I re-print this from the November archives so I can revisit the many specific predictions I made before. Those revisitations are at the end, in italics.
Alito Filibuster Question
Is it to be Bad Breath, or just a Waste of Breath?
The proper name for the foul humour which seems likely to afflict the body politic next year is “Alito-sis” (hyphen optional). It’s the smell of the Sargasso Sea; a zone in which movement slows to a crawl, direction seems a meaningless question, and the stench gets on everybody. That’s where we’ll be, if Alito’s nomination brings a prolonged filibuster, leading to some version of a Nuklar Option being implemented, and the Democrats retaliate by throwing the Senate’s business into total disarray.
The scenario could easily leave a cloud of noxious gas over the country through Election Day, 2006, with voters afraid to come to the polls without a gas mask. Under those circumstances, I don’t think the Democrats would benefit: they don’t have the werewithal to issue the needed 75 million stink filters, nor the Category 5 breath of fresh air that would be needed to dispel the fog of Post-Nuklar War. It’s a mofo.
Confirmation Trivialities
I recommend to Harry Reid that he announce—I’m skipping the part about waiting for the hearings and the Committee vote—that he will observe the “Two Speech Precedent”. That will give an eventual end date to the ceremonious Beating the Bushites that will precede Alito’s confirmation:
by about 60-40, I’d predict, and will do it according to Senate Rules and precedents, which is what he wants. A couple of Senators who are prepared to Nuke a Filibuster (from the French term for "bootless") will actually end up voting against Alito. Senator “'Profiles in Courage'-fodder/loser in ‘06” DeWine will be one. McCain will not.
Reid should save the Balls-Out, Protracted Filibuster, Followed by Post-Nuklar Disarray Scenario (a name almost worthy of Herman Kahn) for the replacement for Justice Stevens or Ginsburg, if that should happen before we can all safely enter the post-Bushite era.
I suggested in a previous post that the key question which all the Senators will try to solve, for any proposed nominee to replace Sandra O’Connor, is to think of a compass and ask, how many milliseconds or degrees of separation will there be between her course for the "Judicial Ship of State" and the Nominee’s. On the conventional liberal-conservative axis (number line? time line?), Alito’s nomination changes that game somewhat—he is clearly far to the right of O’Connor’s ideologically contiguous justice, Anthony Kennedy, way over there in the distant zone of Scalia/Thomas-ville (as x goes to negative infinity, or to the year 1930).
So, if confirmed, the question is modified to the difference between Kennedy and O’Connor—that is how far the course of the Court’s opinions will deviate. The pressure will be on Kennedy, and he appears to be a vain vacillator.
I have a lot of ambivalence about looking at the Supreme Electorate in such uni-dimensional terms, though. While I accept that the Court does not need another Scalia or Thomas—the 1-2 combination of the literate bomb-thrower and the knuckle-walker is more than adequate to represent their micro-constituency (you can pick either justice for either role)-—there are other ways to look at the Court and what it does.
From my point of view, I say “fie” on both houses! The two most significant decisions of the last session of the Court--on using eminent domain to support private interests, and to hold federal law superior to state referenda and legislation allowing medical marijuana—were driven by the “liberal” judges in the wrong direction. OK, they weren't of the level of significance of Gore v. Bush (what exactly was the judicial philosophy of the majority in that case, now?), but that one doesn't come up in these discussions. After all, the Electoral College and our voting systems couldn't lead to another snafu like 2000, could they? (That was "scorn", not sarcasm, though I admit a bit too facetious.)
I think that we need to look a little past the optics of the '60's in evaluating our Court politics. For example, we should be a little more careful in our support for expanding federal powers when the hands holding the sceptre are so shaky.
The question I want to hear asked of The Nominee is: what happens when our government is found to be in violation of international law, but following federal statutes? Until I hear someone say, "we are bound to accede to international law", I would urge any Senator to vote against any Nominee.
Filibusters are OK as long as they don't get in the way of important business. If there is any, and I'm 99% convinced there isn't any left for this Congress.
The other question I want asked of The Nominee: Can we get a do-over for 2004?
OK, "bad breath", alito-sis, is the order of the day. The 60-40 with NO NUKES was within two votes of being spot on; the key vote was the cloture, though, which went much more decisively in Cloture/Alito-sis/Bushite direction because of the influence of the Gang of 14 and like-minded Senators like Bingaman and Rockefeller, who recognize the deterrence issues.
The bad news from the prediction accuracy point of view was the performance of the Republican moderates. Once the Dems had teed it up as a pure political showdown with the party-line vote in Committee, the Brams fell into line tout suite.
Reid played it well, as I thought he might: giving his vote for the filibuster, along also with moral support in the doomed fight against Alito, but making it clear that the Kennedy/Kerry fiasco was not his idea whatsoever.
More comments to follow--as Comments.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
From Merriam-Webster online: Bushite
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.
Suggestions for bushite: 1. bushier
2. bushiest
3. botchiest
4. botchier
5. bushy
6. Boeotia
7. boyishly
8. bushtit
9. bauxite
10. botchy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bushite
This was fun, and it suggests lots of good wordplay. "bauxite" is the closest, in terms of pronunciation--it's the raw material of aluminum (aluminium for you Brits). I like the fact the search engine offered up "botch" and "botchiest", the relevance of which should be obvious. Even "boyishly" could be seen from a certain perspective as more than just two words that sound similar. Somehow, it didn't come up with "buoyishly", or even "goyishly" (though they might both apply, if they existed as words).
I have to look up this "Boeotia", which was in ancient Greece (Q: is it still a place name in use?), and see if its historical example has any relevance to the current tyranny of Bushite misrule.
Suggestions for bushite: 1. bushier
2. bushiest
3. botchiest
4. botchier
5. bushy
6. Boeotia
7. boyishly
8. bushtit
9. bauxite
10. botchy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bushite
This was fun, and it suggests lots of good wordplay. "bauxite" is the closest, in terms of pronunciation--it's the raw material of aluminum (aluminium for you Brits). I like the fact the search engine offered up "botch" and "botchiest", the relevance of which should be obvious. Even "boyishly" could be seen from a certain perspective as more than just two words that sound similar. Somehow, it didn't come up with "buoyishly", or even "goyishly" (though they might both apply, if they existed as words).
I have to look up this "Boeotia", which was in ancient Greece (Q: is it still a place name in use?), and see if its historical example has any relevance to the current tyranny of Bushite misrule.
Alitosis rampant in Senate
I checked my last post on the subject of the Alito nomination to SCOTUS, and it didn't promise it would be my last. So, this one to flog upon our nation's blogs, occasioned by the Senate Judiciary's confirmation of him by a straight party-line vote.
From a theoretical point of view, I might have suggested that one or more of the Democratic Senators on the Committee vote for him in the Committee, simultaneously announcing they would oppose him on the floor. This makes the clear positional statement that the Committee's job is to parse a nominee's decisions, judge upon his or her qualification for the job, and verify the presumably-asserted lack of glaring violations of judicial ethics or public morals. Then, it is the job of the whole Senate to make an overtly political decision--in the case of a senior federal judge or, more obviously, for a Supreme Court position--whether this person's fundamental political outlook makes him, her, or it (for example, Caligula's horse, to refer to an analogous prior Senate nominee) suitable for the lifetime appointment proposed.
I understand, though, why this didn't happen: 1) the respective roles of the committee and the Senate as a body are not formally laid out. I would argue further the roles are not clearly understood by any of the participants in today's process, giving it an ad hoc nature that can be exploited by the Nukular-minded;
2) the Democrats are having a terrible time holding together their forces (in the face of bad poll numbers), and the leadership can hardly tolerate any lack of discipline in such dire straits; and
3) there were enough question marks (possible crypto-fascism and/or crypto-racism, along with a systematic pattern of evasion of any relevant topics, a latter-day Catch-22 situation) for any Democratic Senator to give the nomination a comprehensive rejection.
These combined to enunciate the Democrats' position to date, which I would voice as being, "We will stop him by any means possible, but if we don't have the votes it will be futile." Now, we go to the floor, and the indisputably political strategy and tactics of the numbers and rules which apply to a divided Senate (i.e., one where the motion to approve can not proceed on a simple basis of unanimous consent) take center stage.
I have given some consideration to the point I alluded to in my chat excerpt below, namely, the assertion that Alito's confirmation vote must be completed before the State of the Union address. My suggestion to Harry Reid is that Democratic leadership accede to a debate under the following rules:
1) The "Two-Speech Rule" will prevail for Democrats, which means that Frist can expect each Democratic Senator to have the opportunity hold forth, without time limitation on the Senator's speech, on two occasions before he or she will vote in favor of cloture. This is a venerable tradition which provides for extended consideration, response to other debate arguments, yet without the connotations of excess delay suggested by an all-out filibuster;
2) The Senate would interrupt its debate by unanimous consent to allow the President to speak at the appointed time. The Eponymous Bushite would no doubt take advantage of the Senate's "failure" to approve his nominee within the timing he wanted and make some negative comments, but those (approval, and with the timing specified) are not Constitutional obligations of the Senate, and ill words from "TEB" may well echo in the Democrats' favor in November.
I would call this proposal "extended, but limited, debate", and not a filibuster at all. Just the consideration (and, please, some good PR, so that some impression will remain in voters' minds except the faulty one that those "nasty Democrats made the Justice's wife cry"--it was actually the sarcasm of Republican Sen. Graham) which is due to a political nomination of great import.
The Extra Notch on the Right-Wing Bed Post which will be known as "Justice Alito" was always due to be incised since 2004, was destined to be ugly, and it would be too much to hope that it won't be a long-term one. No more notches can be allowed, of course: the next makes five. To the Wall for the Stevens/Ginsburg replacement, caso mai.
And perhaps we need to take steps to protect against Justice Kennedy becoming too much of a Bram. An operation, perhaps: what's the opposite of an "ectomy"? You know, instead of taking something out, they add something? Like a pair of balls?
From a theoretical point of view, I might have suggested that one or more of the Democratic Senators on the Committee vote for him in the Committee, simultaneously announcing they would oppose him on the floor. This makes the clear positional statement that the Committee's job is to parse a nominee's decisions, judge upon his or her qualification for the job, and verify the presumably-asserted lack of glaring violations of judicial ethics or public morals. Then, it is the job of the whole Senate to make an overtly political decision--in the case of a senior federal judge or, more obviously, for a Supreme Court position--whether this person's fundamental political outlook makes him, her, or it (for example, Caligula's horse, to refer to an analogous prior Senate nominee) suitable for the lifetime appointment proposed.
I understand, though, why this didn't happen: 1) the respective roles of the committee and the Senate as a body are not formally laid out. I would argue further the roles are not clearly understood by any of the participants in today's process, giving it an ad hoc nature that can be exploited by the Nukular-minded;
2) the Democrats are having a terrible time holding together their forces (in the face of bad poll numbers), and the leadership can hardly tolerate any lack of discipline in such dire straits; and
3) there were enough question marks (possible crypto-fascism and/or crypto-racism, along with a systematic pattern of evasion of any relevant topics, a latter-day Catch-22 situation) for any Democratic Senator to give the nomination a comprehensive rejection.
These combined to enunciate the Democrats' position to date, which I would voice as being, "We will stop him by any means possible, but if we don't have the votes it will be futile." Now, we go to the floor, and the indisputably political strategy and tactics of the numbers and rules which apply to a divided Senate (i.e., one where the motion to approve can not proceed on a simple basis of unanimous consent) take center stage.
I have given some consideration to the point I alluded to in my chat excerpt below, namely, the assertion that Alito's confirmation vote must be completed before the State of the Union address. My suggestion to Harry Reid is that Democratic leadership accede to a debate under the following rules:
1) The "Two-Speech Rule" will prevail for Democrats, which means that Frist can expect each Democratic Senator to have the opportunity hold forth, without time limitation on the Senator's speech, on two occasions before he or she will vote in favor of cloture. This is a venerable tradition which provides for extended consideration, response to other debate arguments, yet without the connotations of excess delay suggested by an all-out filibuster;
2) The Senate would interrupt its debate by unanimous consent to allow the President to speak at the appointed time. The Eponymous Bushite would no doubt take advantage of the Senate's "failure" to approve his nominee within the timing he wanted and make some negative comments, but those (approval, and with the timing specified) are not Constitutional obligations of the Senate, and ill words from "TEB" may well echo in the Democrats' favor in November.
I would call this proposal "extended, but limited, debate", and not a filibuster at all. Just the consideration (and, please, some good PR, so that some impression will remain in voters' minds except the faulty one that those "nasty Democrats made the Justice's wife cry"--it was actually the sarcasm of Republican Sen. Graham) which is due to a political nomination of great import.
The Extra Notch on the Right-Wing Bed Post which will be known as "Justice Alito" was always due to be incised since 2004, was destined to be ugly, and it would be too much to hope that it won't be a long-term one. No more notches can be allowed, of course: the next makes five. To the Wall for the Stevens/Ginsburg replacement, caso mai.
And perhaps we need to take steps to protect against Justice Kennedy becoming too much of a Bram. An operation, perhaps: what's the opposite of an "ectomy"? You know, instead of taking something out, they add something? Like a pair of balls?
Friday, January 20, 2006
Comments on Cuba's Team at the WBC, BME-Day
From my Baseball chat group on Yahoo!
