Andrew Sullivan has a new book out. To give him some credit, Sullivan is one of the few conservatives who has at least partially come to his senses in recognizing the catastrophes his chosen administration has foistered through Katrina and Iraq.
But in the book he apparently* reasons that this conservative administration has failed because it has failed to be guided by conservative principles.
Sullivan may be right in arguing that there is a genuine conservatism that this conservative administration has ignored and thus degraded.
But I have a hard time believing that Sullivan and many newly aware conservatives are just now recognizing the influence of authoritarian Christianism in their midst and of the rise of authoritarianism within conservatism more broadly.
The Republican Party's conservative base has amply been on display for the better part of the last four decades, it's authoritarian impulses plain for all to see, celebrated even. What has Sullivan been thinking the Republican Party was doing as it nominated anti-right-to-privacy judges, called for criminalizing abortion, and demanded a re-assertion of religion in public life? What does Sullivan think the gravitation towards the Republican Party by every authoritarian religious leader since the 1960's means? What did he think the intentions of Dobson, Falwell and Robertson were? Did he mis-underestimate their influence or did he not recognize their influence? Did he think they weren't serious?
And what of Sullivan's Catholicism? It's hard to come to any other logical conclusion that conservative Christianity is authoritarian in nature, given its demand that its institutions, holy book and papal leader be regarded as infallible, completely authoritative and unquestionable.
In any event, maybe Sullivan can construct a competent, more benign version of conservatism that hasn't ever existed. Sullivan seems to want a return to Reagan-Thatcherism but their import for governance wasn't any less draconian than than what their current day, reigning descendants are pushing now. Human rights and civil liberties were as equally outcasts then as now.
Anyway, welcome to our world, Andrew.
*I'm on a no-hard-back book kick so probably won't actually read this book until it comes out in paper back--book reviews will have to suffice.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Redskins and Cowboys Have QB Problems (among other issues)
Although this article is about the Dallas Cowboys, exchange the words Bill Parcels, Drew Bledsoe and Tony Romo for Joe Gibbs, Mark Brunell and Jason Campbell and it could stand word for word for the Washington Redskins situation. The identical attitudes towards "experienced" and rookie quarterbacks by Parcels and Gibbs stand out in particular.
The Redskins are 2-5. Can anyone imagine a scenario in which the team would be any worse off had Jason Campbell started these first seven games?
This isn't to completely knock Brunell, because as I've written previously, the team is ridden with a host of other problems that merely switching QB's won't solve. And Brunell's stats at this point are not much better or worse than they were last year.
But as Celizec notes about Tony Romo, Campbell would have made some mistakes, but he'd be a better QB in week 8 than in week 1, and the franchise would be further along than it is now.
The Redskins are 2-5. Can anyone imagine a scenario in which the team would be any worse off had Jason Campbell started these first seven games?
This isn't to completely knock Brunell, because as I've written previously, the team is ridden with a host of other problems that merely switching QB's won't solve. And Brunell's stats at this point are not much better or worse than they were last year.
But as Celizec notes about Tony Romo, Campbell would have made some mistakes, but he'd be a better QB in week 8 than in week 1, and the franchise would be further along than it is now.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Redskin Rants and the Election
I haven't written much recently about the upcoming election. I just think that until the votes are tallied, we can't know what the lay of the land will be next year. For what's it's worth, I'm not not overly optimistic that the Dems will take either house. I've also found the strange descent of the Ned Lamont campaign in Connecticut puzzling and disappointing. Any answers? Jane Hamsher? Why is Ned Lamont down by as much as 17 points in some polls? How has Lieberman maintained any kind of organization, with much of his senior staff either quitting or getting fired after the primary, and the state's, as well as the national Democratic party structure lining up behind Lamont? Oh yeah, maybe that's why. But in this year, when the Dems should have some semblence of good will, it's hard to figure. Maybe it's still name recognition after all of this.
Anyway, here's what really pissed me off about the Redskins yesterday. Down 10-7 right before the half, Antwan Randle El runs back a punt for a touchdown. Redskins up 14-10. Except one of the jubilant Skins got flagged for excessive celebration after the score. 15 yard penalty, assessed at the kickoff. I didn't see what player exactly got flagged or even what the penalty was in reference to, so maybe the call was ticky-tac as many of these calls are. But here's the problem. Redskins, you're 2-4, on the road, and playing an undefeated team. An excessive celebration in this situation is the kind of thing where you want to avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing. Act like you've been there before. You score, you hand the ball to the referee, and get outta the end zone. All of you. Once again, you're 2-4. Can we show some seriousness out there, please? Beat somebody. Then maybe you can celebrate.
Of course once the 15-yarder was tacked on, the Redskins managed to be caught offsides on the first kick-off attempt. Another five yards. Then somehow, the Skins kicker got upset and, wait for it, took. off. his. helmet. That's another 15 yards. The taking off the helmet thing is a no-brainer. There's no debate. You take the helmet off, you get 15 yards. Even the late Johnny Cochran couldn't have gotten anyone off of that charge. So the skins ended up kicking off from their own 5 yard line. The five yard line. Ever see anything remotely like that before?
Fortunately, the Skins managed to hold the Colts to 3 points, so that series of events wasn't numerically significant.
But it was nonetheless highly symbolic and representative of the team's attitude and lack of discipline this year. Whatever range of talent might now be on the team thanks to another off-season spending binge (and the original punt return courtesy of Randal El was a demonstrated result of that binge), the team just isn't displaying any sense of a commitment to winning. They seem more intent on getting themselves the ball or showing up on ESPN sportscenter highlight film. And for that, I blame the coaching. I'm hesitant to blame Joe, but the responsibility for this stuff begins and ends with him. Whether it's a problem with his assistants or not I don't know. But he has to set the tone.
As the fellas on 980 were saying this morning, it isn't like the Redskins players are from a completely different generation than the players on the Patriots or any other team. So this isn't just a generation thing.
Beyond that, yesterday was the same odd mix of dump off passes and lateral running plays. Very weird in that in the Colts they were facing for the second straight week a team regarded as weak against the run, particularly up the middle. And yet the team didn't seem interested in trying to exploit that seeming advantage.
At least T.J. Duckett got on the field for one play at the end of the game.
But another week or two of this stuff--and Dallas, Philadelphia and a revived Tampa Bay squad are on the schedule after the bye--and the calls for inserting Todd Collins or Jason Campbell will be deafening. The Fox broadcasters--Troy Aikman among them yesterday--pointed out that Campbell had four offensive co-ordinators in college and has had three as a pro, so the reluctance to play him has some valid foundation. But if for no other reason, a qb or who might be able to go long would add a dimension to this team that everyone and their grandmother now knows it lacks, which results in defenses stacking the line, and the running game getting stuffed, creating a circular process of offensive ineptitude.
Anyway, here's what really pissed me off about the Redskins yesterday. Down 10-7 right before the half, Antwan Randle El runs back a punt for a touchdown. Redskins up 14-10. Except one of the jubilant Skins got flagged for excessive celebration after the score. 15 yard penalty, assessed at the kickoff. I didn't see what player exactly got flagged or even what the penalty was in reference to, so maybe the call was ticky-tac as many of these calls are. But here's the problem. Redskins, you're 2-4, on the road, and playing an undefeated team. An excessive celebration in this situation is the kind of thing where you want to avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing. Act like you've been there before. You score, you hand the ball to the referee, and get outta the end zone. All of you. Once again, you're 2-4. Can we show some seriousness out there, please? Beat somebody. Then maybe you can celebrate.
Of course once the 15-yarder was tacked on, the Redskins managed to be caught offsides on the first kick-off attempt. Another five yards. Then somehow, the Skins kicker got upset and, wait for it, took. off. his. helmet. That's another 15 yards. The taking off the helmet thing is a no-brainer. There's no debate. You take the helmet off, you get 15 yards. Even the late Johnny Cochran couldn't have gotten anyone off of that charge. So the skins ended up kicking off from their own 5 yard line. The five yard line. Ever see anything remotely like that before?
Fortunately, the Skins managed to hold the Colts to 3 points, so that series of events wasn't numerically significant.
But it was nonetheless highly symbolic and representative of the team's attitude and lack of discipline this year. Whatever range of talent might now be on the team thanks to another off-season spending binge (and the original punt return courtesy of Randal El was a demonstrated result of that binge), the team just isn't displaying any sense of a commitment to winning. They seem more intent on getting themselves the ball or showing up on ESPN sportscenter highlight film. And for that, I blame the coaching. I'm hesitant to blame Joe, but the responsibility for this stuff begins and ends with him. Whether it's a problem with his assistants or not I don't know. But he has to set the tone.
As the fellas on 980 were saying this morning, it isn't like the Redskins players are from a completely different generation than the players on the Patriots or any other team. So this isn't just a generation thing.
Beyond that, yesterday was the same odd mix of dump off passes and lateral running plays. Very weird in that in the Colts they were facing for the second straight week a team regarded as weak against the run, particularly up the middle. And yet the team didn't seem interested in trying to exploit that seeming advantage.
At least T.J. Duckett got on the field for one play at the end of the game.
But another week or two of this stuff--and Dallas, Philadelphia and a revived Tampa Bay squad are on the schedule after the bye--and the calls for inserting Todd Collins or Jason Campbell will be deafening. The Fox broadcasters--Troy Aikman among them yesterday--pointed out that Campbell had four offensive co-ordinators in college and has had three as a pro, so the reluctance to play him has some valid foundation. But if for no other reason, a qb or who might be able to go long would add a dimension to this team that everyone and their grandmother now knows it lacks, which results in defenses stacking the line, and the running game getting stuffed, creating a circular process of offensive ineptitude.
Monday, October 16, 2006
2-4
That's the Redskins record today, after a humiliating and confounding loss to the previously winless-rookie-quarterbacked, visiting, Titans yesterday.
So, what happened yesterday? Is the team this bad? If so, why? Given their lackluster performance in Dallas in week 2, and being blown out in Giants stadium last week, yesterday's lost would appear to constitute a pattern.
Here are some reasons why the team is struggling:
1) Their defense isn't very good. Even last year, the front four didn't often put sufficient pressure on the QB. The Redskins were dependent on blitzes to get sacks or hurry the QB. But in previous years, they at least stopped the run. They didn't do that yesterday, and it will be a very long season if they can't figure out how to in future weeks [it should be noted, however, that the team's two top run-stuffers, Joe Salave'a and Cornelius Griffin were on the bench with injuries yesterday]. The strength of the defense has been its linebacking core, but even they were mostly AWOL yesterday. Adam Archuleta has been underwhelming; Carlos Rogers in the secondary doesn't play the ball. Rogers and Taylor do bring a lot of speed to the unit, but the Titans thwarted that strength by running straight up the middle.
2) Mark Brunell doesn't, or can't, throw the ball down the field. Brunell still has a gun of an arm, but it appears the staff doesn't think he can throw the ball down the field accurately on a consistent basis. I don't know how many swing passes and lateral screens Brunell threw yesterday. But after a while, when that's about all you have in your reportoire, the other team's defense is going to get after it. In a way, I can partially understand the staff's frequent use of the quick passes. They have speedy guys at wide receiver in Moss and Randal-el, who are generally good at getting yards after the catch. And it may also be a way to avoid offensive holding penalties and sacks. But if that is the case, than the highly-touted offensive line may be worse than we think. If the team's defense was really lights-out good, as it was at times last year, Brunell would be worth keeping behind center, as someone who can "manage the game well". But as it is, the offense needs more variety, the kind delivered by more frequent passing down field. The kind that the kid, Jason Campbell was drafted in the first round to perform. At a certain point, and I'm not saying that point is now, but at a certain point, say, 2-7, the team needs to give the kid some reps and see what it has. And besides, the team has too much talent on offense, purchased at great cost, for its entire game plan to consist of swing passes. Arizona and Tennessee (and now Tampa, too) have already thrown their first year guys in. The Giants went with Eli Manning early on and paid the initial cost, but it is paying off now, in Eli's (third, fourth?) season. The Redskins, once it's completely clear this season's lost, need to hand the ball to Campbell. This will be difficult because Gibbs likes veterans. Let's hope he either turns the season around or helps the Redskins prepare for the future.
3) Clinton Portis needs more up-the-middle carries. Yes, it is well-recognized Portis got only 14 carries yesterday. But what's worse is where those carries were. Several were around the tackles, instead of in between them (the touchdown run, right up the middle, in the first quarter being an exception). Portis is more of a between-the-tackles kind of back, not primarily a speed guy best used to run to the outside. Coach Gibbs--give Portis the ball more often and run him right up the gut. What's odd is the broadcasting team yesterday remarked before the game that the Redskins thought they had an advantage in their o-line and thought they could use it to run Portis right up the middle. Without Albert Haynesworth, suspended by the NFL for five games for kicking an opponent in the face, the Titans d-line should have been ripe for the picking the Redskins are best able to exploit. But for whatever reason, they failed to do it yesterday. Here's hoping they give Portis a shot to exploit the Colts' suspect D next week. And running the ball more often and well, will of course, help an ailing defense get better.
So, what happened yesterday? Is the team this bad? If so, why? Given their lackluster performance in Dallas in week 2, and being blown out in Giants stadium last week, yesterday's lost would appear to constitute a pattern.
