Dubya's defence of "Al Gonzales" last night on Charlie Rose was totally expect(orat)ed. In fact, the "buck" for that scandal can easily be absorbed by the President as SOP for a White House with a laserlike focus on politics in all circumstances. Bush had every right to replace U.S. attorneys for any reason, or for none, and he doesn't really owe an explanation to anyone, so if he wants to keep Gonzales then he will, no matter what his Republican senate colleagues say.
It has been Alberto Gonzales' inability to properly defer to his boss that has been the surprising source of his near undoing. Surprising, in that sycophancy is his strongest area. Certainly he's not "articulate", in the Obamaian sense (for a person of color, it goes without saying. Of course, that he may be a person of color is stretching it, from his demeanor and yuppie styling).
Like Iraq, the end to this story requires Dubya changing his mind, something one shouldn't anticipate occurring. In Iraq, on Charlie Rose, Dubya wasn't really admitting any mistakes, nor even indicating a real change in strategy. "Accomplishing Plan A by other means" is my recollection of how he describes the Surge, when asked what is Plan B. Rose meant to ask for the backup to the current unlikely effort, but Bush quite properly responded that The Scourge is really itself Plan B, and yet nothing really different. Just a new PR package.
Back to Gonzales, it's been clear all along that he is a chump, a lackey, a weasel. He should have lost his job for his bad counsel regarding detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo, though that predated this Attorney General gig. It doesn't really matter--wherever he is, Al is basically a yes man for Bushism, a risk manager rather than a lawyer, and full-time suck-up.
We've postulated him as the Jack of Hearts in the Bushite deck, an honorary family member. As such, he's one of the higher remaining cards, Cheney being in the discard pile (replacing that revived zombie, Ace of Spades Rove) and Bar is inactive. Just Condi (Queen Clubs) left up there on the solitaire tableau to keep company with Gonzales, and Aces of Hearts Duba. Or am I forgetting a major Bushite?
A: The other face card remaining is Jack of Diamonds Mitch McConnell, the senior remaining member of his suit.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
NBA predictions (tardy)
I'm late, but I'll still go on record with my picks:
Eastern Conf. : Det. over Orlando; NJ over Toronto; Cleveland over Wash.; Miami over Chicago.
Semis: Detroit over Miami; NJ over Cleveland.
Conf. finals: Detroit over NJ
Western Conf.: SA over Denver;* Dallas over GSW;* Houston over Utah; Phoenix over LAL.
Semis: SA over Phoenix; Dallas over Houston (each in 7 games--the highlights of the whole championships).
Final: Dallas over SA (decisively, this time).
Finals: Dallas over Detroit, 4-2. Mavericks break through.
Yes, it is the chalk for the finals. The upset pick is NJ to the Eastern Finals; SA and Phoenix I'd rate about a tossup.
I think the Nets will get it together one last time before the star trio of Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, and Richard Jefferson is broken up. I see Carter and Kidd as likely to move on, unless of course if the Nets overachieve this year, while Jefferson needs to re-establish physical health. True overachievement, though, would be more like what Miami did last year, somehow defeating Detroit in the conference finals, then topping that against the Western champ.
*Ignoring the first game upset.
Eastern Conf. : Det. over Orlando; NJ over Toronto; Cleveland over Wash.; Miami over Chicago.
Semis: Detroit over Miami; NJ over Cleveland.
Conf. finals: Detroit over NJ
Western Conf.: SA over Denver;* Dallas over GSW;* Houston over Utah; Phoenix over LAL.
Semis: SA over Phoenix; Dallas over Houston (each in 7 games--the highlights of the whole championships).
Final: Dallas over SA (decisively, this time).
Finals: Dallas over Detroit, 4-2. Mavericks break through.
Yes, it is the chalk for the finals. The upset pick is NJ to the Eastern Finals; SA and Phoenix I'd rate about a tossup.