Dec. 16: I was thinking someone might have commented on the Cuba aspect of the World Baseball Classic, but no, that would be too "political". I am simply amazed that any set of circumstances could possibly arise such that Peter Angelos gets to become a hero.
How blockheaded can the U.S. government be? I've heard that the responsible agency is part of the Treasury Department. Yes, that makes sense; allowing Cuba will certainly cause debasement to our currency. Not to mention our precious bodily fluids--no doubt Treasury's got a firm grip on those jewels!
Suddenly I care about a stupid little exhibition series.
Dec. 23: And I think the International Baseball Committee should withdraw anyrecognition of the spurious World Baseball Classic until Cuba isadmitted (the team should be composed of both Cuban residents andexpatriates, so they can prove they're morally superior to ourstupid Cuban-American representatives who run things here).
P.S. That seems to have happened. This one from my "annual pre-Christmas bah Humbug Crank rant", the overall focus being on the New York Crankbiters.
Jan. 11: I have to commend the NYTimes' Vecsey for getting all over the case of those dingleberries who have blocked the Cuban team's visit forthe "Classic". His opinion is that the titular Bushite is the one who can fix it. I would agree that if you want someone to say, "Forget about the law--just do it," he'd be the guy.
My view is, put the Cubans on a boat (a nice one, this time), bring them to the shore, tell the media when they are arriving at the port in Miami and dare the authorities to stop them. The players can even promise not to stay, or to stay, whichever we want from an immigration/baseball/Castro regime change point of view.
Here's the reference, though it's not a free article to the Times Select-less: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/sports/baseball/18vecsey.html
Now, today (Jan. 20), comes word that the government has allowed the Cubans' application to enter the country. A revised application made clear that the Cubans' prize money, already promised to go to Katrina hurricane victims, will not pass through those filthy Communist currency-debasing hands before being given to our compatriots. The story today suggests that Vecsey was right and the eponymous Bushite is due credit for getting involved and working out the deal.
There was some grumbling over the compromise from anti-Castro Cuban-American political leaders, but they basically got shouted down.
Doubtlessly coincidentally, today marks exactly three years until Dubya can legally slough off the duties of his elected office and go to the job he covets, the one Slug is keeping warm.
The third pre-anniversary of BME-Day.
As they used to say on "Hee-Haw": Crawford, Texas, population 143. Salute!
Final comment, Jan. 25:
That's "Bushite Misrule Ends Day". January 20, 2009. It's not time to celebrate yet, but like the New Year's Day was the year before the new millennium (i.e., Jan. 1, 2000), maybe we could pre-celebrate the approach of the post-Bushite era next year. Then it would already be a tradition in 2008, and a national holiday in 2009. Like "V-E" day was, for quite a while. It's time to move past the postwar mental framework still derived basically from World War II and its stepson, the Cold War.
The reference to "Slug" was insider-speak of our baseball chat group, referring to current baseball commissioner (and, apparently no longer Milwaukee Brewer owner, but who really believes what the owners say about such things?), Bud Selig.
Dec. 16: I was thinking someone might have commented on the Cuba aspect of the World Baseball Classic, but no, that would be too "political". I am simply amazed that any set of circumstances could possibly arise such that Peter Angelos gets to become a hero.
How blockheaded can the U.S. government be? I've heard that the responsible agency is part of the Treasury Department. Yes, that makes sense; allowing Cuba will certainly cause debasement to our currency. Not to mention our precious bodily fluids--no doubt Treasury's got a firm grip on those jewels!
Suddenly I care about a stupid little exhibition series.
Dec. 23: And I think the International Baseball Committee should withdraw anyrecognition of the spurious World Baseball Classic until Cuba isadmitted (the team should be composed of both Cuban residents andexpatriates, so they can prove they're morally superior to ourstupid Cuban-American representatives who run things here).
P.S. That seems to have happened. This one from my "annual pre-Christmas bah Humbug Crank rant", the overall focus being on the New York Crankbiters.
Jan. 11: I have to commend the NYTimes' Vecsey for getting all over the case of those dingleberries who have blocked the Cuban team's visit forthe "Classic". His opinion is that the titular Bushite is the one who can fix it. I would agree that if you want someone to say, "Forget about the law--just do it," he'd be the guy.
My view is, put the Cubans on a boat (a nice one, this time), bring them to the shore, tell the media when they are arriving at the port in Miami and dare the authorities to stop them. The players can even promise not to stay, or to stay, whichever we want from an immigration/baseball/Castro regime change point of view.
Here's the reference, though it's not a free article to the Times Select-less: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/sports/baseball/18vecsey.html
Now, today (Jan. 20), comes word that the government has allowed the Cubans' application to enter the country. A revised application made clear that the Cubans' prize money, already promised to go to Katrina hurricane victims, will not pass through those filthy Communist currency-debasing hands before being given to our compatriots. The story today suggests that Vecsey was right and the eponymous Bushite is due credit for getting involved and working out the deal.
There was some grumbling over the compromise from anti-Castro Cuban-American political leaders, but they basically got shouted down.
Doubtlessly coincidentally, today marks exactly three years until Dubya can legally slough off the duties of his elected office and go to the job he covets, the one Slug is keeping warm.
The third pre-anniversary of BME-Day.
As they used to say on "Hee-Haw": Crawford, Texas, population 143. Salute!
Final comment, Jan. 25:
That's "Bushite Misrule Ends Day". January 20, 2009. It's not time to celebrate yet, but like the New Year's Day was the year before the new millennium (i.e., Jan. 1, 2000), maybe we could pre-celebrate the approach of the post-Bushite era next year. Then it would already be a tradition in 2008, and a national holiday in 2009. Like "V-E" day was, for quite a while. It's time to move past the postwar mental framework still derived basically from World War II and its stepson, the Cold War.
The reference to "Slug" was insider-speak of our baseball chat group, referring to current baseball commissioner (and, apparently no longer Milwaukee Brewer owner, but who really believes what the owners say about such things?), Bud Selig.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Postings on Daily Kos regarding Filibuster, Alito-sis
I responded to this comment by McJoan, who had a passionate argument for going to war in the Senate over Alito:
McJoan: You put your finger on something
important.
One of the biggest difficulties we have in this issue is trying to talk about the intricacies of Senate rules.
Keeping it simple is key. People's brains just short of shut down at the words like "cloture," "procedural votes," etc.
We need to make it as straightforward as possible if there's any hope that the traditional media will report it correctly. "This is an extremely, out-of-the-mainstream nominee. We don't think he should have a lifetime appointment to the Court, and the Republicans want to break Senate rules to get him on the Court."
"I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer
by mcjoan on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:10 PM PDT
CST(that's me): Rules, Rules
You are so right about this problem of excessive insider-game detail getting in the way of the issue's exposition. As an example, today's Washington Post had these comments in a news story--emphasis added:
"Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year."
OK, this looks like Republicans trying to ascribe motives to the Democrats and the Post taking steno, but this point concerned me. I could find nothing in the Senate rules which says a debate must be interrupted for the State of the Union, or if so, that it cannot be resumed afterwards, but I'm no parliamentarian.
Forget about the questions of filibuster, nuclear option, vote-counting, etc. One week of debate or less allowed for this topic of enduring significance is a rush to judgment and unseemly. I agree with the poster who said there should be no vote until there are satisfactory hearings on the NSA wiretapping.
I do not, however, agree with those who say the Democrats should fight with everything in their arsenal. The Democrats need to show that it is not just the ends, which are easily faked (see "Mission Accomplished") and rarely achieved, which count. The methods of accomplishing one's objectives also matter. The Democrats need to show that they will follow the rules--this "strategic pause" (my choice of phrase) will then fit well into the 2006 platform. If the Republicans improperly try to cut off debate, they will pay, whether they have 51 votes or 60.
I believe Harry Reid is thinking along these lines and has a stratagem to propose. That's why they're having the meeting at all. I say, Support Our Troops in Washington in this battle. When it's done, that's when we reckon who might be traitors to our own personal causes.
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:32 AM PDT
This post probably has a short shelf life of relevance. The Democratic Caucus meets today (Wed., Jan. 18) and will probably announce something afterwards. Maybe they'll lie low, though, and sandbag the overconfident Frist yet again. I'm betting Cheney will show up at the time the Majority schedules the floor vote.
Here's part of a second Kos posting, in a discussion of Armando's view that Supreme Court justices approach their cases with the decision in mind, and search for the right rationalization for that decision in the case law:
I do take your point that these SCOTUS folks have a result in mind and cast about for the argument that supports it. The question of the moment is the political one: how to make it clear what Alito will do--when he has denied any intention--and dramatize that sufficiently to capture the attention of the American people. So far, all they've picked up from the hearings was its unmistakable odor of "Alito-sis" (defined as "intensely jargoned stale air with a distinct Bushite scent").
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:34:09 AM PDT
So far, it's the only reference in Google to "Alito-sis" (the spelling is the Spanish one for "halitosis", in fact). Apart from the reference to this posting.
McJoan: You put your finger on something
important.
One of the biggest difficulties we have in this issue is trying to talk about the intricacies of Senate rules.
Keeping it simple is key. People's brains just short of shut down at the words like "cloture," "procedural votes," etc.
We need to make it as straightforward as possible if there's any hope that the traditional media will report it correctly. "This is an extremely, out-of-the-mainstream nominee. We don't think he should have a lifetime appointment to the Court, and the Republicans want to break Senate rules to get him on the Court."
"I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer
by mcjoan on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:10 PM PDT
CST(that's me): Rules, Rules
You are so right about this problem of excessive insider-game detail getting in the way of the issue's exposition. As an example, today's Washington Post had these comments in a news story--emphasis added:
"Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year."
OK, this looks like Republicans trying to ascribe motives to the Democrats and the Post taking steno, but this point concerned me. I could find nothing in the Senate rules which says a debate must be interrupted for the State of the Union, or if so, that it cannot be resumed afterwards, but I'm no parliamentarian.
Forget about the questions of filibuster, nuclear option, vote-counting, etc. One week of debate or less allowed for this topic of enduring significance is a rush to judgment and unseemly. I agree with the poster who said there should be no vote until there are satisfactory hearings on the NSA wiretapping.
I do not, however, agree with those who say the Democrats should fight with everything in their arsenal. The Democrats need to show that it is not just the ends, which are easily faked (see "Mission Accomplished") and rarely achieved, which count. The methods of accomplishing one's objectives also matter. The Democrats need to show that they will follow the rules--this "strategic pause" (my choice of phrase) will then fit well into the 2006 platform. If the Republicans improperly try to cut off debate, they will pay, whether they have 51 votes or 60.
I believe Harry Reid is thinking along these lines and has a stratagem to propose. That's why they're having the meeting at all. I say, Support Our Troops in Washington in this battle. When it's done, that's when we reckon who might be traitors to our own personal causes.
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:32 AM PDT
This post probably has a short shelf life of relevance. The Democratic Caucus meets today (Wed., Jan. 18) and will probably announce something afterwards. Maybe they'll lie low, though, and sandbag the overconfident Frist yet again. I'm betting Cheney will show up at the time the Majority schedules the floor vote.
Here's part of a second Kos posting, in a discussion of Armando's view that Supreme Court justices approach their cases with the decision in mind, and search for the right rationalization for that decision in the case law:
I do take your point that these SCOTUS folks have a result in mind and cast about for the argument that supports it. The question of the moment is the political one: how to make it clear what Alito will do--when he has denied any intention--and dramatize that sufficiently to capture the attention of the American people. So far, all they've picked up from the hearings was its unmistakable odor of "Alito-sis" (defined as "intensely jargoned stale air with a distinct Bushite scent").
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:34:09 AM PDT
So far, it's the only reference in Google to "Alito-sis" (the spelling is the Spanish one for "halitosis", in fact). Apart from the reference to this posting.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Sharon: He brings bad things to life
I will take advantage of Ariel Sharon's pre-death condition to make a few unkind remarks about him that I might forbear from saying after he's died.
He and Arafat are a pair, representing permanently opposed positions of the past, and it's time to move on. Both got concerned with their "legacy" in recent years; for Arafat, that meant worrying how he'll be remembered among Palestinians and thus selling them short; for Sharon, it meant a change in tactics to try to keep at bay the enemies of Zionist Israel, by separating Israel more effectively from its neighbors. The sad fact for both is the their tactics will instead ensure the opposite of their goals: Arafat will be the guy who failed to get a Palestinian state, and Sharon's Wall will further entrench the territorial, political, social, moral and economic chaos of the area, and thus provide very poor security. As apartheid proved in South Africa.
Arafat showed himself to be one of the tiny men of history by blowing his people's best opportunity in modern history--in the late days of the Clinton administration, spurning Ehud Barak's generous offer package. Similarly, here are the three things for which I will never forgive Sharon:
1) During Israel's invasion of Beirut, turning over security at the Palestinian refugee camps over to the Christian militia (with thousands massacred in an easily foreseeable disaster); 2) incitement to riot by making a point of challenging the Muslims on the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem, the immediate cause of the second intifada (I know he had the right to do it, but was it the smart thing to do?) 3) and most controversially, making Sharon's Wall into a reality.
I give Sharon grudging credit for the Gaza withdrawal. He was sensible enough to recognize the futility of the situation in Gaza, as, I believe, he finally did with his '80's pet, the Lebanon invasion. I don't think either "strategic withdrawal" represented a real gesture toward peace, just pulling back to what he and his Cabinet determined, with no other power weighing in noticeably, to be "defensible borders".