Here are some reasons why the team is struggling:
1) Their defense isn't very good. Even last year, the front four didn't often put sufficient pressure on the QB. The Redskins were dependent on blitzes to get sacks or hurry the QB. But in previous years, they at least stopped the run. They didn't do that yesterday, and it will be a very long season if they can't figure out how to in future weeks [it should be noted, however, that the team's two top run-stuffers, Joe Salave'a and Cornelius Griffin were on the bench with injuries yesterday]. The strength of the defense has been its linebacking core, but even they were mostly AWOL yesterday. Adam Archuleta has been underwhelming; Carlos Rogers in the secondary doesn't play the ball. Rogers and Taylor do bring a lot of speed to the unit, but the Titans thwarted that strength by running straight up the middle.
2) Mark Brunell doesn't, or can't, throw the ball down the field. Brunell still has a gun of an arm, but it appears the staff doesn't think he can throw the ball down the field accurately on a consistent basis. I don't know how many swing passes and lateral screens Brunell threw yesterday. But after a while, when that's about all you have in your reportoire, the other team's defense is going to get after it. In a way, I can partially understand the staff's frequent use of the quick passes. They have speedy guys at wide receiver in Moss and Randal-el, who are generally good at getting yards after the catch. And it may also be a way to avoid offensive holding penalties and sacks. But if that is the case, than the highly-touted offensive line may be worse than we think. If the team's defense was really lights-out good, as it was at times last year, Brunell would be worth keeping behind center, as someone who can "manage the game well". But as it is, the offense needs more variety, the kind delivered by more frequent passing down field. The kind that the kid, Jason Campbell was drafted in the first round to perform. At a certain point, and I'm not saying that point is now, but at a certain point, say, 2-7, the team needs to give the kid some reps and see what it has. And besides, the team has too much talent on offense, purchased at great cost, for its entire game plan to consist of swing passes. Arizona and Tennessee (and now Tampa, too) have already thrown their first year guys in. The Giants went with Eli Manning early on and paid the initial cost, but it is paying off now, in Eli's (third, fourth?) season. The Redskins, once it's completely clear this season's lost, need to hand the ball to Campbell. This will be difficult because Gibbs likes veterans. Let's hope he either turns the season around or helps the Redskins prepare for the future.
3) Clinton Portis needs more up-the-middle carries. Yes, it is well-recognized Portis got only 14 carries yesterday. But what's worse is where those carries were. Several were around the tackles, instead of in between them (the touchdown run, right up the middle, in the first quarter being an exception). Portis is more of a between-the-tackles kind of back, not primarily a speed guy best used to run to the outside. Coach Gibbs--give Portis the ball more often and run him right up the gut. What's odd is the broadcasting team yesterday remarked before the game that the Redskins thought they had an advantage in their o-line and thought they could use it to run Portis right up the middle. Without Albert Haynesworth, suspended by the NFL for five games for kicking an opponent in the face, the Titans d-line should have been ripe for the picking the Redskins are best able to exploit. But for whatever reason, they failed to do it yesterday. Here's hoping they give Portis a shot to exploit the Colts' suspect D next week. And running the ball more often and well, will of course, help an ailing defense get better.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Osama bin Laden, Somalia, Cut and Run, Clinton Smacks Down Wallace, and other Important Stuff
It so happens that the week The Big Dawg Layeth the Smacketh Down on Chris Wallace and Fox "news" I was guest-posting over at No More Mister Nice Blog. You can read my post on the Clinton-Fox News dust up here.
The accusation that raised Clinton's ire was Wallace suggesting, on the basis of Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, that Osama bin Laden had been emboldened by "Clinton's" hasty withdrawal from Somalia after American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
Well, I've been reading The Looming Tower, and finally got to the section of the book where Wright makes the statement. It's on page 188. Here is the quote:
The downing of those two American helicopters in October 1993, however, became the turning point in the war. Enraged Somali tribesmen triumphantly dragged the bodies of the dead crewmen through the streets of Mogadishu, a sight that prompted President Clinton to quickly withdraw all American soldiers from the country. Bin Laden's analysis of the American character had been proven correct.
As I linked to in my post, Glenn Greenwald has demonstrated that this rendition of history is completely erroneous. It was Republicans in Congress that demanded an immediate withdrawal and President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher (and Senator John Kerry) that urged the need to stay in Somalia as long as necessary to fulfill the nation's obligation and not "cut and run".
Wright doesn't have any footnotes in his book to document his breezy statement about Clinton's leading the cut and run brigade in 1993. So it's an unfortunate inclusion in a book that is otherwise informative and intriguing.
For example, at least through page 200, Wright paints a picture of Bin Laden that is at odds with his mythical image. According to Wright, Bin Laden didn't have much to do with routing the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. He did help recruit non-Afghan Arabs to go to Afghanistan for jihad against the Soviet Union and helped fund those who went, but his rag-tag group of Arabs appears to have been at best highly peripheral to the conflict in Afghanistan, whose own natives were the most responsible (and suffered the most casualties) in driving the Soviet Union from their country.
Bin Laden also has a penchant for claiming responsibility for various acts of terrorism or resistance, whatever one's interpretation. For instance, Bin Laden claimed to have been the inspiration for, if not the architect of, the Black Hawk down episode, which he was not. Bin Laden also appears to have benefited from a largely unfounded legend surrounding his Afghanistan adventure in the 1980's against the Soviets.
Bin Laden also isn't much of a business-man (although his father was) and at this point in the book, Bin Laden has had his family funding cut-off.
But he does have a certain charisma that effectively captures the dual motives of reformer and nihilist that embodies the divergent group of characters that come to Sudan to enlist with Bin Laden's Al Qaeda outfit. At this point in the book, Egypt and Saudia Arabia (Bin Laden's home country) have tried to get Bin Laden to quit his jihad against existing Arab governments in Algeria and Yemen (not to mention their own). There also appears to have been an ill-faited assassination attempt on Bin Laden in Sudan, which will lead him to leave that country for Afghanistan.
I'm disappointed Wright makes such an erroneous accusation about Clinton in his book. It reduces my trust of the rest of his account. But it reflects the necessity for verifying offhand comments in books about any leaders, whether they be Republican or Democrat. So let Wright's statement serve as a cautionary reminder of the need to be at least somewhat skeptical of qualitative value judgments, along with outright statements of supposed facts.
The accusation that raised Clinton's ire was Wallace suggesting, on the basis of Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, that Osama bin Laden had been emboldened by "Clinton's" hasty withdrawal from Somalia after American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
Well, I've been reading The Looming Tower, and finally got to the section of the book where Wright makes the statement. It's on page 188. Here is the quote:
The downing of those two American helicopters in October 1993, however, became the turning point in the war. Enraged Somali tribesmen triumphantly dragged the bodies of the dead crewmen through the streets of Mogadishu, a sight that prompted President Clinton to quickly withdraw all American soldiers from the country. Bin Laden's analysis of the American character had been proven correct.
As I linked to in my post, Glenn Greenwald has demonstrated that this rendition of history is completely erroneous. It was Republicans in Congress that demanded an immediate withdrawal and President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher (and Senator John Kerry) that urged the need to stay in Somalia as long as necessary to fulfill the nation's obligation and not "cut and run".
Wright doesn't have any footnotes in his book to document his breezy statement about Clinton's leading the cut and run brigade in 1993. So it's an unfortunate inclusion in a book that is otherwise informative and intriguing.
For example, at least through page 200, Wright paints a picture of Bin Laden that is at odds with his mythical image. According to Wright, Bin Laden didn't have much to do with routing the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. He did help recruit non-Afghan Arabs to go to Afghanistan for jihad against the Soviet Union and helped fund those who went, but his rag-tag group of Arabs appears to have been at best highly peripheral to the conflict in Afghanistan, whose own natives were the most responsible (and suffered the most casualties) in driving the Soviet Union from their country.
Bin Laden also has a penchant for claiming responsibility for various acts of terrorism or resistance, whatever one's interpretation. For instance, Bin Laden claimed to have been the inspiration for, if not the architect of, the Black Hawk down episode, which he was not. Bin Laden also appears to have benefited from a largely unfounded legend surrounding his Afghanistan adventure in the 1980's against the Soviets.
Bin Laden also isn't much of a business-man (although his father was) and at this point in the book, Bin Laden has had his family funding cut-off.
But he does have a certain charisma that effectively captures the dual motives of reformer and nihilist that embodies the divergent group of characters that come to Sudan to enlist with Bin Laden's Al Qaeda outfit. At this point in the book, Egypt and Saudia Arabia (Bin Laden's home country) have tried to get Bin Laden to quit his jihad against existing Arab governments in Algeria and Yemen (not to mention their own). There also appears to have been an ill-faited assassination attempt on Bin Laden in Sudan, which will lead him to leave that country for Afghanistan.
I'm disappointed Wright makes such an erroneous accusation about Clinton in his book. It reduces my trust of the rest of his account. But it reflects the necessity for verifying offhand comments in books about any leaders, whether they be Republican or Democrat. So let Wright's statement serve as a cautionary reminder of the need to be at least somewhat skeptical of qualitative value judgments, along with outright statements of supposed facts.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Why I am a Liberal Democrat
Glenn Greenwald:
On every level, it is difficult to envision a political party more hostile to individual liberty than the current Bush-led Republicans.
I might add, it's difficult to envision a political party more hostile to individual liberty than the Republican Party over the past 40 years.
On every level, it is difficult to envision a political party more hostile to individual liberty than the current Bush-led Republicans.
I might add, it's difficult to envision a political party more hostile to individual liberty than the Republican Party over the past 40 years.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Persecuted Christians?
From Tapped:
AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. If you've yet to take in the extraordinary New York Times series on the business of religion that Scott flagged yesterday, I urge you to take a look before it gets locked up behind the Times's pay-for-play archive walls. The multitude of exemptions enjoyed by religious organizations and their pastors that business reporter Diana B. Henriques has chronicled is truly amazing. Did you know that the Rev. Rick Warren (he of The Purpose-Driven Life) enjoys a tax exemption on his housing?
Pastor Warren argued that the tax break is essential to poorly paid clergy members who serve society.
The tax break is not available to the staff at secular nonprofit organizations whose scale and charitable aims compare to those of religious ministries like Pastor Warren's church, or to poorly paid inner-city teachers and day care workers who also serve their communities.
The great state of Florida seems to pop up time and again in the series. Henriques reports that Governor Jeb Bush signed into law an exemption for religion-oriented theme parks, and notes that, despite the finding of such laws in other states as unconstitutional, Florida continues to exempt Bibles and other religious literature from sales taxes. The publications exemption is being fought, Henriques writes, "almost single-handedly," by a Wiccan lawyer named Heather Morcroft. (You go, girl!)
AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. If you've yet to take in the extraordinary New York Times series on the business of religion that Scott flagged yesterday, I urge you to take a look before it gets locked up behind the Times's pay-for-play archive walls. The multitude of exemptions enjoyed by religious organizations and their pastors that business reporter Diana B. Henriques has chronicled is truly amazing. Did you know that the Rev. Rick Warren (he of The Purpose-Driven Life) enjoys a tax exemption on his housing?
Pastor Warren argued that the tax break is essential to poorly paid clergy members who serve society.
The tax break is not available to the staff at secular nonprofit organizations whose scale and charitable aims compare to those of religious ministries like Pastor Warren's church, or to poorly paid inner-city teachers and day care workers who also serve their communities.
The great state of Florida seems to pop up time and again in the series. Henriques reports that Governor Jeb Bush signed into law an exemption for religion-oriented theme parks, and notes that, despite the finding of such laws in other states as unconstitutional, Florida continues to exempt Bibles and other religious literature from sales taxes. The publications exemption is being fought, Henriques writes, "almost single-handedly," by a Wiccan lawyer named Heather Morcroft. (You go, girl!)
'Values' Declines as Issue in Ohio
Economic Woes Boost Democrats
Although this Wash Post article might at first glance appear to be good news for Democrats this year, it may be at best only temporary good news for liberals.
This is because, aside from the fact no one has voted yet, there are two problems--for liberals--the article consciously or unconsciously brings out.
The first point is, to the extent that "values" issues are being subsumed this year by economic concerns, Democrats in Ohio (and elsewhere) are not confronting the cultural issues head-on. They're merely hoping voters care more about the economy and the Ohio Republican Party's scandals. So the debate about individual privacy, civil liberties, the separation of church and state, and social enlightenment generally just gets kicked to the curb this election cycle. If Democrats fail to address these issues, to take the radical right head-on, these issues, and the Democrat's problem responding to them will just hang out at the back of the bar waiting for the next election and Democrats will be back to where they started, or worse.
The second point, one the article is more explicit about, is the fact that to the extent cultural issues are a factor in Ohio, the leading state Democratic candidate is using his ministerial credentials and anti-gun control position as cover, helping to further mute, at least this year, the divisiveness and Constitutional implications of the radical right's authoritarian agenda.
In both cases, Democrats in Ohio (if not elsewhere around the country) are continuing to avoid the need to confront the Christian Right's rhetoric and agenda. And in the long run this is bad for liberals. It will mean future Democratic candidates will continue to emphasize their lack of ideology and their "centrist" positions, all the while what is meant by "centrist" or the center keeps getting shoved further right.
I recognize I may sound a bit too alarmist and pessimistic. After all, what are Democrats supposed to do in a state, and a country, where at least a large plurality of people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, slight majorities say the Bible is literal, inspired, and inerrant history, and larger majorities believe (or hope) that when they die they plan on making residence in heavenly mansions?
