And not just because of their super duper hyper inflation adjusted cable television rates.
No. Adding insult to the injury of their monopoly rates, they've enlisted in the infidel's war on christmas by having their public service announcement say Happy Holidays.
They aren't saying Merry Christmas. Really, they have this whole commercial where the person is saying Happy Holidays and a bunch of other stuff, and never, at all, does the phrase, Merry Christmas come out.
Fortunately, I was able to turn into the super duper conservative christian Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) for the real deal. They have a commercial saying Merry Christmas to all the children in the world. Which bothers me. I'm not a children of the world. Don't I deserve a Merry Christmas?
Maybe TBN and the also very very super duper conservative Catholic Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), which occupy channels 81 and 69 of my Howard County Digital Cable Package, respectively, should consider their cable carrier's war on christmas policies before agreeing to allow them to show their programs.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Sunday Night QB
Redskins 17
Arizona 13
With the win, the Redskins remain mathematically alive for the playoffs, and oh, wasn't it yet another excruciating game. But in this town, I'll take a win however we get it. Brunell was awful early, three picks in the first half, then the team came out after half time and settled down, running on 10 out of 13 plays and eating up eight minutes of the clock in scoring a touchdown to tie the game, and then miraculously, getting a kick-off return for a touchdown, of all things, after the Cardinals had kicked a go-ahead field goal. I can't remember the last Redskin kick-off or punt return TD. Somebody on the tube said Ladell Betts had one, but not sure what year. The Redskins' offense made the Arizona defense look like the 85 Bears, it's true. But after being down 10-3, and playing as sloppily as they did in the first half, to still come out with a win is enough. The defense did a mostly good job putting pressure on Warner and containing their wide receivers. Sean Taylor had a first quarter intercept and a crucial stop on fourth and two late in the game in the Redskins end of the field.
Dallas is next.
Chiefs 28
Cowboys 31
Bledsoe leads a final go ahead touchdown drive in the final three minutes to put Dallas ahead with only 22 seconds left. But Green passed the Chiefs down to the Dallas 24 with two seconds to go. The field goal attempt sailed wide right, though, and the Cowboys averted the tie and overtime and held onto their one game lead over the Skins. Next week-and all this week-should be a scream as the Cowboys and Redskins prepare to clash. And if the Skins gut out a win, it would be their first sweep of Dallas in, what, 50 years?
Raiders 10
Jets 26
The Raiders, who the Redskins made out to be the John Elway Broncos a few weeks back, have slidden so far since that they benched their quarterback, but still managed to lose to the Brook Bollinger led Jets in NJ. At 4-9, Norv Turner is definitely gone.
Colts 26
Jags 18
Colts led early and often in this one, 26-3 in the fourth quarter, causing CBS to switch to the Browns-Bengals. This made sense and I was glad to see a more competitive game, except, right after the network switched games, the Jags climbed back in it, making the game more of a nail-biter than it first appeared. So the Colts are 13-0 and I'd love to see them go undefeated, but I think they'll lose in Seattle in week 15. Next week they have S.D.
Speaking of which,
Dolphins 23
S.D. 21
I can't figure out the Dolphins, don' t know whether to take them seriously or not. They play wel, and then awful. I bet Nick Saban can't figure them out either. But a bad home loss for S.D. and L.T. to what would have to be considered an inferior team.
Tampa 20
Carolina 10
The Bucs should thank the Redskins for giving them life a few weeks ago. I think if T.B. loses five weeks ago to the Skins, they probably continue their tail spin and end up out of the playoffs. Now, they probably win their division and pose a real threat for the conference championship.
Bears 9
Steelers 21
I thought this would be a good game but it wasn't. The Bus sure did ramble well again. One thing is, the Steelers definitely needed this game, the Bears didn't. I was listening to sports radio earlier in the week and they were prognosticating that if the Bears were down by a touchdown of more against the Steelers (and they were in this game), that we could expect to see Rex Grossman out there soon. But even though the Bears didn't get it going until the end, Grossman never made an appearance.
But you had to like that snowfall. Isn't that what winter football is supposed to be about?
Browns 20
Bengals 23
Much closer game than anyone expected, as the Bengals didn't get the winning points until the final seconds. Charlie Frye started for the Browns. Looks like he's their QB for the future and he's off to a pretty good start, despite the tough loss.
Patriots 35
Bills 7
Ouch. This looked ugly. And it'll probably get worse. Expect a big offseason this year, with the GM and coach probably on the way out.
Rams 13
Vikings 27
How about those Vikings and Brad Johnson. Six wins in a row, after a disasterous on and off field start of the season. Who'd a thought it?
Giants 26
Iggles 23
The Giants escaped from Philadelphia with an OT win. Guess the Eagles felt they needed to make up for that trouncing they got on Monday Night from the--
Seahawks 41
S.F. 3
The 49'ers stay in the Reggie Bush sweepstakes.
Houston 10
Titans 13
Texans had an early lead here, but then I guess they realized a win might cost them Reggie Bush.
Falcons and Saints tomorrow night. Can't imagine I'll have to stay up past midnight for that one. Oh well. Hurry up next week.
Arizona 13
With the win, the Redskins remain mathematically alive for the playoffs, and oh, wasn't it yet another excruciating game. But in this town, I'll take a win however we get it. Brunell was awful early, three picks in the first half, then the team came out after half time and settled down, running on 10 out of 13 plays and eating up eight minutes of the clock in scoring a touchdown to tie the game, and then miraculously, getting a kick-off return for a touchdown, of all things, after the Cardinals had kicked a go-ahead field goal. I can't remember the last Redskin kick-off or punt return TD. Somebody on the tube said Ladell Betts had one, but not sure what year. The Redskins' offense made the Arizona defense look like the 85 Bears, it's true. But after being down 10-3, and playing as sloppily as they did in the first half, to still come out with a win is enough. The defense did a mostly good job putting pressure on Warner and containing their wide receivers. Sean Taylor had a first quarter intercept and a crucial stop on fourth and two late in the game in the Redskins end of the field.
Dallas is next.
Chiefs 28
Cowboys 31
Bledsoe leads a final go ahead touchdown drive in the final three minutes to put Dallas ahead with only 22 seconds left. But Green passed the Chiefs down to the Dallas 24 with two seconds to go. The field goal attempt sailed wide right, though, and the Cowboys averted the tie and overtime and held onto their one game lead over the Skins. Next week-and all this week-should be a scream as the Cowboys and Redskins prepare to clash. And if the Skins gut out a win, it would be their first sweep of Dallas in, what, 50 years?
Raiders 10
Jets 26
The Raiders, who the Redskins made out to be the John Elway Broncos a few weeks back, have slidden so far since that they benched their quarterback, but still managed to lose to the Brook Bollinger led Jets in NJ. At 4-9, Norv Turner is definitely gone.
Colts 26
Jags 18
Colts led early and often in this one, 26-3 in the fourth quarter, causing CBS to switch to the Browns-Bengals. This made sense and I was glad to see a more competitive game, except, right after the network switched games, the Jags climbed back in it, making the game more of a nail-biter than it first appeared. So the Colts are 13-0 and I'd love to see them go undefeated, but I think they'll lose in Seattle in week 15. Next week they have S.D.
Speaking of which,
Dolphins 23
S.D. 21
I can't figure out the Dolphins, don' t know whether to take them seriously or not. They play wel, and then awful. I bet Nick Saban can't figure them out either. But a bad home loss for S.D. and L.T. to what would have to be considered an inferior team.
Tampa 20
Carolina 10
The Bucs should thank the Redskins for giving them life a few weeks ago. I think if T.B. loses five weeks ago to the Skins, they probably continue their tail spin and end up out of the playoffs. Now, they probably win their division and pose a real threat for the conference championship.
Bears 9
Steelers 21
I thought this would be a good game but it wasn't. The Bus sure did ramble well again. One thing is, the Steelers definitely needed this game, the Bears didn't. I was listening to sports radio earlier in the week and they were prognosticating that if the Bears were down by a touchdown of more against the Steelers (and they were in this game), that we could expect to see Rex Grossman out there soon. But even though the Bears didn't get it going until the end, Grossman never made an appearance.
But you had to like that snowfall. Isn't that what winter football is supposed to be about?
Browns 20
Bengals 23
Much closer game than anyone expected, as the Bengals didn't get the winning points until the final seconds. Charlie Frye started for the Browns. Looks like he's their QB for the future and he's off to a pretty good start, despite the tough loss.
Patriots 35
Bills 7
Ouch. This looked ugly. And it'll probably get worse. Expect a big offseason this year, with the GM and coach probably on the way out.
Rams 13
Vikings 27
How about those Vikings and Brad Johnson. Six wins in a row, after a disasterous on and off field start of the season. Who'd a thought it?
Giants 26
Iggles 23
The Giants escaped from Philadelphia with an OT win. Guess the Eagles felt they needed to make up for that trouncing they got on Monday Night from the--
Seahawks 41
S.F. 3
The 49'ers stay in the Reggie Bush sweepstakes.
Houston 10
Titans 13
Texans had an early lead here, but then I guess they realized a win might cost them Reggie Bush.
Falcons and Saints tomorrow night. Can't imagine I'll have to stay up past midnight for that one. Oh well. Hurry up next week.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Here's Brooksie
Running Out of Steam
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: December 8, 2005
Conservatives are in power but out of sorts. Fifty years after the founding of the modern right, conservatives hold just about every important government job, yet the conservative agenda has stalled. Federal spending has surged. Social Security reform is dead. And when voters are asked which party they trust on key issues, they decisively reject conservative ideas.
On the economy, Democrats are trusted more, 56 to 34. On education, it's Democrats 55 to 32. On taxes, Democrats 48 to 38. On health care, Democrats 54 to 29.
For members of a movement that is supposed to be winning the battle of ideas, conservatives are in a mess.
So what's gone wrong? First, most of the issues that propelled conservatives to power have been addressed. Modern American conservatism was formed by people who wanted to defeat the Soviet Union, reduce crime, reform welfare, cut taxes, deregulate the economy and reintroduce traditional social values. All those problems are less salient today.