Like Pat Robertson, "God told me" Sharon's health problems were divine retribution, but my version is that it's for Sharon's Wall, not the Gaza withdrawal. That Wall is not a peacemaker, unless one is extremely myopic. It suggests an obvious rallying cry, borrowed and modified from Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Prime Minister, tear down that wall."
I seem to like 2-parters when it comes to the dualistic Palestinian issue (see the derivatively-titled "Revenge and Insecurity, or Kill Arik, Part 2" on this site's archives: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_chinshihtang_archive.html). Now, instead of merely bashing, I will propose something positive, even if a
HIGHLY UNORTHODOX, SECULAR HUMANISTIC, LONG-TERM VISION:
Peace will come to that area, not ever through a "2-state solution", but through mutual recognition:
a) the Palestinians need to recognize that the Israelis have brought positive change to the area and have the potential to bring much more still (thus, they are much more than "an occupying power to be thrown into the sea" or whatever); and
b) the religious Zionists need to recognize that Palestinian Arabs also have a right to live in the area, free from coercion and ghetto-ization. Somehow, I would think at least that the Jews of the Diaspora could understand that.
In this sense, the Israeli Arab minority population has a critical viewpoint which needs to be respected and nurtured. My understanding of the demographics is that the group is indeed growing in relation to Israeli society in general, and I consider that one of the most hopeful signals for the long-term.
From a political science point of view, if you asked me: I'd advocate a loose federation as a form of government to consider for the area, with representation levels guaranteed for Jews (perhaps by Reform/Conservative/Orthodox), Arabs, and any other significant minority groups in Palestine. Jerusalem should be an "open city" with permanent United Nations presence--I recommend the Security Council be physically located there! Economic freedoms to own, sell, and develop land should be protected for all--local community boards should control development, and the federation should provide for the common defense, currency, raising revenue, etc., in a loose federal government (actually, something like the new constitution of Iraq!)
I understand that it may take 50 years or more for the conditions to emerge for a stable solution; however, I believe that will be a true basis for a permanent peace. That's what must be pursued. That's how bad I think the short-term prospects look in both countries.
Strategic Application of the "HUSH LTV" Above to Current Domestic Political Calculations:
The new (Peres-less) Labor is the best way to advance the cause of ultimate peace. I sense they are feeling their way toward an aspiration to be a postmodernist state in the European sense, peace with their neighbors being a necessary obstacle along the path toward a general program of regional development. It's workable if they stick to it and get the security guarantees (from Europe and the U.S.) they should be able to get in return. I'm not sure that their sincere dedication to a negotiated two-state solution is right, but I do think it can lead to a closing for the "Chain of Violence" show, after a run of some five years for that farcical tragedy.
Despite my unequivocal preference for Labor, I am grateful for the continuation of Sharon's nascent Kadima party, because it splits the current center from right (on the all-important war vs. peace spectrum--see below). This could actually break the veto power the Israeli religious right has on Israeli policy at some point.
As for the Palestinian elections, key elements are driven by Israeli domestic considerations--whether Israel will allow voting in Jerusalem, whether Israel will allow Hamas to receive the votes and the representation their support might draw in a fully democratic outcome. The man heading the list for Al Fatah--the traditional PLO party of Arafat--is running out of an Israeli prison. These things lead me to believe that these peoples' fates are too deeply intertwined to be thinking of separation as the solution.
Tactically, the way toward peace is to marginalize the extremists at both ends of the war issue (Likud and Hamas, if you will) who advocate programs which directly lead to violence (or are even perpetrators or sponsors of violence). Let them find their common ground (I don't deny that it exists). Give them the chance to gain their fair representation, even make political alliance together for the cause of fomenting continued violence. I'll take the chances of their opponents, the advocates of reconciliation, in that one.
He and Arafat are a pair, representing permanently opposed positions of the past, and it's time to move on. Both got concerned with their "legacy" in recent years; for Arafat, that meant worrying how he'll be remembered among Palestinians and thus selling them short; for Sharon, it meant a change in tactics to try to keep at bay the enemies of Zionist Israel, by separating Israel more effectively from its neighbors. The sad fact for both is the their tactics will instead ensure the opposite of their goals: Arafat will be the guy who failed to get a Palestinian state, and Sharon's Wall will further entrench the territorial, political, social, moral and economic chaos of the area, and thus provide very poor security. As apartheid proved in South Africa.
Arafat showed himself to be one of the tiny men of history by blowing his people's best opportunity in modern history--in the late days of the Clinton administration, spurning Ehud Barak's generous offer package. Similarly, here are the three things for which I will never forgive Sharon:
1) During Israel's invasion of Beirut, turning over security at the Palestinian refugee camps over to the Christian militia (with thousands massacred in an easily foreseeable disaster); 2) incitement to riot by making a point of challenging the Muslims on the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem, the immediate cause of the second intifada (I know he had the right to do it, but was it the smart thing to do?) 3) and most controversially, making Sharon's Wall into a reality.
I give Sharon grudging credit for the Gaza withdrawal. He was sensible enough to recognize the futility of the situation in Gaza, as, I believe, he finally did with his '80's pet, the Lebanon invasion. I don't think either "strategic withdrawal" represented a real gesture toward peace, just pulling back to what he and his Cabinet determined, with no other power weighing in noticeably, to be "defensible borders".
Like Pat Robertson, "God told me" Sharon's health problems were divine retribution, but my version is that it's for Sharon's Wall, not the Gaza withdrawal. That Wall is not a peacemaker, unless one is extremely myopic. It suggests an obvious rallying cry, borrowed and modified from Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Prime Minister, tear down that wall."
I seem to like 2-parters when it comes to the dualistic Palestinian issue (see the derivatively-titled "Revenge and Insecurity, or Kill Arik, Part 2" on this site's archives: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_chinshihtang_archive.html). Now, instead of merely bashing, I will propose something positive, even if a
HIGHLY UNORTHODOX, SECULAR HUMANISTIC, LONG-TERM VISION:
Peace will come to that area, not ever through a "2-state solution", but through mutual recognition:
a) the Palestinians need to recognize that the Israelis have brought positive change to the area and have the potential to bring much more still (thus, they are much more than "an occupying power to be thrown into the sea" or whatever); and
b) the religious Zionists need to recognize that Palestinian Arabs also have a right to live in the area, free from coercion and ghetto-ization. Somehow, I would think at least that the Jews of the Diaspora could understand that.
In this sense, the Israeli Arab minority population has a critical viewpoint which needs to be respected and nurtured. My understanding of the demographics is that the group is indeed growing in relation to Israeli society in general, and I consider that one of the most hopeful signals for the long-term.
From a political science point of view, if you asked me: I'd advocate a loose federation as a form of government to consider for the area, with representation levels guaranteed for Jews (perhaps by Reform/Conservative/Orthodox), Arabs, and any other significant minority groups in Palestine. Jerusalem should be an "open city" with permanent United Nations presence--I recommend the Security Council be physically located there! Economic freedoms to own, sell, and develop land should be protected for all--local community boards should control development, and the federation should provide for the common defense, currency, raising revenue, etc., in a loose federal government (actually, something like the new constitution of Iraq!)
I understand that it may take 50 years or more for the conditions to emerge for a stable solution; however, I believe that will be a true basis for a permanent peace. That's what must be pursued. That's how bad I think the short-term prospects look in both countries.
Strategic Application of the "HUSH LTV" Above to Current Domestic Political Calculations:
The new (Peres-less) Labor is the best way to advance the cause of ultimate peace. I sense they are feeling their way toward an aspiration to be a postmodernist state in the European sense, peace with their neighbors being a necessary obstacle along the path toward a general program of regional development. It's workable if they stick to it and get the security guarantees (from Europe and the U.S.) they should be able to get in return. I'm not sure that their sincere dedication to a negotiated two-state solution is right, but I do think it can lead to a closing for the "Chain of Violence" show, after a run of some five years for that farcical tragedy.
Despite my unequivocal preference for Labor, I am grateful for the continuation of Sharon's nascent Kadima party, because it splits the current center from right (on the all-important war vs. peace spectrum--see below). This could actually break the veto power the Israeli religious right has on Israeli policy at some point.
As for the Palestinian elections, key elements are driven by Israeli domestic considerations--whether Israel will allow voting in Jerusalem, whether Israel will allow Hamas to receive the votes and the representation their support might draw in a fully democratic outcome. The man heading the list for Al Fatah--the traditional PLO party of Arafat--is running out of an Israeli prison. These things lead me to believe that these peoples' fates are too deeply intertwined to be thinking of separation as the solution.
Tactically, the way toward peace is to marginalize the extremists at both ends of the war issue (Likud and Hamas, if you will) who advocate programs which directly lead to violence (or are even perpetrators or sponsors of violence). Let them find their common ground (I don't deny that it exists). Give them the chance to gain their fair representation, even make political alliance together for the cause of fomenting continued violence. I'll take the chances of their opponents, the advocates of reconciliation, in that one.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Bushite PATRIOT Games
(apologies to Tom Clancy, whose similarly-named book, and subsequent movie, I've never been able to sit through)
So, tonight, Congress has passed a one-month extension to the PATRIOT Act as we know it, rather than pass the Conference Committee version to extend key provisions due to sunset on December 31.
This is among several victories of a highly technical nature that occurred in these weeks and shows that the ability to mobilize near-unanimous Republican support for the Bushite agenda is faltering; the opposition is gaining by forming tactical alliances shaving off small groups of Republican social moderates, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and principled constitutionalists. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has found his step by utilizing the intricate knowledge of Senate and Congressional rules which he has, along with that of other key Democratic operatives. Against the odds and the numbers, he has come up with some legislative wins. We should forgive any lack of ideological purity when we have a captain who can put the other team on the defensive and come away with some big upsets.
Of course, it is the nature of the Bushites to be obtuse, and so we should not be surprised by the effontery of Dubya's recent P.R. onslaught. Rove feels an election comin' on; even at a distance of 11 months we can hear the grinding of the spin machine. This time, though, the Talking Points are out of touch, reality-denying, and no longer with the same convincing swagger.
Let's go through a few of the recent jousts, the sound of battered helms, split beams, and shattered shields still ringing in our ears:
Torture: After months of fighting it behind the scenes, then finally professing public indifference, Bush folds and accepts the legislated prohibition of practices beyond the military field manuals by any American government entities. The votes were solidly against him in the Senate. The key point was that McCain accepted the power of the American military to do what they wanted, but simply insisted that their actions be properly put beyond that which is legally allowed. The perpetrators thus could hope to plead that their actions were for the right cause, perhaps bringing benefit to the nation, putting themselves on the line.
Bush immediately trotted out the argument when the beans were spilled on the Eavesdropping of American phone conversations by the Times and the Post, conveniently for Bushite opponents on the key day of the Senate cloture vote on the conference report for the PATRIOT Act extension.
This story has broken quickly (after being held up for a long time), but this much I have managed to understand: Our national security and intelligence capabilities include massively capturing all the phone conversations, then sorting out the ones of interest. In order to make use of these capabilities for domestic purposes (and follow the law), it would be necessary to gain frequent, quick, and extensive secret warrants to keep selected information. The FISA Law bends over backwards to give that to our federal authorities. Despite knowing this, Bush gave the go-ahead to forget all this legal claptrap and "just do it".
Now, when it breaks, his defenses have been planned for months or years (as with the Plamegate indictment). Number One defense is no defense: hell yes, I stop at nothing to protect the American people. And it's working, he says. Trust me.
Yes, there are some trumped-up, lily-livered opinions from Justice about the legal and constitutional justifications for violating the law and constitutional protections. The rest of it is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo which sounds like a reasonable appeal for the novelty of this highly classified technology to bust the envelope of the law, but isn't. The delicacy and complexity of the technology seems to have been built right into the understanding the law shows; it's just that Bush said "to hell with it".
It's still early for this one, but I have the feeling that the Administration is going to get thumped a few times really vigorously, the judiciary will get their back up against the Bushites, and the wheels which allow the feds to examine basically everybody's call to everybody else and sift out the .001% of national security interest will be greased even more.
Arctic Drilling: Yet again, the combination of environmentalists, skeptics, and a few realists has preserved the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for another year. This one remains a bit of a dream--it will only take one bad legislative year on this one to ruin the place forever, and it's probably going to come some day. In the meantime, leaving the stuff in the ground seems wise; at least when we finally drill it the value will be at an all-time high (by definition).
Budget Cuts: OK, on this one I think the Bushites will get their way in the end, in substance; the bill will finally pass. However, the debate has embarrassed them with their core group, the conservatives, who know that the cuts are unpopular and niggardly--small potatoes next to the cost overruns of Iraq and Katrina, and even to the tax cuts the Bushites want to slip by next session. My bet is that the tax cuts will be, themselves, chopped to fit the bed they made this fall.
I forgot to include a bit on the PATRIOT Act itself! Like most Americans, they slipped this one in after 9/11 while I wasn't paying attention. This time, I am. Russ Feingold, one of the few who was paying attention the first time, has led the movement for some sensible restrictions on the totally-over-the-top power grabs and disregard for review, checks and balances of the Bushites. And it's not just about them; if we lose this battle now, we will never get these pieces of our privacy back. Bush is bleating on about how having to get a court order is going to cause terrorism, and similarly, we simply must have someone looking over our shoulder when we check out library books--a one-month lapse in the law would give "terra" a chance to check out all those secret tomes on making atom bombs and stuff and we wouldn't even know! Meanwhile, Feingold has put together the winning coalition of Democrats and libertarians and comes out of this looking very Presidential.
