The election of a Democratic Majority in both houses of Congress with two more years left in George Bush's second term have of course already raised the spectre of "gridlock" and divided government. Divided government was once a mainstay of the American political system, particularly since the Great Depression as Democrats controlled Congress and particularly after WWII, Republicans won the presidency. So in some ways, the results Tuesday reflected a return to the norm of democratic stability Americans knew so well for the past near century.
But I actually think that the election of Democrats Tuesday will, for a time at least, result in a much more truly unified government than that which preceded it. While Republican control of Congress and the Presidency for most of the post-2000 period was a partisanly unified government witnessed for only very brief periods in modern history, it was not a unified government in the sense that each party or most segments of society had a stake in it. For the past six years, only Republicans were participating in government. Only Republicans were functional contributors to policy-making decisions and political life, a situation exacerbated both by a runaway executive using "signing-statements" and a "unitary executive theory" to run roughshod over Congress and its partisan opponents as well as by a Congressional Majority that sought to exclude Democrats from the lobbying world (aka the K Street Project) and made legislation in hide-away conferences, away from the prying eyes of elected Democrats.
One of the results of this two-pronged act of aggression on the part of the president and congressional leadership was an oppositional party that had little stake in supporting bi-partisan fixes to Social Security and Medicare or the "war on terrorism". This last point is especially instructive. As Iraq descended into anarchy, media conservatives and Republican leaders frequently complained that the Democrats wanted "us" to "lose" in Iraq. But while many Democrats opportunistically backed the 2002 resolution "authorizing force" in Iraq, the failure of Republicans in Congress to provide meaningful oversight of the war effort left Democrats without a role or stake in the "war on terrorism". In turn, Republicans simply branded Democrats and Democratic voters as traitors, defeatists or appeasers anyway, regardless of whatever legislative support Democrats had originally given the president. Without input for Iraq policy, Republicans were ensured of getting their way in terms of policy formulation, but in terms of policy implementation and execution, shutting out Democrats resulted in an unevaluated, broken and increasingly unpopular war effort and led to the absence of an oppositional party trusted to back up the administration when things went sour.
So, rather than unified government, America actually endured a divided government and a divided citizenry for the past six years.
Now that Democrats will be wielding the gavels in both houses of Congress, a wider array of Americans can be assured of representation and participation. And this will be especially important in resolving the situation in Iraq and confronting Islamic terrorism more broadly. Although the president will of course continue to dominate foreign policy making, Democrats will have a genuine opportunity to participate, through oversight hearings and appropriations, the running of government.
Additionally, the worst of all Republican abuses--rhetorically pitting one region of the country against another and trying to favor one region over another--aka waging the Culture War, will also become more difficult if not foolhardy. In practice, unified government under conservative Republicans was one in which the South and "heartland" were glorified while the West and East Coasts were denigrated. In other words, "unified" government was actually divided government. In the lead-up to the elections, waged a rhetorically regional civil war, trying to inflame their base by alluding to the regional base and demographic constituencies of would-be Democratic Speakers and chairmen. And even after the election, some Republicans are still mindlessly chanting "Pelosi", "San Francisco", "values", and "Middle America" as if their agenda and dreams for America can be advanced by conquering the "enemy within". But as the Mid-West and Mountain West join the West and East Coasts in creating Democratic majorities, the Republicans' reliance on its "southern strategy" will come to be seen as politically and practically bankrupt. And if the Republicans want to gain a majority again, they'll need to scrounge up candidates and voters in regions outside the South, outside of the "heartland" to do it. Rhetorical and symbolic calls designed to pitt Americans against one another won't stand.
So, let's welcome "divided" government as the true, "unified" government.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The New Democratic Majority
It shouldn't be surprising to hear media conservatives claim either that even though the Democrats captured Congress on Tuesday, it wasn't really the Democrats that won, it was the Republicans that lost, or that the new Democratic members are more conservative than liberal, so it was really conservatism that triumphed, blah, blah, blah.