Second, conservatism has been semi-absorbed into the Republican Party. When conservatism was in its most creative phase, there was a sharp distinction between conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives chased ideas, while Republicans were the corporate hacks who sold out. Now that conservative Republicans are in power, that distinction is obliterated.
There are a number of consequences. A lot of the energy that used to go into ideas is now devoted to defending Republican politicians. Many former conservative activists have become Republican lobbyists. (When conservatism was a movement of ideas, it attracted oddballs; now that it's a movement with power, it attracts sleazeballs.)
Most important, there is greater social pressure to conform to the party's needs. Even writers and wonks are supposed to stay on message. In the 1970's, supply-siders mounted an insurgency against the Republican House leadership and against some sitting G.O.P. senators. If any group tried that today, it would be crushed by the party establishment.
Third, conservative media success means intellectual flabbiness. Conservatives used to live in a media world created by people who thought differently than they did. Reading certain publications and watching the evening news was like intellectual calisthenics. Now conservatives can be just as insular as liberals, retreating to their own media sources to be told how right they are.
Fourth, conservatives have lost their governing philosophy. In 1994, the Republicans thought their purpose was to reduce the size of government. But when the government shutdown failed, they never developed a new set of guiding principles to clarify which things government should do and which things it shouldn't. George Bush came up with a philosophy of compassionate conservatism, but it remains fuzzy and incomplete.
Fifth, conservative Republicans have lost touch with their base. To win, Republicans depend on white rural and suburban working-class voters making $30,000 to $50,000 a year. Conservative Republicans offer almost no policies that directly benefit these people. Americans at that income level tend to be financially risk-averse. But the out-of-touch Republicans offered a Social Security plan that increased risk.
Sixth, conservatives have not effectively addressed the second-generation issues. Technological change has really changed the economy, introducing new stratifications. Inequality is rising. Wage stagnation is a problem. Social mobility is lagging, and globalization hurts hard-working people. Global warming is real (conservatives secretly know this). The health care system is ridiculous. Welfare reform is unfinished. Conservatives have not addressed these second-generation issues as effectively as their forebears addressed the first-generation ones.
The good news is that we are about to enter a political season with no obvious conservative standard bearer, leaving plenty of room for innovation. Also, the current conservative crisis has produced some new thinking. A few weeks ago, two young writers, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam (my former assistant), unveiled a fresh conservative agenda in a Weekly Standard essay called "The Party of Sam's Club." These writers, 26 and 25 years old, are closer to the future than the party leaders.
And the final bit of good news for the right is the left. No matter how serious the conservative crisis is, liberals remain surpassingly effective at making themselves unelectable.
----------
Give Brooks credit that he seems to recognize the fact that since they control the government and the media, conservatives have little cause for crying the blues, and that their agenda is stumbling largely on account of their own failures.
What I think Brooks fails to acknowledge is the inherant contradictions between the movement's libertarian and authoritarian wings, specifically between its "less government" and christian taliban sections.
And Brooks is probably too grandiose about the conservative movement's supposed accomplishments. Welfare is dead, yes, in the sense that AFDC was radically altered. But AFDC was never the big ticket item of the social welfare state. Those would be Social Security and Medicare. And this conservative government EXPANDED Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit. Yeah, this addition might have been more geared to the drug companies than to the recipients, but the point is it was a major addition, both financially and substantively, and the government is picking up the tab.
And as Thomas Franks pointed out in What's The Matter With Kansas?, the conservative movement's Cultural War has been a complete bust. Since the conservative movement's modern inception in about 1954-1955 the country's become more secular, individual freedom has been increased, and restrictive social mores have loosened. The country's better educated, more urban, and well, by definition, younger. And the television/movie/music industries have exploded since the 1950's, providing, ironically, ample competition to conservative "ideas". And now of course, we've had the whole information revolution thing, another development that has not boded well for conservative attempts to make the country conform to its worldview.
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: December 8, 2005
Conservatives are in power but out of sorts. Fifty years after the founding of the modern right, conservatives hold just about every important government job, yet the conservative agenda has stalled. Federal spending has surged. Social Security reform is dead. And when voters are asked which party they trust on key issues, they decisively reject conservative ideas.
On the economy, Democrats are trusted more, 56 to 34. On education, it's Democrats 55 to 32. On taxes, Democrats 48 to 38. On health care, Democrats 54 to 29.
For members of a movement that is supposed to be winning the battle of ideas, conservatives are in a mess.
So what's gone wrong? First, most of the issues that propelled conservatives to power have been addressed. Modern American conservatism was formed by people who wanted to defeat the Soviet Union, reduce crime, reform welfare, cut taxes, deregulate the economy and reintroduce traditional social values. All those problems are less salient today.
Second, conservatism has been semi-absorbed into the Republican Party. When conservatism was in its most creative phase, there was a sharp distinction between conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives chased ideas, while Republicans were the corporate hacks who sold out. Now that conservative Republicans are in power, that distinction is obliterated.
There are a number of consequences. A lot of the energy that used to go into ideas is now devoted to defending Republican politicians. Many former conservative activists have become Republican lobbyists. (When conservatism was a movement of ideas, it attracted oddballs; now that it's a movement with power, it attracts sleazeballs.)
Most important, there is greater social pressure to conform to the party's needs. Even writers and wonks are supposed to stay on message. In the 1970's, supply-siders mounted an insurgency against the Republican House leadership and against some sitting G.O.P. senators. If any group tried that today, it would be crushed by the party establishment.
Third, conservative media success means intellectual flabbiness. Conservatives used to live in a media world created by people who thought differently than they did. Reading certain publications and watching the evening news was like intellectual calisthenics. Now conservatives can be just as insular as liberals, retreating to their own media sources to be told how right they are.
Fourth, conservatives have lost their governing philosophy. In 1994, the Republicans thought their purpose was to reduce the size of government. But when the government shutdown failed, they never developed a new set of guiding principles to clarify which things government should do and which things it shouldn't. George Bush came up with a philosophy of compassionate conservatism, but it remains fuzzy and incomplete.
Fifth, conservative Republicans have lost touch with their base. To win, Republicans depend on white rural and suburban working-class voters making $30,000 to $50,000 a year. Conservative Republicans offer almost no policies that directly benefit these people. Americans at that income level tend to be financially risk-averse. But the out-of-touch Republicans offered a Social Security plan that increased risk.
Sixth, conservatives have not effectively addressed the second-generation issues. Technological change has really changed the economy, introducing new stratifications. Inequality is rising. Wage stagnation is a problem. Social mobility is lagging, and globalization hurts hard-working people. Global warming is real (conservatives secretly know this). The health care system is ridiculous. Welfare reform is unfinished. Conservatives have not addressed these second-generation issues as effectively as their forebears addressed the first-generation ones.
The good news is that we are about to enter a political season with no obvious conservative standard bearer, leaving plenty of room for innovation. Also, the current conservative crisis has produced some new thinking. A few weeks ago, two young writers, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam (my former assistant), unveiled a fresh conservative agenda in a Weekly Standard essay called "The Party of Sam's Club." These writers, 26 and 25 years old, are closer to the future than the party leaders.
And the final bit of good news for the right is the left. No matter how serious the conservative crisis is, liberals remain surpassingly effective at making themselves unelectable.
----------
Give Brooks credit that he seems to recognize the fact that since they control the government and the media, conservatives have little cause for crying the blues, and that their agenda is stumbling largely on account of their own failures.
What I think Brooks fails to acknowledge is the inherant contradictions between the movement's libertarian and authoritarian wings, specifically between its "less government" and christian taliban sections.
And Brooks is probably too grandiose about the conservative movement's supposed accomplishments. Welfare is dead, yes, in the sense that AFDC was radically altered. But AFDC was never the big ticket item of the social welfare state. Those would be Social Security and Medicare. And this conservative government EXPANDED Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit. Yeah, this addition might have been more geared to the drug companies than to the recipients, but the point is it was a major addition, both financially and substantively, and the government is picking up the tab.
And as Thomas Franks pointed out in What's The Matter With Kansas?, the conservative movement's Cultural War has been a complete bust. Since the conservative movement's modern inception in about 1954-1955 the country's become more secular, individual freedom has been increased, and restrictive social mores have loosened. The country's better educated, more urban, and well, by definition, younger. And the television/movie/music industries have exploded since the 1950's, providing, ironically, ample competition to conservative "ideas". And now of course, we've had the whole information revolution thing, another development that has not boded well for conservative attempts to make the country conform to its worldview.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Merry and Happy
Dear Mr. President,
Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy Festivus. I was sorry to read this morning that the holiday/christmas/hanukkah/festivus card you sent out this year has not been received joyously by one and all.
Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.
William A. Donohue, of the Catholic League, had this to say:
"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture..."
And then this:
At the Catholic League, Donohue had just announced a boycott of the Lands' End catalogue when he received his White House holiday card. True, he said, the Bushes included a verse from Psalm 28, but Psalms are in the Old Testament and do not mention Jesus' birth.
"They'd better address this, because they're no better than the retailers who have lost the will to say 'Merry Christmas,' " he said.
Donohue said that Wal-Mart, facing a threatened boycott, added a Christmas page to its Web site and fired a customer relations employee who wrote a letter linking Christmas to "Siberian shamanism." He was not mollified by a letter from Lands' End saying it "adopted the 'holiday' terminology as a way to comply with one of the basic freedoms granted to all Americans: freedom of religion."
"Ninety-six percent of Americans celebrate Christmas," Donohue said. "Spare me the diversity lecture."
Mr. Donohue's not a happy fellow. And he's not the only one.
"Bush claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one," said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. "I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it."
First, who the blog is Joseph Farah? WorldNutDaily? Anyway, at least Jerry Falwell was partially appeased by the Psalms quotation:
"There's a verse from Scripture in it. I don't mind that at all, as long as we don't try to pretend we're not a nation under God."
Hopefully he and Pat won't call upon God to thrash you like they want to do to those poor folks in Dover, PA.
But good grief. What's a president to do? I have a few suggestions.
