr. O'Donnell again averred that he had known about Mr. Rove's role in the story but wanted to protect his source. He also speculated, at Brown's invitation, that Rove could lose his job, but probably didn't face indictment on charges of outing a C.I.A. agent because of the strict requirements of the statute.
So we have a Democratic party operative, sitting on a story that suggests that the President's closest advisor was knee-deep in a rather serious breach of national security for partisan political purposes because one of the operative's buddies (either in the White House or in the prosecutor's office) tattled but didn't want to be quoted. So the Democratic party operative sat on news of no little political and legal significance because - what, he was afraid he wouldn't get invited to the tattler's parties anymore? And now that the story's out, the Democratic party operative thinks he can free-ride the publicity without any risk to the tattler or his status on the A-list?
If he believed that Plame leak was serious breach of national security, O'Donnell should have been hauling his posterior to the prosecutor faster than he could say "brunch at 11:00 at Bobo's." Any citizen who cared about his country, regardless of partisan identity would have done as much. If O'Donnell believed that the Plame leak was a tempest in a partisan teapot, he should have been all over the networks months ago peddling this story and watching the reds squirm. He is, they say, a Democratic party operative. Apparently, O'Donnell's a Democratic party operative, second. First, he's a beltway insider with more invested in his place on the A-list, and the talkshow circuit, than in either his country or his party.
The omadhaun. If we were the prosecutor we'd subpoena his posterior so fast, O'Donnell wouldn't even know what hit him.
"Omadhaun, n. A mentally slow or backward person; an idiot, a fool." [O.E.D.]
We say this not about the Democratic party operative (journalese for hack)'s contributions to the television series, "The West Wing," which we laud, but about his role in the Rove/Plame story. Last Friday, O'Donnell acquired no little notoriety when he announced on the McLaughlin Group that Rove was the source for Time Magazine in Plame-gate. In a column the next day at the Huffington Post, O'Donnell averred that he had a second source for the scoop and had known about it for months - but "didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury."
Last night on Aaron Brown (and can we just pause to observe that watching Mr. Brown decline from a pompous ass to a simpering, sentimental stooge has been an ugly experience), Mr. O'Donnell again averred that he had known about Mr. Rove's role in the story but wanted to protect his source. He also speculated, at Brown's invitation, that Rove could lose his job, but probably didn't face indictment on charges of outing a C.I.A. agent because of the strict requirements of the statute.
So we have a Democratic party operative, sitting on a story that suggests that the President's closest advisor was knee-deep in a rather serious breach of national security for partisan political purposes because one of the operative's buddies (either in the White House or in the prosecutor's office) tattled but didn't want to be quoted. So the Democratic party operative sat on news of no little political and legal significance because - what, he was afraid he wouldn't get invited to the tattler's parties anymore? And now that the story's out, the Democratic party operative thinks he can free-ride the publicity without any risk to the tattler or his status on the A-list?
If he believed that Plame leak was serious breach of national security, O'Donnell should have been hauling his posterior to the prosecutor faster than he could say "brunch at 11:00 at Bobo's." Any citizen who cared about his country, regardless of partisan identity would have done as much. If O'Donnell believed that the Plame leak was a tempest in a partisan teapot, he should have been all over the networks months ago peddling this story and watching the reds squirm. He is, they say, a Democratic party operative. Apparently, O'Donnell's a Democratic party operative, second. First, he's a beltway insider with more invested in his place on the A-list, and the talkshow circuit, than in either his country or his party.
The omadhaun. If we were the prosecutor we'd subpoena his posterior so fast, O'Donnell wouldn't even know what hit him.
"Omadhaun, n. A mentally slow or backward person; an idiot, a fool." [O.E.D.]
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
A Different Point of View
Yesterday, we attended the July 4th parade of the town in central Maine we are fortunate enough to live in accompanied by a friend of foreign birth who had never attended a small town Fourth of July parade in all the years she's lived in the U.S. She loved it - and one would have to be dead not to love our town's parade, Gentle Reader, - and she observed that the underlying theme, to her, was a celebration of the auto/truck, which vehicle, and celebration of which vehicle, is a significant (if not unalloyed) contribution by America to modern culture. We were quite taken with this observation as our favorite part of the parade is the children on bike's with training wheels who throw tootsie-rolls to the crowd. But on reflection we realized there surely were a lot of autos (mostly vintage), tractors and trucks (mostly farm trucks) in the parade.