I thought the Internet poll on Lou Dobbs about The PATRIOT Act was interesting (capitalized because it has nothing to do with patriotism; it's a SLA: a seven-letter-acronym. Perhaps we should call it TPA--"The PATRIOT Act" or "Toilet Paper Act" for short. Basically, the Bushites use this stuff to keep their butts clean.) As I recall, there was about 20% who said it should be extended for 6 months; 10-11% total for longer periods; a few for a shorter period; and 60% said it should not be renewed at all. Too bad everyone in Washington knows better.
Anyway, during their bluff stage, the Bushites pretended they couldn't accept a short extension--can you imagine Dubya using the first veto of his administration to block an extension of the PATRIOT Act? Then, after being defeated on the Senate floor, they insisted that the extension had to be their way--one month instead of longer--to make sure it's out of the way before the election campaign and prevent any real examination of the questions involved.
2005: It's finishing the way it has been for most of the year: disastrous for the Bushites.
In these cases--standing up for internationally-recognized principles against mistreating prisoners, defending civil liberties against overweening federal goons, exposing the Bushite war on the less privileged, preserving the environment-- we got good outcomes, ones that benefit this country. Unfortunately, there are many other areas where Bushite incompetence, unintended consequences, lack of foresight, myopia, and bloody-minded arrogance have hurt us. Those are the ones where we couldn't stop him or change his direction.
I have to comment on this year's "controversy": is it "holidays" or is it "Christmas"? I feel the whole thing is a sham of a debate, as usual around here. I'm in favor of recognizing the global holiday that is Christmas, and putting a little spin on it: Christmas is about universal brotherhood (or the P.C. version of that word) and peace, recognizing that children are our future, and it's not just a sectarian event. OK, and it's also about getting lots of presents and being a glutton, too.
Happy Whatever!
So, tonight, Congress has passed a one-month extension to the PATRIOT Act as we know it, rather than pass the Conference Committee version to extend key provisions due to sunset on December 31.
This is among several victories of a highly technical nature that occurred in these weeks and shows that the ability to mobilize near-unanimous Republican support for the Bushite agenda is faltering; the opposition is gaining by forming tactical alliances shaving off small groups of Republican social moderates, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and principled constitutionalists. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has found his step by utilizing the intricate knowledge of Senate and Congressional rules which he has, along with that of other key Democratic operatives. Against the odds and the numbers, he has come up with some legislative wins. We should forgive any lack of ideological purity when we have a captain who can put the other team on the defensive and come away with some big upsets.
Of course, it is the nature of the Bushites to be obtuse, and so we should not be surprised by the effontery of Dubya's recent P.R. onslaught. Rove feels an election comin' on; even at a distance of 11 months we can hear the grinding of the spin machine. This time, though, the Talking Points are out of touch, reality-denying, and no longer with the same convincing swagger.
Let's go through a few of the recent jousts, the sound of battered helms, split beams, and shattered shields still ringing in our ears:
Torture: After months of fighting it behind the scenes, then finally professing public indifference, Bush folds and accepts the legislated prohibition of practices beyond the military field manuals by any American government entities. The votes were solidly against him in the Senate. The key point was that McCain accepted the power of the American military to do what they wanted, but simply insisted that their actions be properly put beyond that which is legally allowed. The perpetrators thus could hope to plead that their actions were for the right cause, perhaps bringing benefit to the nation, putting themselves on the line.
Bush immediately trotted out the argument when the beans were spilled on the Eavesdropping of American phone conversations by the Times and the Post, conveniently for Bushite opponents on the key day of the Senate cloture vote on the conference report for the PATRIOT Act extension.
This story has broken quickly (after being held up for a long time), but this much I have managed to understand: Our national security and intelligence capabilities include massively capturing all the phone conversations, then sorting out the ones of interest. In order to make use of these capabilities for domestic purposes (and follow the law), it would be necessary to gain frequent, quick, and extensive secret warrants to keep selected information. The FISA Law bends over backwards to give that to our federal authorities. Despite knowing this, Bush gave the go-ahead to forget all this legal claptrap and "just do it".
Now, when it breaks, his defenses have been planned for months or years (as with the Plamegate indictment). Number One defense is no defense: hell yes, I stop at nothing to protect the American people. And it's working, he says. Trust me.
Yes, there are some trumped-up, lily-livered opinions from Justice about the legal and constitutional justifications for violating the law and constitutional protections. The rest of it is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo which sounds like a reasonable appeal for the novelty of this highly classified technology to bust the envelope of the law, but isn't. The delicacy and complexity of the technology seems to have been built right into the understanding the law shows; it's just that Bush said "to hell with it".
It's still early for this one, but I have the feeling that the Administration is going to get thumped a few times really vigorously, the judiciary will get their back up against the Bushites, and the wheels which allow the feds to examine basically everybody's call to everybody else and sift out the .001% of national security interest will be greased even more.
Arctic Drilling: Yet again, the combination of environmentalists, skeptics, and a few realists has preserved the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for another year. This one remains a bit of a dream--it will only take one bad legislative year on this one to ruin the place forever, and it's probably going to come some day. In the meantime, leaving the stuff in the ground seems wise; at least when we finally drill it the value will be at an all-time high (by definition).
Budget Cuts: OK, on this one I think the Bushites will get their way in the end, in substance; the bill will finally pass. However, the debate has embarrassed them with their core group, the conservatives, who know that the cuts are unpopular and niggardly--small potatoes next to the cost overruns of Iraq and Katrina, and even to the tax cuts the Bushites want to slip by next session. My bet is that the tax cuts will be, themselves, chopped to fit the bed they made this fall.
I forgot to include a bit on the PATRIOT Act itself! Like most Americans, they slipped this one in after 9/11 while I wasn't paying attention. This time, I am. Russ Feingold, one of the few who was paying attention the first time, has led the movement for some sensible restrictions on the totally-over-the-top power grabs and disregard for review, checks and balances of the Bushites. And it's not just about them; if we lose this battle now, we will never get these pieces of our privacy back. Bush is bleating on about how having to get a court order is going to cause terrorism, and similarly, we simply must have someone looking over our shoulder when we check out library books--a one-month lapse in the law would give "terra" a chance to check out all those secret tomes on making atom bombs and stuff and we wouldn't even know! Meanwhile, Feingold has put together the winning coalition of Democrats and libertarians and comes out of this looking very Presidential.
I thought the Internet poll on Lou Dobbs about The PATRIOT Act was interesting (capitalized because it has nothing to do with patriotism; it's a SLA: a seven-letter-acronym. Perhaps we should call it TPA--"The PATRIOT Act" or "Toilet Paper Act" for short. Basically, the Bushites use this stuff to keep their butts clean.) As I recall, there was about 20% who said it should be extended for 6 months; 10-11% total for longer periods; a few for a shorter period; and 60% said it should not be renewed at all. Too bad everyone in Washington knows better.
Anyway, during their bluff stage, the Bushites pretended they couldn't accept a short extension--can you imagine Dubya using the first veto of his administration to block an extension of the PATRIOT Act? Then, after being defeated on the Senate floor, they insisted that the extension had to be their way--one month instead of longer--to make sure it's out of the way before the election campaign and prevent any real examination of the questions involved.
2005: It's finishing the way it has been for most of the year: disastrous for the Bushites.
In these cases--standing up for internationally-recognized principles against mistreating prisoners, defending civil liberties against overweening federal goons, exposing the Bushite war on the less privileged, preserving the environment-- we got good outcomes, ones that benefit this country. Unfortunately, there are many other areas where Bushite incompetence, unintended consequences, lack of foresight, myopia, and bloody-minded arrogance have hurt us. Those are the ones where we couldn't stop him or change his direction.
I have to comment on this year's "controversy": is it "holidays" or is it "Christmas"? I feel the whole thing is a sham of a debate, as usual around here. I'm in favor of recognizing the global holiday that is Christmas, and putting a little spin on it: Christmas is about universal brotherhood (or the P.C. version of that word) and peace, recognizing that children are our future, and it's not just a sectarian event. OK, and it's also about getting lots of presents and being a glutton, too.
Happy Whatever!
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Doris Lessing's Intelligent Design?
I refer here to the "Canopus" novels of Doris Lessing, of which Shikasta (1979) was the first and most complete in its explication of a system of regular visits and interventions in the Earth's biological evolution and, in particular, in humanity's development.
A fictional system, we may presume. But one that she uses quite brilliantly in Shikasta to suggest a possible explanation for many of the marvelous, fortuitous facts relating to our becoming the colossal, if superficial (in the planetary sense) factor we have become on our planet.
Shikasta is told from the viewpoint, omniscient if ever there were in fiction, of a veteran emissary of Canopus to Earth. This being has been involved with the planetary terra-forming, biological seeding, care and nurture of mammals, apes, and finally us reformed troglodytes (formerly reformed tree-dwellers). So she (for some reason I feel the character is feminine, though the name Lessing gives to the character in the present day is "George Sherban") has been through it all. The book is composed of extracts from the archives the character has reported back to home base over the eons, and particularly in the last 10,000 years or so.
Basically, they (those from Canopus in Argos) started things, along with their junior partner Sirius, who got part of the earth to perform their own experiments (the break-up of Pangaea, with Sirius getting to play with S. America, Australia, and the future Antarctica). There was also a third force, parasitic and jealous of Canopus, that keeps on infiltrating what was once a paradise (protected by Canopean beams of energy from harmful things like meteors, too much heat or cold, or black holes). As a result of these complex and partially malign influences, things have gotten knocked out of balance.
It was (is) sort of like the current Iraq thing, only for better motives (something like: it's what they do, bringing life, etc.) Basically, Canopus has some great powers: its beings basically live forever, can move heaven and earth, mess around with genetics, there's something about crossing dimensions (perhaps a string theory reference?), even a very tricky process to go into human life through the barbaric childbirth process, then heavily influenced by the intoxication of life on Earth, fulfilling their destiny and Canopean guidance by being in the right place, at the right time, for some critical act. That's how they work, mostly, these complex days, but previously they risked direct external appearances.
In our religious legends, they're the angels, the Hindu avatars. The cycle of religious founders that started about 500 B.C. and ended with Muhammad (among which there was an exceptionally perilous outcome in Judea in the first century A.D.) was a phase in their concern for us--a series of warnings to all the lands to change our sinful ways. Despite all their efforts and powers, though, they can't quite fix what has been knocked off kilter, and thus we are in this parlous state.
I don't want to criticize here the Pennsylvania judge who rather decisively threw out the notion that a public school system can teach intelligent design because of church-state separation reasoning. But it seems to me that Lessing's world hypothesis, which can explain so many things, shows that there is a basis other than pure religion to create an intelligent design concept. OK, there's no proof; it's basically a thought piece, which in the other Canopus novels she tries to flesh out with some stories from other planets in the Canopean sphere of influence.
The part I like about it, the nut of truth that drives the whole concept, is the vast similarity between the systems of religion of man. Each of them seems to foolishly (and improbably) believe that it, alone, is right. This reality suggests to her that we are a species that has trouble remembering facts, passing them on coherently, but one that's not forgetting everything, either. She's struggling to make sense of this meta-fact and find the part that could be true behind all the thousands of years of playing "telephone".
A fictional system, we may presume. But one that she uses quite brilliantly in Shikasta to suggest a possible explanation for many of the marvelous, fortuitous facts relating to our becoming the colossal, if superficial (in the planetary sense) factor we have become on our planet.
Shikasta is told from the viewpoint, omniscient if ever there were in fiction, of a veteran emissary of Canopus to Earth. This being has been involved with the planetary terra-forming, biological seeding, care and nurture of mammals, apes, and finally us reformed troglodytes (formerly reformed tree-dwellers). So she (for some reason I feel the character is feminine, though the name Lessing gives to the character in the present day is "George Sherban") has been through it all. The book is composed of extracts from the archives the character has reported back to home base over the eons, and particularly in the last 10,000 years or so.
Basically, they (those from Canopus in Argos) started things, along with their junior partner Sirius, who got part of the earth to perform their own experiments (the break-up of Pangaea, with Sirius getting to play with S. America, Australia, and the future Antarctica). There was also a third force, parasitic and jealous of Canopus, that keeps on infiltrating what was once a paradise (protected by Canopean beams of energy from harmful things like meteors, too much heat or cold, or black holes). As a result of these complex and partially malign influences, things have gotten knocked out of balance.
It was (is) sort of like the current Iraq thing, only for better motives (something like: it's what they do, bringing life, etc.) Basically, Canopus has some great powers: its beings basically live forever, can move heaven and earth, mess around with genetics, there's something about crossing dimensions (perhaps a string theory reference?), even a very tricky process to go into human life through the barbaric childbirth process, then heavily influenced by the intoxication of life on Earth, fulfilling their destiny and Canopean guidance by being in the right place, at the right time, for some critical act. That's how they work, mostly, these complex days, but previously they risked direct external appearances.