Well, if author Sam Harris is close to being prescient, our failure as a society, as a species, to confront our fear-based, non-testable, envidence-lacking assumptions and prejudices (particularly those concerning what happens to us after death) means we may fail to solve the most far-ranging problems facing the global community. Not to mention that if we fail to do so, we may also succeed in backing ourselves into a religious-fascist corner where individual liberities and the value of each human life are treated as a poor second cousin and given a back seat to puritanical religious demands, if not treated as treasonous, deviant subversions.
Although this Wash Post article might at first glance appear to be good news for Democrats this year, it may be at best only temporary good news for liberals.
This is because, aside from the fact no one has voted yet, there are two problems--for liberals--the article consciously or unconsciously brings out.
The first point is, to the extent that "values" issues are being subsumed this year by economic concerns, Democrats in Ohio (and elsewhere) are not confronting the cultural issues head-on. They're merely hoping voters care more about the economy and the Ohio Republican Party's scandals. So the debate about individual privacy, civil liberties, the separation of church and state, and social enlightenment generally just gets kicked to the curb this election cycle. If Democrats fail to address these issues, to take the radical right head-on, these issues, and the Democrat's problem responding to them will just hang out at the back of the bar waiting for the next election and Democrats will be back to where they started, or worse.
The second point, one the article is more explicit about, is the fact that to the extent cultural issues are a factor in Ohio, the leading state Democratic candidate is using his ministerial credentials and anti-gun control position as cover, helping to further mute, at least this year, the divisiveness and Constitutional implications of the radical right's authoritarian agenda.
In both cases, Democrats in Ohio (if not elsewhere around the country) are continuing to avoid the need to confront the Christian Right's rhetoric and agenda. And in the long run this is bad for liberals. It will mean future Democratic candidates will continue to emphasize their lack of ideology and their "centrist" positions, all the while what is meant by "centrist" or the center keeps getting shoved further right.
I recognize I may sound a bit too alarmist and pessimistic. After all, what are Democrats supposed to do in a state, and a country, where at least a large plurality of people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, slight majorities say the Bible is literal, inspired, and inerrant history, and larger majorities believe (or hope) that when they die they plan on making residence in heavenly mansions?
Well, if author Sam Harris is close to being prescient, our failure as a society, as a species, to confront our fear-based, non-testable, envidence-lacking assumptions and prejudices (particularly those concerning what happens to us after death) means we may fail to solve the most far-ranging problems facing the global community. Not to mention that if we fail to do so, we may also succeed in backing ourselves into a religious-fascist corner where individual liberities and the value of each human life are treated as a poor second cousin and given a back seat to puritanical religious demands, if not treated as treasonous, deviant subversions.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Iraq: Worse than you think, Part XVI
Fareed Zakaria:
CBS News's Lara Logan has filed astonishing reports on the Health Ministry, which is run by supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. According to Logan, hospitals in Baghdad and Karbala are systematically killing Sunni patients and then dumping their bodies in mass graves.
Marine in Iraq (via Steve Gilliard):
There's really not much to write about. More exactly, there's not much I can write about because practically everything I do, read or hear is classified military information or is depressing to the point that I'd rather just forget about it, never mind write about it. The gaps in between all of that are filled with the pure tedium of daily life in an armed camp. So it's a bit of a struggle to think of anything to put into a letter that's worth reading. Worse, this place just consumes you. I work 18-20-hour days, every day. The quest to draw a clear picture of what the insurgents are up to never ends. Problems and frictions crop up faster than solutions. Every challenge demands a response. It's like this every day. Before I know it, I can't see straight, because it's 0400 and I've been at work for twenty hours straight, somehow missing dinner again in the process. And once again I haven't written to anyone. It starts all over again four hours later. It's not really like Ground Hog Day, it's more like a level from Dante's Inferno.
Rather than attempting to sum up the last seven months, I figured I'd just hit the record setting highlights of 2006 in Iraq. These are among the events and experiences I'll remember best.
Worst Case of Deja Vu - I thought I was familiar with the feeling of deja vu until I arrived back here in Fallujah in February. The moment I stepped off of the helicopter, just as dawn broke, and saw the camp just as I had left it ten months before - that was deja vu. Kind of unnerving. It was as if I had never left. Same work area, same busted desk, same chair, same computer, same room, same creaky rack, same . . . everything. Same everything for the next year. It was like entering a parallel universe. Home wasn't 10,000 miles away, it was a different lifetime.
Most Surreal Moment - Watching Marines arrive at my detention facility and unload a truck load of flex-cuffed midgets. 26 to be exact. I had put the word out earlier in the day to the Marines in Fallujah that we were looking for Bad Guy X, who was described as a midget. Little did I know that Fallujah was home to a small community of midgets, who banded together for support since they were considered as social outcasts. The Marines were anxious to get back to the midget colony to bring in the rest of the midget suspects, but I called off the search, figuring Bad Guy X was long gone on his short legs after seeing his companions rounded up by the giant infidels.
Most Profound Man in Iraq - an unidentified farmer in a fairly remote area who, after being asked by Reconnaissance Marines (searching for Syrians) if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied "Yes, you."
Worst City in al-Anbar Province - Ramadi, hands down. The provincial capital of 400,000 people. Killed over 1,000 insurgents in there since we arrived in February. Every day is a nasty gun battle. They blast us with giant bombs in the road, snipers, mortars and small arms. We blast them with tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, our snipers (much better than theirs), and every weapon that an infantryman can carry. Every day. Incredibly, I rarely see Ramadi in the news. We have as many attacks out here in the west as Baghdad. Yet, Baghdad has 7 million people, we have just 1.2 million. Per capita, al-Anbar province is the most violent place in Iraq by several orders of magnitude. I suppose it was no accident that the Marines were assigned this area in 2003.
CBC News:
The bodies of 60 men were found in and around Baghdad over a 24-hour period, and Iraqi officials said Tuesday the men appeared to have died at the hands of sectarian death squads.
The bodies, all riddled with bullets and all showing signs of torture--their hands and feet had been bound were dumped in several neighbourhoods around the capital.
NBC News (via Atrios):
Some readers and viewers think we journalists are exaggerating about the situation in Iraq. I can almost understand that because who would want to believe that things are this bad? Particularly when so many people here started out with such good intentions.
I'm more puzzled by comments that the violence isn't any worse than any American city. Really? In which American city do 60 bullet-riddled bodies turn up on a given day? In which city do the headless bodies of ordinary citizens turn up every single day? In which city would it not be news if neighborhood school children were blown up? In which neighborhood would you look the other way if gunmen came into restaurants and shot dead the customers?
Day-to-day life here for Iraqis is so far removed from the comfortable existence we live in the United States that it is almost literally unimaginable.
It's almost impossible to describe what it feels like being stalled in traffic, your heart pounding, wondering if the vehicle in front of you is one of the three or four car bombs that will go off that day. Or seeing your husband show up at the door covered in blood after he was kidnapped and beaten.
I don't know a single family here that hasn't had a relative, neighbor or friend die violently. In places where there's been all-out fighting going on, I've interviewed parents who buried their dead child in the yard because it was too dangerous to go to the morgue.
Imagine the worst day you've ever had in your life, add a regular dose of terror and you'll begin to get an idea of what it's like every day for a lot of people here.
So, does it sound like it's about time to send this gang back to Iraq for some truthiness reporting?
But in all seriousness, and these are serious times, so we should be serious, the debacle in Iraq, which the next Democratic President will have to clean up, is the product of this administration's one-percent doctrine-bomb's away-pre-emptive war strategery. Remember this the next time the 101st Keyboarders are calling diplomacy "appeasement" and demanding we bomb and invade whatever country they're afraid of at the moment.
CBS News's Lara Logan has filed astonishing reports on the Health Ministry, which is run by supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. According to Logan, hospitals in Baghdad and Karbala are systematically killing Sunni patients and then dumping their bodies in mass graves.
Marine in Iraq (via Steve Gilliard):
There's really not much to write about. More exactly, there's not much I can write about because practically everything I do, read or hear is classified military information or is depressing to the point that I'd rather just forget about it, never mind write about it. The gaps in between all of that are filled with the pure tedium of daily life in an armed camp. So it's a bit of a struggle to think of anything to put into a letter that's worth reading. Worse, this place just consumes you. I work 18-20-hour days, every day. The quest to draw a clear picture of what the insurgents are up to never ends. Problems and frictions crop up faster than solutions. Every challenge demands a response. It's like this every day. Before I know it, I can't see straight, because it's 0400 and I've been at work for twenty hours straight, somehow missing dinner again in the process. And once again I haven't written to anyone. It starts all over again four hours later. It's not really like Ground Hog Day, it's more like a level from Dante's Inferno.
Rather than attempting to sum up the last seven months, I figured I'd just hit the record setting highlights of 2006 in Iraq. These are among the events and experiences I'll remember best.
Worst Case of Deja Vu - I thought I was familiar with the feeling of deja vu until I arrived back here in Fallujah in February. The moment I stepped off of the helicopter, just as dawn broke, and saw the camp just as I had left it ten months before - that was deja vu. Kind of unnerving. It was as if I had never left. Same work area, same busted desk, same chair, same computer, same room, same creaky rack, same . . . everything. Same everything for the next year. It was like entering a parallel universe. Home wasn't 10,000 miles away, it was a different lifetime.
Most Surreal Moment - Watching Marines arrive at my detention facility and unload a truck load of flex-cuffed midgets. 26 to be exact. I had put the word out earlier in the day to the Marines in Fallujah that we were looking for Bad Guy X, who was described as a midget. Little did I know that Fallujah was home to a small community of midgets, who banded together for support since they were considered as social outcasts. The Marines were anxious to get back to the midget colony to bring in the rest of the midget suspects, but I called off the search, figuring Bad Guy X was long gone on his short legs after seeing his companions rounded up by the giant infidels.
Most Profound Man in Iraq - an unidentified farmer in a fairly remote area who, after being asked by Reconnaissance Marines (searching for Syrians) if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied "Yes, you."
Worst City in al-Anbar Province - Ramadi, hands down. The provincial capital of 400,000 people. Killed over 1,000 insurgents in there since we arrived in February. Every day is a nasty gun battle. They blast us with giant bombs in the road, snipers, mortars and small arms. We blast them with tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, our snipers (much better than theirs), and every weapon that an infantryman can carry. Every day. Incredibly, I rarely see Ramadi in the news. We have as many attacks out here in the west as Baghdad. Yet, Baghdad has 7 million people, we have just 1.2 million. Per capita, al-Anbar province is the most violent place in Iraq by several orders of magnitude. I suppose it was no accident that the Marines were assigned this area in 2003.
CBC News:
The bodies of 60 men were found in and around Baghdad over a 24-hour period, and Iraqi officials said Tuesday the men appeared to have died at the hands of sectarian death squads.
The bodies, all riddled with bullets and all showing signs of torture--their hands and feet had been bound were dumped in several neighbourhoods around the capital.
NBC News (via Atrios):
Some readers and viewers think we journalists are exaggerating about the situation in Iraq. I can almost understand that because who would want to believe that things are this bad? Particularly when so many people here started out with such good intentions.
I'm more puzzled by comments that the violence isn't any worse than any American city. Really? In which American city do 60 bullet-riddled bodies turn up on a given day? In which city do the headless bodies of ordinary citizens turn up every single day? In which city would it not be news if neighborhood school children were blown up? In which neighborhood would you look the other way if gunmen came into restaurants and shot dead the customers?
Day-to-day life here for Iraqis is so far removed from the comfortable existence we live in the United States that it is almost literally unimaginable.
It's almost impossible to describe what it feels like being stalled in traffic, your heart pounding, wondering if the vehicle in front of you is one of the three or four car bombs that will go off that day. Or seeing your husband show up at the door covered in blood after he was kidnapped and beaten.
I don't know a single family here that hasn't had a relative, neighbor or friend die violently. In places where there's been all-out fighting going on, I've interviewed parents who buried their dead child in the yard because it was too dangerous to go to the morgue.
Imagine the worst day you've ever had in your life, add a regular dose of terror and you'll begin to get an idea of what it's like every day for a lot of people here.
So, does it sound like it's about time to send this gang back to Iraq for some truthiness reporting?
But in all seriousness, and these are serious times, so we should be serious, the debacle in Iraq, which the next Democratic President will have to clean up, is the product of this administration's one-percent doctrine-bomb's away-pre-emptive war strategery. Remember this the next time the 101st Keyboarders are calling diplomacy "appeasement" and demanding we bomb and invade whatever country they're afraid of at the moment.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
State of Denial
The New Faithful: Why Young Adults are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy
With the help of a Phillips Journalism Fellowship, St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalist Carroll [and former Republican speechwriter--ed] traveled the country to interview young adults to ascertain how religion fits into their lives. Most of her interviewees were Catholics or evangelical Protestants, along with some Orthodox Christians. Carroll found a turn to the Right in the religious lives of her peers, born between 1965 and 1983; not everyone in this age group is religiously oriented, but those who are have more often than not turned to traditional beliefs and morality. Among Catholic priests, for example, the youngest are as traditional as the oldest, with the baby boomers falling in between. It is not unusual for married couples in this age group to embrace natural family planning as opposed to artificial birth control and for singles to reject premarital sex. These young adults are seeking authoritative guidelines and meaningful commitments. Carroll's journalistic skills are evident in this very readable volume about a tendency toward traditionalism that she predicts will spread.
Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity
Shiflett makes no pretense of editorial objectivity. His own views as to which group of religious leaders should perhaps worry about the exact nature of their eternal reward, and which ones will be welcomed by a majestic, sometimes foreboding God into heaven, are quite obvious. But he still gives a fair shake to subjects on both sides of the divide, presenting his questions, and recording the hopes, fears and faith he finds in the answers. And like any good marketing analysis, Exodus looks beyond the numbers and comes to some clear conclusions, one of which being that the power of orthodox Christian faith lies in its clear hope and steady assurance of what lies beyond death’s door.
Evangelicals Fear the Loss of Their Teenagers
Despite their packed megachurches, their political clout and their increasing visibility on the national stage, evangelical Christian leaders are warning one another that their teenagers are abandoning the faith in droves.
At an unusual series of leadership meetings in 44 cities this fall, more than 6,000 pastors are hearing dire forecasts from some of the biggest names in the conservative evangelical movement.
Their alarm has been stoked by a highly suspect claim that if current trends continue, only 4 percent of teenagers will be “Bible-believing Christians” as adults. That would be a sharp decline compared with 35 percent of the current generation of baby boomers, and before that, 65 percent of the World War II generation.
Seems like a paradox, doesn't it? Some conservative Christians see a religious revolution among the young, others see an approaching disaster. It may be that the teenagers that leave the church will come back when they have kids of their own. But if only four percent of today's Christian teens will go on to be "bible-believing Christians" as adults, it seems like a conflict. Maybe the former's methodology is wishful thinking; maybe the latter's projections are paranoid rantings designed to fill the coffers.
Meanwhile, further signs the conservative culture war is flopping.
With the help of a Phillips Journalism Fellowship, St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalist Carroll [and former Republican speechwriter--ed] traveled the country to interview young adults to ascertain how religion fits into their lives. Most of her interviewees were Catholics or evangelical Protestants, along with some Orthodox Christians. Carroll found a turn to the Right in the religious lives of her peers, born between 1965 and 1983; not everyone in this age group is religiously oriented, but those who are have more often than not turned to traditional beliefs and morality. Among Catholic priests, for example, the youngest are as traditional as the oldest, with the baby boomers falling in between. It is not unusual for married couples in this age group to embrace natural family planning as opposed to artificial birth control and for singles to reject premarital sex. These young adults are seeking authoritative guidelines and meaningful commitments. Carroll's journalistic skills are evident in this very readable volume about a tendency toward traditionalism that she predicts will spread.
Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity
Shiflett makes no pretense of editorial objectivity. His own views as to which group of religious leaders should perhaps worry about the exact nature of their eternal reward, and which ones will be welcomed by a majestic, sometimes foreboding God into heaven, are quite obvious. But he still gives a fair shake to subjects on both sides of the divide, presenting his questions, and recording the hopes, fears and faith he finds in the answers. And like any good marketing analysis, Exodus looks beyond the numbers and comes to some clear conclusions, one of which being that the power of orthodox Christian faith lies in its clear hope and steady assurance of what lies beyond death’s door.
Evangelicals Fear the Loss of Their Teenagers
Despite their packed megachurches, their political clout and their increasing visibility on the national stage, evangelical Christian leaders are warning one another that their teenagers are abandoning the faith in droves.
At an unusual series of leadership meetings in 44 cities this fall, more than 6,000 pastors are hearing dire forecasts from some of the biggest names in the conservative evangelical movement.
Their alarm has been stoked by a highly suspect claim that if current trends continue, only 4 percent of teenagers will be “Bible-believing Christians” as adults. That would be a sharp decline compared with 35 percent of the current generation of baby boomers, and before that, 65 percent of the World War II generation.
Seems like a paradox, doesn't it? Some conservative Christians see a religious revolution among the young, others see an approaching disaster. It may be that the teenagers that leave the church will come back when they have kids of their own. But if only four percent of today's Christian teens will go on to be "bible-believing Christians" as adults, it seems like a conflict. Maybe the former's methodology is wishful thinking; maybe the latter's projections are paranoid rantings designed to fill the coffers.
Meanwhile, further signs the conservative culture war is flopping.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Surprise!
Rice Makes Unannounced Visit to Baghdad
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew into Baghdad on Thursday for a surprise visit to press Iraqi leaders to resolve their differences and ease raging sectarian violence that has killed thousands.
"Our role ... is to support all the parties and indeed to press all of the parties to work towards that resolution quickly, because obviously the security situation is not one that can be tolerated and is not one that is being helped by political inaction," Rice told reporters traveling with her.
But her arrival in Baghdad was delayed by 30 minutes because of "indirect fire" at the airport complex, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Perhaps she'll announce at her unannounced visit that a new security plan will be announced.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew into Baghdad on Thursday for a surprise visit to press Iraqi leaders to resolve their differences and ease raging sectarian violence that has killed thousands.
"Our role ... is to support all the parties and indeed to press all of the parties to work towards that resolution quickly, because obviously the security situation is not one that can be tolerated and is not one that is being helped by political inaction," Rice told reporters traveling with her.
But her arrival in Baghdad was delayed by 30 minutes because of "indirect fire" at the airport complex, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Perhaps she'll announce at her unannounced visit that a new security plan will be announced.
Calling for a Cease Fire
I'm not a Republican. Nor do I play one on TV. But watching the mounting fraticide among Republicans in the continuing Mark Foley-email-House pages-instant messaging scandal almost makes me want to throw in the white towel on behalf of God's Own Party. Besides, count me suspicious when conservative outlets and spokesmen start talking about the need to purify the party by cleaning house. As bad as the status quo is, any Republican makeover is certainly to be worse than its predecessor.
In the meantime, if you're tired of all the librul commentary out there about this Foley-Democrat Party scandal, you'll want to read Jon Swift, a true conservative blogger who tells it like it is.
In the meantime, if you're tired of all the librul commentary out there about this Foley-Democrat Party scandal, you'll want to read Jon Swift, a true conservative blogger who tells it like it is.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
A for Effort
Josh Marshall is reporting that another media outlet, this time the AP, has affixed a "D" to former Rep. Mark Foley's name in the ongoing sex-page-instant-message scandal, mistakingly identifying him as a Democrat. I say "another" in that another noted media outlet pulled the same gag the other night. Fair and balanced, huh? How about trying to be accurate and factual?
But you know what? I'm sure this isn't the first time Fox has affixed the D label to a Republican Congressman accused of, or indicted in, some malfeasance. They did it with Bob Ney, or one of the other many Republicans charged, indicted, convicted or implicated in various crimes over the last year. Will keep looking for the actual clip.
Meanwhile, I was over at the Alt Hippo's pad the other day, and I happened to mention the various, and conflicting stories Republicans and their partisans in their press we're coming up with to either minimize the Foley story or shift the blame for it to Democrats.
But despite my memory of them having done it before, I didn't stop to think of the most obvious ploy: actually labeling Foley a Democrat.
So, in addition to media outlets frequently framing political scandals as "bipartisan" in nature, some are actually taking it a step further and just changing the accused or convicted party member's affiliation.
But as dupeful as most Fox viewers are, it's pretty difficult to change Denny Hastert's party ID, or John Boehner's or Tom Reynolds'.
But you know what? I'm sure this isn't the first time Fox has affixed the D label to a Republican Congressman accused of, or indicted in, some malfeasance. They did it with Bob Ney, or one of the other many Republicans charged, indicted, convicted or implicated in various crimes over the last year. Will keep looking for the actual clip.
Meanwhile, I was over at the Alt Hippo's pad the other day, and I happened to mention the various, and conflicting stories Republicans and their partisans in their press we're coming up with to either minimize the Foley story or shift the blame for it to Democrats.
But despite my memory of them having done it before, I didn't stop to think of the most obvious ploy: actually labeling Foley a Democrat.
So, in addition to media outlets frequently framing political scandals as "bipartisan" in nature, some are actually taking it a step further and just changing the accused or convicted party member's affiliation.
But as dupeful as most Fox viewers are, it's pretty difficult to change Denny Hastert's party ID, or John Boehner's or Tom Reynolds'.
Our Elite Still Don't Get It
Today brings yet another stream-of-consciousness op-ed column from Tom Friedman in which he wishes Democrats to win the House and Senate by one-vote margins, ensuring the new majority party will "govern from the center", a wish that presumably means that in the future, American imperial over-stretches and international social engineering experiments will continue to be made, but that these efforts, unlike those of the current batch of incompetents, will be managed better. And just in case the reader is in danger of missing the point, and thinks Friedman is being critical of imperial overstretches and international social engineering experiments, the NYT op-ed columnnist squeezes in this qualification:
Yes, Mr. Bush's original vision of a unified democratic Iraq was compelling and important.
Despite everything that's happened over the last six years, our confederacy of dunces still thinks America has the right to treat countries around the world as wayward states that must be corralled into line and fashioned into "laboratories of democracy", depending on the whims of the dunces in question. So Friedman still thinks, and wants his readers to believe, that the war's aims, and the aims of its architects were well-meaning and justified because of "Bush's original vision of a unified democratic Iraq". The war was right, America was right, because our leadership's "vision of a unified and democratic Iraq was compelling and important". Compelling and important. Compelling and important to whom, for whom? And since when do "compelling and important" rank as metrics of international law or human rights? And if the "vision" was "compelling and important" where was the concern, where was the demand PRIOR to the war for a "compelling" and "important" post-occupation plan? Where were the questions, PRIOR to the war, about Iraq itself? (other than the opinions of the various exile groups).
As important as the moral parameters of the war are concerned, where was the recognition that a war planned in secret and in haste, lacking both adequate ground forces and international support, and devoid of any meaningful participation from or understanding of Iraq's people, was doomed to produce the chaos of today?
Part of the problem, I must admit, is an understanding of the very nature of war itself. Clearly there was a tension between the goals of "regime change" and "liberation", which most proponents of the war, and even most of the war's opponents either avoided or failed to articulate. Having now read through several of the books documenting the lead-up to, and the aftermath of the war, I'm struck by how little recognition there seems to be of the constraints of war.
Conservative critics of the war, if I can call them that, bemoan the lack of sufficient destruction carried out on the population, thereby acknowledging, however subtly, their recognition of the tension, and their preference for the destructive capabilities of war over its "liberating" impulses. But war in the modern era (Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, and, originally, Afghanistan) gave birth to the notion that wars could be quick, relatively devoid of American casualties, militarily effective, and politically thorough in their transformative impact.
But in the case of Gulf War I, the aims were considerably different than those embraced by the Bush neo-cons. All the military was called upon to do was evict Iraq's armies from Kuwaiit, not to conquer or recreate Iraqi society, all 25 million people of it. Similarly, the initial fruits of "victory" in Afghanistan have turned sour as American resources were diverted to Iraq and the realities of transforming Afghanistan cracked under the influence of deregulated warlords, drug entrepreneurs, and the new Taliban confederates coming back over the border from the tribal no-man lands separating Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. military played an understated role, much of it through the air in league with tribal warlords on the ground, in initially rousting the Taliban and bringing to power an obstensibly western-friendly president. But wishing to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union in the mountains and wilderness of Afghanistan, and concentrate its military tools and minds on Iraq, the U.S. and its allies have left Afghanistan, aside from a relatively pliable government in Kabul, to the lawless wasteland it was throughout the nineties, a circumstance that ultimately paved the way for Pakistani intercession via the Taliban. And although the obstensible aim of invading Afghanistan was either to capture or destroy Al Qaeda leadership and prevent the continued existence of terrorist training camps, the final result of our invasion of that country has been to allow both Al Qaeda and the training camps to re-emerge.
In Iraq, the U.S. military did the destroying of the regime itself, but the path to victory was a mirage, as most of the Iraqi military disolved into the towns, choosing to either vanish from sight or live to fight another day, in another way, through means more favorable to its primitive environment and capacities. "Victory" in Iraq was further undermined by the lack of resources and planning needed to stabilize and reconstruct the country, the latter condition the need for which was both under-estimated by the invaders as well as at least partially caused by them and its allies through 12 years of sanctions.
The result has been to leave one country--Afghanistan--relatively unchanged from the days prior to 9/11 and to make another country--Iraq--considerably worse off, both to its people as well as to the west, as economic chaos, sectarian conflict, and any Arabic humiliation generated by the invasion helps to spawn a new wave of anti-western terrorists, if not anti-western inhabitants, and a new, ungovernable environment in which those terrorists and hostile elements can thrive and mutate.
Yes, Mr. Bush's original vision of a unified democratic Iraq was compelling and important.
Despite everything that's happened over the last six years, our confederacy of dunces still thinks America has the right to treat countries around the world as wayward states that must be corralled into line and fashioned into "laboratories of democracy", depending on the whims of the dunces in question. So Friedman still thinks, and wants his readers to believe, that the war's aims, and the aims of its architects were well-meaning and justified because of "Bush's original vision of a unified democratic Iraq". The war was right, America was right, because our leadership's "vision of a unified and democratic Iraq was compelling and important". Compelling and important. Compelling and important to whom, for whom? And since when do "compelling and important" rank as metrics of international law or human rights? And if the "vision" was "compelling and important" where was the concern, where was the demand PRIOR to the war for a "compelling" and "important" post-occupation plan? Where were the questions, PRIOR to the war, about Iraq itself? (other than the opinions of the various exile groups).