Our friend offered another observation in response to our rant at lunch after the parade about how the reds are destroying this country. "Two more years," she said. "That's all the have left. The economy they've created will implode in about two years and then Americans who like owning their homes but who won't be able to afford the interest rates on their second mortgages, and Americans who sustain lives of unrelenting work by dreaming of their retirement, and thus are terrified of losing their social security, and Americans who need health care but won't be able to afford it will turn on these people and they won't get elected again for twenty years. And I'm not even mentioning the price of oil or the war in Iraq."
We think she's a tad optimistic, but it was a pleasant thought on a wonderful day.
Yesterday, we attended the July 4th parade of the town in central Maine we are fortunate enough to live in accompanied by a friend of foreign birth who had never attended a small town Fourth of July parade in all the years she's lived in the U.S. She loved it - and one would have to be dead not to love our town's parade, Gentle Reader, - and she observed that the underlying theme, to her, was a celebration of the auto/truck, which vehicle, and celebration of which vehicle, is a significant (if not unalloyed) contribution by America to modern culture. We were quite taken with this observation as our favorite part of the parade is the children on bike's with training wheels who throw tootsie-rolls to the crowd. But on reflection we realized there surely were a lot of autos (mostly vintage), tractors and trucks (mostly farm trucks) in the parade.
Our friend offered another observation in response to our rant at lunch after the parade about how the reds are destroying this country. "Two more years," she said. "That's all the have left. The economy they've created will implode in about two years and then Americans who like owning their homes but who won't be able to afford the interest rates on their second mortgages, and Americans who sustain lives of unrelenting work by dreaming of their retirement, and thus are terrified of losing their social security, and Americans who need health care but won't be able to afford it will turn on these people and they won't get elected again for twenty years. And I'm not even mentioning the price of oil or the war in Iraq."
We think she's a tad optimistic, but it was a pleasant thought on a wonderful day.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Happy Fourth - Bring The Troops Home
We think, on this day when we recall how the founding fathers (ably supported by their wives who usally receive little credit for their efforts) declared their independence from a corrupt, militaristic, imperial regime, that folks should exercise a little of that independence (or "freedom" as the members of the current regime prefer) of their own. When you go to your town's parade or your neighbor's barbecue, just say what you think. Don't start a fight, and don't argue for the sake of arguing. But surely don't refrain from exercising your freedom of speech in order to avoid a potentially uncomfortable moment when someone disagrees with you.
Because if you think the president and his supporters lied to start this war, and if you think it's going badly, and you think maybe we should bring the troops home, you'll discover that most folks agree with you. And if someone who's had a few too many boorishly disagrees with you - smile and say, "Pal, I think you're wrong, but unlike the chickenhawks running this show, if anyone every actually threatened your right to say what you think, I'd fight to the death to stop them."
We think, on this day when we recall how the founding fathers (ably supported by their wives who usally receive little credit for their efforts) declared their independence from a corrupt, militaristic, imperial regime, that folks should exercise a little of that independence (or "freedom" as the members of the current regime prefer) of their own. When you go to your town's parade or your neighbor's barbecue, just say what you think. Don't start a fight, and don't argue for the sake of arguing. But surely don't refrain from exercising your freedom of speech in order to avoid a potentially uncomfortable moment when someone disagrees with you.
Because if you think the president and his supporters lied to start this war, and if you think it's going badly, and you think maybe we should bring the troops home, you'll discover that most folks agree with you. And if someone who's had a few too many boorishly disagrees with you - smile and say, "Pal, I think you're wrong, but unlike the chickenhawks running this show, if anyone every actually threatened your right to say what you think, I'd fight to the death to stop them."
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Better Late Than Never
is the thank you card, expressing our most profound gratitude, which we feel we ought to send to the noble, and more importantly prescient, U.S. senators who defeated the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987.
We say this having heard Mr. Bork's discussion with CNN's Daren Kagen about Justice O'Connor, which Crooks & Liars so graciously posted yesterday. First, we note the utter lack of graciousness, indeed the unrelenting condescension and contempt, with which Mr. Bork treated Justice O'Connor. Graciousness need not be incompatible with truth, Gentle Reader, and it was entirely possible for Mr. Bork to have noted his significant jurisprudential differences with Justice O'Connor without contempt and with appreciation for the 20 some years of service she has offered the country and with admiration for her willingness to retire from a position of extraordinary power in order to care for her ailing husband.