In our religious legends, they're the angels, the Hindu avatars. The cycle of religious founders that started about 500 B.C. and ended with Muhammad (among which there was an exceptionally perilous outcome in Judea in the first century A.D.) was a phase in their concern for us--a series of warnings to all the lands to change our sinful ways. Despite all their efforts and powers, though, they can't quite fix what has been knocked off kilter, and thus we are in this parlous state.
I don't want to criticize here the Pennsylvania judge who rather decisively threw out the notion that a public school system can teach intelligent design because of church-state separation reasoning. But it seems to me that Lessing's world hypothesis, which can explain so many things, shows that there is a basis other than pure religion to create an intelligent design concept. OK, there's no proof; it's basically a thought piece, which in the other Canopus novels she tries to flesh out with some stories from other planets in the Canopean sphere of influence.
The part I like about it, the nut of truth that drives the whole concept, is the vast similarity between the systems of religion of man. Each of them seems to foolishly (and improbably) believe that it, alone, is right. This reality suggests to her that we are a species that has trouble remembering facts, passing them on coherently, but one that's not forgetting everything, either. She's struggling to make sense of this meta-fact and find the part that could be true behind all the thousands of years of playing "telephone".
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Iran Nuke Post at TPM Cafe
Signed up with this one to Matthew Yglesias who asks someone to save him from his inclination to oppose Iran getting Nukes:
[new] Re: Save Me (3.00 / 0) (#31) by chinshihtang on Dec 11, 2005 -- 12:03:55 AM EST
A nuclear Iran is no worse a problem than a nuclear Pakistan, and we're getting through that (though there were some scary moments with India). Pakistan, indeed, would have made more sense as a place to conduct strategic opertaions than Iraq.
That's history, now, and Pakistan will be a rogue power with nuclear weapons for the next few years, or a subcontinental partner with India in a Predator-vs.-Alien kind of symbiosis.
I digress. The only advice I got is that I just don't want anything to blow up with either Iran or with North Korea until we get this Bushite down the road in 2009. We can't trust him. Or the Rove/Cheney axis (jettison Rumsfeld, the unlikely victim of Plamegate) which rules his world. And, somehow. through some crazy electoral college logic, he rules ours.
Sure, we should advocate that Iran stay within the NPT. But we're hypocritical at best to insist that they do so when we so cavalierly toss aside our commitments to international law.
I got this response:
Re: Save Me (3.00 / 0) (#37) by BruceMoomaw on Dec 11, 2005 -- 12:53:35 AM EST
Chinshihtang: "A nuclear Iran is no worse a problem than a nuclear Pakistan, and we're getting through that (though there were some scary moments with India)."
Really? What evidence do you have that we're "getting through it"? Do you see any sign that the Pakistani government is more stable than it was, or that the degre of public sympathy for al-Qaida has diminished? (I believe Pew Research Center pegged it earlier this year at 50% of the populace.)
"Pakistan, indeed, would have made more sense as a place to conduct strategic operations than Iraq."
Not, of course, when it already had the Bomb, and we had no way of knowing where all the Bombs it had were. Which is also why we don't dare attack North Korea now. The only thing we can do to resolve the Korean situation at this point is to make it clear that (1) we won't pay one cent to keep Kim's government propped up in power; but (2) we WILL do absolutely anything necessary to allow it to give up power peaceafully without being massacred by its own people. To do that credibly, however, we have to be capable of occupying and stabilizing the place -- which, of course, is something else we're totally incapable of doing as long as we stay entangled in Iraq.
"That's history, now, and Pakistan will be a rogue power with nuclear weapons for the next few years, or a subcontinental partner with India in a Predator-vs.-Alien kind of symbiosis."
Thou sayest it. How likely is it that it WILL turn into a "rogue power with nuclear weapons" in the near future? Enough to scare the hell out of me -- but it's too late for us to do anything about it. It is not, however, too late for us to prevent Iran from becoming still another deadly theat of the same kind. (Or, rather, it wasn't too late for us to do so before we got entangled in Iraq because of the cretinous overoptimism and duplicity of the Bushites.)
Thanks for paying attention, Bruce. Here are two responses I made (the second being the afterthought that's the main point):
Re: Save Me (3.00 / 0) (#87) by chinshihtang on Dec 13, 2005 -- 03:03:53 PM EST
True, North Korea was also a better focus for our energies than Iraq. Alas.
I was advocating operations in cooperation with Pakistan, helping to secure its western borders. And, no, I don't think that the regime is stable (more reason to work with it now), but I do think they have plans to protect their nukes within their military no matter what craziness might happen with their political regime.
Re: Save Me (3.00 / 0) (#88) by chinshihtang on Dec 13, 2005 -- 03:07:59 PM EST
We've lost control of nuclear proliferation (if we ever had it). There are more holes in the dyke than we've got digits.
The answer, though, is not stepping on the ambitions of the wannabes, but something more fundamental in our approach to nuclear weapons as a global society. And we, of course, are doing the opposite of providing sound leadership in this area.
[new] Re: Save Me (3.00 / 0) (#31) by chinshihtang on Dec 11, 2005 -- 12:03:55 AM EST
A nuclear Iran is no worse a problem than a nuclear Pakistan, and we're getting through that (though there were some scary moments with India). Pakistan, indeed, would have made more sense as a place to conduct strategic opertaions than Iraq.
That's history, now, and Pakistan will be a rogue power with nuclear weapons for the next few years, or a subcontinental partner with India in a Predator-vs.-Alien kind of symbiosis.
I digress. The only advice I got is that I just don't want anything to blow up with either Iran or with North Korea until we get this Bushite down the road in 2009. We can't trust him. Or the Rove/Cheney axis (jettison Rumsfeld, the unlikely victim of Plamegate) which rules his world. And, somehow. through some crazy electoral college logic, he rules ours.
Sure, we should advocate that Iran stay within the NPT. But we're hypocritical at best to insist that they do so when we so cavalierly toss aside our commitments to international law.
I got this response:
Re: Save Me (3.00 / 0) (#37) by BruceMoomaw on Dec 11, 2005 -- 12:53:35 AM EST
Chinshihtang: "A nuclear Iran is no worse a problem than a nuclear Pakistan, and we're getting through that (though there were some scary moments with India)."
Really? What evidence do you have that we're "getting through it"? Do you see any sign that the Pakistani government is more stable than it was, or that the degre of public sympathy for al-Qaida has diminished? (I believe Pew Research Center pegged it earlier this year at 50% of the populace.)
"Pakistan, indeed, would have made more sense as a place to conduct strategic operations than Iraq."
Not, of course, when it already had the Bomb, and we had no way of knowing where all the Bombs it had were. Which is also why we don't dare attack North Korea now. The only thing we can do to resolve the Korean situation at this point is to make it clear that (1) we won't pay one cent to keep Kim's government propped up in power; but (2) we WILL do absolutely anything necessary to allow it to give up power peaceafully without being massacred by its own people. To do that credibly, however, we have to be capable of occupying and stabilizing the place -- which, of course, is something else we're totally incapable of doing as long as we stay entangled in Iraq.
"That's history, now, and Pakistan will be a rogue power with nuclear weapons for the next few years, or a subcontinental partner with India in a Predator-vs.-Alien kind of symbiosis."
Thou sayest it. How likely is it that it WILL turn into a "rogue power with nuclear weapons" in the near future? Enough to scare the hell out of me -- but it's too late for us to do anything about it. It is not, however, too late for us to prevent Iran from becoming still another deadly theat of the same kind. (Or, rather, it wasn't too late for us to do so before we got entangled in Iraq because of the cretinous overoptimism and duplicity of the Bushites.)
Thanks for paying attention, Bruce. Here are two responses I made (the second being the afterthought that's the main point):
Re: Save Me (3.00 / 0) (#87) by chinshihtang on Dec 13, 2005 -- 03:03:53 PM EST
True, North Korea was also a better focus for our energies than Iraq. Alas.
I was advocating operations in cooperation with Pakistan, helping to secure its western borders. And, no, I don't think that the regime is stable (more reason to work with it now), but I do think they have plans to protect their nukes within their military no matter what craziness might happen with their political regime.
Re: Save Me (3.00 / 0) (#88) by chinshihtang on Dec 13, 2005 -- 03:07:59 PM EST
We've lost control of nuclear proliferation (if we ever had it). There are more holes in the dyke than we've got digits.
The answer, though, is not stepping on the ambitions of the wannabes, but something more fundamental in our approach to nuclear weapons as a global society. And we, of course, are doing the opposite of providing sound leadership in this area.
Monday, December 05, 2005
On the record Admission
Someone (never mind who) asked me whether I "hate Bush". This is my response:
I certainly don't hate the person, George W. Bush.
I do hate Bushism, though. As I do most Bushite policies and governmental decisions. Both for their choice of means and for their inevitable unintended consequences. As a good American, I hope for their success in many things though I am always skeptical of their ability to bring them off.
So I am not at all fond of this Bushite Administration. The Administration of the 41st President, George H.W. Bush, was not at all Bushite, another example of the distinction between hate for the person/(s) and for the "philosophy".
Similarly, and as Islam is not "the" source of Iraqi government in its constitution but is "a" source, Dubya is not "the" source of the Bushite administration we have, but his questionable contributions cannot be denied.
I certainly don't hate the person, George W. Bush.
I do hate Bushism, though. As I do most Bushite policies and governmental decisions. Both for their choice of means and for their inevitable unintended consequences. As a good American, I hope for their success in many things though I am always skeptical of their ability to bring them off.
So I am not at all fond of this Bushite Administration. The Administration of the 41st President, George H.W. Bush, was not at all Bushite, another example of the distinction between hate for the person/(s) and for the "philosophy".
Similarly, and as Islam is not "the" source of Iraqi government in its constitution but is "a" source, Dubya is not "the" source of the Bushite administration we have, but his questionable contributions cannot be denied.
Delay update
Delay is off for conspiracy, but the money laundering was very real. Let the courts decide whether his fingerprints are on it.
Friday, December 02, 2005
My Letter to Debbie...
in response to Debbie Stabenow's request for input on the agenda, on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, seeking priorities for 2006:
With regard to health care, jobs, homeland security (including emergency preparedness), energy and environmental policy, we should have clear programs of action that we stand together behind. These would be appropriate coming from the DNC as the national party's top organization. Obviously, they would be very different from the Bushites'. I suggest our health care program includes both a revision of the ridiculous Medicare prescription program and something to address those many without health insurance, particularly the young.
If you want to really drive a tidal wave against Republican control, though, you must not be afraid to hit out at the Bush administration with one voice on Iraq. The theme I would propose is "100 Americans a Month" until such time as Bush begins to talk seriously about dates and timetables. After that, it will become clear whether there can be a bipartisan approach to Iraq or not. Regardless, the Cheney/Rove axis leaders need to come under consistent pressure for their roles in politicizing the intelligence interpretations behind the initial invasion and attempting to suppress through personal attacks (as in Plamegate). The goal should be to marginalize them permanently.
You must insist on American behavior in the world that is consistent with our values, as has been frequently lacking with the Bushites.
Finally, on the Supreme Court nomination debate (or "Alito-sis", as I call it), I suggest Sen. Reid utilize the "two-speech" precedent which will prolong the debate, keep the issues present, while observing Senate rules and avoiding "Nukler War". Important as the swing vote's change (from O'Connor to Kennedy) will be, it's more important as a symbol of the hijacking of the government we have all been witness to these 5 years.
With regard to health care, jobs, homeland security (including emergency preparedness), energy and environmental policy, we should have clear programs of action that we stand together behind. These would be appropriate coming from the DNC as the national party's top organization. Obviously, they would be very different from the Bushites'. I suggest our health care program includes both a revision of the ridiculous Medicare prescription program and something to address those many without health insurance, particularly the young.
If you want to really drive a tidal wave against Republican control, though, you must not be afraid to hit out at the Bush administration with one voice on Iraq. The theme I would propose is "100 Americans a Month" until such time as Bush begins to talk seriously about dates and timetables. After that, it will become clear whether there can be a bipartisan approach to Iraq or not. Regardless, the Cheney/Rove axis leaders need to come under consistent pressure for their roles in politicizing the intelligence interpretations behind the initial invasion and attempting to suppress through personal attacks (as in Plamegate). The goal should be to marginalize them permanently.
You must insist on American behavior in the world that is consistent with our values, as has been frequently lacking with the Bushites.
Finally, on the Supreme Court nomination debate (or "Alito-sis", as I call it), I suggest Sen. Reid utilize the "two-speech" precedent which will prolong the debate, keep the issues present, while observing Senate rules and avoiding "Nukler War". Important as the swing vote's change (from O'Connor to Kennedy) will be, it's more important as a symbol of the hijacking of the government we have all been witness to these 5 years.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Speaking of Plan B...
I have to express my outrage at the FDA's denial of license to market the morning-after contraceptive called "Plan B" in this country and the way the organization did it.
The scientific merits and safety of the drug did not seem to have been the paramount concern. The drug has been opposed on political arguments connected with preventing abortion--this is a lot like the implied connections between Osama and Saddam--a deliberate deception allowed (encouraged) to proceed. Plan B is not even close to abortion; the fact is, it acts before conception actually occurs. To argue otherwise is getting close to Pythonesque "every sperm is sacred" self-parody.