I think the Nets will get it together one last time before the star trio of Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, and Richard Jefferson is broken up. I see Carter and Kidd as likely to move on, unless of course if the Nets overachieve this year, while Jefferson needs to re-establish physical health. True overachievement, though, would be more like what Miami did last year, somehow defeating Detroit in the conference finals, then topping that against the Western champ.
*Ignoring the first game upset.
Chelsea Rule OK!
Champions Cup semi-final, first leg at Stamford Bridge: The Blues are lining up a first-quality win at home after a superior goal: Carvalho counterattack, to Drogba, who runs by his defender wide, then cuts back sharply, centers to Joe Cole, the only other Chelsea attacker forward, who lunges with his right leg and wins the goal cleanly (while having his shirt tugged).
Liverpool has been a serious thorn in the paw of the Chelsea Lion, particularly with regard to the Champions League. Last year they ousted us in the semifinals on a 1-0 aggregate, the lasting impression being Gudjohnssen by the right post with the potential winning goal in stoppage time, but missing.
Liverpool is turning up the pressure to try and get a goal here. That would change things dramatically. Right now, I'm thinking that, if the present score holds, Mourinho may roll the dice at Anfield and come out attacking. Chelsea going up 1-0 there early would force Liverpool to come up with three to beat us.
Chelsea getting by Liverpool, and ManU by Milano (they won the home tie, 3-2, which puts them in good stead for a low-scoring outcome on the road) are now practically the only things we need to set up a trio of showdowns with the Red Devils for the three remaining top-level cups Chelsea hasn't already snagged: F.A. (set), Premiership (if we can gain one other point on them before or after the rescheduled May 9 date), and the biggie, the Champions League.
I have to pick up my niece now (79:04), so I'll post and trust to the fates and our chances in the rematch.
Liverpool has been a serious thorn in the paw of the Chelsea Lion, particularly with regard to the Champions League. Last year they ousted us in the semifinals on a 1-0 aggregate, the lasting impression being Gudjohnssen by the right post with the potential winning goal in stoppage time, but missing.
Liverpool is turning up the pressure to try and get a goal here. That would change things dramatically. Right now, I'm thinking that, if the present score holds, Mourinho may roll the dice at Anfield and come out attacking. Chelsea going up 1-0 there early would force Liverpool to come up with three to beat us.
Chelsea getting by Liverpool, and ManU by Milano (they won the home tie, 3-2, which puts them in good stead for a low-scoring outcome on the road) are now practically the only things we need to set up a trio of showdowns with the Red Devils for the three remaining top-level cups Chelsea hasn't already snagged: F.A. (set), Premiership (if we can gain one other point on them before or after the rescheduled May 9 date), and the biggie, the Champions League.
I have to pick up my niece now (79:04), so I'll post and trust to the fates and our chances in the rematch.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Tragedy at Virginia Tech
Posted to Richmond Times-Dispatch in response to the piece by Bart Hinkle--you could try this unlikely-looking link:http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FPage%2FRTD_SectionFront&c=Page&cid=1058750353171. The title is, "The Massacre: Atrocity at Virginia Tech Renews the Search for Elusive Answers " by A. BARTON HINKLE
I think Bart’s was the best first-day reaction piece I’ve seen anywhere. He captured the whole sequence of dismaying reactions we share, and I find it a fit representative for the Virginia journalistic point of view.
What was unusual about the piece was the number and variety of references and quotes, and how appropriate they were. Also, though, I have to praise the elegant tones he struck stringing together those other folks’ words. You can read the article out loud, with the proper inflections, and you’d have a five-minute speech of high quality.
Inflections would make good the otherwise questionable use of sarcasm in the comment about “retribution...(being) such a peace-maker” in the Middle East. Apart from being a bit inconsistent in style, it tips the point of the next paragraph, that vengeance’s pleasure is brief. Perhaps he had to get in a good zing first before bringing in the healing words. It must start now, and must continue indefinitely.