1. You could try dividing your true Christian supporters, those like Mr. Donohue, from the rest of the rabble, particularly the ones that just send cash and are good enough to shup up the rest of the time, and send each group a different greeting card. Mr. Donohue, Mr. Wilmon, and Mr. Farah could get Merry Christmas cards (that is, if they've donated to your campaigns--if not, screw 'em). Big Money supporters could get the generic Happy Holidays.
2. You could create four separate greeting cards, one for Merry Christmas, one for Happy Holidays, one for Happy Hanukkah, and one for happy festivus, and send them out randomly. I'd be funny if Mr. Donohue got the Happy Hanukkah one.
3. You could make sure to cut anybody who complains off your greetings card list all-together. If Farah wants to throw your card in the trash, you shouldn't have to send him a card.
3a. You could have Vice drop by the homes of anyone who complains about your greetings cards and let them know that there are some delightful accommodations that can be prepared for them and their families by the CIA in other countries (and make sure Vice repeatedly states the fact that neither of you condones or encourages torture).
4. Maybe you could contract out the greeting card development to one of those outfits that produces all those Charlie Brown/Dilbert/Calvin and Hobbes/Boondocks cartoon strips. This way the cards would contain the cartoon characters, which everyone loves regardless of religion, and maybe the cartoon characters would be saying something about how great it is to have some time off and get lots of presents and how you and Laura and Jenna and NotJenna hope they just have a smashing time.
5. Just stop sending the greetings cards completely. Don't you have more important things to do?
Anyway, best wishes for this happy holiday/christmas/hanukkah/festivus season to you and yours.
Senator Jay B. Bulworth
P.S. The wife and I have not received our card yet. I'm sure this is a temporary oversight. But can you look into it?
Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy Festivus. I was sorry to read this morning that the holiday/christmas/hanukkah/festivus card you sent out this year has not been received joyously by one and all.
Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.
William A. Donohue, of the Catholic League, had this to say:
"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture..."
And then this:
At the Catholic League, Donohue had just announced a boycott of the Lands' End catalogue when he received his White House holiday card. True, he said, the Bushes included a verse from Psalm 28, but Psalms are in the Old Testament and do not mention Jesus' birth.
"They'd better address this, because they're no better than the retailers who have lost the will to say 'Merry Christmas,' " he said.
Donohue said that Wal-Mart, facing a threatened boycott, added a Christmas page to its Web site and fired a customer relations employee who wrote a letter linking Christmas to "Siberian shamanism." He was not mollified by a letter from Lands' End saying it "adopted the 'holiday' terminology as a way to comply with one of the basic freedoms granted to all Americans: freedom of religion."
"Ninety-six percent of Americans celebrate Christmas," Donohue said. "Spare me the diversity lecture."
Mr. Donohue's not a happy fellow. And he's not the only one.
"Bush claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one," said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. "I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it."
First, who the blog is Joseph Farah? WorldNutDaily? Anyway, at least Jerry Falwell was partially appeased by the Psalms quotation:
"There's a verse from Scripture in it. I don't mind that at all, as long as we don't try to pretend we're not a nation under God."
Hopefully he and Pat won't call upon God to thrash you like they want to do to those poor folks in Dover, PA.
But good grief. What's a president to do? I have a few suggestions.
1. You could try dividing your true Christian supporters, those like Mr. Donohue, from the rest of the rabble, particularly the ones that just send cash and are good enough to shup up the rest of the time, and send each group a different greeting card. Mr. Donohue, Mr. Wilmon, and Mr. Farah could get Merry Christmas cards (that is, if they've donated to your campaigns--if not, screw 'em). Big Money supporters could get the generic Happy Holidays.
2. You could create four separate greeting cards, one for Merry Christmas, one for Happy Holidays, one for Happy Hanukkah, and one for happy festivus, and send them out randomly. I'd be funny if Mr. Donohue got the Happy Hanukkah one.
3. You could make sure to cut anybody who complains off your greetings card list all-together. If Farah wants to throw your card in the trash, you shouldn't have to send him a card.
3a. You could have Vice drop by the homes of anyone who complains about your greetings cards and let them know that there are some delightful accommodations that can be prepared for them and their families by the CIA in other countries (and make sure Vice repeatedly states the fact that neither of you condones or encourages torture).
4. Maybe you could contract out the greeting card development to one of those outfits that produces all those Charlie Brown/Dilbert/Calvin and Hobbes/Boondocks cartoon strips. This way the cards would contain the cartoon characters, which everyone loves regardless of religion, and maybe the cartoon characters would be saying something about how great it is to have some time off and get lots of presents and how you and Laura and Jenna and NotJenna hope they just have a smashing time.
5. Just stop sending the greetings cards completely. Don't you have more important things to do?
Anyway, best wishes for this happy holiday/christmas/hanukkah/festivus season to you and yours.
Senator Jay B. Bulworth
P.S. The wife and I have not received our card yet. I'm sure this is a temporary oversight. But can you look into it?
Monday, December 05, 2005
Signs of Life
Redskins 24
Rams 9
If you were listening to ESPN's Countdown to Kickoff Sunday you would have heard Mark May predicting a Ram's win. And to be honest, after the debacle that was the last three weeks, I wasn't sure I disagreed with him. Most alarming was the thought of how the Skins would handle Stephen Jackson, a big, bruising back, the type of which the Skins have not adequately defended all year. And the Rams also have, what we in the spectator sports world know as "skill players" of offense--Torry Holt, QB's the Rams seemingly rotate in and out who routinely throw for 300+ yards, just as the rookie Ryan Fitzpatrick did against the Texans last week. But as Tony Kornheiser mentioned this morning, give a professional coaching staff a week of game film, and they can usually figure people out. Which the Skins did yesterday, and thanks again to the return of Cornelius Griffin, the Skins gutted out a win yesterday, behind 100+ yard rushing days by two running backs, Portis and Cartwright.
Having said all of this, the Rams have not been among the league's elite for a while, and the Redskins win shouldn't be overestimated. On top of that, as Doc Walker said on 980 this morning, next week is at Arizona, Arizona has what we in the spectator sports world know as "skill players" on offense, the Skins have had problems with Arizona in the past, and this is no time to look ahead. And the team is still only 6-6.
Bills 23
Dolphins 24
I went off to a movie yesterday (Aeon Flux) with the Bills up 21-3 and came back to find they lost. And Sage Rosenfels, who fans here will remember as a backup on Marty's Skins team, led the Fish back in the final seconds, throwing a TD pass to Chris "Time Has Come Today" Chambers.
Vikings 21
Lions 16
Break up the Vikings. Brad Johnson, another former Skins QB, leads Vikes to fifth straight win. Mike Tice, who looked like he might not last the year, may end up as coach of the year.
Broncos 27
Chiefs 31
A very good TV game yesterday. Broncos go for 4th and a long one with two minutes left from their own 46.5. The officials initially said they made it, but with 2:01 left on the clock, Vermeil was able to challenge it, and the spot on the field was overturned. I don't blame Shanahan for going for it in that situation, they just didn't get it done.
Bears 19
Pack 7
Bears are an unbelievable 9-3, and Farve through an unfathonable interception that was returend 95 yards at the end of the first half and converted to a field goal for Da Bears. The Bears are 9-3; the Seahawks, who play tonight in phila, are 9-2. The Redskins have beaten both this year. If the NFL had the BCS, maybe the Skins would be in the Fiesta Bowl.
Bengals 38
Steelers 31
The other very good TV game yesterday, and the Bengals finally break through by winning one of the "big ones". They'd lost earlier in the year, badly, to the Steelers in Cincy, and lost a shootout with the Colts.
Texans 15
Ravens 16
Because I live in the Balt-DC area, the other TV game was this monstrosity.
Dallas 10
Giants 17
I don't know why this game wasn't televised yesterday. The Fox networks played movies. This will happen if both the Ravens and Skins have 1 pm games, but the Skins played at 4 yesterday.
College Bowl Special
After blowing out the Buffaloes and the Bruins Saturday, the Texas Longhorns and the USC Trojans advance to the Title Game, which as 980 pointed out this morning, we have to now wait a month to see.
How mad do you think the Oregon Ducks are? At 10-1, they get shut out from the BCS bowl games (basically the four top tier games: Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, and Rose) and then they get shunted back to Dec 29's Holiday Bowl with 7-4 Oklahoma. Could be an ugly game for the Sooners if Oregon brings its peaved off game to play.
I'm one of those odd guys that likes the bowl games, but we could do without the corporate brand naming. This year we have the Meineke Car Care Bowl (So. FL vs. NC State); The GMAC Bowl (UTEP vs Toledo); the MPC Computers Bowl (Boise State vs. Boston College); the Capital One Bowl (Wisconsin vs Auburn) and the Champs Sports Bowl (Clemson vs. Colorado). We also have the Poinsetta Bowl, which I think is a new one, but if a new bowl name was needed, somebody could have come up with something better.
The Alamo Bowl features Michigan vs Nebraska, both 7-4. I'm glad to see Nebraska in a bowl game, but this game could be ugly, as I think Michigan is much better than its 7-4 record, and Nebraska is probably not as good as its 7-4. The Big Ten, in which Michigan plays, is a very strong conference, especially this year. The Big 12 can't say the same.
Rams 9
If you were listening to ESPN's Countdown to Kickoff Sunday you would have heard Mark May predicting a Ram's win. And to be honest, after the debacle that was the last three weeks, I wasn't sure I disagreed with him. Most alarming was the thought of how the Skins would handle Stephen Jackson, a big, bruising back, the type of which the Skins have not adequately defended all year. And the Rams also have, what we in the spectator sports world know as "skill players" of offense--Torry Holt, QB's the Rams seemingly rotate in and out who routinely throw for 300+ yards, just as the rookie Ryan Fitzpatrick did against the Texans last week. But as Tony Kornheiser mentioned this morning, give a professional coaching staff a week of game film, and they can usually figure people out. Which the Skins did yesterday, and thanks again to the return of Cornelius Griffin, the Skins gutted out a win yesterday, behind 100+ yard rushing days by two running backs, Portis and Cartwright.