But let's look at the House results first. Here is the state and regional distribution of new Democratic seats as of this writing;*
Northeast: 10 = PA(4); NY(2); NH(2); CT(2)
Pacific West: 1 = CA(1)
Mountain West: 3 = AZ(2); CO(1)
Mid-West: 7 = KS(1); IN(3); IA(1); MN(1); OH(1)
South: 5 = FL(2); NC(1); KY(1); TX(1)
While I can't claim thorough knowledge of each and every one of these incoming members, I'm going to speculate that for all 26 of them, they were the less conservative contender in each race. So the Democratic victory was in every sense, a triumph, however temporal, of progressivism, or moderation, or liberalism, however you want to call it, over conservatism.
It is worth conceding that the Foley seat in Florida and the DeLay seat in Texas were cases in which the Republican candidate was forced out of office too late in the game to re-nominate and put on the ballot a replacement candidate; in the Texas case in particular, the Republican was a write-in if I understand it, making the challenge for the GOP there particularly difficult.
And it's also worth noting that in one PA and one NY race, the Republican incumbent was involved in some sort of woman-abusing, domestic dispute issue, relegating the effect of policy issues in those races to the back burner. Of course, since the GOP once trumpeted the supreme importance of "character" in politics, than the fact that the GOP candidates lost on the basis of "character" issues shouldn't take away from the Democratic successes there.
But in any event, with close to a third of the new Democrats coming from the Northeast, this election contributed to the on-going geographical realignment between the parties, as the Northeast becomes more Democratic and the South more Republican.
Meanwhile, Democrats made at last modest gains throughout the country, including the South and Mountain West where Republicans have been the strongest.
Much can be said for the U.S. Senate. There's no question that the Democratic victor in each case will be more liberal than the soon-to-be-ex Senator, even in PA where one anti-abortion Senator replaces another.
But even beyond ideology, the Democratic victories and victors in Montana, VA, and PA are particularly heartening. In each case, what I would call the politics of seriousness and reason triumphed over the politics of corruption, empty-suitism, and malevolent ideology, respectively. In their own way, Burns, Allen and Santorum were each symbols of what ails the American polity: Big Money; Banality; and Religious Fundamentalism. And their successors promise to be voices of moderation and plain-spokenness, which considering what the country has gone through for the last 12, if not the last 40 years, will be a welcome change, even if that change is not a textbook or talk-radio charicature of liberalism.
So, if Republicans want to claim that their cause has not suffered, so be it. If they want to stay in denial, they're welcome to it, now that their hands have been removed from at least some of the levers of power. But what I anticipate the next two years will show is that the conservative dream of remaking the world and USA in its own image will have been ship-wrecked if not irreparably halted.
*Media reports indicate 28-29 new Democratic members, so I'm a couple short here. I didn't count the new Democrat in Vermont, who replaces Independent Bernie Sanders, because Sanders caucused with the Democrats.
But let's look at the House results first. Here is the state and regional distribution of new Democratic seats as of this writing;*
Northeast: 10 = PA(4); NY(2); NH(2); CT(2)
Pacific West: 1 = CA(1)
Mountain West: 3 = AZ(2); CO(1)
Mid-West: 7 = KS(1); IN(3); IA(1); MN(1); OH(1)
South: 5 = FL(2); NC(1); KY(1); TX(1)
While I can't claim thorough knowledge of each and every one of these incoming members, I'm going to speculate that for all 26 of them, they were the less conservative contender in each race. So the Democratic victory was in every sense, a triumph, however temporal, of progressivism, or moderation, or liberalism, however you want to call it, over conservatism.
It is worth conceding that the Foley seat in Florida and the DeLay seat in Texas were cases in which the Republican candidate was forced out of office too late in the game to re-nominate and put on the ballot a replacement candidate; in the Texas case in particular, the Republican was a write-in if I understand it, making the challenge for the GOP there particularly difficult.
And it's also worth noting that in one PA and one NY race, the Republican incumbent was involved in some sort of woman-abusing, domestic dispute issue, relegating the effect of policy issues in those races to the back burner. Of course, since the GOP once trumpeted the supreme importance of "character" in politics, than the fact that the GOP candidates lost on the basis of "character" issues shouldn't take away from the Democratic successes there.
But in any event, with close to a third of the new Democrats coming from the Northeast, this election contributed to the on-going geographical realignment between the parties, as the Northeast becomes more Democratic and the South more Republican.
Meanwhile, Democrats made at last modest gains throughout the country, including the South and Mountain West where Republicans have been the strongest.