We need to take this political logic further. I will give this much integrity to this presumed right-to-life position (for pre-conception eggs and sperm) and those who make the argument, and I will not accuse them of seeking more unwanted pregnancies. Preventing the distribution of Plan B would seem certain to increase the number of subsequent abortions, and I'm sure that's not what they want. Is it possibly some desire for an increased supply of babies for adoptive purposes, in order to meet unfulfilled demand? Seems farfetched.
Instead, I will give the argument "credit" of a negative variety--what it seeks to do is to prolong the debate over abortion. It's part of the "pick a fight--any fight--over the Supreme Court nominations" strategy. Its aim is to distract the American people from issues that, frankly, are more pressing, and more harmful to Bushite administration.
The incidence of legal abortion in the U.S. has been dropping sharply; we should applaud that fact, but note that Plan B would have brought another sharp drop and, perhaps, started to take the issue off the table.
The scientific merits and safety of the drug did not seem to have been the paramount concern. The drug has been opposed on political arguments connected with preventing abortion--this is a lot like the implied connections between Osama and Saddam--a deliberate deception allowed (encouraged) to proceed. Plan B is not even close to abortion; the fact is, it acts before conception actually occurs. To argue otherwise is getting close to Pythonesque "every sperm is sacred" self-parody.
We need to take this political logic further. I will give this much integrity to this presumed right-to-life position (for pre-conception eggs and sperm) and those who make the argument, and I will not accuse them of seeking more unwanted pregnancies. Preventing the distribution of Plan B would seem certain to increase the number of subsequent abortions, and I'm sure that's not what they want. Is it possibly some desire for an increased supply of babies for adoptive purposes, in order to meet unfulfilled demand? Seems farfetched.
Instead, I will give the argument "credit" of a negative variety--what it seeks to do is to prolong the debate over abortion. It's part of the "pick a fight--any fight--over the Supreme Court nominations" strategy. Its aim is to distract the American people from issues that, frankly, are more pressing, and more harmful to Bushite administration.
The incidence of legal abortion in the U.S. has been dropping sharply; we should applaud that fact, but note that Plan B would have brought another sharp drop and, perhaps, started to take the issue off the table.
An Iraq Policy with Some Guts
In honor of Jack Murtha's effort, but trying to bring in some reason.
Back to the Elephant
I was working on a scathing condemnation of Cheneyan hypocrisy on Iraq, but I found it all in the Times by Sunday. The first of two pieces was the simple and direct challenge through letter to editor from Thomas Czarnowski last Wednesday asking Cheney "who's the Revisionist?":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/opinion/l23cheney.html,
and the second Sunday's Frank Rich broadside branding them as liars (footnoted below for the Times Select-less).*
So let's move on to the real topic: what is the best timing for the withdrawal of the coalition forces, and why?
Let's go over a few pieces of relevant data:
1) the U.N. has authorized continued occupation for one more year, roughly. For that period of time, at least, the occupation is not illegal by international standards (though the invasion was).
2) readiness levels of the Iraq forces to defend the federalist, democratically-elected government which could emerge from the elections are terrible.
3) some individuals are kidnapping, torturing, and killing Sunnis, apparently taking advantage of being able now to settle scores from Saddam's times. The connection with Iraq's "government" and "military" will not be publicly forthcoming on these, but it seems their readiness to take over is pretty advanced in this particular dimension. Once again, the parallels with the Vietnamization experience seem to be surprising us.
4) Thus, the Bushite claim to have prioritized rebuilding the Iraqi self-defense capability (which is not new by any means) is seen to be hollow, further proof of ineptitude, and/or terribly cynical.
5) The Bushites choose not to discuss the question of permanent or ongoing basing of American forces but hide behind the lack of readiness of the Iraqi forces.
Political Calculations
I have to own up to the fact that, in the key moments leading up to the invasion, I was more interested in moving my family back to the country than the arguments for or against some immediate military action: I was concerned the invasion would disrupt our move. Thankfully, that didn't happen.
I was aware of the games that were being played with the weapons inspectors by Bushites and Saddamites and the fact the inspections were not allowed to run their course. I was aware the forces were in place. I was aware the Turks had denied us permission to use their country to stage attacks on central and northern Iraq. I was aware that the key Congressional votes to back up Bushite threats to invade Iraq were conveniently scheduled for October, 2002, so that those who dared vote against could be bashed for the anti-patriotism evident in any vote against aggressive military action, for whatever reason. What I missed was, "What's the frickin' hurry?"
My answer to that question was, and is, that political timetables were the one thing that was thoroughly planned in the invasion. The vote had to be at X date, the invasion had to be when it was, so it could be over by Y date, so that Bush could gain any benefit for "doing something" about 9/11 in 2004. Cheney's most hypocritical charge (OK, I couldn't lay off) is the accusation that his critics have politicized these issues of national security.
My point being, those who advocate a timetable for withdrawal have every right to bring political calculations into this argument. Nobody being hypocritical here: domestically, the Iraq Issue is more a political football than a serious debate about our foreign and security policy, and there's no rule in the game that says you can only punt on fourth down.
Bottom-line requirements for a bipartisan Iraq policy (even now):
1) Cease to offensive maneuvers beginning now.
2) Active policing actions by coalition forces end after the elections.
3) Six months to put up or shut up on training Iraqi forces, if and only if the atrocities against captured Iraqis cease. We are much in the position of the PLO being told to be responsible for stopping terrorism in the West Bank on this one, but we must insist upon it.
4) July 1, 2006, a balanced panel of pro-and anti-Bushite Congressmen will receive report from the military on the training progress (executive session OK). The choices are whether to give them 0, 3, or 6 more months to train.
5) Regardless, coalition forces should be drawn down to 25,000 by end of September, 2006. Whether that goes to 0 by end of year depends on continued U.N. authorization.
6) The U.S. publicly disavows any intention to have permanent bases in Iraq. Now, before the Iraqi elections. No "squirm now, sleaze later" approach this time.
If any of these are not agreeable, we stick with Plan B--we hammer the Enemy on these points:
1) We would not have invaded the way they did;
2) We would not have occupied the way they did; and
3) When we get control of the government we will move promptly to withdraw the forces.
http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com
* The operative phrase in Frank Rich's editorial: "The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie?" Rich recalls a Dick Cavett story, dishing Lillian Hellman: "'Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'". Can't top that for breadth, though it could be a bit more direct. A calling-out, nevertheless. Amen, Frank.
Back to the Elephant
I was working on a scathing condemnation of Cheneyan hypocrisy on Iraq, but I found it all in the Times by Sunday. The first of two pieces was the simple and direct challenge through letter to editor from Thomas Czarnowski last Wednesday asking Cheney "who's the Revisionist?":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/opinion/l23cheney.html,
and the second Sunday's Frank Rich broadside branding them as liars (footnoted below for the Times Select-less).*
So let's move on to the real topic: what is the best timing for the withdrawal of the coalition forces, and why?
Let's go over a few pieces of relevant data:
1) the U.N. has authorized continued occupation for one more year, roughly. For that period of time, at least, the occupation is not illegal by international standards (though the invasion was).
2) readiness levels of the Iraq forces to defend the federalist, democratically-elected government which could emerge from the elections are terrible.
3) some individuals are kidnapping, torturing, and killing Sunnis, apparently taking advantage of being able now to settle scores from Saddam's times. The connection with Iraq's "government" and "military" will not be publicly forthcoming on these, but it seems their readiness to take over is pretty advanced in this particular dimension. Once again, the parallels with the Vietnamization experience seem to be surprising us.
4) Thus, the Bushite claim to have prioritized rebuilding the Iraqi self-defense capability (which is not new by any means) is seen to be hollow, further proof of ineptitude, and/or terribly cynical.
5) The Bushites choose not to discuss the question of permanent or ongoing basing of American forces but hide behind the lack of readiness of the Iraqi forces.
Political Calculations
I have to own up to the fact that, in the key moments leading up to the invasion, I was more interested in moving my family back to the country than the arguments for or against some immediate military action: I was concerned the invasion would disrupt our move. Thankfully, that didn't happen.
I was aware of the games that were being played with the weapons inspectors by Bushites and Saddamites and the fact the inspections were not allowed to run their course. I was aware the forces were in place. I was aware the Turks had denied us permission to use their country to stage attacks on central and northern Iraq. I was aware that the key Congressional votes to back up Bushite threats to invade Iraq were conveniently scheduled for October, 2002, so that those who dared vote against could be bashed for the anti-patriotism evident in any vote against aggressive military action, for whatever reason. What I missed was, "What's the frickin' hurry?"
My answer to that question was, and is, that political timetables were the one thing that was thoroughly planned in the invasion. The vote had to be at X date, the invasion had to be when it was, so it could be over by Y date, so that Bush could gain any benefit for "doing something" about 9/11 in 2004. Cheney's most hypocritical charge (OK, I couldn't lay off) is the accusation that his critics have politicized these issues of national security.
My point being, those who advocate a timetable for withdrawal have every right to bring political calculations into this argument. Nobody being hypocritical here: domestically, the Iraq Issue is more a political football than a serious debate about our foreign and security policy, and there's no rule in the game that says you can only punt on fourth down.
Bottom-line requirements for a bipartisan Iraq policy (even now):
1) Cease to offensive maneuvers beginning now.
2) Active policing actions by coalition forces end after the elections.
3) Six months to put up or shut up on training Iraqi forces, if and only if the atrocities against captured Iraqis cease. We are much in the position of the PLO being told to be responsible for stopping terrorism in the West Bank on this one, but we must insist upon it.
4) July 1, 2006, a balanced panel of pro-and anti-Bushite Congressmen will receive report from the military on the training progress (executive session OK). The choices are whether to give them 0, 3, or 6 more months to train.
5) Regardless, coalition forces should be drawn down to 25,000 by end of September, 2006. Whether that goes to 0 by end of year depends on continued U.N. authorization.
6) The U.S. publicly disavows any intention to have permanent bases in Iraq. Now, before the Iraqi elections. No "squirm now, sleaze later" approach this time.
If any of these are not agreeable, we stick with Plan B--we hammer the Enemy on these points:
1) We would not have invaded the way they did;
2) We would not have occupied the way they did; and
3) When we get control of the government we will move promptly to withdraw the forces.
http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com
* The operative phrase in Frank Rich's editorial: "The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie?" Rich recalls a Dick Cavett story, dishing Lillian Hellman: "'Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'". Can't top that for breadth, though it could be a bit more direct. A calling-out, nevertheless. Amen, Frank.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
When does Plamegate become just Scootergate?
If that happens, these will be my last words on the subject. The fate of Libby's indictment is not the point here.
I think it's pretty clear what happened--I like to speculate, but there's probably not that much need. Scooter has been ID'd as the fall guy for a long time--perhaps he was actually the one who spilled the beans, certainly the guy who failed to do the cross-check for the VP between the "Smear List" and the "Do Not Smear List". Don't you hate when that happens, when somebody turns out to be on both lists, and you don't realize it?
There I am, speculating again. It might've actually been somebody else's job--like Stephen Hadley, or Mary Hughes, who has been conspicuously absent for most of the scandal investigation. Anyway, Scooter's the one who couldn't be protected, just like Mary Astor in the Maltese Falcon. Somebody's got to take the fall for Rove and Veep.
I checked some of my notes from April, 2004. At that time, aware of the specific allegation that Libby was the source for Novak (apparently only half-right, that one)I was wondering whether the scandal might touch Cheney before (or even more deliciously, after) the Republican convention. I was off by about 18 months: if the indictment had hit before November, 2004, Bush & Co. would be out on the street. Which is, of course, why it didn't happen. In retrospect, the months the thing was with Ashcroft, the legal protections and email folders being reviewed, were key in the successful postponement of the case exploding in the collective Bushite face.
I do give Fitzgerald credit for doing the right thing. Even now, he's putting the legal thumbscrews to Liddy (excuse me, Libby) to get him to rat out the truth. But it's been slow, too slow. The media knew that Libby was the probable principal by the end of 2003; there was a real lack of interest when they should've been on it (instead all the nonsense about the National Guard in the '70's....)
As usual, the timing was great for Rove, as was his ability to avoid direct fire and to script properly his comments to the press. That guy's got to go! Also, cover up-related kudos to Robert Novak, who was the guy who put 2+2 together. You sleaze for publishing it; a rare combination of brilliance and consistent lack of integrity.
That'll be it, unless I get answers to my two principal unanswered questions:
1) What context exactly was the one in (presumed CIA agent) Miller's notebook in which she mentions "Valerie Flame"?
2) Who was the 8th Person in WHIG?
I've just got one more question: Can we get a do-over on 2004?
I think it's pretty clear what happened--I like to speculate, but there's probably not that much need. Scooter has been ID'd as the fall guy for a long time--perhaps he was actually the one who spilled the beans, certainly the guy who failed to do the cross-check for the VP between the "Smear List" and the "Do Not Smear List". Don't you hate when that happens, when somebody turns out to be on both lists, and you don't realize it?
There I am, speculating again. It might've actually been somebody else's job--like Stephen Hadley, or Mary Hughes, who has been conspicuously absent for most of the scandal investigation. Anyway, Scooter's the one who couldn't be protected, just like Mary Astor in the Maltese Falcon. Somebody's got to take the fall for Rove and Veep.