As important as the moral parameters of the war are concerned, where was the recognition that a war planned in secret and in haste, lacking both adequate ground forces and international support, and devoid of any meaningful participation from or understanding of Iraq's people, was doomed to produce the chaos of today?
Part of the problem, I must admit, is an understanding of the very nature of war itself. Clearly there was a tension between the goals of "regime change" and "liberation", which most proponents of the war, and even most of the war's opponents either avoided or failed to articulate. Having now read through several of the books documenting the lead-up to, and the aftermath of the war, I'm struck by how little recognition there seems to be of the constraints of war.
Conservative critics of the war, if I can call them that, bemoan the lack of sufficient destruction carried out on the population, thereby acknowledging, however subtly, their recognition of the tension, and their preference for the destructive capabilities of war over its "liberating" impulses. But war in the modern era (Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, and, originally, Afghanistan) gave birth to the notion that wars could be quick, relatively devoid of American casualties, militarily effective, and politically thorough in their transformative impact.
But in the case of Gulf War I, the aims were considerably different than those embraced by the Bush neo-cons. All the military was called upon to do was evict Iraq's armies from Kuwaiit, not to conquer or recreate Iraqi society, all 25 million people of it. Similarly, the initial fruits of "victory" in Afghanistan have turned sour as American resources were diverted to Iraq and the realities of transforming Afghanistan cracked under the influence of deregulated warlords, drug entrepreneurs, and the new Taliban confederates coming back over the border from the tribal no-man lands separating Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. military played an understated role, much of it through the air in league with tribal warlords on the ground, in initially rousting the Taliban and bringing to power an obstensibly western-friendly president. But wishing to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union in the mountains and wilderness of Afghanistan, and concentrate its military tools and minds on Iraq, the U.S. and its allies have left Afghanistan, aside from a relatively pliable government in Kabul, to the lawless wasteland it was throughout the nineties, a circumstance that ultimately paved the way for Pakistani intercession via the Taliban. And although the obstensible aim of invading Afghanistan was either to capture or destroy Al Qaeda leadership and prevent the continued existence of terrorist training camps, the final result of our invasion of that country has been to allow both Al Qaeda and the training camps to re-emerge.
In Iraq, the U.S. military did the destroying of the regime itself, but the path to victory was a mirage, as most of the Iraqi military disolved into the towns, choosing to either vanish from sight or live to fight another day, in another way, through means more favorable to its primitive environment and capacities. "Victory" in Iraq was further undermined by the lack of resources and planning needed to stabilize and reconstruct the country, the latter condition the need for which was both under-estimated by the invaders as well as at least partially caused by them and its allies through 12 years of sanctions.
The result has been to leave one country--Afghanistan--relatively unchanged from the days prior to 9/11 and to make another country--Iraq--considerably worse off, both to its people as well as to the west, as economic chaos, sectarian conflict, and any Arabic humiliation generated by the invasion helps to spawn a new wave of anti-western terrorists, if not anti-western inhabitants, and a new, ungovernable environment in which those terrorists and hostile elements can thrive and mutate.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
There They Go Again
Shorter Robert Kagan:
The latest National Intelligence Estimate, which I haven't read, is wrong to suggest that the war in Iraq has worsened the threat of terrorism, because there's no way to measure "worsened". But even if you could measure it, and even if the measures did indicate the war in Iraq has worsened the threat of terrorism, the liberal, know-nothings in the intelligence community would be still be wrong and those of us who urged an invasion of Iraq would still be right.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate, which I haven't read, is wrong to suggest that the war in Iraq has worsened the threat of terrorism, because there's no way to measure "worsened". But even if you could measure it, and even if the measures did indicate the war in Iraq has worsened the threat of terrorism, the liberal, know-nothings in the intelligence community would be still be wrong and those of us who urged an invasion of Iraq would still be right.
Friday, September 22, 2006
This is a problem
At the very end of an article with this headline:
White House, Senators Near Pact on Interrogation Rules
there is this conclusion:
Democrats sounded a cautious note about the Republican accord, calling attention to the past Republican division rather than taking a position on the compromise.
"...rather than taking a position..."
This has been a consistent problem in the Democratic caucus rooms of the House and Senate. Now, there are two reasons why we might otherwise excuse Democrats from speaking out about this: Democrats in this parliamentary Congress don't have a say in policy-making and aren't given a place at the negotiating table, so what's there to contribute? The other obstensible reason for not speaking out would be, The Republicans are arguing among themselves and shooting themselves in their collective feet, so why stop them?
Either or both of these apologetics might be reasonable under certain circumstances, but these times are of course not certain circumstances: the timing of the upcoming elections combined with the severeness of the policy implications simply don't permit a hands-off approach.
If Democrats aren't invited to the negotiating table or assumed to be a part of the policy-making process, than there is a legislative tool or tools to deal with that. Reid has already exercised one of them. There are others. Like a filibuster, for instance. If there's an occasion or condition that warrants uninhibited use of the filibuster, it is in cases where the minority party is frozen out of the political process.
Instead, as Sadly No has documented, Democrats in Congress still, Still, seem to have their heads in the sand and want to emphasize economic issues in the upcoming elections and can't be bothered to even attend hearings where the administration's torture and confinement policies are being voted on.
Guys, and gals, if you want the country to respect you (and let me say, we, your Democratic constituents and supporters need you to do be so respected, or at least relevant) than do the right thing. Speak up. Make yours, and our, voices heard. Don't leave the governing, and the spinning, to the GOP. While the media deserves its share of condemnation for ignoring you, your antics and sheepishness, Democrats, haven't earned you much credibility. This is especially the case if you're afraid, or are perceived as being afraid to make an unpopular stand.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Habeas Corpus: The Other Issue
The conflict over the Geneva Conventions and methods of torture has been the point of emphasis by the press regarding the latest outbreak of inter-Republican Party strife, but as Amy Goodman reported on Democracy Now! this morning, it isn't just the torture that's wrong with the administration's policy.
There's also the matter of both the administration's as well as Congress's rejection of the right of habeas corpus. Goodman interviewed Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
It's the lack of habeas corpus that led to this.
And while it's attempting to think this won't affect the "innocent" or at least, real American citizens, that's a slippery slope I'm not prepared to slide down.
There's also the matter of both the administration's as well as Congress's rejection of the right of habeas corpus. Goodman interviewed Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
It's the lack of habeas corpus that led to this.
And while it's attempting to think this won't affect the "innocent" or at least, real American citizens, that's a slippery slope I'm not prepared to slide down.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Obviously, Ezra is Right
GOREWATCH. Obviously no one is saying Al Gore is going to run. Obviously no one is insinuating Al Gore is running. Obviously no one is suggesting that his decision to write The Assault on Reason for Penguin Press and publish it next May is in any way motivated by an impulse to keep testing the field at the precise moment speculation will be highest. Obviously no one is pointing out that a high-profile book tour on a Serious Subject in May 2007 will make Gore look even more attractive while the other candidates hang out at fish frys and chili cookoffs. Obviously no one is noticing that it'll let him tour the primary states and gauge the reaction without officially entering the race. Obviously no one is saying this is a fairly brilliant way to keep his options open and ensure his relevance and visibility if he wants to jump in. Obviously.
--Ezra Klein
By the way, speaking of books, could there be any more apt illustration of our reckless and negligent administration and its bungled foreign policy than the fact that these two books were up for review this weekend?
As if Iraq wasn't bad enough, the one "success" story in the "war on terror" is also turning out to be a mirage, its condition probably under-exposed until now given the importance attached to Iraq (and Lebanon and Syria, and Iran).
The tragedy of these books isn't that they are just now documenting the mistakes of the past, but that as a result, the future there, and here, could be very dark indeed.
--Ezra Klein
By the way, speaking of books, could there be any more apt illustration of our reckless and negligent administration and its bungled foreign policy than the fact that these two books were up for review this weekend?
As if Iraq wasn't bad enough, the one "success" story in the "war on terror" is also turning out to be a mirage, its condition probably under-exposed until now given the importance attached to Iraq (and Lebanon and Syria, and Iran).
The tragedy of these books isn't that they are just now documenting the mistakes of the past, but that as a result, the future there, and here, could be very dark indeed.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Cancer on the Presidency
Mo Dowd from yesterday's NYT:
I wish W. would let me help crystallize him.
But, alas, I’m not one of his chosen crystallizers, because he is loath to be exposed to anyone who doesn’t agree with him. He roams the country but never strays from Bushworld, going from military bases to conservative powwows to Republican Hill allies to sworn Bush supporters to sympathetic columnists.
“It helps crystallize my thought to answer your questions,” he told conservative columnists called to the Oval Office this week. But he made it clear that his thoughts were contentedly calcified: “Let me just first tell you that I’ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions. I’m oftentimes asked about, well, you’re stubborn and all this. If you believe in a strategy, in Washington, D.C., you’ve got to stick to that strategy, see.”
After reading this I couldn't help thinking about another President and the sort of people he reached out to. Writing in The Jesus I Never Knew, Christian evangelical author Philip Yancey recalls an occasion in which he, and a number of other evangelical Christians met with President Clinton to voice their concerns. Yancey wasn't specific about who exactly besides himself were in this delegation, but it seems safe to say that among them were people who hadn't voted for the Big Dawg and who weren't supportive of his policies. Still, whatever effect they had on him, Clinton chose to meet with them and at least hear them out.
W doesn't do this. In the David Brooks column I referenced last week, the NYT columnist made two points about Bush: (a) the President is very sure of himself and (b) the President doesn't seem to have the fetish common to almost all politicians of wanting or needing to be liked.
I suspect Bush's proclivity about meeting only with admirers and fellow ideological travelers is strongly related to the two personality traits Brooks identifies. His company tends to reinforce his sureness of himself and provide him with the necessary public acceptance he desires, without having to consort with the enemy, as Clinton felt the need to do.
In one sense, if we didn't know about the private visits Bush hosts with conservative bloggers and writers, Bush's seeming imperviousness to polls and public opinion could almost be a virtues. Presidents--and their constituents--of the world's lone super-power would seem to benefit from having the proper sort of emotional distance from dramatic turns of events and frequent, arbitrary changes in polls. Some steadiness of leadership under trying and changing circumstances is, I think, highly critical and valuable.
Among the complaints his critics raised about him, Clinton's seeming need to be liked and applauded have some validity.
But in Bush's case, as even some die-hard, dead-enders are starting to recognize, his insulation from the public and alternative points of view is becoming a liability and may border on the psychotic.
But perpectives on Bush that emphasize his self-assurance and his unflappability in the face of negative circumstances and polls also shields the reality that rather than being self-contained, Bush is actually a highly "handled" executive. The most telling example of this I thought was the first presidential debate, where Bush was suddenly out on the stage with competition, on his own for the first time in four years. And the comparison to Kerry that night was I think highly distinctive. That night it was almost a surprise to see a befuddled president in contrast to the cool, calm, choreagraphed, (and limited) images we had been given of him over his first term.
So who is our president? Self-assured and self-motivated (albeit stubbornly and unreflective), or sheltered and handled, the front-man of a partisan cabal, personified by Dick Cheney and propped up by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson?
I wish W. would let me help crystallize him.
But, alas, I’m not one of his chosen crystallizers, because he is loath to be exposed to anyone who doesn’t agree with him. He roams the country but never strays from Bushworld, going from military bases to conservative powwows to Republican Hill allies to sworn Bush supporters to sympathetic columnists.
“It helps crystallize my thought to answer your questions,” he told conservative columnists called to the Oval Office this week. But he made it clear that his thoughts were contentedly calcified: “Let me just first tell you that I’ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions. I’m oftentimes asked about, well, you’re stubborn and all this. If you believe in a strategy, in Washington, D.C., you’ve got to stick to that strategy, see.”
After reading this I couldn't help thinking about another President and the sort of people he reached out to. Writing in The Jesus I Never Knew, Christian evangelical author Philip Yancey recalls an occasion in which he, and a number of other evangelical Christians met with President Clinton to voice their concerns. Yancey wasn't specific about who exactly besides himself were in this delegation, but it seems safe to say that among them were people who hadn't voted for the Big Dawg and who weren't supportive of his policies. Still, whatever effect they had on him, Clinton chose to meet with them and at least hear them out.
W doesn't do this. In the David Brooks column I referenced last week, the NYT columnist made two points about Bush: (a) the President is very sure of himself and (b) the President doesn't seem to have the fetish common to almost all politicians of wanting or needing to be liked.
I suspect Bush's proclivity about meeting only with admirers and fellow ideological travelers is strongly related to the two personality traits Brooks identifies. His company tends to reinforce his sureness of himself and provide him with the necessary public acceptance he desires, without having to consort with the enemy, as Clinton felt the need to do.
In one sense, if we didn't know about the private visits Bush hosts with conservative bloggers and writers, Bush's seeming imperviousness to polls and public opinion could almost be a virtues. Presidents--and their constituents--of the world's lone super-power would seem to benefit from having the proper sort of emotional distance from dramatic turns of events and frequent, arbitrary changes in polls. Some steadiness of leadership under trying and changing circumstances is, I think, highly critical and valuable.
Among the complaints his critics raised about him, Clinton's seeming need to be liked and applauded have some validity.
But in Bush's case, as even some die-hard, dead-enders are starting to recognize, his insulation from the public and alternative points of view is becoming a liability and may border on the psychotic.