Much can be said for the U.S. Senate. There's no question that the Democratic victor in each case will be more liberal than the soon-to-be-ex Senator, even in PA where one anti-abortion Senator replaces another.
But even beyond ideology, the Democratic victories and victors in Montana, VA, and PA are particularly heartening. In each case, what I would call the politics of seriousness and reason triumphed over the politics of corruption, empty-suitism, and malevolent ideology, respectively. In their own way, Burns, Allen and Santorum were each symbols of what ails the American polity: Big Money; Banality; and Religious Fundamentalism. And their successors promise to be voices of moderation and plain-spokenness, which considering what the country has gone through for the last 12, if not the last 40 years, will be a welcome change, even if that change is not a textbook or talk-radio charicature of liberalism.
So, if Republicans want to claim that their cause has not suffered, so be it. If they want to stay in denial, they're welcome to it, now that their hands have been removed from at least some of the levers of power. But what I anticipate the next two years will show is that the conservative dream of remaking the world and USA in its own image will have been ship-wrecked if not irreparably halted.
*Media reports indicate 28-29 new Democratic members, so I'm a couple short here. I didn't count the new Democrat in Vermont, who replaces Independent Bernie Sanders, because Sanders caucused with the Democrats.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Congress says Pentagon returning to "non-wartime footing" in Iraq
You've probably heard by now that the Pentagon's Inspector General overseeing Iraq is being canned. But relax, it's only because the war's over:
Mr. Holly, who is the House Armed Services spokesman as well as a member of Mr. Hunter’s staff, said that politics played no role and that there had been no direction from the administration or lobbying from the companies whose work in Iraq Mr. Bowen’s office has severely critiqued. Three of the companies that have been a particular focus of Mr. Bowen’s investigations, Halliburton, Parsons and Bechtel, said that they had made no effort to lobby against his office.
The idea, Mr. Holly said, was simply to return to a non-wartime footing in which inspectors general in the State Department, the Pentagon and elsewhere would investigate American programs overseas. The definite termination date was also seen as helpful for planning future oversight efforts from Bush administration agencies, he said.
So, despite whatever you've been hearing about permanent military bases in Iraq, and American military forces staying in Iraq for another three years or until 2017, whichever comes first, any reports about Iraq being the central front on the war on terror have as much credibility as a wad of plegm.
But seriously, even though AmericaBlog blames the GOP--they do run the Capital, after all--what I wanna know is, where were the Democrats on this when the provision was being added in conference and when it came back to the floors of both houses for votes? Hello?
Mr. Holly, who is the House Armed Services spokesman as well as a member of Mr. Hunter’s staff, said that politics played no role and that there had been no direction from the administration or lobbying from the companies whose work in Iraq Mr. Bowen’s office has severely critiqued. Three of the companies that have been a particular focus of Mr. Bowen’s investigations, Halliburton, Parsons and Bechtel, said that they had made no effort to lobby against his office.
The idea, Mr. Holly said, was simply to return to a non-wartime footing in which inspectors general in the State Department, the Pentagon and elsewhere would investigate American programs overseas. The definite termination date was also seen as helpful for planning future oversight efforts from Bush administration agencies, he said.
So, despite whatever you've been hearing about permanent military bases in Iraq, and American military forces staying in Iraq for another three years or until 2017, whichever comes first, any reports about Iraq being the central front on the war on terror have as much credibility as a wad of plegm.
But seriously, even though AmericaBlog blames the GOP--they do run the Capital, after all--what I wanna know is, where were the Democrats on this when the provision was being added in conference and when it came back to the floors of both houses for votes? Hello?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
"The Pursuit of Happiness is Harming America"
Andrew Sullivan has clip of Rick Santorum saying this.
Over and over the Republican U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, and Republican Marjority Whip in the Senate by the way, claims in this interview that it's wrong to do what you want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (the basic view of liberty made famous by John Stuart Mill) .
Instead, Rick Santorum and the Republican Party believe you and I have a responsibility to them and to their religious beliefs and personal preferences. That's conservatism today, that's the ruling party's mantra today. Needless to say, that philosophy is the very anti-thesis of American liberty. Santorum claims he's basing his views on America's "founding documents" but he runs roughshod over the first one--The Declaration of Independence, which famously states that people have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Rick Santorum and the Republican Party don't agree.