Having said all of this, the Rams have not been among the league's elite for a while, and the Redskins win shouldn't be overestimated. On top of that, as Doc Walker said on 980 this morning, next week is at Arizona, Arizona has what we in the spectator sports world know as "skill players" on offense, the Skins have had problems with Arizona in the past, and this is no time to look ahead. And the team is still only 6-6.
Bills 23
Dolphins 24
I went off to a movie yesterday (Aeon Flux) with the Bills up 21-3 and came back to find they lost. And Sage Rosenfels, who fans here will remember as a backup on Marty's Skins team, led the Fish back in the final seconds, throwing a TD pass to Chris "Time Has Come Today" Chambers.
Vikings 21
Lions 16
Break up the Vikings. Brad Johnson, another former Skins QB, leads Vikes to fifth straight win. Mike Tice, who looked like he might not last the year, may end up as coach of the year.
Broncos 27
Chiefs 31
A very good TV game yesterday. Broncos go for 4th and a long one with two minutes left from their own 46.5. The officials initially said they made it, but with 2:01 left on the clock, Vermeil was able to challenge it, and the spot on the field was overturned. I don't blame Shanahan for going for it in that situation, they just didn't get it done.
Bears 19
Pack 7
Bears are an unbelievable 9-3, and Farve through an unfathonable interception that was returend 95 yards at the end of the first half and converted to a field goal for Da Bears. The Bears are 9-3; the Seahawks, who play tonight in phila, are 9-2. The Redskins have beaten both this year. If the NFL had the BCS, maybe the Skins would be in the Fiesta Bowl.
Bengals 38
Steelers 31
The other very good TV game yesterday, and the Bengals finally break through by winning one of the "big ones". They'd lost earlier in the year, badly, to the Steelers in Cincy, and lost a shootout with the Colts.
Texans 15
Ravens 16
Because I live in the Balt-DC area, the other TV game was this monstrosity.
Dallas 10
Giants 17
I don't know why this game wasn't televised yesterday. The Fox networks played movies. This will happen if both the Ravens and Skins have 1 pm games, but the Skins played at 4 yesterday.
College Bowl Special
After blowing out the Buffaloes and the Bruins Saturday, the Texas Longhorns and the USC Trojans advance to the Title Game, which as 980 pointed out this morning, we have to now wait a month to see.
How mad do you think the Oregon Ducks are? At 10-1, they get shut out from the BCS bowl games (basically the four top tier games: Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, and Rose) and then they get shunted back to Dec 29's Holiday Bowl with 7-4 Oklahoma. Could be an ugly game for the Sooners if Oregon brings its peaved off game to play.
I'm one of those odd guys that likes the bowl games, but we could do without the corporate brand naming. This year we have the Meineke Car Care Bowl (So. FL vs. NC State); The GMAC Bowl (UTEP vs Toledo); the MPC Computers Bowl (Boise State vs. Boston College); the Capital One Bowl (Wisconsin vs Auburn) and the Champs Sports Bowl (Clemson vs. Colorado). We also have the Poinsetta Bowl, which I think is a new one, but if a new bowl name was needed, somebody could have come up with something better.
The Alamo Bowl features Michigan vs Nebraska, both 7-4. I'm glad to see Nebraska in a bowl game, but this game could be ugly, as I think Michigan is much better than its 7-4 record, and Nebraska is probably not as good as its 7-4. The Big Ten, in which Michigan plays, is a very strong conference, especially this year. The Big 12 can't say the same.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Friday Krugman
Bullet Points Over Baghdad
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was supposed to provide the world with a demonstration of American power. It didn't work out that way. But the Bush administration has come up with the next best thing: a demonstration of American PowerPoint. Bullets haven't subdued the insurgents in Iraq, but the administration hopes that bullet points will subdue the critics at home.
The National Security Council document released this week under the grandiose title "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is neither an analytical report nor a policy statement. It's simply the same old talking points - "victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest"; "failure is not an option" - repackaged in the style of a slide presentation for a business meeting.
It's an embarrassing piece of work. Yet it's also an important test for the news media. The Bush administration has lost none of its confidence that it can get away with fuzzy math and fuzzy facts - that it won't be called to account for obvious efforts to mislead the public. It's up to journalists to prove that confidence wrong.
Here's an example of how the White House attempts to mislead: the new document assures us that Iraq's economy is doing really well. "Oil production increased from an average of 1.58 million barrels per day in 2003, to an average of 2.25 million barrels per day in 2004." The document goes on to concede a "slight decrease" in production since then.
We're not expected to realize that the daily average for 2003 includes the months just before, during and just after the invasion of Iraq, when its oil industry was basically shut down. As a result, we're not supposed to understand that the real story of Iraq's oil industry is one of unexpected failure: instead of achieving the surge predicted by some of the war's advocates, Iraqi production has rarely matched its prewar level, and has been on a downward trend for the past year.
What about the security situation? During much of 2004, the document tells us: "Fallujah, Najaf, and Samara were under enemy control. Today, these cities are under Iraqi government control."
Najaf was never controlled by the "enemy," if that means the people we're currently fighting. It was briefly controlled by Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. The United States once vowed to destroy that militia, but these days it's as strong as ever. And according to The New York Times, Mr. Sadr has now become a "kingmaker in Iraqi politics." So what sort of victory did we win, exactly, in Najaf?
Moreover, in what sense is Najaf now under government control? According to The Christian Science Monitor, "Sadr supporters and many Najaf residents say an armed Badr Brigade" - the militia of a Shiite group that opposes Mr. Sadr and his supporters - "still exists as the Najaf police force."
Meanwhile, this is the third time that coalition forces have driven the insurgents out of Samara. On the two previous occasions, the insurgents came back after the Americans left. And there, too, it's stretching things to say that the city is under Iraqi government control: according to The Associated Press, only 100 of the city's 700 policemen show up for work on most days.
There's a lot more like that in the document. Refuting some of the upbeat assertions about Iraq requires specialized knowledge, but many of them can be quickly debunked by anyone with an Internet connection.
The point isn't just that the administration is trying, yet again, to deceive the public. It's the fact that this attempt at deception shows such contempt - contempt for the public, and especially contempt for the news media. And why not? The truth is that the level of misrepresentation in this new document is no worse than that in a typical speech by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet for much of the past five years, many major news organizations failed to provide the public with effective fact-checking.
So Mr. Bush's new public relations offensive on Iraq is a test. Are the news media still too cowed, too addicted to articles that contain little more than dueling quotes to tell the public when the administration is saying things that aren't true? Or has the worm finally turned?
There have been encouraging signs, notably a thorough front-page fact-checking article - which even included charts showing the stagnation of oil production and electricity generation! - in USA Today. But the next few days will tell.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was supposed to provide the world with a demonstration of American power. It didn't work out that way. But the Bush administration has come up with the next best thing: a demonstration of American PowerPoint. Bullets haven't subdued the insurgents in Iraq, but the administration hopes that bullet points will subdue the critics at home.
The National Security Council document released this week under the grandiose title "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is neither an analytical report nor a policy statement. It's simply the same old talking points - "victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest"; "failure is not an option" - repackaged in the style of a slide presentation for a business meeting.
It's an embarrassing piece of work. Yet it's also an important test for the news media. The Bush administration has lost none of its confidence that it can get away with fuzzy math and fuzzy facts - that it won't be called to account for obvious efforts to mislead the public. It's up to journalists to prove that confidence wrong.
Here's an example of how the White House attempts to mislead: the new document assures us that Iraq's economy is doing really well. "Oil production increased from an average of 1.58 million barrels per day in 2003, to an average of 2.25 million barrels per day in 2004." The document goes on to concede a "slight decrease" in production since then.
We're not expected to realize that the daily average for 2003 includes the months just before, during and just after the invasion of Iraq, when its oil industry was basically shut down. As a result, we're not supposed to understand that the real story of Iraq's oil industry is one of unexpected failure: instead of achieving the surge predicted by some of the war's advocates, Iraqi production has rarely matched its prewar level, and has been on a downward trend for the past year.
What about the security situation? During much of 2004, the document tells us: "Fallujah, Najaf, and Samara were under enemy control. Today, these cities are under Iraqi government control."
Najaf was never controlled by the "enemy," if that means the people we're currently fighting. It was briefly controlled by Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. The United States once vowed to destroy that militia, but these days it's as strong as ever. And according to The New York Times, Mr. Sadr has now become a "kingmaker in Iraqi politics." So what sort of victory did we win, exactly, in Najaf?
Moreover, in what sense is Najaf now under government control? According to The Christian Science Monitor, "Sadr supporters and many Najaf residents say an armed Badr Brigade" - the militia of a Shiite group that opposes Mr. Sadr and his supporters - "still exists as the Najaf police force."
Meanwhile, this is the third time that coalition forces have driven the insurgents out of Samara. On the two previous occasions, the insurgents came back after the Americans left. And there, too, it's stretching things to say that the city is under Iraqi government control: according to The Associated Press, only 100 of the city's 700 policemen show up for work on most days.
There's a lot more like that in the document. Refuting some of the upbeat assertions about Iraq requires specialized knowledge, but many of them can be quickly debunked by anyone with an Internet connection.
The point isn't just that the administration is trying, yet again, to deceive the public. It's the fact that this attempt at deception shows such contempt - contempt for the public, and especially contempt for the news media. And why not? The truth is that the level of misrepresentation in this new document is no worse than that in a typical speech by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet for much of the past five years, many major news organizations failed to provide the public with effective fact-checking.
So Mr. Bush's new public relations offensive on Iraq is a test. Are the news media still too cowed, too addicted to articles that contain little more than dueling quotes to tell the public when the administration is saying things that aren't true? Or has the worm finally turned?
There have been encouraging signs, notably a thorough front-page fact-checking article - which even included charts showing the stagnation of oil production and electricity generation! - in USA Today. But the next few days will tell.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Remembering Oscar Romero
The first of two Pope John Paul II movies aired last night, the next will air soon.
Amid what will continue to be the popularization of the recently deceased pope, I'll invite you to remember and reverance another name, a Roman Catholic who was much more of a hero than JPII.
His name was Oscar Romero. You can read more about him here.