Rather than lobbing a gun control projectile, I suggest that we start our learning process from the assumption that we have now and will have among us an excess of both armaments and evil madness.
The challenge is to protect our traditional sense of security, so critical to the American lifestyle, without sacrificing our liberties too greatly. Sure methods of identifying responsibility through gun ownership would help, but it would not solve the problem of trained lunacy. We would need the equivalent of 911 alarm boxes on every corner, with trained response units organized nationally, and even that would not be enough.
As the last poster suggested, domestic violence of this kind--even if it has no connection to what we think of as international terrorism--is central to the mission of “Homeland Security,” and it shares the paradox faced in our actions abroad in the name of the “global war on terror”, all of which come from a love of liberty.
I think Bart’s was the best first-day reaction piece I’ve seen anywhere. He captured the whole sequence of dismaying reactions we share, and I find it a fit representative for the Virginia journalistic point of view.
What was unusual about the piece was the number and variety of references and quotes, and how appropriate they were. Also, though, I have to praise the elegant tones he struck stringing together those other folks’ words. You can read the article out loud, with the proper inflections, and you’d have a five-minute speech of high quality.
Inflections would make good the otherwise questionable use of sarcasm in the comment about “retribution...(being) such a peace-maker” in the Middle East. Apart from being a bit inconsistent in style, it tips the point of the next paragraph, that vengeance’s pleasure is brief. Perhaps he had to get in a good zing first before bringing in the healing words. It must start now, and must continue indefinitely.
Rather than lobbing a gun control projectile, I suggest that we start our learning process from the assumption that we have now and will have among us an excess of both armaments and evil madness.
The challenge is to protect our traditional sense of security, so critical to the American lifestyle, without sacrificing our liberties too greatly. Sure methods of identifying responsibility through gun ownership would help, but it would not solve the problem of trained lunacy. We would need the equivalent of 911 alarm boxes on every corner, with trained response units organized nationally, and even that would not be enough.
As the last poster suggested, domestic violence of this kind--even if it has no connection to what we think of as international terrorism--is central to the mission of “Homeland Security,” and it shares the paradox faced in our actions abroad in the name of the “global war on terror”, all of which come from a love of liberty.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Old Modest Mouse Album Title Reconsidered
The rock band Modest Mouse's previous album title (just now they have a new one) was Good News for People Who Love Bad News. I never really gave it much thought: that's not me--who loves bad news? Like their music, this one, when you come back to it, is pretty profound.
Here's the way it reasons out, logically: There is no such thing as good news for people who love bad news; the only thing that would be good news for them would be, by definition, bad news. Therefore, they should expect bad news, and be pleased by what they get.
It's a sure way to happiness.
The only trick, then, is getting to love bad news.
It's a habit of thought, non-intuitive. Something like an ideological, cult-like stance, to be sure, but not unique: pre-revolutionary Communists were always that way. Millenarian Christian cults still are, though the millennium is, definitively, past. (There is little recognition--so I will point it out--of the fact that the debate about the historical beginning of this millennium ended up being resolved with a clear, but totally unpredicted, start date: September 11, 2001) .
Journalists make a living on bad news, so most of them can make a virtue of necessity one way or another. The conscience of it sometimes drives them to drink or other unhealthy habits, but others like the pleasure of seeing others go down: Schadenfreude.
There's another group that makes a habit out of liking bad news, or at least deriving pleasure from it. The skeptics, the whiners, the old-fashioned curmudgeons; Evidence Supporting the Inevitable Apocalypse fulfills their pessimistic world view. We're going to try and stay away from that stance, that mental habit, even if I share many of the same perceptions. We've got no choice but to be optimistic; we have children.
Like Al Sharpton and the N-word, I won't say we haven't done it in the past, but we're trying to cut down.