If you value human liberty, vote Democrat. Vote to restore the values of American liberty and to restore the good name of American Liberalism, which has been dragged through the dirt far too long.
I'm Senator Jay Bulworth, and I approved this message because I am scared to death of what an authoritarian Republican majority comprised of people like Rick Santorum will continue to do with two more years of power.
Over and over the Republican U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, and Republican Marjority Whip in the Senate by the way, claims in this interview that it's wrong to do what you want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (the basic view of liberty made famous by John Stuart Mill) .
Instead, Rick Santorum and the Republican Party believe you and I have a responsibility to them and to their religious beliefs and personal preferences. That's conservatism today, that's the ruling party's mantra today. Needless to say, that philosophy is the very anti-thesis of American liberty. Santorum claims he's basing his views on America's "founding documents" but he runs roughshod over the first one--The Declaration of Independence, which famously states that people have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Rick Santorum and the Republican Party don't agree.
If you value human liberty, vote Democrat. Vote to restore the values of American liberty and to restore the good name of American Liberalism, which has been dragged through the dirt far too long.
I'm Senator Jay Bulworth, and I approved this message because I am scared to death of what an authoritarian Republican majority comprised of people like Rick Santorum will continue to do with two more years of power.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
What Would James Webb Do?
Glenn Greenwald points us to a 2002 Washington Post op-ed by James Webb, in which the former Reagan official and 2006 Democratic Senate candidate from Virginia argues against an invasion of Iraq. I've included the full essay below. Check out the headline. Sounds eerily prophetic, huh? We can't say we weren't warned. Because we were.
Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?
By James Webb
Wednesday, September 4, 2002; Page A21
Country music's most popular song this summer is a defiantly nationalistic tune by Toby Keith, in which he warns potential adversaries that if they mess with us, "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way." Last week the Chinese government showed us its way. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had brought a conciliatory gesture from the Bush administration, agreeing to recognize a separatist group in China's Xinjiang province as a terrorist entity. This diplomatic contortion was so appeasing that the Economist magazine labeled its logic "astonishing." And yet the day after Armitage left, the Chinese government sent its own political signal by "test-firing" a DF-4 missile, which has a range of more than 4,000 miles and was designed to attack U.S. military bases on Guam.
The implied disrespect of this incident did not occur in a vacuum, either militarily or diplomatically. As our country remains obsessed with Saddam Hussein, other nations have begun positioning themselves for an American war with Iraq and, most important, for its aftermath. China, which has pursued a strategic axis with key Islamic nations for nearly 20 years, received the Iraqi foreign minister just after Armitage's departure, condemning in advance an American attack on that country. Russia has been assiduously courting -- both diplomatically and economically -- all three nations identified by President Bush as the "axis of evil." Iran -- the number one state sponsor of international terrorism, according to our own State Department -- has conducted at least four flight tests of the nuclear-capable Shahab-3 missile, whose range of 800 miles is enough to hit U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Central Asia.
Meanwhile, American military leaders have been trying to bring a wider focus to the band of neoconservatives that began beating the war drums on Iraq before the dust had even settled on the World Trade Center. Despite the efforts of the neocons to shut them up or to dismiss them as unqualified to deal in policy issues, these leaders, both active-duty and retired, have been nearly unanimous in their concerns. Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would such a war and its aftermath actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism? On this second point, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, mentioned in a news conference last week that the scope for potential anti-terrorist action included -- at a minimum -- Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea.
America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. The greatest military victory of our time -- bringing an expansionist Soviet Union in from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust -- was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations. With respect to the situation in Iraq, they are conscious of two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein himself. The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences -- ask the Germans, who in World War I were convinced that they would defeat the French in exactly 42 days. The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish American influence in other parts of the world.
Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. This reality was the genesis of a rift that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq's regime but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.
The connotations of "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad" show how inapt the comparison is. Our occupation forces never set foot inside Japan until the emperor had formally surrendered and prepared Japanese citizens for our arrival. Nor did MacArthur destroy the Japanese government when he took over as proconsul after World War II. Instead, he was careful to work his changes through it, and took pains to preserve the integrity of Japan's imperial family. Nor is Japanese culture in any way similar to Iraq's. The Japanese are a homogeneous people who place a high premium on respect, and they fully cooperated with MacArthur's forces after having been ordered to do so by the emperor. The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.