The short version is, Romero labored as Archbishop in El Salvador during the John Negroponte days of death squads, disappearings, and military juntas. He was first thought of as a conservative, meaning he would obediently support the established order. But after observing the human rights violations of the U.S.-backed El Salvadorian regime, he began to take more of an assertive role in challenging the abuses and inequities of the Latin American country's government. He was gunned down for his troubles in 1980--IN A CHURCH, WHILE PERFORMING MASS no less--by militants affiliated with the dictatorial government.
His story is moving not only for the troubling intersection of human rights abuses and U.S. support for a corrupt, murderous regime, but also because the then new Pope, John Paul II, "scolded" Romero for allegedly advocating "liberation theology", conservative theology-speak for helping the poor and challenging inequitable corporatist government policies, particularly those involving land distribution.
So, when the poor Catholics of Latin America most needed him, the former Pope criticized their bishop and passively or directly, aligned himself with the most abusive of the region's regimes.
Fortunately, Romero's assassination helped draw attention to the abuses going on in El Salvador, served to highlight the U.S. role in that country, and Romero has been treated more favorably after his death by the Catholic hierarchy that spurned him while he was alive. But as we're invited to consider the life of JPII, remember instead, Oscar Romero, and how the Pope treated him and his people, and who the Pope aligned himself with. While JPII's backing of Solidarity in Poland is admirable, turning his back on Latin America was inexcusable.
Amid what will continue to be the popularization of the recently deceased pope, I'll invite you to remember and reverance another name, a Roman Catholic who was much more of a hero than JPII.
His name was Oscar Romero. You can read more about him here.
The short version is, Romero labored as Archbishop in El Salvador during the John Negroponte days of death squads, disappearings, and military juntas. He was first thought of as a conservative, meaning he would obediently support the established order. But after observing the human rights violations of the U.S.-backed El Salvadorian regime, he began to take more of an assertive role in challenging the abuses and inequities of the Latin American country's government. He was gunned down for his troubles in 1980--IN A CHURCH, WHILE PERFORMING MASS no less--by militants affiliated with the dictatorial government.
His story is moving not only for the troubling intersection of human rights abuses and U.S. support for a corrupt, murderous regime, but also because the then new Pope, John Paul II, "scolded" Romero for allegedly advocating "liberation theology", conservative theology-speak for helping the poor and challenging inequitable corporatist government policies, particularly those involving land distribution.
So, when the poor Catholics of Latin America most needed him, the former Pope criticized their bishop and passively or directly, aligned himself with the most abusive of the region's regimes.
Fortunately, Romero's assassination helped draw attention to the abuses going on in El Salvador, served to highlight the U.S. role in that country, and Romero has been treated more favorably after his death by the Catholic hierarchy that spurned him while he was alive. But as we're invited to consider the life of JPII, remember instead, Oscar Romero, and how the Pope treated him and his people, and who the Pope aligned himself with. While JPII's backing of Solidarity in Poland is admirable, turning his back on Latin America was inexcusable.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Yeah, OK, Whatever
Meet the new "strategery". Just like the old "strategery".
Thanks to Atrios for the link and the Washington Note for the doc.
Thanks to Atrios for the link and the Washington Note for the doc.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Blame Fox
With the president's tanking poll numbers, and the indictments, plea bargains and resignations of white house officials and congressperson's of the Republican variety spoiling the conservative's parade, the wing-nuts are left with only the public's falling support for the Iraq war and the need to blame the MSM for the public's change of mood to harp on. Ezra Klein and James Wolcott have picked up some of these whinings, but the question I have is, how can the MSM be at fault for the public's increasingly negative view of the war when, as conservatives have been so fondly telling us for the past several years, Roger Ailes' Fox "News" is kicking CNN's and MSNBC's asses in the ratings? And the NYTimes? C'mon. Only political geeks like me get or read the NYT.
You mean to tell me that with all the water-carrying the Fox "News" crews have been doing for the Bush Administration, that someone else is still responsible for the hostility of public opinion and the legal shenanigans Republicans have been finding themselves in? How can CNN and MSNBC (and the NYT) be duping the public and hurting our troops' "morale" if ain't nobody watching them stations or reading print anymore?
So I blame Fox "News". By so shamelessly parroting the administration's rhetoric, policies and attacks on its opposition, the most watched cable TV "news" network has been hurting our troops and hurting America. They've enabled the nation's enemies in Iraq to mount an insurgency against our very rightful rule of that country. They've aided and abetted the evil-doers in Iraq who want our troops to go back where then came from. So next time, when you hear tales of flagging troop morale, the triumph of those pinko liberal anti-American hippies in making over half the country not trust our president, and another Republican party official indicted, do what I do, blame Fox "News". You'll feel better. I promise.
You mean to tell me that with all the water-carrying the Fox "News" crews have been doing for the Bush Administration, that someone else is still responsible for the hostility of public opinion and the legal shenanigans Republicans have been finding themselves in? How can CNN and MSNBC (and the NYT) be duping the public and hurting our troops' "morale" if ain't nobody watching them stations or reading print anymore?
So I blame Fox "News". By so shamelessly parroting the administration's rhetoric, policies and attacks on its opposition, the most watched cable TV "news" network has been hurting our troops and hurting America. They've enabled the nation's enemies in Iraq to mount an insurgency against our very rightful rule of that country. They've aided and abetted the evil-doers in Iraq who want our troops to go back where then came from. So next time, when you hear tales of flagging troop morale, the triumph of those pinko liberal anti-American hippies in making over half the country not trust our president, and another Republican party official indicted, do what I do, blame Fox "News". You'll feel better. I promise.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Another One Bites The Dust
Duke was the most obnoxious member of a very obnoxious party, which should tell you something. And he had his hand in the cookie jar, too. What about that.
Good riddance.
5-128, 4-59
Chargers 23
Skins 17
A little math. Add 5-128 to 4-59 and you get 23-17. How? The Chargers received 5 Redskin kickoffs and returned them for 128 friggin yards. The Skins received 4 Chargers kickoffs and returned then a stinking 59 yards. When you stink up the joint on special teams, like the Skins did yesterday, this is what happens. When you allow the other team 128 yards on kickoff returns, especially a good offensive team like the Chargers, they're going to score. And when you only get 59 yards on kickoff returns you're going to forced to make long drives, which for a feeble offensive team like the Skins, means you're going to have trouble scoring. And when you add the 3 yards of punt returns the Skins got yesterday, you get two long LT TD runs and a
23-17 overtime loss.
Rams 33
Texans 27
Somebody named Ryan Fitzpatrick threw for 310 yards and 3 TD's for the Rams. The Texans are 1-10. And the Rams are next for the Redskins.
Da Bears 13
Tampa 10
Da Bears are 8-3!! And they have a rookie QB. How did this happen?
Brownies 12
Vikings 24
Brad Johnson has helped Minnesota come back from the dead.
Broncos 27
Cowboys 21
I know they lost, but can you imagine what the Cowboys and Bill Parcells would be doing this year without Drew Bledsoe? Over the last couple of years, here have been the Cowboys QB's--41 year old Vinnie, Drew Henson, Chad Hutchinson, Tony Romo, and Quincy Carter. Cowboy fans, say your lucky prayers. Nice comeback for Ron Dayne with the big run in OT.
Atlanta 27
Lions 7
How much of this game was played on the Detroit side of the field? What's happened in Motown? Do the Redskins play there when they aren't at FedEx? They have all those wideouts and can't get them the ball. Bad O-line, QB's can't get the thing down the field. Rumors Mooch was going to get sacked on Friday, which doesn't make any sense at this time of the year and given Dick Jauron is waiting in the wings.
Saints 21
Jets 19
More interesting game than the teams' records would have predicted. Brooks Bollinger is coming along, and I wonder if the Jets can start thinking about whether he can be a serious alternative at QB if Chad Pennington can't come back.
Pats 16
KC 26
Glad to see the Pats getting their comeuppance. Even if injuries have been largely responsible. But they're still likely to win their division and thus get a playoff bye, so don't count them out yet. Seriously.
College special
Nebraska 30
Colorado 3
A Huskers fan from NJ (don't ask) I was getting ready to launch firebillcallahan.com but then they go into Boulder and totally blow up the Buffs, who because Iowa State lost Saturday in Lawrence, will still be going to the Big 12 title game next week against Texas (yeah, good luck). That Zack Taylor is some QB. Is he a senior?
Skins 17
A little math. Add 5-128 to 4-59 and you get 23-17. How? The Chargers received 5 Redskin kickoffs and returned them for 128 friggin yards. The Skins received 4 Chargers kickoffs and returned then a stinking 59 yards. When you stink up the joint on special teams, like the Skins did yesterday, this is what happens. When you allow the other team 128 yards on kickoff returns, especially a good offensive team like the Chargers, they're going to score. And when you only get 59 yards on kickoff returns you're going to forced to make long drives, which for a feeble offensive team like the Skins, means you're going to have trouble scoring. And when you add the 3 yards of punt returns the Skins got yesterday, you get two long LT TD runs and a
23-17 overtime loss.
Rams 33
Texans 27
Somebody named Ryan Fitzpatrick threw for 310 yards and 3 TD's for the Rams. The Texans are 1-10. And the Rams are next for the Redskins.
Da Bears 13
Tampa 10
Da Bears are 8-3!! And they have a rookie QB. How did this happen?
Brownies 12
Vikings 24
Brad Johnson has helped Minnesota come back from the dead.
Broncos 27
Cowboys 21
I know they lost, but can you imagine what the Cowboys and Bill Parcells would be doing this year without Drew Bledsoe? Over the last couple of years, here have been the Cowboys QB's--41 year old Vinnie, Drew Henson, Chad Hutchinson, Tony Romo, and Quincy Carter. Cowboy fans, say your lucky prayers. Nice comeback for Ron Dayne with the big run in OT.
Atlanta 27
Lions 7
How much of this game was played on the Detroit side of the field? What's happened in Motown? Do the Redskins play there when they aren't at FedEx? They have all those wideouts and can't get them the ball. Bad O-line, QB's can't get the thing down the field. Rumors Mooch was going to get sacked on Friday, which doesn't make any sense at this time of the year and given Dick Jauron is waiting in the wings.