Here's the way it reasons out, logically: There is no such thing as good news for people who love bad news; the only thing that would be good news for them would be, by definition, bad news. Therefore, they should expect bad news, and be pleased by what they get.
It's a sure way to happiness.
The only trick, then, is getting to love bad news.
It's a habit of thought, non-intuitive. Something like an ideological, cult-like stance, to be sure, but not unique: pre-revolutionary Communists were always that way. Millenarian Christian cults still are, though the millennium is, definitively, past. (There is little recognition--so I will point it out--of the fact that the debate about the historical beginning of this millennium ended up being resolved with a clear, but totally unpredicted, start date: September 11, 2001) .
Journalists make a living on bad news, so most of them can make a virtue of necessity one way or another. The conscience of it sometimes drives them to drink or other unhealthy habits, but others like the pleasure of seeing others go down: Schadenfreude.
There's another group that makes a habit out of liking bad news, or at least deriving pleasure from it. The skeptics, the whiners, the old-fashioned curmudgeons; Evidence Supporting the Inevitable Apocalypse fulfills their pessimistic world view. We're going to try and stay away from that stance, that mental habit, even if I share many of the same perceptions. We've got no choice but to be optimistic; we have children.
Like Al Sharpton and the N-word, I won't say we haven't done it in the past, but we're trying to cut down.
Federalism for Iraq
Senator and Presidential candidate Joe Biden's Post op-ed puts out his plan and takes on John McCain's foolish Iraq position:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102119_pf.html
I happen to agree 100% with Biden on the proposal of a federation--my suggestion would be four regions, with Baghdad itself being the fourth, federal entity.
It doesn't matter now, though; our ability to direct an outcome is gone, and the Shiites have locked onto power.
The surge was a well-crafted piece of politico-military tactics; its greatest virtue was that it couldn't be stopped. And so it has not. The debate must inevitably resolve around the consensus position rapidly emerging:
1) end to combat operations before November, 2008;
2) general withdrawal in progress by January, 2009.
The Republican party will support this series of developments; almost any other would doom them in the elections.
The Democratic candidates can live with this outcome, in that it will leave them a relatively free hand. I trust Carl Levin & Co. to come up with the proper language through the appropriations process to sufficiently tie the Bushite hands down the road 12 months or so.
They can take advantage of this freedom both now, in terms of proposing policies unlikely to come to pass as per Sen. Biden (in this case, because of Bushite blockheadedness), and later, in having the ability to choose between four options: go back in (for some reason I can't imagine but would involve specific Al Qaeda cells), pull further back, remain at a low level, or get the hell outta Dalmiya.
America Coming Together
I posted the above response to Biden's editorial on TPM Cafe. The effort to change the mind of the President has now become the effort to change the mind of John McCain. This is much as it had to be: there is no chance of the former. McCain's conversion to agreement on an implicit date to end the surge and begin partial withdrawal, which could be embodied in the time restrictions placed upon expenditures, would be the political compromise which could resolve this slow motion train-wreck. Right now the Bush Administration, even in its new guise as pragmatists, would not agree to sign such strings on appropriations legislation; that is where the need for negotiated progress will be critical.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102119_pf.html
I happen to agree 100% with Biden on the proposal of a federation--my suggestion would be four regions, with Baghdad itself being the fourth, federal entity.
It doesn't matter now, though; our ability to direct an outcome is gone, and the Shiites have locked onto power.
The surge was a well-crafted piece of politico-military tactics; its greatest virtue was that it couldn't be stopped. And so it has not. The debate must inevitably resolve around the consensus position rapidly emerging:
1) end to combat operations before November, 2008;
2) general withdrawal in progress by January, 2009.
The Republican party will support this series of developments; almost any other would doom them in the elections.
The Democratic candidates can live with this outcome, in that it will leave them a relatively free hand. I trust Carl Levin & Co. to come up with the proper language through the appropriations process to sufficiently tie the Bushite hands down the road 12 months or so.