In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.
Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy -- and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality -- it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. One should not take lightly the fact that China previously supported Libya, that Pakistan developed its nuclear capability with China's unrelenting assistance and that the Chinese sponsored a coup attempt in Indonesia in 1965. An "American war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.
These concerns, and others like them, are the reasons that many with long experience in U.S. national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's existence is clearly at stake. It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist international terrorist organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy Iraq without broad-based international support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts. And it is crucial that our national leaders consider the impact of this proposed action on our long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere.
The writer was assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration.
The ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq, the likely necessity of a decades-long occupation of Iraq, the barreness of any meaningful national security rationale, Webb hits it all, six months before the invasion. As Glenn Greenwald, Matt Yglesias, Atrios and others have continued to point out, this is what serious foreign policy understanding looks like.
Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?
By James Webb
Wednesday, September 4, 2002; Page A21
Country music's most popular song this summer is a defiantly nationalistic tune by Toby Keith, in which he warns potential adversaries that if they mess with us, "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way." Last week the Chinese government showed us its way. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had brought a conciliatory gesture from the Bush administration, agreeing to recognize a separatist group in China's Xinjiang province as a terrorist entity. This diplomatic contortion was so appeasing that the Economist magazine labeled its logic "astonishing." And yet the day after Armitage left, the Chinese government sent its own political signal by "test-firing" a DF-4 missile, which has a range of more than 4,000 miles and was designed to attack U.S. military bases on Guam.
The implied disrespect of this incident did not occur in a vacuum, either militarily or diplomatically. As our country remains obsessed with Saddam Hussein, other nations have begun positioning themselves for an American war with Iraq and, most important, for its aftermath. China, which has pursued a strategic axis with key Islamic nations for nearly 20 years, received the Iraqi foreign minister just after Armitage's departure, condemning in advance an American attack on that country. Russia has been assiduously courting -- both diplomatically and economically -- all three nations identified by President Bush as the "axis of evil." Iran -- the number one state sponsor of international terrorism, according to our own State Department -- has conducted at least four flight tests of the nuclear-capable Shahab-3 missile, whose range of 800 miles is enough to hit U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Central Asia.
Meanwhile, American military leaders have been trying to bring a wider focus to the band of neoconservatives that began beating the war drums on Iraq before the dust had even settled on the World Trade Center. Despite the efforts of the neocons to shut them up or to dismiss them as unqualified to deal in policy issues, these leaders, both active-duty and retired, have been nearly unanimous in their concerns. Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would such a war and its aftermath actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism? On this second point, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, mentioned in a news conference last week that the scope for potential anti-terrorist action included -- at a minimum -- Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea.
America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. The greatest military victory of our time -- bringing an expansionist Soviet Union in from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust -- was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations. With respect to the situation in Iraq, they are conscious of two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein himself. The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences -- ask the Germans, who in World War I were convinced that they would defeat the French in exactly 42 days. The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish American influence in other parts of the world.
Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. This reality was the genesis of a rift that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq's regime but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.
The connotations of "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad" show how inapt the comparison is. Our occupation forces never set foot inside Japan until the emperor had formally surrendered and prepared Japanese citizens for our arrival. Nor did MacArthur destroy the Japanese government when he took over as proconsul after World War II. Instead, he was careful to work his changes through it, and took pains to preserve the integrity of Japan's imperial family. Nor is Japanese culture in any way similar to Iraq's. The Japanese are a homogeneous people who place a high premium on respect, and they fully cooperated with MacArthur's forces after having been ordered to do so by the emperor. The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.
In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.
Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy -- and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality -- it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. One should not take lightly the fact that China previously supported Libya, that Pakistan developed its nuclear capability with China's unrelenting assistance and that the Chinese sponsored a coup attempt in Indonesia in 1965. An "American war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.
These concerns, and others like them, are the reasons that many with long experience in U.S. national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's existence is clearly at stake. It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist international terrorist organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy Iraq without broad-based international support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts. And it is crucial that our national leaders consider the impact of this proposed action on our long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere.
The writer was assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration.
The ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq, the likely necessity of a decades-long occupation of Iraq, the barreness of any meaningful national security rationale, Webb hits it all, six months before the invasion. As Glenn Greenwald, Matt Yglesias, Atrios and others have continued to point out, this is what serious foreign policy understanding looks like.
Newt Gets Religion (Just in Time for the 2008 Presidential Election Cycle to Begin)
In case you haven't heard, former House Speaker and rumored 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, has a new book out. Amazingly, it's about religion and the state. Who'd a thunk it?
From Publisher's Weekly:
This brief mandate by Gingrich, the architect of 1994's conservative congressional manifesto "The Contract with America," opens with a battle cry: "There is no attack on American culture more deadly and more historically dishonest than the secular effort to drive God out of America's public life." The book's arguments are predictable: Gingrich claims that references to God are sprinkled everywhere in our nation's founding documents; that most Americans believe in God; and our classrooms and courtrooms are the laboratories where such belief is being irrevocably eroded.
He trots out quotations from founding fathers that suggest their allegiance to Christianity or at least to theism, but conveniently ignores evidence that some of these men—particularly Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson—believed religion should have little, if any, role in the nation's government. If the book's thesis is tired and essentially unpersuasive, its unique contribution is its innovative, even brilliant, method of organization. Gingrich presents his arguments as a "walking tour" of the nation's capital, beginning with the National Archives and winding through the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, Supreme Court, Library of Congress, Capitol, White House and other sites. This structure does much to freshen up a book that is otherwise indistinguishable from prior offerings by Pat Robertson and David Barton.
So Newt shares the pain of fundamentalists who won't rest until all of America is placed under their yoke.
But for Newt's sake, it's probably better that American law and politics isn't based too precisely on holy writ, because The Newtie is on wife #3, each successive wife getting younger as he gets older. And unless his divorces were biblically justifiable--meaning that the first two wives had engaged in proven acts of marital infidelity and that he himself had not--Newt's an adulterer. And that would be against Commandment Number Seven, and against Jesus's New Testament instruction.
This report on Republican Intolerance and Hypocrisy has been brought to you by the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. I'm Senator Bulworth, and I approved this message.
From Publisher's Weekly:
This brief mandate by Gingrich, the architect of 1994's conservative congressional manifesto "The Contract with America," opens with a battle cry: "There is no attack on American culture more deadly and more historically dishonest than the secular effort to drive God out of America's public life." The book's arguments are predictable: Gingrich claims that references to God are sprinkled everywhere in our nation's founding documents; that most Americans believe in God; and our classrooms and courtrooms are the laboratories where such belief is being irrevocably eroded.
He trots out quotations from founding fathers that suggest their allegiance to Christianity or at least to theism, but conveniently ignores evidence that some of these men—particularly Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson—believed religion should have little, if any, role in the nation's government. If the book's thesis is tired and essentially unpersuasive, its unique contribution is its innovative, even brilliant, method of organization. Gingrich presents his arguments as a "walking tour" of the nation's capital, beginning with the National Archives and winding through the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, Supreme Court, Library of Congress, Capitol, White House and other sites. This structure does much to freshen up a book that is otherwise indistinguishable from prior offerings by Pat Robertson and David Barton.
So Newt shares the pain of fundamentalists who won't rest until all of America is placed under their yoke.
But for Newt's sake, it's probably better that American law and politics isn't based too precisely on holy writ, because The Newtie is on wife #3, each successive wife getting younger as he gets older. And unless his divorces were biblically justifiable--meaning that the first two wives had engaged in proven acts of marital infidelity and that he himself had not--Newt's an adulterer. And that would be against Commandment Number Seven, and against Jesus's New Testament instruction.
This report on Republican Intolerance and Hypocrisy has been brought to you by the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. I'm Senator Bulworth, and I approved this message.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Rush and Fox
I get where Shakes Sis and Ezra are coming from here, but let's be thankful it is only a game to people like Rush and O'Reilly. Lord help us should these crazies ever come to think they have a tangible stake in any of this and decide to make it personal.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Sam Harris in the Wash Post
An interesting article in the Washington Post Style section about Sam Harris, the author of 2004's The End of Faith and the recent bestseller, Letter to a Christian Nation.