We ourselves have often been frustrated by the rulings of Justice O'Connor, a Reagan conservative, but by anyone's standard, an able and hard working jurist, who both acquired and exercised her power with moderation (a great exception, of course, being Bush v. Gore). In this age of political volatility and extremism, the exercise of power with moderation is an activity deserving admiration from all who have a stake in our society.
Mr. Bork, it is clear, does not have a stake in our society - his goal is revolution (which surely is his right) and his cry is "original intent." And his withering refusal to concede that his jurisprudence of original intent is but one of many interpretive methods with which one might approach the Constitution in an analytically coherent way reveals a kind of secular fanaticism not unlike the "fundamentalism" of the red "Christians," who number heavily among his supporters. We note that, personally, we consider the jurisprudence of original intent to be as intellectually compelling as the pitch of a used car salesman ("trust me, honey, I know exactly what they meant") and we find its consequences to be utterly appalling.
Mr. Bork and his supporters, no doubt, will argue that they are at war and do not have time for the social niceties which Pudentilla demands. We accept their martial premise, but note that the only warriors who cannot offer their enemies a sincere respect are barbarians, as the Romans might say, or terrorists, as we, today, might say.
For our part, we will say that we while we consider Bush v. Gore to be Justice O'Connor's greatest judicial failure - we thought, yesterday, of the day when we heard the news that she had been appointed. We were walking to the train station after work and saw the headlines - "Reagan names woman to Supreme Court." We knew, before we knew her name, that we didn't share her politics - after all she was a Reagan nominee. But we knew that her nomination marked an extraordinary milestone in American history - and we admired the strength of character it would take to undertake being such a "first." We knew we personally would be the beneficiaries of her success. So we felt a flash of pride, and a sense of hope, and a deep desire that she succeed in her job.
About Mr. Bork, all we ever felt was that he needed a better barber.
is the thank you card, expressing our most profound gratitude, which we feel we ought to send to the noble, and more importantly prescient, U.S. senators who defeated the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987.
We say this having heard Mr. Bork's discussion with CNN's Daren Kagen about Justice O'Connor, which Crooks & Liars so graciously posted yesterday. First, we note the utter lack of graciousness, indeed the unrelenting condescension and contempt, with which Mr. Bork treated Justice O'Connor. Graciousness need not be incompatible with truth, Gentle Reader, and it was entirely possible for Mr. Bork to have noted his significant jurisprudential differences with Justice O'Connor without contempt and with appreciation for the 20 some years of service she has offered the country and with admiration for her willingness to retire from a position of extraordinary power in order to care for her ailing husband.
We ourselves have often been frustrated by the rulings of Justice O'Connor, a Reagan conservative, but by anyone's standard, an able and hard working jurist, who both acquired and exercised her power with moderation (a great exception, of course, being Bush v. Gore). In this age of political volatility and extremism, the exercise of power with moderation is an activity deserving admiration from all who have a stake in our society.
Mr. Bork, it is clear, does not have a stake in our society - his goal is revolution (which surely is his right) and his cry is "original intent." And his withering refusal to concede that his jurisprudence of original intent is but one of many interpretive methods with which one might approach the Constitution in an analytically coherent way reveals a kind of secular fanaticism not unlike the "fundamentalism" of the red "Christians," who number heavily among his supporters. We note that, personally, we consider the jurisprudence of original intent to be as intellectually compelling as the pitch of a used car salesman ("trust me, honey, I know exactly what they meant") and we find its consequences to be utterly appalling.
Mr. Bork and his supporters, no doubt, will argue that they are at war and do not have time for the social niceties which Pudentilla demands. We accept their martial premise, but note that the only warriors who cannot offer their enemies a sincere respect are barbarians, as the Romans might say, or terrorists, as we, today, might say.
For our part, we will say that we while we consider Bush v. Gore to be Justice O'Connor's greatest judicial failure - we thought, yesterday, of the day when we heard the news that she had been appointed. We were walking to the train station after work and saw the headlines - "Reagan names woman to Supreme Court." We knew, before we knew her name, that we didn't share her politics - after all she was a Reagan nominee. But we knew that her nomination marked an extraordinary milestone in American history - and we admired the strength of character it would take to undertake being such a "first." We knew we personally would be the beneficiaries of her success. So we felt a flash of pride, and a sense of hope, and a deep desire that she succeed in her job.
About Mr. Bork, all we ever felt was that he needed a better barber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)