Saints 21
Jets 19
More interesting game than the teams' records would have predicted. Brooks Bollinger is coming along, and I wonder if the Jets can start thinking about whether he can be a serious alternative at QB if Chad Pennington can't come back.
Pats 16
KC 26
Glad to see the Pats getting their comeuppance. Even if injuries have been largely responsible. But they're still likely to win their division and thus get a playoff bye, so don't count them out yet. Seriously.
College special
Nebraska 30
Colorado 3
A Huskers fan from NJ (don't ask) I was getting ready to launch firebillcallahan.com but then they go into Boulder and totally blow up the Buffs, who because Iowa State lost Saturday in Lawrence, will still be going to the Big 12 title game next week against Texas (yeah, good luck). That Zack Taylor is some QB. Is he a senior?
Walk The Line
I went to this movie yesterday. I was experiencing movie-popcorn-hot-dog-withdrawal symptoms, didn't particularly care to watch the Skins game (more about this below), and didn't know what else to plop my seven dollars down for. I didn't know much about Cash, although I did like a couple of songs of his that had been featured in One Night at McCool's (Wanted Man) and Dawn of the Dead (When The Man Comes Around). I have one of his most recent albums,w which has some other good songs on it. So I thought, why not. But I wasn't expecting much.
But it was great. Really great. It was a little longer than I expected. But thoroughly entertaining. And the soundtrack just kills. Joaquin Phoenix can really belt out the Johnny Cash tunes. Unfortunately, the CD doesn't have the live recordings in the movie. Nonetheless, a really great movie and story. Afterwards I went to two stores looking for the CD, and I picked up two other Johnny Cash albums. I imagine the movie will have a similar effect on other movie-goers, so the Johnny Cash albums are probably going to be flying out of the stores for awhile.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The Best and Worst to be Thankful for (or not)
Amanda and a few others have been kicking this around the blogosphere, so why not?
Most disappointing movies (not sure I can really say "hated" since most movies I see are ones I have applied at least some selective quality towards, being sure to avoid the ones I'm absolutely sure I wouldn't make it through or would hate myself for doing so afterward):
1) Cold Mountain - a very picturesque movie, but just didn't have any jazz. The characters weren't interesting. The story ends sadly.
2) Constantine - a mess, unrealistic effects, a movie that couldn't quite make up its mind whether to be serious or not.
3) The Constant Gardner - a great cast, but didn't live up to expectations. Rachel Weisz's character dies in it.
4) Donnie Darko - ??
5) Leaving Las Vegas - Terribly depressing
6) My Best Friend's Wedding - The beginning of my I Don't Like Julia Roberts stage; just an annoying plot line and disturbing character interaction
7) 15 Minutes - another movie not sure whether it wanted to be serious or not. It wasn't.
8) 3000 Miles to Graceland - couldn't get past the first few minutes.
9) The Clearing - the ending just drops off to nowhere.
Under-rated or over-looked movies:
1. The Brady Bunch Movie - a most humerous takeoff of the old sitcom.
2. Cop Land - Stallone, DeNiro. Bad cop--no donut.
3. Summer School - Mark Harmon, a young Courtney Thorne Smith, in humorous story of slacker gym teacher turned english summer tutor and his equally unambitious students
4. Weekend at Bernies (surprised to see this on the bottom ranked 80's movies)
5. Darkness - suspenseful. And it has Anna Paquin in it.
6. The Village - but like most of his movies, can really only watch it once.
7. Death to Smoochie - Robin Williams and Edward Norton in dark comedy about two children's performers
8. Cheaters - Jena Malone, Jeff Daniels, story of high school honor class that cheats to win state-wide academic competition (based on true story).
9. Trapped - Charlieze Theron, Kevin Bacon; couple has child kidnapped, but they turn the tables on the kidnappers.
10. In the Cut - interesting and erotic movie with Meg Ryan playing against type.
Most disappointing movies (not sure I can really say "hated" since most movies I see are ones I have applied at least some selective quality towards, being sure to avoid the ones I'm absolutely sure I wouldn't make it through or would hate myself for doing so afterward):
1) Cold Mountain - a very picturesque movie, but just didn't have any jazz. The characters weren't interesting. The story ends sadly.
2) Constantine - a mess, unrealistic effects, a movie that couldn't quite make up its mind whether to be serious or not.
3) The Constant Gardner - a great cast, but didn't live up to expectations. Rachel Weisz's character dies in it.
4) Donnie Darko - ??
5) Leaving Las Vegas - Terribly depressing
6) My Best Friend's Wedding - The beginning of my I Don't Like Julia Roberts stage; just an annoying plot line and disturbing character interaction
7) 15 Minutes - another movie not sure whether it wanted to be serious or not. It wasn't.
8) 3000 Miles to Graceland - couldn't get past the first few minutes.
9) The Clearing - the ending just drops off to nowhere.
Under-rated or over-looked movies:
1. The Brady Bunch Movie - a most humerous takeoff of the old sitcom.
2. Cop Land - Stallone, DeNiro. Bad cop--no donut.
3. Summer School - Mark Harmon, a young Courtney Thorne Smith, in humorous story of slacker gym teacher turned english summer tutor and his equally unambitious students
4. Weekend at Bernies (surprised to see this on the bottom ranked 80's movies)
5. Darkness - suspenseful. And it has Anna Paquin in it.
6. The Village - but like most of his movies, can really only watch it once.
7. Death to Smoochie - Robin Williams and Edward Norton in dark comedy about two children's performers
8. Cheaters - Jena Malone, Jeff Daniels, story of high school honor class that cheats to win state-wide academic competition (based on true story).
9. Trapped - Charlieze Theron, Kevin Bacon; couple has child kidnapped, but they turn the tables on the kidnappers.
10. In the Cut - interesting and erotic movie with Meg Ryan playing against type.
Used Books
I'm still waiting for my used copy of The Satanic Verses to come in the mail from the Amazon-affiliated book-dealer. Seems like I ordered it weeks ago. That's the thing with getting stuff through the mail. Like with Amazon, your order could come the next day, or you might wait three weeks. And I couldn't find a copy at my neighborhood Borders. Figures. I'll only have time to skim it by the time of my bookclub meeting. And it's a complex book, I hear, to say the least. There's a primer for it that was sent to me by one of my bookclub mates.
Meanwhile, I've picked up reading James O' Donnell's Augustine again. As at least one of it's reviewers noted, this Augustine is not an easy read, at least in terms of how the book is organized. The prose is fine, but if you're looking for a nice chronological story-telling, and an outline of all the characters and issues, this book isn't it. Probably better to read the Peter Brown version. Nonetheless, there are things to like in O'Donnell's version.
Like a lot of recent church scholarship, O'Donnell reveals a more nuanced Augustine and a more complex church portrait than what church apologists have painted. O'Donnell's Augustine maintains the career climbing, publicity seeking that marked his younger, uncoverted days. Only in his ecclesiastical career, his ambition takes the form of church authority and that era's form of self-promotion--letter writing, between the Bishop and the notables of the day, preferably the political and influential, rather than his fellow clergy.
Of the theological and political divide between Augustine's Caecilianists and the opposition Donatists, the latter of whom Augustine was himself once affiliated, and which before Augustine's time was the dominant sect, O' Donnell doesn't draw a nice, neat distinction for the reader, most likely because the distinctions are not easy to grasp for us moderns.
In fact, the strength of O'Donnell's tale is it's illumination of a less unified, theologically sorted out Christian religion than that proposed by both the orthodox Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants today. But for each, Augustine's more global, authoritarian views had a great deal in shaping their tradition's world views.
Meanwhile, I've picked up reading James O' Donnell's Augustine again. As at least one of it's reviewers noted, this Augustine is not an easy read, at least in terms of how the book is organized. The prose is fine, but if you're looking for a nice chronological story-telling, and an outline of all the characters and issues, this book isn't it. Probably better to read the Peter Brown version. Nonetheless, there are things to like in O'Donnell's version.
Like a lot of recent church scholarship, O'Donnell reveals a more nuanced Augustine and a more complex church portrait than what church apologists have painted. O'Donnell's Augustine maintains the career climbing, publicity seeking that marked his younger, uncoverted days. Only in his ecclesiastical career, his ambition takes the form of church authority and that era's form of self-promotion--letter writing, between the Bishop and the notables of the day, preferably the political and influential, rather than his fellow clergy.
Of the theological and political divide between Augustine's Caecilianists and the opposition Donatists, the latter of whom Augustine was himself once affiliated, and which before Augustine's time was the dominant sect, O' Donnell doesn't draw a nice, neat distinction for the reader, most likely because the distinctions are not easy to grasp for us moderns.
In fact, the strength of O'Donnell's tale is it's illumination of a less unified, theologically sorted out Christian religion than that proposed by both the orthodox Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants today. But for each, Augustine's more global, authoritarian views had a great deal in shaping their tradition's world views.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Dude, Where's My Ideology?
I've been trying to be pragmatic about the 2008 Dem field for president. Just win, baby.
But I can't help feeling concerned when I read stuff like this in yesterday's Wash Post Style article on Mark Warner:
"It behooves Democrats, he says, to reframe the debate liberal vs. conservative to 'future vs. past.' "
We've heard this before:
"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence."
Of course, after Iraq and Katrina, I'd welcome some good old fashioned competence for a change. And I think we can reasonably conclude that there's a connection between an anti-government ideology and the actual performance of government. And maybe Warner's right: reframing the debate from "liberal" to "future" is a good way to avoid a negative label while simultaneously recasting the conservative's backward agenda in a way that would make Democrats seem appealing by comparison.
But I hope this doesn't turn into a wholesale refutation of ideology, particularly among the progressive grassroots. Starting at least with the Dukakis campaign, Democrats began a withdrawal of their own from the ideological field of combat with Republicans and not surprisingly, we've been getting our hats handed to us ever since, defensive about our beliefs, and unable to shape the public debate and policymaking process.