They can take advantage of this freedom both now, in terms of proposing policies unlikely to come to pass as per Sen. Biden (in this case, because of Bushite blockheadedness), and later, in having the ability to choose between four options: go back in (for some reason I can't imagine but would involve specific Al Qaeda cells), pull further back, remain at a low level, or get the hell outta Dalmiya.
America Coming Together
I posted the above response to Biden's editorial on TPM Cafe. The effort to change the mind of the President has now become the effort to change the mind of John McCain. This is much as it had to be: there is no chance of the former. McCain's conversion to agreement on an implicit date to end the surge and begin partial withdrawal, which could be embodied in the time restrictions placed upon expenditures, would be the political compromise which could resolve this slow motion train-wreck. Right now the Bush Administration, even in its new guise as pragmatists, would not agree to sign such strings on appropriations legislation; that is where the need for negotiated progress will be critical.
Imus No Moaning
I don't like much the piranha culture by which we have it decided for us who will take the falls and who will fell.
That being said, I have little to no sympathy for Don Imus and his radio ilk. The advertisers ran from him like a school of scared fish, and that was it.
He's a fine example of a New Mexican rancher--with a little-more-than-average misanthropic weirdness--who offers some solace for kids with cancer. He can go back to that, and do his show on a smaller scale if anyone wants to go on it, or make a syndicated column. I could care less.
Frankly, I don't know where Al Sharpton gets the money for his expensive clothes, etc., and that might be his point of vulnerability. He long ago cleaned up his act, which makes him a suitable, if humorless, guest for any talk show, but you can't make a living on that, can you?
I have no use whatsoever for WFAN-type radio, though I do think it would be interesting to track how often people on the shows actually do anticipate things that happen in real life (compared to the percentage of time they get it totally wrong) and then, just who are the ones in the know as opposed to the posers? Maybe somebody is hitting the nail right on the head every time right before our eyes, and nobody notices because who takes it seriously, anyway?
That being said, I have little to no sympathy for Don Imus and his radio ilk. The advertisers ran from him like a school of scared fish, and that was it.
He's a fine example of a New Mexican rancher--with a little-more-than-average misanthropic weirdness--who offers some solace for kids with cancer. He can go back to that, and do his show on a smaller scale if anyone wants to go on it, or make a syndicated column. I could care less.
Frankly, I don't know where Al Sharpton gets the money for his expensive clothes, etc., and that might be his point of vulnerability. He long ago cleaned up his act, which makes him a suitable, if humorless, guest for any talk show, but you can't make a living on that, can you?
I have no use whatsoever for WFAN-type radio, though I do think it would be interesting to track how often people on the shows actually do anticipate things that happen in real life (compared to the percentage of time they get it totally wrong) and then, just who are the ones in the know as opposed to the posers? Maybe somebody is hitting the nail right on the head every time right before our eyes, and nobody notices because who takes it seriously, anyway?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
America Coming Together
I see some welcome evidence of an evolving consensus on some national issues.
Partisan as I am, I find this to be welcome, because not all issues deserve to be debated for generations without end. When the facts are sufficiently clear and broadly recognized, sometimes pragmatism wins out, and those who advocate a utilitarian approach have their moments of hard-won common sense.
Abortion is an example of what I'm talking about. Rudy Giuliani's popularity among Republicans (even if only temporary) suggests to me that the Republicans recognize how fast the "choice" and "life" camps are converging on a shared set of stipulations:
1. There are better ways to avoid unwanted and accidental pregnancies, particularly with the advent of the "morning after" pills.
2. Abortions should be legal, safe, and rare.
3. The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to do anybody any good.
This consensus will build, as those who oppose it will be exposed as either wanting more unwanted babies or just being opposed to babies in general. Neither is a popular position.