But perpectives on Bush that emphasize his self-assurance and his unflappability in the face of negative circumstances and polls also shields the reality that rather than being self-contained, Bush is actually a highly "handled" executive. The most telling example of this I thought was the first presidential debate, where Bush was suddenly out on the stage with competition, on his own for the first time in four years. And the comparison to Kerry that night was I think highly distinctive. That night it was almost a surprise to see a befuddled president in contrast to the cool, calm, choreagraphed, (and limited) images we had been given of him over his first term.
So who is our president? Self-assured and self-motivated (albeit stubbornly and unreflective), or sheltered and handled, the front-man of a partisan cabal, personified by Dick Cheney and propped up by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson?
Friday, September 15, 2006
Curb Your Gratification
I know this David Brooks column is about Bush and The War, but I'm still puzzling over this statement:
"I got into politics initially because I wanted to help change a culture," he (Bush) says, referring to his campaign against the instant gratifications of the 1960's counterculture. And he sees his efforts today as a series of long, gradual cultural transformations. Like many executives, he believes that the higher you go, the further into the future you should see, and so his conversation is filled with speculations about the long-term effects of deep social trends--the current religious awakening or the politics of volunteer armies.
What does this mean? If Bush wants or wanted to change the culture by challenging the "instant gratifications of the 1960's", who is the target of such a challenge? How is it implemented? More importantly, is it working? Are you delaying your gratification?
Now, I realize Bush has used this line in front of friendly campaign audiences. But I assume, and I trust you'll assume, that he probably didn't intend for his audience to think he meant them. Everyone knows conservatives are good, responsible people who curb their gratification. But if he's making these statements in front of audiences that don't need to be told to curb their gratification, than how does the message to curb your gratification get out and the culture get changed?
On the other hand, maybe some Republicans did need to hear the president's curb your gratification speeches.
Speaking of rich republicans, how do tax cuts fit into this picture? Is more cash on hand good for curbing one's gratification? Or what about those calls after 9/11 to keep doing what we've been doing, like keep going to malls, spending money and buying stuff?
Maybe the curb your gratification agenda was about welfare reform, and now that that's been disposed of, we can get back to the business of unleashing our gratification.
Or is this curb your gratification plan not about welfare, corruption, money or consumer zeal at all, but rather just about our sexual mores? If so, how does the president plan on curbing our gratification of the flesh?
Conservative judges who strike down previously permissive court rulings, or who strike down or fail to strike down congressional legislation depending on the needs required by the curb your gratification movement probably help here. But in Bush's tenure, the court seems to have mostly sided with the unleash your gratification crowd, like in the case where the court voted to overturn the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Of course now that Bush has gotten two conservatives on the bench, this will change, and the curb your gratification plan will finally be implemented.
But I'm still a bit confused. How would we know if American had gotten the curb your gratification message? Maybe a military draft would help. It would help curb young peoples' gratification by sending them off to war instead of off to colleges (and we know what goes on there). A military draft would also help in the president's war on terror, war in Iraq, war against militant radical islamicist fascistists.
In any event, I look forward to more presidential speeches and news conferences where the curb your gratification agenda is spelled out in more detail, and its violators appropriately chastened.
"I got into politics initially because I wanted to help change a culture," he (Bush) says, referring to his campaign against the instant gratifications of the 1960's counterculture. And he sees his efforts today as a series of long, gradual cultural transformations. Like many executives, he believes that the higher you go, the further into the future you should see, and so his conversation is filled with speculations about the long-term effects of deep social trends--the current religious awakening or the politics of volunteer armies.
What does this mean? If Bush wants or wanted to change the culture by challenging the "instant gratifications of the 1960's", who is the target of such a challenge? How is it implemented? More importantly, is it working? Are you delaying your gratification?
Now, I realize Bush has used this line in front of friendly campaign audiences. But I assume, and I trust you'll assume, that he probably didn't intend for his audience to think he meant them. Everyone knows conservatives are good, responsible people who curb their gratification. But if he's making these statements in front of audiences that don't need to be told to curb their gratification, than how does the message to curb your gratification get out and the culture get changed?
On the other hand, maybe some Republicans did need to hear the president's curb your gratification speeches.
Speaking of rich republicans, how do tax cuts fit into this picture? Is more cash on hand good for curbing one's gratification? Or what about those calls after 9/11 to keep doing what we've been doing, like keep going to malls, spending money and buying stuff?
Maybe the curb your gratification agenda was about welfare reform, and now that that's been disposed of, we can get back to the business of unleashing our gratification.
Or is this curb your gratification plan not about welfare, corruption, money or consumer zeal at all, but rather just about our sexual mores? If so, how does the president plan on curbing our gratification of the flesh?
Conservative judges who strike down previously permissive court rulings, or who strike down or fail to strike down congressional legislation depending on the needs required by the curb your gratification movement probably help here. But in Bush's tenure, the court seems to have mostly sided with the unleash your gratification crowd, like in the case where the court voted to overturn the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Of course now that Bush has gotten two conservatives on the bench, this will change, and the curb your gratification plan will finally be implemented.
But I'm still a bit confused. How would we know if American had gotten the curb your gratification message? Maybe a military draft would help. It would help curb young peoples' gratification by sending them off to war instead of off to colleges (and we know what goes on there). A military draft would also help in the president's war on terror, war in Iraq, war against militant radical islamicist fascistists.
In any event, I look forward to more presidential speeches and news conferences where the curb your gratification agenda is spelled out in more detail, and its violators appropriately chastened.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Everything But The Party
It took until yesterday afternoon for the results of many of Tuesday's PARTY PRIMARY elections to be tallied and announced. So it wasn't until today's papers that the news of William Donald Schaeffer's loss in the Maryland Comptroller's race was reported and analyzed.
Unfortunately, at least as far as the NYT and the Washington Post are concerned, Schaeffer's lost can mainly be explained on the basis of his advanced age (84), his excess of lifelong "candor" finally catching up to him, and in this race in particular, an untimely amount of mud-slinging engaged in by the colorful Schaeffer and one of his main opponents. According to this analysis, with Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens calling Schaeffer "old" and Schaeffer calling Owens "Old Mother Hubbard" and "fat", voters tuned them out and opted for the under-stated Maryland House Delegate Peter Franchot from Montgomery County.
This is the superfilous fair we've come to expect from professional journalism. Elections are about style, personality, essentially what the late political scientist V.O. Key referred to as "issue-less politics".
It's unclear to me why seemingly well-educated, experienced members of the press corps, or at least their bosses, fail to catch the fact that Schaeffer (like Lieberman last month) was defeated in a PARTY PRIMARY. That is, the election he lost was among Democratic Party Voters. Hmmmm. Why might that be? Maybe because the people who vote in Democratic Party Primaries are actually Democratic voters. And maybe it was Democratic voters that had wisened up--however long after the fact--and realized that Schaeffer wasn't one of them, and that Schaeffer was moreover an active impediment to the Democratic Party and in opposition to its progressive goals. Presented with a progressive alternative in Peter Franchot, progressive voters turned out the conservative Schaeffer.
But I guess picking up on this is too much to ask of our beleagured print media.
On a secondary note, we can see in the Comptroller's race an additional similarity to the Lieberman-Lamont race last month. Although Schaeffer, and his apologists, claim the ousted "political legend" valued public service for its ability to allow him to "help the people", a Washington Post article* did catch a very telling Schaeffer remark about the race. Referring to who he assumed was his main rival, Owens, Schaeffer bemoaned the fact that one of his friends had "turned on" him. Here is the incumbent's entitlement claim. Since and as long as he wants to hold the office, no one should run against him. The office belongs to him until he decides to gracefully step down. Once he wins his own election, he shouldn't have to engage in any more until he decides to retire (or dies in office). This was Lieberman's chant. Fortunately, at age 84, Schaeffer doesn't appear interested in forming a Maryland for Schaeffer, "independent Democrat" ticket. He is apparently suffering from power withdrawal however, as he already is making noices about running for mayor of Ocean City, as it's name suggests, a tourist, beachy town on Maryland's eastern shore where the Maryland Donald owns a condo.
*There is an additional Post article on the race but it isn't in the paper's on-line edition.
Unfortunately, at least as far as the NYT and the Washington Post are concerned, Schaeffer's lost can mainly be explained on the basis of his advanced age (84), his excess of lifelong "candor" finally catching up to him, and in this race in particular, an untimely amount of mud-slinging engaged in by the colorful Schaeffer and one of his main opponents. According to this analysis, with Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens calling Schaeffer "old" and Schaeffer calling Owens "Old Mother Hubbard" and "fat", voters tuned them out and opted for the under-stated Maryland House Delegate Peter Franchot from Montgomery County.
This is the superfilous fair we've come to expect from professional journalism. Elections are about style, personality, essentially what the late political scientist V.O. Key referred to as "issue-less politics".
It's unclear to me why seemingly well-educated, experienced members of the press corps, or at least their bosses, fail to catch the fact that Schaeffer (like Lieberman last month) was defeated in a PARTY PRIMARY. That is, the election he lost was among Democratic Party Voters. Hmmmm. Why might that be? Maybe because the people who vote in Democratic Party Primaries are actually Democratic voters. And maybe it was Democratic voters that had wisened up--however long after the fact--and realized that Schaeffer wasn't one of them, and that Schaeffer was moreover an active impediment to the Democratic Party and in opposition to its progressive goals. Presented with a progressive alternative in Peter Franchot, progressive voters turned out the conservative Schaeffer.
But I guess picking up on this is too much to ask of our beleagured print media.
On a secondary note, we can see in the Comptroller's race an additional similarity to the Lieberman-Lamont race last month. Although Schaeffer, and his apologists, claim the ousted "political legend" valued public service for its ability to allow him to "help the people", a Washington Post article* did catch a very telling Schaeffer remark about the race. Referring to who he assumed was his main rival, Owens, Schaeffer bemoaned the fact that one of his friends had "turned on" him. Here is the incumbent's entitlement claim. Since and as long as he wants to hold the office, no one should run against him. The office belongs to him until he decides to gracefully step down. Once he wins his own election, he shouldn't have to engage in any more until he decides to retire (or dies in office). This was Lieberman's chant. Fortunately, at age 84, Schaeffer doesn't appear interested in forming a Maryland for Schaeffer, "independent Democrat" ticket. He is apparently suffering from power withdrawal however, as he already is making noices about running for mayor of Ocean City, as it's name suggests, a tourist, beachy town on Maryland's eastern shore where the Maryland Donald owns a condo.
*There is an additional Post article on the race but it isn't in the paper's on-line edition.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
John Mueller Speak--You Listen
I would be remiss if I did not link you to this Foreign Affairs article by John Mueller, a poli-sci prof from Ohio State, and you would be equally remiss if you did not read it.
Go.
I forgot what site clued me in to this article, but thanks to whoever deserves the credit.
Go.
I forgot what site clued me in to this article, but thanks to whoever deserves the credit.
"We Must Kill All The Terrorists We're Creating"
Mo Dowd, from today's NYT:
Bin Laden has become the Willie Horton of the midterms. After letting the C.I.A. disband the unit devoted to hunting for Osama -- the Senate took a slap at the White House on Thursday when it voted to reinstate it -- Mr. Bush now won't stop talking about the bogeyman he ignored for five years while he transferred all his resources to Iraq.
"The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad," he said.
Instead of going after Osama, we invaded Iraq. Now W. says we must stay in Iraq or it will be run by Osamas. We must kill all the terrorists we are creating. American soldiers must keep dying because American soldiers have died. If we criticize Mr. Bush, then we're unmanning the whole country. The logic is deviously Rovian, and we are trapped in the circularity.
On "Meet the Press," Mr. Cheney warned that America cannot let its adversaries "break our will" and show we "don't have the stomach for the fight."
"It was the right thing to do," Vice insisted of the war in Iraq, "and if we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing."
After all the miscalculations and billions wasted, projects screwed up, lives and limbs lost, foreign enemies made, American stature squandered, Taliban strength regained, North Korean bombs and Iran-Iraq alliances built (visiting the American-hating, Holocaust-denying Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq called Iran "a good friend and brother") Dick Cheney wouldn't do anything differently?
Part of leadership has to be retooling, saying: "You know what? This hasn't worked. This is making things worse. What else can we do?"
Break out the Wet Wipes, Mr. Cheney. Time for a good scrubbing.
Meanwhile, The Rude One says:
"Don't let Osama Bin Laden tell you how to vote."
Bin Laden has become the Willie Horton of the midterms. After letting the C.I.A. disband the unit devoted to hunting for Osama -- the Senate took a slap at the White House on Thursday when it voted to reinstate it -- Mr. Bush now won't stop talking about the bogeyman he ignored for five years while he transferred all his resources to Iraq.
"The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad," he said.
Instead of going after Osama, we invaded Iraq. Now W. says we must stay in Iraq or it will be run by Osamas. We must kill all the terrorists we are creating. American soldiers must keep dying because American soldiers have died. If we criticize Mr. Bush, then we're unmanning the whole country. The logic is deviously Rovian, and we are trapped in the circularity.
On "Meet the Press," Mr. Cheney warned that America cannot let its adversaries "break our will" and show we "don't have the stomach for the fight."
"It was the right thing to do," Vice insisted of the war in Iraq, "and if we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing."
After all the miscalculations and billions wasted, projects screwed up, lives and limbs lost, foreign enemies made, American stature squandered, Taliban strength regained, North Korean bombs and Iran-Iraq alliances built (visiting the American-hating, Holocaust-denying Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq called Iran "a good friend and brother") Dick Cheney wouldn't do anything differently?