I checked some of my notes from April, 2004. At that time, aware of the specific allegation that Libby was the source for Novak (apparently only half-right, that one)I was wondering whether the scandal might touch Cheney before (or even more deliciously, after) the Republican convention. I was off by about 18 months: if the indictment had hit before November, 2004, Bush & Co. would be out on the street. Which is, of course, why it didn't happen. In retrospect, the months the thing was with Ashcroft, the legal protections and email folders being reviewed, were key in the successful postponement of the case exploding in the collective Bushite face.
I do give Fitzgerald credit for doing the right thing. Even now, he's putting the legal thumbscrews to Liddy (excuse me, Libby) to get him to rat out the truth. But it's been slow, too slow. The media knew that Libby was the probable principal by the end of 2003; there was a real lack of interest when they should've been on it (instead all the nonsense about the National Guard in the '70's....)
As usual, the timing was great for Rove, as was his ability to avoid direct fire and to script properly his comments to the press. That guy's got to go! Also, cover up-related kudos to Robert Novak, who was the guy who put 2+2 together. You sleaze for publishing it; a rare combination of brilliance and consistent lack of integrity.
That'll be it, unless I get answers to my two principal unanswered questions:
1) What context exactly was the one in (presumed CIA agent) Miller's notebook in which she mentions "Valerie Flame"?
2) Who was the 8th Person in WHIG?
I've just got one more question: Can we get a do-over on 2004?
Alito Filibuster Question
Is it to be Bad Breath, or just a Waste of Breath?
The proper name for the foul humour which seems likely to afflict the body politic next year is “Alito-sis” (hyphen optional). It’s the smell of the Sargasso Sea; a zone in which movement slows to a crawl, direction seems a meaningless question, and the stench gets on everybody. That’s where we’ll be, if Alito’s nomination brings a prolonged filibuster, leading to some version of a Nuklar Option being implemented, and the Democrats retaliate by throwing the Senate’s business into total disarray.
The scenario could easily leave a cloud of noxious gas over the country through Election Day, 2006, with voters afraid to come to the polls without a gas mask. Under those circumstances, I don’t think the Democrats would benefit: they don’t have the werewithal to issue the needed 75 million stink filters, nor the Category 5 breath of fresh air that would be needed to dispel the fog of Post-Nuklar War. It’s a mofo.
Confirmation Trivialities
I recommend to Harry Reid that he announce—I’m skipping the part about waiting for the hearings and the Committee vote—that he will observe the “Two Speech Precedent”. That will give an eventual end date to the ceremonious Beating the Bushites that will precede Alito’s confirmation (by about 60-40, I’d predict, and will do it according to Senate Rules and precedents, which is what he wants.
A couple of Senators who are prepared to Nuke a Filibuster (from the French term for "bootless") will actually end up voting against Alito. Senator “'Profiles in Courage'-fodder/loser in ‘06” DeWine will be one. McCain will not. Reid should save the Balls-Out, Protracted Filibuster, Followed by Post-Nuklar Disarray Scenario (a name almost worthy of Herman Kahn) for the replacement for Justice Stevens or Ginsburg, if that should happen before we can all safely enter the post-Bushite era.
I suggested in a previous post that the key question which all the Senators will try to solve, for any proposed nominee to replace Sandra O’Connor, is to think of a compass and ask, how many milliseconds or degrees of separation will there be between her course for the "Judicial Ship of State" and the Nominee’s. On the conventional liberal-conservative axis (number line? time line?), Alito’s nomination changes that game somewhat—he is clearly far to the right of O’Connor’s ideologically contiguous justice, Anthony Kennedy, way over there in the distant zone of Scalia/Thomas-ville (as x goes to negative infinity, or to the year 1930). So, if confirmed, the question is modified to the difference between Kennedy and O’Connor—that is how far the course of the Court’s opinions will deviate. The pressure will be on Kennedy, and he appears to be a vain vacillator.
I have a lot of ambivalence about looking at the Supreme Electorate in such uni-dimensional terms, though. While I accept that the Court does not need another Scalia or Thomas—the 1-2 combination of the literate bomb-thrower and the knuckle-walker is more than adequate to represent their micro-constituency (you can pick either justice for either role)-—there are other ways to look at the Court and what it does.
From my point of view, I say “fie” on both houses! The two most significant decisions of the last session of the Court--on using eminent domain to support private interests, and to hold federal law superior to state referenda and legislation allowing medical marijuana—were driven by the “liberal” judges in the wrong direction. OK, they weren't of the level of significance of Gore v. Bush (what exactly was the judicial philosophy of the majority in that case, now?), but that one doesn't come up in these discussions. After all, the Electoral College and our voting systems couldn't lead to another snafu like 2000, could they? (That was "scorn", not sarcasm, though I admit a bit too facetious.)
I think that we need to look a little past the optics of the '60's in evaluating our Court politics. For example, we should be a little more careful in our support for expanding federal powers when the hands holding the sceptre are so shaky.
The question I want to hear asked of The Nominee is: what happens when our government is found to be in violation of international law, but following federal statutes? Until I hear someone say, "we are bound to accede to international law", I would urge any Senator to vote against any Nominee. Filibusters are OK as long as they don't get in the way of important business. If there is any, and I'm 99% convinced there isn't any left for this Congress.
The other question I want asked of The Nominee: Can we get a do-over for 2004?
The proper name for the foul humour which seems likely to afflict the body politic next year is “Alito-sis” (hyphen optional). It’s the smell of the Sargasso Sea; a zone in which movement slows to a crawl, direction seems a meaningless question, and the stench gets on everybody. That’s where we’ll be, if Alito’s nomination brings a prolonged filibuster, leading to some version of a Nuklar Option being implemented, and the Democrats retaliate by throwing the Senate’s business into total disarray.
The scenario could easily leave a cloud of noxious gas over the country through Election Day, 2006, with voters afraid to come to the polls without a gas mask. Under those circumstances, I don’t think the Democrats would benefit: they don’t have the werewithal to issue the needed 75 million stink filters, nor the Category 5 breath of fresh air that would be needed to dispel the fog of Post-Nuklar War. It’s a mofo.
Confirmation Trivialities
I recommend to Harry Reid that he announce—I’m skipping the part about waiting for the hearings and the Committee vote—that he will observe the “Two Speech Precedent”. That will give an eventual end date to the ceremonious Beating the Bushites that will precede Alito’s confirmation (by about 60-40, I’d predict, and will do it according to Senate Rules and precedents, which is what he wants.
A couple of Senators who are prepared to Nuke a Filibuster (from the French term for "bootless") will actually end up voting against Alito. Senator “'Profiles in Courage'-fodder/loser in ‘06” DeWine will be one. McCain will not. Reid should save the Balls-Out, Protracted Filibuster, Followed by Post-Nuklar Disarray Scenario (a name almost worthy of Herman Kahn) for the replacement for Justice Stevens or Ginsburg, if that should happen before we can all safely enter the post-Bushite era.
I suggested in a previous post that the key question which all the Senators will try to solve, for any proposed nominee to replace Sandra O’Connor, is to think of a compass and ask, how many milliseconds or degrees of separation will there be between her course for the "Judicial Ship of State" and the Nominee’s. On the conventional liberal-conservative axis (number line? time line?), Alito’s nomination changes that game somewhat—he is clearly far to the right of O’Connor’s ideologically contiguous justice, Anthony Kennedy, way over there in the distant zone of Scalia/Thomas-ville (as x goes to negative infinity, or to the year 1930). So, if confirmed, the question is modified to the difference between Kennedy and O’Connor—that is how far the course of the Court’s opinions will deviate. The pressure will be on Kennedy, and he appears to be a vain vacillator.
I have a lot of ambivalence about looking at the Supreme Electorate in such uni-dimensional terms, though. While I accept that the Court does not need another Scalia or Thomas—the 1-2 combination of the literate bomb-thrower and the knuckle-walker is more than adequate to represent their micro-constituency (you can pick either justice for either role)-—there are other ways to look at the Court and what it does.
From my point of view, I say “fie” on both houses! The two most significant decisions of the last session of the Court--on using eminent domain to support private interests, and to hold federal law superior to state referenda and legislation allowing medical marijuana—were driven by the “liberal” judges in the wrong direction. OK, they weren't of the level of significance of Gore v. Bush (what exactly was the judicial philosophy of the majority in that case, now?), but that one doesn't come up in these discussions. After all, the Electoral College and our voting systems couldn't lead to another snafu like 2000, could they? (That was "scorn", not sarcasm, though I admit a bit too facetious.)
I think that we need to look a little past the optics of the '60's in evaluating our Court politics. For example, we should be a little more careful in our support for expanding federal powers when the hands holding the sceptre are so shaky.
The question I want to hear asked of The Nominee is: what happens when our government is found to be in violation of international law, but following federal statutes? Until I hear someone say, "we are bound to accede to international law", I would urge any Senator to vote against any Nominee. Filibusters are OK as long as they don't get in the way of important business. If there is any, and I'm 99% convinced there isn't any left for this Congress.
The other question I want asked of The Nominee: Can we get a do-over for 2004?
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Testing the Winds
1) Ambassador Wilson's Lament?
Someone’s got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press.
Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out quick; when they will I can only guess.
…People see me all the time and they just can’t remember how to act.
Their minds are filled with big ideas, images, and distorted facts.
From “Idiot Wind”, Bob Dylan (1974)
On the face of it, "Idiot Wind" was about Dylan's difficulties in dealing with the public and the media, and with some particular individual (ex-girlfriend or ex-wife, perhaps). I think there's something more, though: the man who coined "blowin' in the wind" and said "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing" was testing the winds at the time, and he found something stultifying out there. Mind you, this was the time when America was stirred by the corruption of the Nixon-Agnew administration and was about to move to decisively oust the Nixonites and go for a breath of fresh air, which was what Jimmy Carter promised. I think Dylan saw beyond it all to the stink of the political climate that was to follow. It would be nice to know what his finger in the air tells him now, but my sense is that he's not interested anymore in that scene.
2) The Scent of Alito-sis
That's the flavor of the stagnant air in Bushite Washington these days. Old thinking, old ideas, but very practical tactics. Let's be sure we lock in these gains now, because this doesn't look like it will last.
That's what the Establishment decided, rejecting Bush's adventurous nomination of Miers. Last month's aroma was unsettling, improvised: frankly, the smell of the uncertainty of the future, rather than the familiar stench of the past.
Although the Miers fiasco presented the Democrats with a great pretext for filibuster: I thought you guys were the ones who insisted on a "fair up-or-down-vote of the full Senate"! I don't see this fight as one they will take up seriously. For one thing, it's the one their opponents wish for, so it's letting them pick the terrain. The credentialists are totally cowed, so it's down to those with the political freedom to fight the right-wing agenda. As with the Roberts nomination, only 30 or so.
I'm only slightly worried. The fulcrum of "what 5 Supreme Court justices say the law is" will move from O'Connor to Justice Kennedy, who is a vain weakling and may cave to pressures from the Right. Perhaps in some ways Alito would be better than Miers, in the sense that a principled conservative may hold back federal prerogatives more consistently than a political cronyism-based one, who'd give the Bushite GWOT anything it asked for. We shall see (and smell). If any institution was made to be conservative, it's the Supreme Court.
3) A Shift in the Jetstream?
Certainly the weather is playing a larger role than usual in the affairs of our country. On the one hand, a timely reminder of the limitations of our power; even more, of policy failures (in disaster planning, in infrastructure); most tellingly, though, the exposure of our governing elite's negligent attitude toward those who are not the winners in American society. This winter the weather promises more political embarrassment due to supply/demand imbalances for gas and oil products in the colder regions.
Or is it the climate, not just the weather? I'm one who finds it very plausible that the storms of 2005 are more than just an accident, even more than just a cyclical variation. Instead, consider them a means of the terrestrial system self-regulating: the greater energy in the seas and lower atmosphere being expended through storms of greater intensity.
Will these be reflected in the political climate? Well, I don't believe that the political storms will be more intense, but I do find that the "idiot wind" has shifted. The Bushites are on the defensive, their party colleagues are rushing to separate themselves, the discipline of the zealots is loose. Democrats seem to be making more of the right moves, and I believe some policy consensus has emerged around some key issues for them. It is way too much to expect a reversal in power in Congress in 2006--the system is gamed against any dramatic changes--but the winds are blowing over the warm waters in a new direction: they may pick up speed.
Someone’s got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press.
Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out quick; when they will I can only guess.
…People see me all the time and they just can’t remember how to act.
Their minds are filled with big ideas, images, and distorted facts.
From “Idiot Wind”, Bob Dylan (1974)
On the face of it, "Idiot Wind" was about Dylan's difficulties in dealing with the public and the media, and with some particular individual (ex-girlfriend or ex-wife, perhaps). I think there's something more, though: the man who coined "blowin' in the wind" and said "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing" was testing the winds at the time, and he found something stultifying out there. Mind you, this was the time when America was stirred by the corruption of the Nixon-Agnew administration and was about to move to decisively oust the Nixonites and go for a breath of fresh air, which was what Jimmy Carter promised. I think Dylan saw beyond it all to the stink of the political climate that was to follow. It would be nice to know what his finger in the air tells him now, but my sense is that he's not interested anymore in that scene.
2) The Scent of Alito-sis
That's the flavor of the stagnant air in Bushite Washington these days. Old thinking, old ideas, but very practical tactics. Let's be sure we lock in these gains now, because this doesn't look like it will last.