The New Consensus is on Global Climate Change (the correct term). Arnold Schwarzenegger has led the way to sanity for the Republicans on this one, and most are going to step away from the side promising self-immolation. In Congress, this will be expressed in legislation raising CAFE standards (which will promise more trickery from Detroit, but will still be improvement), funding alternate energy sources, and beginning cap-and-trade on greenhouse gases with very large-scale manufacturers.
This will be real progress; my only hope is that they don't limit themselves to biofuels as the best alternative, but also go for R&D$$ for the nexus of nanotechnology and photovoltaics, where I think the chance for a breakthrough is best, and for the coal liquification and carbon sequestration combination in power plants. One day, this will be knowledge which the Chinese will come to love like life itself--we will not have to force them to adopt such advances, rather we will find it impossible to keep them from stealing the technology.
Even on Iraq, the consensus is there waiting to be articulated. I've been spouting it for about 18 months (see http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html) though I always intended it as a partisan rallying point for Democrats. Now we find the Republicans buying into the major premises: combat operations ending in the months before November, 2008, taking much of the sting out of the war debate in the general election; a general withdrawal in progress January, 2009, allowing the new President the chance to operate with a relatively free hand.
Even the Bushites seem likely to accept this plan, though they don't want it to be dictated to them by the Congressional Democrats. If Pelosi and Reid can somehow avoid a showdown, they should get what they ostensibly want in terms of the result. Instead, the legislative efforts get the Bushites' back up, and they show less flexibility. Instead of getting the best result possible (timelines as guidelines, specific follow-up reviews scheduled before Congress, accelerated spending commitement requirements with date limitations driving spending down toward the end of 2007) , the Democrats may meekly back off and let Dubya have his blank check one last year, for fear of political disadvantage. Whatever they do, the interest of all parties, even the Bushites for a tolerable historical legacy, aligns behind a six-month surge followed by steady and rapid withdrawal.
Partisan as I am, I find this to be welcome, because not all issues deserve to be debated for generations without end. When the facts are sufficiently clear and broadly recognized, sometimes pragmatism wins out, and those who advocate a utilitarian approach have their moments of hard-won common sense.
Abortion is an example of what I'm talking about. Rudy Giuliani's popularity among Republicans (even if only temporary) suggests to me that the Republicans recognize how fast the "choice" and "life" camps are converging on a shared set of stipulations:
1. There are better ways to avoid unwanted and accidental pregnancies, particularly with the advent of the "morning after" pills.
2. Abortions should be legal, safe, and rare.
3. The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to do anybody any good.
This consensus will build, as those who oppose it will be exposed as either wanting more unwanted babies or just being opposed to babies in general. Neither is a popular position.
The New Consensus is on Global Climate Change (the correct term). Arnold Schwarzenegger has led the way to sanity for the Republicans on this one, and most are going to step away from the side promising self-immolation. In Congress, this will be expressed in legislation raising CAFE standards (which will promise more trickery from Detroit, but will still be improvement), funding alternate energy sources, and beginning cap-and-trade on greenhouse gases with very large-scale manufacturers.
This will be real progress; my only hope is that they don't limit themselves to biofuels as the best alternative, but also go for R&D$$ for the nexus of nanotechnology and photovoltaics, where I think the chance for a breakthrough is best, and for the coal liquification and carbon sequestration combination in power plants. One day, this will be knowledge which the Chinese will come to love like life itself--we will not have to force them to adopt such advances, rather we will find it impossible to keep them from stealing the technology.
Even on Iraq, the consensus is there waiting to be articulated. I've been spouting it for about 18 months (see http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html) though I always intended it as a partisan rallying point for Democrats. Now we find the Republicans buying into the major premises: combat operations ending in the months before November, 2008, taking much of the sting out of the war debate in the general election; a general withdrawal in progress January, 2009, allowing the new President the chance to operate with a relatively free hand.