Part of leadership has to be retooling, saying: "You know what? This hasn't worked. This is making things worse. What else can we do?"
Break out the Wet Wipes, Mr. Cheney. Time for a good scrubbing.
Meanwhile, The Rude One says:
"Don't let Osama Bin Laden tell you how to vote."
The Path to Iraq
Now with the Bush-apologist Path to 9/11 behind us, I'm thinking of pitching a new idea to ABCDisney: The Path to Iraq. It would go back to 1990 when Senate Democrats oppose Bush 41's courageous decision to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwaiit and proceed to 1991 with the Democrats' demand that the First President Bush not carry the First Gulf War to Baghdad. Feeling the pressure from Democrats already running for 1992, Bush 41 and his war council, including Def Sec Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chair, Powell reluctantly back accede to the demands from the Democrat party. In the war's aftermath, the U.S. ingloriously agrees to European demands that only mild sanctions be applied to Saddam Hussein. More interested in health care and Monica Lewinski, and not in that order, President Clinton largely ignores Iraq while Saddam Hussein skirts the sanctions and re-assembles his stockpile of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Although international weapons inspectors had been required by the U.N. as a condition of the cease-fire, Saddam doesn't co-operate with them and finally ejects them from Iraq, meaning the West is left without a means of verifying Saddam's compliance with U.N. resolutions to disarm.
Thankfully, after eight years of neglect, the year 2001 brings with it the Bush-Republican Restoration. George H.W. Bush's first son, George W. re-takes the throne, er Oval Office. Immediately the new Decider of a president begins to implement the policy proposals put forward by the Project for a New American Century, an organization formed in exile during the Clinton years by devout conservatives such as William Kristol and Max Boot. These proposals call for regime change in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, in order to spread freedom and democracy across the Middle East. The new president first attempts a strategy of diplomacy, trying to force Iraq to allow the weapons inspectors back in the country. But Saddam Hussein, lured into complacency after eight years of Clinton appeasement refuses to re-admit the inspectors. Reluctantly, but with the support of former members of the PNAC--many of whom are either sprinkled through the new administration or heading up media efforts--Bush 43 launches an invasion of Iraq, but with only a limited number of American troops due to the restrictions demanded on the use of military force by Senate Democrats and the mainstream media.
Despite these restrictions, the war initially goes well, American forces occupy the country to a friendly reception while getting the electricity turned back on and toppling the Saddam statute to the cheers of Baghdadies and Americans alike. Unfortunately, the low number of troops allowed into Iraq for the war are far insufficient to subdue the country, prevent looting, civil breakdown and locate Saddam's illicit weapons. The detailed post-war occupation plans put forward by the Pentagon and State Department have to be shelved in order to stamp out the budding insurgency. Soon, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis begin warring against each other as well as with the occupying American army. Bloodshed spreads throughout Baghdad, while many parts of Iraq disolve into hostile territory of ousted Sunni remnants from the Saddam Baathist party and religious Shiite separatists.
Once again, a noble American military effort is bungled by the Democrat party opposition and the media. Americans at home gradually tire of the turmoil in Iraq and express that discontent against the President's party in the mid-term elections of 2006. A lame-duck President Bush 43 is left with no other choice than to slowly withdraw the number of American troops in Iraq, paving the way for a new group, known as Al Qaeda, to emerge in the former Saddam Hussein stronghold and begin destabilizing regimes across the Middle East, sparking conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, a Shiite sect, and endangering the American-friendly regime in Afghanistan. What's worse, the bungled Iraqi war has resulted in renewed friendly ties between Baghdad and Tehran, giving Iran cover to produce nuclear weapons to be used to wipe Israel off the map.
A new Democrat president takes office in 2009, thereby encouraging the formation of a new anti-American, anti-Israeli coalition consisting of China, Russia and Iraq-Iran. Unwilling to engage in World War III, the Democrat president allows the new superpower to control all Middle East oil and gas prices in the U.S. shoot up to $2.12 a gallon, precipitating a quick rise in inflation and an economic recession.
How am I doing so far?
Thankfully, after eight years of neglect, the year 2001 brings with it the Bush-Republican Restoration. George H.W. Bush's first son, George W. re-takes the throne, er Oval Office. Immediately the new Decider of a president begins to implement the policy proposals put forward by the Project for a New American Century, an organization formed in exile during the Clinton years by devout conservatives such as William Kristol and Max Boot. These proposals call for regime change in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, in order to spread freedom and democracy across the Middle East. The new president first attempts a strategy of diplomacy, trying to force Iraq to allow the weapons inspectors back in the country. But Saddam Hussein, lured into complacency after eight years of Clinton appeasement refuses to re-admit the inspectors. Reluctantly, but with the support of former members of the PNAC--many of whom are either sprinkled through the new administration or heading up media efforts--Bush 43 launches an invasion of Iraq, but with only a limited number of American troops due to the restrictions demanded on the use of military force by Senate Democrats and the mainstream media.
Despite these restrictions, the war initially goes well, American forces occupy the country to a friendly reception while getting the electricity turned back on and toppling the Saddam statute to the cheers of Baghdadies and Americans alike. Unfortunately, the low number of troops allowed into Iraq for the war are far insufficient to subdue the country, prevent looting, civil breakdown and locate Saddam's illicit weapons. The detailed post-war occupation plans put forward by the Pentagon and State Department have to be shelved in order to stamp out the budding insurgency. Soon, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis begin warring against each other as well as with the occupying American army. Bloodshed spreads throughout Baghdad, while many parts of Iraq disolve into hostile territory of ousted Sunni remnants from the Saddam Baathist party and religious Shiite separatists.
Once again, a noble American military effort is bungled by the Democrat party opposition and the media. Americans at home gradually tire of the turmoil in Iraq and express that discontent against the President's party in the mid-term elections of 2006. A lame-duck President Bush 43 is left with no other choice than to slowly withdraw the number of American troops in Iraq, paving the way for a new group, known as Al Qaeda, to emerge in the former Saddam Hussein stronghold and begin destabilizing regimes across the Middle East, sparking conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, a Shiite sect, and endangering the American-friendly regime in Afghanistan. What's worse, the bungled Iraqi war has resulted in renewed friendly ties between Baghdad and Tehran, giving Iran cover to produce nuclear weapons to be used to wipe Israel off the map.
A new Democrat president takes office in 2009, thereby encouraging the formation of a new anti-American, anti-Israeli coalition consisting of China, Russia and Iraq-Iran. Unwilling to engage in World War III, the Democrat president allows the new superpower to control all Middle East oil and gas prices in the U.S. shoot up to $2.12 a gallon, precipitating a quick rise in inflation and an economic recession.
How am I doing so far?
Buh Bye, Schaeffer
If you don't live in Maryland you might miss the significance of this, but it now appears, with 94% of precincts reporting, that Peter Franchot has unseated Donald William Schaeffer in the Democratic Party Primary for State Comptroller (basically the State Treasurer).
Why is this important?
Schaeffer is and has long been a Republican in Democrat clothing. He was elected to four terms as Baltimore Mayor and to two terms as Maryland Governor (1987-1995). He supported George H.W. Bush for President in 1992 over his own party's nominee, Bill Clinton. Schaeffer publically feuded with his Democratic successor as Governor, Parris Glendening, and since becoming Comptroller, has supported and aligned himself with the Republican Governor, Bob Erlich.
Progressive Democrats fielded an opponent to Schaeffer four years ago but failed to make much of a dent in Schaeffer's state-wide recognition numbers. But this year, Peter Franchot, a Maryland State Delegate in the lower House of the state legislature, and a self-proclaimed True Democrat (and in some sense the only Democrat in the three-candidate Democratic Primary) has defeated two conservative opponents to win the State's Democratic Party nomination for Comptroller.
While the office might not seem especially important, Franchot's victory is important for a number of reasons. First, compared to four years ago, it sends a signal that progressive Democrats are an increasing force at least in Maryland and are large enough and committed enough to defeat a well-known, entrenched incumbent. So Franchot's victory seems like harbinger of things to come this Fall. Second, whatever the significance of the office, and for progressives the oversight of important public works projects is indeed critical for exanding the economy and providing jobs, the capture of public office promises better government, it also aids the party as it attempts to build up its ranks of leaders, who can help mobilize support for other Democrats across the state and country, and perhaps serve as future congressman and Senators themselves.
So, for a variety of reasons, Franchot's win and Schaeffer's rejection are very good news for progressive Democrats, particularly in Maryland, but across the country.
Buy Bye, Donald. Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Why is this important?
Schaeffer is and has long been a Republican in Democrat clothing. He was elected to four terms as Baltimore Mayor and to two terms as Maryland Governor (1987-1995). He supported George H.W. Bush for President in 1992 over his own party's nominee, Bill Clinton. Schaeffer publically feuded with his Democratic successor as Governor, Parris Glendening, and since becoming Comptroller, has supported and aligned himself with the Republican Governor, Bob Erlich.
Progressive Democrats fielded an opponent to Schaeffer four years ago but failed to make much of a dent in Schaeffer's state-wide recognition numbers. But this year, Peter Franchot, a Maryland State Delegate in the lower House of the state legislature, and a self-proclaimed True Democrat (and in some sense the only Democrat in the three-candidate Democratic Primary) has defeated two conservative opponents to win the State's Democratic Party nomination for Comptroller.
While the office might not seem especially important, Franchot's victory is important for a number of reasons. First, compared to four years ago, it sends a signal that progressive Democrats are an increasing force at least in Maryland and are large enough and committed enough to defeat a well-known, entrenched incumbent. So Franchot's victory seems like harbinger of things to come this Fall. Second, whatever the significance of the office, and for progressives the oversight of important public works projects is indeed critical for exanding the economy and providing jobs, the capture of public office promises better government, it also aids the party as it attempts to build up its ranks of leaders, who can help mobilize support for other Democrats across the state and country, and perhaps serve as future congressman and Senators themselves.
So, for a variety of reasons, Franchot's win and Schaeffer's rejection are very good news for progressive Democrats, particularly in Maryland, but across the country.
Buy Bye, Donald. Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Progressives and Christianity
Here are two articles worth reading, one from the NYT the other in this weekend's Post. I'll be back in a later post to discuss.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?ex=1311912000&en=6e51918eb9327aca&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901155.html
Update: MSNBC has an item about former Republican Senator Jack Danforth and his forthcoming book on faith and politics.
This sentence is particularly important:
"Real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them, he says, and "an assumption that ... I am God's chosen messenger to deliver a certain political message is divisive." "
This is the real dividing issue I think. Does a church presume to possess the truth and the obligation of spreading that truth, or is the church mainly a vehicle for community and spiritual exploration? The former has the benefit of offering a defining sense of mission and purpose. Its downside is its inflexibility and illusion of infallibility. It also suffers from a lack of meaningful participation and feedback. The latter form of church suffers from a lack of a compelling identity or purpose. It's benefit is its openness, tolerance and potential for intellectual and spiritual growth. The latter encourages community while the former tends to encourage separation and exclusivity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?ex=1311912000&en=6e51918eb9327aca&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901155.html
Update: MSNBC has an item about former Republican Senator Jack Danforth and his forthcoming book on faith and politics.
This sentence is particularly important:
"Real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them, he says, and "an assumption that ... I am God's chosen messenger to deliver a certain political message is divisive." "
This is the real dividing issue I think. Does a church presume to possess the truth and the obligation of spreading that truth, or is the church mainly a vehicle for community and spiritual exploration? The former has the benefit of offering a defining sense of mission and purpose. Its downside is its inflexibility and illusion of infallibility. It also suffers from a lack of meaningful participation and feedback. The latter form of church suffers from a lack of a compelling identity or purpose. It's benefit is its openness, tolerance and potential for intellectual and spiritual growth. The latter encourages community while the former tends to encourage separation and exclusivity.
Monday Morning Quarterback, '06
Welcome to the NFL, year 2006.
Yesterday had some almost thrilling finishes. But let's start with the shutouts.
Ravens 27
Bucs 0
This didn't surprise me as much as it apparently did a lot of other people. The margin was certainly more than I anticipated. But I thought going in that the Steve McNair pick-up over the summer was probably the move of the off-season, giving a generally strong Baltimore squad the final piece it needed. The Ravens already had a lot of the pieces to contend and acquiring Air-McNair, who showed he can still play, will make Baltimore an intriguing player this year. The only question about Baltimore in my mind was I think they probably should have parted ways with Brian Bilick in the offseason. A number of commentators think he lost the team last year and was burned out. At the same time, maybe with everyone healthy and led by a good quarterback, continuity at coach was the way to go.
And oh yeah, the Bucs sure were bad.
Bears 26
Pack 0
Another non-surprise. Probably going to be a very long season on the frozen tundra. Mike Francesca of the New York-based NFL Now program yesterday morning--before the shutout loss no less--identified Farve as probably a detriment to this team. He's always been a gun-slinger but now there's no one in Green Bay to tell him "no", and the Hall of Fame quarterback has adopted the attitude that he'll just go out on the field and do whatever because he's his team's only chance to win. And this is essentially a recipe for disaster on the field and in the locker-room. Francesca also suggested Farve might be delt to a contender that loses its quarterback. Interesting times.