That's what the Establishment decided, rejecting Bush's adventurous nomination of Miers. Last month's aroma was unsettling, improvised: frankly, the smell of the uncertainty of the future, rather than the familiar stench of the past.
Although the Miers fiasco presented the Democrats with a great pretext for filibuster: I thought you guys were the ones who insisted on a "fair up-or-down-vote of the full Senate"! I don't see this fight as one they will take up seriously. For one thing, it's the one their opponents wish for, so it's letting them pick the terrain. The credentialists are totally cowed, so it's down to those with the political freedom to fight the right-wing agenda. As with the Roberts nomination, only 30 or so.
I'm only slightly worried. The fulcrum of "what 5 Supreme Court justices say the law is" will move from O'Connor to Justice Kennedy, who is a vain weakling and may cave to pressures from the Right. Perhaps in some ways Alito would be better than Miers, in the sense that a principled conservative may hold back federal prerogatives more consistently than a political cronyism-based one, who'd give the Bushite GWOT anything it asked for. We shall see (and smell). If any institution was made to be conservative, it's the Supreme Court.
3) A Shift in the Jetstream?
Certainly the weather is playing a larger role than usual in the affairs of our country. On the one hand, a timely reminder of the limitations of our power; even more, of policy failures (in disaster planning, in infrastructure); most tellingly, though, the exposure of our governing elite's negligent attitude toward those who are not the winners in American society. This winter the weather promises more political embarrassment due to supply/demand imbalances for gas and oil products in the colder regions.
Or is it the climate, not just the weather? I'm one who finds it very plausible that the storms of 2005 are more than just an accident, even more than just a cyclical variation. Instead, consider them a means of the terrestrial system self-regulating: the greater energy in the seas and lower atmosphere being expended through storms of greater intensity.
Will these be reflected in the political climate? Well, I don't believe that the political storms will be more intense, but I do find that the "idiot wind" has shifted. The Bushites are on the defensive, their party colleagues are rushing to separate themselves, the discipline of the zealots is loose. Democrats seem to be making more of the right moves, and I believe some policy consensus has emerged around some key issues for them. It is way too much to expect a reversal in power in Congress in 2006--the system is gamed against any dramatic changes--but the winds are blowing over the warm waters in a new direction: they may pick up speed.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Plamegate and Watergate
This is in response to two postings from "truthdr" on the Washington Post Forum, in italics below.
Yes the White House is essentially open in this investigation and the two are very much unlike the actual Watergate thing. to my knowlege no one has accused Bush of covering up anything, he is letting the investigation continue to find its way. Remember here we have a specific event, the outing of Valerie Plame a CIA agent that is being investigated. but the crimes if any indictments come will be similar, obstructing justice and perjury. No one to my knowledge is accusing Bush to be involved in either. there has been some talk of cheney but from what I hear and read the prosecutor is not going to indict for the outing but for actions of people during the investigation.
Yes, Plamegate and Watergate are two different things. For one, Bush and Nixon are about as different, from a personality perspective, as two people could be, and the White House behaviors are influenced by that. Among the differences is that Bush would never need to be touched by the tracks of a cover-up; this is so clearly a Rove/Cheney pulling-the-strings-on-their-own operation. As for Veep himself, his methods give him plausible deniability; unless a sizable fish decides to cop a plea--which will lead to a whole box of pain--he can't be touched directly (only through actions of his "office", of which we will be told to believe that he remained unaware).
In Dubya's W.H., the dirty tricks are more furtive, more self-aware. From a legal technicality standpoint, more advanced. The basic idea remains the same, though: "Get (in Dubya/Rove's case, "Git") so-and-so. Use the appropriate methods--and don't get caught."
The problem is the "don't get caught" part; Plamegate shows that Watergate is far enough down the river that its basic legal lesson--that the coverup was more punishable, more broadly incriminating, than the crime--has been forgotten in Washington.
One big difference is that the crimes here were crimes of state (relating at least indirectly to national security and war), whereas Watergate's were "just" ones of politics. This very much aligns with the characteristic trait of the Bushite administration, that "everything is politics".
It's time for the purge to begin. I'm OK with the point that, like Nixon, it's become Bush v. world, as the evangelical rats and other right-wing extremists seem to have been as quick as any to jump ship.
We will all be "anti-Bushites" soon, and there are some good results to expect from that. But what we have to be careful about is the fact that anti-Bushism can carry us in so many directions, all improvements but some opposed to one another.
Bush should not have been reelected. Grid lock with Kerry and a Republican Congress would have been better.
One big question is on whom the chickens will roost for their support of Bushism, particularly in 2004. I think the two biggest victims so far appear to be the liberal Republicans (particularly of the N.E.) and John McCain.
Yes the White House is essentially open in this investigation and the two are very much unlike the actual Watergate thing. to my knowlege no one has accused Bush of covering up anything, he is letting the investigation continue to find its way. Remember here we have a specific event, the outing of Valerie Plame a CIA agent that is being investigated. but the crimes if any indictments come will be similar, obstructing justice and perjury. No one to my knowledge is accusing Bush to be involved in either. there has been some talk of cheney but from what I hear and read the prosecutor is not going to indict for the outing but for actions of people during the investigation.
Yes, Plamegate and Watergate are two different things. For one, Bush and Nixon are about as different, from a personality perspective, as two people could be, and the White House behaviors are influenced by that. Among the differences is that Bush would never need to be touched by the tracks of a cover-up; this is so clearly a Rove/Cheney pulling-the-strings-on-their-own operation. As for Veep himself, his methods give him plausible deniability; unless a sizable fish decides to cop a plea--which will lead to a whole box of pain--he can't be touched directly (only through actions of his "office", of which we will be told to believe that he remained unaware).
In Dubya's W.H., the dirty tricks are more furtive, more self-aware. From a legal technicality standpoint, more advanced. The basic idea remains the same, though: "Get (in Dubya/Rove's case, "Git") so-and-so. Use the appropriate methods--and don't get caught."
The problem is the "don't get caught" part; Plamegate shows that Watergate is far enough down the river that its basic legal lesson--that the coverup was more punishable, more broadly incriminating, than the crime--has been forgotten in Washington.
One big difference is that the crimes here were crimes of state (relating at least indirectly to national security and war), whereas Watergate's were "just" ones of politics. This very much aligns with the characteristic trait of the Bushite administration, that "everything is politics".
It's time for the purge to begin. I'm OK with the point that, like Nixon, it's become Bush v. world, as the evangelical rats and other right-wing extremists seem to have been as quick as any to jump ship.
We will all be "anti-Bushites" soon, and there are some good results to expect from that. But what we have to be careful about is the fact that anti-Bushism can carry us in so many directions, all improvements but some opposed to one another.
Bush should not have been reelected. Grid lock with Kerry and a Republican Congress would have been better.
One big question is on whom the chickens will roost for their support of Bushism, particularly in 2004. I think the two biggest victims so far appear to be the liberal Republicans (particularly of the N.E.) and John McCain.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG
I made a few notes off Judith Miller's report today of her time in jail and her time before the grand jury, as well as the article about her by some Times staffers, and an editorial by Frank Rich on the subject. I will try to organize these thoughts on the fly, and if necessary come back and re-focus.
To me, there are some key names, and these provide associations in my mind to some major unanswered questions:
Valerie Flame--This "name" was found in Judith Miller's notebook. Importantly for her testimony, not in the section of the notebook where her notes from meetings with Scooter Libby were located.
I give her credit for taking some precautions. She claims to have no recollection of who might have mentioned this proper noun to her and in what context. This seems to me a clear case of selective memory: Miller makes clear in her memoir that she agreed to testify only when Fitzgerald acceded to her request that the grand jury testimony be limited to questions about her meetings with Scooter. In spite of which she somehow did get asked, and denied, meeting with VP Cheney on the subject. (A meeting with Cheney, of course, being impossible as he was in his undisclosed location at all times).
The error in the first letter of the last name (as one would presume it is in fact an erroneous--or encoded--rendering of the name of formerly clandestine CIA agent Valerie PLAME) is interesting to me: I've made the same error in print myself, several months ago. Was I channeling her confusion, or she mine?
OK, a more interesting question is, in what context was "Flame" found in the notebook? Hmm?
Victoria Wilson--another name found in Miller's notebook. This time the surname may be correct (or may not be, certainly not politically correct)but the given name is in error. Here, I think even more clearly, there is supernatural, or subliminal, channeling going on: I recognize the dire echoes of "my name is Victoria Winters" (the start of every tiresome episode of "Dark Shadows", the macabre soap opera/thriller of the what? early 70's?)
Victoria Wren--Actually, this name was not found in Miller's notebook, but at this point, it is time to bring in the common thread: the Lady V. herself, the one from whom we have not yet heard. I call upon Thomas Pynchon to be the muse we all need to unravel this mystery, certainly one worthy of Herbert Stencil. The latest straw the media have grasped is a photograph purportedly of Plame, who appears in her latest incarnation as a young, foxy blonde (ah, but the powers of plastic surgeons have come so far since Valletta, haven't they?)
WHIG--the Rich editorial (http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/opinion/16rich.html) says there were eight members of the White House Iraq Group, an ad hoc conspiracy to force the invasion down the (mostly willing) throats of the American people, come what facts there may. Rich's text names only six: Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Mary Matalin, Mary Hughes, Condoleeza Rice, and Stephen Hadley (a national security official). It might be implied that chief of staff Andrew Card, who set up the group, would be a seventh member. Who was the eighth, and why does Rich not dare to name him/her? Could it be that the eighth member maintained plausible deniability, retains immense power, and has a reputation for ferocious infighting?
Then there is the seemingly mysterious, portentous line from Libby's famous letter releasing Miller from any need to further protect him as a unnamed source: "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." Miller followed this with some anecdote about how she had been surprised to meet Libby out West in Aspen.
This screams, "Cover story!" No, not for a newspaper, but for spy business. What else do aspens do besides turn in clusters, and have complex connecting roots? They quake, that's what. Libby is talking about the cover-up, the threat that some of his fellow Bushite cronies would turn themselves in en masse, and reveal the hidden conspiratorial connections--if only they were not mortally afraid? Of whom? Who gave the name to Novak?
I think the message is clear: The Eighth Man. That man of the West. Benny Profane's Ivy League-educated half-brother, Dick.
To me, there are some key names, and these provide associations in my mind to some major unanswered questions:
Valerie Flame--This "name" was found in Judith Miller's notebook. Importantly for her testimony, not in the section of the notebook where her notes from meetings with Scooter Libby were located.
I give her credit for taking some precautions. She claims to have no recollection of who might have mentioned this proper noun to her and in what context. This seems to me a clear case of selective memory: Miller makes clear in her memoir that she agreed to testify only when Fitzgerald acceded to her request that the grand jury testimony be limited to questions about her meetings with Scooter. In spite of which she somehow did get asked, and denied, meeting with VP Cheney on the subject. (A meeting with Cheney, of course, being impossible as he was in his undisclosed location at all times).
The error in the first letter of the last name (as one would presume it is in fact an erroneous--or encoded--rendering of the name of formerly clandestine CIA agent Valerie PLAME) is interesting to me: I've made the same error in print myself, several months ago. Was I channeling her confusion, or she mine?
OK, a more interesting question is, in what context was "Flame" found in the notebook? Hmm?
Victoria Wilson--another name found in Miller's notebook. This time the surname may be correct (or may not be, certainly not politically correct)but the given name is in error. Here, I think even more clearly, there is supernatural, or subliminal, channeling going on: I recognize the dire echoes of "my name is Victoria Winters" (the start of every tiresome episode of "Dark Shadows", the macabre soap opera/thriller of the what? early 70's?)
Victoria Wren--Actually, this name was not found in Miller's notebook, but at this point, it is time to bring in the common thread: the Lady V. herself, the one from whom we have not yet heard. I call upon Thomas Pynchon to be the muse we all need to unravel this mystery, certainly one worthy of Herbert Stencil. The latest straw the media have grasped is a photograph purportedly of Plame, who appears in her latest incarnation as a young, foxy blonde (ah, but the powers of plastic surgeons have come so far since Valletta, haven't they?)
WHIG--the Rich editorial (http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/opinion/16rich.html) says there were eight members of the White House Iraq Group, an ad hoc conspiracy to force the invasion down the (mostly willing) throats of the American people, come what facts there may. Rich's text names only six: Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Mary Matalin, Mary Hughes, Condoleeza Rice, and Stephen Hadley (a national security official). It might be implied that chief of staff Andrew Card, who set up the group, would be a seventh member. Who was the eighth, and why does Rich not dare to name him/her? Could it be that the eighth member maintained plausible deniability, retains immense power, and has a reputation for ferocious infighting?
Then there is the seemingly mysterious, portentous line from Libby's famous letter releasing Miller from any need to further protect him as a unnamed source: "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." Miller followed this with some anecdote about how she had been surprised to meet Libby out West in Aspen.
This screams, "Cover story!" No, not for a newspaper, but for spy business. What else do aspens do besides turn in clusters, and have complex connecting roots? They quake, that's what. Libby is talking about the cover-up, the threat that some of his fellow Bushite cronies would turn themselves in en masse, and reveal the hidden conspiratorial connections--if only they were not mortally afraid? Of whom? Who gave the name to Novak?
I think the message is clear: The Eighth Man. That man of the West. Benny Profane's Ivy League-educated half-brother, Dick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