Even the Bushites seem likely to accept this plan, though they don't want it to be dictated to them by the Congressional Democrats. If Pelosi and Reid can somehow avoid a showdown, they should get what they ostensibly want in terms of the result. Instead, the legislative efforts get the Bushites' back up, and they show less flexibility. Instead of getting the best result possible (timelines as guidelines, specific follow-up reviews scheduled before Congress, accelerated spending commitement requirements with date limitations driving spending down toward the end of 2007) , the Democrats may meekly back off and let Dubya have his blank check one last year, for fear of political disadvantage. Whatever they do, the interest of all parties, even the Bushites for a tolerable historical legacy, aligns behind a six-month surge followed by steady and rapid withdrawal.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Takeover in Taos
The party coup by traditionalist Hispanics for control of the Taos County Democrats reminds me of Maoist China's old internecine bloodshed. Taos has been delivering 70%+ for Democrats consistently; so, in this one-party local democracy, wouldn't it make sense for Democrats to start fighting each other?
That it seems absurd I can say from any objective viewpoint; also, that there is an issue in the pattern of gerrymandering of seats by precinct. This, though, is much less alarming than the reports of flagrant violations of party rules and clear patterns of bias in consideration of credentials challenges.
I am waiting to hear the other side of the story, from those who actually won the vote count fairly easily, partly if not decisively due to the cumulative effect of favoritism in resolution of challenges. Maybe they think their position is unassailable; I guarantee that, in the political world, they will find they must ultimately answer the charges. They cannot sit quiet and remain confident of holding onto their victory.
Those who backed the losing slate headed by the incumbent County party head Billy Knight have not conceded and are "leaving everything on the table" in terms of potential action. I see the palette of retaliations including a challenge at the state party level, announcing an alternate county party leadership, and/or heading to the Green party and reviving it from its moribund status.
Bill Richardson is the key actor at the higher level for the next round. State party leader John Wertheim is taking the blame from some defeated elements, but if this is a rogue operation then Richardson is weaker in his control than I think. The argument goes that Richardson's crew calculates they can get a better percentage in the state's Presidential primary if Anglo liberals don't turn out. It is down to Bill to stand up for fair play when it comes to him, and one way or another it will. He should look into the issues and not shy from it.
I don't believe the argument much. I think this one is mostly about control of patronage jobs, secondarily about control of graft. Knight upset the traditionalists by showing the temerity to back someone other than the machine Hispanic candidates in two districts of the recent "non-partisan" municipal school board elections, and this was the payback. Pretty impressive, in terms of using bold power-grab methods and getting the intended result. "Virtu", as Macchiavelli called it, won out. Richardson will consider it just politics as it used to usually be, boys being boys, unless he sees a danger it will escalate and expand in significance.
Now, personally, I think the only sensible vote would have been one against the incumbent board members, regardless of any other consideration--that's how badly I think the schools are being operated. In the Hispanic community, though, the attitude is, "Well, they aren't good but they are ours." The Native American community here is certainly getting that point. Billy Knight has now gotten the point in a big way.
There aren't that many places in the US where Hispanics have such a strong political position. It's a shame their leaders here in El Norte, many of whom tout their multigenerational roots in the land here, have adopted tactics suitable for one of the so-called Banana Republics far to the south.
This could end very badly: Rebellion and mob rule have a long tradition in this town. Usually put down harshly in the end.
That it seems absurd I can say from any objective viewpoint; also, that there is an issue in the pattern of gerrymandering of seats by precinct. This, though, is much less alarming than the reports of flagrant violations of party rules and clear patterns of bias in consideration of credentials challenges.
I am waiting to hear the other side of the story, from those who actually won the vote count fairly easily, partly if not decisively due to the cumulative effect of favoritism in resolution of challenges. Maybe they think their position is unassailable; I guarantee that, in the political world, they will find they must ultimately answer the charges. They cannot sit quiet and remain confident of holding onto their victory.