One of Harris's points of discussion is that, taken literally, much of what constitutes the holy books of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam is at best absurd, and at worst, hateful and destructive.
But the counter-authors and scholars the Post lined up for its article basically poo-pah this concern of Harris (and other critics of fundamentalist religion):
Others say that he has taken these "Old Books" at their literal word, instead of studying the way that the faithful actually engage the scriptures.
(snip)
It's also wrong for Harris to assume that Christians consider the Bible the direct word of God, Volf says. Most don't, so combing the scriptures for the fingerprints of fallible authors, and then declaring victory once you find them, is silly.
"Most Christians believe that while the Bible was inspired by God, it is not free-floating, megaphone pronouncements out of nowhere by God. It was given through the medium of a culturally situated people, with the limitations of their knowledge at the time. And it's our task to ask, 'What does this mean to me today?' "
(snip)
He has confused the outermost for the core. And ironically, Aslan notes, Harris is making the same mistake as fundamentalists, by taking the scripture at its literal word.
So, many of the authors the Post lined up to counter Harris all conveniently manage to argue that not only do they not take the Bible or Koran literally, but neither do most Christians. So, according to these spokespersons of theism, Harris is creating and complaining about a straw-man.
Except he isn't. Christian and Muslim scholars may not take the texts they study completely literally, but it's highly likely that the Christians in the pew and Muslims on the prayer mat do. They have to. If they want to be assured of eternal salvation, and that they are on the right path (and that everyone else, by extension, is on the wrong one), than the literalness of the passages that promise the believer this assurance have to be accepted literally, at face value.
Christian and Muslim scholars who dismiss concerns about biblical literalness from opponents of religion are really not reflective of the religious adherents who fill the thousands of churches across America every week and who collectively affect public policy via the voting booth and public opinion poll.
Religious scholars would be of more use if they recognized the disconnect between their world and the worlds of the typical believer and their agnostic neighbors. But it's disingenuous to claim that most Christians don't take the bible literally, because, most, if not all, faithful Christians do. And this is Harris's claim and concern.
And the Post writer would have performed a more valuable service had he included the views of biblical literalists in his piece.
One of Harris's points of discussion is that, taken literally, much of what constitutes the holy books of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam is at best absurd, and at worst, hateful and destructive.
But the counter-authors and scholars the Post lined up for its article basically poo-pah this concern of Harris (and other critics of fundamentalist religion):
Others say that he has taken these "Old Books" at their literal word, instead of studying the way that the faithful actually engage the scriptures.
(snip)
It's also wrong for Harris to assume that Christians consider the Bible the direct word of God, Volf says. Most don't, so combing the scriptures for the fingerprints of fallible authors, and then declaring victory once you find them, is silly.
"Most Christians believe that while the Bible was inspired by God, it is not free-floating, megaphone pronouncements out of nowhere by God. It was given through the medium of a culturally situated people, with the limitations of their knowledge at the time. And it's our task to ask, 'What does this mean to me today?' "
(snip)
He has confused the outermost for the core. And ironically, Aslan notes, Harris is making the same mistake as fundamentalists, by taking the scripture at its literal word.
So, many of the authors the Post lined up to counter Harris all conveniently manage to argue that not only do they not take the Bible or Koran literally, but neither do most Christians. So, according to these spokespersons of theism, Harris is creating and complaining about a straw-man.
Except he isn't. Christian and Muslim scholars may not take the texts they study completely literally, but it's highly likely that the Christians in the pew and Muslims on the prayer mat do. They have to. If they want to be assured of eternal salvation, and that they are on the right path (and that everyone else, by extension, is on the wrong one), than the literalness of the passages that promise the believer this assurance have to be accepted literally, at face value.
Christian and Muslim scholars who dismiss concerns about biblical literalness from opponents of religion are really not reflective of the religious adherents who fill the thousands of churches across America every week and who collectively affect public policy via the voting booth and public opinion poll.
Religious scholars would be of more use if they recognized the disconnect between their world and the worlds of the typical believer and their agnostic neighbors. But it's disingenuous to claim that most Christians don't take the bible literally, because, most, if not all, faithful Christians do. And this is Harris's claim and concern.
And the Post writer would have performed a more valuable service had he included the views of biblical literalists in his piece.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Conservatives Lament the Failures and Excesses of Conservatism
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)