Ezra Klein's concerned too:
For my part, I have an article on the Brown/Hackett race (and what it says about the netroots) in the most recent American Prospect. My argument is, basically, that the netroots need to start thinking about who they are ideologically rather than simply flocking to who they prefer pugilistically.
While Democrats should be optimistic about their prospects in 2006 and 2008, it may be tempting to do and say whatever we think it takes to win, without regard for laying out a cohesive narrative about what Democrats value (and the risks inherent in defining ourselves). But since the Republicans will define us anyway, better to do on our own terms.
But I can't help feeling concerned when I read stuff like this in yesterday's Wash Post Style article on Mark Warner:
"It behooves Democrats, he says, to reframe the debate liberal vs. conservative to 'future vs. past.' "
We've heard this before:
"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence."
Of course, after Iraq and Katrina, I'd welcome some good old fashioned competence for a change. And I think we can reasonably conclude that there's a connection between an anti-government ideology and the actual performance of government. And maybe Warner's right: reframing the debate from "liberal" to "future" is a good way to avoid a negative label while simultaneously recasting the conservative's backward agenda in a way that would make Democrats seem appealing by comparison.
But I hope this doesn't turn into a wholesale refutation of ideology, particularly among the progressive grassroots. Starting at least with the Dukakis campaign, Democrats began a withdrawal of their own from the ideological field of combat with Republicans and not surprisingly, we've been getting our hats handed to us ever since, defensive about our beliefs, and unable to shape the public debate and policymaking process.
Ezra Klein's concerned too:
For my part, I have an article on the Brown/Hackett race (and what it says about the netroots) in the most recent American Prospect. My argument is, basically, that the netroots need to start thinking about who they are ideologically rather than simply flocking to who they prefer pugilistically.
While Democrats should be optimistic about their prospects in 2006 and 2008, it may be tempting to do and say whatever we think it takes to win, without regard for laying out a cohesive narrative about what Democrats value (and the risks inherent in defining ourselves). But since the Republicans will define us anyway, better to do on our own terms.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Monday Morning QB
Norv Turner 16
The Danny 13
Everytime Kerry Collins dropped back to pass--and the nearest Washington defensive lineman appeared to be in Fairfax County--I cringed, imagining Randy Moss catching a bomb and scoring. Well, it turned out that Jerry Porter caught the bombs away pass that started the Raiders turn around yesterday. This game exposed just about everything that's been wrong with the Skins this year. Aside from the blitz, a non-existent pass rush, an inconsistent offense, turnovers, and poor pass protection. This was a crucial game for Washington. I've said previously that I thought Washington had a favorable remaining schedule, but not now. They needed to win--at home--yesterday and didn't get it done. Their season's over.
Seahawks 27
49'ers 25
Can someone explain to me why this game was listed as one of the TV games in the Balt-Wash DC area yesterday? Fortunately we got Indy-Cincy on the other station, but c'mon. And how was it that with Ken Dorsey at QB, the Seahawks didn't cover the spread?
Steelers 13
Ravens 16
Pittsburgh didn't have the one guy on their team that can pass-Rothlesburger--on the field yesterday, so you think they'd run the ball all afternoon. But everytime I tuned into this game when Pitt had the ball, I saw XFLer Tommy Maddux trying to pass. Strange game. Were Duce and the Bus hurt? Good game for the Colts as Pitt drops three games behind them for home field. Denver is two back.
Speaking of which,
Jets 0
Broncos 27
Ouch. Herm Edwards is too good a coach to have this kind of season. But their QB position is desperate. Wonder who they'll have next year? At 2-8, they may still be in the Matt Leinert sweepstakes.
Bills 3
Chargers 40
And SD is coming into town next week. Will Marty be the second ex-Skins coach to beat his former team? Skins go for two in a row next week.
Tampa 30
Falcons 27
Falcons have lost two straight and have fallen out of first in the NFC South. Tampa and Carolina on top. Guess the Bucs got healthy against the Redskins last week. Raiders will probably go on to win six straight.
Colts 45
Bengals 37
Very tedious end to this game, with Cincy trying to line up for an onsides kick at the end. The officials spent a basketball game final minute trying to sort things out. And, oh yeah, Colts 10-0.
Dolphins 0
Browns 22
What happened here?
The Danny 13
Everytime Kerry Collins dropped back to pass--and the nearest Washington defensive lineman appeared to be in Fairfax County--I cringed, imagining Randy Moss catching a bomb and scoring. Well, it turned out that Jerry Porter caught the bombs away pass that started the Raiders turn around yesterday. This game exposed just about everything that's been wrong with the Skins this year. Aside from the blitz, a non-existent pass rush, an inconsistent offense, turnovers, and poor pass protection. This was a crucial game for Washington. I've said previously that I thought Washington had a favorable remaining schedule, but not now. They needed to win--at home--yesterday and didn't get it done. Their season's over.
Seahawks 27
49'ers 25
Can someone explain to me why this game was listed as one of the TV games in the Balt-Wash DC area yesterday? Fortunately we got Indy-Cincy on the other station, but c'mon. And how was it that with Ken Dorsey at QB, the Seahawks didn't cover the spread?
Steelers 13
Ravens 16
Pittsburgh didn't have the one guy on their team that can pass-Rothlesburger--on the field yesterday, so you think they'd run the ball all afternoon. But everytime I tuned into this game when Pitt had the ball, I saw XFLer Tommy Maddux trying to pass. Strange game. Were Duce and the Bus hurt? Good game for the Colts as Pitt drops three games behind them for home field. Denver is two back.
Speaking of which,
Jets 0
Broncos 27
Ouch. Herm Edwards is too good a coach to have this kind of season. But their QB position is desperate. Wonder who they'll have next year? At 2-8, they may still be in the Matt Leinert sweepstakes.
Bills 3
Chargers 40
And SD is coming into town next week. Will Marty be the second ex-Skins coach to beat his former team? Skins go for two in a row next week.
Tampa 30
Falcons 27
Falcons have lost two straight and have fallen out of first in the NFC South. Tampa and Carolina on top. Guess the Bucs got healthy against the Redskins last week. Raiders will probably go on to win six straight.
Colts 45
Bengals 37
Very tedious end to this game, with Cincy trying to line up for an onsides kick at the end. The officials spent a basketball game final minute trying to sort things out. And, oh yeah, Colts 10-0.
Dolphins 0
Browns 22
What happened here?
Sunday, November 20, 2005
NYT Special Edition
Here's Frank Rich:
One hideous consequence of the White House's Big Lie - fusing the war of choice in Iraq with the war of necessity that began on 9/11 - is that the public, having rejected one, automatically rejects the other. That's already happening. The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll. Thus the tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat.
But if anything, Brooks is even more interesting:
For while the American presence is a catalyst for violence in Iraq, it is not the main catalyst. The main source of violence in Iraq is the sectarian war between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
And, um, gee, why would that be?
In the vacuum of security caused by the botched American occupation, these ethnic tensions have turned into a low-grade civil war.
And, um, maybe the invasion has had something to do with the civil war breaking out, too.
And what about the administration coming clean on what it knows about Iraq, rather than pummeling us with "stay the course" propaganda?
There's one area, though, where I completely sympathize with Jack Murtha. I sympathize with his frustration. On Feb. 23, 1942, Franklin Roosevelt asked Americans to spread out maps before them and he described, step by step, what was going on in World War II, where the U.S. was winning and where it was losing. Why can't today's president do that? Why can't he show that he is aware that his biggest problem is not in Iraq, it's on the home front?
Since the president doesn't give out credible information, it's no wonder Republicans are measuring success by how quickly we can get out;
One hideous consequence of the White House's Big Lie - fusing the war of choice in Iraq with the war of necessity that began on 9/11 - is that the public, having rejected one, automatically rejects the other. That's already happening. The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll. Thus the tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat.
But if anything, Brooks is even more interesting:
For while the American presence is a catalyst for violence in Iraq, it is not the main catalyst. The main source of violence in Iraq is the sectarian war between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
And, um, gee, why would that be?
In the vacuum of security caused by the botched American occupation, these ethnic tensions have turned into a low-grade civil war.
And, um, maybe the invasion has had something to do with the civil war breaking out, too.
And what about the administration coming clean on what it knows about Iraq, rather than pummeling us with "stay the course" propaganda?
There's one area, though, where I completely sympathize with Jack Murtha. I sympathize with his frustration. On Feb. 23, 1942, Franklin Roosevelt asked Americans to spread out maps before them and he described, step by step, what was going on in World War II, where the U.S. was winning and where it was losing. Why can't today's president do that? Why can't he show that he is aware that his biggest problem is not in Iraq, it's on the home front?
Since the president doesn't give out credible information, it's no wonder Republicans are measuring success by how quickly we can get out;
Friday, November 18, 2005
Murtha, the War, and Getting Out
Before Thursday I had started to think some very counterintuitive thoughts for a progressive blogger type.
For instance, after initially rallying behind Harry Reid's Senate shut-down and call for phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on the use of pre-war intelligence, I'd started to wonder if that was really a good avenue for Democrats to go down. After all, what would such an investigation uncover that wasn't already known? Would the evidence of such an investigation amount to anything more than ambigous conclusions? And perhaps most importantly, would it do anything to improve the course of the conflict and situation in Iraq? Harry Truman's WWII committee on contracts, cost over-runs, and shoddy workmanship in the war effort had just this potential. But I wasn't sure raising anew questions about the intelligence and the use of the intelligence, among other pre-war decisions, was going to amount to much. And politically, was there a danger that such a strategy could in the end prove to be a case of Democratic over-reach, convincing many swing-voters Democrats were just out for blood rather than interested in a constructive solution to the war in Iraq and "war on terrorism" more broadly?
That the Reid Senate maneuver, among other things perhaps, seemed to have energized the White House and encouraged the administration's worst "dissent is unpatriotic" line of attack added to those concerns.
What's more, most Democrats had not really appeared to be offering an alternative course of action in Iraq as I could tell. What could Democrats say to the country about Iraq and what to do there?