Those who backed the losing slate headed by the incumbent County party head Billy Knight have not conceded and are "leaving everything on the table" in terms of potential action. I see the palette of retaliations including a challenge at the state party level, announcing an alternate county party leadership, and/or heading to the Green party and reviving it from its moribund status.
Bill Richardson is the key actor at the higher level for the next round. State party leader John Wertheim is taking the blame from some defeated elements, but if this is a rogue operation then Richardson is weaker in his control than I think. The argument goes that Richardson's crew calculates they can get a better percentage in the state's Presidential primary if Anglo liberals don't turn out. It is down to Bill to stand up for fair play when it comes to him, and one way or another it will. He should look into the issues and not shy from it.
I don't believe the argument much. I think this one is mostly about control of patronage jobs, secondarily about control of graft. Knight upset the traditionalists by showing the temerity to back someone other than the machine Hispanic candidates in two districts of the recent "non-partisan" municipal school board elections, and this was the payback. Pretty impressive, in terms of using bold power-grab methods and getting the intended result. "Virtu", as Macchiavelli called it, won out. Richardson will consider it just politics as it used to usually be, boys being boys, unless he sees a danger it will escalate and expand in significance.
Now, personally, I think the only sensible vote would have been one against the incumbent board members, regardless of any other consideration--that's how badly I think the schools are being operated. In the Hispanic community, though, the attitude is, "Well, they aren't good but they are ours." The Native American community here is certainly getting that point. Billy Knight has now gotten the point in a big way.
There aren't that many places in the US where Hispanics have such a strong political position. It's a shame their leaders here in El Norte, many of whom tout their multigenerational roots in the land here, have adopted tactics suitable for one of the so-called Banana Republics far to the south.
This could end very badly: Rebellion and mob rule have a long tradition in this town. Usually put down harshly in the end.
Iran Incident
The swift resolution of the British military hostage crisis without further recrimination could end up defusing the larger crisis of relations with Iran, which otherwise seemed headed for disaster.
The action was directly authorized by the ayatollahs, the timing to be driven by any U.N. action against Iran. The Revolutionary Guards told their Fearless Leaders they could take a small number of captives anytime they were directed. The theocrats went for hostage-taking, an act against international law but thoroughly in line with local traditions, out of desperation; they were feeling the menace of U.S. forces and wanted to show an ability to retaliate.
Other Actors:
Ahmadinejad's positive role seemed thoroughly scripted--the domestic political equivalent of The Good Cop, doing his best to keep those nasty Americans from invading our country. Tony Blair played it about right to minimize the chances of an unhappy outcome, and the British probably thanked the stars that this didn't happen a year from now, when post-Blair chaos will be underway. I'm sure Condi was HOLDING BACK DUBYA, for once successfully. The ayatollahs were more than ready to pursue this thing much further but got the result they wanted (release of our hostages).
When it comes to playing covert action hardball with these guys, US, better watch out. They have much greater ability to execute illegal policies than we, as we lack the subtlety.
The action was directly authorized by the ayatollahs, the timing to be driven by any U.N. action against Iran. The Revolutionary Guards told their Fearless Leaders they could take a small number of captives anytime they were directed. The theocrats went for hostage-taking, an act against international law but thoroughly in line with local traditions, out of desperation; they were feeling the menace of U.S. forces and wanted to show an ability to retaliate.
Other Actors:
Ahmadinejad's positive role seemed thoroughly scripted--the domestic political equivalent of The Good Cop, doing his best to keep those nasty Americans from invading our country. Tony Blair played it about right to minimize the chances of an unhappy outcome, and the British probably thanked the stars that this didn't happen a year from now, when post-Blair chaos will be underway. I'm sure Condi was HOLDING BACK DUBYA, for once successfully. The ayatollahs were more than ready to pursue this thing much further but got the result they wanted (release of our hostages).
When it comes to playing covert action hardball with these guys, US, better watch out. They have much greater ability to execute illegal policies than we, as we lack the subtlety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