Of course when a team wins 26-0 and shuts out a Hall of Fame quarterback for the first time in his illustrious career, it's unfair for any analysis to focus on the defeated team. But we knew the
Bears were pretty good, maybe even very good on defense and special teams. But their offense, Rex Grossman in particular, really responded. Having genuine QB competition in camp in the form of Brian Griese may have added some urgency as well as some options to the Chicago offense. Da Bears should win this division by next week.
Let's look at the almost nail-biters.
49'ers 27
Arizona 31
The Cards led 31-21 with under a minute to go but Alex Smith led the Niners down the field, put them in field goal range and with 34 seconds kicked a field goal--and odd choice I thought until the Niners went with the onside kick, recovered it and provided enough time for Alex Smith to chuck a couple into the end zone. Cards held on to win as the final pass was batted down in the end zone with 0 seconds left. Earlier in the day a Phoenix-based correspondent noted that where the Cardinals were concerned, this was probably as close to a must-win Game 1 as has ever existed--at home, new stadium, new players like Edgerrin James, and a bad opponent. They escaped with the win. But seemed like Alex Smith had a big day and the Alex Smith era has probably just been inaugurated in the windy city.
Cowboys 17
Jags 24
A tale of two halves. Cowboys looked pretty strong in the first half and the Jags looked confused, as Joe Buck and Troy Aikman pointed out in the booth. But the 'Boys only had a 10-3 lead to show for it, and the Jags suddenly awoke at the end of the half to tie the game, took the ball and passed it down the field to open the third quarter and take the lead 17-10, and then went ahead in the fourth quarter with another well-executed offensive drive, 24-10, with less than two minutes to go. But the Jags prevent defense allowed Drew Bledsoe to march down the field with a first play pass of 51 yards (all of it through the air) and then a nice pitch and catch to T.O. in the end zone. But then Dallas botched the on-side kick and that was that. Bledsoe had a bad day, three picks, although the last came in the desperate moments on the last play.
One interesting thing about this game was that two calls were reversed on challenges, and in neither was there anything resembling "conclusive evidence" that the original call was wrong. The last of these was on the second to last play of the game when Bledsoe threw a third interception but the Jags player was ruled to have dropped the ball, giving Dallas the ball back. And nowhere in the instant replay could you clearly see the ball out or even coming out. No mine, Dallas got the ball back and Bledsoe threw another interception.
Some are calling for Tony Romo in Dallas to replace Bledsoe. Bledsoe was pretty critical for Dallas last year. They probably would have been competing for the first pick in the draft without him, but he's easily flustered into making bad plays, and probably won't stay the starter for long with more days like he had yesterday.
Other items of interest...Peyton won the Manning Bowl as the Colts slipped by the New York football Giants...Eric Mangini opens with a win in Tennessee as the Jets beat the Titans but Mike Nugent, a second round pick last year who kicked well last year missed an extra point and two cheapy field goals making this closer than it should have been.
Yesterday had some almost thrilling finishes. But let's start with the shutouts.
Ravens 27
Bucs 0
This didn't surprise me as much as it apparently did a lot of other people. The margin was certainly more than I anticipated. But I thought going in that the Steve McNair pick-up over the summer was probably the move of the off-season, giving a generally strong Baltimore squad the final piece it needed. The Ravens already had a lot of the pieces to contend and acquiring Air-McNair, who showed he can still play, will make Baltimore an intriguing player this year. The only question about Baltimore in my mind was I think they probably should have parted ways with Brian Bilick in the offseason. A number of commentators think he lost the team last year and was burned out. At the same time, maybe with everyone healthy and led by a good quarterback, continuity at coach was the way to go.
And oh yeah, the Bucs sure were bad.
Bears 26
Pack 0
Another non-surprise. Probably going to be a very long season on the frozen tundra. Mike Francesca of the New York-based NFL Now program yesterday morning--before the shutout loss no less--identified Farve as probably a detriment to this team. He's always been a gun-slinger but now there's no one in Green Bay to tell him "no", and the Hall of Fame quarterback has adopted the attitude that he'll just go out on the field and do whatever because he's his team's only chance to win. And this is essentially a recipe for disaster on the field and in the locker-room. Francesca also suggested Farve might be delt to a contender that loses its quarterback. Interesting times.
Of course when a team wins 26-0 and shuts out a Hall of Fame quarterback for the first time in his illustrious career, it's unfair for any analysis to focus on the defeated team. But we knew the
Bears were pretty good, maybe even very good on defense and special teams. But their offense, Rex Grossman in particular, really responded. Having genuine QB competition in camp in the form of Brian Griese may have added some urgency as well as some options to the Chicago offense. Da Bears should win this division by next week.
Let's look at the almost nail-biters.
49'ers 27
Arizona 31
The Cards led 31-21 with under a minute to go but Alex Smith led the Niners down the field, put them in field goal range and with 34 seconds kicked a field goal--and odd choice I thought until the Niners went with the onside kick, recovered it and provided enough time for Alex Smith to chuck a couple into the end zone. Cards held on to win as the final pass was batted down in the end zone with 0 seconds left. Earlier in the day a Phoenix-based correspondent noted that where the Cardinals were concerned, this was probably as close to a must-win Game 1 as has ever existed--at home, new stadium, new players like Edgerrin James, and a bad opponent. They escaped with the win. But seemed like Alex Smith had a big day and the Alex Smith era has probably just been inaugurated in the windy city.
Cowboys 17
Jags 24
A tale of two halves. Cowboys looked pretty strong in the first half and the Jags looked confused, as Joe Buck and Troy Aikman pointed out in the booth. But the 'Boys only had a 10-3 lead to show for it, and the Jags suddenly awoke at the end of the half to tie the game, took the ball and passed it down the field to open the third quarter and take the lead 17-10, and then went ahead in the fourth quarter with another well-executed offensive drive, 24-10, with less than two minutes to go. But the Jags prevent defense allowed Drew Bledsoe to march down the field with a first play pass of 51 yards (all of it through the air) and then a nice pitch and catch to T.O. in the end zone. But then Dallas botched the on-side kick and that was that. Bledsoe had a bad day, three picks, although the last came in the desperate moments on the last play.
One interesting thing about this game was that two calls were reversed on challenges, and in neither was there anything resembling "conclusive evidence" that the original call was wrong. The last of these was on the second to last play of the game when Bledsoe threw a third interception but the Jags player was ruled to have dropped the ball, giving Dallas the ball back. And nowhere in the instant replay could you clearly see the ball out or even coming out. No mine, Dallas got the ball back and Bledsoe threw another interception.
Some are calling for Tony Romo in Dallas to replace Bledsoe. Bledsoe was pretty critical for Dallas last year. They probably would have been competing for the first pick in the draft without him, but he's easily flustered into making bad plays, and probably won't stay the starter for long with more days like he had yesterday.
Other items of interest...Peyton won the Manning Bowl as the Colts slipped by the New York football Giants...Eric Mangini opens with a win in Tennessee as the Jets beat the Titans but Mike Nugent, a second round pick last year who kicked well last year missed an extra point and two cheapy field goals making this closer than it should have been.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
What a Surprise
From CNN:
The five-hour miniseries [The Path to 911] is set to run [on ABC] without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. Among the actors in it are Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.
What a surprise to learn that Patricia Heaton stars in this "movie".
That would be this Patricia Heaton.
Heaton is a conservative, pro-life activist and is the honorary chairperson of Feminists for Life, an organization opposed to abortion. She is a very outspoken Republican and supporter of both President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. Although she has been quoted as saying "once a Catholic, always a Catholic," Heaton now attends an evangelical Presbyterian church with her husband and their four sons. She has not renounced her Catholic faith nor converted to Presbyterian faith and may be attending because of family unity.
Again, I am shocked, surprised, and amazed by this development.
The five-hour miniseries [The Path to 911] is set to run [on ABC] without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. Among the actors in it are Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.
What a surprise to learn that Patricia Heaton stars in this "movie".
That would be this Patricia Heaton.
Heaton is a conservative, pro-life activist and is the honorary chairperson of Feminists for Life, an organization opposed to abortion. She is a very outspoken Republican and supporter of both President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. Although she has been quoted as saying "once a Catholic, always a Catholic," Heaton now attends an evangelical Presbyterian church with her husband and their four sons. She has not renounced her Catholic faith nor converted to Presbyterian faith and may be attending because of family unity.
Again, I am shocked, surprised, and amazed by this development.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Martydom and Torture
I didn't know what else to title this post, but I've been thinking about the connection between conservatives who, on the one hand, want to give the government free reign to torture "terrorists-insurgents-liberals" and who on the other hand, express anger, shock, disappointment--whatever the source of the vitriolic spit is--at western hostages (in this case, journalists) who opt to make canned confessions-accusations at the behest of their captors so as to save themselves.
As to the first, conservatives seem to think that prisoners of our war on terror will, under the threat or implementation of torture, truthfully confess the whereabouts of their comrades, the details of their Islamistist-fascisitist plans to conquer America, as well as their most secret western fetishes.
As to the second, conservative trackball warriors seem to demand that western hostages under the same or similar conditions clam up, not co-operate with their captors, and devoutly embrace the martydom the conservatives' war of civilizations requires, even if and though, as is likely the case, the heathen western journalists are neither Christian Nationalists United Against Islamcisticis Fasicistim or made of the same hearty, fearless stuff of the right-wing Internets militia.
Make sense to you?
Me neither.
As to the first, conservatives seem to think that prisoners of our war on terror will, under the threat or implementation of torture, truthfully confess the whereabouts of their comrades, the details of their Islamistist-fascisitist plans to conquer America, as well as their most secret western fetishes.
As to the second, conservative trackball warriors seem to demand that western hostages under the same or similar conditions clam up, not co-operate with their captors, and devoutly embrace the martydom the conservatives' war of civilizations requires, even if and though, as is likely the case, the heathen western journalists are neither Christian Nationalists United Against Islamcisticis Fasicistim or made of the same hearty, fearless stuff of the right-wing Internets militia.
Make sense to you?
Me neither.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
A False God
Wolcott:
"What we're hearing from pundits, bloggers, and likeminded belligerents this August is a baying to a false God, a nostalgic need for motivational clarity and a macho yearning for deliverance that the facts on the ground will deny them. Their commando belts tied up in knots, their umbrellas unfolded, they can turn on Bush, or on Condi Rice (as Richard Perle has done), but who can they turn to? Nobody. That's why they're egging each other on, flexing their biceps, and clinging to Mark Steyn for warmth. It's the only way to hold on to their fading relevance."
I've been saying this for awhile. The kind of war the War Party wants doesn't exist anymore and can't be conjured up absent both a mass mobilization for war and mass carnage, neither of which people or markets will stand for.
The problem with the war vitriolicism is that it's anger will not easily be dissipated, meaning that it will ultimately have to find another outlet, and that most likely outlet will be the War Party's domestic antagonists--meaning us, pointy-headed university intellectuals, liberals, secular humanism, modernity, tolerance, gays, abortionists, freedom of thought, freedom itself.
"What we're hearing from pundits, bloggers, and likeminded belligerents this August is a baying to a false God, a nostalgic need for motivational clarity and a macho yearning for deliverance that the facts on the ground will deny them. Their commando belts tied up in knots, their umbrellas unfolded, they can turn on Bush, or on Condi Rice (as Richard Perle has done), but who can they turn to? Nobody. That's why they're egging each other on, flexing their biceps, and clinging to Mark Steyn for warmth. It's the only way to hold on to their fading relevance."
I've been saying this for awhile. The kind of war the War Party wants doesn't exist anymore and can't be conjured up absent both a mass mobilization for war and mass carnage, neither of which people or markets will stand for.
The problem with the war vitriolicism is that it's anger will not easily be dissipated, meaning that it will ultimately have to find another outlet, and that most likely outlet will be the War Party's domestic antagonists--meaning us, pointy-headed university intellectuals, liberals, secular humanism, modernity, tolerance, gays, abortionists, freedom of thought, freedom itself.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
The Dismantling of FEMA
This week brings with it much deserved attention to the memory of Katrina and the failure of government to adequately plan for, and respond to the crisis. Pictures of the president first playing the guitar in California in the first hours of the natural disaster and later peering out an airplane window at the chaos below are again circulating on the Internets, on TV, and the print media.
But the high crime of this administration pertaining to Katrina can be found in the first months of the administration, back in 2001 as a new cadre of political appointees found their way into FEMA and in various ways sought to undermine the agency's history, purpose and structure, intending indeed, to reduce the agency to the figurative rubble much like the literal rubble that would in four years characterize New Orleans. Nor was this intent to dismantle FEMA a secret--Bush's first appointee to the job stated his belief that FEMA had essentially become a welfare provider, a role he no longer wanted the agency to play.
Long-time investigative journalist Russ Baker last year contributed a thoughtful essay on what happened to FEMA prior to Katrina, and it makes for some horrific reading.
But the high crime of this administration pertaining to Katrina can be found in the first months of the administration, back in 2001 as a new cadre of political appointees found their way into FEMA and in various ways sought to undermine the agency's history, purpose and structure, intending indeed, to reduce the agency to the figurative rubble much like the literal rubble that would in four years characterize New Orleans. Nor was this intent to dismantle FEMA a secret--Bush's first appointee to the job stated his belief that FEMA had essentially become a welfare provider, a role he no longer wanted the agency to play.
Long-time investigative journalist Russ Baker last year contributed a thoughtful essay on what happened to FEMA prior to Katrina, and it makes for some horrific reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)