The discussion of timetables, or the more radical idea of withdrawal, also hadn't convinced me on either policy or political grounds as being necessarily fruitfull. The "we broke it, we fix it" argument about the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq however over simplified, had a certain merit I couldn't ignore. And most of the Democratic apologies for their Iraq war votes struck me as being too little, too late, lacking a recognition of the propaganda effect that led to the war's approval by fearful Democrats worried about their next elections. Worst of all, the White House counter-charges, that at least some Democrats seemed to regard Iraq as just a much of a threat as the administration, while distorted, also seemed at least partly meritorous even if based only on narrowly construed and taken-out-of-context Democratic party statements.
But John Murtha's public stance yesterday, and the emotional power of his press conference calling for a withdrawal of the troops within, or beginning in at least six months, impressed me, especially given his hawkish background and previous support for the war. That Murtha wasn't Dennis Kucinich, or even John Kerry, made the declaration one of particular import.
And while most Democrats didn't publically jump on the Murtha bandwagon yesterday, it seems pretty clear to me, at least so far, that the Murtha statement was a bombshell, for both the White House just trying to regain its political footing, and for Democrats still trying to protect their national security credentials. While there may not be immediate movement on Murtha's proposition, I suspect it will continue to hang out there in the media stratosphere, serving as a marker of sorts, representing an alternative for the opposition party come election time, and as an item for the media to continually refer back to when discussing the latest war tragedy.
The Murtha call is a line in the sand. The idea of withdrawal has been put on the political map. It's been given credibility.
Now, will it matter?
The administration claims it is holding out for "complete victory" and won't "surrender". But what is victory? Would we know it if we saw it? The capture of Al Zaqari and the dismantling of "Al Qaeda in Iraq", or is the insurgency comprised of much more than this most recent boogey-man, eight of diamonds, deck card of hostile elements the administration once used as its measure of progress in routing the old Baathist regime?
Does victory mean the official establishment of an on-paper Iraqi military/police force? Or would it need to be a more substantive indicator?
And what of our long-term military establishment plans for permanent war bases in Iraq?
These are some of the questions that Murtha's declaration may help to lift back into the public debate on Iraq. And Murta's framework may soon prove the best response.
For instance, after initially rallying behind Harry Reid's Senate shut-down and call for phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on the use of pre-war intelligence, I'd started to wonder if that was really a good avenue for Democrats to go down. After all, what would such an investigation uncover that wasn't already known? Would the evidence of such an investigation amount to anything more than ambigous conclusions? And perhaps most importantly, would it do anything to improve the course of the conflict and situation in Iraq? Harry Truman's WWII committee on contracts, cost over-runs, and shoddy workmanship in the war effort had just this potential. But I wasn't sure raising anew questions about the intelligence and the use of the intelligence, among other pre-war decisions, was going to amount to much. And politically, was there a danger that such a strategy could in the end prove to be a case of Democratic over-reach, convincing many swing-voters Democrats were just out for blood rather than interested in a constructive solution to the war in Iraq and "war on terrorism" more broadly?
That the Reid Senate maneuver, among other things perhaps, seemed to have energized the White House and encouraged the administration's worst "dissent is unpatriotic" line of attack added to those concerns.
What's more, most Democrats had not really appeared to be offering an alternative course of action in Iraq as I could tell. What could Democrats say to the country about Iraq and what to do there?
The discussion of timetables, or the more radical idea of withdrawal, also hadn't convinced me on either policy or political grounds as being necessarily fruitfull. The "we broke it, we fix it" argument about the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq however over simplified, had a certain merit I couldn't ignore. And most of the Democratic apologies for their Iraq war votes struck me as being too little, too late, lacking a recognition of the propaganda effect that led to the war's approval by fearful Democrats worried about their next elections. Worst of all, the White House counter-charges, that at least some Democrats seemed to regard Iraq as just a much of a threat as the administration, while distorted, also seemed at least partly meritorous even if based only on narrowly construed and taken-out-of-context Democratic party statements.
But John Murtha's public stance yesterday, and the emotional power of his press conference calling for a withdrawal of the troops within, or beginning in at least six months, impressed me, especially given his hawkish background and previous support for the war. That Murtha wasn't Dennis Kucinich, or even John Kerry, made the declaration one of particular import.
And while most Democrats didn't publically jump on the Murtha bandwagon yesterday, it seems pretty clear to me, at least so far, that the Murtha statement was a bombshell, for both the White House just trying to regain its political footing, and for Democrats still trying to protect their national security credentials. While there may not be immediate movement on Murtha's proposition, I suspect it will continue to hang out there in the media stratosphere, serving as a marker of sorts, representing an alternative for the opposition party come election time, and as an item for the media to continually refer back to when discussing the latest war tragedy.
The Murtha call is a line in the sand. The idea of withdrawal has been put on the political map. It's been given credibility.
Now, will it matter?
The administration claims it is holding out for "complete victory" and won't "surrender". But what is victory? Would we know it if we saw it? The capture of Al Zaqari and the dismantling of "Al Qaeda in Iraq", or is the insurgency comprised of much more than this most recent boogey-man, eight of diamonds, deck card of hostile elements the administration once used as its measure of progress in routing the old Baathist regime?
Does victory mean the official establishment of an on-paper Iraqi military/police force? Or would it need to be a more substantive indicator?
And what of our long-term military establishment plans for permanent war bases in Iraq?
These are some of the questions that Murtha's declaration may help to lift back into the public debate on Iraq. And Murta's framework may soon prove the best response.
5 Deferments
Republicans on hawkish Democratic Congressman John Murtha, Vietnam Veteran
Da White House:
Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.
Republican House Speaker, Denny Hastert:
I am saddened by the comments made today by Rep. Murtha. It is clear that as Nancy Pelosi's top lieutenant on armed services, Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign soil.
Four years ago, America as we knew it changed. The terrorists attacked our people and attacked our nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives. Families were destroyed, and our children lost their sense of peace. On that day, we learned that we no longer had a choice. Failure to act -- and act strongly -- left our nation vulnerable to Osama bin Laden and his band of terrorist followers.
But now, Rep. Murtha and other Democrats want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world. It is unfortunate that this is all politics all the time. We need to have a strong consistent policy that will protect our men and women who are fighting to protect us overseas. We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil.
Republican House member, Geoff Davis
I think it's important to understand the political climate in which these shameful statements have been made. Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, as well as Abu Musab Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can't do that there, so they've brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress. And, frankly, the liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound, fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies.
Bush and Cheney:
Bush, traveling in South Korea, told reporters he agrees with Vice President Cheney's view that politicians who criticize the administration's handling of prewar intelligence are engaging in "dishonest and reprehensible...I expect there to be criticism," Bush said. "But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted -- to support the decision I made. . . . So I agree with the vice president."
Murtha:
I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
Da White House:
Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.
Republican House Speaker, Denny Hastert:
I am saddened by the comments made today by Rep. Murtha. It is clear that as Nancy Pelosi's top lieutenant on armed services, Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign soil.
Four years ago, America as we knew it changed. The terrorists attacked our people and attacked our nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives. Families were destroyed, and our children lost their sense of peace. On that day, we learned that we no longer had a choice. Failure to act -- and act strongly -- left our nation vulnerable to Osama bin Laden and his band of terrorist followers.
But now, Rep. Murtha and other Democrats want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world. It is unfortunate that this is all politics all the time. We need to have a strong consistent policy that will protect our men and women who are fighting to protect us overseas. We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil.
Republican House member, Geoff Davis
I think it's important to understand the political climate in which these shameful statements have been made. Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, as well as Abu Musab Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can't do that there, so they've brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress. And, frankly, the liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound, fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies.
Bush and Cheney:
Bush, traveling in South Korea, told reporters he agrees with Vice President Cheney's view that politicians who criticize the administration's handling of prewar intelligence are engaging in "dishonest and reprehensible...I expect there to be criticism," Bush said. "But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted -- to support the decision I made. . . . So I agree with the vice president."
Murtha:
I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
"Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress"
Great headline isn't it? It's from the NYT and makes it seem like Congress defunded the infamous Bridges to Nowhere scheme in Alaska.
The story's first two paragraphs seem to confirm that result:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.
Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved.
Um, but then we get to the third paragraph:
The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.
What? But wait, it gets worse:
The bridges - a mile-long, 200-foot-high bridge connecting Ketchikan to a sparsely populated island and regional airport and a second one linking Anchorage to a port nearly two miles across an inlet - have been aggressively defended by Alaskan lawmakers, who said the projects would promote growth. They complained that their state had been maligned and were able to defeat a move in the Senate to direct the bridge money to hurricane relief.
Senator Ted Stevens, a powerful Republican from Alaska who had threatened to resign had the Senate shifted the money to the Gulf Coast, said Wednesday that he was resigned to the elimination of the requirement that the money go to the bridges.
So, what do we have here? Well, the official Bridges to Nowhere "earmark" was eliminated, but Alaska still gets all the money and can do with it what they wish--including spend it on the infamous bridges if they so desire.
And the money could still go to the Bridges, rather than to the Gulf Coast, which, you know, maybe could actually use the money.
So if you see this headline or something like it today, be sure to read the fine print.
The story's first two paragraphs seem to confirm that result:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.
Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved.
Um, but then we get to the third paragraph:
The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.
What? But wait, it gets worse:
The bridges - a mile-long, 200-foot-high bridge connecting Ketchikan to a sparsely populated island and regional airport and a second one linking Anchorage to a port nearly two miles across an inlet - have been aggressively defended by Alaskan lawmakers, who said the projects would promote growth. They complained that their state had been maligned and were able to defeat a move in the Senate to direct the bridge money to hurricane relief.
Senator Ted Stevens, a powerful Republican from Alaska who had threatened to resign had the Senate shifted the money to the Gulf Coast, said Wednesday that he was resigned to the elimination of the requirement that the money go to the bridges.
So, what do we have here? Well, the official Bridges to Nowhere "earmark" was eliminated, but Alaska still gets all the money and can do with it what they wish--including spend it on the infamous bridges if they so desire.
And the money could still go to the Bridges, rather than to the Gulf Coast, which, you know, maybe could actually use the money.
So if you see this headline or something like it today, be sure to read the fine print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)